Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

53 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
mathematician; realized that somethings he learned while he was young are not true, por eso want to sort out what is true
Descartes' Method of Doubt
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
Descartes' goal
to weed out all his false beliefs & see if any are left he can be certain are ture
Descartes' problem
If he knew a belief were false, won't already have weed it out
Descartes' solution
divide beliefs into classes & ask & ask if it is possible that all the beliefs in that class could come out false
Beliefs: sensory basis (Descartes)
could all turn out false if whenever he thought he was having a sensory experience he was really dreaming
Beliefs: non-sensory basis
could all turn out false if whenever he is being deceived by an evil genius of some sort
Skepticism (decartes)
appears that all his beliefs can be doubtful
to doubt "I exist" (Descartes)
existence of body can be doubted, but not existence of mind-a thing that thinks
I'm a "rational animal" (Descartes)
body, soul (hopefully)
Knows he has a mind (Descartes)
because he can doubt, hope, think; he cannot doubt this because he must think in order to doubt
wax (it melts, shape changes, color changes, texture changes, taste changes, sound changes: is it still wax?)
knowledge of wax is not solely dependent on the senses; just relying on the senses, then wax is something different
Descarte's proof
(1) "I exist"
(2) "I am a thing that thinks"
(3) "I have the ideas I have"
Solistic position (Descartes)
to doubt: "I exist"; moving beyond this is blocked by the evil genius; therefore we need to prove God's existence
Descartes proof of God's existence
(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!
Descarte proof of God's existence con't
(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
Descartes final proof of God's existence
1. God exists
2. I exist
3. "I am a thing that thinks"
4. I have the ideas I have
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)
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
God is not a deceiver so...
I can trust there is an external world of material world of material objects including, especially My body
Problem of pain (analagous to problem of natural evil)
solution: pain is a part of God's providential care for the body; because the messages sent to you by your body/your senses
human being (Descartes)
"thinking thing" + "body"
"thinking thing" (Descartes)
intellect, sensing/feeling; mind and brain are 2 VERY different things
"body" (Descartes)
has parts that are separable; "extended substance" (takes up space)
connections of the mind & body (descartes)
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
the proof of God's and our existence(Descartes)
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)
Soul (descartes)
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
Body (descartes)
is aware of its existence via the senses is extended in space has weight, density, mass, obeys the law of nature, is publicly observable
relies more on mathematical intervals; religion is the basis for his argument: all of HIS knowledge rests on the existence /knowledge of God
Adam Smith (who is he)
natural tendency to sympathize; economist "free economy"; Enlightenment Theory
(Smith) natural tendency to...
guess/imagine what other is feeling --> then we sympathize
Sympathy is based on: (Smith)
1. past experiences
2. knowledge of the circumstances
to sympathize is to approve
not to sympathize is to disapprove; which develops...
a sense of propriety
a sense of propriety (Smith)
what is appropriate and what is not; formed by how people respond to you and your natural tendencies (becomes foundation of morality)
a sense of propriety as a foundation of morality (Smith)
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)
Kant (who is he?)
enlightenment figure; university professor; german scholar; spoke of philo at age 60
Foundation of morals (Kant)
(sympathy and experience are not enough bc experience tells us what is the case but not what ought to be the case) Reason
Physical world (Kant)
laws of nature: they are what they are; apply everywhere (ie. human dignity)
"other world" (Kant)
laws of freedom: you can break the laws; these are what they are
pure reason is foundational for morals (Kant)
Good will (which comes from pure reason): motive is important, not the result
Kant's proof of morality
morality must be found in pure reason-> reveals that only thing good in & of itself is the Good will
Kant's idea of Good will
-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
Kant's idea of experience
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
Kant's One principle: THE categorical imperative
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)
Nietzsche's main ideas
"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
Niezsche's Perilious Perhaps
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
Nietzsche's Will to Power
if this is the fundamental reality governing human affairs we move from Good & Evil to Strong & Weak
Nietzsche's Strong vs.Weak
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)
Nietzche's looks up to:
the Saints who sacrifice for the sake of one's passion
Nietzsche's great ladder of religious cruelty
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
Nietzsche's idea of strong
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
Nietzsche's Apollonian
order form constraint
Nietzsche's Dioynsian
frenzy, energy, passion
GREAT LIVES/GREAT ART is made possible by...
masters (strong); evil (Christian morality) and Slaves(weak); good (Christian morality)