Knowledge from reason

Question 1

what does this topic discuss

Answer 1

whether our knowledge comes from just perception or other a priori forms of knowledge

Question 2

what two ways reject empiricism

Answer 2

rationalism and innatism

Question 3

what is rationalism

Answer 3

we can acquire some knowledge through intuition and reduction, (just by thinking)

Question 4

what is innatism

Answer 4

we are born with some knowledge already

Question 5

what are the two types of truth

Answer 5

analytic and synthetic

Question 6

define analytic truth

Answer 6

true in virtue of the meaning of the words, a tautology,
Metaphysically true. and cannot be denied without resulting in logical contradiction,

Question 7

what is a synthetic truth

Answer 7

true in virtue of how the world is.

Question 8

what is intuition

Answer 8

the ability to know something is true just by thinking about it

Question 9

what is deduction

Answer 9

a method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions. using reason,

Question 10

what are the three synthetic truths that descartes provides in his meditations 1

Answer 10

i exist
god exists
the external world exists

Question 11

explain the three waves of doubt

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

what id the definition of cogito ergo sum
meditations 2

Answer 12

i doubt. therefore i think. therefore i am.

Question 13

summarise the Descartes trademark argument from his meditations

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

what is plato’s slave boy argument in the meno

Answer 14

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

Question 15

critique of platos slave boy argument from the meno

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Leibniz argument from innate truths

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

leibniz marble example

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Lockes arguments against innate ideas-
No universal assent

Answer 18

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’

Question 19

how can we distinguish innate ideas from ideas

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Leibniz response to -how can we distinguish innate ideas from ideas

Answer 20

we can distinguish due to their being a necessary truth of innate ideas.

Question 21

The mind as the tabula rasa, Locke

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’- Do all my ideas come from experience?

Answer 22

maybe i can create a new shade of blue by merging ones i already have. this has not come from a simple impression.

Question 23

Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’-Relational concepts

Answer 23

concepts such as ‘sameness’, sameness does not have any particular property which our senses can detect.

Question 24

Criticisms of the ‘tabula rasa theory brought forward by locke and hume’-Concepts needed for experience

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

how does humes fork support the tabula rasa theory

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

what is the difference between deduction and intuition

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

rene descartes notion of clear and distinct ideas

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

the cogito (apriori intuition) from the meditations

Answer 28

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

Question 29

what is a transcendental argument
(explaining how the cogito works)

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

a self verifying thought
(explaining how the cogito works)

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Does the cogito produce knowledge?
what is the ‘I’ that is thinking

Answer 31

is it possible that descartes only exits when he thinks about existing?

Question 32

is the cogito apriori knowledge produced via intuition

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Ps and Cs for the trademark argument

Answer 33

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

Question 34

empiricist responses to the trademark argument
-issue with p1

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

empiricist responses to the trademark argument
-its not apriori

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

what are the Pcs and Cs for the Contingency argument

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

critique of the contingency argument

Answer 37

could be have been created by a less imperfect being. Could we not have been created by another conscious being less great than god.

Question 38

empiricist response to the contingency argument

Answer 38

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.

Question 39

what is descartes ontological argument

Answer 39

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

Question 40

empiricist response to the ontological argument
Humes fork

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

descartes proof of the external world

Answer 41

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.

Question 42

Arguments against innate knowledge
- Innate knowledge would be universal

Answer 42

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.

Question 43

Argument against the existence of innate concepts

Answer 43

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”.

Question 44

what is the difference between rationalism and innatism

Answer 44

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