Phil 101 Exam 2 Study Guide

Wednesday,  October 28, 2015 11:59 AM

Aquinas
The five ways:

The first way: Argument from Motion

1. Motion exists
2. Motion does not exist unless there is a first unmoved mover.
Therefore, there is a first unmoved mover (and this everyone recognizes as God -
see notes about the significance of this last statement)

Sub-argument for premise two:

1. Whatever is moved is moved by another.
2. This cannot 'go to infinity'. i.e., you cannot have one thing moving another
unless the chain of motion of which it is a part was initiated by an unmoved
first mover.
So, there is no motion without a first mover

-Aristotle's principles about potentiality and actuality provide support for the
first premise of this subargument.

-The chain reasoning we went through in class supports the second premise of
this subargument. Each prior member in the chain explains the motion of what
it moves. But we indefinitely put off giving an explanation of the motion in the
chain if you only invoke moved movers (because each moved mover requires
something to move it).

The second way: Argument from 'efficient cause' (coming to be)

1. Things come into existence.
2. Things cannot come into existence unless there is an first cause that does not
come into existence.
Therefore, there is such a first cause (and this everyone recognizes as God)
 Sub-argument for premise 2:
1. Whatever comes into existence is brought into existence by another.
2. This cannot 'go to infinity'. i.e., you cannot have things being brought into
existence by other things unless there is a first cause that does not come into
existence.

-Premise 1 asserts the plausible seeming idea that 'from nothing nothing
comes'
-The defense of premise two involves similar chain reasoning as in the first way

The 'who caused God' objection is not effective because the premises entail there
must be a being who does not need to be caused if there are beings who are caused.
So it misses the point of the argument.

Third way - Argument from possibility and necessity:

1. There are contingent beings
2. There could not be contingent beings unless there is a necessary being.
Therefore, there is such a necessary being (and this we call God).

Fourth way - Argument from levels of perfection:

1. There are beings with varying levels of perfection
2. There could not be such beings unless there is a fully perfect being.
Therefore, there is such a being (and this we call God).

Fifth way – Argument from design

1. Things without knowledge act for an end.
2. This could not be in the way we see it in nature unless there is some intelligent
beings who directs natural things to their end. (And this we call God).
 The Problem of Evil
Thomas’s statement of the problem:
1. If God exists then God is ‘infinite goodness.’
2. If there is infinite goodness there is no possibility of evil (and therefore no evil),
since evil is the contrary of goodness.
3. Evil exists
Therefore, God does not exist.

Another statement of the problem

1. If God exists, then God is perfectly good and all powerful
2. Evil exists
3. A perfectly good being would wish to prevent all evil and a perfectly powerful being
would be able to prevent all evil.
4. If evil exists, there is not a being who is able and willing to prevent all evil.
Therefore, God does not exist

A more modest premise 3:

A perfectly good and powerful being would be willing and able to prevent at least
some of the evil we see in the world. (And adjust premise 4 accordingly).

Thomas's response: It is part of God's goodness to bring good out of evil. See
lecture powerpoint for some of the distinctions I made regarding this response.

Aquinas on soul and body

The soul is the form of the body.

The soul is the first actuality of an organic body that has life potentially
-it is the life of a living body (that without that life would be a dead body).

As sight is to the eye, so the soul is to the body.

 As sight is to the eye, so the soul is to the body.

Aquinas is not a substance dualist. You are one form matter composite - your
formed, living body.

Descartes

Skepticism: the view that we know nothing at all.

Definition of 'withholding assent' toward a proposition p:

-Neither believing p is true nor believing that p is false - neither believing nor
disbelieving p. Descartes sets out to withhold his assent from anything that is at all
doubtful/not certain.
-until he can show that his judgments are incompatible with error.

Definition of strong foundationalism:

• It is possible to have basic knowledge - beliefs that qualify as knowledge, and they
are not 'justified' by appeal to any other belief. (Where justification is what is needed
to turn true belief into knowledge). These beliefs are justified in a basic way.
• Basic knowledge must be certain.
• All other knowledge (beliefs that qualify as knowledge) must be based on basic
knowledge. The inferences that take one from basic to non-basic knowledge must
themselves be certain.

Argument that whatever Descartes clearly and distinctly perceives is true:

1. The Cogito is nothing but a clear and distinct perception
2. If clear and distinct perceptions can be mistaken, then I am not certain of the cogito.
3. I am certain of the cogito
Therefore, Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive must be true.

Remember that 'clear and distinct perception' is not sense perception. It is a kind of
rational apprehension.
 rational apprehension.

'Cogito' is Latin for 'I think.' When I say 'the Cogito' I mean the state of certainty
Descartes is in when he realizes that not even the evil genius can deceive him about
the fact that he thinks/exists and therefore 'I think' and 'I exist' must be true
whenever he conceives them in his mind.

Meditation three argument for God's existence:

1. An idea must be caused by something with at least as much intrinsic reality as the
representational reality of the idea (the reality of what the idea represents)
2. Nothing except a being with maximal reality could have as much intrinsic reality as
the idea of God has representational reality.
3. The idea of God just is the idea of a being with maximal intrinsic reality
So only God could be the cause of my idea of God.

-The intrinsic reality of the thing is just where it fits in the 'great chain of being.' In
addition to intrinsic reality signs have representational reality. A painting of the Eiffel
Tower has a certain intrinsic reality - it's made of paper, oil paint, etc. But since it
represents the Eiffel Tower it also possesses representative reality corresponding to the
intrinsic reality of the Eiffel Tower.
-My idea of God represents a being with maximal intrinsic reality, so it has the
highest possible amount of representational reality.

Anselm's ontological argument

1. God is that than which none greater can be conceived.
-That is, the concept of God is the concept of a maximally great being, like the
concept of a unicorn has certain parameters. Remember our discussion of how
we could answer the question, ‘does God exist’
2. Anything that existed ‘only in thought’ (like unicorns) would be less great than
something that existed in reality.
3. So if God only existed in thought, the concept of God would not be the concept of
that than which none greater can be conceived. But see premise 1, Therefore, God
exists.
 Descartes' version
1. Existence is part of the idea of God as three sidedness is part of the idea of a
triangle.
2. Premise 1 implies that I cannot think of God without existing just as I can't think of
a triangle without three sides or a mountain without a valley.
3. Premise 2 implies you can't coherently think of God without conceiving of God
existing, just like you can't coherently conceive of a mountain without a valley or a
triangle without three sides.
4. This entails that the idea of God implies that he exists (unlike the idea of a mountain
or a valley)

Meditation 6 arguments and definitions:

• Descartes’s substance dualism
• The mind and body are two separate substances
• Descartes is his mind not his body (same goes for you)
• Nonetheless, Descartes and his body make a single composite substance (substance
composed of two other substances)
○ Descartes does not inhabit his body as a sailor inhabits a ship. He is more
intimately connected to his body than that.
• Descartes’ argument for substance dualism
1. If I can clearly and distinctly perceive that something A exists without clearly and
distinctly perceiving A as having a certain property P, then property P is not part of
the essence of A.
2. I can clearly and distinctly perceive that I exist without clearly perceiving that I have a
body.
So it is not essential to me to have a body.

The argument shows that what is essential to him is what he c+d perceived about
himself in Med. 2 – he is a thinking thing

• Descartes' argument about God and deception:

Descartes argues that God cannot allow him to err about any judgment Descartes has a great
inclination to make if Descartes has no faculty to determine if the judgment is mistaken. If
 Descartes argues that God cannot allow him to err about any judgment Descartes has a great
inclination to make if Descartes has no faculty to determine if the judgment is mistaken. If
God did that, he would be a deceiver.(because he gave the strong inclination and no faculty
to determine the error).

So all his perceptions can’t be just imaginations without corresponding to external objects.
Descartes’ has a strong inclination to believe many of his perceptions have external objects,
and no faculty to determine if this is in error

Selective Outline of Descartes’ Meditations

• Meditation 1:
• He will doubt anything that is not completely certain.
○ He does so by doubting the sources of his beliefs
□ He doubts sense perception because he can have the same
perceptions without there being anything he perceives
(dreams, matrix)
□ He doubts reason because a powerful being could cause him
to err about what seems most certain
○ Evil genius heuristic: if a powerful being bent on deception can deceive
him about it, it is doubtful.
• Meditation 2:
• Evil genius can’t deceive him about his thinking/existing when he thinks.
○ If he is deceived about everything else he is deceived and therefore thinks
□ Remember what the evil genius must do to deceive him:
 Make him think something true and have it be or make
it false.
◊ He can’t deceive him about his thinking/being
deceived/existing because the only way to make
that false is to stop Descartes from being
deceived/thinking/existing in which case he
doesn’t think those things and is not deceived.
 • But what is Descartes?
○ A thinking thing. That is certain. Nothing else is
□ External world, existence of other beings, bodies and even
Descartes’ body is doubtful
• Meditation 3
• Moving from cogito to other certainties
• General principle about certainty
○ Whatever I c+d perceive is true
□ Because cogito was certain, and was nothing but a c+d
perception
• He clearly perceives that he has ideas. Doesn’t know if they accurately
represent anything outside his mind
• He argues that his idea of God had to be caused by a being corresponding to
what the idea represents.
○ Principles about signs – they can only be caused by something with at
least as much intrinsic reality as what the idea represents
○ Idea of God is idea of being with maximal intrinsic reality
• Since God is perfect, he is not a deceiver
• Meditation 4
• Nature of deception:
○ Caused by my limited understanding, and power of will that makes
judgments that go beyond what I understand
□ Any finite being will have limited understanding
□ His will in itself is no different from God’s
 So he is responsible for his errors. God could have
good reason to make him liable to error in this way
• Meditation 5
• Grasp of essence
• Grasp of essence of God entails that there is such a being (ontological
 • Grasp of essence of God entails that there is such a being (ontological
argument)
• Meditation 6
• Detailed discussion of perception
○ Where can it err where can it not
• Dualism
○ Descartes is an immaterial mind, not a body
□ Argument from what he can understand his essence without
thinking of a body
• Where he can’t err:
○ God is not a deceiver so if D has irresistible inclination to judge and no
faculty to determine if he is error, then God cannot deceive him about
that
□ Existence of external world, his body, etc.
• Where he can err
○ Where there are limits of union of body and soul