Ryan Fiore PHL 101 test 2

1. (a) Explain Kants distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, and between a priori and a posteriori propositions. (b) Discuss the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions in relation to the ontological argument advanced by Descartes to prove the existence of God (that the idea of Gods existence cannot be removed from the idea of God). (a) Kant places the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions in whether the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept. The subject being the thing itself, and the predicate being a property of it. In the case of analytic propositions, the predicate is contained within the subject, so analytical propositions are true by their own merit, as its conditions are necessitated by the thing to which the predicate is attributed. With synthetic propositions, the predicate of the proposition is not included in its subject. The truth of synthetic propositions is relative to how their meaning relates to the world. An a priori proposition is a proposition whose truth can be determined independent of experience. It can be justified using only logic. A posteriori propositions whose truth can only be known after experience, so they must be justified by some sort of empirical evidence. (b) In the ontological argument given by Descartes, it is posited that God must exist due to his properties. It is claimed that since god is completely perfect, he exists, as existence is claimed to be part of the endless perfection that God holds. According to Kant, existence cannot be used as part of definition and is not a real predicate. If you were to use existence in an analytical proposition, to say that something exists add nothing to the your conception of the subject, and to say that something that exists, exists is a tautology. In a synthetical proposition (which all judgements of existence must surely be), in which the predicate

Ryan Fiore PHL 101 test 2

connects the concept to something outside of itself that is not already logically implied by the concept, you cannot imply that existence cannot be removed without contradiction, as that would be a property of an analytical proposition.

2. Discuss in detail the nature and merit of the teleological argument for the proof of Gods existence. Your answer must describe two forms of the arguments and must include a discussion of those factors which count in favor of the teleological argument, as well as those factors which count against it. A teleological argument is an a posteriori argument that claims due to the apparent complexity of the universe, and presence of natural laws, it must have been designed by some sort of intelligence. In a universe explained by teleology, the universe and everything in it have a cause. One form of a teleological argument, posited by William Paley, supposed that just as if you were to find a watch on the ground, you would assume that due to its complex nature, it had to have been created by an intelligent being. This is an attractively simple argument, but it is very problematic. The most striking one is that the actual connection to theology and even mankind is very tenuous. Assuming the universes construction by an intelligence includes nothing about the creators intentions nor does it say anything at all about any specific theology, or that God even cares whether humans exist. Thomas Aquinas said that since things without any ostensible knowledge or conscience are able to consistently perform the same tasks repeatedly to obtain the same result, there must be something directing them. How could something with no mind possibly work in such a consistent manner, if not directed by an intelligent being? It would follow that just as an arrow fired by an archer hits its target, so plants grow from the earth and

Ryan Fiore PHL 101 test 2

the Sun rises in the sky. The astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson once referred to god as an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Which is to say that, Thomas Aquinas teleological argument does nothing but betray his lack of understanding of what are basic concepts of science today. Once we did not know why things fell down towards the ground, but we eventually found a natural cause for it, and we have continued this process of empirically finding natural causes for otherwise supernatural phenomena for hundred of years, making this argument, as Dr. Tyson said, an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. 3. In Platos dialogue Phaedo, why does Socrates say that a philosopher should welcome death? As a philosopher, your goal is to apprehend the forms, the true definition of reality, but since the body is tethered to the physical world, it is not possible to fully apprehend them as you would if you were not bound to this mortal coil. Plato claims that there is a good afterlife, with better gods and friends, awaiting those who had done good in life, and that you should look forward to it. Good philosophers spend their lives preparing for death, not concerned with earthly pleasures, rather, they ready their souls for what awaits them after they leave the physical realm. Plato believed that the soul was a separate thing from the physical body, the philosopher, aware of this, knew that his senses clouded his reasoning abilities. Once he attained death, his soul could separate from his physical tether and he could exist in pure reason, granting him an unaided intellect, reasoning untainted by earthly influence. He would then have the ability to attain a greater understanding of forms and concepts themselves, such as justice itself, or beauty itself.

Ryan Fiore PHL 101 test 2

4. (a) What are the objections raised by Simmias and Cebes in the Phaedo to the arguments advanced to prove that the soul is immortal? (b) How does Socrates respond to the objection of Simmias? In the comments of Simmias on Socrates arguments, he supposes that the relationship between the soul and the body is similar to the relationship between the attunement of an instrument, to the instrument itself. The proper physical construction of the instrument makes it possible for the attunement to exist, so if the instrument were to be destroyed, so would its attunement. So, if it were possible to destroy the attunement of an instrument by destroying the instrument itself, it would follow that when a person dies so would the soul associated with it. In Cebes argument, he states that although he agrees with the notion of a soul existing before birth, he does not believe it is immortal, although he is unsure of whether it would continue to exist after death. Cebes then analogizes his argument to a tailor making cloaks. The cloaks made by the tailor are short lived and he will go through many in his life, just as a body is constantly changing, being remade by the soul just as the weaver remakes his cloaks. Although we might be able to say that the soul lives on through several bodies, we cannot say whether or not the soul is damaged after every death and rebirth. (b) Socrates states that if Simmias agrees with Socrates notion that learning is recollection and the soul is an attunement, he is contradicting himself. The Theory of Recollection claims that the soul exists before birth, but it could not be possible an attunement to exist before the instrument to which it is bound is built. Socrates goes on to say that an instrument can be more or less in tune, whereas a soul cannot be more soul than any other. Souls can be good or bad, but if

Ryan Fiore PHL 101 test 2

every soul is an attunement, all souls are in tune, and equal, as being more or less in tune cannot be relative to goodness or badness as that was previously disproved. If the soul were in command of a body, that would not fit with an attunement theory, as the properties of an instrument preclude its attunement. A body cannot alter a soul, but if you were to change an instrument, you would also change its attunement.