Philosphy 25B

UC Berkeley Final Study Guide for Philo 25b

Hylomorphic

Everything = Matter + Form: All natural things are made of matter (stuff) and form (shape, traits, powers). (hylomorphic)

Aristotles main beliefs

Heavens vs. Earth: Celestial and earthly things follow different laws.

Everything = Matter + Form: All natural things are made of matter (stuff) and form (shape, traits, powers). (hylomorphic)

Nature of Substances: Each type of thing has its own natural behavior (e.g., fire naturally rises).

Humans = Rational Animals: Humans are unique because they can reason.

Bacon vs Aristotle

Bacon believes Aristotelian methods cannot advance knowledge, he suggests a new method with two components in it Getting rid of preconceptions of the mind: the four idols and Systematically examining the observations

What are the four idols purpose

Getting rid of preconceptions of the mind

What are the four idols names

“idols of the tribe”

“idols of the cave”

“idols of the marketplace”

“idols of the theater

“idols of the tribe”

Human nature causes biased thinking.

“idols of the cave”

Personal experiences distort perception.

“idols of the marketplace”

Language misleads and confuses

“idols of the theater

Blind faith in traditions or teachings.

First Mediation + examples

We can doubt everything—even the physical world—if our current foundations for knowledge are weak.

Dream Argument: Dreams can feel real—how do we know we’re not dreaming now?

Evil Deceiver: A powerful being could be tricking us, even about math (e.g., 2+2=4).

Sensory Illusions: Senses can deceive (e.g., distant objects).

Skeptic vs. Dogmatist

Skeptic questions everything and a Dogmatist (Aristotelian empiricist) defends existing beliefs.

Second Meditation

Cogito ergo sum ("I doubt therefore I think, therefore I am")Even if everything else is doubted, the mind knows it exists because it thinks., only proves the existence of the thinking activity, not the body.

What is the Mind? for Descartes

A thing that doubts, understands, wills, senses, imagines, etc.

Wax Example for 2nd meditation

Wax changes form, but the mind still knows it’s the same thing

People on the Square

We see clothes/hats, but judge they’re people.

Meditation III

Proof of God: Infinite idea (objective reality) requires infinite cause (formal reality). sooo God exists by showing the idea of God must come from God Himself.

Gradations of Reality

Gradations of Reality: A hierarchy where God (most real/perfection) creates dependent substances (e.g., minds, bodies) and their modes (specific thoughts or properties).

Formal Reality

The actual existence of a thing (e.g., a cat in the world).

Objective Reality

Objective reality: The representational content of an idea (e.g., the idea of a cat in the mind).

Causal Axiom

A cause must have as much or more reality than its effect

Formally Real Cause

An idea with high objective reality must come from something with equally high formal reality.

Descartes arguements for gods existence

Every effect (like an idea) must have a cause.

The cause must have as much reality as the effect.

I have an idea of God as infinite (infinite objective reality).

I am not infinite, so I cannot be the cause.

Only a being with infinite formal reality can cause this idea.

➡ Conclusion: God exists.

Meditation 4

Error comes from misuse of free will, not from our intellect or God

2 faculatities of mind

• Intellect (Understanding):

  • Perceives ideas (e.g., thoughts, images).

  • Cannot be wrong on its own.

  • Finite

• Will (Judgment):

  • Affirms or denies ideas.

  • Can go beyond what the intellect fully understands.

  • Infinite

where does error come from?

• From judging things the intellect doesn't fully grasp.

• Our will is broader than our understanding, leading to mistaken judgments.

Meditation 5

God’s existence is as logically necessary as a triangle having three sides.

Descartes’ new (3rd) proof for God’s existence?

• God is a supremely perfect being.

• Existence is a perfection.

• So, denying God’s existence is like denying that a triangle has three sides—it’s logically contradictory.

Caterus’s “existing lion” objection?

• Claim: You can say a lion exists by definition, but that doesn’t prove it exists in reality.

• Descartes’ reply: Only God exists necessarily, by His own power—unlike lions, which are contingent beings.

Arnauld’s “Cartesian Circle”

• Descartes uses clear and distinct perceptions to prove God exists...

• But also relies on God’s existence to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct perceptions.
  ➡ This seems like circular reasoning.

Meditation 6

Material world exists (God wouldn’t deceive us about sensory experience).

can imagination prove material things exist?

Not definitively. Imagination depends on the body, but this just makes the existence of matter likely, not certain.

Can sensation prove material things exist?

• Yes, indirectly.

• Since God is not a deceiver, it’s reasonable to believe that external bodies cause our sensations.

• We have a natural belief in material things—and this belief was put there by God, so it must be trustworthy.

mind-body dualism

Mind and body are distinct substances.

We can clearly conceive of mind without body and vice versa.

The mind is a thinking, non-extended substance.

The body is an extended, non-thinking substance.

Therefore, the mind and body are really distinct.

• I can’t doubt that I think.

• I can doubt that I have a body.

• So, thinking ≠ extension.

• Thus, mind ≠ body → they are really distinct substances.

conways 3 levels of being

God (Level 1)

Supreme, unchangeable source of all vitality.

Emanates divine life to all creatures.

Everything in nature is a mode of this divine vitality, with mind closest to God, and body furthest.

Middle Substance / Logos (Level 2)

Also called the Word or Logos: the divine plan or reason by which God knows all things.

Aims to improve creation—like a musical score that guides the harmony of the world.

Changeable only for the better.

Created World (Level 3)

Includes all created beings (humans, animals, nature).

Changeable for better or worse.

All things are on a journey toward becoming more spiritual and morally conscious.

Final perfection is not possible, but spiritual progression is.

Conway’s main idea about the relationship between spirit and body?

Spirit and body differ not in essence but in degree. Every body is a spirit, just darker and coarser. The distinction is modal and incremental, not essential.

Why does Conway reject Cartesian dualism’s explanation of mind-body interaction?

She argues that merely saying there is a "fit" or "vital agreement" doesn’t explain interaction. Instead, she claims the soul is of the same nature and substance as the body, allowing for true unity and interaction.

What evidence does Conway use to argue that bodies contain spirits?

She points to animals emerging from earth and water (e.g., fish appearing in pools without being placed there), showing that spirits are inherent in all matter.

How does Conway respond to the objection that bodies merely "have" spirits rather than being spirits themselves?

She clarifies that while all bodies contain spirits, this doesn’t mean spirits and bodies are identical in nature—they remain distinct but united.

How does Conway’s view of corporeal nature differ from Descartes’?

Descartes sees extension as "dead body," while Conway argues corporeal nature is alive, possessing life and sense.

What are the key features of Conway’s metaphysical system?

1. Monism with degrees (spirit/body differ incrementally).

2. Living matter (all bodies have life/sense).

3. Three distinct substances: God (pure spirit), Middle Substance, and created world.

How do Conway and Spinoza differ on the nature of God and creatures?

• Spinoza: God and creatures are one being (God has both thought and extension).

• Conway: God, Middle Substance, and creatures are distinct—God is purely spirit, not corporeal.

Where do Conway and Hobbes agree and disagree?

Agree:

1. All creatures are originally one.

2. All creatures are corporeal.
   Disagree:
   Conway says bodies have "light and life" (vitality), unlike Hobbes’ mechanistic view.

Why must Substance necessarily exist, according to Spinoza?

1. No external cause can negate Substance:

   • If it shares Substance’s attribute → Substance exists (contradicts assumption).

   • If it has a different attribute → Cannot affect Substance (no causal relation).

2. No internal cause → Substance’s nature is to exist (E1p7).
   Conclusion: Substance cannot not exist.

How does Spinoza argue that there can only be one Substance (God)?

• No shared attributes: Two substances cannot share an attribute (they’d be identical by the Identity of Indiscernibles).

• No distinction by modes: Substances must be conceived through themselves, not modes.

• God has all attributes → No other substance can exist without sharing an attribute with God.

Why can’t two substances share an attribute, per Spinoza?

• If they share an attribute, they must differ by modes (but substances can’t be distinguished by modes, as they must be conceived through themselves).

• Leibniz’s objection: Couldn’t they share one attribute but differ in another?

• Spinoza’s reply: An attribute must fully define a substance; if another attribute is needed, it’s not a true attribute of that substance.

What are modes, and how do they relate to Substance (God)? (According to spinoza)

• Modes: Everything that is not Substance (e.g., objects, thoughts).

• Dependence: Modes inhere in God (like wrinkles in a blanket or waves in the sea).

• Conception: Must be conceived through God (E1p15).

How do modes follow from God’s nature?

Infinite modes: Necessarily follow from God’s nature (E1p16) (e.g., laws of physics).

Immanent cause: God causes modes internally (they’re not separate from God).

Analogy: Like how a triangle’s properties follow necessarily from its definition.

How does Spinoza’s God differ from Descartes’ and Leibniz’s?

• Descartes: God creates via free will; Spinoza’s God acts by necessity.

• Leibniz: God chooses "best possible world"; Spinoza denies unactualized possibilities—everything follows necessarily.

What is the difference between immanent and transitive cause? (Spinoza)

• Immanent cause (Spinoza’s God): Effects inhere in the cause (e.g., modes in Substance).

• Transitive cause (e.g., Descartes): Effects are external to the cause (e.g., a potter making a vase).

What is the difference between determinism and necessitarianism?

• Determinism: The state at time n is fully determined by the state at time 0 (but initial conditions/laws could have been different).

• Necessitarianism: The world cannot be different in any way—only one possible reality exists.

Why is Spinoza a necessitarian?

1. God’s necessity: Only one possible Substance (God) exists necessarily.

2. Necessary effects: Everything follows necessarily from God’s essence.

3. Contingency is illusory: What we call "contingent" stems from ignorance of causes (1p33s

How does Spinoza explain the mind-body relationship?

• Representation: Your mind is the idea of your body.

• Pan-psychism: All things (even plants/animals) have "minds" (ideas) representing them, to varying degrees.

How do Descartes and Spinoza differ on substance?

• Descartes (Dualism):

  • Two substances: thinking (mind) and extended (body).

  • They interact causally.

• Spinoza (Monism):

  • One Substance (God) with two attributes (thought/extension).

  • No causal interaction between attributes.

Compare Descartes’ and Spinoza’s conceptions of God.

• Descartes’ God:

  • Thinking (not extended), benevolent, creates freely.

• Spinoza’s God:

  • Nature itself ("Deus sive Natura"), acts by necessity, has no "will" or benevolence.

What is Malebranche’s occasionalism?

• Definition: God is the only genuine cause; creatures merely provide occasions for God to act.

• Key Point: Created things (e.g., minds, bodies) are not truly efficacious—they trigger God’s causal power.

How does occasionalism differ from concurrentism and mere conservationism?

• Concurrentism: God and creatures co-act to produce effects.

• Mere Conservationism: God only sustains creatures’ existence but doesn’t directly cause their actions.

• Occasionalism: God alone causes all effects; creatures are passive "occasions."

How does Malebranche argue that only God can be a genuine cause?

1. Premise: A true cause requires a necessary connection between cause and effect.

2. Observation: Only God’s will has a necessary connection to effects (e.g., "Let there be light" → light).

3. Conclusion: Therefore, only God is a genuine cause

Why does Malebranche claim we don’t truly cause our own bodily movements?

• Premise: To cause something, we must know how it’s done.

• Observation: We lack knowledge of how our mind moves our body (e.g., how volition raises an arm).

• Conclusion: Thus, we don’t really cause bodily movements—God does.

How does continuous creation support occasionalism?

• Premise: God must continually recreate every detail of the world (no independent causal power in creatures).

• Implication: So-called "causes" (e.g., billiard balls colliding) are just occasions for God to act via general volitions (laws of nature).

How do laws of nature function in Malebranche’s system?

• Form: Conditional ("If p, then q").

• Mechanism: When condition p occurs (e.g., a ball hits another), God wills q (the second ball moves) directly.

• Key Point: "Occasional causes" (e.g., the first ball) are not efficacious—they’re mere triggers for God’s action.

Give an example of an "occasional cause" in Malebranche’s system.

• Example: You decide to raise your arm → Your volition is the occasion for God to cause the arm’s motion.

• Contrast: In non-occasionalist views, your mind directly causes the motion

Why does Malebranche deny causal powers to creatures?

1. Metaphysical: Only an infinite being (God) can establish necessary connections.

2. Epistemological: We lack knowledge of how creatures could cause effects.

3. Theological: Continuous creation leaves no room for secondary causes.

What is a Leibnizian substance?

A true unity, not a mere aggregate, understood via substantial form, created by God, and contains all past/future states.

Q: How do Leibnizian substances interact?

A: They don’t causally interact; apparent interaction is due to “pre-established harmony.”

Q: Why aren’t Cartesian bodies true unities? according to lebniz

A: They are infinitely divisible, leading to a vicious regress.

What are monads for lebniz

Indivisible, foundational substances that are true unities.

ow are monads metaphysically spontaneous?

They are immanent causes of all their own states and are always active.

What is pre-established harmony?

God's creation ensures that substances develop independently but in perfect harmony.

Q: How are minds and bodies governed according to Leibniz?

Minds by final causes; bodies by efficient causes.

Q: What is Leibniz’s view on free will?

He’s a compatibilist: actions can be determined but still free if they’re intelligent, spontaneous, and contingent.

What is the intensional interpretation of a proposition?

A: Truth depends on whether the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject.

Q: What is absolute necessity? lebniz

A: A truth that even God cannot make false (e.g., 2+2=4).

Q: What is hypothetical necessity? lebniz

A: A truth that follows necessarily from God's choices (e.g., Caesar crossing the Rubicon).

Q: Why are certain truths contingent according to Leibniz?

Because they are based on free will and God’s choices, which have reasons but don’t necessitate outcomes.

What is Berkeley’s famous principle of immaterialism?

To be is to be perceived (esse est percipi).

What exists, according to Berkeley?

pnly minds (spirits) and ideas

What is materialism?

The belief that material things exist independently of minds.

What is immaterialism?

The belief that nothing exists outside of minds and their ideas.

What do we perceive, according to Berkeley?

Only ideas or sensations, which exist in the mind.

What follows from Berkeley’s view on perception?

Objects like houses and rivers are just ideas and cannot exist unperceived.

How does Berkeley refute the idea of mediate perception of material objects?

Ideas cannot resemble or represent mind-independent matter.

What is the “manifest contradiction” argument?

We can’t conceive of an unconceived object; to try is to conceive it after all.

Does Berkeley deny the existence of ordinary objects?

No, he redefines them as bundles of ideas, not material things.

What are the only two types of things that exist?according to berkeley

Spirits/minds (active) and ideas (passive).

How does Berkeley account for unperceived objects?

God, the infinite spirit, perceives all things at all times.

Why is Berkeley’s world still “real” and orderly?

Because God causes sensory ideas in a regular, coherent way.

What are the two kinds of human perceptions for Hume?

Impressions (vivid and forceful) and Ideas (faint copies of impressions).

What is Hume’s Copy Principle?

All simple ideas are copies of prior impressions.

What is the counterexample to the Copy Principle?

The missing shade of blue—one can imagine it without having experienced it.

How does Hume respond to the missing shade of blue?

He admits it’s a counterexample but says it’s not significant enough to reject the principle.

What are Hume’s three principles of association?

Resemblance, Contiguity in time/space, and Cause and Effect.

What are “relations of ideas” according to Hume?

Propositions knowable a priori; their denial is inconceivable (e.g., math, logic).

What are “matters of fact”?

Propositions knowable only through experience; their denial is conceivable.

Give an example of a relation of ideas.

: “All bachelors are unmarried.”

Give an example of a matter of fact.

The sun will rise tomorrow.”

How do we form beliefs about unobserved matters of fact?

Through experience-based induction, not a priori reasoning.

What is the Uniformity of Nature principle?

The assumption that the future will resemble the past.

What is the role of custom/habit in inductive reasoning?

t causes us to expect the future to resemble the past, without rational justification.

How is causation traditionally understood?

As a necessary connection between cause and effect.

: What is Hume’s view on causation?

There are no necessary connections—only constant conjunction and psychological habit.