Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the three objects of friendship and what are the three conditions for friendship?
|
Objects: 1)Not everything is loved, but only the lovable
2) Lovable is good, pleasant, or useful 3) Useful is the source of some good or some pleasure Conditions: Goodwill- wishing someone good for his or her own sake Reciprocated goodwill- they must also wish you goodwill (wine can't qualify because it can't reciprocate) Must be aware of the mutual goodwill |
|
|
What are the three types of friendship and what are their characterstics?
|
1) Utility Friendship- only friends while they're getting something useful out of it, love the other only for what they can do for you, replaceable friends, don't like being with each other, if the friend can no longer provide you with something, the friendship ends, coincidental
2) Pleasure Friendship- incomplete friendship, love each other because of pleasure, fun being together, share some qualities, replaceable friend, don't like the person for who they are but for the pleasure they can provide, but there's the possibility that you could like the person, coincidental 3) Complete Friendship |
|
|
What are the characteristics of "complete friendship"?
|
Friendship between good people, wishes the other good for his own sake, loves the other for who he is instead of for what he can provide, lasting because it relies on the virtuous characteristics of the friends, not coincidental or replaceable because there are few virtuous people, accept the others personhood and pleasures, can sit and talk and do nothing therefore it's not for utility or pleasure, complete because it has both pleasure and utility
|
|
|
Explain the following criticisms of Plato's Form of the Good: 3-6 and 16
|
3. The good is spoken of in many ways (quality of courage, generous, quantity- how much is good, diff times and places)- if there was some common and single universal good it would be spoken of in only one way.
4. If there is only one form of good then there should be only one science but there are many sciences. 5. Form of man and individual man have same definition- redundant 6. Form existing eternally is no better than it existing for a day- white is no whiter if it lasts a long time than if it lasts a day 16. If you try to practice medicine, it does not help you to know the form of health because you wouldn't know what to do in that situation- uselessness of forms |
|
|
What is the human function? How does Aristotle argue for this?
|
1) Human function is not the life of nutrition and growth because it is shared with plants
2) What Aristotle is looking for is something unique or peculiar to human beings 3) Not a life of sense perception because we share that with animals. 4) Human function must be a life of action of the part of the soul that has reason- will determine if you're a good human |
|
|
How does Aristotle argue for the human good/excellence?
|
1) The function of a harpist is identical with the function of an excellent harpist.
2) This identity bewtween a thing's function and it's excellent functioning holds for everything. 3) The good of a harpist is to play the harp well or excellently. Conclusion: Since the human function is the life using that part of his soul that reasons, the good human is the one who does this excellently. |
|
|
How does Aristotle define external goods? What are some examples of external goods?
|
External goods: contribute to our blessedness because we don't decide these- good birth, good children, family, friends, beauty, wealth.
|
|
|
How does Aristotle distinguish virtues from feelings and capacities?
|
Not praised or blamed for having feelings, but you are praised for having virtues or blamed for not having them
Not praised or blamed for having capacities for feelings With feelings, you're moved by feelings- not moved by virtues because they're a state of readiness to act, comes from habit, and you choose to act a certain way Feelings aren't chosen or decided |
|
|
Explain what Aristotle means by a numerical mean/intermediate and a mean/intermediate that is relative to us. Which is an account of virtue for him?
|
Numerical Mean: equidistant from two extremes, the same in all objects of the same type and size, in an object. Ex: 6 is the numerical mean between 10 and 2
Relative mean: not the same for everyone but varies with capacities and situations, between what's superfluous and deficient, this is virtuous mean. Ex: courage is the relative mean between rashness and cowardliness |
|
|
What are the two cases in which there is no mean for Aristotle? What are his examples here?
|
1) Base actions and feelings- adultery, theft, muurder, jealousy, spite because they're always bad
2) Excess and Deficiencies: don't have means because they're already extremes |
|
|
Phronesis v Episteme (Scientific knowledge)
|
Episteme: Deals with unchangeable things, can be taught because this is scientific knowledge- knowledge that you can demonstrate, can be true or false
Phronesis: Deals with things that change- that you can change, Don't deliberate about things you can't change, never false, cannot teach it |
|
|
Phronesis v Techne (Craft)
|
Techne: Changeable objects, can be acquired by habit, concerned with generating products, forgettable, sometimes better if you choose vice
Phronesis: changeable objects, can't be acquired by habit, no product because it's just an action, can't be forgotten, never better to choose vice |
|
|
Phronesis v Nous (Understanding, intuition)
|
Nous: immediate grasp, not teachable, unchanging (universal is always the same)
Phronesis: Deliberate about alternatives- so not an immediate grasp, need nous of particulars and universals to be a phronemos (why it's not teachable), always changing |
|
|
Phronesis v Sophia (Wisdom)
|
Sophia: unchanging objects- science and math, episteme + nous = sophia, Must know PNC- one and the same thing cannot act or be in opposite states at the same time and in the same part of itself- science and math must follow this, strictly universal
Phronesis: changing objects, nous of particulars and universals |
|
|
Phronesis v Sunesis (Comprehension)
|
Sunesis: changeable objects, make a judgement about a situation- more propositional about nous, takes more time than nous because you have to think about it
Phronesis: changeable objects, action as opposed to thinking |
|
|
Phronesis v Deinos (cleverness)
|
Deinos: can be good or terrible dependant upon the end, and ability to match means to ends so that one is always successful in achieving the ends, always know the best thing to accomplish something
Phronesis: must always be good, this is what makes cleverness good because without phronesis you wouldn't know what the end should be, A phronemos needs cleverness because a phronemos should always be able to achieve what he's doing |
|
|
What arguments does Aristotle provide to show that the life of study is superior to the life of virtue as a candidate for happiness?
|
1) Theoria uses a superior part of the soul: it uses nous, which is completely immaterial and unchangeable, phronesis deals with the deliberative part, so it must deal somewhat with material objects because they're changeable
2) Phronesis can be troublesome but theoria never is 3) Theoria is an end in itself, phronesis can be good as a means for something else 4) Theoria is self-sufficient- can contemplate by yourself but phronesis requires excess goods 5) Objects of theoria are better because they don't change |
|
|
3 Reasons Against Majority Knowledge
|
1) Room for mistakes: some people believed that the heavenly bodies ruled the earth.
2)No one is blamed for lacking happiness- those who seek it are praised. But if you lack majority knowledge you are blamed because it is a sign of your dullness of perception if he can't perceive such evident signs of God. 3) Happiness is the end of human acts but humans aren't directed to this knowledge as their end because it is in everyone from the beginning. |
|
|
3 Reasons Against Knowledge by Demonstration
|
1) Negative knowledge- know what it is but not wht it's not
2) Still in potentiality to further knowledge because you only know what it's not 3)Room for errors because it is led by will |
|
|
3 Reasons Against Knowledge by Faith
|
1)Intellect isn't in perfect operation because you're just believing without thinking
2) True happiness puts you at rest but faith inflames you because you want to know more 3) Led by will which is often wrong |
|
|
5 Reasons Why Ultimate Happiness Is Not in This Life
|
1) No man has reached a point where they desire to know nothing more- the more we know the more we desire to know, but true happiness puts you at rest
2) Instability results in being ruled by feelings but for happiness, intellect must be in perfect operation 3)If we had complete happiness, there would be no sorrow attached to it, but this life is plagued by death and sickness 4) A man cannot be free from evils, especially bodily evils. Ultimate happiness would free us from these |
|
|
How does Descartes prove God's existence:
(i) from perfection? (ii) from self-causation? |
Perfection:
1) Descartes doubts, so he isn't perfect. 2) Yet he has an ideala of a perfect being. 3) Descartes wants to know from where he has gotten this idea of a perfect being. 4) It is contradictory to think that his idea of a perfect being could have come from nothing. 5) It is contradictory to think it could have come from something less perfect. Conclusion: Idea of a perfect being could have only come from the perfect being himself. Self-Causation: 1)If Descartes were alone and independent so that he had given himself what little perfection he had then he would have been able to give himself the rest of the perfections he could think of but lackes- infinite, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, unchanging. 2) He cannot give himself the rest of the perfections he could think of but lacks. Conclusion: It is not the case that Descartes was alone and independent and e had given himself the little perfection he had. |
|
|
Why does Descartes have to prove God's existence?
|
God is perfect and has given him everything he knows- God can't deceive him if he's perfect so God can guarantee that everything he sees and knows is real.
|
|
|
Comparing the list in Meditation Two to One, what items on the list are not subjected to doubt by Descartes? Why?
|
math?
|
|
|
What conclusions are drawn by Descartes' examination of the wax?
|
He observes it with his senses and it has a certain shape, smell, sound, hardness. When it melts it changes...but it's still the same wax. So, one thing can manifest itself in different ways so you can't rely on senses to tell you what something is. You have to rely on your mind to know what the wax is. You can only know about the world by extension because other stuff is changeable.
|
|
|
For Kant, what makes the good will good? What are the things that do not affect its goodness?
|
It's good in itself and unaffected by what it's able to accomplish. The results don't count, only the motive.
|
|
|
So instead of reason's being a guide to the satisfaction of all our needs, what is reason supposed to influence and produce?i
|
Reason should be used to come up wwith a good will/intentions.
|
|
|
For Kant, how does one's inclination make it easy ot difficult to decide if one's actions that are in accord with duty are done from duty? What was his example illustrating the easy case? What three examples does Kant provide to illustrate the difficult case? What is Kant's distinction of actions that are done according to duty from actions that are done from duty in these examples?
|
When something is done according to duty, you only do it because there are consequences. If you take the consequences away, you wouldn't do your duty. When something is done from duty, you do what you do out of sheer respect for the law even if there would be no consequences.
Easy Case: A wine dealer can cheat a kid more than an adult. If the dealer has no inclination/love for his customers, will he cheat them? He's in accord with duty because he has an inclination for himself. This is easy because he has no inclination toward doing the right thing, so you can tell that the action is according and not from duty. Difficult Cases: 1)Duty for preservation of life- not to commit suicide: It is difficult to tell whether it's from or according because there's an inclination to live but there's also a duty to do so. It becomes duty if life is going poorly and you don't want to live (no inclination) and if you don't commit suicide- this would be from duty. Inclination makes this difficult. 2) Duty to be kind: If Jack is kind by nature he has the inclination to be kind therefore when he helps the needy it is according to duty because it's self-interest. If something happens to Jack and he gets depressed and no longer has the inclination to be kind- if he still helps others, he is acting from duty. If John is not kind by nature but he still helps someone against what he wants to do it's from duty and therefore moral. 3) Duty to secure one's own happiness: Inclination to make outselves happy so it's according to duty but if you're very sick and have no energy and no inclination towards happiness (don't want to eat, go outside), but you o it anyway- that's from duty and moral. Will= from duty Inclination and desires= according to duty |
|
|
What was the point of Kant's discussion of the Scriptural passage that commands us to love our neighbor and our enemy?
|
Scripture says to love your enemy- is this an inclination or duty? Love is an inclination and cannot be commanded generally, unless you do what the scripture says and love someone even if you don't want to. This would be from duty and have moral worth.
|
|
|
State and explain the three propositions of morality for Kant.
|
1) Moral worth of action comes from duty (vs from inclination)
2) Moral worth of an action doesn't come from its achievement of results/purpose, but its maxim (motive) 3) Doing an action from duty where respect is for the law makes the action morally worthy. |
|
|
How does Kant analyze the example about not making a promise unless you can keep it in terms of prudence and acting from duty?
|
Prudence: Cna get two answers- need to assess that situation and know all the details. If you make a fals promise this time, you won't get the car next time OR He's going to be gone in a few weeks anyway, so make the false promise.
Acting to Duty: Only get one answer and good action, don't need any details of situation or any previous experiences. Whenever it is convenient to anybody, make a false promise- this would be bad because the whole industry of promises falls apart because you can't rely on anyone |
|
|
For Kant, does one need to be intelligent or experienced in order to act from duty? Why?
|
No because all you need to do is ask whether your maxim can become a universal law.
|
|
|
What are the three differences between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative for Kant?
|
Hypothetical Imperative: 1) Practical necessity of a possible action as a means to an end.
2)Action is only good as a means to an end 3) Action is good for some purpose- possible or actual Categorical: 1)Presents an action as itself universally necessary without regard to any other end 2) Action is good in itself 3) Action is objectively necessary with no reference to any end at all |
|
|
State and explain the 3 formulations of the categorical imperative.
|
1) Act so that your maxim can become a universal law.
2) Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own pweson or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means to an end. 3) Act in such a way that the will is not only subject to the law, but you are the subject of the law because you give yourself the law. |
|
|
3 Arguments for How Every Agent Acts for a Good
|
FAB- 1) Agents act must be fitting to it because it wouldn't tend to something unfitting. If it is fitting for it it is good. Conclusion: Action must be good for agent.
2) The end is satisfying one's appetite and good is the object of every appetite. Bad things make you lose appetites so appetite must be for something good. 3) All action and movement are directed to being- do things for preservation of being (looking 2 ways before crossing the street). Our being is good because God created us so our actions are directed toward something good. |
|
|
Explain the 2 Types of End of Things and which pertains to God
|
1) First in cause and last in being- health from a doctor. Health is the cause for us going to a doctor but it is the last thing we attain from a doctor because it doesn't occur until the end of treatment
2) When something is first in cause and first in being, such as when a city fights. The preservation of the city is the first cause for fighting, but the city existed to be able to fight so it's also first in being. This is like God because God created us so he's first in being. He's also the cause of our actions becuase we work to be closer to him. |
|
|
Explain the two types of composite substances and how they imitate divine goodness
|
1)When form fills matter completely, such as with the heavenly bodies- sun, moon. There is no potential for change so it is unconditionally good. It's existence and being is good in itself.
2) When form does not fill matter completely, such as humans and pots. Because matter means potential for change, there is potential for evil as well. To imitate divine goodness, they must allow form to control their matter (appetites) and habituate listening to reason. |
|
|
Provide three reasons for why happiness cannot come from an act of will
|
1)Will can be true or false- the false cannot lead to happiness
2) Intellect must be in perfect operation, but it's not when willing because will is dependant on intellect. 3) May will to have an object and still not have it. |
|
|
4 Examples to illustrate Descartes's first thought
|
1st Thought: Works done by one person are better than works done by many people
1) One architect is better than many because there's one goal and therefore no conflict. 2) One lawgiver giving laws all at one as opposed to as we go is better than menay because there's one goal and no conflict- Sparta 3) One person using reason to decide things as he encounters them is better than book learning because books are composed of many ideas- with one mind there are no conflicts. 4) If one could be born with full use of reason, that would be better than being led by many appetites or many teachers- we would be led by reason from day 1. |
|
|
4 Rules to Descartes' method
|
1) Only accept things that are self-evident, Avoid prejudices (prejudgements), Accept only things that are clear and distinct
2) Divide wach problem into as many parts as are required to solve it 3) Start from simplest and proceed to most difficult. 4) Summarize completely so as not to leave anything out. |
|
|
4 Advantages of Descartes'method
|
1) Follow the true order.
2) You always use reason. 3) The answer will be as certain as math. 4) You habituate thinking vigorously and distinctly. |
|
|
3 Arguments to rid himself of all of his previous opinions
|
1) a) senses sometimes deceive us
b) our senses are doubtful 3) D's methodological doubt states that if anything is slightly doubtful, we should reject it completely Conclusion: Senses are to be rejected completely 2) Reasoning - a) men make mistakes in reasoning same b and c and conclusion 3) Ideas and thoughts: a)same thoughts come to you when awake and asleep b) our thoughts are doubtful c) D's methodological doubt Conclusion: thoughts and ideas to be rejected completely |
|
|
Proof of his own existence
|
I think therefore I am. Someone must do the thinking, so that someone must exist.
|
