SPLIT UP Reason as a source of knowledge

Defne innatism (3)

• The view that knowledge is acquired independently of experience - a priori

• Knowledge is present from birth – our ideas are already formed

Explain impressions and ideas (5 marks)

• Impressions = the immediate data of experiences – original perceptions given to us by our senses

• Ideas = image in the mind of something – split into simple and complex ideas

• Simple idea = basic unit of thought – direct copies of initial sense impressions

• Complex ideas = combinations of simple ideas that are compounded together to create other ideas – indirectly based on impressions

• Ideas are less vivacious and forceful copies of initial sense-impressions – impressions are the causes of ideas in the mind

What is the diference between simple and complex ideas?

• Simple ideas = basic units of thought which cannot be broken down any further

• Complex ideas = combination of simple ideas which can be broken down into their relative component parts

• Simple ideas = less forceful and vivacious copies of initial sense impressions – directly derived from them

• Complex ideas = indirect copies of initial sense-impressions – simple ideas are compounded together

Outline Plato's Slave Boy Argument (5)

• A slave boy – who therefore has no education whatsoever - has no mathematical knowledge or a formal understanding of the principles of logic

• When asked to work out how to double the area of a square, the slave boy is able to work out the answer with very limited guidance (by drawing squares he is able to work out to double the area you need to draw a new square which is based on the length of the diagonal in the original square)

• The knowledge used for the calculation therefore cannot be derived from experience as he was not aware of it prior – mathematical knowledge is a priori

• This shows he had been able to recollect innate ideas without experience

• Therefore innate ideas exist

Outline the mind as tabula rasa (5)

• The mind at the point of birth has no concepts or knowledge of anything – a 'blank slate'

• Therefore innate knowledge does not exist

• As our senses gather information from experiences we gain knowledge derived from them

• All knowledge derives from experience – simple ideas are images in the mind which are copies of initial sense-impressions we can only get through our experiences of sensations

• Complex concepts are combinations of simple ideas which are compounded in order to create new ideas e.g. augmenting

• Another empiricist alternative claim = either all knowledge is either a posteriori or a priori but analytic – we can establish it without experience but do not have knowledge of it at birth

Outline Leibniz's argument based on necessary truths (5)

• Necessary truths are always true in all worlds and cannot possibly be false

• A proposition is contingent if it could be true or could be false – it will be either true or false but the world could have been diferent

• Experience gives us knowledge of particular circumstances but not how things are universally (otherwise we would have to experience every individual circumstance to come to a conclusion)

• Experience can only tell us about contingent truths – cannot tell us how things are in all worlds

• Therefore necessary truths must be a priori – acquired independently of experience

• These truths are unconscious so we need to discover them – we can do so by accessing what is already in our minds

• This process needs support from sense experience (necessary but not suficient) e.g. white is not black – we must know what black and white are but it is based on the application of an innate idea

• 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be at the same time' allows us to uncover it through reason

• Therefore we all have the potential to access innate knowledge

Outline Locke's argument against innatism (5)

• A1 – If knowledge is present from birth than it must be universal

• A2 – For an idea to be part of the mind somebody must be conscious of it (otherwise this is contradictory)

• So therefore every human must be conscious of the same innate ideas

• However, this is not the case as children and 'idiots' (people with severe learning disabilities) do not share innate ideas such as geometry

• They do not know these claims as they do not understand them and cannot be conscious of them – so therefore these claims to them are not innate

• If no knowledge is universal, then no knowledge can be innate at all

• A3 – Even if there was a universal idea this does not make it innate – there may be some other explanation as to why it is this way e.g. something universal in experience which produced the same knowledge

Explain one issue with the diference between simple and complex ideas (5)

• Simple ideas are basic units of thought which are copies of initial sense-impressions directly derived from them – for example the colour blue

• Complex ideas are combinations of simple ideas that are compounded in order to create larger ones – they can be broken down and are indirectly based of initial sense-impressions

• Hume uses the 'missing shade of blue' argument to highlight not all simple ideas derived from initial sense-impressions

• Imagine a man has gone through life having experienced every shade of blue apart from one

• If all the shades of blue were lines up together with a gap for the missing shade, it is plausible the man could formulate the idea of the missing one

• In this case we have a simple idea (the colour blue) that is not directly derived from initial sense-impressions

• Instead the mean formulates it by combining other simple ideas (the other shades of blue) in the same way complex ideas are a combination of simple ideas – so in this instance there is no way to distinguish between them

• It is possible to have a supposedly simple idea that is not derived directly from initial sense-impressions – instead it is formulated by combining other simple ideas just like complex ideas – so in this instance there is no way to distinguish between them

Explain one issue with the empiricist distinction between impressions and ideas (5)

• Simple ideas = image in the mind of something – basic unit of thought – copies of initial sense impressions e.g. colours

• Impressions = the immediate data of experiences – original perceptions given to us by our senses

• Diference = ideas are less vivacious and forceful copies of initial sense-impressions – impressions are the causes of ideas in the mind

• Issue – not all simples ideas are copies of initial sense-impressions – demonstrated by Hume's missing shade of blue argument:

• Imagine a man has gone through life having experienced every shade of blue apart from one

• If all shades were lined up together with a gap for the missing shade, it is plausible the man could formulate the idea of the missing one

• The colour blue is a simple idea (as it cannot be broken down any further) yet in this case it isn't derived from an initial sense-impression (as the man has never perceived it before)

• Problematic as it shows it is possible that not all simple ideas are copies of sense-impressions – which eliminates the distinction between them (that they are copies)

What is the diference between necessary and contingent truths?

• Necessary truths cannot possibly be false

• Will always be true so true in all possible worlds

• Contingent truths are dependent on the conditions of the world so may change

• True but may have also been false

What is the diference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge? (3)

• A priori knowledge can be acquired independently of experience

• A posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience

What is the diference between analytic and synthetic propositions? (3)

• AP = true by defnition – no further investigation is required to determine it is true

• We know that all 'fathers' are male from the meaning of a father

• SP = not true by defnition – further investigation of the world is required to determine whether it is true

What is intuition?

• The intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a proposition directly and non inferentially – in such that they are self-evident and no series of logical steps are required to acquire it

• These propositions are clear and distinct ideas – they are a priori – acquired immediately and are sharply distinct from other ideas – therefore they cannot possibly be doubted

What is deduction?

• Deduction – an argument is a deduction if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is logically derived from the premises – you must go through a series of steps (it is not immediate or direct)

Explain the diference between intuition and deduction

• Intuition is the intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a proposition directly and non-inferentially – what a clear and attentive mind can conceive – no steps are required

• These propositions are clear and distinct ideas – they are a priori – they are acquired immediately and solely through thinking and reason alone – they cannot possibly be doubted

• Deduction – an argument is a deduction if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is logically derived from the premises – you must go through a series of steps (it is not immediate or direct)

What does Descartes mean by 'clear and distinct ideas'? (3)

• They are clear – direct and non-inferential awareness of the truth – I know it immediately and it is self-evident – it cannot be doubted

• They are distinct – one can distinguish the proposition from others – no confusion between them

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

• In the cogito Descartes understands himself to be a thinking thing that is clear and distinct (and is therefore not necessarily identical to his body)

• Even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of physical objects and thereby knowledge of the externa world (justifed by experience) and mathematical truths (a priori knowledge)

• The evil demon cannot deceive him about his own existence since, if the evil demon deceiving him he must exist in order to be deceived – therefore his existence cannot be doubted

• Direct and non-inferential awareness of the truth - I know it immediately and it is self-evident (the most basic thing I know without needing to investigate further) – it cannot be doubted – so it is an intuition

• It must be an a priori – it is discovered by thinking and reasoning alone independent of experience

• It is foundational – the frst thing I know which is used to create further knowledge

• These truths are synthetic (they describe features of the world) and a priori (using reason without experience)

Explain how Descartes proves, through deduction, the existence of God (5) - ontological argument

• P1: I have the idea of God

• P2: The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being

• P3: A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection – otherwise this would be a contradiction as you cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time

• P4: Existence is a perfection – we cannot have any qualities if we don't exist – in order to possess the trait of supreme perfection God must exist

• C1: Therefore God exists – otherwise it would be self-contradictory

• Proven irrevocably through deduction – conclusion is logically derived from premises through a series of steps which guarantee it is true

Outline Descartes' proof of the existence of the external world (5)

• P1: I have perceptual experience of physical objects which are involuntary

• P2: More lively and vivid than imagination/memory (so can be separated from these)

• P3: Cannot be caused by ourselves (otherwise we would know we caused them) so they must be caused by something external

• P4: God cannot be the cause as he is perfect so he will not deceive us – will not create e false perceptions

• C1: Perceptions must be caused by external physical objects themselves

• C2: There is an external world of physical objects

• Proven irrevocably through deduction – conclusion is logically derived from premises through a series of steps which guarantee it is true

Explain how Russel + Hume respond to Descartes' cogito (5)

• The idea that 'I exist' (the self) is not an intuition as it is not self-evident nor is it immediate

• The idea that there is a substantial self is not established by the cogito – therefore it is problematic to assume 'I' exist (idea of the self) as it is not proven

• Instead Descartes has only proven thoughts exist – my experience tells me I only observe one thought at a time – I am not a continuous mental substance like Descartes proposes

• Instead, Hume argues we only experience a continually rapid changing array of thoughts – we are a simply bundle of diferent perceptions

• Therefore, the self cannot be a rational intuition, the idea of the self is not immediate by thinking or non-inferential – only the idea that thoughts exist – therefore the self must be doubted

Explain how Hume's fork can be used as a response to Descartes' cogito

• Relations of ideas are acquired independently of experience (a priori) – true by defnition (analytic) so no further investigation of the world is required and to deny them would be a logical contradiction (necessary) – intuitively or demonstratively certain

• Matters of fact are dependent on experience (a posteriori) – dependent on conditions of the world which we must investigate to determine truth (synthetic) so to deny them isn't a logical contradiction (contingent)

• Descartes argues that the cogito is a relation of ideas – direct and non-inferential intuition so analytic, necessary and a priori

• However, Hume shows that the cogito cannot be a claim to knowledge because it is neither a relation of ideas or a matter of fact

• Not a relation ideas because 'I exist' is not analytic (doesn't tell us within defnition) or a necessary truth (because I haven't and will not always exist)

• However, it isn't a matter of fact either – the self is an immaterial substance and has no observable efect on the physical world

• As it is not an ROI or MOF it is not a claim to knowledge – it is simply a contingent truth which could just as easily to be true as it is false

• So Descartes fails to prove a priori knowledge is possible – it is not independent of experience and experience does not provide us a sense of self (so cannot be an intuition)

Explain how Hume's fork can be used as a response to Descartes deductive proof of God (5)

• Relations of ideas are acquired independently of experience (a priori) – true by defnition (analytic) so no further investigation of the world is required and to deny them would be a logical contradiction (necessary) – intuitively or demonstratively certain

• Matters of fact are dependent on experience (a posteriori) – dependent on conditions of the world which we must investigate to determine truth (synthetic) so to deny them isn't a logical contradiction (contingent)

• Descartes argues the idea of God is a relation of ideas – he uses deduction to prove his existence from a priori ideas

• However, the claim 'God exists' is not a claim to knowledge as it is neither a matter of fact or a relation of ideas

• Not ROI – to imagine a being not existing is not a logical contradiction nor is existence true by defnition – no essential properties

• Nor is it a MOF - God is not part of the physical world – does not have any observable efect (so experience cannot tell us anything)

• As it is not an ROI or MOF it is not a claim to knowledge – it is simply a contingent truth which could just as easily to be true as it is false

• It cannot be a deductive argument as the truth of the premises do not guarantee that of the conclusion – and the fact God exists isn't an intuition (not direct or non-inferential)

• So Descartes fails to prove a priori knowledge is possible – it is not independent of experience and experience does not provide us a sense of self (so cannot be an intuition)

Explain how empiricists respond to Descartes' (deductive) proof of the existence of God (5)

• The idea of perfection/God is an intuition

• However, Hume argues the idea of God isn't direct or non-inferential – it is not a priori (independent of experience)

• Instead, we use our experience to augment human qualities such as kindness and power to make them infnite – we then have the idea of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being

• We are able to do so as we have experienced the idea of things with limits (hence imagining limitless) and human qualities from the people around us

• We have arrived at the idea of God through a method that isn't deductive (not all premises are true) nor an intuition (requires experience)

• Therefore Descartes is wrong as the frst premise of his entire argument (God is an intuition) is incorrect so his argument is no longer supported or sound

Outline Locke's ideas against innatism and how Leibniz responds to Locke (12)

• If knowledge is present from birth than it must be universal

• For an idea to be part of the mind then somebody must be conscious of it – so therefore every human must be conscious of the same innate ideas

• However, this is not the case as children and 'idiots' (people with severe learning disabilities) do not share innate ideas such as geometry

• They do not know these claims as they do not understand them – so therefore these claims to them are not innate

• If no knowledge is universal, then no knowledge can be innate at all

• Leibniz rejects the claim innate knowledge must be conscious – we can know things, including 'children and idiots', without being aware of them

• We have knowledge of necessary truths such as 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be' without explicitly attending to them

• It is necessary for functional thought, as it is needed to distinguish from one concept to another – so children and 'idiots' must have it

• Therefore some ideas are universal as they are necessary for basic thought – we unconsciously deploy these principles in order to function – stored in our memory from birth

• Therefore some knowledge is innate

Cosmological argument pt 1 - Trademark argument

P1)I have a clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being - God

P2)Every cause must have at least as much reality as its effect

P3) Neither the external world, nor I have enough reality to cause this clear and distinct idea - only God himself can cause it

C)Therefore God exists

Cosmological argument pt 2 - contingency arguement

P1)I exist as a thinking thing

P2)I cannot have always existed for I don’t remember all of history

P3) I cannot have created myself, for I would have created my self perfect

P3)My parents may have given birth to me, but they aren’t the cuase of my existence as a thinking thing

P4) There can be no other cause of my existence bar God

C)Therefore God must exist, as I exist as a thinking thing