SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE: RATIONALISM,

EMPIRICISM, AND THE KANTIAN SYNTHESIS

K. S. SANGEETHA
RATIONALISM & EMPIRICISM
• “Tabula rasa”- This claim holds that each of us is born with a “blank
slate”
• “a posteriori” - Knowledge that is dependent on experience, or which
arises after experience
• Since a posteriori knowledge is empirical (based on observation or
experience), this view is called Empiricism.
• “a priori”- Knowledge that is independent of (or prior to) observation and
experience
• Rationalism, the view that reason is the primary source of knowledge.
• Innatism, the belief that we are born with certain ideas already in our
minds. That is, they are “innate” in us. Potential examples include
mathematical or logical principles
• Plato’s “doctrine of recollection”
René Descartes & Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz
• They support the existence of innate ideas and their realization through
reason truths revealed by such ideas are eternal, necessary, and
universal.
• Descartes innate ideas like truths of geometry and laws of logic are
known through reason independently of experience … ideas are in us,
though not always present to the mind.
• Leibniz calls innate ideas “principle”. Principles are accessed by
reason.
• Our minds are structured so that certain ideas or principles will occur to
us once prompted by the senses.
• Truths are innate in us initially as dispositions or tendencies rather than
as actual conscious thoughts.
 John Locke vs Leibniz
• Locke opposes the claim that innate ideas are present in all of us by noting that
sufficiently young children, and adults without the requisite education, lack a
concept of God or knowledge of logical or mathematical principles.
• Leibniz defends the innatist view from Locke’s objection by showing how
children and those without the requisite education are capable of employing
logical and mathematical principles in their everyday lives without
understanding what they are or being able to articulate them in words.
• Locke further argues, however, that there can be nothing in the mind of which
it is unaware. Leibniz disagrees with Locke: it is possible to have a plethora of
ideas in our minds without being aware of them.
• Locke’s reply is that the realization of ideas or capacities in the right
circumstances is applicable to all ideas—not just those which are purportedly
innate.
• Leibniz responds with such a criterion: innate ideas
are necessary (they must be true, cannot be false), whereas non-innate ideas
are merely contingent (possibly true, possibly false).
 John Locke
• For empiricists, experience alone furnishes our mind with simple ideas,
which are the basic elements of knowledge.
• Ockham’s razor - which suggests that as far as possible we should
adopt simple explanations rather than complicated ones.
• Complex ideas are formed by the mind, either from more than one
simple idea or from complex impressions ([1690] 2017, Book II,
Chapters ii & xii). Complex ideas are divisible because they have parts.
David Hume
• He writes of ideas as the “copies” of “impressions.”
• Hume argues that where there are no impressions, there can be no
ideas. A blind man can have no notion of color, according to Hume.
• Our tendencies to avoid pain, or to seek many of our passions and
desires are based on our sense impressions. The mental inclination to
repeatedly seek pleasure or avoid pain comes to us only after the first
incident of exposure to either sensation.
• Since none of us has experienced God directly, Hume argues, there is
no impression of God available to us from which to form the
corresponding idea.
 Tabula Rasa Authenticity!?
• General Concepts: A general idea of something which allows us to
recognize it as belonging to a category, distinguish it from other things,
and think about it. Example chair.
• when we form general concepts like the color blue, we don't just copy a
specific impression of blue or any particular shade. Instead, we form an
abstract idea of "blueness" that applies to all shades. This general
concept goes beyond a single sensory impression.
• Abstract ideas, like justice, kindness, or courage, can't be tied directly
to any single sensory experience.
• but if our mind simply copied these particular impressions, we'd only
remember the acts, not the overarching concepts of "justice" or
"kindness" themselves
• doing more than just recording impressions; it's understanding and
forming abstract ideas.
• Relational concepts (such as “on”-ness, betweenness, sameness, and
the like) are realized not by copying the impressions involved.
• General, abstract, and relational concepts in our minds shows that an
uninterrupted flow of impressions would not constitute all the ideas we
have.
• It requires that from birth the mind is at least partially equipped with a
structure or architecture that enables it to make sense of the raw
impressions it receives and to form concepts where there is no one-to-
one correspondence between impressions and ideas. It challenges the
authenticity of a tabula rasa.
Immanuel Kant
• Sensations are certain.
• Perceptions to make sense to us, they should be received into concepts that exist
within our minds.
• Unless the manifold raw sensations we receive from experience are classified into
different categories of understanding, we cannot make sense of them
• Objects in Space and Time: frameworks through which our minds organize and
interpret sensory data.
• Cause-Effect Relations: perceive events in terms of cause and effect if we see one
billiard ball strike another, we assume the first ball caused the second one to move.
• these categories are transcendental in the sense that they bridge the gap between
mind and world.
• Of course, these concepts also require inputs, or percepts (the immediate objects of
awareness delivered directly to us in perceptual experience through the senses)
• “Percepts without concepts are blind and concepts without percepts are empty”
• Kant’s transcendental idealism (as his view is called) strikes a balance, reconciling
the two accounts.
Descartes & Hume
• Descartes thinks that reason alone can provide certainty to all human
knowledge. Intuition and deduction are tools through which the faculty of
reason operates.
• Intuition is the capacity to look inward and comprehend intellectual objects
and basic truths
• deduction (the type of reasoning whereby the truth of the conclusion
is guaranteed by the truth of the premises)
• Intuition is a priori- dissociated from the evidence of the senses
• Hume, there are two ways in which reasoning aims to gain knowledge of the
world: through “relations of ideas” and through “matters of fact”
• Relations of ideas- These are the kinds of truths that are self-evident and can
be known through reasoning alone, without reference to the external world.
Examples include truths found in logic and mathematics, such as "a circle is
round" or "2 + 2 = 4." These truths are true by definition and hold necessarily.
• Relations of ideas are established through deductive reasoning- "a mother is
a woman parent”
• Such truths are necessary or certain (their denials lead to contradiction).
They are also known a priori, since they do not rely on how the world is. For
this reason, relations of ideas and deduction do not yield substantive new
knowledge of the world.
• Matters of fact, for Hume, are based on observation and experience.
• matters of fact are a posteriori truths, meaning they are derived from
experience. We learn about them by observing the world around us and
drawing conclusions from what we see, hear, touch, etc.
• matters of fact come from induction, which is the process of drawing general
conclusions from specific instances. For example, if every time we see fire, we
experience heat, we generalize and form the belief that fire causes heat
• inductive reasoning is uncertain because it is based on the assumption that
the future will resemble the past.
• Since matters of fact are based on experience, they are not necessarily true
(in the same way that relations of ideas are). Their truth is contingent—they
depend on how the world happens to be.
Matters of Fact:
 Known through experience.
 Contingent (they depend on how the world happens to be).
 Their denials are conceivable (it’s possible to imagine the opposite without
contradiction).
 Provide substantive new information about the world.
 Known a posteriori (through experience).
Relations of Ideas:
 Known through reasoning alone.
 Necessary (their truth cannot be denied without contradiction).
 Their denials are impossible or contradictory (e.g., a triangle cannot have four sides).
 Do not provide new information but clarify what is already implicit in definitions.
 Known a priori (independent of experience).
Immanuel Kant
• Kant was influenced by the division in knowledge made by Hume.
Only a combination of reason and experience can give us adequate
knowledge, according to Kant.
• Kant analytic truths. In sentences that express analytic truths, the
predicate term is already “contained” in, or is the meaning of, the
subject term. “a circle is round,” the predicate “round” is contained
in the subject, “circle.”
• Since we do no need to examine the world to tell whether they’re
true, analytic truths are knowable a priori.
• Kant terms matters of fact synthetic truths: the predicate term is
neither contained within nor is the meaning of the subject term
• It stands to reason that they are based on observation, and
therefore must be a posteriori. Eg: “George the bachelor is a writer.”
contingent (possibly true/ Possibly false)
• Kant maintains that only synthetic truths are capable of providing
substantive new information about the world.
• Sense experiences do not passively enter our minds, but do
conform to our innate mental structures to facilitate
knowledge. Since these structures work independently of
experience, they are a priori.
• A Priori Structures: These innate structures are a priori
because they exist independently of experience. They are not
learned from experience; rather, they shape how we experience
the world. Eg cause and effect.
• Synthetic A Priori Knowledge: Kant introduces a new category
of knowledge called synthetic a priori. This kind of knowledge is
both:
• Synthetic: It tells us new, substantive information about the world.
• A Priori: It is known independently of experience, through
reflection on the mind's innate structures.
• How our concepts discriminate and organize the
information received from the senses. These goals are
achieved through acts of synthesis.
• Synthesis- the act of putting different representations
[elements of cognition] together, and grasping what is
manifold in them in one cognition”
• Process of Synthesis:
• Synthesis of Apprehension in Perception: This is the
initial stage of perception where we locate objects in
space and time.
• Synthesis of Reproduction in Imagination: In this
second stage, our imagination connects different
elements from perception.
• Synthesis of Recognition in a Concept: In the final
stage, we recognize an object by connecting it with past
experiences and identifying it under a specific concept.
• To recognize something as a unified object under a concept is to
attach meaning to percepts.
• Apperception is the point where we attach meaning to our
perceptions, and it is crucial in Kant’s theory.
• Apperception is the point where the self and the world come
together
• Kant argues that two kinds of unity are required for apperception:
• Unity in the object: The sensory data we receive must represent
the same object consistently across time and space.
• Unity in the self: Our minds must also have a unified
consciousness, meaning that the self (our mind) must be able to
combine these diverse perceptions and recognize them as
experiences of the same object over time. This unity of
consciousness allows us to make sense of our experiences in a
coherent, structured way.
• Kant’s theory of synthesis and apperception explains how we can
have shared knowledge of objective reality. Eg, tree.
THANK YOU