happens to be true given the conditions, but could have been false otherwise
formal truth
an attribute that judgements/propositions have when they accurately reflect the way things are
material truth
an attribute that concepts have; true when the something that answers to the concept has formal reality
analytic statement
?
synthetic statement
?
falsifiable claim
capable of being refuted by evidence or experience
determinism
every event in the world is causally determined
compatibilism
determinism is true + we have free will (a person has free will if that person is able to do what they want)
libertarianism
determinism is false + we have free will (a person has free will if they had the ability to do otherwise)
internalism
knowing involves being aware of the basis of one's knowledge
externalism
we are justified in believing P if we believe P on that basis of a reliable method M whether or not we are aware of the reliability of M
primary properties
properties of an object itself (ex. extension)
secondary properties
the result of the interaction btw the perceiver and the object in a particular context (ex. color)
skepticism
raising doubts about something; note the distinction btw not believing something vs. believing something to be false
methodological skepticism
skepticism for pragmatic purposes; Descartes uses this to establish sure foundations re. the extent of his knowledge/the certainty of his beliefs
excessive/extreme skepticism
extreme skepticism undermines itself; if you truly doubt everything, why do you eat or drink? Do you believe it will satisfy your hunger or thirst? If so, then you don't doubt everything
mitigated/moderate skepticism
skepticism that limits our inquiry to subjects that are candidates for human understanding, namely (1) abstract reasoning concerning quantity and number, and (2) experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact
formal reality
has to do with the extent to which anything in the world answers to the idea
objective reality
has to do with the content of the idea/what the idea represents
the Cartesian circle
the critique that Descartes begs the question/argues in a circle:
Descartes uses the clear and distinct rule to prove the existence of God, and then uses God's existence to guarantee the truth of the clear and distinct rule
causation
a cause is an object followed by another
contributory cause
contributes to the effect, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the effect
proximate cause
the cause closest to the effect, supposing there was a series of events
initiating cause/catalyst
cause that sets off a chain of events
correlation
?
pos binary correlation
A is present, B is present / A is absent, B is absent
neg binary correlation
A occurs, B doesn't occur / A doesn't occur, B occurs (ex. nighttime and shadows)
pos scalar correlation
?
neg scalar correlation
?
epoche
suspension of judgement; the suspension of belief which is a goal of skepticism
teleological
things that are designed have a goal/purpose
substance
a unified, existing being with a nature or an essence
accident
a non-essential property of a thing
Cartesian substance dualism
Descartes thinks there are two distinct kinds of stuff: (1) mental substances and (2) physical/material substances
These things cannot share properties
Minds cannot have mass, extension, color; bodies cannot have thoughts, feelings, consciousness
the interaction problem
a critique of Descartes substance dualism: if minds and bodies cannot share properties, then how do they interact?
In order for the mind to move the body, doesn't there need to be some contact btw them?
idealism
all that exists are minds and ideas in minds
solipsism
only my mind is sure to exist
rationalism
(a priori) some knowledge can be had thru reasoning alone
empiricism
(a posteriori) all knowledge comes from experience