innate ideas - john locke

Locke considers innate ideas in three phases. First, he draws us to thinking of developing children. Developing children clearly come into world without any prior ideas since much of their ideas are only of things they actually experienced. Second, he brings up ideas such as "existence" and "identity." He feels these ideas are the least likely to be innate since they are confusing and unclear.Locke feels that if we were in fact born with these ideas then we would be more clear on what they meant without tryingto figure out their meaning as much as we do. Third, he discusses the idea of God. This idea is probably the most likely to be innate. However, even the idea of God is not innate since many cultures do not believe in any God.

tabula rasa- john locke

John Locke believed in the idea of tabula rasa or clean slate. He believed that we all started off with this clean slate and had no innate ideas when we are born. As we grow, our slate fills up with knowledge that is based on our prior experiences. Experience is what makes our knowledge. Our knowledge is not based on anything before our birth for Locke. Descartes, on the other hand, believed that we are born with innate ideas and our experiences expand to create a knowledge base for us. However, Locke attacks this theory that humans are born knowing certain things.

in locke's search for truth he says that we should all seek the truth. when i say truth i mean knowledge because i think that both he and descartes viewed truth and knowledge as very similar things if not the same. you can't have knowledge without truth, because if you can't prove something is so than you can't know it. i think it's interesting that locke view's it as sort of a crime against humanity to not seek out knowledge or the truth. he refers to the waiste of knowledge as childish and peevishness. he says not only should we value our knowledge but we should improve it as much as we can.

the first thing about locke that caught my attention is his stance on truth is similar to decartes. he mentions the ideas we have in our understanding and whether they depend on matter or not. i think he means whether or not they are true or real, and whether they are based on any truth. in the section, method, he says either there is no such thing as truth at all or that mankind hath no sufficient means to attain a certain knowledge of it. i think he's saying if there is no truth than there is nothing to base any knoledge on.

Meditation 3

What i found really interesting from this piece was in the last page or so, was the fact that he believes the idea of God is innate, and we have been talking about how Locke in the upcoming book shoots down the idea of innateness and says there is no such thing. It is hard to try and believe either one when they both disagree so drastically and really leaves it up to self thought and what the reader believes.

Meditation 3

     After coming up with his argument for the existence of God, the Meditator then begins to feel that he may be supremely perfect.  He feels that all his mistakes or vices are potentialities within him, and slowly he is moving towards perfection.  The idea of God can be conceived in him without outside cause if he has the potential to be perfect.  However, for three reasons this idea is rejected by the Meditator.  One, God = all actual and not all potential.  Two, since he is in a constant process with his improvement then he will never attain perfection.  Three, potential being is not being (idea of God is caused by something with infinite actual being).  Since he knows God exists he questions where did he receive this idea.  He concludes the idea must be innate and must have been created by God since he himself was created by God. God can not be deceiving him since he is perfect and in order to deceive you must be imperfect.     

--Chris Rehonic

Meditation 3: the existence of God

    As the Meditator considers God as an infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful substance which created all, the Meditator realizes the idea of God is more objective rather than formal in reality.  The idea of God could not have originated in himself, therefore the Meditator concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and must then necessarily exist.  The Meditator then starts saying that doubts and desires come from an understanding that we lack something, and we would not be aware of that lack unless we were aware of a more perfect being that has those things we lack.  Doubting the existence of other things is not a problem for the Meditator but doubting the idea of God is not possible since he has a clear and distinct perception of God's existence.  The idea has infinite objective reality making it truer than any other idea.  

---Chris Rehonic

meditation 3

What I found interesting was how he talks about how he can't be God because he is not infinetely perfect as God is, and he asserts this when he talks about if he got his being from himself, he would give himself all the perfections of God, and ultimately he would make himself God! Throughout the section he tries to prove to himself and people reading this book that he is not God and everything comes from God because all things have imperfections to a certain point.