Primary Sources

• Aristotle, De Anima, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
• Ayer, A.J., 1936, “The A Priori”, ch. 4 of Language Truth & Logic, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1950. (Scholar)
• Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of a Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1966, Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, New York: Harper & Row. (Scholar)
• –––, 1975, Reflections on Language, New York: Pantheon. (Scholar)
• Descartes, R., 1641, “Meditations on First Philosophy,” in Haldane and Ross (eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. (Scholar)
• –––, 1647, “Notes Directed Against a Certain Program”, in Haldane and Ross (eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1911. (Scholar)
• Hume, D., 1739, A Treatise of Human Nature, L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. (Scholar)
• –––, 1748, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Beauchamp (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. (Scholar)
• Kant, I. [TPa], Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770, D. Walford (ed. and trans.), in collaboration with R. Meerbote, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• ––– [TPb], Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, H. Allison and P. Heath (eds.), G.Hatfield, M. Friedman, H. Allison and P. Heath (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Kirk, G.S. & Raven, J.E., 1957, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Kuhn, T.S., 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, esp. ch X. (Scholar)
• Leibniz, G.W., 1704, New Essays on Human Understanding, P. Remnant and J. Bennett (trans. and eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. (Scholar)
• –––, 1714, “Monadology”, in G.W. Leibniz: Philosophical Texts, R.S. Woolhouse and R. Francks (trans. and eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. (Scholar)
• Locke, J., 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, P.H. Nidditch (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. (Scholar)
• Plato, Meno, in The Collected Dialogues, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
• –––, Phaedo, in The Collected Dialogues, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
• Quine, W.V.O., 1951, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” in From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)

Secondary Sources

• Adams, R. M., 1975, “Where Do Our Ideas Come From? – Descartes vs. Locke,” in Stich (1975). (Scholar)
• Beiser, F., 2002, German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Scholar)
• Broughton, J. & Carriero, J. (eds.), 2010, A Companion to Descartes, Malden: Blackwell. (Scholar)
• Callanan, J., 2013, “Kant on Nativism, Scepticism and Necessity,” Kantian Review, 18: 1–27. (Scholar)
• De Pierris, G., 1987, “Kant and Innatis,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 68: 285–305. (Scholar)
• De Rosa, R., 2004, “Locke’s Essay, Book I: The Question-Begging Status of the Anti-Nativist Arguments,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1): 37–64. (Scholar)
• Falkenstein, L., 1990, “Was Kant a Nativist?” Journal of the History of Ideas, 51: 573–97. (Scholar)
• Gorham, G., 2002, “Descartes on the Innateness of All Ideas,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 32(3): 355–88. (Scholar)
• Harris, John, 1974, “Leibniz and Locke on Innate Ideas,” Ratio, 16: 226–42; reprinted in Locke on Human Understanding, I. C. Tipton (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. (Scholar)
• Jolley, N., 1987, Leibniz and Locke: A Study of the New Essays on Human Understanding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. (Analysis of Leibniz’s response to Locke, with attention to the connection between Leibnizian doctrines and modern discussions.) (Scholar)
• Kemp Smith, N., 1999, Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, New York: Humanity Books. (Scholar)
• Kitcher, P., 1990, Kant’s Transcendental Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press (Scholar)
• Nelson, A., 2010, “Cartesian Innateness,” in Broughton & Carriero 2010, pp. 319–333. (Scholar)
• Newman, L. (ed.), 2007, The Cambridge Companion to Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Rickless, S.C., 2007, “Locke’s Polemic Against Nativism,” in Newman 2007, pp. 33–66. (Scholar)
• Schmaltz, T., 1997, “Descartes on Innate Ideas, Sensation, and Scholasticism: The Response to Regius,” in Stewart 1997, pp. 33–74. (Scholar)
• Scott, D., 1995, Recollection and Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (An analysis of Plato’s doctrine of recollection; also traces the development of the innateness doctrine in the ancient world, and compares the ancient sources to the positions taken in the modern period.) (Scholar)
• Stewart, M. A., 1997, Studies in Seventeenth-Century European Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Stich, S. (ed.), 1975, Innate Ideas, Berkeley: University of California Press. (Includes relevant sections of Plato’s Meno, the Locke-Leibniz debate, and Adams’ interpretive paper on the modern debate on innateness; see below. The papers in the last section represent the first wave of philosophical responses to the Chomskyan Nativist program in linguistics.) (Scholar)
• Vanzo, A., 2018, “Leibniz on Innate Ideas and Kant on the Origin of the Categories,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 100(1): 19–45. (Scholar)
• Wall, G., 1974, “Locke’s Attack on Innate Knowledge,” Philosophy, 49: 414–19; reprinted in Locke on Human Understanding, I. C. Tipton (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. (Scholar)
• Wendler, D., 1996, “Locke’s Acceptance of Innate Concepts,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(3): 467–483. (Scholar)
• Winkler, K., 1993, “Grades of Cartesian Innateness,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1: 23–44. (Scholar)
• Zoeller, G., 1989, “From Innate to ‘A Priori’: Kant’s Radical Transformation of a Cartesian-Leibnizian Legacy,” The Monist (Kant’s Critical Philosophy), 72(2): 222–235. (Scholar)