Reason as the source of knowledge : 5 marker answers Part one: Innatism and Tabula Rasa

Explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (5)

- A priori means to know the truth of a claim outside of or independent of experience.
- You can check the truth through reasoning alone.
- You do not need to examine the world or leave your sofa to know the truth of the claim.
- It is not justified based on experience.
- For example; Bachelor is an unmarried man is a priori because you do not need to meet a bachelor to check this is true, you can work it our in your head.
- Whereas a posteriori knowledge is the opposite.
- This means you knows it is true based on or as a result of experience.
- For example; 'the front door of my house is green'.
- You cannot just look at the proposition to see if it is true, you need to go and look to check this statement is true.

Explain the difference between analytic and synthetic propositions (5)

- Analytic statements refer to statements that are true because of the meanings of the words in the sentences.
- They refer to statements that are true by definition which are also known as 'tautologies'.
- They state that If you understand the meanings of the terms you'll see that the proposition is true.
- For example; 'Bachelor is an unmarried man' is true by definition because of you understand the meaning of the word Bachelor then you will know that it has to be an unmarried man.
- Another way it is put is by Kant who said the predicate (unmarried) is contained in the subject (bachelor).
- These truths tell us nothing about the world itself so is considered trivial knowledge-no new knowledge is gained.
- Whereas Synthetic statements refer to statements that are true in virtue of the way the world is.
- So this time understanding the meanings of words alone will not tell you if the proposition is true.
- For example, 'All crows are black'.
- In this statement 'blackness' is not inside the word 'crow' so you would need to check this by getting out into the world and seeing it/experience.
- In synthetic propositions some knowledge of the external world is asserted so some say it is more relevant and useful (substantive and significant knowledge).

Explain the difference between necessary and contingent truths (5)

- Necessary truths are truths that are true in all possible worlds.
- This means that it is impossible to conceive of it not being true, it is logically impossible to imagine otherwise.
- For example 'triangles have 3 sides'.
- This is true in all worlds.
- Also to deny this truth would be a contradiction-it makes no sense.
- Whereas contingent truths are truths that happen to be true but could have been otherwise.
- Their truths depend on other things and being the case.
- They are not true in all possible worlds because you can imagine it being different.
- For example; The door is blue.

Explain the differences rationalists and empiricists view of origins and verification of knowledge (5)

- Empiricists strongly argue that we can only arrive at truths concerning the world from the world, in which case we can only have a posteriori synthetic knowledge (knowledge of what exists through experience).
- Empiricists also believe that the only type of truths you can arrive at through reasoning (a priori) are trivial ones.
- This is what they call a priori analytic knowledge.
- Empiricists also believe that all ideas and knowledge are derived from the world through experience.
- We are born tabula rasa (Blank slate).
- Rationalists believe that we can arrive at some truths/knowledge concerning the world through reasoning (a priori).
- So they state that there is a priori knowledge of some synthetic propositions.
- Rationalists also believe that we are born with some innate ideas and knowledge of the world which also makes it a priori synthetic.

outline what is meant by innate knowledge (5)

- If knowledge is innate then it is in us from birth as part of the mind in some way.
- This means we can arrive at truths about what exists (in the world) and be certain of it, independent of sense experience so it is also an example of a priori knowledge.
- Experience triggers our innate knowledge of certain things.

Using Plato's 'slave boy' argument, explain knowledge innatism. (5)

- To believe in innate knowledge is to believe that knowledge exists in us from birth as part of the mind in some way and exists independent of experience.
- Plato argued that 'truths of geometry' is an example of innate knowledge.
- He shows this through his 'slave boy' argument: An Athenian slave boy (who has had no education) was able to double the area of any given square without any teaching and independent of experience.
- His ability to reach the truth and recognize it as such proves that he already had this knowledge within him innately.
- The questions he was asked simply triggered his pre-existing innate knowledge of mathematical truths.
- (Plato thinks you recollect it).

Outline Leibniz argument based on necessary truths as an example of innate knowledge (5)

- P1 All truths known through experience are contingent and particular.
- This is because everything we experience could be otherwise.
- P2 Yet we know necessary truths like 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be' or that 'triangles MUST HAVE 2 sides'.
- C So they cannot be derived from experience (a posteriori).
- So they must be a priori.
- C2 But they must also be innate-since we discover apriori knowledge by attending or reflecting on what is already there inside us.

Explain Locke's rejection of innate knowledge and concepts. Apply this objection to both Plato's slave boy argument and Leibniz necessary truth argument. (12)

- From Locke's definition of innate knowledge is that it is a proposition that everyone knows from birth.
- So it is knowledge that we are all conscious of from birth.
- He also adds that If some truth were part of the mind from birth, every person would know it.
- So this means it should also be universal and everyone should know it.
- Locke dismisses the notion of innate ideas because he says, there is no truth that every person is conscious of from birth.
- Children and "idiots" have minds but do not assent (say yes) to so -called innate knowledge of 'truths of geometry' (as Plato argued) or necessary truths like 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be' (as Leibniz believed).
- He gives three further reasons for rejecting the existence of innate concepts:
- Watching babies proves that they do not possess advanced concepts such as IDENTITY or IMPOSSIBILITY.
- GOD is not a concept that all humans have and so it is, instead, learned from teachers and cultures.
- If Innate ideas existed they could neither be new or remembered so how could there be such a thing? So because no example of innate knowledge is universal from birth then it follows that thee is no innate ideas and knowledge and all is instead gained and justified sense experience.

Explain Leibniz response to Locke's criticisms of innate knowledge and concepts.

- Leibniz picks up the example of 'It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be', and rejects Locke's claim that this is not universally accepted.
- Everyone uses this knowledge all the time, but 'without explicitly attending to it'. Indeed, we can't really think without it, since it is needed to distinguish the concept of one thing from the concept of something different.
- We might be unconscious of the fact that we have innate ideas and knowledge but we definitely do because otherwise we would not be able to think and learn anything else.
- For example if you did not have the innate concept of 'impossibility' you would not be able to separate black from white.
- Even if we give no thought to them, they are necessary for thought.
- The mind relies on these principles constantly'.

- Leibniz responded that innate concepts and knowledge exist as dispositions in the mind.
- So having an innate idea doesn't mean we have the capacity to form the concept, but that we have a predisposition for experience to uncover just that concept and no other.
- This means that innate knowledge is not something we are in fact conscious of from birth but something that exists that we are unconscious and experience refine and reveals the concept or innate knowledge.
- The claim that knowledge can be unconscious shouldn't be controversial.
- Memory 'stores' ideas and usually, but not always, retrieves them when we need them.
- This shows two things: we can know things without being conscious of them; and retrieving this knowledge can need assistance.

Using the marble analogy, explain Leibniz argument for innate knowledge and innate concepts

- Leibniz comments on Locke's contrast between 'innate knowledge' as knowledge we can acquire and the innate capacity for knowledge.
- The contrast restricts the options.
- While innate knowledge does not exist 'fully formed' or explicitly in our minds, it is more than mere capacity.
- In gaining knowledge of necessary truths, the mind needs to actively engage with itself, albeit at the prompting of sense experience.
- Thus, Leibniz says, 'The actual knowledge of [necessary truths] isn't innate.
- What is innate is what might be called the potential knowledge of them, as the veins of the marble outline a shape that is in the marble before they are uncovered by the sculptor'.
- It takes work to uncover what is within us, but what we uncover, we have not learned from sense experience.
- Experience is necessary but not sufficient for innate knowledge.
- Leibniz argues, that like the marble, the mind is predisposed to certain ideas and information, it just requires experience and reason to uncover and refine them, as the sculptor would carve and polish Hercules.

Explain Descartes trademark argument as an example of innate concepts.

1. We all have the concept of God.
Descartes identifies three possible sources of any idea:
2. it derives from something outside my mind, such as my experiences. But the idea of god can't come from experience because his traits involves PERFECT and INFINITE which does not exist in the world.
3. I have invented it; But we can't make up the idea of god (perfect and infinite being ) because causes have to be equal or greater than its effects (this is the 'causal principle' and something he thinks is a clear and distinct truth).
4. (his conclusion) it is innate. So if it's not made by us or not from experience then it must have come with us-inborn.
5.Plus God must have put the idea of himself in us since he is the only cause equal to the idea itself.
6.So God exists and is innate. This is also an example of a priori synthetic knowledge.

Explain Locke's argument from tabula rasa

- Locke argues that all our ideas derive from one of two sources: sensation (our sense experience of objects outside the mind) or reflection (our experience of the internal operations of our minds).
- Our senses essentially let in ideas and we store them in our memory and over time after repetition and through the use of our reflection (inner workings of our mind) we come to know all ideas and knowledge.

Explain the hume's distinction between simple and complex concepts.

- Simple impressions are the basic building blocks of all our thoughts/ideas and experience and simple ideas are faint copies of these simple impressions.
- Hume can also explain the origin of ideas, that do not appear to come from experience, by referring to simple and complex concepts.
- Simple ideas consist of a single element such as the idea of red which can ONLY come from sense impression of red (simple impression).
- Complex ideas come from complex impressions.
- Those Complex ideas that do not come experience arise out of combining/changing various simple ideas- for example, a gold mountain.
- Hume argues that all ideas no matter how abstract or complex, is more than putting together, altering or abstracting from impressions.

Explain one supporting argument for the claim that the mind is born with innate structures.

- Rationalists could argue that the reason we understand 'general blue' and can form the concept of the 'missing shade of blue' and other concepts is because we are born with some foundational innate concepts that help us structure the world of experience.
- This is like being born with a library with shelving units (some innate structure) or veined marble and not an empty library (tabula rasa) which allows us to be able to experience in the first place and then form further concepts.
- Arguably, some concepts have to exist in the mind in order for sense impressions to make sense (e.g. sameness, unity, impossibility).
- So the mind is born with innate structures rather than tabula rasa.