Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

USF: Philosophy > Unit 1: Descartes > Flashcards

Unit 1: Descartes Flashcards

1
Q

arguments of persons

A
  • a dispute among people (groups, individuals)
  • engage against what the other has to say/who is right/wrong
  • win: shouting, tiring opponent, convincing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

arguments of claims

A
  • a defense of a claim (thesis, view, position)
  • analyzing the relations bw claims and their logic to assess the legitimacy of a claim
  • doesn’t matter who is giving it
  • win: when a claim logically follows from a set of other claims (premises)
  • validity and soundess
  • this is philosophy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

arguments

A

-assessed in validity and soundness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

assessing validity*

A

if all premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true
-does the conclusion HAVE to be true if the other 2 premises are true?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

assessing soundness*

A

argument is valid, premises are true, conclusion is true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

invalid*

A

if the conclusion can be false if the 2 premises are true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

valid but unsound*

A

premises force the conclusion to be true, but the premises don’t exist in our universe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

pertinaciously obstinate

A

they never change their mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

entirely disengenuous

A

don’t genuinely believe what they’re saying, they just try to argue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

blind adherence

A

blindly following certain beliefs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

philosophers have

A
  • intellectual integrity: we recognize the need to seek justifications of beliefs
  • critical reflection: we employ reasoning to assess if a position is justified
  • critical or reflective standpoint
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

philosophical disputes

A

often involve the defense of a claim against the defense of another claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

inconsistent claims*

A

claims that cannot be true at the same time

  • can be contrary or contradictory
  • Contrary: cant be true at the same time, but might or can be false ie the wall is solid white, the wall is solid beige
  • Contradictory: both cannot be true simultaneously, but one must be true and the other must be false ie the wall is white, it is not the case that the wall is white
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

consistent claims*

A

can be true simultaneously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

basic propositional and symbolic logic*

A

we can represent sentences in english with symbols

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

~*

A

“it is not the case that” Negation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

—->*

A

“if…then” or “…only if…” Conditional

18
Q

^*

A

“and” “but” Conjunction

19
Q

carrot down*

A

“or” “either…or” Disjunction

20
Q

Modus Ponens*

A

a way of affirming

  1. P—>Q conditional claim…if it rains today gleeson will get wet
  2. P…it rained today
    3: (triangle dots) Q therefore Q…gleeson is wet
21
Q

Modus Tollens*

A

by way of denying

  1. P—>Q
    2: ~Q
    3: (triangle dots)~P…therefore it is not the case that P
22
Q

conditionals

A

P antecedent—–>Q consequent

  • represent necessary conditions and sufficient conditions
  • is P necessary or sufficient for Q? A: Sufficient condition for Q
  • is Q necessary or sufficient for P? A: necessary condition for P
23
Q

Conditionals: necessary

In virtue of what is X a necessary condition for Y?

A

when Y cant be the case without x being the case (a prerequisite)

24
Q

Conditionals: sufficient

in virtue of what is X a sufficient condition for Y?

A

when X cannot be the case without Y being the case (a satisfier)

25
Q

Descartes 1st meditation

A

how does the human mind acquire knowledge?

  • a rejection of aristotelian metaphysics: “knowledge of things in the material world arises from the senses”
  • D: knowledge of things in the material world arises from innate ideas/or arises analytically, subject to maths
  • an analytic method: physics grounded in properties of things such as size, shape, motion, and position, which are measurable
  • math and metaphysics grasped by the mind independently of the senses
26
Q

Descartes 2nd meditation

A

What is the nature of the human mind?

27
Q

radical skepticism

A

D is against radical skepticism

  • i have the reason to doubt each and every belief i have acquired either from the senses or through the senses
  • raises skeptical worries to motivate readers to figure out sources of skepticism in order to address the,
28
Q

3 famous skeptical arguments for radical skepticism

A
  1. argument from illusion
  2. dream argument
  3. evil demon argument
29
Q

illusion argument

A

-it is prudent to never completely trust your senses because they can fail you
Px—>Qx
x=senses
P=failed
Q=not trust
1: if x has deceived me, its prudent to never trust it completley
2: my senses have sometimes deceived me (x)
C: so, its prudent for me to never trust my senses (Qx)
-valid argument

30
Q

Dream argument 1st interpretation

A

-reason to doubt even those beliefs acquired from or through certain senses that seem rather impossible to doubts
-challenging no sure signs to know when you are asleep or awake
1: if there arent sure signs of sleep v awake, then theres P—>Q always reason to doubt being awake
2: these beliefs are acquired from the senses
C: so, there is reason to doubt each and every belief acquired from or through the senses

31
Q

evil demon argument

A

reason to doubt beliefs about everything else ie math, geometry
-the sky, earth, colors, shapes, sounds etc are all delusions of dreams which an evil demon has devised to ensnare judgment

32
Q

dream argument 2nd interpretation

A
  • not focusing on whether your’e awake or not, but questioning whether waking experiences are a better guide than your dream experiences
  • is there really a connection bw seeming to see something and there actually being that thing in the world?
  • Advantage: less about if you are awake, more about reason to doubt our senses
33
Q

arguments from possibility general formula

A

1: its possible i believe P when its not true that P
2: if thats possible, then i cant be certain that P
3: So, i cant be certain P
- unsound, since premise 2 is likely false
- cant be used w metaphysical bc your psychological states have nothing to do with the metaphysics of something
- diagnosis: the argument seems plausible, but it involves an equivocation of 2 different senses of possibility with in the argument
- 1st premis: epistemic
- 2nd premis: metaphysical
- Thus, the argument is invalid

34
Q

epistemic possibility

A

what is compatible with what you know

about us, about what individuals believe and can be certain of

35
Q

metaphysical possibility

A

what is compatible with the nature of things in the world

36
Q

logical possibility

A

what is conceptually compatible with one another

about the logical relations between things and logical categories

37
Q

cogito ergo sum

A

“I think, therefore i exist” famous

“I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever I think it” not as famous

38
Q

incorrigibility

A

some propositions seem to have peculiar logical properties
a proposition is incorrigible just in case: if i believe X, then X is true
ex: there are 12 planets in our solar system A: No, even if you believe it, there might not be 12
-You can doubt it, but as soon as you believe it, you make it true

39
Q

super incorrigibility

A

if i even consider or think X, then x is true
ex: I exist
if a proposition has the logical property of being super incorrigible, and you happen to believe it, then it seems that you can be certain of its truth
-whenever you think anything, you exist
self verifying: if i think it, then it is true in virtue of my thinking it

40
Q

the self

A

how exactly are we to understand the I in I think?
Descartes attempts to convince us of 2 things: we have a fundamental idea of self without any bodily representation, we have a fundamental idea of self we did not get through the senses
-rejects common accounts of the self: as a rational animal, or a body with a soul: idea of self depends on sense perception
-D account of self: I am or i exist only implies “I am a thinking thing” epistemic, we acquire a view of a physical body

41
Q

idea of a physical body

A

ex: the idea of a piece of wax, where does it come from? not from a sense impression of a particular piece of wax
- they are not from our imagination in relation to some sense impression of wax
- the idea of wax isnt given by our imagination bc various waxes are infinite, which the imagination is incapable of accounting for
- the nature of wax is perceived “by the mind alone”
- idea given to us by pure mental scrutiny

42
Q

idea of the self

A

the nature of the I is also perceived by the mind alone
-the idea of self only implies a thinking thing
-in judging that i am something that exists i have such an idea from purely mental scrutiny, independent of any sense perception
epistemic: for all i know, i might be a purely thinking thing
metaphysical: my mind is a purely mental entity, distinct from matter
ie brain is given in 6th meditation

USF: Philosophy (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions