Empirical (a posteriori) knowledge: evidence and justification based on sensory experience Nonempirical (a priori): based on pure reason ex.

Math

it is good to distinguish between perception, which is the internal state of the monad representing external things, and apperception, which isconsciousness, or the reflective knowledge of this internal state, something not given to all souls, nor at all times to a given soul
Knowledge = justified true belief (see intro) Greek and Medieval PLATO (Meno, Phaedo, Republic, Theaetetus) Forms occupy realm independent of sensory objects Introduced justified true belief Knowledge cannot change, immutable Preexistence of the soul is how we have (a priori) knowledge of the nonsensory Forms Forms are eternal -> souls are immortal ARISTOTLE (Posterior Analytics, De Anima) Theory of perceptual knowledge, foundationalism, essentialism, theory of causation Forms instantiated by sensory objects, knowledge of the Forms is not sensory but is always occasioned by sensory experience De Anima nature of sensory perception, different kinds of sensory objects, relation between perceiving and thinking, and the role of the mind in perceptual knowledge Common sensibles: sensory objects perceivable by all the senses (movement, number) Special objects of sense: perceivable by only a single sense (color, flavor) Passive mind v active mind Passive mind the place of the Forms potentially but not actually while active mind is the place of the Forms as abstracted -> when there is perceptual knowledge due to abstraction, the mind and the object of knowledge are identical Posterior Analytics tries to characterize the structure of human knowledge Demonstrative knowledge premises must be true, immediate, and better known than the conclusion ->some knowledge is nondemonstrative (not based on premises) which underlies demonstrative knowledge Genuine knowledge v opinion Knowledge is what is necessary, to have knowledge is to know its essence and causation -> causation: formal, material, efficient and final SEXTUS (Outlines of Pyrrhonism) Argues in favor of skepticism, to be doubtful to claims of knowledge Skepticism: suspend judgment when conflicting judgments are equally likely, mental rest state where nothing is affirmed or denied opposing to every proposition an equal proposition Goal: avoid dogmatism and achieve quietude ataraxia Arguments for skepticism Regress argument: every argument needs a supporting argument therefore there is no starting point for a convincing argument -> suggests only way out of infinite regress is circular reasoning which is just as bad Problem of the Criterion: in order to judge a dispute, criterion (standards) must be established to do that, another dispute must be judged -> circular reasoning

Induction is invalid: relies on some or all instances, review of some is inadequate since the ones not included may not adhere to universal judgment, review of all cannot happen since there are indefinite number of cases

Early Modern: rejection of Aristotelian Rationalism (pg. 111) DESCARTES (Meditations on First Philosophy) Principle of the clear and distinct (relation of) ideas Method of Doubt begin by provisionally doubting everything -> if some cannot be doubted then must be true -> Cogito Ergo Sum God argument circular reasoning pg 112 LEIBNIZ (Introduction to New Essays on the Human Understanding) Neither establishes rationalism nor refutes empiricism but does advocate for innate ideas and principles (against Locke) mind/body interaction a. Problem with Descartes: physical world has certain properties. Mental world have completely different properties. How do they interact? i. Mind and body are the same substance, so its not hard to interact ii. Each mind is necessarily connected to a body iii. Monads do not interact but they are harmonized to act together iv. What is a monad? indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality theory of monads

only beings that will count as genuine substances and hence be considered real are mind-like simple substances endowed with perception and appetite denies tabula rasa no blank slate a monad is dominant over another when the one contains reasons for what happens in the other In other words, animals and most human beings most of the time are purely empiricists; a rational person, however, is one who can engage in genuine a priori reasoning, moving from knowledge of a true cause via deduction to necessary effects.
BERKELEY empiricist (A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge) Idealism: reality consists only of minds and ideas, and nothing else

esse est percipi (aut percipere) to be is to be perceived (or to perceive). Must perceive to exist everything dependent on the mind rerum natura real things occur in regular patterns (They are thus regular and coherent, that is, they constitute a coherent real world.)

1. Sketch Descartes proof for the existence of God and give a critical analysis of it. Sketch what would follow if Descartes is wrong about the existence of God. Circular argument God is perfect and responsible for clarity and distinctiveness, to achieve clarity and distinctiveness there must be this idea of God Reformulation of the Method of Doubt if God doesnt exist, clarity and distinctiveness dont exist http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/method-of-doubt.html truths from Method of Doubt share clarity and distinctiveness, these must come from God If God doesnt exist, clarity and distinctiveness dont exist, we cannot be sure of anything. There is a deceiver ---We can't trust clear and distinct ideas (beyond the cogito) until such time as we have proved God's existence. But we know that we have proved God's existence because it is clear and distinct the idea of his existence entails that he actually exists. http://www.yuksel.org/e/philosophy/triangle.htm 6. What is Platos view of knowledge? How does this relate to his theory of reality? What are the implications of these views for how we ought to live? What is your evaluation of Platos prescription? 5. What is Aristotles view of knowledge? How does this relate to his four causes? What are the implications of this theory for the forms, or universals? What is your evaluation of Aristotles theory? 4. How does Berkeleys argument lead to idealism? Identify one similarity and difference between Descartes and Berkeley. Which is more significant, similarities or the differences? http://www.yuksel.org/e/philosophy/triangle.htm Idealism: reality consists only of minds and ideas, and nothing else Berkeley rejects materialism. Berkeley argues that everything is based on the mind. The mind must perceive in order for something to exist, esse est percipi. We can only perceive ideas, therefore objects

must be ideas, or a collection of ideas, which are dependent on the mind. He arrives at idealism from saying that objects are sensible things and sensible things are composed by sensible properties, which are sensible ideas. Therefore objects are sensible ideas. The similarity between Descartes and Berkeley is that they attribute our ideas to God. Berkeley thinks of God as the source of our ideas and the perpetual existence of sensible things. In other words, sensible things stay in existence even when we dont perceive them because all ideas belong to a greater Spirit. Similarly, Descartes attributes clarity and distinctiveness to an all perfect reliable God. A difference is that Descartes believes in two properties, primary and secondary. Berkeley only believes in secondary properties. Primary properties refer to essence, which Berkeley rejects because that would mean that the physical world exists as a substance, independent of our perception of it. He believes that the information we have is due to secondary properties, based on senses. This distinction is important because Descartes believes in matter, that physical things have substance. His world consists of material objects and ideas, making it difficult to actually know the material objects.