This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Philosophy Midterm


undefined, object
copy deck
1596- 1650
philosophy of knowledge
Descartes main goal and method
establish stable and lasting knowledge
-provisionally reject any belief that is not completely indubitable
what is the difference between the dream argument and the demon argument?
dream- he is asleep and is producing these "senses"
demon- he is being decieved about his sensory experiences by an evil being outside himself.
What status does descartes claim for i exist and why?
Cogito, ergo sum: i think therefore i exist.
if he can think, he exists: not necessarily in a bodily form etc
What other things does descartes realize he is certain of along with cogito?
The content of his mental states
The main idea of med. 3
I am finite; god is infinite. As a finite being, i cannot have an idea of an infinite being; therefore this idea must have come from an infinite being, god.
cartesian circle
God's existence is proved by the light of nature; the light of nature is proved by god's existence
tak is an answer to what question?
"what is it to know something?" "What do we mean when we ascribe knowledge to someone?"
State the TAK
S confidently believes that P
P is true
S is adequately justified in believing that P
Necessary and sufficient conditions
If A, then B
A is sufficient for B
If a person studied hard, they passed the class
B is necessary for A
If a person passed the class, they studied hard
Dispositional vs. occurent beliefs
Dispositional- i like coffee
Occurent- i crave coffee
epistemic vs. moral and pragmatic justification
epistemic- truth conducive
moral- loyalty (friend theft)
pragmatic- sick guy dying
strong vs. weak conception of knowledge
Strong= 100%
weak= less than 100%
Do gettier cases effect the strong and weak conceptions of knowledge equally?
no: only the weak
Bonjour's proposed modificaiton to TAK and the problems with it
It must not be an accident in relation to s's belief or reasons that P is true:
- not clear that it works
- requires about how likely the truth of the proposition
- the assumption that levels of justification ca be regarded as probabilities
- lottery paradox
David Hume
describe the problem of induction.
arises from"how are general conclusion justified on the basis of particular instances?
- internalism
- deductive arguments
Pragmatic vindication of induction
tentative acceptance of truth
ordinary language justification of induction
induction is reasonable- it need not play the role of deductive reasoning
A priori justification of induction
justification that does not rely on experience
tentavely accept a claim
revise the claim if need be later on
what is the difference between inductive reasoning and inductive method?
Inductive method is something we use: inductive reasoning is part of that method
Inductive reasoning is compared to __________. The difference between the two is________________.
deductive requires 100% certainty
Explain why appealing to past successes in not an easy answer to the problem of induction.
Past does not decide the future: the chair didn't break when i sat in it today or the day before, but it could break tomorrow.
What is A priori justification?
Justification that does not depend on experience
Define moderate empiricism.
All a priori justification is a matter of definitions/conceptual content.
Define rationalism.
A priori is logical, rational.
includes a priori insight.
A priori insight
a direct insight into the nature and structure of reality
What is the intuitive idea behind the term analytic?
Straightforward and obvious
Kant's definition of analytic
The concept of the predicate contained in the subject
Frege's definition of analytic
A substitution instance of a truth of logic or simplifiable into such
Does bonjour argue that frege's definition successfully argues away the need for a prior? what are his reasons?
No; can have synthetic examples: all triangles have 3 sides
red is not green example

Deck Info