Essay plans Flashcards Preview

Knowledge and Reality > Essay plans > Flashcards

Flashcards in Essay plans Deck (15)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Cartesian dualism

A
  1. Doubt argument: Leibniz law
    => ability to doubt depends on relation of doubter to the entity and not a property of the entity itself
  2. Argument from divisibility: all extended things are divisible, no minds are divisible, therefore no minds are extended things
    => how do we know it is not divisible when we don’t really know what it is
  3. Conceivability argument: can be conceived that the mind can exist on its own - not the other way around
    - if you had a body part transplant, still exactly the same person surely; perhaps this is justified by the visible continuity of the body
    - are our minds not divided into conscious and sub-conscious; can the concept of our minds surely not be solely explained by the brain’s activities?

1) interaction problem
2) no room for immaterial souls/minds because the universe is a causally closed system
3) pairing problem: importance in spatiotemporal relationships e.g. firing gun to trace successive positions
ALSO two hands going up at the same time; how do we know that they are not caused by one mind
=> D responds, how does consciousness arise from simply material brain matter?

2
Q

How much could you change, and in which respect, and yet remain the same person?

A

persons=subjects of experience which have the capacity to recognise themselves as such

  • seems like there must be a level of character/property continuation (overlapping chains of character)
  • schizophrenia problematic case
  • feels strange that they are 100% not the same person anymore after a character change; seems like body constitutes at least part of PI
  • perhaps memory of yourself specifically doing something constitutes a certain criterion
  • N.B issue of brain transplant/psychology transplant creating two identical people
3
Q

Voluntary action?

A
  • analysing chain of causal analysis, seems that we can eventually identify the agent’s original act, which we investigate to determine voluntariness
  • original action involves mental capacities
  • certain uncontrollable wantings seem to lack voluntary mental capacity
  • another idea is that we can will to cause a particular action
  • another view is that volitions inherently incorporate voluntariness
4
Q

Are we free?

A

determinism: everything is rules by cause and effect based on the laws of nature
hard determinism: if someone is subject to a cause they are not in control of their actions (free will is not compatible with determinism)
N.B. if one is not under compulsion or manipulation arguably this makes them free to make an autonomous decision between the options using their reason

5
Q

Can we still claim some sort of knowledge, even if we admit that we do not know if we are dreaming?

A
  • knowledge conventionally defined as justified true belief
  • knowledge cannot be justified simply by imagination
  • Descartes: knowledge of one’s own consciousness can be claimed regardless
    Hume:
    -> we can claim a priori knowledge, this is obtained by mere operation of thought
    -> empirical knowledge cannot be relied upon in this way
6
Q

Psychological account

A

Locke: you are the same person as a past person if you can remember their past actions or thoughts - same person over time is to have the same consciousness
e.g. prince and cobbler
- possibility that one man might be two different persons

1) Lack of memory/too many memories => important thing is that there is overlap in memories e.g. child to soldier to general
2) sleep and forgetfulness
3) amnesia
4) drunkenness - why is he punished afterwards event though he was not conscious of his actions => surely drunkness does not make you the same person, it just gives you a different personality
- what if we could imprint certain memories into someeone’s brain.

7
Q

Bodily account

A
  • Williams says that bodily continuity is a necessary condition of personal identity
    N.B. W argues that bodily account is not SUFFICIENT for personal identity
  • psychological account not good because when we give A the character and memories of B, and we do the same with C, this does not mean that B or C can be identical to A because you cannot have two identical persons
    -> personally feels like body and psychological are necessary but not sufficient - PI relates to the combination of them both
    N.B Guy Fawkes case
  • difference between identity and similarity
8
Q

Free will

A

the will = the internal impression that we feel and are conscious of when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body or new perception of our mind
- idea that operations of bodes are necessary

9
Q

Fatalism

A

fatalism: refers to a broad family of views holding that we cannot do other than we do
logical fatalism: kind of necessity to every thing
e.g. either true there will be a sea battle tomorrow, or it is true that there will not be a sea battle tomorrow -> for every statement either p or -p is true
=> the latter can debated, seeing that the future is unreal
- truth-makers are indeed contained in the future

10
Q

Determinisim

A

current state of the universe + laws of nature determine the state of the universe at any point in the future
is it true?
- cannot be proven a posteriori
- or a priori really, as cannot ourselves know what is going to happen; not to say that the future is not fixed

11
Q

Freewill

A
  1. Hard determinism: free will not possible since determinism is true
  2. Compatibilism: free will and determinism compatible
  3. Libertarianism: free will possible and determinism false
  4. free will defined as the ability to do otherwise; determinism means that we do not have this ability
    - no control over our own actions; if free will is this ability, then they are not compatible
    - > free will is imply an illusion
  5. as we do have free will, determinism is false
    - this is made possible by saying that the human mind stands outside the natural world, hence not determined like material things
  6. free will should not be defined as the ability to do otherwise. Rather, it is the power of acting or not acting according to the determinations of the will -> FREE as long as we can do what we want to do (free from coercion)
    - > free actions are caused by my wants rather than imposed upon me
12
Q

Skepticism

A

(global) skepticism = the idea that we have no knowledge at all
pyrrhonian - should suspend judgement at all times
=> seems practically difficult
=> dogma in itself

Cartesian

  • dreaming argument
  • evil demon
  • brain in a vat
13
Q

Standpoint theory

A

use of unique insights e.g. minorities
valuable insights can be gained by starting one’s thoughts with the perspectives of non-dominant social groups
-> partial knowledge provided by individual groups, different viewpoints combine + might positively counteract each other
Problems:
-> diverse voices might nevertheless be ignored
-> standpoints might be so radically different that they create problems
-> different perspectives within minorities

14
Q

Epistemic injustice

A

epistemic agency: some people denied credibility for their knowledge - wronged in their capacity as knowers
1. testimonial injustice: credibility excess or deficits created - arises from both innocent mistakes and prejudice -> people ought to develop virtue of epistemic justice
=> what can we do about subconscious actions
=> we might risk inflating credibility too much
2. hermeneutical injustice: marginalised groups lack conceptual resources to understand their own experiences e.g. sexual harrasment - powerless prone to not being able to articulate their ideas

15
Q

Knowledge, race and ignorance

A

ignorance = lack of knowledge/true belief
can be passive or active e.g. white ignorance (not always active) (passive when meta-ignorance; ignorant to their own ignorance)
-> leads to epistemic arrogance, laziness and closed mindedness