Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PHIL 1301 > Exam Review > Flashcards

Exam Review Flashcards

1
Q

something known as a result of experience

A

a posteriori

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

something that is known prior to, or without, necessary knowledge

A

a priori

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

These are Truths that lie beyond the range of all possible doubt in refutation. These are considered to be a priori truths, which means that they are independent of experience. “2 + 2 = 4” cannot be justified by any possible experience.

A

Necessary Truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

This is a belief that it is true but might not have been true. These truths are based upon experience and necessary truths are not. These are based on empirical knowledge.

A

Contigent Truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Demonstrably true by virtue of the logical form or the meanings of the component words. This is the compliment to synthetic truth.

A

Analytic Truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

A noncontradictory proposition in which the predicate is not entailed by the subject.

A

Synthetic Truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Agreement between a proposition and an actual state-of-affairs.

A

Correspondence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Interconnectedness of a proposition with a specified system of propositions.

A

Coherence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

usefulness of a proposition in achieving certain intellectual goals.

A

Pragmatic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. Correspondence
  2. Coherence
  3. Pragmatic
A

Tests for Truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is real?

A

Metaphysics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is reasonable?

A

Epistemology

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is good?

A

Ethics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is beauty?

A

Aesthetics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Aesthetics

A

Topical Division of Philosophy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ontology

A

Ancients

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Theology

A

Medievals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Epistemology

A

Moderns

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Language

A

Post-Moderns

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Ancients
Medievals
Moderns
Post-Moderns

A

Chronological Division of Philosophy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

This comes from apologia Greek which means “speech before.”

A

Apology

22
Q

A sequence of assertions, or statements to back up a viewpoint.

The process of reasoning from one claim to another. This may, but need not, be directed against an explicit alternative.

A

Arguement

23
Q

The “love of wisdom.”

A

Philosophy

24
Q

A process of reasoning from one principal to another by means of accepted rules of inference.

In this kind of argument, a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, and so if you are certain of the premises, you can be certain of the conclusion, too.

A

Deductive

25
Q

A process of reasoning in which the characteristics of an entire class or set of things is inferred on the basis of an acquaintance with some of its members.

In this kind of argument, although the conclusion is supported by the premises, it does not follow necessarily from the premises and its truth is not guaranteed by them.

A

Inductive

26
Q

An argument that makes an appeal by inference to the best explanation.

A

Abductive

27
Q

The study of the rules of valid inference and “rational argument.” In general, a sense of order.

A

Logic

28
Q

The persuasive use of language to convince other people to accept your beliefs.

A

Rhetoric

29
Q

Assertion, assumed to be true, made to support/further an argument.

A

Premise

30
Q

An argument that follows established truth preserving rules.

A

Valid

31
Q

A deductive argument that is valid and has only true premises.

A

Sound

32
Q

This is “knowledge rightly applied.”

A

Wisdom

33
Q

A natural scientist like Anaxagoras.

A

Materialist

34
Q

“Making the weaker argument the stronger.” They were not Athenians.

A

Sophist

35
Q

Analysis
Assessment
Argument

A

Skills for Philosophy

36
Q

according to Solomon:
Logic
Rhetoric

according to Sadler:
Form
Content

A

Components of an Argument

37
Q

The structure, approach, or method of inference employed.

A

Form

38
Q

The ‘facts‘, opinions, assertions, etc.

A

Content

39
Q

Teacher (Thales)
Student (Anaximander)
Grand-Student (Anaximenes)

A

General Pattern of History

40
Q
  1. beginning with the pretense of knowledge
  2. by question and answer error is discovered
  3. continue question and answer in search of “truth”
  4. agreement (not necessarily full realized)

Stages of Wisdom
1. I assume that I rightly know x.

  1. 1st stage of wisdom: realizing your own failure
  2. 2nd stage of wisdom: motivated searching for truth
  3. 3rd stage of wisdom: knowledge
A

The Socratic Method

41
Q

If P the Q

Q
Therefore, P

vice verca

A

Test for Invalidity

42
Q

Induction
Deduction
Abduction

A

Major Types of Logic

43
Q

Prejudice

A

Aristophanes, The Clouds

44
Q

Stand by, and stand strong for your believes

A

Plato, The Crito

45
Q

Take care of unfinished business

A

Plato, The Phaedo

46
Q

Do not be picky with wisdom

A

Plato, The Republic

47
Q

Impiety - not believing in the gods / teaching contrary to the gods

Corrupting the Youth - Materialist / Sophist

A

Charges against Socrates

48
Q
  • detachment from worldly goods
  • focused devotion to truth & wisdom
  • courage to stand up to the “common wisdom” of the day
  • humility
  • calling & commitment
A

Moral Prerequisites

according to Socrates

49
Q

Negative public opinion

  • materialist
  • sophist
  • corrupter
A

Former Accusers

50
Q

“He asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the prophetess answered that there was no man wiser.”

A

Socrates response to Chaerephon

51
Q

Materialist — Socrates was a humanist - concerned about ethics and politics

Sophist / Teacher — Socrates does not speak with eloquence nor did he receive payment. Also, he denies being an “expert” and does not debate facts but their meaning.

A

Socrates Response to Public Opinion Charges

52
Q

Meletus — Acusser on behalf of the poets
Anytus — Acusser on behalf of the craftsman and politicians
Lycon — accuser on behalf of the orators

A

Latter Acussers

PHIL 1301 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions