Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant

PHIL 101

John Locke (1632-1704)

Approach: Empiricism
All knowledge must come directly or
indirectly from the experience of the
world that we acquire from the senses
alone.
There are no innate ideas
The mind at birth is a tabula rasa (i.e. blank slate or tablet)
upon which experience writes
We bring nothing to the process except perception and our
ability to apply reason to the information we gather

Rationalists believe that we are born with some ideas and concepts; that
they are innate.

But this makes no

sense!
There are no truths that are
found in everyone at birth.

There are no universal ideas found

in people of all cultures at all times

Innate Ideas:
It seems to me a near
contradiction to say that there
are truths imprinted on the
soul which it perceives not.

The very notion of

innate ideas is
incoherent. In order
for something to be
an idea at all, it has to
have been present at
some point in
somebodys mind.

George Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753)

Approach: Idealism (strong empiricism)
Lockes empiricism too moderate!
The world consists only of perceiving minds
and their ideas (i.e. the world is only MIND)
All we can know or have access to are
perceptions (i.e. mental representations)
We have no ground for believing that anything exists other than
ideas and the perceivers of ideas
Argues against Lockes Corpuscular Theory

Because our world comes to us through our ideas (i.e.

representations), any claim that we can understand physical
things is mistaken. Strictly speaking, the world is constructed
purely of thought.

All knowledge comes from perception.

What we perceive are ideas
not things-in-themselves.

So the world consists only

of ideas and minds that
perceive those ideas.

A thing only exists in so far

as it perceives or is
perceived.

A thing-in-itself must lie

outside of experience.

Idealism refers to efforts to account for all objects

in nature and experience as representations of the
mind and sometimes to assign to such
representations a higher order of existence. It is
opposed to materialism In modern times idealism
has largely come to refer the source of ideas to
mans consciousness, whereas in the earlier period
ideas were assigned a reality outside and
independent of mans existence.

Idealism Made Simple:

1. Sensible objects (houses, mountains, etc.) are things
present to us in sense experience.
2. What is presented to us in sense experience consists
solely of our ideas.
3. Ideas exist solely in our minds.
4. Therefore, sensible objects exist solely in our minds.

Metaphysics Journal #1:

1. What is rationalism? What is empiricism? What is
idealism?
2. Idealism and empiricism are similar metaphysical systems
in that they share many common features. Some
philosophers even refer to idealism as hard empiricism.
Yet the two systems are different in important ways. How
are idealism and empiricism similar? And how are
they different? Explain in detail using evidence. (Note:
Use evidence to provide support for your own thoughtful
conclusions. Dont let the evidence do the talking for you.)

3. Why is idealism unappealing, or perhaps even invalid,

to many philosophers? In other words, what
criticisms might be leveled against idealism?

David Hume (1711-1776):

Approach: Empiricism
Nationality: Scottish
Set out to develop a science of the
mind
Excellent prose writer, writes in clear,
concise, uncluttered language
That the sun will not rise tomorrow is
no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more
contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise.

Two Types of Perceptions: Impressions & Ideas

Impressions = immediate sensation of external reality OR
the immediate and original contents of our own
psychological states
Ideas = the recollection of such impressions
If you burn yourself on a hot oven, you get an
immediate impression. Afterward you can recollect
that you burned yourself. That impression, insofar
as it is recalled, is an idea (Gaarder 265).

Impressions vs. Ideas:

The impression is stronger and
livelier than your reflective memory
of that impression (Gaarder, 265).
The sensation (or impression) is
the original the idea, or reflection,
is only a pale imitation (Gaarder,
265).
The sensation is the direct cause of
the idea stored in the mind
(Gaarder, 266).

The Association of Ideas:

Impressions and ideas can be either
simple or complex
Direct experience of an apple = complex
impression
Experience of the apples hardness, greenness, round shape,
tartness = simple impression (...think Locke)
Recollection of the experience of the apple = complex idea
Recollection of the experience of the apples hardness,
greenness, roundness, tartness = simple idea

False Ideas:
Nothing is ever invented by the mind; the
mind puts things together and constructs
true or false ideas.
False Complex Idea: Unicorn
Impressions: horse, horn, whiteness (each element, once
sensed, enters the theater of the mind in the form of a real
impression
Ideas: (idea of) horse, horn, whiteness
New Idea: Unicorn--in creating new complex ideas, we can only
work with the materials impressions provide. No idea, no
matter how abstract or complex, is more than a combination,
alteration, or abstraction from impressions

Demonstrative vs. Probable Statements:

Demonstrative statement: One whose truth or falsity is selfevident. Known to be true or false A PRIORI.
E.G. 2 + 2 = 4 -- Denying this statement involves a
logical contradiction.
Probable statement: Not self-evident. Requires empirical
evidence to be known true or false. Most claims we make are
probable statements. A POSTERIORI.
E.G. Mr. Muller is in his room.

Inductive Reasoning:
Hume opposes all thoughts/ideas that cannot be traced back to
corresponding sense-perceptions
But we use complex ideas all the time without stopping to think
whether or not they correspond to sense perception
The problem occurs when we try to infer things from past
evidence--i.e. inductively
We observe patterns and infer that theyll continue in the future,
assuming nature will behave in a uniform way
E.G. We see the sun rise every morning and assume it will rise
again tomorrow.

Challenging Cause & Effect:

The sun will rise tomorrow is not a demonstrative
statement; claiming the opposite involves no logical
contradiction
Nor is it a probable statement, since we cannot experience
the suns future risings
E.G. Take the following statement: Event A causes B.
Compare it to the statement: 2 + 2 = 4.
The expectation of one thing following another does not lie in
the things themselves, but in our mind.
There is never any rational basis for inferring cause and
effect.

Constant Conjunction:
What, then, is cause and effect? Force of Habit arrived at
through the experience of Constant Conjunction
Constant Conjunction is the human tendency to read or
project uniformity and causal connection into our
experience of isolated impressions
The grounds for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow,
or that the eight-ball will move when the cue ball slams
into it, are not logical They are simply the result of our
conditioning.

I see the sun rise

every morning.

I have no rational
grounds for my belief but
custom and habit tells me
that it is an indubitable fact
of life.

I get into a habit of

expecting the sun to
rise every morning.

This judgement cannot

be a truth of logic,
because the sun not
rising (however unlikely
that seems to us) is
conceivable.

Custom is the great

guide of life

I refine this into the

judgement the sun
rises every morning.

This judgement
cannot be
empirical,
because I cannot
observe future
risings of the sun.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):

Approach: Transcendental Idealism
Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without
concepts are blind only from their union can cognition
arise.
Direct sensations = intuitions; Our ability to have and use
concepts = understanding
Without concepts we would not know our intuition (or
sensation) was of a book; without intuitions we would
never know that there were books at all.

I Kant Believe Space/Time Are A Priori Intuitions!

Space is an a priori intuition. In order to learn about thing
outside of me, I need to know they are outside of me (in
space)
How can I locate something outside of me without
already knowing what outside of me means
Some knowledge of space has to be assumed before I
can ever study space empirically
Space is a priori; it does not belong to things in the world.
Our experience of things in space is a feature of our
sensibility. Similar arguments can be made for time

Kant split knowledge into intuitions, gained from directl sensing the world, and
concepts, which come indirectly from our understanding. Some knowledge--of sense and
understanding--comes from empirical evidence, while some is known a priori
Key:
Empirical Knowledge
A priori knowledge

Only from the

human standpoint
can we speak of
space.
--Kant

Transcendental Idealism gives us a much more radical way

of understanding the distinction between ourselves and the
external world. What is external to me is interpreted as not
just external to space, but external to space itself (and to
time, and to all the a priori concepts that make my
experience of the world possible).

1:50-3:35