Branches of Philosophy ARGUMENTS AND DEFINITIONS

Logic the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles of valid inference and rational demonstration Compare the following arguments: If all people are prejudiced in their observations, then no person is justified in asserting their beliefs are certain. It is evident that all people are indeed prejudiced in their observations. So, it is clear that no one is ever justified in claiming their beliefs are certain. If I eat six jelly doughnuts in three minutes, then there is no way I’ll be able to run in the marathon this morning. Since I most certainly well eat a half- dozen jelly doughnuts in the next three minutes, it is obvious that I won’t run in the marathon.

Inferential Assessment If we extract the content, purpose or meaning of each argument and consider only the pattern or formal structure of the reasoning these two arguments follow, we can represent this structure as follows: If A then B.A  B A orA Therefore B  B Notice how this pattern represents a necessary relationship of support between the premises and the conclusion. Though it is possible that the claims in the argument are false, it would be logically impossible to accept the reasons given while denying the conclusion.

Logical Consistency Consider the following pairs of claims: 1a.Every event in nature is the necessary result of a preceding cause. 2a.Human beings are morally responsible for their behavior. and 1b.God is omniscient. 2b.Human beings are morally responsible for their behavior.

Epistemology the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief. Consider the following argument given by Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: By what argument can it be proved, that the perceptions of the mind must be caused by external objects,... and could not arise either from the energy of the mind itself,... or from some other cause still more unknown to us? It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them. How shall this question be determined? By experience, surely, as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is and must be entirely silent. The mind has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects. The supposition of such a connexion is, therefore, without any foundation in reasoning.  What is Hume’s conclusion here?  What are Hume’s reasons in support of this conclusion?  If Hume’s premises are correct, does this show that his conclusion must also be correct?  Explain your answers.

Metaphysics the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence, being and fundamental reality Consider the following argument given by Descartes in his seminal work, Meditations on First Philosophy: The first observation I make at this point is that there is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible. For when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete. Although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, I recognize that if a foot or an arm or any other part of the body is cut off, nothing has thereby been taken away from the mind. As for the faculties of willing, of understanding, of sensory perception and so on, these cannot be termed parts of the mind, since it is one and the same mind that wills, and understands and has sensory perceptions. By contrast, there is no corporeal or extended thing that I can think of which in my thought I cannot easily divide into parts; and this very fact makes me understand that it is divisible. This one argument would be enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body, even if I did not already know as much from other considerations.

Analysis of Descartes’ Argument 1.The body is divisible. 2.The mind is indivisible. 3.If two things do not have exactly identical properties, then they cannot be identical. (The principle of the non-identity of discernables) 4.Therefore, the mind and the body are not identical.

Now consider the following claims: 1.The mind is a nonphysical thing. 2.The body is a physical thing. 3.The mind and body interact causally and affect one another. 4.Nonphysical things cannot causally interact with physical things. Notice that all four of these claims cannot be true. If one is to remain consistent, it seems that one must reject at least one of these claims. Which one do you thing is most reasonable to reject. Why? What problems does cause for Descartes’ conclusion?

Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is the search for a definition of right conduct and the good life and addresses questions of how people ought to act Consider the following passage from Herodotus' Histories: If one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs in the world such as seemed to them best, they would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own; so convinced are they that their own usages far surpass those of all others.... That people have this feeling about their laws may be seen by very many proofs: among others, by the following. Darius, after he had got the kingdom, called into his presence certain Greeks who were at hand, and asked—“What he should pay them to eat the bodies of their fathers when they died?” To which they answered, that there was no sum that would tempt them to do such a thing. He then sent for certain Indians, of the race called Callatians, men who eat the dead bodies of their fathers, and asked them, while the Greeks stood by, and knew by the help of an interpreter all that was said—“What he should give them to burn the bodies of their fathers at their decease?” [The practice of the Greeks.] The Indians exclaimed aloud, and forbade him to use such language. Such is men’s customary practice; and Pindar was right, in my judgment, when he said, “Custom is the king o’er all.” What is Herodotus’ conclusion here? What are Herodotus’ reasons in support of this conclusion? If Herodotus’ premises are correct, does this show that his conclusion must also be correct?