Phil Test One - Philosophy 301: Test One I. Question One A....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Philosophy 301: Test One I. Question One A. Types of Problems and Theories 1. Metaphysics- deals with reality a. What is knowledge? b. Is there a God/gods? 2. Epistemology- deals with different types of knowledge a. What distinguishes true knowledge from false knowledge? b. Accurate vs. inaccurate 3. Ethics- deals with values a. What should I do because of this? B. Two doctrines contained in Euthyphro 1. You can not defend a moral judgment virtue based on the statement of defending a god a. Why? - The philosopher wants to know. b. You must provide a reason- Non-philosophical response c. Not tolerated because it is not an argument 2. Piety has to be apart of justice to be right a. Justice is the key virtue b. Piety is NOT the fundamental C. Define: 1. Argument- Process of reason based on a premise and a conclusion a. A statement, reason or fact for or against a point b. Intended to convince or persuade 2. Validity- State or quality of being valid through an argument a. The premises actually do provide the sort of justification for the conclusion, and then the argument is valid. b. An argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusions. c. All A are B No B is C Therefore, No A is C d. Go to www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm 3. Invalidity- lack of validity 4. Soundness- an argument that has no holes and one that is not only valid, but begins with a premise that is actually true D. Euthyphro’s definitions of piety 1. “Doing what I’m doing here today, prosecuting my father for murder and seeing that justice is done.” 2. Pious acts are loved by the gods. 3. Pious acts are loved by all the gods. E. Fallacy 1. Definition: Component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the argument invalid as a whole 2. Examples
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
a. Suppression of evidence: Premise that intentionally hides the evidence or states the wholeness in order to gain validness 1. Happens in advertisements 2. “No other aspirin has been proven more effective” 3. Truth, but no other aspirin has been proven less effective also b. Argument from ignorance: Premise is true because it has not yet been proven false or is false because it has not yet been proven true 1. A person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view 2. Example: By suppressing evidence United States jumped to Iraq a. Nuclear weapons are being made b. Rumor/intelligence c. Government able to get agenda done by not telling the public all the facts II. Question Two A. Paradox of Inquiry by Meno 1. How can a person look for something when he has no idea what it is that he is looking for? 2. How can he know when he has arrived at the truth when he does not already know what the truth is? 3.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/29/2008 for the course PHL 304 taught by Professor Leon during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 8

Phil Test One - Philosophy 301: Test One I. Question One A....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online