Descartes three waves and the intuition and deductive thesis (rationalism)

Question 1

scepticism

Answer 1

we do not/cannot have the concepts/knowledge within S that are being proposed

Question 2

reason is the source of our concepts (rationalism about S)

Answer 2

the concepts we have within S cannot be or have not been gained using sense experience (a posteriori) and so must have instead been gained in some non-empirical a priori way.

Question 3

reason is the source of our knowledge (rationalism about S)

Answer 3

we have knowledge about S which cannot be or has not been justified using sense experience (a posteriori) and use have instead been justified in some non-empirical a priori way

Question 4

experience is the source of know concept (empiricism)

Answer 4

we have concepts within S which can be/were gained using sense experience (a posteriori) and were not or cannot be gained in some non-empirical/ a priori way

Question 5

experience is the source of knowledge (empiricism)

Answer 5

We have knowledge about S which can be / were justified using sense experience (a posteriori) and was not (or cannot have been) justified in some non-empirical / a priori way

Question 6

what do rationalists claim

Answer 6

• All knowledge/concepts that we have come not through experience but from reason alone.
• The intuition and deduction thesis (aka the “mathematical” method)
• The innate knowledge thesis
• The innate concept thesis

Question 7

what is the intuition and deduction thesis

Answer 7

all or atleast some knowledge that we have is ultimately either justified non-inferentially by a priori intuition
or
justified inferentially through a priori deduction from these a priori intuitions using sound arguments

Question 8

what is the innate concept thesis

Answer 8

we have at least some concepts as part of our rational nature:
- they are there from the moment the mind exists
- they are ‘discovered’/’uncovered’/recollected’
- they are not and could not be based directly or indirectly on experience and so are a priori though experience might ‘trigger’ our discovery of them

Question 9

what is the innate knowledge thesis

Answer 9

we have knowledge of at least some truths as part of our rational nature:
- they are there from the moment the mind exists
- they are discovered/uncovered/recollected
- they are not intuited/deduced
- they are not and could not be justified by experience and so are a priori however experience might ‘trigger’ our discovery of them

Question 10

what are the 3 sceptical arguments

Answer 10

• the illusion argument
• the dreaming argument
• the evil deceiver/demon argument

Question 11

the illusion argument (wave of doubt ONE)

Answer 11

P1: if my senses can deceive me then they cannot and should not always be trusted as a source of knowledge
P2: my senses do and can deceive me

been deceived by his senses – things have looked a way that they are not. Things in the distance look small; sticks half-submerged in water look bent; and so on.

C1: therefore, my senses cannot be completely trusted as a source of knowledge

Question 12

the dreaming argument (wave of doubt TWO)

Answer 12

P1: in order to know about the nature of the external world and what it is like, I need to be certain that I am not dreaming.
P2: in order to be certain that I am not dreaming, dreams would have to be subjectively distinguishable from verdical experience
P3: a vivid dream is NOT subjectively distinguishable from a possible verdical experience
C1: therefore, I can never be certain that I am not dreaming and so cannot know anything about what the external world is like.

Question 13

the evil deceiver/demon argument (wave of doubt THREE)

Answer 13

P1: it is possible that there is a powerful and deceptive being known as a malignant/malicious demon who is continuously deceiving me in all of my perceptions of the external world and reasoning (i.e. mathematics) and so that everything I take as true is in fact false.
P2: in order to know anything, I need to rule out this possibility.
P3: I cannot rule out this possibility. this is because regardless of whether it is true or false, my experience/beliefs would stay the same. the grounds for all my beliefs would remain the same.
C1: therefore, I cannot know anything (including my perceptual beliefs and even my beliefs about maths and reasoning.

suggestion that God does not exist and that all our experiences are produced in us by an evil demon who wants to deceive us.

Question 14

how does Descartes remark the illusion argument

Answer 14

such examples from unusual perceptual conditions give us no reason to doubt all perceptions, such as that you are looking at a piece of paper with writing on.
we might say that perceptual illusions are special cases, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to talk about them as illusions. so they dont undermine perception generally

Question 15

how does Descartes remake the dreaming argument

Answer 15

descartes insists that truths of a very general kind which are not based on sensory perception and do not concern actual existence (such as that 2+2=4) or that a square has no more than 4 sides) are knowable even if he is now dreaming.
the possibility of dream deception is limited to sensory-based beliefs.

Question 16

how does Descartes remake the evil genius argument

Answer 16

arithmetic, geometry and other subjects of this kind, which deal only with the simplest and most general things, regardless of whether they really exist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five, and a square has no more than four sides.

Question 17

total deception

Answer 17

descartes has reached a point of total deception. if he has no mental agency, no control over his mind at all, over what he experiences or what he thinks then the idea of knowing anything seems to be undermined.

Question 18

what is the first mediation

Answer 18

• what can be called into doubt
• descartes 3 sceptical arguments

Question 19

what is the second mediation

Answer 19

the nature of the human mind, and how it is better known than the body.
- descartes cogito

Question 20

what is descartes cogito

Answer 20

• a priori intuition
• ‘clear and distinct idea’

Question 21

the cogito

Answer 21

I know that I think and that I exist now as a thinking thing.
- this is not based on sensory experience
- it is the first thing that I know (and the foundation of all other knowledge).

Question 22

what does descartes think about the body

Answer 22

all I know is that I am a thinking thing (i.e. a mind) but I do not know whether anything physical exists (including my body) because of the sceptical arguments. So I do not know if my mind is physical / my body.

Question 23

what does descartes think that we know of for sure

Answer 23

there is one thing that we are completely sure of, even if the evil demon exists; and that is that he ‘thinks’ and due to this, he exists.
he cannot doubt that he thinks, because doubting is a kind of thinking.
if the demon were to make him doubt that he is thinking, that would only show that he is.
he cannot doubt that he exists as if he were to doubt that he exists, that would prove he does exist as something that thinks.

Question 24

what does descartes refer to when saying that he thinks

Answer 24

any conscious mental process/event

Question 25

what type of intuition is the cogito an example of

Answer 25

an a priori intuition

Question 26

a priori intuitions

Answer 26

• beliefs are intuited and so non-inferentially justified/self justified. you do not infer from something else you believe; you just believe it immediately without needing to argue for it. and it is justified without the need for experience.

Question 27

what is the faculty of rational/ a priori intuition

Answer 27

the process by which we acquire a priori intuition

Question 28

how does descartes describe the cogito

Answer 28

it is ‘clear and distinct’

Question 29

what does descartes mean when he says ‘clear’

Answer 29

• it is present and accessible to the attentive mind
• the truth of the belief is immediately accessible through thought

Question 30

what does descartes mean when he says ‘distinct’

Answer 30

• not only clear, but precise and separate from other ideas.
• I can distinguish it from other truths and won’t confuse it with other things.

Question 31

how does descartes think the proposition ‘I exist’ is

Answer 31

• when I think about it, it becomes clear in my mind that is has to be true.
• it is indubitable
• ’ clear and distinct’
• a priori
• known by intuition/ non-inferentially justified
• it acts as the foundation of all of our beliefs
• it has to be true even if we were being deceived about everything by an evil deceiver

Question 32

indubitable

Answer 32

I can know with certainty (undoubtable)

Question 33

intuition/non-inferentially justified

Answer 33

It is not itself based on other things I already know

Question 34

it has to be true even if we were being deceived about everything by an evil deceiver

Answer 34

it survives any attempt to doubt it so it survives all of the sceptical arguments

Question 35

what does descartes mean when he uses the word a priori deduction

Answer 35

• we can start with non-inferentially justified a priori knowledge that we have from our faculty of intuition
• we can use these intuitions as premises in sound arguments to deduce conclusions
• the process of this is what he thinks of as ‘deduction’

Question 36

valid arguments

Answer 36

if the arguments are valid, and the opening premises are indubitably true, then the conclusions will be indubitably true as well.
this is because in valid arguments, if the premises are true then the conclusions must be true as it is logically guaranteed.

Question 37

deduction

Answer 37

the process of using deductive arguments where it is intended that the conclusions is logically guaranteed by the true premises in order to reach conclusions

Question 38

a priori deduction/arguments

Answer 38

arguments where:
a) it is intended that the conclusion is logically guaranteed by actually true premises
b) all premises are themselves justified a priori