Is the mind a blank state at birth?
Innatism is the claim that we are born with knowledge. Innateness is a key component
of traditional rationalism to explain how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. To
know something a priori is to know it without prior experience of the external world,
through thought alone, for example, that 2+2=4. A synthetic knowledge is knowledge
which is true in virtue of how the world is, for example, grass is green. Rationalism is the
view that reason provide us with most of our knowledge. The opposing view is
empiricism, which is the view that experience is what provides us with most of our
knowledge. Most empiricists believe that the mind is a blank state at birth, meaning that
we are not born with knowledge. In this essay, I will argue that the mind is blank at birth.
I will first show Plato’s Slave Boy argument for innate knowledge, then critique that
argument. I will then show Locke’s argument against innate knowledge, and Leibniz’s
reply to Locke. I will then end with the empiricist’s theory of ideas, including Hume’s
fork.
An argument for innatism is the paradox of inquiry. If you don’t know what X is, then you
can’t come to know what X is. If you don’t know what X is, you can’t recognise X=Y as the
right answer. If you do recognise X=Y as the right answer, then that means that you knew
what X is right all along. Since we have knowledge of essences, knowledge my be
recollection, and knowledge is therefore innate.
Plato uses an example of a slave boy to show this. In the Meno, Plato shows how a slave
boy can access his innate ideas. The slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry- he
has never learnt it. The slave boy is asked to draw a square with double the area of an
original square. Socrates asks the slave boy questions, but does not teach the slave boy
anything about squares. After the questioning, the slave boy can grasp an eternal truth
about geometry. This eternal truth was not derived from the boy’s prior experience, as
he has none, and nor was it from Socrates. So, this truth about geometry must have
existed innately in the boy to begin with.
However, a reply to this is that in asking the slave boy questions, he is actually teaching
him and leading him to the right answer. In addition, it is not necessary to say that the
slave boy has innate knowledge. Perhaps the slave boy is simply using reason to work
out what must be the case given certain features of lines and shapes. The innatist can
reply to the first point that Socrates is merely guiding him- he is not giving the slave boy
the answer, and the boy reached the answer on his own.
Locke argues that there is no universal assent. Rationalists say that innate truths are
universally held, and only some truths are known innately, such as maths. But if innate
means it exists in the mind, then children and idiots should assent, but they don’t, and
so therefore no truths are innate, because if an idea is held in the mind, then you must
Innatism is the claim that we are born with knowledge. Innateness is a key component
of traditional rationalism to explain how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. To
know something a priori is to know it without prior experience of the external world,
through thought alone, for example, that 2+2=4. A synthetic knowledge is knowledge
which is true in virtue of how the world is, for example, grass is green. Rationalism is the
view that reason provide us with most of our knowledge. The opposing view is
empiricism, which is the view that experience is what provides us with most of our
knowledge. Most empiricists believe that the mind is a blank state at birth, meaning that
we are not born with knowledge. In this essay, I will argue that the mind is blank at birth.
I will first show Plato’s Slave Boy argument for innate knowledge, then critique that
argument. I will then show Locke’s argument against innate knowledge, and Leibniz’s
reply to Locke. I will then end with the empiricist’s theory of ideas, including Hume’s
fork.
An argument for innatism is the paradox of inquiry. If you don’t know what X is, then you
can’t come to know what X is. If you don’t know what X is, you can’t recognise X=Y as the
right answer. If you do recognise X=Y as the right answer, then that means that you knew
what X is right all along. Since we have knowledge of essences, knowledge my be
recollection, and knowledge is therefore innate.
Plato uses an example of a slave boy to show this. In the Meno, Plato shows how a slave
boy can access his innate ideas. The slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry- he
has never learnt it. The slave boy is asked to draw a square with double the area of an
original square. Socrates asks the slave boy questions, but does not teach the slave boy
anything about squares. After the questioning, the slave boy can grasp an eternal truth
about geometry. This eternal truth was not derived from the boy’s prior experience, as
he has none, and nor was it from Socrates. So, this truth about geometry must have
existed innately in the boy to begin with.
However, a reply to this is that in asking the slave boy questions, he is actually teaching
him and leading him to the right answer. In addition, it is not necessary to say that the
slave boy has innate knowledge. Perhaps the slave boy is simply using reason to work
out what must be the case given certain features of lines and shapes. The innatist can
reply to the first point that Socrates is merely guiding him- he is not giving the slave boy
the answer, and the boy reached the answer on his own.
Locke argues that there is no universal assent. Rationalists say that innate truths are
universally held, and only some truths are known innately, such as maths. But if innate
means it exists in the mind, then children and idiots should assent, but they don’t, and
so therefore no truths are innate, because if an idea is held in the mind, then you must
