Locke's tabula rasa argument contends that all ideas and hence all knowledge comes from experience. According to this argument, human nurturing provides one with ideas and hence knowledge of things. How can you reconcile Locke's argument with the idea that humans have innate abilities, such as instincts and intuition? Are these innate abilities forms of knowing? If so, is Locke's argument valid? What are some limitations of Locke's argument?

Question

Social Studies

Asa

23 September, 18:55

Locke's tabula rasa argument contends that all ideas and hence all knowledge comes from experience. According to this argument, human nurturing provides one with ideas and hence knowledge of things. How can you reconcile Locke's argument with the idea that humans have innate abilities, such as instincts and intuition? Are these innate abilities forms of knowing? If so, is Locke's argument valid? What are some limitations of Locke's argument?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jadiel Greer · Answer 1

Locke defended the idea that knowledge is not innate, but results from the way we elaborate the information we receive from experience.

Locke also defended the idea that knowledge is not innate, but results from the way we elaborate the information we receive from experience. The mind is like a blank sheet or, to use Locke's expression, a tabula rasa, on which sensitive perceptions leave their mark. In this way the ideas in our mind correspond to the real things. Of course there is reflection, but it works from the information derived from experience.

Locke's vision seems a bit extreme in my view. I believe that people are born with innate and other skills that come from the knowledge acquired in society and the environment in general. We are the result of our innate abilities and acquired knowledge.