Philosophy final

110 Final Exam Review

Comprehensive Material (might show up on the Final)

• Basic Logic (Validity, Soundness, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens) 

  • Arguments are things that establish a claim (or a conclusion). However, a premise is something that further proves said conclusion.

    • An argument is valid when the premises logically lead to the conclusion (If the premise is true, the conclusion would have to be true):

      • ex: All girls menstruate (periods)
        Sally is menstruating

        Sally is a girl.

        • Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)
          If P, then Q
          P
          Q

    • An argument is sound when it is valid AND all premises are true:

      • ex: All girls menstruat (true)

        Sally is menstruating (true)
        Sally must be a girl

        • Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
          If P, then Q
          not P
          not Q

• The basics of Stoicism 

  • Famous Stoics included Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius (meditations)

  • Key points of stoicism:

    • control what you can, accept what you can’t

    • Live according to nature and reason

    • Virtue is the only true good

    • Indifferents: Preferred vs. Dispreferred

      • Preferred Indifferents: things like health, money, friends—nice to have but not necessary for a good life.

      • Dispreferred Indifferents: illness, poverty, death—things we’d rather avoid, but they don’t ruin our virtue.

• Basics of psychological and ethical egoism 

  • Psychological Egoism: We always act in our self-interest (descriptive claim).

  • Ethical Egoism: We should act in our self-interest (normative claim).

• Basics of Kant’s moral theory (FUL/FHE) 

  • Formula of Universal Law (FUL): Act only on maxims you could will to be universal laws.

  • Formula of Humanity as End (FHE): Treat others as ends, never merely as means.

• Gensler’s revised interpretation of the Golden Rule 

  • Revised Golden Rule: "Treat others only as you would be willing to be treated in the same situation." It avoids hypocrisy by considering the consistency of judgment across similar cases.

• Ross’s intuitionism (prima facie duties) 

  • Moral knowledge comes through intuition.

  • Prima Facie Duties:

    • Fidelity,

    • reparation,

    • gratitude,

    • justice,

    • beneficence,

    • self-improvement,

    • non-maleficence.

      • We weigh these depending on context.

• The basics of utilitarian-consequentialism and its critiques 

  • Right action = greatest happiness for the greatest number.

  • Critiques: Ignores justice, rights, intentions, and personal integrity.

Husserl: Conciousness

• Intentionality–3 types: Signitive, Perceptual, Pictorial 

  • Intentionality: Consciousness is always about something.

    • Signitive: abstract (e.g., thoughts about math)

    • Perceptual: direct experiences

    • Pictorial: representations/images

• Empty and filled intentions 

  • Empty Intentions: unfulfilled ideas/thoughts.

  • Filled Intentions: actual experience of the object.

• What he says about Identity 

  • Identity: Achieved when various perspectives are synthesized into one coherent object.

• Registering and reporting facts 

Hume: Rationality (desires are not rational or irrational)

• Apart from beliefs, desires are neither rational nor irrational 

  • Desires themselves are not rational or irrational—only beliefs can be assessed this way.

Gert: Rationality (actions can be rational or irrational)

• An action is irrational if:

  • It likely causes death, pain, disability, and loss of freedom/pleasure.

  • There’s no adequate reason for it.

Agency and Free Will Debate:      

Taylor Essay (Libertarianism)

• Know the meaning of Determinism, Soft determinism/Compatibilism.

  • Determinism: All actions caused by prior events.

  • Compatibilism (Soft Determinism): Free will is compatible with determinism.

  • Taylor’s Critique: If every act is caused, we’re not truly free—only doing what we’re caused to do.

• Taylor’s basic critique of soft-determinist claims about free will 

Susan Wolf: The Deep Self View

• Why the Deep-self view is needed 

  • Actions are free if they stem from desires we endorse.

• Plain Deep-self view vs. Sane Deep-self view 

  • Adds the requirement of sanity (realistic values and reasoning).

• How the plain deep-self view can’t distinguish JoJo from others. 

  • Plain view fails because JoJo (raised by an evil dictator) endorses bad values but isn’t morally responsible.

• M’Naughten Rule 

  • Legal test for insanity—no understanding of right/wrong.

• Her point about control, & metaphysical responsibility vs. moral responsibility (384).

  • You may be metaphysically free, but not morally responsible if you lack control.

Joshua May on Neuroscience and Free Will    

• His main point about Free Will and unconscious influences (54) 

  • Unconscious processes affect choices but don’t eliminate freedom.

• His definition of compatibilism (41) 

  • Free will = ability to act in line with one’s reasons and desires, even if caused.

• The 3 ideas that make up his loose definition of Free will (38-9) 

  • Ability to choose among options.

  • Ownership of actions.

  • Responsiveness to reasons.

• His critique of the Libet experiment—readiness potentials & external validity 

  • Readiness potentials ≠ decisions. Low external validity.

• May’s conclusion about the connection between experiments and the claims of epiphenomenalism. 

  • Neuroscience shows influences, not full determinism or lack of freedom.

• What neuroscience does and does not show about Free Will. 

  • Neuroscience shows influences, not full determinism or lack of freedom.

Self-Deception (Warner’s Account) 

• Self-betrayal and self-deception

  • self-betrayal

    • Self-betrayal is acting against one's values or needs

  • self-deception

    • Self-deception involves allowing oneself to believe something false

• I-It and I-You distinction.

  • I-It = objectifying others; I-You = seeing others as people.

• What he means by a collusion and how to get out of one. 

  • Mutual blame cycle—both think the other is at fault. Exit: self-honesty and empathy.

• His point about truly having an emotion vs. having a true emotion 

  • You can feel something genuinely, but that doesn’t mean the emotion is justified.

Haidt's essay on Emotional Reasoning: 

• trigger warnings and microaggressions

  • Can make people more fragile.

• How CBT (Cognitive behavioral therapy) can help solve the free speech problem on college campuses. 

  • Change thought patterns to increase resilience.

• Stoic quote about judgment & harm/offense (Epictetus)

  • It’s not things themselves that disturb us, but our judgments about them.

Philosophy of Mind

Peck's essay on consciousness:

• The hard problem of consciousness—phenomenal consciousness 

  • Why/how we have subjective experiences.

• Functional materialism

  • Brain states explain consciousness.

• Emergence theory—water vs. the mind; what is an “emergent” property? Why is the mind not an emergent property, according to Peck?    

  • Higher-level properties (e.g., wetness from water).

    • Peck says the mind ≠ emergent because consciousness resists reduction. 

Searle and the AI debate: 

• Searle’s critique of Strong AI 

  • Computers can’t understand or think.

• The point of the Chinese room argument:

  • Simulating understanding (like following symbol rules) ≠ , actual understanding.

Philosophy of Religion: 

Swinburne on the Problem of Evil: 

• know the main idea of each of the 4 objections as well as his responses to each (P1-P4): the free will response, the necessity of responsibility, the extent of responsibility, and natural evils     

  • Swinburne – Problem of Evil

    • P1: Free Will Defense – Real freedom requires real risk of evil.

    • P2: Responsibility – Learning from pain builds moral maturity.

    • P3: Extent of Responsibility – Greater responsibility = greater personal development.

    • P4: Natural Evils – Necessary for soul-making (virtue through struggle).

Paulsen: “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil” 

• How the revelations of Joseph Smith solve that logical problem of evil (the two assumptions concerning absolute creation, God’s omnipotence) 

  • God created everything ex nihilo.

  • God has total, unilateral control.

• The argument from 2 Nephi 2 (Lehi’s Theodicy) concerning joy, moral righteousness, freedom, opposition, and evil 

  • Joy requires opposition.

  • Freedom is necessary for righteousness.

  • Evil is necessary for moral growth.

• What 3 things are co-eternal with God? What difference does it make to the problem of evil?     

  • Intelligence, matter, agency.

    • God doesn’t create evil; it arises from eternal free beings.

Peck essay on Randomness, Contingency, and Faith 

• This main thesis

  • Science can’t fully explain existence; randomness ≠ meaninglessness.

• The 2 assumptions of scientific materialism—and his response to them (p. 39) 

  • All is material.

  • All follows deterministic laws.

    • Reality includes contingency and transcendence.

• Kierkegaard’s point about objectivity, science, and approximation. 

  • Truth and meaning found subjectively, not through endless approximation.

• The non-scientific nature of the “ultimate origin” claim concerning randomness and contingency 

  • Science can’t explain the "why" of existence.

• Subjectivity, universal truths, and faith     

  • Fills the gap left by reason, embracing subjectivity and universal truths.

C.S. Lewis's essay on the Obstinacy of Belief 

• The supposed difference between the scientific view of evidence and the Christian believer’s view of evidence 

  • Scientific vs. Religious Evidence: Believers maintain faith even without constant verification.

• His point about the difference between the Logic of Assent vs. the Logic of Personal Relations 

  • Logic of Assent vs. Personal Relations: Faith resembles trust in relationships, not scientific proof.

• The relation between trust and the possibility of doubt

  • Trust & Doubt: Faith is possible because trust includes room for doubt—it’s not blind.