Philosophy Midterm

10. What does it mean to define philosophy as "the science of the highest or ultimate good"?

- 2 types of good: what is good within itself, money within itsself is worthless beyond the things you can buy; money is instrumental - vs friendship is intrinsic, pleasure all have aims to the highest good - what would the most happy life be like - some philosophers aim towards this Ideal goal, philosophy is the science of the highest or ultimate goal

73. Explain why Descartes is not a skeptic and what the aim of his philosophy is more generally.

- Descartes himself was not a skeptic. His central aim was to provide a philosophical foundation for this method of doing science - decarte is not a skeptic bc he is not trying to make us doubt everything, he is trying to find smth completely certain - He is doubting for the sake of finding what is true - goal to justify science that he can rest the entirty of

45. Explain some problems and ideas from Parmenides that remain with us until today.

- P started asking questions on ontology (the knowledge of being) and what being means, there is still no spefcfic def Stark contrast btw exietnse and reality Ideas of whether or not we should trust the senses He inspired Zeno's paradox's, questions that are still unsatisfied- no good explanation of change

37. Explain why the 'way of appearance' is no true way and consists in a confusion of being and nothing.

- Parmen. thought we constantly confuse being and non being - everyday people think that nonbeing means something when it is really nothing - they are two headed bc he think they cannot talk about nothing : they confuse nothing with something

21. Explain why Thales might have regarded water as the arche.

- Water that is the arche: meaning it is the matter of everything; stipulation that "all things are from water," which draws from his observation that nature and the nurture of all things is moist. - Though Thales did not use the word "arche", but he discussed that there was one "nature" (phusis) one governing patten of things, which he identified with water - This leap of imagination and genius is of the greatest historical significance. It set the ideal for all later philosophy and science- Aristotle said this might have been based on empirical evidence

49. Explain how definitions are related to boundaries and boundary concepts.

- a definition is a "boundary", when we provide a def- we try to make something definite, we use boundary concpets to do so we use boundary concepts in oder to understand smth - ex: geometry lines and points, build off on that

2. Historically, what are the main features that are usually ascribed to philosophy?

- aimed at truth, aimed at knowledge of everything - it is scientific in the sense that we are providing arguments, not just opinions - it has to be holistic and look at everything

11. What is a boundary of human knowledge (give an example) and what is a boundary concept?

- foundation of everything, the most fundamental Boundary concept is so basic that is presupposed in all definitions Ex: the good, god

28. What are Heraclitus's main ideas and what are the main themes in his writings? Illustrate with examples.

- he was a forerunner of skepticism - everyone has logos but only some use - conflict on opposites - he is very obscure, he enjoyed paradoxes that seemed contradictory - stepped in same river twice

88. Explain how Descartes's philosophy provides an example of helpful skepticism and what presuppositions it purports to allow us to uncover.

- helpful skepticism: trying to help to be critical about our beliefs, uncover presuppositions - decarte's point is to uncover bases of knowledge, find a solid grounding for science - his mediations, if he were to doubt smth in the slightest, it would not exist- the only thing that does is "I" - presuppositions: we se objects directly, perceive wax as itself, he calls that into question

39. Explain the importance of the term "nothing" in Parmenides's thought.

- importance: P thinks that nothing does not refer to anything, nothing does not refer to anything - being is ___ leave It at that - negation should not brought up, leave it as is - he wants to try to talk without using not - nothing is nothing, incoherent to talk abt smth that is not - he think we are contradicting ourselves: something can not be and not be

14. What are at least two types of value or goodness and how are they distinguished. Give examples.

- instrumental vs intrinsic value: things that you want for the sake of smth else- money. Intrinsic value- friendship

65. Explain why skepticism is so important and how responding to it can lead to the discovery of positive philosophical truths.

- it forces people to examine other people's claims and be certain there is sufficient evidence to back up their claims - challenge their claims, lead to discovery of positive philosophical truths of what is actually right - Skepticism is a necessary tool in assessing truth-value of an argument

1. Why is the question "What is philosophy?" perhaps the most philosophical of questions?

- it is a what question that does not have a definitive answer - once a question has a definitive answer, then we stop calling it a philosophical question - phil focuses on what we don't know, otherwise it wouldn't be phil. Philosophy is often described as a science / sort of thinking aimed at truth Philosophy is almost always described in the most holistic terms. but what is "truth", the problem w/ defining things

19. Why might early philosophers associated the "logos" with something divine, such that they regarded the logos that proved some mathematical theorem to be worth making sacrifice for? (Explain the Pythagorean theorem example.)

- presocratics at this time are emerging from a time of myth, so Pythagoreion theorem was helpful in the development of calultions to reduce use of slaves - seemed almost magical, "sacrifce" to the gods bc so impressive like pytha theorem The Pythagorean Theorem Distinguish: 'measuring' right triangles (need lots of helpers to actually measure) Knowing some Pyth. Triples (3,4,5) Knowing that pyth. Theorem is true in all cases (provides a perfectly reliable algorithm)

13. What does history - both ancient and modern - tell us are the main rational and ethical commitments that make science scientific?

- science presupposes (assumes) that the universe is law-governed, and that we can use both observable ('empirical') data and rational explanation to make sense of it. - Also, scientists are committed to sharing their ideas and to giving and accepting constructive critique for the sake of truth; it's not about winning an argument.

15. What is Aristotle's argument for the "highest good" as a boundary concept for practical reasoning?

- the idea is that the division btw intrinsic (friendsship) and instrumental, goods only for the sake of smth else (like money argument) Not everything can be an instrumental good bc you would have to go onto infinity, to explain good as a further good Something has to be worthwhile otherwise there is no good within itself ..^ 2 cases- 1, all means link to an infinte chain that never terminates, each borrowing off a value of goodness (water pipe that has no beginning) 2. all means link up in a closed network, like water pipe beginning and end linked together in both cases there is no entry point for goodess, hence no goodness to be borrowed, -> nothing that is a means is good, contradicting our assumption - therefore: not all things are valuable purley as a means or assuming anything is good at all, then somethings must be valuable as ulitmate ends

32. How does Heraclitus view the poets, traditional religion and other philosophers like Pythagoras?

- views with content- he looked down upon these poets bc he thought they were misleading

38. Explain why those that take this path are said to be "two- headed" and to always be turning back or in a circle as they try to proceed.

- way of appearance: using your senses, he argues to an extent you can rely on this, so you can not rely on this - since only "being" is and the only other thing is "non being" , in language that uses smth that is not something else is incoherent - once you eliminate everything negative, you can can only "be" - people are two-headed bc they confused being and non being and use nothing as something when it is not anything (can't describe nothing)

77. Explain the dream argument.

- we cannot prove that we are not dreaming, how do we know we are not dreaming? If we dream such vivid dreams that seem like reality, how do we know what reality is? - in reality you don't know if you're dreaming - At first it seems impossible to doubt that the things I see real, im sitting down, and I have hands, etc - But: if there is one case in which I can not determine reality from dream than this could be the case - shapes, colors, etc must be copied from reality, just as in a painting

33. In what ways are Heraclitus's ideas still with us?

- we still have lots of concerns btw the mind, language and the world - he introduced skeptical thoughts and has been a running theme in philosophy ever since - thoughts about change and opposition have be also very influential

87. Explain the umbrella argument and its philosophical significance.

- we wouldbt say we really see people, they could be robots - We are inferring that there are peoplem, using info from our minds - decarte is trying to say we know our minds more than the external world, we only know things by inference

85. Explain the purpose of the third part of Meditation II.

- what we know is our own minds - We can have more certainty about our own minds instead of external things

52. Explain and illustrate the four criteria of real definition.

1. Requirement 1: The Goldilocks Principle A correct definition must pick out the entire things or class of things name and only the thing named. Neither too small nor too large, just right! Too little: mammals- "synapsids that possess a dentary blah blah" (Whales?) Too large: a duck- "an aquatic bird" (there are too many aquatic birds to know it was a duck) 2. Requirement 2: Informative A def that must tell us what makes a thing the kind of thing that it is Give us the "essence" of what the thing you are defining is To be informative, a definition has to only employ terms that are already well-defined or can be well-defined (can't use complicated wording within the def) Errors of def "Uninformative definitions": a thing in terms that are equally undefined or perhaps even less understood Circular definition: often hidden; subclass of uninformative definitions Ex: pleasure is the experience of things that I like. What do you like? Things that please me Trying to define infinity but use the word in infinity is your definition 3. Requirement 3: The things mentioned in a definition must be "prior to" or "better known" than the thing defined Objectively prior or better known in the order of knowledge so that it is subjectively relative to us Ex: what is magnetism? Like a series of fine rubber bands that pull opposite poles together To us "rubber bands" are prior knowledge -> objectively magnetism is prior to and better known than rubber bands because how do you describe a rubber band? 4. Requirement 4: Must contain the why or be genetic (that means, show the genesis, or way a thing comes or can come to be) To be a correct definition, a statement must express the cause or reason for the things If you can explain why the lump of atoms is the table, then it satisfies this part of making a def Answer the "because"

58. Be familiar with the definitions of piety presented in the Euthyphro and be able to explain which criterion or criteria of real definition they violate.

1st Definition of Piety "Well, then, I claim that the pious is what I am doing now, prosecuting someone who is guilty of wrongdoing" no matter who it is Reason: Zeus castrating his father because he swallowed his sons, and the father to kill his own father for the similar reasons Violates: The error of this definition is clear, only one case, it violates the Goldilocks Principle in being too narrow, which S points out: there is one form by which everything pious is pious and impious, impious 2nd Def of Piety "What is beloved by the gods is pious, and what is not beloved by the gods is impious" At first, this is a pretty good attempt, and Socrates appears very excited, although he has already anticipated his answer and set it up for failure Euthyphro says the fact that the gods are at war with each other Now he only has to make clear that they disagree about piety as well. If the gods disagree, what do they disagree about? Not just what are standard measure (like disagreeing over smth like a football team winning or not), but the gods are getting in war over goodness and actions, justice where they become so angry, they become enemies Violates: The gods love and hate different things, so we cannot say what all the gods love is just pious, since they disagree -> so, it would be impious and pious 3rd Def of Piety Euthyphro is learning, so he corrects his definition, to restate that "pious is what all the gods love" Is there is smth that all the gods love, then that is what "pious" is. This avoids the previous problem, but E still must prove that his actions are loved by all the gods, something is claims he will do in front of the court, but not in front of S (he is lying that he can do it?) Is it pious because it is it loved or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? Violates: -> he is not actually defining piety, he is giving a definition that does not actually define what pious means; violates fourth rule: doesn't give the account of why --> so not real definition 4th Def of Piety Piety is the part of justice "concerned with attending to the gods" The next stop, is to further refine this definition by defining "attending" (a definition has to be informative)- what does "attending" mean Violates --> a definition has to be informative 5th Def of Piety "Piousness is knowledge of making requests and giving things to the gods" or "piousness is serving the gods by praying well and receiving things in return" S then says "piety is exchanging or trading with the gods" Vintage: unwillingly committed the error of circularity

23. Know that Anaximander was the first to propose the natural evolution of the human species and why his doing so is a natural result of his philosophy.

Anaximander First to propose the natural evolution of the human species from something else (not just appeared by gods), mostly fish, based on evidence (human babies cannot take care of themselves) and conjectured a natural process

63. Explain the principle of non-contradiction and why denying it undermines meaning (This is another way to ask the last part of the question above.).

Aristolte's response to skepticism of the principle of contradiction: something cannot be and not be at the same time to ask for a demonstration is to misunderstand yourself since it is the first principle of all reasoning To try to demonstrate would be confusion, since it is a "principle"

44. Explain why, according to Parmenides, being cannot have gaps or be incomplete.

Being But being is, and nothing cannot be thought and should not even be named (the name is empty or a lie) Being cannot come to be or pass away To say being 'grew' (phusis!) from nothing is not truly thinkable or sayable, and so not knowable That would violate the PSR (?) 1. passing from being into non-being (destructoin), or from non-being into being (creation), then we have problems How do we understand that yellow becomes green? (yellow which passes away and becomes nothing). Blue, which was not, or nothing, it comes to be. The book "is" yellow but not that the book "is not" yellow 2. what then is being like? It is not like physical stuff from which things are made 3. since it is complete, it is not unlimited or infinite, except in the sense that it is forever. Why not complete? Because saying "incomplete" implies that it is lacking something. It cannot be unlimited, because then the limit that is didn't have would be something, but it is nothing, so it is not unlimited! Parmenides says being cannot be a sphere- because it has a boundary

41. Explain why being cannot come to be or pass away, according to Parmenides.

Being "passes away" we are left with nothing, but we cannot understand "nothing" so there is nothing to be other than being If we are going to talk about something it must "be"

42. Explain why the idea of change as a process of coming to be and passing away is not thinkable or sayable for Parmenides.

Being "passes away" we are left with nothing, we cannot understand "nothing" so there is nothing to be other than being If we are going to talk about something it must "be" - if you are saying two things are different, you are going to say one is "not" the other but we cant saying bc we can't think of what is not- what is is what there is- being a sphere, all one, no change, - being many different things is coherent (logical) nonbeing does not make sense

48. Explain the different types of definitions and which are relevant to philosophy and which are not.

Definitions that don't concern us: Lexical def: what you find in a regular dictionary; used in everyday communication ex: water is a compound made up of H20 Negative Definitions: tells us how to pick out something by tell us what it is not, thus not telling anything about what is ex: saying a ghost is not material Ostensive definitions: define a term by pointing ex: By an orange I mean this *point* Get me an orange, what is an orange? Just described it enough to understand to pick it out Def that Do concern us- nominal definitions Philosophical def (landmark, boundary) was first introduced in answering: what is it? Do does it exist? A philosophical def tells us the "whatness" or essence" of what is named. This has two forms: (A) what do you mean by X? (B) what is thing X? The answer to A is normally called a "nominal definition", because through it we understand the meaning of the name (doesn't have to be a real thing)

3. What, roughly, have some philosophers regarded it to be?

Explanations to philosophy 1. Plato's Republica: philo-sophia, Greek = "love of wisdom" Obsessive desire to answer those big questions 2. Christiam Wolff (18th Century German Philosopher) Philosophy is the "science of the possibles insofar as they can be" 3. Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (18th Century German Philosopher and Follower of Wolff): "Philosophy is the science of the quantities in the things that are to be known without faith." 4. Immanuel Kant (18th century German philosopher) "System of philosophical cognitions or of cognitions of reasons from concepts" "The science of the final ends of human reason" "worth" Questions about important things that matter 5. Wilfrid Sellars (20th century American Philosopher) "To understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term"

70. Explain each of the modes and give examples.

First Mode: Dispute We find the undecidable that we do not agree about the matter. Because of this we are not either able to choose or to rule out anything and we end up with a suspension judgement Ex: disagreement about war- who is right? How do we make a final decision? -> suspension of judgment Second Mode: Infinite Regress What is brought forth as conviction for the m If you have a "truth" you must justify it, and that evidence you must justify and so on... "so which to we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgment follows" -> you can never fully justify an argument Third Mode: Relativity Each point of view is different, so perception is just made up of different point of views Something that looks red to someone may look pink to another person Who is right? Fourth Mode: Hypothetical Everything is cause by something, everything caused by something else The uncaused cause? God? Truth? Truth can't be demonstrated -> philosophically we call this a hypothesis since we don't have "proof" Fifth Mode: Reciprocity Circularity/ mode of Reciprocity: A justifies B and B justifies A -> circularity, the evidence justifies itself

69. Explain the purpose of the five "modes" of skepticism.

Five modes Pyrrhonian Skepticism focuses on "modes" or ways to reaching tranquility Opposing argument with an equally powerful argument Every such mode is supposed to lead not only to the suspension of judgment, but to the suspension of holding any belief at all For this reason, the skeptic cultivates ways of speaking that cancel themselves So they accept Aristotle's conclusion: Skeptical claims cancel themselves. But this they embrace

53. Explain how one's ontological and epistemological views limit or otherwise influence how one goes about giving real definitions.

Four Take- Always about philosophical definition Aims to answer, "what is X?", rests on assumptions about what sort of things are or can be. Depends on views on ontology (what fundamentals you believe) Rests on our views of hierarchy of beings- what is truly real Ex: define human being- is it a combination of body and soul? Collection of atoms and molecules? Certain kind of animal? Also rests on assumptions about the nature and limits of human knowledge, I.e., it depends on our views of epistemology Our definitions can and therefore should only be of or refer to something we can know We cannot know anything as it truly is (fully objective). Provide an answer to the question: "what is X?"

18. What are the four main "boundary concepts" of early Greek philosophy? What are their meanings? What are their standard English translations?

Four key concepts to watch for early philosophy Every philosophy develops and investigates some boundary concepts. What, then, were some of the boundary concepts of the earliest philosophy? In a sense, there are the new 'gods' Kosmos The first philosophers were the first to speak of the 'cosmos' and to investigate its origin and structure Kosmos comes from a verb meaning to order, to arrange, marshal (like an army; also beaty, a beautiful (cosmetic), orderly whole, well commanded You put on makeup to look symmetrical, to be beautiful as these philosophers saw order and patterns in the Kosmos Phusis Original meaning: from phuein, 'to grow' Growing of the Kosmos and nature Nature vs Techne (tech that humans create) vs Nomos (convention, things we decide) Think clinical patterns of behavior. Patterns = governed by laws Patterns= temporal connections and ordering of things Arche Archangel, architecture Original meaning: to begin, commence, to rules, to govern. Similar to Latin 'principium' principle) which means 'beginning' Beginning, principles, governing = arche The search for understanding nature, and the nature of the cosmos, is the search for the first things from which all others come and the las governing transformation The arche is in the order of the divine. (The highest god- divine role), everything comes from Logos (next week) Meaning from legein: to speak, state, to give an account. Defending what you say, by giving reasons Compared to other ways of speaking it has a special structure of the world. Speaks truth. It is as if by your words you take part in it (have insight) the ruling or governing powers of the universe Animals make sounds, but they don't speak "truth" Formal logic= the rules for preserving 'truth' in our speaking. If the premises are true and the further 'moves' made in your speaking are logical (valid) than what you say is true

79. Explain why Descartes proposes the hypothesis of an evil genius and what he hopes to achieve by means of it.

I can think of a being, like God, powerful enough to produce ideas w/o their being real Cannot prove that there is such a being, I cannot prove that simple ideas are not false; hence, I cannot be certain of their reality and truth Proves: It proves you cannot have absolute certainty that there is not a case of a higher being Simple idea might seemingly be more certain than complex things Universal skepticism Doubting whether we have knowledge of any sort, everything we think we know might be an illusion

81. Explain the significance of Descartes discovery that "I" exists.

If I am being deceived by the evil genius, nothing can be known, but doesn't that very claim mean that I am aware of my existence? "I know nothing"- but you know that you are something that exists Can't deceive that I think certain things "'I am, I exist" is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind" When I am thinking, I must be "I think, therefore I am" What precisely is the argument here? "I think, therefore I am" Philosophers have questioned the nature of this inference. How can we conclude the being of the self or "I" from thinking? Is Descartes justified in inferring form thinking to an "I" that things? Shouldn't he simply conclude "thinking is occurring" "I" <--- ?? --- Thinking (justification?) "I" is somehow the cause of thinking This of course, also indicates that thought is an intrinsically first-person thing. There is simply no such thing as a "thinking is occurring" without it being an "I" that thinks He eventually discovers that "I exist" is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain.

71. Explain what the skeptic here means when they say they hold no beliefs but accept appearances and some other things.

In practice, it results in a "quieting" of the intellect or thought, and so of innovation. This attempts to extinguish philosophical and scientific thinking Live in the moment, do the best with what we have and do not concern ourselves further Sextus Empiricus: "is called "empiricus" because he supposedly belonged to the "empirical" school of medicine, which eschewed all theory or method. An "empirical" doctor just did whatever came to mind under a certain circumstance It is culturally conservative

24. Explain Anaximander's theory of the apeiron.

Introduced the unlimited, infinite (having no end) or apeiron (indefinite) instead of the water of Thales, how it's structed, physics of universe It is the persistent thing from which all others come and are made and to which they return- "from dust to dust" from "apeiron to apeiron" And if all things of all qualities come from something else, an ultimate 'principle' (arche, a term he introduced), that principle can't have the specific qualities of any of them- the opposites

80. Understand the structure of Meditation II.

Meditation II can be divided into 3 parts: Part 1: the discovery of the one Indubitable truth Part 2: defining the delf or "I" (what am I?) Part 3: the mind is better known than body (The wax and umbrella arguments)

74. Explain why Descartes' use of the first person "I" is important and is indicative of modern philosophy (clue: it has to do with not relying on authority and thinking for oneself, among other things).

Modern phil focuess more on internal experiences, we know what is going on in our midns much more than what is going on in the world Moderm phil much more questions authority

30. What does Heraclitus mean when he says that people walk around as if they are asleep? How are they to wake up?

Most people sleep-walk through life, not understanding what is going on about them. Yet experience of words and deeds can enlighten those who are receptive to their meaning. they are like the unexperienced experiencing words and deeds such as I explain when I distinguish each thing according to its nature and declare how it is. Other men are unaware of what they do when they are awake just as they are forgetful of what they do when they are asleep.

17. How are philosophy and mythology similar? How are they different? Give examples.

Mythology and philosophy are interrelated yet separate modes of thought in early Greek culture. Their similarities find them asking fundamental questions about the universe and being connected to the earth and nature. - they are similar in that they both try to provide an account for the world - in myth they say Gaya and Ouranos came together out of chaos - exaplnation of the origin

50. Explain the difference between nominal and real definitions.

Nominal: A philosophical def tells us the "whatness" or essence" of what is named. This has two forms: (A) what do you mean by X? (B) what is thing X? The answer to A is normally called a "nominal definition", because through it we understand the meaning of the name (doesn't have to be a real thing) Real def: real definition of aims to define a thing and thus involves the assertion that there is in fact such a thing and that definition tells us perfectly ie fully and truly, "what it is" Must have the perfect fit for defining the thing it is describing, requirements for a correct definition

40. Explain why, according to Parmenides, "nothing" must remain unthought and unnamed and cannot be known.

Nothing is not something Parmenides is committed to the principle of noncontradiction- something cant be something and not something, cant contradict yourself ...^ 1. that we much always say this truth: "That it is and cannot not be"- this appears to be ontological assertion the lesson of: never mistake what is for what is not! Always speak with a clear understanding of the difference between being and nothing Nothing can't be explained, it is the absolute negation of something 2. that we must recognize that on this path that "it must be that what can be spoken and thought is, for it is there for being, and there is no such things as nothing" - this seems to be an epistemological claim, or a claim about the conditions of thinking and knowing: we can use all kinds of words, but we cannot think, know or even speak of what truly is not

34. What is the origin of the word "ontology" and what does it mean?

Ontology= on + logos= "to be" or "being" + logos= the logos of being, the logic of what is or what exists ontological (the study of being, the study of what is)

36. Explain the structure of Parmenides's poem, the point of the introduction and the difference between the 'two ways.'

Parmenides poem- structure - The intro: for of ancient myth, common in many traditions. The hero taken to the underworld, the place of death, but without dying, the same place from which the sun rises every day. Carried by its charioteers, he arrives at a gate guarded by right and justice, who indicates it is right for him alone to enter and speak to the goddess - She tells he is to learn everything, so both "of well-rounded truth, and the belief of mortals, in which there is no true trust" - These are the two "ways" or branches of the poem, the "way to truth" and the "way to appearance"

60. Explain some typical ways to respond to the particular skeptics, including the "parity of evidence" response.

Particular Skepticism: Typical Responses To the particular skeptic of a certain argument: all we can do is address their concerns, repeat our arguments, and find evidence Here one very strong response is "parity of evidence" (if I accept certain beliefs, but what someone else is presenting aligns w your beliefs, then you should accept what they are saying) Certain claims require a more thorough response: we must either argue that they are not playing fair (they violate the parity of evidence) Notice both ^ employ a similar strategy: they argue that the skeptic is somehow already committed to beliefs that, if properly recognized, should also lead to hold the belief of which they are skeptical Ex: if you are committed to an inner world belief, then philosophically, you should accept an outer world Parady of evidence: points out to the skeptic that they have to be consistent, - ex: skeptical abt evolution, you might point out that I am skepitical abt evolution but you accept science --> then you can assume evolution is true science you believe science as a whole is true

6. In what way does philosophy aim to be "holistic"?

Philosophy is almost always described in the most holistic terms. Every other discipline looks at the distinct ways, or cuts things up. Philosophy seems to do so, but it can be argued that it really does not Boundaries in science- meaning Philosophy is holistic (looks at everything in some way). A "boundary concept" is one that lies at the foundation of all or very many others. This is supposed to explain why philosophy is always oriented towards holistic questions Ex of boundary concepts: God (the first mover, the eternal being, explanatory principal), space-time (the framework of all physical things that is not part of a larger framework), truth (the object of perfect knowledge, ex the knowledge greater that which there is no other), justice (the absolute just, the standard of things), consciousness (the fundamental condition of all human thinking) Clue to boundary concept: "That than which nothing is...". "Physically simpler" (atoms, sub-atomic particles- cutting a table in half until you reach its simple atoms), "longer lasting" (eternal), more certain and correct "truth" ?: If Euclidean geometry were the whole of human knowledge, what would be its boundary concepts? The basic principles and rules at the foundation; the simple concepts its based around, fundamental concepts

5. In what way does philosophy aim to be "scientific"?

Philosophy is often described as a science / sort of thinking aimed at truth Science at (or of) the boundaries of human knowledge. Let's call this Science Defining philosophy as a science that it aims at discovering truth and that it tries for proof Philosophy is not a set of opinions This def captures the idea that philosophers belong to a community of cooperative but also competitive fellow investigators This def also explains the strange relationship between philosophy and the other so-called sciences Boundary concept (the highest good) Some parts of science were once a part of philosophy, bc they then get proved Philosophy contains only research into what has not been established. It moves boundaries as human knowledge expands Science (subscript B-good) of the value or of the good. Let's call this science- aka wisdom Ideal goal, philosophy is the science of the highest or ultimate goal

12. How is philosophy different from mythology? From religion? From a set of opinions?

Philosophy was preceded by a stage of myth/ religion, which was perhaps the first stage of human thought Myth was an oral tradition (Singer Poets), which played many functions: social, entertainment, educational and religious function - religion kinda same as myth: phil is not based on authority (we don't believe smth in phil bc prophet told us), phil realize on what we can know without divine influence Myths follow patterns, tropes, like cliches. Rape, eating of children (Zeus), etc. Myth was local: as many different versions as there were singers, audiences, rivalries (like football teams- your villains in your story would be teams in other towns that were rivals but different pov to them). Not a theory, or explanation, but a living form of culture. religion: an explanation

16. Where did western philosophy originate? Among what sorts of individuals?

Philosophy was preceded by a stage of myth/ religion, which was perhaps the first stage of human thought Myth was an oral tradition (Singer Poets), which played many functions: social, entertainment, educational and religious function Myth had its own kind of coherence and interconnection; it was systematic Who were the first philosophers? (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) Engineers, astronomers, mathematicians, sages (almost like a priest), political adviser, the first historian, doctors, etc. Their writings are full of political achievements, authoritative figures that would be turned to for how the world works, wise sayings Fist philosophers are most known as mathematicians and astronomers, not as 'poets', despite the fact many of their writing took the form of a poem

47. Explain why definitions are important for both philosophy and science.

Philosophy, as a form of science, aim to establish truth by giving objective reasons for the truths, to show that and why a statement is true But truths are expressed in statements or propositions, and these are made from words or terms This is why the first steps in any science are so boring, but you must learn the basic concepts Definition and the beginning of philosophy Philosophers from this outline the types of definition and the requirements of each type. Plato and Socrates, as we will see are obsessed with definitions and what the dialogues in part show is that the practice of definition was entirely unfamiliar to Socrates' contemporaries A beginning of books there will be definitions for the book Ex: Spinoza's Ethics What is the arche? Question what the words mean and this development

57. Be able to state, generally, what the "form" is supposed to be and how it is supposed to provide a rule or standard for decision.

Plato's theory of forms: platos idea was that there rlly is these abstract entities like triangle is a triangle; they are what they are bc they participate in these forms Form: - to grasp what a form of a person is, we should be able to make decisions on particular cases of what that things is, Basically knowing the definition

68. Explain how the Pyrrhonians try to achieve this purpose.

Pyrrhonian or practical skepticism as outlines by Sexus Empiricus (2nd century CE) This is clearly a form of universal skepticism: The chief constitutive principle of skepticism is the claim to every account an equal account opposed, for it is from this, we think, that we come to hold no beliefs Practical therapy: Skepticism is the ability to set our oppositions among things which appear and are thought of in any way at all, an ability by which, because of the .. in the opposed objects and accounts, we come first to suspension of judge and afterwards to tranquility Five modes Pyrrhonian Skepticism focuses on "modes" or ways to reaching tranquility

67. Explain the purpose of Pyrrhonian skepticism.

Pyrrhonian skepticism questions the rationality of belief: the Pyrrhonian skeptic has the skill of finding for every argument an equal and opposing argument, to allow suspension of judgment Five modes Pyrrhonian Skepticism focuses on "modes" or ways to reaching tranquility Opposing argument with an equally powerful argument Every such mode is supposed to lead not only to the suspension of judgment, but to the suspension of holding any belief at all For this reason, the skeptic cultivates ways of speaking that cancel themselves So they accept Aristotle's conclusion: Skeptical claims cancel themselves. But this they embrace

51. Explain the aim of creating a real definition. Provide an example.

Real definition: More difficult to explain, but it is what we search for mathematics, the sciences, and philosophy - ex: explains what actually is A real definition of aims to define a thing and thus involves the assertion that there is in fact such a thing and that definition tells us perfectly ie fully and truly, "what it is" Other requirements flow from the fact that such definition is supposed to be true, informative, and explanatory Ex: what is water? It is H20 Ex: a triangle is a 3 sided shape

56. Explain the argument from predication and its conclusion and be able to state, generally, how it can be seen as a more specific version of Parmenides's lesson that we must not confusing being with non-being, or in this case, what something is with what it is not.

Say we have 3 cats, a, b, and c What can you conclude from this? That they are cats, What can you conclude from that there are many of them? There is smth simliar abt them all The idea is that individual cats are different from one another but there is smth simliar abt them all Some respect in which they are the same and some which they are different

8. What does it mean to define philosophy as the "Science at (or of) the boundaries of human knowledge"?

Science at (or of) the boundaries of human knowledge. Let's call this Science Defining philosophy as a science that it aims at discovering truth and that it tries for proof Philosophy is not a set of opinions This def captures the idea that philosophers belong to a community of cooperative but also competitive fellow investigators This def also explains the strange relationship between philosophy and the other so-called sciences Boundary concept (the highest good) Some parts of science were once a part of philosophy, bc they then get proved Philosophy contains only research into what has not been established. It moves boundaries as human knowledge expands

55. Understand why Euthyphro makes a good person for Socrates to question.

Socrate's Snare First gets Euthyphro to claim uncommon knowledge of piety Then, gets him to commit to a basic principle of consistency (Parmenides!) Like being and nonbeing, pious and impious are being intertwined and confused Let's "commit to them being opposites" but that both words mean the same thing Underlying this innocent phrase is a fundamental "argument of predication"

25. Explain what seems new in the philosophy of Anaximenes and why he might have regarded infinite air as a better theory of the arche.

Student of Anaximander He said that the first principle is infinite air from which comes from all things - might be better to guess what comes out of nothing bc would be air because it has properties whereas the apeiorn is hard to determine what "nothing" is, so he thought air

31. What does Heraclitus mean when he says the "account" (logos!) is common?

Talks about logos and elevates it (divine) Although "the account (logos) is common, most men live as though they had an understanding of their own" - he feels as though most people can't think as highly as him and comprehend You can know a lot of things about the world, but that does not mean you understand The Logos: divine law known to the soul and through the senses - account is common bc it is a universal thing bc logos is common - logos able to get logic of the universe

26. Explain how and why in each of the three early philosophers the arche was regarded as infinite or indefinite.

Thales - water, - They all have the idea that some one thing everything is from- why there is a cosmic unity and order. They needed something that could become anything Anaximader Introduced the unlimited, infinite (having no end) or apeiron (indefinite) instead of the water that Thales thought It is the persistent thing from which all others come and are made and to which they return- "from dust to dust" from "apeiron to apeiron" Anaximenes He said that the first principle is infinite air from which comes from all things bc apeiron was too not specific and explainable

27. How does the work of these three philosophers confirm the use of the rational commitments mentioned in question 13 above? "What does history - both ancient and modern - tell us are the main rational and ethical commitments that make science scientific?"

Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes build off on one another to find what the best explanation for the beginnings of the universe are. they are not trying to win an argument, they are just trying to come up with proof for their points and the most viable explanation - we can use both observable ('empirical') data and rational explanation to make sense of it. - Also, scientists are committed to sharing their ideas and to giving and accepting constructive critique for the sake of truth; it's not about winning an argument.

20. Explain the breakthrough idea of Thales and why it was so important.

Thales, the first known philosopher (c. 625-545) He was the first to introduce the study of 'nature', - phusis -Though Thales did not use the word "arche", but he discussed that there was one "nature" (phusis) one governing patten of things, which he identified with water This leap of imagination and genius is of the greatest historical significance. It set the ideal for all later philosophy and science- Aristotle said this might have been based on empirical evidence Thales was also one of the first philosophers talking about the soul "soul" was always thought of as a source of motion in living beings. It is a 'boundary concept' in that it is thought as the first source and ground of all other motion Should was something that produces motion as a magnet First to say the soul is immortal, something many later philosophers to prove Currently, there was no idea of a soul as we think of it, or as immaterial. That first arises in Plato but remains one of many views

83. What makes him able to reach a definition?

That the Mind is Better Known than the Body The wax argument: Consider a piece of wax "Everything is present in it that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible" Heat the wax: All its sensible qualities change but we still say it is the same wax that we sense. No one would deny this So maybe the wax is not any of these specific things, but instead something extended flexible, and mutable This is not smth I can imagine. To be flexible, it can take on an infinity of different shapes This entirely outstrips both sense (I only sense one or two shapes, not many) and my imagination (which cannot imagine an infinity of shapes) The Hats and Coats Ex I say I see the wax in the same way I say I see men in the street when I only see hats and coats They could just be machines, assuming they are men is the product of the mind The wax is like these men; its sensible qualities are like coats and hats. In the same way, I think the wax is there just as much as I think the men are there.

86. Explain the wax argument and its philosophical significance.

That the Mind is Better Known than the Body The wax argument: Consider a piece of wax "Everything is present in it that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible" Heat the wax: All its sensible qualities change but we still say it is the same wax that we sense. No one would deny this So maybe the wax is not any of these specific things, but instead something extended flexible, and mutable This is not smth I can imagine. To be flexible, it can take on an infinity of different shapes This entirely outstrips both sense (I only sense one or two shapes, not many) and my imagination (which cannot imagine an infinity of shapes) Wax argument continued... If the perception of the wax is not through sense, or by BURH... didn't finish

43. Explain in what way Parmenides's philosophy simply highlights the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of the principle of contradiction or consistency.

The "Way to Truth" New term: Epistemology= the logic or study of knowledge This way or logos of truth, also the way of reason rather than the senses, we are told, has a few fundamental rules or guidelines: 1. that we much always say this truth: "That it is and cannot not be"- this appears to be ontological assertion the lesson of: never mistake what is for what is not! Always speak with a clear understanding of the difference between being and nothing Nothing can't be explained, it is the absolute negation of something 2. that we must recognize that on this path that "it must be that what can be spoken and thought is, for it is there for being, and there is no such things as nothing" - this seems to be an epistemological claim, or a claim about the conditions of thinking and knowing: we can use all kinds of words, but we cannot think, know or even speak of what truly is not

46. Explain one of Zeno's arguments and what he was trying to achieve by means of them more generally.

The Arrow Redux Set up: Shoot an arrow at a tree To hit a tree, the arrow must reach the halfway mark between you and the tree To reach the half-way mark, the arrow must reach the quarter-way mark To reach ¼ it has to reach the 1/8 ..... Conclusion.. To reach any mark it would have to have reached a mark.. So an arrow must first reach one prior to that. Hense, the arrow cannot reach any mark at all and so cannot move or. Tortoise and Achellies Tortoise starts, achellies catches up to that point but tortise always ahead The point is that the senses are allusive, and contradictory, so we should only trust logic and reason

54. Know the basic set-up and historical context of the Euthyphro.

The Setup: Socrates and Euthyphro before the Courts S and E meet in special circumstances. Both are in courts for related reasons. S has been charged by Meletus with impiety, E is accusing his father because he believes it to be pious (holy, religious actions to please gods) to do so E reveals that he is there to bring the charges against his father "it's unholy for a son to prosecute his father for murder" The man he killed was a murderer (he was a slave who had killed someone else) But he did not actually kill the slave, he tied him up and ended up dying - ironic dialoge abt piety

75. Explain the various stages of doubt in Meditation I.

The author has reached a point of crisis in his life where he is skeptical about sources of information He wonders: are any of my beliefs really firm or certain? So he sets about an examination of all his beliefs. With the firm intention to get rid of any and every belief that is not true - decarte starts by doubting the senses bc they have deceived us before and then precedes to doubt more complex beliefs - there might not be an external world, mathematical proofs can't be trusted possibly? - god may be deceiving us, but god wouldn't deceive us - highest stage of doubt, the evil genius - he reaches a point of certainty bc he decides that "I" exists and that he is thinking

7. In what way does philosophy aim to be "fundamental"?

The basic principles and rules at the foundation; the simple concepts its based around, fundamental concepts fundamental- boundary concepts tries to give explanation to the world around us

78. Explain in what sense and why even mathematical proofs cannot be trusted.

Therefore, the previous argument is not conclusive, and I cannot be certain that even the simplest ideas are real Objection: God would not deceive us The problem of error, similar to the problem of evil This argument Descartes rejects (because he believes in God and God as most perfect, hence not a deceiver)

72. What do Pyrrhonian skeptics accept? How does this make them socially conservative?

They followed what seemed immediately apparent; what was given through their senses They followed everyday customs like feelings, ordinary experience, and expertise of craftsmen (they don't have a view what reality is really like) They aren't raising theories on what the world has to be The skeptic does not care with deep religious or philosphical theories--> so they are socially conservative

59. Distinguish the three types of skepticism: Particular, Universal, and Helpful. Be able to give examples of each.

Three types of skepticism: particular, universal, and helpful The particular skeptic: claims that there are certain things that we cannot know. Last week Marc spoke mainly about skepticism regarding the external world. He also mentioned skepticism about other minds - ex: particular skeptic of God's existence, but you might have knowledge in other areas The universal or philosophical skeptic: appears to make the claim that we cannot have any knowledge at all. That is, appear to claim "It is true that we have no knowledge" - ex: pyrohnian skeptic, sextus empiricus The helpful skeptic/ helpful skepticism: an essential element in every philosopher's toolbox Once you "prove" a point, you are no longer a Skeptic - Ex: Decarte: he is doubting everything he can possibly doubt to find something we can be absolutely confident about Everything that proves skep. Then it makes sense

62. Explain the responses to each of the three and what each response reveals about the presuppositions of (1) claiming something to be true, (2) claiming not to know something, (3) saying anything at all with meaning (Aristotle's refutation of the skeptic).

Universal Skepticism as a Claim This type of skepticism has long been regarded by many (not everyone) as very weak and easy to refute; different claims: "There is no truth at all" if someone makes this claim, then this trivially means they regard it as also true. So, there is at least one truth "We cannot know anything is true" They mean it to be true, and that there is sufficient reason or evidence to believe it is truth. This seems to be the same as regarding themselves as knowing it is true. Then the skeptic seems to know at least one truth "Something cannot both be the case and not be in some respect" Skepticism about the principle of contradiction Heraclitus + Protagoras they deny "everything is either A or not A" "A and Not A" must always be false from class.. If you want to speak meaningfully, you have to speak the whole thing? Aristotle: (maybe not w this question) -A thing cannot be a fish and not a fish

61. Explain each of the three ways in which universal skepticism that makes a claim presents itself.

Universal Skepticism, Two Main Forms This sort of skeptics can also take on a couple on a couple of different forms No such thing as truth at all Sophists provide an example. Some of them practiced defending both sides of any argument that there is no objective truth at all Ex: therefore, if I convince you the sun exploded eight seconds ago, it did explode. And when it continues shining and you become convinced it did not actually explode, then it didn't If there is no truth, then there is no knowledge either We cannot know anything to be true. Theis leaves the possibility some things that might be true I'm not telling you a claim that I believe, I don't hold beliefs, I'm telling you to believe this claim Something can both be and not be in the same respect (denial of the principle of contradiction) Note: these many or may not turn out to be the same things Or it can show to make no claims at all- this is what we find in Pyrrhonian or practical skepticism

76. Explain in what sense and why the senses cannot be trusted.

We all trust our senses most of the time. But they also very often deceive us So, we should not trust the senses simply. But maybe in some cases? That we are awake and have hands? But wait Descartes argues- have we not dreamed such things as sitting and having hands, and in the moment of the dream you were convinced that we were not dreaming? No sufficient evidence that you are not dreaming, bc the same feelings and thoughts were occurring before, what is real and what is not? senses cannot be trusted, believing an apple is healthy and then eating it and dying

64. Explain the typical strategy for responding to skeptics and why it does not prove the thing they are skeptical of to be in fact true.

We have a skeptic saying that you are in a dream --> Parady of evidence ask back "why do you think that" ask the skeptic why they are denying that we are in reality and not in a dream Yeah we might be in a dream then why do u accept Pythagorean theorm works, then why are we in a dream Show the skeptic that they cannot apply a double standard Or just answer there argument by providing refuting evidence

29. How does Heraclitus think sensing and thinking fit together to bring us to a knowledge of reality?

What did Heraclitus believe? Heraclitus asserted that the world exists as a coherent system in which a change in one direction is ultimately balanced by a corresponding change in another. Themes: Flux- Nothing is stable, everything in nature is only appearing stable (all atoms in a table are constantly changing)- can't step into the same river twice Set problems for later thinkers about the fact that what we see, and experience never truly is What the world is around us, the perceptual world, existence

84. What is that definition and what is its significance?

What does this show? I cannot perceive (the wax) without a human mind (is w/o thinking) The wax is no different from any other eternal thing: I cannot perceive anything without presupposing an awareness of my own mind and its existence Perception: awareness of an external object

66. Explain how Pyrrhonian skepticism is supposed to be different from all the above forms.

Whereas modern skepticism questions the possibility of knowledge, Pyrrhonian skepticism questions the rationality of belief: the Pyrrhonian skeptic has the skill of finding for every argument an equal and opposing argument, to allow suspension of judgment

22. Explain how Anaximander's philosophy is a continuation of that started by Thales and why he might have thought it necessary to replace the water with the apeiron (unlimited or infinite).

apeiron: a lot like nothing, has not features, to characterize it, it can become anything potentially - Anaximader's thought was that the arche is smth that underlies smth (that everything is made from the same "stuff") - he thinks it needed to be something that can become anything - he thought water was too definite, so he changed it to apeiron (pure potential) - problem w apeiron is that it is hard to determine exactly what it is

35. What is the origin of the word "epistemology" and what does it mean?

epistemological (epistemology- the study of knowledge) "epistemology" comes from the Greek "episteme," meaning "knowledge," and "logos," meaning, roughly, "study, or science, of."

4. How was 'philosophy' supposed to be different from what was taught by the sophists?

the Sophists were skeptical about the existence of the gods and taught a variety of subjects, including mathematics, grammar, physics, political philosophy, ancient history, music, and astronomy. - sophist traveling scholars that would go around a teach young men how to be persuasive - philosophy aims at truth and sophists aim at persuading people

9. How does this definition help to explain the history of philosophy and its relation to other sciences?

the def: Science at (or of) the boundaries of human knowledge. Let's call this Science Science first arose from these 3 beliefs: There are "eternal" laws governing nature (how things act and change) "Eternal" laws- core ideas that there are such laws, can be understood by looking at the world around them these laws can be understood, in part, by attending to the patterns within nature Cause and effect in nature Can be understood, in part, by using out natural reasoning abilities, creating theories and models, which satisfy certain structural and logical conditions before being accepted

82. Explain how the second part of Meditation II is an exercise in philosophical definition. What is he trying to define?

trying to define "I" I know I exist, but I do not know yet what I am. This calls for a real definition of "I". I exist, but what is this I that exists? (The Socratic questions! Real Definition!) How to do this? Am I a rational animal? No, bc then I would have to define "rational" and "animal" and would immediately have doubts. That I am a soul (i.e. self-moving thing?) What abt a man, animal, etc.?' All these things were doubtful and were rejected. Surely, if I know that I exist, I must somehow also know what this "I" is that exists The problem is, all these things are less well known than what we are trying to define- they are not prior to reality Remember: real def must define smth in terms of things more basic and knowable than themselves What do I know for certain that I am? I am, I exist. If I am deceived, I at least know I am a thinking thing. What is thinking? It is any act of which I am aware. The I= self-awareness. Whatever I am aware of, to the extent I am aware of it- my thinking