Flashcards
philosophy: quick notes
Flashcards do conjunto (4)
- 1rene descartes: discarding all beliefs and truths john locke: primary and secondary qualities irish philosopher burkeley: used john locke's beliefs against him: cant have one without the other and since secondary qualities arent real then primary qualities arent real either. therefore there is no such thing as matter, only perception. things cease to exist when you dont percieve it. ( if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?) science vs pseudoscience aquinas anselm pascal's wager: which would benefit humans more? leap of faith: we have to surrender reason to get to the truth. god may be there to catch us when we fall but we may never know if we never make the jump controversy: flying spaghetti monster? "you cant prove that it's real" "but you can't prove that it doesn't exist" but that isnt how logic flows. sure, science disproves something whereas pseudoscience proves it (prev ep) and that a good hypothesis or theory is one that you can disprove to show that there is no truth in it in hopes of getting closer to one. however, how do you prove that, say, you didn't embezzle government funds? how do you prove that you're not actually a government spy? how do you prove that you dont actually have an underground vault containing all national treasures? the possibilities of what cannot have happened far outweighs what could have happened. why is the teapot in space argument considered valid in philosophy? (say, you use logic to rebut the point. not discrediting it, though.)
john paul sartre
death: worth celebrating just like every milestone in your life.
a going away party to a grand journey
the last thing that you should do is hold the person closer.
identity: abstract idea behind object? value? - 2personal identity (#sense of belonging): body theory or memory theory? tbh referencing ghost in the shell, without a ghost we are just a shell. lifeless and no longer a thinking being so i think it's our brains that make us, us. therefore i also strongly believe that people who lose their memories are no longer themselves but they appear to you as the person you know because you have memories of that person and who they are + your interactions with them. but to them, i feel like they've completely lost their identity as i feel that memories and thoughts contributes to a person's identity. (likewise the thought experiment where i switch brains with someone else, i would subject my body / shell lol to the torture because im not the one perceiving the pain though it would be painful to witness knowing that i have always manifested myself in that body.) but does identity really matter? i mean, it's not like you get paid for being yourself. and as argued, you are not the same person you are in the past, so how can you use your current identity to plan for the future if you know that you probably wont be the same person in the future? shit is confusing dude. also i would like to add that technically we had no identity from birth to our first memory despite being fully conscious and doing baby things.
actually, i would like to believe that consciousness IS identity because i dont think it is possible to replicate consciousness, i mean you can be seeing two split screens of you considering the thought experiment where you are replicated and brought to mars. can consciousness be created? if yes, i believe that there will be two me of the same identity.
parts of me survived the past.
imagine having two wooden unsinkable blocks and an endless ocean. starting from shore, everyday you replace the first piece with the second and start creating a "bridge". it continues inching forward while the past is unreachable. i think that's how i imagine a changing identity over time.
temporary promises, pacts and marriage documents? how do i handle the consequences of actions that i did not do? it depends on the connection with the person, parfit said. but what if i murdered someone an - 3d i get sentenced for life? i am neither related to the victim nor the authority figure. so why should there be a punishment? also, (bringing in the butterfly effect) how am i supposed to deal with living with the consequences that my past self has made? do i just suck it up? ( i mean, realistically, i would have to but philosophically, should i have to? ) genetic, cognitive, social criterion + sentience and gradient theory i believe that a person who isnt sentient, isnt a person. (sorry) mind body theoryare there choices? sounds like a weird question to ask actually. free will is an illusion? i could choose to smack a pencil off my desk. but was that caused by anything other than my choices? i wouldnt say that past events led up to me smacking the pencil off the desk because i could have very well not done so.
reductionism,
oh apparently to my pencil smacking statement, my desires, temperament and beliefs led me to the point of smacking the pencil off the table. so it's sort of like an invisible cause. idk, sounds a lot like decision making to me. which just means decision isnt really free but. lol.
tumor story: it is not free will. the tumor only gave it the condition for that limited amount of decisions to be controlled. once removed, a different set of decisions present itself. actually, i would probably disagree with myself after i finish watching the video. again, being indecisive, i think soft determinism is what i believe? in.
speaker & audience meaning match up= communication?
i think we can never ever really communicate 100%.
my pain is different from your pain, and - 4the same goes for the color red or love. likewise with other experiences and feelings, there are many ways to interpret words and many ways to understand. therefore, there is not a chance that we can be fully understood, even if we're experiencing the same conditions/ situation. but do we really need to be understood? there are apparently rules in successful communication lol someone who is labelled as troublemaker is likely to continue as they are assigned the attitude, whereas someone who pushes herself to be smart is ikely to be commonly called smart. we can make up entire universes in our heads. wait. the concept of santa claus is cool because its a conceptualized idea that seemingly almost everyone has developed in their mind. menongs ontology universe of discourse: where the conversation is taking place. harry potter universe? unicorn universe? sharing similarities with our current universe of discourse which is real life i believe that the thief should be punished but only lightly becase he had a bad intention and didnt save the woman with the intention to do so. cultural relativism makes no sense because if every culture is right, what happens if different cultures come together? a culture who believes that a certain moral is right vs another culture who believes that certain moral is wrong = clash = disagreement. no consensus for morals.
universalizability? idk how to spell that lol
treat people as ends in themselves, meaning to see them more than a use but rather someone who also has interests and opinions.
categorial imperatives: things you do out of pure reason regardless of desires.
Informações
- Descrição
- my "typing everything i can as the video is playing in another tab" and "arguing sessions with myself" platform
- Criado por
- faith c
- Visualizações
- 0
- Avaliação