1. Epistemology Section 1 What is knowledge?
Why are knowledge claims a problem in Philosophy?
Can knowledge claims be justified?

2. Epistemology Section 1 What is knowledge?
The distinction between knowing ‘how’ and knowing ‘that’.
Tripartite theory (justified, true, belief)
The difference between knowledge, belief and certainty

3. Epistemology Section 1
Why are knowledge claims a problem in Philosophy?
The difference between appearance and reality (Plato’s simile of the cave’ / Matrix)
Problems with the Tripartite theory
Accidental correctness (Gettier)
The problem of justification (challenge of scepticism)
Infinite regress of justification
Unreliability of the senses
Limitations of reason

4. Epistemology Section 1
Can knowledge claims be justified? (Responses to scepticism)
Rationalism (e.g. Descartes, Plato)
Innate ideas
Senses are unreliable
Self-evident truths can be grasped by the mind without reference to the senses
Reason is the most reliable source of knowledge about the world

5. Epistemology Section 1
Can knowledge claims be justified? (Responses to scepticism)
Problems with rationalism …
Can only give us indirect knowledge about concepts
A priori truths tell us nothing important about the world
Problems with innate ideas

6. Epistemology Section 1
Can knowledge claims be justified? (Responses to scepticism)
Empiricism (e.g. Hume, Aristotle)
The mind as tabula rasa
Experience as the source of all ideas (concepts)
Reason can only give logical connections between ideas not knowledge about the world
Only experience gives us knowledge about the world.

7. Epistemology Section 1
Can knowledge claims be justified? (Responses to scepticism)
Problems with Empiricism
The difference between appearance and reality
How do we do that our mental representation correspond to reality?
How can we deal with the problem of radical doubt?

8. Epistemology Section 2 Option A: Descartes’ Rationalism Or
Option B: Hume’s Empiricism

9. Descartes’ Rationalism
Searching for a reliable foundation for knowledge
Reason as the foundation of knowledge:
Refuting sceptical arguments:

10. Descartes’ Rationalism
Searching for a reliable foundation for knowledge.
Aim of the Meditations …
How is Descartes going to achieve his aim? (Sceptical Method)
Authorities as a foundation of knowledge?
A posteriori truths as a foundation of knowledge?
A priori truths as a foundation of knowledge?

11. Descartes’ Rationalism
Searching for a reliable foundation for knowledge.
A posteriori truths as a foundation of knowledge?
Mistrust of the senses Med. I
Failed me in the past …
Perceptual illusions …
Maybe I’m mad?
The Dream argument Med. I
Hypothetical possibility
Extreme argument against a posteriori knowledge
Maths / external world survive

12. Descartes’ Rationalism
Searching for a reliable foundation for knowledge.
A priori truths as a foundation of knowledge?
The Evil Genius argument Med. I
Hypothetical possibility
Extreme argument against a priori knowledge
Makes sure he avoids slipping back into old habits
Allows him to ‘turn his will in the opposite direction’
If anything survives this he can truly say that he has found certainty
Everything is lost …

13. Descartes’ Rationalism
2. Reason as the foundation of knowledge:
The Cogito Med. II
Non-analytical self-evident truth
It’s a self-authenticating statement (true every time it is conceived by the mind)
It’s self-contradictory to say “I don’t exist”
Survives even the demon argument
‘Thinking’ survives whereas nothing based on sense experience does
Opens the way to his mind/body dualism
It is the one indubitable certainty that can act as a foundation for all others.

14. Descartes’ Rationalism
2. Reason as the foundation of knowledge:
God as the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions Med. III
Clear and distinct perception / rule
Trademark argument for God’s existence
The idea of God includes the notion that he is benevolent
If God is good he would not deceive us
Clear and distinct perceptions must be true since a good God wouldn’t allow this level of deception

15. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments: Med. VI
God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists
Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected
Refuting the dream argument

16. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists Med. VI
Strategy relies on clear and distinct rule / proof that God exists and is good.
Physical objects:
are not subject to Descartes’ will
are extended whereas the mind is unextended
These objects can’t originate, therefore, in the imagination …
Where then do they come from?

17. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists Med. VI
We passively receive ideas of outside objects, so there must be an external cause to the ideas.
The only possible cause of these ideas are the external objects themselves, or God, or the demon.
God exists and is good, therefore, he wouldn’t allow us to think these ideas were caused by external objects unless they actually existed

18. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected Med. VI
Strategy relies on clear and distinct rule / proof that God exists and is good.
Difference between the imagination and the intellect
Imagine a chiliagon
Use the intellect to understand a chiliagon
Imagination and the intellect are distinct faculties of the mind
Imagination deals with images of material things
Intellect deals with a priori truths

19. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected Med. VI
There is an outside world but is it like that reported by my senses?
Primary / Secondary qualities
Secondary (apparent) qualities (colour, smell, taste)
Originate in sensation
Subject matter of the imagination
Obscure and confused perception (prone to error)
Do not exist in the object (appear only in the perceiving mind)
Primary (or real) qualities (shape, position, size, number)
Subject matter of mathematics
Understood in the intellect
Perceived clearly and distinctly
Exist in the objects (inherent features of matter itself)

20. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected Med. VI
For example
‘Grass is green’, we should say ‘Grass stimulates sensations of green in us’
‘The tower is small’ – we should say ‘the tower simply appears small and my memory and other faculties can confirm its true size’.
God equips us with various faculties: Reason, the senses, memory.
I now see it is ‘…impossible that there could be any falsity in my opinions which couldn’t be corrected by some faculty supplied by God’.
Some things which my senses appear to be telling me are in fact a misjudgement of reason
However, with a careful use of clear reasoning we can correct the errors in sense perception.

21. Descartes’ Rationalism
3. Refuting sceptical arguments:
Refuting the dream argument Med. VI

22. Problems with Descartes’ Rationalism
Problems with the sceptical method …
Problems with the cogito …
Descartes’ arguments rely on a good God
Descartes’ appeal to the clear and distinct rule
What might seem clear and distinct might not be true at all
Logical error …
Cartesian circle …