An Essay On Human Misunderstanding, by Abbie

It is very useful for the sailor to know how long his line is, even though it is too short to fathom all the depths of the ocean. It is good for him to know that it is long enough to reach the bottom at places where he needs to know where it is, and to caution him against running aground. . . . that’s about how I felt reading John Locke’s Human Understanding. I have reached the end of my rope, though I hope to lengthen it by continuing in my studies and drinking inordinate amounts of coffee (the beverage of enlightenment and of my GPA). I read Human Understanding, but this human was not understanding! I have so many questions. No one teaches a child to lie, he knows how to deceive from the moment he is born. Scripture tells us that the hearts of men are wicked, and that without God in our hearts we are children of the deceiver. Is the only innate knowledge  I do not remember being sat on my father’s knee and being told that there is a God; I always believed that He put that knowledge in me, the way He put a consciousness in me that tells me that lying and stealing are wrong. . Are those not innate knowledge? Is the knowledge of a thing true, or must you also forever follow it for it to become your maxim?


I commented on Jacob Clabo and Madison Flower's post.

Comments

Kayla Gill said…
Hi Abbie! I love your post. I think you are honestly doing the beginning work of innate knowledge. Being able to understand complex ideas that do not necessarily come from experience begins by questioning what you already know. This leads to putting together conclusions and allowing for other observations. I do think innate knowledge is aided by experience, but I do not think it is completely vacant from the mind. I think this is where Locke went wrong. He was not able to see that not everything he knew came from what he outwardly sensed. Senses fail us. Discernment makes up for that deception by the senses.
Jamie Peters said…
I am not sure I can identify where your information is coming from Abbie. I really don't remember there being any discussion on the teaching of lying or the existence of God, other than a few passing phrases. I think Locke was just trying to get to the point of thought through experience with these examples, not basing his entire book on it. However, I could be wrong, we are fallible, after all.