New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

PHIL 100 All Lecture Notes and Final Study Guide

by: Erin Wade

PHIL 100 All Lecture Notes and Final Study Guide Phil 100

Marketplace > Colorado State University > Philosophy > Phil 100 > PHIL 100 All Lecture Notes and Final Study Guide
Erin Wade
GPA 3.9

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

All Lecture Notes and Final Study Guide Spring 2016 Prof Alvarez
Appreciation of philosophy
Daniel Alvarez
Alvarez, philosophy, PHIL100, appreciationofphilosophy
75 ?




Popular in Appreciation of philosophy

Popular in Philosophy

This 26 page Bundle was uploaded by Erin Wade on Friday August 12, 2016. The Bundle belongs to Phil 100 at Colorado State University taught by Daniel Alvarez in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Appreciation of philosophy in Philosophy at Colorado State University.


Reviews for PHIL 100 All Lecture Notes and Final Study Guide


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: 08/12/16
1/19/16   What  is  philosophy?   What  does  philosophy  study?  (content  of  philosophy)   What  are  the  tools  used  to  study  philosophy?     -­   Equivocation  -­  using  the  same  words/terms,  but  having  different  understandings  of  what   they  mean   -­   Three  definitions  of  philosophy:   ●   Etymological  (word  origin)   -­  philos(love)  sophia(wisdom),  love  of  wisdom   ●   Extensional  Definition  (using  examples)   -­  asking  questions,  developing  ideas   about  things,  using  a  philosopher  as  an  example,  Socrates   ●   Intentional  Definition  (necessary  sufficient  co nditions)  -­  objectivity,  rationality,   reflectivity,  generality(external  validity),  critique  of  presuppositions     1/21/16   -­   Socrates  469-­399  BCE   Why  would  they  (his  own  country)  see  him  (70  years  old,  patriot)  as  such  a  threat  that  they   needed  to  execute  him?   -­   he  was  brought  up  on  two  charges:  Socrates  is  being  impious,  unfaithful  to  the  official   gods  of  Athens  and  he  is  corrupting  the  minds  of  the  youth   -­   In  that  day  being  a  philosopher,  people  basically  thought  you  were  an  atheist   -­   He  was  questioning  the  presuppo sitions  of  the  Athenian  people,  which  they  considered   dangerous   -­   Used  Socratic  Method  to  uncover  presuppositions,  Elenchus   -­  to  put  someone  under   examination   -­   He  showed  that  most  people  don’t  know  what  they  think  they  know,  made  them   uncomfortable  by  questio ning  and  examining  them  and  pointing  out  their  inconsistencies     -­   Self  deception  -­  can  make  you  feel  better,  can  also  be  destructive  or  hold  you  back   1/26/16   -­   Socrates  would  use  The  Socratic  Method  to  find  contradictions     The  Socratic  Method:   1.   Locate  philosophical  issue/assumption   2.   Locate  philosophical  term(s)  to  be  analyzed   3.   Socrates  professes  ignorance  and  requests  the  help  of  the  so -­called  expert   4.   The  “expert”  proposes  a  definition  of  the  key  term(s)   5.   Socrates  subjects  the  key  terms  to  analysis  by  asking  questions  and  thus  exposing   weaknesses   6.   The  “expert  attempts  to  improve  upon  the  former  definition  by  proposing  another   definition  (steps  5  and  6  are  repeated  several  times).  Again,  the  new  definition  is  found   inadequate,  which  leads  to  the  next  step.   7.   The  “expert”  is  made  to  face  his/her  own  ignorance  and  is  not  ready  to  search  for   wisdom.       Three  Keys  Aspects  to  Socrates’  Teachings:   -­   The  unexamined  life  is  not  worth  living   -­  people  have  to  know  who  they  are,  not  just   focus  on  practical  concerns   -­   The  most  important  task  in  life  is  caring  for  the  soul   -­  the  soul/psyche  is  the  essence  of   humanness,  the  capacity  to  reason  and  reflect     -­   A  good  person  cannot  be  harmed  by  others  -­  the  real  person  (the  essence  of  the  human)   cannot  be  harmed  by  people  of  ill -­will     Socrates  didn’t  think  of  “the  soul”  as  a  shadowy  thing  that  would  go  to  heaven  or  hell  when  you   died,  but  as  the  essence  of  you  that  would  go  back  to  whe re  it  came  from  when  your  body   expired  and  be  reincarnated     Plato  (Aristocles)   The  Republic,  Book  7,  Allegory  of  the  Cave     Ethics  -­  Obligation  to  enlighten  others   Philosophy  of  Religion   -­  notion  of  a  higher  power/  ability  to  cast  the  reality  they  wish   Political  Philosophy  -­  what  is  justice?  What  is  the  best  system?   Metaphysics  -­  What  is  the  real  reality?     Epistemology  -­  How  do  you  know  that  you  know?  What  is  knowledge?                 1/28/16   What  are  the  tools  the  philosopher  uses?   -­   Argument,  reasoning,  and  evidence     There  are  six  things  to  look  for:   -­   Clarity  -­  conceptual  clarity       Ex:  if  they  are  talking  about  “free”  or  “freedom”,  they  have  to  be  clear  about  in   what  sense  they  are  using  the  word  (spiritual  freedom,  political  freedom,  without  cost)   -­   Consistency  -­  ideas  and  concepts  free  of  contradictions       Ex:  assertion  that  events  are  predetermined,  yet  also  that  humans  have  free  will   -­   Coherence  -­  how  a  set  of  concepts  fit  together       Ex:  the  claim  that  science  explains  everything,  so  there  is  no  need  to  appeal  to   anything  “non-­material”,  but  what  about  non -­material  concepts  like  ethics?   -­   Comprehensiveness   -­  how  encompassing  a  set  of  concepts  are       Ex:  the  claim  that  all  of  our  knowledge  is  based  on  our  senses,  but  what  about   ethic  and  moral  knowledge?   -­   Compatibility  -­  how  concepts  line  up  with  well  established  findings  in  biology  and   psychology   Ex:  how  does  a  “non -­material  soul”  reside  in  a  physical,  material  body?   -­   Compelling  -­       Look  for  Compelling  Arguments   -­   Argument  -­  set  of  statements  in  which  one  claim  is  supported  by  another  claim  or  claims       Ex:  (P1)If  Spot  is  a  dog,  then  spot  is  a  mammal.  (P2)Spot  is  a  dog.  (C)Therefore,   Spot  in  a  mammal.       Three  main  types  of  arguments:   -­   deductive  -­  aim  to  gain  certainty  because  the  conclusion  necessarily  follows  the   premises   -­   inductive  -­  aim  to  gain  probability  because  the  conclusion  (if  true)  only  gains  a  degree  of   probability   -­   abductive  -­  aim  to  offer  the  best  explanation  among  a  set  of  rival  and  competing   arguments     Deductive  Arguments:   -­   can  be  valid,  invalid,  sound,  or  unsound  (structure)   -­   valid  or  invalid  -­  if  the  premises  are  true  and  then  the  conclusion  necessarily  must  be   true,  invalid  if  the  conclusion  does  not  follow   -­   sound  or  unsound  -­  if  the  argument  is  valid  and  the  premises  are  in  fact  true,  unsound  if   the  premises  are  not  true         Inductive  Arguments:   -­   can  be  weak,  strong,  or  cogent   -­     2/9/16   Metaphysics  -­  study  of  ultimate  nature  of  reality   -­   Aristotle  couldn’t  fit  it  into  any  category,  so  he  called  it  “after  physics”     Metaphysical  Monism   ●   Idealism  -­  mental,  non  physical  things  are  real   ●   Materialism  -­  physical  things  are  real     Metaphysical  Dualism   ●   physical  and  nonphysical  are  real     Mind/Body  Problem   1.   We  have  a  mind  and  a  body   2.   Normally  both  interact   3.   The  body  is  physical  (public)   4.   Our  mind  is  nonphysical  (private)   5.   How  do  the  nonphysical  and  physical  interact?     2/11/16   Mind/Body  Positions:   1.   Mind/body  Dualism   Two  arguments  from  Descartes  who  believes  in  Substance  Dualism:   Descartes  was  torn  between  science  and  religion  so  he  made  up  this  philosophy  that  sort  of   adheres  to  both  -­  dualism   -­   Argument  from  Doubt   ●   compare  two  different  things  and  see  if  their  properties  match  and  if  they   do,  the  two  things  are  the  same  (non  identity  of  discernibles)     ●   Can’t  doubt  the  mind,  Can  doubt  the  body   -­   Argument  from  Consciousness   ●   The  body  does  not  have  consciousness,  but  the  mi nd  does,  so  they  are   not  the  same   One  argument  from  David  Chalmer  who  believes  in  Property  Dualism:   -­   Contemporary  argument  from  Consciousness   ●   consciousness  and  subject  experience  exist   ●   it  is  impossible  to  identify  consciousness  with  or  to  reduce  it  to  physi cal   processes  in  the  brain     ●   physicalists  say  that  scientists  can  or  will  be  able  to  explain  it   ●   so  physicalism  is  false   2.   Mind/body  Physicalism   -­   Say  that  dualists  are  unnecessarily  complicating  things,  looking  for  a  “ghost   inside  the  machine”   -­   Biochemical  brain  states  explain  the  “mind”   Two  types  of  Physicalism:   -­   Identity  Theory   ●   Every  mental  state  has  a  corresponding  type  of  physical  state     ●   Ex:  the  mental  state  of  being  in  pain  has  a  physical  state  of  reactions  in   the  brain   ●   some  will  argue  that  there  is  not  one  specific  thing  happening  in  the  brain   for  each  mental  state  (like  love)  there  will  be  several  parts  of  the  brain   lighting  up  and  it  will  be  different  in  different  people   -­   Eliminativism   ●   we  need  to  get  rid  of  all  mental  l anguage,  because  there  is  no  mind,  but   there  is  a  brain   ●   “folk  talk”  or  explanations  we  made  up  to  explain  things  before  we  really   understood  them  (zeus  hurling  lightning  bolts  vs.  electrical  current  in  the   sky)  is  misleading   3.   Functionalism  &  AI  Theory   Redefine  what  we  mean  by  a  mental  state  -­  for  a  mental  state  to  be  what  it  is,  is  a  functional  role   that  it  plays  in  a  process  of  inputs  and  outputs   -­   Type-­Type  -­  Multiples  Realizability   ●   can  be  instantiated  in  multiple  forms,  packaged  in  different  mediums   ●   Ex:  music  can  be  0s  and  1s  or  a  CD  or  Record   ●   mental  states  don’t  have  to  be  pinned  down  to  a  specific  form       2/16/16   -­   The  Turing  Test  (The  Imitation  Game)  Alan  M.  Turing   -­  to  find  out  whether  a  computer   program  can  fool  a  person  into  thinking  it  is  human,  by  asking  it  questions     -­   Strong  AI  Theorist  (Marvin  Minsky)   -­  certain  appropriately  programmed  computers  can   be  considered  to  think   -­   Weak  AI  Theorist  (John  Searle)   -­  certain  appropriately  programmed  computers  are   simulating  thinking   -­   Chinese  Room  Argument  Refutation   -­  Even  if  the  computer  passes  the  Turing  Test,   that’s  not  good  enough  to  say  it’s  thinking     2/18/16   Free  Will  and  Determinism  Problem   Causal  Determinism  -­  Physiological/Social/Psychological  factors  that  render  events,  behaviors,   etc.  certain   -­   Theological  Determinism   -­  events  are  result  of  a  deity  (Subset  of  Causal)   Two  kinds  of  Freedom  discussed  in  the  Free  Will  and  Determinism  Problem:   -­   Circumstantial  Freedom:   1.   X  desires  to  perform  action  Y   2.   X  is  not  prevented  by  external  forces  from  performing  action  Y   → X has freedom to per form action Y   -­   Metaphysical  Freedom   -­     1.   X  desires  to  perform  action  Y   2.   X  is  not  prevented  by  external  forces  from  performing  action  Y   3.   Given  the  same  prior  conditions  X  could  have  done  otherwise     Hard  Determinism     1.   We  are  determined   2.   If  we  are  determined,  then  we  lack  the  freedom  necessary  to  be  morally  responsible.     3.   We  are  not  morally  responsible   Libertarianism   1.   We  are  not  determined   2.   If  we  are  determined,  then  we  lack  the  freedom  necessary  to  be  morally  responsible.     3.   We  are  morally  res ponsible   Compatibilism  (Soft  Determinism)   1.   We  are  determined   2.   If  we  are  determined,  we  can  still  have  the  freedom  necessary  to  be  morally  responsible.     3.   We  are  morally  responsible     Hard  Determinist  Case:   -­   Libertarianism  conflicts  with  science   -­  to  say  that  human  event  are  an  exception  to  laws   of  cause  and  effect   -­   Libertarianism  fails  to  explain  how  we  influence  other  humans   -­   Every  event  is  causally  determined  by  prior  events     Libertarianism   -­   Hard  determinism  assumes/makes  an  inductive  leap  that   everything  is  predetermined   Unit  Two  Exam  Review   Wednesday  24th,  Eddy  10,  5:30 -­7     2/23/16   Libertarianism   -­   Agent  Causation   ●   dichotomy  -­  events  are  either  determined  or  random   ●   agents  can  choose  to  or  not  to  cause  events  (taking  a  walk)   -­   Existential  Freedom  (Sartre)   ●   essence  precedes  existence,  existence  precedes  essence   ●   We  talk  big  about  freedom,  but  are  actually  scared  of  all  the  choices  we  have  (we   don’t  take  responsibility  when  things  don’t  work  out  how  we  want)   ●   our  essence  is  to  realize  that  we  are  condemned  to  be  free   ●   You  can  create  and  define  yourself  to  be  whoever  and  whatever  you  want  to  be   ●   Facticity  -­  What  we  start  out  with  that  we  don’t  pick  (economic  status,  ethnicity,   race,  gender,  etc.)  But  this  does  not  define  you  or  type  cast  you   ●   Transcendence  -­  to  initiate  and  choose  and  create  meaning  for  yourself,  to  rise   above  your  facticity   ●   Bad  Faith  -­  To  compare  the  cards  you  were  dealt  to  others’  and  give  up,  goes   against  your  essence  which  is  to  be  free   → We have the freedom to conceive of other possibilities and to act and bring those possibilities to a reality     Compatibilism  (Soft  determinism)   -­   We  are  free  and  determined   -­   Circumstantial  Freedom  (absence  of  external  constraint)  -­  is  sufficient  for  us  to  be   morally  responsible   -­   We  can  be  circumstantially  free  to  perform  acts,  but  these  acts  are  still  determined  by   your  psychological  state/who  you  are   3/1/16   Epistemology  -­  area  of  philosophy  concerned  with  what  we  can  know/what  is  true  knowledge?   -­   Types  of  Knowledge:   ●   Perceptual  -­  senses,  personal  experiences  (I  feel  my  keyboard  or  I  have  a   toothache)   ●   Know-­How  -­  skills  sets  (how  to  play  a  guitar)   ●   Acquaintance  -­    know  a  person  or  a  place  (I  know  Boulder)   ●   Factual  -­  know  facts  (today  is  Tuesday)   -­   To  say  that  we  have  knowledge:   ●   the  proposition  has  to  be  true   ●   we  have  to  believe  it   ●   and  it  has  to  be  justified   → If we take one of those three things away, th en it is a belief, not knowledge   Ex:  If  you  guessed  that  it  was  raining  outside  and  then  it  happened  to  be  true  (it  wasn’t   justified)   -­   Three  controlling  questions:   1.   Is  it  possible  to  have  knowledge  at  all?   2.   What  is  the  best/optimal  way  of  obtaining  knowledge?   3.   Does  our  knowledge  represent  reality?     3/3/16   -­   Available  Options:   1.   Skepticism   -­   Says  no  to  the  first  question,  making  the  other  two  irrelevant.  Knowledge   is  not  possible.     -­   Universal  Belief  Falsifiers   -­  theoretical  scenarios  that  make  you  doubt   what  you  know  (Brain  in  a  Vat,  Matrix)   a.   Carneades  -­  probabilism(academic  skepticism)   -­  we  can  know  that  some   things  are  probable     b.   Pyrrho  -­  Pyrrhonian  skeptics   -­  extreme  skepticism,  can’ t  know  anything.   Thought  that  they  could  be  tranquil,  not  knowing  anything  could  be   liberating   -­   General  Skeptical  Argument   -­  can  doubt  all  beliefs,  so  we  cannot  be   certain  of  any  of  them,  so  we  do  not  have  knowledge   c.   Descartes  (not  a  skeptic,  but  had  skeptic al  arguments)  -­  in  order  to  defeat   skepticism  he  had  to  use  skeptical  arguments  to  arrive  at  certainty   ●   argument  of  doubt  -­  sometimes  senses  fail  us   ●   dream  argument  -­  we  could  be  dreaming   ●   evil  genius/demon  argument   -­  confuse  our  minds,  so  we  can’t   even  be  sure  about  mathematical  truths   ●   comes  to  conclusion  that  he  does  exist  I  think,  therefore  I  am.       2.   Rationalism   -­   says  yes  to  first  question,  best  way  of  finding  knowledge  is  through   reason,  and  it  does  represent  reality   -­   a  priori  knowledge  -­  you  do  not  have  to  use  your  senses  to  know  it   (mathematics)   -­   Plato:   ●   innate  knowledge  (have  to  believe  in  a  higher  power  for  this  to   work)  -­  knowledge  that  you  are  born  with,  is  put  into  you  (does  not   include  instincts)  this  is  knowledge  that  we  were  given,  but  spend   our  lives  trying  to  find  access  to  (equality,  justice,  morals)   ●   Universals  -­  something  everyone  or  all  of  a  group  of  things  shares:   humanity,  water  bottles   ●   Reason  is  how  you  can  find  universal  forms/innate  knowledge  by   working  through  your  mind’s  eye   ●   Reincarnation,  soul  goes  into  your  body  when  you  are  born  and   continues  after  you  are  dead   -­   Descartes:   ●    Cogito  Argument  -­  I  think,  therefor  I  am   ●   Descartes  decides  that  God  must  be  real  because  how  else  would   he  have  the  idea  of  perfection   ●   Believes  in  innate  ideas,  but  doesn’t  think  the  soul  existed  before   us,  thinks  that  it  was  born  with  us           3/10/16   3.  Empiricism   -­   No  innate  ideas   -­   Reason  needs  to  be  aided/supplemented  by  sense  experience  to  have  ideas   -­   A  posteriori  knowledge   -­  comes  after  sense  experience   -­   John  Lock:   ●   The  mind  is  a  blank  canvas  in  that  it  does  not  come  with  innate  ideas,  but   it  does  come  with  the  ability  to  process  sense  experience   -­  to  abstract,   relate  or  compound  information  to  come  up  with  concepts   ●   Idea  -­  perceptions  of  things  (idea  of  chalk  when  hol ding  a  piece  of  chalk)   ○   Simple  -­  sensation  and  reflection  (it’s  yellow)   ○   Complex  -­  combination  of  all  the  simple  ideas  (the  unit  of  chalk  is   itself  a  complex  idea)   ○   Primary  qualities  -­  qualities  that  an  object  possesses  in  and  of   itself  (solidity,  volume,  shape)   ○   Secondary  qualities   -­  qualities  that  exist  when  the  primary   qualities  of  an  object  interact  with  our  senses  (color,  taste,  sound)   ●   Universals  such  as  ideas  of  “Infinity”,  “God”,  “Perfection”  are  still  acquired   through  sense  experience,  just  not  directly.  For  example,  we  have   experience  of  finite  things  so  we  can  infer  infinite  things   -­   Bishop  Berkeley:   ●   Says  that  John  Lock  is  not  a  strict  enough  empiricist   ●   Metaphysical  Idealist  (Immaterialist)   -­  only  non  physical    things  (mental,   spiritual)  are  real   ○   There  is  not  an  independent  material  world  around  us   ○   Sensible  objects  exist  only  in  our  minds   ●   If  a  tree  falls  in  the  forest  and  there  is  no  one  there  to  perceive  it,  does  it   still  make  a  sound?  If  we  are  not  using  our  senses  to  make  sure  things   are  real,  we  can’t  be  sure  they’re  real   ○   Yes,  because  everything  is  always  being  perceived  by  God                                                                 4.  Constructivism   5.  Epistemological  Relativism   6.  Pragmatism   3/22/16   David  Hume   -­   Empiricist   -­   Perceptions  -­  sense  impressions   ●   Includes  “ideas”  (reflections)  -­  memory  of  an  original  sense  impression   ●   Can’t  be  certain  that  we  have  knowledge   -­   Types  of  Knowledge:   ●   Relations  of  Ideas   -­  a  priori  of  sense  experience   ●   Matters  of  Fact   -­  a  posteriori,  need  to  employ  sense  experience  to  verify,  where   most  of  our  knowledge  comes  from   ○   Matters  of  fact  depend  on  cause  and  effect   ■   Cause  and  effect  is  based  on  induction,  you  assume  that  it  will   always  happen,  but  can’t  prove  it   Immanuel  Kant   -­   Types  of  Knowledge:   ●   Analytic  a  priori  -­  knowledge  independent  of  sense  experience,  concepts  that  are   true  by  definition   ●   Synthetic  a  posteriori   -­  need  more  than  just  the  concept  to  verify,  need  sense   experience   ●   Synthetic  a  priori   -­  knowledge  that  is  necessarily  true,  but  not  by  definition   ○   Ex:  mathematics   -­   We  impose  knowledge  onto  the  world  around  us   ●   Radical  reversal  in  the  relationship  between  knowledge  and  its  objects  in   epistemology     ●   Raw  data  is  given  to  us  and  then  the  mind  organizes  it  via  the  12  categories  of   understanding   ●   Notion  of  causality  is  one  of  the  twelve  categories  of  the  understanding  which  the   mind  brings  to  experience   -­   Phenomena  -­  things  we  can  have  knowledge  of   -­   Numina  -­  beyond  human  capacity,  can  believe  in  these  things,  but  can’t  have  knowledge   about  them     Friedrich  Nietzsche   -­   Epistemological  subjectivism   -­   Perspectivism   ●   Everyone  is  not  fitted  with  the  same  play  dough  template,  we  all  have  different   ways  of  seeing  things  an d  not  only  one  is  correct   -­   No  facts,  only  different  perspectives   -­   “God  is  dead”   ●   God  was  just  something  we  made  up  to  help  us  along,  but  we  don’t  need  that   anymore   -­   No  objective  truths,  only  individual  subjective  interpretations       Pragmatism   -­   American  way  of  thinking,  groundwork  laid  by  Nietzsche   -­   Three  American  philosophers:   ●   Charles  Sanders  Pierce   ●   William  James   ●   John  Dewey   ○   Instrumentalism  -­  only  use  it  if  it  is  the  right  tool,  if  it  is  useful  to  your  life   ○   No  “truth”,  but  “warranted -­assertability”   -­   Correspondence  Theory  of  Truth  dumped  by  pragmatists  and  instead  uphold  Pragmatic   Theory  of  Truth   -­   Pragmatic  Theory  of  Truth   -­  looks  at  ideas,  theories  and  sees  if  they  are  true  in  terms  of   what  you  are  using  them  for,  only  true  if  they  are  useful   -­   All  knowledge  is  fallible,  tentative  and  subject  to  revision   3/31/16   Philosophy  of  Religion   -­   Sustained  philosophical  study  and  analysis  of  key  religious  concepts   -­   Two  main  concepts:   ●   God  (Existence  of  the  western  concept  of  God)   ●   Evil  (Problem  of  evil   -­  what  is  it  and  can  we  reconcile  it  with  the  existence  of  a   perfect  God?)     Western  concept  of  God   -­   Monotheistic  (one  god)   -­   Abrahamic  ethical  monotheism :   ●   Creator  of  all  and  sustainer  of  everything   ●   Worthy  of  worship  and  life  dedication   ●   Omnipotent  (all  powerful)   ○   Doesn’t  mean  he  can  do  anything,  means  he  can  only  do  things  that  go   along  with  his  nature  and  he  can  actualize  only  logical  states  of  affairs   ●    Omniscient  (all-­knowing)   ○   Knows  all  true  propositions  at  any  given  time   ○   Self-­knowledge  (knows  mental  states)  -­  knows  what  you  will  chose   ○   Knowledge  of  the  subjunctive  (middle  knowledge)   -­  knows  what  you   would  have  chosen  if  you  had  chosen  differently   ●    Omnibenevolent  (all -­loving)   ○   Is  perfectly  good,  does  no  evil   Can  this  God  exist  and  does  this   God  exist?  (independent  of  the  mind)   Approaches:   -­   Evidentialism  -­  there  has  to  be  objective  evidence  to  either  believe  or  not  believe  in  God   ●   Theist  -­  believe  in  God  and  that  there  is  rational  evidence  to  prove  he  exists   ●   Atheist  -­  do  not  believe  in  God  and  that  there  is  rational  evidence  showing  he   doesn’t   -­   Non  Evidentialism   -­  we  don’t  need  objective  or  rational  evidence  to  warrant  belief   ●   Theist  -­  believe  in  God  and  that  they  are  warranted  in  believing  this  without  any   objective  evidence   ●   Atheist  -­  do  not  believe  in  God  and  that  they  don’t  need  objective  evidence  to   prove  this   ○   Ex:  Nietzsche  -­  God  is  irrelevant,  doesn’t  need  evidence  to  prove  he  is   not  real  because  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  he  is   4/5/16   -­   Theistic  evidentialism   -­  is  a  God  and  there  is  evidence   -­   Atheistic  evidentialism   -­  is  not  a  God  and  there  is  evidence   -­   Agnosticism  -­  no  evidence  to  prove  existence  or  nonexistence  of  God     1.   Theistic  Evidentialism:  Natural  Theology  (their  argument/evidence)   -­   Separate  and  distinct  from  sacred  theology   -­  everyone  can  have  access  to  it,   doesn’t  appeal  to  sacred  scripture   -­   A  priori:   ●   Ontological   -­   A  posteriori:   ●   Cosmological   ○   Many  types  of  these  argument s   ○   Ex:  Everything  is  caused  by  something  else,  but  this  cannot  go  on   infinitely  (why?),  so  there  has  to  be  a  necessary  being  who  started   it  all   ●   Teleological   ●   Moral     2.   Atheistic  Evidentialism   3.   Agnosticism     4/7/16   Paley’s  Teleological  Argument   -­   Natural  Theology   -­   Watchmaker  analogy  (Design  argument)   ●   A  watch  has  a  watchmaker   ●   the  universe  must  have  a  universe  maker   ○   Exhibits  apparent  design(ordered  complexity)   ○   Purposive  and  intelligent  will  behind  such  design   -­   Criticisms:   ●   Analogy  between  humans  and  the  universe  is  weak   ●   We  cannot  take  a  part  and  then  reason  definitively  about  the  whole  (fallacy  of   composition)     ●   We  can  infer  that  X  causes  Y  with  repeated  cases,  but  we  only  have  one   example  of  the  universe     Ontological  Argument  (Anselm)   -­   A  priori   -­   The  concept  of  God  implies   the  reality  of  God   1.   I  have  within  my  understanding  an  Idea  of  God   2.   This  idea  of  God  is  the  idea  of  the  greatest  possible  being   3.   A  being  is  greater  if  it  exists  in  reality  than  if  it  exists  only  in  the  understanding   4.   If  God  exists  in  the  understanding  alone,  then  a  greater  being  can  be  conceived     4/12/16   Pascal’s  Wager       God  exists   God  does  not  exist   I  believe  in  God   Infinite  gain:  eternity  of  life   Finite  gain:  have  lived  good   and  happiness   life  with  sense  of  purpose       Finite  loss:  sacrifice  of   Finite  loss:  sacrifice  of   autonomy  and  temporal   autonomy  and  temporal   pleasures   pleasures   I  do  not  believe  in  God   Finite  gain:  autonomy  and   Finite  gain:  autonomy  and   temporal  pleasures   temporal  pleasures       Infinite  loss:  no  eternity  of  life   Finite  loss:  no  sense  of   and  happiness   purpose  or  meaning     Arguing  that  choosing  to  believe  in  God  has  the  highest  probability  for  happiness/good  because   it  is  the  only  one  with  possibility  of  infinite  gain     Clifford   -­   It  is  irresponsible  to  believe  in  something  without   reason  to  support  the  belief  (Boat   owner  scenario)     William  James  (Pragmatism)   -­   Says  that  you  don’t  have  the  luxury  of  suspending  belief  in  hope  of  finding  reasons,  such   as  Clifford  suggests.  He  says  it's  more  like  you  are  already  out  on  the  water  when  you   notice  the  ship  is  broken,  so  you  wouldn’t  just  stop   -­   People  should  believe  in  God  if  it  benefits  them     Kierkegaard   -­   If  you  want  to  believe  in  God,  you  have  to  take  a  leap  of  faith.  Looking  for  reasons  to   believe  in  God  it  disingenuous.   -­   Fideist   -­   Subjective  Truths     4/14/16   The  Problem  of  Evil   1.   If  God  exists,  then  he  is  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  morally  perfect   2.   If  God  is  omnipotent,  then  he  has  the  power  to  eliminate  evil   3.   If  God  is  omniscient,  then  he  knows  when  evil  exists   4.   If  God  is  morally  perfect,  then  God  has  the  desire  to  eliminate  all  evil   5.   Evil  exists   6.   If  evil  exists  and  God  exists,  then  either  God  doesn’t  have  the  power  to  eliminate  all  evil,   or  doesn’t  know  when  evil  exists,  or  doesn’t  have  the  desire  to  eliminate  all  evil     Evil:   -­   Moral  evil  -­  murder,  rape,  genocide,  etc.     -­   Natural  evil  -­  natural  disasters,  disease,  birth  defects,  etc.     -­   Gratuitous  -­  serves  no  good  purpose,  senseless   -­   Non  gratuitous  -­  serves  some  type  of  purpose       Theodicy  -­  attempt  by  theists  to  prove  existence  of  God/solve  probl em  of  evil   -­   Greater  good  defense   -­  evils  occur  to  achieve  greater  purpose,  denies  existence  of   gratuitous  evil  (purposeless  evil)   ●   John  Hics  says  that  we  are  like  children  developing  through  experiences  of  evil   4/21/16   Justice  is  Merit   -­   People  get  what  they  deserve  based  on  contribution  or  merit   Natural  Law  Theory   -­   Government  should  reflect  natural  moral  laws   Utilitarianism   -­   Greatest  good  for  greatest  number  of  people   Justice  is  Fairness   -­   Maximizing  political  equality  and  maximizing  the  position  of  the  least  advantaged     Libertarianism   -­   Priority  is  individual  liberty   Collectivism   -­   Priority  is  good  of  the  community     Option  1:  Anarchism   -­  There  is  no  conceivable  justification  for  government     Naive  Anarchism  -­  think  that  people  would  be  generally  good  and  peaceful  on  their  own     Militant  Anarchism   -­  no  justification  for  government,  should  be  taken  down  by  any  means   necessary  even  if  violent     Theoretical  Anarchism   -­  government  is  not  justified,  but   we  can  tolerate  it,  live  on  your   own  terms   -­   We  are  autonomous  beings   -­  we  choose  what  to  do  and  are  responsible,  but   government  tells  us  what  to  do  which  is  a  contradiction     2/26/16   Social  Contract  Theory   Thomas  Hobbes   -­   Thinks  that  people  are  essentially  bad  and  without  authority  everything  would  be  horrible   chaos   -­   There  was  a  chaotic  state  of  nature   -­   Need  government   -­   God  did  not  give  rulers  authority,  people  set  them  up  in  an  act  of  desperation     John  Locke   -­   People  aren’t  all  that  bad   -­   Natural  Rights  -­  God  given  unalienable  rights   -­   Need  government  to  interpret  natural  moral  law,  mediate  conflicts,  and  support  rights  of   victims  of  justice   -­   God  did  not  give  rulers  authority,  people  did     The  Question  of  Justice     In  philosophy  we  are  talking  about  distributive  justice,  not  retributive  justice   -­   Distributive  -­  how  are  goods  and  services  distributed  to  citizens   -­   Retributive  -­  getting  retribution   Plato   -­   Meritocracy  -­  society  where  political  power  is  distributed  based  on  merit   -­   Caste  system  sort  of   -­  producers,  auxiliaries,  and  guardians     4/28/16   Thomas  Aquinas   Natural  Law  Theory   -­  Just  laws  have  to  square  with  moral  laws   -­   Laws  are  unjust  if  they  go  against  a  being’s  nature   -­   Unjust  laws  are  those  that  are  not  conducive  to  the  common  good,  and  that  are  opposed   to  the  divine  good  (Aquinas  was  religious)   -­   You  can  still  be  a  natural  law  theorist  without  being  a  theist     John  Stuart  Mill   Justice  as  Social  Utility   -­   Greatest  amount  of  happiness  for  greatest  number  of  people     John  Rawls   -­   Veil  of  Ignorance  -­  imagine  that  you  are  an  unborn  baby  and  see  if  you  would  feel   comfortable  being  born  into  your  society  not  knowing  what  kind  of  circu mstances  you  will   be  born  into   -­   In  a  just  society  you  should  be  comfortable  being  born  and  not  worrying  about  whether   you  will  be  okay     3/3/16   Classical  Liberalism   -­   As  long  as  you  aren’t  doing  anything  that  messes  up  anyone  else  then  the  government   should  leave  you  alone  and  let  you  do  your  thing   -­   The  best  society  put  emphasis  on  individual  rights  and  expression   -­   Economic  sector  is  important  secondarily   John  Stuart  Mill   -­   Thinks  there  should  be  small  government   -­   no  governmental  paternalism,  except  in  the  case  of  children  or  people  who  do  not  have   the  rational  capacity  to  make  their  decisions   -­   Your  life  is  your  own  life  to  do  what  you  want  except  under  two  conditions   ●   Condition  one  -­  when  interfering  will  prevent  harm  to  others   ●   Condition  two  -­  when  it  is  essential  that  you  help  society  or  another  person   (serving  in  the  army,  serving  on  a  jury,  or  rescuing  a  drowning  perso n)           3/5/16     Karl  Marx   -­   Marxism  is  a  type  of  Socialism/Communism,  but  not  all  Socialism/Communism  is   Marxism   -­   Five  points  of  Marx’s  philosophy   1.   Economy  rules  everything   ●   Economic  drive  all  human  actions/activities   ●   You  have  to  survive  (food,  shelter,  clothes   etc.)  before  you  can   philosophize,  paint,  write  (Maslow’s  hierarchy),  so  economics  is  the  root   ●   Labor  and  life  are  integrated  more  than  people  are  aware  of   -­  when  we   work  we  put  our  life  essence  into  it  and  it  fulfills  us   ○   Alienation  from  work   -­  we  don’t  feel  connected  to  our  work,   capitalists  take  the  products  produced  by  workers  and  sell  it   2.   Class  struggle  is  the  one  constant  throughout  history   ●   History  is  the  story  of  those  who  have  and  the  have -­nots,  struggle   between  the  exploiters  and  the  exploited   ●   The  bourgeoisie  are  the  “haves”,  the  capitalists  who  have  the  means  of   industrial  production  and  the  employers  of  wage  labor   ●   The  proletariat  are  the  “have -­nots”,  the  workers  who  have  no  property   and  who  must  survive  by  selling  t heir  labor  as  a  commodity   3.   Capitalism  survives  by  exploiting  the  workers   ●   Capitalists  are  people  who  control  economic  resources   ●   Capitalists  increase  profits  and  maintain  edge  by  paying  workers  as  little   as  possible     ●   Wealthy  factory  owners  control  political  p ower  and  are  free  to  exploit   workers   4.   History  is  a  deterministic,  dialectical  process   ●   History  is  necessarily  unfolding  and  we  have  to  go  through  capitalism  to   get  to  Marxism   ●   Dialectic  process   -­  Greek  concept  of  conversation  having  a  back  and  forth   motion  until  progress  is  made   5.   Capitalism  will  undermine  itself   ●   Capitalists  are  driven  by  their  own  nature  to  increase  their  profits  by   increasingly  exploiting  the  workers   ●   System  produces  large  groups  of  miserable  workers  who  become   organized  into  unions  and  social   action  groups.  Bourgeoisie  are   producing  their  own  grave -­diggers   ●   Tension  in  bourgeoisie  marriages  because  everything  is  based  on  money   1)  What  does  political  philosophy  study?     2)  What  are  the  two  positions  available  under  the  topic,  the  justification  of  government?     -­   It  is  not  justified  (Anarchism)   -­   It  is  justified  (Social  Contract  Theory)   3)  What  is  Naïve  Anarchism?     -­   Government  is  not  justified,  think  that  people  would  be  generally  good  and  peaceful  on   their  own   4)  What  is  Militant  Anarchism?     -­   no  justification  for  government,  should  be  taken  down  by  any  means  necessary  even  if   violent   5)  What  is  Theoretical  Anarchism?   -­    government  is  not  justified,  but  we  can  tolerate  it,  live  on  your  own  terms   6)  How  does  Robert  Paul  Wolf  argue  for  Theoretical  Anarchism?     -­   We  are  autonomous  beings   -­  we  choose  what  to  do  and  are  responsible,  but   government  tells  us  what  to  do  which  is  a  c ontradiction,  government  is  not  justified   7)  What  is  Robert  Paul  Wolf’s  notion  of  autonomy?     -­   We  are  autonomous  beings   -­  we  choose  what  to  do  and  are  responsible,  but   government  tells  us  what  to  do  which  is  a  contradiction   8)  What  is  Social  Contract  theory?     -­   Citizens  agree  to  abide  by  laws  when  they  accept  conveniences  and  protection  of  living   under  a  government   9)  What  is  Thomas  Hobbes’  social  contract  theory?   -­   Thinks  that  people  are  essentially  bad  and  without  authority  everything  would  be  horrible   chaos   -­   Need  government   -­   God  did  not  give  rulers  authority,  people  set  them  up  in  an  act  of  desperation     10)  What  is  Hobbes’  notion  of  “State  of  Nature”?     -­   There  was  a  chaotic  state  of  nature   11)  What  is  John  Locke’s  social  contract  theory?     -­   People  aren’t  all  that  bad   -­   Natural  Rights  -­  God  given  unalienable  rights   -­   God  did  not  give  rulers  authority,  people  did   -­   Believed  in  civil  disobedience   -­  if  government  violates  individual  rights,  people  may   legitimately  rebel   12)  What  is  Locke’s  notion  of  “State  of  Nature”?     -­   People  are  free  with  their  actions  and  possessions  within  the  law  of  nature(reason)   13)  What  is  John  Locke’s  motivation  for  Government?     -­   Need  government  to  interpret  natural  moral  law,  mediate  conflicts,  and  support  rights  of   victims  of  justice   14)  What  is  issue  of  Justice  and  a  “just”  government?     In  philosophy  we  are  talking  about  distributive  justice,  not  retributive  justice   -­   Distributive  -­  how  are  goods  and  services  distributed  to  citizens   -­   Retributive  -­  getting  retribution   15)  What  is  Plato’s  notion  of  justice?   -­   Justice  is  merit  -­  political  power  is  distributed  based  on  merit   -­   Caste  system  sort  of   -­  producers,  auxiliaries,  and  guardians   16)  What  is  meritocracy?     -­   Positions  in  society  are  based  on  merit  (who  is  best  qualified/deserves  it)   17)  What  is  Justice  as  confo rmity  to  the  Natural  Law?     -­     18)  What  is  St.  Thomas  Aquinas’  notion  of  Natural  Law?     -­   Laws  are  unjust  if  they  go  against  a  being’s  nature   -­   Unjust  laws  are  those  that  are  not  conducive  to  the  common  good,  and  that  are  opposed   to  the  divine  good  (Aquinas  was  religious)   -­   You  can  still  be  a  natural  law  theorist  without  being  a  theist   19)  What  is  John  Locke’s  notion  of  Natural  Law?     20)  What  is  Natural  Law  theory?     -­   Just  laws  have  to  square  with  moral  laws   21)  What  is  justice  as  Social  Utility?     -­   Greatest  amount  of  happiness  for  greatest  number  of  people   22)  Who  is  John  Stuart  Mill?     -­   Wrote  “On  Liberty”   -­   Thinks  that  strong  government  is  dangerous   23)  What  is  justice  as  Fairness?     -­   Justice  is  directed  toward  a  minimum  level  of  equality  (in  contrast  to  justice  is  merit)   24)  What  is  John  Rawls’  notion  of  the  Veil  of  Ignorance?     -­   Veil  of  Ignorance  -­  imagine  that  you  are  an  unborn  baby  and  see  if  you  woul d  feel   comfortable  being  born  into  your  society  not  knowing  what  kind  of  circumstances  you  will   be  born  into   -­   In  a  just  society  you  should  be  comfortable  being  born  and  not  worrying  about  whether   you  will  be  okay   25)  What  is  the  “Original  position”?     -­   When  there  is  no  society  and  everyone  comes  together  in  a  state  of  perfect  equality  to   create  a  new  society  and  decide  what  principles  shall  govern  it     26)  What  are  Rawls  two  principles  of  justice?     -­   Difference  principle   -­  social  and  economic  inequalities  s hould  be  arranged  so  they  result   in  everyone’s  advantage   -­   Principle  of  fair  equality  of  opportunity   -­  the  opportunities  to  achieve  more  than  the  basic   minimum  should  be  open  to  all   27)  What  is  the  Feminist  Critique  of  John  Rawls  theory  justice?     -­   Rawls  seems  biased  towards  men  because  he  only  uses  language  like  “he”  and  “him”   28)  What  is  John  Stuart  Mill’s  classical  liberalism  theory?     -­   Thinks  there  should  be  small  government   -­   no  governmental  paternalism,  except  in  the  case  of  children  or  people  who  do  not  have   the  rational  capacity  to  make  their  decisions   -­   Your  life  is  your  own  life  to  do  what  you  want  except  under  two  conditions   ●   Condition  one  -­  when  interfering  will  prevent  harm  to  others   ●   Condition  two  -­  when  it  is  essential  that  you  help  society  or  another  per son   (serving  in  the  army,  serving  on  a  jury,  or  rescuing  a  drowning  person)         29)  What  are  Mill’s  two  individual  liberty  rights  that  “free”  Nations  should  have?     -­   Inward  life  -­  absolute  right  to  freedom  of  thought  and  expression   -­   Outward  life  -­  choices  and  actions   30)  What  is  Marx’s  understanding  of  economics  and  the  cause  of  ideas?     -­   Economic  drive  all  human  actions/activities   -­   You  have  to  survive  (food,  shelter,  clothes  etc.)  before  you  can  philosophize,  paint,  write   (Maslow’s  hierarchy),  so  economics  is  the  root   -­   Labor  and  life  are  integrated  more  than  people  are  aware  of   -­  when  we  work  we  put  our   life  essence  into  it  and  it  fulfills  us   ●   Alienation  from  work   -­  we  don’t  feel  connected  to  our  work,  capitalists  take  the   products  produced  by  workers  and  sell  it   31)  Who  are  the  Bourgeoisie?     -­   The  capitalist  class   -­  people  who  control  economic  resources   32)  Who  are  the  Proletariat?     -­   The  working  class   33)  How  does  Marx  think  that  Capitalism  exploits  the  workers?     -­   Capitalists  increase  profits  and  maintain  edge  by  payi ng  workers  as  little  as  possible  for   their  labor   -­   Wealthy  factory  owners  control  political  power  and  are  free  to  exploit  workers   34)  What  is  dialectic,  according  to  Marx?     -­   Dialectic  -­  Greek  concept  of  conversation  having  a  back  and  forth  motion  until  progre ss   is  made   35)  What  philosopher  was  Marx  influenced  by?     -­   Georg  Hegel   36)  What  does  Marx  mean  by,  History  as  deterministic?     -­   History  is  necessarily  unfolding  and  we  have  to  go  through  capitalism  to  get  to  Marxism   37)  How  does  Marx  think  that  Capitalism  will  undermine  itself?   -­   Capitalists  are  driven  by  their  own  nature  to  increase  their  profits  by  increasingly   exploiting  the  workers   -­   System  produces  large  groups  of  miserable  workers  who  become  organized  into  unions   and  social  action  groups.  Bourgeoisie  are  prod ucing  their  own  grave -­diggers   -­   Tension  in  bourgeoisie  marriages  because  everything  is  based  on  money  


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

75 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.