Introduction to Philosophy Final Exam Study Guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Introduction to Philosophy Final Exam Study Guide...

Description

Introduction to Philosophy Final Exam Study Guide 1. Explain all of the main points within the ‘aesthetic conception of evil’. The ‘aesthetic conception of evil’ states God has permitted evil because that a world with pain and suffering is more beautiful than a world without it. This statement is justified with four main points. Evil is an instrumental good; evil is bad, however, it can be an instrument to goods to therefore beautify the world. A world with passion is more interesting and grand. Second, the principle of plenitude explains how the more plenitudinous/variety in the world, the world is better aesthetically. We find diversity more interesting. Cultural plenitudes are interesting. Leibniz says that out of all the worlds, the one world God has made is the best. We are living in the best of all possible worlds. Out of an infinity of possible worlds, our world is the best. Lastly, we lack infinite perspective that God has and we don’t. We can’t understand how a universe is better than another, but God does. God is a timeless being who is always presently watching every moment in process. God uses our mistakes to create the best. He is justified to use our mistakes. Therefore, God and pain/suffering can both exist. 2. Thoroughly explain why the traditional doctrine of hell poses a theoretical difficulty for the Augustinian theodicy. If there is hell, then a powerful being God who creates Hell must be lacking the attribute “all good.” Omnibenevolence and hell are logically incompatible. A perfectly good God would assign no one to Hell because no one deserves Hell. If there is suffering, God cannot be good because no one deserves Hell. It is not fair for someone to be given eternal punishment for a temporary crime/evil. 3. Clearly explain the reasoning which supports the position of the theological determinist. Explain how Augustine attempts to circumvent this argument. What is Jonathan Edward’s critique of Augustine’s position? The theological determinist teaches that there is choice/will, but not free will/choice. Nobody controls our choices; it is the executions we have no control over. There is no free will precisely because there is a God who is omniscient and all knowing. Omniscience cancels free will; for knowledge cancels freedom. God knows the whole future of the universe, a determinism universe. We are not free; there is no freedom. Divine omniscience is not logically compatible with human freedom. Augustine attempts to circumvent this argument by saying how knowing and causing are not the same thing; they are in different categories. God knows it, but we caused it. God didn’t cause it. For knowing does not cause what is known; our free will causes it. If something is known for the future, it will happen. But if we cause it, we can change it. Then God does not know, which means God had a false belief, but God has no false beliefs. Therefore, what God knows will and must happen. Jonathan Edwards refutes Augustine’s position. Edwards agrees that knowing and causing are not the same thing, but for knowledge renders inexorable what is known; for knowledge makes necessary what is known. God’s knowledge makes it necessary, it can’t not happen. 4. Clearly state the mind/body problem. The mind/body problem explores the nature of and relationship between mental events and physical events. How can two entirely different substances causally affect one another or

interact? Physical events can cause mental events, and mentals events can cause physical events. This problems looks at how physical things that extend in space interact with non-physical things such as mental substances that are not locatable in space. 5. How does Descartes characterize the difference between res extensia  and res cogitans ?  Res extensia  means “things extension,” referring to physical substances. Physical things are extended in space. Also, physical things are public; they can be experienced by more than one mind. Res cogitans means “mental substance,” such as thoughts, emotions, and desires that are not locatable in space. Mental things do not occupy space; they are not extended in space. Mental things are private. 6. Clearly explain the problematic concept of ‘mind’ argument in support of materialism. The universe is entirely physical; there is no mental world, only a body. The mind is the brain. The problematic concept of the ‘mind’ argument is used because it states that we should remove the notion of a spirit/soul because psychologists tried to study the soul but there was no progress or uniformity of data. The idea of the soul is vague and unclear. If professional psychologists abandoned the idea of the soul because it is vague, then we all should as well. 7. Clearly state the position of panpsychism. Panpsychism rejects dualism and teaches that only a mind exists; there is no physical world, only a mental/spiritual world/reality. There is no physical world. 8. Explain how panpsychism uses the problematic concept of the ‘physical’ argument in defense of its position. Nothing is known more clearly/directly than internal consciousness, such as thinking. When we turn our attention to the physical world, the foundational science of the physical is physics, and physics studies matter. We find that 3 foundational physicists (Newton, Einstein, and Aristotle) disagree on what matter is, showing the idea of matter is unclear. 9. State the issue under debate between Determinists and Libertarians. Are we justified as human beings in believing ourselves to be free when we speak, think, and act, or, on the contrary, are our thoughts, speech, and actions forced/compelled by things we have no control over? Are we free or determined in thought, word, and action? The Determinists deny free choice; there is no free will. Our choice is forced by things we have no control over. Every event universally has a cause. Libertarians say we have free will and control over our thoughts, words, actions, etc. 10. Why is the question of moral responsibility so intimately connected to the Freedom/Determinism debate? If determinism is a true theory, nobody has control over what they think, say, or do. If that is correct, how can we fairly hold people responsible for what they think, say, or do? How to make sense of moral responsibility is intimately connected with free will and determinism. 11. What error is commonly committed by persons stating the position of the determinist? The error states determinism teaches no human being has/makes choices. No determinist denies we have choices; we do have choice, just not free choice. The determinist denies free choice; we have compelled, unfree choices. 12. Explain the difference between circumstantial freedom and natural freedom, and between necessary and sufficient conditions.

Circumstantial freedom is not under debate; all parties concede we have circumstantial freedom, which is the external freedom of opportunity to do what you want to do. Natural freedom is the internal power to spontaneously produce a motive or generate choice out of nothing in an uncaused fashion. Necessary conditions are some cause in whose absence something will not occur because its existence is necessary; conditions ontologically dependent for phenomenon to occur. Sufficient conditions are a set of necessary conditions, but when sufficient qualities are present, you get the phenomenon to occur. When all necessary conditions are present, that is a sufficient condition. 13. Explain the argument from the psychology of choice in defense of determinism. The premise that every event has a cause. There is a chain of causes from things we have no control over that leads to choice. Choices are simply executions of effects from causes of things we simply have no control over. Our physiology (heredity and environment) leads to our desires, urges, and impulses, which lead to our motives (will power), which lead to our choice, which is unfree and determined, which leads to an event; therefore, the event is caused. 14. What is the difference between hard determinism and soft determinism? DON’T DO! 15. How do Hard Determinists, Soft Determinists and Libertarians both agree and disagree with each other? They all agree in the existence of circumstantial freedom. Hard determinists agree with soft determinists that natural freedom does not exist. They disagree over what the conditions for moral responsibility. Hard determinism says that natural freedom is necessary for moral responsibility, but it does not exist. Therefore, no one is morally responsible for what they do. Soft determinism says that natural freedom is not necessary for moral responsibility and it does not exist. All we need is circumstantial freedom, which we have. Therefore, we are often morally responsible. Hard determinists and libertarians agree on the conditions for moral responsibility, but they disagree over whether or not the conditions exist. The hard determinist says we need natural freedom but we don’t have it, therefore there is no moral responsibility. Libertarians say we do need natural freedom, and we do have it. Therefore, we are morally responsible. Soft determinists disagree with libertarians over the conditions for moral responsibility, but they agree that people are morally responsible. Libertarians say, to be responsible, we do need natural freedom, and we do have it. To be responsible, we don’t need natural freedom; all you need is circumstantial freedom, which we have, and therefore we are morally responsible. 16. How does Soft Determinism regard circumstantial freedom to be a sufficient condition for moral responsibility? Soft Determinists believe moral responsibility is theoretically justified because all you need for it to occur is circumstantial freedom, which we all have. Nobody controls anything we do, but it is still okay to hold them responsible. It is true that nobody has any control over anything they do, yet we just naturally hold people responsible for what they’ve done; it’s hardwired into us. Even though Determinism is true, that is just the way we are. It is our natural response to feel anger about something someone has done even though it wasn’t in their control. No one has any

control over anything they think, say, or do, but it is still appropriate to hold people responsible for things they have thought, said, and done because it is built into our human nature to do so. 17. Explain 2 arguments in support of the libertarian position. First argument: There is conflict between our desire and what we ought to do. We can prove will power and natural freedom by suppressing our desires and doing what we ought to do. Therefore, will power exists. Second argument: We ought to treat determinism, not as a true philosophical theory, but rather as a heuristic principle/working assumption - some proposition that is not regarded as objectively true or false, but rather as useful for certain applications/purposes. So if determinism is taken as a true philosophy, it is committed to a statement that can never be proven. You can’t know every event has a cause without exploring every event universally, which only God can do. Therefore, libertarians say to be more modest and take it merely as a heuristic principle, something that is useful for certain specific applications. 18. Why are Identity Materialists logically inclined toward Determinism? Natural science embraces both materialism and determinism because they believe the universe is entirely physical and these physical things only happen in accordance with law and causality. 19. Why are Libertarians logically inclined toward Mind/Body dualism? If Mind/Body dualism is true, then you are not merely a body with a brain, you are a body with an immaterial soul. Therefore, you have an immaterial substance which is not subject to the physical laws of nature, which can therefore operate in a way that transcends causality because you are a mind and a body. This is the basis for free will or natural freedom....