Philosophy 1010
Class #3
Title:
Introduction to Philosophy
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu
Today:
Submit Logic Homework Assignment.
Assignments for 9/25/13:
1 Read Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text With Readings,
Chapter 2, pp. 50-96
-- Let’s assign class discussion leaders
2. Submit Revised First Essay
3. Re-do your logic assignment if you wish.
4. Evaluate your syllabus argument. Identify issue,
type of argument, and whether it is factual or
normative. Judge relevance and strength of premises.
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?
What is the Value of Philosophy?
“We can help one another to find out the meaning of
life. But in the last analysis , the individual person is
responsible for living his own life and for ‘finding
himself.’ Others can give you a name or a number,
but they can never tell you who you really are. That
is something you yourself can only discover from
within.”
….Thomas Merton
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
“The only thing I know is that I know nothing.”
….Socrates
Is Philosophy Important to Living a Good Life?
Some claims for Studying Philosophy –
Do you agree? Why or why not?
• Philosophy enlarges our understanding of the world
and expands freedom of thought. Philosophy can
release us from the "prejudices derived from common
sense", from the "habitual belief of an age or nation",
and from convictions that have grown up "without the
cooperation or consent of (our) deliberate reason".
(Russell)
• Philosophy may help develop the capacity to look at
the world from the perspective of other individuals
and cultures. It develops tolerance and critical sense.
• By discussing political and social issues,
philosophy raises public awareness and helps in
forming engaged and responsible citizens.
Is Philosophy Unavoidable?
Philosophy is not a bauble of the
intellect, but a power from which no
man can abstain. Anyone can say that
he dispenses with a view of reality,
knowledge, the good, but no one can
implement this credo. The reason is
that man, by his nature as a conceptual
being, cannot function at all without
some form of philosophy to serve as his
guide.
…Leonard Peikoff
A Philosopher in Action: Socrates
•
James Brady, Group Leader
Euthyphro
The Republic
The Apology
Crito
Questions?
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.
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!
Critical Thinking &
Critical Reasoning
What is an Argument?
Video
Critical Thinking &
Critical Reasoning
Class Discussion on
Appendix 1.8 of Text
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.
What is a Factual Claim?
• A claim is sometimes called an assertion,
an opinion, a belief, a “view”, a thought, a
conviction, or perhaps, an idea.
• A claim must be expressed as a statement
or a complete, declarative sentence. It
cannot be a question.
• In its clearest form, a claim asserts that
something is true or false. That is, it
asserts a fact. This kind of claim is
known as a “factual claim” or a
“descriptive claim.”
What is a Normative Claim?
• Value statements can also be claims
though. In such claims, a fact is not
asserted in the same sense that it was in
factual claims.
• For example, the claim “You should come to
class” is not true or false (at least in the
same way that the claim “P1100 class is
held in Room 218” is).
• Thus, some claims are “normative claims”
or “prescriptive claims.” They express
values and how one should act based on
values. A value statement is a claim that
asserts something is good or bad.
Now, Critical Thinking is Absolutely
Relevant to Both Sets of Claims
• As we shall see in this class, it is
necessary that we identify very
clearly which kind of a claim we
have before we can properly
evaluate any argument for it!
• Thus, please note we are taking a
position against the subjectivist and
saying that even moral judgments
can be analyzed by the principles
of critical thinking.
What is an ISSUE?
• Consider the following:
Honda Accords are good cars to buy. They are
cheap to fix. Their parts are easily found.
• How many claims are there?
• But what is the ISSUE?
• Thus, an ISSUE is the Question we are asking.
That is, we need to determine what claim we
are asking about whether or not it is true.
• Then, we must identify the ARGUMENT “in
support of” the issue. Once the claim though is
identified, we can also see that we are giving
an ARGUMENT “for” that claim being true or
false.
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