Innatism

Innatism is an ancient philosophical argument contending that humans are born with preexisting knowledge or ideas. This idea was first recorded in Ancient Greece, most notably by the philosopher Plato, who believed that the human soul learned and retained information that helped newborns perceive reality. Despite later support by philosopher René Descartes, innatism generally played a secondary role under its rival theory, empiricism. Empiricism holds that newborns are essentially “blank slates” with no existing knowledge and must learn everything they need to know. However, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, new theories and research suggest that there may be more truth to innatism than previously thought.

Background

Since ancient times, philosophers have explored many questions about life and the nature of reality. Some of the more problematic questions involve the process of human perception and learning. For example, philosophers have long debated how people learn about their world in order to grow, adapt, and thrive. This question leads to the “nature versus nurture” debate. This is an ongoing philosophical argument concerning whether people are most affected by inborn natural forces, or the nurturing they receive from parents, families, friends, and others as they grow.

Some theorists posit that people are hard-wired at birth for most of the skills, interests, and attitudes they will demonstrate in life. Consequently, outside forces will have relatively little impact on the course of development. Other theorists feel that newborn children arrive in the world with almost no abilities or indication of what they will someday become. In this case, only the influence of outside forces, such as parents, guardians, teachers, and friends, will shape these children into unique and constantly evolving adults.

However, most theories aim for a middle ground, holding that both nature and nurture are essential elements in growth and development. For example, a child may be born with long limbs, a propensity for mathematical skills, or a natural interest in music. However, only through the support and encouragement of others and dedicated study and practice may these children grow to successfully use those inborn traits to their fullest potential, perhaps becoming basketball players, statisticians, or singers.

Overview

The “nature versus nurture” debate may also be viewed from another angle, one that focuses on a child’s birth and earliest stages of development. This is the debate between innatism and empiricism, which can be traced back to the earliest days of recorded philosophic theorizing and debate, to Greek thinkers such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, who pondered whether people are born with knowledge or must attain knowledge as they progress through life.

Innatism is the belief that humans are born with pre-existing knowledge or ideas. Empedocles portrayed this idea in poetry, suggesting that reality is a recurring cycle of love and strife, and people use inborn faculties to join in this cycle. Newborns arrive in the world with the ability to use innate senses, perceptions, and even a degree of knowledge to connect with, and participate in, the shared reality of the world.

The first true champion of innatism, however, was Greek philosopher Plato, who used the philosophical theory as a major foundation of his overall view of reality and perception. In works such as Theory of Forms, Plato posited that the human soul was a separate entity from the body that, before birth, resided in another world consisting of pure forms and ideas. Upon birth, the soul retained memory of that world of forms and ideas, and through these inborn memories, a person unknowingly recognizes “shadows” of these forms and ideas among the goings-on of their Earthly life. This helps to create meaning and guide people to understand and thrive in their surroundings.

The theory of innatism was soon overshadowed by other competing philosophical viewpoints. It only saw a resurgence much later in the works of philosophers such as René Descartes. In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes discussed his theory that human babies were born with a very basic grasp of geometry and reason. These sparks of knowledge and ability give even the youngest of children the means to explore and grasp the realities of their world. Despite the initial popularity of Descartes’ theory, it, too, fell by the philosophical wayside in the coming generations.

The rival school of thought to innatism is empiricism, which overpowered the theories of Plato and Descartes. Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras first put into written words the idea of empiricism when he theorized that people only learn about the world when the world impresses itself upon them. Humans are born without significant pre-established knowledge or skills and must pick up everything they will learn from their environment as they proceed through life.

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first major proponent of empiricism. He cast aside Plato’s theories of innate knowledge and proposed instead that people are born with basically nothing. This state of birth without knowledge has most famously been called tabula rasa, or “blank slate,” suggesting a blackboard with no writing on it that cannot carry knowledge or meaning until writing is acquired through time and experience. Later supporters of empiricism included philosophers John Locke and Francis Bacon.

For most of philosophic history, innatism and related theories have been pushed aside by empiricist theories, or simply dismissed as irrelevant. However, the idea was never extinguished and continued to tease the minds of thinkers. In the twentieth century, innatism began experiencing another major resurgence. One of the sparks of this resurgence came in the 1960s when linguist Noam Chomsky suggested that some aspects of language use may be inborn within children.

Since that time, increasing evidence has shown that innatism may deserve a serious reevaluation. In 2011, a team of Swiss researchers called the Blue Brain Group studied cellular structures in the brain known as neurons. Earlier researchers assumed these structures were largely unformed in the newborn brain and had to be assembled over time. However, the Blue Brain Group determined that many of the neurons in the neocortices of the brain were prearranged in newborns. That suggests that infants may have some hardwired thinking ability or knowledge and may not need as much mental development as formerly believed to accurately perceive their reality. Building on this knowledge, many contemporary cognitive psychologists and linguistics experts support the theory of nativism, which is rooted in the theory of innatism. However, nativism incorporates a modern understanding of genetics and cognitive psychology research to better explain the concept of humans' preexisting knowledge or ideas.

Bibliography

“Are We Born with Knowledge?” The Nerve Blog / Boston University, 22 Feb. 2012, sites.bu.edu/ombs/2012/02/22/are-we-born-with-knowledge. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Beenstock, Michael. Heredity, Family, and Inequality: A Critique of Social Sciences. MIT Press, 2012.

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. “Blue Brain Solves a Century-Old Neuroscience Problem.” MedicalXpress, 22 Mar. 2019, medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-blue-brain-century-old-neuroscience-problem.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Gaus, Gerald F. Social Philosophy. Routledge, 2015.

Pousaz, Lionel. “New Evidence for Innate Knowledge.” EPFL News, 15 Mar. 2011, actu.epfl.ch/news/new-evidence-for-innate-knowledge-3. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

"René Descartes." Biography, Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., 8 Aug. 2023, www.biography.com/scholars-educators/rene-descartes. Accessed 8 Dec. 2024.

Samet, Jerry. “The Historical Controversies Surrounding Innateness.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 27 Mar. 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-history. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Scaglia, Beatriz. Nature versus Nurture: The Battle between Behaviorism and Innatism. BiblioBazaar, 2011.

Scott, Dominic. “Innatism and the Stoa.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. 34, pp. 123–53, doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500005095. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.