That Knowledge is not Innate

One of the ideas that Locke denies is the belief that knowledge is innate. The innatist declare that universal consent of a particular piece of information implies that they have an innate origin. To this, Locke responds that:

1. The denial of the supposed fact of universal consent

2. That if there were any genuine instances of universal consent, they would be better explained by universal possession of intellectual faculty or by being acquired through some universal experience, not innate knowledge.

If the innatist are true in their statement, then one could say that if logic, for example, were known to be innate, then children and those that are mentally challenged, both examples used by Locke, would be the ones that are best versed in logical principles. Yet is that true? The innatist response to this would be that the coming forth of innate knowledge is delayed until the person is able to employ the faculty of reasoning. Yet one can ask as to why this would be the case? If reason itself is needed to discover these principles, then the argument of the innatist is self-defeating, that that which is not known must be employed to make itself apparent. Locke uses the argument that reason and logic are coincidental features of human development.