HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

HZT 4U – Unit One (Introduction) – Review

What is Philosophy?
 Philosophy is the field of knowledge that deals with questions such as: What is real? How
do we know?
 Philosophy derives from two Greek words – Philo (to love), and Sophia (wisdom)
 Philosophy literally means “the love of wisdom”
 Philosophy is the study of being (“Philosophia est scientia ens” in Latin)
 Philosophy involves the pursuit of wisdom (truth) and the study of being (what it means
to exist)
 Philosophy essentially deals with what it means to be a human being
 Philosophers seek the fundamental nature of God and reality
 Philosophers ask what the sources and limits and knowledge are
 Philosophers deal with what is right and just in our lives and in society.
 Philosophy has an unrelenting devotion to uncover the truths concerning what matters
most in life

Major Divisions of Philosophy

Epistemology
 The study of knowledge
 Everything we claim to know amounts to very little, if we are unable to support our
claims
 Epistemology deals with the nature, sources, limitations, and validity of knowledge
 Epistemology presents us with a task of explaining and find what we claim to know
o How is true knowledge acquired?
o How reliable is our knowledge?
o What is truth?
o How does language develop knowledge?
o How can we judge someone’s knowledge?

Metaphysics
 Literally meaning “beyond the physics”
 Metaphysics is an inquiry into the first principles of being
 An attempt to discover the most pervasive characteristics that underlie within our
knowledge of and reasoning about existence
 Is associated with subjects that transcend physics, including the supernatural, soul, the
nature of being.

1
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Metaphysics also refers to subjects that are non-empirical
o Structural reality
 Structure of reality as a whole
o Existence of God
o Destiny of the Universe

Ethics
 Deals with what is right or wrong
 It examines the meaning of value of value terms such as obligation, good, virtue, and
moral to clarify our moral discourse and to understand our moral judgements
 Attempts to determine the moral principles upon which we are justified in living our lives
 Concerned with justice, and the welfare of humanity

Pre-Socratic Philosophers
Thales – (624 BCE -546 BCE)
 Questioned what the basis of matter was
 Concluded that water is the basic substance of matter
 Asked provocative questions and made observations about the world

Anaximander – (611 BCE – 547BCE)

 Questioned the origin of life
 Studied geography, astronomy, and more
 Suggested that all life comes from the sea
 Suggested everything came from a mere elementary substance called apieron

Anaximenes – (585 BCE – 528 BCE)

 Questioned the origin of matter
 Suggested air to be transformed into other elements

Pythagoras – (571 BCE – 496 BCE)

 Approached the question of the nature of the universe by looking for what the most basic
object at which objects are made of
 Suggested that numbers are the basic element of all things
 Saw music as an example of mathematics in the universe
 One of the first people to recognize the importance of mathematics in the physical world
 Considered numbers to be sacred

Heraclitus – (540 BCE -580 BCE)

 Proposed a world of constant change

2
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

Parmenides – (510 BCE – 480 BCE)

 Believes change can never occur

Empedocles – (490 BCE – 430 BCE)

 Considered there to be four fundamental elements in the universe
o Earth
o Fire
o Water
o Air

Zeno – (489 BCE - ? BCE)

 A follower of Parmenides
 Continued to investigate the contradictions that seemed to exist between knowledge
gained from the senses and gained from reason
 Believed that senses show us that things are changeable, while ideas and objects are
permanent

Anaxagoras (500 BCE – 428 BCE)

 First Athenian philosopher with some historical record
 Anaxagoras distinguished mind and matter
 Anaxagoras theorized that through the mind, we bring order to the world of matter

Democritus (460 BCE – 370 BCE)

 Struggled with two major questions
o What is matter?
o How do things change?
 Developed the idea that everything is made up of indestructible and eternal atoms
 It is these atoms that create material objects
 Concluded that atoms are therefore the basic elements of matter

Modern Philosophers
Socrates
 Considered the father of Western Philosophy
 It is important to note that Socrates was not the first western philosopher, and like the
Pre-Socratics, questioned religious authority and wanted to find non-pagan explanations
of nature
 Socrates questioned the conventional beliefs held by his fellow Athenians
 He suggested that through relentless questioning, that moral right and wrong, truth, and
justice do not depend on what society believes

3
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

Plato
 Plato, Socrates’ student presented much of Socrates’ work to the world.
 Plato believed that human beings have a unique capacity of Self Consciousness and an
Immortal soul which gives us the ability to know “Truth” and “Good”
 Plato’s Theory of Perfect Forms - Plato believed that certain “Perfect Transcendental
Ideals” and “Perfect Forms” can be known only to the mind “a priori” (before
experience)
o He drew a distinction between the changing physical objects we perceive with our
senses and the unchanging ideals or forms we can know with our minds.
o Plato believed that human beings were creatures of two worlds:
 An invisible and ethereal world containing all the “ideal” or “perfect”
forms known only to the mind.
 An ever-changing material world containing less than perfect “duplicates”
of all the “ideal” forms known through experience and by the senses.
o Knowledge for Plato was therefore divided into two categories:
 Knowledge from the Visible World attained through the senses (less
reliable)
 Knowledge gained through “Rational Thought” (reliable)
o Plato believed that most people had only partial or unclear knowledge.
o He was battling against the Sophists who were teaching that there was no single
truth or single form of knowledge and that truth was whatever someone could
make you believe through argument.
o Plato believed that truth and other universals, good really existed in their
singularity and were universally applicable. These exist in Ideal Forms.
o Plato believed that human beings can’t find the “perfect” or “ideal” in the
changing visible world of the senses.
 Allegory of the Cave – there exists a cave in that the prisoners have only been
exposed to shadows of
passerby’s, thus believing that is
the constitution of reality. Once
someone escapes, they are
exposed to the real world –
causing great shock.

 Plato’s View of the Soul – the

soul is constituted with three
parts, logic, appetite, and
spirit(emotion)
o Logic

4
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
The logic part is the thinking part of the soul which loves the truth and
seeks to learn it. The logical discerns what is real and makes
judgements.
o Appetite
 The appetite is the part of the soul by which we experience carnal
erotic love, hunger, thirst and in general the desires opposed to the
logical
o Spirit
 The spirit is the part of the soul that deals with emotion

Aristotle
 Aristotle studied under Plato and proposed a broader view than Plato
 In seeking ultimate truths, Aristotle did not believe in the necessity of an invisible
ethereal world of perfect forms accessible only to the human mind , existing apart from
the visible world
 His approach of seeking “Truth” and “Good” is concrete and teleological
 Universals - Aristotle believed that ideal forms exist in this world as “universals” and not
in perfect forms in an invisible world as Plato suggested
o Believed universals to exist independently from perceptions and separate from
pre-derived concepts
 Universals include concepts such as Truth, Beauty, Love, and Goodness
and are known “a posteriori” (that is empirically verifiable and following
experience
 Universals are in constant progressing of “being and becoming”. Things
have inherent potential and “to be” is to realize ones best potential.
 Four Causes of Change – Aristotle posited four causes of change which reflect the
process of “potentiality to actuality”
o The Formal Cause – identifies the essential distinguishing characteristics
o The Material Cause – what the form is made of
o The Efficient Cause – the agent that brings about change
o The Formal (Final) Cause – determines the purpose (telos)
 The Soul – Aristotle claimed that the soul is the essence of the human being and its
capacity for reason perfects nature
o The Soul is immortal, it cannot be separated from the body, it is in this world
o Aristotle believed that the human being are body-spirt wholes and that the soul
did not exist after death
o Aristotle believed in the afterlife, the soul is imbued with a universal mind, that
flies off at death
o Believed that the ultimate truth is only in God
o Seek the “Golden Mean” (moderation)

Chaung Tzu – Theory of True Knowledge

 One of the most influential schools of thought in the Far East was Taoism
5
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Tao means “The Way” the deep and mysterious process from which all things arise and
shapes all of life.
 The Taoist way is to live and exist as part of this natural process.
 The most influential Taoist was Chuang Tzu. He wondered about what it was possible to
know and of what we could be certain.
 His philosophy is based on the principle that there may be more than one truth and
therefore there is really no solid ground for judging between two opposing views held by
people from different perspectives.
 He embraced a sort of Skepticism or Relativism about what can be known because he
doubted that we can ever really know anything with certainty.
 Let be and let go, there may be a number of ways to consider what is right and wrong so
don’t hold specific ways of doing things.
 Conform to the natural world (there is a natural balance) and don’t force your views or
thoughts on others

Human Nature
Western Religious View
o We are made in the image and likeness of God
o Special and unique Creatures of two worlds (body-soul construct)
o Imbued with reason
o Implicit trust in science
o Prominent Philosophers: St. Augustine

Rational View
o Essential characteristic of human nature is the capacity to utilize reason.
o Prominent Philosophers: Aristotle, Descartes

Selfish View
o We are selfish and self-serving to the core.
o Incapable of genuine altruism
o Prominent Philosophers: Thomas Hobbes

Existential View
o Existence precedes Essence
o We are condemned to be free, we create ourselves, and we are responsible for the
virtuous and the vice laden shortcomings.
o Constructivist approach

6
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he in
responsible for everything he does.” – Jean Paul Sartre
o “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” – Jean Paul Sartre
o Prominent Philosophers: Jean Paul Sartre, Mortimer Adler

No Self View
o There is no enduring “Self” or “Soul”
o The Self is an illusion.
o Prominent Philosophers: Siddhartha Gautama

Scientific View
o Prominent Philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin
o Belief in that the human is 100% physical with no metaphysical aspects
o We are not special, and just a by-product of evolution
o Sometimes leads to atheism (no belief in God) or agnosticism (unsure in belief)

Feminist View
o Plato: Differences between sexes not relevant in tasks or occupations. Both should
receive similar education.
o Aristotle: Differences between sexes set by nature. Males superior and
exclusively suitable for higher education

Faith and the Study of Philosophy

 Philosophy provides the foundation for intelligent discussion and assessment of many
aspects of our Catholic Faith.
 Serious appreciation of church teaching on any issue as well as the ability to assess
and respond clearly to the many intelligent and well-educated critics of our faith
demands a foundation in our philosophy.
 The study of philosophy lays the necessary groundwork for any study not only in
theology but studies in all other disciplines.
 Comprehensive exposure to the discipline of philosophy is simply the sine qua non
(that without which none) of responsible appraisal and commitment to our faith
 Philosophy endeavours to seek ultimate wisdom and ultimate truth.
 From the Christian perspective, God is the source and summit of all creation.
Therefore, philosophy is as much as it concerned with seeking truth, is in this respect
a search for God who is Ultimate Truth
 Philosophy is “the love of wisdom and certainly from the Christian perspective, it is
the person of Jesus Who is the Fullness of “wisdom”.

7
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Jesus is Fully Human and Fully Divine, Son of God, and Second Person in the
Blessed Trinity
 All of creation and revelation history points to the unmerited “gift” of the Incarnation
and redemptive efficacy of the Paschal Mystery.
 From a Christian perspective, love of wisdom must extend beyond the human quest
for instruction
 There is intrinsic to philosophy a search for the Truth that is beyond the human realm.
 This can be best understood by looking at the work of Jacque Maritain. According to
Maritain, there is a distinction between the Nature of philosophy and the State of the
philosopher.

Christian Philosophy

The Nature of Philosophy – It is concerned with equipping individuals with the tools to develop
rational analysis
The State of the Philosopher – Concerned with developing Responsible appraisal and
commitment within the Christian context while encountering and confessing Jesus as the Risen
and present Christ.
 According to Maritain, the Christian Philosopher seeks the fullness of wisdom which
involves:
o The acknowledgment of a common human experience
o Rational analysis
o Revelation
o The Mystical dimension of Prayer, Sacrament, Grace, and Relationship of Christ.
 Maritain suggested that human knowledge arises by:
o Degrees from sensual experience through the higher levels of rational abstraction.
o Theological reflection on the contents of revelation.
o The super natural mystery of relationship with the person of Jesus Christ.
 Maritain spoke of three important Wisdoms
o Metaphysics: The height of rational abstraction through philosophical
conceptualization
o Theology: The application of rational analysis to the content of revelation
received in faith.
o Mysticism: Living in Faith through prayer and relationship with God.
 Maritain concluded that the nature of philosophy moves beyond conceptualization and
every human category of description
 The end or goal of philosophy is by its very nature supernatural


8
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

HZT 4U – Unit Two (Informal and Formal Logic) – Review

What is Logic?
 Logic is the ground work, foundation and structure of philosophy.
 Specifically, logic is the study of reasoning.
 Reasoning is the process by which we use evidence to judge or try to discover or persuade
others of the truth.
 Logic studies the methods and principles of correct or proper reasoning.
 Logic analyzes human claims to knowledge and truth by analysing the structure of human
arguments, the reliability of supporting premises, and soundness and veracity of the drawn.

Reasoning - the process by which we use evidence to judge or try to discover or persuade others
of the truth.
Argument - a sequence of declarative statements. It is an attempt to persuade us or something by
citing reasons intended to support, claim, and prove its truth.
A premise – declarative statements in a syllogism offered to support a conclusion. The premises
or declarative statements can be true or false, as opposed to non-declarative statements such as
questions which may suggest premises or conclusions.
Formal Logic – The type of logic that deals with logical forms and structure.

Deductive Arguments
 Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid
 If the deductive argument is valid, the argument is sound. If a deductive argument is
invalid, the conclusion is not sound
 With valid deductive arguments, if you accept the premises to be true, you can be certain
of the situation. With invalid deductive arguments, even if you accept the premises to be
true, you can’t be certain of the situation.

Valid Forms of Deduction

Affirming the Antecedent – agreeing If the butler was asleep, he did not hear the door open.
that the antecedent is true The butler was asleep.
If p, then q Therefore he did not hear the door open.
p
Therefore q.
Denying the Consequent – denying If the jewellery box is missing, the ring has been
that the consequent is true stolen.
If p, then q The ring has not been stolen.
Not q Therefore the jewellery box is not missing.
Therefore, not p

Chain Argument If Adam was in Rob’s car, Adam went to the hockey
If p, then q game.
9
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
If q, then r If Adam went to the game, he was not at home.
Therefore if p, then r. Adam was in Rob’s car; therefore Adam was not at
home.
Disjunctive Syllogism – referring to The thief came from either the door or the window.
two alternatives The thief did not come from the door.
Either p or q Therefore the theif came from the window.
Not-p
Therefore q

Invalid Forms of Deduction

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent If the sun is up, the house will not be dark.
If p, then q The sun was not up.
Not p Therefore the house is dark.
Therefore not q
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent If you do not eat, you will lose weight.
If p, then q You have lost weight.
q Therefore, you have not been eating.
Therefore p

Inductive Reasoning
 The process of reasoning that derives general principles from observations.
 Premises seek to supply strong evidence. (not absolute proof) for truth of conclusion.
 Conclusions are supposed to be probable based off of observations.
 Truth of the conclusion is purported to follow necessity or be a logical consequence of
the premises.
 Inductive reasoning or induction is a type of reasoning which involves moving from the
set of specific facts or observations to a general conclusion.
 As Aristotle believed, genuine knowledge could only come from observation, and this is
the basis of this form of reasoning
 Inductive reasoning can be seen as a form of theory building and does not leave us with
the same certainty that deductive reasoning can but it’s none the less a powerful tool that
can lead us to new knowledge.
 Specific facts or observations are used to create a theory that explains the relationships
between the facts and allows one to discover the truth or offer a prediction of future
knowledge.
 Specific observations can be used to formulate general rules, conclusions, or laws about
reality, the universe, or our world.
 The premises of an “inductive logical argument” may indicate some degree of support
(inductive probability) for the conclusion, but do not entail it, and do not ensure its truth.

10
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Inductive reasoning gives probable conclusions based on observations (bottom up)
approach
 It is the modern scientific method of designing experiments to propose a hypothesis or
support a theory
 Human beings learn rudimentary things this way – learning from observation and past
experiences.

The Major Forms of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive Generalization: Using specific
examples to draw general conclusions.
When p occurs, the most observed result is q
p occurred
q will probably occur
Statistical Induction: Using statistical
information to predict a general conclusion.
Induction by Confirmation: A hypothesis
is suggested, and through the use of
research, the hypothesis is confirmed.
When I clean my room, my parents are often
happy.
I tidied my room this morning.
My parents will probably be happy.
80% of careful eaters will avoid heart disease.
Bill is a careful eater.
Bill has an 80% chance of avoiding heart
disease.
Jim robbed the store.
Whoever robbed the store will have a motive,
opportunity and a means.
Jim needed money, was in the area, and was
found with a gun.
There is evidence supporting the hypothesis
that Jim robbed the store.

Informal Logic
 Informal logic deals with critical thinking and reasoning in everyday situations
 Informal logic is more concrete and practical in application
 An everyday argument is judged to be sound a perhaps even true if…
o Its terms are clearly presented and appropriate
o Its premises are accepted as true and deemed relevant to the conclusion
o The argument does not fall prey to “fallacious thinking” or “logical fallacies”
 We are more often looking to determine the veracity (truthfulness) or soundness of the
inferences made (the conclusions drawn) from an argument.

Guiding Principles of Informal Logic

Principle of Consistency (The law of non-contradiction): nothing can said both to be and not to
be something at the same time and in the same respect. (A fire is either hot or not hot)
Avoid the Fallacy: A fallacy is an incorrect way of reasoning. It is a violation of one of the
criteria which govern good logical arguments.

11
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
Basic Criteria Governing Sound and Logical Arguments
 Relevance - The premises must be relevant to the conclusion since the purpose of the
argument is to bring about rational consent to the conclusion. Evidence provided must
support or negate a point of view. Irrelevant information or arguments should be
discounted or rejected.
 Empirical Value - Empirical information is information that can be verified. We need to
make the distinction between statements that can be verified through further observation
and statements that are a person’s opinion or preference.
 Sufficiency - The premises taken together must provide sufficient evidence for the
conclusion.
 Bias - Human beings have a tendency to view objects, people, and events from a
particular point of view. Be careful of stereotypical statements and look for bias as we
judge information, arguments, and points of view.
 Reliability - Information and its sources are reliable when they can be trusted. The
credentials and experience of the person offering the information is important.
 Acceptability: The premises must be acceptable. The highest standard of acceptability is
truth and the minimum standard is that the premises be reasonable.
Logical Fallacies
 There are three “Basic Fallacies” from which all other fallacies that we will study are
derived.
o Non Sequitur or Irrelevant Reason (Strongest)
o Hasty Conclusion (Weaker)
o Problematic Premise (Weakest)
 Of these, the strongest and most devastating charge that can be levied against an
argument is Irrelevant Reason.
 Hasty Conclusion is a weaker accusation.
 Problematic Premise is the weakest accusation and hardest to prove and we need restraint
when making this accusation because not all the premises in a given argument need
explicit support.

Non Sequitur Example

 When dieticians questioned the nutritional value of Cornflakes, a General Foods
representative presented the following argument…
o “As for the nutritional value of cornflakes, the milk you have with your cornflakes
has great nutritional value.”
 Irrelevant Reason “Non Sequitur”
o In tis fallacious argument, the main premise does not relate to the conclusion.
o The premises or premises may themselves be true but they are not relevant to the
conclusion.
 M has put forth R as a reason for Q
 R is irrelevant to Q’s acceptability

12
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o The truth of R has no effect on the truth of Q
o The Falsity of R has no effect on the truth of Q

Hasty Conclusion
 “All teachers really have it pretty easy. My folks have a cottage next door to a teacher
that has summers off fishing and relaxing.”
 In this fallacious argument, the premises fail to provide sufficient support for the
conclusion even though the premises may be relevant.
 M adduces Q, R, and S… as sufficient for T
 Q, R, and S, taken together, are not sufficient support for T
 To make the accusation of “Hasty Conclusion you have two tasks…
o Identify the pieces of evidence given and conclusion reached
o You must assert and defend your assertion that the evidence given is not
sufficient.

Problematic Premise
 “Many young people, who today hold responsible jobs were once the recipient of the
lash, and if there are any bleeding hearts who think corporal punishment is callous and
inhumane, let them read Proverbs.”
 We need to use restraint in charging problematic premise.
 Basically you are asserting that the premises need more defenses or are as stated out of
touch with reality.
 Principle I: Each premise should be defended, if it is not self-evident and not exempted
from same because it forms the context of the argument
 Principle II: The less crucial and less controversial a premise is, the less serious the
failure to defend it is.
 Analysis
o While the previous example appears to be logical argument, you may assert that
the support premise quoting “Proverbs” (“The rod and reproof give wisdom”
Proverbs 29:15)
o The author failed to recognize that Canada is a pluralistic society and that the
Bible does not necessarily carry the same weight it formerly did.
o Therefore, you may guardedly accuse the author of problematic premise on this
ground.
o The premise is relevant to the conclusion and the conclusion is not hasty. There
may be additional problems with the premise regarding its applicability to the
modern world.
o There may also be ample evidence that there are equally if not more young people
who hold responsible jobs today who were not subject to corporal punishment and
they turned just as well.
13
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o There may also be evidence that a goodly number of violent offenders today were
recipients of corporal punishment and learned to use violence as a solution to their
problems.

HZT 4U – Unit Three (Epistemology – What is truth?) – Review

Epistemology
 Epistemology is the study of knowledge.

14
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Specifically it is the branch of philosophy that investigates the nature, sources,
limitations, and validity of knowledge.
 As we have seen in logic, everything we claim to know whether in science, history, or
everyday life, amounts to little if we are unable to support our claims.
 Epistemology presents us with the task of explaining how we know what we claim to
know.
 It is even more basic than logic as it gets at the question what is it that you know and how
do you know that you know it?

Basic Questions
 What is true knowledge?
 How is true knowledge acquired?

How is True Knowledge Acquired?

 There seems to be three schools of thought that offer very different approaches and
different answers to this particular epistemological question.
 Rationalism
 Empiricism
 Transcendental Idealism

Rationalism
 This school of thought holds the view that knowledge can be obtained by relying on
reason without the aid of the senses.
 Rationalists hold that some knowledge is “a priori:” which means it comes before some
experience and is therefore not the sole product of experience
 Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was an outstanding rationalist and brilliant mathematician a
 Rationalists believe that accurate knowledge of the world can be found by looking into
our minds without observing the world.
 Rationalists do not necessarily believe that all knowledge is acquired through reason
alone but certainly some fundamental knowledge is undoubtedly acquired this way.

Descartes’ Rationalism
 Like the world of today, the world of Rene Descartes was a world characterized by
profound change, many doubts, and incessant questioning.
 He established by reason (Deduction) that God, mind and matter exist.
o Three Truths:
 He deduced that he (his mind) existed.
 He deduced that God existed.
 He deduced that material objects (the external world) existed.
o Three Distinct Substances
15
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Mind
 God
 Material Reality
 These were his truths which he held fast to beyond any doubt. (Indubitable truths)
 He started with the process of doubting and he intuitively and deductively reasoned that
this process of doubting required a mind and therefore, “Cogito ergo Sum”… I think
therefore I am
 From this truth he pondered how he (an imperfect being) could have an idea of
perfection. He concluded that the idea of perfection could only have been communicated
to him from an actual perfect being that he called God.
 He deduced further that (while one could doubt the existence of a material world) our
experiences of it and our doubts concerning its existence actually confirm its real
existence.
 As Descartes stated “I cannot think of myself without thinking and the fact that ‘I am’
and that ‘I think’ are two things about which I am certain.”
 Therefore for Descartes, the mind is imbued with “Innate Ideas” and has the capacity to
know things independent of experience.
 The mind and reason can know truths a priori and with reason is the key truth and
knowledge. The senses are not fully trustworthy because they can be fooled.
 Like Plato, Descartes believed that we seem to know that the ideas in the mind without
experiencing them. The basic principles of mathematics, geometry, and logic seem to be
“inborn:” or “innate”
 Unlike Plato, Descartes believed that the knowledge and true ideas in the mind did not
come from the soul residing in an “invisible” world of perfect forms prior to birth.

Innate Ideas Innate Concepts

Every event has a cause Point
The shortest distance between two points is Straight line
a straight line. Equality
Nothing comes from nothing Events
2 equals added together produce an even Cause
number

 Descartes believed that the human mind with innate ideas is made in the image and
likeness of God.
 The human mind is in a sense “omniscient” and like “God” because God made it in His
image. The mind is reliable because a perfect God would not deceive us.
 Gottfried W Leibniz, a fellow philosopher and brilliant mathematician, agreed that he
mind is in a sense “omniscient” and like God, but unlike Descartes, he did not believe
that the human mind contained “Innate Ideas”

16
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Leibniz suggested that mind contained rational tendencies and inclinations that reflect the
rational capabilities of God.

Rationalism Conclusions
 Rationalists claim that the defining characteristics or essence of a person is our inherent
rational capacity and our ability to think.
 Rationalists envision the human person as distinct from the matter of the world because
our minds enable to stand apart from our material world.
 The mind is the distinguishing characteristic of human nature because it gives us the
capacity to Reason (to think reflectively and draw conclusions.)
 We are in essence, reasoning beings imbued with an immaterial soul or mind which
presents us with a unique ability to know and gives us a purpose or end in life.

Empiricism
 Empiricism refers to any view that bases knowledge and the acquisition of same on what
we experience through our senses.
 This school of thought holds that all knowledge about the world comes from experience
and perception. All knowledge is “a posterori” which means deriving knowledge from
experience. (post experience)
 Classical Empiricism claims that all that we know about the world is what our senses
provide us and warned us that any attempt to reshape this information through rational
thought may lead to distortion.
 Elements of Empiricism can be found in the arguments of Aristotle ( 384-322BC),
Thomas Aquinas (1125-1271AD), Francis Bacon (1591-1616AD), and Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1675AD)
 Classical Empiricism is associated with three famous British Empiricists
o John Locke
o George Berkeley
o David Hume
 The problem with all sensory knowledge claims is that we are never certain if objective
reality truly exists.

John Locke’s Classical Empiricism

 John Locke (1632-1704) was an Oxford scholar, medical researcher, physician and
philosopher.
 His famous work published in 1689 entitled “An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding” launched the first systematic attack on Rationalism.
 Locke believed that the mind was essentially “Tabula Rasa” a blank slate upon which
experience makes its mark.

17
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 According to Locke, there is no knowledge that we can acquire “a priori” that is before
experience.
 For Locke, all knowledge comes through sense perception (our subjective experience) of
the external world. Our senses give us reliable access to the objective world.
 Locke believed that knowledge originates in sense perception and he proposed that all
objects revealed through sense experience have two inherent qualities. We come to know
things around us by having sense experiences of their primary qualities and secondary
qualities. These experiences closely resemble the entities themselves (particularly our
experience of an object’s primary qualities).
o Primary Qualities: Objects have inherent size, shape, and mass or weight.
o Secondary Qualities: Objects also have the inherent power to produce in us a
sensory experience of colour, smell, and texture. We impose the qualities on an
object.

The Empiricism of George Berkeley

 Bishop Berkeley was a brilliant critic of his predecessors particularly Descartes and
Locke.
 He was an ancient defender of Idealism, which is the view that reality is exclusively the
domain of the mind and its ideas.
 Principal Work: The Principles of Knowledge, 1700 AD
 Berkeley pushed Locke’s views further into the subjective realm by fervently denying
that we can know that any inherent qualities exist or inhere in an object independent of
our perception. For Berkeley, Locke’s “Primary” and “Secondary” qualities are
completely subjective.
 According to Berkeley, we cannot ever be certain that our perceptions or sensory reports
in any way resemble the contents and reality of an objective world.
 Berkeley embraced “Idealism” and suggested that only minds and their ideas exist.
 His famous axiom captures this belief and is “Esse est percipi” which means “To be
is to be perceived”
 What exists and what we can know is only the contents of the conscious mind, or some
idea or perception held by the mind.
 For Berkeley, we cannot experience or perceive the essential qualities of any object.
There are no known qualities that inhere in an object. There is only subjective sense
experience of objects. Everything in our minds is an idea or a perception.
 Berkeley was an Idealist; reality is the exclusive domain of the mind and its ideas.
 “Solipsism” is the philosophical position that holds that only “I” exist and everything else
is a product of my subjective consciousness.
o George Berkeley has been falsely accused of embracing solipsism but his brand of
idealism does not actually embrace solipsism.

18
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o Berkeley is not actually a Solipsist because he believed that things continue to
exist when he or any other human sentient mind is not around to perceive them.
o He believed that God always has “things” and “reality” in His mind and that
therefore things and reality continue to exist when there is no other being there to
perceive them.

The Empiricism of David Hume

 The last and perhaps most influential of the three British Empiricists was David Hume.
 He was a historian and an Essayist and suspected atheist.
 His principle epistemological work was entitled An Inquiry Concerning Human
Understanding
 Hume denied the possibility that we can have certain knowledge about any matters of
fact. According to Hume’s Skepticism, we have no way of checking or verifying what
exists independent of our perception.
 To David Hume, perception takes two forms:
o Impressions: Vivid and lively perceptions which are internal and subjective.
Characterized by something one hears, sees and desires.
o Ideas. Our reflections on many impressions that we have. These are less vivid and
fainter.
 We have no “Ideas” (faint or otherwise) without prior sense impressions.
 Since there can be no “Ideas” without sense impressions, there is no rational justification
for belief that anything exists outside us.
 What we have at best is unique illusion.
 While David Hume was very much comfortable with skepticism and Solipsism, he was
pragmatic enough to live as if he had real knowledge and that the world he lived in was
really there. He lived one way but thought another.

Immanuel Kant - Transcendental Idealism

 Transcendent Idealism is the view that the form of our knowledge of reality derives from
reason but its content comes from our senses. In other words, both reason and subjective
experience has a role in how we acquire real knowledge.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

 The central theme in his writings is human autonomy (deontology) and he provided a
brilliant synthesis of early modern rationalism and empiricism.
 His principle work was “A Critique of Human Reason” (1781-1787).
 Kant accepted the Empiricist (Idealist) position for knowledge acquisition but believed
that human reason contributes something
 He asserted that our senses certainly reveal subjective experiences (taste, smells, sounds,
and shapes) but our senses do not reveal the relationships (particularly the causal
relationships) among these subjective sensations.

19
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 He claimed that the relational mind organizes the many subjective experiences and
sensations we have.
 The mind inserts cause and effect relationships into the world we perceive. Even concepts
such as time and space are subjective forms of human sensible rational intuition.
 As an idealist, Kant suggested that the world really is independent of our perception.
 Kant referred to the world as it is outside our perceptions or apart from our minds as the
“Noumenal” world.
 According to Kant, we can never know the “Noumenal” world and he suggested that it is
entirely possible that this world be chaotic and have no casual relationships.
 Kant claimed that all we can be certain of is the world that we perceive which is the
world that our minds construct. He called this world the “Phenomenal” world.
 We perceive causal relationships, complex logical sequencing, and mathematical laws
(that work in the world) because the mind organizes and shapes reality this way.
 The mind is wired this way “a priori”.
 The Phenomenal world is not independent of our minds. The world that we perceive is a
world that our mind constructs. The world must conform to the mind.
 He claimed that we experience only the appearance of things constructed by the mind and
not the actual experience of things in themselves.
 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism is often called Constructivist… inasmuch as he has us
construct reality.

What is Truth?
 The history of philosophy records several ways of looking at truth and there are
essentially three traditional theories or approaches to discovering and ascertaining the
truth
1. The Correspondence Theory
2. The Coherence Theory
3. The Pragmatic Theory
The Correspondence Theory/Realist View (Science)
 This theory contends that truth is an agreement between a proposition and a fact.
 It is essentially the “conformity” of the mind to or with reality
 It is a “Realist” and “Empirical” approach.
 The “Correspondence” Theory is the most popular view of the truth
 This theory holds that truth is objective and really exits apart from our subjective
perceptions and understanding of it
 Truth is this sense can be seen as unchanging and absolute
 This theory holds that truth is based on the realm of facts and on reality that exits
independently of us.
 The “Correspondence” theory of truth claims that the truth of a statement depends on its
relation to the world of facts. A statement is true if and only if it corresponds to or is
connected with the facts.
 Example - Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit

20
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
Criticisms of the Correspondence Theory
 If e know only our sensory experiences how can we ever get outside or beyond them to
verify what reality actually is?
 Can we verify reality independently of our sensory experience of it?
 What does correspondence mean?
 Precisely, what is a fact?

The Coherence Theory/Conceptual Relativist (Science)

 This theory contends that truth is merely and substantially a property and product of a
related group of consistent statements
 It fits nicely into the “Idealist” and “Rationalist” camps of philosophy
 The “Coherence Theory” rejects that truth is objective and corresponds to sense
independent facts.
 Truth merely “fits in” or “coheres with” accepted basic statements or axioms.
 Truth in this regard is more theoretical and subjective.
 The coherence theory of truth claims that the truth of a statement depends on its relation
to and or connection with other statements.
 A statement is true if and only if it coheres with or fits in with that system of statements
that we already accept.
 The truth is contingent upon its coherence with a previously accepted body of statements.
 Examples –
1. Geometry: This discipline builds an entire system of truths or theorems by
building on a few basic statements of known axioms
2. I am 19 years of age: In order for this statements to be true, it must cohere with
the following statements
Criticisms of the Coherence Theory
 Coherence is not guarantee of truth
 Coherence is not the equivalence of truth
 If the statements upon which coherence is established or are in line are in fact true, you
can be confident that you may be dealing with the truth
 Coherence theory works well in some areas (geometry) but not consistently well in all
areas
 If the statements upon which coherence is established are in fact false, you gave a
coherent system of consistent error.
 Example – The astronomer Ptolemy believed that observations and known facts
supported the notion that the sun revolved around the earth. This was believed until the
16th century when Copernicus and Galileo challenged ultimately refuted it

The Pragmatic Theory/Instrumentalist (Science)

 According to the “Pragmatic Theory of Truth, Truth is essentially that which works!
 There need not be any connection whatsoever between truth/reality and what we believed
or propose to believe.
 In the pragmatic approach to the truth there is no need for no concern about absolute or
unchanging truths
21
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 The acquisition of actual Truth is not the primary concern of those who espouse the
“pragmatic” approach.
 The truth of a belief or statement is defined by its practical consequences. The truth is
essentially that which works best.
 The measure of truth is its usefulness, utility, and workability. Of something or some
approach is useful and it works, it is true.
 For the pragmatist, “Truth”, it exits, is dynamic, ever changing, subjective, and always
relative.
Criticisms of the “Pragmatic Theory”
 The “Pragmatic Theory” bases truth on the fallible judgments of useful and anticipated
consequences and creates and promotes relativism
 Pragmatist are not with objective truths because pragmatist limit truth to usefulness or
workability
 The Pragmatic Theory of Truth rejects and denies the veracity and acceptability of all
universal truths or norms.
 It is an “it depends” approach.
a. Murder is morally wrong
b. Direct Abortion is morally wrong
c. Genocide is morally wrong
d. Democracy is always better than a dictatorship

 It is not concerned with any necessary connection with objects

 Pragmatists limit truths to what is useful

Conclusion
 In the final analysis, no single theory – correspondence, coherence or pragmatic –
provides a complete solution to the problems associated with discovering and obtaining
the truth
 Each theory plays a unique role in the way we come to discover and understand the truth.

HZT 4U – Unit Four (Metaphysics) – Review

What is Metaphysics?
 Metaphysics literally means beyond the physics
 Questions about reality, time, and causality are part of metaphysics.
o These questions provide the foundation of western thought.
o For this reason, metaphysics is often called the first philosophy.

What is Real?
 Historically, there are many different responses to this metaphysical question.
 The traditional historical responses are each very different and have specific implications
for adherents.

22
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

#1 Materialism
 Materialism is the belief that reality is ultimately composed of matter.
 This theory has its roots in ancient Greece.
 The ancient Greeks viewed water fire, air and earth as the fundamental constituent
substances of reality
 The Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (460-360 BCE) believed that all of reality
could be explained in terms of small material “pieces” which he called “atoms”. These
were believed to be solid indivisible, eternal, indestructible, and not created.
 Having lost credibility and favour in the 4th century, Materialism has made a comeback
beginning in the 17th century with Thomas Hobbes.
 It was fully revived in the 19th century with the rise of the “new scientific method”
(Francis Bacon et al) and the impact of “material evolution” (Charles Darwin et al).

Modern Materialism (Naturalism)

 Much of the modern science is influenced by the Materialist philosophy
 Materialist utilizes sense observation and objective methodologies to come to tentative
conclusions about the nature of reality.
 What cannot be found out by this method cannot be known. Everything has a material
cause.
 Materialism untimely denies human freedom. Every action and thought has a material
cause.
 Determinism and Reductionism remain popular aspects of this philosophic view.

Criticisms of Materialism
 The fundamental objection to Materialism is that it has difficulty explaining or
accounting for human “consciousness” particularly the “inner conscious experiences of
individual”.
 It cannot account for the spiritual and in fact rejects the spiritual and limits causality to
just the Material and Efficient Causes.
 It ignores the reality and impact of the Efficient and Final causes (like modern science, it
focuses exclusively on the Material and Formal causes).
 It is incoherent to believe that everything happens by chance.
 Because it ultimately denies human freedom it has difficulty with “universal norms” in
ethics
 Modern physicists have discovered that reality is made up of very small elementary
particles called “Quarks” which are not material. They are more akin to energy. (Matter is
not composed of material elements)

#2 Idealism
 Idealism is the belief that the conscious mind and its ideas or perceptions are the only
reality.
 All reality is ultimately non-matter.
 All reality is ultimately non-matter.
 Things have no substance without mind.
23
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Reality is a product of the mind. Reality and things are ideas.
 So long as things are not actually perceived by an individual or other created spirit, they
have no existence at all. (George Berkeley)
Criticisms of Idealism
 Idealists commit the fallacy of “anthropomorphism”. They arrogantly attribute human
characteristics to the universe as a whole.
 Is there a distinction between our perception and the objects that we perceive?
 If “I” or other “created spirits with a mind” ceases to exist, then does the entire universe
in its complexity cease to exist? (The mind of God not withstanding)

#3 Realism
 Realism is the belief that there is an objective world that exists independently from our
perceptions, beliefs, and language
 There is an objective external we have access to and this is borne out of modern physics
and human physiology
 A well-known proponent of “Realism” is Dr. John Searle.
 The objects of our senses exist independently of their being perceived.
 Reality is not limited to language and our understandings.

#4 Anti-Realism
 It is modern skepticism regarding the existence of an external of objective world.
 Reality is completely subjective and it is an expression of our understanding perception
and language.
 We create the parameters of reality in language and we always find what we are looking
for.

#5 Pragmatism
 Pragmatism is the school of thought that reality is meaning ful and real to the ectent that
it has important and useful consequences
 Pragmatists argue against Idealism and Materialism
 The founder of the school of pragmatism is William James.
 “The truth regarding reality, an idea, or concept lies in its capacity to be useful and get us
through life”.
 Pragmatists tend to rely in sense observation, reason, and the scientific method and they
reject ideas and concepts that are not demonstrably useful and meaningful.
 Their credo is “if it is meaningful and it works, its useful and therefore true”.
Criticisms of Pragmatism
 Pragmatists are not concerned with the “Big Picture”. They are not concerned about a
“cosmic order” or “purpose” with respect to reality. (Just what is useful)
 They shy away from the big questions that often matter most. Nothing is their world is
settled or finished and they don’t care.
 They are concerned only about the practical and useful and not about truth!

24
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

#6 Logical Positivism
 Logical positivists believe focus on language being the expression of reality
 Logical positivists reject all metaphysical attempts to understand the world.
 Metaphysical statements are essentially nonsense.
 The major proponent of Logical Positivism was British Philosopher A.J. Ayer
 For Ayer, There are only two meaningful statements or ways of speaking:
I. Tautologies: Analytic propositions or relational statements that are true by
definition. (Ex. All bachelors are unmarried)
II. Empirical Hypothesis: Statements of fact which gives information about the
observed world (Ex. Water freezes at 0’C)
 Metaphysics and its language is considered nonsense – they want philosophers to stop
wasting their time contemplating such questions:
I. God exists or God does not exits
II. There is a soul or There is no Soul
III. Lying is right or Lying is wrong

#7 Existentialism
 Existentialism views reality and the truth in the here and now
 The self and consciousness is all that is real
 Existentialists believe that reality cannot be separated from existence
 To exist is to become a self.
 The founder of “Existentialism” was Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).
o While Existentialists believed that God cannot be known or be the subject of
rational and objective analysis, Kierkegaard believed in God and was a
profoundly religious man.
o Theistic Existentialists include Martin Buber (Jewish), Paul Tillich and Jacques
Maritain (both Christian)
 Existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), had no belief in God, and in his
mind there is no fixed human nature and no fixed norms of moral behavior.
o Sartre was very critical of Kierkegaard’s “Leap of faith” in God and he believed it
was cowardly and ill-advised act.
o Faith in God he believed pushed people into illusions
o For Sartre, existence precedes essence.
o There is no immortal soul and not God.
o He wanted people to create themselves and take full responsibility for their
actions and corresponding state in life.
 Albert Camus was another famous existentialist, who held the belief that life is absurd.
o He asks: Does the realisation of absurd require suicide? Camus Answers by
saying that the realization of the absurd yields authenticity, and that suicide is a
rejection of freedom.
o He compares the abusurdity of man’s life with the situation of Sisyphus (A figure
of Greek mythology condemned to the meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a
mountain, only to have it roll down again)

25
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o “The struggle itself is enough to fill a man’s heart, One must imagine Sisyphus
happy.”
Existential Nihilism
 Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher who challenged the
foundations of Christianity and traditional morality.
 Nihilism is the belief that life has no meaning.
o Nietzsche believed that morality was a sham and a device for the weak. Moral
principles are tools for the weak to gain power over the strong.
o He believed that God was Dead and for Nietzsche this was not a bad thing
because belief in God encourages the illusion belief in God encourages the
illusion that there is universal and absolute truth.
o He also believed that human are solely motivated by desire to increase thei power
over things and people.
o He preferred what he termed “Master Morality” over “Slave Morality”.
o Master Morality embraces strength, intelligence, courage, revenge, and power
seeking.
o Slave Morality (the morality of the herds) embraces sympathy, kindness, pity,
patience, humility and helping those in need.

#8 Phenomenology
 Phenomenology is the 20th century movement that attempted to study the nature and
structure of consciousness.
 Phenomenology is the study of human experience and of the ways things present
themselves to us in and through such experience.
 It is the attitude of preparing the mind to properly receive n contrast to imposing a
theoretical model onto reality.

 Phenomenology closed the “gap” where individuals remained detached from other
individuals and from the objects being perceived.
 According to Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), “reality consists solely of objects and events
as they are perceived and understood in human consciousness.
o For Husserl, the body is not an extended physical substance but lived “here” from
which all “there’s” are there.
o Husserl warned not to ignore the role of the sprit or the soul.
o He wanted to isolate human consciousness outside of the influences of the context
of culture and history (bracketing)
 Well Known adherents of Phenomenology
o St. Edith Stein
o Martin Heidegger
o Maurice Merleau-Ponty
 Many philosophers identified the main weakness of Phenomenology being it presenting a
vehicle into existentialism.

26
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
Phenomenology & Ontology
 Under Heidegger, Stein, Merleau-Ponty, and Pope John Paul II, phenomenology became
focused largely on the study of being or ontology.
 Our being is being in the world
 We must distinguish beings from being
 It is open to discussions of natural and supernatural experiences
 Pope John Paul wrote his doctoral thesis on the limitations and shortcomings of
Phenomenology.
o He believed that phenomenology may begin the discussion about reality, but
ontology and metaphysics is the end.
 We can’t experience anything external without having at the same time the experience of
the self.
 No matter what we know, we are also concomitantly aware of ourselves as knowing it.
 The contents of experience exist within the being who is having the experience.
 For Pope John Paul II, the contents of experience and consciousness are not solely
subjective, fabricated, and unreal.

Metaphysics: Arguments for the Existence of God

 Hence, one of the major pre-occupations of Metaphysics is the question concerning the
existence of God.

Aristotle’s Causality
 Efficient Cause: The agent that brings about the change.
 Material Cause: The stuff out of which things are made.
 Formal Cause: Identifies the essential distinguishing characteristics.
 Final Cause: Determines the purpose of the form (Telos)
 Aristotle’s for distant and observable causes logically and completely addresses the reality
we need to explain and understand.
 The Efficient and Final causes speak to logical conclusion that things don’t come into
existence by sheer accident or purposeless chance! These set the stage for sound arguments
for the existence of God.

The Ontological Argument

 The term “Ontology” is derived from two Greek words “Ontos” (being) and “Logia”
(word or the study of) and therefore literally means “the study of being”.
 More specifically, “Ontology” is the study of the universal and necessary characteristics
of being and existence.
 In Metaphysics, the ontological argument for the existence of God is an argument that the
real objective existence of God is necessarily involved in the existence of the very idea of
God.
 The existence of God is deduced from the perceived nature of God’s being.

27
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
 St. Anselm built his argument on the presupposition of faith. He believed that without
faith or belief in God, there was no real understanding of God. “Credo ut Intelligam” (I
believe in order that I may understand)
 St. Anselm defined God as “that being which none greater can be conceived”.
 Given by his faith, Anselm posited that:
o None existence is an imperfection
o God is perfect
o Therefore, God must exist.
 In St. Anselm’s own words… “There is so truly being that which nothing greater can be
conceived to exist, that it cannot ever be conceived not to exist, and this being thou art O
Lord, our God”.
 His personal faith notwithstanding, Anselm believed that the existence of God is
necessarily involved in the existence of the very idea of God.
 St. Anselm’s ontological argument is somewhat problematic philosophically and
theologically.

The Cosmological Argument

 The term “Cosmological” is also derived from two Greek Terms “Cosmos” (the universe)
and “Logia” (word of study of) and therefore literally means the study of the universe.
 In Metaphysics, the cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God
which claims that there must be an ultimate casual explanation for why the universe as a
totality or whole exists.
 Are arguments which speak of the necessity of ultimate causality or a first cause for the
universe and all that exists in it and often attribute this ultimate cause to God.

The Teleological Argument

 It is an argument form design or final purpose.
 There is much in the universe that is inherently intricate and manifestly complex.
 Complexity implies design and purpose and this cannot be accidental.
St Thomas Aquinas’ Teleological and Cosmological Argument
 St. Thomas Aquinas taught that God is not in any genus (class or kind) and not even in
the gens of being and it follows that he can’t be defined.
 If God was defined as a being, even a supreme being, it could be argued that God plus the
world would be greater than God alone.
 The Catechism states: “God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually
purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image bound, or imperfect, if we
are not to confuse our image of God ‘the in expressible, the incomprehensible, the
invisible, the ungraspable’ with our human representations. Our human words always fall
short of the mystery of God” (CCC #42)

28
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

God is not “a being” or a “supreme being” among other beings but rather God is “Being
itself” (ipsum esse)
His Five Proofs for the Existence of God
 Among the exhaustive volumes of his published works, his “cosmological and
theological arguments (the “five proofs) for the existence of God draws much interest.
 Saint Thomas Aquinas always cautioned and admonished his readers that some truths
about God exceed the capacity of human reason.
Cautions Concerning Knowledge of God
 God is simply beyond complete understanding. There is a mystery of Ho that the human
mind and human reason cannot grasp.
How can things come to be?
 “Per accidens” (Through or by reason of accident)
 “Per aliud” (Through or by reason of another)
 “Ens a se” (Being from it self)
 “Ipsum esse” (Being itself)
The Five Proofs for the Existence of God
 Thomas assets that the “five proofs” show us not only that God is but more directly
indicate what God is not.
I. From the Observation of Motion in the Universe
 Aquinas deduced that the unmoved “Prime Mover” is what we call God.
 Unlike anything in the universe, God imparts motion to everything without
moving and therefore without being in time or being material.
II. From the Observation of Causality in the Universe
 Aquinas deduced that the “First Cause” is what we call God.
 Unlike anything we know, God is the uncreated creator that causes everything
to exist.

III. From the Observation of Contingency, Necessity, and Dependence in the Universe
 Aquinas deduced that there must be a self-existent (non-contingent)
necessary being and this is what we call God.
 Unlike anything in our experience, God cannot cease to exist, has no
beginning and no end, because God’s existence does not depend on
anything else.
IV. From the Observation of Degrees of Perfection (imperfections regarding goodness truth
and existence) observed in the Universe
 Aquinas deduced there must be a perfect being and this is what we call
God.
 Unlike anything in the Universe, God is perfect goodness, perfect truth,
and perfect existence.
V. From the Observation of the Design and Purpose for things in the Universe
 Aquinas deduced that the “Designer” is what we call God.
 Unlike anything in the universe, god is the supremely wise intelligence in
whom all the order in the Universe originates.

29
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
What is God Unlike?
Argument from Motion: Unlike anything in the universe, God is “First Mover unmoved
ens a se”
1. Argument form Cause: Unlike anything in the universe God is “First Cause uncaused
ens a se”
2. Argument form being/Existence: Unlike anything in the universe God is “Self
necessary ens a se”
3. Argument form Graduation of Being: Unlike anything in the universe God is
“Supreme ens a se”
4. Argument form design/order: Unlike anything in the universe God is “Supreme
intellect ens a se”
Can We Have Any Positive Knowledge of God?
 For Thomas positive knowledge about God is possible. He identifies an imperfect kind f
positive knowledge of God that is open to us.
 He calls this “knowledge by analogy” or “anagogical knowledge” of God
 This knowledge is not univocal or equivocal knowledge, but is analogical (comparable)
Aquinas and the Sources of Truth
 Aquinas always distinguished between the truths known by reason and the truths known
by both faith and reason.
Distinctions:
o Philosophy – Is concerned with truths that our unaided reason can discover by
reflecting on our experience in the natural world.
o Theology – Beings with truths revealed by God trough Scared Scripture and
accepted by faith and from these revealed truths draws further religious truths.
Modern Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God - William Payley (1743-1804)
 William Payley (1743-1804) offered the famous “watchmaker analogy” a rather simple
and somewhat modern teleological argument of the existence of God.
 We notice more: we find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to each
other, conducting the motion to the balance and from the balance to the pointer. Further,
we notice that the wheels are made of brass to prevent rust: the springs of steel (no other
metal being so elastic): that over the face of the watch there is places a glass, a material
employed in no other part of the work,
 Every observation which was made concerning the watch may need repeated with strict
propriety concerning the eye, animals, plants, - indeed all the organized parts of the world
of nature. The eye would be alone sufficient to support the conclusion which we draw
from it, as to the necessary of an intelligent Creator” (Natural Theology 1802)
 According to Paley, the inference form the observation of the intricate design of the
universe to the conclusion of a universe-maker who constructed and designed its use
would be inevitable.

Metaphysical Argument
 Metaphysical Arguments for the existence of God have generated much controversy and
much discussion over the years.

30
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
Blaise Pascal (1632-1662)
 Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician (probability), physicist, inventor (mechanical
calculator), and Christian philosopher.
 Among his many works, he is well known for presenting a logical argument for believing
in God independent of the faith that he believed was absolutely necessary.
 This simple work is known as “Pascal’s Wager”

The Moral Argument

 Immanuel Kant believed that the three traditional “Metaphysical arguments” for
existence of God were merely a product of the way the brain is wired.
 According to Kant. We cannot avoid the “Ontological”, “Cosmological”, and
“Theological” argument for the existence of God because the brain is designed this way.
 Kant believed that we have an obligation to seek a world where “good” prospers and
“evil” does not.
 He called this perfect world “Simmun Bonum” an extremely good state of affairs.
 According to Kant, only a good God could possibly bring about such a world where good
people are rewarded and bad people suitably punished
 Since this “extremely good state of Affairs” does not seem present or reflect in this
world, it must take place in the next.
 Although Kant could not prove that God existence, believed that “Morality” forces us to
assume that God exists.
 Kant was the first philosopher who shifted God’s existence away from metaphysics and
moved to a moral argument
The Moral Argument and Atheism
 As it turns out, this new way of compelling people to accept the existence of God has
some merit in the modern world.
 Many atheists have difficulty defending a universals moral standard of behavior without
turning to God or acknowledging the concomitant necessity of God.
 The soured of an objective and universally applicable morality is ultimately God.

Different Perceptions of God

Pantheism
 Pantheism: Ancient belief that God exists within the forces and substance of nature. God
is God’s creation. God is not at all separate form creation.
 Baruch Spinoza: “God and nature are one and the same”

Panentheism
 20th century brand of theism. God is seen as a supreme being whose original nature is
fixed and unchanging but who also exits historically in time as a growing and changing.
God inter-penetrates everything but is also transcendental and beyond experience.
 G.T. Fechner & Charles Pierce “God is both fixed and changing”
31
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

Deism
 Through human reason and intellect, the belief that God created the universe and its
physical laws and set things cosmically in motion but stepped back from creation.
 God has no real direct connection of futile insolvent in or future involvement in the
working of the universe.

Theism
 Through human reason, intellect, and Divine Revelation, the belief that God not only
created the universe and its physical laws but it’s actively and directly involved in
creation yet at the same time transcending creation. God has established a personal
relationship with human and creation. (Providence)
 Can take several forms:
o Polytheism: The belief in many gods
o Monotheism: The belief in one God

Atheism
 A firm and resolute conviction that God does not exist.
 Reason and observation offers absolutely no evidence, certainty or suggestion of God.

Agnosticism
 no knowledge; one who’s does not know
 A belief that there is not enough evidence to prove or suggest God’s existence. These
people suspend their belief in God because there is no knowledge of God.

HZT4U –Unit Four (Ethics and Morality) - Review

What is Ethics?
 Ethics is the study of how to live life and how to treat others people.
 Ethics is that branch of philosophy that tries to determine the good things to do.
 Ethics from the Greek term “ta ethica” which literally means “having to do with good
character” and therefore directs morality and actions to an end, a good, or a goal.
 Ethics and the search for what serves the good can ultimately be seen in either objective
or subjective terms.
o If there is an objective reality, there must be objective truths.
o If reality is but subjective, then there are no objective truths.

32
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW

Ethics – Meaningful Distinctions

 In the modern world there seems to be two conflicting approaches to ethics and morality.
 Ethical Absolutism: An approach that affirms that ethics (what is considered right and
wrong or evil and good) is objective, unchanging, universal, and applicable to all people
everywhere.
 Ethical Relativism: An approach which denies that there is any single universally
applicable ethic or moral standard. What is good and right and what is wrong and evil is
subjective.
 From a philosophical perspective, ethics can be divided into three distinct schools of
thought.

Consequentialism
 Consequentialists claim that the morality of an action depends only or entirely on its
consequences.
 They are essentially humanistic approaches to ethics and is referred to as Utilitarian.
 These theories evaluate the effect of an action as a means to end by estimating a
calculation of positive gains and negative losses.
 There are three Consequentialist Schools of Ethics in Philosophy.

Egoism and Ethical Hedonism

 Ethical Hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize
pleasure or happiness.
 It is the position that is tailored to the needs of the indivisual.
 The principle upon which it operates is “always in such a way that your actions promote
your long term interests”
 Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE), taught that it is our life’s goal to
minimize pain and maximize happiness.
 Egoists hold the belief that pleasure has intrinsic value.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism

 Utilitarianism is best known as “The end justifies the means”
 In ethical circles and in moral theology it is also known as “Proportionalism”
 Act utilitarianism asks us to consider the consequences of our actions not only for
ourselves, but also for everyone else affected.
 The fullest expression of the ethical theories of utilitarianism is the conception of utility
as pleasure and the absence of suffering.
 An act is considered good if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people.
 Cofounder Jeremy Bentham stated that “pleasure is quantifiable”
 Cofounder John Stuart Mill stated that “pleasure is not necessarily quantifiable”
o “Pleasure is more than physical pleasure”

33
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
o “It is better to be a sad human than a happy pig”

Non-Consequentialism
 Non-consequential theories claim that the morality of an action depends on factors other
than consequences
 Non-consequential theories propose that certain actions are in themselves right or wrong.
 There are three schools of Non-consequential Ethics.

Divine Command Theory

 Divine command theory is a common non-consequential theory that encourages people to
follow and embrace the will of God.
 God establishes “Moral Laws” and they are universally binding for all people and are
eternally true.

Natural Law Theory

 Saint Thomas Aquinas reasoned that God created the universe and the laws that govern it
are laws that God imposed on it.
 God imposed Humans certain Natural Laws through the natural inclinations that God
built into nature when God created human nature.
 Natural Laws can be known through reason and observation alone.
 According to Aquinas, morality arises when human reason becomes aware of the natural
inclinations that God built into human nature a priori.

Deontological Theory
 Proposed by Immanuel Kant, this approach emphasized the rightness and wrong ness of
actions without considering the effects of the consequences.
 For Kant, the court of reason and the unique capacity and central role of obligation and
duty determine the morality of human actions.

Virtue Based Ethics

 Brought by Aristotle, Virtue Ethics is the position that the moral life should be concerned
with and directed by the “cultivation of virtues” and development of a “virtuous
character”/
 The focus on Virtue Based Ethics is not what actions we should do, but what kind of
person we become
 Aristotle believed that ethical virtue comes from an individual’s habitual actions, and it is
the ability of an individual to be responsible in their actions, desires and emotions.
 Aristotle believed that we become ethical individuals through acquired knowledge and
the habits we develop.
 We learn what is right and wrong from lived experience.
 Virtue is merely the ability to be reasonable in one’s actions
 Aristotle encouraged others to avoid the extremes of Excess and Deficiency, the golden
mean.
34
 HZT4U – EXAM REVIEW
 Aristotle reasoned that moderation is the key to happiness.

Critique of Virtue Based Ethics

 It can embrace Moral Relativism,
 Aristotle’s belief that social action is good and useful to the degree that it promotes the
happiness in society influenced the Utilitarian Approach to ethics.

35