Locke Versus Pinker: Main Differences

Locke versus Pinker Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Locke versus Pinker The metaphors that psychology and philosophy have mobilized not only describe but also shapes the direction of scholarship by de-legitimating or legitimating certain types of research, thereby framing how the research can be conducted and understood. Locke has been greatly linked to the philosophical concept of the tabula rasa since it is thought to have originated from his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The notion of tabula rasa signifies an original state of formlessness. However, recent innovations in psychological theory have undermined the narrative by claiming that the idea of formlessness is unintelligible. An example would be Steven Pinker, who holds different opinions towards the theory of human nature and the state of mind. According to Locke (2017), human beings are born with empty minds. Locke believes that there are no principles or truths imprinted on the human mind and that these principles and truths are perceived by learning from the experiences of others. In his argument, Locke states that if the principles were imprinted on the minds of idiots and children, then they would not help but perceive and assent to them (Locke, 2017). Pinker, however, has different opinions concerning the human mind. According to Pinker (2006), human nature is closely linked to the Judeo-Christian religion, in that humans are born with an intellectual perception that gives us the ability to choose, love, and have a moral sense. Therefore, during birth, God has given humans the ability to perceive reality fully. Locke argues that ideas are grounded in experience (Locke, 2017). In Locke’s views, whatever we perceive in our minds is based on our experiences, and therefore, there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses. Because of this, social arrangements should be reasoned out from scratch, and the knowledge that individuals acquire should be applied when agreeing upon mutual consent. Locke also argues that their different histories determine the difference in knowledge acquired by individuals. However, Pinker (2006) argues that for individuals to be able to learn from their experiences, their minds must first have the innate mechanisms. Rather than grasping knowledge based on experience, our minds have innate mechanisms such as a language instinct which allows us to communicate our thoughts; and administrative systems of the brain that determine our general behavior (Pinker, 2006). Therefore, unlike Locke who believes in knowledge through experience, Pinker believes that our brains have pre-existing knowledge that enables us to do basic human functions. I find Locke’s argument to be more convincing. Locke believed that humans were born with several faculties that gave us the ability to process and receive information, and use or manipulate the information once it was in our grasp. However, we lack natural knowledge or ideas. It is true to state that an object cannot exist and cease to exist at the same time. Therefore, if we had an innate proposition, then every individual in every period would understand it. However, this is not the case. If children and idiots have innate knowledge or ideas, then they should be able...