Realism and Idealism
Direct/naive realism
@ from perceptual variation
@ from illusion
@ from hallucination & dreaming
@ from time lag
Veridical perception
Indirect realism
Sense data (and their qualities)
Physical objects (and their
qualities)
Solipsism
Primary qualities
Secondary qualities
Idealism
Berkeley
Justified True Belief
Propositional knowledge
Procedural knowledge
Justification
Infinite regress
Truth
Paradigms
Belief
Incompatibilism
Necessity
Sufficiency
Gettier examples
No false lemmas
Infallibilism
Reliabilism
Tracking the truth
Empiricism & Rationalism
Empiricism
Innate knowledge
Simple & Complex ideas
Hume’s Fork
The problem of induction
Analytic v synthetic statements
a priori v a posteriori knowledge
Rationalism
Mathematical synthetic a priori
Descartes’ radical doubt
Ontological arguments
Universal causation
Philosophical statements
Universals v particulars
Moral relativism v objectivism
Master argument
Miscellaneous
Incorrigible
Premise & Conclusion
Indefeasible
deduction
Infallible
subjectively indistinguishable
Sentient beings cognizant beings
Appearance & reality
Syllogism
induction
dogmatic
sceptical
Bertrand Russell
Specious argument
counterfactuals
pragmatic
naturalistic fallacy
John Locke
validity & soundness
indexical statements
unassailable
epistemology
Definition
Reality is as it appears
Illustration
Take a photo of the world – and that is ‘objectively’ how it is, even
without someone viewing it.
Contrasts/alternatives
Indirect realism & idealism
Subdivisions/special cases
A common sense or prephilosophical viewpoint
Premise
People perceive the same scene differently
Premise
One person will often see the same scene differently over time
Conclusion
The objective world cannot be identical to what is perceived.
Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries
A corollary (ie additional conclusion/result) is we perceive
something other than Reality – and that this is sense-data.
Premise
Premise
Conclusion
Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries
.
Premise
Premise
Conclusion
Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries
.
Premise
Premise
Conclusion
Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries
.
Definition
Perception under normal circumstances – unmediated by distorting
influences (such as drugs, strange atmospheric phenomena, sleep)
Illustration
Perceiving a teapot under normal lighting conditions, when
awake, and of sound mind
Contrasts/alternatives
Dreaming
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
What we perceive is caused by and represents physical reality
Illustration
When 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 cases
Sense-data are the medium through which we perceive the world.
John Locke is the most famous advocate of this position
Definition
Information reaching our minds via out 5 senses.
Infallible, transitory (or fleeting) and essentially private.
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Premise
Premise
Conclusion
Any weaknesses/limitations/corollaries
.
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Procedural knowledge – knowledge how to do something. Such as
‘knowing how to ride a bicycle’.
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Plato claims that justified true belief was both necessary and sufficient for
knowledge. Justification requires being able to explain our beliefs with
adequate reasons.
Illustration
The racist juror example - ….
Contrasts/alternatives
Knowledge 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.
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Plato 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/alternatives
Knowledge 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.
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Plato 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/alternatives
Knowledge 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.
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Gettier 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
.
Illustration
.
Implications
Definition
This 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
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
This offers a supplement to Plato’s tripartite definition of knowledge which
copes with Gettier examples. It claims that JTbeliefs are only knowledge if…
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
This 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
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Hume 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
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Locke’s idea of a tabula rasa – in which he claims that our minds
are a blank slate when we are born
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
These 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
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
A golden mountain – Hume was able to explain how we could use
terms which no-one had ever experienced.
Definition
Hume claimed that all knowledge was either ‘matters of fact’ or
‘relations of ideas’
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
We never see one event being necessarily caused by another. We
just see the spatial contiguity, temporal succession and repetition.
.Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Synthetic propositions
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
‘a posteriori’ knowledge
Subdivisions/special cases
Rationalists believe that some a priori knowledge of synthetic
propositions.
Definition
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.
Definition
Illustration
.
Contrasts/alternatives
Empricism
Gnosticism
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Some 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/alternatives
It 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)
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
°°
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
°°
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
°°
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Statements 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/alternatives
Wittgenstein –a logical positivist – claimed that such philosophical
claims are not knowledge. “That of which we cannot speak, we must
stay silent”
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases
Definition
Illustration
Contrasts/alternatives
Subdivisions/special cases