Class Notes (836,988)
United States (324,829)
Boston College (3,565)
Philosophy (307)
PHIL 1090 (61)


4 Pages
Unlock Document

PHIL 1090
Daniel Frost

12/04/2012 St. Thomas Aquinas In logic (posterior Analytics): Inductive reasoning “knowing the universal cause from it particular effects” Deductive reasoning  “Deducing the particular effects from known universal cause” In epistemology: “All knowledge comes from the senses” TheAgent Intellect  potential to actually. The way mind does this. Whole world is potentially intelligible but doesn’t mean anything until mind deduces from what is potentially intelligible to actually intelligible. The Phantasm (sense particular) vs the intelligible species (universal concept) InAMetaphysics.Ontology: “Being” (ENS), and the “to be” of things (ESSE) Potentiality vs Actuality God as uncaused cause In ethics: Locating the aim of ethics in virtue and happiness (not physical pleasure) and not in terms of consequences or law. “Object” of Faith and “Objects” of Reason: “the things that can be known by each…” Possibility #1:All F’s are R’s but not all R’s are F’s Possibility #2:All R’s are F’s but not all F’s are R’s Possibility #3: F equals R Possibility #4:Mutual exclusivity Possibility #5: Some but not all. PositionAquinas ultimately takes. Some propositions only faith can grasp. Can use reason for those who try to disprove them. There are some things only reason can prove. In the F category “De Fide” Revealed Theology, things reason cannot grasp. In the middle category he calls Natural Theology. TheAristotelian Syllogism: Reasoning is expressed in the form of an “argument” But an argument is interconnected “syllogisms” Syllogisms are inter connected “propositions” But propositions are interconnected “terms” If you read between the lines, you can see that forAristotle, once the smoke of rhetoric clears, all arguments can be reduced to syllogisms.And you can only legitimately challenge a “syllogism” in one of three ways. Each related to what a syllogism is: Pointing out flaws in the logic of the syllogism according to the rules of logic Fallacy of affirming the consequent Disputing the premises (saying a particular proposition is false) Ambiguous term (saying a term is equivocal) AsyllogismAmbiguous Terms: Major Premise:All clowns wear face paint A“universal” statement Minor Premise: Professor Frost is a clown A“particular” statement Conclusion: Professor Frost wears face paint. ASyllogism involving a faulty Premise: Major Premise:All dogs shed Minor premise: The sheepdog is a kind of dog Conclusion: Sheepdogs shed Asyllogism involve faulty logic: Major Premise:All dogs shed Minor Premise: Snakes shed Conclusion: Snakes are dogs Where has this gone wrong? Premise, Logic, or ambiguous term? Major Premise: It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being Minor Premise:Afetus is an innocent human being Conclusion: It is always wrong to ki
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 1090

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.