Philosophy Know Thyself Study Cards

Richard Kraut argues („The Examined Life‟) that the Greek term „biōtos‟ can be translated either as „worth living‟ or „to be lived‟. Why might one hold that the latter interpretation permits a more plausible reading of Socrates‟ dictum about the unexamined life as expressed in the Apology?

"not to be lived" as in one SHOULD live an examined life. This interpretation is more plausible because it simply places a normative suggestion on individuals, not a death sentence. The surgeon's life may be worth living, but he would live a better life if he began examining it. A deranged serial killer of children who examines life lives a better life than a deranged serial killer of children who does not.

In Meditation III, Descartes gives what he believes to be a proof of God‟s existence. He also offers considerations about the problem of evil, and about the nature of our faculty of reason, justifying the thesis that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Please explain that thesis and the justification Descartes gives on its behalf. Is being certain that something is the case enough to count as clearly and distinctly perceiving that it is so? Please explain your answer.

*I have a sense of what it means to be 100% right - strict cases ->logic/math *Descartes hold that ignorance is a kind of evil -holds that because God would not permit intractable evil, if I use my faculties in the most careful way I can, then find my answer in a distinct/clear way, I must be right

after explaining the concept of akrasia, please explain how one might object to a characterization of virtue as form of knowledge. Finally, how might Socrates defend his position in reply to this objection?

-"akrasia" -weakness of will knowing what should be done, yet not doing it -Knowledge can't be closely tied with virtue since very smart people perform evil often -?

Meno accuses Socrates of being like a torpedo fish. What does Meno mean by this accusation? Does Socrates think there is value in making his interlocutors "numb"? Please explain your answer

-Meno, at the end of his rope, calls Socrates a torpedo fish (a fish that numbs whatever touches it). "Both my mind and my tongue are numb," he says. Though he has "made many speeches about virtue before large audiences on a thousand occasions...now [he] cannot even say what it is." This state of coming to know that one does not know is typical of Socrates' method in Plato's dialogues, and is known as aporia. -For Socrates (and for Plato), it is much better to know that one does not know than "boldly and grandly" to claim knowledge when one is in fact ignorant.

Socrates explains in the Apology that he has little or no knowledge about matters that are most important-the nature of virtue, justice, how to live properly, and so on. He also remarks that the oracle at Delphi once stated to a friend of his that no one is wiser than Socrates. How did Socrates end up explaining this apparently mistaken pronouncement in such a way as to show it to have some basis after all? How is that explanation germane to the nature of self-knowledge?

-Socrates is wise not because he knows more , but because he is less self-deluded. He is not under the delusion that he knows what he doesn't. Wiser than other Athenians because he is not full of errors. -Socrates can introspect accurately/be honest with himself

Distinguish between first-order and second-order beliefs

1st order- can't be sure yet 2nd order- can be sure I can be sure about how things *seem* this apple is in front of me vs. it seems to me as if this apple is in front of me

Freud contends that dreamers do know what their dreams mean, but fail to know that they know this (p. 124). How might this claim be expressed in terms of second- and third-order mental states? How does Freud attempt to justify his claim? In your answer please use at least one example that Freud uses in support of his claim.

1st. i know that i have that desire 2nd i know that i know that i have that desire 3rd- i don't know that i know that i have that desire

Explain what it is to commit a category mistake as Ryle construes that notion in Chapter One of CM. Next, give an example of a category mistake different from those Ryle adduces in his book. Why would Ryle charge Descartes and others who adhere to the Official Doctrine with committing a category mistake? In your answer, please be sure explain Ryle's view that mental characteristics like 'irritated' and 'elated' refer to behavior and/or multi-track dispositions to behavior.

A category mistake is a semantic or ontological error where a thing is included in a category or set to which it does not belong. Mistake about the logical status of an object. You are shown all the federal buildings and officials but want to see the government.

What are (a) consciousness and (b) introspection as we have used those terms. Next, please explain the Cartesian doctrines of phosphorescence and infallibility as they pertain to self-knowledge. How might Hume‟s example of abject terror be used as a counterexample to phosphorescence? How might the "systematic elusiveness of the self" as described by Ryle provide another objection to phosphorescence? Please explain your answer. Finally, how does Ryle‟s example of the man whistling Tipperary pose a challenge to infallibility?

Abject terror-

She has little or no time for self-examination. However, she gets satisfaction out of what she does, and she certainly seems to live a life that is worth living. Does the example of Mary in Moldova refute Socrates‟ claim that the unexamined life is not worth living? Please explain your answer.

By a strict interpretation of what socrates means, yes. Softer interpretation of what socrates means --> "not to be lived" as in one SHOULD live an examined life. Mary in Moldova's life is worth living but would be enhanced by self-examination

Even if Descartes can somehow rule out the possibility that he is dreaming, what further, more troublesome, possibility would he have to rule out in order to be confident in even such apparently obvious beliefs as that he has a pair of hands?

Can't rule out your brain has been put in a vat and given sensory experiences

Descartes argues that even if he cannot rule out this more troublesome possibility, there is a first proposition about which he cannot be mistaken. What is the first proposition about which he believes he cannot be mistaken, and how does he show that he cannot be mistaken about it?

Cogito ergo sum Even if I harbor the most crazy thoughts about how I am here, in all those cases I still exist because I'm thinking 1. I am thinking 2. I couldn't be thinking unless there was a "self" doing the thinking ________ I exist I am a thinking thing -exist -can also be sure of the contents of my own mind __________ The mind is open and transparent to itself

Please explain, with the aid of examples, the four main components of the self that we have isolated thus far: cognitive, affective, experiential, and character traits.

Cognitive- (tuesday comes after monday) Affective- *moods- states of agitation, don't have to be directed toward an object *emotions- directed upon some actual state of affairs (can answer what you're hopeful/fearful about Experiential- what it's like-ness of an experience Character Traits- honest, pushy, eager to please, unpunctual

Next, in what ways are the characters Euthyphro, Crito, and Ion examples of people who live unexamined lives?

Euthyphro is in denial of his own moral ignorance, believes surely in what is virtuous Crito is follows social pressures to do as others would expect him to/keep up with impressions- cares about public opinion more than what he wants to do Ion -committed to conflicting claims

Freud claims that, "...civilization is to a large extent being constantly created anew." (p. 27). Please explain this remark and its significance for Freud‟s view of the unconscious as it relates to human action.

ID - people born w/o moral compass- every new person must be socialized to control the id -controlling unconscious -those restraints change all the time

Might Socrates‟ inference be challenged with the help of a distinction between what is innate and what is implicit? Please explain your answer.

Implicit- knowledge that can be inferred from knowledge you know; doesn't put to rest Socrates' charge about innateness....

Please explain the Indiscernibility of Identicals

Indiscernibility of identicals x=y The body-detachment argument- 1. I clearly and distinctly perceive the possibility of existing without my body 2. I could, therefore, exist without my body 3. my mind thus has the property of being capable of existing without my body 4. my body does not have this property Ergo 5. my mind and body are distinct

Sigmund Freud in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis contends that although one cannot find objective evidence for his theory of the unconscious, it is possible to find subjective evidence for this theory. Please explain this view and Freud‟s reasons for espousing it. Does Freud nevertheless appeal, if only implicitly, to the principle of Inference to the Best Explanation? Please explain your answer.

Inference of the best explanation - we reason from the premise that a hypothesis would explain certain facts (e.g., the DNA samples from the ice pick, the footprints in the snow) to the conclusion that the hypothesis (e.g., the butler did it) is true.

Suppose now that you have a "second-order" belief about the contents of your own mind, such as a belief that might be expressed with the words, "I seem to see an orange before me." Would that belief turn out to be wrong if, in fact, you are now in Zeke‟s vat? Please explain your answer.

No. Your own perception is not something Zeke can take away.

Ryle (in Chapter One of The Concept of Mind) considers what he calls the Official Doctrine concerning the relation of the mind to the body. Explain the main components of this doctrine as conceived by Ryle. How, according to Ryle, was Descartes driven to propound such a doctrine in the face of the new mathematical physics of his day?

Ryle's explicit target in The Concept of Mind is what he calls the "Official Doctrine", which results, he tells us, at least in part from Descartes' appreciation that Galilean methods of scientific discovery were fit to provide mechanical explanations for every occupant of space, together with Descartes' conviction that the mental could not simply be a more complex variety of the mechanical. This "two-world", Cartesian view has distinctive ontological, epistemological, and semantic commitments that each lead to particular philosophical puzzles.

In the first two of his Meditations, Descartes considers the possibility that all of his beliefs are false. First, how do (a) illusions, (b) hallucinations, and (c) dreams sometimes bring about false beliefs in us?

Senses can delude us: -illusions -hallucinations -dreams

Please consider the "Basta!" passage on the bottom of p. 60 of ILP beginning, "H‟m! That was a surprising reaction, a truly energetic denial." In this passage Freud uses a rhetorical technique about which we might have doubts. What is this technique, and why we might have doubts about its cogency?

Siggie's tricks- Siggie's old tricks (266)- anybody who disagrees with me is just showing themselves to be part of the whole mechanism I'm talking about. Confirmation bias- if I draw from my own experience we're more likely to apply generally. Freud seems to be refusing to do so- epistemic trick. Must be a point where one says NO, we need a test.

Socrates in the Meno uses the analogy of Daedalus‟s statues to argue that knowledge requires more than true opinion. Please explain this analogy, and show in what way knowledge requires more than true opinion. In your answer, please be sure to explain the relevance of the phenomenon of "counterfactual dependence."

Socrates wants to insist that opinions are often like Daedalus's statues: beautiful and apparently very substantial, solid, and permanent. But unless they are tied down, firmly attached to the earth (or, as we might now say, grounded), they have no claim to the status of knowledge.

At the end of his chapter on Knowing How and Knowing That, Ryle considers the doctrine of solipsism. What is this doctrine, and why does Ryle hold that those who are in the grip of Descartes‟ category mistake about the mind must be vexed by this doctrine? Next, how does Ryle hold that on his view of intelligent behavior, the threat of solipsism may be banished?

Solipsism- belief that you're the only one with a mind, everything/everyone else could just be zombies Common sense is on the side that there are other minds  following the inner workings of intelligent actions don't point to a mind

Note that Descartes remarks that his essence consists entirely in his being a thinking thing (p. 51). He seems to infer from this that it is in principle possible for his mind to exist without his body, indeed without his brain. Please explain how Descartes concludes from this observation, via what we have called the Body-Detachment Argument, that his mind and body are in fact distinct. In your answer be sure to explain how Descartes relies on the notion of clear and distinct perception.

The body-detachment argument- 1. I clearly and distinctly perceive the possibility of existing without my body 2. I could, therefore, exist without my body 3. my mind thus has the property of being capable of existing without my body 4. my body does not have this property Ergo 5. my mind and body are distinct

How would Plato invoke Socrates' discussion with Meno's slave boy to challenge the doctrine of empiricism? What does Socrates infer, from his observations of the slave boy‟s apparently innate knowledge, about that boy‟s soul?

The slave is made to realize this only through answering Socrates' questions, not through any direct teaching (though we have noted that at least one of his questions is more of a statement). Socrates presents this process to Meno as strong evidence that learning is a recollection: if the slave wasn't being taught, how did he come to know the relationship between the diagonal of a square and a square double the area? The knowledge must already have been in him, waiting to be "stirred up like a dream" by Socrates' questions. This is Socrates' (and Plato's) solution to the problem of how we can try to find out the nature of something we do not yet know. Socrates can now advise Meno that "you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present--that is, what you do not recollect." Even if he has the idea of the soul's immortality and recollection slightly wrong, says Socrates, the demonstration with Meno's slave has shown that "we will be better men...if we believe that one must search for the things one does not know."

Explain what it might be to examine your life, or your self, in a way that seems relevant to Socrates‟ remark.

To reevaluate and be open to alternative voices on ethical issues. To ask more questions and provide fewer certain answers

Please take two of the dreams that have been submitted by students in our class, and analyze them along Freudian lines

Virginia Woolfe reading, with mother in the kitchen, windows of her home being smashed and she's crying, mom leaves: student has lost her virginity (house/book symbolism) but is afraid to tell her mother for fear that she'll shun/abandon her. "I dreamt that while I was using running water in my apartment, it was slowly turned off by somebody other than myself. When asking my roommates if they could use water, they said yes and that they had more than enough water. No matter what I did, I had no access to water at all." water -> faucets have 3 parts -> handles and faucet - sexually deprived and jealous of everyone else having sex.

Explain why some hold there to be an asymmetry between my knowledge of my introspectible states, and my knowledge of others‟ introspectible states

We have first-person authority -can't tell anyone else they're not in pain. We can have priviledge access to some of our internal states (not entirely readable)

David Armstrong agrees with Ryle in holding that mental characteristics may be defined in part in terms of behavior and dispositions to behavior. Why would Armstrong nevertheless charge Ryle with failing to take a necessary further step, namely of assigning a non-dispositional basis to these dispositions

answer

Ryle considers what he terms the intellectualist legend, according to which all intelligent behavior requires the consideration of appropriate propositions, and then putting those propositions into practice. How does Ryle argue against this legend?

answer

Ryle contends that my knowledge of myself is superior to my knowledge of others only as a matter of degree, and even then it is only a contingent difference that could be reversed. Please explain his reasons for holding these positions. Next, do these implications of Ryle‟s view expose him to criticism having to do with the experiential component of the mind? Please explain your answer

answer

Ryle holds that dualism and monism are both answers to a confused question. That question is, "What kind of substance is a mind-material or non-material?" Why does Ryle think this question is confused in spite of the fact that grammatically it is perfectly well formed

answer

Suppose that we agree that human beings possess some property, F (such as the capacity for abstract thought), that no other species possesses. Does it follow that human beings possess property F essentially? Please explain your answer. (In your answer, you may use the following characterization: A possesses property F essentially if and only if A could not exist without possessing F.)

answer

explain two areas of knowledge that seem to pose challenges to empiricism, in that it is difficult to see how we could gain knowledge of those areas solely by means of our senses

answer?

What are the "basic emotions‟? Does acknowledging the existence of such emotions prevent recognition of the fact different persons and cultures might also have idiosyncratic emotions? Please explain your answer. Finally, why might the basic emotions be appealed to in support of the thesis that the Central Nervous System provides a non-dispositional basis for these affective states

love, fear, hate and lust stem from the ID no - only basic

Next, how does Freud invoke the phenomenon of parapraxes as evidence for his theory of the unconscious? In your answer to this last question, please explain Freud‟s claim that parapraxes "have a sense of their own"?

not claiming parapraxes correspond to every belief that I have mutual interference of disturbed & disturbing intentions (may be related in context) -unconscious experience -still mental events -happens to you vs. something that you DO

Are any of these components (cognitive, affective, experiential and character traits) more amenable to introspection than others? Please explain your answer.

some character traits, though we may deceive ourselves into saying we're cooperative, considerate, etc. more moods- only really can rely on first person authority emotions- perhaps someone else can tell us we're redirecting our resentment about something onto something else, better than we can. othertimes, no one else can know our experiences or know how we have reacted to them

What is empiricism?

the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience. anything you can claim to know must be traced back to sensory input

Socrates argues in the Meno that virtue is a form of knowledge or wisdom. Please summarize his reasons for this view.

to know is to know what is good.

What for Freud, is the function of dreams? After distinguishing between his notions ofmanifest and latent content, please give an example of a dream and its interpretation that conform to his theory. In your answer be sure to explain the difference between dreamwork and dream interpretation.

wish fulfillment. Dreams- address the concern while I'm sleeping without having to wake up - "protects" our sleep. Allows us to be restful. Manifest content -> literal interpretation of what happened Latent content enguine unconscious wish to eat/pee Dreamwork -> latent content transforms to manifest content Dream interpretation -> symbolism -> reoccurring, discerning latent from manifest Pg 124/125 you do know what your dream means, you just don't know what you know.