1802337
| Question | Answer |
| Kants coherence theory of truth | Fits into a web of ideas, fits into what you already know |
| Kants correspondence theory of truth | Truth in reality. It is true just because it is the truth. |
| How does Kant resolve the conflict between rationalism and empiricism? | Rationalists say we are born with innate ideas which come from God. Do not use sense data for truth. Kant realizes that you need some ideas to be true but not through God. Synthetic a priori is the answer, truth that comes not depending on sense data. It plays the role of an innate idea. It grounds philosophical ideas into sense data (which you need to do through experiments to make sense of the world) |
| How does Kants correspondence theory of truth question the medieval approach to philosophy? | Medieval- God made the world> Faith and reason should thus lead to God Modern- Fight between the two ideas. Kant says that science is incapable of reaching metaphysical truth of God and free will. |
| Transcendent | Above sense data- free will and God is what metaphysics was. A Priori only because no perception of God. |
| Transcendental | This is the new question Kant came up with. This is the conditions for the possibility of something. |
| Analytic, synthetic, a priori, and a posteriori? | Analytic- based on one concept, self-evident, no new info (Bachelor is an unmarried man) Synthetic- Combines concepts, You learn something from it, synthesize data. (7+5, its cloudy outside) A Priori- Not depending on experience A Posteriori- Sense data, depends on experience |
| What makes judgement according to Kant? And how prove this? | Theoretical space and time in your mind make math possible (picture a right triangle, no problem right? Its the space in your head allowing that) Without that space in your head math is not possible, aka intuition. How prove this? The glove argument. You know that your left and your right hand are identical even though you can never line them up in a way to prove it. The theoretical place in your mind proves it. |
| Judgement of perception vs judgement of experience | Perception- Subjective. Only refering to the truth of perception back to you as the subject. Experience- Objective. Universally true. Fitting the judgement into nature, which is necessary for coherence of your experience. |
| Concepts of understanding, and why a priori? | In order to make the ideas cohere to your idea of reality and what fits, there has to be rules. To be true they can not be a prosteri (because they cant rely on sense data, cant have an experience of them) Example : Idea of Possibility The Sabers won a game- but there was a possibility they could have won. You let go of a pencil- it falls. No other possibilities. All you can see is what happens, but you have an understanding of other possibilities, what could have happened. WHICH IS A PRIORI |
| To what extent is Hume correct and incorrect about causality? | + Not learn from sense data - Doesn't realize causality is a priori and we must use it for science to cohere. *in order to make things cohere/ fit together need causality. |
| Why is it important (Kant) that science use sense data? | Need it to say that one thing causes another (causality) Experiments prove this. Pool table example. Hume would say that you see ball a move, hear a noise and then ball a stops and ball b starts moving. Hume cant say ball a caused ball b to move. Kant says you can use sense data to say ball a caused ball b to move. Only way to get things to fit together is to use causality through sense data. |
| How does Kant approach immorality of the soul? | We cant have a sensation of it unless we're dead. So we can't say its immortal because we can't perceive it. |
| What is an antinomy and how do they work? | Antinomy- debate where both the pro and con of a situation can be proven/ disproven. There's no sense data involved so we cant prove it either way. Like if God created the world, or if space is infinite. |
| In what sense, according to Kant, can we say that human beings are free? | Scientists can (to an extent through brain waves) prove there is no free will, but experience says other wise. It feels as though we are in control of our actions, so we must live our lives as if we are free. |
| Original/ reflective/ philosophic history? | Original- accounts for events by someone living through it. Reflective- Not by a participant of the time, but through the spirit of the time Philosophic- The thought that drives history. |
| Hegel- What is Geist, and what is its objective? | It is spirit. It is the purpose that drives reason, and drives the changes that happen in history. |
| How does geist move through the dialectic? | Dialectic- process where a conflict arises between the thesis and antithesis. Geist helps move from the conflict to the next step. |
| For itself- vs in itself | In itself- acting un-reflectively in the world, not self-aware. For itself- look at yourself reflectively as an object. Are self-aware. Ex- You have a friend who sees themselves as super unorganized because they have a high standard of themselves (in-itself) but others think they're on top of things and gets a lot accomplished (for- itself) |
| Why does great historical change have to be motivated by passion? | Through a crisis you feel passion to move yourself to the next level and closer to the freedom you are striving for. |
| Hegel think movement of history relates to happiness? | When happy, its great but there's no crisis, no pressure to change anything. You want crises to progress and grow as a person/ a society. Crisis allows for change. |
| What does Hegel mean by world historical individual? | They are great people but they do not have a great world vision. But they make a ton of ruckus about something and make practical and dramatic changes and kinda forces everyone else to change whether they want to or not. |
| Why does Hegel think that idealistic notions of the future cannot move history? | See history and see how reason guides us against our will in order to lead us to the next dialect. |
| How does Hegel dispute the theory of the state of nature? | State of Nature says people should be alone, but that is a pathetic idea of freedom. You need other people in order to be free. They give you the opportunity to be successful. Not free without others. |
| Why does Hegel think that this state is important to achieve freedom? | It is important to have laws because they allow you to do the things you want to do when they are made the right way. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.