Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Epistemology - Coggle Diagram

- - - - illusions and hallucinations
    - - dreaming?
    - - possibility of an evil demon
  - - - wax analogy
        
        Nothing I sense stays the same
        
        Yet I know that it is the same thing
        
        Therefore my knowledge of things existing must be based not on sense experience, but on deduction
        
        So I can have a priori knowledge of the external world.
        
        I know that the wax can undergo far more possible changes, including changes in its extension, than I can imagine
        
        Therefore, my concept of the wax as extended and changeable does not derive from my imagination (and therefore it does not derive from perceptual experiences)
        
        Therefore, I comprehend the wax as it what it is (as opposed to its sensory qualities) by mind alone
        
        Only this thought of the wax, and not the perceptual experience of it, is clear and distinct.
  - - - We know that clear and distinct ideas are true because God could not deceive us, but we are told that God exists because he is a clear and distinct idea
    - - he doesn't doubt his doubt or the use of language.
    - - Hume would say just because the sun rose today does not mean it must rise tomorrow, nor does it mean that its setting today necessarily caused its rising tomorrow.
        How can we be sure that, just because we have observed things seemingly causing each other, that they will always or necessarily do so?
- - - - Ockhams Razor
      - No Knowledge is universal
        
        there are no ideas that everyone shares
        
        children and iditons do not have the capacity for universals
        
        claim that not everyone needs to know it, but everyone could know it
        
        If something is innate, then we already have it in our minds, so why do we need to discover it?
        
        Universality is niether a necessary nor sufficient condition for innateness- there could just be ideas that everyone shares that are not innate, people just happen to agree with each other. God could give ideas to some people, and not ideas. Lebniz support
      - Mind must be transparent
        
        subconscious criticism
      - Reliance on the non-natural
        
        somebody or something has to have put the knowledge there
    - - Innate knowledge is actaully a posteriori
        
        for example the slave boy has used his knoeldge of squares
  - - - Plato's Meno
      - Universals
      - Leibniz
        
        P1) Senses only give us particluar instances
        
        P2) a collection of instances can never show the necessity of truth
        
        P3) we can grasp and prove many necessary truths (maths)
        
        P4) Necessary truths that we grasp with our mind do not derive from the senses
        
        C) Therefore necessary truths must be innnate
    - - reliance on the non-natural - reducto ad absurdum
      - Empirical- Ockhams razor and Mill's criticism
- - - - idea of brown
      - idea of a cup of tea
    - - rational thought
        
        synthetic a posteriori knowledge
  - - - a concept is a faint copy of the original sense impression- you have five different expeirences of an apple, and you merge them together
    - - It is impossible to think of a new idea
    - - Idea of God - we have no idea or impression.
    - - The issue of paintings: A complex impression of a painting of a cup of tea causes a complex idea, but it is the same complex idea as an actual cup of tea- for Locke this isn't an issue as you can use reason to coneptualise taste etc.
  - - - If you can form an idea of the missing shade of blue it means it is possible to form an idea which has no corresponding impression
        
        Combination of idea of blue with idea of lightness and darkness, therefore you still use impressions.
        
        You can't even think of a new colour or a new shade of blue- it isn't possible
    - - Where does of on come from
        
        either?
        
        And
        
        The?
      - Tove
        
        What does Tove mean? We don't know, unless we're given context, therefore sense impressions are not sufficient for synthetic knowledge.
  - - - Hume
        
        ther eis no self- we only ever expeience ever changing thoughts and feelings rather than an enduring self
    - - Berkeley
        
        the concept of a phyical inherently confused- we never expeirnece a physical substance- we cannot describe or conceive of waht susbantace is, and an object can never exist unless we are looking at it.
      - Hume
        
        physical object is smething independent of expeirence - Hume says an object does exist when you're looking at it and you don't need to experience it to believe it exists all the time, because you know it exists by forming a concept based on your simple sense impressions.