Is there any such thing as innate ideas, or is our mind a tabula rasa when we are born?
The term tabula was used in the epistemological theory to mean ‘blank slate.’ The theory argued that a human being is born having no integral concepts. Instead, the theory posits that an individual’s knowledge is obtained from perception as well as experience. Tabula rasa theory was advocated for by Locke. On the contrary, Hume argues that you cannot use deduction to prove the process of induction, ‘problem of induction.’ This indicates that issues of facts need sense experience known. This essay, therefore, intends to defend the argument of Hume’s by demonstrating that the rationalist reasoning for innate ideas was incomplete.
Hume‘s evaluation of humankind’s belief starts with cautious distinction on the content in our minds; simple imprints are the straight, intense, and powerful results of instantaneous experiences, such as colors, shapes, and smells. These then form complex concepts or ideas, which are simply imitations of these first impressions combined to form an abstract concept. For instance, the color that is a given object gives an impression, but one’s memory of that particular color of the specific hair is just an idea. Considering that every idea must be gotten from a precursory imprint, Hume assumed, it is always reasonable to question the roots of human ideas by reflecting upon which imprints they originate. Adding on this, we can apply the fact that each of our thoughts as well as impressions is entirely distinguishable from one another, as of the interpretation of Hume. The seemingly ostensible correlation of an idea to the other is always the effect of a connection that we fabricate ourselves. We employ our minds to re-count our ideas to each one another from three perspectives: resemblance effects and causes as well as contiguity (Some examples being: This person resembles this person; this cup is on that floor; pressing this button opens the door). Experience gives us both the concepts and understanding of the existing association. All of humankind’s beliefs are an outcome of recurring use of these simple relationships.
Hume also clarified two sorts of beliefs; idea relations and the fact of matters. Idea relations are beliefs that are built solely on connotations created in mind; these can be demonstrated as they do not have an external reference. Facts of matters are beliefs that assert to account the nature of things that exist, which are often contingent. Analytical, as well as mathematical knowledge, depends on ideas relations. Considering that information rests on our belief fact of matters, and then we still need to explain their origin. Since each idea is distinctive and separate, they can only be obtained from a similar situation experience. Thus, the critical question concerning the theory of epistemology is the manner in which an individual can learn from his or her experience. Hume believed causal thinking could certainly not be proven rationally. For us to learn, we need to assume our previous experiences are similar to current and forthcoming events. However, the truth of that belief is not indisputable, as nature could potentially transform, so deductions from former to impending are certainly not logically definite. Therefore, in Hume’s interpretation, all beliefs in facts of the matters are essentially non-rational. For instance, our beliefs that the sun is going to rise in the following day are non-rational. This is the fact of the matter; it relies on a personal conviction that every sunrise is a result of the earth’s rotation. But our certainty of that causal link is founded on previous inductive observations; hence our confidence that the same will occur the following day is not justifiable by referencing the past. So, we cannot deduct that the sun will rise tomorrow. Therefore, these ideas, he argues, cannot be known if not established by experience.