P1) All sensory truths are contingent and particular. General concepts are not seen but examples of them are
P2) Yet general truths are known. They are necesarily true as they concern not what has been but what must be.
P3) Necessary truth can only be derived through logic.
c) Knowledge of necessary truth must be a priori as it cannot be learnt from the senses(a psteriori)
P4) A priori knowledge is knowledge gained from "what is already in our minds"
C2) Therefore, necessary truths must be innate, as it cannot be derived from "experience alone"
All necessary truths are contingent and particular. General concepts are not seen directly; examples of them are
General truths are known as they concern what must be
Necessary truths can only be derived through logic
examples of rationalists
Leibniz
innate knowledge is a priori synthetic
a necessary truth is true in all senses of the word
Leibniz says that necessary truths are innate
strengths of leibnizs necessary truths argument
It is convincing if you accept his definition of innate knowledge, which is much looser than Locke's
weaknesses of Leibniz's necessary truth argument
1)Leibniz has identified a priori knowledge rather proved innate knowledge.
2) we cannot know necessary truths from birth as babies are stupid
Descartes was the first of the modern rationalists
Decartes' Trademark Argument
P1) We all possess the concept of God as a supremely perfect being
P2) This either comes form 3 places: experience, invention or from within
P3)It cannot be from experience as we cannot experience perfection
P4) It cannot be from invention due to the Causal Adequacy Principle(cause must be greater than the effect)
Therefore it must be innate. God must have implanted the thought into our minds as he is the only one perfect enough to do so
Leibniz argues that sense experience can only provide us with knowledge of particular instances of how the world is. The general truth is innate
A priori knowledge can be discovered by attending to what is already there. Therefore it is innate
children use the innate concept of impossibility in order to categorise
rationalism
truths of the world are known a prior synthetic
Leibniz's Marble Analogy
Innate knowledge is a disposition or a tendency rather than an actual thinking. Like veined marble more inclined to take a certain shape
Leibniz argues that reasoning and experience reveals and refines what is already there(like a veined marble)
Leibniz argues that innate knowledge can be unconscious via dispositions and tendencies
experience enables our awareness for innate knowledge, merely the trigger for development. Experience is necessary but not sufficient
Carruthers argument for cognitive capacities
sight is precoded
genetic trigger for innate knowledge
Leibniz argues that the concept of impossibility is innate as it is not in the world so it cannot be as a result of experience
The poverty of Stimulus argument
Chomsky argues that children learn to do things too quickly and too early that it cannot be a result of experience alone. For example, bilingual children, by the age of 3, can differentiate between languages and their separate grammatical structures.
They have no capacity at 1 but are fluent by 3
some ideas dont originate from sensation but from reflection. Leibniz says that to reflect is to "attend to what is already there"
Leibniz agrees with Locke that innate knowledge requires innate concepts
"it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be" is knowledge - requires the innate concepts of impossibility and identity
"to reflect is to simply attend to what is within us(innate)"
Leibniz argues that through reflecting on ourselves(a priori) we can reveal several innate concepts
Examples of innate concepts according to Leibniz
unity
substance
being
duration
change
action
pleasure
perception
innate concepts are revealed through reflection which is an innate activity
to lack the word for God is not to lack the concept of God. It may take reflection to develop the concept of God
we are predisposed, from nature, to the idea of a higher power. Our minds are "receptive" to the idea of God
Trademark argument - God is the only possible source of something perfect and infinite