1. Philosophical Foundations Flashcards
(39 cards)
Q: What was Descartes’ goal in his philosophical quest?
A: Descartes aimed to find a foundation for certain knowledge, embarking on a quest for absolute certainty. He believed that by identifying an indubitable foundation, he could build a structure of true knowledge upon it, ensuring that all subsequent beliefs and knowledge claims would be equally certain and reliable.
Q: What approach did Descartes use in his quest for certainty?
A: Descartes employed methodological skepticism, systematically doubting all beliefs that could be questioned. Through his “Meditations,” he resolved to reject any idea that could be doubted, even slightly, in order to discover something absolutely certain. This rigorous process involved doubting sensory perceptions, physical reality, and even mathematical truths, seeking a foundation that could withstand all skepticism.
Q: What argument does Descartes make about sensory knowledge?
A: Descartes argues that sensory knowledge is unreliable because our senses can deceive us. In his first meditation, he illustrates this with examples of hallucinations and dreams, where familiar experiences can be vividly simulated despite being false. This leads him to conclude that sensory perceptions are not a trustworthy foundation for certain knowledge.
Q: What does Descartes mean by the existence of “universal realities”?
A: Descartes posits that even if our specific sensory perceptions are false, they must be based on some real elements, indicating the existence of simple and universal realities. He suggests that the images and experiences in dreams are formed from real components, pointing to the existence of fundamental truths and elements that are not entirely fabricated.
Q: What is the significance of “Cogito Ergo Sum”?
A: “Cogito Ergo Sum” (I think, therefore I am) is Descartes’ conclusion that the act of doubting proves his existence as a thinking being. He realizes that even if he doubts everything, the very act of doubting requires a thinker. This insight provides a foundation for certain knowledge, as his existence as a thinking entity is indubitable.
Q: How does Descartes address the possibility of a deceiving God?
A: Descartes considers the possibility that an all-powerful God might deceive him, creating an illusion of reality. This radical doubt extends to everything he perceives, questioning whether anything he experiences is real. He ponders whether such a God could make it appear that the earth, heavens, and physical objects exist when they do not, thus doubting even the most basic beliefs about the world.
Q: What is Descartes’ mind-body dualism?
A: Descartes’ mind-body dualism differentiates between the mind (res cogitans) and the body (res extensa). The mind, responsible for thought, consciousness, and self-awareness, is an immaterial substance not bound by physical laws. The body, including the brain and physical structures, is a material substance subject to physical laws such as gravity and motion. This dualism raises questions about how the mind and body interact.
Q: How does Descartes illustrate the certainty of knowledge about the mind versus physical objects?
A: Descartes uses the example of a piece of wax to show that our sensory knowledge of physical objects is unreliable. When the wax melts, its sensory attributes change, but we still recognize it as the same wax. This recognition comes from the intellect, not the senses. In contrast, our understanding of the mind is more certain because it is based on direct introspection, not mediated by deceptive senses.
Q: What role does the pineal gland play in Descartes’ philosophy?
A: Descartes proposed that the pineal gland might serve as the point of interaction between the immaterial mind and the material body. He speculated that this small gland in the brain was the “seat of the soul” where the mind and body could influence each other, attempting to address the mind-body problem of how immaterial thoughts could produce physical actions.
Q: How does Descartes’ philosophy relate to David Hume’s empiricism?
A: Descartes’ rationalism, emphasizing innate ideas and reasoning, contrasts with Hume’s empiricism, which asserts that all knowledge comes from sensory experiences. Hume argued that our ideas are ultimately derived from impressions (sensory experiences), while Descartes believed in certain knowledge derived from reason and introspection, independent of sensory data.
Q: What was David Hume’s goal in his philosophy?
A: Hume aimed to understand the nature and limits of human knowledge, investigating how we come to know things and what we can legitimately claim to know. He emphasized the importance of empirical evidence and sought to explore the extent to which it can provide certainty in our knowledge.
Q: What is Hume’s approach to understanding knowledge?
A: Hume’s approach, known as empiricism, posits that all knowledge originates from sensory experience. He was deeply skeptical about the certainty of knowledge derived from empirical observation due to the problem of induction, which challenges the logical basis for drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Hume also criticized rationalist approaches that rely on innate ideas or pure reason.
Q: What are Hume’s impressions and ideas?
A: Impressions are the raw data of experience, which are immediate, direct perceptions we have through our senses, emotions, and other faculties. They are vivid and forceful, like the sensation of pain or the taste of chocolate. Ideas, on the other hand, are derived from impressions and are faint copies or representations of these impressions in our minds, such as memories or abstract concepts.
Q: What is Hume’s argument about the derivation of ideas?
A: Hume argues that all ideas are derived from impressions. He illustrates this by suggesting that when you imagine your room with your eyes closed, the ideas formed are faint reflections of the vivid impressions you had when you saw the room. Impressions are strong and lively, while ideas are weaker and derived from these impressions.
Q: What is the “missing shade of blue” counter-argument?
A: Hume acknowledges an exception to his claim that all ideas are derived from impressions. He describes a scenario where a person familiar with all shades of blue except one could still imagine the missing shade without having seen it. This suggests that the mind can generate simple ideas without direct corresponding impressions, though Hume downplays its significance as a rare exception.
Q: What does Hume argue about causation?
A: Hume claims that our belief in causation is not based on rational necessity but rather on habit. He argues that when we observe two events, such as a billiard ball striking another and causing it to move, we do not perceive any inherent necessary connection. Instead, through constant conjunction—repeatedly seeing these events together—our minds form a habit of expecting the effect whenever we observe the cause.
Q: What is the problem of induction according to Hume?
A: The problem of induction states that we cannot logically justify drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Hume argues that our past experiences do not guarantee future occurrences, meaning that causal relations observed in the past may not necessarily hold in the future, thus undermining the certainty of inductive reasoning.
Q: What is Hume’s Fork?
A: Hume’s Fork distinguishes between two types of knowledge:
Relations of Ideas (analytic a priori): These are statements that are true by definition, such as mathematical truths and logical propositions. They are necessarily true and their negation results in a contradiction.
Matters of Fact (synthetic a posteriori): These are statements about the world known through experience, such as empirical observations. They are contingent and their truth depends on how the world is, not necessarily true and subject to change based on new experiences.
Q: How does Hume’s philosophy relate to Kant’s critique?
A: Kant challenged Hume’s dichotomy by proposing the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge—statements that are both informative about the world and necessarily true. Kant aimed to address the limitations Hume identified by arguing that certain fundamental principles of natural science and mathematics are synthetic a priori, thus expanding the scope of human cognition beyond the empirical limits Hume suggested.
Q: What was Kant’s goal in “Critique of Pure Reason”?
A: Kant aimed to place metaphysics on a secure scientific foundation, similar to mathematics and natural sciences. He sought to resolve the endless disputes and contradictions in metaphysics by providing it with the same rigor and security as other established sciences, ensuring its progress and reliability.
Q: What are Kant’s two worlds in his philosophy?
A: Kant distinguishes between the phenomenal world (the world of appearances) and the noumenal world (things-in-themselves). The phenomenal world is how we experience reality, structured by our cognitive faculties, while the noumenal world represents the reality beyond our direct perception, which we can never fully access or know.
Q: What is the significance of synthetic a priori statements in Kant’s philosophy?
A: Synthetic a priori statements are those that are both informative about the world and necessarily true. Kant challenged Hume’s dichotomy by proposing that such knowledge exists, providing examples like mathematical truths and fundamental principles of natural science. These statements expand our understanding of the world without being derived from experience.
Q: How does Kant argue that space and time are a priori intuitions?
A: Kant argues that space and time are innate structures of the mind that shape all our perceptions. They are not empirical concepts derived from experience but are conditions for the possibility of experience itself. This means that our perception of objects and events is always within the framework of space and time, imposed by our cognitive faculties.
Q: How does Kant’s philosophy relate to empiricism and realism?
A: Kant’s philosophy bridges empiricism and realism by asserting that while our knowledge begins with experience, it is also shaped by innate cognitive structures. Unlike empiricists who view the mind as a blank slate, Kant believes certain foundational structures are built into the human mind, shaping our perception of reality and limiting our knowledge to the phenomenal world.
