Today’s Lecture
• Some administrative stuff (based on the
course outline)
• Why do we study philosophy?
• Why should we study philosophy?
• An introduction to philosophical method:
Reading philosophy, engaging in
philosophy, writing a philosophy paper.
Some administrative stuff:Due
dates and texts
• Two important things to note in the course
outline: The dates for the in-class quizzes
and the due dates for your assignments.
• You have a course text and a course pack.
We will be using both. The exam will
presuppose a knowledge of the readings
taken from both sources.
Some administrative stuff:Inclass quizzes
• Each in-class quiz will consist of one short
answer question.
• It will not be essay question.
• It will ask about a term covered in class or a
basic position advocated by a philosopher
already covered in class.
Some administrative stuff:Six
days of grace
• You have six days of grace to use against
any of your assignment due dates. This
will, I hope, eliminate the need to ask for
an extension.
• You can use these days of grace all at once
or pace them out through the term. They
are yours to use and lose.
• I will keep a record of each of your days of
grace if you need to see what you have left
at any point in the term.
Some administrative stuff:Email
policy
• I will reply within four days to your emails.
• I will NOT accept email submissions of
your assignments, except in exceptional
circumstances (and you need to get my
permission to so submit your assignment).
Some administrative stuff:Course
web site
• I will post the lecture notes on the web.
These may be posted before the lecture and
they may not. I ask for your patience with
the web site. It is my gift to you, not
something I am required to provide for this
course.
• Do check out the online resources I have
provided for the class. You will find them
useful.
Some administrative stuff: Office
hours
• I have two office hours a week. If you
cannot make it to my office during these
times we can set up an appointment.
• My office is TC 306
• My phone number is 661-2111, ext. 85798.
• My email is afenton2@uwo.ca.
Some administrative stuff:
Assignment topics
• I will be providing possible topics for your
assignments. Choose one, and only one,
when writing the relevant assignment.
• You have the topics for your first
assignment.
• Be sure to follow the instructions on the
back of your assignment handout. I will be
using this list as a grade your assignments.
Some administrative stuff
• Any questions about the
course outline?
Why do we study philosophy?
• Note: the distinction between ‘Why do we study
philosophy?’ and ‘Why should we study
philosophy?’ is a distinction between the descriptive
and normative.
• Philosophical practice typically involves conceptual
analysis and normative judgments.
• ‘What do we mean by ‘good’?’ is a conceptual
question.
• ‘Is abortion always wrong?’ is a normative question.
• ‘Are my beliefs about the external world justified?’
is a normative question.
Why do we study philosophy?
•
•
•
•
•
1. We want to take an arts course but we can’t stand poetry.
2. It’s cool.
3. It’s better than studying math.
4. We get to call ourselves philosophers.
5. We get to astound our friends with jargon they would
otherwise never hear.
• 6. Philosophy is an excellent conversation stopper at the
family table.
• 7. You want to know if we have good enough reasons for
believing x, where x is a subject of some importance to you.
Why should we study
philosophy?
• 1. Our values and beliefs can cause us, and
others, harm. As we should minimize the
harm we do to ourselves and others (or
avoid unnecessary harm to ourselves and
others), we should ensure that our values or
beliefs are justified. Philosophical inquiry
can aid us in evaluating our values and
beliefs.
Why should we study
philosophy?
• 2. It is better to be moral than immoral.
What’s more, it is better to be nonaccidentally moral than accidentally moral.
Philosophical inquiry can aid in our search
for the moral life.
Why should we study
philosophy?
• 3. According to many (though not all) religious
traditions, our belief choices in this life will inform
the quality of our life after death. But these
traditions offer competing (i.e. incompatible) claims
about what our belief choices should be. Since it
may be in our long-term interest to be circumspect in
our belief choices, philosophical inquiry can aid our
inquiry into the verisimilitude of the claims made by
the relevant traditions, and of our own beliefs.
Why should we study
philosophy?
• 4. Our belief choices and preferences often
inform our path in life. As these beliefs and
preferences help us narrow our options or
inform our decisions, we should ensure they
conform to those standards that, when
obeyed, maximize our best interests.
Philosophical inquiry can aid in the
clarification of what is in our best interest,
what standards will maximize this interest,
and what beliefs or preferences conform to
these standards.
What is philosophy?
• This is a hard question to answer. Part of the
problem is that this question has no one
right answer.
• We can distinguish between philosophy and
other disciplines on the basis of its general
method, subject matter or the attitude of
those who engage in it.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about method.
• As I have already said philosophy is
primarily concerned with conceptual
analysis and normative judgments.
• Conceptual analysis is one of the first steps
in doing philosophy. Before you can
properly answer a question you need to
ensure that you understand what is being
asked.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about method.
• Conceptual analysis can also save a lot of later
confusion. It may be that what appears to be a
pressing metaphysical problem (e.g. a problem
about what really exists independently of how we
represent reality) is really due to a confusion in the
way we have formulated the issue.
• Must we belief that there are moral facts in order to
make sense of the idea of justified moral
statements? What is it for a statement to be
justified?
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about method.
• In philosophical discussion or inquiries both
conceptual analyses and normative
judgments require adequate defense.
• If we are providing an analysis of
justification, we need to defend the analysis
we proffer.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about method.
• If we are making a judgment about whether a given
belief about the external world is justified or
unjustified, we need to defend that judgment.
• Philosophical defense of analyses or judgments
takes the form of arguments in favor of the analyses
or judgments we are proffering.
• A defense is adequate if the argument offered is a
strong one.
• A philosophical position is good or bad relative to
how well it is defended.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about philosophy’s
subject matter.
• Three general questions provide the
common foci of philosophical inquiry:
• (1) What do we know? The relevant area is
known as epistemology.
• (2) What (really) exists? The relevant area is
known as metaphysics.
• (3) How should we act? This area involves
the development and defense of theories of
value.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about philosophy’s
subject matter.
• Epistemology concerns such questions as ‘What is
knowledge?’, ‘What is the extent of our knowledge?’, and
‘How do we know that we know?’.
• Metaphysics concerns such questions as ‘What exists
independently of our minds?’, ‘What is the mind?’, ‘Does
God exist?’, and ‘Do we have souls?’.
• Theories of value will, in all likelihood, touch on questions
that are either epistemological or metaphysical in nature.
What is philosophy? Some
remarks about ‘the’ philosophical
attitude.
• Philosophical inquiry is often marked by a
degree of skepticism regarding received
traditions, beliefs, or viewpoints.
• Philosophical inquiry is often motivated by
a desire to know the truth of the matter, or
to form justified beliefs about whatever it is
that is being investigated.
• Philosophers often exhibit a dissatisfaction
with limiting their views to mere opinions.
Reading philosophy
• There are certain questions you should ask
yourself when reading philosophy.
• 1. What is the central thesis the philosopher
is defending?
• 2. What minor theses is the philosopher
defending in the course of defending her
overall (or central) thesis?
Reading philosophy
• 3. What does the philosopher offer in
defense of her central thesis?
• 4. What does the philosopher offer in
defense of her minor theses?
• 5. Does the philosopher provide an adequate
defense of her central thesis?
• 6. Does the philosopher provide an adequate
defense of her minor theses?
Engaging in philosophy
• In questions 5 and 6 from the previous slide
the concept of adequate defense is used to
assess the strength of a philosopher’s
position.
• By what do we mean ‘adequate defense’?
• What is it to defend a thesis anyway?
Engaging in philosophy
• In philosophy, a defense of a thesis consists
of offering reasons for believing that the
thesis is true or probably true.
• A defense of a thesis is adequate if it
succeeds in providing reasons for believing
that the thesis is true or probably true.
Engaging in philosophy
• Adequate defense presupposes, then, that
the reasons given in defense of a thesis are
(1) relevant to the defense of the thesis in
question, (2) extensive enough to warrant
the conclusion drawn in the thesis, and (3)
are themselves true or likely to be true.
Engaging in philosophy
• If you are attempting to show that a thesis is true,
or certainly true, you will probably want to use a
deductive argument.
• An argument is deductive if its premises (the
reasons given in the defense of a given thesis)
entail, or are intended to entail, the conclusion (the
thesis which is being defended).
• A premise, or set of premises, entail a conclusion
if it impossible for the premise, or set of premises,
to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Engaging in philosophy
• Consider the premises:
• (1) If Everybody Loves Raymond is a
comedy, then it is badly written.
• (2) Everybody Loves Raymond is a comedy.
• These premises entail what conclusion?
• (3) So, Everybody Loves Raymond is badly
written.
• Why? IF (1) and (2) are TRUE, then (3)
MUST ALSO BE TRUE.
Engaging in philosophy
• Do note that you cannot argue that because
(1) and (2) entail (3), (3) must be true.
• Why? It could be the case that (1) or (2) is
false.
Engaging in philosophy
• In logical jargon, this argument is valid (the
conclusion is entailed by the premises) but
it may not be sound.
• A deductive argument is sound if it is valid
AND the premises are, in fact, true.
• You can only contend that (3) must be true
on the basis of the above argument if it is
sound.
Engaging in philosophy
• If you are attempting to show that a thesis is
probably, or possibly, true, you will
probably want to use an inductive argument.
• An argument is inductive if its premises
(non-conclusively) support, or are intended
to support (albeit non-conclusively), the
conclusion.
Engaging in philosophy
• A premise, or set of premises, (nonconclusively) support a conclusion if it
increases the likelihood that the conclusion is
true to something between zero and one
(where one is absolute certitude).
• If it only slightly increases such a likelihood,
then the argument is weak. If it greatly
increases such a likelihood then the argument
is strong. If it doesn’t increase the likelihood
of the conclusion’s truth at all, it really sucks.
Engaging in philosophy
• (1) Chimpanzees probably think.
• (2) After all, chimpanzees have brains that
are relevantly similar to our own,
• (3) and brains are the material substrate of
human thought.
Engaging in philosophy
• (4) What’s more, if a human possesses a
properly functioning brain, it is reasonable
to conclude that she thinks.
• (5) So if a chimpanzee possesses a properly
functioning brain, it is reasonable to
conclude that she thinks.
• (6) Finally, most chimpanzees possess
properly functioning brains.
Engaging in philosophy
• Is this argument strong, weak or does it
really suck?
Engaging in philosophy
• Fallacies (forms of argument) to avoid:
• (1) Do not beg the question. You beg the question
in an argument when you (implicitly or explicitly)
assume in your premises the (truth of the) very
thesis that you are defending.
• I know that God exists. After all, the Bible assumes
that God exists, and the Bible is infallible (on these
matters). We know that the Bible is infallible (on
these matters) because it is God’s Word.
Engaging in philosophy
• (2) Do not appeal to red herrings (nonsequiturs). You appeal to a red herring if you
treat an irrelevant fact or observation as relevant
to the truth of the thesis that you are defending.
• I know that abortion is wrong. After all, the
current US administration is intent on seeing
Roe vs. Wade struck down and many legal
experts agree that the grounds for the decision in
Roe vs. Wade are too weak to withstand legal
scrutiny.
Engaging in philosophy
• (3) Do not equivocate. You equivocate if
your argument’s apparent success depends
on the use of more than one meaning for a
term central to the argument.
• I know that abortion is wrong. Killing
humans is always wrong. Human fetuses are
human. Abortion kills human fetuses. So,
abortion kills humans. So, abortion is
wrong.
Engaging in philosophy
• (4) Avoid arguments from ignorance. Arguments
from ignorance conclude that something is true on
the ground that there is an absence of counterevidence, or that something is false on the ground
that there is an absence of confirming evidence.
• I know that no extra-terrestrials have visited the
planet. No UFO, or alien, sighting has turned out
to be true and we have no evidence in the
historical records that any of our ancestors
encountered such beings.
Engaging in philosophy
• (5) Avoid appeals to (questionable)
authority. Arguments contain appeals to
(questionable) authority if they contain
appeals to an individual who is not an
expert in the relevant area of knowledge,
the area in which they are an expert is not a
legitimate area of knowledge, or there is no
consensus among those who are experts in
the relevant area of knowledge.
Engaging in philosophy
• I know that biological evolution didn’t
occur on Earth. After all, the Reverend Billy
Graham believes that the theory of
evolution is false.
Engaging in philosophy
• (6) Avoid appeals to popularity (i.e. ad
populum arguments). An argument contains
an appeal to popularity if the defense for the
argument’s conclusion consists of an appeal
to something commonly, or widely,
believed.
• It’s obvious that homosexuality is immoral.
After all, most moral theologians, many
moral philosophers and most religious
traditions have condemned homosexuality.
Engaging in philosophy
• (7) Avoid false dilemmas. An argument
contains a false dilemma if there are more
choices (available) than those offered in the
argument, and the argument portrays the
choices it offers as exhaustive (of those
available).
• Of course, Yassar is a terrorist. He opened fire
on an American army patrol, and you only
shoot at American soldiers if you are mad or a
terrorist. We all know that Yassar is not mad.