Final answer:
John Locke's empiricism, which argues that knowledge comes from experience, faces challenges in explaining non-sensory knowledge and the precise reflection of reality in our perceptions, questioning its empirical validity itself.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether John Locke's empiricism is itself unempirical is rooted in the broader discussion of the accuracy and limitations of empirical knowledge. Locke's assertion that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate at birth, contends that knowledge is derived from experience. This perspective, while foundational for empiricism, is challenged by the difficulty of justifying certain types of knowledge that do not originate from sensory experience, such as mathematical and logical truths. Additionally, Locke distinguished between primary and secondary qualities, which opens up questions about how accurately our sensory experiences reflect reality. Empiricism, though essential in the approach of many natural scientists, struggles to account for knowledge obtained without direct experience, such as in the case of the universe or subatomic phenomena.
He argued that all knowledge results from experiences that enter the mind from the experiences of the body. However, there are limitations to empirical knowledge, as it relies on the accuracy of our senses and experiences, which may be subjective and prone to error. Therefore, while Locke's empiricism is based on experience, it is not completely exempt from being unempirical.