Intro To Philosophy

Front 1

Idealism-

Back 1

All in the mind: reality as we understand it is made up of thoughts and ideas, (all we can know is our own consciousness)

Front 2

Realism-

Back 2

Regards external objects as the most fundamentally real things, with perceptions or ideas as secondary

-Things are real and are external to us, they are not experienced by the mind

-A chair is real in the external world, it exists on it’s own

Front 3

Nominalism-

Back 3

Stuff exists but only as names

-Universals exist, but not independently on their own

-There isn’t actually something out there that is blue, blue exists because that’s the name we have given it

Front 4

Conceptualism-

Back 4

Tries to stand between realism and nominalism.

-Blue exits, but it only exists in the mind, so there is a universal called blue, but only universal in your mind, it does not exist outside of you.

-Stuff exists in concepts affected by the real world

Front 5

Natural Realism-

Back 5

There is a reality that exists apart from how we perceive it.

[-We are part of reality, but we cannot experience every single aspect of it, there’s things we cannot know

-We participate in reality, things don’t happen to us

Front 6

Noumena:

Back 6

The thing in itself, as they are, outside of us

• Can never be seen, touched, sensed at all

• As soon as you can touch or smell it, it becomes phenomena

Front 7

Phenomena:

Back 7

our perception of the thing (anything experienced through our senses, dreams etc.)

Front 8

Determinism

Back 8

Humans do not have free will.

Everything has a cause.

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Front 9

Compatibilism

Back 9

Believes actions are determined, but argues we can still be responsible for our choices.

Front 10

Incompatibilism

Back 10

We have free will

The doctrine that free will and determinism are incompatible

Front 11

Interventionalism

Back 11

Determinism and free will can happen at the same time but God can come and intervene and create different circumstances

Front 12

What is Reid's objection to Locke's view on personal identity?

Back 12

Reid thinks that Locke contradicts himself and violates the law of trancsetivity

a=b, b=c, a=c <-- all the same person throughout life

a=b, b=c, a does not equal c because if you don't remember your past then, you aren't the same person.

memory(immediate consciousness of past) does not equal consciousness because consciousness is constantly changing and immediately present.

Front 13

What is Locke's view on Personal Identity?

Back 13

Locke confides in memory as consciousness; If you remember your past then you were always the same and holds personal identity

Front 14

Cosmological Argument

Back 14

First Cause Argument

Everything has a distinct previous cause so if God is the creator of the universe, then something must have created him since he cannot produce himself.

Front 15

Cosmological Objection

Back 15

The question of who created God is never ending: Who created god? who is god's creator? Who is the creator of god's creator? Etc.

Front 16

Ontological Argument

Back 16

Definitional Argument

If you understand the idea of God then God exists in the understanding.

The argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not.

Front 17

Ontological Objection

Back 17

Just because you say something exists because it exists, doesn't prove anything. Defining God in this way proves nothing.

Front 18

Argument From Design

Back 18

Analogy

The argument that God's existence is demonstrable from the evidence of design in the universe.

Front 19

Objections to The Argument From Design

Back 19

You cannot compare a human mind to the architect of the universe, it is too complex and we don't have enough knowledge to make these comparisons.

An all loving, knowing, and powerful God didn't make the world because it has flaws

Front 20

Problem of Evil

Back 20

The all loving, knowing, and powerful God is a problem because there is a lot of evil in our world. Why would he create that if he was truly all loving?

Front 21

Substance Dualism

Back 21

Two substances, Mind= non corporeal, Body= Corporeal

Mind exists because it can be doubted, I think therefore I am

They must be two separate substances because he can prove the mind exists through thought and the body he cannot prove since senses deceive.

Front 22

Objection to Substance Dualism

Back 22

The mind is non corporeal, therefore, how can you prove it is separate from the body if you cannot see/touch it?

Front 23

Non Congnitivist

Back 23

The action is good because I desire to do it. They believe that what they're doing is good

Front 24

Cognitivist

Back 24

The action is good in itself, they are motivated by the belief of objected truths.

Front 25

Logical Behaviorism

Back 25

We can't know for certain that behaviors that people exhibit directly correlate to mental states, or that they're similar between you and me.

Front 26

Primary Qualities

Back 26

What the object actually has, texture, motion, figure, outside of interaction with it.

Front 27

Secondary Qualities

Back 27

Colors, sounds, they are produced from the object in us, any info that has to do with senses

Front 28

Transcendental Idealism

Back 28

Kant believed that stuff existed outside of human perception. Time and space are outside human perception

Front 29

Utilitarianism

Back 29

Examines consequences of actions

An action is right if the happiness it will bring will outweigh any misery

Highest amount of happiness

Front 30

Kantianism

Back 30

Examines duties. (Universal moral standards)

Front 31

Categorical Imperative

(Kantianism)

Back 31

1.) Do things that you expect everyone else in the world to do. Actions must adhere to a universal rule

2.) Never treat/use people as means to an end. (Don't take advantage of people to get what you want)