John Locke proves that mathematical knowledge is not innate in An Essay on Human Understanding by contrasting Plato's theory with learning through sensation and perception, thus retaining the theory of empiricism. Through his arguments, Locke proves that mathematical knowledge is not something one is born with, clarifying that Plato's universal consent proves nothing. Knowledge is not printed; it is learned through observation, sensations and experience. Locke evaluates the situation between Socrates and the Greek boy from Meno, and how the boy actually accepted several correct answers, and deduces that all knowledge is coincidental. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay While Plato argues that all knowledge is innate, Locke disagrees and justifies empiricism. Plato expounds his theory of innate knowledge through universal consent, an idea which, because humanity can agree, authorizes his theory of innateness. Locke supports this by stating that universal consent proves nothing, "if there can be any other way of showing how men can come to this universal agreement, in the things to which they consent, which, I presume, can be done.” (Locke 1) Because people agree on something does not mean it is knowledge that comes from their souls. Plato had to rely on this to justify innateness, it was his only explanation to show that the boy was capable of accepting correct answers without being taught. However, Locke suggested that learning is a recipe: through observation, feeling, and thinking, you acquire knowledge. This boy from Meno was Greek: “He is Greek and speaks Greek, isn’t he? (Plato 2). So he knew the language that Socrates spoke and was able to answer questions. However, no one is born with language. Language is learned; if Socrates spoke to the boy in German, for example, the boy would not be able to answer the questions, and so correct language permits the answers. Mathematical knowledge is simple compared to a subject like language. This is why Plato chose it rather than another subject with which it would be more difficult to prove his theory. By asking the Greek boy simple questions, the boy was able to perform simple mathematical actions such as adding and multiplying. Plato took this as an explanation, while there is a better explanation as to why the boy was able to answer correctly; Plato asked leading questions. Plato asked the boy yes or no questions, to which the boy hardly needed to think about the question, but rather about the correct answer that Socrates was leading him towards. There was a point where the boy answered incorrectly, which is when Socrates stopped as this began to disprove his theory. Socrates manipulated the boy into answering yes to his questions, which highlights how fallacious Plato's theory is. Locke defamiliarizes the theory of innate knowledge and highlights Plato's approach to justify his hypothesis which was in fact wrong and incorrect. Locke goes on to use “children and fools” (Locke 1) as examples regarding the lack of innate knowledge. Locke specifies that if “children and fools” have souls, innate knowledge should exist in the same way as all of humanity, as Plato had proposed. He clarified that Plato's statement contradicted itself: "it is obvious that all children andidiots have not the least apprehension or thought about them.” (Locke 1) Locke reminded us that if all knowledge is innate, it is illogical that people have variations in intelligence. Why would “children and idiots” know less than a mathematician or scientist, for example? Locke would say that it is because children and idiots have not learned, or are incapable of learning. This justifies why some people are better at certain subjects than others. “Children and idiots” might be able to answer simple math questions because they have learned to reason. To justify this, let's look at how the Greek boy is able to answer the questions. Socrates explains a mathematical fact: "And you know that a square figure has these four equal lines? (Plato 2) Socrates questions the boy: “Certainly” (Plato 2) is all he has to say to prove his point. If Socrates had asked the boy: "Which geometric shape has all its sides equal?" » the boy would have to think for himself, and since he was not taught mathematics, he would have no answer and therefore Socrates would have no argument. Locke pointed out that Plato's argument is illogical: "For to print anything in the mind without the mind of the mind." perceiving it, seems barely intelligible to me. (Locke 3) Stating that if the mind were imprinted, it should be possible to remember all the knowledge we have. It makes no sense for a person to know something without recognizing that they have knowledge of it. If the slave boy had mathematics engraved into his soul, he should have been able to answer more than simple "yes" or "no" questions. If knowledge is innate, then the boy would be able to justify his answers. The boy was not able to answer all of Socrates' questions: "Indeed, Socrates, I do not know" (Plato 5) because he had not been taught mathematics. Any child could stand before Socrates and agree with him, but that does not prove his innate character. The child did not remember the knowledge, if it was a memory then all humans could learn by being asked provoking and leading questions like Socrates was trying to do with the boy. We know that this is not how we learn, but rather through examples, explanations and reasoning. Therefore, Locke refuted Plato's theory of innate knowledge by demonstrating how Plato manipulated the situation, rather than sincerely proving his theory. Plato can argue against Locke by stating that you cannot remember your past lives, therefore you must experience life to remember the information. Plato believed that all knowledge was innate; one could say that if this were the truth, shouldn't all humanity have only this theory of knowledge imprinted on their souls? If the soul carried all truths, there could only be one answer to human knowledge, but since there are several, we can infer that we experience different sensations that lead us to our individual hypothesis. If all information was innate, why do mathematical and scientific discoveries occur? Breakthroughs occur when there is a new awareness of understanding a certain topic. It is clear that if knowledge were imprinted on the soul, this would not happen. We would have had a heliocentric solar system since the dawn of time, knew the terrestrial sphere and understood medical procedures; if knowledge was innate. It is obvious that we have made these discoveries through learning, through.