Are humans "blank slates" when they enter this world or do we as humans come into the world with certain truths or idea (whether logical, mathematical, scientific, or moral)?
Google Locke's 'tabula rasa' concept and the counterarguments.
evolbiol.ru/blankslate/blankslate.htm
TayB, this is a question we cannot answer with any degree of certainty. Locke had his ideas, which have influenced thought on the "blank slate" idea. Others have other ideas. We do not know a clear and definite answer. Read some ideas, then propose your own response. I just came home from a very informal conversation about this very idea. I was asked how I overcame some of my parental prejudices. I have no answer. I am curious and reject "par answers?" How did I get to the point where I reject the "pat answers" I was taught? I don't know. Nor does anyone else. If I was a blank slate, or a sponge, to soak up whatever my teachers and parents and grandparents thought, I would not be able to think for myself. How do we do that? I have no clear idea, although there are more theories out there than you can shake a stick at.
You must come to your own conclusions. I just hope you are willing to think it out for yourself and are not a blank slate to be written upon, or a sponge to soak up other people's ideas without question.
Reed, I already figured out my own ideas. I was in between on it. I think in some ways we are not blank slates as newborns, but in other ways we are blank slates, so partial blank slates as newborns.
Yes, I agree. We have no ideas of our own as newborns. But as we experience living, we can make up our own minds, if we have the courage to do so. Sometimes a person is afraid to think for herself/himself, and so becomes the blank slate or the sponge for fear of disapproval.
Some people are not curious. I think you are, so I'm willing to chat with you and, maybe, offer some advice. But I think all newborns are curious. Parents and teachers try hard to squelch curiosity in too many instances and make us into sponges. When I was young, in a very small village, my teachers tried to teach me NEVER to read any books aside from my textbooks. In fact, I took a book from home once (a rather humorous novel that my parents had, of no great consequence, but funny) to school to read at lunch hour or on the bus to and from school. It was confiscated. I wasn't to read, it was a waste of time and distracted me from the pre-conceived notions of the teachers. And I defied them. When I grew up I found another copy of the same book at a used bookstore and read it again. It was still amusing! I refused to be a sponge or a blank slate to be filled with other people's ideas, or lack of them.
Similarly, when I was in college I had every prof. tell me they were going to teach me how to read. Duh! I read Shakespeare with an eye to the human folly old Will portrayed. The profs tested on whose servant belonged to which master! I didn't care what the servant's name was. I cared that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was about human vanity and illusions, not so much what Petruchio's servant's name was in "The Taming of the Shrew." If that was what I was supposed to read for, fergeddaboutit!
Was I supposed to be a blank slate to be filled up by dozens of other people's conflicting ideas? No, we have to take all those ideas and sort them out for ourselves. Otherwise we'd be terribly confused, or have to close our minds to any ideas at all lest we be confused by them.
The question you're asking delves into the philosophical concept of "tabula rasa," which refers to the idea that humans are born with minds that are blank slates, without any innate knowledge or ideas. This notion suggests that all our knowledge and beliefs are acquired through experience and education. On the other hand, some argue that humans possess certain innate knowledge, ideas, or inclinations.
Addressing this question requires a balanced understanding of different perspectives. Philosophers such as John Locke supported the concept of tabula rasa, suggesting that the mind is initially devoid of any built-in knowledge. According to this viewpoint, humans acquire all their beliefs, ideas, and knowledge through learning and experience.
However, various scientific fields have shed light on the existence of some innate aspects in human beings. For example, linguist Noam Chomsky proposed the concept of a "universal grammar," a predisposition that allows infants to learn language effortlessly. Some studies in cognitive psychology and neuroscience also imply that humans may have subconscious predispositions for certain moral concepts, mathematical patterns, or logical reasoning.
To further explore this question, researchers employ methods such as studying child development, conducting experiments, and analyzing brain functionality. Through these methods, they aim to tease apart innate knowledge or predispositions from learned knowledge. This ongoing scientific investigation helps us better understand the complexity of human nature and shed light on the existence or absence of innate truths, ideas, or capacities.
In summary, the question of whether humans are blank slates or have innate knowledge or ideas is still a subject of debate and investigation. The answer may lie in a combination of acquired knowledge and innate predispositions, highlighting the unique interplay between nature and nurture in human development.