Intro to Philosophy Class Notes

   9/29/2026   [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:30 in CAS 436.]   If you really know something, do you have to be able to explain HOW you know it?   Problem of the criterion: “In order to have knowledge, you must know what knowledge is.” “In order to claim to know something, you must know what ‘know’ means.”   Epistemology (episteme = knowledge) Study of knowledge but also rationality, belief, …     Regress problem: If you have to know that you know in order to know, then you also have to know that you know that you know….   Same problem for belief: Suppose you believe something. Do you also have to believe that you believe it in order to believe it?       A resolution lies in distinguishing first-order and higher-order cognitions. You don’t have to have a ...

   9/24/2026 [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:50 in CAS 436.]   Is free will all-or-nothing or does it come in degrees? Compatibilism affirms that determinism could be true but we could still have free will.   A better expression of compatibilism is that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we can have free will.   Compatibilists reject the alternatives principle as being part of what defines free will.   Rather, compatibilists think that the concept of free will needs to be defined in some other way than in terms of alternatives.   Compatibilism is mainly motivated by the ‘Reasons Principle’: S performs A freely at T only if A is consistent with the totality of reasons S has at T for acting.   Compatibilism suggests that what really matters to a cho...

   9/22/2026 Do insects have free will?   [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:50 in CAS 436.]   What, exactly, is free will?     Is free will compatible with determinism? Yes: Compatibilism No: Incompatibilism       What, exactly, is determinism?   Combination of two causal principles:   Universal causation: Every event must have a cause.   Causal uniformity (2 versions): Strong: Given exactly the same causes, the exact same effects must follow. Weak: Given relevantly similar causes, relevantly similar effects follow.     LaPlacian demon: (Pierre LaPlace) Given a complete knowledge of the state of material reality at some time and perfect knowledge of the laws of nature, every subsequent event would be perfectly predictable.   Incompati...

   9/17/2026 What is something you don’t believe, even though you agree that it is possible?   [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:30 in CAS 436.]   The concept of moral negligence is that moral responsibility attaches not only to actions (what we do), but also to omissions (what we fail to do or allow to happen).       The basic claim behind the Evidential Argument from Evil (EAE) is this:   An omnipotent, wholly good being will prevent any instance of evil (or suffering) that it can unless doing so would thereby either allow an equal or worse evil or prevent a greater good (otherwise, it would be morally negligent).   To put it another way: If an omnipotent wholly good being exists, then the only evils that exist are ultimately justified.     To say that an evil is ulti...

9/15/2026 If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?   Argument from Evil   Logical Argument from Evil – It is logically impossible that both God and evil exist   Traditional attributes of God (despite being beyond understanding): Omnipotent = all-powerful Omniscient = all-knowing Omnibenevolent = all-good     “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus)     A being B is omnipotent =df. If B wills some logically possible state of affairs S, then S obtains.   Stone paradox: Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Suicide paradox: Could God commit suicide?         LAE: 1.           If God exists, G...

   9/10/2026 Do you think it’s likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?   [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:50 in CAS 436.]   Remember that arguments are structurally good in either of 2 ways: (1)      Deductive: Premises guarantee their conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as a matter of logic. (2)      Inductive: Premises make the conclusion probable.   Most real-world arguments, even those that are deductive in structure, are really inductive/probabilistic.   This is because the premises in most arguments are derived from experience or testimony.   Example: 1.           All ducks quack. 2.           Daffy is a duc...

 9/8/2026 Do you think the existence of beauty is a reason to believe in God? [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave") Bioethics Club Tuesdays from 4:30-5:50 in CAS 436.]   Teleological arguments The Design argument Teleological = having to do with purpose (purposive) Analogical design argument William Paley Functional complexity (FC): complex structure together with a function performed in virtue of that structure that would not otherwise be possible.   1. Both artifacts (e.g., a watch) and organic objects (e.g., an eye) exhibit FC. 2. Artifacts have FC in virtue of being designed. 3. Similar effects have similar causes.  4. Therefore, organic objects were designed. 5. If organic objects were designed, then God designed them. 6. If God designed them, then God exists. 7. Therefore, God exists.   3*. It is reasonable to infer that similar effects have similar causes if we have no better alternative explanation ...

 9/3/2026 Is there always a reason for everything? [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave"). BioEthics Club Tuesdays 4:30-5:30 in CAS 436.]  Another version of cosmological argument Suppose we divide things that exist into two groups: Those that exist because of something else, and those that exist because of themselves (allowing self-causation, ontological self-explanation, or necessary existence). [Side note: it used to be common for people to think that something has to keep things in existence. (sustained/continuous creation).]   1.    Everything that exists is either a dependent being or a necessary being.  2.    The universe exists. 3.    The universe is either a dependent being or a necessary being. [from 1 & 2] 4.    It is impossible that only dependent beings exist. 5.    Therefore, there has to be at least one necessary being. [from 1 & 4] 6....

9/1/2026 If God exists, do you think he has a sense of humor? [Philosophy Club every Wednesday, 5-6 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Bioethics Club TODAY from 4:30-5:30 in CAS 436]  Arguments in philosophy are NOT disagreements, but rather (ideally) objective reasons in support of a claim. Every argument is good or bad in either of two ways: -    In respect of structure (logic) -    In respect of content (are the premises true or at least reasonable to believe?) The reasons to believe something are called “premises” The claim to be advanced is the “conclusion” An argument where some premises are implicit (or suppressed or tacit or assumed) is called an “enthymeme” or is “enthymematic”) So, when we ask “Why should anyone believe that rather than something else?” we are looking for arguments for competing claims and asking which argument is the best in respect of both structure and content. One of the most prominent topics in the ...