Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
there is no inate ideas the mind is tabula rosa at birth (blank slate) ideas of sensation ideas of relections - simple(building blocks) complex combos of simple
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| experence is the root of knowledge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
kNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE "that which one knows must not change" everything changes change is constant (SKEPTIC) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If knowlegde was possible it would come from either reason or experience (skeptic) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Can’t have an idea of anything unless we have an impression about it.
We have no perception of God, the mind or matter.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| solitity extention lenght motion and rest |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Independent of personal opinion secondary qualities (john locke) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
subject to personal opinion (subjective-subject) john locke |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| position comes from reason |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Empiricist "to be is to be preceived" all we ever have is our ideas knowledge is rooted in experience |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| - god existence can never be known through experience, but only from faith. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 17th century thinker, mathematician, scientist. In order to believe in god, you must chose to believe in god. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Agnosticism You believe in god or not If you believe in god and you're right, you have a chance of having internal life If you believe in god and you're wrong, you don’t have a big loss If you don’t believe in god and you're right, you would gain the pleasures you peruse in life If you don’t believe in god and you're wrong, you will suffer an infinite loss We can choose our believes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a philosophical problem, no one likes there is evil in the world - If god is all powerful, then god must be able to stop evil
- If god is all loving, he must want to stop evil
- But evil exists
- So either god is not all powerful or not all loving, or neither all powerful or loving (there is no god)
There can be no god, if evil does exist |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Natural disasters, not man made
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Made by man, Homicide, Terrorism
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- God gives us the power of free will and human beings have abused the free will with evil, and it should not be taken against god, but against human beings.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- You can't truly know what goodness is if you don’t have evil to contrast it with.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
David Hume- Empiricist
Agrees with Locke and Berkeley.
Hume’s empiricism leads him to skepticism.
Believes that knowledge comes from experience, We experience our perceptions but its precisely because of this that we know virtually nothing.
Perceptions can be divided into:
Impressions: come first, always much more vivid and intense than ideas. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| memories of impressions, always traceable to impressions. Follow upon impressions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Can’t have an idea of anything unless we have an impression about it.
We have no perception of God, the mind or matter.
We can not know that causality (cause and effect) is a necessary connection between events and Hume denies this.
The mind is a substance.
Natural religion is the attempt to show everyone that you can discover god through nature alone. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Knowledge does indeed come from experience. Thus what we see and know are our perceptions.
Berkeley believed that Locke contradicted himself in a fatal way
Locke can not sustain his claim that there is matter. (physical or without mind)
All that we ever know are our perceptions (mind).
Perceptions exist in the mind, not the world and only the mind perceives.
Both primary and secondary qualities are equally subjective or mind based.
There is no such thing as matter, only ideas.
There is someone who guarantees the existence of the world and that perceiver is God.
Berkeley believes that there is a God everywhere.
God is the only reason things exist when no one is there/around.
Admits to not having an idea or clear perception about God.
He can only know what he experiences and his perceptions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| did not think it was possible that experience could not give us genuine knowledge because the world of experience only tells us about particular things, and things are constantly changing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Partially agrees with Cratylus. (that knowledge is impossible because things are constantly changing.)
Denies that there is nothing that remains the same.
Experience can never tell us the essence of anything (because of essential features) and what makes it the thing that it is. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Experience can only tell us about particulars.
Essence of anything can not change.
Two tier vision of reality (two worlds theory)
This world-sensible (see, hear, touch) particular (individual human beings, chairs), changing things. Bound by time.
Forms (essences)-transcends this world. |
|
|
Term
| 1. Analytic statements (A priori)- |
|
Definition
1. Analytic statements (A priori)-(prior to experience): ARE universally and necessarily valid/true, true by definition. Tells us NOTHING about the real world. (Hume)
Ex. The green wall(s) is green.(predicate)
All green flim flams are green. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
2. Synthetic statements-are NOT universally and necessarily true. May happen to be true/false. Truth is known through experience. DOES give us information about the world. (A posteriori) (not really valid, after experience) (Hume)
Ex. This wall (s) is green.(p) |
|
|
Term
3. Synthetic (A priori) and (A posteriori) |
|
Definition
(Kant)- ARE universally and necessarily true, is known to be true prior to experience and it DOES tell us something about the world.
Ex. There are material substances.
All events have a cause. |
|
|
Term
| Pure Intuitions of the mind. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
thought that these philosophers had it all wrong and they all claimed that we’re only aware of our ideas. Skepticism is enviable. We perceive real things.
Ideal theorist: all other philosophers.
Draw conclusions that radically at odds with common sense.
We are the same persons from one moment to the next.
We have no alternative but to accept it-personal identity.
The mind is active, thinking, engaging in acts, perceiving. Always sees some object and not an idea.
Reid’s position: influenced by Berkeley. Insists we don’t know our ideas--we know things, objects. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Danish
Certainty is impossible.
The most that we can ever know is going to based on baron degrees of probability.
That which is known is never a suitable belief.
Can’t believe in the law of gravity, you can know it.
If there is a truth in objective clues were hiding from ourselves.
Truth is Subjective and you must choose it.
That which is known can’t be a belief. |
|
|
Term
| 3 types of choice a person can make: |
|
Definition
Ascetic mode of choice
Ethical mode of choice
Religious mode of choice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| act on your desires at the moment. Fulfillment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Ethical mode of choice-choices in terms of objective standards, principles, impersonal, other than ourselves, outside of us, can NEVER bring fulfillment.
-Abraham-(suspended the ethical for the religious-commitment to god-belief.) |
|
|
Term
| Religious mode of choice- |
|
Definition
| Religious mode of choice-chose god, obey god. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Bishop) live in the 1100’s
Articulated the ontological argument of god existence
Apriori (no experience) rather it attempts to deduce gods real on the
Based on the idea of god
“Only the fool that said in his heart that there is no god”
Self contradictory to clam that there is no god based on the idea of god
The idea of god is the idea of a supreme being |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
18th century British philosopher
If your walking and you come across a
Rock- could have been there for all time
Watch- you would know that it wasn’t there by accident
Some one had to put said watch together by an intelligent person
(Complexity=designer)
Even though you might have never seen a watch you know it couldn’t be there naturally
Watch= complex
Universe=very fucking complex=a designer
Intelligence is a property of the universe doesn’t mean it has to be everywhere |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Calls bull shit on this argument
The design argument doesn’t work
Some analogies just don’t fucking work
The universe is to fucking different to compare to anything we have here
We know how artifacts are designed because we have experience with building that stuff but no one person has the experience of building a universe
Who ever make this argument commits the fallacy
Commit the fallacy of composition
You reason from the property of the part to the property of the whole
Order is not synonymous with design
Order given enough time will arise from ciaos
In fact the analogy will prove too much
It will have implications that no Christian theist will accept
If the universe is analogous to a watch
There might be more then one creator of the universe
Were have no grounds to conclude that the creator of the universe is perfect
Since the universe is not perfect then the creator could be said to be not perfect
Even if the universe is perfect it could have been the final product of a series of errors. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Teleological design
There is design to the universe
So there must be someone who designed it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
We have to assume that everything that is has some reason or cause for it existence
No part of the universe can ever explain the whole
So the reason for the universe must be found with in it or beyond it
The reason is god
There is no out side the universe
A part cannot explain the whole |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Roman catholic British priest
Truth of theism
Argument of contingency
God existence in a more plausible then not god
There are something that don’t have the reason for them selves with in themselves
We always have to look beyond stuff to find the true reason for it
He wants to be clear that what we call the world or the universe are just the some of its parts
And no one part can explain it self
Necessary beings have the reason for them selves in them selves |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
That argument only makes sense when it is applied to prepositions not beings
Subscribe to what is called modern logic
19th century
Rejects classical logic
All martins are green
Only if there are martins
And if there are green
Is the classical logic
All martins are green could still be true even if there is no martin
They are all hypothetical
Modern logic looks at the meaning or words not the actual applications of the word
Weather there is one or infinity of contingent beings there would be no beginning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
if I have the idea of the perfect island then that island must exist |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
His reply
I’m not talking about the perfect island, house
I’m talking about the perfect being
He is “the” perfect Being
God is the only being for whom essence and existence are identical
Fideism god existence can not be know thru reason but thru faith
If you can conceive god that mean that he much exist
Faith |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Father of modern philosophy he was a rationalist
I have an idea of an infinite perfect being
At this juncture I don’t know where this idea cam from
But I know that I’m neither infinite of perfect
So I couldn’t have no have produced this idea of god
Which also mean that no other finite and imperfect
Could have never originated in the imagination of an imperfect being
If no one is perfect then you never have experienced perfection
But you no its absence
It’s not impossible for a finite being to have a finite idea
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Five-way argument
Cosmological argument of god existence
He tries to reason to gods existence
All of us recognize that change is a fundamental feature of the world
All of us cannot deny that change is a basic characteristic
Everything changes
What happens to
Potenality to actually
I.e. A piece of steel
Found in the snow
It is cold but potently hot
To heat it up you need to bring it into contact something that is hot
Potential to actual
Nothing changes by it self
Unless there was the first “changer” there would be no subsequent change |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Five ways
1 way of change
God is the first changer cause he never changes
2 way of efficient causality
There are material formal final and affiant causes
Bronze thing
Material- bronze
Formal –the thing made into a thing
Final- purpose
Affiant- who made it if the world is the effect then there has to be someone who made it who would the efficient cause
There must be a first uncaused cause
So with out a beginning there is no middle
To have effects you must have a first uncaused cause
3 ways of contingency and necessity
We would no exist with out a lot of thing i.e. parents food
Contingent- happens to exist
If all that there are were contingent being there would be nothing right now
With out a being to that was not contingent a being who is necessary
4 way of excellence
If there are grades of perfection there must be perfection
5 way of harmony
If there is harmony there must be a harmonizer
If there is order there must be someone who put them in order |
|
|
