Exam 2

External-world skepticism

is the view that we have no knowledge of the external world.

Global skepticism

is the view that we lack knowledge in all domains.

Local skepticism

is the view that we lack knowledge in some important domain(s)

Skeptical possibility

is a scenario where your sensory experiences systematically mislead you about the world around you.

Epistemology

is an area philosophy that is concerned with the nature, sources, and scope of knowledge as well as closely related phenomena.

Rationalism

is the view that reason is the main source of knowledge

Empiricism

is the view that sensory experience is the main source of knowledge

Cartesian rationalism

is the view that reason is the main source of knowledge, where knowledge requires absolute certainty

Modest rationalism

is the view that reason is the main source of knowledge, where knowledge less than absolute certainty

According to Plato, (a) a wise city

a wise city is one whose rulers who know how to maintain good relations, both internally (with respect to the citizens of the city) and externally (with respect to other city-states;

Plato's courageous city

a courageous city is one where its auxiliaries "preserve through everything the correct and law-inculcated belief about what is to be feared and what isn't"

Plato's moderate city

a moderate city is one where all its citizens agree that only those who are selected and educated to be rulers should rule their city ;

Plato's just city

a just city is one where each citizen has and does his/her own work and does not interfere with the work of others;

According to Plato (a) an aristocracy

an aristocracy is a city ruled above all by knowledge and reason; City ruled by knowledge and reason

Plato's timocracy

a timocracy is a city ruled above all spirited, honor-loving people;

Plato's oligarchy

an oligarchy is a city ruled above all by profit- and property-loving people;

Plato's democracy

a democracy is a city that is open to being ruled by anyone in the city, depending on the mood of the day or time;

Plato's tyranny

a tyranny is a city that is enslaved by a tyrant.

Knowledge empiricism

is the view that ordinary sense experience is the main source of human knowledge.

Concept empiricism

is the view that all our concepts come from ordinary sense experience.

"[A]t the moment my eyes are certainly wide awake when I look at this piece of paper; I shake my head and it is not asleep; as I stretch out and feel my hand I do so deliberately, and I know what I am doing. All this would not happen with such distinctness to someone asleep. Indeed! As if I did not remember other occasions when I have been tricked by exactly similar thoughts while asleep! As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep."

author: René Descartes

Philosophical point: Descartes is saying it's hard to tell if we're awake or asleep because our experiences can be similar. This makes us doubt how reliable our senses are. He uses this doubt to search for knowledge we can be sure of.

"If we admit the special sense, then we can readily see how it is the evil genius should have been so confident. He has certainly created his own illusions, though he has not himself been deceived. But neither has anyone else been deceived. For human beings do no use the word 'illusion' by relations to a sense which only the evil genius is blessed."

author: Ludwig Wittgenstein

Philosophical point: Wittgenstein proposes that if we believe in a unique sense, it explains why the evil genius could create illusions without being fooled himself. However, because this sense is exclusive to him, nobody else would be deceived either. This underscores the significance of shared language and understanding in defining concepts like "illusion."

"Anything which admits of the slightest doubt I will set aside as if I had found it to be wholly false; and I will proceed in this way until I recognize something certain, or, if nothing else, until at least I recognize for certain that nothing is certain."

author: René Descartes

Philosophical point: Descartes is advocating for radical doubt as a method to seek absolute certainty. By systematically doubting everything until he finds something indubitable, he aims to establish a foundation for knowledge.

"Now, no one, it seems, would be so incorruptible that he would stay on the path of justice or stay away from other people's property, when he could take whatever he wanted from the marketplace with impunity, go into people's houses and have sex with anyone he wished, kill or release from prison anyone he wished, and do all the other things that would make him like a god among humans. Rather his actions would be in no way different from those of an unjust person, and both would follow the same path."

author: Glaucon

Philosophical point: Glaucon presents the idea that people would act unjustly if they could do so without consequence, suggesting that true justice comes from a balance of fear of punishment and desire for virtue.

"We say, don't we, that there is the justice of the single man and also the justice of a whole city? ... And a city is larger than a single man? ... Perhaps, then, there is more justice in the 2 larger thing, and it will be easier to learn what it is. So if you're willing to, let's first find out what sort of thing justice is in a city...

author: Plato's "Republic," spoken by Socrates

Philosophical point: Socrates suggests investigating justice in a city as it might be easier to discern its nature due to its larger scale compared to an individual. This prompts a discussion on the nature of justice within a community, setting the stage for the exploration of justice throughout the rest of the dialogue.

It can't be that the same thing, with the same part of itself, in relation to the same, at the same time, does opposite things... Now, would we assert that sometimes there are thirsty people who don't wish to drink? ... What, then, should one say about them? Isn't that there is something in their soul, bidding them to drink, and something different, forbidding them to do so, that overrules the thing that bids? ... Hence it isn't unreasonable for us to claim that they are two, and different from each other?

author: Plato's "Republic," specifically from the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon.

philosophical point: they discuss the notion that conflicting desires within a person's soul suggest the presence of different parts or aspects of the soul. This conversation lays the groundwork for Plato's tripartite theory of the soul, which divides it into the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts.

Worse still, this argument from universal consent which is used to prove that there are innate principles can be turned into a proof that there are none; because there aren't any principles to which all mankind give universal assent... Children and idiots have no thought—not an inkling—of these principles, and that fact alone is enough to destroy the universal assent that any truth that was genuinely innate would have to have.

author: John Locke's

Philosophical point: Locke criticizes the argument for innate principles based on universal consent, suggesting that the absence of such principles universally undermines this claim. He argues that even children and those with intellectual disabilities lack these supposed innate ideas, challenging the notion of universally shared knowledge from birth.

(a) Explain Bouwsma's argument that Descartes' evil genius supposition is incoherent. (b) In your view, is the argument a good one? If yes, what rationally compelling argument can you give on behalf of one or more the key premises in Bouwsma's argument? If no, then what rationally compelling argument can you give against one or more of the argument's key premises?

(a) Bouwsma argues that Descartes' idea of an evil genius casting doubt on everything, including the existence of the external world, doesn't work because it relies on the assumption that there's something real to doubt in the first place. Doubting something implies the existence of a doubter and a reality to doubt. So, Descartes' attempt to doubt everything ends up contradicting itself.

(b) Bouwsma's argument is good and makes sense because it shows that Descartes' skepticism leads to a problem. If we follow Descartes' method of doubting everything, we end up in a situation where doubt itself becomes illogical. Doubting requires the existence of someone who doubts and something real to doubt. Therefore, Descartes' idea of doubting everything falls apart because it relies on a circular logic. This strengthens Bouwsma's argument against Descartes' evil genius idea.

Socrates argues in the Republic that it is in our own interest to be just. Your task is to go some way towards describing and explaining this argument by addressing the following three questions: (a) What is Socrates's account of civic justice (i.e., justice in the city)? (b) What is his account of individual justice (i.e., justice in the individual)? (c) Why does Socrates think that it is good for you to be just (even when we put to the side the societal benefits associated with being just)?

(a) Socrates says civic justice is like everyone doing their own job in a city without bothering others. In his perfect city from the Republic, there are three groups: rulers, soldiers, and workers. Justice happens when each group does its work without trying to do others' jobs.

(b) Socrates also talks about individual justice, which is like harmony inside a person. He says our soul has three parts: thinking, feeling, and wanting. Being just inside means letting the thinking part lead and keeping the feeling and wanting parts in line with it.

(c) Socrates thinks it's good for us to be just because it makes us feel happy and balanced inside. Even if we ignore how society benefits, being just helps our soul work smoothly. When our thinking part is in charge, it leads to a life of goodness and satisfaction. So, being fair isn't just good for others; it's good for our own happiness too.