Epistemology Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the direct realism
Mind-independent objects exist and we directly and immediately perceive them. We can have knowledge of the external world through this.
What is Locke’s indirect realism
Properties are divided into primary and secondary qualities, where primary qualities are mind-independent (such as shape) and secondary qualities are mind-dependent qualities (such as colour). Therefore we see a respresentstion on the external world, rather than perceiving it directly. The key distinction between primary and secondary qualities are variation with perception, conceivability and multi-sensory.
What is Berkeley’s idealism
Everything is mind-dependent. The external world is based entirely on perception and therefore does not exist if there are no human minds to perceive it. All of the objects we see are collections of ideas in our minds.
Explain Berkeley’s attack on the variation element of the primary/secondary distinction
P1: If a property is subject to both interpersonal and intrapersonal perceptual variation then the property is mind-dependent
P2: Both primary and secondary qualities have interpersonal and intrapersonal perceptual variation
C: Therefore there both properties are mind-dependent and there is no distinction.
Explain Berkeley’s attack on the conceivability element of the primary/secondary distinction
An object with primary qualities but without secondary qualities is inconceivable, which means it is impossible. If this is impossible, then primary and secondary qualities must both be essential properties of objects. Then, there is no distinction. As secondary qualities are mind-dependent, they must then both be mind-dependent.
Explain Berkeley’s master argument
As soon as you conceive of a mind-independent object, it is in your mind and so now mind-dependent. Therefore the concept of mind-independent objects is inconceivable. So then they are impossible. Therefore, realism is false.
What is the tripartite theory of knowledge
S can know p if and only if (individually necessary and jointly sufficient):
1. S believes that p
2. P is true
3. S is justified in their belief of p
What is innatism
Innatism is a rationalist theory within epistemology that believes there are ideas that have always been in our mind. It can be split into two types: concept innatism (the idea that at least some concepts are within the mind from the moment it starts to exist) and knowledge innatism (the idea that at least some propositional knowledge is within the mind from the moment it starts to exist). However, it may take experience or reasoning to uncover this knowledge. It is conceded by both innatists and empiricists that we are born with some abilities, but this ability knowledge (such as knowing how to breathe) is not seen as significant in the question of whether knowledge is present from birth.
Explain Plato’s knowledge innatism
Socrates presents a geometry problem to a boy who has not previously been taught or been exposed to anything about geometry before. He is asked to work out the length of one side of a square and initially gets the wrong answer. However, he realises that he is wrong and eventually manages to work out the correct answer after a bit of prompting. As this knowledge of geometry could not have come from experience, it must be innate, therefore innatism is true. Plato believes that this was due to the soul existing in past lives.
Explain Leibniz’ knowledge innatism
Leibniz first states that knowledge must be either a posteriori or innate. He claims that it cannot be a posteriori because there are an infinite number of truth that seem to be innate, and we cannot possibly have learned every single individual truth. For example, we might have learned that 2x3=6, but we have not explicitly learned that 2x398=796 yet we can still work this out. Another example that Leibniz gives is that we know that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Therefore, innatism is true.
Explain Descartes’ intuition and deduction thesis
Intuition and decuction are both a priori ways of gaining knowledge. However, intuition is self-justified whereas deduction is justified from other truths. Intuitions are ‘clear and distinct’ and indubitable ideas - meaning they are obviously true. Deductions can be built up from intuitions. Descartes believes that intuition and deduction is the only thing that can give us knowledge, including knowledge about what exists. From this, he says we can know that ‘I exist’, ‘God exists’ and ‘the external world exists’. This thesis is rationalist foundationalism.
Outline Descartes’ cogito
After his three waves of doubt, the cogito is the first thing that Descartes says we can know. Essentially, in order to doubt your own existence, you must be a thinking thing. Therefore, you must exist. You can know this through a priori intuition as it is an indubitable clear and distinct idea. This goes on to act as a foundation of all other knowledge.
Explain Descartes’ proof of the external world
This proof builds from the fact that God exists (as proven by his ontological and cosmological arguments). Firstly, Descartes says that he has a perception of physical objects in the external world and these perceptions must have a cause. This cause must either be the external world, his own mind or God. He cannot cause them himself because they are involuntary. It cannot be God because God would not deceive him because he is perfect. Therefore by process of elimination, these perceptions must be caused by the external world.
What is philosophical scepticism
Philosophical scepticism is the deliberate doubt of what we believe in order to learn more about what we can and can’t know. Local philosophical scepticism is applied to a more specific type of belief - for example beliefs about the past. Global philosophical scepticism can be applied to almost all of our beliefs universally. Descartes applies global scepticism to all ideas to discover what we can know, if we can know anything at all.
Explain Descartes’ three waves of doubt
The first wave: The illusion argument
Our senses sometimes deceive us so cannot be trusted as a source of knowledge. For example, something far away might appear small when it is not. Therefore, we cannot know anything about the external world.
The second wave: The dreaming argument
Descartes realises that the illusion argument is not a reason to doubt all perceptions, as it only applies to a select few - so he forms the dreaming argument. It says that we cannot know we are not dreaming because all possible perceptual experiences could also happen in a dream. This means that even knowledge that remains after the first wave of doubt can also be eliminated. Therefore, we cannot know anything about the external world.
The third wave: The evil deceiver argument
Descartes realises that the dreaming argument does not hold for all knowledge because there are truths which are not based on sensory perception, such as that a square has 4 sides (which is still true whether you are dreaming or not). So he forms the evil deceiver argument. It says that in order to have any knowledge, we need to know that our experiences are not being caused by an evil deceiver. There is no way of us knowing this because we would not know the difference. There is the possibility, however unlikely, that even maths is entirely deceptive and false. This successfully eliminates all knowledge.
