If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
Plato’s innatism
- We can have knowledge of propositions that is true, not in virtue of the
meaning of the words contained in that proposition, but in virtue of how the
world is (synthetic knowledge)
- Sense experience is not sufficient for these propositions to be known as true
or false (this synthetic knowledge is therefore a priori)
- Knowledge of these propositions is universal because it exists innately within
the structure of our mind at birth
- Plato explains this through his theory of the “Realm of Forms”
- Plato argues that we saw perfect, unchanging concepts (e.g truth, equality,
beauty) in a higher realm before birth.
- Because the soul had direct contact with these perfect forms, it possessed
complete and flawless a priori knowledge.
- When the soul is born into a human body, the trauma of entering the
physical world causes us to forget this knowledge
- Because the physical world we inhabit is imperfect and constantly changing,
we only ever perceive imperfect instances of universal concepts (e.g two
things looking almost equal as opposed to perfect mathematical equality)
- So, Plato argues we can never truly learn universal concepts a posteriori
- But sensory experiences of imperfect instances of concepts in the physical
world trigger our minds to recollect our previous a priori knowledge of
perfect Forms.
,Leibniz’s innatism
- Leibniz’s innatism denies that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth which
receives all its ‘ideas’ from sensory experiences (a posteriori).
- This is because he denies that our mind is passive and merely receives
empirical inputs.
- We have innate knowledge of certain principles. Even if our knowledge of
these principles is not explicit/conscious but somehow
implicit/subconscious/tacit, it still counts as (innate) knowledge.
- Leibniz suggests that knowledge of these principles are like “enthymemes”
(rejecting Locke’s claim that innate knowledge must be conscious).
- Accordingly, he argues that our mind plays an active role in structuring our
thinking by relying on these innate principles - such as the ‘principle of
contradiction’.
- The metaphor of the mind as a tabula rasa is therefore wrong.
- Thus, Leibniz’s innatism denies that all our knowledge is ultimately derived
from sense-experience (a posteriori). Although sense-experiences may be
necessary for some knowledge (eg as a trigger), sense-experiences cannot in
these instances be sufficient for knowledge.
- Thus, while we can have knowledge of propositions that is true, not in virtue
of the meaning of the words contained in that proposition, but in virtue of
how the world is (synthetic knowledge), sense experience is not sufficient for
these propositions to be known as true or false (a priori)
- Leibniz draws an analogy between a veined block of marble and our minds.
An analogy is a comparison between two different things that share a
relevant feature, used to help explain one in terms of the other. Just as the
veins in the marble make it more naturally suited to some shapes than
others, the mind has innate potentialities that make the mind more naturally
suited to gaining knowledge of certain propositions.
- The marble is therefore not completely blank, but however neither is the
finished statue already there; the sculptor’s job still matters, just as
experience matters in exposing what was already innately known.
- If the soul were like a tabula rasa, this would be like a block of marble, which
is entirely neutral as to whether it takes the shape of Hercules or another. It
would be more difficult to carve Hercules than if it were veined in a way
, which reflected the shape of Hercules. However, a block of marble that has
already been veined to reflect the shape of Hercules can be carved into that
shape more quickly and easily. Similarly, certain types of knowledge are
grasped more quickly and easily because of the mind’s innate dispositions
towards them. This suggests that our minds are more analogous to blocks of
marble than blank slates
- According to Leibniz, knowledge of universal/necessary truths is an example
of innate knowledge as sense-experiences can only give us knowledge of
particular instances but cannot guarantee that the proposition’s truthhood is
a state of affairs that must follow in all cases.
- Leibniz argues that we are “innate to ourselves”, and that, by attending “to
that what is within us”, we find the innate ideas of: being, unity, substance,
duration, change, action, perception, and pleasure. Referring to Descartes,
Leibniz also argues that our idea of ‘god’ is innate.
The Slave Boy Argument
- Prior to his encounter with Socrates, the slave-boy had no training in
geometry and thus no a posteriori knowledge of geometry
- Socrates draws a square with an area of 4 square feet (sides of 2 feet) in the
dirt.
- He asks the boy to find the side length of a new square that has double the
area (8 square feet).
- The boy initially guesses a side length of 4 feet, which incorrectly results in an
area of 16 square feet.
- After realizing his first mistake, the boy tries a side length of 3 feet, which is
still wrong.
- Admitting he is confused, the boy reaches a state of philosophical perplexity
(aporia).
- Socrates begins asking the slave-boy questions
- Socrates does not teach the boy propositions about geometry
- By the end, however, the slave boy was able to grasp the eternal truth of
geometry.
- This eternal truth was not derived from prior experience nor was it derived
from the teaching of Socrates.
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
Plato’s innatism
- We can have knowledge of propositions that is true, not in virtue of the
meaning of the words contained in that proposition, but in virtue of how the
world is (synthetic knowledge)
- Sense experience is not sufficient for these propositions to be known as true
or false (this synthetic knowledge is therefore a priori)
- Knowledge of these propositions is universal because it exists innately within
the structure of our mind at birth
- Plato explains this through his theory of the “Realm of Forms”
- Plato argues that we saw perfect, unchanging concepts (e.g truth, equality,
beauty) in a higher realm before birth.
- Because the soul had direct contact with these perfect forms, it possessed
complete and flawless a priori knowledge.
- When the soul is born into a human body, the trauma of entering the
physical world causes us to forget this knowledge
- Because the physical world we inhabit is imperfect and constantly changing,
we only ever perceive imperfect instances of universal concepts (e.g two
things looking almost equal as opposed to perfect mathematical equality)
- So, Plato argues we can never truly learn universal concepts a posteriori
- But sensory experiences of imperfect instances of concepts in the physical
world trigger our minds to recollect our previous a priori knowledge of
perfect Forms.
,Leibniz’s innatism
- Leibniz’s innatism denies that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth which
receives all its ‘ideas’ from sensory experiences (a posteriori).
- This is because he denies that our mind is passive and merely receives
empirical inputs.
- We have innate knowledge of certain principles. Even if our knowledge of
these principles is not explicit/conscious but somehow
implicit/subconscious/tacit, it still counts as (innate) knowledge.
- Leibniz suggests that knowledge of these principles are like “enthymemes”
(rejecting Locke’s claim that innate knowledge must be conscious).
- Accordingly, he argues that our mind plays an active role in structuring our
thinking by relying on these innate principles - such as the ‘principle of
contradiction’.
- The metaphor of the mind as a tabula rasa is therefore wrong.
- Thus, Leibniz’s innatism denies that all our knowledge is ultimately derived
from sense-experience (a posteriori). Although sense-experiences may be
necessary for some knowledge (eg as a trigger), sense-experiences cannot in
these instances be sufficient for knowledge.
- Thus, while we can have knowledge of propositions that is true, not in virtue
of the meaning of the words contained in that proposition, but in virtue of
how the world is (synthetic knowledge), sense experience is not sufficient for
these propositions to be known as true or false (a priori)
- Leibniz draws an analogy between a veined block of marble and our minds.
An analogy is a comparison between two different things that share a
relevant feature, used to help explain one in terms of the other. Just as the
veins in the marble make it more naturally suited to some shapes than
others, the mind has innate potentialities that make the mind more naturally
suited to gaining knowledge of certain propositions.
- The marble is therefore not completely blank, but however neither is the
finished statue already there; the sculptor’s job still matters, just as
experience matters in exposing what was already innately known.
- If the soul were like a tabula rasa, this would be like a block of marble, which
is entirely neutral as to whether it takes the shape of Hercules or another. It
would be more difficult to carve Hercules than if it were veined in a way
, which reflected the shape of Hercules. However, a block of marble that has
already been veined to reflect the shape of Hercules can be carved into that
shape more quickly and easily. Similarly, certain types of knowledge are
grasped more quickly and easily because of the mind’s innate dispositions
towards them. This suggests that our minds are more analogous to blocks of
marble than blank slates
- According to Leibniz, knowledge of universal/necessary truths is an example
of innate knowledge as sense-experiences can only give us knowledge of
particular instances but cannot guarantee that the proposition’s truthhood is
a state of affairs that must follow in all cases.
- Leibniz argues that we are “innate to ourselves”, and that, by attending “to
that what is within us”, we find the innate ideas of: being, unity, substance,
duration, change, action, perception, and pleasure. Referring to Descartes,
Leibniz also argues that our idea of ‘god’ is innate.
The Slave Boy Argument
- Prior to his encounter with Socrates, the slave-boy had no training in
geometry and thus no a posteriori knowledge of geometry
- Socrates draws a square with an area of 4 square feet (sides of 2 feet) in the
dirt.
- He asks the boy to find the side length of a new square that has double the
area (8 square feet).
- The boy initially guesses a side length of 4 feet, which incorrectly results in an
area of 16 square feet.
- After realizing his first mistake, the boy tries a side length of 3 feet, which is
still wrong.
- Admitting he is confused, the boy reaches a state of philosophical perplexity
(aporia).
- Socrates begins asking the slave-boy questions
- Socrates does not teach the boy propositions about geometry
- By the end, however, the slave boy was able to grasp the eternal truth of
geometry.
- This eternal truth was not derived from prior experience nor was it derived
from the teaching of Socrates.
