Test 5

The Problem with Induction, Bertrand Russel:

"A man feeds a chicken every day, but then at last wrings its neck. The mere fact that something has happened a certain number of times causes animals and men to expect that it will happen again. Thus, our instincts certainly cause us to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we may be in no better position than the chicken who unexpectedly had its neck wrung."

William James Quote on Free Will

"But looking outwardly at these universes, can you say which is the impossible and accidental one, and which the rational and necessary one? I doubt if the most ironclad determinist among you could have the slightest glimmer of light on this point. In other words, either universe after the fact and once there would, to our means of observation and understanding, appear just as rational as the other."

Lonergan uses what phrase to demonstrate the technique of becoming as discerning about one's internal state as Sherlock Holmes is about the outside world?

"I'm holding the flame thrower"

If someone is to be a philosopher, their ideas shouldn't depend on someone or something else. You have to develop your own ideas based on your understanding of yourself(self-presence). What two phrases does Lonergan use to paint this picture?

"There are no defined ideals of knowledge" & "You hold the flame thrower"

Hume's stance on cause and effect

"We are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connection; any quality which binds effect and cause, and renders one the infallible consequence of the other." Billiard balls

Hume's cognitional theory - the role that sense impressions play for the understanding and the implications for ideas that have no correlative sense impressions.

*Based on force and vivacity, the two groups are impressions (our more lively and immediate perceptions, hearing, seeing, willing, desire, experience) and thoughts (copies of those impressions). All of our ideas are nothing but copies of our sense impressions. There is nothing that we know which we have not experienced (internally/externally). → All I have is sense impression A, followed by sense impression B, followed by sense impression C... Everything in your consciousness is an idea you've already experienced [contrary to the theory of innate ideas] Regarding ideas that have no correlative sense impressions: there's nothing you can know with certainty (i.e. assuming causation); all we have is correlation not causation. Claims about cause are dogmatic. HUME IS A SKEPTIC.

Lonergan's "Self-Appropriation and Insight" What is self-appropriation and how does it stand in relation to combating bias?

*Concerned with the notion of "being present to one's self." Can you make explicit in your own consciousness what you are doing when you understand? What are you doing when you "do" knowing? "Objectivity is the fruit of authentic subjectivity." No concurrence of truth if the individual can't convince himself of a thing first. The more self appropriated you are, the less susceptible to bias you'll be. If you're self appropriated, you will recognize bias.

The "Turn to the Subject" in Philosophy and Theology - what does that phrase even mean?

*Theology- Rather than pointing to factual occurrence of miracles/prophecies or authoritative structures/figures (i.e. Church, Bible) for proof of God's existence, justification of faith is to be found by turning "inwards" to man's personal experiences (introspection). This turning "inwards" (philosophical reflection) results in theories like Descartes proof of God's existence, cogito, ex nihilo nihilo fit, etc.

Ignatian Key Points

- Mistakes are part of life - accept them and learn - The importance of conversion - or change, is central - Our affect (feelings) are vital in proper discernment and decision making - Friendship is an essential theme as we live in companionship with one another - Education started early on for the Jesuits

Potential Objections to Kant? The free-ride problem The prisoner's dilemma A deterministic universe

-The free-ride problem: It's contradictory for you to make an exception for yourself regarding something everyone else has to do, just so you don't have to do that thing (ex: vaccination) → doesn't follow the categorical imperative -The prisoner's dilemma: People act only for themselves, even when it would be more beneficial for themselves to cooperate with others -A deterministic universe: We can't change our actions, and thus morality is useless

Categorical imperative is made up of four parts, but Kant says it is "one law...

...progressively specified" matches common sense

Meditations breakdown:

1: Thinking thing. 2: Take away things. 3: God Exists 4/5: Error of the Will 6: Bringing God, World, Objects back

What is Lonergan up to with his "three senses of presence"? How is that related to Ignatius and Descartes? [chair example]

1st sense: The chairs are present "in the room" → but not "to the room," nor is the room present to the chair. 2nd sense: We are present to one another. 3rd sense: We are all present to ourselves. → One must be present to himself for others to be present to him. Relation to Ignatius and Descartes: Third sense of presence(Lonergan) is self appropriation(Lonergan) or discernment(Ignatius). Use of internal logic and reasoning, and relying on what you yourself can figure out and know, in order to discover truths about the world.

Total number of theses & what was in the 84th

95 total, he 84th was regarding indulgences: "Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed."

The images of a "plaster cast" of a person

A person that simply kind of exists, they do not use their reason. A person that simply kind of exists, they do not use their reason. Lazy, cowards, remain lifelong under the tutelage of others

The paradox of believing in miracles

A religion based on miracles and the testimony of those who witness those miracles throws the believer into an intellectual tug of war. You want to believe testimony because that person has never lied in the past. But this is inductive reasoning. If you base your belief in miracles on inductive reasoning, you must apply that inductive reasoning to other aspects of the world, like the fact that no one else has ever risen from the dead in the past. The diagram is facts acquired through observation arrows up(induction) to laws/theories and arrows down(deduction) to predictions and explanations.

Solipsism:

All you have access to is your own consciousness -Kreeft fly(zipper) story

What does Luther mean when he says, "the whole of Aristotle's Ethics is the worst enemy of grace"?

Aristotle and the Catholic Church gave an unjustified role to the mortal efforts of humans. Aristotle claimed that moral virtue is gained through habituation; human nature is capable of cultivating a certain measure of righteousness. Luther asserts you either act out of grace or your own will, but not both. → According to Luther, man is in a "fallen state" and it is only through God's grace that we are transformed and saved from this fallen state.

A return to the idea of Grace (The Augustine connection)

Augustine's Confessions: "Grace is the favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." Luther (like Augustine) advocates for a return to grace and believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ.

What does Kant mean that an autonomous will is the "supreme principle of morality"?

Autonomous Will: "the property of the will has of being a law to itself" I ought to do X no matter what. (I do not will anything else) May not be getting any benefit or like it, but they do it anyways because it is right. FROM DUTY!!!

How does the previously elucidated "categorical imperative" (particularly, FUL) implicitly underscore Kant's argument in this article?

Because for Kant lying is all the same (morally impermissible), therefore no lying is allowed. For example, if everyone could lie, then truth and trust would disintegrate and social cohesion would degrade, as society operates upon the assumption that people are being honest.

Proof that God Exists #2- Why God is Good, counter to Malevolent Deceiver

But since I am not and infinite and perfect bring, I don't have enough objective reality to be a cause. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea. So, God- a being with infinite and objective reality- must exist (and be the source of my idea of God). An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being. So, God is benevolent... A benevolent God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct them.

Kant's "four scenarios" in Part I In which scenario do most people find themselves?

Case 1: actions which are contrary to duty (lying, cheating, etc) ***Case 2: actions in accord with duty but for which a person perhaps has no immediate inclination, though he does have a mediate inclination thereto (does it to avoid punishment) Does the ethical thing in order not to have negative effects eventually on you if future (store-owner won't cheat you so they don't get a bad reputation) ***Case 3: actions in accordance with duty but the person have an immediate inclination to do The immediate physical reaction you get (tingly feeling you get when doing service) Case 4: actions in accordance to duty but with no immediate inclination (but also no punishment)

In order to explain the idea that it is often easier to do something than to explain what it is that someone is doing, Lonergan uses the example of which historical figure doing what action?

Columbus balancing an egg

What did Kant call Hume's philosophy?

Critical Philosophy (Practical reason, judgement, metaphysics of morals, etc.)

Who seriously defends the Matrix hypothesis? "The Matrix as Metaphysics"

David Chalmers

Another name for Kantean Ethics

Deontological(deon=duty)

What two philosophers wrote meditations?

Descartes imitates Ignatius' writing by framing his work in a "meditational form" of writing

Descartes' use of skeptical doubt as a methodological tool - the senses? What he's been taught? Is he a skeptic?

Descartes muses, given our mind makes errors, how do we know our mind can even be trusted? Descartes is NOT a skeptic. He uses Cartesian/Methodological Doubt to prove his case, and ironically people found more truth in his statements of doubt than his argument. He says you can doubt the senses, the teachings, pretty much anything... BUT YOU CAN NOT DOUBT YOUR EXISTENCE.

How does Descartes differentiate fictitious and adventitious ideas?

Descartes reasons that adventitious ideas differ from fictitious in that you can't will them away. They seem independent of my will, but that isn't concrete proof.

Malevolent Deceiver, what Descartes says, examples of a malevolent deceiver in the media? The evil deceiver argument and how it functions in Descartes' method.

Descartes' says that a malevolent deceiver is just as probable as a good god(in his methodological doubt), BUT even a horrible God couldn't convince you that you don't exist. Examples of malevolent deceiver as opposed to benevolent God: The Matrix, The Truman Show.

The "critical question" of Descartes' Meditations. Compare to Aquinas' way of proceeding. What did philosophy pre-Descartes claim about our ability to perceive the world?

Descartes: Do we have the right tools for the job (philosophizing)? Philosophy claimed that we can know what is really out there objectively. Descartes' sets out to prove this in a very roundabout way. An axe serves its end to chop wood, but does the brain effectively perceive the world in its objective state? Aquinas makes the assumption that the mind is capable of knowing about what's "really" out there as "objectively" existing when he proposes his "5 Ways"- The proof from motion, the proof from causality, the proof from the contingency of the world, the proof from grades of perfection, and the proof from design.

"Roman church terrorized souls and exploited that terror to gain earthly power."

Deutsch

What is discernment? How does it relate to Lonergan and Descartes?

Discernment (n): The action or faculty of perceiving or noting a distinction between things. Discernment also implies a kind of double-intentionality- attentiveness to the matter at hand, but also attentiveness to one's own way of being attentive Relation to Lonergan and Descartes: For Lonergan, self-appropriation begins with discernment. Descartes, instead of examining the world around him, analyses his own mind and why his perceptions are believable.

Do not go pursue actions to act from duty. That is not the point! What example does Kant use?

Don't go marry a shrew!

"Take me to you, imprison me, for I, except you enthrall me, never shall be free, nor chaste, except you ravish me."

Donne

David Eagleman's Podcast - why is it relevant to Kant? What might threaten it?

Eagleman discusses the actual genetic makeup of humans' brains and the way particular humans were raised, which can change the ultimate culpability different people have for their actions. This is relevant to Kant because it questions whether some people can truly be held accountable for actions such as lying and other criminal acts. No two brains are perfectly comparable but of life experiences. Biology and free will are intertwined, and work together to contribute to human actions. Punishments for actions should be calibrated based on the reasons behind why a crime was committed; some people are inherently less dangerous than others and do not need the same punishments. Eagleman states that questioning a person's "culpability" for an action is the wrong question → it does not matter because genetics and environment can't be untangled. This differs from Kant, as he considers any organism that contains rationality as equally culpable for their actions and able to make morally correct decisions. Eagleman's view may be threatened by the opinion that people can still use their free will to overcome their desires (mention of virtue). The legal system would be better off if we brought science into it- "the punishment should fit the brain." >>> Man hits on wife's step daughter because of a brain tumor, tumor goes away and behavior goes back to normal.

"Through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Ephesians 2:8-10

The Categorical Imperative (Part II) FUL FH FA FKE

FUL Universal Law - Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law Basically can you do it even if everyone else in society will do the same exact thing FH Humanity - don't treat people as a means to an end only. Each person is an end in themselves. FA Autonomy - the idea of the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law, everyone is capable of doing this, it isn't just you! FKE Kingdom of Ends - all maxims ought, by their own legislation, to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends as with a kingdom of nature, community which we adhere to overlapping, first principles autonomously

Descartes' three types of Ideas What type of idea is God?

Fictitious: created by the mind by synthesizing one idea with another(unicorn) Adventitious: stamped on the mind by another source in the external world(desk, apple, pencil) Inherent/Self-evident: inborn, innate. He reasons that God is clearly not an adventitious idea since there is no God in the material world. The question is: Is God a creation of my mind? If not, then he must be innate.

How does the view that we can trust our senses and the material world constitute real return to Descartes' argument

God created me and gave me reason which enables me to understand that my ideas come from external things (fictitious ideas). If ideas do not come from external objects, then God must be a deceiver (this would be an absurdity because how else would our ideas be obtained?) Similar to Hume's idea of "Impressions" Therefore, material objects exist! (however, this can't be proven)

3 Unprovable Things in Kant's eyes:

God, freedom (free will), and immortality *If we are not free, Kant is irrelevant. he stipulates human freedom since it can't be disproved.

Hume's stance on our ideas and what they are:

He believes all our ideas are nothing but copies of impressions, or, in other words, it is impossible for us to think anything that we have not antecedently felt by our internal or external senses. "When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea (as is but too frequent), we need but inquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived?"

The joke about Descartes' death was that it was caused by what?

He died from pneumonia. Queen Christina of Sweden made him wake up at 5am, which was not a part of his strict routine of working in bed until noon.

The Negative Aspect/the Irony of Descartes on Hume

Hume aims to show the limit of our knowledge(negative aspect), not positing what we already know. He was inspired by Descartes to be somewhat skeptical, which is ironic because Descartes wasn't a skeptic but used doubt to prove his point.

"Does it have quantity or number? No. Does it contain experimental reasoning combining matter of fact and existence? No. Commit to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Hume on materialism

The distinction between categorical vs. hypothetical imperative?

Hypothetical imperative: conditional, "ifs," more utilitarian Categorical imperative: always law, duty, no "ifs"

How does the Christopher Columbus example fit in with self appropriation?

Illustrates that it's easy when you know how to do something just to do it... but it is much more difficult to explain what you're doing and what methods you're employing to get results. Talking about self-appropriation is much harder than actually doing it. Lonergan's idea of self-appropriation is merely a framework from which we draw conclusions (self-appropriate).

Luther on the role of indulgences - what were they? What did they signify? Luther's 95 Theses

Indulgences were a form of forgiveness of one's sins sold by the Church. An indulgence signifies redemption and supposedly reduces the punishment one experiences in the afterlife. Luther thought this was absurd. Luther's 95 Theses were a disputation of the Church's power of indulgences posted on Wittenburg's (church) door.

Problems with physicalism:

It abandons the point of view. Mantis Shrimp. Bat.

Kant's answer to the question: do we live in an Enlightened Age?

Kant does not believe that he lives in an Enlightened Age, but rather an Age of Enlightenment. A major reason that the people have been fully enlightened, is that they are still not able to exercise their own reason in regards to religious matters, but look to others for guidance on the subject. However, Kant brings up the point that when freedom is granted, enlightenment is sure to follow. While there are these established "guardians" of the masses, after individuals throw off the yoke of the tutelage of these "guardians," man will begin to think for himself and thus reach an enlightened stage. "For this enlightenment... nothing is required but freedom..."

Kant's Chemist Example

Kant is a chemist separating inclinations(empirical sense) from formal motives of duty

-What is Kant's purpose in this text? What could he mean that he's not really doing anything new? Is that true? -Who are the "bunglers"

Kant is now searching for the a priori form of morality that the mind applies to practical action in order to have moral action. He is seeing if there is a categorical imperative. The bunglers are people that believe in consequentialism/utilitarianism and associate morality with the contingent, sensible material world.

What is Kant's fascinating argument about lying and thereby becoming "legally responsible for all the consequences that might result therefrom" as opposed to his view that "if you adhere strictly to the truth, then public justice cannot lay a hand on you, whatever the unforeseen consequence might be" (427).

Kant states that telling the truth in all statements is a sacred and unconditionally commanding law of reason (thus humans inherently know it should be done). As a result, if you tell the truth, you can never be held accountable for what another person may do with the information you tell them, because truthfulness is a duty that must be regarded as the basis of all duties founded on contract, and the laws of such duties would be rendered uncertain and useless if even the slightest exception to them were admitted. However, if you lie, you can be held accountable for any changes in behavior that result from your lie, no matter how good intentioned.

"starry heavens above me and moral law within me"

Kant's tombstone

Joshua Knobe's Podcast (specifically his discussion of freedom and determinism and its relation to Part III of Kant's "Grounding") - why is it relevant to Kant? What might threaten it?

Knobe discusses how much people's intentions in an action can change other's views on their actions, and if they are responsible for the consequence of the action (Knobe effect- changing a word completely changes our perception of their intention). Knobe focuses mostly on whether people are morally responsible for their actions if everything in the world was deterministic (free will didn't exist), why people think they have free will, and if they would be able to think of free will if the world was deterministic. Kant states that simply being able to think about free will and consider whether humans have it is some of the best evidence that humans have free will. Knobe states that there are two schools of thought of whether or not there is free will in a deterministic world: no free will (abstract reflection) and free will (emotional reaction). This view might be threatened by Kant's view that knowing what free will is means you have it. Those in a deterministic world would not be able to comprehend what free will is, as it can't exist (unless of course they are being fooled by some sort of external? A la Descartes).

Christine Korsgaard - what is the deal with animals and the Categorical Imperative?

Korsgaard states that having a "good in itself" does not require rationality, but merely looking for things that are good for that organism. For example, animals have a good in themselves because they look for food, shelter, etc. that is conducive to their own health and the furthering of their genes. These actions make them have a good (and thus ends) in themselves. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative, animals can be used for human gain (food, milk, etc.) is if be used for that purpose is in some way also good for the animal. Animals do not have the "final good" because they can't experience their own good (do not have rational thought). Animals must then be protected by the law because humans have taken authority over animals, and thus it is humanity's duty to make the animals can achieve the good. Good in functional sense vs. final sense.

Luther's idea of "justification by faith alone." What does Luther mean? What is a possible misinterpretation of this idea?

Luther believes salvation is achieved through "one's faith in God alone" and that good works do not allow one achieve eternal life. A rejection of good works... However, Luther's stance that good works have no saving efficacy in themselves does NOT advocate apathy. He believes good works ought to be done and taught as must as possible... For you to call yourself "Christian" and not do good works would be contradictory.

Luther's overall objection to the Catholic Church

Luther objected to the Catholic Church's appropriation/exploitation of Aristotle's idea of spiritual efficacy on behalf of our actions. Luther believed this downplayed the fallen state of man and gave an unjustified role to humans in salvation.

Crisis of modern Christian thought, 3 main reformers

Luther, St. Ignatius of Loyola, Pascal.

Linguistics: Maxim Duty Autonomy

Maxim: an action that must be raised to universal principle to test its universality. Your action and the goal you attend to achieve. Duty: action out of respect for moral law Autonomy: freedom not that consists in being bound by law, but being bound by laws of your own making

The general Humean objection to "divinity and metaphysics" texts - why should we commit them to the flames?

Metaphysicians make non-verifiable statements (no way to verify them empirically), so their works are senseless and should be burned.

For Kant, ethics is a science. He disconnects what? Examples.

Moral action from the consequences they bring about. Example is salt/sugar and drunk driving tree/child incident.

Naïve Realism vs. Naïve Idealism and where Descartes falls. "Middle way" What leads to naïve idealism? Bishop Barclay.

Naive realism: Acceptance of things that exist without really questioning them. Naive idealism: All you have is the "idea" of something (what your mind creates)... There's no reality [i.e. Bishop Barclay claims the hallway doesn't really exist and that it's a figment of your imagination], extreme, rather absurd. Naïve Realism: the rainbow exists independently outside of my perception of it Naïve Idealism: All I have is the idea of a rainbow as I perceive it, I will never know how it exists in the real world outside of my experience with it. Descartes was in the middle- Critical/intelligent realism Skepticism of the real lead to naïve idealism

Where did Descartes' write his major work?

Netherlands

What philosopher was Kant enamored with?

Newton

Who hates Kant?

Nietzche

Does Kant believe he is inventing duty?

No, he believes it is already existent! He is elucidating it.

Can moral things feel good

No, that is an inclination

a. Myself b. My always have existed c. My parents d. Something less perfect than God e. God

Not a. If I created myself, I would have made myself perfect. 5. Not b. This doesn't solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another. 6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress. 7. Not d. The idea of perfection that I have could not have originated from an imperfect being. 8. Therefore, God exists; and he is as clear and distinct as the cogito.

Luther's views on the sacraments

Only sacraments he recognizes are Baptism and Communion. They aren't entirely purposeless in that they bring people together and can serve as strengthening tools in faith.

Who inspired Luther? Who conflicted with him?

Paul- "acts of the flesh," justified by faith Aquinas- saved by grace "The whole of Aristotle's ethics is the worst enemy of grace"

Lonergan three different sects of presence? Explain these sects.

Presence 1) a chair is present in a room 2) you're present to a dog in the room 3) you're present to yourself(self appropriation)

The Preface -The relation between pure reason to practical reason -The implicit relation between "The Critique of Pure Reason to The Grounding"... View on Enlightenment

Pure reason is philosophy founded entirely on a priori principles (exist within us), while practical reason refers to the empirical part (grounded in experience) of philosophy. In the critique of pure reason you cannot prove god, freedom, and immortality of the "soul" - you can't know these things with certainty - there is no empirical test In the CPR you cannot know what it is truly like to be an object because you are perceiving it through your own consciousness Enlightenment dream is dead because you cannot understand everything about what there is to know. We're sorta stuck *Kant thinks the enlightenment is dead, influenced by Descartes

Hume's dichotomy of: Relations of Ideas vs. Matters of Fact

Relations of ideas: analytically true without need for investigation (a priori) Matters of fact: synthetically true by sense experience/observation (a posteriori) and add to our knowledge. *All objects of human knowledge are thus: -Matters of fact (synthetically true by sense experience- a posteriori- and add to our knowledge). Some bachelors rock handlebar mustaches. OR -Relations of ideas (analytically true without need for investigation- a priori). All bachelors are unmarried men.

The motto of "sapere aude"

Sapere aude means literally "Dare to know", but it is often loosely translated as "Dare to be wise" and Kant loosely translates it to "Have courage to use your own reason". He calls this the motto of the Enlightenment (it is related to the idea of self-incurred tutelage). Sapere aude- dare to know → a plaster cast person doesn't dare to know anything but merely accepts things as he/she is.

The idea of "self-incurred tutelage"

Self-incurred tutelage is basically the idea that people are being held back by their own refusal to use their own reason for their own goals. Rather than simply being normal tutelage (an inability to use understanding without help from another) this arises from someone's lack of resolution to use reason, not their inability to.

The significance of the wax in relation to Descartes view that "things of the mind are better known than the body."

Spatial extension is the only constant, the idea of "wax" in our mind is independent and more stable than the thing itself. Wax can be melted, half melted, in the air, etc.

What does Kant mean that a heteronomous will is the "source of all spurious principles of morality"?

Spurious Will: "having an illegitimate or irregular origin; not properly qualified or constituted" Heteronomous- subject to inclination, not from duty

Luther's anti-authority stance ("the priesthood of all believers")

The Scripture makes no distinction between the laity and the clergy. The system of the Catholic Church advocates a "pompous display of power," a tyrannical system, and a perversion of faith. As Jeremiah asserts, "we have become slaves" to those who "abuse our misery to the purposes of their own will." Luther concludes: All you need is faith alone

Substance Dualism Res cogitans Res extensa & problem with it

The mind(soul) and body and independent entities. Res cogitans: thinking thing, the "I" / mind/ cogito Res extensa: extended thing, physical world As Hobbes says, how can a nonphysical thing spur physical motion? Casper problem!

Kant's "On a Supposed Right to Lie out of Philanthropic Concern" What is the objection? Who is giving it? What is Kant's bold reply?

The objection is by the French Philosopher Benjamin Constant and is that the truth is a duty that one must give to all people that have a right to it. However, he disputes that those who want to cause harm do not have a right to the truth about the subject of which they wish to direct their actions. In response, Kant says that a person must be truthful in speech to everyone, as that is their duty. Lies are never not harmful, as even if it does not directly harm another being, it is harmful to humanity in general.

What does Kant mean by a good will?

The power that we have to act - the only good thing in the world Can then be heteronomous or autonomous

Hume on "miracles"

The problem of induction - inference from whats happened in the past to what will happen in the future and the assumptions smuggled into such an inference Problem of induction: you can't infer or assume anything to result from a previous cause. (Ex: golf ball floating) Hume's billiard ball example

Why did we read an excerpt from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes? Holmes is a discerning guy... He discerns that Watson invested in African property by means of observation.

What if I could be discerning as Holmes...but make the object of my observations my own knowing? Well this is basically what Lonergan proposes with his idea of self-appropriation.

Turn to the subject and why?

What is the truth of the object(earth) separate from the subject(our perceptions)? We must first understand the subject before grasping the object because objects are changed by the sense of the subject, as many creatures can't see rainbows and mantis shrimp have extreme senses.

Decartes' hypothesis on our arrival at "clear and distinct" ideas

When using senses and imagination, perception is imperfect and confused. But your perception becomes clear and distinct when you apply mental scrutiny to it (i.e. wax example). Ideas from the cogito are only trustworthy.

But looking outwardly at these universes, can you say which is the impossible and accidental one, and which the rational and necessary one? I doubt if the most ironclad determinist among you could have the slightest glimmer of light on this point. In other words, either universe after the fact and once there would, to our means of observation and understanding, appear just as rational as the other.

William James on Free Will

What type of idea does Descartes say is the only one we can truly trust?

You can only be certain of those ideas the "I" or "cogito" invents(fictitious) because you are not even sure if there is an external world.

Descartes' Archimedean Point The "Cogito" meaning

You can't disprove/doubt your existence. "Cogito ergo sum." Cogito means "self" ~I CAN NOT doubt my own existence! (but I do not know the mode in which I exist)

Door probability problem:

You should switch, your probability is better. You might grasp this, but not understand WHY you do.

Liane Young's Podcast/Research - why is it relevant to Kant? What might threaten it?

Young discusses how people's views on other people's actions can change depending on whether that action was intentional or accidental. People tend to be more forgiving of actions if they are seen as accidental, regardless of what the action is. Psychopaths tend to be more forgiving, while autistic people (and children) are almost completely intolerant of accidents. People tend to also be more forgiving when someone harms another by accident than if they violate purity norms by accident (for example accidental vs. purposeful incest). Kant on the other hand, views intention as irrelevant; it does not matter why an action was performed, only that it was. For example doing something wrong (murder, lying, etc.) for a good cause is just as bad as doing it for a bad cause (does Kant ever consider accidents? Like if you drop a brick on someone's foot? Is that morally wrong → I would say it's not wrong, as "lying" out of ignorance seems to be permissible(saying what you know about someone's locations, but they have since changed their location)). Young's research only examines how other people interpret morality, not whether such a thing is truly thus. Thus, most people could simply be wrong about their moral judgements.

"The joker in the equation" of Lonergan, anecdote to remember.

Your past experiences and frame of reference form your present, constituting self which means you truly do not have a clean slate in this world. The joker = the "existential element" (the existent ideals we already have) We do not start with a "clean slate" as we move towards self-appropriation We already have our ideals of what knowledge is, and we want to do self-appropriation according to these explicit ideals rather than a spontaneous, natural ideal. Surgeon riddle: two sons and surgeon → sexism, we quickly assume the surgeon can't be a woman... His solution to the problem: self appropriation and authentic subjectivity What is authentic subjectivity? Being attentive Being intelligent Being reasonable Being responsible Being loving

Enlightenment

based on reason and individualism rather than tradition

What word is St. Ignatius famous for using? What word does it come from in Latin? What is its definition?

discernment to separate the action or faulty of perceiving or noticing a distinction between things: discrimination, awareness, differentiation.

Martin Luther says we are justified and saved by what alone?

faith

Kant's 3 Parts of Philosophy

logic, ethics, physics

Objection to using love and golden rule as first principles

love is sensory, golden rule is also sensory(sadists)

Which scenario does Kant think is justifiably called moral action? Why?

scenario 4! no pleasure

Metaphysics

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.