Knowledge and Belief • People can believe things that aren’t true. • For you to cognize something. it must be true and you must believe it. • Beliefs can be true or false. • Beliefs can by chance be true. but it isn’t cognition. Types of Knowledge • Analytic – true by definition – “Squares have 4 sides” . • Man-made – non analytic. true or false in the manner the word is – “Ripe tomatoes are red” . • A priori – doesn’t require sense experience to cognize – “all unmarried mans are unmarried” . • A posteriori – can be established through sense experience – “Snow is white” . All Analytic propositions are known a priori.
This doesn’t mean that all a priori propositions are analytic. The chief inquiry is “Are all man-made propositions a posteriori? ” i. vitamin E ; do we hold some cognition that doesn’t come from sense experience? It is this inquiry that forms the argument between rationalism and empiricist philosophy. Rationalism vs. Empiricism • Main dividing inquiries are: “What are the beginnings of cognition? ” . “How do we get it? ” . “How do we acquire constructs? ” . • Rationalism gives an of import function to ground. • Empiricism gives an of import function to the senses. • Why can’t we use both in geting cognition? Rationalism.
• Rationalism claims that we can hold man-made a priori cognition of the external universe. Empiricism denies this. • Rationalists argue that it’s possible for us to cognize some man-made propositions about the universe outside our ain heads. e. g. Maths and morality. Empiricists argue that it is non. • Both positivists and empiricists accept that we of course have certain ideas and feelings inside our heads. Empiricism • An advantage of empiricist philosophy is that it allows us to rapidly see how we ascertain our cognition – through our senses by comprehending how the universe is. which is a causal procedure – it requires no mental logical thinking.
• Empiricists besides claim that this is how we get our constructs – through our senses. • Once we understand the acquired constructs. we gain analytic cognition. If we have knowledge that doesn’t come from sense experience – how do we acquire this cognition? Rationalists argue that we either addition this cognition from ‘rational intuition’ or ‘insight’ . which allows us to derive this cognition intellectually. or we merely cognize these truths innately as portion of our rational nature. Positivists may besides reason that some. or even all of our constructs are innate of semen from rational penetration. Make All Ideas Derive From Sense Experience?
John Locke – Mind as a ‘Tabula Rasa’ • Locke argues that all thoughts derive from sense experience. • He says that the head at birth is a ‘tabula rasa’ – a clean slate that gets filled up with thoughts from the senses. • He refutes the claim of ‘innate ideas’ . • Ideas can either be portion of a proposition: “He had the thought that it would be fun to take the twenty-four hours off” ; or they can be constructs: “the thought of yellow” . • Locke says that all our constructs derive from sense experience. and that we have no cognition prior to feel experience. From Locke’s definition of ‘innate idea’ . it follows that everyone with a head should hold the same thoughts.
However. there is no truth that every individual ( including people missing concluding accomplishments ) can accede and hold to. So possibly. with Locke’s definition. innate thoughts are 1s that we known every bit shortly as we gain the usage of ground. Locke refutes this. stating that we aren’t missing ground but the cognition of thoughts. For illustration. a child can’t know that “4 + 5 = 9” until the kid can number up to 9 and has the thought of equality. It is the same thing as cognizing that an apple is non a stick – it’s non a development of ground. merely the gaining of cognition of thoughts.
So hence. if we must foremost get the constructs involved ( through sense experience ) . the proposition can non be unconditioned. as no proposition is unconditioned unless the constructs used are unconditioned. Locke argues that the head has no constructs from birth. and so no truths or constructs can be unconditioned. A Different definition of ‘innate idea’ • Locke’s definition and statement against unconditioned thoughts hasn’t been criticized • Peoples who believe in innate thoughts don’t accept Locke’s definition • Nativists maintain the position that innate thoughts are those which can non be gained from experience
• Nativists tend to reason on how constructs or knowledge can’t be acquired from sense experience • Because we don’t cognize all constructs from birth. there is some point when we become cognizant of our constructs • Rationalists argue that experience triggers our consciousness of our innate constructs. Experience as a ‘Trigger’ • Children get down to utilize certain thoughts at certain clip. and their capacities develop. so why can’t their constructs and cognition besides develop? • Children Begin to utilize certain thoughts at certain times • Experience still plays a function – a kid must be exposed to the relevant stimulation for the cognition to emerge. e. g. linguistic communication.
• An thought is unconditioned if it can non be derived or justified by sense experience. Empiricists on Arguing Concepts John Locke 1. The senses let in thoughts 2. These thoughts furnish an ‘empty cabinet’ 3. The head grows familiar with these thoughts and they’re lodged in one’s memory 4. The head so abstracts them. and learns general names for them 5. The head so has thoughts and the linguistic communication by which it can depict them • However. what does it intend to ‘let in ideas’ ? • We contrast thoughts with esthesiss. e. g. the esthesis of xanthous isn’t the same as the construct of xanthous • Locke fails to do this differentiation David Hume
• Hume believes that we are straight cognizant of ‘perceptions’ • Percepts are so divided into ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’ • Both Locke and Hume divide feelings into ‘impressions of sensation’ and ‘impressions of reflection’ • Impressions of esthesis come from our sense informations and that which we straight perceive • Impressions of contemplation derive from the experience of our head. such as feeling emotions. • Hume says that thoughts are ‘faint copies’ of feelings • Therefore. there are thoughts of esthesis ( e. g. the thought of ruddy ) and thoughts of contemplation ( e. g. the feeling of unhappiness. felicity ) • Concepts are a type of thought.
• Hume’s theory of how we get thoughts ( from copying them from feelings ) is a theory of how we get constructs ) • Locke and Hume both have somewhat different versions of how we get thoughts with which we can believe • We start with experiences of the physical universe which we get from sense informations and experiences of our head • For Locke. this gives us thoughts once we employ our memory to reflect on these experiences • Harmonizing to Locke. this makes it sound that the remembered experiences are the thoughts with which we think • Hume corrects this. and says that we remember and think with the transcripts of the centripetal feelings.
Simple and complex constructs • A complex thought is merely an thought made up of several different thoughts. e. g. a complex thought ( a Canis familiaris ) is made up of simple thoughts like form. coloring material and odor. • This complex thought has a complex feeling • We can therefore signifier complex thoughts by abstraction. • As an expostulation. rationalism raises the inquiry of where make non-empirical thoughts come from? • Empiricism is appealing. as we seem to intuitively swear our senses and it easy replies such inquiries. • However. there are complex thoughts that correspond to nil from our sense experience. e. g. unicorns or God. • So do all thoughts derive from sense experience?
• Empiricists argue that these complex thoughts are made up from simple thoughts. which are transcripts of feelings ( e. g. a unicorn is the simple constructs of a Equus caballus. a horn. and the color white. and combined together they give us a unicorn ) • Hume and Locke argue that when making complex thoughts. one can merely work with the stuffs that our feelings provide – simple thoughts • Complex thoughts are no more than changing or abstracting these simple thoughts • Therefore. empiricists answer this rationalist expostulation So Are There Innate Concepts?
• What would an empiricists’ analysis of complex constructs like ego. causality. substance. etc. be? • These constructs must either be unconditioned. or reached utilizing a priori logical thinking • Hume accepts that these complex constructs can non be derived from experience • However. he states that each of these constructs has no application • These constructs are confused. and we should ever utilize constructs that can be derived from experience • For illustration. we don’t see our ‘self’ . we experience a altering array of ideas and feelings. • To come up with the thought of ‘self’ . we’ve confused similarity with individuality • We do the same with the thought of a physical object • A physical object exists independently of experience. bing in 3d infinite.
• But can see demo us something that exists independently of experience? • If I look at a desk. look off. and so look back once more. the desk must hold existed when I wasn’t looking at it. • I can’t know that my experience was of the same desk. merely that the experiences are similar • When coming up with the construct of a physical object that exists independently of experience. I confuse similarity with individuality. • Hume concludes that these constructs are incoherent confusions • This can be objected though • This makes most of our common-sense understand and analysis of the universe incorrect – we know that our constructs are consistent.
• Empiricism now seems to disputing to accept. as it makes our constructs ‘illusory’ . • The fact that we can non deduce the aforesaid from experience shows that they are unconditioned • Empiricists hence have a flawed statement – explicating our most abstract constructs is an statement that these constructs are non derived from experience. • Does this therefore mean that they’re innate or arrived at through rational intuition? • One ground to believe they’re innate is that kids use these constructs before they develop rational intuition.
• Positivists hence argue that experience is the trigger for the construct Does all knowledge about what exists remainder on sense experience? Hume’s Fork • We can hold knowledge of two kinds of things: ‘Relations between ideas’ . and ‘matters of fact’ • Relationss of thoughts are propositions like ‘all boies have fathers’ • Hume argue that all a priori cognition must be analytic. and all cognition of man-made propositions must be a posteriori • Anything that is non true by definition ( ‘matters of fact’ ) must be learned through the senses • Hume’s ‘matters of fact’ are basically analytic truths.
Matters of Fact • Hume says that the foundation of cognition of affairs of fact is what we experience here and now. or what we can retrieve • All our cognition that goes beyond the aforesaid remainders on insouciant illation • For illustration. if I receive a missive from a friend with a Gallic post card on it. I’ll believe that my friend is in France. • I know this because I infer from station grade to put • I think that where something is posted causes it to hold a postmark from that topographic point. • If the missive was posted by my friend. I believe that he is in France. • I ‘know’ this because I rely on past experiences.
• I don’t work out what causes what by believing about it • It is merely our experience of effects and causes that brings us to deduce what cause has what consequence. • Hume denies that this is ‘proof’ • He says that cognition of affairs of fact. beyond what we’re experience here and now relies on initiation and concluding about chance. Initiation and Deduction • The footings relate to a type of statement • Inductive is where the decision is non logically entailed by its premises. but supported by them • If the premises are true. the decision is likely to be true. • The Gallic missive illustration is an illustration of inductive logical thinking.
• A Deductive statement is an statement whose decision is logically entailed by its premises • If the premises are true. the decision can non be false • E. g. Premise 1: Socrates is a adult male ; Premise 2: All work forces are mortal ; Decision: Socrates is mortal. Using a priori intuition and presentation to set up claims of what exists • Rationalists argue against Hume. stating that some claims about what exists can be grounded on a priori intuition.
• A priori presentation. or tax write-off. is tax write-off that uses a priori premises • Rational intuition is the position that you can detect the truth of a claim by believing about it Descartes • Descartes says that we can set up the being of the head. the physical universe and God through a priori logical thinking.
• He attacks sense experience. and how they can lead on us • We can’t state if we’re being deceived by an evil devil through our senses. as what we are sing will be false • We can set up that we think. and therefore we exist. even if our senses do lead on us ( as we don’t necessitate our senses to cognize our head exists ) • This decision of thought and doubting that we exist was gotten to by pure logical thinking. • He besides establishes that the head can be from the organic structure.
• Descartes says we don’t cognize what causes these experiences • It could be an evil devil. God. or the natural philosophies universe exists precisely how we perceive it. • If it was God. it would intend he was a cheat as we have a really strong inclination to swear our senses • If it was a devil. God must hold created this devil to lead on us. and because God is perfect by definition. this would intend God isn’t a cheat. and so he can’t have made a demon – so there must be some sort of a existent universe • Through a priori intuition and logical thinking. Descartes says that the external universe must be. because God exists. and he would non lead on us.
Conceptual Schemes and Their Philosophical Implications • Humans don’t all have the same constructs • There are two distinguishable elements to our experience: the information of the senses. and how this data’s interpreted by our constructs • By the latter. it implies that different people would enforce different conceptual strategy if they have different constructs. • Conceptual relativism claims that because our conceptual strategy impact how people experience and understand world. people with different conceptual strategies have different worlds. An Deduction: Conceptual relativism.
• We assume people have different ‘realities’ because we can’t interpret their to ours • It assumes linguistic communication ‘constructs’ world to state world is comparative to our conceptual strategies • It would intend that world is dependent on linguistic communication. which isn’t true – we express our worlds by linguistic communication • A proposition in one conceptual strategy can be true without necessitating to be express in another set of strategy. • This means that there isn’t one set of strategy with how the universe works • An expostulation is that people argue that the relation between experience anc conceptual strategies doesn’t make sense.
• Benjamin Whorf says that languages form our experience of the universe • This is like seeking to form a closet itself and non the apparels in it • If a conceptual strategy organizes our experience. so our experience must be comprised of single experiences • Conceptual strategy all have a set of experiences in common • We can pick out single experiences like smelling a flower. experiencing cold. etc. • Any conceptual strategy with these kinds of experiences will stop up similar to our ain. despite the constructs one clasp and their linguistic communication. and so interlingual rendition between two different conceptual strategies will be possible.
• There may be little parts that can’t be translated. but this lone leads to a really mild signifier of conceptual relativism. • We can’t needfully combine conceptual strategy • An illustration is that we can hold more or less colorss in our vocabulary. and so can depict things in different ways. • The Greeks thought that there was merely one coloring material – bronze. and that everything else was a different shadiness of bronze. • This doesn’t mean they saw everything in what we call ‘bronze’ . it’s merely how they described their experiences. • We can therefore merely province things depending on the construct we have.