What is a Tabula Rasa?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- An explanation of the philosophical concept of a tabula rasa or blank slate, including its importance to empiricism and what is meant by innate ideas.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andy Capone, Andreas Froestl, The Jack Bancroft, Jakey, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, SirSpammenot Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, Thomas Kristic, Panos Tsivi, Jesse Willette and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#empiricism #epistemology)
I think the tabula rasa theory is now only taught because it may be considered an introduction to the nature/nurture debate, which is quite a different issue. The extreme tabula rasa view doesn't even seem reasonable upon casual analysis. A computer can do absolutely nothing until at least some program code is put into it; a rock is another good example of a perfectly blank slate. The simple assumption that there is a mind suggests there are ideas there - and I would also mention there seems to be some equivocating as to what an idea (as opposed to "faculties" or "abilities") actually is. And does neurological development count as experience? If you note that a newborn is not an inert lump, but reacts to stimuli, displays acceptance, rejection, or indifference, and even mimics facial expressions, you have got to believe there is something in there which enables him to react. The fact that the baby does not put forth propositions does not ipso facto make him idea-less.
Exactly, I too believe this question has been completely relegated to the "history of philosophy".
What I think this video misses to be more complete is a mention on how the expression "tabula rasa" evolved in its functional meaning: the expression "doing tabula rasa", seen as a return to nothingness but with the purpose of an increase, a magnifying, a redirection, a reordering of something that has been subjected to chaos to the point of no return. A possible drastic cure to unchecked chaos.
And this basically became (or always has been) one of the core engines of philosophy, this constant regression and deconstruction in order to achieve some progress and coherent self-sustaining ideas, and many times pushed as close as possible to 0, to the supposed original blank state of mind, a tabula rasa. I think.
@@1lovIt @cliffordhodge1449 Question for you both, how do you think the concept of genetic memory/instinctual behavior fit into this arguement?
Thoughts on how instinctual behavior and/or genetic memory may challenge/modify this concept?
Would Kant's epistemological theory be a case of Tabula Rasa? It has the faculties but they're not activated until there is content, namely sense data.
I appreciate this is a brief overview of something that undoubtedly many philosophers have spent considerable time writing on, but I can't help but feel this question is missing something, or more probably, that _I_ am missing a lot of somethings.
Like, I feel that several uh, I lack the vocabulary and skill to properly capture what I'm trying to express, but, I feel like there's a lack of specificity as to what _exactly_ is being 'debated' with the question, or that it's possibly equivocating somehow, but again, I am teh suck, and needless to say, I am wholly ignorant.
I must be missing something, for example what is the distinction between innate idea, and a function of the brain that is demonstrative of what we might call "instinct" eg. a newborn baby will cry due to hunger, and will begin to suckle; right out of the packaging, no set up, or required, and can't be said to not be the result of "experience", at least in any sense I understand, it to mean regarding the tabula rassa question, but happens because of neurological activity, that itself occurs in response to "senses".
So, I am at a bit of a loss at to understand how to think about what is being asked, as it appears to be a nonsensical "question".
I can talk about how I know that when I'm hungry, consuming food will satisfy the hunger, and about the specifics of nutrition, and everything else, but ultimately I don't need to know anything about anything to "know" I'm hungry, eat.
And in my example, I can't see where that distinction could be made for the purpose of the question. Like instinctively (heh) I feel like I understand what this is asking, but as soon as I begin to seriously ponder the concepts, I'm immediately hit with what I think are uh, category errors? A demarcation problem maybe, I don't know.. If anyone who can make sense of the nonsense I'm putting out here, could help, that'd rock.
I think I might have honed in on what I'm having trouble with.
I _think_ I'm getting a category error, as the question seems, to me, to be a purely philosophical framework exploration of a neurological function, as though the function was a purely philosophical subject.
I _think_ this is where I'm having a problem.
So I think my issue is the bigger question is answered with a "No, obviously" but the questions that come about from the original questions, could still be explored, maybe, but not under the broader idea of 'responding to the 'question' of tabula rassa being a thing.
This feels like one of those topics that is in desperate need of some input from people who love to get into the semantics of everything to really get to grips with the specifics of what is being discussed.
I acknowledge that I'm ignorant, but I've never seen ideas along the lines of this question that I can understand where, how and why, certain distinctions are being made.
✨
I generally accept the tabula rasa though I would add that certain tendencies are indeed innate to some degree. As an example our biological drivers to seek sustenance, safety, and social connection or the sex drive but even those are not immune to manipulation (e.g. fasting, thrill seeking, celibacy etc.) and that they may even be innately different within individuals (e.g. Asexuality).
I have no idea what is right. I am having trouble seeing either being true.
Turtles seeming to know at birth to dig out of the sand and go to the ocean at birth with basically no info seems to point to something innate. Maybe that’s not knowledge, maybe it’s something else.
Tabula neutralis…