Similarities Between Locke And Empiricism

John Locke (1632 – 1704), a philosopher and a scientist, contributed much to the realms of philosophy, law, and politics. He put into question the idea of innatism and whether people were truly born with some basic knowledge. He strongly believed in the innate goodness of humans and the right to freedom and property of the people. Both Innate ideas and Empiricism will be further analyzed, and whether Locke’s ‘children and idiots’ argument against innate ideas is sound. Locke believes that people are born with blank slates, and that knowledge is acquired throughout one’s life through experiences and sensations. In the 17th century, Rene Descartes founded innate ideas. We already have a set of ideas that we use in order to make sense of the world. These ideas are called ‘innate’, meaning ‘in-born’.
He believed that we are born with an innate power of “reflection” (awareness of one’s ideas, sensations, emotions), as a means of utilizing the materials given by experience. In the 18th century, Locke came up with the term empiricism. Empiricism is the view that most knowledge is derived from experience, which means from both senses and inner thoughts. Empiricism is based on high probability, since it is based in the past. Empiricists refuse the idea that reason produces any knowledge about the world itself. Moreover, they strongly deny the existence of any innate knowledge - knowledge that exists in the mind prior to experience or rational activity. For example, ideas that one is born with. Locke’s argument against the theory of innate principles can be expressed in these three sentences: If there are innate ideas, then they must assent on children and cognitively impaired adults. Innate ideas are not possessed by children and cognitively impaired adults. Hence, innate ideas do not