Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSC (30,000)
Philosophy (1,000)
PHLA10H3 (200)

PHLA10H3 Lecture Notes - Ethical Subjectivism, Deductive Reasoning, Solipsism

Course Code
William Seager

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 47 pages of the document.
Philosophy Notes
Lecture Week 1
Pgs 1-19
Metaphysics – deals with issues in ontology and being
Why is there anything at all?
What is consciousness?
- some metaphysics issues have gone science “hand off”
Metaphysics - is the part of philosophy that attempts to describe in very general
terms, what there is.
What is knowledge?
- stopped clock, believing it to be true (knowledge)
Knowledge and the Mind
- the difference between believing something and knowledge
Epistemology and Logic
- how is the knowledge acquired and secured?
Epistemology and Metaphysics
- the assessment of metaphysics claims
Value Theory
- the nature of right and wrong
- e.g. street car
Social Theory
- political philosophy
- what is art?
- Does are have a special value
True belief – if you believe something for no reason at all and it happens by accident to
be true

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Philosophical scepticism- knowledge we never have. We don’t even know those things
we take to be most obvious.
Dualism- the mind and the brain are different things
Ethical subjectivism- the idea that there are no ethical facts, only ethical opinions
Subjective realm – free to argue (opinions)
Objective realm - facts
Solipsism- your mind is the only thing that exists
- arguments divide into two parts
premises and conclusions
the reason are the premises of the argument, premises are assumptions
the statement to be established is the arguments conclusion
Good arguments are rationally persuasive, it gives you a good reason to think that
conclusion is true
Good argument deductively valid
Good argument not inductively valid abductively strong OR inductively strong
Deductive Validity
All fish swim
All sharks are fish
All sharks swim
This argument says the premises are true, therefore the conclusion is also true
A deductive valid argument is an argument that has the following property:
IF its premises are true, its conclusions would have to be true
*A valid argument can have false premises and a false conclusion

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

All plants have minds
All ladders are plants
All ladders have minds
All arguments have a logical form:
All Bs are Cs
All As are Bs
All As are Cs
An argument is valid or invalid solely based by virtue of the logical form it has
The subjective matter of the argument is irrelevant
If there is even the smallest possibility that the conclusion could be false when the
premises are true, then the argument is deductively invalid
Emeralds are green
Lemons are yellow
It is invalid because there has to be “absolute guarantee” that the conclusion is true
(the fact that emeralds are green doesn’t prove that lemons are yellow) -- you need more
All True Not All True
True Possible Possible
False Impossible Possible
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version