Innatism (epistemology) Flashcards
Analytic vs Synthetic propositions
Analytic propositions -> Statements that are true by definition (e.g all bachelors are male and unmarried)
-> to deny is a logical contradiction
Synthetic propositions -> Statements that are not true by definition (e.g some bachelors are eccentric) //statements that tell us things about the world
-> to deny is possible
Necessary vs Contingent truths
Necessary -> True in all possible worlds/genuine knowledge (cannot be known otherwise , e.g dogs are mammals)
Contingent -> Not true in all possible worlds/may not be true (can be known otherwise, e.g Boris is prime minister)
Three knowledges
Ability (procedural) knowledge-> knowing how
Eg “I know how to ride a bike”
Acquaintance Knowledge -> knowing of (via exp)
Eg “I know what an apple tastes like”
Propositional (factual) knowledge -> knowing that some claim is true/false
Eg “I know the capital of England is London”
There are 3 types of knowledge because knowledge of and how cannot be reduced to knowledge that.
Meno’s paradox
P1:If we know the answer to a question you cannot gain new knowledge by asking
P2:If you do not know the answer to a question you cannot ever know if you have found the right answer because we don’t have the knowledge to judge it
C: Either way gaining new knowledge is impossible
Criticism of Plato’s argument for innatism
- the boy might have learned maths from another source
- they are mainly yes/no questions so maybe Socrates is guiding him
- boy is using reason to work out what must be the case> memory
Empiricist vs rationalist (and ppl) 3marks
A rationalist beleives that reason is the source of knowledge, while an empiricist believes that knowledge is gained via experience.
E = Locke, Berkeley, Hume
R = Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Plato
What does an innatist about propositional knowledge believe? (3marks)
= we are born with some innate propositional knowledge which is therefore not given to us or justified by empirical experience
Plato’s argument for innatism; recollection
-Plato argued all knowledge is innate - we are born with it.
- Via the ‘process of learning’ (learning as a process of recollection), we are able to recall/remember our soul’s existence in the realm of forms (a place prior to birth where our soul was acquainted with all knowledge).
P1:Learning is a process of recollection.
P2:Our souls existed in the realm of forms prior to birth where it gained all knowledge. When we were born, we forget.
C1: So when we learn something new we are actually recalling our souls existence in the realm of forms.
- Uses Socrates’ ‘slave boy’ example to explain further:
P1: The slave boy has not been taught about geometry
P2: Socrates only ask questions, he does not teach the boy geometry
P3: After the discussion, the boy knows some geometrical ideas.
C1: The boy’s knowledge of geometry did not come from teaching (exp)
C2: The boy must have had innate knowledge of geometry
C3: There is innate knowledge, learning is a process of recollection
Leibniz’s argument for innatism (necessary truths)
1) Senses alone are not enough to explain all our knowledge.
2) We have knowledge of some necessary truths (true in all worlds e.g 1+1 =2)
3) Sense experience only provides us information about particular instances ->it is impossible to experience all instances and so necessary truths cannot be learnt through experience
4) Must use reasoning
c1- necessary truths cannot be known through experience
c2- necessary truths must be in some sense, present in the mind (innate)
ideas from exp: contingent truths; true in some worlds
innate ideas: necessary truths; go beyond sense experience to understand them
Leibniz’s marble sculpt idea meaning (argues middle ground)
= We have potential knowledge, which is uncovered by experience and skill, all we need for knowledge of necessary truths is innate in the structure of our brain.
- knowledge requires activation (its within us but we must be activated, via experience, to expose it)
Locke’s objections against innatism + Leibniz’ response
Leibniz argues that everyone does assent principles like contradiction. A child understands that their teddy cannot be in their hand and in the toy box at the same time. Therefore, contradiction is known innately.
1: No universal assent -> If a concept or item of knowledge is innate it must be universally known.
->For something to be known it must be assented to by all. (agreed on)
-> Children and idiots aren’t able to assent to even basic principles, such as identity/ contradiction.
2: Cannot distinguish between innate k and k gained via exp -> experience is required to activate knowledge, it cannot be innate knowledge.
RESPONSE: Leibniz necessary truth arg
3: Transparency of the mind -> Locke argues that for something to be in the mind we must be aware of it. He disagrees with Leibniz that children and idiots are really unaware of necessary truths and that it makes no sense to say something can be in the mind and yet not actively known.
ISSUE: Psychoanalysis today has shown that much of our mental content is subconscious and that there are lots of ideas that we are not actively aware of (such as being in denial or picking up habits etc).
C: There are no concepts or items of knowledge known innately
Difference between innate ideas and ideas gained from experience (Leibnz)
- Innate ideas are necessary truths as we have to go beyond sense experience to understand them.
- Ideas gained through experience are contingent, only true in some worlds.
- Therefore we can tell the difference between innate ideas and ideas from experience by identifying whether the idea is a necessary truth or a contingent truth.
- exp ideas -> contingent
innate ideas -> necessary
Tabula Rasa argument (Locke) 3 marks
= Tabula rasa literally means “blank slate”. It is the empiricist view that the mind has no concepts/knowledge at birth, and experience is required to acquire ideas.
Latin -> ‘Blank slate’ (empiricist view)
=This is the view that when we are born our minds have no content whatsoever. There is no innate knowledge to uncover.Ultimately everything is learnt through experience.
= Because Locke believed all knowledge is from experience, he said there are two places in which we get those experiences…
1) external world = where we gain info from our senses
2) internal operations = reflections of our experience of our own emotions (like anger,love etc)
Two categories of perception (Hume) 3 marks
Locke said that anything present to the mind was an idea…HOWEVER Hume disagreed, he said there were two categories of perception…
impressions -> The direct experience of something (e.g actually feeling, tasting, hearing, seeing, touching something). More vivid than ideas.
ideas -> Copysof impressions. Memories/reflections of impressions. They are fainter and less real than the experience you had at the time. Ideas are left over after the experience is finished. Less vivid (except in phenomena’s like vivid dreams etc)
Hume’s copy principle
P1: All ideas are copies of impressions.
P2: We can only ever think about something we have experienced.
P3: We cannot have an idea of something completely new and completely unrelated to our experience.
P4: Experience takes the form of simple ideas (comes directly from our sense experience, like a colour or shape).
And complex ideas (our experience of an object that is composed of two or more simple ideas, like a car).
C: Every idea we have has a corresponding impression found in experience
