Descartes Flashcards
What is the most recognised definition of knowledge and give an example.
The most recognised definition is the tripartite theory of knowledge. You can call something knowledge if you have justified, true, beliefs.
E.g. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. I am justified, as records state this, it is true, and I am confident in its truth- so I have knowledge of it.
What is rationalism
Reason is the key foundation of knowledge
✅based on reason
✅truths known a priori
✅need only to reflect mentally on meanings of words and symbols to have knowledge
✅they are necessarily true- can’t be anything other than true e.g. Bachelors are unmarried men. This applies to all bachelors, not just some.
What are the pros of rationalism.
✅might never get the opportunity to experience it
✅always true- can’t be anything other then true
Cons of rationalism.
✅ relying on other sources to infer knowledge
✅there is no way to prove with certainty that innate ideas exist
✅ rationalists focus more on a priori truths than a posterior but this information is not a important, it isn’t useful in the real world and doesn’t answer any philosophical questions
✅a priori truths can never give us solid knowledge. Even mathematical a priori truths are an invention so mathematical a priori is never reliable.
What is empiricism.
Experience is the key foundation of knowledge
✅a posteriori truths- known to be true or false as a result of experience (post)
✅eg the cat is black
✅contingent truth- a truth that might not have been and only happens to be correct
Pros of empiricism.
✅it’s based of your senses- you know it first hand
✅ you don’t need to rely on anyone else to gain knowledge
Cons of empiricism.
✅ your senses can be deceived- might not always be accurate
✅ knowledge is limited to what you can experience
✅without innate ideas there’s no way of explaining how beliefs that dominate our minds exist, like justice, beauty, goodness etc
✅trap or solipsism- everyone’s experience are different so we can never know anything with certainty beyond our own experiences
What was Descartes aim.
To find something firm and lasting in the sciences
To prove the existence of God
To prove rationalism over empiricism
What did he have to get rid of that he doubted
Sense experience-senses can be deceived (optical illusions )
Dream argument- sometimes we have realistic dreams so maybe we’re dreaming now
Up to now a priori knowledge had survived but the evil genius- maybe he trick us on everything we know
The arguments are progressive, with each step building on the next
What are the criticisms of med 1
Was he sincere?
Was he rigorous after Med 1?
Problem with the dream argument:
1. False proposition
2. Can easily distinguish between waking and dreaming
3. Reduces this argument for rationalism over empiricism
4. However, evil genius supersedes this, so criticism may seem irrelevant
Leads us to a sceptical dead end
What is the cogito in med 2
The cogito is the turning point in the meditations
It means ‘I am,I exist’
Descartes foundational belief- if he is being tricked, he must exist to be tricked
The cogito beats the most sceptical argument ( evil demon )
Defeats the dreaming argument- you must exist to dream
Defeats the demon hypothesis- you must exist to be fooled
A self- authenticating statement- you affirm it’s truth each time you think it
What is the criticisms of the cogito
The evil deceiver and reason- maybe we are deceived in the logic used to come to the cogito
The evil deceiver and language- Descartes would need to have fundamental language concepts to come up with the cogito
Descartes assumptions with the self-
Ayer ( shouldn’t say ‘i think’ should say ‘there are thoughts’
Hume (concepts of self refers to bundle of perceptions)
What does clear mean
Clear = present to the attentive mind
What does distinct mean
Distinct= not confused with anything other than clear
What is clear and distinct
Anything clear and distinct can be called knowledge
Med 3 as proof of God
This does not build directly on med 2
