Course Review
December 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
December 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
