Modern Phl Exam 2 (B)

Front 1

What makes the identity of human beings complicated?

Back 1

It is about personal identity, the identity of the self.

Front 2

soul for Locke is the equivalent of what?

Back 2

immaterial, thinking intellegent substance; mind

Front 3

Locke is going to entertain the idea that we can have the same person w/ a what?

Back 3

we can have the same person w/ a different body and even w/ a different soul

Front 4

Locke sees human beings as a kind of wat?

Back 4

a kind of composite being of an immateral, intelligent substance/soul and a body.

Front 5

Locke: material bodies is conceived in what way?

Back 5

In a corpuscular way but a body is not just a heap of particles.

Front 6

Locke: what does he say about the different types of organized bodies?

Back 6

he is drawing a difference between organized bodies, whether vegetables, animal, or living human bodies; his approach to the identity question is going to be different from unorganized bodies.

Front 7

Locke: what is his focus on figuring out the identity of organized bodies as a continues principle?

Back 7

focus is on a continues principle of organization for an individual organism; as long as that continues, all of the material bodies in the sense of all of the actual corpuscles can change.

Front 8

wat is the identity of man (a participation of what)?

Back 8

a partipation of the same continued life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter, in succession united to the same organized body; same as vegetables and other animals.

Front 9

. If you place the idenitty of man in anything else, what will be hard to see?

Back 9

That it is the same man.

Front 10

If you believe in the transmigration of souls, what will be hard to see?

Back 10

That it is the same person in that animal as it is in a human body.

Front 11

Locke doesn't want to dissociate the man/human from the wat?

Back 11

From the body

Front 12

Locke: wat else doesn't Locke want to dissociate?

Back 12

the identity of the same soul; the same individual spritual substance.

Front 13

The 3 things involved in personal identity? how are they treated by Locke?

Back 13

soul, body, and the self; treats each of these as treating each of these as different identity issues.

Front 14

Locke: describe self-consciousness?

Back 14

since consciousness always accompanies thinking, in perceiving, that person/or self always perceive that they are perceiving.

Front 15

the identity of the person/self has to be talked in terms of what? and why?

Back 15

It is talked in terms of the identity of consciousness since the "I" is always there; that is my pain or my perception.

Front 16

what would be the reason for saying that rachel is the same person as terrel's neice according to Locke's theory of personal identity?

Back 16

they have the same memory.

Front 17

What is Locke's theory of personal identity that would make 2 bodies have the same person?

Back 17

If they have the same memory; and they have to be brought back into your own consciousness in the way that you recognize them as having had those to begin w/.

Front 18

what is locke looking for in your experience of memory?

Back 18

that your remember it as being your experience.

Front 19

in the case of personal identity, what would prevent you from saying that rachel is terrel's neice same person?

Back 19

rachel wasn't even around at the time of the events that she is recalling.

Front 20

What does Locke allow in the notion of personal identity?

Back 20

allows that the same person could be in a different body and also for the transmigration of souls.

Front 21

Movie: Rachel's body wasn't around but does that mean that Rachel wasn't really around for Locke?

Back 21

No because Locke believes that the person could move to a different body; so it is possible for Rachel's body to not be there.

Front 22

Locke on the resurrection of the body? why does he beliee in it?

Back 22

He is a Christian so he believes in it because he believes that the person is seperable to the body.

Front 23

whole trust in our reading about abstract ideas (Berkeley)?

Back 23

nobody has any abstract ideas..

Front 24

Berkeley's critique on Locke's notion of abstact ideas (what discriminates us from brute animals)?

Back 24

Locke believed that tht wha discriminates us from the brutes is our capacity to grasp abstract ideas.

Front 25

Locke: why do we need abstract ideas?

Back 25

in order to communicate and in order to enlarge our knowledge.; what separates us from brutes.

Front 26

What does Berkeley agree w/ Locke on the notion of abstract ideas?

Back 26

brutes cant have any means to abstraction or have abstract ideas.

Front 27

What does Berkeley disagree w/ Locke on the notion of abstract ideas?

Back 27

that in order to be considered not a brute, you gotta have abstract ideas.

Front 28

Berkeley is worried about what 3 headed monster?

Back 28

skepticism, materialism, and atheism.

Front 29

wat is the root of the 3 headed monster?

Back 29

the doctrine of abstract ideas-- the root of the problem;

Front 30

Berkeley 's conception of the natural world?

Back 30

the natural world is really God's language to us; nature is really God speaking to us and that all of our sense perception should be thought of as language (not the idea of cause and effect but what things signify)

Front 31

Berkeley: nature is a immdiate wat?

Back 31

nature is immediate contact w/ God and that the world is God thinking to us

Front 32

Berkeley: on all our sensations?

Back 32

all the sensations is God's language.

Front 33

Berkeley on materialism?

Back 33

materialism sort of pulls God out of the picture bcz it is material stuff in the world thas causing things in us through our sensations and not God trying to talk to us.

Front 34

Berkeley denies the separability of what? (what he's famous for)?

Back 34

denies the separability of primary and secondary qualities

Front 35

Berkeley's argument about extention?

Back 35

you can't really separate extention from either color or the tactile sensations

Front 36

If you take away color or tactile feelings of sensation from an object wat do you get?

Back 36

u don't have extention left; no idea and nothing is left.

Front 37

Berkeley: on abstracting away the secondary qualities?

Back 37

We can't abstract away the secondary qualities.

Front 38

Berkeley: how do know the material world?

Back 38

to know the real world would be to know the world as a world of material bodies and not to abstract away the secondary qualities from the material bodies.

Front 39

skepticism on our knowledge of the world?

Back 39

we are not able to know the world because of our our finitude or a kind of problem w/ our faculties.

Front 40

Skepticism: we know the world as wat?

Back 40

we only know the world as it appears to us.

Front 41

The way the world appears to us is very much a consequence of wat?

Back 41

the way the world appears to us is very much a consequence of the particular make up of our bodies.

Front 42

Berkeley on the usual skeptical thought (what is the problem w/ knowing the world)?

Back 42

there is problems w/ knowing the world and those problems are rooted in some kind of innate, inborn unchangeable shortcomings of our nature (namely that our senses deceive us & the world is only a consequences of the make up of our bodies).

Front 43

Berkeley: response to the problems that the skeptics put before us, that the world is a consequence of our bodies?

Back 43

the problems that are not rooted in shortcomings of our cognitive abilities or our human nature but the real problem would be certain philosophical mistakes.

Front 44

Berkeley lays out what on the intro?

Back 44

tries to put his finger on the source of a lot of problems and he puts it on abstract ideas.

Front 45

What kind of critique is Berkeley making?

Back 45

phenomenology and a phenomenological critique of abstract ideas.

Front 46

What is one philosophical mistakes that Berkeley has on mind?

Back 46

the basic problem is thinking that you can separate things that in fact are inseparable...

Front 47

Berkeley: on extention?

Back 47

you can't separate extention from color, shapes, or tactile sensations of feeling bodies.. the is what is called the phenomeological point (experienced based).

Front 48

how is it that you know you can't separate extention from color?

Back 48

try it, it doesn't work (phenomeological point-experienced based).

Front 49

explain:"that we first raise a dust and then complain that we cannot see"

Back 49

his attitude for skepticism; there is nothing wrong w/ ur eyes just quit taking the dust and you will be able to see.

Front 50

the problems do not spring form what but really come from where?

Back 50

do not spring form the intricacy in the objects bt frm false principles which have been insisted on.

Front 51

the typical skeptical notion about the problem?

Back 51

our problems of knowing are unavoidable because they are built into the defectiveness of our faculties.

Front 52

the real problem lies where for Berkeley?

Back 52

not on our abilities but on the use of or misuse of false principles..

Front 53

wat is the root of this 3-headed monster?

Back 53

the supposition that we have the power of abstract ideas.

Front 54

how is Berkeley going to take out the 3-headed monster?

Back 54

by taking out the abstract ideas.

Front 55

Berkeley: on the wax and how Descartes got to the notion that the wax in itself is something that is extended?

Back 55

We look at the wax and use our sensable qualities to determine its shape, color, smell, etc. and then we abstracted the property of abstraction by removing those other qualities.. thus, you need those other qualities of color and tactile sensations to get at abstraction; can't separate the two.

Front 56

Berkeley: the source of abstract ideas?

Back 56

certain things about language gives rise to this problem; since we can talk about different qualities of something (color, length, size) and the mistake is to say that because we can talk about extention, color, size, etc in a discriminating way that we have an abstrac tidea of those things.

Front 57

How does Berkeley argue that we don't have abstract ideas of color, shape, extention, etc?

Back 57

He argues that what would an abstract idea of color be or of extention be? no one can imagine what is the case.

Front 58

What is the problem about trying to have an abstract idea of a human being?

Back 58

Can't do it.. it is not like the bit of wax where it is one particular thing and I abstract away color tactile sensations or smell to get at the thing in itself (something thats extended) but it would be hard to get an abstract (general) idea of a human being becz they are so complex and varied; as soon as I determine abstract idea of color and shape of human being, i am stuck w/ a particular.

Front 59

Berkeley on the whole point about particularity?

Back 59

wen u get away from particularity then you don't have an abstract idea.

Front 60

Berkeley on abstract ideas?

Back 60

they are an illusion; we don't have any abstact ideas period

Front 61

Berkeley is imposing the myth of the wat?

Back 61

understanding; the idea that the understanding was some kind of faculty that could abstract from imagination

Front 62

Berkeley argues against wat kind of idea?

Back 62

the idea that we really have thoughts that can be radically dissociated from sensation and imagination, which always involve particularity.. it is always this, this color, this shape, that tactile thing.. etc. the idea that you can abstract from that and still be thinking... big mistake..

Front 63

Berkeley is not against wat?

Back 63

general words or general ideas; he is using general words.

Front 64

Berkeley: on the notion that yes, we need to abstract in a particular way?

Back 64

have a general word or a general idea by means of selective attention.

Front 65

what does it mean to have general ideas?

Back 65

having general ideas is the kind of ability to selectively attend to particulars; a power to identify particulars appropriately.