Philosophical Anthropology Questions for Revision PDF

Questions for revision Introduction 1) What is philosophical anthropology? The study of the nature of humans questions the why of how human beings came to be, on subjects like consciousness, meaning, purpose, and laws of nature, relying on critical thinking and analysis to compute answers to th...

Questions for revision Introduction 1) What is philosophical anthropology? The study of the nature of humans questions the why of how human beings came to be, on subjects like consciousness, meaning, purpose, and laws of nature, relying on critical thinking and analysis to compute answers to the big mysteries of life. It differs from empirical anthropology which explores the intricacies of human behavior and cultural/societal actions over time. 2) What are the four main kinds of philosophical questions that we can ask about human beings? 3) Give two examples of anthropological theories that are in disagreement on several points. Monothesiet Theory and Materialistic Atheist Theory The typical monotheist Theory -​ Believes in bodily resurrection -​ The separation of body and soul -​ The transcendence of the soul after death -​ Eternal life after death -​ God is the divine creator -​ The religious purpose of life -​ Rationality is built on how god portrays the person Typical materialist theory: -​ Man has no free will -​ Rationality is just like a complex computer -​ Can solve easy problems but cannot identify emotion and consciousness -​ Cease to exist after death -​ The soul is not transcendent, nor is it immaterial -​ Humans spawned randomly due to evolution (Darwin, Dawkins)  -​ Life is meaningless -​ Animal mindset 4) How can we hope to find answers to anthropological questions? -​ Archaeology -​ Research 5) There are different ways to draw the limits of what we can know about human beings from science, philosophy, and religion respectively. Give one example of such a way to draw the limits. Science explains the rationality, logic, and biological aspects of certain concepts. For example, neuroscientists study the brain, and there is evidence of how information is processed in the brain, but the limit is drawn when we try to explain and explore consciousness. This can also be linked to identity, as some argue that as we are always changing, we don't have a continuous identity, rendering our lives meaningless. Philosophically speaking, philosophers aim to study the nature of humans and ask, why, what, where, and how to explore different realms of possibilities for things we as humans can't fully grasp. But there are limits to how far we can extend each reasoning due to lack of evidence and understanding such as when discussing death. Some argue about eternal life while others may disagree and rebuttal the materialistic approach, though these ideas will never fully be answered. Finally, for religion, religion help provide faith and hope to the unknown and helps give life meaning and purpose. It also provides people with a guide, spiritual and physical depending on religion. A limit is placed to if there is any truth to this as it is merely a belief with no evidence of this "divine creator". 6) Describe the central elements of Socrates’ philosophical anthropology. Socrates philosophical anthropology is based on morals and virtue. He believes that life without investigation is not a life worth living because without self-examination, reflection, and the physical act of constantly going after new ideas and knowledge to better gain a sense of understanding, will be unpurposeful and therefore meaningless. He believes that one must venture to find meaning and self-acknowledgment through moral and objectively good life decisions. Awareness plays a big role in his ideas as he believes that we must acknowledge the limits that are placed on information instead of defying them, we must accept we know nothing to fully educate ourselves. 7) What is the empirical science called “anthropology”? What does it study and in what way does it differ from philosophical anthropology? Empirical science is the study of behavior, culture, art, political organizations and are centered around soiceties and communities to explore intricacies and diversities of information. Chapter 2: Dualism 8) What is the conception of the soul in many ancient civilizations? The soul is a big part of dualism, mainly because they believe dualism is the source of life and is what gives life meaning. With that, the soul is immaterial and is separate from the body. If you were to look at Greek, Hebrew, and Latin definitions of the soul you would encounter "breath", as it is a reference to saying the breath is what leaves the body after death. This idea of immaterial soul is dated back thousands of years, making this a popular claim in ancient cultures. 9) What seems to be the natural conception of the soul in children and across cultures? Children are very useful tools when researching dualism and people's behaviors because children naturally grow up with a dualistic mindset trying to pin answers to concepts for further understanding. So if you were to ask a child about the soul, they would probably come up with an explanation for the question to aid in understanding. Eg, if an alligator eats mice, she can't move but she can still feel pain or happiness. This idea guides us to think that the soul can be separate from the body because this idea comes naturally to human beings. 10) What are the essential differences between mind and body? What does Descartes conclude from these differences? Mind and body, for dualists, are two separate things. The body is a vessel in which the soul is maintained for this human life cycle and once the body has died the soul will be transferred to another body. Therefore, the soul can survive without the body but the body needs the soul to be “alive”. Descartes emphasizes the fact that the soul is completely separate from the body using the evil demon scenario to help guide his approach. This argument states that everything you feel (sensations, pain, etc) are just illusions placed upon you by a demon. That would mean that all you are is a conscious soul and mind but not essentially a body. He states that the body isn't necessary for the mind to work, therefore, both are independent variables and not the same thing. His second argument states the argument of distinction where he defines the body and soul differences. The body is unconscious, divisible, extended in space, and mechanical. The soul is conscious, indivisible, not extended in space, and acts by free decisions. So they are as different as a circle and square. 11) Explain and discuss the Conceivability Argument for Dualism. The conceivability argument is a defense for dualism to try and explain the immaterial soul idea. This states that when 2 things are identical they cannot be separate. With the evil demon scenario, we can distinguish between the body and the soul, it is therefore conceivable to separate them, and if we can separate them they cannot be the same thing. Since everything conceivable is metaphysically possible, it would be possible for the mind to exist without the body. This leads to a strong argument for dualism because there is good reason to believe that they are separate entities. Chapter 3: Materialism 12) Explain and discuss the Interaction Problem against Dualism The interaction Problem against dualism argues that human beings are material beings, with material souls, and we cease to exist after death. Since its stated in the argument of conceivability that the soul can be conceibale without the body, then the idea of the body and soul having casual interaction would be impossible since they are two completly separate things according to dualism. 1ST: The response to this would be a casual mysterious links that just occur in life would also be applicable here. There is no answer, it's just one of life's mysteries like the attraction of gravity, that exists but can't be fully explained. 2ND: Argues that our physical world is a closed system therefore outside nonphysical stuff like the “immaterial soul” would be impossible to interact with us, but since there is so proof to say we don't have immaterial souls we cannot argue that the physical world is a closed system. 13) Can we say that the mind is in the body “like a pilot in his ship”? How does that affect the debate between Dualists and Materialists? Part of the remote control argument that says the mind to be in the body like a “pilot in his ship” would mean that the mind can be informed of stuff but still not be directly mentally affected. However since there is scientific evidence that the brain affects the mind, this is generally against dualism. Descartes rejects this argument by explaining theyre complex natures of laws between mind and body taht connects consciousness to certain parts of the body. Therefore, even though teh body is separate it is still a part of me, therefore it must be normally functioning for the consciousness to do so as well. 14) If we are Human Animals, does it follow that we are purely material beings? Discuss. Through the materialist approach, we are evolved animal beings risen from blind evolution, in which the brain evolved so complexly that we gained consciousness. We are material bodies, with material souls, and cease to exist after death. “I am human being objection”, animals lack immaterial souls so they cease to exist after death, we are immaterial souls linked to material bodies. This objection states that our brains have evolved so complexly that we triggered psycho-physical laws 15) What are the Laws of Psycho-physical connection according to the Dualist? -​ Laws of body and mind interaction, even though they are different 16) What is the difference between Eliminative Materialism and Functionalism? Eliminative materialism is mental events that don't even exist. If someone has a headache, he is just describing a behavior but he is not feeling it. Functionalism is mental events exist but they are just material events. So if I have a headache in reality it's just activations of my brain neurons. It relates to the functions of the event. 17) What is the “Hard Problem” of Consciousness according to David Chalmers? The hard problem is the things that humans aren't able to grasp, like why a strawberry tastes like that. Its the question "Why is something the way it is", It's the things that don't have an answer or solution. If you were to compare it to a mechanical device like a computer, you would argue that the easy problems are solvable functions like playing chess or doing math. Chapter 4: Hylomorphism 18) Why and in what sense does Aristotle say that material beings (tables, cats, etc.) are compounds of “matter” and “form”? Explain. Aristotle states humans are material beings with matter and form. We are material with shape (form), this form he speaks of, is the soul, which is what gives the body life. So the body and soul work together to exist. This soul is capable of rational emotion and is not purely material. Therefore a human is a product of hylomorphism. 19) Why and in what sense does Aristotle say that the “soul” of living beings is their “form”? Explain. He explains that human is made up of matter and form, matter is the material body, while form is the soul and source of life, therefore they work together to generate life. All living beings have form, they just have different capabilities. 20) What is the difference between Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ theories concerning human beings as compounds of “form” and “matter”? Aristotle believes humans are hypomorphisms, a combination of body and soul that work topgetehr, therefore they cannot exist separately. Aquinas believed that the soul was subsistent and could be separate after death and bodily ressuretion. He beleived that the soul can live without the body, but the body cant live without the soul meaning, making taht the difference between aquinas and dualism because dualism says that they are two different things. 21) What are some motivations of (Christian) philosophers who defend Thomistic Hylomorphism against Descartes’ Dualism? -​ An argument against descartes says that since the soul is so important, then the body is meaningless giving no reason for bodily resurrection but Descartes defends and says that though the soul is separate it is still a part of me and is important. -​ The argument against: that the body is just like a piece of clothing, unimportant, but Descartes defends and says he is the compound of a material body and immaterial soul bringing mutual importance to both matter and form Chapter 5: Personal Identity -​ Questions: if a person gets memory loss, is she the same person as before even though she doesn’t have the same memories -​ Question 2: your body changes every second, metabolizing functions or losing a hair cell, etc., so are you constantly changing as well -​ The dualist solution suggests that since my soul is the source of my life and is immaterial and immortal, that defines me as a person and defines my identity. So for Q1, since the memory loss person still has the same soul, it's the same person. Q2, even if my body is changing my soul is intact therefore I continue as the same person as before -​ The materialist radical solution suggests that the memory loss person is not the same person, and neither is the person 2 seconds ago, we are in constant change, therefore, we are never the same person -​ They also state that since my body is always in charge, I am ceasing to exist at every second passed -​ A less radical solution would propose that x is the same person as y if they have overlapping memories and experiences -​ John Locke: Psychological continuity criterion of person identity: proposed that you can have the same body with two different people, or the same person in two different bodies since the body isn’t tied to a person, your memories and experiences are. So if you transferred your memories to a different body, you would still be the same person, even in another body -​ The problem with this: is incompatible with materialism and dualism. Dualism suggests that the soul cant be transferred to another body, therefore you can’t transfer memories to a different body and believe they are the same person, because though memories may be transferable, the soul can’t. In materialistic eyes, since person A and Person B are not the same people, just the same body, it completely rejects Locke's proposal of relative identity.  -​ It's incompatible with materialism as well due to 4 dimesnioanlsim. Our body is an extension in time (as time passes, we grow with it), so person A is a person from 2000 to 2015, while person B is from 2015 - 2024, making them different people -​ Another encountered problem for Locke's theory is the duplication argument where, when u duplicate someone with identical memories, you won't be able to have two versions of yourself that are identical, so it wouldn’t be criteria to judge based on. -​ Animals vs Dualist Solution: the reincarnation argument: an animalistic mindset doesn’t allow for the conceivability of reincarnation as dualists believe. As animalistic approach believes that Lucy and Mary are the same as they have the same body (animal) Why does materialism reject Locke's theory of identity? How does the idea of four-dimensionalism contribute to the argument that a person in two different bodies is not the same? Locke's theory states that if two people share the same psychological connection they are the same person because what defines a person according to Locke is their human experiences. This isn't compatible with materialism because materialists believe in constant bodily change, therefore materialism makes this statement false. Four dimensionalism states the bodies change in extension to time, so as time moves, you do as well. For example, in the memory loss example, Mary from 2015 is not the same as Lucy from 2020 because they do not share the same experiences. Under what conditions can two people be considered the same person? What does the theory of psychological continuity (as proposed by John Locke) suggest about this? How does this relate to the issue of memory transfer? According to John Locke's Psychological Continuity, if you were to duplicate someone, you would be able to make two identical people if their memories overlap at some point and they have shared the same experiences. If x person and y person share the same experiences, they are the same person. Through a dualistic approach, this would not correlate because souls cannot be duplicated, they are unique, therefore in a duplicate machine, it would be impossible to make 2 people. Materislaism also rejects this because they believe in noncontinuous change meaning no individual really has an identity due to constant bodily changes. Materialist vs Dualist Views on Animals: How do the materialist and dualist views differ in their understanding of animal identity? How do these views affect the idea of reincarnation or continuity of identity in animals? Chapter 8: Origin in Blind Evolution 22) What are the three important steps in the scientific history of the Universe, leading from the beginning of everything to the apparition of Human Beings? -​ Origins of the Earth (Big Bang) -​ Origins of life on Earth (biological) -​ Origins of humans in the tree of life (evolution) 23) Explain the fundamental elements of the scientific Theory of Evolution. -​ The fundamental elements of the theory says that evolution may occur within a species or from one species to another where we all have the same common ancestry and came to be through random mutations throughout evolution. Natural selection and adaptation play a big role in all of this in order to increase survival chnaces through reproduction and how well we adapt to our environment. -​ Darwins Theory states that humans have evolved through random mutations and natural selection, therefore this process can't be guided by god or a divine creator, neglecting the idea of god as the creator. -​ Biological argument Thomas Huxley adds to the theory, of random genetic mutations but adds in the divine creator components arguing that god may have established the mutation beforehand or guided them to occur in the first place 24) Why do some people think that the theory of “random genetic mutations” in the Theory of Evolution rules out the possibility of a Creator. Is that convincing? -​ Some argue for a divine creator because biological complexity seems hard to explain. However, Darwin’s theory of natural selection provides a clear and logical explanation. It shows that complexity can arise naturally through variation, selection, and adaptation over time, making the argument for a divine creator unnecessary. -​ Dawkins adds to Darwin's theory by arguing about biological complexity. He is toward Darwin's views of not needing a god to explain complex processes like the eye for example. A structure as complex as the eye could have just as easily come to be through small gradual progressions and mutations throughout time. He argues that it wouldn't be implausible for this to occur just because the structure is too complex. -​ Platingas response: "Could be possible, but where is the proof? Meaning gods guidance can also be possible” 25) What is Paley’s “biological argument” for God’s existence? And how is it affected by Darwin’s discovery about the evolution of species? -​ Paley(19th Century) believes that a structure as complex as the eye is too improbable to have evolved just through random mutation and that it was more likely that it was done through divine creation. Its affected by Darwin's discovery because Darwins theory challenges Paley argument for biological complexity, but it doesnt account for people who believe in god for other reasons, only when debating the biological complexity. 26) Is it possible to accept the Theory of Evolution and yet maintain that the evolution of species was intended or guided by God? Discuss. Yes, thomas huxley proposed this. Because Darwins theory isnt directly attacking the fact that god doesnt exist it is merely priving an alternative option that highlights evolution without the need of a god. Some propose that mutations could have been a proponent to evolution but still guided by god maybe placing these mutations in certain places in the first place or setting up the chain reaction for the mutations to take place. Chapter 9: Origin in Creation 27) What is the teleological argument for God’s existence in general? And what are its two principal versions? The teleological argument states that god is the divine creator of the universe, and he has a plan that we must follow. He acts as nature's author (watchmaker) because things seem to be made on purpose and make more sense for God's plan than random chance. There are 2 versions to this argument. 1ST: William Paley's idea of biological complexity, some things are far too complex to have emerged from random chance therefore a god must exist. 2ND: The organization of the cosmos. This is the fine-tuning argument that states that the constants of the universe are far too precise to just have emerged randomly, so in that case there probably is a god. -​ Objections to the 2nd version, there is actually no precision to the cosmos and it isn't surprising because if they were any different we wouldn't be here to observe it so the probability of the constants being the way they are is 1, therefore doesn't explain the probability of a natural author. -​ Objection 2 is the idea of the multiverse: we only believe that the constants are baffling because we are in the only life-permitting universe, but say there are multiple universes, then this wouldn't be so surprising -​ Response to 2 would be that multiverse isn't scientifically proven, and if you are positing such a drastic shift to explain why there is no god, then you can also posit the possibility of the existence of a god 28) What do scientists mean when they say that there is “fine-tuning” in the physical universe? The cosmos are alined forming constants that allow for life on earth to be possible, therefore fine tuning comes from the precision of the cosmos to allow for life on earth. 29) Formulate the fine-tuning argument and discuss one objection. 30) Some people think that the fine-tuning of the universe could be explained if we suppose the existence of a Multiverse, instead of supposing the existence of a God. Explain how these two theories could explain the data, and discuss which one seems the most plausible. 31) How could religion or revelation provide an argument in favor of God’s existence? Religion could be a component to explain god existence due to people's strong faith in him and Jesus. Since people create close relationships to Jesus and Jesus says there is a god, he knows god and comes from god, its a way of trusting his word and believing in God's existence. Chapter 10: Death 1) What is Epicurus’ argument for showing that death is not evil and that it’s irrational to fear death? Discuss that argument. Epicurus states that death isn't evil and that we should not fear it becasue” when death is here, I am not” Therefore I will not experience death, so i do not have to be afraid 2) How does our conception of death depend on our conception of the nature of human beings (i.e. on the answer to the question “What kind of thing is a human being”)? -​ The idea of death is tied closely to how you visualize human beings. Through dualism, human beings do not have the anxiety of fearing death because they believe that the soul is immaterial and eternal so life after death will occur. For materialists, the anxiety is heightened as the human life is meaningless and purely material and you will just cease to exist after death. 3) When we fear death, are we fearing a certain positive “experience”? If not, what is it exactly that we fear? When we fear death we fear the deprivation of good human experiences such as watching a movie or falling in love. Since we will be in eternal nothingness we long for the things we will miss after death has arrived. 4) If we fear death, it must mean that we desire or hope for the opposite: what exactly is that “desire” or “hope” that the feat of death reveals? What we hope and desire for is the ultimate future. The ultimate future can be categorized as sempiternity and temporality. Semipiterntiy would be eternal life, but the objection would be a life without meaning and purpose and subsequently boring. The other case would be Atemporality which would be during your lifetime, time will simply stop flowing when you reach your ultimate perfect moment. It will be like an eternal snapshot of the perfect life. 5) Is death “normal” for human beings, and corresponding to their “Nature”? Why is it difficult to answer that question? Since we fear death so much, it reveals our nature is bigger than it seems. Since we are material beings death is normal and good and part of the normal cycle, just like animals. But some may argue that death isn't normal because we have conscious minds and immaterial souls compared to animals, so death becomes a mysterious annihilation of this unique universe. Since death isn't a basic understanding for humans this question is hard because we dont know what happens after death, and due to our awareness its hard to judge if its something to fear or not. Chapter 11: Meaning of Life -​ Disenchantment: With the rise of science, logic, and ration, the meanings, religion and spiritual knowledge of the world are disenchanted and overlooked -​ In Western civilizations after the rise of science and the enlightenment -​ One consequence of disenchantment is that life becomes meaningless -​ Albert Camus argues of life's absurdity: Since life has no purpose, live absurdly, passionately -​ Theory 1 "Purpose of action”: If life ends after death, what is the meaning of living and doing anything - all actions are meaningless -​ If the purpose of an action relies on its future, but our future is inevitable death, then nothing we do has a purpose -​ Theory 2: "Purpose of all things” -​ If there is no divine creator or providence guiding us to something and everything occurs from chance, then everything we do has no meaning -​ Theory 3: I make no difference  -​ If in the grand scheme of things like the universe, I make no difference, what the meaning of my life -​ I desire to be loved or cared for by god which is what uktimaly helps give life meaning -​ Theory 4: Scandal of Injustice -​ When good people suffer while bad people prosper, gives us the feelings that life is injustice and meaningless -​ Justice is needed to help establish life meaning, because then life would be absurd and pointless -​ Responses to these theories -​ Camus says that since life is absurd live your best life, passionately and just enjoy -​ With the myth of Sisphus, even though his action had no purpose his lifes meaning would be to continue on instead of abandoning hope which would help establish this sense of victory and courage -​ The freedom of Subjectivism: If life has no meaning, THATS GREAT, go out and give yourself value and purpose Chapter 12 - Meaning of History -​ History is cyclic (what has happened, will occur again) Eg Mayan Calendar -​ Religious providence: History is guided by the divine creator -​ End of Time for Christians is waiting for Jesuses arrival where the last judgemnet will occur for justice. In that case that is the meaning religiously for religious people, as they strive for goodness during their life for a better outcome in the afterlife -​ The modern notion of progress: We can progress without the guidance of god -​ Marxism: Rise of atheist -​ Techno-scientific progress: technology will be more advanced for future generation -​ Moral: future generations will know right from wrong to a better extent  -​ Problems with this argument: though this argument drifts from religious perspective it still has a religous factor because of faith. Since people are acting in away which they know thye will be judged by future generations, which is connected to the religious providence argument -​ Post Modernity -​ The death of god by Nietzsche: He argued that religous beliefs wont hold much intellectual power. People who reject gods existence dont know about the consequneces yet, though one may reject his existence, the religious ideas and cocnepts are still emebedded in many things. Like the idea of history moving toward a perfect future is a religious idea stemmed from the divine plan. -​ Lyotard believed in the end of the metanarratives which are the grand stories that help explain concepts like the belief in god, marxism etc. -​ Transhumanism: The belief that human progress can overcome natural limitations (e.g., death). -​ Victory over individual death -​ But death is a natural process of human beings, so transhumanism will transcend human norms such as reincarnation -​ Problems with this is it still stems from religious apsects and progress was a progress of humanity but transhuamnism drives progress away from humanity