intuition and deduction thesis content Flashcards
what is a rationalist
- descartes
- concerned with reason shaping our knowledge
what is deduction
- DRAWING CONCLUSIONS that follow from premises
- cannot be doubted as it is reached following a valid argument with true premises
what is rational intuition
- how EASILY someone is able to GRASP A CONCEPT
- the intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a preposition directly
what are clear and distinct ideas and give examples
CLEAR = vivid and immediatly accessible to the mind, known with certainty, cannot be doubted = pain
DISTINCT = can be distinguished from other ideas, cannot be confused with other ideas = pain is not always distinct but is clear, sometimes we cannot easily identify the source of our pain
- a priori truths, mathematical truths
what role do clear and distinct truths play in descartes philosophy
- Descartes aim is to reach certain knowledge which is clear and distinct
- in order to do this he doubts everything he claims to know
- he rationally intuits several clear and distinct ideas
—> e.g the cogito - he later goes on to reach clear and distinct ideas of God, Matter and Mind
define philisophical scepticism
the claim that one or more of our usual justifications for claiming our beliefs are inadequate so we dont have knowledge
define local and global scepticism
local = doubting one particular part of knowledge —> doubting moral properties, other minds, Gods existance
global = doubting all domains of knowledge or truths —> doubting existance of the external world, brain in a vat, evil demon
what is certain knowledge and why is descartes concerned about finding it
- knowledge which cannot be doubted
- descartes is concerned about finding this so he can provide a definite foundation for our knowledge in general
what is infallibilism
- descartes defines knowledge as a true belief justified beyond doubt just as infallibilism defines knowledge
- basically anything which cannot be doubted at all counts as knowledge
- this would rule out sense perception but descartes aims to fix that
what are descartes three waves of doubt
- sense deception
- dreaming
- evil demon
summarise descartes first wave of doubt - sense deception
what type of scepticism is this
- at times our senses decieve us
- objects can appeaar different to what they truely are —> illusions, hallucinations, PV
- our 5 senses cannot be trusted fully as they can change our perceptions
- since descartes cannot be certain about the information provided through our senses, they cannot be a source of knowledge
- so the information from our senses is unreliable but not wrong
- LOCAL
why is descartes first wave of doubt (sense deception) not sufficient to call into doubt all of our knowledge
- only a prosteriori knwoledge can be doubted in this wave —> however this relies of specific instances of sense deception not SD as a whole
- a priori truths such as mathematical ones cannot be disproved through SD
summarise descartes second wave of doubt (dreaming)
what type of scepticism is this
- at any given moment we could be dreaming
- could be dreaming such a realistic dream that we cannot tell the difference
- local
why is descartes second wave (dreaming) not sufficiant into calling into doubt all of our knowledge
- does doubt all a prosteriori truths as they come from sense perception
- DOES NOT DOUBT A PRIORI TRUTHS
what are descartes two reasons as to why we dont exist in a dream
- reality is more clear and coherent than dreams —> we can easily tell the difference
- the only reason we can dream is because there is a reality to base those dreams on (think Humes copy principle) and to return to
summarise descartes third wave of doubt (the evil demon)
what type of scepticism is this?
- unless we can prove the existance of God, an evil demon may be convincing and tricking us about every thought we are having - a priori or a prosteriori
- the demon would be able to trick our senses and minds
- the problem is we wouldnt be able to tell if we are being tricked or not —> we wouldnt know either way because our senses would be the same
- global scepticism
why is descartes third wave if doubt (the evil demon) enough to call into doubt all of our knowledge
- the issue is not that the evil demon exists, rather we cannot prove that it doesnt exist
- it undermines all our knowledge claims because we cannot know for certain that we are experiencing those perceptions
- cannot be certain of anything —> a priori or a prosteriori
what is descartes response to the evil demon
- rationally intuiting —> deducing —> cogito —> God exists —> evil demon does not exist —> existance of the external world
what is descartes cogito an example of
a priori intuition
- by doubting the exitance of everything, he rationally intuits that doubt cannot be doubted so “i think therefore i am”
- this is a clear and distinct idea
what was humes copy principle
- all ideas can be traced back to experience
- ideas = formulations of simple ideas —> copies of impressions derived from sense experience
- he says we can trace ideas of God, causation and logical laws back to experience
how does hume use the copy principle to argue there is no such thing as the self and how does this undermine descartes rational intution of the cogito
- we have impressions of ourselves which are isolated from all perception/thought
- if there is no experience of a distinct “I” from our perceptions and thoughts then we arent justified in claiming that such an “I” exists
- Hume claims that the “I” is just a bundle of qualities/perceptions/thoughts not one distinct mind which thinks and exists
how might descartes respond to hume claiming there is no such thing as the self
- thoughts require a thinker
- hume defined the mind as an activity but there has to be something that is doing that activity
what is begging the question and how may descartes be accused of this
- logical fallacy
- assumes the existamce of … in first premise
- he needs to prove… without reffering to any sense of …
- a logical fallacy where someone assumes what they are trying to prove in the conclusion
- descartes assumes the existance of “I” in the first premise which he then goes on to prove in the conclusion
- he needs to prove the existance of “I” without reffering to any sense of “self”
how would descartes respond to being accused of begging the question in deducing the cogito
- he could give up his deduction of the cogito and just claim it is a rational intuition
- the rational intuition form of the argument is not open to being charged with begging the question because it isnt a deductive argument
- but this would mean it is a clear and distinct idea so then Humes copy principle could be used to disprove the cogito