Liberty University PHIL 201
Module Week 5 Study
Guide Lesson 14 solutions answers right
Study Guide Lesson 13
Study Guide Lesson 15
Study Guide: Lesson
14
The Intellectual Virtues
Lesson Overview
In
the lesson, we introduce a highly two important issues in epistemology:
intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. We first introduce virtue itself
and then go on the show how they can be applied to our intellectual pursuits.
After this, we show how specific intellectual virtues like humility, honesty,
courage, and carefulness helps us gain an accurate understanding of reality.
Tasks
Read
Chapter 8 of How Do We Know: An
Introduction to Epistemology. As you do, consider the following questions
and points:
- Aside
from Epistemology, which area of philosophy do discussions of virtues and
vices arise?
- How
was Aristotle’s understanding of happiness different from hedonistic
understandings of it?
- How
should we define virtue?
- What
is a vice and how does it compare to virtue?
- Describe
Aristotle’s understanding of the Golden Mean.
- What
are the two kinds of vices that Aristotle mentions?
- How
did Aristotle say that virtue develops in a person?
- What
is an Intellectual Virtue?
- According
to Aquinas, what is the relationship between moral and intellectual
virtues?
- What
are the 5 ways that Wood says moral and intellectual virtues are parallel
to each other?
- Describe
the way each of the intellectual virtues work towards helping us find the
truth.
- How
might virtue epistemology help us with the Gettier Problem?
Terms
Make
sure you can explain the following terms and concepts:
·
Virtue
·
Vice
·
Moral Virtues
·
Intellectual Virtues
·
Virtue Epistemology
·
Eudaimonia
·
Hedonism
·
Golden Mean
|
·
Vices of Excess
·
Vices of Deficiency
·
Studiousness
·
Humility
·
Honesty
·
Courage
·
Carefulness
|
Study Guide: Lesson 13
Do We Need Justification?
Lesson Overview
From our previous lessons we arrived at a basic
understanding of what philosophers mean by “knowledge” and why they call for
“justification” of beliefs. In this lesson we go further and ask, how does the
structure of the mind relate to what should count as justification? And we ask,
does one have an obligation to make sure that he/she has good reasons for
holding whatever beliefs he/she holds? Some say that if you believe something
is true and can’t give a reason for believing it then you cannot reasonably claim
to know that belief is true. This view is called internalism and it has a long and honored history in epistemology.
In recent years, this view has been challenged by externalists who claim that there are at least some beliefs that we
are reasonable to hold even though we don’t, and probably can’t, give a reason
for holding them.
Tasks
View and take notes on the presentation, “An Overview
of Issues in Contemporary Justification, Part 1.” Be able to answer these
questions:
·
What is a noetic structure, in brief?
·
What beliefs are included in one’s noetic
structure?
·
What does that have to do with a continuum
of beliefs?
·
What are the two main theories of how
beliefs relate within ones noetic structure?
·
How does foundationalism describe the
relations of beliefs within a noetic structure?
·
Exactly how do strong and moderate
foundationalism differ?
·
Know the criticisms of strong
foundationalism.
·
What is the moderate foundationalist view
of the basing relation, in terms of “access?”
·
What is coherentism’s view of the basing
relation, in terms of the doxastic assumption?
·
Know the criticisms of coherentism.
View and take notes on the presentation, “An Overview
of Issues in Contemporary Justification, Part 2.” This presentation
concentrates on the other question under the topic of justification: epistemic
obligations. Be able to answer these questions:
·
What is the motivation that drives
internalism?
·
What is the motivation behind externalism?
·
How does externalism answer the question
of quality control?
·
How does this presentation suggest
bringing internalism and externalism together?
Read and take notes of Chapter 7 of How Do We Know? “Do We Need
Justification?” This reading overlaps with material introduced in the
presentations, but with some further details. Make sure you understand the
following points and questions:
·
Explain what it means for a belief to be
justified.
·
Explain the distinction between a belief
being justified and a belief being true.
·
What is internal about internalism? Why is
it called that?
·
According to internalism, if a person does
not have good reason for what he/she believes, does that mean the belief is not
true?
·
Does internalism claim one must be
consciously aware of one’s reasons in order to be justified for a belief?
·
Explain Clifford’s brand of Evidentialism.
·
What is the problem with Clifford’s
version of Evidentialism?
·
What is the problem with the statement “It
is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence?”
·
Why has internalism been so dominant?
·
What is external about externalism? Why is
it called that?
·
Explain why it is difficult to justify the
reliability of our memories.
·
How does an externalist handle the
question of the reliability of our memories?
·
According to reliabilism, do I need to
know that my cognitive processes are functioning reliably to be warranted in
holding a belief?
·
What is the major criticism internalism
raises against externalism?
·
What is the major criticism externalism
raises against internalism?
·
What is Plantinga’s modest foundationalists/externalist
warrant for believing in God?
·
Compare the internalist and externalist
justification for belief in God.
·
Explain the balanced approach to resolving
the conflict between externalism and internalism suggested in this reading.
Terms
Make sure you fully understand the following terms and
concepts:
·
Justification
·
Internalism
·
Epistemic Deontology
·
Evidentialism
·
Externalism
·
Defeater
·
Reliabilism
·
Cognitive Process
|
·
Reformed Epistemology
·
Sensus
Divinitas
·
High Accessibility Requirements
·
Abduction
·
Concurrence
·
Warrant
·
Rapprochement
|
Study Guide: Lesson 15
Skepticism and Certainty
Lesson Overview
Throughout the history of western society, people have
been on a search for certain knowledge about things. Many philosophers have
given up hope for finding certainty and therefore, have taken the view that one
can never really claim to know anything. This view is called skepticism and it
comes in many shapes and varieties. Yet the question may be asked, “Is
certainty necessary for knowledge?” Can we say we know and yet be less than
absolutely certain? This lesson examines the polar opposite views of skepticism
and certainty, and attempts to answer the question of where does knowledge fit
in this scheme.
Tasks
View and take notes of the presentation, “The
Challenge of Skepticism.”
·
Much of this is repeated in the reading,
but note the list of problems with skepticism on the last slide, especially the
question “Is certainty necessary for knowledge?”
Read Chapter 10 of How
Do We Know? “How Certain Can We Be?” As you do, make sure you understand
the following points and questions:
·
Why is common sense skepticism actually
epistemically healthy?
·
Explain the difference between a global
and local skeptic.
·
Contrast and compare the different forms
of skepticisms.
·
What kind of skeptic was Pyhrro of Ellis?
·
Why did Sextus Empiricus adopt skepticism?
·
How did Descartes employ skepticism to
arrive at certain knowledge?
·
Explain Descartes’ evil demon hypothesis.
·
What kind of skeptic was Hume?
·
Explain the process by which Hume denied
the principle of causality.
·
What did Kant’s skepticism cause him to
deny that we could know on the basis of pure reason?
·
On what basis did Kant believe we were
justified in believing in God?
·
Explain 3 causes of skepticism.
·
What is 1 benefit of philosophical
skepticism?
·
Explain 4 problems with skepticism.
·
What are some reasons why certainty is so
elusive?
·
Is certainty necessary for knowledge?
·
What causes the different variations of
certainty?
Terms
Make
sure you can explain the following terms and concepts:
·
Skepticism
·
Common Sense Skepticism
·
Global Skepticism
·
Local Skepticism
·
Mitigated Skepticism
·
Unmitigated Skepticism
·
Methodological Skepticism
·
Metaphysical Skepticism
|
·
Pyhrronian Skepticism
·
Systematic Doubt
·
Principle of Causality
·
Epistemic Humility
·
Logical/Absolute Certainty
·
Probabilistic Certainty
·
Sufficient Certainty
·
Defeasibility
|
No comments:
Post a Comment