Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Intuition and Deduction Thesis (Empiricist alternatives (Four responses…
Intuition and Deduction Thesis
Deduction
Way of proving the conclusion from the premises
Intuition
Rational intuition
Discovering the truth of a claim just by thinking about it
Empiricist alternatives
Analytic propositions
Conceptual knowledge
Learned from experience
Mental states
Impressions of reflection
Whether we can have a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions that doesn't concern our mental states
Rationalism
We have some a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions about the world external to our minds
Empiricism
There is no a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions about the world external to our minds (whether this is innate or gained from rational intuition or deduction)
Four responses
Proposition is analytic, not synthetic
Proposition is about our own minds, known from impressions of reflection
Knowledge of the proposition is a posteriori, not a priori
We can't know the proposition at all
Descartes says that we know a number of claims by rational intuition, and we can use these as the premises in a deductive argument to gain knowledge
Hume's Fork
Relations between ideas
Discovered purely by thinking
No need to attend to anything that actually exists anywhere in the universe
Statements that are intuitively or demonstratively certain
3 x 5 = 30/2
Known by deduction
Matters of fact
Propositions about what exists and what is the case
Not known by deduction
Statements that can be denied without contradiction
Gain knowledge of relations of ideas through merely understanding concepts and through deductive inference from such understanding
To deny any claims we know this war would involve a contradiction
Can be known through experience
Foundations of knowledge
All knowledge that goes beyond what is present to our sense or memory rests on causal inference
Infer from existence of some cause to its effect or from some effect to its cause
Simplified by reason
Effect of whatever we can infer
Descartes' theory of rational intuition
The Cogito
All he perceives and remembers is an illusion, no body, no sense
Believing anything else, he is being deceived by an 'evil demon'
Avoid believing anything that is not 'completely certain and indubitable'
Can doubt senses
Can doubt memory
Can doubt he has a body
'I think therefore I am'
First stepping stone to knowledge
However, Descartes cannot know that he exists as a body
Knowledge of what he is cannot depend on his being a body, since he knows he exists whether or not he has a body
Clear and distinct ideas
How the idea presents itself to his mind
Knows to be true just by thinking about it
Clear
Present and accessible to the attentive mind with a sufficient degree of strength and accessibility
Distinct
Sharply separated from all other ideas that every part of it is clear
The natural light
If I am doubting then I exist
Rational intuition is the 'natural light', our ability to know that clear and distinct ideas are true
Empiricist responses
Succession of thoughts?
We don't experience a continuing mental substance over time
Only experience a continually changing array of thoughts and feelings
Confuse similarity with identity
Descartes Response
Thoughts logically require a thinker
We can know immediately about our minds through impressions of reflection
The existence of God
God would not deceive us
Supremely perfect
God's existence is enough to rule out deception of an evil demon
We cannot know God's purposes
if we have no way of correcting our false beliefs, this would frustrate rational minds seeking the truth using clear and distinct ideas
This would amount to God being a deceiver, which is contradictory to being supremely perfect
Trademark Argument
God is innate
Stamped on our minds
We cannot have invented the idea of God
Does not derive from sense experience
By elimination
Possible sources of any ideas
The idea derives from something outside my mind, such as I experience in sense perception
I have invented it
It is innate
A cause must have at least as much 'reality' as its effect, and that the cause of an idea must have as much reality as what the idea is an idea of
Sophistication
Something cannot come from nothing
Whatever is part of the effect must have originated in the cause
Stone can only be created by or from something that contains the qualities of the stone
Ideas
Intrinsic realty of all ideas is the same
Represent something
Thought is about determines the idea's 'representative reality'
Ideas of substance can only be caused by substances
God
As a concept, it is a mode of thought
Special features of what God is a concept of mean that it has a representative reality greater than the intrinsic reality of my mind
Infinity and perfection
Empiricist responses
Is the concept of God innate? Hume
We can create ideas of what is infinite and perfect
Descartes' response
Ideas of imperfection depend on an idea of perfection
Clear and distinct idea of God as perfect and infinite
Cannot grasp this thought but merely understands it
Unpersuasive
Intuitively plausible that our concept REAL is not an abstraction
Primary concept
Knowledge of causes
Use Hume's Fork
Must everything have a cause?
Not analytically true
We cannot know that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect
Cannot be known by a priori reason
Degrees of reality
Substance
Defined as something that can exist independently, such as the mind and God
Attribute
Property of substance - the attribute of minds is thought, while extension is an attribute of physical objects
Mode
Particular determination of a property. So ideas are modes of the minds - specific ways of thinking. Being specifi sizes or shapes are modes of physical
Ontological Argument
Cause of own existence
Continued existence
If I cease to exist, that requires a cause
Misunderstands causation and continued existence
What causes my continued existence must also continue to exist
Objection
Dependent on the immediately preceding states of affairs
Empiricist responses
Assumptions in P4 and C2
We cannot show otherwise through intuition and deduction
P7
Object that we cannot know that a cause must have as much reality as its effect
Discover through experience, and cannot know a priori
P10
We don't know that an infinity of causes is impossible
Seems conceivable
We cannot infer that something that is its own cause exists and is the cause of everything else
Ontological Argument
Deduce the existence from the concept of God
Do not appeal to the cause of the concept
Relies on the doctrine of Clear and Distinct ideas
Triangle internal angles
Our thought is constrained
Careful reflection reveals that to think God does not exist is a contradiction
Should we accept P4?
Descartes
Entailed by the other perfections
God is omnipotent by definition
Empiricist responses
Hume's Fork
God does not exist is not a contradiction
God exists is not analytic
Matters of fact, synthetic propositions
Descartes responses
Synthetic truth by a priori reflection
Not obvious analytic truth
Rejects P2
Existence of physical objects in the 'external world'
We cannot know from perception that physical objects exist
We can know we have sensory experience, those experiences don't give us the knowledge that their cause are physical objects
Preliminary steps if perception doesn't show that physical objects exist
Understand concept of a physical objects
Show this is a coherent concept, not something self - contradictory
Show it is possible that physical objects exist
Physical objects do exist and we can know this
Start with 1&2
Discussed the idea of physical object when discussing nature of minds
Not clear and distinct if physical objects cause these experiences
Piece of wax loses original sensory qualities when melted
Wax can be extended and changeable and does not derive from imagination
Question about his experience, knowledge and concept
Coherent concept and if physical objects exist, they are extended and changeable
Moves to 3&4
Dissatisfied with first two arguments as they do not give certainty
First is from imagination
Difference between imagination and understanding
Imagining is more effort than understanding
Imagination is not essential
Imagination depends upon having a body
Only a probable conclusion
Second is from perception
Perceptions are involuntary, lively and vivid
Caused by independent physical objects
Perception does not give us knowledge of the causes of our perceptual experiences
Empiricist responses
Failing to prove the existence of God undermine this too
Hume's Causation Argument attacks P2
Possible that physical objects have no cause
No contradiction to suppose they are uncaused
Locke and Russell
Inductive arguments for the claim
Descartes Response
Conclusions lack certainty
BUT
4 more items...