An Introduction to Philosophy

1. An Introduction to Philosophy

2. Etymology of Philosophy etymology: philo-sophia philo = love of sophia = wisdom

3. I. What Is Philosophy? A. The Subject Matter of Philosophy • 1. Philosophy studies some general, fundamental questions, about the • nature of the world and our place in it. • B. Three main branches: • 1. Metaphysics - studies what sorts of things in general exist, and • what sort of world this is. (Examples: existence of God, free will vs. determinism, distinction between body and soul, and the Ship of Theseus question) 2. Epistemology - Studies the nature of knowledge - what is it and how do we know what we know? 3. Ethics - studies evaluative questions - what is good/bad, what should one do in general, etc. C. Philosophy is the critical examination of fundamental concepts and beliefs.

4. I. What Is Philosophy? --cont. D. Some smaller branches of philosophy: 1. Political philosophy - studies the source of political authority, the best overall structure for society and/or the state, and related questions. (Can be seen as a branch of ethics.) 2. Aesthetics - studies the nature of art, beauty, and related questions. (More generally: the nature of aesthetic qualities.) • 3. Logic - studies reasoning, esp. the principles of correct • reasoning. Closely related to, but not the same as, • epistemology. E. The Methods of Philosophy 1. Philosophy in the Western tradition mainly relies on logical arguments and common experience.

5. II. The Ontological Argument A. An a priori argument for the existence of God. B. Not based on experience. C. Premise: 1. Premise 1: God is the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. 2. Premise 2: If a being exists in the understanding alone (and not in reality), then a being which is greater than it can be conceived. 3. Conclusion:God does not exist in the understanding alone -- God exists in reality.

6. III. The Cosmological Argument A. The Cosmological Argument: First Version (Aquinas 1225-1274) 1. Things are moved/changed/caused by something else. a) The causal series that Aquinas has in mind is not a temporal series. He is concerned with sustaining causes. For example, consider a chain with several links that is hanging from a hook. For any link in the chain, the immediate sustaining cause of its being suspended from the ground is the link immediately above it. b) This premise assumes that things require an explanation (i.e., a mover, a change or a cause). ----Note--This premise rules out "nothing" as a source of explanation. 2. This cannot go on forever. ----Problems with an infinite regress--it violates the rule that things require explanation. ----There would be no explanation for the positive fact that there is this infinite series of moving/changing/causing. 3. Therefore, there must be a first mover/changer/cause. 4. This is God.

7. III. The Cosmological Argument– cont. B. The Cosmological Argument: Second Version (Clarke 1675-1729) 1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent. --Dependent Being = Explained by other --Self-existent Being = Explained by self --Note--This premise rules out "nothing" as a source of explanation. ---This premise assumes that things require an explanation (either self or other). 2. Not every being can be dependent. ---Problem with an infinite series of dependent beings--it violates the rule that things require an explanation. ---There would be no explanation for the positive fact that there is this infinite series of dependent beings. 3. Therefore, there must be a self-existent being. 4. This is God.

8. III. The Cosmological Argument– cont. C. Premise-One version: 1. Premise 1: The universe began to exist. 2. Premise 2: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 3. Conclusion: The universe had a cause of its existence. 4. Further step: this cause is God.

9. IV. The Argument from Design A. Aquinas, Paley (1743-1805) B. Also called Teleology = Purpose; this is the argument for God's existence from the apparent purposefulness found in the universe. C. Arguments by Analogy ---Ex. Aspects of dogs are like cats. Dogs make good pets. Therefore cats make good pets. ---What aspects of dogs are like cats? Dogs: 4 legs, tail, housebroken. Cats: 4 legs, tail, housebroken. ---Note--Not all analogous features are relevant to the conclusion. In the above example, only the analogous feature housebroken is relevant to the good pet conclusion. Many four-legged creatures with tails wouldn't make good pets (e.g., tigers).

10. IV. The Argument from Design—cont. . D. Paley’s version (given in 1800): 1. If you found a watch in a heath, you would assume it had a designer. 2. But the human eye is even more sophisticated -- we should assume that it had a designer too. E. . The “Beautiful Universe” version of the Argument from Design 1. Premise 1: The fundamental laws of physics are beautiful -- they are simple yet elegant 2. Premise 2: If God doesn’t exist, this would be improbable. 3. Premise 3: If God does exist, this would be expected. 4. Conclusion: The fact that the laws are beautiful provides evidence for the existence of God.

11. IV. The Argument from Design—cont. F. The Teleological Argument: Argument By Analogy 1. Aspects of natural world are like machines. 2. Machines are produced by intelligent design. 3. Therefore, aspects of natural world are produced by intelligent design (God).

12. V. Types of Argument A. Deductive Reasoning • 1. Moves from a conclusion to the evidencefor that conclusion. 2. We start with the conclusion and then see if the evidence for that conclusion is valid. 3. Generally, if the evidence is valid, the conclusion it supports is valid as well. In other words, deductive reasoning involves asking: a) What is the conclusion? b) What evidence supports it? c) Is that evidence logical? If you can answer yes to question 3, then the conclusion should be logical and the argument sound.

13. V. Types of Argument– cont. B. Inductive Reasoning 1. Consists of making observations and then drawing conclusions based on those observations. 2. Moving from the specific—a particular observation—to the general—a larger conclusion. 3. Starts from observation and evidence and leads to a conclusion. 4. Using inductive reasoning generally involves the following questions: a) What have you observed? What evidence is available? b) What can you conclude from that evidence? c) Is that conclusion logical?

14. VI. The Difference Between Inductive and Deductive A. Inductive: Evidence ·Conclusion (IEC) 1. Like a detective, you use inductive reasoning all the time in your daily life. Ex: Every time eat a hotdog with chili and onions get a stomach ache logically conclude that the hotdog causes indigestion and should probably stop eating them. B. Deductive: Conclusion ·Evidence (DCE) • 1. includes formal (mathematical or symbolic) logic such as syllogisms • and truth tables. 2. Parts of the Deductive Argument a) The conclusion is the main claim or point the argument is trying to make. b) The various pieces of evidence that support that conclusion are called premises. c) An argument refers to a claim that is supported by evidence. Whether or not that evidence is good is another matter! 3. Deductive arguments can be supported by premises that work alone (separate support) or together (chain of support).