Philosophy125 Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by Varda

Plato's Apology - If the future resembles the past
Socrates - On trial for Impiety and Corrupting the minds of the youth
1. Guilty of needless curiosity
2. Corrupting the youth, not acknow­ledging the gods - stories
UNSTABLE democracy

Initial Defence
Delphi's "­Pla­ce" - to talk to the oracle - High Standing
Oracle - told by the muses/­Hermes, Socrates is the wisest
Know thy self
Nothing in excess
Surety brings ruin
Skepticism of his wisdom

Idea of Hubris
Not "­knowing thy self." - arrogance
Hubris - a type of Pride
Socrates -doubts the story given by the gods
moving from story to theory

(1) Presoc­ratics : The Original ‘Natural’ Scient­ists:
Attributed LESS ‘agency’ to natural events.
Looked for the fundam­ental consti­tue­nts­/pr­oce­sse­s/r­eal­ities.
(2) Sophists: The Original Relativist Social Scientists
Protag­oras: “Man is the measure of all things”
Gorgias: “Persu­asion is the most valuable art.”
Thrasy­machus: “Morality is the advantage of the stronger.”
- not well thought of
- Seen as more dangerous
- sells "­kno­wle­dge­"


Socrates tries to distance himself from the Sophists - cares for his soul, doesn't want to teach others

Elenchus: Socratic method of eliciting truth by dialectic
Aporia: Intell­ectual impasse - Contra­diction in a theory­/text argument
Socratic Irony/ Socratic Paradox

What is Knowledge

Socrates - knowledge is knowing the Good for the soul.
The reality of morality Vs Appearance of morality
Authority -reason, not power
Real justice will not appeal to emotions.
What are the moral and political implic­ations of the Apology?
Socrates puts:
reason above convention
dialectic above rhetoric
principle above sentiment
rational consis­tency above unrefl­ective social habit
ordinary speech above emotional rhetorical flourish
He puts the reality of morality (genuine care of the soul) above the appearance of morality (care of reputa­tion).
Real authority is not power; it’s reason.
Real justice cannot be overridden by sentiment.

Crito
Socrates vs the Law
Crito's commitment to "­App­ear­anc­e" and "­con­ven­tio­n."

Elevating reason to a high standard- Apology
Elevating Justice to a high standard - Crito
Crito - the person­ifi­cation of convention - Mercy signing, to be a good person or to defend my friend.

"The Laws" conversion with Socrates.
Disobe­dience cannot be justified due to personal inconv­enience
"To know the good is to do the good"
Escaping justice would harm his soul
Source of sin - ignorance

The Euthyphro Problem
What grounds morali­ty/­Justice
Is Good good? Or Good because the gods will it?
Intell­ecu­alism/ Realism Vs Volunt­arism/ Moral Antire­alism
Good because its good Vs The Good is willed by God

What is Piety
2 Problems
1. Follow by example,
2. What the gods love - Piety cant be something the gods love and don't love at the same time

Intell­ecu­alism/ Realism
Morality is rationally accessible and is understood indepe­ndently from Divine Will.
In being all-po­werful, He is subjective to His goodness?

Moral Antire­alism
The Good is willed by God
- what is good for the soul unless it is subjective to God's will
-universal approval - ability to stand outside of the comman­dments
sin has no context unless God forbids it

Republic
A "good State" and "­goo­d" people are interd­epe­ndent.

The soul
Rational - Appetite - Spirit / Reason­ing­/logic - Cravin­gs/­ana­mal­istic - emotio­ns/­anger
Integrated + Hermonius = Functional Human

If the community has functional humans = State well functi­oning
Rational - Appetite - Spirit / Rational - Farmin­g/b­lac­ksm­ith/etc - Military

The Cave
>Might makes right
>Pulled out - can't see until the shadows
> Enligh­tening - reasoning happens
> Shares - self indulges
Knowledge depends on Moral effort resulting in insight. - Orienting your soul towards the Good

JTB theory - Justified True Belief, To have (Propo­sit­ional, percep­tual) knowledge one must have justified true belief
Requir­ements
1. True Opinio­n/B­elief
2. An account
3. Justified
4? - cannot be a conseq­uence of good fortune
State of Knowing Vs State of Believing

Ration­alism - Descartes, Spinoza
To acknow­ledge to be sensitive or responsive to reasons intros­pection on the intellect and the necessary relati­onships between concepts and reality.

Empiricism - Locke, Hume
The most important knowledge results from the accumu­lation of reflection on sense experience and observ­ations of reality
- Memories

The Christian Ration­alist - Rene Descartes
Fr. of Modernism - Elevate the human mind to a place it hasn't been before due to knowing ourselves.

Method­olo­gical doubt
Contrast with Plato
- Platonist: To have unders­tanding need to turn your soul(mind) to above
- Descartes: To know is to doubt
1. Dream Hypothesis
2. Evil Demon Hypothesis

God's existence is knowable
- Wax example - Physical world can change and still exist

Sponoza - Pantheism
- God is equally in the middle of the earth, surrounds everything and is in everything
- God doesn't have mental states
- Nature = God

Empiricism
John Locke
- All made equal
- Stays anchored to the five senses
- no innate ideas

David Hume - Skeptical Empiricist
Impres­sions are sensat­ions, passions and emotions
Complex impres­sions | Simple Impres­sions
Complex ideas | Simple Ideas

We are in time; memory cant transport us back in time
Memories and impres­sions can change through time

Relations of ideas and matters of fact
Matter of fact - Sunrise is tomorrow, but it can't be known
Mathem­atics - numbers have a form in reality
We Create in Relation to our senses

A Priori Relation - Cause and Effect
How would Adam know that water is not breathable - Unless there are prior experi­ences and memories
Hume - Causation is a correl­ation
every unders­tanding is linked to a relation of ideas (Exper­ience)
A Prior - Indepe­ndent to experi­ences

Problem of Induction
We think the future will resemble the past, But we cant know the future will resemble the past.
induction conclu­sions - all swans are white/ the next swan will be white
Need experi­ences of the past to 'know' the future
The distin­ction between thinking (Predi­ctions) and knowing (Exper­iences)

Ration­ali­st/­Emp­iricist Synthesis
Immanuel Kant
- Though all our knowledge begins with experi­ence, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience
Human knowing is confined to phenomena (appea­ran­ces).
We can never know noumena (reality as it is in itself).
Philos­ophy, Science, and Metaph­ysics must confine itself to the conditions of possible experi­ence.
The Categories of the Unders­tanding (see page 187) make sense experience intell­igible.
Ration­alists are right inasmuch as our minds bring concepts (i.e., cognitive norms/­lim­its)to bear upon experi­ence.
Empiri­cists are right inasmuch as HUMAN thoughts cannot originate without sensation.