Next page.-------------- Link to intrologic.htm

REQUIRED READING
You are required to read the following pages of the text book and the definitions and examples given on my assigned webpages. The "Helpful Questions" are here to help you understand the reading.and to anticipate the points I will be discussing in class. If you can master this material without following the reading questions, then you don't have to bother with them. However, the additional text I give on these pages is required because at least some of the points it covers will be on the tests.

Remember, you will be tested on this reading before the next lecture. Be ready to answer questions about this material.

Your reading is from Does the Center Hold? by Donald Palmer. Page numbers in blue refer to the 3rd edition, greenish page numbers refer to the 4th edition, and dark blue page numbers refer to the 5th edition.

Read pages 93-98 in 3rd Edition, or pages 90-95 in 3rd Edition, or pages 90-95 in 5th Edition

Helpful Questions
What are the general tenets of empiricism?
What are the characteristics of analytic propositions?

For the following questions, keep in mind that the author defines "triangle" as "a three-sided closed figure". Notice that this definition does not say anything about angles! Thus, for this discussion, the number of angles in a triangle is not specifically included in the definition of a triangle. To see this, imagine that someone has called you on the phone and said "I have just drawn a closed figure with three sides. Can you tell me how many angles it has?" Would you be able to answer the question?

How are "it is a triangle" and "it has four angles" logically related to each other?
How do you know? (Did you go out and look at triangles, or did you sit down and think about it?)
Can a three sided closed figure ever have more or less than three angles?
Could the sentence "not all triangles have three angles" ever be true in any circumstances?
Do true analytic propositions constitute real knowledge?
Do we have to rely on our senses to determine the truth or falsity of analytic propositions?
What doctrine says we can get real knowledge without relying on our senses?
What is a "tautology"?
What is a priori knowledge about?
Can a priori truths ever tell us about reality?
Can we ever construct a usable picture of the world purely out of a priori truths?
Is there anything self-contradictory about the sentence "Jill does not own a dog"?
Can you tell whether Jill has a dog by contemplating the sentence "Jill has a dog"?
Does the sentence "Jill is a girl" imply the sentence "Jill has a dog"?
Can the sentence "Jill doesn't own a dog" be false?
How do we find out the truth about sentences like "Jill has a dog"?
   Can you tell whether Jill actually has a dog without using any sense-data?
   Is "if X is true then Y is true" analytic or synthetic?
   Is "Z is true" analytic or synthetic?
Can we determine the truth or falsity of an analytic proposition by examining sense-data?
Can we determine the truth or falsity of a synthetic proposition by contemplation?
In your opinion, is there any other way to determine truth or falsity? (If not, scratch out the words "in a truly empiricist program.")
   Do believers in God mean "if there is a God, then that god exists" when they say "God exists"?
Is the sentence "god exists" analytic or synthetic?
How did Berkeley and Descartes attempt to determine the truth or falsity of the sentence "god exists?"
What did Hume believe about the meaning of sentences that were neither analytic nor synthetic?
Can the sentence "god exists" be false according to the current conventions of the English language?
Can the idea of god be traced back to sense data?

Can you think of any instance where pure analytic reasoning (thinking logically about concepts without using any sense data whatsoever) has generated a true synthetic statement (a statement about the world that is backed up by sense data?
 
96. How did Berkeley explain consistency in reality?
96. How did Hume explain consistency in reality?
96. Is there any sense data into which we can trace the idea of a cause?
96. Is there any perceptual difference between causality and repeated seriality?
96. Is the statement "causality exists" an analytic or a synthetic statement?
96. Is the statement "causality doesn't exist" a logical self-contradiction?
96. Is the statement "causality exists" supported by sense data?
96. Can Hume provide a rational justification for his belief in the existence of causality?
For convenience, I am going to use the word "soul" to mean a "a thing that has perceptions, and which exists apart from those perceptions, and apart from the human body." In this discussion, a soul is a real thing, that is immaterial, that is different from the human body, different from that body's perceptions, and so exists entirely on its own.
97. What does Hume stumble on whenever he inquires most intimately into what he calls his self?
97. What does Hume think the rest of mankind is?
97. Does Hume think that there is anything else to a person?
97. Is there any actual experience of selfhood?
98. According to Hume, is there such a thing as a "soul" that exists apart from perceptions?

Potential questions for Quiz 1. For Hume, is there any sense data into which we can trace the idea of a cause? 2. Is the statement "causality doesn't exist" a logical self-contradiction? 3. Can you tell whether Jill actually has a dog just by thinking about the definition of the word "girl"? 4. Can you tell whether Jill actually has a dog without using any sense-data? 5. What does Hume stumble on whenever he inquires most intimately into what he calls his self? 6. According to Hume, is there such a thing as a "soul" that exists apart from perceptions? 7. Can you find out any facts about the world just by thinking about the definitions of words? 8. What did Hume believe about the meaning of sentences that were neither analytic nor synthetic?

How To Make Up Quizzes
If for some reason, (illness, family emergency, conflicting academic obligation, sudden discovery that you have superpowers coupled with the need to save the Earth from a hurtling asteroid that only you can deflect), you miss one of my delightful quizzes, you can make up the lost points by writing up a clear, precise, and deeply insightful answer to one of the potential exam questions and turning the results in as "make-up quiz." Illustrations are not absolutely necessary, but would add a nice touch.

Potential Exam Questions

The following questions may appear on the next exam. Your answers should fully explain and properly organize all the information relevant to each question. This will include a variety of ideas developed in response to the above questions, in your personal reading and in class discussions.

29. Explain the analytic/synthetic distinction completely and precisely.
What is the difference between denying a true analytic proposition and denying a true synthetic proposition? What is the difference between discovering the truth of an analytic proposition and discovering the truth of a synthetic proposition? How is each kind of proposition related to the definitions of the terms involved? How is the distinction related to the distinction between necessary and contingent truths? How is the distinction related to the difference between learning the logical implications of concepts, and learning about the world? Explain the reasons behind your answers as much as possible. (You see hints here, you won't see them on the exam.)

30. Explain Hume's argument against rationalist proofs of god's existence.
What kinds of meaning are possible? What is the status of a sentence that doesn't have one of those kinds of meaning? How did rationalists try to prove the existence of god? What can be proved with this kind of method? What can't be proved with this kind of method? According to Hume, how exactly do rationalist proofs of god's existence fail? Explain your answer in as much detail as possible. (Hints? We don't need no steenking hints!)

31. Explain and criticize the purported "causality weakness" in Hume's program.
What is meant by "consistency in reality"? How does Hume explain consistency in reality? What is the central concept in his explanation? Is the assertion that this central concept is true an analytic or synthetic proposition? Can that assertion be proved true by the method that is appropriate for that kind of proposition? Explain why or why not. Why exactly are these facts a problem for Hume's program? Do we have any reason to think that it's not a significant problem? Explain.

32. Explain Hume's argument against the existence of a soul. 
What is Descartes's view of the self? What is Hume's view of the self? What was Descartes's argument for the existence of his own self? Does Descartes's argument support the existence of a separately existing soul? Explain why or why not. What does Descartes's argument really support? Explain your answers.

The logical place to start with questions 31 and 32 is Hume's analysis of the is-ought relationship. Whichever question you pick, you should also think about whether the relevant philosopher accepts or rejects the full implications of Hume's analysis.

Any exam answer can be enhanced by addition of any comments that occur to you. The more you think about a topic, the more likely you are to come up with something that can earn you a little more credit for your answer. I never deduct points, so it can't hurt to add your own thoughts.


Copyright © 2006 by Martin C. Young

Next page.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: