Intro to Philosophy- all notes from entire semester
Intro to Philosophy- all notes from entire semester PHIL 10100
Popular in Intro to Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 34 page Bundle was uploaded by ernge27 on Monday January 18, 2016. The Bundle belongs to PHIL 10100 at University of Notre Dame taught by Jeffrey Speaks in Spring 2015. Since its upload, it has received 64 views. For similar materials see Intro to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Notre Dame.
Reviews for Intro to Philosophy- all notes from entire semester
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/18/16
What is philosophy? Argument must have 2 premises and a conclusion- premises are the basis for the conclusion which you are arguing for Valid argument- impossible for premises to be true and conclusion false o Only would have to prove that your premises are true to prove that your conclusion is true o The argument is logical and logically makes sense but in actuality it is false Ex) I am the best swimmer, so I can swim better than michael phelps The conclusion makes sense from the premise but its false Sometimes cant prove its false though Sound- when argument is valid and has true premises o To show that it is not sound, prove that invalid or has false premise DOES GOD EXIST The First Cause Argument Aquinas' 2nd way- see sheet o 2nd proof of the existence of God o Efficient cause- o Premises: 1. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself 2 kinds of premises: o Independent- stands on own o Derived- something for which an argument is given, follows from other premises If you think an argument is valid but not sound you must find an independent premise that you think is false and not a derived premise because then something that the derived premise came from would also be false The big bang theory- we don’t come across cases where matter comes from nothing so even if this were to be possible, it would require some sort of explanation The cosmological argument Leibniz Why is there any world at all and why is it the way that it is o He thinks there is some answer to this question because endorsed the principle of sufficient reason (take any way that the world is that it might not have been. There must be some explanation for why it might be that way) Ex) the sky could have been green so why is it blue? There must be some reason 3 important terms: o Possible- something is possible just in case it could have happened no matter how absurd it is (anything you can visualize or imagine to occur is possible) Impossible: an object is green all over and red all over Impossible: 1 equals 2 o Necessary- a situation is necessary just in case its opposite is impossible. Ex) its necessary that every object that is green all over is not red all over o Contingent- true but not necessary. Depends upon something else I go to notre dame (true but could have not happened) Not every possible fact is contingent- there are possible things that aren't true The principle of sufficient reason- every contingent fact has an explanation o There is some explanation for why any fact is true rather than false o If something could have gone the other way there must be some reason why it didn’t go that way See sheet Objections: o One objection: Why is the existence of god the one thing that doesn’t need an explanation- god is not contingent and therefore needs no explanation (via principle of sufficient reason) Therefore Leibniz thinks that we can exclude it from things that need explanation o based on interpretations of quantum mechanics: The physical world is indeterministic Laws of nature don’t tell us what will happen; it tells us the probability of things happening But, then why did one thing happen over another even if it had a smaller probability of happening? Answer: there is none. There is no reason why o If his argument is true then "god brings about the existence of contingent things" is true. This fact is either necessary or contingent The argument: the fact that there are contingent things must have a reason. It is contingent that there are contingent things. PSR only says that contingent things need an explanation --> it is a necessary truth that there are contingent things, but then premise 1 is false because: The whole argument revolves around premise 3 because its about finding the explanation for contingent things If you say it is a necessary truth that god brings about contingent things, then it is necessary that there are contingent things, so then premise 1 is false because it says that the fact that there are contingent things is contingent --> by the PSR, there must be some explanation of God's bringing about the existence of contingent things. But what is this reason? Maybe god decided to. This fact can be necessary or contingent a. If it is necessary, then premise 1 is false b. If it is contingent, then by PSR it must have some reason. But again what is this? Etc. The design argument If look a details of the world they can show that there must have been a designer rather than happening by chance 1 Aquinas' 5th way o Plants don’t have knowledge. They don’t literally know where the sun is and grow towards light- since they do this regularly they do this by design, not just because it happens randomly. Plants lack knowledge so therefore this must be the knowledge of something else intelligent that has power over the natural world 2 Updated version of Aquinas' %th way by William Paley o Eyes are so perfectly suited for each animal in its individual habitat o We know that telescopes were designed by humans. But this doesn’t matter. What if you found a watch just laying around? You would think "somebody made this" and see that the parts were put together for a purpose, and if they were put together in any different way, the watch would not work o Premises: 1. Many things in nature like eyes show the marks of design 2. These things must either have been created by an intelligent designer or produced by random natural processes 3. Random (not designed) natural processes never or almost never produce things with marks of design 4. Therefore things in nature that show the marks of design are very likely to have been created by an intelligent designer (1,2,3) o To contradict this argument came Darwin, who contradicted premise 3 because of natural selection. He said: 1. Have we any right to assume that the creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? Evolution and natural selection occurred over millions of years to have natural changes and produce things of natural design. Many, many changes over a long period of time could give rise to something like an eye which has the marks of design 2. But his argument only explains how things such as eyes could have come about 3. Still lacking a first cause. 4. The process of natural selection itself is so complex that it must have been designed 2 What aspects of the universe are not explained by evolution via natural selection but are better explained by God than by chance? The 6 numbers argument- if any number were just a tiny bit different nothing would be as it is 1. The probability of life given chance is very low though given that these numbers have to be so specific Probability- likelihood of an event happening Conditional probability- likelihood of something to happen given the condition that something else happens ex) the sidewalk being wet is evidence for rain over no rain because the probability of it being wet given that it rained is greater than the probability of no rain (principle of confirmation) principle of confirmation- if E is extremely likely to be true if T1 is, and extremely likely to be false if T2 is true, then if E is true, this is very strong evidence that T1 is more true than T2 Life- the universe permits life to exist Creation- the universe was designed by a creator who wanted life to exist Chance- the basic physical constants of the universe are due to chance rather than intellectual design Fine tuning argument- Giving evidence may not necessarily prove that god exists but it claims in favor of his existence NOT ARGUMENT THAT EXISTENCE OF GOD IS HIGHLY PROBABLE Whatever probability you think gDs has, you should raise that signigfiantly Absence of evidence is not evidence Which premise is it an obkection If these numbers had been a little bit different it would change life entirely Cant treat life as evidence because if weren;t true, we wouldn’t have been there to see Rees' objections to these claims: o The multiverse objection o If this universe is life supporting then some universe is life supporting o If you have a hangover you cant conclude that its more likely that your roommate had too much to drink. But if many other people have hangovers you can conclude that it was likely that a lot of people had too much to drink The argument from evil The existence of evil contradicts being omnipotent and perfectly good o Generally only 2 of these things can be true because if he can control all and is good then he wouldn’t want there to be any evil, but there is o If any 2 of them were true the third would be false Mackie thinks these claims can be proven inconsistent by claiming: o If something is omnipotent it can do anything o If something is wholly good it always eliminates as much evil as it can Equivalent to: 1 God exists 2 If god exists, then he is omnipotent 3 If he exists then god is wholly good Reductio ad absurdum- reduction to absurdity- presents an argument that makes no sense and has a false conclusion. Using this you can prove that some part of it is responsible for the falsity of the conclusion if the argument is valid o One of the independent premises is false because if derived premise is false then its predecessors must be o Evil is something that would be better to not have happened o Premise that most would focus on is "if something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can" Good people can do evil that produces some good in which the good is more powerful than the evil ex) giving your child a shot Some people thing it builds character Can gos allow evil because it leads to good? So can God commit evil without being anything less than morally good? God can commit eveil because it brings about our appreciation of what is good. But things such as the holocaust would need to merit extreme appreciation May only apply to some evils, not all evils Legitimate for dentists to cause pain but we don’t blame them because we expect pain. But if dentists were omnipotent we would blame them for not using their power to stop the pain A wholly good being may not eliminate evil when 2 conditions are met: There is some good that outweighs an evil The being cannot bring about good without also permitting evil This shows that mackie's premise is false Unredeemed evil- evil for which there is no greater good such that god could not have brought about the good without permitting the evil --> revised premise: "if something is wholly good it always eliminates as much unredeemed evil as it can" How do we know what is an evil and what is a good according to gods definition o Ex) same sex marriage and 9/11 bc some people think that they are legit or even holy o In redeemed argument you still have to have your own definition of good/bad to decide what is redeemable evil o Diff btw us not knowing what is good and having diff opinions and denying objective good. o Just bc the opinions differ doesn’t mean that there is not a single truth But how is one person right over someone else We don’t know Depends on what beliefs are o The argument does not qualify good until 11- it doesn’t define good and evil until there its just saying that they exist If god can always bring about a good without an evil how would evil exist without a corresponding good. But every evil is unredeemed evil. Since some evil exists, then 11* is true It is possible that an omnipotent being exists. If 3 is true, that being could make a round square. But of course this is not possible so 3 is false o So then what is omnipotence? Aquinas said that if omnipotent, it can bring about any possible situation, not impossible situations. This restricts the range of God's power making it more plausible that we can say he cant bring about good without also bringing about evil WHAT MUST I DO Whatever I Want to Do Altruistic actions- One ought to do things that are not always in their own self interest Psychological egoist- our actions are always in own self interest Rational egoist- even if ppl perform actions which are not in their self interest, these actions are always mistakes. So one ought to always do what is in one's own self interest If take away all consequences of someone's actions, we would all pursue our own self interests. Only reason why we don’t pursue our own interests is because the consequences Ex) soldier throws self on grenade o Psychological egoist says soldier only does this to avoid guilty feelings in future o Egoist- soldier does this to go to heaven and the pleasure of this outweighs the pain of leaping onto the grenade. But the soldier could be an atheist Describes acts of heroism, but not necessarily all of them o Could have a value that he wants to help other people always so that's not in own self interest Ex) holding door open in rain o Psychological egoist- does this so maybe that person will hold door open in future, or self satisfaction to avoid guilt. But ppl can be courteous without feeling particularly guilty or satisfied But what if you were given a forgetful potion after the door. Wouldn’t you still hold the door open? Arguments for psychological egoism o Argument of necessity of desire- every intentional action involves some desire. So isn't that automatically self interested? Invalid because the desire is a personal desire so not necessarily imply it is a desire for me. Suppose you want everyone to be happy. That’s not about you, that’s about everyone else. o Humans evolved by natural selection so will favor traits which improve chances of having more offspring. Should expect that altruistic actions will not be passed onto later generations via natural selection. Each of the traits an organism has must have been selected for it in some history in the evolutionary history of the organism Reject idea that altruistic actions are not favored by natural selection Rational egoism- ought to act in self interest o One should be altruistic be being altruistic has instrumental value- in the end being moral is the best way to serve your interests. Does you good o Prisoners dilemma- dominant thing to do is to rat partner out In multiple prisoners dilemma rounds, better to stay silent bc in the end it will work out better for you Appearing to be altruistic o Treating similar cases differently- arbitrariness irrational- ppl are not radically diff from each other so deciding to act only in favor of one of these things is irrational Whatever bring about greatest happiness Notes Hedonism- the pursuit of pleasure, sensual self-indulgence o Maximize pleasure, not necessarily your own o Most pleasure, least pain Consequentialism- an action is the right thing to do in certain circumstance s if Utilitarianism- and action is the right thing to so in certain circumstances if of all the actions available in those circumstances it would produce the beast overall distribution of pleasure and pain o Just be out to bring pleasure into the world and stop pain. If can bring someone else more pleasure and their pleasure is greater than your pain, you should do that Challenges to utilitarianism o The experience machine Suppose experience machine gives any experience you want. Should we plug you in for life Would you value actual experiences rather than fake ones? Its not just about pleasure and pain, its about the pleasure and pain you created for yourself If everyone plugged in, utilitarian would say that is better bc more pleasure is maximized. So that would be best state of affairs. If you don’t get in it, you are doing something morally wrong because not doing something that leads to the greatest distribution of pleasure and pain If some people really don’t want to get in, it shouldn’t matter because will have a few minutes of pain but that will be counterbalanced by the years and years of pleasure they would have ahead of them So you should force others into it bc their wishes are irrelevant Notes o Consequentialism- indifference to how the consequences are brought about. What matters is what the various actions will being about, not what those actions are One consequence: act/omission indifference- whether you bring about some state of affairs by doing something or not is morally irrelevant What about killing one person to take all their organs and transplant into new people who will then all survive. Is this right? Consequentialist would say yes. Treating all as equal and can improve overall pleasure and pain The diference Discussion Trolley car riding on road and there are 5 ppl in the road you would kill. Can also turn trolley to kill one person Freedom or Fate Challenge to free will posed by fate- there are now truths about what you will do in the future, it is already true not that we will perform certain free actions in the future Combine free will and fate with the thought that people were destined to be together even though they made decisions to be together and marry etc Aristotle- fatalism1 o Everything takes place in necessity and is fixed; nothing takes place in the present or the future o Not up to us, out of our control o Either its true that event E will happen or that E will not happen Either it is necessary that E will happen or it is necessary that E will not happen (if it's true that this will happen then it's out of your control that it will happen) o The master argument- these cant all be true: Everything past is necessary An impossibility cannot follow from a possibility Something is possible which is not and will not be true If 2 is false then everything which will be is necessary and fatalism is true 2.* a necessary consequence of something necessary is itself necessary Everything in the past is true and it is necessary because we do not have control over it in the present The statement that "true that E will happen or will not happen" must have also been true if said in the past Etc Nothing is free Can really only deny premises 1 or 2. 2: Denying that there is any fate If you try to deny this then it is like saying neither E will happen nor will it not happen. In denying that E wont happen, you are asserting that E will happen Can say they are both indeterminate and non true, but not false Law of the excluded middle- everything is either true or false You have to deny this to say the previous statement If god knows everything you are going to do in the future then there must be truths about what he knows Deny premise 1 (everything past is necessary) Denying this means that in at least some cases, we have control now over how things were in the past There are some truths in the past over which we have no control (ex distinction) Denial of free will is conclusion Freedom or determinism Determinism- If specify everything at a given moment, the laws of nature will tell you what everything will be like at the next moment, tell you every further state of the system o But quantum mechanics says laws of nature are probabilistic Can it ever be the case that both choices A and B are open to you if the laws of nature already determine things? o Incompatibilist says no o Compatibilist says yes 1 Freedom of the will is real and compatible with determinism o Would have to combat consequence argument 2 Freedom of the will is real and incompatible with determinism o Explain how action can be undetermined without being random and hence not free o Frankfurt example 3 Freedom of the will is an illusion Consequence argument- suppose no one can control that something will happen and that no one can control that if that thing happens then another thing will happen. Then you also have no control over the resultant event. No one has any choice about events that happened in the past No one has any choice about what the laws of nature are See ppt for notes on jane's decision o If nothing determines whether someone chooses A or B, the choice is random and hence not a free choice Supports that free will requires determinism, or that human actions must be determined Doesn’t responsibility for actions require free will See ppt for rest At the time that he is deciding to get on the bus the future is already determined and out of his control completely getting on the bus To have ability to be free, have to be able to choose otherwise o o Not seem like jones has ability to do otherwise bc will be on train no matter what Final Exam 1 Which of the following is the correct view of space and time: 1 They are continuous. Achillles objection not necessarily disprove continuous- seems this would be an argument for discrete 1 In the example discussed in the class, are the statue and the clay distinct, or identical? Distinct The most logical solution to the problem is the theory of fourdimensionalism. This theory denies the claim that distinct objects never occupy the same location at the same time. In fact, objects are composed of temporal parts that may go into or out of existence over time as the object changes or is deformed. The basis of the original object still maintains its primary characteristics, so even though the lump of clay can be molded into a statue and mashed back down to a lump of clay, the lump of clay is equal to all of these temporal parts combined. In addition to these temporal parts, fourdimensionalism argues that if we are to consider the statue and the lump of clay to be two separate objects, each material object will occupy both the same and different locations over time. Just as the lump of clay and the statue share temporal parts as the lump of clay is molded and altered, they both share spatial parts once the statue has been molded because they are objects that have a whole part in common, which exists both at the same time and in the same space. Because the lump and the statue are distinct things which exist in the same space, they both occupy that same space at the same time. This is perfectly logical because both the statue and the lump of clay are objects that have a temporal part in common. One rejection to fourdimensionalism proposes smashing the statue that has been created from the lump of clay. In this case, the lump will have limitations on what will happen to it in comparison to the statue. When the object that contains both the lump and the statue in the same spatial and temporal part is smashed, the statue will be destroyed, but the lump of clay will supposedly still remain. The objection thus follows that the lump and the statue cannot occupy the same space at the same time if one can change its shape and the other will be completely destroyed. The four dimensionalist would say that smashing the object does not necessarily destroy the statue. In fact, it has the same fate as the lump of clay. Consider what would happen if the statue were continually beaten out of shape. Throughout the duration of its beating, the statue is still the statue, and the lump of clay is still the lump of clay. They both still take up the same space through temporal parts. We are changing the shape or form of the statue just as we are changing the shape and form of the lump of clay, and thus they are both changed at the same rate as each other over time. It is false to say that the statue cannot be smashed into a ball because the statue is the same as the lump of clay. It is just a lump of clay that is shaped into a statue merely because we say it is a statue. Another objection to fourdimensionalism questions the nature of the temporal parts themselves. How are we to define these parts? Thinking back to the ship of Theseus example, material things can continue to pop in and out of existence as a given object changes over time. So, then, when do the statue and the lump of clay share their temporal and spatial parts exactly? What seems to be a good response to this counter argument is that the lump of clay maintains its full mass over time and does not lose any parts. Thus new material things do not pop in and out of existence, rather what the observer sees will change spatially over time as the lump of clay is molded into a statue. Both of these objects share parts over time, and that is what makes them continual. The argument for fourdimensionalism is a strong one due to its logical nature. We can relate the example of the statue and a clay to a larger scale, more relevant example. Notre Dame’s campus and Debartolo Hall can be considered two distinct things. However, they both occupy the same space at the same time because Debartolo is a part of the larger campus. They both share a part that takes up the same particular location. So why can’t the same be true for the case of the statue and the clay? A statue is simply a statue because we give it that name. Is it not literally a lump of clay? The clay before it was formed into a statue can be thought of as two separate things because they take up different areas of space at different times. However, the lump of clay that makes up the statue at the exact time that the statue is complete shares the exact same amount of space at the same time as the statue. This is what supports the legitimacy of fourdimensionalism. 1 Can gaining $0.01 make someone who was previously not rich into a rich person? 1 No 1 Is free will consistent with determinism? 1 No 1 Is there moral luck? 1 Yes Is psychological egoism true?- our actions are always in own self interest 1 No- soldier grenade, opening door 1 Is it true that things are good only insofar as they lead to pleasure (or the absence of pain), and bad only insofar as they lead to pain (or the absence of pleasure)? 1 No 1 Should one always perform the action which will lead to the best overall consequences? 1 No 1 Are all actions which violate the formula of humanity morally wrong? 1 No 1 Is it true that one always ought to prevent something bad from happening if one can do so without sacrificing anything of any moral importance? 1 Donating starbucks money to poor would lead to collapse of starbucks 1 No A psychological thing Consider different stages of human life- what makes the child the adult and the elderly the same person? o Dualist: they are attached to the same immaterial soul o Materialist: they are the same material thing o Locke: it is because of psychological connections and connections of memory between individuals It is your psychological thoughts being kept intact that make you survive But then the material object that is the prince's body before the switch is identical to the material object which is the cobbler's body after the switch What locke says in response: four dimensionalism- analogy between space and time- we manage to be in different locations because physically we are many parts and are large so we have different parts of us located in different areas. There are also temporal parts that exist over a period of time (baby erin, toddler erin, and adult erin are temporal parts but are the same because of psychological connections) Rejection: an old man can forget early stages in their lives But if in one stage and remember previous stage, and if in that stage remember the previous stage, then by transitive property then you are equal to the first stage Bernard williams questions psychological theory: o Can only fear things that are going to happen to you o Say your memory will be erased and another person was put into your mind and have a diff past in your mind--> fear would be the proper reaction o If you have that person's memories, according to the psychological theory, you are now a different person. So then would you fear torture in the same way? o Would you still exist in that body even if your memories were erased and new memories put in Another problem for psychological theory: fission and teleportation o Suppose were able to transmit all cells recorded and transmitted st speed of light to mars, where you are reconstituted Isnt transportation a way of dying because is it the same material object as the o one that got on earth? It will have same memories an personality o What if the teleporter on earth leaves the body in the teletransportation machine untouched? Are they the same person o What if we send the signal to 2 diff places? o Should be unproblematic if theory of psychological identity is true o The copy of you is identical to the copy on mars, as is the one on venus. But clearly you on mars does not equal you on venus. But that is a contradiction Not really a thing What if you were to be sawn in half and then both halves were connected to a replica of the other half o How can one person at an earlier time be identical to two people at a later time Materialist would have to say that both of them are identical to the original person o If want to be materialist about humans must say they can gain and lose parts, just not too many, but have to draw the line somewhere Closest continuer theory- Response by materialist/psychological theorist: survival requires having a certain degree of psychological/physical continuity and nothing else exhibiting that degree of continuity Think of the teletransportation theory: who on which planet would have the soul Think about a football team. Say they move to a diff city get new uniforms and o have new name but same people. And then wherever they left a team takes on all those old things but just have diff players. Which is the original team? Similar to the ship of theseus Parfit thinks that each of marsy and venusy is similar to earthy, but there's no further fact about which one is identical to earthy What if the corpus callosum, the pathway btw left and right half of brain, were severed. Then the brains could not exchange information. For example, information in the right half cannot be spoken because speech is in the left half o Ownership- every conscious experience must be an experience of someone o Awareness- if someone has a conscious experience, it must be at least in principle possible for them to be aware of that experience o Imagine a split brain where the blue is on the left and the red is on the right. They will say that they see red because the red is seen by the left half of the brain since it controls the right side of the body o However, in the left hand they will write the word blue since the right half controls the left side of the body It is clear that there is a conscious experience of red, so by ownership, there o must be someone who is having this experience (mr. red) o But if there is a conscious experience of blue, by ownership, someone must have had this experience (mr. blue) o Are they the same? By awareness they are not. Seems that mr red is not the same as mr blue, so there are 2 persons in the body of a split brain person Split brain theory leads to these 3 objections: Parfit would respond by saying that there is a red experience and a blue experience; there is no further fact about whether these experiences are experiences of the same person or not Friday discussion: If we believe that a person is a continued consciousness or awareness this is not cohesive because the person is consciously experiencing 2 diff things at different times If want to say they are the same, there can be a person where even if mr red experienced the blue he is unaware of it and cant report it To have a conscious experience do you have to be aware of it Ownership- any conscious experience must belong to someone The past, the present, and the future There are A properties and B properties o A- An event can have a property at one time but not at another time Past at another point in time could be the present or the future and the future could become the past or the present at some point, relative Temporal properties that are not permanent Past Present future o B- If something has a property it always has it If an event is earlier than another then that is always the case Temporal properties which are permanent Earlier than Later than Does anything really have A properties? o If nothing does, then that implies eternalism- view that past and future and their objects exist in the same way as objects and events of the present moment o If you have a history of the earth with dates of when everything happened, still need to know which time is the present B theorist: each time is present relative to itself and no time is present period: 2015 has the property of being present relative to 2015 (B property) If you would be tortured wouldn’t you want that to be in the past? So an A theorist bc that has the A property of being in the past Theory of relativity means that there is no past, present, and future o 3 claims that are plausible but cant all be true together: Galilean relativity- the speed of x relative to y is the difference between their speeds if they're moving in the same direction, and the sum of their speeds if in the opposite direction Speed of light is a law of nature- refer to this speed as c The principle of relativity- the laws of nature are the same in distinct frames of reference- any objects moving at diff speeds or diff directions mean that they are in diff frames of reference o Example Man walking and have the speed of light going as well. The light is moving at speed and he is moving at v. the light is moving at speed c-v relative to him bc going same direction and the speed of the light relative to him is less than if he were standing still. This is also true for everything. But the speed of light relative to him is also c because it is a law of nature that the speed of light is c and it is a law of nature that this is the same in different frames of reference. Want to give up that speed of light is the law of nature If run towards light source, light is moving past you even faster Light moving faster or slower relative to different frames of reference? No So should accept that speed of light is a law of nature and say Galilean is false o Example Man standing in middle of glass train car moving at constant speed to the right. Also a man standing on ground watching it go by. The person in the car turns on 2 flashlights pointing either direction in the train car, A and B. if they travelling same distance at same speed, should both hit the walls at the same time. What bout from outside the train car? The train is moving while the light moves. Beam B will have to travel father if train moves to the right as light moves. Would think light B looks like it is moving faster because moving with the train. But light always goes the same speed relative to every frame of reference (2). Not supposed to be any illusions- they are both seeing accurately. If simultaneity is relative to a frame of reference, so is duration. Consider time from flashlight turning on and beam hitting wall. This takes longer relative to the trains frame of reference than relative to the frame of reference of the observer outside the car o When would one event happen before another from the perspective of the person on the train, but reversed from outside the train? o A before b in one frame of reference, but b before a in another frame of reference o Pro-B property argument- there are b properties, but always relative to frame of reference o A properties- when 2 people pass in the street, what has the A property of being present? Everything that is simultaneous with this event at the specific time that they are passing. But simultaneity is relative to who you want to focus on. So could say present relative to "this" frame of reference. Will be an event that something has permanently, or only temporarily? Looks like permanently. Depends on which persons frame of reference you want to use. But its weird to pick just one person's frame of reference as corresponding to the present Things Say we took a lump of clay and made it into a statue. That didn’t exist until we made it and we brought it into existence. Is it the same thing as the lump of clay? Are they identical? o no- the lump of clay existed before I made the statue and the statue didn’t. the clay preexisted the act 1. Existence: Before the action a lump of clay exists, and after the action the statue exists 2. Survival: The lump of clay continues to exist after the sculptors actions 3. Creation: The statue comes into existence when the sculptor makes it 1. After the sculptors action the lump of clay and the sculpture have different properties: one existed before the sculptor's action, and one did not 1. Leibniz's law: If x and y have diff properties at the same time, then x does not = y A. The statue does not equal the lump of clay o Yes: 1. The statue and the clay occupy the same location at the same time 2. No co-location: Distinct objects never occupy the same location at the same time 1. Statue does not equal the lump of clay o Nihilism- denies all of existence, creation, and survival Then musn't we deny that there ever are such things as clay and statues Does this mean that if we deny existence then we must deny that there are any material things at all? No. still believe in electrons but don’t believe that they ever compose anything Looks like there aren't any material parts that don’t have parts If deny that there aren't any parts of material objects then deny that there are material objects at all o Takeover theory- denies only survival We have the lump of clay but then the other thing, a statue, comes and takes over and the lump of clay has ceased to exist. Now there is a statue here and they don’t exist at the same time A given bunch of particles can compose at most one thing at a time Take lump of clay, make into statue, and smush again. Is same lump of clay that existed before? Hard for takeover theorist to deny that these are distinct lumps of clay o Constitution theory- denies no co-location Relation of constitution- genuinely distinct objects can fit into one space when one constitutes the other According the constitution theorist, the statue and the clay are distinct things. But every time you pick up one, you pick up the other. So then anyone who lifts the statue has lifted double the statue's weight o 4 dimensionalism- denies no co-location ND campus and hes library are 2 distinct things. And both of these things are right here at the same time. They are distinct but they are both right here because they both have a part that is right here. Clay is just like this in terms of temporal parts, so the lump of clay is the collection of all those temporal parts in its sculpting The statue and the clay can be in the same place at the same time because they are objects that have a temporal part in common Is every material object composed only of material things that exist for just an instant? What are the temporal parts? Can you exist at multiple times? Say a sculptor wants to make goliath, he makes left half and right half and puts together. At that moment a sculpture has come into existence. But also a new lump of clay has come into existence. It seems that these are not identical. If smush goliath, the statue would cease to exist. The resultant lump of clay is lumpl. Lumpl could survive being smushed. They must be distinct by leibniz's law. Lumpl and goliath have all temporal parts in common Heaps, bald things, and tall things Paradox of the heap- calls into question the reality of every category of thing that admits of borderline cases If keep adding one grain of sand to a pile, when does it become a heap? It seems absurd to try to determine at what point that the pile becomes a heap. You can also say the same for mountains. Can apply it to anything- what small margin added makes a thing become a certain way o Can also apply it to abortion because killing a fetus just one second more doesn’t seem to make a difference o The word heap is considered vague because it admits borderline cases o So no finite number of grains of sand make a heap So then no amount of money makes you rich No amount of height makes you tall o Very hard to reject the first premise o Also hard to accept the conclusion. This would be like nihilism bc would be saying there are no mountains or tall things Also even rules out the existence of something the nihilist would accept. Think about temp. that would be admitting that no temp is painful o Reject 2nd premise So then there is some sharp cutoff point that makes something a heap or not The being and not being of heap is determined by one grain of sand But how could you know exactly what penny made you rich But there is no simple dividing line. There are borderline cases in the grey area, and then there are amounts of sand that are clearly heaps or not heaps If you could say that a given number 475 grains of sand were a heap, that wouldn’t be a borderline case, it would just be a heap or not a heap These kinds of statements are not true or false. They are just indeterminate Truth value gap view If things are neither true nor false then they are not true. If this is the case, the argument is not sound Then what is the division between the non heaps and the grey area? We now have 2 new sharp cutoff points on either end of the grey area This gives certain numbers of sand unreasonable significance Phenomenal sorites There can be a pair of patches that you can tell no diff btw them and yet one is green and the other is not WHAT IS REAL Space Eliminativism- the thing in question is simply not a part of reality at all (ex the easter bunny) Subjectivism- the thing in question is part of reality but only due to human responses or responses of other subjects (ex. Something being funny because people find it funny) Realism- thing in question is genuinely part of reality and doesn’t depend on human responses (ex. It is a fact that a thing has mass) Aquinas= realist about God Mackie = eliminativist Descartes= realist about people Rather than being realists about space we should be eliminativists because space is an illusion Zeno o Thinks that the view that things move leads to contradiction o The idea of movement is the idea of a physical thing- something that takes up space- occupying different bits of space at different times o Idealism- nothing moves if the physical world is illusory 4 arguments: o The Achilles- cont o The racetrack- cont o The stadium- discrete o The arrow- discrete Continuous series- one in which between every 2 members there is another member of the series ex) rational numbers o Are space and time continuous? If so, a point btw any 2 points in space there is a third. Discrete- if space and time are not continuous-space: there are lengths which are not divisible and points that have no pointe between them. Time: pairs of moments such that there is no time in between the two moments 1 The Achilles Achilles and tortoise are having a race and since achilles is faster the tortoise gets a head start and he will never stop and keep advancing no matter what No matter how slow the tortoise's speed, he will always move somewhat T1= amount of time it takes for achilles to catch up to tortoise, but also tortoise has moved a bit and is still ahead T2= achilles catching up to tortoise's T1 movement Tortoise will always have covered some distance It motion is possible, one thing should be able to catch another thing He has proven that it is impossible supposing that space and time are continuous 2 The racetrack Its impossible to move any distance at all You are trying to move from A to B and the midpoint is C. have to get from A to C before get to B. if add D as midpoint between these two, once again have to move this distance. Since it is infinitely divisible, this can go on indefinitely Reject premise 4 Seems plausible because if travel infinitely many finite distances you will have to travel an infinite distance, so the sum of any infinite connection is infinite What if infinitely many journeys are of decreasing lengths? Then can be finite Is there any reason that we can't travel infinitely many distances in a finite time? (4 is tru) Thompsons lamp Lamp is turned on and off an infinite # of times in one hour There is no end to the series because each on is followed by an off and likewise Why is this impossible? Because we are imagining infinitely many events happening in a finite time which cant be true Well then this proves 4 1 The Stadium See powerpoint When did orange 2 and blue 3 pass each other? There is no time between T1 and T2 so how did that happen? Doesn’t seem possible here The impossibility of this kind of thing happening is a good argument against space and time being discrete 2 The Arrow Assume space and time are discrete In an indivisible moment in time, does the arrow move during that instant? How could it? If it could then wouldn’t the moment be divisible Arrow can't move between instants because there is no time between instants. So then the arrow cannot move at all Objection: motion neither happens at instants nor between them- it's just a matter of being in one place at one time, and another place at the next time Discussion Kinds of philosophical views with ethics/moral theory o Eliminativism These things don’t describe the world Relevant facts are not there o Subjectivism Ppl seem to endorse subjectivist views Ethics are held in the right of the holder; it's your view as to what is right and wrong relative to something o Realism- realists say ethics are fixed for everyone Discrete/continuous distinction o Discrete- can take 2 adjacent members of a series and there's nothing in between them Free will defense Because free will is a good, a wholly good being may wish for others to have free will. But it is impossible to give free will and also stop them from using the free will to create evil. So a wholly good being might not eliminate evil which It was within its power to eliminate, when doing so would be an infringement on the free will of the creature causing the evil Free will defense has 2 objections: 1. No evil at all is redeemed by free will- Mackie thinks that the free will defense explains no evil God would be like the dentist because he could have given us all the good of free will without any of the corresponding evil. If he could have done that that’s obviously a better option Its possible for all people to have free will and yet never bring about any evil + god can bring about any possible situation = god could have made a world where all people have free will and yet never bring about any evil o What is omnipotence, if not the ability to bring about anything possible There are evils in the world that arent caused by human actions so the argument is o missing something o God also could have given us choices between 2 actions. Ex) choosing between 2 jelly beans o Richard Swinburne The free will we have demands a responsibility for each other but we can harm each other Without having a bad choice we would never make a good choice because there's no bad choice to make it good in comparison Our free will wouldn’t have the value it actually has without our responsibility for each other Richard thinks that free will and genuine responsibility that comes with the free will goes together God couldn’t have given us that package without the ability of evil to happen He cant give it to us without not being able to prevent harm from happening The power to harm people is essential to the world we live in He thinks we would be worse off if we did not have that power --> can God do evil? God is essentially good so it is impossible. Therefore he lacks an ability that we have (the ability to do evil). But if god doesn’t even have that power then how can Swinburne make the argument that this is such an important power for us to have Omnipotence is the ability to bring about anything possible so then if it is impossible for god to do evil then that does not effect his omnipotence 1 Some but not all evil is redeemed by free will There is a lot of evil that is not brought about by free will such as natural disasters Suppose here is some natural evil that is possible to eliminate Ex) tornado that kills people. Its possible to have prevented this. The badness of the deaths is not outweighed by any good One explanation is that Satan causes them- we don’t know if it's true but have no particular reason to doubt that it is true It is actually our free will that put us in the way of natural disasters in the first place because in the garden of even we were placed out if the care of God Natural disasters aren't essentially evil but evil because of the suffering they cause. Human free choice can avoid the hurricane but when we cannot it is our fault But what about a fire that killed a deer before humans were around? That is an evil that could not have been caused by humans and garden of eden But cant explain the particularly horrible evils Discussion section (PV I) 1. The world contains horrors 2. Some horrors are such that the world would be no worse without them 3. If a perfectly good being could omit a horror without making the world any worse it would 4. An omnipotent being could omit some horrors 1. If one is in a position to prevent evil without causing any more harm or preventing any good one should do it The path under which we were created also allowed these natural disasters to 2. happen 3. After we were created god could have taken away those natural things though 4. God put disease there so that we could adapt to diseases. But does that really make sense 5. Natural disasters can be a redeemable evil bc created something with the marks of design 6. Tornadoes occur because of variations in out atmosphere but if we didn’t have our atmosphere we wouldn’t exist 7. Can attribute all the badness to decisions that humans made 8. What about heaven and hell- if you die from natural disaster and then go live in paradise forever that could be a good thing That makes natural disasters become redeemable evils Suffer on earth and test your faith and through that you will still love him and then all of that suffering is redeemed in heaven But also if you live your life then you could also go to heaven in the end so wouldn’t living your life be the better option Heaven and hell is using the existence of god to prove the existence of god which doesn’t make any sense 9. What about people close to those people who die. They also are saddened by the loss of another person and that is an evil that they suffer from. But also if you believe that that person is going to heaven then it is selfish to worry about how it affects you But we cant control our feelings. When you lose someone that happens 10. Since god cant make squares round, it almost goes the same in that he cant prevent hurricanes because that is literally impossible. They must exist otherwise they would contradict these laws 11. Natural laws determine what's possible so did god create those natural laws or do those laws determine what's possible Vanenvagens proposal for evil- suffering of beasts There are evils that have nothing to do with humans whatsoever every world god could have made that contains animals that can feel pain contains suffering equivalent to the actual world or else the world is massively irregular. Some good depends on people and its good that they exists and can suffer in these ways. Outweighs the suffering that exists here Being irregular is a defect. It works if the world doesn’t obey physical rules and that god tampers with it to make miracles God created the world Suffering of animals before humans is justified by the existence of animals like that that can suffer in that way (a good) also it is good that the world behaves in this way WHAT AM I An Immaterial thing A physical or material thing is something entirely composed of the sorts of things described in physics Materialism- everything is a material thing bc everything is composed of atoms o Therefore we are mate
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'