Epistemology - Part 3

Empiricism - Introduction, and the British Empiricists

Empiricism - Introduction

Empiricism states that we know the world through sense

perception

1. we know what is in our minds - sensations of objects

2. we know directly the objects themselves

It doesn’t make sense to accept #2, because we know that there

are instances when our perceptions are wrong (recall
discussion on optical illusions, auditory illusions, and add to
that hallucinations, Deja Vu)
Empiricism - Introduction

Problems with empiricism:

1. we cannot have direct access to objects, so we cannot tell if

our perceptions represent objects
2. if we cannot tell if our perceptions represent objects, we
cannot determine if we are actually perceiving objects
3. if we cannot determine if we are actually perceiving objects,
we cannot determine whether or not they exist

(this is a logical argument, empiricists might suggest that this

conclusion gives us no new or useful information)
Empiricism - Introduction

So, which is it then…

● either we can’t be sure that the originals exist, or
● we can’t explain any error in perception

Empiricism suggests that we can’t be sure that the external

world exists - empiricism becomes entirely internal: minds
and ideas
British Empiricists

John Locke (1632 - 1704) - a short section in one of his books

was taken word-for-word and used in the Dec. of Ind.

Bishop George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) - pronounced “Barkley”,

and is the source of the name of UCB

David Hume (1711 - 1776) - scientific method is downright

fallacious

These three empiricists demonstrated a progression of thought.

Locke offered ideas, Berkeley modified them, and then Hume
put his own spin on it.
John Locke

Empiricist - when we use our senses to see the world to gain

knowledge, the perceiver gains certain sensations, ideas of
sense, impressions, so that what we directly know is the
sensation

sensation - effect in the perceiver caused by the object

effect - image or copy of the object

● it is through these effects that we say we know the object

Locke maintained that there were external objects

John Locke

Remember that every epistemological theory must somehow

bridge the gap between sensations (what we know) and objects
(origins of the sensations). Locke does this here…
● sensations are fleeting, evanescent
● objects don’t change
● without the objects, our sensations would not exist
● objects can be verified by the sensations of others
● we can infer the existence of objects/substance from our
sensations
● substance exists independent of perception - MATTER
● what is matter? “it is something, I know not what”
John Locke

1. All that we know, we gain through perception

a. mind is passive in receiving sensations - tabula rasa
2. What do we know by perception?
a. primary qualities are invariable, exist in objects, cause secondary qualities
b. secondary qualities are variable, exist in our minds
i. qualities cannot exist on their own

Object,
substance,
matter Mind of
(something, I
know not
perceiver
what)

Primary qualities Secondary qualities

Bishop Berkeley

Responded to Locke:

1. no distinction between primary and secondary qualities;

either both exist in the mind, or both exist in the object
2. we have no reason to say that qualities exist in external
objects because we have no way of knowing them

Berkeley used the following Analysis of Perception...

Bishop Berkeley - Analysis of Perception

1. perception is our only source of knowledge of external

objects
2. we perceive only qualities (sensations)
3. a physical object is only a collection of qualities
4. qualities do not exist independently or on their own
5. there is no material substance for them to exist in
6. qualities are ideas in the mind
7. esse est percipi aut percipere (to be is to be perceived, or to
perceive)

8. an idea is an inert object of sense

Bishop Berkeley - what exists?

● Minds - spiritual substance that can be known; we can be

directly acquainted with our own mind through intuition
(this has a distinctly Cartesian feel to it)
● ideas - sensations of objects, thoughts, intuition

Problem: ideas of things continue to exist even when they are

not being perceived, but how?

God!!!
Bishop Berkeley - existence of God

We know that minds exist, but Berkeley identifies 2 types of

minds:
● finite minds - our own mind, we can know it
directly/intuitively, we know it exists
● infinite mind (God) - we need this concept in order to make
sense of the continuity of ideas
○ we know that ideas of things don’t cease to exist when we are not
perceiving them;
○ we are passive receivers of sensation, not the other way around
Bishop Berkeley - Solipsism and Subjective Idealism

Solipsism - I can only know myself and my ideas

Subjective Idealism - nothing exists outside my own mind

Consequence of Empiricism - does anything outside the mind

exist? How do I know that I exist? I must exist as an idea in the
mind of another perceiver, and vice versa.

And then comes Hume...

David Hume

Hume is more aggressive in his opposition to earlier empiricists.

● “on what basis do you know that you are not simply an idea?”
● “when I look into myself, I see individual thoughts, not a thing
that thinks” - this refutes the “mind” part of Berkeley’s
philosophy
● “why would you need to introduce God?”
David Hume

Two types of knowledge/ideas:

1. knowledge of the relations of ideas (rationalism): analytic

a priori knowledge
a. ideas related by the definition of identity relations
b. e.g., 2+2=4, a rose is a rose, etc.
c. NOT INFORMATIVE
2. matters of fact: knowledge which derives from perception
a. e.g., there is a rose on the table, the moon is a cube - truth depends
on experience
b. INFORMATIVE, but...
c. give us no certainty; our knowledge is subject to doubt and is
riddled with error
David Hume - Skepticism

“If we are strict with our analysis of perception, we are not

aware of any continuity of existence/substance, but are aware
of only momentary perceptions/atomic impressions.”
● atomic impressions - irreducible, individual occurrence
events, fleeting
○ the mind is an endless parade of fleeting ideas, one following
and replacing the previous
○ we do not experience any relations among impressions, so we
cannot say that anything abides - there is no infinite mind
(God)
○ therefore, I am nothing more than a bundle of
impressions
Homework - for today and tomorrow

Epistemology

Are you a rationalist? Are you an empiricist? Can you be both?

Which epistemological questions or problems seem the most
difficult to answer? Choose which philosopher you think
explains knowledge the best, and explain why.

This will be a formative assignment collected at the end of the

period tomorrow (Thursday). You will have all period
tomorrow to work on this, as I will be away. If you finish it for
homework tonight, you can submit a hard copy in class
tomorrow. For the remainder of the period, you will be
studying for the Epistemology Unit test next week.

Friday, we will do an activity.