|
CONTRASTING VIEWS ON THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE
In early Greek thought Soul, or psyche, was the foremost aspect of consideration and thus directed and controlled the intellectual inquiry of that period. But during the fourth and third centuries BC the earliest signs of a scientific method of inquiry were beginning to appear in the thinking of the philosopher-scientists. Because of this, a vast difference in thought was produced between Plato and Aristotle.
Plato, who was a devout student of Socrates, held Socrates' attitude that soul was a separate entity, apart from the body. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw soul as non-separable from the body, for when the body died the soul, or psyche, died with it. This difference in basic premises produced two vastly different hypotheses on the acquisition of knowledge.
Plato's acceptance of the Socratic method of inquiry, which consisted of applying inductive and deductive reasoning in the solution of problems, led him to accept many Socratic premises. Both Socrates and Plato held that true knowledge cannot be attained through the senses and thus sought to elicit the knowledge inherent in each person. Knowledge was an activity of the mind and self-knowledge resulted from ones discovery of one’s own ignorance. This was accomplished through the use of the Socratic Method, for truth, i.e. knowledge, already resided in the mind.
If all knowledge is already present within the mind then it existed before the body and the immortal soul was the essence of this innate knowledge. As a result the verification of truth was left to private experience.
Aristotle, on the other hand, was responsible for the change to an emphasis on empirical data and the world of actual things. According to Aristotle things that are perceived through the five physical senses are, with common sense, synthesized through sensory elements into perceptual entities so that we perceive one world. It is through these five physical senses we have memory, with memory consisting of the individual remaining aware of some event that occurred in the past. (Watson, 1978)
Now Aristotle did agree in part with Plato that the senses are fallible, "knowledge is not possible through perception alone since the senses give us particulars without demonstration." (Watson, 1978) For Aristotle, the locus of the growth of knowledge from primary principles is the soul. This is in keeping with his definition of the soul as a substance capable of receiving knowledge, but, Aristotle supported the distinction between knowledge of the universal and knowledge of the particular, with theory leading to the former and experience leading to the latter. Similarly, the senses give only knowledge of particulars since knowledge is based on principles and causes. "Theoretical science deals with that which could not be otherwise"; that is, science admits of but one true answer to a particular problem. (See the problems in quantum physics with the concept of light exhibiting the characteristics of both a particle and a wave) This emphasis upon one true answer is indicative of Aristotle's groping toward a concept of scientific law. Not only did Aristotle consider scientific knowledge universal in character, but, for him it followed from the first principles and emerged as conclusion from demonstration. (Watson, 1978)
As should be apparent Aristotle was both a nativist and an empiricist. Aristotle believed that the mind had certain inborn characteristics for, "how else could the mind make any association or connections between premises unless it had an innate capacity to understand logic", (Murry, 1963) but also believed that most actual knowledge was depended on memory which in turn was dependent on sensation. Therefore if the soul was not immortal then knowledge must be acquired. (Murry, 1983)
As a result of the differences between the initial premises of Aristotle and Plato, the immortality or mortality of soul has been debated for centuries in academic circles. Two of the most notable philosophers significant to the development of psychology took up the debate during the flowering of the renaissance that engulfed the intellectuals of Europe.
One of these early philosophers who was ardently opposed to medieval beliefs was Rene' Descartes who espoused a "..fact system of rigorous doubt." (Murry, 1983) During Descartes’ early life he frequently encountered opinions accepted as truth only to have them proven false. (Beck, 1965) As a result of this Descartes felt it necessary to free himself of previous prejudices by doubting everything that could not be proven. Descartes stated that "...by doubting we free ourselves from all prejudices and make it easy... ...to detach the mind from the senses, and finally, make it impossible to ...doubt those things which we will discover to be true." (Beck, 1965) This view has a very Platonic orientation that infers that first truths or knowledge can only be gained by introspection, or that there is innate knowledge. (Murry, 1983)
What Descartes meant by first truths is encompassed in his famous phrase "I think therefore I am." Descartes came to this basic "truth" through his system of rigorous doubt that led to the statement that "you can doubt that you exist physically or conceive that you don't have a body, but you cannot conceive that you are not. ...I saw from the very fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it very evidently and certainly followed that I was." (Watson, 1978) Descartes went on to say that "...that thinking thing was himself" or a soul which is entirely distinct from the body for "...even if the body were not, the soul would not cease to be what it is." (Watson, 1978)
This process of reaching intuitive certainty created a problem for Descartes for it created a duality of existence between thought and object. This sharp separation, posed a problem in getting back to the world of external objects. To bridge this gap Descartes examined the mind and concluded that mind was not self sufficient and therefore he postulated the existence of a supreme mind or god. From this existence of god Descartes then argues the existence of external reality. It is at this point, however, that Descartes’ argument appears to break down for his earlier conclusion implies that our senses can be deceived which is not compatible with his concept of the goodness of god. To solve this Descartes maintained that the senses were meant to serve us for practical purposes not to give us knowledge. Thus for Descartes all real knowledge is gained by believing in the existence of only what we can clearly and distinctly conceive within ourselves. (Beck, 1965)
To Descartes then thought gives rise to two type of ideas; those that are derived and those that are innate. These innate ideas are of a special class which give rise to universal truths and are a development of consciousness alone which in turn leads to understanding. For Descartes understanding alone was capable of perceiving truth.
John Locke, the second of the Renaissance philosophers mentioned, was ardently opposed to the idea of innate knowledge and held that the acceptance of innate ideas stops the inquiry of the doubtful. He went on to argue that the existence of ideas commonly agreed upon is not proof of their innateness, especially if another way can be found to account for their existence. (Watson, 1978)
Locke argued that ideas were formed from the impressions of the senses or that the mind acquired ideas through experience. Locke did at this point, however, make a distinction between simple and complex ideas; simple ideas being those acquired directly through the senses or the "sensible qualities" of an object, and complex ideas which are those formed by a native power of reflection which utilize associations of simple ideas for their formation. (Watson, 1978) This in itself is analogous to Aristotle's use of the common sense for the synthesis of sensory information into complex ideas. It is also similar to Thomas Aquinas' internal sense or the distinction between being aware of an idea and having an idea. This distinction solved the problem of how the mind arrived at knowledge through its own operations, i.e. reflections are ideas about ideas. (Morris, 1963) Thus for Locke the acquisition of knowledge is based solely on sensory information and the minds "Native Powers of Reflection".
Is knowledge innate or learned is a question that still occupies many in the field of Psychology today. However, most professionals would agree that even though the question is important the best solution may be that knowledge and human development is a product of both nature and nurture and the question of which is true is less important than the question, to what extent do each affect human development and perceptions and how an understanding of this relationship may aid the Psychologist in helping others live a well adjusted productive life. | 
