Philosophy Week 2 Texas State
Philosophy Week 2 Texas State PHIL 1305.287
Popular in Philosophy and Critical Thinking
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Samantha Notetaker on Tuesday January 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 1305.287 at Texas State University taught by Ellen Bridge Stansell in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views. For similar materials see Philosophy and Critical Thinking in PHIL-Philosophy at Texas State University.
Reviews for Philosophy Week 2 Texas State
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: 01/26/16
Key: Vocab Section Titles Lecture: Berkeley • Berkeley- recognizes there's a problem in appearance vs. reality. Questions he asks: ‣ Problem: Can we be sure what we see is what we get? ‣ Can we be sure there is a real world, based on our sense perceptions? • Berkeley should have said "we don't know". But he actually says, "No. There's no real world out there." He doesn't successfully make that argument, but on no one can really argue against him since we don't know either. ‣ Should we think our sense perceptions indicate a real world? ‣ Can we think our sense perceptions indicate the existence of physical objects? • We approach the initial questions in the same way that one would approach a scientiﬁc problem. Science and Philosophy often have a close relationship. Review: • What is the thought process that leads the philosopher to ask this philosophical question? (The question of 'can we be sure that our senses indicate a real world?'.) Everyone has diﬀerent perceptions of the world around us. Can we be sure our perceptions tell us the nature of the world or the existence of the world? We are limited to experiencing the world through our own individual view of it. This is private, subjective, and causes us to wonder if, through our perceptions, do we actually have access to the real world? We can't control or perceive a lot things happening in the world around us Philosophy: Science: -starts with sense perceptions, -takes observed phenomenon and tries seeks to explain underlying reality that causes them. to explain using underlying causes. Berkeley's Views: • There is no real world. • There are no physical objects. • Human minds & the Creator (God) exist. • Real- (Berkeley's concept of real) adjective Deﬁnition: The state or quality of being Mind-independent (exists outside of our minds) Terms of Importance: Mind, World, Physical, Internal, External, Objects Mind World -Inside -Outside -Internal -External • Explanation of concept of 'real': Are Ghosts real? People see them, but are they mind- independent? Do they exist in the world outside of our so-called encounters. • Teacher Side note: Once you set up a basic deﬁnition of 'real' for the sake of this class, we can then use it to debate. (Like in basketball you have to establish basic boundary lines before you can play.) • Overall Summary: No physical reality, the only thing exists is minds. God is feeding us a ﬂood of sense perceptions, which is why we see the same things. (like the matrix) Berkeley successfully gives more than one argument for his view. (we should try to emulate this). Berkeley Reading: Section 18: (homework reconstruct 18 & 19, needs to be hard copy) My Version: P1. We can either prove the existence of ideas through sense perceptions or reason. P2. Senses are limited to our perceptions, which would limit our ideas. P3. Therefore, if it were possible to prove this existence, it would have to be through reason. P4. We can have ideas without reason, therefore there isn't necessary to create them. P5. We can have ideas without bodies to resemble them. C. What we perceive externally through sense and reason is not necessary for the production of ideas. Teacher feedback: while my answer is not exactly what she got, it is not wrong. Just a diﬀerent analysis and conclusion. It wouldn't be marked oﬀ on a test. Teacher Version: P1. If material objects exist outside of our mind we can only know through sense or reason. P2. We can only know our senses through sensations. P3. We cannot know, through our senses, if objects can exist outside of our minds. P4. Dreams show that we can ideas of objects outside of what exists in reality. P5. We can have ideas that are not from material objects. P6. All our ideas could be not caused by objects. P7:We don't need objects to produce ideas P8: Therefore, we cannot say that objects exist based oﬀ of how we perceive them because perception itself is just an idea. An idea of an object doesn't mean the object exists that way in the real world. P9: We cannot know that objects exist through reason because of this. C: If objects do exist, we cannot know for sure. Test TIP: Test question: describe Berkeley's view on the world being real and provide 1 argument. Did you remember at least one argument and can you walk through it in your own words? Doesn't have to be in premises form. Use of Reason- either we sense them and we know it, or we sense it and use our minds to perceive them as an object. Taking sensory input and using reason about it. Summary of thoughts: Senses cannot help us to realize the reality of external senses. Focusing on Dreams, what is one interpretation of what he is saying about them in relation to our ideas? "we can have ideas without bodies to resemble them or correspond to them" Berkeley's arguments are largely impossible to refute, which is why we still study him today. Shows us that either we can perceive these objects through reason or senses, and since neither of those work-nothing can prove them. Maybe reason works for us as smoke does. We see smoke on a hill and infer there is a ﬁre even though we couldn't actually see the ﬁre itself. ‣ We use reason to infer, not as irrefutable proof, its still a subjective impression. We may never experience the external object directly, but we can't infer oﬀ of this basis because it is ﬂawed. ‣ Reason can't take us there. Paragraph 19: • My Version Teacher Version • P1:It is possible/could be possible for external bodies to create ideas in our minds. P1: We can have ideas without the existence of objects • P2: Since our minds give outside things their substance, they cannot claim these materials create ideas themselves. P2: But some say that our ideas can be explained because there are objects to resemble our ideas. • P3: We don't know how objects are created outside of our minds. P3: This explanation states that these objects can eﬀect our mind. • P4: Therefore, the creation of ideas outside our minds cannot be proved. P4: We can't understand the eﬀect physical things have on our minds or how it is possible. • P5: So if materials did exist outside of the mind, it would have to have been created by something outside of ourselves (a divine being). P5: Mental and physical objects are diﬀerent (private vs. public, subjective vs. objective, mind-dependent vs. mind-independent. P6: Our ideas are still unexplainable if they are mind-independent objects. P7: Therefore, it doesn't make sense to believe in objects outside of our minds because that then means we are then explaining how we have the ideas that we do. • C: Ideas outside of our minds creation did actually exist, they cannot serve a purpose. C: Therefore, we should not believe in mind-independent objects. Summary of Thoughts: • The Key concept of this is explanation (explanatory power) • TEST INFO: If your premises are mostly hitting on the main points and your conclusion is correct you get a 100, but if you get the conclusion oﬀ, it is up to interpretation of the teacher. • TEST INFO: Because, since, ect. should not be in the conclusion
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'