Concepts Flashcards
What is the ‘Cogito’?
‘I think, therefore I am,’ is a phrase coined by Descartes as a proof of his existence. Because he has the faaculty to doubt, it is contradictory for me to state that I do not exist, as existence is a prerequisite to doubting.
Is the Cogito self-verifying?
A statement which is self verifying is true because it is a truth revealed through the action being completed. For example ‘I am speaking’ is a self-verifying sentence. Therefore, to say, ‘ I exist, becuse I think,’ is also self-verifying, because performing it requires you to think. The sentence ‘ I do not exist’ is also self-defeating.
Can the Cogito prove new knowledge?
Many say that the Cogito can prove the current, self identity of yourself. As you are thinking in the act of declaring it, this proves the knowledge that you are existent when you are thinking. However, it is not solid proof in justifying who the ‘I’ is that is thinking. It may just be a collection of thoughts or memories floating around in nothing. Or, the person who thinks can only be existence once they are thinking. meaning when they are not conscious of their existence, they may not exist.
is the Cogito a deduction?
Descartes would say it is an intuition, as to have it defined as a deduction would either rely on memory, which Descartes rules out as untrustworthy, or it relies on experience, which Descartes also rules out as untrustworthy. Therefore, he defines it as ‘a simple intuition of the mind,’
However, it can be presented as a deductive argument, which would prove it as a deduction, and therefore not reliant.
Is the Cogito a transcendental argument?
This refers to its ability to ‘transcend doubt’. Many believe that he is able to transcend doubt because of the fact he proves existence as a precondition to doubt. However, some say this is too much thinking to constitute as an intuition.
Is the Cogito an intuition?
If you believe it is a sefl-justifying thought without need of deduction, then it is a n a priori intuition, and therefore an analytic truth.
What is Hume’s fork?
Hume’s belief about knowledge stating that a proposition can only be verifiable as true if it is a priori nalytic knowledge ‘relations of ideas’. Or, it is a synthetic a priori truth ‘Matters of fact’.
What is the ‘Causal priniple’?
1) The Causal principle:
Hume claims that we cannot know the cause of an effect or the effect of a cause unless we have experienced both. Therefore, for Descartes to try and deduce the origin of ideas only from the affect of these ideas is fallicious.
What is Hume’s repsonse to the Trademark argument?
P1: Something can only be as perfect as its cause. May be true in terms of the physical world, however this may have no application to the world of ideas. For example, we are able to take concepts and create more perfect versions of them in the world. This is Hume’s theory of how we gained the understanding of God through ‘The Copy Principle’.
What is an empiricist response (not Hume’s) to Descartes trademark argument?
it’s not a priori:
- We need experience of concepts such as ‘ideas’ and perfection in order to understand their connection to the concept of God. Therefore, this requires an a posteriori verification, which means it cannot be a simple intuition or deduction.
What is an empiricist response to Descartes Trademark argument concerning the concept of perfection?
Descartes argued we believe we have the idea of a perfect being in our minds. However, this is actually not possible to concieve, as we have never experienced anything perfect, and thus can’t verify what it is. We also cannot comprehend the idea of infinity, which is an attribute of God. Therefore, we cannot know that God is actually a perfect idea in our minds.
What is a general criticism of Descartes contingency argument?
He claims that there are only 4 possible ways in which he could have been born. He claims this list is exhaustive, however this is debatable. Other ways he could have been created is through a near-perfect angel, an evil demon, or a process of evolution.
What is an empiricist response to the contingency argument concerning the a priori nature of the argument.
The argument isn’t a priori, as it is abductive.
The structure of Descartes argument is to find the ‘exhaustive’ possibilities, and eliminate them to find the best possible explanation. This doesn’t work, as this is an experience-based argument, making it not an intuition.
What is an empiricist response to Descartes’ intuition and deduction thesis concerning the causal principle?
Descartes, again aims to prove the cause of his existence by only examining the effects he currently experiences from existence. Therefore, Hume can dismiss this argument.
What was Gaunilo’s criticism of Descartes’ ontological argument?
The ‘Perfect Island’ theory.
