Phil 230 Midterm- Todd Long

Philo-sophy (greek meaning)

Love of wisdom/ desire (wants) to be wise

Soul

Psyche- mind

Necessary Truths

truths that are true under all possible conditions

Contingent Truths

truths that are true but not in all possible conditions

Examples of Necessary Truths

Mathematics- necessary truths about numbers and other math object

Philosophy- necessary truths about concepts that puzzle us

Examples of Contingent Truths

Science- contingent truths (truth that is momentarily but not always true) -- there are people in this room/ it's night time

Epistemology

the studies/theory of KNOWLEDGE

"what is the nature of knowledge?"

there are facts about the world, even if no one thinks about them

3 types of knowledge

Acquaintance knowledge

Ability knowledge

Propositional knowledge

Acquaintance Knowledge (epist)

idea of knowing of/about something/someone

ex: "I know Rachael" (incorrect)

"I know Bob Dylan" (correct- don't actually know him)

Ability Knowledge

knowing how to do something

"I know how to surf"

Propositional Knowledge

proposition= whatever is expressed by a declarative sentence (a sentence that can be true or false / yes or no) -- "I have two hands"

what most epistemologist spend their time on

Three conditions to know (NEED) that a proposition is true (exist--knowing that)

1. Believe- it is true

2. Truth- has to be true

3. Justification- and evidence

Metaphysics and Questions asked

Study of basic issues about real it and our place in it that science cannot answer

Q's:

- why does anything exist? (science cannot answer this question so philosophers tackle it)

-what is a person?

-what is freewill?

-Does G-d exist?

-Are there any non-physical things (time, numbers, souls)? (science is the study of physical things, this why science cannot answer this question)

What is an Argument? (goal)

-"premises" that provide reasons for the "conclusion"

-not a dispute/ debate

-looking for truth

premises

the assumption that something is true-- proposition to an argument

-if someone accepts them, then they also accept the arguments conclusion

Premise indicators

Given that, because, based on, assuming, since, For (the reason that)

Conclusion Indicators

therefore, thus, so, consequently, hence, ergo, it follows that

How do evaluate an argument?

Validity test and conclusive premises test

Valid Argument

An argument is valid, if and only if, the truth of the premises guarantees (logically) the truth of the conclusion

Invalid Argument

Although the premises might be true, the conclusion gives us no reason to believe so

Validity Test

- tests the logical structure

- the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion

- its impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false

1. assume that all premises are true (even if they're false)

2. Is it possible for the conclusion to be false?

- If YES-- than argument FAILS test (argument is "INVALID")

- If NO-- than argument PASSES test (argument is "VALID")

Valid example: 1. All dogs are cats 2. I am a dog C. I am a cat

Invalid example: 1.All dogs are cats 2. the moon is made of cheese C. I am a donkey

Conclusive Premises Test

- testing the truth value of premises

1. Ask: Do I have reason to believe that all the premises are true?

- If YES-- go to step 2

- If NO-- fails test

2. Ask: Do I have any reason to deny any premise?

-If YES-- then the argument FAILS the test

-If NO-- then the argument PASSES the test

Sound Argument

an argument that proves its conclusion to be true passes both validity and conclusive premises test

- argument can be valid but not sound

Predicate Logic

All A's are B's

X is an A

----------------

X is a B

Sentential Logic

If P then Q

P

-------------

Q

All As are Bs.

x is an A.

x is a B.

Valid

All chimps are mammals.

Cheetah is a chimp.

Cheetah is a mammal.

All As are Bs.

X is not a B.

X is not an A.

Valid

All chimps are amphibians.

Cheetah is not an amphibian.

Cheetah is not a chimp.

If P, then Q.

P.

Q.

Valid

If Cheetah is a chimp, then horses cannot swim. Cheetah is a chimp.

Horses cannot swim.

If P, then Q

Not Q

Not P

Valid

If Cheetah is a chimp, then Cheetah is a mammal.

It's not the case that Cheetah is a mammal.

It's not the case that Cheetah is a chimp.

Either P or Q

Not P

Q

Valid

Either the Braves win the Pennant, or the Phillies win the Pennant.

The Phillies do not win the Pennant.

The Braves win the Pennant.

If P, then Q

If Q, then R

if P, then R

Valid

If the sun is made of zebras, then Marilyn Monroe was a man.

If Marilyn Monroe was a man, then Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer.

If the sun is made of zebras, then Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer.

All As are Bs

x is not an A

x is not a B

Invalid

All chimps are mammals.

Cheetah is not a chimp.

Cheetah is not a mammal.

All As are Bs

X is a B

X is an A

Invalid

All chimps are mammals.

Cheetah is a mammal.

Cheetah is a chimp.

If P, then Q

Q

Thus, P

Invalid

If it rains, then Sally takes an umbrella.

Sally takes an umbrella.

It rains.

If P, then Q

Not P

Not Q

Invalid

If it rains, then Sally takes an umbrella.

It doesn't rain.

Sally doesn't take an umbrella

Either P or Q

P

Q

Invalid

Either the earth revolves around the sun, or the moon is made of cheese.

The earth revolves around the sun.

The moon is made of cheese.

Deductive Arguments (Deduction)

purport to demonstrate ( to prove in the strategic sense) that its conclusion is true, and thus to make its conclusion reasonable to believe.

math & philosophy

Inductive Arguments (Induction)

purport to make probable ifs conclusion, and thus make its conclusion reasonable to believe.

science

Dovastic Attitudes

- Belief

- Disbelief

- Suspension of judgement

Conceptual Analysis

analyzing concepts by empirical investigation that we're interested in but which are puzzling to us: knowledge, wisdom, etc.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Necessary - ONLY IF

Sufficient- IF

EX: An object S is a person, IF and ONLY IF S is an earth organism with green skin look in notes for explanation

Counter-Example: I do not have green skin and I am a person.

Thought-experiment

An experiment done simply by thinking through the argument and coming up with counter-examples as to why it is false

^Relies on intuition (rational insight-- knowing something to be true just by thinking about it- without doing imperical (relies on sense) checking)

Socrates

-Soul = Mind

- humans composed of 2 parts: bodily and mental

Socrates Contributions to the World

1. Inductive Argument

2. Essential Definition (idea of looking for necessary conditions) -- stating what's common to all instances of the thing at issue

3. Socratic Method of Teaching/Learning -- asking leading question to design the students to think the answer through and come up with the answer on their own

Socratic Problem

the problem of figuring out which of the speeches by the character Socrates reflect Socrates' own views, and which reflect Plato's views.

Bads v. Goods of Life

Bads:

- Body

- incorrect views of the world

- flesh, emotions, ignorance, misleading

- The Particulars

Goods:

- Soul/ Mind

- rational part of a human

- Knowledge, truth

- The forms

3 Phases of Plato's writings

Early: Meno (Socrates Views)

Middle: Phaedo (Mixture of Socrates & Plato's Views) - developing Platonic views

Late: (Plato's Views)

Some of Socrates Arguments

- Why the living embodied souls come from the world of the dead

- Opposites Argument

- Knowledge is recollection

Forms

GOODS

- Ex. equality, goodness, beauty, triangularity

- the "blueprints" of all the particular things that are sensible to us

- unchanging, invisible, pure, non-physical

Particulars

BADS

- imperfect representations of the forms

- changing, visible, complex

Plato's divided line

1 The forms

2 Relations

3 Bodily Things

4 Icons

1&2= knowledgable, real, universals

3&4= mere belief/ opinion, and unreal

Proof of Forms

1. In maths, perfect shapes such as triangles and squares can be conceived of and we can infer their properties, without perceiving any of them with our senses

2. Forms are universal, and it's hard to deny that universals exist

a. Universals explain what makes true our time talk of sameness among multiple particulars: "this is the same as that, in that both are wooden"

b. Universals explain what we mean when we use predicts: "Todd Long is male" (male referring to property that T. Long has the property of being male, but is not the only one with this property)

c. Universals explain what makes true sentences involving abstract references: "courage is a moral virtue" (virtue- abstract reference, courage- deeper meaning)

Realism (Universalism) About Sameness

S1. This is the same as that, in that both are wooden

S2. All electrons have exactly the same charge

- properties that things SHARE means they'r universal

-S1 is true in virtue of the fact that this and that share a property: being wooden --> being wooden is a general thing in the sense that it is sharable among multiple things

- like 2 chairs (universal property -- wooden)

1. 3 red apples share the properties of having grown on a tree and being composed of organic molecules

2. All properties that are sharable are universal

3. No objects can share properties that do not exist

C. Universals Exist

Reasons some people don't believe this theory: have to believe in universals, which don't have a time or a place, but have to believe they exist

-mysterious

- multiply located spacial objects

Pure Nominalism About Sameness

S1. This is the same as that, in that both are wooden

S2. All electrons have exactly the same charge

-Nominalism = Naming

*only particular things exist, thus there are no universals. Explains sameness in terms of word application

-S1 is true in virtue of the WORD "wooden" being true of this and that. "Wooden" is true of this and that only because we apply the word "wooden" to this and that.

Objections:

2 things can be the same even if we haven't discovered them yet, but these 2 things do not have a name yet, therefore we can not apply a word to them to prove their sameness

- CANNOT BE TRUE THEORY OF SAMENESS

Class Nominalism About Sameness

S1. This is the same as that, in that both are wooden

S2. All electrons have exactly the same charge

- Created by David Lewis

only particulars exist; so, there are no universals (sameness based on being in the same set/class)

-S1 is true in virtue of this and that being in a CLASS together: the SET of wooden things

Reasoning for set membership by someone that believes this theory --> "because they just are" (everything else is the same as all other things because they are all things) -- we don't cause or create the sets, they just are

Reason to deny:

-Problem of Unsubstantiated types: (Lewis found this problem him self)

S3. Unicorns do not exist (T), S4. Superheroes do not exist (T), S5. Superhero's and Unicorns are not the same(T)

--> set theory says they're the same because by not existing theres nothing in the set and only one set can have nothing, therefore one of these sentences must be false

-Solution to the problem: possabilia (non-actual existing things)

- there are non-actual unicorns, if you could be where the non-actual things are then they'd be like all other normal physical things, but we can't be where these non- actuals are

--> if we compare non-actual existing unicorns to non-actual existing superhero's, then they are in fact NOT the same- diff sets (don't have same properties)

^Most philosophers see this as Adhoc (making something up to make your explanation reasonable)

The Philosophical attitude toward arguments

- characterized by desiring to get at the truth

- not about being right

- not about persuading people

Meno Principle

"Socrates View" Ex. It is possible to know the way to Larissa

Phaedo Principle

"Plato's view" The forms are the only knowledgable things

True Belief/ opinion

is just as good as a guide to action as is knowledge

Knowledge (Meno)

Tied Down true- belief: giving an account of the reason why

= Justified True Belief

- it is more valuable then true belief because it is more likely to stay in your mind/ head.

Knowledge (Phaedo)

recollection