reason as a source of knowledge

• respsonse to locke's objection to i&d thesis


  it may take experience to consciously develop the concept of god, but the concept itself can't come from experience because it goes beyond experienceeg. the concept of fod is the concept of an infinite being, but nothing in experience shows us this concept of infinity
• locke against the innate concept of god

  god is not an innate concept, there have been many aethiest societies without the concept of god
• hume's fork objection

  descartes did not prove the cogito a priorithe cogito relies on a posteriori experience of the self
• circularity/cartesian circle

  fallacious circular reasoningthe existence of god is proven by clear and distinct ideas which are caused by god
• objections to i&d thesis


  circularity/cartesian circlehume's forklocke against the innate concept of godindividual issues with trademark/cosmo/onto
• ontological argument


  i have the idea of godthe idea of god is the idea of a supremely perfect beinga supremely perfect being does not lack any perfectionexistence is a perfectiontherefore, god exists
• cosmological argument

  if i could cause my own existence, i would give myself all the perfections but i do not have all the perfections so i am not the cause of my own existencemy existence at one point in time does not entail or cause my existence later so some cause is needed to keep me in existence, i do not have this power so something else must keep me in existencei am a thinking thing and have the idea of god, there must be as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect, so what caused me must be a thinking thing and have the idea of godthere cannot be an infinite regress of causes so some cause must be the cause of its own existencethe only thing that is the cause of its own existence is god
• descartes for innatism


  the idea of god is not one from experience but instead an innate concept that is caused by god
• trademark argument


  i have a concept of godmy concept of god is one of a perfect and infinite beingi am an imperfect and finite beingthe cause of an effect must have at least as much reality as the effectthe cause of my concept of god must have as much reality as what the concept is aboutthe cause of my idea of god must be an infinite and perfect being, i.e. god
• descartes' deduction


  trademarkcosmologicalontological
• descartes' intuition


  descartes had clear and distinct ideas that:i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i amthis is necessarily true
• deduction


  a method of deriving true propositions from other true propositions
• intuition


  the ability to know something is true just by thinking about it
• intuition and deduction thesis parts

  intuition: clear and distinct ideasdeduction: trademark/cosmo/onto argument
• hume's impressions and ideas

  what we are immediately and directly aware of are perceptions which are divided into impressions and ideashume divides impressions into sensations and reflectionsideas are copies of impressionswe aquire ideas and concepts from impressions
• locke's simple and complex ideas


  humans form all knowledge from simple and complex ideassimple concepts are ones such as blueness or coldness which are formed as a result of sense experiencesimple concepts are the building blocks of complex concepts which can go beyond single instances to abstract ideas like beauty
• tabula rasa


  the mind at birth is a blank slate, containing no thoughts, ideas, or conceptsknowledge only comes from experience (sensation) and reflection
• empiricist alternative to innatism

  tabula rasa
• response to arguments against innate concepts objection


  it is possible to have innate concepts and not be conscious of thembabies have innate concepts like identity which are essential to all thought
• arguments against innate concepts objection


  innate knowledge requires innate conceptsbabies have no concepts other than what they experienced in the womb (eg. warmth)
• response to knowledge innatism relies on the non-natural objection


  evolution could be the reason why we are genetically disposed to have certain knowledge or innate concepts
• knowledge innatism relies on the non-natural objection

  plato believed innatism had to do with remembering knowledge from a previous life and reincarnation which is nonsense metaphysicsleibniz requires us to believe things that are not compatible with empiricism and not verifiable
• response to innate knowledge is not universal objection


  leibniz argues that the knowledge is not explicit and conscious in the minds of children and idiots, but it exists as potential knowledge yet to be discovered
• innate knowledge is not universal objection

  locke argued that if a piece of knowledge is innate, it would be universal, yet there is no piece of knowledge that is universal in all humanschildren and idiots cannot know necessary truths as they cannot understand them
• response to we gain knowledge of necessary truths through experience objection

  leibniz: the actual knowledge is not innate, but the potential for knowledge is innateeg. a sculptor starts shaping a solid block of marble and uncovers a shape that already had the potential to exist within the marble; the shape previously existed within the marble before it was sculptedthe principles have to come to the surface of consciousnesswe have innate concepts and recognitions eg. the concept of number
• we gain knowledge of necessary truths through experience objection


  locke: we only learn necessary truths through experience and then abstract ideas into general principlesin order to possess knowledge, we must be conscious of itwe have an innate capacity for knowledge but it requires experience so the knowledge is a posterioriwe innately have the capacity
• response to necessary truths are merely analytic objection


  necessary analytic truths apply in the real world, so we can know necessary synthetic truths2+2=4 is analytic but in the real world, 2 pens + 2 pens = 4 pens is synthetic and necessarily true so it can be known a priori
• necessary truths are merely analytic objection


  not compatible with hume's fork
• objections to innatism


  necessary truths are merely analyticwe gain knowledge of necessary truths through experienceinnate knowledge is not universal (locke)knowledge innatism relies on the non-naturalarguments against innate concepts (locke)
• leibniz's necessary truths


  a posteriori experiences can only tell us about specific instances, yet we seem to know it must always be true that 2+2=4 because 2+2=4 is a necessary truththis knowledge can't come from experience, though, because experience only tells us how things are, not how they must beknowledge of necessary truths must be innatewe know them by paying close attention to what is already in our minds
• response from plato


  socrates only helped the slave boy discover knowledge that was already in his mindthis is very weak
• objection to plato


  socrates uses leading questionswe gain knowledge of necessary truths through experienceslave boy only learned the geometric truths as they went along; he gained a posteriori knowledge
• plato's meno analogy


  a slave boy who has never been taught geometry is able to understand geometric truth, despite having no previous experience

  
• 2 arguments for innatism

  plato's meno analogyleibniz's necessary truths
• knowledge innatism


  there is at least some innate knowledge, not derived from experience but somehow part of the structure of the mindplato, leibniz
• knowledge rationalism


  we can aquire some knowledge purely through intuition and deduction descartes
• knowledge empiricism


  all synthetic knowledge is a posterioriall a priori knowledge is merely analytichume, lock