Chat with AIExam 3: Knowledge
How does Leibniz's view differ from Locke's view in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding? What argument does Leibniz offer in response to Locke's Essay? Overall, whose argument do you find to be more compelling?
(31) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotLeibniz's view differs from Locke's in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding in several key ways. One of the main differences is their views on innate ideas. Locke argues that the mind is a blank slate at birth and that all knowledge comes from experience, while Leibniz believes that the mind contains innate ideas and principles that are not derived from experience.
Leibniz offers several arguments in response to Locke's Essay. One of his main arguments is that the existence of necessary truths, such as mathematical and logical truths, cannot be explained by Locke's empiricist view. Leibniz argues that these truths are not derived from experience, but are instead inherent in the mind. He also criticizes Locke's theory of substance, arguing that it leads to skepticism and undermines the possibility of knowledge.
Overall, I find Leibniz's argument to be more compelling. His emphasis on the existence of innate ideas and necessary truths provides a more comprehensive account of human understanding. While Locke's empiricist view has its merits, I find Leibniz's arguments against it to be more convincing. Leibniz's emphasis on the role of reason and innate ideas in human understanding aligns more closely with my own beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the mind.
Are there truths we can know a priori? Which ones? Can we know all truths a priori? Explain.
(26) Answered by Examlex AI CopilotA priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is independent of experience, meaning it can be known or understood without the need for empirical evidence. There are certainly truths that we can know a priori, such as mathematical and logical truths. For example, we can know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a triangle has three sides without needing to observe or experience these concepts in the physical world.
However, it is unlikely that we can know all truths a priori. Many truths about the natural world, scientific principles, and historical events require empirical evidence and observation to be known. For example, we cannot know the specific details of a historical event or the behavior of a physical system without observing and studying it.
In summary, while there are certain truths that can be known a priori, such as mathematical and logical truths, it is unlikely that we can know all truths a priori, especially those that pertain to the natural world and empirical phenomena.
Narayan brings up the example of her grandmother's social context in order to
(38) 
VerifiedA
According to Nāgārjuna, vision and its subject are __________ phenomena.
(38) It is enough to have knowledge of something that one believes is true.
(31) What is Locke's argument that there are no innate principles? Is the argument compelling? Why or why not?
(32) Descartes has set out to doubt all of his beliefs at once to
(35) Leibniz claims that sense experience is __________ for all our actual knowledge.
(38) According to Kant, the proposition "every alteration must have a cause" is an example of a priori knowledge.
(32) Knowledge that is independent of all experience is called a posteriori.
(35) Nāgārjuna argues that the sense faculties must be characterized interdependently.
(34) According to Narayan, feminist epistemologists resemble "third-world" writers and historians in that they both
(42) How does Nāgārjuna respond to the opponent's argument, appearing in verse (7)? Is the response compelling? Why or why not?
(46) The central insight of feminist epistemology is that men and women know about different sets of things.
(41) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)