Terms : Hide Images
| 2415498623 | Epistemology | Branch of philosophy that studies "WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?" | 0 | |
| 2415498624 | Epistemology: Skepticism | We can have no true knowledge concerning the world | 1 | |
| 2415498625 | Epistemology: Empiricism | We may have knowledge concerning the world, but only by means of sensory observation alone. *Berkeley | 2 | |
| 2415498626 | Epistemology: Rationalism | We may have knowledge concerning the world, sensory observation is NOT the only means of obtaining knowledge. *Descartes | 3 | |
| 2415498627 | Metaphysics | Branch of philosophy that studies "WHAT IS REAL?" | 4 | |
| 2415498628 | Metaphysics: Mind-body dualism | Belief that both physical objects and mental objects exist *Descartes, Locke | 5 | |
| 2415498629 | Metaphysics: Idealism | Belief that only mental objects exist and physical objects do not exist *Berkeley | 6 | |
| 2415498630 | Metaphysics: Materialism | Belief that only physical objects exist | 7 | |
| 2415498631 | Mind-body problem | Objection to mind-body dualism: claims that minds and bodies exist and interact. "If minds and bodies both exist, then they must be such different kinds of things that they could not possible interact" *think "aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of Forms" | 8 | |
| 2415498632 | Identity thesis | Mental states are just brain states, a kind of materialism | 9 | |
| 2415498633 | Argument | A series of statements in which a belief is proposed for acceptance on the basis of reasons offered in support of that belief. | 10 | |
| 2415498634 | Conclusion | A belief, statement, or proposition that is being argued for | 11 | |
| 2415498635 | Premises | Reasons offered in support of the conclusion | 12 | |
| 2415498636 | Inductive argument | Argument in which the conclusion is said to follow from the premises as a matter of PROBABILITY *IP-DN* | 13 | |
| 2415498637 | Deductive argument | Argument in which the conclusion is said to follow from the premises as a matter of NECESSITY *IP-DN* | 14 | |
| 2415498638 | 2 tests for deductive arguments | VALIDITY: argument structure must be such that the conclusion is a matter of necessity TRUTH: premises must be acceptable | 15 | |
| 2415498639 | Socrates: Euthyphro on "What is Piety?" | 1. Euthyphro states what he is doing 2. Euthyphro suggests piety is that which is loved by the gods. Socrates points out contradiction of being both pious and impious. 3. Socrates proposes that which is loved by ALL the gods | 16 | |
| 2415498640 | Formal charges against Socrates | Corrupting youth, believing in deities of his own invention | 17 | |
| 2415498641 | Socrates' method | Asking people concerning their opinions and pointing out contradictions | 18 | |
| 2415498642 | Plato's theory of forms | Lower realm: Physical objects. Sensible, changing, imperfect copies of Forms Higher realm: Forms. Ideal and abstract, perfect, eternal | 19 | |
| 2415498643 | Plato: Awake vs Dreaming | Dreamers perceive only the physical objects. The Awake can distinguish the physical objects from the forms. | 20 | |
| 2415498644 | Plato: Allegory of the Cave | Shadows are to physical objects for people in the cave as physical objects are to forms for us. | 21 | |
| 2415498645 | Plato: Sticks and Stones Argument | Two sticks are never entirely equal nor are two stones. Yet we still have the concept of perfection, in this case of equality. Since no two physical things are perfectly identical, then we must have had this concept before entering the physical realm. THUS: we MUST have EXISTED before entering into the physical realm. | 22 | |
| 2415498646 | Plato: Theory of Anamnesis | Before birth we resided in the Realm of the Forms and had immediate knowledge of the Forms. At birth all knowledge is forgotten. Recollection of this knowledge is possible by 2 methods: 1. By interaction with physical objects because physical objects resemble the Forms 2. Use of the intellect to remember aspects of the Forms We never learn anything new, we only recollect what we have forgotten. We may never recollect all knowledge due to Physical limitations but we must try. | 23 | |
| 2415498647 | Presocratic: Thales | Believed ALL IS WATER Think: "Thames" (river in England) + whales | 24 | |
| 2415498648 | Presocratic: Parmenidies | Believed ALL IS ONE, ALL IS BEING Influenced Plato's Upper realm theory | 25 | |
| 2415498649 | Presocratic: Heraclitus | Believed ALL IS FIRE, ALL IS FLUX Influenced Plato's lower realm theory Think "hectic" | 26 | |
| 2415498650 | Presocratic: Atomists | Believed the world is made of minute, physical objects too small to be perceived and are indivisible. MATERIALISTS | 27 | |
| 2415498651 | Presocratic: Pythagoreans | Believed ALL IS NUMBER | 28 | |
| 2415498652 | Aristotle: Theory of Forms | Hylomorphic Composition: The Form is within the object. Hyle:matter + Morphe:Form = SUBSTANCE | 29 | |
| 2415498653 | Aristotle: Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms | Chorismos (Separation) Plato: physical objects and Forms are entirely separate. Aristotle: If they are so different then they must not be capable of interaction *Think "mind-body problem" | 30 | |
| 2415498654 | Aristotle: Theory of Correspondence | A sentence is true if: 1. The subject of the sentence corresponds with a substance in the world 2. The predicate of the sentence corresponds with an attribute of said substance | 31 | |
| 2415498655 | Descartes: 3 reasons to doubt everything | 1. My senses have deceived me in the past 2. I may be dreaming 3. A powerful being (Good or Evil) may be deceiving me | 32 | |
| 2415498656 | Descartes: proof of the Existence of Matter | 1. Existence of Mind: "I shall begin by doubting everything" -My senses have deceived me in the past -I may be dreaming -A powerful being (Good or Evil) may be deceiving me -I DOUBT, therefore I THINK. I THINK, therefore I EXIST. -All I know is that I am a thinking thing, a mind, therefore minds exist 2. Proof of God -The Eidological Argument: I have an idea of PERFECTION. This idea did not come from me because I am not PERFECT. I know I am not PERFECT because I DOUBT. My idea of PERFECTION must come from outside of me: from a thing with the attribute of PERFECTION. Therefore a PERFECT thing or being exists: GOD. -The Ontological Argument: God is a PERFECT being. A PERFECT being must have all of the PERFECT attributes. Existence is a PERFECT attribute. 3. Existence of MATTER: -God exists but I have passive perceptions that seem to derive from physical objects. Either I am deceived by God or I perceive Matter. God is perfect: Thus Matter exists. | 33 | |
| 2415498657 | Descartes' Epistemological position | Rationalism: We may have knowledge concerning the world, sensory observation is NOT the only means of obtaining knowledge. | 34 | |
| 2415498658 | Descartes' Metaphysical position | Mind-body dualism: Belief that both physical objects and mental objects exist | 35 | |
| 2415498659 | Innate Ideas | Ideas we are born with | 36 | |
| 2415498660 | Locke: Argument against Innate Ideas | 1. I can explain how it is possible to obtain all of our ideas without making reference to innate ideas 2. Even if there were universal consent concerning certain beliefs, this does not necessarily mean they are innate ideas 3. Children and Idiots do not seem to have do not seem to have this universal consent of knowledge nor innate ideas. Therefore Innate Ideas do not exist | 37 | |
| 2415498661 | Locke: Epistemological system | All our ideas and all of our knowledge derive from experience: -Sensation of external physical objects -Reflection of internal mental processes These produce SIMPLE IDEAS Combining SIMPLE IDEAS produce COMPLEX IDEAS | 38 | |
| 2415498662 | Locke's metaphysical position | Mind-body dualism: Belief that both physical objects and mental objects exist | 39 | |
| 2415498663 | Primary Qualities | Independent of the observer, reside within the physical object Ex: Shape, size, motion | 40 | |
| 2415498664 | Secondary Qualities | Dependent on the observer, reside within the mind Ex: heat, pain, color, smell, sound, touch | 41 | |
| 2415498665 | Berkeley: Extended argument on idealism | 1. Seconddary qualities are only ideas 2. Primary qualities are only ideas 3. We cannot observe material substance, only attributes. Therefore, we should not believe in the existence of matter | 42 | |
| 2415498666 | Berkeley: specific argument on idealism | We perceive nothing other than our perceptions (what we can sense). These perceptions are only ideas within our mind. Therefore, there is only proof of the existence of Ideas | 43 | |
| 2415498667 | Berkeley: Argument on existence of God | Things are only ideas and perceptions and continue to exist when we are not present. Therefore, there must be a universal observer | 44 | |
| 2415498668 | Berkeley's metaphysical position | Idealism: Belief that only mental objects exist and physical objects do not exist | 45 | |
| 2415498669 | Berkeley's epistemological position | Empiricism: We may have knowledge concerning the world, but only by means of sensory observation alone. | 46 | |
| 2415498670 | Hume: Epistemological system | 2 perceptions of the mind -Impressions: within the experience, vivid and lively -Ideas: pale recollection of the experience, imitation of the impressions Empirical limits to thought: All ideas are from experience (impressions) and are thus limited to experience. | 47 | |
| 2415498671 | Hume's prinicple | A word is meaningless unless its reference can be traced back to impressions | 48 | |
| 2415498672 | Hume: Differentiation between matters of fact and relations of ideas | Matters of fact: Truths of science, uncertain but imformative about the world. The truth is dependent upon induction from experience Ex. "all bachelors smell bad" Relations of ideas: Truths of logic and mathematics, indisputable, uninformative, dependent on logical relations Ex. "all bachelors are unmarried" *THINK: the definitions of the two are swapped and don't make sense | 49 | |
| 2415498673 | Hume: Criticism of Substance | We never perceive substance (material or mental) underlying our perceptions and therefore we have no reason to believe in the existence of substance; mind nor matter. | 50 | |
| 2415498674 | Hume: Criticism of causality | Causality (every event has a cause) is derived from experience and is a "matter of fact". Thus causality is a scientific hypothesis, not a metaphysical truth, and is not certain. We are then to say that "for every event, there is PROBABLY a cause". If this is true, many traditional arguments in philosophy no longer follow with necessity, are invalid, and fail. | 51 | |
| 2415498675 | Kant: A posteriori | POST-sensory experience; Judgements whose truth is dependent upon sensory experience | 52 | |
| 2415498676 | Kant: A priori | PRIOR to sensory experiences; Judgements whose truth is not dependent upon sensory experience | 53 | |
| 2415498677 | Kant: Synthetic | Judgements in which the concept of the predicate is not contained in the concept of the subject. *Think "designed" | 54 | |
| 2415498678 | Kant: Analytic | Judgements in which the concept of the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject. *Think "analysis" and "attributes" | 55 | |
| 2415498679 | Kant: a priori + Analytic | Same as Hume's relations of ideas: Truths of logic and mathematics, indisputable, uninformative, dependent on logical relations, obvious. | 56 | |
| 2415498680 | Kant: a posteriori + Synthetic | Same as Hume's matters of fact: Truths of science, uncertain but informative about the world. The truth is dependent upon induction from experience | 57 | |
| 2415498681 | Kant's position | Synthetic a priori knowledge is possible -Truths of mathematics: 7+5=12 -Basic laws of science: Newton's Third Law -Certain metaphysical principles such as Law of Causality | 58 | |
| 2415498682 | Kuhn | Our perception is affected by our background belief systems called "PARADIGMS". Creates the question: Is objectivity impossible or only difficult? | 59 |
