Ultimate Questions: Thinking about Philosophy Fourth Edition Nils Ch. Rauhut Coastal Carolina University Instructor's Resource Manual LECTURE NOTES 3 Table of Contents Chapter One What Is Philosophy 4 Chapter Two Philosophical Tools 6 Chapter Three What Do We Know? 9 Chapter Four The Problem of Free Will 12 Chapter Five The Problem of Personal Identity 15 Chapter Six The Mind/Body Problem 19 Chapter Seven Does God Exist? 23 Chapter Eight What Ought We to Do? 27 Chapter Nine Should We Be Afraid of Death? 31 Test Item File Chapter One 33 Chapter Two 34 Chapter Three 35 Chapter Four 36 Chapter Five 37 Chapter Six 38 Chapter Seven 39 Chapter Eight 40 Chapter Nine 41 4 Chapter One: What Is Philosophy? Learning Objectives 1.1 Explain the similarities and differences between mythology, religion, and philosophy. 1.2 Differentiate between scientific and philosophical questions. 1.3 Summarize the major fields of philosophy. SUMMARY: Chapter One introduces philosophy by describing the relationship between philosophy, mythology and religion. Philosophy is the attempt to explain the universe with the help of reason. The interrelationship of science and philosophy is the topic of the second section. Students learn to differentiate between philosophical questions and scientific questions. The final chapter exposes students to brief explanations of the main branches of philosophical study (i.e. logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics). Chapter Outline Making Sense of the World Three methods of explaining the world around us: • Mythology o Simple, powerful stories to make sense of the world in which we live o Based on cultural tradition o Challenged by questions about truth • Religion o Based on divine revelation (dreams, meditation, discovery of holy texts) o Challenged by questions about the differences and incompatibilities of various world religions • Philosophy o Philosophy means “love of wisdom” o Like mythology in that it attempts to provide a comprehensive, big-picture view of the world o Like religion in that attempts to provide reasons that their big-picture of reality is true o Philosophers do not appeal to divine revelation or tradition to prove theories, relying instead of reason • Four Key Elements of Philosophy: o Knowledge of how to construct and evaluate arguments o Response to persistent questioning o A social activity that requires engaging with others o Creates a plurality of opinion, sometimes raising doubts about our strongly held beliefs 5 The Relationship Between Science and Philosophy Science, which just like philosophy is solely based on reason, was originally a part of philosophy • Within science there are a variety of disciplines (physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.) • Each discipline has its own methodology and set of questions • Each scientific discipline only considers a part of reality. • There are fundamental (philosophical) questions that go beyond the questions considered by science. These questions are the natural focus of philosophy. Philosophy addresses these foundational questions that go beyond scientific investigations. Answering philosophical questions is partly personal because it involves taking a subjective stance on ultimate questions. The Main Branches of Philosophy Philosophical questions can be divided into five different fields of study: • Metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality or what really exists in the universe. It also includes questions of free will and causality. • Epistemology is the study of knowledge and addresses instances in which we try to determine whether the answer to certain questions is knowable. Those who deny that we can know the answers to some questions are called skeptics . • Ethics addresses how people should act. It tries to find principles that can guide our actions. • Aesthetics studies art and beauty and questions what kinds of experiences can be considered aesthetic in nature. • Logic studies how we distinguish good arguments from bad ones by analyzing the nature of arguments. 6 Chapter Two: Philosophical Tools Learning Objectives 2.1 Learn to recognize logical inconsistencies. 2.2 Test definitions by using counterexamples and thought experiments. 2.3 Differentiate between logical and causal possibility. 2.4 Reconstruct arguments in standard form. 2.5 Evaluate inductive and deductive arguments. SUMMARY: In Chapter Two, students are introduced to those basic logical tools which are of importance in the study of philosophy. The chapter starts with a discussion of logical consistency and subsequently explores definitions and the concept of logical possibility. The final section of the chapter is dedicated to the study of arguments. Students learn how to reconstruct arguments in standard form and learn how to distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments. Chapter Outline Logical Consistency Philosophical investigation requires the search for logical consistency , which requires that all our beliefs can be true at the same time. Logical inconsistencies exist when not all beliefs can be true at the same time. In order to determine whether two statements are inconsistent it is often necessary to investigate background beliefs. A Demand of Reason: Avoid Contradictions Inconsistencies create contradictions , i.e., they simultaneously deny and assert that something is the case. • Reason demands that we dispense with inconsistencies in our beliefs Definitions In order to determine whether a given pair of assertions is contradictory, it is often necessary to define key terms precisely. Being able to give a definition is therefore important in philosophical investigations • The term which is clarified through a definition is called the definiendum . The sentence or phrase that is providing the clarification is called the definiens . • An effective method to provide a definition is by listing several necessary conditions which are together jointly sufficient for the definiendum to apply. The technique of providing a definition with the help of necessary and sufficient conditions is illustrated in the text with a number of examples. 7 Logical Possibility In real philosophical investigations, different philosophers sometimes disagree whether a given definition captures the meaning of a term correctly. In order to challenge a definition, it is necessary to show that it is logically possible that there are cases which are not covered by the proposed definition. These scenarios are called counterexamples. In order to develop counterexamples, it is useful to distinguish between logical and causal possibility. • Causal possibility is a state of affairs that does not violate the laws of nature. • Logical possibility is what we can conceive in our minds as being possible. o In order for something to be logically possible it must be free of contradictions. o Philosophy seeks to avoid contradictions, which involves checking for logical, not causal, possibility. Test definitions by using counterexamples and thought experiments. Counterexamples often involve descriptions of fantastic but still logically possible scenarios called thought experiments. Thought experiments are logically possible states of affairs designed to challenge definitions and conceptions. The Basic Structure of Arguments In philosophy, an argument is a reason for thinking that a belief is true. An argument is made up of a claim, or conclusion , that the argument establishes and reasons, or premises , offered in support of that claim. Putting Arguments into Standard Form Standard form clarifies the logical structure of an argument, by: • listing all of the premises in numbered, sequential order • including a conclusion at the end. Deductive and Inductive Arguments To evaluate an argument, it must first be classified. Arguments fall into two main classifications: • An argument is deductive when the truth of the premises guarantees that the conclusion must be true. • An argument is inductive when its conclusions are established only to some degree of probability. Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity and Soundness A good deductive argument is valid , which means if all the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. 8 • Validity is a judgment about the logical relationship between the premise and conclusion. o An argument is valid if the relationship between the premise and the conclusion is truth-preserving. o Valid deductive arguments with true premises are sound . Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Logical Form Deductive arguments can be classified according to their logical form. • Modus ponens : o 1) If P, then Q. 2) P. Therefore, Q. • Modus tollens o 1) If P, then Q. 2) Not Q. Therefore, not P. • Disjunctive syllogism o 1) Either P or Q. 2) Not Q. Therefore, P. • Hypothetical syllogism o 1) If P, then Q. 2) If Q, then R. Therefore, if P, then R. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Probability Inductive arguments cannot be ever be valid. Instead, they are evaluated on their conclusion’s degree of probability. Strong inductive arguments have conclusions that establish a high degree of probability. Weak inductive arguments have conclusions with a low degree of probability. • Enumerative inductive arguments ’ probability fluctuates based on the relationship between parts. • Analogical inductive arguments ’ probability is based on the degree to which two parts are similar. • Inference to the best explanation (abductive) arguments rely on an inference about the relationship of two parts to establish a probable conclusion. Two principles in philosophy can be applied to determine whether a given conclusion is better than others. Ockham’s razor relies on simplicity for theory construction. The principle of conservatism looks for conclusions that are compatible with a preexisting belief system and is, therefore, more subjective. 9 Chapter Three: What Do We Know? Learning Objectives 3.1 Describe the criteria used to develop the classical definition of knowledge. 3.2 Summarize the key elements of the three theories of knowledge. 3.3 Explain the influence of theories of knowledge in evaluating arguments. SUMMARY: Chapter Three addresses the classical definition of knowledge and breaks down three theories of knowledge: skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. Students will learn about the strengths and weaknesses of each theory and the major philosophers who have advocated these theories of knowledge. Chapter Outline Why Knowledge Matters Arguments, are fully reliable only if we can know that the premises of the arguments are true. We thus have good reasons to take a close look at epistemology and determine what we can know. Knowledge, Belief and Other Propositional Attitudes We can understand the nature of knowledge better if we contrast knowledge with other propositional attitudes like hope, belief, and doubt. In order for the assertion “I believe that the Earth is flat” to be true, all that is required is that I have the right kind of mental state. Knowledge, however, is different. It is impossible to know that the world is flat since knowledge requires that we understand the world correctly. Knowledge requires truth. This is called the facticity of knowledge. Searching for a Definition of Knowledge The classical definition of knowledge requires three necessary conditions: • Belief, Truth, and Justification • Knowledge, therefore, is true justified belief. Three Different Theories of Knowledge Three major theories of knowledge: • Skepticism • Empiricism • Rationalism Skepticism A skeptic denies genuine knowledge. Global (or universal) skepticism holds that no knowledge on any subject is possible. Local skepticism focuses on particular fields of knowledge or methods of justification. 10 Descartes’ Quest for Certainty Rene Descartes was the first philosopher to address whether we can prevent skepticism from undermining every claim to knowledge. • Descartes created a method for distinguishing mere belief from knowledge called Descartes’ method of doubt . It required him to doubt and examine all of his beliefs for certainty. Descartes tried to find a belief which ne could not doubt to be true. • Many people belief that they cannot doubt what they see at this very moment (perceptual beliefs), but Descartes was not convinced by this reasoning. He developed the dream argument which shows that it is possible that at every given moment in his life, one might be dreaming. However, if this is the case then we can doubt that our perceptual beliefs are true. • Descartes suggested that there is one belief which cannot be doubted to be true, namely “I think, therefore I am.” We cannot doubt that this is true because if we doubt that we are thinking, we must still be thinking. • Descartes’ solution is however limited. It seems to lead to Solipsism which asserts that we can know only the contents of our own minds. Empiricism Empiricism maintains that we can know something if we can justify it through our senses. Famous empiricist philosophers are John Locke, David Hume, and George Berkely. • We are born with a tabula rasa (or “blank slate”), so all of our ideas and concepts are derived from experience. o We can distinguish basic empirical beliefs from non-basic (inferential) ones. Inferential empirical beliefs must be justified through empirical evidence. The Case for Empiricism Arguments in favor of empiricism: • Empiricists justify all knowledge through basic empirical beliefs. • Those basic empirical beliefs are linked to the world around us. • Empiricism is supported by the natural sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.). Problems with Perception Empiricism needs to explain perceptual realism , or how we perceive the world and why we can rely on those perceptions. There are three different theories of perception: • Naïve realism (or direct realism) o The world is exactly as we perceive it. • Indirect realism o Not all properties we perceive in an object are actually in that object.