Exam 2 Quetions Phil 1
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of California, San Diego *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by EarlButterflyPerson965
Questions
1.
(a) What are Descartes’ three reasons for doubting his knowledge of the
external world? (explain)
-
In Descartes' paper regarding the first meditation, the three main arguments and
reasons for doubting knowledge of the external world are the Allusion argument, The
Dream argument and the Evil Demon Argument.
-
The Allusion argument argues that occasionally our senses may deceive us into having
incorrect or distorted perceptions. Since our senses have occasionally deceived us in the
past, we cannot fully trust them to provide us with accurate information about the
external world. Therefore the allusion argument poses doubt on the reliability of our
senses as a source of knowledge.
-
The Dream argument introduces the possibility that we may be dreaming at any given
moment. While dreaming, our experiences can feel just as vivid and real as when we are
awake. Since we cannot always distinguish between dreaming and wakefulness, there is
doubt in our reliability of our experiences and our beliefs about the external world as they
could be mere products of our dreaming minds.
-
The Evil Demon argument presents more doubt by proposing the existence of an evil
demon or a powerful deceiver. There could be an entity that manipulates our perceptions
and deceives us in everyday life, creating an illusion of the world. This argument
challenges the very foundation of Descartes' beliefs, leaving him with the possibility that
everything he thinks he knows about the external world could be an elaborate deception.
(b) How does he finally respond to the Skeptic?
-
Descartes responds to the skeptic by introducing the concept of a benevolent God. He
argues that if there is a God who is not a deceiver, then it is reasonable to trust in the
clear and distinct ideas that are perceived by the mind. Descartes suggests that God's
existence guarantees the reliability of our cognitive faculties and provides a foundation
for rebuilding knowledge and certainty.
(c) Is his argument successful? Why/Why not?
-
While some may find his argument convincing and appreciate the role of a benevolent
God in establishing certainty, others may find his reliance on God as an external source
problematic. Ultimately, the assessment of Descartes' argument's success depends on
one's philosophical perspective and willingness to accept his premises and reasoning.
(d) Assuming that his argument is successful, what is the extent of knowledge about the
external world that he could obtain?
-
If we assume the success of Descartes' argument and accept the existence of a
benevolent God, Descartes believes that knowledge about the external world is possible
to a limited extent. He argues that certain clear ideas, such as those of mathematics and
geometry, can be relied upon as true and certain. However, knowledge of the external
world beyond these abstract concepts remains uncertain, as it is still susceptible to the
limitations of our senses and potential deception by the evil demon.
(e) What are the properties of the foundational beliefs according to him?
-
The foundational beliefs according to Descartes are clarity, self-evidence, and
Indubitability.
(f) Why does he think that foundational beliefs must have those properties?
-
Descartes emphasizes that foundational beliefs must be clear and distinct in order to be
considered certain. Clear and distinct ideas are those that are perceived by the mind
with absolute clarity and leave no room for doubt or confusion. These ideas are
self-evident and can be grasped with certainty.
-
In addition, Foundational beliefs are self-evident truths that do not require any external
proof or justification. They are immediately evident to the mind upon reflection and
cannot be doubted without engaging in contradictory thinking.
-
Descartes' most famous foundational belief is "I think, therefore I am." He considers the
existence of the thinking self as indubitable and foundational. Descartes argues that
even if he is being deceived or his senses are unreliable, the fact that he is thinking
proves his existence as a thinking thing.
2.
(a) Explain Putnam’s thought experiment for supporting externalism (that the content of one’s
thoughts and assertions depend on the environment with which one has interactions.)
-
Putnam's thought experiment that supports externalism is known as "Twin Earth". In the
Twin Earth scenario, we imagine two identical individuals, Oscar and Twin Oscar, who
live on two different planets: Earth and Twin Earth. The only difference between Earth
and Twin Earth is the composition of the liquid known as "water." On Earth, "water"
refers to the clear, odorless liquid that we are familiar with, H2O. However, on Twin
Earth, the liquid that appears identical to water is a different substance with a different
chemical composition, let's call it XYZ. Now, both Oscar and Twin Oscar are unaware of
the chemical composition of the liquid on their respective planets. When Oscar says,
"Water is wet," he is referring to H2O, which is indeed wet. On the other hand, Twin
Oscar says, "Water is wet," referring to XYZ, which is also wet.
-
The crucial point is that the meanings of their terms are different due to the different
environments they are in. Despite Oscar and Twin Oscar being identical in every way,
their thoughts and assertions have different meanings because of their interactions with
their respective environments.
(b) How does Putnam use this view to respond to skepticism?
-
Putnam's externalist view challenges skepticism by emphasizing that the meaning of our
beliefs and thoughts is influenced by the external world. This suggests that our
understanding is grounded in reality and not just illusions created by a deceptive entity
like being trapped in a brain-in-a-vat situation. When our ideas are connected to the
external world, the skeptical argument that questions the trustworthiness of our
knowledge loses its strength. This is because our understanding is anchored in reality,
making it more reliable and less susceptible to being deceived by extreme scenarios.
(c) Is Putnam’s argument convincing? Why/Why not?
-
Some find Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment compelling as it challenges
traditional views of meaning and supports the idea that meaning depends on external
factors. However, others may find his argument unconvincing due to potential
counterarguments or alternative explanations for the relationship between language,
thought, and the external world.
3.
(a) Explain Moore’s proof of the external world.
-
Moore starts by emphasizing the importance of providing a proof for the existence of
external objects.
-
The first point Moore makes is that he can give proofs of external objects' existence in
the present and in the past. He presents two types of proofs: one for the existence of
external objects in the present (such as showing his hands) and another for their
existence in the past (referring to the fact that he held up two hands earlier). He argues
that these proofs are rigorous and conclusive.
There is a had —> therefore a thing exist —---> there for the external world exists
(b) What are the conditions that are necessary for an argument to be a proof (according to
Moore)?
-
According to Moore, for an argument to be considered a proof, it must satisfy three
necessary conditions. Firstly, the premise presented in the argument must be distinct
from the conclusion it aims to prove. Secondly, the premise must be something that is
known to be true, not merely believed or uncertain. Lastly, the conclusion must logically
follow from the premise, ensuring a valid and conclusive inference. These three
conditions are essential for an argument to be considered a rigorous and satisfactory
proof.
Premise must be distinct from the conclusion it aims to prove
The Premise must be something that is true
The conclusion must logically follow the premises
(c) Why are these conditions necessary?
-
These conditions are necessary to ensure the validity and reliability of a proof. By having
a distinct premise, it establishes a clear and logical connection between the evidence
and the conclusion. Requiring the premise to be known rather than uncertain or believed
adds a level of certainty and credibility to the proof. Lastly, the logical connection
between the premise and the conclusion guarantees that the inference is sound and the
conclusion follows logically from the evidence provided.
(d) Does Moore’s argument satisfy these conditions? (Explain)
-
Moore's argument satisfies these conditions to a certain extent. His proof of the
existence of external objects in the present (e.g., showing his hands) fulfills the
conditions. The premise is distinct from the conclusion, as he presents concrete
evidence for the existence of external objects (his hands). Additionally, he claims to
know that his hands exist, which satisfies the second condition.
(e) Most people find Moore’s argument not convincing. What do you think the reason might
be? (I.e., does his proof need to satisfy other conditions?)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help