Hav exams very soon, and am not clear on a few things?
why does Locke argue that even if there was universal agreement on innate ideas of logic, theology and morality this would not be proof of their innate nature?
Is this a criticism of inductive arguments?
Doesn’t this have serious consequences for an empiricist?
also, what does he mean by saying that if practical and moral principles are innate, then so must be their constituent ideas? And why is this obviously not true?
any help wud be much appreiciated.
