Unit 2 Test Review

Unit 2 Test Review - Descartes’ “dream argument”...

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 Document Right 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 don’t know that I’m not dreaming and I can’t know that 2. If I know I’m observing my body then I know that I’m not dreaming but I don’t know that I’m not dreaming C. Therefore I don’t know that I’m observing my body • Being able to distinguish dream vs reality. Its based on content. He’s not saying you dream when you’re 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 can’t know when he’s dreaming? He can’t 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 • Descarte’s not a skeptic. He’s 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 demon’s capacity to deceive? Or is everything we’ve ever known deceiving? • A priori argument 1. I don’t know that I’m not being deceived by an evil demon and I can’t know that. 2. If I know “2 + 3 = 5” then I know I’m not being deceived 3. But I don’t know that I’m not being deceived C. Therefore I don’t know that “2 + 3 = 5” • 2 + 3 = 5. We can’t believe anything other than that unless if he changes the whole definition, then we’re believing something else o Definition of #, successor, etc. Evil demon can change the definition but that doesn’t work. If he gets you to falsely believe something else that doesn’t mean you don’t 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 doesn’t overlap. Veridical is better. It doesn’t involve an evil demon (agent is superfluous, occam’s razor) • Argument 1: deductive reasoning. Either our senses fail us and we won’t 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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 10

Unit 2 Test Review - Descartes’ “dream argument”...

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