Term
| In Plato's Republic, what is one quality of a truly just city? |
|
Definition
| There would be educated "guardians" who run and supervise the city. Question is, how should they be educated? Enter the Cave allegory |
|
|
Term
| Describe Plato's cave allegory |
|
Definition
People live in a cave, where they are chained down so they are essentially paralyzed. All they can see is the cave wall in front of them. Behind them there is a fire, and people walk in front of it casting shadows on the cave wall. The cave people believe these shadows are the fullness of what's really there, but we know they're only shadows of the real thing.
If one of these cave prisoners broke free and saw the world how it really is, they may initially still think the shadows are more real than the persons. Only eventually would the person accept (painfully) that the world of light is more real than shadow.
If they return to the cave prisoners and told them the truth, they would reject them as crazy. |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHT: Are we really like the cave analogy? What are *our* shadows? Why are we so convinced they're real? What keeps us from leaving the cave? What makes us believe left is left or right is right? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What's the takeaway from the cave analogy? |
|
Definition
Things aren't always as they seem.
We need to keep an open mind about reality, even (especially) when it challenges our preconceived notions.
We need to examine arguments *thoroughly* and make sure they're valid.
We need to think clearly and carefully. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Itinerant teachers in Ancient Greece. Holders of knowledge, status, and wealth. Experts on oration and virtue. Also generally showy, immoral people who aren't truly wise - typically pederasts. |
|
|
Term
| What is Socrates's advantage? |
|
Definition
Epistemic Humility:
"I neither know nor think that I know."
humility, caution, openness to learning, truth over status |
|
|
Term
| According to Socrates, what is the source of wrongdoing? |
|
Definition
Failure of the intellect. Nobody desires to do what they know to be wrong. Wrongdoing is a failure to recognize an action is wrong.
This concept is known as "Socratic intellectualism" |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHT: Are all our wrongdoings in life the result of being ignorant of what's right? Don't we sometimes do things we know to be wrong? |
|
Definition
| Perhaps the problem isn't weakness of intellect as Socrates suggests, but *weakness of will* (akrasia) or desire |
|
|
Term
| Socrates describes himself as like a gadfly rather than a teacher. What does he mean? |
|
Definition
| Instead of giving people answers, he provokes their thinking to seek the truth for themselves. To use the cave analogy, he doesn't drag the cave dwellers out to the light as a teacher would. He simply makes them curious by talking to them and exploring, challenging their ideas about the shadows on the wall. |
|
|
Term
| In Socrates's discussion on courage, which viewpoints do Laches and Nicias represent? |
|
Definition
Laches, a war veteran, believes courage is a matter of the volition or will.
Nicias, a theoretician, believes courage is a matter of the head or intellect. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Laches's three definitions of courage and Socrates's responses |
|
Definition
L1: A courageous man remains at his post.
S1: Sometimes retreat is more courageous. What *form* of courage applies to all situations?
L2: Courage is a sort of endurance of the soul.
S2: Would you say foolish endurance (say refusing medical treatment) is courageous?
L3: Courage is a *wise* endurance of the soul.
S3: Wise in which way? You can't mean tactical knowledge for instance, since a prepared opponent is less courageous than an unprepared opponent. |
|
|
Term
| What is a Socratic/Platonic *form*? |
|
Definition
| A common quality that is the same in not just one example, but all cases. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Nicias's four definitions of courage and Socrates and Laches's responses |
|
Definition
N1: Courage is intelligence.
S1: What sort of intelligence? Certainly a prepared opponent is less courageous than an unprepared one.
N2: Courage is knowledge of what inspires confidence.
L2: You can know something that inspires confidence but still not do the courageous thing it should inspire.
N3a: Courage is knowledge of what inspires fear or hope.
S3a: Animals lack this knowledge but are still courageous.
N3b: Animals are fearless, not courageous.
S3b: Still, fear and hope pertain only to the future, whereas courage also exists in the present.
N4: Courage is knowledge of all good and evil.
S4: What you're describing isn't courage but all of virtue. |
|
|
Term
| What are the four stages typical of Plato's aporetic dialogues? |
|
Definition
1. Ignorance or Arrogance
Socrates asks a question, usually to get an ignorant or arrogant interlocutor to help him define some quality.
2. Inquiry
After some exchange with Socrates, it becomes clear Socrates's interlocutor isn't able to define the very thing he purports to be expert in.
3. Perplexity
The exchange ends in aporia, that is a perplexity or conundrum.
4. Further Inquiry or No Inquiry
Either Socrates wants to ask another question, or his interlocutor makes excuses, calls him a name, or just throws in the towel. |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHTS: Are animals really courageous despite lacking rational intelligence? What seems right about both Laches and Nicias's definitions of courage? When Socrates confounds his interlocutors, why do some continue the dialogue and others throw up their hands? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is a deductively valid argument? |
|
Definition
A deductively valid argument is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. It's raining outside.
3. ∴ The grass is wet. |
|
|
Term
| What is a deductively invalid argument? |
|
Definition
A deductively invalid argument is such that even if the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false.
1. If Caleb is your philosophy professor, then you're a student.
2. You're a student.
3. ∴ Caleb is your philosophy professor. |
|
|
Term
| What is a deductively sound argument? |
|
Definition
A deductively sound argument is such that [a] it's deductively valid AND [b] it has true premises.
1. All humans are mammals.
2. You are a human.
3. ∴ You are a mammal. |
|
|
Term
| When is an argument unsound? |
|
Definition
When it's deductively valid and has one or more false premises.
OR
When it's deductively invalid. |
|
|
Term
| What is Modus Ponens (MP)? |
|
Definition
P → Q
P
---
∴ Q
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. It's raining outside.
3. ∴ The grass is wet. |
|
|
Term
| What is Modus Tollens (MT)? |
|
Definition
P → Q
~Q
---
∴ ~P
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. The grass isn't wet.
3. ∴ It's not raining. |
|
|
Term
| What is Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)? |
|
Definition
P or Q
~P P
--- or ---
∴ Q ∴ ~Q |
|
|
Term
| What is Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)? |
|
Definition
P → Q
Q → R
---
∴ P → R
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. If the grass is wet, I will slip and fall.
3. ∴ If it's raining outside, I will slip and fall. |
|
|
Term
| What is Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA)? |
|
Definition
Assume A
But A entails a contradiction
-----------------------------
∴ ~A |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An "If___, then___" statement |
|
|
Term
| What is the first part of a conditional? |
|
Definition
| The antecedent ("If___,...") |
|
|
Term
| What is the second part of a conditional? |
|
Definition
| The consequent ("..., then___") |
|
|
Term
| What is the fallacy related to Modus Ponens? |
|
Definition
Affirming the Consequent:
P → Q
Q
---
∴ P
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. The grass is wet.
3. ∴ It's raining outside.
(SPRINKLERS!!) |
|
|
Term
| What is the fallacy related to Modus Tollens (MT)? |
|
Definition
Denying the Antecedent:
P → Q
~P
---
∴ Q
1. If it's raining outside, then the grass is wet.
2. It's not raining outside.
3. ∴ The grass isn't wet.
(SPRINKLERS!!) |
|
|
Term
| What is an inductive argument? |
|
Definition
| An argument that uses past experience to make generalizations about the present or predictions about the future, as opposed to the empirical logic used in deductive arguments. |
|
|
Term
| What is a strong inductive argument? |
|
Definition
A strong inductive argument is such that if the premises are true, then conclusion is *likely* to be true as well.
1. 95% of all Lipscomb students have IQ scores that are higher than Caleb's
2. Myron is a Lipscomb student.
3. Hence, Myron probably has a higher IQ than Caleb has. |
|
|
Term
| What is a weak inductive argument? |
|
Definition
A weak inductive arguments is such that even if the premises are true, the conclusion *isn't more likely than not* to be true.
1. 15% of all Lipscomb students are good at math.
2. Lesley is a Lipscomb student.
3. Thus, Lesley is probably good at math. |
|
|
Term
| When is an inductive argument cogent? |
|
Definition
| If it is strong and has true premises. |
|
|
Term
| When is an inductive argument not cogent? |
|
Definition
If it is strong but has false premises.
OR
If it is weak. |
|
|
Term
| What is Enumerative Induction? |
|
Definition
All observed Ps are Qs.
Thus, probably, all Ps are Qs.
It only takes one counter-example to refute this. |
|
|
Term
| What is Statistical Induction? |
|
Definition
X% of the sample has property, p.
Thus, probably, X% of the total population has p.
The larger the sample, and the more representative it is, the stronger the argument. |
|
|
Term
| What is Reasoning by Analogy, or Argument from Analogy? |
|
Definition
X has some property, p.
Y is similar to X in some relevant way.
Thus, probably, Y has p, too.
To make this argument, you want to be sure X and Y really are similar in a relevant way. |
|
|
Term
| What is an Ad Hominem argument? |
|
Definition
| An attack on the person making the argument, and not the argument. |
|
|
Term
| What is an Appeal to Authority? |
|
Definition
| Supporting yourself with the authority of someone who isn't really an authority. |
|
|
Term
| What is Arguing in a Circle, or "begging the question"? |
|
Definition
An argument that only affirms itself:
1. God exists because the Bible says he does.
2. Because the Bible is the Word of God, what it says is true.
3. Thus, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is an Appeal to Ignorance? |
|
Definition
Appealing only to a lack of evidence:
1. Nobody has shown that God doesn't exist.
2. Therefore, God exists. |
|
|
Term
| What is a False Dilemma argument? |
|
Definition
| Looks like Disjunctive Syllogism where only P or Q can be true, but in reality there is a 3rd option available. |
|
|
Term
| What is a Slippery Slope argument? |
|
Definition
Jumping to extreme conclusions based on paltry evidence:
1. If you are opposed to the abuses of capitalism, then you are going to support socialistic policies.
2. If you support socialistic policies, then that will just lead to all out communistic regimes like the former Soviet Union.
3. So, given your opposition to the abuses of capitalism, communism here we come! |
|
|
Term
| What is a Straw Man argument? |
|
Definition
| Giving a really uncharitable reading of your opponent's argument (for instance, arguing against a weakened version of their argument) |
|
|
Term
| What is the Genetic Fallacy? |
|
Definition
| Arguing that a position is false just because the origins of the position may seem suspect (for instance, suggesting chemistry is false because it arose from alchemy). |
|
|
Term
| What is the Composition Fallacy, or Parts-to-Whole Fallacy? |
|
Definition
| Each part of X has P, so the whole of X has P. |
|
|
Term
| What is a Division Fallacy? |
|
Definition
The whole of X has P, so each part of X has P.
(Reverse of Composition Fallacy) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Saying P and later saying not-P |
|
|
Term
| What is Anselm's Ontological Argument? |
|
Definition
1. We can conceive of That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived. Thus TTWNGCBC exists at least in the understanding.
2. Something can exist either: [a] solely in the understanding, or [b] both in the understanding AND in reality.
3. It's greater for something to exist [b] both in the understanding AND in reality than to exist [a] solely in the understanding.
4. Thus TTWNGCBC must exist in reality. |
|
|
Term
| In the Ontological Argument, what does it mean to "conceive," specifically of That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived? |
|
Definition
| To "conceive" is to reach out and touch with your mind, rather than to wrap your mind around it. |
|
|
Term
| How does Gaunilo refute Anselm's Ontological Argument? |
|
Definition
Gaunilo applies Anselm's reasoning to things other than God - things we know do NOT exist (Reasoning by Analogy):
1. If Anselm's argument for God's existence is sound, then the same sort of argument should work to show that, say, the "Isle of the Blest" (i.e. the greatest conceivable island) exists.
2. But we know that no such island really exists.
3. Thus, Anselm's argument isn't sound either, even if we can't specify what exactly is wrong with it.
...but is there any relevant difference between that *island* than which no greater island can be conceived, and that than which *nothing* greater can be conceived? |
|
|
Term
| What is an a priori argument? |
|
Definition
An a priori (prior to experience) argument is an argument the premises of which are (presumably) something we can know without any appeal to empirical observation (the senses).
For instance, Anselm's Ontological Argument. |
|
|
Term
| What is an a posteriori argument? |
|
Definition
An a posteriori (after experience) argument is an argument the premises of which are something that we can know only by appeal to empirical observation (the senses).
For instance, Aquinas's Cosmological Arguments. |
|
|
Term
| What is the basic structure of Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Arguments? |
|
Definition
1. A causal premise.
2. An empirical observation.
3. A denial of infinite regress.
4. Conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| What are Aquinas's Five Arguments? |
|
Definition
1. Argument from Change
(since everything is moved by something else in motion, there must be an unmoved first mover)
2. Argument from Causation
(since all things are caused by something else, there must be an uncaused first cause)
3. Argument from Contingency
(since everything depends on something else, there must be a first thing that is necessary in itself)
4. Argument from Excellence
(since things are observed in degrees of greater or lesser, there must be a greatest degree which allows being, goodness, and all other perfection to exist)
5. Argument from Harmony
(since all things work toward a common purpose, there must be something that directs them to this end) |
|
|
Term
| What is the generic Thomistic Cosmological Argument? |
|
Definition
1. We observe effects existing in the world.
2. Everything in the universe has a cause.
3. An infinite regress of causes is impossible, for that would mean there is no first cause to allow anything to exist at all.
4. So, there must be a first cause.
5. Such a being is God. |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHTS: Is it true that everything in the universe has a cause? Is an infinite regress of causes actually impossible? Why should we think an uncaused first cause should be God? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What can we reasonably conclude about the uncaused first cause of the universe? |
|
Definition
It must be outside the universe
So it must be immaterial (outside of space/matter) and it must be eternal (outside of time)
And it must be causally potent |
|
|
Term
| What is William Paley's Teleological "Watchmaker" Argument? |
|
Definition
1. When we observe a watch, we observe a multifaceted, complex system geared toward some teleological end. Plus, we observe that if various parts of the watch had been different, the watch would not accomplish this same teleological end.
2. The best explanation for what we observe here is that an intelligent watchmaker designed the watch with some teleological end in mind.
3. So, probably, the watch had an intelligent designer.
4. The universe is similar to the watch in the sense of being a complex system geared toward some teleological end.
5. Thus, probably, the universe had an intelligent designer too. |
|
|
Term
| What are David Hume's objections to the Teleological Argument? |
|
Definition
1. There are significant dissimilarities between a manmade artifact and the universe.
2. Just because *part* of the universe seems designed doesn't mean *all* of it does. (Parts-to-Whole Fallacy)
3. There's no reason why we should appeal to something similar to human intelligence to explain the complexities of the universe (it's presumptuous and anthropocentric to say it was made for human ends)
4. The argument fails to provide evidence that *God* exists, as it doesn't suggest this intelligent designer is (a) infinite, (b) perfect, (c) one or unified, (d) non-reproductive, or (e) immaterial. |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHTS: What are some dissimilarities between manmade objects and the universe? Is it really Parts-to-Whole Fallacy to assume the *whole* universe exhibits design? Is there any reason why a non-intelligent process *couldn't* account for the appearance of design? Does the teleological argument need to argue for every attribute of God? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is the classical theistic conception of God? |
|
Definition
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent (perfectly good)
Self-defined, incorporeal, eternal, perfectly free, worthy of worship and commitment, creator and sustainer of the world |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Someone who believes that God exists |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Someone who neither affirms or denies God's existence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Pain (physical or psychological)
Unjust treatment of a person
Loss of opportunity (premature death)
Anything that prevents a person from living as they should
When someone does a morally wrong act |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil? |
|
Definition
Moral evil is a deliberate act (murder)
Natural evil is not deliberately caused (natural disasters) |
|
|
Term
| What is the Problem of Evil? |
|
Definition
1. For something to be God, it must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.
2. If something is unaware of all the evils in the world, it's not all-knowing.
3. If something is unable to abolish all evils in the world, it's not all-powerful.
4. If something is unwilling to abolish all evils in the world, then it's not perfectly good.
5. So if evil exists in the world, then God does not exist.
6. Evil exists in the world.
7. Thus God does not exist. |
|
|
Term
| What are four broad ways to respond to the Problem of Evil? |
|
Definition
1. Evade the problem
2. Deny the reality of evil
3. Escape by modifying the classic view of God (he's not omni-etc)
4. Solve the problem by offering a theodicy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An explanation as to why an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God allows evil. |
|
|
Term
| What is John Hick's theodicy for moral evil? |
|
Definition
God had to endow humans with free will in order for them to be people rather than puppets.
In order to give us free will, God had to give us the ability to choose between right and wrong.
We misuse our freedom; but this is our fault, not God's. |
|
|
Term
| According to John Hick, if God's omnipotent, why couldn't he just abolish evil and give us free will at the same time? |
|
Definition
That is a logical impossibility. It seems like it means something ("Freewilled people who can't do evil") but it actually means nothing. It's just a combination of words.
God cannot do the logically impossible because there is nothing to be done. |
|
|
Term
| Why would a perfectly good God make us free to sin and do evil? |
|
Definition
| So that God may be in a *two-way* relationship with us. If we do not have the autonomy that freewill provides, we could never truly love God. |
|
|
Term
| What is John Hick's theodicy for natural evil? |
|
Definition
Natural evils come from the mere cause-and-effect of set universal laws.
Imagine if these laws were arbitrarily suspended at times to prevent disasters. In such a world, there would be no consequences to evil behavior. Thus humans would almost never make the morally significant choices that truly enrich their souls.
Making morally significant choices requires that the world more or less operate according to rule-like laws.
In addition, it would deprive us of free will if we were never allowed to go through with an intended evil act. |
|
|
Term
| THOUGHT: Why wouldn't God suspend the laws of nature every time something horrible is about to happen? |
|
Definition
|
|
