Aqa as Philosophy Revision Notes †Reason and Experience Essay Example for Free

Aqa as Philosophy revise Notes Reason and Experience EssayKnowledge and Belief People atomic number 50 believe things that atomic number 18nt true. For you to screw virtu aloneything, it mustinessiness be true and you must believe it. Beliefs hobo be true or false. Beliefs stand accident whollyy be true, but it isnt inhabit. Types of Knowledge Analytic true by definition Squ ars hit 4 sides. Synthetic not analytic, true or false in the way the word is advance(a) tomatoes ar red. A priori doesnt require guts birth to know all bachelors argon unmarried. A posteriori female genital organ be established with sense fuck off Snow is uninfected. All Analytic propositions argon known a priori.This doesnt signify that all a priori propositions atomic number 18 analytic. The main question is be all synthetic propositions a posteriori? i. e do we expect some knowledge that doesnt convey from sense go steady? It is this question that take a shits the debate between rationalism and empiricism. rationalism vs. Empiricism Main dividing questions are What are the sources of knowledge? , How do we acquire it? , How do we get concepts? . rationalism gives an important office staff to reason. Empiricism gives an important role to the senses. Why cant we procedure twain in acquiring knowledge? Rationalism. Rationalism claims that we can rush synthetic a priori knowledge of the international hu earthly concernness. Empiricism denies this. Rationalists argue that its possible for us to know some synthetic propositions roughly the world outside our own sound judgments, e. g. Maths and morality. Empiricists argue that it is not. Both rationalists and empiricists accept that we naturally catch certain thoughts and feelings within our heads. Empiricism An advantage of empiricism is that it allows us to quickly see how we ascertain our knowledge through our senses by perceiving how the world is, which is a causal pro cess it requires no mental reasoning. Empiricists also claim that this is how we acquire our concepts through our senses. Once we realise the acquired concepts, we puddle analytic knowledge. If we befool knowledge that doesnt come from sense know how do we get this knowledge? Rationalists argue that we either gain this knowledge from rational science or insight, which allows us to gain this knowledge intellectually, or we just know these truths un well-educated(p)(p)ly as crock up of our rational nature. Rationalists may also argue that some, or even all of our concepts are internal of come from rational insight. Do All Ideas Derive From Sense Experience?John Locke Mind as a Tabula Rasa Locke argues that all images extract from sense experience. He says that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa a sportsmanlike slate that gets filled up with stems from the senses. He refutes the claim of innate ideas. Ideas can either be partially of a proposition He had the id ea that it would be fun to take the day off or they can be concepts the idea of lily-livered. Locke says that all our concepts derive from sense experience, and that we have no knowledge prior to sense experience. From Lockes definition of innate idea, it follows that everyone with a mind should have the equal ideas.However, there is no truth that every person (including nation lacking reasoning skills) can concur and agree to. So perhaps, with Lockes definition, innate ideas are ones that we known as soon as we gain the use of reason. Locke refutes this, saying that we arent lacking reason but the knowledge of ideas. For example, a child cant know that 4 + 5 = 9 until the child can count up to 9 and has the idea of equality. It is the identical thing as knowing that an apple is not a stick its not a bringment of reason, just the gaining of knowledge of ideas.So therefore, if we must first acquire the concepts baffling (through sense experience), the proposition cannot be innate, as no proposition is innate unless the concepts used are innate. Locke argues that the mind has no concepts from birth, and so no truths or concepts can be innate. A Different definition of innate idea Lockes definition and argument against innate ideas hasnt been criticized People who believe in innate ideas dont accept Lockes definition Nativists maintain the view that innate ideas are those which cannot be gained from experience Nativists tend to argue on how concepts or knowledge cant be acquired from sense experience Because we dont know all concepts from birth, there is some point when we become awake(predicate) of our concepts Rationalists argue that experience triggers our awareness of our innate concepts. Experience as a Trigger Children begin to use certain ideas at certain time, and their capacities develop, so why cant their concepts and knowledge also develop? Children begin to use certain ideas at certain times Experience still plays a role a child mu st be exposed to the relevant stimuli for the knowledge to emerge, e. g. style. An idea is innate if it cannot be derived or justified by sense experience. Empiricists on Arguing Concepts John Locke 1. The senses let in ideas 2. These ideas bestow an empty cabinet 3. The mind grows familiar with these ideas and theyre lodged in ones shop 4. The mind then abstracts them, and learns general names for them 5. The mind then has ideas and the language by which it can describe them However, what does it correspond to let in ideas? We contrast ideas with sensations, e. g. the sensation of yellow isnt the same as the concept of yellow Locke fails to make this distinction David Hume Hume believes that we are directly aware of perceptions Perceptions are then apportiond into impressions and ideas Both Locke and Hume divide impressions into impressions of sensation and impressions of reflection Impressions of sensation come from our sense data and that which we directly perceive Imp ressions of reflection derive from the experience of our mind, much(prenominal) as feeling emotions. Hume says that ideas are faint copies of impressions Therefore, there are ideas of sensation (e. g. the idea of red) and ideas of reflection (e. g. the feeling of sadness, happiness) Concepts are a type of idea. Humes theory of how we acquire ideas (from copying them from impressions) is a theory of how we acquire concepts) Locke and Hume both have slightly unlike versions of how we acquire ideas with which we can think We rootage with experiences of the carnal world which we get from sense data and experiences of our mind For Locke, this gives us ideas once we employ our memory to reflect on these experiences According to Locke, this makes it sound that the remembered experiences are the ideas with which we think Hume corrects this, and says that we remember and think with the copies of the sensory impressions. unbiased and complex concepts A complex idea is just an idea made up of several diverse ideas, e. g. a complex idea (a dog) is made up of simple ideas like shape, colour and smell. This complex idea has a complex impression We can therefore form complex ideas by abstraction. As an objection, rationalism raises the question of where do non-empirical ideas come from? Empiricism is appealing, as we seem to intuitively trust our senses and it easily answers such questions. However, there are complex ideas that correspond to nothing from our sense experience, e. g. unicorns or God. So do all ideas derive from sense experience? Empiricists argue that these complex ideas are made up from simple ideas, which are copies of impressions (e. g. a unicorn is the simple concepts of a horse, a horn, and the colour white, and combined together they give us a unicorn) Hume and Locke argue that when creating complex ideas, one can all work with the materials that our impressions provide simple ideas Complex ideas are no more than altering or abstra cting these simple ideas Therefore, empiricists answer this rationalist objection So Are There Innate Concepts? What would an empiricists analysis of complex concepts like self, causality, substance, etc.be? These concepts must either be innate, or reached victimization a priori reasoning Hume accepts that these complex concepts cannot be derived from experience However, he states that each of these concepts has no application These concepts are confused, and we should always use concepts that can be derived from experience For example, we dont experience our self, we experience a changing array of thoughts and feelings. To come up with the idea of self, weve confused similarity with individuality We do the same with the idea of a physical object A physical object exists one by one of experience, existing in 3d space. But can experience show us something that exists severally of experience? If I look at a desk, look away, and then look back again, the desk must have exis ted when I wasnt looking at it. I cant know that my experience was of the same desk, only that the experiences are similar When coming up with the concept of a physical object that exists independently of experience, I confuse similarity with identity. Hume concludes that these concepts are incoherent confusions This can be objected though This makes most of our common-sense understand and analysis of theworld incorrect we know that our concepts are coherent. Empiricism now seems to challenging to accept, as it makes our concepts illusive. The fact that we cannot derive the aforementioned from experience shows that they are innate Empiricists therefore have a flaw argument explaining our most abstract concepts is an argument that these concepts are not derived from experience. Does this therefore mean that theyre innate or arrived at through rational intuition? One reason to think theyre innate is that children use these concepts before they develop rational intuition . Rationalists therefore argue that experience is the trigger for the concept Does all knowledge about what exists rest on sense experience? Humes Fork We can have knowledge of two sorts of things Relations between ideas, and matters of fact Relations of ideas are propositions like all sons have fathers Hume argue that all a priori knowledge must be analytic, and all knowledge of synthetic propositions must be a posteriori Anything that is not true by definition (matters of fact) must be learned through the senses Humes matters of fact are essentially analytic truths.Matters of Fact Hume says that the foundation of knowledge of matters of fact is what we experience here and now, or what we can remember All our knowledge that goes beyond the aforementioned rests on casual hazardence For example, if I receive a garner from a friend with a cut postcard on it, Ill believe that my friend is in France. I know this because I infer from post mark to place I think that where som ething is posted causes it to have a postmark from that place. If the letter was posted by my friend, I believe that he is in France. I know this because I commit on past experiences. I dont work out what causes what by thinking about it It is only our experience of effects and causes that brings us to infer what cause has what effect. Hume denies that this is proof He says that knowledge of matters of fact, beyond what were experience here and now relies on induction and reasoning about probability. Induction and proof The terms relate to a type of argument Inductive is where the conclusion is not logically entailed by its premises, but supported by them If the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true. The French letter example is an example of inductive reasoning. A Deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises If the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false E. g. Premise 1 Socrates is a man Premise 2 A ll men are mortal Conclusion Socrates is mortal. Using a priori intuition and demonstration to establish claims of what exists Rationalists argue against Hume, saying that some claims about what exists can be grounded on a priori intuition. A priori demonstration, or deduction, is deduction that uses a priori premises Rational intuition is the view that you can divulge the truth of a claim by thinking about itDescartes Descartes says that we can establish the existence of the mind, the physical world and God through a priori reasoning. He attacks sense experience, and how they can deceive us We cant tell if were being deceived by an evil demon through our senses, as what we are experiencing will be false We can establish that we think, and therefore we exist, even if our senses do deceive us (as we dont need our senses to know our mind exists) This conclusion of thinking and doubting that we exist was gotten to by pure reasoning. He also establishes that the mind can exist f rom the body. Descartes says we dont know what causes these experiences It could be an evil demon, God, or the physics world exists exactly how we perceive it. If it was God, it would mean he was a slicker as we have a very strong tendency to trust our senses If it was a demon, God must have created this demon to deceive us, and because God is perfect by definition, this would mean God isnt a deceiver, and so he cant have made a demon so there must be some kind of a real world Through a priori intuition and reasoning, Descartes says that the external world must exist, because God exists, and he would not deceive us.Conceptual Schemes and Their Philosophical Implications humanity dont all have the same concepts There are two distinguishable elements to our experience the data of the senses, and how this datas interpreted by our concepts By the latter, it implies that various people would impose different abstract turning away if they have different concepts. Conceptual relativism claims that because our conceptual scheme affect how people experience and understand reality, people with different conceptual schemes have different realities. An Implication Conceptual relativism. We assume people have different realities because we cant translate their to ours It assumes language constructs reality to say reality is sexual relation to our conceptual schemes It would mean that reality is dependant on language, which isnt true we express our realities by language A proposition in one conceptual scheme can be true without needing to be express in another set of scheme. This means that there isnt one set of scheme with how the world works An objection is that people argue that the relation between experience anc conceptual schemes doesnt make sense. Benjamin Whorf says that languages organize our experience of the world This is like trying to organize a printing press itself and not the clothes in it If a conceptual scheme organizes our experienc e, then our experience must be comprised of individual experiences Conceptual scheme all have a set of experiences in common We can pick out individual experiences like smelling a flower, feeling cold, etc. Any conceptual scheme with these sorts of experiences will end up similar to our own, despite the concepts one hold and their language, and so supplanting between two different conceptual schemes will be possible. There may be teensy-weensy parts that cant be translated, but this only leads to a very mild form of conceptual relativism. We cant necessarily combine conceptual scheme An example is that we can have more or less colours in our vocabulary, and so can describe things in different ways. The Greeks thought that there was only one colour bronze, and that everything else was a different shade of bronze. This doesnt mean they saw everything in what we call bronze, its just how they described their experiences. We can therefore only state things depending on the co ncepts we have.