Philosophy Exam Flashcards

Question

Argument by design Teleological Ontological Cosmological Pascal

Answer 1

Answer: Teleogical

Answer 2

Answer: Natural evil

Answer 3

Answer: Revealed theology

Answer 4

Answer: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander

Answer 5

Answer: Anxiety

Answer 6

Answer: Goodness

Answer 7

Answer: is when you realize you are free.

Answer 8

Answer: Athens

Answer 9

Answer: Religion

Answer 10

Answer: Circle

Answer 11

Answer: Reality

Answer 12

Metaphysics is the study of the basic structure of reality. Topics include: Being and Nothingness Time Freedom and Determinism Mind and Body Personhood Nature and Supreme Beings

Answer 13

Greek poet around 800 BCE - around the same time as Homer (Illiad and the Odyssey) Considered one of the greatest myth-creators in the Ancient World He is considered to be the conservative, orthodox version of Greek religion - the gods are all around, and they are not good. Man’s lot in life is to work and suffer, and never understand why. All natural events are because of the gods, and the gods don’t like you. The gods have all the WORST human character traits….PLUS superhuman powers.

Answer 14

Born in Miletus around 625. Not very satisfied with the traditional explanation of existence. Wondered if the universe and everything in it was created of a substance - that you came from, and eventually went back to upon death. Think ‘ashes to ashes’ sort of thing. He believes that it may be water - as all things need water to live, and even in the driest seeds there is a drop of water that allows the seed to survive. Without water everything dies - perhaps water is the essential ‘thing’ in the universe

Answer 15

Born in 611 BCE Humans could not have always looked like this - we are defenseless in a natural state and our young require YEARS to live on their own. The ‘first human’ would have been eaten immediately. Early creatures probably all emerged from the water. The infinite (apeiron) is like god. It is the force of the universe that didn’t have a beginning - its always been there. The divine is deathless. The earth is suspended aloft on air, and rotates around.

Answer 16

Born in 585 BCE Air is the fundamental substance of existence. When it changes, it becomes different things - it can be fire, or water, or steam. Stars are actually small pieces of fire, very far away. When they change form, they become dilated and rise up into the sky. Heavy rains and dry spells cause earthquakes, and can damage communities.

Answer 17

Born 570 The stories of the gods are useless, made-up concepts. People make up the gods that represent them. African gods look African. Greek gods look Greek. If they were really gods, they would not look or act like us at all. As they cannot die, they could not be made of human bodies. As they are not affected by time, they cannot be made of stuff from Earth. No one knows the truth. And even if we stumble upon the truth, other people will argue against it.

Answer 18

The importance is not in WHAT they thought, but what changes were happening to human thought around this time. They believed that there was a unity to all things, and that supernatural explanations should be abandoned if we wish to find truth. They saw existence as orderly, and that order could be understood through a process of rational inquiry. They set the conditions for philosophy and science to flourish.

Answer 19

Greece was rocky, divided and surrounded by water. There are thousands of islands. There are mountains and naturals barriers everywhere. Food was difficult to grow in major quantities. Resources are not plentiful. Ancient Greece is divided politically. The people rarely unite together. Because resources are scarce everyone is seen as competition. Fighting is common. Warfare or the threat of warfare is endemic. Natural disasters can wipe out your home, or your whole village - tidal waves, storms, volcanoes - all occur there. Everyone is trying to explain this natural evil through God but they took on more of a scientific approach

Answer 20

One day, Plato had two problems floating around his mind……… 1) How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where everything they attach themselves to can be taken away? 2) How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways? As a solution to his problems, Plato splits existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Answer 21

Humans have access to the world of forms through the mind, through reason. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. We should hold on to the material world less, and focus more on the forms. The second realm is the immaterial world of forms (ideals) Every human has access to the world of forms through introspection.

Answer 22

Think of yourself. You know your name, and who you are, and you believe yourself to be the same person as you were years ago. This however, is untrue. According to a Stanford Study, you have roughly 37 trillion cells in your body, and they will be replaced within 10 years on average. Although your cells are constantly dying and being replaced, and you are NOT the same physical person, the IDEA of you survives. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms are also pure. This means that they are pure properties separated from all other properties. A material object, such as a basketball, has many properties: roundness, orange, elasticity, etc. These are all put together to make up this individual basketball.

Answer 23

The Problem of Christmas Chorismos is Greek for separation. In Plato’s metaphysics, there is too much of a separation between the Forms and sensible objects for the Forms to be the sources of material objects. Plato’s attempts at explaining the relationship between the Forms and sensible objects are merely “empty words and poetical metaphors.” The Problem of Change Plato maintained that there is change in the World of Becoming (material world) Plato, however, did NOT explain how this change occurs. Why should there be change in the World of Becoming anyway, since it’s supposed to be a copy of the changeless World of Being?

Answer 24

Plato maintained that the Forms are transcendent realities. Aristotle maintained that form is within particular substances. Stuffed animal analogy - Matter is like the stuffing. Form is like the outer skin. He believed that Matter and form are distinct but indivisible. Neither pure form nor pure matter exists. They exist only united to one another in particular substances. E. g. ‘tableness’ does NOT exist apart from particular tables in some fantastic World of Being. Tableness exists only in particular tables. While they are indivisible, matter and form are distinct because, if they were not, substantial change would be impossible. Every object is made of something anf it’s shape and properties are it’s form

Answer 25

Natural Theology Arguments for the existence of God from reason and evidence Using some sort of logic - all of the following are natural Revealed Theology Not philosophy Not really arguable “Jesus showed up in my mirror and told me to sell licorice” Like “it came to me in a dream”

Answer 26

Ontological God would be the greatest being imaginable. God is Possible Since he is the greatest being, him being real is superior to him not being real Therefore, he must be real Something that exists in reality is superior to something that exists in fantasy. If God didn’t exist, you could imagine something superior (A GOD THAT DOES EXIST) Therefore to fulfill the 1st statement, God must exist. Counter: Not really much of a counter, could be argued that this is just a semantics argument and the concepts of “greatest imaginable” and “god” and “exist” and “not exist” are too vague. Teleological Imagine a little machine thing on the floor of a forest. You would assume purpose and a creator. Things that exhibit a design, have a designer. The designer of the universe and the world would be called “God” William Paley - watchmaker analogy. Counter: Can “order” arise without a creator? Those who disagree say yes. Cosmological All events have causes - those causes have causes - those causes have causes … Either we accept an infinite casual chain or one event/thing that started all the causes. (that start would be called “God” as the “Unmoved Mover”, the one who made it all start.) Counter: What caused God then? God does not explain the universe because nothing explains god.

Answer 27

You have 2 choices Believe You’re right: Heaven :) You’re wrong: Just dead Don’t Believe You’re right: Just dead You’re wrong: Eternal damnation :( Catholic church threatens to excommunicate him for this “Solution”. Pascal's wager isn’t based on faith or belief, but rather just fear of eternal damnation. Counter: There are various religions to choose to believe, which one do you choose?

Answer 28

In Monotheistic religions… God is OOG Omnipotent (all-powerful, capable of anything they wish) Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnibenevolent (entirely, 100% good) BUT… EVIL EXISTS Not just moral evil, but natural evil. Certainly people kill each other or rob each other. People sometimes choose bad actions. But a volcano can wipe out whole cities, and a tsunami can wipe out thousands in mere moments. So if God is all knowing, all powerful and all good, where did EVIL come from?

Answer 29

Natural Evil - tsunamis, earthquakes, death, disease. A child is born with a genetic abnormality, lives for hours in constant pain and then dies, leaving a grieving family in turmoil with mental health issues or substance abuse or a destroyed life. No one CHOSE this, they just happen. Moral Evil - Murder, assault, war, rape, kidnapping. A racist leader begins an international conflict, directly killing millions and indirectly destroying the lives of millions more. A serial killer kills someone. Someone steals. It was based on a choice; a moral failing.

Answer 30

Free Will Defence This argument suggests that moral evil, such as human actions like murder or theft, arises from the existence of free will. God, in His omnibenevolence, granted humans the gift of free will to choose between good and evil, These, evil actions are the result of humans misusing their free will rather than a direct act of God. Soul-Making Theodicy This argument suggests that the presence of suffering and evil in the world serves a greater purpose in the development and refinement of human souls. Through facing and overcoming challenges, individuals grow in moral and spiritual maturity, ultimately leading to a deeper relationship with god.

Answer 31

– the universe is one thing – the Universe is only one reality, which we can call God or Brahman if we want - written 800-500BCE - the oldest Hindu scriptures that exist We will eventually wake from this world, and we will be in a higher reality We will look back at this life, as if it was a dream – just like a dream, this world only seems real because we are still in it

Answer 32

Taoism – the Tao or the Way – a universal force that governs all things - that isn’t close to a complete definition 500 BCE (ish) by Lao Tzu You must attempt to live in tune with the Tao – to constantly change, not feel attachment to things, and not be overcome by desires Human beings can never grasp ultimate reality.

Answer 33

encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices based on the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama - aka Buddha all life is suffering, which can be limited by controlling our cravings and desires around 500 BCE We suffer because we are attached to our things, our past, ourselves as individuals You are just an illusion = anatta. You are constantly changing, and impermanent.

Answer 34

He's suggesting that your existence is not separate from the unfolding of the cosmos. Just like a wave is not separate from the ocean but rather an expression of its movement and energy, you are an expression of the universe's ongoing activity.

Answer 35

Eastern Man is part of Cosmic unity. Life is a journey towards eternal reality. Existence is cyclical. Inner-world dependent. Self-liberation from the false “Me” Western Man is an element of the divine. Life is for service, to knowledge, to God, to other people. Existence is linear – moving in a straight line towards an end. Outer-world dependent. Self-dedication to the goal – heaven, knowledge.

Answer 36

Existentialism is a set of philosophical ideals that emphasize the existence of the human being, the lack of meaning and purpose in life, and the solitude of human existence… “Existence precedes essence” implies that the human being has no essence (no essential self).

Answer 37

Anxiety stems from our understanding and recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts us every moment, and the individual’s confrontation with nothingness.

Answer 38

Dread is a feeling of general apprehension. Kierkegaard interpreted it as God’s way of calling each individual to make a commitment to a personally valid way of life.

Answer 39

From all other humans From human institutions From the past From the future We only exist right now, right here.

Answer 40

The belief is that nothing can explain or rationalize human existence. There is no answer to “Why am I existing?” Humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe and any search for order will bring them into direct conflict with this universe. (closely related to Nihilism - which says nothing matters at all)

Answer 41

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Albert Camus (1913-1960) AND Simone DeBeavoir

Answer 42

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Science was expanding and providing new technology. In medicine, product development, communications, electrical generation, transportation and consumer goods, people thought that the next 100 years would bring peace and prosperity. But by the 1940s, the world had been through global war twice, and a huge economic downturn in the 1930s. Society looked like it would never realize any progress at all. We couldn’t seem to stop ourselves from destroying ourselves. At its most basic... If worldwide war, depression and the Holocaust are possible, how can anyone really believe that the world has a pre-ordained order or a benevolent higher power?

Answer 43

Every time we blame someone else for something, every time we refuse to accept responsibility for our actions or choices, we are living in bad faith.

Answer 44

God knows all and sees all – past, present and future. Therefore, you cannot make a choice that God doesn’t already know. If your choices are already known, then by definition, you do not have free will. Of course….if God DOESN’T know what you will choose, then God isn’t omnipotent. And we’re sliding into the OOG problem again.

Answer 45

All events follow the physical laws of the universe. You are composed of exactly the same materials as everything else in the universe = you follow the laws too.

Answer 46

Determinism: Determinism asserts that every event in the universe, including human decisions and actions, is causally inevitable. It holds that when a person makes a specific decision or takes a particular action, they cannot have chosen differently or acted otherwise. This perspective denies the existence of genuine free will, suggesting that individuals are bound by the causal chain of preceding events (Allen, 2024). Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.

Answer 47

Time is a measurement of order going to disorder. The universe is going from an organized system to a less organized system...the measurement of this is TIME.

Answer 48

Imagine a world where nothing moves. No clocks, no sound (vibrations in air), no wind, no light (motion of electromagnetic radiation through space). Without motion, there is no time. Nothing can age if it is frozen in place. Time, ultimately, boils down to the ratio of distance to motion. T=D/R. You learn this in high school algebra, but most people prefer to think of time as something far more abstract, metaphysical, or philosophical. This would mean that “Time is just the ordering of events as they happen and one follows the next” There is just a series of static times that our brains somehow link together to form a ‘timeline’ - just like a film is a series of static images. Time and movement are now illusions?

Answer 49

Cosmologists would suggest that time began with the creation of the universe--the moment of the big bang, some 13.7 billion years ago. In this regard, time would not be infinite in both directions. It would be meaningless to refer to time before the beginning of time--"before" there was anything to measure. Just because we can conceive of something, such as "before the big bang" or "flying pink unicorns" does not mean such things must exist.

Answer 50

To = Ts /[ (1-v2/c2)0.5] Where T=Time, o=objective, s=subjective, and v=velocity. This is saying that Time is actually dependent on the speed you are travelling. The faster you travel, the slower the time goes. Time is not objective.

Answer 51

Time is an artificial, abstract human invention that mankind uses to organize our recollection and understanding of past events and to anticipate, to some degree of accuracy, predictable future events. In the physical world, there is no time - there is no past, there is no future. Memories of the past, and considerations about the future, are constructs of our own minds - they do not exist in the physical world. Physically, there is only now. It is also possible, that ALL time exists right now. The past is still occuring, and the future has happened somewhere already. Think of the implications if this is true. It is mind-blowing!

Answer 52

Time is the fourth dimension in the space-time continuum. It's a part of the fabric of space-time. The universe exists in three dimensions, and we might call them length, width and depth. It is possible to label them x, y and z. But all of the things in the universe can move through it, and this movement - any movement - happens across the fourth dimension, a dimension we call time. As an object is displaced across a distance in space, it also moves across time simultaneously. Time is not constant, but it is universal, and nothing can happen in space that does not happen in time as well. From the movement of a subatomic particle in any situation to the movement of a galactic cluster through the blackness of the universe, this displacement happens across the dimension of time as well as the three dimensions we're used to thinking about.

Answer 53

Term coined by William James The idea that there could potentially be numerous universes, including our own.

Answer 54

Answer: Pascal

Answer 55

Answer: Appeal to Pity

Answer 56

Answer: Teleological argument

Answer 57

Answer: Hume

Answer 58

Answer: Time

Answer 59

Answer: Existence precedes essence

Answer 60

Answer: Nihilism

Answer 61

Answer: Plato

Answer 62

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 63

Answer: Omnintelligent

Answer 64

Answer: Good

Answer 65

Answer: Reality

Answer 66

Answer: Natural

Answer 67

Answer: Way

Answer 68

Answer: Bad Faith

Answer 69

Alienation From all other humans From human institutions From the past From the future We only exist right now, right here. Anxiety Anxiety stems from our understanding and recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts us every moment, and the individual’s confrontation with nothingness. Existentialism: Existentialism is a set of philosophical ideals that emphasize the existence of the human being, the lack of meaning and purpose in life, and the solitude of human existence… “Existence precedes essence” implies that the human being has no essence (no essential self). Emerged because… If worldwide war, depression and the Holocaust are possible, how can anyone really believe that the world has a pre-ordained order or a benevolent higher power?

Answer 70

The existence of evil is a problem for theists because it challenges the belief in an omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good) God. The logical problem of evil argues that if such a God exists, evil should not, as God would have the power, knowledge, and desire to eliminate it (especially natural evil). The evidential problem of evil suggests that the extent and nature of evil in the world make the existence of this type of God highly improbable.

Answer 71

Most Compelling: Definition 3 – Time was Created by the Big Bang Cosmologists would suggest that time began with the creation of the universe--the moment of the big bang, some 13.7 billion years ago. In this regard, time would not be infinite in both directions. It would be meaningless to refer to time before the beginning of time--"before" there was anything to measure. Just because we can conceive of something, such as "before the big bang" or "flying pink unicorns" does not mean such things must exist. Least Compelling: Definition 5 – Time Doesn’t Exist Time is an artificial, abstract human invention that mankind uses to organize our recollection and understanding of past events and to anticipate, to some degree of accuracy, predictable future events. In the physical world, there is no time - there is no past, there is no future. Memories of the past, and considerations about the future, are constructs of our own minds - they do not exist in the physical world. Physically, there is only now. It is also possible, that ALL time exists right now. The past is still occuring, and the future has happened somewhere already. Think of the implications if this is true. It is mind-blowing!

Answer 72

1) How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where everything they attach themselves to can be taken away? 2) How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways? As a solution to his problems, Plato splits existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Answer 73

Humans have access to the world of forms through the mind, through reason. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. We should hold on to the material world less, and focus more on the forms. The second realm is the immaterial world of forms (ideals) Every human has access to the world of forms through introspection.

Answer 74

Think of yourself. You know your name, and who you are, and you believe yourself to be the same person as you were years ago. This however, is untrue. According to a Stanford Study, you have roughly 37 trillion cells in your body, and they will be replaced within 10 years on average. Although your cells are constantly dying and being replaced, and you are NOT the same physical person, the IDEA of you survives.

Answer 75

EASTERN VERSUS WESTERN Eastern Man is part of Cosmic unity. Life is a journey towards eternal reality. Existence is cyclical. Inner-world dependent. Self-liberation from the false “Me” Western Man is an element of the divine. Life is for service, to knowledge, to God, to other people. Existence is linear – moving in a straight line towards an end. Outer-world dependent. Self-dedication to the goal – heaven, knowledge.

Answer 76

No, I think they all were really flawed but I would have to say the Ontological makes the most sense purely because of how it is an argument based on semantics. Ontological God would be the greatest being imaginable. God is Possible Since he is the greatest being, him being real is superior to him not being real Therefore, he must be real Something that exists in reality is superior to something that exists in fantasy. If God didn’t exist, you could imagine something superior (A GOD THAT DOES EXIST) Therefore to fulfill the 1st statement, God must exist. Counter: Not really much of a counter, could be argued that this is just a semantics argument and the concepts of “greatest imaginable” and “god” and “exist” and “not exist” are too vague. Teleological Imagine a little machine thing on the floor of a forest. You would assume purpose and a creator. Things that exhibit a design, have a designer. The designer of the universe and the world would be called “God” William Paley - watchmaker analogy. Counter: Can “order” arise without a creator? Those who disagree say yes. Cosmological All events have causes - those causes have causes - those causes have causes … Either we accept an infinite casual chain or one event/thing that started all the causes. (that start would be called “God” as the “Unmoved Mover”, the one who made it all start.) Counter: What caused God then? God does not explain the universe because nothing explains god.

Answer 77

God knows all and sees all – past, present and future. Therefore, you cannot make a choice that God doesn’t already know. If your choices are already known, then by definition, you do not have free will. Of course….if God DOESN’T know what you will choose, then God isn’t omnipotent. And we’re sliding into the OOG problem again.

Answer 78

All events follow the physical laws of the universe. You are composed of exactly the same materials as everything else in the universe = you follow the laws too. All events follow the physical laws of the universe. You are composed of exactly the same materials as everything else in the universe = you follow the laws too. THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - States that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It simply changes form. This would mean that all of your physical actions/reactions are controlled by the same law, and that you CANNOT create energy (ie. A thought, or a motion) No thoughts are actually ‘created’ by you. Thoughts are a result of electrical signals (energy) travelling along neural pathways that you didn’t CHOOSE to create. You cannot create energy. Therefore none of your actions (the outward display of earlier thoughts) are created by you either. So… you do not have free will Recent studies even show that you're brain reacts to something before your mind does… so this complicated machine is making your decisions based on inputs, not you

Answer 79

Einstein believed that free will was an illusion. Quantum physics says that bodies in motion cannot be predicted, but are given to random and strange unpredictable motions. It is not really determined, it is more probabilistic. Free will vs Randomness? That would mean that the universe is random and unpredictable. A causal relationship would never really exist. That sounds even worse than no free will – the illusion that our free will actually matters, when in fact, the random movement of subatomic particles makes any ‘choice’ it wants to. We then perceive things, and label them as either inevitable (gravity) or a result of ‘free will’ - when neither is true.

Answer 80

The future is only knowable if we were able to view the whole of space and time from the outside. But for us, and our consciousnesses, imbedded within space-time, that future is never knowable to us. It is that very unpredictability that gives us an open future. The choices we make are, to us, real choices, and because of the butterfly effect, tiny changes brought about by our different decisions can lead to very different outcomes, and hence different futures. These insignificant changes, will determine your possible future choices

Answer 81

Answer: Pyhrro

Answer 82

Answer: Rationalist

Answer 83

Answer: False

Answer 84

Answer: Kant

Answer 85

Answer: God

Answer 86

Answer: Scotland

Answer 87

Answer: Prussia

Answer 88

Answer: categories

Answer 89

Answer: a rationalist

Answer 90

Answer: tabula rasa

Answer 91

Answer: das ding an sich

Answer 92

Answer: Greece

Answer 93

Answer: USA

Answer 94

Answer: Hume

Answer 95

Answer: sensory experience

Answer 96

Answer: USA

Answer 97

Answer: Knowledge

Answer 98

Answer: inductive

Answer 99

Answer: Kant

Answer 100

Answer: means that there is NO actual thing.

Answer 101

Answer: Language

Answer 102

Answer: SUPEREGO

Answer 103

Answer: Media

Answer 104

Answer: flak

Answer 105

Answer: Deconstructionism

Answer 106

Answer: Projection

Answer 107

Answer: Rationalization

Answer 108

Answer: an archetype

Answer 109

Answer: Denial

Answer 110

Answer: Pragmatism

Answer 111

Answer: Matter of fact

Answer 112

Answer: Collective unconscious

Answer 113

Answer: Id

Answer 114

Answer: Aristotle

Answer 115

Answer: Flak

Answer 116

Question Everything Intellectual complacency is the enemy of finding Knowledge

Answer 117

Definitions for knowledge often rely on circular reasoning: Truth being “The opposite of a lie” relies on the lie being “The opposite of the truth” Definitions like JTB are flawed (Gettier’s problem) but generally correct

Answer 118

Rationalism Knowledge is gained through reason and logic alone. Senses cannot be trusted as they are subjective and misleading. Knowledge is gained through deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning. Prominent figures are Plato, Descartes, and Chomsky. Empiricism Knowledge is gained through sense experience and deductive reasoning. The only knowledge that humans can have is a posteriori Humans are a “tabula rasa” at birth, with no inherent knowledge. Prominent figures are Aristotle, Abubacer, Locke VS! Rationalism is deductive, Empiricism is inductive. Rationalism is reliable but relies on intuition to make deductions, ideas you just “know” to be true. Other deductions rely on previous deductions, branching off of our intuitive knowledge. Empiricism is unreliable because it places trust in the senses and uses inductive reasoning but is applicable to the real world much more easily.

Answer 119

Confucius was a Chinese philosopher and teacher during the Spring and Autumn periods of Chinese history. Concept - Ren: Humanity, goodness and benevolence as the foundation of Confucianism. Followers of Ren act as humanely and ethically as possible, reaching for goodness in all their relationships. Ren promotes humanness and respect between all people regardless of social standing, race, or other factors.

Answer 120

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali was a Persian Islamic philosopher, theologian, and mystic. Human reason is limited and unable to find the ultimate truths of the universe. Concept - God is the source of all fundamental knowledge: Knowledge is found with a combination of reason and divine revelation

Answer 121

René Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, often dubbed the "Father of Modern Philosophy.” Concept - Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) was derived from his method of doubt, which removed all knowledge gained by senses as they are unreliable (RATIONALISM!)

Answer 122

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician, known as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers. Concept - Tabula Rasa: The mind is a blank slate from birth and it is formed through sense experience. Locke created the foundational and most unifying work for empiricism

Answer 123

David Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, and economist. Concept - Matters of Fact/Relation of Ideas: Matters of Fact are ideas that are gathered through experience within the world (ie the sun will rise tomorrow) and they are not guaranteed to be true. Relations of Ideas are ideas that arise from pure rational thought (for example math) and they are true by necessity, as being false would cause a logical contradiction. Matters of fact are not useful but 100% true, relations of ideals are useful but not 100% true. Any knowledge we can gain is either useless (Relation of ideas) or flawed (Matters of fact), according to Hume.

Answer 124

Concept - Phenomena/Noumena: Phenomena is the world of human perception and appearances. It is made out of our sensory experience the way our minds organize it to form our experiences. Noumena is the real world, made up of the “Things in of themselves”, independent of human perception. Humans cannot have an understanding of noumena because our understanding of reality is shaped by our own cognitive faculties and conceptual frameworks.

Answer 125

Concept- Perspectivism: Reality is completely subjective, and reaching an objective truth is impossible because all ways to view reality are subjective to each individual.

Answer 126

Concept - Language games: Language is flexible and versatile thing which changes its definitions and rules depending on the contexts in which it is used in. Language changes as a result of social conditions

Answer 127

Concept- Falsifiability: Falsifiability asserts that scientific theories should be open to falsification through empirical testing. He emphasized the importance of conjecture and refutation in the growth of scientific knowledge.

Answer 128

Concept- Gettier’s Problem: Gettier’s problem challenges JTB by showing that knowledge that is justified, true, and believed can still be flawed in its justification. The problem involves a sheep behind a rock, and a person with poor vision. The person sees the rock, and believes it's a sheep. JTB says that the person has knowledge of the sheep, but Gettier’s shows that the knowledge gained is flawed.

Answer 129

Concept: Feminist Standpoint Theory: Knowledge is socially situated, and objective and universal truths do not exist. Social position and experience shape perspectives and truths for each individual social group Marginalized social groups have a heightened awareness of social struggles and power dynamics, and research on social structure and dynamics should start with the perspectives of marginalized groups.

Answer 130

Concept- Language is Innate: Humans are born with language structured into their minds a priori. Linguistic structures are hardwired into the human brain, shaping the way we perceive and understand the world.

Answer 131

Concept - Id, Ego, Super Ego, Defence Mechanisms: The Id, Ego, and Superego are neurological distinctions Freud gives to the human mind to explain the conflict and anxiety humans feel. The Id is pleasure-driven and irrational. The superego follows the rules given to it by society. The ego mediates between the two to give the Id what it wants while also following the rules of society. The Ego is your conscious, and the Id and Superego is your unconscious, fighting itself constantly. Defence mechanisms: Defence mechanisms are tools that our mind uses to hide the anxiety caused by the conflict between the Id and the Superego from ourselves.

Answer 132

Concepts: divides the psyche, collective unconscious, Individuation, Archetypes Divides the psyche into 3 parts: the ego - the conscious mind (like in Freudian theory), the personal unconscious – both your memories and the things you choose to forget (no instincts, unlike in Freud) the collective unconscious – totally new part and the most important Collective Unconscious: This could be called your psychic inheritance, the reservoir of all of our experiences as a species, you are born with it and yet never truly conscious of it Individuation: The central concept of analytical psychology is individuation —the psychological process of integrating the opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development. ARCHETYPES: the contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes. An archetype is an organizing principle – an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. the archetype has no form of its own – it is just the collection of ideas that have been associated with that idea/image for thousands of years. This is supposed to suggest that the archetypes actually do refer to some deep structure of the human mind. We see in a certain way, hear in a certain way, process information in a certain way, behave in a certain way, because our neurons and glands and muscles are structured in a certain way.

Answer 133

Concept - The Floating Man is a philosophical concept where a man is depicted as being suspended in the air without any sensory input since birth, thus devoid of any external stimuli. Despite lacking sensory experience, Avicenna argues that the floating man possesses primordial knowledge of his own existence, suggesting the existence of innate knowledge separate from sensory experience, which he attributed to the transcendent self or “soul”

Answer 134

Charles Pierce (1839 - 1914), William James (1842 - 1910) Concept: Pragmatism is the meaning of a doctrine/idea is the same as the practical effects of adopting it. Any belief might be respectable (or true) if it works. But what does ‘works’ mean? - Many have claimed it is wildly subjective and, therefore, not meaningful. The overall motivation of pragmatism is that ‘truth’ must have a connection with success Problems with Pragmatism - For many, this philosophy is as stupid as it is dangerous. If Nazis were benefited by their belief, does that make it true? If slave owners believed in slavery and felt it was beneficial, is that ok? Does it make racist beliefs, true? Obviously not.

Answer 135

Foucault expanded on Jacques Derriada’s Deconstructionism - there is a relationship between power and knowledge and language. What we take to be knowledge and the ideas through which we understand ourselves are contingent, mutable and ‘ahistorical’ (not developing towards anything better) ‘Knowledge’ changes in response to the need of authority to control and regulate our behaviour as individuals. pessimistic – but we must always re-examine what we think we know Based on Foucault’s reasoning, our political leaders do the same thing as 1984’s doublespeak. Ie. Biosolids mean poop leaks because of sewage Foucault’s Point…is that those who are in powerful positions in society work towards appearing informative while disconnecting any emotional context within which to understand the meaning. Power changes meanings and we are ignorant of what is occurring. We are not just being manipulated you are also doing it to yourself. Even knowing that this is an issue, you will still allow it to happen.

Answer 136

a skeptical approach there is no privileged point that can confer significance or meaning on any given text or situation there is only the limitless opportunity for more commentary and ideas

Answer 137

Concept - The Medium is the Message: the ways in which we receive information are as important and influential as the information itself = maybe more important

Answer 138

a) innate ideas

Answer 139

c) Descartes

Answer 140

d) a priori

Answer 141

b) some knowledge is innate in human beings

Answer 142

e) all of the above

Answer 143

b) deductive reasoning

Answer 144

a) rationalist

Answer 145

c) inductive reasoning

Answer 146

a) believed in both rationalism and empiricism

Answer 147

a) pragmatism

Answer 148

d) all of the above

Answer 149

d) the superego

Answer 150

c) knowledge

Answer 151

archetypes

Answer 152

1. Freud split up our consciousness into three parts; the ID, the EGO, and the SUPEREGO. The ID is your primal instincts, which want to act like an animal and get whatever they want - even when it goes against social rules, the Superego is the rules society has imposed on you that want you to only act in accordance with social rules, and then the Ego is the only of the three that actually represents your consciousness, the other two are unconscious. The Ego gives you a balance between getting some things that you want from your ID while also acting in accordance with social rules. 2. For Freud this caused some problems, he realized that in splitting up our minds like this, we deal with something called anxiety. This anxiety occurs when our Id, Ego, and Superego do not agree. Our Id wants to punch a kid in the face when they shove us, but our Superego won’t let us because it knows this is not allowed in a social context, this is why our Ego introduces defence mechanisms. 3. Defence mechanisms are how we are human beings manage this anxiety that we feel when our Id, Ego, and Superego are not aligned. Our Ego enacts them to deal with this anxiety and hides us from what our Id really wants to do or is feeling. 4. For example, one defence mechanism is called denial, and it involves us actively lying to ourselves to rid feelings of negative emotions. If you were to go through a breakup where you were totally not expecting to get broken up with, you would then put yourself in denial and try to say that the breakup is mutual, because you are not comfortable with the emotions of fear and sadness that your ID is feeling. 5. All of this makes “knowledge” or “truth” very difficult to find because you yourself lie about the “truth” as a defence mechanism. You were broken up with by someone else and it was definitely a decision made entirely by you're ex-partner but you are lying to yourself because you cannot handle the anxiety you are feeling from that situation yet. So, how do we know the truth when we deny ourselves of it? Freud would argue that this is what makes truth very hard to find.

Answer 153

1. Chomsky believed that communication and language are innate to human beings and the structure of our brains. 2. He recognized that as human beings, when we are very young we pick up language quickly and easily. This led him to believe that our communication skills were due to a certain structure in our brains that we are born with and that we do not have to develop once we are born as it is already there 3. This is a priori knowledge, the idea that we need zero sensory experience to learn languages and communicate with one another, it is simply what we are supposed to do as human beings and why our brains are structured that way. 4. As this is a priori knowledge, this makes Chomsky a prominent rationalist. He believed that knowledge was innate and did not require us to have any sensory experience, our mind was already filled with a structure that allowed us to easily pick up on language and communication. 5. In contrast to empiricists like John Locke, who believed that the mind was a “tabula rasa” or “blank slate” at birth, Chomsky believed differently. He believed that the mind already had the structure to communicate effectively, separating him from empiricists, and making him a prominent rationalist.

Answer 154

1. Wittgenstein recognized the unreliable usage of language in our society. He saw that the words that we use to communicate ideas, concepts, etc, were entirely reliant on the context in which they are used and not objective. 2. He then came up with what he called “Language Games,” which is the fact that you could be having an entire conversation with someone and you could both be talking about different things. 3. This is because language is contextual, it depends on the context of the conversation, and most of the time we are able to identify what the other means. However, we have language problems when we misunderstand something. 4. To effectively communicate with someone, I have to hope that the concepts I have attached to the words that I am saying are also the same concepts you have attached. Additionally, we all use different vocabularies to relay this information, again, causing misunderstandings. For example, think of the word “love,” if someone grew up with a good home life and stable parents, they would generally associate love with a good thing. However, if someone lived in abusive situations and only knew physical abuse from someone who claimed to love them, they would think that love is painful. 5. So when Wittgenstein says we only have language problems, he means that all of our words do not have objective meanings, they are subjective to the context and to the people communicating. This is not an issue of philosophy, it is an issue of language because how can we know anything when the language we are using to communicate knowledge is subjective? Wittgenstein is saying that this is the problem.

Answer 155

1. Noumena is the universe in itself, it is the way that knowledge exists beyond our sensory perception. We do not have access to the noumena due to the way our brain imposes itself on the world. 2. Phenomena is how we see the universe, it is how we gather sensory information. We have access to this world because the sensory information we perceive has been categorized by the structures of our brains. 3. The difference is that noumena exists outside of ourselves and it is objective knowledge that we do not have access to. While phenomena exists because of how we perceive it and it allows us to gather sensory information about the world. 4. This was from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant as a part of his “Copernican Revolution.” This was the realization that both empiricism and rationalism can exist, as the reason that sensory information is unreliable is because it happens after our brain imposes itself on the universe. Our brain has categories that we use to organize information, and in doing this we take the world from “things in themselves” aka noumena, to phenomena, which actually allows us to perceive knowledge from our senses. 5. This was significant because it led to psychology, after Kant, Freud began exploring how the mind imposes itself on the world through the Id, Ego, and Superego. Which use defence mechanisms to distort knowledge and make truth difficult to find.

Answer 156

Since 1900 the study of epistemology has become increasingly more fragmented as we struggle to define knowledge. Prominent modern philosophers such as James, Wittgenstein, and Foucault, have continued to change the study of epistemology. Beginning with William James, he helped formulate the philosophy that is known as pragmatism. Pragmatism asserts that something is true and knowledgable if it has a practical use or if it “works.” However, this philosophy has only continued to fragment knowledge because it has a few key issues. Firstly, what does it mean if something “works,” because that is a subjective sentence and what works for one person may not work for another person or an entire group. Secondly, and more importantly, this philosophy is generally regarded as stupid because of how dangerous it is. For example, the Nazis benefitted from their beliefs that they were superior to people in the Jewish community, which then lead to the Holocaust. Additionally, slave owners benefitted from the racist beliefs that led to slavery. From a pragmatic standpoint, this would mean that anti-Jewish and anti-Black beliefs are true and racism is justified, but obviously, this is not true, which is why pragmatism is flawed and only works to distort the study of epistemology. Moving on to Wittgenstein, he came up with the philosophy of “language games” and while I do not see any inherent problems with this philosophy, I can see how it helped fragment the study of epistemology and what we know as “knowledge.” In Wittgenstein’s philosophy, he recognized the subjective and contextual nature of our language. Noting that the “game’ is having a conversation with someone when you both could be thinking about entirely different things because we do not all attach the same concepts to the words we are using to communicate. For example, think of the word “love,” if someone grew up with a good home life and stable parents, they would generally associate love with a good thing. However, if someone lived in abusive situations and only knew physical abuse from someone who claimed to love them, they would think that love is painful. This means that when you have a conversation with someone, you are merely hoping you have both attached the same concepts to the words you are using to communicate, otherwise you risk misunderstanding, which is bound to happen as our language is not objective or universal. Thus, this fragmented epistemology because how can we even talk about studying knowledge when the words we use to communicate our ideas are flawed? This is why Wittgenstein argues we do not have philosophical problems, we have language problems that make it difficult to communicate epistemological ideas. Ending with Foucault, Foucault added to Jacques Derrida’s Deconstructionism to explain how our government and political leaders make it difficult to communicate anything knowledgeable. In Foucault’s Deconstructionism, he explained how knowledge evolves so that our government leaders can continue preventing citizens from uproaring and being enraged by the injustices going on in our society. They do this by what is called “doublespeak” a term coined by George Orwell in his novel “1984.” Doublespeak works by taking the emotion out of a word so that you are actually stating less. For example, instead of calling poor countries poor, governments call them “developing countries,” which takes the emotion out of the fact that these countries are poor and we are not helping them, we are keeping them in that state of poverty, and what are they “developing” towards when they have been called “developing” for decades? This was Foucault’s point, the fact that we are being manipulated to suppress our emotions would make us question our governments, and while we know about this, there is not much we can do to solve it. This is a strong philosophy that definitely fragments the study of epistemology, how are we supposed to talk about knowledge when the language we are using has been designed to say less so we do not critique our current political systems? We cannot and that was the point Foucault was trying to make. In conclusion, prominent modern philosophers such as James, Wittgenstein, and Foucault, have continued to change the study of epistemology, making it more fragmented over the years. This is because each philosopher changes the meaning of knowledge, is knowledge useful, subjective, or constructed by our governments? That is exactly what epistemology tries to define.

Answer 157

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 158

Answer: Eudaimonia

Answer 159

Answer: Morals

Answer 160

Answer: Kant

Answer 161

Answer: Hannah Arendt

Answer 162

Answer: Intrinsic

Answer 163

Answer: Eightfold Path

Answer 164

Answer: Logical positivists

Answer 165

Answer: He would tell him.

Answer 166

Answer: Non-existent

Answer 167

Answer: Kant

Answer 168

Answer: Bentham

Answer 169

Answer: Relativism

Answer 170

Answer: Superman

Answer 171

Answer: virtue ethics

Answer 172

Answer: Theory of Action

Answer 173

Answer: divine command

Answer 174

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 175

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 176

Answer: Relativism

Answer 177

Answer: Galbraith

Answer 178

Answer: Active

Answer 179

Answer: Weak

Answer 180

Answer: stoicism

Answer 181

Answer: None

Answer 182

Answer: it helped us survive

Answer 183

Answer: Descartes

Answer 184

Answer: Aristotle

Answer 185

Answer: Michael Shermer

Answer 186

Answer: Developmental

Answer 187

The Just War Theory

Answer 188

Evolutionary ethics

Answer 189

You would make it a universal maxim.

Answer 190

universally true

Answer 191

Virtue ethics

Answer 192

Affirmative (would agree) Active Theory of Ethical Philosophy Active Theory of Ethical Philosophy would “play God,” by giving the person with terminal illness the ability to kill themselves with consent. The reasoning would be that they have the consent of the person and thus, the terminally ill person should be able to take their life into their hands if they choose so. Negative (would disagree) Passive Theory of Ethical Philosophy The Passive Theory of Ethical Philosophy would “play God,” by not even giving the person the ability to have life-saving treatment. I believe the reasoning would lie in the idea that they are letting “nature take its course.” Thus, this would justify Euthanasia as not being morally acceptable either, because no one should be able to save or kill themselves as it would disrupt “nature’s course of action.”

Answer 193

Affirmative (would agree) Tom Regan, Pete Singer They believe that animals should have the rights to not be used - as entertainment, research, food, clothing, etc. They think we are speciesists because if you want to not give animals rights for their lack of high thinking capabilities, should we also not give rights to people with low IQ or brain damage? Negative (would disagree) Aristotle, Descartes, Kant Aristotle thought that animals did not have a soul and thus, should not have rights. Descartes thought that animals were like machines, they don’t feel pain - they exert the proper “output” response, and thus, they should not have rights. Kant thought that animals were an “end to a means” so that they were merely useful to us but, they do not have rights.

Answer 194

Affirmative (would agree) Immanuel Kant Kant uses his Categorical Imperative to basically say that if we want to make something wrong once, we have to always make it wrong. This is then applied to stealing, lying, and cheating. Thus, in the context of “downloading music,” Kant would view it in line with the categorical imperative to say that it is stealing and it is always wrong. Negative (would disagree) Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism suggests that moral action is one that guarantees “the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people.” In the context of downloading music illegally, this philosophy would say that it is not stealing and not morally wrong. This is because by stealing from one person, a multitude of people are made happy by the ability to listen to their music. Thus, the “stealing” becomes justified, is not really viewed as stealing anymore, and is not morally wrong.

Answer 195

Affirmative (would agree) Sissela Bok Sissela Bok believes that in some circumstances, lying, cheating, and stealing, are justified if “the duty to not lie, cheat or steal” is less than a more important duty, such as the one to not cause harm. In this case, the harm would happen when someone is close to dying, thus, stealing would be justified. Negative (would disagree) Immanuel Kant Kant uses his Categorical Imperative to basically say that if we want to make something wrong once, we have to always make it wrong. This is then applied to stealing, lying, and cheating. Thus, in the context of “stealing to survive,” Kant would view it in line with the categorical imperative to say that it is stealing and it is always wrong, regardless of if you could die.

Answer 196

Affirmative (would agree) Nietzche Nietzche believes that the majority of our society is weak and thus, under the Ubermensch & His Will to Power, it is okay if the more dominant forces of our society lead the way. In this case, the CEOS of the fast food companies would be leading the way to overpower the weak, the children, and this would be morally acceptable as he believes that this Will to Power is simply the way our society is. The strong lead the sheep, and if the sheep are swayed (and want the fast food,) it is okay, it is simply the way of life. Negative (would disagree) Noam Chomsky & John Kenneth Galbraith They believe that advertising creates an unhappy society and artificial happiness and unhappiness. We create mindless consumers in order to make people more profitable, but people then become unhappy on a mass scale without the new “fad” that they are supposed to be buying. Thus, advertising to children here would be morally unacceptable, because when those kids don’t get the fast food, they will be sad, all for the purpose of exploiting them so that their parents will pay these CEOs money.

Answer 197

Over the past 4 years, there have been many times when I will complete a test when I have friends in the same class and then afterwards they will ask me to share with them what was on the test and what answers I put in because they skipped the class period where there was a test. This becomes an ethical dilemma for me because I then have to justify if I am willing to technically commit an academic infraction and kind of “plagiarize” so that my friends do better on the test. It becomes an issue of whether should I help them so that they do not fail, or if I should not help them, in order to avoid the small chance that I could also get into trouble if they get caught, and the teacher realizes our answers are kind of similar. In the end, I justified helping them by sharing the questions and answers with them because I knew they would all be upset if they failed and did not want them to. The ethical system that was closest to the one I used would be Utilitarianism from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In the context of Bentham’s “act,” Utilitarianism, I acted in line with it by following the action of creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people. By helping out multiple people with the risk of incriminating myself, I acted for their benefit and prioritized their greatest happiness. In terms of Mill’s “Rule,” when he says that the actions have to be somewhat socially acceptable, I also acted in line because the action, while kind of cheating, is not entirely academic dishonesty because I am merely someone who did the test before them telling them what is going to happen. If I had like taken a picture of the test and then shown them, that could have been out of social line, however, this was not the case. The ethical system farthest from the one I used was probably Buddhism, buddhists put a lot of emphasis on their minds with the five precepts, because they aim to act morally to clear the mind of any guilt, or anything really weighing on it. For example, one of the five precepts discourages the use of substances like alcohol for it’s effect on the mind. By not prioritizing myself here, my guilt, fears, and worries, about potentially getting in trouble, were still present for the sake of my friends. Thus, I did not follow the five precepts of Buddhism by allowing these factors to weigh on my mind.

Answer 198

Under (1) Virtue Ethics, (2) Buddhist Ethics,) (3) Kantian Ethics, I would agree that I have to take responsibility and get fired instead of firing someone else, as I was the one who lost the client. Firstly, focusing on Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and its Golden Mean, it says that it is morally right to “treat others the way you want to be treated.” In this situation, I should be treating the people on my team, who I have the ability to blame for my mistake, as I would want to be treated. When applying this, I am forced to realize that I would not want to be fired for the mistake of my superior. Thus, I would be forced to tell the Board that it was my mistake because had I been in the position of the people under my authority, I would not want to suffer the consequences of their crime, and then, this becomes my only moral option. Secondly, focusing on Buddhist ethics, the primary goal of Buddhist Ethics is to act in the way that causes the least amount of harm or suffering, either through body or speech, to both myself and the people involved. While the loss of my job here from admitting to my mistake and not firing anyone else, would cause me a significant amount of harm, the guilt of my immorality would feel worse. This is because, on the other hand of Buddhism, Buddhists follow the five precepts in order to focus on having a clear mind and consciousness. While job security would give me some degree of a clear conscience, it would still be riddled with the fact that I fired people under my authority for my mistake. For example, the primary Buddhist precept I am talking about is the one that states that we should not cause harm to others through speech, specifically, through slander. By lying and saying that someone caused the loss of the client when it was really my fault, I am not following this precept. Thus, I am riddling my mind with the guilt, and the harm of the people who I fired to secure my job. In doing this, I am not acting in line with Buddhist ethics. Thus, I would have to tell the Board that it was my mistake because otherwise I would be causing great harm to someone else, breaking one of the five precepts, riddling my mind with guilt, and then, not acting morally. Thirdly, focusing on Kantian Ethics, Kant believes in something called the Categorical Imperative which basically means that if we want to make something wrong once, we have to always make it wrong. This is then continuously applied to stealing, lying, and cheating, in Kantian Ethics. Thus, as a society, when we have deemed lying, cheating, and stealing wrong, they have to ALWAYS be wrong no matter the specifics of individual situations. Thus, in this case, it does not matter that I will be fired if I do not fire someone on my team, because lying by saying someone else caused the loss of the client, cheating my way into keeping my job, and effectively stealing a job away from someone else by firing them, is always wrong under Kantian Ethics. So, if I were to fire someone on my team for my mistake, I would not be following Kantian Ethics. Therefore, the only response I have is to own my mistake, and not lie, cheat, or steal, as it is always wrong. In conclusion, the correct action would have to be owning up to my mistake. While Nietzche would say nowhere in the evolutionary world would this happen, I would agree that at least with my own moral code, that is for good reason. Human beings have been given the ability to rationalize in order to decrease suffering, so if I were to prioritize myself (alike animals) here, I would be acting blissfully ignorant to ignore the suffering of others. I could not feel like an ethical leader of my team, so I would act honestly with the board, own my mistake, and tell them my plan to get us a higher profile client or the one back. I would do this out of pride for the company, and not for the sake of getting my job back. When they see this, I hope they will recognize it and offer me the ability to keep my position, however, if they don’t, I will understand and still feel morally satisfied. This is because I not only acted morally by owning my mistake and not blaming others but then did everything I could to rectify the situation I caused.

Answer 199

Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms.

Answer 200

Deductive: All living people have a heart beat. You are alive, therefore you must have a heartbeat Inductive: The burgers at “The Grind” are good. The pizza at “The Grind” is good. Therefore everything at “The Grind” is good.

Answer 201

Deductive reasoning is always correct if the initial premise is correct. But correct initial premises are difficult to find sometimes without relying on Inductive reasoning. Example – How do I KNOW that all living people have heart beats? Inductive reasoning is all based on very particular and limited knowledge, and can therefore be wrong. Example: Can I really conclude with 100% accuracy that EVERYTHING at “The Olive” is good?

Answer 202

The two biggest problems are: Lazy induction – not drawing a conclusion strong enough for the evidence suggests. “I failed math in Grade 10 and Grade 11, but I’m sure I’ll do okay in Grade 12. Hasty induction – basing a conclusion on an insufficient number of premises or observations. “That kid just failed his math test. He must be totally stupid.”

Answer 203

categorical (universal premises) hypothetical (if-then premises) disjunctive (either-or premises)

Answer 204

major premise minor premise conclusion

Answer 205

universal premises Example of a valid categorical syllogism: major premise: All Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. minor premise: Biff is a Christian. conclusion: Biff believes Jesus is the son of God.

Answer 206

“if-then” premises Example of a valid hypothetical syllogism: Major premise: If Biff likes Babbs, then he’ll ask her to the prom. Minor premise: Biff likes Babbs, Conclusion: Therefore, he’ll ask her to the prom.

Answer 207

“either-or” premises Example of a valid disjunctive syllogism: Major premise: Either Babbs will get her navel pierced, or she’ll get a tongue stud. Minor premise: Babbs didn’t get her navel pierced. Conclusion: Therefore, Babbs got a tongue stud.

Answer 208

Incorrect or flawed reasoning, that often may appear correct.

Answer 209

Aka an ad hominem fallacy This attacks the person arguing in an attempt to undermine the argument. A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of biology...didn’t you fail science?? So this can't be true."

Answer 210

People often MISUSE the ad hominem fallacy, by stating that ANY personal attack is an ad hominem. This is not true. It is ONLY an ad hominem if it is used to discredit an argument. Ex. “Margaret is really stupid.” – NOT ad hominem (just an insult) Ex. “Margaret’s opinion is wrong because she is really stupid.” – this IS an ad hominem If I dismiss an argument as an ad hominem, and it is NOT, then my usage of that term, is an ad hominem attack.

Answer 211

This avoids questioning the idea, and instead uses fact that past practices should allow the idea to exist. “The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and even the British had slaves. We should realize that slavery is morally acceptable.”

Answer 212

The credibility of the person or group is attacked as biased, or motivated by other concerns, but the idea is not questioned. “We shouldn’t listen to Mr. Smith’s opinion. After all, he is really religious.”

Answer 213

An idea is given validity due to the fact that many people support it. (aka Bandwagon Argument) Also can be an…. Appeal to Authority An idea is given validity due to the fact that a seemingly important person supports it.

Answer 214

Misrepresenting another person’s argument in a weaker form, and then attacking the weaker form of the argument. “I cannot believe in Darwin’s theories, because I refuse to think that humans are descended from baboons.”

Answer 215

Attempt to prove an idea by the fact that no evidence exists to the contrary. “Well, it is difficult to find evidence of the UFO invasions in the past, because the government hides it all from us.”

Answer 216

Occurs when the conclusion exists in the premise, usually in a slightly different form

Answer 217

Occurs when a word changes its meaning over the course of an argument. “Power tends to corrupt. Knowledge is power. Therefore, knowledge corrupts.”

Answer 218

A term/phrase is “loaded” when it is used to drive a particular conclusion using terms that carry a particular definition or emotion. Pro-life Terrorist Regime Elite Bureaucrat

Answer 219

When an action or idea is attacked because to would lead to an undesirable chain of events is taken to (an absurd) conclusion. “Why would we want to legalize gay marriage? If we don’t keep the definition of marriage the same, it could lead to polygamy! Or marriage with animals! What would stop it!” ==== this is an Argumentum ad Absurdum

Answer 220

Accident – When a general rule is applied to an exceptional situation. “We spend every summer up at the cottage – so I don’t care if my wife is in the hospital...I am going to the cottage.”

Answer 221

like hasty induction, it occurs when an exceptional situation is used to create a general rule. “I saw a bus stop here once. So even if there isn’t a sign, I am waiting here for the bus.” ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT OUTWEIGH DATA

Answer 222

When it is assumed that the characteristic of a part will transfer to the whole. “Team A has really good players. It must be a good team.”

Answer 223

When it is assumed that the characteristics of the whole can be transferred to each part. “Team B is really good. Every player on that team must be good.”

Answer 224

When an argument is presented so as to appear as though there are only 2 options. “You’re either with us or against us.” “You don’t agree with the Liberals? You must be a Conservative voter.”

Answer 225

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the assertion, not those that disagree. Assertions without proof, can be disregarded without proof.

Answer 226

In this allegory, prisoners are chained in an underground cave, facing a wall where they can only see shadows cast by objects behind them. These shadows are perceived as reality by the prisoners, as they have never experienced anything beyond the confines of the cave. However, when one prisoner is freed and ventures outside the cave, they are exposed to the true reality of the world, illuminated by the sun. This allegory serves as a metaphor for the distinction between the material world accessible through the senses (the cave) and the realm of immutable, objective truths (the World of Forms) accessible through intellectual insight

Answer 227

the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms. Humans have access to the world of forms through the mind, through reason. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. We should hold on to the material world less, and focus more on the forms.

Answer 228

the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms. Humans have access to the world of forms through the mind, through reason. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. We should hold on to the material world less, and focus more on the forms.

Answer 229

Perceived through the senses Constantly changing. It is the world we live in.

Answer 230

The second realm is the immaterial world of forms (ideals) Every human has access to the world of forms through introspection.

Answer 231

Existentialism is a set of philosophical ideals that emphasize the existence of the human being, the lack of meaning and purpose in life, and the solitude of human existence… “Existence precedes essence” implies that the human being has no essence (no essential self).

Answer 232

Anxiety stems from our understanding and recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts us every moment, and the individual’s confrontation with nothingness.

Answer 233

Dread is a feeling of general apprehension. Kierkegaard interpreted it as God’s way of calling each individual to make a commitment to a personally valid way of life.

Answer 234

From human institutions From the past From the future We only exist right now, right here.

Answer 235

The belief is that nothing can explain or rationalize human existence. There is no answer to “Why am I existing?” Humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe and any search for order will bring them into direct conflict with this universe. (closely related to Nihilism - which says nothing matters at all)

Answer 236

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Albert Camus (1913-1960) AND Simone DeBeavoir

Answer 237

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Science was expanding and providing new technology. In medicine, product development, communications, electrical generation, transportation and consumer goods, people thought that the next 100 years would bring peace and prosperity. But by the 1940s, the world had been through global war twice, and a huge economic downturn in the 1930s.

Answer 238

Turing Test: Proposed by Alan Turing in 1950. A test to determine if a machine can exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from a human. Involves a human judge engaging in natural language conversations with both a human and a machine. If the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, the machine is said to have passed the test. Chinese Room: Proposed by John Searle in 1980. A thought experiment to argue against the notion that a computer running a program can have a "mind" or "understand" language. Involves a person inside a room following a set of syntactic rules to manipulate Chinese symbols without understanding their meaning. Suggests that, similarly, a computer can process information without understanding it, challenging the idea that syntactic processing (like in computers) equates to semantic understanding (like in human minds).

Answer 239

– the universe is one thing – the Universe is only one reality, which we can call God or Brahman if we want - written 800-500BCE - the oldest Hindu scriptures that exist We will eventually wake from this world, and we will be in a higher reality We will look back at this life, as if it was a dream – just like a dream, this world only seems real because we are still in it

Answer 240

Taoism – the Tao or the Way – a universal force that governs all things - that isn’t close to a complete definition 500 BCE (ish) by Lao Tzu You must attempt to live in tune with the Tao – to constantly change, not feel attachment to things, and not be overcome by desires Human beings can never grasp ultimate reality.

Answer 241

encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices based on the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama - aka Buddha all life is suffering, which can be limited by controlling our cravings and desires around 500 BCE We suffer because we are attached to our things, our past, ourselves as individuals You are just an illusion = anatta. You are constantly changing, and impermanent.

Answer 242

He's suggesting that your existence is not separate from the unfolding of the cosmos. Just like a wave is not separate from the ocean but rather an expression of its movement and energy, you are an expression of the universe's ongoing activity.

Answer 243

- Ontological God would be the greatest being imaginable. God is Possible Since he is the greatest being, him being real is superior to him not being real Therefore, he must be real Something that exists in reality is superior to something that exists in fantasy. If God didn’t exist, you could imagine something superior (A GOD THAT DOES EXIST) Therefore to fulfill the 1st statement, God must exist. Counter: Not really much of a counter, could be argued that this is just a semantics argument and the concepts of “greatest imaginable” and “god” and “exist” and “not exist” are too vague. Teleological Imagine a little machine thing on the floor of a forest. You would assume purpose and a creator. Things that exhibit a design, have a designer. The designer of the universe and the world would be called “God” William Paley - watchmaker analogy. Counter: Can “order” arise without a creator? Those who disagree say yes. Cosmological All events have causes - those causes have causes - those causes have causes … Either we accept an infinite casual chain or one event/thing that started all the causes. (that start would be called “God” as the “Unmoved Mover”, the one who made it all start.) Counter: What caused God then? God does not explain the universe because nothing explains god.

Answer 244

You have 2 choices Believe You’re right: Heaven :) You’re wrong: Just dead Don’t Believe You’re right: Just dead You’re wrong: Eternal damnation :( Catholic church threatens to excommunicate him for this “Solution”. Pascal's wager isn’t based on faith or belief, but rather just fear of eternal damnation. Counter: There are various religions to choose to believe, which one do you choose?

Answer 245

In Monotheistic religions… God is OOG Omnipotent (all-powerful, capable of anything they wish) Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnibenevolent (entirely, 100% good) BUT… EVIL EXISTS Not just moral evil, but natural evil. Certainly people kill each other or rob each other. People sometimes choose bad actions. But a volcano can wipe out whole cities, and a tsunami can wipe out thousands in mere moments. So if God is all knowing, all powerful and all good, where did EVIL come from?

Answer 246

Natural Evil - tsunamis, earthquakes, death, disease. A child is born with a genetic abnormality, lives for hours in constant pain and then dies, leaving a grieving family in turmoil with mental health issues or substance abuse or a destroyed life. No one CHOSE this, they just happen. Moral Evil - Murder, assault, war, rape, kidnapping. A racist leader begins an international conflict, directly killing millions and indirectly destroying the lives of millions more. A serial killer kills someone. Someone steals. It was based on a choice; a moral failing.

Answer 247

Time is a measurement of order going to disorder. The universe is going from an organized system to a less organized system...the measurement of this is TIME.

Answer 248

Imagine a world where nothing moves. No clocks, no sound (vibrations in air), no wind, no light (motion of electromagnetic radiation through space). Without motion, there is no time. Nothing can age if it is frozen in place. Time, ultimately, boils down to the ratio of distance to motion. T=D/R. You learn this in high school algebra, but most people prefer to think of time as something far more abstract, metaphysical, or philosophical. This would mean that “Time is just the ordering of events as they happen and one follows the next” There is just a series of static times that our brains somehow link together to form a ‘timeline’ - just like a film is a series of static images. Time and movement are now illusions?

Answer 249

Cosmologists would suggest that time began with the creation of the universe--the moment of the big bang, some 13.7 billion years ago. In this regard, time would not be infinite in both directions. It would be meaningless to refer to time before the beginning of time--"before" there was anything to measure. Just because we can conceive of something, such as "before the big bang" or "flying pink unicorns" does not mean such things must exist.

Answer 250

To = Ts /[ (1-v2/c2)0.5] Where T=Time, o=objective, s=subjective, and v=velocity. This is saying that Time is actually dependent on the speed you are travelling. The faster you travel, the slower the time goes. Time is not objective.

Answer 251

Time is an artificial, abstract human invention that mankind uses to organize our recollection and understanding of past events and to anticipate, to some degree of accuracy, predictable future events. In the physical world, there is no time - there is no past, there is no future. Memories of the past, and considerations about the future, are constructs of our own minds - they do not exist in the physical world. Physically, there is only now. It is also possible, that ALL time exists right now. The past is still occuring, and the future has happened somewhere already. Think of the implications if this is true. It is mind-blowing!

Answer 252

Time is the fourth dimension in the space-time continuum. It's a part of the fabric of space-time. The universe exists in three dimensions, and we might call them length, width and depth. It is possible to label them x, y and z. But all of the things in the universe can move through it, and this movement - any movement - happens across the fourth dimension, a dimension we call time. As an object is displaced across a distance in space, it also moves across time simultaneously. Time is not constant, but it is universal, and nothing can happen in space that does not happen in time as well. From the movement of a subatomic particle in any situation to the movement of a galactic cluster through the blackness of the universe, this displacement happens across the dimension of time as well as the three dimensions we're used to thinking about.

Answer 253

Term coined by William James The idea that there could potentially be numerous universes, including our own.

Answer 254

Knowledge is gained through reason and logic alone. Senses cannot be trusted as they are subjective and misleading. Knowledge is gained through deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning. Prominent figures are Plato, Descartes, and Chomsky.

Answer 255

Knowledge is gained through sense experience and inductive reasoning. The only knowledge that humans can have is a posteriori Humans are a “tabula rasa” at birth, with no inherent knowledge. Prominent figures are Aristotle, Avicenna, Abubacer, John Locke

Answer 256

a skeptical approach there is no privileged point that can confer significance or meaning on any given text or situation there is only the limitless opportunity for more commentary and ideas

Answer 257

Derrida says that meaning must be interpreted – it is never objective Many of our ideas are simply linguistic constructs with no objective meaning We are not in control of our language and therefore we are not in control of our thoughts and what we know

Answer 258

there is a relationship between power and knowledge and language what we take to be knowledge and the ideas through which we understand ourselves are contingent, mutable and ‘ahistorical’ (not developing towards anything better) ‘knowledge’ changes in response to the needs of authority to control and regulate our behaviour as individuals pessimistic – but we must always re-examine what we think we know

Answer 259

Definition: Knowledge or justification that is independent of experience. Example: Mathematical truths, such as "2 + 2 = 4," and logical truths, such as "all bachelors are unmarried," are considered a priori because they can be known through reason alone without needing sensory experience.

Answer 260

Charles Pierce, William James The meaning of a doctrine/idea is the same as the practical effects of adopting it Any belief might be respectable (or true) if it works But what does ‘works’ mean? Many have claimed it is wildly subjective and, therefore, not meaningful The motivation of pragmatism is that ‘truth’ must have a connection with success

Answer 261

For many, this philosophy is as stupid as it is dangerous. If Nazis were benefited by their belief, does that make it true? If slave owners believed in slavery and felt it was beneficial, is that ok? Does it make racist beliefs, true? Obviously not. If you work in the oil fields, does climate change become factually incorrect?

Answer 262

Definition: Knowledge or justification that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. Example: Scientific knowledge, such as "water boils at 100°C at sea level," and everyday observations, such as "the sky is blue," are considered a posteriori because they require sensory experience and empirical observation to be known.

Answer 263

Concept - Matters of Fact/Relation of Ideas: Matters of Fact are ideas that are gathered through experience within the world (ie the sun will rise tomorrow) and they are not guaranteed to be true. Relations of Ideas are ideas that arise from pure rational thought (for example math) and they are true by necessity, as being false would cause a logical contradiction. Matters of fact are not useful but 100% true, relations of ideals are useful but not 100% true. Any knowledge we can gain is either useless (Relation of ideas) or flawed (Matters of fact), according to Hume. Phenomenalism: David Hume's philosophical position asserts that all knowledge about the external world is limited to perceptions and experiences, suggesting that truth is confined to sensory impressions. According to Hume, we can only know what we perceive through our senses, and we cannot have knowledge of anything beyond our immediate sensory impressions. In other words, our knowledge is confined to the realm of experiences or phenomena, and we cannot access any underlying reality or substance behind these appearances

Answer 264

Rationalism would say that Knowledge and Reason are the most important sources of knowledge, and your experiences and observations are probably messed up. Reason and logic alone can lead you to knowledge.

Answer 265

Plato - The Cave and the World of Forms - access is innate, using your rational mind

Answer 266

Locke is famous for his empiricist approach to epistemology. He argued that knowledge comes from sensory experience, rejecting innate ideas and proposing that the mind at birth is a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) upon which experience writes.

Answer 267

Aristotle - Inductive Reasoning = knowledge Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience).

Answer 268

Kant sought to reconcile rationalism and empiricism by proposing a transcendental idealism. He argued that while sensory experience provides the raw material for knowledge, it is the mind's innate structures (categories of understanding) that shape and organize this experience.

Answer 269

George Berkeley’s Empiricism But he then develops an EXTREME version of empiricism, known as subjective idealism or solipsism. Our knowledge does not provide enough evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of anything. Luckily, God is perceiving us all the time. So we exist.

Answer 270

Chomsky's work in linguistics has significant implications for epistemology, particularly in his theory of universal grammar. He argues that the human capacity for language is innate and that certain linguistic structures are hardwired into the human brain, shaping the way we perceive and understand the world.

Answer 271

Descartes is known for his method of doubt, which aimed to establish a foundation of certain knowledge. He emphasized the importance of self-reflection and argued that the only indubitable knowledge is that of one's own existence ("cogito, ergo sum").

Answer 272

Philosophical skepticism is a systematic approach that questions the notion that absolutely certain knowledge is possible. Pyrrho of Elis is credited with the foundation of this school of thought - He travelled to India as a young man and was taught by the gymnosophists - the naked lovers of wisdom. Then, he went back to Greece and taught that objective knowledge is impossible to have. All judgements must be suspended.

Answer 273

Concept - Id, Ego, Super Ego, Defence Mechanisms: The Id, Ego, and Superego are neurological distinctions Freud gives to the human mind to explain the conflict and anxiety humans feel. The Id is pleasure-driven and irrational. The superego follows the rules given to it by society. The ego mediates between the two to give the Id what it wants while also following the rules of society. The Ego is your conscious, and the Id and Superego is your unconscious, fighting itself constantly. Defence mechanisms: Defence mechanisms are tools that our mind uses to hide the anxiety caused by the conflict between the Id and the Superego from ourselves.

Answer 274

ARCHETYPES: the contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes. An archetype is an organizing principle – an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. the archetype has no form of its own – it is just the collection of ideas that have been associated with that idea/image for thousands of years. This is supposed to suggest that the archetypes actually do refer to some deep structure of the human mind. We see in a certain way, hear in a certain way, process information in a certain way, behave in a certain way, because our neurons and glands and muscles are structured in a certain way.

Answer 275

Foucault expanded on Jacques Derriada’s Deconstructionism - there is a relationship between power and knowledge and language. What we take to be knowledge and the ideas through which we understand ourselves are contingent, mutable and ‘ahistorical’ (not developing towards anything better) ‘Knowledge’ changes in response to the need of authority to control and regulate our behaviour as individuals. pessimistic – but we must always re-examine what we think we know Based on Foucault’s reasoning, our political leaders do the same thing as 1984’s doublespeak. Ie. Biosolids mean poop leaks because of sewage Foucault’s Point…is that those who are in powerful positions in society work towards appearing informative while disconnecting any emotional context within which to understand the meaning. Power changes meanings and we are ignorant of what is occurring. We are not just being manipulated you are also doing it to yourself. Even knowing that this is an issue, you will still allow it to happen.

Answer 276

Examining whether a certain action, whether connected to body or speech is likely to be harmful to oneself or to others and thereby avoiding any actions which are likely to be harmful.

Answer 277

Five Precepts 1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected. 2) To undertake the training to avoid taking things not given. This precept goes further than mere stealing. One should avoid taking anything unless one can be sure that is intended that it is for you. 3) To undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct. This precept is often mistranslated or misinterpreted as relating only to sexual misconduct but it covers any overindulgence in any sensual pleasure such as gluttony as well as misconduct of a sexual nature. 4) To undertake the training to refrain from false speech. As well as avoiding lying and deceiving, this precept covers slander as well as speech which is not beneficial to the welfare of others. 5) To undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness. This precept is in a special category as it does not infer any intrinsic evil in, say, alcohol itself but indulgence in such a substance could be the cause of breaking the other four precepts.

Answer 278

6) To abstain from taking food at inappropriate times. This would mean following the tradition of Theravadin monks and not eating from noon one day until sunrise the next. 7) To abstain from dancing, singing, music and entertainments as well as refraining from the use of perfumes, ornaments and other items used to adorn or beautify the person. 8) To undertake the training to abstain from using high or luxurious beds are rules regularly adopted by members of the Sangha and are followed by the layperson on special occasions.

Answer 279

Confucius's principle of ren (仁), emphasizes universal love and compassion to foster harmonious social interactions and moral conduct, reflecting profound concern for the well-being of others.

Answer 280

The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a hedonistic perspective) Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are ‘good’. Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (Jeremy Bentham)

Answer 281

Virtue Ethics emphasizes the virtues and character that one has in evaluating if their actions are “right” Goes against Utilitarianism by being concerned with the kind of person one should be and the moral character they create The Golden Mean, an approach to ethics that emphasizes finding the appropriate medium, or middle ground, between extremes. Usually Virtues are things like Honesty, Benevolence, Courage, Modesty, Ambition etc. Vices are the extremes of virtues, and having the excess and deficit vice are both worse versions of the original virtues. Example: The deficit vice for honesty is deceit, the excess vice for honesty is insensitivity. Vices are created by obstacles to virtue, encouraging an individual to lean one way or another due to external circumstances.

Answer 282

Ethical sentences express propositions Some such propositions are true Those propositions are about the attitudes of God.

Answer 283

To follow God’s commands is to be moral To some followers, atheists, agnostics, and followers of other religions cannot be moral. It is both subjective (relative) and objectivist (universal). It is subjectivist because the foundation lies on the individual’s belief in a particular religion. It is objectivist because the rules from that particular religion are to be followed in an absolute fashion, regardless of interpretation. (but that doesn’t happen)

Answer 284

We could feel estrangement/despair - Life would have no meaning - There would be no transcendent Goals We would have no reason to respect others - If humans were not made in God’s image, but unique - If humans were not all loved and valued by God There would be no justice - If there was no divine reward and punishment for following or breaking the rules as given by God

Answer 285

1. It is saying that morality is based on God’s will. If God says ‘kill everyone’ then the action would be, by definition, good. Critics will say that God wouldn’t give an evil command like that - but this response would imply that things are evil before God says they are - which destroys the Divine Command Theory. This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. 2. Divine Command theory implies that God cannot be called ‘good’, because that wouldn’t make sense. If anything he says or does IS right, there is no free will to choose good or evil acts, and therefore God cannot be ‘good’. It also COULD imply that followers of any particular religious faith could not be called ‘good’ as they are behaving in order to receive a reward. Is blatant self-interest, morally good? 3. Often Divine Command is seen as a Naturalisitic Fallacy - things are good because God says they are, and God says you should do this, not any other factor. In other words, things are good not because they CAUSE good, but because God SAYS they are good. 4. There is also an epistemological criticism. How do you know the will of God? How do you know that your religion is the correct one? Seeing as how every situation is not detailed in every religious text, how do you know what God would have you do?

Answer 286

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

Answer 287

This theory emphasizes Ends over Means. Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or consequences are called consequentialist

Answer 288

According to Kant, the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will. A good will is the intention to act according to moral duty, guided by reason, irrespective of the consequences. Acting from a sense of duty and moral law, rather than from inclination or self-interest, is central to possessing a good will.

Answer 289

One way to test if an action is morally permissible is by applying the categorical imperative, which requires that one act only according to maxims that can be universalized without contradiction. A contradiction in conception occurs when the maxim, if universalized, would make the intended action logically impossible. For example, if everyone lied, trust would be impossible, making lying self-defeating.

Answer 290

Another test under the categorical imperative is checking if the universalized maxim could be willed consistently without contradiction. For instance, a maxim of not helping others in need might be logically possible but would contradict a rational will’s desire for assistance when in need.

Answer 291

Moral choices are not based on what you find important, they are actually based upon your cognitive development. Bad morality = underdeveloped intellect and =/= “bad person”

Answer 292

Kant – Categorical Imperative – an action is only right if you want it to be a universal law, and it contains no contradiction = lying is always wrong Sissela Bok – the duty to NOT lie is less important than other duties (like to prevent harm) = deontological, with a twist

Answer 293

Should freedom of expression be absolute? John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor – two philosophers that would say that limits on your liberty are justified only to prevent harm to others. But what is ‘harm’?

Answer 294

Hannah Arendt – pacifist philosopher believes that human beings are morally obligated to use their abilities to settle disputes peacefully Just War Theory Given by NUMEROUS philosophers – Cicero, St. Augustine, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant 6 conditions that a war must have to be considered ‘JUST’ 1. Just cause 2. Right intention 3. Proper Authority 4. Reasonable hope of success 5. Last resort 6. Discrimination

Answer 295

Passive – denying life saving treatment Active – giving a lethal injection, or some other means to actively cause the end of a life Some say that both are ‘playing God’ Others say that you must have the informed consent of the patient = but what does that mean?

Answer 296

The field of exploring the variety of ethical issues developing out of genetic manipulation Negative GM – removing genes Positive GM – enhancing certain traits

Answer 297

Conservation – the environment has instrumental value – it is useful and we should use it wisely Preservation – the environment has intrinsic value, and should be preserved (untouched by humans)

Answer 298

The common Western view has always been that animals have less worth than humans Aristotle – animals have no soul Descartes – animals are like machines Kant – animals are a means to an end Bible – man has dominion over all animals Locke, Newton, Darwin – animals have consciousness, feel pain and have emotions Bentham – animals have sentience Tom Regan, Pete Singer Animals deserve rights – ie. To not be used as food, entertainment, clothing or research. We are ‘speciesist’ – all sentient moral beings should be equal.

Answer 299

The result of a creative endeavour and is owned by the creator and/or the copyright holder. Is downloading music, movies, TV shows, books it morally wrong? Is it the same as stealing? Utilitarian versus Kant – would they reach the same conclusion?

Answer 300

Weakness of Conventional Morality: Ethics cater to the comfort of the majority, whom Nietzsche criticizes as fearful and lacking in greatness.

Answer 301

Dominant Force: Nietzsche sees the "will to power" as the driving ambition in human history, neutral in moral terms.

Answer 302

Utilitarianism: Criticized as promoting herd morality without considering individual greatness. Kantian Ethics: Seen as rationalizing actions after the fact, rather than guiding genuine moral action. Divine Command Theory: Declares "God is Dead," criticizing Christian ethics for rewarding weakness and valuing inversion of moral values.

Answer 303

Ideal Leader: Nietzsche advocates for the Übermensch, who transcends conventional morality and religious constraints. Characteristics: Combines qualities of artist, soldier, and thinker, striving for personal greatness and setting new values. Anti-Religion: Rejects reliance on religious or otherworldly goals, advocating for self-determined values and achievements.

Answer 304

Ethical systems evolved as a method to allow the fewest problems within a tribal environment. Life was difficult, and problems within a tribe could have had serious results. A conflict, or even a lack of unity, could result in death. Harmony in the tribe resulted in increased chances of survival for the individual and the group as a whole. “Good behaviour” is evolutionarily beneficial.

Answer 305

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 306

Answer: Descartes

Answer 307

Answer: Knowledge is innate.

Answer 308

Answer: Deconstructionism

Answer 309

Answer: Socialism

Answer 310

Answer: Existentialism

Answer 311

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 312

Answer: Plato

Answer 313

Answer: Cosmological

Answer 314

Answer: Monism

Answer 315

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 316

Answer: Hume

Answer 317

Answer: Buddhism

Answer 318

Answer: Kant - Categorical Imperative

Answer 319

Answer: Teleological

Answer 320

Answer: Evolutionary ethics

Answer 321

Answer: Computer

Answer 322

Answer: Collective Unconscious

Answer 323

Answer: Language is hard-wired in humans.

Answer 324

Answer: "Nasty, brutish and short"

Answer 325

Answer: People like must sell their labour.

Answer 326

Answer: People that own means of production

Answer 327

Answer: Regulations are bad.

Answer 328

Answer: General statement to specifics.

Answer 329

Answer: love of knowledge

Answer 330

Answer: Hobbes

Answer 331

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 332

Answer: Freud

Answer 333

Answer: Kohlberg

Answer 334

Answer: the fourth dimension

Answer 335

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 336

Answer: Entropy

Answer 337

Answer: Time

Answer 338

Answer: Free Will

Answer 339

Answer: Plato

Answer 340

Answer: Plato

Answer 341

Answer: Locke

Answer 342

Answer: Kant

Answer 343

Answer: Freud

Answer 344

Answer: de Beauvoir

Answer 345

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 346

Answer: skepticism

Answer 347

Answer: Skepticism

Answer 348

Answer: Bentham

Answer 349

Answer: Heidegger

Answer 350

Answer: Hume

Answer 351

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 352

Answer: Rousseau

Answer 353

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 354

Answer: Archetypes

Answer 355

Answer: Gatto

Answer 356

Answer: Existentialism

Answer 357

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 358

Answer: Descartes

Answer 359

Answer: utilitarianism

Answer 360

Answer: Stages

Answer 361

Answer: buddhism

Answer 362

Answer: Engels

Answer 363

Answer: Descartes

Answer 364

Answer: God

Answer 365

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 366

Answer: Wolin

Answer 367

Answer: Howard Bloom

Answer 368

Answer: Shermer

Answer 369

Answer: Arendt

Answer 370

Answer: David

Answer 371

Answer: Buddha

Answer 372

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 373

Answer: Kohlberg

Answer 374

Answer: Id, Ego, Superego

Answer 375

Answer: Deductive

Answer 376

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 377

Answer: attack on the person

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Philosophy Exam Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM