Philosophy Chapter 2

Skeptic View on Knowledge

Knowledge is not possible, you don’t truly “know” anything

Mystic View on Knowledge

Knowledge can be attained in more ways than reason and sense perception, such as higher power

Skepticism

A position that holds that all/most knowledge is not possible and cannot be grasped.

The attack on the senses

1. It is prudent never to trust completely what has deceived us even once.

2. Our senses have deceived us in the past.

3. (Therefore,) It is prudent never to trust our senses completely.

The Poisoned Well Principle

This is unreliable and contextual; sense perception can give you imprecise views (connecting to the second premise)

• ex. optical illusions

Examples of premise 2 (attack on the senses)

1. Optical illusions, line perspective

2. Stick in water bending as presented in Greek epistemological schools

3. Mirage; heat waves in the distance appearing to be water oasis

Radical view of attack on the senses

1. It is prudent never to trust completely what has deceived us even once.

2. We are sometimes deceived by our senses into thinking we are aware of our physical surroundings when in fact we are not; because we are dreaming, insane, or hallucinating

3. It is prudent never to trust our senses completely.

Dream Hypothesis

1. If you have no way of knowing that the Dream Hypothesis is false, then you do not know that you are sitting in a classroom

2. You have no way of knowing that the Dream Hypothesis is false

3. (Therefore,) You don’t know if you are dreaming or awake.

4 Objections to the Attack on Senses

1. Self-refutation

2. The senses never deceive us

3. The Problem with the Poison Well Principle

4. The Problem with the Dream Argument

Self-refutation (attack on senses)

You come to certain conclusions based on the betrayals you faced; according to this, you’re relying on sense perception to argue that sense perception isn’t reliable

The senses never deceive us

Your senses don’t deceive you, your reasoning and perception & conclusions of those senses do:

• Jumping to conclusions; sense tells it how it is

• Does not apply to hallucinations and dreams

Faith

The conscious belief/conviction of something without being able to support it with reason or sense perception

• Religious beliefs

Anti-Reason View

Reason and faith clash, and you have to choose faith in terms of spiritual matter or fundamental truth in defiance of reason

Anti-Faith View

Reason and faith clash, you must choose reason always because you can’t trust faith

Harmony View

They don’t clash and should not

Tertullian

He believes that reason and faith clash and that faith is superior (Anti-Reason View)

Adoptionism

God was a special human being vs. God was a divine being who originally appeared as a human being; Docetism

Divine wisdom

The word of God cannot be attained through reason.

Thomas Jefferson

No room for faith; radical and opposite view of Tertullian; believed that the biblical stories should be looked at like Greek myths and must be looked at with logic and reason (Anti-Faith)

Pascal

He wanted to defend reason and preserve it while finding religion important, as some things can’t be proven with reason, therefore you must have faith. (Harmony of Faith and Reason) 

The Nature of Pascal’s Wager

Argues that you should believe in God regardless of percentage changes; it’s more rational to believe in God than not to believe.)

• Many believe you must believe in God and act accordingly.

What does Pascal’s Wager tell us?

There is no possible reason to determine that there is a God, but you should bet on it by believing in God.

Many Gods Objection

Pascal’s argument regards God as being one (the Christian God), however, there are many different beliefs and religions about God/Gods. Therefore, it is up to luck to know which God you “should” believe in.

• Example: Hinduism has multiple Gods

Pascal’s “Belief is not enough” Objection

Someone may believe Pascal’s argument, but not believe in God.

• Can you will to believe something without reason and evidence?

• Can you choose what you believe?

The Problem with the Poison Well Principle

This does not work in every context because the senses aren’t “poisoned wells” and everyone makes mistakes; non sequitir

Problem with the Dream Argument

It is non sequitur because it assumes that if we can’t know if we’re dreaming, we can’t know if we’re awake. This is false because when you’re awake, it is self-evident and clear that you’re awake.

Attack on Reason

Since you can’t disprove that one farfetched hypothesis is impossible, you can’t prove that the “common sense” hypothesis IS possible.

3 Objections to Attack on Reason

1. Possibility and probability without reason is not possible

2. Self-refutation objection

3. The burden of proof

Self-refutation (attack on reason)

You rely on reason to claim that reason is not reliable

The burden of proof

Argues that for any belief you hold, you can come up with a far-fetched hypothesis; you can’t prove that it is possible or not without reason and evidence

• Example: A professor saying “you cheated, prove that you didn’t” shows an example of making something up without evidence and asking someone to prove what the assertive stated on no basis

Explain Pascal’s Wager in words

If God exists and you do believe, you will have infinite happiness and lose nothing. 

If God does not exist and you do believe, nothing happens. (finite)

If God exists and you do not believe, infinite unhappiness and eternal damnation.

If God does not exist and you do not believe, nothing happens. (finite)

What is the Dream Argument?

You can never be certain if you are dreaming or awake; relates to the Dream Hypothesis.