PHL notes

------------------------------------chapter
1----------------------------------------
Philosophy
Philos- sophia (greek words)
^love of ^wisdom
Branches of philosophy
● Logic- most general, thinking well, clear, structured manor. The science of correct
reasoning. Science is seen as a sense of structured knowledge. How should I reason in
order to arrive at conclusions? What is a valid argument? How do I communicate
clearly?
● Political Philosophy- What's the purpose of a city/state/society/form of government? Who
should rule? What is the basis of law?
● Metaphysics- What is real? What is the self? What is the meaning of existence?
● Ethics- What is good? How should I love? What is right or wrong? What is just? What
type of person should I try to be? What is happiness?
● Aesthetics- sometimes linked with ethics, what is beauty? What is the value of art?
● Epistemology-- what is knowledge? What is wisdom? What makes a belief justified or
true? What counts as good evidence for believing something?
Day 2
What is logic? - Defined as the science of correct reasoning , art of producing good arguments.
Examples: Inference = argument- the act of deriving conclusions from premises (1-3)
Pg 3-4
Typically first and second are premises (starting points of the argument, what you already know)
1. My plane departs at 10AM
2. Its currently 10:06AM
3. So, You've missed the flight
Third is conclusion- the end point of the argument, final statement
Good argument- one where the concussion is supported by the premises, makes sense, good
reasoning
1. I have to be at work by 4:25 PM
2. It currently is 4:15 PM
3. It takes me ten minutes to get to work
4. If i'm going to be on time, I need to leave for work now
Ex 3.

1. I want a turkey sandwich

2. I have no turkey
3. I cant make a turkey sandwich
Ex 4.
 1. My pet isn't eating
2. They may be sick
3. I need to take them to the vet

------

Science (scientia- latin word)pg 5

- Intellectual habit of knowing the cause or reasoning of things, knowing why and what
something is
- Cannot be otherwise (necessary)

●Habit - acquired ability, something you've learned how to do

vs.
● Capacities - innate ability, something you could do ( intellect )
vs.
● Actions - using your habits, making use of something
Ex: learning a language
We have the intellect and capacity of learning the language
Action is actually speaking the language
Habit is simply speaking it constantly

Ex.
you have the capacity to learn how to cook
Can acquire it by or acting different recipes
Habit of when hungry, you can cook dinner

----

Normative science - a knowledge that is based on norms, standards, or rules for evaluating
whether something is correct/ right
Gives rules for what should be the case, what a good conclusion should be
Ex; logic, grammar, ethics ( concerns morality, what is the right or good thing to do )

Vs. psychology- in the middle, hard to categorize

Descriptive science - knowledge that involves describing what something is, what is the case
Ex; astronomy, botany, chemistry, physics

-----
Art = intellectual habit of knowing how to produce something

Liberal Arts - knowledge pursued for its own sake rather than its utility
ex; logic, philosophy, produce an intellectual, spiritual
Vs.
Mechanical Arts- knowledge pursued for its utility, for a physical or extreme good
Ex; agriculture, carpentry

Quiz 1:
A lot on ch1 of logic book
Little discussion ab zena
How does zena relate to ?
Learning for her own sake
Work that needs real human needs
Liberal vs mechanical
What is logic +branches
Questions logic considers
Premises, conclusions, arguments
Descriptive vs normative sciences
*all short answer*

art= intellectual habit or form of knowledge that produces something

Liberal arts- producing intellectual or spiritual good

Pursued not the for utility, but for the sake of the activity itself
Ex; beauty, aesthetics, visual arts, literature, imagination, empathy, creativity, music,
understanding, theatre, philosophy, mathematics

Mechanical: produce something that can be used, material good, necessary for survival ,
sewing, healthcare or medicine
Reason to pursue them: utility, for the product, for the usefulness of it

Zena hitz
Certain forms of work whose value is obvious , no groceries, baby with no diaper

Work of the mind or intellectual life these she connects with the liberal arts yes the reason you
pursue a liberal art is that people have real spiritual and intellectual needs rather than
mechanical

The importance of intellectual life- the liberal arts, something that allows you the ability to think
to contemplate. Something that people pursue outside of the classroom as well

Leisure vs relaxation
Relaxation: rest, recover, passive
Ex: taking a nap

Leisure: active learning, exploring , intellectual life, philosophy

Ex: something they really need, to actually enjoy and appreciate life

Learning for its own sake :

Not simply pleasure
Not for instrumental, utility reasons alone
Examples: stargazing, reading, watching educational documentaries, going to museums or
zoos, traveling, learning how to paint or draw, singing and music, instruments, athletics and
sports, birdwatching

----------------------------------------chapter
2-----------------------------------

Plato, The Apology

Quiz 2, ch 2 of the logic book

Philosopher, lover of wisdom, seeker of truth, has 4 cardinal virtues

Plato considers socrates a philosopher
Socrates, role model of how to live a philosophical life

Context of dialogue :
Socrates is put on trial
Defines an apology, defendant pleading their case
Anyone who has different views than the majority are gone against
Socrates didn't write any books
Socrates was plato's teacher
Plato is one of the main authors of socrates’ views
A biography of socrates
The apology (apologia= defense)
Socrates is on trial , defends himself against three main charges
Pg 24. 28-32

Main charges of socrates:

1. Busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth = questioning the gods,
heaven and hell (socrates response: believes in daimon, spirit and conscience) pg 36
2. Makes the worse into the stronger argument = sophist
3. He teaches the same things to others = corrupting the youth

Socrates is ironic

Socrates as plato's example of a philosopher:

4 cardinal virtues;
 1. **Wisdom - intellectual humility, knowing what he doesn't know,
- politicians → reputation
- Poets → inspiration
- Craftspeople → know their craft
2. Courage - proper response to fear, not fearing death and willing to stand up for his
beliefs and the truth, despite it being against the society
3. temperance/ moderation - balance in bodily or external goods, simple lving
4. Justice - doing what right, fair

-------------------

Chapter 2 of logic and inquiry

- Dialectic vs empirical methods
- Principle of contradiction
- definitions vs examples
- 3 methods of education
*plato's euthyphro
-answers to: what is piety?

What is a method of doing philosophy?

- Dialectic vs empirical methods of inquiry (pg 15-16)
Dialectic (reasoning): art of discussion, logical assessment of ideas or judgements, we use to
get definitions, universal account- applies to all things of the same kind
Type of dialectical principle→ principle of contradiction
- something cannot both be the case and not be the case at the
same time and in the same respect

Empirical: not primary methods of philosophy, using observations and measurements to gain
information
Ex; biology, chemistry, psychology, weather ( looks cold out, wear warm clothes), baking (using
measurements)
Empirical means experience/ sense based
Empirical methods only give you examples or an individual instance, won't give you a definition

---

Background to Plato’s Euthyphro:

1. What is X questions
- X = a form, Ex; what is piety?
- They are looking for the form of piety, since it would give the definition , would
explain what makes all pious acts to be pious ( rather than not pious )
2. Explore these questions because knowing=being=doing
 3. Plato’s view of education- both teacher and student have some innate knowledge of the
forms of piety ----> by conversing, by dialectic, we can bring out the knowledge of the
forms
- Plato
- Socrates (teacher)
- Euthyphro (student)

Other philosophers

Aristotle-only teacher knows the content, but the student has the capacity to gain that content
Teacher gives content to student in order for them to be equals

Descartes- both have some knowledge

Turn within, through self reflection

----------------------------------
Euthyphro's 1st answer (pg 6, lines 5d-5e)

Give answer to what is piety and socrates answer

Why is the apology called the apology
How does socrates exemplify the philosopher plato discussed

Background to plato's dialogues

1. View of education - the student and teacher both have the knowledge initially and they
grow together to learn,need to engage in dialectic to bring it out
2. What is x questions- euthyphro is about what is piety, we want the form of piety (x),
which would give a definition that explains what makes us pious, what is shared in all
pious actions
3. knowing=being=doing, when you know the from of piety you have some intellectual
knowledge, when you know the form of piety you be pious you will do what's pious

Dialectic- the art of discussion, logical assessment of ideas

The dialogue and the 4 answers

Euthyphro's 1st answer (pg 6, lines 5d-5e): I say that the pious is to do what i'm doing now,
prosecuting his father because his father murdered a murderer.
What is piety? Piety is what I'm doing
Socrates response: this is an example, not a definition of piety

Second answer (pg 8, lines 7a-7e): what is dear to the gods is pious (dear=what the gods like)
Socrates response: the gods disagree; one god loves person x, the other god doesn't
This leads to a violation of the principle of contradiction , something cannot both be the case
(pious) and not be the case (impious) at the same time and in the same respect
Third answer (pg 15, line 11e): piety=justice, a pious action is doing what's just

Socrates response: piety is part of justice, but they are not identical - piety is the part concerned
with care of the gods

Fourth answer (pg 18): care of the gods, shown by having knowledge of how to pray and
sacrifice

Socrates response: this is basically euthyphro's 2nd answer (what is dear to the gods), trying to
please them

--

Page 20, end of the dialogue

We've gone through these 4 answers back and forth lets keep going to find the true meaning of
piety
Euthyphro says i'm done socrates

Euthyphro seems angry and arrogant

We never got an answer as to what is piety

-----------------------------------------chapter
3-----------------------------------

How do we gain knowledge and ultimately wisdom, according to aristotle?

1. External sensation - using the 5 senses (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling) to
gain information about things
- Ex; seeing the red of an apple, tasting its sweetness, hearing its crunch

2. Internal Sensation - processing the information you gain from the external senses,
forming phantasms - Images, retained sense impressions (visual memory of a person)
- Ex; memory, imagination, the common/synthetic sense
- Can occur when the thing is absent, in the past
- Processing, occurring in the brain

What is common/synthetic sense?

- common to the five senses, can access all their info
- synthetic puts together (synthesizes) information from 5 senses
 1. It distinguishes different sense qualities (sweet vs red)
2. Forms or identifies qualities of a single object (the apple)

Both external + internal sensations are “sense cognition/sense knowledge“

Both differ from intellectual cognition/intellectual knowledge
1. Sense is of individuals while intellect is of universals
2. Senses physically located, while intellect is an immaterial ability

3. Intellectual Cognition - having knowledge of universals (arts, sciences, and wisdom)

- Arts - knowing how to produce something
- Sciences - knowing what something is
- Wisdom - knowing why, knowing the causes of things
Universals - can be said of many things of the same kind and exist of many things of the same
kind

Aristotle’s Metaphysics 1.1-1.2

Wed quiz: only chapter 3 and today+ last class
Plato was aristotle's teacher

“All men (anthropo) by nature desire to know” (pg 2 line 980 a22)
^All human beings ^innately want to gain wisdom and other forms of cognition
Zena hitz
-real human needs
-liberal arts/learning for its own sake

Steps toward wisdom

1. Sensation- external sensation- using the five senses (sight, hearing, etc) to gain info

2. Memory- retaining information obtained from the five senses

**steps 2 and 3 are internal sensations (processing and retaining info from 5 senses, the
systematic sense, imagination)**

3. Experience- cognition of a unified object through repeated memories and sensations

*^ forming or using phantasms- images of particular things, retained sense impressions*\

4. Arts and sciences- knowing how and what, universal knowledge -->begin intellectual
knowledge
Why is it important that we have arts and sciences? What are we gaining?
The ability to teach others is more powerful than knowing the material yourself. You have
definitions or knowledge of forms,

Universal- applies to all things or cases of the same kind

5. Wisdom- knowing why, knowing the causes of the universe

----------------------------------Chapter
4------------------------------------------
Abstraction- grasping a nature/form common to many things and grouping it in phantasms
Abstraction provides us with concepts

What are concepts? ---------> intellectual understanding

- Affections of the soul
- Signs of real things in the world
- Meanings of words

Sign- anything known in which something else is known

Something you know but points to something else
Ex; stop sign, you see it → grasp it means stop
 Formal-concepts,images, not physical things, thinking of things
Instrumental are physical
Conventional is man made- words because it exists outside of my mind, could be different in
other languages , varies from culture to culture

3 acts of the intellect - 3 parts of logic

1. Concept or simple apprehension of a universal
2. Forming propositions or judgements (goal of truth or falsity)
3. * Reasoning, making and evaluating arguments*

Closer to Truth clips

Dualism, hylomorphism, materialism/physicalism

Is the mind the same as the brain? → Is the mind or intellect a physical organ?

1. Hylomorphism (Aristotle, David Eaglemean)

Comes from 2 greek words, hyle + morphe (matter + form or body + soul)
^brain
I= Human being, a unity of soul and body, without my body I am not me

Answer: no, the intellect or the mind is not equal to the brain.

Eagleman:
- mind/intellect tied to the brain but is not simply the brain
- Qualitative experience → feeling pain or sensations
- Radio analogy → brain receives signals, my process of thinking is not simply the brain

2. Dualism (Plato, Richard Swinburne)

Answer: No, mind/ intellect does not equal the brain

Swinburne
- Pure mental events → introspection
- Qualitative experience → feeling pain or sensations

3. Materialism/Physicalism (Jenann Ismael)

Answer: Yes. Brain = Mind/intellect

- In principle, physics could explain everything about me
Ismael
- The same → we have different access point to brain and mind but the reality itself is the
same, a physical reality, not immaterial processes
- Computer analogy - brain like a computer

----------------------------------CHAPTER 5------------------------------------
Of Logic and Inquiry

1st act of the intellect/part of logic

Simple apprehension- forming definitions and concepts that signify the essence of nature
common to many individuals

To predicate- to say something of something else → dogs are animals

^ subject ^ predicate
(what is said of the subject)
Predicable- a universal (applies to many individual things of the same kind)

5 Predicables

1. Species - a universal that can be said of the subject as the whole essence of that
subject, specific difference + genus
Ex; Triangle - Three sided figure
^ the species, every 3 sided shape is going to be a triangle
Ex; Human being - Rational animal

2. Genus - a universal that can be said of the subject as part of its essence, broad general
kind
Ex; Triangle - Figure
^ broad general class
Ex; Dog - Animal
^general category
Ex; Carrot - Vegetable
Ex; Human being - Animal

3. Specific Difference - the feature that distinguishes things of the same genus
Ex; Triangle - Three Sided
Ex; Human being - rational
How to distinguish between specific difference and species: Species is always longer, has the
genus and specific difference
1. Triangle - 3 sided FIGURE
 2. Triangle - 3 sided

4. Accident - a non essential and non necessary feature of a thing

In other words, it is a characteristic that is not part of the species and that a thing does not need
to have to be that thing
Ex; Carrot - Orange ( some carrots have it some don't )
Ex; Dog - weighing 25 lbs ( not all dogs weigh 25 lbs )
Ex; Book - 50 pages long

5. Property - a non essential but necessary feature of a thing

Ex; Triangle - having angles equal to 180 degrees
The second descriptive factor, not what comes to mind first
Ex; Human being - capable of learning a language
Ex; Water - freezes at 0 degrees C

-- Continuing Chapter 5
Quiz on wed: logic exercises
Identifying the types of signs- ins nat conv, formal
5 predicables- species genus etc
5 of each exercises

5 predicables
1. Species- whole essence, the specific difference and genus
2. Genus- part of the essence, broad general kind
3. Specific difference- the feature that distinguishes things that belong to the same genus
4. Accident- non essential, non necessary feature (ex;carrot-orange, not only/all carrots are
orange)
5. Property- non essential but necessary feature, the second descriptive factor

Logic exercises:

1. Dog- animal (genus)

2. rectangle --- quadrilateral (genus)

3. desk --- furniture (genus) - broad category

4. three --- odd number (species)

5. human being - - - rational (specific difference)

6. bicycle - - - new (accident) - can be old

7. Exam - - - difficult (accident) - could be easy

8. human being - - - animal (genus)

9. logic - - - knowledge (genus) - other forms of knowledge, types of sciences

10. running - - - action (genus) - broad general kind, other types of actions

1. Person – laughing (accident)

2. Chalkboard – green (accident)
3. Calculus – mathematics (genus) - broad general category
4. Piety – concerning proper reverence (
5. Chainsaw – tool (genus)
6. Sofa-- furniture (genus)
7. Apple-- red delicious (accident) - can be other apples
8. Lamp-- light source (
9. Glasses-- bifocals (accident)
10.Bird-- black (accident)

5 predicables handout: What is the human being?

(aristotle, hylomorphic)

Unity of body and soul

1. Species: Human being - Rational animal

2. Genus: Human being - animal
3. Specific difference: Human being: rational (capacity of reason or intellect)
4. Accident: Human being - being 6ft, being 3ft, having blonde hair, being american,
being sad
5. Property: Human being - capable of learning a language, capable of humor,
capable of art, capable of science, able to be wise, able to be moral
-----------------------------------Chapter
6-----------------------------------------

Terms- the subject or predicate of a proposition

Dogs are animals

^ both are terms but dog is the subject, animals are the predicate

ANALOGICAL- pictorial resemblance (image)

-“Cow” said of the animal in the field and in the painting
-Action; object ( “tie”, “walk”)
-Value terms ( good, free, law, rule)

Exercise 1- is it (PG 59)

Univocal- one and the same
Analogical- somewhat similar and somewhat different
Equivocal- completely different ‘

1. Predicable- universal of a subject

 ^ in other words can be applied to many things of the same king
Vs
Not predicable - singular- only applies to one, not many

2. Exists in its own right + substance

Vs.
Only exists in accident
another

Logic exercise 2- page 61-62

This rose- Singular substance

Cow - universal substance
Red - universal accident
The heat of this radiator- singular accident
Daisy the milk cow - singular substance
*Three- universal accident
Number- universal accident
The teacher of this class- singular substance ( individual person, exists on their own)
Mars- singular substance
Oak tree- universal substance
The oak on the east lawn- singular substance
This desk- singular substance
The red of this sweater-singular accident
Running - universal accident
Color- universal accident
Logic- universal accident

Additional logic exercises

1. tulip 1. Universal substance

2. the lamp on my desk 2. Singular substance
3. thinking 3. Universal accident
4. eleven 4. Universal accident
5. my dog 5. Singular substance
6. awake 6. Universal accident
7. yellow 7. Universal accident
8. eleven 8. Universal accident
9. yesterday 9. An accident - flexible
10. blind 10. Universal accident

1. Socrates- singular substance

2. Red- universal accident
3. The White House- singular substance
4. Badger- universal substance
5. The blue of the sky- singular accident

UNIVOCAL, EQUIVOCAL, ANALOGICAL

univocal - signifies one and the same concept
analogical - signifies somewhat similar and somewhat different concepts
equivocal - signifies completely different concepts

1. Sport said of soccer and of baseball 1. Univocal

2. Plant as signifying a rose bush and a factory 2. Analogical ( producing things)
3. Quadrilateral said of a rectangle and said of a square 3. Univocal
4. Feeling said of a bruise and said of an itch 4. Univocal
5. Bowl said of the act of rolling a large ball and said of a wide dish 5. Equivocal

1. Page said of a messenger and of a sheet of newspaper. 1. Analogical ( both spreading

news)
2. Boat said of a yacht and said of an aircraft carrier. 2. Univocal
3. Tree said of an oak tree and said of (real) Christmas Tree. 3. Univocal
4. Love as said of a feeling and as said of a tennis score. 4. Equivocal
5. Fruit said of an apple and said of a pear. 5. Univocal

------------------------------------chapter 7-------------------------------------

Universal - kind of thing

Genus- broad “family” something belongs to
Category- ordering of universals under a highest universals

porphorial - physical

1. Remote genus- closest to what the object is

2. Proximate genus- further away from what the object actually is

Closer to a universal , closer down the tree

Aristotles 10 categories ( categories of being, reality, existence)

Metaphysics: theory of reality
1. Substance: object, parts of objects, collective wholes, artificial objects
2. Quantity: number, units of measurement
3. Quality: capacities, habits, dispositions, sense qualities, shape, form, colors
Biggest category, best for guessing
4. Relation: said to be” of something” or referred to something
50% is a relation not a quantity, its 50% of something
To the right of, on top of, son of a father
5. Action: affect outside world
Throwing, running, walking
NOT actions: thinking, wishing, willing (these are qualities)
6. Pacivities: recipient of an action
Being thrown, being dragged, being carried, being acted upon , the recipient of an action
7. Time: past, present, future
Noon, 8AM, the middle ages, before class, yesterday, today, tomorrow, now, then
8. Place: location
In GAC 432, at home, on top of a mountain, in the city
9. Posture: position ( usually of the human body)
having your arms crossed, legs crossed, bending over backwards
10. Habit: ornament, state of dress
How your dressed, wearing a dress, sandals, earring, diamond tiara on

Certain items that cant be categorized: singular substances ( joe biden, names of people, this
table), negative terms ( fit into almost every category), thing, stuff, compound terms ( 2 or more
terms put together, tall man, ripe apple)

10 categories- samz
1. Quality
- A sensible quality, smooth, warm, bitter, blue, capacities, intellect, imagination, sight,
hearing, dispositions: courage, virtue, cowardice, types of knowledge or wisdom, shape *
a lot of things fall under quality, senses or qualities of a person* being courageous
2. Substance
- Objects, parts of objects, cow, socrates, arm, lung, maple
3. Quantity
- Number, 15, fifteen
4. Action
- Throwing, walking, running NOT thinking, emotions, internal capacities
5. Passivities
- BEING thrown, BEING done to something else , BEING pushed, in front of an action
6. Time
- 9:00AM, today, morning
7. Place
- Rochester, a country, Australia, in the classroom
8. Relation
- Father, mother, brother, to the right of, fractions, ¾ , something you compare, sweeter,
greater
9. Posture
- Lying down, standing up, kneeling, arms crossed
10. Habit **
- How your dressed, something your wearing or carrying, wearing shoes

Things that cant be categorized:

1. Negative terms
- Non rational, non human, non green, not green, untrue (WILL BE ON MIDTERM)
Ex like on test: non human
- Not categorizable because it is a negative term
2. Transcendentals
- Being, good, true, **only these 3 words**, belongs to every category so its not
categorizable
- Being- transcendental, not categorizable
 Vs
- Being thrown- passivity, something happening to something
Vs
- Courage/ being courageous- quality
3. Singulars
- Apply to only one, socrates, this blue, names

ADDITIONAL LOGIC EXERCISES

A. Place each of the following in one of Aristotle’s categories.

1. Sweet.- quality 2. Small - quality

3. Asleep- quality 4. Cow- substance

5. Eleven - quantity 6. Courage - quality

7. to the left of- relation, place 8. One-half - relation

9. oak tree - substance 10. Earring - substance

B. For each of the following, state the category in which the term belongs.
1. sour 1. quality
2. red 2.quality
3. hammer 3.substance
4. dog 4. substance
5. robed 5. habit
6. apple 6. substance
7. justice 7. QUALITY
8. thirteen 8. quantity
9. mother 9. relation
10. kicking 10. action

C. Where possible, place the following into one of Aristotle’s 10 Categories. If a term
cannot be categorized, say why.

1. Red- quality
2. Yesterday- time
3. On top of- relation, place
4. Hunched over- posture
 5. one third- relation
6. Being led- passivity
7. Desk- substance
8. Wondering- quality, internal
9. Julius Caesar- not categorizable, singular substance
10.Bright light

---------------------------------------chapter
11-----------------------------------
3 parts of logic/3 acts of the intellect
1. Simple apprehension - grasping essences/forms and forming universal concepts (ch 4-7)
2. Forming propositions and judgements - that is, sentences or statements that can be
evaluated as true or false (ch 11,13,15)
3. Making arguments and reasoning - connections among propositions (ch 17-19, 21)

Propositions
“speech in which there is truth and falsity” (p.100) → name (noun) + verb, subject + predicate
Subject is at the beginning of the sentence or proposition- before “is” or before the verb
Predicate is after the “is” in the sentence or after the subject

“Is”- copula (what joins something, joining the subject and predicate)

Ex; Logic is a liberal art

Logic=subject
Liberal art=predicate

Statements that are NOT propositions:

a. questions/interrogatives
- Ex; what time is it?
b. Commands/imperatives
- Ex; please shut the door
c. Exclamations
- Ex; Great! Thanks! Cool!
d. Incomplete sentences
- Ex; words, not complete thoughts
Pg 103, exercise 1
[all, no, some, every]-quantifiers
Copulas- is, are, is not, are not
--------------------------------------chapter
13------------------------------------
Exercise 1 (p 126-127)

Categorical - a simple proposition ( do not have conjunctions , shorter, make 1 statement, has
one subject and one predicate)

Ex; logic is a liberal art, all dogs are animals

Vs.

Compound :

Conjunctive - “and”/”but” → split the sentence in half, if these are main connectors, what
divides the proposition

Made of at least 2 categorical compositions

Ex; Logic is a liberal art, and carpentry is a mechanical art

Disjunctive - either, or splits the sentence

Conditional - if then, if

Exercise 2 (p 127-128)

Quality-

Affirmative

Ex: all frogs are amphibians

Some seats are open

Or

Negative- (no, not)

Ex: some roads are not busy

Ex: no frogs are reptiles

Quantity -

1. Universal- all, every, no (at beginning of sentence)

2. Particular- some

3. Singular- this, that, proper name

This seat is taken, clifford is a dog

4. Indefinite - unclear what the quantity is , how many items your discussing

No defining words

Ex: clothes are expensive

Exercise 5 (p 129-130)

Material- content or meaning of terms, propositions and arguments, not just the form/structure

Vs

Formal logic- concerns the structure of propositions and arguments , mathematical, grammar

Contingent- it could be otherwise, just happens to be the case, accidents

Ex: some seats are open , all peanut butter is taken from the store, all roses are red, all of the
street is covered with snow, no cars are in the parking lot

Vs

Necessary- cannot be otherwise, definitions

Ex: all triangles are three sided, all pears are fruit, every number is a quantity, no qualities are
quantities, no substances are qualities

Vs

Impossible- contradictory or non-sense/ inconceivable , logically impossible

Ex: all squares are triangles,

Examples for exercise;

1. No students are teachers- contingent

2. Some rabbits are mammals- necessary
3. All bananas are yellow- contingent

Quiz on wed- ch 11 and 13

Prop-what's the subject and predicate

Ch 13 exercise 1, categorical, disjunctive, conj, conditoos

Ex 2 quality+quantity

Ex 5

Just logic exercises

Not ch 15

-------------------------------------chapter
15--------------------------------------

Square of opposition:
Logical opposition- applies to pairs of propositions having the same subject and predicate.
Where in one the predicate is affirmed of the subject and in the other the predicate is denied of
the subject
→ rooted in principle of contradiction, something cannot both be the case and not be the case in
the same respect
A= universal, affirmative
Ex; all bats are mammals, every bat is a mammal

E= universal, negative
Ex; no bats are mammals

I= particular, affirmative
Ex; some bats are mammals

O= particular, negative
Ex; some bats are not mammals

AFFIRMO
NEGO
 1. Contradictories:
- Simple or complete opposition
- Cannot be true together, or false together
- One will be false , one will be true
A←>O
E←> I

Look at exercise 1, pg 141s

Contradictories differ in quality and quantity

2. Contrary
A←>E
- Both cannot be true, both can't be true at once
 - Both could be false
- Or, only one of them is true and the other is false

Possible scenarios:
a. A is true, but E is false
b. E is true but A is false- no birds are mammals
c. Both A and E propositions are false- then I and O are true

Exercise 2: p 142

3. Sub contrary
I←>O
- Both can be true, or only one is true
- Both cannot be false
- I and O are true
- Only I is true ( when A is true )
- Only O is true ( when E is true )

4. superalternation

- The truth of the particular leaves the universal undetermined

- Could be true or false based on the particular
- But the falsity of the particular means the universal is also false
Ex 2 q 10

5. Subalternation

- The truth of the universal guarantees the truth of the particular

- But, the falsity of the universal leaves the particular undetermined
Square of opposition day 3
Exercise 3 pp 142-143
True
False
Undetermined- the first proposition does not give us enough evidence/info know whether the
2nd is true or false

------------------------------------Chapter
17-------------------------------------

Quiz on wednesday:
- Ex 2 and 3 of chapter 15- 4 questions each
- Ch 17- definitions
- Deductive vs inductive reasoning, how are they different
- Validity and soundness
- What is the problem of induction

3 acts of understanding
3 parts of logic

1. Forming universal concepts and definitions

2. Forming propositions
3. * making arguments and using reasoning (ultimate goal)

Argumentation or reasoning:
(pg 153) albert the great
“The act of reason passing from a knowledge of the known to a knowledge of the unknown”
argument= premises + conclusion

1. The known
> the premises
2. The known

3. The unknown - conclusion

Deductive arguments/reasoning - using syllogisms ( categorical and compounds syllogisms )

*unpacking our pre-established concepts to get a new understanding
*formal arguments that can have validity and soundness - have a certain structure and
arrangement of terms and propositions
Formal arguments; have a certain structure
Ex; unpacking what is a square
Validity- only can belong to deductive argument, the formal property of an argument, according
to which if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
Soundness- the property of an argument that is valid and in fact has true premises (ultimate
goal)
Examples of deductive arguments:
1. All trees that lose their leaves yearly are deciduous trees.
2. Some maples are trees that lose their leaves yearly.
3. So, some maples are deciduous trees.
A categorical syllogism that is sound
*AII-1 ( will understand in a few weeks )
1. If you accept kant's ethics, then you don't accept utilitarianism
2. You accept kant's ethics
3. So, you dont accepts utilitarianism
Compound syllogism
This is an example of modus ponens
1. If p, then q
2. P
3. So, q

Vs.

Inductive arguments/reasoning - cannot be valid or sound → but are either strong or weak
Informal arguments by which one makes a more general conclusion based on observation of
individual or particular case
Trying to get to something that is likely possible , based in likelihood or probability
Where do we use inductive arguments?- used in medicine, the beginning of empirical sciences,
philosophy at times, and everyday reasoning
Examples of inductive arguments:
a. Incomplete enumerative induction *most common*- not all the relevant individuals or
cases have been observed
1. Bob often gets a stomach ache in the afternoon.
2. He drinks milk in the afternoon
3. So, bob might be lactose intolerant
Complete enumerative induction: provides you with more of a guarantee, less common, gets us
closer to certainty
1. There is no dinner food in the refrigerator
2. There is none in the cupboards
3. Those are the only places in the apartment where I store food
4. So, I have nothing to eat for dinner

Wed quiz
Exercise 2&3
What is the problem of induction,example,definition
Validity
Inductive vs deductive
Soundness

David Hume's enquiry concerning human understanding:

Empiricism: all our knowledge is derived from sense experiences, or the senses (Hume’s view,
also aristotle’s)

P.28-all of our reasoning is based on:

1. Relations of ideas (the basics of deductive arguments), discoverable by operations of
thought, not on something existent in the universe, a priori, necessary
- Ex: that three times five is half of thirty, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to
the square of the two sides, principle of contradiction

Why does Hume say mathematical truths are discoverable just by thinking or logical reasoning,
not by something existent? - numbers aren't physical, you can't make them out from our senses,
you can't run into a number 5

2. Matters of fact (contingent, a posteriori), (the basis of inductive arguments) discovered in

experience, based on actually existing things
causality*: want to know the causes of things, looking or an explanation, constantly trying to find
causes, based off of our experience
- Ex: that the sun will rise tomorrow, that one’s friend is in France, that a person is
here
Matters of fact are contingent- they give rise to propositions that could be true or false, logically
speaking- they just happen to be true, doesn’t need to be the case
Ex: that the sun will rise tomorrow, that one’s friend is in France, that bread is the proper food for
humans not lions, that one billiard ball causes another billiard ball to move

The problem of induction: how can the premises of an inductive argument ever justify its
conclusion?
Why does this problem arise?:
a. The premises of inductive arguments are contingent- the contradictory is possible
b. The majority of inductive arguments are incomplete, enumerative inductions: not all
relevant cases have been observed
Causality: we don't observe the cause, only the constant or customary “cause” and “effect”,
conjunction of 2 things

After quiz:
How do we deal with doubt and uncertainty - can we- or how can we have absolute knowledge
in our lives or scientific understanding?
David hume
→ empiricism: knowledge primarily comes from the senses and experience.
Aristotle also is an empiricist but claims we can know some causes because of
essences/natures

Vs.

Rene descartes
→ empiricism: rejects empiricism
→ rationalism: knowledge primarily comes from reasoning and innate ideas→ knowledge
through introspection

I. The purpose of the tex

A. Epistemological: what can we know, how do we deal with doubt, what am i
justified in believing (meditation 1)
B. Jutifies rationalism
II. Metaphysical
A. What is the self? Who or what am I? (meditation 2)
B. Justifies dualism

1st meditation (page 1)

→ “ some years ago I was struck by how many false things I had believed and by how doubtful
was the structure of beliefs I based them on”

Doubts:
1. Sense doubt → the senses can deceive us, the external senses (page 2) he used to
believe in empiricism, now doesnt trust senses.
2. Dream doubt → internal senses, how can I distinguish the real from the imaginary?
3. Evil deceive → someone could be causing all my false beliefs

------------------------------------Chapter
18--------------------------------------

Form of a categorical syllogism :

Mood + figure
^ ^1-4 based on placement of the middle term
The 3 letter combination,
Major premise, minor premise, conclusion
EIO-1

1. All dogs are animals (major premise) - A

 2. All golden retrievers are dogs (minor premise) - A
3. So, all golden retrievers are animals (conclusion) - A
^predicate
Mood: AAA
Figure: 1
Form: AAA-1

Steps:
1. Major term = predicate of the conclusion
- Animals (major term)
- Major premise- premise with the major term
^must be premise 1, change if needed
2. Minor term = subject of the conclusion
- Golden retrievers
- Minor premise- premise with the minor term
^ must be premise 2, change if needed
3. Middle term = term in both premises
- Dogs (middle term)

Types of figures:
1= middle term is the subject in the major premise and predicate in the minor premise

2= middle term is the predicate in both premises

3= middle term is the subject in both premises

4= middle term is the predicate in the first premise and the middle term is the subject in the
minor premise

Another example:

1. No bats are birds - E

2. Some animals are birds - I
3. So, some animals are not bats - O

Major term: bats

Minor term: animals
Middle term: birds

Mood: EIO
Figure: 2
Form: EIO-2

Another example:

1. Some rabbits are shy creatures - I

2. All rabbits are mammals - A
3. So, some mammals are shy creatures - I

Major term: shy creatures

Minor term: mammals
Middle term: rabbits

Mood: IAI
Figure: 3
Form: IAI-3

Another example:

1. All tulips are flowers - A

2. All flowers are plants - A
3. So, some plants are tulips -I

Major term: tulips

Minor term: plants
Middle term: flowers

Mood: AAI
Figure: 4
Form: AAI-4

Exercise 1 page 169:

7.
Major term: syllogism
Minor term: argumentation
Middle term: induction

Rewritten:
1. No syllogism is an induction
2. Some argumentations are indcutions
3.

Continuing chapter 18
Identifying the form of categorical syllogisms
→ ex I pg. 168-169 **good practice for the quiz*
And additional logic exercises pg. 15-16 in the back

Quiz on wed: 4 questions on identifying the form of categorical syllogisms

-------------------------------------Chapter
19-------------------------------------

Our goal is to have a valid form, not an invalid form

1. Validity-the conclusion must be true if the premises are true
2. Validity is the first step in soundness

A categorical syllogism; a valid form is one that commits none of the 8 fallacies
An invalid form commits one or more of the 8 fallacies

Distribution rules
- Ch 14, page 134
- *not a fallacy, behind the first 3 fallacies*
- Distribution: the universal applicability of a term, the multiplication of a common term
through a universal

A proposition (universal affirmative )- only the subject is distributed

Ex; all dogs are animals
^distributed
All dogs can be said of animals
Not all animals are dogs

E proposition (universal negative) - both subject and predicate are distributed

Ex: no dogs are cats
True to say no dogs are cats AND no cats are dogs

I proposition (particular affirmative) - no terms are distributed

Ex; some dogs are golden retrievers

O proposition (particular negative) - only the predicate is distributed

Ex; some dogs are not golden retrievers

1. Fallacy of an illicit process of the major

- Occurs when the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise
- Ex; all oranges are fruit - undistributed ( because its an A prop )
 No oranges are apples
So, some apples are not fruit - distributed ( because its an O prop )
Form: AEO-3 ALWAYS INVALID
Valid or invalid: invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of an illicit process of the major

2. Fallacy of an illicit process of the minor

- Occurs when the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the minor premise
- Ex; all dogs are mammals
All mammals are animals - undistributed, predicate of a prop are never distributed
So, all animals are dogs
^ distributed
Form: AAA-4
Valid or invalid: invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of an illicit process of the minor

3. Fallacy of an undistributed middle

- Occurs when the middle term is not distributed at all
- Ex; some flowers are not white - undistributed
All daisies are flowers- undistributed
So, some daisies are not white

Form: OAO-1
Valid or invalid: invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits; fallacy of an undistributed middle

4. Fallacy of two negatives

- Occurs when you have 2 negative premises, premises 1 and 2
- 1 and 2 are both E, both O, or a mix of E and O
- Ex; no palm trees are native plants of new york (E)
Some native plants of new york are not trees (O)
So, no trees are palm trees

Form: EOE-4
Valid or invalid: invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of two negatives

5. Fallacy of an illicit affirmative conclusion

- Occurs when the conclusion is affirmative
- I or A proposition
- But there one or more premises that is negative
- Ex; some tea is not fruit-flavored
All juices are fruit-flavored
So, some juices are teas
Form: OAI-2
Valid or invalid: Invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: Fallacy of an illicit affirmative conclusion

6. Fallacy of an illicit negative conclusion

- Occurs when the conclusion is negative (E or O), but the premises (1 and 2) are
affirmative
- Both premises have to be positive! (1 and 2 both)
- Ex; some rectangles are squares
All squares are four-sided figures
So, some four-sided figures are not rectangles

Form: IAO-4
Valid or invalid: Invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of an illicit negative conclusion

7. Fallacy of two particulars

- Occurs when there are two particular premises
- So, 1 and 2 are both I, both O, or a mix of I and O
- Ex; some birds of prey are hawks
Some birds are prey of eagles
So, some eagles are hawks

Form: III-3
Valid or invalid: Invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of two particulars

8. Fallacy of an illicit universal conclusion

- Occurs when the conclusion is universal- A or E
- But one or more premises are particular - I or O
- Ex; some good hitters are not home-run hitters
Every baseball player on the fields is a good hitter
So, no baseball player on the field is a home-run hitter

Form: OAE-1
Valid or invalid: invalid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: fallacy of an illicit universal conclusion

8 Fallacies
1. Fallacy of an illicit process of the major
2. Fallacy of an illicit process of the minor
3. Fallacy of an undistributed middle
4. Fallacy of two negatives
 5. Fallacy of an illicit affirmative conclusion
6. Fallacy of an illicit negative conclusion
7. Fallacy of two particulars
8. Fallacy of an illicit universal conclusion

Practice:

1. No red pandas are bears

2. Some bears are giant pandas
3. So, some giant pandas are not red pandas

Form: EIO-4
Valid or invalid: valid
If invalid, name one fallacy it commits: N/A

Quiz on wednesday: ch 19^

--------------------after quiz-------------------
Compound syllogisms- deductive arguments that are made up of compound propositions,
especially disjunctive or conditional propositions
Either, or^ ^if..then

Valid
Compound
Syllogism
Forms
→ which means the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true

1. Modus ponens ( way of positing )

1. If p, then q
2. P
3. So, Q
- P = antecedent (follows right after “if”)
- Q = consequent (follows right after “then” as well as the antecedent)

1. If it rains, I will get wet

2. It is raining
3. So, i will get wet
- p= its raining
- q= i will get wet

1.If the flight is not on time, then i won't miss it

2.The flight is not on time
3.So, i won't miss it
-has to have a if..then in first premise
- has to have antecedent and consequent

2. Modus Tollens
1. If p, then q
2. Not q
3. So, not p

1. If the train is on time, then I will miss it

2. I didn't miss the train
3. So, it wasn't on time
- P = the train is on time
- Q = I didn't miss it

1. If the flight is not on time, then i will not miss it

2. I missed the flight
3. So, it was on time

- P = the flight is not on time

- Q = I will not miss it
- **double negative, q is originally negative**

3. Hypothetical syllogism
1. If p, then q
2. If q, then r
3. If p, then r
** always 3 conditionals **
Need this exact structure for a valid hypothetical syllogism

1. If i stay up longer (p), then I will be tired tomorrow (q)

2. If i am tired tomorrow, then i will be in a bad mood tomorrow (r)
3. So, if i stay up longer, then i will be in a bad mood tomorrow

4. Disjunctive syllogism
- 1. Either p or q
- 2. Not p
- 3. So, q
1. Either p or q
2. Not q
3. So p

-1. Either she takes milk or sugar

-2. She does not take sugar
-3. So, she takes milk

----------------------------------------------------
What are informal fallacies?- informal logic/material logic vs formal logic

Formal logic- considers the form or structure of the argument to see if its valid. Especially the
arrangement of terms and propositions
Ex; categorical and compound syllogisms

Informal logic- requires one to consider the content or meaning of the argument, not simply the
form
*everyday reasoning, papers, speech
A type of reasoning that is flawed though can appear convincing
Informal logic starts with “I”

1. Ad Hominem (“toward or against the person”)

-This fallacy occurs when authors argue against their opponent’s character rather than
against their opponent’s argument.
There are three main types of ad hominem fallacies.
(i) circumstantial ad hominem, which takes people’s circumstances (e.g., one’s past,
nationality, age, race, gender, religion, physical traits, affiliations with groups or political
parties) to prevent their argument from being considered
(ii) abusive ad hominem that insults the character or intelligence of people as an
attempt to dismiss their arguments
(iii) tu quoque (“you also”), which points out that people making the argument are
hypocritical, not actually practicing what they preach.

-All types of ad hominem arguments focus on the person, in cases in which the
argument itself or the conclusion of the argument requires independent support. Many
personal characteristics are not relevant to the truth or strength of someone’s argument.
Additionally, many ad hominem arguments are simply forms of bias or insults that
prevents genuine communication and a shared commitment to learning. Unfortunately,
this is a very common fallacy in everyday speech, the media, politics, and even
academic writing; however, it impedes understanding, progress toward knowledge, and
even justice.

Examples:
a. Plato is a man from Ancient Greece; therefore, he has nothing enlightening to say
about living well in the contemporary world. [circumstantial ad hominem]
b. Bob does not believe that everything can be explained by physics. But, that is idiotic;
any intelligent person knows that there is nothing immaterial. So, we should not accept
Bob’s arguments for the importance of meditation and prayer. [abusive ad hominem]
c. Their doctor Annie smokes, so they don’t trust her when she says they shouldn’t
smoke. [tu quoque]
d. Søren Kierkegaard had his heart broken. So, his philosophy of love is solely the
ramblings of a pessimist. [circumstantial ad hominem, abusive ad hominem]
e. Tabitha is a convicted criminal, so she must be lying when she says that she didn’t
steal the phone. [circumstantial ad hominem]
2. Fallacy of Equivocation
-This occurs when a term is being used equivocally or analogously, rather than
univocally. In other words, the author and interpreter are using the terms with a different
sense or meaning.
This is the upshot of our discussion of univocal, equivocal, and analogous terms in
chapter 6 of Logic and Inquiry. Although analogical terms share some common meaning
and thus are not as problematic as equivocation, insofar as pure equivocation often
leads to incomprehension and not just ambiguity, analogical terms also can lead to
ambiguity and an unjustified conclusion. One way to avoid this fallacy is to define key
terms clearly. Another way is to attempt to understand how the author is using a term in
order to represent their view accurately and fairly.
Examples:
a. Some philosophers believe that no person can be called “happy” until the end of that
person’s life. In other words, they think that we are all miserable in the present life. But,
that is not true; some people do feel cheerful when they wake up in the morning.
[Here, there are two senses of ‘happiness.’ The philosophers in this case think that
happiness is having lived a complete or perfect life, while his opponent thinks that
happiness is a momentary feeling like pleasure or cheerfulness.]
b. Aquinas states that even plants have souls. So, he would tell me to start talking to my
plants in order to have them grow.
[Here, there are two senses of ‘soul.’ In one sense, a soul is simply the capacity for life;
so, when Aquinas says that plants have souls, Aquinas means that plants are living
beings. In another sense, someone might understand ‘soul’ to mean intellect or
something capable of consciousness and understanding. Depending on the context,
Aquinas uses different senses of the term ‘soul.’]
c. On a classical conception, the liberal arts are useless; they are not studied primarily for their
utility. This means that there is absolutely no reason why someone should study philosophy,
music, literature, or theoretical mathematics. They have no application to one’s life and are
meaningless.

[Here, ‘useless’ is understood differently. In one sense, ‘useless’ means not being pursued
primarily for the production of a bodily or material good such as health and wealth. In another
sense, ‘useless’ is equated with material goods. In other words, while the educators claim that
the liberal arts are useless in the sense of not being pursued primarily for achieving wealth and
bodily health; they do not take it that those are the only good things, nor do they take it that
something is meaningful and has application to one’s life only insofar as something produces
material goods. That is, the educators maintain that the liberal arts are meaningful by producing
intellectual and spiritual goods such as knowledge, wisdom, humility, courage, justice,
compassion, peace, and joy.]

d. Laws tell us what is right and wrong. For example, the law tells me to stop at a red light; it
also tells me not to commit murder. Without laws, there would be no right or wrong.

[Here, there are two senses of ‘law’ and two senses of ‘right and wrong’. One sense concerns
the legal system and the other sense concerns a moral or ethical system. Depending on the
author, these could be related; however, a standard view would be that the law telling me not to
commit murder is different from the law telling me to stop at a red light. Even if there was no
written code against murder, I could recognize its prohibition as justified and prudent. However, I
would not have this reaction to stopping at a red light. Stopping at a red light is a type of
conventional law, whereas not committing murder (or recognizing the value of human life) is
usually understood as a natural, rational ethical principle or right.]

3. Straw Man

-This fallacy occurs when authors make their opponent’s argument appear weaker than it is.
They do not practice the principle of charity or represent the other side in a fair manner.
Instead, they make a kind of “straw man” or “scarecrow” that can be knocked
done with the slightest touch.
-This is also a very common fallacy in speech and writing, both inside and
outside of academia. The best way of avoiding committing it is by presenting your
opponent’s position in the most charitable and complete manner as possible.
Examples:
a. Jacques Ellul claims that using technology can have harmful effects on one’s
social relationships and personal development. Therefore, he would say that I
should not call my family to check on them.
b. Julie believes that our country should be more careful about which countries it
goes to war with. So, Julie is a pacifist and would not even protect her country if
another Hitler came to power.
c. Jane argues that war is sometimes necessary to protect human rights. So, Jane would have
us in war with half the countries on the planet.

d. On some Buddhist views, the self or one’s individual consciousness does not exist; therefore,
they claim that individuals are not responsible for their own actions.

e. René Descartes argues that mental and physical substances are distinct; thus, he believes
that ghosts exist.

4. Hasty generalization- this involves making a general claims based on a relatively small
number of cases or limited information→ very weak inductive argument: start with observing
individual cases, general claims
Typically leads to stereotyping
Ex; all the women in the class scored higher than the men, women must be smarter than men

⅘ my friends who went vegetarian were not getting enough iron, vegetarian diets are not healthy

5. Argument from ignorance - this occurs when one concludes that something is not
the case because one does not know whether it is the case
*P is not known. So, not P.
belief/knowledge does not equal truth
Something could be true and one does not know it to be true
Ex; no one has proven that there is life on other planets, so there is only life on earth- not on
other planets

Euthyphro dialogue- looking for the definition of piety.

At the end of the dialogue, they did not conclude what piety is, so piety is not a thing, does not
exist
6. False dilemma- the occurs when the author provides too limited of options- the author
does not present all relevant alternatives- and says one of these must be true
* Pigeonholing or limiting representation of possibilities
Ex; use our face cream or you will develop wrinkles

7. Ignoratio elenchi- ignorance of the argument, this occurs when you make a conclusion
that is not directly relevant to the main topic, argument, or question.
*in other words, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Ex; i think bentham’s theory of ethics is best for addressing animals in research because it is
easier to understand

1.We have the fastest athletes in the division

2.so, we are prepared for tomorrow's meet

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Jacques Maritain
On the use of philosophy
“Philosophy, taken in itself, is above utility…” (Page 6-7)
What does this quote mean by “above utility”?: above utility is outside of liberal arts of
philosophy.

What does this quote mean by “of the utmost necessity” for humans?:
What else do humans need (besides survival goods)?
Some sense of love, knowledge to perform utilities and mechanical arts, the liberal arts
(philosophy) it's important for people to present these within themselves, having something to
live for, goals, freedom, longing for truth

Utility: what mechanical arts produce

Examples: food from agriculture/cooking, medicine/vitamins from health sciences,
architecture/buildings/shelter/carpentry/construction/engineering, sewing produces clothing,
technologies that have to do with any of these (heat, electricity)

Has utility for just a means- cooking to fulfill hunger

How does it relate to Zena Hitz?:????

Quote 2:
“Two aspects of the function of the philosopher in society have, it seems to me, special
significance today. They have to do with TRUTH and FREEDOM” (page 8)
Connecting freedom to criticism and thinking , allowing multiple different perspectives, freedom
to say and think what you please

2. Bertrand Russell
“The Value of Philosophy”
*Question on philosophical contemplation
- Philosophy aims at knowing (page 239)
- But the real value of it is in asking the question not just finding an answer (vs. other
disciplines)
Philosophy is not going to give you definite answers
There's a value in asking the questions even if you don't arrive at the definite answers
It's important to ask questions because if you ask questions m=your more likely to explore and
dig further into research
Maybe we don't get a direct answer right away but asking questions is a way to progress
Wisdom is knowing what you don't know, asking questions adds a sense of awareness
Asking a question is recognizing something you don't know, open discussion and leads to new
ideas

Another claim- what is this knowledge that philosophy is aiming at?

“Knowledge is a form of union of self and not self” (249)
Knowing can connect certain things, potentially people
Go beyond just your perspective , think of others as well
Get beyond the human perspective not just that i relaize other people have different
perspectives get beyond the full human oersective
Were one thing in the wor

---------------------------------------
What is existentialism? - takes up questions of meaning and the nature of human beings
In the case of human beings, existence comes from before essence
Jean-Paul Sarte
You have no meaning or purpose at birth, or prior to existence
Existence -----> essence
Birth you must create your meaning and purpose
You are a blank canvas to begin with, need to create it

essence = nature, form, what something is ex; species, purpose

Vs. Human being=rational animal
Existence = actually being here, being alive

Essentialism - (aristotle, plato, descartes, walker percy)

In the case of human beings, essence comes before existence

Paper-knife
(Existentialists and essentialists agree on this)--> example of an artifact, human made object
The essence of the paper knife comes before its existence
Essence: idea of paper knife, its purpose- something to cut, to open letters
Existence: the actual physical paper knife

Essence- rational animal, idea in gods mind, to be wise, to know and love
Idea- humans and you individually were born with a purpose and meaning
Existence- you physically/ your birth

The existentialist question-

Why do we suffer, why do we search for meaning?
Sartes response:

1. Anguish - realization that we cannot escape our absolute responsibility (page 7)

2. Abandonment - humans are alone, no god - how to love when there is no natural ethics
(page 8-15)

3. Despair - limiting ourselves (concern about freedom) (pg 15)

All together; grapple with it by affirming our freedom

The existentialist question:

Why do humans suffer; why do we ask about our meaning and purpose?
How does walker percy see this?p3
Pg 3- “why does man feel so sad in the twentieth century?”
“Why do people often fuel bad and good environments and good and bad environments?”
Page 20 “One feels anxious without knowing why. One is at home yet feels homeless”

What does he mean by good environment?

Have basic survival needs met, material goods, food, shelter, etc
As well as safety, another key need
All our physical needs met but one is unhappy

Walker percy's response to the existential question:

*need a different conception of the human being*
Page 23: “a theory of man must account for the alienation of man”
Ex; anxiety (aguish), despair, abandonment (alienated)

Why are these feelings prominent today, why these questions arise:
The theories of the past have been abandoned or called into question but there is no new theory

In the modern/contemporary world: 2 contradictory options

1. physicalist/materialist
Humans are completely explainable by science- material processes
2. Dualist
Humans are unique, an immaterial soul
Freedom, individuality

problem: can't hold both materialism and dualism at the same time pp 20-21
A human being is purely physical and a human being is not physical

Thinks physicalism is motivated by evolution, makes materialism powerful

Walker percy's suggestion:

A type of hylomorphism -soul(angel)+body(animal,beast)
There is a human nature, our purpose is beyond this world
P 18- it was the belief that man was created in the image of god … between the animals (beast)
and angels

Walker percy’s solution: to realize were something beyond the physical world , we should look to
language
But language and its meaning transcends the scientific aspect
We can study language, what it, sensible
It goes beyond that to express meanings that are individual , freedom\\