Phil 201: Test 3
Innate ideas
usually affirmed by rationalists, denied by empiricists = fundamental ideas or principles are built right into the mind itself and require only to be developed and brought to maturity
Dualists: who are dualists in these chapters?
Locke and Descartes were a metaphysical dualists: mind and matter Locke affirmed Epistemological Dualism: mind, knower, ideas, the thing known
When is Early Modern philosophy? (see previous study sheet too)
(1601-1800)
David Hume
(1711-1776) successor of Berkeley Perceptions = impressions and ideas impressions = vivid of lively sensations (immediate idea of experience) ideas = pale copies of impressions (provide material for thinking) we have no ideas unless they are derived from impressions (basically all knowledge is from sense data we experience) Hume dissolves Berkeley's mental substance > bundle of ideas Hume could not come up with and 'I' like Berkeley, all he could find is a parade of perceptions Phenomenalism > Hume's position the view that all we can know is the phenomina or appearances that are presented to us in our perceptions Class: Hume decided to take the skeptical way out when asked how we know if our ideas represent the external world. - radical empiricist Hume held that we cannot know that there is substance, or a God, or a self, or causality! Why? Epistemology Simplifies Locke: Impressions and Ideas Impressions: real, live perceptions (hear something or see something in real time) Ideas: pale copy of previous impression (remember something you heard or saw)
Why did Hume reject the 4 metaphysical items (God, causality, substance, substantial and immortal soul) that we thought all along metaphysics could tell us about?
(Because when you apply Hume's Rule, you find you are (he thinks) not entitled to such beliefs; they are 'beyond' human's ability to have an impression of these things. We cannot thus know, Substance: because we never 'see' substance directly (Berkeley) God: because we can't have an impression of God Self: because we never directly perceive the self itself (self becomes merely a bundle of perceptions but not itself substancial) Causality: because we can't perceive this directly - What is our idea of causality then? It is merely a psychological habit we see smoke > we think fire Why? association from the past BUT association of ideas does not imply necessary connection, Hume says there are only 2 types of truths
What the mind can produce or invent by way of new or manufactured ideas?
(You may recall from class the 'missing shade of blue' example: suppose there are only 8 shades of blue, and you, somehow, in your lifetime, had only experienced 7 of the 8. Does Locke think that you, through the power of your imagination, and on the basis of your MEMORY of the 7 shades you have seen, CREATE/DRUM UP the idea that corresponds with that missing 8th shade? Locke's answer is no way, Jose: colors are SIMPLE IDEAS, and those must come from sensation or reflection (where reflection is thinking about past experiences—in this case, you would have had to have experience that shade of blue to have a memory of that shade of blue; but, you didn't, so you can't.) For Locke, no innate ideas > innate faculties, powers of thinking, that work simple ideas into complex ones Simple idea comes from sensation or reflection > the mind cannot invent simple qualities, but it can produce a wide range of complex ideas through 3 operations - comparison - combonation - abstraction
Empiricism: representatives and two types (mild and radical)
Ancient/ Medieval: Aristotle, Aquinas Early Modern: John Locke, Hume Adherents here: Aristotle and Aquinas; Locke (these 3 mild) Hume (Hume is a 'radical' empiricist)
Foundationalism
(he rejects it; why? Who have we studied that affirms it? Cf. Descartes's epistemology (theory of knowledge) is a type of foundationalism. Descartes views the set of each of our beliefs like a house: there is a foundation to the house, and then the upper levels. The beliefs that are in the 'base' of our house (or "basic beliefs") are known with certainty, Descartes thinks. The basic beliefs are non-inferred; rather, one just sees that they are true—they are either self-evident, or evident to the senses, or incorrigible (not able to be doubted). All the other beliefs at the upper levels are non-basic, they are inferred from lower beliefs and/or from basic beliefs. E.g. our knowledge that 71x72=5112 is based on certain basic beliefs of math: e.g. that 1x2=2, that 2x7=14, etc.). He rejects it because: A rejection of Descartes > we cannot build reality upon basic beliefs because if we are all a product of where we come from than Descartes basic beliefs as a 18 C Frenchman are different than my 21 C American's basic beliefs
Hume's notion of causality, sun rising tomorrow, etc.
- the sun will not rise tmrw is no better a proposition than the sun will rise tmrw - we won't know causality until we can be sure that thing happens in the past, present, and future, since we cannot know the future we cannot accept causality
See notes and/or text for more on these (Singulars -> Universal (knowledge of the form) -> Propositions (once when has knowledge of the Universal, one could then use or frame the proposition, 'Socrates is a human,' etc.)
1) Particular things in the sensible world (Socrates, Suzie, Bill) 2) Universal concept in the mind (human being) 3) Knowledge of the world utilizing universal concept ("Socrates is a human being")
Examples of Synthetic Vs. Analytic 1) an atheist is one who denies the existence of God 2) Athens, Greece is the home to 10,000 evangelicals 3) People are endowed with unalienable rights 4) Every effect must have a cause 5) Every event must have a cause
1) analytic a priori (top left) 2) synthetic a posteriori (bottom right) 3) synthetic a priori (top right) 4) analytic a priori (true by definition) 5) not true by def, but supposedly something known intuitively to be true, Descartes says so, Synthetic A priori
John Locke Gave arguments for rejecting innate ideas: pay attention to long quotation ranging some 6-7 pages in textbook (pp. 210-217 or so) What are innate ideas?
1632-1704 In one argument we covered in class against innate ideas Locke used what form of valid argument when he said: If there are innate ideas then those ideas/truths would be universally recognized but there are no universally recognized ideas/truths. Therefore, here are no innate ideas. Class: Tabula Rosa (Aristotle started it, Locke says it) - Tabula (table, slate) Rosa (erased) = our mind is a blank slate Thus, a rejection of innate ideas (and gives reasons for this position) Main arguments against innate ideas: 1) If universally recognized, then innate? Locke says: No, not if another sufficient reason can be identified (Locke says it can be experience) Since experience could be a sufficient condition for universals, universal does not equal innate 2) If innate (such as law of identity, law of noncontradiction) then they would be universally recognized, but there are no ideas universally recognized (children and some others don't recognize them) Thus no innate ideas - rationalists will respond that ideas are in the mind latently, but Locke would say that if they are in the mind they should also be understood or conscious
Some worldviews are better than others
2) All world-views are not equal As science advances we come closer to the truth > what we believed in 1800s we don't still believe in today Emergency room example: If Rorty's grandson needed surgery he wouldn't accept shamanists as an acceptable way to heal him Suddenly, one worldview is better than another
Theory-Ladenness of observation
4) All experience is theory-ladden This means: Everyone has a theory, and our theory acts as a grid or a lens through which all experience 'passes' (and thus is changed or altered) An art critic and an art ignoramus "seeing" the Mona Lisa - these 2 people will see the painting differently Our corrective to this: some of our experience is theory ladden, to some extent seeing as presupposes seeing
A posteriori vs a priori
A Priori: A PrioriIf you know a proposition 'a priori,' it means that you can know its truth 'without [or 'prior to'] sense experience.' E.g. you can know that All white doves are whiteAndAll white doves are doves Without making any observations at all! Why is this? I t's from the law of identity, for when you say any statement of the form All things that are x and y are x,It's like saying X = X Which is of course always (and necessarily) true. A Posteriori: On the other hand, there are scientific-type propositions whose truth value we can only tell through [or 'after' or 'posterior to'] some sort of observation, some sort of experience. So, the proposition All the white doves on that fence post are bigger than my apple Clearly can only be known to be true, or false (whichever is the case) through observation. You cannot just 'see' with the mind's eye that that statement is true. Thus, a proposition can be known 'a priori' if it can be known without sense experience on that occasion. A proposition is known 'a posteriori' if it can only be known through some experience or observation we might have.
Self-Refuting proposition (doesn't meet up to its own standard)
Absolute Skepticism is impossible because of the criterion of consistency They assent with absolute certainty that we can know nothing with certainty > self-refuting Some things are certain, 2 + 2 = 4 the very assertion that we cannot know anything necessitates that we know some things If we can't know anything, then how do we know that? If absolute skepticism is true, then it must be false
Recall the 2x2 matrix we looked at; what are some examples of each of the 4 possible mixtures of these types of truths: analytic a priori truth? Analytic a posteriori truth? Synthetic a priori truth? Synthetic a posteriori truth?
Analytic A Priori (top left) Stealing is the intentional, unauthorized taking and keeping of another's property Synthetic A Priori (top right) Stealing is wrong - Kant wondered if there are any truths in this quadrant - this goes beyond what is contained in the subject, and yet, it seems you can know stealing is wring before you experience it Analytic A Posteriori (bottom left) [this quadrant usually taken to be empty] Synthetic A Posteriori (bottom right) Stealing took place at least 150 times yesterday in Boston (only way you can know this is by consulting experience)
Analytic vs synthetic
Analytic: a proposition is analytic when the predicate is contained in the subject All red apples are red (true bc of law of identity) All bachelors are unmarried (unmarried is an essential quality of being a bachelor) Synthetic: a proposition is synthetic when the predicate is not contained in the subject This apple is from Virginia (not a needed quality of an apple) not simply repeating its necessary traits
The Transcendental Question, concerning the preconditions of something's being true or something's caused to be the way that it is, etc. Who contributed this question to the history of philosophy?
Answer: Immanuel Kant another way to ask this transcendental question: 'Suppose that x. What is required or necessary for the very possibility of x to come about?' - asking for preconditions Remember the flashlight/popsicle sticks example in this context. Chomsky's use of the word 'precondition' is a important concept given to us by Emmanuel Kant Kant's Concept: The Transcendental Question Chomsky's on preconditions for linguistic experience - empiricism fails the transcendental question for what we know to be the case: we learn languages linguistic universals can be assumed to be an innate mental endowment rather than the result of learning
Why is Hume's empiricism 'radical' and not mild? Recognize the difference
Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, and even Descartes (rationalist): all thought that we can know every event has a cause - even though they are empiricist, they are mild, so they recognize that one can build up knowledge Hume will disagree: as a skeptic, he will disagree with a lot of traditional philosophy Why? Mild: Aquinas, Locke: can derive certain and universal knowledge (for example, causality) Radical: skepticism regarding certain knowledge (God, causality, substance, self)
Why, e.g., did Hume reject God and all things immaterial?
Because we did not have experience of those things
Who is a Metaphysical monist?
Berkeley: held to monism > one substance, mind
Rationalism: representatives and three types
Classical: Plato, Descartes Contemporary: Noam Chomsky Stronger claim: we can only know things through reason Weaker claim: we can know things through reason concerning our words and concepts alone - stmts that are true by definition, reason can help you know that it is true - analytic a priori knowledge Middle claim: some knowledge is synthetic a priori knowledge rationalism = reason as the source of knowledge = an epistemological theory, specifically a theory about the basis of knowledge = the belief that at least some knowledge about reality can be acquired through reason, independently of sense experience important: some knowledge, not all knowledge We have knowledge that is univerally true like all barking dogs bark (true by definition) aka denying the stmt is a contradiction BUT these don't affirm or deny the existence of something Rationalists though, claim some propositions are about reality, that affirm or deny the existence of something, may be known independently of sense experience, through reason alone Example: Every event must have a cause - cant know from sense experience, where does this knowledge come from
Holistic, etc. (other qualities of postmodern thought)
Common Traits in Postmodernism: 1)Postmodernists take a holistic approach to knowledge Deny classic dichotomies: Fact/ value distinction - fact: I own 10 Adele CD's value: I like Adele, the postmodernist would say why did you bring up Adele at all, even in saying we have 10 CD's we are partial in reporting facts Male/ female - sexual identity is based on practice not pure biology 2) They elevate practice over theory Nietzsche said "the ultimate test of a theory is whether one can live by it" Marx: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it" 3) The relativities of vocabulary we are a product of where we are coming from - born in 21 C, english is our native language, western, christian Language itself 'houses' our interpretations of the world Your heart language instructs you how to cluster the world, then something under your awareness is influencing your truth 4) All experience is theory-ladden (different card) 5) Texts are 'autonomous' and have an infinity of possible translations/ interpretations - texts have a life of their own 'autonomous' once created, there is a 'surplus of meaning' not even the author of the text itself can interpret the text the 'right way' - texts have an infinity of translations and no one translation is 'better' than the other Our response: when someone says something > postmodernists say language is inadequate to express thoughts without ambiguity, BUT it appears to be adequate with work aka we are able to communicate successfully with we work through roadblocks
Dates I need to know
David Hume (1711-1776) John Locke (1632-1704) Aquinas after him (in 13th century AD) (1225-1274 AD) Early Modern Philosophy (1601-1800)
Nominalism (no essences, no God, no Forms, etc.)
Denial of the Platonic Forms: a creator God, essences therefore, Rorty is a nominalist to the extreme To Rorty everything is theory laden > so everything is relative > there are no universals, it is just how that time and culture groups things together or names them the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist.
Who is a Metaphysical dualist?
Locke and Descartes were a metaphysical dualists: mind and matter
Who is the Father of Early Modern Philosophy?
Descartes is ... Father of Modern Philosophy Also: Father of Early Modern Philosophy
Skepticism: representatives and three types
Early Skeptic: The Sophist Gorgias of Leontini Classical: Phyrrho of Ellis (absolute skeptic) Contemporary: Richard Rorty (Postmodern Philosopher) Common Sense Skepticism = an antidote to gullibility - dose of commonsense skepticism is healthy - none of us know everything, you would be skeptical if someone said they did Philosophical Skepticism = a tendency to doubt the most cherished claims in the discipline of thought in general and philosophy in particular Philosophical Skeptics traditionally doubt that ... 1) God exists 2) there is substance 3) every event has a cause 4) the external world is close to the way we see it 5) There is a soul and it is immortal Usually align with empiricists, but even so how do we know that our sight is ultimately informative Absolute Skepticism = denies the very possibility of knowledge itself; states that no one one can know anything, period
Absolute skepticism is self-refuting;
Example of self-refuting: 'This sentence is false.' To say, "All things are such that we cannot know them" What is the status for that statement for the skeptic? Isn't he claiming that the statement "everything is unknown" is true? So it is self-refuting and thus not possibly true Another example: "all truth is relative" - is this a relative or absolute stmt? - if relative, should we believe it? - if absolute, it is self-defeating
Rorty's theory of truth is inadequate; we know and use better criteria for finding the truth
From lecture only: Postmodernism is also self-refuting, self-defeating (it tries to communicate in written language that written language is not sufficient to convey an objective meaning!)
Hume's test for determining whether a truth is a synthetic ('matter of fact') truth or not: example of our statement that the sun will rise tomorrow.
His point: if one can deny a statement, and not land oneself in a logical contradiction, then the proposition denied is only a synthetic truth. (This is always true, Hume thinks, of truths in the lower right quadrant of our 2x2 matrix, what would after Hume be called 'synthetic a posteriori' truths.)
Historical precursors to this 'school' of thought
Historical Sources and Influences: - Socrates, Plato, the Sophists Plato found that in his search for 'justice' that no one could define it - aside from his belief in the forms believed that our knowledge of the world was an approximation/opinion The Sophists (arch enemy of Plato) "Man is the measure of all things" Sophists believed all knowledge is subjective and relative therefore, said Pyrrho there is no absolute or common knowledge Early Skeptic: the Sophist Gorgias His position ... 1) Nothing Exists 2) If something did exist we could never know it 3) If we could know it, we could never express it (how could we capture what we are experiencing in words and express it to others, Gorgias answer: we can't) Pyrrho's Skepticism - founded the first official school of Skepticism, called themselves skeptics 1) If I think about some thing, I think about it relative to my own perceptions 2) If I think about some thing relative to my own perceptions, then I can't be said to know that thing 3) I think about some thing Therefore, 4) I can't be said to know that thing we can believe in these things but we can't know them
Antimetaphysical skeptic, Scottish
Hume > philosophical skeptic our ideas are either uninformative but certian, or informative but uncertain, For Hume there is no synthetic a priori knowledge
Impressions: the question Hume asks about any ideas that we have, concerning whether we can know that idea (what we called 'Hume's Rule' in class)
Ideas Hume's Rule: whenever one has an idea (in one's mind), one has to ask, 'from what impression did this idea arise?' If you can trace the idea back, in principle, to SOME IMPRESSION you have had, then you are ENTITLED to have that idea. But, if you cannot in principle trace back the idea to some impression you have had, then you are NOT ENTITLED to believe that thing, to hold that idea. Criticism: Isn't Hume's principle self-defeating? Yes it is What experience did Hume have that gave him Hume's rule > there is none thus, it is false and we shouldn't accept it Hume's rule explains why he rejects metaphysics Phenomenalism = we can only know ideas that are traced back to experience
VI. Descartes' use of deduction and intuition: review in light of chapter 8 reading, briefly; remember what these are and how Descartes distinguishes them
Intuition: a direct and immediate knowledge of something - it is "just there" - does not come from senses - tells us logical truths but also truths about reality Descartes came up with intuition: some believe he put Plato's Forms in our head > basic notion of innate ideas Deduction: we can deduce further ideas and truths from our intuited ones
So, how is it, Aristotle asks, that we build up to the knowledge of universals (or, the Forms)?
It is a process, it takes time, and it is an inductive process. One builds up to knowledge of the Form or Universal Knowledge (like, the knowledge you have to answer the question, 'what is a human being?') by seeing particular people over time, and noticing what features of people are always there. Whatever is always there—in common with all experiences of people (to stick with my example, but this is true of anything, he thinks), that is what is 'essential' to people, i.e., part of the Form 'humankind'
Two early modern philosophy figures: the empiricists Locke and Hume
John Locke > laid the foundations of modern empiricism
Definitions and synonyms (synonyms especially for 'J') for each of these terms: J, T, and B
Justification: evidence, warrant, reasons, grounds
Perspectivalism in our knowledge doesn't entail that we cannot know things
Knowledge of know Absolute skeptics prove themselves wrong just by living - they know how to brush their teeth, get dressed What must they truly believe given that they act the way that they do? Senses my deceive us of the actual world > but you can't deny that impressions are known - even if what we are seeing isn't known our impression of what we are seeing is
Who is an Epistemological dualist?
Locke! Epistemology = theory of knowledge 2 factors involving knowing: mind, which does the knowing its ideas, which are the known Locke believed our ideas represent those objects and inform us about external world
Sensation and Reflection
Locke's 2 sources of ideas sensation = 5 senses reflection = reflect on previous experiences that came through the senses Sensation (external) = knowledge of external objects Reflection (internal) = internal state of operations of the mind, perception, thinking, doubting
Metaphysical Transition
Locke, Descartes: Mind and Matter Berkeley: Mind Hume: a bundle of ideas
Epistemological dualism/ Locke
Mind: thing that does the thinking Ideas: things being thought, not the external objects in the world themselves representative perception = the theory that our ideas correspond to and faithfully represent objects in the external world
Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens; what is the form of each of these valid argument forms? Time to review them:
Modus Ponens: If P, then Q; P; therefore, Q. Modus Tollens: If P, then Q; not-Q; therefore, not-P. Modus Tollens: If innate ideas, then universal recognition No universal recognition Therefore, No innate ideas
Rorty's Pluralism: what does this mean? What are some of the implications?
Textbook: = there is no neutral ground from which one might judge competing philosophical starting points - competing positions in philosophy have no neutral ground Rorty believes Philosophy's job is to keep the conversation going and to muddle through Class: There is no neutral ground acceptable to all parties from which we might decide which worldview is best or ultimately most plausible - no worldview is the 'best' or only right view The mind of humans then is no longer a reflection of reality or a mirror of nature - if we are hooked up with real world we look at a tree and create a picture of a tree in our minds, we would be reflecting reality (the mind would be passive) BUT if all experience is theory laden we are active in how we are interpreting the tree Denial of the Platonic Forms: a creator God, essences therefore, Rorty is a nominalist to the extreme
Rorty's criterion of truth: Consensus (means what?):
Rorty's criterion for Consensus: "Truth is what my peers let me get away with." = having consensus in my community Why is this (woefully) inadequate as a criterion for truth, according to lecture? Cf. Hitler example. Many 3) Postmodernisms theory of truth is inadequate But who are my peers This makes for a very flimsy truth ... Hitler's group had a consensus about what they did > they thought it was right and had an explanation behind their actions BUT Hitler was very evil and very wrong This definition of truth is inadequate
Two flow charts: S->U->P & P->A->K
S->U->P: Abstraction Process: Aristotle - means "gives rise to" Singulars (Socrates, Susan, David) \ \ Universal (you abstract essence or idea of human being) \ \ Propositions (you are able to say with understanding "Socrates is a human being") P->A->K: Abstraction Process: Aquinas Perception (experience) \ \ Abstraction (draw out) \ \ Knowledge We are able to know or identify newly observed particulars with their universals through this abstraction process
Comparison, Combination, and Abstraction: What are these?
Simple idea comes from sensation or reflection > the mind cannot invent simple qualities, but it can produce a wide range of complex ideas through 3 operations - comparison - combonation - abstraction He offered an empiricist theory according to which we acquire ideas through our experience of the world. The mind is then able to examine, compare, and combine these ideas in numerous different ways. Knowledge consists of a special kind of relationship between different ideas. His view is that complex ideas are the product of combining our simple ideas together in various ways. For example, my complex idea of a glass of orange juice consists of various simple ideas (the color orange, the feeling of coolness, a certain sweet taste, a certain acidic taste, and so forth) combined together into one object. Thus, Locke believes our ideas are compositional. Simple ideas combine to form complex ideas. And these complex ideas can be combined to form even more complex ideas. Combining joins several simple ideas together in the formation of a new whole comparing brings two distinct ideas together without uniting them, giving rise to the idea of a relation between them; abstracting separates some aspect of an idea from its specific circumstances in order to form a new general idea.
Plato's definition of knowledge: 'justified true belief' (JTB)
Skepticism is doubt What is it to know something? Plato's famous formula for knowledge: "Justified True Belief" (JTB) A person P knows x IFF T) X is true - something must be true for you to know it, you can't truly know a falsehood B) P believes that x, and - person must believe that thing - belief = mental ascent to a proposition - belief that NOT belief in J) P has justification for believing that x - evidence clause
Simple ideas, Complex ideas
Source of Simple Ideas: Sensation and Reflection sensation = 5 senses reflection = reflect on previous experiences that came through the senses example: remember when you stuck your hand in cold water - idea of cold is simple, the experience is simple and the reflection or the remembering of that experience is simple Sensation (external) = knowledge of external objects Reflection (internal) = internal state of operations of the mind, perception, thinking, doubting So, experience [sensation, reflection]: Source of Simple Ideas
St Thomas Aquinas after him was thoroughly Aristotelian
Textbook: (in 13th century AD) Aquinas names this method of Aristotle above; name is abstraction, that process whereby humans 'draw away' that which is in common with all perceptions of x in order to give us knowledge of what is an x St Thomas, dominant Christian philosopher of 13 C "Nothing is in the intellect which is not first in the senses" Abstraction > the intellect is able to liberate the essence in particular things and "see" the universal idea of their common essential nature St Thomas: universal ideas from experience and abstraction abstract the universal human being from John, Harry, Suzie, until their particular features are left behind and their common and essential nature is grasped Class: Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) In many ways accepts and Christianizes" Aristotle's philosophy Aquinas calls the process of learning universals through particular experiences abstraction - you draw away from the particular experiences that you have, the general ideas
Criticisms of Postmodernism
Textbook: 1) many philosophers lean towards Rorty's historicist and anti-foundationalist ties but don't think the consequences are all that great - you can't have 2 opposing views be true, for example free will: either we have universal determinism or we believe in christianity's free will -this problem is still demanding our time, we still have to face the interpretation of our world different from other times 2) Rorty's rejection of necessary truths or non-negotiable universally binding affirmations - Historicism and anti-foundationalism may not necessarily lead to denial of necessary truths - but they insist of a plurality of possible starting points - epistemology seems to be an important part of Rorty's philosophy 3) Rorty is a relativist "Truth is what my peers let me get away with" Class: 1) The perspective nature of knowledge does not entail it's complete relativity - the mind forms concepts that accurately reflect reality If we were not, we would have perished long ago > we are able to navigate the world successfully People can see something differently yet it is objectively a certain way 2) All world-views are not equal 3) Postmodernism's theory of truth is inadequate 4) Postmodernism is probably self defeating - Postmodern authors use language to write books in these books they describe, using language, that language itself is too vague to convey any on particular meaning trying to use language to communicate clearly that language is inadequate seems clearly self defeating and thus false!
Aristotle: famous pupil of Plato
Textbook: Hylomorphic composition All people, though, must have universal knowledge in order to make judgments at all Aristotle > rejected Plato's ideas > For him, the forms are immanent, right in material objects > problem of causation led him to this belief It would make sense that Aristotle would believe that knowledge came from the world Aristotle, like Plato, believed in the necessity of universal ideas, where do these ideas come from? Aristotle says, from our experience of particular men, tables, chairs, dogs, oceans, and so on - as we experience these particulars we build up an idea of general or universals Problem: how do we arrive at universal ideas on the basis of our limited and fluctuating experience of particular things Aristotle: universal ideas from experience and induction - a wider and wider generalization is derived from repeated experiences until a universal concept is established Class: Aristotle (384-322) Aristotle on knowledge as an empiricist: 1) Universal ideas are necessary for knowledge (man, dog, table, chair) 2) These ideas come from experience of a particular men, tables, dogs, etc. (the particulars as we come into contact with them help us slowly form the general idea of things) 3) This process is an inductive process (you must see particular dogs to form the idea of dog, this process takes time and many different experiences) Here's Aristotle's description of this inductive process: Knowledge of universals are neither innate (like Plato) nor developed from higher states of knowledge (nor deduction) but through sense perception. Sense perception implants the universal is inductive (use examples as reasoning to reach a conclusion).
Plato's rationalism
Textbook: Plato believed that the reason compromises the essential nature of the human being he believed that sense experience is a hinderance to real knowledge > reality can be grasped adequately by intellect alone Plato: knowledge is possible only because it is innate - tried to argue the preexistence of the soul by the argument that we have knowledge that we cannot derive from sense experience alone (the soul was in the presence of the Forms) Plato's theory of knowledge as recollection: emphasizes the innateness of our fundamental ideas, also accords some role to sense experience Class: Plato's Divided Line: only know something as far as the object of your knowledge is real source of knowledge = intellect (how we grasp the Forms) source of errors = senses innate ideas = already present in our minds at birth, how? Doctrine of recollection: soul is immortal, but our bodies haven't been around forever, what did our souls do before conception, our souls were up in the world of the Being taking in the Forms, then the soul "falls" into the body, we grow up and we recollect (an equilateral triangle) - we already know what love, justice, etc, because our souls was viewing the Forms before we were born, how babies can know if sticks are equal or unequal
Augustine and his response to skepticism: how did he go about it? What was his basic approach?
Textbook: St Augustine argues for certain logical truths, mathematical truths, the reality of the world, and one's own immediate perceptions Absolute skepticism is rejected, rather, it is a question of not whether we can know but what and how much we can know Knowledge - knowledge as personal acquaintance "I know Howard" - knowledge as mastering of data "I know German" - knowledge as truth claims "I know that Colombus sailed the ocean blue in 1492" Class: St Augustine (354 - 430 AD) refuted the skeptics of his day ('The Academics') His main refutation: He points out that a person cannot possibly be wrong about the way things APPEAR to them. - just reporting something that is true of your conscious awareness Also, You can use logic to know things: e.g. I see a tree in the field, so I know that either the tree exists or it does not exist (Law of excluded middle)
Descartes' rationalism
Textbook: The Rationalism of Descartes: Descartes was repelled by the contradictions he observed among philosophers, but was attracted by the certainties he discovered in mathematics - math is rationally certain, not tainted by the relativities of sense experience Geometrical method: begins with fundamental and irreducible truths and from that he deduces more truths Intuition: a direct and immediate knowledge of something without intervention of sense experience - knows not only logical truths "a is a" but truths about reality - "every event must have a cause" under Descartes ideals intuitionalism is the view that such truths may be known immediately and with certainty Deduction: the faculty by which subsequent truths are known from intuited truths taken together with other deduced truths (to deduce further truths from our intuited ones) Class: Geometrical method, intuition and deduction Theory of innate ideas, how? Implanted by God in immortal soul (not in the platonic sense of immortal) - both a priori analytic and a priori synthetic truths Plato immortal = always has existed will always exist Descartes immortal = started existing at conception and will always exist
Passive mind, Active mind
Textbook: The mind: both passive and active passive = simple ideas contributed by sensation and reflection active = constructs complex ideas out of simple ones by means of combining, comparing, and abstracting Class: MIND IS PASSIVE > simply recording what is around you, it isn't changing your perception (cold, sweet, still, loud, or memories of these things) MIND IS ACTIVE > (beauty, justice, equality) example: missing shade of blue Simple idea comes from sensation or reflection > the mind cannot invent simple qualities, but it can produce a wide range of complex ideas through 3 operations - comparison - combonation - abstraction
Locke's experimental method
Textbook: The source of ideas: experience Experience takes 2 forms - external experience by which objects in the external world, outside our minds, enter our minds through sensation (hot, cold, red, yellow, soft, sweet) - internal experience we have the operations of our minds or reflections (a reflection of what is going on inside) (thinking, willing, believing) Class: Unlike Descartes, who used the geometrical method, Locke took the model of the experimental method of the new sciences to investigate human knowledge
Postmodernism: what is it, why is it skepticism of a sort
Textbook: calls into question the very nature of the philosophical enterprise as traditionally practiced - we are talking about the philosophical expression of the more general movement of postmodernism Postmodernism ... 1) Postmodernists see connection instead of distinctions 2) They emphasize the practical over the theoretical Marx: "Don't just interpret the world, change it" 3) The insistence of the relativity of vocabularies to historical periods and traditions 4) The rejection of the super-scientific conception of facts as somehow neutral, uninterpreted, and simply given > everything in our experience is interpreted Class: Postmodernism: a modern type of skepticism - has to do with suspicion Karl Marx: suspicious of peoples motivations, everything is driven by economics Sigmund Freud: suspicious of the mind, people are being controlled by their subconscious Friedrich Nietzsche: suspicious of truth claims, "God is dead and we have killed him" These three are all influenced by Charles Darwin - Nietzsche believed man is a rope from Ape to Superman
Rorty's Historicism: what does this mean? What are some of the implications?
Textbook: historicism insists on the necessity of putting fundamental distinctions, values, and tarting points within the historical contexts in which they first appear Rorty rejected Foundationalism - like the Platonic forms, traditional attempt to find some ultimate ground Rorty says such attempts to escape history to find some immutable point of departure only uplifts the current point in time's values Historicist = to be skeptical about any possibility of getting beyond the contingent and merely human "an attempt to see how things, in the broadest possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest possible sense of the term" Class: = a doubt that we can ever get beyond the contingent and merely human in values, ideas, truth, intuitions, and certainties A rejection of Descartes > we cannot build reality upon basic beliefs because if we are all a product of where we come from than Descartes basic beliefs as a 18 C Frenchman are different than my 21 C American's basic beliefs Thus they reject foundationalism > pluralism
Some truths we know, says Hume, are 'Matters of Fact'
Textbook: informs us about the world of reality but we can never be certain because they are derived from specific experience Class: "Matters of Fact" (synthetic a posteriori) things that can be denied without contradiction
Chomsky's version of rationalism
Textbook: linguist - philosopher transformational grammar = attempts to relate the "surface" structure of sentences to the "deep" structure of sentences Principles and parameters of Language "Principle" > the belief that there are certain universal principles inherent in all languages - features of language that we are born with = "language universals" "Parameters" > what appears to be a universal grammar in the form of basic linguistic options that precede the learning of a language - hard wire switches built into the mind which are turned on and off at various points depending on the language being learned Important: language has always been viewed as empirical, but Chomsky introduces innate intellectual structure Class: Contemporary linguist Studies language worldwide and concludes that there is a 'deep' structure to all human languages - Chomsky speaks of a 'universal grammar' this is a modern version of innate ideas - Chomsky thinks empiricism isn't adequate to explain how humans acquire spoken language so, Chomsky's theory of language is anti-empiricist convincing argument that certain principles intrinsic to the mind provide invariant structures that are a precondition for linguistic experience How did the human mind come to have these properties? evolution is an empty answer, so one would just have to believe that one day there will be some naturalistic explanation theism obviously scores high, God who is the word itself has created us to use words and communicate verbally - these are transcendental conditions for relating and communicating to Him / others
Other types of truths we know, says Hume, are 'Relations of Ideas'
Textbook: something that is intuitively or demonstratively certain no connection with reality logically true but irrelevant for the world of reality Class: "Relations of Ideas" (analytic a priori) things that when denied lead one to accept a contradiction - all triangles have three sides, if you deny this you are going against the very definition of a triangle, thus accepting a contradiction
II. New or older terms brought up in this unit (analytic, synthetic, deny without contradiction, self-refuting or self-defeating, transcendent vs. transcendental, a priori, a posteriori, etc.)
Transcendental principles are those concerned with our mode of cognition of empirical objects, insofar as this mode of cognition is possible a priori. Thus, transcendental principles do not transcend or transgress the limits of possible experience, but rather make knowledge of experience possible.
Some criticisms against Hume. How might we criticize Hume? What we said in chapter 7 (on skepticism) applies again here: if one starts one's thinking in doubt, one will likely end in doubt; if one starts in knowledge, one will likely end in knowledge.
VERY SIGNIFICANT CRITICISM OF HUME (for us in general, quite apart from knowledge for this exam!): The criticism here is this: why would we ever accept Hume's Rule? For if you consider it, it is SELF-DEFEATING. Simply ask: With respect to Hume's Rule itself, from what impression (experience) did IT ARISE? The answer: there is no experience (singly or even in conjunction) to which one can trace back Hume's Rule; thus, according to Hume's OWN diagnosis, we should not accept Hume's Rule! T his shows that Hume's epistemology is too narrow, and, false.
Empiricism / common properties of this view
View that all knowledge of reality is derived from sense experience Empira = experience empiricists usually deny innate ideas and deny that we can know synthetic truths a priori Only check top left and bottom right: Synthetic a posteriori, Analytic a priori Second general view of the basis of knowledge: empiricism Specifically sense experience as the source of knowledge def: the view that ALL knowledge of reality is derived from sense experience - the mind at birth is a blank tablet
What Philosophy is, and the two kinds of philosophy and the kind Rorty recommends (edifying vs. systematic)
What is left, then, for philosophers to do if there is no Philosophy to do? Rorty;s answer: Philosophers must do "edifying philosophy" Philosophy is not to be viewed as the keeper of the true theory of epistemology Edifying The practice of edifying philosophy = Rorty believes Philosophy's job is to keep the conversation going and to muddle through - we attempt to keep philosophy and criticism from settling down into a fixed common framework for all philosophical inquiry edify = build up by tearing down the worldview of younger generations Philosophy is supposed to work to keep thought and language from settling down into one accepted canonical language -truth is reltive, teach that there are no standards to judge worldviews Systematic: systematic philosophers build up for eternity Systematic philosophy attempts to provide a framework in reason that can explain all questions and problems related to human life.
VII. Understand how Hume suggests that we should depart from traditional meanings and realities, such as regarding soul and causality; also, why does his starting point produce an antimetaphysical philosophy?
Whereever one starts they usually end up Since Hume starts with Hume's rule which is narrow (and self defeating) He is unable to affirm anything and ends up denying almost everything, even self
Better criteria for truth:
consistency (doesn't violate the laws of logic) coherence (similar to consistency; the beliefs one holds 'stick' together and are mutually supportive; none of the beliefs are 'incoherent') comprehensiveness (the 'scope' or 'range' of the worldview is impressive, i.e., it explains a lot of data) livability (one can live and flourish by such a worldview) - produces human flourishing fruitfulness (predictability) - has predictive success (if this is true, we can anticipate these other things are true) beauty (simplicity, elegance in explanation) - streamlined or simple
Rorty
has a metaphilosophy a philosophy about a philosophy: historicist and pluralist represents the mood of postmodernism along with a broader kind of skepticism replaces traditional sense of knowledge with a nature of ongoing conversation
Ego-centric predicament: Ruth can't step outside herself to see if she is picturing world rightly in her mind (is the idea she has inside an accurate 'representation' of the object supposedly out there in the world?)
representative perception = the theory that our ideas correspond to and faithfully represent objects in the external world trouble: correspondence of perceived idea and external world (how can we know they match) problem: egocentric predicament the theory that the external world is represented by our ideas falls to the egocentric predicament > our inability to get outside our own ideas - how can we know if our ideas correspond to anything since we can't compare to external world Response: either there has to be a guarantor of ideas (God) or skepticism > which leads us to Hume
V. The diagram and the implications of Aquinas' empiricism, e.g. the arrow diagrams (2) that we presented and that are in book, too
sensation experience < > simple ideas -- complex ideas reflection Passive Mind Active Mind
So, postmodernistic philosophies are usually anti-foundationalist
since to be a foundationalist would be to affirm that there is universal certain beliefs that all or most of us share in our 'foundational' beliefs; but then (do you see this?) that would give all or most of us an OBJECTIVE STANDARD by which to say, 'your beliefs are true,' or 'his beliefs are superior to Susan's beliefs,' etc.
Distinctive given in class of the middle type of Rationalism:
the position that believes that some of the truths we know are synthetic a priori truths
