Hume’s mistake according to Kant

Kant talks about Hume’s mistake in not understanding the nature of experience. Like many before Kant including Hume, believed that experience is simply a set of impressions. Thus ideas and impressions are constructed by compounding simple impressions. Kant would say that these are sensations, things we take in by our senses. Kant then argues that experience is more than these simple impressions and it all happens in space and time. Kant says that space and time are not impressions or sensations because they are pure intuitions. Thus everything that happens in time and spare are bound by the laws of cause and effect. Cause and effect in this case are also not impressions but rather concepts of understanding. So intuitions and concepts combine to make an orderly experience for us to understand.

Descartes Cogito argument

In the second meditation Descartes starts out by doubting everything the world around him, his memories and perceptions and so forth. He even starts to wonder about his own existence until he come up with probably the most important and influential statement in philosophical writing the Cogito argument. Descartes starts to think about his existence and everything else’s existence and comes to one important conclusion. That if he is able to doubt his existence then he must exist in at least some for. Even if a demon or divine deceiver was tricking you with what you say, heard, tasted, touched and so on was fake he himself is some form had to exist to be able to think these thoughts. So out of this pondering of existence comes the famous line “I think, there for I am”.

Cause and Effect

In the second part of Kant’s book he talks about how can not know the concept of cause and effect either through experience or reason. Kant does not agree with Hume that this is considered habit or custom that rather it is a priori knowledge that we apply to appearances. We are not able to know things as for what they are; we are only able to understand them by the appearances that are given off by them. Kant says that cause and effect is not to found in the appearances but rather in the form of the object and the understanding given by it. Hume like Kant both agree that we con not derive concepts from experience but instead we derive experience from those concepts. Concepts of understanding allow for us to legitimize experience, though it still can not tell us anything about the objects or things themselves. This helps us make connections between appearances but they can not go any farther than those appearances given off.

Judgments of Perception vs. Judgments of Experience

In the second part of the book Kant talks about the distinction between judgments of perception and judgments of experience. Judgments of perception combine together all our empirical thoughts and are only subjectively valid. So take the example of how I might notice that the sun is shining and then realize how the rock is warm. I might come to the conclusion that because the sun is shining the rock is warm, though this is valid only for me at this specific time.

Then Kant goes into talking about judgments of experience, these apply “concepts of the understanding” to judgments of perception. This is taking the previous example and taking it one step further, by adding cause to the argument it allows for us to be able to understand natural laws. Like before the sun is warm which in turn causes the rock to heat up and feel warm. Kant then goes on to say that we use judgments of experience to structure how we understand experience. Kant goes into talking about how judgments of experience are a priori concepts we combine together to understand our judgments and that these a priori laws allow for natural science to exist.

Understanding vs Reason

In the third part Kant talks about the difference between understanding and reason. He says that this is a big problem that arises in philosophical thinking. Hume says that any concept that can be associated with experience belongs under the category of understanding. While when we use reason we are striving not to use experience, experience only causes problems in reasoning. Kant comes up with three different ideas of reason, psychological ideas, cosmological ideas, and the theological ideas.

Looking at psychological ideas we are trying to find some sort of thing or subject that is underlying all the predicates we apply to the subject. For example when looking at a fish we may say the thing with scales that thing that lives in water and so on, but what is the thing. Kant says that this is worthless and just wasting time. These things help us understand things by allowing us to apply concepts to empirical intiotions and concepts take the style of predicates. The cosmological idea is simply an idea thats object can not be used in any experience. Basically that we use reason to prove four thesis and antithesis about the world and how it is. Lastly the third type is theological which unlike the other two do not start from experience. We start rather with the idea of pure completness of a thing (a perfect being) to determine the possibility and thus the actuality of all other things.

a prior and a posteriori cont...

In the book Kant goes a little further into the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and analytic and synthetic judgments. According to Kant All analytic judgments are a priori, this is because they are in the breakdown of the concept itself. While synthetic judgments can either be a priori or a posteriori. Kant then goes into classifying synthetic judgments into three types, judgments from experience, mathematical judgments, and metaphysical judgments.

Simply put judgments from experience are a posteriori because they are just the combining together objects of experience. This would be taking into effect what had happened in previous experiences to judge what is going to happen in this case. Mathematical judgments are a priori judgments. Kant says the concept of 7+5 contains the idea of the two numbers but does not contain the idea of 12. We have to think about it and associate the two numbers with the idea of 12. Lastly metaphysics also consists of synthetic a priori judgments since metaphysics is made up largely of analytic judgments since these are the only things that metaphysicians can agree upon. Though there are synthetics judgments that are built upon these analytic judgments.

a priori and a posteriori

In the summary of Kant's book he gives a description between the differences of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. A priori knowledge according to Kant is anything we derive from pure reason while a posteriori knowledge is things we derive from experience. He then goes on to draw a even more important destinction between analytic and synthetic judgment. According to Kant the predicate of the analytic statement is in the object itself. For example all bachelors are unmarried men. It contains in the word bachelor that they are unmarried men and does not add anything to the statement. While the predicate of the synthetic on the other hand adds something to the statement. For example all swans are white you may not know before hand that all swans are white. So by hearing this information you gain some information about the idea of swans.

Philosophical vocabulary

In the later part of section 2 Hume talks about the philosophical vocabulary between the term impression and the term idea. As he states earlier in the section for the use of the words an impression is are clear and exact, things that we percieve with our senses, taste, touch, and so on. Ideas are less vivid, faint and some times obscure and unlike impressions we are likely to suffer error in remembering them. So when talking about an idea in philosophical terms we may ask by what impression did this idea come from. If it were to not come from an impression it would then be useless and meaningless.

Shades of blue

In section 2 Hume talks about a contradiction between ideas and impressions. Earlier he talks about how impressions are the things we see, hear, smell and so on. Basically everything all things that we perceive through our senses. While ideas are the compounding of these impressions like remembering how and apple tasted or looked (remembering the color). In this contradiction Hume talks about how if he had seen a few shades of blue he believes he could imagine other shades of blue without ever seeing them.

I am not completely sure about this idea, maybe we could imagine some different shades in which we believe we have not seen. Though i would have to say that we probably did see those shades in some form someone else before and just did not remember it. So i would still have to say that we could not imagine something that we have not seen before.

Relation of Ideas vs Matter of Fact

In section four Hume talks about the distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matter of fact". According to Hume relations of ideas are a prior knowledge. These type of things would include all logical statments like all "men are batcholors" and 6+6=12. He then goes on to say that relation of ideas are certain and can't be thought of different, if you were to it would be a contradiction. It like saying 2+2=5 or 2+2=chair we know that is wrong just by the simple idea of relations of ideas thus we know 2+2=4.
Hume then moves on to talking about "matters of fact" which deal with experience. Matters of fact are things like the sun is shining, it is going to storm tommarrow, these are things we learn posteriori. These are also things in which we do not fear because of contradiction. So if i were to say there is a clown outside, it is pretty easy for someone to go outside and see if there is or not and prove me wrong. Hume also talks about how we know matters of facts about things in which we have not observed through a process of cause and effect. I know that my friend is in France though i have not seen it myself, through a letter i can draw that conclusion.

Connection of Ideas

In book three Hume talks a good deal about the connection that exists between all ideas. Hume talks about three principles by which ideas may be connected. The first principle he talks about is resemblance, this is where we see a picture of a tree and we then think about the tree. The second principle he talks about is contiguity of time and place, this is where if we are to mention one apartment we then get to discussing others. The last principle he talks about is cause and effect, where when we think of a cut or scrape and then we think about the pain that followed it. Hume then goes on to say that he has no reason to not put out more prinicples for the connection of ideas, expect for the fact that he can not come up with anymore. Though he does then say that even though he can't think of anymore no more are needed. For example, association by means of contrast or contrariety can be seen as a combination of resemblance and causation.

Imagination

In the second book Hume talks about imagination and how the human mind is an unlimited organ. Hume states that our imagination is merely the compounding of ideas. Hume comes up with two points to explain this idea. First he says that all complex ideas are merely compounded out of simple ideas and these simple ideas come from simple impressions (everyday things like human form and intelligence). Hume uses the example of God being a supremely good and intelligent being. We have the idea of goodness and intelligent and allowing them to have no limit allows us to imagine the being of God. Second Hume talks about how our imagination is limited to the impressions we are able to take in. So for example a person that is blind is not able to imagine color and a person that is deaf could not imagine sound.

Origin of Ideas

According to Hume thier is a distinction between impressions and ideas. Hume says that ideas are the weaker form of impressions. They are lacking something that impressions have, they are less vivacious. Impressions according to Hume are sensations and ideas are memories and ideas. Hume gives the example of a person eating an orange. The impressions of eating the orange, taste, feel and smell are stronger then some one imagining eating an orange. Hume then goes on to say that both the color red and anger are considerend impressions (everything we hear, see, touch, smell, feel and love) and ideas arise when we reflect back on those impressions.

Cause and Effect

Locke talks about how all reasoning concerning matter of fact are founded in the relation of cause and effect. What he is saying is that we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. So if you were to ask a man why he may believe his friend is in another country, what would be his reasons for this if he did not know he really was or not in another country. He might answer with former knowledge he had of that friend talking about wanting to go to that country or promises. Again like before a man stranded on a desart island finds i watch. He did know see or know anyone else on this island but form cause and effect he knows that there must have been someone else there.

Imagination (perception)

Locke talks about perception or imagination in terms of them being confined to very narrow limits. He goes on to say that the creative power of the mind is no more than us combining, augmenting and transposing the senses and experiences we have gathered throughout life. Like the example about the gold mountain or the virtuous horse. Neither might not actually exist but in our imagination we can combine the idea of things we know. So we could imagine a gold mountain because we have the idea of gold and of mountain. Just like we have an idea of virtue and of a horse to imagine a virtuous horse. So all the materials that make up thinking are derived from our inward and outward perceptions of the world around us.

Thoughts and Perceptions

In section two Locke talks about distinguishing between the two classes of perception of the mind. The first class that Locke talks about is thoughts or ideas. He calls thoughts and ideas the less forcible and lively of the two classes. The other idea he talks about is impressions and by impressions, Locke is talking about our more lively perceptions what we see, we hear, feel and love. So thoughts and ideas are the incorporation of our perceptions. Locke goes on then to say that nothing is more unbound then the thought of man, not even nature and reality can contain our thoughts. People’s bodies might be confined to this planet and might not be able to leave physically but mentally with our thoughts we are able to go and see anything with our thoughts.

Locke: Skepticism

In book four Locke outlines three plans for treating the problem of skepticism, about whether or not the world really exists outside of our mind. This idea comes from Locke's theory of knowledge. In other words if we only have the access to the ideas in our minds and which come from our minds, how do we know know thier is actually a real world outside of our minds. He uses three strategies to over come the skeptic viewpoint.

The first strategy he uses is a weak stategy to simply say can you really doubt that thier is an actual world out there. The second strategy is to simply put it, who really cares if thier is an actual world out there as long as we understand enough to get around in the world we are in. The third strategy he uses seven experiences to explain that thier is an actual world. 1. There is a realness to percieveing objects that we don't get from memories or imagination. 2. We cannot get ideas without using the sense organs. 3. We are able to only recieve ideas in certain situations so it cannot be the organs working by themselves. 4. We gain ideas passively. 5. Ideas are sometimes accompanied with pleasure and pain, though our dreams do not. 6. Senses ofter bear witness to other peoples reports. 7. Two people can share the same experience.

I agree with his third strategy againt skepticism, i think he does a good job using the senses to describe why thier has to be a real world beyond our mind. Though i think he does a very poor job with the first two strategies. In the first one it is basically a childish argument, thats just stupid so why believe it. The second one is more uplifting but does not really do anything against the skeptic viewpoint. Its just saying who cares if thier is no real world just know this world enough to get by.

Locke: Nature of Knowledge

In book four Locke talks about the nature of knowledge. According to Locke knowledge is what the mind is able to percieve with a connection or without a connection between two or more of our ideas that we have. So Locke goes on to say that since we are only relating ideas that we already have the knowledge that we have cannot be knowlege of the world around us. He then talks about four arguments and disagreements about how reason can bring fourth knowledge. The first argument he talks about is identity, blue is blue and blue is not yellow. In other words blue has its own idenity of blueness and thus blue can't be yellow cause it doesn't have the identity of yellowness. The second argument deals with relation, in the case of two triangles that have the equal sides are called equal triangles. The third argument is coexistence which is fire is always going to be put out by water, things react in harmony to thier counterpart. Finally the last category he talks about is the realization that existence belongs to the idea's themselves and not to the mind.

Locke then talks about how thier are three degrees of knowledge which are intuition, demonstration and sensitive knowledge. Intuition, this is when we see a agreement or disagreement right when the argument is understood. Demonstration is the idea that we need some sort of proof to be able to understand and know that it is right and finally. Sensitive knowledge which deals with existence of an external world, basically what we percieve is the external world as we know it.

Locke: Where knowledge comes from

In the second book, Locke talks about where knowledge comes from. Locke first starts out talking about how knowledge is a build-up of ideas (simple ideas and complex ideas). Simple ideas are then combined to create complex ideas, thus simple ideas are the single basic units of knowledge. He then talks about how thier are two types of experiences in which we gain simple ideas. The first one is through sensation or the body experiencing the world through senses, touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. The second type of experience is reflection or the mind turning in on itself and recongnizes on its own functions, thinking and so on.

Then Locke talks about how he breaks down simple ideas into four categories. The first is ideas we get from a single sense, such as hearing a car pass by outside. The second is ideas we get from combining two senses. The third is ideas that come out from relfection of the mind and the fourth and final category is ideas that come from the combination of senses and relfection.

Finally Locke breaks down complex ideas also into four categories. Modes, which are ideas that cannot exist in and of themselves like numbers. Substance , which are men or animals such as a single substaning thing or a army as in a collection of substaning things. Relations, which are father, sister and so on. Finally the last category is abstract generals, which are man or sheep, not talking about any particular man or sheep just the general idea of man or sheep.

Discourse 6

Earlier i talked about how Descarte gave a long and winded discussion about why he first shouldn't publish his works and then for why he should publish some of his works over other works he had produced. Though looking back at this i realized he had another important reason for why he didn't want to publish his works. This reason deals with persecution from other philosphers, scientists and religious authorities. His biggest worry was persecution from the Inquisition, after Galileo was condemded by them for his writtings, this was a real worry back then in the 1640's for philosphers, scientists and any one else talking about new ideas.