CHAPTER
ORGANIZATION
Pages
INTRODUCTION 1
THE
MAN LOCKE 4
LOCKE’S
EMPIRICISM 6
MEANING
OF PERCEPTION 8
PROBLEM
OF PERCEPTION 9
REFERENCES 15
CHAPTER ONE 16
1:1
REFUTATION OF INNATE IDEAS 16
1:2
OTHERS
VIEWS ON THE ARGUMENT OF INNATE IDEAS 18
1:3
LOCKE’S ARGUMENT 20
REFERENCES 27
CHAPTER TWO
2:1
SIMPLE AND COMPLEX IDEAS 28
2:2
SIMPLE IDEAS 30
2:3
COMPLEX IDEAS 32
REFERENCES 36
CHAPTER THREE
3:1
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES 37
3:2
PRIMARY QUALITIES 39
3:3
SECONDARY QUALITIES 40
REFERENCES 44
CHApTER FOUR
4:1
SUBSTANCE AND DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE 45
4:2
DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE 49
REFERENCES 52
CONCLUSION 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY 58
INTRODUCTION
The
primary purpose of this essay is to critically examine Locke’s theory of
perception. This theory of perception is more like a theory of knowledge in
which sense experience is the true source as opposed to reason. It is derived
from the branch of philosophy called ‘epistemology’ which originated from the
Greek word ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Knowledge is expressed in propositions
but before we can understand any propositions at all, even false ones, we must
first have concepts. To understand the meaning of a word already involves
having a concept. How do we then acquire the concepts that we have? It was once
thought at least some of our concepts are innate. However, suppose that
concepts were innate, and then we would have them without ever experiencing any
instances. It seems too obvious that no concept of any sensory property is
innate. Some concepts have been believed to be innate: for example, the concept
of cause and the concept of God.
If
the concept of cause is innate, then we would know what the word means, and be
in full possession of the concept, without ever having seen causes operating.
This seems implausible.
Perhaps
the God example seems more plausible, since God, if one exists, is not seen or
otherwise perceived, and yet we do seem to possess the concept (though this too
has been denied). If we cannot perceive God and nevertheless have the concept,
how can we come by it? Is it innate?
We
subscribe to John Locke’s alternative theory which explains that concepts are
derived from experience. However, despite its merits it has its own shortcoming
which this essay’s objective is to point out. John Locke aimed at clearing the
ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to
knowledge. Locke hit upon a bold and original interpretation of how the mind
works and from this described the kind and extent of knowledge we can expect
from the human mind. ‘The scope of our knowledge, Locke said, is limited to,
and by our experience (Stumpf, 1977: 273).’
Francis
Bacon and Thomas Hobbes say that knowledge should be built on observation, and
to this extent they could be called empiricists. They both accepted that the
mind is capable of producing certainty of knowledge about nature provided only
that the proper method is used. Similarly, Rene Descartes (1594-1650) assumed
that there was no problem that human reason could not solve if the correct
method was employed. This was the assumption Locke called into critical
question, namely, the assumption that the human mind has capabilities that enable
it to discover the true nature of the universe. David Hume pushed this critical
point even further and asked whether any secure knowledge at all is possible.
Instead
of the word ‘concepts’ these philosophers all used the word ‘ideas’ and the
problem they undertook to answer was: How do we come by the ideas we have or
ever shall have? All the ideas we have or ever shall have, they said come from
experience.
Some
come through the outer senses, such as sight, hearing, and touch, and from
these all our concepts involving the physical world are drawn; and some ideas
come from the inner senses, such as experiences of pain and pleasure, feelings
of love and hate, pride and remorse, experiencing of thinking and willing. All
our concepts are derived from these kinds of experience.
This
is the core of Locke’s empiricism and in the following chapters other issues
will require further elucidation and these include his refutation of innate
ideas, simple and complex ideas, as well as that of primary and secondary
qualities. It is equally important that Locke’s analysis of substance and the
degrees of knowledge is treated.
However,
it is pertinent that we write a brief biography of John Locke, Locke’s
empiricism, the meaning of perception and most importantly the problem of
perception because it is after the problems have been stated that other
chapters will be valuable. We proceed.
THE MAN LOCKE
John
Locke was born in 1632 at Wrington, Somerset, and died Seventy-two years later
in 1709. He grew up in a puritan home, trained in the virtues of hard work and
the love of simplicity. After a thorough training in the classics at the West
minister school, Locke became a student at Oxford University where he took the
Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and was appointed Senior Student and later
censor of Moral Philosophy. He spent thirty years of his studies of Aristotle’s
logic and metaphysics; he was gradually drawn toward the newly developing
experimental sciences, being influenced in this direction particularly by Sir
Robert Boyle. His scientific interests led him to pursue the study of medicine
and in 1674 he obtained his medical degree and was licensed to practices. He
also ventured into diplomacy. He actually served in various capacities,
eventually becoming the personal physician and confidential adviser to the Earl
of Shaftesbury, one of the leading politicians of London. But earlier
influences, among them his reading of Descartes’ works while at Oxford,
confirmed his desire to devote his creative powers to working out a
philosophical understanding of certain problems that perplexed his generation.
He
wrote on such diverse topics as The Reasonableness of Christianity, An essay
Concerning Toleration, and the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and
Raising the Value of Money indicating his active participation in the
public affairs of his day. In 1690, when he was fifty seven-years old, Locke
published two books, which were to make him famous as a philosopher and a
political theorist: An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding and Two Treatises
of Civil Government. Although other philosophers before him had written
about human knowledge, Locke was the first to produce a full length inquiry
into the scope and limits of the human mind. Similarly, others had written
important works on political theory, but Locke’s second of the two treatises
came at a time when it could shape the thoughts of an era and later affect the
course of events. It indicates Locke’s way of combining his practical and
theoretical interests and abilities.
LOCKE’S EMPIRICISM
Locke
decided that before one could move directly into such a subject as the
principles of morality and revealed religion, it was necessary we examined our
own abilities, and see what our understandings were, or were not fitted to deal
with. From this examination Locke eventually composed his Essay on Human Understanding, which became the foundation of
empiricism in Britain.
According
to Locke, knowledge is restricted to ideas, not platonic ideas or forms, but
ideas that are generated by objects we experience thus debunking the claim of
the rationalists that reason is the primary source of knowledge (Copleston,
1964: 72).
The
origin of ideas is experience, and experience takes two forms, sensation and
reflection. Without exception, all our ideas come to us through the sense,
whereby we experience the world external to us, and through reflection upon
these ideas, which is an experience internal to us. He tried to clarify that we
cannot experience the world external to us, and through reflection upon these ideas,
which is an experience internal to us. He clarifies that we cannot have the
experience of reflection until we have had the experience of sensation. For
reflection simply means the mind taking notice of its own operations but its
operations begin when the mind is provided with ideas, and these ideas come
through the senses (Locke, 1985: 182).
MEANING OF PERCEPTION
Perception
is the process by which organisms interpret and organise sensation to produce a
meaningful experience of the world. Sensation usually refers to the immediate,
relatively unprocessed result of stimulation of sensory receptors in the eyes,
ears, nose, tongue, or skin. In practice, sensation and perception are
virtually impossible to separate, because they are part of one continuous
process (www.wikipedia.com).
PROBLEM OF PERCEPTION
John
Locke in his theory of knowledge laid great emphasis on experience as the
primary source of indubitable knowledge. However, Locke failed to take into
cognizance the fact that, objects of experience are dynamic and fallible. Heraclitus
of Ephesus, an ancient Greek philosopher posits that, ‘Things in this world are
in a state of flux, constantly changing (Armstrong, 1977: 23).’
Following
in this postulation of Heraclitus, how then can our experience or senses grasps
reality or true knowledge as the case may be, in a constantly changing world?
In
the footsteps of Heraclitus, Socrates through his method of dialectics was able
to discover that, true knowledge cannot be derived from perception, relegating
it as the least reliable and this is aptly captured in his statement that, ‘Perception does not give us true
knowledge; therefore, knowledge cannot be acquired through perception’
(Armstrong, 1977: 24).
Scrutinizing
the theory of knowledge by Locke, one will discover that it has a lot of
problems to contend with, among whom are, the problems of perception and that
of appearance and reality. Though there seems to be a similarity between the
former and the latter.
The
problem of perception can be said to arise as a result of human state of
affairs at a material time. Perceiving a green table in a room may give varying
impressions, in different thought, depending on their state at that particular
time. In other words, a green table might for instance appear yellow in the
eyes of a man suffering from jaundice. Also, the amount and type of light
focused on the same green table might give an onlooker the cause to refer to it
as purple.
Similarly,
the timing of the perception of the green table may also affect its colour. For
instance, if the green table is perceived in the night around 10.00pm with the
moonlight, the green table might appear black or brown.
Hence,
it can be said that, true and infallible knowledge cannot be achieved through
this means.
On
the issue of appearance and reality, it is pertinent to say at this juncture
that, appearance is basically different from reality; hence one can safely say
that seeing something as it appears is not enough to conclude that, one has the
knowledge of that thing.
When
a straight stick or ruler is inside a bowl of water, it will appear to be bent,
thus, giving a wrong impression to the onlooker, but in reality, neither the
stick nor the ruler is bent, because after removing them from the bowl of
water, they look straight again. Should this situation be accepted as the
original state of the object? Is it as it appeared to us outside the bowl of
water? Or the way they appeared inside of it?
Furthermore,
we also experience illusion such as, mirage, where what we see is not real. For
instance, when driving on a highway on a sunny afternoon, looking ahead, one
will see a pool of water in a distance, and on getting to the spot, the place
turns out dry. People are often also victims of hallucinations and they tend to
see things which are not actually there. This goes to show the unreliability of
senses.
All
the instances given earlier are inconvertible facts of our experiences. And
they have only buttressed the fact that, experiencing or perceiving things as
they are, is not enough justification of the knowledge of that thing. And this
cannot be farfetched from the fact that, objects often appear differently to
different people or observers at the same time or to some other observers at
different times, thus, bringing about incoherent conclusions from all the
observers as earlier reiterated. Though, this largely depends on state of
affairs, light, physiological position, or state of the observer.
All
that had been said above, can tempt one to conclude that, reality cannot be
sensed or perceived, or that, we can never know whether our experience is
illusory or not, or that sense experience is not a reliable source of
knowledge.
Even,
we can state here that, issues of knowledge acquisition is in two folds, we
have knowledge through experience, and knowledge on the statement of fact, as
when one says, ‘all bachelors are unmarried’. But the empiricists reject this
on the grounds that, it is not verifiable.
Ludwig
Wittgenstein opined that,
‘Such
statements, which cannot be verified and disproved, are meaningless, only
statements, which can be verified and proved, should be accepted ‘(Scruton,
1981: 137).
By
and large, one can see that keen as Locke was on the clarity of knowledge, he
did not escape the fatal confounding of sense-knowledge with intellectual
knowledge, thereby, making the confusion more confounded, so that one may take
not only different, but opposite doctrines, from the premises his theories
present. If one follows his work in one set of principles, and develop it to
the end, one will find himself in idealism, and if you choose to follow him in
another of his thought, you will find yourself in positivism, which it takes
reality around us as, the only thing that is, and denies value to the intellect
and reason.
Locke,
in his conception and origin of ideas, based it on the foundation and
background of the empiricists; those ideas are derived from sensation. He
recognizes the extreme importance of sensation, which could be seen in his
second work. He believed that knowledge originates from two sources; sensation
and reflection.
He
also asserts that, knowledge is a process of compounding, repeating, comparing,
and uniting sensation. But he ran into a problem, which was indeed great,
because, he was unable to keep up his thoroughly atomic theory of mind. It is a
theory which makes all relations external, they are, as he would say,
super-induced upon facts. This makes it impossible to account for any
appearance of unity and convention among ideas. He quietly, and without any
consciousness of the contradictions involved, introduces certain inherent
relations into the structure of the ideas, thereby, further discussing the
objective character of sensation in relation to the object which produces it.
Locke distinguished simple and complex ideas because he felt, to discuss about
ideas intelligently, it will be convenient to distinguish them, as they are
matter in the bodies that cause them (Popkin, 1969: 194).
Consequently,
one can see that Locke tends to lay down the marks of sensation as passivity
and simplicity as the real element in knowledge but Leibniz denies or accepts
in a sense different from that of Locke. According to Russell, ‘Reality for
Leibniz is not a supernatural yoking of things naturally opposed, and also not
a mere accident (Russell, 1971: 82).’
CHAPTER
ONE
1.1
REFUTATION OF INNATE IDEAS
Popkin maintained in Locke’s argument that,
If by this
inquiry into the nature of the understanding, I can discover the powers thereof,
how far they reach, to what things they are in any degree proportionate, and
where they fail us; I suppose it may be of use to prevail with the busy mind of
man to be more cautious in meddling with things exceeding its comprehension; to
stop when it is at the utmost extent of those things, which upon examination,
are found to be beyond the reach of our capacities
(Popkin,1969: 193).
In Locke’s Book An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding. Book 1 of the Essay, Of Innate
Notions is dedicated to refuting the hypothesis that we are born with imprinted
or innate ideas and knowledge, something that puts him at odds with the thought
of Descartes that he is refuting here. At the time it was widely thought that
certain ideas and principles were imprinted on human beings from birth and that
these were essential to the stability of religion and morality and I think this
is one reason why Locke spends so much time debunking the notion of innateness.
‘It is an established opinion among some men, that
there are in the understanding certain innate principles stamped upon the mind
of man, which the soul receives in its very first beginning, and brings into
the world with it’ (Stumpf, 1997:
275). There is more to it than that Locke believed deeply in humanity.
Furthermore, John Locke’s rejection of innate ideas
was intimately linked to this project for it is all too easy to claim all sorts
of principles as innate in order to maintain the status quo, meaning that
people ‘might be more easily governed by, and made useful to some sort of men,
who has the skill and office to principle and guide them. Nor is it a small
power, it gives one man over another, to have the authority to be the dictator
of principles, and teacher of unquestionable truths: and to make a man swallow
that for an innate principle which may serve his purpose, who teaches them. ‘If
a skillful ruler could convince the people that certain principles are innate,
this could take them off from the use of their own reason and judgment, and put
them on believing and taking them upon trust without further examination and in
this posture of blind credibility, they might be more easily governed’ (Stumpf,
1977: 276).
1.2
OTHERS VIEWS ON THE ARGUMENT OF INNATE IDEAS
There is a genetic issue concerned with the origin
of our ideas: where do our beliefs and ideas come from? The empiricists answer
of course, we obtain all our ideas from experience, and the rationalists
posited that at least some of our ideas are innate.
According to Alvin Goldman, in his paper ‘Innate Knowledge’ he investigates if
being innate has any justificatory quality. He comes to the conclusion (within
the frame of an existentialist account of justification in terms of a causal
connection between the fact that P and the belief that P) that innate
principles can indeed be justified just in virtue of being innate. He argues
that evolutionary adaptation is a causal connection since being born with a
certain belief can be helpful to survive (and the evolutionary process, in his
view, would of course favour the true beliefs).
However, such an account of justification is highly
controversial and most epistemologists instead hold the view that being innate
makes beliefs not justified. We can easily imagine that innate beliefs are
false.
Meanwhile, the rationalists hoped to show that the
origin of our innate principles somehow guarantees their truth (e.g. in
Descartes, God as the origin of innate ideas is perfectly trustworthy), but
this attempt was mistaken (www.niu.edu/philosophers/descartes.html). Two
problems with innateness as justification will be listed as follows:
(1a) how can we know that an innate belief is really
true?
(2a) how can we know that a belief is innate, that
is, what kind of intuition accompanies innate beliefs? Both questions are not
answered in Goldman’s proposal. Even if a highly reliable mechanism (such as
God’s imprinting principles) existed, (1b) they were still not justified in
concluding the truth as long as it is not justified in believing that there is
such a mechanism applied to a specific believe, (2b) we could never be sure
that a belief is innate since our intuition is a bad measure of credibility.
The latter was objected by Locke, stating that so-called innate ideas are not
clearer perceived than others
(www.mally.standford.edu/goldman.html).
Therefore, it will be appropriate to put aside the
epistemological issue completely and adapt Stitch’s view that to characterize a
piece of knowledge as a priori (as it was often done by the rationalists) is to
say something about origin. The term ‘innate knowledge’ according to Stitch was
often replaced by ‘innate belief’ to emphasize that justification is not
automatically granted. But we should always keep in mind that ‘innate
principles’ were one of the cornerstones of the philosophy of continental
rationalism, and it is doubtful if innatism could be separated from rationalism
at all.
1.3
JOHN LOCKE’S ARGUMENT ON
REFUTATION OF INNATE IDEAS
Various arguments will be considered in this essay
and one will be more of a response to Locke’s argument by Leibniz.
John Locke considers for example the simple notion
that it is not possible for something to both exist and not exist. Locke argues
that if such a proposition were innate then every person in every period of
history would know and understand this, but this is clearly not the case. If
such truths were ‘imprinted’ on us all then we would expect that children and
idiots would not only be fully aware of them, but also be able to articulate
them. For Locke it makes no sense to imagine both that ideas or knowledge is
innate and that we do not know them, thus in his own words: ‘It seems to me a
near contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the soul, which it
perceives or understand not; imprinting if it signify anything, being nothing
else but making certain truths to be perceived’
(www.oregonstate.edu/philosophers/locke.html).
Moreover, he goes on to take up the suggestion that
innate propositions are only perceived under certain circumstances.
‘To be in the mind and not to be perceived is the
same as, anything is not in the mind (Russell,
1971: 80)’. The above statement can be said to be a reaction against the
statement of Locke that, ‘if these are not notions, naturally imported, how can
they be innate’ (Locke, 1975: 46)? The crux of his argument is that once we
start to think in this way it becomes unclear what is meant by innate ideas at
all if we are not all aware of them nor able to perceive them can they really
be described as innate? Accepting such a view would make it impossible to
distinguish between innate ideas that we discover.
HIS SECOND ARGUMENT
Locke takes up at some length the claim that innate
propositions are discovered when people come to use reason. For Locke, it makes
no sense to describe a truth that is discovered through the use of reason as
innate and he constructs a careful argument to back this up, investigating and
refuting different interpretations of the claim. He did not go into much detail
here, but he goes on to reject the claim that there are innate practical moral
principles or that we are born with innate ideas of God, identity or
impossibility.
It is by degrees that we acquire ideas, that we
learn the terms which are employed to express them, and that we come to express
their true connection. The universal consent of mankind in the first argument
to certain truths does not prove that these are innate for nobody knows those
truths till he hears them from others. For, if they were innate, an innate and
unknown truth is a contradiction in terms.
Also, the principles of morals are no more innate
than the rest, unless we call the desire for happiness and the aversion to
misery, which are, indeed, innate tendencies, but which are not expressions of
some truths engraved on the understanding. In this field, universal consent
cannot be invoked in any case; for moral ideas vary from nation to nation, from
religion to religion. The keeping of contracts, for example, is without dispute
one of the most undeniable duties in morality. But,
If u ask a
Christian, who believes in rewards and punishments after this life, why a man
should keep his word, he will give this a reason: Because God, who has the
power of eternal life and death, requires it of us. But if a Hobbist be asked
why: he will answer: Because the public requires it and the Leviathan will
punish you if you do not. Finally, a pagan philosopher would have answered that
the violation of a promise was dishonest, unworthy of the excellence of man,
and contrary to his vocation, which is perfect virtue (Locke
and Pattison, 1978:29).
Moreover, how can a truth, that is, a proposition,
be innate, if the ideas which make up that truth are not? In order that a
proposition is innate, certain ideas must be innate: but, ‘excepting perhaps
some faint ideas of hunger, warmth and pains, which they may have felt in the
mother’s womb, there is not the least appearance that new-born children have
any settled ideas’ (Aaron, 1971: 33).
Even the idea of God is not innate; besides the
individuals who are called atheists and who are really atheists, there are
whole nations who have neither notion nor any term to express it. Therefore,
this notion varies infinitely from coarse anthropomorphism to the deism of the
philosophers. And even if it was universal and everywhere the same, it would
not, on that account, be more innate than the idea of fire; for there is no one
who has any idea of God who has not also the idea of fire.
THE THIRD ARGUMENT
On the issue of innate ideas which Locke rejected,
the work of Gottfried Leibniz, in his New
Essays on Human Understanding will be given consideration. Though, this
work of Leibniz was not a critique of Locke’s theory, but rather, is an
application of his philosophical conclusions. This argument specifically briefs
the position of Leibniz interest on innate ideas. Leibniz was a contemporary
philosopher of Locke. Like Locke, Leibniz was very much interested in
Descartes’ philosophy. While Locke did not agree with the idea of souls and
innate ideas, this is what Leibniz was interested in. Leibniz did not believe
in a mechanistic view of the universe. His book on New Essays on Human Understanding consists of two characters
engaged in philosophical discussions. One character espoused Locke’s views,
while the other represented Leibniz’s views. Leibniz tried to show how innate
ideas are possible and challenged the tenets of materialism. Leibniz drew upon
his view known as monad logy, which saw the universe as being composed of
particles that vary in their degree of consciousness of the world.
From the foregoing, it is evident that, the force of
Locke’s argument against innate ideas rests upon a certain theory regarding the
nature of innate ideas, and of the relationship of consciousness to
intelligence. But Leibniz believed that, Locke had another conception of the
nature of innate ideas.
However,
it was found that Leibniz had misinterpreted Locke’s view of tabula rasa. Locke
never intended to imply that the mind has no innate functions or capacities
whatsoever. He only meant that a small portion of mental capacities are innate,
with the rest coming about through experience.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment