PHIL 2300: Final Review

2) How does Greene distinguish between cognition and emotion?

"Cognition" is cool and deliberate and it's what separates us from nonhumans and allows us to make choices in a moment of leisure rather than automatically reacting to emotion. Emotion is cognitive, and it is a mode of info processing that is valence (charged positive/negative).

What are Hume's views on the explanation of human behavior and on the freedom of the will? Why is Hume's view a version of "compatibilism?" Why is it a psychological determinism? Hume thinks that his account saves rather than undermines human responsibility. Explain why. What does Hume get right? What does he get wrong?

- - - - - -

What is Hume's "skeptical solution" to his doubts concerning the operations of the understanding? Why is it a skeptical solution? What is the relation Hume suggests between human inductive reasoning and animal instinct? What is the significance of the notion of "reestablished harmony" in Hume's skeptical solution?

- -A skeptical solution has no rational basis for induction, it is based on habit, and it dissolves rather than solves the problem. -Animal instinct as well as human inductive reasoning are both based off of experience. Animal instinct and human inductive reasoning are both based on conditioning through experiences. -Harmony exists between the operation of our psychology and the course of events in the world, as if pre-established or designed.

On what grounds does Hume deny the possibility of miraculous occurrences? In your answer be sure to explain his notion of weighing evidence.

-A miracle is an event which is contrary to the common course of nature. Hume believed that in order to believe something there should be evidence supporting it. Either the evidence is such that it shouldn't have happened or there is too much evidence that says it did happen. If there is too much evidence, then a miracle didn't occur because that signifies that it isn't contrary to the course of nature. The only circumstance when it's rational to believe in a miracle is when it is more miraculous to not believe in it.

7) What are the consequentialist justifications of punishment? What are the deontological justifications of punishment?

-Consequentialist justifications of punishment are rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society. -The deontological justifications of punishment are: the idea that you "get what you deserve," "revenge" oriented, and it's an emotionally charged justification.

Explain Frankfurt's philosophical approach. Why is it a form of conceptual analysis and how does Frankfurt go about analyzing the concept of B.S.? Why is B.S. a difficult concept to define (think of necessary and sufficient conditions)?

-Frankfurt uses conceptual analysis to break down b.s. then talks about why there is so much of it today. -Conceptual analysis is a kind of definition except we usually talk about defining words rather than concepts. Some concepts are easier to explain than others (like water is H20 molecules), but some are harder (like truth and knowledge). Frankfurt thought that b.s. is more complicated that other people might think. Frankfurt tries to disentangle b.s. components. He starts out with words he sees as similar (humbug, balderdash, etc.) compares Max Black's definition of humbug to b.s. (mode of deliberate representation short of lying=humbug) and believes it's close to b.s. but not quite the same. He concludes that b.s. is a kind of posturing and such that someone is interested in making an impression without regard for truth. -B.S. is a difficult concept to define because it is linked to many other hard to define concepts like truth. He believed that when you lie you have to be careful to stay within the realm of truth. However, b.s.ers are different because while they want to leave an impression on their audience and are able to break the constraints of truth. B.S.ers have a certain disregard for truth.

6) What is the connection between emotion and deontological moral deliberation? Why does Greene think that deontological moral philosophy involves post hoc reasoning? What is "confabulation"? Give an example.

-Greene believed that deontological is a post hoc rationalization of emotion-based action. -He thought that deontological moral philosophy involves post hoc reasoning because he believed that deontological views are emotionally charged and post hoc reasoning is a way that people explain away their emotion-based actions. -"Confabulation" mode of post hoc rationalization is a story-telling form of rationalization. A person was put under hypnosis and as a post hypnotic suggestion was told to take a lamp shade and put it on someone else's head and when he came out of hypnosis and was asked why he put the lamp shade on the other person's head, he said that he did it to see how everyone else would react. So, he made up a story to explain (rationalize) his post hypnotic suggestion action.

8) How does Greene's account cast doubt on Wielenberg's claim that there are necessary moral truths? How does Wielenberg's own practice in his book support Greene's position?

-Greene says that we have deontological views, but when calculating you switch to a consequentialist view. -Wielenberg aligns himself with Kant early on in his book about why you should be moral (because it's right), but later on when he talks about what you would do in an alien invasion scenario, he takes a utilitarian view and says that you should enslave the one person rather than letting everyone be exterminated, but Kant would say that you shouldn't enslave the person and should deal with being exterminated. By originally going along with deontological views and then switching to a consequentialist type of view when it came to the alien invasion scenario, Wielenberg's practice supports Greene's position.

*What three virtues does Wielenberg discuss in Chapter 4? Explain his account of how they can exist in a Godless universe. How convincing is he?

-He considers humility, charity, and hope. -He thinks that there is a place for them in a Godless universe as long as you can attribute it to Dumb Luck. He believed that humility is considered a virtue as long as you give due credit to Dumb Luck "there by the Grace of [Dumb Luck]." He believed that charity is a virtue that exists because when someone is in an unfortunate situation by dumb luck, it prompts someone else who is in a more fortunate situation to help them. He believed that hope exists because it is what encourages people to think of how they'd live their life when they only have one life to live. He believed that we should hope that we can meet our coming Oblivion with courage and fortitude.

Explain Hume's explicit comparison of his approach to psychology and the philosophy of mind to Newton's physics and the "atomistic" philosophy. What are the mental "atoms?" What does Hume mean by "the association of ideas?" What are the three principles (modeled loosely on Newton's three laws of motion) according to which the association of ideas occurs? Give an example of each.

-Hume's approach to his philosophy of the mind was similar to Newton's "atomistic" philosophy because he also broke matters of the mind into mental "atoms" as Newton broke down matter into atoms as well. Hume also came up with 3 principles that were similar to Newton's three laws of motion. -Mental "atoms:" Simple ideas are ones that cannot be divided further (atoms); they are the smallest object of awareness there is. Complex ideas are compounded over simple simple ideas. -Hume believed that there were connections between ideas and that all ideas are linked to other ideas (association of ideas). -Hume lays out three principles by which ideas might be associated: resemblance (where a picture of a tree might make us call upon an idea of a tree in your mind), contiguity in time or place (where mention of one apartment might lead us to discuss others that are nearby), and cause and effect (where the thought of a wound makes us think of the pain that follows from it). Hume admits that he has no reason for laying out only these three principles except that he cannot think of any others that would be needed. For instance, association by means of contrast or contrariety can be seen as a combination of resemblance and causation.

What is an "idea" for Hume? Explain his account of the origin of ideas. What two arguments does Hume offer to justify his conclusions? How does Hume's account anticipate a verificationist theory of meaning? In your answer it will be useful to contrast Hume's account of the origin of ideas with Descartes' doctrine of innate ideas.

-Ideas are mental contents that are remembered; i.e. ideas are faint copies of impression. A simple idea is a mental content that can't be broken down any further. A complex idea is the whole package. -Hume believed that impressions are able to comprehend our "more lively perceptions," which included experiences such as hearing, seeing, or feeling. Hume believed that the imagination isn't unlimited, like most people believe. He believed that our imagination in fact consists merely of a complex of ideas. For instance, if we imagine a gold mountain, we are compounding our idea of gold with our idea of a mountain. -(Introspectional) First, he argues that all complex ideas are compounded out of simple ideas, which are in turn derived from simple impressions. Second, he argues that our imagination is limited to those ideas of which we have impressions. (Sense Deprivation) -Verificationist theory states that there are only 2 kinds of statements that are meaningful: ones that are logically true and ones that in principal are verifiable. In order for a statement to make sense it must convey an idea which must come from an impression, which is how his origin of ideas is verifiable because they come directly from sense experiences. Which is unlike Descartes' view that some ideas don't come from sense experience like God, substance, truth, self, etc. Descartes believed that innate ideas aren't formed from sense experiences or impressions; they are a part of the mind from the beginning.

What is the Euthyphro question? How do the Control Thesis and the Dependency Thesis address the Euthyphro question? What are the "strong" and "weak" positions? How does Wielenberg critique the strong position? How does he critique the weak position? What is his proposed solution to the Euthyphro question? How might this solution be vulnerable to criticism?

-Is good, good because of God or because God favored good because of its nature? -Control Thesis: all morality derives from God, and God has it in his power to make any moral proposition that isn't contrary to itself, true. Dependency Thesis: states that whatever moral truths are because God decided so but God can't make all things true (ex. God can't make torturing someone by trapping them in an excrement pit for all eternity morally right because it's crazy). -The strong position is the control thesis because you accept both the control thesis and the dependency thesis when you accept it, but when you accept the dependency thesis you only accept the dependency thesis. He uses a thought experiment to argue against the Control Thesis. Imagine there's a contest to find the ruler of the universe and suppose the evil contestant wins. Your first reaction is "Oh, how awful," but if the Control Thesis is true then as a single omnipotent being he has the power to enslave humanity and torture them and you used to think it was evil, but because he's omnipotent he has the power to make this scenario "good," but this would be crazy. - there's a certain value in bad things because they help the soul develop

*What does Wielenberg mean by "naturalism?" In your answer explain what his naturalism includes and what it doesn't include. Why is the argument of his book entirely hypothetical?

-Naturalism says that there are no beings in the universe that are supernatural, nothing in the universe that isn't constituted of mass energy, but ethical values exist even without a supernatural being, and just because everything is physical doesn't mean you have to only use scientific terminology -Wielenberg uses hypothetical examples as a basis for his arguments; he doesn't really provide a concrete argument.

What is the idea of "necessary connexion?" What account does Hume finally give concerning its origin?

-Necessary connection is the connection between cause and effect. It's the idea that when that necessary cause occurs the effect must happen, and it explains why they go together. -When a strong habit is developed over the years, you get a strong compulsion to do it. For example, you hate mushrooms, and every time you see a mushroom you think 'yuck.' So, when someone offers you a mushroom, you say "Yuck."

*What is Pascal's wager? What Biblical doctrines does Wielenberg believe are dangerous? He claims that naturalism is free of these dangers. Is he right? Why may naturalism not be a creed many can live by?

-Pascal weighs the costs and benefits of believing in God. Pascal's point was to show that it's logical to believe in God. #Believe (B) God Exists & God Does Exist (GDE)-no cost & great benefits #B God Exists & God Does Not Exist (GDNE)-small cost & insignificant benefits #B GDNE & GDNE-no cost & no benefits #B GDNE & GDE-huge cost & no benefits -He believes that these Biblical doctrines are dangerous: that it's ok to commit acts of genocide in the name of "God," the unquestionable command of God (story of Abraham & Isaac-his son). The story of Abraham and Isaac is this: God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, and at the last second, right as Abraham is about to slay his son, an angel appears and tells him to stop because God was just testing him. Wielenberg believes that if this is true then God is kind of sadistic and it's wrong to have to unquestionably believe in this being. -No he isn't right when he says that naturalism is free of danger because it isn't necessarily the religious beliefs that resulted in detrimental behaviors, but rather it's the belief in ideology that leads to detrimental behaviors. For examples, Nazism, Marxist Communism, etc. are atheistic ideologies, but they resulted in detrimental behaviors. Ideology is a system of beliefs accepted on faith or somebody's say so; it isn't based on argument, and it accepts beliefs with no challenge; oftentimes people who believe in ideology use violence to stop argumentation.

1) What is post hoc reasoning or rationalization? How does the panty hose experiment illustrate this psychological phenomenon?

-Post hoc rationalization is an after the fact rationalization. You're inclined to do something and later on you up reasons about why you did it. -The panty hose experiment started with an array of panty hose displayed on a table and people were supposed to choose one. People chose which ones they thought were prettier, but they tried to rationalize their choices by saying the quality, the texture, etc. was superior when really it's only the color that was different. This experiment illustrates post hoc rationalization because after choosing which panty hose they liked based on "prettiness" they tried to rationalize their choice.

What is "Pyrrhonism?" What is Hume's view of it? What is academical skepticism? What is Hume's view of it? What does Hume have to say about Cartesian skepticism?

-Pyrrhonism is an extreme version of skepticism. The name was derived form Pyrrho, a Greek philosopher, who was an extreme skeptic-he didn't believe there was enough evidence to support anything. -Hume believed that being really serious about phil. will plunge you into Pyrrhonism. If you're not careful you'll fall into solipsism of the present moment. When you're in pyrrhonism you're severely doubtful, even of yourself. You believe that you're just a bundle of ideas-no sense of self. -Academic skepticism was a moderate or mitigated form of skepticism. -Hume believed that a moderate amount of skepticism was alright, as long as you didn't let it get out of hand, and that a moderate amount of skepticism is necessary preparative for the study of philosophy because it preserves a proper impartiality in our judgments. It allows you to begin with clear and self-evident principles, advance by small, sure steps, review conclusions constantly, and examine all their consequences. -Hume believed that Cartesian skepticism wasn't as extreme as it pretends to be because even though it is believed to call everything into question, it doesn't. It doesn't call into question one's own faculties (like memory). Plus, if you really doubted everything you'd be stuck in the solipsism of the present moment, unable to move forward because you can't rely on your previous reasoning as it doesn't exist. The only things that exist are the things that exist from the moment you become conscious.

Explain Hume's distinction between "the relations of ideas" and "matters of fact." How does he use this distinction to raise skeptical doubts concerning the "operations of understanding?" In your answer characterize both the problem of induction and the logic of causal judgments.

-Relations of ideas are a priori and indestructible bonds created between ideas. All logically true statements such as "5 + 7 = 12" and "all bachelors are unmarried" are relations of ideas. Relations of ideas are intuitively or demonstrably certain, and a denial of such a proposition implies a contradiction. Matters of fact deal with experience: that the sun is shining, that yesterday I went for a walk, or that it will rain tomorrow are all matters of fact. They are learned a posteriori, and can be denied without fear of contradiction. If it is sunny outside and I assert that it is raining, I can only be proven wrong by looking out the window and checking: my assertion cannot be disproved simply by an appeal to logic and reason. -When you negate a logically true idea, a contradiction occurs. When you negate a true statement that is contingent ally true, a false statement occurs. The problem with the logic of causal judgments is that you need experiences/observations to know if a contingently true statement is true. The problem of induction is that it is based on past patterns from which we make inferences as to what will happen in the future. We can't justify inferences because we can only predict based on knowledge that is based on rules and algorithms (like 2+3=5).

What is Hume's distinction between the "easy and obvious philosophy" and the "abstruse" philosophy? Which approach does Hume favor? Why?

-The "easy and obvious" philosophy was clear while "abstruse" tended to obscure from the reader what it was trying to accomplish. The "easy and obvious" philosophy served as a guide for mans' actions. It followed from common sense and thus rarely fell into error. The "abstruse" philosophy had more to do with mans' reasoning. While EO phil. tried to direct behavior, AB phil. sought understanding and the uncovering of our principles that govern our behavior. -Hume favored the AB phil. -Because it calls for an exactness and accurateness that can lead to perfection in more practical matters.

What is the "internal meaning" of a human life? What are the four arguments offered in Chapter 1 for the conclusion that human life lacks internal meaning if God does not exist? What three responses does Wielenberg consider? How does he critique the first two?

-The "internal meaning" of life is one that does nothing to affect the world around him for better or worse, and anything they could do to affect the world could be done by someone else, but they get a lot of internal satisfaction from a hobby/activity. This is the idea that someone wants to "do something with [their] life." This is what makes life worth living to the individual not to anyone else. -The four arguments offered in Chapter 1 for the conclusion that human life lacks internal meaning if God doesn't exist are: 1) Final Outcome: says, if we assume that God doesn't exist, physics tells us that the universe is slowly burning itself out or eventually the sun will blow up (both of which equal eventual heat death), and if this is what we face, why would we have internal meaning? 2) Pointless Existence: based on the idea that your life only has internal meaning if it has supernatural meaning; if you don't have supernatural meaning your life has no purpose or mission, so you don't have criteria to determine whether your life is a success or a failure, which implies that there are no circumstances under which your life would be a successful one; w/o God=no one able to assign purposes to human lives; no purpose=no internal meaning 3) No One of Significance Cares: if there isn't a omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being that cares about human events beyond other humans then there is no internal meaning 4) God as the Source of Ethics/Morality: God is the source of values (ethics) which is impossible if God doesn't exist -He considers Taylor, Singer, and Aristotle's way out of needing God to have internal meaning: Taylor: 1) To Make a Life Worth Living: uses Sisyphus' example, he said that if the Gods had given Sisyphus a potion that filled him with overwhelming and unending desire to roll the stone up the hill, his life would've had internal meaning because he would have been doing the activity he wanted to for an eternity; i.e. Live in precisely the way that you most want to live. 2) Final Outcome: Life can have internal meaning by virtue of correspondence between a person's desires and a person's activities; looking to the final situation to which a life causally contributed is not the proper way to assess the value of the life of the one who lived it 3) Pointless Existence: we ourselves are qualified to assign a purpose to our lives; a life can have internal meaning even with a lack of supernatural meaning 4) Nobody of Significance Cares: we make our lives meaningful; it isn't important whether or not God cares about your life, but rather whether you care about it (in the appropriate way) Singer: 1) Live Worth Living: we can live a meaningful life by working toward goals that are objectively worthwhile; pain is intrinsically evil and one of the best ways to make your life worth living is to devote it to the reduction of ethical pain in the universe because it's the only one that creates a long lasting sense of fulfillment 2) Aristotle: ------------------------------------ Singer believed that without God people make their lives worth living through reducing the amount of avoidable pain in the world. Taylor believed that we give our own selves purpose and therefore internal meaning. We don't need God to care about our lives as long as we care about our lives (to a certain extent) we have internal meaning. Singer argued that we shouldn't pay attention to our final outcome because that is many years from now and why should we care about meaning now? Wielenberg didn't think that these responses were thorough enough to defend the idea that life has internal meaning without God. Now all of the responses by Taylor and Singer were enough to counteract the above 4 arguments. Taylor may have had some good points (For example, his version of Sisyphus where in order for him to have internal meaning after being sentenced to roll a stone up a hill for all eternity he must be given a "potion" that filled him with an unending desire to roll the stone up the hill. This way he would've had a life doing exactly what he wanted to do, and gained a meaningful life.) like when he said that a life is worth living if you do what you most want, but Wielenberg thought that life should be meaningful not just because of a pleasurable activity that you do. He also disagreed with Singer's reduction of avoidable pain.

What is the argument from design? Why does Hume think that the belief in a "particular providence and a future state" is unfounded? Why does he think that the belief in a diving designer makes very little practical difference as regards rational behavior and that as a consequence the atheism or agnosticism of a philosopher poses no danger to society?

-The argument from design is an argument of God's existence based on empirical evidence/content; it's an analogy. The human mind is to the human artifact as the diving mind is to the cosmos. -He believes that it is unfounded because we can only make causal inferences when we have a large number of accumulated experiences that we've observed. We can't ascribe any qualities to God beyond those that we have observed in order to posit his existence in the first place. -Atheism or agnosticism pose no danger to society because as rational beings they know that certain behavior modes lead to certain reasonable, desirable outcomes (like a peaceful, content life).

3) Explain the trolley, the footbridge, and the loop thought experiments. What is their significance for deontological and consequentialist moral deliberation? What relevant data concerning brain activity does Greene provide?

-Thought Experiments: The Trolley: There's a track and there's a trolley running on it and there are five people at the end of the track who are going to get run over unless you flip the switch and redirect the trolley onto another side track, but there's one person on the side track. Do you flip the switch and kill the one person to save the five people, or do you let the trolley go on unhindered? The Footbridge: Same concept as the trolley scenario except instead of a switch and a side track, there's a footbridge over the track with a portly person on it and you. Do you let the trolley keep going until it hits the 5 people at the end or do you push the portly person off of the bridge and sacrifice him to stop the trolley? The Loop: Similar to the footbridge scenario except instead of a switch taking the trolley to a side route, it takes it to a loop in the track where there's one person. In order to prevent the five people at the end from getting killed, you must flip the switch so it goes on the loop track and sacrifice the one person on the loop track to stop the trolley and save the 5 people. -In these types of scenarios you'd lean more toward the consequentialist moral deliberation because you'd weigh whether it's better to sacrifice the one than sacrifice the five. Although, with the footbridge and the loop scenarios people would struggle more with their deontological moral views because it requires you to directly sacrifice the one person. -He provides data concerning which areas of the brain are activated with both the deontological and the consequentialist sides. Deontological arouses the area concerning emotions, and the consequentialist side arouses emotional quiescence and calculation.

*What is the "moral challenge" of Chapter 3? What three answers to the moral challenge does Wielenberg consider? Which does he prefer, and why? Why does he think that theism precludes, but atheism allows, total self-sacrifice? What do you think of this argument?

-What is your motivation to do the right thing? Why should you act against your own self-interest? -He considers the revisionist axiology which is that what most people think is valuable is something like developing human potential, to act badly/immorally damages character & damages yourself. Hume's standard axiology that says that you ought to behave well because it's in your best interest Khan believed that you should act well because it's your duty to do so. Wielenberg believed that you shouldn't act on a maxim that cannot be universalized for all rational human beings, and so he leaned toward Khan's view. -In theism what seems to be total sacrifice isn't really because when you "sacrifice" yourself, you leave this world knowing that you're going to a better place/afterlife. In accordance to atheistic views, once you die you're gone from existence, there is no afterlife or place after death. When an atheist sacrifices themselves they leave this world knowing that they're erased from existence after death, but they do so anyway. I think that it's pretty interesting to think that...

*How is science supposed to help with moral education? Do Wielenberg's proposals evade a "Brave New World" scenario? Why or why not?

-Wielenberg advocates using knowledge of the brain and using knowledge of chemistry and the effects of drugs on the brain to minimize sociopaths [those who lack empathy/conscience]; he believed we can treat people who need to be treated -In the Brave New World scenario, they administered drugs (unwillingly) to people to keep the population calm and docile to prevent them from making any disturbances. He believed that this situation was scary because of the authoritarian government and the lack of emotion. He believed that as long as we avoid authoritarian government and create well-balanced people while not administering drugs to keep everyone zombie-like, we could avoid the Brave New World scenario. I think that as long as we kept to those boundaries, we could avoid BNW.

4) Explain the "pull of identifiable victims" and its connection with emotion. How is the Jessica McClure case relevant? How are Peter Singer's views concerning donation relevant?

-You're automatically inclined (pulled) to help someone or a cause when you have a face to put to name or to the cause (identifiable victim). -In 1987, Jessica McClure was a 2 year old girl who fell in a well. She was still alive and the authorities were doing everything that they could to get her out. This event was widely publicized, and around $700,000 was donated to help her get out of the well when by the end of the day they got her out of the well. Jessica McClure's case is relevant because it givens a clear example of how the "pull of identifiable victims" works. -Peter Singer donates 10% of his salary to unknown children in Africa that are starving in order to fill his obligation to reduce the amount of avoidable pain in the world. Peter Singer's example is harder to follow because most people need a particular "victim" to feel the pull/need to donate, which is why so many people donated money to help Jessica McClure.

Why does Descartes consider the will to be the only human faculty that is free of limitation? How is this important for his account of truth and error in the Fourth Meditation?

Because will, or freedom of choice isn't like other mental faculties (memory, imagination, understanding, etc.) which all know that God is the one who is mightier because of his perfection and status as an infinite being. However, when it comes to any situation, you're free to choose to agree, disagree, or abstain (suspend judgment). When you make a mistake your will overrides your judgment. The intellect is limited, and there are only a few situation it can comprehend clearly and distinctly and without clearness and distinctness our perceptions are unclear, which leads to a false judgment.

What thought does Descartes finally accept as immune to doubt and as an appropriate starting place for building up his system of beliefs? What distinctive logical characteristic does this thought have? Why?

Descartes accepts his own existence as a "thinking thing" as immune to doubt and an appropriate foundation for his beliefs. A "thinking thing" is a persisting substance because he reasoned that an essential property is one that you can't remove a part of without taking away its usefulness. A that thinking is an essential property unlike gender, race, height, etc. because without a mind (thoughts/consciousness) he wouldn't be himself, and in order to think there must be a being (thing) doing the thinking and the thing must be a persisting substance.

Explain Descartes' cosmological argument for God's existence (Meditation 3).

Descartes uses the idea that an idea must have at least as much reality as the content of the idea itself. But since his idea of god had an absolutely unlimited content, the cause of this idea must itself be infinite, and only the truly existing god is that. From the cogito, he knows that he exists and that he isn't perfect which is why he couldn't have caused himself (because if he created himself he'd be perfect with no limitations). So, something must have caused me to exist, and something must have caused that to exist and so on and so forth. The causal chain must end eventually, with something that isn't contingent on something else which must be God.

What is the significance of Descartes' criteria of clarity and distinctness? What first discloses these criteria to him?

Descartes' criteria of clarity and distinctness is how he managed to prove that God exists. God (who is a perfect being and therefore cannot be a deceiver) would not let Descartes be mistaken about ideas he perceive to be clear and distinct; therefore, whatever he believes to be clear and distinct are clear and distinct.

9) How might the connection between emotion and deontology have been evolutionarily adaptive for the human species?

Evolution is interested in genes living to pass on not individual people. As a species, we're organized to protect relatives and family members because we're protecting our genotype, hence "blood is thicker than water."

What is solipsism? When does Descartes find himself in a solipsistic position, and how does he get himself out of it? How do God, the formal reality of causes, and the objective reality of ideas figure in his procedure? What is the relevance of the "great chain of being?"

Extreme solipsism is the belief that your mind is the only thing that exists. Less extreme solipsism is the belief that your mind exists but that others' minds don't. Descartes finds himself in this position in the 2nd Meditation. * - The "great chain of being" was a ranking system baed on the amount of reality one has. On the top was God, and on the bottom was formless stuff (matter).

Why is Descartes' ontology a dualism? What is the connection between this ontology and the new physical science? What are the primary and secondary qualities of physical objects? What is the major problem with this ontological position?

His ontology is a dualism because of the two fundamental categories of existence that cannot be reduced to one another: res cogitans and res extensa. - Primary qualities of an object are mathematical in nature. Secondary qualities are ones that pertain to the senses: taste, smell, sight, etc. The major problem with this ontological position is that Descartes couldn't explain how the mind affected the body and vice versa.

5) Describe in sufficient detail the psychological "determinate victim" experiment and its significance for Greene's thesis.

In the "determinate victim" experiment, everyone was given a number, and some people with a certain number were told that their money would be going to a person with a certain number card, and the amount of money people were willing to give went up. People are more willing to donate money when they are able to recognize "who" they are giving their money to.

Explain Descartes' ontological argument for God's existence (Meditation 5). What (if anything) is wrong with this argument?

In the ontological argument, the meaning of a concept has two components: intension and extension. Intension of a concept includes the predicates that make up a concept. For example, a triangle has 3 angles, 3 sides, and the angle degrees add up to 180 degrees. Extension is whether or not it exists, and it includes all of the objects falling under the concept. So, for the concept of a Supreme Being (God), the intension is that he's omniscient, omnipotent, all good, and perfect (lacking nothing). The extension is that God is perfect and as a result of this lacks nothing; therefore, God must exist otherwise he would not be perfect. The problem with this argument is that existence becomes a part of intension instead of extension like it normally is.

Why is Descartes' method of doubt methodological, systematic, and hyperbolic? What is its point? In what order does he subject his beliefs to doubt? How does the dream argument serve the method of doubt? How does the hypothesis of the "evil genius" serve it?

It's methodological because of how he groups his beliefs into categories because he can't examine all of his beliefs. His method of doubt is systematic because of how he called certain beliefs into question in order to prove which ones were certain. His method of doubt was hyperbolic because of his usage of experiments (illusion, dream problem, and the "deceiver"/"evil genius"). The point of each method was to examine all of his beliefs and see which ones were beyond all doubt. He subjected his beliefs to doubt in this order: methodological, systematic, and hyperbolic. The dream argument doubted sensory perception, he argued that how could he tell vivid dreams apart from waking experience when they can be so real? He couldn't, the only thing he could be certain of were beliefs based on mathematical intuition. The hypothesis of the "evil genius" was used to determine that the "evil genius" cold not change what he was thinking.

What is B.S.? How is B.S. similar to humbug? How does it differ from lying? Why does Frankfurt think there is so much of it today? What is the relevance of integrity to B.S.? Why is the B.S.er sometimes called a B.S. "artist"? Why is the B.S.er more dangerous than the liar? What do bull sessions and "shooting the bull" have in common with B.S.?

Someone who bullshits (b.s.s) doesn't care about the truth but cares about the impression left. B.S. is similar to humbug in that falls short of lying. B.S. is different from lying because a liar is still playing the game of truth but manipulating it. A B.S.er doesn't care about the truth. A B.S.er is an artist for the way they throw off the constraints of the truth (unlike a liar).

Explain the "Cartesian Circle." What alternative interpretations of Descartes' argumentation allow him to avoid circularity?

The Cartesian Circle is the circular reasoning he used to show that whatever he perceived as "clear and distinct" is true. He argued that clearness and distinctness guaranteed something to be true because since God isn't a deceiver, he wouldn't allow Descartes to be mistaken about what he believes to be "clear and distinct." However, this argument depends on his belief that God exists, and he used his perception of "clear and distinctness" to prove that God exists. There are two types of alternative interpretations of Descartes' argumentation that allow him to avoid circularity: maintenance and externalist. The externalist interpretation is a position in epistemology or theory, that holds the belief that a person and know something and justify it if they're using a reliable method-they don't have to prove it.