I'll post a few here since they are in such high demand... all Reason and Experience.
‘All ideas derive from the sense experiences which they copy’. Discuss (30)
This statement presents Hume’s strongly empiricist view of the process through which we acquire knowledge. He said that ‘sense experiences’ are direct experiences we have of the world around us, whereas ‘ideas’ are ‘copies’ of these experiences, which are stored within our minds as memories. An example of this process would be if there was a bear in front of me. I would have a sense experience of this bear, and then once the bear was gone I would have an ‘idea’ of it stored in my mind. It describes the way in which we seem to remember the things we experience and so appears to be a reasonable explanation of how we acquire knowledge.
One criticism of this statement can be found in questioning the extent to which ideas are actually ‘copies’ of impressions. Ideas can clearly not be exact copies of impressions, as irregularities can be found in our memories and our ideas of things can change over time. While we are ill the pain can feel almost unbearable, but once we are well again it lessens, leaving an idea that is not an exact copy of the original impression. We can also not find enjoyment in something, such as milk, for a long period of time, but then on tasting it again we could find a sudden liking for it. This means that, since the substance of milk has not changed, our ideas can change without our impressions doing so also. An interesting idea that follows from this is that if it is true that all of our ideas are faded or tarnished copies of sense experiences, or that the sense experiences were simply not the same as the outside world, and it is true that sense experiences are the basis of our knowledge as empiricists believe, we may then have no true knowledge.
Also, as humans we can have only a limited range of sense experiences. For example, we cannot feel electronic fields and our eyes can only process a certain range of light, so our experience of the world is incomplete. If we cannot experience certain sensations, we could be a vast amount of information that we are exposed to but cannot experience. If knowledge has its basis in experience and our experience is truly this limited, there must be similar limits to our knowledge. We also all have slightly different sense experiences from each other as we all have slightly different overall experiences in life. This suggests that we cannot share the same ideas, which again suggests that there is no universal knowledge, leaving us globally sceptical and not even sure of our own ‘knowledge’.
A further criticism of this statement is that there are some ideas which seem to be ‘innate’ or ‘a priori’ which do not derive from sense experiences. We can understand the concept of a perfect circle even though due to its infinite nature it would be very, very unlikely for us to ever experience one in the real world. If there are ideas which are not copies of, or do not derive from, sense experiences, then this statement is false.
There is also simply not enough evidence to support this view, at least under its own terms. We have surely never had a sense experience of ‘sense data’ (an intermediary stage between impressions and ideas suggested by the need for the ideas to ‘copy’ the impressions) or this process as a whole, and so we cannot prove it. Where exactly are sense data? Also, if it is true that some ideas do exist a priori, then ‘all ideas’ do not come from sense experiences. It is also a very restrictive a view of our acquisition of knowledge that finds through believing in only what we experience that we cannot be sure of anything at all, as many or all of our ideas are faded copies of the original impressions. This would be no criticism if there were any sure way of proving it to be true, but it appears to reject the certainty of the a priori, or simply some level of universality, in favour of fallible copies of reality.
Explain and illustrate two ways in which it is possible to have a priori knowledge.
A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known before experience. Kant defined two types of a priori propositions; those that are ‘analytically’ true (true by definition, eg. ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’), and those that are ‘synthetically’ true (where the predicate of a statement is entirely separate from the subject, eg. ‘Nothing can be coloured in different ways at the same time with respect to the same part of itself.’).
Taking a nativist approach, language acquisition is something that could be seen as constituting a priori knowledge, with a possibility of a game theory style progression to how a child learns language. Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus argument asserts that the data presented to children by outside stimulus (eg. their parents) is not sufficient to amount to knowledge of a language. Although the provability, refutability, or simply the truth of the theories of poverty of the stimulus and universal grammar are widely disputed, they strongly suggest that a priori knowledge of syntax and grammar are possible.
Other things are believed by some to be a priori knowledge. For example, Descartes claimed that the truths of maths were true even in his dreams. If we are to take a Kantian approach the truths of maths are to be seen as synthetically a priori. However, taking a logical positivist approach they appear to be analytically true; a square is the only possible shape with four sides of equal length, an a priori truth that is revealed to us by exposure to four congruent lines. Another example of this can be seen in Plato’s Meno, where Socrates puts a series of questions about the properties of a square to one of Meno’s slaves, who shows knowledge of the fact that the area of a square with sides of any length x is x^2.
Critically assess the view that all knowledge comes from, and is justified by, sense experience.
Empiricists believe that the basis for our knowledge is sense experience. Hume believed that the acquisition of our knowledge can be divided in to two stages; ‘sense impressions’ and ‘ideas’. ‘Sense impressions’ are our immediate impressions of the world around us, and last as long as our experience. ‘Ideas’ are memories of or thoughts about these impressions. Hume called knowledge derived from sense experience ‘matters of fact’, and claimed that all things such as the truths of maths are simply ‘relations of ideas’, unrelated to the real world and thus not true knowledge. An example of knowledge that comes from, and is justified by sense experience is that during the winter in England, the weather is cold. This knowledge has been gained as the idea of it being cold in winter in England has been reinforced each time a winter in England has been experienced. The view that at least some of our knowledge comes from and is justified by sense experience appears, then, to be founded in some truth. However, this does not extent to the assertion that all knowledge is gained through sense experiences.
There is great reason to believe there to be some discrepancy between actual ‘matters of fact’ – the real properties of existing matter – and our sense experiences of such things. Human beings are not in possession of every sense, and so are unable to experience everything. What may appear to us to be one way may seem entirely different to another species of animal, and without being able to have the proof of every sense, it is impossible to know whether the data we are receiving about any object is an accurate representation of it. This makes it very difficult to ‘justify’ our knowledge with our sense experiences, and to extend the empiricist view to ‘all’ knowledge.
Another criticism of this view is that there is also some level of discrepancy between our sense impressions and our ideas. When we are experiencing something, its properties are much clearer to us than when we remember it (for example, many mothers’ views of giving birth are greatly tinted by their views of having a child). If this principle extends to all of our ideas, what we consider to be ‘knowledge’ gained through sense experience holds little more truth than the end result of a game of Chinese whispers.
Contrastingly to the stated strongly empiricist view, a rationalist would argue that a priori knowledge is possible and can be seen in language acquisition and the truths of maths, countering the belief that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. If a priori knowledge is possible, then the stated view is false as it claims that all knowledge comes from sense experience. In fact, few empiricists would argue that experience is the only foundation for all of our knowledge: most would claim that it is simply where the majority of knowledge comes from.
Explain what is meant by a priori and explain one reason why the a priori is philosophically significant (15)
The phrase ‘a priori’ literally means ‘from what is before’, and a priori knowledge is knowledge known prior to experience. An a priori truth can be known simply through an understanding of the axioms or terms that we are given. For example, as we do not need to conduct a survey all of the bachelors in the world to find out that they are unmarried men, the fact that ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ is, as Kant would call it, an analytic a priori truth. Another example of an a priori truth, although Kant would dispute its definition as analytic, is that ‘2 + 2 = 4’. A logical positivist would say that the answer is in the very meaning of ‘2’, ‘4’, ‘+’ and ‘=’. This answer cannot be disputed without contradiction as the numbers are defined by their relationships with each other. Also, in the field of psychology, nativists such as Chomsky would say that there are certain abilities that exist in us a priori, such as the ability to learn grammar. It is suggested that grammar would be impossible to learn if the only source of it were the data presented to children by other people, as it is so complex.
The a priori is philosophically significant because it forms the basis of rationalist thought. A rationalist would say that a priori propositions cannot be refuted, or doubted, in the same way as truths which derive from the senses. Descartes, through his method of doubt, is seen to have come upon an unquestionable a priori truth as he found his own existence was indubitable. If the only things we are sure of are our own thoughts, it follows that we can only be sure of a priori truths as they are free from the doubt we must place upon external situations (as we could be being deceived about them). If a priori knowledge is certain it is a strong, unquestionable basis for our knowledge.