Philosophy Midterm Study Note
Philosophy Midterm Study Note Monday, 12 December 9am-12pm Large Gym, North and South Ends Benson Building, 320 Huron Street (south of Harbord St.), 2 nd Floor. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Short Answer Questions: identify the philosopher associated with the term or phrase, and explain its meaning briefly. APOLOGY AND CRITO- Socrates Socrates was distinctive in ways: 1. Socratic Irony 2. Socratic Ignorance
Socrates always maintained that he did not know anything, or that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing, or that he knew nothing of value, or that he knows what he does not know (which is most things or at least most important things). 3. Socratic Method(elenchus) A method to cross-examine Socrates’ beliefs on moral matters and to judge their soundness, or annoying random people on their moral virtues for fun! 4. Weakness of will Where one knows better and does worse, desire overpowering a person’s will to do good. Socrates seems to have held that knowledge is not only necessary for virtue but also sufficient for it, which led him to deny the reality of “weakness of will” and related phenomena. 5. Socrates held that morality is impersonal and complete, that is, it makes no special exceptions (impersonality) and can demand anything of you (completeness). 6. Rational enterprise What Socrates hold as morality, based on principles that need to stand up to examination and argument. Socrates Three Moral Principles: Principle of Justice- one must not do injustice (it’s wrong to do injustice, do wrong& treat people wrongly), pretty self explanatory. Principle of Just Action-one must not do injustice, even for injustice received(revenge is bad)
Principle of Just Agreements- one should keep arguments, provided they are just… if
someone asks you to hold their machete, it would be just for you to return them. However, if the person returns stumbling drunk, it wouldn’t be right to return the machete. He contradicts himself because he violates his own principles and that of the law. He says, “I have held it for a long time and still hold it”(49e). So in terms of the speech of laws he will abide by the laws when he is in prison but didn’t do so when asked to arrest Leon of Salamis. Then he violates The Principle of Just Agreements and Actions because he would choose to act against the courts gag order. The “early accusations” Socrates studies things in the sky and below the earth
Socrates makes the worse argument appear the better Socrates teaches these same things to others
Judical Gag Order: Socrates doesn’t believe what the question is saying he believes. Socrates believes in following only when they are coherent with the 3 principles stated in the Crito. Crito’s Moral Arguments Socrate’s death will be a loss for Crito and the other disciples, and hence it is natural for them to do all they can to avoid this loss Crito and the others run the risk of getting a bad reputation if it seems that they did not
get Socrates out when they could well have done so That Socrates should not be concerned about possible repercussions from his escape, because they are willing to take the risk If Socrates refuses to escape he will be implicitly endorsing the judges’ verdict, and indeed would be doing to himself what his enemies would do to him Socrates will be acting irresponsibly and be “betraying his sons” by not being around to look after them
REPUBLIC- Plato Theory: The divided line is Plato’s metaphysical/epistemological hierarchy. There are 4 epistemological levels: 1. Opinion/illusions 2. Beliefs about physical things 3. Abstract/mathematical knowledge 4. Philosophical understanding,
Which correspond to 4 metaphysical levels: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Shadow/reflections Physical objects Abstract and mathematical objects The Forms The Divided Line: One of the examples Plato tells in order to tell the readers something about the forms. In this case, the divided line is showing where the form actually is. So according to the line the form is in the intelligible ream with the mathematical knowledge while the others: images and opinions are in the physical realm.
Conventional Morality/Cephalus Justice is to speak the truth and to pay one’s debts. Against this, Socrates objects that “paying one’s debts” is not always just-hence Cephalus’s definition is too broad, including things that aren’t just. Tribal Morality/Polemarchus Justice is to benefit one’s friends and to harm one’s enemies. Against this Socrates argues that 1. justice would then be a useless craft 2. it is a craft that one may have without being just at all 3. it isn’t clear who is a friend and who is an enemy, and even if the definition were revised to take this into account, it still isn’t just to harm anyone. The Social Realist/Thrasymachus Justice is the advantage of the stronger. This involves two separate theses: 1. The ruler rules for his own advantage. 2. Injustice is more profitable than justice. Justice is not a virtue Injustice is more profitable than justice, for a city as well as for an individual The life of the unjust man is more profitable than the life of the just man Three Kinds of Goods 1. those that are welcome for their own sakes (joy, ‘harmless pleasures’) 2. those that are welcome for their own sake and for their consequences (knowledge, health) 3. those that are welcome for their consequences alone (going to the dentist) Three Arguments against justice
1. Injustice is the natural human condition; justice has been devised as a conventional means to avoid the evil of suffering injustice, as a consequence of weakness. Hence there is no motive to be just if one is powerful enough to not require such conventional protection. 2. The Ring of Gyges-Plato How people will act when authority or rule is not enforced and the mean to create injustice are given. Even when the person is a law abiding citizen, if given the means will commit crimes. 3. Putting aside the good consequences of justice and the evil consequences of injustice, the life of the totally unjust man is better than the life of the totally just man. Imagine a totally unjust man who appears to all to be just, and a totally just man who appears to all unjust. This is to sharply distinguish what is due to each in virtue of what each one is as opposed to how each one appears to be. The totally unjust man, who appears unjust, will be “whipped, stretched on the rack, imprisoned, have his eyes burnt out, and, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled”- whereas the totally unjust man will reap all the conventional rewards and pleasures of life. It seems obvious that the life of the totally unjust man would be preferable. Principle of Specialization- Plato The members of society best fitted for the jobs are given them in order for society to function properly. Meritocratic principle(society of pigs): Basically that people do what they are best at, as the “Principle of Specializaiton,” a meritocracy is based on merit, so if you are good at making shoes, you are to be a shoe-maker. Feverish Society Take a more flexible view of what counts as a ‘need’ than previously. The increase in population and in wealth and luxuries requires a new social class, not in the Healthy Society, namely the Guardians. This class eventually divides into 2, the warriors and the rulers. a perfectly harmonious soul (the appetitive part is ruled by reason, but in pursuing luxuries, you are solely being ruled by the appetitive part of your soul, and thus, there is no real harmony)is one where all three parts accept that reason should rule.
So is a perfectly harmonious Feverish society, one where reason rules (Philosopher king or something), possible? If it were, is it not possible for it to avoid conflict, even while expanding? It doesn't need to always happen. As long as it's possible though, haven't we shown that there won't always be conflict? The challenge in producing a ‘human guardian’- someone completely loyal to citizens and merciless toward outsiders.
Plato’s proposal is to mould character through education.
The Formation of Moral Character The education of the Guardians, and why not only education, but the right kind of education, makes all the difference. Social Virtue Wisdom: found in the society’s ‘sound judgment’ about social matters as a whole, clearly the province of the rulers. Courage: found in the capacity of a part of the city to preserve its belief about what is to be feared and what not, namely in the Auxiliaries.
Moderateness: a kind of “harmony” or “orderliness” located in the diffusion of the same opnion throughout the society about who should rule and who should be ruled.
Individual Virtue To carry through the analogy of society and the individual, Plato argues that there are 3 parts of the soul which correspond to the 3 classes of society; he then identifies the virtues within each individual soul as the counterparts of the social virtues described in social virtue. The Principle of Opposites: a proof that there are 3 parts to the soul “It is clear that the same will not do or suffer opposites, at least with regard to the same and
towards the same, at the same time.” (436b-437a) “Thirst is an opposite.” (437b1-d7) “Thirst itself is for drink itself, and not for any special kind of drink. Explanation: thirst qua thirst is not for hot drink or cold drink, or much drink or little drink, or drink of any specific quality.” (437d8–e8) (from [4]–[5] below) basically in the same way that a car can't be said to be moving and standing still at the same time, the entire soul of a person can't be said to be both thirsty and not thirsty at the same time. ie the soul won't "suffer opposites" because if we are thirsty and yet we don't actually drink something, it must be something other than the "thirsty" part of the soul that holds us back from drinking. the whole purpose of the concept here is just for Plato to establish that there is more than one part to the soul, and he establishes here that if we don't drink when we are thirsty (appetitive part), it must be due to the rational part of our soul "holding us back" for whatever reason
The Principle of Relatives
“As to those that are such as to be of something, those that are somehow qualified are of something qualified, it seems to me, but those that are simply themselves are of something simply itself alone.”(438a7-b2) “Thirst is one of those that are of something.” (439A1-2) basically thirst itself is related to drink itself, not for any type or quantity of drink, and any other appetite for something is related only to the thing itself. ie "each appetite itself is only for its natural object, while the appetite of a certain sort depends on additions". the qualifier that someone thirsts only for good drink or is hungry only for good food is unnecessary because "everyone after all has an appetite for good things" this one is substantially more confusing than the principle of opposites, but i think for a definition it would be good enough to say that it is used to state that any appetite is related to the thing which quenches that appetite, and that no one has an appetite for bad drink or mouldy food or something
The Traditional Values a. wisdom is the rule of the rational part of the soul b. courage is the activity of the spirited part of the soul, regardless of pain and pleasure c. moderateness is harmony among the parts of the soul so that each part believes reason ought to rule d. justice is each part of the soul respecting its proper place in the hierarchy Woman's Equality
The “equality” in question is that possessed by each member of the Feverish Society, namely to be assigned labour-activities solely on the basis of merit. This leads naturally to the conclusion that women are to have exactly the same training as men if women are to occupy the same social roles as men. There are only 2 differences between the sexes which might be important: 1. they have different roles in procreation 2. men are generally stronger then women. P Plato then argues that whereas men are generally better than women at various pursuits, women are better than men at several, such as cake-baking. Presumably his point is that even in the limited opportunities available to women traditionally, we can see clear cases of excellence and differential talents/abilities.
The Abolition of Marriage Plato takes it to follow from women’s equality that his contemporary Greek marriage-system is inappropriate. Instead, he puts forward a system for sexual liaisons, always for the purposes of
procreation, based on eugenics: the best should be mated with the best, and the remainder in
whatever fashion possible to optimize the “quality” of the children produced. However, this should take place by a kind of “rigged lottery” system, so as to avoid resentment. Sexual encounters take place under strict regulation, with prospective parents joined together at regular ritual festivals, and other sexual encounters (at least heterosexual ones) severely punished. Sexual encounters may also serve as “reward of state”-and are undoubtedly more fun than medals and ribbons.
Separation of Parents and Children Weak separation: Children are not to be raised by their biological parents, but by professional child-care specialists, referring to the Principle of Specialization, bearing a child is no reason to
think that one would be any good at raising it, especially were trained professionals available to do the job. Strong separation: Children and parents are to be kept in ignorance of one another’s identities, have to do with the proper object of affective bonds, 1. the affective bonds between biological parents and children are removed by ignorance, and so a potentially divisive force in the society is taken away 2. this will open up a new focus for such parental or filial affection, namely the society itself, thereby increasing social cohesion and unity.
The Theory of Forms- Platonic Forms The forms are non-material, but existent things from which objects in our reality derive their
qualities. They are the true reality, of which the world of physical objects is a crude reflection. They guarantee the objectivity and factuality of moral claims, and perhaps provide a basis for the claim that they are known to but a few. 1. there are “moral facts” 2. these moral facts can be know by us; there is moral knowledge 3. moral knowledge is technical and specialized, requiring specific abilities and talents that must be trained 4. moral knowledge includes the “art of rulership” 5. moral expert, ie, those who possess moral knowledge, ought to rule.
The Noble Lie/Plato Myth of the metals, to divide people into different classes, needed in Plato’s perspective for society to function properly. People knowing where they belong and what their purpose is, bronze to do manual work, silver to guard, and gold to rule. Allegory of Cave:
Plato’s analogy that contributes to his theory that Philosophers ought to rule. In this theory he illustrates that philosophers are the ones who made it out of the cave and have experienced the forms. They must be compelled to go back into the cave and guide the rest of the prisoners through his knowledge of the Forms that he now possesses.
There are different kinds of Person and Society: Just person: whom the reasoning part of the soul predominates Timocratic person: whom the spirited part of the soul presominates The person in whom the appetitive part of the soul predominates: -> Oligarchic person: ruled by necessary desires (money) -> Democratic person: ruled by necessary and unnecessary desires (luxuries) -> Tyrannical person: ruled by all desires (lawless desires) The Political Proof
Again Plato offers us an argument by analogy: as the tyrant-ruled society is the most miserable among societies, so too the tyrannical person is the most miserable of all.
The Psychological Proof An analogy used, imagine a tyrannical-rule society, this would be the most miserable among all societies, so too the tyrannical person is the most miserable too. The metaphysical Proof
This proof are meant to show that the pleasures of the tyrannical person are ‘false’ and illusory. There are 3 states of the soul: 1. Pleasure 2. Clam 3. Pain
Aristotle- NICOMACHEAN ETHICS The Action Theory Referring to Aristotle’s Nicomachean, in Book 3, concerning with theories about the processes causing willful human bodily movements of more or less complex kind. Basic action theory typically describes action as behavior caused by an agent in a particular situation. The agent’s desires and beliefs (e.g. my wanting a glass of water and believing the clear liquid in the cup in front of me is water) lead to bodily behavior (e.g. reaching over for the glass). In the simple theory (see Donald Davidson), the desire and belief jointly cause the action.
Voluntary Action: you have to have the principle of action from you; you have to be aware of
circumstance of what you are doing. Involuntary Action: you have the principle of action from someone else (do things when forced); you don’t know what you are doing. *if you don’t regret what you’ve done, still non-voluntary. The Doctrine of the Mean The centre of Aristotle’s account of moral virtue. Aristotle seeks flourishing happiness in life. He believes that this can be achieved for each individual through the embracement of virtues. Aristotle believes that virtues are the mean of two vices. This is the basis of the Aristotelian “Doctrine of the Mean”.
A disposition concerned with choice and lying in a mean. The doctrine reminds us that there are always two opposite errors which we must avoid.
Rational Choice (3.1-5) Commissions Omissions The project of the Nicomechean Ethics The theoretical foundations of the common moral consciousness, a piece of ‘descriptive’ ethics, designed to give an account of the good for human beings, namely happiness. The Highest Good Aristotle’s argument that there must be a highest good. The highest good must be a complete end. 1. There is only one complete end, then this is the highest good, and it is unique. 2. There are several complete ends, then they can be ordered in a scale from the least to the most complete. The most complete will then be the highest good and, again, it will be the only one. The Functional Argument There are 2 parts of it. It basically states that something is good if it performs its natural function well, for example a good cheese knife is a knife that cuts cheese well. The second part he examines the function of a human being. He argues that the function of a human being is that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue. Moral Situationist: In order to be right a given action has to accord with the situation in which it is performed.
Consequent Ignorance Ignorance that is itself the product of voluntary action, either direct or habitual. Concomitant Ignorance Ignorance that would not change the action were it not present, that is, were the agent to have the relevant knowledge. Neither of these types of ignorance exculpates the agent. Antecedent Ignorance Ignorance that is not voluntary and is the cause of the agent doing what he would otherwise not do. CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY- Boethius The Prisoners Lament
Problem of Desert The concept of desert is deeply entrenched in everyday morality. We say that effort deserves success, wrongdoing deserves punishment, innocent suffering deserves sympathy or compensation, virtue deserves happiness, and so on. We think that the getting of what's deserved is just, and that failure to receive what's deserved is unjust. It's good that a person gets what she deserves, and bad that she doesn't—even if she deserves something bad, like punishment. It's wrong to treat people better or worse than they deserve, and right to treat them according to their deserts. In these and other ways, the notion of desert pervades our ethical lives.
Popular Consolation Lady Philosophy begins with the “sweet persuasiveness of rhetoric,” which has to be guided by philosophy to stay on the right road. Boethius should count his blessings; he ought to recognize that good fortune only comes with adverse fortune; good fortune may pass, but by the same token so does adverse fortune. The Fleeting Goods of Fortune The Second ‘wave’ of therapy offers three arguments that ephemeral goods cannot provide happiness. The first argument is: 1. Happiness is the highest good. 2. A good that cannot be taken away is better than one that can be taken away. 3. The goods of Fortune can all be taken away. The Drastic Remedies Lady Philosophy now starts on the most aggressive therapy, arguing that the traditional goods of Fortune are each failures: they promise what they are intrinsically incapable of delivering.
1. Wealth (sufficiency): it is possible to be rich and not sufficient, rich people still have desires 2. Honour (prestige, respect): a mark of accomplishment; you can’t be happy unless you actually accomplish something and understands what the significance is. 3. Power (preservation): people want power to preserve; the more power you have, the more likely you’ll become a target, gets you killed. 4. Glory (esteem): friendship. 5. Pleasure (satisfaction): pursuing sex. Plato's Proposition The good are powerful and the wicked powerless. Reward and Punishment Boethius argues that virtue is its own reward, and that vice is correctlatively its own punishment, so that 1. Good people are always rewarded 2. Evil people are always punished. Success and Failure Boethius, like Socrates, holds the following claims: 1. The only benefit/harm that matters is moral improvement/worsening 2. No one else can morally improve or morally worsen you. Boethius' Sledgehammer It’s where guy realizes that him losing fortune's goods doesn't matter, because a person who knows real happiness wouldn't care about them. Then he also realizes that what is happening to him is for the best because god and providence guarantees that. In this case, this is sort of like the ultimate comfort for Boethius from lady philosophy. The First Objection Foreknowledge points to some underlying necessity. That is, it wouldn’t be possible that there be foreknowledge if there weren’t some fundamental necessitating condition that makes events be as they will be. Boethius replies that future contingents need be no more necessitated than present contingents; after all, every present contingent was a future contingent earlier. And just as present contingents are not necessitated, so too for future contingents. The Second Objection
You can’t have foreknowledge of matters that are not necessary of their nature-you can have foreknowledge only through knowledge of the natures of things.
MEDITATION Arguments: 1. I need to sort through my knowledge to see which ones are true and which ones are false. 2. I can’t trust knowledge known through the senses because they are sometimes deceptive 3. I can’t trust the knowledge known through the senses here and now because I might be crazy or dreaming 4. I can't trust the knowledge of my mind, such as math because god might be deceptive and deceive me about it 5.
So what can I know? I can know that I exist because I am thinking, I can also know that I am a thinking thing 6. What else can I know other than that? Well i can't know anything else for certain unless i prove that i can trust my mind, so i need to prove that there exist a god and god is good to know that i can trust my mind 7. okay now a good god exist and i can trust my mind, what else can i know? Is there an external world of bodies? Yes, then he proves that 8. lastly, we can only know the contents of our mind and that there is an external world where there is our own body and other bodies. And that the senses cannot be trusted. Objective Reality/Formal Reality
Mode is the lowest level of reality in something as opposed to the other two: finite substance and infinite substance. So for example, a rock as reality of a mode while the meditator has the reality of a finite substance.
Causal Principle First Causal Principle: the cause must have as much reality as the effect. Second Causal Principle: the cause of the idea must have as much formal reality as the idea have objective reality. Clarity and Distinctness rule
Descartes sample Passage Analysis: Descartes, Meditation 3(AT49): “I must therefore ask myself whether I possess some power enabling me to bring it about that I who now exist will still exist a little while from now. For since I am nothing but a thinking
thing-or at least since I am now concerned only and precisely with that part of me which is a thinking thing-if there were such a power in me, I should undoubtedly be aware of it. But I experience no such power, and this very fact makes me recognize most clearly that I depend on some being other than myself.” *The premises and conclusion of the argument and then relate the argument to its significance. Premise 1: I am a thing which is only concerned with the part of me which is a thinking thing. Premise 2: because I am a thinking thing, I would be aware of it if I happened to possess a power which enabled me to know that I would still exist a little while from now. Premise 3: I am not aware of any such power. Conclusion: therefore I must be dependent on a being other than myself. Essay Questions: 2.Plato introduces the guardian class on the grounds that the Feverish Society will need to expand in order to acquire more material resources for its luxuries and to acquire land to make room for its greater population. Yet it seems that these are artificial consequences of Plato’s construction, a result of his uncritical assumption that the Healthy Society would face no problems but that in becoming “feverish” it would come into conflict with its neighbors. Does he have good reason for supposing there must be conflict? Explain and defend your answer. Answer: whether or not feverish society need a greater defence and expend it's borders. Pro: Feverish society will have conflict with neighbors
Feverish society have excess amount of wealth, food, power ect… Invaders will want to invade the feverish not healthy society
Historically people expand the territory of empire by war. Basically because the Feverish Society has desires which go above and beyond the resources available to them, they have to expand at the expense of their neighbors in order to meet their desires. As Plato/Socrates says, the Healthy Society will not have the need for people like herdsmen, whereas the Feverish Society will because they eat meat. This complexity means more jobs are needed and as a result, more resources are being used. of course conflicts are inevitable once you start building the feverous city, where is the healthy
city gonna get the land and the resources for a feverous city if not through conquering, you might say well we can negoitiate peacefully with other cities to give us a hand, lol but politically i dont think other rulers would be very willing to do that interdependence might exist between societies; the Healthy Society will get what they need from other ones because they understand the need of necessity, etc. But then again, that assumed the surrounding societies are Healthy.
Yes sure the society might not be able to sustain itself, expanding the city could be done by doing trade, which I think is the ultimate response to the necessity of war. Why war? Why not trade resources? i would say invasion, since it is very likely that the other cities will be too suspicious of the healthy city to negotiate peacefully a feverish city will not want products from a healthy city, im even doubting a healthy city will want products from a healthy city, all the things in the healthy city can be produced by the other healthy city itself, and in the event that they run out, they can be interdependent, by interdependent, it’s like work together with other healthy cities. If they are interdependent within the city, could it not be said the same will go for outside of it ? Remember that Plato/Socrates constructed the city as a way of making a more visible source of justice, so he is basically making something big from expanding something small. I want to do the same there. In the event of either taking or being taken from, conflict will arise. War is eminent should only one neighbouring city decide against being apart of the society. A Feverish Society would have to expand via conflict because they are greedy and appetitive. Remember, being RULED by APPETITIVE means you are overly-appetitive, and thus, you will want more than what they are willing to give. Compromise would be the route to go if you want no conflict, but compromise for an appetitive person is not good enough.Even so, luxuries would make it so that it would expand continuously, or need to anyway. If I get twenty acres of land, I will use it, but then what if I use it up ? Then what ? I need more luxuries so what do I do ? But then the people will fight for land because it is limited. They found the 'origins of war' through the aspect of them needing to occupy more land. Thus,
there would be conflict. But the wealth is what the Feverish Society has. The Healthy one does not have wealth because nothing is bought. The implication is that if others see how good the society has it, then they might initiate attack. The formation of the guardian class is a product of defense and protection. Guardians are needed to defend, not negotiators. The fact of the matter is that they will expand and they will be taking neighbouring lands. So doesn't that entail that the guardians will be used for more than just defence? *There must be someone eager to fight due to being long-term controlled by the ruler. I would argue that I think he does have a good reason for supposing there will be conflict,
though not initiated by the Feverish Society, but another. Mostly because the points for this argument are more natural for me. In reality however, given the opportunity to do an essay on it, I would really love to explore more thoroughly whether or not the reasoned trade argument could be more fully developed. Therefore, the formation of a guardian class is necesary.
1. Aristotle holds that we are as much morally responsible for what we fail to do (omissions 省略) as we are for what we in fact do (commissions 全力 委員會 委託金), on the grounds that it is one of the conditions of moral agency that one can either perform or refrain from performing a given act; he concludes that there is no significant difference between (say) killing someone and deliberately allowing the person to die. What is his argument, and is he correct? Argument found Book 3 Chapter 1 Commission: whether such a distinction can be drawn clearly and coherently. Omission: whether it carries any moral weight. Aristotle holds that there is such a distinction, but that it usually does not carry the moral weight people attribute to it. The distinction, he says in effect, is really outward-looking: it has to do with whether one chooses to try to do some action or chooses to not try to do it, and hence in each case there is a choice. Thus we can hold agents responsible for what they do as well as what they do not do, at least within reasonable limits. That much said, Aristotle seems not to think morally different valuations ride on top of the distinction. If an agent tries to being about the death of someone else, it matters little for Aristotle whether he does so by doing something or by refraining from doing something, given that the end in view is the same. This is morally controversial: many people think there is a problem of “dirty hands” that Aristotle fails to recognize. 4. Boethius holds that each person gets exactly what he or she deserves-and in particular, that he himself deserved his fate. Yet he never takes back his claim that he is innocent of the crimes of which he was accused, and indeed seems to hold that he is a morally good person. In what sense does he get what he deserves? Explain and defend your answer. He did get what he deserved, as the only thing that matters is moral improvement/worsening to him. He was morally improved, so jail wasn't necessarily a bad thing. "But why not have moral improvement without jail?" you might ask. He responds with the "no free-will" argument, that whatever happens is for the best. That's his argument. Which is basically what the question is asking I think. "CP 4-5", point 4 and 5 is where he says the only thing that matters is moral improvement/worsening, and his reply with the "sledgehammer". considering Boethius is a devout Christian then this could just be a product of the Original Sin; honestly that contradicts philosophy itself then lol because no matter how hard you strive for virtue, and happiness that could all just be vetoed by god due to some guy eating an apple he wasn't supposed to and also, I would say Fortune is personified here. Why is HE the ONLY one imprisoned for following the fickleness of Fortune ? Shows that it is not deserving, temporally. But Fate on the other hand is personal and deserving, so he got what he deserved. Based on Fortune, he got what he deserved because Fortune is unfair, random, and impersonal. That is epitomized by his situation. Based on Fate, he got what he deserved because he became
enlightened. Seemingly if you think an answer to a question is wrong, but you are later 'enlightened' to know the answer to a question is right, you would reject your old conclusion. Boethius does; the 'Sledgehammer' shows that he understands things happen for a reason, that is, he went to jail but became enlightened, so clearly the latter was contingent on the former. Technically, he was innocent and did not deserve to go to jail, but he does learn this and figures out it is inconsequential to the betterment of his soul. 5.Descartes eventually concludes that he can have genuine knowledge of the mathematical features of the world. But he does not think he knows about its qualitative features, although they are apparent; yet God is not deceptive in allowing such qualitative appearances. Yet it seems that they are extremely deceptive, no matter what purpose God might have had for allowing us to continue to have them, and so that God does allow deception to occur (or at least to permit us to have natural and firmly-held false beliefs about the world). And if God is permitted to deceive us here, perhaps he does so elsewhere too. Does Descartes have a reply to this line of reasoning? If so, is it any good? If not, does his whole project collapse? Answer: - The qualitative features of the world are perceived through the senses. Although the senses deceive us of our perception of the world, it is up to the mind to decide if we have perceived the world clearly and distinctly. In other words, if there is any room for doubt in what we’ve perceived throughout senses, we should withhold judgement of the will in order to not be deceived. So, God does not deceive us,
-
-
-
-
everything we clearly and distinctly perceive is true and there is no way that the world perceived through the senses is clear and distinct. God only means the senses to be a crude guide for us to get around in the world. We deceive ourselves: God gives us the tools to examine them correctly, but we fault in not doing so. God constructs “finite” hence imperfect constructions of sense-impression, not “infinite”. The reason so being is that it is merely “sufficient” to navigate the world, not perfect impressions of it. Not only is there an initial fault, but Descartes talks about the distinction between perceptions of a fault and the sensation of it. The perceptions of damage would be more clear and distinct and would be part of the mind, where as the sensation of pain is a body-factor. But the problem is: even though God does not cause deception, he allows it. Might he not allow it in other places? (specifically, when we think we are clearly-and-distinctly perceiving something, might we not be perceived?) There’s a difference between deception and mistake, God does not deceive us
actively that’s for a fact, but he does allow for mistakes, which is why there is a -
-
“functional” acceptance of imperfection, but not a deliberate deception. Yes, he allows for free will. God allows sin, but he is not the cause of sin. Sin is the absence of something good, so for example, darkness is the absence of light. In the same way, God doesn’t deceive us because he provides us with something good (a reasonable faculty and the ability to perceive senses) but we “sin” by creating the absence of a reasonable faculty, and allow ourselves to be deceived. So yes, we can be mistaken, but as long as we perceive things clearly and distinctly (which I read as understanding something so that no doubt can be raised, and obviously if we are making a mistake, there must be doubt that we have overlooked, mistakingly perceiving things as clearly and distinctly).
-
It is our own fault for perceiving it incorrectly. We have been given the tools to see them correctly, but we fail to do so, just like we are given the ability to do good, but we sin often.
-
“Demon argument: because of out finite-ness are prone to error, we have limited faculty of knowledge but unlimited freedom of will and choice, and so we tend to believe false doubts and make error. In Meditation 1, Descartes says something about a demon as the deceiver, where as we continue through all meditation as God will never deceive us.” You could get religious here and say that what God creates is Good, so by definition, what is contrary to him is bad. For example: God creates wisdom, so ignorance is bad. Ignorance is seen by our deception of the senses, and so if ignorance is bad, it must have been created by something bad, or evil, and that
-
-
would be the demon. Instead of assuming that God is the source of our deceptions, Descartes assume that there exists an evil demon, who is capable of deceiving us in the same way we supposed God to be able. In Meditation 1, Descartes says “I shall do at least what is in my power, there is resolutely guard against assenting to any falsehoods, so that the deceiver, however powerful and cunning he may be, will be unable to impose on me in the slightest degree.” Descartes introduces a deceiver but argues that God is not deceiving. Therefore there must be another, entity who deceives us, demon. Because of our unlimited choice and will, out imperfection allows us to make errors and be deceived by the demon. Demon and God are the same thing? It’s not significant if you call god a demon or god, Descartes just meant it as a comfort for the religious people who doesn’t like to think of god as a demon. But in Meditation 1 p.15, “I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to
deceive me.” So they cannot be the same. -
Descartes never actually decides that there IS for sure a deceiving spirit of some sort, he just introduces the spirit as a possible source of “human error” in the first meditation. By the 5th and 6th meditations, however, he seems to have decided that if there is any god, there is just the one who is perfect and non-deceiving, and that our error actually comes from us “overusing” our free will in a sense, and racing to judgement ahead of our intellect. He seems to state that anything clear and distinct can actually also be quantified, that is, measured and described mathematically. He also states that he can even quantify things in his dreams. I would agree that this argument does kind of depend on the Cartesian circle, and therefore I wouldn’t say his argument is very sound.
-
No I wouldn’t say it wouldn’t say it would collapse as a whole because he essentially argues that we human beings are the reason for our own false beliefs because our finite-ness and imperfection. This argument would still regardless of a whether a God
-
-
exists or not. But because Descartes touches upon clear and distinct thinking and God, it weakens the argument and is not the most sound. Cartesian Circle: It’s weak because its foundations is the Cartesian Circle. Descartes says the reason we can slearly and distinctly perceive something as true is because God exists. And we know that God exists because we can clearly and distinctly perceive his existence as true. (Premise is dependent on the conclusion which is dependent on the premise) A possible solution for the Cartesian circle:
Descartes proves god’s existence believing that god is good and that god won’t deceive him in his proof that a god exists which is the problem with the Cartesian circle. There are three possible cases in this situation: 1. God doesn’t exist; everything he clearly and distinctly perceive is going to be true. 2. God exist but is good: then Descartes has got it right. 3. God exists but is evil and will deceive him: if the evil god deceives him in his proof that god exists, then that must mean god doesn’t exist, but if god doesn’t exist, how can god deceive him. So god must exist, and if god exists, he must be perfect because of his infinite nature, if he’s perfect, he won’t deceive because he is perfect, and deception is an imperfection.
-
God cannot deceive us about his own existence and consequently his goodness. Boethius' argument here that there can't be multiple infinite beings: if there were two gods then one would lack something the other has, so both are finite but not infinite or you could approach the argument this way: 1. If there were two infinite beings, there must be something that is different in
their nature that separates them 2. However, since both are infinite and infinity includes everything, then both beings must include the infinite being of the other 3. If infinity includes everything the other infinite being has, then they must be the same being
Socrates always maintained that he did not know anything, or that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing, or that he knew nothing of value, or that he knows what he does not know (which is most things or at least most important things). 3. Socratic Method(elenchus) A method to cross-examine Socrates’ beliefs on moral matters and to judge their soundness, or annoying random people on their moral virtues for fun! 4. Weakness of will Where one knows better and does worse, desire overpowering a person’s will to do good. Socrates seems to have held that knowledge is not only necessary for virtue but also sufficient for it, which led him to deny the reality of “weakness of will” and related phenomena. 5. Socrates held that morality is impersonal and complete, that is, it makes no special exceptions (impersonality) and can demand anything of you (completeness). 6. Rational enterprise What Socrates hold as morality, based on principles that need to stand up to examination and argument. Socrates Three Moral Principles: Principle of Justice- one must not do injustice (it’s wrong to do injustice, do wrong& treat people wrongly), pretty self explanatory. Principle of Just Action-one must not do injustice, even for injustice received(revenge is bad)
Principle of Just Agreements- one should keep arguments, provided they are just… if
someone asks you to hold their machete, it would be just for you to return them. However, if the person returns stumbling drunk, it wouldn’t be right to return the machete. He contradicts himself because he violates his own principles and that of the law. He says, “I have held it for a long time and still hold it”(49e). So in terms of the speech of laws he will abide by the laws when he is in prison but didn’t do so when asked to arrest Leon of Salamis. Then he violates The Principle of Just Agreements and Actions because he would choose to act against the courts gag order. The “early accusations” Socrates studies things in the sky and below the earth
Socrates makes the worse argument appear the better Socrates teaches these same things to others
Judical Gag Order: Socrates doesn’t believe what the question is saying he believes. Socrates believes in following only when they are coherent with the 3 principles stated in the Crito. Crito’s Moral Arguments Socrate’s death will be a loss for Crito and the other disciples, and hence it is natural for them to do all they can to avoid this loss Crito and the others run the risk of getting a bad reputation if it seems that they did not
get Socrates out when they could well have done so That Socrates should not be concerned about possible repercussions from his escape, because they are willing to take the risk If Socrates refuses to escape he will be implicitly endorsing the judges’ verdict, and indeed would be doing to himself what his enemies would do to him Socrates will be acting irresponsibly and be “betraying his sons” by not being around to look after them
REPUBLIC- Plato Theory: The divided line is Plato’s metaphysical/epistemological hierarchy. There are 4 epistemological levels: 1. Opinion/illusions 2. Beliefs about physical things 3. Abstract/mathematical knowledge 4. Philosophical understanding,
Which correspond to 4 metaphysical levels: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Shadow/reflections Physical objects Abstract and mathematical objects The Forms The Divided Line: One of the examples Plato tells in order to tell the readers something about the forms. In this case, the divided line is showing where the form actually is. So according to the line the form is in the intelligible ream with the mathematical knowledge while the others: images and opinions are in the physical realm.
Conventional Morality/Cephalus Justice is to speak the truth and to pay one’s debts. Against this, Socrates objects that “paying one’s debts” is not always just-hence Cephalus’s definition is too broad, including things that aren’t just. Tribal Morality/Polemarchus Justice is to benefit one’s friends and to harm one’s enemies. Against this Socrates argues that 1. justice would then be a useless craft 2. it is a craft that one may have without being just at all 3. it isn’t clear who is a friend and who is an enemy, and even if the definition were revised to take this into account, it still isn’t just to harm anyone. The Social Realist/Thrasymachus Justice is the advantage of the stronger. This involves two separate theses: 1. The ruler rules for his own advantage. 2. Injustice is more profitable than justice. Justice is not a virtue Injustice is more profitable than justice, for a city as well as for an individual The life of the unjust man is more profitable than the life of the just man Three Kinds of Goods 1. those that are welcome for their own sakes (joy, ‘harmless pleasures’) 2. those that are welcome for their own sake and for their consequences (knowledge, health) 3. those that are welcome for their consequences alone (going to the dentist) Three Arguments against justice
1. Injustice is the natural human condition; justice has been devised as a conventional means to avoid the evil of suffering injustice, as a consequence of weakness. Hence there is no motive to be just if one is powerful enough to not require such conventional protection. 2. The Ring of Gyges-Plato How people will act when authority or rule is not enforced and the mean to create injustice are given. Even when the person is a law abiding citizen, if given the means will commit crimes. 3. Putting aside the good consequences of justice and the evil consequences of injustice, the life of the totally unjust man is better than the life of the totally just man. Imagine a totally unjust man who appears to all to be just, and a totally just man who appears to all unjust. This is to sharply distinguish what is due to each in virtue of what each one is as opposed to how each one appears to be. The totally unjust man, who appears unjust, will be “whipped, stretched on the rack, imprisoned, have his eyes burnt out, and, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled”- whereas the totally unjust man will reap all the conventional rewards and pleasures of life. It seems obvious that the life of the totally unjust man would be preferable. Principle of Specialization- Plato The members of society best fitted for the jobs are given them in order for society to function properly. Meritocratic principle(society of pigs): Basically that people do what they are best at, as the “Principle of Specializaiton,” a meritocracy is based on merit, so if you are good at making shoes, you are to be a shoe-maker. Feverish Society Take a more flexible view of what counts as a ‘need’ than previously. The increase in population and in wealth and luxuries requires a new social class, not in the Healthy Society, namely the Guardians. This class eventually divides into 2, the warriors and the rulers. a perfectly harmonious soul (the appetitive part is ruled by reason, but in pursuing luxuries, you are solely being ruled by the appetitive part of your soul, and thus, there is no real harmony)is one where all three parts accept that reason should rule.
So is a perfectly harmonious Feverish society, one where reason rules (Philosopher king or something), possible? If it were, is it not possible for it to avoid conflict, even while expanding? It doesn't need to always happen. As long as it's possible though, haven't we shown that there won't always be conflict? The challenge in producing a ‘human guardian’- someone completely loyal to citizens and merciless toward outsiders.
Plato’s proposal is to mould character through education.
The Formation of Moral Character The education of the Guardians, and why not only education, but the right kind of education, makes all the difference. Social Virtue Wisdom: found in the society’s ‘sound judgment’ about social matters as a whole, clearly the province of the rulers. Courage: found in the capacity of a part of the city to preserve its belief about what is to be feared and what not, namely in the Auxiliaries.
Moderateness: a kind of “harmony” or “orderliness” located in the diffusion of the same opnion throughout the society about who should rule and who should be ruled.
Individual Virtue To carry through the analogy of society and the individual, Plato argues that there are 3 parts of the soul which correspond to the 3 classes of society; he then identifies the virtues within each individual soul as the counterparts of the social virtues described in social virtue. The Principle of Opposites: a proof that there are 3 parts to the soul “It is clear that the same will not do or suffer opposites, at least with regard to the same and
towards the same, at the same time.” (436b-437a) “Thirst is an opposite.” (437b1-d7) “Thirst itself is for drink itself, and not for any special kind of drink. Explanation: thirst qua thirst is not for hot drink or cold drink, or much drink or little drink, or drink of any specific quality.” (437d8–e8) (from [4]–[5] below) basically in the same way that a car can't be said to be moving and standing still at the same time, the entire soul of a person can't be said to be both thirsty and not thirsty at the same time. ie the soul won't "suffer opposites" because if we are thirsty and yet we don't actually drink something, it must be something other than the "thirsty" part of the soul that holds us back from drinking. the whole purpose of the concept here is just for Plato to establish that there is more than one part to the soul, and he establishes here that if we don't drink when we are thirsty (appetitive part), it must be due to the rational part of our soul "holding us back" for whatever reason
The Principle of Relatives
“As to those that are such as to be of something, those that are somehow qualified are of something qualified, it seems to me, but those that are simply themselves are of something simply itself alone.”(438a7-b2) “Thirst is one of those that are of something.” (439A1-2) basically thirst itself is related to drink itself, not for any type or quantity of drink, and any other appetite for something is related only to the thing itself. ie "each appetite itself is only for its natural object, while the appetite of a certain sort depends on additions". the qualifier that someone thirsts only for good drink or is hungry only for good food is unnecessary because "everyone after all has an appetite for good things" this one is substantially more confusing than the principle of opposites, but i think for a definition it would be good enough to say that it is used to state that any appetite is related to the thing which quenches that appetite, and that no one has an appetite for bad drink or mouldy food or something
The Traditional Values a. wisdom is the rule of the rational part of the soul b. courage is the activity of the spirited part of the soul, regardless of pain and pleasure c. moderateness is harmony among the parts of the soul so that each part believes reason ought to rule d. justice is each part of the soul respecting its proper place in the hierarchy Woman's Equality
The “equality” in question is that possessed by each member of the Feverish Society, namely to be assigned labour-activities solely on the basis of merit. This leads naturally to the conclusion that women are to have exactly the same training as men if women are to occupy the same social roles as men. There are only 2 differences between the sexes which might be important: 1. they have different roles in procreation 2. men are generally stronger then women. P Plato then argues that whereas men are generally better than women at various pursuits, women are better than men at several, such as cake-baking. Presumably his point is that even in the limited opportunities available to women traditionally, we can see clear cases of excellence and differential talents/abilities.
The Abolition of Marriage Plato takes it to follow from women’s equality that his contemporary Greek marriage-system is inappropriate. Instead, he puts forward a system for sexual liaisons, always for the purposes of
procreation, based on eugenics: the best should be mated with the best, and the remainder in
whatever fashion possible to optimize the “quality” of the children produced. However, this should take place by a kind of “rigged lottery” system, so as to avoid resentment. Sexual encounters take place under strict regulation, with prospective parents joined together at regular ritual festivals, and other sexual encounters (at least heterosexual ones) severely punished. Sexual encounters may also serve as “reward of state”-and are undoubtedly more fun than medals and ribbons.
Separation of Parents and Children Weak separation: Children are not to be raised by their biological parents, but by professional child-care specialists, referring to the Principle of Specialization, bearing a child is no reason to
think that one would be any good at raising it, especially were trained professionals available to do the job. Strong separation: Children and parents are to be kept in ignorance of one another’s identities, have to do with the proper object of affective bonds, 1. the affective bonds between biological parents and children are removed by ignorance, and so a potentially divisive force in the society is taken away 2. this will open up a new focus for such parental or filial affection, namely the society itself, thereby increasing social cohesion and unity.
The Theory of Forms- Platonic Forms The forms are non-material, but existent things from which objects in our reality derive their
qualities. They are the true reality, of which the world of physical objects is a crude reflection. They guarantee the objectivity and factuality of moral claims, and perhaps provide a basis for the claim that they are known to but a few. 1. there are “moral facts” 2. these moral facts can be know by us; there is moral knowledge 3. moral knowledge is technical and specialized, requiring specific abilities and talents that must be trained 4. moral knowledge includes the “art of rulership” 5. moral expert, ie, those who possess moral knowledge, ought to rule.
The Noble Lie/Plato Myth of the metals, to divide people into different classes, needed in Plato’s perspective for society to function properly. People knowing where they belong and what their purpose is, bronze to do manual work, silver to guard, and gold to rule. Allegory of Cave:
Plato’s analogy that contributes to his theory that Philosophers ought to rule. In this theory he illustrates that philosophers are the ones who made it out of the cave and have experienced the forms. They must be compelled to go back into the cave and guide the rest of the prisoners through his knowledge of the Forms that he now possesses.
There are different kinds of Person and Society: Just person: whom the reasoning part of the soul predominates Timocratic person: whom the spirited part of the soul presominates The person in whom the appetitive part of the soul predominates: -> Oligarchic person: ruled by necessary desires (money) -> Democratic person: ruled by necessary and unnecessary desires (luxuries) -> Tyrannical person: ruled by all desires (lawless desires) The Political Proof
Again Plato offers us an argument by analogy: as the tyrant-ruled society is the most miserable among societies, so too the tyrannical person is the most miserable of all.
The Psychological Proof An analogy used, imagine a tyrannical-rule society, this would be the most miserable among all societies, so too the tyrannical person is the most miserable too. The metaphysical Proof
This proof are meant to show that the pleasures of the tyrannical person are ‘false’ and illusory. There are 3 states of the soul: 1. Pleasure 2. Clam 3. Pain
Aristotle- NICOMACHEAN ETHICS The Action Theory Referring to Aristotle’s Nicomachean, in Book 3, concerning with theories about the processes causing willful human bodily movements of more or less complex kind. Basic action theory typically describes action as behavior caused by an agent in a particular situation. The agent’s desires and beliefs (e.g. my wanting a glass of water and believing the clear liquid in the cup in front of me is water) lead to bodily behavior (e.g. reaching over for the glass). In the simple theory (see Donald Davidson), the desire and belief jointly cause the action.
Voluntary Action: you have to have the principle of action from you; you have to be aware of
circumstance of what you are doing. Involuntary Action: you have the principle of action from someone else (do things when forced); you don’t know what you are doing. *if you don’t regret what you’ve done, still non-voluntary. The Doctrine of the Mean The centre of Aristotle’s account of moral virtue. Aristotle seeks flourishing happiness in life. He believes that this can be achieved for each individual through the embracement of virtues. Aristotle believes that virtues are the mean of two vices. This is the basis of the Aristotelian “Doctrine of the Mean”.
A disposition concerned with choice and lying in a mean. The doctrine reminds us that there are always two opposite errors which we must avoid.
Rational Choice (3.1-5) Commissions Omissions The project of the Nicomechean Ethics The theoretical foundations of the common moral consciousness, a piece of ‘descriptive’ ethics, designed to give an account of the good for human beings, namely happiness. The Highest Good Aristotle’s argument that there must be a highest good. The highest good must be a complete end. 1. There is only one complete end, then this is the highest good, and it is unique. 2. There are several complete ends, then they can be ordered in a scale from the least to the most complete. The most complete will then be the highest good and, again, it will be the only one. The Functional Argument There are 2 parts of it. It basically states that something is good if it performs its natural function well, for example a good cheese knife is a knife that cuts cheese well. The second part he examines the function of a human being. He argues that the function of a human being is that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue. Moral Situationist: In order to be right a given action has to accord with the situation in which it is performed.
Consequent Ignorance Ignorance that is itself the product of voluntary action, either direct or habitual. Concomitant Ignorance Ignorance that would not change the action were it not present, that is, were the agent to have the relevant knowledge. Neither of these types of ignorance exculpates the agent. Antecedent Ignorance Ignorance that is not voluntary and is the cause of the agent doing what he would otherwise not do. CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY- Boethius The Prisoners Lament
Problem of Desert The concept of desert is deeply entrenched in everyday morality. We say that effort deserves success, wrongdoing deserves punishment, innocent suffering deserves sympathy or compensation, virtue deserves happiness, and so on. We think that the getting of what's deserved is just, and that failure to receive what's deserved is unjust. It's good that a person gets what she deserves, and bad that she doesn't—even if she deserves something bad, like punishment. It's wrong to treat people better or worse than they deserve, and right to treat them according to their deserts. In these and other ways, the notion of desert pervades our ethical lives.
Popular Consolation Lady Philosophy begins with the “sweet persuasiveness of rhetoric,” which has to be guided by philosophy to stay on the right road. Boethius should count his blessings; he ought to recognize that good fortune only comes with adverse fortune; good fortune may pass, but by the same token so does adverse fortune. The Fleeting Goods of Fortune The Second ‘wave’ of therapy offers three arguments that ephemeral goods cannot provide happiness. The first argument is: 1. Happiness is the highest good. 2. A good that cannot be taken away is better than one that can be taken away. 3. The goods of Fortune can all be taken away. The Drastic Remedies Lady Philosophy now starts on the most aggressive therapy, arguing that the traditional goods of Fortune are each failures: they promise what they are intrinsically incapable of delivering.
1. Wealth (sufficiency): it is possible to be rich and not sufficient, rich people still have desires 2. Honour (prestige, respect): a mark of accomplishment; you can’t be happy unless you actually accomplish something and understands what the significance is. 3. Power (preservation): people want power to preserve; the more power you have, the more likely you’ll become a target, gets you killed. 4. Glory (esteem): friendship. 5. Pleasure (satisfaction): pursuing sex. Plato's Proposition The good are powerful and the wicked powerless. Reward and Punishment Boethius argues that virtue is its own reward, and that vice is correctlatively its own punishment, so that 1. Good people are always rewarded 2. Evil people are always punished. Success and Failure Boethius, like Socrates, holds the following claims: 1. The only benefit/harm that matters is moral improvement/worsening 2. No one else can morally improve or morally worsen you. Boethius' Sledgehammer It’s where guy realizes that him losing fortune's goods doesn't matter, because a person who knows real happiness wouldn't care about them. Then he also realizes that what is happening to him is for the best because god and providence guarantees that. In this case, this is sort of like the ultimate comfort for Boethius from lady philosophy. The First Objection Foreknowledge points to some underlying necessity. That is, it wouldn’t be possible that there be foreknowledge if there weren’t some fundamental necessitating condition that makes events be as they will be. Boethius replies that future contingents need be no more necessitated than present contingents; after all, every present contingent was a future contingent earlier. And just as present contingents are not necessitated, so too for future contingents. The Second Objection
You can’t have foreknowledge of matters that are not necessary of their nature-you can have foreknowledge only through knowledge of the natures of things.
MEDITATION Arguments: 1. I need to sort through my knowledge to see which ones are true and which ones are false. 2. I can’t trust knowledge known through the senses because they are sometimes deceptive 3. I can’t trust the knowledge known through the senses here and now because I might be crazy or dreaming 4. I can't trust the knowledge of my mind, such as math because god might be deceptive and deceive me about it 5.
So what can I know? I can know that I exist because I am thinking, I can also know that I am a thinking thing 6. What else can I know other than that? Well i can't know anything else for certain unless i prove that i can trust my mind, so i need to prove that there exist a god and god is good to know that i can trust my mind 7. okay now a good god exist and i can trust my mind, what else can i know? Is there an external world of bodies? Yes, then he proves that 8. lastly, we can only know the contents of our mind and that there is an external world where there is our own body and other bodies. And that the senses cannot be trusted. Objective Reality/Formal Reality
Mode is the lowest level of reality in something as opposed to the other two: finite substance and infinite substance. So for example, a rock as reality of a mode while the meditator has the reality of a finite substance.
Causal Principle First Causal Principle: the cause must have as much reality as the effect. Second Causal Principle: the cause of the idea must have as much formal reality as the idea have objective reality. Clarity and Distinctness rule
Descartes sample Passage Analysis: Descartes, Meditation 3(AT49): “I must therefore ask myself whether I possess some power enabling me to bring it about that I who now exist will still exist a little while from now. For since I am nothing but a thinking
thing-or at least since I am now concerned only and precisely with that part of me which is a thinking thing-if there were such a power in me, I should undoubtedly be aware of it. But I experience no such power, and this very fact makes me recognize most clearly that I depend on some being other than myself.” *The premises and conclusion of the argument and then relate the argument to its significance. Premise 1: I am a thing which is only concerned with the part of me which is a thinking thing. Premise 2: because I am a thinking thing, I would be aware of it if I happened to possess a power which enabled me to know that I would still exist a little while from now. Premise 3: I am not aware of any such power. Conclusion: therefore I must be dependent on a being other than myself. Essay Questions: 2.Plato introduces the guardian class on the grounds that the Feverish Society will need to expand in order to acquire more material resources for its luxuries and to acquire land to make room for its greater population. Yet it seems that these are artificial consequences of Plato’s construction, a result of his uncritical assumption that the Healthy Society would face no problems but that in becoming “feverish” it would come into conflict with its neighbors. Does he have good reason for supposing there must be conflict? Explain and defend your answer. Answer: whether or not feverish society need a greater defence and expend it's borders. Pro: Feverish society will have conflict with neighbors
Feverish society have excess amount of wealth, food, power ect… Invaders will want to invade the feverish not healthy society
Historically people expand the territory of empire by war. Basically because the Feverish Society has desires which go above and beyond the resources available to them, they have to expand at the expense of their neighbors in order to meet their desires. As Plato/Socrates says, the Healthy Society will not have the need for people like herdsmen, whereas the Feverish Society will because they eat meat. This complexity means more jobs are needed and as a result, more resources are being used. of course conflicts are inevitable once you start building the feverous city, where is the healthy
city gonna get the land and the resources for a feverous city if not through conquering, you might say well we can negoitiate peacefully with other cities to give us a hand, lol but politically i dont think other rulers would be very willing to do that interdependence might exist between societies; the Healthy Society will get what they need from other ones because they understand the need of necessity, etc. But then again, that assumed the surrounding societies are Healthy.
Yes sure the society might not be able to sustain itself, expanding the city could be done by doing trade, which I think is the ultimate response to the necessity of war. Why war? Why not trade resources? i would say invasion, since it is very likely that the other cities will be too suspicious of the healthy city to negotiate peacefully a feverish city will not want products from a healthy city, im even doubting a healthy city will want products from a healthy city, all the things in the healthy city can be produced by the other healthy city itself, and in the event that they run out, they can be interdependent, by interdependent, it’s like work together with other healthy cities. If they are interdependent within the city, could it not be said the same will go for outside of it ? Remember that Plato/Socrates constructed the city as a way of making a more visible source of justice, so he is basically making something big from expanding something small. I want to do the same there. In the event of either taking or being taken from, conflict will arise. War is eminent should only one neighbouring city decide against being apart of the society. A Feverish Society would have to expand via conflict because they are greedy and appetitive. Remember, being RULED by APPETITIVE means you are overly-appetitive, and thus, you will want more than what they are willing to give. Compromise would be the route to go if you want no conflict, but compromise for an appetitive person is not good enough.Even so, luxuries would make it so that it would expand continuously, or need to anyway. If I get twenty acres of land, I will use it, but then what if I use it up ? Then what ? I need more luxuries so what do I do ? But then the people will fight for land because it is limited. They found the 'origins of war' through the aspect of them needing to occupy more land. Thus,
there would be conflict. But the wealth is what the Feverish Society has. The Healthy one does not have wealth because nothing is bought. The implication is that if others see how good the society has it, then they might initiate attack. The formation of the guardian class is a product of defense and protection. Guardians are needed to defend, not negotiators. The fact of the matter is that they will expand and they will be taking neighbouring lands. So doesn't that entail that the guardians will be used for more than just defence? *There must be someone eager to fight due to being long-term controlled by the ruler. I would argue that I think he does have a good reason for supposing there will be conflict,
though not initiated by the Feverish Society, but another. Mostly because the points for this argument are more natural for me. In reality however, given the opportunity to do an essay on it, I would really love to explore more thoroughly whether or not the reasoned trade argument could be more fully developed. Therefore, the formation of a guardian class is necesary.
1. Aristotle holds that we are as much morally responsible for what we fail to do (omissions 省略) as we are for what we in fact do (commissions 全力 委員會 委託金), on the grounds that it is one of the conditions of moral agency that one can either perform or refrain from performing a given act; he concludes that there is no significant difference between (say) killing someone and deliberately allowing the person to die. What is his argument, and is he correct? Argument found Book 3 Chapter 1 Commission: whether such a distinction can be drawn clearly and coherently. Omission: whether it carries any moral weight. Aristotle holds that there is such a distinction, but that it usually does not carry the moral weight people attribute to it. The distinction, he says in effect, is really outward-looking: it has to do with whether one chooses to try to do some action or chooses to not try to do it, and hence in each case there is a choice. Thus we can hold agents responsible for what they do as well as what they do not do, at least within reasonable limits. That much said, Aristotle seems not to think morally different valuations ride on top of the distinction. If an agent tries to being about the death of someone else, it matters little for Aristotle whether he does so by doing something or by refraining from doing something, given that the end in view is the same. This is morally controversial: many people think there is a problem of “dirty hands” that Aristotle fails to recognize. 4. Boethius holds that each person gets exactly what he or she deserves-and in particular, that he himself deserved his fate. Yet he never takes back his claim that he is innocent of the crimes of which he was accused, and indeed seems to hold that he is a morally good person. In what sense does he get what he deserves? Explain and defend your answer. He did get what he deserved, as the only thing that matters is moral improvement/worsening to him. He was morally improved, so jail wasn't necessarily a bad thing. "But why not have moral improvement without jail?" you might ask. He responds with the "no free-will" argument, that whatever happens is for the best. That's his argument. Which is basically what the question is asking I think. "CP 4-5", point 4 and 5 is where he says the only thing that matters is moral improvement/worsening, and his reply with the "sledgehammer". considering Boethius is a devout Christian then this could just be a product of the Original Sin; honestly that contradicts philosophy itself then lol because no matter how hard you strive for virtue, and happiness that could all just be vetoed by god due to some guy eating an apple he wasn't supposed to and also, I would say Fortune is personified here. Why is HE the ONLY one imprisoned for following the fickleness of Fortune ? Shows that it is not deserving, temporally. But Fate on the other hand is personal and deserving, so he got what he deserved. Based on Fortune, he got what he deserved because Fortune is unfair, random, and impersonal. That is epitomized by his situation. Based on Fate, he got what he deserved because he became
enlightened. Seemingly if you think an answer to a question is wrong, but you are later 'enlightened' to know the answer to a question is right, you would reject your old conclusion. Boethius does; the 'Sledgehammer' shows that he understands things happen for a reason, that is, he went to jail but became enlightened, so clearly the latter was contingent on the former. Technically, he was innocent and did not deserve to go to jail, but he does learn this and figures out it is inconsequential to the betterment of his soul. 5.Descartes eventually concludes that he can have genuine knowledge of the mathematical features of the world. But he does not think he knows about its qualitative features, although they are apparent; yet God is not deceptive in allowing such qualitative appearances. Yet it seems that they are extremely deceptive, no matter what purpose God might have had for allowing us to continue to have them, and so that God does allow deception to occur (or at least to permit us to have natural and firmly-held false beliefs about the world). And if God is permitted to deceive us here, perhaps he does so elsewhere too. Does Descartes have a reply to this line of reasoning? If so, is it any good? If not, does his whole project collapse? Answer: - The qualitative features of the world are perceived through the senses. Although the senses deceive us of our perception of the world, it is up to the mind to decide if we have perceived the world clearly and distinctly. In other words, if there is any room for doubt in what we’ve perceived throughout senses, we should withhold judgement of the will in order to not be deceived. So, God does not deceive us,
-
-
-
-
everything we clearly and distinctly perceive is true and there is no way that the world perceived through the senses is clear and distinct. God only means the senses to be a crude guide for us to get around in the world. We deceive ourselves: God gives us the tools to examine them correctly, but we fault in not doing so. God constructs “finite” hence imperfect constructions of sense-impression, not “infinite”. The reason so being is that it is merely “sufficient” to navigate the world, not perfect impressions of it. Not only is there an initial fault, but Descartes talks about the distinction between perceptions of a fault and the sensation of it. The perceptions of damage would be more clear and distinct and would be part of the mind, where as the sensation of pain is a body-factor. But the problem is: even though God does not cause deception, he allows it. Might he not allow it in other places? (specifically, when we think we are clearly-and-distinctly perceiving something, might we not be perceived?) There’s a difference between deception and mistake, God does not deceive us
actively that’s for a fact, but he does allow for mistakes, which is why there is a -
-
“functional” acceptance of imperfection, but not a deliberate deception. Yes, he allows for free will. God allows sin, but he is not the cause of sin. Sin is the absence of something good, so for example, darkness is the absence of light. In the same way, God doesn’t deceive us because he provides us with something good (a reasonable faculty and the ability to perceive senses) but we “sin” by creating the absence of a reasonable faculty, and allow ourselves to be deceived. So yes, we can be mistaken, but as long as we perceive things clearly and distinctly (which I read as understanding something so that no doubt can be raised, and obviously if we are making a mistake, there must be doubt that we have overlooked, mistakingly perceiving things as clearly and distinctly).
-
It is our own fault for perceiving it incorrectly. We have been given the tools to see them correctly, but we fail to do so, just like we are given the ability to do good, but we sin often.
-
“Demon argument: because of out finite-ness are prone to error, we have limited faculty of knowledge but unlimited freedom of will and choice, and so we tend to believe false doubts and make error. In Meditation 1, Descartes says something about a demon as the deceiver, where as we continue through all meditation as God will never deceive us.” You could get religious here and say that what God creates is Good, so by definition, what is contrary to him is bad. For example: God creates wisdom, so ignorance is bad. Ignorance is seen by our deception of the senses, and so if ignorance is bad, it must have been created by something bad, or evil, and that
-
-
would be the demon. Instead of assuming that God is the source of our deceptions, Descartes assume that there exists an evil demon, who is capable of deceiving us in the same way we supposed God to be able. In Meditation 1, Descartes says “I shall do at least what is in my power, there is resolutely guard against assenting to any falsehoods, so that the deceiver, however powerful and cunning he may be, will be unable to impose on me in the slightest degree.” Descartes introduces a deceiver but argues that God is not deceiving. Therefore there must be another, entity who deceives us, demon. Because of our unlimited choice and will, out imperfection allows us to make errors and be deceived by the demon. Demon and God are the same thing? It’s not significant if you call god a demon or god, Descartes just meant it as a comfort for the religious people who doesn’t like to think of god as a demon. But in Meditation 1 p.15, “I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to
deceive me.” So they cannot be the same. -
Descartes never actually decides that there IS for sure a deceiving spirit of some sort, he just introduces the spirit as a possible source of “human error” in the first meditation. By the 5th and 6th meditations, however, he seems to have decided that if there is any god, there is just the one who is perfect and non-deceiving, and that our error actually comes from us “overusing” our free will in a sense, and racing to judgement ahead of our intellect. He seems to state that anything clear and distinct can actually also be quantified, that is, measured and described mathematically. He also states that he can even quantify things in his dreams. I would agree that this argument does kind of depend on the Cartesian circle, and therefore I wouldn’t say his argument is very sound.
-
No I wouldn’t say it wouldn’t say it would collapse as a whole because he essentially argues that we human beings are the reason for our own false beliefs because our finite-ness and imperfection. This argument would still regardless of a whether a God
-
-
exists or not. But because Descartes touches upon clear and distinct thinking and God, it weakens the argument and is not the most sound. Cartesian Circle: It’s weak because its foundations is the Cartesian Circle. Descartes says the reason we can slearly and distinctly perceive something as true is because God exists. And we know that God exists because we can clearly and distinctly perceive his existence as true. (Premise is dependent on the conclusion which is dependent on the premise) A possible solution for the Cartesian circle:
Descartes proves god’s existence believing that god is good and that god won’t deceive him in his proof that a god exists which is the problem with the Cartesian circle. There are three possible cases in this situation: 1. God doesn’t exist; everything he clearly and distinctly perceive is going to be true. 2. God exist but is good: then Descartes has got it right. 3. God exists but is evil and will deceive him: if the evil god deceives him in his proof that god exists, then that must mean god doesn’t exist, but if god doesn’t exist, how can god deceive him. So god must exist, and if god exists, he must be perfect because of his infinite nature, if he’s perfect, he won’t deceive because he is perfect, and deception is an imperfection.
-
God cannot deceive us about his own existence and consequently his goodness. Boethius' argument here that there can't be multiple infinite beings: if there were two gods then one would lack something the other has, so both are finite but not infinite or you could approach the argument this way: 1. If there were two infinite beings, there must be something that is different in
their nature that separates them 2. However, since both are infinite and infinity includes everything, then both beings must include the infinite being of the other 3. If infinity includes everything the other infinite being has, then they must be the same being
