ANALYSIS OF JOHN LOCKE’S DENIAL OF INNATISM

Résumé

John Locke is one of the greatest British empiricists who denied rationalism as the basis for human knowledge. In his book ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,’ Locke argued that the human mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) at birth, with all knowledge originating solely from experience, sensation, and reflection. He argued that no ideas are universally held, challenging the notion of innate speculative or practical principles. However, with John Locke's essay, the gap between rationalism and empiricism was pronounced. Despite this gap, the two camps, Rationalism and Empiricism, have a common origin. C. Mascia tries to portray the common origin of rationalism and empiricism as consisting in the phenomenalists' prejudice that man does not know things directly but grasps only the impression these objects make upon him. The essay of John Locke triggered the expansion of the chasm between the two camps. Denying the acquisition of knowledge through innate ideas, he resorted to the doctrine of acquiring all knowledge through experience.