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

Notes for Week of 3/3-3/9

by: Zachary Kalik

Notes for Week of 3/3-3/9 10100-06

Marketplace > Ithaca College > PHIL-Philosophy > 10100-06 > Notes for Week of 3 3 3 9
Zachary Kalik
View Full Document for 0 Karma

View Full Document


Unlock These Notes for FREE

Enter your email below and we will instantly email you these Notes for Introduction to Philosophy

(Limited time offer)

Unlock Notes

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Unlock FREE Class Notes

Enter your email below to receive Introduction to Philosophy notes

Everyone needs better class notes. Enter your email and we will send you notes for this class for free.

Unlock FREE notes

About this Document

Here are the notes for this week of philosophy.
Introduction to Philosophy
Dr. Theodore Korzukhin
Class Notes




Popular in Introduction to Philosophy

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Zachary Kalik on Tuesday April 5, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to 10100-06 at Ithaca College taught by Dr. Theodore Korzukhin in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 11 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at Ithaca College.


Reviews for Notes for Week of 3/3-3/9


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: 04/05/16
Philosophy Notes for Week of 3/3­3/9 Topic: Knowledge (Side note: Brain in a vat refers to the idea in the Matrix, where people are  in virtually created worlds that they perceive, and have perceived as the real world, but it actually is not. This concept is talked about a­lot by Calmers). Skeptics Argument (also what Moore (philosopher)  would accept) 1. I don’t know x. 2. If I don’t know x, then I don’t know y. 3. I don’t know y. For Example: 1. I don’t know that I am not a BIV (Brain in a vat). 2. If I don’t know that I am not a BIV, then I don’t know that I have hands. 3. I don’t know that I have hands. ­In this argument, it is premise #2 which compresses the argument. In  other words, premise #2 is what ties the argument together. ­Premise #2 can be contradicted when looking at concepts of Modus  Ponens, and Modus Tollens.  Modus Ponens 1. A 2. If A, then B 3. So B. For Example: 1. I have the key 2. If I have the key then I can unlock the door. 3. So, I can unlock the door. ­Then there’s the argument, which is essentially the inverse of Modus  Ponens, Modus Tollens. Modus Tollens 1. Not A 2. If A then B 3. So, not B For Example 1. I cannot open the door 2. If I have the key then I can unlock the door. 3. So, I do not have the key. ­Both of these arguments are valid from a logical perspective. ­However, and argument being valid is not the same as an argument being sound. ­Validity­ when the conclusion consistently follows from the premises (it is impossible  for it to be otherwise). ­Sound­ When an argument is valid AND all of its premises are true. ­Both are logically valid because being able to open the door or not directly correlates  with whether you have the key or not, which makes sense. ­But Modus Tollens may not be sound because in Modus Tollens, it is directly stated  that the reason one is not able to open the door is because they do not have the key,  where there can be numerous reasons (barricade, someone’s holding the door closed,  etc.) So in Modus Tolle’s, premise #3 isn’t necessarily true. In Modus Ponens, no such assumptions are made; so all the premises are true. ­Here is an example of how both of these concepts contradict premise #2 of the  Skeptics argument. Example  1. I know I have hands (A) 2. If I don’t know that I don’t have hands, then I don’t know if I am in a BIV (if A  then B, which when plugged into the skeptics argument of premise 2 would make  this a triple negative, allowing the third premise to follow). 3. So I know I’m in a BIV ­Now I understand that the example I gave does seem to be similar to the  Skeptics argument, but there is a key difference. This difference lies in the fact  that in premise #2 of the skeptic’s argument, there is only a double negative,  whereas in the above example, there is a triple negative.  ­Because of these differences, if the example above stands as logically sound,  then premise #2 of the skeptics argument would be false, and their argument  would not be sound. The conclusion in #3 as a result would also be false.  ­Whether either the skeptic’s argument, or the above example is logically sound  is a matter of opinion. But assuming that the above example does apply, here’s what we know for right now  about the skeptics argument: 1. I don’t know that I am not a BIV (Brain in a vat) 2. If I don’t know that I am not a BIV, then I don’t know that I have hands.  (False) 3. I don’t know that I have hands (False). Dream Argument ­If one can know that dreams have occurred, then it stands to reason that one  can tell the difference between what is real, and what is not real. ­However, Moore argues that people who believe that they can know when  dreams have occurred are guilty of a logical inconsistency. Logical Inconsistency  1. He knows dreams have occurred 2. It follows that he does not know he is not dreaming. 3. So he does not know that dreams have occurred. Knowledge Transfer Argument 1. I know x 2. Y follows from x 3. I know (2). 4. Therefore I know y ­This argument is hard to debate, because its absurd to think that knowledge  doesn’t transfer. Natick’s Argument Main Point: I know that p 1. P is true 2. I believe p 3. Were p false, I would not believe it. So consider this scenario: Main point: I am not a BIV (P) 1. P is true 2. I believe P 3. If I were a BIV, I would believe I am not a BIV. ­Because of condition 3, this would fail Nozicks previous conditions. ­In order to pass, one would have to not believe I am not a BIV ­Therefore, with these kinds of scenarios, when Nozicks argument fails, it proves  that premise #1 of the skeptic’s argument is true. So by assuming this applies, here’s what we end up knowing about the skeptics  argument: 1. I don’t know that I am not a BIV (Brain in a vat) (True) 2. If I don’t know that I am not a BIV, then I don’t know that I have hands.  (False) 3. I don’t know that I have hands (False). Topic:   Morality Divine Command Theory­ Action x is wrong if god  commanded it. ­If this theory is true, then here is what follows: 2. X is right because god commanded it. ­This theory is not only controversial, but premise #1 and #2 of what follows  are also conflicting claims (due to the placement of the word because). 


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

0 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."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

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!"

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.