Phil 230 Final Review - Descartes And Plato

Front 1

Describe the three arguments increasing levels of doubt in the first Meditation, explaining the significance of each

Back 1

1) The Argument from Sensory Illusion

2) The Dream Argument

3) The Evil Demon Argument

Front 2

Describe the Argument from Sensory Illusion

Back 2

1. Our senses deceive us some of the time
2. Whatever can happen some of the time can happen all of the time
3. It is possible that our senses deceive us all of the time

Front 3

Describe the Dream Argument

Back 3

1. Some dreams are so vivid that they seem real
2. Any waking experiences could be a vivid dream

Front 4

Describe the Evil Demon Argument

Back 4

1. It is possible that an Evil Demon exists that deceives me about the existence of an external world and a priori knowledge (i.e. the truths of mathematics)

2. Anything that is possible to be deceived about is not a reliable source of knowledge

3. A priori inferences and the belief in the external world are not reliable.

Front 5

What is the cogito? Why is it indubitable?

Back 5

The cogito is the idea of “I think, therefore I exist”. It is indubitable because it is possible to doubt everything but the existence of the doubter.

Front 6

What is solipsism?

Back 6

Solipsism is the belief that “I alone exist” or “My mind is the only thing that exists”. It is the epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside of the mind is unjustified.

Front 7

Who made an argument similar to solipsism long before Descartes

Back 7

Augustine
1) If I am mistaken, then I am
2) If one does not exist, he can’t be mistaken
3) Therefore, I am, if I am mistaken

Front 8

Describe three interpretations of the cogito.

Back 8

1) Cogito as Performance. The statement is simply “I exist”. The “I think” part refers to the act of trying to doubt one’s own existence.

2) Cogito as an Intuition. One’s own existence is to be intuitively obvious and thus requires no defense.

3) Cogito as an Inference. Nothing can think and not exist. I think. Therefore, I exist.

Front 9

What are the tasks of the third Meditation?

Back 9

1) Categorize thoughts

2) Prove the existence of God

3) Prove that God is no deceiver

Front 10

How are thoughts categorized in the Third Meditation?

Back 10

Ideas and Thoughts

Ideas:
- innate (cogito, thoughts, truth, God)
- acquired, (ideas derived from sense experience)
- self-produced, e.g., imaginary objects.

Thoughts:
- Ideas may be the objects of thoughts, but thoughts can also include the attitude of ideas. Ideas refer to what later philosophers call “propositional content”.

Front 11

How is the existence of God proven in the Third Meditation?

Back 11

It is based on the Principles of Adequate Reality and Sufficient Reason:

1. I have an idea of God

2. This idea must have a cause

3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect

4. If my idea of God were caused by anything less than God, there could be less reality in the cause than in the effect

5. Therefore, God exists

Front 12

How is it proven that God is no deceiver?

Back 12

God can’t be a deceiver because the idea of God is a perfect being, and deception is an imperfection.

Front 13

Describe what Descartes means by the distinction between substance and attribute. Provide your own examples.

Back 13

A substance can exist on its own; attributes can't (window versus a crack in the window); thus substances are more real than attributes.

Front 14

Explain the difference between subjective and formal reality. Provide your own examples.

Back 14

Subjective reality refers to our ideas of objects, while formal reality refers to the objects themselves. In this sense the dent in the fender is more real than Capt. Picard -- though Picard is a substance.

Formal reality is the kind of reality things have in this world and objective reality is the reality of the objects represented by different ideas. Thus, an idea can have formal reality, being a mode of thought itself, and it can also have objective reality, representing something outside of itself.

Front 15

What are the Principles of Sufficient Reason and Adequate Reality. Precisely what role do they play in Descartes arguments for the existence of God?

Back 15

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) – everything has a cause

Principle of Adequate Reality
(PAR) – there must be at least as much reality in the cause as in the effect

These two arguments provide the basis for the argument that God exists.

Front 16

In the first of the third Meditation arguments for God's existence, Descartes claims that the idea of God could not have been caused by something other than God -- I couldn't just make it up or derive it from experience. Why not?

Back 16

Due to the principles of Sufficient Reason and Adequate Reality, God must be the cause of my idea of God – the only thing more real than the idea of God is God himself. The idea of God can only originate in God, not in any finite being.

Front 17

What is the second or supplementary argument for the existence of God in the third Meditation? Why can't I at 12:00 be the cause of my existence at 12:01?

Back 17

1) I do not have the power to preserve my existence through time
2) My existence is preserved through time
3) If my existence is preserved through time and I don’t have the power to ensure it, the power must come from outside of me
4) Only God could have the power to preserve my existence through time
5) So, God exists

Front 18

What is the ontological proof for the existence of God?

Back 18

1) God is perfect, and possesses all qualities of being perfect
2) Existence is a quality of perfection
3) Therefore, God exists

Front 19

Who else had a version of the ontological proof for the existence of God? What is the crucial premise?

Back 19

Anselm had a similar version of the argument

1) God is a being which no greater can be conceived.
2) If God exists in the mind only, there would be a greater conceivable being, namely God existing in the mind and in reality as well
3) God exists in the mind
4) Therefore, God exists in the reality

The crucial premise is the second, which is based on the same Principles of Adequate Reality and Sufficient Reason that Descartes arguments are based on.

Front 20

Describe Descartes' arguments for the distinction between mind and bodies.

Back 20

1) Nature provides a strong propensity to believe in external bodies
2) Such a provision is sufficient evidence that there are such bodies, unless God is a deceiver
3) But God can't be a deceiver.
4) So, there are bodies outside my mind.

Front 21

What is the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (Leibniz's Law)? In what way is the application of this principle a problem for one of Descartes' arguments?

Back 21

The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles: Identicals must have all properties in common like H2O and water.
The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles causes a problem for one of Descartes’ arguments, as it cannot apply to non-extensional contexts.

Front 22

What are some major criticisms of Cartesian Dualism?

Back 22

Three criticisms of Cartesian Dualism:

1. How is interaction possible?
2. The Problem of Other Minds.
3. Plausibility of Materialism.

Front 23

Describe difference between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Give your own examples of each.

Back 23

A priori – knowledge independent of experience. The knowledge that all bachelors are not married and 2+2 = 4 are both examples of a priori knowledge.

A posteriori – knowledge that depends on experience. The knowledge that all bachelors are happy and cars exist are both examples of a posteriori knowledge.

Front 24

What is the Recollection Argument? What does Plato think it shows?

Back 24

The Recollection Argument - General concepts are acquired through recollection;

Plate believes that since certain a priori concepts were not acquired after our births, they must have been acquired before our births.

Front 25

What does the instructor believe the Recollection Argument shows?

Back 25

The instructor believes that it only proves that we may possess some sorts of innate ideas. This preserves the distinction between objective and subjective as well as between apriori and aposteriori without committing us to previous lives.

Front 26

What are some criticisms of the Recollection Argument?

Back 26

Why not just say we are born with certain knowledge -- innate ideas? This preserves the distinction between objective and subjective as well as between apriori and aposteriori without committing us to previous lives.

Front 27

What is the Affinity Argument? How might it be related to the Cyclical Argument and the Recollection Arguments?

Back 27

The Affinity Argument consists of two analogies: The soul is like the forms, and the soul is like the Gods.

Front 28

How is the Soul like the Forms?

Back 28

1. Two classes of things: visible and invisible (intelligible).
2. Visible things have a composite nature.
3. In order to corrupt or change, something must have a composite nature.
4. Forms never change, but sensible particulars do.
5. Humans have 2 parts: body, which is visible, and soul, which is invisible.
6. The soul is "dizzied" by contact with sensibles, but remains stable when in contact with the Forms.
7. Thus, the soul, being like the Forms, most likely has the properties of forms: immutability and eternality. While it is natural for the body to dissolve, by nature the soul indissoluble.

Front 29

How is Soul like the Gods?

Back 29

1. When body and soul are together, it is natural for the soul to rule the body, it is the nature of the body to be ruled.
2. It is the nature of the gods to rule as well, and they are immortal, so probably the soul is immortal as well.

Front 30

How might the Affinity Argument be related to the Cyclical Argument and the Recollection Arguments? How might it be different?

Back 30

It's related to the Cyclical and Recollection Arguments because it deals with the immortality of the soul.

Cyclical argument is supposed to show that the soul has always existed, while the Recollection argument is intended to establish that the disembodied soul retains "power and wisdom".

Front 31

Define Dualism

Back 31

1) Only two kinds of substances exist – minds and bodies

2) If the soul is immortal then dualism is true. And the refutation of dualism implies the refutation of the immortality of the soul (but does not exclude the possibility of a resurrection).

Front 32

Define Materialism

Back 32

1) If something exists, it is physical

2) If Materialism is true, soul talk is matter talk. The soul can only be immortal if the body can (Plato argues it can’t).

Front 33

Define Ephinomenalism

Back 33

1) There are physical causes of mental events, but no mental causes of physical events
2) Sometimes classified as a form of Dualism and / or Materialism

Front 34

Define Idealism

Back 34

1) Only minds exist. Physical objects do not exist independently of minds. There is no “matter” from which physical objects are made.
2) Incompatible with Dualism and Materialism

Front 35

Of Dualism, Materialism, Ephenomenalism, and Idealism, which view best fits Plato?

Back 35

Plato was a Dualist

Front 36

Of Dualism, Materialism, Ephenomenalism, and Idealism, which view best fits Berkeley?

Back 36

Berkeley was an Idealist

Front 37

What is Plato's Argument from Essential Properties?

Back 37

- Some properties are essential – a thing can’t be the kind of thing it is without that property.

- If something has an essential property, its having the property is a conceptual or necessary truth. It is a true a priori.

Front 38

What are some weaknesses of Plato's Argument from Essential Properties?

Back 38

- Plato's principle of causality is false.

- The premise that states that life is an essential property of souls only means that souls are alive as long as they exist; it does not follow that they are indestructible.

Front 39

How is the Argument from Essential Properties related to the Recollection Argument?

Back 39

Recollection holds to the idea that the soul is alive before birth. Essential Properties holds to the idea that the soul is deathless.