Final Flashcards
semiotics
study of sign
hermeneutics
interpretation/meaning of a sign
sense: meaning of sign
reference: about what of sign
characteristics of semiotics
- difference: sign can have multiple meanings
- absence: allow us to communicate signs without having object present
- it is a gift (present): something given OR right now (gifting sign/knowledge)
sign
not an object
word to indicate object
deSaussure
calls into question binary structure of sign
signifier –> signified –> object
meaning of signs
based on difference of what signs compose them (relationship between 2 signifiers)
also based on what signs are used to define them
parole
someone says or writes something about something to someone
has cartesian element (author)
derrida
created word differance
1. differ (to be different from)
2. defer (to push aside/do later)
can only tell apart from “difference” textually
messianic meaning
meaning always to come
discover new meaning tomorrow or find out meaning/interpretation is wrong
descartes on anthropology
mind (we are a mind) and body (we have a body)
mind/body problem
how do we explain how they interact
stress/anxiety/worry affect bodily health
Leidness
no connection between mind and body
certain set of physiological events and mind events (may occur at same time but only by mere chance)
similar to hume’s ideas on appearance vs. reality
ethics
typically used to talk about identity of group
what differentiates them/defines them
references being
morality
behavior (answer by giving list of behaviors they think are right/wrong)
what they do/do not do
ethical question
who are you and how do you relate what you do to who you are
character comes out in behavior
Ricoeur on ethics
believes all ethics in some fashion adheres to structure I-You
I: there is a speaker/author
you: other, to who i’m responding (another “I” who is responsible for responding
I-you on 2nd commandment
love your neighbor as yourself
when loving neighbor you’re loving another self and other person has ethical responsibility back to you
depersonalize other means you don’t have to respond ethically
Ricoeur on “it”
says be sensitive to “it” because it can be both positive and negative (can enhance response or lessen it)
Emmanuel Levinas
emphasizes other (difference/otherness)
says you don’t start with ethical subject “I” but instead with “you”
can’t respond unless there is a prior address which creates ethical context in which you now have ability to respond
ethical responsibility comes from other calling me which puts me in obligation to respond
says there is always at least 1 other “other”
how we respond leads to justice
me voici
“see me here” or “here i am”
story of isaiah telling God “here i am, send me”
proper ethical response to sum of the other
other “other”
balance between responsibility to other and to other others
give extra credit to one person have to give to everyone
derrida on third and justice
abraham willing to sacrifice son (third)
says someone always has to get left out/sacrificed so you can respond to other (when helping other you’re ignoring other other)
categories of ethic
- deontology (kant)
2. consequentialism (aristotle)
deontology
theories of ethics that references duty as the basis for ethics
more objective/identifiable (transpersonal)
addresses issue of what is right/wrong
consequentialism
make choices based on consequences of actions
focuses on good/bad (context dependent)
more subjective
christian situationalism
Fletcher
ethics you follow if you follow Jesus must be situational ethic
developed legalism (10 commandments) and antinomianism (against law)
legalism
different between catholics and protestants
catholic legalism
natural law which God instilled in universe and in humans as conscious
tells you what is naturally right vs. naturally wrong
protestant legalism
biblicism (focus on scripture)
laws found in bible (divine command)
antinomianism
against the law
becomes foundation for reformation
christian ethics
synthesis of legalism and antinomianism
from legalism: 1 law (law of love)
from antinomianism: relative uncertainty of having to act out of love in certain situations (may be ethical in 1 situation but but not ethical in the second)
aristotle on ethics
everything has a good and it’s moving toward that good
universe trying to achieve some good
believes reality is cosmetic not chaotic
teleological ethic
goal oriented ethic
soul (3 kinds)
only living things have a soul
nutritive soul
affective soul
rational soul
nutritive soul
basic soul
metabolizes and uses energy to reproduce, grow, etc
all living things have this soul
affective soul
universe capable of affecting feeling
trees don’t have this, only humans and animals
rational soul
unique to humanity (what separates us from everything else in universe)
primary good toward which humanity is typically moving
happiness/contentment (eudaemonia)
try to diminish highs and lows and moderate them
ethical formula
virtue as a mean/average
virtue always found between extremes:
excessive (reckless/foolish) and deficient (cowardice)
kant on ethics
wants to know if there is anything good in itself (only will)
humans don’t have good will bc of fallenness (original sin)
always act on principle that your action could be made a universal law (law of universalism)
ethics in context of imperatives
- hypothetical: situations, desires, not objective, sarte’s ethic (doesn’t work bc cuts off critique bc relative)
- categorical: emphatic, objective, applies to everyone, everywhere, every time
expression of golden rule
imperative you should use to determine what you should do
treat other as an end and never as a means (what you’re doing must be out of kindness and bc you want to, not bc you’re taking advantage of them)
an action can be good but not ethical
social contract theory (hobbes)
low view o humanity (we are brutish animals and only care for ourselves)
humans come to conclusion that if we give up certain rights we can have a more secure community (all give up something to get something)
hobbes state of nature
we are all equal and in access to resources
self-preservation drives us
constantly mistrust other bc of competition for finite number of resources
always opens up possibility for violence and leads to state of fear
what does hobbes social contract theory create
government that serves as police force, legalization, and regulation establish leviathan (threatening beast of some sort--what the government becomes)
hobbes on risk of leviathan
says risk for leviathan to turn on you is worth it because you KNOW you have a problem in state of nature but we don’t know for sure if you’ll have a problem with the leviathan
social contract theory (locke)
believes people can be noble, achieve wonderful, just and kind
agrees with social contract but so we all can thrive
locke on state of nature
believes there’s mechanism (not gov) that establishes property laws
natural property laws for work you’ve done (you keep what you worked for)
doesn’t think contract can be broken by gov, but if it is then you change gov (void and rewrite)
inspired Declaration of Independence
Rawls Theory of Justice
what government would you establish is you were behind veil of ignorance (don’t know your status in society)
if you don’t know how it will affect you it will be a more ethical contract
God
transcendent to us
reveals himself through revelation (special revelation or general revelation)
special revelation
experience/event (books of bible)
special disclosures to special people on special occasions
anyone can claim special revelation so philosophy of religion doesn’t usually depend on special revelation
general revelation
philosophy of religion depends mainly on this
God has revealed things about himself (use principle of rationality and empiricism)
leads to natural theology or rational theology
4 theistic arguments
- ontological: rational argument (ideas and logic, not experience) [St. Anselm]
- cosmological: empirical, 5 Ways [Aquinas]
- teleological: empirical, taken from Aquinas’ 5th Way [Paley]
- moral: Kant
ontological
St. Anselm (wrote Proslogion)
rational argument (ideas and logic, not experience)
names God in 2 ways:
1. that than which nothing greater can be conceived (says existence greater than non-existence)
2. disjunctive thinking: God’s existence either possible or not possible (p v q)
possible=can be without being internally contradictory
not possible=contradicts itself
logically possible
contingent existence: dependent, something existed before
necessary existence: exists because it has to, isn’t brought into existence by anything else (God)
Guanilo
christian monk in S. France
says you can’t move from thinking to being that easily (you can talk about perfect island all you want but that doesn’t mean it exists)
Anselm rebuttal to Guanilo
- people have conception of God prior
- straw man fallicy: critique argument that is not actually the argument (not talking about perfect island bc not talking about perfection and bc you can think of something greater than a perfect island)–person bc existence greater than non-existence
kant’s critique of anslem
guilty of predicating existence (existence not a predicate)
cosmological causality
Aquinas predicated among causality (asking why universe is the way it is) ideas don't prove certain God, just that there is a God 5 Ways: 1. motion 2. causality 3. existence 4. being 5. design
motion
experience movement micrologically (pens across paper) and macrologically (universe moving)
cause of movement=some kind of mover
cannot be infinite so stop at prime mover/unmoved mover (God)
causality
see cause and effect
must be efficient cause/uncaused cause (God)
Descartes says God is causa sui (self cause) – he cause himself
existence
experience existing things
contingent existence that cannot go back infinitely so need necessary existent (has been and would always be) –> God
being
not all things are created on even playing field (hierarchical being)
being of God different from being of human different from being of cockroach (great chain of being)
relative being (being of cockroach compare to being of human)
must be absolute being that sets standard of hierarchy (God)
design
dont experience constant chaos
universe been designed so there must be grand designer (God)
became teleological argument
teleological argument
Paley (wrote “Natural Theology”)
famous watch analogy: look at watch and it’s design. you wont say it coincidentally came together and started working–every rational person would say there’s a watch maker
complexity of universe did not just come into existence by chance
logic and rationality to universe only explained by having some grand/intelligent designer (God)
Hume’s critiques of cosmological
what’s true of parts not necessarily true for whole (each person has mother but whole doesn’t have to have mother)
Sagan’s critiques of cosmological
doesn’t adhere to akams razor (explain something using fewer factors/simplest way)
says Aquinas takes things back infinitely but adds God in then takes back more (against akams razor)
Kant on ontological, cosmological, and teleological
commits transcendental illusion (tries to understand God using same knowledge we use to understand universe)
have concept of God but no sensation (empty)
Kan’ts teleological only arguement
theodicy (problem of evil and suffering)
if God=designer then he is called to explain evil and suffering
criminally negligent (doesn’t do anything about it) or criminally responsible (made evil and suffering) bc both all powerful and all good will
with free will we introduce new will that can will what God does not
but then God can stop us from always using free will if harmful bc he’s all powerful
moral arguement
Kant’s argument for existence of God
start with question of good
goal is to achieve greatest good
founded upon “ought” (duty/what you should do)–implies you can achieve greatest good
we can’t achieve greatest good in this existence but if there is another existence after death we can use ought (if there is another existence there must be a God that created it)
3 things that mean the most to us as humans
god
immortality
freedom
