Logic And Nature Final

Front 1

Conditional arguments

Back 1

affirm antecedent - affirm consequent (MP)
affirm consequent - no conc. - fallacy of affirming consequent
deny antecedent - no conc. - fallacy of denying antecedent
deny consequent - deny antecedent (MT)

Front 2

Pacal

Back 2

-ignoring question of immortality is foolish, a great evil because all our actions change as a result of this

Front 3

Pascal

What is the doubter?
A doubter is...(4 things)

Back 3

has unanswered ?'s about himself and concludes not to try to answer them

1)bad friend (no care for your eternity)
2)inconsistent (concerned w/ temporal things)
3)discouraging - short sighted
4)dishonest

Front 4

Pascal

2 kinds of reasonable people

Back 4

1.Those who have concluded the soul is immortal
2. Those passionately seeking answers
-agnostics unreasonable

Front 5

Lucretius view on the soul

Back 5

Soul/mind = principle of life

materialist - soul is a collection of atoms (part of the body)

Front 6

Lucretius argumuents against immortality

Back 6

1) atoms that make up the soul are extremely small and fine; soul will dissolve instantly as it leaves the body
2)The mind/soul begins with the body - infant the body is small and mind undeveloped; mind/soul matures with the body; body dies and so does soul
3)Lethal pain kills body; grief kills the soul
4)lethal drink affects both

Front 7

Reincarnation to a materialist?

Back 7

Is a possibilit for any materialist as life and death are both physical things; we are machines so we can be fixed

Front 8

Lucretuis conclusion w/ the soul

Back 8

Death is nothing, carpe diem!
-soul dies w/ body, seize the day!

Front 9

Russell - difference b/w immortality and life after death

Back 9

life after death could just be a 'delay', not necessarily immortal
life after death could be possible b/c of evidence with out of body experiences

Front 10

Descartes view on soul and immortality

Back 10

The mind is not a body therefore the mind/soul can be immortal, doesn't die with body
If th mind is simple it is immortal b/c simple things can't fall apart, be destroyed

Front 11

Plato - Phaedo
view of the soul?

Back 11

soul = principle of life

Front 12

Plato
The philosopher's concerns about the body/death?

Back 12

the philosopher is not cocerned with the body bec. it only hinders wisdom, which is the one thing he loves. Truth is not accessible to the senses
Death is not to be feared because death is the cure for the bodies illness. In death knowledge will be obtained

Front 13

What is Socrates dilemna?

Back 13

Knowledge is either not to be attained at all or only after death

Front 14

Plato's arguments for immortality

Back 14

1) opposites can't become another
great -small hot - cold odd - even
fire can never become cold and life can never become death
2)soul = principle of life
-life is a property
-soul can never contain the opposie of what it is
therefore the soul = immoral

Front 15

Plato's conclusion

Back 15

death is not to be feared then because death ends our hinderance of knowledge with the body
our souls live on

Front 16

Aquinas view on the soul

Back 16

soul = form of a body
the soul can't be the principle of life insofar as it is mater oterwise all mater would be alive, we know this isn't true
soul is only the form of a body

Front 17

Aquinas proof of subsistence

Back 17

Subsistence - doesn't depend on another thing for its existence
we can understand all physical things, even matter itself. No knowing power can contain what it knows therefore the mind/soul is independent of any body = subsistence
no sense power can reflect on itself

Front 18

Aquinas brute animals aren't subsistent

Back 18

animals have no intellect
subsistence requires intellect and proves immortality
Therfore animals aren't immortal

Front 19

Aquinas
Human soul can't be destroyed

Back 19

something is destroyed accidently or essentially
destroyed accidently when it depends on another thing - human soul is subsistent
destroyed essentially when undergoes substantial change (matter gets a new form) soul isn't a body its only a form, its matter can't recieve a new form

Front 20

Lucretius view on gods

Back 20

gods exist, have bodies
even further removed than souls
can't hurt/help us

Front 21

Lucretius
Did gods create the world?

Back 21

No -
Why create (they're happy)
Why create now?
Where did they get the patterns from?
Problem of evil - gods wouldn't create evil in world if they are omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent

all happens by chance/swerve

Front 22

Russell - view on religion

Back 22

fear is the basis for belief in God
we try to control world/our fate
-move God with our prayers
fear is bad

Front 23

Aquinas
What is necessary for change

Back 23

Agent and Final causes
agent cause intends an end but may not know what that end is

nature works for end but doesn't know it

Front 24

Aristotle
Does nature act for an end?

Back 24

-either things happen because a) they are designed that way or b) they just happen that way, no purpose/final cause

Counter arguments
1)we see there is a certain order to things - intermediate steps are there b/c of end/purpose
2)insects intelligence? - must be some cause/design behind these unintelligent things intelligence
3)misakes exist in nature
-if there are mistakes theremust be a right way
conclusion - not everything happens by chance

Front 25

Fabre

Back 25

1)find pregnant eph.
2)sting brain - cause part perm. paralysis
3)dig burrow
4)drag eph to burrow
4a)chew brain - complete temporary paralysis
5)place eph in burrow
6)lay eg in precise spot
7)close burrow

Front 26

Fabre's point

Back 26

intelligence is involved as there is a definite order to things but wasps are unintelligent. We see that when we mess with the exp. it doesn't know what to do

Where does the intelligence come from then?

Front 27

Plato - Laws
Are there gods? Cleinas objections

Back 27

1)paganism - explain nature through pagan gods
2)common consent - everyone believes in gods so must be true

Front 28

Plato - Laws
materialist mix up?

Back 28

materialists have mixed up matter and soul - they see matter as the principle for the soul not vice versa

Front 29

Plato distinguishes b/w matter and soul

Back 29

matter - things only moved by others
soul - things that move themselves

if all matter were at rest in the beginning then what made them move; a soul must have started this process (God)

Front 30

Descartes - ontological argument

Back 30

God = supremely perfect being
contains all perections
existence is a perfection
if God contains ALL perfections he must exist

If you have an idea of a perfect being in your mind then he must exist because existence is part of perfection

Front 31

Aquinas - Problem of Evil (obj 1)

Back 31

God wouln't create evil world

Front 32

Aquinas - Principle of simplicity (obj 2)

Back 32

Nature can explain everything, Ockham's Razor

Front 33

Aquinas proof 1

Back 33

everything is moved by another - must have been a first mover

Front 34

Aquinas proof 2

Back 34

everything caused by another - must've been a first uncaused cause

Front 35

Aquinas proof 3

Back 35

There are contingent things in the world (things that are able to be and not to be) if everything were contingent then by now nothing would exist. There must've been one necessary thing, a first necessary eternal cause

Front 36

Aquinas proof 4

Back 36

things are more or less good, noble, or true
must be a highest good, truth, nobility

Front 37

Aquinas proof 5

Back 37

things w/o intelligence act toward an end therefore th achieve their ends by design not chance; intelligence is not their own however, there must be an intelligent being which makes all natural things work towards their end

Front 38

Reply to obj. 1

Back 38

God is so powerful he uses those evils to bring a good out of them

Front 39

Reply to obj. 2

Back 39

Nature doesn't explain itself, nor do human causes