'Reason' as a source of knowledge

'Reason' as a source of knowledge

1. Innatism

   • Rationalists
     • Plato
       • The 'slaveboy' argument
         • Given a 2ft x 2ft square, make a square that is 8ft in area.
           • Doubling the sides of the square gives us a square with an area of 16ft.
             • Take the bisector of each square and make a square from that. This gives us a square with an area of 8ft.
         • From Plato's text 'Meno'
           • The slaveboy, having known nothing about geometry, is asked to make a square with an area of 8ft from a 2ft x 2ft square.
             • The slaveboy infers (from Socrates' questions) that since the target area is double the area of the current square, one must double the sides of the square to reach the area. This does not work, and so the slaveboy is stuck.
               • Socrates then questions the boy and asks if taking the bisector of each square would make a square in and of itself. It does, and they find the area of this new square to be 8ft.
                 • Plato's claim from the text 'Meno' is that as the slaveboy was able to reach the truth of the puzzle and thus, solve it, he must have already had the knowledge of geometry within him, the situation simply helped to 'trigger' it.
                   • Therefore, according to Plato, all knowledge is innate to us, but we need a particular situation to help 'trigger' that knowledge.
     • Leibniz
       • From Leibniz's text 'New essays on human understanding'
         • Theo, a rationalist, puts forth the following arguments for innate knowledge.
           • We discover innate knowledge by attending carefully and methodically to what exists within the mind already.
           • Experience doesn't teach us everything.
           • We use general maxims every day without realizing it.
             • For example, 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time'.
           • Teaching doesn't put anything into our soul, but rather brings to light what was already there.
         • Phil, an empiricist, puts forth the following arguments against innate knowledge.
           • Being always aware of the truths in our soul is too broad.
           • It seems rather contradictory to say that there are truths within the soul which it does not perceive.
       • An argument map of Leibniz on innate knowledge
     • Innate knowledge is possible.
   • Empiricists
     • Locke
       • Locke's points against innate ideas
         • Locke argues that if we are to have innate knowledge, why does it need to be triggered in order for us to use it? Since it is knowledge, it should not need to be triggered but rather be something we can just remember like any other.
         • Locke says that innate knowledge can't be innate because if it was innate everyone would have it; innate knowledge is a universal concept.
         • Locke says that because of how children behave, we can't say that they partake in these abstract principles like the same thing being and not being at the same time. The only way for them to tell apart what they want would be through experience. This may be through seeing that it is different than what they want.
         • Locke notes that if education and borrowed opinions corrupt and distort our innate knowledge, it should appear clearer in the minds of those who do not (or can't) learn however, we find no traces of such things.
       • Locke's 3 reasons for rejecting innate concepts
         • New-born babies: If you observe a new-born baby, you would not see any understanding or knowledge in it. Concepts such as identity and impossibility are essential for the general truth 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be'.
           • Experience triggers the disposition of these concepts. Therefore, babies would not show knowledge of them.
         • God: There are entire atheist societies against God. If the concept of God was innate, there would be no such thing. Also, new-born babies do not show any knowledge of the concept of God.
           • Although there are atheist societies, lack of a word is not the lack of a concept.
         • Lodged in memory: The only way a concept can be part of the mind and conscious is for it to be lodged in memory. If you are not remembering something, it is new to you, and it arises from sensation or reflection. To remember something, you need to be conscious of it in the past. Innate ideas would have to not be new nor remembered, so what is it?
           • We do not need to be conscious of innate concepts.
       • Locke claims that when one is born, their mind is a 'blank slate', which experience then builds upon.
         • We get our ideas from 1 of 2 sources of perception.
           • Perception can originate from either sensations or reflections.
             • Sensations provide us with a posteriori knowledge of synthetic statements (e.g. cooking food).
             • Reflections provide us with a priori knowledge of analytic statements (e.g. 9 x 13 = 117).
     • Hume
       • Hume on perceptions
         • According to Hume, perceptions can be broken down into impressions and ideas (which are copies of impressions)
           • These can then be broken down into sensations and reflections.
           • By 'ideas', Hume is referring to concepts.
             • Therefore, Hume's claim is that we get our concepts from our experience (impressions).
               • This is known as the 'copy principle'.
                 • The missing shade of blue: To start, you are presented with a spectrum of blue with one shade missing. Even without having a direct impression of the missing shade, we are able to (with enough time) work out the missing shade. This disproves the copy principle as it shows that we do not need to rely entirely on our impressions to form our ideas..
                   • Hume dismisses this objection by saying that it is only applicable for one situation while the copy principle applies to all other situations.
                     • However, this is not a singular situation; this works for all different colours.
                       • Also, colours are simple concepts, meaning that they can't be broken down further. This disproves the complex concepts theory that Hume devised as it shows that we do not need experience to know simple concepts..
                     • This also works for other simple concepts such as shape and size.
                   • We figure out the missing shade of blue by drawing on other impressions (the other shades that are in order). Therefore, this objection actually works to support Hume's copy principle.
             • Hume (and Locke) says that concepts can be either simple or complex concepts.
               • Simple concepts can be used to make complex concepts in 3 ways.
                 • Combination – You can combine simple concepts together to make one complex concept.
                 • Abstraction - We can abstract more complex concepts from experience. For example, if you had a line of dogs in front of you that you could experience (seeing, hearing, etc), you could find all of the similar simple concepts within each of them (for the complex concept of 'dog': they bark, they have a tail, etc) to make a more complex concept that they all fit into.
                 • Originality - You bring multiple simple concepts together to make an original complex concept (I.e. imagination; we bring together multiple simple concepts to make original things in our mind).
       • Hume (and Berkeley on the concept of substance
         • Mental substance
           • Mental substance is derivable from experience as we experience our own mind in thinking perceiving, etc. Therefore, it is not innate.
             • Therefore, reflection doesn't make knowledge innate.
         • Physical substance
           • We can't be sure that physical substance exists (in the mind-independent sense) as we do not experience physical objects, but their primary and secondary qualities.
             • Both the primary and secondary qualities of an object are changeable, and so, through sense experience alone, we can't be sure that the physical object doesn't change under these qualities.
               • Therefore, from sense experience alone, we can't be sure that physical substance exists. Rather than it being innate, the concept of physical substance is confused.
     • Innate knowledge is not possible.

2. The intuition and deduction thesis

Imágenes y archivos del mapa