Koofers

Final - Flashcards

Flashcard Deck Information

Class:PHIL 1204 - Knowledge and Reality
Subject:Philosophy
University:Virginia Polytechnic Institute And State University
Term:Spring 2010
- of -
INCORRECT CORRECT
- INCORRECT     - CORRECT     - SKIPPED
Shuffle Remaining Cards Show Definitions First Take Quiz (NEW)
Hide Keyboard shortcuts
Next card
Previous card
Mark correct
Mark incorrect
Flip card
Start Over
Shuffle
      Mode:   CARDS LIST       ? pages   PRINT EXIT
the ontological argument for God’s existence & explain two objections.contrast this argument with the cosmological argument. Define god as that which nothing greater can be conceived. God exists either in the mind alone or both in the mind and reality C: God exists in both the mind and reality Objection: Garrett: because something exists in the mind lets say a unicorn so it has a mental existence doesn’t mean its reality Objection: a perfect island. No because a perfect island is not the same concept as God. Cosmological argument vs. ontological argument Cos. Is an empirical argument. This means it relies on facts of the world instead of a priori
Pacal’s wager and explain two objections. Next, explain how this argument differs from both ontological and cosmological arguments It argues that it is rational to believe that God exists, given that we don’t know whether he exists. Does NOT justify the conclusion that “God exists”. You should rationally believe in God. Objection 1: God is merciful. So He should be able to forgive you. Objection 2: the argument alone does not tell you how to act or what religion to side with. Differs from ontological and cosmological arguments: The wager tells us that it’s rational to believe in God it’s not acting as if there is proof like the ontological and cosmological rguments do
Descartes’ argument for substance dualism. explain the essence and properties of mind and body. discuss one objection to substance dualism Conceivability Argument: I can conceive of a mind existing without a body and vice versa. If (1) then the 2 are fundamentally distinct entities © mind and body are 2 fundamentally distinct entities Mind is nondivisible and nonspacial. Body is divisible and special. So they contrast one another. Mind is a thinking thing and is perceived the body is extended into space. Objection to substance dualism: the mind controls the body. How does the mind and body interact if they are completely 2 different substances.
Ryle's criticism of Descartes. Be sure to explain why Ryle believes Descartes made the purported mistake “category mistake”. Simply believe one thing belongs to a category when it does not. Confusing one type of thing to another type of thing. The mind is private we don’t have access to other people’s minds. Ryle says Descartes mistake is that he’s separating them. We normally speak about things in the world being bound by the laws of cause and effect and being guided by the law of nature. According to Ryle Descartes looked at the physical world and applied it to the mind. The mind does not work in the same way as the body does.
Generated by Koofers.com
the basic claim of physicalism and then distinguish between identity and supervenience physicalism. Physicalism: The claim that only thing that exists are physical things. It’s a metaphysical theory. Being happy would just be having a certain amount of serotonin in your brain. Pain would be firing c-fiberSupervenience physicalism:Base properties: properties on which mental properties pend. Base properties on a clock are the small lights (pixels) the global property is the actual time that the small lights make up. Global properties depend on the base properties supervenience: a dependency relationship but not an identity relationship. The mind is dependent on the physical
explain one objection to identity physicalism and one objection to supervenience physicalism Objection Identity: if mental states are just identical to physical states then there is no possibility of nonorganic life forms having thought. Objection Supervenience: the lone molecule problem. If you just add one more molecule to the world there is a possibility that the global properties could be different.
Explain Nagel and Jackson’s objections to physicalism Nagel: We all have subjective experiences. Subjectivitiy gets in the way of us speaking in a objective language. Because we cannot have a purely objective language for experience we cannot prove that physicalism is true. He thinks phyiscalism is probably true but we cannot prove it. It’s an epistemological conclusion. Jackson:Qualia are non physical facts. If we have non physical facts about the world then physicalism can not be true bc physicalism claims that everything is physical. It’s a metaphysical conclusion bc the conclusion is about reality and it’s saying it’s NOT physicalism
Distinguish between Nagel and Jackson's objections to physicalism Jackson: metaphysical Nagel: epistemological Nagel’s argument is based on the concept of what it’s like to be a type of thing. This implies that there’s an ineffable “what it’s like to be” an individual person. Jackson’s argument does not hinge on this point. Instead, we can know red1 and red2 just like Fred if we get a surgery, but we can never know “what it’s like” to be Fred. Nagel’s conclusion is that we can’t know how physicalism is true while Jackson’s conclusion is that physicalism is false
Generated by Koofers.com
the A series, the B series and McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time. A series is relative properties. A series is constantly changing. B series the truth values are always stable. MTA 1 change is a necessary feature of time. Early and later does not allow for that change. Describing the world in that way does not allow change to occur. When the A series can change that is the essential feature of time. Conclusion: The A series is fundamental MTA 2 every event is past, present and future. No event can be past, present and future. It is a contradictory property. Conclusion: time is unreal
explain Russell’s objection to McTaggart’s argument time not being anything independent. Time is a mind dependent feature. It’s a relation between us and the world not something in and of itself.
Explain the problem of time’s movement, hyper-time, the problem of hyper-time and the problem of time moving itself We normally think of time as something that has a flow to it. Problem is when we think about time moving we need something to compare it to in order to move. Movement = change over time. Time changes over hyper-time. Hyper-time is just another type of time so it’s going to have a flow or motion also so it’s going to require a hyper-hyper time. And then you’ll need another hyper-hyper time which will go on forever and leave you with an infinite number of hyper- hyper time.
the simple fatalist argument, the more sophisticated fatalist argument, and the theological fatalist argument. SF:future is unique. There is only one possible future. For any proposition that proposition will be true or false based on any time on at timeline.We don’t have free will because it’s been determined across the board that I will always do that. MS: either R will happen or R will not happen. No matter the case R happens therefore we don’t have free will TH:God is omnisciencent. Because of this if we acted in any other way then we could go against God’s fore knowledge& if this is the case then we likely don’t have free will.
Generated by Koofers.com
explain one objection to each: simple fatalist, more sophisticated fatalist, SF: the statement is making events look like they depend on the truth. The fact that it was true yesterday makes it look like the truth of that is what brought about the event. The truth of the proposition does not cause actual events in the world. What causes events in the world, is one event physically causing another thing MS: being certain that event R is going to happen no matter what. Future events do not have truth values so if that’s the case then the argument ends up being invalid or unsound. Unsound because there is no truth value of the proposition at all. It’s going to end up being invalid because there is no truth value at all
theological fatalist argument objection Objections: mixing God’s epistemological point with a metaphysical point.
body and brain criterion.explain the transplant problem and fission problem explain one reply to fission and the problem with the reply Body and brain criterion: what is it for a person to exist across time? Person has to have the same body across time and person has to have the same brain across time Transplant problem: take the brain out of someone and put it in a new body. The person waking up is the same person because they have the same memories and act the same way but they will have the same body fission: cut brain in half. not the same person because the whole brain is not there
psychological continuity criterion and the problem of fission. explain the multiple occupancy reply and its problem Psyc continuity criterion: same person if you have psyc continuity: same memories,desires, traits across time. Psyc “stuff” that makes us up across time.Problem of fission: at that very moment of the 2 people waking up they are the same person. Prob is it’s 2 bodies with 1 person.Multiple occupancy reply and its problem: at the beginning you had 2 separate people in your head. Although they worked together and had the same psycholigcal continuity they were some how different to begin with. This seems wrong though bc there is no way of determining what it meant for them to be separate.
Generated by Koofers.com
Dependent origination everything being related to everything else. Everything is connected. The result that everything is connected
relative truth perceptions and concepts. They don’t express what true reality is
samsara life suffering. Process of being reborn. The world we live in is because of karma. The world of living and dying
Karma law of cause and effect. If you do one bad thing you get consequences if you do something good then you get something good
Generated by Koofers.com
no self-doctrine No self doctrine comes from dependent originiation because you are just connected to everything else so there is no “you”. There is no one thing that is meant to be “you
causes of suffering Causes of suffering comes down to desire. Desire to live and that’s why you’re reborn
Epistemological knowledge. What we can and can’t know
Metaphysical claims about the ultimate makeup of the world and of reality
Generated by Koofers.com
Physicalism is a ____ theory Metaphysical
Generated by Koofers.com

List View: Terms & Definitions

  Hide All 25 Print
 
Front
Back
 the ontological argument for God’s existence & explain two objections.contrast this argument with the cosmological argument. Define god as that which nothing greater can be conceived. God exists either in the mind alone or both in the mind and reality C: God exists in both the mind and reality
Objection: Garrett: because something exists in the mind lets say a unicorn so it has a mental existence doesn’t mean its reality Objection: a perfect island. No because a perfect island is not the same concept as God.
Cosmological argument vs. ontological argument
Cos. Is an empirical argument. This means it relies on facts of the world instead of a priori
 Pacal’s wager and explain two objections. Next, explain how this argument differs from both ontological and cosmological arguments It argues that it is rational to believe that God exists, given that we don’t know whether he exists. Does NOT justify the conclusion that “God exists”. You should rationally believe in God.
Objection 1: God is merciful. So He should be able to forgive you. Objection 2: the argument alone does not tell you how to act or what religion to side with.
Differs from ontological and cosmological arguments: The wager tells us that it’s rational to believe in God it’s not acting as if there is proof like the ontological and cosmological rguments do
 Descartes’ argument for substance dualism. explain the essence and properties of mind and body. discuss one objection to substance dualismConceivability Argument: I can conceive of a mind existing without a body and vice versa. If (1) then the 2 are fundamentally distinct entities © mind and body are 2 fundamentally distinct entities
Mind is nondivisible and nonspacial. Body is divisible and special. So they contrast one another. Mind is a thinking thing and is perceived the body is extended into space.
Objection to substance dualism: the mind controls the body. How does the mind and body interact if they are completely 2 different substances.
 Ryle's criticism of Descartes. Be sure to explain why Ryle believes Descartes made the purported mistake“category mistake”. Simply believe one thing belongs to a category when it does not. Confusing one type of thing to another type of thing. The mind is private we don’t have access to other people’s minds. Ryle says Descartes mistake is that he’s separating them.
We normally speak about things in the world being bound by the laws of cause and effect and being guided by the law of nature. According to Ryle Descartes looked at the physical world and applied it to the mind. The mind does not work in the same way as the body does.
 the basic claim of physicalism and then distinguish between identity and supervenience physicalism. Physicalism: The claim that only thing that exists are physical things. It’s a metaphysical theory. Being happy would just be having a certain amount of serotonin in your brain. Pain would be firing c-fiberSupervenience physicalism:Base properties: properties on which mental properties pend. Base properties on a clock are the small lights (pixels) the global property is the actual time that the small lights make up. Global properties depend on the base properties supervenience: a dependency relationship but not an identity relationship. The mind is dependent on the physical
 explain one objection to identity physicalism and one objection to supervenience physicalismObjection Identity: if mental states are just identical to physical states then there is no possibility of nonorganic life forms having thought.
Objection Supervenience: the lone molecule problem. If you just add one more molecule to the world there is a possibility that the global properties could be different.
 Explain Nagel and Jackson’s objections to physicalism Nagel: We all have subjective experiences. Subjectivitiy gets in the way of us speaking in a objective language. Because we cannot have a purely objective language for experience we cannot prove that physicalism is true. He thinks phyiscalism is probably true but we cannot prove it. It’s an epistemological conclusion. Jackson:Qualia are non physical facts. If we have non physical facts about the world then physicalism can not be true bc physicalism claims that everything is physical. It’s a metaphysical conclusion bc the conclusion is about reality and it’s saying it’s NOT physicalism
 Distinguish between Nagel and Jackson's objections to physicalism Jackson: metaphysical Nagel: epistemological Nagel’s argument is based on the concept of what it’s like to be a type of thing. This implies that there’s an ineffable “what it’s like to be” an individual person. Jackson’s argument does not hinge on this point. Instead, we can know red1 and red2 just like Fred if we get a surgery, but we can never know “what it’s like” to be Fred. Nagel’s conclusion is that we can’t know how physicalism is true while Jackson’s conclusion is that physicalism is false
 the A series, the B series and McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time.A series is relative properties. A series is constantly changing. B series the truth values are always stable. MTA 1 change is a necessary feature of time. Early and later does not allow for that change. Describing the world in that way does not allow change to occur. When the A series can change that is the essential feature of time. Conclusion: The A series is fundamental MTA 2 every event is past, present and future. No event can be past, present and future. It is a contradictory property. Conclusion: time is unreal
 explain Russell’s objection to McTaggart’s argumenttime not being anything independent. Time is a mind dependent feature. It’s a relation between us and the world not something in and of itself.
 Explain the problem of time’s movement, hyper-time, the problem of hyper-time and the problem of time moving itselfWe normally think of time as something that has a flow to it. Problem is when we think about time moving we need something to compare it to in order to move. Movement = change over time. Time changes over hyper-time. Hyper-time is just another type of time so it’s going to have a flow or motion also so it’s going to require a hyper-hyper time. And then you’ll need another hyper-hyper time which will go on forever and leave you with an infinite number of hyper- hyper time.
 the simple fatalist argument, the more sophisticated fatalist argument, and the theological fatalist argument.SF:future is unique. There is only one possible future. For any proposition that proposition will be true or false based on any time on at timeline.We don’t have free will because it’s been determined across the board that I will always do that. MS: either R will happen or R will not happen. No matter the case R happens therefore we don’t have free will TH:God is omnisciencent. Because of this if we acted in any other way then we could go against God’s fore knowledge& if this is the case then we likely don’t have free will.
 explain one objection to each: simple fatalist, more sophisticated fatalist, SF: the statement is making events look like they depend on the truth. The fact that it was true yesterday makes it look like the truth of that is what brought about the event. The truth of the proposition does not cause actual events in the world. What causes events in the world, is one event physically causing another thing MS: being certain that event R is going to happen no matter what. Future events do not have truth values so if that’s the case then the argument ends up being invalid or unsound. Unsound because there is no truth value of the proposition at all. It’s going to end up being invalid because there is no truth value at all
 theological fatalist argument objectionObjections: mixing God’s epistemological point with a metaphysical point.
 body and brain criterion.explain the transplant problem and fission problem explain one reply to fission and the problem with the replyBody and brain criterion: what is it for a person to exist across time? Person has to have the same body across time and person has to have the same brain across time Transplant problem: take the brain out of someone and put it in a new body. The person waking up is the same person because they have the same memories and act the same way but they will have the same body fission: cut brain in half. not the same person because the whole brain is not there
 psychological continuity criterion and the problem of fission. explain the multiple occupancy reply and its problemPsyc continuity criterion: same person if you have psyc continuity: same memories,desires, traits across time. Psyc “stuff” that makes us up across time.Problem of fission: at that very moment of the 2 people waking up they are the same person. Prob is it’s 2 bodies with 1 person.Multiple occupancy reply and its problem: at the beginning you had 2 separate people in your head. Although they worked together and had the same psycholigcal continuity they were some how different to begin with. This seems wrong though bc there is no way of determining what it meant for them to be separate.
 Dependent originationeverything being related to everything else. Everything is connected. The result that everything is connected
 relative truthperceptions and concepts. They don’t express what true reality is
 samsara life suffering. Process of being reborn. The world we live in is because of karma. The world of living and dying
 Karmalaw of cause and effect. If you do one bad thing you get consequences if you do something good then you get something good
 no self-doctrineNo self doctrine comes from dependent originiation because you are just connected to everything else so there is no “you”. There is no one thing that is meant to be “you
 causes of sufferingCauses of suffering comes down to desire. Desire to live and that’s why you’re reborn
 Epistemologicalknowledge. What we can and can’t know
 Metaphysicalclaims about the ultimate makeup of the world and of reality
 Physicalism is a ____ theory Metaphysical
36, "/var/app/current/tmp/"