Trial Run: Philosophy Notes
Trial Run: Philosophy Notes 1000
Popular in Intro to Neuroscience
Popular in Neuroscience
This 1 page Class Notes was uploaded by Victoria Notetaker on Monday January 4, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to 1000 at University of Pittsburgh taught by Debra Artim in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 15 views. For similar materials see Intro to Neuroscience in Neuroscience at University of Pittsburgh.
Reviews for Trial Run: Philosophy Notes
If Victoria isn't already a tutor, they should be. Haven't had any of this stuff explained to me as clearly as this was. I appreciate the help!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/04/16
I. All conclusions concerning matters of fact are founded on the relation of Cause and Effect II. All conclusions concerning the relation of Cause and Effect are founded on experience a. Adam doesn’t know water will suffocate him (not intuitive relation b/w ideas) III. All conclusions from experience are not found on reason a. Experience formed after repeated number of instances b. Causal inferences based on experience Sensation : Drinking water > ? > Idea (belief): Thirst being quenched ? = past experience, it completes the demonstrative proof Memory: past experience [drink > quenched] Belief : Future resembles the past < must be established IV. All conclusions on matters of fact are not based on reason Memory (in past; future resembles past) > Belief in present (if future resembles past it will on continue to) > [past exp. Used to prove future resembles past] Belief (so future resembles the past) The circularity of this principle makes it unable to be proved demonstratively or by reason Descartes vs Hume on the proof (in orange) Descartes: What if we reason that future resembles the past because God is no a deceiver and it is evident by the natural light if we know this Clearly and Distinctly? Hume: How did you establish existence of a nondeceiving god. But you don’t know through a present or past sensation of God. There is no experience or present sensation so a causal argument is needed, but need experience to do so and that the future resembles the past. So the proof does not work. Descartes: There are matters of fact that are not able to be traced back to impressions or inferences, but in the Meditations show it can be down through reason, thus God exists.
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'