unexamined life is not worth living. Often considered to be the father of Western philosophy, Socrates spent his life encouraging others to ask difficult questions about their val- ues, assumptions and beliefs. He was executed for “corrupting the youth.”
of reality and the significance of our lives by applying critical reasoning to our deepest and most general beliefs. ! Science tries to classify, explain and predict phenomena in the world.
of reality and the significance of our lives by applying critical reasoning to our deepest and most general beliefs. ! Science tries to classify, explain and predict phenomena in the world. ! Religion and the arts tell stories that provide meaning for human life in a larger context.
of reality and the significance of our lives by applying critical reasoning to our deepest and most general beliefs. ! Science tries to classify, explain and predict phenomena in the world. ! Religion and the arts tell stories that provide meaning for human life in a larger context. ! Philosophy identifies and analyzes basic assumptions we make in hope of finding general truths about knowledge, reality and our social lives.
that comes naturally to children – it is imaginative, born of wonder, and the mystery of life. ! But it employs methods that come naturally to lawyers – it seeks to account for every last detail, employing analytical thinking, careful definitions and rigorous logic.
one to live one’s life? NOTE: ! This is not a question about how we in fact live, but a question about how we should live. ! Such normative questions challenge us to give an account of ourselves, our values, our assumptions.
one to live one’s life? NOTE: ! This is not a question about how we in fact live, but a question about how we should live. ! Such normative questions challenge us to give an account of ourselves, our values, our assumptions. ! They encourage us to reflect on what we might normally take for granted in the attempt to justify our deepest beliefs.
one to live one’s life? NOTE: ! This is not a question about how we in fact live, but a question about how we should live. ! Such normative questions challenge us to give an account of ourselves, our values, our assumptions. ! They encourage us to reflect on what we might normally take for granted in the attempt to justify our deepest beliefs. ! Socrates’ question is a question in the sub-field of philosophy called “value theory” or “axiology.”
know with any degree of certainty? NOTE: ! Descartes asked this question at the beginning of the scientific revolution, a time when old “certainties” were revealed to be little more than assumptions.
know with any degree of certainty? NOTE: ! Descartes asked this question at the beginning of the scientific revolution, a time when old “certainties” were revealed to be little more than assumptions. ! Answering it requires a clarification of what knowing in general involves as well as different types of knowledge.
know with any degree of certainty? NOTE: ! Descartes asked this question at the beginning of the scientific revolution, a time when old “certainties” were revealed to be little more than assumptions. ! Answering it requires a clarification of what knowing in general involves as well as different types of knowledge. ! Asking philosophical questions opens us up to the risk of not being sure how to answer them: do we really know anything at all with certainty?
know with any degree of certainty? NOTE: ! Descartes asked this question at the beginning of the scientific revolution, a time when old “certainties” were revealed to be little more than assumptions. ! Answering it requires a clarification of what knowing in general involves as well as different types of knowledge. ! Asking philosophical questions opens us up to the risk of not being sure how to answer them: do we really know anything at all with certainty? ! Descartes’ question is a question in the sub-field of philosophy called “epistemology” or “theory of knowledge.”
something rather than nothing? NOTE: ! Philosophical questions are often much more general than questions we normally encounter. ! Science seeks answers to particular questions about how things work instead of such broad questions.
something rather than nothing? NOTE: ! Philosophical questions are often much more general than questions we normally encounter. ! Science seeks answers to particular questions about how things work instead of such broad questions. ! In Heidegger’s view philosophical questions may catch hold of us and refuse to let us go, even if we may not have a clear way of answering them.
something rather than nothing? NOTE: ! Philosophical questions are often much more general than questions we normally encounter. ! Science seeks answers to particular questions about how things work instead of such broad questions. ! In Heidegger’s view philosophical questions may catch hold of us and refuse to let us go, even if we may not have a clear way of answering them. ! Heidegger’s question is a question in the sub-field of philosophy called “metaphysics.”
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and body related? Is there a God? Are we really free? Value Theory (axiology) Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? What would a just society look like? What is the right thing to do? Logic & Epistemology When is our reasoning reliable? What can we know? What is science and how does it work? a map of the territory
and tries to get to the heart of things, how to do philosophy and whether we should bother are both open to question. ! In general though, philosophers proceed by:
and tries to get to the heart of things, how to do philosophy and whether we should bother are both open to question. ! In general though, philosophers proceed by: Identifying assumptions, unquestioned beliefs, underlying pictures of how things are.
and tries to get to the heart of things, how to do philosophy and whether we should bother are both open to question. ! In general though, philosophers proceed by: Identifying assumptions, unquestioned beliefs, underlying pictures of how things are. Developing arguments that might justify or refute these assumptions, beliefs and pictures.
and tries to get to the heart of things, how to do philosophy and whether we should bother are both open to question. ! In general though, philosophers proceed by: Identifying assumptions, unquestioned beliefs, underlying pictures of how things are. Developing arguments that might justify or refute these assumptions, beliefs and pictures. Seeking clarification by making distinctions, defining terms, classifying positions.
399 BCE What is justice? Socrates was not the first person to ask such general questions. But he did notice how our answers to these questions are connected with many other beliefs, ideas and opinions we have. He paid attention to the logic of our beliefs.
c. 400 BCE Justice is whatever the powerful say it is. Thrasymachus was a “Sophist,” one of a group of professional teachers of rhetoric active dur- ing Socrates’ lifetime. The Sophists claimed to be able to convince anyone of anything and often scoffed at the idea of finding the real truth. Socrates considered them his enemies.
a clear statement of assumptions. ! He draws out the implications of Thrasymachus’ definition. ! He demonstrates that these implications are inconsistent with other beliefs that Thrasymachus holds.
a clear statement of assumptions. ! He draws out the implications of Thrasymachus’ definition. ! He demonstrates that these implications are inconsistent with other beliefs that Thrasymachus holds. ! He is not after a rhetorical victory in a debate but is convinced that open discussion following the principles of logic will alone give us good reasons to believe what we believe.
a clear statement of assumptions. ! He draws out the implications of Thrasymachus’ definition. ! He demonstrates that these implications are inconsistent with other beliefs that Thrasymachus holds. ! He is not after a rhetorical victory in a debate but is convinced that open discussion following the principles of logic will alone give us good reasons to believe what we believe. ! To find the truth we construct arguments in support of our claims and then critically analyze these arguments.
a human. Thus Socrates was mortal. The premises are the statements we use to support our conclusion. The conclusion is the claim we are attempting to establish with this argument.
a human. Thus Socrates was mortal. How can we tell whether an argument is any good? ! It must be valid: the conclusion must logically follow from the premises.
a human. Thus Socrates was mortal. How can we tell whether an argument is any good? ! It must be valid: the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. ! It must be sound: the premises must be true.
a human. Thus Socrates was mortal. How can we tell whether an argument is any good? ! It must be valid: the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. ! It must be sound: the premises must be true. To check for validity we ask, “Can these premises be true and this conclusion false at the same time?”
a human. Thus Socrates was mortal. If it is true that all humans are mortal . . . and it is true that Socrates was a human . . . Then it seems clear that the conclusion must also be true.
a human. Thus Socrates is immortal. ! This argument is also valid, even though one of the premises and conclusion are clearly false. ! This is because IF the premises were true, the conclusion would also have to be true.
a human. Thus Socrates is immortal. ! This argument is also valid, even though one of the premises and conclusion are clearly false. ! This is because IF the premises were true, the conclusion would also have to be true. This argument is thus VALID, but UNSOUND since the first premise is false.
is a mammal. Thus my brother is a dog. ! Suppose both of these premises were true. ! Does that mean that the conclusion also MUST be true? Clearly not! So this argument is INVALID, and because of this it is automatically UNSOUND.
geoslack
signer
yuyakurodou
abap34
mineo_matsuya
pylapp
matleenalaakso
irocho
cm_manaus
yuritaco
27th
ponponmikankan
jmmastey
kneath
brad_frost
bryan
chriscoyier
cassininazir
andyhume
garrettdimon
scottboms
bcantrill
shlominoach
vanstee
