Philosophy Unit 3 test review - final (1)

Philosophy Unit 3 Test Review Vocabulary words 1. To entail (entailment) a. One thing following from another or involves something as a necessary/inevitable part b. (verb) involve something as a necessary or inevitable part - Sentence : buying a house entails a lot of responsibilities like paying mortgage - Sentence : The entailment of quitting his job is that he must find another source of income. 2. Quantitative (quantitatively) a. Measurable; how much b. (adjective) relating to, measuring / measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality - Sentence : He gave a quantitative analysis of the story - Sentence : The scientist quantitatively measured the effect of the treatments by comparing the different numerical data collected. 3. Qualitative (qualitatively) a. A form of quality ; a kind/type/whatness b. (adjective) relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity - Sentence : The teacher gave valuable qualitative feedback - Sentence : The taste of the dish improved qualitatively after adding more spices. 4. To synthesize (synthesis, synthetic, synthetically) a. To build something off of other things / to combine things b. (verb) to make something through synthesis - Sentence : The scientist was able to synthesize a new product - Sentence : The synthesis of 2 different compounds created the radioactive element. 5. To analyze (analysis, analytic, analytically) a. To break things apart from better understanding b. (verb) examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of something, especially information, typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation 6. To integrate (integration, integral) a. To c ombine one thing with another to become whole / one

b. (verb) combine one thing with another so that they become a whole 7. Disintegration a. Falling apart b. (noun) the process of losing cohesion or strength - Sentence : cancer is caused by the disintegration of healthy cells 8. Intelligible (intelligibility) a. Makes sense ; well combined; to read in; the mind can grasp b. (adjective) able to be understood; comprehensible 9. Unintelligible (unintelligibility) a. Not make sense b. (adjective) impossible to understand 10. Rational a. Grasping reality correctly; acting in line with reality b. in accordance with reason or logic - Sentence : Her augment was rational since it did not have any pllot holes 11. Irrational a. Not properly acting with reality; not apprehending reality b. NOT in accordance with reason or logic 12. Antidote a. Solves the problem; heals b. (noun) a cure that heals you (from poison) - Sentence : the antidote for the poison is unknown 13. Anecdote (anecdotal, anecdotally) a. An amusing/ interesting story about a real person or event - Sentence : the teacher often told anecdotes about his jobs - Anecdotal - not exactly true (case closed due to lots of anecdotal evidence) - Anecdotally - by means of personal accounts rather than facts / research - Sentence : the cause of marilyns death is only available anecdotally 14. Superfluous (superfluously) a. unnecessary, especially through being more than enough - Sentence : the massive chains were superfluous

**study of beings existences and the fact that they are ** ○ Its the FOUNDATIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL DISCIPLINE → Important as: Without being/ existence, nothing is ➢ What are the 2 main traditions 1) The Contemporary analytic tradition 2) the aristotelian/thomistic tradition ○ The contemporary analytic tradition ■ Metaphysics in the CA tradition - RATIONAL INVESTIGATION of the fundamental constituents and categories of reality→ with a special focus on questions and problems that can’t be solved via scientific methods ○ The Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition ■ Metaphysics in the AT tradition - RATIONAL INVESTIGATION of being insofar as they are beings (ie being qua beings) — in order to lay bare the universal attributes, laws & causes of beings insofar as they are (i.e exist) What is our focus? - The Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition → we will investigate being qua being (thing as they are ) Clarke on guiding principles for metaphysical inquiry: the PNC, PI, PC, and PSR. Relevant reading: pgs. 178-180. 1) The principle of noncontradiction (PNC): tells us that beings, insofar as they are, are consistent(not contradictory) → “A being cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect.” (i.e., not-contradictory) → The static intelligibility of being - (It is about being not mind) - metaphysical formulation 2) Principle of Identity (PI): tells us that “beings, insofar as they are, are self-identical” → Each being is what it is. 3) Principle of Causality (PC): Nothing is reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something else in act. - The metaphysical formulation: about being 4) Principle for Sufficient Reason (PSR): for anything that is, there must be a sufficient reason for why it is. (ex: non-moving waterbottle can't be moved without benign kicked) - The epistemic / logical Formulation: about mind

→ The dynamic intelligibility of being ➢ PU - Principle of Unity ○ Each being is one ○ tells us that all beings, insofar as they are, are one (i.e., unified). ○ 1. Clarke on being and unity (pgs. 181-186) . (1) According to Clarke, what is St. Thomas's definition of "one" or "unity" (in the sense of ontological unity, not numerical unity)? St. T’s Definition of Unity(in the sense of Ontological Unity: ) “that which is undivided(unified) in itself and divided from every other ------- meaning : it is a thing which is constituted by many parts to form a single whole that is unified and cohesive, distinct from every other being . [ a thing which is unified and cohesive in itself, but is distinct from other things.] (Ex: all humans have arms but the color of our hair diff) ❖ Numerical unity: the unity of things based on beings as we are able to count them- no deep unity in its being (ex. 1 dog, 2 dogs, etc) - but just b/c a thing can be counted, doesn’t mean that it has a strong sense of unity. I.e. the unity we can get from the fact that things that exist can be counted. ❖ Ontological Unity: as a property of being, signifies the inner cohesion of something by which it constitutes an undivided whole - It comes together within itself as a single undivided whole, but is distinct from every other being (can be counted and has unity to its being) (2) What is the difference between being Undivided Vs. Indivisible - Undivided → Unified/ One- there is an intrinsic unity - Indivisible → CANNOT be divided / taken apart (Immaterial things can’t be taken apart due to no matter) NB: UNDIVIDED DOESN'T MEANT INDIVISIBLE. → HUMANS ARE undivided but indivisible - Complex: lots of moving parts - divisible - SImple: no parts - indivisible

❖ THIS UNITY IS OWNED BY SUBSTANCE (eg gold, noes, cows, humans) - only beings have intrinsic unity; we cant impose intrinsic unity ● Extrinsic Unity: - Unity NOT within the very being of a single real being but each with its own instinctive act of existence and center of action, but linked by acts of relations” ( the being is imposed on it by another) ❖ THIS UNITY IS OWNED BY ARTIFACTS (eg computers, cows, watches) - most people believe in this - Unity vs. Being: is transcendental, insofar as unity exists it will be being (if you destroy the unity of a thing, you destroy its being . - (5) What is materialist reductionism, and why does Clarke think it is mistaken? ● Materialistic Reductionism: the doctrine that all higher levels of beings are nothing more than complex collections of lower material elements (interacting?) ex: atoms or whatever else science deems as more fundamental (e.g I, Carl Sagan, am nothing but a collection of atoms bearing the name, ‘Carl Sagan’. ) ● Clarke thinks its mistaken b/c: I HAVE NO CLUE SOMEONE FIX THIS 1. MR Can’t explain why beings are unified although beings are unified(undivided) and inseparable (indivisible). - It follows that acc to this doctrine, beings are not unified & one being → it follows there's no intrinsic unity - Talk about dangers of being not being one - REFER TO (3) 2. MR Can’t explain the reality of essences (under appropriate conditions) - it follows we have no essence → Bad bc essences make us who we are and without essences we don’t know our reality. 3. By hypothesis: MR must affirm some ultimate “stuff” as the ground of the universe → but it can’t explain either the essence, unity, or being of this stuff. Therefore, acc to clark MR is explanatorily incomplete - This is a peculiar account of reality Afterall → Atoms cannot be the fundamental reason for existence because they don’t explain why we exist in the first place. 2. Aristotle (via McManaman) on the ten categories (pgs. 191-192): (1) What is a substance and what is an accident—and how are they related?

● Substance: - primary mode of being (ex human, water, gold). → fundamental beings of reality as Beings primarily exist as substances. - without them nothing would be - It exists per se (independently) → Exists in itself and not in another. - Ex: . water, gold, a tree, a dog, human, tiger - A substance cannot necessarily change, because this entails the form itself must change, making it no longer what it was prior (ex. Wood is burned to become ash - the substance (wood) has changed, but it is no longer wood but something new (ash)). - ● Accident: - secondary mode of being - It exists dependently → Exists in a substance or substances and never in itself - Ex. quantity, quality, the relative, action or passion ex: tiger strips . An accident can change because the substance is the subject that underlies the change (ie although it own self doesn’t change, an existing aspect -aka accident- will change). How are they related - substances exists independently and accidents exists dependently as accidents exists in a substance or substances and never in itself - Ex: tiger can exists independently, not in aspect of something else but its own right - the tiger’s stripes cannot exists independently, they are aspects of the tiger - they exist within the tiger - Thus, Accidents are qualities or properties that belong to substances but do not exist on their own. → ex: the color of a tree, the weight of a rock, or the height of a person are accidents. ** Accidents actuate the substance in an accidental way ( a way that does not change the substance itself ) MANY ACCIDENTS CAN BE LOST WITHOUT LOSING THE SUBSTANCE (EX) ○ Ex. We can change in height (quantity) of human but substance remain sthe same ● Why are Quantity, Quality, and Relation All Accidents?

Note:the claim that each being is a unity of form and matter is hylomorphism Ex: Trees Material cause: stuff tree is made from Efficient cause: Squirrel dropping acorn Formal cause: Treenes Final cause: Grow and reproduce Clarke on the ultimate problem of the one and the many (pgs. 202-211)? What is the problem here? What are the potential solutions that Clarke rejects? What is Clarke’s solution? Do you agree with him? ● What is the Problem of the 1 and the Many? - How is being one yet is many - I.e How is there being (the similarity between all living things of being in existence) and many beings (many existing things that are different from one another)? - In essence: How does multiplicity come into being? * essential multiplicity (many kinds of beings) and numerical multiplicity (many distinct beings) ● What are the solutions Clarke Rejects? - Radical Monism: ● Eliminates multiplicity (and maintains everything is “one”) by asserting (parmenides view) that outside of being is only non-being, and you can’t get anything from outside of being to create difference. ● Thus, multiplicity is an illusion → there's no problem - Mitigate Monism: ● eliminates multiplicity and encourages pantheism - “all things are God” by asserting that there is only one being /substance which is GOD ● and everything else is an accident/part of God. - Radical Pluralism:

● eliminates unity(of 1 common source) by asserting that all that exists is plurality and there is no such thing as being ● But only what we refer to as being to comprehend the universe and speak about it. (beings are simply social constructs) - Mitigated Pluralism: ● eliminates unity(of 1 common source) by focusing on the what, nature/essence, and how a being operates but is unconcerned with the idea of an underlying component that unites all beings. (the factual view of existence → says beings share existence, it's a fact, nothing deep → it ignores the true concept of being). ● What is Clarke’s Solution ● The causality of creation is a participative causality according to which the effects - aka beings - participate in being (esse) received from the fullness of being itself (i.e. Ipsum esse subsistens ). - It is framed as a hierarchy of being: - The highest level is the most perfect being which is being itself/ies. - The lower you go, the more multiplicity there is because matter becomes a dominant constituent of the beings so they participate in being on a lesser level (also makes them less perfect). Solution - Participation Doctrine - The causality of creation is a participative causality according to which the effects ( beings ) - participate in being ( esse ) received from the fullness of being itself (i.e. Ipsum esse subsistens ). - It is framed as a hierarchy of being: - The highest level = most perfect being which is being itself/ies. - The lower you go → more multiplicity there is b/c matter becomes a dominant constituent of the beings so they participate in being on a lesser level (also makes them less perfect). - THUS, The source of all beings is being itself (i.e. Ipsum esse subsistens ) and multiplicity is possible THROUGH Participation Doctrine where the IES creates other beings at varying levels by other beings partaking in the being at varying levels

- Why: We can see this through quia demonstration (i.e. reasoing move from the effects around us -e.g. Us, animals, other beings - to God as the cause. ) - Side Note: 2 Types of Demonstrations - 1) Quia : reasons from effect to cause. 2) Quid : reasoning from cause to effect. ● Q. 2, Art 3: “Does God Exist?” - Ans: Yes. - Why: God says “ I am Who am) Exodus 3:14 - There are 5 philo ways. Pick 1 of 5 ways and write on it: Intro - In his Summa Theologiae , prima pars, st. thomas explores 3 articles, Art 1” Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident?, Art 2: “Can it be Demonstrated that God Exists?” and Art 2: “Can it be Demonstrated that God Exists?”. - In regards to the Art. 3, Ans: Yes. - Why: God says “ I am Whoo am) Exodus 3:14 - acc to thomas, the existence of God can be proven in 5 philo ways (not theological). - The 5 ways are 1) Motion 2) Efficient Causality 3)Contingency and Necessity 4)Grades of Perfection 5)Final Causality - 5 ways begin from our knowledge of nature and from this we seek higher understanding aka God - Side Note : Thomas declares that the summa is for beginners - Chosen way: #1 Body - First and more manifest way is the argument from motion - It is certain that some things in the world are in motion. (ex season / temp change) - Motion = change = “reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.” - Something cannot be in the same respect and in the same way both in act and in potency (ie. “both mover and moved”) - Means → Nothing reduces itself from potency to act ( if not it violates PNC) AND PC

- Therefore everything in motion is put into motion/ act by another that already possessed it (it cannot put it self in motion) - Hockey examples: ● Puck does not move on its on →, it receives the act from another being in act - hockey stick ● Which is moved by hands/arms → which is moved by arm muscles / brain neurons firing and so on - “But this cannot go on to infinity.” → Because there would be no first mover and therefore nothing would be in motion, which is contrary to fact. - Thus there must be first mover, put in motion by no other - First mover = The sort of thing that can actualize a potential without itself having to be actualized = causes with inherent or built-in causal power. - First mover = God → ipsum… What does Ipsum Esse Subsistens mean? ★ Ipsum Esse Subsistens: BEING ITSELF ( A being which is subsisting by itself and self-existent) ★ - IT IS THE CONSTITUTES AND SOURCE OF ALL BEINGS Do you agree: - Yes→ makes sense logically - Without first mover → way 1 would violate the PNC - as anything in act must have received its act from another and not itself - BUT way 1 involves a unmoving first mover → so its logical & valid According to St. Thomas, how must we demonstrate that God exists?

- It is false that the only thing that exists are individuals, things have forms or participate in forms. An Account of universals are present. (BELIEVES IN EXISTENCE OF FORMS) - Nominalism - rejection of forms. universals and abstract objects do not actually exist other than being merely names or labels ➢ Anti-Relativism - It is false that truth is what appears to me.(DONT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY TRUTHS BUT ONLY ONE) - Relativism - the belief that there's no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe ➢ Anti-Skepticism - It is false to claim that knowledge is impossible as there are necessary, universal, and immutable truths. (THEY MIGHT BE SKEPTICAL BUT NOT SKEPTICS) - Skepticism - act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims / question the possibility of knowledge Who are the friends of the forms? ➢ People within the Tent ○ Platonists ○ They are anti-skepticism, anti-relativism, anti-materialism, anti-mechanicism, anti-nominalism ○ They are anti - naturalism Who are the earthbound giants? ➢ People outside of the Tent ○ Naturalists ○ They believe in skepticism, relativism, materialism, mechanicism, nominalism ○ They are naturalism Does Brent offer a positive argument for why we should enter (or stay in) the big-tent?

Yes What are the three accounts of rationality discussed and why are they relevant to the big-tent? ○ AT account→development (MOST CORRECT) ■ REASON DEVELOPS BY ITSELF(BUILT THROUGHOUT GENERATIONS) ■ It takes time to fully develop ■ Entrust ourselves to teachers in inquiry ■ Individual reason ○ Enlightenment account ■ Reason steps out of all traditions and steps out of pre-commitments to get to a neutral position ■ Descartes ■ Turn on reason and you just get it ■ Reason alone and creates its own tradition ■ Opposite of AT ■ Denies being development ■ DESCARTES TYPA SHIT → THIS ACCOUNT TALKS ABOUT LETTING REASON PREVAIL - SO REJECTION OF TRADITION AND ADOPTION OF REASONING ○ Genealogical account ■ Postmodernism ■ Use it to secure you interest ■ Each argument is a hidden power move ■ Not interested in reason and search/understanding reason ■ Deconstruction ■ Lost the capacity to get reason for the truth ■ Only interest in their own personal gain ■ Taking off a mask to reveal their “evil” intentions ■ (SAYS REASON IS A MASK TO WIELD POWER) What is the overall point (or thesis) of Brent’s lecture? To have proper conversations on God, you have to be inside the tent. - To show that matter of Gods existence is much DEEPER than we think as all these things are related

If metaphysics is the study of beings insofar as they are (being qua being), would you say that we can know some metaphysical truths? If not, why not? If so, what are they—and why should we accept them? ● We can know some metaphysical truths. Because: - Since metaphysics is the study of beings qua beings, we can learn universal and necessary laws that apply to all possible universes. ● What have we learned? - All beings are consistent, self-identical, and one. This is shown by the: - The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) - The Principle of Identity (PI) - The Principle of Unity (PU) - We have also learned - They’re also intelligible. Shown by: - The Principle of Intelligibility (PIN ): all beings, insofar as they are, are intelligible. This follows from the recognition that all beings possess the double dimensions of existence and essence (“composite” in finite beings and identical in God). Note: the essence (or form) of a being is its intelligibility. - - They’re a substance or an accident. Shown by: - The Principle of the Primacy of Substance (PPS) : substance is the primary mode of being (exists per se); accident is the secondary mode (exists within). Thus, all beings, insofar as they are, are substances or accidents grounded in substances. - - We have grasped two relatively new ways of understanding how beings come to be. This is: - Formal and Final causality. - - Beings aren’t just essentially intelligible (shown by the PIN), but dynamically intelligible. Shown by: - PC and PSR.

- We identified the source of all being: Ipsum Esse Subsistens and how multiplicity is possible (Participation Doctrine). - We have gained the metaphysical vision to understand the constituents and source of all beings. 1 Platonism is a very large movement among thinkers. It’s difficult to define platonism, ur-platonism represents a big tent that is open and includes many different philosophers. This conceptualization would make Aristotle a platonist. What defines and constitutes this big tent platonism are 5 negative positions. All big tent platonists wish to elaborate a Logos that accounts for the 5 negative positions Five negative positions ( INSIDE THE BIG TENT ) Why should we aspire to be friends of the forms? Contemplation of the forms and nature of things allows you to reach your potential as a human being. This aspect of philosophy is captivating and good. Often times, in philosophy people dismiss this notion and instead fall into earth bound giant way of thinking. Big tent platonism holds that real explanation is top down and not bottom up. Like an upside down pyramid. From the form of a thing or a higher principle such as god. In a true explanation, the many are explained in smallest number of principles Inside the big tent: there is a single principle “the one”