A Critique of Empiricism

By Jeff Phillips

           �Empiricism is the school of thought proposed by John Locke in the Seventeenth Century which purports to define the origins of knowledge. In his writing, Locke uses the idea of experience as the origin of fact and knowledge. Locke specifically uses a sequential list to guide the reader in the direction of his theory, restated here:

1. Idea is the object of thinking.
2. All ideas come from sensation or reflection.

Locke continues on from there, but the foundation of the argument is based on these two statements. These points will become important as we examine Empiricism, and it’s theories on the origin of knowledge, and why it is specifically flawed in its attempts to do so. Specifically, we will examine why there is no accurate method from which to derive universal EXPERIENCE, only proof of our unique, internal reflections. 

          �We’ll begin by stating the specific point with which Locke leverages his argument. “All ideas come from sensation or reflection” Locke states that ideas must come from EXPERIENCE, that it is where all ideas are founded, and that it is also where all knowledge ultimately derives from. All EXPERIENCE must come from either external sensory perception, or the internal operations of our mind, reflected on and perceived by ourselves. Locke refers to these as, respectively, SENSATION and REFLECTION. Locke then, again, states that all ideas come from one of these two processes. Locke then proceeds to offer observations in children as proof of his theory on sensation, and observations in adults as proof of its counterpart, reflection. Finally, Locke posits the idea that Reflection comes later because it is an active creation of ideas, meaning that one must purposefully engage in the action in order to create ideas. Sensation, on the other hand, is reactive, as an outside source begins the process of idea creation through the sensory process. Locke then proceeds to assign qualities to objects, either primary or secondary, based on whether they are objective or subjective. By this, I mean whether the quality itself transmutes into some other idea in our minds, such as temperature, which is both minimized by distance, and differentiated by our mind from the actual reality of molecular activity. Shape, however, he would consider primary, based on how its perception has no differentiation from the actual reality of the objects shape.

          �Unfortunately, we find that Locke makes a few unfortunate turns on his path towards enlightenment. While he certainly has a noble goal, he falls somewhere short. Primarily, Locke attempts to define all knowledge based on personal experience. An interesting notion, for sure, but unfortunately one that does not live up to its expectations. Primarily, we see Locke’s theorem fail by the assignation of primary attributes. His assumption that because the perception matches reality, they must be unaltered, is false. For example, let us say you are looking at cube, directly in front of one of the faces. When asked what you see, you might say a cube, when in fact, all you perceive is a square. Your mind is creating the idea of a cube, but you do not actually receive the sensory input of “cube”. Your senses are incapable of receiving all the sensory input to receive “cube”. Even were you to walk around the cube, above and below it, you would still only be receiving singular input. Your mind is storing and building the cube in your mind. This would make shape a secondary quality, as its perception is not its reality. Thus we see that, in fact, every SENSATION we receive is in fact altered by its transference to our minds. The reality is distorted by traversing from the outside world, through or sensory receivers, to our mind. The senses themselves are limited in the information they can transmit, and the ability of our brains to create greater knowledge in spite of those limitations does not make the senses any more capable. Since, our sense have limitations, we can’t even be sure of the information we’re receiving. Thus, EXPERIENCE based on SENSATION can’t be valid, as the sensation is not what is causing the EXPERIENCE, but our idea, built out of the sensation.   

          �Additionally, we find that sense perception has another flaw, specifically, that SENSATION is an individual phenomenon. No two people will experience a SENSATION the same. So, each SENSATION is impossible to recreate for anyone else. This creates in itself two problems. First, it means that everyone has their own EXPERIENCE, and that no two people have the same EXPERIENCE. So, while two people may claim to know the same thing, they in fact will have some difference in their knowledge. Thus, no knowledge can be the same, and this leads into the second problem, namely that knowledge cannot be transferred. For example, Person A has some amount of EXPERIENCE they wish to impart upon Person B. However, because they will have different  EXPERIENCES, anything Person A tries to impart to Person B will be warped by their own internal processes, whether physical or mental. This creates a new EXPERIENCE, rather than transferring the old EXPERIENCE to a new owner. Thus, teaching, indeed most forms of learning, would be rendered impossible, because EXPERIENCE cannot be transferred. Yet we find in the world there is indeed learning, a transference of knowledge, thus leading us to show that, while Locke was certainly well-intentioned, his eventual premise was inaccurate.

        �John Locke was certainly an important philosopher in the history of the world. Many of his ideas have led to further discovery in this and other fields. Unfortunately, similar to many historical breakthroughs, from Newton’s Law of Gravity to Einstein’s theories on Relativism, they are eventually proven to be flawed. While this does not diminish their importance to the process of discovery and learning, it does not make them true, either.  The best path to enlightenment lies in constantly challenging the knowledge placed before you, to always strive to find the truth. Locke’s theories were derived under this goal, as were many of the world’s greatest proofs and theories. So while we’re grateful for the progress that Locke has brought, ultimately we find that our epistemelogical truth must lie somewhere else.