Philosophy 1010
Class #3
Title:
Introduction to Philosophy
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu
Today:
Submit Logic Homework Assignment.
Submit Brief Essay
Did anyone watch one of the movies discussed in Chapter
One? What did it suggest about a philosophical question that
we have discussed?
Assignments for 1/7/13:
1 Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text With
Readings Chapter 2, pp. 48-69,
2. Submit Revised First Essay
3. Brief Movie Scene Analysis from Chapter Two
Philosophy Applied
Watch any movie listed below. Write a 3
paragraph (200-250 word) mini-essay
discussing one or two scenes in the movie and
how the scene(s) illustrate(s) a philosophical
view on the Nature of Man that is discussed in
Chapter Two.
Movie List: Schindler’s List (1993), River’s Edge
(1986), Leaving Las Vegas (1995), Blade Runner
(1982), Who is Julia? (1986), A.I.: Artificial
Intelligence (2001), Momento (2000), Total Recall
(1990), The Bourne Identity (2002), Bend It Like
Beckham (2002), My Big Fat Greek Wedding
(2002), The Long Walk Home (1990), Dark City
(1998)
Philosophy Applied:
Schindler’s List
Schindler’s List tells the true story of the German
businessman Oskar Schindler who comes to Nazioccupied Poland in hopes of using the abundant slave
labor force of Jews to manufacture goods for the
German military to make himself a fortune. By the end
of the film, he saves the lives of more than 1,100 Jews
by sacrificing his personal fortune.
While watching these film segments, consider views on
human nature that you will be reading about in chapter
two of the textbook:
e.g. Sigmund Freud, Thomas Hobbes,
Moritz Schlick, Aristotle, Jean-Paul Sartre
Writing Assignment
Worth 10 points in Participation Category.
Review your answer to the question from the
first week of class. Evaluate your argument
(and if you wish improve it) based on the
principles of logic that we have discussed.
Can you now propose a better argument? Be
sure you state specifically what is your
claim/conclusion? Does the question you
asked still need to be clarified? What are your
premises or “reasons to believe”? Is your
argument deductive or inductive? If deductive,
is it valid? If inductive, is it strong?
So How Should We DO Philosophy?
Not “just anything goes!” Philosophy is guided by
the commitment to careful reasoning which is
“playing by the rules.”
Basketball is a team sport in which two teams of five
players try to score points by throwing or "shooting"
a ball through the top of a basketball hoop ...
The Father of Western Philosophy
•
Socrates, 460-399 B. C.
•
Socrates' deserves credit for rigorous, ethical
investigation. His conversations with his fellow
Athenians are the first records we have of an
individual, by careful reasoning, trying to discover
the guiding principles of moral choices.
•
But be careful. There were many Greek thinkers
(actually known as “The Pre-Socratics”) prior to
Socrates who developed profound insights into the
nature of the universe and man’s place in it.
•
Socrates built a reputation on questioning
conventional beliefs, thus embodying the
nature of philosophy itself.
What is the Socratic method?
•
“Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling”
•
Socrates engaged himself in questioning students in
an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the
foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by
asking continual questions until a contradiction was
exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial
assumption.
•
This became known as the Socratic Method, and may
be Socrates' most enduring contribution to philosophy.
•
Socrates was both a real philosopher and the major
character in Plato’s (his student’s) dialogues. Thus, it
is not clear to what degree Socrates was a precursor
to Plato’s ideas or was a mouthpiece for Plato to put
forward his own views.
Video
Plato
c. 427-347 B. C.
Plato is history's first great philosopher
because, among other reasons, he provided
the first set of answers to some of the largest
and most difficult questions: What is the
structure of reality? What can be known for
certain? What is moral virtue? What is the
nature of the ideal state?
No philosopher before Plato had ever
attempted such a wide and deep exploration
of philosophical problems.
Plato’s Dialogues &
the Socratic Method
•
Plato’s dialogues demonstrate the Socratic Method.
•
In The Euthyphro, Plato shows Socrates questioning
traditional religious beliefs and the nature of religious
duty. He asks “what is it to be holy” and Euthyphro
says that being holy is “doing what the gods love.”
•
Class, has Euthyphro given a good answer to the
question? Does he really understand or is he just
assuming that he knows?
•
Socrates probes further: what makes a thing holy? Is
an act holy because it is loved by the gods or do the
gods love what is holy because it is holy?
•
If the first, are the gods capricious and random and
be able to select anything to be holy? If the latter,
then we have not answer the original question at all.
Plato’s Dialogues &
the Socratic Method
•
In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates questions
Thrasymachus who states that justice is whatever is
to the advantage of the strong, that “might makes
right.”
•
Socrates asks what if the powerful pass laws that in
error do not benefit themselves. Would not justice
then be following laws that do not benefit the
strong? Then justice would be in following laws that
do not benefit them.
•
Thus, Socrates has pointed out to Thrasymachus
that his commonly held view is quite likely
inconsistent, or at least needs to be qualified and
made clearer.
Plato’s Dialogues &
the Socratic Search for How to Live
•
Plato’s dialogues demonstrate that Socrates was
not just trying to be “smart” but was in the profound
pursuit of how one should live.
•
In The Apology, Socrates defends his way of life.
He proclaims that his mission came from a divine
commandment to seek wisdom. Thus, he
questioned everyone he professed knowledge to
find wisdom, only to find that the wisest man is he
who knows he does not know.
•
Even in the face of death, Socrates proclaims he
can act no differently. It is better to obey the
gods than man. The unexamined life is not worth
living. His pursuit of philosophy is following the
instruction of the gods.
Video
Plato’s Dialogues &
the Socratic Search for How to Live
•
In the Crito, Socrates is awaiting execution in his
prison. Crito suggests that for the benefit of his
friends and family, Socrates should escape. “It is
the opinion of all of your friends, Socrates.”
•
Socrates replies that in order to act on reason
alone, Socrates asks Crito what is right and wrong
and we must not follow the “morality of the many”
but follow what is truly right.
•
Socrates further argues that what is the right way
to live consists in obeying the state in which we
have contracted to live. Thus, we must obey the
laws of the society in which we live, even when
those laws and actions are unjust.
Ten Minute Break!
The Fundamental Principle of Critical
Thinking is The Nature of an Argument
•
Making a claim is stating a belief or
opinion -- the conclusion
•
An argument is presented when you
give a reason or reasons that the claim
is true. -- the premise(s)
•
Thus, an argument consists of two
parts, and one part (the premise or
premises) is/are the reason(s) for
thinking that the conclusion is true.
Two Kinds of Good Arguments
•
1) A good deductive argument is one in
which if the premises are true, then the
conclusion necessarily (I.e. has to be) true.
•
Such an argument is called “valid” and
“proves” the conclusion.
•
For example – Julie lives in the United States
because she lives in Nebraska.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
____
Socrates is mortal.
•
A sound argument is a valid, deductive
argument in which the premises are in fact true.
How Do Premises Support Conclusions?
For a Deductive argument, premises prove a
conclusion based on the logical form of the
statement.
Consider the argument:
(P1) If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet.
(P2) It’s raining outside.
_________________________
(Conclusion) The grass is wet.
In this case, the premises support the conclusion
fully simply by what the premises say. It would
be a contradiction to suggest that the conclusion
is false but the premises are true.
A. Categorical Arguments
•
Categorical Logic is logic based on the
relations of inclusion and exclusion among
classes.
•
That is, categorical logic is about things
being in and out of groups and what it
means to be in or out of one group by being
in or out of another group.
•
The following is a categorical syllogism:
(Premise 1) All Americans are consumers.
(Premise 2) Some consumers are not Democrats.
(Conclusion) Some Americans are not Democrats.
B. Hypothetical Arguments
“If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. It’s raining
outside. Thus, the grass is wet.”
We often use variables to represent statements to
analyze arguments. In this case, say for example,
R = It’s raining outside; W = The grass is wet.
and “->” as if/then,
1) Thus we have an argument of the form:
R -> W
R
_____
W
This is the rule of modus ponens.
2)
“If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. The
grass is not wet. Thus, it is not raining.”
R -> W
~W
_____
~R
This is the rule of Modus Tollens.
So what kind of an argument is this?
A good God would not permit evil to exist.
There is evil in the world.
____
Thus, a good God does not exist.
Say G = A good God exists, E= There is no evil in the
world.
Is this argument of the form:
If G  E
~E
_____
~G
If so, it is a valid deductive argument.
C. Disjunctive Arguments
“Either it’s raining outside or the grass is dry. The
grass is not dry. Thus, It’s raining outside.”
A before, we use variables to represent statements to
analyze arguments. In this case, say for example,
R = It’s raining outside; D = The grass is dry.”
and “v” as either/or” and “~” as not.
1) Thus we have an argument of the form:
RvD
~D
_____
R
D. Chain Arguments
“If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. If the grass
is wet, then our toddler will slip and fall. Thus, if it
is raining outside, our toddler will slip and fall.”
R -> W
W -> S
_____
R -> S
Two kinds of good arguments
•
2) A good inductive argument is one in
which if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is probably true, but not
always. The truth of the premises do not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
•
Such an argument is called “strong”
and supports the conclusion.
•
For example: Craig lives in
Nebraska and he loves football, so
he is a Nebraska Cornhusker fan.
If offered to me before class today, I would
have made a bet with my wife that each of you would
sit in the same seat in class that you did last
Wednesday. If she would have taken the bet, would I
have won more money than I would have lost?
How Do Premises Support Conclusions?
For an Inductive argument, premises support
(never prove) a conclusion based on how good the
premises provide evidence for the conclusion.
Consider the argument:
(P1) If it’s raining outside, the grass near the house
gets wet when the wind is not blowing strongly
from the North (which doesn’t often occur).
(P2) It’s raining outside.
_________________________
The grass near the house is wet.
Note: It would not be a contradiction to suggest
that the conclusion is false but the premises are
true.
How Does Sometimes
Our Thinking Crash?
Rhetoric
We are often influenced by rhetoric, language that is
psychologically persuasive but does not have pertinent
logical force.
There are many kinds of rhetorical deceptions or “devices”,
including:
hyperbole,
proof surrogates,
image rhetoric, and
euphemisms
Subjectivism
•
The view that “one opinion is as good as another,” or
“whatever is true is only what you think is true” is
subjectivism.
•
For some things, this makes sense. Does Miller taste
great?
•
To tell if something is subjective, ask yourself: “If Curtis
says “A” is true and Alicia says “A” is not true, can they
both be right?
•
One cannot give an argument either for or against a
subjective position.
•
Now, do you really believe that whether God exists is
subjective? What about other philosophical issues? Is
what is real dependent on what your friend thinks it is?
When you reach out to catch a ball, do you “really”
believe whether your friend believes the ball is not real
matters?
Logical Fallacies
are “Screw-ups” in Reasoning
Logical Fallacies can be Formal or Informal.
A formal fallacy is something like: All mothers are
women. Janice is a woman. Thus, Janice is a
mother.
This is a formal fallacy because its logical form is
invalid.
An informal fallacy is something like: Janice
believes in God. Janice is not good at algebra.
Thus, God does not exist.
That is, an informal fallacy are errors in logic
usually because the “premises” of the
argument either are ambiguous or irrelevant
to the claim.
Ten Minute Break!
Informal Fallacies often occur
when the purported premise is
not even relevant. (These are
known as “the fallacies of
relevance”)
They include:
Appeal to Emotion/Authority
Ad Hominems
Argument from Ignorance
Begging the Question
Wishful Thinking
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
•
Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes.
•
The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of the
argument itself with the qualities of the person making
the claim. Most Ad Hominem arguments are negative.
•
In an ad hominem, a person attacks the proponent of an
argument rather than analyzing the argument itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emz5hpxkrw
Misplacing the Burden /
Argument from Ignorance
•
The burden of proof in an argument rests on the person
making the claim. It is her responsibility to give the
premises and the reasons to believe her claim is true.
•
To try to shift the burden of proof onto the person who is
listening to your argument and trying to make him show
that you are wrong is called misplacing the burden of
proof.
•
A particular example of this logical error is the appeal to
ignorance which suggests that we should believe
something because no one has proven or shown it to be
wrong.
Begging the Question
•
Begging the question is assuming as true the claim that
is at issue and is to be supported.
For example, God exists because the Bible says so and
we should believe what the Bible says because it was
written by God.
Another example:
An old gold miner’s joke:
One gold prospector asks the other: Why do you get
two pieces of gold for every one I get. The second
answers “Because I am the leader.” The first then
replies but why are you the leader? The second
responds: “Because I have twice the gold you do.”
Wishful Thinking
•
Our hopes, desires and personal needs can delude
us and make us vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful
thinking.
•
We should always be able to recognize when analyzing
an argument what we want to believe and be sure that
our desires are not overriding our critical thinking and
making us come to conclusions simply because of what
“we want to believe.”
•
We may want to believe, for example, that God exists so
that we might feel more secure or happy. We must thus
separate that wish from the reasons that can serve as
premises for our claim that God exists.
•
You probably don’t want to believe this, but it is likely
true: http://www.scholarspot.com/video/11916/4415/Media-MultitaskersPay-Mental-Price
Informal Fallacies also occur when it
is not recognized that the purported
premise is ambiguous. (These are
known as “fallacies of ambiguity”)
These include:
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Composition/Division
1. Equivocation: words or phrases change
meaning between premises and conclusion.
(semantic confusion)
All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I
deposit my money is beside a river.
2. Amphiboly : change of meaning due to
grammar (syntactical confusion)
One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
Thus, elephants wear pajamas.
3. Composition/Division: The confusion is in
attributing the characteristics of part (or
whole) to the whole (or part).
All the books in this library are good. Thus, this
is as a good library. (Composition)
This is a good library. Thus, you can be sure
that
all the books in this library are good. (Division)
4 Steps to Evaluating an Argument
1.
Be sure you understand the argument. What
is the claim? What are the premises for the
claim?
2.
Determine if the argument is deductive or
inductive and apply the appropriate test for
validity or strong support.
3.
Identify and weed out any logical fallacies,
rhetoric, subjectivity, or irrelevancies. Clarify
any vagueness or ambiguity.
4.
Examine the truth of the premises. If the
argument is inductive, evaluate the evidence.