philosophy midterm

plato theory of forms

3 key terms

• appearance (particular), form, participation

• ex: flower is beautiful.

• appearance: flower is temporary, changing, and eventually wilts and dies and its beauty in the physical sense dies.

• form: beauty is the form. it is unchanging, eternal, and even if every flower dies beauty will still exist as it is a concept.

• participation: the flower participates in beauty. the flower is not beauty itself.

overall message: what our senses show us changes, but true relaity is unchanging and eternal.

descartes argument on absolute truth

question our beliefs: we should question everyhing to see what we know for sure 100%

senses can decieve us: sometimes we smell something that we think is a certain item, but it turns out it isn’t. senses can mislead us, and we form our beliefs based on these senses so all our beliefs may be false.

we don’t know if we are dreaming: there is no true test to see if you are awake or dreaming, as dreaming can seem very real. and if we’ve been dreaming while acquiring our beliefs, our senses have decieved us so none of our beliefs are true.

i think therefore, i am: if we are thinking about doubting everything, or that an evil demon is making us doubt, we are doing the thinking, so we exist.

hume argument on having a true idea of a permanent self

argument: there is no true idea of the self

every idea comes from a perception: our ideas come from our feelings and experiences

if the self exists, we should be able to percieve it: we would need a direct (firsthand) perception of the self or a constant (ongoing) perception of it.

we have no direct perception of the self: we experience thoughts, emotions, and different things we do not have a seperate self.

our perceptions constantly change: we never have one ongoing feeling or thought all the time, it is always changing.

so, there is NO true idea of a permanent and unchanging self: because our thoughts and feelings are always changing, we have no perceptions neither direct or constant of “a self”, so it does not exist.

overall: the self is a bundle of perceptions not a permanent thing.

Laplace argument on determinism / no free will

determinism: everything that happens in the present and future, is caused by past events according to the laws of nature

laplace’s demon: imagine there is an intelligence that knows all previous events and all laws of nature, that makes it able to predict what will happen in the future.

probability depends on how much we know: the more info we have, there is less uncertainity so we can predict outcomes accurately.

free will does not exist: if a demon can predict what happens in the future, then everything you do is alreayd a result of past events and predetermined.

Van inwagen argument on incompatabilism

determinism is true: all actions you do are controlled by the past and the laws of nature

we cannot control our actions: you cannot change prev. events or change laws of nature so you cannot control what you do

free will does not exist: if determinism is true, all of our actions are controlled by the past and laws of nature so we cannot choose to do otherwise.

compatabilism

argues that determinism and free will can coexist b/c even if an action was predetermined, you still chose to do something according to your own decisions without being forced to do so.

Anselm argument on god’s existence

God: greatest concieveable being

Argument: god exists

Imagine an exact similar being but it exists in ur mind instead of realiity like god: it has all the same features but is in ur head instead of reality.

Reality is greater than existing in the mind: a god who exists in reality, is greater than the one who is in the mind. so the one in the mind does NOT exist.

B/c, for god to be the greatest concievable being he MUST exist in reality since reality > mind.

Criticism on Anselm’s argument

Just because you imagine something doesn’t make it real. We can imagine the greatest rainbow allicorn. If existing in reality is greater than existing in our minds, then the allicorn MUST exist.. but it DOES NOT.

also: what makes existing in reality greater than in our minds?

Sartwell’s argument on knowledge is just true belief not JTB

knowledge: you believe something, and it turns out to be true.

you don’t need justifcation for a belief: you can believe something is true and it actually happens to be without any evidence for believing it.

ex: you flip a coin and you say it will land on heads, and when you flip it, it does. you had NO reason or JUSTIFICATION for believing it would land on heads, therefore, you still had knowledge of it.

Arguemnt against: is guessing really knowledge, and is BEING RIGHT abt something able to be classified as knowledge?

Gettier argument against JTB as whole; not sufficent enough for knowledge

JTB is not enough: your knowledge can be a lucky guess, and that is not enough to be classified as knowledge

you can have ALL three and not truly KNOW something.

A BELIEF CAN BE TRUE BY LUCK.

ex: You and sarah apply for same job. You think Sarah will get the job because you overheard the girl who got the job had 10 coins in her pocket. Sarah showed you 10 coins in her pocket at the beginning of the intrview. You actually end up GETTING the job, and you coincidentally had 10 coins in your pocket unknowingly.

---

So Belief: sarah will get the job

Justification: overheard person who got the job had 10 coins in their pocket

True: the person who got the job ended up having 10 coins in their pocket, BUT it was you.

→ you had a justified true belief, but your belief turned out to be true by luck. you did not know who would get the job.

Chalmer’s argument on challenging skepticism

not knowing if ur in the matrix, doesn’t mean you don’t know where you are or affect your beliefs: for ex. say you don’t know you’re in NYC, but you are in the matrix NYC, you still are in NYC it’s just the matrix one.

creation hypothesis: something/someone made our world but it does not make it UNREAL

computational hypothesis: our world is made up of digital bits of info but things in it can STILL be real

mind-body hypothesis: our mind and body can be in to different places but doesn’t make your experiences you have any less real

Skepticism

questions (or riases doubt) if our world is a REAL physical thing

Moore’s argument on external world existence

things met with in space: are percieved by multiple people, and still exist even when not percieved (oceans, stones, mountains, hands, toes)

things ‘presented’ in space: are percieved by one person, only exist IF perceived (i.e. hallucinations, after-images)

hands are things presented in space.

i know my hands are two things met with in space, therefore, the external world exists.