phi midterm Flashcards
define each of the 4 causes. do you agree that knowledge of all 4 is necessary for true knowledge - why or why not?
Efficient
-the agent, source of the objects principle of change
-who or what made it
Material
-the what, what it is made of
-what something is
Formal
-idea of the thing
-essence of the object
Final
-purpose, reason, end goal of the object
Ex: a table
material = wood
final = dining
formal = design
efficient = carpentry
-True knowledge is an ambiguous term, so it is hard to say something is helpful to reach it
-true knowledge can change depending on the person
-But the causes help us understand what something is and why it exists
explain Aristotle’s prime mover argument step by step? do you think it is a good argument - why or why not?
There are 3 kinds of substances (2 physical, 1 unmovable). (1) Time and motion are eternal, time must be eternal because there could not be before or after without it. (2) Change doesn’t occur without action or movement, there must be a change agent to put things into motion. Anything with any potency may cease being actual and cannot account for one. Potency lies within matter, anything with potency will eventually cease to exist. (3) There must be a substance that is pure actuality (not matter). (4) The actual is prior to potential. (5) Must be an eternal actualizer (the Prime Mover). This supports eternal time and motion. The Prime Mover is impassive and unalterable.
Aristotle mentions several attributes of God based on the prime mover argument.
Describe one of these attributes and how Aristotle derives it from the prime mover
argument
2 good arguments:
-Eternal
*since prime mover is true there is something always in motion
*unceasing, motion is circular
*therefore eternal (matter & time)
–mention potency & actuality in answer
-T.T.I (thought thinking itself)
*object of desire and thought are the same
*thinking precedes desire
*thought moved by object
*thinking drawn by what’s best - prime mover
*thought thinking itself
-Aristotle describes God as eternal based on the prime mover argument. He gets this quality from the actuality/potency argument. He writes “But (b) actuality is prior in a stricter sense also; for eternal things are prior in substance to perishable things, and no eternal thing exists potentially”. He is essentially arguing that actuality must come before potency, because something must be acted upon to produce the potential to do anything. So, based on this argument, he says that eternal things are actual because they cannot be perishable/not displaying potential
-Aristotle says that God exists necessarily and eternally. He doesn’t need anything else to exist except himself. We found a quote that says “God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God”. This derives from the Prime Mover argument because the first point of the argument is that time and motion are eternal and changing, so there must be a force behind it. Aristotle says that God is that force
why is preservation important for Nietzsche’s view of morality? how does it fit into his critique of moral systems?
most important thing is survival of the human species
-this is his core assumption when it comes to morality - the good is survival of the species
-important bc that is how he measures all moral theories; how well survival is, does each theory help survival of human species
-Nietzsche critiques christianity bc it wants human sacrifice/martyrdom & he views it as wrong bc it does not help the survival of humanity
What is the difference between an essential and an accidental causal series? Do you find
the distinction helpful? Why or why not
Accidental: Each member causes the next without involving the member after (cause is separate from the effect)
-Ex: parents and children
Essential: each member causes the next by interacting with the next - what it takes to be in existence right now; finite (cause participates in effect)
-Ex: someone playing guitar - performer playing guitar is responsible for music playing
explain the first way. do you find it compelling? why or why not?
-We sense that some things are in motion
-What is in motion is put in motion by another
-What is put in motion is put in motion by another in motion, which must be put in motion by another
-This cannot go on to infinity
-Therefore, there must be a 1st mover put in motion by no other
-This, we understand to be God
Explain either the fourth or the fifth way. Do you find it compelling? Why or why not.
4th
-some beings are more or less good, true, noble, etc (these are transcendentals of being)
-there must be a maximum that causes these qualities in others (must be absolute being/self-sufficient being)
-this we call God
5th
-we see things in the world that act regularly (final causality, purpose)
-nothing can act with regular tendencies unless directed by intellect (archer example in book)
-therefore an intelligence directs things towards their end
-this we call God
A answer mentions analogy, mode of knowing, finality
Explain the second way. Do you find it compelling? Why or why not
-We sense a world of ordered efficient causes
-Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
-The order of efficient causes cannot be infinite
-Therefore, there is a first efficient cause
-Everyone calls this God
Explain the third way. Do you find it compelling? Why or why not
-We find things possible to be or not be
-These things cannot always exist because it will eventually cease to exist given enough time
-Therefore there must be a being with necessary existence
-Everything with necessary existence is necessary by itself or by another
-Cannot have an infinite series of caused necessity as proved in the 2nd way
-Therefore we must be a necessary being with self-sufficient necessity
-This we speak of as God
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument. Do you find it compelling? Why or why not?
3 main components
-God is a being “greater than which cannot be conceived” (if you could think of something greater than God, surely this something would be God)
-Think of two beings, one that exists and one that doesn’t (being real is greater than being fictional, so the one that exists is greater)
-So if god didn’t exist, we could think of a greater being than god
It is an interesting argument because I had never thought of God’s existence in this way
What is Gaunilo’s critique of Anselm? Do you side with Gaunilo or Anselm? Why?
Gaunilo has a lot of critiques of Anselm.
-it’s possible to understand something that does not exist (Ex: dragon or unicorn)
-we do not need to see God to understand him and believe that he exists
-Gaunilo’s critique is that the impression of something does not mean it is God/perfect
-His work is On the behalf of the fool, which says that we could prove the existence of many perfect objects by Anselm’s argument. -Basically saying the thought doesn’t count for enough to prove existence.
-Also thought that humans can only comprehend information provided by the senses
-We cannot think of things outside of our realm/intellect.
What does Nietzsche mean in 108 that God is dead? Why must God’s shadow be
subdued?
-Nietzsche was an atheist, he never thought god was alive. If God was never alive, he could never die, and is therefore dead. -Subdue = to conquer and bring into subjection. Gods shadow must be subdued because Nietzsche believes that we need to find our own beliefs without the shadow of God - god is bad to Nietzsche, so we must leave him behind and stop following “God”
-A metaphorical point on religion - God is an idea that has dwindled in popularity with the people. People need to find their own views without relying on others
-Connects to the allegory of the cave from Plato - saying God is an idea being told to people
-Comparing current view of God to ideas in Plato’s cave - GOD is an idea, like those in the cave
-To Nietzsche, God is something terrible/monstrous;
