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;
352 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are some things that Proverbs says about Philosophy?
|
Wisdom is the most important thing so get it
Be so familiar with wisdom that it is like a person in your house Whatever you want most is still inferior to wisdom Wisdom is what makes people powerful or wealthy Wisdom is better than money Wisdom is what is good for your soul |
|
|
What does philosophy mean etymologically?
|
"Friend of wisdom"
|
|
|
What are the roots of the word philosophy?
|
Greek
"Philos"- Friend “Sophia”-Wisdom |
|
|
What is the type of love that the etymology of philosophy imply?
|
Deep devotion and love, but not erradic like “eros” love
|
|
|
What is an example of abuse of etymology?
|
Ecclesia
Can mean group called out, church, political assembly etc. |
|
|
Does philosophy just mean "love of wisdom"?
|
No
|
|
|
What are some verses in Proverbs that deal with wisdom?
|
Proverbs 3:13
Proverbs 4:5 Proverbs 4:7 Proverbs 7:4 Proverbs 8:11 Proverbs 12:8 Proverbs 16:16 Proverbs 19:8 |
|
|
What is philosophy's focus compared to other disciplines?
|
Distinguished by its interest in evidence, argument, criticism- in a word, the use of reason
|
|
|
How is philosophy's investigation?
|
Rational
|
|
|
Is human reason reliable and does reason have limits?
|
It is not perfectly reliable
There are limits |
|
|
What are other ways of finding wisdom besides reason?
|
Revelation from God
Experience |
|
|
Does revelation work with reason?
|
Yes we use reason to interpret it and evaluate what is and is not revelation
Revelation works with reason |
|
|
Is experience independent of reason?
|
No, you use reason to interpret experience
|
|
|
Is there anyway to avoid using reason and what is reason to us?
|
Reason is not infallible, but there is no way around it
It is our gift from God |
|
|
What is philosophy a rational investigation of?
|
Humankind and its environment
|
|
|
Who was Socrates?
|
The "Father of Western Philosophy"
|
|
|
Who does philosophy?
|
Everyone analyzes life
Not just lawyers, everyone must understand and argue Everyone naturally philosophizes, we choose whether to do good or bad philosophy (thought out or cultural) |
|
|
What is Socrates' most famous quote?
|
“The unexamined life is not worth living”
|
|
|
What does “The unexamined life is not worth living” mean?
|
If we stop questioning we degrade ourselves to animals so life is not worth living
|
|
|
What is good about Socrates' statement?
|
We are able to examine our lives so why shouldn’t we
|
|
|
What is objectionable about Socrates' statement?
|
Not everyone can philosophize (fetus, mentally disabled)
|
|
|
How can we improve Socrates' statement?
|
The ungodly life is not worth living
If you can’t philosophize you can still glorify God, but if you are ungodly you can’t |
|
|
What is the Definition of Philosophy?
|
Philosophy is the activity of thinking carefully about the deep issues of life, taking into consideration the insights of the greatest thinkers who have preceded us in an attempt to better understand these issues and perhaps resolve any associated problems
|
|
|
Is philosophy just knowledge?
|
No it is also an activity
|
|
|
Why do we use other philosophers as a basis?
|
Why start at the beginning when we can use others to help?
|
|
|
What are the The Fields of Philosophy?
|
Logic
Metaphysics Epistemology Axiology Second Order Philosophy |
|
|
What is Logic?
|
Principles of right reasoning
|
|
|
What is Metaphysics?
|
Theory of reality
|
|
|
What is Epistemology?
|
Theory of knowledge
|
|
|
What is Axiology?
|
Study of Value
Value Theory |
|
|
What are the two branches of axiology?
|
Ethics
Aesthetics |
|
|
What is the Ethics branch of Axiology?
|
Moral value, right and wrong
|
|
|
What is the Aesthetics branch of Axiology?
|
Study of beauty and art
|
|
|
What do logic symbols help do?
|
Increase objectivity so emotion doesn't get in the way
|
|
|
What does this ~ mean?
|
Negation
Not X X is not true |
|
|
What does . mean?
|
Conjunction "and"
X.Y is X and Y |
|
|
What is the v symbol?
|
Disjunction
XvY either X or Y |
|
|
What does the = symbol mean?
|
Equivalence
Equal/is X=Y- X is Y |
|
|
What is the ≠ symbol?
|
Inequality "not"
X≠Y- X is not Y |
|
|
What does the > symbol mean?
|
Implication (if then)
X>Y If X then Y |
|
|
What is the biconditional symbol and what does it mean?
|
Underlined equal sign
If and only if X= Y- If and only if X then Y |
|
|
What does the :. symbol mean?
|
Conclusion (therefore)-
X:.Y- X therefore Y |
|
|
What is an Argument?
|
An argument is a group of propositions in logical sequence that lead to the conclusion the philosopher is trying to support
|
|
|
What did Aristotle discover about proving things?
|
Aristotle says every time you prove something you assume something else is true- evidence to support argument
|
|
|
What happens if we begin to question evidence?
|
We could question the evidence all the way back to basic logic
|
|
|
Are the Three Laws of Thought proven?
|
Assumed, not proven
Basic rules we must accept |
|
|
What are the Three Laws of Thought?
|
The Law of Identity
The Law of Excluded Middle The Law of Non-Contradiction |
|
|
What is The Law of Identity?
|
(A=A)
A thing is itself |
|
|
What is The Law of Excluded Middle?
|
(Av~A)
Either it is or it isn’t, it can’t be both |
|
|
What is The Law of Non Contradiction?
|
(A>~~A)
If it is A then it is not not A |
|
|
What is important about the Three Laws of Thought?
|
We can’t prove these, but we can’t prove anything without them
|
|
|
Does philosophy use arguments?
|
Yes
|
|
|
What are the three elements of an argument?
|
Premises
Conclusion Entailment/Inference |
|
|
What are the premises of an argument?
|
The propostions from which the conclusion flows
|
|
|
What types of premises are there?
|
Major and Minor
|
|
|
What is the conclusion?
|
The proposition that follows the premises
|
|
|
What is the entailment/inference?
|
The relationship between the premises and the conclusion by which the conclusion can be said to follow the premises
|
|
|
What binds the evidence to the conclusion?
|
The entailment/inference
|
|
|
What are the two types of argument?
|
Deductive and Inductive
|
|
|
What is a Deductive Argument?
|
An argument in which the premises logically entail the conclusion
Premises cause the conclusion to follow |
|
|
What are the three types of deductive syllogisms?
|
Categorical
Disjunctive Hypothetical |
|
|
What is a syllogism?
|
A logical three step argument
|
|
|
What is a categorical syllogism?
|
Always uses the = sign
A=B B=C A=C All apples are fruit, all fruit is food, all apples are food |
|
|
What is a Disjunctive Syllogism?
|
Always uses the v symbol
XvY ~Y :.X Either rain or snow, not rain therefore snow |
|
|
What do you always try to do with Disjunctive syllogisms?
|
Always try to disprove one so you know what is right
Could be both so can’t prove one wrong by proving one true |
|
|
What are the two types of hypothetical syllogisms?
|
Pure
Mixed |
|
|
What is a Pure Hypothetical Syllogism?
|
Hypothetical all the way
X>Y Y>Z X>Z |
|
|
What is a Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism?
|
Only partway conditional
X=Y- If and only if X then Y X :.Y If it rains then I will get wet It rained; I got wet |
|
|
What is the most important syllogism and what is true of it?
|
Mixed Hypothetical
It can be wrong |
|
|
What are the Two Valid Forms of Mixed Hypothetical Syllogisms?
|
Affirming the Antecedent
Denying the Consequent |
|
|
What is Affirming the Antecedent?
|
X>Y- Major Ante
X- Minor :.Y- Conclusion- Affirm the ante so the second part is concluded |
|
|
What is Denying the Consequent?
|
X>Y- Major
~Y- Minor ~X- Conclusion Deny the second part therefore the ante is false |
|
|
What are the Two Formal Fallacies of Mixed Hypothetical?
|
Affirming the Consequent
Denying the Antecedent |
|
|
What is Affirming the Consequent?
|
X>Y- Major
Y- Minor :.X- Conclusion If it rains then I will get wet I got wet; therefore it rained There could be another way that I got wet |
|
|
What is Denying the Antecedent?
|
X>Y- Major
~X- Minor :.~Y- Conclusion If it rains I will get wet It did not rain therefore I did not get wet There are other ways that I could have gotten wet |
|
|
What does truth apply to?
|
Propositions
Premises and Conclusion |
|
|
What does validity apply to?
|
Logical Form
|
|
|
What does Soundness apply to?
|
The entire argument
|
|
|
What is true about Truth, Validity, and Soundness?
|
True premises+Valid Logical Form=Sound Argument
Therefore true conclusions |
|
|
What is an inductive argument?
|
An argument or a form of reasoning wherein the premises (the evidence) support and make probable the conclusion
|
|
|
What is true of inductive arguments?
|
They are more common than dedutive, but harder to get good at
They are weaker, but useful in more circumstances |
|
|
Are the conclusions in inductive arguments 100% sure?
|
No
The facts make likely the conclusion, but never make it 100% sure |
|
|
What are the Two Forms of Inductive Reasoning?
|
Generalization
Analogy |
|
|
What is a Generalization?
|
X’.X’’.X’’’.X’’’’ etc.
:. X X=Cars The primes are all the cars If the first 35 have 4 wheels we assume that the rest of the cars have 4 wheels too |
|
|
What is an Analogy?
|
X’=a, b, c, d, e;
X’’= a, b, c, d :.X’’=e Only compares the attributes of 2 things, but 1 attribute of the 2nd one is not visible so we just assume it Two cars have the same seats, color, etc. so they probably have the same engine Things that are similar in a lot of ways are probably similar in the last way |
|
|
Can there be differences in Analogies?
|
Yes
They can have differences, but they are the same in the most important ways |
|
|
What is true of the two types of inductive reasoning?
|
These are essential tools, but they can be wrong
|
|
|
What are the three informal fallacies of induction?
|
Hasty Conclusion
Lazy Induction Forgetful Induction |
|
|
What is a Hasty Conclusion?
|
Basing an induction/conclusion on an insufficient amount of evidence
|
|
|
What is the most common inductive fallacy?
|
Hasty Conclusion
|
|
|
What is a Lazy Induction?
|
Not drawing a conclusion as strong as the evidence suggests
|
|
|
What is an example of Lazy induction?
|
If you say some students have hair, but evidence shows that all have hair
|
|
|
What is an example of Hasty Conclusion?
|
All cars have four wheels based on 35 cars when there are lots of cars in the world
|
|
|
What is a Forgetful Induction?
|
Neglecting some relevant data that may change the conclusion
|
|
|
What is an example of Forgetful Induction?
|
Ignoring reserach that negates your thesis
|
|
|
What are Formal Fallacies?
|
Fallacies that involve mistakes in the logical form of an argument
|
|
|
What are Informal Fallacies?
|
Fallacies that involve problems of language or inattention to some important aspect of the argument
|
|
|
What are informal fallacies of "relevance"?
|
Fallacies resulting from inattention to some aspect of the argument
|
|
|
What are informal fallacies of "ambiguity"?
|
Fallacies involving problems of unclear language
|
|
|
What is an Appeal to Force and what is wrong with it?
|
Whoever has the biggest weapon is right
Force is not relevant to truth |
|
|
Who advocated Appeal of Force?
|
Machiavelli "Might makes right"
|
|
|
What is an example of Appeal to Force?
|
The U.S. is the biggest so it is always right
|
|
|
What is Argumentation Ad Hominem and what is wrong with it?
|
Appeal to man
Attacks the opponent, rather than the opponents position You do not prove a position wrong by proving a person stupid |
|
|
What are the two types of Ad Hominem?
|
Abusive
Circumstantial |
|
|
What is Abusive Ad Hominem?
|
Attack on opponents character/intelligence to make other people think their opinion is wrong
|
|
|
What is Circumstantial Ad Hominem?
|
Argues that a position is false by pointing out irrelevant details about the proponents
Not necessarily negative, just irrelevant |
|
|
What is an example of Circumstantial Ad Hominem?
|
Someone is wrong because they wrote about history when they are a biologist
Distracts from the issue |
|
|
What is an Argument from Silence?
|
Something must be true because it cannot be proven to be false and vice versa
|
|
|
What is an Appeal to the Crowd and who often uses it?
|
Tries to convince with a populist and often emotional appeal
Politicians praising the town, talking about sympathetic issues before getting to the point |
|
|
What is an Appeal to Pity and what is wrong with it?
|
Tries to convince by arousing sympathy in the listener
If truth is the issue, we should not deal with feelings |
|
|
Where are Appeals to Pity frequently used?
|
Court
|
|
|
What is an Appeal to Authority?
|
Argues by citing the support of an unqualified expert
|
|
|
What are some examples of Appeals to Authority?
|
Citing professor Jones about the Super Bowl
Little kids appeal to parents etc. |
|
|
What fallacy do people accuse Christians of?
|
Appeals to authority of the Bible
|
|
|
What is wrong with people saying that the Bible is not an authority?
|
God is omniscient so he is a qualified expert about everything
His word is qualified on every subject that it deals with Not a fallacy, but you must convince your audience that there is a God and that the Bible is His word |
|
|
What is Begging (beggaring) the Question?
|
The proof presumes the very thing being proved!
Circular Reasoning Turns the question into a beggar by relying on answers to prove the proof Assume the truth about what you are trying to prove |
|
|
What is False Cause?
|
Mistakenly attributing causality to something
|
|
|
What is an example of False Cause?
|
I washed my car so it rained
|
|
|
What is a Complex Question (Loaded Question)?
|
Asking a question that presumes an answer to another unexpressed question
|
|
|
What is an example of a Complex Question?
|
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Did not ask if you beat your wife in the first place so either answer sounds bad |
|
|
What is a False Dilemma?
|
Posing a question in such a way that the response is limited to fewer options then are really possible
|
|
|
What is an example of a False Dilemma?
|
Did you vote Democrat or Republican?
Other options like Libertarian or Green etc. |
|
|
What are the two types of False Dilemmas?
|
Choose between two options when there are more
Choose between two options when you want to choose both |
|
|
What is a Genetic Fallacy?
|
Argues that a position is false due to some detail of its origins or genesis
|
|
|
What are some examples of Genetic Fallacies?
|
Christian rock is bad because the roots of rock are bad
Christmas tree are bad because they were originally pagan Wrong because they are for decoration now |
|
|
What is a Straw Man?
|
Set up an argument in such a way that the opposing view is easy to defeat
|
|
|
What is an example of a Straw Man?
|
Disproving a weak form of Calvinism does not show that strong Calvinism is false
|
|
|
What is a Red Herring?
|
Introducing some extraneous issue into a discussion to distract from the real issue
DECOY |
|
|
What is an example of a Red Herring?
|
Abortion- “keep your hands off my body!”
Issue of fetus, not woman |
|
|
What is a Non Sequitur?
|
The conclusion does not logically follow from the evidence/argument
|
|
|
What is an example of a Non Sequitur?
|
This is my body, and I have the right to do what I want with it, therefore I have the right to an abortion
|
|
|
What are the Four Fallacies of Ambiguity?
|
Equivocation
Amphiboly Composition Division |
|
|
What is Equivocation?
|
Using a word in more than one way without acknowledging the change in meaning
|
|
|
What is an example of Equivocation?
|
All men are created equal; only half of us are men; therefore only half of us are equal
It means mankind, but they use it to mean just males |
|
|
What is Amphiboly?
|
Grammatical ambiguity that allows a phrase to be interpreted in more than one way
|
|
|
What is an example of Amphiboly?
|
“Throw the cow over the fence some hey.”
Should be “hay” |
|
|
What is a Fallacy of Composition?
|
Attributing the characteristics of the parts to the whole
|
|
|
What is an example of a Composition Fallacy?
|
These are the best players; therefore this must be the best team
Not necessarily, maybe they don’t play well together |
|
|
What is a Division Fallacy?
|
Attributing the characteristics of the whole to its parts
|
|
|
What is an example of a Division Fallacy?
|
This is the best team, so these must be the best individual players
No they just work well together |
|
|
What does skepticism ask?
|
Is it is possible that our whole world isn’t real and that we are in a matrix?
Is real just our internal mind’s interpretation of electrical signals? |
|
|
What is the root of the word Epistemology?
|
Greek "episteme"
|
|
|
What is Epistemology and what does it ask?
|
The study of the nature, validity, means, and limits of human cognition
Can we know the truth and if so how? The Theory of Knowledge |
|
|
What is Skepticism?
|
The philosophical position that says that we probably cannot have any genuine knowledge
|
|
|
What is the key of the definition of Skepticism and why?
|
“Probably” is the key because if they said for sure that you can’t have any knowledge than they would contradict themselves by making a sure statement of knowledge
|
|
|
Do Skeptics say that you can have beliefs?
|
Yes you can still have beliefs, but they are opinions that are probably wrong
|
|
|
What is JTB and what does it apply to?
|
Knowledge is
Justified True Belief |
|
|
What is Apodictic Certainty?
|
Certainty about the truth of a belief wherein the belief cannot possibly be false
|
|
|
What is Psychological certainty?
|
A feeling of certitude about the truth of a belief, when the belief could possibly be mistaken
You could feel certain, but later find out that you are wrong |
|
|
What do Skeptics say about beliefs?
|
You have beliefs but no knowledge because you can’t know if anything is apodictically true
|
|
|
Who was Rene Descartes?
|
“the Father of Modern Philosophy”
|
|
|
What did Descartes try to do?
|
Categorize his beliefs into apodictic and psychological categories
|
|
|
What did Descartes realize about the Demon?
|
We could be in Dream World Controlled by a Powerful Deceiving Demon
Life could be a dream and we don’t know if anything is true We could be stuck in a Matrix and we will never know |
|
|
What did Descartes find that we could know?
|
That we exist
As long as we are thinking we must exist in order for us to be thinking |
|
|
What is Descarte's key phrase?
|
“I think therefore I am”- cogito ergo sum
|
|
|
Does our definition of knowledge require apodictic certainty?
|
No
|
|
|
What do skeptics suggest about knowledge and what is true?
|
Skeptics are suggesting that we have to know it’s true
We do not have to know; it just has to be true If it is true even if we don’t know it is true than it is knowledge |
|
|
What is good about Skepticism?
|
It leads to Modesty
|
|
|
Who was David Hume and what did he say?
|
English philosopher
A moderate skeptic “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” |
|
|
Who was Joseph Butler and what did he say?
|
British, religious, contemporary to Hume
A reasoned anti-skeptic “Probability is the guide to life” |
|
|
What is true about Hume and Butler?
|
Two opposite people came to the same conclusion
|
|
|
Who were the Sophists and what did they say?
|
Early Greek school of philosophers
ALL BELIEFS ARE RELATIVE: THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE Beliefs depend on context and culture |
|
|
Who was a famous Sophist and what did he say?
|
Protagoras (485 B.C.)- “Man is the measure”
Man uses himself to gauge everything he sees and believes |
|
|
Who was Pyrrho the Elder and what did he say?
|
300 B.C.
Founder of the school known as the skeptics KNOWLEDGE IS AN APPROXIMATION OF THE FORMS AND IS THEREFORE ONLY OPINION |
|
|
What did the historic skeptics say?
|
They argued that we should suspend judgment or at least be tentative in our conclusions
Don’t be so quick to believe until you have more evidence Sometimes you can’t suspend, you just have to act, but be cautious |
|
|
What is a descendent of Skepticism?
|
Postmodernism
|
|
|
What is European Postmodernism like and who were some figures of it?
|
A descendent of post-structuralism
Gadamer, Lyotard, Ricour, Foucalt, Derrida |
|
|
What was American Postmodernism a descendent of and who were some figures of it?
|
A descendent of pragmatism; often called Neo-pragmatism
Rorty, Quine, Margolis etc. |
|
|
What are the major themes of Postmodernism?
|
Epistemological Historicism
Epistemological Pluralism |
|
|
What is Epistemological Historicism?
|
The view that all beliefs arise in historical contexts outside of which they cannot be understood
Beliefs are context dependent |
|
|
What is Epistemological Pluralism?
|
All human perspectives are equally subjective and therefore none is more valid than any other
|
|
|
Does Epistemological Pluralism make sense?
|
No
One opinion could have more evidence and therefore be more justified than another |
|
|
What is the heart of Postmodernism?
|
Relativism
What is true for you may not be true for me and vice versa Different things are right for different people |
|
|
Who was Soren Kierkegard?
|
A Danish Christian Existentialist
Founder of Existentialism |
|
|
What was Soren Kierkegard's idea?
|
Ordinary belief is evidential, but faith is not an ordinary belief. Therefore faith must be non-evidential belief: it must be a “leap in the dark”
The most extraordinary belief is belief that runs counter to the evidence |
|
|
What was Kiekegard reacting to?
|
Reacting to Over-Rationalism and Stale Christianity:
In Denmark it was too easy to be a Christian, it was expected of you so there was no challenge of leap of faith |
|
|
What is faith not and what is it according to Kiekegard?
|
Faith is not normal walking by sight
Trust in God even if you don’t have a good reason to, or if you have reasons not to |
|
|
Who was Jean-Paul Sartre?
|
The French Atheistic Existentialist
|
|
|
What did Sartre say?
|
Free will is what sets humans apart from other creatures. Choice is the essence of humanness
The most authentically human beliefs are those that we choose to believe, regardless of whether there is evidence for them or not, especially if there is evidence against them |
|
|
What did Existentialism shift the focus from and to?
|
From truth to Authenticity of Existence
|
|
|
What is the key to authentic human existence according to Sartre?
|
Choice
|
|
|
How was Morpheus an existentialist and how can he be viewed?
|
He has strong beliefs, but they don’t seem to have evidence
His actions could seem reckless or dangerous because he endangers people to follow his personal faith |
|
|
How was Abraham an Existentialist, but was he truly one?
|
He had huge faith to the point of being willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac
Some think that he believed and acted based on faith without any reasoning or understanding No |
|
|
Did Abraham have reasons for his actions, and what verses gave them?
|
Yes
Genesis 17:15, 16, and 19 |
|
|
What were Abraham's reasons to believe?
|
He knew that God was going to choose the son from Sarah, not Ishmael
God promised that Isaac would be the Father of many nations, but when he was called to sacrifice him Isaac had not had any kids yet so Abraham knew he was not doomed God made a covenant with Abraham to use Isaac to make nations |
|
|
What did Abraham believe about God?
|
Abraham believed that God would keep his promises like He always had- he did have reasons to believe in God
Either God would provide another sacrifice or He would raise Isaac from the dead |
|
|
What is Faith?
|
Faith- belief accompanied by trust
Have to have a basis for beliefs |
|
|
What is the best way of finding truth, existentialism or evidentialism?
|
Evidentialism
Weighing the evidence Evidence is a better basis than just blind leaps of truth |
|
|
What are some options for the source of truth?
|
Blind choice Kierkegard
Assertion of will Sartre Weighing of evidence |
|
|
What is true if you want your beliefs to match reality?
|
You must have evidence
|
|
|
What are the definitions of belief?
|
Verb- acceptance of or assent to the truth of some proposition
Noun- the content of the proposition that is accepted or assented to |
|
|
What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
|
Knowledge by definition is always true
Beliefs can be mistaken or false |
|
|
What is the Correspondence Theory of Truth?
|
Truth is a state of correspondence between the content of a proposition and the reality that it describes
|
|
|
What did Aristotle say about the Correspondence Theory of Truth?
|
If what you say matches reality then it is truth
If what you say does not match reality it is not truth |
|
|
What are two Approaches to Justification of Belief?
|
Existentialism
Evidentialism |
|
|
What does Existentialism believe about justification of beliefs and what is wrong with it?
|
Beliefs are justified by the volitional act of the one who chooses to believe them
Reckless, epistemologically unsound |
|
|
What does Evidentialism believe about justification of beliefs?
|
Beliefs are justified by the evidence that supports them
|
|
|
What are the 3 kinds of Evidentialism?
|
Foundationalism
Coherentism Pragmatism |
|
|
What is Foundationalism?
|
A belief is justified when it is derived from other justified beliefs
|
|
|
What is the illustration of Foundationalism?
|
Building:
All beliefs are based on the foundational belief The other beliefs are built off of the foundation and can therefore be justified |
|
|
What is true about Foundationalism?
|
Limited and impractical, but high certainty
|
|
|
What is Coherentalism?
|
A belief is justified for the one believing it when it fits with the rest of his or her beliefs and thus forms a coherent system of beliefs
|
|
|
What is the illustration of Coherentalism?
|
Spider Web
A network of interconnected beliefs If an outside belief comes in you may reject it |
|
|
What is Noetic Structure?
|
Related beliefs inside our head that we compare new ideas to automatically
Do my previous beliefs and experiences fit with it? |
|
|
What is risky about Coherentalism?
|
Sometimes we don’t know how to fit something into our network
Our experiences don’t extend that far etc. You could form an entire network of wrong beliefs Neo has a ton of interconnected beliefs, but they are all wrong |
|
|
What is Pragmatism?
|
Belief is justified by its success in helping you resolve problems or understand your world
If something works then it is true |
|
|
What method of justification do most Americans practice?
|
Pragmatism
|
|
|
What is wrong with Pragmatism?
|
Something can work even if it is not true
Useful method, but not infallible Sometimes you do have to test things, but tests do not always lead to truth |
|
|
What is the definition of Knowledge?
|
A proposition that we are evidentially justified in accepting as corresponding to reality and that actually does correspond to reality
|
|
|
What is the basic idea of rationalism?
|
We are born with a data bank of “innate knowledge” built into our brains
|
|
|
What did Plato believe about things in this world?
|
Everything has a causes
|
|
|
What are the causes of the things in this world according to Plato and why?
|
The "Ideal Forms"
An effect is never greater than its cause so there must be a perfect form behind all these imperfect causes All that we experience is a shadow of the ideal |
|
|
What did Plato believe about the human soul and how does it fit with Christianity?
|
The human soul is eternal
Before, during, and after the body Not Christian, we believe that the soul has a temporal start and then becomes eternal |
|
|
What did Plato say happened to our souls?
|
On the way to this world and our bodies they passed through the world of the forms
|
|
|
What is true about our remembering and learning according to Plato?
|
When we recognize the things in this world, we are actually remembering what we have already experienced in the world of the forms
Our souls contain memories of all the perfect forms and implant them in our minds Learning is actually recalling what we already know |
|
|
What is Plato’s Epistemology is a Form of?
|
Rationalism
|
|
|
What is Rationalism?
|
The view that at least SOME truths about reality can be known via reason alone, apart from any other source of knowledge and that these truths play an especially important role in cognition
|
|
|
What is experience according to Rationalism?
|
Not our teacher
It just helps us remember |
|
|
Who was a prominent rationalist/foundationalist?
|
Renee Descartes
|
|
|
What did Descartes believe about foundational beliefs?
|
They come from reason alone, not experience
|
|
|
What was Renee Descartes process of Methodological Doubt?
|
He wanted to discover what he could know for sure so he checked out all his beliefs to see what resisted doubt
|
|
|
What is the one indubitable, self-evident truth according to Descartes?
|
Cogito Ergo Sum
I think therefore I am I exist |
|
|
What did Descartes say about our ideas of God and why?
|
God exists and is the necessary cause of my idea of God
There must be something great to cause the great idea of God because an effect is never greater than its cause We could not conceive the idea of God unless God gave it to use |
|
|
What is a definition of God?
|
“God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.”
|
|
|
What is true of God according to Descartes and why?
|
God cannot be a deceiver, therefore I am not deceived regarding my other beliefs
God has to be perfect in every aspect, including morality so he wouldn’t let us be deceived |
|
|
What are some doubts about Descartes' views?
|
Some people argue that our ideas of infinite beings do not mean that there is an infinite being
The thought itself is finite so it could have originated from us God could let us be deceived by Satan or something else |
|
|
What are the three rationalists and from what ages?
|
Plato- Ancient
Descartes- Early Modern Noam Chomsky- Contemporary |
|
|
What was Plato's main idea?
|
Innate Ideas
|
|
|
What was Descartes' main idea?
|
Intuition of self-evident truths and deduction of other truths
|
|
|
What was Noam Chomsky's idea?
|
Universal Grammar
Even though we are not born with language, we are born with the innate ability to use language and grammar |
|
|
How is Noam Chomksy's idea rationalism?
|
Innate knowledge of grammar so innate knowledge
|
|
|
What is Empiricism?
|
The view that all knowledge comes from experience/perception
We do not have innate knowledge from reason |
|
|
What could prove Empiricism wrong?
|
If even one belief is not from experience, then empiricism is wrong
|
|
|
What are our beliefs in relation to what we see?
|
Concepts of objects of the visions we see
|
|
|
What is the order of how the Empiricists built off each other?
|
Aristotle
Locke Berkeley Hume |
|
|
What did Aristotle say about how our minds started?
|
At birth the mind is a blank slate.
|
|
|
What did Aristotle say enabled our knowledge?
|
The immanent Forms enable our knowledge of reality via our perceptions
|
|
|
What did Aristotle reject?
|
He rejected Plato’s ideas of the world of Ideal Forms and the imprint of that world on our minds from before the body
|
|
|
What did Aristotle say that all Objects have?
|
Matter and Form
|
|
|
What is Matter?
|
Substance
|
|
|
What is Form?
|
Color, size, shape, etc.
|
|
|
What does Form do?
|
It makes the matter recognizable and imprints the ideas/concepts in our minds
|
|
|
What is true about Form according to Aristotle?
|
Form is immanent in the object, not transcendent in another word
|
|
|
Does Aristotle believe that we have innate knowledge?
|
We have no innate knowledge because we did not pass through the world of Ideal Forms
|
|
|
What does experience do according to Aristotle?
|
It writes on the slates of our minds
|
|
|
What did John Locke say about how we were born and experience?
|
We are born “tabula rasa.” All knowledge is gained through internal and external experiences
|
|
|
What does "tabula rasa" mean?
|
Blank slate, we do not have knowledge when we are born
|
|
|
What is true about experience according to Locke?
|
Children gain knowledge as they grow and have experiences
The more experiences you have, the more you learn |
|
|
What are Locke's two types of experience?
|
External
Internal |
|
|
What is External experience?
|
Sensory experiences that lead to knowledge of the external world
|
|
|
What is Internal Experience?
|
Reflections on my thoughts and feelings that lead to knowledge of myself
|
|
|
What does Locke's description of Internal Experience do?
|
It counts even our thoughts as experiences so even cogito ergo sum is experience not reason
|
|
|
What are Locke's two types of ideas?
|
Simple
Complex |
|
|
What are Simple Ideas?
|
Ideas that result from our experiences
|
|
|
What are Complex Ideas?
|
Constructed by our minds out of multiple simple ideas
When we look at an object we put together the simple ideas of color, shape, texture etc. to come up with the complex idea of what the object is |
|
|
What is the Theory of “Representative Perceptions”?
|
What we actually know is our ideas formed by our simple perceptions put together
|
|
|
Where is our major mistake according to the Theory of “Representative Perceptions”?
|
The key mistake in our perceptions is when we jump carelessly from our simple ideas to our complex ideas
We can conjure up the wrong complex idea; one that we are not experiencing |
|
|
What do we need to be careful to avoid with the Theory of “Representative Perceptions”?
|
We need to avoid hasty conclusions
|
|
|
What does Locke's theory preserve?
|
He preserves both the mental and the material
|
|
|
What does Berkeley say about knowledge and perceptions?
|
Thoughts and feelings, as well as facts about the external world, are perceptions, and are only known via perception
|
|
|
What does Berkeley say about matter and perception?
|
When we perceive objects we do not perceive anything deeper like matter
We cannot see “matter” apart from objects |
|
|
What was Berkeley's most famous quote?
|
“To be is to be perceived”
|
|
|
What could matter be according to Berkeley?
|
A fiction of our imagination
An object has shape, size, color etc., but there is no proof of “matter” |
|
|
Who was William Ocham?
|
A medieval philosopher
|
|
|
What was Ocham's Razor?
|
“Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity”
We must keep our explanations as simple as possible without oversimplifying |
|
|
What does Berkley say about what exists?
|
All that exists is what we perceive
|
|
|
How does Berkely relate the material to the mental?
|
The material is dependent on the mental
Our experiences of color etc. create the object, not something deeper like matter |
|
|
What does Berkeley believe about thoughts and perceptions?
|
Thoughts and feelings must be perceived/experienced to be real
|
|
|
What defines knowledge according to Berkeley?
|
We have no innate non-perceptual knowledge
Perception defines knowledge |
|
|
What does David Hume say?
|
We are only justified in believing what our perceptions can verify, therefore we are not justified in believing in mind, matter, or causality
|
|
|
What is true about "self" according to Berkeley?
|
There is no “self” beneath our thoughts, feelings, and memories
“Self” is an entity that is not justified with Ocham’s razor You cannot perceive or experience self |
|
|
What does Berkeley downplay?
|
Downplays both the external world and the mind
|
|
|
What does Berkeley say about causality?
|
We cannot actually see A cause B, but all we see is that B follows A
There is no empirical reason to believe that A caused B |
|
|
What does Hume say that all knowledge comes from?
|
All knowledge is either relations of ideas or matters of “facts”
|
|
|
What are Relations of ideas and what is true about them?
|
Our combination of ideas in our minds
Do not represent real-life, external objects They are certain |
|
|
What are Matters of "Facts" and what is true about them?
|
Beliefs based on experience or induction
Not certain but offer information about the external world |
|
|
What does Berkeley believe about the external world?
|
There can be no sure knowledge of the external world
|
|
|
What does Empiricism lead back to?
|
Skepticism
|
|
|
What are A Priori Cognitions?
|
Cognition that precedes experience
We don’t see or experience it to know it |
|
|
What are the first three epistemologies and their views?
|
Skepticism- knowledge is unlikely
Rationalism- some non-sensory knowledge is possible and makes possible sensory knowledge Empiricism- all knowledge is perceptural/experiential |
|
|
What is our process of epistemology?
|
Skepticism
Ratonalism Empiricism-leads back to skepticism We have to move on to Rationalism Empiricism |
|
|
Who was Immanuel Kant and what did he try to do?
|
British philosopher
He tried to synthesize rationalism and empiricism |
|
|
What did Kant do with rationalism and empiricism and what did he reject?
|
He took the strengths of both and tried to combine them and throw out the weaknesses
Rejected innate knowledge and skeptical empiricism |
|
|
What are all the Probalistic Things?
|
These are the inductive or inferential ideas
Locke- external experience Hume- matters of facts Kant- synthesis cognitions |
|
|
What are synthetic cognitions?
|
Combine several ideas that we already know to make new knowledge
Dog + Barking=Dog Barking |
|
|
What are the Certain Things?
|
Lock- internal experiences
Hume- relations of ideas Kant- analytic cognitions |
|
|
What are analytic cognitions?
|
We analyze one concept that we already know
They provide no new knowledge just revelation of what we already know |
|
|
What are A Posteriori Cognitions?
|
Cognitions that follow experience
We have to see or experience the objects |
|
|
What are a priori cognitions always?
|
Analytical
|
|
|
What are a posteriori cognitions always?
|
Synthetic
|
|
|
What did Kant discover about A Priori Cognitions?
|
He discovered that there are some a priori synthetic cognitions
|
|
|
What do Synthetic A Priori Cognitions do?
|
We combine things to form new ideas but we know without experience
|
|
|
What are the Synthetic A Priori Categories of Understanding?
|
Space
Time Causality |
|
|
What is Space and does it exist?
|
A concept or relationship between two objects but it does not exist like an object we can touch
|
|
|
What is Time and does it exist?
|
Not a thing, it is a way that our minds relate a series of events
|
|
|
What is true about categories of understanding?
|
We have not experienced these but we have them and synthesize them with experience
|
|
|
What do we do with Categories of Understanding and experience?
|
We combine the categories of understanding with empirical experience
|
|
|
What is true about these categories of understanding and how do we experience the world based on them?
|
We force the world into these matrices in order to understand the world
We experience everything as if these concepts exist but they may not exist or they might but we don’t know either way We cannot take these concepts off, they restrain everything |
|
|
What was Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” in Epistemology?
|
The categories of understanding constitute perception rather than being constituted by perception
|
|
|
What did Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” in Epistemology compare to?
|
Just as Copernicus overthrew Ptolomey’s idea that the Earth is the center of the solar system to show that the sun was, Kant overthrew the idea that we read-off time and space from the world to say that we do not experience them from the world, but impose them
|
|
|
What are the Implications of Kant’s Philosophy for A Priori Cognition?
|
A priori knowledge, both analytic and synthetic is possible always mediated by the categories of understanding
|
|
|
What are the Implications of Kant’s Philosophy for A Posteriori Cognition?
|
A posteriori knowledge is possible but because experience is always mediated by the categories of understanding, the content of our knowledge is phenomenal, not noumenal
|
|
|
What are Noumena?
|
Things in themselves
The chair exists as God knows it |
|
|
What are Phenomena?
|
Things as we experience them in the world
|
|
|
What do Kant's implications not apply to?
|
This doesn’t apply to “practical” knowledge (morals, aesthetics, religion), which involves a very different epistemology
|
|
|
What is Mysticism?
|
A potential way to experience the ultimate reality?
|
|
|
What do mystics say you can do?
|
Experience an ultimate, indescribable, noumenal reality
|
|
|
What are the problems with mysticism?
|
Because it is so real it can’t be described we can’t know it
The only way to know it is to experience it but how can we? |
|
|
What does Biblical Epistemology deal with?
|
What God's revelation says about things like skepticism, empiricism, rationalism etc.
|
|
|
Does the Bible agree with Skepticism or is knowledge possible?
|
It disagrees
Knowledge is possible |
|
|
What verse in the Bible shows that knowledge is possible?
|
John 8:31-32- “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, if ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
You shall know |
|
|
What is John 8:31-32 consistent with?
|
The JTB definition of knowledge
|
|
|
What verse shows that we have no "God's eye view"?
|
Isaiah 55:8-9- “For my thoughts are not your thought, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thought.”
|
|
|
Why do we not have all knowledge?
|
We are fallen and finite and prone to cognitive errors
God's knowledge is way beyond ours |
|
|
What does Isaiah 55:8-9 and Skepticism encourage?
|
It encourages us to be epistemologically modest and have cognitive humility
We must be aware that we make mistakes frequently Healthy modesty |
|
|
What does the Bible say about Existentialism vs. Evidentialism?
|
Favors evidentialism
Choice based upon evidence |
|
|
What verse shows that the Bible is evidentialist?
|
John 10:37-38- "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him.”
|
|
|
What did Jesus constantly do?
|
Offered proof for His messiah-ship
|
|
|
Do our choices impact our beliefs?
|
Yes so we should read and find evidence
|
|
|
Does the Bible accept empirical evidence and what verse deals with it?
|
Yes it does
Matthew 11:2-6 The healings and miracles offer sensory experience as proof for Jesus |
|
|
What does Jesus not say and what does he do in Matthew 11:2-6?
|
He does not just say “believe in me,” He reminds John of the evidence
|
|
|
Does the Bible affirm the idea of some innate knowledge and if so what verse?
|
Yes
Romans 2:14-15 The Gentiles who did not have the law naturally had morality written on their hearts |
|
|
Is Jesus an empiricist or a rationalist?
|
Rationalist
|
|
|
Do rationalists allow for sensory experience?
|
Yes they believe in innate ideas, but some sensory experience too
|
|
|
Was Jesus a Foundationalist and what verse deals with this idea?
|
Yes
Matthew 22:29-32- Sadduccees marriage and resurrection conflict |
|
|
How was Jesus' response to the Sadducees Foundationalism?
|
He is responding to the Sadducees mistaken epistemology
If they had the right foundation they would not have these questions about the resurrection He is saying that the foundation is God and then the Scriptures |
|
|
What was Jesus' order of Foundationalism in Matthew?
|
God
Scriptures Angels Eschatology etc. |
|
|
What should Christians' foundational building be?
|
Christ
God Scripture Ethics Theology |
|
|
Why is Christ the foundation for Christians?
|
We have the most historical evidence of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection so we can believe in Him
We can base our belief in the supernatural off of Him |
|
|
What is true about how we fit God and the Bible into our foundation?
|
That supernatural must be in line with what Christ did because otherwise he wouldn’t have raised Him from the dead
The Bible is God's word |
|
|
What happens if Christians use Scripture as their foundation?
|
Circular Reasoning
|
|
|
What are the Differences Between Our Non-Cartesian Foundationalism and Descartes’ Foundationalism?
|
Apodictic certainty is not the goal
Use of Induction, not just Deduction |
|
|
Why is apodictic certainty not the ultimate goal in Christian Foundationalism?
|
We only want JTB
We know that we are fallen and can’t get to apodictic certainty so we just accept what we can |
|
|
What was the only method that Descartes used in his Foundationalism?
|
Deduction
|
|
|
Is pragmatism biblical?
|
Yes
|
|
|
What verses shows that Pragmatism is biblical?
|
Matthew 7:15-18- You will no a tree by its fruit if it is good or bad
Good trees do not produce bad fruit etc. Deuteronomy 18:22 The result of the prophet shows if he is true or false |
|
|
What does the Bible say about pragmatism?
|
You can evaluate a belief/action based on its outcome/consequences
|
|
|
Should pragmatism be our main philosophy and when should we use it?
|
No, but we can use it when necessary
Sometimes you can’t see if something is good until you see if it works Like politics or economics etc. |
|
|
What should our process as Christians be?
|
Foundation
Experience Pragmatism |
|
|
What is Truth?
|
A state of correspondence between the content of a proposition and the reality it describes
|
|
|
What verses deal with why Christians should study Philosophy?
|
2 Corinthians 10:5
Hebrews 12:1 1 Thessalonians 5:21 1 Peter 3:15 |
|
|
What is 2 Corinthians 10:5?
|
"Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."
|
|
|
What is Hebrews 12:1?
|
"Lay aside every weight, and the sin that doeth so easily beset us."
|
|
|
What is 1 Thessalonains 5:21?
|
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"
|
|
|
What is 1 Peter 3:15?
|
"Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."
|
|
|
What did Morpheus say?
|
"I don't hope, I know"
|
|
|
What did Morpheus say?
|
"I don't hope, I know"
|
|
|
Who said "to be is to be perceived"?
|
Berkeley
|
|
|
Who are the existentialists?
|
Kierkegard
Sartre |
|
|
Who are the Empiricists?
|
Aristotle
Locke Berkley Hume |
|
|
Who are the Rationalists?
|
Plato
Descartes Chomsky |
|
|
Who was the Rational Empiricist?
|
Kant
|
