reason as the source of knowledge 3 and 5 markers

Question 1

define innatism (3)

Answer 1

• the epistemological view that the mind is not blank at birth
• we are born with some knowledge/concepts
• plato: all knowledge is inanate
• a priori, somehow part of the inbuilt structure of the mind

Question 2

outline plato’s slave boy argument (5)

Answer 2

the slave boy is a thought experiment:
p1: a slave boy has no education whatsoever, no mathematical knowledge, no formal understanding of principles of logic
p2: when asked to work out how to double the area of a square, the slave boy is able to work out the answer with limited guidance
p3: this knowledge cannot be derived from experience. mathematical knowledge after all is a priori.
p4: this shows that he has been able to use his reason to recollect innate ideas.
C: therefore, innate ideas exist

Question 3

outline leibniz’ argument based on necessary truths (5)

Answer 3

• a proposition is necessary if it must be true (if it is true), e.g 2+2=4: all squares have 3 sides
• a proposition that could be true or false is contingent
• experience tells us how things are, not how things have to be
• experience gives us knowledge of particulars, not universals.
• so necessary truths must be a priori, innate
• because these truths aren’t conscious, we need to discover them - we do so by attending to ‘what is already in our minds’, innate

Question 4

outline locke’s arguments against innatism (5)

Answer 4

1: If a proposition were innate then it would be universally assented to, meaning everyone would be know it because everyone would be born with it. Universal assent is therefore a necessary condition of innate knowledge. However, children and idiots do not know the supposedly innate propositions.

Integration: So, there is no knowledge which satisfies the necessary condition for innateness of universal assent and thus there is no innate knowledge.

2: Even if there was a proposition that was universally assented to, that wouldn’t necessarily make it innate. There could be some other explanation of how everyone came to know something other than it being innate. For example, there could be something universal about experience in general, or about the experiences which people happen to have had, which produced the knowledge.

Integration: So, universal assent is a necessary but not a sufficient criteria for innate knowledge. In order to show that a proposition is innate, it is required to show that it could not have come from experience.

Question 5

outline the mind as tabula rasa (5)

Answer 5

• the mind is blank at birth
• all our concepts are derived from experience
• the fact that babies don’t have concepts or knowledge of the world at birth seem to suggest their mind is blank/void of ideas /concepts and therefore knowledge.
• without an original sensation, i cannot form ideas about objects in the external world
• we can’t imagine a completely new colour outside the colour spectrum

Question 6

explain the difference between impressions and ideas (5)

Answer 6

• sense impressions: am experience i have about the world. that experience is given to me by my senses
• ideas: all ideas come from earlier impressions.
  ideas are never as vivid as the original impressions.
  ideas COPY impressions like a faithful mirror.
  all of our concepts are ultimately derived from initial sense-impression

Question 7

explain the difference between simple and complex ideas (5)

Answer 7

-simple ideas : ideas of sensory qualities based on original impressions. they are the basic ideas we may have about the world, based on the unprocessed information given to us by our five senses, such as colours, shapes,sounds, tastes or textures.
e.g the idea of hot, the idea of black
- complex ideas: combinations of simple ideas, such as the idea of a tree, a cube or even more complex, a city.
a red square in a complex ideas: formed of 2 simple ideas - the idea of red and the idea of square.

Question 8

explain one issue with the difference between simple and complex ideas (5)

Answer 8

Simple ideas are uncompounded and copies of sense impressions, complex ideas are compounded (either combination of simple ideas or of complex ideas)

Distinction doesn’t hold in the case of the missing shade of blue.

I can work out the missing shade if I combine the idea of blue and dark- but then colour is a complex idea but that doesn’t make sense if my experience of blue is a copy of a sense impression.

Question 9

explain one issue with the difference between impressions and ideas (5)

Answer 9

All Ideas (simple) are copies of sense impressions.

Distinction doesn’t hold in the case of the missing shade of blue.

I can work out the missing shade and thus acquire a simple idea without it being a copy of an initial impression.

Question 10

what is the difference between necessary and contingent truths? (3)

Answer 10

• necessary: cannot change, cannot be any other way. denying a necessary truth is true would be contradictory. true in all possible worlds. e.g 2+2=4
• contingent: dependent on the conditions at the time. it could change. e.g all dogs have 4 legs (some could have 3 due to an accident)

Question 11

what is the difference between analytic and synthetic statements? (3)

Answer 11

• analytic: true by definition, doesn’t really tell us anything about the world, repetitions of the same terms
• synthetic: contingent on the nature of the world, it clan change, meaningful

Question 12

what is the difference between a priori and a posteriori ideas? (3)

Answer 12

• a priori: Knowledge that can be derived without experience of the external world, through thought/reason alone
• a posteriori: Knowledge that can only be derived from experience of the external world

Question 13

what is intuition? (3)

Answer 13

an intuition is:

not known through sense-experience/empirical observation
it is a direct and non-inferential awareness of a truth which has been discovered by thinking and reasoning alone
clear and distinct ideas

Question 14

what is deduction? (3)

Answer 14

an argument is a deduction if the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. you have to go through a series of steps.
not immediate, not direct.

Question 15

what is the difference between intuition and deduction? (3)

Answer 15

an intuition is:

not known through sense-experience/empirical observation
it is a direct and non-inferential awareness of a truth which has been discovered by thinking and reasoning alone
clear and distinct ideas

an argument is a deduction if the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. you have to go through a series of steps.
not immediate, not direct.

Question 16

what are clear and distinct ideas? (3)

Answer 16

-to be clear, an idea must be ‘open and present to the attending mind’; i know it directly, immediately.
-to be distinct, it must not only be clear but precisely and sharply separated from other ideas. i can distinguish that idea from other ideas: there is no confusion between them.

Question 17

explain why the cogito is an a priori intuition (5)

Answer 17

the cogito: is descartes’ claim that he exists, here he understands himself as a thinking being that is clear and distinct
- even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of physical objects and thereby knowledege of the external world, along with a priori knowledge, the evil demon cannot deceive him about his own existence (he must exist to be deceived)
— it’s an a priori intuition: it’s not known through sense experience/ empirical observation
- it’s a direct and non-inferential awareness of a truth which has been discovered by thinking and reasoning alone: it’s not inferred from other claims - therefore a foundational piece of knowledge ‘i think therefore i am@

Question 18

explain how decartes proves, through deduction the existence of god (5)

Answer 18

p1: the cause of anything must be at least 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 that of a perfect being
c1: i cannot be the cause of my idea of god (because of p1-p4)
c2: only a perfect being can be the cause of my idea of god

c3: therefore, god must exist.

Question 19

explain how descartes proves the external world from god (5)

Answer 19

p1: i have perceptual experiences as if of physical objects, which must have a cause outside of me
p2: this cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects
p3: if the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary/under my control
p4: however, they are not voluntary/under my control
p5: if the cause were god, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive (given that i have a very strong tendency to believe that physical objects exist
p6: however, they cannot be deceptive as god exists and is not a deceiver
c1: therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects
c2: therefore, there is an external world of physical objects

Question 20

explain how empiricism responds to descartes cogito (5)

Answer 20

• Russell criticises the cogito on a linguistic basis
• he argues that Descartes has proved “thoughts exist” not necessarily that “I” exist
• thoughts do not equate the self and therefore Descartes has arguably not proved that “I” exist
• Hume similarly criticises the cogito on the basis of the self
• argues that our thoughts change all the time so there is no way of knowing there is one “I” of holding it all together
• for Hume, the self is a bundle of desire, thoughts, emotions etc. that is the outcome of experience

Question 21

explain how hume’s fork can be used as a response to descartes cogito (5)

Answer 21

• argues that there are two types of knowledge: matters of fact and relations of ideas
• matters of fact are synthetic, a posteriori ideas that are derived from sense experience
• RoI: a priori, analytic truths
• cogito is neither and therefore is meaningless
• it’s not a RoI because we haven’t and will not always exist unlike 2+2=4
• are not MoF because we can’t verify our existence (of the mind) with senses

Question 22

explain how empiricists respond to descartes (deductive) proof of the existence of god (5)

Answer 22

• argue its circular; cartesian circle
• god exists: c+d ideas are true. so i have c+d and therefore i have c+d idea of god and so god exists
• hume attacks each argument
• ontological arg: undermines it on its reliance on god as perfect and existence as perfection
• gaunilos island criticism: shows you can define anything to existence on the premise of perfection and therefore its actually proof
• cosmological arg: argues we can transpose, combine, compound ideas we find in humans and create the idea of god. therefore, i can be the cause of my idea of god
• hume says that we form god ‘beyond stating beyond limits’ and so god doesn’t have to exist
• undermines causal adequacy with bonfire argument - the cause, a match, is less great then the effect, the bonfire

Question 23

explain how hume’s fork can be used as a response to descartes deductive proof of god (5)

Question 24

outline one issue for hume’s fork (5)

Answer 24

• hume’s fork postulates that there are ONLY two types of knowledge: RoI and MoF
• for hume, if a claim is a priori it is also analytic. and if it is a posteriori, it is also synthetic
• however, he ignores the possibility of synthetic, a priori claims
• a proposition is analytic if its opposite is a cotradiction
  ->thus Hume argues that god’s existence cannot be a priori
  >however, “god exists” is a claim about metaphysics and it is plausible that we can derive claims through logic that are not contradictory if they are the opposite
  >whilst “god doesn’t exist” is not a contradiction, it was still derived through logic and a priori means
  >we can’t use sense experience to verify God or any metaphysical entity about the world
  >therefore, synthetic a priori claims can exist and Hume’s fork is incorrect