Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6.pptx

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.


READING CRITICALLY: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS “REAL”?

After reading the Russell essay, look closely at a piece of furniture that is within your field of vision: Is the piece of furniture real? How do you know if it’s real or not? Explain your reasoning for both responses.

Russell analyzes the table near him in terms of its color, texture, and shape, and concludes:Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we

immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not

immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known.

Do you agree with Russell’s conclusion? Why or why not?

Russell goes on to observe: “Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?” Explain how you would respond to these two questions, and explain the reasoning behind your conclusions.

Russell’s essay emphasizes the significance of the philosophical distinction between appearances (what things seem to be) and reality (what they are). After “thinking philosophically” about these issues, do you see the world around you in a new light? Explain your response and your reasons for it.


LOCKE VS. LEIBNIZ ON INNATE IDEAS

LOCKE: AGAINST INNATE IDEAS The argument from universal consent for

innate ideas is inconclusive Children and “idiots” do not have innate

ideas It is impossible to have ideas of which we

are not conscious

LEIBNIZ’S REPLY TO LOCKE Sense experience alone cannot

validate general principles or laws We do know things that are not

immediately before our perception There is extensive evidence that we

have innate cognitive structures


LOCKE’S CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION: ELEMENTS OF THE KNOWING PROCESS

The entity or object in the world

Sensations (sense data, images, sensory impressions) emitted by the objects via “impulses” and transmitted to our five senses

Ideas, which Locke characterizes as “the immediate objects of perception, thought, or understanding”—in other words, the images or impressions produced in our minds by the impulses emitted by the objects

The human subject, knower, or conscious mind who is able to perceive the ideas in his or her mind and “reflect” on them, thus constructing knowledge


PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

Primary qualities “resemble” (or “reside in”) an object even when we are not perceiving the object Solidity Extension Figure (shape) Motion or rest Number

Secondary qualities do not “resemble” (or “reside in”) an object, but are “powers” of objects to produce sensations in our minds Colors Sounds Tastes Odors


GEORGE BERKELEY: “TO BE IS TO BE PERCEIVED”

There is no such thing as material substance; all that exist are “minds” and “ideas”

There is no distinction between “primary” and “secondary” qualities

What we mistakenly believe to be “material objects” are really collections of ideas in the mind of God


The Fate of Empiricism

With the success of Newtonian physics and Locke’s account of an empiricist metaphysics and epistemology Empiricism seemed to clearly have the upper

hand against rationalism Hume comes along and shows that there is

something deeply troubling about empiricism It leads to a radical kind of skepticism


Hume’s Version of Empiricism

Contents of the mind can be divided into two categories Impressions-- the actual experiences that we

have Tasting an apple, seeing a sunset, feeling pain,

or angry or jealous, hungry or sad, etc Ideas– Copies of impressions My memory of the taste of the apple, my idea of

anger, jealousy, hunger, red


Perception

Impressions and ideas are each a kind of perception for Hume they are distinguished by their ‘force and

vivacity’ Impressions are ‘our more lively perceptions’ Ideas (or thoughts) are dull and lifeless copies of

the original impression This means that both are merely mental

phenomena


The Empiricist Theory of Meaning

Words in language stand for ideas Hume endorses Locke’s distinction between

simple and complex ideas Complex ideas are composed of simple ones

Simples ones either can be traced back to an impression from which they were copied

Or else they are meaningless nonsense If an idea cannot be traced back to an

impression it is meaningless and should not be used


Empiricist Epistemology

Human knowledge falls into two kinds for Hume Relations of Ideas– all a priori knowledge Matters of Fact– all empirical knowledge

To decide which is which you apply the following rule If the negation of the proposition in question is a

contradiction then it is a Relation of Ideas If not, a Matter of Fact


RoI & MoF Relations of Ideas Matters of Fact

All bachelors are unmarriedAll bachelors are messy

All triangles have three sides

All dogs have four legs

The sun will rise tomorrow


RoI & MoF

Relations of Ideas All bachelors are

unmarried All triangles have three

sides A2+B2=C2 (3 x 5)=(1/2 x 30) For any sentence S,

either S is true or S is false

S can’t be true and also not true at the same time

Matters of Fact All bachelors are

messy All dogs have four legs Apples are red Rent in NYC is

expensive Subway fare is $2.00 Fire causes pain Objects when dropped

will fall The future will

resemble the past


RoI

Relations of ideas consists of two parts Ideas And the relations between them E.g. my ideas BACHELOR and UNMARRIED MALE

are related in such a way as to make it impossible for there to be a married bachelor

This is true for all relations of ideas Their truth is independent of experience in the

sense that one does not need to go and check to see if they are true

Mathematics and logic are purely formal systems of inter-related definitions

Numbers do not need to exist to make it true that 2+2-4


MoF

Matters of Fact on the other hand have their truth determined by the way that the world happens to be

Hume argues that the idea of cause and effect is a MoF because it fails to meet the two criteria of something that is a priori To deny it is not a contradiction We cannot, without experience, predict what the

effect of any given cause will be


Cause and Effect

If c&e is a MoF then what impression does it derive from?


C & E II

The idea of causation is the idea of a necessary connection between events To say that the connection is necessary is to say

that the same effect will always follow from the same cause

We do not get the idea of necessary connection from reason

And we do not get it from experience We never see the necessary connection


Meaningless

Since this idea cannot be traced back to an impression it is meaningless

We have no rational reason to expect any given cause and effect relation to hold in the future

All of our inductive knowledge is founded on our belief that the future will resemble the past

But this belief is completely irrational Meaning we have no rational basis to believe it


Summary of the Argument so Far

All human knowledge is either learned from experience (matters of fact) or from reason (relation of ideas)

MoF are composed of ideas copied from impressions and are true or false depending on the kind of experience we have ‘dogs can fly’ vs. ‘dogs don’t like cats’


The Argument II

RoI are true or false depending on the relations that hold between the ideas ‘triangles are four-sided objects’ vs. ‘triangles

have three sides’ We can tell the difference between these by

seeing what happens when we negate the sentence in question If it is a contradiction it is a RoI, if not a MoF


“HUME’S FORK”: RELATIONS OF IDEAS AND MATTERS OF FACT

Relations of Ideas Mathematical statements, such as those

found in geometry, algebra, and arithmetic

Tautologies, or logical truths, such as “A dog is a dog”

Known by reason To deny them is to contradict oneself;

therefore, they give us absolute certainty But they have no empirical content

Matters of Fact Involve sense experience It is possible to logically contradict a

matter of fact Hume believes that if a claim of

empirical knowledge cannot be reduced to a relation of ideas or a matter of fact, it should be discarded as knowledge. He challenges: Any necessary connection between cause

and effect

The notion of material substance

The notion of mental substance (“soul”)

Inductive reasoning


The Argument III

All of our ideas must come from one of these two sources

One of the most important ideas we have is the idea of causation The idea of a necessary connection between

events Same cause=same effect EVERY TIME

All of science is based on this idea All of our common sense knowledge about the

world based on this idea


The Argument IV

So, where does it come from? Not RoI To deny any causal relation is not a

contradiction It is always possible to imagine something else

happening But we can’t imagine a square circle

We have to go and check We can’t tell what causes what without

experience


The Argument V

So, it must be a MoF That means that the idea of necessary

connection must be traceable back to an impression

Otherwise it is a meaningless idea But when we look at any example of A causing

B all we see are separate events We see A happen (the pool stick hits the ball) Then we see B happen (the second ball moves)


The Argument VI

We do not see anything that connects the two events There is nothing that we can point to and say

that it is the thing that makes the second event the necessary consequence of the first event

So, Hume concludes, we have no rational reason (i.e. based on our experience or reason) to believe that the laws of physics are necessary and universal


The Argument VII

All inductive knowledge is based on the fallacy of assuming that the future will resemble the past But just because something has happened for a

long time is no guarantee that it will always happen

So, the sun may have risen everyday so far, but who can say with certainty that it will rise tomorrow?

Just like problem of black swans


Habit

So where does the idea come from? It comes from ‘a habit of expectation’

We see A happen We see B happen right after We see A happen We see B happen right after This is repeated Soon when we see A happen we come to expect

that B will happen right after


Spreading the Mind

It is the subjective feeling of expectation that we mistakenly ‘project’ out onto the events that we observe

We cannot know if there is anything more to the word than this This is an epistemological claim: we can’t know if

there is a necessary connection between events NOT a metaphysical claim: There is no necessary

connection between events


Pavlov & Classical Conditioning

We have been trained by nature to expect certain events upon seeing certain other events Just like Pavlov’s dog

You ring the bell and bring some food The dog salivates Repeat Soon the dog salivates when hearing the bell

whether or not food comes The dog has come to expect ‘bell then food’


Classical Conditioning II

Now if the dog were to reason to itself as follows, Every time the bell has rang food has appeared This has happened everyday of my existence,

every since I was a puppy I can infer from this that the next time the bell

rings, food will appear We could easily see that the dog has made a

mistake


Classical Conditioning III

There is no necessary connection between bell ringing and food appearing in nature How can we tell that this is not the way nature is

in reality? Nature is regular (so was the bell ringing/food

bringing relationship) Things so far have happened regularly and

predictably But we have no reason to believe that it must

continue


READING CRITICALLY: ANALYZING HUME’S CASE FOR SKEPTICISM

Is Hume correct to call the appeal to God’s existence to support the existence of an external world “philosophical hypocrisy”? Why or why not?

Summarize Hume’s arguments against certain knowledge of the principle of cause and effect. Do you agree with his reasoning? Why or why not? Construct an alternative argument to convince Hume that the principle of cause and effect is valid and give examples.

Would your agreeing with Hume’s critique of knowledge claims about cause and effect and induction change the way you live your life? Why or why not?

Hume splits his practical life from his theoretical philosophical commitments. Do you agree that such a split is possible? Should our choices in life reflect our epistemological convictions? Describe an example to support your point of view.

Hume believes that all metaphysical beliefs (that is, any belief not based on direct sense experience) should be “committed to the flames” because they cannot be empirically justified. This would include all beliefs regarding God, human freedom, universal moral laws, and so on. Do you agree with Hume? If not, how would you rebut his arguments?


KANT’S “COPERNICAN REVOLUTION”

“Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them by means of concepts have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must, therefore, make trial whether we may have more success if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.” –Critique of Pure Reason


Kant’s Dogmatic Slumber

Kant is disturbed from thinking that everything in science is fine by Hume’s argument Empiricism cannot deliver necessary truths ‘experience can teach us that something is the

case but it cannot teach us that it must be the case’

Yet science claims to discover necessary truths about nature Even worse, Hume claimed to have shown that

Human Beings are essentially irrational


Transcendental Idealism

Kant agrees with Hume that we cannot learn that the causal relation is necessary and universal from experience But Hume has not shown that we can’t have a

priori knowledge For Hume something was a priori if we could

not deny it without contradiction For Kant something is a priori if is knowable

completely independently of experience


An Analogy

Suppose that I told you that there were 25 people in a room on the second floor of some building What could you know about that room? Quite a bit actually Its size, what it was made out of, etc.

Kant’s strategy is similar He wants to know what we can know given that

our experience is the way that it is


The Structure of Experience

How could our experience be the way that it is?

How is it? Objects are located in space and time Can you imagine an object which was not at any

place? No

This is something that we can know a priori It is not dependent on experience


Conditions of all Possible Experience

It is the pre-condition for any experience at all Just like space in the room is a precondition of

having objects in the room So too space is a necessary condition of any

possible experience Thus we can know with absolute certainty that

whatever experiences we do have They will all take place at some time and at

some particular place


The A Priori

So Kant concludes that there is pure A priori knowledge ‘pure’ because it does not depend on experience But is rather the pre-conditions for any possible

experience It is necessary

It is not possible to have experience without space

And universal All experiences will be in space


Analytic vs. Synthetic

An analytic truth is one that is true by virtue of the meaning of the words themselves All bachelors are unmarried males They do not add to our knowledge

Synthetic truths are true in virtue of the kind of experience we have All bachelors are messy They do add to our knowledge


Hume’s Mistake

Hume’s criterion for being a priori P is a priori if the denial of p is a contradiction

Let him divide all of our knowledge into that which was necessary (RoI) and that which was contingent (MoF)

Kant argues that we really have four categories

Analytic & A priori– truths which are true by definition and also necessary and universal All analytic truths are a priori


Hume’s Mistake II

Analytic & A posteriori– truths which are true by definition but also discovered by experience Kant denied that there were any such truths

Synthetic A posteriori– Adds to our knowledge and learned from experience

Synthetic A priori– Adds to our knowledge and also necessary and universal Hume denied that there were any such truths That was his mistake


Kant’s 4 Distinctions

A Priori A Posteriori

Analytic

Synthetic

All Bachelors are unmarried

malesAll triangles have three

sidesDogs bark

Apples taste good

7+5=12

???????

Cause & effect

!!!!!!


Synthetic A Priori Knowledge

So Kant’s answer to Hume is his theory of synthetic a priori knowledge Take ‘fire causes pain’ It is synthetic, it adds to our experience But it is also a priori, that is, necessary and

universal It is a priori in the sense that we can tell by

looking at the structure of our experience that it must be a certain way This Kant calls phenomena


Phenomena vs. Noumena

The phenomenal world is the world as it appears to us. It is the world that we see touch taste etc.

The noumenal world is the way that the world is in-itself The world as it is when no one is looking at it

All we can know is the way our experience of the world will be We can’t know the noumenal world


Phenomena v. Noumena II

NoumenaUnderstanding

Sensibility

HiWasup?


Kant’s Philosophy of Mind

The mind has two components Sensibility Understanding

Sensibility takes in ‘raw’ unorganized noumena and organizes it into phenomena (our experience) Each has their categories that they use in order

to construct our experience The sensibility has Space and Time


Kant’s Philosophy of Mind II

The understanding has 12 categories Unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation,

limitation, substance/property, cause & effect, community, possibility/impossibility, existence/non-existence, and necessary/contingent

With these categories, and the two from the sensibility, our mind constructs our experience We can know with absolute certainty that our

experience will conform to the categories


Kant’s Philosophy of Mind IV

That is the only way that experience like ours is possible The same cause must bring about the same

effect or else our experience would be like a dream

Now here, now there… Yet this comes at a heavy cost

Science studies our experience of the world It does not, cannot, study the noumenal world How can I every talk to you?


Phenomena v. Noumena III

HiWasup

?

HiWasup

?

MeYou


Kant’s Philosophy of Mind V

Kant called this a Copernican Revolution in philosophy Instead of the mind passively acting like a

recorder of an outside reality Kant sees the human mind as actively

constructing reality This is his mix of Rationalism and Empiricism

Empiricism– science is synthetic knowledge Rationalism– but based on a priori categories


KANT ON THE SYNTETIC A PRIORI AND THE PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL WORLDS

THE SYNTHETIC A PRIORI Necessary and universally true

a priori—can be discovered independently of experience

Synthetic in the sense that it provides us with genuine information regarding our experience in the world

THE PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL WORLDS

phenomenal reality is the world as we constitute it and experience it

noumenal reality is the world beyond our perceptions, reality “in-itself”


APPLYING KANT’S THEORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF MALCOLM X


ALLISON JAGGAR: EMOTIONS SHAPE OUR UNDERSTANDING

Jaggar believes that the “new science” of Newton and Galileo spawned a wide split between reason and emotion, so that “dispassionate” reason was considered the only source of knowledge

She argues that “dispassionate investigation” is a myth, and that emotions should be incorporated into our epistemological framework, including the framework of scientific knowledge

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6.pptx

Documents

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6.pptx