Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
42 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is Philosophy
|
“Philosophy is an intellectual discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts, principles, and features of the world and our interaction with the world and one another.”
|
|
|
Why “the love of wisdom” is such a bad answer.
|
Problem 1: The answer is descriptively flawed.
Problem 2: The answer is minimally informative. Problem 3: It answers the wrong question. Problem 4: It is the wrong answer to the wrong question. |
|
|
The characterization of philosophy that I gave (including qualifications): know these
various parts, and be able to give examples of them from the class. |
characteristics:
-it is an intellectual discipline. -aimed at knowledge not a physical product as in engineering for example -asks general questions not particular -nonempirical approach -fundamental and general concepts and principles -fundamental and general features of the world -and the relationship to the world and to one another |
|
|
The general historical picture of philosophy (the periods, the origin, the relationship with
science) [not dates]. |
Ancient:
pre-socratics. scientific questions especially why do things change? Rational explanation as opposed to supernatural explanation. opposition to sophistry (the art of persuasion, verbal trickery and smoke & mirrors). philosophy aimed at truth. at that point included all areas of intellectual inquiry. Medieval: mostly church leaders. mostly philosophy of religion. Modern: breaking away of sciences. Descartes is the father of modern philosophy. 1. not so focused on christian church. 2. understanding of physical world. 3. special interest in epistemology Contemporary: Kant ended modern and lead into contemporary. continues breaking away from sciences. |
|
|
Familiarity with subdivisions/questions of philosophy, especially the following:
epistemology, ethics, philosophy of action, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion. |
epistemology - the study of knowledge
ethics - how we should live our lives; morality is 90% of ethics; also friendship, love, happiness. philosophy of action - what is an action? and what leads to action? logic - study of inference (logic studies language, the laboratory of philosophy!) philosophy of mind - the nature of the mental philosophy of religion - prove/disprove the existence of God |
|
|
(new) Value of philosophy: the distinctions I drew (career-value vs. non-career value, etc.);
|
Jensen: career value-> specific career value (direct specific career value and indirect specific career value) and general career value.
non-career value-> to society and to individual (knowledge, skills, attitudes) for more details see the handout. |
|
|
Russell’s views
|
value is primarily to those that study philosophy. problems are not answerable. shows familiar things in unfamiliar ways. philosophy helps enlarge ourselves to talk about more questions. philosophy pursues reasonable questions. these questions are a reasonable pursuit
|
|
|
Understand what logic is (as a subdivision of philosophy)
|
logic is the study of inference. not about if a specific argument is good or bad but about what makes an argument good or bad. not concerned with the truthfulness of an argument, only about the structure of it.
|
|
|
Argument
|
(connected series of statements or proposition, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition.)
|
|
|
Premise
|
(A proposition upon which an argument is based or whim which a conclusion is drawn.)
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
(A statement that purports to follow from another or other premises by means of an argument.)
|
|
|
Deductive argument
|
(an argument that provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true.)
|
|
|
Inductive argument
|
(argument intended to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In other words, the premises are strong that if they were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.)
|
|
|
Valid and invalid argument
|
(A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if takes the form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false otherwise, a deductive argument is invalid.)
|
|
|
Sound and unsound argument
|
(A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.)
|
|
|
Why logic is especially important to philosophy/philosophers
|
logic is the basis of language. need to understand arguments/logic to understand language. is this right??? Language is the lab of knowledge, and like all scientific labs, it must be clean. language is the laboratory of philosophy, and logic helps us evaluate that language!
|
|
|
Understand what philosophy of religion is (as a subdivision of philosophy).
|
studies the nature of religious belief and faith. what makes faith?
|
|
|
Divine command ethics and the problems with it. (Euthyphro)
|
The idea that whether something is wrong or not depends on if God commands it.
advantages: -gives a clear and easy answer. makes people shut up. -god’s omnipotence is lifted to its highest. problems: -risks being a circular argument. -possibly arbitrary -counterintuitive results: commandments that are morally wrong? -not all commandments of god are moral or immoral. some just are commandments (going to church, praying, studying the scriptures, drinking coffee....) -god is bound by laws. cannot make up morality -puts justice of god into questions since he made the rules. then why are they so hard? -atonement. if god made rules why not make it easier so we don’t need the atonement and no one has to suffer. -morality exists independently of god. |
|
|
Ontological Proof for the existence of God, including response to it / problems with
it |
There are 3 proofs for the existence of God.
the Ontological proof is: 1) God is perfect 2) existence is a perfection C) God exists the problem: who says it is better to exist than to not exist?? how can we even compare this? the next proof is cosmological something has to start it all, a first cause that is un-caused problem: this just gives us a force, not necessarily a loving God the last proof is the argument from Design the complexity of the world is so great, there MUST be a God problem: hard to measure complexity note: the contemporary explanation deals with the big bang theory! but..where did all the stuff come from to bang? (goes along with cosmological proof) |
|
|
Understand what philosophy of action is (as a subdivision of philosophy).
|
Philosophy of action is the branch of philosophy that deals with what constitutes an action and what sort of things go into creating an action
hume says that all action is motivated by the passions and feelings. we do something because we feel disapproval or approval towards that action. reason does in no way motivate the will nor our actions. kant says that our actions are motivated through reason and duty. |
|
|
Understand Kant’s argument that we are free
|
I am free
I can cause things independent of alien forces there is some law that governs my behavior this law cannot be imposed on me externally it must be a law I give to myself therefore, I am bound by the moral law (the formula of autonomy=self-law giving) the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IS TRUE OF ME |
|
|
Understand Hume’s view of action.
|
all action starts with a passion
reason does not influence the will, it is merely instrumental reason does not oppose passion in the direction of the will reason does not give rise to moral distinctions reason only indirectly affects action, with a desire already there 1) demonstrative reasoning: the relationship between 2 ideas (math 2+2=4) 2) probabilistic reasoning: the relationship between two objects (cause & effect) |
|
|
[I’m not asking textual questions from the Meno other than the paradox of learning.]
|
the paradox of learning:
knowledge requires verification; however, how can we verify without already knowing the information? |
|
|
Understand what ethics is (as a subdivision of philosophy).
|
ethics is the study of how one should live their life
90% of ethics is morality |
|
|
Relativism and its problems.
|
relativism is variance from perspective to perspective
the problems: (I am assuming we are talking about individual and cultural relativism?) morality then offers no guidance cultural relativism: is degenerates into individual relativism hard to define which group one belongs to hard to know what to do general incoherence change cannot come about. if everything is relative, there is no basis for revolution! |
|
|
Hume’s view of the functions/principles of reason.
|
argument: 1. reason works in 2 ways: demonstrative and probablistic
2. demonstrative (ideas like math) does not influence action 3. probablistic (objects) does not influence action C. reason does not influence action argument 2: 1. if reason could go against passions towards the will, then reason could bring forth passions. 2. if reason could bring passions, it could influence the will 3. reason cannot influence will. C. reason cannot go against passion towards the will. |
|
|
The implications of Hume’s view for ethics.
|
argument 3: 1. morality influences action/will.
2. reason does not influence action/will C. reason does not determine morality |
|
|
How Kant is responding to Hume.
|
basically, hume believes that sentiments and bad feelings constitute the moral worth of a situation, and that those feelings of discomfort are innate in all of us, are universal.However, Kant says that 1) it is hard to define a universal passion (some people feel bad for certain things while others do not) and 2) the moral worth of something is independent of our desires or feelings; they are rational principles of action that are not supposed to appeal to our desires, they are universal, absolute laws (categorical imperative)
|
|
|
Understand the basic Kantian strategy in ethics.
|
just as there is a principle of thought (like the modus ponens) there is a principle of action (reason). imperative the ought or should to do something. it carries the possibility to decide not to do it. god does not have imperatives.
-rules of skill: genuine hypothetical imperatives. conditional imperative -prudential: counsel of prudence is to make us happy. non genuine imperatives. -categorical imperative: supreme rule of morality. maxim could become a universal law. |
|
|
Understand some basic Kantian views and terminology (section 1 & 2 readings).
Be familiar with Kant’s argument that we are bound by morality (section 3). |
This is just a very basic idea of the proof (I’ll edit it once I have my notes). The proof basically says something like this.
1. We are free 2. If we are free, we must be bound by some kind of law 3. This law cannot physically stop us from making choices. 4. The law to which we are bound must be moral. or this:) 1. we are free (freedom of the will) 2. if 1, then we cause things independent of alien forces 3. there is some law that governs my behavior 4. this law cannot be imposed on my externally 5. it must be law i give to myself (formula of autonomy) c) if we are free, then we are bound by the moral law in which we give ourselves **categorical imperative |
|
|
Understand the paradox of learning, Socrates response, the correct response.
|
The Paradox: In order to know something, we must verify the facts and the source of the facts. We cannot verify something unless we know it.
What is Socrates’ response?That the soul is immortal and has all knowledge already. When we learn, we are simply recollecting what we already know |
|
|
(new) Understand the problem of skepticism, Descartes’ arguments for it (Med. 1).
|
he can doubt universal
there is either a God, or there is not a God if there is one, He might have made me so that I could be wrong/deceived about universals if I was made by natural processes, then I have even more reason to believe I can be wrong THEREFORE, I can doubt universals (skeptic) |
|
|
Understand what a priori knowledge is.
|
A priori knowledge is knowledge justified independent of the senses
|
|
|
Understand the problem of induction.
|
how does any past particular experience justify any generalizations of the future? we encounter daily inconsistencies all the time! there are no pink swans!!!
|
|
|
Understand rationalism versus empiricism.
|
Rationalists: believe in knowledge beyond the sense (not based on sensory observation ALONE)
Empiricism: knowledge is only justified through the senses (based on sensory observation) |
|
|
[With regard to Descartes, I want you to know the first two Meditations, and the second
proof for the existence of God (on the handout).] |
i think he means the ontological proof because i am pretty sure i remember him saying that is all we need to know about that.
|
|
|
(new) Understand the problem of skepticism about external beliefs, including Putnam’s
response in Brains in a Vat (know the handout, the first couple of sections of the article). |
how do we know that the external world exists? how do we know we are not just brains in a vat?
argument: if you are a brain in a vat, you cannot genuinely think you are (genuine thought has external reference) you can genuinely think that you are C) you are not a brain in a vat magical theory of reference: pictures and objects represent something, because they just do. no basis for reference turing’s test machine of consciousness how do you know if it is conscious? if you cannot tell the difference if someone uses the words we say are they real words? NO. there is no external reference behind it. the machine cannot have a genuine thought that is not programmed to respond with. |
|
|
Understand the philosophy of mind (as a subdivision of philosophy)
|
nature of the mental relationship of the mind and the external, physical world
what a mere belief is, desire, mental causation |
|
|
Understand the mind-body problem (what is the problem?)
|
the mind body problem: is the mind even a non-physical thing? what is it? and if it is, how does it interact with the physical world?
|
|
|
Understand the options we looked at, and their problems: dualism, physicalism
(behaviorism & brain state theory) |
REDUCTIONISTS
physicalism the theory that only physical things exist behaviorism: mental states are just behaviors where you fear loss ex: pain: screaming behavior problems with behaviorism: -difficulty in forming identities -the mental state is supposed to CAUSE the behavior, not be identical to it -not all mental states manifest themselves physically brain state theory everything is a brain state (pain=a brain state, no mind, no spirit, thoughts=brain state) -type-type identity everyone has the same set of neurons activate when they think certain things or feel certain things -type-token identity there is just some type of brain activity going on problems: we have not come close to mapping this! plasticity of the brain NON-REDUCTIONISTS dualism: both the physical world and the mind (as a non-physical entity) exist! interactionalist dualists: they interact! (Descartes) non-interactionalist dualist: God set up pre-established harmony. the physical interacts with the physical, the non with the non. occasionalism: at each moment, God causes both the non and the physical to occur. but they do not directly interact together |
|
|
Understand Nagel’s criticism of physicalism: consciousness, why it can’t be reduced
|
consciousness cannot be reduced according to Nagel, unless we come up with a new language and concepts
to reduce to physical things would take away the subjective character of experience, making it not subjective anymore. to take something subjective and make it objective is taking away all personal experience and feeling, the only thing that MAKES something subjective to begin with! ( it is TIED to perspective) what would it be like for A BAT TO BE A BAT, not what it would be like for us to be a bat the mind body problem can be solved in the future (I think that is what he said..but then again I don’t know for sure! someone check that!) |
|
|
Elder Packer on Salt.
|
what does salt taste like?
-subjective character of experience (we must experience for ourselves, we do not have the language to communicate, nor the ability to feel another’s experience) we cannot express spiritual knowledge in words alone (how can you explain the spirit, if the spirit is a feeling?) |
