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
Q
Leibniz’s defence
A
- 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
Q
innate knowledge as a disposition
A
- 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
Q
tabula rasa
A
- 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
Q
simple and complex concepts
A
- 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
Q
Hume’s copy principle
A
- 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
Q
can we derive all complex ideas from simple ideas (objection)
A
- 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
Q
empiricist response to the meno
A
- 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
Q
the missing shade of blue
A
- 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
