EPISTEMOLOGY: Innatism (rationalism) Flashcards
What is knowledge/concept innatism?
x is the claim that at least some knowledge / concepts is /are possessed by the mind from the moment of its creation.
What is Innatism?
At least some of our concepts or propositional knowledge are contained within the mind from the moment it exists.
All minds must possess this as it is apart of their nature.
What is the aim of Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument?
Plato aims to demonstrate that knowledge of geometry is innate.
Which consequently would make the central claim of innatism true.
Plato also extends this to all knowledge.
What is the argument of Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument? (Standard form)
P1: The slave boy knows that Pythagoras’ theorem is true (propositional knowledge of a geometrical truth).
P2: This knowledge is either based on experience (a posteriori) or it is innate.
P3: It cannot be based on experience because It wasn’t taught to the slave boy.
C: Therefore it must be innate
What is further detail for Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument, P3?
This must be the case because at no point does Socrates tell the boy that the proposition is true, he merely asks him questions and gives him the words to express his understanding.
Even if Socrates told him that the proposition is true, this would not necessarily mean that the boy understood the proposition, and this is what is significant.
It is also a proposition that is true of perfect squares, which the boy has never seen.
We are only capable of seeing representations of squares, which we understand to represent the concept of a square.
A representation of a square will not have 4 perfect right angles and 4 perfectly straight sides, whereas the concept of a square does.
It is also a proposition that is true of all squares, and not simply the square Socrates drew as part of his demonstration.
The boy only sees one demonstration of this principle, but understands innately that it will work for any given square.
What is further detail for Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument, P1?
We know this because is he able to assent to the truth of the proposition ‘the size of the square drawn from the diagonal of another square will have twice the volume’.
This is indicative of the fact that he understands the proposition, rather than merely repeating it.
What is an example of Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument?
Socrates asks a slave boy whether or not he knows how double the area of a square, but he is unable to do so.
The boy has not had any education in geometry so this is not surprising, but establishes that the boy is starting from a position of ignorance.
Socrates asks the boy questions, until he is able to demonstrate knowledge of how to double the area of a square.
He does this by assenting to the proposition ‘the size of the square drawn from the diagonal of another square will have twice the volume’.
Socrates claims that this demonstrates that the boy must possess this knowledge innately, as at no point has he taught it to him, he has merely asked him questions.
The boy also understands the propositions, rather than merely repeating them.
What is the type of argument of Plato’s innatism, and the ‘slave boy’ argument?
a priori
Though this argument is illustrated with a narrative, which suggests a posteriori justification, the reasons given for the boy not knowing the geometrical proof through experience are to do with the the fact that this is logically impossible. This makes it a priori.
What is the aim of Leibinz’s innatist argument based on necessary truth?
Leibniz aims to demonstrate that knowledge of any necessary truths would have to be possessed innately.
Which consequently would make the central claim of innatism true.
What is the argument for Leibinz’s innatist argument based on necessary truth? (standard form).
P1: I have knowledge of necessary truths
P2: This knowledge is either based on experience (a posteriori) or it is innate.
P3: It cannot be based on experience because I have knowledge of necessary truths which it is beyond the scope of my experience to justify a posteriori.
This is because necessary truths must be true in all possible worlds. I am only able to experience this possible world, so I can have no experience of what is true in other possible worlds. Additionally I cannot justify that it must be true in this possible world, because this is the case in virtue of what is true in all possible worlds.
C: Therefore it must be innate.
What are examples for P1 & 3 of Leibinz’s innatist argument based on necessary truth?
P1 - mathematical/geometrical proofs such as 2+2=4
The example is necessarily true which means they are true in all possible worlds. This is why it would be impossible to know why are necessarily true from experience alone, as we have no way of experiencing all possible worlds.
Leibniz also gives examples of logical truths such as the principle of identity and the principle of sufficient reason.
P3 - The mind is like a block of marble, it has innate dispositions toward forming certain knowledge/concepts like how marble contains veins and cracks that make it disposed towards forming certain shapes when chiseled.
Experience is necessary but not sufficient to explain how the mind forms certain knowledge/conceptions, like how a chisel is necessary for exposing the innate patterns within a block of marble, but is not sufficient as it requires the patterns to already be there.
What is the principle of sufficient reason?
Every true proposition is true for a reason (something makes it true, rather than it serving a purpose)
e.g. the statue of liberty is green because it is made of oxidised copper.
What is the principle of Identity?
Everything is identical to itself.
e.g. 1=1.
What is the type of argument for Leibinz’s innatist argument based on necessary truth?
Leibniz’s argument is a priori
It refers to the impossibility of knowing something from experience, which cannot itself be justified through experience.
What is the argument for Innatism (in standard form)?
P1 - I possess knowledge of /concept of x.
P2 - This either comes from experience or is innate.
P3- It couldn’t be from experience because…
C - It is possessed innately.
