Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Games and Hobbies >

philosophy Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

helpful notation for the love of wisdom.

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

/

main tenets of hermet­icism

1. mentalism
2. corres­pon­dence
3. vibration
4. polarity
5. rhythm
6. cause and effect
7. gender

-

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” - Aristotle (The phrase is also used to explain the importance of Synergy and the founda­tions of Gestalt theory.)

stoic extens­ion­alism

1.) transform everyone into a teacher.
2.) say no to the easy way, seek out challe­nges.
3.) be strict with yourself but tolerant of others.
4.) allow the journey to be the thing.
5.) transform envy into emulation.
6.) stand on the shoulders of giants.
7.) forgive yourself and forgive others.
8.) fall in love with Fate.
9.) always practice courage, temper­ance, and humor.
10.) remember, the obstacle is the path.
the idea is that only people who have cultivated virtue and self control in themselves can bring positive change in other. A true stoic does not view their success based on the financial gain of their ventures, but instead its comforted by the fact that they can live a comfor­table life without all the things money can buy.*

four main tenets of stoicism

wisdom
courage
temperance
justice
 

Argument from ignorance

{X} is false because you cannot prove that {X} is true.
{X} is true because you cannot prove that {X} is false.

irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi)

“Polar bears can’t be dangerous because they are cute.”
The fallacy: An irrelevant conclusion happens when the conclusion proved by the author is not the one the author initially tried to prove.
{X} therefore {Y} Where {X} is irrelevant in concluding that {Y}.

irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

“Polar bears can’t be dangerous because they are cute.”
The fallacy: An irrelevant conclusion happens when the conclusion proved by the author is not the one the author initially tried to prove.
{X} therefore {Y} Where {X is irrelevant in concluding that Y.

appeal to force (argum­entum ad baculum)

“I am right. Agree with me or I will break your legs!”
the fallacy (might is right) is committed when either force or threat of force is used in an attempt to justify a conclu­sion.
{X} is true. Either you accept it or you will get hurt.
“I know it is not part of your duties, but form now on you also need to start cleaning toilets. If you don’t, I will have to start looking for someone to take your place.”

appeal to pity (ad miseri­cor­diam)

“The woman should not be found guilty, since it would break her poor children’s hearts to see their mother taken to prison,” (The sob story or the Galileo argument)
The fallacy is committed when someone tries to win an argument by exploiting the other persons feelings of pity or guilt.
{X} is true because not {X} would be too sad a state of affairs

appeal to majority (ad populum)

An example of this in advert­ising is: “50,00­0,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong”
The fallacy concludes that a propos­ition must be true because many or most people believe it.
Most people believe that X is true. Therefore, X must be true.
“The majority chose this govern­ment. The majority is always right, therefore everything this government does is right.”

appeal to emotion (ad passiones)

“father Christmas must be a real person. It would be so sad if he wasn’t.”
the fallacy of appeal to emotion is committed when someone tries to manipulate emotions to make their case rather than building a valid rational argument. Such appeal to emotion may invoke: fear, hatred, happiness, pity, sadness and pride.

Begging the question (Circulus in demons­trando)

“God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because God wrote it”
The fallacy, also known as arguing in a circle. The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument assume the position that is in the question without proof.
X because Y, Y because X = (circular reasoning)

Against the person (Ad hominem)

It is a type or irrelevant conclu­sion. Ad hominem seeks to attack someones positon by attacking the character or personal traits of the opponent rather than the argument. Such an attack is based on prejudice or feelings that are irrelevant to the argument.
X claims Y
The circum­stances or character of person {X} are unsati­sfa­ctory, or does not act according to {Y}. Therefore, claim {Y} is implau­sible or unlikely.
Abusive ad hominem fallacy - “The minister for transport is an arrogant, detestable person, so his solutions to solving traffic are deluded’. (There is no correl­ation between the two, one is basing the conclusion based on the dislike of the person.)
Ad hominem: the circum­sta­ntial form - “The mayor just bought a bicycle and wants to use it. Of course, that is his motivation to turn the town centre into a no-traffic area!”
this attacks the motivation of an opponent claiming it’s a result of personal circum­stances leading to a bias in that persons judgement*

Appeal to authority (Ad verecu­ndiam)

x: an expert in field y
z: x’s position on some issue that does not fall under field y
form of the fallacy: According to x, who’s an authority on y. Therefore, z is true.
 

why?

Aside from it being an obviously good foundation to pursue the practice of law, the study of philosophy is almost like an agility training exercise for the brain.


Founda­tions of reasoning and logic train the brain to bend, twist, and think in directions that it is not used to thinking. It almost seems like these guys can intuit­ively see and predict things that others cannot. It's like extrap­olating numerical data based on a set of known values, however it isn't numerical but empirical.


Assimilate it to breaking down a large project into smaller manageable pieces. Philosophy trains you to break down a simple thought or idea into smaller manageable pieces and by doing so having a well-r­ounded unders­tanding of what that really is on a multi-­faceted level. If you're a philos­opher at your core this is the way you view the world without even having to think about it, it's second nature to you to break everything down in this way.

elenchus (socratic method)

the socratic method of eli­cit­ing­ truth by question and answer, especially as used to ref­ute an argument.

socratic method for debate (diale­ctic)

1) Interl­ocutor (parti­cipants of the dialogiue) gives initial definition of something
2) Evaluate the interl­ocutors claim, pointing out any incong­ruities
3) Attempt to fix the incong­ruity or give a better definition
4) Utilise the apophatic process
5) Don’t give students a direct answer, offer questions in place of answers
6) Help students see that there is never one “correct” answer unless all other solutions have been ruled out.