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
eval prob with locke and empiricism
argues that know things not from direct experience then must be innate
-confuses justification with aquisition - may be from time of birth
when say “nothing universally known” does he mean
-can be known universally (locke argues everything is knowable)
-nothing is known universally (therefore nothing is innate)
- BUT things known w//o experience therefore must be from experience?
describe lockes root problem
cannot think beyond simple ideas of sense and reflect, which are logically private and thought dependent
- threat to detach mind from world
- skep sit - cannot know anything about the world
- undermines own aim and cannot relate
describe lockes detatchment
says thoughts (from sense and reflect) are made up of ideas which represent the contents of our mind
these ideas however are logically private and thought dependent
-but when say know things about world beyond us our minds must be reaching beyond its conent and we can relate to these items, share them and they exist without being thought
BUT locke argues cannot share and only exist as long as thought therefore difficult to know how we may even relate to the world or gain knowledge from it
how does lockes detatchment differ from descartes insulation
descartes
- think whether or not there is a world and however it exists
-insulated as cannot relate world beyond
locke
- incapable of reaching beyond own contents
- detatch as cannot know anything about the world beyond
detatchment and knowledge
locke infers we are restricted in what we can know
but what we know must be empirical
but cant be empirical as cant go beyond contents of own mind
detatchment and language
words represent ideas
but therefore ideas just be shareable as otherwise wouldn’t understand the other person
yet ideas are unshareable - undermined
leads to trojan horse
