8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
1/24
Talk about this for Leibniz
Leibnizs 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 confusedknowledge of x
When we can list xs 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 xs characteristic properties is distinct, this
knowledge is adequate, when we dont, our knowledge issupportive
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:
...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
cannotgo from not knowing x to knowing x
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
2/24
Platos slave
And all our ideas bear the mark of their creator, God:
Thus we have ideas of everything in our soul only by virtue of Gods
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 non-physical minds?
Leibnizs answer: they dont interactany more than we interact with
external objects
Pre-establishedharmony: the mind and the body are in 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 ofreflection 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 theirmemories
But the intelligent soul, knowing what it is having the ability to utter the
word I, a word so full of meaning does not merely remain and subsist
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
3/24
metaphysically, which it does to a greater degree than the others, but also
remains the same morally and constitutes the same person. For it is memory
or the knowledge of this self that renders it capable of punishment or
reward.
If you suddenly lost all your memories, you would become an entirely
different person, 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, and thus a reflection of it
creator, God this is the purpose of every existent thing
And because we (minds, souls) realize our purpose, and can reflecton Godand the universe, we are privileged
Since God himself is the greatest and wisest of all minds, it is easy to judge
that the being with whom he can, so to speak, enter into conversation, 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, which can
only pass for the instruments of minds.
Insofar as we are minds, we are made in Gods image, and we are special
because we have an image of God
LOCKE
Philosophy 2202F:Early Modern Philosophy
Lecture #10: LockesEssay, Book 2
All ideas are arrived at through experience
Some ideas are complex, while others aresimple
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
4/24
A complex idea is composed of two or more constituent ideas
The idea ofsnow contains the ideas cold, wet, white
The ideas cold, wet, and white aresimple, i.e., they are not further reducible
to a set of constituent ideas
The mind can manipulate simple ideas iterate, compare, unite them to
form complex ideas
But it is not in the power of the most exalted wit or enlarged understanding,
by any quickness or variety of thought, to invent or frame one new simpleidea in the mind, not taken in by the ways before mentioned [sensation and
reflection]. Nor can any force of the understanding destroy those that are
there.
Simple ideas cannot be created nor destroyed by the mind
Can you imagine a taste youve never tasted or a sound youve 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, say an electric sense?
Simple ideas originate insensation cold, wet, white and reflection
perceiving, remembering, willing
Other simple ideas originate in both sensation and reflection, eg: pain,
pleasure, existence, unity, power, and succession
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
5/24
Lockes 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 dont need to appeal to innate ideas
Why make things more complicated than they have to be?
What are we perceivingwhen ideas are conveyed to us through the senses?
We are perceiving the qualities that exist in objects
Qualities have thepowerto produce ideas in our minds
Not all of our ideas resemble the qualities that produced them
Primary qualities solidity, extension, figure, number, and mobility
essentially belong to the objects we perceive, regardless of the changes they
undergo
...take a grain of wheat, divide it into two parts, each part has stillsolidity,
extension,figure, and mobility; divide it again, and it retains still the same
qualities; and so divide it on until the parts become insensible, they must
retain still each of them all those qualities.
Secondary qualities colour, taste, sound, heat do not belong to the
objects we perceive
Such qualities are nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce
various sensations in us by their primary qualities
Heat does not exist in objects, but is the result of the rapid motions of
particles
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
6/24
When standing at a distance from a fire, we perceive in it the quality of
warmth; if we get too close, we perceive the quality of pain
We freely admit that the quality of pain does not exist in the fire, 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
Pound an almond, and the clear white color will be altered into a dirty one
and the sweet taste into an oily one. What real alteration can the beating of
the pestle make in any body but an alteration of the texture of it?
The mind is entirelypassive in the reception ofsimple ideas
The mind takes an active role in the formation ofcomplex ideas in the
following ways:
(1) It combines several simple ideas to form a complex idea the simple
ideas liquid, brown, hot, bitterget combined to form the idea ofcoffee
(2) It summons two or more ideas and compares them to yield relations
one cup of coffee is hotterthan 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, bitter liquid, and not that it is traditionally served in mugs,
served by coffee shops, etc.
Using these mental operations, 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; we
have control over the structures that are built with these materials
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
7/24
Complex ideas fall into the following categories:
Modes: complex ideas that do not contain in them the supposition of
subsisting by themselves, but are considered as dependences on or affections
of substances, such as are the ideas signified by the words triangle,gratitude, murder, etc.
Substances: such combinations of simple ideas as are taken to represent
distinct particular things subsisting by themselves, in which the supposed or
confused ideas of substance, such as it is, is always the first and chief. Thus
if to substance is joined the simple idea of a certain dull whitish color, with
certain degrees of weight, hardness, ductility, and fusibility, we have the
idea ofleadand a combination of the ideas of a certain sort of figure withthe powers of motion.
Relations: a complex idea which consists in the consideration and
comparing one idea with another
One of the most basic ideas we have is thesimple idea ofspace
We do not possess the idea of space innately; rather we receive this idea
fromsightand 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, but this cannot be correct
I can conceive of space and body separately, and therefore, by Descartess
own criterion of identity (recall his argument for dualism), they must be
distinct things
I cannot conceive of body without conceiving of the space that it takes up,
but I can conceive of space as being distinct from body
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
8/24
Bodies offerresistance to the motion of other bodies; indeed, 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 apart of space and put it somewhere else
The parts of a body can be separated from one another
Space is immovable again, 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, then it is not empty; if it is a mode, then it is a mode
of a substance, and therefore, is not empty
If it is demanded (as usually it is) whether thisspace void ofbody is
substance oraccident, I shall readily answer I do not know; nor shall be
ashamed to own my ignorance, until they who ask show me a clear distinct
idea ofsubstance.
What is so unclear about the idea of substance?
Most thinkers claim that God, souls, and corporeal bodies are made of
different kinds of substance, and yet, no one seems able to explain what
makes them distinct
Why must qualities inhere in anything?
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
9/24
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 elephants back, and the
elephant rests on the back of a tortoise, and so on
Those who talk about accidents inhering in substance dont know what
theyre talking about
Thus, 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, and that bodies can beannihilated by God, for example then we must admit the existence of
empty space (a vacuum)
For 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, 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.
What does this mean?
If there were no empty space, 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, which makes it
possible to displace the bits of concrete
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
10/24
Like our idea of space, our idea of time is not innate
Unlike our idea of space, however, our idea of time does not arise through
sensation
Instead, it arises as a result of ourreflection 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:
...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
mens senses, taken notice of to exist together, and are therefore supposed to
flow from the particular internal constitution or unknown essence of that
substance.
We do not, in fact, have an idea of substances shorn of every attribute or of
their unknown essences; our complex ideas of substances are composed of
the observable qualities that they manifest
This applies to both corporeal and spiritual substances:
And thus, by putting together the ideas of thinking, perceiving, liberty, and
power of moving themselves and other things, we have as clear a perception
and notion of immaterial substances as we have of material.
Since our complex ideas include only the observable qualities manifested by
their objects, we cannothave an idea of substance itself, given that
substance by itself possesses no qualities
Our complex idea of God is not innate, but arrived at through reflection:
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
11/24
...having, from what we experiment in ourselves, gotten the ideas of
existence and duration, of knowledge and power, of pleasure and happiness,
and of several other qualities and powers, which it is better to have than to
be without. When we would frame an idea the most suitable we can to thesupreme being, we enlarge every one of these with our idea of infinity, and
so putting them together make our complex idea of God.
Finally, even my idea of myselfis apprehended through reflection
What is it about me that makes me who I am?
What accounts for my stablepersonal identity?
A more general question: what is essentialto somethings identity?
It depends on what kindof thing it is
In the case ofinanimate objects, theirmaterial 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, it becomes
something else
Livingthings must be treated differently
You may cut branches off an oak tree, and yet it remains the same tree; how
is that?
Because what is essential to living things is not their material composition,
but theirorganization
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
12/24
The oak remains the same despite the loss of its branches because its
principal life systems continue to function as they did before, e.g., its leaves
continue to absorb sunlight to produce sugar
These systems maintain the same life over time the identity of living thingsremains the same over time as long as they are living
What makes a living thing a person?
What is essential topersonalidentity?
It cannot be a persons body (materialism)
Human bodies are constantly changing, e.g., just this morning I drank two
cups of coffee, does that mean that I am a different person now than I was
when I woke up?
What about an immaterialsoul(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 thesame soul for our entire lives?
How can I be sure that my soul didnt also belong to Napoleon Bonaparte?
The soul is unobservable I cannot check my soul to make sure that it
hasnt changed and that it did not once belong to Napoleon
But I know that I am the same person that I was yesterday, and I am quite
certain that I am not Napoleon Bonaparte
The immaterial soul, therefore, cannot constitute personal identity
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
13/24
This is not to say that persons do not have bodies or souls; Locke is simply
pointing out that the issue ofpersonal 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
Kafkas Metamorphosis
What is it that remains the same in the scenario in which I wake up a
cockroach?
Lockes answer: it is my conscious awareness that remains the same
My thoughts, aptitudes, memories, desires, tastes, and pet-peeves do not
change
I have a uniquestream of consciousness that makes me the person that I am
What is essential to a rivers identity is not the water molecules that it
contains, nor the objects and living things that can be found in the river, nor
even the path of the river (rivers are diverted and damned all the time), butits history
Similarly, what is crucial to a persons identity is the series of their
conscious states
For it is by consciousness it has of its present thoughts and actions that it is
selfto itselfnow, and so will be the sameself, as far as the same
consciousness can extend to actions past or to come, and would be bydistance of time, or change of substance, no more twopersons than a man is
two men by wearing other clothes today than he did yesterday, with a long
or a short sleep between. The same consciousness uniting those distant
actions into the sameperson, whatever substances contributed to their
production.
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
14/24
When you lose a finger (lets say it has been severed), though it remains
your finger, it is no longer part of yourself; why is that?
Because you are no longerconscious of what is happening to your finger:you would not have a sensation of cold if it were put into a bucket of ice, nor
would you have a sensation of pain if it were pricked with a pin
If, in some kind of science fiction scenario, you were conscious only of what
was happening to your finger and not the rest of your body, then we would
say that your body is no longer part of your self
If, in some other weird scenario, all of the ideas and memories that occur toyou, simultaneously occur to some other mind, 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, but yourawareness them is
In short, we say that two persons are distinct, not because they have different
bodies or different minds, but because they are conscious of different ideas,
that is, different thoughts, memories, perceptions, etc.
What makes you the same person over time is the psychological continuity
of your consciousness (thestream of consciousness provides us with a useful
image here) you dont suddenly become aware of a whole new set of ideas
A single mind and body may host more than one person, that is, more than
one stream of consciousness
But if it be possible for the same man to have distinct incommunicable
consciousness at different times, it is past doubt the same man would at
different times make different persons.
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
15/24
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: If the same Socrates waking and sleeping do not partake of the sameconsciousness, Socrates waking and sleeping is not the same person.
Person, Locke says, is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their
merit, and so belongs only to intelligent agents capable of a law, and
happiness, and misery.
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, but because you will be conscious of the unpleasantness of it
When we punish someone, we do not mean to (directly) punish their bodies
or their minds, but rather, we aim to punish theperson who is conscious of
their unethical actions
When we punish a person by torturing or jailing them, our primary intention
is not to damage their body or mind, but to affect theirconsciousness bycausing them misery and preventing happiness
If a criminals punishment does not induce unpleasant ideas, i.e., sensations,
thoughts, fears, etc., 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?
Couldnt 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, then they
alter your personality, in effect, making you someone else
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
16/24
We punish such people because we cannotprove that they were not the same
person when they committed the crime
Philosophy 2202F:Early Modern Philosophy
Lecture #11: LockesEssay, Book 4
Recall that knowledge, for Descartes, is the apprehension of clear and
distinct ideas by the intellect
According to Locke, knowledge is the perception of the agreement ordisagreement of two or more ideas
Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the
connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnance, of any of our
ideas. In this alone it consists. Where this perception is, there is knowledge,
and where it is not, there, though we may fancy, guess, or believe, yet we
always come short of knowledge.
Insofar as all of our ideas originate in experience i.e. perception and
reflection all of our knowledge originates in experience
Ideas can agree/disagree in four respects:
1. Identity or diversity
2. Relation
3. Coexistence or necessary connection
4. Real existence
Identity/diversity
Every idea is identical to itself; no two ideas are identical
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
17/24
My idea ofwhite is the same every time I perceive or reflect on it
My idea ofwhite is not identical to my idea ofround
This is so absolutely necessary that without it there could be no knowledge,no reasoning, no imagination, no distinct thoughts, at all.
Relation
Two or more ideas stand in relations with respect to one another
Your dog is thesame size as my dog
Your dog is older than my dog
My dog isfriendlier than your dog
Coexistence/necessary connection
Certain ideas are commonly experienced together
Thus, when we pronounce concerninggoldthat it is fixed, our knowledge
of this truth amounts to no more but this that fixedness, or a power to remain
in the fire unconsumed, is an idea that always accompanies, and is joined
with that particular sort of yellowness, weight, fusibility, malleableness, and
solubility in aqua regia, which make our complex ideas, signified by the
wordgold.
The word silver picks out a different set of ideas, as do the words water
and unicorn
Real existence
Gold, silver, and water exist, unicorns dont
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
18/24
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 dont
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, withouthaving 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
This part of knowledge is irresistible, and like bright sunshine forces itself
immediately to be perceived, as soon as ever the mind turns its view that
way, and leaves no room for hesitation, doubt, or examination, but the mind
is presently filled with the clear light of it. It is on this intuition that depends
all the certainty and evidence of all our knowledge; this certainty everyone
finds to be so great that he cannot imagine and therefore not require a
greater.
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, or what we call
reasoning
This is demonstrative knowledge
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
19/24
We do not know by intuitive inspection that the three interior angles of a
triangle equal two right angles, for the sums of these angles cannot be
directly compared
Instead, we derive this result from knowledge that is intuitive, i.e., the
definitions, axioms, and postulates of Euclidean geometry
Euclids Axiom #2: If equals be added to equals, the sums are equal
The axioms of geometry are known intuitively, the theorems are known
demonstrably
The axiomatic method ought to be used not only in mathematics, but in the
other sciences as well to arrive at general laws of nature
NewtonsPrincipia
In addition to general laws of nature, we have knowledge of the existence of
particularobjects and properties
There is a coffee cup on the desk
This knowledge is arrived at through neither reflection nor reasoning, but by
way of thesenses for this reason we call itsensitive knowledge
Sensitive knowledge is not nearly as certain as intuitive and demonstrative
knowledge, but we nevertheless have good reason to trust it
But how do we know that we can trust it? After all, I sometimes have ideas
of objects and/qualities when they do not exist mirages, dreams, etc.
If anyone says a dream may do the same thing, and all these ideas may be
produced in us without any external objects, he may please to dream that I
make him this answer: 1. That it is no great matter, whether I remove his
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
20/24
scruple or not; where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no
use, truth and knowledge nothing. 2. That I believe he will allow a very
manifest difference between dreaming of being in the fire and being actually
in it.
Because knowledge consists in our apprehension of the
agreement/disagreement of our ideas, knowledge cannot outstrip our ideas
we cannot have knowledge of something we have not yet experienced in
perception or reflection
Our ideas, however, will always outstrip our knowledge
We have the ideas ofmatterand thinking, but we cannot know whether ornot 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.e. the coexistence of ideas
cannot be attained in the same way, as Descartes had supposed (recall the
piece of wax example)
Individual substances, like gold, are complex ideas made up of several
simple ideas: heavy, yellow, malleable, fusible, etc.
But there is no necessary connection between these simple ideas
Furthermore, there is no observable connection between a substances
primary qualities the size, shape, and motion of its particles and its
secondary qualities its color, taste, sound
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
21/24
In vain therefore shall we endeavour to discover by ourideas (the only true
way of certain and universal knowledge) what otherideas are to be found
constantly joined with that of our complex idea of any substances. [...] Our
knowledge in all these inquiries reaches very little further than our
experience.
What about our knowledge ofreal 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, then she would have controlover them, but she doesnt
First, the first are simple ideas, which since the mind, as has been shown,
can by no means make to itself, must necessarily be the product of things
operating on the mind in a natural way, and producing in there those
perceptions which by the wisdom and will of our maker they are ordained
and adapted to.
We do not have the same guarantee in the case of complex ideas, 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, malleable, yellow metal accompany my idea
of a fusible metal
Insofar as these ideas continue to be found together, we may conclude that
our complex idea of gold corresponds to a real substance
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
22/24
He who sees a fire may, if he doubts whether it is anything more than a
bare fancy, feel it too, and be convinced by putting his hand in it, which
certainly could never be put into such exquisite pain by a bare idea or
phantom, unless the pain is a fancy too. This yet he cannot, when the burn is
well, by raising the idea of it, bring upon himself again.
As to myself, I think God has given me assurance enough of the existence
of things without me, since by their different application I can produce in
myself both pleasure and pain, which is one great concern of my present
state.
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, they are worthy of assent
beliefs need not be indubitable, but only beneficial
We know only about the existence of the things that we are presently
perceiving
It is highlyprobable that my cat exists, but since I am not perceiving him
right now, I cannot know this to be the case
how vain, I say, it is to expect demonstration and certainty in things not
capable of it, and refuse assent to very rational propositions, and act contrary
to very plain and clear truths, because they cannot be made out so evident as
to surmount every least (I will not say reason, but) pretense of doubting. He
who, in the ordinary affairs of life, would admit of nothing but direct plain
demonstration would be sure of nothing in this world, but of perishing
quickly. The wholesomeness of his meat or drink would not give him
reason to venture on it.
Can we know thatsouls exist?
We determine what exists on the basis of our perceptions
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
23/24
Souls are in principle unperceivable
Therefore, we cannot know that souls exist we must take it onfaith
Can we know that God exists?
Though god has given us no innate ideas of himself, though he has stamped
no original characters on our minds in which we may read his being, yet
having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he has
not left himself without witness, since we have sense, perception, and
reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him, as long as we carry ourselves
about us.
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 thefirst cause must be an eternalbeing, otherwise it would have had to
have been created by something else, and thus, contrary to our assumption,
would not have been the first cause
The first cause must be morepowerfulthan all of creation, for the power of
all created things must exist first in their creator powers too must come
from something
For the same reason, 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, all powerful, all knowing being this is God
8/7/2019 modern notes lieb lock
24/24
From what has been said, 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.
Our knowledge of God is demonstrative (not sensitive), but not innate