Philosophy Exam 1 (Set 1)

Front 1

Metaphysics

Back 1

The study of the nature of reality (what makes it the case that things are the way they are)

Front 2

What happened to people who criticized Aristotle and why?

Back 2

Used to be anyone who criticized Aristotle was in big trouble because what he wrote was canonized by the Church. They thought Aristotle was right. To say Aristotle was wrong was to say the Bible was wrong.

Front 3

Was Descartes in any danger from the Church for his works?

Back 3

Descartes wasn't in any danger of being excommunicated. Many believe Descartes wrote this intending for it to be put down as a textbook. In those days textbooks were for instructors. He claims to be writing for friends.

Front 4

What does Descartes focus on?

Back 4

He doesn't focus on metaphysics, but instead he marked the turn to epistemology. Questions about knowledge.

Front 5

Epistemology

Back 5

Study of knowledge. What do you have to have to be able to claim that you know something. Questions of justification came in. My eyes show me the table is here.

Front 6

Rationalism

Back 6

the kind of knowledge that matters is a priori knowledge. Descartes is the only rationalist we will read. They emphasize the importance of ideas/concepts in thinking. Focus is on a priori knowledge. Mathematical proofs will be popular.

Front 7

Empericism

Back 7

a posteriori premises. Emphasize the centrality of experience in thinking. Aristotle-Focus is on a posteriori. Scientific inquiry they run experiments to see what hapens. It's not about equations. Locke, Barkley, and Hume share this thought.

Front 8

Descartes Who is he?

Back 8

He was Father of the modern period. He came first before these other people. Regarded as a good writer. HE does this as a narration. He has the answers as his diary. Argues for rationalism to get any kind of knowledge you have to use such things as mathematics.

Front 9

Rene Descartes

Back 9

1596-1650 French Philosopher
Was first and foremost a mathmatician a natural philosopher second and a philosopher third.

Front 10

Foundationalsim

Back 10

Examine the foundations of his knowledge. There are alot of false beliefs which lead to other falsities. Have to make sure our foundations are strong.

Front 11

What are the commitments Descartes makes?

Back 11

1. Foundationalsim
2. Methodological skepticism
3. Withholding policy

Front 12

Methodological skepticism

Back 12

Takes a skeptical view but only to look at his foundation. He's not a skeptic who's going to have an existential crisis. Rather, the skepticism is adopted for the purpose of examining the foundation of knowledge. He's not going to say oh how do I know I'm rene descartes.

Front 13

Withholding policy

Back 13

If we can cast some doubt on a set of beliefs, then he will withhold assent from these beliefs until he can determine their truth. If I have any reason to question the beliefs of my senses I'll have to set all of them aside and not rely on them until I can say they're on a strong foundation. By doing so he sets the standard of knowledge at certainty. Unless you can show these beliefs are 100% certain we cannot trust them. HE says you can't know something without certainty. He's fully committed to the deductive argument.

Front 14

What does Descartes set the standard of knowledge at?

Back 14

If I have any reason to question the beliefs of my senses I'll have to set all of them aside and not rely on them until I can say they're on a strong foundation. By doing so he sets the standard of knowledge at certainty. Unless you can show these beliefs are 100% certain we cannot trust them. HE says you can't know something without certainty. He's fully committed to the deductive argument.

Front 15

What type of argumentation does Descartes employ?

Back 15

He's fully committed to the deductive argument.

Front 16

Why does Descarte say you need 100% certainty?

Back 16

If you have a solid foundation anything you believe should be fine. He withholds relying on any beliefs if any of the beliefs are uncertain.

Front 17

Skeptical hypothesis

Back 17

IF you just rely on the senses it would seem that things change size as you get closer and closer. We have blind spots you can't see what's there BUT there's something there.

Front 18

Sense deception argument

Back 18

P1. Sometimes our senses fail us (optical illusions, mirages)
P2. We cannot always trust our senses (We know they deceive us from far away that looks like my friend but I'm not sure)
C. Therefore, we can doubt what our senses tell us.

Front 19

Sense deception argument P1

Back 19

Sometimes our senses fail us (optical illusions)

Front 20

Sense deception argument P2

Back 20

We cannot always trust our senses (we know they deceive us. From far away that looks like my friend but I'm not sure).

Front 21

Sense deception argument conclusion

Back 21

therefore, we can doubt what our senses tell us.

Front 22

Veridical experience

Back 22

IT is representational of the world. Example If I can have dream like experiences that I think are real then we have problems with veridial experiences.

Front 23

Deviant experience

Back 23

Things we see in the world aren't necessarily true.

Front 24

Why could we have problems with veridial experience?

Back 24

If I can have dreamlike experiences which I think are real then they are representational of the world but they aren't actually happening and therefore cannot trust our veridial experience.

Front 25

Dream ARgument

Back 25

P1. I don't know I'm not dreaming and I cannot know that (I'm sitting by the fire holding the paper. I don't know that I'm dreaming.)
P2. IF I know I'm observing my body, then I know I'm not dreaming (If I could establish I am right now observing my body I'd be able to do this but, )
P3. I don't know I'm not dreaming
C. Therefore, I don't know that I'm observing my body.

Front 26

Dream argument P1.

Back 26

I don't know that I'm not dreaming and I cannot know that. (I'm sitting by the fire holding the paer. I don't know that I'm dreaming.)

Front 27

Dream argument P2.

Back 27

If I know I'm observing my body, then I know I'm not dreaming. (IF I could establish that I am right now observing my body then I would be able to do this But I can't do this.)

Front 28

Dream Argument P3

Back 28

I don't know that I'm not dreaming.

Front 29

Dream argument conclusion

Back 29

Therefore, I don't know that I'm observing my body.

Front 30

How does veridial experience get called into question?

Back 30

He says there are some things we can know by the senses. But, if I'm dreaming, I don't know that I'm not doing the actions. This calls our veridial experience into question. A posteriori premises therefore cannot be assented to. The problem was no reliable way to mark contrast between deviant and veridial experience. You don't mishear yourself. You'r not wrong that these are my hands. Maybe I'm just as wrong about those things because I can dream like its real.

Front 31

What does descartes target and what does he eventually come up with?

Back 31

He targets a posteriori propositions. He seemingly clears everything off the deck and starts fresh. Everything counts. If he mentions it he will come back to it. He writes very purposefully. Maybe God could decieve me? No God is all good. So he comes up with the idea that maybe it's an Evil demon so that even conceptual proofs can be doubted.

Front 32

What does he say about God and being deceiptful? And ultimately where does this leave him?

Back 32

Maybe God could decieve me? No God is all good. So he comes up with the idea that maybe it's an Evil demon so that even conceptual proofs can be doubted.

Front 33

Evil demon/deceiver argument

Back 33

P1. I don't know that I'm not being deceived by an evil demon and I cannot know that (How would I know that I'm being deceived. If something is universally deceiving me, how could I ever find out?)
P2. If I know what 2+3=5 then I know that I am not being deceived.
P3. I cannot know that I am not being deceived.
Conclusion=Therefore, I do not know that 2+3=5.

Front 34

Evil demon/deceiver argument P1

Back 34

P1. I don't know that I'm not being deceived by an evil demon and I cannot know that (How would I know that I'm being deceived. If something is universally deceiving me, how could I ever find out?)

Front 35

Evil demon/deceiver argument P2

Back 35

IF I know that 2+3=5, then I know that I'm not being deceived.

Front 36

Evil demon/deceiver argument P3

Back 36

I cannot know that I am not being deceived

Front 37

Evil demon/deceiver argument conclusion

Back 37

Therefore, I don't know that 2+3=5

Front 38

What argument exists to clear the table of a priori proofs

Back 38

The evil demon/deceiver argument clears the table of a priori propositions. CAnnot be assented to. If I can doubt anything you have to put it on the shelf. This was doubted so they are now all gone.

Front 39

Problem with Descartes method of argumentation and the clearing of a priori premises

Back 39

Descartes is eventually going to say sure we will know a priori propositions, You really don't have to put them on the shelf. Descartes is using deductive argumentation. If you have to get rid of deductive arguments, you cannot argue.