Locke’s Epistemology

Posted on by
Reply

Locke’s epistemology draws upon the categories that Descartes created.  Locke goes on to try to discredit the work that Descartes has done. He views Descartes work as starting from the wrong premise so he gives a new meaning to the categories that Descartes established.

Locke claims there are innate principles of two different kinds.  The first is the speculative and the second is practical or moral.  The problem is if these kinds of principles were innate, they would be most obvious to untaught minds because their minds would have less clutter.  However this is not the case.  One needs to be taught about these principles.

We are to judge the practical principle by the action and not by principles that are derivative.  The practical principles are not universally accepted.  When it comes to principles of morality we request some proof that a principle is true.  If these were innate there would be no appeal to other grounds.  And no proof would be required to prove the principle true.

If principles were innate then the principle of God would be innate. Not everyone believes in God, e.g. deists, and pluralists.  If God wanted the world to know his truth then he would implant in everyone a desire to follow Him.  Since the desire is lacking in some there must be some learning about Him that must take place.  Which leads to, if ideas are to be remembered then they first must be learned.

This leads us to ask what ideas are.  Locke claims the mind of man comes empty.  The mind acquires ideas through experience through its faculties.    There are two different kinds of ideas, simple and complex.  Simple ideas are not complex; they deal with one uniform characteristic. Complex ideas are simply the combining of simple ideas.

There are two general categories how one comes to know.  The first is through sensation.  This is from one or more senses that give an impression upon things.  The second way is through reflection.  Reflection uses memory which is ideas that you recall, discernment, and one to be conscious.  The more specialized category that Locke creates is a combination of sensation and reflection, which includes pleasure, pain, existence, and time.

There are two different types of knowledge.  The first is actual knowledge, which is present to ones consciousness.  The second is habitual knowledge.  This is Abeyant, which is used by ones mind for new knowledge.  This is where Locke brings up the idea of a ‘wax tablet’ that the experiences get wrote upon the mind.

There are two rational subcategories under habitual knowledge.  The first is intuitive knowledge, which is immediate perception of the agreement.  This category involves knowledge of self.  The second is demonstrative.  In demonstration the perception of the agreement or disagreement is through rationality and other ideas.   This category deals with the knowledge of God.

The third non-rational category is an inductive category.  This category deals with the sensate knowledge.  This is the general judgments of truth; the perception of the occurrence of an idea as an effect of an actually existing object.  This requires sagacity.  This category leads to knowledge of other things.  These are lower then intuitive and demonstrative.  These deal with judgment, probability, belief and faith.  Locke holds to truth being the conformity of ideas to the way things are.

The knowledge of God comes about by the knowledge of the self.  Locke says we utilize intuitive knowledge to come toward God. The basic piece of intuitive knowledge is I exist, which leads us to God.  This gives us a clear understanding that he exists.  One proof Locke gives for the existence of God is that, non-entity cannot produce a being, so something must be eternal.  The source must be all powerful. Also he must be all knowing.  Since God’s existence is necessary, the rest of the universe points to God.

Sensitive knowledge is the items that write upon our minds.  Sense organs allow sensory ideas thus the objects acting upon the sense organs are external to the viewer.  When sensory ideas are received they are lively and vivid.  Sensory ideas are unavoidable.  They are not dependant upon our will.  Sensory ideas come with pain and pleasures however memorial ideas do not.  The senses support one another.  They help give assurance to the one who is experiencing the experience.  They act similar to cooperating witnesses.

Judgment is rational belief if based upon probability.  This involves conformity to ones previous experiences.  The conformity to the testimony of others makes a statement more reliable.  When there are cooperating witnesses it adds integrity.  When the witnesses see the event they are in proximity to give support to the event.  The witnesses will be confirming one another and give greater support to the testimony given.

Locke advances three regulatory principles.  His first principle is evidence.  Each person ought to acquire evidence for and against the proposition, such that each item is evidence, is something that one understands and such that the totality of ones evidence is satisfactory.  The second is appraisal.  One ought to examine the evidence one has collected so as to determine its evidential force until one has understood what is the probability of the probability of the evidence.  This is evidential force.  The third is proportionality.  One ought to adopt a level of confidence in a proposition which is proportioned to its satisfactory evidence.  This is a psychological state.

There are various degrees of assurance that Locke defines.  The first is assurance proper which states that general consent agrees with ones own experience that a factual proposition is always true.  The second is confidence which is when general consent and ones own experience that a factual proposition is sometimes true.  The lowest is assent.  Assent is when no independent reason why a thing should happen one way than another.  The one way is supported by the concurrent testimony of unsuspecting witnesses.  These witnesses can make a claim valid or invalid.

Assenting to a truth is voluntary.  If one does not assent then that person may be self deceived.  Following ones love for truth could lead to: not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs that is built upon.  If one does not look to the evidence the person may miss out on a crucial ‘revelation’ that may enlighten them upon the subject.

Hume and his definition of miracles

Posted on by
Reply

Hume defines miracles as “a violation of the laws of nature” (122). This definition is problematic. If it did not violate the natural laws then it would not be a miracle. If it violates the laws of nature than it is not to be reliable otherwise it would agree with the laws of nature.

Hume first attacks the character of the person who witnesses the miracle. The person who experiences the miracle should be well educated, and impartial to guard against self-deception. This is not always the case. A person could be witness to a miracle but not well educated. Is it possible for one to be impartial or would you always be partial to your experiences.

Emotions also cause a problem for Hume. Emotion is not a solid ground for belief in a miracle. The person may be credulous. That is one who proportions to emotion. This leads to imprudence and skews understanding. It seems like Hume wants reason without emotion. This is the modern approach to teaching. Everything is raw facts apart from emotion. This can be a costly error. If teaching is devoid of emotion, then will it impact someone’s soul, e.g. become a belief, or will it be just head knowledge.

Barbarians promote miracles. As people become more enlightened they grow away from miracles. When thought is advanced it disproves the past held ideas. The barbarians are less civilized and are credulous. When barbarians used miracles it was to describe something that could not be described any other ways. One thing was spontaneous generation. This is what some scientists came up with back in medieval times. One thing was mice came from corn. Even though this was disproved many still believed that it was just a cause of nature. Was that a miracle or was that their ‘enlightenment’ deceiving them.

There is a pluralism of miracle attesters. This weakens the uniqueness of any single religion. The miracles are present to any and all religions. The miracles recorded are often embellished. Here Hume is confusing miracles and fables. It may be true that there are many religions that have as one of their central tenants that of miracles but when they get embellished they are no longer miracles but fables.

Miracles are there just to influence the masses. As Hume defined miracles they do not truly exist and cannot exist. A miracle would be more like a slight of hand than it would go against the laws of nature.

Hume thinks that a miracle cannot be. He is self-deceived in this notion. He elevates science to a realm where it does not belong. He believes faith and reason are diametrically opposed. Faith and reason go hand in hand with one another. My faith and my reason influence each other. Hume goes by a scientific approach to discover the basis for miracles. In doing so he manipulates and skews the system. His definition of miracles is too limiting for my appeal. It would mean that the Creator is bound by the laws of nature and cannot work outside of them. It is defining limits to an all powerful being.

The total essence of Hume’s argument is coherent if you take each piece to build upon the next. But the whole starting point is wrong. From reading Hume, it seems like he is trying to subtly move away from a Christian view on things and move to a more humanistic method of looking at life. Miracles are one of the main things of most religions. Christianity is based off a big miracle; a child born of a virgin only to die and be resurrected. Hume wanted to discredit everything that could be considered miraculous because he thought that it was unenlightened.

The fact is Hume’s philosophy took hold in the scientific realms which was the focus (it seemed) of his writing. By Hume integrating his philosophy with science it outweighed the church at that time as reason was superseding faith. My guess is that Hume was trying to break from the church and this was the safest way for him to do so. He caused a major rift in the thought that should have been. He set philosophy back instead of advanced it. The definition of miracles gets rid of any such divine intervention.

Divine intervention is central to the Christian faith. If God wants to intervene during some action He can. If it defies the laws of physics or any science it is possible. Jesus walking on top of the water is one miracle that defies physics. We only know of it happening at one point in time, when Jesus walked the earth. That would be a miracle because it defied the laws once. If it happened more than once then it would not be a miracle. Hume’s definition of miracles seems to limit God, by saying that when He intervenes it is not a miracle but something more common.

Hume also argues against real presence. His argument is that of one of experience. “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence” (118). This also belittles faith. Faith believes something is the case when the evidence may or may not support it. It is a contradiction to what Hume is writing. If one believes something with little or no evidence that person cannot be wise. There is truth to his statement; however, I think this should be a guide, but not an absolute.

What about a court case where the evidence is portrayed in such a way that makes an innocent man guilty. Is the jury wise enough to see they are being misled or are they being wise people to proportion the belief to the evidence? As can be seen, if they do not proportion belief to the evidence they are not wise and if they follow where the evidence leads they are considered wise, but still in error.

There are many beliefs that should be proportioned to the evidence. This is one of the best ways to go. Only the fool believes something with absolutely no evidence. There is always evidence for one to follow. The problem comes in as if the evidence is pointing in a contrary way to the belief that is held and you know that belief is to be true. This would cause us to either reevaluate our belief or to change the belief that we hold.

Hume was trying to break out of the Christian sphere it seemed. His scientific approach, to the problem, seemed to change religion for those later. Some of his thoughts have really pulled a veil over the eyes of today’s people, causing them not to see truth for what it is but causing a mass microscopic look at things.