Locke's idea of knowledge is obtained by perceiving something in the world, which in turn strikes an idea that begins critical questioning of that knowledge. But, Locke believes you can only have knowledge based on what you experience. He has completely eliminated that idea on innate knowledge. I personally believe, to an extent, there is innate knowledge. We have the knowledge naturally to sin. This is because of a clear sin nature we are given. We are not taught how to lie or steal, but we come "programmed" to do it anyways. While ideas of God do come from the things we feel from him, I think there is a knowledge of some sort before that helps us truly understand what it is. While detailed knowledge might not be able to be defined without further experience, the basis is there. Even to non-believers, the story of Jesus and resurrection is new and unheard of for their culture, but not many have a hard time excepting that there is a higher power above them. They know there is something greater, they just do not know how to interpret it.
I think Locke is lacking the ability of God to place some knowledge on someone. What about the gift of discernment. It is a very real thing that most people have experienced. In regards to a person, while not having any prior communication or interaction a person, you could begin to get a bad feeling about them. Sometimes, you can even pinpoint exactly what it is. This does not have to be with the experience. This can be a direct knowledge from God--making it innate. While I do understand what Locke is trying to impose, and it does make you think. I think he is missing some underlying key factors, and quite frankly overthinking. But, overall, this was a lot easier to grasp than Descartes...
PS: I commented on Jacob and Abbie's blogs
I think Locke is lacking the ability of God to place some knowledge on someone. What about the gift of discernment. It is a very real thing that most people have experienced. In regards to a person, while not having any prior communication or interaction a person, you could begin to get a bad feeling about them. Sometimes, you can even pinpoint exactly what it is. This does not have to be with the experience. This can be a direct knowledge from God--making it innate. While I do understand what Locke is trying to impose, and it does make you think. I think he is missing some underlying key factors, and quite frankly overthinking. But, overall, this was a lot easier to grasp than Descartes...
PS: I commented on Jacob and Abbie's blogs
Comments