Aaron Mitchell
Teacher: Shawn Haake
January 18, 2015
PHI101FD0215SP

CHAPTER 1: Introduction to Western Philosophy
Origins of the word Philosophy: The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom
Explain Modes of persuasion
Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated. Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.
MYTHOS: a set of beliefs or assumptions about something.
LOGOS: Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.
Who was THALES?
Was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher from Miletus in Asia Minor and one of the Seven Sages of Greece.
What separated Thales from others?
Empedocles
Compare Logos versus mythos:
The Greek words from which our English words “logical” and “mythical” have been derived, logos and mythos. Both Greek words can be translated as something like “story” or “account”. Mythical thinking and logical thinking both provide an account of the world, but they do so in very different ways. Those using logical thinking approach the world scientifically and empirically. They look for explanations using observable facts, controlled experiments, and deductive proofs. Truth discovered through logos seeks to be objective and universal. Those using mythical thinking, on the other hand, approach the world through less direct, more intuitive means. A person might gain poetic insights into the nature of the world by seeing a caterpillar emerge from a cocoon or watching a full moon rise as the sun sets. Truth discovered through mythos is more subjective, based on individual feelings and experiences.
Epistemology
Define Epistemology:
The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Explain how knowledge differ from opinion:
Plato, in his writings described knowledge as “true belief with an account (logos).” Opinion is belief based with no account.
Explain if knowledge actually exists:
Philosophers have usually defined knowledge as “true opinion combined with definition or rational explanation”. In this book, Plato also suggested that knowledge could be: 1.Perception or sensation, 2. true belief, and 3. true belief mega logou (accompanied by a rational account of itself or ground).
Explain the nature of existence:
Most philosophers have assumed that belief in existence is an inner state of mind, directly accessible to introspection and distinct from, though casually related to, the believer’s behavior.
Ontology
Define Ontology: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
Explain the nature of existence:
Such as human beings understood unquestioningly as subjects and other entities understood unquestioningly as objects. Because these basic ontological meanings both generate and are regenerated in everyday interactions, the locus of our way of being in a historical epoch is the communicative event of language in use. For Heidegger, however, communication in the first place is not among human beings, but language itself shapes up in response to questioning (the inexhaustible meaning of) being. Even the focus of traditional ontology on the 'whatness' or 'quidditas' of beings in their substantial, standing presence can be shifted to pose the question of the 'wholeness' of human being itself.
Explain the difference between appearance and reality:
While a 'real entity' is one which may be actual, or may derive its reality from its logical relation to some actual entity or entities. For example, an occasion in the life of Socrates is an actual entity.
What does it mean for something to be real? Explain:
There is no going behind an actual entity, to find something more fundamental in fact or in efficacy.
Axiology
Define Axiology: is the study of value, or goodness, in its widest sense. The distinction is commonly made between intrinsic and extrinsic value—i.e., between that which is valuable for its own sake and that which is valuable only as a means to something else, which itself may be extrinsically or intrinsically valuable.
Ethics
Define Ethics: sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.
Explain if moral duties exist: based off of the premise of immoral, nonmoral, and amoral they do exist
Is morality relative to culture, time, and place? Explain: yes because it is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Political & social philosophy
Define both political & social philosophy: Political philosophy is the study of topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy. Social philosophy is the study of questions about social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations.
Do natural rights exist? Explain: natural rights are incapable of doing the philosophical work expected of them. The argument for such rights is weak, their consistent application would seriously undermine the market order, and a more robust case for freedom can be made on other grounds.
Do social duties exist? Explain: Duty of care may be considered a formalization of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.
Are some forms of government superior to others? Explain: Yes because some forms can overpass other forms of government by passing and not passing laws.

Aesthetics
Is beauty innate? Explain: The innate sense of beauty that every human being has. Based on the concept of religion.
What is art? Explain: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
What is the function of art? Explain: works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
Does art have moral value? Explain: Yes because it is a symbol of expression.
Logic
What is logic? Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
What is valid inference? When a valid argument is used to derive a false conclusion from false premises, the inference is valid because it follows the form of a correct inference. A valid argument can also be used to derive a true conclusion from false premises Aristotle's three Laws of logic 1. Explain the Principle of Identity: The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is 2. Explain the Principle of non-contradiction: The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be. In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT (A = NOT-A). In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time. 3. Explain the Principle of excluded middle: The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be."In accordance with the law of excluded middle or excluded third, for every proposition, either its positive or negative form is true: FOR ALL A: A OR ~A.
Aristotle's three rules of inference 1. Explain Modus ponendo ponens (modus ponens): takes two premises, one in the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation), then so is the conclusion. 2. Explain Modus tollendo tollens (modus tollens): In propositional logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens and also denying the consequent) (Latin for "the way that denies by denying") is a valid argument form and a rule of inference. 3. Contrapostion: In logic, contraposition is a law that says that a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive.
Fallacies
What are fallicies? Explain each one: A fallacy is a deceptive, false, or misleading argument, notion, belief, etc. Here are some fallacies: Formal Fallacies are characterized by the logical structure of an argument being flawed. The advertisement below is a kind of formal fallacy called a non-sequitur in which the conclusion does not follow logically from the previous argument or statement. Note that the conclusion: "We make Virginia Slims especially for women," does not follow logically from the statement: "Women are biologically superior to men." Informal Fallacies are reasoning that seem logical, but are actually Lazy logic. Informal Fallacies are characterized by premises that fail to support the proposed conclusion, but an argument is structured properly. So the argument looks valid (and could be). Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore this) In this kind of fallacy one is mistaking correlation for cause and effect (needs more evidence) The following Post hoc fallacies use true statistics. There might be a causal connection but could there be another reason for the ‘connection’? AS THE NUMBER OF CHURCHES IN THE USA INCREASES, SO DO THE NUMBER OF PROSTITUTES CRIME IS INCREASING IN GERMANY, BUT SO IS THE NUMER OF COLLEGE GRADUATES. SO EDUCATION IS CORRUPTING THE YOUNG THE HOMELESS MAN WAS SEEN IN FRONT OF THE SHOP BEFORE IT WAS ROBBED, SO HE DID IT Circular Reasoning (begging the question) Assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove, BEFORE proving it Ad hominem fallacy Attacking the person you disagree with or appealing with the person you agree/disagree with, instead of their argument Ad hominem fallacies are usually understood to be an attack on a person but they can also be seen as an "appeal to authority," which we have said can be a justification for a Knowledge Claim. Should we allow Appeals to Authority as such? AS HITLER'S INTEREST IN ART ATTESTS, THE LOVE OF ART IS A DANGEROUS ANTECEDENT TO FASCISM EMINENT BIOLOGIST FRANK FENNER, WHO HELPED ERADICATE SMALLPOX, SAYS HUMANS WILL BE EXTINCT WITHIN THE NEXT 100 YEARS AND I AGREE. Equivocating This fallacy uses a word/idea with two different meanings in two different ways to support an argument Arguing using ad ignorantium Saying something isTRUE just because you can’t prove is ISN’T TRUE The false dilemma Binary thinking-black/white thinking. This fallacy presents a limited choice as the only possible options when there may be many other choices/conclusions 1. Asserting the consequence: Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. 2. Negating the antecedent: Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. 3. Petito principii (begging the question): Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premise of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact. 4. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. 5. Tautological reasoning: Circular reasoning (Latin: "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Continental Philosophy
Explain continental Philosophy?
Continental philosophy is a set of 19th- and 20th-century philosophical traditions from mainland Europe. Continental philosophy includes the following movements: German idealism, phenomenology, existentialism (and its antecedents, such as the thought of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche), hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism, French feminism, psychoanalytic theory, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and related branches of Western Marxism. 1. Explain Phenomenology : the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being. An approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. 2. Explain Existentialism: a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Analytic Philosophy
Explain Analytic Philosophy: a method of approaching philosophical problems through analysis of the terms in which they are expressed, associated with Anglo-American philosophy of the early 20th century.
Explain the Cretan Liar’s Paradox: liar's paradox is the statement "this sentence is false". Trying to assign to this statement a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction. If "this sentence is false" is true, then the sentence is false, but then if "this sentence is false" is false, then the sentence is true, and so on. Socrates
What are the three segments?
In the first segment, Socrates meets a young man who claims to know something about one of the aforementioned “big” topics. Socrates flatters the young man and compliments himself on his luck at having found someone who actually knows something that he, Socrates, has been seeking for fifty years. Socrates begs the young man to impart his wisdom to him. When the young man does so, Socrates acts deeply impressed. The young man’s head begins to swell.
The second segment of the dialogue begins when Socrates seems to notice some apparently minor problem with the formulation of the youth’s argument. The young man thinks that a simple cosmetic job can cover the blemish, but Socrates’ objection becomes the small thread that, when pulled, unravels the garment. The young man finds himself tangled up in contradictions and paradoxes.
The third segment of the dialogue begins when both Socrates and his partner have admitted ignorance. The young man doesn’t know what “X” is (virtue, beauty, truth, etc.), and Socrates does not know either. At this point, Socrates will say to his dispairing companion something like this: “Look, here we are, two ignorant men, yet two men who desire to know. I am willing to pursue the question seriously if you are willing.”