fuck Flashcards by Iwant Bleach

Q

argument

A

a set of one or more claims intended to support a position

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

conclusion

A

position/claim/view intended to be supported

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

premise

A

set of claims intended to support conslusions

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

deductive arguement

A

an argument in which the truth of the premises guarantee the conclusion
ex:
p1: if x then y
p2: x
p3: so y

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

inductive arguement

A

an argument in which the truth of the premises simply support the conslusion
ex:
p1: the window is shattered, the tv is gone, the house is wrecked
p2: someone must have robbed our house

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

valid arguement

A

a deductive argument in which the structure of the argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

modus ponens

A

if P, then Q
P.
Therefore Q

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

modus tollens

A

if P, then Q
P is false
Therefore, Q is false

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

hypothetical syllogism

A

If P then Q
If Q then R
therefore,
If P then R

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

ad hominim

A

attacking the person making an arguement

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

appeal to authority

A

relying on an authoritative figure to support an argument outside their expertise

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

straw man

A

refuting a misconstrued/false interpretation of an arguement

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

appeal to ignorance

A

claiming something is true just because it hasn’t been proven false

ex: just because we proven false that there is an even amount of grains of sand, doesn’t mean there are even amounts of sand granules

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

inference to the best explanation

A

you use the evidence presented to infer the best explanation of the evidence

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

induction by enumeration

A

all OBSERVED A’s are B’s
ex:
all observed ducks at the pond are smaller then geese
therefore the next duck I see will be smaller than a goose

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

soundness

A

an argument is sound when it is valid + all the premises are true

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

necessary condition

A

a condition that must be present for something to be true, but don’t guarantee a result
ex: you must be alive to perform surgery
- being alive doesn’t guarantee you can perform surgery, but it is still necessary

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

sufficient condition

A

a condition that produces something/ guarantees a result
ex: if you’ve been through medical school and been in residency for a surgical specialty, you can perform surgery

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Voluntarism

A

if x perceives something to be good, it is good

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

subjectivism

A

good = individual to approves of that thing

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Annihilation Argument

A

p1: If life will eventually be annihilated, then life has no meaning now
p2: life will be eventually annihilated
p3: life has no meaning

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

refutations to the Annihilation Argument

A

p2: life will be eventually annihilated
- some lives won’t be annihilated eventually (Mozart, Michael Jackson)
p2: to those who believe in afterlife (reincarnation, heaven), lives are not eventually annihilated

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Lucretian Argument

A

p1: If you are sad/angry about your inevitable demise, you should be upset about all the years you haven’t lived
p2: you should not be sad about your previous non- existence
p3:don’t be sad about death

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Epicurean Argument

A

p1: death cannot harm us
p2: if death cannot harm us, we should not fear death
p3: so, we shouldn’t fear death

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

life (Epicurean Argument)

metabolic functioning (eating and shitting)

death (Epicurean Argument)

the permanent cessation of life

harm (Epicurean Argument)

- the deprivation of positive experiences - the causation of negative experiences

Revised Epicurean Argument

If : death is the permanent cessation of life life is metabolic functioning (eating and shitting) and harm is the depravation of positive experiences then: P1: death cannot harm us is false, because death deprives us of the positive aspects of life

Amoeba example

If an amoeba "jack" has split up into two amoebas "kate" and "chris", then is Jack dead? most people, intuitively, think that would make Jack dead, even though throughout the process there was no stopping of metabolic functions

perfectionism

for life to be meaningful, you must have done something rare or difficult

nonperfectionism

you don't necessarily have to have done something rare or difficult to have lived a meaningful life

divine command theory

something is valuable because god says it is

argument of choosing death

p1: If we want to die eventually, death does not make life meaningless p2: most want to die eventually p3: death does not make life meaningless

Parable of Sisyphus

syphilis pissed off the gods, so they made him roll a boulder up a hill for the boulder to roll down every time it reached the top. - this is kinda like our life bc all we really do is wake up, eat, sleep, work, and die - Is this dude's life meaningless? Landau says syphilis's life isn't like ours bc 1) syphilis fails every time, but humans often succeed 2) syphilis's life is constantly repetitive and mundane, but humans have fun and help people

contingent facts

if an event had been different, the contingent fact would not be true ex: (fact) everyone attended philosophy class in the kinesiology building on thursday - if someone was sick, that fact wouldn't have been true, so the "fact" is contingent

necessary fact

facts that are still true even if things had been different ex: (fact) everyone attended philosophy class in the kinesiology building on Thursday - regardless if someone was sick or not, there would have been a kinesiology building - the fact that there is a kinesiology building is a necessary fact

sub specie aeternitatis

- some people think their lives are meaningless, because in the span of the entire universe, our lives have no impact on the world around us - life isn't necessarily meaningful if it impacts the whole universe

sub specie aeternitatis

cosmic perspective

sub specie humanitatis

looking at the world from the perspective of humans being the center

Argument from Aliens

p1:there are probably other intelligent lifeforms in the universe p2: If we aren't the only intelligent lifeforms, then our lives aren't meaningful p3: our lives aren't meaningful

determinism

every event is caused by a prior event

Argument from Determinism

p1: Every event is caused by a prior event (determinism is true) p2: if determinism is true, our choices are not free (did not have the choice do do otherwise) p3:our choices are not free p4: If our choices are not free, our life is meaningless p5: our life is meaningless

refutation of the Argument from Determinism

p1: Every event is caused by a prior event - p1 is false, libertarianism = the idea that there are some events that are not caused by any prior event p2:if determinism is true, our choices are not free -p2 is false, compatibilism = the idea that determinism is compatible with free choise - to freely make a decision could also mean to not be coerced, manipulated, pathologically forced to make a decision - in that sense, our decisions are free p4: if our choices are not free our life is meaningless p4 is false, even if incompatibilism is true conscious experiences, like the feeling of learning, are still valuable we still value things like beauty, and natural athleticism even though those aren't choices, so don't be hung up on p4

libertarianism

there are some events (such as our ability to make choices) are not caused by any prior event

compatibilism

free choice is compatible with determinism - if you define a free choice to = not pathological, not coerced, or not manipulated, our choices are free

Psychological Account of Freedom

if a free choice is a choice that is not pathological, not coerced, or not manipulated, humans have a sense of freedom in their decisions worth caring about

why can life still be meaningful if incompatibilism is true?

- conscious experiences are still valuable - we value things like beauty and natural talent, which aren't choices, all the time

paradox of the end

- either we achieve our ends or not If we don't achieve our ends: - we loose purpose, which leads to no meaning If we do achieve our ends: - we loose purpose, leading to no meaning Regardless If we achieve our ends or not, our life has no meaning

rebuttal to the paradox of the end

- we don't either achieve our ends or not - atelic ends

atelic ends

ends that never end ex: learning languages (there are always more languages to learn)

what does Schopenhauer think about pleasure?

pleasure = the satisfaction of desire

intrinsic valuable

something that is inherently valuable (pleasure, life)

instrumental value

something that is valuable because it is a means for something else ex: money is instrumentally valuable because it is a means for leisure, food, shelter, etc.

realism

mind-independent property

value-realist

goodness is independent of what people think of it (two types)

what are the two types of value-realism?

natural, and non-natural

what do naturalists think?

goodness is something that is - can be observed empirically, studied scientifically, and has an impact on the world

what do non-naturalists think

goodness cannot be observed empirically, studied, or have an impact on the world (numbers, math)

Euthyphro objection

If something is good because god says its good then - either god arbitrarily decides whether something is good or not, which is weird bc what if god arbitrarily decides torturing babies is good? - god is simply reporting what is good or not, which is bad because we are trying to figure out what makes stuff good, so if god is simply reporting on the goodness then what??

appraisal relativism

x is good because i say its good

appraisal relativism

x is good because I say its good

argent relativism

x is good because my society says its good

Schopenhauerian Argument from Pleasure

- pleasure = desire satisfaction - desire satisfaction is frustration bc its short lived -not being in desire satisfaction is frustrating - we are either in desire satisfaction or not - constantly frustrated - life filled with frustration is meaningless -since it feels really long when we suffer, when we suffer we are suffering a lot - since we are always frustrated, we are always suffering a lot - a life filled with tremendous suffering is not meaningful

refutation to Schopenhauerian Argument from Pleasure

- some pleasures are not fleeting -the pleasure of a massage only lasts as long as the massage - the pleasure of doing something intellectually stimulating can last much longer - seek non physical pleasure

refutation of the idea that life is meaningless bc of suffering

- the world isn't that bad, you are just mostly being shown the bad stuff

moral worth

actions with moral worth are virtuous - for something to have moral worth it must have a positive impact and good intentions

Psychological Egoism

people only do good things for their own self gain

Argument from Psychological Egoism

p1: we only act selfishly (Psychological Egoism) p2: if we only act with PE, we have no moral worth p3: we have no moral worth p4: if we have no moral worth life is meaningless p5: life is meaningless

Argument from Psychological Altruism

p1: we only act altruistically p2: if we always act altruistically, we always have moral worth p3: we have moral worth p4:being constantly surrounded by moral saints diminishes the meaning of life p5: life has no meaning

Cruelty Objection to Perfectionism

p1: we should not be cruel to anyone p2: it is cruel to be disappointed in oneself for not accomplishing rare or difficult tasks c1: we should not be disappointed in oneself for accomplishing rare or difficult tasks p3:being a perfectionist involves being disappointed in oneself for not accomplishing rare or difficult tasks c2: we should not be a perfectionist

Argument from Choosing Death - Wizard Case

- Suppose a Wizard can give you a pill that will make you + your family immortal at your current age - Everything in your life will be the same, except you cannot die Landau argues that most people would choose not to take the pill

Arguments from affecting far away things

p1: If life is meaningful, it affects things far away. p2: Life does not affect things far away. p3: Life is not meaningful

Arguments from affecting far away things

p1: if life is meaningful, it affects things far away p2: