Reason as a source of knowledge!

• What is meant by A Posteriori knowledge


  Knowledge of propositions that can only be known to be true/false through sense experience.
• What is meant by A Priori knowledge


  Knowledge of propositions that do not requre experience to be known to be true/false.
• What is a contingent truth

  A proposition that relies on something else to be true. It would not be a contradiction to deny this truth.
• What is a necessary truth


  A proposition that must be true in all situations. It would be a contradiction to deny this truth.
• What was Locke's distinction between sensations and ideas

  Sensations are our immediate experiences , and idead are our thoughts and concepts. WORLD VS MIND.
• What is a complex idea


  A compound idea made up of two or more simple ideas.
• What is a simple idea


  A single, uniform conception that cannot be broken down further.
• What did Locke mean by 'Tabula Rasa'

  Illustrates Locke's empiricist views. Minds at birth are a blank slate with no innate/a priori knowledge.
• What is rationalism

  The theory that there can be a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions discovered through rational intuition and deduction.
• What is empiricism


  The theory that there is no a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions, all synthetic propositions are gained a posteriori through sense experience.
• Define innatism


  Theory that certain concepts are parts of our minds A Priori and do not require sense experience.
• Hume Response to Descartes deduction of an external world

  - Similar to mind:- Perceive singular object after singular object -> infer a continuous substance due to similarities in these objects.- Therefore, not deduced but inferred from similarity of our experiences.
• Berkley response to Descartes deduction of an external world

  - Idealism: all we can know is experienced ideas -> never experienced mind-independent world -> no reason to deduce substance from mind dependent perceptions
• How is Descartes' wax argument an example of an a priori deduction -
• Outline Descartes' wax argument


  1.When I melt a piece of wax, it loses all of its original sensory qualities2.Despite this, I believe it is the same wax3.Therefore what I think of as wax, does not come from its sensory qualities4.The concept of 'substance' I have is something extended (size, shape etc.) but changeable (it's sensory qualities; smell, shape, colour etc.)5.I know wax can undergo more changes that I can imagine6.Therefore, my concept of substance does not come from imagination7.Therefore, my concept of wax is understood by my mind alone8.Therefore, my concept of substance is clear and distinct
• Responses to trademark argument

  - See 'Limits of Knowledge'Attacking CAP (+ EVAL):- Hume on causation.- Instances where cause < effect.Attacking idea of God (+ EVAL)- God as having augmented human qualities and th4 we don't have idea of him as 'perfection'.
• How is the trademark argument an example of an a priori deduction?

  - The CAP, 'my ideas are caused by something' and I am an imperfect being are rational intuitions.- The idea of God as an SPB is a C+D idea, another rational intuition.- Descartes then deduces that: As I am imperfect, under the CAP i cannot cause my idea of an SPB, and only an SPB can cause that Idea. - Therefore, God must exist to cause this idea. (+ an inference to God's existence).
• Evaluating the cogito:

  - Not 'I think there for I am', 'A thought, implies a thought'.- We experience single thought after single thought and infer a 'self' because there are similarities in these thoughts.- A mind is merely an inference and not an intuitive truth.
• How is descartes cogito an example of an a priori intuition?

  - Descartes came to the cogito while doubting everything.- To doubt is to think, and therefore it is self evident that I am a thinking thing.- So Cogito is shown to be true through intuition alone.
• Outline 'clear and distinct ideas'


  A clear idea is able to be focussed on fully with an 'attentive mind', a distinct idea is not defined in terms of any other (dubitable) ideas.
• Descartes rational intuition and deduction process.


  - Rational intuition is his method e.g., doubting.- Outcome of this method -> clear and distinct ideas as cogito is intuitively true -> deduce further knowledge i.e., wax example, trademark argument etc.
• Outline rational intuition and deduction thesis

  Describes Descartes' rationalist approach.- Intuitively know certain facts such as 'i am a thinking thing'.- Use this knowledge as premises for a deductive conclusion. - No experience required, only reason.
• Define deduction

  Form of reasoning used to work out the validity of a conclusion based on its premises.
• Define rational intuition

  The capacity to discover the truth of a claim by rationally thinking about it. Intuition: Direct non-inferential awareness of abstract objects or truths.
• Empiricist response to Chomsky's challenge.


  - Learning a language concerns ability knowledge, not the propositional knowledge that empiricists talk about.- Therefore, this is not an issue in this debate.
• How does Chomsky's approach to language acquisition challenge empiricism?

  - Learning theorists suggest that language acquisition is learnt empirically through 'reward, imitation and practise' (cooter and rutzel).- But Chomsky notes that at certain stages of development, children will make same mistakes (e.g, geeses) regardless of correction.- Suggests an innate structure for learning language, unaffected by experience.
• Empricist response to ideas that cannot be explained through experience.

  - Ideas of justice etc are inextricably associated with particular images.- E.g., it is impossible to divide the idea of justice from the image of just/unjust acts.- TH4, experience is necessary and sufficient for these ideas to exist.
• Critique of empiricism: Some ideas cannot be explained through experience.


  - Ideas of concepts like justice and beauty go beyond images.- If not images, cannot have gained through experience. - Threatens copy principle again.
• Possible responses to 'Missing shade of blue'

  - Hume: Only one case, not enough to 'alter our general maxim'.- EVAL: given that Hume previously challenged someone to find one counter-example to his CP, this is a weak response.- Missing shade is a complex idea from simply idea of blue and 'light and dark'.- EVAL: Defends CP, traces imagined shade to experience.
• How does Hume respond to his own Empiricism?

  - Missing shade of blue.- Someone with no impression of a particular shade of blue could fill it on a colour wheel from their imagination.- Threatens copy principle + th4 fork: idea w/o impression.
• What does Hume's fork say about synthetic a priori knowledge

  - Knowledge about the world without experience of the world is 'sophistry and illusion' and should be committed to the flames.
• How does Hume's fork demonstrate that experience is a necessary and sufficient condition for knowing 'necessary truths'.

  - Relations of ideas = connectione between ideas -> copy principle shows that all ideas are from experience -> no new knowledge about the world -> trivial.- RoI rely on ideas copied from experience.
• How does Hume's fork demonstrate that Relations of Ideas are necessary truths?

  - If we do not gain RoI through experience, must be true by defitinition -> analytic -> true by definition must mean true in every case -> necessary truths.
• How does Hume's fork demonstrate that Matters of Fact are contingent truths.

  - Inferred from experience -> knowledge based on the nature of the world is synthetic -> the world could have been different so MoF are contingent truths.
• Relations of ideas vs matters of fact


  - RoI: A Priori knowledge stemming from logical bonds between ideas e.g., mathematical concepts.- MoF: A Posteriori knowledge inferred through cause and effect from experience 'the sun will rise tomorrow as it has every other day'.
• Analytic vs. Synthetic Statements

  - Analytic statements are true by definition e.g., tautologies.- Synthetic statements are true because of the way that the world is.
• Outline Hume's 'blind man' example for his empiricism.


  - A person born completely blind has no idea of colour as they have never experienced an impression of colour.- Thus, all ideas are copies of impressions.
• Outline Hume's copy principle as his first argument for empiricism.


  - All ideas are copies of impressions, and because of this they are 'duller' than impressions, which have 'force and vivacity'. - Anyone arguing against this must provide examples to the contrary.
• What did Hume mean by impressions?

  Internal impressions (feelings, emotions, desires etc) and outward impressions (our direct sense experiences).
• Outline Leibniz' veined marble block example

  - Demonstrates innate concepts uncovered through experience.- Can see surface from outside.- But experience chips away to reveal inside; innate truths.