Philosophy study guide

Concepts and terms (be able to define and explain these concepts and theories)

Argument: a series of statements, reasons, or claims that lead to a conclusion.  

Validity: the logical structure of an argument, not its content. Valid arguments do not have to be plausible or have a true premise or a true conclusion. (structure) 

Soundness (truth): 

• Sound arguments are valid with true premises (premises are false) 

• Unsound arguments are either invalid and/or contain at least one false premise. 

Epistemology: the study of knowledge 

• What can we know? 

• What are we justified in believing? 

Metaphysics: they study of reality 

• What is there? 

• What are those things like? 

Conceptual analysis: a philosophical method that involves breaking down concepts to better understand philosophical issues

• Perhaps the oldest method in philosophy. It studies the meaning of terms - What is X? 

Theism: the view which states God exists 

Atheism: the view which states God does not exist 

Agnosticism: the view which states that theism and atheism are unjustified views 

• An agnostic suspends judgment about the proposition

• No good reason to maintain either view  

The problem of skepticism: the possibility that we don’t know anything, or that knowledge is impossible. An example of this would be the evil demon argument- “What if an all-powerful evil demon is deceiving us into believing a false reality?”

The Cogito: Response to the evil demon theory 

• P1) If I am thinking, then I exist

• P2) I am thinking (now)

• C) I exist (now)

  • Deception requires someone to be deceived

  • Impossible for deception without a subject

  • Similarly, thinking requires a thinker

  • Since I am thinking, I must exist (right now)

Skeptical scenarios (dreaming, evil demon): Hypothetical scenarios that would render all or most of our beliefs false

• Evil Demon Scenario: imagine that there is powerful being who deceives you about everything you think you know (having hands, the existence of Earth, mathematical truths)

• Dreaming: Descartes’ Claim:

• Sometimes, when we dream, we believe we are awake.

• There are no clear, infallible signs to distinguish dreaming from wakefulness.

• If we cannot know with certainty whether we are dreaming, then we cannot trust our senses to give us knowledge of the external world.

Indirect Realism: We are directly aware of ideas, not physical objects 

• We know about the external world indirectly 

Realism: There is an external world 

Idealism: The view that states that only minds and ideas exist 

Determinism: Every event is necessarily fixed or determined by the laws of physics and events that happened in the past

• Past + Laws = Future 

  • If determinism is true - Laplacean demon

    • Perfect knowledge of the laws of nature 

    • Perfect knowledge of a past state of the universe 

      • Demon could accurately predict every future state of the world  

Libertarianism (about free will): We do have free will, which means determinism is false. Free will is incompatible with determinism 

Free Will Skepticism: the view that human beings do not have free will in the sense required for moral responsibility. This skepticism challenges the idea that we are the ultimate authors of our actions and deserve praise or blame accordingly. 

1. The Determinism Argument (Causal Determinism)

• If determinism is true, then every action we take is completely caused by prior events and laws of nature.

• Since we do not control the past or the laws of nature, we do not control our actions in the ultimate sense.

• Therefore, we lack the kind of free will needed for moral responsibility.

Compatibilism: We can be free and determined 

Thought experiments/Arguments

The Allegory of the Cave (Platonic dualism): a symbolic representation of how human beings live in the world, contrasting reality versus our interpretation of it

Zeno’s paradox: 

• Zeno’s paradox of motion

  • Zeno’s claim: Motion is impossible. Nothing ever really moves (despite appearances) 

    • In order for the ball to reach point B, it must first travel half the distance

    • It must then travel half the remaining difference (bringing it to ¾)

    • It must then travel half the remaining difference (bringing it to 7/8)

    • It must then travel half the remaining difference... (the series continues infinitely)

    • You must complete an infinite series of half-way steps in order to reach B

    • It is not possible to complete an infinite series (esp. in a finite period of time)

    • Therefore, the ball can never reach the ground (or any point B)

The design argument: posits the existence of God based on the complexity and order of the natural world

• P1. The universe exhibits order, complexity, and purpose (e.g., the fine-tuning of physical laws, biological structures).

• P2. Order and complexity are usually the result of intelligent design (e.g., a watch is designed by a watchmaker).

• C. Therefore, the universe is likely the product of an intelligent designer (God).

The first cause (cosmological) argument: Everything has a cause and the universe has a beginning 

• Everything that exists has a cause

• The universe began to exist

• Therefore, the universe has a cause

• This cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial

• This cause must be non-natural and personal

• This cause is God

  • Objections to this: 

    • Evolution and Cosmology: Modern science explains the origins of life through evolution by natural selection, and the origins of the universe through the Big Bang. These explanations do not require the existence of a God.

    • No Need for a Creator: Atheists argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by natural processes, without the need for an intelligent designer (i.e., God). The universe works through laws of nature (such as gravity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics), and the presence of order does not necessarily imply a divine cause.

The ontological argument: a philosophical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through reason and the concept of existence. Ontological arguments are logical proofs of God’s existence We can know that God exists by logical reasoning alone (a priori) 

• Definition of God: God is defined as the greatest possible being (a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived").

• Existence in the Mind: Even a fool (someone who denies God's existence) can conceive of God as a perfect being in their mind.

• Existence in Reality: A being that exists in both the mind and in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind.
  God’s Necessary Existence: If God is the greatest conceivable being, then He must exist in reality because existing in reality is greater than existing only in the mind.

• Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist.

Pascal’s Wager: 

If God exists and you believe → You gain infinite happiness (heaven).

If God exists and you don’t believe → You risk infinite suffering (hell).

If God doesn’t exist and you believe → You lose nothing significant.

If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe → You gain nothing significant.

The argument from evil: the existence of evil in the world is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent 

• God is traditionally defined as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

• Evil exists in the world—both moral evil (suffering caused by human actions) and natural evil (suffering caused by natural disasters, diseases, etc.).
  If God is all-powerful, He could prevent evil.

• If God is all-knowing, He knows when evil will occur.

• If God is all-good, He would want to prevent evil.

• However, evil still exists in the world.

• Conclusion: It seems that the existence of evil is inconsistent with the existence of a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

The dreaming argument: At any given moment we could be dreaming everything up

Evil demon thought experiment (argument for skepticism): imagine that there is powerful being who deceives you about everything you think you know (having hands, the existence of Earth, mathematical truths)

Berkeley’s argument against external world objects: 

• The only objects of knowledge we have are ideas 

• External world objects are said to represent our ideas 

  • Berkeley: How is that possible

  • If external objects resemble ideas then they are just ideas 

  • If they do not then they are utterly mysterious (colorless, odorless, etc) 

    • Berklely’s conclusion: there are no external world objects, only idea 

Both secondary and primary qualities depend upon perceivers 

Vary depending on viewing conditions and the kind of perceiver 

• An external world object: An object that exists absent any perceivers 

  • An object without any secondary qualities (e.g. color, smell, texture, etc.) 

  • An object without any primary qualities (e.g. size, motion, shape) 

    • Berkeley: If something is inconceivable, then it is impossible 

    • P1. We cannot conceive of unperceived objects 

    • P2. The inconceivability principle is true 

    • External world objects are impossible, there are only ideas 

The consequence argument: argues against compatibilism (the view that free will is compatible with determinism) by asserting that if determinism is true, then we have no control over future actions because our past and the laws of nature determine them

• Premise 1: No one has control over the past or the laws of nature. 

• Premise 2: If determinism is true, the future is a necessary consequence of the past and the laws of nature. 

Conclusion: Therefore, if determinism is true, we have no control over our future actions, including the actions we take.