Intro to Modern Western Philosophy
What are the two types of idealism?
Ontological reading: the only things that exist are minds and ideas Epistemic reading: We can only have knowledge of minds and ideas
Explain what it means for one event, E1, to logically imply another event, E2.
P logically implies Q: If P is true, then Q must be true as well. Example: "Alex lives in Denver" logically implies that Alex lives in Colorado. Logical implication is relevant to the discussion of necessary connection.
What is the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN)?
PUN states that the future will resemble the past. All inductive reasoning depends on assuming the truth of PUN (INCLUDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING) Example: we have observed the earth orbiting the sun many times in the past, and we therefore infer that the earth will orbit the sun in the future.
Carefully explain Hume's argument that we are never justified in believing that a miracle has occurred (be sure to explain his principle regarding miracles and testimony).
1. We are not justified in believing miracles because there's more evidence AGAINST a miracle than FOR a miracle because it's a violation of the lsws of nature. We have billions of people who don't rise from the dead, but just one instance of somebody rising from the dead. Most of the evidence is on the other side. 2. In order for testimony to establish a miracle, the testimony must have a falsity that is more miraculous than the event that it is trying to establish. Has to be SO STRONG that you have to prove that if you deny it then you
What is a miracle, according to Hume? Why is someone winning the lotto not a miracle?
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature Law of nature (a principle representing a phenomenon that we have extensive, exception-less experience of. Somebody winning the lottery isn't a miracle because it is unlikely event, but a violation of the laws of nature. Even though it is improbable, it has happened many many times.
What are a priori statements, and what are a posteriori statements?
A priori: statements that one can know without appealing to any experience to serve as evidence of the truth of the statement (ex: bachelors are unmarried men) A posteriori: statements that one can know/be justified in believing only by experiencing the world/event
For Berkeley, what is a sensible thing?
A sensible things are things perceived immediately by the sense; is neutral between primary and secondary qualities.
In response to Philonous's Master Argument, Hylas argues that even if God is responsible in some sense for our sensible ideas, surely God uses matter as an instrument to produce sensible ideas. Explain Philonous's response to this argument.
AN ARGUMENT FROM BEST EXPLANATION Hylas: even if God is responsible for sensible ideas, he uses matter to product sensible ideas/help give us ideas Phil: That could be the case, maybe God uses matter to give us ideas, but when you think about the attributes of God (all powerful), it seems like God could just give ideas to people directly and doesn't need to use matter. Superfluous to posit that God uses matter because he doesn't need to
According to Hume, how is the idea of necessary connection acquired?
Acquired by: you find two things always happening together (one billiard ball hits another, the other moves) and you constantly see it over and over. Over time, the mind begins to think or assume that these events are connected. There is no basis rational thought for thinking that, the mind just naturally thinks that they are. Thus it is purely psychological, there is no argument, it just happens naturally in our mind
What is Hume's copy thesis?
All simple ideas are copied from impressions (P1) any idea that we have is either simple or can be broken down into simple ideas (P2) all simple ideas are copies of some impression (sense) or feeling (emotion) (C1) Hence, all ideas (simple and complex) come from impressions or feelings
What is a mind-independent object? Explain Berkeley's Master Argument for the claim that there are no mind-independent objects (or, more precisely, that we cannot know mind-independent objects).
An object can only be mind-independent if we can conceive of it being un-conceived. But that's a contradiction because once we conceive of something being unconceived then it is conceived. (P1): An object can exist mind-independently if you can conceive of it existing unconceived. (P2) it is a contradiction to conceive of something which is unconceived (C1) Therefore, we can not conceive of anything existing independently of our mind and perception
Berkeley gives an argument, called the Variability Argument, that there is no distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Explain this argument.
Attacks the distinction between primary qualities (size, extension, shape; are perceiver independent and IN the objects, even if nobody is around to perceive it) and secondary qualities (properties that don't exist in objects; are dependent on the perceiver: color, taste, only looks as if they are in the objects because we are seeing them). Perspective can change the way in which one sees primary qualities. Ex: a mite perceives a table differently than you or I (size, shape, extension). But that shouldn't happen if size, shape, extension are primary qualities, they should be the same regardless. So we have to conclude that these primary qualities are not actually completely perceiver-independent. They are perceiver dependent.
Hylas objects to Berkeley's position by bringing up the case of sensory illusions. Explain Hylas's argument and Berkeley's response to it.
Berkeley's position is that reality is composed of a collection of sensible ideas. However, there seems to be lots of ideas that are illusory (trick us: mirage, optical illusion). Those aren't real but we have ideas of them, so it's a contradiction to say that we have ideas that aren't real. makes no sense to say that we have ideas but they aren't real. Response: We can't be mistaken about what we think we perceive, but you can be mistaken about what you infer from the idea. You can be mistaken about what you INFER but not your IMMEDIATE IDEA. Unsatisfactory response because what's the basis for thinking that you're making a mistake? Can't look at the mind-independent object for clarification because they don't exist so they can't be used to verify.
Berkeley, like Locke, is an empiricist. Berkeley, however, thinks that Locke's view results in skepticism. Why is Locke a skeptic, according to Berkeley?
Both think that you obtain knowledge through experience because of Locke's theory of perception (perceive ideas directly that are caused by/reflections of mind-independent objects). Locke's position entails skepticism because you only have access to the idea of the tree, you don't actually know what the tree is like in reality. You have to make an assumption that the idea in your mind actually reflects what the object is like in reality. But you have no basis/argument that the ideas truly represents the objects.
Does the Master Argument actually prove Idealism? Or does it prove another, related view? Explain.
Conclusion of Master Argument: we cannot know mind-independent objects. Take that conclusion and think about idealism: the only things that exist in reality are minds and ideas (infinite and finite). Idealism is a claim about what exists, but the conclusion of the master argument is about what we can and cannot know. The conclusion of the master argument proves that we can't know mind independent objects but it it doesn't prove that they don't exist. Proves epistemic idealism but not complete idealism
If Idealism is true, how does this undermine the positions of Descartes and Locke?
Descartes: believes in mind independent objects. Argued that they exist because if he has the ideas of mind-independent objects, they couldn't have been placed there by God, because that would make God a deceiver because he would be putting ideas in his head that didn't truly exist. If idealism is true, then Descartes position is just false Locke: you perceive ideas but those are reflections of mind independent objects that do exist in reality. If idealism is true, then Locke is also wrong
According to Berkeley, do we have an idea of ourselves or God? If not, how do we acquire the idea of ourselves and God?
Don't have an idea of self OR God Get idea of self from internal reflection: I am thinking of me and I exist as a human person Get the idea of God: take the idea of human person, take away imperfections and adding perfections until you arrive at a perfect being
According to Berkeley, the world does truly exist, but it's not composed of mind-independent objects. What, then, is it composed of?
Everything you see every day exists, but it is not composed of what we call mind-independent objects (things that exist outside of the mind without perceivers). The world is composed of sensory (sensible) ideas. We get those ideas from the infinite mind of God.
Explain Hume's two different definitions of cause. Which definition seems to be more plausible and why?
First definition: A is the cause of B when: o B occurs after A o Under similar circumstances, objects that are similar to A are followed by objects that are similar to B Example: touch a hot stove that is heated 450 degrees Fahrenheit, it will burn you. The hot stove is the cause of the burn when the burn follows the touching of the stove AND when something that is also 450 degrees F will burn a person if touched Second defintion: A is the cause of B when o B occurs after A o By occurrence of A, the mind produces the idea of B Example: every time you turn on your shower in the morning, the neighbor's dog also starts barking. Now, when you turn on the shower you think of the dog barking The first one is more plausible because the second one implies that the shower is the cause of the dog barking when in reality it is probably something else that makes the dog bark
One challenge for Hume is to find the impression from which we derive the idea of self. If no impression can be produced, this shows that Hume's copy thesis is false. How does Hume attempt to meet this challenge?
If the copy thesis is true, there has to be an impression of self. Hume says that when we think of the self, we are inclined to think of a persisting, single substance that could exist independently of ourselves, thoughts, emotions, belief and remains the same even through external changes. That idea of self is incoherent and confused. That's not what we mean by "the self" because if you try and experience the self (come into contact with the self) you just can't. When you try and introspect and think of yourself, it's always accompanied by a perception (mental context). We are actually just a bundle of mental perceptions and those ARE impressions Is there an impression from which "the self" comes from? No! because that idea and is incoherent and it doesn't matter because we are just a bundle of mental perceptions, and those ARE impressions. You have to redefine the self and then you have the impression, but if you rely on the confused and incoherent idea then you never will
What are ideas, and what are impressions for Hume? Be sure to explain your answer fully. What are the two different kinds of impression?
Impressions: they are lively impressions that are gotten directly by the senses (ex: the tartness, coolness, and crispness that you experience while eating a pineapple). Two types: - Sensation (sensory impressions - taste, smell, touch, etc) - Reflection (internal impressions - anger, sadness, love) Ideas: the less-lively result of impressions (you can remember eating a pineapple and enjoying it, but it's not like the actual act of eating it). Two types: - Memory (remembering impressions) - Imagination (putting together a bunch of small impressions to make something bigger)
Consider Locke's Representational Theory of Perception. How does that view differ from Berkeley's view of perception?
Locke Representational Theory of Perception: our perceptions are triggered by the material objects themselves Berkeley: ideas are generated by another mind (God) Locke's view: You directly perceive ideas and those ideas are caused by and reflect mind-independent objects Berkeley: agree that you perceive ideas directly. But it's not mind-independent objects that give you the idea, it's God.
What is induction? Give an example of an inductive argument.
Make general observations and then use that general statement to draw a particular conclusion. Example: I saw Adam get pizza. I saw Eve get pizza. I saw Snoop Dogg get pizza. The pizza must be tasty. Example: every time I have pressed the brake pedal in my car, my car has stopped. Therefore, the next time I press the brake pedal, my car will stop.
In addition to sensation, Hume thinks we can utilize memory and imagination. Explain the function/role of sensation, memory, and imagination, in the formation of ideas.
Memory and imagine work together to generate more complex ideas Memory: recalls previous sensory information (ex: wake up and remember being in this classroom, and the memory recalls all the sensory information from the classroom) Imagination: can't create fictional and fantastical ideas, it's more practical, and takes simple ideas and form complex ones; can construct real things like people/nature/buildings
What is the idea of necessary connection, and why does Hume think it is needed in order for cause and effect to be possible?
Necessary connection: occurs in the context of causation. When two objects are causally related, there seems to be something that connects them in a strong way. Something by necessity makes one follow the other. Window and baseball shattering, it seems like you throw the baseball and the window necessarily shatters. For Hume, all we can say about causation is constant conjunction, we just see them happen together over and over again. You need the idea of necessary connection because things are often accidentally correlated. No necessary connection between them. Hume thinks that's not what cause and effect is. We know that because we assume there is no necessary connection between these two random events Necessary connection differentiates between C&E and accidental correlation.
For Hume, what are matters of fact and relations of ideas? Be sure to carefully explain each term.
Relations of ideas: propositions that are certainly true or false; their truth depends on understanding the concepts and their relationships within the statement. ARE ALL A PRIORI STATEMENTS Example: All bachelors are unmarried men, all triangles have three sides If you say that those aren't true, then you don't fully understand the concept of bachelor or triangle. Matters of fact: a statement where the contrary to the proposition is possibly true. Example: it snowed today in Boulder. It is also possible that it could have NOT snowed in boulder, so this is a matter of fact.
Explain Hume's Three Principles of the Association of Ideas.
Resemblance: we see and recall things, our minds are directed to the idea of those things; they get connected when one idea resembles another; see an imagine/think of idea that resembles another, led to think of both; this principle helps us connect ideas when we are theorizing MoF (ex: a photo of Kanye and taylor swift conjures up the idea of Kanye and taylor swift THE PEOPLE) Ex: see an image of the family member, think of the family member THEMSELVES Contiguity: when we think of an object, we also think of the objects that are near it in time and space; connects them; when we think of things that seem related in space and time, we automatically think of things that are realted to that thing Ex: see a photo of the empire state building and think of other buildings in new York city; automatically led to think of other buildings in manhattan, sights, people, etc., because it's located in space and time with those ideas. Ex: think of boulder, think of university, boulder, pearl st. because they're all near each other in space and time. Cause and Effect: mind associates things if they seems to be causally related; when we see things that seem causaully related, we assume that one thing caused the other Ex: bullethole in the glass
What is Idealism?
The view that reality consists solely of minds and their ideas; nothing physical at all
What are two reasons, discussed by Hume, for the view that we should be suspicious of miracle stories?
There is no good testimony. There has never been a testimony for a miracle that satisfies the reliability conditions: o Attested to/confirmed by a great number of people o Attested to/confirmed by people of unqualified good sense (not easily duped or manipulated) o Attested to by people with much to lose o Attested to in a way that is openly verifiable We never hear about miracles near us or in our lifetime o Miracles are given to us by uncivilized societies who are more likely to be tricked or duped
According to Hume, all knowledge of matters of fact depends on the idea of cause and effect. Why do we need the idea of cause and effect to know matters of fact?
To answer this, you have to look at the other ways you know MoF (sensation, memory, imagination) Consider a situation in which you use those things to construct a matter of fact. Example: find your car window shatter. It seems as if we know that somebody shattered the window (MoF). How do we know that MoF? Sensation: by experiencing it we know that something caused it. Doesn't work because sensation only tells you whats immediately in front of you, doesn't let you make inferences Memory: no because it only recalls what you previously sensed. Memory can't infer Imagination: takes simple ideas and constructs complex ideas There must be something else (C&E) that we assume when we are dealing with MoF (when we see an effect, we know that there is a cause; implicit assumption).
According to Hume, we are not justified in believing any conclusion of an inductive argument. Carefully explain Hume's argument for this conclusion.
We are not successful in justifying PUN. Reasonings or arguments are either demonstrative (a priori) or involve Matters of Fact (a posteriori). A demonstrative argument for PUN will never succeed. If the argument for PUN is demonstrative then PUN must be a relation of ideas. PUN is not a relation of ideas, because the contrary of PUN is possibly true. An a posteriori argument for PUN will never succeed, because those arguments are based on experience, and that begs the question. We can't infer anything from experience without already presupposing PUN. Example: (P1) In the past, whenever I observe X, Y follows (C1) the future will resemble the past (PUN) BUT we can't infer the conclusion from P1 without presupposing PUN THEREFORE, if there is no reason to believe in PUN (there isn't) then there is no reason to believe in any inductive argument.
Why does Hume think that the idea of necessary connection cannot be derived from any external impression?
We can't look at an object and observe any sensible qualities (solidity, extension, motion) that necessitates the effect of that object. The only thing we can do externally is see the constant conjunction. When you look at instances of causation (billiard balls) you don't find necessary connection, you just find them hitting each other. You can't SEE necessity.
According to Hume, how do we come to know of cause and effect? In other words, how do we come to know that A causes B?
We know that A causes B from past experience of A and B always being conjoined (CONSTANT CONJUNCTION). Cannot do this through reason alone (Adam and water example).
According to Hume, we have the idea of God. Is this idea simple or complex, and from what impression did we derive it?
You derive the idea/impression of God from the INTERNAL impression of you, thinking about what a human person is and taking away all the imperfections and adding perfects to get the idea of God. Not EXTERNAL; can't find it in nature
