the scope of apprehension exceeds that of copmrehension
thus all error is avoidable
defining responsibility
is this a good analysis of belief
the question of free will with respect to what we do believe
= analagous to the problem of evil
Descartes� solution is similar to the comon ocommon solution to it
appeal to FW (i.e. our abuse of it)
god is not responsible for it, but we are
\ all error/sin is avoidable
is there any difference between giving someone a tool which is unreliable and giving someone a tool who you know cannot be relied on to use it safely?
e.g. scientists and atomic bomb � by knowingly putting such weapons in the hands of people who may misuse it, the scientists must take some responsibility for the results of their research
surely must bear some resopnsibility for what people do with what you have given them
is Descartes� theory of belief a good one?
made up of simply 2 parts: understanding + will
Spinoza � very critical � one unified factor at work, not 2 as a pair
will + intellect are one and the same thing
to believe something is simply to understand it to be T
would it be possible to understand something in the same way all day but to choose to believe/disbelieve it
belief � disbelief requires D in the way you understand it, comign to understand it in a different way
we do all feel responsible for what we believe, as though our beliefs are up to us and something we can do something about
we can try not to be so gullible/sceptical � we try to improve our knowledge
such steps would be pointless if our beliefs were out of our control
especially with ethical values/standpoints � that�s a terrible thing to think/believe
makes no sense to hold people resonisble for beliefs unless we believe that they can change them i.e. that they have FW over them
different people faced with the same evidence will come to different conclusions/beliefs
what would explain this difference except individual choices/values/assessments
do we really choose our beliefs? are they really within our control?
surely there are some things you just can�the believe
that you�re dead, that today�s Friday, that water�s not wet � impossible for the same person to choose to believe them
beliefs never present themselves to us individually � always connected (cf web-based epistemic structure)
cos already believe that yesterday was Tuesday and believe in the order of the days of the week
never choosing to believe in isolation � always with respect to entire background of beliefs
host of other factors � society, xp, entire context of your life
difficult to see what room is left for FW in choosing our beliefs
leap of faith � will & choice have been relegated to the smallest rump end of belief
can wonder whether will or freedom play any role whatsoever in our belief
FW inversely proportional to conviction
if freedom of belief is so rare, why would Descartes say it�s unlimited
for Descartes, freedom of belief, though omnipresent, is present in degree, more in some cases than others
Descartes�s belief about its presence is the exact opp of the above intuitive view
rather than restriction of freedom, �/span> greatest expr possible about our freedom
in fact, when making up your mind between two close opposites = the lowest grade of freedom
freedom of belief = proportional to convinction, inversely proportional to indifference
not neutrality
if the 2 are indistinguishable, what grounds do you have to choose between them?
freedom = to choose from yourself, your own nature, rather than at the mercy of external
self-determination, the absence of external factors
insofar as what you do flows from your own nature, not influenced by outside
1st proof of existence of God relies on innate ideas
* Descartes claims that we possess
innate ideas, ideas present in us from birth. In putting this forward, he was
reviving a doctrine which, in the end, goes back to Plato.
notion of possessing innate ideas is not unique to Descartes � platonic theory of recollection
There are three questions we might
ask:
* (1) Just what is it that he
thought was innate? The simple answer to this question is �ideas�. But unfortunately
Descartes uses the term �ideas� to cover several very different things. His use
of the term slides between: concepts, beliefs, and sensations.
concepts, propositions/beliefs, sensations
being in possession of the concept of dragon tells you nothing about whether there are dragons
if beliefs are innate, then knowledge is innate - could have innate belief in dragons, and you could be right
when he talks of �innate�, does he mean concept or proposition/belief?
many concepts are complex, containing many different components
if know their components, then know certain truths, e.g. konwing concept of triangle � knowing the propositions about the properties of 3 sides and angles etc.
possession of a concept might entail holding a belief � e.g. concept of God � believing he exists
sensations being innate
external sensations producing very different sensations within ourselves
there is nothing like colour in the external world, so in a sense, the sensation of colour is innate
so just what is it that he thinks is innate?
difficult to say
* (2) In what sense is it innate? It is necessary to make a distinction between between occurent properties and dispositional properties. Descartes offers a dispositional account of innate ideas, rather than an occurent one.
innate = an idea that we have at birth � we don�t all know about God, Cartesian metaphysics, geometry etc.
distinction between occurent + dispositional
both belong to things continuously
occurent � attach by virtue of things which they manifest all the time
dispositional - only manifest at certain time, or only have a tendency to manifest
e.g.
wine glass = transparent + fragile
dog = brown + excitable
aspirin = white and soluble
an object can have a dispositional prop even if it never exhibits it � wood is combustible evne if it never burns just because it has a tendency to burn
easy to extend to states of mind
if I know the composer of a piece of music, then it�s because his name is accessible, not that it�s at the forefront of my mind
innate ideas are dispositional
to have a disposition is one thing, but to realise it is very different � it may even be very difficult to realise
e.g. difficult to understand something, like realising the existence of God � doesn�t mean that it isn�t there
* A
disposition may be hard to realise. Indeed it may never be realised.
this allows Descartes to give xp a role � xp is the necessary stimulus to bring forward these ideas � the key that unlocks the ideas
* On this theory Descartes can allow that experiential stimulus need not be wholly irrelevant.
but
then: impossible to distinguish between something you know and are not using
and something you don�t know and can�t know
i.e.
latent disposition vs lacking the disposition
but there are lots of things in our mind that we remember but
that we worry we�ve lost (???)
* (3) Why did he think it was true?
Descartes claims that the things which he says are innate, while they are they
are know, just could not have been acquired by experience. He uses the example
of geometry.
needs to isolate a class of things which, though we know, were not abstracted from or given in xp
5th reply (Gassendi) � perfect geometrical concepts we use: none are actually given in ordinary xp
can�t derive from experience � only because we innately possess them that we can recognise
e.g. seeing a statue in a block of wood, or seeing a face in a lot of lines
to what
extent is Descartes rendered redundant by modern science�s explanations of the
mental perceptual processes with which we can explain how we see a face in a
set of lines
* Innate ideas became a defining
issue in the history of philosophy between rationalism and empiricism. But
innatism can be an empirically respectable hypothesis.
empiricists � need not hold the doctrine that there are innate ideas
but cannot hold there to be innate knowledge
e.g. noam chomsky � innate ideas to explain children�s ability to learn language � empirical philosophy to be tested against empirical data
so why were empiricists so hostile to the notion of innate ideas
in 17th C: only one explanation to where innate ideas come from � must have come from God, so they must have been true, \ = innate knowledge