Epistemology

Question 1

What is epistemology

Answer 1

The theory of knowledge - means by which knowledge acquired, extent of our knowledge and standards/criteria by which we can judge reliability of knowledge claims and sources.

Question 2

What are two main views on the source of our knowledge and definitions

Answer 2

Rationalism: view that all knowledge starts w the mind and ultimate source of knowledge is reason, there exists innate knowledge which can be A Priori
Empiricism: view that all knowledge starts with the senses, mind is born blank initially and knowledge is A Posteriori

Question 3

Philosophers and arguments for Rationalism and for Empiricism

Answer 3

Rationalism:
Plato
Descartes
Leibniz 
Spinoza
Empiricism:
Aristotle 
Francis Bacon
John Locke
George Berkely
David Hume

Question 4

Rationalism key points

Answer 4

• All knowledge is derived from, or depended upon, truths obtained by the employment of unaided reason alone
• We can have synthetic a priori knowledge of how things are outside the mind
• All knowledge forms part of one great deductive system
• Some knowledge is innate
• Empirically acquired knowledge (if there is such a thing) is inferior

Question 5

Platonic Rationalism

Answer 5

• Spiritual realm of the forms is the source of true knowledge and the physical world is a shadowy, imperfect imitation of this realm and its forms
• Our souls belong to spiritual world and our bodies to physical (dualism) inhabit our bodies when we are born through reincarnation and bring with them knowledge of the forms
• Our role is to be philosophers
• A Priori truths superior to A Posteriori, lacks certainty as only contingently true as physical world contains particulars and constantly changing
• A Priori knowledge not restricted to maths and geometry and can acquire knowledge of essential nature of moral and aesthetic concepts e.g. beauty, justice in same way using contemplation and reasoning in the mind as forms of them exist independently from their particulars and are eternal and unchanging.

Question 6

Plato’s proof for innate knowledge

Answer 6

The Meno: in dialectic Socrates dialogue with uneducated Slave boy. Asks questions to not provide him with answers but guides him so slave boy seen to recollect knowledge so he believed we have an innate faculty which recognises A Priori truths as eternal and necessary. Proof of area of squares and how one square is double area of another, once understood by slave was recognised as not just being true of particular square drawn but of all squares so suggested to Plato that such knowledge cant derive from our experience as experience is only ever of particular squares so believes understanding possible as mind able to see the essential nature or form of the square and recognises truths about this.

Question 7

Cartesian Rationalism - desire for certainty

Answer 7

Rene Descartes - ‘Discourse on Method’ method involving 3 successive waves of doubt aiming to discover beliefs that can’t be doubted (indubitable. Tries to sort out all his beliefs by getting rid of false ones that lack proper foundation by examining, not all individual beliefs but the principles on which these beliefs are set. If belief has even smallest possible doubt deems it uncertain and therefore worthless.
1st wave of doubt- scepticism of the senses, many things we have accepted as true have been revealed to us through senses yet in past our senses have deceived us and should never wholly trust those who have deceived us. W know our senses can make mistakes and for others have even invented things that don’t exist. Therefore, suggests senses don’t provide us with certain knowledge and considered often unreliable.
2nd wave- about dreaming, says there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish between clearly between being awake and asleep therefore can’t be sure we are awake when we think we are. Then states that we can be certain of some arithmetic, geometrical and scientific knowledge as aren’t dependent on their existence, eg. 2+2=4 whether we are awake or asleep.
Therefore, ultimate knowledge must come from universal truths that can be ‘intuited’ by the mind, rejecting and destroying empiricist view that knowledge comes primarily from experience rather than reason.

Question 8

What is withholding assent?

Answer 8

Descartes states that he doesn’t disbelieve the things that are capable of being doubted but will just neither believe nor disbelieve it.

Question 9

What does Descartes discover as result of his meditations?

Answer 9

Concludes that he can be sure that he holds on to the things that are certain and realises that his doubting requires thought and this thought determines his existence. Discovery of a clear and distinct idea - “I think therefore I am”/”cogito ergo sum” providing him with certain knowledge and piece of analytic truth. Begins to look for more self-evident truths in his ontological argument. Ontological argument aims to prove God’s existence as attempt to solve ‘Evil Demon’ issue that threatens indubitable nature of clear and distinct ideas.
Starts by stating that he cannot separate existence from his definition of God as his existence is a necessary part of his definition, therefore God must necessarily exist. It is analytically the greatest possible being and even a ‘fool’ or non-believer can understand this. Therefore, would be wrong for non-believer to claim there is no God in reality but exists only in the mind as it is greater to exist both in in reality and understanding than just in reality so if God really is greatest possible being then must exist in both. Leads to second clear and distinct idea that ‘God is real’
Both clear and distinct ideas are self-evident and although they exist in the mind can’t logically be doubted.

Question 10

Criticisms of Descartes

Answer 10

Cartesian circle - Descartes need for the existence of a Non-Deceiving God to explain how he can trust his reasoning.
Vague and subjective argument also clear and distinct idea could be seen as not v clear and more of a feeling or a hunch
Circular reasoning

Question 11

What is Descartes’ trademark argument?

Answer 11

States that he can’t conceive of perfection as has never experienced perfection in his life as humans and the physical world are imperfect. His idea of God, however, is perfect so can’t be from anything he’s experienced. Therefore idea of God must be innate. Proposes that it is impossible to get his idea from nothingness and cant have derived it from himself as it would be just as contradictory to say he derived his idea of perfection (as an imperfect being) from something less perfect, as to say ‘something resulted from nothingness’

Question 12

Descartes’ Metaphor of the Wax

Answer 12

He contemplated the nature of known objects and what can be known about an object. Even accepting the truth of the senses, we often receive perceptions which are questionable. This Descartes demonstrated through his “Wax Analogy”. When we examine wax, we can list its properties and we know what we are referring to. It is solid, it has colour, taste, and scent. All these things we recognize as belonging to the thing we call wax. But, when heat is applied it looses its form; it becomes liquid. The scent and taste disappear, the colour changes. The thing now has totally different properties, and yet we still call it wax. How can two things have different properties and yet be the same?

Question 13

Spinoza (1632-77)

Answer 13

His book ‘The Ethics’ His concept of “conatus” states that human beings’ natural inclination is to strive toward preserving an essential being, and asserts that virtue/human power is defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of reason as one’s central ethical doctrine.
Spinoza discusses his beliefs about what he considers to be the three kinds of knowledge that come with perceptions:
The first kind of knowledge he writes about is the knowledge of experiences. More precisely, this first type of knowledge can be known as the knowledge of things that could be “mutilated, confused, and without order.” Another explanation of what the first knowledge can be is that it is the knowledge of dangerous reasoning. Dangerous reason lacks any type of rationality, and causes the mind to be in a “passive” state. This type of “passive mind” that Spinoza writes about in the earlier books of The Ethics is a state of the mind in which adequate causes become passions.
Spinoza’s second knowledge involves reasoning plus emotions. He explains that this knowledge is had by the rationality of any adequate causes that have to do with anything common to the human mind. An example of this could be anything that is classified as being of imperfect virtue. Imperfect virtues are seen as those which are incomplete. Many philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, would compare imperfect virtue to pagan virtue.
Spinoza defines the third and final knowledge as the knowledge of God, which requires rationality and reason of the mind. In more detail, Spinoza uses this type of knowledge to join together the essence of God with the individual essence. This knowledge is also formed from any adequate causes that include perfect virtue.
In the final part of the “Ethics”, his concern with the meaning of “true blessedness”, and his explanation of how emotions must be detached from external causes in order to master them, foreshadow psychological techniques developed in the 1900s. His concept of three types of knowledge—opinion, reason, intuition—and his assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, lead to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal.

Question 14

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

Answer 14

Believed that God existed necessarily and is by definition all good, all powerful and all knowing.
In his ‘New Essays on Human understanding’ makes distinction between general truths and necessary general truths to defend his theory of innate ideas or as he calls, ‘principles’. Believes these principles fully formed at birth and can be revealed using reason. General truths are derived from experience and allow us to make claims about future events that are likely to be true but isn’t guaranteed. Necessary general truths hold no doubt so necessarily true. States “nothing is in the mind without first being in the senses, except for the mind itself”. and claimed we can know things without being conscious of them and argued experience only gives us particular instances or individual truths which aren’t sufficient enough to establish universal truths. Therefore, necessary truths such as mathematics must have some basis other than senses.

Question 15

How Leibniz and Spinoza avoid Hume’s criticism?

Answer 15

Hume criticises rationalism as reason alone can only provide us with necessary truths that could not be otherwise, yet knowledge of the world involves contingent truths, which could have been otherwise. Both avoid this argument to some extent as both claim that all empirical truths are necessary, and so, in principle can be established by reason alone.

Question 16

Criticisms of Leibniz and Spinoza

Answer 16

Both accounts claim that every event is necessary through their conception of God as a necessary being who in turn confers necessity on the world. therefore they rely on God’s existence and although both try, through reason alone, to prove God’s existence neither of their ontological arguments are generally considered successful.

Question 17

Summary of advantages and disadvantages of Rational knowledge

Answer 17

Adv: Rational truths are 
-eternally true
-necessary
-self-justifying
-known just through thinking
Disadv: Reason
-gives no knowledge of contingent truths
-gives no empirical knowledge
-gives no knowledge of natural sciences

Question 18

Empiricism Key points

Answer 18

• All knowledge is ultimately derived from or consists in truths obtained from experience alone
• All a priori knowledge is only of analytic propositions
• All knowledge is acquired inductively
• There is no innate knowledge
• Rationally acquired knowledge is in error unless it can be traced back to empirical sensation

Question 19

Lockean Empiricism

Answer 19

Argued humans can only have A Posteriori knowledge ‘Tabula rasa’ or blank slate argument rejects Rationalist view of innate ideas by stating humans are born without any knowledge and we gain our information over time through sense experience of the world.
‘Essay concerning human understanding’ in book 2 of essay defends against Descartes’ unreliable senses argument with idea of indirect realism. We are unable to perceive the external world as it really is but only a resemblance of it and an idea is what the mind perceives in itself and so it is the immediate object of perception, thought or understanding. Also states it is the qualities of something that enable it to produce an idea of itself in our minds and these he categorizes into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are those that are inseparable from the body, whatever state it is in and are objective and independent of the observer, so body cant lose these no matter how much it is altered eg. solidity. Secondary qualities aren’t anything but powers to produce various ideas and sensations within us and don’t actually exist in object or resemble object at all. These qualities are brought about in some way by primary qualities of object and are ‘contingent on perception’.

Question 20

Example used by Locke to explain distinction between two types of qualities

Answer 20

How, at one time, water can appear hot in one hand and cold in the other which tells us that it would be impossible for such sensible properties to actually exist within the object.

Question 21

Criticisms of Locke

Answer 21

• He hasn’t properly explained how primary qualities give rise to secondary ones and the distinction between them remains quite unclear.
• Also leaves us to question how ideas of secondary qualities just appear in our mind without bearing any resemblance to actual object being perceived.
• Hume notes that distinction between impressions and ideas provides solution to confusion that can arise from Locke’s rejection of innate ideas.
• Hume criticizes Locke’s failure to clarify what he means by the word ‘innate’ or ‘idea’ whereas in Hume’s argument he clearly asserts that impressions are innate and ideas are not.
• Leibniz - “New Essays on Human Understanding” direct criticism of Locke’s theory.
• How do you support the idea of substance if it is non-empirical? Doesn’t actually provide us with a convincing definition of what a substance is.
• Abstraction is only possible if we have some innate faculty of recognizing resemblances
• No one can have objective knowledge, there is no ‘looking from nowhere’
• Locke’s tabula rasa has been largely rejected and Neuro-physiology suggests common ‘innate’ brain structures which give rise to common human perceptions and behaviours e.g. language-learners

Question 22

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” meaning?

Answer 22

Latin phrase meaning “Nothing is in the understanding that was not earlier in the senses.” Hence, the central doctrine of the empiricism of Locke and a couple other empiricists.

Question 23

George Berkeley’s criticism of Locke

Answer 23

Produced Idealism philosophy, heavily influenced by Locke and Hume. Disagreed w Locke’s primary and secondary distinction as believed can’t imagine an object solely using primary qualities and secondary qualities needed as they enable objects to be communicated to us. Argued that there appears to be no distinction at all between 2 types of qualities as primary qualities such as motion and extension are just relative to the perceiver as secondary qualities and our perception of primary qualities can change under certain conditions, such as changing positioning of viewer.

Question 24

Criticism of Berkeley and his response

Answer 24

His disapproval of distinction between qualities considered by many as justified, yet his central arguments often deemed as weak as continued permanence of objects needs explanation if objects in fact only exist in the mind.
Berkeley attempts to defend external world by stating that everything that is perceived exists and so the external world exists and is he same for everyone as it constantly exists in God’s mind, he is the ultimate perceiver which keeps our existence as well.
However, using an explanation via God adds a complication which needs explanation to be a strong argument. This is begging the question (pointed out by Johnson) as assumes God’s existence without actually proving it and uses it as the premise of his argument.

Question 25

Berkeley’s Master argument

Answer 25

‘Master’ in the sense that it is alone sufficient
- For something to be truly mind-independent it would have to exist without being thought of
-Our experience comes from our sense impressions and without these sense impressions there can be no concepts
-the ‘veil of perception’ suggests that we never truly experience matter
-Therefore, nothing is independent of the mind,
leading to the conclusive phrase of ‘Esse est percipi’ meaning ‘to be is to be perceived’ shows how he believes matter does not exist and everything is mind dependent, so without perception there is no existence. This is an ‘immaterialist’ position.

Question 26

Abstractionism definition

Answer 26

Locke argued that concepts, forms etc. are abstractions from particulars
Berkeley argues for anti-abstractionism in the introduction of ‘The Principles’ that we cannot form general ideas in the way that Locke often seems to suggest which is by stripping particularizing qualities from an idea of a particular, creating a new, intrinsically general, abstract idea.

Question 27

Dr Johnson’s rebuttal of Berkeley’s argument

Answer 27

• His “appeal to the stone” fallacy, where Berkeley’s idea is dismissed rather than actually refuted.
• Johnson kicks a stone and states that he could feel it and therefore matter exists. Doesn’t work as a rebuttal as he uses a feeling to disprove idea that matter doesn’t exist yet a feeling exists in our minds so has failed to understand Berkeley’s idealist argument that things exist only in our minds.

Question 28

What is the trap of Solipsism

Answer 28

Solipsism is the position that you (your mind) and its ideas are all that exist. Criticism of Berkeley is that his argument leads to Solipsism which he doesn’t believe as he believes that other people’s minds and God’s mind exists yet can’t prove it. Only his belief in God’s existence prevents him from contradicting himself yet he can’t prove this belief.

Question 29

David Hume’s quote on Berkeley’s argument

Answer 29

Berkeley’s arguments “admit of no answer and produce no conviction”

Question 30

Hume’s empiricism

Answer 30

“Enquiry concerning Human understanding” - all knowledge derives from sense experiences.
Criticises Descartes’ trademark argument by stating that we are able to develop concept of perfection from extrapolating our experiences and it is impossible to form an idea that is not related to our experiences as it would be too vague.
‘Copy Principle’ - all knowledge about the world that we have is derived from simple ‘impressions’ which are ‘copied’ into our mind to form a simple idea, the combination of these simple ideas form complex ideas.
Believes that any knowledge which cannot be traced back to a set of simple ideas/copies of impressions is meaningless.
‘Hume’s fork’- Divides all of human knowledge into 2 categories, relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are A Priori, absolute, analytic and necessary, such as mathematical and logical propositions. Matters of fact are A Posteriori, involve some contingent observation of the world, and synthetic, such as ‘her jumper is green’. His definition of an idea is what arises when our mind reflects upon and combines our impressions which we gather from experiencing the world around us.
Clearly states that no knowledge can be conclusively established by reason and our beliefs are as a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences.

Question 31

What is a famous problem brought about by Hume?

Answer 31

The Problem of Induction- states that we can never be certain that future will resemble the past, eg. we cannot know for certain through inductive reasoning that the sun will rise in the East, yet we all expect it to do so as it has done so repeatedly in the past. Therefore, he concludes that ‘matters of fact’ can’t be considered as a rational way of gaining information as induction proves itself using a circular argument rendering itself meaningless.
Raises question of whether inductive reasoning actually leads to knowledge and Hume argues that all reasoning about cause and effect is not really logical but expectation based on habit.

Question 32

General problems for Empiricism

Answer 32

• Difficulties for the empiricist account of concept formation, disagreement between empiricists
• The assertion that there are some innate ideas
• The trap of Solipsism
• The problem of a priori knowledge like mathematics
• The problem that all immediate knowledge is immediately conceptualised and categorised
• Sense data is corrigible (capable of being corrected)

Question 33

Synthesis of Kant

Answer 33

Attempted to combine elements of empiricism and rationalism into one single philosophy. Empiricist in the fact that he argued that most of our knowledge comes from observation and experience, yet also argued that human mind is only able to make certain kinds of observations so our experience is limited, and these limits are logic and rationality. Believed there are concepts, such as time, space, maths and that everything has a cause, which are built into our brains called synthetic, A Priori concepts. These are prompted but not proven by experience as are true independently of experience. States that these concepts ‘are the pure forms of sensible intuition’ meaning they are not real in themselves but are caused by the ways humans perceive and organise the sensory data we gain from sensory experience. Kant’s claim that we only know what we subjectively perceive and not things in themselves is known as transcendental idealism. In summary, Kant shows that all perception is structured by the apparatuses of our minds, yet there is still some A Priori knowledge which doesn’t start with the senses as we have some built-in concepts that can provide us with additional information about the world.

Question 34

Main points of Kant

Answer 34

• Kant introduces the terms analytic and synthetic: all analytic statements are a priori and all a posteriori judgements are synthetic
• Can have a synthetic a priori statement, such as the spatial properties of the world which must be contributed by us, the knowing subject and causal relations which are ‘projected’ into the world by us, the experiencing consciousness
• There can be no knowledge without sensation, but sense data cannot alone provide knowledge either.
• Reason provides the structure or form of what we know; the senses provide the content
• Empiricism alone is wrong and Rationalism alone is wrong
• The mind is not tabula rasa which passively receives knowledge of the world through the senses
• Reason alone can never give rise to knowledge since knowledge demands both concepts and raw data supplied by the senses
• If we cannot have real knowledge then we cannot have practical knowledge

Question 35

One of Locke’s arguments that takes a moderate empiricist standpoint in same way as Kant

Answer 35

Believed that some knowledge, such as knowledge of God’s existence, could be achieved through process of intuition and reasoning.

Question 36

What is Foundationalism?

Answer 36

Scepticism and the problem of the infinite regress of justification led philosophers to search for beliefs that can’t be doubted. These beliefs don’t need to be justified by appeal to further beliefs but are self-evident/self-justifying. Foundationalism is the view that divides our beliefs into two sets: foundational ones and superstructural ones (built on top of the foundations). Search for these foundational beliefs lead to division between belief of what ultimate source of knowledge is, rationalism vs empiricism.

Question 37

Do we ever experience the material world according to

• Descartes
• Locke
• Berkeley

Answer 37

• Does exist so we do experience it but through unreliable means. Doubtful and inconsistent but still experience it. Cartesian dualism.
• Experience primary qualities directly from material world and experience secondary qualities indirectly in mind from primary qualities (veil of perception)
• Never experience material world, only perception. Without perceptions, no existence.

Question 38

Deductive vs Inductive reasoning

Answer 38

Inductive reasoning uses patterns to arrive at a conclusion (conjecture) and Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more true statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning reaches conclusions that are necessarily true, inductive reasoning can lead to strong conclusions, yet are not necessarily true.