Philosophy 1100 Midterm 1 Study Guide
Philosophy 1100 Midterm 1 Study Guide PHILOS 1100
Popular in Introduction to Philosophy
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 12 page Study Guide was uploaded by KR on Monday October 5, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PHILOS 1100 at Ohio State University taught by Jerilyn Tinio in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 142 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at Ohio State University.
Reviews for Philosophy 1100 Midterm 1 Study Guide
I was sick all last week and these notes were exactly what I needed to get caught up. Cheers!
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: 10/05/15
1052015 PHILOSOPHY MIDTERM STUDYGUIDE 35 questions all multiplechoice Who said it vieW argument true or false Introduction What is gt philosophy love of Wisdom contemplationstudy of most important aspects of reality 4 main areas logic epistemology metaphysics value theory 1 Logic A Description 1 associated W good and bad reasoning 2 method for analyzing and evaluating arguments 3 good argument good structure don t have to agree W conclusion gt detach self 4 arguments for ideas gt ideas themselves 5 questions What makes a good argument how is it valid andor sound B Know this stuff about arguments to determine Whether good or bad 1 de nition gt argument supporting of a thesisWith reasons Vaughn 2 basic structure relationship bn its parts Premise l Premise 2 inference Conclusion gt premises conclusion statements declarative sentences 3 deductive or inductive a gt deductive supposed to give logically conclusive support toconclusion b gt inductive supposed to give probably support toconclusion 4 What makes it good a good deductive i Llid truthpreserving if premises are true the conclusion must be true featureproperty of structure of argument ii have all true premises gt validity all true premises gt soundness good eX of sound Premise 1 Leo is a cat Premise 2 All cats are mortal Conclusion Leo is mortal eX of valid but unsound Premise 1 Leo is a cat Premise 2 All cats are immortal Conclusion Leo is immortal b common forms of deductive i modus ponens affirm if p then q ii modus tollens deny antecedent if p then q not q not p iii disjunctive syllogism denying disjunct either p or qnot q p iv reductio ad absurdum reduce to contradiction make situation ridiculousabsurd point out aws or argument 0 good inductive i Mg probable KR2 provide probable support to conclusions support that renders conclusion more likely to be true than not ii all true premises gt strong all true premises gtl Qgent good inductive not truthpreserving not a guarantee d common inductive arguments i enumerative induction making observation of target group using sample ii inference to the best eXplanation abduction used in science best eXplanation Sherlock iii reasoning by analogy similarity 5 fallacies parodies of reasoning thin air a ad hominem argument against man i attacks character not position character of person irrelevant to soundness of argument b argument from authority believing something bc someone famous and big does c arguing in circle begging question conclusion as premises d appeal to ignorance lack of evidence proves something no one has shown it to be false e false dilemma reduce several possibilities to 2 but both can be wrong f slippery slope passing national health care will lead to socialismcommunisms g straw man argument attacks inferior version of position distorts i opposite principle of charity h genetic fallacy position originated from discredited circumstances doesn t matter where truth comes from it s true i fallacy of composition part is example of whole part represents the whole not true salt is result of poisons players good team not good j inconsistency argue inconsistently contradictory premises 6 Principle of Charity a reconstruct best possible version of argument artistic license b anticipate best possible argument for position C Review Valid argument true argument FALSE Sherlock s significant inaccuracy according to PojmanVaughn gt called method deductive instead of inductive According to PV never argue for conclusion using inductive bc gets us nothing more than probable truth of conclusion FALSE D Other examples Valid argument that is unsound All birds can y A penguin is a bird A penguin can y Sound argument Obama is a human All humans drink water Therefore Obama drinks water lnvalid argument Obama is a human All humans drink water Therefore US should invade Iraq Reading Pojman Vaughn s Excursus Logic II Metaphysics 1 A Description KR3 l concerned w the nature of reality and what exists 2 questions What am I Am I a mind or a body Does God exist Do humans have free will B gt mindbody problem 1 issue of how mind body relate to one another 2 thought to be consequence of assumption that mindbody are radically distinct from one another 3 understood to arise out of acceptance of metaphysica worldview substance dualism gt gt substance dualism 2 kinds of fundamental stuff mind body 4 questions If the mind is distinct from the brain why is it that they seem to be so closely tied to one another How is it that they relate 5 gt monosim only one kind of stuff a gt physicalism metaphysical worldview that there is only one kind of fundamental stuff matter or whatever physics says there is only one not two b gt idealism mind is all that exists C Readings l Nagel MindBody 2 DESCARTES Meditations a defense of Substance Dualism b adopts gt method of doubt subtraction to present arguments c questions what do I really know Questions basics of beliefs his truths i senses deceiving ii math truths iii concept of God all knowing benef1cent or evil deceiver iv thinks of reasons to doubt everything v his certains he exists bc he thinks and can t doubt his own existence act of thinking alive he exists in the act of doubting existence but what is the I d 2nd Mediations tries to prove i he exists ii only thought is inseparable from himthe I l body mechanical structure and soul more tenuous iii existence of mind is better known that existence of bodies e 6th meditation arguments for substance dualism mind is distinct from body i lst argument relies on 2 things Descartes proves earlier on 1 existence of God 2 what he clearly and distinctly perceives to be the case is true existence of God is what guarantees this clear distinct examples 527 triangle 180 degrees every square rectangle The Argument from Clear and Distinct Perception Pl Whatever I clearlydistinctly perceive could be brought about by God P2 If I clearly and distinctly perceive my mind w out my body then God could bring it about that mind exists w out body Cl So my mind can exist w out body P3 For any a and b if a could exist w out b or vice versa then a is not identical to b C2 Therefore my mind my body not same thing ii 2nd argument for SD The Argument from Simplicity KR4 Pl Bodies are by nature divisible ie can be broken up into parts P2 Mind is indivisible simple ie cannot be broken up into parts P3 For a b to be same they must have all properties in common Principle of indiscemibility of ldenticals C Therefore mind body not same thing iii 3rd argument for SD implicit from meditations The Argument from Doubt Pl 1 cannot doubt that l as a mind exist P2 1 can doubt that my body exists P3 For a b to be same they must have all properties in common Principle of the lndiscemibility of ldenticals C Therefore I as a mind am not same thing as my body f Descartes on relationship bn mind body i though the mind body can exist apart they are closely joined and intermingled p 362 sensations of pain and feelings of hunger tell him this ii warns against seeing himself as a sailor present in a ship p 362 D Problems of MindBody l in 2 ways a Where is mind If not extended in space how does it interact w something brainpineal gland that is extended in space b Problem of interaction How can we know anything about interaction if we can t even observe connection can t know about mind through senses 2 more problems w Substance Dualism a problem of other minds how we can know about existence of other minds how can I know you re a conscious being like me b problem of individual minds if we don t identify the mind with our body or brain how can I claim that my mind is separate from yours What kind of criteria can be used to tell where my mind stops and yours begins gt if we can t answers these should we adopt substance dualism bestright idea E Another idea Physicalism 1 forms a gt behaviorism to have a mind or to be in such and such mental states just is to behave in certain ways or more precisely to be disposed or inclined to behave in certain ways p 353 i mind just behavior ii not separating internal motions vs external motions b gt identity theory inner mental states thinking perceiving feeling are strictly identical to brain states c gt functionalism mental states are identical to functional states Functional states are those that perform a certain function p 355 2 SMART Sensations and Brain Process PhysicalistIdentity a defends identify theory against sub dualism i we shouldn t think of conscious states as correlated w brain processes why not p 372 ii considers possibility that there could be psychophysical laws as opposed to purely physical laws dismissive of possibility everything only physics why what is nomological dangler bottom of p3 723 73 b strict identity remarks on identify i when I report having particular sensation I m reporting particular brain state ii morning starevening star gt Planet Venus iii nation citizens gt nation is nothing more than collection of citizens iv lightningelectric discharge gt lightning made up of electric discharge KR5 c What exactly is Smart s argument in defense of his thesis that brain states are strictly identical to sensations and other psychical phenomena i gt Occam s Razor methodological principle of parsimony in theorizing Do not multiply entities beyond necessity simplest explanation most likely correct ii Arguments for Smart s Identify Thesis Pl Substance Dualism posits existence of 2 kinds of stuff to explain consciousness in world P2 ldent theory posits I kind of stuff to explain consciousness in world P3 simplest explanation probably correct explanation Occam s Razor C Accept ID theory as proper explanation of consciousness d underlying assumption i thesis that sensations are brain processes is not the thesis that for example afterimage or ache means the same as brain process of sort X where X is replaced by a description of a certain sort of brain process p 373 seems to be assuming that meaning sense cognitive signi cance reference importantly different saying I see the Morning Star or I see Clark Kent means something different from saying I see the Evening Star or I see Superman despite meaning something different with each pair of statements each pair refers to the same object out there in the world ii lmportantly it s this distinction that seems to enable him to claim that the logic of brain processes can be different from the logic of sensations iii This means that what we can claim to be true of brain processes need not be true of sensations Ex My sensation is orangeyyellow may be true while Brain process X is orangeyyellow is not true gt But question is what is it that makes the claim that my sensation is orangeyyellow true e summary i dualist says gt mental physical item not identical ii pretheoretically 1 brain processesstate in brain associated w taste of chocolate 2 actual taste of chocolate to me iii dualist says gt 1 and 2 not identical iv Smart gt Dualism violates Occam s Razor V Smart gt 1 and 2 strictly identical moming star evening star strictly identical in referring to venus clark kent superman strictly identical in referring to same man gt each pair has different meanings f how clear is Smart s analogy i Principle of Identity of lndiscemibles A identical to B if and only if A and B have all properties in common can say whatever true of morning star is true of venus bc morning star just is venus can we say this whatever true of my experience of tasting chocolate tris true of brain state X in brain associated w my tasting chocolate bc my experience of tasting chocolate just is brain state x but nagel says brain doesn t taste like chocolate gt don t think my experience of tasting chocolate and brain state x have all properties in common gt puts into question claim that they are strictly identical g conclusion 1 take Smart as providing good enough reason Occam s Razor to think we should cont to try for more satisfying material explanation of conscious experience as opposed to positing irreducible mental stuff KR6 2 take burden of proof on dualist Can dualist provide reasons for positing mental stuff F MORELAND Contemporary Defense of Dualism Sub Dual 1 substance dualism difference bn property dualism 2 problems wphysicalism as general worldview 3 problems w mindbody physicalism The Distinctiveness of Mental and Physical Properties what is a table Private Access and lncorrigibility wrong about brain state The Experience of FirstPerson Subjectivity Secondary Qualities lntentionality mark of the mental property of aboutness ofness Pers0nal Identity Intentionality 4 emergent property view A very popular physicalist approach Mind is to the brain as wetness is to H20 molecules Mind is dependent on physical stuff though it is neither identical nor reducible to physical stuff 5 abstract stuff can t be explained by physicalism numbers God G SEARLE Minds Brains Computers 1 distinguishes bn Weak Al powerful tool and Strong Al understands as a mind 2 criticizes Strong AI a version of functionalism 3 computer and its program can get us simulation but not duplication To show this he tells us about the Chinese Room A computer running a program is like the Chinese Room The Chinese Room is not conscious doesn t really understand Chinese 4 successful TURING Test Physicalist unctionalist a Strong Al i literally said to understand story provide answers to questions ii what machine programs do explain human ability to understand story answer questions about it 5 gt Chinese Room example a 1st claim obvious in example that I do not understand word of Chinese stories i distinction bn syntax semantics 33 mere formal properties of linguistic items can answer questions correctly in English bc knows meaning of written words semantics meaning of linguistic items can answer questions correctly in Chinese bc looks at set of rules to follow correlate chape w other shapes response to claim true understanding requires possessing intentional states which computers don t have bc they deal with shapes and markings not symbols b 2nd claim program explains human understanding we can see that the computer and its program do not provide sufficient conditions of understanding since the computer and the program are functioning and there is no understanding i response to claim programmed computer doesn t explain the mind or understanding consciousness etc criticism relies on a technical sense of what it is to explain something notion of explanation involves giving the necessary and sufficient conditions for something Chinese Room thought experiment shows that we can have something like a programmed computer but this is not sufficient for understanding questions whether the kind of processes involved in a programmed computer is even a necessary condition c criticizes analogy mind is to brain as program is to hardware i breaks down several pts mindbrain progamhardware if it counts as mind anything can count as mind thermostat etc KR7 mind intentional mind is byproduct of operations of brain product is not byproduct of program mind out of brain computer program not from hardware H BERKELEYPrinciples Excerpt Idealist 1 offers response to Descartes s Sub Dualism 2 argues that there is no material substance body only mental substance gt mind 3 ideas exist and depend on minds a famous line to be is to be perceived or to perceive in order for something to exist that something must be either an idea being perceived or a mind that perceives idea sensation or sensory quality mind what Descartes took a mind to be gt thinksperceives ideas 4 argument against existence of matter a no good reason to posit existence of Descartes s notion of body identi ed as extension i maintaining that physical objects exist as extended things independent of some mind results in asserting a contradiction ii Reductio Ad Absurdum Pl Physical objects things we perceive perceived things Assume gt P2 Physical objects exist independently of mind exist unperceived Cl Physical objects both perceived not perceived C2 By reductio reject Assumption P2 physical objects can t exist independently of mind can t be bodies iii more precise formulation Pl Physical objects apples houses mountains rivers etc are things we perceive they are ideas Assume gt P2 Physical objects apples houses mountains rivers etc exist independently of the mind they exist unperceived or are not ideas C Physical objects both are ideas and are not ideas C2 By Reductio reject Assumption P2 physical objects cannot exist independently of the mind They cannot be bodies iv argument deductively valid but sound challenge reasoning for 1st premise P1 Physical objects are things we perceive ideas why buy Pl meaning of exists try to separate in your own thoughts the existence of a perceptible thing from its being perceived you ll nd that you can t sect 6 inseparability similar to Descartes takes to exist bn l and thought He thinks by showing that being perceived is inseparable from existence of physical objects showing essencenature of physical objects being perceived For Berkeley being perceived just is being an idea or a collection of ideas G CHALMERS Physicalist 1 doesn t think consciousness can be reduced to physical states or have a unified theory of everything 2 provides lawlike explanations of correlation not identical bn consciousness physical brain states so we can predict experience of physical things explain consciousness in psychophysical laws property of everything rocks thermostat etc can have consciousness 3 conscious experience too different from physical states not same properties not identical like what nagel thinks w chocolate III Metaphysics 2 A Description KR8 l concerned w the nature of reality and what exists 2 questions What am I Am I a mind or a body Does God exist Do humans have free will B Arguments for existence of God 1 kinds of arguments a gt a posteriori proceed from premises whose truth can be known only be means of experience of world b gt a priori proceed from premises whose truth can be known independently of experience from mere having of concepts for example C gt Cosmological Argument a posteriori 1 begins w premises that l universe exists and 2 something outside universe required to explain existence 2 assumes that existence of universe is contingent 3 based on idea that reason is necessary for existence of universe 4 St Thomas AQUINAS The Five Ways The First Way Argument from Motion Change 1 Our senses prove that some things are in motion 2 Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion 3 Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion 4 Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect ie if both actual and potential it is actual in one respect and potential in another 5 Therefore nothing can move itself 6 Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else 7 The sequence of motion cannot extend ad in nitum 8 Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover put in motion by no other and this everyone understands to be God gt The Second Way Argument from Ef cient Causes 1 We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world 2 Nothing exists prior to itself 3 Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself 4 If a previous efficient cause does not exist neither does the thing that results 5 Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist nothing in the series exists 6 The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past for then there would be no things existing now 7 Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God The Third Way Argument from Possibility and Necessity Reductio Argument 1 We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be that come into being and go out of being ie contingent beings 2 Assume that every being is a contingent being 3 For each contingent being there is a time it does not exist 4 Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist 5 Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed 6 Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence 7 Therefore nothing would be in existence now 8 We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being 9 Therefore not every being is a contingent being 10 Therefore some being exists of its own necessity and does not receive its existence from another being but rather causes them This all men speak of as God The Fourth Way Argument from Gradation of Being 1 There is a gradation to be found in things some are better or worse than others 2 Predictions of degree require reference to the uttermost case eg a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest 3 The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus 4 Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being KR9 goodness and every other perfection and this we call God The Fifth Way Argument from Design 1 We see that natural bodies work toward some goal and do not do so by chance 2 Most natural things lack knowledge 3 But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent 4 Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end and this being we call God D gt Ontological Argument supposed to be a priori 1 form of reductio ad absurdum argument proceeds from mere de nition of God alone a We understand a being than which no greater can be conceived God gt b Assume that for the sake of argument this being than which no greater can be conceived fails to exist c If such a being does not exist then another greater being namely a being than which no greater can be conceived and which exists can be conceived d The being from 1 both is a being than which no greater can be conceived and is not a being than which no greater can be conceived Contradiction e Our assumption that a being than which no greater can be conceived God does not exist must be false Therefore God exists Hidden Assumption Existing outside the understanding is greater than not existing outside the understanding 2 ANSELM a God s existence is absolutely certain b reductio ad absurdum argument i supposition suppose that greatest conceivable being exists in mind alone contradicts what one desires to prove ii S w other certain assumptions A1 A2 contradiction gt S must be true iii C greatest possible being must exist in reality c need concept of God d what it means to be the greatest possible being and better for it to exist than not exist E gt Teleological Argument or Argument from Design a posteriori 1 starts from the premise gt the world exhibits intelligent purpose or order 2 proceeds to the conclusion that there is probably a divine designer the divine designer explains the intelligent purpose or order that exists 3 example of an Argument from Analogy type of inductive a mushroom example Mushroom A gt Edible Mushroom B gt observe that A and B are similar in important respects so legitimately conclude that B is like A edible 4 PALEY The Watch and the Watchmaker a purpose gt to prove existence of God b classic version of teleological argument for existence of God 1802 c discussion i Statement of argument p 91 stone on ground how did it get there what about if I found a watch on the ground gt someone had to make it mechanism seems to be for a purpose ii Objections to Argument arguing about watch purposefulness not world yet Paley s responses possible that he s never seen watch being made but regardless still serves purpose KR 10 sometimes watch breaks but imperfect things still can me made don t knowunderstand all parts of watch but doesn t mean doesn t have purpose just combination of how things can be combined but so complex that seems unlikely coincidence can t imagine principle of order no other cause than maker order just perception of mind something in watch that triggers orderpurpose everything results from laws of nature law exercised by someone universal agent parts that we haven t discovered knows enough iii Application of Argument Paley s Reasoning watch gt watchmaker the world gt gt observe that watch works of nature both exhibit purposeful design so able to conclude that world like watch has intelligent designer world is like watch on an even grander scale so designer of world is even greater exceeds all computation F HUME s argument against teleological Dialogues concerning natural religion 1779 1 characters a Cleanthes represents Paley of Hume s day b Demea Orthodox believer and believes that God s existence should only be proven a priori c Philo Hume s spokesperson allows Cleanthes his method of argumentations but is critical of Cleanthes nonetheless 2 Hume s main objections through Philo 1 objects to strength of Cleanthes analogy watch works of nature just aren t that similar 2 what we might be able to conclude about apart of the natural world we can t conclude about natural world as whole 3 even if we allow inference to some intelligent designermaker no reason to think that this being is infinite perfect or one IV Epistemology A Description 1 concerned w knowledge and how we can know things 2 questions can I trust my sense if they sometimes deceive me Are my beliefs based on the testimony of other people justi ed How is knowledge possible 3 how can we know or be justified in believing that God exists 4 should belief in God be justified by faith or by reasons in way that science justifies out every belief ie by appeals to evidence G SCRIVEN Faith and Reason on board w trying to determine existence of God through reason like Paley not arguing whether goa exists or not just how we should go about thinking of that l responds to common theist arguments that reason is irrelevant to knowledge of existence of God a is debating about god enough to convince people to believe b questioning reason and rationality is irrelevant lt faith 2 claims against reason s relevance a begins by challenging 3 claims to irrelevance of human reason i claims about God not to be taken as literally true ii claims that God is to be defined as the Unknowable iii claims that human mental faculties are limited can t comprehend something so immensely greater than us 3 intro of faith as distinct faculty a conceptions of faith i faith as a kind of con dence compatible w reason w evidence ii faith as an alternative to reason 4 faith as route to truth KRll a challenges faith in existence of God in 2nd sense b important difference between the two involve appeal to evidence c poses dilemma to those who adopt faith as alternative to reason either evidence irrelevant to justification in which case ppl don t care if it s correctincorrect or evidence is relevant to belief justification in which case it constitutes appeal to reason is subject to same kind of scrutiny as reason 5 theist defenses of faith as path to truth a feeling of great confidence in belief reliable indication of its trut b faith could give us access to some new domain of truth c agreement in religious community good criterion for truth see there is such agreement 6 consequences a theists may take religious beliefs as actionguiding b if no basis in world of everyday experience for these beliefs should they be guiding us H PASCAL l Pascal s Wager costbenefit analysis a Either God exists or God doesn t exist b A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn t exist from 1 c If God exists and you believe you receive eternal salvation d If God exists and you don t believe you receive eternal damnation e If God doesn t exist and you believe you ve been duped have wasted time in religious observance and have missed out on decadent enj oyments f If God doesn t exist and you don t believe then you have avoided a false belief g You have much more to gain by believing in God than by not believing in him and much more to lose by not believing in God than by believing in him from 345 6 h It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn t exist from 7 2 Problems a can we really choose to believe something w out being genuinely convinced b is kind of belief we ought to develop an actual belief or merely going through motions c if Pascal is ok w going through motionshis argument offers no guidance as to which creed to live by gt Which God I The FLEW HARE MITCHELL Debate 1 3 parables invisible gardener deluded lunatic stranger a Flew s invisible gardener 2 explorers believer skeptic find garden skeptic thinks there is no gardener believer thinks there is a gardener not able to be sensed but still exists i claims of faith about existence of God nonassertions faith not assertions don t have to give reason for beliefs ii what s the difference bn imaginary gardener visible gardener nothing bc nothing in experience can tell against it iii falsifiable assertions about God not falsifiable like hypothesis null hypothesis gt argues that claims of faith are nothing more than meaningless assertions b Hare s deluded lunatic guy thinks dons are out to get him no matter how much ppl try to convince him they are not evil and out to get him his mind always believes i don leader of mobs ii notion of blik not belief perspective that taints what you account as evidence insane bliks worldview general attitude sane bliks car won t fall apart when driving blik makes genuine difference in behavior gt bliks aren t beliefs not assertions can t ever be falsified affect how experience is interpreted blik affects perspective of invisible gardener gt quot argues that Flew gets the nature of faith wrong introduces the notion of a blik which doesn t require reasons c Mitchell s stranger guy in member of resistance meets stranger who wants to be a part of resistance KR 12 acting as double agent sometimes works w enemy doesn t seem right guy says I have faithtrusts stranger despite lot of evidence that stranger isn t on their side i claims of faith are assertions ii all eVidence counting against belief isn t enough to undermine belief gt quot offers a middleway between Flew and Hare claims of faith are assertions but it is not clear what amount of eVidence should count against these assertions Good luck
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'