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;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Descartes
|
1596- 1650
|
|
|
Cartesian
|
Descartes
|
|
|
epistemic
|
philosophy of knowledge
|
|
|
Descartes main goal and method
|
establish stable and lasting knowledge
-provisionally reject any belief that is not completely indubitable |
|
|
what is the difference between the dream argument and the demon argument?
|
dream- he is asleep and is producing these "senses"
demon- he is being decieved about his sensory experiences by an evil being outside himself. |
|
|
What status does descartes claim for i exist and why?
|
Cogito, ergo sum: i think therefore i exist.
if he can think, he exists: not necessarily in a bodily form etc |
|
|
What other things does descartes realize he is certain of along with cogito?
|
The content of his mental states
|
|
|
The main idea of med. 3
|
I am finite; god is infinite. As a finite being, i cannot have an idea of an infinite being; therefore this idea must have come from an infinite being, god.
|
|
|
cartesian circle
|
God's existence is proved by the light of nature; the light of nature is proved by god's existence
|
|
|
tak is an answer to what question?
|
"what is it to know something?" "What do we mean when we ascribe knowledge to someone?"
|
|
|
State the TAK
|
S confidently believes that P
P is true S is adequately justified in believing that P |
|
|
Necessary and sufficient conditions
|
If A, then B
A is sufficient for B If a person studied hard, they passed the class B is necessary for A If a person passed the class, they studied hard |
|
|
Dispositional vs. occurent beliefs
|
Dispositional- i like coffee
Occurent- i crave coffee |
|
|
epistemic vs. moral and pragmatic justification
|
epistemic- truth conducive
moral- loyalty (friend theft) pragmatic- sick guy dying |
|
|
strong vs. weak conception of knowledge
|
Strong= 100%
weak= less than 100% |
|
|
Do gettier cases effect the strong and weak conceptions of knowledge equally?
|
no: only the weak
|
|
|
Bonjour's proposed modificaiton to TAK and the problems with it
|
It must not be an accident in relation to s's belief or reasons that P is true:
- not clear that it works - requires about how likely the truth of the proposition - the assumption that levels of justification ca be regarded as probabilities - lottery paradox |
|
|
David Hume
|
1711-1776
|
|
|
describe the problem of induction.
|
arises from"how are general conclusion justified on the basis of particular instances?
- internalism - deductive arguments |
|
|
Pragmatic vindication of induction
|
tentative acceptance of truth
|
|
|
ordinary language justification of induction
|
induction is reasonable- it need not play the role of deductive reasoning
|
|
|
A priori justification of induction
|
justification that does not rely on experience
|
|
|
WHAT IS INDUCTIVE METHOD?
|
tentavely accept a claim
revise the claim if need be later on |
|
|
what is the difference between inductive reasoning and inductive method?
|
Inductive method is something we use: inductive reasoning is part of that method
|
|
|
Inductive reasoning is compared to __________. The difference between the two is________________.
|
Deductive
deductive requires 100% certainty |
|
|
Explain why appealing to past successes in not an easy answer to the problem of induction.
|
Past does not decide the future: the chair didn't break when i sat in it today or the day before, but it could break tomorrow.
|
|
|
What is A priori justification?
|
Justification that does not depend on experience
|
|
|
Define moderate empiricism.
|
All a priori justification is a matter of definitions/conceptual content.
|
|
|
Define rationalism.
|
A priori is logical, rational.
includes a priori insight. |
|
|
A priori insight
|
a direct insight into the nature and structure of reality
|
|
|
What is the intuitive idea behind the term analytic?
|
Straightforward and obvious
|
|
|
Kant's definition of analytic
|
The concept of the predicate contained in the subject
|
|
|
Frege's definition of analytic
|
A substitution instance of a truth of logic or simplifiable into such
|
|
|
Does bonjour argue that frege's definition successfully argues away the need for a prior? what are his reasons?
|
No; can have synthetic examples: all triangles have 3 sides
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH LAST QUESTION
|
red is not green example
|
