John Locke proves that mathematical knowledge is not innate in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by contrasting Plato's theory with learning through sensation and perception, thus curating the theory of 'empiricism. Through his arguments, Locke demonstrates that mathematical knowledge is not something one is born with, making it clear that Plato's universal consensus proves nothing. Knowledge is not imprinted; we learn through observation, sensations and experience. Locke evaluates the situation between Socrates and the Greek boy in the Meno, and how the boy actually agreed to multiple correct answers, and deduces that all knowledge is adventitious. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay While Plato argues that all knowledge is innate, Locke disagrees and justifies empiricism. Plato shows his theory of innate knowledge through universal consensus, the idea that because humanity can agree, it warrants his theory of innateness. Locke supports this by stating that universal consent proves nothing, "if it can be otherwise shown how men can come to that universal agreement, in the things to which they assent, which I presume may be done." (Locke 1) Because people agree on something, it does not mean that the knowledge came from their souls. Plato needed to rely on this to justify innateness, it was his only explanation to prove that the boy was able to assent to the correct answers without being taught. However, Locke suggests that learning is a recipe, through observation, sensation and reflection one acquires knowledge. This boy in the Meno was Greek: "He's Greek and he speaks Greek, isn't he?" (Plato 2). Therefore he knew the language Socrates spoke and was able to answer questions. However, no one is born with language. Language is learned; if Socrates spoke to the boy in German, for example, the boy would not be able to answer the questions, and therefore the correct language authorizes the answers. Mathematical knowledge is simple compared to a subject like language. This is why Plato chose it rather than another argument with which it would have been more difficult to prove his theory. By asking the Greek boy simple questions, the boy was able to perform simple mathematical actions such as adding and multiplying. Plato took this as an explanation, while there is a better explanation as to why the boy was able to answer correctly; Plato asked important questions. Plato asked the boy yes or no questions, where the boy hardly had to think about the question, but rather about the right answer that Socrates was leading him towards. There was one point where the boy answered incorrectly, which was when Socrates stopped when he began to disprove his theory. Socrates manipulated the boy into answering yes to his questions, which highlights how fallacious Plato's theory is. Locke makes the theory of innate knowledge familiar and highlights that Plato's approach to justifying his hypothesis was actually flawed and incorrect. Locke goes on to use “children and idiots” (Locke 1) as examples regarding the lack of innate knowledge. Locke makes it clear that if “children and idiots” have souls, innate knowledge should be there just like all humanity, as Plato had proposed. He clarified that Plato's statement is contradictory: "it is evident that all children and idiots have not the slightest apprehension or thought about them." (Locke 1) Locke reminded us that, if all knowledge is innate, it is illogical that itpeople have variations in intelligence. Why should “children and idiots” know less than, say, a mathematician or a scientist? Locke would say that it is because children and idiots have not learned, or are incapable of learning. This justifies why some are better at certain subjects than others. “Children and idiots” may be able to complete simple mathematical questions because they have learned to reason. To justify this, let's see how the Greek boy is able to answer the questions. Socrates explains a mathematical fact: "And do you know that a square figure has these four equal lines?" (Plato 2) Socrates questions the boy: “Certainly” (Plato 2) is all he has to answer to prove his point. If Socrates had asked the boy: “Which geometric shape has all equal sides?” the boy would have to think for himself, and since he had not been taught mathematics, he would not have had an answer and therefore Socrates would have had no arguments. Locke pointed out that Plato's argument is illogical: “For to impress anything upon the mind without perceiving it seems to me unintelligible.” (Locke 3) Stating that if the mind were imprinted, it should be possible to remember all the knowledge we have. For a person to know something without acknowledging that they possess the knowledge is meaningless. If the slave boy had mathematics burned into his soul, he should have been able to answer more than simple "yes" or "no" questions. If the knowledge were innate, then the boy would be able to justify his answers. The boy was unable to answer all of Socrates' questions: "Truly, Socrates, I know not" (Plato 5) because he had not been taught mathematics. Any child could stand in front of Socrates and agree with him, but that does not prove his innateness. The child did not remember the knowledge, if it had been memory then all human beings could have learned by asking provocative and guiding questions, as Socrates tried to do with the boy. We know that this is not how we learn, rather we learn through examples, explanations and reasoning. Therefore Locke refuted Plato's theory of innate knowledge by demonstrating how Plato manipulated the situation, rather than sincerely proving his theory. Plato can argue against Locke by stating that it is not possible to remember past lives, which is why it is necessary to experience life to remember information. Plato believed that all knowledge was innate; could it be argued that if this were the truth, shouldn't all humanity have just that theory of knowledge imprinted on their souls? If the soul carried all truths, the answer to human knowledge could be only one, but since there are many, we can infer that we experience different sensations which lead us to our individual hypothesis. If all information were innate, why do mathematical and scientific discoveries occur? Discoveries happen when there is a new awareness of a certain topic, it is clear that if the knowledge were imprinted in the soul, these would not happen. We would have had a heliocentric solar system since the beginning of time, we would have known the Earth's sphere and understood medical procedures; if knowledge were innate. It is obvious that we have made these discoveries thanks to learning, through sensation and perception we understand the world. Plato may also attempt to contradict Locke's argument by saying that “children and idiots” have not experienced the right sensations to lead them to discover the knowledge that others have. Locke could therefore argue that innate knowledge is not present in anyone, be it a “child,” an “idiot,” or an average person. The sensations begin.