Intuition and Deduction Thesis (epistemology) Flashcards
(33 cards)
Intuition meaning
- An intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of the proposition directly and non-inferentially.
- Descartes claims that ‘I exist’, a priori and concept of God is knowledge gained through intuition
Deduction meaning
- The drawing of conclusions that necessarily follow from the premises, it’s deductively valid arguments (arguments where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true).
EG P1: men are mortal
P2: Descartes is a man
C: Descartes is mortal
How does Descartes use intuition and deduction?
= He aims to demonstrate that a priori knowledge can be gained by starting with truths grasped through intuition and then using them in deductive arguments to produce guaranteed premises.
-> a priori
-> intuition
-> deductive
What does Descartes mean by ‘clear ideas’
= Ideas that are vivid and immediately accessible to the mind, the truth of it cannot be doubted, it is known in certainty.
EG pain (it cannot be doubted or ignored)
What does Descartes mean by saying an idea is ‘distinct’
= An idea that can be distinguished from other ideas, it cannot be confused with others.
Pain is clear but not always distinct as we may not be able to easily identify the source of pain or type of pain.
Examples of clear and distinct ideas
-Mathematical truths (1+1=2)
- A Priori knowledge (grasped through reason only; as opposed to knowledge from our senses which can be confused about it).
-Descartes example of ‘I exist’
- concept of God
Explain the role of clear and distinct ideas in Descartes’ epistemology
-Descartes wanted to determine which pieces of knowledge could be known for certain.
-He wanted to identify knowledge that could be known clearly and distinctly (ie cannot be doubted).
-He used the process of intuition and deduction to establish such knowledge.
ISSUE: Are ‘clear and distinct’ ideas clear and distinct?
The statement ‘I can only know clear and distinct ideas without certainty’ is not itself obviously true. Descartes does not seem to give a clear and distinct account of clear and distinct ideas comma or an easy way to identify which ideas count as clear and distinct.
How does Descartes intend to use scepticism to help him establish indubitable knowledge?
+ what is this known as if you hold this belief?
= By doubting all his beliefs
He wants to examine all his beliefs and reject any that have room for doubt, he will then only be left with indubitable knowledge. He does not need to go through his beliefs one by one, he just needs to examine foundations of his beliefs (perception, knowledge etc).
- ‘Infallibilist’ is what Descartes is known as because he will only accept beliefs that have no possibility of being doubted as knowledge.
Explain Descartes cogito as an a priori intuition
Cogito: ‘I am, I exist’ comes from “cogito ergo sum”- i think therefore i am
=Descartes says his existence as a thinking thing is clear (cannot be doubted) and distinct (cannot be confused with any other knowledge). He can know he exists with certainty. -> cogito is an example of a clear and distinct idea .
Reached by…
p1: Through the third wave of doubt (evil demon) p2 : He questions the possibility that he has been deceived about all of his knowledge.
p3: But even if this is the case, the Demon cannot deceive him of his own existence.
c1: Therefore, he must exist in order to be deceived (doubt proves existence).
= An a priori intuition
- Descartes can demonstrate his existence purely from reasoning alone (a priori) grasped through an intellectual capacity to grasp the truths of a proposition directly and non inferentially (intuition)
infallibilism
Descartes was an infalibilist = knowledge can only be defined in terms of indubitable beliefs (cannot be doubted)
Can we make synthetic claims an a priori? meaning
Aka can we come to new knowledge about the world just through reason>experience (innatism/ rationalist view)
First wave of doubt
illusion (ie a square tower looking round from a distance)
= Descartes recognises that his senses at times deceive him. He uses the example of someone deceiving you once gets labeled as untrustworthy. Therefore, our senses are an untrustworthy source of knowledge and can doubt information from there.
How does the first wave of doubt not give us enough evidence to doubt the existence of this external world?
Sensory information is only unreliable in particular instances (small things or far away)
. He is not saying that all sensory information is wrong, just that no one piece of information gained via sensors is guaranteed to be true.
This also gives him no reason to doubt a priori knowledge.
(counterfit coins example: In the same way that one counterfeit coin cannot call into question the reliability of all money, one or more illusions can’t call all sensory information into question.
Why is it not possible to doubt all our sensory information?
= Because the only reason he knowswe can doubt our senses is by comparing illusions to veridical perception.
In the same way that one counterfeit coin cannot call into question the reliability of all money, one or more illusions can’t call all sensory information into question.
Second wave of doubt + counterpoint
Dreaming as a reality. As he has had realistic dreams in the past, that at the time he didn’t know weren’t real, he questions whether all experience could really be a dream.
counterpoint = reality is much more coherent and clear than dreams. We can usually tell the difference between being awake and having a dream.
Descartes notion against his claim that all of reality is a dream
In the same way that paintings are based on reality, so are dreams. The only reason it is possible to dream is if there is a reality to dream about. He cannot therefore claim to be dreaming all the time, but could be dreaming now. Also, truths like 2 + 2 = 4 are still true in dreams, so he cannot doubt all knowledge.
- also not enough to doubt a priori knowledge as you cannot imagine a four sided triangle.
Third wave of doubt
Evil demon
= Whom deceives us of all our knowledge (inc a priori)
Therefore, anything he believes to be knowledge which he has experienced through both sense experience and logic/reasoning could be a deception.
An empiricists argument of cogito not as an a priori knowledge
(aka how does Hume question the existence of the self)
-Hume is an empiricist ->only derive knowledge from experience.
-Alll ideas are copies of impressions
-We never have an impression of ‘ourselves’ isolated from experience.
- To derive the cogito (self) it would have to be a constant and invariable experience. (causation as a cc)
- We never experience any such thing within our own mind (eg introspection only allows for experience of particular mental states; emotions and sensations)
- He says all we are is a changing ‘bundle of different perceptions’ and we cannot detect the existence of a self.
- THEREFORE, there is no persistent substance over time that could constitute an enduring personal identity (cogito fails)
R -> the self has to exist in order to perceive
define ‘begging the question’
Assuming the conclusion in a premise of an argument
Issue: how does the cogito beg the question
P1: “I think”
(hidden P2: “Thinking things must exist”)
C1: “I exist”
= It seems to assume the existence of himself ‘I’ at the beginning of the first premise. You need to already assume it is the ‘I’ doing the thinking before concluding ‘I exist’.
If Hume is right and we don’t have evidence for the self, then this argument doesn’t bring any new reason to conclude it exists.
Descartes response to cogito begging the question
‘I exist’ doesn’t require an argument, it is just self-evidently true as an a priori intuition. He clearly and distinctly perceives that he exists as a thinking thing. Therefore begging the question cannot work.
Explain how Descartes argues that the existence of God can be known a priori
(Descartes trademark argument)
P1: I have a clear and distinct idea of an infinite/ perfect God
P2: All ideas have a cause
P3: The effect cannot be greater/ more perfect than the cause (causal adequacy principle)
C1: I cannot be the cause of my idea of god as I am finite/imperfect
C2: The idea of God must come from a perfect/ infinite being
P4: Only God is perfect/infinite
C3: Only God can cause the idea of God
C4: God must exist
Causal adequacy principle
an effect cannot be greater than its cause
