Philosophy Unit 3 Test Notes PDF

Unit 3 Test notes - Erika Tzakas Lesson/Co ncept 3.2, 3.2b Plato’s Beliefs: -​ Plato argued that all things have a universal form Aristotle: -​ When we look at an apple we see an apple, and analyze the form of the - 4 causes apple. There is a particular...

Unit 3 Test notes - Erika Tzakas Lesson/Co ncept 3.2, 3.2b Plato’s Beliefs: -​ Plato argued that all things have a universal form Aristotle: -​ When we look at an apple we see an apple, and analyze the form of the - 4 causes apple. There is a particular apple (in the world of the senses) and a of change universal form or idea of an apple (in the world of ideal forms) which is separate from the individual apple. - Definitions Aristotle’s Beliefs: + how to -​ Aristotle came to disagree with Plato. He argues there are no universals apply them that are unattached to existing things. If a universal does exist, then it must be something to which it is attached -​ Aristotle disagreed with the location of the universals. Plato spoke about the world of forms, where all universal forms subsist, but Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing. 4 causes of change: 1.​ Material Cause -​ The material out of which an object is created -​ (What is it made from?) 2.​ Efficient/Agent Cause -​ The means by which something is created or comes to exist -​ (Who or what brought it into existence?) 3.​ Formal Cause -​ The final shape of the object or the idea or plan that exists before it. 4.​ Final cause -​ This is the purpose or end (teleos) of a thing realized in the full perfection of the object itself -​ (The reason it was created or the realization of its fullest potential) An example of this principle being applied: -​ A potter molds a flower pot out of clay, which will eventually hold flowers. Material cause: The clay Agent /Efficient cause: The potter Formal cause: The flower pot Final cause: To hold flowers 3.4: For the existence of God: - The - First developed by Christian Theologian Arguments Ontological - St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) for and Argument: - A priori argument: does not rely on any form of empirical against the observation, evidence, or data. existence - It relies on reason and logic alone. of God The - A posteriori argument: Observable facts about the world - Pascal’s Cosmological required to prove this argument. wager Argument: - Impossible for any natural thing in the world to be the sole source of its own existence. - Whatever exists must come from something else/everything that exists must have a previous cause. - Must be an original cause-causer. - At some point in the cause and effect series, there was a beginning point, that beginning point had to be an original cause that allows everything else to come into being. - A supreme being is the original cause. - Supreme being is self-caused. - Being has knowledge of the universe that all others do not have knowledge of. - No beginning and no end. Supporters: - St.Thomas Aquinas - Aristotle The - Starting with observable facts. Argument - Not focused on origins-cause and effect. from Design - Focused on the perfect order that exists in the natural (Intelligent world. Design): - At some point, there must've been a designer, and the designer was God. - The existence of order in nature implies that there must be some supremely intelligent and perfect agent who is responsible for creating this order. - Churches belief. - Garden of Eden. Supporters: - Catholic Church - St. Thomas Aquinas - St. Augustine (of Hippo) Against the existence of God: Atheis - Atheism is the belief that there is no such thing as a deity. - Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a deity of deities m: cannot be either known or proven. 1.​ The problem of evil: -​ Why is there evil if there is a God? -​ Why do bad things happen to good people? -​ Find a time of peace in history. (cannot find) -​ It's inconceivable that a supreme being could create such an imperfect world. -​ Why would God allow us to destroy his creations? -​ A sticking point for Atheists. 2.​ No Empirical evidence for God: -​ “I can't have faith unless I can understand” -​ Understanding is necessary for faith. -​ Materialistic view - No evidence therefore can’t believe it. -​ Scientific evidence fails to reveal any credible evidence for the existence of a supreme being. -​ Humans occupy a privileged place at the top of a great chain of being. 3.​ Fulfills a psychological need: -​ Way to pacify human beings. -​ Faith fulfills a deep-seated human emotional need for security, order, and meaning. -​ God is an invention by humans that satisfies a deep-seated, human-emotional craving for authority. - Sartre -​ Religion is the childhood of the mind. - Sartre -​ Psychological maturity requires people to overcome this. 4.​ Neurological Perspective: -​ Belief in a supreme being can be explained as a function of the chemistry of human brains. -​ What people interpret as religious experiences, such as talking to God, represents nothing but changes in the activity of certain parts of their brains. -​ To support this claim, neuroscientists have conducted experiments showing certain kinds of artificial neuro-electrical stimulations in the brain can trigger religious experiences and experimental subjects. Supporters: -​ Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzche, Jean-Paul Sartre Pascal’s Wager -​ 17th-century French mathematician. - UNDECIDED: -​ He experienced several religious conversions throughout his life. -​ One was brought about by an illness that temporarily paralyzed him, another by a near-death experience and a third was brought on by a miraculous cure of his neice. -​ Cannot prove nor disprove a supreme being. -​ God-shaped hole in every person- why people are always seeking/longing for something they cannot find- never satisfied once they have it. -​ The fact that religion has been a part of almost all human societies. -​ Many indicate that there is a sense that this life is not all there is. -​ Therefore people are drawn to God. -​ Metaphysical proofs of the existence of God were so remote from everyday experiences and so complicated in logical structure that they had little success in convincing people of the existence of God. -​ God’s existence as a bet (wager): -​ “I bet that God either is or is not” - I either win or lose. -​ Stipulations: 1.​ God's existence cannot be either proved or disproved by science. 2.​ Ir is possible for us to know something “is” without exactly what it is. 3.​ We will all die, we just decide if we believe in God’s existence or not. -​ Conclusions: 1.​ If I bet that God exists and I win, he actually does exist, I go to heaven 2.​ If I bet that God exists and I lose, he does not exist, I have gained some earthly pleasure/given up some. 3.​ If I bet that God does not exist and I win, he does not exist, I have a short period of pleasure, I will never know the difference, I'm dead. 4.​ If I bet that God does not exist and I lose, he does actually exist, I have an eternity of suffering knowing that I lost my chance at eternal happiness. -​ Pascal says, the largest loss comes from betting God does not exist, with the consequences of eternal hell. 3.5: - 4 varieties Substance: - Rene Descartes (1596-1650). of the self - He was a dualist. - Dualism: the mind is separate from the body, a substance capable of existing independently of all things besides the sustaining power of God. Which he believes is necessary for anything to exist. - Sets out to prove his own existence by beginning with extreme skepticism. - He concludes; all thinking things exist. I think, therefore i am. - He defines the self as a determinate and urinary thing, a substance that persists over time. - The self i s a substance that cannot be divided and is not subject to decomposition and chance. - As the subject of experience, the self supports changing experience but itself does not. Bundle: - David Hume (1711-1776). - Denies the existence of a soul/self that is unchanging and permanent. This self is in constant flux. This theory holds that the self is like a bundle or collection of bits and pieces of experience. Hume argues that when he thought about himself he did not find anything like a self waiting to be discovered- all he discovered were the memories of experiences, impressions, ideas and desires, etc. He found no unity or threat that gave him continuously. He concluded that the self is nothing but a loosely knit collection, or a bundle of perceptions. Narrative: - Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005). - The narrative is not just a story but refers to the way in which humans experience time and future potentialities. - He points out that we experience time in two diff ways. We experience time as linear succession, we experience the passing hours and days and the progression of our lives from birth to death. - This is cosmological time. - The other is phenomenological time; time experienced in terms of the past, present, and future. - We draw disparate past events into a whole establishing causal but meaningful connections between them. - The self is described by self and unity. - People make sense of their experiences by narrating them. - The narrative is connected to other narratives, whatever unity the self possesses is a function of the unity of the narrative under which it is identified. - A fragmented narrative is a fragmented self.  Project: - Jean Paul-Sartre (1905-1980). - There are 2 types of reality that lie beyond our conscious experience. - There is the existence of the object of consciousness and consciousness itself. - An essential feature of consciousness is its negative power by which we can experience nothingness. - This power is also at work with the self where it creates a lack of self-identity. - The unity of the self is understood as a task for itself. - In order to ground the self it needs a project and the desire for being lies within individual consciousness. - The self should be thought of more as an event in time rather than a thing. - The self is neither static nor a bundle, nor an ego at the center of one's experience. - It is a dynamic, future-oriented project, the self is always under construction and never finished. 3.8: Freedom and Determinism: - Freedom and Free Will: Determinis -​ This theory proposes that the will is perfectly insulated from all external m causes. - Free Will -​ No matter how powerful the external influence, supporters of this theory - Causal say that the will remains unperturbed. Determinis -​ Though the body and brain are physical entities that are subject to the m deterministic laws of nature, the will remains outside these laws. - -​ It is not part of the brain although it can interact with the brain and send Predestinat it messages to perform an action. ion -​ According to this theory, even prisoners in chains enjoy freedom of will; - they may not be able to act freely but they can will freely. Naturalism -​ Existentialist support the view that human beings are radically - Religious free.Sartre argued that it is entirely up to human beings to define Determinis themselves because there are no predetermined blueprints, no moral m absolutes, no divine commandments and no innately given values exist - Social to guide people's decisions on how to be.Human beings are alone and Determinis abandoned in the universe. m -​ The price of being free is a disturbing sense of the groundlessness of all values, ideals, and projects. -​ This sense of groundlessness of all values, ideals and projects can lead to moments of existential angst or anxiety -​ Some people say they are condemned to be free. This is something they must bear at all times and -​ in all situations. -​ One cannot give someone freedom nor take it away; although they can deny it and pretend it does not exist. Causal Determinism: -​ Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. Determinists believe that every physical event in the universe is caused by a previous event that unfolds according to causal laws. There are no uncaused events in the universe. -​ Determinists say that all thoughts, actions and events are caused by previous events which are themselves caused by previous events and so on back in time, even though you, yourself may not be aware of the cause. -​ Therefore, determinists believe that Free will is an illusion. -​ Your psychological and behavioral makeup, even your personality, is formed for you not by you. -​ These conditioning agents include: early childhood conditioning, neurophysiological development, social conditioning and your exposure to external events. -​ One question that emerges is the personal responsibility for one’s actions. -​ Since your actions are determined by forces beyond your control how can you be held responsible for them? Predestination: -​ Naturalism: Religious Determinism: Social Determinism: