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?

• Formed by intuition

• Clear: it is ‘open and present’ to an attentive mind

• Distinct: it is ‘sharply’ separated from other ideas and precise

• This general rule is based on the promising first ‘idea’ of the Cogito

What is deduction?

• Descartes’ starting point for deductions are usually clear and distinct ideas

• The conclusion is necessary if it is entailed from its premises

• In order for a deduction to work it needs to be valid (if the premises are true, then conclusion must be true) and sound (the reasoning is valid and the premises are actually true)

• Each stage of a deductive piece of reasoning is called an intuition: you behold the truth and ‘intuit’ that the next truth necessarily follows

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

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.