Hobbes' Benefits of a State

Hobbes' ideal state:
Absolute Monarchy --> Religious and military power and control over everything with no limits.
- Intimidating
- Frightening

Why would it be beneficial?
It is the only way to achieve civil society and cooperation.
Actions can still be voluntary under fear.
Everyone will seek peace and this will hold the system together.
Fear may even provide legitimacy.

When is it rational to revolt?
When chance of survival is worse than the SoN:
- Death  - War (ww1/2)

Attacking Hobbes' account

Do I accept the premisses and problems?

1)

• Are we really selfish? It depends on the situation. We might trust each other in a life and death situation because we know it's the only effective way of staying alive. 
• We don't know how we would act because we haven't experienced it. 
• The Game Theory shows trust and selflessness in people. 

C: Our continued existence would be secure.

However:

• The Game Theory doesn't apply because the players aren't in a SoN so  won't act like they would in a life and death situation.  

But! 

Although it would be easier to trust no one, we need socialisation to be sane because we are social animals.

C: Continued existence would be secure because we wouldn't kill, there would be no one to socialise with and no sense of living if so.

2) 

• Would there be morals? Would it be that "Anything goes"? Some people may have morals and would choose to not kill.
• It depends on whether we were born in or just changed to a SoN and Hobbes hasn't focused on this.

3) 

• Even the strongest person can be killed by a lower sneaky person.
• The Fight for Glory may not protect you after all.
• Some do not want ultimate power.

4)

• Some may decide to assign jobs and have long-term projects to have food, maybe form a state.
• After all, this is what Britain and the whole world has done! Converted into a state.

I disagree with all of the premisses and problems. I don't think he has looked clearly enough at how people would act in the SoN. 

Is the conclusion right?
Solitary? - Humans are social animals and we naturally need socialisation and a sense of belonging.
No cooperation? - We formed a state.
Rousseau - No one has experienced the SoN. Hobbes: Countries with no government. (Somalia).

Hobbes' State of Nature

Hobbes was an English political philosopher who lived during the civil war.

He claimed that the State of Nature (SoN) would be a "war of all against all".

He said there are 4 premisses that would cause problems in the SoN.

1. Everyone is a rational egoist (reason effectively & be selfish) ---> Can't guarantee your continued existence as there is no trust of others.
2. Human desires are never ending ---> Everyone is equal to satisfy desires so the SoN is a state of equality in the concept of power/strength.
3. Humans desire power ---> This would cause a Fight For Glory where everyone would try and prove they are the strongest and scariest by killing and fighting everyone else.
4. Humans have a natural right to self-preservation ---> This would cause violence to be permissible  in life and death situations and scarcity so they won't starve.

His conclusion:

Human psychology + conditions of SoN = constant state of war

Life would be "..solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

• Solitary - Isolated from not trusting anyone
• Poor - No jobs/long-term projects/industries/income without a state
• Nasty & brutish - Violent
• Short - Short lives (killing and illnesses)

The State of Nature

What is it?
Human life in the absence of a state and authority.

Positives

• Freedom of choice
• No punishment
• Equality 
• No taxes

Negatives

• Fear
• Killing
• No healthcare
• No education

Intro to Why Should I be Governed?

A state - Set of institutions that claim authority over a certain area.
It holds parliament, military, police, public schools, the civil service etc.


Different forms of government:
Monarchy - Rule of one
Theocracy - Rule of a religious person
Technocracy - Rule of the experts
Democracy - Rule of the people

Sapir-Whorf Thesis: Conceptual Scheme

Different humans have different CS's. There are 2 parts to our experiences:
1) Sense data
2) Interpretation


Language influences our perception of the world.
Certain languages cannot be translated. (Tiv into English).
Conceptual Relativism - Different cultures have different realities. (Tiv have less understanding of colour).


Whorf
Different cultures interpret sense data differently.

Sapir 
Language limits our experience ('1984' by George Orwell explores this as a government invents a new vocabulary called 'Newspeak' that prevents people having bad thoughts about the government.

Kant and Sapir-Whorf
Similarities: We are born with CS
                    We need sense data for experience
Differences: (Kant) We all have the same interpretations
                    (S-W) We have different interpretations

Criticisms..

• Language doesn't lead to different perceptions - we still have the same ideas of sound, sight, emotions, colour etc.
• Languages can be translated, no matter how hard it may be.
• Empiricists are right after all? - CS learnt from language and culture (experience).
• There are ideas without language - emotions are ideas that require no language.

Verifiable synthetic a priori claims

1) We have a conceptual scheme -- Synthetic as it gives information on the human mind and a priori because it is vital for experience.

2 and 3) Objects we experience are located in a place and time -- Synthetic as it gives information about objects and a priori because without knowing this, we can't experience them. <-- REALLY?

My view:

• Can't prove that we have a CS.
• We can experience objects without knowing they exist because this is how babies gain knowledge of substance.

Kant's Conceptual Scheme

His question: "How is intelligible experience made possible at all?"

In reality, our minds are taking on millions of pieces of information which should result in an 'incomprehensible buzz' where nothing makes sense. Yet somehow, our minds seem to have a structured perception where we make sense of the world around us. So, how do millions of pieces of sense data get transformed into an intelligible experience?

We are born with a conceptual scheme! Our mind has 12 categories which makes up a conceptual scheme (CS) and it structures sense data into experiences. There is no such thing as 'pure experience' because our experiences are a result from our mind structuring this data so we never really see things in themselves, just how they appear to us.

Innate or from experience?
Neither. We need a conceptual scheme to experience things so it cannot have come from experience. However, it isn't innate idea either because an idea isn't a structure of the mind, yet a conceptual scheme is. It is simply an 'innate ability'. (Synthetic a priori). Knowledge about the world without needing experience. (R).

He goes against R and E
"Thoughts without content are empty: intuitions without concepts are blind".
We need experience to know things and we haven't got innate ideas but if all we had was sense data, it would just be a 'buzz'. We're not a tabula rasa because we have a CS.

Causation
One of the categories is 'causation'. A person with this ability will understand that something is caused by something else. (A door changing shape because they are walking past it). We need this ability and the other 11 to have intelligible experiences.

Implications:

1. Our mind imposes structure on the world, this structure may not exist in reality.
2. We don't know what reality is/looks like, only the experiences of it.

Criticisms..

Empiricists - We observe causation, we didn't create it. If it didn't exist before humans, how was the earth created and dinosaurs created? We wouldn't have been created - nothing to cause us to be.

Rationalists - Mathematics gives knowledge of reality and this isn't part of a CS. Before humans, 2 dinosaurs plus 2 dinosaurs would make 4 dinosaurs. This is necessary truth (will always be true).

Kant's reply: Maybe these concepts are real and existed before humans but they happen to be part of our CS.

Is certainty confined to introspection and the tautological?

Certainty - Something that cannot be doubted.
Introspection - Examining your own mind (getting it to think about itself).
Tautology - Analytic statement.

Tautologies are necessary truths, they cannot be doubted. Rationalists and empiricists agree that they are certain. "Every mother has a child".

They also agree that we can be certain about some things we gain from introspection. For example:

• We think we experience things, whether we do or not
• Memories
• The Cogito - thinking about our mind doubting

Uncertain:

• If we are experiencing
• If we are experiencing what we think we are (a clock) - may be something different that what we perceive
• Whether induction proves conclusion/if conclusion is certain
• That causation is real (we never experience it) - E would respond with constant conjunction of events

Plato

Rationalist that believes we can gain synthetic knowledge from reason.


The allegory of the cave
'Unenlightened' people that live in a cave survive only on the senses to gain knowledge.
If they see only their shadows, they will be falsely perceiving and won't have real knowledge of what is around them, just illusions. Not until they see daylight, will they have access to reality and truth. This proves that our senses give illusions and not the real truth.

Criticisms..

• There is no proof of this story.
• Nietzsche: Prejudice argument that separates experience and reason into 'good' and 'bad' categories.

The Forms - A way of showing a true form of something using reason. 

For example, the form of a circle. Only a priori reasoning/our minds would reveal the true form to us because no-one has ever seen a real circle. What we are seeing are 'imperfect circles'. 

Criticisms..

• Sense experience does give us the idea of a perfect circle because we see what we think is a perfect circle, no matter whether it is or not. 
• Without sense experience, we wouldn't have the concept of a circle.

Ayer

Developed Hume's fork.

His verification principle: "A statement only has meaning if it is analytic or can in principle be verified empirically. 

Basically, he is saying that a statement only has meaning if it gives no extra information about the world or if it can be verified using experience. 

Meaningful statements:

2+2=4 - Analytic

There are 8 planets in the solar system - Can be verified empirically

Not meaningful statements:

God exists - Can't be verified empirically  

A statement only has meaning if it is analytic or can in principle be verified empirically - Can't be verified empirically

Criticism..

• His own statement goes against what he is saying because it cannot be verified using experience.

Hume's Fork

Empiricists argue that everything that exists and occurs is justified only by sense experience.

Hume claims that everything we know falls into 2 categories..

Relations of ideas - analytic knowledge and necessary truths can be verified a priori.
Matters of fact - synthetic knowledge and contingent truths must be verified a posteriori.

Can a person learn that fire burns skin a priori?

Rene Descartes

Rationalists claim that synthetic a priori exists and have made attempts to prove this. They use deduction a lot and call it 'demonstration'.

The Cogito - attempts to prove he exists in an a priori way. 

P1 I can't doubt that I can doubt

P2 I can doubt

P3 To doubt, I must exist

C Therefore I exist

Criticisms..

• He is already assuming he exists by using the word "I"
• Why assume it is us that doubts?
• Only proves that while we're doubting, we exist

The Ontological Argument - attempts to prove that God exists in an a priori way.

P1 I have the idea of God

P2 God is a being with all perfections 

P3 Existence is a perfection

C Therefore God exists

Criticisms..

• He is already assuming that he exists by using the word "is

          Descartes: Might defend himself by saying that he is referring to only the idea of God

• God may not be perfect, this is too culturally specific (religious)

• Kant: Existence is not a predicate/word that gives detail. E.g. "I have a coat, it's red" -- Red would be a predicate. "I have a coat, it exists". Exists would not be a predicate.

• Gaunilo: This argument proves that anything perfect can exist. The perfect baby exists because it has all perfections and because existence is perfection, it exists. 

Deduction criticisms..

• A way of making people accept his argument because we have a 'rational intuition' to accept deductive arguments. 

       However, this doesn't make all rationalists' arguments fail.

The Wax Argument - attempts to prove that we can only gain true knowledge of wax from our rational intuition.

Experiencing wax gives us the shape, texture, colour, size, smell and so on. However, when wax is melted, its characteristics change. Only our rational intuition or "faculty of judgment" helps us understand this is the same wax. Therefore, experience isn't the source of all knowledge. 

Criticisms..

• When we experience the wax being melted, we know it is the same wax. Descartes seems to skip past the idea of the wax being melted and focuses on the end result more. 
• Using a spectrometer will show both solid and melted wax as having the same molecule structures. From experiencing these, we will gain the idea that they are the same.

Where does knowledge of what exists come from?

Synthetic a priori 

Knowledge about the way the world is which can be verified without needing sense experience. 

All philosophers agree that analytic statements can be justified a priori because you don't need experience for them. However, when it comes to synthetic statements, there are disagreements. 

Rationalists claim that some synthetic statements can be verified a priori. Empiricists claim there is no such thing and they synthetic statements can only be verified a posteriori (with experience). 

Causation Challenge

Causation is the idea that something happened as a result of something else. (A caused B).

Rationalist

It is absolutely fundamental to us as human beings and could be innate and part of our mind. For example, the thought that the universe has no cause goes against our idea of causation and it doesn't seem right. Maybe it is built-in to us, an a priori synthetic truth?

Hume

We never experience causation/connections between events. We experience the constant conjunction of events/one events follow from the next. For example, at a snooker game we only experience a ball being caused to move by another ball but never causation itself. After repeated habit of experiencing this, we end up with the concept of causation. 

Substance Challenge

Substance is an object that exists independently of us.

Method: Having an object in front of you and closing your eyes. While it is possible that the object may not be still there, we still think it does because it seems illogical to think otherwise.

Rationalists

How can this give us the concept of substance if we're not experiencing it?

Hume

I can only know that the object before closing my eyes is very similar to the one when I opened them again. After repeated experiences of this, we arrive at the concept that it exists independently as a substance/physical object. 

HABITUAL EXPERIENCE!

Unicorn Challenge

Rationalists.. 

Challenge the idea of empiricists that synthetic knowledge come from experience by using 7 challenges. One of these is the unicorn challenge. They argue that no one has ever seen a real unicorn so how do we gain this idea from experience?

Empiricists..

Argue that it is a complex idea that comes from a number of impressions. This would have been from someone merging the 2 ideas together. It goes like this:





Rhino ---> Impression ---> Faint copy --->




Horse ---> Impression ---> Faint copy --->
                                                   
                                                                       
                                                                       

Rationalists' criticism:

Other complex ides like 'beauty' can't have come from simple ideas. This means they are innate.

Empiricists' response:

They have come from simple ideas but they're just harder to explain and understand. With these concepts, it is to do with emotion that we gain our idea of them from. These emotions are called 'reflections' as we experience what each idea feels like. 

Beauty ---> Pleasure/ good feeling ---> Reflection of beauty ---> Idea of beauty

Are we born with innate ideas?

Rationalists (R)

These philosophers claim that the mind contains innate knowledge (including synthetic) from birth and can be gained through a priori understanding. Crude rationalists (CR) claim that we are aware of these ideas from birth. However, sophisticated rationalists (SR) say we aren't aware of them. This is clever because it avoids the empiricists questioning how we are aware of them. R argue that ideas sit in our minds without us being aware of them and an experience triggers our awareness of them. For example, seeing the colour red triggers our innate idea of red. 

Key philosophers: Descartes, Plato

Criticism

Innate ideas as a possibility is not strong enough to prove that it is true.

Empiricists (E)

They claim that synthetic knowledge is not innate and can only come from sense experience or a posteriori understanding. The mind is a 'tabula rasa' or blank slate at birth. Locke challenges R by stating that is we are all born with the same innate ideas, there would be a truth that everyone in the world knows, but there isn't. For example, not everyone is born with the idea of 'goodness' as there are criminals. 

Hume says all ideas are 'faint copies' of impressions. For example, seeing a cat gives us an impression of a cat which then gives us a faint copy of a cat. This stays in our minds after we've experienced one.

Criticism

Everything coming from experience is not strong enough to prove it is true.

Similarities 

Both SR and E claim that babies aren't concious of ideas. 

Differences

R claim that we are born with ideas that need to be triggered.

E claim that we are born with no ideas and most knowledge comes from experience.

Intro to Reason & Experience

Knowledge

Belief is something that cannot be proven whereas knowledge is true. 

Epistemology means "the study of knowledge".

There are 3 kinds of knowledge:

1) Ability knowledge -  How to do something (riding a bike).

2) Acquaintance knowledge - To know someone/something well as it's familiar.

3) Propositional knowledge - Knowledge about the world around us (measuring the height of Big Ben), this is the only knowledge that can be verified using experience and what interests philosophers.

Truths

Necessary - Truth that is "true in all possible worlds" and would be a contradiction to deny it. For example, 2 parallel lines never meet is necessary because we cannot imagine a world where 2 parallel lines meet. This would be illogical, it will always be true. 

Contingent - Truth that just happens to be the case and wouldn't be a contradiction to deny it. For example, the Prime Minister (PM) is David Cameron is contingent because someone else could have been PM. We can think of a world where someone else is PM. 

Arguments

Inductive - If all premisses are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

P1: I have seen a red box

P2: All boxes in the world I've seen are red

C: All boxes in the world are red

This isn't a reliable argument because it is based on assumption. Just because all boxes they've seen are red, doesn't mean that they all are. Scientists use these arguments to predict things such as the weather, they are mostly successful and valid conclusions but this doesn't mean that they are always definite, they are always likely. 

Deductive - If all premisses are true, the conclusion is definitely true.

P1: If I work hard, I will pass my exams

P2: I work hard

C: I will pass my exams

This is very reliable because it isn't based on assumption but certainty. It says if you work hard you will pass exams, so if you work hard you will pass your exams! Rationalists such as Descartes use these arguments to prove their ideas such as in "The Cogito". The conclusions are always certain so it is impossible to disagree. 

Propositions

Analytic - Statement that gives no extra information about the world and is simply true by definition. For example, "Every mother has a child" is analytic because by "mother", we know it consists of having a child. Can be verified by using a priori reasoning. 

Synthetic - Statement that gives information about the world and is true by verify using a posteriori understanding or experience. For example, "Big Ben is 200 feet high" is synthetic because by "Big Ben", we don't know how high it is, so we have to go out and measure it using experience. 

Understanding 

A priori - Knowledge that can be gained just by using the mind and without needing the senses. For example, working out the exterior angle of a triangle would be a priori because no matter how long it takes us, we can work it out in our heads using mathematics. 

A posteriori - Knowledge that can be gained only by using the senses or experience. For example, working out the temperature of fire would be a posteriori because we can't work out in our heads its temperature but have to feel it or measure it in experience.