Epistimology-The empiricists school
Hume's an inquiry concerning human understanding
(excerpt) All of the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the science of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic... discoverable by the mere operation of thought...Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. (end of excerpt) In other words, we can have two kinds of knowledge: ideas and impressions. We can discover, for example, mathematical proofs such as geometry by using our ideas, as well as matters of fact using our sensory perceptions. In this sense, Hume bridges the gap between rationalism and empiricism, by implying that ideas are analytic statements based on a priori knowledge, but also that statements of facts about the world are contingent upon real perceptions, and based on a posteriori experiences.
Breakdown of David Hume
-The only type of real knowledge is postorori knoweldge. -Ideas plus impressions create perceptions of reality
Radical Empirism (David Hume and stuff)
David Hume is regarded one of the most important philosophers to write in English. His work in radical empiricism, although denounced by many of his conservative contemporaries, greatly influenced a number of philosophers who were all influential in their own fields, including Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and Charles Darwin. Hume sought to more fully develop Locke's ideas by employing the scientific method of observation to human nature. Hume's philosophy is unapologetically empiricist. He rejects abstract metaphysical speculation, instead relying on the study of actual human behavior.
Classical Empiricism (nurture)
Empiricism is the branch of epistemology that states that our experiences and sensory perceptions are of utmost importance in giving us knowledge of the world. According to classical empiricists, everything that is learned is through our perception, and knowledge without experience is impossible. Because of its basis in experience and evidence, empiricism is especially important in scientific thought and inquiry, because scientists can acquire new knowledge by conducting experiments. Knowledge from the world comes from our senses. We;re born as a blank slate but our experiences help us determine the world around us. In this sense, our knowledge is not a priori, but a posteriori. We can only know anything after we have perceived or experienced it. Unlike Plato's theory that we are all born with innate knowledge, empiricism states that we do not know anything until we have experienced it; that our knowledge is through nurture, not nature.
(cont.) Impressions plus ideas
Hume defines human knowledge as impressions plus ideas. Impressions are our first-hand perceptions, which are either external (such as a sensory experience) or internal (such as emotions). Ideas, on the other hand, are less forceful perceptions that happen when we reflect on our impressions (such as thinking about a past memory or imagining something). In this sense, Hume's empiricism is similar to Locke's but goes further in explaining how we can develop knowledge based on sensory perceptions.
HUme's Treatise on human nature book
Hume's other influential empiricist work is his Treatise on Human Nature. In it, he sets forth the basic ideas of his empiricism: that impressions plus ideas equal perceptions, and that ideas are epistemologically inferior to ideas. This was a significant break from long-standing philosophical tradition, which held ideas as paramount, and as the proper source of human intelligence. Hume defied the notion that ideas are more important than actual facts (based on sensory perceptions). His purpose in writing the Treatise was to create a new science based on empirical investigation, which depended on the "science of man," that is, studying human nature and the "extent and force of human understanding...the nature of the ideas we employ, and...the operations we perform in our reasonings." In this way, Hume's empiricism set the foundations for an entirely new type of scientific inquiry based on actual observation and experimentation, rather than conjecture.
Book II of Enquiry (simple and complex ideas and stuff)
In Book II of his Enquiry, Locke presents the classical empiricist position that all ideas are the result of knowledge based on experience. Each of these small pieces of "sensation" are used in addition to our sense of "reflection" to make sense out of the world. This book presents Locke's atomic version of the theory of ideas. He suggests that all ideas are either simple or complex, and that the only way we can get simple ideas is from experience. Once the mind has many simple ideas, it can combine them to create more complex ideas. For example, our knowledge of an apple comes from the simple ideas of the taste (tart), texture (crunchy), and smell (sweet), which are then combined into a more complex idea of a particular type of apple that is usually tart, crunchy, and sweet smelling. The mind can then move from this complex idea of a particular type of apple to a more abstract concept of apple-ness. This is similar to the way matter is composed of atoms, which together make mass. In this way, all knowledge is based on small bits of experience, which the mind uses to build into the way we see the world around us.
Immanuel Kant's book critique of pure reason (Empiricist philosophy that combines a priori and posterori knowledge)
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant provides us with an empiricist philosophy that combines a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Kant's philosophy not only draws the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, but also between analytic and synthetic judgments. An analytic judgment is a reasoned judgment based on the definitions of the predicate. For example, "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is an analytic statement, because the term bachelor means "unmarried man." In a synthetic judgment, on the other hand, the definitions are not implied in the predicate statements. For example, "all swans are white" is a synthetic judgment, because whiteness is not part of the concept swan. Kant argues that a priori statements, such as "8 + 6 = 14" contain both analytic and synthetic judgments, because the concepts of 8 and 6 rationally equal 14 (analytic), but also because the concept of "14" is not contained within the equation (synthetic). This means that synthetic reason, or "pure reason," is possible in a priori statements, as well as a posteriori statements. Kant combines our perceptions and the synthesis of those perceptions, into the a priori reasoning that is inherent within all humans, in our capacity for "pure reason."
Locke's essay concerning human understanding
In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke writes: "This, therefore, being my purpose—to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge." His Essay is thus Locke's monumental effort in understanding how human knowledge works. The work is divided into four main books, each of which is a detailed inquiry into a certain part of human understanding. Book I presents Locke's argument that humans have no innate knowledge, which is essentially the blank slate (tabula rasa) theory. This is in exact opposition to the stance of Plato, who believed that humans have innate knowledge of the world. Locke rejects the claim that humans have any innate moral principles, or innate ideas of God, identity, or impossibility. Locke uses "children and idiots" in his example of how innate knowledge is impossible, by saying that such people are not aware that it is impossible for the same thing to both be and not to be. For example, children do not understand that it is impossible for a tree to be a tree and not to be a tree; therefore, there is not innate knowledge of impossibility. It follows, then, that humans have no innate knowledge of anything.
Explanation of Kant
Kant claimed that we acquire knowledge in the form of synthetic judgments as both a priori as well as a posteriori judgments.
Phenomenolism
Phenomenalism is a radical form of empiricism, and puts our perceptions of reality as the basis for our knowledge of the real world. It states that physical objects do not exist objectively; they are only bundles of different perceptual phenomena, situated in time and space. For example, if I see an apple sitting on a desk, it is my perception of the apple that is important to my knowledge of it. If I perceive it as red, glossy, and round, then it is red, round, and glossy. Phenomenalism also goes further to state that humans cannot experience anything beyond our perceptions. In this sense, phenomenalism states that objects are constructed out of our perceptions of them. It also goes on to argue that a possible perception is also enough to make the object exist as it is. For example, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, it is enough to say that if someone could have seen the tree fall, then it must have actually fallen.
Phenomenolism is not equal to Classical Empiricism
Phenomenalism is quite a bit different from the classical version of empiricism first introduced by Aristotle or even Thomas Aquinas. Classical empiricism states that humans are a blank slate, upon which our experiences are imprinted, and we use this information to form our knowledge. Locke and Hume extended empiricism into more detail, atomizing our simplest experiences and compiling all of these into what we call knowledge. Phenomenalism takes this a step further by stating that it is only our perceptions of our experiences that matters. All of these theories are primarily based on a posteriori knowledge, meaning that things happen, we then experience them, and we create knowledge after the fact. Rationalism, on the other hand, proposes that humans have a priori knowledge, which exists when we are born. This essentially means that we have reason, and that we can use this reason to come to knowledge of the world around us, even before we have any experiences. The question remains: Do we have knowledge a priori or a posteriori? Is our knowledge based on innate reasons that we have within us from before we are born, or is it a result of the experiences that we have within our lifetimes? Is there a possibility that we might have both a priori and a posteriori knowledge?
Tabula Rasa (Aristotle and stuff)
The mind is a blank slate. The empiricist view is that the mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa, on which experience can leave its mark, similar to a tape recorder. This means that we know nothing of the world around us until we have experienced it. For example, children do not know what "hot" is until they touch something that is hot. This notion denies that humans are born with innate knowledge, and it dates back to Aristotle. In his work titled "On the Soul," Aristotle wrote: What the mind...thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet...which bears no actual writing...this is just what happens in the case of the mind. In other words, because the mind is a blank slate when we are born, then knowledge must come from experience and sensory perception. Unlike Plato, who believed that a mind full of knowledge existed somewhere in a transcendent space before joining a body on Earth, Aristotle's empiricism was based on knowledge being based on the senses first and foremost. Because of his early ideas, Aristotle is often said to be the founder of classical empiricism.
Modern Empiricism (John Locke and stuff)
ohn Locke was a prominent British philosopher who influenced many areas of philosophy, including empiricism. His political publication The Second Treatise of Government was used as a basis for the American Revolution. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argued for the separation of church and state. He also wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is considered one of the first great defenses of empiricism and deals with human understanding and legitimate knowledge. Locke believed in experimental methods and was inspired by the natural sciences of his time. Much of his work is characterized by opposition to authority, and his ideas greatly influenced the founding fathers of the United States. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke discusses the limitations of human understanding, including what one can legitimately claim to know for certain versus what one cannot claim to know. Locke's view of knowledge is using reason to search after the truth, rather than accept the opinion of authoritative figures, such as government officials.
Thomas Aquinas
wrote: Nihil in intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu. (Nothing is in the intellect, which was not first in the senses.) What is interesting about Aquinas is that he is both a Christian philosopher and an empiricist. Although he did think that we must acquire sources of knowledge through our sensory experiences, he argued that we can attain certain knowledge, a priori, through logical argument without particular observations. One example is the argument for God. For example, how could we know that God exists if we do not experience him with our senses? Aquinas' answer was that logical argument could prove God's existence. This type of empiricism is not a hard empiricism—it allows for us to discover certain types of knowledge by means of rationalism (or logical reasoning), and it paved the way for later empiricists of the nineteenth century.
