Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
44 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
According to Ayer, meaningful statements.
|
Analytic, tautological, or a priori statements. (logically true or false by virtue of the way words or symbols are used)
AND Empirical or synthetic statements. (require sense impressions in order to determine their truth or falsity) |
|
According to Ayer, meaningless statements.
|
Metaphysical statements. (they fail the test of verifiability, unlike analytical or empirical statements)
AND Emotive statements, ethic/moral and aesthetic. (only meaningful in terms of what they express of internal feelings) |
|
Ayer's Paragraph
|
The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is actually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the propositions which it purports to express - that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under what conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false... For a statement of fact to be a genuine proposition some possible observations of fact must be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood.
|
|
The Critic's Answer to A.J. Ayer
|
In essence Ayer said: "All meaningful statements or propositions are either analytic (true by definition) or empirical (true by reference to the world). Both analytic and empirical statements can be shown to be true or false. All other statements (claims) are metaphysical, can not be shown to be true or false, and are therefore without meaning."
This claim by Ayer is itself neither analytic nor empirical and is therefore without meaning. |
|
Groupthink
|
I IS SOUR
Isolation leads to distortion of reality Illusion of group's invulnerability Superiority feel morally Self-appointed mind-guards, enforce Outsiders stereotyped (distortion) Us vs. them mentality Reality - out of touch with |
|
Paradigm
|
A form based on a single pattern of thought. A lens through which you see the world. A world view. A pattern of thought deeply and unconsciously ingrained.
|
|
Statement of the Problem of Evil
|
How is the apparent existence of evil compatible with a loving (providential), omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator? If God is all-powerful and good why doesn't He destroy all evil?
|
|
Solutions to Problem of Evil
|
FERNS PLIGHT
Freedom/Free will of humans cause Evil doesn't exist, all for best Removed Himself after He made.. Natural law not operate capriciously Strengthened through suffering Pseudo-problem language holiday Limited power - intervene if could Incomplete goodness, God perfect Good defined by evil, need contrast Home of God, death better place Test the faithful |
|
Conclusion to Abraham/Isaac/God
|
God must not have had prior knowledge of Abraham's pending decision. The reason: foreknowledge is generally understood (by most philosophers) to mean preordained.
|
|
Fallacy
|
Mistake in reasoning or inference
|
|
Fallacy of Equivocation
|
A crucial word within an argument is used with two different meanings.
|
|
Amphiboly
|
An entire sentence in an argument is ambiguous rather than a single word.
|
|
Fallacy of Significance
|
There's no point of reference, must compare to something different or bigger to have significance.
|
|
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
|
Sampling error - making generalizations after having only encountered a few cases.
|
|
Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context
|
The careful manipulation of material printed or quoted where important information is withheld.
|
|
Fallacy of Emphasis
|
Incorrect emphasis of the words in a sentence. Improper stress is placed on some portion of a premise or conclusion so the meaning of the argument is distorted.
|
|
Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem
|
Attacking the person and not the argument.
|
|
Fallacy of Arguing from Authority
|
When someone says something is true because a figure of power or fame has endorsed the same statement.
|
|
Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance
|
This argument contends that something must be true because there i no evidence to disprove it.
|
|
Fallacy of Begging the Question
|
This fallacy is also called a circle argument. This is an argument in which the premises used to prove a conclusion already assume the conclusion is true.
|
|
Fallacy of Composition
|
Attributes the characteristics of the parts of something to the whole thing itself.
|
|
Fallacy of Division
|
Attributes the characteristics of a whole thing to one or more of its parts.
|
|
Fallacy of Appealing to Emotion
|
Attempting to establish the validity of an argument, not with valid reasoning but rather in appealing to the passions, emotions, and prejudices of the audience.
|
|
Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion
|
An argument in which someone starts out to prove one thing and winds up proving something else.
|
|
Deductive Argument
|
The premises are intended to prove that the conclusion must be true. They move from the general to the specific, from the universal to the particular.
|
|
Inductive Argument
|
Attempt to establish that the conclusion is probably true. They move from the particular to the universal, from the specific to the general.
|
|
Epistemology
|
The branch of philosophy which attempts to define knowledge and explain how it is acquired.
|
|
Empiricism
|
A branch of epistemology that believes that important truths are determined by observation (5 senses).
|
|
Rationalism
|
A branch of epistemology which believes that knowledge is discovered through pure reason and/or how we use language or symbols.
|
|
Metaphysics
|
The branch of philosophy that attempts to answer the question: what is the ultimate reality?
(meta = beyond, physics = study of physical world) |
|
Aesthetics
|
The branch of philosophy which asks questions such as: what is beautiful? What is art? What is the sublime? and related questions.
|
|
Ethics
|
The branch of philosophy which asks questions such as: What is wrong or right? What is the good life (or variations of that question)?
|
|
Morality
|
The branch of ethics which asks the question: What is right and what is wrong? How can one tell what is right or wrong?
|
|
Philosophy
|
The love of wisdom.
(philo = love, sophy = wisdom) |
|
Philosopher
|
A lover of wisdom.
|
|
4 Attributes of God
|
Omnipotent
Omniscient Omnipresent Loving, providential |
|
Determinism
|
Belief that antecedent causes determine your choices.
|
|
Free Will/Indeterminism
|
Belief that there are events that are uncaused in some sense.
|
|
Compatibilism
|
Belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas.
|
|
Syllogism
|
A deductive argument that contains 2 (or more) premises and a conclusion.
|
|
Satre
|
Indeterminism view - what is generates what is not, therefore consciousness must be uncaused.
|
|
Immanuel Kant
|
Compatibilism view - we can view ourselves in two ways, as a part of nature where we are determined, or as a consciousness we are free.
|
|
Thomas Hobbes
|
Compatibilism view - we are free to the extent to which we are not externally contained.
|
|
2 Classic Problems with 4 Attributes of God
|
The Problem of Evil
-If God has all 4 attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and loving, providential), why do bad things happen? How can he let people suffer? The Problem of Human Freedom -Are we moral agents? -Does foreknowledge mean foreordained? |