Philosophy 110
Links: Units
Review Lists and Sample Quizzes
Sample Mid-Term Exam
SAMPLE FINAL EXAM
Questions
on Moral Relativism, Diversity, Multiculturalism, Tolerance
Phil. 110: Adventure of Ideas: Fall, 2010
Instructor:
Dr. Norman Lillegard Office: H 216 .
Hours: 10-11 a.m.TTH and by appointment.
Ph.
881 7384
Email:
nlillega@utm.edu. Best contact – e-mail.
Text: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy by
Jim Fieser and Norman Lillegard and On
Epicurus by N. Lillegard (both at UC, Bradley or on line).
YOU MUST OWN YOUR OWN TEXT AND
YOU MUST BRING YOUR TEXT TO EVERY
CLASS.
COURSE
TITLE: Historical Perspectives on
(a) “Science” and what is real, what is mere appearance; (b) the nature of
Knowledge (c)Virtue and a Good Life; (d) Morality, Justice, Rights and
Community; (e)The Soul and the nature of the Self; (f ) Religion and Reason;
THE
PURPOSE OF THIS COURSE is to help you develop the capacity to READ
difficult texts with COMPREHENSION, and to THINK CRITICALLY about issues which
are of concern to all educated and thoughtful persons and which have figured
prominently in the history of western
thought. The figures we study will be your guides, but they are not infallible
oracles. The general areas for reflection are indicated in the course title.
This is a “historical” introduction to philosophy.
Therefore a further purpose is to familiarize you with some of the main figures
and movements in the history of philosophy, and their significance for the
history of politics, the arts, science and culture generally..
You will be tested on critical reading
and critical thought, on your understanding of the issues raised by the figures
you study, your ability to respond relevantly to arguments, and to identify
salient historical/philosophical facts.
COURSE
REQUIREMENTS:
·
Attend class and participate, do the readings, do all
written assignments, pass the exams. Two exams (multiple choice,
T/F. See sample exams on the
Instructor’s Web Site). Mid-term exam worth 120 pts. Final exam is
comprehensive, 180 pts.. Two mini-exams
(60 pts. each). Total for exams=420
pts.
·
Selections from
the Study guides are due about once a week. They MUST BE HANDED IN UPON THE INSTRUCTOR’ REQUEST. They MUST BE PROPERLY FORMATTED (see below).
150-200 pts total. Roughly 1/3rd
of the grade! Failure to turn them in is certain to result in an ‘F’ for the
course or at least a very low grade.
·
Instructions for
guides: They must be marked with the following three items: your name,
guide #, class number (phil 110). Completed portions of a guide must be
turned in, NOT just the requested questions. Thus if questions 5, 7 and 8 are
requested for ch. I, you must turn in sheets that show answers to adjacent
questions (e.g. 1,2,3, 6, 9,10, etc.)
STUDY GUIDES MUST BE
COMPLETED ON THE DATES INDICATED IN
THE ON-LINE ASSIGNMENTS. You must ALWAYS bring them to class.
·
Attendance 40pts. Regular
attendance and informed participation in class are essential since (a) not
everything covered in class is included in the text (b) you will need help with
this material, and that is what class sessions, and the instructor, are
for. Students who sleep in class are
counted absent.
·
Quizzzes (ca. 75 pts)
Quizzes will be given about once a week. They will not be announced ahead of
time. They CANNOT BE MADE UP (if they could that would make them
pointless!). QUIZ POINTS ARE BONUS
POINTS!!!. THUS, if you skip classes you stand to lose
not only attendance points but also the chance for bonus points. BE THERE!
·
Study guides that are done with notable care
and thoroughness can earn a few extra points. Total possible extra points, including quizzes=50. No kidding.
·
Total BASIS points =ca. 650. Normally %90 of total
points gets you an 'A', %80 a 'B' and so forth, but significant adjustments for
curve are made when necessary.
ROLE
OF THE INSTRUCTOR: The instructor is
available for individual or group discussion when a need is expressed. His
primary interest is in helping you to achieve mature thoughtfulness about the
crucial sorts of matters indicated in the course title. Feel free to call on
him as needed. E-mail is a good way to contact him.
WHAT
I EXPECT OF STUDENTS.
1.Treat each other with respect.
2.Treat the instructor with respect.
3.Do not talk unless called on.
4. Do not leave the room without permission except in extreme
emergency.
5. Be on time.
6. Be eager to learn.
The best indication of progress is engagement with the issues and ideas
upon which we will focus.
7. Do not be afraid to say "I don't
understand."
8. Expect the same of me as I expect of you (except
#3!) (You will find that I follow #7 a
lot!)
9..
Keep cell phones OFF.
Academic
Integrity: Any form of cheating, on study guides, quizzes, or
exams, will result in an ‘F’for that
assignment and possibly for the
entire course. NO EXCEPTIONS. Policies
regarding academic integrity are further detailed in the student handbook.
Cheating includes plagiarism. DO YOU OWN WORK.
Cell Phones: phones must be
OFF during classes. You may not make ANY
use of cell phones during any exam or quiz.. Use of cell phones in such
circumstances counts as cheating and results in an F.
Class
format: Classes will consist of a
mixture of lecture and discussion. Feel free to interrupt with questions. Always
do so by raising your hand. Acknowledgment may not always be immediate but
it will come. Try to keep your remarks relevant. Listen respectfully to other
students even if you think they are “way off.”
They might be doing better than you think!
The purpose of the study guides is
threefold:
1.To
ensure that you actually read the assigned texts, and read them carefully;
2.
To assist you in developing capacities for close reading of difficult texts
(development of reading comprehension);
3.
To help you determine what parts of the texts give you the most difficulty. #3 will be achieved if you come to class
prepared to ask about questions which you could not figure out or are very
unsure of, AFTER you have made a reasonable effort.. Reading the
text once does not generally constitute a reasonable effort if you find yourself
"stopped" by a question. You
may need to go over a text several times, make notes on it, and THINK about
it. If, having done that, you still do
not "get" a certain question or questions, bring it (them) up in
class.
What the study guides are NOT for: The study guides are not intended to serve as review material.
They are not intended for use as an index of your general progress. Tests and quizzes and class discussion will
enable you to gauge your progress.
How
the Study Guides are Graded The guides are graded generously. If your
answers indicate that you have indeed read the material and made a genuine
attempt to understand, you will generally get full credit even if your answers are wrong! (That is one reason why you could
not use the guides for review purposes!). Exceptions would be very simple
questions, including many of the fill-in-the-blank questions, which may be
graded more strictly.
YOU MUST NUMBER EACH GUIDE, AND
CORRECTLY LIST CHAPTER AND QUESTION NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION.
N.
B. Study Guides will ordinarily be returned.
ON-LINE HELP Make sure you check out www.utm.edu/~nlillega/lillegard.htm. There you will find a link for Phil. 110. Under that link you will find sample exams, sample quizzes, lists of terms to know, study questions, discussions of selected issues, class outlines, sample quizzes and quizzes already taken, and links to other helpful sites. If you use the internet on your own, understand that it contains an enormous amount of trash and may mislead as much as it may help.
[NOTE: "Any student eligible for and requesting academic
accommodations due to a disability is requested to provide a letter of
accommodation from P.A.C.E. or
Course
Outline: (adjustments to this outline
may be necessary).
Week
II Jan. 26 : Xenophanes. The Sophists. Relativism.
Week
III Feb. 2: Socrates (Euthyphro, Meno)
Week
IV Feb 9: Apology, Plato (Phaedo, Republic).Mini exam I, Thursday Feb 11. . Aristotle
(Physics, Ethics).
Week
V Feb. 16: Aristotle, cont.
Week
VI Feb. 23: The Hellenistic/Roman era. Epicurus.
Week
VII : Mar. 2: Epictetus, Review. MIDTERM EXAM, Th Mar. 4.
Week
VIII Mar. 9: The Medieval Era. Augustine.
Week
IX Mar 15 -19 SPRING BREAK:.
Week
X Mar. 23. Augustine. Anselm
Week
XI.Mar 30: Aquinas.. Mini-exam II
Week
XII Apr 6: Renaissance (Pico), Reformation (Luther), Scientific Revolution and
Fideism (Bayle, Pascal, Galileo, Newton)
Week
XIII Apr 13 Descartes (Meditations)
Week
XIV Apr 20: The Enlightenment era. Hume.
Kant.
Week
XV Apr 27: 19th century. Kierkegaard. Review.
Week
XVI May 3, last day of classed, May 4-5, Study days, May 6-12 Final Exams.
FINAL EXAM (see schedule).
CONTRACT
1. I have read and understand the rules for class conduct and
agree to abide by them.
2. I understand the purposes of the Study Guides, and that
Study Guides must be BROUGHT TO EVERY CLASS, and handed in when requested, that
any Study Guide handed in one class late for
a legitimate reason will be accepted, but with a loss of %10 of the points,
and that no Study Guide will be accepted
more than one week after the due date. I understand how to properly
format a study guide, and I understand that improperly formatted guides will be
thrown away without a grade.
3. I understand that quizzes will be unannounced, and cannot be made up, and that most of them
will be based on
material covered in part of a study guide.
4. I am able to access the Phil. 110 web page, and will use
it to keep track of assignments, and for study and review purposes.
5. I own my own textbooks and will bring them to every class.
6. I have read and understand the list of requirements for
this course, consider them fair, and will do my best to fulfill them.
Signed ______________________________________________
Circle the number that corresponds to your class meeting
time: 11:00, 1:00
Print your name
_________________________________________________
UNITS
Terms you
must understand by Midterm;
Metaphysics; Epistemology,
Pluralism, Dualism; Monism,
Rationalism; !!
Empiricism;
Unity of Science
Teleology vs. mechanism
Materialism
The concerns of the pre-socratics
logos,
nomos, cosmos,
Eleatic, ++
Pythagoreanism, the tetractys
Sophism,** antilogic, Relativism,
rhetoric (persuasive speech, vs. truth)
Absolutism;
Socratic Dialectic; Elenchus; Irony;
Profession of Ignorance; Search for Definitions.
anthropomorphism;
Euthyphro dilemma:
The soul and the theory of Forms
(Ideas);
Forms as necessary for thinking,
speaking, knowledge, judgment. Can’t be known empirically (cf. the two sticks).
Empirical things merely jog the memory.
Empirical particulars as shadows or reflections
in a mirror. Reflections of the form “equality itself.”
Recollection and immortality
Ring of Gyges,
Aristotle's four "causes,"
(What are the formal, material,
efficient and final causes of a seed?)
More on teleology and teleological
explanation vs. mechanism;
Happiness as pleasure
Happiness as a final goal or end (wanted
for its own sake, not as a means).
The function of human beings and eudaimonia;
Virtue;
Virtue and the mean; phronesis; “perceptiveness.” “Political”
science,
REASON in ethics as
"substantive." As "instrumental."
stoicism; detachment; apatheia; what are you averse to? If not
in your control, forget about it.
Main Figures: Homer, Hesiod, Thales, Anaximines,
Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides,++ !!Zeno++!!, Protagoras**,
Gorgias**, Socrates, (In order. Know centuries)
Plato, !!
Aristotle,
Epicurus.
UNIT I : ANCIENT GREEK PERSPECTIVES
Terms; logos,
nomos, cosmos, Monism, Eleatic, Pluralism,
Dualism; Rationalism; Empiricism; Metaphysics; Epistemology, Sophism,
antilogic, Relativism, anthropomorphism;
rhetoric, Absolutism; Socratic Dialectic; Elenchus; Euthyphro dilemma: Forms (Ideas); Teleology and teleological explanation vs. mechanism; Ring of Gyges, (for
Midterm) Aristotle's four
"causes," Virtue; eudaimonia; Virtue and the mean; phronesis;
“Political” science, “perceptiveness.” Materialism. Happiness as pleasure.
Things to Think About:
· Relativism vs. Absolutism
1.Is
there any absolute right or wrong? That is, are there actions which are
always wrong, or always right?
2. If your answer to #1 is
"no" what reasons can you give for that answer?
3. Assuming there are absolute rights and
wrongs, how could you KNOW what they are?
4. Assuming there are absolute rights and
wrongs, what would be some examples? Give some reasons for thinking your
examples are NOT good examples. ARE
good examples.
5. Are there ways of living that are
objectively better than other ways of living? (How does Aristotle answer this?)
· Justice, Rights, Comnmunity
1.
What is justice (how does Plato answer that?)
2. Does it pay to be just or fair? If so,
why, if not, why not?
3. Is it possible to lead a good life apart from
a community in which people are generally just?
4. Is Justice mainly a matter of LAW, or is
it a personal attribute? Some combination?
5. Does the notion of "rights"
apart from specific legal enactments make sense? If so, how?
· The Soul
1.
Is there such a thing as a "soul"?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how do you
know, and what is the soul like?
3. If the answer to #1 is no, why do you
think that?
4. If there is a soul, is it immortal? Did it
exist before your physical birth?
5. If the answer to either part of #4 is
"yes", justify your belief in that answer. Give Plato’s views
and reasons.
6. What is the connection, if any, between
soul and mind or thought? Soul and "Spirit?" Soul and reason?
Soul and feeling?
· Religion
1.
Is there such a thing as a God, or Gods?
2. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes', how do you
know? Or is it just a matter of faith, or opinion?
3. Assuming there is a God or are Gods, would
it be right to obey God's commands, no matter what they might be? Discuss
pro and con.
4. Does the fact that God commands something
make it right?
5. Do
the Gods, or does God, intervene in nature and human life?
· Knowledge and What Counts as Real.
1. Is there some basic or ultimate stuff (e.g atoms) or principle (e.g. laws of
nature, or divine order) or being (e.g. God) or set of beings (e.g.
transcendent forms or ideals) which explains where the universe comes from or
what keeps it in existence and why it has the features it has?
2. Whatever the answer to question #1, how
could you know it was correct?
3. Does permanence matter? Does something that constantly changes seem less “real” than something stable?
UNIT
II: Hellenistic/Roman
Perspectives
Terms you must understand;
skepticism; hedonism; epicureanism;; atomism and the swerve in atomism; hedonism; ataraxia; REASON in ethics as "substantive." As
"instrumental."
Things to Think About:
Ethics, Pleasure, and Nature
1.Are there ways of living which are
objectively better than other ways of living? Prove it, using Epicurean
arguments. Stoic arguments.
2. If you want to answer “NO”to #1,
what reasons can you give for that answer? Do not put down
clichés. Try to defeat the Epicurean and Stoic arguments.
3. Assume the answer to #1 is ‘yes' and give
arguments for that answer. Give one argument that begins from some
“natural” fact about human beings.
4.
Try to think of five different KINDS of pleasure and say what makes them
different KINDS, as opposed to merely different. (the pleasure of tasting a hot
fudge sundae differs from the pleasure of tasting a
5. What are some connections between atheism,
materialism, empiricism and hedonism? Relate to Epicurus.
6.
Much misery results from being overly attached to people or things. Illustrate.
7.
Can reason tell you how to live, or does desire and feeling tell you, with
reason playing only an instrumental role?
8.
How do answers to q.1- 3 and 6-8 bear on the relativism debate?
Knowledge
and the Real
1.
How can an empiricist like Epicurus know that there are atoms?
2. If
all that exists is atoms and the void, could there be free will? Argue pro and
con. How do Epicureans answer?
.
UNIT III: Medieval Perspectives.
Terms
you must understand: Augustinianism; Natural law; Theodicy; Two Cities/Two laws; Ontological
argument; Cosmological arguments; Teleological argument.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
Justice and Rights
1. Does our concept of what is just and right depend upon there being a
divine law giver?
2. Assuming the answer to #1 is ‘yes' how could you know what the will of the divine law giver is? Consider at least two possibilities.
3. Should divine law determine the content of civil law? Always? Never? Sometimes? Explain
4. If the answer to #3 is 'yes' does that imply the "establishment of religion" in the civil realm?
5. Augustine says that the kind of government that would be right for people A might be wrong for people B. Does that make him a relativist? Explain
Religion
1. Is there such a thing as a God, or Gods?
2. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes', how do you
know? Could there be proof? If so, give an example.
3. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes' what is that
God like? List as many characteristics as you can think of.
4. Other than belief in God, what are some other
religious beliefs that you have? (For
example, do you believe people will be punished for their sins? Do you believe
God created the universe? Do you believe God created YOU?) Be as
comprehensive as you can.
5.If there is a God, then must there also be
"souls?" Assume yes, and say why. Assume yes, and say
what sort of thing the soul might be. Explain your answers.
6. Is the
existence of God compatible with the existence of evil? How, or why not?
7. Is the foreknowledge of God compatible with free will? Think
about it, and explain.
8. If God has revealed something about God's self in some sacred
scripture, would that fact rule out reasoning about religion, or make reasoning
about it pointless? Explain
9. Does the existence of order or design in the natural world point to a
divine designer? Argue pro and con.
UNIT IV: SOME MODERN
PERSPECTIVES
Terms you must understand: humanism, fideism, skepticism, epistemology; Cartesian doubt;
Pyrrhonian skepticism; causal theory of
perception; law of nature; principle of
parsimony; rationalism; empiricism, mechanical
vs. teleological explanation;
‘idea’ in modern philosophy; morality, reason and feeling.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
Knowledge
1. HOW do you know what you know? (There are
at least two main ways. Give examples illustrating each way.)
2. Are there ways of coming to know which are
absolutely reliable? Give examples or possible examples.
3. Does the possibility that you are dreaming upset
ALL claims to knowledge?
4. Is there any way I could be sure that when I
perceive something that there is indeed something "out there" causing
the perception? If so how?
5. Is any of our knowledge "innate" or
programmed into us at birth? (Recall Plato on recollection)
6. How does an empiricist like Locke account for
our knowledge?
7. How does an empiricist account for such
"ideas" as the idea of a unicorn?
8. How might an empiricist account for the order in our thoughts or experiences?
RELIGION
1. Do you believe that miracles
could occur? If not, why not, if so, why?
2. Does religious belief generally
require belief in miracles? Explain and illustrate.
3. Is skepticism always the enemy of faith?
4. Might it be rational to believe in God even though there are no good arguments for God’s existence? If so, how?
MORALITY
1. Are moral distinctions (the distinction between
right and wrong e.g.) discovered by reason, or are they merely matters of
feeling? Or both? Illustrate and explain.
1. DO NOT WRITE THE QUESTIONS OUT. JUST THE ANSWERS.
2. For fill in the blank questions, just put down the terms that fill
the blank, in order. If two or more blanks require the same term, write it
twice or more. Don’t write out the question.
3. Questions that have parts should have the parts clearly marked.
These questions are often worth more, so do ALL the parts.
Read Answer Questions
Week I
By
1/21
p. 3- 11 1.1 – 14
p. 12-17 1.15-22
Week II
By
1/26
p. 18 - 24 1.
23-30
p. 26-29 1.33-38
By
1/28
p. 9-12 1.12-14
Study the Remarks on Relativism. Answer ques. 1
Week III
By
2/2
p. 37-47 2.1-11
By
2/4
p.47-71 2.12-40
Week IV
By
2/9
p. 71-80 2.41-49
by
2/11
p. 83-95 2.58-68
.
________________________________________________________________________________
Review List for Midterm Exam
Terms (See Unit I and II terms
above)
Dates (Centuries)
Relativism
Thales, Anaximines, Heracleitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus,
Sophism, Anti-logic.
Socrates
Dialectic, Elenchus, Irony, Search for definitions,
Socratic ignorance,
the Nature of Moral disagreement, the relations
of religion to morality. The 3 things Socrates knows.
Socrates/Plato
Theory of Forms or Ideas, Plato’s rationalism.
The Cave allegory.
Theory of knowledge and Recollection.
Concept of Soul in Phaedo
Concept of Soul in Republic: Definition of Justice in
individual compared to justice in State.
Why should anyone be just? (Ring of Gyges)
Aristotle
The nature of explanation. Final causes and Teleology.
The nature of the soul
Idea of Aim of all actions, and," for its own sake"/ for sake
of something else" contrast.
Concept of Happiness (eudaimonia)-its
relation to function of humans .
Concept of Virtue, and of the mean
relative to oneself.
Upbringing, Training and practical wisdom.
Epicurus
Atomism
Hedonism and minimizing pain. (The importance of “mental” pains, such as fear of death).
Instrumental use of reason in ethics (contrast to Aristotle).
Following nature (contrast to Aristotle)
Tensions in trying to achieve ataraxia.
Review
quizzes
Quiz #1
1. Democritus does not contradict himself when he says “no-thing
exists” since he thinks of the void as real.
2. Democritus was a pluralist,
in contrast to Parmenides.
3. Democritus would say that if
a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear the noise, there is no
noise.
QZ 2
1. Plato argued that knowledge can be acquired through the senses.
2. In the Phaedo Plato holds
that the soul
(a) can exist apart
from the body
(b) must have existed
before birth
(c) is by nature
morally pure
(d) all of these
QZ. 3.
1. Aristotle claims that all ideas about what makes a life a good life
are merely subjective.
2. The virtues are excellences of character, and thus are what makes a
good person good, according to Aristotle.
Qz 4
1. Virtue, Aristotle argues,
(a) is the result of a
kind of training
(b) involves having reasonable desires, fears, and other
emotions.
(c) comes naturally
(d) all of these
(e) a and b.
2. On Aristotle’s account, a virtuous, practically wise person, must be
perceptive about particular circumstances.
3. Choice, on Aristotle’s account, is no more than freedom of the will.
Qz 5.
1. Epicurus argued that it is more important to accumulate pleasures
than to avoid pains.
2. If we were unable to achieve knowledge, that would be disturbing to
us, and therefore painful, according to Epicurus.
3. One source of mental disturbance, Epicurus claims, is false beliefs
about the Gods.
Review quizzes, set 2.
Qz. 1.
1. Heraclitus lived before Thales.
2. Parmenides argued
that
a. change is impossible
b. there are at least two things in
the universe
c. reality is like a flowing river
d. all of these.
3. One of the main
concerns of the presocratics is to determine if there is some unifying
principle in nature.
Quiz #2.
1. To
anthropomorphize is to
a. attribute human qualities to non-humans
without warrant
b. attribute non-human qualities to
animals
c. both of these
2. The Pythagoreans
a. claimed that reality is numbers
b. argued that the world is an
ordered “cosmos”
c. thought that mathematics was the
key to reality
d. all of these.
3. The sophists were teachers of rhetoric.
Qz. 3.
1. Socrates
a. was concerned to find definitions
for fundamental terms or concepts
b. frequently professed ignorance
c. frequently employed irony
d. all of the above.
2. The sophists claimed
that there are moral truths that apply to all people at all times.
3. Epistemology is
the inquiry into knowledge, what it is and how one gets it.
QZ 4
1. Plato argues that
our concepts are derived from experience.
2. The existence of the
soul prior to birth explains the ability to think and apply concepts.
3. Plato argued that
someone equipped with the “ring of Gyges”
a. would have no reason to be just
b. would still have good reason to
be just
c. would quickly see the truth in
the arguments of a sophist such as Thrasymachus.
d. a and c.
Qz. 5 (Sept. 29)
1. Aristotle’s views
are more “down to earth” than Plato’s.
2. Thales’ account of
physis is what Aristotle would call a
a. final cause explanation
b. material cause explanation
c. formal cause explanation
d. none of these.
3. An explanation of
my turning on the ceiling fan which mentions my purpose in doing so (to help
cool the room) would be classified by Aristotle as a
a. material cause
explanation
b. final cause
explanation
c. formal cause
explanation
d. informal cause
explanation
e. a and b.
QZ 6
1. Aristotle thinks
of the aim or goal of practical reasoning as something completely distinct from
the reasoning itself.
2. The Hellenistic/Roman
era was an era of empire, during which city states declined in importance.
3. The good life,
according to Aristotle, is one with lots of sensual pleasures.
QZ 7
1. Epicurus argued
that the most pleasant or pain-free life could be achieved by being reasonable,
but he did not think that such a life included being reasonable as an
ingredient.
2. According to
Epicurus, the most pleasant state is
a. ataraxia
b. freedom from
mental disturbance
c. freedom from all physical pains
d. a and b.
3. The following are
examples of desires that are both natural and necessary
a. the desire for food
b. the desire for fame
c. the desire for eudaimonia
d. a and c.
Quiz 8)
1. The issues dealt with
in ancient philosophy were completely ignored in the medieval period.
2. Augustine argues
that what makes evil actions evil is that
a. they violate the golden rule
b. they are motivated by disordered
desire
c. they ignore kindness
d. all of these.
3. The Roman empire
was crumbling during Augustine’s life.
Qz. 9
1. Augustine argued
that if we did not have free will we could not be blamed for evil doing.
2. Disordered desire,
on Augustine’s account, is excessive desire for, or attachment to, things that
can be lost against one’s will.
3. According to
Augustine
a. the earthly community should be a
perfect reflection of the heavenly city
b. human law is exactly the same as
divine law
c. there is no need for human law
d. all of these
e. none of these.
Qz. 10
1. Anselm produced
what is called ‘the ontological argument’ for God’s existence.
2. Averroes seemed to claim that what is truth for
the learned might not be truth for the unlearned.
3. Aquinas denied that
any religious truths could be proved by reason, without faith.
Qz. 11
1. Aquinas’ “5th
way” is also known as
a. the argument from design
b. the teleological argument
c. the argument from force
d. a and c.
e. a and b.
2. Natural law,
according to Aquinas, is that part of the eternal law of God that can be known
apart from revelation, simply by using reason and conscience.
3. Luther was an 18th
century church reformer.
QZ 12
1. The principle of
parsimony played an important role in the development of modern science.
2. Galileo argued
that when observation and experiment conflict with scripture, we should
a. throw out scripture
b. interpret scripture in such a way
that it does not conflict with observation
c. do something like what Averroes
suggested
d. all of these
e. b and c.
3. Pascal argued that
it could be rational to believe in the existence of God even though there is no
evidence that there is a God.
QZ 13
1. Descartes lived in
the early 17th century, during the time the first colonies were
being established in N. America.
2. The one thing
Descartes is certain of is that
a. he is alive
b. he exists
c. he has arms and legs
d. none of these.
3. Beliefs based on
perception are sometimes mistaken because of optical illusions.
Qz 14
1. The following are
examples of primary qualities
a. yellow
b. having a mass of
10 grams
c. being sour
d. none of these.
2. Descartes believes
that
a. mental events
cause physical events
b. physical events cause
mental events
c. the mind and body
interact
d. all of these
e. none of these.
3. Empiricism is a
typically “continental” movement in modern epistemology.
QZ 15
1. According to Hume,
it is just as reasonable to shoot yourself in the head, even though you are
happy, as it would be to shoot a mad dog.
2. Kierkegaard did not think that we can be
responsible for the way we live.
3. Kierkegaard’s ‘A’
is an individual who
a. grabs any pleasure he can get
b. is at least as concerned to avoid
pain or disappointment as to experience positive pleasure
c. has something in common with
Epicurus
d. b and c.
True or False
1. Socrates was a sophist.
2. Some people thought Socrates was a sophist.
3. Relativism is often expressed by such remarks as ‘everyone has their own
lifestyle, and what is right for you may not be right for me.'
4. Gorgias was a sophist who compared persuasive speech to drugs.
5. The 5th century BCE in
6. Plato argued that there are no absolute rights and wrongs.
7. Aristotle tried to show that you could not have a good or happy life without
the virtues.
8. Parmenides gave arguments for the claim that reality is one, infinite and
eternal.
9. If relativism is correct then moral disagreements can only be resolved by
force or majority vote.
10. Patience is a mean between impatience and indifference to how things go.
11. Plato thought that ordinary empirical objects, such as a chair or a
tree, are fully real.
12. Plato thought that what is really real is the "form" of a
chair, "chairness itself" since only the form is eternal and
unchanging.
13. Heraclitus was so overwhelmed by the fact of constant change that the
universe seemed meaningless to him.
14. Socrates thought that bodily life and bodily desires corrupted the
soul and got in the way of true self development.
15. The concept of the self or human person in Plato is strongly dualistic.
16. Epistemology is the attempt to answer such questions as "what is
knowledge?", and "is knowledge possible and if so under what
circumstances?"
17. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all lived in Athens Greece between the
middle of the 5th and the middle of the 4th century BCE, a time of great
cultural flourishing in that city.
18. Metaphysics is that part of philosophy which tries to answer such
questions as "what is really real?" "are there minds as well as
bodies?" etc.
Choose the BEST answer.
19. Pythagoras thought that
(A) you cannot count what is real
(B) what is real has a mathematical structure
(C) what is real does not count
(D) all of the above.
20. Plato's theory of forms is connected to his theory
(A) about the soul
(B) about knowledge as recollection
(C) about knowledge as premonition
(D) a and b.
21. A practically rational person according to Aristotle understands
(A) what is truly fearful
(B) how to control their appetites
(C) how to do geometry
(D) All of these
(E) A and B.
22. Aristotle tries to show that
(A) The virtues are dispositions to choose the mean relative
to oneself
( B) What is courageous for one person might be rash for
another
(C) wisdom is required for all the virtues
(D) all of the above.
23. Socrates tried to show Euthyphro that you could not define ‘piety' as
(A) that which pleases the Gods
(B) that which pleases yourself
(C) that which your culture teaches
(D) none of these.
24. People chained up in Plato's "Cave" illustrate or stand for
people who
(A) think they can get real knowledge through the senses
(B) are taken in easily by rhetoric and popular opinion
(C) actually live in caves
(D) all of these
(E) A and B.
25. Plato's allegory of the cave is meant to illustrate
(A) the ignorance which traps most people
(B) the unreality of the things that most people believe in
(C) the difficulty of escaping from ignorance and achieving knowledge
(D) all of these
26. Epicurus’ views on ethics affect his views about
(a) epistemology
(b) free will and determinism
(c) geography
(d) a and b.
27. Epicurus’s concern to achieve ataraxia affects his thinking about
(a) the Gods
(b) derivative entities
(c) the forms
(d) a and b.
28. Epicurus
(a) lived in the Greco-Roman period
(b) thinks that attachment to material good promotes happiness
(c) consider pleasure to be a natural good
(d) A and C.
\
Study the following numbered quotes and answer the questions which
follow them.
#I "Well, but there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not
an absolute justice?
Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
...
And he attains to the knowledge of them in their highest purity who goes
to each of them with the mind alone, not allowing...the intrusion ...of sight
or any other sense in the company of reason...he has got rid, as far as he can,
of eyes and ears and of the whole body, which he conceives of only as a
disturbing element, hindering the soul from the acquisition of
knowledge...?"
29. This quote is by
(A) an empiricist
(B) Protagoras
(C)Plato
(D)
30. The author of this quote is clearly
(A) a rationalist
(B)someone who believes that genuine knowledge comes through reason
alone, not through the senses
(C)someone who endorses some kind of body/soul dualism
(D)all of these.
#II This is making the weaker argument the stronger. And people were rightly annoyed at Protagoras' promise.
31. This quote alludes to the sophistical practice of
(A) antilogic
(B) blaming the victim
(C) arguing in a way that made people question whether there was any
truth at all
(D) A and C.
32. Protagoras was
(A) a sophist
(B) a rationalist
(C) an absolutist
(D) none of these.
.#III . .each of us is the measure of the things which are and the things which are not. Nonetheless there is a difference between one person and another in just this respect: the things which both are and appear to one person are different from the things which are and appear to another person. I do not mean to say that there is no such thing as wisdom or a wise man, but I say that a wise man is one who can make what is and appears evil to any of us, appear and be good. . .Not that any one ever made another think truly, who previously thought falsely. For no one can think what is not, or think anything different from that which he feels; and this is always true.. .[what] the inexperienced call true, I maintain to be only better, and not truer than others. . .and the wise and good rhetoricians make the good instead of the evil to seem just to states; for whatever appears to a state to be just and fair, so long as it is regarded as such, is just and fair to it; but the wise one makes what seems and is beneficial replace the evil [which seemed beneficial to the state]. And in like manner the Sophist who is able to train his pupils in this spirit is a wise man, and deserves to be well paid by them. And so one man is wiser than another; and no one thinks falsely, and you, whether you will or not, must endure to be a measure. (166d- 167d)
33. This passage clearly expresses the views of
(A)the sophists
(B) relativists
(C) thinkers like Protagoras and Gorgias
(D) all of the above
34. The argument being advanced in #III
(A) claims that although relativism is correct there still is such a
thing as wisdom
(B) tries to show that even though what you believe is true for you and
what I believe is true for me, it might be the case that you can change my mind
by getting me to see that what is you believe is more beneficial
(C) assumes a standard for what is beneficial which is not relativistic
(D) is not consistent
(E) all of the above
#IV It follows that the good of human beings is an activity of soul [ or a course of action] in accordance with [human beings'] proper excellence or virtue or if there are more virtues than one, in accordance with the best and most complete virtue. But it is necessary to add the words "in a complete life." For as one swallow or one day does not make a spring, so one day or a short time does not make a blessed or happy man.
35. The author of #IV is claiming that
(A) the ultimate good at which all humans aim is a certain
kind of active life
(B) the good for humans is a matter of excellent action of
the sort proper to humans
(C) that you should not swallow more than once a day
(D) A and B
36. The "proper excellence" of human beings according to the
author of IV is
(A) living according to reason
(B) that characteristic or those characteristics which
enable(s) humans to function optimally
(C) that strength or virtue which enables a person to
achieve happiness
(D) all of the above.
#V "Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer. "
37. The author of #V is trying to show that
(A)death should not be feared
(B) we should be able to enjoy life even though death comes at the end
(C) what most people consider a great evil is really nothing
(D) all of these
3 8. The author of #V obviously
(A)does not believe in any kind of immortality (heaven or hell)
(B) is worried about whether he will go to heaven
(C) is not Plato
(D) is Epicurus.
(E) A, C and D
#VI“Virtue is a disposition to choose the mean that is relative to
ourselves.
39. The Author of #VI is expressing views which
(A) emphasize the ways in which virtues are somewhat like habits
(B) acknowledge that the best action for one person might not be the best
for another
(C) are relativistic
(D) A and B.
40. The views expressed in #VI are
(A) those of Aristotle
(B) those of Hume
(C) those of one of Plato’s students
(D) A and C
Remarks
on (Moral) Relativism, Accepting Differences, Tolerance and Related Topics.
Relativism
Relativism is the idea that there are no absolute standards of conduct or character for human beings. Some action, or trait, (usually the former) could be right or virtuous for one person or culture or society and wrong or vicious for another person or culture or society, even though there is no morally relevant difference between them. For example, it might be right in one society to kill handicapped infants, and wrong in another society, even though there is no special difference between them that would explain these opposing norms. The relativist claims that “that is just the way it is, there is no basis for saying that one of these societies is immoral or wrong; all we can say is that they differ.”
Relativist ideas or approaches to ethics gets expressed in many ways; for example, it is sometimes said that what is "true for me" might not be "true for you" (even when there is no morally relevant difference between us), or that it is never right to “judge” those who are “different” or that everyone should be able to “do their own thing.”
What arguments can be given for thinking relativism is correct? Perhaps the most common one goes like this:
1. People (cultures, societies) differ in their views over what is right and what is wrong.
2. Therefore, there is no absolute right or wrong, or, morality is just a matter of opinion
That argument is worthless. It is strictly analogous to the following worthless argument:
1. People (cultures, societies) differ over the shape of the earth (some think it is flat, for instance)
2. Therefore there is no absolute right or wrong regarding the shape of the earth; it is just a matter of opinion.
It is certainly true that people (societies, cultures)
disagree with one another, to some extent, respecting right and wrong. But it
is a mistake to suppose that the differences themselves entail or prove
relativism, as the preceding argument should show.. (Question 1. Say
why)
The following are some purported examples of "moral" differences between people or societies or cultures:
1. Some Hindus have thought that it is right to burn widows alive on the
funeral pyres of their husbands, whereas all Christians would think that wrong.
2. Aztecs generally thought that it was right, even necessary, to take
selected captives and slowly slash them to death, the longer the agony, the
better, whereas most people now would think that a terrible thing to do.
3. The Japanese bushido code stipulated that the proper test for the
sharpness of a warrior's sword was to cleave a stranger in two in one blow. If
it took more than one blow the sword was not sharp enough and the warrior had
failed in his duty to keep his sword sharp at all times. Most people now
would think such a practice morally vicious and absolutely inexcusable.
4. Some African tribes still think it is right, and even necessary, to
perform clitorectomies on young women, whereas virtually everyone in western
societies would think that to be vicious and cruel.
5. Augustine claimed that it might be right in one situation to have a
dictator, but not right in others.
6. Aquinas argued that it would generally be morally required to return
borrowed property, but sometimes, for certain people, it would be wrong.
7. Desert Arabs would consider it immoral for a person to use up huge amounts
of water for such purposes as daily washing down a car (or a camel for that
matter), whereas no one would think that immoral in
8. The ancient Romans thought that is was morally OK to
"expose" defective infants, e.g. take a little child with a defective
leg and throw him or her over a cliff. Most people now would think that
wrong and vicious (though there are notable exceptions!).
9. Aquinas reports Julius Ceasar as claiming that some Germanic tribes
did not think theft was wrong, whereas nearly all people at all times in
history have thought it was..
10. Some people now think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong,
while others think that the people who think that are themselves immoral, or
perhaps mentally ill.
11. Many people in the old south thought that slavery was morally
permissible, whereas hardly anyone thinks that now.
12. Some people now think it is OK to embezzle from large
prosperous firms, whereas others think it clearly wrong.
13. Some students think it is OK to cheat on exams (or so they claim),
while others think it wrong.
As already pointed out, no such differences prove relativism, and it is foolish to think they do. But do some of them at least constitute a kind of evidence for it, or confer some probability upon relativist claims?
Let's begin thinking about this by looking at 1,2,3 and 4. In all of
these cases the purported "moral" differences are rooted in varying
conceptions of nature and the Gods or other deep cultural differences.
For example, the Aztecs may have thought that the sun only rose as a result of
sacrifices made by the Gods themselves on behalf of humans, and that humans had
to respond by maintaining a constant flow of blood, otherwise the Gods would
respond very negatively to their lack of gratitude; in particular, the sun
would not rise. It is quite possible that if they had not had those particular
non-moral beliefs, they would have thought of the sacrifice of innocent people
as inexcusably cruel. So there is some question as to just how great the moral difference between them and (most
of) us really is. Similar considerations apply to 1,3 and 4. It is
possible that differences respecting 10 fall into this same category.
Call this "Category I." In category I, what appear to be
moral differences can be traced to varying conceptions of such things as the
Gods, the order of nature, etc. Perhaps such differences do amount to moral differences, but it is not obvious that they do.
Now consider 5, 6, and 7. In each of these cases the purportedly moral difference is very likely not a moral difference at all, but a difference in circumstances. This is so obvious in the case of 7 that it should not need explaining. Students in Phil. 110 should know what to say about 5 and 6 (question 2 requires you to say it).. Call this class of cases "Category II." Category II differences are traceable to such factors as different physical circumstances, unusual circumstances of other sorts, or in some cases differences that are themselves the result of other moral differences (so it is a pretty mixed bag).
What about 8-13? Regarding #9, Aquinas remarks of the Germanic
tribes in question that they had simply become morally corrupt en masse.
There are extremely good reasons for thinking such a thing possible. (A case
like that which sets the stage for les Miserables in which a man steals
food for his starving children, and accepts his punishment as just, would NOT
figure into those reasons. Why not? What should we say about it then?(question
3 requires answers to these questions). Similar remarks may well apply to 8
and 11-13. The beliefs described there are arguably simply the beliefs of
people who are morally corrupt or have become morally desensitized.
(Anyone who thinks that it is not possible to become morally desensitized needs
to read the newspapers). Let us call the differences in this class
"Category III" differences. Category III differences are traceable to
the fact that some people are deeply corrupted morally, or desensitized to an
important range of moral considerations, or are constrained in their thinking
by previous immoral acts or ways of thinking. 10 provides a particular
sort of case. People may differ on whether 10 belongs in Category I, II or III.
Arguments could be given for locating it in any of them. (Question 4 asks
you to say what some of those arguments might be.)
In general, disputes can break out respecting how to
classify some of the differences which I have divided up into these three
categories. Some people have argued that slavery in the old south was a deeply
ingrained part of a culture (and thus in some sense did not imply general moral
corruption in the white populace), in somewhat the way human sacrifice was
deeply ingrained in Aztec culture. Many people would want to place #3 in
category III. And so forth. There is room for plenty of argument on these
matters, but argument is relevant and there are very few people who really
believe that it is not (prove that!) (question 5 requires that
proof). Those who do not believe argument is pertinent are the real, as
opposed to the superficial knee-jerk type, relativists.
One thing that emerges from a consideration of such
cases is that there may in fact be much less in the way of actual moral
disagreement between people than relativists commonly suppose. It may be
possible to explain away all those disagreements belonging in Categories I and
II , i.e. show that they are not real moral
differences. The category III cases can be explained in various ways, but the
relativist cannot rule out explaining them this way: some people are just
immoral, and that is why their beliefs differ from the beliefs of some other,
moral, people. If he rules that out he begs the question in favor of his own
view. I.e. he just assumes his position (namely that there are no morally
right views) is the right one, rather than giving reasons for believing it is
the right one.
ACCEPTING DIFFERENCES and MULTICULTURALISM
The preceding section should make it clear why the notion of accepting
differences can easily become pernicious. Clearly not all differences
should be accepted. But which ones should be accepted and which should
not? That needs discussion. Unfortunately people tend to deny there could be
any point to such discussions, because they have been brought up in a
pseudo-genial relativist culture in which they are constantly exhorted to
" accept one another's differences" but virtually never told that
some differences should not be accepted, and that which ones should or should
not needs to be kept open as a matter for discussion. Someone might
claim that no one would infer from such exhortations as “we should all accept
our differences” that we should accept as just "different" Nazis who
have been conditioned by a whole, long standing culture, to think it is OK to
gas Jews en masse. Unfortunately, people DO make such an
inference. One student in a Phil. 110 class, fall ‘99, actually explicitly made
that very inference.
It is, though, very difficult to be a consistent
"accepter" of differences. It is comical to observe people who
are extremely emphatic about the importance of accepting differences but who
also get very heated up morally about, say, cases like 4. Nonetheless
some anthropologists and others inclined towards relativism do try to be
perfectly consistent “accepters of differences.” That is why some anthropologists have claimed
that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it is claimed that
there are many moral norms that apply to all
people and all cultures or societies,
is merely a product of white male western imperialist ethnocentrism. The
rights and duties the Declaration enumerates are not really universal they say, and those who think
they are have not learned to accept differences.
Accepting people who are "different" might
be interpreted to mean simply accepting people who are different with respect
to race, religion, intelligence, looks, social graces or the lack
thereof. That seems OK till you start thinking about Aztec religion(2) or
the aforementioned feature of Hinduism(1). Or, accepting people who are
"different" might be interpreted to mean "continuing to
believe in the dignity and worth of all people, even those who are wrong,
immoral, etc." That might be a good thing. But it is hardly
ever what people mean, judging by other things that are said and done (such as
what? Question 6 requires you to answer that).
It is worth noticing that so called “multiculturalism” often encourages the idea that one must accept or be “open to” all the beliefs and customs of people who are “different,” and even have a positive attitude towards such differences. Give an example from the discussion above that shows how implausible such a view must be. (Question 7)
TOLERANCE
It is amazing that people
who know the English language are so confused about tolerance. Tolerance is
often equated with "acceptance." But if I accept what you believe (in
the sense of agreeing with it, or being indifferent towards it), then I cannot
"tolerate" you or your beliefs. (Why not?Question 8 requires
an answer to this) It is necessary for genuine, morally worthy tolerance
that I actually disagree with those I tolerate, think them wrong, and, often,
think it necessary to argue with them in the attempt to show them that they are
wrong. One should not tolerate the burning of widows or the holding of slaves.
One probably should tolerate those
with differing religious beliefs (depending upon what behavior those beliefs
involve) even though one disagrees with those beliefs. But in either kind of
case you might have to look for a respectful and nuanced way of expressing your
disagreement. That would make tolerance a matter of style, so to speak. But the
notion that tolerance, in a substantive sense, is always a good thing is
manifestly false. The notion that we should respect other people simply
because they are fellow human beings is, on the other hand, something that can
be argued (cf. Kant). These two things, tolerance and respect, are by no
means equivalent. There is a sense in which we should respect even an axe
murderer. He should not be treated like dirt, like a mere animal. But we
certainly should not tolerate axe murderers.
PROBLEMS WITH RELATIVISM
1. General relativism must deal with
“Obvious man.”
2. If relativism were correct there
could not be such a thing as moral progress (why not? Question 9
requires an answer to that question).
3. If relativism were correct there
could not be such a thing as moral criticism, of oneself or of others. (why
not? Question 10 requires an answer to that question. Remember that the first interpretation of the
sophist Protagoras is that each person is the measure, or standard, for
himself.)
4. If relativism were correct, moral advice would be impossible (why? Question 11 requires an answer to that question).
The following questions have been raised in the preceding discussion, and should be answered and handed in under the title "Relativism Questions."
Relativism Questions (Use YOUR OWN WORDS. Not MY words.)
1. Why does the mere fact that people sometimes disagree with each other about moral matters NOT in itself prove relativism (relativism being the belief that ‘what is true for you is true for you, what is true for me is true for me" and other such stuff). In answering this question, give one clear counter-examples to the claim that differences in belief are in themselves a reason for accepting relativism.
2. How does what Augustine says about forms of government, and what Aquinas says about returning borrowed goods, show that the moral differences they point out belong in Category II. (Category II differences are differences based upon differences in particular circumstances or situations.)
3. Why should we NOT say that the theft committed by Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is like the sort of thievery attributed to the Germans by Julius Ceasar? \ a. Take into account what Aquinas says about the Germans, and give reasons for thinking that what he says does NOT apply to Jean Valjean.
b. What does this have to do with relativism?
4. Give arguments for locating the moral disagreement mentioned in 10 above in Category I, Category II, and Category III. Which seems the most plausible to you? Explain.
5. (A)Give some reasons for thinking that very few people actually believe
that argument is not relevant in resolving moral disagreements. Illustrate, and
give an example of how a moral disagreement might be resolved by argument.
(B) Even though many people talk like relativists, a REAL
relativist would be someone who thought argument is pointless when it comes to
moral disagreements. Explain why.
6. "We must learn to accept our differences" could mean "we must believe in the dignity and worth of all people, even those who are wrong, vicious, immoral, etc." However, judging by things that are commonly said and done, that is NOT what most people who say such things have in mind. What might some of those common sayings that show that is not what they mean?
7. Give an example to show how implausible it is to suppose that I should always appreciate or approve of differences between my culture or traditions and the culture or traditions of those who are “outside” my own culture.
8. I cannot tolerate you or your beliefs if I agree with them, or do not care one way or the other about them. Why?
9. Suppose someone thought that the elimination of slavery amounted to moral progress. Give another example of what seems like obvious moral progress. Why would a moral relativist have to disagree with the claim that either of these are in fact examples of moral progress?
10. (a) Give an example of moral self criticism. Then explain why such criticism should not be taken seriously, if we take the first interpretation of Protagoras’s relativism. (b.) Give an example of moral criticism of someone from another culture which seems justified to you. Explain why a relativist could not accept such criticism.
11. Describe a case of moral advice that you have received and one you have given. Then explain why such advice could not make sense to an individual relativist.
T or F
1. The sophists were generally relativists.
2. Aquinas was a relativist since he thought that sometimes borrowed
property should not be returned.
3. Descartes, like Plato, was an empiricist.
4. Empiricists believe that we could not come to know anything without
innate ideas.
5. Philosophers in the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition have tended to
favor teleological explanations.
6. Descartes thought that there was absolutely nothing we could be
absolutely sure of.
7. Locke argued that children do not understand that it is not possible
for a thing both to be and not to be.
8. Locke confuses knowing something with being able to formulate it.
9. Pascal thought belief in God is a good bet since there is a lot of
evidence that God exists.
10. The reformation in the 16th century broke apart the church and
challenged traditional religious authority.
11. Galileo lived in the 19th century CE
12. Augustine thought that disordered desire brings punishments only in
the after-life.
13. When Aristotle says virtue consists in choosing the mean, he shows
that being a mean person is a virtue.
14. Plato was a relativist.
15. Plato thought that all truth, including moral truth, was rooted in
the forms and above all in the highest form, the form of the good.
16. Hume argued that the ultimate basis of morality was in the feelings.
17. Aquinas held the view that the use of reason, unaided by revelation, could establish the existence of God
18. Anselm formulated an argument called the “ontological argument.”
19. Augustine lived before Descartes and after Aquinas.
20. Hume lived during the enlightenment.
Multiple choice
21. Epicurus advocated
(A) a life of unrestrained pleasure seeking
(B) a life lived rationally so as to avoid pain
(C) a life lived in strict obedience to moral norms
(D) all of these.
22. Epictetus and other Stoics
emphasized
a. the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure
b. the performance of duty
c. accepting whatever fate hands us
d. none of these
e. b and c.
23. Socrates argued that
a. it is impossible to know anything
b. the unexamined life is not worth living
c. the examined life is not worth living
d. all of these.
24. When Galileo finds an apparent conflict
between demonstrative reason and faith
(A) he adjusts faith to reason through allegorical or non-literal
interpretation
(B) he adjusts reason to faith
(C) he buries his head in the sand
(D) none of these.
25. If I do not tolerate every kind of diversity or “difference” then I
am
(A) necessarily a bigot
(B) possibly morally discerning
(C) a white male European chauvinist pig
(D) A and C.
26.The following are characteristic of the renaissance era:
(a)a revival of classical learning (humanism)
(b)the rise of a new science and astronomy
(c)widespread rejection of the teaching authority of the Catholic church
and a stress on individual conscience
(d)all of these.
27. Descartes argued that the senses are not a reliable source of
knowledge since
(a)they have often misled us
(b)we are subject to sensory illusions and delusions
(c)they are not sensible things
(d)all of these
(e)a and b.
28. Aristotle views the purpose for which something is done or happens as
its
(a)formal cause
(b)efficient cause
(c)final cause
(d)all of these
29.The following are among the reasons Descartes thinks you cannot coherently
doubt that you exist
(a)your body is solid and fills up space
(b)it is clearly taught in the Bible that we do exist
(c)if you tried to doubt whether you exist the doubting itself would
prove you do exist, since you have to exist to doubt
(d)all of the above
30. One of the most important developments in the modern era was
(a) the rejection, by the new scientists, of teleological explanations
(b)the tendency to view the universe as a vast machine
(c)almost exclusive reliance on what Aristotle would have called
"efficient cause" explanations
(d)all of these.
31. ____________________is the theory that there is only one basic kind of
substance or reality
(a)dualism
(b)millenarianism
(c)monism
(d)pluralism
32. According to many of the sophists
(a)might makes right
(b)right makes might
(c)absolute power corrupts absolutely
(d) a few very basic values are not relative.
33.Augustine argued that the law governing the earthly city
(A) must conform perfectly to the law of the heavenly city
(B) is sometimes designed to prevent worse evils in a fallen world
(C) should allow people to indulge themselves
(D) A and C.
34.The Aristotelian idea of a "final cause" is the idea of
(a)an explanation in terms of goals or purposes
(b)the last thing to bang into or cause another thing to move
(c)that for the sake of which something moves or changes
(d) a and c.
35.According to Aquinas natural law
(a)is a subset of eternal law
(b)is knowable by reason apart from revelation
(c)covers all inner intentions and thoughts as well as external acts
(d)a and b
(e) a and c.
36. The following are true;
(a) Aristotle lived before Protagoras
(b)Aquinas lived before Anselm
(c)Descartes lived after Hume
(d)none of these
(e)all of these
37. The following are true:
(a)the protestant reformation preceded the founding of the American
colonies
(b)Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm were all medieval Christians
(c)the protestant reformation came after the people mentioned in (b)
(d)Descartes, Locke, and Hume all lived in the modern era (1500 -
present)
(e) all of the above
38. The rise of the new science in the modern era crucially involved
a. the rejection of teleological reasoning
b. the rejection of explanations in terms of Aristotelian final causes
c. the rejection of explanations of natural phenomena in terms of purposes being pursued
d. all of the above.
39. During the medieval era many philosophers focused their attention on
a. proving the existence of God
b. proving the existence of the Forms
c. proving that the existence of evil is consistent with the existence of an all-good God
d. all of these.
e. a and c.
40. Hume’s views on morality
a. are relativistic
b. are Platonist
c. reflect typical 18th century disputes about the role of reason and sentiment in morality
d. all of these.
Study the following quotes and answer
the questions which follow:
#I And if any of the learned be
inclined, from their natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small
tincture of Pyrrhonism might
abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which they may
have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared with the
universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human nature. In
general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all
kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner.
41. This quote is from
a. Hume
b. Plato
c. Epictetus
d. Parmenides
42. The author of this quote thinks that
a. skepticism has some value
b. very educated people should not be to cocky or sure that they really know what they think they know
c. it is part of human nature to be confused and uncertain
d. all of these.
#II "It is now
many years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my
earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since
constructed on this basis. . .I was convinced that I must. . .build anew from
the foundation if I wanted to establish any firm and permanent structure in the
sciences.. ."
43. The author of #II is obviously
(a)inclined to accept things on authority
(b)inclined to doubt everything not firmly established
(c)self-critical
(d)b and c
44.The concern for a firm foundation for knowledge expressed in #II, and the
hope of finding such a foundation, is typical of
(a) Thales
(b)Aristotle
(c)Descartes
(d)none of these.
#III "A
human being is the measure of all things; of the things that are, that they
are, and of the things that are not, that they are not. "
45. This famous statement was made by
(A) Protagoras
(B) a sophist
(C) a relativist
(D) all of the above.
46. The "measure" mentioned in the quote could include such
things as
(A)standards of ethical conduct
(B)standards for judging how something tastes or smells
(C) standards for determining what is true or false in general
(D) all of these
#IV Hence there
remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is
something which cannot have proceeded from me myself. By the name God I
understand a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent,
all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if
anything else does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are
such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable
of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must
conclude that God necessarily exists.
47. The author of #IV is
(A)proving the non-existence of God
(B) using external facts about nature to prove that there must be a God
(C) arguing that only God could have produced in me the idea of God
(D) all of these
48. The author of #IV
(A) argues that I could not have simply imagined the idea of God
(B) argues like a rationalist, since he does not appeal to empirical
experience
(C) argues the way you would expect Descartes to argue
(D) all of these.
#V. But what then am
I? A thing which thinks. What is a thing which thinks? It is a thing which
doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also
imagines and feels.
49. According to the account of "thinking" in #V
(A) the sensation of a tickle in my toe would count as
"thinking"
(B) thinking would be identical with a brain activity
(C) thinking would be impossible
(D) none of these
50. The author of #V
(A) thinks that "I" am essentially a body joined to a soul
(B) is Descartes
(C) argues that thinking always involves denying something
(D) all of these.
#VI. ". .
. since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose
every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater
annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures
when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a
greater pleasure."
51. This quote is probably by
(a)a hedonist
(b)Plato
(c)Kant
(d)Epicurus
(e)a and d.
52. The author of #VI is arguing that
(a)you should eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die
(b)you should try to get an overall balance of pleasure over pain
(c)you should try to avoid all pain
(d)all of these.
#VII "Well, but
there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not
an absolute justice?
Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?
Certainly not.
Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? (and I speak not
of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the
essence or true nature of everything). Has the reality of them ever been
perceived by you through the bodily organs?or rather, is not the nearest
approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders
his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of
that which he considers?
Certainly.
53. This is obviously from
(a) a fragment of Locke
(b)Thales
(c)a Platonic dialogue
(d)Mortimer Snerd
54. The claims made in this quote clearly align the author with
(a)rationalism
(b)Cartesian ideas about knowledge
(c)the Platonic theory of forms
(d)all of these
(e)a and c.
#VIII "There is
nothing more commonly taken for granted than that there are certain principles.
. .which the souls of people receive in their first beings, and which they
bring into the world with them. . .but yet there are a great part of humanity
to whom they are not so much as known. . .[such as] all children and idiots. .
.whence [it follows that] there are no such impressions."
55.. This passage clearly is part of an argument against
(a) the theory of innate ideas
(b)the theory that we are born with certain basic principles already in
the understanding
(c)empiricism
(d)a and b.
56. The author of this passage is undoubtedly
(a)an empiricist
(b)a rationalist
(c)a Platonist
(d)British
(e) a and d.
IX Every art and
every scientific inquiry, and similarly every action and purpose, may be said
to aim at some good. Hence the good has been well defined as that at which all
things aim.
57. This passage is
a. the beginning of Aristotle’s ethics
b. the beginning of Descartes’ ethics
c. the beginning of a scientific inquiry
d. none of these.
58. This quote is
a. full of teleological terminology
b. the sort of thing one might expect from Hume
c. empiricist in nature
d. all of these.
#X “. . . suppose that God foreknew that the first human being was going to
sin. Anyone who admits, as I do, that God foreknows everything in the future
will have to grant me that.. . . since God foreknew that he was going to sin,
his sin necessarily had to happen. How, then, is the will free when such
inescapable necessity is found in it?”
59. The problem under discussion in #X is
(A) the problem of God’s foreknowledge and free will
(B) the problem of evil
(C) a problem typically discussed by ancient and hellenistic philosophy
(D) all of these
60. Augustine argues that the problem presented in #X can be solved by pointing
out that
(A) knowing ahead of time that E will happen does not itself MAKE E
happen
(B) what God foreknows is that people will do certain things which are
within their own power
(C) together with B, when what people do what is within their own power,
their will is free
(D) all of these.
First set of
quizzes
1. F
2. D
Q. 3
1. F
2. T
Q. 4
1. E
2. T
3. F
Q. 5
1. F
2. T
3.T
Second set
QZ `1
1 F
2 A
3 T
QZ II
1 A
2 D
3 T
QZ III A
1 D
2 F
3 T
III B
1. F
2. T
3. T
QZ IV
1 T
2 B
3 B
QZ 5
1. F
2. T
3. F
QZ. 6
1. T
2. D
3. D
QZ 7
1. F
2. B
3. T
QZ 8
1. T
2. T
3. E
Qz. 9
1. T
2. T
3. F
QZ.10
1. E
2. T
3. T
QZ 11
1. D
2. D
3. B
QZ 12
1. T
2. B
3. T
QZ 13
1. B
2. D
3. F
QZ 14
1. T
2. F
3 D
Sample Exam I
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. T
9.T
10. T
11. F
12. T
13. F
14. T
15. T
16. T
17. T
18. T
19. B
20 D
21. E
22. D
23. A
24. E
25. D
26. D
27. D
28. A
29. C
30. D
31. D
32. A
33. D
34. E
35. D
36. D
37. D
38. E
39. D
40. D
Sample Exam II Key
1.t
2.t
3.f
4.f
5.f
6.f
7.f
8.t
9.t
10.f
11.f
12.f
13.f
14.f
15.t
16.b
17.b
18.d
19.d
20.d
21.d
22.e
23.d
24.e
25.d
26.b
27. d
28. d
29. a
30. d
31. d
32. d
|
1.T |
28..C |
|
2. F |
29.C |
|
3.F |
30. D |
|
4.F |
31.C |
|
5. T |
32. A |
|
6. F |
33. B |
|
7. T |
34. D |
|
8.T |
35. D |
|
9. F |
36. D |
|
10.T |
37. E |
|
11.F |
38.D |
|
12.F |
39. E |
|
13.F. |
40.C |
|
14.F |
41.A |
|
15.T |
42.D |
|
16.T |
43.D |
|
.17.T |
44. C |
|
18.T |
45. D |
|
19 F |
46.D |
|
20.T |
47. C |
|
.21. B |
48. D |
|
22. E |
49. A |
|
23.B |
50. B 51. E |
|
24.A |
52. B |
|
25. B |
53. C |
|
26.D |
54. E |
|
27.E |
55. D 56. E 57. A 58. A 59. A 60. D |
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. B
5. B
6. B
COURSE
OUTLINE
Week I.
Requirements, grading, exams, etc.
Features of the text:
Questions, etc.
Time Line (xvii – xxiv)
Glossary: (697-703)
1.
Philo sophy. Science=Knowledge=wisdom. (epistemology).
2.
Search for reality beneath (beyond)
appearances (metaphysics)
2.1.
What is real? God? Atoms? Chemical
substances? Moral norms?
3.
What is permanent? In nature? In
human life? In religion?
4.
What is worth living for (or, what
makes life worth living, or isn’t it)?
Intellectual, scientific, moral, religious, TRADITIONS and History. LEARN it!
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY: THE GREEKS
I. Background:
A. Understand BCE, CE, centuries.
B. Greek Geography
Choose A or B, and say WHY:
The changes
we observe (e.g. shorter days,
rust on the
fender) are understandable in terms of
EITHER
A. “Nature” (an underlying stuff, or a
process, or natural forces, or some sort of natural order )
OR
B. The actions or governance of God or
Gods.
II. Homer (dates?) and Hesiod (dates?)
A)
Homer
1)
Explanations in terms of “Gods” (do YOU
do that?)
[1] Sing, O goddess, the anger [mênis] of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul [psukhê] did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs
[5] and vultures, for so was the will of Zeus fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another. And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel? It was the son of Zeus and Leto; for he was angry with the king
[10] and sent a pestilence upon the host to plague the people, because the son of Atreus had dishonored Chryses his priest. Now Chryses had come to the ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, and had brought with him a great ransom: moreover he bore in his hand the scepter of Apollo wreathed with a suppliant's wreath
[15] and he besought the Achaeans, but most of all the two sons of Atreus, who were their chiefs. "Sons of Atreus," he cried, "and all other Achaeans, may the gods who dwell in Olympus grant you to sack the city of Priam, and to reach your homes in safety;
[20] but free my daughter, and accept a ransom for her, in reverence to Apollo, son of Zeus." On this the rest of the Achaeans with one voice were for respecting the priest and taking the ransom that he offered; but not so Agamemnon,
Apollo (apollonian)
B. Hesiod: Limited explanations in terms of impersonal principles?
Hesiod on “gaia”
etc. “Theo gony.” 
In truth at first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the
ever-sure foundation of all4
the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus,
and dim Tartarus
in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, [120] and Eros
(Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes
the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came
forth Erebus
and black Night; but of Night were born Aether5
and Day, [125] whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus.
And Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every
side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods.
Order; the world is a
cosmos. Zeus as enforcer of justice (order in the human world). Non human and
human world not clearly distinguished.
III. Ancient Greek
Philosophy: The PreSocratics.
Three concerns:
1. One and the many.
2. Permanent vs. Changing.
3. Convention vs. nature.
A) Reason in search of understanding. “Making sense of it all”
1)
Understanding “what is real”
(*Metaphysics), understanding God(s),
understanding change, that is, making it intelligible, perhaps in terms
of something Permanent. Unity VS variety.
B)
The *one over the many (e.g. Thales,
Anaximander, Anaximines).
1)
“Making Sense” =being able to “unify
data” in the search for “scientific understanding” (the unity of science).
2)
Thales (600 BCE)– Making sense in
terms of “stuff.” The “one” is water. Primitive chemistry?
3)
Anaximander: Where did water come
from? Need an “origin” that avoids the “where from” question. The “boundless.” Doing away with the problem
of a ‘one’ that has distinguishing qualities. The Boundless has NONE. But it is a principle of order, of “justice” (in human AND non human world).
4)
Anaximines (580 BCE) - Making sense
by showing how qualitatively different
things are the result of quantitative
variation in ONE substance, i.e. AIR. (??) Condense it. Spread it out
(rarefaction). Change initiated by cold and heat, moisture and motion. Cf. q.
10.
Fire,
Air, water, earth. N.B. Thales and Anaximines are “MONISTS” of a certain kind.
“Stuff” monists. Only ONE stuff is fundamental.
PLURALISTS
claim that there is more than one fundamental stuff. Example: Empedocles.
The Milesians are unclear about what
gets change going.
C)
Change
vs. Permanence (Heraclitus vs. Parmenides)
1)
The one as “permanent substrate” vs.
“process.”
2)
Heraclitus – the “dark”
a. Change is everywhere. “Everything flows.”
“You cannot step into the same river twice.” The “religious” (human) yearning for permanence (cf. Trip to Bountiful).
b.What makes it the
“same” river? Structure. The *LOGOS. A central concept. Means “word”, “structure” , “account”,
“explanatory principle”
c. Images (?) for the logos. Fire.
Ordered process vs. stuff (cf. Thales).
d.*nomos and logos. Human
law and divine order.
3. Permanence, Change, and Rationalism. (science vs philosophy?)
a. *Rationalism. The use of “reasoning” or logic (dialectic) to reach
truth.
b. . Two basic assumptions of rationalism
1. the senses are worthless as a source of real knowledge. A basic position
in “epistemology.”
2. Only what is thinkable is real.
c. Epistemology (rationalism, empiricism,) and metaphysics; Different
epistemologies produce different metaphysics.
4. for example, Parmenides of Elea (500-450 BC)
a. Logic shows that there is only one reality, eternal, infinite! there is
no change! (*Eleatic philosophy).
i.
Basic strategy: it is impossible to
“think nothing” or “think what is not”
(ii)
Thus, There is only one reality: why?
If there were two, R1 and R2, in order to think R1, one would have to think it
as “not R2.” But, one cannot think what is not.
(iii)
It is infinite: Suppose the “one”
were finite. What would the problem be?
(iv)
Parmenides and religious mysticism.
5. Zeno (475 BCE): more proofs for the Eleatic way: Achilles and the
Tortoise. To catch up, Achilles must go half the distance. And
so?
D. Reality and Mathematics (Pythagoras. 550 BCE. The brotherhood and
beans.)
|
Oversat: |
|
|
|
|
|
Pythagóras blev født i den 50. olympiade - dvs. ca.
560-480 f.kr. på Samos. Hans far var Mnesarchus, som var fra Etruria, men
bosatte sig på Samos, hvor han døde. Pythagóras mor, Parthenia var barn af
Angaeus, den første konge på Samos. |
|
|
|
|
1. Reality is numbers! Music and metaphysics. Sounds can be thought of as
ratios. E. g. a note and its octave can be expressed as 1:2. A note and its fourth (4 steps above it) can
be expressed as 1:4. The note a fifth above it can be expressed as 1:3.
2. The most “beautiful and
harmonious intervals” are the most basic. Octave, fourth, fifth. (cf. the 12 bar blues!).
a. Tetractys. The universe is a
“cosmos” (cf. “cosmetic”, cosmology, cosmopolitan).
3. *Pythagoreanism, mysticism,
and modern mathematical physics.
E. Pluralists
a. Empedocles – four basic elements. Source of change is “love.”
b. Anaxagoras-infinitely many “seeds” all qualitatively distinct. Source
of change is “nous.”
1. Anaxagoras as first
“philosophical theologian.” No
anthropomorphizing of God.
c. Atomism: Democritus. The place
of the ‘mental’ in this physicalistic universe? (Is the sourness of the lemon
in the lemon?)
F. Xenophanes; Naturalism and critique of
anthropomorphizing. Explaining the rainbow.
a. epistemology – scepticism.
Summary: Pre Socratic Greek “Science.” Reason,
Experience, and the rejection or modification of mythical explanations.
Religious vision and Reason in tension. Science, wisdom, reason, experience.
G. Rhetoric, Nature vs.
Convention, Relativism, and The Sophists (a package deal)
1. Gorgias. Relativism and rhetoric. Persuasion at the expense of truth.
a.
2. Protagoras, Relativism and cosmopolitanism.
4.
Protagoras: Man is the ________ of religion? Morals? Science too?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient Greek Philosophy: Socrates and Plato.
A.
Socrates, (as seen by Plato).
1. five traits.
2. the Euthyphro – elenchus
a. Piety (rightness, good action) is what the
Gods approve (impiety is what they disapprove).
b. Some Gods approve of action X, some do not
approve of X (or disapprove of X)
c. therefore ?? (finish the argument)
3. Other traits in the Euthyphro.
4. The Euthyphro dilemma.
Either (1)what is right
(pious) is so because the Gods approve, or, (2)the Gods approve of what is
right because it is right.
Both (1) and (2) seem unacceptable. (Why?)
Solution: divorce religion and ethics?
5. Socrates DOES claim to know
certain things. For example,
a. Virtue and Knowledge. =?
Do vicious people
“know” what they are doing?
Socrates’
argument:
i. nothing is profitable
without wisdom (knowledge), (i.e. everything that is profitable is or includes
knowledge).
ii. virtue is profitable
iii. virtue includes (or is) knowledge.
b. True harm (real injury)= 61
c. The unexamined life is 66
d. Socrates as gadfly. 61
e. the death of Socrates. Compare to?
Jacques Louis David
B. Socrates/Plato and
the “forms.”
1. The “semantic” argument for the existence of forms.
2. forms are (paradigms, Euthyphro p.40) and . . .
3. Rationalism, Dualism, Immortality,
Recollection and the Forms.
a. The senses, the “body” and knowledge.
b. “Body” includes a moral dimension.
c. The senses cannot account for
possession of concepts. Cf. the concept “equality” and the two pencils
example.
d. The senses cannot operate without
concepts. Therefore, the concepts needed could not be derived from sense
experience. Right?
e. possession of concepts presupposes
familiarity with forms.
f. the senses lead to
contradictory judgments.
C. Plato:The Republic.
1. The cave. An allegory illustrating the confusion and general
intellectual/moral degradation of most people.
2. The form of the GOOD. (like “God”?)
3.. Why be just (honest, fair, etc.)?
a. The ring of Gyges. Does justice
“pay?”
b. Contemporary examples.
c. “Body heat.”
Week IV
IV. Ancient Greek Philosophy: Aristotle
life, background, style.
The
A. Physics –
physis=nature. An inquiry into change (cf. pre-Socratics). Making “nature”
intelligible.
1. “Unnatural” things can also change and those changes can be explained.
But, consider changes in artifacts that occur naturally – the coat that rots or
gets musty in certain environments.
Why does it get musty? NOT because it is a coat (i.e. a particular kind
of artifact)
Rather, it gets musty because of the “natural” stuff it is made of (e.g.
wool) being exposed to dampness etc.
Such changes in “natural” things are the special concern of “physics.”
2. The Four “CAUSES.” Explanations (of change) are
answers to “why” questions.
a. There are four different KINDS of “why” questions. The answers to them
cite “causes” in Aristotle’s special sense.
i. formal cause – “why do the interior angles of a triangle = 180
degrees?” The answer states the “form”
or essence or definition of ‘triangle.’
(This actually does not describe a change in anything).
The remaining three causes DO or can function as explanations of changes.
ii. efficient cause – “why is the tree on top of my car?” Answer states
the “force” so to speak that put it there, e.g. Katrina.
iii. material cause – “why is the
coat moldy?” Answer: it is made of
a kind of stuff (e.g. cotton) that interacts with dampness etc. (if it was made
of plastic “material” it wouldn’t get moldy).
iv. final cause – “Why does this bird have such a long beak?” Answer: in order to reach the nectar in
certain types of “long” flowers.
TELEOLOGY, TELEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION. (These kinds are special, and are
(always?) used to explain human actions)
i. notice that in final cause
(teleological) explanations, the “cause” comes after the effect!
v. Clearly some (but not all) “why” questions can have multiple answers:
“why do the leaves of the plant turn towards the light?” Answer this four ways. Notice formal cause can include final. A
hammer. Why is this (called) a hammer?
Why are the leaves changing color?
Why is Bill angry?
Why do objects near the surface of the earth always “fall” towards the
earth when unsupported?
Why do I have a stuffed nose?
Why does an acorn turn into an Oak tree?
B. The soul (psyche)j
1. soul=life. But, different ways
of being alive.
2. the soul is to the body as the eye is to sight. It is the “form” of the body.
a. soul (sight) as a capacity of a physical thing. Cannot exist apart
from the thing (no sight all by itself!).
|
|
||
|
home : index : ancient Persia : ancient Greece : Alexander |
||
|
|
Alexander the Great
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(©!!!) |
Alexander was educated by the great philosopher Aristotle of Stagira. The school at Mieza can still be visited (a little to the east and below modern Naousa). The Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea describes the school in section 6 of his Life of Alexander. |
|
|
Aristotle
|
|
|
C. Ethics Book I– a focus on character and a good life, rather than on particular actions and
their rightness or wrongness.
1. All our actions aim
at something (obviously. Action is teleological). That something is thought of as GOOD.
i. There must be some over-all aim (telos)
that structures particular aims. (Be able to illustrate).
b. Over-all aim is
happiness. (THAT “good”)
i. What is happiness? Aristotle considers various answers, rejects some.
(Which ones, and why?)
c. How define happiness? (Or is it all
“subjective” and a “matter of opinion”?).
i. Two senses of “a single account” or “a single definition.”
# the ridiculous sense. A
complete specification. E.g. only the life of a doctor is a happy life. That would imply exactness in ethics. But
ethics is never exact.
# the plausible sense – there
are certain essential ingredients in any happy (eudaimon) life.
a. Defining happiness by finding the “function.”
i. Happiness and proper human functioning. A happy person is a well functioning
person.
ii.What kind of person is that?
What is good functioning in the case of persons simply qua persons? (in
contrast to good functioning qua doctor, or ditch digger).
iii. When we are unsure about the
function of a thing, the distinguishing trait of that thing may clue us in to
its function qua that kind of thing (cf. the quarterback), and to “functioning
well.”
c. REASON is the
distinguishing trait of persons qua persons. Other living things lack reason
(the rational “soul” or part of the soul).
Human functioning is distinguished by reasoning (whether good or bad) or
“looking for and giving of reasons”).
Rational SOUL.
iii. So, A well functioning person is doing a good job of reasoning about practical matters
(matters pertaining to living).
iv. A well functioning person is a person who typically functions well (consistency). Happiness and a “whole life.”
d. Any well functioning thing has an
“excellence” (or several of them) that makes that good functioning
possible. (arête)
i. What would they (it) be in the case of a
quarterback? A knife?
ii. What would they (or it) be in the
case
of a human person qua human person?
Answer: Whatever traits good practical
reasoning has.
e. VIRTUE, excellence, proper functioning, happiness. The “moral virtues” give us a
specification of good practical reason.
i. They involve taking desires etc. under
the dominion of reason.
ii. They are what “statesmen” or
politicians are concerned with (!!!!!).
Humans are “political animals.”
f. Happiness is thus
NOT a matter of what happens to a person. The problem of moral luck, and Aristotle’s
uncertainty.
WEEK V
3. Ethics Book II.
a. Virtues (states of character) are neither natural nor unnatural. They
are acquired by repetition, and training.
i. Thus a good upbringing is
essential to the acquisition of virtues.
ii. We acquire both ways of
acting and ways of feeling. We can be trained into both.
iii. The virtuous state does
not produce “automatic” actions. The virtuous agent is attuned to the
requirements of the moment.
b. Pleasure and pain vary with training. I feel pleasure, or
at least feel less pain, when doing what I have gotten good at. Cf. courage. (cf. the long distance runner).
i. Good training produces a person who feels pleasure
and pain with respect to the RIGHT objects, in the RIGHT way, in the RIGHT
circumstances, in the RIGHT amount.
ii. Virtuous act vs. virtuous
person. Three features of a virtuous person.
c. Virtue is a disposition (define) to act reasonably (in accord with
human excellence. “excellence” = “virtue.”)
d. To act reasonably is to choose and act in the MEAN.
e. The definition of virtue: a disposition to choose the mean relative to
oneself, the mean being determined by a reasoned principle.
i. How do you know that
principle? (Models)
ii. Notice that a virtue like
courage, or generosity, is opposed by TWO extremes, not one.
e.g. cowardice
- courage - rashness
stinginess - -
This seems obvious. But, consider a contemporary example;
-
tolerance -
f. Reason as “substantive” in ethics.
Contrast with reason as a “means.”
Living reasonably is
part of what CONSTITUTES being happy. It
is not just a means to happiness.
· That follows from Aristotle’s entire account. Right?
· A is a means to B. examples.
· Reason as an “instrument” for getting what you want. What you want is
itself neither reasonable nor unreasonable. Contrast that with
· Reason is required for determining what to want. It is essential to a good life in that it
determines what that life is, not just how to get to it.
f. a list of virtues.
g. some virtues and vices are not always a matter of action at all. Character rather than actions.
h. Self correction principles. Lean towards what you don’t lean towards.
4. Ethics Book III.
a. Virtue is a
disposition to “choose” (etc.)
What is choice?
i. not simply “freedom” to act any old way. (Not the
“voluntary”)
ii. Choice presupposes “deliberation.”
iii. Deliberation is the
exercise of practical reason.
b. The object of
deliberation is life, how to live. Includes how to feel, what to desire. Human
beings and “second order desires.”
i. Thus Aristotle is NOT claiming that the virtuous person has
to “deliberate” about every single action.
Why not?
SUMMARY: Naturalism,
facts, values.
THE HELLENISTIC ERA
a. The social setting –
Alexander, Empire, individualism.
“Schools”
b. Epicurus – The most
important consideration – avoid pain.
Examples –
Epicurean physics and epistemology. cf. Democritus, p.
26-29
i. Atomism – Materialism- atoms and “the void.” Formation of
macro-objects. What gets it started?
Determinism – atoms as billiard balls. All explanations in terms of
efficient causes.
COMPARE TO ARISTOTLE
Final cause explanations are fundamental.
Contrast Aristotle and Epicurus in relation to this examples: why did the
pencil fall. Why do the leaves change color? Why do acorns become oak trees?
Why do some people live justly?
Practical atheism –
Epicurus – the epistemology –
i. Empiricism and “experience”
ii. Experience as sensation
iii. Problems with empiricism
iv. anticipatory schema
Discuss:
The best most natural
way to live is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
A=agree B=disagree.
c. Epicurean ethics.
i. Pleasure – list some kinds of pleasure
ii. Pain – list some kinds of pain
iii. Mental pains to be avoided – Gods, Death, ignorance. Ways to do it.
1. Death is no problem when
it arrives
2. If so, its approach should
not bother us.
3. So, it should not bother
us at all.
iv. end result? Ataraxia
v. Kinds of desire – inborn – necessary
inborn are those which?
necessary are those
which?
Inborn necessary-for
life, bodily repose, eudaimonia
Inborn not necessary
Vain
Eudaimonia – what is the POSITIVE
content? Ataraxia not sufficient
D. The highest good, eudaimonia and “prudence.”
i. instrumental rationality – be smart, maximize pleasure,
avoid addiction, avoid mental pains, do what is mutually advantageous.
ii. contrast with Aristotle.
E. Friendship and
pleasure –
i. obvious problems with “pleasure as sensations.”
ii. the Hedonistic paradox and intrinsic value.
iii. Vulnerability created by strong feelings vs. ataraxia.
F. Justice – reducible
to mutual advantage?
i.The ring again.
ii. instrumental rationality vs. intrinsic value.
G. Epicurean therapy
i. get rid of illusions, baseless hopes. (sex, passionate
love, material things).
ii. use your brains. Avoid such stuff. But what should you
PURSUE?
iii. problems again with friendship and ataraxia.
|
I. The Medieval era – the main formative event from the
Roman era? i. The setting ii. Problems of ancient
philosophy – iii. new problems for theism. II. Augustine – a
pivot (a hinge).
i. One big problem – evil in a
world created by a good omnipotent God. The argument 1. 2. 3. 4. ii. Faith and understanding – which
comes first? Should it? iii. The nature of evildoing – what
makes evil acts evil? 1. legal requirements? 2. the golden rule? Augustine’s solution – disordered desire. iv. Disordered desire =? iv. Disordered desire =? III Civil
and Divine law – still a very hot topic. i.
Civil law permits things that divine law prohibits. For example – 1. reasons – ii. Different strokes for different
folks. Relativism? iii. temporal law and eternal law earthly city and heavenly city iii. Augustine is a principal source for
Christian teaching about warfare, violence. 1. Anti-pacifist 2. lower standard for human law
(don’t expect too much from the “earthly city”). iv. Reason and the well ordered soul
(26-29) v. the concept of WILL. vi. vice and punishment (p. 191) vii. detachment IV. Evil is turning
away from the eternal and unchangeable to the temporal etc. i. another account of disordered
desire-excessive desire for the temporal and changing that makes us “turn
away.” ii. Is this “Greek philosophy” or
Christian teaching? iii. Turning to “nothing.” Plato: goodness = being, evil = non-being. Knowledge and being.
p. 196 iv. two solutions to the problem of the
origin of evil. (where did it come from?) 1. evil is the result of free choices 2. those choices are choices of
‘nothing’ (more or less!) and nothing doesn’t come from anywhere. V. God’s
foreknowledge and free will. A
problem; how could there be both? i.The argument: (199) ii. the solution: (200)
The Holy Isle ( ANSELM 1. Faith seeking understanding. i. Why is the one who says there
is no God a “fool?” 2. Define God – the being more perfect
than any other conceivable being. (Greater than which cannot be conceived). 3. There must be such a being--two
arguments. i. Ordinary existence is a “good making
property” P is a good making
property if for any X that can have P,
X is a better X with P than without. E.g. quickness is a good making
property for a basketball player. God is the absolute
goodest. So God must exist (by i).
ii Necessary existence is a “good
making property.” To exist necessarily means? “necessarily x”=df
“not possibly not x” “God” =df. “that
being such that it is not possible that he not exist”(i.e. God is eternal). Therefore, to deny
that God exists is to say the following; God (the being such
that it is not possible that he not exist) does not exist. Only a fool would say
that! 4. Guanilo’s response. Does not work on argument ii. ASSUMING BELIEF IN
GOD AND A SCRIPTURE, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? When science
conflicts with scripture (assume it does now and then), should you A. go with science
and reject and reinterpret scripture OR B. should you go with
scripture and reject (supposed) science.
AVERROES
(philosopher, doctor, jurist) The conflict between
“science” and religion. Averroes claims that
when science and religion conflict 1. allegorical interpretations of
scripture are always available. a. not any old interpretation
will do – only those that are supported by other, non-allegorical parts of scripture.
b. there is room for
disagreement on theoretical matters. c. unanimity is needed on
practical (e.g. ethical) matters. Aristotelian ideas
that generated conflict: i. the world is eternal ii. God does not know
particulars iii. there is no immortal soul With respect to I,
consider Gen. 1 and p. 217 Three “grades” a. texts that must be taken literally b. texts that can be taken
allegorically c. between a and b. Is the belief in the
resurrection a, b or c. cf. p. 219. Averroism and “double truth.” The way scholars read
scripture and the way ordinary folk do need not be the same. What would Augustine
or Anselm say? AQUINAS
I Aquinas and
scholasticism. II The existence of
God i not self evident – cf. reply
to Anselm. ii A posteriori demonstration of God’s existence is possible. iii Objections to claim that God
exists 1.problem of evil reply 2. principle of parsimony Reply III Proofs for the existence
of God i. “Cosmological” arguments. ii. The “five Ways”
1. Motion 2. Efficient Cause 3,4, 5. Design (teleological
argument). iii. Response to the design argument. 1. Apparent design in nature and
the theory of natural selection. IV. Natural Law i. Four kinds of law – all related to
God. 1. eternal (cf. 103). God as
“governor.” 2. natural - by reason we “participate” in eternal
law, discern good and evil. a.
i.e. we discern what is good for us, what contributes to our happiness or
eudaimonia. b. compare a plant to a
human (105). c. Aquinas and Aristotle.
Reason guides the inclinations, produces virtues. d. Aquinas and the first
Amendment. The First Amendment
to the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 3. human law– derived from
natural law. Application of natural law to cases. i. For example: “be
social” (natural law). Apply it – “don’t steal,” etc. Human laws against
theft etc. Human laws specifying varying penalties for the theft. ii. “custom” (nomos)
rooted in nature. Nature rooted in God. iii. Law as a measure –
remember Protagoras? Contrast to Aquinas. 4. divine (revealed). Natural,
and human, law are not sufficient. Four reasons we need
divine law (q. 11) There is ONE divine
law that covers all people at all times and all places. What then explains
diversity of moral customs and beliefs? 1. Inferences from general principles
can vary. E.g. Most general principle – be sociable · Inference - do not steal · Inference – punish those who do · Inference – fine those who do The further down you
go, the more differences break out. 2. Circumstances may make a difference · Returning borrowed goods is right, except in certain circumstances. 3. Passions may corrupt. Renaissance and Early
Modern 1--- - 1---?
Humanism,
Reformation, Scepticism/Fideism, RISE
OF THE NEW SCIENCE. 1. Humanism – 14th
and 15th cent. “Rebirth” of certain classical ideals. i. Pico – eclectic, focus on human
nature, human “dignity.” What makes humans “different”? Answers; Pico’s own striking
answer: 2. Reformation – i. problems in the church. ii. Luther – a. salvation is a gift – cannot sell it! b. Rejection of Aristotle,
“reason.” Stress on faith, “unreasonableness” of gospel. ( 3. Fideism and Scepticism – what is the
connection? i. Bayle (early modern). ii. Pascal – fideism,
plus an argument. (Pascal – 1623-62)
a. weakness of reason
– we lack capacity to know what God is that
God is b. either God exists, or not –
reason cannot decide. But we must! (must “wager”). Because? c. What are the stakes? Wager (bet) God exists – God does – result? God does not – result? Wager God does not exist – God does – result? God does not – result? d. what is the rational thing to
do? e. does a bet produce FAITH? No.
So, what should we do? f. James’ objection – “many
Gods” how that changes the betting
scenario 4. The Scientific Revolution i. The move from teleology to
mechanism. Illustration ii Astronomy 1
Observation and instrumentation 1.
Scientific “method.”
2 The
standard account of Galileo is faulty. 3. Science and religion – when there is a conflict,
what does Galileo recommend? 4. what is the real purpose of holy scripture?
iiiNewton 16-- 17— 1.
mathematics and the new science- Galileo on the “book of nature”, p. 315 2. a few principles explaining a lot of
different stuff (remember the pre Socratics?)
p.293 3.
intelligent design 4.
the principle of parsimony (remember?) Descartes – a
contemporary of the -------?
Continental (?) rationalism. 1. Systematic
doubting - We must free ourselves from prejudice (inherited opinions). i. start from scratch, seek certainty –
“foundationalism.” ii. not found in the senses (cannot
trust them – why not?) iii. the dream argument iv. cannot even trust mathematical
truths – demons and gods. 2. Absolute certainty
– about what?
i. a foundation, a starting point, (the
Archimedean point) in knowledge of existence of the ‘I’ ii. cannot doubt its existence. Why
not? iii. what kind of thing is this ‘I’? A thinking thing. a. “thinking” includes - 3. The wax, the
senses, and the mathematical nature of reality. i. primary and secondary qualities It is true that we have no experience of minds that are not associated with complicated brains. And from this fact materialists like Dawkins infer that mind is just a feature of matter that emerges when matter is organized in certain complex ways. As Nagel notes, this inference is also encouraged by the great explanatory success of the physical sciences: This reductionist dream is nourished by the extraordinary success of the physical sciences in our time, not least in their recent application to the understanding of life through molecular biology. It is natural to try to take any successful intellectual method as far as it will go. Yet the impulse to find an explanation of everything in physics has over the last fifty years gotten out of control. The concepts of physical science provide a very special, and partial, description of the world that experience reveals to us. It is the world with all subjective consciousness, sensory appearances, thought, value, purpose, and will left out. What remains is the mathematically describable order of things and events in space and time. Nagel is clearly correct about this. Physics is ultimately about quantities—quantities that are calculated through equations or quantities that are measured with instruments. However, from matter in motion through space and time, and from the equations that describe it, such things as consciousness and sensory experience cannot arise. So, as Nagel says, the project of “physicalist reductionism” is “doomed.” ii. what do I understand the wax to be?
REALLY. Only that which persists through
change. iii. clarity and distinctness as
criteria of truth. Namely, those features grasped by mind
– which are? 4. Proof for the existence of God i. begins simply with idea or concept
of God (cf. Anselm) ii. “there must be as much reality in
the cause as in the effect” and, only God could be the cause of such an idea
(why?). iii. a. There is a God and God is no deceiver. b. I could only be mistaken
in beliefs that are clear and distinct if God was deceiving me. c. Therefore, clear and distinct beliefs are true. 5. The nature of the
self i. a thinking thing, THEREFORE not a
bodily thing. ii. Metaphysical
dualism. The physical world has
purely quantitative properties. The mental world has only the property of
thinking, which cannot be measured, weighed etc. Therefore they are
completely distinct. iii. The big problem – mind and body
obviously interact (examples?). But, if they are metaphysically distinct, how
could they interact? They could not
interact in a certain place (the pineal gland, say). Why not? Week XIII 1. British Empiricism - |
