Download
1 / 9
90 likes | 247 Vues
This exploration delves into the nature of knowledge as discussed by philosophers like Hume, Plato, and Descartes. Hume’s fork distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact, emphasizing that our knowledge of matters of fact is always a posteriori, reliant on observation and causal inference. In contrast, rationalists argue for a priori knowledge that claims we can use reason to ascertain existence. The dialogue also reflects on Descartes' skepticism regarding sensory perception and the cogito's conclusion of existence through thought.
E N D
1. Michael Lacewing How do we know what exists?
Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk
2. Humes fork We can only have knowledge of
Relations of ideas
Matters of fact
Relations of ideas are a priori and analytic
Matters of fact are a posteriori and synthetic
3. Knowledge of matters of fact Knowledge of matters of fact is always a posteriori and synthetic.
We gain it by using observation and employing induction and reasoning about probability.
The foundation of this knowledge is what we experience here and now, or can remember.
4. Causal inference All our knowledge that goes beyond what is present to our senses or memory rests on causal inference.
We cant know what causes what without investigating experience.
5. A priori knowledge of what exists Some rationalists, e.g. Plato and Descartes, challenge Humes claim; we can use reason to prove what exists
A priori demonstration and intuition
Demonstration = deduction
Intuition - e.g. how do you follow an argument?
6. Descartes on the physical world We can be deceived by our senses.
There are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep.
7. The cogito I am certain that I think, I exist. I am a thinking thing. But I am not certain I have a body. So I can exist without a body. (A priori reasoning)
