During the discussion of "Innate Knowledge Thesis", there comes a point when some rationalists defend their standing in such a way which shows it as the capacity of mind to knowing several truhts. And, definitely, this is something which not even the empiricists deny. Says John Locke in this regards in his treatise "An Essay on Human Understanding":
“If the capacity of knowing, be the natural impression contended for, all the truths a man ever comes to know, will, by this account, be every one of them, innate; and this great point will amount to no more, but only an improper way of speaking; which whilst it pretends to assert the contrary, says nothing different from those, who deny innate principles. For nobody, I think, ever denied, that the mind was capable of knowing several truths” (1690, Book I, Chapter II, Section 5, p. 61).
An entry in "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", titled "Rationalism vs Empiricism" commented on it saying:
" Locke thus challenges defenders of the Innate Knowledge thesis to present an account of innate knowledge that allows their position to be both true and interesting. A narrow interpretation of innateness faces counterexamples of rational individuals who do not meet its conditions. A generous interpretation implies that all our knowledge, even that clearly provided by experience, is innate."
Here I want to understand two points:
1: He said: "... to be both true and interesting". Does he mean by "interesting" that the position of the Innateness becomes true and, at the same time, no longer conflict with the empiricst's position which the "innaters" want to deny.
2: Does the "generous interpretation" mean that we don't go into much detail, as it has been contrasted with "narrow interpretation"?