Philosophy

Front 1

Descartes Overall Aim

Back 1

From 1550-1850, the Enlightenment occurred, a period of invention and scientific exploration, as well as the rise of modernity. Through the rise of modernity, came man’s mastery over existence and his manipulation of the outside world, causing his separation from it. As man or “I” became separate from nature, man was no longer sure of his knowledge of nature and the external world. Knowledge is only considered knowledge when it is based upon objective propositions. Proof changes opinion, or subjective beliefs, into knowledge. At this time, although a belief in the external world may have existed, it was essential to establish knowledge of it, based on proof of its existence, which is what Descartes aimed to do. and establish a stable grond of scientific knowledge

Front 2

Reason of his methodological doubt

Back 2

Some knowledge we hold of reality is independent of our experience. This is true for example, considering the law that the angles in every triangle add up to 180 degrees. Although no one individual has ever seen or experienced every single triangle, this is a law that mathematicians follow, and we consider as an objective truth and knowledge. Although the idea that the angles in any triangle add up to 180 degrees is valid, we have ideas of things in our head that come from experience that are not always reflective of the truth. When an individual is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or is dreaming, they may have experiences that are not reflective of reality and cause them to be deceived. The question arises that how do we know we are not regularly being deceived as we go about our everyday lives. Perhaps an evil genius created us to live life as an illusion or perhaps our brains are really stored in vats and our experiences are reflections of nothing. Although usually experiences provides certainty that our beliefs are not merely subjective, but objective, deception comes from experience as well, so that we cannot trust all past experiences as true.

Front 3

Cogito ergo sum-I think therefore I am

Back 3

way of establishing that he exists in the form of a mind. must be a thing to engage in doubt. one thing he could never doubt is "I am" doubting would be impossible without something to engage in doubt in. -proves he exists as a thinking substance.

Front 4

argument proving existence of external world.

Back 4

a God exists that would never allow for a level of deception, by which humans would be deceived by a world which really doesn’t exist. Evidence for the existence of God comes from the idea of perfection. When evaluating what ideas are found in the human mind, the concept of perfection happens to be one of them. The idea of perfection could not have originated from humans, because humans are imperfect beings. The idea of perfection could not have a cause any less perfect than itself, leading Descartes to conclude that God is the cause of the idea of perfection. Since God is perfect, God can be defined in three different ways. First, God is self causing, meaning that God does not come from anyone or anything, except himself. Second, God’s essence includes existence, meaning that God necessarily has to exist. The third quality of God deals specifically with Descarts’s proof of the existence of the eternal world. Since God is perfectly good than God is unable to deceive, and will never allow us to be deceived or deceive us. If there exists a God like this, who will never allow humans to be deceived then what we perceive as external reality really is there. A perfect God would never trick humans into believing in a fake reality of the external world.

Front 5

Descartes role in creating mind/body dualism

Back 5

2 substances which exist:
-thinking (mind)-I think therfore I am
-extended (body)
God is the one and only true cause. Not only is there no influence of mind on body or of body on mind, there is no causality operative at all except insofar as God, the one true cause, intervenes to produce the regularities that occur in experience

Front 6

Cartesian Circle

Back 6

Descartes proof starts with idea of perfection, which rests on the assumption that God exists. It is assumed that God existed as perfect to transfer the idea of perfection to humans. One must assume God’s existence to trust the idea of perfection, however, while the idea of perfection itself is said to prove God’s existence. The use of God’s existence appears twice in Descartes’ poof, making it circular. The origin of the idea of perfection, as well as other ideas in our head, is questionable. All ideas in our head should be cast doubt upon, including perfection. If the ideas in our head are not cast doubt upon, one relies on faith, which unlike proof and scientific knowledge, only leads to deception. From God’s existence, however, Descartes goes on to say that we are guaranteed protection from deception and that we can trust the perceptions and ideas that we have of the external world. The evil genius hypothesis remains however, since there is no reason to trust the idea of perfection, before establishing God’s existence.

Front 7

Spinoza-Aim

Back 7

derive clear and distinct idea of God, if we possess this then we hav no reason to doubt existence. does this through rational consistency and principles of reason

Front 8

How do the following contribute to his clear and distinct idea of God?
Principle of Substance

Back 8

permenant(must be permenant to remain existing), persisting, who I am at core
definition of substance:
1)essence includes existence (existence is necc)
2)exclusive attributes/qualities (possess attributes are not shared with anything else)
--->since everything in existence shares at least 2 things in common, then substance is 1-monism
God=only true and existing substance, only entity which fulfills criteria for a substance

Front 9

relationship between substance and attribute

Back 9

a substance must have exclusive attributes/qualities about it meaning that it cannot chare the attribute with any other substance. if s1 and s2 share same substance A then not two substances, but one in the same. 2 attributes of divine substance that we have access to are thought and extension or mind and body. there are an infinite number of attributes of thought and extension

Front 10

relationship between substance and mode

Back 10

the divine substance is us. we are God, physical universe is menatl/physical extension of God. There is one divine substance, and each of us are modes, we are modes of God.

Front 11

Ontological Monism

Back 11

There is only one kind of being-physical universe is mental and phsyical extension of God-the divine substane is us. external world is mode of divine substance expressing attribute of extension. external worls is manifistation of substance, which necc exists.

Front 12

Individuality resting on principles of existence

Back 12

since we are an extension or a mode of God, our ideas are not ours, belong to divine substance, which in turn are us, so we are individuals in some ways, but others not

Front 13

Rationalism

Back 13

Rationalism: rational consistency/logic. definition of substance comes from innate ideas, not experience. truth of innate ideas lies in definition, indpendent of experience.
definition=benchmark of truth

Front 14

Empiricism

Back 14

innate ideas=fragments of immagination. ideas come from experience. experience=way all knowledge comes from. (sense perception, protects against arbitrayness of saying something is defined as such.

Front 15

Tabula Rasa

Back 15

Blank Slate. mind is a blank slate prior to experience. everything written to our mind comes through sensation

Front 16

role of sensation in acquiring knowledge of the external world

Back 16

everything written to our minds comes through sensation
experience-->sensation-->simple ideas--->complex ideas

Front 17

simple ideas

Back 17

qualities in ideas themselves, come to us so blended bc there is no distance between them.

Front 18

complex ideas

Back 18

combination or rearrangement of 2 or more simple ideas.
1)substance
2)all ideas of abstraction-humanity-we have experience of particular humans, but do we have experience of humanuty?

Front 19

critique of innate ideas in acquiring knowledge of the external world.

Back 19

experience-->sensation-->simple ideas-->complex ideas. complex ideas come from simple ideas, which come from sensation. complex ideas replace innate ideas. no such thing as innate idea

Front 20

how does Locke account for the idea of substance?

Back 20

merely an example of a complex idea

Front 21

primary vs secondary qualities

Back 21

primary- blue/white/feel/size(pertain to object itself)qualities tell us about things that exist, what is out there, independent of us and prove existence of external world
secondary qualities- (smell of odor-stinky/smelly, does not pertain to object, but personal perception of object-subjective) tell us about ourselves

Front 22

proof....

Back 22

primary objects, which rest in objects themselves revelas the essence of the object, they exist and come from the object itself. object exists in th ebody itself. existence of primary qualities prove existence of outside world.

Front 23

Hume's empiricism as radical skepticism

Back 23

hold in doubt, untrusting failure to take a position on a particular view, neither affirm nor deny. radically doubtful of any form of knowledge. experience is nothing more than experience. ideas=mental copies of what we recieve from experiences. ideas always claim more then sensory data. claim that hand caused pen to fall says more then what perception conveys info by. causality is a connection we make, doesn't come from reality itself.

Front 24

relationship between sensations and ideas

Back 24

see aboooveee

Front 25

why the idea of causality is illegitamite for Hume

Back 25

if knowledge doesnt exist then the idea of causality does not exist. where in bundle of sensation do we get information about cause? there is no where that we get in experience that justifies us in saing that once things is a cause and the other is an effect (hand with marker, assume that hand causes pen to work)

Front 26

role of custom/habituation in forming ideas of causality and the identity of the self.

Back 26

events following in close succession, typically interpreted in terms of cause and effect
a)causality
b)substance
c)self need
-->custom/habit to believe these things and rational to do so, but only comes from probability

Front 27

due to empiricism or rationalism claims to knowledge either probable or empty. why?

Back 27

rationalism: truth based on definition, do not know foundation of definition and truth value is empty, does not tell us anything about the world that we live in-may not reflect reality
-lacks content, which is criteria for 3rd option
Empiricism: perceptions are probably true, but not neccessarliy true, projections are of probability, not necessarily true
-criteria of 3rd option is that knowledge is neccessary.

Front 28

noumenal

Back 28

object or event in itself, independent of the senses
**this is the legitimate object of knowledge

Front 29

phenomenal

Back 29

an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal thing or event -- but it must be perceptible through the senses

Front 30

a prior analytic

Back 30

Rationalism-based on definition, independent of experience, empty

Front 31

a posterior synthetic

Back 31

Empiricism -something true that makes us feel that it is true-only probably true-not necessarliy

Front 32

a priori synthetic

Back 32

what Kant aims to do through Transcendatalism-establishes need for truth and necessity (which rationalism and empiricism lack, so a priori synthetic is a mix between the two.

Front 33

A priori synthetic

Back 33

what we can know independently of experience, the truth which is more then just a matter of definition.

Front 34

A priori synthetic propositions as the conditions for the possibility of experience

Back 34

information about experiences that are necessarily true, propositions that describe necc conditions making experience possible

Front 35

Space/Time

Back 35

make experiences possible, essential for an organized experience, don't have an experience of space/time, but have experience in space and time.

Front 36

categories of the understanding

Back 36

substance, objectivity, causality, transcentental, unity of apperception
-perceptions/sensations filtered by categories of the understanding, not experience of pure colors like blue, but blue shirt

Front 37

neccessary conditions of the possibility of experience

Back 37

God-hierarchy of experience, organize in terms of more or less
Selfhood-"I" organize experiences in terms of I am, not enough to have bundles of sensation, experience must be given to me as though I is permenant.
Substance
Causality

Front 38

Kant's argument as Transcendental

Back 38

rises above, goes beyond empiricism/rationalism
-given that experience is possible, the conditions of experience have been met
-space/time/categories possess necc existence
-any propositions counting as knowledge would be propositions describing the things that are experienced

Front 39

diff between emp/rat

Back 39

emp-knowledge restricted to experience
rat-knowledge prior to experience. only thing we can have knowledge of is reality as it is being experienced, noumenal-thing in itself=legitimate object of knowledge.

Front 40

a probable claim

Back 40

claim to truth in future based on past experiences, make a claim to something that hasnt yet. still relies on some evidence or sense of perception-present and past experience-claim not necessarily true, but probable (highly probable but not knowledge) knowledge must contain necessity

Front 41

analytic propositions

Back 41

claim based on definition, like rationalists, included in one term is found in the next term. 1 week =7 days, both things found in definition of each other and neatly contained, but tell us nothing about the world that we live in.