Epistemology [revision] Tips for revision & examination technique: Argument: “You will be marked on your ability... to organise information clearly” Part-and-parcel of a good argument is demonstrating your point via illustrations/examples Quotations: Quotations and citations of important thinkers and scholars demonstrates you know a subject well Specialist Vocabulary: “You will be marked on your ability... to use good English... and to use specialist vocabulary where appropriate” Actually Quite Simple

What is ‘epistemology’? Most generally a ‘theory of knowledge’ More specifically, enquiry into the nature of knowledge, sources of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge Why is ‘epistemology’ important for philosophy? Epistemology in the News: A comment on a “great” political moment on television: #14 Donald Rumsfeld The US Defence Secretary briefing the press in 2002 on instability in Afghanistan post- invasion: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.” It’s epistemologically brilliant. Or barking. The Times, “Great Political TV Moments”, April 17 th 2010

Epistemology: Mind-map

Innate ideas in a nutshell (or, ‘the structure of this lesson’) 1. Point of departure: A definition of ideas, specifically considering innate ideas 2. Innate ideas as a central thesis of Rationalism 3. Rationalism vs. Empiricism (or is this actually the case?!) 4. Why some Rationalists claim that we have innate ideas 5. How some Rationalists claim that we have innate ideas a) Rene Descartes; Baruch Spinoza; Godfreid Leibniz 6. Why some Empiricists object to innate ideas 7. How some Empiricists object to innate ideas a) John Locke (a less radical argument which objects to innate ideas) b) David Hume (a more radical argument which objects to innate ideas) 8. Extensions 9. How to bring this all back to the examination

(1) Definition of ideas What are ideas? We use the word ‘ idea ’ in a variety of ways, but in philosophical circles, it has a very specific meaning. They are entities/concepts that exist as contents of some mind. They are necessary in order to gain knowledge about the external world. Ideas are essential to categorising the world (e.g. recognising a cow and classifying it as a mammal). Even according to the philosophical meaning of ‘ ideas ’, there can still be different types of ideas  Rene Descartes, for example, divided our ideas into three categories: Abstract “ adventitious ” ideas, e.g. idea of colour Fictitious ideas, such as the idea of a unicorn, phoenix or hippogriff Innate ideas Now, the existence of the third type of ideas [(iii) innate ideas] is a very contentious point amongst philosophers. Descartes, in his categorisation, believed that they existed, but not all philosophers do. Write down some examples of abstract ideas and fictitious ideas.

(2) Innate ideas & rationalism What is the origin of ideas? Where do they come from? How do we get them? THIS IS THE CENTRE OF THE DEBATE. Rationalists tend to argue that at least some of our ideas are innate (i.e. they are not gained from experience) “Innate concepts are in the mind... but are not present in consciousness until we actually conceive them.” (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Innate ideas are significant, because there is a close connection between a philosopher’s view on innate ideas, a priori knowledge and necessary truths. [we will simply focus on innate ideas today] Rationalists typically posit that the mind has a set of innate ideas that provide the source of a priori knowledge of a wide variety of necessary truths.

(3) Rationalism vs. empiricism (???) The matter is much more complex in terms of wider philosophy. Not as simple as Scotland and England vs. the Continent! But for our purposes, Rationalists tend to believe that there exists innate ideas; Empiricists tend to believe that innate ideas do not exist. More fundamentally, the dispute is over synthetic a priori knowledge. [Empiricists do not believe that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible; Rationalists do]

(4) Why some rationalists claim we have innate ideas Beyond debating which is the ‘right’ answer (i.e. having a correct epistemology) Some philosophers, for a whole range of reasons, finds the claim that all knowledge is derived simply through the senses problematic. The theory of innate knowledge makes certain claims about the universality of human thought and experience. This is significant for a number of spheres of thought: anthropology (c.f. Chomsky’s universal innate grammar) theology (the existence of God and the createdness of humanity)

(5) how some rationalists claim we have innate ideas Historical philosophical answers include: A previous existence (Plato) [but that has the problem of infinite regress] God, who placed such innate knowledge in our minds at creation (Descartes) More recent attempts, which tend not to think of innate ideas as ideas known in the mind from birth, find other explanations include: Evolution (Philosophical forms of evolutionary biology) Nativist explanations - triggers

(6) Why some empiricists object to innate ideas An important observation: innate ideas do not seem to be a straightforward or even common sense theory. Individuals are acutely aware of what they have and what they don ’ t have. Think iPhone and iDea This is expressed in Locke ’ s famous claims that the mind is ‘ tabula rasa ’ “ Nothing can said to be in the Mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of ” (Essay Concerning Human Understanding) All ideas must be gained from experience. This thesis, so Empiricists claim, is the only explanation that can account for the diversity of ideas held by different people in different situations at different times of their lives. “ As Locke argues, there is no truth that every person, including children and idiots, assents to ” (Lacewing, p.12)

(7a) how some empiricists object to innate ideas There are various ways in which some (Empiricist) philosophers object to the innate-idea thesis. There are two main forms (although Lacewing explores a range of specific arguments) 7a John Locke (a less radical argument which objects to innate ideas) Locke argues that the supposedly innate concepts are indeed gained by sense experience He offers an account of the mental processes involved Locke ’ s famous view of how the mind acquires ideas: o “ The senses at first let in particular Ideas, and furnish the yet empty Cabnet: And the Mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodged in the Memory, and Names got to them. Afterwards the Mind proceeding farther, abstracts them, and by Degrees learns the use of general Names. In this manner the Mind comes to be furnish ’ d with Ideas and Language, the Materials about which to exercise its discursive Faculty ” (Essay Concerning Human Understanding) Locke ’ s argument also goes on to explain how ideas (acquired from experience) continue to operate in the Mind: it is through a repetitive process. We abstract from individual experiences to more general concepts

(7b) how some empiricists object to innate ideas 7b David Hume (a more radical argument which objects to innate ideas) Hume ’ s argument against supposedly innate concepts is (quite drastically) to suggest that we never had the supposedly innate concept in the first place. In other words, if you have a bit of a puzzling concept (which we call innate ideas) for which you cannot find an experiential source, then you should go back to the puzzling concept and (in Hume ’ s case) deny it This is the real application of Hume ’ s fork. o Relations of ideas (logical knowledge)  E.g. all grandmothers are females (the ideas of ‘ female ’ and ‘ grandmother ’ )  2 +3 =5 – in doing a sum like this we gain knowledge about how the concepts involved are related, but we do not learn anything about the world as it exists independently of our mind o Matters of fact (experiential knowledge)  E.g. the sun shines Hume made the important claim that anything that couldn ’ t be considered in these two terms was to be committed, “ to the flames; for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion ”. Hume ’ s fork was developed into a linguistic principle that demonstrates the meaningfulness of all language. It was developed by A.J. Ayer and is called the Verification Principle. It used the later (Kantian) terminology to classify all meaningful statements (notice it ’ s not about ideas) into our two classic categories: o Analytic o Synthetic

(8) Extensions There’s so much more to say... - Finding counter-arguments - Assessing the theories - Finding other solutions, e.g. Kant Kant is important because he drew attention to the fact that maybe the playing field on which Rationalists and Empiricists were playing wasn’t quite right. They took for granted the relation between mind and reality Kant talks about something call transcendental idealism – basically saying that there might be a difference between the way in which we view reality and the way it actually is. The mind projects ‘categories’ onto reality in order to facilitate understanding of it. He gives a place for things like causality (which Hume had rubbished as nonsensical)

(9) Bringing it back to the examination Examination essay question (30mins) ‘ All ideas derive from the sense experiences which they copy. ’ Discuss. [30 marks] Remember: Actually Quite Simple Argument: “ You will be marked on your ability... to organise information clearly ” Part-and-parcel of a good argument is demonstrating your point via illustrations/examples Quotations: Quotations and citations of important thinkers and scholars demonstrates you know a subject well Specialist Vocabulary: “ You will be marked on your ability... to use good English... and to use specialist vocabulary where appropriate ”