PHIL 230- Todd Long Final

John Locke

"What makes a man be himself to himself is sameness of consciousness, so personal identity depends entirely upon that, and not on whether the consciousness is tied to one substance throughout or rather is continued in a series of different substances".

Descartes Substance Dualism

**idea that there are 2 substances** Two (and only 2) kind sod substance exist: 1. Mind - the essential property of mind is thinking, and mind is indivisible (doesn't have parts that can come apart) -have powers, such as, understanding, willing, and perceiving, but they are not parts - imaterial soul 2. Body - the essential property of the body is extension (taking up space, being in space), and body is divisible (can be broken up into parts)

Mind Body Complex

- person = mind -human person = mind body complex - mind is not inside the body like a sailor in the ship, but the mind is intermingled and closely joined with the body -example: when a ship has damaged the sailor notices and thinks he must get repairs, but when our body has damages we don't just see it but we also FEEL it - senses should be used as a guide for what is harmful and beneficial to the mind body complex, not as facts about the world

Rene Descartes

-"Father of modern philosophy" -modernism (idea that utopia was important) -too much uncertainty about facts of knowledge -certainty -start a new strong/ firm foundation for knowledge (house)

God and Freewill

-God chose to create a world with freewill and therefore since God is all perfect, a world with freewill must be a more perfect world then one without freewill -freedom is inherently and instrumentally a great good -freewill leads to true love

Error and Will and Intellect

-error is dependent on will -intellect only presents ideas (does not affirm/deny) and therefore does not make judgement -God gave us extensive/perfect will -Will=ability to do/not do something (think,do,believe-not an action) -will and understanding are not to blame for the error -choosing to make judgements (act) on will without full knowledge is to blame (our fault). We chose to use the power of will in err -error is a privation

Meditation 3

-if he can prove the God exists, anything he clearly and distinctly judges (perceives) as clearly and distinctly true is true - this is the only thing that can guaranty our certainty that there is a "being" greater than us (this being has to be all good, all knowing, and all powerful b/c if he wasn't all these attributes then God would be a deceiver)

John Locke

-most work was done once Descarte was red - uses reason instead of truth -human interactions presuppose that people are the same over time

Senses Argument

-no belief based on the sense can go in the "foundation" (no certainty from the senses, sometimes they deceive us) 1. my senses are faculties that have misled me in the past (into believing falsehood) 2. all faculties that have misled me in the past are not trustworthy as a certain indication of truth 3. my senses are not trustworthy as a certain indication of truth [1,2] 4. If (3), then none of the beliefs I have based on sense perception is certain for me C. none of the beliefs i have base don sense perception is certain for me [3,4] (VALID)

Appearance and Reality (Bertrand Russell)

-no table has a color -color changes in different light -no two people will ever see the exact same color -coloris internal but dependent -shape/texture=similar attributes -the real table is not known to us

Meditation One (reconstruction of these ideas)

-senses, dreaming, evil demon (arguments)

Ethics of Beliefs

-should not have beliefs without full understanding -should not exercise will without full understanding of relevant factors

Evil Demon Argument

-there is a being powerful enough to control the world, so there can be something evil that is deceiving him as much as possible -D doesn't believe there's an evil genius 1. it's possible that i'm being deceived as much as possible by an evil genus/demon 2. If (1), then i can't tell for certain, which, if any, of my beliefs are true 3. i can't tell for certain, which, if any, of my beliefs are true [1,2] 4. if (3), then i know nothing for certain C. I know nothing for certain [3,4] (VALID, fails conclusive premises test b/c #2 is false)

Dream Argument

-there's no certainty whether you're awake or asleep (dreaming) -can't distinguish between reality and dreams 1. there are no certain indications that distinguish waking experiences from dreaming experiences 2. if 1 than I don't know for certain that I'm awake right now 3. i don't know for certain that I'm awake right now [1,2] 4. if 3 then none of the beliefs I have based on what I take to be waking experience is certain for me 5. none of the beliefs that have based on what I take to be waking experience is certain for me [3,4] 6. if 5 then none of the scientific /empirical law is certain for me C. none of the scientific/empirical law is certain for me [5,6]

David Hume

. "... each of us is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions that follow each other enormously quickly and are in a perpetual flux and movement".

Thomas Reid

. "My personal identity, therefore, implies the continued existence of that indivisible thing which I call myself".

Descartes Argument for Divisibility

1. All bodily things are spatially extended 2. All spatially extended things are divisible 3. All bodily things are divisible [1,2] 4. The mind is an indivisible thing 5. If (4), then the mind is not a divisible thing 6. The mind is not a divisible thing [4,5] C. The mind is not a bodily thing [3,6] VALID (FAILS: conclusive premises test because premise 4 is false--> multiple personality disorder- 2 centers of personal consciousness)

Argument for External Corporeal Objects

1. God exists and is no deceiver 2. If (1), then all propositions i clearly and distinctly apprehend are true 3. All propositions I clearly and distinctly apprehend are true [1,2] 4. I clearly and distinctly apprehend that my perceptions indicate things existing external to my mind 5. If (3) and (4), then there are thing existing external to my mind C. There are things existing external to my mind [3,4,5] VALID, FAILS conclusive premises test - #1 is not necessarily true - #5 is only true if we know all of Gods motives, which we don't ** Descartes failed project showed us that we can't know for certain anything about science** - his problem stems from his idea that knowledge requires certainty

Freewill Theodicy (explaining error)

1. God has made me with an infinite will 2. God has made me with a finite understanding -the combination of infinite will and finite understanding maker error possible -when will is used without a full understand of a situation I will err

Descartes's Cosmological (causal) Argument A

1. I have an idea of god [an infinite, perfect creator] 2. all ideas have a cause [principle of sufficient reason] 3. my idea of god has a cause [1,2] 4. all causes must have at least as much intrinsic reality as their effects have representative reality 5. the cause of my idea of god must have at least as much intrinsic reality as my idea of god has representative reality [3,4] 6. if 5 then god is the only possible thing with enough intrinsic reality to cause my idea of god 7. god is the only possible thing with enough intrinsic reality to cause my idea of god [5,6] 8. if 7 then god exists C. God exists [7,8] Premise 6 is false -his mind could cause the idea of god -idea of god is an attribute -cause could be an attribute

Descartes's Cosmological (causal) Argument B

1. I have an idea of god [an infinite, perfect creator] 2. all ideas have a cause [principle of sufficient reason] 3. my idea of god has a cause [1,2] 4. all causes must have at least as much intrinsic reality as what their effects are about have representative reality 5. the cause of my idea of god must have at least as much intrinsic reality as what my idea of god is about has representative reality [3,4] 6. if 5 then god is the only possible thing with enough intrinsic reality to cause my idea of god 7. god is the only possible thing with enough intrinsic reality to cause my idea of god [5,6] 8. if 7 then god exists C. God exists [7,8] Premis 4 is wrong -not all effects have an about -all ideas are about something Descartes' tries to save his argument by saying "are about" in premise 4/5 but both argument A and B have flaws

Detailed Version: Meditation 6 Argument

1. If two things are identical, then they have all their properties in common 2. My mind has the property being not-doubtably by me to exist (same as #1 from not detailed version) 3. My body does NOT have the property being not-doubtably by me to exist 4. If (2) and (3), then it's not the cause that my mind and body have all their properties in common 5. It's not the cause that my mind and my body have all their properties in common [2,3,4] C. It's not the case that my mind and my body are identical [1,5] (mind ≠ body) VALID (problem: premise 3 is true, only if conclusion is true, thus argument assumes conclusion. FAILS circularity test) ** only minds can have properties that have doubts**

Possible sources of my ideas:

1. innate (to be born with) 2. external objects (caused from outside, ex: dreams) 3. self-caused/ invented (these ideas do not accurately represent reality)

Does matter exist?

1. matter is a collection of ideas (idealists) 2. matter is a collection of rudimentary minds

4 rules for D's Mediations

1. never accept anything as true unless it's clearly and distinctly true 2. divide problems analytically (into their parts) 3. Go from the simple to the complex 4. be complete (don't leave out any steps of your reasoning, even if you think it's obvious)

Descartes Ontological Argument

1. the idea of God id the idea of a being that has perfection 2. existence us a perfection (2b) C. God Exists Analysis of Premise 1: 1a. An actual, existing being 1b. A fictional being Analysis of Premise 2: (2 possible interpretations) 2a. Existence makes perfect anything that has existence (FALSE: has existence and isn't perfect) 2b. Existence is required (necessary) to be perfect in every way

Descartes Ontological Argument Disambiguated: Version A and the objection to it

1a.God, who is the topic of the idea of God, is a being perfect in every way 2b. Existence is required (necessary) to be perfect in every way c. God exists [1,2] (VALID, but FAILS circularity test: 1a is only true if C is true and vice versa) Objection: This argument has a premise (1a) that assumes that the conclusion is true; this argument begs the question; that is, it involves circular reasoning. But no argument that has a premise that assumes its conclusion proves its conclusion. So, this argument DOESN'T prove its conclusion

Descartes Ontological Argument Disambiguated: Version B

1b. The idea of God is such that, in order for it to apply to a being, that being is perfect in every way 2b. Existence is required (necessary) to be perfect in every way C. God Exists Tests: Passes Circularity, Passes conclusive premises test, INVALID (if we don't assume god exists, 1b and 2b don't by themselves prove C to be true, therefore invalid) - to see if the argument could be made valid it was put into an "If then" argument, but still did not fix the argument to make it valid - Immanuel Kant - Gods existing is a confirming idea (If there's a being of God it does necessarily exist)

Wax and Knowledge

A piece of wax changes due to temperature, and other outside factors, so how can we know what defines wax if the properties based on our senses are always changing? Senses don't give knowledge-mind is prone to error The wax is a body, not the physical characteristics of the body-the necessary conditions to be wax are unknown Anything that is wax is extended, changeable, and flexible (properties of the wax)

Circularity Test

Ask: does the argument have a premise that is true only if the the conclusion is true? If "yes", then the arguments FAILS the test If "no" then the argument PASSES (doesn't involve circularity)

Cogito Passage

Cogito-i think I think therefore I am

never accept anything as true unless its clearly and distinctly true, divide problems analytically, simple to complex, be complete

D's four files of method.

Essence

Essence: what is essential for anything X - what is necessary fro X to be what it is - what is necessarily contained in the concept of X Essence ≠ Existence - know properties necessary to be a unicorn but that does not prove the existence of a unicorn

Meditation Two

First proposition of certainty-I exist He is certain that he exists because he convinced himself that nothing is certain and to convince himself this, he must exist (I think therefore I am) He has no reason to doubt his existence He does not know what he is, just that he exists

John Perry -fictional account of conversations over 3 nights with 3 characters

Gretchen Weirob: a philosophy professor who will soon die from a motorcycle accident Sam Miller: hospital Chaplain Dave Cohen: Weirob's former philosophy student Topic: Survivability of persons after bodily death Weirob-- thinks she'll not exists as a person once she dies Miller-- won't be the death of her when she dies

Meditation 6

I am a thinking thing distinct from my body 1. I cannot doubt that I (thinking thing) exist 2. I can doubt that I have a bodily C. I (a thinking thing) am distinct from my body

mind body dualism, D

I can't doubt that I (a thinking thing) exists. I can doubt that I have a body, I (a thinking thing) am distinct from my body. who

cogito passage D

I think, therefore I am. D

ontological argument, D

Idea of God is the idea of being who has every perfection, existence is a perfection, God exists. who

Evil demon argument D

It is possible i am deceived as much as possible, i can't tell if any of my beliefs are true, I know nothing for certain. who

true

John Locke believed that his view of personal identity allows for a person's existence beyond death. True or false

dreams argument D

Key premise: there are no certain indications that distinguish waking life from dreaming experience. C: none of my beliefs about empirical generalizations is certain for me. who

Human Identity Across Time

Locke: the identity of a human across time consists in sameness of organizational structure of parts (indicative of "human") across time - based on organizational structure - same person if related through first person consciousness

Personal Identity Across Time (Locke, Reid, Hume, Perry)

Locke: the identity of a person across time consists in a relation of first person consciousness (via memory) across time Reid: continuous uninterrupted existence of a soul across time Hume: there is no personal identity across time because perception changes (he believes that what constitutes a person is their collection of different perceptions) Perry: (his opinion presented through Weirob) personal identity across time requires a slowly evolving body (of a person) together with a slowly-evolving self-concept involving the outside of the body

Substance Identity Across Time

Locke: the identity of substance X across time consists in the continuous existence of that substance X across time without gaining or losing any part **personal identity across time doesn't require sameness of substance** body --> brain Mind (soul) --> allows for two different souls to be the same person in principle -Soul theory of personal identity: one's thinking consists in an immaterial soul

types of negation

Mere Negation-lacking something that is not in our nature to know (pebbles lack knowledge, humans lack wings) Privation-lacking something that is in the nature of the object to have -he is lacking knowledge about something he should have knowledge about -is his making mistakes better then not making mistakes?

Meditation Two

N: Nothing is certain KN: N is certain Q: Is N true? No, because it says that there is something that is certain even though N says "nothing is certain" - So if N is true, KN CANNOT be true (he knows for certain that he exists)

Narrow and Broad Psychological Identity Theories (both apply to memory)

Narrow Psychological Identity Theories: direct relation of first person consciousness (direct memory) -wrong because this way is too closed off Broad Psychological Identity Theories : requires direct or indirect relation of first person consciousness (indirect memory) - now the theory works because it is more broad **not the same theories, but similar (both require: first person consciousness and memory)**

innate (born with), externally caused things (God), invented by himself. D.

Origins of ideas. who

certain indication of being awake analysis

Person S has certain indication of being awake if and only if: S has feature F that can only be present if S is awake F is unmistakably present in S's experience. (pinch, brain waves)

The Matrix- Descartes

Propositions: I have hands Earth Exists I'm eating noodles B T J B T J B T J Matrix - - - - - - - - Dreaming - - - - - - - - Evil Genius - - - - - -

Epistemic Discovery Interpretation for Cogito Passage

Q1: Whats the 1st proposition known for certain? - I exist Q2: What make that proposition known for certain? - not only reasons (premises) he discovers but rather the intuition (rational insight) that he has no reason to doubt his own existence Q3: What intellectual transformation does Descartes undergo in the passage? - he comes to notice that even the strongest, most ultimate reason to doubt is not a reason to doubt his own existence

Argument Interpretation for Cogito Passage

Q1: Whats the 1st proposition known for certain? - I exist Q2: What make that proposition known for certain? 1. i think 2. anything that thinks exists C. I exist (Fails circularity test-- inorder to be certain about his existence he has to first know the premisses with certainty therefore 1 and 2 can't be true) Q3: What intellectual transformation does Descartes undergo in the passage? - he comes to know with certainty that he exists and thereby gains a foundation for knowledge

Skeptical Scenarios

Rene Descartes- a situation that when in it you do not know as much as you think you do Knowledge (belief, truth, justification)

Degrees of Reality (Representative Reality and Intrinsic Reality)

Representative Reality (Objective): can represent it in thought, exists in the mind - Infinite Substance: (no limits) -God - Finite Substance: (having limitations, doesn't know everything) -Ex--> ppl, unicorns, D's mind - Attributes: (properties) -wearing a shirt, having a single horn from head - idea of a unicorn (property of the mind) - Nothingness Intrinsic Reality (Formal): only pertains to things that actually exist - Infinite Substance: (no limits) -??God?? - Finite Substance: (having limitations, doesn't know everything) -Ex--> ppl, D's mind - Attributes: (properties) -wearing a shirt - idea of a unicorn (property of the mind) - D's idea of God (he argues that GOD does have intrinsic reality) - Nothingness ** if something has Intrinsic Reality, it means it has Representative Reality ** -asymmetric relation: can't be the opposite

God as a perfect being

Something S is supremely perfect if and only if: 1. S is omnipotent (can do all possible things) 2. S is omniscent (has all knowledge) 3. S is wholly good *God is a being with all perfection

S is omniscient, S is omnipotent, S is wholly good, and externally self sufficient.

Supreme being theology. Something S is supremely perfect if...

URD and SURD (from Descartes' cogito passage)

URD: Ultimate Reason to Doubt - something is deceiving ME as much as possible - implies his existence SURD: Super Ultimate Reason to Doubt - there is as much deception as possible - still implies something to deceive -it could even be that his existence is a deception

Meditation 5

What is existence?

Desire to prove god exists

Without this proof he can never be certain of anything else Attempt to prove god exists is not religiously motivated

intellect, will

__ is finite (limited but not flawed), __ is infinite

contingent being

a being that exists in some, but not all, possible conditions.

necessary being

a being that exists under all possible conditions

person

a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself, the same thinking thin in different times and places.

omniscient

all knowing

omnipotent

all powerful

Identity, Reid

continuous, uninterrupted existence of self- a single entity without parts that can thing, feel, and experience. who.

cosmological argument

every idea must have a cause. all causes must have at least as much intrinsic as their effects have representative reality. God is the only thing with enough intrinsic reality to cause my idea of God (this premise is false). Concludes that God exists. fails conclusive premises test.

substance dualism, D

everything that exists is a physical thing or a non-physical thing, body is divisible, mind is indivisible. who

theodicy, D

explanation of how evil is possible if God is all good, all powerful, all knowing. it avoids implicating God as being responsible. who.

intrinsic reality

formal reality. does not include unicorns in finite substances. does not include nothingness.

freewill defenses, D

free will is a very great good, so valuable that it is worth the risk of all evils free creatures can do with it. Part of theodicy, who

meditations argument, D

god is not a deceiver, all that _(who)_ apprehends is true, all external things exist.

qualitative identity

having all the same qualities (features, characteristics, properties). not the same as personal identity.

Locke

identity of a physical substance across time consists ofuninterrupted, continuous existence of that substance across time. WHo?

Human identity, Locke

identity.. sameness of organizational structure of parts across time pertaining to "human." who.

substance identity, Locke

identity... enduring existence throughout time without gaining or losing parts. has to exist without changing in any way, can't go without existence. who.

wax

if I know A=C, then I know by a judgement of mind, not by what my sense reveal.

circularity test

if the premise entails the conclusion, or if the premise if only true if conclusion is true.

Hume

no identity of a person across time. enduring sense of individual

senses argument D

none of the beliefs i have based on sense perceptions is certain 4 me (they have fooled me before) who

representative reality

objective reality. includes unicorns and zeus in finite substances. down the list, less perfect

Reid

only one kind of identity-strict identity (same as Locke's substance identity)

Reid

personal identity across time consists of uninterrupted, continuous existence of the self across time. Who?

Weirobs (Perry's) Theory of Personal Identity Across Time

personal identity across time requires a slowly evolving body (of a person) together with a slowly-evolving self-concept involving the outside of the body

Reid

said identity requires continuous, uninterrupted existence across time. Persons don't have parts, there must be something that doesnt change at all.

Reid

said there is only one kind of identity: strict identity

strict identity

same as Locke's substance identity

personal identity, Locke

sameness of consciousness over time. continuity. 2 things can have same___, but different human identity. who

Reid

says a person is a monad (singular thing)

Reid

says identity is continuous, uninterrupted existence of self- a single entity without parts that can think, feel, and experience.

Reid

says memory isn't necessary at all

URD

something is deceiving me as much as possible

argument from divisibility, D

the body is divisible and the mind is an indivisible thing, therefore the mind is not a bodily thing. who

Fourth Meditation

theodicy-an explanation of the evil (bad things) in the world that doesn't implicate God as blameworthy God is: all powerful-has power to prevent error all knowing-knows how to prevent error all good-wants to prevent error However-there is evil and error in the world (problem of evil) *God is not the source of error*

SURD

there is as much deception as possible (no me)

Thomas Reid (his opinion on Locke's view)

thinks conscious states are thing a person has at certain times, but they are not who/what a person is he believe that Locke's theory implies a contradiction - based on the brave officer objection example: A. school boy flogged for stealing from orchard B. young man takes enemy's standard C. old man made a general A=B B=C therefore according to Locke B=C but B and C don't actually equal each other

essence of a thing

whatever is required for the thing to be what it is.

Locke

who says: sameness of substance is irrelevant to sameness of self.