2 Part I: The Structure of Philosophy Philosophy as the love of wisdom The basic questions and branches of philosophy The branches of the branches and the many philosophical questions that have been raised 2
3 The Greek word, philosophia, means the love (philia) of wisdom (sophia)
4 The Sanskrit, Chinese, & Japanese equivalents of philosophia are: Darshana (Sanskrit), which means vision (more precisely, vision of ultimate reality) Je Shwe (Chinese, pronounced something like juh shway ), which means wise study Tetsugaku (Japanese), which means wise learning
5 This course concentrates on Chinese & Indian philosophy. (Japan has a less developed philosophical tradition, mostly borrowed from China or from the West.)
6 Philosophers (East & West) seek wisdom by trying to answer certain kinds of questions.
7 The three most basic philosophical questions are What s what? What s good? What do we know (or what s true)?
8 The Branches of Philosophy Metaphysics - What s what? Reality Axiology - What s good? Value Epistemology - What do we know? - Knowledge (Or what s true?) (& Truth)
9 What do those fancy words mean? Metaphysics, metaphusika (Gr.) meta = above, beyond, after phusika = the scientific study of the world (phusis = nature) Axiology, axiologia axios, axion = value logia = the study, theory or science of something Epistemology, epistemologia episteme = knowledge logia
10 Some official (& brief) definitions: A M E Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the nature of reality, being, or existence. Axiology is the philosophical investigation of the nature of value(s) & of the foundations of value judgments. Epistemology is the philosophical investigation of the nature of knowledge & truth & of the differences between knowledge & opinion & between truth & falsity.
11 The Branches of the Branches of Philosophy
12 Metaphysics (Theory of Being) Ontology - being (ontos) in general Philosophical Cosmology - the cosmos Philosophical Theology - God & the gods (Theos & theoi) Philosophical Anthropology - human nature and human existence (anthropos)
13 Axiology (Theory of Value) Aesthetics (philosophy of art) Ethics (moral philosophy) Social & Political Philosophy 13
14 Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge) Any branches of this branch? (No)
15 So philosophy as an intellectual discipline has the following structure (or subject matter): Metaphysics Ontology (being in general) Philosophical Cosmology (the cosmos or universe) Philosophical Theology (God & the gods) Philosophical Anthropology (human nature & existence) Axiology Aesthetics (art & aesthetic experience) Ethics (morality) Social & Political Philosophy (society & politics) Epistemology
17 Logic is also important in philosophy. (We ll get to it as we go along.)
18 In each of the branches (& sub- branches) of philosophy, numerous questions are raised. In the following slides, various questions from the various branches of philosophy are listed. After each question, there are parenthetical indications as to whether the question has been raised in the Western philosophical tradition ( W ), or in Indian philosophy ( I ), or in Chinese philosophy ( C ).
19 In metaphysics, there are questions about being or reality in general, i.e., ontological questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? (W) Is it possible that, prior to now, there was absolutely nothing in existence? (W) What is ultimately (really) real (as opposed to what is only apparently real)? (W, I, C) Is reality fundamentally one or many? (W, I, C) What is the relationship between the One (TAO), the Two (Yin & Yang), & the Many (the plural world)? (C) Is there anything that does not change? (W, I, C) Is reality fundamentally material or spiritual? (W, I, C) Which is more basic, Being or Non-Being? (C)
20 Metaphysics also includes, cosmological questions such as What is the nature of the cosmos? What is it made of? How is it structured? (W, I, C) Did the cosmos come into being? If so, how? (W, I, C) Will the cosmos cease to be in the future? (W) Is there a reality above & beyond the cosmos (a supernatural reality), or is the cosmos (nature) all there really is? (W, I, C) What are the philosophical implications of scientific answers to cosmological questions? (W) (For more cosmological questions, see "Notes on the Nature of Philosophy )
21 Also in metaphysics, there are theological questions: Does God exist? (W, I) What is the nature of God? (W, I) If God exists, how is it possible for pain, suffering, and disorder ( evil ) to exist? (W, I) anthropological questions: What are the basic characteristics of human nature? (W, I, C) How are the human mind & the human body related to each other? (W) Is there freedom of the will? (W, I, C) Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What s the point? (W, I, C) However, see next slide on this category.
22 In Eastern philosophy, especially in Chinese philosophy, theological questions are often less focused specifically on God than the preceding slide suggests. The reality of God &/or the gods is not denied, but the emphasis is often placed on a Supreme Reality higher than the divine (the TAO in Confucianism & Taoism; the cosmic Buddha-nature & Nirvana in Buddhism; the Nirguna- Brahman in certain schools of Hindu thought). In this context, the questions would include: Is there a Supreme Reality above the gods? What is its nature? How can we live in harmony with it? Can we achieve union with it?
23 in Indian philosophy, there are questions that are both anthropological & theological. Does the finite individual really exist? What is the solution to the problem of suffering? How can the Self be liberated from suffering? What is the nature of the Self (Atman)? What is the relationship between the Self & God (Brahman)? What is the relationship between the body, the mind, the ego, & the Self?
24 In axiology, there are questions in the philosophy of art (aesthetics), moral philosophy (ethics), & social & political philosophy
25 there are questions about art: What is art? (W) Can we distinguish between (1) art & non-art, (2) authentic art & unauthentic art, (3) good & bad art, (4) fine & useful (applied) art? If so, how? If not, why not? (W) What are the standards of aesthetic judgment? (W) What is the purpose of art? (W) How does art mean? Does art mean? (W) (Not sure about C & I.)
26 there are questions about morality: General normative ethics What are the basic standards of morality? What are the differences between right & wrong? What is the nature of moral virtue? Applied normative ethics Is the death penalty morally justifiable? Abortion? Racial, gender, or age discrimination? Recreational drug use? The war on drugs? These are questions in normative ethics. What about non-normative ethics?
27 Ethics is a branch of axiology, & it has its own sub-branches: Normative Ethics General - the attempt to define the basic principles, standards, & rules of morality Applied - the application of moral principles, standards, & rules to specific moral problems Non-Normative Ethics Descriptive Ethics - the scientific study of moral beliefs & practices (part of the social sciences) Metaethics - critical thinking about normative ethics (e.g., Is moral knowledge possible? ).
28 The 3d branch of axiology is social & political philosophy: What are the origins, nature, & purposes of government (the state)? What are the proper relationships between the individual, society, & the state? What is the nature of justice? Liberty? Equality? What is the nature & purpose of law? (W, I, & C)
29 Questions in epistemology: What is the nature of knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the extent (scope & limits) of knowledge? What are the differences between knowledge & opinion? What is the nature of truth? What are the differences between truth & falsity? Can the truth be known at all? (W & I -- not so much C)
30 Questions in epistemology: (W & I -- not so much C) What is the nature of knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the extent (scope & limits) of knowledge? What are the differences between knowledge & opinion? What is the nature of truth? What are the differences between truth & falsity? Can the truth be known at all? Theories of Truth 30
31 Theories of Truth What makes a belief or proposition true (as opposed to false)? Correspondence theory: A belief or proposition is true when it corresponds to, agrees with, or describes reality (i.e., the "way things are," what is in fact the case), and it is false when it fails to correspond to, agree with, or describe reality. (How we find out whether beliefs, propositions, and claims are in fact true or false, i.e., how we go about proving or disproving truth-claims, is a question we will need to discuss.) Coherence theory: A belief or proposition is true when it agrees (coheres) with other true beliefs or propositions in a system of accepted beliefs and propositions. Pragmatic theory: A belief or proposition is true when it works out in practice, i.e., "when acting upon it yields satisfactory practical results." William James held that this approach will lead in the long run to "a stable body of scientific propositions that have been shown in experience to be successful principles for human action." 31
32 Part II: The Process of Philosophical Thinking The dialectic of construction and criticism in the process of philosophical thinking: constructive philosophy & critical philosophy The nature of rational defensibility (and of rational indefensibility) 32
33 In addition to being a discipline with a structure & subject matter, philosophy is also a process or activity, a way of trying to figure things out.
34 As a process or activity, philosophy is a two-sided way of thinking about reality, value, & knowledge.
35 The Two Types (or Sides) of Philosophical Thinking Constructive Philosophy the construction of rationally defensible answers to philosophical questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge answering questions Critical Philosophy the analysis, clarification, & evaluation of answers that are given to philosophical questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge questioning answers
36 The overall process of philosophical thinking proceeds in something like the following way: Someone raises a philosophical question. Someone (the questioner or someone else) constructs an answer to the question, trying to back the answer up with good reasons so as to make it as rationally defensible as possible (constructive philosophy). Someone (the constructor or someone else) analyzes, clarifies, & evaluates the answer & judges the degree to which the answer is satisfactory (critical philosophy). Then,
37 if the answer is less than completely satisfactory (& it usually is), the constructor of the answer will have to reconstruct it or construct a new one, and then the critic will analyze, clarify, & evaluate the reconstructed or new answer & judge the degree to which it is a satisfactory response to the original philosophical question... (and so on)...
38 Ideally (and theoretically), this back-and-forth ( dialectical ) process of construction-criticismreconstruction-criticismreconstruction goes on until a fully satisfactory answer to the original question is developed. It is, of course, possible that that ideal goal will never be reached. However, true philosophers never give up their pursuit of the wisdom that they love.
39 Another point about constructive philosophy: Traditionally, the aim of constructive philosophy was quite ambitious. It was to construct a comprehensive, coherent, & intellectually (& perhaps emotionally) satisfying world-view or philosophical system in which everything falls into place, has meaning, & makes sense. However, in modern times, many (but not all) constructive philosophers have tended to be more modest in their aims, attempting to answer only a few of the major philosophical questions without attempting the construction of a worldview or philosophical system. (This is more true of Western than of Eastern philosophy.)
40 Philosophy, on the constructive side, is the attempt to formulate rationally defensible answers to certain fundamental questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge and truth; &, on the critical side, it is the analysis, clarification, & evaluation of answers given to basic metaphysical, axiological, & epistemological questions in an effort to determine just how rationally defensible such answers are.
41 What does rationally defensible mean? What makes a claim rationally defensible?
42 To be rationally defensible, at minimum, a claim must not be inconsistent with itself (i.e., self-contradictory), and it must not be inconsistent with the facts or evidence of common sense or scientific experience.
43 the claim that today is both Monday & Friday cannot be true because it is self-contradictory (i.e., it is inconsistent with itself), and it is therefore NOT rationally defensible.
44 the claim that there is an elephant in your living room, although it is not inconsistent with itself (i.e., it is not self-contradictory), is inconsistent with the facts of experience, i.e., as a matter of fact, there is no elephant in your living room (is there?). So this claim is also NOT rationally defensible. Of course, if there were an elephant in your living room, then this claim....
45 would be rationally defensible, wouldn t it? It is not a self-contradictory claim. If there were an elephant in your living room, then it would not be inconsistent with the facts of experience to say that there is. Indeed, the facts of experience (seeing, touching, etc.) would actually prove that the claim is true.
46 a distinction between claims that are rationally defensible in the weak sense, i.e., in the sense that they are neither selfcontradictory nor negated by the facts of experience and thus cannot be refuted; claims that are rationally defensible in the strong sense, i.e., in the sense that they are positively supported by or even proved true on the basis of good reasons.
47 If someone were to claim that there is an elephant in your living room, we could prove or disprove the claim by going into your living room, looking around, and, on the basis of our perceptions, discovering whether there is an elephant there or not. And the result of our investigation -- i.e., our answer to the question as to whether or not there is an elephant in your living room -- would itself be rationally defensible in the strong sense because our answer would be proved on the basis of perception.
48 the claim is that there is an ANGEL in your living room? How could we prove or disprove that claim? If we all (& by we, I mean the members of this class) went into your living room & saw an angel sitting on your couch (& if we all agreed that what we were seeing actually was an angel), then I suppose we could say that this claim is rationally defensible in the strong sense (at least to our own satisfaction although others we told about this might think that we had all been subject to a mass hallucination).
49 when we look around your living room is that we will NOT see any angels because angels (which are spiritual rather than material beings) are ordinarily invisible (& imperceptible in general). No, it won t. Since angels are ordinarily imperceptible, our failure to perceive any in your living room does not prove that there are none there.
50 It seems that the claim that there is an angel in your living room is neither provable nor disprovable; and since the claim is neither selfcontradictory nor inconsistent with the facts of experience, it is rationally defensible, only in the weak sense that it cannot be refuted on the basis of either logic or factual evidence. To be rationally defensible in the strong sense, the claim would have to be positively supported or even proved true on the basis of good reasons. (Remember, the fact that we do not perceive the angel does not show that the claim here is inconsistent with the facts of experience because it IS a fact of experience that angels are rarely [if ever] perceived.)
51 At this point, we must be careful not to claim too much. To say that a claim is rationally defensible does not necessarily mean that it is true or has been proved true. A claim that is rationally defensible in the strong sense is one that has good reasons supporting it. The support may be so strong as to remove all doubt (& thus prove with certainty) that the claim is true. However, the reasons supporting the claim may only remove all reasonable doubt (not all doubt) from our minds; or they may be just strong enough to make it more likely than no that the claim is true (because it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ).
52 A claim that is rationally defensible in the weak sense is merely one that has not been refuted because it is neither inconsistent with itself nor with the facts of experience. Thus, it might be true. However, there is no positive or convincing reason to believe that it is true (e.g., is there any reason whatsoever to believe that there are, say, exactly three ghosts in your living room?). Thus, the claim might also be false. (Just because it has not been proved false does not allow us to say that it is true.) 52
53 Let s pause to summarize our discussion of rational defensibility....
54 A claim is rationally defensible in the weak sense when there is no good reason to believe that it is true, but when also it cannot be proved false because it is neither selfcontradictory nor inconsistent with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience.
55 a claim is rationally defensible in the strong sense when it is neither inconsistent with itself nor with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience AND when there is good reason to believe that the claim is (1) certainly true (no doubt), or (2) probably true (no reasonable doubt), or at least (3) more likely to be true than false (because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it).
56 What makes a belief or proposition rationally indefensible? A belief or proposition that is inconsistent with itself (selfcontradictory) is rationally indefensible. Any belief or proposition that is self-contradictory is not only false but necessarily so. Its truth is logically impossible. A belief or proposition that is inconsistent with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience is rationally indefensible. Any such belief or proposition is at least probably false. Are there other ways in which a belief or proposition can be rationally indefensible? I don't know. Can you think of any? 56
57 Part III: The Sources of Philosophical Beliefs Perception (i.e., sense-perception) Inference Intuition Authority ("authoritative testimony") 57
58 Earlier, when we were considering the claim that there is an elephant in your living room, we appealed to sense perception in order to test the rational defensibility of that claim. However, many claims (philosophical or otherwise) can be neither established nor refuted through perception because they are inferential in nature. For example, I can (& do) perceive crows, & every crow I have ever seen has been black. From this perceptual experience, I infer that....
59 all crows are black. Now, even though this claim is based on perceptual experience, it cannot be evaluated through direct perception because no one can have a perception of ALL crows.
60 IS IT REASONABLE to infer that ALL crows are black on the basis of our perceptions of SOME crows? I have observed hundreds or even thousands of crows, haven t you? They ve all been black. So my reason tells me that ALL crows are black even though I have observed only SOME crows. Is this or is this not a reasonable inference? That is the question. What s the answer?
61 Here s a more philosophical example. It pertains to a metaphysical issue known as the problem of other minds.
62 My answer to this question is yes, & I construct it on the basis of both perception & inference. Other people speak as though they have minds, they make facial expressions which suggest to me that they have minds, & their body language in general leads me to believe that they have minds as I do. I cannot perceive the minds of other persons, but I can see their bodies, and I can hear their voices.
63 ... I infer the existence of minds other than my own, namely, the minds of other people. This is my solution to the problem of other minds. Now, this answer must be subjected to philosophical criticism. Is the inference I have made a reasonable one? Is it rationally defensible? What do you say?
64 So, philosophical claims can be established or criticized on the basis of perception (i.e., sense perception), or on the basis of a process of logical inference. Much philosophical thinking begins with perception; but reasoning out the logical implications of what is perceived probably plays a larger role in philosophy than does perception itself. As we proceed through the course, we may even find some philosophers reasoning in ways that owe very little or nothing to perceptual experience. We ll discuss logic a lot more later on.
65 In addition to perception & inference, some Western philosophers & and many Eastern philosophers recognize at least two additional means by which philosophical claims can be established or criticized, namely, intuition & appeal to traditional authorities (e.g., the Bible, the Vedas, the Chinese classics, etc.).
66 INTUITION is the immediate, direct apprehension, understanding, or knowing of something without the use of discursive reasoning. (Discursive reasoning is the process of inference, i.e., the process of going from premises to a conclusion in a series of logical steps.)
67 Actually, perception is a form of intuition. Some philosophers distinguish between sensible (or sensory) intuition (perception) & intelligible intuition. Through sensible intuition (perception), we can know directly (i.e., without using discursive reasoning) that (for example) physical objects (such as tables) exist. Through intelligible intuition (intellectual perception), we can know certain things in the realm of ideas (not perceivable objects) directly & non-inferentially, e.g., that every effect must have a cause; that a proposition A is either true or false; that a finite whole is larger than any one of its own parts; that a perfect being cannot have any defects; etc. (Some also claim that we have intuitional knowledge of Being, of God, of the Self, of moral truth, etc.)
68 Appeal to Traditional Authorities In Indian and Chinese philosophy, another source of belief is authoritative testimony, especially as embodied in classic and/or sacred texts. Maybe we should add that to sense-perception, inference, and intuition. How, for example, do we know (if we do know) that there was a great civil war in America in the mid-19th century? None of us was there to witness it. We do not know about it through pure intuition. Nor does our knowledge of the Civil War seem to be a product of logical reasoning. We know about it mainly through the (written) work of historians, who have used the remnants of the past (documents and artifacts of various sorts) to construct accounts of what happened then. Even now, how do we know what is going on in Iraq or in Afganistan? It is through the (written, radio, and TV) reports of journalists and social scientists, isn't it? Not through our own perceptions, inferences, or intuitions. It seems that much of what we know (or at least believe) arises from that kind of authoritative testimony.
69 What, then, is philosophy? It is an attempt to figure out, on the basis of perceptual (& perhaps intuitional) experience, logical reasoning, and authoritative testimony & in a rationally defensible way the nature of reality, value, & knowledge. (That s constructive philosophy. ) It is also the criticism of all such attempts. (That s critical philosophy. )
70 Some (other) contrasts between Eastern & Western philosophy: Eastern Philosophy Close relationship between philosophy & religion Strong emphasis on spirit Employs perception, reasoning, intuition, & traditional authority in its pursuit of philosophical vision Recognition of many perspectives on truth Western Philosophy Critical distance between philosophy & religion Less strong emphasis on spirit Emphasis on reason, experience, & scientific methods of thinking (critical of appeals to intuition & traditional authority) Seeks THE perspective on truth (less so in recent times) Continued
71 Continued.... Eastern Philosophy Accent on synthesis The unity of things Tends to see a harmony between opposites More existential - i.e., focused on gaining release from suffering ( salvation philosophies) Unsystematic, rambling, disorganized, aphoristic, & repetitious style of thinking & writing (suspicion of human ability to grasp The Truth ) Western Philosophy Accent on analysis The plurality of things Tends to draw sharp contrasts between opposites Less existential - i.e., focused on understanding the nature of reality, value, & knowledge Systematic, precise, analytic, logically organized, logically extended (non-aphoristic), & less repetitious style of thinking & writing
In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
PHILOSOPHY INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY MEANING NATURE SCOPE GOALS IMPORTANCE BRANCHES EPOCH WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? WHERE IT BEGINS? REMEMBER In studying PHILOSOPHY one should KNOW the : 1. Contextualize/ation
Philosophy FIO Philosophy Philosophy is a humanistic subject with ramifications in all areas of human knowledge and activity, since it covers fundamental issues concerning the nature of reality, the possibility
CHAPTER ONE What is Philosophy? What s In It For Me? General Overview Welcome to the world of philosophy. Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, an inevitable fact of classroom life after the introductions
Logic, Truth & Epistemology Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics
Summary The main objectives of this PhD research are twofold. The first is to give a precise analysis of the concept worldview in education to gain clarity on how the educational debate about religious
Philosophy (PHIL) 1 PHILOSOPHY (PHIL) PHIL 2. Ethics. 3 Units Examination of the concepts of morality, obligation, human rights and the good life. Competing theories about the foundations of morality will
A (Very) Brief Introduction to Epistemology Lecture 2 Palash Sarkar Applied Statistics Unit Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata India firstname.lastname@example.org Palash Sarkar (ISI, Kolkata) Epistemology 1 /
Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal, Assistant Professor (Philosophy), P.G.Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh http://drsirswal.webs.com Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as
I SEMESTER B. A. PHILOSOPHY PHL1B 01- INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY QUESTION BANK FOR INTERNAL ASSESSMENT Multiple Choice Questions 1. The total number of Vedas is. a) One b) Two c) Three d) Four 2. Philosophy
Rationalist-Irrationalist Dialectic in Buddhism: The Failure of Buddhist Epistemology By W. J. Whitman The problem of the one and the many is the core issue at the heart of all real philosophical and theological
Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal, Assistant Professor (Philosophy), P.G.Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh http://drsirswal.webs.com Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as
Introduction This book seeks to provide a metaethical analysis of the responsibility ethics of two of its prominent defenders: H. Richard Niebuhr and Emmanuel Levinas. In any ethical writings, some use
Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics
I Holistic Pragmatism and the Philosophy of Culture MY PURPOSE IN THIS BOOK IS TO PRESENT A philosophical discussion of the main elements of civilization or culture such as science, law, religion, politics,
Problems of Philosophy Dr Desh Raj Sirswal, Assistant Professor(Philosophy), P.G. Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh http://drsirswal.webs.com Introduction Instead of being treated as a single,
HEAVEN IN CONFUCIANISM RELIGIONS OF CHINA DR. JAMES CATANZARO AND DR. JOSEPH A. ADLER RELS 2030 The Absolute Reality Personal Aspect / Individualized Naturalistic Sky Abode of the Gods Ancestors Reside
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY FALL 2014 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS PHIL 2300-001 Beginning Philosophy 11:00-11:50 MWF ENG/PHIL 264 PHIL 2300-002 Beginning Philosophy 9:00-9:50 MWF ENG/PHIL 264 This is a general introduction
1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or
Aspects of Western Philosophy Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module - 22 Lecture - 22 Kant The idea of Reason Soul, God
Philosophy Courses-1 PHL 100/Introduction to Philosophy A course that examines the fundamentals of philosophical argument, analysis and reasoning, as applied to a series of issues in logic, epistemology,
Croatian Journal of Philosophy Vol. II, No. 5, 2002 L. Bergström, Putnam on the Fact-Value Dichotomy 1 Putnam on the Fact-Value Dichotomy LARS BERGSTRÖM Stockholm University In Reason, Truth and History
A solution to the problem of hijacked experience Jill is not sure what Jack s current mood is, but she fears that he is angry with her. Then Jack steps into the room. Jill gets a good look at his face.
Philosophy Courses-1 PHL 100/Introduction to Philosophy A course that examines the fundamentals of philosophical argument, analysis and reasoning, as applied to a series of issues in logic, epistemology,
Interview Buddhist monk meditating: Traditional Chinese painting with Ravi Ravindra Can science help us know the nature of God through his creation? So much depends on what one thinks or imagines God is.
Harmony in Popular Belief and its Relation to Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. Prof. Cheng Chih-ming Professor of Chinese Literature at Tanchiang University This article is a summary of a longer paper
A Review of Norm Geisler's Prolegomena 2017 by A Jacob W. Reinhardt, All Rights Reserved. Copyright holder grants permission to reduplicate article as long as it is not changed. Send further requests to
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION (2014 Admn. onwards) CORE COURSE B.A. PHILOSOPHY (INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY) I Semester Question Bank & Answer Key Module I 1. Anaximander has considered
1 Symposium on Understanding Truth By Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 2 Precis of Understanding Truth Scott Soames Understanding Truth aims to illuminate
24 Testimony and Moral Understanding Anthony T. Flood, Ph.D. Abstract: In this paper, I address Linda Zagzebski s analysis of the relation between moral testimony and understanding arguing that Aquinas
KANT, MORAL DUTY AND THE DEMANDS OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON The law is reason unaffected by desire. Aristotle, Politics Book III (1287a32) THE BIG IDEAS TO MASTER Kantian formalism Kantian constructivism
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT UNDERGRADUATE HANDBOOK 2013 Contents Welcome to the Philosophy Department at Flinders University... 2 PHIL1010 Mind and World... 5 PHIL1060 Critical Reasoning... 6 PHIL2608 Freedom,
SPRING 2014 UNDERGRADUATE COURSE OFFERINGS APHI 110 - Introduction to Philosophical Problems (#2318) TuTh 11:45AM 1:05PM Location: HU- 20 Instructor: Daniel Feuer This course is an introduction to philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy Course Text Moore, Brooke Noel and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2008. ISBN: 9780073535722 [This text is available as an etextbook
Philosophy 305 Introduction to Philosophy of Religion Fall 2016 (also listed as CTI 310, RS 305) 42270; 33770; 43535 WAG 302 MWF 2-3 Stephen Phillips WAG 301 Fall Office Hours: M & F 3-4 & by appointment
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 1: Overview Welcome! Are you in the right place? PHIL 125 (Metaphysics) Overview of Today s Class 1. Us: Branden (Professor), Vanessa & Josh
Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the
Are Miracles Identifiable? 1. Some naturalists argue that no matter how unusual an event is it cannot be identified as a miracle. 1. If this argument is valid, it has serious implications for those who
Philosophy 405: Knowledge, Truth and Mathematics Fall 2010 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism I. The Continuum Hypothesis and Its Independence The continuum problem
Christian Evidences CA312 LESSON 06 of 12 Victor M. Matthews, STD Former Professor of Systematic Theology Grand Rapids Theological Seminary This is lecture 6 of the course entitled Christian Evidences.
Updated on 23 June 2017 B.A. in Religion, Philosophy and Ethics (4-year Curriculum) Course List and Study Plan Study Scheme Religion, Philosophy and Ethics Major Courses - Major Core Courses - Major Elective
1/7 The Postulates of Empirical Thought This week we are focusing on the final section of the Analytic of Principles in which Kant schematizes the last set of categories. This set of categories are what
DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY
5: Preliminaries to the Argument In this chapter, we set forth the logical structure of the argument we will use in chapter six in our attempt to show that Nfc is self-refuting. Thus, our main topics in
1 Internalism and externalism about justification Theories of epistemic justification can be divided into two groups: internalist and externalist. Internalist theories of justification say that whatever
Ethics and Morality Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior. Ethics is the study of morality. This definition raises two questions: (a) What is morality?
A. The Three Main Branches of the Philosophical Study of Ethics 1. Meta-ethics 2. Normative Ethics 3. Applied Ethics 1 B. Meta-ethics consists in the attempt to answer the fundamental philosophical questions
Oxford Scholarship Online You are looking at 1-10 of 21 items for: booktitle : handbook phimet The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology Paul K. Moser (ed.) Item type: book DOI: 10.1093/0195130057.001.0001 This
Neo-Confucianism: Metaphysics, Mind, and Morality BOOK PROSPECTUS JeeLoo Liu CONTENTS: SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS Since these selected Neo-Confucians had similar philosophical concerns and their various philosophical
Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, 217-240. Copyright 2009 Andrews University Press. INVESTIGATING THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL REALM OF BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, PART II: CANALE ON REASON
Philosophy (PHIL) 1 PHILOSOPHY (PHIL) PHIL Courses PHIL 101. Introduction to Philosophy. 4 units Foundational methods and central issues in contemporary philosophy including logic, epistemology, metaphysics
Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, 119-152) Chapter XII Truth and Falsehood [pp. 119-130] Russell begins here
1. The Scope of Skepticism Philosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument The scope of skeptical challenges can vary in a number
1 Department/Program 2012-2016 Assessment Plan Department: Philosophy Directions: For each department/program student learning outcome, the department will provide an assessment plan, giving detailed information
On The Logical Status of Dialectic (*) -Historical Development of the Argument in Japan- Shigeo Nagai Naoki Takato 1 The term "logic" seems to be used in two different ways. One is in its narrow sense;
Philosophy 427 Intuitions and Philosophy Russell Marcus Hamilton College Fall 2011 Class 10 Reflections On Reflective Equilibrium The Epistemological Importance of Reflective Equilibrium P Balancing general
Book Reviews Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to The Theory of Knowledge, by Robert Audi. New York: Routledge, 2011. BIBLID [0873-626X (2012) 33; pp. 540-545] Audi s (third) introduction to the
Welcome to Philosophy! Philosophy begins in wonder. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) Philosophy is what you re doing when you keep asking questions after everyone else is satisfied with their answers. Philosophy
1 Recap Perception and Mind-Dependence: Lecture 2 (Alex Moran, apm60@ cam.ac.uk) According to naïve realism: (1) the objects of perception are ordinary, mindindependent things, and (2) perceptual experience
Michael Lacewing The knowledge argument PROPERTY DUALISM Property dualism is the view that, although there is just one kind of substance, physical substance, there are two fundamentally different kinds
Chapter 1 Introduction How perfectible is human nature as understood in Eastern* and Western philosophy, psychology, and religion? For me this question goes back to early childhood experiences. I remember
Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice Daniele Porello email@example.com Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC) University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 24
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY FALL 2013 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS PHIL 2300-004 Beginning Philosophy 11:00-12:20 TR MCOM 00075 Dr. Francesca DiPoppa This class will offer an overview of important questions and topics
APHI 110 - Introduction to Philosophical Problems (#2488) TuTh 11:45PM 1:05PM Location: ED- 120 Instructor: Nathan Powers What is a person? What is a mind? What is knowledge? Do I have certain knowledge
The Causal Relation : Its Acceptance and Denial JOY BHATTACHARYYA It is not at all wise to draw a watertight distinction between Eastern and Western philosophies. The causal relation is a serious problem
General Information PHIL 035: Asian Philosophy Term: 2018 Summer Session Class Sessions Per Week: 5 Instructor: Staff Total Weeks: 4 Language of Instruction: English Total Class Sessions: 20 Classroom:
Kant and his Successors G. J. Mattey Winter, 2011 / Philosophy 151 The Sorry State of Metaphysics Kant s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) was an attempt to put metaphysics on a scientific basis. Metaphysics
Aspects of Western Philosophy Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module - 20 Lecture - 20 Critical Philosophy: Kant s objectives
Précis of Empiricism and Experience Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh My principal aim in the book is to understand the logical relationship of experience to knowledge. Say that I look out of my window
SPECIMEN MATERIAL A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY 7172/1 PAPER 1 EPISTEMOLOGY AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY Mark scheme SAMs 1.0 Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant
ination Department of John Carroll University 1 In addition to maintaining a cumulative GPA 2.00 or higher, students who wish to graduate with a major in must satisfy the following requirements: 1) Successfully
Philosophy Study, November 2017, Vol. 7, No. 11, 595-600 doi: 10.17265/2159-5313/2017.11.002 D DAVID PUBLISHING Defending Davidson s Anti-skepticism Argument: A Reply to Otavio Bueno Mohammad Reza Vaez
Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating
A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and
Abstracts 9 Methods for Knowing Transphysical Truths and Its Obstacles in Transcendent Philosophy Ali Allahbedashti * In transcendent philosophy (al-hikmahal-mota aliyah) we encounter with some transphysical
Philosophy PHILOSOPHY AS A WAY OF THINKING WHAT IS IT? WHO HAS IT? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WAY OF THINKING AND A DISCIPLINE? It is the propensity to seek out answers to the questions that we ask
Judith Jarvis Thomson s Normativity Gilbert Harman June 28, 2010 Normativity is a careful, rigorous account of the meanings of basic normative terms like good, virtue, correct, ought, should, and must.