However, whether to continue to improve it or to think from another angle is not something that should not be considered, which means that it is time for empiricism to make a big counterattack.
Now, Locke stands up and denies it. Before him, there were Hobbes and Gassendi. Of course, there are certain people, such as Platonism philosopher and religious thinker in Cambridge. Now this person is Leibniz.
Locke explicitly opposed Descartes' concept of talent. He refuted the arguments supporting the talent view one by one, and clearly put forward his own tit-for-tat view: "There is no talent principle in mind."
He believes that the human mind is like a whiteboard from the beginning, without any marks and ideas. So, how did these symbols and ideas come from later? He replied, "I answer this in one word: from experience." All our knowledge is based on experience, and knowledge comes from experience in the final analysis. "
Leibniz and he pointed the needle at Maimang: "I even think that all thoughts and actions of our soul come from within ourselves and cannot be given by feelings." Leibniz's view is a revision of Descartes' view. He regarded some of Descartes' thoughts as natural, and developed them into that all thoughts are natural.
He also pointed out: "Ideas and truth are in our hearts as potential talents of inclination, endowment, habit or birth, not as real talents." In other words, to present a realistic concept, whether it is a general perceptual concept, the most abstract concept like mathematics, and other rational concepts, it really needs the stimulation of sensory experience. This is what he really means. He clearly said: "the truth of numbers is in our hearts, but we can still learn them."
This view of Leibniz shows that he has absorbed some empirical elements and has a certain tendency to reconcile.
Explain how powerful Locke's negation is, which can force opponents to correct their views and absorb some of their own elements. However, Leibniz can't force Locke to do the same thing in turn, not necessarily because of his weak affirmation, but because empiricism never denies the existence and function of reason, but only opposes that reason is the source of knowledge.
Because empiricism only regards reason as the processing field of knowledge, it is more free and easy on the issue of the "origin" of reason. However, rationalism cannot be so free and easy. Limited to the starting point that reason is the source of knowledge, it is its inherent task to find a reliable basis for reason.
Obviously, there seems to be nothing more suitable for this foundation than God. This is why rationalists are defenders of God at heart. However, empiricism has more choices on how to look at God because it has no such "internal task".
Locke represents the choice of some people: he claims that he believes in God and is willing to defend the "rationality of Christianity" at any time. This is a tradition that empiricists have had since Bacon, but like Bacon, it is doubtful whether his attitude is serious enough.
This is mainly manifested in Locke's admission that the metaphysical proofs supporting God's existence are tenable, but he did not make a fuss about these proofs, but insisted on adding rational guarantee to God's revelation: "Revelation must be judged by reason." Therefore, Locke's attitude may be a true belief, or it may just be an excuse to "know the times", but what the truth is, I'm afraid it's hard to find.
There are also some empiricists who believe that since the "whiteboard" can only be described by ideas through sensory experience, and only matter can affect perception, then matter is of course spiritual matter, and these people are materialists.