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;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Hume's definition of causation
|
an object followed by another and whose appearance always conveys the thought to that other.
|
|
|
Hume induction circular
|
You must depend on the uniformity principle – that the future will resemble the past.
If an argument has no support aside from itself, then it is a circular argument. If an argument is circular, then it has no rational justification. Past experience has no support aside from itself. Therefore, past experience is a circular argument. Therefore, past experience has rational justification. |
|
|
Hume, what is causation actually?
|
PROJECTING OUR ANTICIPATION BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCES, AND CALLING IT CAUSE.
ALL CAUSATION IS REALLY CORRELATION. Custom and habit. |
|
|
Locke's two arguments for primary effects and secondary effects. Example?
|
1- Secondary qualities can be derived from primary qualities. These do not depend on subjective senses.
2- Secondary qualities change with the perceiver, so they can’t be in the external world. He uses the hot water and cold water example to demonstrate that the water's property of hot and cold depends subjectively on the person's senses. |
|
|
Locke's argument for personal identity
|
Personality depends on the memory the person has of being the person they are.
the self is “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places” and continues to define personal identity simply as “the sameness of a rational being” (Locke). So long as one is the same self, the same rational being, one has the same personal identity. |
|
|
the brave officer objection to locke?
|
A=B and B=C then A=C.
You can forget who you were and still have an identity. |
|
|
what is the synthetic a priori?
|
A synthetic a priori is a fact that can be thought of without any experience, thus a priori, and isn't part of something else. The example of this that Kant gives is, 5 + 7 =12. No experience is required to know this, as long as I have a concept of 5, 7, and addition, then I can come to the conclusion that 5 + 7 = 12.
|
|
|
How does Kant avoid Hume's conclusions?
|
Kant shows that there are some synthetic claims that are a priori, therefore there are some synthetic claims that can be known.
|
|
|
How does Kant argue that our knowledge of our own existence provides evidence for the existence of the external world?
|
1- I am conscious of myself as determined in time
2- Determinations require an object that is permanent in perception 3- The source of the permanence cannot be me. 4- Permanence in perception requires the existence of the external world. |
|
|
A claims and B claims?
|
A claims (substance is permanent, every event has a cause; puzzles) can be proved, while B claims (God exists, life after death, we act freely; antinomies, mysteries) you cannot prove. You don’t waste time on B claims, you focus on the stuff you can answer.
|
|
|
Berkeley's master argument
|
If objects are mind independent then it must be possible to think of an unthought of object; for what it means to be mind independent is to exist when no one is thinking about you. But this is not possible for as soon as you try you thereby think of that object and it therefore becomes a thought of object. Poor Hylas makes this mistake when he tries to think of some tree in a forrest where no people are. It is clear that he was thinking of the tree.
|
|
|
How does Berkeley argue against the Lockean account of material substance? What conclusions does Berkeley draw concerning Lockean primary and secondary qualities?
|
The substratum is the part of matter that underlies properties. Berkeley says there’s no reason for substratum to exist.
Secondary qualities are perceptually variable for Locke. Berkeley says, however, that primary qualities are the same as secondary qualities; for instance, from a distance, we see the size of something completely differently than if we were close to it. |
