Phil 120 – Comprehensive Final‐Exam Notes

Philosophy of Religion

(1) • Scope of the Field
– Asks metaphysical, epistemic, ethical, and linguistic questions about the divine (e.g., Does God exist? What is God’s nature? How can we talk meaningfully about God? Why is there evil?).
– Separates questions accessible to unaided reason from those answered only by revelation.
– What is God like?
I. The existence of God
II. The axiology of the existence or non-existence of God
III. Religious epistemology
IV. The problem of evil for the non-existence of, or the unreasonableness in believing in, God
V. The problem of many religions for reasonable belief in God
VI. The evolutionary argument against atheism
VII. Feminist, Marxist, non-ableist, and non-Western philosophy and the philosophy of religion
VIII. The nature of God

(2) • Natural (or Philosophical) vs. Revealed Theology
– Natural/Philosophical Theology: Uses publicly available premises, human reason, and logic to reach conclusions about God (whether, and what, God is.)
– Revealed Theology: Starts from purported special divine disclosure (Scripture, mystical experience, ecclesial teaching) and draws theological conclusions.

(3) • David B. Hart on ‘God’ vs. ‘gods’
– ‘God’ (proper use): The unconditioned, transcendent, simple, infinite source of all finite reality; not a being but Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens).
– ‘gods’: Finite, contingent, intra-cosmic super-creatures—powerful but still belong to the created order.

(4) • How to Investigate …
– “God” (capital ‘G’) = the one absolutely transcendent, infinite, simple, necessary, eternal source of all reality; ipsum esse subsistens (the sheer act of to-be itself).
– “gods” (lower-case) = contingent, finite, causally limited beings within the cosmos (analogous to powerful extraterrestrials).

(5-7) • Major “–isms”
– Monotheism: \exists!\;G\;[G \text{ is absolutely perfect}] (exactly one perfect, personal creator).
– Pantheism: G \equiv \text{the totality of the universe}; God = everything; no Creator/creature distinction.
– Panentheism: The cosmos is in God as a part/phase, yet God exceeds it.

(8) • Two Models of the Monotheistic God
– Classical Theism (CT): Begins with divine transcendence.
• We are unlike God in most respects; even where similar (personal—capable of knowing, willing, loving) we are radically inferior.
– Neo-Theism/Open or Process Theism (NT): Begins with continuity.
• Stresses likeness in knowing, willing, loving but ascribes them maximally to God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent).

(9) • ‘Person’ / ‘Personal’
– Two senses: (1) Human Being Personal or Humanistic; (2) Psychological Self-conscious Agent with Choices and Free Will
– Philosophical theology generally uses the latter (2) for both ‘person’ and ‘personal.’

(10) • Divine Attributes Cheat-Sheet
– (a) Almost all classical theists affirm divine simplicity, immutability, eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness.
– (b) Except certain Thomistic, Islamic, or Jewish negative theologians who use via negativa to deny positive predicates.
– (c) Neo-theists accept omniscience, omnibenevolence but deny absolute immutability / simplicity.
– (d) Most neo-theists accept omnipotence, some reject individual items (e.g. timeless eternity).

(11) • Representative Classical Theists
– Pagan: Aristotle; Plotinus
– Jewish: Philo of Alexandria; Moses Maimonides
– Christian: Augustine, Aquinas
– Islamic: Averroes (Ibn Rushd); Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā)

(12) • Classical Theist View of Nature of God
– It belongs to the essence (or nature) of God to exist—just as triangles are by nature three-sided.
– Argument considered: Anselmian ontological plus Aquinas’ first-cause synthesis.

(13) • Metaphysical Simplicity
– God lacks metaphysical parts (no form/matter, act/potency, essence/existence distinction).
– Argument: If a being’s act of existence were distinct from its essence, it would require a cause; but God is uncaused ⇒ identity of essence & existence ⇒ simplicity.
– Argument: Anything composite depends on causes that unite the parts; the first cause cannot be composite.
– Therefore God is immaterial & non-spatial.

(14) • Perfections
– Unmixed Perfection: A great-making property with no cause of its existence and admitting no intrinsic limit (e.g., wisdom, goodness, power).
– Mixed Perfection: Valuable with a cause of its existence (e.g., playing a piano) and only in combination with a contrary (e.g., merciful-but-just).

(15) • Perfect Being
– An Absolutely Perfect Being possesses every unmixed perfection to the highest degree compatible with the others and no imperfections whatsoever.

(16) • Divine Operations
– CT argument: If God is purely actual, He must be identical with His knowing, willing, loving.
– These acts are simple, eternal, and unrestricted—not discursive or temporally successive. God knows, wills, loves non-discursively, eternally, immutably, and perfectly.

(17) • Uniqueness (Why Only One God)
– Two perfect beings would differ only by perfection or lack thereof; impossible ⇒ exactly one God.

(18) • Immutability
– Perfection + simplicity + eternity ⇒ no acquisition or loss of actuality.
– Weinandy’s Caveat: God’s immutability is the fullness of dynamic life, not the inert immobility of a rock.

(19) • Scriptural Objection & 5-Stage CT Reply

1. Texts use metaphor/anthropomorphism.

2. Distinguish God’s internal life (immutable) from external relations (changing effects).

3. Divine eternity transcends temporal sequence.

4. Language is analogical, not univocal.

5. Apparent changes reflect creaturely perspective, not divine becoming.

Ethics

(20) • Cheating
– Examples: Cheat on lovers, Cheat someone in an economic transaction, Cheat our employers. Cheat in a game, Cheat on a test or assignment
– Definition (slide 4): “Engaging in an activity such that one (a) intends to deceive someone (i) about the value of something, e.g., in commerce, or (ii) regarding work being one’s own, e.g., in an educational context, or (b) breaks an (implicit) promise (i) to someone S to be faithful to S, e.g., with respect to romantic relationships, or to oneself by sticking to a diet, or (ii) with respect to the rules of a game or to an enterprise (e.g., in an election), or (iii) engages in dishonest behavior so as to steal from one’s employer while at work, e.g., sitting down on the job.”

(21) • Four Explanations of Moral Disagreement (Creel 162-175)

1. Ethical Nihilism – No true or false moral statements.

2. Individual Relativism (Subjectivism) – True-for-me if I approve.

3. Social Relativism (Cultural) – True relative to society’s norms.

4. Ethical Absolutism – Some objectively true moral standards.

(22) • Ethical Nihilism
– There is no moral value in actions
– Lack of Free Will Argument: (1) If there are morally good or bad actions, then persons sometimes act freely. (2) No people act completely freely. (3) Therefore, there are not morally good or bad actions.
 – Atheism Argument: (1) If (a) there are morally good or bad actions, then (b) moral truths are anchored to something that does not change. (2) If (b) , then (c) God exists. (3) Therefore, if there are morally good or bad actions, then God exists [from (1) and (2), HS]. (4) God does not exist. (5) Therefore, it is not the case that there are morally good or bad actions [from (3) and (4), MT]
– Counter-argument: If EN is true, there are no actions that are entirely morally incorrect. However, there ARE some actions that are absolutely morally incorrect (e.g., the Holocaust.) Therefore, ~EN.

(23) • Individual Relativism
– Preserves autonomy in judgment of one’s morality.
– Odd Tolerance: Saying “Everyone must be tolerant” is itself an absolutist claim.
– Objection: Basically the same as EN, as some actions exist that are universally incorrect and deserving of judgment, not tolerance, from everyone as a standard of what NOT to do.

(24) • Social Relativism
– Explains reformer difficulty; recognizes anthropological diversity.
– Objection: Makes moral reform incoherent (society is by definition right); cannot condemn past atrocities of one’s own culture.

(25) • Ethical Absolutism
– Naïve: One simple rule covers every case without exception (“Never lie”).
– Non-Naïve: Permanent principles + situational application.
– Inference to Best Explanation: Most naturally explains moral progress, reform, and deep-seated intuitions of justice.

(26) • Classical Act Utilitarianism
– Primary Principle: \text{Act A is right} \iff \text{A produces at least as much net happiness as any alternative open to the agent.} – Consequentialism: Rightness determined solely by consequences, not motive or rule.
– Happiness = Pleasure minus Pain (Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus).
– Radical Altruism: A cold and calculated form of determining morality and happiness.

(27) • Motivation (Bentham)
– It allows ethics to be empirical and compatible with experimental sciences.

(28) • Critique
– Justice / Rights Problem: Acts that maximize happiness can violate individual rights (framing an innocent).
– Leads to counter-intuitive demands of self-sacrifice.

(29) • Kantian Deontologism
– Starting Principle (non-consequentialism): \text{Act only from a motive that you could rationally will as a universal law.} – Non-Consequentialism: Moral worth depends on motive, not outcome.
– Kant allows only one proper motivation: duty for its own sake.

(30) • Categorical Imperative (CI)

1. Universal Law Formulation: \text{"Act only on that maxim you can at the same time will to be universal law."}

2. Humanity Formulation: \text{"Treat humanity, in yourself or another, always as an end and never merely as a means."}

(32) • Moral Standing per CI2
– All rational beings (with the capacity for autonomous choice) have direct moral worth.
    • Two Criticisms

1. Rigidity / Absolutism: No lying even to save life (Nazis-at-the-Door).

2. Conflicting Duties: CI sometimes yields indeterminate or contradictory prescriptions.

   • Nazis-at-the-Door Case
   – Scenario: Fugitive in house; SS officer asks. Kant forbids lying—seems morally wrong to many.
   – Alternative Account: Lying wrong because it damages trust, a common good; exceptional deceits may be justified.
   – Illustrates Kant’s tension with outcomes & common-sense morality.

(33) • Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
– Ethics built around character rather than rules or results. The goal is to become an excellent person.
– Moral Virtue: Habitual disposition to choose the mean relative to us, rationally determined.
– Four Cardinal Virtues:
• Prudence (phronēsis): Right reason about action.
• Justice: Giving each his due.
• Courage: Right confidence in face of danger.
• Temperance: Right desire in pleasures.
– Moral Particularism: No one-size-fits-all rule; context matters.
– Not relativistic because virtues are grounded in fixed human nature and telos.
– Argument to Best Explanation: Captures moral development, tragic conflict, holistic assessment better than rivals.

Philosophy of Mind

Dualistic Interactionism (DI)

(34) • Central Problem (Creel ch. 16): How are mind and body related?

(35) • Two Logical Parts

1. Substance Dualism (SD): (df) the view that human persons are composed of two distinct substances usually called the mind and the body.

2. Interactionism: These distinct substances causally influence each other.

(36) • Substance Dualism Defined
– For SD, a substance is an independently existing entity that underlies properties and survives change.

(37) • Simple vs. Compound SD
– Simple SD: (df) the view that human persons are simple substances and have only the property of being a substance as well as being immaterial.
Human person = immaterial soul using body (Plato—sailor : ship).
– Compound SD: Human person = body plus soul as metaphysical parts forming one organism (Aquinas-style).

(38) • Interactionism: The doctrine that says that:

• The way mind and body have DIRECT CAUSAL INFLUENCE, specifically 4 ways; mental-mental (one's self), mental-physical (one's self), physical-mental (one's self) , and physical-physical (two distinct bodies)
  The way the two have INDIRECT causal influence: mental-mental (two distinct minds) mental-body (your mind affecting other's bodies)

(39-40) • Famous Advocates
– Simple DI: The combination of simple substance dualism along with interactionism.
ex. Plato
– Compound DI: The combination of compound substance dualism with interactionism.
ex. Descartes

(41) • Cartesian Argument for DI
– I can doubt body exists, cannot doubt that I (thinking thing) exist ⇒ real distinction.

(42) • Identity Types
– Absolute: All properties identical and do not differ in any respect.
– Specific: No difference in species.
– Numerical: Same individual substance.
– Personal: Continuity of selfhood.
– Argument from Personal Identity: Numerical/personal continuity through radical material change implies an immaterial persisting principle.

(43) • Causal Interaction Problem
– How can an unextended soul affect extended matter without violating conservation laws?

(44) • Essence Argument & Critique
– If essence of mind is thinking & of body extension, cannot be identical.
– Problem: Are essences known a priori or theory-laden?

(45?) • Verificationist Objection to DI & Two Replies
– (1) Criterion itself not empirically verifiable ⇒ self-refuting.
– (2) Many meaningful scientific entities (quarks, fields) not directly observable.

(46) • Common-Speech Argument: Ordinary language distinguishes mental from physical; best ontological explanation is DI.

(47) • Brain Trauma Argument
– Damage brain ⇒ mental deficit.
– Analogy: Radio & signal; damaged radio distorts but needn’t show signal is radio waves inside set.
– Professor’s alternate analogy: Viewing the relationship of the mind and the brain as akin to that of remote and toy airplane. If the toy airplane (the brain) breaks, the remote doesn't necessarily also. But our mind does fall into disrepair when our mind breaks.

(48) • Unity of the Cognizer: Diverse sensory inputs ‘bound’ into single subjectivity—allegedly easier for DI than physicalism.

Physical Monism & Epiphenomenalism

(49) • Strong Physicalism: There is no God or anything like it in reality
Weak Physicalism: Humans are wholly physically, radically continuous with everything physical in reality.

(50) • Identity Thesis (IT): Each type of mental state M is numerically identical to some type of neuro-physical state B.

(51) • Different-Properties Argument vs. IT
– If M\neq B in properties (privacy, intentionality) then by Leibniz’s Law M \neq B.

(52-54) • Epiphenomenalism
– Mental events real but causally impotent, mere by-products (steam whistle of engine).
– Defense: Closure of physics ⇒ physical causes sufficient.
– Limitation: Undermines knowledge of mental causation (why talk about beliefs if they do no work?).
– Criticism: Self-stultifying—our belief in epiphenomenalism would be causally unmotivated.

(55) • Comparison Table
– DI: (i) Weak materialism false; (ii) IT false; (iii) Mental causes yes.
– Epiphenomenalism: (i) Accepts weak materialism; (ii) IT false; (iii) Mental causes no.
– Physical Monism: (i) True; (ii) IT true; (iii) Mental causes only if identical to physical.

(56) • Correlation Thesis: Regular mind–brain covariation.
– Bad Argument: “If correlated then identical.”
– Fallacy: Correlation ≠ identity (heartbeat & EKG trace).
– Positions: Physical monism, epiphenomenalism, hylomorphism all can accept correlation; only physical monism must also accept IT.

(57) • Last-Person-Standing Argument
– Every rival view faces interaction worries; physical monism alone leaves no unexplained interaction.
– Professor’s critique: Still must explain qualia & intentionality; IT does heavy lifting.

(58-60) • Personal Identity & Agency Problems for Physicalism
– If person = brain, radical fission/transplant cases threaten identity.
– Libertarian free will appears incompatible with causal determinism of the brain.

Hylomorphism

(61) • Etymology: Greek hylē (matter) + morphē (form).

(62) • Aristotle on Substance
– Substance: Primary being, subject of predication & change.
– Axiom: Whatever comes-to-be does so from underlying matter receiving form.
– Paradigm substances: Organisms, artifacts less paradigmatic.

(63) • Form/Matter Analysis
– Matter (potency): The “stuff” capable of taking contrary forms.
– Form (act): Organizing principle making matter the kind of thing it is.

(64) • Two Metaphysical Parts
– Substantial Form & Prime Matter discerned by philosophical analysis (not microscope).

• What Form Explains

1. Why S is the kind of thing it is.

2. Unity & regular capacities of S.

(69-71) • Technical Names
– Soul = substantial form of a living thing.
– Plant soul: nutritive (powers: growth, nutrition, reproduction).
– Non-rational animal soul: sensitive (add sensation, locomotion, appetite).
– Human soul: rational (add intellect & will).

(72) • Analogy for Action
– As hand (quantitative part) is cause-in-act of writing, so intellectual soul (formal part) grounds reasoning; but person writes, not hand or soul alone.

(73) • Aquinas on Survival
– Intellectual operations (abstract universals) are non-bodily ⇒ principle enabling them subsists without organ ⇒ soul survives bodily death.

(74) • Quarks & Cells
– Hylomorphism does not deny micro-particles; it claims they exist virtually within higher-level substances, functioning as parts not independent substances.

(75-76) • Cartesian Assumptions Rejected
– Matter: Not merely inert extension; it is potential-for-form.
– Mental Events: Not floating in separate realm; they are activities of the compound via formal capacities.

(77) • Argument for Preferring Hylomorphism
– Seven puzzles: mental causation, qualia, intentionality, unity, free will, personal identity, interaction; hylomorphism explains all without DI’s interaction gap or physicalism’s eliminations.

Comparative Recap (Big-Picture)

• DI gives strong account of agency & identity but struggles with causal mechanism.
• Physical Monism boasts mechanistic clarity yet strains to ground consciousness, normativity, freedom.
• Epiphenomenalism keeps ontology lean but renders mind explanatorily idle.
• Hylomorphism offers middle path: one substance, two intrinsic principles, upward & downward causation fully internal.

• Ethical Theories Interplay
– Utilitarianism: Maximizing aggregate welfare.
– Kantianism: Duty from universalizable maxims.
– Virtue: Flourishing through habituated excellence.
– Each faces characteristic challenges; mixed-theory or pluralist approach often proposed.