Reason as a source of knowledge Flashcards
what is the main question of this topic
simple
is reason the mostv important source of knowledge, and is a priori knowledge therefore the most important type of knowledge
what is the main question of this topic
technical version
is there synethetic a priori knowledge
what would empiricists and rationalists say to this question?
empiracists would say no and rationalsits say yes
definition of synthetic
- true or false according to the world
- knowledge that goes beyond the contents of my mind
- e.g the window is open, its raining → dependent on reality
definition of analytic
- the predicate is contained within the subject
- so the truth of the proposition can be worked out simply by analysing the meaning of the component parts → eg all bachelors are unmarried men, 2+2=4
what is innatism
the view that at least some knowledge is present from birth
what are three types of knowledge
- acquaintance knowledge
- ability knowledge
- propositional knowledge
what is acquiantance knowledge
knowledge ‘of’
its familiar
what is ability knowledge
knowledge ‘how’
know how to do something
what is propositional knowledge
knowledge of facts
what type of knowledge is more important whne considering which we’re born with
propositional knowldge
what is meno’s paradox of inquiry
PLATO
- for anything you might learn → either you already know about it or you dont know about it
- if you already know about it, then learning is unnecassary
- But, if you dont already know it, then you won’t recognise it in order to learn it (so no learning by experince- nothing learned a posterior)
- therfore it is impossible to earn anything → plato accepts this conclusion but goes on to argue
- we have knowledge of maths and geometry
- therefore what is known is not learned but is innate knowledge
plato’s slave boy arg
- meno’s slave is a boy hwo has never been taught geometry
- he is asked questions by socrates but not taught the answers
- he cant have learned the answers from experince- the paradox of inquiry
- the slave boy ansers the questions correctly →too many times to be a coincidence
- therefore he knows some geometry
- therefore he has innate knowledge of geometry
possible responses to slave boy arg
- leading questions → is he being taught
- couldn’t the boy be learning from experince
connecting slave boy arg to forms
makes it more plausible but not on specification
- slave boy arg shows how we have propositional innate knowldge
- plato doesnt simply say we dont learn through experince without giving us an alterantive
- the forms show how innate knowledge might be structured
what are locke’s four args against innatism
- infants and idiots
- transparency of ideas
- universal assent
- how can we distinguish innate ideas from other ideas
idiots and infants
newborn babies dotn know stuff, why would we need to have maths lessons if we already know math
worst of his args
what is locke responiding to with ‘transparency of ideas’
there are some innate conecpets which we dont realise we have → this is how leibniz explains why children dont know geometrical truths etc → refers to menos paradox
transparency of ideas
crit of innatism
- locke says its absurd to think there are some innate conecpets which we dont realise we have
- because any idea held by the mind would by perceived by the mind → i.e it would be transparent to the mind
- you dont have to be thinking about it right now, but for your mind to have a concpet it must have been conscious of the idea at same point
what is universal assent [criticism]
idealism
- if ideas were innate, they would be universal
- if they were universal everyone would agree what they are
- BUT you could explain universally agreed idea through universal experince
- anyway no ideas are universally held so no ideas are innate
- e,g law of contradiction– idiots and infants dont know this
- AND some apparently universal principles like ‘it’s wrong to steal’ are argubly culturally relative
how can we distinguish innate ideas from other ideas
criticism
innatist would say: we dont know that we know cerain things innately
1. but if that were true, couldnt we claim its all ideas?
2. so e.g we have an innate predisposition to form the concept of blue, but its not activated until we experince blue → basically what PLATO says with the forms
* leibniz doesnt say all ideas are innate → given that no ideas (according to innatists themselves) seem innate to us, how do we tell the innate from the non-innate?
where does locke think our ideas come from
- sensations
- reflection
sensations
locke
our experince of objects outside the mind, perceived through the sense → this fives us ideas of ‘sensible qualites’ such as colours, shapes, textures, tastes, and so on
reflections
locke
our experince of ‘the internal operatiosn of our minds’, gained through introspection or an awareness of what the midn is doing → this provides the idea of perception, thinking, reasoning, willing, emotions, and so on
hume on impressions and ideas
hume’s copy principle
- our concepts are copies of experinces, which he calls impressions or sense impressions
- e.g the concept of redness is a copy of the experince of redness, concpet of sadness is a copy of the experince of sadness
- the impressions is copied+stored in the mind, giving us the idea/concept of what we experinced. ideas are less vivid and lively then impressions
- PROOF → why it doesn’t seem like something is in front of you when you think of it
what are simple ideas
ideas which are not combinations of other ideas and they come directly from experince eg red
what are complex ideas
ideas that are combinations of simple ideas eg a unicorn
how do we make complex ideas
we take simple ideas and; COMPOUND, TRANSPOSE, AUGMENT or DIMINISH them
* we can manipulate simple ideas using these to create things we’ve never experienced eg a god
do all simple ideas come from impressions
empiricism: challenge to innatism
hume discusses a similair case where someone has seen a range of blues from which one is missing and asks whether they would be able to form the concept of the missing shade
↓
1. empiracists say if you can form the concept of the missing shade of blue, then it means its possible to form a concept which has no corresponding impression → so undermines that all ideas come from experince
HUME ACCEPTS THIS PROBLEM BUT SAYS ITS INSIGNIFICANT
abstract and universal concepts
empiricism: challenge to innatism
- where do we get the concept of causation from? → hume says we dont experince causation, hume says everything has a cause, but we cant know it a priori and we cant know it a posteriori
- how can we know about causes at all? → if every concept origintates in an impression, what is the impression that our concept of causation is a copy of?
what is the intuition and deduction theory
a priori methods for gaining knowledge
what is (rational intuition)
The ability to know something is true just by thinking about it
E.g. Descartes’ cogito argument
what is deduction
A method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions (using reason)
E.g. You can use deduction to deduce statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 below:
If A is true then B is true
A is true
Therefore, B is true
what does an empiricist say about a priori knowledge
all a priori knowledge is of analytic truths (i.e. there is no synthetic a priori knowledge)
what does a rationalist say about a priori knowledge
says not all a priori knowledge is of analytic truths (i.e. there is at least one synthetic truth that can be known a priori using intuition and deduction)
what are descrates 3 synthetic truths
- i exist
- god exists
- the external world exists
what are the 3 waves of doubt
- illusion
- dreaming
- deception
explain the 1st wave of doubt
Illusion. I can doubt the reliability of my sense experience as it has deceived me in the past. For example, a pencil in water may look crooked even though it isn’t.
explain the 2nd wave of doubt
Second, I might think I’m awake when I’m actually dreaming. I might believe I’m looking at a computer screen, but if I’m simply dreaming that I am, then my belief is mistaken.
But even if I’m dreaming, there are still basic ideas that are common to both dreams and reality. For example, that “1+1=2” – can this be doubted?
explain the 3rd wave of doubt
if I am being deceived. An evil demon may be controlling my entire experience, making me think I’m correctly adding 1 and 1 when I’m not.
So, basically anything I think I know can be doubted – an evil demon may be controlling my perception and making me have nothing but false beliefs. The evil demon scenario could be true, and there is no way I would be able to tell the difference. So, the possibility of the evil demon scenario casts doubt on everything I know.
what does descares 3 waves of doubt counts as
global sceptism
what does descrates say he can know for certian
the cogito
what is the cogitio
i think therefore i am
why cant descartes doubt the cogito
Descartes cannot doubt that he exists.
The reason for this is that even if the demon is deceiving him, there must be something for the demon to deceive in the first place! The fact that Descartes is able to doubt his own existence is proof that he does, indeed, exist,
clear and distinct idea DEFINITION
Having a clear and distinct idea is not simply a feeling of certainty, though – it is a recognition that it’s impossible for the proposition to be false
how does descarte know with certainty that the he exists (cogito)
it is a clear and distinct idea. Having a clear and distinct idea is not simply a feeling of certainty, though – it is a recognition that it’s impossible for the proposition to be false. So, Descartes knows ‘I exist’ is true simply by thinking about it.
what arg does descarte use to prove the existence of god
the trademark arg
what is the trademark arg
- I have the concept of God
- My concept of God is the concept of something infinite and perfect
- But I am a finite and imperfect being
- The cause of an effect must have at least as much reality as the effect
- So, the cause of my concept of God must have as much reality as what the concept is about
- So, the cause of my idea of God must be an infinite and perfect being
- So, God exists
what is descartes arg for the existence of the ext. world
- I have perceptions of an external world with physical objects
- My perceptions cannot be caused by my own mind because they are involuntary (Descartes’ argument for this is similar to e.g. Locke’s argument here)
- So, the cause of my perceptions must be something external to my mind
- God exists (see trademark argument)
- If the cause of my perceptions is God and not the physical objects themselves, then God has created me with a tendency to form false beliefs from my perception (because premise 1)
- But God is a perfect being by definition (see e.g. Descartes’ ontological argument) and so would not create me with a tendency to form false beliefs from my perceptions
- So, I can trust my perceptions
- So, given premises 1 and 7 above, I can know that an external world of physical objects exists
what are the problems for the intuition and deduction theory
- the concept of god is not innate
- humes fork
explain the concept of god isnt innate as a criticism to Descartes intuition and deduction
if we reject that the concept of god is innate, Then If the concept of God comes from experience, as Locke argues below, then Descartes’ argument is not entirely a priori and thus fails to establish rationalism.
Further, Descartes’ argument for the existence of the external world relies on his arguments for the existence of God. So, if Descartes’ arguments for God are not a priori, then neither is his argument for the existence of the external world.
So, if Descartes’ arguments rely on a posteriori concepts, then they do not establish synthetic truths a priori and thus fail to prove rationalism is correct.
what is humes forks
that there are only two kinds of knowledge (judgements of reason): relations of ideas and matters of fact.
what are ‘relations of ideas’
The key feature of a relation of ideas is that it cannot be denied without a contradiction (e.g. ‘triangles do not have 3 sides’ is logically contradictory)
what are ‘matters of fact’
The key feature of a matter of fact is that there is no logical contradiction in it being false (e.g. ‘grass is not green’ is false but it is not logically contradictory)
how can we challenge descrates args using humes fork
We can argue that Descartes’ arguments rely on matters of fact. But, according to Hume’s Fork, matters of fact are a posteriori. Thus, if Hume’s Fork is correct, then it shows that Descartes’ arguments are not entirely a priori and thus fail to establish rationalism.
apply hume’s fork to the trademark arg
Applied to the trademark argument, we could say there is no contradiction that results from denying that the cause of an effect must be as real as the effect. This shows that premise 4 is a matter of fact and not a relation of ideas, and thus can only be known a posteriori. So, Descartes’ trademark argument is not entirely a priori and thus fails to establish rationalism.
apply hume’s fork to descartes arg for the existence of the external world
we can argue that Descartes’ argument for the existence of the external world also relies on a posteriori matters of fact. For example, premise 2 states that “my perceptions cannot be caused by my own mind because they are involuntary” but there is no contradiction that results from denying this claim. Thus, Descartes’ argument for the existence of the external world is not entirely a priori either and so fails to establish rationalism.
what is innate knowledge
knowledge you’re born with and so doesn’t require experience (a posteriori) to be known. In other words, innate knowledge is a priori knowledge.
what is the debate between empiricism and innatism about
Innatism says we have some innate knowledge
Empiricism says we do not have any innate knowledge
what does leibniz say about necessary truths
they must be innate
definition of a contingent truth
what is the case, could have been false in some other world
definition of a necessary truth
what must be the case, true in every possible world
what are locke’s args against innate knowledeg
- Innate knowledge would be universal
- Argument against innate concepts (newborn babies)
explain Argument against innate concepts from locke
The argument is that propositional knowledge relies on concepts. For example, you can’t know that “1+1=2” without first having the concepts “1” ,“+”, and “2”. So, if Locke succeeds in disproving the existence of innate concepts, he will also succeed in disproving the existence of innate knowledge.
Locke gives two examples to reject the existence of innate concepts:
Observation of newborn babies suggests they do not have any concepts beyond those experienced in the womb (e.g. the concepts of warmth or pain)
God is often used as an example of an innate concept (as seen in Descartes’ trademark argument) but babies do not have this concept. Further, there have been many atheist societies throughout history that did not have the concept of God.
explain Innate knowledge would be universal
Locke argues that if we did have innate knowledge then every human would have such knowledge.
So, for example, everyone would know the theorem of geometry that Meno’s slave realises in Plato’s example above. But, Locke argues, children and ‘idiots’ do not possess such knowledge – they don’t know the theorems of geometry, for example. So, this knowledge is not universal and therefore not innate.
leibniz’s response to Argument against innate concepts (babies)
Leibniz agrees with Locke that innate knowledge requires innate concepts. But Leibniz argues that it’s possible to have innate concepts and yet not be conscious of them.
Some of Leibniz’s own examples of innate concepts are logical concepts such as identity (e.g. “a = a”) and impossibility (e.g. “it’s impossible for both a and not a to be true”). Obviously, a newborn baby can’t verbally articulate these thoughts, but this doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there. We innately know these concepts – even if we can’t articulate them – and they are essential to all thought, whether we consciously recognise them or not. Over time, we learn to recognise these concepts and make them explicit, but they were always there in the mind.
Similarly, just because some people and societies may lack a word for ‘God’, this doesn’t mean they lack the concept. It may take experience to consciously develop the concept of God, but the concept itself can’t come from experience because it goes beyond experience. For example, the concept of God is the concept of an infinite being, but nothing in experience shows us this concept of infinity.
what does locke say about our minds at birth
mind at birth is a ‘tabula rasa’ – a blank slate. Locke argues that the mind at birth contains no ideas, thoughts, or concepts
where does locke say we get knowledge from
Sensation: Our sense perceptions – what we see, hear, smell, taste, etc.
Reflection: Experience of our own minds – thinking, wanting, believing etc.
what is lockes ‘simple and complex ideas’
Locke’s explanation of simple, complex, and abstract general ideas provides an account of how humans can form all knowledge – including complex concepts, such as the concept of God – from experience.
what is a simple concept
just the one thing - When I look at a clear sky, my sensation of blue might give me the simple concept of blueness. Likewise, when I’m outside in winter, my sensation of cold might give me the simple concept of coldness
what are complex concepts
Complex concepts are made up of the building blocks of simple concepts. For example, my concept of the ocean could consist of both the simple concepts of blue and cold. Pretty much everything is a complex concept made up of simple concepts to differing degrees
what is the aim of lockes simple and complex ideas
aims to show how all concepts and knowledge – from simple to complex – can be explained as coming from experience in some way. And so, if we can explain all knowledge and concepts using experience only, we don’t need innate knowledge
