Unit 2 Test Review

Unit 2 Test Review - Descartes dream argument; scope of the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Descartes dream argument; scope of the argument Argument 2 (dream) A posteriori argument- if true we have reason do doubt any a posteriori argument ever given 1. I dont know that Im not dreaming and I cant know that 2. If I know Im observing my body then I know that Im not dreaming but I dont know that Im not dreaming C. Therefore I dont know that Im observing my body Being able to distinguish dream vs reality. Its based on content. Hes not saying you dream when youre awake, but if it just came down to content, you can have the same exact content in dreams and in reality. Therefore experience cannot be based on content. All a posteriori arguments have been proven to be false Why does Descartes think that he cant know when hes dreaming? He cant trust his senses because they are similar in his dream as they are in reality Whatever evidence you count for being awake is equal to the evidence of being asleep Descartes not a skeptic. Hes using skepticism to support his argument and bring them to become good arguments (the main argument) Descartes deceiver argument; scope of the argument Argument 3 (evil demon) Active agent (evil demon) wanting to deceive you. Is there anything beyond the evil demons capacity to deceive? Or is everything weve ever known deceiving? A priori argument 1. I dont know that Im not being deceived by an evil demon and I cant know that. 2. If I know 2 + 3 = 5 then I know Im not being deceived 3. But I dont know that Im not being deceived C. Therefore I dont know that 2 + 3 = 5 2 + 3 = 5. We cant believe anything other than that unless if he changes the whole definition, then were believing something else o Definition of #, successor, etc. Evil demon can change the definition but that doesnt work. If he gets you to falsely believe something else that doesnt mean you dont believe the first. Veridical hypothesis- the reason that 2 + 3 = 5 is due to the definition of #, successor, etc Composition of A is _% and composition of B is _%. Composition of A + B = much less. o Chances of seeing your mom AND your grandma in KU o Veridical and evil demon hypothesis doesnt overlap. Veridical is better. It doesnt involve an evil demon (agent is superfluous, occams razor) Argument 1: deductive reasoning. Either our senses fail us and we wont make the claim, or our senses are good and we have to deal with hallucinations. Logic is a priori. Descrates has based much of his arguments on logic. If evil demon argument is true then all his logical arguments are false (not very probable)....
View Full Document

Page1 / 10

Unit 2 Test Review - Descartes dream argument; scope of the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online