Knowledge from reason Flashcards
what does this topic discuss
whether our knowledge comes from just perception or other a priori forms of knowledge
what two ways reject empiricism
rationalism and innatism
what is rationalism
we can acquire some knowledge through intuition and reduction, (just by thinking)
what is innatism
we are born with some knowledge already
what are the two types of truth
analytic and synthetic
define analytic truth
true in virtue of the meaning of the words, a tautology,
Metaphysically true. and cannot be denied without resulting in logical contradiction,
what is a synthetic truth
true in virtue of how the world is.
what is intuition
the ability to know something is true just by thinking about it
what is deduction
a method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions. using reason,
what are the three synthetic truths that descartes provides in his meditations 1
i exist
god exists
the external world exists
explain the three waves of doubt
before establishing what we know. descartes needs to doubt everything, he does this by stating reasons why we can doubt. illusion. dreaming and cartesian demon/deception.
what id the definition of cogito ergo sum
meditations 2
i doubt. therefore i think. therefore i am.
summarise the Descartes trademark argument from his meditations
p1. i have the concept of god.
p2. my concept of God is infinite and perfect
p3. but i am a finite and imperfect being
p4. the cause of the effect must have as much reality as the effect
c1. so the cause of my concept of god must have had as much reality as what the concept is about.
c2. so the cause of my concept of god must be a perfect being
c3. so god exists
the concept of god is like an innate “trademark”. god has placed the idea of himself inside his head.
what is plato’s slave boy argument in the meno
in the meno plato shows how a slave boy can access his innate ideas
P1. the slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry
P2. socrates only asks questions; he does not teach the slave boy
P3. after questioning, the slave boy can grasp the eternal truth about geometry.
p4. this eternal truth was not derived from the boys prior experience, not from socrates
c1. the eternal truth must have existed innately in the boys mind
critique of platos slave boy argument from the meno
issue with P4, the boy may just be using reason to work out what must be the case, given certain features of line and shapes. Meaning it is not necessary to posit innate knowledge to explain how the slave boy grasped geometric truth.
Leibniz argument from innate truths
P1. the senses only reveal instances of general truths
p2. the senses cannot reveal the necessity of a general truth
p3. our minds can see the necessity of a general truth
c1.our ability to see the necessity of a general truth is not derived from the senses, but is based on innate principles. (innate ideas which are revealed by reason)
leibniz marble example
innate ideas exist in us not fully formed.
our mind is like a block of marble which has veins running in the inside in such a way it will readily take a specific shape.
our mind are structured to reveal innate principles once prompted by the senses
Lockes arguments against innate ideas-
No universal assent
People claimed that just because some ideas are held by everyone, they must be innate. Locke attacked the idea that idiots and children do not posses some allegedly ‘innate principles’
how can we distinguish innate ideas from ideas
for example, how does one know the idea of blue was innate from birth, but only when you see the colour does the idea of blue become active.
Leibniz response to -how can we distinguish innate ideas from ideas
we can distinguish due to their being a necessary truth of innate ideas.
The mind as the tabula rasa, Locke
Locke’s main argument the mid is born empty like a blank slate. The empirical view that all our knowledge is derived from senses and experience. Argument relies on Ockams razor.
Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’- Do all my ideas come from experience?
maybe i can create a new shade of blue by merging ones i already have. this has not come from a simple impression.
Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’-Relational concepts
concepts such as ‘sameness’, sameness does not have any particular property which our senses can detect.
Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’-Concepts needed for experience
we experience the world as a series of objects in space through time, in order to do this we must already have innate ideas of time, causation, unity and space. Sense impressions, prior to any conceptual ordering cannot yet form any expereince.
how does humes fork support the tabula rasa theory
tabula rasa theory suggests all our knowledge is derived from experience. Hume in ‘an Enquiry of concerning human understanding’ divides the area of human understanding into two distinct camps, Matters of fact and relations of ideas. Hume realised that substantial knowledge cannot be derived from reason alone. Synthetic a priori knowledge is not possible. Reason can only tell us things which are true by definition. Reason is not sufficient in order to derive truths about the world.
what is the difference between deduction and intuition
deduction is when the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. if one accepts the truth of the premises then one must logically accept the truth of the conclusion, whereas intuition is the ability to know something is true just by thinking about it.
rene descartes notion of clear and distinct ideas
descartes derived four rules for gaining knowledge.
1. only accept beliefs we can recognise to be clearly and distinctly true
2. break problems down into their smallest parts
3. build up the arguments systematically in the right order (deduction)
4. carefully check to ensure no steps are left out.
the cogito (apriori intuition) from the meditations
the cogito can be presented as a deductive argument
p1. i am thinking
p2. all thinking things exist
c. therefore i exist
he denies this is a deduction, but claims this is a intuition
what is a transcendental argument
(explaining how the cogito works)
aim to transcend doubt. They work by arguing that a certain feature is a pre-condition for doubt to exist. If so, you cannot doubt that you exist, if you need to exist in order to doubt. THIS SEEMS A PLAUSIBLE APPROACH, but again may be too complex to count as a single intuition.
a self verifying thought
(explaining how the cogito works)
descartes often emphasises the fleeting nature of the cogito. Asserting that “i do NOT exist”, while the truth of the cogito is being asserted in the very act of performing it, suggest that it is a self defeating statement. so it is self verifying.
Does the cogito produce knowledge?
what is the ‘I’ that is thinking
is it possible that descartes only exits when he thinks about existing?
is the cogito apriori knowledge produced via intuition
what happens is that descartes experiences in his own case that it isn’t possible to think without existing. therefore the cogito is a posteriori derivation. However if you think that the cogito is a self verifying thought, then it can be known independently of experience, so its apriori
Ps and Cs for the trademark argument
descartes attempts to deduce his clear and distinct idea of god.
P1.the cause of anything must be as perfect as its effect
p2. my ideas must be caused by something
p3. i am an imperfect being
p4. i have the idea of god which is a perfect being
c1. i therefore cannot be the cause of my idea of god
c2. only a perfect being (god) can cause the idea of god
c3. therefore god exists
empiricist responses to the trademark argument
-issue with p1
P1, is only true for the physical world, our minds can create better versions of real objects. as out idea of god was conceived with virtues in other people and augmenting them without limit.
empiricist responses to the trademark argument
-its not apriori
hume argued we can never deduce the effect from examining the cause , or the cause from the effect. we need experience of the causal relationship between the cause and its effect in order to learn their connection.
what are the Pcs and Cs for the Contingency argument
Descartes argues that his own existence is enough to prove the existence of god.
P1. the cause of my existence must be either, myself or my parents
P2. i cannot have caused myself otherwise i would have memories before i existed
P3. my parents may be the physical cause however they do not sustain me at all times
C1. therefore, the cause of my existence is God.
critique of the contingency argument
could be have been created by a less imperfect being. Could we not have been created by another conscious being less great than god.
empiricist response to the contingency argument
both the trademark and contingency argument both start from a state of affairs in the world and attempt to deduce the cause, which both resemble abductive argument, and also the reliance on the causal principle.
what is descartes ontological argument
P1. i have an idea of god as the supremely perfect being
P2. a perfect being must have all perfections
p3. existence is perfection
c. God must exist
empiricist response to the ontological argument
Humes fork
hume argued that any claims about the existence of any object must be a matter of fact. As such, any claim will need investigation to discover its truth, not just reason as descartes is attempting.
descartes proof of the external world
his sensation of objects cannot come from inside him and must be caused by the external world. His argument is in two steps.
1a,
P1. the will is part of my essence
P2. sensation is not subject to my will
c . sensations come from outside me
1b,
P1. my nature or essence is unextended
P2. Sensations are ideas of extended things
c . sensations come from outside of me
2,
p1, There are two possible sources for the origins of the sensations
p2, i have strong natural inclination that they come from nature
c.if their origin were god, then god would be the deceiver
p3.God is not a deceiver
c2. sensation originates from matter.
Arguments against innate knowledge
- Innate knowledge would be universal
Argues that if we did have innate knowledge, then all humans would also hold this knowledge.
For example, everyone would grasp the Geometric truths of Geometry that the slave boy realises.
Locke argues that children and idiots do not posses such knowledge, as they do not know theorems of geometry . So this knowledge isn’t innate.
Argument against the existence of innate concepts
Locke also argues against the existence of innate concepts. The argument is that propositional knowledge relies on concepts. For example you cant know that 1+1=2, without knowing the concepts of “1” “+” and “2”.
what is the difference between rationalism and innatism
rationalism refers to the belief that knowledge can be acquired primarily through reason and intuition, rather than solely relying on sensory experience. rationalists argue that only certain truths can be known without the need for empirical evidence.
Innatism claims that some ideas/knowledge is innate. and these concepts are uncovered using rational thought
