This paper discusses the philosophical question whether any conviction is justified at all. The focus is set on innateness therefore, because when something is innate, it would mean that we can be certain that our knowledge comes from a reliable source, which then necessarily must be a higher creature, and that our convictions are justified only by that fact. But my aim is to prove that our knowledge is not innate and thus our conviction of so many things is questioned.
Table of Contents
1. Universal assent to some principles
2. The use of reason for justifying convictions
3. Why don’t we know about innate principles?
4. The moral principles in our convictions
5. God’s role in our convictions
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This presentation aims to answer the fundamental philosophical question of whether any human conviction is genuinely justified, focusing specifically on the theory of innateness and its implications for the reliability of human knowledge.
- The critique of the doctrine of "universal assent" regarding innate ideas.
- The tension between the human desire for justified reasoning and the premise of innate knowledge.
- The failure of innate principles to explain knowledge acquisition in children and the disabled.
- The examination of morality and the existence of a higher power (God) as sources of conviction validation.
Excerpt from the Book
Universal assent to some principles
At first let us capture the thought that there are innately given principles that everyone assents to immediately and which everyone uses to justify reasonings, arguings and judgements and that these principles out of this argumentation need to be true. This thought is called universal assent and I will present objections to it.
Believers in innateness propose, that everyone accepts the idea of innate principles and derives that they must be given by a higher creature, but with examining the reason why all people would derive this conclusion, you will find nothing but the intention of having a reliable source, which would indicate on laziness to search for the real truth. Anyway that conclusion can also be clarified as being a fallacy, because it does not fit to the mentioned proposition.
It is not even true that everyone agrees to the idea of innate principles immediately, because children and mentally disabled persons cannot think about such ideas in an enough abstract way, they do not perceive or understand fully. “If they were naturally imprinted, and thus innate, how could they be unknown?”
Furthermore ideas “have to be proposed in order to be assented to”, which means that they are clearer when others teach them to us, thus they have no authority and cannot be the foundation of all our knowledge.
Summary of Chapters
Universal assent to some principles: This chapter introduces the concept of innate ideas and presents arguments against the notion that all humans inherently agree on fundamental truths.
The use of reason for justifying convictions: This section explores the paradox that our desire for rational justification conflicts with the concept of innate knowledge that should theoretically require no external reasoning.
Why don’t we know about innate principles?: The author critically examines why innate principles remain unknown to certain demographics, such as children, rendering the theory of their innate existence invalid.
The moral principles in our convictions: This chapter analyzes whether moral values are innate, concluding that varied human behaviors and individual moral imaginations contradict the idea of universal innate morality.
God’s role in our convictions: The text investigates the assumption that a divine source justifies human convictions, questioning the necessity and evidence for such a premise.
Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the argument against innateness, suggesting that while the mind has complex processes, it lacks a perfectly reliable source for all its convictions, necessitating an open-minded approach to knowledge.
Keywords
Innateness, Universal assent, Human understanding, Philosophy, Epistemology, John Locke, Justification, Rationality, Moral principles, Knowledge acquisition, Scepticism, Divine source, Conviction, Cognitive science, Empirical evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core philosophical question addressed in this work?
The work attempts to answer the question: "Is any conviction justified at all?"
Which central topics are discussed regarding human knowledge?
The central topics include the theory of innate principles, the role of reason in justifying beliefs, the acquisition of knowledge in children, and the foundations of morality.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The goal is to prove that human knowledge is not innate, thereby questioning the objective justification of many common human convictions.
Which scientific or philosophical method is employed?
The author primarily utilizes critical argumentation and philosophical analysis, building upon the works of John Locke to challenge the doctrine of innateness.
What aspects does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the critique of universal assent, the logical contradictions of justifying innate principles through reason, and the impact of morality and religion on our perception of truth.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Innateness, Epistemology, John Locke, Justification, Scepticism, and Rationality.
Why does the author argue that children disprove the theory of innateness?
The author notes that if principles were innately imprinted, they should be known to everyone; since children and those with cognitive impairments often lack access to these "universal" ideas, the theory of their being innate is invalidated.
How does the author view the role of God in justifying human convictions?
The author argues that citing a divine source is epistemologically problematic and arguably circular, concluding that it remains a shaky foundation for justifying internal convictions.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Lisa Thöne (Autor:in), 2016, Human Understanding. Is any Conviction Justified at All?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1475449
