Metaphysics Module 2 review

empereia

experience

aphairêsis

to take away

epagoge

induction

kinêsis

motion

entelecheia

being fully itself

demiurge

craftsman/producer

cogito

I think

mens

on the one hand

corps

body

scientia

knowledge/science

ratio

reason/reckoning

What motivates Descartes’s skepticism? Why does he feel it necessary to prove God’s existence?

Descartes' skepticism is driven by the goal of establishing absolutely certain knowledge, and proving God's existence is a crucial step in achieving that. By proving that a benevolent God exists, Descartes secures the reliability of reason and perception, which are essential for building a trustworthy foundation for all knowledge.

How does cogito ergo sum serve as the foundation for Descartes' first indubitable belief?

Cogito ergo sum serves as the first indubitable belief because it is a truth that cannot be doubted. It demonstrates that even the most radical skepticism cannot undermine the certainty of one's own existence as a thinking being. This self-awareness of existence as a thinker becomes the foundation for Descartes' entire philosophical project, allowing him to rebuild knowledge on a secure and certain base.

What is rationalism? Discuss one of the examples that Descartes uses to illustrate the thesis of rationalism.

For Descartes, rationalism is about accessing certain knowledge through reason, independent of the potentially deceptive world of sensory experience. One of his key examples to illustrate this thesis is the certainty of mathematical truths—such as the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 or the properties of a triangle. These truths, for Descartes, are a priori and indubitable, providing a foundation for all other knowledge that is built upon reason rather than the unreliable senses.

What is Aristotle’s theory of abstraction in A. Po II.19 (274)? As an empiricist what aporia is Aristotle faced with? How does abstraction propose to solve it?

Aristotle solves the aporia of moving from the particular to the universal through abstraction, where the mind extracts the universal forms or essential properties from the particular objects encountered through sense experience. This allows for the knowledge of universals to be grounded in the particular experiences of the senses, thereby maintaining an empiricist framework while also accounting for the existence of abstract concepts like "humanity" or "triangle." In short, abstraction enables Aristotle to bridge the gap between sensory particulars and universal knowledge, showing how the mind can abstract universal forms from the world of individual, empirical experience.

What is teleology? How is it relevant to both Aristotle and Aquinas? Give an example to illustrate.

Teleology—the idea that natural processes and objects have inherent purposes or ends—is central to both Aristotle and Aquinas, though they apply it in different ways. For Aristotle, teleology is intrinsic to nature and can be understood through reason and observation, especially in relation to biological organisms and natural phenomena. For Aquinas, teleology extends beyond the natural world to the divine purpose of all creation, linking the final causes in nature to the divine plan of God. Both philosophers use teleology to explain the order and purpose they perceive in the world, but Aquinas integrates a theistic framework, arguing that the ultimate purpose of all things is to fulfill God’s divine plan.

What is the point of Aquinas’s Five Ways? Explain one of the arguments he makes.

Aquinas's Five Ways aim to provide rational arguments for the existence of God based on empirical observations of the world. The Argument from Motion is one such way, showing that the observable motion and change in the universe must have a first cause or unmoved mover, which is identified as God. This argument, along with the others, is a way for Aquinas to show that belief in God is not contrary to reason, but rather can be supported by it.

What is theodicy? How does it pertain to Plato’s view of creation in Timaeus and Laws? (591, 593, 595)

Theodicy, in the context of Plato’s views in Timaeus and Laws, addresses the issue of imperfection and evil in the world by emphasizing the nature of the material world and the role of human choice. In Timaeus, the imperfections of the world arise because the Demiurge can only shape imperfect matter, while in Laws, evil is primarily a consequence of failing to live in accordance with divine law and reason. Both works offer explanations that seek to justify the divine creation in the face of imperfection and suffering.

What reasons does Nagel give to support the common-sense view that humans are capable of free actions and can exercise at least some autonomy? Explain.

Nagel supports the common-sense view that humans can exercise freedom and autonomy through a combination of intuitive experience, moral responsibility, self-reflection, and complex decision-making processes. While he acknowledges the challenges posed by determinism and other philosophical concerns, he argues that our lived experience—particularly our sense of agency, responsibility, and moral judgment—supports the idea that we can act freely. Human autonomy is not absolute or unqualified, but it exists in the practical, everyday choices that individuals make, especially when they reflect on their desires, goals, and reasons for action.

Why does the objective perspective lend credence to determinism? What is the relevance of UAC?

The objective perspective lends credence to determinism by emphasizing that human actions, when viewed externally, appear to be the result of causal laws and predictable processes, much like any other phenomenon in the universe. The relevance of UAC (Unconscious Automatic Causality) further supports this view by showing that much of our behavior is influenced by unconscious forces that we cannot control or even perceive. Together, these perspectives suggest that human actions are not as free or autonomous as they might seem, but are instead determined by factors outside our conscious awareness and control.

How does Nagel illustrate the difference in application between the subjective and objective perspective to the free will debate, using the example of Lieutenant Calley, who we might call “a dangerous bit of the zoosphere”?

Nagel uses Lieutenant Calley as a way of illustrating how the subjective perspective (our sense of moral agency and free will) and the objective perspective (which looks at behavior as shaped by external causes) offer contrasting ways of understanding human action. While Calley’s actions may seem to reflect personal responsibility from a subjective point of view, the objective view emphasizes that his behavior was likely shaped by a series of external factors (social, psychological, and historical), making the question of moral responsibility and freedom more complex.