MIDTERM Flashcards
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do many maintain that the question is impossible to answer? Explain how the logical fatalist proposes to answer it. Explain how Robert Nozick and Peter van Inwagen proposes to answer it.
Nozick:
1. nonexistence cannot exist because then it would be existence
2. same as Inwagen
2. the nothingness force acted on itself
3. nothing and something coexist in different worlds
Inwagen:
1. there is only one possible world of nothing, compared to the infinite possible worlds where something exists.
- probability of nothing is = 0
- infinitely many populated worlds, probability = 1
Logical fatalists: think it is impossible to answer
- it is always true that there would be something, the truth is fixed and unchangeable, since there is only 1 possible world there is no point even asking why
In Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins announces that we are all going to die – and we are therefore we are lucky ones. Explain his surprising assertion. Why do some complain that the conclusion is based on an impossible comparison.
- lucky because we got to live to begin with, in order to die we must live first
- there are so many factors against your existence that the fact you were even born is miraculous - probability of being born is so minute
- impossible comparison: we would not have known or experienced life had we not been born
- there is “nothing” to compare it to, non-existent individuals could meaningfully be compared to existent ones
The nihilist about vague terms tries to solve the sorites paradox by rejecting the base step. There are no noonish times, heaps, or babies. There are only precise objects such as electrons and sets of electrons. There are no small numbers (since `small number’ generates a sorites) but there are prime numbers. In sum, there are no “slob-jects” only “snob-jects”! How does the epistemicist try to save slob-jects such as babies from the sorites? Why is the epistemicist often classified as a metaphysical cheater?
- One grain of sand is not a heap.
- Adding one grain of sand to a non-heap cannot turn it into a heap.
- Therefore, Adding a thousand grains of sand to a non-heap cannot turn it into a heap
- Epistemologists save slob-ject by stating that we lack the precise knowledge or understanding.
- vague terms do have precise meaning but human limitations in knowledge and perception prevent us from precisely determining their boundaries
- there may be a precise number of grains that constitute a heap, but we lack the means to measure it/know it
- metaphysical cheater: epistemicism does not answer the metaphysical issue, it attributes it to a lack of knowledge, avoiding a metaphysical answer
What is a truthmaker? Why are they postulated?
- parts of reality that make a proposition true
- example: there is a dot at the end of this sentence. the dot is the truthmaker
3 arguments for truthmakers:
- correspondence theory of truth
- distinguish between ontologically distinct theories and theories that are merely ideological
- enable us to catch metaphysical cheaters
truthmaker maximalism vs truthmaker atomism
Maximalism: every truth has a truthmaker
- problem posed by negative existentialism: if you state unicorns don’t exist what is your truthmaker for that?
- problem with universal generalizations: all dogs are mammals, would require a truthmaker for each instance.
- conjunctions: the dog is standing and is wagging its tail, requires its own truthmaker in addition to “the dog is standing” and the dog is wagging
Truthmaker atomism:
- if there is no truthmaker for unicorns existing then that makes the non-existence of unicorns true
- ## don’t need truthmakers for negations
What is a totality truth-maker? What is this sort of truth-maker supposed to explain? How do they appear to commit us to negative facts?
- totality truthmaker operate over whole universe despite the generalization being narrow
- “all dogs are mammals” - can only make this statement if you have an exhaustive inventory of all the dogs there are
- also need to show that certain things are the case but also that certain things are not the case (all other mammals are not dogs)
Presentists, analytical behaviorists, and phenomenalists are each accused of metaphysical cheating. Explain this accusation by truthmaker theorists.
Presentists: what’s real is the present
- only truthmakers are present
objection: is it false that dinosaurs existed? how do yu make this true
Phenomenalists: all that is real is just sense data
- only truthmakers are sense data
- objection: what keeps your bed in existence when no one is looking?
- Phenomenalists say hypothetical sense data
- objection: what makes hypothetic statements true
Analytical behaviorism: when we talk about psychological state, all we’re talking about is behavior and hypothetical behavior
- what makes hypothetical behavior true? wouldn’t behavior need to be obervable
What is the redundancy theory of truth? How does it provide a strategy to rebut the charge of metaphysical cheating?
adding “… is true” to a statement is redundant
“snow is white is true” is equivalent to snow is white
- rebuts metaphysical cheating: truth is not a separate or additional property that a statement possesses
- true has no truthmaker
- truth is a linguistic concept used to affirm the accuracy of a statement with respect to the facts or reality it describes
Draw W. V. O. Quine’s distinction between ontology, cosmology and ideology. Can two theories have the same ontology but a different cosmology? Illustrate with an example.
Ontology: what is there? what entities exist? concerned with most general categorization of things that exist in the world
Cosmology: deals with the relationships and interactions between the entities in a theory
Ideology: what concepts are suited to describing things?
example: special relativity and general relativity
- have same ontology - spacetime
- different cosmology: structure and relationship between relationships is different
When Nero became emperor, a coin was minted showing him facing his mother Agrippina as equals. The next coin in the sequence shows Nero in front of Agrippina, in a partial eclipse. The third minting shows just Nero. Some coin collectors say the third coin is a representation of Agrippina’s absence, not a mere absence of representation. This raises the question of whether purely pictorial representations of absence possible. Relate the question to the imagery debate.
- no, purely pictoral represenation of absence is not possible, absences cannot be causes.
- example: lion with the mane is what causes us to see a maneless lion
- lion without a scrotem is assumed to be a female because of our base knowledge that a male lion does have one
David Hume was the first obituarist of metaphysics. Explain why he thought metaphysics was dead. Why did Kant think the Critique of Pure Reason dug a fresh grave for traditional metaphysics? Why did the logical positivists think their verificationist criterion of meaningfulness foretold the extinction of the metaphysicians?
- David Hume was a empiricist: metaphysical statements are unverifiable and therefore meaningless
- if we assume that human thought and meaning cannot reach beyond sensory appearances then the usual empirical scientists would exhaust the possibilities for discoveries, leaving nothing for metaphysicists to do
- Kant:
phenomenon: table in front of me
noumenon: concept of a table, cannot perceive it - metaphysics is noumenon - but we can never gain knowledge of this, therefore metaphysics is endless and pointless work
Logical positivists/empiricism: meaningful statements must be verifiable through empirical evidence, thus rejecting non-empiricist statements such as metaphysical ones
- ANYTHING THAT IS KNOWN CAN BE OBSERVED
How do neo-Humeans resurrect metaphysics from David Hume’s anti-metaphysical corpus?
- acknowledge epistemic limitations and justifying metaphysical beliefs pragmatically
- focus on questions that can be answered empirically
- redefine scope of metaphysics - no longer philosophy - they ground it in methods and findings of natural science
New York Times: MOSCOW — Cracking down on increasingly subtle silent protests, Belarussian authorities prohibit standing together and doing nothing. July 30, 2011 Why does the second conjunct of this prohibition strike American lawyers as bizarre? Why does Lao Tzu favor omissions over actions? Why are omissions metaphysically puzzling?
- how can you prohibit doing nothing? encouraging action
- omissions are causes: when a cook fails to put out a small fire, she causes the destruction of a kitchen, or a boy drowning, if you could reasonably save him you are liable
puzzling: the boy was drowning in the first place and the fire was already started, omissions are not additive
Lao Tzu speaks as if he sees holes and shadows. How does this create a problem for the philosophy of perception?
- holes and shadows are immaterial
- you can’t see nothing, but you see that there is nothing there
- perception requires an object to be perceived, what are we perceiving? nothing? how can you explain that you are perceiving a hole?
Why is David Hume skeptical about causation? Why did Bertrand Russell agree (for a while)? How is causation defended by Elizabeth Anscombe?
Hume: believes causation is not observable, you can’t see causation, did not believe it was empirically sound, it is the subjective mind that assumes there is a cause and effect based on past experiences
Russell: causation is obsolete: fundamental laws of physics do not mention cause and effect
Anscombe: argues causation is observable: slaps, tackles, collisions
