tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44929753180576776552024-03-20T02:58:16.048-07:00PhilosophyEllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-63397095360947293592013-05-02T12:33:00.001-07:002013-05-02T12:33:22.426-07:00Laplace's Hypothesis He claims that if all the data from the universe was collected into a certain, very high-technological intellect, it would be able to determine all events in the universe. In support of this, computers presently can predict what we thought were complex things, such as weather, natural hazards and planet arrangements. This proves that we do live in a determined, consistent and predictable universe.<br />
<br />
This is known as a mechanistic view of reality and describes the universe as acting similar of that of a giant machine. Machines work in a consistent, determinable way which to determinists, is what the universe is. The laws of nature are a good example of the universe behaving in a predictable way, for example Newton's laws of motion.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">To put it into context..</span><br />
Imagine a snooker shot. If we knew all the starting positions of the snooker balls, the direction the ball will move, the speed it will move etc etc, we will be able to predict the outcome of the event.<br />
So..<br />
Starting conditions + relevant physical laws = successful prediction of outcomeEllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-57440961386578745122013-05-02T12:20:00.001-07:002013-05-02T12:20:28.592-07:00Introduction to Free Will and Determinism<span style="font-size: large;">What is free will?</span><br />
Free will is the ability to make choices that aren't constrained by certain factors. The will is the part of a person's 'mind' which makes decisions based on multiple choices of actions. Choice here, is based on reasoning and evaluation.<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">And determinism?</span><br />
Determinism is the belief that a determinate/precisely defined set of conditions can only produce one possible outcome given the fixed laws of nature.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Determinist Claims</span><br />
Universal Causation - Every event has a cause<br />
Causal Necessity - The same cause will operate in the same way if repeated<br />
Reductive Physicalism - Our nature is strictly physical and can be described and understood by science<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-55391609034512727942013-01-03T05:12:00.000-08:002013-01-03T05:12:45.935-08:00Other SoN ViewsRousseau - We have never experienced the SoN, don't understand what it would be like. Hobbes would reply that countries such as Somalia with no government would be SoNs.<br />
<br />
Burke - Argument is misguided because everyone is different and would all act in different ways in the SoN.<br />
<br />
Overview:<br />
<br />
<b>Hobbes: SoN is awful --> state is the answer</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Locke: SoN is insecure --> state is the answer</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Anarchists: State is awful --> SoN is the answer </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-23859819271325096192013-01-03T05:06:00.001-08:002013-01-03T05:06:33.331-08:00Criticisms of LockeLimited state may be too weak - People aren't forced to work together so there may be no cooperation. It is easy to become leader as there is no God to decide and leviathan.<br />
<br />
State makes us power crazy - Anarchists say the state brings out the worst in us.<br />
<br />
Locke is an empiricist but says we have innate ideas in the SoN! Makes his whole argument hard to believe.EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-1389864462424458932013-01-03T04:58:00.001-08:002013-01-03T04:58:18.720-08:00Locke's benefits of a state<u>Limited State</u><br />
Rules on what a state can and can't do, limited power. Opposes absolute monarchy.<br />
<br />
<u>Why a limited state?</u><br />
We have a right to justice. Because the state is limited, it will make unbiassed punishments to criminals and more likely to solve problems whereas in the SoN, victims will have unbiassed views of punishment to the person doing wrong and are more likely to not solve the problem but make it worse.<br />
<br />
<u>Why not an absolute monarchy?</u><br />
Monarchs are humans with unlimited power which they can use however they want. This means they can carry out biassed punishment which is as bad as or worse than the SoN because it is illegal to disagree with their orders.<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-16498666206679300662013-01-03T01:52:00.001-08:002013-01-03T01:53:30.320-08:00Who's State of Nature is more convincing?<b>Locke</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
-<b> People would have morals.</b> Most would cooperate as well as game theory shows. I think people would act rationally to stay alive and this consists of trusting one another.<br />
- <b>Equality would exist</b> and there would be no higher leader because it is morally right and people would have morals.<br />
- <b>Natural Law/innate morals most people would have</b> because humans are intelligent beings that know the best solution to certain situations.<br />
- <b>War may occur but will always end peacefully</b>. E.g WW1 & 2 ended mostly peacefully.EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-47046923590470292422013-01-03T01:34:00.002-08:002013-01-03T01:54:23.949-08:00Locke's State of NatureClaims of the SoN:<br />
<br />
<b>'A State of perfect Freedom'</b> - everyone has free will with 'actions', 'possessions' and 'persons' within a Law of Nature which is aspects of nature that constrain us from doing things such as gravity. (Not manmade but from reason. Stops us from doing wrong.<br />
<br />
<b>Equality in abilities/'faculties'</b>- no higher leader/'subordination'. Only when God chooses someone will there be. 'Declaration of his Will set one above another'.<br />
<br />
<b>Not a 'State of Licence'</b>/where anything goes. People cannot harm others in 'life, health, liberty or possessions'.<br />
<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Hobbes and Locke differences..</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b>Equality </b>- Hobbes: In terms of power/strength. No-one free from harm (Fight for Glory). Locke: in terms of abilities/faculties. No high leader except God.<br />
<br />
<b>Liberty/freedom </b>- Hobbes: Freedom to protect life 'anything goes'. Free to be violent. Locke: Freedom to do what you want but not a 'state of licence'.<br />
<br />
<b>Natural Law </b>- Hobbes: Natural right to protect life. Conflicts with everyone else. Locke: 'Law of Nature' stops people from doing wrong. Everyone has innate morals.EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-33656629001417071972012-12-30T02:41:00.000-08:002012-12-30T02:41:07.567-08:00Hobbes' Benefits of a StateHobbes' ideal state:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7JA1PGSi_1ijckz_JavI-J8Tt-rRd4JHxWi2F2FiS7BtgD1Zo1CYW3KnO70EsqQ8dPezJ_Dsl7u3RhIaTtLHO6ebVKwd7od-QIt01HlIRX6s_ROzP4MoSW_toNfley__nFQquhBG_Oud/s1600/6a00d83453bcda69e201543412fc6c970c-800wi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7JA1PGSi_1ijckz_JavI-J8Tt-rRd4JHxWi2F2FiS7BtgD1Zo1CYW3KnO70EsqQ8dPezJ_Dsl7u3RhIaTtLHO6ebVKwd7od-QIt01HlIRX6s_ROzP4MoSW_toNfley__nFQquhBG_Oud/s320/6a00d83453bcda69e201543412fc6c970c-800wi.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>Absolute Monarchy --> </b>Religious and military power and control over everything with no limits.<br />
- Intimidating<br />
- Frightening<br />
<br />
<b>Why would it be beneficial?</b><br />
It is the only way to achieve civil society and cooperation.<br />
Actions can still be voluntary under fear.<br />
Everyone will seek peace and this will hold the system together.<br />
Fear may even provide legitimacy.<br />
<br />
<b>When is it rational to revolt?</b><br />
When chance of survival is worse than the SoN:<br />
- Death - War (ww1/2)<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-16275745177560169092012-12-30T02:32:00.002-08:002012-12-30T02:54:49.712-08:00Attacking Hobbes' account<h3>
Do I accept the premisses and problems?</h3>
<h3>
<b>1)</b></h3>
<ul>
<li>Are we really selfish? It depends on the situation. We might trust each other in a life and death situation because we know it's the only effective way of staying alive. </li>
<li>We don't know how we would act because we haven't experienced it. </li>
<li>The Game Theory shows trust and selflessness in people. </li>
</ul>
<b>C</b>: Our continued existence would be secure.<br />
<br />
<b>However:</b><br />
<ul>
<li>The Game Theory doesn't apply because the players aren't in a SoN so won't act like they would in a life and death situation. </li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>But! </b></div>
<div>
Although it would be easier to trust no one, we need socialisation to be sane because we are social animals.</div>
<br />
C: Continued existence would be secure because we wouldn't kill, there would be no one to socialise with and no sense of living if so.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>2) </b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Would there be morals? Would it be that "<u>Anything goes</u>"? Some people may have morals and would choose to not kill.</li>
<li>It depends on whether we were born in or just changed to a SoN and Hobbes hasn't focused on this.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>3) </b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Even the strongest person can be killed by a lower sneaky person.</li>
<li>The Fight for Glory may not protect you after all.</li>
<li>Some do not want ultimate power.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>4)</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Some may decide to assign jobs and have long-term projects to have food, maybe form a state.</li>
<li>After all, this is what Britain and the whole world has done! Converted into a state.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I disagree with all of the premisses and problems. I don't think he has looked clearly enough at how people would act in the SoN. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Is the conclusion right?</b><br />
Solitary? - Humans are social animals and we naturally need socialisation and a sense of belonging.<br />
No cooperation? - We formed a state.<br />
Rousseau - No one has experienced the SoN. <b>Hobbes: </b>Countries with no government. (Somalia).</div>
</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-12955451024424640882012-12-29T01:27:00.001-08:002012-12-29T01:30:08.323-08:00Hobbes' State of Nature<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCGpRjnq32q9xIqPdj6fY8-rJor9wUb5fxVUBaAQluT2WdxqNXgOTHvgCnP5qL-aqmK4hOY1mFHEb2GMkolvrCSWjZ0DVI21dk5VHu6vj5dHSa4az2M8p75Ibfb-oWyUL3OHxd0cwr4mqx/s1600/220px-Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCGpRjnq32q9xIqPdj6fY8-rJor9wUb5fxVUBaAQluT2WdxqNXgOTHvgCnP5qL-aqmK4hOY1mFHEb2GMkolvrCSWjZ0DVI21dk5VHu6vj5dHSa4az2M8p75Ibfb-oWyUL3OHxd0cwr4mqx/s200/220px-Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg" width="189" /></a>Hobbes was an English political philosopher who lived during the civil war.<br />
<br />
He claimed that the State of Nature (SoN) would be a "war of all against all".<br />
<br />
He said there are 4 premisses that would cause problems in the SoN.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Everyone is a rational egoist (reason effectively & be selfish) ---> Can't guarantee your continued existence as there is no trust of others.</li>
<li>Human desires are never ending ---> Everyone is equal to satisfy desires so the SoN is a state of equality in the concept of power/strength.</li>
<li>Humans desire power ---> This would cause a Fight For Glory where everyone would try and prove they are the strongest and scariest by killing and fighting everyone else.</li>
<li>Humans have a natural right to self-preservation ---> This would cause violence to be permissible in life and death situations and scarcity so they won't starve.</li>
</ol>
<b>His conclusion:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Human psychology + conditions of SoN = constant state of war</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Life would be "..solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Solitary - Isolated from not trusting anyone</li>
<li>Poor - No jobs/long-term projects/industries/income without a state</li>
<li>Nasty & brutish - Violent</li>
<li>Short - Short lives (killing and illnesses)</li>
</ul>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-35606114157704519792012-12-29T01:08:00.003-08:002012-12-29T01:08:58.845-08:00The State of Nature<b>What is it?</b><br />
Human life in the absence of a state and authority.<br />
<br />
Positives<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Freedom of choice</li>
<li>No punishment</li>
<li>Equality </li>
<li>No taxes</li>
</ul>
<div>
Negatives</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Fear</li>
<li>Killing</li>
<li>No healthcare</li>
<li>No education</li>
</ul>
</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-73632501044526904662012-12-29T01:05:00.002-08:002012-12-29T01:05:56.510-08:00Intro to Why Should I be Governed?A state - Set of institutions that claim authority over a certain area.<br />
It holds parliament, military, police, public schools, the civil service etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Different forms of government:</b><br />
<b>Monarchy - </b>Rule of one<br />
<b>Theocracy - </b>Rule of a religious person<br />
<b>Technocracy - </b>Rule of the experts<br />
<b>Democracy - </b>Rule of the peopleEllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-60883799877567362872012-12-28T10:17:00.002-08:002012-12-28T10:17:58.398-08:00Sapir-Whorf Thesis: Conceptual SchemeDifferent humans have different CS's. There are 2 parts to our experiences:<br />
1) Sense data<br />
2) Interpretation<br />
<br />
<br />
Language influences our perception of the world.<br />
Certain languages cannot be translated. (Tiv into English).<br />
<b>Conceptual Relativism </b>- Different cultures have different realities. (Tiv have less understanding of colour).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Whorf</b><br />
Different cultures interpret sense data differently.<br />
<br />
<b>Sapir </b><br />
Language limits our experience ('1984' by George Orwell explores this as a government invents a new vocabulary called 'Newspeak' that prevents people having bad thoughts about the government.<br />
<br />
Kant and Sapir-Whorf<br />
Similarities: We are born with CS<br />
We need sense data for experience<br />
Differences: (Kant) We all have the same interpretations<br />
(S-W) We have different interpretations<br />
<br />
Criticisms..<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Language doesn't lead to different perceptions - we still have the same ideas of sound, sight, emotions, colour etc.</li>
<li>Languages can be translated, no matter how hard it may be.</li>
<li>Empiricists are right after all? - CS learnt from language and culture (experience).</li>
<li>There are ideas without language - emotions are ideas that require no language.</li>
</ul>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-20106326136979244462012-12-28T10:04:00.002-08:002012-12-28T10:04:47.655-08:00Verifiable synthetic a priori claims1) We have a conceptual scheme -- Synthetic as it gives information on the human mind and a priori because it is vital for experience.<br />
<br />
2 and 3) Objects we experience are located in a place and time -- Synthetic as it gives information about objects and a priori because without knowing this, we can't experience them. <-- REALLY?<br />
<br />
My view:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Can't prove that we have a CS.</li>
<li>We can experience objects without knowing they exist because this is how babies gain knowledge of substance.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-55561280225200385832012-12-28T09:55:00.004-08:002012-12-28T09:56:18.891-08:00Kant's Conceptual SchemeHis question: "How is intelligible experience made possible at all?"<br />
<br />
In reality, our minds are taking on millions of pieces of information which should result in an 'incomprehensible buzz' where nothing makes sense. Yet somehow, our minds seem to have a structured perception where we make sense of the world around us. So, how do millions of pieces of sense data get transformed into an intelligible experience?<br />
<br />
<b>We are born with a conceptual scheme! </b>Our mind has 12 categories which makes up a conceptual scheme (CS) and it structures sense data into experiences. There is no such thing as 'pure experience' because our experiences are a result from our mind structuring this data so we never really see things in themselves, just how they appear to us.<br />
<br />
<b>Innate or from experience?</b><br />
Neither. We need a conceptual scheme to experience things so it cannot have come from experience. However, it isn't innate idea either because an idea isn't a structure of the mind, yet a conceptual scheme is. It is simply an 'innate ability'. (Synthetic a priori). Knowledge about the world without needing experience. (R).<br />
<br />
<b>He goes against R and E</b><br />
"Thoughts without content are empty: intuitions without concepts are blind".<br />
We need experience to know things and we haven't got innate ideas but if all we had was sense data, it would just be a 'buzz'. We're not a tabula rasa because we have a CS.<br />
<br />
<b>Causation</b><br />
One of the categories is 'causation'. A person with this ability will understand that something is caused by something else. (A door changing shape because they are walking past it). We need this ability and the other 11 to have intelligible experiences.<br />
<br />
<b>Implications:</b><br />
<br />
<div>
<ol>
<li>Our mind imposes structure on the world, this structure may not exist in reality.</li>
<li>We don't know what reality is/looks like, only the experiences of it.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Criticisms..</div>
</div>
<div>
Empiricists - We observe causation, we didn't create it. If it didn't exist before humans, how was the earth created and dinosaurs created? We wouldn't have been created - nothing to cause us to be.</div>
<div>
Rationalists - Mathematics gives knowledge of reality and this isn't part of a CS. Before humans, 2 dinosaurs plus 2 dinosaurs would make 4 dinosaurs. This is necessary truth (will always be true).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Kant's reply: Maybe these concepts are real and existed before humans but they happen to be part of our CS.</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-21679286465283005902012-12-28T09:28:00.000-08:002012-12-28T09:28:08.914-08:00Is certainty confined to introspection and the tautological?Certainty - Something that cannot be doubted.<br />
Introspection - Examining your own mind (getting it to think about itself).<br />
Tautology - Analytic statement.<br />
<br />
Tautologies are necessary truths, they cannot be doubted. Rationalists and empiricists agree that they are certain. "Every mother has a child".<br />
<br />
They also agree that we can be certain about some things we gain from introspection. For example:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>We think we experience things, whether we do or not</li>
<li>Memories</li>
<li>The Cogito - thinking about our mind doubting</li>
</ul>
<div>
Uncertain:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>If we are experiencing</li>
<li>If we are experiencing what we think we are (a clock) - may be something different that what we perceive</li>
<li>Whether induction proves conclusion/if conclusion is certain</li>
<li>That causation is real (we never experience it) - E would respond with constant conjunction of events</li>
</ul>
</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-45819455412096504522012-12-28T08:53:00.002-08:002012-12-28T09:06:56.400-08:00PlatoRationalist that believes we can gain synthetic knowledge from reason.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscWT-_gEQ9Yyd-slsWkXjYAW5mcOs1LREA38tbRtlNq6D_NDdlPZwe5LpObc2eUbQzY6Cx2e1Bp-RwuSn5qmOR9v1EhAVUrqF4yRCno2kILm4r92M5DKkOAyCxW_SvhIf0U3GPygwOtRz/s1600/krawk_dark_cave.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscWT-_gEQ9Yyd-slsWkXjYAW5mcOs1LREA38tbRtlNq6D_NDdlPZwe5LpObc2eUbQzY6Cx2e1Bp-RwuSn5qmOR9v1EhAVUrqF4yRCno2kILm4r92M5DKkOAyCxW_SvhIf0U3GPygwOtRz/s200/krawk_dark_cave.gif" width="200" /></a><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The allegory of the cave</b><br />
'Unenlightened' people that live in a cave survive only on the<b> senses</b> to gain knowledge.<br />
If they see only their shadows, they will be falsely perceiving and won't have real knowledge of what is around them, just<b> illusions</b>. Not until they see daylight, will they have access to<b> reality and truth</b>. This proves that our senses give illusions and not the real truth.<br />
<br />
Criticisms..<br />
<ul>
<li>There is no proof of this story.</li>
<li>Nietzsche: Prejudice argument that separates experience and reason into 'good' and 'bad' categories.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Forms - </b>A way of showing a true form of something using reason. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxT-0hQhItIyGUKyYHgZMI9qBUD-91ReEasc_0KPtbZrsFyu6UJytJsYr90SFYbWoS9z-oSSB-FQqrfY-QZb8s53D6aK8UcIdBHcF-XUA3DGFZAHtHx5LooS2fqI8rFFFrxC1QMAgTqT54/s1600/Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxT-0hQhItIyGUKyYHgZMI9qBUD-91ReEasc_0KPtbZrsFyu6UJytJsYr90SFYbWoS9z-oSSB-FQqrfY-QZb8s53D6aK8UcIdBHcF-XUA3DGFZAHtHx5LooS2fqI8rFFFrxC1QMAgTqT54/s200/Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
For example, the form of a circle. Only a priori reasoning/our minds would reveal the true form to us because no-one has ever seen a real circle. What we are seeing are 'imperfect circles'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Criticisms..</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Sense experience does give us the idea of a perfect circle because we see what we think is a perfect circle, no matter whether it is or not. </li>
<li>Without sense experience, we wouldn't have the concept of a circle.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-18366076446098034222012-12-28T08:37:00.002-08:002012-12-28T09:00:01.085-08:00AyerDeveloped Hume's fork.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
His verification principle: "A statement only has meaning if it is analytic or can in principle be verified empirically. </div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKjfoaGqG0_HnCXh1xlLIq1vkQGOOaD7orm_-q970YJNQ-MDzCB4hUMeLRJTlYGOyZHxwdq1CuV4TXzLx7wVHaT95pbo4eeplFA_F0zVtKit2fKFdtc66Pb_Eca8_nSTrXCVYWBxwVzNTm/s1600/220px-Alfred_Jules_Ayer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKjfoaGqG0_HnCXh1xlLIq1vkQGOOaD7orm_-q970YJNQ-MDzCB4hUMeLRJTlYGOyZHxwdq1CuV4TXzLx7wVHaT95pbo4eeplFA_F0zVtKit2fKFdtc66Pb_Eca8_nSTrXCVYWBxwVzNTm/s1600/220px-Alfred_Jules_Ayer.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
Basically, he is saying that a statement only has meaning if it gives no extra information about the world or if it can be verified using experience. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meaningful statements:</div>
<div>
2+2=4 <i>- Analytic</i></div>
<div>
There are 8 planets in the solar system <i>- Can be verified empirically</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Not meaningful statements:</div>
<div>
God exists <i>- Can't be verified empirically </i> </div>
<div>
A statement only has meaning if it is analytic or can in principle be verified empirically - <i>Can't be verified empirically</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Criticism..</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>His own statement goes against what he is saying because it cannot be verified using experience.</li>
</ul>
</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-74287475331447289332012-12-28T08:19:00.000-08:002012-12-28T08:54:34.924-08:00Hume's ForkEmpiricists argue that everything that exists and occurs is justified only by sense experience.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcoYvCIBhZSL8DB-akNONDnyzoWvz40jAelyrEhVPVTzTM54OXeI9Y4xZ18wH2n3lVO7Cb1WbSOK_ZwyVQKSZfcrPh3gP_ZLM8m1Z5wX63xI-BjdT4mLN56N8LWVtVt2UcC67UhmrK9LuR/s1600/hume27sfork.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcoYvCIBhZSL8DB-akNONDnyzoWvz40jAelyrEhVPVTzTM54OXeI9Y4xZ18wH2n3lVO7Cb1WbSOK_ZwyVQKSZfcrPh3gP_ZLM8m1Z5wX63xI-BjdT4mLN56N8LWVtVt2UcC67UhmrK9LuR/s320/hume27sfork.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Hume claims that everything we know falls into 2 categories..<br />
<br />
<b>Relations of ideas</b> - analytic knowledge and necessary truths can be verified a priori.<br />
<b>Matters of fact</b> - synthetic knowledge and contingent truths must be verified a posteriori.<br />
<br />
Can a person learn that fire burns skin a priori?<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-79546388534135937272012-12-28T08:09:00.003-08:002012-12-28T08:58:53.130-08:00Rene DescartesRationalists claim that synthetic a priori exists and have made attempts to prove this. They use deduction a lot and call it 'demonstration'.<br />
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO-VYA0F2g9EEcIw1Wzt3X1_1-cMWLlCP7VbYo3i5VbCnLG-YE4VaSDDQZgetsKpc4e0ys-grS9vDtptyipZmaDrZrWt0A2vOfsG70zI2LVaa9v-_QAIBZoQcIjQ63VsuGdcPRYFLd1DhZ/s1600/8433-004-8E2D30AB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO-VYA0F2g9EEcIw1Wzt3X1_1-cMWLlCP7VbYo3i5VbCnLG-YE4VaSDDQZgetsKpc4e0ys-grS9vDtptyipZmaDrZrWt0A2vOfsG70zI2LVaa9v-_QAIBZoQcIjQ63VsuGdcPRYFLd1DhZ/s200/8433-004-8E2D30AB.jpg" width="170" /></a></div>
<div>
<b>The Cogito</b> - attempts to prove he exists in an a priori way. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P1 I can't doubt that I can doubt</div>
<div>
P2 I can doubt</div>
<div>
P3 To doubt, I must exist</div>
<div>
<br />
C Therefore I exist</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Criticisms..</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>He is already assuming he exists by using the word "I"</li>
<li>Why assume it is us that doubts?</li>
<li>Only proves that while we're doubting, we exist</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>The Ontological Argument - </b>attempts to prove that God exists in an a priori way.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P1 I have the idea of God</div>
<div>
P2 God is a being with all perfections </div>
<div>
P3 Existence is a perfection</div>
<div>
C Therefore God exists</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Criticisms..</div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYoaRYD7FMb4avRpr1j9xDRYhfLn4pnofBGNzYAbRbOIGFBD6EYpXPMYMs7lewVd-Oub-XWkBNwMz1ZggplIqEYY_q7-39FSGvqZHWzkKmib961d11NvjGfW4qOpjpZH-zgwOVO4ApBpwj/s1600/god2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYoaRYD7FMb4avRpr1j9xDRYhfLn4pnofBGNzYAbRbOIGFBD6EYpXPMYMs7lewVd-Oub-XWkBNwMz1ZggplIqEYY_q7-39FSGvqZHWzkKmib961d11NvjGfW4qOpjpZH-zgwOVO4ApBpwj/s200/god2.jpg" width="141" /></a><ul>
<li>He is already assuming that he exists by using the word "is</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: magenta;">Descartes: Might defend himself by saying that he is referring to only the idea<i> </i>of God</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>God may not be perfect, this is too culturally specific (religious)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Kant: Existence is not a predicate/word that gives detail. E.g. "I have a coat, it's red" -- Red would be a predicate. "I have a coat, it exists". Exists would not be a predicate.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Gaunilo: This argument proves that anything perfect can exist. The perfect baby exists because it has all perfections and because existence is perfection, it exists. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
Deduction criticisms..</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>A way of making people accept his argument because we have a 'rational intuition' to accept deductive arguments. </li>
</ul>
<div>
However, this doesn't make all rationalists' arguments fail.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Wax Argument - </b>attempts to prove that we can only gain true knowledge of wax from our rational intuition.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKnFBln-wP-4Q2vl4LQqvQRJuB0bIaKPjQ7Jzoov2B0evr5ea9vF6ox2RbrEFwS-hRedyt4rkYvM34kllMbjfwGKk17yK1brGS3_I85menSwQrov2m1QbT-4mtt7H7Zru-_VBNIVEBHyr0/s1600/CandleWax.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKnFBln-wP-4Q2vl4LQqvQRJuB0bIaKPjQ7Jzoov2B0evr5ea9vF6ox2RbrEFwS-hRedyt4rkYvM34kllMbjfwGKk17yK1brGS3_I85menSwQrov2m1QbT-4mtt7H7Zru-_VBNIVEBHyr0/s200/CandleWax.jpg" width="200" /></a>Experiencing wax gives us the shape, texture, colour, size, smell and so on. However, when wax is melted, its characteristics change. Only our rational intuition or "faculty of judgment" helps us understand this is the same wax. Therefore, experience isn't the source of all knowledge. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Criticisms..</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>When we experience the wax being melted, we know it is the same wax. Descartes seems to skip past the idea of the wax being melted and focuses on the end result more. </li>
<li>Using a spectrometer will show both solid and melted wax as having the same molecule structures. From experiencing these, we will gain the idea that they are the same.</li>
</ul>
</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-49616568715100273212012-12-26T07:54:00.000-08:002012-12-26T07:54:32.162-08:00Where does knowledge of what exists come from?<h4>
Synthetic a priori </h4>
<div>
Knowledge about the way the world is which can be verified without needing sense experience. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All philosophers agree that analytic statements can be justified a priori because you don't need experience for them. However, when it comes to synthetic statements, there are disagreements. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rationalists claim that some synthetic statements can be verified a priori. Empiricists claim there is no such thing and they synthetic statements can only be verified a posteriori (with experience). </div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-62669013424407869292012-12-26T07:43:00.003-08:002012-12-26T07:43:49.400-08:00Causation ChallengeCausation is the idea that something happened as a result of something else. (A caused B).<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: magenta;">Rationalist</span></h3>
It is <i>absolutely fundamental </i>to us as human beings and could be innate and part of our mind. For example, the thought that the universe has no cause goes against our idea of causation and it doesn't seem right. Maybe it is built-in to us, an a priori synthetic truth?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;">Hume</span></h3>
<div>
We never experience causation/connections between events. We experience the constant conjunction of events/one events follow from the next. For example, at a snooker game we only experience a ball being caused to move by another ball but never causation itself. After repeated habit of experiencing this, we end up with the concept of causation. </div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-71231323130167906712012-12-26T07:31:00.001-08:002012-12-26T07:32:04.972-08:00Substance ChallengeSubstance is an object that exists independently of us.<br />
<br />
Method: Having an object in front of you and closing your eyes. While it is possible that the object may not be still there, we still think it does because it seems illogical to think otherwise.<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: magenta;">
Rationalists</span></h3>
<div>
How can this give us the concept of substance if we're not experiencing it?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;">
Hume</span></h3>
<div>
I can only know that the object before closing my eyes is very similar to the one when I opened them again. After repeated experiences of this, we arrive at the concept that it exists independently as a substance/physical object. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
HABITUAL EXPERIENCE!</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-91416559917424436222012-12-23T03:58:00.003-08:002012-12-23T04:00:57.663-08:00Unicorn Challenge<h3>
<span style="color: magenta;">Rationalists..</span> </h3>
Challenge the idea of empiricists that synthetic knowledge come from experience by using 7 challenges. One of these is the unicorn challenge. They argue that no one has ever seen a real unicorn so how do we gain this idea from experience?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;">Empiricists..</span></h3>
Argue that it is a complex idea that comes from a number of impressions. This would have been from someone merging the 2 ideas together. It goes like this:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaU1yAZ_b7Zn6CJB3FswTCo3wR2nQw-jeqZB3Mv_XGss5KJMyUZzz0ZoLf2GyGXstusEVhH1XsH-6YWiLw-k_Od0_MS39JRCsIQ0Lf33F46DPUtPmfXryfuuWTg-X8pxymjiRaYjNK3UKM/s1600/rhino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaU1yAZ_b7Zn6CJB3FswTCo3wR2nQw-jeqZB3Mv_XGss5KJMyUZzz0ZoLf2GyGXstusEVhH1XsH-6YWiLw-k_Od0_MS39JRCsIQ0Lf33F46DPUtPmfXryfuuWTg-X8pxymjiRaYjNK3UKM/s200/rhino.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRUfmFvob0kjNGnaOsa10qSNwSzIsFLUlRd77fg_GD0CbUjiRk6Vicq6RWOIzoSD52BCgtrjFztsUMG7ErW4MHCLzXQ44igwJR6h98H72y18I3TCvP99NnT8IdaNH7X0KeVQRcflROvc8i/s1600/unicorn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRUfmFvob0kjNGnaOsa10qSNwSzIsFLUlRd77fg_GD0CbUjiRk6Vicq6RWOIzoSD52BCgtrjFztsUMG7ErW4MHCLzXQ44igwJR6h98H72y18I3TCvP99NnT8IdaNH7X0KeVQRcflROvc8i/s200/unicorn.jpg" width="200" /></a>Rhino ---> Impression ---> Faint copy ---> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2_6h_h_pFQeqSx_YjdX0cMWsTmtZi2Cz6lM5c0GjbXPdvYW3s74rRzAcvmPy7lrj_xoTtKjvseg_GEjUXoOZKhOKXpvH0zC-2Mf_qinuRvbWHgJXRdCsUmuOBsdkATeLzF-KUaj5jQ2Vf/s1600/horse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2_6h_h_pFQeqSx_YjdX0cMWsTmtZi2Cz6lM5c0GjbXPdvYW3s74rRzAcvmPy7lrj_xoTtKjvseg_GEjUXoOZKhOKXpvH0zC-2Mf_qinuRvbWHgJXRdCsUmuOBsdkATeLzF-KUaj5jQ2Vf/s200/horse.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
Horse ---> Impression ---> Faint copy ---><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: magenta;">Rationalists' criticism:</span></h3>
<div>
Other complex ides like 'beauty' can't have come from simple ideas. This means they are innate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;">Empiricists' response:</span></h3>
<div>
They have come from simple ideas but they're just harder to explain and understand. With these concepts, it is to do with emotion that we gain our idea of them from. These emotions are called 'reflections' as we experience what each idea feels like. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Beauty ---> Pleasure/ good feeling ---> Reflection of beauty ---> Idea of beauty</b></div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492975318057677655.post-40687711258292874672012-12-23T03:24:00.001-08:002012-12-23T03:58:55.727-08:00Are we born with innate ideas?<h3>
<span style="color: magenta;">Rationalists (R)</span></h3>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwD0i5JhyphenhyphenkPAQYGF62AyCqedpo4S1bXtEFSLzJ1iKGMuaIgWHeyFqpbZy9pRsYOmOQWTZTQShcxc-h0gTnQP8sUxaiU1wQnqwCEuQNuT-u7vBizWlVBSxvvf8srv7HM8QOCPGm28ssPdvH/s1600/baby-healthy-weight-293x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwD0i5JhyphenhyphenkPAQYGF62AyCqedpo4S1bXtEFSLzJ1iKGMuaIgWHeyFqpbZy9pRsYOmOQWTZTQShcxc-h0gTnQP8sUxaiU1wQnqwCEuQNuT-u7vBizWlVBSxvvf8srv7HM8QOCPGm28ssPdvH/s200/baby-healthy-weight-293x300.jpg" width="195" /></a>These philosophers claim that the mind contains innate knowledge (including synthetic) from birth and can be gained through a priori understanding. Crude rationalists (CR) claim that we are aware of these ideas from birth. However, sophisticated rationalists (SR) say we aren't aware of them. This is clever because it avoids the empiricists questioning how we are aware of them. R argue that ideas sit in our minds without us being aware of them and an experience triggers our awareness of them. For example, seeing the colour red triggers our innate idea of red. </div>
<div>
Key philosophers: <i>Descartes, </i><i>Plato</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Criticism</b></div>
<div>
Innate ideas as a possibility is not strong enough to prove that it is true.</div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;"><br /></span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="color: #e69138;">Empiricists (E)</span></h3>
<div>
They claim that synthetic knowledge is not innate and can only come from sense experience or a posteriori understanding. The mind is a 'tabula rasa' or blank slate at birth. Locke challenges R by stating that is we are all born with the same innate ideas, there would be a truth that everyone in the world knows, but there isn't. For example, not everyone is born with the idea of 'goodness' as there are criminals. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimb_IAwjDJQP0uVzfCXWNojM8ULlrDEwzgV7FaGz5JLbyPANzEeVFwG6mvO_lCjQRA4BOOa0zMBynwqSs7dyEpT4CX0Q39vZIASAIyMUH2pZTxaxR2ANl0FzTTZWLjvZ1yyYqxcZPj6Z8u/s1600/cat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimb_IAwjDJQP0uVzfCXWNojM8ULlrDEwzgV7FaGz5JLbyPANzEeVFwG6mvO_lCjQRA4BOOa0zMBynwqSs7dyEpT4CX0Q39vZIASAIyMUH2pZTxaxR2ANl0FzTTZWLjvZ1yyYqxcZPj6Z8u/s200/cat.jpg" width="200" /></a>Hume says all ideas are 'faint copies' of impressions. For example, seeing a cat gives us an impression of a cat which then gives us a faint copy of a cat. This stays in our minds after we've experienced one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Criticism</b></div>
<div>
Everything coming from experience is not strong enough to prove it is true.</div>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Similarities </h3>
<div>
Both SR and E claim that babies aren't concious of ideas. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Differences</h3>
<div>
R claim that we are born with ideas that need to be triggered.</div>
<div>
E claim that we are born with no ideas and most knowledge comes from experience.</div>
EllieJanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07108047654739103875noreply@blogger.com4