Perspectives Final Exam

Why did Socrates pursue his way of life as a philosopher?

1. The oracle says the Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates knows he isn’t wise, so he set out to refute what the god had said

2. He wanted to see if he could uncover anyone who was truly wise (which he did not).

3. He believed it was his duty given by the god Apollo after the oracle declared that Socrates was the wisest person.

Why did Socrates think himself wiser than any other person in Athens?

1. Socrates thinks he is wiser because he does not claim to know what he does not know (since he says no one knows anything worthwhile but many think they do know things) Doesn’t pretend to know things

   1. “I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know, so I am likely to be wiser to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.”

Why, after all Socrates’ eloquence, was he found guilty and sentenced to death?

1. He behaved horribly during the trial. When he had the opportunity to propose a counter-penalty, he refused exile and made a mockery of it. The jury had no other option but to sentence him to death. Found guilty bc he was guilty of what he was accused of.

   1. He had been preaching to the youth that the gods didn’t exist, which is a punishable offense.

2. He didn’t actually try to defend himself against the points brought against him, instead, he damned himself further with his arguments. He just needed to say he believed in the gods but he went too far.

Why did Socrates refuse to escape from prison?  (Answer this in great detail.)

1. You must never do injustice even when injustice has been done to you

2. You must keep just promises

3. Reason out why it would be harmful to laws and friends if he escaped:

   1. By living in the city for his whole life, he formed an unspoken agreement/contract that he must abide by the laws (or leave if he disagreed with them) If Socrates escapes now, he will dispel the sanctity of Athenian laws, which would harm the people of the city.

   2. Civil life depends on laws and laws cannot be fickle without threatening the stability of society 

   3. Must die so that philosophers are not seen as enemies of the state, but rather that they are friends of the city

4. Escaping would nullify all the arguments and stances he laid out in the apology, so he must stay and die to defend his reputation

What is the myth of Gyges and what is its importance in the Republic?

1. A guy comes across a ring that makes him invisible. Uses it to seduce the queen and kill the king. 

2. It’s important to the Republic because it is found within the discussion of Socrates saying justice is good in itself and good for its consequences

   1. The myth serves as a counterargument to the “in itself” part

What, according to Plato, are the parts of the soul?

1. Rational: ruled by reason and what is true

2. Appetitive: non-ration, fueled by passions that you have

3. Spirited: strong emotions as a reaction to other parts of the soul. ideally linked to the rational part. Can do bad things if linked to appetitive, so that’s why rational part must rule

Plato: What is the allegory of the cave?

1. People are tied in a cave, bound so they can only look forward at shadows projected on the wall in front of them with a path behind them with a fire and puppeteers walking along path with statues that make shadows on walls in front of prisoners: think the truth is the shadows

2. One is freed: at first, pained by the light and wouldn’t want to be exposed to these new thighs but after adjusting would come to know the reality of nature. Would be ridiculed and potentially killed if return to cave: would no longer be able to see clearly in the dark

3. Line

   1. Imagination:  Shadows

   2. Belief: Seeing the statues and fire

   3. Thought: Trees and things in real world

   4. Understanding: looking at the sun and understanding that it provides life to everything

Plato: What are the ways in which the ideal city corrupts into ever-worse forms of government? 

1. Ideal to timocracy: someone makes a mistake, has children outside of classes

2. Timocracy to oligarchy: Not ruled by reason, so people start pursuing honor and need money for fighting wars. Then they value money over virtue and add a wealth requirement to rule.

3. Oligarchy to democracy: those who aren’t wealthy overthrow the wealthy upper class ruling them. The many then make their voices heard over the wealthy few

4. Democracy to tyranny: True democracy leads to chaos so the poor look for a person to make things better, but that person then pretends to be a friend of the rich. The tyrant is a slave to their appetite.

Aristotle: What are the kinds of life that are mistaken for happiness but in fact are not?  And why are these kinds of life mistaken if identified with happiness?

1. Pleasure: pleasure is transitory, and pleasure can bring unhappiness (temporary and have to distinguish between good and bad pleasures)

2. Honor: relies on other people and people want to be honored for virtue so honor cannot be highest

3. Virtue (excellence is true meaning): if someone has an excellence and cannot exercise it they are unhappy

4. Wealth: merely an instrument to get something else

Aristotle: Why is it important, in a discussion of happiness, to discuss the nature of the soul?

1. Soul means the principle of life: Anything that’s alive has this principle that organizes the matter so it works as one entity

2. REMEMBER: Happiness is the activity of the soul exhibiting virtue/excellence

Happiness is an active human life that exhibits the excellence that is proper to a human life, and reason is what is proper to human life

Aristiotle: What, according to Aristotle, are the parts of the soul, and how does it relate to Plato’s division of the soul into three parts?

1. Rational: seed of reason and excellence is insight and other virtue

2. Non-rational: parts of life that are beyond the capacity of our life to control ex. photosynthesis

3. Mixed: Like the non-rational but the rational part can influence it ex. Someone who has a temper but is able to try and control it

Aristotle: Which part of the soul specifically distinguishes us from other organisms?

Rational

Aristotle: What part is concerned with intellectual virtues?

Rational

Aristotle: What part is concerned with moral and ethical virtues?

Mixed: the non-rational part of soul that rational has some influence over

Aristotle: What are moral virtues? Are they in us by nature?  If not, how do we come to possess them?

1. Moral virtues are mean between extremes of excess and deficiency

2. Not in us by nature: get them through work/action/habituation

   1. Get them through discipline: willing to go without

Aristotle: What is the doctrine of the mean?

Model of where you find virtue in action. Virtue is found at the mean/intermediate between deficiency and excess where you are willing to do without certain pleasures and willing to experience some pain

Aristotle: Does the mean relative to us differ from the mathematical mean? How so?

Yes, because a mathematical mean doesn’t depend on circumstances and is an unchanging metric for a steroid of numbers. Always the same in all circumstances.

Aristotle: Why is the mean relative to us never a mathematical mean?

Mathematical mean doesn’t depend on circumstances but if the mean is relative to use that point shifts based on our life circumstances and how we judge them

Aristotle: Give two examples of a virtue as a mean between two extremes (and explain why the virtue is the virtue, and why the extremes are extremes).

1. Courage: willingness to give up your life for the right reason

   1. Excess: Rash, foolhardiness: will risk anything

   2. Deficiency: cowardice: avoiding any loss

2. Generosity:

   1. Excess: prodigality: giving away lots of wealth without consideration

   2. Deficiency: stinginess: not giving to others even from your excess

Aristotle: Why do some virtues seem to be closer to one extreme than another?

1. The idea of pleasure and pain: human beings are moved by a desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain

2. In order to have virtue: must sacrifice some pleasure and undergo some pain

Aristotle: Are there some sorts of actions that can never be mean?  What are they and why can't they be a mean?

Adultery, murder, stealing. There is never a “just enough” amount, it is always in excess

Aristotle: What are the various kinds of friendship—explain in great detail.

1. Utility: relationship based on use/need/circumstance

   1. Often had by older people

   2. Aristotle views this negatively bc these relationships can lead people to become dishonest about the tru reasoning behind their relationship

2. Pleasure: relationships based on enjoying someone’s company

   1. Often had by younger people, but these friendships are also most easily broken bc people’s pleasures change as they change

3. Perfect: relationship where you genuinely want the best for the other person and the good of the other becomes your good too

   1. This could have grown from a relationship of pleasure of utility and takes a long time to develop

   2. Even if you are away from this person your friendship remains just as strong when you are reunited

   3. Not had by older people since they simply don’t have time

Aristotle: What according to Aristotle is the happiest kind of life–and why does he believe it to be the happiest kind of life?

1. Happiest kind of life is where the rational part of the soul operates at full capacity

   1. This is basically impossible to fully reach because our needs distract us, we don’t have enough leisure time, and most people are not smart enough

2. Closest thing we can get is a life of contemplation: studying what is eternal

   1. Doesn’t fade or corrupt

Augustine: What, according to Augustine, is the origin and nature of evil?

1. Lack of a good that should be there (Privation of good)

2. A question of freedom: since we have freedom we can go astray (into evil)

3. God created the possibility of evil (through freedom) but didn’t create evil because its the lack of good

Augustine: Why for St Augustine was the stealing of the pears so important?

1. Standard opinion in time: all actions aim at some good. Augustine’s experience shows that this might not be true.

2. While stealing lousy pears is a small thing, was important because he chose to do it solely to commit evil (not for any need or even desire for the pears)

Augustine: What is St Augustine's notion of time? How does this notion of time relate to the story of his life?

1. Time is interior (a mental, subjective construct)

2. Present has no duration, constantly fading into the past

   1. Past is present through memory and its impact on our souls

      1. Must reconcile with past to live in present in a healthy way so you can look toward your future

   2. Future is present through anticipation

3. Story of his life

   1. The idea of reconciling with your past to live healthily in the present is seen in Augustine’s life story

      1. With Monica, he expresses deep gratitude and reverence, particularly after her death. The memory of her devotion becomes a source of comfort and a model for his own faith.

         1. Augustine's recollections of her prayers, tears, and unwavering faith shaped his understanding of love, patience, and spiritual commitment. Even when he resisted her guidance in his youth, those memories stayed with him and became a source of inspiration and reconciliation later in life.

      2. While Augustine might critique his father’s focus on temporal achievements, he does not dwell on bitterness. Instead, he seems to reconcile with Patricius’s imperfections by recognizing the larger divine narrative at work in his family.

Aquinas: List the basic goods toward which all human organisms strive, and explain what these goods mean.

1. Life: the preservation of your life is a basic good. All organisms strive to survive.

2. Knowledge: Humans seek truth and understanding about themselves and the world around them.

3. Aesthetic Experience: Humans are organisms that appreciate and are drawn to beauty. organisms that appreciate beauty, 

4. Work/Play: Work allows individuals to contribute to society and play provides rest and renewal.

5. Self Integration: Internal harmony of desires, emotions, reason, and will.

6. Friendship: connections in friendship or marriage provide us fulfillment

7. Authenticity: Being your true self when interacting with others

8. Religion: humans desire to have a relationship with the ultimate, regardless of what kind of ultimate they may believe

Aquinas: If we can never incorporate all the goods in most of our actions, then what is the difference between a morally wicked action (e.g., betraying a friend) and a good action which does not incorporate one or more of the goods (e.g., not going to a party with your friend because you have to study for an exam)?

Wicked action is one that destroys the good within yourself/another as opposed to just not incorporating it

Aquinas: Explain in detail any one of Aquinas’ demonstrations for the existence of God.

1. One: First, and most obvious way, comes from motion

   1. Doesn’t just mean local motion, is better understood as change. It’s impossible to think of any feature in the world that does not undergo change

   2. Great example, us! People are always changing from one condition to another. Sensing, thinking, growing, and breathing, are all changes. For humans, there is no life or being without change.

   3. If we undergo change, we must be able to move from a state of potentiality to actuality. The question here is how does the potentiality become an actuality? We need the input of actual things to reach physical potential (actuality). For possibilities to become actual, there have to exist things other than myself. Change requires input from something other than yourself, which are actual themselves.

   4. If things also undergo change, they ALSO need something other than them which is actuarial unto which all the interconnected finite things within the universe depend.

   5. For this universe to exist, there must exist something that is more than the universe and does not owe its being to something else and is not bound by conditions of space and time. That something is what we call God.

Machiavelli: Founding of New Kingdoms Discussion in Ch. 6 of the Prince

1. Machiavelli discussed the great examples of rulers founding new kingdoms: Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. 

   1. The influential point that ruler founding new kingdoms are dependent on chance only for their first opportunity. They seize chance and then use their virtu (strength) to overcome difficulties and keep succeeding

2. Machiavelli makes the point that only those who are able to wield force and strength are successful: he says, “All armed prophets are victorious and disarmed ones are crushed”

   1. This is a rejection of religion, specifically Christianity, as Jesus is commonly recognized as a type of unarmed prophet.

Machiavelli: Understanding of Virtu in Ch. 8 of The Prince

1. Key point is his clarification of the meaning of virtu. Technically, the word Virtu means both strength/manliness and moral virtue

   1. He is interested in virtue meaning strength, not moral virtue

   2. Must have strength to do whatever it is to get what you want (which connects to his idea of wickedness/cruelty well used

2. In this chapter, Machiavelli distinguishes between wickedness and cruelty well used as opposed to not wel used. Before this assertion, most people would consider any wicked act evil, but Machiavelli explains that if you do a so called evil act in order to get what you want, that it is not actually evil or wicked. Thus, he presents the idea that as long as you are striving toward your goal, wickedness is excusable. 

   1. Again discredits religious arguments by saying that we don’t know if God punishes evil deeds in the afterlife, so it should not be considered in choosing actions

   2. He also clarifies that cruelty well-used involved getting all your evil deeds done at once after seizing power, so that you instill fear and can move on without the people hating you

Machiavelli: What does Machiavelli have to say about Ecclesiastical principalities—and how does this relate to what he says about mercenary and auxiliary troops?

1. Doesn’t like them, you aren’t in control bc men aren’t loyal to you 

   1. Mercenaries will go with whoever pays them the most (worst choice)

   2. Auxiliaries come from another principality, and aren’t loyal to you

2. Ecclesiatical principalities only hire others so they don’t get their hands dirty

Machiavelli: Factors That Cause Rulers to be Praised + 10 Commandments in Ch. 15 of The Prince

1. Ideal republics are not worth talking about because they cannot occur in reality. Similarly, good and evil are not objective things in reality, so being“good” should not be a  consideration.

   1. Rulers must know when not to be “good” in order to hold onto power

2. Gives his 10 commandments: important to be BOTH the positive and negative traits when it is best suited to getting what you want

   1. All moral rules and their opposites are on equal footing depending on what you need. Instruments alerting you of what you have to do to succeed.

   2. You should pick how to behave based on what suits your best interests

      1. Ex. Generous/miser, cruel/gentle, untrustworthy/reliable

3. Want to avoid being thought of having evil qualities.

Machiavelli: Is it better to be loved than feared?

1. Best is both, but if you have to choose one, better to be feared

2. Because love makes you vulnerable and you need someone to act in a certain way to maintain power

3. Fear allows you to be in command and control

What does Machiavelli mean by fortuna; and how is it opposed to virtù?

1. Fortuna: all the things in your life that you don’t control

2. Ratio of things controlled and uncontrolled is 50/50

3. Virtu: strength of character/stomach to do what you need to do to succeed

   1. Have to know what you want

   2. You have control over your virtu

Hobbes: Nature of Good and Evil in Chapter 6 of Leviathan

1. Cannot be a summum bonum in humanity, because we are just made of matter

2. Evil is what repels us, and good is what attracts us: our choices mirror the behavior of matter interacting with other matter

3. All of the moral virtues are merely passions and how matter is acting within you

4. Hobbes argues that the foundation of our perception of good and evil lies in our natural human appetites (desires) and aversions (dislikes).

5. Examples!!!!

   1. Food and hunger: If someone is hungry, food is considered "good" because it satisfies their appetite, but when they are full, it becomes "evil" because it causes discomfort.

   2. Wealth and Power: A person may view wealth as "good" because it provides security and opportunities, while another might see it as "evil" if it leads to greed and conflict. 

What is the significance of Hobbes’ view of power?

1. Ability to move in accordance with what you want

2. Important because this can actually be measured, unlike considerations of morality and abstract concepts

Hobbes: What for Hobbes is the lot of humanity in the state of nature?

1.  Life: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short

2. Primary emotion in the state of nature is fear of a violent death (summum malum). Since you are surrounded by selfish, greedy, individuals.

   1. Homo homini lupus: man is a wolf to man

3. All equal because we can all be killed.

4. This is why we need a social contract!

Hobbes: How is it that we come to make a social contract that takes us out of the state of nature?

People are all so terrified of people around them and violent death that you give up absolute freedom and create an absolute monarch to ensure safety. This absolute monarch is able to make quick decisions and send in military to put down any dangerous activity.

Locke: How is Locke’s political philosophy the same as, and how is it different from, Hobbes’?

1. Similarities: state of nature is dangerous and violence can break out at any time since each person has the right to attack and kill anyone who MIGHT attack you. All equal in state of nature (all as absolute monarchs). 

   1. Since it’s dangerous, we have every reason

2. Differences:

   1. Hobbes: absolute monarchy, Locke: absolute monarchy is bad because that person is in state of nature and can turn against us, want limited government

   2. Locke emphasizes property, and something becomes your property if you do labor to it

   3. Locke: invention of money allows human beings to let their greed expand infinitely (since money won’t spoil like physical goods will)

      1. How do you get selfish people to cooperate in society? Having money directs greed so you aren’t physically hurting others and using money allow things to get better for most people.

Locke: Why is Toleration Important?

• Emphasizes christians shouldn’t treat each other so badly (shame christians into behaving better to each other)

• Christians say theres one way to Heaven, but how do you know who to trust to tell you what that is? Need to make that decision for themselves, not listening to kings, etc. Most important decision: cannot be left to the state (as people can be stupid).

• Have to tolerate others, because we are all on the journey to find God

Locke: Name those groups which Locke says a free society is under no obligation to tolerate, and give his reasons why they should not be tolerated.

1. Public Atheists: Because promises, covenants, and oaths which are the bonds of humane society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, even teh thought of God, dissolves all. They will also undermine other religions taht should be tolerated

   1. Locke argues that public atheists should not be tolerated because they undermine the foundation of moral obligation and social trust. He believes that if people do not believe in a divine authority that enforces moral laws, they have no reason to keep oaths or contracts, which are essential for a functioning society.

2. Roman Catholics/Muslims (depends on translation/interpretation):

   1. Locke is suspicious of groups that owe allegiance to a foreign power, such as the Pope (for Catholics) or distant Islamic rulers (for Muslims). He fears that their loyalty to a religious authority outside the state could make them politically unreliable and possibly subversive to the government.

3. People Who Openly Don’t Believe in Toleration:

   1.  Locke argues that a society should not tolerate groups that, if given power, would suppress the toleration of others. This primarily targets religious sects that seek dominance and persecution rather than coexistence.

4. People Who Merely Pretend to Believe in Toleration:

   1. Locke warns against groups that claim to support toleration but, in reality, use it as a means to gain power and eventually suppress others. This concern is directed at politically motivated groups that exploit the idea of toleration to advance their own interests, only to revoke it once they are in control.

Rousseau: Explain in detail Rousseau's criticism of the enlightenment and of scientific “progress.”

1. The more enlightenment people further the enlightenment, the worse we think about each other (don’t think of beings having any inherent dignity)

   1. That affects the way people treat each other

2. Negative, harsh view of humanity enlightenment causes people to have is reflected in art

   1. Used to show elevated view of humanity, but now enlightenment has had a vulgarizing view on society

Rousseau: According to Rousseau, what is wrong with the social contract theories of Locke and Hobbes?

1. Biggest scam placed on human beings

2. Rousseau says there was already some primitive society who must have been collaborating in some way

3. They are considering people after they have already developed needs placed upon them by society

   1. You cannot see the state of nature simply by removing laws

4. Social contract protects the property of the rich against the peasants, and the peasants think it is there to protect them

   1. Divised by people interested in money and was developed to protect their wealth

Rousseau: How does Rousseau explain the origins of inequality? (Answer in detail.)

1. People used to be all on their own with no language, and had amour de soi, love of self. But after the invention of fire, people begin to congregate for fire’s warmth, creating a primitive society. They realize that they were lacking warmth, and now they have a new need of warmth. They also realize they can accomplish things better together, and begin to recognize that certain people have specific roles that can benefit the group. This leads to a awareness of what others in society think of you, and leads to amour propre, which depends on others perception of you. Additionally, comparison between people leads to competition and sense of hierarchy and people compete for the best mates or best property. Individual traits are emphasized, and people consider how they are different, and unequal to others. Additionally, wanting to protect private property creates an inequality between the rich and poor

2. Kind of delight that you have of your own being (amour de soi) shrinks to the visions of you that is found through others’ perception of you (amour propre)

3. Development of society is explosion of amour propre and shrinking of amour de soi

Rousseau: Difference between amour de soi and amour-propre?

1. Amour de soi: delight in your own being, independent of others

2. Amour-propre: self-love that is shaped by the way others perceive you 

3. Development of society is expansion of amour propre and shrinking of amour de soi

Rousseau: What is Rousseau's own theory of the general will and how does this relate to his theory of the social contract?

1. Is only possible for a small society, not on a large scale

2. You will that the will of the majority be brought to fruition

   1. Even if you personally voted against

   2. Way to overcome tension between amour de soi and amour propre

3. directly tied to his "social contract" theory where citizens agree to abide by laws that represent this general will, essentially governing themselves through a shared understanding of what is best for the community as a whole. different in the sense that you do not give up any rights

4. Need to have some respect of the people in your group, and you must will that the majority will is put in place

Decartes: What is Descartes’ Method of Doubt?

1. The aim is to determine what you know as opposed to what you believe

   1. What you know can’t be wrong, what you believe can be wrong

2. Doubt everything that is doubtable: push doubt to the extreme

3. Can make mistakes with respect to senses: feelings, sound, sight: have to doubt that senses as such give you knowledge

Push doubt to extreme by using idea of the “evil genius.”

Decartes: What role does the ‘evil genius’ play in this doubt?

1. The “evil genius’ is as intelligent as it is powerful and deceives you wherever you can be deceived. Helps you find what you know without any doubt. 

2. Discovers that the evil genius cannot deceive you that you exist, meaning that “I AM” is his first point of certitude. Because if you are being deceived, you must BE (exist), and therefore you exist

Decartes: What is the first point of certitude which Descartes reaches?

I AM: he exists because in order for him to be deceived, he has to BE. 

Decartes: What is Descartes' first definition of himself in Meditation Two?

1. He is a “thinking thing”, by thinking, he means he is a being with conscious experience 

2. Used to think of himself as a rational animal, now doesn’t know what an animal is exactly 

3. Every single person when we make judgements don’t only use sensations, we use concepts, that are based in senses

Decartes: What is the meaning of the example of the wax?

1. Solid wax is hard, opaque, and cold. When you heat it, every single sensible property changes (liquid, transparent, and obviously warm). However, we know it is the same thing. 

2. This shows how humans use concepts to regulate our experience and group our sensations together within concepts. These concepts are not sensible qualities, but are used to organize our experience to make the world a coherent place

Decartes: How does Descartes try to demonstrate the existence of God in Meditation Three?

1. Formal reality: The Kind of reality a thing has in and of itself because it is that kind of thing: On the level of formal idea, all ideas are the same

2. Objective reality: the kind of reality that an idea has, insofar as the idea makes reference to something

   1. On the level of objective reality, ideas are all different.

3. If you are the total cause of all your ideas, then there must be enough formal reality in you to produce ideas having the amount of formal and objective reality contained in them. So, if you have an idea of an all-perfect, infinite being (God) and consider its objective reality, you can see that there’s nowhere near enough formal reality in you to be the total cause of something with so much objective reality, so the only adequate cause of such an idea is that something has to have as much formal reality as the objective idea of God, which could only be God Himself, therefore, God exists.

Decartes: What, according to Descartes, is the real source of error?

The extension of will beyond intellect. Our free will is more expansive, so it reaches for things that we don’t fully understand. So when we make choices regarding things we don’t understand, we can err. However, Descartes specifies that this should not be considered an imperfection in the way God created us.

Decartes: What is Descartes’ demonstration for God’s existence in Meditation Five?

Must we think of GCB (Greatest Conceivable Being) as existing? In other words: is the notion of  existence necessarily attached to the thought of GCB? Descartes again answers Yes. He says: we cannot think of GCB as the kind of thing that might come into or go out of existence; if we think of GCB at all, and the kind of existence proper to GCB, we can see clearly and distinctly that GCB can only be thought of as necessarily existing—as the kind of thing that cannot not exist, that must exist. 

Although we're all free to think about whatever we want or to not think about it. Once you start to think about certain things, these things have a certain intellectual content that pulls you along so you have to think about them in certain ways. Body, you have to think of extension, once you start thinkinking about it, it pulls your intellect into a certain direction. Descartes says that once you think of God, the greatest conceivable being, you see that he is necessarily existing, and can’t not exist, because if it is possible to conceive of a greatest conceivable being, that must exist.

Pascal: Explain what Pascal means by the wretchedness and greatness of man—why you can’t truly appreciate the one without recognizing the other.

Wretchedness and greatness are two sides of the same human coin. Humans are capable of amazing things, but we are also prone to wretched acts and emotions. If you see things about yourself that you don’t like and are worthy of criticism, this means that a part of you recognizes there is a better side of you than that of which you are ashamed.

Pascal: What is Pascal’s analysis of ‘distraction’?

We use distractions to escape from what we believe to be our reality, The idea is that people think of themselves in a certain way, and they can't handle thinking about it, so they distract themselves to get away form it. In doing so, they lead to social and religious disaster. Distractions are bad because ultimately they won’t work anymore, and by trying to distract others from the bad parts of you (by putting on a mask), you end up pushing them away from your true self and can’t have a true connection.

Pascal: How does Pascal’s psychological analysis of the human condition lead into his argument that Christianity is the true religion?

Christianity’s account is the best explanation for how humans can be both great and wretched. Being created in God’s image explains why we are great, and then the Fall and Original Sin explains our wretchedness. True religion must address all sides of human life and recognize the good and the bad. Christianity is able to recognize both sides of humanity: the side that messes up (wretched) and the side that is worthy of love (great). By recognizing the side that is worthy of love, Christianity also provides hope, which a true religion should do.

Pascal: Explain his famous “wager argument.”

• Draw Box: God Exists / God Doesn’t Exist, You Believe / You Don’t Believe

• Vertical lines are great, diagonal lines mean you are wrong. Only for those who are convinced that the Christian life is the best way to live. If you think it’s the best way to live, you can’t wait for some proof of God because, in that way, you are betting that Christianity isn’t true. The only clue we have of truth is the way our heart feels, so if you believe Christian life is the best way to live in truth, then you should live it. Then, if God doesn’t exist, even though you are wrong, you have lived the way you thought was best.

What does Kant mean by a priori?

Prior to experience: not deriving from sensation

a judgment whose truth can be verified prior to sense experience

ex. All bodies are extended.

What does Kant mean by a posteriori?

After experience: derives from a sense experience

a judgment

whose truth can be verified only after some sense experience

ex. That dog is rabid

What does Kant mean by an analytic judgment?

Judgement where the predicate is already covertly contained in the subject (The bachelor is unmarried)

What does Kant mean by a synthetic judgment?

Judgement, where the predicate adds something to the notion of the subject (The bachelor is unhappy)

How does Kant account for the possibility of scientific knowledge? Answer in detail.

If scientific knowledge is possible, there has to be a priori. Kant says that synthetic a priori statements are possible because we have sensibility (sense-experience of forms in space and time) and understanding (ability to make judgments about sense-experience concepts). In order to have knowledge, we must have both sensibility and understanding, as they rely on each other.

• Scientific knowledge fundamentally arises by us figuring out what is universally and necessarily true about the sensible world

• What things are like in themselves (the X on the drawing), we cannot know. We know things only the way we experience/sense them and how we interpret them.

Kant: How does this account preclude, in his opinion, the possibility of our having theoretical knowledge of God, freedom, and immortality? Answer in detail.

Take the example of immortality. To have theoretical knowledge of immortality, you would have to know something that is not empirical and is beyond our senses, but our experience is limited to our senses (now), so we cannot have theoretical knowledge of something that continues out into the future. These areas of knowledge take you beyond the realm of what is sensible, so we cannot comprehend it.

• What things are like in themselves (the X on the drawing) we cannot know. We know things only the way we experience them

What, according to Kant, is the fundamental basis of the moral life? 

Duty: Once you accept that you have duties, you have to believe you are free and have dignity in this freedom. Recognizing your duty allows you to accept your role as a moral person, ultimately connecting to you having free, practical reason.

Kant: Can we argue about moral first principles with someone who denies them? If not, why not?

• No, cannot argue moral first principles with someone who denies them because there is no common ground between you. You have to accept the reality of duty in order to accept your role as a moral person. Once you accept that truth, you believe that you are free and live in a community of other persons. If someone denies that they have duties, you cannot convince them and should avoid the person

State and explain what Kant means by the Categorical Imperative.

Imperative (commandment) and Contegorical (in itself, not hypothetical (if you want ___ then ____) which is reliant on something else) A Categorical Imperative commands just by itself. 

Example: Act in such a way as to will that the maxim of our actions will become universal law.

According to Freud, what are the three parts of the mind?

Id: unconscious part

• Seeks basic instincts like hunger, thirst

Ego: mediates between the id and reality

• Seeks to satisfy the demands of the id through reasoning and problem solving

Superego: represents moral standards

• Can generate pride or guilt depending if the behavior acts in accordance with personal or societal morals

Freud: Psychoanalysis

• Unconscious forces drive human behavior and are the key to understanding mental health 

• dreams as the window to the unconscious mind, which are filled with symbols and messages that can be analyzed and understood

Freud: What is the difference between Manifest Content and Latent Content?

• Manifest content: the dream itself 

• Latent content: the hidden meaning

Freud: Libido

Sexual energy that drives human development and behavior

Freud: Thanatos and Eros Drives in Civilization

Eros is known as the life drive: and is associated with love, sexuality, creativity, cooperation. It drives us to form bonds and communities. On the other hand, thanatos is the death drive: and is associated with aggression, destruction, and the desire to return to a tensionless, lifeless state. It is expressed as rage, war, and cruelty. Civilization attempts to channel eros (through love, families, and social bonds) and repress thanatos. But this repression will always create psychological tension.

Freud: What is Wrong With Civilization?

1. Civilization is all about the reality principle, which always says, on some level, no to human wants. Always some sacrifice to the reality principle (you have to sacrifice the pleasure principle)

2. The more advanced a society, the more constrained the pleasure principle (your impulses and desires may not be met)

3. For all the good civilization brings, it can never bring happiness