- •Philosophy exam
- •Define the difference between philosophy and common sence
- •Define the difference between philosophy and humanities/science
- •Define the difference between philosophy and ideology
- •4. What are the three general branches of phylosophy/what are the basic philosophycal questions?
- •5. Explain the meaning and significanse of “the arche question”
- •6. The being and becoming dilemma in early Greek philosophy
- •7. Explain Zeno’s paradoxes
- •8. Is total flux chaotic? Explainthe nature of change in the system of Heraclitus
- •9. Difine dialectic
- •10. Virtue in Greek philosophy. Explain the meaning of knowledge in Socrate’s ethics
- •11. Explain the ‘’Euthyfro dilemma”
- •12. Plato’s theory of ideas: ideas and sensual objects – differences and similarities
- •13. Plato’s theory of ideas: the conception of participation
- •14. Plato’s theory of ideas: the allegory of the cave
- •15. Plato’s theory of ideas: the ideal state
- •16. Aristotle: syllogisms
- •17. Hylomorphism: substance and its components
- •18. Aristotle: the four causes: what is the sence of final cause?
- •19. Aristotle: the theory of virtue (Golden Mean)
- •20. Aristotle: what does it mean to be a political animal?
- •21. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by St. Anselm
- •22. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by Descartes (deceitful demon and “Matrix”)
- •23. The existence of God: Pascal’s wager
- •24. Theodicy: how to explain suffering and injustice?
- •25. Descartes: the Cartesian method – its main assumptions and functions
- •26. Descartes: cogito and the mind/body problem
- •27. The theory of substance: monism and monistic theories
- •28. The theory of substance: pluralism and pluralistic theories
- •29. What is the ultimate source of our knowledge? Nativism vs.Empiricism
- •30. Locke’s tabula rasa and the critique of nativism
- •31. Locke: primary and secondary qualities
- •32. Berkeley: “esse est percipi” and phenomenalism
- •33. Hume: ideas and perceptions
- •34. Hume: the critique of necessary connection between cause and effect
- •35. Kant: a priory/ a posteriory and analytic/synthetic judgements
- •36. Kant: forms of sensible intuition and “the second Copernican revolution”
- •37. Kant: is metaphysics a science?
- •38. Kant ethics: categorical imperative
20. Aristotle: what does it mean to be a political animal?
At the very begging of his book Aristotle makes his famous definition that man is “a political animal”.
By the gift of speech and sense of moral values, man is distinguished from the other animals. The solitary man is “either a beast or a god”;
21. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by St. Anselm
The ontological argument runs as follows:
we understand by God a being greater than which nothing can be thought. This idea clearly exists in our minds: it is the idea of a being endowed with every positive attribute and every perfection (God is conceived in all sides as timeless, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, supremely good and supremely just).
22. The existence of God: ontological argument as formulated by Descartes (deceitful demon and “Matrix”)
Descaretes echoed and somehow repeated Anselm’s argument and added an elaboration of his own:
our idea of God is the idea of a perfect being and only a perfect being could be the author of the idea; our idea that God exists cannot be false because God in allowing us to have that idea, would not be deceitful, since that would not be in the character of a perfect being.
It is possible, says Descartes, that what I perceive is a reasult of a manipulation; there might exist a powerful demon who deceives our senses and, what follows, makes us perceive the world the way he wants us to perceive so that he could use us.
But, according to Descartes we must refute such a presumption for the idea of God as a mean and deceitful being runs against the idea of a perfect being which above all guarantees legitimacy of notions such as “good” “bad” and “just” that is guarantees the legitymacy of ethics.
23. The existence of God: Pascal’s wager
Pascal simply stated that we do not have to proove the existence of God (since it is impossible within the framework of reason) – we can make a bet instead.
Pascal’s wager is an argument for belief in God based on probability theory
Pascal proposed that to believe in God or not constitutes a wager that he exists or does not exist. Being alive and human we cannot avoid making a bet on one side or the other.
If God exists then to believe in him is to receive eternal life, while to deny him is to suffer damnation. If he does not exist, than to either receive or refuse him is to lose nothing. Hence, the wise gambler will choose to accept God, since to win the wager is to win all, and to lose is to lose nothing.
24. Theodicy: how to explain suffering and injustice?
The term theodicy was introduced by a German XVII century philosopher Gottfreid Wilhelm Leibniz.
The word theodicy derives from Greek (theos – god, dike – justice) and can be translated as the God’s justice.
Theodicy is a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil
Even if we find the existence of God believeable or we just believe in Him, or we think it is problabe that he exists, there is one more problem to be confronted, namely the problem of theodicy.
Theodicies usually claim that evil and suffering are a necessary condition for the achievement of God’s greater plan that is even greater good