Intro to Philosophy: Topic from Epistemology
choose from the readings by Descartes (either of the first two Meditations), Locke, Hume, or Kant.
from Descartes, we get the claims (and supporting arguments)
* that because the mind can be imagined without a body, that the mind must be essentially thought (mental states; thinking);
* that the nature of physical objects or ‘bodies’ (including biological bodies like ours) is to be extended in space in a certain shape at a particular location for a length of time;
* that what the mind really knows with the most certainty is not what we learn from physical investigation, but from the judgments we make;
* that some of our concepts and some principles we are born with (so it isn’t the case that we must learn everything from the world);
* a set-up that creates the possible problem of solipsism (although he thinks he escapes that problem!); etc.
from Locke, we get
* a direct contradiction of Descartes on the issue of the source of concepts, arguing instead that we do not have any at birth;
* an argument that God would not give humankind innate ideas of things that He had already provided a capacity to learn;
* an argument that even universal agreement about something is no evidence that it is true;
* an account of the right way to categorize the kinds of thoughts we have (sensations, reflections, etc.);
* an argument against Descartes’ claim that the mind is essentially thought, which implies that it is always thinking; etc.
from Hume, we get
* a different account of what the perceptions of the mind are: impressions and thoughts/ideas;
* a different account of what the objects of human reason are: relations of ideas and matters of fact;
* an assumption that relations of ideas are always analytic and always known a priori while matters of fact are always synthetic and always known a posteriori;
* the argument (including analogies) that we can never recognize or determine what a thing can do (its ‘powers’) with our senses alone, without relying upon the principle of causation;
* an argument that trying to justify our reliance on the principle of causation is necessarily circular, because it necessarily assumes things won’t change in the future; etc.
from Kant, we get
* a direct criticism of Hume: Hume mistakenly assumed (as noted above) that relations of ideas are by nature analytic and known a priori while matters of fact are by nature synthetic and known a posteriori. Instead, Kant claims, these are two different sets of categories, which can be illustrated in a table as crossed over each other, revealing the logical possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge.
* Kant further claims that the troublesome kinds of claims (that is, claims of knowledge) that stumped Hume, like the principle of causation, belong in the synthetic a priori category, along with some math and geometry that Hume mistakenly believed to be analytic.
1. Explain (briefly summarize) the view that troubles you,
2. Explain the problem you see with it (that is, why you are not convinced by it), and
3. Think about what the original author could say in response, and you’ve written an analysis essay!
