06 Locke vs. Leibniz

Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding": - No innate principles: Locke argues that humans are not born with innate ideas or principles, challenging the belief that certain truths are "imprinted" on the mind at birth. - Knowledge through experience: All human knowledge can be acquired through experience and the use of natural faculties (like perception and reasoning), without relying on pre-existing innate ideas. - Universal consent argument: Locke critiques the idea that universal agreement on certain truths proves they are innate. He asserts that universal agreement can be explained in other ways, such as through shared experiences or common faculties. - Lack of universal agreement: Locke points out that many so-called innate principles are not universally acknowledged, as children and people with cognitive disabilities are often unaware of them. - Reason and assent: Locke disputes the claim that people assent to these principles as soon as they reach the "use of reason," arguing that many principles are discovered gradually through reasoning, not immediately acknowledged as innate. - Self-evident maxims: Locke acknowledges that certain maxims, like Euclid’s axioms, are self-evident once understood, but argues that this does not mean they are innate; instead, their truth comes from clarity in definitions and reasoning

Leibniz's "New Essays on Human Understanding": - Rationalist perspective: Leibniz responds to Locke, defending the existence of innate ideas. He argues that the human mind contains dispositions or potential knowledge that are awakened through experience and reflection. - Innate ideas as dispositions: Leibniz likens innate ideas to veins in a block of marble, suggesting that while these ideas are not immediately evident, they are part of the mind’s structure and can be uncovered through thought and inquiry. - Sensory experience limitations: Leibniz argues that sensory experiences only provide instances of particular truths and are insufficient to justify universal, necessary knowledge. Mathematical and logical truths, for example, must be known a priori, not derived from experience. - Human vs. animal knowledge: Leibniz contrasts human reasoning with animal experience. He claims that humans can discover necessary truths through reasoning, while animals rely only on sensory experience and repetition. - Reflection as a source of knowledge: Leibniz contends that some ideas, such as those of substance, unity, and change, come from reflection on the self, not from sensory experience. - Dialogue between Theo (Leibniz) and Phil (Locke): In this dialogue, Leibniz (Theo) argues that memory and recollection demonstrate the mind’s capacity to hold knowledge without being constantly aware of it, supporting the idea of innate beliefs.