Philosophy Exam 2 (Set 7) Hume

Front 1

Why does Berkley reject Locke's notion of matter?

Back 1

Berkley rejects Locke's notion of matter. Says there's no microfiber pieces. What's mind independent is really mind dependent.

Front 2

What does Berkley show in his variabce argument?

Back 2

Primary qualities don't change. That's what Locke says, Berkley says but if you move a quarter around it looks different so this proves that mind dependent objects can change.

Front 3

What does Berkley's rejection resemblance thesis say

Back 3

One is a mental object the other is a physical object. What possible resemblance could they have? Only things that are similar can be compared. We don't say you remind me of my nalgene bottle. So we have to reject resemblance.

Front 4

The gap problem what does Berkley say about it?

Back 4

You acknowledge that the right half of your picture is mind independent. If you acknowledge the closest you can get to the world is mental image then there's already a cause for doubt. If my senses were dulled my nerves weren't completely functioning. I would have no way to see if it's really a solid object. We can never get behind the veil. Berkley says go off your experinece. We have these ideas which we get from experience. Maybe there's a physical world, maybe there's not we just have to go off of our experiences.

Front 5

Berkley's problem: The problem of unperceived existence

Back 5

I don't want to say the Nalgene bottle is real. What happens to the bottle when everyone leaves the room. Berkley says to be perceived/to perceive is to exist/ Then, if we're gone it can't exist. WE believe that if we go back to the room then we believe the Nalgene bottle is still there. According to Berkley if nobody is perceiving me then I don't exist. But I don't panic. I don't drive home and panic going OMG I hope my house exists. He accounts for this by God. God is the ultimate perceiver. God is always perceiving all things are essentially ideas in the mind of God.

Front 6

Hume compared to Locke and Descartes and Berkley

Back 6

Locke says physical world, infinite mind, and finite minds exist.
Descartes says infinite mind, finite mind, and physical world.
Berkley says infinite mind, finite mind, ideas.
Hume takes skeptical position. He says perceptions (the present testimony of our senses and our memories of this testomony).

Front 7

What is Hume skeptical?

Back 7

The external world
The self (I know not what)
Causality (Relationship of cause and effect)
Notion of matter and substance

Front 8

What does hume think about things that physically exist

Back 8

He doesn't think he has enough evidence to say that these things physically exist/ He's not saying these things don't exist. He tries to say I can't get enough info to conclude this with any kind of certainty.

Front 9

Teleological Arguments

Back 9

Natural object must have creator because physical objects do. Since these objects are so similar we can say the objects of this world have to be designed. This designer should be like the objects. Sometimes they come up with things by accident. It's true ewe become imperfect. We work in teams ect/ So it's not perfect. It's based on that best you can do is say those attributes are true of the physical world. Really you have to remain skeptical we will always be a step away from experiencing them.

Front 10

What does Hume think about the mind?

Back 10

Hume thinks the mind is a bunch of perceptions strange to think of something outside of perceptions why don't we refer to the mind as just perception.

Front 11

2 types of perception

Back 11

Impressions
Ideas

Front 12

Perceptions

Back 12

Perceptions are what Locke would call ideas. Focus on these mental images of the mind.

Front 13

Impressions

Back 13

Forceful/lively these come from seeing/hearing, these come from our felt sensations.

Front 14

Ideas

Back 14

Less/forceful/lively. They're not the things directly coming in. They are copies of these sensations. They're things we reflect on. These are memories of sensations. Can be simple, complex, compound, complex.

Front 15

What is the relationship between ideas and impressions

Back 15

All simple ideas are copies of some earlier impression (copy principle).

Front 16

Hume says about complex ideas

Back 16

He says all complex or compound ideas can be broken down into simple ideas.

Front 17

Does Hume leave room for innate ideas? Why or why not?

Back 17

No room for innate ideas because every idea is based on some past impression you see, hear, something. He says there are no innate ideas. All of them are copies of our intellectual ideas.

Front 18

What is an example of an impression?

Back 18

I put my hand on the board and get sensation of it as cool and so that's the impression. When we reflect on it we think about it and that's the idea.

Front 19

2 arguments for blank slate:

Back 19

1. Complex ideas can be traced back to simple ideas, each of which is a copy of an impression.
2. Lacking a sense means you'll have no ideas of the target of that sense, plus, lack of experience sensing something (experience) means no impressions and subsequently no ideas of that thing.

Front 20

What does Hume say about blind men and also about duck

Back 20

Give a blind man the faculty to have sensations he has the capability to have ideas of images through impression.
If you've never had duck you've never had the sensation of it so you don't know what it's like. If you taste it then you have the sensation of it. He says nope we don't know until we have this impression which gives us the idea.

Front 21

What does Hume say about being deaf and sound

Back 21

He says when you look at people who are deaf they have no ideas of sound. They don't see the impression/sensation of sound. So they have no ideas. You don't find people running around talking about ideas they haven't actually experienced.

Front 22

Imagist

Back 22

Hume is an imagist. He thinks we have mental things we work with.

Front 23

What problem does the color wheel present?

Back 23

Imagine you have a color wheel and you are trying to pick a shade of blue to paint your bedroom. You have a progression of hues. What if theres a missing shade? Could somebody reproduce that? Can we conjour it? If everything comes from the senses we couldn't do this. But Hume admits that we can. But this seems contradictory to his thesis.

Front 24

If all we have is experience how do we come up with abstractions?

Back 24

The ideas kind of blend into different things. IF we experience enough triangles the impression gets hazy we get a general experience of this. That's how you do it.

Front 25

What does it mean to say that Hume is an imagist?

Back 25

Hume believes that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions. Unlike everybody else, Hume says the mind isn't something that's in addition to the perception.

Front 26

WHat would happen to the mind if we took away perceptions?

Back 26

Then there would be nothing left

Front 27

How do we get abstract ideas?

Back 27

We look at a particular idea and then take a step back from them. THen they get fuzzy. We think in terms of images, more experience you have when someone says red, then you will image red. But then you get fuzzy and you understand that the image isn't necessarily just that one shade. He believe it's a condition of processing.

Front 28

Classify the following statements as matter of fact or relation of ideas:
1. Square trinangles do not exist.
2. Atomic weight of gold is 79
3. Nothing can exceed the speed of light.
4. Berkley was Irish
5. Hume is identical to Hume.

Back 28

1. Relation of ideas
2. Matter of fact- you can think of it in this way
3. Matter of fact- even though it's a natural law, Hume says we could have a different set of laws.
4. Matter of fact. He could have just as easily been from somewhere else.
5. Identity is necessarily true so relation of ideas.

Front 29

Relations of ideas

Back 29

(geometry, arithmetic, algebra)
IF true then necessarily true, if false then necessarily false. (IF it's true it's ALWAYS true, there are no circumstances where it can be false) These are a priori (Truth is independent of actual experience).

Front 30

Matters of fact

Back 30

These ideas are contingent (Could be true, could be false.)
A posteriori (truth depends on experience. The sun could rise tomorrow can be true can be false).
This stuff depends on the world around you.

Front 31

How can we look in the future?

Back 31

He says nobody's ever tried to do this so I may not be right but he looks at alot of testimony. THnk about your wardrobe we put away shorts mid november because we understand from memory we won't need them much more.

Front 32

What does he say about matters of fact?

Back 32

All reasoings concerning matters of fact seem to be found on the relation of cause and effect.

Front 33

Why do I think my friend is in frace? What cauess this belief in me?

Back 33

I think my friend is in France because I got a letter post marked from France so I believe my friend is in France. You don't have something to experience, you go beyond your own memories and you predict into the future.

Front 34

How do we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect?

Back 34

Not done by a priori, rather we use induction. When you see event type A on the one hand B on the other, when you see instances on A and it's closely related to event B by the constant conjunction we will eventually say events of type A cause events of type B.
IF everyone orders lamb and eats it and runs to the bathroom you think that A causes B and you assume you have food poisoning.

Front 35

Induction

Back 35

Involves (is a product) of experience. Experience of constantly conjoined events.

Front 36

How do you know when you have enough experience to say events are conjoined?

Back 36

Sometimes it depends. If you give 3 perfectly healthy rats something and they all die 5 seconds later you proably don't need additional research but if you're testing an experimental drug and you gave it to 3 ppl and it helped them you probs still need more research.

Front 37

Hume argument P1.

Back 37

Induction relies on the principle of the uniformity of nature. (pun)=namely, the claim is that the future will resemble the past.
(I smuggle in a belief that I'm just assuming I can predict existentail crisis. Everyday we figure that the past will predict the future. Instead of justifying induction we have to justify pun).

Front 38

Hume ARgument P2

Back 38

If we want to justify induction we must first justify PUN since something cannot be justified (defended) if it depends on something that is itself not justified.

Front 39

Hume Argument P3

Back 39

Any justification of PUN will end up appeaing/relying on induction.
(This would put us in a circle now we need to justify future relies on past. THis is by induction but we need to use induction to do this now you're in a circle can never get out.)

Front 40

Hume Conclusion

Back 40

Induction is necessarily unjustified and unjustifiable.

Front 41

Hume Argument P3 Justification A

Back 41

PUN is either a matter of fact or a relation of ideas.
(This is true of any/all propositions)

Front 42

Hume Argument P3 Justification B

Back 42

PUN cannot be a relation of ideas because it is no contradictory to say that the future will not resemble the past.

Front 43

Hume Argument P3 Justification C

Back 43

PUN is a matter of fact.

Front 44

Hume Argument P3 Justification D

Back 44

The only reason we think that PUN is true is because it seems to have been true in the past, which is to say that we take PUN to be true. (If it's not only deduction)

Front 45

What does Hume say about experience, knowledge, and matters of fact?

Back 45

Hume thinks experience gives you knowledge. He's concerned about matters of fact. Hume says matters of fact are informative. What justifies us saying this is true. Everyday whne I go downstars to the pantry Henry will greet me. He knows he will get a Greenie. Doesn't CApital K know he's been conditioned. He sees if I sit still I can do that. He's making a generalization based on past experience. These experiences are only useful if I think tomorrow will be like today. If you didn't expect your experience would stay the same wouldn't be helpful

Front 46

What is the vicious circle HUME works himself into?

Back 46

Induction is justified by PUN.
Pun is by induction of nature

Front 47

Hume's skeptical solution to the problem of induction

Back 47

This is done by constant conjunction.
How do we choose to act, everything is based on things. When we see these events then we can recognize a routine. We pair these together we get these ideas in our mind and they resemble one another when I get one idea it draws another idea into our mind. CAusal relation isn't true all you have is constant conjoining of events. STub to e can't say stubbing it necessarily caused the pain we just know from experience if we stub our toe correlates pain.

Front 48

ARe we rationally justified in using constant conjunction? Why or why not? Do we use constant conjunction?

Back 48

WE aren't rationally justified but we can't help but use it because we are the individuals we are.