PHIL 1F90 1st Exam Review PDF

PHIL 1F90: FULL EXAM REVIEW PRE-SOCRATIC AND RELATIVIST PHILOSOPHIES 1) The Heraclitean Flux a) Heraclitus’ observation that the phenomenal world is constantly changing/in motion (e.g., “you can’t step in the same river twice”). If everything is constantly changing, then we...

PHIL 1F90: FULL EXAM REVIEW PRE-SOCRATIC AND RELATIVIST PHILOSOPHIES 1) The Heraclitean Flux a) Heraclitus’ observation that the phenomenal world is constantly changing/in motion (e.g., “you can’t step in the same river twice”). If everything is constantly changing, then we can never truly know anything in an absolute, fixed sense, because all things are in a constant state of becoming. 2) Protagorean Relativism a) Knowledge itself is perspectival or relative to an individual perceiver (e.g., “each individual is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not”). What is true for one person might not be true for another because truth depends on personal experience and perspective. b) This introduces relativism, where there is no absolute or objective truth. Truth is subjective and varies from one individual to another. For example, what is “hot” to one person may not be “hot” to another, based on their experiences. SOCRATES 3) Socratic Elenchus vs. Method of Hypothesis a) Socratic Elenchus: method of questioning used to test and refine beliefs by uncovering contradictions. Socrates engages in dialogue to challenge someone’s initial ideas, helping them realize where their reasoning might be flawed. i) Process: (1) Pose a question: Socrates asks someone to define or explain a concept (e.g., "What is justice?"). (2) Examine the response: Socrates uses follow-up questions to find contradictions in their reasoning. (3) Refine or reject: The person either revises their belief or admits they don’t know the answer. (4) Iterate: This process repeats until a better understanding or conclusion is reached. ii) Key Goal: To expose gaps in reasoning and encourage critical self-reflection. It’s more about identifying ignorance and less about proposing a definitive solution. b) Method of Hypothesis: alternative philosophical approach where a hypothesis (or assumption) is proposed as a starting point to guide reasoning. It’s often used to build and test ideas logically, especially in complex philosophical problems. i) Process: (1) Propose a hypothesis: Assume something as true for the sake of argument (e.g., "If justice is fairness, then..."). (2) Test the hypothesis: Analyze its implications and whether they logically hold up in different scenarios. (3) Evaluate the result: If the hypothesis leads to contradictions or absurd results, it is rejected, and a new hypothesis might be proposed. ii) Key Goal: To constructively explore possibilities and develop ideas step by step, aiming for a more systematic solution. 4) Aporia a) “Aporia” means literally ‘lack of passage,’ ‘impasse,’ ‘not having any way out’ or ‘not knowing any way forward,’ and (by extension) ‘perplexity,’‘befuddlement,’ ‘numbness,’ etc b) Describes a lot of socrates dialogues endings, ending with no conclusion 5) Socrates’ Daimon a) Indeed, Socrates claims to be influenced by a voice that spoke to him and no one else –his Daimon(text calls it something “divine and spiritual” –Cf. p. 519). b) Socrates says: “God posted me...with the duty to be a philosopher and to test myself and others” (Plato, 516), “I will obey the god rather than you” (Plato, 517), and “For this is what God commands me” (ibid.)  c) According to Socrates, this daimon would intervene in his decision-making process, often warning him against certain actions, but never directly telling him what to do. 6) Philosophic way of life (Apology by Plato) a) Socrates is defending himself against charges of impiety (disrespecting the gods) and corrupting the youth of Athens. b) "Apology" comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning a defense, not an apology as we think of it today. c) In The Apology Socrates’ defense of the philosophical way of life includes a defense of living “justly”, “good”, “right”, and “virtuously” i) In fact, according to Socrates, not only had he not wronged anyone by his actions, but that it would have been morally wrong for him not to act and live as he did. ii) After all, one should not worry about death, but, rather whether one is doing right or wrong, whether one is good or bad (Plato, 515) iii) “virtue comes not from money, but from virtue comes both money and all other good things for mankind, both in private and in public” (Plato, 518). iv) [A]s for death, I cared not one jot...all my anxiety was to do nothing unjust or wrong” (Plato, 520). d) Socrates claims that it is his God-given mission to be a philosopher (Plato, 516). i) “I would never give way to anyone contrary to right, for fear of death, but rather than give way I would be ready to perish at once” (Plato, 520). ii) “The thing is to understand myself: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. That is what I now recognize as the most important thing.” ―SørenKierkegaard iii) “Life without enquiry is not worth living” (Plato, 526). iv) Socrates sees himself as a “gadfly” who is meant to “wake up” the state, as a gadfly wakes up a slow and heavy thoroughbred horse (Plato, 518). v) More specifically, Socrates sees his mission as persuading others to care about their “souls” prior to any money and physical pleasure (ibid.). 7) Philosophic way of life (Phaedo by Plato) a) In the Phaedo Socrates claims that philosophy is a kind of preparation for death. b) Socrates says: “The fact is, those who tackle philosophy aright are simply and solely practising dying, practising death” (Plato, 556) and “those who rightly love wisdom are practising dying, and death to them is the least terrible thing in the world” (Plato, 561) c) Death is the separation of the soul from the body. The philosopher is concerned with wisdom and truth, not bodily pleasure and other indulgences. Wisdom and truth are acquired by the soul and impeded by the body. d) “[T]he philosopher as much as possible sets free the soul from communion with the body” (Plato, 557). The body is the prison of the soul!!! e) The body is a distraction for the soul, and philosophical practice helps the soul focus on truth and wisdom, which are beyond the physical world. f) Socrates argues that true philosophers are not afraid of death because they’ve been preparing for it all their lives by seeking knowledge that transcends the physical body. g) Immortality of the Soul: i) Argument from Opposites: Everything in life comes from its opposite (e.g., life comes from death, and death comes from life). If life and death are opposites, then the soul must continue to exist in some form after death. ii) Argument from Recollection: Socrates suggests that learning is really just the recollection of knowledge the soul had before it was born into the body. This implies the soul existed before the body and will continue to exist afterward. iii) The Final Argument (The Theory of Forms): The soul, being related to the Forms (eternal, unchanging truths), must also be eternal. Since the body is transient and imperfect, the soul, which seeks the Forms, must be timeless and indestructible. 8) Difference between sophistry and philosophy a) Sophistry i) Primarily interested in persuasion, not necessarily the pursuit of truth. Their goal is often to teach people how to win arguments and gain power, regardless of the truth. Sophists  may use arguments that are technically sound but lead to conclusions that are misleading or deceptive. ii) Sophists are skilled in rhetoric—the art of persuasive speaking and writing. They are trained to argue in a way that can make any position seem reasonable, often by manipulating language, emotional appeals, or fallacies. Sophists often use deceptive techniques to make weaker arguments appear stronger, focusing on what is persuasive rather than what is true. iii) Protagoras is famous for his assertion that “Man is the measure of all things,” meaning that truth is relative to the individual. b) Philosophy i) Concerned with the pursuit of truth and understanding the nature of the world, ethics, and knowledge. Philosophers aim to uncover universal truths and promote genuine understanding, often through questioning and critical analysis. ii) Philosophers like Socrates, on the other hand, employ the Socratic method, which involves critical questioning to examine the truth of beliefs and uncover contradictions. The philosophical method is dialectical, involving dialogue and reflection, where the goal is to refine beliefs through rigorous inquiry. The aim is not to persuade but to arrive at a clearer, more accurate understanding of concepts like justice, virtue, or knowledge. PLATO 9) Plato’s Indirectness a) For the most part, Plato’s works are written in the form of dialogues, and it is not always clear which character (if any) represents Plato’s view b) We normally think its Socrates but it can get more complex sometimes c) Plato's use of characters, such as Socrates and others, allows him to present conflicting viewpoints without directly endorsing any single one. This method fosters debate and exploration of ideas. 10) Platonic Irony a) A character (often Socrates) may appear to sincerely argue a point but might actually be challenging or mocking it. For example, Socrates might pretend to agree with someone's claim while subtly showing its flaws through questioning. i) E.g., Glaucon’s name in Greek means “grey-eyed,” which is an allusion to an owl (more specifically, probably the Owl of Athena). Owls are traditionally interpreted as wise animals. We see this through folktale literature. There is always a “wise owl” character in folktales that personify animals. Glaucon’s name, which any reader of Plato’s dialogues would have recognized, implies wisdom. ii) However, throughout the Republic Glaucon’s speeches are the antithesis of wisdom. Glaucon’s wisdom is no wisdom at all. The true wise man is Socrates and not Glaucon. Glaucon’s name signifies the opposite of its meaning. iii) Platonic irony often encourages self-reflection. Readers are pushed to question assumptions and search for deeper truths rather than settling for surface-level conclusions. 11) The Divided Line (Plato) a) Plato divides the world into two main realms: the visible and the intelligible. Each section of the line represents different levels of reality and different levels of knowledge. i) The Visible Realm (The World of Appearances): The lower half of the line represents the visible world, which consists of physical objects that we can see, touch, and perceive through our senses. (1) Images/Shadows (Imagination - Eikasia): This is the lowest level of knowledge. It consists of images, reflections, and shadows of objects, which are mere representations and are not even of real objects. It's knowledge based on perception rather than understanding. For example, seeing a shadow of a tree is not the same as seeing the tree itself. (2) Physical Objects (Belief - Pistis): The next level consists of physical objects and substances that we see and touch. These objects are more "real" than shadows, but they are still imperfect,  constantly changing, and subject to our senses. We can form beliefs about the physical world, but they are still based on perception, which can be deceptive. ii) The Intelligible Realm (The World of Forms): The upper half of the line represents the intelligible world, which is beyond sensory perception and consists of abstract concepts or Forms. This is the realm of true knowledge, according to Plato. (1) Mathematical Objects (Thinking - Dianoia): These are abstract entities such as numbers, geometric shapes, or mathematical truths. While they are not physical objects, they can be understood and grasped through reasoning. They are stable and unchanging, unlike physical objects. This level represents knowledge obtained through reasoning and intellectual thought, but still based on a process of thinking about things in the world. (2) The Forms (Understanding - Noesis): At the highest level is the knowledge of the Forms, which are the perfect, eternal, unchanging essences of all things. The Forms exist beyond the physical world and are the true reality. For instance, the Form of Beauty is the perfect, eternal concept of beauty itself, and all beautiful things in the physical world are merely imperfect reflections or instances of this Form. True knowledge, for Plato, is understanding these Forms and their relations to each other, which is only attainable through philosophical reasoning and intellectual insight. 12) The Affinity Argument (Plato, pp. 575-579) a) Subargument 1: i) P1: Particular things (e.g., beautiful or equal things) are constantly changing, while Forms (e.g., Beauty itself, Equality itself) are unchanging. ii) P2: Forms are invisible and intelligible; particulars are visible and perceived by the senses. iii) C1: Therefore, there are two types of existence: visible, changing particulars, and invisible, unchanging Forms. b) Subargument 2: i) P4: Humans have two parts: body and soul. ii) P5: The soul is like the invisible (Forms), the body is like the visible (particulars). iii) P6: The soul apprehends unchanging Forms, while the body experiences changing particulars through the senses. iv) C2: Therefore, the soul is like the unchanging Forms, and the body is like the changing particulars. c) Subargument 3: i) P3: There are two types of existence: visible, changing particulars, and invisible, unchanging Forms. ii) P7: The soul is like the unchanging Forms, and the body is like the changing particulars. iii) P8: Only composite things (like the body) can dissolve, while uncompounded things (like the soul) are indissoluble. iv) P9: The body is constantly changing, but the soul, being simple, is unchanging. v) MC: Therefore, it is "unnatural" for the soul to dissolve. 13) The Allegory of the Cave (Plato) a) The Cave and the Shadows: Prisoners, chained and unable to move, only see shadows on the cave wall. They mistake these shadows for reality, representing human ignorance based on sensory perception. b) The Escape: One prisoner is freed and gradually adjusts to seeing the objects casting the shadows, realizing they were mere illusions, representing a deeper understanding of reality. c) The Journey Outside the Cave: The freed prisoner is brought outside, where he sees the true world, representing the realm of the Forms (ideal truths). Eventually, he can look at the sun, symbolizing the ultimate source of knowledge, the Form of the Good. d) Return to the Cave: The enlightened prisoner returns to share his discoveries, but the others reject him, illustrating how people resist accepting truths that challenge their established beliefs. 14) Plato’s Forms a) Plato’s Theory of Forms posits that the physical world is a mere reflection of a higher, perfect, and unchanging reality — the world of Forms. The Forms are abstract, ideal concepts like  Beauty, Justice, and Goodness, which exist beyond sensory perception. Physical objects are imperfect copies of these Forms, and true knowledge comes from understanding the Forms, not through our senses. b) The Form of the Good is the highest and most important Form, as it gives truth and knowledge to all other Forms, much like the sun gives light to the visible world. Philosophers, in Plato's view, seek to understand the Forms and transcend the physical world’s illusions to attain true knowledge. c) The Allegory of the Cave illustrates this theory, where prisoners mistake shadows on the wall (representing the physical world) for reality, and only by escaping the cave can one discover the true world of Forms. 15) Real (v. nominal) definition a) Real Definition: i) A real definition aims to capture the essence or true nature of the thing being defined. It tries to explain the fundamental properties that make something what it is, independent of how we perceive or label it. ii) It addresses the actual nature or existence of a concept. iii) Example: A "triangle" is defined as a shape with three sides. This definition refers to the essence of what makes something a triangle. b) Nominal Definition: i) A nominal definition, on the other hand, refers to the meaning of a term or word as it is used in language. It explains how the word is used in a particular context or how it is understood in everyday discourse. ii) It is more concerned with the label or the name of something, rather than its intrinsic nature. iii) Example: The term "triangle" may be defined nominally as "a three-sided figure" because that's how we commonly use the word, even though the real definition focuses on the inherent properties of the shape. 16) Essentialism (Plato) a) Plato believed that everything in the physical world is an imperfect copy of a higher, ideal reality, the world of Forms. b) For Plato, the essence of a thing (e.g., beauty, justice, or a chair) exists in the realm of the Forms, which are perfect, eternal, and unchanging. c) The particulars in the physical world, like a beautiful flower or a just act, are mere imitations or approximations of these perfect Forms. d) Essences for Plato are abstract and independent of individual instances. They are the true, unchanging nature of things, while physical objects are just fleeting reflections. AI PODCAST: Pre-Socratic Theories, Socrates, and Plato → Flashcards Link ARISTOTLE 17) Essentialism (Aristotle) a) Aristotle, Plato’s student, also believed in essences but approached the concept differently. For Aristotle, the essence of a thing is found within that thing itself. b) He believed that everything has a specific nature or essence that makes it what it is, and this essence is realized through its properties and functions in the real world. c) Aristotle's view is more grounded in the physical world, and he argued that an object's essence is found in its form and purpose (or telos). d) For example, the essence of a human being is their rational soul, and the essence of a knife is its function to cut. 18) Difference between a “knack” (empeiria) and a craft (techne) a) Knack (Empeiria) i) Definition: A "knack" (empeiria) refers to a skill or ability that is often acquired through experience rather than formal knowledge or training. It is usually associated with doing something well based on habit, intuition, or a kind of learned trial-and-error.  ii) Characteristics: (1) Experience-based: Knacks are typically developed from repeated exposure to certain tasks or situations rather than through understanding of underlying principles. (2) No deep understanding: While someone with a knack may perform a task competently, they might not fully understand why they are doing it or have insight into the broader principles behind their actions. (3) Not always morally virtuous: In some cases, a knack can be used for self-serving purposes, and it doesn’t necessarily contribute to the common good (e.g., a charlatan might have the knack of convincing people without actually providing any real benefit). b) Craft (Techne) i) Definition: A "craft" (techne) is a true skill or art based on knowledge, theory, and principles. It involves a systematic understanding of the work being done and aims at producing outcomes that contribute to the good or the best possible result. ii) Characteristics: (1) Knowledge-based: Crafts involve a deep understanding of the processes and principles involved. Someone skilled in a craft can explain why certain techniques work, based on knowledge and experience. (2) Systematic: Craftsmanship is not just about repeating actions but also involves a rational approach to improving and perfecting the work. (3) Purposeful and moral: A true craft is generally associated with a goal that is not just self-serving but often has a broader social or moral value (e.g., a physician’s craft seeks to heal, and a builder’s craft seeks to create lasting structures). 19) Eudaimonia a) “Flourishing," "well-being," or "happiness." It refers to the highest good and the ultimate goal of human life — the state of living a fulfilling, meaningful, and morally virtuous life. b) Aristotle argues that eudaimonia is achieved by living a life of virtue (arete). This means practicing good moral habits, like courage, wisdom, and justice, and avoiding extremes (e.g., courage is the balance between recklessness and cowardice). A virtuous person makes choices based on reason, in line with their true nature. c) Aristotle suggests that the most distinctively human activity is the exercise of reason. Therefore, to achieve eudaimonia, humans must engage in rational activity in line with virtue. 20) Virtue a) Aristotle identifies three qualities of the soul to determine where virtue lies: i) Passions/Feelings: These are emotions like anger, fear, confidence, or envy. While natural and unavoidable, they are insufficient for virtue. (1) “The quality of the soul is either (1) a passion or emotion, or (2) a power or faculty, or (3) a habit or trained faculty; and so virtue must be one of these three” (Aristotle, 1105b). ii) Faculties/Capacities: These are the abilities to feel or perceive emotions (e.g., the capacity to feel fear or anger). While necessary for emotions, they do not make a person virtuous. iii) States (of Character): These are habits or trained dispositions that define how a person consistently responds to emotions or situations. Virtue lies here because states of character guide positive or negative actions and decisions. (1) “Virtue, then, has to deal with feelings or passions and with outward acts, in which excess is wrong and deficiency also is blamed, but the mean amount is praised and is right – both of which are characteristics of virtue” (Aristotle, 1106b). b) Virtue as the Trained Faculty of Moderation i) Virtue is a habit or trained faculty that enables a person to act in the right way consistently. ii) “The proper excellence or virtue of man will be the habit or trained faculty that makes a man good and makes him perform his function well” (Aristotle, 1106a).  iii) Virtue ensures that a person is internally good (in good condition) and performs their function well (acts virtuously). c) Virtue Requires Knowledge, Choice, and Stable Character i) Aristotle also insists that being virtuous involves more than just acting in the right way—it requires: (1) Knowledge: Understanding what the virtuous action is. (2) Choice: Deliberately choosing to act virtuously. (3) A formed and stable character: Acting consistently in a way that reflects one’s inner virtue. ii) “The thing that is done, therefore, is called just or temperate when it is such as the just or temperate man would do; but the man who does it is not just or temperate, unless he also does it in the spirit of the just or temperate man” (1105b; p. 42). 21) Intrinsic v. Extrinsic Goods a) Intrinsic Goods: Things that are valuable in and of themselves, not for the sake of anything else. Their worth is inherent. i) Happiness: Often considered an intrinsic good because it is valued for its own sake. ii) Virtue: Aristotle and others argue that living virtuously is intrinsically good because it fulfills human nature. iii) Key Idea: If something is intrinsically good, it does not depend on anything else to give it value. b) Extrinsic Goods: Things that are valuable as a means to achieve something else, not for their own sake. Their worth is instrumental. i) Money: Valued not for itself but for what it can buy. ii) Medicine: Valued because it helps restore health. iii) Key Idea: Extrinsic goods are dependent on their usefulness or ability to bring about intrinsic goods. 22) The Golden Mean a) Virtue is about finding the mean between two extremes: i) Excess: Too much of a quality or action (e.g., overconfidence). ii) Deficiency: Too little of a quality or action (e.g., lack of confidence). b) The mean depends on the person and situation, guided by reason and practical wisdom. c) Aristotle argues that extremes—either excess or deficiency—lead to harm, while balance preserves and enhances our well-being. For example: i) “To fall short and to exceed are alike fatal... Too much and too little exercise alike destroy health, and to take too much meat and drink, or to take too little, is equally ruinous to health, but the fitting amount produces and increases and preserves them” (1104a; p. 37). ii) “The man who shuns and fears everything and never makes a stand, becomes a coward; while the man who fears nothing at all, but will face anything, becomes foolhardy” (1104a; p. 37). (1) Thus, courage is the mean between cowardice (deficiency of confidence) and recklessness (excess of confidence). Similarly, temperance lies between overindulgence and insensibility. d) Exceptions i) While moderation is essential to most virtues, Aristotle acknowledges that some actions and emotions are bad in themselves and do not admit a mean. (1) “There are some whose very names imply badness, as malevolence, shamelessness, envy, and, among acts, adultery, theft, murder. These and all other like things are blamed as being bad in themselves, and not merely in their excess or deficiency” (1107a; p. 47). ii) This means that certain things, like murder or envy, are inherently wrong and cannot be balanced or moderated. 23) Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato a) What is the relationship between the Forms and particular things? i) Plato often says that particular things participate in Forms. But what is meant by “participating”? (Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 987b10-15 or p. 126 in Introductory Readings).  ii) Also, how can eternal, immaterial Forms cause particulars? b) Plato complicates things by explaining this world by appeal to another world (i.e. the world of Forms). i) “As for those who posited Ideas, the first objection is that in seeking to grasp the causes of beings in this world, they introduced different things, equal in number to them. It is as though someone wanted to count things and thought he could not do it if there were fewer of them, but could do it if he added more” (Aristotle, Metaphysics 990b1- 5 or p. 127 in Introductory Readings). c) Ockham’s Razor? Inference to the Best Explanation (Abductive Argument): i) It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. ii) General Form (1) The best explanation for P is A (Premise) (2) Therefore, A (Conclusion) (3) E.g., The best explanation for why the universe exists is that it was created by a necessary being, God. Therefore, God probably exists. d) Plato only uses two kinds of causal explanation: formal causation and material causation. 24) The four causes (Aristotle) a) According to Aristotle, a complete explanation requires an appeal to: i) Material cause: explaining something by reference to its material constitution. (1) that from which something is generated and out of which it is made, e.g. the bronze of a statue ii) Formal cause: explaining something by reference to its essence or form. (1) the structure which the matter realizes and in terms of which it comes to be something determinate, e.g., the shape of the president, in virtue of which this quantity of bronze is said to be a statue of a president iii) Efficient cause: explaining something by reference to its origin. (1) the agent responsible for a quantity of matter coming to be informed, e.g. the sculptor who shaped the quantity of bronze into its current shape, the shape of the president iv) Final cause: explaining something by reference to its purpose or end. (1) the purpose or goal of the compound of form and matter, e.g. the statue was created for the purpose of honoring the president. 25) Primary v. Secondary substances (Aristotle) a) Substances are things that exist in themselves and serve as the foundation for all other things. i) Primary substances: individual, particular things that exist independently. These are the fundamental "beings" in the world. Primary substances are concrete, particular, and cannot be said to "belong" to something else. (1) Examples: Socrates (an individual person), an oak tree, or a horse. ii) Secondary substances: are the kinds or categories that primary substances fall into. They are general kinds of things that describe what a primary substance is. Secondary substances cannot exist independently; they depend on primary substances to exist. (1) Examples: Humans (the species to which Socrates belongs), trees, horses. 26) Substance v. accident (Aristotle) a) Substance: The core or fundamental reality that exists in itself. It’s what something is. Substances are independent of other things and serve as the basic "support" of all properties and changes. i) For example, a person or a tree is a substance. b) Accident: These are properties or qualities that belong to a substance but are not essential to its identity. Accidents can change without changing the substance itself. They depend on substances but cannot exist on their own. i) Examples of accidents are qualities like color, size, shape, or location. 27) Hylomorphism (Aristotle) a) Everything in the physical world is composed of two principles: matter and form. The idea is that substances (things that exist) are combinations of both matter (the physical, material component) and form (the structure, shape, or essence that gives it its identity).  i) Matter (hyle): the potential aspect of a substance. It is the raw material or underlying stuff that could become anything, but by itself is formless and without identity. ii) Form (morphe): the actuality or the shape, essence, or design that gives the substance its specific identity. Form is what makes something what it is and gives it its particular characteristics and functions. b) Example: A statue is made of marble (matter) and has a human shape (form). Both are necessary to have the statue as a unified substance. Without the marble, it wouldn't be a statue; without the shape, it wouldn't be a statue either. ANCIENT GREEK ETHICAL THEORIES (Stoic and Epicureans) 28) The relationship between virtue and happiness/eudaimonia for Aristotle, the Epicureans, and the Stoics a) Aristotle: Virtue is a "mean" between extremes (e.g., courage lies between recklessness and cowardice). i) Happiness is the fulfillment of human potential—living according to reason and virtue. It’s about flourishing (eudaimonia), a state of living well. ii) Virtue is intrinsically valuable. Living virtuously (acting wisely, justly, courageously, etc.) is part of happiness itself. iii) External goods (like health, wealth, and friendships) are helpful but not sufficient on their own. Happiness requires a balance of internal virtue and external conditions. b) Epicureans: Virtue is a tool to achieve tranquility and avoid pain. i) Happiness is the absence of pain (aponia) and mental distress (ataraxia). It’s about tranquility and freedom from fear. ii) Virtue is instrumentally valuable. It is a means to achieve a peaceful life by guiding wise decisions and limiting harmful desires. iii) External pleasures are good only if they reduce pain or bring calm. Excessive desires (e.g., fame, wealth) cause anxiety and pain. Simplicity and self-control are key. c) Stoics: Virtue is the only thing that matters for happiness, no matter what else happens. i) Happiness is living in harmony with nature, which involves accepting what we cannot control and aligning our actions with reason. Virtue is the only true good. ii) Virtue is both necessary and sufficient for happiness. It is identical to the good life. Happiness comes solely from practicing the cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice). iii) External goods (like health or wealth) are "preferred indifferents": they are preferable but do not contribute to true happiness. One can be sick, poor, or disgraced and still be happy if virtuous. 29) Ataraxia a) Ataraxia is the Greek term for a state of peace of mind, calmness, or freedom from anxiety and mental distress. i) Epicureans: believed that ataraxia was the result of pleasure and the absence of pain (both physical and mental). For them, achieving mental tranquility was the key to happiness, and they thought it could be achieved by pursuing modest pleasures and avoiding unnecessary desires. ii) Stoics: viewed ataraxia as the result of living in accordance with nature and reason, and accepting the things that are beyond one’s control (like fate or external events). They believed that a person could attain inner peace through virtue and rational control over one’s emotions. 30) Groundless pleasures v. natural desires (Epicureans) a) Groundless pleasures: desires for things that are not essential for a happy life. These desires tend to lead to anxiety, stress, and unnecessary conflict. i) Examples: desires for excessive wealth, fame, or luxury—things that require constant striving and lead to dissatisfaction. b) Natural desires: basic needs or desires that align with our nature as human beings and are necessary for well-being. i) Examples: the need for food, water, shelter, and companionship. ii) Natural and necessary desires are those things essential for survival, like food and water.  iii) Natural but unnecessary desires are those things that, while not essential for survival, still contribute to our happiness and can be pursued in moderation, such as enjoying a variety of foods. 31) Living in harmony with nature a) Stoicism: emphasizes living in accordance with nature's rational order or the “logos”. Humans must recognize what is within their control (our thoughts, actions, and emotions) and what is not (external events and outcomes). Living in harmony with nature means accepting what happens in life with a rational mindset, aligning your will with the natural order, and cultivating virtues like wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. b) Epicureanism: believes that living in harmony with nature involves seeking peace through the pursuit of pleasure (which is defined as freedom from pain and distress). Epicureans emphasize understanding the natural world through science and reason, eliminating unnecessary desires, and finding peace in simple, natural pleasures. 32) “Preferred Indifferents” (Stoics) a) Certain things in life—such as health, wealth, pleasure, and reputation— are neither good nor bad in themselves. They are "indifferents." b) Preferred indifferents are things that are beneficial or favorable, but not essential for a good life. i) Example: health is considered a "preferred indifferent" because it is generally preferable to be healthy, but it is not necessary for achieving eudaimonia (since virtue, according to Stoics, is the only true good). c) Similarly, things like wealth and pleasure are "indifferent" because they do not contribute directly to virtue. While it’s okay to seek them, one should not attach their happiness to them or let their absence disturb inner peace. d) The key idea is that external goods like wealth or health can be useful and preferable, but they are not the ultimate goal of life, which is virtue. In contrast, virtue is always preferable because it leads to true happiness. AI PODCAST: Aristotle, Epicureans, Stoics → Flashcards Link MODERN PHILOSOPHY (17TH - 20TH CENTURY) 33) Stages of Methodological Doubt (Descartes) a) Descartes' stages of methodological doubt in Meditation 1 aim to strip away all uncertain beliefs and establish a foundation of absolute certainty based on reason. b) The Stages of Doubt: i) Doubt of the Senses: He doubts the reliability of sensory experiences, as they can deceive us (e.g., optical illusions), thus they cannot be fully trusted as sources of knowledge. ii) Dreaming Argument: He doubts the existence of the external physical world itself. If he's dreaming, everything he perceives (his body, the physical world, etc.) might not exist in reality at all. iii) Deceiving God Hypothesis: He posits that there could be a powerful, benevolent God who is misleading him. If this God exists, he could be causing him to have false beliefs about the world, even leading him to perceive things that are not true. iv) Evil Demon Hypothesis: He posits that an evil demon is deliberately deceiving him in every way, making him believe that the world, his own body, and even his thoughts exist when, in fact, they do not. The evil demon hypothesis represents a complete skepticism where even basic truths (like the existence of the self) could be illusions. 34) Cogito ergo sum (Descartes) a) Conclusion of the Doubts: Even if an all-powerful deceiver is trying to deceive him, his existence is certain as long as he is thinking. "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is the first principle of philosophy, immune to skepticism. i) Certainty: The statement is indubitable and cannot be shaken by any doubts. ii) Reasoning: Thinking proves existence, but how "I am" is known (whether inferred or directly realized) is debated. iii) "Cogito, ergo sum" is best understood as an intuitive realization, a conscious acknowledgment that arises during the thinking process. 35) Wax example (Descartes) a) The mind is better known than the body, since each time I learn something about the body I learn something about the mind that is learning about the body. I know that I exist as a thinking thing even though I am still unsure whether any body (even my own) exists. b) The Argument: i) (P1): If something can exist without a specific property, then that property is not essential to it. ii) (P2): The wax can still exist even if it loses properties like its color, taste, shape, or smell. iii) (C1): Therefore, these properties (color, taste, shape, etc.) are not essential to the wax's identity. iv) (P4): But, the wax cannot exist without having some size (it takes up space) and shape. v) (MC): So, the essence of the wax is having size (continuous quantity - it occupies space) and shape (discrete quantity), and the ability to change these (it’s flexible and changeable). c) How do I know this? What faculty (sense, imagination, or reason) conveys this idea to the mind? i) Senses: Ruled out automatically as being concerned with individual properties (like the exact size or color). ii) Imagination: Ruled out as still not general enough. I can imagine many different shapes but not the broad idea of “having a size and shape.” iii) Reason: The mind alone, through reason, understands the general concept of "something that has size, shape, and can change." This idea comes from our intellect, not our senses or imagination. 36) Rationalism v. Empiricism (Descartes and Locke) a) Rationalism (Descartes) i) Knowledge is primarily gained through reason and innate ideas present from birth, not through sensory experience. ii) Experience is unreliable and should be doubted (method of doubt). b) Empiricism (Locke) i) Knowledge comes from sensory experience (simple ideas) and reflection (complex ideas). You're born with a blank slate (tabula rasa) with no innate ideas, sensory experiences get written on that blank slate and form your beliefs, reason, and rationality. 37) Innate ideas (Locke) a) Locke rejects the concept of innate ideas, saying that if there were innate ideas, you would expect them to be perceived or understood by all people. But you don’t (e.g., children and “idiots”). Therefore, there are no innate ideas. i) Example: moral concepts or abstract ideas like "justice" or "existence" are learned from experience and reflection, not innately present in the mind. 38) Primary v. Secondary qualities (Locke) a) Primary Qualities: qualities that exist in the object itself, regardless of whether or not there is someone to perceive them. i) Examples: shape, size, motion, number, and texture. b) Secondary Qualities: qualities that exist only in relation to the perceiver and depend on the senses. They do not exist in the object itself. i) Examples: color, taste, sound, and smell. ii) For instance, the idea of the color red is not a property of the object itself but a result of how our senses perceive light reflecting off the object. 39) Hume’s fork a) Hume’s “Fork” divides all knowledge into two categories: i) Relations of Ideas: (1) Truths that can be known purely by thinking and reasoning, independent of any experience or observation. (2) Examples: mathematical truths like "3 x 5 = 15" or logical statements like "All bachelors are unmarried men."  ii) Matters of Fact: (1) Statements about the world that are known through experience and observation, not by pure reason. The truth of these statements can be questioned or proven false. (2) Example: "The sun will rise tomorrow" or "All ravens are black" are not certain and their opposites are possible. 40)Metaphysics of presence (Heidegger) a) Heidegger thinks that philosophers have misunderstood human experience by i) imposing a subject-object schema upon it ii) assuming that human beings are present substances, objects, or subjects b) Subject-object dichotomy i) The individual human being has traditionally been understood as a rational animal with the power to represent the world. c) According to Heidegger, the philosophical tradition has gone wrong in interpreting subjectivity by means of the concepts of: i) ‘Inner’ and ‘outer’: (separation between "inside" of a person (thoughts, feelings, and consciousness) and the "outside" world (external objects and experiences), ii) ‘Representation’: implies that our experience of the world is just a mental image or a representation in the mind. iii) ‘Object’: treats the world as a collection of discrete, separate objects to be studied or observed. iv) Heidegger rejects these concepts because they impose artificial boundaries on our experience and fail to capture the more holistic, integrated way in which we exist and engage with the world. d) The “Metaphysics of Presence” i) What is it to be? That is, what makes a being count as a being rather than nothing? ii) For Heidegger, Being is not exhausted by the traditional understanding of “presence” (something being immediately available or observable in the present) iii) Heidegger argues that this view limits our understanding of existence because it overlooks essential aspects of our experience, such as: (1) Temporality: The way our understanding of being is deeply connected to time and change. (2) Historicity: Our existence is shaped by history and context, not just by present, isolated moments. (3) Lived Experience: The way we experience and engage with the world, beyond just seeing things as present objects. 41) Nihilism a) Jacobi (Annihilation): Criticizes rationalism, arguing that it leads to a belief system that is monistic, atheistic, fatalistic, and ultimately nihilistic. Nihilism here represents a devaluation of elements like subjective perception, emotion, tradition, and personal identity. b) Turgenev (Denial of Everything): Nihilism is to deny everything and not take any principle on faith, rejecting any principle or authority, even those that are admired. It embraces negation and skepticism. c) Nietzsche (Death of God): Life has no inherent meaning, as the importance of religion declines, it results in the “Death of God,” there is nothing to take its place, therefore there are no structures by which we can follow to find inherent meaning of life d) Crisis of Nihilism i) According to Nietzsche, Western culture has become defined by the need for absolute meaning, truth, and purpose through philosophy and religion. ii) However, when these systems fail to provide such certainty, it creates a crisis of meaning. iii) Individuals are left to create their own meaning, leading to a sense of uncertainty, existential questioning, or even a crisis of identity and values. AI PODCAST: Modern Philosophy → Flashcards Link