Unformatted text preview: What are the two tenets of rationalism? 1. At least some knowledge is innate. Reason alone can provide genuine knowledge. How did the developments in Descartes’ time influence his “method of doubt”? 3.2. The telescope and microscope were invented. Showed that the world was more complex (things that are far away and small are a lot different than they seem to be). Therefore we should be suspicious of beliefs we base off of sense. List Descartes’ three criteria for a foundational principle. 4.3. It has to be totally self evident and impossible to doubt. Must be ultimate. Must be about an object that exists. What is Descartes’ “cogito” and what is one major criticism to it? 4. Cogito- I think therefore I am. Descartes is only justified in that he is in thought, not that he is a thinking thing. Why doesn’t Descartes think that God would deceive anyone? 6.5. Because God is perfect and deception is a mark of weakness. Spinoza claimed that the only substance is what? How, then, does he account for the existence of individual people? 7.6. Spinoza said that the only substance is God. Individuals are modes of God. Leibniz claimed that a substance is what? What is the connection between mind and body, in his view? 8.7. Leibniz claims that everyone is a monad. The mind and the body are “pre-
established harmony”. What are the two tenets of empiricism? 9.8. None of our ideas are innate. Reason is insufficient to extend our knowledge. Locke claimed that, at birth, the mind is what? In what two ways do we acquire knowledge? 9. The mind is a clean slate at birth. We get knowledge through sensation, introspection, and reflection. Explain the difference between primary and secondary qualities, giving an example of each. 11.10. Primary Qualities are like shape, size, location (don’t depends on perceptions.) Secondary qualities depend on perceptions- color, odor, ect. Why did Berkeley deny that there are any physical substances? 12.11. Berkeley says that “to be is to be perceived.” Everything depends on perception. Hume claimed that there are two kinds of perceptions? What are they and what is the connection between them? 13.12. Ideas are copies of impressions. Impressions are sense experiences. Why did Hume claim that we have no idea of a “cause”? 14.13. We have no impression of a cause therefore we cannot get an idea. Why did Hume claim that we have no idea of a “self”? 15.14. We have no idea of a self because we have no impression of a self. What kind of argument is the “design argument”? In that case, why can’t we be certain about its conclusion?15. The design argument is inductive. Even is all the principles of the argument are true, it only makes the conclusions very probable. Explain Descartes’ three stages of doubt and how he passes through each. 2.16. Our senses sometimes deceive us, therefore they always deceive us (to accept the concept of error we have to at some point be correct.) Dreams often seem like conscious states, then how can we be sure that we are not dreaming right now (we wouldn’t know what dreaming is unless we have a standard comparison between reality and dreaming- tests could be a dream). An evil demon can be deceiving us (If I am deceived than at least I know I exist.) List and explain the four problems with Descartes’ skepticism. 3.17. He never proves that we cannot “know” what is in the external world. Descartes never doubts the meaning of the words he uses. For Descartes, doubt is only theoretical, it does not apply to practical matters. Descartes seems to set too high a standard for knowledge Explain Descartes “wax analogy,” stating at least three of its implications. 4.18. Descartes observes a honeycomb wax. As the physical object changes from solid to a liquid substance, our sense-
perception of it changes as well. Yet, we still know it is a honeycomb wax. Does all of our knowledge really depend on sensation? If you lost all your external senses, would you lose all of your knowledge? If all physical items are destroyed, does your memory of them vanish with the objects? First, explain Descartes’ argument for dualism in Meditation II. Then, present the objection to that argument. Next, provide Descartes’ better argument for dualism in Mediation VI. 5.19. We can doubt the existence of our bodies, we cannot doubt the existence of our minds, therefore, the mind is distinct from the body. The “Lois Lane” Objection- Lois Lane is certain Superman saved her, but doubts that Clark Kent saved her, therefore, Superman is not Clark Kent. Second Argument- I have a clear and distinct perception of my mind as separate from my body. God exists and he would not deceive me. God can create whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive is true, therefore, my mind is distinct from my body. First, explain why Descartes believes that God would never deceive anyone. Then, explain how it is possible that human beings sometimes make mistakes in judgment. 6.20. Descartes believed that God would never deceive anyone because he is an all perfect being and deception is an imperfect mark. He claims that the faculty of judgment and freewill can sometimes be hasty. Why does Cleanthes reject Philo’s version of skepticism? What dilemma does he pose to try and refute this doctrine? Why does he believe that Philo is inconsistent? 7.21. He rejects it because it is totally impractical. The only sincere part of skepticism is extreme skepticism, which is impossible to live with. Either we take skepticism seriously, or we don’t. He thinks that Philo is being insincere because he accepts things like the Copernican hypothesis, he wouldn’t be a skeptic if he accepted that. What is Cleanthes’s “irregular design argument” in Part III of the Dialogues What are the two analogies he invokes to support this argument? 8.22. Irregular design argument- because on two analogies- the voice in the clouds (if we were to here an articulate voice to all languages in the clouds, we would assume there is an intelligent mind that is belongs to). The vegetable library analogy (if there was a library of vegetables, we would assume there was someone with intent that made that happen). The belief that nature is the work of an intelligent designer is a natural belief that works like these two analogies. Explain why Cleanthes’ conception of God undermines his own position, making reference to Hume’s “Bundle Theory,” The arbirtrariness of stopping with a plan in a divine mind, and anthropomorphism. 9. 23. Cleanthes’ believes that we have an adequate belief of god. If God is just a bundle of conceptions it conflicts with the perception of God and means that there is no substantial God. If God can come up with a thought, nature can bring order to itself. * It drags God down to an ungodly level. It does away with that God can be a person. Any plan god has needs a cause, if it is self caused, then why not stop with nature. <- I have NO idea what he was saying here In Part IX of the Dialogues Demea provides an “a priori” argument for God’s existence which is then criticized by Cleanthes. Just list and EXPLAIN Cleanthes’s four criticisms to Demea’s argument. 10.24. ONLY LIST AND EXPLAIN. “Hume’s Fork”- The only way to prove anything is by showing that it’s denial leads a contradiction. We can’t prove the existence of anything. To say we have an all being being we can’t prove. 2. Even is there is a being, then why can’t it be nature. 3. Why hasn’t Demea considered that the universe can of itself impose its own order. 4. The fallacy of composition- Demea suggested that the explanation for a series must lie outside the series. IF you explain each individual that would be enough. In Part XI of the Dialogues, Philo contends that there is less reason to infer a deity than there is evidence in its favor, referring to the inferential problem of evil. List and EXPLAIN the four circumstances that he claims are unnecessary and avoidable. 25. The inferential problem of evil claims that there is so much evil in the world that is makes God’s existence unlikely (so many unnecessary evils). Pain and discomfort. If you were God, why leave it up to general laws to govern the world- why wouldn’t you intervene. There are enormous inequalities among creatures- why not make equal, humans are the weakest. There are a lot of natural disasters- tornados, earthquakes, ect.- why leave open the possibility for these natural disasters if you are a perfect all knowing being? Long Essay Options 1. First, provide Descartes’ first proof for God’s existence in Meditation III. Then, present at least one criticism to that proof. Next, provide Descartes’ “ontological proof” for God’s existence in Meditation V. Then, present at least one criticism to that proof. Finally, present the Cartesian Circle problem, explaining how it is connected with Descartes’ proofs for God’s existence. Is this a vicious circle? Explain CIRCLE I can trust my clear perceptions because I know God exists. I know God exists because I have a clear idea of it. – Not a vicious circle because at the beginning of the meditations he realizes that everything he doubted wasn’t justified. Because he discovers God, he realizes he had not reason to doubt. ¡Everything, including our ideas must have a cause. ¡We have an idea of God ¡Causal Adequacy Principle. úBasically, something cannot come from nothing. ¡Thus, nothing less than God is adequate to be the cause of our idea of him. ¡Therefore, God must exist so as to have implanted the idea of himself in our minds. Critiscism: ¡Even if we allow that we have the idea of God, God does not have to exist to serve as its cause.¨ Essentially, if an idea of something is not only greater than any other idea, but also an idea of the greatest possible being, then that being must exist not only in the mind, but in reality. ¨Why?¡Because if such a being existed only in the mind, then there would be something greater than the greatest possible being. ¡Notice, however, that this is logically impossible. Criticism: ¨That is, we can imagine things that are more perfect than those things that exist. ¨The Cartesian Circle: ¡I know that God exists because I have a clear and distinct idea of him. ¡I can trust my clear and distinct perceptions because God exists and he would not deceive me. ¡Is this a vicious circle? ...
View Full Document