PHL 100 Final Exam

What’s Locke’s main claim about personal identity?

a personal identity is based on consciousness & memory, NOT the body or soul

According to Locke, what makes you the same person over time?

being able to remember past experiences—memory continuity

What does Locke mean by “as far as consciousness can be extended backward…”?

basically that you’re the same person as far back as you can remember being yourself

What’s the importance of Locke’s “Prince & Cobbler” example?

that identity follows memory, NOT body; the person is still the prince despite being in a different being

What’s Reid’s main problem w/ Locke’s view?

he says it leads to contradictions if someone forgets parts of their past

What example does Reid use?

the “Brave Officer”—who remembers being a soldier, but not a schoolboy

Why is Reid’s example a problem for Locke?

it breaks the logic of identity (transitivity)— the man can’t be the same person as the boy if he doesn’t remember being him

What does Reid believe personal identity is based on?

a continuous self, not just memory.

Psychological continuity

the continued connection of thoughts, memories, values, & personality over time

Parfit’s “Teleporter Thought” experiment

a person is duplicated elsewhere w/ the same mind but OG body is destroyed

• showed that survival doesn’t require strict identity—just a copy of your mind & personality might be enough

Why does Parfit believe identity might not matter for morality?

b/c what we care about (e.g. guilt, promises, feeling responsible) depends on psychological traits, not being the exact same person over time

Parfit’s Fission Case

a situation where 1 person splits into 2

• used to show identity isn’t what matters—b/c “you” can still survive without it

Twin vs Triplet analogy

situation where you find out you’re a triplet, not just a twin

• shows identity is just a label; if you can mentally relate to 2 people in the same way, identity isn’t that important

What does Parfit say is an illusion?

the importance of identity

Utilitarian attitudes (by Parfit)

he believes if we let go of the belief in a fixed self, we can adopt a more equal & caring view of others’ well-being

Anatta

buddhist belief that there’s no permanent, unchanging self; recognizing this helps reduce suffering & selfishness

Buddhist goal

letting go of the ego leads to peace, wisdom & freedom from cravings/suffering

Street Epistemology

a way of having calm, curious conversations to explore how people form their beliefs; purpose is to promote critical thinking by focusing on how people believe

• 1 of the techniques is used a confidence scale

Pascal’s Wager

a philosophical argument claiming that it’s more rational to believe in God than not, even w/o proof of God’s existence, due to the potential infinite reward (external happiness) and minimal loss

• believe & God exists → infinite gain

• believe & God doesn’t exist → minor loss

• don’t believe & God exists → infinite loss

• don’t believe & God doesn’t exist → minor loss

Theism

belief in 1+ gods

Atheism

belief that no god(s) exist

Agnosticism

belief that we can’t know if god(s) exist or not

Monotheism

type of Theism

• belief in 1 God

Polytheism

type of Theism

• belief in many gods

Pantheism

type of Theism

• belief that everything is divine or that the universe itself is God

Omnipotence

idea that God is all-powerful

Omniscience

idea that God is all-knowing

Omni-benevolence

idea that God is all-good

Stone Paradox

logical puzzle that asks: “can God create a stone so heavy, that He can’t lift it?”

• used to question coherence of omnipotence

What’s a common answer to the Stone Paradox?

“true omnipotence doesn’t include logically impossible things (e.g. making square circles)”

Pragmatic (reason for belief)

belief is useful

• ex: believing in God is good/beneficial for you

Epistemic (reason for belief)

belief is backed by evidence/truth

• ex: believing smoking causes cancer

What’s the problem W/ Pascal’s wager?

it offers a pragmatic reason, not a epistemic one

Watchmaker Analogy (by Paley)

states that just as a watch—with its complexity & purpose—implies a designer, so does the universe suggest there’s an intelligent designer (God)

Design argument

argument that states the universe has designer-like features, therefore a designer (God) must exist

What’s Darwin’s critique to the designer argument?

his evolutionary theories challenge the argument by offering a more natural explanation through biology for the universe’s creation

Problem of Evil

a challenge to God’s existence that asks: “how can an all-powerful, all-good God allow evil?”

Moral evil

caused by humans

• e.g. murder, genocide

Natural evil

caused by nature

• e.g. disease, earthquakes

Free Will Defense (by Augustine)

response to Problem of Evil

• states that evil is due to human free will, not God

Soul-Making Theodicy (by Irenaeus)

response to Problem of Evil

• states that suffering helps humans grow morally & spiritually

Mystery of God’s plan

response to Problem of Evil

• states that God has reasons beyond human understanding; assumes there’s a bigger plan

• criticism of this→ often seen as a “cop-out”

What’s Sinnott-Armstrong’s main objection to theodicies?

he says they fail to explain the large amount of pointless or extreme suffering, which strongly challenges belief in a perfect God

“Neglectful Neighbor” analogy

states that if you wouldn’t excuse a human neighbor who ignores a suffering kid w/o explanation, you wouldn’t excuse God for allowing suffering w/o explanation either

Epicurus’s Trilemma

• if God wants to eliminate evil but can’t → not all-powerful

• if God wants to eliminate evil but can’t → not good

• Evil is present → so such a God likely doesn’t exist

Modesty Response

response to Problem of Evil

• states that humans don’t know enough to understand God’s reasons for allowing evil; b/c of this, we can’t judge

What’s Descartes’ method of doubt?

doubting everything you think you know to find what’s absolutely certain/true

• led to “i think, therefore i am”

What are the 3 grounds/reasons it’s okay to doubt? (Descartes)

1. Senses decieve us

2. Dreams feel real

3. Evil demon could be tricking us

G.E. Moore’s common sense response

he beleives we can know things like “i have hands” even if we can’t disprove skeptical scenarios

• his proof of the external world was done by him holding up both of his hands and acknowledging their presence

Brain in a vat (BIV) scenario

hypothetical asking “what if you’re just a brain in tank being fed fake experiences? can you really know you’re now?”

Exclusion principle

states that in order to know something, you have to rule out all alternatives that would make it false

What’s the Gettier problem?

it’s when a belief is justified and true, btu still doesn’t seem like real knowledge (due to luck or error)

Partisan epistemology (by Rini)

method of trusting sources that match your beliefs

• believed to be rational, but still dangerous

Fake news (Rini’s definition)

intentionally deceptive content made to look like real news, often spread on social media

Altered testimonial practices

method of people trusting/sharing info based on emotion or politics instead of checking for the truth

Accountability default (by Rini)

treating shared news as endorsements—may help fight fake news w/ institutional reforms

Factivity

states that you can only know something if it’s actually true