Term
| What are the central Humean commitments? |
|
Definition
1. Destroy dogmatic rationalism
2. To rid philosophy of vague and obscure notions by empirically grounding all philosophical terminology
3. To discover the principles with which we investigate and understand the world
4.To provide a philosophical middle ground that is instructed by skeptical thinking between two extreme and unhelpful positions (dogmatic rationalism vs. extensive skepticism) |
|
|
Term
| Humean thought is a precursor to what philosophical movement? (And describe philosophical movement) |
|
Definition
Logical positivism
(emphasized scientific method above all to discover knowledge;
science will solve all meaningful religious and philosophical questions) |
|
|
Term
| What is the verification principle? |
|
Definition
A statement that fails to be necessarily true is meaningful IF AND ONLY IF that statement is verifiable (or falsifiable) solely on the basis of observation
(doesn’t attack apodictic claims (pure abstractly claims of logic and mathematics)) |
|
|
Term
| What are the two types of mental perceptions described by Hume? |
|
Definition
| Impressions and Ideas/Thoughts |
|
|
Term
| Describe impressions (according to Hume's definition) |
|
Definition
immediate perceptions;
sensory organs are activated by external objects;
emotions;
lively, strong, vivacious, forcefully vivid |
|
|
Term
| Describe ideas/thoughts (according to Hume's definition) |
|
Definition
reflections, imaginings, anticipations, memories;
less lively, fainter, weaker, feeble |
|
|
Term
| What is the Strict Empiricist Doctrine/Thesis (SED/SET) |
|
Definition
| All ideas are copies of prior impressions |
|
|
Term
| Name the four logical argument strategies. |
|
Definition
1. If A then C: If it is a square, then it is a rectangle
2. Converse: If C then A --> not necessarily, square, rectangle, doesn’t work (just because it is a rectangle does not mean it is a square)
3. Inverse: If not C then not A -> not necessarily, if it isn’t a square it could still be a rectangle
4. Contrapositive: If not C then not A --> If it is not a rectangle, then it is not a square. |
|
|
Term
| What are two examples that Hume uses to prove all ideas/thoughts are copies of prior impressions? |
|
Definition
Someone born blind have no notion of color: restore sight, get new ideas
Someone born deaf lacks notion of sound: pitch, can understand rhythm but doesn’t know what a scale sounds like |
|
|
Term
| What counterexample does Hume supply against the SET and how does he respond to it? |
|
Definition
someone who has seen many colors
shows her a pallet of blue, and asks if there is a missing color? (Has a spot where the color would be)
Results: She can picture the missing color without having a prior impression of it
Response: Hume dismisses this because the idea is made up of two prior impressions |
|
|
Term
| How SET leads to Hume’s theory of meaning and its relevance with respect to philosophical investigation |
|
Definition
Meaningfulness comes from experience
It is only meaningful if it can be experienced (experimented on) |
|
|
Term
| What are the three ways that ideas can be associated? (with examples) |
|
Definition
1. Resemblance - simplest relation
-Example: Lake Erie -> Ocean
2. Contiguity (Adjacent to each other)
-Example: refrigerator -> stove
3. Causation relationship
-Example: pain in knee -> falling down the stairs |
|
|
Term
| What are the four ways that a cause can be linked to an effect? |
|
Definition
Necessary -> Lack of cause means lack of effect
Sufficient -> Presence of cause guarantees presence of effect
Necessary and sufficient --> Presence of cause guarantees presence of effect and lack of cause guarantees lack of effect
Partial --> partially increases likelihood |
|
|
Term
| What are the 3 methods of argument described by Hume? |
|
Definition
1. Demonstrations
2. Proofs
3. Arguments using Probabilities |
|
|
Term
| Describe "demonstrations". |
|
Definition
-negate the claim and derive an unintelligible and incoherent contradiction (contradictory opposite)
-proves relations of ideas
-by definition: necessarily true, known by pure reason (what the words mean)
example: imagine a bachelor is not an unwed male (REJECTION), that is the definition of bachelor |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-collect evidence showing that 100% of all cases confirms the statement in question (no room for REASONABLE DOUBT)
-can imagine the opposite
example: decapitate humans, 100% of the time they die, but you can imagine a negation in which they don’t die |
|
|
Term
| Describe "Arguments involving the notion of probability" |
|
Definition
-collect evidence showing that over 50% of all cases confirms the statement in question (room for DOUBT)
-same thing, prove using experimentation
-show that it happens over 50% of the time, probably
example: people who spend time in the sun are more likely to develop skin cancer
example: people who smoke are more likely to develop lung cancer |
|
|
Term
| What are the there are 2 objects of human enquiry (2 types of epistemic claims that can be supported by arguments) according to Hume? |
|
Definition
1. Relations of Ideas (RoIs)
2. Matters of Fact (MoFs) |
|
|
Term
| Describe relations of ideas and demonstrations. |
|
Definition
Demonstrations are arguments that reason deductively, or necessarily, regarding RoIs
Demonstrations involve pure reason, require no evidence beyond the mere operation of thought, and can be offered exactly when the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction
Relations of ideas -> Deductive, apodictic claims, can’t imagine a situation (unintelligible situation) when they aren’t true, analytic statements, known by the mere thought (no EXP or observation needed),
immune to doubt, a priori knowledge -> “before experience”, perfect knowledge, (reasoned), necessarily true
example: triangle has three angles
example: bachelors are unwed males |
|
|
Term
| Describe matters of fact and how they are argued/proved |
|
Definition
-Proofs are arguments that reason inductively, involve uniform causes, and leave no room for reasonable doubt
-“Probabilities” are also arguments that reason inductively; however, they involve non-uniform causes, thus introducing the notion of “chance,” and thereby leave room for reasonable doubt
-Both aforementioned arguments are formed and instructed by experience, involve argument by induction, and constitute the only evidence that can be offered in support of MoFs
-contingent: how reality happens to be
imperfect form of knowledge, open to doubt, synthetic claims: not true by definition, not apodictic: can conceive of their not being true, known by observations, a posteriori knowledge (after), not immune to doubt, must be able to defend probability, not necessarily true but it can be true,
supported by proofs or probabilities
example: Ms. Andes is a woman |
|
|
Term
| What is the foundation for all reasoning concerning MoFs? (the relation of cause & effect) Why? |
|
Definition
-Past experiences: when something funny happens, people laugh
-appeal to a causal relation that has been observed
Example: walking at Cal Poly, girl talking to a crowd of people, group of people laughing, you decide that something funny happened (matter of fact) |
|
|
Term
| What is the foundation for all reasoning concerning the relation of cause & effect? (experience) Why? |
|
Definition
| -Experiences are the only source of evidence of causal relations (past/present, not future) |
|
|
Term
| What are the 3 causation assumptions? |
|
Definition
1. C has priority (C comes first)
2. C & E are contiguous events
3. C & E are conjoined in our EXPs |
|
|
Term
| What exactly is the foundation for all reasoning regarding experience? (two assumptions that are not grounded in pure reasoning) Why? |
|
Definition
1. the future resembles the past
2. similar causes produce similar effects
Example: eating relieved hunger |
|
|
Term
| What would happen if your two crucial assumptions that our the foundation for your experiences were not assumed? |
|
Definition
-You would die very quickly if you didn't realize future resembled the past
-Babies who die young: born without instinct (something missing in native) |
|
|
