realism and idealism direct/naive realism @ from perceptual variation @ from illusion @ from...

Realism and Idealism

Direct/naive realism@ from perceptual variation@ from illusion@ from hallucination & dreaming@ from time lagVeridical perceptionIndirect realismSense data (and their qualities)Physical objects (and their qualities)SolipsismPrimary qualitiesSecondary qualitiesIdealismBerkeleyMaster argument

Justified True Belief

Propositional knowledgeProcedural knowledgeJustificationInfinite regressTruthParadigmsBeliefIncompatibilismNecessitySufficiencyGettier examplesNo false lemmasInfallibilismReliabilismTracking the truth

MiscellaneousIncorrigible Premise & Conclusion Syllogism Specious argumentvalidity & soundnessIndefeasible deduction inductioncounterfactuals indexical statementsInfallible subjectively indistinguishable dogmatic pragmatic

unassailableSentient beings cognizant beings sceptical naturalistic fallacy epistemologyAppearance & reality Bertrand Russell John Locke

Empiricism & Rationalism

EmpiricismInnate knowledgeSimple & Complex ideasHume’s ForkThe problem of inductionAnalytic v synthetic statementsa priori v a posteriori knowledgeRationalismMathematical synthetic a prioriDescartes’ radical doubtOntological argumentsUniversal causationPhilosophical statementsUniversals v particularsMoral relativism v objectivism

Direct or Naive RealismDefinitionReality is as it appears

IllustrationTake a photo of the world – and that is ‘objectively’ how it is, even without someone viewing it.

Contrasts/alternativesIndirect realism & idealism

Subdivisions/special casesA common sense or prephilosophical viewpoint

Argument from perceptual variationPremisePeople perceive the same scene differently

PremiseOne person will often see the same scene differently over time

ConclusionThe objective world cannot be identical to what is perceived.

Any weaknesses/limitations/corollariesA corollary (ie additional conclusion/result) is we perceive something other than Reality – and that this is sense-data.

Argument from illusionPremise

Premise

Conclusion

Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries.

Argument from hallucination/dreamingPremise

Premise

Conclusion


Argument from time lagPremise

Premise

Conclusion


Veridical perceptionDefinitionPerception under normal circumstances – unmediated by distorting influences (such as drugs, strange atmospheric phenomena, sleep)

IllustrationPerceiving a teapot under normal lighting conditions, when awake, and of sound mind

Contrasts/alternativesDreaming

Subdivisions/special cases

Indirect RealismDefinitionWhat we perceive is caused by and represents physical reality

IllustrationWhen we see a dog on a chair, there are things objectively causing those two perceptions, which is related in a similar way to how they appear.

Contrasts/alternatives(direct realism) Idealism

Subdivisions/special casesSense-data are the medium through which we perceive the world.John Locke is the most famous advocate of this position

Sense-dataDefinitionInformation reaching our minds via out 5 senses.Infallible, transitory (or fleeting) and essentially private.

Illustration

Contrasts/alternatives

Subdivisions/special casesVisual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory

Physical objectsDefinition

Illustration



SolipsismDefinition

Illustration



Primary qualitiesDefinition

Illustration



Secondary qualitiesDefinition

Illustration



IdealismDefinition

Illustration



Berkeley’s Master ArgumentPremise

Premise

Conclusion


Propositional KnowledgeDefinition

Illustration

Contrasts/alternativesProcedural knowledge – knowledge how to do something. Such as ‘knowing how to ride a bicycle’.


Knowledge – Justification necessaryDefinitionPlato claims that justified true belief was both necessary and sufficient for knowledge. Justification requires being able to explain our beliefs with adequate reasons.

IllustrationThe racist juror example - ….

Contrasts/alternativesKnowledge without justification. Problems of infinite regress – how do we achieve full justification if each reason requires further justification. To prevent infinite regress, some reasons must be axiomatic.


Knowledge – Truth necessaryDefinitionPlato claims that justified true belief was both necessary and sufficient for knowledge. Truth requires that the proposition in question be verified – ie checked that it is true.

Illustration.

Contrasts/alternativesKnowledge without truth. Kuhn claims that scientific cannot be objectively classified as true/false, since it continually works within a paradigm – which decides which questions it will deem worth answering.


Knowledge – Belief necessaryDefinitionPlato claims that justified true belief was both necessary and sufficient for knowledge. Belief requires that the proposition be held to be true, in someone’s mind.

Illustration.

Contrasts/alternativesKnowledge without belief. Incompatibilism claims that propositions are either known or believed. This depends on a special connotation of ‘belief’ which implies that they must be open to doubt.


A necessary conditionDefinition

Illustration.



A sufficient conditionDefinition

Illustration.



JTB not sufficient for knowledgeDefinitionGettier claims that a belief being justified and true is not always sufficient to constitute knowledge. His examples depend upon the fact that some beliefs can be reasonable, but actually true by accident.

Illustration.

Implications

Illustration.

No false lemmasDefinitionThis offers a supplement to Plato’s tripartite definition of knowledge which copes with Gettier examples. It claims that JTbeliefs are only knowledge if they are not based upon any false claims (lemmas) along the way.

Illustration.



InfallibilismDefinitionThis offers a supplement to Plato’s tripartite definition of knowledge which copes with Gettier examples. It claims that JTbeliefs are only knowledge if…

Illustration.



ReliabilismDefinitionThis offers a supplement to Plato’s tripartite definition of knowledge which copes with Gettier examples. It claims that JTbeliefs are only knowledge if they track the truth.

Illustration.



EmpiricismDefinition

IllustrationHume was an empiricist. He believed that we could not have knowledge of what is morally right, what causes events to happen, who we are and the nature of God – because none of these are accessible through our senses.Contrasts/alternatives


Innate knowledgeDefinition

Illustration.

Contrasts/alternativesLocke’s idea of a tabula rasa – in which he claims that our minds are a blank slate when we are born


Simple ideasDefinitionThese are the most basic parts of Hume’s explanation of empirical knowledge. They cannot be broken down. They are mostly gained by ostensive definition (pointing)

Illustration

.



Complex ideasDefinition

Illustration

.


Subdivisions/special casesA golden mountain – Hume was able to explain how we could use terms which no-one had ever experienced.

Hume’s ForkDefinitionHume claimed that all knowledge was either ‘matters of fact’ or ‘relations of ideas’

Illustration

.



The problem of inductionDefinition

IllustrationWe never see one event being necessarily caused by another. We just see the spatial contiguity, temporal succession and repetition.

.Contrasts/alternatives


Analytic propostionsDefinition

Illustration

.

Contrasts/alternativesSynthetic propositions


a priori knowledgeDefinition

Illustration

.

Contrasts/alternatives‘a posteriori’ knowledge

Subdivisions/special casesRationalists believe that some a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions.

a posteriori knowledgeDefinition

Illustration

.

Contrasts/alternatives‘a priori’ knowledge

Subdivisions/special cases‘A posteriori’ knowledge is contingent (rather than necessary) because it is not true in all possible worlds.

rationalismDefinition

Illustration

.

Contrasts/alternativesEmpricismGnosticism


Synthetic a priori : mathsDefinitionSome mathematical statements appear to be synthetic, and yet must be known a priori since they are necessarily true

Illustration‘The angles in a triangle add up to 180°’. Not true by definition of ‘triangle’. But not in need of a posteriori verification – since it can be demonstrated with a logical proof°°

Contrasts/alternativesIt is claimed that mathematical truths like this are actually based upon Euclid’s axioms, which must be checked a posteriori like all other empirical knowledge. Eg triangles on a sphere (non-Euclidean geometry)


Synthetic a priori : DescartesDefinition

Illustration°°



Synthetic a priori : Ontological argumentDefinition

Illustration°°



Synthetic a priori : universal causationDefinition

Illustration°°



Synthetic a priori : philosophical statements

DefinitionStatements about how knowledge relates to reality, or about where knowledge comes from, appear to be not capable of a posteriori verification, and yet are not true by definition

Illustration‘Esse es percipi’‘All synthetic propositions are known a posteriori’

Contrasts/alternativesWittgenstein –a logical positivist – claimed that such philosophical claims are not knowledge. “That of which we cannot speak, we must stay silent”


Synthetic a priori : universals

Definition

Illustration



Synthetic a priori : moral truths

Definition

Illustration



realism and idealism direct/naive realism @ from perceptual variation @ from illusion @ from...

Documents