Intro to Philosophy Notes

7/27/2019 Intro to Philosophy Notes

1/24

Intro to Philosophy 9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

I. Why should you study philosophy?

Rousseau:

gain knowledge

liberated from habitual beliefs; no more limitation

we think about universe outside humansraise you from the physical world

opens up more possibilities that you have not thought before

draws distinction between philosophy and science

personal self-reflection

questioning morals

where your values come from/where your general beliefs and moral come

from

Perry:

knowing what you know and knowing what you dont know

hits your beliefs now in college (practical)this is time to reflect who you

are and where you come from

Philosophy is a lot of thinking creatively

A. How to study philosophy?

Perry: it is not English reading- readings are a lot shorter but takes a long

time

because authors write intricate writingdiscuss unclarity in paper/assignment (?)

put your position as an intelligent opponent

assume other people were intelligent

challenge the writer how you approach the writer

II. Extracting arguments:

arguments have a conclusion and one or more premises extracting

arguments from whole paragraphs is the business of pulling out of the

conclusion and the premises

a lot of technical vocabulary (be clear); dont make it ambiguous

i.e. God what does the writer mean God in an argument (What does

writer argue?)

Ask yourself: what is the main point the writer is trying to make? (What is

the writer arguing for?) This is the conclusion.


2/24

trying to convince you

Then ask yourself: what claims (reasons) does the writer offer in support of

that conclusion? These are the premises. There might be only one premise;

there might be a dozen or more

There is often more than one correct way to extract an argument like thisif you are argument doesnt make sense, look back

Ask yourself: is there any technical or potentially confusing vocab? IF so,

clarify it by putting it in your own words (paraphrasing in parenthesis)

is your argument clear?

Check your argument: look over your premises and conclusion. Have you

left anything out? Have you included something that is not really part o the

main argument? Have you represented the writers argument fairly (i.e.

have you been charitable?) Is your argument clear (can some one follow it?)

example: The Argument from Morality against Atheism

Whats the conclusion?

Atheism is wrong

wrong- technically wrong or morally wrong?

morally bankrupt

to have moral, you have to believe in God

ii. Atheism is false

1. argument is from morality against atheism2. atheism is not the right theory

iii. God Exists.

b. Whats the premises?

p.1: God is the ultimate moral authority

p.2: without God, (its the ultimate moral authority) there cant be any

objective moral truths

p.3: we accept that there are objective moral truths

Conclusion: Therefore, Atheism is wrong/God exists

c. contradiction

p1: Suppose atheism is true/God does not exist

p.2: so, there is no ultimate moral authority

p.3: there are no objective moral truths

p.4: there are objective moral truths (killing children with no reason)

p.3 and p.4 shows contradiction, thus, Atheism is wrong.


3/24

B. Extraction Exercises:

Free Will: conclusion: free will is nonsense/illusion

p1-no one has a choice about what he/she does

p2- everything is determined by genes and upbringing

POLLWEVERY: http://www.polleverywhere.com/bc1001


4/24

Philosophy of Religion 9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

The Problem of Evil

What God are we talking about?

Omnipotent and benevolent God The God of western monotheistic religions not particularly

Christian, Islam, or Jewish but what all of these gods have incommon

The Basic Godo God existso God created the universeo God is omnipotento God is omnisciento God is benevolento God loves his human creationso God is worthy of awe, reverence and prayer

Parochial claims accepted by some religions but rejected by others:o Omnipotence: according to peter van limited by the bounds

of logic

o Christianity believe Jesus was the messiah while islamregards Him as a prophet

o People believe in the power of Maryo Differing thoughts of afterlife

Fundamental questions about religion:o Which claims are true?o Which of these claims should you believe?o Not all these claims can be true because they contradict each

other

o Cant be based on personal experiences and opinions but thetruth must be sought out in regards to the world and in the

context of the world

o Which religions are true?o Which of these claims should we believe

Conclusion of the problem of evil argument: God does not exist The basic form of the argument (Logical version):

o P1. The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence ofthe Basic God

o P2. Vast amounts of evil exists


5/24

o C. Therefore the Basic God does not existo Because evil exists, God does not exist

Hume reading: Do vast amounts of evil exist? Can we deny this? More detailed argument:

o Evidence: earthquakes, child abuse, diseases,o P1. Evil existso P2. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolento P3. If God is omnipotent, he could prevent the evil if he

wanted to

o P4. If God is omniscient, he knows the evil is occurring, andin fact has always known the evil would occur

o P5. If Cod is benevolent, he wants there to be no evilo P6.So, the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence

of the Basic God

o C. God does not exist The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God Why do people think the conclusion follows? Why is the presence of

evil incompatible with the existence of God?

The presence of evil takes away the defining features of the BasicGod

Incompatible in this context: Both things [evil + God] cannot existsimultaneously; stronger connotation theres no possible way theGod and evil could coexist; its logically incompatible; both claims

cannot be true at the same time

Evaluation the logical version of the problem of evil:o Evil is in the world because it build moral character?o God wants greater moral character and this desire outweighs

the balance of evil tradeoffs of the existence of evil

o Van Inwagen: It doesnt follow from wanting something tohappen and being bale to do it that the agent in the question

will act on it

The agent in questions could have competing reasonsthat override or outweigh the desirability of what the

agent wants

Example of Alice: Alices mother is dying and in painand she has the necessary means to end her mothers


6/24

suffering (euthanasia); conflicted morals are

compromised, could end up in jail as a murderer just to

end her mothers suffering for a few weeks

Analogy as for why it doesnt follow that God isomnipotent/omniscient God may have an desirethat an agenda that overweighs evil

o Problem of evil argument (evidentiary version) P1. P2. P3. P4. P5. P6. The best explanation for the existence of vast

amounts of evil is that there is no God

C. Therefore God does not existo Best Explanation argument:

Inference to the best explanation inductive reasoning Two kinds of responses to the problem of evil argument:

o A Defense- a demonstration that the existence of Evil/God arelogically compatible

o A Theodicy- claims to know/says exactly how evil fits intoGods plan for the world

Reasonable defense (van Inwagen): At the very least,a defense will have to include the proposition that God

was unable to bring about the greater good without

allowing the evils we observe (or some other evils as

bad or worse) p. 32

5 common defenses:o The idea that pain is necessary as part of the bodys warning

systemwarn us of danger; but doesnt explain why bad

things happen in the first place; imperfect system-pain may

last after warning or we dont feel pain when something is

wrong X

o The idea that evil is necessary so that we may betterappreciate the goodwe wouldnt have the concept of good if

it werent for the evil that exist; with us understanding evil


7/24

we cannot understand the good; doesnt explain the vast

amount of evil to appreciate the good; overkill

o The idea that the evil is punishment for wrongdoingo The idea that evil is the result of human free willo The idea that evil is necessary of the development of moral

character


8/24

9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

Recap:

The Problem of Evil:

Hard/impossible to reconcile the exisitene of a basic God with theexistence of such vast amount of evil

If God was omnipotent/omniscient he would allow evil to existthey should not/cannot exist

Possible responses:o 2 types of responses

Defensegives a reason why evil and God can coexist Theocracy actual reason why God would allow evil

Van Inwagen:o A reasonable defense must be plausibleo Must include proposition that God was unable to bring about

the greater good without allowing the evils we observe

Common defenses:o Pain is necessary of the bodys warning systemo Evil is necessary so that we may better appreciate the goodo Evil is the punishment for wrongdoing

Good people can get punished tooo Evil is the result of human free will

Free will defense: free will is really good, humans canchoose and this allows humans to be creative, to love,be free/ meaningful things without free will we would

be robots

Once we have free will, we have the option to do badthings murder, theft, rape, etc.

PROBLEMS: Theres also natural evils: earthquakes, floods

hurricanes, etc. not a result of free will can

these things be considered evil?

A reasonable person should see that free will doesnot outweigh the evils of the world the good

does not outweigh the bad

o Evil is necessary for the development of moral character Without evil there would be no challenges to overcome,

no diseases to curewe wouldnt be as innovative or


9/24

as creative as compassionate, making connections with

others, making the world a better place

But do we need as much evils as we have? Is there noother way to bring about the good without this amount

of evil? (van Inwagen) What is PVIs defense?

o God created humans with free will but this allowed for evil toexist

o Because we have free will, humans choose not to regard Godand start to do evil things

o Humans start to lose the powers God bestowed upon himo Love is a choice: God is unable to force anyone to love

someone else

o If God stops the evils, there would be no reason to get backto the union with God no motivation to seek out God

o But if all the evils continue to happen and get worse, peoplewill realize that they must reconcile with God and ask for his

help

o If people get back into the union with God there is an eternalhappiness and the evils of the world is just a speck compared

the eternal happiness you receive in union with God

o Does PVI believe this?

o He believe parts of it because none of it is something hedisbelieves

Does he have to believe it?He doesnt have to believe it he just came up with a

plausible/reasonable defense

Does his meet his own criterion?o Its a defense

9/16/13

Pascals Wager:

Two kinds of reasons for believing:o Reasons indicating that the belief is trueo Reasons indicating that believing would be a good things for

me to do regardless of whether it is true or false


10/24

Blaise Pascal:o French philosopher, mathematician, physicist, inventor,

theologian, polemicist

o Developed probability theory and decision theoryo Decision theory:

Example from gambling: Must calculate the value of each option: multiply

the probability of each possible outcome by the

value of the outcome ,then add the resulting

numbers

o Pascals Wager: Believing vs. not believing in God What God is Pascal talking about?

God of all the religions the Basic God 2 possible bets

believe in God bet that God exists Dont believe in GodBet that God doesnt exisit You have to take a bet you cannot abstain

Which one should you take? BET 1: believe in God

2 possible outcomes:o God does not existo God Exists

If God does not exist, what do you lose?o According to Pascal: nothing

If God exists?o Eternal life and salvation

How do we apply probabilities in order to do thecalculations? What is the probability that God exists?

Let us make the as hard for the believer to believe: BET 2: Dont believe in God

2 possible outcomes:o God does not existo God exist

If God does not exist, you gain?o Being correct, freedom


11/24

If God exists, you lose:o Eternity eternal damnation

Beleiving in God is the more rational and reasonable betwith a better expected utility either way

Summary of Pascals Argument: P1. You have to either believe in God or not

believe in God

P2. Believing in God is the much better bet C. So, you should believe in God

o Objections to Pascals Argument: Objection 1: Belief is not voluntary

You cant force people into belief by proving thatbelieving in God is he better bet

Pascal: true you cant make yourself believe butyou can do things that will lead you to believe; if

you act like you believe, this will enable you to

begin to believe

Objections 2: Other Gods and other bets We have choice to believe in the basic God but

there are other gods and other religions and we

can relate this argument to these gods as well

Pantheon of gods can run the utilitycalculations and bets can come in favor of

believing in theses gods as well

we can give parallel arguments/same argumentswith other gods and other religions

These gods can also conflict with each othersome religions have doctrines that may contradict

the calculations


12/24

Reasons to believe: Clifford vs. James 9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

How does cliffordsWilliam Clifford (1845-1879):

English mathematician/philosopher Story of the Ship owner

o Ship owner has an aging ship and has doubt about it makinga successful voyage but pushes his doubts aside and pressesforward with voyage, everyone aboard dies

o Didnt have a right to believe that ship would surviveo Ship owner had no good evidence for the belief that the ship

was seaworthy

o It doe not matter that the ship owner sincerely believed theship was safe

o He is blameworthy for the deaths of the people aboardo Even if the ship did not sink, he is still guilty for believing

without evidence has to do with the origin of the belief not

whether it turned out to be right or wrong no sufficient

evidence to support his claims

Story of the religious island peopleo Point of the story: accusers had no sufficient evidence to

support their accusations which could have easily been sought

out and discovered

o Even if the their accusations were found to be true, they arestill guilty because the basis of the argument was formed withinsufficient evidence

o Acting upon these ill-formed accusations make these accusersguilty

An objection: is it the belief that is wrong, or the action taken?o While it is true that having a belief is not the end of the story,

you still have a choice on the course of action and it is

impossible to separate belief from action

o Once you hold a belief, it is impossible to decide what to do ina completely unbiased and fair manner you need more

evidence to disprove your belief and change your mind

o Beliefs you already have will affect future beliefso A true belief will push the belief towards action on that

belief even if the believer does not actually act on the belief


13/24

o Beliefs we hold influence what other beliefs we will accept orreject

o So the ship owner and accusers were unethical, not only intheir actions but in holding the belief the belief itself is part

of what caused the men to drown or the religious people to bepublically defamed

The lessons of the ship-owner case and the religious peoplecase extend to all cases of belief:

o Their beliefs affects/had potential to affect other peoplenegatively

o We have a responsibility to get sufficient evidence tocorroborate our beliefs because they can hold influence on

other people

o Believing on insufficient evidence leads people in general tobe more blinding credulous leads to more bad beliefs and

less looking for reason and evidence detriment to mankind

Summary:o P1. The ship-owner was wrong to believe on insufficient

evidence because his belief affected other people

o P2. The accusers were wrong to believe on insufficientevidence because their beliefs affected other people

o P3. Everybodys belief, always, everywhere affect otherpeople

o C. So it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone,to believe anything on insufficient evidence

Deductive premise 3: based on the listed principles, you canonly arrive at one conclusion

How does Cliffords argument apply to Pascals Wager?o Clifford disagrees with Pascalits unethical for everyone,

everywhere to form beliefs based on insufficient evidence

What constitutes sufficient evidence?o According to Clifford, evidence that is 100% guaranteeing

evidence, most of the time searching for reasonable

evidence

How does Cliffords argument apply to belief in God in general? o You need evidence, faith is not enough


14/24

o If there was good evidence that God does/doesnt exists, thenhe will believe/not believe in God

William James (1842-1910):

American philosopher/psychologist Argues directly against Clifford

o Unlike Clifford that gives us a universal thesis, he says that incertain instances, it is not irrational for ones belief to be

determined by ones passional nature not by ones

intellect but by feelings/emotions

Definitions:o Options: a choice between 2 hypothesiso Living option: one where both answers appeal to you as a

real possibility

o Forced option: One on which you cant avoid taking aposition God debate

o Momentous option: One that has a profound effect on yourlife scientific hypotheses

o Genuine option: One which is living momentous and forcedJames vs. Clifford:

James points to an important distinction:o Avoid error vs. believe in truths

In regards to Cliffords position: James believes thatClifford emphasizes avoiding error by searching for

sufficient evidence and if you cant then avoid believing

in anything

o James argues that believing in anything would be impossibleif you are adamant about avoiding errors

o By prioritizing truths, you can discover more truths with lesserror

The Will to Believeo If an option meets two conditions, then it is not irrational to

allow it to be settled by our passional nature what we

want to be true or what would be good for us to believe

o Those conditions are: The option is genuine


15/24

The issue at hand cannot be decided onintellectual grounds

o Some things are good for us to believe best for us tobelieve what we want to be true

o Belief in the fact leads to the fact Clifford disagrees does not make sense to believe in

things that are not supported with evidence;

irrational/immoral/unethical

o Some cases of morality and what is best to pursue in life, etc.should be led by these principles

Applying this Idea to God:o P1. If an issue cant be settled on intellectual grounds, it must

be settled in some other way

o P2. If it is a genuine option, it cant remain unsettledo The existence of God cant be settled on intellectual grounds

and is a genuine option

o P4. So it is not irrational to settle the question of God basedon ones passional reasons

o P5. Believing in God is a good things to believe: If Gd doesnot exist then Death ends all and much of the suffering and

apparent injustice in the world is meaningless. The idea of

such a universe fills James and others with despair andloathing

o C. So, we should believe in God. In regards to Pascals argument:

o James says that since we cannot dis/prove Gods existenceintellectually, we should base out belief off passional reasons

o Pascals argument could be applied to all religions and allgods existence of paganism and Christianity at once?

o James argument is personalized can be applied toindividual beliefs

o James states genuine option as a necessity must be areal/plausible for the individual

What may be a genuine option for others may not befor other people so people can pick and choose to

not/believe


16/24

Must be a very real possibilities for you verysubjective

o Objection to James Argument: James has not shown that the issue of Gods existence

cant be settled on intellectual ground Arguments for God:

o Cosmological argumento Argument from designo The very definition of God in itself proves the existence of

God


17/24

How to write a Philosophy Paper 9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

Philosophy paper makes an argument throughout the whole paper

There must be a clear thesis that is being defended Intro must state: I will defend that. Argument is a modest point Definitive vs. Subtle thesis white/black vs. grey No surprise endings Variety of original examples that support claims Develop an original objection Develop one or two ideas more deeply than introduce a variety of

shallow ones

Originality display independent thinking Be clear and direct show understanding and clarity Do not assume reader knows the relevant background the paper

is for an audience and it should be assumed that they have no

background info on the topic

EXAMPLESRachel Lim

Philosophy Paper I

Topic 3

William Clifford vs. William James

Objective: compare and contrast both arguments and pick a side to defend,

while developing original thoughts and examples

Thesis: In this paper, I will defend that both arguments fail because you

cannot solely rely on objective evidence or your passions to determine the

validity of a belief.

BP1: introduce cliffords arguments, including examples

BP2: Introduce his stance in the God argument

BP3: Counter examples and problems with his argument

BP4: introduce James Argument, including examples

BP5: introduce his stance in the God argument

BP6: counter examples and problems with his claims


18/24

BP6: Explain why both are wrong and what is the correct stance

Problem of Evil:

Must explain van in wagens stance better by introducing it as a defensedo you think its right? It is an equally plausible defense? Does it function

like van in wagen wants it to function?

Evidentiary vs. logical:

very slight difference evidenciary more like physical tangible evidence that disproves

the existence of evil

best explanation of the premise that there is evil defense not a theodicy doesnt need to provide evidence as to

why its true


19/24

Philosophy of the Mind: CARTESIAN DUALISM9/11/2013

5:33:00 AM

Two central problems in the philosophy of mind:

1. The problem with other mindsa. How can I know that other minds exist?b. How can I know what is going on in other minds?c. Heider-Simmel Demonstration: When we see actions, we

naturally see motives and beliefs as being behind the

actions

i. makes the existence of other minds hard to believehow do we know that we dont see other people like

the triangles/circles that perform empty actions with

no motives and acknowledge the existence of their

intentions/minds (Theory of mind)

2. The Mind-Body Problem:a. How are minds and their contents related to the

physical/chemical/biological world?

i. There are 2 different facts about people/animals:physical facts (hair, height, etc) and mental facts

(beliefs, intentions, dreams, etc.)

ii. What is the relationship between the mind and all itscontents and the physical world?

iii. 2 apparent unique aspects of mental phenomenathat make the mind-body problem so difficult:

1. Consciousness: theres something that makesyou feel like you are you

a. Hard to apply to inanimate objects2. Intentionality (aboutness): if you are thinking

about something, your thoughts are about that

thing

a. Difficult because you can explain througha causal effect/connection to explain

thoughts but you can have lots of

thoughts about things that dont exist or

that you may not have encountered

before that doesnt make sense


20/24

b. Not about intentions; just to havesomething be about something else

Cartesian Dualism:

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Mathematician, scientist, philosopher Basics:

o Minds and bodies are fundamentall different kinds ofsubstances (Substance Dualism)-> things that have

qualities, not qualities themselves

Bodies are in space and time (Physical/material) Minds are in time, but not in space (non-physical,

immaterial)

Minds are capable of rationality, and intentionality, andthought, bodies are not

3 Arguments for Cartesian Dualism:

ARGUMENT I: The Conceivability Argumento I can conceive of my body existing, just as it does not,

without my mind going through the motions of living

(zombie)

o I can conceive of my mind existing, just as it does not,without my body

o If two things can exist without each other, then they aredistinctcant be identical

o Therefore, my mind and body are distinct Not a valid argument because:

I can conceive is omitted from the thirdpremise; there is no mention of whether or not

something is being conceived or stated

Premise 3 should say, If I can conceive of it,then it is (logically possible), 4 should say, If two

things can (logically) exist without each other,

then they are distinct, and the conclusion should

be Therefore my mind and body are distinct

Good argument or not?


21/24

because the argument is based so much onconceivability that it is not a practical guide

for possibility

ARGUMENT II: The Fallibility Argumento 1. Knowledge of my body is fallibleo 2. Knowledge of my mind is infallibleo [If two things are identical, they share all properties (Leibnizs

Law) (Not valid until this premise is inserted]

o 3. Therefore, my mind and body are distinct 1. ARGUMENT III: Another properties Argument

o 1. Factions about my body are publicly availableo 2. Facts about my mind are privateo 3. If two things are identical, they share all properties

(Leibnizs Law)

o 4. Therefore, my mind and body are distinct Are these arguments valid? Invalid? Unsound?

o Cannot challenge this argument until you have properreason/evidence to question the validity of the argument or

have an alternative explanation

Princess Elisabeth (1618-1680) and her objection to Descartes

There is a two-way casual interaction between mind and body Princess Elisabeths question to Descartes: how does the immaterial

(non-physical) mind casually interact with the material (physical)

body?

Elisabeth: Immaterial/material causal interaction is mysterious. Itis not like what we know of causal interaction. Causation requires

physical contact or at least extension

Descartes Reply:o Bodily movements and sensations are modes of the bod and

mind together (and neither alone)

o The comparison with heaviness: heaviness if a quality of abody that moves it towards the center of the earth; we do not

think that this happens through contact of one surface with

another

Elisabeths Reply:


22/24

o Descartes theory of heaviness does more to convincer herthat he needs a better explanation of how gravity works than

illuminate anything on how an immaterial mind can act on a

material body and vice versa

o It would be easier for her to understand calling the mind amaterial, extended thing than to understand the two way

causal interaction between material and immaterial

substances

Descartes Reply:o He says itll be better to understand the mind and the body as

working together and to put it in terms necessary for her to

understand. From that point, he says that there will be casual

interaction but that a thought cant be extended in space

because it doesnt preclude other things being the same place

at the same time

o He says that Elisabeth shouldnt concern herself withmetaphysical matters

o Descartes in the Passions of the Soul tries to further answerElisabeths question about the nature of immaterial

Problems with Cartesian dualism how does the mind and the bodyinteract?

The Problem of Radical Emergence The problem in the womb

o When does immaterial come into existence? The evolutionary problem

o If humans were to have evolved from primitive species, it isunclear when the immaterial mind emerged

The Problem of Other Minds

Cartesian dualism makes the problem of other minds very hard tosolve

o How do we know that other minds exist and what goes on inthem?

o Cartesian theater


23/24

Behaviorism in the Philosophy of Mind 9/11/2013 5:33:00 AM

Materialism: The claim that everything in the universe is made up of

matter AKA Physicalism, i.e. the claim that everything in the universe is

physical

Advances in physiology, biology, genetics, etc. that led to theseconclusions life forces are not needed and everything can beexplained in terms of physical matter

BehaviorismThe first modern materialist theory of mental facts PhilosophicalBehaviorism is a theory about mental states (a theory

about what statements of mental facts mean)

Philsophical behavirosits include: Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970) andGilbert Ryle (1900-1976)

Psychologicalbehaviorism is the view that psychology should onlyconcern itself with the behavior of organisms; inner mental states

play no explanatory role in psychology

Psychological behaviorist include BF Skinner (1904-1990) and JohnB. Watson (1958-1978)

Scientists turned to behaviorism in order to be able to studyphysical behaviors and observe them

According to behaviorists, claims about mental states can betranslated into claims about patterns of behaviors, tendencies, and

dispositions without loss of meanings

o There is a verifiability you can translate claims aboutmental states without loss of meaning by observing these

things

o Making inferences and judgments based on what can beobserved (disposition, patterns of behaviors, tendencies, etc.)

o Dont confuse inner states with behaviors physiologicaldescription of the physical state deductive

Ryle would say: knowledge of the mind is not infallibleo We talk about other people and their minds all the time and

this is unwarranted if Descartes was right we can deduct

the state of peoples minds through observations of their

behaviors

Ryle on Category Mistake


24/24

Ryle thinks the Cartesian conception of the mind as a an immaterialsubstance (ghost in the machine commits a similar category

mistake

The mind is not a substance above and beyond all the behavior,dispositions, and tendencies, like the body is a substance thatabove and beyond the waling, talking, et, The mind just is the sum

total of behaviors, dispositions, capacities, tendencies, etc.

The mind is just a series of patterns of behaviorsAdvantages of Behaviorism:

It doesnt face the problem of radical emergenceo No immaterial mind in behaviorism

It explains the mind/body interactiono There is no need for an explanation

Appeals to objective, public factso Behaviors are objective, public facts

Offers a straightforward solution to the problem of other mindsProblems with Behaviorism:

I. Consciousnesso It denies the data the first person subjective nature of

mental life, independent of behavior

II. Some mental states dont seem to be definable in this way III. People can lie and pretend

o They can do so over an extended period of time, so much sothat it becomes a disposition or tendency

IV. For behaviorists, two people who behaved in just the same waywould have the same mental states:

o John Lockes inverted spectrum act in seemingly similarmanners

Documents

Intro to Philosophy Notes