Reason as a source of knowledge

Página 1

REASON AS A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.

innatism :)

- innatism is the belief that the ideas which exist in the mind are not acquired from experience. Most philosophers would say that the majority of innate concepts come from birth.

- arguments from plato (slave boy) and Leibniz (necessary truths)

- plato believed that in a prior existences, we came across lots of different ideas and these ideas remain with us in this life. plato thought these ideas can be rediscovered through reason. he proved this with the slave boy. Socrates asks the slave boy a series of geometrical equations, and after questioning, the boy realised he can grasp simple geometry, with no prior education. therefore plato believed that these complex ideas originated from birth.

- Leibniz argued that the human mind could gain knowledge of the world through reason alone (although prompted by senses). He also believed that we have innate ideas, which can be discovered through reason. He argues this through his theory of necessary truths. A necessary truth is one which must be the casse; which is true in every possible world. For example, like 2+2=4. 'The sun rises every day' would not be a necessary truth since it does not have to be the case in every possible world; one day the sun may cease to exist. The argument can be summarised that senses only reveal instances of general truths, they cannot detect the neccesity of a truth, unlike our minds. This ability to see which is a necessary truth and which is not is therefore based on innate principles.

empiricist responses to innatism :)

lockes arguments against innatism, mind as a tabula rasa (simple and complex ideas)

- Locke's three arguments against innatism.

- 1) No universal assent: if innate ideas were to exist, surely it would be universal. Children and idiots do not have the same supposed innate knowledge. If an idea were to exist in our minds, then we must be aware of it, therefore, there are no universal knowledge, meaning there is no innate knowledge.

- COUNTER-ARGMENT : Leibniz claims children and idiots do actually hold innate knowledge, they just can't articulate it. He argues they actually use it everyday, they just cannot communicate it with others. For example, a child knows her teddy cannot be in her hand and in the loft at the same time.

- 2) Transparency of ideas: Locke argues if we did have innate ideas, such as the idea of God, then they must be present in our minds, not constantly but we must have been conscious of them at some point.

- COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Perhaps there are some ideas in your mind of which you aren't conscious of, like a song you absorbed on the radio once. This song is not transparent in your mind, but would be recogniseable if you were to hear it again. Similarly, an innate idea may be in your mind without you realising it.

- 3) How can we distinguish innate ideas from other ideas: Locke argues that if some of our ideas are innate and others are not, how can we tell them apart. How can we tell if the concept of the colour blue was always an idea within us, or simply from seeing the colour blue (empiricist - experience).

- COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Leibniz suggests that we can actually distinguish them (necessary truths)

The mind as a tabula rasa

- Tabula Rasa means 'blank slate' this is Locke's term for how he sees the mind at birth. He thinks that all our ideas and concepts come from experiences, so the theory of innate ideas is unnecessary. (ockhams razor)

- on the consequence that the tabula rasa theory is correct, then our knowledge must come from experience. Hume takes on the idea that there are typically 2 paths that knowledge can derive from: reason and experience. He names these as 'relations of ideas' and matters of fact'. Relations of ideas are revealed by reason, they concern logic, mathematics and relations between concepts. These are often necessary truths. Matters of fact can only be derived by experiencing the world and they can never be certain, only likely.

intuition and deduction thesis

Meaning of intuition and deduction and the distinction between them, rené descartes clear and distinct ideas, Descartes cogito (primary intuition) , descartes argument for the external world (trademark) and existence of god.

- Intuition, Deduction and 'clear and distinct ideas'

- By intuition, Descartes means an act of intellect whereby it looks upon an intellectual object and instantly sees it's true features (like by seeing a triangle and knowing it has 3 sides.)

- By deduction, Descartes means the only way to gain knowledge must be through a deductive argument; one which has multiple parts systematically built up in the right order.

- Clear and distinct ideas refers to how descartes percieves ideas in his mind. An idea is clear if it is very bright and present to the mind. An idea is distinct if it is sharply separated from other ideas. With the leg pain example, the pain is very clear to the person recieving it, however it would be difficult to distinguish the pain from the true cause. therefore it is clear but not distinct.

- Descartes cogito is a clear and distinct idea and it is a priori

- Descartes has three main arguments in his I and D thesis:

- His Cogito

- P1 I am thinking , P2 all thinking things exist, C therefore I exist.

- His trademark argument for the existence of god

- P1 the cause of anything must be 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, IC1 cannot be the cause of my idea of God, IC2, only a perfect being (God) can be the cause of my idea of God, C God must exist.

- His argument for the existence of an external world.

- Step 1a, P1 the will is a part of my essence, P2 sensation is not subject to my will, C sensations come from outside of me

- Step 1b, P1 My nature or essence is unextended, sensations are ideas of extended things, sensations come from outside of me

- Step 2, P1 tere are two possible sources for the origin of sensations, God or matter, P2 I have a strong natural inclination to believe they come from matter and i have no faculty to correct this belief, IC So if their origin were in God, then God would be a deciever, P4 God is not a deciever, C sensations origin in matter.

empiricist responses to intuition and deduction thesis

responses to descartes cogito, responses to descartes argument for existence of god and his proof of the external world ( including how humes fork comes into it) and issues with responses, (counter arguments).

Empiricist responses to Descartes Cogito,

- Hume believes we are a bundle of ever-changing states, and for something to be considered as the 'I' in the Cogito, then it would need to be stable, as we are not, we cannot be the I in the cogito.

- Descartes replies by saying that it is the clear and distinct that thoughts require a thinker (weak counterargument imo)

Empiricist responses to Descartes arguments for the existance of God

- Hume argues that the concept of God is not innate but created by our minds by forming complex ideas. we start by imagining human qualities such as goodness and imagin what they would be like if they were stretched further, leading into God's qualities such as perfect benevolence.

- Descartes replies to this by saying that recognizing something as imperfect presupposes that you have the idea of perfect in your mind, which is backwards to what Hume is saying.

Empiricist responses to Descartes proof of the external world

- Criticism of Step 1a: perhaps these sensations come from a part of me of which i am not conscious?