A NEW ESSAY
concerning the
ORIGIN OF IDEAS
|
A NEW ESSAY
|
|
concerning the
|
|
|
ORIGIN OF IDEAS
|
Section Four
False Theories Assigning a Superfluous Cause of Ideas
Contents
|
Plato and Aristotle |
||
|
|
Plato's view of the difficulty present in the problem of the origin of ideas |
|
|
|
Plato's solution to the difficulty |
|
|
|
The difficulty seen by Plato is substantially the same as the one I have indicated |
|
|
|
Plato's theory offers a valid but too general solution to the problem |
|
|
|
Aristotle reveals the inaccuracy of Plato's argument |
|
|
|
Nevertheless Plato's argument retains something solid |
|
|
|
It seems that Aristotle does not offer an adequate explanation of universals |
|
|
|
In some passages in his work Aristotle does not seem to have emphasised sufficiently the difference between sense and intellect |
|
|
|
According to Themistius' paraphrase, Aristotle was not fully conversant with the nature of universals |
|
|
|
Judging is more than the apprehension of universals |
|
|
|
Absurdity of the teaching set out by Themistius |
|
|
|
Contradictions in two of Aristotle's opinions |
|
|
|
The Scholastics were aware of the difficulty; they formulated a distinction intended to evade it. An examination of the distinction |
|
|
|
How Aristotle's acting intellect explains the origin of universals |
|
|
|
According to Aristotle the intellect bestows its own form on what it perceives. This, together with the rejection of every innate idea in the intellect, is the basis of modern scepticism |
|
|
|
An Aristotelian contradiction |
|
|
|
In Aristotle's system, the intellect would be operating blindly, which is absurd |
|
|
|
A trace of the true teaching in Aristotle |
|
|
|
Explanation of the trace of the true teaching in Aristotle |
|
|
|
Aristotle recognises that intellect entails an innate light, as his 'common sense' witnesses |
|
|
|
The Arab philosophers, who were firmly intent on denying any innate element in man, made the mistake of locating the acting intellect outside the human mind |
|
|
|
St. Thomas refutes the error of the Arab philosophers |
|
|
|
Aristotle's achievement in realising that a primal innate act in our intellect is necessary |
|
|
|
Aegidius' explanation of the indeterminate habits mentioned by Aristotle as innate in human beings |
|
|
|
Conclusion upon Aristotle's thought |
|
|
|
Two types of teaching in Plato |
|
|
Leibniz |
||
|
|
Leibniz saw the difficulty involved in explaining the origin of ideas |
|
|
|
The analysis of potencies in general, not the particular analysis of the intellective potency, led Leibniz to the difficulty |
|
|
|
Leibniz sees the difficulty imperfectly because he deduces it from over-general principles |
|
|
|
Leibniz's solution to the difficulty |
|
|
|
How Leibniz's innate ideas can all successively attain an enlightened state |
|
|
|
Leibniz's merit in dealing with this problem |
|
|
|
Leibniz posited fewer innate elements than Plato |
|
|
|
Leibniz posits more that is innate than is required to explain the fact of ideas |
|
|
|
Other errors in Leibniz's theory |
|
|
|
Concluding remarks on Leibniz's theory |
|
|
Kant |
||
|
|
Kant uncritically accepts Locke's principle of experience |
|
|
|
In opposing Locke, Kant adopted Leibniz's approach |
|
|
|
Two types of knowledge, one a priori, the other a posteriori, are admitted by all philosophical schools |
|
|
|
Characteristics of a priori and a posteriori knowledge |
|
|
|
Hume eliminates a section of a priori cognitions and produces scepticism as a result |
|
|
|
No aspect of a priori knowledge can be explained by the senses |
|
|
|
Attempts to refute Hume's scepticism |
|
|
|
How Hume's scepticism could have been more effectively refuted |
|
|
|
Reid rejects Locke's principle and acknowledges the existence of a priori cognitions |
|
|
|
Reid's theory does not avoid scepticism |
|
|
|
Kant derives his scepticism from Reid's principle as Hume had derived his from Locke's |
|
|
|
Kant's teaching: distinction between the form and matter of our cognitions |
|
|
|
How Kant tries to avoid the accusation of idealism |
|
|
|
Kant tries to avoid the accusation of scepticism |
|
|
|
The basic error in critical philosophy |
|
|
|
Another error of the school of critical philosophy |
|
|
|
Objection answered |
|
|
|
Kant's philosophical achievement: he saw that thinking was simply judging |
|
|
|
Kant clearly recognised the problem of assigning the origin of human cognitions |
|
|
|
The distinction between analytical and synthetical judgments |
|
|
|
How Kant posed the general problem of philosophy |
|
|
|
Is it true that we make a priori synthetical judgments? |
|
|
|
Is the proposition, 'That which happens must have its cause', an a priori synthetical judgment in Kant's sense? |
|
|
|
Shortcomings in Kant's way of stating the ideological problem |
|
|
|
Further clarification of the ideological problems |
|
|
|
Are primal judgments, through which concepts are formed, synthetical in Kant's sense? |
|
|
|
How Kant solved the epistemological problem |
|
|
|
Kant did not understand the nature of intellectual perception |
|
|
|
Kant admits too little and too much that is innate in the human mind |
|
|
|
Conclusion |
|
|
The steps taken by philosophy through Plato, Leibniz and Kant, and the work still to be done |
||
|
|
Epilogue to the three systems |
|
|
|
The superfluity of Kant's forms and how they are all reduced to a single form |
|
| Appendix | Vol Contents | Home |