Philosophy Study

Front 1

Philosophy

Back 1

study of the fundamental and reality
Branches: ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, metaphysics, logic

Front 2

Ethics

Back 2

fundamental study of morality and how one ought to think and act

Front 3

Epistemology

Back 3

fundamental study of truth, knowledge, and belief

Front 4

Aesthetics

Back 4

fundamental study of beauty

Front 5

Metaphysics

Back 5

fundamental study of matter, reality, and existence

Front 6

Logic

Back 6

fundamental study of correct reasoning

Front 7

Argument

Back 7

A set of statements where the first statements, the premises, are offered in support of the final statement, the conclusion.

Front 8

Valid Argument

Back 8

an argument where if the premises are true, then the conclusion HAS to be true
~All A is the same color as B. A is blue. B is blue.~

Front 9

Sound Argument

Back 9

a valid argument with true premises

Front 10

fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION

Back 10

argument where premises rely on conclusion to be true
"God must exist because it says in the Bible and the Bible was written by God."

Front 11

Strong Argument

Back 11

an argument where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed

Front 12

fallacy of AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT

Back 12

If P then Q.
Q, therefore P.
The consequent, Q, is not affirmed.

Front 13

fallacy of DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

Back 13

If P then Q.
Not P, therefore not Q.
The antecedent, P, is not necessarily the only factor for Q.

Front 14

William Paley

Back 14

Designer argument/ Watch argument
Design implies a designer. Design has purpose, so anything with purpose is a design, and therefore must have a designer. Argues for the existence of a God.

Front 15

St. Anselm

Back 15

Ontological argument
If God is the ultimate being from which nothing greater can be conceived, then he must exist in reality, because if he is only in the mind, then we can conceive mentally of something greater than God.

Front 16

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers

Back 16

Argues against St. Anselm
1. God cannot be fully comprehended, therefore we should not expect to understand him.
2. Perfect island - the idea that conceiving something greater doesn't make it practical/probable

Front 17

Blaise Pascal

Back 17

The Wager
God exists, or he doesn't. Nobody can abstain from standing on one side of the "coin".
Arguments against:
1. inconsistent revelations - other gods
2. inauthentic belief - saying you believe, but not
3. this involves assumptions about god
4. overall not convincing

Front 18

Problem of Evil

Back 18

God is omnibenevolent, therefore evil cannot exist.
Arguments against:
1. We have free will in making choices
2. John Hick - evil necessary for growth
3. We are limited in understanding this

Front 19

Classical Analysis of Knowledge

Back 19

Knowledge is justified true belief.
Gettier offers a counterexample in which one has justified true belief, but not knowledge.

Front 20

Problem of Perception

Back 20

You can never know anything about the external world; what if everything is just an image?

Front 21

Brain in a Vat

Back 21

How can you tell you aren't just a brain in a vat if our brain impulses are what make our reality?

Front 22

G.E. Moore

Back 22

Demonstrated that he has 2 hands which are external to his mind, and therefore he must know something about the external world. Argues that Brain in a Vat scenario's conclusion is ridiculous.

Front 23

G.E. Moore SHIFT

Back 23

Changes modus ponens argument in modus tollens.

Front 24

Modus Ponens

Back 24

If A, then B. A, therefore B.

Front 25

Modus Tollens

Back 25

If A, then B. Not B therefore not A.

Front 26

Mind-Body Problem

Back 26

What is the mind and how does it relate to the body? Are they the same? Is the mind different? Is the mind external? If so, where is it located?

Front 27

Zombie Argument

Back 27

David Chalmers
Given a perfect twin that looks and acts like us, but has no mind and simply functions systematically as we would, how then can the mind be in the body? It cannot, physicalism is false.

Front 28

Substance Dualism

Back 28

The mind is not part of the body.
Arguments against:
1. queerness - overall a strange thing to think about
2. evolution is difficult to argue against
3. location -> where is the mind then?
4. interaction -> how does the mind interact?

Front 29

Behaviorism

Back 29

The mind is not private. Everything you think is acted out by your body.
Arguments against:
1. Doesn't explain the mind.
2. willpower overcoming pain proves a difference in physical actions and thought
3. pretending to be in pain proves a difference in physical actions and thought
4. in order to make a link between the two, one would need a prior conception of the state of the mind

Front 30

Physicalism

Back 30

The mind is a set of physical parts.
arguments against:
1. privacy and introspection
2. qualia

Front 31

Funcitonalism

Back 31

the mind is defined by its functions
arguments against:
1. inverted spectrum argument
2. absent qualia argument

Front 32

Inverted Spectrum Argument

Back 32

if functionalism is true, then two people with inverted color spectrums would see the same colors
Obviously not true, so functionalism can't be true.

Front 33

Absent Qualia Argument

Back 33

David Chalmers
A group of circuits together can perform the same functions as a mind, yet are not a mind, so functionalism can't be true.