Final answer:
The debate between whether knowledge is innate or empirical is a longstanding philosophical question. Empiricists like John Locke argue that knowledge comes from experience and is therefore empirical, while rationalists like Plato and Descartes assert that knowledge is innate and discovered through reason. Understanding the difference between empirical (a posteriori) and innate (a priori) knowledge is key to this discourse.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether knowledge is innate or empirical has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Empiricist thinkers like John Locke argue that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and that all knowledge results from experience. This perspective views knowledge as largely empirical, collected and revised through our senses and experiences. Empirical knowledge can include scientific knowledge which is verified through the scientific method consisting of observation, hypothesis formation, and testing.
On the other hand, rationalists like Plato and Descartes believe innate ideas form the basis of our knowledge. For them, certain universals and clear, distinct ideas such as the knowledge of self, God, and the world are hardwired into our being and are discovered through reason, not experience, making knowledge innate. This includes a priori knowledge which does not require experience to be validated. An example of a priori knowledge is mathematical truths, which can be arrived at through reasoning.
However, it is acknowledged that a priori knowledge can also be learned through experience, over time. Likewise, a posteriori knowledge, which is gained through sense perception and experience, is empirical. Whether one believes knowledge is mainly innate or empirical often leads to broader questions about the justification and validation of knowledge.