What Are Philosophy, Logic, and Epistemology - Essay Example

17) What is philosophy? (a) Etymologically, philosophy means the love of knowledge, and in its broadest sense should considered to be the search forwisdom. The purpose of philosophy is to attempt to encourage investigations into areas which people have insufficient knowledge, and the benefits of philosophy can be an increase in critical thinking skills. (q) What is logic? (a) Logic is a way of using reasoning to solve problems. An argument is an attempt to come to a conclusion through a series of premises that are supposed to support each other. The parts of an argument are the premises and the conclusions.(q) Inductive vs. Deductive reasoning? (a) A deductive argument will claim to support the truth of the conclusion. It takes general facts and uses them to make specific claims. An inductive argument will use reasoning gathered from particular facts to come to the conclusion. (q) What is epistemology? (a) It is the study of the nature of knowledge. It is concerned with how knowledge is acquired and how it is justified. (q) What is Descartes’ cogito argument? (a) Cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am. The cogito states because we think, we know that we exist, and that is the one thing that we are unable to doubt. (q) Purpose of evil demon? (a) The evil demon as a thought experiment is used to get to the cogito. Because we cannot prove that some evil demon exists that is tricking us into making us think that reality is in some way different than how it actually is, we do no know whether anything beyond ourselves or beyond our minds is actually true. (q) a prioro vs. a posteriori? (a) These are two different ways in which to justify claims. A priori uses reasoning and logical evidence , and a posteriori uses experience and empirical evidence. (q) Paley’s watchmaker argument? (a) Paley’s watchmaker argument is an argument for the proof of the existence of God from design. If we see something such as a watch, which has many intricate parts and which has obviously been designed, then we should be able to identify other objects which have also been designed. Paley states the human eye has many intricate parts that fit together and therefore should be considered to be designed, thus requiring a God-figure to serve as the designer of the eye. (q) Cosmological proof of God’s existence? (a) This argument states that there needed to be an original cause, that matter cannot create itself, that energy cannot create itself, and that there necessarily needs to be an original cause, an original force that set the universe into motion. This original cause or force is God. Aquinas’ first three proofs are all cosmological arguments. (q) What is empiricism? (a) It is a view that places emphasis on our experiences through our senses. It claims that knowledge is gained through experience within the world and not simply through the mind. (q) What is rationalism? (a) It is a view that places emphasis on our logic and reasoning as the basis for knowledge. A rationalist would state that some or all concepts of justification are gained through reason. (q) Aquinas’ five proofs? (a) 1-The laws of motion state that motions cannot cause themselves. God was the original cause of motion in the Universe. 2-Things cannot cause themselves to happen. God was the original cause of events in the universe. 3-All objects are contingent, meaning that they exist or don’t exist. There was a necessary original being that has always existed, which is God. 4-There are varying degrees of perfection in the Universe, and God is the ultimate source of perfection and is absolutely perfect. 5-see teleological argument (from design). (q) Teleological argument? (a) Natural bodies have purposes, and these objects are unintelligent. Acting to an end is a sign of intelligence, so there must be something acting on these objects in an intelligent way. This is God. (q) Problem of induction? (a) Is induction a valid way to gain knowledge? Just because we go out and count 500 swans, this does not mean that the 5001st swan will also be white; it could be black, as black swans were discovered. (q) Cartesian doubt? (a) Cartesian doubt is methodological, and it is the attempt to discern truth by finding that which cannot possibly be doubted. Descartes particularly placed doubt on sensory perception. (q) Examined life? (a) Socrates felt that the unexamined life was not worth living. The examined life meant that a person is aware of their own ignorance, questions acts done out of habit, is devoted to the truth, and is dedicated to dispassionate reason. (q) Meaning of life for Socrates/Camus? (a) Socrates felt that attaining the highest form of knowledge was the purpose of life. Camus felt that the purpose of life was to revolt against the absurdity of life. (q) Myth of Sisyphus? (a) The mythological Sisyphus was forced to roll a boulder up a hill continually, which was an absurd act that was without meaning. He related this to human life as being without meaning. Camus felt that suicide was not justified because one should revolt against the absurdity of life and not allow it to oppress us. (q) Laws as Parents? (a) this refers to Socrates pondering should a virtuous person obey the law. If a law is unjust, should then a virtuous person follow the law and be virtuous by following the law, or should a virtuous person rebel against the unjust law. What circumstances allow for disobedience, and what are the ethics of unethical laws? As Socrates was put to death because he was ordered to stop his teachings, Socrates obviously felt that it was justified to not obey a law that would have required him to not lead an examined life. (q) Critiques of the proofs for the existence of God? (a) Argument from design-If nature requires a designer, then God would require a designer, and the designer of God would require a designer, and so on and so on. Occum’s Razor-we need to get rid of anything that isn’t absolutely necessary…is the existence of God the absolute only explanation for the existence of the universe? If not then we need to get rid of the concept of God. Hume-Design only accounts for a small degree of our experience with order; there are objects such as snow flakes that are complex but obviously don’t need a designer. (q) Hume’s epistemology? (a) Hume’s epistemology centered around the problem of induction. He was concerned that there was no rational way to determine things beyond our current experience. Rather than reason, Hume felt we were reliant upon instinct in regards to whether the sun would rise the next day, and other matters of experience. (q) Matters of fact vs. relations of ideas? (a) In the Humean sense, matters of fact were derived empirically—knowledge from interaction—while relations of ideas were derived rationally or logically—mathematics (5+5=10). (q) Peirce’s fixed beliefs? (a) 1-choose belief and ignore contrary evidence 2-basis in authority (ex. The church will determine what people should believe 3-a priori, what is agreeable to reason 4-science-pay attention to what happens and apply reason to real life experiences. Peirce considered science to be the only adequate way to fix beliefs. Socrates was justified in his decision to remain in Athens and drink the poison hemlock. If he had run away, then it would have seemed as though he had been afraid of death, and Socrates felt that no philosopher should be afraid of death. This particular aspect of Socrates belief is the most difficult to believe. It is saying that philosophers have a better understanding of death than other people. While Socrates might have led a more examined life than other Greek citizens, he still did not know what was in store for him after his death, and so he cannot claim any more authority on the matter than other people. There is no way to philosophically examine death, so death should not be considered to be a topic discussed in philosophy, so Socrates does not have any room to claim that philosophers any more than other people shouldn’t be afraid of death. Socrates tended to be somewhat of an agitator, and he believed that he would merely find himself in the same position if he were to run away to someplace else. In this Socrates was justified because it meant that he believed that he would always lead the examined life, and as this was the most important thing to Socrates, he should always adhere to it. Besides, Socrates had already made his stand at this trial and delivered a speech and made argument that completely justified his actions and drove his points home, and there was no need to repeat the performance in another state. He had already said everything that he had wanted to say, and the most effective means of showing that he truly believed in what he was always teaching was to die for his way of living. Socrates would have also considered it to be the completion of the social contract, and breaking the social contract would have meant that he hadn’t been following what he had been teaching. While he was justified in disobeying what he viewed as unjust laws, he also needed to accept the consequences of his actions, and the consequence of his actions was to be put to death. While it is justified to rebel against an unjust law, at the same time the person rebelling must accept the punishment for breaking the law, or the entire point of breaking the law would have been nullified. He had to show that the law was unjust by intentionally breaking with full knowledge that he would be punished for doing so. While people might have felt that the right thing to do was to always attempt to live as much life as one can, Socrates felt that he had done everything he needed to do. He simply felt that it was his time to die, and by willingly going to his death, he showed how the examined life must end with full acceptance of one’s death as well. Read More