An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Imagine a field of study that turns the focus inward. Instead of hypothesizing about stars or whales, this field of study examines the mind. However, it doesn’t look at the brain or how it functions. Instead, it investigates knowing. Epistemology is a field of study that examines knowledge. The word epistemology derives from the Greek words episteme, meaning “knowledge,” and logos, meaning “reason.” This branch of philosophy attempts to answer the questions of what knowledge is and what humans can truly know. It explores the origin of knowledge and whether understanding is ever truly attainable.

Epistemology presents a natural line of questioning for philosophers. To better understand belief, laws, or principles, one must first understand the nature and scope of knowledge. Philosophers have long disagreed about the origin of knowledge and how to best answer the question, “How do we come to know something?” These schools of thought were historically broken into two categories: priori and posteriori. The former represents intrinsic knowledge, which Locke refers to as innate in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The latter appears through logic based on evidence, which aligns with Locke’s ideas about sensory experience as a foundation for knowledge. Although these approaches contain inherent conflicts, some scholars believe that together they form a comprehensive picture of how knowledge is created.

The rationalists believed that certain principles are innate, meaning that they are in the mind at birth. Philosophers like Aristotle and Descartes proposed that humans are born with intrinsic knowledge of basic practical and moral laws. Students of epistemology categorize knowledge into three categories: propositional knowledge (facts), procedural knowledge (skills), and acquaintance knowledge (objects). Philosophers have questioned the innateness of each type of knowledge throughout history. For example, many consider the law of identity an innate principle. This principle simply concedes that people and things exist. Rationalists propose that all humans have universal consent on this principle—that all humans concede that people and things exist. Locke rejected the concept of innate knowledge, suggesting that knowledge comes only through sensory experience and observation. He argued that those principles believed to be innate are not universally agreed on and, therefore, cannot be intrinsic. Locke even questioned the innateness of the law of identity, pointing to children’s lack of understanding of this most basic principle.

Influenced by Locke, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant combined elements of rationalism and empiricism to define these two types of knowledge. He believed that both types contribute to knowledge. Innate knowledge lends context to experience, and experience shapes and influences innate knowledge. Other philosophers embrace skepticism. They suggest that because of limitations on cognitive success, humans can never truly know or understand a concept or idea. Like Descartes and Locke, philosophers of skepticism have varying approaches. At its core, skepticism questions the reliability of the human mind and its ability to know anything with certainty. Modern epistemology addresses skepticism and whether humans can truly attain any form of knowledge with authority.