Midterm 1

Front 1

Aims of Philosophy

Back 1

1) The crititcal examination of basic beliefs and ideas

2) The investigation of hidden assumptions or pre suppositions

3) The quest for a worthwhile life

4) Effort to keep alive the sense of curiosity and wanderments

5) The posing of certain questions that other disciplines cannot deal with and attempt to provide good answers to such questions

Front 2

What is Philosophy about?

Back 2

1) Logic

2) Metaphysics

3) Epistemology

4) Ethics

Front 3

Benefits of Philosphy

Back 3

Critical thinking and inductive reasoning

Front 4

6 Criteria for evaluating philosophical claims

Back 4

1) Clarity

2) Consistency

3) Coherence

4) Comprehensiveness

5) Compatibility

6) Compelling Arguments

Front 5

Valid Arguments

Back 5

Validity is a property of arguements and of arguements only. An arguement can be valid if the statements it contains are widely implausible. A valid arguement can have a false premise and a false conclusion.

Front 6

Invalid Argument

Back 6

If there is even the smallest possibility that the conclusion could be false when the premises are true, then the arguement is deductively invalid.

Front 7

Informal Fallacy

Back 7

Have a problem with their conent or meaning of content rather than their form

Front 8

Formal Fallacy

Back 8

Arguement that has a problem with it's form

Front 9

Begging the Question

Back 9

Any form of arguements where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Begging the question is a form or circular reasoning

Claim X assures X is true

Therefore, Claim X is true

Eg paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.

Front 10

Strawman Fallacy

Back 10

Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerate, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument

Person 1 makes claim Y

Person 2 restates person's 1 claim in a distorted way

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim

Therefore claim Y is false

Front 11

Appeal to pity

Back 11

The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity

Person 1 is accused of Y, but the person 1 is pathetic

Therefore, Person 1 is innocent

Front 12

Fallacy

Back 12

Defect in reasoning

Front 13

Arguement against the person

Back 13

Attacking the source of an arguement instead of the arguement itself

Front 14

Equvocation

Back 14

Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an arguement misleading.

Can be using different meaning of word, out of context

Front 15

Fallacy of Composition

Back 15

Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some parts of the whole

A is part of B

A has property X

Therefore, B has property A

Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound

Front 16

Name 4 valid reasoning forms

Back 16

1) Modus Poneus

2) Modus Tollens

3) Hypothetical Sylligism

4) Disjunctive Syllogism

Front 17

Modus Poneus

Back 17

If A, then B

A so B

Front 18

Modus Tollens

Back 18

If A, the B

Not A so not B

Front 19

Hypothetical Syllogism

Back 19

If A then B

If B then Y

So if A then Y

Front 20

Disjunctive Syllogism

Back 20

Either A or B

Not A

Therefore B

Front 21

Name 3 Invalid Reasoning Forms

Back 21

1) Fallacy of affirming the Consequent

2) Fallacy of denying the Antecedent

3) Fallacy of affirming the disjunct

Front 22

Fallacy of affirming the Consequent

Back 22

If A, then B

B

So A

Front 23

Fallacy of denying the Antecedent

Back 23

If A then B

Not A

So, not B

Front 24

Fallacy of affirming the disjunct

Back 24

Either P or Q

P

Therefore, not Q

Front 25

Deductive arguement

Back 25

If the facts are true then the conclusion must also be true

Front 26

An inductive arguement

Back 26

The acceptance of the conclusion depends on the strength of the premises

Front 27

Argument by generalization

Back 27

If something is true for a small, representative sample, then it is probably true for the group as a whole.

Front 28

Arguement by sign

Back 28

Coming to a conclusion on somethign by collecting small signs. The strength of the arguement depends on the strength of the sign. Need to be careful of sterotypes or false assumptions.

Eg the character in the movie has, dark shady eyes and a heavy mustache , he is probably a villain.

Front 29

Arguement by Authority

Back 29

Strenghts of arguement is made valid by the expertise of the individual in that field.

Front 30

Causal Inference

Back 30

A casual inference draws a conclusion about a casual connectoin based on the conditions and the occurance of an effect. Premises about the correlatoin of the two things can indicate a casual relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact form of the casual relationship.

Front 31

Name 6 Pre- Socratics philosophers

Back 31

1) Thales

2) Anaximander

3) Anaximenes

4) Pythagoras

5) Heraclitus

6) Parmenides

Front 32

Name 3 Sophists

Back 32

1) Protagoras

2) Gorgias

3) Thrasymachus

Front 33

Thales

Back 33

1) First person to investigate the basic principles

2) There are different kind of things such as earth, clouds and ocean.

3) Seen as the founder of philosophy

Front 34

Anaximander

Back 34

Indefinate Boundless void

1) No specific characteristics

2) Infinite

3) No boundaries

Front 35

Anaximenes

Back 35

Thought boundless was too vague

Everything in the world was made from air

Front 36

Pythagoras

Back 36

First person to call himself a philosopher

Created a society/cult for intellectuals

Front 37

Heraclitus

Back 37

Know as the obsecure or the riddler

Everything is in a flux (constant change)

You cannot step in the same river twice

Logos is the organizing principle of change

Individuals need stress like a strings on a lyra

Front 38

Parmenides

Back 38

You cannot get something out of nothing

1) Anything that we can either think or speak about exists or doesn't exist

2) Anything that doesn't exist is nothing

3) We cannot speak or think about nothing

4) So we cannot speak about what doesn't exist

5) Therefore anything that we can think or speak about exists.

Front 39

Charateristics of Sophists

Back 39

1) Secularists, skeptical about religious beliefs

2) Their interests were public speaking, rhetoric, focused on language

3) Made education into business

4) THey were not concerned with the cosmology of previous philosophers.

5) Skeptical

6) Relativism regarding ethical issues

7) Main focus was achieving success in life

Front 40

Protagoras

Back 40

Knowledge is measured by what a individual percieves

Knowledge is measured by what society perceives.

Front 41

Georgias

Back 41

Mocking Parmendias

1) Nothing exists

2) Even if it is it is unknowable

3) If it is unknowable, then it cannot be communicated

Front 42

Thrasymachus

Back 42

Famously argued about the nature of justice, saying the laws were made only to benefit those in power.

Led to conclude that the gods don't care about humans as they don't enforce justice.

Front 43

Logic

Back 43

Study of correct reasoning

Front 44

Metaphysics

Back 44

Study of the nature of reality

Front 45

Epistomolgy

Back 45

Study of the Nature of knowledge

Front 46

Ethic

Back 46

Study of what is right