innatism

define a priori and a posteriori

• epistemological terms which apply to how a proposition is known

• a priori: knowledge not based on sense-experience

• a posteriori: knowledge based on sense experience

define synthetic and analytic

• semantic terms which applies to how a proposition is true

• analytic: true in virtue of the meanings of its constituent terms/true by definition

• synthetic: proposition which is true or false depending on how the world is - the concept of the predicate not contained within the concept of the subject

define necessary and contingent

• modal terms which apply to propositions

• necessary: a proposition that cannot but be true

• contingent: either true or false

what are the key questions in this topic

• Analytic propositions are known a priori? but is this innate or gained by reasoning/some other way?

• Are all synthetic propositions known a posteriori? or is there synthetic a priori knowledge? (intuition and deduction theory)

• is all knowledge of necessary truths a priori?

what is the key disagreement between rationalists and empiricists?

rationalists: pure reason can provide us with a priori knowledge. Plato, Liebniz, Descartes

empiricists: all knowledge about the world is a posteriori and derives from sense experience. there is no innate knowledge which is known a priori (innatism) or which is gained from rational insight and reasoning. Locke and Hume

Define innatism

• Innatism is the position that we are born with some innate concepts/propositional knowledge which is therefore not given to us or justified by empirical experience.

• view that some of our knowledge is not derived from experience

• instead is part of the structure of our minds

• already in our minds from birth - so if true, then it must be a priori not a posteriori

• concerned with propositional knowledge

Explain Plato’s innatism

• he thought we are born with souls that already know the forms (perfect metaphysical entities such as beauty and justice which are imperfectly represented by objects in the empirical world eg. a beautiful painting or a just society)

• when we acquire genuine knowledge, we just are just recalling or remembering the knowledge which we forgot when our sould became embodies

• In the Meno, innatism is the position that ‘all learning is recollection’ (anamnesis). The soul already possesses all knowledge but it forgets it at the time of birth. Prompted by relevant stimuli (eg by being asked successive questions) the soul recollects (remembers) the knowledge again.

what are the forms?

• plato believed we are born with knowledge of them

• they are perfect metaphysical entities such as beauty and justice, that are imperfectly represented by objects in the empirical world - for example a beautiful painting or a just society

what is PLato’s slave boy example?

The slave boy, who hasn’t been taught geometry, is asked to double the area of a 2x2 square – students may go through the example in detail and explain how the slave boy begins by doubling the lengths of the lines and draws a 4x4 square. He subsequently draws a 3x3 square, before reaching the aporetic stage of the example. Finally, the slave boy agrees that to double the area of a square you need to draw a new square which is based on the length of the diagonal of the original square. • Meno and Socrates agrees that Socrates has only asked the slave boy questions, that the slave boy has been prompted by those questions to recollect the right answer, that the right answer – and thereby the relevant knowledge – was already within the slave boy, and that the slave boy therefore possess innate knowledge (tacitly or subcon

Explain Leibniz’s innatism (necessary truths)

• all necessary truths are a priori and innate eg. ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’ - the law of non contradiction

• experience is never sufficient for knowledge of this proposition because experience only gives us knowledge of particular instances (cannot come to a necessary truth through this). No finite number of particular instances of a proposition can confirm that it is universally necessary. a necessary truth is a truth about smth that is always the case - a necessary truth cannot be a truth based on experience as must be beyond logical doubt

• it is only by attending to what is innately in our minds that we can know that it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be

Locke’s universality of innate knowledge objection

• if there were innate knowledge then it would have to be universal. but children or ‘idiots’ don’t know geometrical theorems or that ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be’ - question this; maybe they do

Locke’s transparency of ideas objection

• it might be argued against the universality of innate knowledge objection that children do know geometrical truths, but are just not aware of it yet

• locke still maintains that it makes no sense though to talk about innate knowledge of which one has never been conscious at the same time in our life.

• no idea can be in our mind without us ever being conscious of it

locke’s objection that innate knowledge is dodgy - lack of distinction

• whole concept of innate knowledge is suspect

• if you claim that innate knowledge is that which we can become aware of, then that provides no distinction between innate and non-innate knowledge because we can become aware of all knowledge

Leibniz response to transparency of ideas objection

locke again

evaluation

• we do not have to be conscious of an idea for it to be in the mind

• it may be true that not everyone is explicitly aware of the non-contradiction principle (it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be)

• but we cannot sensibly think if we contradict it

• it is evident we believe it because it is implicit in everything we say and do

• we observe it constantly - even if unconsciously

• we presuppose that to know a necessary truth that we would be able to say this

  but here Liebniz is saying that we implicitly observe it - we never break that rule and all our thinking follows it

• Locke: could say that we do not have to be explicitly aware of non-contradiction principle, but we must have at least been conscious of it at one time for it to be in our minds - Liebniz could keep pushing against this

leibniz response to locke’s ‘theory is dodgy’ objection

• innate propositions are not only propositions we can become aware of

• they are also necessary truths - which non-innate empirical truths are not

• they are ‘contained within us in a potential way’

• meaning that we can find them within ourselves by attending carefully and methodically to what is already in our minds without employing and truths learned through experience or word of mouth (but self-reflection is a form of experience to.. )

what are innate concepts and knowledge

those that cannot be formed on the basis of experience alone eg. non contradiction principle

they are innate in the sense that we have a predisposition to form them

leibniz on innatism and predisposition

key terms: innate, predisposition, capacity, impossibility, god, experiential trigger

• innate knowledge is innate in the sense that we have had a predisposition to form them - more than a mere capacity

• for example, we have always had the predisposition to form the concept of impossibility and god

• but in order to develop such concepts fully, and for our potential for knowledge of necessary truths to be realised, we must have the right experiential trigger

• for example socialisation, language, education - once people understand language they do not contradict themselves

• some humans do not have the concepts of god or impossibility, or their potential knowledge of a necessary truth may not have been realised because they lack the relevant necessary experience

• this makes him sound a bit more like an empiricist than the others

Locke and the tabula rasa

• empiricist: no innate knowledge, all knowledge derived from experience

• mind is a tabula rasa and contains nothing at birth - with experience it fills up with ideas

what are ideas for Locke?

• concepts (eg. blue) or items of possible propositional knowledge (the sky is blue)

• locke: those expressed by the words: man, whiteness, hardness, elephant, motion etc.

• locke argues that the ‘senses convey these ideas to the mind’ ie. when we use our senses to perceive different qualities of things this is how we come to understand them. through us sensing the external objects, perceptions/ideas are produced. does not mean that the idea literally travels from objects to mind.

What two sources do ideas come from? which is rationalist and which is empiricist? note that these are also the two types of experience for Locke (because he thinks all knowledge is derived from experience)

sensation: empiricist. sensory experience of objects external to the mind. this is how we acquire ideas of yellowness, coldness, hardness etc.

reflection: rationalist. experience of the internal operations of our minds. this is how we acquire ideas of perception, believing, willing. etc.

What does Locke mean by reflection? what are the two types of reflection?

• perceiving consciously how our minds work. so not external or through senses.

• reflection produces ideas that cannot be produced from external objects

• two types: action of the mind on its ideas; passive states that can arise from the former eg. satisfaction arising from a thought

What is hume’s idea of an impression? What are the two types of impressions for Hume

• HUme goes a step further than locke, and distinguishes between impressions and ideas

• all ideas derive from impressions

• outward impressions: product of sensation

• inward impressions: emotions

What are ideas for Hume? - include the copy principle

• faint copies of impressions

• stored in the mind (copy principle)

• concepts that enable us to think about objects when we are not sensing them directly

what are some differences between ideas and impressions for hume?

• ideas derive from impressions and are more permanent - stored in mind

• more likely to make mistakes with ideas than impressions

• impressions are more forceful and vivacious than ideas - eg. seeing a car crash more vivid than imagining a car crash/remembering

What is a simple concept for Locke and Hume?

• include hard, yellow, squaire

• hume agrees and holds that all simple concepts correspond to impressions

What are the three ways that complex concepts can be formed? how does hume think we came up with the concept of god?

1. combining multiple simple concepts: eg. the complex concept of a dog is formed through combining the simple concepts of a particular smell, shape, colour texture etc.

2. abstracting from simple concepts: the concept of a tree is an abstraction from the experience of particular trees

3. creatively combining simple concepts: eg. the concept of a unicorn is a creative combination of a horse, whiteness, horn etc

Hume thinks we derived our concept of god through infinitising fitnite concepts we attribute to humans eg. goodness as demonstrated by humans into omnibenevolence etc.

argument against the copy principle (which is an empiricist response to innatism)

and what is the copy principle

copy principle: all ideas are copies of impressions

• hume considers showing someone a spectrum of shades of blue with one shade missing. using their imagination they will be able to form an idea of the missing shade

• Hume seems unconcerned by his own example, but doesn’t this undermine the copy principle - as the idea of the missing shade does is not a copy of an impression

empiricist response to objection to copy principle

• an idea can be formed without an impression if it can be inferred from other impressions

• ideas are possible but not actual copies of impressions

• BUT this is not empiricism then?!

concept of substance as a response to the empiricist responses to innatism

• some concepts are neither Hume’s simple concepts (copies of impressions) nor complex concepts (can be analysed into simple concepts that are copied from impressions)

• the concepts of substance, knowledge, truth, beauty and God have all been offered as counter examples

plato’s slave boy improved

• Innatism is the view that some concepts/propositions are part of the structure of our minds and we were born possessing or knowing these things

• Story - socrates has been challenged to prove that a slave boy knows certain geometrical truths despite not being educated in geometry. Socrates meets the challenge by proceeding to question the boy and the boy successfully answers socrates’ questions, proving that he does know the geometrically correct answers to socrates’ questions 

• Conclusion - this is meant to support innatism because Plato believes that all socrates has done is to aid the boy’s recollections; socrates has not taught the boy anything new. If the boy has indeed recollected geometrical truths that have not been taught to him then it does seem as though these truths were innate