Do you think there are 'innate ideas'? And if so, which ones would they be?

[Kyriakos]

'Innate ideas' is a category connoting ideas supposedly impossible (or very improbable) to have been just developed over time in the human mind, ie ideas which in some manner may have been with humans 'from the start'.
Such ideas can be of various level of apparent vagueness or composite make-up, eg Descartes argued that in his view God is one such idea.

In my view if some ideas are innate, they likely would be far more shadowy even that the over-term 'God'. Eg infinity and the singular point seem to be pretty much limits in the mental world, while they do not exist in obvious manner in the sensory experience (they might, but it is not readily evident how).

Then again i think that even such ideas may not be 'innate', but be the outcome of non-conscious levels of the human mind, and thus be themselves a limit not in the end of our progressions, but a limit before the start of them. In a way they would thus not be the infinity, but the singular zero in the start of such a progression, which only seems to be zero cause it is closed up to the progression itself.

-

What about you? Do you have any great idea? And is it innate?

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I have the idea that all human beings are literally related to one another. And I think it's an innate idea, which society - for reasons best known to itself - goes to a lot of trouble to educate out of people.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God."

- Cicero

 

[Perfection]

Sweet things taste good.

 

[sophie]

'Innate ideas' is a category connoting ideas supposedly impossible (or very improbable) to have been just developed over time in the human mind, ie ideas which in some manner may have been with humans 'from the start'.
Such ideas can be of various level of apparent vagueness or composite make-up, eg Descartes argued that in his view God is one such idea.

Nope. Any comprehensive research of human history very quickly reveals that, aside from the biological imperatives to eat, drink, and procreate (even this isn't totally firm as an imperative) no ideas are innate or universal. Everything is built around historical, cultural, and environmental context.

 

[Perfection]

I don't think that's the case. I think for instance we in general have some innate sense of fairness even if there's also a cultural component.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The propensity to declare something about the workings of the universe is true even without empirical evidence seems to be innate to all humans.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Chomsky says we come equipped with certain innate capacities for language. Don't know if that quite counts as an idea.

 

[Borachio]

That's a highly contentious idea, though, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Criticisms

 

[bhavv]

I have the innate idea that humanity is a plague.

 

[warpus]

'Innate ideas' is a category connoting ideas supposedly impossible (or very improbable) to have been just developed over time in the human mind, ie ideas which in some manner may have been with humans 'from the start'.

When's the start though? The start of humanity doesn't have a very clear start line - the definition of homo sapiens and species in general means that the species "begins" in a bit of a grey area. Did it begin here? Did it begin over there? There is no clear line you could draw that's the start of homo sapiens.

It'd also be incorrect to label the start to be the start of homo sapiens, I think. Wouldn't you have to label the start as the start of life itself? And what innate ideas could single celled organisms have? None. So no ideas can be innate, we must have thought everything up at some point, whether it was when "we" were still fish, lizards, little monkeys, early humans, or humans with digital watches on their hands.

But if we go with "start of humanity", even if that is not an awfully specific time period, then I suppose we could have some innate ideas already pre-programmed into us due to our biology and evolutionary history. Not God, but basic things, some of which have already been mentioned here.

 

[Kyriakos]

When's the start though? The start of humanity doesn't have a very clear start line - the definition of homo sapiens and species in general means that the species "begins" in a bit of a grey area. Did it begin here? Did it begin over there? There is no clear line you could draw that's the start of homo sapiens.

It'd also be incorrect to label the start to be the start of homo sapiens, I think. Wouldn't you have to label the start as the start of life itself? And what innate ideas could single celled organisms have? None. So no ideas can be innate, we must have thought everything up at some point, whether it was when "we" were still fish, lizards, little monkeys, early humans, or humans with digital watches on their hands.

But if we go with "start of humanity", even if that is not an awfully specific time period, then I suppose we could have some innate ideas already pre-programmed into us due to our biology and evolutionary history. Not God, but basic things, some of which have already been mentioned here.

While single-cell organisms cannot have ideas, this doesn't mean they do not already have what in a next level (when they are multi-cellular, etc) will be manifested as an idea. Very generally a parallel to viewing a cube in a 2d plane. There is no height there, despite the cube being a cube. If moved to a 3d space it will keep the other dimensions and now also show height.

Of course: 1) that is not aspiring to be a perfect parallel, and 2) maybe in biological organisms the basis for phenomena in them displayed in an evolution are not there prior to that evolutionary movement. Don't know ^^

 

[warpus]

How about food=good as an innate idea? That goes back to before humanity was a thing. That's sort of what Perfection already mentioned though.

 

[Kozmos]

I don't think that's the case. I think for instance we in general have some innate sense of fairness even if there's also a cultural component.

Yeah some wacky research with babies proved it.

 

[Borachio]

How about food=good as an innate idea? That goes back to before humanity was a thing. That's sort of what Perfection already mentioned though.

That supposes you have a notion of "good", though.

It's, as well, very difficult to talk about this if we don't have a firm definition of what constitutes an idea. Does it have to be a conscious idea, or can it just be some innate drive?

 

[sophie]

I don't think that's the case. I think for instance we in general have some innate sense of fairness even if there's also a cultural component.

But "fairness" for whom? On what basis? 2000 years ago Western cultural mores felt that a woman being married on the basis of what her father or patriarch deemed best was fair. We don't feel that is the case anymore. 150 years ago we felt that treating black people as genetically inferior was fair. We don't anymore. Fairness is a "universal concept" only inasmuch as we, looking with retrospective (teleological, even, perhaps) eyes see something that looks vaguely like what we might define as "justice" or "fairness" and label it so as to be in congruence with our lexicon. In the same way that these are all called chairs even though there are a lot of differences between them. It falls within the acceptable bounds of what we define as a chair, even though in another language, in another culture they may be delineated differently.

To return to my original point: fairness is a product of historical, cultural, and geographical context.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think there are innate ideas, but I think there may be certain ideas which result necessarily from the most fundamental structures of human thought. I think that's why certain ideas may seem to be universal- very basic numbers, for example, there are probably better examples- but they still have to be understood as historically situated rather than innate in a Cartesian sense.

But "fairness" for whom? On what basis? 2000 years ago Western cultural mores felt that a woman being married on the basis of what her father or patriarch deemed best was fair. We don't feel that is the case anymore. 150 years ago we felt that treating black people as genetically inferior was fair. We don't anymore. Fairness is a "universal concept" only inasmuch as we, looking with retrospective (teleological, even, perhaps) eyes see something that looks vaguely like what we might define as "justice" or "fairness" and label it so as to be in congruence with our lexicon. In the same way that these are all called chairs even though there are a lot of differences between them. It falls within the acceptable bounds of what we define as a chair, even though in another language, in another culture they may be delineated differently.

To return to my original point: fairness is a product of historical, cultural, and geographical context.

I think there's something to b said for an innate inclination towards fairness, in the sense of a tendency to believe that like deserves like. Wholly one-sided obligations are something that humans generally seem to reject; even god-kings usually feel compelled to make the sun rise. The problem is that the "like" is, as you say, massively historically contingent, and there's nothing which necessarily stops humans from believing that chattel slavery is a reasonable like-for-like.

It's also complicated by the fact that any such tendency towards fairness depends on seeing other people as being on at least some level human, and humans are really depressingly good at not seeing each other as human.

 

[Domen]

Yes. I have the idea that all human beings are literally related to one another.

Indeed, I would also agree with this - I have sent you that "Empathic Civilization" video, after all:


Link to video.

It's not impossible to create a global identity. IMO contact with an alien civilization would facilitate this process.

People tend to form extended communities in opposition to other similar entities, in this case aliens.

 

[Domen]

Sweet things taste good.

I actually like sour tastes even more.

 

[Perfection]

Well, you're not a baby anymore.