Thought it was time we had a closer look at Leibniz and his veins...
Here's some
details on his key text "New Essays on Human Understanding"
Nice short
discussion of the 'veins' metaphor and innate ideas in general
Clear
discussion and evaluation of the Leibniz / Locke debate
STUDENT WORK:
What is that whole 'veins in marble' thing about?
The ‘doctrine of innate ideas’ is an epistemological approach that holds the idea that the mind is born with certain innate ideas.
Gotfried Wilhelm Leibniz (an 18th century rationalist philosopher, a polymath, and mathematician) agreed with this idea, and developed this view by using the analogy of our mind as a block of marble. Leibniz suggested that the naturally occurring veins and fissures contained within this marble are predisposed to a certain shape even before the sculptor has begun chiselling working at it to make a statue. Following this analogy, the sculptor does not create a statue of Hercules, he simply ‘releases it’ from the block.
Leibniz uses this metaphor to illustrate the idea that the mind has predisposed, innate knowledge of the world; and the physical world simply ‘releases’ this knowledge in the same way as the statue is released from the marble.
Leibniz & Locke’s Views on Innate Ideas
Both Leibniz and Locke have very different views on innate ideas. Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz being a German Rationalist philosopher, and John Locke being an English Empiricist philosopher.
In his book 'New Essays on Human Understanding' Leibniz makes an argument for the existence of innate ideas. He does this in the form of a dialogue using two characters Theophilus and Philalethes, the first represents Leibniz, so is a rationalist. The second represents Locke, so is an empiricist.
What kind of things did Leibniz think were innate?
Mathematical truths
Leibniz suggested that we are born with certain innate ideas, the most identifiable of these being mathematical truth. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is evident to us without empirical evidence. Leibniz argues, we require an innate idea, as we are talking about things we have not yet witnessed.Leibniz calls such concepts mathematical or necessary truths.
Necessary Truths
Another example of such may be the phrase, ‘what is, is’ or ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be.’ Leibniz argues that such truths are universally assented to acknowledge by all to be true and, this being the case, it must be due to their status as innate ideas.. Leibniz argues that empirical evidence can serve to bring to the surface certain principles that are already innately embedded in our minds. This is rather like needing to hear only the first few notes in order to recall the rest of the melody.
This is an essay about the comparison of Leibniz and Locke’s approach to innate ideas.
Locke, who is an empiricist philosopher, knows that there is no innate knowledge and that all of our knowledge is gained through sensory experience and we can’t know anything before birth. Locke denies all innate ideas and principles and says you can have no innate knowledge. Leibniz, a rationalist philosopher, disagrees with this and not only does he accept accepts innate ideas e.g. Descartes’ innate knowledge of God, he knows that all thoughts and actions comes from within us so he strongly believes in innate ideas.
Leibniz argues that geometry and arithmetic are innate ideas but it is not the actual knowledge that is innate it is the potential knowledge that is innate. Leibniz uses the idea of veins in marble which basically means there is a statue already in the stone before the sculptor has discovered it.
Locke counter argues innate ideas by saying if we have innate knowledge then why do “children, idiots and savages” have no knowledge of these innate ideas. Leibniz argues that innate principles only appear when you pay attention to them and the reason why people (“children, idiots and savages”) don’t have these innate principles is because they don’t pay attention to them. He goes on to say that innate principles lie within us dormant within us and it is up to us to pay attention to them and to draw them out.
(Big thanks to everyone who contributed!)
