Phil 194 CSUSB final

The statement that Socrates is dead is true. What makes it true?

It is a fact that he is dead.

What is an argument?

It is a set of reasons providing rational support for a conclusion

Leibniz says there are two kinds of truths—truths of reason and truths of fact. Truths of reason are necessary. What is it for a truth to be necessary?

A claim is a truth of reason if it is necessarily true A claim is truth of fact if it is true but only contingently true A claim is necessarily true if it could not have failed to be true. Example of a necessary truth: 2 + 2 = 4

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be contingent?

A claim is contingent if it could have been false. It is true. But it could have been false.

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be necessary?

A claim is necessary if it could not have been false. There is no possibility where it is false.

What does mean by "fact"?

A fact is what makes propositions true. Take the statement that it is raining. This proposition or statement is true just in case it is a fact that it is raining. The proposition that 2 + 2 = 4 just in case it is fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

Russell talks about particular and general facts. What is the difference?

A particular fact is a fact about one particular object. The fact that Obama is a man is a particular fact. It is a fact about a particular person. A general fact is a fact about more than one object. The fact that all men are moral is an example of a general fact.

According to Epicurus, what does all good and bad consists in?

All good and bad consists in sense experience. Good things are good because of the good experiences they cause. Going to Hawaii is good. Why? It causes to be happy or happy experiences. Bad things are bad because of the bad experiences they cause. Getting fired is bad. Why? It causes us to be unhappy. It causes unhappy experiences.

Why would living forever in our present bodily form be intolerable?

All the experiences would follow the same pattern. There wouldn't be any truly new experiences. Our characters would be frozen in time.

What does it mean for an argument to be sound?

An argument is sound: a. Its premises are all true b. It is valid

What does it mean for an argument to be valid?

An argument is valid if its premises being true conceptually guarantees that its conclusion will be true.

Hume says that all the perceptions of the mind can be divided into two categories— impressions and ideas. What is (are) the difference(s) between impressions and ideas.

An impression is a perception of a thing when we are experiencing that thing. For instance, an impression of being in pain is when we are in pain. We have an idea of thing when we later think about that thing. For instance, when we have an idea of pain, we are not at that time in pain. We are merely thinking about it. An impression of a thing has therefore greater liveliness or force than an idea of that thing.

Williams argues that an endless life would be meaningless. Why would it be meaningless?

And the meaninglessness would be unavoidable. Everything that could happen to a person will have happened. Every possible experience she will have experienced. Everything there is to learn, she will have learned. Every conversation she could have, she will have had. Nothing would be new. Nothing would matter.

For Leibniz, the existence of contingent beings and contingent truths must be due to something necessary. What is the argument for this?

Contingent beings come into being only if there is sufficient reason for its being. A contingent truth is a truth only if there is sufficient reason for its truth. Take the first contingent being. It had to have had a sufficient reason for its being. That sufficient reason had to have been a necessary being.

Leibniz argues for God's existence. What's the argument?

Contingent beings exist. For every contingent existent, there must be sufficient reason for its existence. So there must be at least one necessary existent. That necessary existent is God.

How does Epicurus define death?

Death is the privation of sense-experience. When we cease to have experiences, we are dead. When we are dead, we cease to have sense experiences.

Descartes asserts that though he possesses a body, he is not identical to it. What's the argument?

Even without a body, so long as he thinks, he exists.

Why is it a mistake to say that a fact is true?

Facts are neither true nor false. They're the things that makes statement or propositions true. Statements or propositions are, depending on the facts, true or false

What is the principle of sufficient reason.

For every fact, there must be sufficient reason for that fact. For every being, there must be sufficient reason for its being.

Hume says all our ideas or all the ideas in our minds are copies of impressions. What does this mean?

For every simple idea I possess, that idea is a copy of a previous impression.

What role does the principle of sufficient reason play in Leibniz's argument?

Given the fact that there are contingent beings and contingent truths, the principle of sufficient reason forces us to say there is a necessary being and a necessary truth.

Descartes asserts that he is essentially a thinking thing. How does the argument go?

He can doubt the existence of his body. He conceives that even without a body, we could still exist. He cannot doubt that he thinks. As soon as he ceases to think, he ceases to exist.

Epicurus says that the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. Explain.

He does not reject life. The only alternative is death. And, death does not provide any relief. When you die, things do not get better for you. You no longer exist. He is not afraid of death. It never affects him. When he is alive, it does not affect him. He is not dead. When he dies, he no longer exists. He is not the one suffering death.

Philo raises doubts about the argument? What are his reasons for resisting Cleanthes's argument?

He thinks there are important differences between the universe and something like a house. Even if we are thus forced to say the house has a designer, we are not, perhaps, forced to say the same about the universe and all the various things in it.

Philo mentions an Indian philosopher and an elephant. What is the point he's making here?

Here is a question: On what does the Earth rest? Here is an unsatisfying answer: On an elephant. Why is this unsatisfying? This answer simply leads to another question. On what does the elephant rest. Here is a question: Who designed the universe and the various things in it? Here is an unsatisfying answer: God. Why is this unsatisfying? This answer simply leads to another question. Who designed God? Who or what is responsible for his intellect?

Why are we forced to say that facts are real things? That is, why we are forced to say they are a part of the objective world?

Here is something we can all agree on. Somethings are true and somethings are false. The only way to account for this is by posting facts. Without facts, we have no account of this.

What does Locke mean by "ideas"?

Ideas are those things that the mind perceives directly. The mind does not directly perceive the color red. It perceives the idea of the color red.

Williams argues that living too long would inevitably lead to boredom. What's the argument?

If someone lived forever, nothing he or she does, at a particular moment, matters. There is nothing at stake.

Fire produces in us the ideas of heat and light. But, Locke argues, there is no quality in the fire that resembles our ideas of heat and light. What is Locke's argument for this claim.

If there were no one to feel the heat of the fire there would be no heat in the fire. We say fire is hot only because it causes in us heat sensations.

Money has a certain function. But, this is not due to its physical properties alone. Explain.

If we didn't agree that money would have the function that it does, it would not have that function. A 5 dollar bill's physical properties alone do not say that it should have a certain value.

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be apriori?

It can be known by reason alone. That is, it can be known without any empirical or observational information. Empirical or observation information is information obtained by using one or more of the 5 senses.

Russell says that what he means by a fact is expressed not by a single name like "Socrates" but by an entire sentence like "Socrates is dead". Say what Socrates is saying here in your own words.

It is not the person Socrates. Rather, it is wholly different kind of thing. The thing that makes this true is the fact that Socrates is dead.

What, according to Sellars, is the aim of Philosophy

It is to understand in the broadest sense of the term how things hang together in the broadest sense of the term. How do things as different as kings and cabbages, numbers and duties, possibilities and finger snaps hang together?

What does it mean for a claim or statement to be aposterin?

It means empirical or observation information is needed to know that claim or statement.

Williams argues that given facts about human desires and happiness and what it is to be human, even if death is evil, immortality would be intolerable. What's the argument?

It would be meaningless.

He says truths of fact are contingent. What is it for a truth to be contingent?

It's true but could have failed to be true. Example: Grass is green

Hume says "but though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find, upon a nearer examination, that it is really confined within very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience." What is he saying here?

Just as there are laws governing what the body can do, there are laws governing what the mind can do. We cannot have ideas of things for which we did not have a previous impressions. If we do have ideas of things for which we did not have a previous impression, those ideas are complex. We can generate complex ideas by taking simple ideas and putting them together, transposing them, augmenting them, diminishing them, etc.

Sellars contrasts "knowing how" with "knowing that". What's the difference?

Knowing how is to understand in the broadest sense. It is knowing how all the relevant things hang together. If I know how to ride a bike, I understand all there is to riding a bike. I understand how to control the handle bar, balance, pedaling, etc. Knowing how means I understand how to put all the things together. Knowing that such and such is the case is knowing only one particular aspect of a thing. For example, I know that a balanced person putting pressure on the pedal causes the bike to move forward.

What then, according to Socrates, is knowledge?

Knowledge is rationally supported true belief

How does the case of Jones, Smith and the Ford show that the traditional definition of knowledge is not correct?

Let C be the claim that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. This claim follows from P1. P1: Jones owns a Ford. Smith has good reason to believe P1. So, he believes it. And, he is justified in believing it. So then, since C follows from P1, he believes C and he has good reason to believing C. This is so even though he has no reason to believe that Brown is in Barcelona. Smith has no idea regarding Brown's whereabout. As it turns out, P1 is false. Jones does not own a Ford. But, as it also turns out, Brown is in Barcelona. So, C turns out to be true. But, we do not want to say that Smith knows C. In sum: Smith believes C. Smith is justified in believing C. (He has good reason to believe Jones owns a Ford. And C follows from P1). And, C happens to be true. For Brown is in Barcelona. However, we do not want to say that Smith knows C. For he does not know that Jones owns a Ford or that Brown is in Barcelona. He doesn't know Jones owns a Ford because Jones doesn't. He doesn't know that Brown is in Barcelona. He has no idea where Brown is.

Gettier gives two examples that show that the traditional analysis or definition is not correct. How the case of Jones and Smith applying for a job show that traditional definition is not correct?

Let C be the claim that the man who will be hired has 10 coins in his pocket. C follows from P1 and P2. P1: The man who will be hired is Jones P2: Jones has 10 coins in his pockets C: The man who will be hired has 10 coins in his pockets. Smith believes P1. And, he is justified in believing P1. The boss told him that the. Man who will be hired is Jones. Smith believes P2. And, he is justified in believing P2. Smith counted the coins in Jones's pockets Since, C follows from P1 and P2, Jones believing C and he is justified in believing C. But, it turns out P1 is false. The boss has changed his mind. Jones is not getting hired. Smith is. And, as it turns out, he, Smith, has 10 coins in his pocket. So, C turns out to be true after all. So, Smith believes C, he is justified in believing C and C is true. However, we do not want to say that Smith knows C. For he has not counted the coins of the man who will actually be hired (which is him).

Can a sound argument be invalid? If so, how? If not, why not?

NO. By definition, a sound argument is both valid and all of its premises are true.

Suppose you are guiding people trying to get to Larissa (a city in Greece). Does it matter whether you know how to get there or merely have a true belief about how to get there? Explain.

No. We will be able to guide them correctly whether we know how to get there or merely have a true belief about how to get there.

Descartes writes, "I must remember that I am a man, and that consequently I am in the habit of sleeping, and in my dreams representing to myself the same things or sometimes even less probable things, than do those who are insane in their waking moments. How often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed! At this moment it does indeed seem to me that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper". What's he saying here?

Our dreams deceive us. And, I do not know that I am not dreaming and being deceived right now. I might be dreaming right now. Why should I say that? I am a man and thus I sometimes sleep and dream.

Provide an example of a valid argument.

P1: All men are mortal P2: Obama is a man C: Obama is mortal

Provide an original example of an argument.

P1: All men are mortal P2: Obama is a man C: Obama is mortal

Provide an example of an invalid argument.

P1: If John loves Mary, then he does not love Sarah P2: John does not love Sarah C: John loves Mary

What, according to Sellars, is characteristic of philosophy? That is, how is it different from all the other disciplines?

Philosophy is not a special subject matter. Rather, it is the aim to know how all the subject matters hang together.

Russell confesses that philosophy, unlike many of the other sciences, has been unsuccessful in providing definite answers to the questions it asks. What does Russell attribute this to?

Philosophy once included all the sciences. But, once definite answers are provided for any subject or science, the subject or science ceases to be identified as philosophy. It then becomes a separate science. Astronomy and psychology were once a branch of philosophy. But, once we started to get definite answers in those sciences, they cease to be thought of as branches of philosophy. Only those for which we don't seem able to get definite answers we identify as philosophy.

According to Descartes, perhaps I do not know that I have hands. What's the argument?

Sometimes our senses deceive us. Sometimes our dreams deceive us. Our dreams make it seem like we are awake and taking a walk, but we are not. We are sleeping in our beds. Perhaps we do not have hands. But, our dreams deceive us into thinking that we have hands.

What is Hume's second argument?

Take a blind person who has never seen and thus never had an impression of a color like red. Since he has never had an impression of red, he does not have an idea of red.

Searle says that "money, language, property, marriage, government, universities, cocktail parties, lawyers, presidents of the United States are all partly - but not entirely - constituted under these descriptions by the fact that we regard them as such". What does he mean by this?

The 5 dollar bill in my wallet is money because and only because we collectively decided that it is. Trump Tower in New York is owned by Donald Trump because we collectively agreed, by our laws, that it is. We, the United States of America, have 3 branches of government. Why? We collectively decided that it shall.

Searle says all of institutional reality can be explained using exactly three notions—collective intentionality, the assignment of function, and constitutive rules. Explain this fully.

The assignment of a function: A structure has a certain reality but only because we, collectively, assign it a function. Collective intentionality is the power of minds to be jointly directed at objects, matters of fact, states of affairs, goals, or values. Constitutive Rules: Rules needed to perform an activity.

Descartes asserts that the mind and the body are distinct. What's the argument?

The body is divisible. The mind is not.

Locke says that the ideas produced by the secondary qualities of objects do not in any way resemble those qualities. What does he mean by this?

The coldness I feel from touching a cube of ice does not resemble anything in the cube.

Cleanthes asks Philo to anatomize and survey the structure of the human eye. What is he arguing here?

The complexity of human eye forces us to posit design. The human eye has to be the result of an intelligent mind.

Hume offers two arguments to the effect that all our ideas are copies of impressions. What's the first argument?

The first argument is that we cannot think of any idea for which there was not a previous impression.

If philosophy cannot provide definite answers to its own questions, what, according to Russell, is the fundamental value of philosophy?

The fundamental value is in the grand questions it asks. These questions enlarge our conceptions of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish our dogmatic assurances.

Sellars talks about the manifest image of man. What does he mean by this?

The manifest image of man is how we initially see ourselves. We are moved by thoughts, desires, fears, hopes, believes and intentions. And then, based on this, we form beliefs about all other things. The wind blows because it is angry. The things in nature we seen as truncated persons. The waves moved out of habit and impulse. The sun rose and set out of habit. We understood the world or had an image of the world based on how we appeared to ourselves.

Searle says that some features of the world are observer independent and some are observer dependent. What's the difference?

The observer independent facts are facts independently of anything we collectively decide. The observer dependent facts are facts but only because we collectively decided that they are. The fact that I am a human being has nothing to do with what we collectively decide. Even if no one agrees that I am a human being, it is still a fact that I am. That Donald Trump is the president is a fact but only because we collectively decided that he is.

What does Locke mean by "primary qualities"? Provide examples of primary qualities.

The primary qualities of an object are those qualities that cannot be separated from objects. Examples of primary qualities are size, motion, location, shape, etc. These are qualities that cannot be separated from objects. No matter how much we divide an object, it will still have shape, size, location, etc.

Why would living forever after bodily death be intolerable?

The problem of boredom persist even if our immortality were permanent life after Bodily death.

Cleanthes asks Philo to imagine walking into a library and finding therein books containing the most refined reason and most exquisite beauty. What is the point he's making here?

The refined beauty and the exquisite beauty found in the books force us to say that there is intelligence behind those books. The books had to have been written by intelligent minds. Don't we find refined reason and excite beauty in nature. Think about the intricacies of our solar system. Think about the human brain and the human eye. These must be the result of an intelligent mind.

What does Locke mean by "secondary qualities"? Provide examples of secondary qualities.

The secondary qualities of an object are those powers it possesses responsible for producing various sensations in subjects like us. Ice has the 2nd quality of causing me to feel coldness. The coldness is a 2nd quality.

Descartes says that our senses sometimes deceive us. For instance, my eyes seem to tell me that a pencil in a glass of water is bent. But, it isn't. What should we make of the fact that the senses sometimes deceive us in this way?

The senses cannot always be trusted. So then, what the senses tell us are subject to doubt. That means the senses are not a source of knowledge.

Searle talks about two kinds of functions—status and non-status. What's the difference?

The status function of an object or structure is the function of the object or structure simply because we decided that it will have that function. Red stop signs have the status function of requiring cars and people to come to a complete stop.

Russell asks what the value of philosophy is. What, according to Russell, is the value of philosophy?

The value of philosophy is in how it affects the life of those that study it. Philosophy provides goods for the mind.

Descartes writes, "I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I now dream." What point is he making here?

There is no way to knowing right now that I am not dreaming. There are no certain markers or indicators I can point to that says I am not dreaming right now. So, for all I know, I am dreaming right now.

Is there a difference between knowledge and mere true belief? If so, what's the difference?

There is. Knowledge is a supported true belief. That is, we have knowledge when we have rational support for our true belief.

What does Locke mean by "qualities"?

They're the things in object responsible for causing ideas. The redness in my tie causes ideas of redness. The roundness of the sun causes ideas of roundness.

State the traditional analysis or definition or necessary sufficient condition for knowledge. That is, according to the traditional definition, what does it t mean for a person to know a claim or proposition p?

Traditional Definition of Belief: A person S knows a claim p iff a. S believes p b. S is justified in believing p c. p is true

If there is a sense in which true belief is no less useful than knowledge, why, according to Socrates, should we prize knowledge over mere true belief?

True beliefs can escape us because they're not tied down. We don't have the rational support for true beliefs so they can escape us.

What does Leibniz mean by "possible worlds"?

Ways the universe could be or have been.

The 5 dollar bill in my wallet is money. That is a fact. What makes it a fact?

We collectively decided that it will be considered money. We collectively decided that it is.

He also talks about the scientific image of man. What doe she mean by this?

We learned from the physicists that everything is made of atoms. That is the image we have of ourselves. We too are made of atoms. We do the things we do because of the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. We are not in some fundamental way different from my computer or my desk.

Only fools fear death. Why?

When we exist, we are not dead. When we die, we do not exist. We never experience death.

Socrates says that true belief or true opinion is no less useful than knowledge. Why does he say this?

When we have a true belief, we are no worse off than when we have knowledge. When I have a true belief about how to get to Larissa and when I know how to get there, I will be able to correctly guide people the same.

Russell says 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 co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. In your own words, say what he is saying here.

Without some philosophical inclination, we go through life, without careful thought or having properly reason, believing things with dogmatic assurance out of habit and custom.

Can a valid argument be unsound? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes. A valid inference does not guarantee that the premises of the argument are all true.

Cleanthes's argument for God's existence is an argument from design. How does the argument go?

i: Anything with complexity, that is, anything with parts that work to together for a purpose, like a house, has design. ii: The universe and the various things in it, like the human eye, are complex. C1: The universe and the various things in it, like the human eye, are designed. iii: Anything designed has a designer. C2: The universe and the various things in it, like the human eye, have a designer. iv: The only thing or being capable of designing the entire inverse and the various things in it, like the human eye, is God. C3: God is the designer of the universe and the various things in it, like the human eye. C4: God exists.