Disagree, b/c if argument is sound, then premises have to be true, and the argument must be valid (conclusion must follow 4m premises; if premises are true, conclusion is true), whereas for a conclusion to be true, it does not necessarily mean the premises must be true.  For example

1. All red insects are poisonous

2. ladybugs are red insects

Conclusion:ladybugs are poisonous

Therefore,  it is possible for the argument to be unsound (via unsound premises) while the conclusion is true

Pleasure is a conditional good, whereas knowledge is the ultimate object of the form of the Good;

There is no highest good, not pleasure or knowledge 

Not all pleasures are good, and can always be improved by knowledge and reason.therefore its not the good

The form of the good is not knowledge, but understanding the form of the good leads 2 the highest level of knowledge

Plato believes the object of eros is loving the beauty in all.

This requires immortality b/c only when immortal can  we possess love forever.  

Lovers strive to attain immortality through physical love and non-physical love. 

1)They use physical love by finding and rejoining w/ their other half (expressed through sex),

and 2) they use non-physical love (the more important one) to give birth to new ideas

Psychological egoism- good for yourself; view that humans are motivated by self-interest, even in acts of altruism; they do such acts 4 personal benefits they will obtain or expect 2 obtain (directly or indirectly)

Psychological hedonism- view that ultimate goal of humanity is to experience pleasure and avoid pain

Aristotle's argument against psychological egoism- Nobody would choose to live w/the intellect of a child throughout their life, however much they are pleased at the same things children are pleased at.  Also, there are many things we desire that don't necessarily bring pleasure, like knowing, remembering, and seeing.  Wewould choose 2 have these even if they didn't bring pleasure.  Therefore, the pursuit in life is not pleasure, but it is activity

Aristotle believes we need friends b/c

1. no one chooses to live by himself

2. to maintain and develop are virtues, b/c friends emulate virtues 4m each other 

Thus, friendship makes our life complete, and all people need friends.  Rich people need friends to help guard his prosperity, poor ppl need friends 4 moral support through their tough situations, young ppl need friends 2 keep them on track and prevent them 4m making mistakes, and old ppl need friends for helping hands since they are weak.  There are also those in the "prime time of their life", which is the time of their life where they have the most energy and work the hardest, and they need friends 2 ensure they do noble acts

The five sheats of an individual are

1. physical, elemental self- the body, exterior self made of food and physical matter

2.  Life Principle- breath (prana)

3. mind- thinking and using words, concepts

4. knowledge- putting meaning to words and concepts

5. joyous- ananda purusa (bliss), continuous endless state (most important!)

The Upanishads believed the ananda purusa is the central self b/c it is the one sheath that never changes.  The other sheaths constantly change, replacing themselves over and over; (ie: during sleep, the mind, knowledge changes) (ie: during lifetime, physical body constantly changes).  Ananda purusa occurs when one is in deep sleep, when every though ceases, and even breath comes 2 standstill, and there is a non-dual consciousnes; in meditation, one tries to achieve ananda purusa

The Upanishads and the Buddha agree that suffering is caused by a false belief about the self. 

According to the Upanishads, what is this false belief, and how does it lead to suffering?  

And Buddha?

When an enlightened person dies, she is able to live among every element, every heart and being.  They will have boundless power because they know that the individual self is the universal self.

When an unenlightened person dies, she remains divided and is unable to unite with all the eternal life forces.  She consequencely roams from being to being, living life after life via reincarnation.   

The evil demon scenario is the idea that there exists a higher being (demon) that controls what we know and leads us to believe what is untrue. 

The evil demon scenario allows Descrates to acknowledge that he does not know whether there is an evil demon or not, but at the very least, he knows that he is thinking.   If the evil demon were to exist, and thus cause Descartes to be deceived, then Descartes would still know that he existed because he put thought into the deception.  To be deceived, on must exist.  To think, one must exist.  Therefore, through this scenario, Descartes came up with the saying "I think, and therefore I am."

Leibniz law says that if X=Y, then for every property (P) of X is also the exact property of Y.  The properties are equal, just like X and Y. 

AKA if 2 objects are identical, they both have the same properties.

    Descartes uses Leibniz law by arguing for the independence of the mind.  He first says that if you can find a property that exists of the mind that does not exist of the body, then the mind and body are not equal.  The only property of the mind we can be certain of is that it exists. (If a property of X is not a property of Y, then X does not equal Y)

     However, the body's existence is doubtful, and therefore we know that it is not equal to the mind. Thus, we know that the mind and body are independent entities.  

The argument that the mind is independent of the body is derived from the following arguments:

1) the mind cannot be doubted, but the body can be doubted

2) the body is a physical form with top, bottom, left, right divisional properties.  But the mind cannot be divided.  

3) physical properties are different from mental properties; for example, a desk can move around, while mental things like the mind cannot

Thus, the mind exists independently of the body.  

Descrates offers the conceivability arguement:

P1) I can clearly and distinclty conceive my mind existing w/o my body

P2) that which can be clearly conceived is possible

Conclusion: it is possible for a mind to exist independently of the body 

 The non-dualist would argue:

- even if the body bleeds and mind doesn't, since the mind and body are the same thing, if the body bleeds, so does the mind

- if the body has an extension and can be divided, so does the mind; so the left/right/top/bottom of the mind is used 

- mind can be divisible (corpus callosum splits brain in 2), so you have 2 independent parts of the mind

 Hume defines "necessity" as when the mind commands the body's actions and an exercise of everyone's universal right to choose.  It suggests that like causes will produce like effects. 

Liberty is defined as the power of acting or not acting, determined by the will.   

Our actions must be both free and necessary because in rejecting what is necessary (our voluntary actions), we reject liberty, or what is free.  We are encouraged by Hume to use our liberty of spontaneity to take actions that are willed.   If we use our liberty of indifference, then we take responsibility away from our action.  This disconnects the action from the mind of the person who did it because the mind did not will it. 

Determinism states that all events are predetermined by the universe and laws of nature. 

1.  If determinism is true, then that means that no one has choice in their actions

2. if no one has choice in their actions, they cannot be held responsible for their actions

3. If no one can be held responsible for their actions, they are not worthy of praise or blame for their actions

Conclusion: If determinism is true,then all people lack moral responsibility

Incompatabolism argues that moral responsibility is not compatible with determinsim.  Moral responsibility is compatible with the belief that determinism is not true, and therefore we are free in our actions and hold responsibility for them.

Compatability is the belief that free will and determinism coexist. 

Incompatablility is the belief that free will and determinism are not compatible and cannot coexist.

Compatability believes that punishment is in the hands of God,or some a supernatural force, while incompatability argues that punishment is in the hands of the morally responsible to make the morally irresponsible responsible.   

Hume argues that there is no self because in order to have ideas of the self, we must have impressions of the self.  BUT our impressions are always changing, so the ideas of the self always change as well.  Therefore, there is no idea of the self.

The Empiricist theory of ideas states that we are made of ideas, which come from impressions and sensations (perception)

Arguement:

1. The mind sees the self as "a changing river"; while it constantly changes, it always sustains and remains. 

2.  While our impressions may change over time, that does not necessarily mean our ideas always make complete or drastic changes

3.  While our ideas may change, we always know there is "a self" or have a fundamental understanding of "the self" 

Therefore, there is an idea of the self.  

Hume argues that life consists of a succession of related objects in the sense that all things change over time, and thus, nothing really endures.  For example, a human transitions from a tiny baby to an old wrinkled being.  But how the mind recognizes the person as a single enduring object is through similarity, contiguity, and cause and effect.  In this sense, the mind projects identities onto objects in order 2 comprehend its changes and continue 2 recognize it as a single enduring object. 

When it comes to the self, Hume argues that we, too, project identity through similarity and cause and effect. (but not contiguity)

 Hume argues that there is no enduring self, and thus, no enduring mind.  He also states that the mind passes from ideas to ideas.  However, the mind must endure in order to pass from ideas to ideas.  Thus, he disproves his own arguement that there is no enduring self.  

According to Hume, there are two kinds of reasoning: Theoretical and practical

Theoretical reasoning is used in forming beliefs; this is rational

Practical reasoning is used in deciding on what actions to take and are connected 2 desires, intentions, attitudes, etc

Hume's theory of motivation- all actions are caused by desires

Hume believes that in all are actions, there exists some desire we believe will be fulfilled.  No desire is more or less rational than any other desire.  

Only if actions are done on purpose can we evaluate its rationality or irrationality.   

 ex: If i desired to make my grandma happy by taking her to the park, I did it on purpose so its rational?

irrational if u don't act on your desires? 

Objection:  If a hungry ass was encountered with two equal stacks of hay, and had 2 decide btw them, and decided in the end not to eat either one, Hume would say this was rational because all desires are equally rational.  However, it can be argued that this ass's desire was completely irrational b/c he could have simply avoided death by choosing a stack of hay.   

The subjective view is that all moral judgements are fundamentally subjective (based on feelings). 

They argue that if "x is wrong" then that means that we disapprove of X."  Therefore, if one argues that "abortion is wrong" it means they disapprove of anyone having an abortion.  

An argument against this is that in the subjectivist view, no statement can be wrong.  Even if it's completely absurd, nothing can be right or wrong, just true or false.  

If I say "John is wrong" that does not mean I dispprove of John.  That just means I think he is wrong in a particular action, or particular judgement or view.  

Kant believed there are two types of propositions: analytic and synthetic

analytic propositions are one's that's subject concept are true in definition (ex: all bachelors are unmarried is true by definition since bachelors are defined as unmarried men.)  

Synthetic propositions are one's that are untrue by definition.  (ex: All bachelors are happy.  bachelor and happy do not correlate by definition)

Kant also believed in 2 types of knowledge:  Priori and posteriori.  while prior=probably, posteriori is certain

Priori knowledge- all knowledge independent of experience, ideas and concepts derived 4m intellect;

Posteriori knowledge- knowledge derived 4m experience; ideas and concepts based 4m experience 

Kant argues his position is superio 2 Hume's through Causation Arguement, saying that empircal world is lawfully connected through cause and effect; in this, he appeals 2 his priori knowledge.  

when we see an object, it is by itself, indistinguishable and unknowable.  the only way we can recognize it is through our priori knowledge.

Kant argues that in philosophy, we should no longer try to examine the world around us and the universe, but instead focus on the mental processes, the limits of our knowledge that allow us to make sense of the world around us. This is called Kant's Copernican Revolution.   The above strategy is related to the Copernican Revolution b/c Kant argues that one perceives the world based on how our mental processes allow 1 to perceive it, which is how a priori knowledge is gained.  

Contradiction in Conception test- in certain maxims,(expression of general truth or principle) there's a certain conception that contradicts and prevents it 4m becoming universal laws

 -Asks that if a certain maxim were to become universal law, would it be a contradiction?

-Request simple yes or no

-used for strict duties

ex:  Don't make lying promises. (so "making lying promises" is a contradiction b/c if everyone made lying promises, there would be no trust in the world.")

ex: maxim on killing

Killing is a way of gaining personal advantage-->contradictionin conception-->there couldn't be a world where ppl kill e/o

Cotradiction on Volition: maxims that can be conceived as universal laws, but still contradictory to will it as laws

-imagine a world where your maxim became universal law, would the end be met?

-used with wide duties, that tell u what to do 

 ex: Everyone should adopt (if all ppl adopted, then there would be no need 2 adopt b/c there wouldn't be any kids needed 4 adoption)

1) let me, upon finding someone in need, ignore them 2 secure personal advantage

2) let everyone, upon finding someone in nee, ignore them 2 secure personal advantage

Con: cannot act on 1 if there is will for 2, b/c its a contradiction on volition.   

Universal law formation argues to act only on law u can will as a universal law. 

Therefore, if I thought it was okay for all people to be pedophiles and have sex with children, then I would act on it and the universal law formulation would render it moral even though in reality, most ppl would agree that this action is immoral.  

If I thought all women should not be allowed to vote, then under this formation, it would permit that women be banned 4m voting.  

kingdom of ends means that it passes both contradiction of conception and contradiction of volition, and acts on all things that all ppl would rationally agree 2

Kingdom of ends fails to solve this problem: 

 for any maxim, there will be ppl who disagree w/ it.  

we should never treat humanity, ourselves or others, as a means to ourselves by only as a end in itself.

ex: taxi driver, he must drive ppl not b/c it serves his own satisfactions, but b/c he needs it 2 earn money

Transcendental arguements 4 categorical imperative of humanity formulation requires unconditional worth in both actions taken for yourself and for others.