Answer the following PHILOSOPHY questions each question should be 5-7 paragraphs long. 1. On what grounds does Locke deny that there are “innate ideas” in the mind? On what grounds does Kant affirm that every thinker must possess certain “a priori concepts” that are not derived from experience? Is there any disagreement between Kant and Locke on this matter? Why or why not 2. Hume thinks we simply cannot avoid believing that things are connected as cause and effect, given our experience of the world. Kant thinks that if we did not believe that things are connected as cause and effect we could not possibly think of or experience a world at all. In what ways, if any, do Hume and Kant disagree on this matter? 3. Berkeley holds that “the senses perceive nothing which they do not perceive immediately, for they make no inferences.” So everything that is perceived depends for its existence on being perceived. Kant holds that in “Judgments of experience” we perceive the way things are around us, which is the way they would be whether they were perceived or not. In what ways do Berkeley and Kant disagree about how we know things about the world by sense-perception? 4. Is everything that Hume would call a “relation of ideas” what Kant would call an “analytic judgment”? If not, why not? If so, does that mean that everything Hume would call a “matter of fact” is what Kant would call a “synthetic judgment”? If so, does Hume have better reasons for believing that every synthetic judgment (or matter of fact) can be known only on the basis of experience than Kant has for the believing that some of them are knowable only a priori?