Intuition and deduction flashcards

What is intuition?

• It is an a priori intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a proposition directly and without inference

• It involves inwardly looking upon an intellectual object (e.g straight line, triangle, a thought)

• It involves instantly seeing its true features (e.g. I exist)

• It is the ‘natural light’ which gives us the ability to see immediately that clear and distinct ideas are true, and could not be false/untrustworthy

What are clear and distinct ideas?

• The concept of the proposition is immediately accessible

• They are indubitable

• They are known with certainty

• They are self evident

• One can distinguish this concept from others

• They are a priori / known through reason alone

• An example of a clear and distinct idea would be the cogito

What is deduction?

• The inference of something as following necessarily from some other propositions which are known with certainty

• Descartes uses deductive reasoning:

  • The conclusion needs to be entailed from its premises

  • It needs to be deductively valid and sound

What is the cogito?

• ‘I think therefore I am’

• It is clear and distinct - the cogito is open, vivid and apparent to a thinking mind, the cogito does not confuse thinking with a body

• It is an a priori intuition - it is not known through sense experience / empirical observation, it is a direct or non-inferential awareness of a truth which has been discovered by thinking and reasoning alone

• The cogito is Descartes’ claim that one exists

• Even if an evil demon is deceiving him, he must exist to be deceived

What is the different thinkers problem with the cogito?

• Descartes is saying we can only be sure of our existence when we are thinking about it, then it is possible we are ceasing to exist when we are not thinking about it

• Therefore it could equally be a different person thinking each time

What is the continuity of being: bundle of perceptions problem with the cogito?

• All concepts originate in impressions

• The ‘self’ cannot be traced back to some experience or perception

• When we try, we only think of various particular perceptions - not the ‘self’ itself as the owner of perceptions

• The self is just a term to describe a bundle of perceptions: just because our thoughts are similar from one moment to the next does not mean that there is an identical ‘thing’ persisting through such thoughts

What is the radical doubts: no thinker at all problem with the cogito?

• Maybe you do not need a thinker in order to have thoughts

• The problem with transcendental arguments is that someone can claim that a property is not a necessary precondition

• The cogito merely proves the existence of thoughts, rather than a generator of thoughts

What is the cogito as an a priori intuition problem?

• The use of concepts/ language (experience is required to generate the cogito, it draws in fundamental concepts e.g. what thought is, what doubt is and the nature of existence)

  • But the cogito itself is justified completely a priori, it may well be that we derive these concepts from experience, but the key here is that the knowledge of the cogito is proved/justified by thought alone, so evidence from the senses/imagination is used

• The intellect (the cogito could be ‘inner/inward’ reflection: Locke claimed that reflection and inner sensations count as experience

  • But, the cogito is not based on ‘inward’ reflection of perceptions:it is a thought about thoughts, a kind of pure reason, devoid of empirical content

  • But, thinking = experience: your awareness that you are thinking is still an experience

• The level of certainty: a posteriori induction? (you only know the cogito when you are thinking about it: most a priori knowledge is timeless, true at all times and independent of whether someone is thinking it. But, the cogito seems to be dependent on someone thinking it at a particular time, which actually is a posteriori knowledge)

  • But, the cogito is an eternal truth: Descartes is making a universal claim. It can only be known when thought but it will always be true that it can be known when thought

What are the problems with Clear and Distinct ideas/intuition?

1. Not clear and distinct enough (Leibniz)

• Descartes never fully explains what makes an idea clear and distinct

• A feeling of certainty is not enough

2. Hasty generalisation

• Descartes assumes that because the cogito is true when perceived clearly and distinctly, all C&D ideas must be true

• This is a weak generalisation (e.g seeing one pink pig does not equal all pigs are pink)

3. Only internal criteria for truth

• Descartes moves from certainty (“i am certain”) to truth (“it is true”)

• Critics argue truth should correspond to external reality, not just inner conviction

• Gilbert Ryle’s football analogy: Scoring requires both kicking the ball and it going into the net. Descartes focuses only on the first part (internal certainty)

• The cogito may be an exception to this criticism

4. Cartesian circle

• C&D ideas could still have been implanted by a deceptive God

• Descartes argues only proving God’s existence guarantees C&D ideas are true

• But he uses C&D ideas to prove God, then uses God to justify C&D ideas - this is the Cartesian Circle

What is the trademark argument? (Standard form)

P1 The cause of anything must ebb at least as perfect as its effect

P2 My ideas must be caused by something

P3 I am an imperfect being

P4 I have the idea of God, which is that of a perfect being

P5 I cannot be the cause of my idea of God

P6 Only a perfect being can be the cause of my idea of God

C God must exist

Explain the trademark argument

• Just as a marker leaves a trademark on their work, God has “stamped” the innate idea of himself on our minds

• As imperfect beings, we could not have created the idea of an infinite, perfect God ourselves

• Innatism: The idea of God is innate, not learned through experience.

• Intuition: The Causal Principle is grasped directly as a clear and distinct idea.

• Deduction: The argument is deductive—if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Explain the causal principle

Causal Principle Explained

• A cause must contain at least as much reality/perfection as its effect.

• Example: Something powerful enough must have caused a window to shatter.

• Likewise, a finite human cannot produce the idea of an infinite, perfect being.

• Therefore, only God could be the source of the idea of God.

What is problem one with the trademark argument: A successful intuition-deduction?

• Descartes’ argument relies on the causal principle

• Hume argues the causal principle is a posteriori (based on experience) not a priori

• Therefore, it is a matter of fact, not a self-evident truth

• If the first premise is not certain, Descartes’ deduction is invalid/unsound

• So the trademark argument may not be a successful intuition-deduction

What is Problem Two with the Trademark Argument: Is the Causal Principle true?

• Descartes claims a cause cannot contain less reality than its effect.

• However, this is challenged by examples in the physical world:

  • A match can start a bonfire.

  • A small trigger can cause an avalanche.

  • Evolution shows simple causes can produce more complex effects.

• It is also unclear whether the principle applies to mental ideas as well as physical causes.

• Therefore, the Causal Principle may be false, weakening Descartes’ Trademark Argument.

What is Problem Three with the Trademark Argument: Do we really have an innate idea of God?

• Descartes claims we have an innate idea of God as an infinite, perfect being.

• However, we may not be able to truly understand infinity—only as the opposite of finite.

• Hume argues our idea of God is a complex idea, not an innate one.

• We create the idea of God by exaggerating the qualities (e.g. goodness, wisdom, power) we experience in humans.

• Therefore, the idea of God may come from experience, weakening Descartes’ Trademark Argument.

What is Problem Four with the Trademark Argument: A universal idea of God?

• Descartes claims everyone has an innate idea of God.

• However, not all religions believe in an all-powerful, perfect, monotheistic God.

• The concept of a monotheistic God appears to have developed historically, rather than being universal.

• Therefore, the idea of God may not be innate, weakening Descartes’ Trademark Argument.

• Counter-argument: Like in Plato’s Meno, the innate idea may exist but needs to be uncovered through reason.

What is Problem Five with the Trademark Argument: The Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes proves God exists using clear and distinct ideas

• But he also says we know clear and distinct ideas are reliable because God exists

• This is circular reasoning (the Cartesian Circle), identified by Arnauld.

• Therefore, Descartes’ argument is logically flawed.

• Counter-argument: Descartes could argue that awareness of God is an intuition (like the Cogito), not a deduction, avoiding the circle.

What is the ontological argument? (Standard form)

P1 I have an idea of God as a perfect being

P2 A perfect being must have all perfections

P3 Existence is a perfection

C God exists

What is Descartes’ proof of the external world?

P1 I have perceptual experiences as if of physical objects, which must have a cause outside of me

P2 This cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects

P3 If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary/under my control

P4 However, they are not voluntary/under my control

P5 If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive

P6 However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver

C1 Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects

C2 Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects

What is the difference between intellect and the imagination?

Intellect

• Deals with pure thought and a priori truths

• Can understand complex ideas clearly (e.g a myriagon)

• Turns inwards to the mind itself

• Essential to the self

• Does not rely on the sense

Imagination

• Creates mental images of material things

• Complex ideas appear obscure and confused (e.g cannot clearly imagine a chiliagon)

• Turns towards the body and the senses

• Not essential to the self-you could still think without it

• Suggests the mind depends on something external(possibly the material world)

What is the involuntary nature of perception? (Standard form)

P1 I have perceptual experiences as if of physical objects, which must have a cause outside of me

P2 This cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects

P3 If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary/under my own control

P4 However they are not voluntary/under my control

P5 If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive

P6 However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver

C1 Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects

C2 Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects

What is Problem One with Descartes’ proof of the external world: A successful a priori deduction?

• Hume’s Fork: The existence of the external world is a matter of fact, not a priori.

• Descartes moves from effect (imagination/perception) to cause (the external world), so the argument is a posteriori.

• It is synthetic and contingent, so it is not certain.

• There could be another cause of our perceptual experiences.

• The argument is not a deduction but an abduction (inference to the best explanation).

• Therefore, Descartes fails to provide a successful a priori deduction of the external world.

What is Problem Two with Descartes’ proof of the external world: Dreams?

• Dreams are not under our voluntary control, just like perceptual experiences.

• However, dreams are produced by the mind, not by an external world.

• Therefore, not everything involuntary comes from outside the mind.

• This weakens Descartes’ argument that involuntary perceptions prove the existence of an external world.

What is Problem Three with Descartes’ proof of the external world: Berkeley and Idealism?

• Berkeley argues that our sensations could come directly from God, not from a material world.

• God could produce our perceptions without creating or maintaining physical objects.

• This means an external material world is unnecessary.

• Descartes rejects this, arguing it would make God a deceiver, whereas Berkeley does not see it as deception.

• Therefore, Descartes does not prove that a material world exists

What is Problem Four with Descartes’ proof of the external world: We are deceived?

• We are often deceived by our senses, especially about secondary qualities.

• If God allows us to be deceived about these, He may also allow us to be deceived about the existence of the external world.

• Hume argues our senses are unreliable, so we cannot use them to prove the external world.

• Therefore, Descartes cannot be certain that the external world exists.

• Counter-argument: Descartes argues that reason allows us to overcome sensory deception.

What is Problem Five with Descartes’ proof of the external world: The Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes proves God exists using clear and distinct ideas.

• He then says clear and distinct ideas are reliable because God exists.

• This is circular reasoning (the Cartesian Circle).

• Therefore, his proof of the external world is weakened because it relies on a circular argument.

• Counter-argument: Descartes could argue that knowledge of God is an intuition, not a deduction.