philosophy class
Fallingeagle
have to pass the exam, and I would like to get a ok grade.
my question:
how should I write.. is it good too arguee pro et contra?
and can someone give me a good comparison of the majoys philosophers
(aristotle, platon, decartes)
who are on the same team?
any generalization or thoughts about this would be appreciated..
Immortalist
Fallingeagle wrote:
> I am taking a philosophy cource which I do not like at all!, but I
> have to pass the exam, and I would like to get a ok grade.
>
> my question:
>
> how should I write.. is it good too arguee pro et contra?
>
Get a copy of this thin/thin book quickly if you want a philosophy
cheat sheet kid;
PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
London and New York
First published 1992 by
Routledge / Nigel Warburton
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
ISBN 0-415-05385-4 ISBN 0-415-05386-2 (Pbk)
--------------------------------------
Table Of Contents
Front Liner & Back Page
Acknowledgements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Philosophy and its history
Why study philosophy?
Is philosophy difficult?
The limits of what philosophy can do
How to use this book
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1 - God
The Design Argument
Criticisms of the Design Argument
- Weakness of analogy
- Evolution
- Limitations on conclusion
The First Cause Argument
Criticisms of the First Cause Argument
- Self-contradictory
- Not a proof
- Limitations on conclusion
The Ontological Argument
Criticisms of the Ontological Argument
- Absurd consequences
- Existence is not a property
- Evil
Knowledge, proof, and the existence of God
The Problem of Evil
Attempted solutions to the Problem of Evil
- Saintliness
- Artistic analogy
The Free Will Defence
Criticisms of the Free Will Defence
- It makes two basic assumptions
- Free will but no evil
- God could intervene
- Doesn't explain natural evil
- Beneficial laws of nature
The argument from miracles
Hume on miracles
- Miracles always improbable
- Psychological factors
- Religions cancel out
The Gambler's Argument: Pascal's Wager
Criticisms of the Gambler's Argument
- Can't decide to believe
- Inappropriate argument
- Assumes reasonable odds
Faith
- The Dangers of Faith
Conclusion
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2 - Right & Wrong
Duty-based theories
Christian ethics
Criticisms of Christian ethics
- What is God's will?
- It assumes God's existence
Kantian ethics
- Motives
- Maxims
- Universalizability
- The Categorical Imperative
- Means and ends
Criticisms of Kantian ethics
- It is empty
- Universalizable immoral acts
- Implausible aspects
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism
Criticisms of utilitarianism
- Difficulties of calculation
- Problem cases
Negative utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism
Applied ethics
Euthanasia
Ethics and meta-ethics
Naturalism
Criticisms of naturalism
- Fact/value distinction
- The Open Question Argument
- No human nature
Criticisms of anti-naturalism
- Promising
Emotivism
Criticisms of emotivism
- Moral argument impossible
- Dangerous consequences
Conclusion
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 3 - The External World
Commonsense realism
Scepticism about the evidence of the senses
The Illusion Argument
Criticisms of the Illusion Argument
- Degrees of certainty
Could I be dreaming?
- Can't always be dreaming
- Dreams are different
- Can't ask 'Am I dreaming?'
Hallucination
- Brain in a jar?
Memory and logic
I think therefore I am
Criticism of the Cogito
Representative realism
- Primary and secondary qualities
Criticisms of representative realism
- The real world is unknowable
- Primary qualities also subject to illusion
Idealism
Criticisms of idealism
- Hallucinations and dreams
- Leads to solipsism
- Simplest explanation
Phenomenalism
Criticisms of phenomenalism
- Difficulties of describing objects
- Solipsism & the Private Language Argument
Causal realism
Criticisms of causal realism
- Experience of seeing
- Assumes real world
Conclusion
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4 - Science
The simple view of scientific method
Criticisms of the simple view
- Observation
- Observation statements
- Selection
The Problem of Induction
- Another aspect of the Problem of Induction
Attempted solutions to the Problem of Induction
- It seems to work
- Evolution
- Probability
Falsificationism: conjecture and refutation
- Falsifiability
Criticisms of falsificationism
- Role of confirmation
- Real theories are interrelated
- Historically inaccurate
Conclusion
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 5 - Mind
Philosophy of mind and psychology
The Mind/Body Problem
Dualism
Criticisms of dualism
- Cannot be scientifically investigated
- Evolution
- Interaction
- It contradicts a basic scientific principle
Dualism without interaction
- Mind/body parallelism
- Occasionalism
- Epiphenomenalism
Physicalism
Type-identity theory
Criticisms of type-identity theory
- No knowledge of brain processes
- Properties of thoughts & of brain states
- All thoughts are about something
- Qualia: what it is like
- Individual differences
Token-identity theory
Criticisms of token-identity theory
- Same brain states could be different thoughts
Behaviourism
Criticisms of behaviourism
- Pretending
- Qualia
- How do I learn about my own beliefs?
- Pain of the paralysed
- Beliefs can cause behaviour
Functionalism
Criticism offunctionalism
- Qualia: computers & people
Other Minds
- Not a problem for behaviourism
The argument from analogy
Criticisms of the argument from analogy
- Not a proof
- Unverifiable
Conclusion
Further reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 - Art
Can art be defined?
The family resemblance view
Criticisms of the family resemblance view
The significant form theory
Criticisms of the significant form theory
- Circularity
- Irrefutability
The idealist theory
Criticisms of the idealist theory
- Strangeness
- Too narrow
The institutional theory
Criticisms of the institutional theory
- Doesn't distinguish good from bad art
- Circularity
- What criteria do the art world use?
Art criticism
Anti-intentionalism
Criticisms of anti-intentionalism
- Mistaken view of intention
- Irony
- Too narrow a view of art criticism
Performance, interpretation, authenticity
Historical authenticity in performance
Criticisms of historical authenticity in performance
- Time travel fantasy
- Simplistic view of musical interpretation
- Historical interpretations can miss the spirit
Forgeries and artistic value
- Price, snobbery, relics
- Perfect fakes
- Works of art versus artists
- The moral argument
Conclusion
Further reading
> and can someone give me a good comparison of the majoys philosophers
> (aristotle, platon, decartes)
> who are on the same team?
>
Find a small history of philosophy at the library and it should give
you the answers if your googlewikiyahoo enough...
Robert Cohen
articles and other explanatory articles of encyclopedias.
Original works are frankly often inherently written in archaic &
snotty/snooty nebulousness.
And besides, the translations into English (and other languages) are
merely the translators' interpretions.
So ...uh...screw the translation.
Go for simplified reference material, and be happy/consoled that some
scholars have dumbed the esoteric, convoluted stuff down so average IQs
can comprehend the semi-terrific incomprehensible materials.
Academia is not a suicide pact, and/or whatever.
Adapt/survive.
I think I get your question--at least partially:
The answer is to use what genetics & environment & possibly a super
natural dimension/realm have semi-generously afforded/endowed ya.
Or, take a welding course-curriculum a la:
business page/Saturday
(s) not John the Snob Kerry
AlanS
> I am taking a philosophy cource which I do not like at all!, but I
>have to pass the exam, and I would like to get a ok grade.
>
>my question:
>
>how should I write..
Using much better spelling and grammar, for starters.
BORG
"AlanS" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:n83qk29l4h2le022r...@4ax.com...
hello "i said" ?how are you!,
BORG
"Fallingeagle" <falling...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162664545.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
We know that kids these days think it looks really cool not using capital
letters and leaving in all the spelling mistakes even though they have a
spell checker but to be honest it is not really.
It looks about as cool as 10 American coaches and players of a football team
sitting on the sidelines of a live game ALL chewing gum. And when the
camera switches to them..................
Oh my goodness - WHO invented gum? Have you ever SEEN anything so funny?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Fallingeagle wrote:
> I am taking a philosophy cource which I do not like at all!, but I
> have to pass the exam, and I would like to get a ok grade.
WARNING WARNING WARNING
The below web site should not be visited by any philosophy students of
the 21st Century who wish to carry on being indoctrinated by fools, but
hey, if you're looking for grounds to sue your tutor for misleading
you, in regards to what philosophy is about, then you will find this a
good site.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_ReasonIsMansMeans.html
MG
-Phil Clemence
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1162687766.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I had seen the name Ayn Rand but never read anything she wrote.
============
A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being,
you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only
choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational,
disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or
let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions,
false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans,
unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but
integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused
into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place
where your mind's wings should have grown. Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs
It
============
Nice explanation.
Now I just want to know why her name is spelled funny.
I don't know who said it first:
"A little philosophy is a dangerous thing" ?
-Phil Clemence
George Dance
According to Rand, she made up the spelling herself:
<quote>
Excerpted from a letter to a fan, 1937:
"Your letter inquiring about the origin of my name has been forwarded
to me. In answer to your question, I must say that 'Ayn' is both a real
name and an invention. The original of it is a Finnish feminine name. .
. . Its pronunciation, spelled phonetically, would be: 'I-na.' I do not
know what its correct spelling should be in English, but I chose to
make it 'Ayn,' eliminating the final 'a.' I pronounce it as the letter
'I' with an 'n' added to it." Letters of Ayn Rand, page 40 </q>
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#ar_q3b
One interesting theory is that the spelling is based on the last part
of her family name, "Rosenbaum," as spelled in the Russian alphabet.
Please see:
http://arname.dhwritings.com/
> I don't know who said it first:
> "A little philosophy is a dangerous thing" ?
The poet Alexander Pope, though he actually wrote:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing."
http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/littlelearni.html
AKA gray asphalt
Don't come here. We're all a bunch of drunks and perverts.
"Fallingeagle" <falling...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162664545.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...