Innatism is the most convincing theory

I believe that innatism could be the most convincing theory. Due to ideas throughout epistemology
there is a strong argument that innatism is the most convincing theory an I will argue for this within
my essay however there are compelling arguments against this within epistemology and I will argue
these to as they do hold merit and could be a more convincing theory.

A reason that someone could believe that innatism is the most convincing theory is the Plato Meno
slave argument. Plato argues that we are all born with innate knowledge, but we lose it as we grow
up and recalling knowledge is just remembering what we were formerly taught. To prove this theory
Plato offered the example of Meno’s slave for his argument. He argued that if someone were to
question the slave with a basic geometry question of what the area of a square was, they would not
answer correctly, however after answering a few questions he would then answer correctly proving
that he had innate knowledge because if he has had no lessons in geometry how would he be able to
answer correctly unless If he had innate knowledge. This is argument in Plato’s point of view proved
that knowledge was innate and that without it being innate the slave would never have known the
answer to the question so therefore he must have remembered from when he knew it at birth.
However John Locke argues against this and states that if knowledge was innate then it would be
universal, he argues that if babies and ‘idiots’ meaning the slave knew this knowledge of geometry
innately then everyone one would know it and since they do not and everyone does not then
knowledge cannot be innate because its not universal. This idea does allow for a dispute that
innatism may not be the most valid theory as if Plato cannot prove this and John Locke disproves this
then you cannot prove that innatism is true under Meno’s slave meaning that innatism is a less
convincing theory

A reason against innatism being a convincing theory is John Locke’s argument against innate
concepts. He argues that if concepts were innate then we would know these concepts immediately
and these concepts would be just true as if everyone knows this internal knowledge then it must be
true. however, this is not the case as if there was the innate concept of God then there would be God
present in all forms of society and this is not true as there has been civilisation in which there have
been atheist societies which have not been a concept of God so there must be no innate concept of
God within those human societies so there must not be an innate concept in all humans and
therefore these innate concepts do not exist, this would mean that innate concepts do not exist
therefore disproving innatism and it being not a valid idea of knowledge. However, Leibniz argues
that innate concepts could exist if we are not conscious of them as if we are not conscious of the
idea of God and it takes a while to form it does not mean the innate concept of the knowledge of
God is not there it just takes some time to form. This counter argument allows for innatism to still be
a valid theory as if there is an argument against john Locke’s argument that disproves innatism it
would mean that he cannot conclusively prove that innate concepts do not exist and therefore helps
as it proves that innatism is a valid idea of knowledge.
A reason in which why innatism may not be a compelling theory is John Locke’s argument of simple,
complex and abstract concepts. John Locke argues that we from idea through simple, complex and
abstract concepts. His theory states that we first form an idea though simple concepts taught to us
though experience, such as seeing a painting as blue, and it has a sheen and we can then form
complex concepts though this such as the painting which is blue and with a mixture of interesting
hue and from a painting with multiple tones of blue. Though this we can then from abstract idea
such as the painting is beautiful. This theory allows us to from ideas about the world around us and it
does this though experience as we learn these concepts as we grow. John Locke argues that if we can
from ideas though these concepts through experience there is now need for innate concepts and
therefore they cannot exist. However Leibniz argues that the idea of reason must be an innate
concept as the core of reasoning must be innate because otherwise we could not from these ideas
though john Locke’s idea of simple complex and abstract concepts and without reason they would
not be able to be formed and if reason is something we are born with due to the impossibility of
teaching reason then innate concepts must be true as the innate concept of reason must be. This
proves innatism is true as without this there would be no way for john Locke to build concepts and
this helps us to think that innatism must be the most convincing theory.

In conclusion ultimately innatism seems to be the most convincing theory as if the core idea of
reason is innate as it cannot be taught then this helps to prove the idea that it is the best theory. Also
the idea that we don’t have to be aware of innate concepts that can be formed later is helpful as an
argument for innatism as it does allow for the idea that innate concepts are always there its just they
need time to form. However empiricism does have a strong argument also just not as strong as it
does have its merits as it can conclusively disprove the weak argument of Plato’s Meno slave
argument and john Locke does give a strong argument in how form knowledge however from
looking at the evidence within this we can see that the argument for empiricism is just not as strong.