This was said by empiricist Hume. It means that we can never an idea which is not somehow based on sense experience. It is logical to agree with Hume that our significant knowledge does derive from our sense experience. However there are counter arguments for the origin of all our ideas being derived from sense experience, which this essay will aim to evaluate.

Empiricism is the theory that the origin of our ideas is experience. Our concepts are derived from our sensory experiences of sight, touch, smell, taste and sound - and our concepts are consequently copies of these sense experiences. So under empiricism we will point to sense experience to back up our beliefs and ideas. As a result we can never imagine a totally original idea, it will be a manipulation of the composition of and already existing thing. To illustrate when we have an idea of an angel this is not an original idea - in fact it is based on the sense experience of a birds wings and a body of a person.

This leads on to the other significant feature of empiricism, this is the use of simple and complex ideas. We learn simple concepts by associating them with experience, then the word/concept becomes meaningful. For example the word "horse" will only become meaningful to a child when the word has been associated to an experience at a petting zoo for example. We then can generate complex ideas from manipulating simple ideas, to illustrate Hume used the example of manipulating the simple ideas of "gold" and "mountain" to the complex idea of "gold mountain".

Locke is a second example of an empiricist who states that from birth we are a "tabula rasa" with no knowledge as we are yet to experience anything. Locke claimed that the rationalist suggestion of innate ideas as the origin of ideas is wrong, as Locke states that if they were to exist "children and idiots" would possess the same level of knowledge - which is untrue. He later states that if these idiots and children were to learn what is claimed to be innate such as the laws of logic, Locke would state this was an example of reasoning, which he claims is based on sense experience.

However, although it seems logical that empiricism is the best way to explain knowledge there are criticisms of the empirical theory. The first criticism concerns the issue of simple and complex ideas. As stated empiricists suggest that a complex idea can be broken down into simple ideas. To take the example of my shoe it can be broken down into the simple ideas of "laces", "eyelits", "fabric" and so on. This is where the objection arises. The empiricists do not make it clear when a simple idea stops and a complex one starts. This means the theory becomes less clear, how can one concept be based on so many sense impressions?

A second objection in regard to empiricism in relation to the origin of ideas is the missing shade of blue. According to the empiricists we cannot have concepts which have not been based on sense experience. But if we take a range of shades of blue with one shade missing it seems that we can imagine that missing colour with no sense experience of it. But to reply to this objection perhaps this illustration suggests that the missing colour is simply another complex idea made up of the other shades. However this still leaves us with the problem of when do simple ideas become complex ones? arguably from this example it is possible to suggest that all colours are complex ideas.

A final empirical claim is Hume's objection to the idea that the action of one thing obviously causes the effect of the other. For example when we see a billiard ball strike another - which then moves, Hume suggests that all we know is that the first ball moved, heard a sound then the other ball moved off - so we have no sense experience of the cause. This leads Hume to suggest that when we talk about causation we actually me "constant cojoining" if events, and there is no necessary connection.

However a reply to Hume and causation is Kant's idea of conceptual schemes of causation. He suggests that innately we know that every event has a cause, whilst Kant agrees that we cannot directly experience "cause" we know that it exists a priori.

In conclusion the statement was suggesting that the origins of ideas are linked to experience. I agree with the empirical idea that all useful knowledge comes from direct sensory experience. However I think that Kant's account for "causation" and conceptual schemes is a good challenge to all knowledge being derived from sense experience.