According to Russell, do we know the self by acquaintance? (hint: the answer is not yes )

Transcription

1 Russell KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE AND KNOWLEDGE BY DESCRIPTION Russell asserts that there are three types of things that we know by acquaintance. The first is sense-data. Another is universals. What are the other two? According to Russell, do we know the self by acquaintance? (hint: the answer is not yes ) An example of a sense-datum (also a universal) that we know by acquaintance is the colour red. Can you think of any others? Give examples of the other types of things that we know by acquaintance. What is knowledge by description. Russell claims that physical objects are only known by description. Why does he claim this? Give some other examples of things that we know by description. On page Russell states the fundamental principle in the analysis of propositions containing description. What is it? Are propositions made up of components that we know by acquaintance or by description? Why does Russell think that this must be the case? What, according to Russell, is the chief importance of knowledge by description? Explain and evaluate his claim. TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD What is the difference between a criterion of truth (such as Descartes gives) and a definition of truth (such as Russell aims to provide)? On page 121 Russell gives three criteria that a definition of truth must satisfy. What are they? In general what is meant by truth by correspondence? What is the apparent problem (mentioned in lecture) to this theory of truth? What is the alternative to the correspondence theory? What is the problem with this theory? Russell decides that truth must be defined as a correspondence between belief and fact (128). He illustrates with the example of the sentence Othello believes that Desdemona loves Cassio What is an object-term? What are the object terms of Othello s belief? What is an object-relation? What is the object-relation of Othello s belief? Russell claims that this belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, and is false when there is no corresponding fact (129). What is a corresponding fact? (Explain with reference to object-terms, objectrelation and the complex unity that is formed by the two as laid out on 129). UNIVERSALS

2 What is a universal? Explain and evaluate Russell s argument for the existence of at least one universal. Why, according to Russell, should we admit the existence of all universals on the basis of the existence of this one? Explain and evaluate his argument. INDUCTION Why is inference essential to us if we want to be able to assert the existence of matter? We believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we believe this because we know that the earth is a freely rotating body, and such bodies do not cease to rotate unless something interferes from outside (Russell 61). What is the basis for our belief that the laws of motion, which cause the sun to rise in the morning, will be in operation tomorrow morning? According to Russell, does the fact that two things have been found often together and never apart prove that they will continue to be found together in the future? (65) What does the example of the chicken whose neck is wrung illustrate. Is there, according to Russell, any good reason to believe that they will be found together in the future? (65-6) (hint: the answer is not no ) On page 67 Russell outlines the principle of induction. Restate it in your own words. According to Russell which of our beliefs are based on the inductive principle (69)? Why, according to Russell, is it necessary that we assume this principle? THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY According to Russell, are there more significant discoveries claimed by philosophy or by science? What explanation for this does he offer on page If this is the case, what is there left for philosophy to do?

3 Taylor Taylor proposes three possibilities for how one might conceive of the relationship between one s self and one s body. These are: (1) identity, (2) possession and (3) some form of more complex metaphysical relation between the two (Taylor 10-11). Explain the nature of the first two in your own words. What is materialism? How is it different and how is it similar to idealism? Taylor asserts that a materialist might characterize the fact that we have a body analogously to the fact that a table has four legs (Taylor 11). What does he mean by this analogy? According to this description are my body and my self one thing or two? Explain, in your own words, why the materialistic conception of the self might be thought of as a simple(r) explanation. (Taylor 11-12) Taylor contends that a materialist must assert a complete identity of the self and the body. He writes that this entails that one is willing to assert of X [e.g. the body] anything whatever that he asserts of Y [e.g. the self] (Taylor 12). Explain what Taylor means in your own words. Give some examples of things that one might simultaneously assert of one s body and of one s self. Give examples of things that one would assert of either one or the other but not of both. What problems arise in maintaining identity of self and body? What is dualism? Taylor writes: The simplest and most radical of [dualist] views identifies the person or self with a soul or mind and declares its relationship to the body to be the almost accidental one of mere occupancy, possession or use (Taylor 14). Taylor ascribes this type of view to Plato (Taylor 14). What does he mean? According to Taylor, what is the most obvious problem with dualist views? Taylor proposes possession, occupancy, ownership/use as possible ways of conceiving the relationship between mind and body. Explain the problems that he sees with each of these, respectively. Interactionism is one possible theory of the relation between body and mind. Taylor describes this theory as follows: While the mind of a person is not a physical thing, events that transpire within it sometimes have causal consequences or effects within the body. Conversely, although the body of a person is clearly not a mental or nonphysical thing, the events that occur within it, particularly within the nervous system and brain, sometimes have causal consequences or effects within the mind or consciousness (Taylor 18). Explain what interactionism is in your own words. According to interactionism, what is a body? What is a mind? What is the self? Why would the concept of voluntary action support an interactionist theory? Give an example of a situation that seems to require the interaction of body and mind. What is Taylor s example?

4 Why according to Taylor, is it inaccurate to say that in such a case the mind acts on the body? Why, according to Taylor, is interaction not a viable explanation of the relation between the body and the mind? What, according to Taylor, does an interactionist need to prove (hint: location) in order for interactionism to be a viable theory? Why, according to Taylor, is this not possible? How does Taylor define determinism (on page 36). If determinism is true, are people (am I) subject to its laws? Why is this a problem if we want to ascribe blame and merit to people. Sub-question: Taylor thinks that we can not argue against determinism on ethical grounds because it is a metaphysical question rather than an ethical question. Is this a valid supposition? How does Taylor describe determinism, soft determinism and simple indeterminism? What fault does Taylor find with the last two? Why do deliberation and my sense that it is up to me present a challenge to the determinist? Sub-question: What are the four requirements of deliberation (discussed on page 40). What is agency? How does agency resolve the problems of soft determinism? What makes an agent different than other physical bodies? How does Taylor define fatalism (on page 55)? According to Taylor, what is similarity or difference between fatalism and determinism? Taylor writes: A fatalist thus thinks of the future in the way we all think of the past, for everyone is a fatalist as he looks back on things (55). Explain and evaluate Taylor s assertion. What is the story of Osmo? Taylor asks four questions with respect to Osmo s story: 1) Why did Osmo become a fatalist? 2)What did his fatalism amount to? 3) Was his belief justified on the basis of the evidence that he had? 4) And finally, is that belief justified in terms of the evidence that we have or in other words, should we be fatalists too? How does Taylor answer these questions? What is the law of excluded middle? Why does it compel us to accept a fatalist worldview? Why, do we believe that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect (90-91)? Explain the difference between a necessary cause and sufficient cause. Give examples of each. (96-96) Can causes precede their effects in time? Why or why not? (97-98) What are the three major arguments for the existence of God? Which one does Descartes use in the 5 th Meditation? ***we will not go over this in conference, but it will be covered in lecture over the last week. It is important for the exam***

5 According to Taylor what is the principle of sufficient reason? What example does Taylor give to illustrate this principle? ( ) Think of some things, the existence of which, is explained by the principle of sufficient reason. How might one apply the principle of sufficient reason to the existence of the world ( ). Which things in the world exist contingently? (Sub question: what does contingent mean?) Is there anything that exists non-contingently, necessarily? Must the first cause or the creation of the world have happened in time? Why or why not (105)? Explain the argument for God as the first cause or the unmoved mover (108).