Philosophy midterm

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.

Hume and habits

Hume argues that we must acknowledge the uncertainty in these "matters of fact" propositions, that cause and effect relationships give us no direct impression of "cause" and so must be a custom or habit of thinking that we fall into. Rather than assume our cause and effect relationships are a "necessary connection", Hume says that they are merely "constant conjunction."

The self to Hume

Hume concludes that there is no self Hume believes that the self is made up of perceptions. Perceptions are divided into Impressions and Ideas' I can never catch myself without a perception, you don't really know yourself, you just have a perception of what you believe to be yourself if you try and figure it out.

Piety 3rd or 4th def.

I think socrates that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with tending to the gods while that concerned with the tending to human beings is the remaining part of justice. piety related to justice or moral rightness.

How does Plato make the distinction between appearances and reality? What analogies, allegories (including the Myth of the Cave), and diagrams does he use to explain the distinction? Explain the distinction as completely as you can, making use of Plato's terminology and descriptions.

In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, he shows how appearances can be deceiving through his example of the prisoners. The prisoner's view of reality was warped and diluted because they were only able to see shadows. Appearances alone can be deceiving, and also leave a great amount of detail out of the overall concept. The realm inside the cave is the realm of the visible things and the physical world around us. Our senses can mislead us about this realm. The realm outside the cave is the realm of the invisible (or the intelligible, those items we must 'think' to know), the one (like the one essential definition from the Euthyphro dialogue), and the Forms or the Ideals (the important ethical concepts, like Justice, Truth, Beauty, the Good.)

Russel knowledge vs. opinion

It aims at genuine "knowledge" rather than mere opinion. Knowledge has to have some kind of justification, reasons why you think what you think. Opinions can be very misled or unjustified.

Examined life

Life of purpose and value exploring

Discuss Locke's idea of knowledge coming from sensory experience, and Descartes from reason.

Locke: "Man's knowledge can only be based on what he can observe and experience, rather than what he learns from pure ideas or deductive reasoning." ... "When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, etc., we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations and perceptions."Descartes: In order to gain knowledge, it is essential to utilize the powers of the mind, i.e. thinking. For example, if he is able to perceive that he exists, then that is the only proof of existence he needs. There are truths that exist that are pure and real and can only be discovered through internal reflection.

sub-fields/sub-disciplines of philosophy

Logic and reasoning, philosophy of mind, Epistemiology, free will and determinism, ethics, philosophy of religion

Definition of Cartesian Dualism; Descartes' mind-body dualism

Mind and body have completely separate existence. They have no properties in common, each is independent of the other, and each can exist without the other, even if the other is destroyed.

Unexamined life

Not worth living repeating the same routine w/out thinking about what it all means and how life SHOULD be lived

a priori reasoning in Hume

Now, if something is intelligible and can be distinctly conceived, it implies no contradiction and can never be proved false by any demonstrative argument or abstract a priori reasoning #Objects of ReasoningRelations of Ideas / Matters of FactRI - analytical argument, like mathematics and geometry, forms a truth with certainty by a priori reasoningMF - knowledge that we know by sense experience, or a posteriori reasoning.A priori reasoning, is for analytic truth, and use only reasonA posteriori reasoning - use sense experiencesThere are two kinds of objects of reasoning: relations of ideas, and matters of fact. Relations of ideas (i.e., analytic truths; e.g., 2+2=4; squares have four sides; bachelors are unmarried men) are known to be true or false using a priori reasoning, that is, by analyzing the meaning of the words and seeing that the claim must be true. Matters of fact (i.e., synthetic truths) are known to be true or false using a posteriori reasoning, that is, by appeal to sense experience.

How would Russell describe the differences between "philosophy" and the fields of "math" and "science"? Give details from Russell's work

Philosophy is not a science or math in which we measure quantitative data or study our physical well-being but an opportunity to question our beliefs and enhance our mental lives by "expanding the self" and "liberating ourselves from prejudices."

Piety 1st def.

Piety is doing what I am doing. Prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder sacrilege or of any other serious crime and not prosecuting them is unholy. However, Socrates is looking for a definition that is universal in scope. That definition will be able to determine all cases of pious actions from those that aren't impious actions

Piety 2nd def.

Piety is what all the God's love, and impiety is what all the god's hate. socrates says that at least this definition is a candidate for what he is looking for but it now needs to be tested.

Piety 5th def.

Piety will be an expertise in asking from and giving to the gods, if we follow this line.

Materialism, Idealism, Rationalism, Empiricism

Rationalist: we know using reason, thinking, understanding, powers of the mind Empiricist: we know using our senses, physical experience, taste, touch, sight, etc Idealist: we have knowledge of ideas, concepts, usually in mind Materialist: we have knowledge of matter, some substance outside of our minds

How was Socrates different from Sophists?

Socrates differed from the Sophists because he believed in looking for the absolute truth in an objective fashion, while the Sophists believed that people should make decisions based on what they felt was "true" inside of themselves. Socrates felt that society needed wisdom, and that wisdom was more than the subjective "truth" that the sophists praised.

After reading Descartes' Meditations, discuss the "Method of Doubt." Is it a good method for getting at basic, certain truths or not? Explain your answer referring to the text.

The "Method of Doubt" works essentially through doubting the truth of everything and recognizing that the things that can't be doubted are truly indubitable and certain pieces of knowledge. I believe it is a good method for understanding certain truths but at the same time there are lots of ways in which we can doubt things and we often need faith instead of doubt in order to believe in such things. Descartes says that although the senses occasionally mislead us, there are yet many presentations "of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt."

What was the method that Socrates used in his discussions, and how did his approach differ from that of the Sophists? How would you compare Socrates' method from that of Russell, or that of Descartes?

The Socratic method: arguments involving asking questions in order to guide to a conclusion or deeper understanding of the thing being argued.The sophists argued any side without regard for the truth. Russell sees philosophy as not just arguments but as the study of genuine "knowledge" rather than opinion. For him, it's more about reflection and appreciation. Descartes used a method of doubt in order to strip away any knowledge that can be doubted.

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

The argument is useless because the conclusion is tacitly assumed in the premises. argument has premises that include or repeat the conclusion, circular argument. fallacies

Philosophy may be defined as

The attempt to use reason and analysis to address fundamental questions that face us all. The attempt to answer fundamental questions of justification. A discipline that addresses questions that are much more general than the questions investigated in the natural sciences. A discipline that involves the clarification of concepts.

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

The influence of the sophists, and the fact that they argued any side without regard for the truth, resulted in three major effects on Athens that concerned Socrates: Nihilism - belief that nothing is true, nothing is right or wrong. There are many kinds of nihilism. Below, we define three kinds. Metaphysical Nihilism - belief that nothing is true.• Moral Nihilism - belief that nothing is right or wrong. • Epistemological Nihilism - belief that nothing can be known. Humanism - belief that man alone is the measure of all things, might makes right. Immoralism - values out of line with traditional Greek morality, justice benefits others, injustice benefits self; only the weak and the foolish act to benefit others instead of themselves. Socrates was very unhappy with the bad influence that the Sophists had on Greek ethics and political life. He felt that there were many alleged "experts" who had achieved notoriety by arguing for sophistic, immoral beliefs. Socrates challenged such experts in the streets of Athens, publicly, and showed himself to be better at arguing than they were. He wanted to spur Athens on to recover its former greatness, but saw Athens as being like a lazy horse that needed inspiration to move.

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 mind is a substance "whose whole essence is to think" and takes up no space.Mind - all feelings and thoughts are known only to the person who is experiencing them.body - performs all physical activities observable to all.mind and body interact - mind can affect the body or vise versa

Mind-Brain Identity Theory

The theory that mental states are identical with specific brain states. States and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain

Descartes: Clear and distinct perception

Veridicality of Clear and Distinct Ideas: "Whenever I clearly and distinctly perceive that a proposition is true, it must be true. But God's being a deceiver is inconsistent with the claim that God is perfect, and according to Descartes, we have a clear and distinct perception that God is perfect. Since this perception is clear and distinct, it must be true that God is perfect. It relies on the veridicality of clear and distinct ideas to justify the claim that God is perfect, but then relies on the claim that God is perfect to justify belief in that clear and distinct ideas must be true.

Fallacies of distraction/red herring

argument brings up irrelevant issues or examples to distract the reader from the real issue

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

dividing large problems into small understandable sections. THINK LOL

Validity in arguments

having true premises and a true conclusion is not enough to make an argument valid Validity is not about the actual truth or falsity of the sentences in the argument. Instead, it is about the form of the argument: The truth of the premises are incompatible with the falsity of the conclusion. In a reduction ad absurdum, we assume the opposite of what we hope to prove and look for a contradiction An argument is deductively valid by virtue of Its logical form. it is impossible for the premises to be true at the same time that the conclusion is false

Idealism vs Dualism

idealism: nothing is physical-only thing that exists is the mind and its ideas dualism: the metaphysical view that all things are reducible to two different realities, mind and matter-proves existence of self and matter Dualism in Metaphysics is the belief that there are two kinds of reality: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual). In Philosophy of Mind, Dualism is the position that mind and body are in some categorical way separate from each other, and that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature idealism is the diverse group of metaphysical philosophies which asserts that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human understanding and/or perception; that it is in some sense mentally constituted, or otherwise closely connected to ideas

essay questions

lol

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

math and science: in which specific, quantitative answers are either right or wrong. philosophy answers: We must question our ordinary day-to-day beliefs. Russell finds that habits of thinking can be limiting and misleading, and he is encouraging us to be skeptical about the views of the so-called "practical man.

find definitions for "the good" and "virtue"

okay

Socratic Method

the method of teaching used by the Greek philosopher Socrates; it employs a question-and-answer format to lead pupils to see things for themselves by using their own reason A way to discover truth.

Use of reason and critical analysis

to answer fundamental questions

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

we must consider what person stands for;- which, I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking, and, as it seems to me, essential to it: it being impossible for any one to perceive without perceiving that he does perceive. When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will anything, we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations and perceptions

John Locke and Personal Identity

who believed that memories are what make your personal identity (An Essay on Human Understanding) When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will anything, we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations and perceptions: and by this every one is to himself that which he calls self:- it not being considered, in this case, whether the same self be continued in the same or divers substances. For, since consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes every one to be what he calls self, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things, in this alone consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of a rational being: and as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that

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

1. My idea of God is objectively perfect. 2. If an idea is objectively perfect, then the cause of that idea must be a perfect being. 3. Hence, God exists

Skepticism

A philosophy which suggests that nothing can ever be known for certain. involves taking a closer look and learn through inquiry considering different sides when there is a conflict of opinions.

A deductively valid argument is

An argument that has the property that if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.(from class)

Hume and inductive inferences

But each of these inferences relies, according to Hume, on a crucial premise: Principle of the Uniformity of Nature - The future will be like the past. All inductive arguments are conservative in that they rely on a kind of uniformity between the past and the future. Hume does not deny that we believe that nature will be uniform in some respect. But he argues that we have no good reasons to hold to this belief. Hume's claim is quite radical: We all expect that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today. It would be surprising to discover that we have no good reasons to believe this, but this really is Hume's claim. Hume does not recommend that we abandon induction once we discover that we cannot rationally justify it. We cannot do that; we need to rely on inductive inferences if we are to go about our lives. But according to Hume, our reliance on induction is not rational unless we can find some way to justify our confidence in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

What is the distinction between "induction" and "deduction"? Can you give definitions and describe a detailed example of each of these types of argument?

Deduction-An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The crucial thing about a valid argument is that it is impossible for the premises to be true at the same time that the conclusion is false. A deductively valid argument does not need to have true premises or a true conclusion. Validity is not about the actual truth or falsity of the sentences in the argument. Instead, it is about the form of the argument: The truth of the premises are incompatible with the falsity of the conclusion. (Ex: Oranges are either fruits or musical instruments.Oranges are not fruits.:_: Oranges are musical instruments.)Induction-generalizes from many cases to a conclusion about all cases. (Ex: In January 1997, it rained in San Diego.In January 1998, it rained in San Diego.In January 1999, it rained in San Diego.:_: It rains every January in San Diego.)

Descartes and the senses, do the senses deceive us

Descartes argues that our senses deceive us when we dream. Moreover, we do not always recognize that we are dreaming and he cannot think of any foolproof criteria for distinguishing between dreams and reality. Since he cannot rule out the possibility that he is dreaming, he concludes that he cannot trust his senses. This leads him to doubt any beliefs that are based on the senses. These beliefs includes his belief that there is an external world, i.e. a world of real objects outside of the mind.

Compare Descartes and Hume on the "self." After giving details from their readings, argue your own best answer to this question: What "object" does the "self" relate to? Mind, Brain, Body, etc.?

Descartes believes that the thinking person must exist because they are thinking and that thinking is connected to our existence as a matter of logical necessity. He believes that we receive knowledge not through senses but through our innate knowledge.Hume believes that our individual impressions and ideas are what build our knowledge. The self relates to the mind, being a spiritual entity as opposed to one that is tied down physically. The mind, however, cannot exist without the brain and therefore links our physical and spiritual beings, though they are different. The self is something that is drawn from experience and inward knowledge and grows within the mind.

What is unique about the method used by Descartes in his search for knowledge? What results does his use of the method bring?

Descartes used his method of doubt in order to know with certainty if any of his beliefs can be doubted. Any belief he can doubt cannot be self-evidently true and thus cannot be a basic belief.

The self to Descartes

Descartes was concerned with whether or not we can be certain that things, including our "self", exist. He had a great insight, that the thinking person must exist because they are thinking. This means that thinking is connected to our existence tautologically, as a matter of logical necessity. Descartes' way of answering this question brings to mind many questions regarding how the thinking mind is causally influenced or effected by the physical body, and vice versa, how the thinking mind would be influenced or effected by the physical body.