Descartes/Rationalism Flashcards
What is Rene Descartes
A Rationalist who combines rational intuition with deductive arguments in order to gain knowledge about ourselves and the outside world.
What is Rationalism?
Rationalism is the theory of knowledge which assert we learn from Reason and we have Innate knowledge (a priori) which we use to gain knowledge about ourselves and the world.
Define ‘A Priori’
A pirori - knowledge that dont require (sense) experience to know
Define ‘A Posterori’
Knowledge that can only be known to be true/false through experience/after
Define an Analytic truth -
Analytic truth- proposition true or false is in the meaning of the word/by definition eg bachelor is an unmarried man.
Define a Contingent truth -
A proposition could be true or false depending on the way the world is as state of affairs may not hold eg. the sun will rise tomorrow
Define a Deductive argument -
Deductive argument - An argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by ots premises eg if premises are true the conclusion cannot be false. if the premises are true then they provide conclusive evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
Explain Descartes Melted Wax example
Descartes asks us to imagine block of wax on a table, its fresh and still as the odour of flowers, its size, colour , shape are apparent. Its cold,hard , easily handled.
But we leave the room and return only to find the wax has completely changed into a liquid and melted. “the colour altered, the figure is destroyed”
How do we know that this is the same piece of wax?
Descartes states we DONT understand the changes in the wax through using our senses - because at this point everything has changes for the senses (state from solid to liquid etc)
Descartes states “the only thing that remains is the extension of the wax” therefore he argues we use innate ‘Reason + judgement to determine that it is in fact the same piece on the table and not senses because all our sensory experience has changed + the senses can deceive us.
How would Hume/ empiricists respond to Descartes melted wax example?
Hume would argue we use previous sense impressions to determined it is the same piece of wax because we have seen other tings melt (such as candles) and change form before and so our mind recognises that it is the same piece.
And he would claim even if we haven’t seen the wax melt we have seen others and can use Transposing to form concept of things melting.
Explain the process of Descartes arriving at his First Indisputable Truth and what it is.
Descartes wanted to find an ‘Indisputable Truth’ beyond al doubt and would remove anything which arose any type of doubt.
- He began with the senses but stated that they were not beyond all doubt as sense can deceive us e.g looking at a pencil in water makes it appear bent or looking at something far away can make it appear small when its not, therefore senses aren’t reliable.
- He moved onto the idea of ‘Presence’ and whether our presence is beyond all doubt, he used example of sitting in front of a Fire and whether or not he could know if it is real. Although it may feel real ,he could be dreaming or in a simulation therefore ‘Presence’ isn’t reliable.
- Then he came to ‘Mathematical beliefs’ and stated surely no matter whether one is dreaming or not, mathematics remain the same regardless and so don’t arise doubt and are reliable as 2+2=4 always.
However no, as Descartes stated there could be an ‘evil demon’ who’s job it is to tempt and deceive us, thus even mathematical belies can be doubtful, despite how unlikely an evil demon is ,Descartes has to acknowledge that is is in fact possible.
But this is problematic, as if this was the case we could question absolutely everything + doubt everything is real.
Resulting in Descartes first Indisputable Truth ‘Cogito ergo sum’ as Descartes cant doubt that he exists , if he did that would prove that he exists and for an evil demon to deceive him there has to be something to actually deceive in the first place, therefore he has to exist at least as a mind regardless.
what does Cogito ego sum translate to?
I think therefore I am
How does rationalism/descartes view and empricists view differ?
Hume and Empiricists believe we don’t have any a priori knowledge( Innate) only A Posteori whereas Descartes and Rationalists believe that we have a priori knowledge which we use to gain knowledge.
Hume argues the foundation of our knowledge of ‘matters of fact’ is based purely on wat we experience so we gain it through;
Observation, Induction + Reasoning about Probabilities.
Hume states it goes beyond the senses as we infer knowledge from past experiences eg If we go outside + all roads are wet we immediately assume its been raining , yes it could have been someone wetting roads but probability is that its rained. If we encounter an object we have never seen before we cannot know the effects it has straight away just by examining it , even if we could imagine what it would do its groundless without experience to base it off of.
