Philolosphy midterm exam Camille Parker

personal identity and memory in Locke's theory of self

John Locke holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. He considered personal identity (or the self) to be founded on consciousness (viz. memory), and not on the substance of either the soul or the body.

Idealism,

The definition of idealism is believing in or pursuing some perfect vision or belief. An example of idealism is the belief of people who think they can save the world.

How was Socrates different from Sophists

Socrates disagreed with the Sophists because the Sophists believed that their students should use their time to improve themselves. Socrates believed that an absolute truth existed within each each person. Socrates invented the Socratic Method. Socrates was poor unlike the sophists but he was happy. He did not correlate excellence with money. The Sophist only taught students from that were from wealthy backgrounds. They associated only with high class, whereas Socrates was more interested in being humble.

Socrates and the unexamined life or the examined life

Socrates is said to have exclaimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. This has been interpreted to mean 'a life enriched by thinking about things that matter: values, aims, society'. 'Unexamined life' means living a life without any aim or thirst to become noble and sublime. We must not live a life for the sake of living. Hence Plato means that unexamined life need not be led.

WHAT WAS THE METHOD THAT SCOARATES USED IN HIS DISCUSSIONS AND HOW DID HIS APPROACH DIFFER FROM THAT OF THE SOPHISTS? HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE SOCARTES METHOD TO THAT OF DESCARTES OR RUSSEL?

Socrates method that he used in discussions was the socratic method. The socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals based on asking or answering questions to stimulate critical thinking. Rather than taking part in discussions such as Socrates, Russell believed that we should use philosophy in our life in order to be skeptical in a positive way by asking good questions in order to not be fooled by false fallacies. Descartes used a method of doubt in order to strip away any knowledge that can be doubted.

Locke's theory of identity of humans as compared to persons

"depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of the past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of present thoughts and actions.

Knowledge vs. opinion in Russell

"true belief" as a definition for knowledge. Russell used the distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and description to articulate a foundationalist epistemology where knowledge by acquaintance is the most basic kind of knowledge and knowledge by description is inferential

Socrates wanted to be known as a "philo-sophoi" and not a "sophist." Explain the difference between these two terms, and give an example of how Socrates addresses ethical issues in a way that shows his love of the truth. Was he unjustly accused? Was he a gadfly in a good way, or merely a nuisance to the people of Athens?

A sophist were people that knew how to argue any side of an argument, whether right or wrong. Socrates wanted to be known as someone who argued based on truth. Ex. He never claimed to know something he had no knowledge ofHe was unjustly accused because he only wanted the people to be open to the truth, he was a gadfly in a good way because he challenged them to think differently

Validity in arguments

An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.

According to Descartes, how is my clear and distinct idea of a chair different from my innate idea of God? What would Locke say about the idea of God?

As per Descartes, God's presence is set up by the reality that Descartes has a reasonable and unmistakable thought of God; however the reality of Descartes' unmistakable and particular thoughts are ensured by the way that God exists and isn't a trickster. In this manner, to show that God exists, Descartes should expect that God exists. The presence of God, and all the more significantly God's job in our lives, has been a long and changed subject since the commencement of theory. René Descartes' (1596-1650) epistemological commitment to Western way of thinking was his endeavor to build up a levelheaded strategy for request whereby information about the world could be gotten autonomous from the authority of the Congregation or the Book of scriptures.

Descartes and clear and distinct perception

Clear and distinct perceptions are defined by Descartes as those perceptions which are so self-evident that, while they are held in the mind, they cannot logically be doubted.

David Hume's skepticism about the self is rooted in his need for direct sensory impressions. Considering Descartes' distinction between mind and body, which do we have the most direct sensory impressions of? What might Hume say about this?

Considering Descartes' distinction between mind and body, our 'body' has the most direct sensory impressions. Descartes opined that our body is dependent on senses and thus it doesn't guarantee certainty. According to him, certainty resides in the mind. He opined that it is only our mind's innate ideas and principles which help us to acquire truth. ° Whereas Hume believes that our mind is dependent on the senses or sensory experiences and there is nothing such as 'innate ideas'. He stated that everything that our mind possesses is derived from the senses. So according to Hume, it is the mind that has the most direct sensory impressions. He also argues that senses are the source of true knowledge whereas Descartes argues that sensory experiences are uncertain and changing.

Descartes argument for the existence of God, God as the cause of an infinite idea

Descartes begins the argument by making the controversial claim that we all have an idea of God as an infinite being. (He believes that we cannot fail to have this idea because he thinks it is innate.) Because our idea of God is of an infinite being, it must have infinite objective reality.

Some argue that Descartes really does not need to use "radical doubt" to help us perceive our mind as a perceiving thing. Describe Descartes' method of doubt, and explain his examples of why doubt is necessary. Do you agree or disagree with his method?

Descartes essential difficulty changed into an approach to accomplish this sureness. To accomplish this point, Descartes followed a logical methodology alluded to as the methodology of uncertainty. The methodology of doubt encourages us to take our goals and challenge them to question. Assuming it's miles plausible to doubt, we manage them as phony, and we need to duplicate this strategy till we're not ready to find something to doubt on. The essential factor is that we manage every one of our standards as phony till we find a premise that is undoubtable, and we utilized the undoubtable issue to gather the aggregate on it.

Method of doubt in Descartes and how he realizes he exists as a thinking thing

Descartes reasoned that as soon as he doubted whether he actually had a mind, he was indeed thinking, which is proof that his mind existed. The demon cannot fool him into thinking he didn't have a mind, for the reason that the mind is the source of his thinking. As such, body and mind are two distinct things.

Consider cases in which someone has a heart transplant from an organ donor, and begins to experience feelings and emotions associated with that donor's former life. What would two of the philosophers in Unit 2 say about this phenomenon?

Descartes view was dualistic that there was a complete split between mind and matter. Descartes felt that the relationship between the inner world (mind) and outer world (body) is what makes up a human being. The human being is a complex relation between his inner and outer world or mind and body. In terms of psychological states. Hume discards traditional cause effect relationships. Habit or custom is what drives the mind. Hence in the organ donor case we experience feelings and emotions associated with the heart as a result from our customs in society and mental habits. We experience feeling from our heart, so when there is an organ transplant of a heart we expect due to past experience feelings and emotions associated with the heart.He proposed that our belief in causality cannot be justified in a logical manner but results from our customs in society and mental habits. We cannot see events causing each other but only in relation to each other. Nature is not uniform. Just because something has happened in the past it does not mean it will happen in future. He sees nature as being absolute and uncontrollable

The self in Descartes compared to the self in Hume

For Descartes, the self, like every other substance, is not directly apprehended; it is understood only through its properties. Hume also claims that we never directly apprehend the self. Unlike Descartes, he concludes from this that there is no substantial self. To Hume, the self is "that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference... If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same through the whole course of our lives, since self is supposed to exist after that manner.

fundamental questions of justifying beliefs

Foundationalis many justification or knowledge theory in epistemology that holds that beliefs are justified (known) when they are based on basic beliefs (also called foundational beliefs). Basic beliefs are beliefs that are self-justifying or self-evident, and don't need to be justified by other beliefs.

How would Goldman describe money, and our knowledge of money having value? How does this relate to community and society? What would Hume claim about the money's value?

Goldman describes the value of money in two ways, first with the "type instrumentalism" and second with the "value autonomization". He sees money as a token that remains valuable because that can eventually produce pleasure. Then he describes that our knowledge of money having value changes from the instrumental value to an autonomous one. In another way, people at the beginning may value money as that helps them to buy several things. But later they may value money for its own sake and not for it helps us in burying things. People then see something important in possessing money despite helping them to buy things. They feel a sense of power by possessing money and wealth.

Personhood and memory in Locke

He considered personal identity (or the self) to be founded on consciousness (viz. memory), and not on the substance of either the soul or the body.

When Russell talks about things like "prejudice" and "common sense," what does he mean? How does it relate to "thinking critically" and "seeing all sides of the issues?"

He means those notions that are conceived without actual evidence to back them up--everyday habits of common sense, culture, and custom. In order to not fall victim to making prejudices, we can look at an issue or a topic from all sides in order to gain a better understanding of what it is. We can think critically and truly comprehend it as opposed to making preconceived notions.

Descartes' mind-body dualism

He reaches this conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body ( .

Hume's personhood and causation

Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced.

a priori reasoning in Hume

Hume concludes that a priori reasoning can't be the source of the connection between our ideas of a cause and its effect. Contrary to what the majority of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors thought, causal inferences do not concern relations of ideas. Hume now moves to the only remaining possibility.

Hume and habits, Hume and inductive inferences

Hume's treatment of induction helps to establish the grounds for probability, as he writes in A Treatise of Human Nature that "probability is founded on the presumption of a resemblance betwixt those objects, of which we have had experience, and those, of which we have had none"

Compare and contrast rationalism (Descartes) and empiricism (Locke). Be sure to explain the key terms from each philosopher's work in your answer.

I) Both Descartes and Locke were doubtful about knowledge and both the theories try to provide us details about what knowledge is. II) Both rationalism and empiricism have a major focus on sensory experiences and how they are related to the process of acquiring knowledge. Descartes or rationalists divide knowledge into two different types, empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge. Empirical knowledge refers to the knowledge that we perceive through sensory experiences whereas priori knowledge arises through reason. According to rationalism empirical knowledge is unreliable and deceptive. II) Descartes argues that we human beings are born with some innate ideas such as ideas of God, infinity etc.

Issues in ancient Greece because of the sophists, problems Socrates was concerned within ancient Greece

ImmoralismNihilismHumanism The Sophists were relativists who believed in subjective truths and the existence of no absolute truths. Socrates did not like that fact that the Sophists were paid to teach; he thought they were greedy. He also believed that the Sophists were dishonest in debate and fought primarily for the sake of fighting.

Deductive arguments and true premises related to a conclusion

In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. It is important to keep in mind that just because an argument does have a possibly valid combination of premise-conclusion truth values (for example, true premises and true conclusion), it is not necessarily valid.

John Locke

In political theory, or political philosophy, John Locke refuted the theory of the divine right of kings and argued that all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that rulers who fail to protect those rights may be removed by the people, by force if necessary. "all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions."

You and a friend are kidnapped by an evil mad doctor who is planning to switch your brain into your friend's body and your friend's brain into your body. After the surgery, you will not remember the surgery. You will be treated as the body you currently inhabit with that body's identification, driver's license, etc. Who would you say you are, according to Locke? Why would Descartes possibly disagree?

Locke going so far as to assume that if one switched bodies with another that the consciousness (memories, in this case) would continue to be the same person as before retaining sense of "self". Locke found personal idenity to be found through memory, and not on the substance of the soul or body. Descartes thinks that you are your self because of your mind

Consider the example of marking ice in a freezer. How do we know that the water we placed in the freezer is the same thing as the ice we take out later? What would Descartes and Locke tell us about how we know the "thing" that is the water and the ice?

Locke relies on empirical evidence, Descartes believes we can rationally understand that the water is the same with pure knowledge alone. This understanding is independent of our senses.

The kinds of answers math and science gives compared to the answers philosophy gives

Math and science give us specific, quantitative answers that are right or wrong. Philosophy shows us the many different ways things might be. It liberates us from interpretation and gives us critical reasoning for understanding.

Mind-Brain Identity Theory

Mind-brain identity theory is a philosophy that purports the mind and brain are the same. In other words, the state of mind is the same as brain processes; that mental state is the same as the physical state of the brain.

Russell is arguing for why philosophy is valuable. You'll want to think about his argument using his own key ideas: How does he think philosophy is different from science? Does he think philosophy is different from science in a good or bad sense, like one is better than the other, or that they are just different methods each worthy in their own way? Explain.

Philosophy is the search of knowledge. It is very helpful subject and it is necessary for the formation of human ideals. Philosophy shows the ways how to lead the life. Philosophy is so important subject because it is the study of human mind and human principles. It is a vast subject and it also includes many subcategories like psychology, logic etc. Philosophy is better than science. When there was no science, there was philosophy and the product of science is a result of philosophy to the human mind. Prejudice means fixed belief against something. it is harmful both the individual and the society. When an individual bears bad mentality to other people belonging to other races then we say that the person has racial prejudice. We should be free from prejudice.

Arguments that are question-begging (the fallacy of "begging the question."

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

The subfields or sub-disciplines of philosophy

The major sub-disciplines of philosophy include Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, Aesthetics, and philosophy of science, philosophy of law, philosophy of language, Political Philosophy, and Religion. The broadest of sub-fields of philosophy are most commonly taken are as follows: logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and the history of philosophy.

What did the Oracle at Delphi mean when he told Socrates "You are the wisest of men"? How does Socrates' understanding of wisdom compare with how Russell describes philosophy and having a sense of wonder?

The oracle meant the socrates is wise because he is willing to accept that he doesnt know everything instead of continuing to boast ignorance. Both socrates and russel like to question things and not take everything at face value.

Problems or objections to mind-body dualism - how does the mind affect the body and vice versa how does the body affect the mind

The problem is that, in the case of voluntarily bodily movements, contact between mind and body would be impossible given the mind's non-extended nature. Arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body (that is, an extended, non-thinking thing), and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other.

Fallacies of distraction, red herring

The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that's being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

Consider the example of someone who has had open-heart surgery, and who was on a heart-lung machine during their surgery. This is sometimes associated with a condition known as "pump head," in which the personality of the patient changes and they experience confusion because the machine gave more reliable blood flow to their brain than their ailing heart did in the past. Has their "self" changed, are they the same person they were before? Why or why not, according to at least one philosopher in the unit?

The specific reason for cognitive impairment following bypass a medical procedure is obscure. There are likely a few factors that can achieve it. Initially it was dared to be brought about by little blood clumps to the cerebrum related with use of the heart-lung bypass siphon. In any case, later investigations have shown that utilizing more modern, "off-siphon" bypass surgery has not diminished the rate of cognitive impairment. The hypothesis that has the most footing today is that the control of the heart and aorta can produce little blood clumps, called microemboli, that can venture out to the cerebrum and cause harm there. Intraoperative investigations using transcranial Doppler techniques have affirmed that showers of microemboli to the mind are normal during bypass a medical procedure, and different examinations utilizing pre-and-post-operative MRI scans have shown little ischemic injuries (little strokes) in the cerebrums of individuals who experience cognitive decrease. In any case, even these investigations have yielded blended outcomes, and the causative job of microemboli isn't yet demonstrated.

Describe veritistic epistemology, and compare it to Descartes' description of his method for understanding how he is a thinking existing being.

Veritistic epistemology, basically a type of evaluation of social practice with regard to the absorb knowledge but in case of Descartes, it's something that says knowledge can be acquired only through certain principles and those principles are not learned through experience rather it mostly based on logical manner. So the method for understanding how he is thinking existing being says that , Descartes gives a particular definition of thought of principles and Descartes then prove that basically we all know the existence of mind better than existence of the body . Descartes also argues that he is a thing that have doubts, understanding, imagination, willingness everything has a sensory perceptions in it.

Logic and arguments in philosophy

an argument is a series of statements, called the premises, intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

Descartes' method, the method of doubt, skepticism

an immaterial, nonextended substance that engages in various activities or undergoes various states such as rational thought, imagining, feeling (sensation), and willing.

Cartesian Dualism (Descartes)

argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical. This philosophy states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think.

Descartes and the senses, do the senses deceive us

he suggests that because the senses sometimes deceive, we have reason not to trust them. Descartes does not intend these arguments to be taken literally. His point is to demonstrate that the senses can be deceived. If we cannot trust our senses to convey true information about the world around us, then we also can't trust deductions we've made on the grounds of sense perception.

Definitions of ethical terms in Socrates, like definitions of holiness or piety, "essential" definitions

holiness is serving the gods by serving other using ones abilities no matter what the consequence: and to know what is right is to do what is right. Socrates definition is just and universal. Socrates then wants to know if piety is a part of justice, and if it is, of what part does it consist? Euthyphro replies that piety is that part of justice that attends to the gods, just as there is another part of justice that attends to men. This, too, is unsatisfactory because we do not know what "attends" means.

Idealism vs Dualism

is that dualism is (philosophy) the view that the world consists of, or is explicable in terms of, two fundamental principles, such as mind and matter or good and evil while idealism is (philosophy) an approach to philosophical enquiry which asserts that direct and immediate knowledge can only be had of ideas or mental

Philosophy as a form of critical analysis and reason

philosophers emphasis on the nature and quality of critical thinking, psychologists focus on cognitive process and components used to investigate the practical problems. Philosophers emphasis on critical thinking attitudes but psychologists focus on critical thinking skills. Philosophy can be described as a way of life based upon reason, and in the other direction, reason has been one of the major subjects of philosophical discussion since ancient times. Reason is often said to be reflexive, or "self-correcting", and the critique of reason has been a persistent theme in philosophy.

, use of reason and analysis,,

reason, in philosophy, the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences. ... Reason is in opposition to sensation, perception, feeling, desire, as the faculty (the existence of which is denied by empiricists) by which fundamental truths are intuitively apprehended . Philosophical analysis matters because it imparts practical knowledge that helps us develop our critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Explain Locke's distinction between sensations and reflections, and Hume's distinction between impressions and ideas. How are their theories alike, and how do they differ? Whose view is most convincing? Be sure to explain each philosopher's key terms in your answer

sensation, much as the name proposes, we essentially turn our faculties toward the world and inactively get data such as sights, sounds, scents, and contact. Thus, we get such ideas as "blue," "sweet," and "noisy." In reflection, then again, we direct our brains back toward ourselves and, again, latently, get such ideas as "thought," "conviction," "question," and "will." " The differentiation among impressions and ideas is hazardous such that Hume didn't take note. The impression (experience) of outrage, for instance, has unquestionable quality and force. Be that as it may, outrage isn't equivalent to a "more vulnerable" experience of outrage. Considering outrage, no larger number of assurances is more furious than considering satisfaction, which ensures being cheerful. So there is by all accounts a contrast between the impression of outrage and outrage that Hume's hypothesis doesn't catch. Locke put stock in causality and utilized the case of the psychological perception of speculation to raise your arm and then, at that point, your arms raise, though Hume accepted that causality isn't something that can be known, as an immediate encounter with the cause can't be detected. Locke accepted that all information is gotten from our faculties, which produce impressions on the brain which go-to ideas, while Hume accepted that all information is gotten from encounters. Hume dismissed Locke's hypothesis of encountering cause. He contended that you don't feel the association between your psyche and your arm, and in this manner, you don't detect the reason for the muscles contracting to raise your arm.

"skepticism"

the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish.

Hume

the passions (what we today would call emotions, feelings, and desires) are impressions rather than ideas (original, vivid and lively perceptions that are not copied from other perceptions). Scottish philosopher whose sceptical philosophy restricted human knowledge to that which can be perceived by the senses

clarification of concepts

the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue. Concepts are thus logical, not mental, entities.

Emparlism

the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Materialism

the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

Rationalism

the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly.

The Socratic Method

way of teaching developed by Socrates that used a question-and-answer format to force students to use their reason to see things for themselves