Philosophy

The statement that Socrates is dead is true. What makes it true?

It is a fact that he is dead.

What is an argument

It is a set of reasons providing rational support for a conclusion.

What then, according to Socrates, is knowledge?

Knowledge is rationally supported true belief

Leibniz says there are two kinds of truths- truths of reason and truths of fact. Truths of reason are necessary. What is it for a truth to be necessary?

A claim is a truth of reason if it is necessarily true A claim is truth of fact if it is true but only contingently true A claim is necessary if it could not have failed to be true ex: 2+2=4

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be contingent?

A claim is contingent if it could have been false. It is true but could have been false.

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be necessary?

A claim is necessary if it could have not been false. There is no possibility where it is false.

What does Russell mean by "fact"

A fact is what makes propositions true. Take the statement that it is raining. This proposition or statement is true just in case it is a fact that it is raining.

Armstrong thinks that we can identify mental states with brain states if we can provide a casual analysis or definition of mental concepts. What is meant by a casual analysis or definition of mental concepts?

A mental state, like being in pain, is analyzed or defined in terms of a functional/causal state. What is pain? It is something caused by things like being pinched, punched, scratched, poked, falling down, etc. And, it is something that causes one to say "ouch", take aspirin, lie down, etc.

Armstrong thinks mental states are identical to brain states. What does he mean by this?

A mental state, like feeling tired, is identical to some particular physical brain state. A mental state, like being in pain, for instance, is identical to a brain state like c-fibers firing.

Russell talks about particular and general facts. What is the difference?

A particular fact is a fact about one particular object. The fact that Obama is a man is a particular fact. It is a fact about a particular person. A general fact is a fact about more than one object. The fact that all men are moral is an example of a general fact.

According to epicurus, what does all the good and bad consists in?

All good and bad consists in sense experience. Good things are good because of the good experiences they cause. Going to Hawaii is good. Why? Because it causes to be happy or happy experiences Bad things are bad because of the bad experiences they cause. Getting fired is bad. Why? Because it causes us to be unhappy. It causes unhappy experiences.

What does it mean for an argument to be valid?

An argument is valid if it's premises being true conceptually guarantee that its conclusion will be true.

Hume says that all perceptions of the mind can be divided into two categories-impressions and ideas. What is (are) the difference(s) between impressions and ideas?

An impression is a perception of a thing when we are experiencing that thing. For instance, an impression of being in pain is when we are in pain. We have an idea of thing when we later think about that thing. For instance, when we have an idea of pain, we are not at that time in pain. We are merely thinking about it. An impression of a thing has therefore greater liveliness or force than an idea of that thing.

For Leibniz, the existence of contingent beings and contingent truths must be due to something necessary. What is the argument for this?

Contingent beings come into being only if there is sufficient reason for its being. A contingent truth is a truth only if there is sufficient reason for its truth. Necessary being -> contingent being

Leibniz argues for Gods existence. What's the argument?

Contingent beings exist. For every contingent existent there must be sufficient reason for its existence. So there must be at least one necessary existent that necessary is God.

How does Epicurus define death?

Death is the privation of sense experience. When we cease to have experiences, we are dead. When we are dead, we cease to have sense experiences.

Animalize is a view about being a human being. What does the view say about human beings?

Each of us is identical to an animal. We are members of the species homo sapien

Descartes asserts that though he possesses a body, he is not identical to it. What's the argument?

Even without a body, so long as he thinks, he exists.

Williams argues that an endless life would be meaningless. Why would it be meaningless?

Everything that could happen to a person will have happened, every possible experience, everything there is to learn, every conversation, nothing would be new. Nothing would matter or have significance.

Why is it a mistake to say that a fact is true?

Facts are neither true nor false. They're the things that makes statement or propositions true. Statement or propositions are, depending on the facts, true or false

What is the principle of sufficient reason?

For every fact, there must be sufficient reason for that fact. For every being. There must be sufficient reason for its being.

Hume says all our ideas or all the ideas in our minds are copies of impressions. What does this mean?

For every simple idea I possess, that idea is a copy of a previous impression.

What role does the principle of sufficient reason play in Leibniz's argument?

Given the fact that there are contingent beings and contingent truths the principle of sufficient reason forces us to say there is a necessary being and a necessary truth.

Descartes asserts that he is essentially a thinking thing. How does the argument go?

He can doubt the existence of his body. He conceives that even without a body, we could still exist. He cannot doubt that he thinks. As soon as he ceases to think, he ceases to exist.

Epicurus says that the wise man neither rejects life nor fear death. Explain.

He does not reject life. The only alternative is death. And, death does not provide any relief. When you die, things do not get better for you. You no longer exist. He is not afraid of death as it never affects him. When he is alive, it does not affect him. He is not dead. When he dies he no longer exists. He is not the one suffering death.

Philo raises doubts about the argument? What are his reasons for resisting Cleanthes's argument?

He thinks there are important differences between the universe and something like a house. Even if we are thus forced to say the house has a designer, we are not, perhaps, forced to say the same about the universe and all the various things in it.

Philo mentions an Indian philosopher and an elephant. What is the point he's making here?

Here is a question: On what does the Earth rest? Here is an unsatisfying answer: On an elephant. Why is this unsatisfying? This answer simply leads to another question. On what does the elephant rest. Here is a question: Who designed the universe and the various things in it? Here is an unsatisfying answer: God. Why is this unsatisfying? This answer simply leads to another question. Who designed God? Who or what is responsible for his intellect?

Why are we forced to say that facts are real things? That is, why we are forced to say they are a part of the objective world?

Here is something we can all agree on. Somethings are true and somethings are false. The only way to account for this is by posting facts. Without facts, we have no account of this. We need facts to say something's are true and some aren't

Cleanthes's argument for gods existence is an argument from design. How does the argument go?

I: anything with complexity that is anything with parts that work together for a purpose like a house has design. ii: the universe and the various things in it, like the human eye, are complex c1: the universe and the various things in it, like the human eye are designed iii: anything has a designer c2: the universe and the various things in it, like the human eye, have a designer iv: the only thing or being being capable of designing the entire universe and the various things in it like the human eye is god C3: god is the designer of the universe and the various things in it like the human eye C4: god exists

What does Locke mean by ideas?

Ideas are those things that the mind perceives directly The mind does not directly perceive the color red. It perceives the idea of the color red

Fire produces in us the ideas of light and heat. Locke argues that there is no quality in fire that resembles our ideas of heat and light. What is the argument

If there were no one to feel the heat or the cold of ice there would be no heat or coldness in fire or ice. Heat sensations vs cold sensations

Animalism implies Materialism. Explain.

If we are nothing more than animals and animals are purely physical objects, we are merely physical objects.

What does it mean for a claim to be a priori?

It can be known by reason alone. That is, it can be known without any empirical or observational information. Empirical or observation information is information obtained by using one or more of the 5 senses.

What, according to Sellars, is the aim of Philosophy

It is to understand in the broadest sense of the term how things hang together in the broadest sense of the term.

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be a posteriori?

It means empirical or observation information is needed to know that claim or statement.

Williams argues that given facts about human desires and happiness and what it is to be human, even if death is evil, immortality would be intolerable. What's the argument?

It would be meaningless.

What is materialism?

It's the view that only physical things exist and that all facts are physical facts

He says truths of fact are contingent. What is it for a truth to be contingent?

It's true but could have failed to be true. Ex: grass is green

Hume says "but though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find, upon a neater examination, that it is really confined within very narrow limits and that all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, argumenting or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience" what is he saying here?

Just as there are laws governing what the body can do, there are laws governing what the mind can do. We cannot have ideas of things for which we did not have previous impressions. If we do have ideas of things for which we did not have a previous impression, those ideas are complex. We can generate complex ideas by taking simple ideas and putting them together, transposing them, augmenting then diminishing them etc.

Sellars contrasts "knowing how" with "knowing that". What's the difference?

Knowing how is to understand in the broadest sense. It is knowing how all the relevant things hang together. If I know how to ride a bike, I understand all there is to riding a bike. I understand how to control the handle bar, balance, pedaling, etc. Knowing how means I understand how to put all the things together. Knowing that such and such is the case is knowing only one particular aspect of a thing. For example, I know that a balanced person putting pressure on the pedal causes the bike to move forward.

How does the case of jones, smith, and the Ford show that the traditional definition of knowledge is not correct?

Let C be the claim that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona P1: Jones owns a Ford Smith has good reason to believe p1 so he believes it And he is justified in believing it :> rest

Can a sound argument be invalid? How?

No, by definition a sound argument is both valid and all of its premises are true.

Suppose you are guiding people trying to get to Larissa ( a city in Greece) does it matter whether you know how to get there or merely have a true belief about how to get there.

No. We will be able to guide them correctly whether we know how to get there or merely have true belief about how to get there.

Why would living forever in our present bodily form be intolerable?

Our characters would be frozen in time, no new experiences.

#3 dreaming excerpt Descartes

Our dreams deceive us. And I do not know that I am not dreaming and being deceived right now. I might be dreaming right now. Why should I say that? I am a man and thus sometimes sleep and dream.

Provide an example of an invalid argument

P1: If John loves Mary, then he does not love Sarah P2: John does not love Sarah C: John loves Mary

What is olsons argument for animalism-the view that we are animals?

P1: You are the only thing sitting on the chair you are sitting on and thinking. P2: There is a human animal sitting on the chair you are sitting on and thinking. C: You are that human animal.

Provide an original example of an argument

P1: all men are mortal P2: Obama is a man C: Obama is mortal

Provide an example of a valid argument

P1: all men are mortal P2: Obama is a man C: Obama is mortal Or P1: John loves Mary or Sarah P2: John does not love Mary C: John loves Sarah

Russell confesses that philosophy, unlike many of the other sciences has been unsuccessful in providing definitive answers to the questions it asks. What does Russell attribute this to?

Philosophy once included all the sciences. But once definite answers are provided for any subject or science, the subject or science ceases to be identified as philosophy. It then becomes a separate science. Astronomy and psychology were once a branch of philosophy. But once we started to get definite answers in those sciences they cease to be thought of as branches of philosophy.

Armstrong says that poisons are considered poisons because of their active powers. What does he mean by this.

Something is poison only because it has the power to cause harm an organism. Without organisms, there would be no such thing as poison.

According to Descartes, perhaps I do not know that I have hands. What's the argument?

Sometimes our senses deceive us. Sometimes our dreams deceive us. Our dreams make it seem like we are awake and taking a walk but we are not. We are sleeping in our beds.

What is the second argument?

Take a blind person who has never seen and thus never had an impression of a color like red. Since he has never had an impression of red he does not have an idea of red

Russell says that what he means by a fact is expressed not by a single name like "Socrates" but by an entire sentence like "Socrates is dead". Say what Socrates is saying here in your own words.

Take the statement that Socrates is dead. What thing makes this true? It is the person Socrates. Rather, it is wholly different kind of thing. The thing that makes this true is the fact that Socrates is dead.

Descartes asserts that the mind and the body are distinct. What's the argument?

The body is divisible. The mind is not.

Locke says that the ideas produced by the secondary qualities of an object do not in any way resemble those qualities. What does he mean by this?

The coldness I feel from touching a. Cube of ice does not resemble anything in the cube

Cleanthes asks Philo to anatomize and survey the structure of the human eye. What is he arguing here?

The complexity of human eye forces us to posit design. The human eye has to be the result of an intelligent mind.

Hume offers two arguments to the effect that all our ideas are copies of impressions. What's the first argument?

The first argument is that we cannot think of any idea for which there was not a previous impression.

If philosophy cannot provide definite answers to its own questions. What, according to Russell, is the fundamental value of philosophy?

The fundamental value is in the grand questions it asks. These questions enlarge our conceptions of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish our dogmatic assurances.

Why is Animalism unpopular?

The main reason is hostility to Materialism (the view that the only things that are real are physical things). If we are nothing more than the material out of which we are made, how is it that we are capable of thinking. Surely, no purely material object could have the mental abilities we have.

Sellars talks about the manifest image of man. What does he mean by this?

The manifest image of man is how we initially see ourselves. We are moved by thoughts, desires, fears, hopes, believes and intentions. And then, based on this, we form beliefs about all other things. The wind blows because it is angry. The things in nature we seen as truncated persons. The waves moved out of habit and impulse. The sun rose and set out of habit. We understood the world or had an image of the world based on how we appeared to ourselves.

What does Locke mean by "primary qualities"

The primary qualities of an object are those qualities that cannot be separated from objects Examples of primary qualities are size motion location shape etc These are qualities that cannot be separated from objects no matter how much it is divided

Why would living forever after bodily death be intolerable?

The problem of boredom would still persist.

Cleanthes asks Philo to imagine walking into a library and finding therein books containing the most refined reason and most exquisite beauty. What is the point he's making here?

The refined beauty and the exquisite beauty found in the books force us to say that there is intelligence behind those books. The books had to have been written by intelligent minds. Don't we find refined reason and excite beauty in nature. Think about the intricacies of our solar system. Think about the human brain and the human eye. These must be the result of an intelligent mind.

What does he mean by secondary qualities

The secondary qualities of an object are those powers it possess responsibly for producing various sensations in subjects like us Ice has the second quality of coldness

Descartes says that our senses sometimes deceive us. For instance, my eyes seem to tell me that a pencil in a glass of water is bent. But it isn't. What should we make of the fact that the senses sometimes deceive us in this way?

The senses cannot always be trusted. So then, what the senses tell us are subject to doubt. This means that the senses are not a source of knowledge.

Russell asks what the value of philosophy is. What according to Russell, is the value of philosophy?

The value of philosophy is in how it affects the life of those that study it. Philosophy provides goods for the mind.

#4 Descartes excerpt

There is no way to knowing right now that I am not dreaming. There are no certain markers or indicators I can point to that says I am not dreaming right now. So for all I know I am dreaming.

Williams argues that living too long would inevitably lead to boredom. What's the argument?

There is nothing at stake, anything at any given moment would not matter. Life is interesting because it has different stages to it. Infant -> adult. If we lived forever our lives would have no stages. It would always be the same stage. Ex: a movie going on forever, eventually boring

Is there a difference between knowledge and true belief? If so what is the difference?

There is. Knowledge is a supported true belief. That is, we have knowledge when we have rational support for our true belief.

What does he mean by "qualities"

They're the things in objects responsible for causing ideas. The redness in my tie causes the idea of red. Roundness of sun -> roundness

What does Leibniz mean by "possible worlds"

Ways the universe could be or have been.

How does identifying mental states with causal states allow us to identify mental states with brain states?

We identify pain with whatever a certain functional/ causal role. Pain= whatever is caused by being pinched, punched, etc and in turn causes saying "ouch" taking aspirin etc If we can identify the brain state that plays this particular functional/causal role we have identify pain with a particular brain state.

He also talks about the scientific image of man. What does he mean by this?

We learned from the physicists that everything is made of atoms. That is the image we have of ourselves. We too are made of atoms. We do the things we do because of the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. We are not in some fundamental way different from my computer or my desk.

What, according to Sellars, is characteristic of philosophy? That is, how is it different from all the other disciplines?

What is characteristic of philosophy is not a special subject matter. Rather, it is the aim to know how all the subject matters hang together.

An example of a causal concept is the concept of poison. Explain

What is poison? It is the thing that causes an organism, when the organism is exposed to it, to die or become sick.

Only fools fear death. Why?

When we exist, we are not dead. When we die we do not exist. We never experience death.

Socrates says that true belief or true opinion is no less useful than knowledge. Why does he say this?

When we have a true belief, we are no worse off than when we have knowledge. When I have a true belief about how to get to Larissa and when I know how to get there, I will be able to correctly guide people the same.

Russell says that the man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. In your own words, say what he is saying here.

Without some philosophical inclination, we go through life, without careful thought or having properly reason, believing things with dogmatic assurance out of habit and custom.

Can a valid argument be unsound? How?

Yes, a valid inference does not guarantee that the premises of the argument are all true.

If there is a sense in which true belief is no less useful than knowledge, why, according to Socrates, should we prize knowledge over mere true belief?

Yes. True beliefs can escape us because it is not "tied" down. When we do not have rational support for our true beliefs, they can escape us. When we have knowledge and thus support for our true beliefs, the true belief is tied down. It does not escape us.

What does it mean for an argument to be sound?

a) all premises are true b) it is valid

State the traditional analysis or definition of necessary sufficient condition for knowledge. That is, according to the traditional definition, what does it mean for a person to know a claim or proposition p?

a.) S believes p b.) S is justified in believing p c.) p is true

Gettier gives two examples that show that the traditional analysis or definition is not correct. How the case of jones and smith applying for a job show that the traditional definition is not correct?

p1: the man who is hired is jones p2: Jones has 10 coins in his pockets C: the man who will be hired has 10 coins in his pocket Smith believes both premises are true But p1: is false as boss changed his mind and now smith is being hired. And smith has 10 coins in his pocket so C is true after all. Smith believes c is justified in believing c and c is true