Philosophy

Front 1

Concept

Back 1

A list of properties and qualities describing a kind of thing.
Contradictory Concept:

Front 2

Vacuous Concept

Back 2

A concept that has no qualities – “just that sort of thing”

Front 3

Gibberishy Concept

Back 3

Holds words that seem to be meaningful, but hold no clear meaning.

Front 4

Law of Contradiction

Back 4

For every proposition p, it is not the case that p is both true and false.

Front 5

Law of Excluded Middle

Back 5

For every proposition p, p is either true or false. There are ONLY 2 truth values.

Front 6

Metaphysics

Back 6

The theory of the nature of reality. It depends on Epistemology.

Front 7

Epistemology

Back 7

The theory of the nature of knowledge. It depends on Metaphysics.

Front 8

Plato's definition of knowledge

Back 8

Belief, truth and evidence

Front 9

Ethics

Back 9

concerned with value as it applies to personal actions, decisions, and relations; it is concerned with MORAL value. It raises the question such as: what is morally good/right?

Front 10

Normative ethic

Back 10

is a highly general definition of "the good." A normative ethic is general, abstract, universal (in the sense that it applies to everyone, not in the sense that it is acknowledged by everyone), and independent (in the sense that it exists whether or not anything or anyone else exists), and it is grasped by the mind, not by sense experience. A normative ethic would exist even if particular cultures and societies did not.

Front 11

Particular Moral Code

Back 11

Particular moral codes are dependent on societies. If the societies did not exist, then neither would their codes. Also, particular moral codes are, by definition, particular. They do not have the generality of normative ethics. An example of a particular moral code is the set of beliefs of Geneseo students with regard to acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the dormitories. This set of beliefs is different from its counterpart held, for example, by students at Bob Jones University. But neither set is sufficiently general to qualify as a candidate normative ethic. And, most importantly, neither is independent

Front 12

Aesthetics

Back 12

Helps determine what the real definition of beauty is, and the difference between good and bad art.

Front 13

Cultural Relativism

Back 13

different cultures have different views. It doesn’t follow generalism.

Front 14

General Relativism

Back 14

There is no truth, and that belief and truth are one in the same. (If you believe something is true, it’s true. Socrates disproved by saying that he believes General Relativism is wrong; therefore, General Relativism is false).

Front 15

Ethical Absolutism

Back 15

This is the claim that a normative ethic exists. Ethical absolutists believe that there are right and wrong answers on moral issues and that in principle these are discoverable, but it might take some doing. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were ethical absolutists. In the Republic, Plato tried to establish the independence of "the Good." He did not, however, define "the Good."

Front 16

Subjective theory of truth

Back 16

A proposition is true if you feel strongly.

Front 17

Dialectic

Back 17

Uses reason. It’s non-empirical. Involves thought and intuition.

Front 18

Empiricism

Back 18

Based on observations/experimentation.

Front 19

Pragmatic theory of truth

Back 19

: A proposition is true if it accomplishes the purposes you would like to see come true.

Front 20

Rationalism

Back 20

Evidence is constituted based on reasoning, thought, intuition, and the dialectic.

Front 21

Cognitive rationality

Back 21

: It is respect for the "truth" and "evidence" clauses of the definition of knowledge. One is cognitively rational if and only if he is engaged in the pursuit of truth and makes his claims only on the basis of adequate evidence.

Front 22

Coherence theory of truth

Back 22

A proposition is true if it coheres with other propositions you see as true.

Front 23

Rationalization

Back 23

1) The interpretation of the evidence clause. 2) The interpretations of evidence: empiricism vs. rationalism. This is a psychological notion that was introduced (unless I am mistaken) by Freud. He regarded a rationalization as a defense mechanism. Here is a non-technical definition. A rationalization is a psychological device to help us to feel better about ourselves. It helps us to "get through the day."

Front 24

Repressive rationality

Back 24

The attempt to deny/stifle emotions. There is a conflict with Cognitive rationality – some believe that when you’re too emotional, your judgment is clouded.

Front 25

correspondence theory of truth

Back 25

A proposition is true if it corresponds with a fact.

Front 26

Volitional Rationality

Back 26

This is the exercise of one's free will based on what one takes to be strong evidence.

Front 27

Facts

Back 27

Complex, exists independently of wishes/desires, and is circular/viciously circular.

Front 28

skepticism

Back 28

Skeptics can admit that truth exists, but they claim not to know what it is, usually because they think there is insufficient evidence. One can be a skeptic without being a general relativist. Because it is so hard to discover the truth, some people think that truth does not exist. But that does not follow. Another way of putting it is to say that we ought not confuse truth with established truth

Front 29

realism

Back 29

In metaphysics, the doctine that forms, or essences, possess objective reality.

Front 30

Idealism

Back 30

everything is mind and god

Front 31

Materialism

Back 31

Everything existing is a body. It gets rid of god, emotions, souls, beliefs, abstract things, ethics and numbers.

Front 32

Pantheism

Back 32

the belief that everything existing is god

Front 33

utilitarianism

Back 33

The moral standard that the right action, of those alternatives open to the agent, is one that produces the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people.

Front 34

Determinism

Back 34

The view that everything that comes into being is caused in such a way that it could not have been otherwise.

Front 35

intuition (non-psychological)

Back 35

the aha moment

Front 36

theism

Back 36

the affirmation that god exists

Front 37

atheism

Back 37

the denial of the existence of god

Front 38

agnosticism

Back 38

May believe in something, but when it comes to God, they just don’t know.

Front 39

conceptual skepticism

Back 39

A pronouncement isn’t made because the very notion seems logically incoherent. The questions of existence are secondary.

Front 40

Sophists

Back 40

People who are historically ancient greek philosophers particularly adept in manipulative reasoning, sometimes accused of being a philosophical charlatan who “made the weaker argument appear to be the stronger, and the stronger to be the weaker.”

Front 41

socrates

Back 41

Philosophical “gadfly” of Athens, who turned philosophical attention to definitions or the essences of things, and to ethical and political issues.

Front 42

Anthropomorphism

Back 42

giving non-human things human qualities. An example is saying that God is “the creator, omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient.”

Front 43

transcendence

Back 43

the type of reality that lies beyond the physical world and cannot therefore be grasped by means of senses.

Front 44

logic

Back 44

Deductive logic, meaning you take two propositions and form a conclusion. Ie: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Front 45

second-order inquiries

Back 45

Inquiries about a topic. Let’s say the philosophy of science. Science is a primary inquiry, but the philosophy of science doesn’t involve the empirical. It involves the philosophy of science

Front 46

metaethics

Back 46

the nature of ethical reasoning

Front 47

nonrational

Back 47

Pertaining to what is other than or different from reason, such as authority, intuition, mystical experience and the like.

Front 48

speculative approach

Back 48

raises and tries to answer the most ultimate and far-ranging questions of all (What is reality? What is the ultimate good? What is the total meaning of things?) and to make sense of reality and experience as a whole.

Front 49

analytic approach

Back 49

takes linguistic analysis or the analysis of language as the proper and legitimate task of the philosopher

Front 50

existential approach

Back 50

the primary object of philosophical reflection is the human being as concretely existing reality – it’s not called existentialism for nothing. The philosophizing will reflect the sense of urgency and crisis of contemporary human existence and experience.

Front 51

phenomenological approach

Back 51

Lies between analytical and existential, with an emphasis on description. It stresses whatever is GIVEN to consciouslness – what is directly experienced or seen – is the proper point of departure for and the proper subject mateter of philosophical reflection.

Front 52

Clarification principle

Back 52

Asserts that it is always easier to appreciate the clarity of an idea once the idea has been clarified. We shouldn’t judge too harshly those who have not benefited from long years of critical reflection and consequent clarification of ideas.

Front 53

Deculturilization principle

Back 53

the real substance of philosophy shoouldn’t be confused with the cultural elements necessarily involved in it’s expression.

Front 54

Sergeant Friday Principle

Back 54

seeks to instill a healthy respect for the text – that is – what a philosopher wrote: “just the text ma’am, just the text” .

Front 55

Smartness principle

Back 55

: always assume that the philosopher is smarter than you are.

Front 56

fundamental ideas

Back 56

concepts

Front 57

direct observation

Back 57

we directly confirm the claim with data

Front 58

indirect verification

Back 58

: It involves advancing a hypothesis, a possible though unproven explanation of something. Observable consequences are then derived from the hypothesis. If the consequences occur as predicted, then the hypothesis is at least partly confirmed. If unpredicted consequences occur, the hypothesis is not confirmed, even though it may be true.

Front 59

philosophy of science

Back 59

Analyze the meaning of science, scientific language and concepts, scientific procedures, conclusions, and implications.

Front 60

Revealed theology

Back 60

Knowledge of God based on special revelation, as in divine self-disclosure in the Bible or by Jesus Christ.

Front 61

Natural theology

Back 61

The systematic pursuit of a knowledge of God by means of the natural intellect, unaided by special revelation.

Front 62

Gurus

Back 62

Masters of something spiritual. According to woodhouse, they don’t engage in the dialectic and their main difference is that their questions aren’t deep and they don’t question.

Front 63

Ethnocentrism

Back 63

belief that one's culture is superior to a different culture's

Front 64

Irrationalism

Back 64

A kind of psychological device that’s used to make yourself feel better. There are two types. Sour grapes, and sweet lemon. Sour grapes is when you want something and it doesn’t happen. You say you don’t care. However, when you try out for something and you get a lesser role, you say that you got exactly what you wanted. The latter is the sweet lemon principal.

Front 65

intuition (psychological)

Back 65

gut-feeling