innatism Flashcards
1
Q
a priori
A
knowledge that is known before to or independently from experience
2
Q
a posteriori
A
belief that can only be known through experience of the world
3
Q
analytic
A
an analytic truth is a proposition that is true in virtue of the meanings of the words alone (true by definition)
4
Q
synthetic
A
synthetic truths are truths that can’t be determined simply by analysing the meanings of the terms used
5
Q
contingent
A
a contingent truth is one which happens to be true but may not have been
- it is logically possible to be false
6
Q
necessary
A
a necessary truth is one which has to be true and could not be otherwise
- a truth we’re the opposite would not be possible
7
Q
innate
A
innate ideas are ideas that exist in the mind which are not acquired from experience
- ideas in your mind since birth
8
Q
empiricism
A
an epistemological position which holds that our beliefs/knowledge must be based on experience
9
Q
rationalism
A
the tendency to regard reason as the primary source of knowledge which we are capable
10
Q
empiricism
A
- knowledge is rooted in experience
- sense experience is essential to know anything about the world
11
Q
rationalism
A
- we can have knowledge of the world through reason
- this may be through innate knowledge, rational intuition or both
12
Q
analytic and synthetic
A
- is all a priori knowledge, knowledge of analytic propositions? are all synthetic propositions know a posteriori?
- empiricism: yes
- if a proposition is not made true through logic or meaning, then it can only be established by sense experience
- rationalism: no
- we can have a priori knowledge of sythetic propositions
13
Q
innatism
A
we have propositional knowledge that is part of the structure of the mind
14
Q
rational intuition
A
- knowing something through intellectual seeming
- (that there are propositions that we can grasp the truth of, just by thinking about them)
15
Q
innatism about knowledge
A
- the claim that there is some innate (propositional) knowledge
- innate: not gained from experience, but somehow part of the in built structure of the mind (reason as the faculty of knowledge)
- because innate knowledge is not gained from experience, it is a priori
16
Q
Plato’s meno (argument for innatism)
A
- Plato demonstrates innate knowledge using the example of a slave boy solving a problem in geometry
- the slave boy, who has not been taught geometry, solves the problem just through Socrates asking a series of questions (he also is able to explain and correct himself when he makes a mistake)
- he didn’t gain the knowledge from experience, so he must have recovered the answers from within his mind
- the argument for innate knowledge is that we have knowledge that we can’t have gained from experience
- he argues that the only way this makes sense is that if we had an existence prior to birth, a soul which existed in a word of forms
17
Q
Leibniz on necessary truth
A
- knowledge could not have come from experience and must therefore have been innate by claiming that the supposedly innate propositions are necessary as they can’t fail to be true
- however, we only ever experience contingent things
- all the objects in our experience depend on something else for their existence
- we could not have inferred or gained knowledge of a necessary proposition from merely contingent experience
- this is because experience of contingent beings doesn’t involve necessity so can’t be used to under necessary propositions; no amount of contingent experiences can provide us with knowledge of a necessary proposition
- necessary propositions are those which must be true and can’t be gained from experience
- if knowledge of necessary propositions can’t be gained from experience, then they must br gained through the unlocking of our innate potential to know them by experience
- experience tells us how things are, but not how things have to be
- experience gives us knowledge of particulars, not universals
- eg seeing a triangle can only teach us that, that particular triangle obeys Pythagoras’ theorem, not the universal truth that all triangles do
- so necessary truths must be a priori
- because these truths are not conscious, we need to discover them
18
Q
experience triggers innate knowledge
A
- since we are not consciously aware of this knowledge from birth, there is some point at which we first come to be aware of it
- experience triggers our awareness of the knowledge
- eg birds sing the song of their species after hearing just a small part of it therefore can’t be learned from experience
- carruthers: cognitive capacities have genetic base, but develop in response to experience
- why not concepts and knowledge
- eg around 3/4 months, babies quickly start thinking of physical objects as something that can exist outside their experience
- our capacity for thinking about the world (reason) is preshaped or predisposed towards certain true thoughts
19
Q
alternative explanation
A
- we can object that knowledge seems innate, because it is not learned from experience, is actually innate
- we acquire the concepts involved from experience
- then in understanding the concept, we come to know the a priori truth
- response: is this explanation plausible
- eg are mathematical truths analytic
20
Q
innatism and empiricism
A
- if innate knowledge doesn’t come from experience, where does it come from
- Plato: existence before birth
- Descartes: god
- empiricist account: innate knowledge derives from evolution
- it is genetically encoded that we will develop the relevant concepts and use the knowledge at a certain point in cognitive development under certain conditions
- this development is the product of natural selection
21
Q
John Locke on innate knowledge
A
he denied that innate knowledge was possible because all knowledge is based upon sense experience
22
Q
Locke on ideas
A
- idea: whatever it is that the mind can be employed about in thinking
- a complete thought, eg bananas are yellow (statement)
- a sensation, eg of yellow (experience)
- a concept,eg yellow (ideal)
- you can have a sensation without having a concept and vice versa
- innate ideas: thoughts printed on the soul at the point of existence, which it brings into the world with it
- eg whatever it is, it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be
23
Q
Locke’s argument against innate knowledge
A
- if there is innate knowledge, it is universal (would be universally assented to)
- for an idea to be part of the mind, Locke says the mind (the person) must know or be conscious of it
- if you are not aware of it, it’s not part of your mind
- therefore, innate knowledge is knowledge that every human being is or has been conscious of
- children or ‘idiots’ do not know theorems in geometry or ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’
- they don’t know these claims because they don’t understand them
- therefore, these claims are not innate as there is knowledge which satisfies the necessary condition for innateness of universal assent
- there are no claims that are universally accepted, including by children and ‘idiots’
- even if there was a propositions that was universally assented to, that wouldn’t necessarily make it innate
- therefore, universal assent is a necessary but not a sufficient criteria for innate knowledge
24
Q
Locke’s redefining ‘innate’
A
- any knowledge we can gain
- no, the capacity for knowledge is innate
- compare: the capacity for sight is innate, but what we see is not - what everyone knows and agrees to when they gain the use of reason
- what’s the connection between reason and innateness, if it’s innate, why do we need a reason to discover it
- wrong anyway, children can reason before they understand many of the logical truths said to be innate - knowledge gained at some point after the use of reason
- lots of empirical knowledge qualifies - knowledge that is assented to as promptly as it is understood, ‘self evident’
- but many such claims depend on sense experience
- these claims are obvious analytic truths
in addition, there is no innate knowledge because all knowledge requires concepts and there are no innate concepts
25
Leibniz’s defence
- we can know things without being conscious of them
- Locke is wrong to claim that an idea can only be in the mind if we are conscious of it
- necessary truths are a priori and innate, while truths of facts are a posteriori
- innate knowledge exists as ‘a disposition, an aptitude, a preformation’ in the mind towards developing, understanding and knowing certain thoughts
- ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’, this is universally accepted
- we all use innate knowledge but ‘without explicitly attending to it’
- it is necessary for thought, since it is needed to distinguish the concept of one thing from the concept of something different
- unconscious knowledge shouldn’t be controversial
- memory shows that we can know things without being conscious of them and retrieving them can require assistance
- Locke’s response: but memories are formed from sense experiences, what is unconscious must have once been conscious
26
innate knowledge as a disposition
- innate knowledge is not merely the capacity for knowledge
- it is more than capacity but is not yet fully or explicitly formed
- it takes work to develop the predisposition, but the knowledge we gain is not gained from sense experience (the knowledge is already there)
27
tabula rasa
- Locke: at birth (or where consciousness begins), the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate)
- all our concepts derive from:
- **sensation**: perceptual experience of objects outside the mind
- **reflection**: experience of the internal operations of our minds
- both of these are experience
- can’t have reflection until you have sensation
28
simple and complex concepts
- we start from simple impressions (eg single colours, shapes, smells, etc - one which can’t be broken down any further)
- we copy these to form simple concepts
- we can then construct complex concepts
- untie and combine impressions into a concept of a single object, eg that dog
- abstraction, eg dog
- do this creatively, eg unicorn
29
Hume’s copy principle
- all ideas are copies of impressions
- all ideas in the mind ultimately derive from impressions
- therefore there is no innate concepts
- he also says that lacking an impression results in a lack of a concept
a spectrum of blue with one shade missing - we can probably form the idea of the missing shade, so not all ideas are copied from impressions
- amend the copy principle: any ideas that are not copied from impressions are only meaningful if they could be copied from impressions
- or keep the copy principle but explain why the missing shade is an exception that can’t be generalised (eg it only works for impressions that are highly similar)
30
can we derive all complex ideas from simple ideas (objection)
- objection: can we derive all complex ideas from simple ideas and this from experience
- Hume: yes, eg god - we extend beyond limits the qualities of knowledge, goodness, etc, that we experience in ourselves
- counterexample: philosophical concepts such as knowledge and truth
31
empiricist response to the meno
- we gain the the concepts of number and shape from experience and then gain mathematical knowledge when analysing those concepts
- the slave boy may not have had any formal mathematical education but must have experienced the shapes of objects in his life
- that experience could be how he gained geometric concepts which he then used to demonstrate mathematical knowledge
- the knowledge demonstrated could therefore have been gained by analytic a priori reasoning about concepts gained from experience
- therefore, it was caused by experience and not innate knowledge
32
the missing shade of blue
- the exception to the copy principle
- someone who hade never before seen a certain shade of blue would be able to conceive of it if they were showed a list of all other shades of blue, with the one they had not seen missing
- so not all ideas are copied from impressions
- amend the copy principle: any ideas that are not copied from impressions are only meaningful if they could be copied from impressions
- or keep the copy principle but explain why the missing shade is an exception that can’t be generalised (eg it only works for impressions that are highly similar)
- to defend Hume, you could claim that shades of blue are really complex ideas
