Philosophy 150 Exam 1

Front 1

Metaphysics

Back 1

the nature of reality

Front 2

Epistemology

Back 2

the nature of human knowledge

Front 3

Rationalism

Back 3

an epistemological viewpoint built upon confidence in the powers of reason

Front 4

Empiricism

Back 4

the idea that the important truths/knowledge are dependent on the senses

Front 5

a priori truths

Back 5

learned truths, not based on senses

math, logic, higher order geometry

Front 6

a posteriori truths

Back 6

not knowable by reason alone

Front 7

Innate Knowledge vs. tabula rasa

Back 7

we are born with "innate" knowledge that we are constantly recollecting (skill based/impulse)

tabula rasa= blank slate (all humans are born as blank slates)

Front 8

Plato's Epistemology

Back 8

his definition of knowledge is "justified true belief"

Front 9

Plato's forms

Back 9

perfect, invisible, and eternal, they are located in the world of the forms, nothing changes in the world of the forms.

everything has a form

Front 10

Allegory of the Cave

Back 10

the cave=the world of becoming

the outside world=the world of the forms

shadows=what we see in the world of becoming

plato=the guy who escaped the cave

prisoners rejected his knowledge

Front 11

Justified True Belief

Back 11

for something to be true (or be knowledge) , you must believe in it, and be able to soundly justify its truth

Front 12

Challenges from Gettier and Aristotle

Back 12

Gettier challenged justification portion (stopped clock example)

aristotle disagreed on everything

disagreed with the notion of eternal/abstract forms

believed everything had "form" and "matter"

Front 13

Descartes

Back 13

father of modern philosophy

Front 14

Descartes' three substances

Back 14

God (defined by his independence)

mind (defined by their ability to think rationally)

bodies (any physical object)

Front 15

"I think, therefore I am"

Back 15

proves the existence of the mind, thoughts have t have a thinker attached to them

Front 16

Descartes' argument for the existence of his body

Back 16

the wax example

melts wax and displays thtat although its physcial properties all change, it is still the same wax

this proves the body because he feels the wax touching his body, therefore it exists (terrible argument)

Front 17

Locke

Back 17

empiricist, doesn't need to prove external reality because in this methodology it presents itself to us in the way it actually is

Front 18

Locke's Causal Theory of Perception

Back 18

3 components

sense data (relation of your eye/seeing, ear/hearing)

ideas (the processing done by your brain, making sense of sensory data)

qualities (all objects have these

Front 19

Primary vs. Secondary Qualities

Back 19

primary: solidity and mobility (these objects take up space)

secondary (sensory properties like color, texture, taste. dependent on primary qualities for their existence)

Front 20

substance (why does Locke call it "something, I know not what"?)

Back 20

primary qualities are dependent on substance. substance is "something I know not what"

(the earth is sitting on an elephant who is sitting on a tortoise, etc...)

Front 21

tabula rasa

Back 21

thinks all humans are born as "blank slates"

Front 22

Skepticism

Back 22

skeptics know that their mind exists and are skeptic of everything else

Front 23

Solipsism

Back 23

know there mind exists and don't believe anything else exists

Front 24

Practical argument for the existence of the external world

Back 24

if a belief in the world or outside of our minds come so naturally to us, then perhaps we don't need grounds for it

Front 25

Berkeley

Back 25

also an empiricist, founded on view of idealism

Front 26

Idealism

Back 26

"to be is to be perceived"

egocentric

how can we be sure of the universe then?

God

Front 27

esse est percipi

Back 27

"to be is to be perceived"

Front 28

Feminist Epistemology

Back 28

not homogenous

the way the repressed group is trying to reclaim the value of their experience

Front 29

Standpoint theory

Back 29

idea that perspective of disenfranchised groups could really bring something new to the table

Front 30

Epistemic advantage /double vision

Back 30

the ability to step between cultures

minority/disenfranchised background+ ability to live in world outside their native culture gives them "double vision"

Front 31

mere assertion

Back 31

arguer asserts claim without support, treating a single claim as an argument

Front 32

non sequitur

Back 32

an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premisses

Front 33

red herring

Back 33

arguer tries to distract the attention of the audience by raising an irrelevant issue

Front 34

ad-hominem attacks

Back 34

when the arguer attacks the person who made the original argument instead of the person's argument "against the person"

Front 35

abusive

Back 35

arguer irrelevantly attacks person

Front 36

lack of experience

Back 36

arguer claims opponent does not have enough experience to make the argument

Front 37

guilt by association

Back 37

one claims that by group membership their argument is invalid

Front 38

vested interest

Back 38

arguer claims opponent has ulterior motives for making the argument

Front 39

tu quoque

Back 39

arguer claims opponent is doing what s/he has been accused of (finger pointing)

Front 40

appeals to inappropriate authority

Back 40

dubious and unspecified

Front 41

dubious

Back 41

appeals to the wrong type of authority

Front 42

unspecified

Back 42

arguer applies to vague authorities such as "scientists" or "studies" without providing specifics

Front 43

appeals to tradition

Back 43

arguer appeals to traditions or length of time something has been in place

length of time does not mean valid

Front 44

celebrity appeal

Back 44

George Foreman

Front 45

appeal to novelty

Back 45

arguer claims that new is always better

Front 46

appeal to the masses

Back 46

arguer appeals to the majority or "sheer numbers"

bandwagon

Front 47

appeal to the few

Back 47

like appeal to the masses but instead with a small select population (marines)

Front 48

appeal to ignorance

Back 48

arguer claims something is true or false simply because it has not been proven otherwise

Front 49

False dilemma/ Dichotomy

Back 49

posing a false choice when there are more options than what is presented

Front 50

straw man

Back 50

arguer misrepresents opponents view

Front 51

slippery slope

Back 51

claiming without sufficient evidence that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome

Front 52

equivocation

Back 52

arguer uses key word in two or more different sentences

Front 53

circular reasoning

Back 53

arguer presumes the conclusion in one or more premises or reiterates one or more premise in his or her conclusion

Front 54

hasty generalization

Back 54

drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small

stereo type

Front 55

False cause/ post Hoc ergo

Back 55

the claim that because one thing occurred after another, it must be due to causation

Front 56

emotional appeal

Back 56

pity

fear

vanity

guilt

Front 57

pity

Back 57

animal abuse video

Front 58

fear

Back 58

arguer tries to scare audience

Front 59

vanity

Back 59

butters up audience "polishing the apple"

Front 60

guilt

Back 60

arguer attempts to motivate audience by making them feel guilty

Front 61

Poisoning the well

Back 61

arguer undercuts the credibility of an opponent so much that the audience will not believe the opponent ever tells the truth