PHIL Final PDF

CHAPTER 1 Philosophy Definition: “The Love of Wisdom” Philia: The love of something (ex: Philadelphia) The Main Categories of Philosophy Epistemology – The Study of Knowledge ○ Metaphysics – The Study of Reality ○ Enlightenment in a general s...

CHAPTER 1 Philosophy Definition: “The Love of Wisdom” Philia: The love of something (ex: Philadelphia) The Main Categories of Philosophy Epistemology – The Study of Knowledge ○ Metaphysics – The Study of Reality ○ Enlightenment in a general sense could be tied to metaphysics and the nature of reality...or epistemology: The nature of what it means to be enlightened in a spiritual sense. What knowledge is attained and how we know what we know. ○ Ethics – The Study of Morality ○ Socrates → Plato → Aristoltle Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Four Noble Truths in Buddhism ○ All Life is Suffering ○ Suffering is Caused by Craving and Grasping ○ Getting Rid of Craving Leads to Enlightenment ○ The Path to Enlightenment is the Eightfold Path This is another example of philosophy and enlightenment. The wheel of rebirth points to the struggle to overcome the suffering of the world. EVAGRIUS PONTICUS AND PURE PRAYER  ○ Developed a System of “Thoughts” that was later turned into the Seven Deadly Sins: gluttony, fornication, anger, sadness, acedia, avarice, vainglory, and pride. CHAPTER 2 - Human Nature Is the human nature act on aggressiveness, egoism, or selfishness? ○ Physiological Egoism - Can we make rational decisions for our happiness? ○ Capitalism vs. Socialism - Political realm and also the economic realm. ○ Is it evolutionary beneficial to be selfish? - Are we always moral and work together towards a common goal? Human Nature is closely related to the duality of personhood and life after death. ○ The assumption of life after death each deals with a “self” We each have a “self.” The “self” is distinct from the body. The self endures and remains the same through time - A soul that passes on. The self is individual, distinct from others. Human Nature is to understand what you want out of life and this often is turned towards religion. ○ Can we identify an out-of-body self, are we each individual in our thoughts? These are the three major views Personhood (Brain dead or fetus - are they human) The soul Materialism (What we are made up of makes us human - Matter) Greek Philosophy Presents a Divide Rational Thought/Intellect The Passions The Intellect is the Highest Good ○ Plato Ratiolistic View Reason Appetite Aggression ○ Aristotle - emphasized human purpose - wants to be happy, that is our purpose. Dualism Humans have an Immaterial/Immortal Soul Humans have an immaterial/immortal soul. The unchangeability of the soul keeps a standard of goodness and the reason that we must strive for. Self-mastery over the passions is of great import (pp.61-62)  Does a ranking of rationality levels create potential issues for classism? ○ If I ration better than you, am I better than you? ○ Early Christians have thought to adopt this thinking ○ Passions vs. Reason – Philosophy as a way of life (Hadot) and appetite vs. reason. ○ Reason, Appetite, and Aggression correlate to the desire for Knowledge, Wealth, and Power in respective order. Found on pg. 59 Judeo-Christian View ○ Love is an important view & message Love of god and others ○ Choosing Good and Evil Augustine (354-430 CE) Borrowed Plato’s Use of Body and Soul – Immaterial and Material Humans can choose good or evil but with the help of God. This is connected to his anthropology of original sin Foundational for most of Western Christianity Some challenges are found in the scientific account (original sin vs. naturalistic evolution) Original Sin ○ Are we as humans naturally good or evil? The original sin was from Adam and Eve eating a fruit. In Augustine's eyes, the sin was transmitted through sex. Because of original sin, human beings cannot choose good over evil without the help of God. Through salvation in Jesus Christ. This regenerates humans to reconnect with God. Otherwise, sin is a barrier between them. This conception of sin has influenced Western philosophy/theology to a huge extent. The Lens of Human Nature through the Judeo-Christian lens. ○ Roman Catholic – Augustinian in Foundation ○ Protestant – Quite Mixed on this Point ○ Orthodox – Augustine is a Saint, but his views on Original Sin are not Predominately Kept. ○ Again, Augustine is very influential in much of Christianity, and hence, much of Western philosophy. Three Views: ○ Traditional Rationalistic ○ Judeo Christian  ○ Darwinian View (Challenge) DEFINITIONS ○ Theism – Belief in a Personal God ○ Deism – Belief in an Absent Creator God (Gone fishing) ○ Pantheism – Everything is God ○ Panentheism – God is in Everything, but is Greater than Everything - the earth is God's body ○ Monotheism – Belief in One God ○ Polytheism – Belief in Many Gods ○ Henotheism – Belief in Many Gods with One Chief God (Mythology) ○ Existentialism - ○ Feminism ○ Modernism/Modernity ○ Postmodernism Feminism ○ Two Ways of Argument against Plato: Rationality is superior to emotion but is not only held in males. Rationality and Emotion are both valuable. This divide also connects to how you see the premise of rationality in Greek philosophy. The Mind-Body Problem ○ We have a material brain. ○ We seemingly have a consciousness. Can we agree that it exists or is it that hard of a question? Consciousness is the “Hard problem” ○ How can we have both a material and immaterial self? Dualism - An immaterial soul inside a material body ○ Descartes - Asks how these two entities interact with each other. He suggested the pineal gland (Melatonin) he was trying to prove the point scientifically. ○ Leibniz Leibniz suggests that maybe these two things run parallel like clocks. Independent, but seemingly related. ○ The Materialist viewpoint It only matters that make up the self - connected to reductionism. I am explaining it with science to a very basic level. How does this account for consciousness, love, and emotions? Is it only matter or chemical signals that make us act on these actions? ○ The Identity Theory - Difficult  The brain and mind are connected directly as the brain is material and the mind is emergent or immaterial. Some pieces make up the brain that emerges, The whole is better than the parts. The brain has a map that typically has an identical mind state. (Brain maps) The brain is better when working all together with consciousness instead of being separated. Important - Emergence is a related concept. ○ Behaviorist or Behaviorism view - We Are What We Do. Our mentality can be explained by our behavior. This can create conflict, though, because one action may be different from the mentality. That being said, it takes another view of the behavior. Is our mentality simply broken down to what we do, our behavior? ○ Functionalist or Functionalism View - Our brain is operated by a series of outputs and inputs Are our sensory inputs = to our behavioral outputs? Reaction to stimuli is that a part of this too? It is related to the computer view and how we have created something similar to us - but at the basic level. Turing test Chinese room test ○ Semantic Viewpoints - “These are similar to other views, just worded differently” Eliminative Materialism - A view that rejects the common-sense understanding of the mind and mental states. We only think we feel things. It is similar to materialism but we are trying to explain away why we have a consciousness. New Dualism Chalmers p.95 or Ted Talk ○ We are in a movie that is our stream of consciousness. ○ His Two “Crazy Ideas were: Consciousness is Fundamental Panpyschoism - Consciousness is in everything Everything has consciousness It is universal Phi is made up of two irreducible elements or modes. UNIT 4 - The Self Mary’s Room Problem - The problem of reasoning & physical facts. ○ The Enduring Self - 3 Points ○ Soul  ○ Memory ○ No-Self Enduring 1 - The Soul is the Enduring Self. An Immaterial Part of You Lives On This is traditionally how Western philosophers have thought of the self. Rene Descartes – Cartesian Dualism 2 - Memory Promoted by John Locke Holds that the self is the same because we have memories of the person we were and continue to be. He mentions that consciousness is different when sleeping than when awake, so this cannot be the same self. Socrates Sleeping vs. Socrates Awake (p. 101) Critique: What about a memory you had 10 years ago, but no longer have (or is different)? Memory can change over time. 3 - No Self Enduring We do not have a self that endures. Buddha – Siddhartha Gautama (563 BCE) ○ Four Sights: Old Man, Sick Person, Corpse, Wandering Ascetic ○ Four Noble Truths: Suffering, Craving, Overcoming, Eightfold Path ○ At death, the 5 skandhas come apart and then back together. So although there is “no self” in Buddhism, at the same time there is something that moves on. David Hume – “[O]nly what we perceive exists” – no self (p.105) ○ We cannot perceive a constant self in the “flow of changing sensations.” The Independent vs. The Community Self ○ The Atomistic Self Descartes – The self is known apart from others. Kant –The self can choose moral principles ○ The Relational Self We are known about others. (Sister, Brother, Son, and daughter) We know ourselves by how others define us. (You only know somebody by how you know them, your name, nicknames, experiences, and views) ○ Power and Hegel’s View (pp.111-112)  We try to force respect from others. When we do this we create a master-slave relationship. This is dependent on how others see us, and we define ourselves in light of it. Ultimately we realize that the slaves have the power over the masters. Masters rely on slaves and are more competent. ○ Culture and Self-Identity Our culture helps to define our identity. Look at the list of adjectives on page 113. How is Our Identity Formed? ○ Nature vs. Nurture ○ How do we describe ourselves? ○ How do others describe us? ○ What culture were we raised in? ○ Are we defined by: Our Career? Our Looks? Our Grades? Our Friends? ○ Lecture 9 ○ Art is about expression and creation. If so, doesn’t it make sense that religion and philosophy undergird this enterprise? Created Co-Creators – If humans are made to develop, as many religions might suppose, does not this express itself in the forms of popular culture? What kind of symbolism do we see in film, music, literature, and books? What should we pay attention to? Intentional quotes Water Lighting Blood Birds/Animals Religious Symbols (crosses, star/crescent, star of David, yin-yang, etc.) Numbers (3, 6, 7, 12, 70) – 666 Park Ave (are you focusing on the Park Ave or the number? – and has anyone heard of this show? lol) Lecture 13.Reality Introduction ○ Fake Memories What is Real?  What does it mean to be “real?” - Senses tell me the object is there (An anchor) or does my mind? Metaphysics studies the nature of reality. ○ “the study of the nature of reality” ○ Does this include only observable, material things? ○ Can it include immaterial things? ○ How do we test what is “real” and what is not? - How did Philosophers test this in the past Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine ○ It gives you anything you want, but you will not remember entering. ○ You can never leave. ○ Would you enter the machine? Remember it is an all-or-nothing choice, not “I would enter it for a while.” The categories of reality Materialism ○ Everything in reality is made up of matter only and can be explained by science. Idealism ○ Reality is made up of (our) “minds and ideas” - it is immaterial Pragmatism ○ Focuses on what works and what is practical Logical Positivism ○ Language and Meaning Antirealism Denying the external, material world outside the mind. To describe reality, one must have a language, but to have that language is to shape reality, There is not a “real” world The world is created by our perceptions of what is real. Phenomenology Existentialism ○ Lecture 15: Pragmatism ○ an approach that assesses the truth of the meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. ○ Living the life of your will, lunch I eat a sandwich because I want to eat a sandwich - this is pragmatic.  ○ William James defines pragmatism as “the attitude of looking away from first things, principles, ‘categories,’ supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.” (p.168) ○ James: Pragmatic Method looks at “practical consequences and asks what difference it would make if it were true.” (168) ○ “[W]e determine whether an object is real by its relation to ‘our emotional and active life.”(168) Reality is pluralistic. Personal, social, and emotional problems are a part of philosophy (James & Dewey, 154-5) Reality is “what stimulates and interests us, and these interests ultimately determine what is real.” (158) It must be related to human interests and emotions to be real. – Do we make it real with our interest in it? ○ Siloing: You narrow yourself down from others with other views or opinions that can conflict with your reality. Objections to Pragmatism - p.170 ○ How can we have any kind of physical reality if we only know our experiences? ○ Are minds and ideas only for pursuing interests? What about things created that do not interest us? What about things we seek with an objective mind? ○ If only human interests and emotions are real, can there be an objective reality outside that? LECTURE 16: PHENOMENOLOGY/EXISTENTIALISM PHENOMENOLOGY ○ Bracketing: Setting aside fudgments of the natural world to look at the inner consciousness of it. ○ What does it mean to say something exists? Dasein - “Our being in our world” “Being is a temporal process of becoming” that can end at any moment Existentialism ○ (194-195) ○ “Kierkegaard’s philosophy is focused on: (1) getting clarity about what to do, (2) understanding reality through subjectivity, and (3) overcoming the gap between God and humanity. Philosophy Notes: WHAT TO STUDY: Mind-Body Problem Names paired with Concepts/Quotes on Slides Daesin - “Our individual being in our world” - “being there.”  Existence precedes essence Class 19 - Study - Philosophy is the love of Wisdom - 3 Main Categories A- Epistemology B- Metaphysics C- Ethics 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 2. Four Nobel Truths of Buddhism a. All life is suffering b. Suffering is caused by craving and grasping c. Getting Rid of Craving Leads to Enlightenment d. The Path to Enlightenment is the Eightfold Path 3. Plato's Myth of the Cave a. Activity b. Gard work c. The goal is freedom d. The goal is freedom e. Examines our presumptions 4. Traditional rationalistic Views a. Rational thought/intellect b. The passions c. The intellect (Reason) is the highest good i. Plato - reason (knowledge, Appetite (Lust), and aggression (wealth) ii. Aristotle - empathized with human purpose (Happiness) d. Dualism - Immaterial/material soul e. Immortal soul & Ramifications - what you do know affects your “life” after death 5. Judeo-Christian View a. LOVE (Of god and others) b. Choosing good and evil i. Original sin - transmitted through sex ii. Therefore… can't choose good over evil without god iii. Greatly affected Western culture 6. Darwinian Challenge a. Different changes in eras i. Galileo - Earth is not the center ii. Isaac Newton - Laws of motion/not created by god iii. Darwin Publishes the Origin of Species (1800s) 1859 1. Natural Selection 2. Survival of the fittest  b. Challenges i. Human uniqueness ii. Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould) iii. Purpose 7. Existentialism - responsible for your own life - free will. a. Jean-Paul Satre 8. Feminist Challenges to Traditional Views a. Platos - Reason is male, female is emotion therefore b. This view is inherently sexist; the idea is not bad but the division between men and women. 9. Modernism - The Scientific Method (Objective) a. Based on the enlightenment 10. Postmodernism - Narrative based (Subjective) a. Experiences 11. The Mind-Body Problem a. Material Brain b. We think we have consciousness - The “Hard Problem” c. How can we have a material brain and immaterial consciousness 12. Dualism a. The immaterial soul inside a material body b. Connected to Above c. Descartes - Pineal gland d. Leibeniz - Run parallel but are not the same 13. Materialist View-point a. Matter is Matter b. There is no mind or brain - it is all Matter c. What does this mean for emotions or love - just synopsis 14. Identity Theory a. The brain and the mind are mapped out the same b. The sum of the parts is better than the individual pieces 15. Behaviorist View a. We are what we do b. Our behavior explains what we do c. Are we truly all what we are 16. Functionalist View a. Our brain operates as a series of inputs and outputs. b. Sensory inputs = behavioral outputs c. The “Computer” view d. Chinese Room example (Searle) 17. Semantic Viewpoints  a. Eliminative Materialism i. We only feel things ii. b. New Dualism c. Chalmers i. Chalmers 18. The Enduring Self - 3 Views a. The Soul i. An immaterial part of you lives on ii. Typically how religion and Western philosophers think iii. Rene Descartes b. Memory i. Promoted by John Locke ii. Memories can change, if we lose memories are we still the same? iii. We could be different when sleeping and awake c. There is no self i. No self endures ii. Buddha - Siddhartha Gautama 1. Four Sights 2. Four Noble Truths iii. David Hume– “[O]nly what we perceive exists” – no see 19. Momento a. Breakdown of It? b. Connecting Viewpoint to the Movie c. Check slides for potential tieback points d. The Enduring Self e. Reality f. Truth g. Ethics h. 20. The independent vs. Community self a. The atomic Self i. Descartes ii. Kant b. The Relational Self i. We know about others ii. We know ourselves by how others define us c. Power and Hegels View i. Masters and slaves; those who have respect and don’t ii. The slaves realize the dynamic and flip the dynamic  d. Culture and Self-Identity i. Our culture helps define our identity 21. Philosophy and pop culture a. How pop affects Phil - The video b. 22. What is Real? a. Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine b. Nozick says for something to be real it has “value, meaning, importance, and weight 23. Missing one 24.. Is reality material or immaterial? 25. Material – Objective 26. Immaterial – Objective 27. Immaterial – Subjective 28. Eastern Materialism– Reality Consists of Only Matter Vasubandhu 29. Western Materialism - Atoms 30. Idealism a. Deals with the mind and idea b. There is a subjective and objective viewpoint 31. Eastern Idealism a. Everything is like a dream (religious viewpoint) Idealism George Berkeley reacts to Hobbes and says only mind and ideas matter. Subjective Idealism – The world and things are dependent on the mind of the individual. Objective Idealism – Ultimate reality is dependent on a supreme being. This being anchors reality. 32. Pragmatism 33. Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914) 34. William James (1842-1910)“[W]e determine whether an object is real by its relation to ‘our emotional and active life.”( 35. John Dewey - Dewey: “Philosophy arises out of social and emotional material” (167) 36. 37. 38. Logical Pragmatism a. Alfred J. Ayer (1910-1989) – Argues that there are only two types of meaningful statements (171-172):  b. Tautologies – True by definition “All bachelors are unmarried” c. Statements of Fact – Makes statements about the world that we can confirm through observation. d. 39. Phenomenology a. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) b. Reality must be revealed to our consciousness “Bracketing” – Setting aside judgments of the natural world to look at the inner consciousness of it. Heidegger Dasein – “our individual being in our world” – “being there” Exam 2 Class One - Lecture 18 Phenomenology ➔ Edmund Husserl: Wanted to return to the rationality of the Greeks ◆ “...the study of experiences to bring out their ‘essences,’ their underlying reason.” It deals with the idea that being is the “underlying reality that appears to our consciousness, which itself is Being.” ◆ The Scientific Idea ➔ Heidegger (Nazi): Heidegger is building on the work of Kierkegaard. ◆ Dasein – “our individual being in our world” – “being there” Bracketing ➔ N/A ◆ “Setting aside judgments of the natural world to look at its inner consciousness.’ Existentialism: Self-definition is found “in the passionate commitment to action.” This is related to anxiety. ◆ ➔ Soren Kierkegaard ◆ Clarity about action. ◆ What is significant to the individual? (Subjectivity) ◆ Overcoming anxiety in leaping towards God. ◆ His Christianity is very influential in his philosophy. ➔ Jean-Paul Sartre ◆ There is no fixed human nature. ◆ Did not believe in God – which caused distress for the existentialist (similar to Kierkegaard with different results) ◆ Two kinds of reality: Consciousness – Being-for-itself Objects – Being-of-itself Objections to Extentilism ◆ Bracketing does not work because people will see different things based on ◆ presuppositions. ◆ Can you join a group that limits freedom of your free will and then create non-freedom? Freedom ➔ Nature vs. Nurture – Leopold and Loeb / The Mendes Brothers ➔ Is it our Genes that make us do things? Raised a certain way. Freedom – Determinism ➔ Marquis de Laplace argued for determinism because we are unaware ➔ of the laws that govern us. ➔ Sigmund Freud’s followers also trended towards determinism ◆ Quotes: ◆ “human actions are completely determined by prior events.” ◆ “Materialism and Determinism are Connected – “close allies” ◆ “(1) human acts are causally determined (2) “such determination rules out freedom and responsibility, so (3) humans are neither free nor responsible.” Libertarianism ◆ N/A People are free to have control over their actions. Sartre falls here. Page 208 Summary: “(1) humans are free and responsible, (2) determinism rules out such freedom and responsibility, and (3) human acts are not causally determined. Compatibilism ◆ Immanuel Kant – We are both free and determined. We act as free knowing what is determined. ◆ “Causal determinism is compatible with freedom” ◆ Redefines Freedom – Someone who “is not impeded by external restraints or confinements” ◆ Blends determinism and libertarianism to say you are free within the boundaries of what is determined. Time: Is Time Real? ➔ Augustine – Only the Present is Real ◆ The past is a memory. ◆ The future is an expectation. ◆ The present moment is only truly in time.  ◆ God is outside of time for Augustine – He is eternal. Not all hold this position within theological circles ➔ Immanuel Kant (Theologen) - Time is a mental construct. ◆ We use time to organize situations. ◆ It is a mental map – a priori. It helps us understand our world. ➔ J.M.E. McTaggart ◆ A-Series of Time: Time is described in the past, present, and future. It is (Subjective) depending on where you are in time. ◆ B-Series of Time: Time is described in terms of simultaneous with, before, and after. (Objective) ➔ Henri Bergson ◆ Subjective time is real. Time is an abstraction or image. ◆ You experience this on a timeline from past to present to future. ◆ We have an “intuition” for flowing time. Class Two - Lecture 21 (Is There a God or Does God Exist?) (Some common words) - Shared Belief - Higher Power - Behavior (& Routine) *Connected to Rules - Rules* - Customs/tradition —> Ritual - *Morality/Morals - Relationship —> Others/God/Deity - Culture/Sociology/History What is Religion? ➔ Ninian Smart Lists 6 Traits of Religion ◆ Doctrine ◆ Experience ◆ Myth ◆ Ritual ◆ Morality ◆ Organization Defining Religion ➔ Religion is:  ◆ “A set of spiritual beliefs and practices typically based in a community and influenced by culture and experience.” - George Tsakiridis The Study of Religion vs. Theology ➔ The study of religion is ideally an unbiased, neutral, academic study of the world's religions and how religions are formed and practiced. ➔ Theology is typically, but only sometimes, done from the perspective of a practitioner of a faith tradition, often Christianity. It typically accepts belief in a theistic (hence, monotheistic) God Relgion vs. Spirituality ➔ Religion is viewed as: ◆ Organized ◆ Communal ◆ Including Group Rituals ◆ And Negatively by Some as Confining Controlling A Power Structure ➔ Spirituality is viewed as: ◆ Individual ◆ Experiential ◆ Including Personal Ritual Why Do You Think People Are More Comfortable with Spirituality? ➔ They perceive Religion as: ◆ Level 1: Destruction of Communities Terrorism and Violence in the World – ISIS for Example Abuses of Power – the Priest Abuse Scandal Wars and Power Abuse on a Worldwide or National Scale – Crusades, Ottoman Empire vs. Byzantine Empire, etc. ◆ Level 2: Destruction of the Psyche Psychology of Abuse due to Strictness & Defining People’s Identity in Terms of Labels: Guilt, Purity, Clean vs. Dirty, etc. Hypocrisy in the Religion of their Parents ○ Teachings they don’t follow themselves ○ Inconsistencies in Doctrinal Teaching Should We Believe in God? ➔ Pascal’s Wager ◆ A Purely Beneficial (Way of looking at Belief) ➔ What are the Ramifications  ◆ Important Definitions ◆ Monotheism – Belief in One God Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ◆ Polytheism – Belief in Many Gods ◆ Henotheism – Belief in Many Gods with One Chief God Hinduism? Where does Buddhism fit? ◆ Theism – Belief in an Active, Personal God ◆ Deism – Belief in a Creator, but Absent God (God went fishing after making the world) ◆ Atheism – Belief in No God (at least no theistic god) ◆ Pantheism – God is Everything ◆ Panentheism –Everything is “in God.” Class Two - Lecture 22 (Is There a God or Does God Exist?) - The question Thocity (On Monday) - * 6 questions on these three Theories 1. The Ontological Argument ➔ Anselm Of Canterbury ➔ The argument: ◆ “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.” - Proslogion ◆ So if this can be conceived it must be real – if one can think of it, it must be. ◆ God exists. Kant’s Critique: Anselm defines God as existence (229); Existence is not necessitated by the concept of an object. Triangle example: if a triangle exists it has 3 sides does not necessitate existence 2. The Cosmological Argument ➔ Thomas Aquinas was a key theologian/philosopher from history. ◆ Much of Roman Catholic thought is influenced by his writings. Very much influenced by Aristotle. ◆ Argument #1: The Unmoved Mover, from Aristotle  Things move. For things to move, must be moved by something else. This cannot go on to infinity or there would be no origin. The origin cannot be moved or would be moved by something else. The unmoving origin is God – The “unmoved mover.” ◆ Argument #2: Causal Argument (231), similar to the first argument. Things that exist are caused by other things. They are caused by other things because nothing cannot cause something to exist. This cannot be an infinite regression because otherwise there would be no beginning to the causes, hence nothing would be caused. So if there is a first cause, it is God. Objections to the Cosmological Argument ➔ Newton’s laws of motion show that an object in motion stays in motion (but does it need a start?) (231) ➔ The argument does not prove the Christian God, just a powerful creator god. (231) ➔ No need for infinite regress? Does the Big Bang show there is no infinite regress? Some argue that the Big Bang shows there is a God because there had to be a beginning. This is somewhat of a difficulty for some in the Christian community depending on their views on origins. (232) ◆ Doesn’t God too have a cause if everything has a cause? – Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). (233) ◆ Does an infinite series of explanations leave us with no explanation? (234) The Design Argument ➔ Also known as the “teleological argument.” – Order and purpose are evident in the universe, hence there must be a God. ◆ Telos – End/Goal/Purpose ➔ A sub-connected idea, the Anthropic Principle – Constants and values in the universe are “fine-tuned” to support life. Stated later in the book under the Dembski section. ➔ The Divine Watchmaker – William Paley: ◆ If we find a watch it is reasonable to think that an intelligent being made it. ◆ Things in nature are designed for a purpose. ◆ Analogy states that nature was made by an intelligent being – God The Anthropic Principle ➔ Strong – Points to a Creator  ➔ Weak – Points out the Fact of “Fine Tuning” ➔ Joshua Moritz Video: Design Argument – Objections/Supporters ➔ Objections ◆ Hume: The assumption that only an intelligent being can produce something complex is not proven. ◆ Evolution: Random selection over a long period seems to mirror design. ➔ Defenders: ◆ Could God have used evolution to create, thus having some design ➔ Influence? ◆ William Dembski – Intelligent Design/Irreducible Complexity. Example of “specified complexity” of genes (237) Three ways for an event or object to be produced: ○ Random Chance ○ Through Natural Laws ○ Through the action of an intelligent designer Class #3 - Lecture 23: The Problem of Evil ➔ Religion is: “A set of spiritual beliefs and practices typically based in a community and influenced by culture and experience.” -George Tsakiridis. ➔ Atheism – The Problem of Evil ◆ Atheism – denies all claims of theism. “No God.” Utilitarianism – the happiness that an action brings determines its morality. One of the major arguments against God is the problem of evil. Know this for the next test! ○ God is all-powerful. ○ God is all good. ○ Evil Exists. Theistic Responses ○ Augustine – Evil is the absence of something good – God doesn’t create evil, only good. Evil becomes a byproduct – It is the absence of good (264, 12th edition). ○ Evil is a result of humanity’s free will. If God destroyed evil it would not allow for free will. Natural Evil vs. Moral Evil ➔ Agnosticism ◆ Agnosticism – “I don’t know” – “A – Gnosticism” We don’t know if God exists or not.  Atheists may be making a judgment as to whether God exists, but agnosticism may be more intellectually honest for some. Freud: An “infantile” need to believe in a Father watching us. ○ Only a little proof for it. ○ If true, it still may show that our belief in God is true even if arising (or even because it arises) from need. Immanuel Kant: Because this is an unjust world, we must believe in a just God who “can bring about a perfectly just world.” ○ God still may exist in this scenario, it is not proven one way or another. ➔ Questions – The Problem of Evil ➔ 1. What is the problem of evil? What are the three maxims related to this question? ➔ 2. Is it possible that all three maxims could be true at once? How would you explain this? ➔ 3. How do we define evil? Is evil necessary in our world? ➔ 4. How might we relate the issue of free will to that of the problem of evil? Can one be free and not have evil be a possible outcome? Class #4: Lecture 24. Religious Experience (Similar to Last Lecture) ➔ Process Theology/Philosophy ◆ God is not all-knowing or powerful. God is greater than humans but is in process as humans are. ◆ Review the textbook on John Hick (pp. 265-267 in 12th Edition) ◆ What might be some ramifications for this? ➔ Religious Belief ◆ Religious Belief – To believe in God or not? Both are a choice. ◆ “The Will to Believe” – William James We can choose based on our “passional nature” when an option is “genuine” – “living, momentous, and forced” and can’t be decided intellectually. (272, 12th ed.) Passional nature is that made up of emotions, desires, hopes, etc. BasicalJames argues that don’t have a choice, and the moment is forced, sometimes you have to go with your gut, is this: W.K. Clifford – “It is always wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (274, 12th ed.) James counters this by claiming that this claim is made on a passional basis and cannot be proven. ➔ Religious Experience vs. Mystical Experience ➔ (Walk through the woods and “feel” something - doesn't have to be god.  ◆ Religious Experience moves from the actions of ritual to the feelings and experiences they invoke, both individually and as a group. ◆ Mystical Experience – An experience beyond basic religious experience. I would argue that most people have spiritual experiences, but many do not have mystical experiences. ◆ Mystics are treated as outsiders. ➔ Personal Experiences of the Divine ◆ James claims in Varieties of Religious Experience (which I mentioned in an earlier period), that mystical experiences have two common characteristics: ineffability – it defies expression and it is noetic – it seems like knowledge to the person experiencing it. ➔ *Mysticism: Direct experience with a religious reality in which one is surrendering to the divine and unified with it. ◆ *Numinous Experience: Mystical consciousness of the holy. One feels dependent It is a mystery Terror is a part of the experience - no stability Bliss ➔ Andrew Newberg and Cognitive Science ◆ Absolute Unitary Being (AUB) ◆ Cistercian Nuns/Buddhist Monks test with the brain activity not being active about the surrounding area. ◆ The area in the brain that gives us boundaries was gone, which might explain the feeling of being “at one” with the universe. ◆ Are mystical experiences often described in this way? Class #5: Lecture 25. Nontraditional Religious Experience ➔ Nontraditional Religious Experiences ◆ Radical Theology – Radical theologians believe our experience of God is more radical than rational. ◆ Kierkegaard: Objective versus Subjective Thinking Objective: A scientific, dispassionate view of life. Subjective: Truth is a profound personal concern, ex. meaning of life/life and death Religious belief is not available to objective thinkers, which causes “anguish.” Ultimately, in this uncertainty, one must take a leap of faith or try to minimize suffering through understanding (which he mocks) ◆ Anselm: Faith Seeking Understanding – We didn’t cover this in the book, but it is a similar, but different idea. Pg.2  ◆ Paul Tillich (1886-1965) God as an omnipotent/omniscient being creates a gap with humanity and we rebel against God, ultimately destroying traditional theism because we have no Recourse. Tillich sees God as “the ground of being” or “the source of our ultimate concern.” Anyone who has a deep-rooted concern knows about God – they have a religion. Traditional proofs of God lead to a loss of faith. Hard to understand, like most existentialists Objections: Tillich’s God is a tautology – the predicate repeats the subject (p.283, 12th). Because he defines depth as God it ends up repeating itself: “He who knows the depth knows about God” Knowledge of God for Tillich is different than knowledge of the traditional view of God. Tillich’s knowledge is based on personal experience through prayer and meditation. ➔ Feminist Theology ◆ The Western perception of God is harmful to females. God is portrayed as male. Male hierarchy is based on this conception of God and the fact that the first woman came from a man in Judeo-Christian myth. Mary Daly is a foremost theologian in this area. Daly believes the traditional conception of God cannot be reformed because it is implicitly male-centered Pamela Young disagrees, saying that the male features of God in traditional Christianity are not essential, thus there is room for reformation. ➔ Eastern Religious Traditions ◆ Hinduism – Brahman (God) is the only reality – the oneness of reality, atman (Spirit of God in Humans) is the doctrine of no-self (286-87) Brahman = Atman Four Values in Hinduism ○ Wealth ○ Pleasure ○ Duty ○ Enlightenment One is reincarnated until they achieve enlightenment. ◆ Karma – you reap what you sow Pg.2  ◆ Buddhism Four Noble Truths (287) ○ All life is sorrow ○ Sorrow comes from craving ○ Stopping craving will stop sorrow ○ The Eightfold Path stops craving ◆ Zen Buddhism (Eating, perceiving, and feeling something “slower” but more effort? The avoidance of words and concepts – one understands something by placing themselves in the middle of it, versus describing it from the outside. Enlightenment is reached when one becomes one with nature. Inner Experience versus intellectual exercise ◆ East Versus West (288-89, 12th) The Western religions are more rule-based. Move toward more Eastern religions in the United States Class 6: Lecture 26.Knowledge ➔ Epistemology ◆ Epistemology is the study of knowledge Nature Sources Limitations Validity...Of Knowledge ◆ It addresses sources, reliability, extent of knowledge, nature of truth, linguistics, science, and interpretation. ◆ Knowledge and Truth are the major concepts at the foundation of epistemology. ➔ Knowledge – Book Definitions (Valid but not always true) ◆ Does knowledge come from logic or experience? Recovered memories – scientifically valid or not? ○ Valid: “In logic, having a conclusion that follows from the premises by logical necessity.” (p.636) Rationalism- Knowledge can be obtained by reason without any help from the senses (p.317) Empiricism – Knowledge is obtained by sense experience (p.318) ➔ Knowledge ◆ How do we know what we know? ◆ The questions we ask here will be similar to what we ask about reality and what is real.  ◆ Memory is closely tied to knowledge because we draw on our memories to create our base of knowledge. ◆ In this vein, our book discusses false memories ➔ Memory – Is it a source of knowledge? ◆ Habit memory – remembering how to do something (muscle memory?) ◆ Personal memory – Bringing a representation of past events into consciousness ◆ Factual memory – Facts you have acquired, but not necessarily experienced. The example in the book is about George Washington being the first president. ◆ We cannot say that it is a source of knowledge because all memory has another source. I think we could call it a secondary source in some respects. ➔ How Do Our Previous Units Connect to Knowledge? ◆ Humanity Human Nature The Mind-Body Problem Enduring Self ◆ Reality Subjective Objective ◆ Does God Exist? Religious Experience ◆ Knowledge Rational Sensory Class #7 - Lecture 27 / Rational Thinking ➔ Is Reason the Source of Knowledge ➔ Rationalists would claim so. ◆ Mathematical work seems to support this. ◆ We can say at least some knowledge has a rational source. ➔ Descartes on Doubt and Reason (starting on 321). ◆ Disillusionment: having an attitude of skepticism During his life a lot was changing scientifically: think about Copernicus and Galileo. He turned to mathematics as a solid foundation that didn’t change. Senses may be an illusion. Everything is taken inward it seems for him. ➔ Descartes on Rational Knowledge and Further Thoughts  ◆ So...Descartes was looking for stability in knowledge in a tumultuous time. Mathematics was such stability. ◆ Clarity brings truth to Descartes. We can know the truth if it is clear in our heads. (Does this sound more like William James and passional force?) ◆ The example of wax melting and him knowing it is the same thing even though it is different. We understand that wax is the same item even though our senses tell us it is different, thus the mind creates knowledge through rational thought. ➔ I think therefore I am ◆ Reason/the mind is the basis for knowledge for Descartes ➔ Innate Ideas ◆ Plato believed that we are present in birth but hidden. ◆ Leibniz believed we only have tendencies and that later our experiences make our tendencies come to light. ◆ Jains see all knowledge as already located within us ➔ Plato’s Meno ◆ The Myth of the Cave and Plato’s world of forms, we are not in the perfect world - this world is just a shadow of the truth. Shapes/Math We are drawing from something that we used to know ➔ Leibniz ◆ “We are born with the capacity to form ideas, but they must mature through experience. ◆ Blocks of Marble, you need to sculpt to make something. ➔ Jainism ◆ Within us, we have all the knowledge we need but we need to unlock it through nonaggression (ahimsa) ◆ Monks - strict passiveness Religion (All founded in the God Soul 6th Century BC besides Hinduism) Hinduism yes yes Buddhism no no  Jainism no yes Daoism Sort of Sort of Class 8 - Lecture 28 / Sensory Knowledge ➔ Empiricism ◆ While rationalism states that knowledge comes from the mind, empiricism sees it coming from sense experience. ◆ A Priori – Before – Rational Thought ◆ A Posteriori – After Experience – Sensory/Empirical Thought ◆ In Empiricism Knowledge is a posteriori It comes from experience It is the other “half” of the scientific method. ➔ Empiricism – Knowledge is “a posteriori”(after experience) ◆ John Locke - Believed in Tabula Rasa (The mind is a blank slate) ◆ If one accepts this then one of 2 things must be believed: 1- No difference exists between an object itself and one’s experience of it. 2 - “[E]xperience must be distinguished from the reality itself.” (336) Locke chooses option 2 He says that knowledge is “knowledge of our ideas of things.” ➔ Locke and Empiricism ◆ Primary and Secondary Qualities (336) Primary- Size, shape, weight – intrinsic to the item, “within it” Secondary- color, smell, texture: they produce sensory experiences but are not within the object. *They are different - what makes it what? ◆ Problems with Locke: We can’t know if our experience accurately reflects what an object is ➔ Berkeley and Subjectivism ◆ Only minds and ideas exist (paralleling his view of reality) ◆ He accepts Locke’s view on senses, but we can’t say there are any material objects for certain ◆ The mind is the perceiver so is not dependent on being perceived ◆ The objection is that this can become solipsism – saying that only the mind exists (everything else is an idea), but Berkeley tries to avoid this “by saying that God exists and that He produces the sensations in my mind.” ➔ Hume and Skepticism ◆ Perceptions take 2 forms: ◆ Impressions – we get directly from the senses  ◆ Ideas – Derives from impressions ◆ Hammer hitting a thumb: Event – impression/ Memory – idea ◆ The initial feeling is the impression which leads to ideas or thoughts about that ➔ Possible Questions: ◆ The problem of evil (3) God is all-powerful God is all loving or good God is all knowledgable ◆ Kant why Class 9 - Lecture 29.Kant and the Mind ➔ Reviewed Previous Terms ➔ Does Knowing the Mind Shape the World? ◆ Transcendental Idealism – The world the mind produces is one based on the structures/patterns within the mind. ◆ So Kant attempts to show that we can have real knowledge in science ◆ and there are “synthetic a priori” statements that tell us about the ◆ world. So there is a reason for obtaining a priori statements but Empiricism in a posteriori statements. Ultimately space and time must be from the mind because we do not get them from the outside sense experiences. Space and time are within us. Science and math can have a priori statements. ◆ Causality Since we perceive objects that are changing over time we must have some unified consciousness. Read page 358: 5 points of Kant’s argument. The comic book Flipper According to Google, it means: The primacy of Good Will:  ○ The only thing that is unconditionally good is goodwill, meaning acting morally for the right reasons, not out of self-interest or potential consequences. Categorical Imperative: ○ The fundamental moral principle that dictates actions should be based on a maxim that can be universalized, essentially asking if your action could become a universal law without contradiction. Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: ○ Kant presents different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, including the "Universal Law" formulation (act only according to a maxim that could be a universal law) and the "Humanity Formula" (treat humanity, in yourself and others, always as an end and never as a means). Autonomy of the Will: ○ Humans can reason and make moral choices based on their understanding of what is right, not just following external rules or authority. A priori Knowledge: ○ Kant argues that certain moral principles are not derived from experience but are known a priori through reason, meaning they are universal and necessary. ○ Phenomenalism: (359) ○ “We perceive only the world as it has been constructed by the mind out of its sensations.” ○ We don’t perceive the world as it is itself: noumena. ○ This seems to point to an objective world, but our construction of it is based on our own mind’s structures. ➔ How Does Knowledge Depend on Expectations ◆ Following on the exercise we just did, and our reading of Kant, ◆ how do expectations shape knowledge? Are they a filter through which we see the world? Are they non-existent? ○ How do we process knowledge if this is true? ◆ Kant presents us with a balance between interpreting knowledge and ◆ the “objective” knowledge itself. Where do you fit on this spectrum? ○ 1. A Posteriori Senses only ○ 2. A priori (and Senses)  ○ 3. A priori interprets a posteriori (prior knowledge interprets experiential input) Class 10: Lecture 30: Scientific Knowledge ➔ How Does Knowledge Depend on Expectations? ◆ Kant presents us with a balance between interpreting knowledge and ◆ the “objective” knowledge itself. Where do you fit on this spectrum? ○ 1. A Posteriori Senses only ○ 2. A priori (and Senses) ○ 3. A priori interprets a posteriori (prior knowledge interprets experiential input) ➔ Does Science Give Us Knowledge? ◆ Inductionism: the inductive method. Originated with Francis ◆ Bacon Francis Bacon (1561-1626) John Stuart Mill presented 3 canons of the method: ○ Collection of observed facts ○ Generalizations from those observations ○ Repeated Confirmation Reason plays a role in the generalizations Many scientists have used this method historically: ○ Galileo Galilei ○ Gregor Mendel ➔ The Scientific Method ◆ Hypothetical Method (William Whewell – 1794-1866) Come up with a hypothesis Test this hypothesis by “sense observations and experimentation” (367) It seems to reverse what we do in inductionism Karl Popper came up with the addition that a hypothesis must be able to be falsified by empirical observation. (368) This means we should attempt to falsify it and if after repeated attempts the hypothesis stands, it is believable (369). Scientific knowledge is always open to revision. ➔ Scientific Paradigms ◆ Paradigms in Science ( The change of something - Albert Einsteins thoughts) Thomas Kuhn: Science is a social activity, and the community accepts a paradigm that changes rapidly, not slowly, over time. New paradigms are “not necessarily truer than the old” and “older scientists” try to hang on to it (370). ◆ Science Versus Pseudoscience  Science must be: ○ Based on observation and rationality ○ Relies on the inductive method for low-level laws ○ Proceeds by hypotheses and observation ○ Must be falsifiable ○ Widely accepted in the scientific community ◆ It must meet five criteria ○ Accurate ○ Consistent ○ Broad Consequences ○ Simple ○ Fruitful ➔ What Does Science Tell Us? (from Dr. George Tsakiridis) ◆ Science gives us truth, but only truth through the lens it is designed to give. ◆ Science does not give absolute truth because it is set up to ◆ address natural phenomena. It does not address metaphysics (at least in many respects). ◆ Science becoming a final arbiter of truth is a result of the ◆ Enlightenment and modernity. There is a postmodern challenge. There was a premodern philosophy (unified approach to science/philosophy). ◆ Truth is reductionistic in a “modern” world. ➔ ➔ Exam 2 Review What is Real Phenomenology - The essence of of underlying reason ○ Edmund Husserl ○ Bracketing ○ Heidegger - Time is important to him (Being in Time) ○ Design “Being There” Existentialism ○ Kiekagard ○ Leaping towards God ○ Anxiety ○ Jean-Paul Satre No fixed human nature Existence precedes essence “Free will”  Determinism ○ Everything is pre-determined for us Libertinism ○ Completely free Compatibilism ○ Kind of free but there is something restricting ○ Jail Cell Time - Is it real ○ Time is semantic - How we word it ○ Augustine The present Moment ○ Immanuel Kant A mental construct We perceive time uniquely ○ J.M.> McTaggart A series of times is subjective B series is an objective ○ Henri Berenson Subjective time is real Intuition is the flow What is religion? ○ Ninian Smart 6 Traits Doctrine Experience Etc Etc Etc Etc Defining Religion ○ Geroge tsakiridis quote - be able to fill in some stuff Should we believe in god Pascals wager ○ A purely beneficial way of looking at belief ○ The “pungent square of believing” Defs ○ Henotheism ○ Deism ○ Pantheism vs panentheism The ontological argument ○ Anselm of Canterbury - wrote it  ○ Know the definition of the argument, there are three points Kants Critique? The cosmological argument ○ Aristotle ○ Somebody had to start the process (Domino pushing) Objections to cosmological ○ Just proved a powerful god but they could have left The design Argument ○ William Paley - Divine Watchmaker & Design argument Somebody made the world the way it is ○ William Dembski - later built on the previous ○ The anthropic principle (Strong vs Weak) Strong means things on earth were specifically made for humans Points to a creator Weak - is a constant of human life that (Confusing)Points out the fact of fine-tuning. Objections of Design / Support also ○ Hume - ○ Evolution ○ Defenders William Dembski There are three ways an event or object could be produced Random Chance Natural Laws Through the action of an intelligent designer Atheism - The Problem of Evil Atheism - No god The problem of evil God is all-powerful God is all food Evil Exists Theistic responses Augustine Agnosticism ○ We don't know if god exists or not ○ Freud - An infantile need to believe in a father that is watching us ○ Immanuel Kant - Since there is a bad world we must believe in a god that can bring about a perfect world Religious Belief ○ The belief to believe in god or not  ○ The will to believe - William James ○ Critics: W.K. Clifford - It's always wrong to not have reasons why not to prove something Religious vs mystical Experience ○ Religious experiences are more common than mystical experiences - the mystical experience can also be religious experiences. Personal Experiences of the Divine ○ Mysticism - Direct experience with a religious reality in which one is surrendering to the divine and unified with it, Non-Traditional Religious Experiences ○ Radical theology ○ Kierkegaard Leap of faith ○ Anselm: Faith Seeking Understanding ○ Paul Tillich Messed up dude We can't connect with a god “The ground of being” or “the source of our ultimate concern” Feminist Theology ○ Mary Daly ○ Male features are flawed Eastern Religious Traditions ○ Hinduism Four values Wealth Pleasure Duty Enlightenment One is reincarnated until they achieve enlightenment ○ Karma - You reap what you saw ○ Buddhism We crave things so we are sad ○ Zen Buddhism Being in the present in everything (Hyper being in the moment) Meditation in the moment ○ Espitmology ○ Study of knowledge Knowledge and truth ○ There are re-book definitions such as Rationalism and Empiricism  Memory ○ Habita Memory - Muscle memory / remembering how to do something ○ Personal Memory - bringing up personnel's past events into consciousness ○ Factual Memory - Facts you have acquired but not necessarily experienced. What school is it? ○ We can't say memory is the source of knowledge Is Reason the Source of Knowledge ○ Rationalists would say mathematical De-Cartes - I think therefore I am ○ Wax IdeaInnatee Ideas Plato believed from birth Leibniz ○ Platos Meno There is a perfect world but the is is a shadow of this current world ○ Leibenism Jainism - We have a total knowledge of everything in the universe Berkely and Subjectivism ○ We create reality through our Ideas through primary qualities Hume and Skepticism ○ Perceptions take two fformsImppressions Ideas ○ Causality - cause and effect - Romantic Philosophers John StuartMill'sl three canons - - - Thomas Kuhn and Science Scieve vs Pseudoscience - Know the reasons Postmodern Challenge PHIL Final - Everything above and below Lecture 35.Truth Philosophy and Popular Culture ○ Art is about expression and creation. If so, doesn’t it make sense that religion and philosophy undergird this enterprise? Created Co-Creators – If humans are created to create, as many  religions might suppose, does not this express itself in the forms of popular culture? Is the point of art to provoke thought? To answer questions? How might this work in a religious/philosophical context? ○ Pop and Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypg71Aixwc Philosophy and Pop Culture – ○ What Questions Do We Ask? What is the worldview of the medium (film/TV/Music)? What does it mean to be human? What is truth? What is good or evil? Philosophy/Religion in Popular Culture vs. Popular Culture in Philosophy/Religion ○ Take the questions we will look at this semester and see how they relate to media sources. What is Truth? Wireless Philosophy ○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5cftds7-8 Quick Discussion: Is Truth Relative? ○ Are there multiple truths or only one “truth?” Does the point of view of a truth matter? Can it be subjective? ○ How does the relativity of truth differ from objective or relative knowledge? Knowledge, Truth, and Justification ○ Truth is: (pp.395) Pragmatic Theory: What gets us what we want Coherence theory: What fits with other beliefs/meanings Correspondence Theory: What corresponds to the “real world” Knowledge is a justified, true belief (pp.395-97) ○ You need evidence or reasons to show that it is “true”. Justification ○ It does not have to guarantee truth, but should be most likely true. Some philosophers think “that if a belief is not justified you must not believe it.” (p.397) Two Kinds of propositions Propositions can be “a priori” or “empirical” (p.397) a priori – Gathered from reason like math or logic Empirical – Gathered from observation Can be basic or nonbasic (pp.398) Basic belief does not have to be justified by other beliefs I feel joy. I think I see a color.  X is X ○ Nonbasic beliefs are inferred from other beliefs. – Example of the robin on p.398 Foundationalism ○ All beliefs are based on basic beliefs If all beliefs needed to be justified “then we would have no real justification for any of our beliefs.” (p.398) – sounds sort of like the problem of the unmoved mover. “I think therefore I am” is an example. – one knows immediately that this is true and it doesn’t depend on other beliefs. (p.374) Basic beliefs could be those that “appear to us” like “I seem to see/feel/hear...” (374) ○ A major objection is that ideas are based on “culture, language, and history” and there are no basic beliefs, so all beliefs are based on unjustified beliefs. (399-400, quote on 400) Coherentism (pp.400-401) ○ Beliefs rest on other beliefs in an interconnected way. Beliefs are true if they fit “coherently” in a system of beliefs. This takes away the need for basic beliefs but still raises questions What if these cohered beliefs are false They would fit together, but it wouldn’t make them true. ○ Philosophy at the Movies (401) – The Truman Show Lecture 36.Theories of Truth Correspondence Theory ○ Truth “is an agreement or correspondence between a proposition and some fact in the real world.” (p.403) Russell’s Correspondence Theory Truth theory must allow for falsehood. Beliefs can be true or false – “beliefs are the ‘bearers’ of truth.” (379, 11th Edition) Truth is based on something outside the belief, so there must be a “correspondence between belief and fact.” (404) ○ In each instance, there is a person (subject) who holds a belief and the terms of the belief (objects). When we believe something we order things. – Belief is true when objects are related in the same way they are in the real world. (379-80, 11th Edition) Objections to Correspondence Theory ○ Basically correspondence theory corresponds to something in reality, but how can we know that it is real because we are limited by our senses? We can’t describe a fact that corresponds to a true statement  without using the statement, so therefore it is linked only to the statement. Searle defends the use of the word fact, saying it was created for just this occasion to let us link propositions to the real world. Is the word correspondence then necessary? (406) ○ What do you do about negative statements? Or hypothetical ones? They are true but seemingly have no correspondence. Tarski’s Definition of Truth (pp.407-9) ○ Truth “is a property of sentences.” (408) A sentence is true when it states something as it is. Uses language to try to explain the truth. ○ “For any language L, any sentence S in language L, and any statements p that states the conditions that make S true in language L: The sentence S in language L is true if and only if p.” (408) Coherence Theory ○ A “belief is true if it ‘coheres’ with other beliefs that we regard as true.”(409) The coherence theory of truth is similar to that of justification: “Truth is a property of a related group of consistent and accepted beliefs.” (410) Brand Blanshard states that this is the only way of getting at truth, seeing if a statement fits with other accepted statements. An ideal coherence system for Blanshard would allow for any belief to be deduced from other beliefs and where all beliefs were related to all other beliefs. (411-note). Objections: ○ What about statements that past societies accepted as true, but now are known to be false? Those statements cohered with other statements but were wrong. ○ What about statements early on that had no other statements to cohere to? Pragmatic Theory ○ A “belief is true if it is useful to believe.” (414) There are no absolute or unchanging truths. William James is an example of a pragmatist (remember this in other contexts?) James: Ideas are validated if they lead to experiences that are “progressive, harmonious, satisfactory.” (p.415) In other words, truths should be judged on the difference they make. Modern Pragmatists do not try to define truth, but should live in “open-minded, democratic communities.” (416) Rorty says that “truth is whatever has passed society’s ‘procedures of justification’.” (416) Criticisms: Truth is based on human communities that are fallible.  ○ Some pragmatists answer this by saying truth is what an ideal community would accept, but then this is more metaphysical, which a pragmatist would want to avoid. (417) Diagramming These Three Theories: ○ Correspondence ○ Coherence ○ Pragmatic Julias Ceasers crossing the Rubicon Lecture 37.Scientific and Interpretive Truth Science and Truth ○ Scientific Views of Truth Parallel the Major Theories We just Discussed Instrumentalist View Does a scientific theory “work?” That is what matters. (423) Based on the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. We act as if things are true to make “accurate predictions.” (424) Copernicus is an example of a theory being true only in an instrumentalist sense at first (424). ○ Galileo proved this as a realist (424). Realist View (pp.424-5) ○ Based on the Correspondence Theory of truth. Science is meant to accurately describe the universe. “Theories allow accurate predictions because they are true; they are not true because they allow accurate predictions.” (400, 11th Edition) ○ In other words, “theories correspond to the way the world is.” The Conceptual Relativist View ○ Based on the Coherence Theory of truth. Based on Kuhn – communities of scientists provide a conceptual framework that says what is true. Truth is determined in the scientific community. Example of Copernicus and Ptolemy – New can incorporate and supersede the old. “All observations are ‘theory-laden’.” They are influenced by “values, beliefs, and theories” (427)  ○ Conceptual frameworks are swapped out in conceptual revolutions. The new framework is not necessarily more true than the former one, however. Can Interpretations be True? ○ What does it mean to interpret something? Genres of Text Hermeneutics – “the study of interpretations.” (430) Symbolic Interpretation There could be several interpretations: Aquinas, Patristic Scholars – 4 meanings of Scripture – How does inspiration work with this? Luther/Schleiermacher: only literal interpretation is true, knowing the historical/cultural context. Authorial intent is what matters. Dilthey: reliving the author’s life in his intended meaning (431) ○ All of these interpretations are connected to authorial intent. Can Interpretations Be True? ○ Wittgenstein and Ideal Clear Language Leibnitz first argued for an ideal language to express ideas in perfect clarity. (432) Wittgenstein picked this idea up and published a book that claimed this language. Based on the correspondence theory of truth. – early Wittgenstein Later Wittgenstein is based more on a pragmatic theory: language can have many meanings and “the meaning of a text does not depend on the ‘facts’ it pictures, but on the meaning people give it” in the activities/games in life. (433) Gadamer and Prejudice Gadamer presents a meeting of the horizons: where meaning is found both in the reader and the author. There is no single true interpretation. Reading depends on the person reading it and their context (434-5). This is based on a coherence theory of truth. ○ Hirsch argues that Gadamer has “meaning” confused with “significance.” Meaning doesn’t change but significance does. (435) Religious Hermeneutics ○ First,t we have to understand how to interpret a text before we can apply it. Hermeneutics – The “study of the interpretation of words and actions.” (Velasquez, 430) Genre – Different Types of Religious Texts Three Approaches to Interpreting a Text Authorial Intent Meeting of the Horizons – Hans Georg Gadamer Meaning Found with the Reader ○ 4 senses Interpreting Christian Scripture Factors in Deciphering Sacred Texts (p. 55 in Myhre, Introduction to Religious Studies) ○ Definition, Composition, and Canon – What is the purpose of the text in the  tradition? What is it made up of? Can tradition change the text? Authorship – Who wrote the text? Is it God? Or one human? Or multiple humans? Or unknown? Transmission – How was the text passed down to the current adherents of the religion? What are the oldest manuscripts we have? Authority – Is the text inerrant or inspired by historical or metaphor or all of the above? None of the above? Genre – What genre does the text fit into? Is it poetry, narrative, history, myth, apocalypse, wisdom writings? Interpretation – How do we interpret the text? Is it through the genres and the authority? (these play a huge role) Do we or the adherents of a religion look at the text differently? ○ Role – How is the text used by the religious tradition itself? Working Through a Case Study - Christianity ○ Canon/Composition – Take a look at the canon of the Bible Purpose of the tradition – to show the need for Jesus Christ and salvation for humanity Made up of a series of books in a lot of different genres. ○ At this point, tradition does not change the text’s canon, but it may change interpretation. This is evident in many different sects of Christianity. Authorship ○ Is God the author? Depends on who you talk to. God Humans God and Humans Do the authors need to be as claimed for the text to be authentic/scripture? Example in the epistles of the New Testament Example of Moses being the author of the Pentateuch vs JEPD Transmission – How was the text passed on? What are the oldest manuscripts we have for the Old and New Testaments? Oral Tradition? Or Manuscripts that are no longer around? Dead Sea Scrolls and Masoretic Text (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/what-is-the-oldest -hebrew-bible/) Dead Sea Scrolls ○ P52 Manuscript for John – Just a fragment (papyrus 52) Authority – Why does the Christian Scripture have authority in that tradition? Did God write it? The text can be linked to an author who was a prophet or follower of  Christ? ○ How might this look in another religious tradition? Genre – As we discussed with both Judaism and Christianity, there are a multiplicity of genres in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. ○ Law ○ History ○ Wisdom Literature ○ Prophecy ○ Gospels ○ Letters ○ Apocalyptic Text Interpretation – How does one interpret a religious text? We will spend a decent part of the class period next time working through some texts from a couple of traditions. Role – How do Christians use the Bible? For worship For devotion For law (morality) ○ Do most religious traditions follow this sort of pattern? How Do We Interpret Sacred Texts? ○ Let’s take Christianity as our example religion as it is the most prominent religion in America, and especially this region and I imagine most of you are familiar with the Christian Bible, at least a little bit. Find the genre. Who is the author? What is the nature of the text (connected to authority)? (inerrant, inspired, historical, literature, etc.) Who is the recipient of the text? Is it tied to a culture or period or is it timeless? ○ In Christianity, we see a large variety of interpretations of the text. Interpretation ○ Textual Criticism – how reliable is the text we have from a religious tradition? Discuss textual criticism Give an example of how it works (fictional) Variant Reading (typically is similar so it might come down to wording) Sources that contain the different readings How do we know which source or sources are correct? Length of the reading Age of the reading The meaning contained compared to other Scripture in that tradition  Context of when the reading was written (vs. when the manuscript dating context was written) – So if it was supposed to be written in 100 CE, but the manuscript is from 500 CE, does the text seem to be influenced by that later date? You start to get the idea. ○ New Testament Textual Criticism Fourfold Interpretation of the ○ Christian Tradition (Myhre, pp.62-3) Literal – The Text Itself (taking into account genre, etc.) Allegorical – How the Text Relates to Doctrine Moral – How to Live Anagogical – Hidden Meanings ○ Is Scripture a reaction to events in the world/culture in the time it is written? Hermeneutics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ○ Medieval Accessus ad Actores (quoted from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): Who (is the author) (quis/persona)? What (is the subject matter of the text) (quidmateriala)? Why (was the text written) (cur/causa)? How (was the text composed) (quomodo/modus)? When (was the text written or published) (quando/tempus)? Where (was the text written or published) (ubi/loco)? ○ By which means (was the text written or published) (quibus faculatibus/faculties)? Hermeneutical Circle Friedrich Schleiermacher – “That the same way that the whole is, of course, understood about the individual, so too, the individual can only be understood about the whole.” (Stanford) We understand a text in the context of other texts, but that text also informs that context. ○ Example from Christianity – A letter from Paul Lecture 38.Introduction to Ethics Ethics! ○ “the [philosophical] study of morality.” (457) Consequentialist Utilitarianism Ethical Egoism  Deontological/Nonconsequentialism Kant’s Categorical Imperative Natural Law Theory Divine Command Theory ○ Virtue Ethics – “What should I be?” (Vaughn 6th, 172) What is Ethics? “Ethics is the study of morality.” (p.457) Is Ethics Absolute or Relative? We ask this in the same way we ask about truth. Ethical Absolutism – “One and only one correct morality exists.” (p.434) The one morality doesn’t have to be one’s own, but one exists. (434) Ethical Relativism – There isn’t one universal morality for everyone. When people disagree, who is right? Problems? (p.461) Can we not question society’s accepted norms? Societies differ because each society determines morality. That doesn’t mean that one is not more correct than another. ○ All societies have certain common moral values for survival. Ethics as a Discipline (Vaughn, 5-6) ○ The Scientific Study of Ethics = Descriptive Ethics ”the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices.” (Vaughn, 5) Three Types of Ethics (Vaughn, p. 5) Normative Ethics – Study of the Principles that Guide Action/Judgments Metaethics – Meaning of Moral Beliefs Applied Ethics – Applying Moral Norms to Specific Issues “Good” can be moral or nonmoral. Does it describe action (moral) or value/features in some way? ○ Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic (Instrumental) Value Elements of Ethics (Vaughn, 6-8) ○ Reason is a Big Part of Ethics Rational Thought in the Greek World The Separation of Intellect and Emotion Principle of Universalizability The principle must apply across cases. Principle of Impartiality Treat everyone equally. Moral Norms Dominate ○ Morality is above it all. Religion and Morality  How Does Religion Relate to Ethics? Ethics Bridges the Gap between Religious and Nonreligious People (p.9) Religious Ethics Divine Command Theory Natural Law Theory ○ Evolutionary Morality and Moral Exemplars Case Study on Ethics:COVID-19: What are the ○ Major Ethical Dilemmas? These can be within and outside the articles. Vaccination Should vaccination be mandatory? What about vaccine hesitancy for a variety of reasons (including historical abuses)? Does it matter what kind of vaccine it is or how dangerous the virus is? For example, if this was Ebola, would that be a different story compared to COVID-19? Does the fact that FDA approval is not completed matter (except in the case of Pfizer). FDA Approval for some not, all. Different types of vaccines: mRNA vs Vector Vaccines ○ Fetal Stem Lines Potentially Used? Mask Mandates Should one be required to wear a mask? Should one be prevented from wearing a mask? Does this depend on where you are (hospital vs. restaurant, publicly owned vs. private?) Who has the right to make them (Federal vs. State vs. Local Government) Does the effectiveness of spreading with or without masks matter? Lockdowns Does effectiveness matter? ○ Who has the right to impose this? Economic Factors Is there an argument to be made for more damage being done through various mandates than through the virus itself? In other words, does suffering/death from an economic slow down hurt worse than deaths through the virus itself? Freedom and Autonomy Where does one’s freedom end?  Individual autonomy vs. the greater good. Would this look different if the death rate of COVID-19 were much higher? (again, what if this was Ebola). ○ Does the question revolve more around the danger present (which is part of the debate) vs. individual rights? “Trusting the Science” – Just some questions to think about. ○ This has become a buzzphrase in the public debate. What does it mean? Can science misrepresent facts? Can science misinterpret results? Science is contingent and subject to change, but does that mean it is unreliable? Is the bigger issue that scientists are often doing philosophy instead of science? Interpretation of results is often outside the scope of the scientific method. Itself? ○ I can address any questions you have with this, as I know I am pressing a difficult topic. Ethical Theories – How would you apply these theories? ○ Utilitarianism Kant’s Categorical Imperative Divine Command Theory Natural Law Theory Virtue Ethics ○ Etc... Definitions ○ Objectivism – moral norms are valid for everyone and culture does not matter (p. 20, 5th edition) This is not absolutism, where there are no exceptions. (p.20) Cultural Relativism – “[A]n action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it.” (p. 20/21) – Culture is the defining principle in morality. Subjective Relativism – “[A]n action is morally right if one approves of it.” (p. 20/21) This means the individual holds moral power indecision-makingg. – Each person is an authority on morality and there isn’t much room to disagree (p.21) ○ Emotivism – Moral statements are not true or false. They are a representation of the true emotion of the one stating them. (p.21) Modernism and Postmodernism Modernism/Modernity  Relies heavily on the empirical-rational method for truth claims Is based on The Enlightenment (17th-18th Centuries) Is typically the baseline mode of operations in our current society (or at least a major norm) Is Objective Postmodernism Is Narrative Based ○ Relies on the Experience of an Individual or Community Is Subjective Do We Live in a Modern or Postmodern World? ○ Pre-Modern There was no “scientific method,” but “science” was still done through studies of nature and philosophy. The supernatural was a more accepted solution. More and More People Identify with Postmodern Ethics What benefits and/or problems come out of this? Does it harm to have both postmodern and modern views of the world active at once? ○ There could be benefits to this approach, but it also creates more political and moral division. Subjective Relativism (pp.21-23) ○ No moral opinion is in error. Example of a Murderer – What would this say about subjective relativism? What if we said that we each can have moral authority, as long as that authority does not impinge on someone else’s authority? Can we hold to some sort of subjective relativism in this case? When does relativism work? Does it need boundaries? ○ Remember to read the essays at the end of the chapter. How Can We Apply this to Our Discussion of COVID-19? ○ Subjectivism Individual or Diverse Group Values What Major Issues Are Key Subjective Disagreements? Objectivism Scientific Statements Shared Values What are our shared values? Is there a starting point? ○ What is the real point of disagreement?  Cultural Relativism (5th ed. pp. 23-28) ○ Review the argument on page 24 1. “People’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture.” 2. “If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles.” 3. “Therefore, right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles.” As the book states, it is a logical and valid argument, but the premise 2 is possibly false (24). ○ There may be disagreement about non-moral facts that affect how one views morality (p.27). It is a logical and valid argument, but is it true? (24) ○ There can be disagreements about non-moral facts/beliefs. Cultural relativism can promote tolerance. This could be viewed as an ultimate good, but if so, does it undermine the the idea of relative morality? Would social reformers always be wrong? (26) Could the majority change their cultural belief? Can it ever be critiqued from the outside? (27) Cultural relativism can never be fully tolerant. Judgments require objectivity. It is not practical because we belong to multiple “cultures.” (28) ○ I would argue this is not always the case historically in practice. Emotivism (pp. 28-31) ○ Cognitivism – One can apply moral concepts to actions and people that can be labeled true or false. Noncognitivism – Moral properties cannot be applied to actions or people. Emotivism is a subset of this category. Emotivism is geared towards changing attitudes/behaviors. “moral judgments cannot be true or false because they do not make any claims – they merely express emotions or attitudes” (28) “moral disagreements are disagreements in attitude.” (29) ○ A.J. Ayer on Emotivism – page 28 Therefore, Disagreements in a traditional way are not possible. (29) Reasons function to influence emotions using nonmoral statements. (29)  Ultimately the argument is over influencing attitudes versus proving something true or false. (29) There is no “good” or “bad” in emotivism, “because these properties do not exist.” (29) ○ Does emotivism just shift the argument to a different semantic plane? Does it just change the way we describe things away from truth and onto emotion? It seems like some might argue that is all that it is doing. Lecture 39.Ethics.Consequentialism Consequentialist Theories (Most page numbers for the rest of the presentation are from Vaughn, Doing Ethics, 5th ed. unless noted) ○ Consequentialist Theories – The consequences matter. Teleological ○ Utilitarianism – The most happiness for everyone Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Ethical Egoism Ego = I in Greek Ethical Egoism (pp.85-86) ○ Ethical Egoism – A right action is in an individual’s best interests. This is not necessarily selfishness. (85) ○ Act Egoism - “To determine the right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual acts.” (p.85) ○ Rule Egoism – The individual falls under a broader rule that maximizes self-interest. (85) ○ Ego = “I” = self Epicurus ○ Know for Epicureanism – Do what gives you the maximum pleasure.