Innate Ain’t so Great

The rationalist outlook on epistemology centres on the view that our ideas are universal and knowledge is innate to us. Rationalists believe that somewhere along the assembly line of birth, we are stamped with the knowledge of all ideas in life and no knowledge is gained through experience. Rationalists also believe that all ideas are universal. The ideas that a nineteen-year-old university student in Canada has are exactly the same as the ideas of a fifty-five-year-old engineer in Peru. One of the main sponsors of this ideology was René Descartes. Descartes, in two meditations, attempted to eliminate any belief that can be doubted in order to show certainty and tried to prove that ideas are both universal and innate. Descartes’ strongest point comes in his second meditation when he draws a complex analogy of a piece of wax. First, Descartes considers what he knows about the piece of wax: “it has been taken quite freshly from the hive, and it has not yet lost the sweetness of the honey which it contains; it still retains somewhat of the odour of the flowers from which it has been culled, its colour, its figure, its size are apparent; it is hard, cold, easily handled, and if you strike it with the finger, it will emit a sound” (Descartes 254). Descartes aptly notices, however, that once he holds the wax to a fire, it loses all of its qualities. It loses its odour, colour, figure, size, density, temperature, texture, sounds, and ease of handling. “Does the same wax remain after this change?” (Descartes 254) ponders Descartes. Well, of course it’s still the same wax; its elements have just been changed by the fire. We still recognize it as wax, even in its altered state. It is this recognition that causes Descartes to wonder aloud: “what then did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax?” (Descartes 254). He knows that there must be some way that we can identify the wax no matter what form it is in. Descartes determines three ways that we know that it is still wax. The first is sensation: actually touching, hearing, seeing or smelling the wax. The second is imagination: being able to think of what the wax is and create a picture in your head without using the body’s senses. The third, according to Descartes, is the most important of the three and is the key ingredient that holds together our perception of the wax. Descartes’ key ingredient is understanding. Truly understanding the wax is why you know that the wax is, in fact, wax. Sensation and imagination, which are applied to more particular things, give us a list of qualities for the wax; understanding, which is applied more generally to universal things, gives us a true comprehension of the wax, no matter what state it is in. You cannot truly recognize the wax through sensation and imagination alone. Innate, universal understandings are the key to truly perceiving the essence of the wax. “It is now manifest to me that even bodies are not properly speaking known by the senses or by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding only” (Descartes 256). Through his piece of wax analogy, Descartes shows the rationalist point of view that knowledge is innate to us and ideas are universal.

When empiricists tackle epistemology, they take a much different perspective than their rationalist counterparts. Empiricists believe that our ideas are particular and that we acquire knowledge through experiences rather than reason. Empiricists believe that we aren’t born with all of our ideas and that we must acquire them through experiences. Empiricists also believe that there are no universal ideas. They see ideas as particulars and feel that they are brought about through experiences. John Locke was a big supporter of the empiricist view on epistemology. His strongest arguments come when he takes on the rationalist view on the existence of innate ideas. Locke compares the mind to “white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas” (Locke 268). Locke says that as we live life and have experiences, we begin to write and draw on the paper which makes up our knowledge. Thus, those who have experienced more in life will inevitably be more knowledgeable. Locke argues that God would not have given us a nose to smell with, eyes to see with, and ears to hear with if we weren’t meant to experience things and learn from them. “Any one will easily grant that it would be impertinent to suppose the ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects” (Locke 263). Locke also takes on the rationalist theory of universal consent. Nativists believe that no matter where you go in the world, there are basic ideas that people have and live by. Regardless of whether you are born in Moose Jaw or Berlin, you will inherit the same carbon copy of innate ideas. Locke attacks universal consent with two sayings: “whatsoever is, is” and “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be” (Locke 263). Locke argues that these ideas cannot be universal because “there are a great part of mankind to whom they are not so much as known” (Locke 263). Locke especially takes on children and the mentally retarded with respect to the two maxims, saying that they “have not the least apprehension or thought of them” (Locke 263). If all ideas are innate then surely even children or the mentally challenged would be able to comprehend them, however most humans have never even thought of these adages. Locke takes his stance a step further when he makes the rationalist’s next argument for them. He says that his position on innate ideas “is usually answered that all men know and assent to them when they come to the use of reason” (Locke 264). Rationalists argue that the ideas are still innate, however they haven’t been discovered yet. When these ideas are needed, they will be within the mind, but for now they have not been called upon. In response to the rationalist argument, Locke ponders where you draw the line between an innate idea and one that has been learned adventitiously. “Till after they come to the use of reason, those general abstract ideas are not framed in the mind, about which those general maxims are, which are mistaken for innate principles, but are indeed discoveries made and verities introduced and brought into the mind by the same way, and discovered by the same steps, as several other propositions, which nobody was ever so extravagant as to suppose innate” (Locke 266). How do you know the difference between an idea that is innate and one that is picked up through experiences? Everyone in the world is born with the ability to understand quantum physics but can only do so with the proper education. Does that mean that quantum physics is an innate idea? Locke and empiricists alike argue that knowledge is gained through experiences and that there are no universal or innate ideas.

Descartes and Locke make very convincing arguments for both of their camps. Descartes’ best argument comes when he explains how understanding is necessary to comprehend the wax in both of its states. Here he attempts to show that we had an innate, universal idea of the wax which allowed us to recognize it as wax whether it is in its original condition or melted. Locke, on the other hand, makes a very good argument when he shows that not all ideas can be innate because there are those who have no understanding of certain adages and ideas. Locke pushes his argument over the top when he makes the rationalist’s next argument for them and shows it to be unreasonable. In this case the rationalists seem to be taking the stance that “we’re right, and you’re wrong”, which is a reoccurring trend among rationalists. Simply saying that the innate ideas will become evident “when they come to the use of reason” just drives the debate into a dead end. How are we supposed to tell the difference between an innate idea being realized and one that has been learned from an experience? After all, it is that experience which apparently brought forth the innate idea in the first place. The best that one can do in that situation is to be logical and make the choice which makes the most sense: that we acquire knowledge through experiences. Locke’s idea of a blank piece of paper or an empty closet makes the most sense and holds the most weight in this discussion. Descartes’ wax metaphor is well structured and very interesting, however it doesn’t prove much as far as innate ideas go. It is doubtful that a person who had never seen wax before would be able to picture it in their mind or walk into a room and identify it. One must have an experience with the wax to truly understand it and be able to comprehend it. Locke and the empiricist’s view of particular ideas and adventitious knowledge is a reasonable and logical theory of how we obtain knowledge.

WORKS CITED LIST

Descartes, René. “Knowledge Is Not Ultimately Sense Knowledge” Classic Philosophical
Questions. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 246-258.

Locke, John. “Knowledge Is Ultimately Sensed” Classic Philosophical Questions. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 259-271.