click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Philosophy 105
Exam 1
Question | Answer |
---|---|
philosophy | seeking to understand the general principles of everything using reason and experience |
argument | set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion |
conclusion | main point of argument |
premises | material alleged to support the conclusion |
sound argument | valid reasoning + true premises |
valid reasoning | premises really support the conclusion |
mythopeic culture | wisdom passes through telling stories; oral culture |
nature philosophers | -Subject: natural world -method: reason and experience (math, logic) -goal: seek understanding -included Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagorus, Pythagorus, and Democritus |
Sophists | -"wise" (sarcastic) -subject: focus on human life -method: persuasion -goal: seek advantage -included Protagorus, Gorgius |
Thales | -1st philosopher -nature philosopher -we live in cosmos, not chaos -585 BC in turkey -predicted an eclipse -measured pyramids w/ shadow -cosmos is water |
Anaxagorus | -nous; cosmic intelligence -nature philosopher |
Democritus | -all that is presented by the senses is made of particles (a-"non", tom-"cut") -nature philosopher |
Pythagorus | -fundamental structure of reality is numbers -nature philosopher |
Heraclitus | -fundamental structure of reality is fire (flux-change) -nature philosopher |
Parmenides | -reality is consistent, unchanging, but senses change things and these perceived by the senses pass away -nature philosopher |
Protagorus | -knew how to manipulate people in any given place -persuasion guy-"man is the measure of all things" -sophist |
Gorgius | -persuade by arguing both sides of a case simultaneously -sophist |
Modus Ponens | if p then q, p, therefore q |
Modus tollens | if p then q, not q, therefore not p |
hypothetical syllogism | if p then q, if q then r, therefore if p then r |
dilemna | p or q, if p then r, if q then s, therefore r or s |
reductio ad absurdum | -reduction to absurdity -to prove p, assume the opposite: not p, argue that from the assumption we'd have to conclude q, show that q is false, conclude p must be true |
ad hominem | -to the man -attacking the person of a source rather than their qualifications or reliability, or the argument |
ad ignorantiam | -appeal to ignorance -arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false (he must be a Communist...) |
ad misericordiam | -appeal to pity -appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment (you have to let me pass!) |
ad populum | -to people -appealing to the emotions of a crowd, appealing to a person to go along w/ the crowd (would you jump off a cliff?) |
begging the question | implicitly using your conclusion as a premise (stating the same thing) |
complex question | posing a question in such a way that people cannot agree or disagree w/ you without committing themselves to some other claim you wish to promote (rude) |
equivocation | -same sound -sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument (the firetruck is russian/rushing, so it's red) |
false cause | -any questionable conclusion about cause and effect |
false dilemma | -reducing the opinions you consider to just two, often diametrically opposed to each other and unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed -overlooks alternatives |
poisoning the well | using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it "...still haven't outgrown the superstition that..." |
straw man | a caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to hold, so that it is easy to refute (political cartoons) |
weasel word | -suck out the meaning of the word, only shell left -"we will accept any reasonable offer..." -kind of equivocation |