Philosophy 1010

1
Philosophy 1010 Class 4
Title Introduction to Philosophy Instructor Pau
l Dickey E-mail Address pdickey2_at_mccneb.edu
Hand in 1. Revised First Essay 2. Brief Movie
Scene Analysis from Chapter Two
2
For Next Week
Reading Assignment for Next Week Velasquez,
Philosophy A Text With Readings Chapter 2., pp
69-79. HEADS UP It is very likely that there
will be a pop quiz next week. Anything we have
covered so far is fair game.

• Homework Assignment
• Practice evaluating EVIDENCE in day-to-day
  arguments or judgments. Come to class prepared
  to discuss a particular example. (or, if you
  prefer, submit a 2 page written description of
  the incident.)
• Write a two-page play as a Socratic Dialogue
  discussing one of the questions you proposed in
  your second writing assignment. Use two
  characters, you and Socrates. Illustrate the
  principles of the Socratic Method in your play.

3
Two Kinds of Good Arguments

• 1) A good deductive argument is one in which if
  the premises are true, then the conclusion
  necessarily (I.e. has to be) true.
• Such an argument is called valid and proves
  the conclusion.
• For example Julie lives in the United States
  because she lives in Nebraska.
• All men are mortal.
• Socrates is a man.
• ____
• Socrates is mortal.
• A sound argument is a valid, deductive argument
  in which the premises are in fact true.

4
Two kinds of good arguments

• 2) A good inductive argument is one in which if
  the premises are true, then the conclusion is
  probably true, but not always. The truth of the
  premises do not guarantee the truth of the
  conclusion.
• Such an argument is called strong and supports
  the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not
  valid or invalid.
• For example Craig lives in Nebraska and he loves
  football, so he is a Nebraska Cornhusker fan.
• If I make this bet with you, would I win more
  money
• than I lose?

5
How Do Premises Support Conclusions?
For a Deductive argument, premises prove a
conclusion based on the logical form of the
statement. Consider the argument (P1)
If its raining outside, the grass is
wet.         (P2) Its raining outside.           
  _________________________         (Conclusion)
The grass is wet. In this case, the premises
support the conclusion fully simply by what the
premises say. It would be a contradiction to
suggest that the conclusion is false but the
premises are true.
6
How Do Premises Support Conclusions?
For an Inductive argument, premises support
(never prove) a conclusion based on how good the
premises provide evidence for the
conclusion. Consider the argument (P1) If
its raining outside, the grass near the house
gets wet when the wind is not blowing strongly
from the North (which doesnt often occur). (P2)
Its raining outside. _________________________ Th
e grass near the house is wet. Note It would
not be a contradiction to suggest that the
conclusion is false but the premises are true.
7
How Do We Evaluate an Argument?
Two ways (and only two ways) logically
to evaluate a claim 1) Do the premises
support or prove the conclusion? 2) Are the
premises true? -- It would be illogical for
you to argue, for example, I dont want to
believe that or You just cant say that, or
Where did you come up with that? etc.
8
How Does Sometimes Our Thinking Crash?

• 1. We are often influenced by rhetoric, language
  that is psychologically persuasive but does not
  have logical relevance.
• 2. The view that one opinion is as good as
  another, or whatever is true is only what you
  think is true is subjectivism. Subjectivity
  precludes the possibility of logical standards
  providing rules of thinking and thus, rational
  discourse.
• 3. Logical Fallacies are screw-ups in
  reasoning, which accept ambiguous, irrelevant,
  and/or illogical fake premises as real and
  incorrectly treat them as reasons to believe.

9
Logical Fallaciesare Screw-ups in Reasoning
Logical Fallacies can be Formal or Informal. A
formal fallacy is something like All mothers
are women. Janice is a woman. Thus, Janice is a
mother. This is a formal fallacy because its
logical form is invalid. An informal fallacy is
something like Janice believes in God. Janice
is not smart because she is no good at algebra.
Thus, God does not exist. That is, an informal
fallacy are errors in logic usually because the
premises of the argument either are ambiguous
or irrelevant to the claim.
10
Informal Fallacies often occur when the purported
premise is not even relevant. (These are known as
the fallacies of relevance) They
include Appeal to Authority Ad
Hominems Misplacing the Burden of Proof /
Evidence Begging the Question Wishful Thinking
11
Appeal to Authority

• A fallacy in which a speaker seeks to persuade
  not by giving evidence or proof but by appealing
  to the respect people have for a source. The
  source might be a person, an institution, a text,
  etc. .
• Is this an example?

12
The Ad Hominem Fallacy

• Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes.
• The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of
  the argument itself with the qualities of the
  person making the claim. Most Ad Hominem
  arguments are negative.
• In an ad hominem, a person attacks the proponent
  of an argument rather than analyzing the argument
  itself.

13
Misplacing the Burden / Argument from Ignorance

• The burden of proof in an argument rests on the
  person making the claim. It is her responsibility
  to give the premises and the reasons to believe
  her claim is true.
• To try to shift the burden of proof onto the
  person who is listening to your argument and
  trying to make him show that you are wrong is
  called misplacing the burden of proof.
• A particular example of this logical error is the
  appeal to ignorance which suggests that we should
  believe something because no one has proven or
  shown it to be wrong.
• In an argument between a person who believes in
  God and an atheist, who has the burden of proof?

14
Begging the Question

• Begging the question is assuming as true the
  claim that is at issue and is to be supported.
• For example, God exists because the Bible says
  so and we should believe what the Bible says
  because it was written by God.
• Another example
• An old gold miners joke
• One gold prospector asks the other Why do you
  get two pieces of gold for every one I get. The
  second answers Because I am the leader. The
  first then replies but why are you the leader?
  The second responds Because I have twice the
  gold you do.
• What is the difference between begging the
  question and a valid, deductive argument?

15
Wishful Thinking

• Our hopes, desires and personal needs can delude
  us and make us vulnerable to the fallacy of
  wishful thinking.
• We should always be able to recognize when
  analyzing an argument what we want to believe and
  be sure that our desires are not overriding our
  critical thinking and making us come to
  conclusions simply because of what we want to
  believe.
• We may want to believe, for example, that God
  exists so that we might feel more secure or
  happy. We must thus separate that wish from the
  reasons that can serve as premises for our claim
  that God does exist.

16
Informal Fallacies also occur when it is not
recognized that the purported premise is
ambiguous. (These are known as fallacies of
ambiguity) These include Equivocation or
semantic ambiguity Amphiboly or syntactic
ambiguity Composition/Division or grouping
ambiguity
17
1. Equivocation words or phrases change meaning
between premises and conclusion. (semantic
confusion) All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I
deposit my money is beside a river. 2.
Amphiboly change of meaning due to grammar
(syntactical confusion) One morning, I shot an
elephant in my pajamas. Thus, elephants wear
pajamas.
18
3. Composition/Division The confusion is in
attributing the characteristics of part (or
whole) to the whole (or part). All the books in
this library are good. Thus, this is as a good
library. (Composition) This is a good library.
Thus, you can be sure that all the books in this
library are good. (Division)
19
Now, what kind of a fallacy is this?
The Naturalistic Fallacy

• This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to
  derive a normative statement (what you ought to
  do) from a descriptive statement (what is the
  case).  
• For example, a student argues that the
  instructor should excuse him from taking the
  mid-term exam because he was sick.
• Another example would be argue that the U.S.
  military should remain in Iraq because they are
  already there.
• Another example could be to argue that simply
  because God exists, you should act morally.

20
4 Steps to Evaluating an Argument

1. Be sure you understand the argument. What is the
   claim? What are the premises for the claim?
2. Determine if the argument is deductive or
   inductive and apply the appropriate test for
   validity or strong support.
3. Identify and weed out any logical fallacies,
   rhetoric, subjectivity, or irrelevancies. Clarify
   any vagueness or ambiguity.
4. Examine the truth of the premises. If the
   argument is inductive, evaluate the evidence.

Class Review of Logic Assignment
21
Class Discussion
22
Ten Minute Break!
23
Chapter 2 On Human Nature A Metaphysical
Study What is it to be Human? What is a Person?
What is a Self? What is a Soul? What is a
Person Worth?
24

• In reviewing the different attempts to answer
  philosophical questions such as these, please
  note carefully
• 1) Likely each view can give us additional or new
  insight into the questions and potential answers
  to the questions and thus provides us a richer
  understanding of human nature, BUT
• No answer will likely give us a complete and/or
  satisfactory answer that will supplant all the
  other views.
• 3) In short, all views proposed to answer a
  philosophical question should be respected but
  examined aggressively. We should not rush either
  to reject them or to accept them.

25
The Traditional Western View

• The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man
  Makes Four Basic Claims

1. That the self is conscious (has reason) and has a
   purpose
2. That the self is distinct from the body, but
   somehow is related.
3. That the self endures through time.
4. That the self has an independent existence from
   other selves

26
The Traditional Western View
The Traditional Western View of Human Nature is
the one most commonly held in our culture. Yet
different philosophers throughout history have
questioned and rejected every one of the four
tenets with various arguments.
27
Chapter 2 On Human Nature A Metaphysical
Study

• Video
• What is Human Nature?

28
Plato
c. 427-347 B. C. Plato is history's first
great philosopher because, among other reasons,
he provided the first set of answers to some of
the largest and most difficult questions What
is the structure of reality? What can be known
for certain? What is moral virtue? What is the
nature of the ideal state? No philosopher
before Plato had ever attempted such a wide and
deep exploration of philosophical problems.
29
The Traditional Rationalist View (Plato)

• For Plato, humans have a nonphysical or material
  soul or self in agreeing with all these
  assumptions.
• Plato contends that since reason often conflicts
  with our desires (or appetites) and that either
  of these can conflict with our aggression, each
  of these comprise one of the three main elements
  of our soul (self).
• For Plato, man can choose what part of his self
  rules his actions. (Free Will?) Because reason
  alone can know how we ought to live, it should
  rule the appetite and our aggressions.

30
The Traditional Rationalist View (Aristotle)

• Aristotle (384-322 BC) mostly agreed with Plato
  but went on to argue that reason can discover the
  truth about man in the natural world, and how we
  should act.
• Thus, Aristotle is rejecting Platos Allegory of
  the Cave, suggesting that Platos world of
  shadows can be known through reason.
• Ah, isnt this the basic motivation for science?
• For Aristotle, all living things and the natural
  world have purpose (telos). The purpose of man is
  to control desires and aggression through reason.
  

31
The Traditional Western Religious
View (Judeo-Christian)

• The purpose of man is to love and serve God.
  (St. Augustine 354-430 AD)
• Although influenced by Plato, this view asserts
  that humans are made in the image of God. Man has
  an immaterial and immortal soul and the ability
  to love and to know, in the very manner of God.
• Augustine emphasized that humans have will and
  intellect, the ability to choose between good and
  evil.
• The purpose of man is to know God through
  reason. (St. Thomas Aquinas - c. 1225 1274)

32
The Traditional Western View
The Traditional Western View of Human Nature is
the one most commonly held in our culture. Yet
different philosophers throughout history have
questioned and rejected every one of the four
tenets with various arguments.
33

• The most radical view is perhaps the
  Existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre -- 1905
  1980.
• Existence precedes essence.
• Humans are radically free. Human nature itself is
  determined by a mans choices. There is no fixed
  universal human nature (or soul) prior to the
  choices that an individual free man makes.
• Existentialism challenges our basic values of
  western civilization that human nature in some
  way is fixed. God does not exist.
• Human, All Too Human
• http//www.youtube.com/watch?vPxbkPCLlXII

34
The Traditional Western View

• The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man
  Makes Four Basic Claims

1. That the self is conscious (has reason) and has a
   purpose
2. That the self is distinct from the body, but
   somehow is related.
3. That the self endures through time.
4. That the self has an independent existence from
   other selves

35
Challenges to the Traditional Rationalist View

• Feminism
• The traditional view seems to be sexist in that
  it assumes that reason is male and emotions are
  female (e.g. Aristotle Augustine) By calling
  for the subjugation of emotions to reason, does
  the traditional view take a gender bias?
• Some feminist philosophers repudiate the
  traditional rationalist view and reject reason as
  the basis of human nature. Others agree that
  reason is primary and say the view only needs to
  be modified to remove gender bias and to
  acknowledge that reason is gender neutral.

36
Indeed, is the Rationalist View also Racist?

• Aristotle claimed that since barbarians were less
  rational than Greeks, it was justifiable to rule
  and enslave them because they were less human.
• Caveat Emptor Such an assertion does not
  logically follow from Plato.

37
The Traditional Western Religious View

• For Thomas Aquinas, however, one is not limited
  in their ability to love and serve God by
  differing levels of intelligence or knowledge.
• In his view of Human Nature, note that Love and
  Service to God trumps Reason !!!
• Question for the class
• Does this view contradict the previously asserted
  suggestion in the class that it is best to seek
  truth and wisdom? Or Socrates view that the
  unexamined life is not worth living? Would
  Aquinas agree with you?

38
Other Challenges to the Traditional Rationalist
View

• Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) claimed that man acts
  only to satisfy his desires. In particular, he
  possesses a basic, powerful desire for
  aggressiveness and sexual pleasure. Man views
  others as objects.
• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) claimed that the mans
  primary desire was for power over others.
• Moritz Schlick (1882-1936) believed that man is
  able to act only out of self-interest. Schlick
  recognized the appearance of unselfish behavior,
  but claimed even such behavior occurred only
  because of unrecognized self-interest.

39

• Darwinism
• Evolutionary theory claims that random variations
  and natural selection make species evolve. To
  many, this suggests that humans are not unique
  and that there perhaps is no special purpose to
  human life.
• Charles Darwin 18091882
• Darwin does not himself take a position on the
  question whether God exists.