Midterm Flashcards

Question

1st Mode

Answer 1

(you do not have it) based on the differences among animals. Various animals have different sorts of sense organs. So, they probably experience things differently. Because of the differences among animals, we shall suspend judgment as to what objects are "really" like. Why? We cannot judge whether our sense impressions are more accurate than those of other animals. We would need a judge who is not a party to the dispute!

Answer 2

isagreement among the senses. What is pleasing to one sense, can be displeasing to another. What appears to be the case for one sense, does not appear so to another, e.g., to sight a painting may appear to have recesses, but to touch it may appear smooth. So, we cannot say what the thing is really like. Each object appears to have various qualities- e.g., An apple feels smooth, tastes sweet, is yellow in color, etc. Can we say that these sensations capture the essence of the apple? Perhaps there are other possible experiences, produced by means of sensation that we do not have. E.g., a blind person will not experience the apple the same way as a person who sees. So, we suspend judgment as to what the apple is really like.

Answer 3

differences in circumstances and dispositions. We are in different states at different times, awake/asleep, young/old, well/sick, angry/happy, in love/hate, etc. Things can appear different to people depending upon these circumstances. [Dr. G-Like when food you usually like smells bad while you are sick.) So, we suspend judgment as to what the objects are really like.

Answer 4

Anyone who tries to settle the dispute is in one of those dispositions, so he cannot be an impartial judge. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the arbiter is in no condition at all. P. 137. [This is true in all the Modes. If HUMAN claims that he/she discerns what is real, he/she will be looking at the world with human sense organs, so the human is not a neutral arbiter.]

Answer 5

In order to pass judgment one must use a criterion. If the criterion is false, one will be discredited. So, one must claim that the criterion is true. But, one needs a proof that the criterion is true. So, one needs another criterion upon which to judge that the proof itself is true. But, then one needs another criterion, and so, on ….So, circularity (proof depends on criterion, criterion on proof) and An infinite regress of Criteria …Ad Infinitum . . . Criterion . . . Proof . . . Criterion . . . Proof . . . Criterion (the standard we are using to make the claim)

Answer 6

positions, distances and locations. Aship at a distance looks small, up close large. An oar appears bent in water, straight out of water, etc. On God-P. 186, the dogmatists disagree and the problem of Providence and evil.

Answer 7

1. God is not a deceiver. (Med. III) (That means the Evil Genius, Demon, is put out of play) 2. The Criterion of Truth with God as guarantor-The Clear and Distinct idea or perception. 3. The essences of corporeal substance and the Cogito (Res Cogitans) from Med. II. 4. The distinction between the three types of ideas. In Med. VI Descartes will discuss the distinction between “Imagination” and “pure intellection.” [intelligere-L. to understand] Near the end, he will make a distinction between dream and reality. That means the “Dream Hypothesis” is finally put out of play. I

Answer 8

Descartes states that he knows corporeal substance may exist, because he can clearly and distinctly perceive things which have shape, size, etc. (geometry) God is Omnipotent, so God is capable of bringing about everything which Descartes can clearly and distinctly perceive.

Answer 9

I can easily imagine a triangle. However, I cannot clearly imagine a chiliagon (a figure of a thousand sides). I can understand a chiliagon (pure intellection). So, pure intellection is more powerful than imagination. Also, Imagination requires a kind of effort which pure intellection does not. So, there is a clear distinction between imagination and pure intellection. I could do without imagination and still remain essentially myself, res cogitans. So, imagination is not an essential part of my nature. It is a secondary quality-is it based upon something outside the mind? Descartes says probably the ideas of imagination come from, or are based upon, a body outside the mind, but only probably. He wants certainty.

Answer 10

Descartes experiences other sorts of images like color, taste, sound, pain, pleasure. These ideas are adventitious and sometimes happen against his will. (So, he is not making them up. Someone or something else is. There is no ‘Id’ for Descartes) Furthermore, sense perceptions are more vivid than his factitious ideas. So, there is a clear and distinct difference between adventitious ideas and factitious ideas. Does that mean that he can conclude that “objects” exist and thus cause his “passive” perceptions? Not so fast. Remember that the senses deceive us, e.g., some people claim to feel pain in an amputated limb, a tower in the distance looks round, but up close, square, etc. Also, remember the problem of the dream hypothesis.

Answer 11

Everything which I clearly and distinctly understand can be made by God as I understand them to be (god is omnipotent). So, if I clearly and distinctly understand one thing without the other I can be certain that the things are really different from each other. I have a clear and distinct idea of my existence as a res cogitans. I have a clear and distinct idea of corporeal substance, res extensa, as non-thinking.

Answer 12

Remember, he proved the existence of the his res cogitans or Cogito in Med. II. He has yet to prove the existence of corporeal substance, although his proof is almost complete.) Descartes can also clearly distinguish between his essential nature, pure intellection, and mere “modes” of thinking like imagination and sense perception. Because sense perceptions are adventitious, something must exist which causes these perceptions. Are there objects in the world? (The cause of the adventitious ideas must be either objects or God, because Descartes does not create them.) God is not a deceiver. So, God doesn’t give me these ideas. So, corporeal objects exist.

Answer 13

Body is made of parts, mind is not (loss of a body part does not result in the loss of a part of the mind)

Answer 14

Now I notice that there is a considerable difference between the two; dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake. Really? What if he were sitting in a chair reading and fell asleep only to dream that he was reading the very same book? Never?

Answer 15

Cartesian" dualism. Descartes and his followers believed that the mind and body are separate, distinct, and independent of each other. However, they also believed that mind and body communicated and interacted with each other. They believed that mind could affect body and vice versa. But the question is, if mind is non-physical, and if body is non-mental, then how could the two possibly affect each other?

Answer 16

1. The human body is a material thing. | 2. The human mind is a spiritual thing.

Answer 17

He says that by ‘material’ we mean a thing made up of recognized physical stuff like oxygen, carbon, etc. We also mean that the thing’s responses to physical influences satisfy only the laws governing all matter. And, he says, in saying a body is purely material we are committed to holding that only events of a physical kind occur within it. What proof is offered for the proposition that the human body is a material thing? According to Campbell, the sciences of chemistry and biochemistry point to the proposition’s truth.

Answer 18

Well it seems difficult to define. The definition is negative, that is, ‘spiritual’ is defined by negating properties of corporeal substance. Spiritual stuff has no characteristics of corporeal stuff. It is not composed of ordinary material elements, and not subject to ordinary physical laws. But, this doesn’t tell us much. Campbell says that some have argued that there are unique aspects of mind, or spiritual substance, that distinguishes it from corporeal substance.

Answer 19

it thinks, feels, acts. This could be continuous consciousness, or at least the continuous capacity to be conscious.

Answer 20

This is a characteristic of mental states. Thoughts have objects of thought. I hope for something. I despair over something. I am angry at someone. But, the ‘somethings’ need not have a material existence. If I run into another vehicle, I have run into something that physically exists now. But, I can worry about something that does not exist. I can hope for a job I do not yet have, etc. I can wonder about unicorns. So, the objects of thought are different than the objects in the physical world. The descriptions of my mental events are different than the descriptions of physical events.u

Answer 21

From this we conclude that "spiritual" means immaterial and capable of mental life. So, mind would be an immaterial thing capable of mental life.

Answer 22

We have knowledge of things which are not physical. Those non-physical things affect our minds, but do not affect the physical world. E.g., numbers. Numbers do not affect matter, but they do affect mind. We know about good and evil, but these things are seen or felt by sense organs. [Again, we are dealing with things that are not physically present to us.] So, the argument goes, mind is open to influences which cannot affect matter. So, mind is not a purely material thing. But we still must ask, if mind and body are separate and distinct, how could they interact?

Answer 23

Materialism and Idealism

Answer 24

The theory that everything is physical, including mind and thought. The Epicureans [Ancient, such as Lucretius, and modern, such as d’Holbach] argued that because body affects mind, and vice versa, both must be physical. Bà B à Bà

Answer 25

The theory that everything is "spiritual," or mental. There is no physical stuff. What we call ‘physical objects’ are simply composites of ideas, e.g., an apple is constituted by the ideas red, sweet, round, crunchy. Berkeley is an example of an idealist. Mà Mà M à

Answer 26

The theory that God is like the messenger boy of the universe. Mind wants to send body a message, but it cannot "speak" to the body. God intercepts the message and relays it to the body, and God relays messages from the body to the mind. Malbranche is an example of an Occasionalist. One problem here is that God would be a deceiver, according to Descartes. Plus, what of phantom pain? How come God doesn’t send everybody’s messages?

Answer 27

Double Aspect Theory,Parallelism,Epiphenomenalism

Answer 28

Spinoza-The Theory that mind and bodies are two aspects of some other underlying thing, some ‘X.’ This takes care of the interaction problem, but now we have to figure out what this mysterious underlying substance is.

Answer 29

Denies interaction, but recognizes two distinct substances, mind and body. Mind appears to affect body and vice versa, but it is illusion. Mind affects mind, body affects body, and the apparent interaction is really the result of the fact that ‘harmony’ between the two was pre-programmed. According to Leibniz, the programmer is God. Mà Mà Mà Bà Bà Bà

Answer 30

mind is non-physical but it is a byproduct of the body. Mental events do not affect anything, not even subsequent mental events. Body affects body and affects mind [as a byproduct]. So there is a one way "interaction" between the two.

Answer 31

In this book Lucretius attempts to explain the world and the universe in terms of atomism. So he is doing metaphysics. He is a materialist, that is, he believes that everything is made up of corporeal substance, or physical "stuff." There is no non-physical "stuff." Everything, including the Gods, is made up of atoms. The atoms are "elemental physical particles."That is, he believes that our knowledge of the world begins with sense perception. On p. 77 Lucretius begins his proof for the existence of the Atomoi. He also has an ethical purpose in writing the book. He said that once we understand that everything comes about by means of physical causes, we will no longer fear the wrath of gods, and we will cease to be driven by superstition. So, we can be happier.

Answer 32

that is, they believed that knowledge begins with sense experience and observation of the world.

Answer 33

Perceptions (always true) 2. Preconcepts-memory images lead to a general image of, e.g., ‘man.’ (always true) 3. It is when we form judgments and opinions that error, or falsehood, arises. E.g., judgments about whether images correspond to objects.

Answer 34

thin films of atoms shed by objects cause our perceptions. [Lucretius says that the atoms “strike” our sense organs]

Answer 35

Error results when we import into judgment anything not confirmed by the evidence or that which is contradicted by the evidence. Truth results from judgments which use evidence which is confirmed by the senses or not contradicted by the senses. (from Epicurus’ “Letter to Herodotus”)

Answer 36

‘Nothing can be produced from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit . Or ‘nothing can be created out of nothing’ “Nil posse creari de nilo.”).’ This principle is a conclusion which results from an argument.

Answer 37

If X then Y 2. Not Y 3. Therefore, not X

Answer 38

(Premise 1 consists of a conditional statement. The “If” part of the conditional statement is the antecedent. The “Then” part of the statement is the consequent. Premise 2 denies or negates the consequent of premise 1. According to the rule, we may conclude the negation of the antecedent.)

Answer 39

Nature does not reduce anything to nothing. This principle is also the conclusion of an argument. 1. If any thing were perishable in all its parts, everything might then dissolve right before our eyes. 2. Things do not dissolve before our eyes. They break down because of “blows.” 3. So, it is not the case that things are perishable in all their parts. 1. If over a long period of time all the constituent parts which make up things were completely destroyed, there would not be anything now (he assumes that an infinite amount of time has already passed). 2. Things do exist now and nature renews them (e.g., the rivers and the sea). 3. So, its not the case that things are perishable in all their parts. 4. So, the elemental particles are eternal.

Answer 40

Lucretius uses this principle to convince us that these elemental particles do exist even though we cannot see them. We cannot see the wind, but we see the physical effects of the wind (e.g., trees bend). So, the wind must be made of tiny particles. We cannot see odors, yet they “strike” our senses. Our sense organs are physical, so the odor must be physical. Garments hung by the sea become moist. (We do not see globs of water pouring over them.) A ring wears down but we don’t see globs of gold falling off. And when people rub the hand of a statue, the hand gradually becomes smaller, etc.

Answer 41

Nature carries on her operations by means of imperceptible particles

Answer 42

There is vacant space (and void in things) 1. If this were not so, nothing could be moved. 2. Things can be moved. 3. So, there is vacant space in things. Even things which appear to be solid are not solid. E.g, we can hear through walls, water seeps through rocks. So, there is space in things. A ball of wool and a ball of lead of the same size do not weigh the same. The difference will be the vacuity in things (P. 80).

Answer 43

There is no Boundary to the Universe. (p. 81) The dart argument. How the atoms come together to make up composite objects, PP. 81-83—The atoms are in constant motion. You can detect that sort of motion when you see dust particles dancing in a shaft of sunlight. (The dust particles are not atoms. Atoms are too small to be seen.) The “swerve.” He exhorts us to accept his explanations and end our fear. He states that the universe has imperfections, so it was not created by gods, etc. Therefore, once we understand that everything came about because of physical causes, we will have no fear of the Gods.

Answer 44

The Teleological Argument (Gr. Telos, end purpose, goal, final cause)-Also known as the "Design" argument . Our examples are St. Aquinas’ 5th Way and Paley’s argument. 2. The Cosmological argument (Gr. Kosmos, Order vs chaos) Our examples St. Aquinas’ 1st through 4th Ways. A Posteriori arguments make use of empirical evidence and observation of the world.

Answer 45

The Ontological Argument (Gr. On, being, Onta, existing things) Our example: St. Anselm’s arguments for the existence of God. A Priori arguments do not make use of empirical evidence. They make use of reason, definitions, etc.

Answer 46

Efficient Cause-the agent or force which brings about the effect. If building a house, the construction workers, etc. Formal Cause-the form, the design plan. For a house, the blueprints. Material Cause-the material out of which something is made. For a house, wood, bricks, etc. The Final Cause-the end toward which, the goal or purpose, the telos. For a house, shelter for humans.k

Answer 47

Contingent beings come into being and pass away. They are created and destroyed.

Answer 48

Contingent beings are dependant on something else for their existence. They can_not be, that is, they are capable of non-existence. We can conceive of their non-existence. Aquinas calls them "possible" beings.

Answer 49

They are neither created nor destroyed. They are independent beings. They cannot_not exist. We cannot conceive of their non-existence.

Answer 50

(Latin, "Nothing can be produced from nothing." Assumed to be true by the Ancients as well as by Aquinas.

Answer 51

(Latin, Reduction to Absurdity. You can prove the negation of a proposition if you can prove that it leads to absurdity. A contradiction is among the things considered absurd.

Answer 52

According Aristotle’s Law of (Non) Contradiction "A thing cannot both be and not be the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect." In other words, a thing cannot be X and not X at the same time. Example, I cannot be both a woman and not a woman, at the same time, in the same respect.

Answer 53

The Five Ways-from Summa Theologica

Answer 54

We can see that some things in the world are in motion (the change from potential to actual). E. g., Wood is potentially hot, fire is actually hot. 2. Nothing can be both potential and actual at the same time, in the same respect. (E.g., the wood cannot be both potentially hot and actually hot at the same time.) 3. Therefore, it is impossible that a thing can be both mover and moved, in the same respect, at the same time. 4. Therefore, whatever is put in motion must be put in motion by some other actualized thing, and that by some prior actualized thing, and so on, and so on. (E., g., the wood cannot set itself on fire. The wood must be set on fire by some thing which is already hot.), 5. No infinite regress of causes-otherwise there would be no first mover and so, no subsequent movers. 6. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover, Unmoved Mover, which everyone understands to be God

Answer 55

We see in the world an order of efficient causes. 2. If a thing were to be its own efficient cause, it would be prior to itself (it would have to exist before it exists) that’s impossible or absurd. 3. So, nothing can be its own efficient cause. 4. The first cause is the cause of the intermediate, and that of the ultimate cause. 5. To take away a cause is to take away its effect. 6. So, if it is possible to go to infinity with efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause. 7. If there were no first efficient cause, there would be no intermediate efficient causes. 8. There are intermediate efficient causes (we see them in the world). These intermediate causes are effects of prior efficient causes (We just denied the consequent of 7. By two steps of Modus Tollens we get-9 and 10) 9. So, there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes. 10. Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Answer 56

n nature we find that things are generated and destroyed (corrupted). 2. So, they are contingent (possible to be and not be) 3. That which is contingent at some point does not exist (is not). 4. So, it is impossible for contingent things to always exist. 5. Therefore, if everything were contingent, at some point there could have been nothing. (nothing could have existed.) 6. That which begins to exist is brought into existence by something which already exists (Ex nihilo nihil fit – Latin, “Nothing can be produced from nothing” and the 1st and 2nd ways.) 7. Therefore, if at one time nothing were in existence, there would not be anything now! 8. That is absurd. (So, If you assume that everything is contingent, you are led to the absurdity that nothing now exists but, of course things do exist). Reductio ad Absurdum. So, it can’t be true that everything is contingent) 9. ( or, we could get there by saying ‘Something does exist now!’ By Modus Tollens denial of the consequent of 7, leads to “So, there was no time in which nothing existed.” ) 10. (“so, there was no time when nothing existed” is a denial of the consequent of 5. So, we could conclude ‘Hence, it is not the case that everything is contingent’ – another Modus Tollens.) 11. Therefore, there must be a necessary being. 12. No infinite regress of necessary beings 13. Therefore, there must be a necessary being having its own necessity, and this all men speak of as God.

Answer 57

Utility of doubt, physical world demon- genius powerful entity

Answer 58

Asking whether he exists/questions own existence discovery of 1st undoubted truth I think therefore I am he can't doubt he is thinking o

Answer 59

Piece of wax argument does not prove that physical stuff exist does prove that primary and secondary stuff exist -allows himself to believe he is a thinking thing as a kind