Compare And Contrast Leibniz And John Locke

1. a. Locke denies innate principles, as there are no principles to which all mankind give a universal assent. He begins his denial of innate principles by stating that “Universal consent proves nothing innate” (pg. 319, 3.). With this statement he claims that even if there were universal principles that all mankind agreed with, this would still not prove these principles innate if there could be any way to show how those in agreement came to consent to these ideas. But, for Locke, there are no universal principles in the first place. For even in the statement that Locke uses as an example, “whatever is, is” (pg. 319, 4), cannot be said to be innate; for there are many who do not have these principles imprinted on their mind (idiots, children, …show more content…
Both Locke and Leibniz agree that experience is essential in developing understanding, though they differ in their assessment of how experience shapes an individual. Their difference in views is best explained in the marble example Leibniz provides in his critique of Locke. While Locke holds that a person is born with a sort of blank slate in which the senses help acquire truths and “furnish the yet empty cabinet” (pg. 321, 15.) that is the mind, Leibniz believes that there is some innate dispositions within the mind (veins on the marble tablet) that become more prominent when developed through experience. Leibniz continues to say that his view is no different than Locke’s, in that the source of knowledge is rooted in the sense and reflection; but Leibniz does not believe that the soul is not completely dependent on external reality and so there are no tablets that do not have a “certain amount of variety in themselves” (425) that cause natural unique potentialities within the …show more content…
The first argument Hume uses to prove his Copy Principle is derived from the idea of God. Hume explains that God, “as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good being” is constructed from the reflections of our own human mind; that all ideas of God are copied from a lively perception that corresponds to the limitless attribute of God. The second argument asserts that conceptions are produced only when one has had a feeling or sensation that is introduced to them beforehand; “a blind man can form no notion of colors, a deaf man of sounds” (540). This also explains differences in conceptions, as others may possess many senses which we have never been introduced to, through the only manner which an idea can have access to the mind; feeling and