Philosophy Exam Flashcards

Question 1

Q

Two types of Logic

Deductive and Inductive
Wrong and Right
Categorical and Disjunctive
Compound and Singular

Answer

A

Answer: Deductive and Inductive

Question 2

Q

He died by hemlock poison.

Plato
Socrates
Aristotle
Bacon

Answer

A

Answer: Socrates

Question 3

Q

Out of the people we examined, he believed that the Gods were responsible for all creation.

Thales
Anaxagora
Socrates
Hesiod

Answer

A

Answer: Hesiod

Question 4

Q

This field of philosophy examines reality.

Ethics
Logic
Epistemology
Metaphysics

Answer

A

Answer: Metaphysics

Question 5

Q

What is the correct order?

Socrates, Aristotle, Plato
Alexander, Socrates, Plato
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
Aristotle, Socrates, Plato

Answer

A

Answer: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle

Question 6

Q

“You’re just wrong! You must be because your grades are horrible!”

Strawman
Slippery Slope
Composition
Ad hominem

Answer

A

Answer: Ad hominem

Question 7

Q

Plato’ school was called:

The Lyceaum
The Academy
The Agora
Hogwart’s

Answer

A

Answer: The Academy

Question 8

Q

Either day or night. Its not day, so it must be night.

hypothetical
categorical
syllogynistic
disjunctive

Answer

A

Answer: disjunctive

Question 9

Q

The Keg makes great food. So their steak must be good.

deductive
inductive
reductive
suductive

Answer

A

Answer: Deductive

Question 10

Q

The World of Forms was an idea from:

Aristotle
Pythagoras
Plato
Thales

Answer

A

Answer: Plato

Question 11

Q

Every object in the ____________________ is flawed.

Monistic world
Material world
Form world
First world

Answer

A

Answer: Material World

Question 12

Q

The cause of consciousness:

is unknown
is in the pineal gland
was a topic of Nietzsche
is dualist

Answer

A

Answer: is unknown

Question 13

Q

The tao is also known as _____________________

The Form
The Way
The Cave
The Wave

Answer

A

Answer: the way

Question 14

Q

The Sun represents:

Death
Life
Knowledge
Power

Answer

A

Answer: Knowledge

Question 15

Q

The Cave story is known as______________________

an analogy
an allegory
a metaphor
a simile

Answer

A

Answer: An allegory

Question 16

Q

The Value of Philosophy was written by:

Ayn Rand
Bertrand Russell
Plato
Aristotle

Answer

A

Answer: Bertrand Russell

Question 17

Q

You can believe…and then go to heaven!

Ontological
Telelogical
Pascal
Cosmological

Answer

A

Answer: Pascal

Question 18

Q

The founder of Buddhism was:

Atman
Kongfuzi
Guatama
Lao Tzu

Answer

A

Answer: Guatama

Question 19

Q

God would be the greatest being imaginable.

Teleological
Ontological
Cosmological
Pascal

Answer

A

Answer: Ontological

Question 20

Q

The universe is made up of ONE thing.

Monism
Universalism
Identity
Singularism

Answer

A

Answer: Monism

Question 21

Q

Which is a proposition?

RUN! NOW!
Do you like cake?
My aunt is sick.
JUST DO IT!

Answer

A

Answer: My aunt is sick.

Question 22

Q

Philo and sophia. What is most correct below?

Knowledge and power
Friend and Knowledge
Love and Books
Love and wisdom

Answer

A

Answer: Love and wisdom

Question 23

Q

Entropy is

Body fat
Breaking down
Breaking Bad
Laziness

Answer

A

Answer: Breaking down

Question 24

Q

Which is NOT a reason to doubt free will?

All-knowing god
Thermodynamics
Existentialism
Quantum theory

Answer

A

Answer: Existentialism

Question 25

Q

Argument by design

Teleological
Ontological
Cosmological
Pascal

Answer

A

Answer: Teleogical

Question 26

Q

An earthquake destroys a village.

Evolutionary evil
moral evil
fallacious evil
natural evil

Answer

A

Answer: Natural evil

Question 27

Q

You have a personal conversation with God.

natural theology
revealed theology
academic theology
abnormal psychology

Answer

A

Answer: Revealed theology

Question 28

Q

Which order is correct?

Plato, Alexander, Socrates, Aristotle
Aristotle, Socrates, Plato Alexander
Alexander, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander

Answer

A

Answer: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander

Question 29

Q

When you realize you have freedom, according to Existentialism.

Happiness
Sadness
Anxiety
Joy

Answer

A

Answer: Anxiety

Question 30

Q

The highest form in the World of Forms is:

Goodness
Table
Friendly
Happiness

Answer

A

Answer: Goodness

Question 31

Q

Anxiety in Existentialism…

is when you have a test you didn’t study for.
is when you are late for work.
is when you realize you are free.
is when you can’t determine valid versus sound

Answer

A

Answer: is when you realize you are free.

Question 32

Q

Socrates is from:

Athens
Sparta
Rome
Milesia

Answer

A

Answer: Athens

Question 33

Q

Hesiod explained the universe using:

Logic
Religion
Observation
Philosophical deduction

Answer

A

Answer: Religion

Question 34

Q

Which would be a ‘form’?

Basketball
Sun
Circle
Wheel

Answer

A

Answer: Circle

Question 35

Q

Metaphysics is the study of:

Knowledge
Logic
Meaning
Reality

Answer

A

Answer: Reality

Question 36

Q

What is Metaphysics? What type of topics are discussed in Metaphysics?

Answer

A

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

Question 37

Q

Hesiod:

Answer

A

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.

Question 38

Q

Thales:

Answer

A

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

Question 39

Q

Anaximander

Answer

A

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.

Question 40

Q

Anaximenes

Answer

A

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.

Question 41

Q

Xenophanes

Answer

A

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.

Question 42

Q

Why Study these People? - Ancient Greek Philosophers

Answer

A

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.

Question 43

Q

Around this time…

Answer

A

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

Question 44

Q

Plato - World of Forms vs Material World - why did he come up with this idea?

Answer

A

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.

Question 45

Q

What is a form? Why did he believe in an actual “WORLD” of forms? (circles)

Answer

A

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.

Question 46

Q

How can this idea be applied in various contexts?

Answer

A

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.

Question 47

Q

Aristotle - How he differs from Plato
Why didn’t he like Plato’s ideas?

Answer

A

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?

Question 48

Q

How is Aristotle much more scientific than Plato?

Answer

A

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

Question 49

Q

Natural vs Revealed Theology - know the difference

Answer

A

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”

Question 50

Q

Three Arguments for God and their problems

Answer

A

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.

Question 51

Q

Pascal’s Wager - Why should people believe in God, according to Pascal?

Answer

A

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?

Question 52

Q

The Problem of Evil - natural vs moral evil - What is the difference?
The OOG God and why its a problem for religion

Answer

A

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?

Question 53

Q

Natural vs moral evil - What is the difference?

Answer

A

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.

Question 54

Q

Theodicy - explanations of evil - Soul-Making and Free Will Defense

Answer

A

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.

Question 55

Q

Upanishads - what is ultimate reality?

Answer

A

– 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

Question 56

Q

Taoism - the way - Lao Tzu - live within the Tao

Answer

A

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.

Question 57

Q

Buddhism - existence is suffering - better understanding of what is important (4 noble truths) leads to less suffering

Answer

A

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.

Question 58

Q

“You are what the universe is doing right now, just like a wave is what the ocean is doing right now”

Answer

A

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.

Question 59

Q

EASTERN VERSUS WESTERN

Answer

A

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.

Question 60

Q

Existence Precedes Essence

Answer

A

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).

Question 61

Q

Anxiety

Answer

A

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.

Question 62

Q

Despair

Answer

A

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.

Question 63

Q

Alienation

Answer

A

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

Question 64

Q

Absurdity

Answer

A

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 65

A

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

Answer 66

A

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 67

A

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 68

A

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 69

A

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 70

A

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 71

A

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 72

A

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 73

A

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 74

A

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 75

A

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 76

A

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 77

A

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

Answer 78

A

Answer: Pascal

Answer 79

A

Answer: Appeal to Pity

Answer 80

A

Answer: Teleological argument

Answer 81

A

Answer: Hume

Answer 82

A

Answer: Time

Answer 83

A

Answer: Existence precedes essence

Answer 84

A

Answer: Nihilism

Answer 85

A

Answer: Plato

Answer 86

A

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 87

A

Answer: Omnintelligent

Answer 88

A

Answer: Good

Answer 89

A

Answer: Reality

Answer 90

A

Answer: Natural

Answer 91

A

Answer: Way

Answer 92

A

Answer: Bad Faith

Answer 93

A

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 94

A

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 95

A

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 96

A

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 97

A

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 98

A

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 99

A

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 100

A

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 101

A

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 102

A

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 103

A

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 104

A

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 105

A

Answer: Pyhrro

Answer 106

A

Answer: Rationalist

Answer 107

A

Answer: False

Answer 108

A

Answer: Kant

Answer 109

A

Answer: God

Answer 110

A

Answer: Scotland

Answer 111

A

Answer: Prussia

Answer 112

A

Answer: categories

Answer 113

A

Answer: a rationalist

Answer 114

A

Answer: tabula rasa

Answer 115

A

Answer: das ding an sich

Answer 116

A

Answer: Greece

Answer 117

A

Answer: USA

Answer 118

A

Answer: Hume

Answer 119

A

Answer: sensory experience

Answer 120

A

Answer: USA

Answer 121

A

Answer: Knowledge

Answer 122

A

Answer: inductive

Answer 123

A

Answer: Kant

Answer 124

A

Answer: means that there is NO actual thing.

Answer 125

A

Answer: Language

Answer 126

A

Answer: SUPEREGO

Answer 127

A

Answer: Media

Answer 128

A

Answer: flak

Answer 129

A

Answer: Deconstructionism

Answer 130

A

Answer: Projection

Answer 131

A

Answer: Rationalization

Answer 132

A

Answer: an archetype

Answer 133

A

Answer: Denial

Answer 134

A

Answer: Pragmatism

Answer 135

A

Answer: Matter of fact

Answer 136

A

Answer: Collective unconscious

Answer 137

A

Answer: Id

Answer 138

A

Answer: Aristotle

Answer 139

A

Answer: Flak

Answer 140

A

Question Everything
Intellectual complacency is the enemy of finding Knowledge

Answer 141

A

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 142

A

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 143

A

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 144

A

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 145

A

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 146

A

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 147

A

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 148

A

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 149

A

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 150

A

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 151

A

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 152

A

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 153

A

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 154

A

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 155

A

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 156

A

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 157

A

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 158

A

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 159

A

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 160

A

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 161

A

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 162

A

a) innate ideas

Answer 163

A

c) Descartes

Answer 164

A

d) a priori

Answer 165

A

b) some knowledge is innate in human beings

Answer 166

A

c) Pyrrho

Answer 167

A

e) all of the above

Answer 168

A

b) deductive reasoning

Answer 169

A

a) rationalist

Answer 170

A

c) inductive reasoning

Answer 171

A

b) Popper

Answer 172

A

a) believed in both rationalism and empiricism

Answer 173

A

a) pragmatism

Answer 174

A

d) all of the above

Answer 175

A

d) the superego

Answer 176

A

c) knowledge

Answer 177

A

archetypes

Answer 178

A

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 179

A

Chomsky believed that communication and language are innate to human beings and the structure of our brains.
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
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.
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.
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 180

A

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 181

A

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 182

A

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 183

A

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 184

A

Answer: Eudaimonia

Answer 185

A

Answer: Morals

Answer 186

A

Answer: Kant

Answer 187

A

Answer: Hannah Arendt

Answer 188

A

Answer: Intrinsic

Answer 189

A

Answer: Eightfold Path

Answer 190

A

Answer: Logical positivists

Answer 191

A

Answer: He would tell him.

Answer 192

A

Answer: Non-existent

Answer 193

A

Answer: Kant

Answer 194

A

Answer: Bentham

Answer 195

A

Answer: Relativism

Answer 196

A

Answer: Superman

Answer 197

A

Answer: virtue ethics

Answer 198

A

Answer: Theory of Action

Answer 199

A

Answer: divine command

Answer 200

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 201

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 202

A

Answer: Relativism

Answer 203

A

Answer: Galbraith

Answer 204

A

Answer: Active

Answer 205

A

Answer: Weak

Answer 206

A

Answer: stoicism

Answer 207

A

Answer: None

Answer 208

A

Answer: it helped us survive

Answer 209

A

Answer: Descartes

Answer 210

A

Answer: Aristotle

Answer 211

A

Answer: Michael Shermer

Answer 212

A

Answer: Developmental

Answer 213

A

The Just War Theory

Answer 214

A

Evolutionary ethics

Answer 215

A

Free will

Answer 216

A

You would make it a universal maxim.

Answer 217

A

universally true

Answer 218

A

Virtue ethics

Answer 219

A

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 220

A

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 221

A

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 222

A

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 223

A

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 224

A

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 225

A

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 226

A

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 227

A

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 228

A

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 229

A

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 230

A

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

Answer 231

A

major premise
minor premise
conclusion

Answer 232

A

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 233

A

“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 234

A

“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 235

A

Incorrect or flawed reasoning, that often may appear correct.

Answer 236

A

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 237

A

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 238

A

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 239

A

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 240

A

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 241

A

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 242

A

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 243

A

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

Answer 244

A

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

Answer 245

A

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 246

A

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 247

A

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 248

A

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 249

A

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 250

A

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 251

A

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 252

A

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 253

A

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 254

A

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 255

A

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 256

A

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

Answer 257

A

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

Answer 258

A

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 259

A

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 260

A

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 261

A

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

Answer 262

A

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 263

A

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

Answer 264

A

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 265

A

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 266

A

– 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 267

A

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 268

A

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 269

A

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 270

A

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 271

A

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 272

A

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 273

A

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 274

A

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 275

A

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 276

A

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 277

A

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 278

A

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 279

A

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 280

A

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

Answer 281

A

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 282

A

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 283

A

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 284

A

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 285

A

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 286

A

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 287

A

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 288

A

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 289

A

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 290

A

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 291

A

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 292

A

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

Answer 293

A

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 294

A

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 295

A

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 296

A

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 297

A

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 298

A

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 299

A

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 300

A

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 301

A

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 302

A

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 303

A

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 304

A

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 305

A

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 306

A

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 307

A

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 308

A

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 309

A

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

Answer 310

A

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 311

A

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 312

A

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.
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?
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.
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 313

A

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

Answer 314

A

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

Answer 315

A

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 316

A

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 317

A

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 318

A

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 319

A

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 320

A

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 321

A

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 322

A

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 323

A

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

Answer 324

A

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 325

A

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 326

A

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 327

A

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

Answer 328

A

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

Answer 329

A

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 330

A

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 331

A

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 332

A

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 333

A

Answer: Descartes

Answer 334

A

Answer: Knowledge is innate.

Answer 335

A

Answer: Deconstructionism

Answer 336

A

Answer: Socialism

Answer 337

A

Answer: Existentialism

Answer 338

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 339

A

Answer: Plato

Answer 340

A

Answer: Cosmological

Answer 341

A

Answer: Monism

Answer 342

A

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 343

A

Answer: Hume

Answer 344

A

Answer: Buddhism

Answer 345

A

Answer: Kant - Categorical Imperative

Answer 346

A

Answer: Teleological

Answer 347

A

Answer: Evolutionary ethics

Answer 348

A

Answer: Computer

Answer 349

A

Answer: Collective Unconscious

Answer 350

A

Answer: Language is hard-wired in humans.

Answer 351

A

Answer: “Nasty, brutish and short”

Answer 352

A

Answer: People like must sell their labour.

Answer 353

A

Answer: People that own means of production

Answer 354

A

Answer: Regulations are bad.

Answer 355

A

Answer: General statement to specifics.

Answer 356

A

Answer: love of knowledge

Answer 357

A

Answer: Hobbes

Answer 358

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 359

A

Answer: Freud

Answer 360

A

Answer: Kohlberg

Answer 361

A

Answer: the fourth dimension

Answer 362

A

Answer: Hesiod

Answer 363

A

Answer: Entropy

Answer 364

A

Answer: Time

Answer 365

A

Answer: Free Will

Answer 366

A

Answer: Plato

Answer 367

A

Answer: Plato

Answer 368

A

Answer: Locke

Answer 369

A

Answer: Kant

Answer 370

A

Answer: Freud

Answer 371

A

Answer: de Beauvoir

Answer 372

A

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 373

A

Answer: skepticism

Answer 374

A

Answer: Skepticism

Answer 375

A

Answer: Bentham

Answer 376

A

Answer: Heidegger

Answer 377

A

Answer: Hume

Answer 378

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 379

A

Answer: Rousseau

Answer 380

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 381

A

Answer: Archetypes

Answer 382

A

Answer: Gatto

Answer 383

A

Answer: Existentialism

Answer 384

A

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 385

A

Answer: Descartes

Answer 386

A

Answer: utilitarianism

Answer 387

A

Answer: Stages

Answer 388

A

Answer: buddhism

Answer 389

A

Answer: Engels

Answer 390

A

Answer: Descartes

Answer 391

A

Answer: God

Answer 392

A

Answer: Chomsky

Answer 393

A

Answer: Wolin

Answer 394

A

Answer: Howard Bloom

Answer 395

A

Answer: Shermer

Answer 396

A

Answer: Arendt

Answer 397

A

Answer: David

Answer 398

A

Answer: Buddha

Answer 399

A

Answer: Nietzsche

Answer 400

A

Answer: Kohlberg

Answer 401

A

Answer: Id, Ego, Superego

Answer 402

A

Answer: Deductive

Answer 403

A

Answer: Utilitarianism

Answer 404

A

Answer: attack on the person

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Philosophy Exam Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM