AKASH BHATI

Ma Philosophy 2021-23 Batch

For any queries contact on:
Contact no. 7042420600
Instagram: akash_bhati_21
MWP NOTES

HUME:
Hume distinguishes between two kinds of skepticism: antecedent and consequent skepticism,
both of which come in an extreme and a moderate form.
He identifies the extreme form of skepticism with the universal doubt of Descartes, which calls
into question all former opinions and even the testimony of the senses. No claim is acceptable to
the Cartesian skeptic unless it can be deduced from some indubitable first principle.
Hume criticizes this approach, suggesting first that there is no secure first principle that is beyond
doubt, and second that even if there were we could not proceed beyond it.
Existence and non- existence, Hume asserts, can be confirmed only in experience, not through
reason alone. Reason can establish mathematical truths, but nothing empirical, and so the
claim, "I exist," requires empirical evidence.
For Hume, this extreme antecedent skepticism is unworkable; Hume prescribes it to be
practiced in a moderate form. Which consists simply in forming unprejudiced opinions,
progressing by taking small steps, and examining one’s conclusions frequently and carefully?
Descartes' skepticism is called "antecedent" because it demands some firm starting point
before any reasoning can begin.
The skepticism of the Enquiry (Hume’s version of skepticism) has rather been a kind of
consequent skepticism that questions our habitual conclusions and judgments by doubting the
grounds on which they are secured.
Hume considers in particular, the testimony of the senses, which suggests to us the existence of
a world external to and independent of our senses.
We are led by a powerful instinct to suppose that what our senses report to us is an accurate
Representation of this external world. However, our perceptions change as we move about in the
world. “All I know of the external world is what my senses report to me, but these reports can
often be mistaken. Besides, they are only mental representations of external objects, and not the
objects themselves, and I have no rational justification for inferring the existence of external
objects based on mental representations.” Thus, Hume concludes, we have insufficient evidence
for the existence of an external world. In its extreme form, consequent skepticism can lead us to
complete inaction. to suspend all judgment and to stop acting altogether. What use can Such
skepticism, be put to?
Hume's naturalism rescues him from this extreme skepticism.
While neither our belief in an external world nor our belief in necessary connection is rationally
justified, custom and habit lead us instinctually to accept them. Skepticism is useful in that it
places limitations on our reason and makes us doubt what we might otherwise take for granted,
but it is ultimately unlivable. I can doubt all I please in the comfort of my study, but in order to get
by in the world I must as least assume that there is an external world and that my judgments and
actions in that world make some sort of difference. Naturalism makes skepticism livable by
reinstating certain kinds of thinking and reasoning as acceptable and trustworthy.
Importantly, though, naturalism only reinstates relations of ideas and matters of fact, leaving
metaphysics a little empty.
Relations of ideas deal only with mathematical truths and matters of fact must be grounded in
experience. Thus, a great deal of the subject matter of rationalist metaphysics--the existence of
God, the immortality of the soul, the nature of matter, etc.--is discarded. We cannot answer such
questions through reason alone, and there is nothing in experience that can point us fruitfully
toward any satisfying answers. Thus, in the closing line of the Enquiry, Hume recommends that we
commit to flames all books that engage in such empty, metaphysical speculations.
HUME SECTION 2-3-4-5

Section 2:
There is a clear difference between perception of the mind when we actually feel the pain of
excessive heat and when we afterwards recall the memory of this sensation. Imagination and
recollection these faculties may mimic the perceptions of the senses but they can never entirely
reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. The liveliest thought is still inferior to the
dullest sensation.
A similar distinction runs through all the other perceptions of mind. When we reflect on our past
sentiments and affections, our thoughts act as a faithful mirror and copies its objects truly. But the
colors which reflection employees are faint and dull in comparison to there in which are original
perceptions were clothed. (Akash Bhati –MWP NOTES)
We may divide all the perceptions of the mind into two classes based on different degrees of
force and vivacity less forcible and lively perceptions are commonly called thoughts or ideas. And
the livelier ones are called Impressions, by impression Hume means all our lively perceptions
when we hear or see or feel or love or hate or desire or will.
Nothing is more unbounded than the thought of man. It forms monsters and joins incongruous
shapes. And while the body is confined to one planet, the thought can in an instant transport us
into the most distant regions of the universe .Nothing is beyond the power of thoughts, except that
which is an absolute contradiction.
But our thought is actually not unbounded the way it seems to be. The power of mind is no more
than the faculty of compounding and augmenting the materials afforded us by the sense and
experience.
Ex when we think of a golden mountain we only join consistent ideas gold and mountain with
which we are formerly acquainted. In a philosophical language all our ideas are copies of our
impressions.
Arguments which prove that ideas are copies of impressions. First when we analyze our
thoughts or ideas we find that they can be reduced to simple ideas as were copied from a prior
feeling on or sentiment. We may do this enquiry at any length possible but we shall always find
that every idea is copied from a similar impression. Secondly if it happens that a person lacks
the sense organ and there cannot experience sensations he also cannot have the correspondent
ideas. A blind man can form no notion idea of color, but if the sense is restored and the inlet for
sensation is opened inlet for ideas will also be opened.
This is however one contradictory phenomena which may prove that ideas can arise
independent of corresponding impressions. (Akash Bhati notes)
Hume posses an example called the missing shade of blue. Suppose a person who has enjoyed
his eye sight for 30 years has perfectly been acquainted with color of all kinds except for one
particular shade of blue. Now let all the different shades of blue except that one single shade be
placed before him .Now he will perceive a blank where that shade is present, he will see a greater
distance in that place between the continuous color series.
Now
Hume claims that it might be possible for the man to arrive at the idea of that particular shade
of blue through his imagination. This may serve as a proof that simple ideas are not always in
every instance derived from the correspondent impressions. But this is only a single instance
and does not merit that for it alone we should alter our general maxim.
All the ideas are faint and obscure they are apt to be confused with other resembling ideas. On
the other hand all impressions are strong and vivid, thus it is easy to distinguish b/w them, thus
lies no confusion.

SECTION 3:
Association of ideas : Simple ideas which create compound ones are bound together by some
universal principle which have an equal influence on all mankind.
There are three principles of connection among ideas:
1) Resemblance: When a picture naturally loads or thoughts to the original.
2) Contiguity: Mention f one apartment in a building naturally introduces an enquiry concerning
the others.
3) Cause and effect: If we think of a wound we can reflect or the pain which follows it.

Section 4:
All the objects of human enquiry are divided into two kinds: Relations of ideas and matters of fact:
Relations of ideas include geometry, algebra and arithmetic. In short , everything which and
Intuitively and demonstratively certain.
For e.g.: The square of hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides. H2= p2+b2. This
shows a relation between figures eg: Three times fives is equal to the half of thirty. 3*5 is equal
to 30/2 is equal to 15. This shows the relation between numbers.
Proposition of this kind are discoverable by the operations of thought without dependence on
objects existent in the universe. There never are any circle triangle found in nature but still they
retain their certainty and evidence. (AKASH BHATI-MWP NOTES)
Matters of fact are the second object of human enquiry.
There is no great evidence available for their truth. Contrary of every matter of fact is possible. “
The sun will not rise tomorrow is possible proposition. Besides present testimony of our senses
and records of our memory, what evidences assure real existence and matter of fact. All
reasoning concerning matter of fact seems to be founded on the relation of cause and effect.
By means of this relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses.
Example a man finding a watch or a machine in a desert island would conclude that there had
once been men in that island. Now, it must be enquired how we arrive at the knowledge of cause
and effect. The knowledge of this relation is not attained by reasoning’s a prior but arises entirely
from experiences
Our reason unassisted by experience can never draw any inference concerning real existence and
matter of fact.
Example- Adam through his rational faculties could not have inferred from the fluidity and
transparently of water that it would suffocate him. Or from the light that it would consume him.
Thus cause and effect are discoverable, it by reason but by experience. The fact that gunpowder
can cause explosion or the attraction of loadstone (magnet) could be discovered by a prior
arguments is a false notion.
The mind can never possibly find the effect in the cause, because the effect is totally different
from the cause and consequently can never be discovered in it. But if we go to find the causes
behind the general causes our attempt would go in vain. Since we won’t be satisfied whatsoever
explanations our reason would provide. These ultimate principles are shut from human enquiry
as they go beyond human reasoning. Gravity, Elasticity cohesion of parts, motion by impulse all
these are ultimate causes .We base our knowledge of future events in past experience but how
do we know that the past is a good guide for future predictions.

Hume distinguishes b/w demonstrative reasoning and moral reasoning.

Demonstrative reasoning is based on relation of ideas while moral reasoning is based on
matters of fact. But both of these readings fail since we can never really know if the future will
resemble with the past .Hume suggests that we only infer similarities b/w past and future, as
there is no form of reasoning available to understand any casual relation. Even a child knows
from his past
Experience that a flame will burn. He suggests that the child learns this not through reasoning but
through the conditioning of custom. Hume distinction between relations of ideas and matters of
facts played an important role in the developments of 20 century analytic philosophy. Kant made
the distinction famous by calling relations of ideas “analytic and matters of fact “synthetic”
Conclusion:
Our knowledge from experience is based on the principle of cause and effect. Principle of cause
and effect is grounded in introduction. Induction relies on uninforming principles that the future
will resemble the past. So induction is not a valid form of reasoning. Any reasoning about future
exists is mere conjecture. Hume claims that there is some hidden power that enforces a continued
regularity in physical laws but it is beyond our power of reason to detect it. Hume argues that we
are committed to the belief that the future will resemble the past (conditioned/accustomed). But
we are not rationally justified in holding on to that belief.

SECTION 5:
Hume says that someone thrown into the world without prior experience, would have no
understanding of the process of cause and effects.
We cannot sense causation nor can we know it through our reason. This is why we need to see a
process recur many times before we can begin to see casual connection b/w two things.
In all reasoning’s from experience there is a step taken by the mind which is not supported by
any process of the understanding. So if the mind is not engaged by reasoning to make this step,
then there must be some other principle of equal weight and authority in play here. What that
principle is, is worth the pain of enquiry.
This principle is custom or habits seeing any particular out repeatedly general we a propensity in
us and impels us to say that this could lead to that without any valid reasoning. After witnessing
constant conjunction of two objects- heat and flame we are determined by custom to expect the
one, from the appearance of the other.
All inference from experience is therefore effects of customs not of reasoning.
Constant conjunction: Hume suggests that we make inferences by means of imagination and
draws a careful distinction between fiction and belief. Fiction is the set product of pure
imagination by the means of which we can create all sorts of strange images. Belief is a
combination of imagination and a certain sentiment that we cannot control that suggests us that
our imaginary corresponds with reality. We can in our imagination join the head of a man to the
body of a horse but it is not our power to believe that such an animal has ever existed.
KANT SPACE AND TIME

Space and time- provide sensible form of experience. It play a fundamental role in making objects
possible. This is what sets space and time apart from other elements in sense experiences.
Technical terms which Kant uses to define space and time are as follows: ‘Pure a priori intuitions ’,
‘Forms of intuition’, ‘Terms of appearance’ An object is either ‘given to us’ or it is ‘thought by us’,
By means of intuitions objects are given to us. By means of concepts we think about objects.
The cognitive power which enables to be given- sensibility enables objects to be thought-
understanding. Sensibility refers to the sense of an objects phenomenological presence to the
subjects.
Concepts relate to and object immediately it refers to features which several things have in
common. Once an object is given to us, it can be thought about, But for concept to have object, “it
most relate ultimately to intuition.’ Intuition is singular/particular representation n individual
thing, ‘a single object’.
Concept by contrast in general: As it can apply to more than one object. Sensibility is the cognitive
power which gives rise to intuition.
The sensible form of experience: SPACE and TIME

In the background of Kant’s discussion are two other philosophical views of space and time:

Newton’s Absolutist view and Leibniz Relational view.

Kant refers to Newton’s views as: Space and time are real existences Leibniz’s view as: space
and time are only relations of things.
Newton views space as an absolutely real container which would exist even if no physical objects
were contained within it.
The space is equivalent to substance, since it exists self sufficiently. The same holds for time as
well. “Leibniz” view of space is: Space is a logical construction built out of relations between
objects. To say that objects are in space is to say that they stand in a certain relation to one
another.
Kant’s own view of space and time is that they are apriori intuitions.” Apriori” means- They do not
derive from experience. “Intuition “means- our awareness of space is immediate and non-
conceptional.
Thus for Kant, space and time is in some sense a ‘single object’. Hence, Kant’s view differs from
those of newton as Kant considers that space is not real in an absolute sense and differs from
Leibniz because of Kant space and time are irredivisible, i.e. statements about space cannot be
reduced to statements above objects and their interaction.

PURE INTUITION:
The existence of a priori intuition is implied by Kant’s analysis of appearances into matter and
form. Appearance can be understood simply as object of experiences.
The Matter of an appearance is that in it which corresponds to sensation and is given to us a
posteriori. But an appearance is not simply manifold of sensation; sensation are in some very
ordered i.e. having form. Because a subject can only be cognitively conscious of its object or
experience, if it is organized in some way. Experience/object that has no form will be a me
buzzing or confusion. Form of appearance consists in structure of relations and according to
Kant; it must be supplied apriori by over power of intention, because whatever gives order or form
to sensation cannot drive form sensation itself. Thus, form must be intuitive rather than
conceptual. If intuition contains formal, a priori element.
The Kant calls this “pure intuition’, pure means ‘not containing anything belonging sensation.’
Our pure intuitions of space are further proved by the representations of figure and extension.
Claims about Geometry: The doctrine of pure intuition of space allows Kant to make claims about
geometry. Geometry can be regarded as knowledge derived from pure intuition of space.
Necessity of geometric truths can be grasped simply on the basis of mental construction of
lines, triangles and so on. Not only does pure intention of space permi space to be studied
independently of physical objects, it also makes possible synthetic a priori knowledge of the
spatial properties of outer objects, since appearances in space most conform to the laws of
geometry.

Give argument for space as a priori:

The representation of space must be a priori and not empirical, since experience is only possible
through representation the space first. My sensation cannot be referred to as something outside
me or distinct from me unless I presuppose the representation of space. Space is also required to
be presupposed for determining the distinction of various outer objects from one another.
Without representation of space, objects cannot be understood as outside and alongside one
another. The first argument can be summarily put as “if the representation of space were not a
priori, then it would be empirical. If it was empirical, then it would be obtained from experience of
outer object. (Akash Bhati-Notes)
But this is impossible, since outer experience is impossible without the representation of
space.” So representation of space must be a prior: Second argument: It says that we can think
of space as empty objects but we can never think of absence of space. From which it again
follows that space is necessary and an a priori representation.
Kant claims that outer object cannot be represented without space being represented. But space
can be represented without outer objects being present in it. Second argument is thus designed to
secure the priority of space and proving that it is not derived from experience.

Argument for space as an intuition:

By describing the representation of space as intuition kant does not mean to deny that we have
concept of space in general, we have concepts like in space which can be applied to an large
number of objects. Kant’s claim is that intuition of space underlies all of our spatial concepts. Kant
says that we can represent and conceive of space as a unitary singular and unique only. Kant
gives two reasons for thinking this, both having to do with the relation of space to its parts. First,
‘Diverse spaces’ are nothing but different parts of one and the same unique space. Second these
parts can never exist, without the one all- embracing space and can only be thought as, in it.
Particular spaces are, as Kant says nothing but limitation of the all embracing space. Similarly,
awareness of space, must proceeds awareness of particular spaces.
This it follows that the representation of space is an intuition.

Fourth Argument:
The fourth argument is given in order to protect the space to be considered as a concept.
The infinite parts of space are contain IN IT, whereas, the infinite possible instances of
concept fall UNDER IT. Therefore, space cannot be a concept.
Incongruent counter parts : This is the fifth argument, it provides a graphic demonstration of the
intuitive nature of space.. Suppose the world contains only two gloves, left and right and these
gloves show all of their properties apart from their left and right handleness, which makes them
counterparts. The respect in which they differ is that of orientation.
This difference is not relational but internal to the gloves. The spatial property of objects is
therefore intrinsic and underived.
This refute Leibniz’s claim that spatial relations are conceptually constructed. This acc to Kant
shows that space is an intuition. Because the internal difference b/w the gloves, their incongnity
Cannot be any concept. The argument of geometry: The sixth and final argument is the
argument of geometry. Geometry is possible because space is a pure intuition. Now in order to
turn this into and argument in support of the conclusion that space is an a priori intuition, He only
add that, ONLY if space is pure and therefore A priori intuition then only truth of geometry is
possible. Since geometrical judgments’ cannot be based on concepts and also cannot be a
portion. So unless they are based on intuition that is a priori, their synthetic a priori truth would
be unacceptable. The argument of geometry therefore serves the dual purpose of showing that
space is a priori and that is an intuition.
DESCARTES MEDITATION:
Meditation 1 -
Skepticism and the method of doubt :
Descartes begins by reflecting on the unfortunate fact that he has had many false beliefs. He set
out to devise a strategy to not just prevent having false beliefs but more dramatically to ensure
that scientific research reveal truth not error.
To avoid any false beliefs, his strategy is to doubt any belief he has that could be false or that he
could be mistaken about. His senses have deceived him before so they could be deceiving him
now he rejects all sensory based beliefs.
He reason that if an alleged source of knowledge is sometimes deceptive then it could always be
deceptive so it should be rejected to find beliefs that cannot be false. He realizes that if he were
asleep and dreaming many of his beliefs would be false.
Example: If he were dreaming about walking would be false since he cannot ever tell if he is
dreaming or not this is reason to doubt any beliefs from his senses- dreams appear the same as
genuine experiences.
He also realizes that he could be mistaken even about beliefs that seem clearly true to him
whether awake or dreaming.
Example: That bachelor is unmarried. He could be mistaken about such beliefs because he could
be being deceived by some evil genius or even god this is possible and he cannot show that it is not
his actual situation since Descartes wishes to reject any belief that could be false that he could be
mistaken about he rejects even these beliefs .The science however rely on beliefs not only about
the physical world but also about the mathematics and by the end of meditation 1 Descartes is
tempted to rid himself of the desire to acquire knowledge altogether.

Deceptive sense hypothesis, Logic,

Proposition 1: If something desires with “respect to some objects”, then that thing is ?doubtful” in
“respect to those objects”
Proposition 2 : Senses deceive with “respect to objects which are very small or in distance”.
Conclusion: Senses are “doubtful” in “respect to objects which are very small or in distance”
.Scope of argument: Only certain objects which are very small or in distance are doubted. There
are many other beliefs about which doubt is quite impossible. Objects which are immediate, vivid,
and given up in lose experience is not doubted. Descartes writes: “For example- that I am here
sitting by the fire, wearing a dressing gown, holding this piece of paper and so on. Again how
could it be denied that these hands and whole body are mine”

Dreaming state Hypothesis, Logic,

Proposition 1: If there is “never any cure sign” to differentiate between two sets, then the doubt
status of both statuses is same.
Proposition 2: There is “never any sure signs” to differentiate between “visions” in waking state
and “visions” in dreaming state.
Conclusion: Doubt status of “visions” in walking state and “visions” in dreaming state is same.
Experiment: Doubt status of “visions” in walking state is can be doubted. Scope of the argument:
Only the “visions” in the walking state can be doubted. These “visions” might be composed of
“certain other simpler and more universal things” which might be “real”. Descartes write: This
class involves corporeal nature in general. Shape of extended
Things the quantity or size and number of these things, the place in which they may exist, the time
through which they may inure” .So one has the reason to doubt all the beliefs that concerning
with basic mechanistic properties of matter. He further writes: “Physics, medicine and all other
discipline which depend upon the study of composites are doubtful: while geometry, arithmetic
and other subject of the kind which deal with the simplest and most general things” are not
doubted. What or who made me the kind of creature that I am?
Three answers are conceived:
a) ”An omnipotent god”
b) “By fate or chance or a continuous chain of or by some other means”
c) “malicious demands of the utmost power and :

CASE A :
Proposition 1: If the creator “deceives occasionally” creator might be” deceiving” me as my ‘design.
Feature’ “all the time”.

Proposition 2: Creator “deceives occasionally” Conclusion: Creator might be “deceiving? Me as my

/design feature “all the time”
Proposition 3: If creator might be deceiving” me as my ‘design feature’, then I have reason to doubt
my “most perfect knowledge” .Conclusion: I have reason to doubt my “most perfect knowledge”

CASE B: (Akash Bhati NOTES-7042420600)

If the “present state” is arrived at by “fate or chance or a continuous chain of events or by any other
means”, above argument applies with minimal changes. “Creator might be substituted with ‘the
process’ an umbrella term for all the above mentioned ways of being created. He also uses the
word “imperfections” which gives very close to the institution of word” design feature’
.Also the final conclusion previouslymentioned is written as” there is not one of my former belief
about which doubt may not properly be raised”. “Most perfect knowledge” is nothing but “highly
probable opinions”

CASE C:
“Some malicious demon of utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to
deceiver me” Replacing creator with “evil demon”, we can directly start with first conclusion. The
first proposition might go as follows:
Proposition 1: “Evil demon” might be “in snaring my judgments” as my ‘design feature’ “all the time”
Next proposition and the conclusion can follow with the minimal changes in the above argument,
basic point being the same.

Scope of the argument: The argument courses all knowledge claims. There is no understanding
that can be beyond it.

SECOND MEDITATION
Cogito argument:
Proposition 1: “ If I think”, then “I am , I exist”
Proposition 2: “I think” Conclusion: “I am, I exist” The second proposition “I think” is the central
proposition which is intuitively tied with existence. So Descartes decided to focus on his thoughts
about “I” to get a clear understanding of what it is. This is done because “I” is considered in lose
proximity with thinking. Upon focusing on “what comes into thought spontaneously and quite
naturally” He thinks of himself as the “body” “engaged in sense perception and thinking” but
these actions are attributed to “soul”. “soul” is “imagined” to be something .There are no
doubts
about the “mental conception” of the body. “By a body I understand whatever has a determinable
shape and a definable location and can occupy a space in such a way to exclude other. “ The
power of self movement” is quite “foreign to the nature of the body”. Then he goes on to describe
the attributes of the soul. They are “nutrition and movement”. These “fabrications” are not
possible without a body.

Difference in doubt status of mind and body:

Moreover the conception of body can be doubted , but “thinking” cannot be doubted. Thus
“thinking” requires “mind or intelligence or intellect or reason ”This is “I” the “knowledge of it does
not depend on the knowledge of the body. This knowledge cannot be syntheses by imagination,
because it is the source of the imagination. It is certain that “I exist” and that everything related to
nature of body could be “mere dreams”. He then describes the “I” or the mind: “A thing that doubts,
understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines .And has sensory
perception”

Argument for defending mind body dualism:

Proposition 1: if properties of two things are different then the things are different.
Proposition 2: The properties of “mind” and “body” are different. Conclusion: “Mind” and “body”
are different.
THE WAX EXAMPLE:
In the wax example, Descartes describes that wax can be perceived as wax despite it changing
its property to any extent. (The wax changes its taste, smell, color, shape, size” etc. upon being
subjected to heat. Still it can be identified as some wax which was before subjection to heat). He
extends this reasoning for bodies in general. The properties of body “extended, flexible and
changeable”. Body (or wax) is capable of going through countless number of changes. It is
impossible to imagine number of changes. It is impossible to imagine all the changes that can
occur in body. Yet, an identity of a particular body (identity of wax, for our example) can be
grasped.
Further, extension can also be varied countless number of times.(extension “increases if the wax
melts, increases again if it boils and is greater still if heat is increased”).
Descartes write “ I believe it capable of being extended in many more different ways than I will
ever encompass in my imagination” In all these variations of the body (or wax) one can still identify
“nature” of the body (“piece of wax”).

Proposition 1: If I am able to know the wax despite changes in its countless extensions, then I
know the nature of the wax.
Proposition 2: I am able to know the wax despite changes in its countless extensions.
Conclusions: I know the nature of the wax.
Proposition 3: If I know the nature of the wax’, then I know the nature of the wax either through
“eternal senses” or through “mind” Conclusion: I know the nature of the wax when through
“eternal senses or “through mind”
Proposition 4: If I know the nature of the wax through internal senses then external senses
must be able to grasp countless extensions of wax.
Proposition 5: Eternal senses are not able to grasp countless extensions of wax. Conclusion: I
do not know the nature of the wax through external senses.
Conclusion; I know the nature of the wax through mind.

Akash Bhati-MWP NOTES

7042420600
Do not completely rely on these notes, do read/study your official readings/material/class
notes as well.