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;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is philosophy about?
|
Thinking
|
|
|
Three goals of Philosophy are....
|
1. Truth
2. Clarity 3. Wisdom (all of these are through thinking, not preconceived knowledge) |
|
|
Four principles of Philosophy are....
|
1. Thinking v. Feeling
2. Learn How to Label 3. Learn to Generalize 4. Be Charitable |
|
|
What should you ask when you are THINKING and not feeling?
|
a. Ask it, i.e., How am I thinking?
b. Ask about consequences |
|
|
What are some things to know about labeling/ categorizing?
|
a. It's unavoidable (i.e. people who label and people who don't label)
b. All labels/categories must include and exclude to be meaningful (i.e. art) c. Do it well bruddah |
|
|
What is the contradiction with not generalizing?
|
In saying, "you should never generalize" you are making a generalization
|
|
|
What are some things to know about generalizing?
|
a. never generalize without being able to give a specific example
b. never assume a generalization about every individual you encounter c. without generalizations you can't speak about God, women, etc. |
|
|
The significance of Logic and Reasoning?
|
1. Uniquely human, a gift from God
2. Clarity, Truth, Wisdom |
|
|
What are some things to know about being charitable?
|
a. Give someone/something the benefit of the doubt
b. In reading, you give them the strongest/best interpretation you can (and it makes your case stronger!) |
|
|
What are the four categories of logical fallacies?
|
1. Fallacies of relevance (Non-sequiturs)
2. Fallacies of Defective Induction 3. Fallacies of Presumption 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity |
|
|
Fallacies of Relevance...
|
are errors in reasoning ("pseudo-thinking").
|
|
|
Fallacies of Defective Induction...
|
draw general conclusions from specific examples.
|
|
|
Fallacies of Presumption...
|
assume to much to be true, by applying generalizations to each individual or asking questions with one answer or one that points back to itself
|
|
|
Arguments consist of....
|
a PREMISE (that can be true or false) and a CONCLUSION
they are tests of how deeply you are thinking/ feeling |
|
|
Fallacies of Ambiguity...
|
are generally mistakes of language that change the meaning of words or phrases or do not define them correctly .
|
|
|
Hyperbole is
|
extreme exaggeration.
|
|
|
What is epistemology?
|
The study of knowledge. How do we know what we know?
|
|
|
What is metaphysics?
|
The ultimate reality. What is actually real.
|
|
|
Ordinary skepticism...
|
asks for reason and tries to gain clarity before believing.
|
|
|
Radical skepticism...
|
say you can't really know anything nd they deny the possibility of knowledge.
They try to show that reason in itself is useless. "Your eyes deceive you" |
|
|
Sophists use radical skepticism to...
|
use knowledge to get what you want.
(Goal of manipulation) |
|
|
Radical skeptics also say...
|
"You are trapped in your own mind to gain access to the world."
|
|
|
What is Descartes' line of reasoning against Radical Skepticism?
|
1. reductio ad absurdam (with methodoligical reasoning)
2. You doubt(You atleast are absolutely sure you are doubting)--->Thinking (because doubting is a kind of thinking)---->You must exist---->Cogito ergo sum(I think, I am) 3. Introspection leads to a discovery- I possess other concepts, one of these is Perfection (Where does perfection come from? You can't get X from what X doesn't possess--i.e. you are not perfect, how do you know what's perfect?) 4. Perfection or something perfect must exist 5. God, the only perfect entity, must exist 6. God can not be a deceiver because He exists. 7. Therefore you can trust your senses |
|
|
What are the two parts to Rationalism?
|
a. Knowledge is 'a priori' --before, before sensing
b. Knowledge is innate, born knowing the law of contradiction |
|
|
What are the two parts to Empiricism?
|
a. Knowledge is 'a posteriori'--after experience
b. Tabula rasa-- there is no such thing as innate-ness, take for example children and mentally handicapped |
|
|
Instead of the reductio strategy... Locke uses....
|
Locke simply tries to have a better explanantion for things
i.e. your eyes deceiving you was an improper reflection to him, instead simple ideas incorrectly became complex ideas |
|
|
Who are we responsible to know as a 'main guy' in Empiricism?
|
John Locke
|
|
|
What are Locke's three points?
|
1) No examples of innate or 'a priori' knowledge: children, mentally handicapped
2) Sensation---->Simple ideas-------->Reflection------->Complex ideas 3) It works |
|
|
What are Wittgenstein's thoughts?
|
Wittgenstein thinks Locke and Descartes missed the boat.
He says you can trust your eyes because SOMETIMES they deceive you, and therefore sometimes they don't He says language is everything. He gives the example of colorblindness. Wittgenstein, unlike Locke and Descartes says you need to be in contact with the world to gain knowledge, INSTEAD of beginning the search for knowledge with you. You can only know what words mean if you are in touch with the world (i.e. God, man, woman, color, etc.) |
|
|
How do Radical Skeptics question your faith?
|
Radical Skeptics say you can't know anything---> an attack on common sense-----> If you can't be certain of the obvious, how can you be certain about God?-----> everything that gives you a sense of place is meaningless compared to the universe- you are lost------> but faith says you are in God's universe
|
