Acquiring Knowledge: Aristotle's or Tabula Raza?
0
There are two schools of thought in the idea of acquiring knowledge: Aristotle's theory or the Tabula Raza.
Aristotle once thought that everybody learns new things, and all that knowledge is stored. Infants are born with the knowledge their parents have already stored plus knowledge acquired, and all the infant has to do is to remember the stored information they got from their parents. This also means all past knowledges are passed on to future generations, plus all the unnecessary knowledge are unremembered and soon forgotten.
The Tabula Raza (meaning Clean Slate) explains that we are all born with no knowledge, instinct, ideas whatsoever. We learn everything through our first time encounters and all that acquired knowledge is not transferable by genes and our brains and all in store corrodes in our death.
I personally believe in Aristotle's theory, but what do you guys think? Do we regain past knowledge from our ancestors, or do all our knowledge go to waste when we die?
Discussion, start!
Aristotle once thought that everybody learns new things, and all that knowledge is stored. Infants are born with the knowledge their parents have already stored plus knowledge acquired, and all the infant has to do is to remember the stored information they got from their parents. This also means all past knowledges are passed on to future generations, plus all the unnecessary knowledge are unremembered and soon forgotten.
The Tabula Raza (meaning Clean Slate) explains that we are all born with no knowledge, instinct, ideas whatsoever. We learn everything through our first time encounters and all that acquired knowledge is not transferable by genes and our brains and all in store corrodes in our death.
I personally believe in Aristotle's theory, but what do you guys think? Do we regain past knowledge from our ancestors, or do all our knowledge go to waste when we die?
Discussion, start!
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
Depends on the kind of knowledge. If it's about survival stuff, I think it's all instinct, coded in our genes and all, passed on and evolves in the reproduction process. So in a way it's the Aristotelian way of thinking. As for other types of knowledge, like maths art etc, I go for the Tabula Raza one. Why? If it's all already in us the moment we were born then we should be geniuses already.
0
There are actually many different schools and both the Aristotelian view and the tabula-raSa-hypothesis are so utterly discredited in contemporary scientific discourse that they serve as little more than cheap entertainment.
Knowledge cannot be "inherited" across generations; the only way to transfer knowledge is by way of (direct or indirect) communication of one generation with the other.
What can, however, be transferred by way of inheritance are epigenetic dispositions towards certain behaviour (what a layman would refer to as "instinct"), or certain cognitive structures.
This assumption is grounded in the modern understanding of how how the human mind works; i.e. a post-Fodorian approach to cognitive science, which rightly assumes that the mind is a modular system strongly influenced by a series of parameters. These parameters in turn fall into two divisions; firstly epigenetic predisposition and secondly behavioural imprinting during an individual's formative years, the so-called primary behavioural acquisition window.
These parameters determine the individual's cognitive structure, and thus the way the individual acquires and handles new information - learning.
Knowledge cannot be "inherited" across generations; the only way to transfer knowledge is by way of (direct or indirect) communication of one generation with the other.
What can, however, be transferred by way of inheritance are epigenetic dispositions towards certain behaviour (what a layman would refer to as "instinct"), or certain cognitive structures.
This assumption is grounded in the modern understanding of how how the human mind works; i.e. a post-Fodorian approach to cognitive science, which rightly assumes that the mind is a modular system strongly influenced by a series of parameters. These parameters in turn fall into two divisions; firstly epigenetic predisposition and secondly behavioural imprinting during an individual's formative years, the so-called primary behavioural acquisition window.
These parameters determine the individual's cognitive structure, and thus the way the individual acquires and handles new information - learning.
0
I like to learn anything through my first encounter and there no such thing transfer knowledge to another but by understanding it you can just grab the knowledge!!
0
lol01 wrote...
I like to learn anything through my first encounter and there no such thing transfer knowledge to another but by understanding it you can just grab the knowledge!!Or at least some proper punctuation, right?
0
Knowledge is gained from learning new things, experiencing it with your body, and storing the memory in your brain. I don't understand where did Aristotle get the theory about how children inherit their parents' knowledge. For example if the parents can speak Italian but they never talk to their child using Italian, how can the child "remember" Italian? If the child need to learn from everyday conversation, then every baby has the same ability and talent to "remember" any kind of language since you still have to teach your kid how to speak.
If it's temperament then yes it can be inherited. Since your temperament is also affected by hormones and bodily fluids which every composition is different from each person, and children inherit their parents' gene composition. That's why there's a saying "like father, like son".
If it's temperament then yes it can be inherited. Since your temperament is also affected by hormones and bodily fluids which every composition is different from each person, and children inherit their parents' gene composition. That's why there's a saying "like father, like son".
0
thegreatnobody wrote...
I personally believe in Aristotle's theory, but what do you guys think? Do we regain past knowledge from our ancestors, or do all our knowledge go to waste when we die?gibbous wrote...
Spoiler:
You know you fucked up when science doesn't agree with you.
0
I remember posting something similar in subject: the nature of knowledgethe nature of knowledge
But I like this new question; I remember going over both guys in Philosophy class. If I have to choose between the two, I'd have to go with Aristotle. The only thing I disagree with him on (besides this magical form of transferring knowledge) is that like most Greeks, he believed gods played a role in knowledge, and that innate knowledge was not only possible but that it was placed there by god. Other than that, a great man.
Sorry Rasa, I ain't no stickin' empiricist.
But I like this new question; I remember going over both guys in Philosophy class. If I have to choose between the two, I'd have to go with Aristotle. The only thing I disagree with him on (besides this magical form of transferring knowledge) is that like most Greeks, he believed gods played a role in knowledge, and that innate knowledge was not only possible but that it was placed there by god. Other than that, a great man.
Sorry Rasa, I ain't no stickin' empiricist.
0
WHERE IS SOCRATES?!?!
Anyways at topic the only flaw I find in rasa's theory is the inheritance of human nature, like breathing, which is an instinct in my opinion. If it is, then does rasa expect us to be taught how to breathe?
Anyways at topic the only flaw I find in rasa's theory is the inheritance of human nature, like breathing, which is an instinct in my opinion. If it is, then does rasa expect us to be taught how to breathe?
0
While not perfect, I'd go with Raza on this one. I don't know what any of my ancestors did before I was born. If somebody asked me what my dad did on July 7th, 1979 I could not answer them.
0
I honestly think have their pros and cons though aristotles can seem liks its only proved among babies since they have this survival instinct imbedded in them(IE: splashing their hands and feet when in water when they dont know how to swim yet). But then again we technically start off with a clean slate and learn things as we go along in life. We do acquire new experiences and stuff as we go along in life (IE: using the computer for the first time, or going into msn chat when the internet was still new) things like that you learn but dont pass it on to the children. I mean if we have to unlock our "hidden but already learned" knowledge then I wouldnt be a fat ass hentai loving freak but a ladies man that was in the navy or a nurse cause of my mom;s side by now. So fuck aristotles bullshit.
0
I know that the two schools of thought are now discredited by science, and there are more than these two theories on acquisition of knowledge, but these two, as I can see, are the polar opposites of the bunch. Plus I agree with mibuchiha's idea of the mixture of the two.
There are knowledges that can be certainly transferred to an offspring, one we call skill. For example, in Japan, there are few families of samurai blacksmiths, and even if they thought others their knowledge on the art, the ones thought won't be able to make swords as good as the master's offspring, which inherited all the proper skills and instincts from their parent (like somebody said, like father, like son). As I have said, soon, some certain skills is no longer required in the current age, thus the skill is soon dropped and forgotten, like the drop of skilled swordsmiths in Japan.
I, for one, acquired my father's analytical thinking and my mother's knack for details, but I don't know carpentry nor dentistry. I found it easier to draw and to work with tiny instruments, but I fail in complex mathematics.
There are knowledges that can be certainly transferred to an offspring, one we call skill. For example, in Japan, there are few families of samurai blacksmiths, and even if they thought others their knowledge on the art, the ones thought won't be able to make swords as good as the master's offspring, which inherited all the proper skills and instincts from their parent (like somebody said, like father, like son). As I have said, soon, some certain skills is no longer required in the current age, thus the skill is soon dropped and forgotten, like the drop of skilled swordsmiths in Japan.
I, for one, acquired my father's analytical thinking and my mother's knack for details, but I don't know carpentry nor dentistry. I found it easier to draw and to work with tiny instruments, but I fail in complex mathematics.
0
thegreatnobody wrote...
I know that the two schools of thought are now discredited by science, and there are more than these two theories on acquisition of knowledge, but these two, as I can see, are the polar opposites of the bunch. Plus I agree with mibuchiha's idea of the mixture of the two.There are knowledges that can be certainly transferred to an offspring, one we call skill. For example, in Japan, there are few families of samurai blacksmiths, and even if they thought others their knowledge on the art, the ones thought won't be able to make swords as good as the master's offspring, which inherited all the proper skills and instincts from their parent (like somebody said, like father, like son). As I have said, soon, some certain skills is no longer required in the current age, thus the skill is soon dropped and forgotten, like the drop of skilled swordsmiths in Japan.
I, for one, acquired my father's analytical thinking and my mother's knack for details, but I don't know carpentry nor dentistry. I found it easier to draw and to work with tiny instruments, but I fail in complex mathematics.
An Argument for empiricism would dictate that this isn't inherited knowledge, but the mere perceptions of an infant observing their parents in their daily lives. To comment on your example of Japanese blacksmiths, if the art was that important to the family, It would be reasonable to assume that the father did his work in the presence of his child. Though the child may not understand what he sees, his brain stores it and builds a filter for future knowledge. And for you, I'm sure in which your parents spoke or explained things to you as a child had some effect on you.