Reason and the Self (midterm Jones)

deductive argument

The conclusion is contained within the premises

Hypothetical syllogism

if P then Q if Q then R therefore if P then R

Knowledge

justified true belief

Validity

(only deductive) All premises are true = conclusion is true

Soundness

(only deductive) a valid argument with true premises

Plato's arguments for reincarnation

1. If everything dies and all souls remain in Hades, then nothing will remain alive over time. 2. Nothing remains dead; species continue. 3. So the souls must come back from the dead/Hades. 4. This is reincarnation. ... 1. Learning is recollection. 2. If (1), then our souls must have learned before we were born. 3. So, the soul reincarnates ... 1. Nature recycles; what dies gives life to something else. 2. This cycle exists everywhere. 3. Why would souls be the only things in nature that do not recycle? ... 1. Opposites come from opposites: hot-cold; large-small; fast-slow; awake-sleeping; etc. 2. These processes all go in both directions. 3. Life is the opposite of death 4. There is a process of becoming dead from being alive called dying. 5. So, there must be a complimentary process of going from dead to alive. 6. Therefore, souls reincarnate.

Descartes' correspondence with princess elizabeth of Bohemia: the mind-body interaction problem

1. If we focus on the essence of spirits/minds (thought) & bodies (extension) we will see nothing in common, so we must focus on the primitive notion we have of their union 2. Not all causal interaction requires contact between 2 substances (e.g. gravity) 3. God has established a union between spirits/minds and bodies

Plato's main argument for the soul's immortality

1. The soul preexists the birth of the body. (Recollection) 2. The soul survives the death of the body. (Reincarnation) 3. If the soul pre-exists the body and survives the death of the body then the soul is immortal. 4. Therefore, the soul is immortal.

Plato's recollection argument for the soul's preexistence

1. We can tell when two physical objects are not equal; we can tell that they are equal in some respects but not purely equal. 2. We couldn't make that judgment if we didn't possess the concept of pure equality. 3. We didn't get the concept of pure equality from perception because no two physical objects are perfectly equal. 4. Therefore, we must have recollected the concept of pure equality.

Hume on constant conjunction of ideas and causation

1. we never observe any causal laws; all we observe are constant conjunctions of events, but not the aural laws that supposedly connect them. 2. There is no non-circular argument for the existence of laws of nature. Therefore, we do not have any knowledge of the causal laws of nature.

Hume on the problem of induction

?? 1) generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (example: the inference that all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white, before the discovery of black swans. or all ravens are black) 2) Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (example: that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature. (need to add to make inductive reasoning true)

Descartes argument against skepticism

???

Moores criticism of skepticism

???

Skepticism

A claim that no one has knowledge

Dualism

A metaphysical claim that there are 2 distinct kinds of substances that exist

Descartes' real distinction argument

Anything i can clearly and distinctively distinguish, Gos can separate It is possible that my spirit/mind could exist without my body It is not possible that my body could exist without my body Therefore, my spirit/mind is not identical to my body Therefore, my spirit/mind & body are really distinct kinds of substances

Princess Elizabeth's mind-body interaction problem

Assume that the spirit /mind is essentially a thinking substance and that the body is essentially and extended substance If (1) is true the the spirit and body have nothing in common In order for 2 substances to causally interact, they must have at least one property in common. Spirits/minds and bodies have no properties in common Therefore, spirit/minds and bodies cannot casually interact However, sprits/minds and bodies DO interact (perception and volition) Therefore, our assumption in (1) cannot be true

Reductio ad absurdum

Assume: Not P If not-P then Q We know Q is false So, we have Q and not-Q So, assuming not-P leads to an absurd conclusion Therefore: P can't be false

inductive argument

Conclusion is not contained within the premises

Cartesian dualism

Descartes's view that all of reality could ultimately be reduced to mind and matter.

Knowledge vs. True Belief in Meno ??

Human beings are quite a knowledge by remembering a neat knowledge in their soul. The soul is immortal and has acquired as much knowledge as possible in its previous existence.

Modus Tollens

If P then Q Not Q Therefore not P

Modus Ponens

If P then Q P Therefore Q

Descartes response to the mind-body interaction problem

If we focus on the essence of spirits/minds (thought) & bodies (extension) we will see nothing in common, so we must focus on the primitive notion we have of their union Not all causal interaction requires contact between 2 substances (e.g. gravity) God has established a union between spirits/minds and bodies

Joseph smith on material eternal intelligence

Intelligence is the light of truth and cannot be created. Man is a spirit or intelligence. Eternal intelligence has no been beginning or end. Therefore, intelligence cannot be created.

Knowledge as justified true belief

Knowledge that was tried and hasn't proven wrong

Construction dilemma

P or Q If P then R If Q then S Therefore: R or S

Disjunctive syllogism

P or Q Not P Therefore Q

Russell on existence of matter and his argument against skepticism

Russell tells us that matter may not exist. We instead are using our sense data to see the objects. He says there is no way to prove the existence of things other than through ourselves and our experiences.

Russell on Sense-Data

Sense data is the thing that we are aware of because of perception. Makes us aware of things and who they are.

Simmias' and Cebes' criticisms of Plato's arguments and Plato's replies

Simmias: Plato thinks the soul is a substance, but there is no substance of the soul. "The soul" is just the harmonic effect of the properly functioning body/brain, just as music is not a substance but the harmonic effect of the properly functioning instrument. Cebes: (He criticizes premise 3 of the main argument) Even if we allow all the premises to be true, all he shows is that the spirit is long lasting, not that it is immortal. Just as a weaver may outline many cloaks band still die, so too a spirit could outline many bodies, but that does not show that it cannot die. - the spirit is non-physical - Non-physical things cannot be broken up - So the spirit in not mortal - Having the spirit makes something dead - Not having a spirit makes something dead - So the spirit causes life - The spirit causes life because it IS life - Therefore, the spirit cannot die

Soul-as-harmony doctrine in Phaedo

That the soul comes from the harmony of different parts of the body.

Doctrine of recollection in Meno

The soul is immortal, has been born often and there is nothing which it has not learned (it has already learned everything). Searching and learning is merely recollecting what you already know.