Kant: Metaphysics vs. Math and Science

Math and Science have limits wheras metaphysics has bounds. Math and Science are complete in themselves and there are no questions that are left unanswered with enough time, insight, and progress. Metaphysics is bounded and reason offers questions up to itself that it can't answer. Metaphysics asks questions about the nature of things themselves. In other words, metaphysics raises questions that could possibly left unanswered given alot of time and insight. However, all questions given by math and science have a final point or answer.

Kant: On cause and effect

Kant agrees with Hume in regards to the fact that we can't discover the concept of cause and effect through experience or by means of reason. However, Kant does not agree with Hume regarding that cause and effect is a result of habit. Kant feels that causation is a priori understanding applied to appearances. We can know nothing about the thing in itself but only can know about how they appear to us. Causation is a form given to experience that makes it intelligible to us. I do feel that what we know about things are in fact just what we percieve or see them as. We will never know enough about something in itself since we will always only be offered a form that is seen.

Kant: Judgements of perception vs. judgements of experience

Judgements of perception according to Kant bring together several empirical intuitions that are only subjectively valid. For example, the sun is shing broghtly and therefore I can make judegemnt that a water bottle sitting in teh sun for a while will be warm. However, such a judgement is only true for me at that particular time. Judgements of experience apply pure concepts of understanding to judgements of perception turning them into objective, universally valid laws. For example, the sun CAUSED the water to be warm. Judgements of experience are synthetic a priori laws which make natural science possible.

kant: on senses

Humans use the senses significant to them. This is definately true since we are all unique and this variety that exists between teh human race would not be possible is we did not use the senses that are in accordance with our character. Kant uses examples such as heat, color, and tastes to show that these are all ideas we have that possible will not hold ground outside our existence.

kant: on why reason exists

Kant does not feel that there is any way to know the purpose of reason's existence. However, he does offer some insight into the thought of reason's existence. He feels that reason exists to tech us that there is something beyond experience that we cannot know. Through reason, we are givena more balanced perspective on the world. I feel that Kant is correct in his hypothesis on reason's existence. Reason is what makes us test our thoughts and go beyond measures to prove them. We would question nothing in life without this reason andtehrefore many of our inventions would not have ever come about.

Kant: On math

In the beginning Kant poses four questions and on is How is pure mathematics possible? Kant then begins saying that math consists of a priori cognitions and therfore one must be able to draw connections between different concepts by means of some form of pure intuition. since math consists of synthetic a priori cognitions then some form of pure intuition is innate within us that allows these connections to happen without an prior experiences.

Hume: On induction

Hume argues that induction is founded on persistence of regularities and that we cannot know nature is uniform through reason since reason comes in two kinds and each is inadequate. the first reason that is not effective, deductive reasoning which Hume feels we cannot prove regularities will continue since nature's course may change. The second reason that is not effective is effectively, inductive reasoning and Hume says that founding regularity on idea that regularity has always worked in the past is arguing in a circle. Hume does not feel that just because A occurs B is soon to follow. I think Hume is correct in his thinking because just because we drowned in the pool doe snot mean we will drown everytime we go in a pool.

Hume: On miracles

Basically Hume is in accordance with what many philosophers before him and after him have felt about miracles. He believes that miracles are not true or even valid since there is no evidence showing miracles actually occurred and have went against the laws of nature. It is easy to believe in something that is set out in front of you but to a certain degree I think that faith plays the larger role in the miracle game. Faith that God gives some this power of miracles. However. these miracles should not have to be publicized to be believed as possible to occur. Hume is correct in saying that miracles cannot be true or valid to even think of actually happening. However, I feel yes there is no evidence but why would anybody lie about something as sacred as a miracle.

Hume: Relation of ideas vs. Matter of Fact

Relation of ideas are a priori and indestructable bonds created between ideas. Statements that are logically true like 2 + 2+4 and all bachelors are unmarried are examples of relations of ideas. Matters of fact deal with experience. This is seen in things such as saying that it will rain tomorrow or that the sun was out today. they are learned or a posteriori and can be denied unlike Relation of ideas.

Hume: distinction between impressions and ideas

Impressions include immediate sense impressions of sound, sight, and touch. they are vivid mental sensations. Emotions are considered impressions for Hume. Ideas are secondary since they are merely about impressions and are memories, thoughts, or beliefs concerning our impressions. Any idea that cannot be found to reflect back on a simple impression is meaningless. Hume then dismisses the bulk of metaphysics as consisting of meaningless ideas.

Hume: missing shade of blue

in his missing shade of blue experiment, he asks us to imagine a man that has seen every shade of blue but one. He feels that this man will be able to see this missing shade of blue even thought he has never experienced it. He can see this shade of blue by looking at the two the lie to either side of it. However, here Hume contradicts his thoughts about only knowing things that we in fact can experience. I think this argument is not a strong one for Hume and is unnecessary since it contradicts evrything he says in Enquiries.

Hume on liberty and necessity

Hume opens his argument here by stating that this whole debate with free will is due to a loss of understanding for the meaning of the words. He feels that all disputes of teh subject of liberty are verbal arguments that lie in teh hands of understanding the true definition of what liberty stands for. Hume offers his own definition of liberty and his definition then relies on the what people define free as. Therefore, this whole debate seems like a neverending cycle where people need to have a definite unchanging definition of the word liberty and what free is in order for an understanding to be achieved.

Knowledge of the existence of the external world

Locke agrees with Desacrtes' arguments made about the knowledge of ourselves and God but he is unique in his argument on sensitive knowledge. Locke views sensitive's knowledge problem to be the idea that the skeptic holds: if we only have acess to our own ideas then how do we even know a world out there exists? In response to the skeptic's feelings, Locke formulates three strategies. First, he wonders if anyone can deny the existence of the external world and simply states to not take the skeptic seriously. Second, he tells those whose belief is strong in the skeptic to continue to believe since we already know enough to help us get around in the world. Third, he creates a long and detailed argument based on inference to fidn truth in the claim that an external world exists. In this argument, he uses the example of a deaf person never knowing the sound of a French horn to explain that we cannot get any ideas without the organ appropriate for them. He also says that these ideas can be recieved only in certain situations.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge of the existence of things

Locke believes that we know the existence of things well but regarding the nature of the things, we are not so capable of understanding. He creates a three part argument of the knowledge of the existence of things. The first part of the argument deals with our knowledge over ourselves, intution. The second part of the argument deals with our knowledge of the existence of God or demonstration. The third part deals with our knowledge of the existence of the external world, which is known through sensitive knowledge.
- Chris Rehonic

3 levels of Knowledge according to Locke

The first level of Knowledge that is the highest level is INTUITION. With intuition we can immediately see an agreement or disagreement the moment an idea that is presented to us is understood. Right below intuition falls DEMONSTRATION. With demonstration, a proof must be worked through in order to see a connection between ideas. Each step of the proof involves intuition and therefore all knowledge is dependent on intuition. The final and lowest level involves SENSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that is a pseudo- knowledge. Locke estabilishes these three levels of knowledge that build upon the highest level of INTUITION.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge: what is it? (Locke)

Locke defines knowledge as "the perception by reason of teh connection and agreement or repulsion and disagreement between any two or more ideas" (CHapter IV). Locke then presents us with four different types of disagreements or agreements that reason can percieve to produce knowledge. One type is Identity and Diversity which is A=A or a bachelor is not married. The next is Relation which means a diamond is a square laid on its side. The next is Coexistence which is that the area of a triangle is always one half the base times the height. The last deals with existence belonging to ideas themselves, which is the idea of God and of the self. A strong connection between ideas must exist in order ot be called knowledge. When discussing ideas of disagreement, teh connection is of illogical inconsistency. When talking about ides in agreement, a necessary connection needs to be made.
- Chris Rehonic

innate ideas - john locke

Locke considers innate ideas in three phases. First, he draws us to thinking of developing children. Developing children clearly come into world without any prior ideas since much of their ideas are only of things they actually experienced. Second, he brings up ideas such as "existence" and "identity." He feels these ideas are the least likely to be innate since they are confusing and unclear.Locke feels that if we were in fact born with these ideas then we would be more clear on what they meant without tryingto figure out their meaning as much as we do. Third, he discusses the idea of God. This idea is probably the most likely to be innate. However, even the idea of God is not innate since many cultures do not believe in any God.

tabula rasa- john locke

John Locke believed in the idea of tabula rasa or clean slate. He believed that we all started off with this clean slate and had no innate ideas when we are born. As we grow, our slate fills up with knowledge that is based on our prior experiences. Experience is what makes our knowledge. Our knowledge is not based on anything before our birth for Locke. Descartes, on the other hand, believed that we are born with innate ideas and our experiences expand to create a knowledge base for us. However, Locke attacks this theory that humans are born knowing certain things.

Meditation 3

     After coming up with his argument for the existence of God, the Meditator then begins to feel that he may be supremely perfect.  He feels that all his mistakes or vices are potentialities within him, and slowly he is moving towards perfection.  The idea of God can be conceived in him without outside cause if he has the potential to be perfect.  However, for three reasons this idea is rejected by the Meditator.  One, God = all actual and not all potential.  Two, since he is in a constant process with his improvement then he will never attain perfection.  Three, potential being is not being (idea of God is caused by something with infinite actual being).  Since he knows God exists he questions where did he receive this idea.  He concludes the idea must be innate and must have been created by God since he himself was created by God. God can not be deceiving him since he is perfect and in order to deceive you must be imperfect.     

--Chris Rehonic

Meditation 3: the existence of God

    As the Meditator considers God as an infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful substance which created all, the Meditator realizes the idea of God is more objective rather than formal in reality.  The idea of God could not have originated in himself, therefore the Meditator concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and must then necessarily exist.  The Meditator then starts saying that doubts and desires come from an understanding that we lack something, and we would not be aware of that lack unless we were aware of a more perfect being that has those things we lack.  Doubting the existence of other things is not a problem for the Meditator but doubting the idea of God is not possible since he has a clear and distinct perception of God's existence.  The idea has infinite objective reality making it truer than any other idea.  

---Chris Rehonic