Talk about this for Leibniz Leibniz¶s classification of knowledge We know x when we can differentiate it from everything else

When we know x without being able to list its characteristic properties, we possess confused knowledge of x When we can list x¶s characteristic properties, our knowledge is distinct We know what gold is ± if we know its atomic number, our knowledge is distinct, if we do not, our knowledge is confused When our knowledge of all of x¶s characteristic properties is distinct, this knowledge is adequate, when we don¶t, our knowledge is supportive If I know what it means for an element to have an atomic number of 79, then my knowledge of gold is adequate, if I do not, it is supportive Empiricists wrongly think that our ideas are conveyed to our minds from external objects: ³...we have a bad habit of thinking of our soul as if it received certain species as messengers and as if it has doors and windows.´ Nothing could be further from the truth, since external objects do not impinge on us at all All of the ideas that we have now, and will ever have, have existed in us since our creation We can go from knowing x confusedly to knowing it distinctly, but we cannot go from not knowing x to knowing x

Plato¶s slave And all our ideas bear the mark of their creator, God: ³Thus we have ideas of everything in our soul only by virtue of God¶s continual action on us, that is to say, because every effect expresses its cause, and thus the essence of our soul is a certain expression, imitation or image of the divine essence, thought, and will, and of all the ideas comprised in it. It can then be said that God is our immediate external object and that we see all things by him.´ The mind-body problem: how can our physical bodies interact with our nonphysical minds? Leibniz¶s answer: they don¶t interact any more than we interact with external objects Pre-established harmony: the mind and the body are µin sync¶ because God designed them to unfold in that way Imagine two pendulums that beat in time What difference is there between minds and other substances? Minds are capable of reflection ± both on the world and on themselves What differentiates one mind from another? Substances are differentiated in terms of their properties Minds are differentiated in terms of their memories ³But the intelligent soul, knowing what it is ± having the ability to utter the word ³I,´ a word so full of meaning ± does not merely remain and subsist

Book 2 All ideas are arrived at through experience Some ideas are complex. and it would be inappropriate to punish or praise the new you for what the old you had done Every substance is a reflection of the universe.metaphysically. and even into a society ± by communicating to them his views and will in a particular manner and in such a way that they can know and love their benefactor ± must be infinitely nearer to him than all other things. but also remains the same morally and constitutes the same person. so to speak. For it is memory or the knowledge of this self that renders it capable of punishment or reward. and we are special because we have an image of God LOCKE Philosophy 2202F: Early Modern Philosophy Lecture #10: Locke¶s Essay. souls) realize our purpose. you would become an entirely different person. God ± this is the purpose of every existent thing And because we (minds. we are privileged ³Since God himself is the greatest and wisest of all minds. we are made in God¶s image. and thus a reflection of it creator. while others are simple . it is easy to judge that the being with whom he can. enter into conversation.´ Insofar as we are minds. and can reflect on God and the universe.´ If you suddenly lost all your memories. which it does to a greater degree than the others. which can only pass for the instruments of minds.

wet. pleasure. say an electric sense? Simple ideas originate in sensation ± cold. and white are simple. compare.e.. i. by any quickness or variety of thought. wet. unite them ± to form complex ideas ³But it is not in the power of the most exalted wit or enlarged understanding. white The ideas cold. to invent or frame one new simple idea in the mind. eg: pain.´ Simple ideas cannot be created nor destroyed by the mind Can you imagine a taste you¶ve never tasted or a sound you¶ve never heard before? Persons who are blind from birth cannot imagine what shapes and colours look like Can you imagine what it would be like to have ideas conveyed to your mind via a sixth sense. power. Nor can any force of the understanding destroy those that are there. unity. not taken in by the ways before mentioned [sensation and reflection]. white ± and reflection ± perceiving. they are not further reducible to a set of constituent ideas The mind can manipulate simple ideas ± iterate. existence. remembering.A complex idea is composed of two or more constituent ideas The idea of snow contains the ideas cold. and succession . willing Other simple ideas originate in both sensation and reflection. wet.

and mobility. taste. number. figure. extension. heat ± do not belong to the objects we perceive Such qualities ³are nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities´ Heat does not exist in objects.. and it retains still the same qualities. and so divide it on until the parts become insensible. figure.Locke¶s challenge to the nativist: name a single idea ± simple or complex ± that is not received through sensation and reflection All of our knowledge can be accounted for on the basis of ideas that we receive through experience ± we don¶t need to appeal to innate ideas Why make things more complicated than they have to be? What are we perceiving when ideas are conveyed to us through the senses? We are perceiving the qualities that exist in objects Qualities have the power to produce ideas in our minds Not all of our ideas resemble the qualities that produced them Primary qualities ± solidity. extension. regardless of the changes they undergo ³. divide it into two parts. each part has still solidity. and mobility ± essentially belong to the objects we perceive. sound. they must retain still each of them all those qualities.take a grain of wheat. but is the result of the rapid motions of particles . divide it again.´ Secondary qualities ± colour..

we have control over the structures that are built with these materials . served by coffee shops. bitter get combined to form the idea of coffee (2) It summons two or more ideas and compares them to yield relations ± one cup of coffee is hotter than another (3) It separates the defining features of complex ideas from the particular ideas that accompany them via abstraction ± what is essential to coffee is that it is a brown. why would we not think likewise about the quality of warmth? We can alter the secondary qualities of a body by altering its primary qualities ³Pound an almond. What real alteration can the beating of the pestle make in any body but an alteration of the texture of it?´ The mind is entirely passive in the reception of simple ideas The mind takes an active role in the formation of complex ideas in the following ways: (1) It combines several simple ideas to form a complex idea ± the simple ideas liquid. if we get too close. we perceive in it the quality of warmth. Using these mental operations. brown. hot. we can create an indefinite number of complex ideas out of simple ones. but we cannot create simple ideas Sensation and reflection impart to us the building blocks of knowledge.When standing at a distance from a fire. bitter liquid. we perceive the quality of pain We freely admit that the quality of pain does not exist in the fire. and not that it is traditionally served in mugs. and the clear white color will be altered into a dirty one and the sweet taste into an oily one. etc.

such as are the ideas signified by the words triangle. by Descartes¶s own criterion of identity (recall his argument for dualism). ductility. they must be distinct things I cannot conceive of body without conceiving of the space that it takes up. we have the idea of lead and a combination of the ideas of a certain sort of figure with the powers of motion. but are considered as dependences on or affections of substances.´ Substances: ³such combinations of simple ideas as are taken to represent distinct particular things subsisting by themselves. and fusibility. murder.Complex ideas fall into the following categories: Modes: complex ideas that ³do not contain in them the supposition of subsisting by themselves. etc. with certain degrees of weight. and therefore. but I can conceive of space as being distinct from body .´ Relations: a complex idea ³which consists in the consideration and comparing one idea with another´ One of the most basic ideas we have is the simple idea of space We do not possess the idea of space innately. gratitude. rather we receive this idea from sight and touch Descartes had thought that space and body (solidity) ± the disposition to prevent other bodies from occupying the same space ± are one and the same thing. is always the first and chief. hardness. in which the supposed or confused ideas of substance. but this cannot be correct I can conceive of space and body separately. Thus if to substance is joined the simple idea of a certain dull whitish color. such as it is.

souls. if it is a mode. and yet. then it is not empty. then it is a mode of a substance. is not empty ³If it is demanded (as usually it is) whether this space void of body is substance or accident.Bodies offer resistance to the motion of other bodies. indeed. and therefore. nor shall be ashamed to own my ignorance. I shall readily answer I do not know. no one seems able to explain what makes them distinct Why must qualities inhere in anything? . until they who ask show me a clear distinct idea of substance. you cannot move one space somewhere else Bodies are movable A possible objection: Space without body is empty space Is empty space a substance or a mode? If space is a substance. this is just what it means to be a body ± space offers no such resistance (see the principle of inertia) The parts of space are inseparable from one another ± you cannot remove a part of space and put it somewhere else The parts of a body can be separated from one another Space is immovable ± again. and corporeal bodies are made of different kinds of substance.´ What is so unclear about the idea of substance? Most thinkers claim that God.

and that bodies can be annihilated ± by God. which makes it possible to displace the bits of concrete .Why need substance not inhere in something else? The philosopher who relies on the idea of substance is like the Indian philosopher who claims that the world rests on an elephant¶s back. and so on Those who talk about accidents inhering in substance don¶t know what they¶re talking about Thus. if there is not left in it a void space as big as the least part into which he has divided the said solid body. there would be no motion Imagine a drum completely full of concrete ± the concrete cannot move in the drum Crush the concrete and put it back in the drum ± the bits of concrete move when the drum is shaken Why? Because there is now some empty space in the drum. for example ± then we must admit the existence of empty space (a vacuum) ³For I desire anyone so to divide a solid body of any dimension he pleases as to make it possible for the solid parts to move up and down freely every way within the bounds of that surface. any objection to the existence of empty space that relies on the idea of substance is similarly confused If we think that the universe remains the same size.´ What does this mean? If there were no empty space. and the elephant rests on the back of a tortoise.

it arises as a result of our reflection on the succession of our ideas Descartes also thinks that we become aware of different kinds of substance by coming to understand the innate ideas we have of their essences ± the piece of wax argument A more plausible explanation: ³. our idea of time is not innate Unlike our idea of space. and are therefore supposed to flow from the particular internal constitution or unknown essence of that substance. however.´ We do not. in fact. taken notice of to exist together. liberty. perceiving. by putting together the ideas of thinking.´ Since our complex ideas include only the observable qualities manifested by their objects.Like our idea of space. our idea of time does not arise through sensation Instead. but arrived at through reflection: . we have as clear a perception and notion of immaterial substances as we have of material. have an idea of substances shorn of every attribute or of their ³unknown essences´. and power of moving themselves and other things. our complex ideas of substances are composed of the observable qualities that they manifest This applies to both corporeal and spiritual substances: ³And thus. we cannot have an idea of substance itself..we come to have the ideas of particular sorts of substances. by collecting such combinations of simple ideas as are by experience and observations of men¶s senses. given that substance by itself possesses no qualities Our complex idea of God is not innate..

³. even my idea of my self is apprehended through reflection What is it about me that makes me who I am? What accounts for my stable personal identity? A more general question: what is essential to something¶s identity? It depends on what kind of thing it is In the case of inanimate objects. which it is better to have than to be without.. of knowledge and power. how is that? Because what is essential to living things is not their material composition. their material composition is essential to their identity An object retains its identity as long as it is made of the same stuff The moment you add or subtract a single atom from an object.´ Finally. it becomes something else Living things must be treated differently You may cut branches off an oak tree. When we would frame an idea the most suitable we can to the supreme being. and yet it remains the same tree. we enlarge every one of these with our idea of infinity. and so putting them together make our complex idea of God.having.. gotten the ideas of existence and duration. but their organization . from what we experiment in ourselves. of pleasure and happiness. and of several other qualities and powers.

its leaves continue to absorb sunlight to produce sugar These systems maintain the same life over time ± the identity of living things remains the same over time as long as they are living What makes a living thing a person? What is essential to personal identity? It cannot be a person¶s body (materialism) Human bodies are constantly changing. does that mean that I am a different person now than I was when I woke up? What about an immaterial soul (mentalism)? My soul is distinct from every other human soul and it makes me what I am How can we be sure that we have the same soul for our entire lives? How can I be sure that my soul didn¶t also belong to Napoleon Bonaparte? The soul is unobservable ± I cannot check my soul to make sure that it hasn¶t changed and that it did not once belong to Napoleon But I know that I am the same person that I was yesterday.. just this morning I drank two cups of coffee. e. e. and I am quite certain that I am not Napoleon Bonaparte The immaterial soul. cannot constitute personal identity . therefore..g.The oak remains the same despite the loss of its branches because its principal life systems continue to function as they did before.g.

The same consciousness uniting those distant actions into the same person. desires. as far as the same consciousness can extend to actions past or to come. what is crucial to a person¶s identity is the series of their conscious states ³For it is by consciousness it has of its present thoughts and actions that it is self to itself now. nor even the path of the river (rivers are diverted and damned all the time). Locke is simply pointing out that the issue of personal identity is a different one from the issue of what sort of stuff persons are made of I can imagine a scenario in which I was made of completely different stuff Kafka¶s Metamorphosis What is it that remains the same in the scenario in which I wake up a cockroach? Locke¶s answer: it is my conscious awareness that remains the same My thoughts. no more two persons than a man is two men by wearing other clothes today than he did yesterday. memories. and would be by distance of time. but its history Similarly. tastes.´ . whatever substances contributed to their production. aptitudes. and pet-peeves do not change I have a unique stream of consciousness that makes me the person that I am What is essential to a river¶s identity is not the water molecules that it contains. and so will be the same self. or change of substance. with a long or a short sleep between. nor the objects and living things that can be found in the river.This is not to say that persons do not have bodies or souls.

but your awareness them is In short. different thoughts. why is that? Because you are no longer conscious of what is happening to your finger: you would not have a sensation of cold if it were put into a bucket of ice. in some kind of science fiction scenario.When you lose a finger (let¶s say it has been severed). more than one stream of consciousness ³But if it be possible for the same man to have distinct incommunicable consciousness at different times. all of the ideas and memories that occur to you. perceptions. memories. etc. then we would say that your body is no longer part of your self If.´ . though it remains your finger. simultaneously occur to some other mind. that is. in some other weird scenario. it is no longer part of your self. but because they are conscious of different ideas. it is past doubt the same man would at different times make different persons. nor would you have a sensation of pain if it were pricked with a pin If. we say that two persons are distinct. What makes you the same person over time is the psychological continuity of your consciousness (the stream of consciousness provides us with a useful image here) ± you don¶t suddenly become aware of a whole new set of ideas A single mind and body may host more than one person. that is. then we would have to say that you have two minds Once again. the point of these far-fetched scenarios is to convince us of the point that the material or immaterial medium in which your ideas occur is not essential to your personal identity. you were conscious only of what was happening to your finger and not the rest of your body. not because they have different bodies or different minds.

in effect.´ ³Person´.What about persons who are unconscious. should we say that they are different persons when asleep than they are when awake because they have two different streams of consciousness? Yes: ³If the same Socrates waking and sleeping do not partake of the same consciousness. we do not mean to (directly) punish their bodies or their minds.´ Why do you fear an event that has not yet happened? You do not fear the event because it will happen to a particular body or mind. Locke says.e. then their punishment does not fit their crime Why do we punish people for what they do when under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Couldn¶t they defend themselves by claiming that they were not themselves when they committed the crime? After all. if drugs and alcohol alter your state of consciousness. and so belongs only to intelligent agents capable of a law. thoughts. sensations. our primary intention is not to damage their body or mind. then they alter your personality. i. we aim to punish the person who is conscious of their unethical actions When we punish a person by torturing or jailing them. ³«is a forensic term. fears.. etc. making you someone else .. and misery. appropriating actions and their merit. but to affect their consciousness by causing them misery and preventing happiness If a criminal¶s punishment does not induce unpleasant ideas. but rather. Socrates waking and sleeping is not the same person. and happiness. but because you will be conscious of the unpleasantness of it When we punish someone.

Where this perception is. 2. is the apprehension of clear and distinct ideas by the intellect According to Locke. Identity or diversity Relation Coexistence or necessary connection Real existence Identity/diversity Every idea is identical to itself. 3. yet we always come short of knowledge. In this alone it consists. or disagreement and repugnance. for Descartes. there. perception and reflection ± all of our knowledge originates in experience Ideas can agree/disagree in four respects: 1. though we may fancy. knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two or more ideas ³Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connection and agreement.´ Insofar as all of our ideas originate in experience ± i. Book 4 Recall that knowledge. and where it is not. of any of our ideas. 4.We punish such people because we cannot prove that they were not the same person when they committed the crime Philosophy 2202F: Early Modern Philosophy Lecture #11: Locke¶s Essay. there is knowledge. or believe. no two ideas are identical . guess.e.

at all.My idea of white is the same every time I perceive or reflect on it My idea of white is not identical to my idea of round ³This is so absolutely necessary that without it there could be no knowledge. is an idea that always accompanies. weight. no distinct thoughts.´ The word µsilver¶ picks out a different set of ideas. no imagination. signified by the word gold. and solubility in aqua regia.´ Relation Two or more ideas stand in relations with respect to one another Your dog is the same size as my dog Your dog is older than my dog My dog is friendlier than your dog Coexistence/necessary connection Certain ideas are commonly experienced together ³Thus. malleableness. our knowledge of this truth amounts to no more but this that fixedness. and water exist. as do the words µwater¶ and µunicorn¶ Real existence Gold. no reasoning. fusibility. when we pronounce concerning gold that it is fixed. silver. which make our complex ideas. and is joined with that particular sort of yellowness. unicorns don¶t . or a power to remain in the fire unconsumed.

and leaves no room for hesitation. without having to invocate intermediary ideas White is not black A circle is not a triangle Three are more than two We cannot help but to assent to these statements when we understand them ³This part of knowledge is irresistible.Not all of our ideas agree with reality It is a legitimate and important aspect of knowledge to know which ones do and which ones don¶t Our knowledge of the agreement/disagreement of our ideas comes in differing degrees We have intuitive knowledge when we immediately know that two ideas agree/disagree. this certainty everyone finds to be so great that he cannot imagine and therefore not require a greater. doubt. or what we call reasoning This is demonstrative knowledge . It is on this intuition that depends all the certainty and evidence of all our knowledge. or examination. and like bright sunshine forces itself immediately to be perceived. as soon as ever the mind turns its view that way.´ Not all of our ideas can be immediately compared to establish their agreement/disagreement Sometimes the agreement/disagreement between our ideas must be apprehended through one or more intermediary ideas. but the mind is presently filled with the clear light of it.

e. i. but in the other sciences as well to arrive at general laws of nature Newton¶s Principia In addition to general laws of nature. we have knowledge of the existence of particular objects and properties There is a coffee cup on the desk This knowledge is arrived at through neither reflection nor reasoning. but by way of the senses ± for this reason we call it sensitive knowledge Sensitive knowledge is not nearly as certain as intuitive and demonstrative knowledge. the sums are equal The axioms of geometry are known intuitively. and all these ideas may be produced in us without any external objects. etc. we derive this result from knowledge that is intuitive. but we nevertheless have good reason to trust it But how do we know that we can trust it? After all.. the definitions. the theorems are known demonstrably The axiomatic method ought to be used not only in mathematics.We do not know by intuitive inspection that the three interior angles of a triangle equal two right angles. axioms. whether I remove his . and postulates of Euclidean geometry Euclid¶s Axiom #2: If equals be added to equals. dreams. That it is no great matter. I sometimes have ideas of objects and/qualities when they do not exist ± mirages. ³If anyone says a dream may do the same thing. for the sums of these angles cannot be directly compared Instead. he may please to dream that I make him this answer: 1.

where all is but dream. truth and knowledge nothing. That I believe he will allow a very manifest difference between dreaming of being in the fire and being actually in it. knowledge cannot outstrip our ideas ± we cannot have knowledge of something we have not yet experienced in perception or reflection Our ideas. will always outstrip our knowledge We have the ideas of matter and thinking.e.scruple or not. reasoning and arguments are of no use. like gold. but we cannot know whether or not material things are capable of thought Is your desk thinking right now? How would you know if it were? Knowledge about the identity/diversity and relation of our ideas can be attained by simply reflecting on our ideas Knowledge about the nature of substances ± i. are complex ideas made up of several simple ideas: heavy. fusible. etc. and motion of its particles ± and its secondary qualities ± its color. the coexistence of ideas ± cannot be attained in the same way. there is no observable connection between a substance¶s primary qualities ± the size. 2.´ Because knowledge consists in our apprehension of the agreement/disagreement of our ideas. however. as Descartes had supposed (recall the piece of wax example) Individual substances. yellow. shape. But there is no necessary connection between these simple ideas Furthermore. sound . malleable. taste.

yellow metal accompany my idea of a fusible metal Insofar as these ideas continue to be found together.´ What about our knowledge of real existence? How do we know that our ideas correspond to real things? Simple ideas must be caused by real qualities because they are not caused by us If the perceiver is the cause of her simple ideas. must necessarily be the product of things operating on the mind in a natural way. malleable.. [. but she doesn¶t ³First.] Our knowledge in all these inquiries reaches very little further than our experience. because our minds are responsible for putting certain simple ideas together to form complex ideas But our minds put simple ideas together to form complex ideas of substances because they find these simple ideas to co-exist in nature I find that my ideas of a heavy. then she would have control over them. as has been shown. we may conclude that our complex idea of gold corresponds to a real substance . and producing in there those perceptions which by the wisdom and will of our maker they are ordained and adapted to. which since the mind. can by no means make to itself.´ We do not have the same guarantee in the case of complex ideas. the first are simple ideas..³In vain therefore shall we endeavour to discover by our ideas (the only true way of certain and universal knowledge) what other ideas are to be found constantly joined with that of our complex idea of any substances.

but) pretense of doubting. I cannot know this to be the case ³«how vain. it is to expect demonstration and certainty in things not capable of it. The wholesomeness of his meat or drink would not give him reason to venture on it. feel it too. and refuse assent to very rational propositions. which certainly could never be put into such exquisite pain by a bare idea or phantom. but only beneficial We know only about the existence of the things that we are presently perceiving It is highly probable that my cat exists. I think God has given me assurance enough of the existence of things without me. unless the pain is a fancy too. but of perishing quickly.´ Can we know that souls exist? We determine what exists on the basis of our perceptions . I say. they are worthy of assent ± beliefs need not be indubitable.´ My belief in the existence of material objects has served me well in my pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain Insofar as my beliefs serve this purpose well. and be convinced by putting his hand in it. He who. since by their different application I can produce in myself both pleasure and pain.³He who sees a fire may. which is one great concern of my present state. and act contrary to very plain and clear truths. but since I am not perceiving him right now. bring upon himself again. if he doubts whether it is anything more than a bare fancy. by raising the idea of it. This yet he cannot.´ ³As to myself. would admit of nothing but direct plain demonstration would be sure of nothing in this world. when the burn is well. because they cannot be made out so evident as to surmount every least (I will not say reason. in the ordinary affairs of life.

and reason. would not have been the first cause The first cause must be more powerful than all of creation. as long as we carry ourselves about us. for the power of all created things must exist first in their creator ± powers too must come from something For the same reason. since we have sense. he has not left himself without witness. all knowing being ± this is God . perception. and cannot want a clear proof of him. otherwise it would have had to have been created by something else.´ I know that many things exist I know that you cannot get something from nothing So. I know that these things must have been brought into existence by something And the first cause must be an eternal being. we cannot know that souls exist ± we must take it on faith Can we know that God exists? ³Though god has given us no innate ideas of himself. yet having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with. all powerful. and thus. the creator must also be possess more knowledge than all of His creation A wholly ignorant being cannot create knowledgeable beings There must be an eternal.Souls are in principle unperceivable Therefore. though he has stamped no original characters on our minds in which we may read his being. contrary to our assumption.

but not innate . it is plain to me we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God than of anything our senses have not immediately discovered to us.³From what has been said.´ Our knowledge of God is demonstrative (not sensitive).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.