Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Father of Modern Philosophy & Father of Early Modern Philosophy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Metaphysical dualism is typically considered to be the notion that there are two types or substances. A substance is that which underlies the changing world and makes it retain enough identity to change; Metaphysical view that all things are reducible to 2 different realities. |
|
|
Term
| Descartes was attracted to a ‘Geometric Method’- |
|
Definition
| philosophy like geometry should have starting points and conclusions like geometry |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| B/c Archimedes said “ Give me a place to stand and I will move the world!”, so Descartes in reference said “ Give me one certain truth, and I will build upon it an entire philosophy!” |
|
|
Term
| Why Descartes wants to create a new philosophy based on certainties: |
|
Definition
| to found the enterprise of ‘Modern Science’- |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| process of doubting everything that can be doubted to see if there is anything that cannot be doubted; |
|
|
Term
| The two operations of the intellect for Descartes: |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore, I am)- |
|
Definition
| Descartes method of doubt; doubting is a form of thinking, and to think I must exist. |
|
|
Term
| Why “I walk, therefore, I am”, or “I drink, therefore, I am” won’t work for Descartes |
|
Definition
| Mind is a substance the essence to think, walking and drinking are physical acts not tot in the mind? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| clarity and distinctness are hallmarks of any indubitable and certain ideas; have a clear and distinct idea is a necessary and sufficient condition of having a true idea; “I call clear that perception which is present and manifest to an attentive mind”-Descartes |
|
|
Term
| Necessary and Sufficient Conditions |
|
Definition
| ‘If’ indicates a sufficient condition; ‘only if’ indicates a necessary condition; what does ‘if and only if’ indicate?- it is necessary and sufficient conditions for something |
|
|
Term
| Eidological Argument (the causal argument) |
|
Definition
| God must exist in order to account for our idea of perfection. |
|
|
Term
| Ontological Argument (the a priori argument based on definition of God)- |
|
Definition
| begins with idea of perfection/ a perfect being, so the very concept of God implies His existence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| examples are omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, existing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| “ That which underlies or upholds”; signifies foundation that underlies sensible qualities or intellectual activities |
|
|
Term
| Matter (Descartes’ definition)- |
|
Definition
| ability to occupy space or possess dimensions; substance the essence of which is to be extended |
|
|
Term
| Mind (Descartes’ definition)- |
|
Definition
| substance the essence of which is to think or Doubt; a set of dispositions |
|
|
Term
| How Errors Occur (Descartes)- |
|
Definition
| our ideas may be confused, false b/c they have been contaminated with nothingness “from below”, whereas ideas from God cannot fail to be true. So the misuse of our free will results in many of our judgments being mistaken |
|
|
Term
| Various Objections to Descartes’ Philosophy |
|
Definition
3. Method: too rational
2. Cartesian Circle (charge against Descartes of circular reasoning; what is circular reasoning –Begging the question, crucial premise of the argument cannot be known independently of the conclusion; what is the charge, exactly, against Descartes?- he is willing to accept any clear and distinct ideas that are from God indubitably and use the ideas in proofs for God
3. Idea of perfection->(implies) existence of perfect being? Is this inference legitimate? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2 essentially different substances ( mind and body) that constitute the stuff of the world |
|
|
Term
| Some famous proposals for solutions to the mind-body problem (all by philosophers in the Early Modern period) |
|
Definition
o Interactionism (Descartes)the mind and body just interact thru pineal gland
o Occasionalism (Malbranche)- on the occasion of bodily stimuli or impressions, God created the appropriate idea and response in the mind ( ie. Pain)
o Pre-Established Harmony (Leibniz)- bodily and physical states have been pre ordained by God to correspond at every point with appropriate mental states;
o Double Aspect Theory (Spinoza, pantheist)- There is only one substance ( God), God has an infinite number of modes of being, mind and matter are just 2 of them.
o Ryle, Gilbert (late 1940’s book, The Concept of Mind)
He coined the phrase, ‘Category Mistake’
Says rather than mind being a substance it is a set of dispositions of the person to act a certain way depending on the stimuli
Related to functionalism |
|
|
Term
| Note: there is a longer quotation on John Searle at the end of chapter 5-? |
|
Definition
| “ there are 4 features which have made them seem impossible to fit into our scientific conception of the world made up of material things…” |
|
|
Term
| Searle mentions 4 aspects of our mental life appear unconnectable with the material world: |
|
Definition
• 1. Consciousness
• 2. Intentionality
• 3. Subjectivity
• 4. Causation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The idea, especially applied to mind, that the nature of something is better understood in light of its function than what it is made of.
o see Paul Churchland quotation which describes what ‘functionalism’ is- “ the essential or defining feature of any type of mental state is the set of causal relations it bears to 1) environmental effects on the body, 2) other types of mental states 3) bodily behavior” |
|
|
Term
| Radical solutions to the mind-body problem: Materialism- |
|
Definition
| view that reality consists only of physical entities with their physical properties |
|
|
Term
| Radical solutions to the mind-body problem: Idealism (popular vs. metaphysical sense) |
|
Definition
metaphysical- theory that all reality consists of mind and its ideas
Objective Idealism- things (ideas) that exist apart from our perception of them
Subjective Idealism- things (ideas) depend on perception for their existance |
|
|
Term
| • 3 points of Locke’s philosophy |
|
Definition
1) Locke is a Metaphysical Dualist (like Descartes, he believes that there are two substances, Mind and Matter, e.g. a human is made up of mind and matter))
2) Locke is also an Epistemological Dualist- there are 2 things in knowing something: the knower (person), thing known ( an idea)
o In the process of knowing, there is a subject and an object of knowledge
o When Ruth knows there is a tree in the yard, Ruth is the knower; what Ruth is aware of, that is, what she knows, is not the tree, according to Locke
o What is it, then, that Ruth is aware of?
o Following Descartes, Locke held that the immediate object of awareness is always an idea.
o Thus, when Ruth knows the table, Ruth knows an idea of the table.
o Apparently there is a 'real' table in the actual world that is causing Ruth to have a copy or icon or representation of the table in her mind.
o In class, I called this 'the causal theory of perception'
3) Locke held that objects have properties, some of which are primary (mind-independent) and some secondary (mind-dependent) properties. |
|
|
Term
| Can you describe the Primary / Secondary Qualities Distinction and give examples of each? |
|
Definition
o Primary= Independent of mind; Baseball- hardness, size, motion
o Secondary= dependent on mind, more subjective; Baseball- color sounds, taste |
|
|
Term
| Locke’s definition of substance- |
|
Definition
| underlying something that upholds physical qualities of sensible things ( size shape color….etc), and something that likewise underlies and upholds intellectual qualities ( thinking, denying, doubting) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| To be is to be perceived; summary of Berkeley’s position |
|
|
Term
| Berkeley’s Basic Argument |
|
Definition
o Ideas exist only in minds
o All things are ideas
o Therefore, all ideas exist only in minds |
|
|
Term
| •What does Berkeley mean by idea?- |
|
Definition
| (what we all mean) the mental representation of something in the external world |
|
|
Term
| Berkeley’s Argument for God |
|
Definition
| o 1. If the world persistently exist apart from the human mind perceiving it, then there must be a nonhuman mind that persistently perceives |
|
|
Term
| 5 arguments in favor of subjective idealism (Berkeley’s position, Berkeley’s arguments): |
|
Definition
1.The Discontinuity of Dualism- problem of interactionism; admit one substance, its easier to explain mind-matter relations in that way
2.Matter as a Meaningless Idea- we can’t frame an idea of matter. b/c we only know qualities, not matter itself so if to be is to be perceived then matter must not be
Locke on matter-“ It is something I know not what”
3.The Unexperienced as Inconceivable( point 2 generalized)- you can’t think of something w/o its qualities and qualities are all that we experience. So, the unexperienced is inconceivable
4.The Inseparability of Primary and Secondary Qualities- qualities rise and fall together; secondary qualities require a perceiver, primary qualities go the way of secondary so primary are also subjective
5.The Relativity of All Qualities- primary qualities are themselves subjective, so all ideas in the mind of the perceiver- “ Esse est percipi”; eg. Mite’s foot example! |
|
|
Term
| Solipsism: what does this mean? |
|
Definition
Belief in one reality (person), everything else depends on that mind for existence;
o Does Berkeley’s position commit him to this position? (No.) he acknowledges reality of things outside the mind
o Passivity of Perception: sole evidence for reality of things outside ourselves |
|
|
Term
| The Requirement of God as Perceiver of All Things- |
|
Definition
| sensible world must be perceived by a non human mind |
|
|
Term
| Berkeley’s Idea of Creation: |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Psychologically and Philosophically Grounded Criticisms- |
|
Definition
| if you do reject Berkeley’s philosophy do it for philosophical grounds |
|
|
Term
| Criticisms of Subjective Idealism |
|
Definition
o Main criticism: Berkeley is committed to the idea that the unexperienced is inconceivable. But this position he takes shows that he is too ‘sensationalistic’, too tied, that is, to experience. It seems clear that one could imagine something without experiencing that thing (e.g. God, or infinity, or a 1000-sided polygon).
o Also: If ‘to be is to be perceived,’ who’s perceiving God? Berkeley cannot answer that question, it seems, and retain orthodox Christianity (esp. since God is not a dependent being). But perhaps he has a way out of this, too, and it wouldn’t surprise us if he (Berkeley) does have a decent answer. E.g. God is unique; he exists without being perceived; or, yes, I hereby change my definition to: “With respect to everything that is dependent, or, with respect to everything that begins to be, to be is to be perceived.” Not a bad (anticipated) response, Berkeley… |
|
|
