Locke Flashcards
what does locke refer to knowledge as
the perception of ideas
ideas in mind via experience
experience rom sensation (senses) and reflection (innersense:)
unable to think unless sensation gives us the ideas - therefore knows he has experience of things
describe premise 1
sensation and reflection give indubitable knowledge that there are substances with certain features
sense- knowledge of solid extending substances
reflection - knowledge of thinking substances
have defining characteristics - sense move body by impulse, reflection by thought
describe premise 2
the ideas given us by sensation and reflection do not enable us to know anything about the nature of these substances
“beyond..our faculties will not reach”
-only percieve how a substance manifests itself and not what causes these manifestations
describe premise 3
it is impossible to think anything beyond the simple ideas given us by sensation and reflection
“boundaries of our thoughts”
main conclusion
we know indubitably that there are substances, but we cannot know anything about their nature or think beyond the simple ideas
limited optimism
how does lockes view of experience as knowledge help explain science
sceince provides principles through investigation of experience
knowledge need not be high threshold or individualistic and therefore can be inductive - more scientific basis
define deductive reasoning
premises claimed to provide conclusive evidence of the conclusion
define inductive reasoning
premises provide probable explanation for the conclusion
locke and problem with empiricism
knowledge is by appeal to experience
but what about knowledge w/o appeal to experience i.e. maths, language, logic
must be prior - therefore universally known
but locke argues knowledge cannot be universal so not innate - these must be from experience
describe locke and ideas
idea = content of the mind
logically private - cannot share
thought dependent - can only exist when entertained
is lockes arguement valid/sound
valid but not sound
good form but can argue against his reasonings
eval premise 1
snese and reflect give indubitable knowledge that there are substances with certain features
- may be indubitable that there is thinking but false that there is a substance responsible - therefore dubitable that there is an existence of other substances
- may be indubitable that there are things as thinking derrives from experience but false to suppose substances move body by impulse as ideas may only present the world as such
eval premise 1 resemblance theory
may be better to take diff stance
ideas represents an item in virtue of representing it
-idea cannot be of an apple unless represents it - therefore cannot resemble unless solid substance that idea presents it to be
eval premise 2
ideas given us by sense and reflect do not enable us to know anything about the nature of substances
- why suppose they have a nature we cannot know about
- if cannot know how can he have reason to believe there is a nature beyond
- why suggest we do not percieve “clearer” their nature than our thinking - why need be percieved “clearly” to be known - surely can know from indirect experience as inference
eval premise 3
it is impossible to think beyond the simple ideas given us by sense and reflect
if can know things go beyond experience/simple ideas then surely can think beyond sense and reflect