yet come to believe the proposition he is alleged to know" (4). In other words, people who believe in innate knowledge would say that a person has innate knowledge but may not be aware of it quite yet.
             It gets slightly blurry when we recognize that there are two sorts of innate infirmities. There are those whose symptoms are present at birth and those whose symptoms that appear later in life. Unfortunately, it is often unclear whether a person is afflicted with an innate disease or susceptible to a non innate disease.
             In short, one can have a disease innately without showing its symptoms at birth. Similarly, one can have a belief innately without believing it at birth.
             because it is often hard to determine if someone was born with a
             disease or if they developed it later in life. If you do not see the symptoms until later in life it may be hard to tell. You could have had the disease since birth and just began to get symptoms now or you could have just developed the disease. This is the same as innate ideas or knowledge because if an idea or knowledge occurs later in life it is hard to determine if they had that idea all along or if that idea was just learned.
             As we can see, the account of innate belief on the analogy of
             innate disease is not as direct as Descartes may have thought. I
             can now see that there is no clear cut answer as to what "exactly" innateness is. I can see and understand the correlation between innate ideas and innate diseases, yet I do not think that relationship clearly defines innateness. The reason I do not think it clearly defines innateness and innate ideas is because innate disease is not clearly defined itself. So to define one thing with something else not clearly defined is not explanation enough for me. Trying to figure out what innateness really means helps me see how controversial this argument actually is.
             I will preface the Descartes vs Locke de...