Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6

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 its 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 Russells 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.
Russells 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 LEIBNIZS 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
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
LOCKES 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 understandingin 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)
Secondary qualities do not
resemble (or reside in) an object, but are powers of objects to produce sensations in our minds
Colors Sounds
Motion or rest
Number
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

primary and secondary qualities material objects are really collections of ideas in the mind of God
There is no distinction between
What we mistakenly believe to be
The Fate of Empiricism

With the success of Newtonian physics and
Lockes 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

It leads to a radical kind of skepticism
something deeply troubling about empiricism
Humes 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 Lockes 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
bachelors are unmarried All bachelors are messy All triangles have three sides All dogs have four legs The sun will rise tomorrow
All
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 cant 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 dont like cats
The Argument II
RoI are true or false depending on the relations
that hold between the ideas

three sides
triangles are four-sided objects vs. triangles have
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
HUMES 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 cant imagine a square circle
We have to go and check We cant 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
But just because something has happened for a
of assuming that the future will resemble the past

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 word than this
We cannot know if there is anything more to the

This is an epistemological claim: we cant 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
Just like Pavlovs dog
certain events upon seeing certain other events
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

reality?
How can we tell that this is not the way nature is in
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 HUMES CASE FOR SKEPTICISM
Is Hume correct to call the appeal to Gods existence to support the existence of an external world philosophical hypocrisy? Why or why not? Summarize Humes 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 Humes 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?
KANTS 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
Kants Dogmatic Slumber

Kant is disturbed from thinking that everything in
science is fine by Humes 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

priori knowledge
But Hume has not shown that we cant have a
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.
Kants 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
Humes Mistake
Humes 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
Humes 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

That was his mistake
Hume denied that there were any such truths
Kants 4 Distinctions
A Priori
All Bachelors are unmarried males All triangles have three 7+5=12 sides
A Posteriori
Analytic
?????? ?
Dogs bark
Cause & effect
Apples taste good
Synthetic
!!!!!!
Synthetic A Priori Knowledge

So Kants 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 cant know the noumenal world
Phenomena v. Noumena II
Wasup?
Hi
Understandin g Sensibility
Noumena
Kants Philosophy of Mind

The mind has two components Sensibility Understanding
Sensibility takes in raw unorganized noumena
and organizes it into phenomena (our experience)

construct our experience The sensibility has Space and Time
Each has their categories that they use in order to
Kants 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

We can know with absolute certainty that our
sensibility, our mind constructs our experience

experience will conform to the categories
Kants 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

Wasup Hi
?
Wasup Hi
?
Me
You
Kants 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 priorican be discovered
THE PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL WORLDS

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

Synthetic in the sense that it provides us
noumenal reality is the world beyond
our perceptions, reality in-itself with genuine information regarding our experience in the world
APPLYING KANTS 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 investigation is a myth, and that emotions should be incorporated into our epistemological framework, including the framework of scientific knowledge
She argues that dispassionate

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

READING CRITICALLY: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS REAL?

Do you agree with Russells conclusion? Why or why not?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

LOCKE VS. LEIBNIZ ON INNATE IDEAS

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

LOCKES CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION: ELEMENTS OF THE KNOWING PROCESS

via impulses and transmitted to our five senses

Ideas, which Locke characterizes as the immediate objects of perception,

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

Primary qualities resemble (or

Secondary qualities do not

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

GEORGE BERKELEY: TO BE IS TO BE PERCEIVED

substance; all that exist are minds and ideas

There is no distinction between

What we mistakenly believe to be

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Fate of Empiricism

Lockes account of an empiricist metaphysics and epistemology

Hume comes along and shows that there is

something deeply troubling about empiricism

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Humes Version of Empiricism

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

perception for Hume

the original impression

This means that both are merely mental

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Empiricist Theory of Meaning

impression from which they were copied

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

To decide which is which you apply the following

If the negation of the proposition in question is a

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

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

RoI & MoF

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

RoI & MoF

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

This is true for all relations of ideas

Their truth is independent of experience in the

truth determined by the way that the world happens to be

Hume argues that the idea of cause and effect

We cannot, without experience, predict what the

effect of any given cause will be

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cause and Effect

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

connection between events

To say that the connection is necessary is to say

We do not get the idea of necessary connection

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Summary of the Argument so Far

experience (matters of fact) or from reason (relation of ideas)

MoF are composed of ideas copied from