locke

Locke is pointing out that "substance" is actually a meaningless, empty concept by showing that people who believe in it cannot even begin to give a logically adequate account of what substance is and how it works. He compares the thinking of those who believe in substance, to the thinking of an imaginary Indian who thinks he is giving an adequate cosmology when he holds that the world rests on an elephant that stands on a tortoise but cannot come up with anything for the tortoise to stand on.

Which of the following is the correct interpretation of Locke's story about the Indian, which is headed "Our Obscure Idea of Substance..."?

A theory of being is logically adequate when it can explain any and all experiences that human beings actually have..

Which of the following is the correct rule for deciding whether or not a theory of being is logically adequate?

It refers to a kind of substance that holds together a material object. Someone who believes in material substance believes that for every physical object that we perceive, there is an unperceivable metaphysical aspect, called "material substance," that holds all its perceivable qualities together without being perceivable itself.

Which of the following is the most correct interpretation of the term "material substance?"`

Out of any two reasonably adequate explanations, we should always pick the one that existence of the fewest otherwise unsupported entities.

Which of the following is the most correct statement of Occam's razor?

Kepler's theory is not a form of Occam's razor

Which of the following is the most correct statement of the relationship between Kepler's theory and Occam's razor.

Palmer claims that, like Descartes, and unlike modern philosophers, John Locke believed in substance. That is, Palmer claims that Locke believed that there is a metaphysical stuff, which itself cannot be seen, that stands beneath everything we do see. Response Feedback: No, this section concerns Donald Palmer's claim that Locke believed in the metaphysical idea of substance, which is different from the physical idea of matter. It would not be devastating to Locke's theory for him to believe in matter, especially since his theory of primary and secondary qualities is itself a theory of matter.

Which of the following is the most correct summary of Donald Palmer's section on Locke and substance?

Is it possible for knowledge to be structured so that human beings can know everything that they actually do know without any recourse to innate ideas whatsoever?

Which of the following is the most important question answered by Locke's theory of simple and complex ideas?

If Locke's theory of being is logically adequate, the fact that it requires fewer theoretical entities than rationalism will prove rationalism false.

Which of the following is true about the relationship between Locke's theory of being and rationalism?

They do not believe in innate ideas, and their ontological theories do not logically require us to believe in metaphysical substances

Which of the following is true of empiricists like Locke?

They believe in both innate ideas, and metaphysical substances. That is to say, they believe that there are ideas which are not gotten from experience, and they believe that there are real things that cannot be experienced.

Which of the following is true of rationalists like Plato and Descartes?

If Locke provides an adequate non-metaphysical theory of being, he will have proved that metaphysical entities do not exist.

Which of the following is true?

The Earth and other planets move in perfectly circular orbits around the Sun.

Which of the following most properly describes the Copernican system of astronomy.

All other heavenly bodies, including the Sun, move in perfect circles around mathematical points that themselves move around other points, so that ultimately everything moves in circles, and everything else moves around the Earth.

Which of the following most properly describes the Ptolemaic system of astronomy?

Ptolemy fit the facts better than Copernicus, because Ptolemy gave slightly better predictions than Copernicus.

Which of the following statements is correct for the time when astronomers were trying to decide between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems of astronomy.

If someone proved that there was an idea that could not be ultimately derived from experience, that would refute Locke. Response Feedback: Locke's doctrine is that all ideas are ultimately derived from experience. If someone tries to refute Locke by claiming that some idea cannot be derived from experience, all Locke has to do to defend his doctrine is show that there is some way to construct that idea based only on us thinking about things we have experienced.

Which of the following would refute Locke's "tabula rasa" doctrine?

The doctrine that there are no innate ideas, that the mind starts out empty of ideas.

Which of these is the correct meaning of the term "tabula rasa?"

Kepler's theory is less complicated than Ptolemy's, because it explains all planetary motion in terms of one single mathematically describe motion, while Ptolemy's theory requires a set of several motion equations for each individual orbit.

Which theory is simpler, Ptolemy's theory or Kepler's theory, and for what reason?

It turned out to be possible to derive those supposedly "innate" arguments from experience after all.

Why did Descartes's argument for innate ideas turn out to be a bad argument?

Because Ptolemy's model was not only extremely complicated, it could also be changed to match any possible observation. ----No, the fact that Ptolemy's theory made better predictions meant that it was better supported, and this was the reason that most people thought that Ptolemy's theory was more likely to be correct

Why did Johann Kepler support Copernicus instead of Ptolemy?

Because no one had come up with a better theory that explained the same facts.

Why was the doctrine of innate ideas accepted by philosophers before Locke?

All of the above are theories, or parts of theories.

magine that we presently exist in the time of Copernicus and Ptolemy. Which of the following would properly be considered a theory at that time?

It had neither been proved true, nor proved false.

After Cartesian dualism was refuted, but before Locke came along, what was the logical status of the doctrine of innate ideas?

Although some astronomers supported Copernicus, most people thought his system was clearly wrong.

At the time when Ptolemy and Copernicus were in competition, just before Johann Kepler appeared on the scene, what did most people think about Ptolemy?

Locke's theory of being is logically adequate. It has no logical gaps, does not require any metaphysical entities, and in fact contributes to a proof that metaphysical entities do not exist.

Based on what you have read so far, which of the following is true of Locke's theory of being?

Yes, for instance electrons were once a highly speculative theoretical entity, but nowadays everyone takes the existence of electrons as a fact.

Do theories ever turn into facts?

Ptolemy's theory must be wrong because we have another theory that explains the same observations just about as well as Ptolemy's theory, but which does not require us to believe in such a mathematically complicated form of planetary motion.

Given the existence of Kepler's theory, which of the following represents a complete statement of the argument against Ptolemy's theory?

Primary qualities are in objects, secondary qualities are evoked in our minds by powers in the objects.

How are primary qualities different from secondary qualities?

If ideas are not innate, then how do they get into the mind?

If Locke advances the doctrine that the mind starts out as a blank slate, what is the very first question that he must answer?

It would have no effect on his theory of being because his theory of being has absolutely nothing to do with substance

If it was proved that Locke believed in substance, which of the following would be true of Locke's theory of being?

Locke will prove that metaphysical entities do not exist if he can provide a logically adequate theory of being that does not require metaphysical entities.

If we accept both Occam's razor and Locke's theory of simple and complex ideas, which of the following is true?

There are lights in the sky at night. Some of these lights move across the sky, while others remain in the same fixed positions relative to each other. The ones that move, all move in roughly the same plane, and sometimes appear to speed up, slow down, and even move backwards for a while.

Imagine that we presently exist in the time of Copernicus and Ptolemy. Which of the following could properly count as a fact or set of facts at that time?

An idea that is in itself not a simple idea, but which can be completely broken down into simple ideas.

In Locke's doctrine of simple and complex ideas, what is a complex idea?

An idea that can be easily, and perhaps only, communicated by experience. (By this rule, the idea of "blue" is a simple idea because it can be communicated by showing someone a blue object.)

In Locke's doctrine of simple and complex ideas, what is a simple idea?

All ideas come ultimately from experience. Idea formation involves more than just observation, but every idea anyone has ever had that can ultimately be shown to be founded entirely in experience.

Locke's answer to the question of where ideas come from

He would have proved that innate ideas do not exist, but he would not have proved that metaphysical entities, like substance and the forms, do not exist.

Say that Locke fully developed his theory of simple and complex ideas, but did not go on to develop his theory of primary and secondary qualities. What would be the logical consequence of this failure in the context of his dispute with the rationalists?

He claimed that at least some ideas that he had in his mind could not possibly have come from experience of the outside world, and that therefore these ideas were innate.

Starting from the standpoint of "Cogito Ergo Sum," Descartes claimed to prove that at least some innate ideas existed. What was his argument?

It is an idea of a feature that several different objects can have in common. For instance, our idea of "blueness" is generated by observing the fact that a blue jay is blue, the summer sky is blue, and the deep ocean is also blue.

What does it mean to say that a particular idea is an "abstraction?"

It is an idea generated by comparing or contrasting two other ideas.

What does it mean to say that a particular idea is an "idea of a relation?"

The requirement that both explanations fit all the facts.

What important condition was left out of the best statement of Occam's razor given above?

He is trying to provide a logically adequate, nonmetaphysical theory of being, as an argument against the existence of metaphysical entities.

What is Locke doing with this theory of primary and secondary qualities?

A primary quality is a type of characteristic that can only exist in an actual object, rather than in the mind of an observer. An object's weight exists in the object, not in the mind of the person holding the object.

What is a primary quality?

When an object moves in a circular orbit around a point that is itself moving in a circular orbit around another object or point, the circular path of the first object around that moving point is called an "epicycle." (For example, if the moon moved in a circular path around the earth while the earth moved in a circular path around the sun, the moon's path would be an epicycle.)

What is an epicycle?

It is a combination of one or more simple ideas. For instance, "blue triangle" is the combination of the simple ideas of the "blueness" and "triangularity."

What is it mean to say that a particular idea is a "compound of simple ideas?"

You can communicate the concept of "blue" to someone else by showing him a blue object, which makes "blue" a simple idea. You communicate the concept of "blueness" by getting the other person to recognize that one or more additional objects can also give him the experience that you referred to as "blue." This makes "blueness" an abstraction and, because it is generated by thinking about simple ideas, it is itself a complex idea.

What is the difference between "blue" and "blueness."

"Facts" are descriptions of what is actually experienced, "theories" are stories we invent to explain those experiences.

What is the difference between "facts" and "theory?"

It's a trick question. Tabula rasa, and simple and complex ideas are all part of the same theory.

What is the difference between Locke's tabula rasa theory and the theory of simple and complex ideas?

That they confused abstractions, which are mental constructs based on things we experience, with metaphysically existing entities, such as innate ideas and Platonic forms.

What was Locke's criticism of the rationalists?

They argued that it is impossible for the mind to form the concept of "sameness" based on experience, because the mind must already have that idea built into it as an innate idea in order for it to be able to recognize that two things are the same in any way.

What was the rationalists reply to this criticism?

We would have no knowledge about the world.

What would happen to our knowledge of the world around us if we did not accept Occam's razor as a rule of logic?

He thought that all ideas came from experience

Where did John Locke think that ideas came from?

If two functionally identical atomic clocks are synchronized at ground level, and one is left on the ground while the other is elevated far above the surface of the earth for a period of time, the clock that was raised above the surface will register more time as having passed than the clock that was left at ground level.

Which of the following is (or could count as) a fact, according to the way the term "fact" has been defined above?

No, that's only half of what Occam's razor says.

Which of the following is a complete and correct statement of Occam's razor?

Secondary qualities are qualities we experience in our minds when we encounter objects that contain in themselves the power to evoke those various secondary qualities in us.

Which of the following is a correct statement about secondary qualities?

Number, motion, shape, solidity, weight, and the quality of taking up space

Which of the following is a list of nothing but primary qualities?

When a volume of air contains water vapor and the conversation rate exceeds the evaporation rate, water droplets condense on dust particles and then fall as rain. Response Feedback: A simple sentence is not the same as a simple explanation. Pick the explanation that does not require us to believe in entities or processes previously unknown to science. Remember, things like "rain fairies" and "water turning into rain" would require their own explanations, if they existed, so any explanation that invokes such things would have to include explanations for them as well, and that would get very complicated.

Which of the following is a simple explanation of rain?

Time passes more slowly for an observer who is deep inside a gravity well (i.e. close to a planet's surface) then it does for an observer who is not so deep inside that gravity well, (i.e. somewhat further from the planet's surface).

Which of the following is a theory that could most reasonably account for the facts described in the above question?

All of the above are important differences between Locke and rationalists like Plato and Descartes.

Which of the following is an important difference between Locke and the rationalists?

What kinds of things actually exist in the world for us to have knowledge of? Response Feedback: No, Locke's theory answered that question.

Which of the following is an important question that was clearly not answered by Locke's tabula rasa theory?

Donald Palmer does not prove the Locke believed in substance. He just says the Locke believed in substance

Which of the following is correct?

Experience is a fact, and the world is a theory. If someone told you that it is logically possible that we are not having the experiences we think we are having, that person would be wrong. However, if someone told you that it is logically possible that the world we think we are experiencing does not exist, that person would be correct.

Which of the following is correct?