Locke understanding of human reason and the origin of knowledge is an interesting theory to explore. He essentially breaks down the source of knowledge as originating in two categories: sensation and reflection. The sensations are simply things gathered from the senses such as seeing a truck or tasting ice cream whereas reflections are the ideas and thoughts of the mind when thinking about sensations. This is very interesting yet I would not agree that all knowledge comes solely from experience in the two categories.
Locke asserts that if a child were kept in a black and white room until he was an adult, that he would have no idea that the colors of green or scarlet existed. (pg. 3 of handout).
Further, from what I gathered, Locke says that the soul doesn't contain imprinted knowledge either, as it does not think apart from the body. He makes the example of a man not thinking while he sleeps, as he can't remember them and therefore since the only argument for the soul existing apart from his body is that it imprints its thoughts on the body and isn't able to store its own thoughts itself, then it must not think apart from the body. Also, during the sleeping of the body, if no new information is gathered from the soul's thinking apart from the body, then it must depend on the waking body's sensations and reflections for its content, and thus be only thinking when with the body. Lastly, that since any knowledge the soul possessed would need to be present during sleep, when the body is absent, and as such no man has received knowledge at waking up that wasn't gathered by the senses or reflection, that we are not able to assume that the soul thinks apart from the body and therefore we cannot claim that man was born with native knowledge that came without sensation or reflection.
I can give Locke plenty of credit, that an overwhelming majority of knowledge comes from sensation and reflection. I will also agree that there is plenty of knowledge that can only naturally come from sensation and reflection, such as colors, animals, and many other sources of raw information. However, I have a few questions about his assertions in chapter 1. What about instances where God spoke to individuals in scripture through a divinely inspired dream? What about children recalling memories of songs or tunes before they were born? Does Locke count the child as having gathered sensations and reflections in the womb? Or what about Romans 2 in which gentiles, who have not encountered the law, carry out aspects of the law naturally? God imprinted His law onto our hearts, and I would argue that this is present without sensation or reflection. Of course I understand that Locke argues to accept only what can definitely be known, hence why he doesn't believe a watch can think.
Finally, I believe the soul exists apart from the body, but as to how it stores its thoughts when bound to the body, I assume it stores them on the body. I don't understand how resurrection bodies work, and how our souls are intermingled with them in the specific sense, but I would argue they also have knowledge that is imprinted apart from sensation and reflection.
I commented on the posts of Zane and Eliza.
Locke asserts that if a child were kept in a black and white room until he was an adult, that he would have no idea that the colors of green or scarlet existed. (pg. 3 of handout).
Further, from what I gathered, Locke says that the soul doesn't contain imprinted knowledge either, as it does not think apart from the body. He makes the example of a man not thinking while he sleeps, as he can't remember them and therefore since the only argument for the soul existing apart from his body is that it imprints its thoughts on the body and isn't able to store its own thoughts itself, then it must not think apart from the body. Also, during the sleeping of the body, if no new information is gathered from the soul's thinking apart from the body, then it must depend on the waking body's sensations and reflections for its content, and thus be only thinking when with the body. Lastly, that since any knowledge the soul possessed would need to be present during sleep, when the body is absent, and as such no man has received knowledge at waking up that wasn't gathered by the senses or reflection, that we are not able to assume that the soul thinks apart from the body and therefore we cannot claim that man was born with native knowledge that came without sensation or reflection.
I can give Locke plenty of credit, that an overwhelming majority of knowledge comes from sensation and reflection. I will also agree that there is plenty of knowledge that can only naturally come from sensation and reflection, such as colors, animals, and many other sources of raw information. However, I have a few questions about his assertions in chapter 1. What about instances where God spoke to individuals in scripture through a divinely inspired dream? What about children recalling memories of songs or tunes before they were born? Does Locke count the child as having gathered sensations and reflections in the womb? Or what about Romans 2 in which gentiles, who have not encountered the law, carry out aspects of the law naturally? God imprinted His law onto our hearts, and I would argue that this is present without sensation or reflection. Of course I understand that Locke argues to accept only what can definitely be known, hence why he doesn't believe a watch can think.
Finally, I believe the soul exists apart from the body, but as to how it stores its thoughts when bound to the body, I assume it stores them on the body. I don't understand how resurrection bodies work, and how our souls are intermingled with them in the specific sense, but I would argue they also have knowledge that is imprinted apart from sensation and reflection.
I commented on the posts of Zane and Eliza.
Comments