Philosophical Concepts PDF

Part A - Key Concepts/Distinctions 1. John Hick: Soul-Making Theodicy ○ Key Idea: The purpose of life is to develop into virtuous beings, and evil serves as a necessary challenge for moral growth. ○ Significance: Hick rejects the Augustinian idea of...

Part A - Key Concepts/Distinctions 1. John Hick: Soul-Making Theodicy ○ Key Idea: The purpose of life is to develop into virtuous beings, and evil serves as a necessary challenge for moral growth. ○ Significance: Hick rejects the Augustinian idea of "original sin" as the sole explanation for evil. Argues that a perfect world without evil would result in "robotic" beings incapable of true goodness. Places suffering in a broader context of God’s plan to achieve ultimate harmony and perfection in creation. 2. William Rowe: Evidential Problem of Evil ○ Key Idea: The existence of gratuitous (unnecessary) suffering suggests that an all-powerful, all-good God likely does not exist. ○ Example: A fawn dying in a forest fire with no apparent greater good resulting. ○ Significance: Challenges the Free Will Defense by questioning the plausibility of all suffering serving a higher purpose. Rowe’s work pushes the debate from logical problem (coherence of God and evil) to evidential considerations (likelihood of God given evidence). 3. W.T. Stace: Compatibilism ○ Key Idea: Free will and determinism are compatible because free will is about acting according to one’s desires, even if those desires are determined. ○ Significance: Resolves the conflict between moral responsibility and determinism. Suggests that determinism does not undermine our ability to make meaningful choices. 4. Paul Edwards: Critique of Immortality ○ Key Idea: Questions the desirability and coherence of an eternal afterlife. ○ Significance: Critiques religious promises of an afterlife as appealing but philosophically flawed. Argues that eternal life may be unappealing due to boredom or loss of purpose. 5. Al-Ghazali: Divine Illumination ○ Key Idea: True knowledge comes through divine guidance rather than rational methods alone. ○ Significance: Represents Islamic mysticism (Sufism) and critiques reliance on Aristotelian rationalism. Suggests a union between the knower and divine truth. 6. Marcus Cicero: Stoicism and Fate ○ Key Idea: Advocates living in harmony with fate and nature, embracing what cannot be controlled.  ○ Significance: Offers a framework for inner peace by focusing on virtue rather than external circumstances. Important in discussions on determinism and agency. 7. Aristotle: Virtue Ethics ○ Key Idea: Virtue is a habit cultivated through practice, aimed at achieving eudaimonia (flourishing). ○ Significance: Shifts focus from rules (deontology) or outcomes (utilitarianism) to character and moral development. Explores the role of rationality in human excellence. 8. Sigmund Freud: Interpretation of Dreams ○ Key Idea: Dreams are the disguised fulfillment of repressed unconscious desires. ○ Significance: Provides insight into the psyche, revealing conflicts between the id, ego, and superego. Introduces the method of psychoanalysis, shaping modern psychology. 9. Sextus Empiricus: Skepticism ○ Key Idea: Suspend judgment (epoche) on all beliefs to achieve mental tranquility. ○ Significance: Challenges dogmatic philosophies that claim certainty. Influences later skeptics, including David Hume and postmodernist thinkers. 10. Rene Descartes: Method of Doubt ○ Key Idea: Doubt everything that can be doubted to find indubitable truths. ○ Significance: Foundational to modern philosophy and rationalism. Leads to the famous conclusion "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). 11. G.E. Moore: Common Sense Philosophy ○ Key Idea: Defends the existence of external reality and ordinary beliefs against skepticism. ○ Significance: Challenges extreme skepticism, arguing that common sense beliefs (e.g., "this is a hand") are foundational. Influences ordinary language philosophy. 12. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Hinge Propositions ○ Key Idea: Some assumptions (hinge propositions) are not proven but are necessary for meaningful discourse and certainty. ○ Significance: Foundational to epistemology, highlighting the limits of justification. Shifts focus to the role of language in framing knowledge. Part B - Non-Essay Questions 1. Free Will Solution and the Problem of Evil (Mackie) ○ Argues that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, evil should not exist. ○ Critiques the Free Will Defense by questioning why God couldn't create beings with free will who always choose good. 2. Desire and Free Will (Frankfurt) ○ Distinction between first-order desires (immediate wants) and second-order desires (desires about what one wants to want). ○ A person exercises free will when their first-order desires align with their second-order volitions. 3. Self-Forming Actions (Kane) ○ Focuses on moments where agents make choices that define their character. ○ Emphasizes indeterminism at critical points, ensuring free will and responsibility. 4. Divine Origin of Dreams (Aristotle) ○ Dreams reflect physiological processes but may have divine origins in some cases. ○ Emphasizes understanding nature and the human mind as key to interpreting dreams. 5. Method of Doubt (Descartes) ○ Begins with universal doubt to strip away unreliable beliefs, aiming to rebuild knowledge on indubitable foundations. 6. Hinge Propositions (Wittgenstein) ○ These are non-empirical, foundational beliefs necessary for reasoning (e.g., "The world exists"). ○ Highlights the limits of skepticism. Part C - Essay Topics For these, focus on comparative analysis: 1. Hick vs. Hume/Mackie/Rowe on God and Evil ○ Hick: Evil is necessary for soul-making. ○ Hume/Mackie/Rowe: The existence of evil undermines belief in a benevolent, omnipotent God. 2. Edwards vs. Stace/Frankfurt/Kane on Moral Responsibility ○ Edwards: Critiques the concept of responsibility in deterministic and religious frameworks. ○ Stace/Frankfurt/Kane: Explores compatibilism, autonomy, and indeterminism in free will. 3. Al-Ghazali vs. Cicero/Aristotle on Prophetic Dreams ○ Al-Ghazali: Dreams reveal divine truths. ○ Cicero/Aristotle: Skeptical about divine influence, focusing on nature and rationality.  4. Sextus vs. Descartes/Moore/Wittgenstein on Certainty ○ Sextus: Advocates for suspension of judgment. ○ Descartes: Pursues certainty through doubt. ○ Moore/Wittgenstein: Focus on common-sense and foundational beliefs. Strategies for Writing Comparative Essays (Part C) Here’s a step-by-step guide to craft strong comparative essays for Part C of your exam: 1. Understand the Question and Structure Each essay will involve comparing two philosophers’ perspectives on a central theme. Your essay should include: Introduction: Outline the topic, your thesis, and the structure of your essay. Body: Discuss and compare the views of the two philosophers. ○ Philosopher A: Explain their position, argument, and rationale. ○ Philosopher B: Do the same for the second philosopher. ○ Comparison: Highlight agreements, disagreements, and the significance of their differences. Conclusion: Summarize your main points and restate your thesis. 2. Build a Strong Thesis Your thesis should clearly state the relationship between the two philosophers' views and your perspective on the comparison. For example: "While Hick and Mackie both address the problem of evil, Hick's soul-making theodicy provides a more coherent framework by justifying suffering as necessary for growth, whereas Mackie finds this justification logically flawed." 3. Comparative Frameworks Use these approaches to organize your essay: 1. Point-by-Point Comparison: Alternate between the philosophers on each subtopic. ○ Example: First, discuss Hick’s view of suffering as soul-making, then Mackie’s critique of this view. 2. Block Method: Fully analyze Philosopher A, then Philosopher B, followed by a detailed comparison. 4. Key Points for Specific Topics A. Hick vs. Hume/Mackie/Rowe on God and Evil Hick: ○ Soul-making theodicy: Evil allows for moral and spiritual development. ○ A world without evil would produce "robots," not morally autonomous beings. Hume/Mackie/Rowe: ○ Logical or evidential problem of evil: Evil undermines the existence of an omnipotent, wholly good God. ○ Mackie critiques the Free Will Defense (e.g., why couldn’t God create beings with free will who always choose good?). Comparison: Strength of Hick’s justification vs. logical flaws highlighted by Mackie/Rowe. Practical implications for belief in God. B. Edwards vs. Stace/Frankfurt/Kane on Moral Responsibility Edwards: ○ Challenges the coherence of moral responsibility in deterministic frameworks. ○ Questions religious assumptions about eternal punishment and justice. Stace/Frankfurt/Kane: ○ Stace’s compatibilism: Responsibility doesn’t require absolute freedom. ○ Frankfurt’s second-order volitions: Responsibility arises from authentic desires. ○ Kane’s indeterminism: Highlights key self-forming actions as sources of true freedom. Comparison: Edwards’ skepticism vs. compatibilist and libertarian defenses of responsibility. Practical implications for ethics and justice systems. C. Al-Ghazali vs. Cicero/Aristotle on Prophetic Dreams Al-Ghazali: ○ Dreams as divine communication. ○ Emphasizes mystical insight over rational interpretation. Cicero/Aristotle: ○ Cicero: Skeptical of divine influence in dreams, sees them as natural phenomena. ○ Aristotle: Dreams reveal physiological and psychological truths, not divine ones. Comparison: Al-Ghazali’s faith-based perspective vs. rational interpretations of Cicero/Aristotle. Broader implications for epistemology and spirituality. D. Sextus vs. Descartes/Moore/Wittgenstein on Certainty Sextus Empiricus: ○ Argues for suspension of judgment to achieve tranquility. ○ Critiques dogmatic claims of certain knowledge. Descartes: ○ Method of doubt: Seeks absolute certainty by doubting all uncertain beliefs. ○ Reaches “Cogito, ergo sum” as a foundation. Moore/Wittgenstein: ○ Moore: Common-sense beliefs (e.g., external world exists) as foundational. ○ Wittgenstein: Hinge propositions underlie all certainty but are themselves unprovable. Comparison: Sextus’ skepticism vs. Descartes’ quest for foundational certainty. Moore/Wittgenstein’s pragmatism compared to Sextus’ radical suspension of belief. 5. Writing Tips 1. Be Specific: Provide examples (e.g., Mackie’s “free will world” or Sextus’ epoche). 2. Use Transitions: Words like "similarly," "however," "in contrast," and "therefore" make comparisons clear. 3. Be Critical: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each philosopher's arguments. 4. Stay Focused: Only include details relevant to the specific comparison. Example Introduction “The problem of evil has been a central topic in philosophy of religion, with thinkers like John Hick and J.L. Mackie offering contrasting perspectives. While Hick defends the existence of evil as essential for soul-making, Mackie critiques this defense, arguing that it fails to address the logical contradictions in the coexistence of God and evil. This essay compares their views, focusing on the coherence and implications of their arguments.”