Summary
Summary 1st Year Philosophy: Course Review
- Course
- PHIL1000 (PHIL1000)
- Institution
- Carleton University (CU )
A complete course review for first year philosophy. These notes were taken during the PHIL1000 lectures at CarletonU.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Course ReviewDecember 6, 2022 8:36 AM
What is Philosophy? What isn't? Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy is not the study of any particular domain. • Cartesian dualism
• Philosophy is an activity. ○ There is mental stuff
• Involves: ○ There is also physical stuff
○ Subjecting questions to answers and intense scrutiny. ○ But physical stuff ≠ mental stuff
○ Engaging in clear thinking and clear writing.
○ Developing our reasoning skills. • 'the subjective character experience'
• Focus of our course has been on arguments. ○ There is 'something it's like' to be in pain or to be a bat
○ An argument is a series of claims that are supposed to lead to a particular Q: Why do we have phenomenal consciousness but robots (plausibly) do not?
conclusion.
Q: What claims are being put forward? How are the claims supposed to lead to Philosophy of Religion
a conclusion? • A priori knowledge
○ Does not depend on empirical evidence, but rather proceeds by intellect alone
Epistemology • A posteriori knowledge
• What is the difference between knowledge and belief? ○ Does depend on empirical evidence, so relies on observing the world
○ Belief is not sufficient for knowledge.
○ Belief is a component of knowledge. Q: Does God exist in the mind alone or also in the physical world?
○ Justified True Belief (JTB) account of knowledge: There are two types of explanations for this question:
▪ Person (S) believes p ○ Ontology
▪ P is true ▪ Depends on a priori claims
▪ So, S is justified for believing p ○ Cosmology
• If knowledge is (at least) sometimes justified true belief, the when is a belief justified? ▪ Depends on a posteriori claims
○ Descartes says that if a belief is justified, then it cannot be doubted.
○ He also says if a belief can be doubted, you can't rely on it. • We often distinguish between belief and faith
○ Meditation 1: What can be called into doubt Q: Is faith in God ever rational? Is faith in anything ever rational?
▪ Descartes says: everything.
a posteriori knowledge and a priori knowledge. • A plausible (and general) epistemic principle:
○ You should not hold a belief unless you can support it by citing evidence or giving
• Some truths can be known a priori. an argument
○ These truths are known independently of empirical evidence.
• Other truths can be known a posteriori. • Epistemic rationality:
○ These truths are known because of empirical evidence. ○ i.e. is this belief likely to be true given the evidence?
• Practical/pragmatic rationality
• The Problem Of Induction ○ i.e. will holding this belief have good consequences?
Claim: the sun will rise tomorrow.
Q: is this belief justified? • Pascal's wager:
Reasoning: the sun rose yesterday, and the day before, and so on. ○ It is practically/pragmatically rational to believe in God because:
Win Lose
Q: How can we know about what we have not observed?
Bet on God Eternal life and Normal life
Ethics Infinite happiness
• Two utilitarian claims: Bet against God Normal life Damnation
1. Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends. ○ This wager is not about epistemic rationality
2. Anything else that is desirable ultimately stems from (1).
• Utilitarianism follows the greatest happiness principle. Philosophy of Art
• An aesthetic experience is a subject-object relationship
• Maybe morality isn’t about consequences, but about laws - i.e. the moral law 1. Fascination with the object
○ Laws are commands, or what Kant calls imperatives. 2. Appraisal of the object
○ Two types of imperatives: 3. Feeling of unity with the object
1. Hypothetical imperatives.
□ When an action would be good merely as a means to something • Hume thinks there must be standards of taste if we're going to explain (near) universal
else. agreement about some aesthetic objects
2. Categorical imperatives. • Hume also says aesthetic judgements are about the qualities of an object that
□ When an action is good in itself. constitute a disposition to produce certain feelings in qualified and properly situated
Q: how do we figure out which things are wrong in themselves? persons
A: Kant: we use out a priori reasoning. • High art and low art
• Categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim through which you can at ○ 'high art' might connect us with one group of people
the same time will that it become a universal law. ○ 'low art' might connect us with another group of people
i.e. if one person shouldn't do something, nobody should.
• Deontology follows this categorical imperative. Feminist Philosophy
Q: should we take gender differences at face value?
• Virtue Ethics is different from both utilitarianism and deontology. Q: what is the relationship (if any) between biological and socio-cultural differences?
○ Aristotle: "virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate."
○ For Aristotle, happiness = eudemonia (i.e. human flourishing) Political Philosophy
▪ So, the good life is one of human flourishing. • Hobbes thinks the following are true about human nature:
▪ And in order to flourish we must cultivate virtue. ○ We all desire self preservation
○ We all prefer not to be robbed, maimed, or killed
Metaphysics Q: how can the State be justified?
• Primary Qualities: solidity, extension, motion, number, figure. ○ Hobbes:
○ Seem to exist in the thing itself, they do not depend on subjective judgements.
▪ Because of the covenant or contract we would make in order to get out of
• Secondary Qualities: colour, taste, smell, sound. the state of nature and avoid the war of all against all
○ Seem to exist as effects on certain people, they do depend on subjective ○ Rousseau has a similar argument, also using a social contract to solve the issue of
judgements. the state of nature
• The one unbreakable law of metaphysics: Philosophy of Action
○ X is identical to Y only if X and Y have all and only the same properties. • Many of us believe the following things:
Metaphysicians call this 'the indiscernability of identicals' (aka Leibniz's Law). ○ We can choose our actions
○ Because we can choose our actions, we can be responsible for them
○ Because we are responsible for our actions, we can be blamed for them
• The free will debate challenges these claims
PHIL1000 Page 1
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller owenpete. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for CA$11.85. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
50155 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now