Are we blank pieces of paper?

I found the ideas, of the recent reading, very interesting and made me think of the origins of what I know now. When we first discussed Locke's idea that our minds are like blank pieces of paper, opposed to us having embed knowlege of things that we later deveopled, I agree with this idea. Personally I know that experience dramatically shapes knowledge because when I was younger, during the school years, I had little experience of the world, and because of this I thought I was right about allot of things because I didn't know any better, I often opposed what my Mum would say about situations, as I thought I knew better. However as I got older and my experience grew, I started to realise that my Mum was very often correct because she had a lot more experience of life than I do. I learnt allot from my Mum's experiences and Incorporated them into my own experiences of life (And I've realised I still got allot to learn, as I'm wrong about quite a few things)

So I totally agreed with the idea that we are born as blank pieces of paper and experience and senses are the only way to understand something. However it dawned on me that somethings we do know from our birth such as how to move limbs and how to blink and stuff like that. Also feelings we know from birth, you don't learn a feeling from experience and you can't touch feelings with our senses but we know what feeling sad is and feeling happy. So I'm split between Locke and Descartes on the white paper debate.

On a side note a question I've been wondering about, in realtion Decartes idea that we have knowledge already in our head, who dictates what knowledge we have? And surley through evolution and natural selection, we can learn to make peace with each other rather than fight each other.  

Another idea, of Locke, I find interesting; is the idea of reflecting thinking. Eventually at a point in our lives there will occur a process of  reflective thinking in which we will reflect on everything that we know, and possibly we will develop new knowledge. I have experienced this recently, ever since starting University I have been more challenged in what I knew than ever before, and having new knowledge.

I like Locke's political philosophies, the social contract is something I believe in. It throws up the debate, who is really in power (I touched on this point in another blog). If the general population elect people to rule other them, there is a strong claim to power there. However the elected ultimately rule other them, which is power. It is like Yin and Yang, both parties keep each other in check, however I think these days most politicians forget this delicate balance.

I think Locke's ideas on property are interesting. At first I was reluctant to think that property was a fundamental pillar in live. However I made sense of it by putting it into modern terms. I think nowadays you have to have property to be seen as a citizen in the eyes if the government.

Overall I found Locke a very intresting philopher to read about, and I look forward to further exploring his ideas.