Intro To Philosophy Final Review
What is one essential part of Buddha's theory of salvation with which Socrates would disagree and why would he disagree? Name and explain one ethical aspect in which Buddha and Socrates were in complete agreement?
An essential aspect of Buddha's theory of Salvation that Socrates would completely disagree with is the idea of the ever-changing, non-eternal soul because Socrates believes the soul is immortal and the essence of a being, while Buddha believes that self creates self-ish desires and is an illusion that leads to suffering. They also disagreed greatly on the idea of asking metaphysical questions, such as "what happens after death." Socrates believed this was valid to question, but Buddha believed that questions such as these only disturb the mind and do not contribute to reaching full realization (Nirvana). One ethical principle they are in complete agreement with is the idea of ridding oneself of ignorance through the pursuit of knowledge. This is because they believe ignorance because they both view this as a sort of laziness that rids one of responsibility for standing firm in their beliefs. Both also agree that there is some form of reincarnation that occurs after death.
How does an understanding of the three marks of existence help overcome suffering? Explain in the context of the Four Noble Truths and what causes suffering.
An understanding of the three marks of existence allows an individual to begin to end their sufferings. The three marks of existence are Anicca, impermanence, Anatta, denial of permanent soul, and Dukkha, suffering. These teach that nothing is permanent, including the soul, and that all creatures suffer. Once these are understood, people can begin to learn that everything changes and that this causes human suffering. After this is realized, people can change their outlooks on suffering and prepare themselves for indefinite change by managing desire. This moving on stage is achieved through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. The understanding of the three marks of existence display that when one craves, they are seeking out the opposite of the three marks, and therefore bestowing suffering upon themselves. The Four Noble Truths are the Dukkha, the realization of suffering, Tanha, the understanding that the cause of suffering is desire/craving, Nirvana, the extinction of desires through managing them, and Magga, the path to move beyond suffering with guidance of the Noble Eightfold Path. Suffering, as shown in these truths, is caused by craving and desire.
Explain the differences between how an Epicurean, Stoic, Buddhist, Skeptic, and Eternalist would explain why people are unhappy. That is, what does each think is the enemy of happiness.
Epicureanism: the reason why people are unhappy is because they have mental and physical disturbances, such as anxiety about death (freedom from this is ataraxia). Also, people are often not striving for the right, simple, fulfilling, static pleasures, as Epicurean Wise Hedonism teaches, but rather for low, unsatisfying pleasures. Stoicism: the reasons why people are unhappy is because they are trying to control what is out of their control (everything aside from their own judgements/opinions). Also, people are not using reason to understand that they must feel indifference to what cannot be controlled, and they are not always living according to virtue. Buddhism: the reason why people are unhappy is because they are craving desires. People must realize that there is suffering as a result of desires, that desires must be managed to reach full realization, the state of Nirvana, and that by following the Noble Eightfold Path of right action, humanity can move beyond this suffering. Skepticism: the reason why people are unhappy is because they take information for granted and assume their unjustifiable beliefs to be true (dogmatism) such as in religion, and people assume every other opinion is false, creating animosity. Eternalism: the reason why people are unhappy is because people are too concerned with change. Rather than living in the present, people strive to hold onto what cannot be preserved, such as the lives of loved ones, and become unhappy.
In the Apology, how does Socrates defend himself against Meletus' charges of corrupting the youth and of not believing in God?
In the Apology, Socrates defends himself against the charges by Meletus of corrupting the youth and of not believing in god. He explains that he believes in spirits, and Meletus agrees in Socrates' belief. Because spirits are children of the gods, Socrates must believe in gods. Additionally, Socrates says that corrupting the youth would have brought him harm and because no one willfully does harm to themselves, he could not be intentionally corrupting the youth.
In the allegory of the cave, what object does Plato use to describe the Good? Explain the four steps from ignorance to knowledge, i.e. how to get from imagination to intelligence?
In the allegory of the cave, the object that Plato uses to describe goodness is the sun because it dictates the seasons, brings light, and controls everything visible in the world. Additionally, seeing the sun is the prisoner's final stage in accustoming himself to the world outside of the cave (and symbolically, it is the final step in becoming enlightened). The four steps from ignorance to knowledge are the images (imagining- the figures displayed on the cave wall), the belief in visible objects (belief- seeing that the fire is the cause of the images, which requires understanding of a changing world), mathematical objects which are reflections on the Forms (thinking- beginning to see the real world), and the forms (knowledge/intelligence- seeing the true objects beyond their appearances and the sun).
Why is it impossible to gain factive knowledge? That is, explain the problem of ultimate justification.
It is impossible to gain factive knowledge because, according to Meno and Socrates, one who does not possess knowledge would not know how to find it or when one finds it because they do not possess it. The problem with ultimate justification is that no ideas can be justified without using the argument to justify itself, without an infinite regress of never ending premises, or without using an assumption to show the argument's truth. Because of these reasons, as depicted by Munchhausen's Trilema, information can never be justified and knowledge cannot be justified or gained because there is no way to prove its truth.
How did Democritus alter Parmenides' philosophy so that he could explain how motion occurs?
Parmenides believed that it is impossible for there to be nothingness, and therefore non-existence is impossible (no void). He also believed in the idea of the One, an unchanging world. He stated that, in terms of motion, reason demands that it is impossible. Democritus, on the other hand, believed reality must be unchanging and that empty space is possible. He determined that the universe is made of real, unchanging, uncuttable particles (called atoms) that move throughout the universe in the void (empty space). Both Parmenides and Democritus believed the world and truth could not be understood simply through appearances alone because reality is deceptive. They each claimed that there is an unchanging truth, but perceived it in different ways. Parmenides believed that the real world was motionless and claimed that change is illogical and, therefore, an illusion. He also claimed all elements that compose the world are the same. Democritus agreed that our senses alone cannot explain the world, but he argued that the void and atoms make up the real world. He believed that they are in constant motion and forever will be, which proves his differing view that the world is in motion.
Give one argument/evidence that puts Socrates on the 'everything changes' side of the fence, and give one argument/evidence that puts Socrates on the 'at least one thing does not change' side of the fence.
Socrates is on the 'everything changes' side of the fence for the idea that he is a skeptic and questions everything that is said to him. In this way, nothing is true yet (because he hasn't yet discovered the truth). One argument that places Socrates on the 'at least one thing does not change' side of the argument is the eternal forms (that maybe were Plato's ideas, not Socrates') that are consistent standards for the soul.
In the Phaedo, what is Socrates' argument for the immortality of the soul? Why did he need the soul to be immortal?
Socrates says philosophers are concerned with the eternal. He argues that because of the Doctrine of Recollection, recollecting knowledge from previous lives, people must have immortal souls. The immortal soul can use recollection to recall information that existed in the soul upon birth from previous lives. This is one of Socrates' ideas for why learning never truly occurs, only relearning of information. Socrates also claims that everything comes from its opposite, including life and death. Because opposites arise from each other, Socrates says the living arise from the dead through reincarnation. This means that the soul must be immortal because out of death, life is sprung and vise versa. Socrates believes that the soul is immortal both before and after death. He says that because of this, the soul must exist in another world in order to be reborn. Socrates believes in the dualism of the body and soul. This allows the soul to be freed from the constraints of nature once the body dies.
Did Socrates think that everyone should be unconcerned about dying or just philosophers? Why?
Socrates thought that only philosophers should welcome death. Socrates believed this because, as described in the reading, philosophers are pursuing death in their lives. He goes on to explain that after death, the soul, which is immortal, and the body will be separated. Socrates describes how this is ideal for philosophers because they will no longer need to indulge the body with nature's requirements, such as food and rest, as these are seen to get in the way of the philosopher's true goal of the eternal. Because the philosopher is entirely concerned with the soul and acquiring wisdom, the body is viewed as a nuisance, so death should be welcome as the soul will be separated from the body. Socrates also says this immortal soul can pass into a realm of purity once stripped from the body. At this point, after bodily death, the soul becomes immortal and can truly achieve wisdom.
What is the goal of life according to Epicurus? Would Epicurus take a pill that would achieve that goal? Explain why or why not in terms of what types of pleasure are important.
The goal of life, according to Epicurus, is to be free from physical and mental disturbances, such as anxiety, because he believed this would bring him and others closer to ataraxia. One can be happy when there is no disturbance, and he wants the health of the soul. He believed in seeking out complete and fulfilling, static pleasures as well. Epicurus also places value on seeking worthy pleasures (WISE Hedonism) as opposed to those that are addictive and produce misery when not satisfied. Epicurus would take the pill because it would be a fulfilling pleasure that could simply be satisfied completely at once, and this is the best pleasure to him. Although Epicurus is firm in his beliefs, an inconsistency in them is that he did live his life according to his goal of ataraxia, but because his life was still not perfect, he must have missed a key point in his theory that led to absolute fulfillment, meaning even if he did take this pill to achieve his goal, he may not find absolute happiness. Still, because he did not see flaws in his ideas, he would still pursue this pill.
Show how the pattern of reasoning works for deduction, induction, and abduction and give an example of each. Explain what has to happen in order for deductive conclusions to be true, and explain why inductive and abductive conclusions cannot be necessarily true.
The pattern of reasoning for deduction is a BC/AB/AC pattern in which each group of letters stands as a premise for a conclusion, which the last group represents. In order for the conclusion to be deductively valid, the premises must be true, meaning, if the pattern is correctly followed, the conclusion will also be true. An example of this would be saying "All careful work (B) requires lots of time (C); All of my assignments (A) require careful work (B); All of my assignments (A) require lots of time (C)." Inductive reasoning is not definite, like deductive reasoning, and there is a less strict pattern of reasoning, so the argument is considered an invalid argument. The pattern of reasoning for these arguments consists of observations in which an example is extended to an outside item. The argument can be strengthened by increasing the number of observations and the lack of bias in each. An example of this would be the claim that "Studies have shown that about 85% of teens do not sleep enough on school nights; I probably do not sleep enough on school nights." Abductive arguments, like inductive ones, are invalid arguments. The pattern of reasoning for these consist of making observations and concluding, to the best explanation, what these observations mean. This can be illustrated by an if then statement that can be shown as a true statement when reversed: TP/PT. An example of this type of argument would be: "If it rains (T), then there will be dark and numerous clouds (P); there are dark and numerous clouds outside (P), so it will rain (T)." Like inductive arguments, these arguments cannot be necessarily true because they are conclusions drawn from observations that cannot be definitely proven as true. For example, it could rain without there being dark/numerous clouds. Additionally, maybe I am in the minority of teenagers who do receive enough sleep at night. Although both are very unlikely, they are not necessarily false. The observations only point one in the direction of most likely.
Which pre-Socratic philosopher do the Stoics respect more than any other and why? How do Stoics use their central principle to find the best way to live?
The pre-socratic philosopher that plays a main role in the Stoic philosophy is Heraclitus because the Stoics developed their idea of the importance of nature in their lives from him. Heraclitus believed there was an underlying order, or logos, to nature that was inside every person. The Stoics use their central principle of nature in order to find the best way to live through reason and choice because they believe that only these can be controlled by oneself. With this idea, the Stoics thought that we can focus on only acting in what we can control and learning indifference to the things we cannot.
Explain the three principles of Heraclitus' philosophy and give one argument incorporating the three principles that would put him on the 'everything changes' side of the fence, and one argument incorporating the three principles that would put him on the 'at least one thing does not change' side of the fence.
The three principles of Heraclitus' philosophy are that everything is ever-changing, opposites are identical (ex. sea water is very pure and very foul), and the universe is dictated by the Logos' underlying order 'Everything changes' side: the world is constantly changing- for example one can never stand in the same universe twice in the same way one cannot stand in the same water in a river, it is always changing; everything is either coming to be or passing away; the source of change is fire 'At least one thing does not change' side: everything has an underlying order- Logos- (ex. the cosmos are governed by one principle) this is fire
What are the three principles of the Socratic teaching method? How do they work together to explain Socrates' being the first psychiatrist?
The three principles of the Socratic teaching method are midwifery, recollection, and cross-examination. Midwifery is used to treat learning diseases, such as passive approaches to learning or procrastination. Recollection is the idea that knowledge is already contained within the soul and must be unlocked by indirectly imparting information to students or teaching it as theory, not fact, in order to improve a student's relationship with material and teach students to reach answers themselves. Cross-examination is the usage of question-and-answer arguments to search for moral truths, and it is used to replace learning attitudes with rationality and healthy views. Socrates is a kind of psychiatrist because he found and helped many to overcome their mental "diseases." The Socratic teaching methods work together to implement therapeutic learning in order to cure and overcome these learning diseases that bar students from effectively learning due to lack of motivation and effort towards learning.