Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Philosophy Exam 1
Philosophy
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| what is philosophy? | study of fundamental questions that are in everyday life |
| the nature of reality (metaphysics) common questions | does God exist? Do we have free will? |
| the nature of knowledge (epistemology) | what is knowledge? can we know anything at all? |
| what we ought to do, how we ought to live (ethics) | is morality objective? what determines good or bad (right or wrong?) |
| the nature of language | how is language connected to the world? what is the meaning of a linguistic expression? |
| the nature of the mind | what are mental states? how are they related to the physical world? |
| what is a belief? | something that you think is true |
| what is our behavior guided by ( and an example)? | by our beliefs. Example: using the bathroom when you believe there's only one in a building |
| what is reasoning? | when you start with some initial beliefs/assumptions, then draw conclusions from these starting points |
| what are arguments? | a set of statements, some of which are the premises, one of which is the conclusion |
| what do reasoning and arguments allow us to do? | evaluate our beliefs to decide if they're true |
| what are premises? | supposed to support the conclusion. They're reasons to believe that the conclusion is true |
| what is the main goal for philosophy? | to believe a true claim for the right reason |
| what are declarative sentences? | used to describe some aspect of the world (provide information). These can be true or false. (only true if and only if the world is the way it describes it to be) |
| what is the proposition of a sentence? (example) | the thought or idea that a sentence expresses. two different sentences can be used to express the same proposition (Ex. I'm hungry vs. I am hungry) |
| what is a subjective proposition (problem case) and example | a truth value that depends on the individual (ex. chocolate is the best ice cream flavor) |
| what is vagueness (borderline case) and some examples | something that is relative. Example: there's not a specific amount of hairs on someone's head to deem them "bald." Also, someone who is 4'9" may think someone who is 5'6" is tall, but someone who is 5'4" won't think that |
| what should every sentence in an argument have? (and an example) | a proposition. instead of "cauliflower is tasty", say "Madalyne likes the taste of cauliflower" |
| arguments in standard form | 1) sentence 1: premise 2) sentence 2: premise 3) sentence 3: premise 4) sentence 4: conclusion from 1-3 |
| evaluating arguments (step 1) | 1) check the relationship between the premises and the conclusion (assume all premises are true, see whether the premises support the conclusion) |
| evaluating arguments (step 2) | check the truth values of the premises (are the premises actually true?) If they are, the argument is strong. If not, then the argument is bad |
| Valid argument (deductive) | an argument is valid if and only if, the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true |
| Inductive argument | an argument is inductive if and only if the truth of the premises doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion |
| Validity meaning | it's impossible for the conclusion to be false when all the premises are true. The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion |
| Necessary and sufficient example | if you're a brother (sufficient), then you're male (necessary but not the only condition to be a brother) |
| Argument by Elimination | 1) P or Q 2) not P 3) therefore Q |
| Conjunction | 1) P 2) Q 3) Therefore P and Q |
| Simplification | 1) P + Q 2) Therefore P |
| Modus Ponens | 1) If P then Q 2) P 3) Therefore Q |
| Modus Tollens | 1) If P then Q 2) Not Q 3) Therefore not P |
| Equivalence | 1) P if and only if Q 2) Not P 3) Therefore not Q |
| what is a circular argument? | implicit premise, the conclusion is already stated/assumed in the premise, so the argument must be valid (NOT a strong argument) |
| Body Continuity View | Person X existing at T1 is person Y existing at T2 if Y is the same body as X |
| example of body continuity view | going from being obese to skinny may not be the same body but it's still the same person |
| Organismic view | person X existing at T1 is person Y existing at T2 IF Y is the same organism as X (we've gone through lots of bodily changes, but biologically we're still the same organism |
| Brain continuity view | Person X existing at T1 is person Y existing at T2 if and only if Y is the same brain as X |
| example of brain continuity view | a brain is capable of losing half its matter without significant changes to its mental capacity |
| proposition of a sentence | the thought or idea that a sentence expresses |
| functionalism | what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions/the role it plays. determined by its causal relations to sensory stimulations |
| determinism | true if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law |
| consequent argument | if determinism is true, then our acts are the consequence of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. the consequences aren't up to us |
| necessity rule (2 aspects) | 1) it is a necessary truth that p 2) therefore it is an untouchable truth that p |
| conditional rule (3 aspects) | 1) it is an untouchable truth that p 2) it is an untouchable truth that (if p, then q) 3) therefore, it is an untouchable truth that q |
| identity theory | mental states are identical to physical brain states |
| problems with identity theory (2) | 1) the theory seems to violate the indiscernability of identicals 2) also violates multiple realizability |
| indiscernibility of identicals | for any x and y, if x is identical to y, then for every property x has, y has that same property |
| multiple realizability | the same mental states can be produced by different physical systems |
| merit of functionalism | it's compatible with multiple realizability |
| china brain argument | it has the same form of reductio ad absurdum, simulates how our brain works with our body, successfully recreates the functional architecture of your brain |
| dream argument | having perceptions so realistic that the line blurs between reality and dreaming. there are no definitive signs to tell if we're dreaming |
| evil genius argument | we're being deceived by something "evil." Decartes uses doubt to find knowledge about being deceived |
Created by:
madalynes