Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Epistemology – The Theory of Knowledge

By the end of this unit you should be able to

Explain what philosophers understand by knowledge Explain the tripartite definition for knowledge Explain the main challenges to this definition Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these challenges Explain the differing claims for the source of knowledge Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these claims Explain, analyse and evaluate Descartes’ epistemological claims

This unit comprises of an introduction to the general themes and problems in epistemology followed by a focused investigation of the epistemology of Rene Descartes.

In this first section of the unit we will explore the following questions:-

1 How do we define knowledge? 2 How is this definition of knowledge challenged? 3 What are the claims for the source of knowledge? 4 How convincing are each of the main theories of knowledge?

1 How do we define knowledge?

Epistemology is also called the Theory of Knowledge. Note the use of the term theory. What do you think this indicates?

You may have heard people say, “I know what I know okay!” This suggests that there is something certain that they possess which they call knowledge.

If only it were that simples!

1 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Here are some different knowledge statements.

1 I know the earth is the third planet from the sun. 2 I know how to ride a bike. 3 I know North Berwick. 4 I know 2 + 2 = 4 5 I know men. 6 I know all bachelors are unmarried men. 7 I know the sun will rise tomorrow. 8 I know food will nourish me. 9 I know salt tastes salty. 10 I know the best way home 11 I know murder is wrong 12 I know this is my body. 13 I know how to speak English. 14 I know what red is like. 15 I know the meaning of life 16 I know me. 17 I know I like ice-cream. 18 I know the earth is flat. 19 I know smoking is bad. 20 I know maths.

Is knowing that the earth is the third planet from the sun similar to knowing how to ride a bike or that murder is wrong or that 2 + 2 =4?

Assignment 1 (Paired Task)

1 Look at the 20 claims above. For what reason could each be accepted as a knowledge claim? 2 Do some claims have a similar reason?

2 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Epistemology differentiates between the following three different kinds of knowledge:-

I know the earth is the third plant = Knowledge that… I know how to ride a bike = Knowledge how… I know North Berwick = Knowledge about…

Knowing that, is called propositional knowledge. Knowing that the earth is the third planet is an example of “knowledge that…”. Propositional Knowledge.

Knowing how to ride a bike is “knowledge how..”, this is an ability or a skill.

Knowing about North Berwick is a third kind of knowledge often called knowledge by acquaintance. It comes from familiarity. Implicit in this claim is that the claimant has been to North Berwick.

(Some would claim that knowing how is a special kind of knowing that.)

Our Focus

Epistemology is mainly concerned with propositional knowledge because this kind of knowledge involves making truth-claims. Propositional knowledge claims are capable of being true or false. Propositions claim that something is, or is not the case.

Propositional knowledge is knowledge that, not knowledge how or knowledge about. So we are dealing with beliefs that claim to be facts.

Proposition knowledge claims are important individually because we make judgments and decisions on what we believe to be the case. They are also important because we use accepted facts as a foundation for other belief/facts.

3 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 2

1 What three different kinds of knowledge can be identified? 2 Give an example of each different kind of knowledge. 3 With what kind of knowledge is epistemology concerned? 4 Why is propositional knowledge important?

Now that we know what kind of knowledge concerns us, we need to agree a definition.

Perhaps the most common simple definition of knowledge is justified true belief. This important definition is also known as the tripartite definition of knowledge.

Tripartite Definition – “I have knowledge if…”

1 I believe that something is true 2 I have a good reason to believe that it is true and 3 It is true.

 This definition is claiming is that there are three necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge to take place.

So for the first statement on page 1 to be knowledge an individual..

1 would have to believe that the earth was the third planet from the sun. 2 would have to have justification for believing that the earth was the third planet from the sun. 3 that the earth was the third plant from the sun would have to be true.

The phrase “necessary and sufficient conditions” is very important and useful. So all the conditions of JTB are needed (necessary) and no more are required (sufficient)

The availability of water is a necessary condition for making a cup of tea but is not sufficient.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for making a cup of tea?

4 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 3 (Revision)

1 What is epistemology? 2 What different kinds of knowledge are there? 3 Give examples of each kind of knowledge. 4 With which kind of knowledge are we concerned? 5 Why is this kind of knowledge important? 6 How can this kind of knowledge be defined? 7 What does this definition claim? 8 Apply this definition to a propositional claim of your choice. 9 Into which of the three knowledge categories do each of the statements on page 1, examples 4-20 fall? 10 Subject the claim “The earth is flat” to the JTB test. 11 How would you describe a “flat earth” claim? 12 How would you respond to the claim “I know what I know”?

Obviously, the kind of knowledge involved in a straightforward historical claim like "I know that in fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is quite different from the kind of knowledge delivered through an introspective intuition, as in "I know that I exist." And both of these are quite different from the knowledge involved in the religious assertion, "I know that God loves me" and so on.

2 How is Justified True Belief Challenged?

Remember our working definition for knowledge is a belief that is justified and true.

The question is - are these the only necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge?

Some do not think so!

The Greek philosopher Plato pointed out that we can be right about something but not really know about something. He used a story to illustrate his argument.

5 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

A traveller asked a local which of the two roads ahead led to the town he wished to reach. The local, not knowing but wishing to be helpful pointed to the one which subsequently proved to be the right choice.

The traveller believed that it was the correct road, he was justified in his belief and his belief was true - it was the correct road - but he did really know it was the correct road?

Why do you think that Plato said that the traveller did not really know?

Many years after Plato, in fact only about forty years ago, a then very young philosopher called Edmund Gettier wrote a two-page article the content of which epistemologists are still dealing with.

The title of the article was “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”

In his article, Gettier gave some examples of hypothetical situations in which it appeared that beliefs were justified and true but we were left with the feeling that knowledge had not been achieved.

These examples have the catchy title of Gettier Examples! On the next page is not a Gettier Gettier (left) and friend example but a Gettier-Type Example.

It is a little less complex but still hits all the Gettier buttons – sort of Gettier- Lite – if you like!

6 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Gettier-Type Example

The Cow in the Field Farmer Jones is concerned about her prize cow, Daisy. In fact, she is so concerned that when her dairyman tells that Daisy is in the field grazing happily, she says that she needs more justification.

Farmer Jones goes out to the field herself and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that she perceives as her favourite cow. She goes back to the dairy and announces that she is convinced that she knows Daisy is in the field.

JTB?

Some time later, the dairyman goes out into the field again. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. In the distance, he also spots a large piece of black and white material caught in a bush directly in line with the gate. This is what Farmer Jones actually saw. Not Daisy.

Daisy was in the field, as Farmer Jones believed and this belief was justified but was she right to say that she knew Daisy was in the field?

Give reasons to support your answer.

What this Gettier-Type example seems to show is that the tripartite definition for knowledge maybe necessary but is not sufficient as a definition for knowledge. ? We should be able to agree that belief is an essential part of the definition for knowledge and that what is believed has to be true to be knowledge - but what else?

7 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

So Gettier’s challenge to the tripartite definition of knowledge is based on its claim to be sufficient. Gettier claims to demonstrate that all the necessary conditions can be met but that they are not sufficient.

Responses to Gettier

 Some claim that all Gettier and Gettier-type examples are hypothetical and contrived and so his challenge can be dismissed.

 Some claim that Gettier’s examples of justification are not acceptable and so his challenge can be dismissed.

Assignment 4

1 What is the main problem raised by the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief? 2 Why is Edmund Gettier important to this issue? 3 Choose a Gettier/Gettier-type example to illustrate the problem he raised. (Google “Stopped Clock”) 4 How has Gettier been criticised?

What we are left with then is the question of justification.

3 Where Does Knowledge Come From?

In philosophy, there have traditionally been three responses to the question – “how can knowledge be justified?”

There are two positive responses and one negative response.

Firstly the two positives:

Empiricism – This is the claim that all real knowledge is based on sense experience – we do not know until we experience, we are born with our mind tabula rasa – a blank sheet - we have no hard-wired knowledge . So empiricists claim that knowledge is only justified by true perceptions – what we learn from our five senses.

8 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalism - This is the claim that at least some knowledge is independent of sense experience. Mathematical knowledge is not based on sense experience. We do not have to experience murder to know that it is wrong. We are therefore born with some innate ideas – some knowledge is indeed hard-wired. So rationalists claim that at least some knowledge is justified by intuitive reasoning.

And now the negative:

Scepticism – Put simply, this is the view that knowledge claims cannot be justified. There is no such thing as certain knowledge. Justification is impossible – knowledge is not achievable. Innate ideas cannot be demonstrated to exist and perceptions cannot be demonstrated to be true. So neither rationalism nor empiricism, are convincing.

Empiricism – Knowledge is Justified By True Perceptions

“Seeing is believing”, “I saw it with my own eyes” are two examples of statements which indicate the importance of our senses are to us in the quest for certain knowledge. We justify knowledge by our perceptions.

Remember, empiricists reject the rationalist claim that we are born with innate ideas. Empiricists believe that we are born with our mind a blank sheet - tabula rasa. This is the belief that all knowledge is the product of experience.

According to empiricism, only a posteriori knowledge is informative. Empiricists claim that knowledge based on reason, a priori knowledge amount to no-brainer statements which are trivial and completely uninformative about the world like - all bachelors are unmarried men – well duh!

Scientific knowledge is an example of empirical knowledge and has helped us to understand the universe, ourselves and to live longer and better! Maths might help to explain some relationships between facts but this is only of secondary importance. Knowledge created as a result of sense experience – synthesised – results in what are called synthetic statements.

9 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

The empirical thinking process is called induction. When a CSI team find fragments of skin under the fingernails of a murder victim and these samples match the scratch marks on the face of a suspect they could induce that there is a connection between the two samples.

The Scottish empiricist David Hume pointed out that claims about innate knowledge were incoherent. Here are three Hume-type examples:-

Imagine Adam seeing water for the first time, would he innately know that sticking his head under it would make it difficult to breathe? No!

Imagine someone seeing one snooker ball strike another for the first time. Would they have been able to predict what was going to happen? No!

Could someone who had only monochrome vision from birth conceive of green? No!

Hume and other empiricists claim that such knowledge can only be gained from sense experience.

With what kind of knowledge would farmer Jones justify her true belief?

10 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 5

1 With what do empiricists try to justify knowledge claims? 2 Give one example of an empiricist philosopher. 3 What do empiricists claim is the natural state of the human mind? 4 What are the two technical terms use to describe empirical arguments 5 What is the technical term used to describe empirical truth claims? 6 What “Hume examples” can be used to support empirical claims? 7 What major application of empiricism is claimed to have benefited humans? 8 What weakness do empiricists claim knowledge based on reason suffers from? 9 What is the technical term for the thinking process used by Holmes and Watson?

11 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalism

Rationalism is the philosophical position that at least some knowledge comes to us independent of sense experience. They justify their claims to knowledge on reasoning and the view that some knowledge is innate.

One way of answering the ‘how do you know?’ question is by using reason. Think of the following statement:

Everybody who is a sister is female.

How do you know that everybody who is a sister is female? One way would be the empirical approach, to try to check all sisters – to see if any of them were male.

If every sister you had checked were female, you might come to the conclusion that all of them are female.

There are two things to notice about this:

1. The empirical approach is not absolutely guaranteed to be reliable (if you haven’t checked every single one of them, can you be certain that there are no non- female sisters?).

2. You don’t need to do this anyway. The truth of the claim that all sisters are female does not need to be checked by the empirical approach.

‘Everybody who is a sister is a female’ is an example of a truth which can be known independently of experience. This is an a priori truth. It cannot not be true!

A priori truths are known to be true prior to, or independent of, experience. Before doing any checking, we know that all sisters are female. This is true by definition.

12 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

However, if we take the statement:

“Everybody who is a sister is shorter than seven feet tall.”

We can’t check this for truth or falsity just by thinking about it. This statement is an a posteriori statement. A posteriori statements are known to be true (or false) only as a result of experience – in this case, as a result of checking to see whether there is evidence of anyone having been a sister, having been 7 ft tall or more.

So a priori knowledge is knowledge which we gain just by thinking. Justification is achieved merely by reflecting mentally on the meanings of the words ‘all’, ‘sisters’, and ‘female’.

Here are some more examples of knowledge that are a priori:

 All bachelors are unmarried.  If Dundee is south of Aberdeen, then Aberdeen is north of Dundee.  If Dundee is south of Aberdeen, and Edinburgh is south of Dundee, then Edinburgh is south of Aberdeen.  Anyone who is 7 ft tall is more than 6 ft tall.

We are concerned with the justification question – the ‘how do you know?’ question. In the case of the statement ‘all bachelors are unmarried’ we can answer this by doing some simple reasoning:

There are two necessary and sufficient conditions for being a bachelor – these are.. (a) being unmarried, and (b) being male.

1. We can define a bachelor as an unmarried man – and substitute ‘unmarried man’ for bachelor. 2. The statement can therefore be rewritten as ‘all unmarried men are unmarried’ – and this just has to be true.

13 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

This is an example of what philosophers call ‘conceptual analysis’. To analyse is to break something down into its component parts. We break down a concept by finding its necessary and sufficient conditions.

It’s meaning guarantees its truth.

A statement where the meaning guarantees the truth in this way is called an analytic statement its truth can be discovered by merely analysing the concepts it contains.

Rationalists, like Descartes, think of reason as the most reliable source of justification – as the best way of answering the ‘how do you know?’ question – because truths which are a priori discoverable are absolutely certain. Think of the following piece of knowledge:

“A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.”

This statement is true. You should believe it. If asked ‘how is this belief justified?’, the answer is that we only just need to think about the statement to grasp its truth. So it is justifiable a priori.

There is another point to make about the statement. It is not only true: it is true and could not possibly not be true. All analytical statements are necessarily true.

Notice that we do not get the same certainty when we move from a priori to a posteriori truths. The statement: “The edge of your desk is a straight line.” May be true – but it is not necessarily true (it is only contingently true). The edge of the desk could have been curved – many desks are.

So a priori discovery of knowledge is the discovery of knowledge which is absolutely impossible to doubt. It is true in any possible world – necessarily true; true and not possibly not true.

So rationalists (whose name comes from the Latin word ratio, which means reason) see reason as the most reliable source of justification because rationally (ie. a priori) discoverable knowledge passes the ‘possible worlds’ test, and so is just impossible to doubt.

14 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalist often point to the certainty of mathematics as a good example of the power of reasoning. Maths truths are certain, are independent of sense experience and informative about the universe we live in.

Assignment 6

1 How do rationalists try to justify knowledge claims? 2 What is the rationalist view of empiricism? 3 Give one example of a rationalist philosopher. 4 What do rationalist claim the natural human mind possesses? Give an example. 5 What technical terms are used to describe rational arguments? 6 What technical terms are used to describe rational truth claims? 7 What major application of rationalism is claimed to have benefited humans?

Assignment 7

Empiricism Versus Rationalism – Revision

Write two paragraphs using all the terms below accurately and informatively. You can change the form of the terms to fit – justify = justification.

Empiricism - Empiricist - Hume - Sense Experience - True Perceptions - Tabula Rasa - Synthetic - Science - A Posteriori - Green - Contingent Truth - Adam - Induction

Rationalism - Reason - Innate Ideas - Independent Of Sense Experience - Bachelors – Sisters - Necessary Truth - Analytical - Cannot Not.. - A Priori - Concepts - Justify/Justification - All Possible Worlds - Intuit/Intuition – Deduction - Mathematics

15 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

3 Where Does Knowledge Come From?

This is the third response to the question above. The first two responses were positive but diverse. The third is negative and is know as the sceptical challenge to knowledge. Sceptics deny the claims made by both empiricists and rationalists.

The Challenge of Scepticism

As the name suggests, scepticism expresses a sceptical attitude to knowledge claims. The word "scepticism" comes from a Greek word that means to reflect on, consider, or examine, so it is not surprising that it is usually associated with doubting or suspending judgment. Sceptics come in many varieties.

Everyday Scepticism – The non-philosophical kind of scepticism. In everyday terms, a sceptic is someone who, at one time or another has doubts or who suspends judgment about something. All of us are sceptics in this sense.

None of us can know everything although sometimes we pretend or think that we know more than we do. A dose of everyday scepticism is indeed probably healthy for us. It is a defence against gullibility, superstition, and prejudice. All of us should rightfully be sceptical of the claim that a vast herd of giraffes is at this moment roaming the school, or of certain promises made by politicians running for office.

The Sceptical Process or Philosophical Scepticism - By philosophical scepticism we do not mean any particular position or movement in philosophy, but the tendency of all philosophers to deny or doubt the evidence or reasoning used in arguments they find unconvincing. This is the philosophical process of scepticism. This process will be viewed in more detail later on in this unit when we discuss Descartes.

In this part of the unit we will focus mainly on local and absolute scepticism. Absolute Scepticism - Those who take the absolute sceptical position deny there is any possibility of knowing anything for certain. Absolute sceptics accept the tripartite definition for knowledge they just do not accept that it can be applied! Sceptics claim that the problem with the JTB definition is that something may be true and believed but can never be justified.

16 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Local Scepticism - In contrast to absolute sceptics, local sceptics accept some knowledge claims can be justified but others cannot. For example some may claim that mathematical truths can be justified but that knowledge of God or morality cannot.

Empiricists tend to be sceptical about claims made by rationalists and rationalists tend to be similarly sceptical about the claims made by empiricists.

The main argument used by sceptics focuses on the justification element of the tripartite definition for knowledge. The attack on justification is led by what is known as the problem of the infinite regress.

The Problem of Infinite Regress

The problem of the infinite regress means that you can never arrive at foundationally certain, demonstrable knowledge - justified knowledge is an illusion.

For example if you were asked the name of the highest mountain in Scotland, you might answer confidently “Ben Nevis”.

However a sceptic could challenge you by asking, “ how do you know that is true”? You then might reply with “because I read it in my geography book”. The sceptic then responds -“But how do you know the book is accurate”? You come back with “Because the authors are well-respected geographers with years of hiking up big bits of rock”. The sceptic retaliates with - “But”.... and so on and so on in an infinite regress. The infinite regress is used to challenge the concept of foundational certainty in knowledge.

The infinite regress allows the sceptic to challenge the foundational certainty of any knowledge.

The infinite regress can also be applied to rational knowledge claims. Sceptics challenge existence of innate ideas by claiming that their existence cannot be demonstrated so there is no justification for that belief.

17 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 8 (Paired Exercise)

1 Begin with the empirical claim - “All matter is made of atoms” and write out how this can be challenged by the infinite regress. 2 Choose an empirical claim of your own and repeat the above exercise.

More Problems with Justifying Knowledge Claims

Optical Illusions

An illusion is misperceiving a real object or event. We have all had experiences when our senses have deceived us. We think we recognise some one in the street with embarrassing results. On a hot day the road ahead appears wet.

The problem is – if our senses can deceive us sometimes, how do we know that they are not deceiving us now? All sense knowledge could be based on an illusion!

Rationalists and sceptics use this example to challenge empiricism.

Veil of Perception

A bat’s view of the world is different from a bee’s view, a dog’s view and a human view. Which of these is the real view? The temptation is to say the human way is the real way but isn’t that just speciesism? Would it not be more realistic to say that we all have virtual views of reality? The problem here is that we cannot justify the claim that the world is as we perceive it to be. All we can ever say is that “X appears to be the case.”

Rationalists and sceptics use this example to challenge empiricism.

Hallucinations

18 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

An hallucination, is perceiving something which is not real. Hallucinations, under normal circumstances are less common than illusions. But they do occur. The point is when they are happening they seem real so there is no distinctive difference between an hallucination and a real experience. The problem again is – how do we know that all our knowledge is not based on hallucination?

Sceptics use this example to challenge both empiricism and rationalism. The sky might not be blue and 2 + 2 might not equal 4!

Perception and Interpretation

When you see someone trip and fall down or a red light change to green, the meaning is obvious to you. You know what these events mean. When you see the Chinese character represented here, what does it mean to you? The chances are nothing. But to someone who understood the character, they would know the meaning. So there is a back-story to knowledge. Knowledge is not just “what you see is what you get”. To every knowledge event, the mind brings something. This is used to illustrate that there are other mind events happening unconsciously during perception. If they are unconscious, they are not really known.

Rationalists and sceptics use this to demonstrate that perception is not just as simple mechanical representation of reality as empiricists might claim.

Brain in Vat

This is the view that is explored in the film The Matrix. How do we know that our experience is not just created for us? How do we know that we are not just a brain in a vat being fed nutrients and experiences or merely a piece of periphery attached to a mega –computer? This problem claims to weaken even basic knowledge claims like 2 + 2 = 4 and that you have a body.

So sceptics use this example to challenge both empiricism and rationalism.

19 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

It’s All a Dream

This is similar to the Brain in Vat and Hallucination problem. When we experience a dream, no matter how strange it appears when we wake up, while we are in the dream, we believe the events to be real. Similarly when we are awake, we believe that experience to be real.

There is no difference in quality between the dream and waking experiences.

This raises the problem, how can we demonstrate that what we claim is our waking state is not just a dream? Do we just “dream” that we have a body and that 2 + 2 = 4?

Sceptics use this example to challenge both empiricism and rationalism.

Assignment 9

1 In columns and in your own words, list all the examples of sceptical challenges, explain each of the arguments used, include examples where appropriate and add whether each challenges empiricism, rationalism or both. So 4 columns.

If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

20 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 10

1 How would an empiricist and a sceptic challenge the rationalist belief in innate ideas? Give examples. 2 How would an empiricist challenge a priori knowledge? 3 How might an empiricist illustrate their argument that all knowledge is a posteriori? 4 Which of the knowledge claims on page 1 are clamed to be justified empirically – by sense experience? 5 Which of the knowledge claims on page 1 are claimed to be justified by reason? 6 If a tree falls in an unpopulated forest, does it make a sound?

Empiricists Response to the Sceptical Challenge

Much of sceptical and rational attack on empiricism relates to the problem with perception.

Empiricist Responses

Challenge - Illusions

Response – If we know they are illusions then we are not deceived. We have five senses so we can check any perceptual information a number of times. We have no reason to believe that we are being deceived much or all of the time.

Challenge - Hallucinations

Response - These are very rare occurrences. Most of the time this is not happening. Often we are aware that an hallucination is taking place.

Challenge - Appearance not Reality

Response - As a species we would not have survived if our perception did not fit with reality. If our perceptions were false, we would have been an unsuccessful organism.

21 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Challenge – Veil of Perception

Response – This just demonstrates the empiricist view that we learn from experience – hopefully!

Challenge - Brain in Vat/It’s All a Dream

Response – Which makes more sense, to say this is happening or to say that this is not really happening? Most people would say that to say this was not happening is counter-intuitive.

Challenge - The Problem of Infinite Regress

Response – our perceptions accurately represent what is the case – experiences can be verified by other senses and other individuals’ sense experience. Sense experience is coherent.

However this is a recurrent problem and we are back to the principle of sufficient reason.

Some would claim that there are certain foundational truths – verified by science –

The two main responses to the challenge of scepticism are known as Foundationalism and Coherencism

Foundationalism

Remember, Empiricists claim that knowledge can be justified by true perceptions. Empiricists claim that true perceptions provide the foundational basis for knowledge. They claim that this solves the problem of the infinite regress.

Empiricists claim that the infinite regress can be stopped by knowledge founded on true perceptions.

22 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Hume rejected rationalism because he claimed it was uninformative about the world – only sense experience can establish what green is like.

See science for the value of empirical knowledge.

Rationalists maintain that only reason provides a certainty in foundational knowledge – for example in all possible worlds a straight line will be the shortest distance between two points and 2 + 2 will always = 4. They claim that this is an example of how to respond to the infinite regress. So rationalist claim that these truths provide foundational certainty.

The rational philosopher René Descartes rejected empiricism as a foundation for knowledge because senses can be deceived.

Some contemporary rationalists admit that reason is strongest when it is supported by or consistent with empirical evidence and hence relies heavily on empirical science in analyzing justifications for belief.

Descartes claimed that some of these truths are known innately.

Many contemporary rationalists would disagree.

Coherencism

There are different forms of coherencism but basically it is the claim that a knowledge claim is true if and only if….

It is coherent with all or most other beliefs.

But coherence is more than mere consistency. Coherence demands claims that are comprehensive and meet the requirements of Occam's razor.

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

(entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). Thie boils down to…

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

For example, many people claim that the earth is flat. Their evidence for this claim is based on their own sense experience – the surface of the earth from their point of view looks flat. They also claim that evidence which claims to show the earth is flat is part of a complex conspiracy hatched by governments, security agencies and scientists.

23 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Occam’s Razor sides with those who claim simply that the earth is a sphere - like the other observable planets, that our vision is limited – as we know and that there is no evidence for a vast and complex conspiracy.

The best-known objection to a coherence theory of truth is Bertrand Russell. Russell pointed out that since both a belief and its negation will cohere with a different set of beliefs, this means that contradictory beliefs can both be shown to be true according to coherence theory.

Assignment 11

1 In a column, list the empiricist responses to the challenge of scepticism. (see Assignment 4) 2 How do empiricists use foundationalism. 3 Explain how rationalists use foundationalism. 4 How successful are these two approaches? 5 Using examples, explain coherencism and Occam’s razor. 6 To what extent is coherenciism a successful response to scepticism?

Is Absolute Scepticism a Coherent Position?

Foundationalism and coherencism are claimed to be convincing responses to scepticism. But what about the sceptical position itself? Actually, there have been relatively few absolute sceptics. It is not hard to see why. Some claim that there is no need to respond because the sceptical position is so weak.

As stated earlier, critics of this position have been quick to charge that it is impractical and self-contradictory and so can be dismissed.

 It is impractical because, from the purely practical standpoint of getting along in the world, no one in his or her right mind can actually live on such a premise. Our daily lives would not be possible if we did not accept that what appears common sense is real - that our ‘knowledge’ is Knowledge.

Why, for that matter, are you reading this, studying philosophy, or studying anything, if not because you think that something can be learned,

24 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology understood, known? And where, from the sceptical view, is there any place for responsible actions or serious commitments or decision making?

 There is a glaring contradiction in claiming to know that nothing can be known! “I know that I can know nothing!” Eh?

Assignment 12

1 Why has scepticism been described as impractical? 2 Why has scepticism been described as self-contradictory?

Problems of A Priori Justification

“Nothing can be bigger than itself.”

Clearly this is a priori and necessary. No mountain can be bigger than itself, no river deeper than itself, no elephant heavier than itself, and so on.

If we apply this to alien life forms on other planets, we get:

“No aliens are bigger than themselves.”

This is a true statement about aliens on other planets. Do you find this useful, or interesting, or informative? NO!

Reason is limited - it can tell us how the universe has to be – all straight lines have to be the shortest distance between two points, it always has to be either earlier or later than 6pm, all red roses have to be red, all sisters are female, and all aliens are no bigger than themselves.

But as for the really interesting and informative stuff - are there alien life forms on other planets? What mathematical knowledge do they have? What kind of vegetation does their planet sustain? Are there male and females aliens? – Reasoning is useless.

 So empirical enquiry, inductive reasoning, a posteriori knowledge and synthetic statements are informative but uncertain.

 Rational analysis, deductive reasoning, a priori knowledge and analytical statements are certain but uninformative.

25 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalism is a Trivial Pursuit!

There are three specific attacks on the rationalist position the first two of which are used by empiricists and sceptics. The third is used by sceptics against rationalist and empiricists.

 Firstly, innate ideas are impossible to demonstrate. Not everyone has an idea of God or the same idea and the same goes for morality.

 Secondly, rationalist claims may be certain but are uninformative about the world so they are not real knowledge claims – all barking dogs bark when they bark – so what! Are these dogs real? So rationalism produces knowledge which is trivial.

 Thirdly, the infinite regress problem is also used against rationalism as well as empiricism. This claims that rationalist claims cannot be justified.

Assignment 13

1 What is the term given to knowledge gained independent of sense experience? 2 Give some examples of such knowledge. 3 What are the qualities of such knowledge? 4 What are the limitations of such knowledge? 5 What metaphors are used in relation to innate ideas and tabula rasa? 6 “ One is certain but trivial and uninformative and the other is informative but uncertain.” What are being described here? Why? 7 Name a rationalist philosopher.

26 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalist Response

 Where do the ideas of cause and effect, time, God, morality come from? They can’t come from experience, they must be innate.

 Maths and geometry trivial? These are the relationships which allow the universe to exist in the first place! We must think about our perceptions to make sense of them.

 Our innate ideas provide a basis for everything – they are foundational knowledge and provide justification.

Assignment 14

1 How would rationalists respond to scepticism and empiricism? 2 To what extent are you convinced by rationalism?

Summary

 Tripartite definition of knowledge is ….  The Gettier challenge is  The sceptical challenge is…  The qualities and limits of empiricism are…  The qualities and limits of rationalism are…  Details of the sceptical challenge are…  Responses to the sceptical challenge, including foundationalism and coherencism, are..

27 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

How can knowledge claims be justified?

?

JTB necessary but not sufficient

Nothing can be known!

28 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes, born in France, is known as the “father of modern philosophy”. As well as being a great philosopher he was also a gifted mathematician and a scientist.

“Most of all I was delighted with mathematics because of the certainty of its demonstration and the evidence of its reasoning.”

He was greatly influenced by mathematics and wanted philosophy to be similarly certain.

What can be known?

Descartes was concerned not only with epistemology - what can be known, but also metaphysics – what is real and the philosophy of mind. He was one of the founders of the Enlightenment or Age of Reason which began in the late seventeenth century and culminated in the French and American revolutions of the late eighteenth century.

Like Socrates, he was keen to differentiate between truth, falsehood and opinion. Descartes believed that sense experience alone could not justify what is true and so could not be relied upon. He believed that only by using rational thought was it possible to justify what was true and what was right.

So Descartes was a rationalist. He was a mathematician and a scientist as well as being a philosopher and supported the new science of Galileo. Like Galileo, he was also a Roman Catholic. He was keen to avoid ending up like Galileo and did not want to be accused of encouraging people to believe that the new science meant that humans were just physical and no longer needed God nor the Church.

The scientists Galileo and Copernicus had established that material things in the universe operated according to scientific laws. Objects moved because of the action of physical forces.

Science had established that the Earth was just one of many material objects and was not the centre of the universe as had been thought and taught. The Earth was in no way special. Therefore the physical world could be explained without the need for God.

These new scientific beliefs had resulted in conflict with the Roman Catholic authorities. According to Catholic teaching, the earth and humanity were central to God’s plan for the universe.

Descartes embraced the new science - indeed he was part of it - but he was also a devout Catholic, a product of the Jesuit education process. How could he keep a foot in both camps? Descartes tried to achieve a synthesis between these two seemingly opposing world views.

Descartes published “Meditations on First Philosophy” at the age of 45. His works came in for much criticism as the years went by. Eventually, believing that he was physically threatened, he took up a position as tutor to Queen Christina of Sweden.

Descartes caught pneumonia and died in 1650 at the age of 54.

29 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 15

1 What kind of philosopher was Descartes? 2 What was Descartes’ view of sense experience? 3 Why was Descartes impressed by maths? 4 Why did some regard science as a challenge to the Church? 5 What is the title of Descartes’ most famous text? 6 In which two “camps” did Descartes seem to have a “foot”? 7 What did Descartes hope to achieve with these two world views?

Descartes’ Method of Doubt

In order to demonstrate the truth of his rationalist position, and as a way of countering both empiricism and scepticism, Descartes used a process which he called his Method of Doubt.

Sometimes this is called his sceptical method of doubt, radical method of doubt, hyperbolic method of doubt or even the exaggerated method of doubt.

The first thing to remember is that Descartes was not a sceptic. He believed that foundationally certain knowledge was possible and it was to be established by rationalism.

Descartes expressed his views in a title called “Meditations on First Philosophy”. In this book, Descartes seems to set up a statement only to deny the truth of this statement a few lines or pages later. This is how the Method of Doubt (MoD) operates. As well as being “the Father of Modern Philosophy”, Descartes was also a mathematician and scientist. His aim was to do for philosophy what Newton had done for physics. The old philosophical age was over. Descartes believed that his method was new and radical! Only his Method of Doubt was fit for the purpose of supporting the sciences.

Descartes was part of the new age of science and philosophy. Modern science used physical experiments to demonstrate physical truths. What Descartes did is set up a series of thought experiments to demonstrate philosophical truths.

30 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 16

1 What is the name given to the process Descartes uses in the Meditations? 2 What other names does this process have? 3 In what way did Descartes’ philosophical methods model science? 4 Why might some believe that Descartes was a sceptic? 5 Would they be correct? Give reasons.

Background to Meditation I

Firstly, Descartes starts with a critical analysis of his old knowledge.

Descartes - “What can I know for certain?”

If some one in the street were to be asked what they thought was real then we might get the following sort of reply:

“Well I know that I have a mind and sometimes I think I have a soul - other people also have minds and then there is the world of things like my body and tables, chairs, dogs and so on “out there”. This out there and my mind exist independently. I know that 2+2= 4, that murder is wrong and that every effect has a cause.”

Assignment 17

1 What different kinds of knowledge are being expressed in the passage above? 2 Do you agree that all these claims are certain? Give reasons for your answer.

Descartes claimed that he started from the position of not accepting anything as true unless he could demonstrate that it was true. It may seem paradoxical but Descartes used a sceptical method to try to achieve foundational certainty and a way of avoiding any error in reasoning.

31 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Descartes wrote six Meditations in all. They are structured to correspond with six successive days. This is therefore to be taken as a crucially creative process.

Scepticism starts with doubt and that is where Descartes began. Remember he was not a sceptic but began with that position to show them - the sceptics - where they had gone wrong as it were.

Descartes’ Aim

It may seem paradoxical but in order to achieve certainty, Descartes began his Meditations doubting everything. He hoped that by using his Method of Doubt he could reject all suspect beliefs and find foundational certainties to on which to build his “new philosophy” which would be as certain and well-founded as mathematics.

Out With The Old!

In an attempt to achieve foundationally certain knowledge, Descartes first cleared the decks of mediaeval muddledness by doubting everything. He did this by using what is now called his Sceptical Method or Method of Doubt.

Let’s take the parallel of the demolition of an old building and the construction of a new one in its place:

For Descartes the philosophy building was very old. Perhaps it did not serve the same purpose that it once did. Over the centuries, in attempts to modernise it, many extensions had been added to the original building. Some of these extensions may have been built without adequate planning and also did not seem to fit on to the old building very well. Now the whole structure was in danger of being condemned for possible defects in the supporting walls and having suspect foundations.

First Descartes cleared the site completely. He demolished the building and began to look for solid ground on which to build his new foundations.

32 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

His method was to only accept as true only things which could be demonstrated to be true. He wanted “clear and distinct ideas” based on “the light of reason”. He would reject all false beliefs but he would also reject any beliefs which it was possible to doubt.

This was Descartes’ Method of Doubt. He says that he is no longer going to accept the beliefs of his early life - the things he had been taught to accept or the current views of authority.

Today many would say that the modern philosophy of individual autonomy began with Descartes. So the ultimate authority was to be found in reason, not in political strength nor religious dogmas. He was not trying to prove the sceptic point of view - in fact the opposite. He, like other philosophers, was trying to prove that we really do know what we think we know. He did this by applying his reason not by relying on experience. Remember he was a rationalist not an empiricist.

So why did Descartes torture himself with all this doubting? No matter what Descartes says in Meditations I, knowledge does come through the senses. Why did Descartes publish his books if he thought that in reading them people would not gain knowledge? Is he not just doing what philosophers do, playing with words and concepts? They should not play with the food of life but eat it!

Assignment 18

1 How many meditations did Descartes write? 2 In what way could Descartes’ approach seem paradoxical to his philosophical viewpoint? Explain why it was not paradoxical. 3 What were Descartes’ main aims? 4 What sort of things did you believe when you were younger which you no longer accept? 5 How many of the” realities” from page 25 do we usually accept without question? 6 From where would Descartes’ early beliefs have come? 7 Why could these beliefs now be doubted?

33 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

MEDITATION I

“OF THE THINGS OF WHICH WE MAY DOUBT”

Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences.

But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and, since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.

But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the whole of these are false - a point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labour; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.

All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived. But it may be said, perhaps, that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observation, there are yet many other of their

34 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology informations (presentations), of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt; as for example, that I am in this place, seated by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands this piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature.

But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body, and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity, whose brains are so disordered and clouded by dark bilious vapours as to cause them to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed [in gold] and purple when destitute of any covering; or that their head is made of clay, their body of glass, or that they are gourds? I should certainly be not less insane than they, were I to regulate my procedure according to examples so extravagant.

Though this be true, I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently, I am in the habit of sleeping, and representing to myself in dreams those same things, or even sometimes others less probable, which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments. How often have I dreamt that I was in these familiar circumstances, that I was dressed, and occupied this place by the fire, when I was lying undressed in bed? At the present moment, however, I certainly look upon this paper with eyes wide awake; the head which I now move is not asleep; I extend this hand consciously and with express purpose, and I perceive it; the occurrences in sleep are not so distinct as all this. But I cannot forget that, at other times I have been deceived in sleep by similar illusions; and, attentively considering those cases, I perceive so clearly that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep, that I feel greatly astonished; and in amazement I almost persuade myself that I am now dreaming.

Let us suppose, then, that we are dreaming, and that all these particulars - namely, the opening of the eyes, the motion of the head, the forth-putting of the hands are merely illusions; and even that we really possess neither an entire body nor hands such as we see. Nevertheless it must be admitted at least that the objects which appear to us in sleep are, as it were, painted representations which could not have been formed unless in the likeness of realities; and, therefore, that those general objects, at all events, namely, eyes, a head, hands, and an entire body, are not simply imaginary, but really existent. For, in truth, painters themselves, even when they study to represent sirens and satyrs by forms the most fantastic and extraordinary, cannot bestow upon them natures absolutely new, but can only make a certain medley of the members of different animals; or if they chance to imagine something so novel that nothing

35 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology at all similar has ever been seen before, and such as is, therefore, purely fictitious and absolutely false, it is at least certain that the colours of which this is composed are real.

And on the same principle, although these general objects, viz. [a body], eyes, a head, hands, and the like, be imaginary, we are nevertheless absolutely necessitated to admit the reality at least of some other objects still more simple and universal than these, of which, just as of certain real colours, all those images of things, whether true and real, or false and fantastic, that are found in our consciousness are formed.

To this class of objects seem to belong corporeal nature in general and its extension; the figure of extended things, their quantity or magnitude, and their number, as also the place in, and the time during, which they exist, and other things of the same sort. We will not, therefore, perhaps reason illegitimately if we conclude from this that Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, and all the other sciences that have for their end the consideration of composite objects, are indeed of a doubtful character; but that Arithmetic and Geometry is different because) whether I am awake or dreaming, it remains true that two and three make five, and that a square has but four sides; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity.

Nevertheless, the belief that there is a God who is all-powerful, and who created me, such as I am, has, for a long time, obtained steady possession of my mind. How, then, do I know that he has not arranged that there should be neither earth, nor sky, nor any extended thing, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor place, providing at the same time, however, for [the rise in me of the perceptions of all these objects, and] the persuasion that these do not exist otherwise than as I perceive them? And further, as I sometimes think that others are in error respecting matters of which they believe themselves to possess a perfect knowledge, how do I know that I am not also deceived each time I add together two and three, or number the sides of a square, or form some judgment still more simple, if more simple indeed can be imagined?

But perhaps Deity has not been willing that I should be thus deceived, for he is said to be supremely good. If, however, it were repugnant to the goodness of Deity to have created me subject to constant deception, it would seem likewise to be contrary to his goodness to allow me to be occasionally deceived; and yet it is clear that this is permitted.

36 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Some, indeed, might perhaps be found who would be disposed rather to deny the existence of a Being, so powerful than to believe that there is nothing certain. But let us for the present refrain from opposing this opinion, and grant that all which is here said of a Deity is fabulous: nevertheless, in whatever way it be supposed that I reach the state in which I exist, whether by fate, or chance, or by an endless series of antecedents and consequents, or by any other means, it is clear (since to be deceived and to err is a certain defect) that the probability of my being so imperfect as to be the constant victim of deception, will be increased exactly in proportion as the power possessed by the cause, to which they assign my origin, is lessened.

To these reasonings I have assuredly nothing to reply, but am constrained at last to avow that there is nothing of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible to doubt, and that not through thoughtlessness or levity, but from cogent and maturely considered reasons; so that hence forward, if I desire to discover anything certain, I ought not the less carefully to refrain from assenting to those same opinions than to what might be shown to be manifestly false.

But it is not sufficient to have made these observations; care must be taken likewise to keep them in remembrance. For those old and customary opinions perpetually recur - long and familiar usage giving them the right of occupying my mind, even almost against my will, and subduing my belief; nor will I lose the habit of deferring to them and confiding in them so long as I shall consider them to be what in truth they are, viz, opinions to some extent doubtful, as I have already shown, but still highly probable, and such as it is much more reasonable to believe than deny.

It is for this reason I am persuaded that I shall not be doing wrong, if, taking an opposite judgment of deliberate design, I become my own deceiver, by supposing, for a time, that all those opinions are entirely false and imaginary, until at length, having thus balanced my old by my new prejudices, my judgment shall no longer be turned aside by perverted usage from the path that may conduct to the perception of truth.

I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh,

37 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these.

Why’d He Say?

Descartes declares that he has believed many things without really justifying them.

Many of his beliefs had proved to be doubtful or even false.

Many of these false and doubtful beliefs were foundational so other beliefs were based on them and so these were false or at best doubtful.

There isn’t enough time and it is unnecessary to test all of his beliefs. So only his foundational beliefs will be subjected to the Method of Doubt.

The Dream Argument

Sense experience can be deceptive but at least one sense can be checked against another. Dreaming is a complete package there is no way to verify that our current experience is not a dream. Now you may be a bit dismissive at this point – of course this is not a dream – but Descartes is a smart guy and that is not his point – the point is, can this experience be doubted as real? And can this experience be demonstrated to be real? Well?

You might say that even in a dream 2+2 = 4 or a meter is 100 centimeters - a priori knowledge in other words, but..

Next is Descartes coup de grace – what if God wasn’t (as he has been taught) omniscient, omnipotent and all good, but just the first two plus all evil?

Wow! Then this evil deceitful Demon could be deceiving him completely – Matrix country again!

He is not saying there is such a creature – just what if….?

Well if this were the case then both a posteriori and a priori knowledge could be doubted. So what does that leave as certain foundational knowledge?

Emm nothing?

38 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Yep! So this whole experience could be a dream/hallucination/VR/Matrix-type experience. But furthermore, there is the assumption that when we dream the contents of the dream are at least based on some reality – that there is a reality somewhere out there from which they are derived. Descartes’ Demon argument allows him to doubt the very existence of any such reality.

So, like any good soap opera or serial, we end on a cliffhanger. Descartes is alone senseless, possibly in a coma world with only an evil demon for company. Will our hero survive? Meditation I ends! Gasp!!!

Doubt Reason Example 1 Sense experience 2 Body 1 Can be deceptive 1 BIG appears small 3 Waking is not dreaming 2 Delusion 2 Madness/Phantom limbs 4 Science/External world 3 Dreams can be vivid 3 Dressing gown dream 5 Maths 4 Sense ex. deceptive 4 Astronomy 6 God is good 5 Innate ideas doubted 5 2 + 3 = 5? Doubt 7 Evil Genius 6 Doubtable innate 6 Deception occurs idea7 7 Everything 7 How do I know? doubtable

39 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 19

1 On what did Descartes claim his previous knowledge was based? 2 What justifications for knowledge had he accepted in the past? 3 What problems did he now identify with his previous knowledge claims? 4 What were Descartes’ aims and what was his test? 5 What problems are related to the empirical approach? 6 What makes sense experience difficult to doubt? 7 What makes the belief in a body difficult to doubt? 8 How could Descartes doubt his body? 9 Why did he claim at first that maths was more dependable than astronomy? 10 Why did he have to admit that even mathematical truths were challengeable? 11 Outline Descartes’ Dream argument in your own words. 12 Why is the dream argument a bigger challenge to empiricism than illusions and hallucinations? 13 Even if you are dreaming, what could Descartes still infer about reality? 14 Clearly explain the Demon argument. 15 Did Descartes believe that he was being deceived by an Evil genius? 16 What was the epistemological effect of the Evil Genius hypothesis?

Assignment 20

Descartes or TRUE or FALSE? In meditation 1 Descartes

1 Must show each of his beliefs to be false. 2 Believes it is not possible to achieve certainty about anything. 3 Thinks all his beliefs have a doubtful foundation. 4 He should treat beliefs that are slightly doubtful the same as beliefs which are false. 5 Will begin by attacking his foundational beliefs only. 6 Believe that all knowledge seems to come to him through the senses. 7 Claims mathematics is more reliable than astronomy 8 Descartes believes there is an evil demon 9 Was a sceptic. 10 At least knows he is not alone.

40 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Descartes Aims To:

 justify foundationally certain knowledge  establish reason as the way to knowledge  establish a foundation and method for the new sciences  provide an error-free root to justify knowledge in the future

Descartes’ Radical Method:

 a belief cannot be justifiable knowledge if it is false or if it can be doubted.

In the previous episode of Descartes’ Meditations…

Meditations I ends with what seems to be an end with a defeat to all his aims.

He raises the question:

“ How do I know that the world as I know it is not just the product of the mind of some evil deceitful demon?”

This seems pretty difficult to answer because. To demonstrate that this is not the case he would have to be able to step outside his own head. Has he painted himself into philosophical corner? Will our hero escape? Episode II… Descartes strikes back!

Remember he does not believe that there really is a Demon – this is a thought experiment Demon.

41 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Meditation II

Of The Nature of the Human Mind; And That It Is More Easily Known Than the Body

The Meditation of yesterday has filled my mind with so many doubts, that it is no longer in my power to forget them. Nor do I see, meanwhile, any principle on which they can be resolved; and, just as if I had fallen all of a sudden into very deep water, I am so greatly disconcerted as to be unable either to plant my feet firmly on the bottom or sustain myself by swimming on the surface.

I will, nevertheless, make an effort, and try anew the same path on which I had entered yesterday, that is, proceed by casting aside all that admits of the slightest doubt, not less than if I had discovered it to be absolutely false; and I will continue always in this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.

Archimedes, that he might transport the entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point that was firm and immovable; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest expectations, if I am fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable.

I suppose, accordingly, that all the things which I see are false; I believe that none of those objects which my fallacious memory represents ever existed; I suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind. What is there, then, that can be true? Perhaps this only, that there is absolutely nothing certain.

But how do I know that there is not something different altogether from the objects I have now enumerated, of which it is impossible to entertain the slightest doubt? Is there not a God, or some being, by whatever name I may designate him, who causes these thoughts to arise in my mind? But why suppose such a being, for it may be I myself am capable of producing them?

Am I, then, at least not something? But I before denied that I possessed senses or a body; I hesitate, however, for what follows from that? Am I so dependent on the body and the senses that without these I cannot exist?

42 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; was I not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exist? Far from it; I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded. But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me.

Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition -

I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind.

(The Cogito)

In this section Descartes compares his work to Archimedes. In ancient Greece, Archimedes discovered the power of the lever. His famous quote was …

43 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

The Cogito – An Earth-Moving Discovery

Descartes was not aiming to find physical foundational certainty but foundational certainty of knowledge. This means all knowledge – the physical, the mental and the spiritual world.

In Meditation II he claims to have found the foundational certainty he was looking for.

His argument is, even if he is totally deceived by a Demon, he can be certain that he exists as a thinking thing – hence the Cogito.

I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind.

A formal version of Descartes’ argument would look like this.

To think one must be a thinker (a mind) I am thinking (Therefore) I must exist. (Be a mind)

This is known as the cogito from a Latin version of this argument.

“Cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.”

Descartes claims,  the cogito is an a priori argument,  is self-affirming  is intuitively true.  is not just true, but necessarily true – it cannot not be true.

The argument is deductive, analytical and not based on sense experience demonstrating that it is by reason alone that knowledge is justified.

44 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 21

1 In a sentence for each paragraph of Meditation II, explain Descartes’ points, one by one. 2 What certain, foundational knowledge does Descartes claim to have discovered? 3 How does he express this? 4 What would a formal version of the argument look like? 5 Why does he believe that it passes the certainty test? 6 What is this Cartesian argument often called? 7 Why does it have this title? 8 What qualities did Descartes believe this argument had?

Descartes’ Claims

 justify foundationally certain knowledge  establish reason as the way to knowledge  establish a foundation and method for the new sciences  provide an error-free root to justify knowledge in the future

Rational thought is based on innate, God-given ideas. Examples of this are logic, cause and effect, time and the existence of God.

Rational thought is intuitive, a priori - not based on sense experience - it is self-evident knowledge – “I am a thinking thing” seems pretty self-evident! Rational thought is also deductive - from self- evident principles to true conclusions.

45 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Cogito - Recap

According to Descartes, the Cogito is self-affirming, it is self-evidently true - a priori, and, from this principle, he tries to deduce, with the help of God, that the world is as he believes it to be.

Descartes’ aim was to find certain foundational belief. The test for this sort of belief, he said, is three-fold.

1 The belief must be clear and distinct, clear in itself and distinct from other beliefs. 2 It must be independent of all other beliefs. 3 It must be about something which exists - substance.

The cogito does sound intuitively true - “I am a thinking thing” - but others disagree with Descartes.

General Criticisms

One of Descartes contemporary critics, Pierre Gassendi, pointed out that the Cogito depends on a claim for the existence of a substance. Descartes claims that something must be thinking but, although he may have established that thinking is happening,

Descartes has not established a substance which thinks. Descartes has just assumed the “thing which thinks” – in other words his own mind.

Gassendi pointed out that Descartes failed to doubt that he, Descartes was the source of the thinking.

Descartes established thinking but then inferred an “I” and that it was this “I” that was doing the thinking.

What is an alternative source of the thinking?

46 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Cogito – Claims Vs Criticisms

 Descartes is a rationalist.

 The cogito is a deductive argument.

 In a deductive argument, if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false.

 Descartes claims that this is the case with the cogito.

CLAIMS for the Cogito

 Is an a priori truth  Cannot be doubted!  To doubt thinking was to demonstrate thinking!  The cogito is self-affirming and self-authenticating.  It is intuitively true – self-evident - it cannot not be true!

Further Claims for the Cogito

Not just thinking but HIM thinking - SUBSTANCE - his MIND

Not just from time to time but – HIS MIND ALL THE TIME

Not just him thinking all the time but - YOU ME AND EVERYONE'S MIND ALL THE TIME

Assignment 22

1 What is the cogito? 2 In your own words explain why Descartes believed he has achieved foundational certainty. 3 What further claims did Descartes make for the cogito?

47 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

CLAIMS CRITICISMS

An a priori truth Circular argument – “I doubt that I doubt.” !!! Cannot be doubted!

To doubt thinking was to demonstrate thinking!

The cogito is self-authenticating.

It is intuitively true – self-evident - cannot not be true!

Further Claims for the Cogito Thinking perhaps but he has not demonstrated that it is him thinking – this Not just thinking but HIM can be doubted – evil genius - thinking - SUBSTANCE - his MIND He has not established his mind as a Not just from time to time but - substance MIND ALL THE TIME It can be doubted that it is the same Descartes “each time”.

What about when he does not “express or conceive” – does he still exist?

Perhaps just him thinking – subjectivism. Not just him thinking all the time but - YOU ME AND Perhaps only him thinking – solipsism. EVERYONE'S MIND ALL THE TIME

48 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Descartes – Where Are You?

 According to his critics, all Descartes has achieved so far is that thinking I am thinking, therefore I is going on think = circular argument  This thinking could be Descartes but this is still capable of doubt. Maybe the Demon is doing all the thinking!

 There was thinking going on in “Train Spotting” and “Alice in Wonderland”. How rational were they?

 Dreaming and other illusions are forms of thinking. I dream therefore I am! How is that for foundational certainty?

49 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Method of Doubt - Achievements

 Knowledge claims do need to be tested for justification

 Effectively clears away false and doubtful beliefs

Method of Doubt - Criticisms

 Occasional perceptual deception doesn’t necessarily mean that no perception can be trusted  He rejects coherence - it makes more sense that..  Descartes claims to doubt everything, at least everything which is foundational but he does not doubt his memory.  Doesn't doubt the logic of his own thinking  Assumes knowledge needs a foundation  Leaves him on is own/alone SUBJECTIVE & SOLIPSISTIC

Despite all these criticisms, we have to remember that most philosophers would date modern period from Descartes onwards. He is a pivotal figure.

The next problem is can he build from here or is he stuck in a subjective, solipsistic philosophical trap of his own creation? Is Descartes alone up Demon Creek without an epistemological paddle?

50 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Descartes Aims

 To establish reason as the way to justify knowledge  To establish a method which would avoid all further doubt  To establish foundationally certain knowledge for the new sciences  To defeat scepticism

Assignment 23 (Revision – DO NOT SKIP!)

1 What does Descartes claim to have achieved with the cogito? 2 For Descartes, what is the source of human reason? 3 What are the qualities of rational conclusions? 4 How did Gassendi respond to Descartes’ claim the cogito was intuitively true? 5 Why do some think that the cogito is purely subjective? 6 Why is solipsism a criticism leveled at the cogito? 7 Why are Descartes’ methods criticised? 8 Review Descartes’ original aims. How successful do you think he has been in achieving them? Remember to include details and examples. 9 Which feature films are based on interpretations of Descartes’ thought experiments? Explain the connection. 10 What is memory? 11 Why is memory so important to thinking?

RECAP

With the cogito Descartes believes that he has achieved his primary aims. He believes that he has established the existence of

51 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology his mind. He is a thinking thing. The next step is to investigate what he can build on this foundational certainty.

He returns to his Method of Doubt and having already eliminated sense experience, returns to his body. The human body is just one example of a physical substance.

Descartes believes that he has established his mind as a mental substance. He knows his own mind clearly and distinctly by intuition. Just by thinking, he establishes that he has a mind.

Has he, is he also a body?

He feels his body so intensely that its existence is difficult to doubt but he knows that feelings can be deceptive so feelings are not certain to be true. So what is certain? How can he be certain that any physical bodies actually exist?

The Wax Example

Descartes uses a combination of a physical experiment and a thought experiment to show that rationalism not empiricism is the source of real knowledge.

Descartes takes a ball of fresh bees wax. He turns his senses on it. He notices that it has a taste of honey to it. (He licks it?) Sniffing produces a sensation of the smell of the flowers used by the bees to make the honey. The sight of wax is honey coloured, it feels to have a certain texture it even produces a sound when struck. It also has a certain size, temperature, and shape. All his senses are engaged in particular ways by the wax. Then Descartes places the solid wax near a fire and notes what happens. Can you guess?

52 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

According to Descartes, the original smell and taste disappear, the colour changes, the shape is completely different and constantly changing, the size increases, the texture and temperature also change and it no longer makes the same sound when struck. All his sense experiences of the wax have changed. Is it still the same wax?

Well of course it is but how does Descartes really KNOW this?

Descartes notes that all the sense qualities of the wax disappeared or changed when it melted but he still knew it was wax. From this Descartes claims that these disappearing qualities were not essential to the wax. According to Descartes, the qualities of the wax, which produced his sense experiences of the wax, are not essential to knowing the wax.

What properties did the wax have to begin with which it still retains? If Descartes can identify these essential properties then he will be able to identify how he really knows the wax.

According to Descartes the essential properties retained by the wax are extension – in other words it takes up space, flexibility – in other words it has a shape and changeability – in other words it is capable of staying at rest or moving – some call this velocity.

Notice that all these properties can be calculated and are related to geometry.

Remember, as a rationalist, Descartes was impressed with maths in general and geometry in particular. Geometry produced informative certain truths. For example - triangles are objects with internal angle adding up to 180 degrees. Geometry is based on rationalism not empiricism – so Descartes is claiming that although he feels physical objects via

53 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology sense experience, he really only knows the wax and all other physical objects by reason - by his mind.

The Primary Qualities of the wax, size, shape and velocity are essential to the wax. The Secondary Qualities, colour, flavour, scent, sound and texture, are in us not the wax.

Descartes claims that although his sense experience of the wax was very powerful and effecting he really only now knows the wax clearly and distinctly. Also by knowing the wax he confirms his own existence as a thinking thing. He also knows his mind more clearly and distinctly than anything else.

Primary Qualities Secondary Qualities Size Colour, flavour, Shape smell, sound, Velocity & texture

Assignment 24

1 What substance does Descartes believe he has established by the cogito? 2 What is his next aim? 3 What perceptual differences does he note in the wax before and after heating? 4 What does Descartes claim as a result of these changes? 5 What qualities does Descartes claim the wax retains throughout his experiment? 6 How does Descartes label these qualities? 7 What claims does Descartes make for these qualities? 8 Why is this claim important for Descartes? 9 What does Descartes know most clearly and distinctly? Why? MEDITATION THREE

Of God: that He Exists.

54 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

I shall now close my eyes and my ears, and put away all thought of physical things, to try to better understand my own self. It remains possible that God might deceive me, though I cannot imagine how he might persuade me that I don't exist, or that two plus are not five. To remove such doubt, I must enquire as to whether God exists, and whether he is a deceiver.

If I hear sound, or see the sun, or feel heat, I judge that these sensations come from things outside of me. Just now, for instance, whether I will it or not, I feel heat, and it seems obvious that this feeling is produced by something different from me, ie. the fire.

Now it is manifest that effects derive their reality from their causes, that something cannot proceed from nothing and that the perfect cannot proceed from something imperfect. For example, the idea of stone can only be produced by something which possesses all that constitutes stone. Likewise heat must come from a cause at least as perfect as heat, and so on.

But further, the idea of heat, or stone, cannot exist in me unless it has been placed there by some cause at least as real as that which I conceive exists in the heat or stone. Thus the light of nature causes me to know clearly that my ideas may fall short of the perfection of the objects from which they derive, but they can never be greater or more perfect. What I can conclude from all this is that I cannot myself be the cause of an idea, the cause must be outside me and greater than my idea. But I seem to know so little about corporeal objects, as we found with the wax yesterday, that such ideas may well proceed from myself. Moreover, things such as light, colours, tastes, heat or cold are so obscure and confused that I do not even know if they are true or false. It seems that I have no ideas that might not originate solely in my own mind.

There remains only the idea of God, whose attributes of infinity, independence, all-knowledge and all-power seem so exceptional that no idea of them could have come from within me; hence we must conclude that God exists.

The idea of substance could be from within me, as I am a substance, but, since I am finite, the idea of an infinite substance must proceed from elsewhere. I could not have gained the idea of infinite substance just by negating the finite, as I perceive darkness as negation of light; for there is manifestly more reality in infinite substance than in finite. Indeed, how could I have the notion that I am finite and imperfect, unless I had some idea of a Being more perfect, by which to recognise my deficiencies?

55 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

We must say that the idea of God is very clear and distinct and more objectively real than others. Even if we can imagine that God does not exist, we cannot imagine that the idea of him means nothing.

I do not easily see why the idea of perfection must have been placed in me, so I ask, do I derive my existence from myself, or my parents, or some other source than God? But if I myself were the author of my being, I should doubt nothing, desire nothing, lack no perfection and be unable to ever find myself discovering new things.

It is perfectly clear and evident to all who consider the nature of time, that, in order to have existence at a particular moment, a substance must have the power to create itself anew in the next moment. But I am conscious of no such power in myself, and by this, I know clearly that I depend on some being different from myself. Possibly, this being is not God; perhaps it is my parents or some other imperfect cause?

This cannot be, because, as I have said, there must be at least as much reality in the cause as in the effect; and since I am a thinking thing, it must be that the cause is likewise a thinking thing. But from what cause does God derive? If it derives from another cause, we must ask whether this second cause has a cause. But it is perfectly manifest that there can be no regression into infinity.

Finally, it is not my parents who conserve me, they are only the authors of that body in which the self, the mind, is implanted. Thus we must necessarily conclude from the simple fact that I exist, and that I have the idea of a perfect Being, that the proof of God's existence is grounded on the highest evidence.

It only remains to ask how I have acquired this idea of God. Not through the senses, nor imagination, for I cannot take from or add anything to it. The only alternative is that God, in creating me, placed this idea within me, like the mark of the workman on his work. The whole strength of the argument is in recognising that it is not possible that my nature should be what it is, and that I should have the idea of God, if God did not veritably exist. From this, it is manifest that He cannot be a deceiver, since the light of nature teaches us that deception necessarily proceeds from some defect.

But before I go on, it seems right to pause to think on His majesty; at least as

56 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology far as my dazzled mind will allow. For faith teaches us that the glory of this, and the other, life is contemplation of the Divine.

Descartes Explained

In Meditation I, Descartes uses his Method of Doubt to clear away all false and even slightly doubtful beliefs.

In Meditation II, Descartes uses the cogito to claim that he has established the foundational certainty of his own thinking. Mind Substance.

Also in Meditation II, Descartes uses the Wax Example to claim that it is by reason not sense experience that he knows material objects - Physical Substance. This theory is known as Cartesian Dualism but more of that later.

In Meditation III, Descartes reminds himself that he cannot rely on his senses. He continues to use his reasoning and Method of Doubt to test the certainty of his reasoning.

Descartes’ Clear & Distinct Rule

Descartes reminds himself of the importance of the certainty of the cogito. According to Descartes the thought (idea) that he is a thinking thing is “clear and distinct”. Descartes claims that a 'clear' perception is one that is “present and manifest to the attentive mind” and that a 'distinct' perception is one “that is so separated from all other perceptions that it contains absolutely nothing except what is clear”.

‘I now seem able to posit as a general rule that everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true.’

If he can identify other clear and distinct ideas he will avoid future error.

57 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Descartes then uses his “clear & distinct rule” to claim that he can guarantee the certainty of his reasoning because he knows (clearly & distinctly) that God exists, God is omnipotent (all powerful) and therefore God would not allow any deception.

God is the source of reason, God is good and so God would not allow any deception of reason.

How Does Descartes Use God as a Guarantee of Reason?

In Meditation III, Descartes continues to use his Method of Doubt and reason as a way to achieve his aims – this is his lever.

In Meditation III, Descartes outlines his Thumbprint Argument for the existence of God. According to Descartes, all ideas have a cause. Newton has shown that all events are the result of forces.

According to Descartes’ reasoning, the cause of his ideas must either be inside him, or outside him.

Descartes uses some very old arguments in this section. But he starts off with what he claims as his innate idea of God.

This is a reconstruction of the Thumbprint Argument:

1 I have an innate idea of God. 2 Everything which exists has a cause. 3 Therefore, there is a cause of my idea of God. 4 The cause of an effect must contain at least as much reality as the effect. 5 Therefore, the cause of my idea of God must contain at least asmuch reality as my idea of God. 6 The idea of God contains perfection. 7 Therefore, the cause of my idea of God must contain perfection.

58 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

8 No being which is not God contains perfection. 9 Therefore, the cause of my idea of God is God. 10 If something is the cause of something else, that something exists. 11 Therefore, God exists.

So, just as the sensation/idea of heat must have a source in something greater – a hot source so the sensation/idea of God can only come from God.

Descartes claimed that the ideas of infinity and perfection cannot be within him because he is finite and imperfect, so the idea of an infinite and perfect God must have come from something outside himself. Not from nothing as nothing results in nothing. So the only rational explanation is that God has produced in Descartes the idea of God.

Furthermore, as Perfection is a quality of God and deception is a quality of imperfection, God cannot be a deceiver therefore a Good God must exist and guarantees the accuracy of reason! The thumbprint is an example of an innate idea. God has placed his maker’s mark or trademark into the human mind.

Only a perfectly good God would makes sure that His creatures were born with the innate idea of their creator.

Descartes uses God’s existences and goodness as a guarantor for his epistemological claims and his “clear and distinct” rule as the test. If an idea was clear and distinct it was indubitable.

Assignment 25

Meditation III Revision – Copy, Complete & Keep

59 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

From the cogito Descartes knows that he is.. From this he identifies his ______and ______rule. This will be his test for ……. Descartes does not Descartes begins with an idea/sensation of… This idea/sensations could come from… or….. or… This cannot come from nothing because… Effects resemble their…. The idea of …. must resemble the nature of …….God is ……. and ……. So the idea of God cannot come from Descartes because…. The idea of God cannot come from his ………. Nor his …….. because ….. The idea of God must come from…… This is like….. God cannot be a deceiver because… Therefore…….

Assignment 26

1 What does Descartes continue to use throughout Meditations 1, 2 and 3? 2 What is Descartes’ “clear and distinct rule”? 3 Why is this rule important to Descartes? 4 Where does Descartes’ Thumbprint Argument begin? 5 How does he claim that the idea is based on a reality? 6 Why it this called the Thumbprint argument? 7 What other name does it have? 8 As well as existence, what does Descartes claim are the other essential qualities of God?

Criticisms

The most famous criticism of Descartes’ Thumbprint/Trademark argument is known as the Cartesian Circle. This criticism points out that by claiming that he knows “clearly & distinctly” that only God could be the source of the clear and distinct idea of God, Descartes has created a fallaciously circular argument – he knows clearly & distinctly that God clearly and distinctly exist because God has caused him to know clearly & distinctly that God exists! Descartes assumes what he is trying to prove!

60 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Not everyone has an innate idea of God. Atheists would certainly challenge the view that the idea of God is innate.

There are many different ideas of God. How could it be established that every idea of God was the same?

The Evil Genius could still be at work deceiving Descartes into thinking these thoughts.

The claim for the existence of any innate idea has not been demonstrated to be true.

The premise that there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect is also questionable. According to the British empiricist Berkeley, an idea of anything is nothing like the thing itself – an idea is only like an idea.

David Hume pointed out that claims for God’s goodness and perfection were weakened by the existence of evil. If God is Perfect and the “source”, from where does evil come?

By definition, we cannot have an idea of God. God is beyond our understanding. “Whatever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude, nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power …” (Thomas Hobbes)

So Descartes claims that his “clear and distinct” idea of God is an innate gift from God Himself. But this “trademark” or “thumbprint” argument is countered by the “Cartesian Circle” criticism - the clear and distinct rule is justified by appealing to God, but God is justified by appealing to the clear and distinct rule!

61 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

By the end of Meditation 3, Descartes claims that he exists as a thinking thing and that God via his clear and distinct rule guarantees that Descartes thinking (reasoning) is error-free. By thinking Descartes means intellect not sense experience.

Before we move on it is important to consolidate how he has got to this position and how his claims can be criticised.

Assignment 27

1 What does Descartes believe he has achieved by the end of Meditation 3? 2 What does Descartes mean by “thinking”? 3 What is the Cartesian Circle and why is it a major criticism of Descartes epistemological claims? 4 In what ways can Descartes’ basic claim for an innate idea of God be challenge? 5 How might Hobbes, Hume and Berkeley be used to challenge Descartes? 6 To what extent are you convinced by Descartes’ arguments in this section?

Descartes Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

In Meditation 5, Descartes describes his version of a traditional argument for the existence of God. The most famous version of the Ontological argument goes back to St Anselm (1033- 1109) - an Archbishop of Canterbury. Some theists try to use empiricism to argue that God must exist. One example of this is to use the existence of the universe to prove the existence of God.

1 By sense experience we know that the universe exists. 2 The universe could not cause itself. 3 CONCLUSION Therefore - God did it.

62 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Rationalist like Anselm and Descartes take a different route. They begin with the concept of God. They argue that, by the very nature of the concept of God, God cannot not exist – God exists NECESSARILY!

Central to his argument was Descartes’ use of an argument from analogy. Descartes claims that the concept of God is analogous to the concept of a triangle.

Triangle = “an object with internal angle adding up to 180.”

It is impossible to conceive of a triangle with out this quality. 180 degrees are a NECESSARY quality of a triangle.

God = “the sum of all perfections”.

Existence is a NECESSARY quality of perfection. Non-existence according to Descartes is a major imperfection. We have already established that God is PERFECT. Therefore God must exist!

63 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Meditations I-III - Descartes Claims

 with the cogito, established foundational certainty of knowledge

 that material objects are understood by the intellect not the senses

 the difference between the primary and secondary qualities of material objects

 that clear and distinct ideas + God as no deceiver, provides error-free path to future knowledge

 the empiricist and sceptical positions are further weakened.

Descartes’ next, and last aim, is to establish that physical objects like his body and other material objects are as he perceives them to be.

But he has already dismissed sense perception – how will our hero triumph?

64 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Assignment 28 (Revision)

1 What is meant by the “tripartite theory of knowledge”? 2 Give two examples which illustrate this. 3 What is the sceptical attitude to this definition? 4 What reasons might a sceptic give for her position? 5 With an example, explain Gettier’s attitude to the tripartite definition for knowledge? 6 What differing positions do empiricists and rationalists take on the tripartite definition of knowledge? 7 How does Descartes attempt to justify his claims to knowledge? 8 What are the strengths and weaknesses of this philosophical position?

Assignment 29 (Revision)

Three headings - (Guess the first two – 3 = Explain the difference)

Tabula Rasa - Leibniz - Rationalism - Analytic - Perceptions - Sense Data - Innate - Locke - Ideas - A priori - Contingent Necessary - Hume - Intuition - Descartes - Induction - Reason Empiricism - Synthetic - A posteriori - Deduction

65 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

MEDITATION VI

“On the Existence of Material Objects and the Real Distinction of Mind from Body.”

Introduction

Descartes continues to explore his ideas of physical objects. In his understanding or knowledge of physical objects he distinguishes between having a mental image and having a pure understanding. He deduces that some of his mental images "probably" come from actual physical objects. To become more certain, he makes a three-part examination of his senses.

First, he reviews what he previously believed his senses told him.

Second, he re-examines his grounds for doubting his senses.

Third, he investigates his senses and concludes that, because God is no deceiver, Descartes must believe that his senses do not deceive him about the existence and nature of physical objects.

To further clear God of any charge of deception, Descartes considers the special occasions when our God-given "natural impulses" guide us toward what is harmful. He decides that this deception is down to us not using our ability to reason. He concludes his Meditations by describing a technique for avoiding all sense error and explains how dreaming can be distinguished from waking.

By the end of Meditations VI, Descartes believes that he has demonstrated clearly and distinctly that he has conquered all his doubts and established that he is justified in claiming that he knows what he believes he knows.

66 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Cartesian Dualism

By the end of Meditation 2, Descartes claims that by using his reason he has established the existence of two substances - Mind & Body.

This view is known as Cartesian Dualism and we need to spend a bit of time on this concept.

Firstly Descartes points out that if two objects have exactly the same qualities then they are the same – “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then…….”

Next he argues that the opposite also applies so that if two objects have different qualities, then they are different.

He then recalls the primary qualities of all material objects – wax, his body whatever. The qualities are size, shape and flexibility.

The modern basic scientific view is that the universe and all that happens can be explained in terms of matter and forces. This is a purely materialist view of everything.

For Descartes as well as material stuff like his body, gravity and golf clubs there was also mind stuff - his mind and God’s mind.

He claimed that he knew his own mind more clearly and distinctly than his body. He believed that the cogito demonstrates the truth of this claim. The Thumbprint of God argument, is the most clear and distinct idea of all.

67 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Meditation VI

It remains for me to examine whether material objects exist. Insofar as they are the subject of pure mathematics, I now know at least that they can exist, because I grasp them clearly and distinctly.

To clarify this, I'll examine the difference between having a mental image and having a pure understanding. When I have a mental image of a triangle, for example, I don't just understand that it is a figure bounded by three lines; I also "look at" the lines as though they were present to my mind's eye. And this is what I call having a mental image.

When I want to think of a chiliagon, I understand that it is a figure with a thousand sides as well as I understand that a triangle is a figure with three, but I can't imagine its sides or "look" at them as though they were present. Being accustomed to using images when I think about physical objects, I may confusedly picture some figure to myself, but this figure obviously is not a chiliagon - for it in no way differs from what I present to myself when thinking about a myriagon or any other many sided figure, and it doesn't help me to discern the properties that distinguish chiliagons from other polygons. And it's obvious to me that getting this mental image requires a special mental effort different from that needed for understanding - a special effort which clearly reveals the difference between having a mental image and having a pure understanding.

Review 1 According to Descartes, what is the difference between having a "mental image" and having "pure understanding"?

It also seems to me that my power of having mental images, being distinct from my power of understanding, is not essential to my self or, in other words, to my mind for, if I were to lose this ability, I would surely remain the same thing that I now am.

Review 2 What point does Descartes make about the differences between mental images and pure understanding?

Descartes Reviews Previous Doubts

68 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Many experiences have shaken my faith in the senses. Towers that seemed round from a distance sometimes looked square from close up, and huge statues on pediments sometimes didn't look big when seen from the ground. In innumerable such cases, I found the judgments of the external senses to be wrong. And the same holds for the internal senses. What is felt more inwardly than pain? Yet I had heard that people with amputated arms and legs sometimes seem to feel pain in the missing limb, and it therefore didn't seem perfectly certain to me that the limb in which I feel a pain is always the one that hurts.

Review 3 Explain Descartes’ points here.

And, to these grounds for doubt, I've recently added two that are very general: First, since I didn't believe myself to sense anything while awake that I couldn't also take myself to sense in a dream, and since I didn't believe that what I sense in sleep comes from objects outside me, I didn't see why I should believe what I sense while awake comes from such objects.

Review 4 What point is Descartes making here?

Second, since I didn't yet know my creator I saw nothing to rule out my having been so designed by nature that I'm deceived even in what seems most obviously true to me. And I could easily refute the reasoning by which I convinced myself of the reality of sensible things.

Review 5 What point is Descartes making here?

Now that I've begun to know myself and my creator better, I still believe that I oughtn't blindly to accept everything that I seem to get from the senses. Yet I no longer believe that I ought to call it all into doubt. In the first place, I know that everything that I clearly and distinctly understand can be made by God to be exactly as I understand it. It's possible (or, as I will say later, it's certain) that I have a body which is very tightly bound to me. But, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself insofar as I am just a thinking and unextended thing, and, on the other hand, I have a distinct idea of my body insofar as it is just an extended and unthinking thing. It's certain, then, that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it.

69 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Review 6 What point does Descartes make about the relationship between mind and body?

Assignment 30

Using your notes, summarise Descartes’ arguments up to this point.

Use a lined sheet of paper.

You will be continuing this process as we read through Meditations VI

There is also in me, however, a passive ability to sense to receive and recognise ideas of sensible things. But, since God isn't a deceiver, it's completely obvious that He doesn't send these ideas to me directly or by means of a creation that contains their reality eminently rather than formally. For, since He has not given me any ability to recognise that these ideas are sent by Him or by creations other than physical objects, and since He has given me a strong inclination to believe that the ideas come from physical objects, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that He deceives me if the ideas are sent to me by anything other than physical objects. It follows that physical objects exist.

Review 7 How does Descartes claim he has overcome his doubts about physical objects?

Through sensations like pain, hunger, and thirst, nature also teaches me that I am not present in my body in the way that a sailor is present in his ship. Rather, I am very tightly bound to my body and so "mixed up" with it that we form a single thing. Nature teaches me that there are other physical objects around my body - some that I ought to seek and others that I ought to avoid. From this fact I correctly infer that sense perceptions come from physical objects I infer with certainty that my body or, rather, my whole self which consists of a body and a mind-can be benefited and harmed by the physical objects around it.

70 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Review 8 According to Descartes, what is the relationship between mind and body?

Still, we often err in cases in which nature does impel us. This happens, for example, when sick people want food or drink that would quickly harm them. To say that these people err as a result of the corruption of their nature does not solve the problem for a sick man is no less a creation of God than a well one, and it seems as absurd to suppose that God has given him a deceptive nature.

There is a real fault in the composite's nature, for it is thirsty when drinking would be harmful. It therefore remains to be asked why God's goodness doesn't prevent this nature's being deceptive.

Review 9 How does Descartes explain the persistence of error?.

Despite God's immense goodness, the nature of man (whom we now view as a composite of mind and body) cannot fail to be deceptive ….it much better that we are deceived on these (few) occasions than that we are generally deceived when our bodies are sound. And the same holds for other cases.

I know that sensory indications of what is good for my body are more often true than false; I can almost always examine a given thing with several senses; and I can also use my memory (which connects the present to the past) and my understanding (which has now examined all the causes of error).

Review 10 How does Descartes suggest future error can be avoided?

Hence, I need no longer fear that what the senses daily show me is unreal. I should reject the exaggerated doubts of the past few days as ridiculous. This is especially true of the chief ground for these doubts - namely, my inability to distinguish dreaming from being awake. For I now notice that dreaming and being awake are importantly different: the events in dreams are not linked by memory to the rest of my life like those that happen while I am awake. If, while I'm awake, someone were suddenly to appear and then immediately to disappear without my seeing where he came from or went to (as happens in

71 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

dreams), I would justifiably judge that he was not a real man but a ghost or, better, an apparition created in my brain.

But, if I distinctly observe something's source, its place, and the time at which I learn about it, and if I grasp an unbroken connection between it and the rest of my life, I'm quite sure that it is something in my waking life rather than in a dream. And I ought not to have the slightest doubt about the reality of such things if I have examined them with all my senses, my memory, and my understanding without finding any conflicting evidence.

For, from the fact that God is not a deceiver, it follows that I am not deceived in any case of this sort. Since the need to act does not always allow time for such a careful examination, however, we must admit the likelihood of men's erring about particular things and acknowledge the weakness of our nature.

Review 11 How can Descartes revise his view of sense experience in general and the difference between waking and dreaming in particular?

Assignment 31

Using your notes, summarise Descartes’ arguments up to this point adding this information to Summary Activity 1.

Overall review

In Meditations VI Descartes believes that he has achieved all the aims he set out Meditation I. He believes that his Rational approach and Method of Doubt have achieved a position of Justified, True, Belief.

In some ways it is a circular journey. He started certain, doubted and ends up certain again! So what is the point of that?

72 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Well he would answer that he now has

 a foundational certainty for the new sciences  established reason as the basis for knowledge  demonstrated an epistemological process to avoid future error  defeated the sceptics

Job Done!

In Meditation I he has cleared away all doubt.

From Meditations II, he believes that he is justified in claiming that he is a “thinking thing”.

In Meditation III he believes he is justified in claiming that God is not a deceiver.

In Meditation VI, he believes that he has demonstrated that he really can distinguish dreams from reality because they do have distinct qualitative differences. For example dreams are often confused and they do not conform to the rules of time and space. The waking state is predictable - people and events do not leap through time and space.

His last major doubt, the existence and appearance of the physical world, is resolved by Descartes’ claim that God has given him a “strong inclination” to believe that the material world exists. Descartes points out that he can use his God-given reason to avoid perceptual error.

Therefore the material world does exist as Descartes perceives it.

Errors of judgment based on perception are our own fault. For example, when we are ill we sometimes want food or liquid when to eat or drink would do us harm. Descartes position on this was that it

73 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

was better we were deceived when we were sick than when we were healthy!

“Error is the result of imbalance between my understanding and my will. My understanding allows me to have clear and distinct ideas only about a very limited number of things. But my will ventures more. The will needs restrained.”

Descartes’ Final Claims

In Meditation 6, Descartes claims to justify all the knowledge doubted, or rejected, in Meditation 1 – so he now believes he has demonstrated justified true belief.

To achieve this he uses the

 clear and distinct rule  existence of a God who does not deceive

Doubts & false beliefs to JTB

 Meditation I:– illusion; Phantom limbs; Dreaming argument: Reason & God  Dreaming is different from waking  Meditation II:- Cogito Foundational Knowledge  Meditation III:- God is not a deceiver – Primary Qualities  Meditation VI:- Mental image & pure understanding  Deception the result of a misjudgment of will over reason.  Reasoning can correct the errors of the senses.  The external world exists as it is perceived.

Assignment 32

1 What does Descartes believe he has achieved by the end of Meditation VI? 2 What reasons does he have for his epistemological certainties? 74 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Meditations VI - Criticisms

 Clear and distinct rule - What might seem clear might not be true at all.  Cartesian circle: the clear and distinct rule is justified by appealing to God but God is justified by appealing to the clear and distinct rule.  Arguments rely on the existence of a non-deceiving God.  Primary and secondary quality differences not sustainable  Dream argument not resolved  Plus all the problems from Meditation I-III – cogito etc

Assignment 33

1 Explain, with the use of examples, the problem of using Descartes’ clear and distinct rule. 2 How convincing are his explanations of how waking can be distinguished from dreaming? 3 What is the problem with Descartes’ distinction between primary and secondary qualities of physical objects? 4 What are the problems with Descartes’ argument that the waking can be distinguished from the dreaming? 5 In what ways is Descartes’ radical method of doubt not radical enough? What important things does he not doubt or examine? 6 Descartes’ claims that he has achieved all his aims. How convinced are you by Descartes? René DESCARTES 1596-1650 Descrates' memorial in the Adolf Fredrik Kyrkogård in Stockholm. 75 His remains were later removed to Paris Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

Response Meditation V1 Meditation 1 - Reprise Criticisms

By use of clear reasoning we What's might seem clear might Internal & External Illusions - can correct the errors of the not be true at all. Cartesian False sensations so all sensations senses. Clear & Distinct Ideas. circle: the clear and distinct rule could be false (Med II – ‘Cogito’ = Clear and is justified by appealing to God Distinct Med II I - but God is justified by appealing ‘Trademark’ etc arguments = to the clear and distinct rule. Clear & Distinct) Cogito = dead-end, not Foundational Certainty

Dreams and waking can be Some dreams vivid and some Dreaming argument – Dreams cannot differentiated by reason – waking experiences confused! be differentiated from waking state. dreams are often confused and they do not conform to the Relies on the existence of a rules of time and space. The benevolent God. waking state is predictable and obeys natural laws.

God would not allow deception Cartesian Circle Reason – This could be a deception so the external world must Deception does take place exist as it is perceived. No proof for innate ideas Demon argument – All thinking could Atheism? be a deception. Misperceptions are a Suffering? misjudgment of will not a deceit. God beyond human understanding Cogito foundational certainty problems Memory problems ‘I?’ - Gassendi ‘No evidence for I’ - Hume ‘Memory needed for I’ - Ayre Mind Substance?

76 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

77 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

78 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

79 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

80 Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Epistemology

81