The fallacy of composition Flashcards
Question: What is a strength of cosmological arguments from contingency?
The strength of cosmological arguments from contingency is their seeking an ultimate explanation rather than only a first cause.
Answer: The strength lies in their pursuit of an ultimate explanation rather than solely a first cause. These arguments delve into the fundamental nature of beings, considering not just their causal relations but also their ontological status, whether they are contingent or necessary. Contingent beings and series are recognized to require an external explanation, as their very nature entails dependence on something else for their existence.
Question: How do cosmological arguments from contingency differ from those focused solely on a first cause?
The strength of cosmological arguments from contingency is their seeking an ultimate explanation rather than only a first cause.
Answer: Cosmological arguments from contingency seek to provide an ultimate explanation rather than merely identifying a first cause.
They delve into the fundamental nature of beings, considering not only their causal relations but also their ontological status, whether they are contingent or necessary. Contingent beings and series are recognized to require an external explanation, as their very nature entails dependence on something else for their existence. This approach goes beyond identifying a temporal origin and aims to address the deeper question of why things exist as they do.
Question: What is the fallacy of composition?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: The fallacy of composition occurs when one assumes that what is true of the parts of a thing must also be true of the whole.
Question: How does the fallacy of composition apply to cosmological arguments from contingency?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: In cosmological arguments from contingency, the fallacy of composition suggests that inferring the contingency of the entire universe based on the contingency of its parts may be unwarranted.
Question: What is an example of the fallacy of composition?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: An example is assuming that because every human has a mother, the human race as a whole must have a mother, which is not true.
Question: What criticism does the fallacy of composition pose to cosmological arguments?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: It challenges the inference that because every part of the universe is contingent and has a cause, the universe as a whole must also be contingent and have a cause.
Question: How does Hume illustrate the fallacy of composition?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: Hume uses the example of a finite set of contingent beings to show that just because the parts have explanations, it does not mean the entire set must have an explanation.
Question: What problem does the fallacy of composition pose for Aquinas’ third way?
Weakness: Hume & Russell on the fallacy of composition.
Answer: It suggests that the argument commits the fallacy of composition by assuming the universe has a cause based on the contingency of its parts, which may not be logically valid.
Question: How does Copleston defend the cosmological argument against the fallacy of composition?
Evaluation defending the cosmological argument
Answer: Copleston argues that contingency arguments, like Aquinas’ third way, don’t actually infer from parts to the whole. Instead, they reason that a series of contingent things must have an external cause.
Question: What is Copleston’s argument regarding the necessity of a series of contingent things?
Evaluation defending the cosmological argument
Answer: Copleston argues that a series of contingent things cannot be necessary, as no amount of contingent things, not even an infinite number, can be necessary. Therefore, such a series must have an external cause, according to his reasoning.
Question: How does Hume challenge the cosmological argument?
Evaluation defending the cosmological argument
Answer: Hume questions how we know that a series must have a cause or explanation. He challenges the assumption made in Copleston’s argument that an uncaused series must have an internal explanation.
Question: How does Leibniz avoid the problem raised by Hume?
Evaluation defending the cosmological argument
Answer: Leibniz’s a priori argument avoids the problem by being based on intuitively known necessary truths, rather than empirical experience.
He argues from the principle of sufficient reason, which asserts that everything must have a sufficient explanation for why it is as it is.
