philosophy-midterm-studyguide
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Louisiana State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2001
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by LieutenantSpiderMaster1028
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Philosophy Midterm Studyguide
Intro To Philosophy (Columbus State University)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Philosophy Midterm Studyguide
Intro To Philosophy (Columbus State University)
Downloaded by Jack Harrison (jackharrison1511@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|33086530
Unit 1
1.
When Russell talks about things like “prejudice” and “common sense,” what does he
mean? Based on his use of these terms, what role does he think philosophy should play
in addressing “prejudice” or “common sense”? How might this compare to the role that
Socrates thinks philosophy should play in a society? Use specific passages from The
Apology and the Russell reading on “The Value of Philosophy” in your response.
When Russell thinks about “prejudice”, he’s thinking about ‘practical men,’ which is the word to
describe someone that only recognizes material needs and doesn’t take into consideration “food
for the mind.” Philosophy aims at the knowledge that results from a critical examination of the
grounds of convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. According to Russell, prejudices derive from
common sense, which includes his habitual beliefs. Socrates believes that philosophy develops
critical reasoning skills and that you gain thee ability to reflect on deeper questions.
2.
What was the method that Socrates used in his discussions, and how did his approach
differ from that of the Sophists? How would you compare Socrates' method from that of
Russell, or that of Descartes?
Socrates used “Socratc Wisdom” in discussions, he never claimed knowledge or expertse that he did
not have. This difered from the Sophists because Sophists were alleged “experts” that achieved
notoriety by arguing for immoral beliefs. This difers from Russell, who believes that philosophy aims at a
genuine “knowledge”, because Russell is trying to gain a deeper understanding of what he doesn’t know,
and Socrates acknowledges that he doesn’t know something, not necessarily trying to fnd the answer to
it.
3.
What did the Oracle at Delphi mean when he told Socrates “You are the wisest of men”?
How does Socrates’ understanding of wisdom compare with how Russell describes
philosophy and having a sense of wonder?
When the Oracle at Delphi told Socrates “You are the wisest of men,” the Oracle meant that Socrates is
wise in his self-awareness that he does not know and understand everything. Socrates’ understanding of
wisdom difers from Russell because in “The Value of Philosophy,” Russell says philosophy allows people
to be skeptcal in a positve way, while Socrates saw philosophy as a way to seek objectve facts and
specifc ethical standards.
4.
Socrates wanted to be known as a “philo-sophoi” and not a “sophist.” Explain the
difference between these two terms, and give an example of how Socrates addresses
ethical issues in a way that shows his love of the truth. Was he unjustly accused? Was
he a gadfly in a good way, or merely a nuisance to the people of Athens?
Sophists were teachers of rhetoric in ancient Greece. Socrates addressed ethical issues by debatng the
Sophists and alleged “experts”. Socrates was unjustly accused, as he proved Metelus wrong when he was
questoned on whether Socrates is an atheist. Socrates was a gadfy in a good way, as he wanted to lead
Athens’s people in a morally correct path.
5.
Russell is arguing for why philosophy is valuable. You'll want to think about his argument
using his own key ideas: How does he think philosophy is different from science? Does
Downloaded by Jack Harrison (jackharrison1511@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|33086530
he think philosophy is different from science in a good or bad sense, like one is better
than the other, or that they are just different methods each worthy in their own way?
Explain.
Russell thinks philosophy is diferent from science in the sense that it ‘s not meant to have specifc or
quanttatve answers that are either right or wrong, clarifes thinking and encourages people to challenge
false assumptons, and removes judgement. Russell believes that philosophy and science have
diferences that are applicable in their respectve felds.
Unit 2
1.
David Hume’s skepticism about the self is rooted in his need for direct sensory
impressions. Considering Descartes’ distinction between mind and body, which do we
have the most direct sensory impressions of? What might Hume say about this?
According to Descartes, the mind has the most direct sensory impressions, as you wouldn’t be able to
sense what happens to the body without the mind. Hume might say that without having a body to
experience something, you wouldn’t have any knowledge of experiencing hat thing.
2.
Consider the example of someone who has had open-heart surgery, and who was on a
heart-lung machine during their surgery. This is sometimes associated with a condition
known as “pump head,” in which the personality of the patient changes and they
experience confusion because the machine gave more reliable blood flow to their brain
than their ailing heart did in the past. Has their “self” changed, are they the same person
they were before? Why or why not, according to at least one philosopher in the unit?
According to Locke, their “self” has changed. Locke pays atenton to the nature or concept of identty
that we are dealing with. The person has changed, due to the “pump head”, they are under a diferent
criteria of life. They are under a diferent set of circumstances than before, having more oxygen fowing
to their brain.
3.
You and a friend are kidnapped by an evil mad doctor who is planning to switch your
brain into your friend’s body and your friend’s brain into your body. After the surgery, you
will not remember the surgery. You will be treated as the body you currently inhabit with
that body’s identification, driver’s license, etc. Who would you say you are, according to
Locke? Why would Descartes possibly disagree?
According to Locke, you would say you are the person whose body you were switched into. According to
Locke, identty can’t be tracked in a partcular tmeline for everything. So at the point when you wake up
as someone else, that’s who you are. Descartes would disagree because he is focused on the actual
consciousness of the person. Since you would have the same brain, just in a diferent body, you would
identfy with who you were before your brains were switched.
4.
Consider cases in which someone has a heart transplant from an organ donor, and
begins to experience feelings and emotions associated with that donor’s former life.
What would two of the philosophers in Unit 2 say about this phenomenon?
Downloaded by Jack Harrison (jackharrison1511@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|33086530
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Hume would say that “we add a sympathy of parts to their common end, and suppose that they bear to
each other, the reciprocal relaton of cause and efect in all their actons and operatons.” Because you
understand that the heart from a living person saved your life, you’re startng to imagine and feel the
emotons from the former owner. Descartes would disagree and use his method of doubt to come to the
conclusion of why that person cant feel residual feelings and emotons.
5.
Some argue that Descartes really does not need to use “radical doubt” to help us
perceive our mind as a perceiving thing. Describe Descartes’ method of doubt, and
explain his examples of why doubt is necessary. Do you agree or disagree with his
method?
Descartes’ method of doubt is examining his beliefs, and any belief that can be doubted cannot be self-
evidently true. Descartes uses an analogy to make an argument in a point-by-point logical way. Axioms
and premises are used to lead to conclusions. I agree with his method because this method counts on
logic as opposed to oneself.
Unit 3
1.
Consider the example of marking ice in a freezer. How do we know that the water we
placed in the freezer is the same thing as the ice we take out later? What would
Descartes and Locke tell us about how we know the “thing” that is the water and the ice?
Locke would say that though its ice that’s coming out of the freezer because we learn through
knowledge and experience that if water freezes, it becomes ice. Descartes, as a man of skeptc, would
want to know how the water froze into ice.
2.
How would Goldman describe money, and our knowledge of money having value? How
does this relate to community and society? What would Hume claim about the money’s
value?
Goldman would describe money as a social epistemology with a negatve veritstc value. Money would
be a social epistemology because people as a society has adopted the use of money. Money would have
a negatve veritstc value because money causes people to do corrupt acts. In your community and
society, everyone has an understanding that in order to acquire goods, services, and even power, you
need money. Hume would claim that the money’s value is a principle of the uniformity of nature, since
we think that our money has a certain amount of value or is valid today, that it will be valid tomorrow.
3.
Describe veritistic epistemology, and compare it to Descartes’ description of his method
for understanding how he is a thinking existing being.
Veritstc Epistemology is the knowledge being fostered by one person’s contemplaton or sensory
experiences based of of their “descriptve success.” Descartes’ method for understanding involves his
own certainty, and not the “success” or accuracy of the object in queston.
4.
According to Descartes, how is my clear and distinct idea of a chair different from my
innate idea of God? What would Locke say about the idea of God?
Downloaded by Jack Harrison (jackharrison1511@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|33086530
A clear and distnct idea of a chair is diferent from the innate idea of God because the descriptons that
make a chair are indisputable, while the innate idea of God can be disputed in cases. Locke, as a
empiricist materialist, would say that the idea of God would be universal, and ideas are not innate.
5.
Explain Locke’s distinction between sensations and reflections, and Hume’s distinction
between impressions and ideas. How are their theories alike, and how do they differ?
Whose view is most convincing? Be sure to explain each philosopher’s key terms in your
answer.
For Locke, sensaton is a direct sensory experience and refecton is remembered sensaton. For
Hume, impressions are direct experiences and ideas are copies of impressions or memories. Their
theories are alike because refectons and ideas are based of of sensatons and impressions. They
difer because while Hume’s theory is all encompassing, Locke doesn’t have the knowledge at the
tme to describe the substance of objects. Locke’s theory is more convincing, as I believe that you
don’t have to directly experience something to have an idea about it.
6.
Compare and contrast rationalism (Descartes) and empiricism (Locke). Be sure to
explain the key terms from each philosopher’s work in your answer.
Ratonalists use reason, thinking, understanding, and powers of the mind. Empiricist use their senses,
physical experience, taste, touch, sight, etc.
Multple Choice
The Socratic method, the method used by Socrates, dialogue, dialectical method
Descartes’ method, the method of doubt, skepticism
What does “skepticism” mean in philosophy
Philosophy as a form of critical analysis and reason
Definitions of ethical terms in Socrates, like definitions of holiness or piety,
“essential” definitions
Socrates and the unexamined life or the examined life
The kinds of answers math and science gives compared to the answers
philosophy gives
The self in Descartes compared to the self in Hume
Philosophy and general questions, use of reason and analysis, clarification of
concepts, and fundamental questions of justifying beliefs
Deductive arguments and true premises related to a conclusion
Validity in arguments
Arguments that are question-begging (the fallacy of “begging the question.”)
The subfields or sub-disciplines of philosophy
Downloaded by Jack Harrison (jackharrison1511@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|33086530