(four good attempts)
‘Tabula rasa’ meaning blank slate, is the thought that the human mind has no innate knowledge...
It is an empirical epistemological view
Tabula rasa shows that memories and truths are established ‘a posteriori’, or through experience.
The physical world writes upon the blank slate of the mind, establishing faint memories of the ‘bright and vivid’ real thing.
This view was first put forward by Locke in his book ‘An Essay Concerning The Human Mind’
Another concept of this thought is that imaginary images are established through comparing things already written upon your mind . Hume used the example of a golden mountain. Although no-one has ever seen a golden mountain, most people have seen mountains and gold. Therefore, these images are combined to create the image of a golden mountain.
This implies that you cannot imagine what you cannot create from your own memories, reinforcing the ‘Tabula rasa’ view, as you can only create through experience .
___________________________________________________________
The view that the mind is born a tabula rasa is the idea that it is born a blank slate with no knowledge at all. This view dates back as far as Aristotle who described the mind as an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. A more recent philosopher, Locke, also believed in this theory. He believed that our experiences of the physical world write upon the blank slate and this is how we obtain knowledge. ’A posteriori’ is a truth gained through experience and the idea of empiricism suggests that these experiences are through our senses.
However, it was suggested that knowledge cannot only be obtained through our sensory experiences as we have knowledge of things that we can’t possibly have experienced. A philosopher who responded to this was Hume . He believed that our experiences of the physical world were ‘vivid and forceful’ and our ideas of that world are ‘faint and obscure’ He suggested that our knowledge is made up of our ideas of the physical world which we have through experience, OR our mind combines two of our ideas which makes an idea of something we haven’t necessarily experienced.
Hume used the idea of a ‘golden mountain’. It is clear that none of us have physically experienced a Golden Mountain , yet we can imagine it. This is because we have experienced gold and a mountain separately and our mind is simply merging them together.
All these theories are examples of empiricism, which is the suggestion that knowledge is gained through experiences of the physical world. (I wish this sentence specifically linked back to the ‘tabula rasa’ issue raised in the question )
______________________________________________________
The view that the mind was a tabula rasa was first mentioned by Aristotle over 2 thousand years ago when he described the new born mind as a blank slate. This view was later adopted by the two british empiricists Locke and Hume. Locke wrote a book on the subject and Hume followed by saying that ideas in the mind are formed by impressions of the real world or by the combination of impressions eg gold and mountain – gold mountain.
The main argument about tabula rasa is that your behaviour and knowledge is not formed by nature (you are not born with it) but that it is instead nurtured and learned )(how you are brought up) . The main theory is that when you are born you know nothing.’ Tabula rasa’ is part of an empirical approach to epistemology where ideas are viewed as ‘a posteriori’.
Tabula Rasa is a completely contradictory idea to the rationalist movement, who believe that we are given certain, basic knowledge when we are born.
___________________________________________________________
Tabula rasa or blank slate is how empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, describe the human mind from birth. The world then writes itself upon this slate. Empiricists reject the view that we have innate ideas. The epistemological approach is empiricism and it says all of our knowledge is gained through our experiences and physical sensations of the world, in other words ‘a posteriori’ knowledge.
Aristotle was the first to compare the mind to an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. Hume came up with the ‘golden mountain ‘ analogy. He said that we have sensed gold and a mountain, so they are in our knowledge. We can then cross-reference these two ideas to imagine what a golden mountain would be like, by reflecting upon previous experience.
Another such experiment would be that of a feral child such as in the book by Ibn Tufail, and whether this child had ideas of things like God without being exposed to or experiencing them. The tabula rasa approach is similar to that of the nurture argument – that our morals come from experience rather than instincts or nature.
Showing posts with label Reason and Experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reason and Experience. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Monday, 10 May 2010
Two problems with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
A problem with the idea of categories is that they may vary from person to person. Whorf says that categories are determined by culture rather than Kant’s idea that they can’t be changed since they are so integral to our experience. An example of Wharf’s argument is language, the Eskimo’s have twenty different words for snow. Another problem that fits in with this argument is that put forward by Quine. He says that if categories are culturally determined then some must be better than others. Categories can be interpreted differently if they do vary between people, this undermines the way we use them to understand the world.
Another problem with categories is their origin. There is quite a lot of disagreement over where they do actually originate. Whorf thinks that categories origin varies according to culture. He used the Hopi Indians as an example. He said that they think about the world in a different way because they talk in a different way. This contrasts with the Orwellian idea that if a police state can control language they can control and restrict thought. This would mean they could also control categories. This means that Categories can be created and would therefore not be universal, which is Kant’s theory. The origin of categories is not certain so how can we be certain that they control how we view the world.
or
The first problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that just because we understand our perception of the world using categories, this does not mean that by using categories, we will know the truth about the external world. Kant himself said that we can only know about the phenomenal and not the noumenal and so it is meaningless to talk about the world in relation to categories, because we might not be talking about the real world at all. This is the problem of solipsism and is a problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
The second problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that categories vary from culture to culture. An example of this is the Hopi Indians. These people come from a culture where they do not have ways of saying ‘past, present and future’ and so they must have a different understanding of time. It is fair to say then that these categories are not universal and only apply to some cultures. This is a weakness of the idea that we understand the world using categories because we cannot be certain that it applies to everyone in the world.
or
One implication of this notion is the lack of consistency in answering the question; where do these categories come from? Kant believed that categories are predicates of experience meaning they are consequently built into the act of having experience. Therefore the categories are a priori knowledge; innate ideas. On the other hand Whorf argued that categories are things we learn, resulting in them differing from culture to culture. Thirdly the novelist George Orwell initiated the idea that categories are structured by language and introduced that if you can’t say it, you can’t think it. This idea was illustrated in his novel ‘1984’ about the totalitarian regime of a Party called Big Brother which decreases the dictionary resulting in a decrease of what you can think.
Another implication is if we do have pre-determined conceptual schemes do they vary from person to person across different cultures or are they universal. Kant believed that categories are universal. He argued that categories are fundamental to all experiences; they have to be in place for an experience to occur. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you don’t know anything about an experience; you will still know it has a temporal and spatial aspect as they are predicates of experience, thus they are not somehow peculiar to human psychology. Whorf argued that our conceptual schemes vary from culture to culture. He believed that if we have different ways of thinking and talking about the world we have fundamentally different experiences of the world.
Another problem with categories is their origin. There is quite a lot of disagreement over where they do actually originate. Whorf thinks that categories origin varies according to culture. He used the Hopi Indians as an example. He said that they think about the world in a different way because they talk in a different way. This contrasts with the Orwellian idea that if a police state can control language they can control and restrict thought. This would mean they could also control categories. This means that Categories can be created and would therefore not be universal, which is Kant’s theory. The origin of categories is not certain so how can we be certain that they control how we view the world.
or
The first problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that just because we understand our perception of the world using categories, this does not mean that by using categories, we will know the truth about the external world. Kant himself said that we can only know about the phenomenal and not the noumenal and so it is meaningless to talk about the world in relation to categories, because we might not be talking about the real world at all. This is the problem of solipsism and is a problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
The second problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that categories vary from culture to culture. An example of this is the Hopi Indians. These people come from a culture where they do not have ways of saying ‘past, present and future’ and so they must have a different understanding of time. It is fair to say then that these categories are not universal and only apply to some cultures. This is a weakness of the idea that we understand the world using categories because we cannot be certain that it applies to everyone in the world.
or
One implication of this notion is the lack of consistency in answering the question; where do these categories come from? Kant believed that categories are predicates of experience meaning they are consequently built into the act of having experience. Therefore the categories are a priori knowledge; innate ideas. On the other hand Whorf argued that categories are things we learn, resulting in them differing from culture to culture. Thirdly the novelist George Orwell initiated the idea that categories are structured by language and introduced that if you can’t say it, you can’t think it. This idea was illustrated in his novel ‘1984’ about the totalitarian regime of a Party called Big Brother which decreases the dictionary resulting in a decrease of what you can think.
Another implication is if we do have pre-determined conceptual schemes do they vary from person to person across different cultures or are they universal. Kant believed that categories are universal. He argued that categories are fundamental to all experiences; they have to be in place for an experience to occur. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you don’t know anything about an experience; you will still know it has a temporal and spatial aspect as they are predicates of experience, thus they are not somehow peculiar to human psychology. Whorf argued that our conceptual schemes vary from culture to culture. He believed that if we have different ways of thinking and talking about the world we have fundamentally different experiences of the world.
strengths of the idea that knowledge is innate.
Intro: a belief that, as Leibniz said, there are ‘veins in the marble.’
We are born with some knowledge of some things, Plato argued maths, ethics and The Good. Descartes believed we have innate knowledge of God.
Strength : certainty
Descartes believed that we should not trust out sense experiences as they could be being placed in our minds by a demonic imp. With this theory, we don’t have to. We don’t have to doubt what we think. Eg according to him, we can be sure of God. We have an innate notion of God as a ‘supremely perfect being.’
or
Rationalists believe in innate knowledge which is knowledge we learn prior to experience, a priori. When we are born we have been ‘pre-packaged with software’. This software could be about the knowledge of Maths, Ethics, The Good, God and causality. Plato illustrated how human beings must have innate knowledge of maths through the illustration of Aristotle asking a slave with no education about geometry. The slave knew how to do the geometry therefore Plato argued that we must have innate knowledge of Maths. This reiterates the idea that as human beings we must have an awareness of Maths as well as other things before we are born, which is innate knowledge.
The first strength is the amount of certainty that is reached through innate knowledge regarding the way the world is. We can only be certain of the evidence in our own mental states and not that of experience, as we can be certain about our ideas but uncertain about the physical world. In Kantian terms; we can only know the phenomenal (our own minds) and not the noumental (external world). . One thought experiment that makes us sceptical of the physical world is Descartes hypothetical Demonic Imp, this explains that the physical world could be ‘merely delusions of dreams’ and there could be a meddling Cartesian demonic imp ‘to ensnare our judgement’. Our idea of the physical world is very clouded and uses only our judgement.
Another example is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Those trapped in the cave believe that projections and shadows on the cave wall to be the physical world, as this is what they have experienced. However, our certainty of the physical world lies in our innate ideas of ethics, reason and memory.
Another strength is through us living in a post-Freudian age, we as a society have become more comfortable with ‘hidden’ or ‘unconscious’ knowledge than Locke was. Although we don’t understand why we do all the things we do, we have learnt to recognise that something’s are motivated by things we don’t understand or know. Therefore we may have innate knowledge of the world and just not know until we have discovered it through reason.
or
A strength of the innate idea is the argument is the example of maths. Plato explains the story of Socrates and the slave, in which the slave had no prior education but still managed to understand basic shapes. This follows on from the idea that we all have a basic understanding of shape and geometry from birth. This is related to the theory that maths exists even if nothing else does and it is the one constant in the universe. This idea of maths adds strength to the argument of innate knowledge since it is very difficult to argue that it was 'taught' to the slave - therefore this knowledge was innate?
We are born with some knowledge of some things, Plato argued maths, ethics and The Good. Descartes believed we have innate knowledge of God.
Strength : certainty
Descartes believed that we should not trust out sense experiences as they could be being placed in our minds by a demonic imp. With this theory, we don’t have to. We don’t have to doubt what we think. Eg according to him, we can be sure of God. We have an innate notion of God as a ‘supremely perfect being.’
or
Rationalists believe in innate knowledge which is knowledge we learn prior to experience, a priori. When we are born we have been ‘pre-packaged with software’. This software could be about the knowledge of Maths, Ethics, The Good, God and causality. Plato illustrated how human beings must have innate knowledge of maths through the illustration of Aristotle asking a slave with no education about geometry. The slave knew how to do the geometry therefore Plato argued that we must have innate knowledge of Maths. This reiterates the idea that as human beings we must have an awareness of Maths as well as other things before we are born, which is innate knowledge.
The first strength is the amount of certainty that is reached through innate knowledge regarding the way the world is. We can only be certain of the evidence in our own mental states and not that of experience, as we can be certain about our ideas but uncertain about the physical world. In Kantian terms; we can only know the phenomenal (our own minds) and not the noumental (external world). . One thought experiment that makes us sceptical of the physical world is Descartes hypothetical Demonic Imp, this explains that the physical world could be ‘merely delusions of dreams’ and there could be a meddling Cartesian demonic imp ‘to ensnare our judgement’. Our idea of the physical world is very clouded and uses only our judgement.
Another example is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Those trapped in the cave believe that projections and shadows on the cave wall to be the physical world, as this is what they have experienced. However, our certainty of the physical world lies in our innate ideas of ethics, reason and memory.
Another strength is through us living in a post-Freudian age, we as a society have become more comfortable with ‘hidden’ or ‘unconscious’ knowledge than Locke was. Although we don’t understand why we do all the things we do, we have learnt to recognise that something’s are motivated by things we don’t understand or know. Therefore we may have innate knowledge of the world and just not know until we have discovered it through reason.
or
A strength of the innate idea is the argument is the example of maths. Plato explains the story of Socrates and the slave, in which the slave had no prior education but still managed to understand basic shapes. This follows on from the idea that we all have a basic understanding of shape and geometry from birth. This is related to the theory that maths exists even if nothing else does and it is the one constant in the universe. This idea of maths adds strength to the argument of innate knowledge since it is very difficult to argue that it was 'taught' to the slave - therefore this knowledge was innate?
Strengths of the 'Tabula Rasa' Approach
Name: Credible-believable
Explain: Strong intuitive appeal, because it seems right that we are born without any knowledge and that we can gain it through our experience of the world. It also has strong intuitive appeal because it is hard to believe that we are born with knowledge and that we do not gain it through experience making the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with how we learn. Naive realism- sensations match reality, this makes the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with the world, it also makes it credible because it is hard to believe that our experiences do not match up with the 'real' world.
Name: Consistenct-coherent
Explain: The Tabula Rasa approach seems to be consistent with our experience of the world as we learn about things after we experience them, this is supported by hume as he said ideas must be tested or checked against experience and that if they correspond they are valid. He said ideas were faint and obscure and that sensory experiences are forceful and vivid this is also consistent as we cannot experience god so we have faint ideas about him, however we can experience cheese so have good knowledge about it.
or:
Intro: empiricist view- an epistemological stance in which knowledge is viewed as being derived ultimately from experience.
Eg. Locke and Hume
Tabula rasa is a blank slate. Our sense experience writes upon this slate.
Strength 1: credible or believable
People will accept it. They find it easy to understand and it has intuitive appeal.
People are comfortable with relying on their senses for information and they are confident that their senses are correct.
Strength 2: consistency, we can check the validity of these ideas.
Hume said that our ideas must be tested against our experiences, if they correspond, they are valid., ideas are only ‘faint and obscure’ whereas sense experiences are ‘vivid and forceful.’
This theory corresponds with our experiences, so it is credible.
or:
1) One of the Tabula Rasa strengths lie with the idea that it is more intuitive than rationalist approaches. Empiricist philosophers such as Locke argue that the approach is more readily acceptable since our sensations must match reality and it is more difficult for us to accept we have knowledge of something before we experience it, which is the basis for the rationalist idea of a priori knowledge. For example if we experience something it must exist because we experienced it. We can’t have had knowledge of it beforehand.
2) Another strength of the Tabula Rasa approach lies with the idea that we are born a blank slate, in Aristotle’s terms. An example of this is feral children. When children who have been abandoned very young and have been care of by animals, they have none of the knowledge that we expect from a child raised in human society. This means that the mind must be a blank slate since it is manipulated by the human’s surroundings.
or:
N – Tabula rasa holds strong intuitive appeal; it feels right to see it as a correct theory
E – Tabula rasa is credible because it’s based on sensations which we all experience. We don’t have to believe anything that we are told by someone else. But with this proposal of our minds being a tabula rasa – a ‘blank slate’ we can see it as credible because we can experience this ourselves.
I – For example we can see an red apple because there is a red apple, therefore we are gaining experience of this red apple and it is our first experience and it is ‘vivid and forceful’.
L – This is a strength of the tabula rasa approach because people are more likely to accept this theory because it feels right and sensations match reality.
Explain: Strong intuitive appeal, because it seems right that we are born without any knowledge and that we can gain it through our experience of the world. It also has strong intuitive appeal because it is hard to believe that we are born with knowledge and that we do not gain it through experience making the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with how we learn. Naive realism- sensations match reality, this makes the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with the world, it also makes it credible because it is hard to believe that our experiences do not match up with the 'real' world.
Name: Consistenct-coherent
Explain: The Tabula Rasa approach seems to be consistent with our experience of the world as we learn about things after we experience them, this is supported by hume as he said ideas must be tested or checked against experience and that if they correspond they are valid. He said ideas were faint and obscure and that sensory experiences are forceful and vivid this is also consistent as we cannot experience god so we have faint ideas about him, however we can experience cheese so have good knowledge about it.
or:
Intro: empiricist view- an epistemological stance in which knowledge is viewed as being derived ultimately from experience.
Eg. Locke and Hume
Tabula rasa is a blank slate. Our sense experience writes upon this slate.
Strength 1: credible or believable
People will accept it. They find it easy to understand and it has intuitive appeal.
People are comfortable with relying on their senses for information and they are confident that their senses are correct.
Strength 2: consistency, we can check the validity of these ideas.
Hume said that our ideas must be tested against our experiences, if they correspond, they are valid., ideas are only ‘faint and obscure’ whereas sense experiences are ‘vivid and forceful.’
This theory corresponds with our experiences, so it is credible.
or:
1) One of the Tabula Rasa strengths lie with the idea that it is more intuitive than rationalist approaches. Empiricist philosophers such as Locke argue that the approach is more readily acceptable since our sensations must match reality and it is more difficult for us to accept we have knowledge of something before we experience it, which is the basis for the rationalist idea of a priori knowledge. For example if we experience something it must exist because we experienced it. We can’t have had knowledge of it beforehand.
2) Another strength of the Tabula Rasa approach lies with the idea that we are born a blank slate, in Aristotle’s terms. An example of this is feral children. When children who have been abandoned very young and have been care of by animals, they have none of the knowledge that we expect from a child raised in human society. This means that the mind must be a blank slate since it is manipulated by the human’s surroundings.
or:
N – Tabula rasa holds strong intuitive appeal; it feels right to see it as a correct theory
E – Tabula rasa is credible because it’s based on sensations which we all experience. We don’t have to believe anything that we are told by someone else. But with this proposal of our minds being a tabula rasa – a ‘blank slate’ we can see it as credible because we can experience this ourselves.
I – For example we can see an red apple because there is a red apple, therefore we are gaining experience of this red apple and it is our first experience and it is ‘vivid and forceful’.
L – This is a strength of the tabula rasa approach because people are more likely to accept this theory because it feels right and sensations match reality.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Key Terms
Deductive reasoning
‘Be careful of that wasp; it might sting’
This is based on the logic that wasps as a whole have stingers; therefore, each individual wasp will have, therefore we do not have to examine each and every wasp to reach a conclusion about what characteristics it may have, as through deductive reasoning we can make an assumption that is efficient.
In short, you argue from the GENERAL (all wasps have stings) to the PARTICULAR (this wasp will have a sting) – make sure your general statement is certain though! – is it here?
A deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow logically.
Illustrate-
1) all men are mortal
2) Soc rates is a man
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
Induction
Applying previous experiences to a general rule.
Observation è Pattern è Hypothesis èRule.
When a group of people bear a similar trait, it would be inductive to suggest that the next person you meet from that group will have that trait.
For example; all swans I have seen are white, therefore the next swan I see will probably be white.
Explain: Starting with a set of premise (eg this crow is black) you form a conclusion (eg all crows are black).
An induction is falsifiable – you can check if it’s right or wrong (eg you can look at different crows to see if they’re all black or not).
Illustration: This bachelor is happy therefore all bachelors are happy
In short you work from the PARTICULAR (this bachelor) to the GENERAL (all bachelors)
Necessary Truth is a truth that HAS to be true. It cannot be false. It is true in itself
Logical and mathematical truths are generally regarded as typical examples of necessary truths. For rationalism, necessary truth is truth of reason and is based on the insight into real connections between facts. For empiricism, knowledge of the world must be based on perception.
In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds. If these are all the worlds that accord with the principles of logic, however different they may be otherwise, then the truth is a logically necessary truth. If they cover all the worlds whose metaphysics is possible, then the proposition is metaphysically necessary.
Example: "Squares have four sides."
Descartes would say that God existing is a necessary truth because of the Ontological Argument - (God is perfect, therefore he must exist because he is perfect and because he is perfect he must exist!!!)
Contingent Truth
EXPLAINATION:
A contingent truth is one that could be true, but it could also be false – it completely depends - however it cannot be both true AND false.
A contingent truth is an idea that suggests that some objects exist and are true but do not always have to be i.e. in a different world a pen could not exist, but in our world it does.
EXAMPLE:
I could exist but only because my parents existed but I do not HAVE to exist, as suggested by necessary truths.
We all enjoy a good contingent truth at times. Basically, to put it simply, it means that it is a statement thatcould have been false even though it happens to be true.
Since that’s a bit crazy, let’s make it simple.
‘Cats have claws.’
Maybe they do – maybe they don’t
It’s all to do with essential and accidental qualities. Being a mammal, for example, is part of a cat’s essence. However, the claws are not necessarily so.
If you’re still confused, then think of it this way; a contingent truth is one that could logically be true or false. For example, Hume treats God as a contingent truth.
‘It is logical to reason that God does exist, but at the same time, it is logical to reason that he doesn’t.’
Maybe he does – maybe he doesn’t – it’d depend upon something – some sort of evidence
A contingent truth is something that could logically be true or false. Contingent truths, otherwise known as falsehoods, happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. For example:
"Squares have four sides." is necessary.
BUT
"Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent.
So, for it to be contingent, it can be true and also happen to be false at the same time. Also, If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in some other worlds, then it is a contingent truth.
A posteriori knowledge
- knowledge that is derived from experience. This knowledge is based on sensations and empirical evidence. For example, ‘it is raining outside’ isa posterior knowledge, because it is based on sensory experiences, and couldn’t be known without first having had this experience. This kind of knowledge is based more on empiricist views, who believe that all knowledge is derived from sensation.
A Priori knowledge
is knowledge before experience. You just know it. Examples are those such as God, Maths and Ethics. Plato claims that we have a priori knowledge of maths, and example to support this is Socrates and the slave in the market place. The slave, who would have had no prior teaching showed an understanding of the shapes. Therefore, it is claimed he must have had a priori knowledge of geometry.
Before and completely independent of experience, rationalist held concept of knowledge, veins in marble, schema for using, and understanding any knowledge found a posterior, through or after experience, are known a priori, before any experience of them, a priori knowledge include:- ratios, ethics, God, and the good, these are concepts, or knowledge, that is known a priori, and before any form of experience.
Also, other types of a priori knowledge are that of
Reason: you work out the answer via general knowledge through maths or scientific concepts, for example the size and constancy of the sun, even though via experience, it appears both small, and to ‘wax and wane’ we know, through reason, that the sun is huge and of a constant size.
Intuition: This is the so called natural feelings, for example, the way something feels, if something is stated, your na5tural feeling about it, whether the statement feels good, or bad, is known as intuition, this again is known before experience, and thus, is a prori.
Innate: knowledge that we are born with, rationalists state that, although they agree we are born a blank slate, we are not born without any forms of understanding knowledge, these, were known as ‘veins in marble’ this was put forward by Leibniz, stating that we are a tabula rasa with underlying veins in that marble.
These concepts aren’t held by empiricists so much, as they believe we have nothing in our head when we are born, and simply soak up the world.
A synthetic proposition
is a proposition that is capable of being true or untrue based on facts about the world - in contrast to an analytic proposition which is true by definition.
For example, "Mary had a little lamb" is a synthetic proposition - since its truth depends on whether or not she in fact had a little lamb.
The truth or falsity of synthetic propositions is possible but not certain - their truth depends on what the universe is like. (Is there a ‘Mary’s Lamb’ in it or not?)
Analytic proposition
Analytic propositions are those which are true simply by virtue of their meaning. They are true by definition, they cannot be falsified, they are undeniably true.
.Examples:
Analytic Proposition: All bachelors are male, all triangles have three sides – examples Kant used.
An Analytic Truth is one which contains its predicate concept in its subject, for example Triangle = 3 sides – no need to state once you know that particular information.
And as such with the other example – The concept bachelor contains the concept “unmarried”; and it is also part of the definition, likewise the same for the triangle.
They are tautologies: a statement which is useless repetition, from which we learn nothing.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Monday, 16 November 2009
Thought it was time we had a closer look at Leibniz and his veins...
Here's some details on his key text "New Essays on Human Understanding"
Nice short discussion of the 'veins' metaphor and innate ideas in general
Clear discussion and evaluation of the Leibniz / Locke debate
STUDENT WORK:
What is that whole 'veins in marble' thing about?
The ‘doctrine of innate ideas’ is an epistemological approach that holds the idea that the mind is born with certain innate ideas.
Gotfried Wilhelm Leibniz (an 18th century rationalist philosopher, a polymath, and mathematician) agreed with this idea, and developed this view by using the analogy of our mind as a block of marble. Leibniz suggested that the naturally occurring veins and fissures contained within this marble are predisposed to a certain shape even before the sculptor has begun chiselling working at it to make a statue. Following this analogy, the sculptor does not create a statue of Hercules, he simply ‘releases it’ from the block.
Leibniz uses this metaphor to illustrate the idea that the mind has predisposed, innate knowledge of the world; and the physical world simply ‘releases’ this knowledge in the same way as the statue is released from the marble.
Leibniz & Locke’s Views on Innate Ideas
Both Leibniz and Locke have very different views on innate ideas. Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz being a German Rationalist philosopher, and John Locke being an English Empiricist philosopher.
In his book 'New Essays on Human Understanding' Leibniz makes an argument for the existence of innate ideas. He does this in the form of a dialogue using two characters Theophilus and Philalethes, the first represents Leibniz, so is a rationalist. The second represents Locke, so is an empiricist.
What kind of things did Leibniz think were innate?
Mathematical truths
Leibniz suggested that we are born with certain innate ideas, the most identifiable of these being mathematical truth. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is evident to us without empirical evidence. Leibniz argues, we require an innate idea, as we are talking about things we have not yet witnessed.Leibniz calls such concepts mathematical or necessary truths.
Necessary Truths
Another example of such may be the phrase, ‘what is, is’ or ‘it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be.’ Leibniz argues that such truths are universally assented to acknowledge by all to be true and, this being the case, it must be due to their status as innate ideas.. Leibniz argues that empirical evidence can serve to bring to the surface certain principles that are already innately embedded in our minds. This is rather like needing to hear only the first few notes in order to recall the rest of the melody.
This is an essay about the comparison of Leibniz and Locke’s approach to innate ideas.
Locke, who is an empiricist philosopher, knows that there is no innate knowledge and that all of our knowledge is gained through sensory experience and we can’t know anything before birth. Locke denies all innate ideas and principles and says you can have no innate knowledge. Leibniz, a rationalist philosopher, disagrees with this and not only does he accept accepts innate ideas e.g. Descartes’ innate knowledge of God, he knows that all thoughts and actions comes from within us so he strongly believes in innate ideas.
Leibniz argues that geometry and arithmetic are innate ideas but it is not the actual knowledge that is innate it is the potential knowledge that is innate. Leibniz uses the idea of veins in marble which basically means there is a statue already in the stone before the sculptor has discovered it.
Locke counter argues innate ideas by saying if we have innate knowledge then why do “children, idiots and savages” have no knowledge of these innate ideas. Leibniz argues that innate principles only appear when you pay attention to them and the reason why people (“children, idiots and savages”) don’t have these innate principles is because they don’t pay attention to them. He goes on to say that innate principles lie within us dormant within us and it is up to us to pay attention to them and to draw them out.
(Big thanks to everyone who contributed!)
Monday, 9 November 2009
Kant reading links
Squashed versions of Critique of Pure & Practical Reason - worth a skim through at least! (Pure reason is the one we're interested in)
A nice little summary of Kant on space and time - worth spending some time on.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Plato's Analogy of The Cave
Various student versions (thanks folks!)
"You may be wondering why exactly, I should need these trendy new shades. It is because, I have experienced ‘The Sun’, with all ‘The Good’ I could possibly desire. I have finally ceased the everyday monotony of trying to make sense of the fickle, vague and shadowed shapes that make up the physical world, and have experienced the sun in all its glory! Peace out".
Plato’s cave
Plato’s cave
His analogy is a metaphor for the way in which he believes we perceive our world. He believes that the world in which we believe to be “true” is merely reflections of the actual world we are yet to experience.
In his analogy, he depicts an image of prisoners chained inside a cave with their heads unable to move left or right, forcing them to look ahead at a wall only. He explains how there is a fire behind the prisoners and in between the fire and the prisoners are men who carry various objects. These objects then cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners and when the men speak, the prisoners believe it is the shadows in which they see on the wall.
Plato’s analogy suggests that the human condition and human life needs to be escaped from. He feels that we are trapped by “reflections” of the ‘real’ world and that we need to break free of this to allow us to see the world as it really is.
In his analogy, he depicts an image of prisoners chained inside a cave with their heads unable to move left or right, forcing them to look ahead at a wall only. He explains how there is a fire behind the prisoners and in between the fire and the prisoners are men who carry various objects. These objects then cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners and when the men speak, the prisoners believe it is the shadows in which they see on the wall.
Plato’s analogy suggests that the human condition and human life needs to be escaped from. He feels that we are trapped by “reflections” of the ‘real’ world and that we need to break free of this to allow us to see the world as it really is.
This is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
In the allegory he says that there are people inside the cave , tied in a way that they can only see the back wall of the cave. Behind them there is a fire with shapes moved across in front of it, thus casting shadows on the wall. The people in the cave however, do not know these things to be shadows, and accept them as the world itself. Someone who could foresee the next shadow would be considered clever in that society.
Now, says Socrates, imagine that one man is freed.
He would turn around, and see the fire and the men casting the shadows but as he has never seen things like this before he would not have a name for them. And if he were to climb all the way out of the cave he would be blinded by the sun. After some time he would become acclimatised and see that this world was the source of all the things that he and his companions had been seeing.
So he returns to the cave, to tell the others of what he has seen, but his eyes are unused to the shadows, and as he cannot foresee the order of shadows, they think his eyes corrupted and it not worth the journey to see then sun.
Socrates says that if the other people in the cave could reach the other man, they would kill him.
In the allegory he says that there are people inside the cave , tied in a way that they can only see the back wall of the cave. Behind them there is a fire with shapes moved across in front of it, thus casting shadows on the wall. The people in the cave however, do not know these things to be shadows, and accept them as the world itself. Someone who could foresee the next shadow would be considered clever in that society.
Now, says Socrates, imagine that one man is freed.
He would turn around, and see the fire and the men casting the shadows but as he has never seen things like this before he would not have a name for them. And if he were to climb all the way out of the cave he would be blinded by the sun. After some time he would become acclimatised and see that this world was the source of all the things that he and his companions had been seeing.
So he returns to the cave, to tell the others of what he has seen, but his eyes are unused to the shadows, and as he cannot foresee the order of shadows, they think his eyes corrupted and it not worth the journey to see then sun.
Socrates says that if the other people in the cave could reach the other man, they would kill him.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
People live in a cave, strapped to benches, watching shadows being cast upon the wall from shapes being held by a fire behind them. This is Plato’s view of how we look at the world. Our views of it are foggy and vague. Our knowledge is based upon the shadows of the good, not the good itself.
Someone could break free from the chains holding them to the benches, and attempt to escape of the cave. Plato’s allegory described this journey as the “ascent of the soul into the intellectual world”. This is a person’s journey through finding knowledge, breaking away from what they know in an attempt to find the good.
If they escape the cave they are greeted with the light and the knowledge “that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision”. They will have come to the revelation that their view of the world had be distorted and that his previous knowledge was false. They will have found the good.
However, if he was to return to the cave, with his new understanding of the good, those who had remained prisoners and never left the cave “would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes”. They would see his new knowledge as folly and remain with the belief that they have the true knowledge of the good. Yet the man who left the cave, and saw the light “would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner”
People live in a cave, strapped to benches, watching shadows being cast upon the wall from shapes being held by a fire behind them. This is Plato’s view of how we look at the world. Our views of it are foggy and vague. Our knowledge is based upon the shadows of the good, not the good itself.
Someone could break free from the chains holding them to the benches, and attempt to escape of the cave. Plato’s allegory described this journey as the “ascent of the soul into the intellectual world”. This is a person’s journey through finding knowledge, breaking away from what they know in an attempt to find the good.
If they escape the cave they are greeted with the light and the knowledge “that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision”. They will have come to the revelation that their view of the world had be distorted and that his previous knowledge was false. They will have found the good.
However, if he was to return to the cave, with his new understanding of the good, those who had remained prisoners and never left the cave “would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes”. They would see his new knowledge as folly and remain with the belief that they have the true knowledge of the good. Yet the man who left the cave, and saw the light “would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
