Locke Bk II Ch. 9 pt .8- Molineux's Problem

Locke had a lawyer friend named Molineux who posed a very interesting and very relevant question for empiricism. Molineux says that suppose a man grew up blind from birth, and was taught to identify and to tell the difference between certain physical objects and shapes, such as a cube and a sphere, via touch. The man learns to identify figures like these by sliding his hands around the figure and feeling the shape of it. Here is the question: If someone placed a cube and a sphere on a table in front of this man, and if he was instantly endowed with the ability to see, would he be able to identify each object as a cube or a sphere? Molineux answers "no", because the man has yet to experience that what affects his touch in a certain way can affect his eyes correspondingly. This is something that no one could teach him while he was blind, he would have to learn it from experience. Locke agrees wholeheartedly with Molineux.

Simple Ideas

In Book II, Locke wishes to show where knowledge comes from, since he feels he has clearly shown where it does not come from. He basically says that all knowledge comes from simple ideas and simple ideas come from experience. Therefore implying that knowledge comes from experience. Locke says that the only 2 ways a mind can pick up simple ideas is through sensation or by reflection. Sensation deals with the senses, meaning we obtain information through sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Reflection deals with actions of the mind; such as thinking, doubting, etc.

I agree with Locke on this subject. I think that all knowledge we have must come from our senses and experience. It seems that there is no other way for us to obtain any information. As Locke pointed out in Book I, innate ideas are impossible since not everybody agrees on a single thing, so therefore there is no other way for us to obtain knowledge except through senses.

Locke Book II Ch. 8, 1-6:Positive & Privative Causes

In the beginning of chapter eight, Locke discusses an interesting approach to the concept of privation. Although a cause may be privative, the idea which it causes may nonetheless be positive. Take the example that Locke gives of the colors black and white. Although we know that our experience of blackness is caused by a privation (i.e., the lack of light), the idea of blackness is something positive. When we speak of darkness or blackness, we do not need to be thinking of it as the absence of light or white. This holds true for painters, for whom black is a positive color, even though the color black itself may simply be a privation of the color white. This seems problematic, though, and Locke would agree, because its not clear that black is caused by the lack of white as much as darkness is caused by the lack of light. another example would be a hole. A hole is caused by a lack of material substance in something physical. For example, a hole in a plastic bucket is a hole by virtue of it being a location without plastic. nevertheless, we can meaningfully speak of the shape of the hole in the bucket without having to first speak of the shape of the bucket around the hole. We could relate this same type of reasoning to shadows. A Shadow is caused by light being blocked by something, and the shadow takes the shape of that something which is blocking the light. So although the shadow is really just an absence of light, the shape of the shadow s a shape of something positive, namely the shape of whatever is causing the shadow.

Locke: Skepticism

In book four Locke outlines three plans for treating the problem of skepticism, about whether or not the world really exists outside of our mind. This idea comes from Locke's theory of knowledge. In other words if we only have the access to the ideas in our minds and which come from our minds, how do we know know thier is actually a real world outside of our minds. He uses three strategies to over come the skeptic viewpoint.

The first strategy he uses is a weak stategy to simply say can you really doubt that thier is an actual world out there. The second strategy is to simply put it, who really cares if thier is an actual world out there as long as we understand enough to get around in the world we are in. The third strategy he uses seven experiences to explain that thier is an actual world. 1. There is a realness to percieveing objects that we don't get from memories or imagination. 2. We cannot get ideas without using the sense organs. 3. We are able to only recieve ideas in certain situations so it cannot be the organs working by themselves. 4. We gain ideas passively. 5. Ideas are sometimes accompanied with pleasure and pain, though our dreams do not. 6. Senses ofter bear witness to other peoples reports. 7. Two people can share the same experience.

I agree with his third strategy againt skepticism, i think he does a good job using the senses to describe why thier has to be a real world beyond our mind. Though i think he does a very poor job with the first two strategies. In the first one it is basically a childish argument, thats just stupid so why believe it. The second one is more uplifting but does not really do anything against the skeptic viewpoint. Its just saying who cares if thier is no real world just know this world enough to get by.

Locke: Nature of Knowledge

In book four Locke talks about the nature of knowledge. According to Locke knowledge is what the mind is able to percieve with a connection or without a connection between two or more of our ideas that we have. So Locke goes on to say that since we are only relating ideas that we already have the knowledge that we have cannot be knowlege of the world around us. He then talks about four arguments and disagreements about how reason can bring fourth knowledge. The first argument he talks about is identity, blue is blue and blue is not yellow. In other words blue has its own idenity of blueness and thus blue can't be yellow cause it doesn't have the identity of yellowness. The second argument deals with relation, in the case of two triangles that have the equal sides are called equal triangles. The third argument is coexistence which is fire is always going to be put out by water, things react in harmony to thier counterpart. Finally the last category he talks about is the realization that existence belongs to the idea's themselves and not to the mind.

Locke then talks about how thier are three degrees of knowledge which are intuition, demonstration and sensitive knowledge. Intuition, this is when we see a agreement or disagreement right when the argument is understood. Demonstration is the idea that we need some sort of proof to be able to understand and know that it is right and finally. Sensitive knowledge which deals with existence of an external world, basically what we percieve is the external world as we know it.

Locke: Where knowledge comes from

In the second book, Locke talks about where knowledge comes from. Locke first starts out talking about how knowledge is a build-up of ideas (simple ideas and complex ideas). Simple ideas are then combined to create complex ideas, thus simple ideas are the single basic units of knowledge. He then talks about how thier are two types of experiences in which we gain simple ideas. The first one is through sensation or the body experiencing the world through senses, touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. The second type of experience is reflection or the mind turning in on itself and recongnizes on its own functions, thinking and so on.

Then Locke talks about how he breaks down simple ideas into four categories. The first is ideas we get from a single sense, such as hearing a car pass by outside. The second is ideas we get from combining two senses. The third is ideas that come out from relfection of the mind and the fourth and final category is ideas that come from the combination of senses and relfection.

Finally Locke breaks down complex ideas also into four categories. Modes, which are ideas that cannot exist in and of themselves like numbers. Substance , which are men or animals such as a single substaning thing or a army as in a collection of substaning things. Relations, which are father, sister and so on. Finally the last category is abstract generals, which are man or sheep, not talking about any particular man or sheep just the general idea of man or sheep.

Discourse 6

Earlier i talked about how Descarte gave a long and winded discussion about why he first shouldn't publish his works and then for why he should publish some of his works over other works he had produced. Though looking back at this i realized he had another important reason for why he didn't want to publish his works. This reason deals with persecution from other philosphers, scientists and religious authorities. His biggest worry was persecution from the Inquisition, after Galileo was condemded by them for his writtings, this was a real worry back then in the 1640's for philosphers, scientists and any one else talking about new ideas.

Locke: Innate Knowledge

In book 1, Locke attacks the theory of innate knowledge. He begins by criticizing the possibility of innate theoretical principles by basically saying that if there are any innate principles, then everyone would accept them. There are no principles that everybody accepts, therefore there are no innate principles. He later addresses the possibility of innate moral knowledge. He uses the same logical argument here, that there is no moral code agreed on by ever human, therefore there cannot be innate moral knowledge. He uses several examples to support his claim that innate knowledge is not possible. His strongest argument is his use of children for an example, saying that anything they know or any ideas they have come directly from things they have experienced. I think Locke is much more realistic than Descartes was. His arguments use more logic rather than relying on "God's power". Locke has claims with more reasonable backup and better conclusions than Descartes. I agree with Locke that innate knowledge is impossible and in order for it to be true, every person would have to have some moral code written to their brains or at least have one thing that everybody in the world agrees on, which clearly is not the case.

Discourse 5- Rationality

In part 5 of Discourse, D says that a majority of our biological processes can be explained by science, but our rationality cannot be explained by science. He says that since it cannot be explained, it must be a gift from God. He goes on to say that animals do not have intelligence and that animals do not use language to express themselves. I definitely disagree with D on this point. Given, in his defense, he wrote the Discourse years before any studies about animal behavior and language were done, but it has been prove many times that animals have their own language and use rationality for problem solving.

Meditations 4- Human Error

In part 4 of Meditations, D discusses the source of human error. He says that error depends on both intellect and the will. He says that intellect cannot be the source of error since it only allows us to perceive ideas, not make judgements on them. He says that the only property we have that is infinite and perfect is our will, everything else like our intellect, imagination, memory, etc is flawed. Since our will is perfect, it also cannot be the source of error. He decides that error occurs because the will is infinite and intellect is not, meaning that we judge things because of our will, but we do not fully understand the things we judge. I think this is one of D's better arguments, but I still do not agree with it. D seems to just aim at defending God's existence with every argument. I do understand his point about our intellect is true, it is limited and we can never know everything there is to know, but there is no way to prove that our will is infinite.

Meditation Six: imagination vs understanding

Descarte talks in the sixth meditation about how the imagination cannot be a essential property of the mind because the person (meditator) can still exist even if he was could not imagine. Thus the person must rely on something else than the mind for existence. There the person must think that the imagination then must be linked to the body and not the mind. Descarte goes on then to say that in understanding the mind turns in own itself to get the information while, when we imagine the mind turns outward toward the body for the information. He finished this thought with this is not a good argument for the existence of the body.

I do agree with Descarte that it is not a great distinction for seperation of the mind and body but i do disagree with his idea of imagination being seperate from the mind and says it comes from the body. He says that its seperate because he can exist without imagining. How does he come to this since everyone can imagine in some form. I think imagination is linked to the brain because we get the information to imagine from our knowledge and understanding of how things are.

Locke Book I Conclusion: No Innate Principles

After examining the various types of innate principles that men claim to have (speculative, practical, and the innate idea of God), Locke concludes that there simply are no innate principles. The test of universal consent has failed miserably in each case. If one argues that all rational men have these innate ideas, then that hardly suffices for universal consent. Locke challenges any proponent of innate ideas to list which ideas are innate and which aren't. Even among supporters of innate ideas there is disagreement over which ideas are innate and which aren't. Locke says that if there really were such a thing as innate ideas, they should be clear and distinct enough to tell them apart from ideas which are not innate. Lastly, he says that you won't be able to find any young child who is able to consent to any of these ideas (speculative principles of logic, practical principles of morality, or the idea of God) who hasn't been taught them yet. These ideas only seem innate for two main reasons: 1.) People are taught them at an early age and these basic ideas become foundational to everything else that people learn in their lives, so much so that they seem innate, and 2.) The ideas seem so self-evident that it seems that they could not be anything but innate. Locke says that the ideas only seem innate to those who have either been educated in them or have learned them from their own experience.

Locke Book I- No innate idea of God

In arguing against the innateness of an idea of God, Locke is not trying to disprove the existence of God. He is rather arguing that any knowledge or concept of God is derived from people who, using their reason correctly, "thought out the causes of things, and traced them to their original" (p.90) He says that the idea of God is clearly not innate for a few reasons. First, there are entire cultures of people around the world that do not have any clear concept of God. Second, there are cultures which are polytheistic and worship many Gods, and Locke says "What true and tolerable notion of a Diety, could they have, who acknowledged, and worshiped hundreds?"(p.93) The third reason given is that among peoples who do have a notion of God, the difference in these notion across various cultures (and within the same culture) is so great that they are clearly not the same notions of God. There are even those who have a notion of God but deliberately reject it- atheists. Locke believes that the idea of God is one that any rational person who gives time and thought to understanding the world would come to. For Locke, God chose to give us the faculties of understanding rather than an innate idea. To those who believe that since God is good he must have imprinted on the hearts of man an idea of himself, Locke says: "it seems to me a little to much confidence of our own wisdom, to say, I think it best, and therefore God hath made it so." (p.91)

Locke Book I- No Innate practical principles

Locke argues that there are also no innate practical principles (that is, princples concerning how men ought to act, either imperatively in a hypothetical sense or in a cetegorical sense, as Kant will later point out). If there were principles imprinted on the mind or soul of all men, then surely there would be much less confusion and dissent as to what is right and wrong. First, he points out that many different societies have drastically different idea of morality, where in one society (such as ours) infanticide would seem to be a clear case of immorality, other cultures hold that it is acceptable by moral standards. Because such differing extremes of moral stadards exist, it seems unlikely that there is one true moral law that men have imprinted on their minds or souls. A second argument that he uses is that if men had a clear and distinct moral law imprinted on their minds, then they would also have the conception of a moral lawgiver, namely a God, who had the power to punish those who broke the laws. Since plenty of individual men as well as whole societies act in morally contradictory ways, men must not have a clear and distinct idea of a lawgiver because they clearly don't fear him enough to act "morally". Locke holds that there is nonetheless a morality, but instead of it being innate it is discovered through reason. He argues that God has given us the faculty of reason so that we would use it rather than a ready-made set of true propositions. "God having endued man with those faculties of knowing which he hath, was no more abliged by his goodness, to implant those innate notions in his mind, than that having given him reason, hands, and materials, he should build him bridges, or houses. . ."

Locke Book I- No innate speculative principles

Locke is writing as one of the most proiminent and foundational empiricists in modern philosophy. The main doctine of empiricism is that there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the sense (see Sextus Empiricus). So one of the first things Locke must do to present his argument is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as innate ideas, the doctrine of innate ideas being one which many rationalists and idealists in philosophy hold dear. Descartes was one of the major proponents of innateness in Locke's time, defending the case of the idea of God being innate and a "clear and distinct" idea. Locke is out to prove him wrong. He begins by taking what most proponents of innateness take to be one of the most fundamental innate ideas, namely that it is impossible for a thing to be and to not be (see the logical law of non contradiction). The proponents of innateness use the argument that something can be proved innate if it is universally consented to, that is, if it is something which everyone can agree on. Locke destroys the idea of universal consent in that it cannot be found for any idea, no matter how seemingly foundational, and that even if it were the case that something was universally consented to, it would not prove something innate. The problem for innateness is that in order for someone to consent to the validity of a proposition such as the above one (that it is impossible for a hting to be and not be), they would have to understand the concepts that make up that proposition. An example will hardly be found among young children in which one would actually be able to understand what is being proposed by that proposition. They might first need to understand the idea of substance (that is, a permanence of some sort), and then in turn to understand the concept of permanence through time, and then in turn understand what a logical contradiction is. Locke argues that this, along with the fact that many grown men will hardly understand the proposition, proves innateness of speculative principles false. This does not necessarily mean the the proposition is false, but rather that an assent or denial can only come once someone has been educated.