metaphysics

What is Plato's Socrates's answer to Thrasymachus's challenge (i.e., the question about whether a just life is truly best)?

"It's better to be just and have a bad reputation than vice versa"

According to postmodernism, what is the relationship between language, knowledge, and the world (remember the diagram on the board?)? Why are post-modernists skeptical about real knowledge?

1) Either the real world doesn't ACTUALLY exist outside of our individual perspectives, or 2) the world exists, we just don't have access to it- all we actually have are our perceptions They don't think it's possible to have true human knowledge because they don't think there's one true metanarrative for the world.

How would a christian theist answer each question?

1) God 2) A creation of God, for our use, to be ruled by us 3) A body + Soul unity made in God's image but marred by the Fall. 4) Judgement, then heaven or hell 5) God gave us minds with which to know the world He made, which is orderly and therefore it is able to be known by a rational mind. He also reveals himself to us. 6) The moral law + revelation 7) History is linear: a meaningful sequence of events and an unfolding drama that reveals God's plans for the world. 8) Commitments that are consistent with our mission to imitate and follow Christ and not the world

Be able to explain the three roads from scientific naturalism to nihilism that Dr. Gage mentioned in class.

1) Scientific naturalism makes it hard to see why our choices and actions are significant, and seems to indicate that we aren't really in control of our lives 2) Scientific naturalism is skeptical about human reason. It says that thoughts are just particles moving around in the material brain. This undercuts all belief, because if merely natural material forces are leading you to your thoughts and beliefs, then they're just random and meaningless, and why should you believe them? 3) Scientific naturalism leads to the "realization" that moral values can't be objectively grounded. Ethical statements, a/c to this view, are just opinions/preferences.

Two problems of a worldview

1) Thinking yours is neutral and beyond serious question. 2) Inconsistency

How would Existentialism answer Sire's eight questions?

1) What is prime reality? -- no god 2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? we make up the importance and our purpose 3) What is a human being? -- meat machine 4) What happens to a person at death? nothing 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? not really 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? what feels right only 7) What is the meaning of human history? has no meaning 8) What personal life orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview? Literally anything you want. It's totally arbitrary.

What are Sire's 8 questions?

1) What is prime reality? --the really real 2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? 3) What is a human being? 4) What happens to a person after death? 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? 7) What is the meaning of human history? 8) What personal life orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?

How does Scientific Naturalism answer all 8 questions?

1) What is prime reality? --the really real? Matter is the prime reality. 2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? There is order and structure to the universe, but no structurer. 3) What is a human being? A human being is an organic machine. 4) What happens to a person at death? You die and that's it. 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? It's possible to know things through empirical experimentation and observation. 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? Right and wrong is a matter of personal taste. 7) What is the meaning of human history? history has no meaning. 8) What personal life orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview? live as you want

Two Ways to Criticize

1) criticize the form or structure 2) criticize the conclusion Why start with form/structure?: Because validity (good form/structure) preserves the truth. A valid structure guarantees that if you put true propositions in you'll get truth out. Also, if the propositions are true but the structure of the argument is invalid, I think you'll get (or could get) a false conclusion. Therefore form/structure has to be the starting point. Why can't you just criticize the conclusion?: The premises that lead you to the conclusion have to be true and in order for the conclusion to be true.

What do we mean by modern philosophers?

15th-18th century philosophers who overturned classical philosophical ideas

Aristotelian/classical/categorical logic

4 Categorical Propositions A) All "S" are "P" E) No "S" are "P" I) Some "S" are "P" O) Some "S" are not "P" Why must the premises be more plausible than the conclusion in order to be a proper proof/demonstration? You shouldn't have to twist your premises to come around to the conclusion you want. This makes a good argument. It should also be sound and convincing. The premises should, generally, be things mutually agreed on by you and your opponent. The fact that you derive your conclusion from them makes your argument plausible and convincing. Two ways to evaluate a 'good' argument: Soundness Conversational context (is the argument helpful to your interlocutor?)

What is education, according to Plato?

A release from slavery to materialism and a parochial (narrow) view of the world, and a reorientation/turning of your whole way of life and way of thinking towards the right things (the transcendent things). What are the two basic components? ● 1) You need to be released from your bondage o We need releasing from the material world 2) Turning a reorientation of your life - turning toward the transcendent - turning towards the forms How is this different than the information/data download model? It's more about personal and intellectual formation than about mere transmission of facts and knowledge. It's about effecting an actual change in the person's way of living and thinking, rather than just stuffing facts and knowledge. If a person already knows the information than you are stuffing them full of stuff they need to have someone dialogue with you and bring about knowledge. Why can't Dr. Gage teach you anything, according to Plato? Dr. Gage can't teach you anything because you already know everything!

What is a sophist? Why did Socrates and Plato oppose them?

A sophist was a rhetorician that was more concerned with winning arguments than pursuing actual truth

Why isn't a worldview intellectual?

A worldview goes beyond being merely intellectual because a person's worldview will be manifested in what they do with their life and how they treat others.

How do you get a worldview?

A worldview is created from the influence of one's culture, surroundings, and simply just being. Having a worldview settled lets us think about the world from that perspective.

Fallacies

An error in reasoning common enough to warrant a name.

Being qua being

An examination of what can be said about anything that exists just because of its existence.

Why aren't arguments true or false?

Arguments aren't true or false because they are not statements (at least purely). Arguments are a series of propositions ending with a conclusion. And so arguments can only be invalid or valid (sound or unsound).

Explain recollection and innate ideas.

Before a person was born you were communicating with the forms and understanding them. then outside that a person will recall that memory or recollection of that idea and know what they are looking at in the material world of becoming and the forms that are universal.

Three theories of truth

Correspondence theory: proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality. Coherence: A proposition is true just in case it coheres or fits with your other beliefs. Pragmatic: A belief is true just in case it's useful to the believer. What is wrong with the Coherence and Pragmatic theories? They don't really having anything to do with reality--they relate only to the mind/interior of the believer. They lead right into relativism. They don't necessarily have anything to do with truth, and only deal with personal beliefs of people.

Inductive Arguments

Definition → the premises only claim to make the conclusion probable. Enumerative induction- Adding up all the evidence and drawing a conclusion. (example-- you've seen tons of white swans but none of any other color, therefore you conclude that all swans are white. Inductive arguments can always be undermined by new evidence, however; if you then see a swan of another color, your conclusion is now false.)

What is a worldview?

Everyone has a worldview (a set of ground assumptions about the world and the meaning of life and existence), although it may not be well articulated. It is a commitment or orientation of the heart. It is manifested in words and actions.

The law of identity

Everything is identical to itself and is different from other things. Equivocation (informal fallacy)--Switching the meaning of terms, words, and phrases in an argument.

The law of the excluded middle

For any proposition p, p is either true or false.

Informal vs. formal fallacies

Formal fallacy example: Denying the Antecedent: If P, then Q Not P Therefore, not Q Two examples of informal fallacies: Straw man: distorts your opponent's thesis into something extreme or obviously wrong and then you refute that unheld argument. Ad hominem: Attacking your opponent rather than the argument itself. Equivocation: word has two meanings. bank (building) and bank (river).

What two things is the good the source of according to Plato?

Forms knowledge

Know the parts of and be able to explain The Divided Line.

Forms (Reality, justice, beauty, truth, the material universe) //Reason (Dialectic) Mathematical Objects (Hypotheses)//Understanding (As in mathematical thought) Physical Objects (All objects perceptible by the senses)//Belief (Accepting sensory perceptions as givens) Images of Physical Objects(Shadows, reflections, illusions)//Imagination (Supposition)

What makes for a just city or a just soul?

Having every part in its proper order makes for a just city/soul

What is the difference between the "high" (ancient) view of knowledge and the "low" (modern) view of knowledge?

High view of knowledge is like knowledge of the forms/universals, and low view of knowledge is like material world/particulars. The ancients said that we can only have knowledge about the forms, whereas the modern view is that we can have knowledge about the material world too.

Invalid vs. Valid

Invalid: has a bad structure and the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow Valid: has a good structure and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

Why is it called "Post-Modernism"?

It came after modernism, an era dominated by the belief that the world was ordered system that man could grasp rationally. The modern period was characterized by huge faith in the progress and knowledge of humankind. Postmodernism, on the other hand, is (because of scientific naturalism) very skeptical that we can know anything at all, because they don't think that there's one true metanarrative for the world.

What is real? What does it mean to exist?

It depends on how the communicator is viewed. Deterministic: Cause and effect Pragmatic: Free will State view: dynamic states through days, etc. (people's view point) Trait view: consistent characteristics sires (8 questions)

What is a proposition?

It is a statement that is either true or false. It must either be true or false because the statement about the world either really does correspond with reality or it doesn't. --> Principal of non-contradiction

What are the differences between knowledge and opinion according to Plato?

Knowledge is infallible, and can only be had about the forms. Opinion is fallible, and is the only thing we can have about the material world.

Four Famous Argument Forms

Modus Ponens (the way of affirmation) If P, then Q all men are mortal P socraties Therefore, Q Modus Tollens (the way of denial) If P, then Q if there is smoke than there is a fire Not Q if there is no smoke Therefore, not P therefore there is no fire Hypothetical Syllogism If A, then B If B, then C Therefore, if A, then C Disjunctive Syllogism A or B Not A Therefore, B

How do nihilism, Existentialism, and postmodernism relate to scientific naturalism? How do all these relate to Christian theism?

Nihilism, existentialism and postmodernism basically use scientific naturalism as their basis. Nihilism is scientific naturalism taken to its honest and logical conclusion--nothing has meaning, value, or purpose. Existentialism is the "antidote"/response/alternative to nihilism; it basically takes the fundamental principles of scientific naturalism but says that even though there's no objective value, we can still create our own subjective value. Postmodernism, as Dr. Gage described it, is like scientific naturalism gone so far that it bites its own tail (science) off. Postmodernism says that there's no objective value/truth, therefore we can't really know the world around us. All we can know is that we talk in certain ways about it. Therefore, science is devalued, because science is all about knowing the world around us. All of these relate to Christian theism in that they all fundamentally have atheism (in the form of scientific naturalism) as their basis, but especially existentialism and postmodernism, with all their talk about creating meaning and such things, are still groping for the same things that Christian theism offers (purpose, meaning, etc.)

Scientific Naturalism

No creator to the universe, but there is structure to the universe. Arising out of deism. Theism is the default position. Why? It came about in our culture after a time of deism, which lead to people making god(s) less and less important until they no longer held the belief of a creator. Deism distorted the common perception of God into an impersonal "watchmaker" God who just makes the universe, winds it up like a watch, and then forgets about it/doesn't care about it. This idea that the universe just runs itself, with no help from God, easily led to the conclusion that there is not God. Because if He doesn't do anything in the universe or manifest Himself to us in anyway, we have no evidence that He actually exists. Matter is prime reality and it's always existed The universe is external or sprung from another universe Treats humans as if we aren't all that special and unique Why would Richard Dawkins say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist? Dawkins would say Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist because atheists do not believe in a creator God, so without the mechanism of evolution, atheists could not explain the existence of life on Earth. Darwin gave an intellectual background/basis for atheism, so that it was no longer just an odd minority belief but an established way of thinking.

How is our world a "shadowland"?

Our world is a "shadowland" because we are mere shadows of the Forms, which are illuminated by the Good. Also, because things in the material world do not fully participate in being.

How does the realm of being/Forms related to Parmenides?

Parmenides says that there is no change--change is just an illusion. Likewise, Plato holds that the forms do not change. Plato does not hold, however, that the material world is changeless.

Why does he call the material realm the realm of "becoming" and describe it as "stretched out between being and non-being?" How does this relate to Heraclitus?

Plato calls the material world the realm of "becoming" because it is in constant flux, changing from one thing to the next, never quite embodying the perfectness of the Forms but only certain aspects of them.

What is Plato's basic definition of justice? What are its positive and negative aspects?

Plato's definition of justice boils down to giving others their due. This consists of doing your part (positive) and not doing other people's parts (negative).

Reductio ad absurdum

Reducing your opponent's argument to something absurd--showing that it necessarily leads to something crazy and obviously wrong.

What is metaphysics?

Some define metaphysics as the study of being or as the studying of existence/ reality. It studies the properties that make something real. Basic properties that apply to reality such as goodness and beauty are some topics studied.

The aspects of scientific naturalism's ethos (or spirit)

Some of the aspects of scientific naturalism's ethos is a certain religiosity about the majesty and grandeur of nature, the emphasis on being honest/objective ("not believing in fairy tales to make themselves feel better"), faith in human progress despite simultaneously believing that humans aren't actually that special in the long run, and that no one is really going to save you.

What does Aristotle think an educated person is?

Someone with the ability to judge arguments from a wide variety of disciplines. (therefore you need to study logic and a wide range of subject)

Sound vs. Unsound

Sound: a deductive argument is sound if it is valid and has true premises Unsound: a deductive argument is unsound if it either is invalid or has a false premise

Explain the views of the Presocratic philosophers we talked about in class and how to categorize them:

Thales- Material monist - believed that the prime reality was that everything was made out water Pythagoras-Material Pluralist: believed that mathematical truth was prime realty math Empedocles-stated that all matter was composed of four "elements" earth, air, water, and fire. Anaxagoras - Material Pluralist: Nous (mind) to organize four elements for the best. Rationality is the force through everything. Teleology is the purpose and goal design in nature. Democritus and Leucippus - Quantitative Pluralists: Atomists, who believed that the world was made up of tiny uncuttable units that were bouncing off each other, falling through THE VOID. Heraclitus-Constant change; "One can never step in the same river twice" Parmenides- Change is impossible, existence is uniform.

The Law of Non Contradiction

The Law of Non-Contradiction Two versions 1) A proposition cannot be both true and false in the same respect at the same time. 2) Something cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time.

What is the point of The Ring of Gyges story?

The Ring of Gyges was a story in a story in the Republic about a man who found a ring that could render him invisible. Without any external moral restraints, the man killed the king and married the queen. The point was to illustrate the view that justice is only an external imposition on the will intended to create a polite society.

What is ontology?

The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Explain what is supposed to be weird about Plato's views where (a) there is no treeness in the tree and (b) we don't get out knowledge of treeness from trees.

The essences of things exist in a totally other realm--they do not exist in the particular instances of existence. They just reflect those essenses. We don't get our ideas of essences from the particular existing reflections of things, because there's no essence there to be known. We get our ideas of essences from the world of the forms, and we just recollect our knowledge of the forms from the time before our souls were embodied. Material things all around us just remind us of what we already know. Plato holds that there is no treeness in a tree because a particular tree is just a shadow of the "Universal Tree", but doesn't participate in its reality. We don't get our knowledge of treeness from trees because when we were immaterial souls among the Forms, we saw the "Universal Tree" and now all the trees we see just sort of remind us of that.

What participates in the good?

The forms participate in the good

How do the classes of the "city in speech" parallel the elements of the soul?

The guardians, the auxiliaries, and the craftsmen map to the intellect, the spirit, and the appetites.

What is the point of building the "city in speech"?

The point was to make a model of the just person and their soul, so that that which was hard to see in microcosm could be seen in the macrocosm.

What is the distinction between Socrates and Plato's Socrates?

The real socrates did not speak of the forms as the one that is displayed in plato books. Plato used Socrates to proliferate his ideas of the universals and education.

When was Socrates's trial and execution?

The trial and execution of Socrates took place in 399 BC. Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates' accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities". disrupting the peace of the gods. Athans.

When he thinks about what the good is, why doesn't Plato think the good can be pleasure?

There are bad pleasures, and people can engage in bad things because of this it is not the highest Good

Plato says that the true philosopher has an obligation to go back into the city/cave. But why is this dangerous?

This is dangerous because the prisoners in the cave won't be able to understand the philosopher.

What is Thrasymachus's view of justice early in the Republic?

Thrasymachus is a Sophist: he believes that "might makes right".

What is the Republic primarily about?

To answer the question "what is justice" the whole book is in response to that question

Where does the word metaphysics come from?

Traditionally people have thought that the name came from a book written by Aristotle. The word (meta) means after. Some people think the word meta was used because Aristotle's Metaphysics was written after his physics book. Another explanation for the word metaphysics, is that it was titled this because the content is after concepts such as time, God, etc.

How does post-modernism answer the eight questions? Why does it start with question five?

Understanding how they know things is an underlying principle of their entire worldview 5) There are no true metanarratives; everyone has their own perspective; there are no objective perspectives only subjective perspectives 7) there is only your own personal history because everything is subjective; your own personal self is the only thing that matters 1) matter is what is really real and there is no God 2) we are material creatures 3) we are material creatures stuck inside of our own perspective 4) death is an extinction of your subjective reality 6) ethical relativism- ethics is about gaining power for ourselves 8) there is no way to act that is inconsistent with this worldview; you can do whatever you want

Relativism

What is it? Things are true for some people and not others. → truth is relative/subjective What do most people mean by "true for you." → they usually mean that truth (especialy morality/ethics) is merely a matter of opinion/personal taste. Also, "true for you" is often used to just win an argument without really working to do it, and to dismiss someone's opinion without really fighting it. What can we say if someone really means it? Anything is permissible--rape, murder, genocide, anything. You can literally do anything you want and it doesn't matter.

Which virtues are associated with these different parts? And where does justice fit in?

Wisdom is associated with the intellect, courage with the spirit, and temperance with the appetites.

How do the three levels of the world (Plato's metaphysics) line up with the three epistemic/mental states (Plato's epistemology?)

World Mind Forms Knowledge Matter Opinion Non-being Ignorance

How do you know what your worldview really is?

You can know what your worldview really is by looking at the life-orienting core commitments it holds you to.

Determinism

everything that happens is predetermined; therefore you aren't really in control of your own life. No free will.

Compatibilism

free will and determinism are not opposing; they can both exist. We're free in the sense that we can act the way we want to, according to what we deserving. BUT we're not free in the sense that the very things we desire are determined--the universe gave us our specific desires.

Who are the Pre-Socratic philosophers? That is, what makes one a Pre-Socratic, where are they from, etc.?

i. Thales ii. Pythagoras iii. Empedocles iv. Anaxagoras v. Democritus and Leucippus vi. Heraclitus vii. Parmenides ● They are considered Pre-Socratic because they come before Socrates ● They come from Greece

Explain the erotic imagery regarding knowledge. In this regard, why can we have knowledge of the Forms but not material/sensible objects?

it is because we are quasi-divine beings that have once been totally intimate with the forms and have "known" them but not the mat world and mat world creations because they are only material and we can't couple with them. Man's soul is "fitted" to be one with the forms just as man and woman are fitted to be with one another. We're fitted for the "godlike forms" because we have a "godlike soul". We're not fitted to this world, therefore we can't "couple" with sensory things.

In what way is philosophy a preparation for death that purifies the soul?

philosophy is a turning from mat world to the higher reality We purify our souls by coupling with the forms: detatching ourselves from the material world and turning completely to the world of the forms.

What are the basic parts of "The Cave," and what do they represent in the allegory?

the cave is the mat world and the outside is the world of the forms, prisoners are the common people, released prisoner who then goes back is the philosopher, shadows on the wall are external reality--what people think are the things that are really real

Deductive arguments

the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.

How does Plato respond to the challenge of Heraclitus and Parmenides? How does he incorporate their views about knowledge and being?

the forms were in a different world unchanging and the material world could change always in flux. is there more to this?

Libertarian free will

we make significant choices between multiple alternatives and we could have chosen otherwise. Our choices are free from any determination, whether from others, our human nature, or from God.