part iii epistemology & metaphysics introduction to philosophy

PART I I IEPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS

Introduction to Philosophy

Epistemology

Introduction Epistemology Some Classic Problems Some Classic Questions

Some Basic Concepts Rationalism

A priori knowledge Innate Ideas

Empiricism A posteriori knowledge No innate ideas

Justified, True Belief

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics

Introduction Knowledge & Opinion Argument against relativism (Theatetus)

Relative Self Refuting Protagoras

First Problem of the Senses: Change Changing world Cannot have certainty Appear at a specific time Source of knowledge Senses cannot be a source of knowledge


Second Problem of the Senses: Definitions Objects of knowledge must be universal & unchanging Unchanging definitions are necessary Language would not work

Perfect Standard Argument Physical things fall short Knowledge of something perfect Knowledge cannot come from sensess

Knowledge is Not Right Opinion Right opinion (true belief) vs. knowledge True opinion Account Rational justification


Knowledge is Objective Not obtained by the senses Universal Changeless Based in reason

The Forms & Ideas Particulars (tokens) & categories (types) Universal/form

Eternal Changeless Perfect


Participation Idea

The Doctrine of Recollection (Meno) Meno’s Paradox Acquiring knowledge Communing with the forms Forgetting Doctrine of Recollection


Plato’s Metaphysics The Forms

Real, objective, independent, unchanging Not spatial or temporal Participation problem

Change Paradox of Change Heraclitus Parmenides Platonic compromise Particulars: changing, imperfect, object of opinion


Particulars Reality comes in degrees The forms are causes of particulars Particulars resemble the forms Particulars participate in the forms in varying degrees The forms group particulars into types, making them intelligible.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Lovers of Opinion & Lovers of Wisdom Philosophers The One & the Many

Two Each is One The Many

Sights, Dreams, Opinion & Knowledge Lovers of sounds & Sights Life is a dream One is awake

Absolute beauty Forms & objects

Knowledge & Opinion


Being & Non-Being Argument One who knows, knows something. Absolute beauty may be absolutely known. The utterly non-existent is utterly unknown. Anything that can be and not be will be between pure being and

absolute negation of being. Knowledge corresponds to being and ignorance to non being.

Spheres & Faculties Argument Faculties are powers in us. What has the same sphere & same result is the same faculty. What has another sphere & another result is different. Knowledge & opinion are both faculties, but not the same.


Knowledge & opinion have distinct spheres. Being is the sphere of knowledge. Knowledge is to know the nature of being. Opinion is to have an opinion. If difference in faculty implies a difference in the sphere & if opinion &

knowledge are distinct faculties, then the sphere of knowledge & opinion cannot be the same.

Not-being is not the subject-matter of opinion An opinion is about something. One cannot have an opinion about nothing. One who has an opinion has an opinion about some one thing. Not-being is not one thing but nothing.


Opinion is Intermediate Ignorance is the correlative of not being. Knowledge is the correlative of being. Opinion is not concerned with being or not-being. Opinion is intermediate between ignorance & knowledge. Its correlative is and is not and is between pure being & absolute non-

being. The corresponding faculty is opinion.

The Object of Opinion The beautiful will be seen as ugly. The ideas of the many are half-way. Opinion & not knowledge.


Lovers of Opinion vs. Lovers of Wisdom Those who have opinion but not knowledge

See the many Do not see the absolute

The Objects of Knowledge The many & the one

Many Seen Not known

Absolute Form Known Not seen


The Eye Analogy Moonlight Sunshine The soul is like the eye

• Truth & being• Twilight of becoming/perishing

The Sun Analogy The Good Light & sight are like the sun, but not the sun. Science & truth are like the good, but not the good.

Good has a higher place of honor. Pleasure is not the good.

The sun is the author of generation The sun is not generation

The good is the author of knowledge, being & essence. The good is not essence but far exceeds it.


The Four Levels of Knowledge: the Line Ruling Powers

The good-intellectual world. The sun-visible world. Visible vs. intelligible.

Division of the line Visible Intelligible

Sections A&B A images A is a resemblance of B. B includes animals, growing things, and made things. A&B have different degrees of truth. The copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge.


Sections C & D In C figures given by D are used as images.

Hypothetical inquiry. In D the soul passes from hypothesis to a principle above

hypothesis.No images, but proceeding in and through the forms.

Section C-Hypothesis Math-hypothesis Begin with hypothesis. Using figures thinking of forms. Soul seeking to behold the things themselves.


Section D-the intelligible Knowledge attained by reason by the dialectic using hypothesis as hypothesis and

not first principles. Intelligible As steps to a world above hypothesis and to the first principle of the whole.

Knowledge & being contemplated by the dialectic. Clearer than notions of arts proceeding solely from hypothesis.

Contemplated by understanding & not senses. Understanding deals with geometry & cognitive sciences & is the intermediate

between opinion & knowledge. Four Faculties of the Soul

D Reason C Understanding B Belief Imaging


a

The Line

D

Ideas: Reason

C

Mathematics: Intelligence

B

Physical Phenomena: Belief

A

Images: Imagination


The Allegory of the Cave Description

Cave Chained Fire Walls Vessels Shadows Think they are naming what is actually before them. To them, the truth is nothing but the shadows of the images.

Release of the Prisoners-1st Step: Free in the Cave The light is painful. Cannot see the realities previously seen in shadows. Approach nearer to being & have clearer vision. Perplexed if asked to name objects. Will initially think the shadows are truer than the objects.


The Release of the Prisoners-2nd Step: Outside the Cave Pained & dazzled in the sun. Need to grow accustomed

Shadows Reflections in water Objects Light of the stars and moon The sun

Argue the sun is the cause of all The freed person

Praise himself & pity others. Not care for the honors If he returned, his eyes would be full of darkness. Fare poorly in the contests. Men would think it better not to ascend. If anyone tried to free another, they would put him to death.


The Allegory Cave: world of sight Light of the fire: sun Journey Upwards: the ascent of the soul to the intellectual world.


a

Four Levels of Knowledge

Fully Liberated PersonsReason: Understanding the ideas as connected to theGood (the Sun: the Good).

Semi-Liberated Persons (beyond the cave)Intelligence: Understanding the ideas not seen asconnected to the Good (mathematics)

Dividing Wall Dividing Wall

(cave entrance)

People unbound in the caveBelief: Sense perception (Fire: the sensible Sun).Images of Ideas: natural and artificial.

People in chainsImagination: Images, sensations.The World of Illusion.People are in chains and confuse shadows and echoswith reality.

World ofKnowledge

World ofOpinion

The Realm of theIntelligible

REALITY

The Sunlight

The Realm of theSensible

THE WORLD OFAPPEARANCE

The Cave


The Good The Good

Universal author of all things beautiful & right Parent & lord of light in the visible world. Immediate source of reason & truth in the intellectual.

Those who have seen the Good Unwilling to descend Behave ridiculously

Court of law Absolute justice

Bewilderment One who remembers


Source of Knowledge Knowledge cannot be put into the soul that was not there before

Like sight into blind eyes. The power & capacity of learning exists in the soul already. Eye analogy

As the eye was unable to go from darkness to light without the whole body

The instrument of knowledge must be turned from becoming to being by the movement of the whole soul.

Learn to endure the sight. The art that effects this conversion

Does not implant the faculty of sight It exists, but is facing the wrong way.


Other virtues of the soul are akin to bodily qualities If not innate, they can be implanted later by habit & exercise

The virtue of wisdom contains a divine element which always remains. By this its conversion becomes useful & profitable or hurtful & useless. The narrow intelligence of the clever rogue

His paltry soul clearly sees the way to his end. He is the reverse of the blind. His keen sight serves evil and he is mischievous in proportion to his

cleverness.

Introduction to Skepticism

Varieties of Skepticism General Skepticism

The theory that we do not have any knowledge. We cannot be completely certain that any of our beliefs are true.

Local/Moderate Skepticism Can have mathematical and empirical knowledge. Cannot have metaphysical knowledge.

Global Skepticism Maintain universal doubt Deny knowledge of an external world & other minds. Deny knowledge of metaphysical truths. Do not deny knowledge of mathematics & logic.

Introduction to Skepticism

Super-global/Extreme Skepticism Universal doubt Deny knowledge of mathematics & logic.

Methodological Skepticism Skepticism is adopted as a means to another end. Typically the refutation of skepticism. Example: Descartes.

History of Skepticism

Introduction Skeptikos

Error Skeptikos Lack of Foundations

Pyrrho of Elis (320-270 B.C.) Revitalization of skepticism 1st Century B.C. No writings


Pyrrho’s Sense Experience Argument Sense experience cannot provide knowledge. To provide knowledge the sense experiences must match their objects. If we can never get outside of our sensations, we can never know the

experiences match the alleged objects. Pyrrho’s Reason Argument

Argumentation cannot provide knowledge. For each argument there is an equally good counter-argument. Thus, there is no rational ground for accepting one argument over

another.


Skeptic’s Position Given that both senses and reason fail, we cannot have knowledge. One can only speak in terms of experience. Prudent approach: suspend judgment and not make any assumptions. This skepticism also applies to morality. A wise person adopts apathy and indifference. People should follow existing laws & traditions.


Academic Skepticism Arcesilaus

316-242 B.C. Head of Plato’s Academy Turned Academy towards skepticism

Carneades 214-129 B.C. Took over Academy after Arcesilaus. Brilliant philosopher Athenian Ambassador to Rome (156-155 B.C.) Public speeches Two-Faced Method


The Academy Skeptics thought the Academy lost the Socratic spirit. Ironic charge Skeptics focused on

Socrates’ claim he knew nothing. Socratic dialogues ended without a definite conclusion.

Appearance Skeptics attacked the dogmatism of the Stoics and Epicureans. Some sense impressions seem indubitable. Dreams & hallucinations seem convincing but are false.


Main Argument: No Criterion for Truth Any standard of truth will also need justification Thus requiring another standard to establish the truth of the standard. And so on in an infinite regress.

Claims Did not claim that nothing can be known. Claim: we appear to lack knowledge. Suspended judgment regarding skepticism.

Probability Stoics argued that skepticism would lead to the suspension of activity. Carneades argued that certainty is not possible but probability is and is

sufficient. Compromise lead to scorn from Stoics and later Pyrrhonic skeptics.


Revival of Pyrrhonian Skepticism Purists

The Academics were not skeptical enough. Rejected Carneade’s view of probability. Named after Pyrrho. Formalized skepticism.

Agrippa: Five Pillars of Skepticism Disagreement: Not everyone will agree on an issue. Infinite regress

Resolution requires reasons Reasons require justifications Justifications require justifications and so on to infinty.


Relativity: Perceptions of things differ in different circumstances. Hypothesis: All starting points are arbitrary. Circular Reasoning: Any argument that avoids the other 4 pillars will be

circular. Latter Skeptics: Two Theses

Nothing is self-evident Nothing can be proven

Skeptic’s Goal Personal peace If one cannot know, there is no reason to worry. Accept what appears to be and follow existing customs and laws. Sextus Empiricus (3rd Century AD)


Importance of Skepticism Problem

Starting points are needed for arguments. This implies there are reasons for believing the starting points.

Contributions Made philosophers more critical. Philosophers had to accept or respond to the skeptics. St. Augustine Against the Academics Methodological skepticism in the Modern era. Skepticism used to attack reason and support faith & revelation. Development of science.


The Decline of Skepticism Did not succeed in creating peace. Created Confusion. Unsatisfactory. Religious philosophies & Christianity.

Renee Descartes

Rene Descartes Life & Works

Born March 31, 1596 in La Haye France (now Descartes). La Fleche Degree in law Joined armies November 10, 1619 Three vivid dreams. 1649 became tutor to Queen Christina of Sweden Died February 11, 1650

Renee Descartes

Published Works 1620 Rules for the Direction of the Mind 1633 Le Monde (The World) 1637 Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and

Seeking the Truth in Sciences. 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy 1644 Principles of Philosophy 1649 Passions of the Soul

Renee Descartes

Agenda Motivation

Dissatisfied Disputed and doubtful Shaky foundation of science

Travel Old ideas Intellectual Journey Diversity of opinion

Renee Descartes

Inward Focus Studies Solid foundation for the sciences Father of modern philosophy Quotes & argument from authority Solitary Thinker Personal pronouns Discover truth Individual journeys lead to same truths.

Renee Descartes

Goals Find certainty Create universal science Reconcile the scientific, mechanistic conception of the universe with

human freedom and religion.

Renee Descartes

Methodology Mathematics

Model Certainty & Self Evidence Discourse Mathematics consists in two mental operations

Intuition Deduction

Renee Descartes

Intuition The recognition of self-evident truths. Seeing the truth. Not derived from other truths. Innate ideas-implanted by God. Not always aware of ideas. Not from sense experience. Intellectual vision.

Renee Descartes

Deduction Inference Deduction from self-evident truth All truths can be reached by deduction. Analytical geometry (1637) Physical world All knowledge

The Meditations on First Philosophy Six meditations Decade Six Days of Holy Week

Descartes’ First Meditation

First Part Start and Goal

Beliefs Doubtful Goals

Rid himself of opinions Establish a foundation for the sciences.

Method Not necessary to show all beliefs are false. Assent with held from

Matters not entirely certain and indubitable. Manifestly false beliefs.


Rejecting the whole No need to examine each belief

Doubting the Senses Senses

Learned from the senses At times the senses deceive Not trust

Dream Problem Skeptical pause #1 Dreams Asleep Skeptical pause #2


Sleep No certain indications Assumes he is asleep

Painter Analogy The analogy General things Combined Simpler & more universal things

Corporeal nature Extension Figure Quantity Location Time

Descartes First Meditation

Sciences considering composite things are dubious. Math-Skeptical Pause

Arithmetic, Geometry, etc. Awake or Asleep Seems Impossible

God & the Demon God

God as all powerful creator. How does he know? Deception. God’s Goodness Not Contrary to His Goodness


Doubted for Powerful Reasons The Demon

Evil Genius All external things are illusions/dreams. Considers himself as bodiless. What is in his power

Suspend judgment Avoid giving credence to any false thing.

Foundationalism & Coherentism: Motivations

Replying to the Skeptic Response to Skepticism

Response Account of justification

Justification Regress Problem The Regress

A belief must be justified A belief is typically justified by another belief Regress: Belief A is justified by B, which is justified by C, ect. The regress must be stopped


Option 1: Unjustified Foundation A is inferred directly from B which is unjustified. Wittgenstein Problem

Option 2: Biting the Bullet-Infinite Regress Chain A is justified by B, which is justified by C ad infinitum. Problem

Option 3: Coherentism A is justified by B, which is justified by C, which is justified by A,

going in a circle. Problem


Option 4: Foundationalism A is justified by B which is based on a foundational belief. Inferential chain Every justified belief is either

A properly basic belief Ends in a chain of beliefs the last of which is self justified.

Foundationalism

Background General Background Example: Plato

Forms Innate ideas

Example: Aristotle & Aquinas Basic Truths Aquinas: Truth

As known in itself Understood via an inquiry of reason.

Foundationalism

Classical (“Cartesian”) Foundationalism Classical Foundationalism

Infallible, non-inferential knowledge Two types of beliefs

Basic Inferred

Properly Basic Non-basic justified belief Asymmetrical

Foundationalism

Descartes’ Goals in the Meditations Tear down Create a new, infallible foundation Create a solid and certain superstructure

Descartes’ Refutation of Skepticism Deduces the existence of God Deduces that God is benevolent and not a deceiver. Perceptual mechanisms Normally what we see is real Abnormal circumstances Empirical judgments Induction only a source of belief Indubitable basic principles & deduction

Foundationalism

Criticism of Classic Foundationalism Very little knowledge Only infallible or incorrigible beliefs in the foundation. Not enough self-evident truths. Empirical beliefs cannot be knowledge Tends towards skepticism.

Foundationalism

Moderate Foundationalism General Idea

Foundational model Addresses criticism of classical foundationalism Rejects infallibility Accepts fallibilism

Features Asymmetrical Doubts about psychological beliefs allowed Almost any belief can be basic Foundational relationship is on of justification Induction Coherence

Foundationalism

Having a justification vs. being able to show it. Problem

Not strong enough Incapable of replying to the skeptic. Addresses criticism of classical foundationalism Seems to compromise to coherentism

Coherentism

Coherentist Theories of Justification Background

Truth resides in the absolute system of knowledge. Classic Coherentism

Truth is not correspondence of propositions with facts. Truth is defined as integrated and absolute wholes Every truth belief is entailed by every other proposition

20th-21st century Coherentists Quine, Sellars, Harman, Lehrer, Bonjour Rejected the coherence theory of truth. Accepted a coherentist theory of justification. A belief is justified by the entire system of beliefs.

Coherentism

All justification is inferential. The Isolation Objection

Coherence seems inadequate Does not provide the necessary conditions to discern illusory but

consistent sets of beliefs. We want to connect theories to empirical data. Consistency is necessary but not sufficient.

Introduction to Metaphysics

Introduction Defined

The study of the nature & structure of reality Ontology

Some Questions in MetaphysicsSome Metaphysical Problems

Problem of Universals The Nature of Mind The Problem of Personal identity


Some Concepts Concepts

Ontological Kind Property Substance Dualism Idealism/Immaterialism Materialism/Physicalism Particular Universal


Methodology Doing Metaphysics Assessing Metaphysical Theories Occam’s Razor Simplicity Mystery/Weirdness Plausibility Primitives Explanatory Power/Problem Solving

Universal


Fruitfulness Coherence Consistency Non-Circularity

John Locke: Background

Background (1632-1704) Early Years & Education Public Life Revolution Works

Two Treatises on Government 1690 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 1690 Letters Concerning Toleration 1689-1692 Some Thoughts Concerning Education 1693 The Reasonableness of Christianity 1695

The End

John Locke: PI & Substance

Substance Idea of Substance

Qualities cannot subsist sine re substante. Substantia

Locke’s Elephant Story Asked about qualities

The elephant The tortoise Something he knew not what.

No distinct idea of substance. Something he knows not what.


Ideas of Material Substance & Spiritual Subtance The physical The mental Lack of clear & distinct idea

Identity of Living Things Living Creatures

Not sameness of matter. Changes in matter do not result in a change of identity. Oak example Same animal


Man Identity of man

Organized living body Identity of soul Hog example Same substance, same soul, same person

What is a man? Animal of a certain form. Without reason but having the shape of man Cat or parrot that reasoned. Man is particular shaped body.

Same body, same spirit, same man.


Consciousness & Personal Identity Person

A thinking intelligent being. That has reason and reflection. Can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times

and places. Does so by consciousness.

Consciousness Always accompanies thinking. Makes each to be what he calls self and distinguishes him from other

thinking things. Sole basis of PI, the sameness of rational being. Identity reaches as far as the consciousness can be extended.


Consciousness Makes Personal Identity Forgetting

If people did not forget Questions about same thinking substance This does not concern PI which is about sameness of person not

substance. Consciousness

The same consciousness makes a man himself to himself. PI depends on that alone, regardless of substance(s).

Changes of Time & Substance: Clothing analogy & hand argument The self extends as far as the consciousness. Clothing analogy. Hand argument


Personal Identity & Immaterial Substance First Question

Is it the same person through change of substance? Can only be resolved by those who know

What kind of thinking substance they are. If consciousness can be transferred.

If the same consciousness is not the same individual, we must know: Why one substance thinks it did something it did not. Why such a thought might be without reality.

That this does not happen is best explained by God’s goodness. If the same consciousness is transferable, two thinking substances might be

one person.


Second Question Can there be 2 distinct persons though the immaterial substance is the

same? Loss of consciousness Pre-existence of the soul. Pre-existent spirit

Example: Nestor Soul of Nestor No consciousness of Nestor’s actions. Body analogy If conscious of Nestor’s actions


Memory & PI Resurrection

Same person, different body. Same consciousness.

Prince & Cobbler Soul of a prince enters the soulless body of a cobbler. Body goes into making the man. Soul would not make another man.

Language Ordinary way of speaking Apply sounds Determine what we mean.


Self Depends on Consciousness Consciousness

Self Conscious of pleasure & pain. Capable of happiness or misery. Concerned for itself. Matters not what substance.

Little Finger Little finger Removed Consciousness makes the person. As far as the consciousness reaches.


Reward & Punishment PI & Justice

Foundation of right & justice of reward & punishment. Happiness & misery.

Little Finger Finger Body

Personal Identity Not identity of substance, identity of consciousness. Socrates Socrates waking & sleeping Punishment


Problem of Punishment Drunk, Asleep, & Judgment Day

Drunk & sober Why else punished for the act? Sleep walking Human laws punish both suitable to their knowledge. Ignorance is not admitted as a plea. Punishment annexed to personality, personality to consciousness. Human law justly punishes.

Fact is proved against him. Secrets laid open.


Objection & Reply Loss of memory Same person? The word “I” Same man, same person. Same man, different consciousness, different persons. Opinions

Human laws do not punish the mad man for the sober man’s actions. Nor the sober for the mad. Two persons.

Say that one is not his self. Same man, different person.


Odd Cases Two and One

One body, day & night consciousnesses. PI determined by consciousness. Thinking substance. Remembering and forgetting. Self is not determined by identity or diversity of substance. Identity of consciousness.

David Hume

Preliminaries Other philosophers imagine

Self Existence &continuance Identity & Simplicity

Hume Encounters a perception Never without perception, nothing but perceptions. Removal of perceptions Death

David Hume

Disagreement Different notion Hume’s case

Bundles & Persons Bundles & Change

Person is a bundle of perceptions. Perceptions in perpetual flux. No power to remain the same.

The mind is a kind of theatre. Numerous perceptions No simplicity nor identity Comparison to a theater.

David Hume

Identity & Relations Identity

What leads us to ascribe identity? Distinct perception Suppose perceptions are united by identity. Identity Attribution of identity.

Relations Resemblance, contiguity, and causation. Uniting principles. No connection Identity depends on resemblance and causation. Easy transition of ideas.

David Hume

Resemblance & Memory Memory Image resembles the object Resembling perceptions Seems like one continuing object Memory discovers and contributes to the production of identity.

Causation & Analogy to a Commonwealth Mind is a system of perceptions linked by cause & effect. Soul is like a republic. United by ties. The analogy.

David Hume

Concern, Memory, & Causation Concern

Identity & passions Distant perceptions Concern

Memory Memory acquaints No memory, no notion of causation Causation & memory

David Hume

Criticism of Memory of the basis of identity Remember few past actions Forgetting Memory discovers PI Extending identity beyond memory

Conclusion Questions about PI can never be decided. Grammatical rather than philosophical. Identity depends on relation of ideas. Diminish All disputes concerning PI are merely verbal.

Buddha’s No Self Doctrine

No Self Names

Nagesena A name

The king’s question If there is no self, who

Furnishes priests Uses them Keeps precepts Meditates Commits immorality Tells lies


Implications-if there is no self No merit or demerit No one who does deeds No fruit or result No murderer No teacher

Who/what is Nagasena Not hair Not nails, etc. Not sensations, etc. Not something besides form, etc. King fails to discover any Nagasena Nagasena is a mere empty sound-there is no Nagasena


Rebirth Rebirth

How does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating? Illustration 1: Light

Light lit from another light. Rebirth

Illustration 2: poetry Learning poetry from a teacher Verse Rebirth without transmigrating

Ghosts & Minds

Introduction Philosophical Examination

Ghosts Phaedo

Purpose Philosophy of mind

Defining Ghosts Ghost Ghost is a mind

Disembodied by the death of the original body Capacity to interact with the physical world

Ghosts & Minds

Interaction Not assumed that a ghost must be immaterial

Theories of Mind Identity Theory

Materialist theory Each mental state is identical to a state of the CNS Mind is equivalent to the CNS and its states. There are ghosts.

Substance Dualism Reality contains at least two types of entities

Material Immaterial

Ghosts & Minds

Mind is immaterial Ghosts are a possibility Interaction after death

Property Dualism The mind & body are not distinct substances. The mind is composed of mental properties. Example The mind and body are distinct, but not different substances.

Property Dualism: Epiphenomenalism One way relation between mental and physical properties. Mental properties are caused by physical properties. The mind is causally inert. Mental properties are causally dependent on physical properties.

Ghosts & Minds

There are no ghosts. Property Dualism: Interactionism

Mental properties of the mind interact with the physical properties. Mental properties can bring about changes. Mental properties could survive bodily death. Mental properties might exist as a bundle. Mental properties might require a substance. New body Interaction with the physical world.

Ghosts & Minds

Functionalism Functional terms Functional definition of a mental state Materialist view of the mind Differences between identity theory & functionalism Ghosts are possible Functions of the mind Interaction with physical world New physical system

Conclusion Conclusion

Dualism, property dualism and functionalism allow for ghosts. Identity theory permits no ghosts.

The Problem of Universals

The Problem of Universals Introduction

Plato & Aristotle Universal Speech & Thought Metaphysical nature of universals

Thales: The Problem of the One & the Many 624-545 B.C. Sought to find the unity underlying the diversity of the world. Determining the basic principle that accounts for everything.


Tokens & Types Type Token The problem: in virtue of what does a specific token fall under a type? In virtue of what is token a of the type F?

Realism Defined

Universals are real & exist in the world. Universals are immaterial Separate from sensible objects or not

John Scotus Erigena St. Anselm William of Champeux


Scholasticism Charlemagne Scholastics Dominant

Scholastic Formulation of the Problem Boethius’s translation of Porphyry’s introduction to Aristotle’s

Categories. Question 1: Do universals exist as metaphysical entities or only in the

understanding? Question 2: If universals exist as metaphysical entities are they material

or immaterial? Question 3: If universals exist as metaphysical entities are they separate

from sensible objects or not?


Epistemic Motivation Aristotle’s logic Reasoning Knowledge Correspondence between reality & logic.

Scholastic Theological Motivation: Original Sin Original sin Odo of Tournai Human sin Shared universal

Scholastic Theological Motivation: Trinity Trinity Divine essence as single universal


Problem Humanness falls under the universal mammal All universals are subsumed under Being If Being is identical to God, then Pantheism John Scotus Erigena Unaware of Criticism

Nominalism Defined

Nomina Universals are merely names Individuals


Roscelin (1050-1120) Teacher Heretic Only particulars exist Universals do not have metaphysical existence. Flatus Vocis “Trinity” is a mere name.

Problems Commonsense Christian theology Original sin Trinity


Conceptualism Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

Student of Roscelin & William of Champeaux Argued against realism & nominalism

Abelard’s Attacks on Realism Universals can have inconsistent qualities. The problem of multiple location. Pantheism

Abelard’s View of Universal Words Universal words point to universal concepts. Concept: word’s logical content or meaning. Common & confused image


Abelard’s Moderate Nominalism General concepts in the mind Mental constructs

Abelard’s Steps Towards Moderate Realism Abstraction Objective basis, but do not exist apart. Distinction in reason. Alternative to Realism


Moderate Realism Early Moderate Realism

Abelard, Aquinas & others Universal ideas are in the mind, but based on reality. Universals exist ante rem (before things) in God’s Mind Universals exist in rem (in things) as properties that group via

resemblance. Universals exist post rem (after things) as mental concepts formed by

abstraction. The particular is the basic ontological entity. Trope theory

Meeting Yourself

Introduction Travel Meeting Yourself Problem & Paradoxes

Metaphysical Problems & Universals Problem of Multiple Location The Problem of Universals Universals Universals & Time Travel

Meeting Yourself

Tropes Tropes No Time Travel With Tropes Relativity The End of Instantiated Universals Reconciling Tropes & Time Travel The Problem of Universals Universals Universals & Time Travel

Taoist Metaphysics

The Tao Origin of the Tao Naming the Tao Names of the Tao The Tao & Water The Tao & Emptiness Qualities of the Tao Passing On Interacting with the Tao Law Action of the Tao

Taoist Metaphysics

Movement of the Tao Production

The Sage The Sage does without doing Possessing the Tao Desires The Sage Great

Knowledge Opposites

part iii epistemology & metaphysics introduction to philosophy

Documents

sphere of knowledge

cave knowledge opinion

perfect knowledge

source of knowledge

short knowledge

knowledge communing

posteriori knowledge

sensess knowledge