Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EPISTEMOLOGY-Topic 3:Reason as a source of knowledge., CA (In response to…

- - - - CA:Empiricist would argue we are able to merge ideas of circles gained from experience to create what we would imagine a perfect circle to look like (analytic a priori reasoning)
        Could argue that whilst Plato focuses on finding clear definitions of literal objects like geometric shapes he fails to provide definitions of moral concepts like justice or love which we cannot define as 'perfect' in the same way.
      - POINT 2:Slave Boy argument:
        P1-Slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry/squares.
        P2-Socrates only asks questions: he does not teach the boy about squares.
        P3-By the end of the questioning, the slave boy is able to grasp an eternal truth about geometry/squares
        P4-This eternal truth was not derived from the boy's prior experience, nor from Socrates.
        C1-Eternal truth existed in the boy to begin with.
        
        CA:Same as last-boy formed an idea of the square by merging ideas together using analytic a priori reasoning.
        -Must consider P2 and the nature of Socrates questioning.Possible Socrates asked leading questions reveling truths about the squares.
        -Therefore boy does not have innate knowledge as he is being taught through experience by Socrates.
        -Supports empiricism by proving knowledge is gained a posteriori.
        -Argument does not show that knowledge exists in us as a type of forgotten memory and the theories that our souls existed before birth is not needed to explain the slave boy's performance.
    - - Overall Leibniz concludes innate knowledge must be revealed through experience.He says all humans experience differing lives and therefore gain knowledge and ideas depending on person factors such as upbringing.Ideas present in all of humanity must be derived from somewhere other than experience,
      - CA:Locke's universal ideas:Locke believed that we are born with no innate knowledge ('tabula rasa').He argues that for a proposition to be innate, then it would be universally assented to meaning everyone would know it because everyone would be born with it.Universal assent is therefore a necessary condition of innate knowledge.Universal ideas do not exist as there will always be at least one person to disagree.This can be seen through moral concepts such as God and justice.Everyone has different conceptions of these things (vary dependent on religion, education ect).So, there is no knowledge which satisfies the necessary condition for innateness of universal assent and thus there is no innate knowledge.
        
        CCA:Leibniz rejects this by arguing that although we all possess some type of knowledge it does not have to be conscious to be innate so whilst we claim 'children and idiots' cannot know this fact, it is possible that they do even if they are not aware of it.He suggests that knowledge in the form of the subconscious can be brought to the conscious throughout one's lifetime reflecting the notion of experience being the key to knowledge. He also states that some truths are fundamental and cannot be gained through experience.
        
        CCCA:An empiricist would say that if we not conscious of knowledge then it is not really knowledge.We might forget knowledge at some point and be reminded of it, but the reason we had it in the first place is from some type of experience.
        Provides a stronger argument as Locke forgrounds that knowledge and awareness come hand in hand;without awareness our knowledge becomes unreliable as we cannot consciously judge it or apply it in different contexts.
        
        Locke strengthens his argument by applying the law of non-contradiction(impossible for something to be and not to be).The logic behind this idea is that it that simple concepts we would assume to recognise cannot be innate knowledge due to its failure to be comprehended by 'children and idiots' who would not be able to understand this concept without some form of teaching.
- - - - 1)Causal principle-Offers the idea that P3 is not valid and therefore cannot lead to a sound conclusion.Descartes claims that the cause of something must be at least as perfect as its effect however this can be proved wrong by simply thinking of examples of times when this is not the case eg. the action of throwing a small stone into a lake only to observe a much larger ripple or striking a small match and putting it on the floor only to create a huge fire.
      - 2)Universal idea of God-Descartes makes a faulty assumption that the idea of God is one which is universal.Descartes cannot simply conclude that the idea of God has been planted in everyone's head as an intuition due to the fact that many religions and cultures have subjective views and perceptions of God which may not refer to him as a perfect being therefore disproving P1.(Causes issues for deduction as if one premise is not valid we cannot reach sound conclusion.)