Philosophy Exam I Book

What is Descartes criterion of knowledge?

"Cogito ergo sum" is his most certain statement which is believing that self is the only thing that is real

What does Socrates mean when he says that "the unexamined life is not worth living"?

"The unexamined life is not worth living" means that only in striving to come to know ourselves and to understand ourselves do our lives have any meaning.

what are the ten commandments

1. allow the spirit of wonder to flourish in your breast 2. doubt everything unsupported by evidence until the evidence convinces you of its truth 3. love the truth 4. divide and conquer 5. collect and construct 6. conjecture and refute 7. revise and rebuild 8. seek simplicity 9. live the truth 10. live the good

Define a priori and a posteriori knowledge according to Kant. What example does he offer of a priori knowledge?

A priori knowledge is independent of all particular experiences. A posteriori knowledge is derived from experience. I couldn't find his example but the most common one I found was all bachelors are unmarried.

How does Kant distinguish between analytic and synthetic judgements?

Analytic judgements have a foundation in their subject and can be deducted from the principle of noncontradiction. Synthetic judgements are have separate foundation from their subjects and need help from an outside principle to be proven.

Compare and contrast philosophy and enthusiasm

Enthusiasm was originally a good term in philosophy, representing exercise of wisdom: signifying that there is a divinity in us. However, enthusiasm began to signify a mental disturbance to philosophers declaring their beliefs to be divine.

What is a feminist epistemology?

Feminist epistemology is an examination of epistemology form a feminist standpoint. Its concerned with how gender influences the concept of knowledge.

Are you convinced by Descartes's argument? Is the self the most certain of objects?

He argues that nothing can be certain except for one's self because when I convince myself that something is true or false, there must be an "I" I am convincing.

How does Hume argue against justifying the belief that the future will resemble the past? Can you find anything wrong with his reasoning?

Hume explains that we base our knowledge of future events in past experience. We cant know the future will resemble the past because there is no contradiction in suggesting the future will not resemble the past. I agree with his position because we can only believe the future will resemble the past if we assume

How does Philonous convince Hylas that heat and pain are ideas in the mind?

Hylas has some disbelief that heat is not the same things as pain. He believes heat can cause pain but heat does not directly relate to pain because there are other sources if heat. However, Philonous says that the other examples of heat are not immediate perceptions and therefore do not apply.

Hume's empiricism is more radical than Locke's because it leads to skepticism over metaphysical issues that Locke thought safe. Hume closes the Enquiry thus: "By way of conclusion to these reflections on diverse questions: When we run over libraries, persuaded of the principles here expounded, what havoc must we make? If we take in hand any volume, of divinity or metaphysics, for instance, let us ask: Does it contain ant reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain matter of fact? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." Are you convinced by Hume's reasoning? If not, how would you argue against him.

I am convinced by Hume's reasoning. If something is not supported by fact, it would be nearly impossible to prove it "safe" as Locke assumed.

Is Lockean empiricism plausible? Are our minds like empty paper until experience writes its message on them?

I believe Locke's empiricism to be plausible. As young children, we are taught how to perform certain acts. Therefore, the knowledge we gain is from experience and teachings, not from before birth

Is Descartes's argument against trusting the senses a valid argument? Why should we always distrust the senses?

I believe it is a valid argument because our senses can betray us at times. For example, when you drink alcohol, your senses are impaired and can cause you to see things that are not ultimately "real". Therefore, our senses cannot be considered ultimate.

Broads principle fo credulity can be summarized thus: that if there is no positive reason for thinking that certain experiences are delusive, then if there is considerable agreement among observers as to what they are experiencing, it is reasonable to conclude that the experiences are veridical. Do you agree?

I do agree with this statement became if several people experience and see the same event, the event was true and could be treated as such as long as there is no logical flaws.

Is Cliffords shipowner example relevant to religious belief or are there significant dissimilarities?

I do agree you should wager on God because as Pascal said "If he is, you gain all, but if he is not, you lose nothing".

Evaluate Russells contention 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 cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason... Through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good"

In this quote, Russell is stating that the value of philosophy appears in its very uncertainty. It allows is to see the most ordinary things in an unfamiliar light.

Does Locke think that religious revelations must always be false? What does he say about distinguishing valid from invalid claims to revelation?

Locke does not believe in revelations at all because for something to be a revelation, he must know it was placed there by God. One would never know if an impression was revealed to him by God or simply "enthusiasm".

How does Locke deal with the problems of skepticism regarding sensory experience, which concerns Descartes so much? Is he successful? Why or why not?

Locke mentions how sensory knowledge counts as knowledge. However, sensory knowledge is considered a judgement rather than knowledge. Therefore, he is not successful.

What does Locke mean by the term enthusiasm? Why does he condemn it?

Locke speaks of enthusiasm by defining it as men being impulsive of their thoughts and they believe their thoughts are correct without any proof. He condemns it because these men, then, cannot see any other way of thinking; enthusiasm misguides them in their beliefs and conducts.

Describe Locke's concept of love and truth. What does he mean by this?

Locke's concept of the love of truth is that if one wants to set upon the search of truth, he needs to love truth first. For if he doesn't love it, he won't go through trouble to find it and will not be upset if he doesn't find it.

Is Malcom correct in insisting that certainty is a necessary condition of knowledge? Could you know the answer to a question without being certain of it?

Malcom is correct about certainty is a necessary condition to knowledge. You cannot know the answer to a question without being certain because if a person is not certain of the answer, it makes the answer invalid.

Sextus maintains that skeptical doubt will lead to mental tranquility. How might it do so?

Mental tranquility results from suspension of judgements. There is no confirming or denying anything. Therefore, if you are not focused on judging others, you will be at peace.

Discuss the idea that religious experiences can be adequately explained by natural causes.

Most religious experiences can eb explained by natural causes or sheer coincidence. However, in the early 1900's, the miracle at Fatima was witnessed by thousands of people and has never been disproven, but people say it was a mass hallucination.

Does Socrates think we do evil voluntarily? Why do we do evil?

No, Socrates claimed that all evil is done out of ignorance and not from the intention to do evil. We do evil out of the actions that we perceive a the greatest benefit to us.

Why does Philonous reject the notion of a material substratum- that is, matter that exists independently of our perceptions?

None of the qualities we know about matter are capable of existing outside the mind

What does Kant mean by saying that "though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows all that arises out of experience"?

Not every experience have knowledge to gain from it.

What are the aims of philosophy? Has it been successful in attaining them?

Russel explains that the aims of philosophy are to make us sensitive to the importance of questions, not suggest answers to them. It has been successful in attaining these aims. However, Russel declared that setting conclusions of these questions is unwise.

How do Copelston and Russell disagree over the concept of necessity? How could we make a rational decision in this disagreement?

Russell believes that necessity is only applied to a being if their existence is self-contradictory to deny. Copleston believes that necessity is applied to the being of God. A rational reason could be that all necessary contingencies don't need to be analytical, but should be proposed on the fact that if contingency is required.

To be justified in believing that there are no goods that are good enough to justify allowing all the horrible suffering Russell refers to, wouldn't he be justifies in believing that the goods we are aware of are a "representative sample" of all the goods there are? And can he know that?

Russell says that the goods we know are a representative sample. He knows this by saying to know something we have to justify it by seeing it. Also, we have not seen all acts of good so therefore it is just a sample.

Could Russells argument against the existence of God be answered by bringing in free will or the idea that the world is a place of "soul making"?

Russells arguments against the existence of God could be answered by bringing free will into the picture. God could not control men when he is on the earth due to the making of a "soul" on this planet and free will. He could do evil as he pleased.

According to Russel, what is the value of philosophy?

Russels value of philosophy is that the true value of philosophy lies not in any ability to produce material goods or to make definitive conclusions about the nature of reality, but in its effects on the lives of those who take it seriously. IN its contemplation of the perennial questions of life, it enlarges our understanding and results in spiritual liberates.

What is the role of science in the pursuit of objective truth? What does Dennett mean when he says science is not neutral with regard to truth?

Sciences role in the pursuit of objective truth is to recognize the difference between what appears to be true and what is actually true in reality.

Compare Russels essay with Socrates thoughts

Socrates and Russel both thought it necessary to question everything and nerve settle for anything less than an adequate account of the nature of things.

According to Malcolm, what are the two types of knowledge?

Strong and weak knowledge

Outline the difference between strong and weak knowledge. Can you find counterexamples to Malcolms thesis?

Strong knowledge is the belief to know for certain and to be able to back up with concrete evidence. Weak knowledge is like an assumption that is true. There is no real hard evidence to prove the idea right or wrong.

Has Swinburne successfully met the challenges thrown to him by Russell? Given the free-will defense, can you agree with Swinburne that an all-powerful and all-good God could allow the evil that exists?

Swinburne did successfully meet all the challenges given to him by Russell. I agree with Swinburne that an all-powerful and all-good God could allow the evil that exists because each person opperates under free will and can make their own bad decisions

Evaluate Swinburnes arguments fro the existence of passive evil. How cogent are they? What would someone like Russell say in reply?

Swinburnes arguments for the existence of passive evil are somewhat cogent such as the arguments that God ties man to the well-being of the world and the failure of one leads to the failure of the other. For example, if we mistreat the world, man will pay for it in the end. Russell would reply that God had nothing to do with it and it was natures events.

Evaluate Dennett's rejection of cognitive relativism, the idea that there is no objective truth, but that truth is relative to each person or culture. How does Dennett argue against this thesis?

The argument Dennet used is that the truth is learned and adapted to by everyone from cross culture and species. An example that he used is the use of map, the truth of the map is relative to everyone and everything.

Outline the argument from contingency set forth by Copelston. Are all its premises clear to you? If not, what premises seem unclear, and why?

The argument made was that there are things in the universe which are contingent and that may not have existed. The premises made are clear based off of my inquiry that his thoughts were well backed up by reason.

Explain Kant's Copernican revolution in knowledge.

The correct method in philosophy is to perform a critique of our mental faculties, investigating what we can know, defining the limits of knowledge, and determining how the mental processes of how me make sense of the world affect what we know.

In what five ways does St. Thomas Aquinas prove the existence of God?

The five ways that he proved God existed are argument from motion, argument from efficient causes, argument from possibility and necessity (reduction argument), argument from gradation of being, and argument from design. Argument of motion- there must exist an unmoved mover Argument from efficient cause- there must be effect for cause, therefore God is the effect for efficient cause because the effect cannot be itself. Argument from possibility and necessity- some being exists on its own necessity, and beings can't exist from other beings. Argument from Gradation of being- there must be something to cause beings to be beings. Argument of design- an intelligent being exists to direct natural things to their end

Can we obtain beliefs simply by willing to have them, or is this an exercise in futility?

The freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot resolve by itself, living options are never absurd to the individual who has to consider them.

Can the good be harmed by the bad? How do we harm ourselves?

The good man cannot be harmed by the bad according to Socrates. In death, he'd go to heaven. We harm ourselves by corrupting someone voluntarily.

According to Hume, what is the origin of our ideas? How does Hume distinguish ideas from impressions? What two proofs does he offer for his thesis about ideas and impressions?

The origin of our ideas are from perception. Perception is then divided into impressions and ideas. Impressions relate to feeling. Ideas relate to thinking. Impression comes first and then the idea. The two proofs are that the impression always comes first so the idea depends on it. His next proof states a lack of impression always accompanies a lack of idea.

According to Clarke, the explanation of the series of dependent beings cannot reside the series itself, since the very fact of the series existence would still need an explanation. Explain his point.

The series of dependent objects in the world is all things visible and invisible as they need to come from something, but the concept of this needs to come from somewhere. In order for this to be true there must be something that resides outside of the series for it to depend on.

Who are the traditional "belief philosophers" and how does Popper's theory differ from their epistemology? How does the theory differ from the deconstructivists like Derrida and Rorty?

The traditional philosophers are Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Russell. They differ due to the belief of two different knowledges and that knowledge is independent.

Describe Cliffords ethics of belief. Does Clifford exaggerate our duty to believe exactly according to the evidence? Does he falsely suppose that we can measure the evidence?

The wager Pascal advocates is: there are two things to lose: the true and the good. there are two things to stake: reason, happiness, will, and knowledge. There are two things to shun: error and misery. You should wager happiness and reason because if you gain, you gain it all. However, if you lose, you lose nothing.

What does Hylas mean by saying "To exist is one thing and to be perceived is another?"

There are independent objects making up the real world, each with their own sensible properties perceivable by us but existing independently of the perceiving mind

Could an argument similar to Anselm's be used to prove that a perfectly powerful devil exists as the supreme being and creator of the universe?

There could be an argument made for a powerful devil to exist on the basis that it exist in the mind. There are many different perceptions of things, and this could be easily used for an argument for a evil being as his argument is based off the perception of the mind, and that the greater being is like an idea that exist in thought

According to Dostoyevsky, why is there evil?

There is evil in the world because its Gods punishment for the unrighteous behavior of man. Evil is necessary for improvement of the soul, spiritual growth, and testing faith.

Voltaire considers server non-christian myths that attempt to explain the origin of evil. Why does he find these inadequate?

Voltaire doesn't agree with these myths because there are holes and they don't make logical sense.

Voltaire states that the fall of humanity does not make God any less responsible for the origin of suffering. What is Voltaire's reasoning?

Voltaire states that God is responsible for the evil in the world because if God is willing to remove evil and cannot, he is no all powerful. If he sent willing but has the power to remove evil, he is benevolent. If he cannot remove evil and is not willing to, he is neither powerful or benevolent.

What according to Popper are the three worlds of knowledge? What is the content of Poppers third world?

World 1 is the physical universe, world 2 is the world that is subject to personal perceptions and experiences, and world 3 is the sum total of the objective abstract products of the human mind. The third worlds content consists of culture, interaction of the mind and body, and mental processes.

what is philosophy

contemplation/study of the most important questions in existance