Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Philosophy, IS RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE MEANINGFUL?, Teleological Arg, Are there…

- - - - it is conceivable that the mind and brain are distinct and separate substances
    - - Whereas the body is divisible to parts, further and further into the different components of different things, the mind cannot be divided into distinct parts.
    - - Introspectively accessible, intrinsic, non-intentional properties of experience.
      - (a 3 marker answer for 'what are quaiia?')
  - - - Soft Behaviourism
      - Hard Behaviourism
    - - Epiphenomenalist Dualism
        
        there are mental properties distinct from physical properties but they have no causal power.
        similar to how the steam of a train is the bi-product of the engine, the mind is a result of physical properties.
        not consider generally good/strong.
      - one kind of substance (the physical) but with properties, some which are not functional or physical properties. for example mental properties
      - Eliminative Materialism
        
        some or all common-sense mental states/properties do not exist and our common-sense understanding of mind is radically mistaken.
        
        qualia do NOT exist.
        
        common sense 'folk-psychological'
        
        start with understanding what we can, and in time science will be eventually be able to understand.
        
        commensurable with science.
      - Qualia Do Exist.
      - Physicalism is insufficient for explaining all of reality at this point in time. Does not overall reject physicalism, just seeks to amend it.
- - - - spacial disorder
  - - - within and throughout time
    - - outside of time
  - - - Al-Gazāli
      - THE FORMAL ARGUMENT
      - THE CAUSE
    - - 1st Way
      - 2nd Way
      - 3rd Way
  - - - Religious Language Meaningful?
        
        Non-Cognitivists
        
        No - religious language is not meaningful as it expresses things like feelings/emotions rather than truth-apt beliefs
        
        Cognitivists
        
        yes - religious language is meaningful because religious statements are truth-apt
      - Can religious statements be verified?
        
        No - Ayer - they fail verification principle
        
        Yes - Hick
        
        they are verified eschatologically (after death)
        
        because everything is verifiable - so verification is a bad test
    - - Popper
        
        something only 'knowledge' if it can be potentially be tested & falsifiable.
        
        talking about science
        
        Could argue that this is misdirected at science, instead of this focus - religion
      - Flew
        
        Wisdom's 'Gardener'
        
        adds more and more conditions of this invisible, intangible, un-experienced gardener
        
        there is no difference between this gardener of infinite conditions, and no-gardener
- - - - Reality is exactly how it is perceived,
  - - - Locke
        
        Tabulla Raza
      - Everything must be proven by expereince
      - Hume
        
        Copy Principle
        
        Humes Fork
    - - Leibniz
        
        Leibniz Law
        
        Marble Analogy
        
        Necessary Truths
      - Plato
        
        Realm of Forms
        
        Argument from Recollection
        
        Memo’s Slave Boy
  - - - BERKLEY
        
        Idealism
        
        Solipsism
      - Brain In a Vat
        
        Putman
      - Russel
    - - Descartes
        
        3 WAVES OF DOUBT
        
        Doubting Senses
        
        Doubting if we are dreaming
        
        Doubting if we are being tricked of our entire reality by an all powerful Evil Demon
    - - Evil Demon - Descartes
      - Problem of Other Minds
      - Solipsism - Berkley
      - Brain in a Vat - Putnam
  - - - Fake Barn County
      - JTB :
        
        Justified
        
        True
        
        Believed
        
        Alterations
      - Gettier Case 1
      - Gettier Case 2
- - - - The only thing good in and of itself and without qualification - acting for the right reasons.
    - - Acting in accordance with duty
        
        acting with self interest on a duty
      - Acting out of duty
        
        out of one's knowledge of what is the right thing to do - only motivated by duty
    - - Imperatives
        
        Hypothetical Imperative
        
        Done in order to meet a personal aim or goal
        
        Categorical Imperative
        
        Done at all times, no matter what - considered the moral claims by Kant
      - First formulation of Categorical Imperative
        
        Act only according to maxims/rules which can be willed as universal laws
        
        If it leads to a Contradiction in Conception we have a perfect duty not to ever do it
        
        Universal Law - "you should steal" leads to a contradiction in conception as it would be logically impossible to steal - you have the right to any property, stealing becomes a void concept if all property belongs to no one.
        
        If it leads to a Contradiction in Will we have an imperfect duty to try and avoid that thing
      - Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative
        
        Act only in a way that treats humanity as an end and not a mere means
        
        treating as an end: recognise that humanity is rational and people have their own desires and needs
        
        treating as a mere means: to do something without a person's consent/to remove their ability to be free/rational/autonomous - ie: stealing; lying; not giving to the poor
      - CRITICISM//EVALUATION
        
        Clashing/Competing Duties
        
        against first formulation - Sartre trying to advise a young man whether her should fight for his country or look after his mother (both imperfect duties)
        
        Maxims
        
        Not all universalisable maxim's are moral - "Capitalise the first letter of sentences" - These can be universalised but have nothing to do with morality.
        
        Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral - "Always let others through the door first"; "Give all you can to the poor" - lead to contradiction but are not immoral
        
        General
        
        consequences determine moral value ie: stealing when starving family; lie to the axe murderer at door to protect your friend
        
        Kant ignores motives - Kant says we should only act out of duty, but sometimes it seems better to act out of love/friendship (ie: giving presents)
        
        Foot - Morality is Hypothetical - sometimes it is moral to partake in a hypothetical imperative
- - - - Flew - used Popper's idea of falsification to show that 'God Exists' is not falsifiable so not meaningful.
        
        Mitchell - Statements like 'God Exists' are articles of faith so are meaningful but the believer may not allow them to be falsified
        
        Hare - claims such as "God Exists" (and "God does not exist") are unfalsifiable, and therefore impossible to change someone's mind/'blik'. These views are meaningful to the person that holds them as the affect how someone sees the world and acts.
        
        Uses the concept of 'Bliks' - expressions of the way a person sees the world as such these views cannot be changed by offering up empirical evidence
        
        He argues there are 'insane Bliks' and sane ones
        
        Although, there is no way to establish how much more valid or 'sane' one is more than another
        
        The parable of the partisan holding the belief that the soldier is on their side, despite all the physical evidence against that only-verbally-spoken claim
        
        Parable of Wisdom's (invisible, infallible) Gardener
- - - - Swinburne’s Response - there is multiple unique cases like big bang and human race - only 1 - we think conclusions drawn are convincing
        
        CONVINCING? Conclusions of big bang, for example, have been tested multiple different ways and times ie by a hadron collider. Lots of different people within the human race and have been infinite changes through time and evolution - potentially neither are unique cases.
- - - - (cannot be refuted deductively; evidence based; commensurable with science; Ockam's Razor)
  - - - intuitive; empirical
    - - .
    - - OBJECTION
        
        How can a perfect God have imperfect Ideas
      - Idealism + Scepticism resolved by God - Solves BIV/Solipsism
      - Descartes
        
        Cogito, God, External world
        
        OBJECTION
        
        Hume's fork/copy principle
- - - - .