 So Locke says that he's given us an account of knowledge that doesn't rely upon any innate ideas every last bit of knowledge that we have That in his account is from experience Okay, so he he says that he does just as good a job as Plato With his account of knowledge, but it doesn't rely upon any innate ideas. All right Well, we've looked at his theory We looked at sensation and reflection the first the second the third acts in the mind And we've seen how it compares to Plato And let's just take him at his word that he Succeeds in every place that that Plato does Okay, but here's the question Has he actually given us an account of knowledge that doesn't rely upon an innate idea? Did he accidentally or you know act did he accidentally smuggle in Something that we know without any experience Yeah, so that that's the question that I that I'm imposing to you now So let's ask what this figure out does Locke succeed Has he given us an account of knowledge that doesn't rely upon any innate idea? Has he given us an account of knowledge that doesn't rely upon any kind of rationalist notion? Now if you say yes Then you have to go through each component of Locke's theory. We got sensation versus reflection and See whether there's any innate ideas if you say no Then you have to identify one or more of the places within Locke's theory that there's accidentally an innate idea