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;
55 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
3 main orientations in the history of philosophy
|
1. Ancient philosophers (classical Greeks)
2. Moderns 3. 20th Century Philosophers |
|
|
Ancient Philosophers
|
450BCE-300CE, Classical Greeks--Worried about questions of nature of being. Ontological questions. Gives priority to the nature of being. They have the world as their main focus. If you break down the world, what do you have? Some people say there are little particles. They are concerned with these things. Concerned with what exists if anything.
|
|
|
Moderns
|
16th - 18th Century--Still concerned with questions of existence. BUT they aren't as concerned because they believe the earth revolves around the sun and we aren't the center of the universe. Emphasis is now on us as being explorers/scientists. WE want to answer questions about knowledge. We have to figure out if we can actually access the world. They have an epistemological orientation, which ives priority to knowledge. (For instance, what are the conditions for knowledge?)
John locke and John Kant are examples many write on similar topics as the ancients but through a different lens. |
|
|
20th Century Philosophers
|
Linguistic orientation--from the 18th century on there's a move to the US linguistic oritentation which gives priority to meaning and language. They don't think we can answer questions of knowledge until we answer questions of linguistic because we think linguistically.
|
|
|
Arguement
|
Structured set of statements at least one of which is reason to believe another of the statements is true. We're trying to prove some conclusion by offering some reasons grounds and support for believing the conclusion.
|
|
|
2 types of arguments
|
1. Deductive-Necessary reasoning
2. Inductive-Probabalistic reasoning. These don't prove, they suggest. |
|
|
Deductive
|
These employ necessary reasoning.
P1 Flynn is obstinate today. P2. Obstinate means stubborn C. Flynn is stubborn. |
|
|
Inductive
|
These employ probabalistic reasoning. They don't prove, they suggest.
P1. I have played my brother in tennis over 100 times and have always won. P2. I am playing my brother in tennis this afternoon. C. I wll beat him in tennis this afternoon, |
|
|
Deductive Test
|
Checking if a deductive arguement is valid.
1. Assume premisies true/ 2. See if the conclusion can be false given 1. Of so the arguement is invalid. If not the argument is valid. |
|
|
Checking deductive for soundness
|
See if all premisies are true. If so sound. If not unsound.
|
|
|
Inductive arguments are checked for? By doing what?
|
Strength
1. Assume the premises are true 2. Check to see if it's highly likely that the conclusion is true. |
|
|
Implication
|
Does statement 1 imply statement 2?
P1. Marianne was late to the last sixteen yoga classes. P2. Marianne was late to last Wed;s class and there hasn't been a yoga class since then. A. Yes because there hasn't been a class since then. |
|
|
P1. Marianne was late to the last sixteen yoga classes.
P2. Marianne was late to last Wed;s class and there hasn't been a yoga class since then. Is this an example of implication? |
A. Yes because there hasn't been a class since then.
|
|
|
1. Hillary earned more points on the test than anyone else in class.
2. Hillary earned an A on the test. Is this an example of implication? |
No because we don't know if she got an A.
|
|
|
Consistency and compatibility
|
Asks if the statements can all be true at the same time.
A. Africa is a continent. B. George Washington crossed the Deleware. These are consistent and compatible. |
|
|
A. 12 x 12 - 105.196
B. Grass is pink Are these statements compatible/consistent? |
Yes
|
|
|
A. Gerald Ford was the greatest US president of all time.
B. George Bush was the greatest US president of all time. Are these statements compatible/consistent? |
NO.
|
|
|
Which argument did Anselm make?
|
The ontological argument.
|
|
|
What does Anselm try to do in his argument
|
He tries to prove God's existence rationally using a deductive argument.
|
|
|
What type of argument is Anselm making?
|
Deductive
|
|
|
Why do we want to try to prove God's existence rationally?
|
Could be a tool for conversion to their belief. Tool/step in a framework to move on and tell why he is so important. Helps build a moral structure. People say free will and the purpose of life are based on Gods existence.
|
|
|
Anselm background information
|
Anselm was a Catholic theologian. (1033-1109). He was a Benedictine monk. WE attribute the ontological argument to him. This is a deductive argument which employs necessary reasoning. IF his premisies are true then his conclusion MUST be true.
|
|
|
Reductio ad absurdum
|
(absurd proof) You assume something you believe is false and try to find a contradiction.
|
|
|
What type of argument specifically does Anselm's Ontological argument employ?
|
Deductive
Reductio ad absurdum-Which assume something you believe is false and look for a contradiction. |
|
|
What type of premesies does Anselm use in the Ontological argument?
|
He uses a priori premises.. A priori premises are things independent of experience (the premises are true in virtue of their meaning, no experience is necessary).
|
|
|
Examples of a priori premises
|
2 + 2 = 4
All bachelors are unmarried men (true by def. so don't have to prove) |
|
|
Examples of a posteriori premises
|
The earth is round (can be disputed).
Grass is green, snow is white (there's no contradiction to thinking that grass could be blue) |
|
|
Anselm's ontological argument who is the target?
|
His target is the "fool" or in our terms, the non-believer. He wants to do what he can to convince the non-believer.
|
|
|
Ontological Argument P1.
|
He sets up the reductio. Let's assume that you're right God doesn't exist in reality.
P1. God doesn't exist in reality. (assumed for reductio) |
|
|
Ontological Argument P2.
|
God exists in the understanding.
|
|
|
Ontological argument P3.
|
God is the greatest possible being (true by def.)
|
|
|
Ontological argument P4
|
If something exists in the understanding and does not exist in reality, then it is possible for it to be greater than it is.
(here's where we start to wonder how Anselm thinks about existence. Also raises different degrees of understanding he thinks things exist in the understanding but not in reality. Such as Harry Potter. He thinks things such as tables exist more really because they exist in existence. P4. really does all the work. If James Bond exists in understanding and does not exist in reality, it is possible for it to be greater than it really is. If James Bond was a real person, he would be greater than the imaginary character.) |
|
|
Ontological argument P5
|
God exists in understanding and does not exist in reality. (Combines P1, God does not exist in reality, and P2 God exists in understanding).
|
|
|
Ontological argument P6
|
It is possible for God to be greater than God is. (Conjoins P4, If something exists in understanding and not in reality, then it is possible for it to be greater than it is and P5, God exists in understanding and does not exist in reality.)
|
|
|
Ontological argument P7 and Conclusion
|
It is possible for the greatest possible being to be greater than it is (Conjoins P3 God is the greatest possible being with P6 It is possible for the greatest possible being to be greater than it is.
C. Therefore, God exists in reality. |
|
|
The problem or reductio Anselm concludes is:
|
How can the greatest possible being be greater than God is. This shows the first statement is false so God does exist in reality.
|
|
|
What is one problem with Anselm's argument that critics say makes the argument not a good argument.
|
One problem is that you could use this same argument to support the fact that Harry Potter exists in reality. Thisisn't true. This is a valid argument but not ideal.
|
|
|
Which premises can we look at in Ontological argument for breakdown.
|
We can examine P2 and P4. If we take it as face value the argument is valid. However, we question if the argument is sound. He beliees he has shown the atheist he is wrong because it'd be like saying Bob was the murderer, however, Bob was at the movies at the time the murder was committed. This can't be true bcecause we are at the movies and can't be here and there.
|
|
|
Gaunilo background info
|
11th Century theologian who writes in direct response to Anselm. He takes the position of the fool. Benedictine monk.
|
|
|
Gaunilo P1.
|
If anselm's argument is valid and sound, then we ought to be able to substitute a term signifying any particular type of being for Anselm's term being in the description the "the greatest possible being" and not affect the truth of the propositions in which it occurs.
(If we substitute a noun in for being and it makes the argument go from true to false, then the argument isn't valid and sound) |
|
|
Gaunilo P2.
|
This is so because Anselm's term being is a general term applying to all things which exist and what is true of a general term is also true of the particular terms it covers.
(Why is P1 true? Because being is a general term. Such as cat which covers all types of cat such as Siamese, hairless, carter ect. It's not as if he names a particular term, he covers a variety of terms.) |
|
|
Gaunilo P3
|
So if we substitute the term island for Anselm's term being, then by his argument we can prove the necessary existence of the greatest possible island.
(If you can use this argument, why can't we use this argument. Instead we swap a specific term "island". This doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the island, so the argument must be invalid. |
|
|
Gaunilo P4
|
There is no greatest possible island.
|
|
|
Gaunilo Conclusion
|
Therefore, Anselm's argument proves too much and therefore fails.
|
|
|
Anselm says what about human beings?
|
He says human beings exist in reality. Anselm says to exist in reality is greater then to exist in understanding. So it must be that God if he's the greatest possible being exists in reality or we would be greater than him.
|
|
|
What does Gaunilo say about the fact we can think about things?
|
Gaunilo says the fact we can think about things doesn't mean it actually exists just because we can think about it. What clouded our vision was the notion of God isn't thought of as a specific thing. If I describe a child to you or an island you can picture it but just because you can picture it and think about it doens't mean it necessarily exists.
|
|
|
Kant background information
|
18th century German philosopher. 1724-1804. He's thinking alot about language. Looks at a sentence such as God is omnipotent.
Says being omnipotent is a property. What does it mean when we ascribe things properties |
|
|
Kant P1.
|
To think about any object at all we must suppose that it exists. That is, we suppose that if Phi anything exists, then phi has properties x, y, z.
|
|
|
Kant P2
|
However, phi need not exist for to inquire into phi's existence we must determine whether or not our concept of phi actually picks out something in the world.
(WE can think about a kid even if he doesn't exist. We can think about Harry Potter who def. doesn't exist. We still assign properties to him. To see if he exists we'd have to go out into the world and find him). |
|
|
Kant P3
|
This we cannot do through reason alone. Reason at most allows us to specify what properties an object would have if it existed.
(Reason will allow us to decide what properties it would have if it existed. But it doesn't allow us to tack on existence. If someone went into our room would James bond sit in the corner afraid? No we know he wouldn't be afraid we can give him his characteristics but we can't give him existence. WE need sensory proof to prove things exist.) |
|
|
Kant conclusion
|
We must investigate the world in order to establish the existence of some entity.
|
|
|
What does Gaunilo try to show about Anselm's argument?
|
Gaunilo just tries to show if Anselm's argument is literla, then any existing thing should be able to be substituted. Gaunilo says yeah, but that doesn't work in actuality. So now we have a problem. you've tried to prove too much. we don't want to have to say neverland and atlantis exist.
|
|
|
What does Kant say about Anselm's argument
|
Kant says you're inflating the concept of existence. When you imagine a scenario like when you read a book you imagine the story by imaginging they exist then ascribing properties such as Rapunzel's long hair. This certainly isn't proof Rapunzel exists, you'd have to go out into the world to prove Rapunzel exists. Thinking cannot prove existence.
|
|
|
Inductive argument strength/weakness
|
Inductive arguments are those where it is improbable for the premises to be true and there be a false conclusion.
If this claim is true then it is a strong argument. If it's not improbable to have true premises and a false conclusion it is said to be a weak inductive argument. |
|
|
Inductive argument cogency/uncogency
|
Inductive arguments are said to be cogent when it is both strong and has all true premises.This is the ideal inductive argument.
|
