Final Study guide Flashcards
What two things must we know about something in order to have scientific knowledge of it?
Knowing its cause Knowing that it cannot be other than it is
How is a demonstration different from a syllogism?
A syllogism that gives us scientific knowledge
What exactly does it mean for a premise to be immediate?
not proven through another syllogism - i.e. it is known immediately
How convinced must we be of the premises of a demonstration in comparison to the conclusion?
We must be more convinced of the premises than of the conclusion
According to Aristotle, what was the argument used by some ancient skeptics to show that we can’t know anything?
They say that everything must be proved, and since we never stop proving anything we can’t know anything. But, they say, if the proofs stop at a first premise (All A is B), then that premise isn’t proven, so we don’t know it. So whether our proofs go back infinitely or stop at a first premise, they say we can’t know anything
What exactly does their argument assume?
But they are assuming that we get all of our knowledge by demonstration through premises
What is Aristotle’s solution to their argument?
We know primary premises in another way besides by demonstration.
What is the most basic primary premise of all? (State the version in Metaphysics IV.3 and be complete – don’t leave any part of it out.)
The same attribute cannot at the same time both belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect
Why exactly can’t there be any proof of it?
Because it would have to be proven from a more certain principle and there no principle that is more certain
What exactly is the argument that Socrates gives against Protagoras’ position that everyone’s opinion is true?
If everyone’s opinion is true, no one would ever think anyone else was mistaken So if the opinions of men are always true, then they must be right
According to Socrates, what would Protagoras himself have to say?
Protagoras must admit that the people who think he is wrong are right
What exactly does Protagoras’ position that “man is the measure of all things” mean?
you are the standard (the criterion) of what is true and real. Truth and reality are relative to your perception.
What is the argument that Socrates gives against that position?
not every man is the measure of truth Only the wiser are
Two examples of Socrates’ argument against Protagoras
Who is better judge if music will be harmonious(Training Master or Musician) Who who the better measure of whether wine will be sweet or dry?(A harp play or a vine grower)
What is Aristotle’s response to the argument that things appear differently to those who are sleeping?
Someone who dreams they are in another city doesn’t act like they’re there when they wake up
What is Aristotle response to the argument that the same thing can appear different to the same person through different senses?
If two senses perceive the same thing differently, one will be more authoritative
What is Aristotle’s final response to those who ask who is to judge who is the healthy observer and who is the defective one?
But that’s like asking whether we’re awake or dreaming right now, that we cannot know which is the healthy one and who is the defective one.
According to Aristotle, why did Protagoras’ hold that man is the measure of all things?
He thought this because people have different perceptions of the same thing
What is Aristotle’s solution to Protagoras’ argument?
It is foolish to treat all perceptions equally Clearly some of them must be wrong
Give an example of Aristoltle’s response to Protagoras with the senses
That someone who is blind is injured and shouldn’t be taken for the measure on a thing regarding sight
Give an example of Aristoltle’s response to Protagoras with good and bad
That someone bad like hannibal Lector must be injured in someway
Give an example of Aristoltle’s response to Protagoras with beautiful and ugly
That the measure of beautiful and ugly could be injured by something such as alcohol
List the 4 steps in how we learn primary premises.
All animals can sense Animals that can retain their sense impressions have memory Repeated memories lead to experience And from experience we can generalize universal truths behind art and science
Why is it impossible to demonstrate the last step(of learning primary premises)
Experience tells us that something has worked before, but not why it works
What does Aristotle say that science should start with?
It should go from what is more obvious to us to what is clearer by nature
Does that contradict his statement in Posterior Analytics II.19 that we should proceed from particulars towards universals? Exactly why or why not?
No because he was not referring to scientific knowledge Now we start science by demonstrating from the primary premises
In Aristotle’s specific example of a man becoming musical, what remains the same through that change?
Man remains the same
What part of a changing thing is its form?
The quality that comes to be e.g. the shape of the statue
Which part is the subject?
The part that stays the same and underlies the change e.g. the bronze in the statue
Which part is the privation?
The privation is the previous lack of quality that is gained e.g. lack of the statue shape it will get
Be prepared to identify the subject, form, and privation in any examples of physical change that I may give. I.E. Man becomes tan
Man becomes tan • Subject-Man • Form- tan • Privations- Not tan or pale
What difference does Aristotle identify between natural and artificial things?
The things that exist by nature have in themselves a principle of motion and of rest, products of art have no innate impulse to change
What is the difference between natural things and those artificial things that seem to have their principle of motion inside them too (e.g. cars and rockets)?
The artificial things move due to natural elements inside them In a car natural elements explode to move the engine.
What is Aristotle’s definition of nature? (Be complete – give both parts.)
Nature is a source of motion or rest within a thing, in virtue of itself and not a concomitant attribute
What is Antiphon’s argument that a thing’s nature is the matter it’s made of?
That if you plant a bed, what sprouts from it is wood, not another bed
What is Aristotle’s argument that a thing’s nature is its form rather than its matter? (Not his answer to Antiphon)
We don’t call something a bed whiles its only potentially a bed, but only after it is formed into a bed
How does Aristotle use Antiphon’s own argument to show that nature is form rather than matter?
That people give birth to people, not a blob of elements
Be able to name the four causes and to give Aristotle’s definition of each (not your own).
Material Cause That out of which a thing comes to be and persists o Formal cause The form or pattern o Moving cause The primary source of change or rest o End Cause The end, or that for the same of which something is done
Be able to identify the four causes for specific examples that I give (e.g. Which of the causes is the silver of a bowl? What are the four causes of a dining room table?)
Dining room table Material Cause • What its made of o Wood Formal cause • Its shape or form o What defines it as a table instead of a chair Moving or efficient cause • Who made it o Carpenter moved the matter into a certain form End Cause • What is it for o This is why the carpenter made the table in the first place
According to the view that nature acts out of necessity, if rain falls on corn and the corn then grows, why did the rain fall?
Rain doesn’t fall to make corn grow, but just because when water rises, it cools and then falls
According to that view, what wasn’t the reason that the rain fell?
To make corn grow
According to that view, why do our teeth come out the way they do?
our teeth happen to come out the way they do by coincidence, sharp in front and broad in back
According to that view, what happens when things turn out some other way?
They didn’t survive
According to Aristotle, why can’t that be why things have helpful characteristics?
Things that happen by chance don’t happen regularly
According to him, why do things have helpful characteristics?
Because nature acts towards an end
What is Aristotle’s argument that nature acts for an end from comparing how we make things to how things are “made” in nature?
But the same thing occurs in nature – each step helps the next one E.g. In the growth of a tree, the roots grow first, then the branches, then the leaves
How does Aristotle address the objection that nature doesn’t act for an end because things in nature sometimes turn out abnormally?
But that doesn’t mean that nature wasn’t acting for an end, when humans make mistakes they were still acting towards an end, for example a spelling error.
What is the response to the objection that nature can’t act for an end because it can’t think?
Nature is like art except that the principle of movement is in the thing made
What do most people say the essence of man is?
Most say the essence of man is rationality
Give two of Locke’s arguments against that.(What most people say the essence of man is)
The abbot of St Martin was almost not considered human because he was so disfigured and people debate whether fetus’s should be baptized just based on their shape.
What exactly about Locke’s examples is supposed to show that we don’t know the real essence man?
So these were almost declared non-human just based on the shapes of their bodies. So our definitions of things are fluid, not unmovable
According to Locke, if we don’t know the real essences of things, where do our definitions of things come from?
The definitions come from man
For Locke, what is the complex idea of something made of?
It is made up of recurring attributes that are put together into one complex idea that applies to all the things.
So how do people come up with different essences of the same thing?
because different people come up with different qualities in a complex idea
How is Darwin’s analysis of how we classify species similar to what Locke says about how we form essences?
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety
According to Hume, if Adam saw one billiard ball rolling towards another one, why exactly wouldn’t he be able to know what the second one will do?
If someone (like Adam) had full reason but no experience, and he saw one ball rolling towards another, he wouldn’t be able to infer that the second ball would move In order to infer that the second ball would move just from seeing the first one moving towards it, Adam would need to have seen that happen before
What specific assumption are all arguments from experience based on?
That the course of nature will stay the same
Why can’t we demonstrate that assumption?
We can’t demonstrate or prove that the course of nature must continue uniformly the same, since it’s possible that the course of nature may change
Why can’t we argue that that assumption is probable?
Probable arguments already assume the course of nature will stay the same
Apply that to this example: flipping a coin – why exactly can’t we know that the chances of it landing on heads are 50%?
We say it has a 50% chance because we have seen all outcome, however if we had only seen it come up one way then we would say it has a 100% chance of coming up heads.
Why isn’t the fact that the coin has 2 sides enough to show that the chances for heads are 50%? (Be specific – what else do you need to assume besides just 2 sides in order to know that the chances for heads are 50%?)
We need to see it come up both ways to say that it has a 50% chance. and we have to assume that the course of nature will not change.
So what is Hume’s own explanation for why we expect the past to repeat
It’s just by custom or habit that we expect the past to repeat.
According to Hume, why can’t the difference between what you believe and don’t believe be just how detailed your conception of something is?
It’s a difference in how the conception feels
So what exactly is the difference between what you believe and don’t believe?
The one I believe feels stronger than the ones that I can imagine but don’t believe. Believing something just means you feel more strongly and intensely about it than what you don’t believe.
How does this determine Hume’s views on the cognition of animals in the Equiry?
Unknown
What is Hobbes’ explanation for how we sense things? (Be complete.)
External bodies press in on our sense organs This pressure continues in to brain and heart, which then rebound with a counterpressure back outwards That counterpressure back outwards is why sensations seem to be of qualities outside us
Why do the qualities we sense appear to be from outside us?
When we sense things there is a pressure and this is rebounded with a counterpressure back outwards. That counterpressure back outwards is why sensations seem to be of qualities outside us.
Which qualities are real, and which aren’t?
Unknown
What is Hobbes’ argument that the qualities we sense aren’t in bodies?
If colors and sounds were actually in bodies, then they wouldn’t ever be separated from the bodies that cause them
Give an example of how the qualities we sense aren’t in bodies according to Hobbes
In reflections and echoes, the appearance is not where the thing is
What do we find easy to believe bodies will do, and what do we find harder to believe they will do?
Unknown
According to Hobbes, why do we think that?
Unknown
What do bodies really do?
Unknown
How does Hobbes use that to explain imagination?
Unknown
What are the 2 kinds of motions in animals, and what exactly is the difference between them?
Vital Motions (These don’t depend on imagination) and voluntary motions(We move our bodies in a way that we first imagine in our minds. So these depend on a preceding imagination)
According to Hobbes, why do many people doubt that imagination is just motion?
Many don’t think imagination is motion, but that’s because its motions are very small
What is endeavor, and how does he use that to explain desire and aversion?
Endavor is small beginings of voluntary motions Desire = Endeavor towards something Aversion = Endeavor away from
How does Hobbes us that to explain what good and evil are?
Good = whatever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire Evil = whatever is the object of his hate and aversion
What does Hobbes conclude about the reality of good and evil? (Be complete.)
So “good” and “evil” are always relative to a person (since what one person desires another may hate) There is nothing absolutely good or evil
How does John Locke define primary qualities?
Primary qualities are qualities that are inseparable from bodies
Give 3 examples of primary qualities according to John Locke
a snowball has the power to produce in us the ideas of white, cold, round, etc. (bulk, figure, motion…)
How does he define secondary qualities?
Nothing in bodies but their power to produce sensations in us by their primary qualities
Give 3 examples of secondary qualities according to John Locke
A violet sends out tiny particles of various shapes and sizes that impact our senses, producing sensations of blue, a sweet scent in us (e.g. blue, warm, etc.)
How do primary qualities cause us to sense secondary qualities?
So colors, smells, tastes, and sounds are not really in objects Objects do have bulk, figure, texture, etc., which produce those other sensations in us
What does that imply about the reality of primary and secondary qualities?
Primary qualities are real – they really do exist in bodies (e.g. bulk, figure, motion…) But secondary qualities are not really in objects (e.g. blue, warm, etc.)
How does Locke use the example of pain to argue against the reality of secondary qualities?
E.g. The shape of manna (bread) can produce in us a perception of shape, motion, texture, etc. These are real qualities of the bread itself These primary qualities can act on our guts and give us a stomach ache. But we all agree that this pain isn’t a quality in the bread
How does Locke argue from what happens to almonds when we pulverize them?
If you pound almonds, it changes from white to a dirty color, from sweet to oily taste. So changing its primary qualities changes its secondary qualities
What is Berkeley’s argument against Locke’s position?
Some people (Locke) say that primary qualities are real but not secondary qualities. But try to conceive of a moving, extended body without any color. They are inseparable – we cannot conceive of extension and motion apart from color So if one is in the mind, the other is too
According to Descartes, why does he heed to rid himself of all his previous opinions?
Because he accepted many false things as true so if he was to have any firm knowledge, he had to rid myself of all his opinions and start anew
What was the problem with his previous opinions?
All my knowledge so far has been based on the senses. But the senses can be deceptive, and we cannot absolutely trust anything that has deceived us even once
What were all his previous opinions based on?
All my knowledge so far has been based on the senses
How does Descartes argue from dreams?
At night he dreams things that are like what lunatics imagine He can think of no certain marks that distinguish dreaming from being awake
How does Descartes respond to the objection that even if the physical is an illusion, 2+2 is still 4?
Since he believes in an all-powerful God, couldn’t God give him the illusion of a physical world and make me think that 2+2=4 even if it isn’t?
According to Descartes, even if the entire world is an illusion given to him by God, what can he still know with certitude?
He knows that he must exist
Why can’t God be deceiving him about that too?
He must exist in order to be deceived
According to Popper, how does Aristotle’s “essentialist” view stand in contrast to the methods of modern science?
Unknown
What can the scientific method not give us?
Unknown
How does the scientific view of a definition differ from Aristotle’s “essentialist” view of a definition?
Unknown
How does Aristotle’s view on knowing essences determine his view on the definition of a good person?
Unknown
How does Aristotle’s argument that nature is form more than matter in Physics II.1 determine his argument that the soul is not the same as the body?
Unknown
