Epistemology: Reason as a source of knowledge

Define Analytic Claim

-The truth of the claim is contained in the meaning of the words (if you understand the meaning of the words, you know if the claim is true)

Define Synthetic Claim

The truth of the claim is not contained in the meaning of the words (whether it is true or false depends on the way the world is)

Define what Necessary means in terms of a claim

A proposition must be tried or false

Define Contingent in terms of a claim

A proposition could be either true or false, it depends on how the world is

Define A Priori Knowledge

Knowledge not gained through sense experience, usually it is gained through reason and instinct

Define A Posteriori Knowledge

Knowledge that is gained through sense experience

Define The Innatist theory of knowledge

The theory that we have some a priori (not gained through sense experience) synthetic (truth depending on the way the world is) knowledge because it exists within us from birth, we do not need to experience the world to know these things.

Briefly summarise Plato’s theory of the Forms

-Plato believes that while the world we see is imperfect and inconsistent, there is a perfect consistent world behind it, which is where we gain our knowledge from.

-He says we cannot be educated in the forms (the perfect version of the world), but must simply remember it.

-A form is an irreplicable perfect concept of anything in our real world (e.g.: we can think of the perfect circle, but can never draw it)

-Our knowledge is limited by the representation of forms that we perceive.

How does Plato ‘prove’ his theory of Innatism (universals)

-Plate argues that sense experience only gives us knowledge of particular things, not of universals (so knowledge of universlas must be innate)

-Example 1: Beauty

• We can perceive both a person as beautiful and a landscape as beautiful

• But when describing the qualities that make them beautiful, they do not match

• So how can we recognise beauty

• Plato argues we can only see beauty imperfectly in different people and objects.

-Example 2: The perfect circle

• No objects are perfectly circular

• Our concept of a circle must be a result of innate knowledge and not sense experience.

-As soon is something is physical and not an idea, Plato argues it is imperfect.

What is Plato’s argument of innatism using the Slave Boy scenario in Standard form.

P1: The Slave Boy has no prior knowledge of geometry /squares

P2: Socrates only asks questions, he does not teach the boy about squares

P3: By the end of the questioning, the Slave Boy us able to learn an eternal truth about geometry/squares

P4: This eternal truth was not derived from the boy’s previous experience, nor from Socrates

C1: Therefore, this eternal truth must have existed innately in the boy to begin with.

C2: Therefore, we all have knowledge within us innately.

How can Plato’s Standard form be criticised

-P1 is false, The Slave Boy had some basic understandings of mathematics, such as 2+2=4

-P2 is misleading, Plato may not have taught, but he did not ‘simply’ ask questions as his questions were very leading and guiding.

-There is a fallacy of a false dichotomy between P4 and C1, Plato fails to consider that there is more than just two options (being taught and innately existing), because people could gain knowledge through reasoning.

Give a General explanation on Leibniz’s theory of Innatism

-Sense experiences can only tell us about Contingent truths (things we have experienced)

• If we see the sun rise in the morning, we know that the sun rose this morning. We can conclude that the sun would rise every morning, but we cannot have a sense experience of it rising every morning

-But there are some truths that we know will always be true (necessary)

• Whatever our sense experience was, there couldn’t ever a time where it was not true (2+3 will always equal 5)

-Many instances confirm a genera truth, and are not enough to establish a universal truth

-He believes we use this knowledge all the time, without being aware of it

-We come to know these innate truths by ‘attending to what is already in the mind’

What is the standard form of Leibniz’s innatism

-P1: The sense only give us particular instances

-P2: A collection of instances can never show the necessity of a truth

-P3: We can grasp and prove many necessary truths

-C1: Therefore, the necessary truths that we grasp with our minds do not derive from the senses

-C2: Therefore, our knowledge of necessary truths must be innate

Ockham razor criticism

No knowledge is universal criticism

The mind must be transparent criticism

Reliance of the non-naturals

Define and explain Empiricism (Humes ideas)

-The view that all concepts are derived from sense experience

• This means that we are born with no ideas (the mind starts as a tabula rasa’

• As we have sense experiences, we form ideas in our mind

• We cant have an idea of something that we have not had sense experience of

• If we did not have working sense organs we are unable to form ideas associated with said sense organ (e.g. blind people cannot experience colour)

Humes ideas:

• A simple impression causes a simple idea (seeing brown causes the idea of brown)

• Multiple simple impressions can cause a complex idea (seeing brown, smelling tea, and tasting tea, causes the complex idea of tea)

• COPY PRINCIPLE

  • Ideas are simply copies of impressions, they are less vivid and fainter.

  • We can replicate these copies in our mind and combine them to form complex ideas

  • All concepts derive from sense experiences, whether direct or indirect, (you can never actually think of something new, it will always be made up of things you have already experienced.

• HUMES FORK:

  • Believes knowledge can only be two things

  • Relation of ideas ( necessary, a priori, analytic), they are deductive as they are not derived from the world and do not tell us anything new.

  • Matters of fact (contingent, a Posterirori, synthetic), not certain or probable, inductive as they tell us something new about the world

  • Impressions are necessary and sufficient for ideas

  • You cannot have an idea without the sense impression, and every sense impression generates an idea

• EXTREME EMPIRICISM

  • You cannot have a concept that cannot be traced back to an impression

  • It does not matter if there is a word for it, that word doesn’t actually mean anything

  • For example, God, Time (you can see a clock moving, but this is not actually time)

What are Lockes additions to Empiricism (criticism of innatism)

-No universal assent

• Locke claims that some people (‘children and idiots’), do not posses the innate principles that innatism claims they do

• P1: According to innatism, any idea if it exists, would be held universally

• P2: Children and idiots do not have an understanding

• P3: If knowledge was universally held, then all people would have equal understanding of an idea, regardless of intellectual abilities

• C1:Therefore ideas/knowledge cannot be innate

-Distinguishing innate ideas from other ideas

• If some knowledge is innate, and some are through sense experience, what separates them

-Tabula Rasa

• Mind is empty and all of our knowledge is acquired through sense experience

• Relies on Ockhams Razor

• Minds receive impressions from sense experiences, these are copied into ideas

-Transparency of Ideas

• We should be aware of any idea in the brain

• We don’t have to be constantly aware of them, but should have some consciousness of them at some point

• We must have knowledge to know we have knowledge

• Locke claims that our mind is transparent and that we can perceive the ideas it contains

What is the ‘missing shade of blue’ argument against empiricism

-Aim: prove impressions are not necessary for knowledge

-If there were multiple shades of blue lined up from light to dark order, and the middle shade had fallen down, would somebody who had never seen that shade of blue before be able to picture the missing shade

-Hume believes the answer is yes

• Some mat argue this proves simple ideas are not derived from corresponding impressions

• Humes responds saying this is too singular, and is not good enough to alter the general maxim

• BETTER RESPONSE: We could form an idea of that shade by combing in ideas of blue with the idea of light and dark, so our concept of the missing shade is derived from sense experience

• HOWEVER: Every example of blue is a particular shade, there is no simple idea of blue, and there is no simple idea of blue so we cannot combine it with anything to form a complex idea of blue

-This attacks the idea that impressions (sense experience) is necessary for knowledge

What is the logical connectives criticisms

-Attacks: the idea that impressions (sense experiences) is necessary for knowledge

-If a cat is siting on a mat, we derive the idea of the cat, the mat, and sitting from impressions, but what is the idea of on-ness

-This is not a copy from a sense impression, and according to empiricism all of our concepts are from sense experienc