Is Innatism Convincing?
Statement of Intent: Innatism is not convincing at all for multiple reasons. Firstly, empiricism is a more
convincing account for knowledge and therefore innatism cannot be the case. Secondly, If we try to
define Innate knowledge we fail to find any knowledge that fits this criteria and lastly and the most crucial
objection is that even if we try to adjust what we mean by innate knowledge to fit with what we know
empirically such as genetics it is unconvincing as a theory.
RICE 1
R: Empiricism is more convincing account for knowledge. There fails to be any account of a priori
synthetic truths and the idea of Hume’s Fork is convincing. Innate ideas would be a priori synthetic truths,
however if empiricism is the case then it is impossible to have a priori synthetic truths and therefore,
innatism cannot be the case if we accept empiricism. Furthermore, it must be the case that all knowledge
derived from sense experience.
I: We could challenge the idea that all knowledge must have derived from sense experience but
considering necessary truths. Necessary truths are truths that must be the case in which the negation is a
contradiction. However we can’t prove all to be the case via experience and sense experience only gives
us knowledge only of particulars but nor universal truths in all possible worlds. Therefore, to have
knowledge on universal statements we cannot only use sense experience in which case empiricism is not
the case and therefore innatism can be the case. (it just opens the possibility of innatism not that it
actually is the case)
C: Suppose necessary truths such as 2+2= 4 is innate as it is not a proportion on how things are but must
be which experience doesn't account for. However where does the concept of 2, addition, 4, equals come
from? Are they innate as well? We have seen new born babies the only concept they really know initially is
warmth and hunger and not mathematics. We use our experience of numbers to then formulate necessary
truths.
E: Overall, this argument asserts that empiricism is the case however it doesn't attack innatism completely
making it a less crucial argument. The following objections will target would innatism would actually entail
specifically.
RICE 2:
R: If we consider the definition of innate ideas we fail to find any idea that fits this criteria. The most
convincing definition is that of Locke's which is that the knowledge is universal, we are conscious of it and
that it was there at birth. If we fail to find any knowledge that fits this criteria then we cannot say such
knowledge exists.
I: We could challenge the definition of innate knowledge specifically regarding whether we must be
conscious of it. Specifically if we consider Leibniz’s veined marble theory in which we are initially
unconscious of knowledge before it is unlocked by experience. In this way innatism is concerned with a
capacity or a natural disposition which is waiting to be actualised by experience and therefore actual
knowledge isn’t innate but potential knowledge is where the relevant experience enables you to
understand it. We see examples of this before through memory where we are usually unconscious of our
memory until an experience triggers that memory and we become conscious of it (eg say we had a day
out to the circus, you aren’t conscious of that 24/7 you will remember the memories you had the following
times you see a circus etc). This also solves the previous objection in which we can accept that it isnt
knowledge that is innate but the concepts which are, we just can’t articulate them but that does mean that
it is not there.
Is Innatism Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: Innatism is not convincing at all for multiple reasons. Firstly, empiricism is a more
convincing account for knowledge and therefore innatism cannot be the case. Secondly, If we try to
define Innate knowledge we fail to find any knowledge that fits this criteria and lastly and the most crucial
objection is that even if we try to adjust what we mean by innate knowledge to fit with what we know
empirically such as genetics it is unconvincing as a theory.
RICE 1
R: Empiricism is more convincing account for knowledge. There fails to be any account of a priori
synthetic truths and the idea of Hume’s Fork is convincing. Innate ideas would be a priori synthetic truths,
however if empiricism is the case then it is impossible to have a priori synthetic truths and therefore,
innatism cannot be the case if we accept empiricism. Furthermore, it must be the case that all knowledge
derived from sense experience.
I: We could challenge the idea that all knowledge must have derived from sense experience but
considering necessary truths. Necessary truths are truths that must be the case in which the negation is a
contradiction. However we can’t prove all to be the case via experience and sense experience only gives
us knowledge only of particulars but nor universal truths in all possible worlds. Therefore, to have
knowledge on universal statements we cannot only use sense experience in which case empiricism is not
the case and therefore innatism can be the case. (it just opens the possibility of innatism not that it
actually is the case)
C: Suppose necessary truths such as 2+2= 4 is innate as it is not a proportion on how things are but must
be which experience doesn't account for. However where does the concept of 2, addition, 4, equals come
from? Are they innate as well? We have seen new born babies the only concept they really know initially is
warmth and hunger and not mathematics. We use our experience of numbers to then formulate necessary
truths.
E: Overall, this argument asserts that empiricism is the case however it doesn't attack innatism completely
making it a less crucial argument. The following objections will target would innatism would actually entail
specifically.
RICE 2:
R: If we consider the definition of innate ideas we fail to find any idea that fits this criteria. The most
convincing definition is that of Locke's which is that the knowledge is universal, we are conscious of it and
that it was there at birth. If we fail to find any knowledge that fits this criteria then we cannot say such
knowledge exists.
I: We could challenge the definition of innate knowledge specifically regarding whether we must be
conscious of it. Specifically if we consider Leibniz’s veined marble theory in which we are initially
unconscious of knowledge before it is unlocked by experience. In this way innatism is concerned with a
capacity or a natural disposition which is waiting to be actualised by experience and therefore actual
knowledge isn’t innate but potential knowledge is where the relevant experience enables you to
understand it. We see examples of this before through memory where we are usually unconscious of our
memory until an experience triggers that memory and we become conscious of it (eg say we had a day
out to the circus, you aren’t conscious of that 24/7 you will remember the memories you had the following
times you see a circus etc). This also solves the previous objection in which we can accept that it isnt
knowledge that is innate but the concepts which are, we just can’t articulate them but that does mean that
it is not there.
Is Innatism Convincing? 1
