PAPER TERM ASSIGNMENT DUE 12.10
FINAL EXAM - DEC 14TH @ 1PM
DESCARTE & HUME
----------------------------------------9/17/07 CONNECTION BETWEEN SOCRATES & PLATO Socrates - has a procedure in questioning people (THE SOCRATIC METHOD AKA THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION) - the reason why Plato's dialogues take the form they do. Platonic Dialgoes - In the beginning, a particular form of Q. is raised its usually Socrates who raises the Q or someone in the audience. [what is x?] Socrates looks for an accurate & precise definition in order to clarify ideas. METHOD HAS TWO VARIANTS THAT RESEMBLE EACHOTHER 1. Form is always - WHAT IS [X]? <- a way to clarify ideas Socrates looks for an accurate & precise definition in order to clarify ideas. - Central Q. of dialogues. *DIALOGUE CALLED "MINO"* - Always adopt the answers - what are the other truths? - PROCESS OF ELIMINATION* - sometimes answer to :"What is X?" could be "X is Y." 2. SOCRATIC METHOD - TAKE ANY ANSWER THATS OFFERED AND IF IT LEADS TO A CONTRADICTION THEN IT MEANS FOR REJECTION. - In mathematics, its called NEGATIVE PROOF. - Negative Proof - version whcih has the answer led to contradiction. - Magician - Reduction Absurdity: If you're wrong, I'm right. - Earlier Dialogues that end without an answer are generally SOCRATIC. *DIALOGUES WITH AN ANSWER IS PLATO* - Plato agrees with the Socratic doctrines (when it comes to morality) Plato v. Socrates [Metaphysics] Mathematical ratio
9/19/07 Platonism- apart from everything experience there are "idos" [ideas or forms -> independence existing more real] something that resembles our englsh ideas.
"Form is more real than the thing itself."
Plato is a Nativist [someone who thinks that knowledge is innate; we are born with it] We become born with this ability to know mathematics, but more than that, to know the underlying form or idea of things. Is a circle really a circle? Is a line really a line? Dimensions.. Intellectual Reasoning.. Socrates - "midwife" of ideas; bringing out the ideas that are already contained in others to the world; "I do not teach. I have ideas of my own... bring out the ideas of others."
Socrates is interested in morals & ethics. Ethical Idealism - universsal set of standards that apply to all human beings at all times simply exists on its own [autonomy of ethics] (resembles religious absolutism) Religious absolutism - universal set of standards derives from some divine power; God/the gods ordained this.<- even the gods must subscribe & are subjected to the obligation of morality
"A GOOD MAN NEVER HARMS ANYONE" - SOCRATES - doesnt think that there are any good men in the world - quote is more of an idealization; trying to achieve it since it doesn't exist - there is no absolutely good man "NO MAN DOES EVIL KNOWINGLY" - SOCRATES - Socrates thinks theres a continuity between knowledge and reality - he who knows what is right and he who knows what is wrong will NEVER do what is wrong - when someone does evil it is symptomatic ignorance; lack of knowledge "NO ONE CAN TOUCH YOUR SOUL/CHARACTER" - SOCRATES - the only person that can corrupt ones soul is ONES SELF. - this is the worse thing that can even happen to anyone [accd. to Socrates] - one is harming ones self in the worse possible way "IT IS BETTER TO SUFFER EVIL THAN TO COMMIT IT" - SOCRATES - they can harm me physically but not my soul - they cannot harm my soul; i can only harm my soul MYSELF "THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING" - SOCRATES - MOST FAMOUS QUOTE - IN MORALS/ETHICS. - what is the most valuable thing in life? - what sort of living is valuable in human beings? has to be a living that is constant with human nature - accd to Socrates: Human beings are creatures possessed with "logos"* Greek term: means language; logic/reason - Aristotle: A human being has potential but not all are reasonable/logical EUTHEPHRO Euthephro - charging his father with murder - If he succeeds, his father is executed but if he fails then he himself will be executed - shows how serious the matter is - Socrates tells E. if he were in his situation, he wouldn't know what to do and he says, "It seems to me
that only someone who know the difference between right and wrong would know what to do in the situation, so I assume you know the differences." - Socrates - Aware that the Athenians have a set of standards as to wha constitutes the difference between right and wrong; what they are morally obliged to do and what they are forbidden to do - Socrates treats Euthephro with care; doesn't demize him or makes him feel stupid but admires him for his attitude - Euthephro as young as he is, has fortold many events; Socrates, "Euthephro is holy enough to be in contact with the gods."; EUTHEPHRO IS A MYSTIC/PROPHET. PIETY - prosecuting those who committed sacrelig and murder; what is pleasing to the gods - does that have to do with justice that must be paid to the gods? - a derivative concept from justice - EUTHEPHRO TO SOCRATES: THE ART OF RECEIVING AND GIVING BETWEEN MAN AND GOD - SOCRATES -> QUESTIONS THIS IDEA - impiety - what is displeasing to the gods - giving examples rather defiinitions occurs often in Plato's Dialogues - ethical egoism - i am the soul judge of my conduct MINO - asked by Socrates, "What is virtue?" - there are different kinds accd to Mino - theres virtue for the mother and virtue for the child - theres virtue for the master and virtue for the slave.. etc 9/26/07 DOES THE SOCRATIC OBJECTION ON EUTHEPHRO'S ANSWER HAVE ANY EFFECT ON TODAYS IDEAS? ETHICAL EGOISM - the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.
EUTHEPRO - "WHAT IS RIGHT IS WHAT PLEASES THE PEOPLE, WHAT IS WRONG IS WHAT DISPLEASES THE PEOPLE" THE WORD PEOPLE CAN BE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS - WHAT'S RIGHT IS WHAT PLEASES THE GROUP. - OR MAYBE IT CAN BE AN INDIVIDUAL - ETHICAL RELATIVISM: the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. - SOCRATES' VIEW ON RELATIVISM: - DIFF STANDARDS ARE CORRECT FOR DIFF. GROUPS OF PPL - EUTHYPHRO -> UTILITARIAN MENTALITY - YOU CANNOT INFER WHAT IT IS RIGHT TO DO ON THE BASIS OF WHATEVER THE FACTS MAY BE
10 01 07
ARISTOTLE - RATIONALIZOR OF THE MYTHICAL PERIOD - PLANETS REVOLVE AROUND EARTH IN PERFECTLY CIRCULAR MOTION
- super lunary sphere - above the orbit of the moon; motion is perfect here. - sublunary sphere - beneath the orbit of the moon; motion is horizontal/vertical (less than perfect domain of reality) - After Aristotle, [the rise of Judaochristian]
- Live your life a particular way and you'll be rewarded, in this life or the next - how do you the thngs that you are studying about are real? - scientists answer: if i can meausre it its real - primary/secondary quality distinction - Galileo: the real world is mathematical, and the rest of it which isnt is not real - plays a role in FORMATION N DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL OF CONCEPTUAL FRAME
DESCARTE
- SCIENTIST, BUT MORE OF A PHILOSOPHER - INTERESTED IN MERGING SCIENCE OF NATURE - ANALYTIC GEOMETRY - CREATED BY DESCARTE - AND DESCARTE - GREAT MATHEMATICIANS AND PHYSISTS - HAD A CERTAIN APPEEAL THAT NEWTONS PHYSICS DID NOT HAVE - IT SEEMED SIMPLER; PYSICS THAT LENT ITSLEF TO THE HUMAN IMAGINATION IN WHICH NEWTONS PHYSICS DID NOT - NEWTONS PHYSICS HAD A KIND OF MYSTERY THAT NO ONE COULD SOLVE UNTIL THE 20TH CENTURY; EVEN NEWTON HIMSELF WORRIED ABOUT IT - WHAT WAS PROBLEMATIC? CONCERNERD WITH THE PHENOMENON OF ACTION AT ITS DISTANCE - A FULLY DEVELOPED SCI. THEORY REQUIRES A CONSERVATION PRINCIPLE* IN IT * there are different ones but there has to be one or else theres a problem with the theory - IN DESCARTES, HE HAS LAWS HE LAYS DOWN [ONE OF THEM IS A CONSERVATION LAW] - THE MOMENTUM IN IT IS NEVER CREATED NOR EVER LOST; ALWAYS TRANSFERED WITHIN BODIES. - IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT NEWTON BORROWED FROM DESCARTES' LAWS - DESCARTE IS A RATIONALIST
10.9.07 skeptics & rationalists - share a common conception of what knowledge is [knowledge - something you must be certain of] DESCARTE: looking for certainty "if you can take any one of the beliefs i have, and believe that it may not be true, then it can't be a certainty and if it isnt a certainty it isnt knowledge and if it isnt knowledge i will set that belief aside until i can get support for it with an argument" I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.<- does not prove that i existed prior to this very moment - can i know whether i exist from now? 10.10.07 THE MIND ACCD. TO DESCARTE IDEAS inventive ideas - golden mountains, mermaids, etc.. adventitious - the gold, women, etc.. invented innate
volitions & affections judgmentTHE CAUSE OF THINGS MUST BE GREAT AS THE EFFECT AQUINAS 10.17.07 If God exists, then His existence is necessary If God does not exist, then His existence is impossible Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible God's existence is impossible if and only if the existence of God is self-contradictory But the concept of God is not self-contradictory THEREFORE, GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NECESSARY Descarte - has accomplished what he set out to accompllish [Letter he wrote to the church fathers - proves to the athest & matherialists] - That the self & God are better known that the external world - He has proven the existence of an immaterial,thinking self and yet he does not know of the existence - Not only do I exist but God also exists - Descarte does want to get back to a public world; world of his former beliefs [material mind] - trying to buid a bridge from the internal panarama out to the public domain - selects a category of ideas that seem to candidate for having source outside the mind. - ideas that come upon him w.o willing; he hears, smells, touches those things - i do not know whether these adventitious ideas are caused by me - i dont feel that i am in conrtol of these dreams that i have ; in some unconscious process i am a cause. - how do i know that the adventitious ideas are caused by that? [like dreams] - Now that i know that there's a God, Ibelieve that there are ideas that are directly made by God that are brought to me, - could God, the perfect being, be a deceiving? <- causes Descarte to laucnh farther into Cartesian psychology - He wants us to consider what possible motives anyone would have to deceive us. - 2 reasons anyone would want to deceive anyone else 1. if an indiv. is unable to attain some goal, they would do this/ 2. sheer malice - the desire to harm - Descarte: God is a perfect being; He is omnipotent and powerful - my understanding of a perfect being would hold characteristic of omnipotence - such a being would not want to hurt. - GOD CANNOT BE A DECEIT GOD. - why did God make ME so imperfect if He is perfect? - ex: Why did he make me someone that confuses wrong from right? Why didn't he make me more knowledgeable?
- If he is all powerful he would have this ability. - athiest will say, "well this destroys our whole conception as a perfect being, but maybe tehre isnt a god?" - THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: b/c i do not know that it is better costructed then it seems then it is. Dualist - ppl who think nature is comprised of 2 diff entities (body n soul) - descarte believes in mind/body dualism or dualistic interactionism (body n mind affect eachother) - descarte; knowledable about human physiciology; had to do w human cadavers - despite this knowledge, he gave terrible info - how can something described as non phys affect something phys w.o knowing (mind/body problem) - later on, it gets complicated (whole concept of problem arises)
10 22 07 THE MIND AND BODY PROBLEM - MENTAL:RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE PHYSICAL Descarte: believes that the mental & phys. are intimately related - the way in which they relate seems to make sense in a common sense perspective - bodies are in physiological space ; moods are not. - if you believe that we think w/ our brains (if you think that mental processes begin in the brain), then you believe in materialism (centralism<- mind is brain central) - Aristotle - thought/feeling are centered in the heart (was a materialst/centrist) - centrism - not te most sophisticated version of materialism [criticizes dualist] -peripheralism - believe centralist are too naive & simplistic; mental events are a complex/series of interaction with diff. pts of the bodies [brain, nerves, endocrine, etc..] not just the brain. - IDEALISM - BERKELY - the reason why the mind/body prob hasnt been resolved b/c both dualist n materalist that there are bodies
WHAT TO KNOW FOR MIDTERM - SOCRATES, PLATO, EUTHYPHRO - PHILOSOPHY & METAPHYSICS REVIEW:
METAPHYSICS - STUDY OF ULTIMATE REALITY
* THE WORD DERIVES FROM ARISTOTLE * PLATO'S METAPHYSICS IS AN OUTLOOK OF A PROBLEM/ A PUZZLE * IN THE FIRST PLACE, HIS METAPHYSICS RESEMBLES ANOTHER VIEW THAT CAME MUCH FURTHER -> CAME FROM THE PYTHAGOREANS [LIVED 200 YRS BEFORE PLATO] - PYTHAGOREANS CLAIMED THAT THE WAY TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE WORLD IS TO EXPLAIN IT BY USING AN UNDERLYING MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE * PYTHAGOREANS HAD A PURELY MATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS WHEREAS PLATO EXTENDS IT BEYOND MATHEMATICS. * MUST MAKE REFERENCE TO THE IDEAL CIRCLE/RECTANGLE .. THERE IS AN UNDERLYING ESSENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ALL THINGS NOT ONLY MATHEMATICS. * WHY THIS VIEW OF THINGS? it comes from a puzzle * PLATO WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING.. * IN HIS VIEW IT'S NOT KNOWLEDGE WHAT * MAY BE TRUE TODAY, MAY NOT BE TRUE TOMORROW * OBSERVATION IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER OBSERVATION * THIS KIND OF OBJECT IS BELIEF WHERE IT IS OR ISNT SUBSTANTIATED BY OBSERVATION * SOMETHING IS TRUE IF IT ISNT SUBEJCT TO REVISION [IT WAS TRUE YESTERDAY, ITS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL BE TRUE TOMORROW] * IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT PARALLEL LINES NEVER MEET. - MATHEMATICIANS MAKE THESE STATEMENTS - BUT HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN - HOW DO THEY DO THIS? HOW IS IT THAT THEY CAN COME UP WITH SUCH CERTAINTY? WHERE DOES THIS KNOWLEDGE DERIVE FROM? - PLATO IS CERTAIN THAT IT DOESNT' DERIVE FROM SENSE EXPERIENCE - EX: YOU KNOW THAT 2 IS LESS THAN 3 BUT MORE THAN 1 BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? - IN PLATO'S CONCEPTION OF REALITY THERE ARE DEGREES OF REALITY GOING FROM LEAST REAL TO MOST REAL - PLATO USES TERM: IDOS [IDEAS] - FOR US, THE WORD IDEA IS SOMETHING WE CAN TALK/THINK ABOUT - PLATO AGREES, BUT FOR US IDEAS CANNOT EXIST W/O US - FOR US, IDEAS DEPEND ON US.. BUT FOR PLATO THE IDOS EXISTS APART FROM US. - IT ALREADY EXISTS W.O US DESPITE OUR TALKING/THINKING ABOUT IT - IF THERE WASN'T AN IDEA OF A CIRCLE THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS ROUND OBJECT - IF THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS THE IDEA OF A TREE, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY TREES.. - FOR PLATO THIS LESSER DOMAIN THE DOMAIN OF EVERY DAY EXPERIENCE DEPENDS ON THE GREATER DOMAIN, THE DOMAIN OF IDEAS.
SOCRATES
* KNOW THE SOCRATIC BACKGROUNDS IN HIS LIFE * RELATIONSHIP B/T SOCRATES & PLATO * HIS VIEWS / HIS DEATH * OCCUPATION: STONE MASON & A CARVER * HE INTERRIGATED AUTHORITATIVE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY IDEAS * WHY IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD IMPORTANT? * THERE WERE NO LAWYERS * SOCRATIC METHOD - A GOOD MAN NEVER HARMS ANYONE, NO ONE DOES EVIL KNOWINGLY, ITS BETTER TO SUFFER EVIL THAN TO COMMIT IT, THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING, LEARNIG IS LIKE REMEMBERING * IF SOCRATES WERE LIVING TODAY, WHAT WOULD WE CONSIDER HIM TO BE? * KNOW ABOUT PIETY & IMPIETY - EPISTOMOLOGY - THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE; ORIGIN, THEORY AND LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE - SOCRATES BELIEVES IT ALREADY RESONATES IN US - WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD/DIALETICAL METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION? ask questions to get the answer you're looking for - SOCRATES ALWAYS DEMANDS FOR AN ANSWER/DEFINITION - SOCRATES SEEMS TO HAVE WIELD THIS PROCEDURE AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED IT WELL -
*DIALOGUE OF EUTHYPHRO *ETHICAL IDEALISM <- socrates & plato both agree with this
* WHAT IS ETHICAL IDEALISM - THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT OR WRONG IN EVERY SITUATION THAT APPLIES TO ALL BEINGS IN ALL TIMES/PLACES * SOCRATES IS A DEFENDER OF ETHICAL IDEALISM NOT OF RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISM
WHO ARE THE SOPHISTS?
* EDUCATORS - THEY TAUGHT A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS * THEY TAUGHT MATHEMATICS AND FINANCE.. ETC * SOPHIA [MEANS WISDOM] <- THEY WERE WISE MEN
EUTHYPRO
* TAKES HIS FATHER TO TRIAL FOR MURDER * as a citizen i have a duty to bring the criminal to justice* * HE IS IGNORING, AS SOCRATES SEES IT, IS THAT HE IS THE SON AND HE HAS A LOYALTY THAT HE SHOULDN'T IGNORE <- BIG CONFLICT * SOCRATES WOULD'NT KNOW WHAT TO DO!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10.31.07 HALLOWEEN!!
EMMANUEL KANT - recognized as a major force in philosophy 11.5.07 imperisists - believe that there are no dominent ideas David Hume - "if we observe our own characteristics and magnifty them without limit" -> expand on the idea and lead to omnipotence - longevity w/o limit = eternity - "the idea of God is invented" - Descarte - Descartes version is meanable b/c of our language - ex: you wouldn't know what real money is unless you knew about counterfit. - Hume -> reductionism - position that any complex entity can be broken down into its component parts out of which it's comprised. - the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts - Hume -> reductionist of ideas - a genuine is, because its made up of those component parts, is reducable to those parts.. if it cant be broken down its meaningless. - reductionism can go beyond ideas - people who are opposed of science/reductionism -> emergenists - reductionist - historical accident - some of these sciences have advanced in different paces - "once inorganic matter acheives a certain level of complexity sufficient to be defined as organic, new properties emerge that cannot be explained by physical or chemical law" - emergenists idea - Hume - partly psychology partly epistomology - criterian of verifiability - meant to be a standard by which u can distinguish meaningless statements to meanful statements - maybe my waking state is nothing but a dream state? - "the elimination of theology" what is our position on the meaningfulness of a proposition, god exisits
- if by the word god we believe of something invisible and being a voice then no i don't believe it - Heir - accused of being an atheist - a mistake to accuse of atheism -> the believer is the one who thinks God exists and find it meaningful.. the nonbeliever [atheist] thinks that God does not exists is meaningful.. not agnostic, atheist. he doesn't think that the statements have any meaning. 11.13.07 Hume - soft determinism: allows the possibility of free action - causation: nothing more than correlation - the same motives follow the same actions .. the same actions follow from the same causes - human action, like every other action, is caused - cause of action -> MOTIVES. [motives, dispositions, tendancies, habits, etc..] - there isnt any incompatibility that my actions are a cause or my actions are free. they can be free&determined at the same time [how so?] because the issue has been badly put [accd. to Hume] - determinism vs. freedom - Hume admits that 1 way of accounting for human conduct is their motives [an individual's personality] - how does a person acquire the personality that they have? - a providence in a future - Hume takes on the question of God's existence - there is enough evidence to say there is/isn't a God - Hume: AGNOSTIC *delusion - pathology; distorted belief *delusion of persecution - another pathology *auditory hallucination - somethings wrong w/ you *ordinary experience doesn't make illusions *ordinary everyday views is neither an illusion, hallucination or delusion - rationist v. imperist -> mind/body problem
- the dualist [descartes view] - idealist [views of bishop barker] - neither minds nor bodies [neutral moment] - HUMES IDEA (to resolve this issue we must look at the language) - none of these positions are just definable 11.29.07 * 20th cent philosopher - Gilbert Riley [1900-1976] "The Concept of Mind" [published in 1949] a criticism of the dualistic position concerning the mind/body problem - ordinary language analysis - th meaning of mental concepts is radically misconstrued by dualist esp. by dualist like Renee Descarte - Riley: materialist view but not materialist metaphysics - he calls the view "logical behaviorism" to distinguish it from psychological behaviorism - wants to show that the dualist view is mythological in his conceptual consequences [calls it: the myth of the ghost in the machine] DESCARTES VIEW ACCD TO RILEY - every human being has both a body and a mind - the body and mind are ordinarily harnested together but after the dath of the body it is possible the mind can function independently [body = public // mind = private] - a person has direct and unchallengeable cognisms - the metaphors of inners and outers leads to a problem; how the persons mind/body can influence one another - there are 2 diff kinds of existence/status .. what exists/happens may have the status of phys existence or of mental existence. *guessing, hoping, dreading, etc.. are suppose to denote the occurences of specific modifications of a persons occult stream of consciousness ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
final review
DESCARTE & HUME
distinction between primary & secondary audities *secondary - sensations & emotions *primary - mathematical - immutible, objective, absolute first person to use those words is John Locke - find this in Copernicus, Galileo & Newton - science around 17th cent is convinced that the key to uncovering the truths of the world are mathematical *Pythagoreans - the structure of reality is to be uncovered by mathematics - many scientists were not philosophically equipped - mathematical would be location, motion, size.. - non-mathematical would be color, flavor, odor.. - Galileo interpreted this distinction - had a naive position that there are only mathematical properties.. everything else is an illusion - we think objects are color, odorous because we are accidentally sentient creatures [the world wouild get along fine w/o these properties.] -Descarte agrees partly with this primary/secondary distinction but he is much more reasonable with regard to it. - It is his interpretation that takes hold [subjective/objective] - he agrees partly with Galileo - objective properties are the mathematically expressables - DISAGREES that Galileo makes the mistake that b/c secondary qualities are not in the physical bodies, therefore they dont exist.. THATS NOT THE CASE.. the question is WHERE DO THEY EXIST? - secondary qualities do not exist in the physical body - second. qualities are in us [IN OUR MINDS] - Locke adopts Descartes idea - secondary qualities are in our minds b/c they are produced in our minds - THE VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT we saw was Descarte's version - Kant & Malcolm also had diff. ideas - Descartes Onto. Arg. is the 2nd argument that he has that doubts God's existence. - essential & inessential properties of ideas - claims that we form ideas in a very special way. - every property of God is a perfection - God is made out of perfection; everything about him is perfect and all that he stands for - it is more perfect to exist than not to exist - it is impossible to think of God as non-existent - standard version [few centuries ago] St. Ansom - target audience for Ansom is diff than Descartes - Malcolm - the concept of God is NOT contradictory
12.5.07 - adventitious ideas: pain, sound, etc - i do not know whether these adventitious ideas are caused by me - i dont feel that i am in conrtol of these dreams that i have ; in some unconscious process i am a cause. - how do i know that the adventitious ideas are caused by that? [like dreams] - invented idea [ex:mermaid 1/2 woman 1/2 fish] - innate [resembles invented idea b/c i can conjur them up at will - BUT you cannot trace them back to other ideas they just seem to be there] - affections - emotions&feelings / mental happenings - judgment - separates it out as an independent act/category [a complex thing] - its not just that when i make a judment its either true or false b/c in every judgement that i make its a complex of judments
Descarte
rationalists - there is such thing as knowledge; must be defined with certainty [knowledge is not derived from experience but from reason] imperisists difference between them is: how knowledge is acquired omnipotence, eternity and infinity are perfections * im thinking of a perfect being that is not omnipotent <- not possible * it is more perfect to exist that not to exist. * if the perfect being is thought of then it MUST exist * Gods existence -> the idea is innate AQUINAS [see notes above] *in terms of cosmological argument - aquinas says there has to be a first cause something that gets it going [one concept: GOD] - only God is thought of as an uncaused cause
Hume
- is it true that the world displays only justice/goodness? humes' says NO. - accd to Hume the evidence for wisdom/beauty/justice is only about 50/50 - if we were to ask Hume if he believes in God, he wouild say that he is Agnostic. - analogical pt. [double comparisons] - comparing a clock to the universe; comparing a clockmaker to God - HOW SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR ARE THESE THINGS BEING COMPARED? - its not a comparison that one can make at all [accd to Hume] - God surpasses all human understanding - the whle of the argument from design falls apart if i cannot compare God to any being, even a clockmaker - most consistent of the impericists [the view that anything is in mind must have originated in a sense experience] - theres something in the cause that would've enabled us to infer it - the only reason that we make any sort of inference [forward/back: causes to effects/effects to causes]; we've had this event over and over again - some acts are determined by one set of causes - Hume, "I've never spoken/see God.. so I do not know what he is like. I know there are people who have made claim to seeing/speaking to God"
- GOD SURPASSES ALL HUMAN UNDERSTANDING - God is like a clockmaker? <- no. - I have a sense experience in the clock and the clockmaker but not GOD. - Hume continues to comply principles beyond his predecessors [Barclay & Locke] - Locke - 1st of modern empericists; attacks docrine of innate ideas - Hume - series of sensations/make up a pt of my biography - my memory and my personal biography make up MYSELF - NEUTRAL MONISM - [monism - single substance] both materialism and idealism is a monism [materialism- only matter; idealism- only mind] - THIS POSITION IS NEUTRAL [with regard to whether there is such a thing as matter or such a thing as mind] ; there is neither mind nor matter just sets of data - Descarte & Hume - the consequences - misinterpretation of certain elements of the sci. method [both rationalist n imperisist- something about sci. method that is revealing of the truth] rationalist - emphasizes the mathematical side; impericist - emphasizes the experimental side