I was going through book 2 again and I decided that I am officially confused as to what I believe out of Locke's mouth. Now, as we all know, Locke's not a big fan of the concept of innate principles, which by definition are inherent or intrinsic characteristics or properties of some thing, such as a quality or capability which is possessed since birth. But in Book 2, it appears to me that he is contradicting one of his strongest beliefs.
Locke brings up the argument of tabula rasa, where he infers that the mind is a blank sheet which through experience attains simple ideas that stand as a basis for our more complex ideas to grow off of. He explains how the mind does this through complex ideas, subjects, and modes. This makes sense and all, but wouldn't these three things count as innate principles, since they are all basises? The mind naturally functions this way, it is not taught to function this way, hence they would seem to be innate. That's how I feel although I may not be right, comment and let me know what you think because I'm confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was really thinking about this and i belive that maybe since he says our mind is a blank sheet, this could be true. Before we are born into this world, we did not have any experiences that would "write" to our mind, But i am thinking that our brain which is an actual object that acts like a filing cabinet takes our experiences and places them in certain parts of our brain. the brain, i believes, allows the mind to have the power to create these complex ideas, subjects and modes. Not sure if this made sense.. hopefully it did (a little bit) haha
Post a Comment