Discussion of innate ideas
Innatism is the view that people have
inborn ideas in their minds and the mind is not empty. In this essay, I will
argue that there are two main resaons to adopt innatism instead of Lockeian
emprisism. First is that language acquisition process
supports the existence of innate ideas and Second, the existence of moral
values support innate knowledge.
Locke argues that every idea that humans
have can be explained in the sense of learning from sensation. So, he argues
that, we don’t need any extended claim as there are ideas or knowledge human
have inborn or so called innately. Everything including rules of logic,
mathematics and axiological propositions are learned with sense experiences. He
thinks that our minds were a blank slate as he calls tabula rasa when we were
born. Innatists like Leibniz and Descartes, on the other hand, argue that the mind
is not a blank slate but it includes ideas like God, mathematics etc. Locke
rejects this idea and argues there is no good reason to assume the existence of
innatism.
Leibniz argues that innate ideas exist. He
thinks that our mind is like a Veined marble. Sensations do not create but
cause the emergence of our inborn ideas. Leibniz rightly argues that if there
is no innate a priori knowledge, our generalizations are just products of
conditioning. For example, Locke argues that total of angles of a triangle is
180* not because we innately know but because our senses tell us so. So, it is
possible that another observation can show that total of angles of another
triangle is different. Because ideas do not have to be stable, a triangle can
have 180* today and 145 tomorrow. Leibniz says that mathematics has universal
values and it is impossible to say that we learn it by sensation. So,
mathematical ideas must be in the mind innately.
I think, Locke does not make a very
important differentiation. Locke thinks that we only justify our believes with
senses. If Locke is right, all of our generalizations must be epistemologically
justified only with respect to amount of repetitions. But I think, we need to
make a differentiation between Mathematics and our daily experience. For
example, I always see that when I press the keyboard, a letter appears on the
screen. I have experienced it maybe a billion times. On the other hand, I have
just firstly calculated that totals of angles of an octagon is 1080*. Even if
Locke would argue that my idea of octagon is a complex idea and reduce it to
the basic ones, I don’t experience them as much as my some other belief that
seem weaker like my belief of keyboard. Rules of mathematics do not seem
changeable. But even if my senses experience it a billion times, I am not sure
whether a letter appears when I press the keyboard. But we think that the most
warrant belief is not about keyboard but octagon. Locke has to say that my
belief about the keyboard is more trustable but it clearly makes no sense. So,
when we generalize things we have at least two categories. First includes
mathematics, logic etc., repeated sensory experiences. First one is justified
regardless of senses but second needs sensory experiences. And first is always
more trustable than the second. If logic and mathematics are not innate or if
these categories that decides first one more trustable are not innate, there is
no other explanation for the difference between these two beliefs in the sense
of justification. But because we know there is a difference beyond sensory experiences
we can say that either ideas of mathematics are innate or categories that
categorize justification levels of knowledge is innate. If first case is true,
we know mathematics is inborn. If second is true we learn mathematics by
experience but categories in mind categorizes the knowledge. In both cases,
mind is not tabula rasa.
Language acquisition process also supports
innatism. Noam Chomsky critiqued the empiricist understanding of language.
Skinner’s empiricist understanding of language acquisition has two bases.
First, children hear the utterances and see response to it and second, children
remember the reinforcement. It means that language is just about observing
utterances and response to the words[1].
It means that language is a product of response mechanism of a brain. So, we
cannot use sentences that we did not experience. But Chomsky argued that
without an innate language acquisition device in mind, it is impossible to
establish sentences in a right grammatical structure. As he says, firstly
language is not like a response mechanism because we can use any words to a
behavior; second, we don’t need memory of historical reinforcements to say
something. Chomsky rightly points out that language is a very complex
phenomenon, it includes a complex grammar structure. Without an innate
mechanism that can organize the words and create an understandable sentence is
almost impossible[2].
Chomsky does not mean that grammar structure is completely innate. He argues
that there is a universal grammar and we know that innately but universal
grammar does not include all grammar structures. And then we learn language
which have different grammar structures with an innate mechanism that knows how
a human language is possible structured. So, what the innate idea is a
mechanism that can organize the words with respect to possible human languages.
When we learn language, this mechanism works and creates a grammar structure
according to the language that we hear. This understanding is close to the view
of the mind as a veined marble in the sense of innate ideas of Universal
Grammar and innate mechanism that we can learn the grammar structure of a
language. But Locke’s understanding of mind does not even accept a mechanism
that creates a grammar structure.
Third point is that we have moral laws
innately. Locke argued that we learn moral laws from nature. Firstly, normative
propositions are axiological. But there is no observable axiological phenomenon
in the nature. David Hume, famous Scottish philosopher, argued that nature does
not include morality. He argues that we observe the universe as “is” not as
“ought to”. For example, I observe that there is a table in front of me but I never observe that there ought to be
a table in front of me. So, observable nature does not include morality. Thus,
if ethical realism is true and there are universal moral laws, they must be in the
mind without observation. In addition, not only normative propositions but also
moral concepts seem innate. Is seeing something bad the same as seeing matter?
Locke would argue that what you call bad is not observable because it is a
complex idea. But I don’t think it can be learnable. So, I argue that, moral
concepts such as good and bad, just and unjust, right and wrong are very
complex and it is almost impossible to learn them. I don’t remember that I
learned that killing a person is bad. Furthermore, we don’t have to teach a
child to hurt anyone is bad. In addition, children have strong moral capacities.
Paul bloom argues that children have innate concepts of good and bad innately
and he supports his argument with scientific experiment. According to the
experiment made in Yale university, even 6 mounts old babies have tendency to
get closer to helpers and get away from the bad people.[3]
I believe that
there can sensibly be two explanations for moral propositions in our minds.
First, as Rawls argues that we have a mechanism moral concept or law creator in
mind like Chomsky argued for language or all knowledge exists in the mind
innately. Both means rejection the Lockean understandings of mind(41)[4].
To sum up, there
are at least several reasons to prefer innatism to Lockean empiricism. Language
and morality cannot be sensibly explained with the idea of mind as tabula rasa.
They are either created with an innate mechanism in mind or they exist in mind
[1] Cowie, F. (2008, January 16).
Innateness and Language. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/innateness-language/
[2] Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the
Theory Of Syntax, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1965.
[3] Bloom, “The Moral Life of Babies”, The New York Times, 5 May 2010.
(I read it from here http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/NewspaperArticles/MoralLifeBabies.pdf)
[4] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 1999
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder