Philosophy Final

Short answer -- Flew's gardener parable

"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all." -- religious statements are cognitively meaningless, since they are compatible with any state of affairs whatsoever.

**Essay -- Descartes on perceptual knowledge

Descartes challenges naïve realism and claims that we perceive ideas rather than the objects themselves. This is called the Theory of Ideas.

Definition -- privileged access argument for dualism

For any two things x and y, they are the same unless there is at least one property that one has that the other lacks. -- You don't have to infer about your mental state from any evidence. But other people do have to infer what you're thinking, so you have a kind of special or privileged access to your mental states which other people lack. -- You do not have private or privileged access to your physical state **therefore mind and body are not identical

Short answer -- James' arguments for free will

Free will or determinism cannot be definitely proved Ultimately, the choice between the two is based on personality type, because no evidence will be convincing to everyone There are good reason to choose free will -- it makes better sense of the universe as a place where our deepest intellectual and emotional needs can be met -- it makes sense of the notion of moral regret, determinism can not

Short answer -- Hume's criticism of the design/teleological argument

From facts about the natural world and human designers, we must conclude that: -- the Designer may not be infinite because the world is finite -- the Designer may not be perfect because nature is full of imperfections -- the Designer may not be single because it's possible that the world was made by many deities Thus, philosophical skepticism is the only proper route to true Christianity. -- It forces us to turn toward revelation by undermining our faith in reason. -- It is only through revelation that we come to worship God properly.

Definition -- anthropological dualism (Cooper)

Mind and body are both substances that are intimately linked, yet distinct. Neither is less valuable than the other, Consciousness/mind/soul is a substance, not a property

Definition -- James' genuine option

One can decide certain questions that are deeply relevant to life on the basis of something other than evidence. It must be an option that is... - living (emotive appeal to the chooser) - forced (must choose one or the other) - momentous ( the opportunity is unique, the stake is significant, and the decision is irreversible) If it meets these conditions, it is reasonable to commit oneself to belief even if there is no conclusive evidence for the belief. Religion is such an option.

Short answer -- Pascal's and James' cases for belief in God

Pascal -- either God exists or He doesn't and either we believe in Him or we don't, belief in God is less risky than not believing (avoid hell) James -- "The Will to Believe" -- contradicts the evidentialism of his day, faith stands on solid ground, but not in the way evidentialists assert -- Passional nature has a role in our making commitments to believe things -- we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind -- One can decide certain questions that are deeply relevant to life on the basis of something other than evidence. -- It must be an option, a choice which one must either decide to make or not to make. It must be a living, forced, and momentous option. If it meets these conditions, it is reasonable to commit oneself to belief even if there is no conclusive evidence for the belief. Religion is such an option.

** Essay -- nonevidentialist theism (Pascal)

Pascal's wager -- Either God exists or He doesn't, and either we believe in Him or we don't -- Belief in God is less risky than not believing (avoid hell) -- if you believe and God exists, you go to heaven -- if you believe and God doesn't exist, you gain virtue and lose poison pleasures -- if you don't believe and God exists, you go to hell -- if you don't believe and God doesn't exist, you lose virtue and gain poison pleasure

**Essay -- Locke on perceptual knowledge

Representational view of knowledge -- The mind to a blank tablet (tabula rasa). -- When a person is born she knows nothing. As she goes through life, the experiences she has with her five senses write information on the tablet of her mind. -- Ideas in our mind are representatives of the things in the real world. If they accurately represent these things we can say we have valid knowledge.

Definition -- evidentialism (Clifford)

it is only permissible to believe on the basis of adequate evidence, and the strength of the belief is to be proportionate to the strength of the evidence

Short answer -- St. Anselm's claim that the atheist is a fool

- The Fool asserts that God does not exist. - What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived." - The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words. - To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality. - But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone. - So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible. - Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality. Therefore, God exists.

Definition -- clear and distinct ideas (Descartes)

-- Argument from doubt: I can doubt that my body exists, but I cannot doubt my own mind. Therefore, mind and body are distinct. -- Argument form divisibility: the body is divisible (I can lose a limb) but the mind is not. Therefore, mind and body are distinct. -- From clear and distinct ideas: The body is extended and unthinking, the mind is not. Therefore, mind and body are distinct.

**Essay -- Hume on perceptual knowledge

-- Mental perceptions are ideas (thoughts, memories, meanings) and impressions (sensations and feeling) -- Copy thesis: all ideas are derived from impressions, every idea comes from external sensations or internal feelings -- Liveliness thesis: the difference between ideas and impressions is that impressions are livelier and more vivid. -- We have no conception of the existence of external objects -- We attempt to organize our perceptions, naturally assuming that there is no distinction between our perception of a thing and the thing itself—the vulgar view of perception (naïve realism) -- We associate ideas that resemble one another and posit a common thing that causes them. -- We assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom, which human nature forces us to take seriously.

Definition -- "a thing that thinks" in Descartes

-- Part of Descartes Methodological doubt -- Even in doubting, I must exist in order to doubt -- One certain thing: I think, therefore I am -- "I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses."

Short answer -- the "battle for the soul" (implications for personhood of issues of freedom and determinism, mind and body)

-- Today many streams of thought run contrary to the idea that human beings have free will and that they have souls. -- Human beings are simply another organism living on earth, with no special attributes, properties, or value. -- Such thinking has a number of negative effects: (1) It is a clear departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition of thinking of human beings and their value (2) Makes the gospel much more implausible to modern hearers.

Short answer -- Hare's paranoid student story

-- illustration of an insane blik -- A student believes that all professors at the school want to kill him. The student is taken to the nicenet professors you can think of, yet takes their expression of friendship and concern to be hidden messages about how they want to kill him . He accepts no counterevidence to his/her claim whatsoever. -- Hare's point is that religious statements are not assertions at all, and therefore are immune to verification and falsification. Instead they are expressions of a particular blik with particular standards of explanation and conduct.

**Essay -- Berkeley on perceptual knowledge

-- we only have knowledge of what we perceive by our senses -- however we never perceive "material objects" at all -- what we do perceive are colors, shapes, odors, etc -- the human knower can only know sensations and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as matter -- matter doesn't exist at all!! -- Berkeley's idealism: there are two kinds of things- spirits and ideas. (1) Spirits are simple, active beings which produce and perceive ideas (2) Ideas are passive beings which are produced and perceived

Definition -- "five ways" of proving God's existence for St. Thomas Aquinas

1. from motion - everything in motion must be put in motion, God is primary mover 2. from nature of efficient cause - nothing is its own efficient cause 3. from possibility and necessity 4. from the gradation (value) found in things 5. from the governance of the world

Definition -- Pascal's wager

Belief in God is less risky than not believing (avoid hell), make yourself believe - fake it 'til you make it -- if you believe and God exists, you go to heaven -- if you believe and God doesn't exist, you gain virtue and lose poison pleasures -- if you don't believe and God exists, you go to hell -- if you don't believe and God doesn't exist, you lose virtue and gain poison pleasure

Short answer -- Mitchell's Stranger story

In time of war in an occupied country, a member of the resistance meets one night a Stranger who deeply impresses him... The partisan is utterly convinced at that meeting of the Stranger's sincerity and constancy and undertakes to trust him. They never meet in conditions of intimacy again. But sometimes the Stranger is seen helping members of the resistance, and the partisan is grateful and says to his friends, 'He is on our side.' Sometimes he is seen in the uniform of the police handling over patriots to the occupying power. On these occasions his friends murmur against him: but the partisan still says, 'He is on our side.' He still believes that, in spite of appearances, the Stranger did not deceive him... Sometimes his friends, in exasperation, say, 'Well, what would he have to do for you to admit that you were wrong and that he is not on our side?' The partisan refuses to answer. -- Shows that belief is as much a matter of trust and commitment, religious claims do not have to be intellectually convincing: a believer can trust in their relationship with God, as the partisan comes to trust the stranger -- The question is: "How long can he uphold [this position] without its becoming just silly?" How many times must you give a friend the benefit of the doubt? -- -- Mitchell's answer: "I don't think one can say in advance."

** Essay -- nonevidentialist theism (James)

James- "The Will to Believe" -- He contradicts the evidentialism- faith stands on solid ground -- Passional nature (consisting of all our tendencies, predilections, desires, hopes, fears) has a role in our making commitments to believe things and make choices when confronted with them -- One can decide certain questions that are deeply relevant to life on the basis of something other than evidence. -- It must be a living, forced, and momentous option. If it meets these conditions, it is reasonable to commit oneself to belief even if there is no conclusive evidence for the belief. -- Religion is such an option

Short answer -- Weathers and Cooper on dualism

Weathers -- Biblical Word studies don't indicate dualism -- Dualism has historically encouraged unbiblical actions/attitudes (ex. Asceticism or Dogmatism) -- Being holist lets us take body/nature/etc. seriously and minister to the whole person Cooper -- No afterlife without dualism ("nontechnical dualism"). Scripture affirms dualism in its treatment of afterlife/experiences of the soul -- Some argue that Dualism is a Greek idea, but Cooper says that the Greek view isn't necessarily at odds with the Biblical one -- Cooper states that there have been unbiblical dualisms/dichotomies but that they are unconnected to mind/body dualism

Definition -- "blik"

a self-sealed belief system immune from counter evidence -- Example of a sane blik: the steering in my car works -- there are sane bliks and insane bliks. Believers have sane bliks.

Definition -- Plantinga's basic beliefs

basic/bedrock belief -- a belief for which no evidence is required - can be direct experience or some other belief - argues that belief based on evidence is based on the belief that the evidence is trustworthy - this argument challenges demands for evidence, doesn't show that basic beliefs are correct

Definition -- contingent vs. necessary being

contingent beings -- those that exist but could have failed to exist, it is impossible to have an infinite regress of contingent beings (There must be a stopping point of the series, which can only be a necessary being) necessary beings -- those that could not have failed to exist, a necessary existence cannot NOT exist.

Definition -- the difference between cosmological vs. teleological arguments

cosmological: cause arguments, arguments show that the world must have a cause, which is God teleological: design arguments, arguments show that order, design, and purpose that are evident in the world can only be explained by a designer

Short answer -- the difference between libertarian and compatibilist views of freedom

libertarian: some actions are caused by the agent him/herself (agent causation) - contracausal free will: freedom from determinism, an action is free if no causes produced it, the agent could have done otherwise compatibilism: although all of our choices are determined, we can still be said to be free insofar as we act voluntarily and without obstruction. Thus human actions are both free and determined - hypothetical free will: freedom from constraint, an action is free if it proceeded from the agent's desires, the agent could have done otherwise had he chosen otherwise. - compatibilism is essentially a different way of talking about determinism

Definition -- God (Anselm)

part of Anselm's ontological argument -- -- A perfection is a positive property, such as wisdom, goodness, or power. -- If something is a perfection, it is inconceivable that God would lack it. -- It is inconceivable that any being could have a perfection that God doesn't have. -- For any perfection, God has it to the greatest conceivable degree.

Short answer -- Locke's analysis of primary and secondary qualities

primary qualities are objective: size, shape, and weight secondary qualities are subjective: smell, taste, texture, color, sound Locke: I see an idea of a tree, and it's primary qualities are really in the tree. Its secondary qualities are caused in me by the tree. -- If you don't trust your senses, why are you in a conversation with someone else? Why do you choose good food over garbage? -- No one can really doubt that the the things he is sensing are really there.