Midterm Review Notes
On philosophy, revealed theology, and the experimental sciences
Philosophy, revealed theology, and the experimental sciences are all sciences in an older sense of the term ‘science’.
The pursuit of knowledge through a certain methodology.
Experimental Sciences
Description: The pursuit and presentation of knowledge of physical reality measured quantitatively.
Subject Matter: Generally speaking is focused on the natural world.
Tools and methods: The experimental sciences employ tools and methods such as observation, experimentation, and data analysis to study their subject matter.
Revealed Theology
Description: The pursuit and presentation of knowledge by receiving the content of divine revelation through faith.
Subject Matter: Deals with religious beliefs and doctrines that are believed to be revealed by a divine entity.
Tools and Methods: Revealed theologians study their subject matter through scriptural analysis, prayer, and spiritual reflection.
Philosophy
Description: A pursuit of knowledge of knowledge, the ultimately real, the good, and the beautiful, obtained by means of human powers (and not some purported divine revelation.)
Subject Matter: Explores fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Study Methods: Philosophers use critical reasoning, logical argumentation, and conceptual analysis to study their subject matter.
Similarities to Experimental Sciences:
Emphasis on logical reasoning: Both philosophy and the experimental sciences rely on logical reasoning to arrive at conclusions.
Systematic investigation: Both disciplines involve systematic investigation of their respective subject matters.
Critical analysis: Both philosophy and the experimental sciences subject claims and assumptions to critical analysis.
Differences from Experimental Sciences:
Reliance on empirical data: Philosophy relies less on empirical data than the experimental sciences.
Scope of inquiry: Philosophy often deals with more abstract and fundamental questions than the experimental sciences.
Similarities to Revealed Theology:
Concern with ultimate questions: Both philosophy and revealed theology are concerned with ultimate questions about the nature of reality and the meaning of life.
Reliance on reason and argumentation: Both disciplines employ reason and argumentation to defend their claims.
Emphasis on interpretation: Both philosophy and revealed theology involve interpretation of texts and traditions.
Ethical considerations: Both philosophy and revealed theology often address ethical considerations and moral principles.
Difference from Revealed Theology:
Source of authority: Philosophy relies on reason and argumentation, while revealed theology relies on divine revelation as a source of authority.
Relationship to Experimental Sciences:
Both philosophy and revealed theology are related to the experimental sciences in that they all seek to understand the world and our place in it, albeit from different perspectives and using different methods.
On the sub-disciplines of philosophy
Four Major Sub-Disciplines of Philosophy:
Metaphysics: Explores the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about existence, time, space, and causality.
Epistemology: Investigates the nature of knowledge, justification, and belief.
Ethics: Examines moral principles, values, and the concepts of right and wrong.
Logic: Studies the principles of valid reasoning and argumentation.
Four Sub-Disciplines of Epistemology:
Metaphysics of Knowledge: Investigates the nature of knowledge itself, including questions about its structure, properties, and relation to reality.
Sources of Knowledge: Examines the various sources of knowledge, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony.
Skepticism: Explores the limits of human knowledge and the possibility of doubt.
Justification: Investigates the nature of justification and how beliefs can be warranted or justified.
Four Sub-Disciplines of Metaphysics:
Ontology: Studies the nature of being and existence.
Cosmology: Examines the origin, structure, and evolution of the universe.
Philosophy of Mind: Investigates the nature of consciousness, mental states, and the relationship between mind and body.
Philosophy of Religion: Explores philosophical questions related to religion, such as the existence of God, the problem of evil, and the nature of religious experience.
Three Sub-Disciplines of Value Theory I:
Ethics: Examines moral principles, values, and the concepts of right and wrong.
Social and Political Philosophy: Investigates questions about justice, equality, liberty, and the nature of political authority.
Aesthetics: Explores the nature of beauty, art, and aesthetic experience.
Three Sub-Disciplines of Ethics:
Metaethics: Investigates the nature of moral judgments and the meaning of ethical terms.
Normative Ethics: Develops moral principles and theories that provide guidelines for right action.
Applied Ethics: Applies moral principles and theories to specific moral issues and practical dilemmas
Questions Treated in Value Theory II or Aesthetics:
What is beauty?
What is art?
What is the nature of aesthetic experience?
On the Kaczors’ chapter on happiness
Robert Spitzer's Definitions of Happiness:
Level One Happiness: Immediate gratification derived from sensory pleasures and material possessions.
Level Two Happiness: Comparative ego satisfaction achieved through competition, achievement, and social recognition.
Level Three Happiness: Happiness derived from doing good for others and making a positive difference in the world.
Level Four Happiness: Ultimate good which is perfect, eternal, and complete.
Ethics:
Ethics is primarily about moral character.
The factor that most determines someone’s moral character is their choices.
Hedonism:
Hedonists think about happiness as the sum of pleasurable experiences.
Advantage: way of thinking provides a simple and straightforward approach to understanding happiness.
First Limitation: The Hedonist’s approach does not offer a deep or lasting fulfillment
Second Problem: Repetitive exposure to the same sensory pleasure can cause a build up of tolerance to it.
Third Problem: Hedonism can lead to addiction.
Addiction can undermine relationships and other sources of happiness. Why is that a problem? because relationships are vital for human well-being.
Fourth potential Limitation: even if the hedonist does not become an addict, there is a fourth potential limitation with hedonism. Some philosophers try to show this fourth problem with hedonism by way of the thought experiment of the “experience machine.”
Rejection of Hedonism:
Rejecting hedonism means recognizing that pleasure is not the sole or ultimate good
Egoism:
Egoists think about the happy life as the pursuit of their own self-interest and personal well-being.
Advantages Over Hedonism:
Focus on long-term goals: Egoism emphasizes the pursuit of long-term goals rather than immediate gratification.
Emphasis on personal responsibility: Egoism promotes personal responsibility and self-reliance.
Recognition of individual differences: Egoism recognizes that individuals have different needs and desires.
Most Common Way People Seek Happiness:
People want to have money, power, fame, or social status.
Empirical Studies About the Relative Power of Money to Produce Human Happiness:
Great money, power, fame, or social status cannot provide happiness for human beings.
Egoism Does Not Leave Room for Healthy Friendships and Other Intimate Relationships:
Egoism can lead to isolation and loneliness
Altruism:
Altruist Account of Happiness: The altruist account of happiness emphasizes the importance of helping others and making a positive difference in the world.
Three Essential Features of Love:
Care: Caring for the well-being of others.
Respect: Respecting the dignity and autonomy of others.
Responsibility: Being responsible for the needs of others.
Being an Altruist
Being an altruist does not mean one can’t seek bodily pleasures or honors because altruism is about balancing self-interest with the interests of others.
Being an altruist does not mean one can’t love oneself because self-love is necessary for being able to love others.
Relationship Between Love and Obeying Traditional Moral Codes:
Love involves a commitment to upholding moral codes and norms, even when it is difficult or inconvenient.
Advantages of Altruism Over Hedonism and Egoism:
Altruism promotes social harmony and cooperation.
Altruism leads to deeper and more meaningful relationships.
Altruism provides a sense of purpose and fulfillment.
Level Three Happiness
Level three happiness is not sufficient for beings such as ourselves because it does not fully satisfy our spiritual needs and desires.
Religious Altruist Account of Happiness:
The religious altruist account of happiness emphasizes the importance of serving God and following His commandments.
Altruist Who Does Not Believe in God:
An altruist who does not believe in God can nonetheless benefit from learning about level four happiness by recognizing the importance of spiritual values and seeking a connection to something greater than themselves.
C.S Lewis & Augustine
Whenever there is a universal, or near universal, desire for X in some kind of being B, then X exists. For example, there is a universal, or near universal, desire in animals for food and water.
On Wendell Berry’s “Why I am Not Going to Buy a Computer”
Six Reasons Berry Provides:
It would not help me do the work I am trying to do.
It is too complicated.
It would make my work more abstract.
It would take me away from the material world.
It would connect me to the world economy.
It would make me dependent on technology.
Berry’s Standards for Genuine Technological Innovation:
Berry’s standards for genuine technological innovation are that it should be simple, reliable, and sustainable.
Technological Fundamentalism:
Technological fundamentalism is the belief that technology is always good and that it will solve all of our problems.
On Wendell Berry’s “Feminism, the Body, and the Machine”
Berry on ‘Our Economy’:
When Berry speaks of ‘our economy,’ he means the system of production and consumption that dominates modern life.
Etymology of ‘Economy’:
The etymology of ‘economy’ comes from the Greek word ‘oikonomia,’ which means ‘household management.’
Appropriateness of Berry’s Use of the Word ‘Economy’:
Berry’s use of the word ‘economy’ is appropriate because he sees the modern economy as a kind of household that is poorly managed, valuing efficiency and productivity over human well-being and environmental sustainability.
Berry’s Feminist Accusers:
Berry thinks that his feminist accusers implicitly deny two beliefs that Berry himself takes to be legitimate candidates for true beliefs about a happy home life.
These two beliefs are that women should be primarily responsible for domestic work, and that men should be primarily responsible for providing for the family.
Berry’s Feminist Accusers Conflict with Human Nature and a Good Life:
Berry’s feminist accusers hold that work should be fulfilling and enjoyable, whereas Berry believes that work is often difficult and unpleasant.
Measuring Technological Progress:
Typically Measured: People typically measure technological progress in terms of efficiency and productivity.
How It Should Be Measured: Berry argues that we should measure it in terms of its impact on human well-being and environmental sustainability.
Most Contemporaries Think About the Purpose of Technological Progress:
Most of our contemporaries think about the purpose of technological progress as increasing efficiency and productivity.
Purposes Technological Progress Should Serve:
Berry argues that technological progress should serve the purposes of enhancing human well-being and environmental sustainability.
View of the Purpose of Technology:
Berry argues that only his view of the purpose of technology allows us to make choices about whether we adopt or buy some new piece of technology because it takes into account the full range of consequences, both positive and negative.
Use of the Automobile in Rural Communities:
Berry offers the use of the automobile in rural communities as an example of technological usage that raises problems Berry admits that he can’t satisfactorily resolve because it has both positive and negative consequences.
Berry Raises an Intractable Problem with Respect to Automobile Usage:
Berry raises an intractable problem with respect to automobile usage in the context of explaining why he isn’t going to buy a computer because he wants to illustrate the difficulty of making choices about technology.
Technological Revolution:
According to Berry, what has been implicit in the “technological revolution” from the beginning is a disregard for human well-being and environmental sustainability.
Artist’s Disconcertment:
An artist might find the contemporary obsession with “fleeing from the body” so disconcerting because it devalues the senses and the physical world.
Berry Does Not Want to Buy a Computer:
Berry does not want to buy a computer because it would connect him to a world economy that he believes is damaging to human well-being and environmental sustainability.
Berry’s Response to the Objection:
At the end of the day, your refusal to buy a computer won’t do any good: Berry responds that it is important to live according to one’s values, even if it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Berry’s Response to the Objection:
Yes, but where do you draw the line: Berry responds that he doesn’t know where to draw the line, but that we should all be thinking about the consequences of our technological choices.
Creel, chs. 10 and 11, and lectures on the theory of knowledge
Creel’s Definition of Epistemology:
Creel defines epistemology as the study of knowledge.
Three Senses of Knowledge:
Knowledge by acquaintance
Knowledge how
Knowledge that
Two Dominate Approaches to Thinking About the Nature of Knowledge:
Rationalism: which emphasizes the role of reason in acquiring knowledge.
Empiricism: which emphasizes the role of experience in acquiring knowledge.
*Definition of Knowledge:
Knowledge that is sometimes called the traditional definition of knowledge.
This definition states that knowledge requires belief, truth, and justification.
Two Senses of ‘Belief’:
Belief as a psychological state is the intellectual assent to a proposition.
Belief as a proposition is the content of that assent.
Philosophers typically have in mind belief as a psychological state when they are defining knowledge that.
Three Laws of Thought:
Law of Identity: A = A
Law of Non-Contradiction: \neg(A \land \neg A)
Law of Excluded Middle: A \lor \neg A
Six Sources of Truth That Creel Mentions:
Sense Perception: which is knowledge acquired through the senses.
Reason: which is knowledge acquired through logical inference.
Memory: which is knowledge acquired through recollection.
Testimony: which is knowledge acquired through the statements of others.
Self-Awareness: which is knowledge acquired through introspection.
Authority: which is knowledge acquired through the acceptance of expert opinion.
Three Different Acts of Intellect or Reason:
Apprehension: is the act of grasping the meaning of a concept.
Judgment: is the act of asserting or denying a proposition.
Reasoning: is the act of drawing inferences from premises to conclusions.
Three Internal Senses the Professor Spoke About as Sources of Truth:
Imagination: creates mental images.
Memory: stores and recalls experiences.
Universal Sense: integrates sensory information.
*Creel’s Reasons for Thinking That Knowledge That is Not the Same Thing as Hope:
Knowledge requires justification, while hope does not.
Knowledge is certain, while hope is not.
*Four Different Senses of ‘Faith’:
Faith in
Faith that someone is or was real
Faith that someone revealed that
Faith that what someone revealed is true
S believes that p because S trusts R’s testimony that p.
Schema for Believing What Someone Says is True by Human Faith:
S believes that p because S trusts R’s testimony that p, where R is a human being.
*Schema for Believing What God Says is True by Divine Faith:S believes that p because S trusts God’s testimony that p.
*Important Difference Between Human Faith and Divine Faith:The important difference between human faith and divine faith is that divine faith is based on the testimony of God, while human faith is based on the testimony of human beings.
*Four Ways That Knowledge That by Divine Faith is Similar to Non-Faith Forms of Knowledge
Both are forms of knowledge.
Both are based on evidence.
Both are subject to rational scrutiny.
Both can be used to guide action.
*Two Ways That Knowledge That by Divine Faith Differs From Non-Faith Forms of Knowledge:
Divine faith is based on divine revelation, while non-faith forms of knowledge are based on human reason or experience.
Divine faith is certain, while non-faith forms of knowledge are not.
*Two Ways That Believing That by Human Faith is Similar to Non-Faith Forms of Knowledge:
Both are forms of belief.
Both are based on evidence.
*Three Ways That Non-Faith Forms of Knowledge That Differ From Human Faith:
Non-faith forms of knowledge are based on human reason or experience, while human faith is based on the testimony of human beings.
Non-faith forms of knowledge are certain, while human faith is not.
Non-faith forms of knowledge are universal, while human faith is particular.
*Augustine’s Point About the Form of Faith:
Augustine makes the point that faith is not blind trust, but rather a reasoned assent to the truth.
On Counterexamples and Theories of Knowledge
Philosophical Method of Offering a Counter-Example:
The method involves presenting a case that contradicts a given definition or hypothesis, thereby demonstrating its inadequacy.
John’s on Trial for Murder Counter-Example:
It shows that knowledge is not the same as belief based on evidence, is a follows: John believes that the defendant is guilty based on strong evidence, but the defendant is actually innocent. Thus, John’s belief is based on evidence, but it is not knowledge because it is false.
Judah Counter-Example:
Is as follows: Judah correctly believes that he left the gas on, but he has no evidence for this belief; it is just a lucky guess. In this case, Judah’s belief is true, but it is not knowledge because it is not justified.
5th Century B.C.E. Heliocentricists Counterexample:
Is as follows: 5th century B.C.E. heliocentricists truly believed, based on some evidence, that the earth revolved around the sun. The point is that, even though heliocentric theory was true at the time, the 5th century B.C.E. heliocentricists could not have known that it was true; that is, their evidence was insufficient to justify their belief. Thus, heliocentric belief in the 5th century B.C.E. was not a case of knowledge because it was not justified.
Two Meanings of Justification:
Epistemic justification: is the property of a belief that makes it reasonable or rational to hold.
Pragmatic justification: is the property of a belief that makes it useful or beneficial to hold.
The Smartest People Living in 13th Century Europe Counterexample:
It shows that knowledge is not justified belief, is as follows: The smartest people living in 13th century Europe were justified in believing that the sun revolved around the earth, but their belief was false. Therefore, knowledge is not the same thing as justified belief because although the people living in the 13th century in Europe were considered the most intelligent they had information that was wrong.
Gettier Counter-Examples:
Gettier counter-examples, such as the Mike and Joe case and the sheep in the field case, challenge the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief by presenting scenarios where someone has a justified true belief, but it does not seem to be knowledge.
The counter-examples show that justified true belief is not a good definition of knowledge that.
Mike and Joe Counter-Example
Joe sees Mike driving up to New York city but only sees a glimpse of him. In fact, Mike sold his car in Connecticut. Based on perception and memory (Joe has a clear memory of Mike's), Joe believes that Mike is in New York. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mike’s twin brother is in NYC. Mike's twin is not as skilled of a driver as Mike and causes an accident and becomes front page news in the paper. Therefore, Joe looks at the newspaper and sees that Mike, in fact, is in New York City.The Sheep in the Field Counter Example
Walking along, I see a sheep in the distance. I form the belief, "there is a sheep in the field" I am justified in this belief (based on perception). It is also true that there is a sheep in the field. However, unbeknownst to me, what I see in the distance is not a sheep, but a dog, cleverly disguised as a sheep. However, there is a sheep in the field, but it so happens that the sheep is behind me, so I cannot see it.
Two General Ways of Thinking About the Nature of Knowledge:
Internalism: emphasizes the role of internal factors, such as beliefs and justifications, in determining whether a belief is knowledge.
Externalism: emphasizes the role of external factors, such as the reliability of the process that produced the belief, in determining whether a belief is knowledge.
Conclusive Justification (CJTB) Theory of Knowledge:
According to this theory, for Joe to know that p is true, the following must be true:
Joe must believe that p is true.
p must be true.
Joe must be justified in believing that p is true.
Joe’s justification for believing that p is true must be conclusive.
Conclusive Justification:
Conclusive justification means that Joe’s justification for believing that p is true is so strong that it guarantees that p is true.
If Joe has conclusive justification for a belief of his, we can say that his belief is infallible.
Gettier Counter-Examples Do Not Falsify CJTB:
The Gettier counter-examples do not falsify the conclusively justified true belief account of knowledge because in those cases, the justification is not conclusive.
Brain in the Vat Thought Experiment:
The brain in a vat thought experiment is a way of defending the view that the CJTB theory of knowledge leads to a radical kind of skepticism about knowledge because if we cannot know whether we are brains in vats, then we cannot know anything.
Creel on Why Some People Are Not Satisfied with the CJTB Theory of Knowledge:
According to Creel, some people are not satisfied with the CJTB theory of knowledge because it is too demanding and leads to skepticism.
On Causal Theories of Knowledge
According to the Goldmanian Causal Theory of Knowledge:
Knowledge is true belief appropriately causally connected to the fact believed.
Examples of Causal Connections:
Seeing a dog and believing there is a dog can be a causal connection between a belief that p and a truth that p.
Goldman’s Theory Can Make Sense of the Mike and Joe Case:
Because Joe’s belief that Mike is in New York is not appropriately causally connected to the fact that Mike is in New York.
John and It's Raining in Martin Case:
John hears on CNN: "It's Raining in Martin and based on past reliability, John comes to believe that It’s Raining in Martin" However, unknown to John, the report is false (the CNN reporter was mistaken). In fact, it is raining in Martin but raining because of a completely independent (unconnected to CNN news report) reason.
This Case is NOT a Counter-Example for Goldman’s Theory of Knowledge:
John and hear's on CNN is a counter-example for Conclusively Justified True Belief Account of Knowledge.
Jones-Falls-Down-the-Stairs and the Smith-Falls-Down-the-Stairs:
Jones-Falls-Down-the-Stairs: Jones sees Smith fall and break neck, Jones now believes Smith is dead because they fell, but Smith fell because of a heart attack and not because of the stairs. (belief: Smith is dead because of the stair case)
Smith-Falls-Down-the-Stairs: there is nothing unusual happening here (belief: Smith is dead because of the stair case)
Importance of the “Appropriate Way” Clause in Goldman’s Definition of Knowledge:
The John and it's raining case and the Jones and Smith cases illustrate the importance of the “appropriate way” clause in Goldman’s definition of knowledge because they show that a belief can be both true and causally connected to the fact believed, but still not be knowledge if the causal connection is not of the right kind.
Internalism in Epistemology:
Internalism in epistemology is the view that knowledge requires internal justification, meaning that the reasons for believing something must be accessible to the believer.
Externalism:
Externalism is the view that knowledge does not require internal justification, meaning that the reasons for believing something need not be accessible to the believer.
Position Causal Theorists Hold:
Causal theorists hold an externalist position.
The Trudy/Judy Case:
In the Trudy/Judy case, Joe wants to buy an alarm clock and goes to the store, where he randomly picks an alarm clock off the shelf. However, unknown to Joe, 99% of the alarm clocks sold there do not work due to a manufacturing defect. Joe happens to pick the one alarm clock that is properly manufactured and that will wake him up in the morning. If the clock works, does Joe know the clock will work?
Show That is Functions as a Counter-Example to Goldman’s Causal Theory of Knowledge:
The Trudy/Judy case seems to function as a counter-example to Goldman’s causal theory of knowledge because it shows that a belief can be both true and appropriately causally connected to the fact believed, but still not be knowledge if the causal connection is not reliable.
On Warrant and Proper Function Causal Theory of Knowledge
Alvin Plantinga’s Warrant and Proper-Function Causal Theory of Knowledge
According to Alvin Plantinga’s warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge, for Joe to know that p, the following three things have to be true:
* Joe must believe that p.
* p must be true.
* Joe’s belief that p must be warranted.
Four Things Have to Be True:
According to Plantinga’s warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge, for Joe to be warranted in believing that p is true, the following four things have to be true:
* Joe’s cognitive faculties must be functioning properly.
* Joe’s cognitive environment must be suitable for the exercise of his cognitive faculties.
* Joe’s cognitive faculties must be aimed at truth.
* Joe’s belief that p must be produced by his cognitive faculties in the appropriate way.
Importance of Plantinga’s Definition of Warrant:
The four parts of Plantinga’s definition of warrant are important because they ensure that the belief is formed in a reliable way and that it is likely to be true.
* Example one: Brain exploded, cannot function properly to arrive at truth.
* Example two: Brain in vat, environment suitable for the exercise.
* Example three: Faculties must be aimed at truth.
Trudy/Judy Case Does Not Count as a Counter-Example Plantinga’s Theory:
The Trudy/Judy case does not count as a counter-example to Plantinga’s warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge the cognitive environment is not suitable for the exercise of Joe’s cognitive faculties because 99% of the alarm clocks sold there do not work due to a manufacturing defect. Thus, Joe’s belief is not warranted, and therefore he does not know that the alarm clock will work.
Superiority of Plantinga’s Warrant and Proper Function Account of Knowledge:
With the different cases mentioned on slide 83 of the knowledge power-point, be able to understand why someone might think Plantinga’s warrant and proper function account of knowledge is superior to the JTB theory, the CJTB theory, and Goldman’s theory of knowledge.The JTB theory is too weak because it does not require that the belief be formed in a reliable way.
The CJTB theory is too strong because it requires that the justification be conclusive.
Goldman’s theory is too narrow because it only focuses on the causal connection between the belief and the fact believed.
Philosophical Methods:
The philosophical method we are talking about in question (a) is inference to the best explanation.
Four Philosophical Methods Emphasized in the Course:
Defining something (giving necessary and sufficient conditions).
Distinctions (conceptual, metaphysical, etc.).
Coming up with counterexamples.
Inference to the best explanation.