First things first, I really enjoyed how Locke formatted his essay using a sort of "staircase" method, ensuring that his readers started off with the very basics and were allowed to be built up to process the very "meat" of the passage. Book I argues against innate knowledge, or the belief that humans are born with the automatic knowledge of certain things. Book II promotes Locke's opinion that we gain knowledge of the world through our five senses or the mind's reflection. Book III distinguishes between primary and second qualities, and lastly, Book IV swaps from philosophy of mind to philosophy of language. But out of all these, I agreed with Book II the most...well, sort of. I didn't like that he labels God as innate knowledge, and I tend to believe that while not all, there are some things we already did have in us as innate knowledge, one of the most important being our 'moral compass' inside of us. All humans, no matter the religion they practice or whether they even practice a religion at all, have something inside them that has been there since birth, that knows the distinction between right and wrong, and that compels them to choose the right over the wrong. To me, it is one of the proofs of God-our built-in conscience. God is not innate knowledge, but He did put the innate knowledge of right and wrong inside of mankind.
Now, enough about trashing Locke. Like I said before, he does have some valid points that I respect and agree with too. I do believe that a lot of what we know is learned. And how do we learn? Yep, you guessed it. By experience. We learn by experience, by what our five senses tell us, as Locke wrote. After burning your hand on a stove's eye, are you going to place it there again? No. There are some things that we are not born with but must be taught as we grow. So, in conclusion, I both agree and disagree with Locke. He is not all right, but he is not all wrong either.
By the way, I commented on Osten's and Rebecca Belew's blogs.
Now, enough about trashing Locke. Like I said before, he does have some valid points that I respect and agree with too. I do believe that a lot of what we know is learned. And how do we learn? Yep, you guessed it. By experience. We learn by experience, by what our five senses tell us, as Locke wrote. After burning your hand on a stove's eye, are you going to place it there again? No. There are some things that we are not born with but must be taught as we grow. So, in conclusion, I both agree and disagree with Locke. He is not all right, but he is not all wrong either.
By the way, I commented on Osten's and Rebecca Belew's blogs.
Comments
I totally agree, that all of us as humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, like a sort of moral compass. However, I did sorta agree with Locke on the whole God-is-innate-knowledge, but only to an extent! In my experience (see what I did there?), I have tended to notice how, even the remotest of cultures normally tend to worship some form of a godly deity. Now, most often these untouched communities will not personally know God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but isn't it fascinating how they seem to innately know that there is something greater out there?
When God created us, He created us to worship Him. So, within all of us is the innate desire to worship something or someone larger than ourselves! Even if it takes us years to discover that the person we've been craving to praise is, in fact, God, we recognize our need very early on and seek to fulfill our longings!