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

PHI 205 Intro to Philosophy Test 1 Study Guide

by: Shelsey Hall

PHI 205 Intro to Philosophy Test 1 Study Guide PHI 205

Marketplace > North Carolina State University > PHIL-Philosophy > PHI 205 > PHI 205 Intro to Philosophy Test 1 Study Guide
Shelsey Hall

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

Study guide for the first test in PHI 205
Introduction to Philosophy
Andrew Lee McFarland
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Introduction to Philosophy

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 2 page Study Guide was uploaded by Shelsey Hall on Tuesday February 9, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHI 205 at North Carolina State University taught by Andrew Lee McFarland in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 78 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at North Carolina State University.

Similar to PHI 205 at NCS

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy


Reviews for PHI 205 Intro to Philosophy Test 1 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: 02/09/16
Test 1 Study Guide The Problem of Personal Identity: Are we the same person we were when we were 2 years old? Issues: Don’t we change the matter in our bodies on a regular basis? We regenerate skin every 7 days and our skeleton is replaced  every 7 years P­stages: (person stages) theoretical devices to help us try and get clearer on some issues Metaphysical Issues (what else could have happened): very broadly, issues concerning facts about the way world is or could be (ex.  Is it possible to have worn a different shirt today?) Epistemological Issues (nature of knowledge): broadly issues relating to our knowledge, or how we come to know the things we take  ourselves to know (ex. How do I know I am the same as yesterday?) What is really important for personal identity? (*Note: This is different from the psychological or sociological question of one’s  identity) Numerical identity: being one and the same person from one point to the next. This is an equivalence relation; uniqueness; accounts  for survival: involves anticipation and remorse a. symmetric: if x=y, then y=x b. reflective: x is identical to x c. transitive: if x=y and y=z then x=z Qualitative Identity/Exact Similarity: two things that are the same thing with the same characteristics and properties but separate  entities (ex. two batteries) Soul Theory: a person is one and the same person from one stage to the next in virtue of having one and the same soul; personal  identity consists in having the same nonphysical, intangible soul *p­stages are stages of the same person if and only if they are  connected to one and the same soul Benefits: appears to explain anticipation and regret (ex. I am anxious about an impending root canal because the pain felt will be the  pain felt by my soul); offers the responsibility of surviving the death of our physical bodies Problems: How do the soul and body interact? If we can’t see the soul, how do we know that what we take to be the same person over  time is in fact the same person? (maybe: the same body = the same person­> How do we know this? not a priori, so it must be from  experience (box of chocolates analogy­ how do you know it has a caramel center)) (maybe: psychological similarity means same soul­ > How do we know this? River analogy (if you come to a section of the do you know which river it is if it is ever  changing))  Body Theory:  a person is one and the same person from one stage to the next in virtue of having one and the same body; p­stages are  stages of the same person if and only if they have the same body Benefit: It is physical, so we can study it Issues: We constantly change Causal Memory Theory: p­stages are stages of the same person if and only if one p­stage has memories of being the same other p­ stage, or is linked by a chain of memories and those are memories cause by the event being remembered Issues: It seems possible to duplicate memories Memory Chain Theory: p­stages are stages of the same person if and only if they are linked by a chain of memories Issues: Man thinks he is Napoleon vs. the man who really is Napoleon Memory Theory: a person is one and the same person from one stage to the next in virtue of having one and the same set of  memories; p­stages are stages of the same person if and only if one stage has memories of being the other p­stage Issues: We forget things and we have false memories (how do we distinguish between real and false memories) Knowledge A priori: without experience, prior to experience (ex. 2 + 2 =4), typically mathematical, can be logistically derived without previous  observation A posteriori: after experience (ex. Obama is President of the US); something you would likely have to Google or ask around to figure out Logic: the science of sound reasoning Logically possible: does not contain a logical contradiction (ex. The earth is round AND not round) Why study logic: Studying logican can help you improve your own arguments; it can help you to discern good arguments from bad  arguments, logic can help you get clear about your own beliefs (it can help free you from beliefs formed for unfounded reason and  arrive at those that are backed up by solid reasons); and logic is a useful tool for helping us to get at the truth Argument: a series of statement in which someone is presenting reason in defense of some claim (ex. All humans are mortal  (premise) Socrates is human (premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)) Premise: a statement offered as part of an argument as a reason for accepting a certain claim Conclusion: the part of an argument that is being argued for, for which reasons are being offered Validity: an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are false, a valid  argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed true if the premises are true, while an invalid argument is one where you can have all true premises, but a false conclusion Valid: If H, then M. Given H, we know M to be true. Invalid: If H, then M. Given M, we know H to be true. Soundness: An argument is sound if and only it is valid and hall all true premises *or: in PHI 205 it means one, the other, or both* Necessary and Sufficient: If A (sufficient condition), then C(necessary condition). If you can reverse it, then they are both necessary  and sufficient. (ex. Being a mammal is a necessary condition to being a dog. Being a mother is a sufficient condition to being a  female.) What is Knowledge? Propositional knowledge: knowledge pertaining to facts (ex. Jeff knows that 2 + 2 = 4) Knowledge of Familiarity: having experienced something (ex. Ali knows Jeremy’s family well) Knowledge­How: how to do something (ex. Bill knows how to read) Conceptual Analysis: breaking a concept down into constituent (ex. a bachelor is unmarried and a male) What are the constituent parts of knowledge? Truth (the proposition must be true, you can’t know something that is false) + Belief  (one must be in the right sort of psychological state, you have to believe, she knows therefore she believes)  + ??? Atomism: there is a fundamental or “smallest” thing (something that cannot be further broken down) of which everything is  composed of, fundamental partless elements composing everything; have no account separately, but when put together they do have  account and becomes knowable Account 1. Plato: “making one’s thought plain by means of speech with expression and names”: being able to use words to explain  something (does not seem to be enough because a 3 year old can babble on about physics from words she heard from her  physicist parents without actually knowing what she is talking about) 2. “being able, when one is asked what anything is, to provide the questioner with an answer in terms of its elements (but.. ex. knowing AWesome but also Awectober) 3. “Being able to state some mark by which the thing one is asked for differs from everything else” What is a whole? Mereology: theory of parts and wholes (Greek “meros” meaning part) 1. A whole is identical with the sum of its parts 2. Wholes are distinct from just mere sums of its parts (is the whole superior to the sum?) Knowability Thesis (about parts and whole) 1. We can know about a complex whole without knowing the fundamental atoms 2. Either a whole is identical with the sum of its parts or not 3. If we know a whole is identical with the sum then when we know the whole, we should know the parts 4. If it is not identical with the sum, then we can’t say the elements the whole can be decomposed into elements 5. Thus, a complex whole “would be some absolutely single kind of thing, not divisible into parts.” 6. Therefore, “a complex and an element lack an account and are unknowable to just the same extent.” Justified, True Belief  JTB is not knowledge. Does justification require certainty? Yes: an agent is justified in believing a proposition if and only if that justification entails that p is true (require 100% certainty) No: an agent can be justified in believing a proposition even if p is false (fine with 99.9% certainty) Gettier Cases Recipe: Describe a situation where someone has a false, but justified belief + Luck so it ends up being true Challenges: 1. Justification doesn’t require certainty, it’s possible for one to be justified in believing p, even when p is false.  2. Justificatory closure: got any proposition (p), if someone (s) is justified in knowing p and p entails conclusion (q) and s  deduces q from p and accepts q because of this deduction, then s is justified in believing q (ex. the reducing bank account) Examples: The job/coins = genuine belief; The Ford/location (JTB not knowledge) Nagel: “a false belief doesn’t seem to preclude someone’s having knowledge” (ex. the 1/12 lying witness) The Causal Theory (Alvin Goldman): no insistence that knowledge requires justification,we can justify going back many accounts;  Maybe the JTB account is going about it wrong, maybe it’s not justification that is important, but rather what we need is  story that  says the knower has to have the right sort of causal connection to a fact (ex. bakery/muffins) Issues: Isn’t justification import to assessing knowledge? (ex. the barn town) Goldman’s Reliabilism: knowledge is true produced by a reliable (likely to produce a true belief)  belief Criticism: How reliable must it be (99.9? 99.999?)  Skepticism:  the view that knowledge is impossible


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 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

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on 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."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

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.