INTRODUCTION
The
primary purpose of this essay is to critically examine Locke’s theory of
perception. This theory of perception is more like a theory of knowledge in
which sense experience is the true source as opposed to reason. It is derived
from the branch of philosophy called ‘epistemology’ which originated from the
Greek word ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Knowledge is expressed in propositions
but before we can understand any propositions at all, even false ones, we must
first have concepts. To understand the meaning of a word already involves
having a concept. How do we then acquire the concepts that we have? It was once
thought at least some of our concepts are innate. However, suppose that
concepts were innate, and then we would have them without ever experiencing any
instances. It seems too obvious that no concept of any sensory property is
innate. Some concepts have been believed to be innate: for example, the concept
of cause and the concept of God.
If
the concept of cause is innate, then we would know what the word means, and be
in full possession of the concept, without ever having seen causes operating.
This seems implausible.
Perhaps
the God example seems more plausible, since God, if one exists, is not seen or
otherwise perceived, and yet we do seem to possess the concept (though this too
has been denied). If we cannot perceive God and nevertheless have the concept,
how can we come by it? Is it innate?
We
subscribe to John Locke’s alternative theory which explains that concepts are
derived from experience. However, despite its merits it has its own shortcoming
which this essay’s objective is to point out. John Locke aimed at clearing the
ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to
knowledge. Locke hit upon a bold and original interpretation of how the mind
works and from this described the kind and extent of knowledge we can expect
from the human mind. ‘The scope of our knowledge, Locke said, is limited to,
and by our experience(Stumpf, 1977: 273).’
Francis
Bacon and Thomas Hobbes say that knowledge should be built on observation, and
to this extent they could be called empiricists. They both accepted that the
mind is capable of producing certainty of knowledge about nature provided only
that the proper method is used. Similarly, Rene Descartes (1594-1650) assumed
that there was no problem that human reason could not solve if the correct
method was employed. This was the assumption Locke called into critical
question, namely, the assumption that the human mind has capabilities that
enable it to discover the true nature of the universe. David Hume pushed this
critical point even further and asked whether any secure knowledge at all is
possible.
Instead
of the word ‘concepts’ these philosophers all used the word ‘ideas’ and the
problem they undertook to answer was: How do we come by the ideas we have or
ever shall have? All the ideas we have or ever shall have, they said come from
experience.
Some
come through the outer senses, such as sight, hearing, and touch, and from
these all our concepts involving the physical world are drawn; and some ideas
come from the inner senses, such as experiences of pain and pleasure, feelings
of love and hate, pride and remorse, experiencing of thinking and willing. All
our concepts are derived from these kinds of experience.
This
is the core of Locke’s empiricism and in the following chapters other issues
will require further elucidation and these include his refutation of innate
ideas, simple and complex ideas, as well as that of primary and secondary
qualities. It is equally important that Locke’s analysis of substance and the
degrees of knowledge is treated.
However,
it is pertinent that we write a brief biography of John Locke, Locke’s
empiricism, the meaning of perception and most importantly the problem of
perception because it is after the problems have been stated that other
chapters will be valuable. We proceed.