1/32
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
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
What is the Wittgenstein’s tove criticism
-Attacks the idea that impressions are sufficient for knowledge as we need more than jus the sense impression alone
-For example: somebody holds a pencil and says ‘this is tove’,
If empiricism is true, when we first have the sense experience, the ideas should automatically be created within us
However this is not the case, and we do not know what ‘tove’ means
-If somebody then held a book and said ‘this is tove’, we’d still would not know what the idea is or which part of the experience is being referred to
-Sense impressions are not enough to give us the right concept, it needs to be explained what is being referred to
Define and explain both rationalism and descartes's intuition and deduction thesis.
-Rationalism: The theory that there is some synthetic a priori knowledge that is not innate and is gained through reason, also known as intuition and deduction
-Intuition and deduction: We can gain synthetic a priori knowledge through reason alone, through two operations of the mind: firstly, we can come to an intuition, which is the indubitable conception of a clear an distinct idea formed by a clear and attentive mind, without the senses. We can then use deduction to infer further propositions with certainty.
Example of deduction: if we know the statement ‘my kitchen cupboard is empty’, we can then deduce that we also know there is no cornflakes in the kitchen cupboard’
What is Descartes Cogito (first indubitable truth)
-It is possible to doubt the existance of anything, the only thing we cannot doubt is our own existance
-‘I think therefore I am’
-Cogito as deduction
I am thinking
Thinking things exist
Therefore, I exist
However, Descartes believes it is a self-evident though that does not require this form of reasoning and dedcution
-Cogito as intuition
self-evident claim
As soon as you are asked: do you exist, you quickly jump to yes
There is no reason he thinks this, it is just self-evident
Why is it important that the Cogito is intuition
-Descartes needs a base knowledge that he can use to deduce other knowledge (has to be intuition because it is the first building block)
-If an intuition does not exist, then Descartes ideas collapse
-We need to know at least one thing with absolute certainty (the fact we exist)
What is the different thinkers criticism of the cogito
-The self is temporary and provisional
-Every time ‘I’ have an idea it could instead be thought of a new thinker
When i see brown, what is certain is ‘a brown colour is being seen’ rather than ‘I am seeing a brown colour’
Something is seeing the brown colour, but it may not be the self
It could be that what sees the brown colour is momentary and not the same as what has a different experience in the next moment.
-Response:
It is unreasonable to suggest there is no enduring self
Contradictory to question the existence of a constant being if the question is about our existance
What is the no self or ‘I’ criticism of the Cogito
-All of our knowledge comes from sense experiences
-When we look into our perception, there is none that relate to our experience of the self
-There is no way to find a genuine concept of the self
-Instead the concept of the self refers to a collection of perceptual experiences, not a physical being.
What is the no thinkers at all criticism of the cogito
-If descartes doubts everything, why not also doubt the speaker
-He could say ‘there are thoughts, therefore thoughts exist’, rather than ‘I think, therefore I exist’
What is humes forks criticism of the cogito?
-Rationalism suggests that knowledge is synthetic and a priori
-Humes fork argues that knowledge cannot be both synthetic (truth in the meaning of the words, not how the world is) and a priori (not gained through sense experience, but instead reason)
What are clear and distinct ideas and how do they build on the cogito
-Clear idea: ‘Present and accessible to the attentive mind’
-Distinct idea: clear and sharply separated from other ideas so that every part of it is clear.
Example: 2+2=4 is distinct and clear because once you know it, you cannot unknown it.
-P1: The cogito is certain (indubitably true)
-P2: My idea is the cogito is clear and distinct
-C: Therefore, any idea I have that is clear and distinct must also be indubitable true
-There is a lack of logic here (barney is a dog, barney is brown, therefore all dogs are brown?)
Descartes needs to guarantee that clever and distinct ideas will always be true
Why does Descartes rely on God to guarantee truth of distinct and clear ideas
-If God is real he must know if he is deceitful
-If there is no god, we cannot be sure of anything, our senses may be tricking us
-If there is a god, and he is not deceitful, then we can be certain of things as we trust god would not deceive us or our senses.
-Gods existence confirms any other ideas we have are true if they are clear and distinct, because god is no deceiver, so we can trust our senses with absolute certainty
How does descartes argue for the existance of God
-Trademark argument
P1: The cause of anything must be at least as perfect as its effect
P2: My ideas must be cause 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
C2: Only a perfect being (God) can be the cause of my idea of God
C3: Therefore, God exists
What is Descartes argument for the existence of the external world
-P1: Ideas pop into my head against my will
-P2: The thing producing these ideas must be outside of my and not my will
-P3: There are two options: this substance outside of me exists either in God or in an External world
-P4: My inclinations tells me that it is an external world
-P5: God does not deceive me about my inclinations
-C: Therefore, ideas from perception come from an external world