Epistemology

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which studies our method of acquiring knowledge and answers the question: How do we know? Epistemology is important because the more our epistemology is correct to a degree, in which we could understand reality the more we can use that knowledge to promote our lives and goals. 

Value Theory(Ethics)

Value theory (aka Ethics) is a branch of philosophy that is dealing with what is the proper course of action for a man. Value theory is important in this class because without it our actions would be worthless. It helps us understand what need to be done and how it should be done in order to pursue a goal or construct a good argument.

Difference and Similarities between Science and Philosophy

Science fundamentals are supported by the conclusions built by the observations of the world while philosophy supports rational arguments, which are meant to justify the observations collected.

-        Science Questions: Why do cells multiply? How did human evolve? How do cells processes work? How do living things work?

-        Philosophy questions: What is knowledge? How do we get knowledge? What is it to exist? Is there a God? Matter? What is good, bad, right wrong, and evil? Are there moral principles?

-        Philosophy and Science have similarities in the methods used for seeking answers. They both use researching and debating in their methods. 

Pathos

Pathos is the persuasion by evoking emotions, which are favorable to the speaker. Pathos is important for it teacher us to detect it in every argument and use it to affect the audience’s emotional responses with our language choices.

Logos

   Logos is the persuasion by using facts and logic, which is the one that most philosophers use to build an argument. Logos is important because this is what philosophers uses therefore it is how argument are constructed in the class. Knowing about logos helps our understanding of the readings better and is the most convincing type of argument.

1.      An argument is a sequence of statements intended to make plausible some particular claim. An argument is important because it is the main tool of philosophy and good philosophy is always.

1.     An inductive argument has premises that try to show that the conclusion is probable. Being able to describe and detect inductive argument for in this class in this important to know determine what type of argument we’re dealing with.

1.     A deductive argument has premises that try to show that the conclusion is true (not really probable). Deductive arguments are very different from inductive arguments; therefore it’s important to make the difference in this class in order to have a better understanding of the argument.

1.     An argument is valid when: - If its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true.  – Premises and conclusions need to actually be true. 

1.     Dream doubt: The dream argument claims that we have no way of determining conclusively at any moment whether or not we are dreaming. Hence, it is possible at any given time that we are dreaming.

If God is no deceiver, and God gave me my faculty of judgment, then it appears to follow that I cannot be mistaken. But I am, so how can we explain this? my faculty is not infinite. BUT, God could have given me a perfect judgment, so if he didn’t, isn’t he either less than perfect or a deceiver?

1.     An omnipotent being can do absolutely anything.

1.     many of things that we perceive. Collection of simple ideas.

1.     Power in objects to cause ideas in our minds, which resemble how the object really is. (Solidity, extension, figure, motional rest, number)

-        Berkeley -> immaterialism monism (idealism)

-        Materialist monism/materialism

1.     The doctrine that there is no material world, all things exist only in and for minds

1.     Matter and motion constitute the universe, including our ideas in our mind, due to material substance. 

Overall project was to try to construct a knowledge with reliable foundations that are able to dissuade any doubt about them

1. When I dream I often believe it’s real
2. Dreams can be realistic.
3. So, there’s no certain way to distinguish dreams from (apparently) waking experiences
4. So, any apparently waking experiences could be a dream
5. Dream experiences are often false
6. So any apparently waking experience could be false. 

1. We believe that there is an all-powerful God who has created us and who is all-powerful
2.  He has in his power to make us be deceived even about matters of mathematical knowledge which we seem to see clearly
3. Therefore, it is possible that we are deceived even in our mathematical knowledge of the basic structure of the world. 

 The objects of our knowledge are ideas (imprinted on the senses, from passions and operations of mind, or from memory, or imagination). (PHK 1)
Ideas only exist in minds. (PHK 2)
So, the objects of our knowledge (I.E. what we know about) only exist in our minds. (by, 1,2) (I.E. Their existence consist in being perceived
Material substance allegedly exists outside our minds. (Descartes, Locke and many of us) (PHK 4)

-        We perceive changes among our ideas.

-        There must be some cause for this.

-        The cause isn’t in the ideas themselves

-        So, the cause must be some substance

-        The cause is not material substance

-        So, the cause is “incorporeal” (mental) substance (mind, spirit, soul).

Observations: At one time (T1) cat is in place; at (T2) cat is in another place and hungry. A.  The cat is merely sense data (stream)B. There is a physical cat in there causing my sensations.

·       If A is true -> then cat causes to exist between T1 and T2 and then exist again out of T2

·If B is true -> There is a cat out there which gets hungry between T1 and T2. First bullet: Does not predict the cat’s reappearing and being hungry

v  Second bullet: It’s no surprise that the cat draws out attention at T2 and get hungry.

 Descartes' project in the Meditations is to provide a foundation for knowledge; he seeks to find propositions that are utterly free from doubt (and which we can thereby know) upon which to base other knowledge claims. In short, he seeks to provide justification for the claims we make about the world: under what conditions are we justified in saying that something is true?

1.    Explain why Descartes employs the method of doubt: why is is appropriate for his overall project?

1.     The method of doubt involves posing more and more powerful skeptical hypotheses, which call into doubt classes of knowledge claims.

1.    For each of Descartes' main reasons for doubt in M1, explain
(a) which of his former beliefs it casts doubt on,
(b) which former beliefs, if any, it does not cast doubt on, and
(c) why Descartes thinks this is so.

1.     (a) Descartes casts doubt on his senses beliefs.

(b) Descartes does not cast doubt on  the “simplest things” ( concept of number, space, time , location, angle , arithmetic, geometry)

(c) He believes that disciplines that depend on the study of composite things are doubtful, because other subjects like arithmetic which only deals with simply things contain something certain and indubitable.

1.    Explain why Descartes believes he exists.

1.     Descartes undoubtedly believe that he exist because if he didn’t he would not be thinking and God would not be deceiving him whenever he does.

1.    Explain why Descartes believes he is (i.e., why in M2 he is only sure of being) a "thinking thing," and what he says a thinking thing is.

1.     Descartes believe he is a thinking thing because he cannot rely on his senses in order to affirm he exist physically. He knows he thinks and that this does not come from his senses. Therefore, he is a thinking thing. (Mental activity)

1.    Explain how Descartes uses the wax to show that mind is better known than body.

1.     Descartes uses the example of the way to prove that mind is better known that body by analyzing how the shape, the texture, the smell of the was is being changed when exposed to heat. The fact that the body of the wax changes makes s realize that we cannot rely on our senses. 

1.     Properties of mind: indivisible, thinks, unexpended/ Properties of body: divisible, unthinking, expended. 

1.    Explain Descartes' and Locke's view on the proper role of the senses--that is, what they think the senses are good for, and what they are not good for.

1.     Locke and Descartes believe that the senses teach us what’s beneficial and what’s harmful. We avoid pain and are drawn by pleasure (senses) 

1.    Explain the difference between a simple idea and a complex one, according to Locke.

1.     We perceive only one component on the object with a simple idea, while we perceive different component with a complex one.

1.    Explain the difference between primary and secondary qualities, according to Locke, and why this distinction matters (that it marks a limit to how much we can know).

1.     Primary qualities causes ideas in our minds which look like the objects, while secondary qualities causes ideas in our minds which do not look like the objects.

1.    Explain why Locke believes we cannot know much about substances.

1.      Locke believes we cannot know much about substances because we don’t understand all the inner working of natural objects.

1.    Explain why Berkeley believes we cannot know by sensation alone that matter exists. 

1.     Berkeley believes we cannot know by sensation alone because our sensations are cause by things outside, and sensations are not material things, so sensations don’t match material objects, therefore we cannot only know by our sensations.

1.    Explain why Berkeley believes we cannot know by reason (i.e., via either deductive or inductive argument) that matter exists. 

1.     We cannot know by reason that mater exist, because reason has sensations that are mental, not mental.

·      start with some definition of God -> If your properly understand this definition of God, then you can logically infer that God must exit. (Deductive) (Anselm; Plantingo)

start with some observation of something in the world -> observation may be of small things -> Argue that the only way to account for the observation is if God exist (Deductive) (Aquinas; Hume)

Start with some observation of the world/something in it. -> Observation is of large or complex things -> argue that the only way to account for the observation is if God exist. (Inductive) (Aquinas; Hume; Kenyon)

1.     A being whose existence does not depends on anything else. A being that had to exist as it is.

1.     A priori is a deductive argument. Known without observations of the world.

1.     Argue that there are two alternatives and both led to trouble.

1.     Theist- one who believes in some God or Gods

1.     Moral evils (evils brought by humans), natural evils (weather, earthquakes,…), Supernatural evils (ghosts,…).

St Anselm of Canterbury 

Originated the ontological argument, which should prove that God exists as a matter of logic

1.     Dean Kenyon & Michael Dembski

1.     Carl Sagan

1.     Michael Behe

1.     Philip Kitcher

1.     J.L Mackie

1.     William James

·       Construct an argument with the same logical form.

·       One with a conclusion we know false, even if we the premises were true

·       Replace God by lost

There are some contingent beings –us, this building, etc.) (Causes precede their effects.)  So, no contingent thing causes itself to exist (by 2) So, every contingent thing has a cause for it’s existence (by 1,3) The chains of causes for all current contingent beings must either: A. Go on to infinity (if it consists only of contingent beings), or B. Ultimately have been caused by some necessary being

·       Suppose A is true: the chain of all contingent beings is infinite (AßBßCßD…).

·       Since it consists entirely of contingent beings, this chain is itself contingents beings exists rather than some other, or none at all (by 7).  But there is no such account. (It couldn’t be an external cause, and saying it was chance or nothing fails tog vie an account.)   So, A can’t be true (by 8, 9). So, B is true: there is some necessary being, namely God, which causes everything else.

·       The world is a great machine, subdivide into lesser machines

·       These machines, down to their smallest parts, are adjusted to each other and means are adapted to them.

·       In these ways, the world resembles (though it also much exceeds) human intelligence (1,2,3,4)

·       So, the author of nature is similar to humans, but has much mores power.

·       This thing (the world, DNA, etc.) is really awesome.

·       Something so awesome could not have happened just by accident.

·       So it must have been designed

·       So, there must be some designer.

·       The designer(s) is (are) awesome.

·       The designer(s) must have been designed.

The Kenyon/ Dembski desgin argument

·       Observation: There are irreducibly complex structures in some living things.

·       Evolution is gradual: Organisms and their structures develop in small steps.

·       So, if an I.C. structure evolved, it would have developed in small steps. (By 1,2)

·       But on I.C. structure cannot function without all its parts (Definition. of I.C.)

·       So, If an I.C. structure evolved, then it would not perform a function during the time it gradually evolved (By 3,4) –it could be evolutionary “dead weight”. Natural selection does not favor organisms with dead weight. Evolution cannot account for I.C. structure. (By 5, 6) Human intelligence à our I.C. inventions: mousetrap, car engine/ Designer à Natural I.C. structures: cilium, bacterial flagellum. So, I.C. structures were designed. So, there’s a designer.

·       We get something sat of like building blocks of DNA

·       Earth had billion of years.

·       Possible to get DNA via natural processes.

A.    God exists.

B.    God can do anything.

C.     God always eliminates evil as far as possible.

D.    Evil does not exist.

E.    But evil does not exist.

F.     An all-good and all-powerful God cannot exist.

1.    Explain at least two objections to Cleanthes' design argument.

1.     Why believe there’s only one creator? Cleanthes replies that God is more powerful than humans so he can’t be like humans.

1.    Explain at least one objection to the Kenyon/Dembski design argument.

1.     Why believe that something that awesome cannot have happened by accident? What is the designer? Is he the only one?

1.    Explain at least one objection to Sagan's naturalistic argument for DNA.

1.     Scientists no longer agree that’s what early atmosphere was like.

1.    Explain at least two objections to Behe's design argument.

1.     Some successful organisms have dead weight. How do we know all the parts are needed? Exaptation shows that allegedly I.C. structures could develop gradually

1.     Hume’s formulation on the problem of evil.

1.    Explain which solutions to the problem of evil Mackie thinks are "adequate." 

1.     Solutions to the problem of evil that are adequate:

·       God exists

·       God can do anything

·       God always eliminates evil, as far as possible

·       Evil does not exist (By A, B, C)

·       But evil does exist.

·       Adequate solution: Give up A, B, C or give up E

   Explain at least two of the other solutions to the problem of evil proposed in class or in the text (which try to show that the traditional theists' God can exist), and why Mackie would reject those solutions.

Explain Pascal's Wager (described by William James)

1.     You can either say:

·       “God exists”, and if you’re correct you go to heaven, if you’re incorrect you don’t loose much. This would be the smart bet: wager for even tiny chance of enormous reward (heaven)

·       “God does not exist”. If you’re correct you only get a small gain, but if you’re incorrect you are going to hell. No smart.

1.    Identify James' thesis.

1.     James’s thesis: Clifford’s view is wrong.

·       Clifford’s view is incompatible with our psychology

·       To believe you’d have to have proof

·       But we lack proof

·       So we must suspend judgment. 

1.    Explain how James argues for his thesis. In particular, explain why he thinks that (a) withholding judgment about God until you have proof is not a safe option, and (b) why James thinks relying on passions is unavoidable regarding religious belief. 

·       Suspending judgment is not safe (Examples: You don’t know if someone likes you and athletic team example) -> loosing something important by suspending judgment.

·       Where choices are forced, suspending judgment is a judgment

·       Clifford’s view is based on passion, too. 

1.     You have free will when you are not forced to choose the way you do; (It’s up to you) you could have chosen otherwise.

1.     Something is determined when it is made to happen as it does; it could not have happened otherwise.

1.     Determinism is true; every even is made(forced) to happen as it does; could not have happened otherwise- this applies to our choices, too (Rée).

1.    Libertarianism

1.     We have free will at least sometimes (Charles Campbell). 

1.    Compatibilism (aka soft determinism)

1.     Even if determinism is true, there is some, important sense in which we’re free. (System of punishing and rewarding someone for something they did)

1.    The problem of free will

1.     The problem of free will:

·       We thing we’re free (we have free will) much of the time

·       Things in nature tend to behave deterministically

·       How to reconcile these claims? 

1.     Paul Rée

1.     David Eagleman

1.     C.A. Campbell

1.     A.J. Ayer

·       Events don’t just happen; they are caused

·       If the cause of event x were not sufficient to make x happen, then x would not have happened

·       If there were a sufficient cause for x, then x had to happened as it did –X was determined.

·       So, every event is determined.

·       Willing (choosing) is an event.

·       Willing is determined –determinism is true.

1. We hold people responsible (praise/blame them) because we think they're free
2. We're no more free than the stone(being controlled)
3. We should not hold people resposible for their actions

 Rée’s argues for determinism using the stone and donkey examples.

Rée's argument that we should not be held responsible for our actions

1.    Identify the three criteria for a free, responsible choice according to Campbell.

1.     You’re free and responsible: You perform some “inner acts” (choice); In so far as you are it’s sole author, and you could have chosen otherwise.

1.    Describe exactly what choices we make that Campbell thinks meet the three criteria for a free, responsible choice. 

1.     Situation: conflict between temptation and duty. You decide whether to resist temptation, or not. 

A determinist might argue that the predictability of human actions shows that determinism is true. Explain how Campbell replies to this objection.

1.     Campbell’s rebuttal of determinism argument for predictability:

·       You only in a conflict between duty and temptation in a small portion of your choices -> Most of your choices are determined.

·       Your free choices only involve 2 options

·       Your inner choice (free might not control your action –Act is not free, but choice is. 

1.    Libertarians like Campbell believe our choices must be undetermined for us to be responsible for them. Explain why Ayer believes this is false. 

1.     Suppose libertarianism is true. ( at least some of our choices ) our choices are undetermined. Then these choices are uncaused. They would be the results of “pure chance”. This is crazy behavior. If libertarianism is true, then we can’t be responsible. 

1.    Explain the problem Ayer is trying to solve. (In other words, what apparently conflicting claims is he trying to reconcile?)

1.     We want to say that we’re responsible when we’re free, but if we’re fully free (if libertarianism is true) we can’t be responsible. So we can only be responsible if determinism is true. Problem: How can we be responsible at least sometimes even if determinism is true?

-Some choices are "constrained" We're not responsible

Examples: hypnotized, kleptomaniac, habit of unthinking obedience, influence of drugs, physically forced (Your choice does not determine your act) Gunpoint-> Your choice determines your act, but your choice is coerced.

Bottom line: Your choice is not what determines your actions. Some other choices are not constrained. We're responsible. You're choice does determine your act. Your choice is not coerced. You are free from constraint

1. There’s a way that nature is, or goes. We can fail to follow it. Hard to discern.

Can get anything from it 

1.    Explain, at least in a general way, the lesson in "The Tale of the Dying Men."

1. The hunchback embraces his situation (congenital deformity, terminal illness). Says that if you fail to embrace the natural way of things, you struggle. Death is just decomposition. 

Explain, at least in a general way, the lesson in "The Tale of the Horses."

1. The tale of the horses teaches us that making rules and forcing us to do things make us unhappy, confused and disobedient. 

1. Explain what Taylor regards as a meaningless life, clearly identifying what he thinks makes it meaningless. (It would be good to illustrate it, as he does, with the myth of Sisyphus.)

1.    Explain why Taylor thinks the glow worms' existence is similar to Sisyphus', and why he thinks ours is similar to the glow worms'.

Taylor thinks that the glowworms life is very similar to Sisyphus case because the worm life’s never changes, it is an endless cycle from which nothing can be learned or done. 

1.    Taylor considers two possibilities for what might count as a meaningful life. Identify each one, and explain why he rejects one and accepts the other.

1. Taylor first considers that culmination could be a solution; meaning that if for example built a temple out of all the rocks he had rolled then his life would have been meaningful. However, the problem was that the temple does not last forever and that he would have nothing to do after that. In his second claim he explains that someone’s or something’s life could count as meaningful if Sisyphus liked what he was doing. (DRUG)

1.    Identify at least two problems with Taylor's view.

1. Two problems in Taylor’s view: He did not really identify what meaningless means and why do we need to affect others to find something meaningful. 

1. Identify (a) what Tolstoy thinks fails to give life meaning; (b) he thinks does give life meaning; and (c) why he believes the latter is meaningful. 

(a) Religion, peer pressure, to passions, family, writing and money

(b) Among peasants- hard lives but happy with them. Having faith

(c) He believes the latter is meaningful because there is a prospect of eternity there. 

1. Identify at least two problems with Tolstoy's view.

It made him happy (what about happy couch potato?)

Chuang Tzu: Fallen away from simple natural life, 

dying mean: should embrace nature's way that death is inevitable. 

1. Identify Glaucon's claims about human nature; explain how he says they justify government, and what sort of good (of the three kinds of good) "the many" say government is.

A. Best: Act unjustly(with impunity)

B. Worst: Suffer injustice without revenge.

C. We think that B outweights A

D. Many of us lack the ability to get away with injustice and not suffer it. 

We allow ourselves to act unjunstly

We forbid ourselves to act unjunstly

Set up a government

Enforces laws

We're happier than without government