Monday, March 2, 2009
Locke
I, like most others in the blog, find my ideas lining up with Locke's the best. Unlike Descartes who believed humans are born with knowledge of things like math, Locke believes humans have an innate capacity to learn rather than innate knowledge. I agree with Locke on this point because the knowledge a person acquires comes from the way he/she is raised and the ideas put in his/her head by parents. I think a child has the ability to learn things like math but they are not born with it. If it were true that babies are born with innate knowledge of infinite perfection and whatnot then why aren't all people geniuses? Again, I believe knowledge relies upon the way a person is brought up and the ideas planted in their brain by the people that surround them. I also agree with his idea that the principles, "whatever is, is" and "it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be" are not universal ideas because there are people who do not have the mental capacity or stability to grasp ideas such as these. Like Locke said, it is through the senses that we gain ideas and concepts. For example at the age of 2 a toddler may not know that a stove is hot so he or she will touch it and by reaction pull back their hand because the sense of touch and heat tells them to. The next time the toddler sees the stove he or she will recognize, through the now ingrained sense of heat and pain that they remember from last time, and will not touch it again because their senses tell them not to. Experience is the main source of knowledge for people according to Locke and I totally agree with this principle. People are unique characters with an almost unlimited capacity for knowledge and feelings and thoughts, but it is through experiences and learning as they grow that shape their minds and determine how far that knowledge can run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I share the same views as this post. I think that it is pretty obvious that a child is not born with innate knowledge like mathematics, like Descartes believes. If that was true then why would a child have problems with math homework? I believe, like Locke, that they have the innate capacity to learn these things. Someday they may have the knowledge of math, but not when they are born. As the post says, it is through experience that this knowledge will develop. Still using math as an example, children are not born with this knowledge but they develop it through the experience of their education.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Descartes, Locke believes that people can learn through the sense and that it is the best way to learn. The example that this post uses o f the toddler touching the stove is perfect. A toddler won't have the knowledge that the stove is hot until they have experienced the pain of the heat themselves. After that experience, they won't (you would hope) touch the stove again.
Something that I like that this post did not discuss but goes along with the idea of experience is Locke's metaphor of the mind being a blank piece of white paper and all markings and signs and meanings on that paper come from experience. You can't know something until you experience it. I just think that it is a great image to have and that it really does sum up a lot of his ideas; a child is not born with innate ideas (so its mind is a blank piece of white paper) and through experience it gains knowledge (markings, signs, and meanings.
I agree with what was explained about Locke's ideas, but I feel a little different about Descartes. I'm not saying that I think people are born with the knowledge of specific mathematical equations, and things of that sort, but that some people are born with the ability to better understand certain concepts. When Descartes says that people are born with knowledge he doesn't really mean it in a literal sense, but metaphorically.
ReplyDeleteAn example of my point is when people describe another persons ability as "coming naturally to them". Some people are prone to perform better at specific subjects, jobs, or other activities. Yes how we are raised plays a crucial part in whether these abilities are able to be brought out, but people are born with some natural talents.
I do agree with Locke that people gain knowledge from their sensory experiences, and I also agree that some people learn more naturally then others. I do believe that people are given a blank slate, but it is their ability to learn that separates them from others. Knowledge and understanding does not know gender and does not know race, therefore anyone has the ability to learn. How they learn or what they learn is up to them. This is the optimistic view of human destiny. If this is true, then working to improve all aspects of the social environment will aid in the complete understanding of the human condition. Natural talents are a given due to specific genes, but environment is just as crucial. This goes along with the idea of whether it is nature, or nurture.
ReplyDeleteThough I am not claiming that children are born with an innate knowledge consisting of the quadratic formula and Pythagorean's Theorem, an interesting study conducted recently by the University of Trento, in Italy, suggests that newborn chicks are born with the innate ability to distinguish between groups of 2 and 3 (another study concluded that chicks are capable of counting to as high as 5).
ReplyDeleteIn order to test this theory, the chicks were exposed to small balls at birth that they in turn adopted as a part of their nest. When the chicks were 3-4 days old they were shown two groups of the same balls, one with two balls and one with three. Consistently, the chicks were drawn to the group with three balls. In order to solidify this observation, the researchers places a screen in front of the two groups and proceeded to move one ball to the other group. Findings indicate that the chicks were still able to determine that the other group now had more balls or "chicks," and subsequently chose to gather with the larger group.
Though I refrain from suggesting that I am defending Descartes, if a chick is born with the ability to deduce the size of small groups and thereafter identify with that same group, is it possible that creatures possess a certain amount (however limited) of innate understanding?
I am not saying that all organisms are born with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. Obviously people are born with innate behaviors such as crying when they are hungry and wanting affection and closeness to their parents. These behaviors are instinctual though. They are behaviors that organisms demonstrate in order to survive. Yes, the chicks were drawn to the groups with the most balls which would demonstrate innate understanding, but it is understanding that allows them to survive. The chicks are drawn to a group that would ensure closeness and interaction with other chicks that would most likely include food and necessities of living. I took what Descartes said as organisms are born with innate knowledge of more abstract concepts such as math which I think is a bit of an overstatement. Organisms are born with innate behaviors that allow them to survive and allow for continuity of the species but not innate knowledge of abstract ideas, those need to be learned over time.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting concept that can settle this debate between Locke and Descartes is the concept of "dualism." Both Locke and Descartes viewed the mind as controlling the body.
ReplyDeleteBaruch Spinoza, however, believed that the mind or body could control behavior; these two body parts each could determine certain humanistic actions.
I believe that basic natural urges (hunger, thirst, reflexes) are done by the body and are very innate, as Descartes followers would believe.
I also believe, however, that advanced cognitive thinking is done by the mind and is based on learned experience as Locke followers would believe.
Therefore, both sides are correct in the argument of nature (Descartes) vs. nurture (Locke). The concept of "dualism" allows for this. Thinking is based on learned experience, while natural bodily reflexes are innate.