David Hume And John Locke On Innate Ideas

David Hume and John Locke were both well known radical empiricists of their time. They were more radical because not only did believe in empiricism, but they strongly disagreed with innatism. Locke even went as far as to spend his entire book I in his “ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING” attacking innatism. They not only believe that all ideas derive from experience but they strongly oppose innatism. Descartes believed in innatism, that we are born with ideas and knowledge in our minds already. Hume and Locke openly disapprove the idea of innatism and go on to write essays and books explaining how ideas are formed through experiences, through a scientific approach.
Hume believes that ideas are formed through sensory perception and that there are two types of ideas, relations of ideas and matters of facts. We use of five senses to interpret what is around us and form ideas. For example, we cannot
form the idea of the sun unless we use our sight to see it and our touch to feel it’s warmth on our skin. Or, we cannot accept the idea of a car without using our sight, sound and touch senses to hear its engine roaring, see what it looks like or what the exterior and interior feels like. Therefore, Hume argues that our five senses are responsible for the formation of ideas. Once we have our ideas, we can posses one of the two types of ideas. Relations of ideas are similar to mathematical truths because those ideas are facts, therefore they cannot be argued against. On the other hand, matters of facts can only be derived through experiences. Cause and effect forces us to believe a fact based on past experiences. For example, after it rains, there is a rainbow, or at least someone has seen that happen before. Once it rains again, the expectation will be to see a rainbow based on past experiences.
Since Hume believes ideas derive from experiences, it is ludicrous for him to have even considered we are born with ideas already installed inside of us. When he states, “If by innate be meant, contemporary to our birth, the dispute seems to be frivolous”, he is attacking Cartesian beliefs and saying if innate ideas refer to ideas we have at birth, than the debate between philosophers of how ideas are formed is basically not taken seriously. In regards to how Hume believes ideas are formed, one cannot use their senses to process ideas if they are not born yet. As if babies can learn from experience in the womb, they cannot. Hume must have viewed this claim to be quite comical, therefore, not serious.
John Locke also disapproves the idea of innate ideas and goes about arguing against them.
Locke goes about attacking innate ideas by raising the ideas of children, existence and identity and God. Locke figures children only gain knowledge from what they experience. They do not and therefore cannot discuss ideas they have never been introduced to in the first place, supporting his stance. Existence and identity are two complex ideas that cannot be understood easily. They are ideas that even adults struggle with the understanding of. If adults are still perplexed with those ideas, then it is nearly impossible for children to be born with those ideas already in their head. If that were the case, by the time they are adults, those ideas should be second nature, along with countless others. Lastly, God is an idea that people form throughout their lives. Locke believes no one can be born with the idea of God in their head because not all cultures believe that there is even a God at all. If everyone was born with the idea of God, then every human would believe there is
one.
Not only does Locke give a well thought out attack on innate ideas, but strongly believes ideas are formed by experiences as well as Locke. Specifically from our five senses and from a reflection of our operations. As earlier stated with Hume, we cannot have any types of ideas without the senses to notice or realize that the idea exists in the first place. As for a reflection of our operations, when we uses our senses, we take our observations and form ideas from them. When one sees the car, hears the car, or feels the car, they take their observation of what they just saw, heard and felt and deuce the idea of a car. Ultimately, Locke does not believe in innate ideas but believes in experience. Locke and Hume both agree that ideas derive from experience. They feel it is preposterous to believe that we all as people are born with ideas already implanted in our minds, thus attacking Descartes’ ideas about Cartesianism. If that was the case, we would be born knowing everything and experience would not even exist. In conclusion, Hume and Locke, amongst other empiricists, agree that knowledge comes from experience and spend their lives proving so.