Editorial notes:
Shai documents his interpretation of Locke’s Theory of Knowledge[I] which, he explains, “is famous for being based on the principle that the mind is a blank slate” and that the mind is “gaining everything it knows by experience”. The need to acquire experience in order to gain knowledge is a principle by which Shai chose to live his life. Knowing now that this was his guiding view, makes many of his actions and decisions over the years easier to comprehend.
One other thing to note is the introduction of the term “Meta”. This is the first of 20 times that Shai uses this term. I struggled for some time to fully understand his intent in introducing this term but believe that the “Meta” paragraphs represent his thoughts about his own thoughts, and his reflections about his own method of research. True to his phenomenological journey, Shai places his own experiences at the core of his observations, at a level very much similar to that which he assigns the subjects of his observations.
This Essay was found as a ‘draft’ entry in Everything2 and it is evidently incomplete. It is published here with minor changes.
Meta: Below are a few approaches plus segments I’m trialling.
Locke’s theory of knowledge is famous for being based on the principle that the mind is a blank slate, gaining everything it knows by experience. The details are a bit trickier, involving various distinctions and philosophical jargon. Here’s one way of breaking it down:
- The corpuscular matter has qualities, some of which have the power to affect our sensations to generate ideas.
- Primary qualities are those that belong to matter (e.g. shape, texture).
- Secondary qualities are those which the mind creates (e.g. colours, smells). They depend on primary qualities of matter in some way which (Locke says) we don’t know.
- Our mind has the ability to reflect upon its workings to generate ideas.
- Ideas can be simple or complex, depending on whether they depend on single or many ideas. Complex ideas can be of three types: substances, modes, and relations.
- Simple ideas cannot be defined as they are a simple indivisible concept (e.g. red).
- A substance is that which underlies a thing (e.g. the basis for the qualities of a chair).
- A mode depends (ontologically, and not merely epistemologically) on the person for their existence (e.g. time).
- Relations are between ideas (e.g. hopeless).
- Complex ideas can be nominally generalised (e.g. from apple to fruit). The arbitrary nature of this underlies the idiosyncratic vocabulary of a language, and also the differences between two person’s idea for any particular word.
- Knowledge is of the agreement or disagreement of ideas. This can be via induction, demonstration, or sensible knowledge.
- Induction is the immediate knowledge regarding ideas (e.g. that white is not black).
- Demonstration depends on steps of induction to generate further ideas (e.g. as in syllogisms).
- Sensible knowledge is of the existence/reality of objects in the “real” world (e.g. that there is a real chair that I am touching).
Refer to Russell’s suggestion that it is important in studying a philosopher to compare him to his predecessors and successors.
What sort of innate ideas do we have?
- Plato: Of Forms, but this is “forgotten”1.
- Descartes: Knowledge of perfection and infinity and God2.
- Locke: None.
- Kant: None.
How do we have knowledge of a bed?
- Plato: By our reason understanding how it partakes in the Form of the Bed (plus Form of its colour, etc).
- Descartes: By our senses having a clear idea.
- Locke: By our mind combining the sensed simple ideas into a complex idea.
- Kant: By our mind combining the sensed manifold via its categories.
How do we have knowledge of the universal Bed?
- Plato: By our reason understanding the Form of the Bed.
- Descartes: Presumably by abstracting from ideas of individual beds.
- Locke: By abstracting from our remembered ideas of individual beds.
- Kant: Just like for any particular bed; using innate category/rules appropriately.
What innate capacities does the mind have?
- Plato: To reason knowledge of Forms, and to recall knowledge of (at least some) Forms (including geometry, and of the Good)
- Descartes: To reason (logic); some innate ideas that can justify God (and possibly some morality); and, to judge “clear” (i.e. undeniable) ideas.
- Locke: To reflect, to reason (by intuition), and to generate complex ideas (per substance, mode, and relation).
- Kant: To apply its inherent categories (logical and relational rules) to data.
2:
- Plato:
- Descartes:
- Locke:
- Kant:
Meta: Can incorporate the above two (viz. 1. architectonic of Locke 2. his comparisons) by using a realistic and commonsensical mode.
Let’s start with the punchline, and then back-peddle to see if we can work out what the big deal is…
Locke says that everything we know concerns ideas from experience.
…There’ll be room to unpack some extra details below, but even so, the statement suffices for accusaions of questionable significance.
Meta: Something along the lines of “I will provide a map of the trail that follows which will benefit the reader in abating their fears of foolishness, etc”, and then do so. Of course, this will be easier when there’s an actual course to trace.
Let’s approach the issue with the following mind-frame, “a number of people, some of which are at least fairly intelligent, have found a reason to quote Locke’s epistemology as a source of wisdom, surely there is some substance behind their perspective.” Of course, that’s not a solid argument. At best it’s statistical, at worse hopeful. Thus, with momentum afoot, it remains only to choose a direction. I offer two, although not completely naively or without bias, I confess. The first sounds like, “Perhaps the devil is in the details; perhaps if Locke’s philosophy were elaborated beyond a single gnomic soundbite it would be found that the system as a detailed whole is in fact unpredictably profound.” Sure, maybe. But what’s more – and herein lies my foreshadowed bias – doing so will allow Locke’s philosophy to be detailed not only as an end but as a means for other explorations of significance. So here goes:
How does Locke break down the phenomenon of knowledge?
In practice, philosophy is a historical exercise. By that, I mean that Locke writes from within his culture and to his contemporaries. But in theory, a philosophy is an abstract paradigm, outside time and space, and so can be usefully transported from 17th century England to a 21st century digital commune.
In other words, I’ll introduce and describe Locke as helpful to here and now.
It seems obvious that at least virtually all of our ideas come from experience. The obvious sources are our perceptions, that is, our sensations of the physical world, but also a reflection of what goes on in the mind. The latter means that we have ideas of intangibles such as of particular emotions. It’s worth considering – and it will be useful too – that while the emotions are an innate capacity, nonetheless we would be able to think about it until we had experienced it.
This raises the point that there is stuff (and I choose this imprecise term also for its lack of technicality) that are innate to humans, but without their correlative ideas being innate. Like everything else, it is impossible to think of innate stuff until we gain their ideas from experience.
I had written that it is “obvious that at least virtually all of our ideas come experience”. That was just to get your foot in the door. Even what is not obviously dependent on experience, is. Even those stuff that we have the innate capacity to think of we still require experience for their consideration. Aside from emotions, another example – and one that is not an intuitive contender for innateness – is colour.
Let’s take two steps back. Perceptions are due to the ability of matter to affect us. The manner in which matter effects us – the properties which we as a consequence observe in matter – we may term their qualities. But there’s an interesting difference amongst qualities. Some of the qualities as we perceive them, don’t seem to be true representations of the matter. Before we dissect the matter, there seems to be a difference between qualities like red or sweet, versus qualities like this mass or this size. As if colour (or taste) are interpretations of some real property, while any mass (or size) is perceived as it is.
Utilizing some science lore, it is possible to dress these differences up with modern jargon. Matter is made up of atoms that have size and mass and shape and motion. These, Locke calls, primary qualities.
Meta: Proceed by describing secondary qualities, including qua innate capacity.
Meta: After comparing Locke to others, it can be concluded that Locke is not only historically significant, but by dissecting the obvious, allows for considerations that themselves are not obvious.
4.
Meta: Take#3 is too long still. Need an approach that minimizes the unnecessary details – unnecessary insofar as explicating some point/perspective-X that justifies the w/u.
[I] “Published in 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is the masterwork of the great philosopher of freedom John Locke. Nearly twenty years in preparation Locke began working on The Essay in 1670 following a series of philosophical discussion during which he and his friends decided that “it was necessary to examine our own abilities, and see what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with.” The Essay is an attempt to establish what it is and isn’t possible for us to know and understand. “My purpose,” Locke says, is “to enquire into the origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge; together, with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent.” The aim thus is not to achieve certainty, but to understand how much weight we can assign to different types of knowledge.” For further details see John Locke’s Theory of Knowledge (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).