Answer the following questions within two paragraphs. Answers will be graded on their ability to engage with question content fully, thoughtfully, and correctly. These questions are not easy and rely heavily on class lecture. There should be no need to use material outside of our assigned readings and lectures (Wikipedia answers will not satisfy these questions).
1). In the Proslogium, St. Anselm lays out the “Ontological Argument” for the necessary existence of God. Although this incredibly famous is the source of many logically formal and philosophical proofs for God’s existence, it is not the easiest to understand for those new to metaphysics. Explain St. Anselm’s argument. (Your answer needs to come from the Proslogium, not a recap of the Dr. Craig video).
2). The mid-evil philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, lays out five arguments that are meant to give us knowledge of God’s existence. Fully explain one of these arguments. After this, spend a paragraph responding to this argument as if you were David Hume. (hint: I expect answers to either refer to the “metaphysical non-sense” test, or (from section 4 (the youtube videos)) mere relations of ideas).
3). Explain Nietzsche’s “Bird of Prey and lamb” analogy and answer the question: Why is the slave use of the word “good” a perversion of it’s original use? Further, do you find Nietzsche’s explanation of the word “good” compatible with the way Aquinas’s uses “good” in his The Fourth Way? Why or why not? (this question needs to be a full two paragraphs)
4). William Clifford argues, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Why does he say this? Is he correct?
5). Edmund Gettier gives us reason to believe that justified true belief is not equal to knowledge. Explain what it means to have a justified, true belief and then explain one of Gettier’s examples of JTB not equaling K. 6). In his paper, Metaphysics, Intuitions and Physics, Jonathon Tallant sets out to defend the use of intuitions as evidence in contemporary metaphysics. To do this, he does not make the argument that intuitions ‘should’ be used as evidence in contemporary physics. Instead, he claims that if contemporary physics uses intuitions as evidence and is not employing bad methodology, then metaphysics using the same methodology should not be an issue.
Explain some of the reasons he believes using intuitions as evidence is standard practice in contemporary physics. After this, spend a paragraph answering the following question: Do you believe intuitions should be counted as evidence in any domain of investigation (physics, metaphysics, biology, ethics, etc…)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7OD3-2gQ9A -Hume section
0 comments