Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
52 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What did Thales claim is the one "cause and element" of all things, in other words, that which is ultimately real?
|
Thales's Answer: Water.
all things are filled with gods |
|
|
Give 3 reasons generally considered to have led Thales to this conclusion.
|
1) Water is essential for the nourishment of all things and that without moisture, seeds will not develop into plants
2) Water takes up most of the planet 3) Water can take the form of a gas, liquid, or solid. |
|
|
Explain why Thales is considered the first philosopher.
|
Thales is considered the first philosopher because he did not depend on mythology. Instead he depended solely on logic
|
|
|
Explain Parmenides' argument for claiming that the One, that which is ultimately real cannot have been created, cannot change, cannot be destroyed, and is eternal.
|
1) That which is ultimately real cannot have been created, to be created would mean it came from something else. but this is impossible since there is nothing else from which it could arise from
2) It cannot change because change requires a space/void in which the process takes place but there cannot be this void, as there is nothing else besides that which is ultimately real 3) It cannot be destroyed: to be destroyed it would have to disappear to become nothing but there cannot be nothing 4) it is eternal - no beginning or end ultimate real is one divisible |
|
|
Explain how Socrates' view of the nature of universal truths is different from the sophists' view on the same matter
|
Sophists - we can't know what is ultimately real we have only as things appear to work with and the best we have to go by is the consensus of our community. Therefore truth is realitive. Therefore i shall seek to educate myself in ways that would further my ambitions and improve my skills
Socrates - we can know what ultimate truth is atleast we can get closer and closer by dialect. hierarchy of knowledge as expressed in the allegory of the core form of the good is the form that makes clear other forms and explains the why of anything and everything this obvious explains the important search/philosophy |
|
|
What did Thales claim is the one "cause and element" of all things, in other words, that which is ultimately real?
|
Thales's Answer: Water.
all things are filled with gods |
|
|
Give 3 reasons generally considered to have led Thales to this conclusion.
|
1) Water is essential for the nourishment of all things and that without moisture, seeds will not develop into plants
2) Water takes up most of the planet 3) Water can take the form of a gas, liquid, or solid. |
|
|
Explain why Thales is considered the first philosopher.
|
Thales is considered the first philosopher because he did not depend on mythology. Instead he depended solely on logic
|
|
|
Explain Parmenides' argument for claiming that the One, that which is ultimately real cannot have been created, cannot change, cannot be destroyed, and is eternal.
|
1) That which is ultimately real cannot have been created, to be created would mean it came from something else. but this is impossible since there is nothing else from which it could arise from
2) It cannot change because change requires a space/void in which the process takes place but there cannot be this void, as there is nothing else besides that which is ultimately real 3) It cannot be destroyed: to be destroyed it would have to disappear to become nothing but there cannot be nothing 4) it is eternal - no beginning or end ultimate real is one divisible |
|
|
Explain how Socrates' view of the nature of universal truths is different from the sophists' view on the same matter
|
Sophists - we can't know what is ultimately real we have only as things appear to work with and the best we have to go by is the consensus of our community. Therefore truth is realitive. Therefore i shall seek to educate myself in ways that would further my ambitions and improve my skills
Socrates - we can know what ultimate truth is atleast we can get closer and closer by dialect. hierarchy of knowledge as expressed in the allegory of the core form of the good is the form that makes clear other forms and explains the why of anything and everything this obvious explains the important search/philosophy |
|
|
Explain what Socrates meant by "learning is recollection."
|
1) Truth, with a capital T, exists in and of itself
2) there for we do not make truth what it is; we discover it. 3) Our souls already possess knowledge of all truths 4) we discover these truths by recollecting our memory of them. 5) And we are able to recollect this memory by being asked or by our own asking the right question - with much persistence - which alone can stir up our soul to yield these truths. 6)in the end what matters is not the influence or power we have over others or the wealth we have accumulated, but the condition of our soul our soul being our most essential and enduring part |
|
|
What was Socrates explanation of what education is?
|
Education is primarily not about feeding us information or giving us the right questions to turn inward and discover the Truths already in our soul. BECAUSE THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, IT HAS LEARNED EVERYTHING THROUGH THE MANY CYCLES OF DEATH AND REBIRTH.
|
|
|
Explain Plato's theory of the Forms
|
There are 2 worlds, the world of being and the world of becoming
The world of being - where forms exist the forms are eternal The world of becoming - where particulars exists the world we know where things change and is a reflection of the world of being the only reason we know things here is because some how we have knowledge of forms there are chairs there are many types of chairs none are perfect except the form of chair in the world of being. |
|
|
Explain how plato sought to reconcile Heraclitus view of the ultimate nautre of reality with that of parmenides on the same matter
|
Heraclitus view along iwth parmenides once brought together brings the view of full reality
|
|
|
What was the goal of Descartes' Meditations
|
to establish a system of acquiring knowledge based on sound principles of reason from what aaccurate info can be deducted
|
|
|
What was the radical method he adopted to achieve this goal?
|
Descartes radical method was to doubt everything (radical doubt)
|
|
|
What strategy did he apply in order for this method to be effective?
|
Since radical doubt would take a long time, even impossible to complete (there is no end to the list of things to doubt and new ones will always crop up), Descartes needed a strategy for applying his radical doubt
i) To isolate the foundational principles that all knowledge is believed to depend on and then to subject these principles to methodical doubt ii) to throw out any of the principles that do not survive the doubt iii) to throw out with these rejected principles all opinions, beliefs, and knowledge claims that depended on these principles |
|
|
What principles did Descartes find all knowledge to depend on?
|
..
|
|
|
How did Descartes doubt each of the principles?
|
Principles of knowledge that descartes found are generally held as foundational
i) Principles that hold that there is an external world and that objects in this (external) world actually resemble our perceptions of them. ii) Principles of arithmetic and geometry (in short, mathematics) |
|
|
What was the one thing Descartes found he could not doubt?
|
That he is a thing that thinks. "I find here that thought is an attribute that be longs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am. I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I cease entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist. I do not now admit anything which is not necessarily true: to speak accurately I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason... I am, however, a real thing and really exist; but what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks... what is a thing which thinks? it is a thing which doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and feels.
|
|
|
To doubt the first principle (of the externality of the world) descarte used the crazy person argument
|
Crazy people believe all kinds of nonsense with unshakable certitude. Certitude of mind does not make true that which it concerns. So, applying the methodical doubt, Descartes realizes that the belief that there is an external world is indubitable - Descartes cannot be sure that he is not crazy. Therefore,Descartes cannot prove beyond doubt that there is an external world
|
|
|
The dreaming argument:
|
in dreams we believe the world in which we find ourselves to be true. Most of the time, we do not know we are dreaming. So, Descartes thinks, What if this world that I believe to be independent of me (to exist separate from me and not a figment of my imagination) were just a dream - what if? so yet agian descartes is force by his methodical doubt to conclude that he cannot be certain that there is an external world. Therefore he would doubt that there is an external until he could come up with criteria for distingushing dreaming from waking.
|
|
|
Broad argument implied in the wax example
|
i) Since the reflections of the senses are confused and, therefore, not knowledge
ii) And since knowledge is clear and distinct and, therefore, beyond sense-reflections or sense-data iii)Then that which is used to know something beyond the sense-reflections of that thing, is the sole source of knowledge iv) that tool is the intuition of the mind and the deductive powers of the mind - in short reason v) Therefore, reason is the sole source of knowledge (This view of how knowledge is acquired is called Rationalism, because it claims that reason only is the source of knowledge) |
|
|
Narrow argument
|
i) I know this piece of wax by its properties
ii) if the properties of this piece of wax change, I should conclude that I have a different object before me iii) But I do not conclude so; I understand that the piece of wax is the same in spite of the change of properties iv) Therefore, it is not my senses that tell me the piece of wax before the change of properties is the same piece of wax after the change (senses perceive only what is before them) v) Therefore, it's the intuition of my mind that tells me clearly and distinctly that the piece of wax remains the same through the change of properties |
|
|
Explain the following terms in John Locke's theory of knowledge:
a) basic unit of sensation |
A basic unit of sensation is required to cause an idea. When the amount of sensation the mind receives is not up to the basic unit required to form an idea, that sensation makes a blurry, vague image on the mind.
|
|
|
b) Simple idea
|
An idea that is impressed/caused by a basic unit of sensation is a simple idea. Simple ideas combine together to form complex ideas
|
|
|
c) complex idea
|
a complex idea is a combination of two or more simple ideas
|
|
|
d) Primary qualites
|
These qualities/properties inhere in the objects and are inseparable from the objects. Examples of primary qualities are: solidity, motion, extension, shape, and number
|
|
|
f) Tabula Rasa
|
if we need sensatoins to have ideas, and if all sensations come from outside our mind, then what is the mind like at birth before receiving any sensations? A white sheet of paper, a blank slate (tabula rasa) therefore all knowledge necessarily begins with sensations received. in other words, knowledge begins with experience.
|
|
|
Empiricism
|
There is no knowledge that does not have experience as its source. Hence locke's theory of knowledge is called Empiricism, because the theory hold that experience is the source of all knowledge.
|
|
|
explain the "I know not what" in Locke's theory of knowledge
|
Since the senses can only receive sensations of the qualites of an object, and since we can only know qualites, as a result, how can Locke be so sure that objects actually exist separate and apart from qualities? in short, how does he know that there is an actual object that has the qualites?
answer: When all qualities are stripped away, there is an "i know not what" that is left -- a something that cannot be known, even though it exists |
|
|
What are 3 ways locke believed the mind wokrs with sensations impressed upon it?
|
a) by joining the ideas
Ex soft plus sweet plus yellow plus "orangy" smell = orange b) by comparing but not joining the ideas Ex: orange --- sweet lemon --- sour c) by abstracting other ideas form the ideas; that is, discerning what is common to those ideas Ex: plum, orange, apple = fruit |
|
|
Bishop George Berkeley concluded "that the very notion of what is called matter or corporeal substance involves a contradiction in it." Explain as fully as you can the contradiction to which Berkeley was referring.
|
the "i know not what" john locke's theory berkely goes against it saying how can you know there is something still there? primary equalites and secondary qualites are only ideas in your head so all we know are ideas. saying there are only 2 things that exist ideas
|
|
|
What are the 2 categories Hume claimed all knowledge falls under?
|
Hume divides all knowledge into two kinds, knowledge of the relations of ideas, and knowledge of matters of fact. By “relations of ideas,” Hume is thinking of statements that are true by definition, or, whose negations are contradictory. We can say that this kind of knowledge consists in statements that are true solely in virtue of the principle of non-contradiction. (Note: this is Hume’s description of this kind of knowledge, but the examples he gives, Kant thinks, don’t always fit this general description.) Relations of ideas, since they amount simply to what we know solely by the principle of non-contradiction, can be known by reason alone. I don’t need to rely on observation to know that all bachelors are male.
The second kind of knowledge is knowledge of matters of fact, i.e., concerning what actually exists and what properties it has. These are all the claims that are not true solely in virtue of the principle of non-contradiction, i.e., whose negations are not contradictory. That there are any bachelors in the world is a matter of fact, not something that is true by definition. These sorts of statements, Hume says, cannot be known solely by reason, but must rely upon sense experience. |
|
|
Give an example of each of the categories
|
...
|
|
|
How did Hume explain the concept of "cause and effect"?
|
...
|
|
|
In which way did Hume's understanding of cause and effect lead to his theory of knowledge, which is Skepticism?
|
...
|
|
|
Ethical Relativism
|
Claims that morality varies from culture to culture and that the morality of one culture cannot bet better than the morality of another --- meaning, that even when the morality of two cultures are in direct conflict, (one saying that doing such and such act is good, the other saying that doing that very same act is bad), both moral positions are equally right. they are equally right because there is no way of justifying any morality outside of the culture where it arises and is practice. (Ethical realativism is often referred to as Cultural Relativism, which strictly speaking, claims that morality varies from culture to culture, as a sociological observation, and that different cultures, therefore, have different criteria for evaluating what is morally right or wrong.
|
|
|
Divine command Theory
|
Claims an action is right if and only if God commands/approves of it. (If we're not sure, we wait for god to tell us.)
A) Whose God are we to listen to in a multireligious community? B) How can we be sure those who claim to be speaking for God are actually speaking for God? |
|
|
Natural Law Theory
|
Disagrees with Divine Command Theory. It maintains that God commands an action because the action is moral in the first place, meaning that hte action is moral independent of whether God commands it or not. Natural Law Thoery claims that an action derives its morality from reason
|
|
|
Utilitarianism
|
Claims "an action is righ tin proportion as it tends to promote happiness wrong as it tends to promote pain, that is the reverse of happiness." Therefore, in any given situation, the right action to pursue is the action that provides the most happiness to the greatest number of people -- in short, the moral action is always the option that provides "the greatest good for the greatest number"
|
|
|
Psychological Egoism
|
claims that we act for our own self-advantage. in other words, no matter how selfless an action may seem -- no mater how altruistic -- in the end there is always some selfish motivation taht caused us to take the action. Therefore, the psychological egoist believes we cannot be selfless
|
|
|
Ethical Egoism
|
Claims that the moral action in any given situation is that which is in our own self-interest. Unlike the psychological egoist, the ethical egoist does not deny that we are capable of acting in the interest of others out of concern for them. However, the ethical egoist is claiming that puttin our self-interest first is always the right moral action in any situation.
|
|
|
Deontology
|
Claims that what makes action righ tor wrong is whether the action is done out of duty or not. For any situation, the action that duty commands is the right action . in short, Deontology is the ethics of duty.
|
|
|
Virtue Ethics
|
Instead of focusing on what action is right or wrong and why, virute ethics emphasizes the kind of character that enables the individual to habitually and consistently choose and carry out the right course of action. according to aristotle "a courageous actoin is the golden mean in a moral situation where the extreme option are either a cowardly act or a foolhardy act. both of which - cowardice and foolhardiness - are vice opposite direction
|
|
|
Problem of evil
|
1) God is said to be omnipotent (all-powerful) omniscient (all-knowing), and perfectly good.
2) God created the world 3) Being perfectly good, God would not want to create a world with evil in it. 4) and being all-powerful, he could create a world without evil or remove any existing evil. 5) Being all-knowing, he would know about any exisint evil. 6) Since God could and would want to remove any evil from the world, why then is there evil in the world? 7) We can only conclude that either evil doesn't "actually" exist but only appear to, or God does not have all three qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness |
|
|
Explain why St. Augustine believed that truth is a candidate for being the source of the "highest grade of happiness"
|
Turth satisfies these requirements
i) it is eternal ( and it is available to all) ii) it is superior ot our minds -- the mind judges itself and other things by it, but thruth is never judged but simply acknowledged iii) Truth is ecstatic / intoxicating / endabling there for it can endure and it cannot be taken away from us. |
|
|
What was St. Augustine explanation of evil?
|
There is no natural evil, meaning if you had a list of everything in the world, you would not find evil on that list. sure you would find disease, pain, suffering, ignorance etc. but these conditions are what they are due to their lack of being. you would only find a lack, an absence. (disease is the privation of healthiness)
There is only moral evil, evil that depends, in some way on the free choices of rational agents. This is sin. Sin is disordered love. it is loving things inappropriately, loving more what is of lower value, and loving less what is of higher or highest value. therefore, those who are prefectly virtuous -- this is righteous -- have thier love rightly ordred. |
|
|
Give St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of god
part a |
1) God is that being than which none greater can bet thought
2) it follows form this definition that God is greater than all things that exist in actuality or in the mind 3) Something that exists in actuality (reality) is greater than something that exists only in the mind (in the understanding) 4) Therefore, God exists in actuality, as anything that exists in actuality would other wise be greater than god -- a contradiction |
|
|
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of god
Part B God necessarily exists |
1) Some thoughts are greater than others
2) The thought of something that actually exists is greater than the thought of something merely imagined 3) But to say God does not exist is to say God is merely an imagined idea 4) Since an imagined idea is less than an idea of something that actually exists, then God cannot be thought of as merely imagined 5) Because to say God is merely imagined and therefore not existing is that same as to say "that than which greater cannot be thought is that than which greater can bet thought" 6) Therefore, God cannot be thought not to exist 7) Therefore, God necessarily exists |
|
|
Give karl Marx's criticism of religion (Christianity)
|
Religion is one way humans try to cope with the intolerable suffering of their conditions in this world. "it is the opuim of the people." like any other drug religion provides nothing but an escape. instead of facing the reality of our situaiton and working to eradicate its humanity, we look to another world for a better life. instead of building our lives around ourselves.
|
|
|
Criticism of Religion (Christianity) by Friedrich Nietzsches
|
Christianity preaches such values as turning the other cheek, long suffering, and humility, etc. These values go against our instinct of self-preservation. And upon closer look, we find that only the weak benefit from these values. Therefore, Christianity is the tool used by the weak to control the strong.
|
