What Is Locke's Argument That Principles Are Not Innate

In Book 1 of Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke attacks the idea that humans are born having innate knowledge, more specifically certain principles and ideas. His argument against this claim is that knowledge and ideas cannot be present without prior experience. His main argument is in Chapter II of Book I in which he attacks the idea that principles are innate. In making his argument Locke was very strategric about his approach, he did so in a dialtec form in which he plays devil’s advocate with himself. He argues from a nativist perspective then objects the argument until the argument becomes very weak. Throughout the dialogue Locke essentially argues that if principles were innate then they must have universal assent. They are not universal therefore they are not innate. Locke begins his argument that principles are not universal by using two principles that he believes has the most allowed
He uses children and idiots as an example of two groups that need to be taught these two very basic principles. As children with having very little experience they would be the best group to test innateness on, yet children show no signs of understanding these two basic principles. The navtist replies saying that humans come to these principles by use of reason, which is why children may not know it right away. Locke’s replies, “But how can these men think the use of reason necessary to discover principles that are supposed to be innate, when reason is nothing else, but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from Principles of Propositions, that are already known.” (Locke 51). Essentially Locke is arguing if use of reason is what allows for the child or men to know these principles, then it is not innate, because