PHI 101

8/22 I'm here to become a more educated and intelligent version of myself, which will give me an advantage in life. I want this class to allow me to continue my degree, but I also don't mind taking time to argue about random ideas. I promise to not allow outside influences from impacting me negatively.

8/27 Physical space: location, bound by reality and physics philosophical space: "inherited background against which i distinguish between true and false" location experienced through your worldview your philosophical space can be imposed on physical space even the location can impose how philosophy works why important: historical views, contemporary views, critical reading/writing/thinking, recognize limits to worldview, be a better person

8/29 Argument: a series of statements where one statement (the conclusion) is supposedly proven true by the others (the premises) Conclusion: the claim being used to help prove the conclusion true. What are they trying to convince me is true? Premise: a claim being used to help prove the conclusion true. Why am I supposed to be convinced that its true? Logic: the study of what makes a good argument Standard form argument:
1.Cheating on an exam is a form of deception.
2.All forms of deception are morally wrong.
3./:. Cheating on an exam is morally wrong.
This helps us quickly interpret arguments. To evaluate arguments, ask 2 questions: Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? If the premises are true, then logic says the conclusion must be true. However, this is purely based on the validity of the premises. And even if the premises are true, the conclusion might still be false or even irrelevant. Objection could point to the rebuttal or opposite of the previous statement, explaining what it is vs what it isn’t. Objection: an argument whose purpose is to show why another argument should fail.

9/3 The job of a philosopher is to irritate and prevent complacency. Socrates could be seen as a radical, someone who is sarcastic, stubborn and essentially created European philosophy. When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good: but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whearas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifiling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy what I do not know. When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good: but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whearas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifiling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy what I do not know.
1. A person who acknowledges that they are ignorant is wiser than a person who does not.
2. If a person who acknowledges that they are ignorant is wiser than a person who does not, then Socrates is wiser than the “wise man.”
3. /:. Socrates is wiser than the “wise man.”
True wisdom: knowledge of what is eternally true and immutable, however is unattainable from a human perspective Human wisdom: the recognition of ignorance; epistemic humility Epistemic= relating to knowledge To deny premise 1: A person who acknowledges that they are ignorant is NOT wiser than a person who does not. To deny premise 2: You have to deny the relationship between the two.

9/5 Allegory of the Cave The experience of learning Metaphysics: the study of what is We can’t totally understand the world in it’s pure form unless we are released from this physical reality. There’s no way to know what’s essential unless we have an extremely varied perspective, almost omnipotent. The form of beauty-> the concept of beauty-> individual beautiful things -> imitations of beauty Major strategy: Dilemma Dilemma: facing two options, but neither is a good one, the horns of the dilemma
1. It is better to live among good people rather than wicked ones. 2. If 1, then either Socrates doesn’t corrupt the youth, or he does so unwillingly. 3. /:. Either Socrates doesn’t corrupt the youth, or he does so unwillingly. 4. If he doesn’t corrupt the youth, then he should not be found guilty. 5. If Socrates corrupts the youth unwillingly, then he should not be found guilty, rather corrected. 6. /:. Socrates should not be found guilty of corrupting the young.
Argument against fearing death 1. We should fear death only if death is bad. 2. Either death is A or death is B. 3. If death is A, then death is not bad 4. If death is B, then death is not bad 5. /:. Death is not bad. 6. /:. We should not fear death.
A: a dreamless sleep B: a place with everyone else who has died; afterlife Euthyphro Dilemma Divine Command Theory: morality is decided by the gods; to say that something is good is to say the gods love it.
Socrates asks “is a good thing good because the gods love it, or do the gods love a good thing because it is good?” A: a good thing is good because the gods love it. Implies that goodness is arbitrary and inexplicable. B: the gods love a good thing because it is good. Implies our definition is circular. 1. If DCT is true, then either A) something is good because the gods love it or B) the gods love what is good because it is good. 2. If A: goodness is an arbitrary label. 3. If B: the definition of goodness is circular. 4. Goodness can’t be an arbitrary label, and a definition can’t be circular. 5. /:. A can’t be true, and B can’t be true. 6. /:. Divine command theory isn’t true.

9/19 Doubt as a psychological state vs. reason to doubt Brain in the vat argument:
1. I cannot prove that I am not a brain in a vat, being fed experiences and beliefs by electrode.
2. If 1 is true, then I cannot know that any of my beliefs are true.
3. /:. I cannot know that any of my beliefs are true.
We need a foundation: I think therefore I am. The Cogito However, we don’t have access to others minds the way we do our own, so how do we know that anyone else actually has thoughts/minds like we ourselves do?
I am, therefore I think. It can’t work the same as the cogito because it only works the other way around. I thought, therefore I was. It can’t work due to the possibility of false memories.
Implications of the Cogito: The nature of self (epistemological -> metaphysical)
1. I can imagine my mind existing outside my body.
2. If something can be imagined, then it is possible.
3. If it is possible for my mind to exist without my body, then my mind is separate and distinct from my body.
4. /:. My mind is separate and different from my body.
Substance dualism: the theory that there are two fundamental types of stuff: mind and body.
Mind thinks but does not take up space (is not extended) Body is extended (takes up space) but does not think
Cartesian dualism: there are two substances, mind and body. And mind controls the body
Parallelism: there are two substances, mind and body, neither affects the other.
Substance monism: There is only one fundamental type of stuff.
Idealism: only minds exist.
Physicalism: only the body exists.
Cogito: The nature of self creates the democratization of knowledge.
Cogito: The nature of self creates the ideal that women are people.
Cogito: The possibility of God, assuming God is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibeneficent (all good)
Ontological Argument (Anselm is best version but this is Descartes):
1. I have an idea of an all perfect being.
2. I, an imperfect being, could not have created this idea on my own.
3. In fact, nothing but an all-perfect being could create this idea.
4. /:. An all perfect being must exist.
Cogito proves God, thus proves there is knowledge of the world So, an all perfect god is all good. Thus an all good being wouldn’t deceive me.Thus an all good being wouldn’t deceive me most of the time. Therefore I am not deceived most of the time. This argument falls into circular reasoning. I can’t trust my ideas-> But I still think->I have an idea->God->I can trust my ideas.

9/24 Cogito Refresher:
1. I think.
2. If I think, then I am.
3. /:. I am.
How does Chadha feel about the Cogito? Negatively To deny P2: Equivocation on the term “I”
Equivocation: a fallacy in which a term with two meanings is used with both meanings. Minimal self vs. substantial self
Minimal self: The consciousness of oneself as an immediate subject of experience, leaving aside questions about the degree to which it is extended beyond the immediate present. Substantial self: a unified and enduring subject of experience If (Minimal-I) think, then (Substantial-I) exist.
To deny P1: The experience of thinking does not require the existence of a thinker. You can’t say I think, only that thinking is going on.
Phenomenology: the experiential component to thought and sensation; the stuff you are aware of, when you are aware; the “what is it like” of conscious experience.
Qualia: instances of subjective experience; the “what is it like” of sensory perception; the feel of experience.
Quale: singular instance of subjective experience.
No ownership view: the phenomenology of thought does not require the existence of a thinker. She’s not arguing that it’s a plausible view, not that it’s fact.
Metaphysics of Self/ Personal Identity Soul theory: the self is a conscious entity, distinct from the body, therefore the death of the body does not necessarily imply the death of self. Problem of metaphysical cost: requires accepting the existence of souls as separate from the physical world. Problem of Identification:
1. A theory of personal identity is successful only if it explains the identification of persons is possible.
2. Soul theory cannot explain how identification of persons is possible.
3. /:. Soul theory cannot be successful.
Body theory: the self is the physical body; the death of the body is the death of self. Problem of Body Swaps:
1. I can imagine waking up to find myself in a completely different body.
2. If 1, then I am something other than my body.
3. /:. I am something other than my body.
Memory theory (psychological continuity theory): Person A at Time 1 is identical to Person B at TIme 2 if and only if B remembers being A. Problem of false memories Problem of missing memories No self theory: there is no self. It’s an illusion. Problem of incoherence: Fictionalism about the self: the self is fiction.

10/1 In 1842, the Vienna general hospital had 2 clinics for birth: doctors (10 out of 100 died) and midwives (4 out of 100 died). Ignad Semmelweis Upshot: belief is formed through our social connections, aka much of what we know comes from the testimony of others Social epistemology: the study of knowledge and belief-formation in the context of social relationships What counts as knowledge is affected by racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression Implicit bias: an attitude or psychological process that leads to biased judgements or behaviors and which operates independent of any explicitly biased beliefs Fast cognition: subconscious, not governed by rational thought or choice
10/10 fallacy:a mistake in reasoning Appeal to authority: when you accept a conclusion due to the authority of someone else This can become an issue if the authority isn’t worthy Argument against critical thinking
1. It is one’s best interest to follow a method of inquiry that is likely to yield true beliefs.
2. The method of evaluating research on ones own as a novice puts the novice at an extremely high risk of error
3. A method that outs the novice at extremely high risk of error is not likely to yield true beliefs
4. /:. It is not in a novice’s best interest to follow the method of evaluating research on her own.
10/22 We just talked about MLK and the letter from birmingham jail

10/24 To stay neutral when talking about religion means to appeal to the masses, since not everyone has access to religion. It also is almost impossible to debate religion after a certain point. Utility: total pleasure-total pain An act utilitarian believes the morally correct option is one that maximizes utility A standard utilitarian may think all sources and types of happiness are equally valuable, and everyone's happiness is equal, and temporary nature is irrelevant, and actual consequences matter (not predicted ones)

10/29 Intrinsic value: valuable in itself Vs. Instrumental value (extrinsic value): value for the sake of getting something else Examples could include roller coasters, coming to class, or going to the zoo If you can think of anything that is valuable but does not lead to happiness in any sense, then you disagree with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has the misconception that it only believes in short term happiness, but we must consider long term happiness and utility
So who has moral standing? Moral standing: being deserving of moral consideration So the utilitarianism is anything capable of pain and/or pleasure Does this include: Dogs, Plants, A human with dementia, A fetus, Aliens
If morally right: increases utility, and morally wrong: decreases utility Then what’s the difference between surgery and assault? This is a trick question! Act utilitarianism cannot make moral judgements about types of actions, but instead only specific instances of action Major problem: any type of action can be morally right, in some circumstances, and this is intuitively unacceptable. Organ transplant case
Argument from Intuition:
1. If act utilitarianism is correct, then there is no type of action that is wrong under all circumstances.
2. There are types of action that are wrong under all circumstances.
3. /:. Act utilitarianism is incorrect.
Rule utilitarianism: the morally right action is the one which is done with accordance with a rule which, if followed, maximizes utility What does this have in common with act utilitarianism? value=happiness What qualifies for moral standing Moral categories
Decision procedure:
1. Consider potential rules that you can adopt.
2. Adopt the rules which, if followed, will lead to maximised utility
3. In any given situation, choose the action that abides by the rules you have adopted
Major problem: either incoherent or collapsing into act utilitarianism Consider: organ transplant case If you follow the rule you are purposefully choosing not to maximize utility in order to…maximize utility? That’s incoherent If you break the rule, then you’re just doing act utilitarianism. Ultimately it fails

10/31 Kantianism: the belief that moral standing originates in personhood (rational autonomy)
What are the moral categories? Morally wrong: actions that go against moral law Morally permissible: actions that do not go against moral law Morally right: actions that do not go against the moral law AND ALSO are done with the right sort of motivations
The only law under Kant is the categorical imperative Never treat personhood, whether in yourself or in another person, as a mere means rather than an end in itself. So essentially always respect personhood as intrinsically valuable. Or never do anything that disrespects a person's rational autonomy. Also known as their consent.

11/5 If our emotions aren’t morally significant, then there is a fundamental issue. This issue is intertwined in kantianism. Friend in hospital Virtue Ethics Person based ethical theory: morality is about evaluating people, not included actions Act-based ethical theory: morality is about evaluating individual action Eudaimonia: happiness that comes from living well, from flourishing as a person, excellence This is determined by what kind of creature we are, as rational creatures. Aristotle suggests a life of quiet contemplation, and having your emotions and desires shaped by reason. Also cultivating relationships with family and friends. Also your health. However this is all affected by luck and our personalities. A tendency or disposition, included by our habits, to have appropriate feelings and responses.