Philosophers And Ideas

Front 1

Descartes

Back 1

mathematician; realized that somethings he learned while he was young are not true, por eso want to sort out what is true

Front 2

Descartes' Method of Doubt

Back 2

If you can doubt it(ie. if there is any way it could turn out false) then you should doubt it (ie. should withold/suspend judgement on it) SOLUTION--> categorize your beliefs; it's possible that everything is a dream

Front 3

Descartes' goal

Back 3

to weed out all his false beliefs & see if any are left he can be certain are ture

Front 4

Descartes' problem

Back 4

If he knew a belief were false, won't already have weed it out

Front 5

Descartes' solution

Back 5

divide beliefs into classes & ask & ask if it is possible that all the beliefs in that class could come out false

Front 6

Beliefs: sensory basis (Descartes)

Back 6

could all turn out false if whenever he thought he was having a sensory experience he was really dreaming

Front 7

Beliefs: non-sensory basis
(Descartes)

Back 7

could all turn out false if whenever he is being deceived by an evil genius of some sort

Front 8

Skepticism (decartes)

Back 8

appears that all his beliefs can be doubtful

Front 9

to doubt "I exist" (Descartes)

Back 9

existence of body can be doubted, but not existence of mind-a thing that thinks

Front 10

I'm a "rational animal" (Descartes)

Back 10

body, soul (hopefully)

Front 11

Knows he has a mind (Descartes)

Back 11

because he can doubt, hope, think; he cannot doubt this because he must think in order to doubt

Front 12

wax (it melts, shape changes, color changes, texture changes, taste changes, sound changes: is it still wax?)

Back 12

knowledge of wax is not solely dependent on the senses; just relying on the senses, then wax is something different

Front 13

Descarte's proof

Back 13

(1) "I exist"
(2) "I am a thing that thinks"
(3) "I have the ideas I have"

Front 14

Solistic position (Descartes)

Back 14

to doubt: "I exist"; moving beyond this is blocked by the evil genius; therefore we need to prove God's existence

Front 15

Descartes proof of God's existence

Back 15

(1) If I have the idea of God/Supremely Perfect being, then God/spb must exist
(a) every idea has a formal reality
(b) every idea has an objective reality
(c) how much objective reality (content) an idea has is a matter of degree
(d)the idea of a spb has more objective reality than any other idea
(e)the cause of an idea must have as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality
(f) neither I nor anything less than a SPB can cause the idea of a spb
(2) I have the idea of God/SPB; thus, God/spb exists!

Front 16

Descarte proof of God's existence con't

Back 16

(3) "I have the ideas I have"
one of these ideas is that idea of God and Descartes thinks he can prove that there is no way to explain how he got that idea other than that God gave it to him

Front 17

Descartes final proof of God's existence

Back 17

1. God exists
2. I exist
3. "I am a thing that thinks"
4. I have the ideas I have

Front 18

Problem of Error (Descartes)
If I & my capacity to think have there source in a SPB, then why am I imperfect in my thinking ie. why do I err?(seem to err)

Back 18

It is not God's fault but mine; God made me perfect of my kind, giving me: (a)an "infinite" will (b) a finite, but not flawed intellect; therefore error is the result of my letting my will from my intellect

Front 19

God is not a deceiver so...

Back 19

I can trust there is an external world of material world of material objects including, especially My body

Front 20

Problem of pain (analagous to problem of natural evil)

Back 20

solution: pain is a part of God's providential care for the body; because the messages sent to you by your body/your senses

Front 21

human being (Descartes)

Back 21

"thinking thing" + "body"

Front 22

"thinking thing" (Descartes)

Back 22

intellect, sensing/feeling; mind and brain are 2 VERY different things

Front 23

"body" (Descartes)

Back 23

has parts that are separable; "extended substance" (takes up space)

Front 24

connections of the mind & body (descartes)

Back 24

pineal gland; best understood by not thinking of it, just a part of the unknown intellect cannot believe in anyone but SPB, bc they could be deceiving you

Front 25

the proof of God's and our existence(Descartes)

Back 25

he can trust beliefs that are clear & distinct to him hence:
1. he can trust conceptual truths (like math) 2. he can be sure that there is a world that exists out there (which includes body and soul)

Front 26

Soul (descartes)

Back 26

is aware of its existence via the intellect, is unextended ; outside space, lacks mass, weight, density, transcends the laws of nature, is only accesible privately

Front 27

Body (descartes)

Back 27

is aware of its existence via the senses is extended in space has weight, density, mass, obeys the law of nature, is publicly observable

Front 28

Descartes

Back 28

relies more on mathematical intervals; religion is the basis for his argument: all of HIS knowledge rests on the existence /knowledge of God

Front 29

Adam Smith (who is he)

Back 29

natural tendency to sympathize; economist "free economy"; Enlightenment Theory

Front 30

(Smith) natural tendency to...

Back 30

guess/imagine what other is feeling --> then we sympathize

Front 31

Sympathy is based on: (Smith)

Back 31

1. past experiences
2. knowledge of the circumstances

Front 32

to sympathize is to approve
not to sympathize is to disapprove; which develops...
(Smith)

Back 32

a sense of propriety

Front 33

a sense of propriety (Smith)

Back 33

what is appropriate and what is not; formed by how people respond to you and your natural tendencies (becomes foundation of morality)

Front 34

a sense of propriety as a foundation of morality (Smith)

Back 34

so to cultivate sympathy is to cultivate morality: would conduce to social harmony; would conduxe to development of virtue: amiable (compassion, kindness, understanding) and respectable (self control, dignity)

Front 35

Kant (who is he?)

Back 35

enlightenment figure; university professor; german scholar; spoke of philo at age 60

Front 36

Foundation of morals (Kant)

Back 36

(sympathy and experience are not enough bc experience tells us what is the case but not what ought to be the case) Reason

Front 37

Physical world (Kant)

Back 37

laws of nature: they are what they are; apply everywhere (ie. human dignity)

Front 38

"other world" (Kant)

Back 38

laws of freedom: you can break the laws; these are what they are

Front 39

pure reason is foundational for morals (Kant)

Back 39

Good will (which comes from pure reason): motive is important, not the result

Front 40

Kant's proof of morality

Back 40

morality must be found in pure reason-> reveals that only thing good in & of itself is the Good will

Front 41

Kant's idea of Good will

Back 41

-everything else bad, if not accompanied by a good will
- if happiness were our final end, would be better off w/ instinct than w/ reason & will
- a will becomes good by willing to obey reason: a will fails to act morally or acts as a good will, when it acts on any other motive

Front 42

Kant's idea of experience

Back 42

it comes in and reason organizes it; organizer is the same interpretations can change; principles cannot; if you act of out sympathy: immoral; act bc it's your duty: moral

Front 43

Kant's One principle: THE categorical imperative

Back 43

1. act only according to universal law 2. willing something you are willing it for all 3. act in such a way you are obeying pure reason and commands ; you respect it in yourself and others; you cannot treat people as tools(as a means to an end)

Front 44

Nietzsche's main ideas

Back 44

"just a perhaps, but let's explore it"; go w/ the flow--> the herd; social life is about desire
it's all about your will
survival of the fittest

Front 45

Niezsche's Perilious Perhaps

Back 45

perhaps there is not important truth about the point & purpose of our lives either "out there" or "in there" to be discovered; then there must be a will to power that is governing

Front 46

Nietzsche's Will to Power

Back 46

if this is the fundamental reality governing human affairs we move from Good & Evil to Strong & Weak

Front 47

Nietzsche's Strong vs.Weak

Back 47

plays at two levels: 1. social interactions (strong= those whose desires emerge as VICTORIOUS who rise above the CROWD/HERD) 2. Individuals (strong= to be able to bring all of those desires together into a focused exertion of will, a weak individual never accomplishes anything having desires undermining each other)

Front 48

Nietzche's looks up to:

Back 48

the Saints who sacrifice for the sake of one's passion

Front 49

Nietzsche's great ladder of religious cruelty

Back 49

Rung #3: Sacrifice God
Rung #2: Sacrifice of internal instincts of various sorts to your God(s) ie. celibacy, fasting; this is really about gaining power over internal world
Rung #1: sacrifice of Entities in world around you to your God(s); we are really trying to set up a system so we can gain control/power over external world

Front 50

Nietzsche's idea of strong

Back 50

those who are able to gain mastery over their desires, channeling (rather than suppressing)them to acheive ends; in effect they become their own Gods; the strong lead GREAT LIVES that reflect the synthesis of DYNYSIAN & APOLLONIAN characteristics of GREAT ART; emergence of strength can lead to atheism

Front 51

Nietzsche's Apollonian

Back 51

order form constraint

Front 52

Nietzsche's Dioynsian

Back 52

frenzy, energy, passion

Front 53

GREAT LIVES/GREAT ART is made possible by...

Back 53

masters (strong); evil (Christian morality) and Slaves(weak); good (Christian morality)