CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE VIEW THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM AND IS JUSTIFIED BY EXPERIENCE.

The view that all knowledge is derived from and is justified by sense experience is an empiricist view.
Empiricists believe that our ideas can be traced back to sense impressions. This is in contrast to
rationalist philosophers who take the view that the uncertainty of our sense experience means that
such experience cannot form the foundation of our knowledge. Philosophers like Descartes look to
the certainties of knowledge which is proved a priori to form the ultimate justification for our
knowledge.

Empiricism certainly has many arguments in its favour. Hume points out that the blind man can
have no idea of colour unless his sight is restored, Locke argues that knowledge cannot be innate if
there are no ideas to which universal assent is granted and furthermore that we cannot have ideas
of which we are unaware as he claims would have to be the case if there were such things as innate
ideas. Hume also attempts to demonstrate that knowledge which is generally classed as a priori
cannot be substantive. It is analytic in nature, merely relations of ideas which we have already
acquired through experience. It is also an intuitive belief that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa, we
see a baby learn about its world and develop competencies as it grows. It does not seem equipped
with these ideas prior to any experience. Empiricism then offers a clear and convincing account of
human knowledge; sense impressions are copied to form ideas which furnish the empty cabinet of
the mind.

Having considered these strengths of the empiricist case it is now, however necessary to consider
the objections which one might raise to such a position. One of the most important objections is
that for the empiricist one cannot ever verify the resemblance between the mind independent world
and our perceptions. Our ideas are formed by our sense impressions and even Hume acknowledges
that the question as to whether our sense impressions resemble the external world is one on which
experience must be silent. Empiricism seems to lead us, as it did Berkeley, to idealism, the denial of
the existence of a physical world and from there possibly to solipsism. This seems an untenable
position.

One might counter this objection by suggesting that questions with regard to which no solution is
possible, indeed questions which no experience could serve to answer are in fact pseudo
propositions. The fact is that we can do no other than believe ion the external world and although
we may play with notions of solipsism the only sceptism which is productive is Hume’s mitigated
variety. The question is simply meaningless.

Another problem raised by objectors to empiricism is that it seems to preclude genuine human
communication. My ideas are formed by my impressions and are forever unavailable to you. We
may think we share the same ideas but actually they may be radically different since they are formed
by my impressions and not yours. This would suggest, along with the previous objection to
empiricism, that I am trapped in the prison of my own mind with no access to any shared ideas.

The objection that human communication is cut off by empiricism is however based on a flawed
understanding of the nature of communication. When I share an idea with another person i am not
attempting to convey a hidden object in my mind. The words that we use are created in
collaboration with other people and I understand them as part of that interaction. When I say
“beetle” I am not naming a hidden object but engaging in human cooperation. I understand words
by their place in that communication not by their relationship to a mental object.

In conclusion there are objections that can be raised against an empiricist view of knowledge but
these objections merely serve to refine empiricism and to challenge some misconceived ideas about
the nature of the mind which empiricism has inherited as a legacy of Descartes. Our concepts are
formed in collaboration with other human beings as part of the function of our communication.
Meaning is use not resemblance to immaterial objects in the mind.