Personal Exploration of Knowledge

When I was eight years old in the third grade, I took home a multiplication chart and learned it within minutes. In relation to epistemology, was this learning experience founded in innate knowledge or was it based on experience?  Reflecting on an event that happened over 40 years ago, certainly raises questions of validity and recollection. However, the important aspect of this article is not the event itself.  Rather, it is an exploration of knowledge. 

Two great philosophers and one of the great arguments of knowledge came from Locke and Leibniz.  Locke argued ideas are not innate and knowledge comes from experience while Leibniz’s argued ideas can come from innate knowledge.  Lock’s view was knowledge was earned and knowledge was not readily available in a person’s mind. Leibniz argued people have innate knowledge based in inner principles they are born with, thus they are born into innate knowledge.  While the description of the innate knowledge argument is woefully inadequate, it does provide an overview of their respective positions.

 I used the example of learning multiplication in the third grade because it is a personal experience as well as obvious that I would have had limited access to mathematics at that point.  While I do not want to bore you with the details of that event, I clearly remember pulling out my homework and analyzing the multiplication chart.  Immediately I noticed patterns within the chart as I read the numbers in each row and column.  Moreover, I knew these patterns revealed a simplicity in learning multiplication.  

From an epistemological perspective, how does one obtain knowledge?  Was the ease of learning innate knowledge or was it based on previous learning experiences?  I tend to view information as flowing from an external position to internalization in our minds.  Information flows through our minds even in the womb, and our minds process the information and use it to become knowledge.  Knowledge is not synonymous with information; it can only be knowledge once reasoning, logic, and sense has been applied.  What we view as innate knowledge does not come from our minds, rather it is the way the mind processes information creating a perception of innate knowledge.

Still, I wonder if our minds are capable of containing information that we view as prepackaged and ready to use or our minds simply the tool used to process information and create knowledge?  My guess is we do not have prepackaged information or knowledge stored in our mind.  I position myself on the side of Locke and believe that experience prepares our minds to process information.  Both arguments of Locke and Leibniz appear to provide validity in either position, but each position has not been fully proven.  I should state, I do agree with portions of both arguments and my current position is loosely anchored.

            As I reflect on that experience I question what external sources of information played a part in learning rapidly.  Did the memory games my mother often played with me factor in this event?  Were the patterns a factor?  Was innate knowledge a factor?  Or was this instance simply the mind’s ability to process information?  I have heard tremendous arguments for innate knowledge, it is possible I will position myself to align with Leibniz at various points in my life.  The innate knowledge argument has been around quite some time and I assume it will still be around long after I am gone.