An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

The study of knowledge and understanding is unique because the mind typically focuses its attention outward rather than inward. Engaging the mind in considering its own functions is challenging. Locke’s aim is to question human knowledge: how it forms, how reliable it is, and how far it can go. The pursuit of knowledge has many limitations, and Locke wonders whether he will discover that there is “no such thing as truth at all” or that humankind is unable to decipher the truth (22).

Locke then sets out a blueprint for his study. First, he will seek the origin of thoughts and understanding. Second, he will define what it means to have ideas and to define the idea itself. Third, he intends to examine faith and determine whether truth can ever be fully known. Locke hopes that by unveiling the mystery of the mind, humans may better understand their strengths and limitations and find ways to move forward logically when knowledge is limited.

Locke chooses to first examine how an idea or thought originates in the mind. Immediately, the author rejects the notion of innate knowledge. This concept suggests that humans are born with certain knowledge, independent of their surroundings. The basis for this argument is universal consent. Rationalist philosophy suggests that because certain principles are accepted as true by all people, then these principles must be a part of innate knowledge. Locke argues that the fact that most humans hold certain principles as universally true does not mean that those principles were present in the mind at birth. Instead, humans reach universal agreements in other ways. One of these principles is “whatsoever is, is” (27). Rationalist philosophers argue that all humans accept the existence of things that exist. Locke argues that this principle, although it presents as innate knowledge, is not available to children. Young people have not yet learned about identity, both within and outside themselves; nevertheless, they have souls and are part of humanity. No principle is accepted universally by every human being. This, alone, breaks down the case for innate knowledge.

Another argument for innate knowledge is that reason allows for the discovery of these principles. Locke finds this logic extremely flawed. Humans use reason to determine truths that were previously unknown. Therefore, knowledge found through reason cannot be considered innate. Although children eventually begin to use reason, principles do not arrive at the same time. Often, children use logic before fully understanding the principles they are learning along the way. Locke proposes another pathway toward knowledge. The senses bring in information that leads to ideas, filling the previously empty mind. As the mind grows familiar with the ideas through exposure and experience, they become lodged in memory and receive names. This process can then move deeper; the mind learns more about the idea and can see how it relates to other ideas, leading to a general name, or principle. Principles can appear early, even before names become apparent. Locke cites the example of a child distinguishing between sweet and bitter. Although the child may not yet know the words for these two flavors, the mind has identified their difference and categorized them.

In this chapter, Locke asserts that, like innate knowledge, innate principles are nonexistent. While certain principles are known to be true, this does not mean they are widely accepted or believed. Locke suggests that the tendency for people to realize certain principles slowly or never realize them at all is evidence of their lack of innateness. He challenges the reader to offer a singular, universal truth that all people innately accept.

Certain practical principles appear to come from nature. These principles instill a “desire of happiness and aversion to misery” (44). They drive the actions of all people, regardless of age or status, and have little to do with understanding. Although they appear innate, they represent tendencies rather than principles of knowledge. Locke then looks at moral principles and argues once more against innateness. He suggests that people need a reason to understand a moral. Christians point to God as an answer for morality. Others may point to law and punishment or to societal concerns.

Locke further challenges the universality of morality. By studying other cultures and countries, a philosopher can see how morals differ from group to group. No singular accepted moral principle permeates all humankind. As an example, Locke cites the compulsion of parents to care for and cherish their children—which many people argue is an example of an innate principle. However, parents who treat their children poorly break this principle.

The concept of innate principles makes sense until one breaks down each principle. Newborn children provide the perfect basis for understanding how principles cannot be innate. Children gain understanding and knowledge over time through experience. Locke even argues against the law of identity, detailing how a person’s body and mind change over time. Therefore, identity is not a fixed state and not innately understood.

A mathematical example that people often consider innate is that “the whole is bigger than a part” (64). However, even this principle depends on knowledge gained over time. One must understand numbers to understand this mathematical concept. Similarly, Locke suggests that, although the worship of God is an important and good principle, it is not innate. Children do not understand what worship is, nor is their understanding of God as deep and complex as an adult’s. Belief in God is not a matter of universal consent. The argument that sophisticated nations have embraced the existence of God falls apart when one considers that this is because of educational systems that embrace wisdom and contemplation.