Nmsu Philosophy 101!

Front 1

What is philosophy?

Back 1

The love of wisdom (pg 3)

Front 2

What are the four main areas of philosophy?

Back 2

Epistemology, logic, metaphysics, & ethics (pg 12)

Front 3

Logic

Back 3

Studies the nature of arguments (12)

Front 4

What does it mean for a set of statements to be logically consistent?

Back 4

If and only if it is possible that all claims in the set are true at the same time. (16)

Front 5

Logically inconsistent?

Back 5

If and only if it is impossible that all claims in the set are true at the same time. (16)

Front 6

Metaphysics

Back 6

The study of the nature of ultimate reality (16)

Front 7

Epistemology

Back 7

The study of the scope and nature of knowledge (16)

Front 8

Ethics

Back 8

Studies questions of how we should act (16)

Front 9

Aesthetics

Back 9

The study of questions about art and beauty (16)

Front 10

Causally possible

Back 10

If it does not violate the laws of the universe (19)

Front 11

Logically possible

Back 11

Anything that does not entail a contradiction. (19)

Front 12

Lexical Definition vs. philosophical definition

Back 12

Lexical definitions are dictionary definitions, which lack the precision and exactitude necessary for philosophical definitions.

Front 13

Necessary condition

Back 13

A condition A is necessary for B if it is impossible for something to be A and not B.

Front 14

Sufficient Condition

Back 14

A condition A is sufficient for B if it is impossible for something to be B and not A.

Front 15

Counterexample

Back 15

An example that satisfies all the premises but comes to an opposing conclusion.

Front 16

Thought experiment

Back 16

The scenario in which silly but logically possible counterexamples take place

Front 17

Possible worlds

Back 17

The setting where anything causally possible can happen

Front 18

Argument

Back 18

A statement in the form of premises and a conclusion

Front 19

Premise indicator

Back 19

Indicates premise: Because, since, for

Front 20

Conclusion indicator

Back 20

Indicates conclusion: therefore, thus, hence, it follows that

Front 21

Deductive argument

Back 21

An argument structured such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows.
Ex:
modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism

Front 22

How do we evaluate deductive arguments?

Back 22

Validity and soundness

Front 23

Valid Argument

Back 23

If an argument is in the proper form; that is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must logically follow

**NECESSARY FOR A GOOD/SOUND ARGUMENT**

Front 24

Sound argument

Back 24

Valid arguments with all true premises

Front 25

Modus ponens

Back 25

If p then q. P, therefore q.

Front 26

Modus Tollens

Back 26

If P then Q
Not Q
Therefore: Not P

Front 27

Disjunctive Syllogism

Back 27

P or Q
Not P
Therefore Q

Front 28

Hypothetical Syllogism

Back 28

If P then Q
If Q then R
Therefore: If P, then R

Front 29

Inductive argument

Back 29

Arguments that establish their conclusion only to some degree of probability

Evaluated in terms of strength and weakness

Front 30

Enumerative arguments

Back 30

All observed P are F
Therefore: All P are F

Front 31

Argument by Analogy

Back 31

F is like P
P has property A
Therefore: F has property A

Front 32

Argument by inference to best explanation

Back 32

A
A is best explained by B
Therefore: B

Front 33

Occam's Razor

Back 33

Explanation A is better than explanation B if (all other things being equal) explanation A is simpler than B

Front 34

Principle of Conservatism

Back 34

Explanation A is better than explanation B if (all other things being equal) explanation A fits together better with the rest of my beliefs about the world

Front 35

What are the three types of knowledge?

Back 35

Knowledge-how, knowledge-that, knowledge-of.

Philosophers are concerned with knowledge-that, or propositional knowledge

Front 36

What is the philosophical definition of knowledge?

Back 36

Justified true belief

Front 37

Gettier counterexamples

Back 37

Situations in which justified, true beliefs are not indeed knowledge

Front 38

Skepticism

Back 38

Someone who denies that we have genuine knowledge

Front 39

Global skepticism

Back 39

No knowledge of any kind about any subject matter is possible

Front 40

Local skepticism

Back 40

We cannot have particular knowledge about certain subjects

Front 41

Cartesian method of doubt

Back 41

Looking at all our beliefs to check whether we can find any reason to doubt they are true

Front 42

Dream argument

Back 42

If it is possible that I am dreaming right now then I have reason to doubt whether my current perceptual beliefs are true.
If it is possible that I am dreaming right now.
Therefore: I have reason to doubt whether my current perceptual beliefs are true

Front 43

Evil Genius argument

Back 43

Everything that he's experiencing could be a deception

Front 44

What does Descartes know?

Back 44

He is a thinking thing

Front 45

Russell's criticism

Back 45

Descartes is only a thinking thing for an instant--he doesn't even have time on his side.

Front 46

Solipsism

Back 46

We can only know the contents of our own minds

Front 47

Prima facie

Back 47

At first glance--"At first blush"

Front 48

Empiricism

Back 48

We can know something if we can justify it with respect to what we see, hear, smell, touch or taste.

Front 49

Indirect Realism

Back 49

Empiricist theory. Holds that not all the properties we perceive an object to have are indeed in the object. For example, color doesn't truly exist. The world is ultimately different than we preceieve it to be, but it is pretty closely related to our perceptions.

Front 50

Naive Realism

Back 50

The world is exactly as we perceive it to be

Front 51

Idealism

Back 51

Empiricist theory. Everything is just a collection of perceptions. Nothing is mind-independnt.

Front 52

Primary property

Back 52

A property that is genuinely had by an object. A property that is IN the object itself. Ex: size, shape, and motion

Front 53

Secondary property

Back 53

A property of an object that is in us. We perceive it even though it doesn't really exist. Ex: Color

Front 54

Principle of uniformity of nature

Back 54

Nature is not freaky/is uniform

Front 55

Rationalism

Back 55

Knowledge can only be had through pure reason

Front 56

A priori

Back 56

Before experience--"from the former"
Ex: A bachelor is an unmarried man

Front 57

A posteriori

Back 57

After experience--"from the latter"
Ex: John is a bachelor

Front 58

Necessary truth

Back 58

If it is known a priori. A truth that does not depend on how the world actually is.

Front 59

Contingent truth

Back 59

It it is known a posteriori. Its truth value depends on how the world actually is.

Front 60

Problem of Induction

Back 60

Our experience can only confirm particular facts, not general and universal claims. (65)

Front 61

Analytic Truth

Back 61

Necessary truth. Based on a priori knowledge. True by definition.

Front 62

Synthetic truth

Back 62

Contingent truth. Based on a posteriori knowledge. True by experience. The only "interesting" knowledge.

Front 63

Logical positivism

Back 63

Committed empiricist who believed that a priori knowledge only had limited value. Thought necessary truths were "uninteresting"

Front 64

The Problem of Free Will

Back 64

Can we be free even if the future is determined by the past?

Front 65

Hard Determinism

Back 65

The future is causally determined by the past. Since determinism is not compatible with having free will, hard determinists conclude that free will is an illusion. (Weak because we don't like it.)

Front 66

Indeterminism

Back 66

Not all events are causally determined by events in the past. The past only has limited influence on the future. The future is therefore not fixed by the past and the future is therefore not determined. (Weak due to the lack of randomness in our world.)

Front 67

Traditional Compatibilism

Back 67

We are free as long as we can do what we want to do without being constrained by an outside force.
(Weak because some of our desires aren't in accordance with our will.)

1. The action is caused by the will of the agent
2. The action is performed without constraint

Front 68

Compatibilism/Soft Determinism

Back 68

We can have free will even if there is only one future. Determinism is compatible with free will and responsibility.

Front 69

Deep Self-Compatibilism

Back 69

We are free as long as we act on desires we truly wish to act on.

Front 70

Libertarianism

Back 70

The future is not determined by the past. Agents have special causal powers that give them control over undetermined actions. Having these powers allows agents to have free will.

Front 71

Under which theories are you responsible for your actions?

Back 71

All but indeterminism and hard determinism

Front 72

Incompatibilism

Back 72

Free will can only exist if determinism is false. We have to choose between accepting determinism or free will. We cannot consistently believe in both.