Knowledge from Reason

define innatism

theory that you are born with knowledge

define empiricism

theory you gain knowledge through experience

define rationalism

theory we can acquire knowledge purely from intuition and deduction

define analytic truth

a statement which is true solely in virtue of its meaning eg triangle has 3 sides

if denied, they result in logical contradictions

define synthetic truth

a statement which is true because of how the world is eg grass is green

if denied, there is no logical contradiction

define a priori knowledge

knowledge acquired independent of experience, can be known with certainty before experience eg you know 2 apples + 3 pears = 5 fruits before you count them

define a posteriori knowledge

knowledge acquired by experience only, can’t be known with certainty before experience eg don’t know France beat England in football match before match happens

what are arguments for innatism?

PLATO: Meno’s slave

LEIBNIZ: necessary truths

what is Meno’s slave? and its counter argument?

Plato believes we are born with with innate knowledge, we just need to remember it so all learning is a form of recalling knowledge we already have

a slave owner and slave have completely different upbringings

the slave owner teaches the slave after the slave incorrectly guesses the answer how to find the length of a side of a square with an area of 8 by only asking the slave questions which he answers correctly

the slave had no previous teaching of geometry but was able to correctly answer the slave owner’s questions (or at least correct his mistakes)

so his knowledge must have been innate

CA: can argue the knowledge was empirical since the slave boy learnt the correct answer from his experience of being wrong

what is Leibniz’s necessary truths argument for innatism?

there are two types of truth: contingent truths (what is the case in this world but could be false in some other world) and necessary truths ( what must be the case and is true in every possible world)

a posteriori can’t prove necessary truths

eg if you add 2 apples to 2 apples, you can never guarantee it will add up to 4 apples next time solely from experience because there is always the possibility of ‘what if it does not?’

but we do know that 2+2 always makes 4

this knowledge does not come from experience and Leibniz argues it is innate knowledge

so existence of necessary truths prove innatism

what are empiricist criticisms that criticise innatism?

Locke’s attack on innatism

Locke’s Tabula Rasa

Hume simple and complex ideas

what is Locke’s attack on innatism?

innate knowledge would be universal if it existed

eg everyone would know the theorem of geometry which Meno’s slave suggests

but children and idiots do not possess such knowledge

so innatism does not exist

CA: children and idiots could possess this knowledge without being aware of it

CCA: Locke argues that the mind is transparent and it would be impossible to have ideas which we are not aware of

CA: Leibniz argues that it is possible to have ideas in your mind without having been conscious of them or having thought of them in his ‘New Essays’ which talks about the subconscious

what is Hume’s simple and complex ideas argument?

a simple concept is one concept that can’t be simplified to anything else eg brown or hard

a complex concept is made of simple concepts eg a chair is a complex concept made up of the simple concepts brown and hard etc

abstract concepts are then created from general complex concepts eg chairs can go from four legs and wooden to three legs and plastic

similarly we form abstract concepts like beauty, justice or God by abstracting from experience

so all our concepts and knowledge can be traced back to simple concepts which come from experience

what is the tabula rasa criticism on innatism?

is the theory that our mind is born as a blank slate and we gain knowledge from our experiences

Ockham’s razor states that when given two theories with equal explanatory power, the simpler theory should be chosen

Locke uses example of colour to show how tabula rasa is simpler theory than innatism

we are either born with an innate idea of each colour and then experience the colours or we simply experience colour and gain our idea of it from the experience

Locke argues that the first option gives no extra explanatory power and the second option is simpler because why would God bother with giving humans an innate idea of colour if they’ll just experience it anyways

what are criticisms of tabula rasa?

not all simple concepts are empirical

not all complex concepts are empirical

the mind is born with innate structures

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on not all simple ideas are empirical?

Locke does say that it would be possible to imagine a shade of blue when given a range of blues with one missing shade

so not all simple ideas come from experience

CA: technically that shade of blue would be a complex concept of the two shades it is between so it does come from experience

CCA: by this logic, all shades of blue are a complex concept and so none are simple concepts that come from experience

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on not all complex concepts are empirical?

you can’t put down complex concepts like justice down to sense impressions eg touch or taste or feel

CA: you form complex concepts like justice from experiencing simple concepts like unjust or just behaviours (Hume’s simple and complex ideas)

CCA: you can’t derive relational concepts from experience eg you can;t associate oneness or sameness with touch, sight or feel etc

what is the criticism to tabula rasa based on the mind is born with innate structures?

CONDILLAC’S statue is a thought experiment where you imagine a statue is carved first void of sensations and then given the ability to have sensations. could this statue come to know as much as humans do?

many argue no as the statue would receive uninterpreted information so it would not know how to process and use this information.

it is this ability to process and use information that is innate

so tabula rasa does not work as we are not a complete blank slate (like the statue) because we have an innate structure in us

this is supported by Kant who says “thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind” ( intuitions means our experiences so experiences without innate structures are meaningless)

define intuition

ability to know something is true just by thinking about it

define deduction

a method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions

what are the different beliefs between empiricists and rationalists?

empiricists believe only analytic truths can be a priori knowledge but rationalists believe both analytic and synthetic truths can be a priori knowledge

define rational intuition

an a priori faculty which enables us to see the truth

what are Descartes’ clear and distinct ideas?

ideas for which it is impossible for them to be false, any idea that presents itself clearly and distinctly to our rational intuition can be trusted as true

what are the three waves of doubt?

Descartes seeks to doubt all he knows when trying to prove synthetic truths can be a priori and this is classed in the three waves of doubt

illusion: i have been deceived by my senses before (pencil looked crooked in water) so i can not trust my senses

dreaming: i could think i am awake but i am actually dreaming so everything that happens could be false

deception: i must doubt basic ideas like 1+1=2 because an evil demon could be controlling my perception and sense of truth

how does Descartes prove rationalism?

in his ‘Meditations’ he provides arguments for 3 synthetic truths using a priori means and clear and distinct ideas. they are:

I exist - cogito ergo sum

God exists - trademark argument

the world exists

what is cogito ergo sum?

i doubt (seen by the three waves of doubt )

therefore i think

therefore i am

even if a demon, illusions or dreams are deceiving him, there must be something that exists for them to deceive which is I

what is the trademark argument?

i have the concept of God

my concept of god is infinite and perfect

but i am a finite and imperfect being

the cause of an effect must have at least as much reality as the effect

so the cause of my concept of God must have at least as much reality as what the concept is about

so the cause of my concept of God must be infinite and perfect

so God exists

what is the argument that the world exists?

i have perceptions of an external world with physical objects

my perceptions can’t be caused by my own mind because they are involuntary

so the cause of my perceptions must be external to my mind

god exists (trademark)

if the cause of perception is God and not physical objects themselves then God has created me with a tendency to form false beliefs from my perception

But God is a perfect being by definition and so would not create me with a tendency to form false beliefs

so i can trust my perceptions

so given i can trust my perceptions and i have perceptions of an external world with physical objects. the external world of physical objects exists

what are criticisms of the trademark argument and the argument the world exists?

HUME: concept of God is not innate

Hume’s Fork

is causal principle true?

dreams (just world argument)

God can be a deceiver (just world argument)

what is the criticism against trademark and external world argument that the concept of God is not innate?

Hume argues our concept of God comes from experience - we encounter wise, loving, powerful people and from this experience we imagine someone who has an unlimited version of these qualities

therefore the trademark argument is not completely a priori so it doesn’t prove rationalism

since the external world argument uses the trademark argument, it also does not prove rationalism

what is the criticism against the trademark and external world argument based on Hume’s fork?

Hume argued there are two kinds of knowledge : relations of ideas and matters of fact

relations of ideas are analytic truths, a priori, can’t be denied without contradiction

matters of fact are synthetic truths, a posteriori and can be denied with no logical contradictions

it can be argued Descartes used matters of fact in his work (statements that could be denied with no logical contradictions) and since they are a posteriori it doesn’t establish rationalism

what is the criticism against the trademark argument based on the causal principle?

causal principle states the cause of an effect must have as much reality as the effect

the idea of effects not being greater than their causes is not necessarily true eg a match can cause a bonfire

so the cause of my concept of God is not necessarily perfect or infinite

so trademark argument doesn’t prove the existence of God

what is the criticism to the external world argument based on dreams?

says perceptions can’t be caused by our own mind because they are involuntary

but dreams are involuntary and we believe they come from somewhere in us

so perceptions can still be involuntary and caused by our own mind

what is the criticism to the external world argument that God can be a deceiver? and its counter argument?

we have already been deceived by secondary qualities : we believed that objects really possessed colours, smells, tastes when they only possess the ability to cause these experiences in humans

this shows God can allow us to be deceived

furthermore if God truly never deceived us, we would never be deceived in our lives as Hume says “ if his veracity were at all concerned in this matter, our senses would be infallible”

CA: Descartes argues God does not truly deceive us as God allows us to escape these natural inclinations to be deceived

eg we know the truth about illusions and secondary qualities by the use of our reason which God gave to us

what are the criticisms of the cogito?

RUSSELL: different thinkers

HUME: no existence of a self

STROUD: no thinker at all

what is the criticism to the cogito based on different thinkers?

Descartes has not proved an enduring self

Russell states when looking at a brown table, what is certain is that ‘a brown table is being seen’ not ‘ i am seeing a brown table’

it implies something is seeing the brown table but that something isn’t necessarily I

so it can not be certain that different experiences have the same being experiencing them

what is the criticism to the cogito based on no existence of self?

Hume is an empiricist and so believes all concepts from experience

it is impossible to have a perception of the self, when you try perceive the self all you are aware of is perceptions of different conceptions (hot, cold, pain, pleasure)

so we have never actually experiences the ‘self’, it is just a bundle of perceptions

if this is true, then it is dangerous for Descartes as he used the cogito to argue the self is a thing with various conscious experiences

but if this is not the case then the cogito reveals a lot less knowledge than initially thought so rationalism doesn’t reveal as much knowledge as initially thought

what is the argument against the cogito based on there being no thinker at all?

Stroud states that the problem with transcendental arguments ( arguments which work by claiming a specific feature of the world is necessary to enable a particular experience, in this case the cogito requires existence for doubt) is that the sceptic can always deny any property is a precondition of an experience.

so could deny you need to exist to doubt

since Descartes is in a state of global scepticism, he’d have to accept this sceptical view