Intuition and Deduction Thesis (epistemology)

Question 1

Intuition meaning

Answer 1

• An intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of the proposition directly and non-inferentially.
• Descartes claims that ‘I exist’, a priori and concept of God is knowledge gained through intuition

Question 2

Deduction meaning

Answer 2

• The drawing of conclusions that necessarily follow from the premises, it’s deductively valid arguments (arguments where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true).

EG P1: men are mortal
P2: Descartes is a man
C: Descartes is mortal

Question 3

How does Descartes use intuition and deduction?

Answer 3

= He aims to demonstrate that a priori knowledge can be gained by starting with truths grasped through intuition and then using them in deductive arguments to produce guaranteed premises.

-> a priori
-> intuition
-> deductive

Question 4

What does Descartes mean by ‘clear ideas’

Answer 4

= Ideas that are vivid and immediately accessible to the mind, the truth of it cannot be doubted, it is known in certainty.

EG pain (it cannot be doubted or ignored)

Question 5

What does Descartes mean by saying an idea is ‘distinct’

Answer 5

= An idea that can be distinguished from other ideas, it cannot be confused with others.

Pain is clear but not always distinct as we may not be able to easily identify the source of pain or type of pain.

Question 6

Examples of clear and distinct ideas

Answer 6

-Mathematical truths (1+1=2)
- A Priori knowledge (grasped through reason only; as opposed to knowledge from our senses which can be confused about it).
-Descartes example of ‘I exist’
- concept of God

Question 7

Explain the role of clear and distinct ideas in Descartes’ epistemology

Answer 7

-Descartes wanted to determine which pieces of knowledge could be known for certain.
-He wanted to identify knowledge that could be known clearly and distinctly (ie cannot be doubted).
-He used the process of intuition and deduction to establish such knowledge.

Question 8

ISSUE: Are ‘clear and distinct’ ideas clear and distinct?

Answer 8

The statement ‘I can only know clear and distinct ideas without certainty’ is not itself obviously true. Descartes does not seem to give a clear and distinct account of clear and distinct ideas comma or an easy way to identify which ideas count as clear and distinct.

Question 9

How does Descartes intend to use scepticism to help him establish indubitable knowledge?
+ what is this known as if you hold this belief?

Answer 9

= By doubting all his beliefs
He wants to examine all his beliefs and reject any that have room for doubt, he will then only be left with indubitable knowledge. He does not need to go through his beliefs one by one, he just needs to examine foundations of his beliefs (perception, knowledge etc).

• ‘Infallibilist’ is what Descartes is known as because he will only accept beliefs that have no possibility of being doubted as knowledge.

Question 10

Explain Descartes cogito as an a priori intuition

Answer 10

Cogito: ‘I am, I exist’ comes from “cogito ergo sum”- i think therefore i am
=Descartes says his existence as a thinking thing is clear (cannot be doubted) and distinct (cannot be confused with any other knowledge). He can know he exists with certainty. -> cogito is an example of a clear and distinct idea .

Reached by…
p1: Through the third wave of doubt (evil demon) p2 : He questions the possibility that he has been deceived about all of his knowledge.
p3: But even if this is the case, the Demon cannot deceive him of his own existence.
c1: Therefore, he must exist in order to be deceived (doubt proves existence).

= An a priori intuition
- Descartes can demonstrate his existence purely from reasoning alone (a priori) grasped through an intellectual capacity to grasp the truths of a proposition directly and non inferentially (intuition)

Question 11

infallibilism

Answer 11

Descartes was an infalibilist = knowledge can only be defined in terms of indubitable beliefs (cannot be doubted)

Question 12

Can we make synthetic claims an a priori? meaning

Answer 12

Aka can we come to new knowledge about the world just through reason>experience (innatism/ rationalist view)

Question 13

First wave of doubt

Answer 13

illusion (ie a square tower looking round from a distance)
= Descartes recognises that his senses at times deceive him. He uses the example of someone deceiving you once gets labeled as untrustworthy. Therefore, our senses are an untrustworthy source of knowledge and can doubt information from there.

Question 14

How does the first wave of doubt not give us enough evidence to doubt the existence of this external world?

Answer 14

Sensory information is only unreliable in particular instances (small things or far away)

. He is not saying that all sensory information is wrong, just that no one piece of information gained via sensors is guaranteed to be true.

This also gives him no reason to doubt a priori knowledge.
(counterfit coins example: In the same way that one counterfeit coin cannot call into question the reliability of all money, one or more illusions can’t call all sensory information into question.

Question 15

Why is it not possible to doubt all our sensory information?

Answer 15

= Because the only reason he knowswe can doubt our senses is by comparing illusions to veridical perception.

In the same way that one counterfeit coin cannot call into question the reliability of all money, one or more illusions can’t call all sensory information into question.

Question 16

Second wave of doubt + counterpoint

Answer 16

Dreaming as a reality. As he has had realistic dreams in the past, that at the time he didn’t know weren’t real, he questions whether all experience could really be a dream.

counterpoint = reality is much more coherent and clear than dreams. We can usually tell the difference between being awake and having a dream.

Question 17

Descartes notion against his claim that all of reality is a dream

Answer 17

In the same way that paintings are based on reality, so are dreams. The only reason it is possible to dream is if there is a reality to dream about. He cannot therefore claim to be dreaming all the time, but could be dreaming now. Also, truths like 2 + 2 = 4 are still true in dreams, so he cannot doubt all knowledge.

• also not enough to doubt a priori knowledge as you cannot imagine a four sided triangle.

Question 18

Third wave of doubt

Answer 18

Evil demon
= Whom deceives us of all our knowledge (inc a priori)

Therefore, anything he believes to be knowledge which he has experienced through both sense experience and logic/reasoning could be a deception.

Question 19

An empiricists argument of cogito not as an a priori knowledge
(aka how does Hume question the existence of the self)

Answer 19

-Hume is an empiricist ->only derive knowledge from experience.

-Alll ideas are copies of impressions
-We never have an impression of ‘ourselves’ isolated from experience.
- To derive the cogito (self) it would have to be a constant and invariable experience. (causation as a cc)
- We never experience any such thing within our own mind (eg introspection only allows for experience of particular mental states; emotions and sensations)
- He says all we are is a changing ‘bundle of different perceptions’ and we cannot detect the existence of a self.
- THEREFORE, there is no persistent substance over time that could constitute an enduring personal identity (cogito fails)

R -> the self has to exist in order to perceive

Question 20

define ‘begging the question’

Answer 20

Assuming the conclusion in a premise of an argument

Question 21

Issue: how does the cogito beg the question

Answer 21

P1: “I think”
(hidden P2: “Thinking things must exist”)
C1: “I exist”

= It seems to assume the existence of himself ‘I’ at the beginning of the first premise. You need to already assume it is the ‘I’ doing the thinking before concluding ‘I exist’.

If Hume is right and we don’t have evidence for the self, then this argument doesn’t bring any new reason to conclude it exists.

Question 22

Descartes response to cogito begging the question

Answer 22

‘I exist’ doesn’t require an argument, it is just self-evidently true as an a priori intuition. He clearly and distinctly perceives that he exists as a thinking thing. Therefore begging the question cannot work.

Question 23

Explain how Descartes argues that the existence of God can be known a priori
(Descartes trademark argument)

Answer 23

P1: I have a clear and distinct idea of an infinite/ perfect God
P2: All ideas have a cause
P3: The effect cannot be greater/ more perfect than the cause (causal adequacy principle)
C1: I cannot be the cause of my idea of god as I am finite/imperfect
C2: The idea of God must come from a perfect/ infinite being
P4: Only God is perfect/infinite
C3: Only God can cause the idea of God
C4: God must exist

Question 24

Causal adequacy principle

Answer 24

an effect cannot be greater than its cause

Question 25

Empiricist obj to the trademark argument/CAP

Answer 25

Hume
= the concept of god is not innate, it depends on our minds
-we dont actually have a clear and distinct idea of perfection/ Infinity
-we see things that are good or big and just imagine them better (perfection) and bigger (infinite).

THEREFORE, it is possible to imagine an effect that is greater/bigger than what caused the idea.

->against causal adequacy principle/trademark arg

Question 26

What are the two prongs of Hume’s Fork?

Answer 26

Relations of Ideas
-They are ANALYTIC propositions (true by definition e.g all bachelors are male and unmarried /2+2 =4).
-They are known from a priori knowledge (acquired through reason). And they are necessary truths (true in all possible worlds)

Matters of fact
-> They are SYNTHETIC propositions (not true by definition e.g all bachelors are eccentric/ the sun will rise tomorrow).
-> EXAMPLE INC: Russell’s turkey who he fed everyday believed he would always be fed as he had experienced the same thing over and over. But was killed to be eaten = the future us bit certain
- A posteriori (acquired through experience)
- A contingent truth (not true in all possible worlds as it can be doubted, the opposite is possible).

Question 27

Hume’s Fork against Descartes proof of the existence of God (empiricist objection to existence of god)

Answer 27

Hume is an empiricist: only ever know something via experience (a posteriori)
Descartes claims we can deductively prove the existence of God through a priori intuition.
HOWEVER…

‘God exists’ is neither…
ROI: not true by definition ; as we cannot logically reason from any effect to a cause (there is always the possibility we are wrong to assume any cause).
MOF: God is not a subject of experience

= Therefore, it doesn’t fit into either ‘prong’ of his fork so we have no good reason/evidence that suggests God caused our ideas of God (so cannot know God exists)

Question 28

Hume’s copy principle against Descartes proof of the existence of God (empiricist obj to existence of god)

Answer 28

Descartes claims that our idea of God is an innate idea, known purely through reason ( a priori) that God caused the idea of God.
- Hume claims we can only ever have an idea through experience/never reason ( as all ideas are copies of impressions).
- Hume shows that we can trace back our idea of God to experience ; we have experiences of role models who are powerful, good and knowledgeable SO the idea of God came from the amalgamation of these impressions( ie imagine smt bigger and better) to produce the complex idea that is God.

• This shows how we cannot prove the existence of God via a priori intuition, nor make a deductive argument (only inductive ; most likely)

Question 29

Descartes’s wax example: proof of the external world as an a priori deduction

Answer 29

Before melting: cold, opaque, white, sweet, honey, makes a tapping sound when knocked against something.

After melting: liquid, hot, clear, colourless, smell and taste gone, will not make a tapping sound when knocked.

= But the wax is still the same wax, even though all its properties have changed

= He can’t know everything about the wax through his senses alone, if we just relied on senses, we would think it were a different object. He needs to use his reasoning to understand if it is still the same object that continues from the sensory info. He concludes we must have a priori knowledge that a physical object can change properties and still remain the same object.

Question 30

Descartes proof of the external world

Answer 30

P1: I clearly and distinctly perceive a world of external physical objects
P2: This cause must be either my own mind, God or external physical objects
P3: If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary (under my control)
P4: However, they are not voluntary
P5: If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive
P6: However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver as he is perfect
C1: Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects
C2: Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects.

= Relies heavily on the existence of God and the validity of the trademark argument

Question 31

Cartesian Circle : criticism of Descartes proof of external world

Answer 31

-His proof on the existence of God : relies on us having an idea of a perfect God.
-His proof of the external world: relies on our perceptions being reliable,
(concluded they are reliable as God wouldn’t deceive him). So his reasoning appears circular.

Idea of God -> caused by -> God -> Whom produces -> Ideas of God

Question 32

Explain how empiricists object to Descartes’ proof of the external world

Answer 32

• Hume’s account of causation as constant conjunction; causation cannot be a ROI (a priori) as we cannot logically reason from any given effect to any cause (we could always be wrong).
• Our idea of causation comes from repeatedly seeing the same effect following the same cause.
• This (causation) can only be inferred via a posteriori inductive reasoning, not deductive argument.
  -This inference means we cannot be certain that the external world exists, it can only be a matter of (high) probability. Doubt remains.

Question 33

the four rules for gaining knowledge

Answer 33

1-> accept only beliefs that are clear and distinct to be true
2 -> break problems down into smaller parts
3 -> build up arguments systematically in order ( deductively)
4-> Check to make sure no steps are missed out