I'm reading Locke's Essay on Human Understanding and Leibniz answer to this. Anyone who has read the same text(s) that wants to discuss it? — Tiaclarice

I also read Locke's Essay on Human Understanding. It is one of the best books of philosophy ever written in my opinion (this is why I went back in the day so empirical he). I am from Spain so I read the Spanish commented version of two philosophers from my country.
Yes! I want to discuss it too. What is the matter?

John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. I read all of these guys in my last semester in undergrad, and I read them before that also, a long time ago.

It is one of the best books of philosophy ever written in my opinion — javi2541997

Well, certainly not all of us can have the correct opinion.

Welcome to philosophy! I remember feeling overwhelmed when I took my first philosophy class back in high school I had no idea where to begin, even now, four years into university...when I start a new topic/branch/thinker, I still feel overwhelmed LOL.

Leibniz was a systemic metaphysical thinker-he created his own system (presumed on rationalism) he thought explained everything. Locke was an empiricist and founder of political Liberalism. Thats the short summary I can think off the top of my head. I studied both of them in my third year philosophy of Enlightenment class (the period of philosophy between 1500s-1700s), I can't say I'm particularly well read in any of those thinkers, or even a fan, but drop me a message and I'm always happy to discuss!

John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. — Dharmi

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. These terms were not used by the aforementioned men themselves, are not very well defined, and do little except help philosophy undergraduates pass multiple-choice exams.

Locke was as much a "rationalist" as any reasonable person is, because he's not an imbecile. Ditto with Leibniz. It's just not so simple. It's like saying Augustine was a Catholic and Pascal was a Protestant. Does that tell us much of anything? Not really.

Of course both Locke and Leibniz believe in a natural endowment, what today we'd call "genetics," and of course both believed in the importance of the environment on human development. A lot is made out of phrases like "tabula rasa," etc., but again -- usually taken from philosophy 101 survey classes where they assign a few pages, plunk down a few labels, and move along to the next "famous philosopher."

These dichotomies are almost always useless for all but the most superficial understanding: nature/nurture, mind/body, subject/object, internal/external, rationalist/empiricist, etc. etc. Avoid them like the plague, I say.



I find Locke's political ideas to be highly interesting and still relevant today. Have you managed to read Two Treatises on Government?

I have encountered it. I haven't read it front to back, but it's often referenced - and I understand the main ideas. Tableau Rasa is not consistent with modern psychology. The key finding from psychology is that, children learn language at an inexplicable rate to be learning from scratch. They are pre-disposed to learn language - and so are not born, a blank slate.

John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. I read all of these guys in my last semester in undergrad, and I read them before that also, a long time ago. — Dharmi

I am not as well-read as others but I love the word "logos" and have a little knowledge of how our brains work based on modern science that Locke and his contemporaries didn't have.

Logos can be interpreted as, reason, the controlling force of the universe, or as order, mathematical order, universal law. Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. It is not always a conscious process but can happen on a subconscious level, thus the advice to sleep on the problem want to resolve or I find driving is great for processing my thinking. Driving is a distraction that enables some thinking processes to work better and prevents us from having a chokehold on our beliefs if we are opening to questioning things(being narrow-minded).

However, our brains love to play tricks on us and can be very creative, therefore, just because we think something is true, we can not be sure. That is where empirical thinking comes in. We need to check our reasoning with others, and when possible we need to check our reasoning through the scientific process. A problem with believing things on faith is a failure to adequately check the reasoning and this is why the argument is so important! Looking things up in the Bible is not the best way to gain knowledge. Math is the language of God but how many of us are literate in math?

That is, matter can not manifest without organization, and we can observe cause and effect, and with math, discover universal laws. We can use math, and observe, why things are as they are, but we can not be sure our reasoning is correct. We need to use math or the scientific method to check our reasoning, and when there is new information, we need to check our reasoning again, and again. Logos is perfect. Our ability to know of it is not. :grin:

Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. — Athena

But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.

So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa.

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. — Xtrix

That is like agreeing to meet and not being specific about the time or place. The word "word" is a label and we can not know what we are talking about without them.

I make an issue of this because of the difference between believing the Bible is God's truth and interpreting it literally, or concluding creationism is not a very good explanation for life as it is. Fearing demons and depending on miracles does not overcome evil as well as science.

Not that long ago, the only shared education most people had was the Bible. Scholasticism, the big advancement in education for Christian Europe was based on the Bible and Aristotle and encouraged debates, but it lacked the empirical thinking we have today because of thinking, rationale is all we need, to know truth. A civilization with mass secular education and empirical thinking is relatively new. I am sure Locke would be thrilled to see our shift from relying solely on the Bible to know God's truth, to empirical thinking.

A slice of everything is still everything

Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. — Dharmi

My specialty is the irrelevant aside.

The documentary, "My Octopus Teacher" shows that 'knowledge' or adaptive capacity, or resourcefulness, is sometimes innate - in octopi, at least. Octopi do not live very long - 2 or 3 years, and are both a prey and predatory species. Success requires effective ability from the start--they come preloaded.

Octopi resources go beyond rote instinct. They appear to have an inheirited store of knowledge.

Human infants also have a little pre-loaded knowledge. They have a few basic facts, like "when things are dropped they fall". So, when they see a balloon filled with helium, and the balloon is let go of, they are shocked and appalled when the balloon rises to the ceiling, contradicting the laws of the universe.

Aside from a few examples, we have to work hard to acquire facts.

But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.

So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa. — javi2541997

I am not sure that reasoning is correct? I doubt that is correct because of my experience with a man who was not intellectual and he was more capable of seeing things as they are than I am with all my college education. My thought experiment is the iceman who was found frozen and science has discovered incredible information about him and all the things he carried. To survive people had to perceive reality as it is, more like my friend who was more like an animal in his clear vision than a sophisticated modern man. I think the more sophisticated we get the more we are deluded by our own thinking.

It is not nature that turns a log into a boat. It is human imagination that turns one thing into something else. We are about as far from nature as we can get. Superstition comes from human imagination and that is getting further from truth, right? I have read superstition came late in our history. I have heard it said, if the bridge had not been invented, no one today could build one because our education makes us dependent on what is known. I really wish I could forget everything I know, as see the world as the iceman saw it.

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels.
— Xtrix

That is like agreeing to meet and not being specific about the time or place. The word "word" is a label and we can not know what we are talking about without them. — Athena

I really don’t see the relevance of that remark; I didn’t say avoid using labels — I said avoid using simplistic labels, particularly when borrowed from introductory philosophy textbooks.

The rest of your post regarding creationism and science, I sympathize with but I fail to see how that’s relevant to my post either.

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. These terms were not used by the aforementioned men themselves, are not very well defined, and do little except help philosophy undergraduates pass multiple-choice exams. — Xtrix

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. Furthemore, that Locke's (and Hume's and a few others) empiricism is the most influential strand of English-speaking philosophy in the Anglosphere.

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. — Wayfarer

They aren’t. When they are, they do not apply to these men. Unless of course you don’t read them and are forced to use conventional shorthands. In which case, that’s fine. But useless otherwise.

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. Furthemore, that Locke's (and Hume's and a few others) empiricism is the most influential strand of English-speaking philosophy in the Anglosphere. — Wayfarer

I am glad we have agreement. I think those words are important and meaningful. The Catholic church relied heavily on Aristotle for its Scholastic education and the debates about such matters as how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity.

We still have the conflict of empiricism and relationalism. Rationalism can support religious arguments, science/empiricism can not. When a nation needs to understand a pandemic this difference really matters.

Thank you for that explanation.

I was grappling with Plato's notion of perfect forms. I don't think we are born knowing what a horse is, but we share some basic knowledge with animals, and an innate fear of spiders and snakes being common. Some people seem wired for music, while others seem wired for the acquisition of languages and others are certainly more into learning kinetically. Leaving a lot of questions about why we recognized patterns and how we learn?

One more thought, our notions of beauty are related to our ability to recognize patterns, things that are symmetric and in harmony are more appealing. Why?

Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity. — Athena

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins.

“Back when men were ignorant, they would debate about angels— and then humans discovered EMPIRICISM and we were pulled out of the dark ages into the light led by science.”

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

Cute, simple fictions.

Aristotle's rationalism.... can support religious arguments, — Athena

And I can pry open a can of paint with a screw driver, although I shouldn't because it may wreck the tool. And that my bias: Aristotelean rationalism, such as it is, for the support of religion an abuse of Aristotelian rationalism. But on this I welcome correction. Please correct.

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars.
— Wayfarer

They aren’t. When they are, they do not apply to these men. Unless of course you don’t read them and are forced to use conventional shorthands. In which case, that’s fine. But useless otherwise. — Xtrix

It was Locke's phrase is that men are born 'tabula rasa', a blank slate, on which knowledge is inscribed by experience. Locke is a textbook example of empiricism and his work set the model for it.

More precisely, we're reading Jonathan Bennetts facilitated text from 2004. — Tiaclarice

Bennett's editions are extremely useful in my opinion.

We still have the conflict of empiricism and relationalism. Rationalism can support religious arguments, science/empiricism can not. — Athena

Well, true, but it's not limited to that. In my view, very few understand philosophical rationalism in our culture because empiricism is so deeply embedded.

I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason. — javi2541997

I don't think the knowledge of a theoretical principle gives us the ability to reason. The kid on the island can figure out that (for instance) he can get the fruit of a tree by shaking the tree, instead of climbing up on it.

Reasoning is not only reasoning that very intelligent people do (whoever they are), but reasoning is a process in the brain that helps solve problems, big and small.

-----------
Reasoning did not have to be pre-thought. If it did, then there would be no reasoning. (Because there is no infinite regress of men and women passing on the skill and minutiae of the reasoning process.)

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix

That may very well be because RD was right.

Well, true, but it's not limited to that. In my view, very few understand philosophical rationalism in our culture because empiricism is so deeply embedded. — Wayfarer

I agree. Except I highly resent the fact that spiritual thinking has hijacked the word "rationalism". In my opinion empiricism is a better ground to employ rationality, than spirituality is.

For instance, following this nomenclature, there can be no "empirical rationalist", we must say "rational empiricist."

This hijacking is like a philosophical trend or school would be called "gut". ("Good" in English.) Das ist eine gute Filosophie," would mean not that an argument stands to reason, but that it belongs to the thoughts advocated by the Good Philosophy school.

Brr.

Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity.
— Athena

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix

Xtrix, think of it as the natural evolution of philosophy. The more viable thoughts survive, the limited, easy-to-defeat arguments die off.

One more thought, our notions of beauty are related to our ability to recognize patterns, things that are symmetric and in harmony are more appealing. — Athena

What is harmony in visual arts? It can't be defined without using it in the definition. Two colours are in harmony when they don't clash ... harmony is the opposite to clashing. I think it is not possible to say what is harmonious in a painting, sculpture or film, without using the word "harmonious" or its synonyms or its denied antonyms.

It was Locke's phrase is that men are born 'tabula rasa', a blank slate, on which knowledge is inscribed by experience. Locke is a textbook example of empiricism and his work set the model for it. — Wayfarer

Then try learning less from textbooks. Locke was also a dedicated nativist, as was Hume. You have to read them to find out, but it should be obvious even before that. Why? Because these guys weren’t imbeciles.

Xtrix, think of it as the natural evolution of philosophy. — god must be atheist

You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists.

Where did I imply that I thought that they were imbeciles? Google the term 'empiricist philosophers', and they are the top two names! It doesn't help the OP to question that, when it is likely that this is one of the things they're going to be taught as part of Philosophy 101.

Or are you saying that empiricist philosophers, generally, are imbeciles?

Where did I imply that I thought that they were imbeciles? — Wayfarer

By making this distinction, which is useless. Anyone who is a pure empiricist -- if such a thing can be imagined -- and truly believed we were "tabula rasa," would have to be a complete imbecile. It takes 10 seconds to see why. And, of course, that's not what we see when we actually read these thoughtful men. These labels -- "rationalism," "idealism," "empiricism," etc., came later. You look into it further, and you find that there are complex interplays between the mind and body when discussing knowledge. That entire division itself is a long refuted one, and yet we continue we these formulations anyway. Why? Who knows. But it's difficult for me to tolerate on a philosophy forum.

Google the term 'empiricist philosophers', and they are the top two names! — Wayfarer

Oh! Well, in that case...

Basically you're casting yourself in the role of philosophy lecturer, trying to set the poor newbie straight, who's being fed useless disinformation by her university. I'll leave you to it.

Basically you're casting yourself in the role of philosophy lecturer, trying to set the poor newbie straight, who's being fed useless disinformation by her university. — Wayfarer

Sorry, but it wasn't the "poor newbie" who brought rationalism and empiricism into this discussion. What I'm setting straight is the useless, simplistic, conventional textbook nonsense that gets repeated over and over again by the people on this forum who've evidently not read one sentence of the people they so easily label x, y, z. If we want to discuss these thinkers seriously, then we owe at least a few passages of their works, and not regurgitating, verbatim, what we remember from our undergraduate history of philosophy course.