Philosophy Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Philosophy – systematic, rational inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, value, mind, and language. Major Branches – Epistemology: nature, sources, and justification of knowledge. Ethics: moral principles, right‑action, and applied moral issues. Logic: study of correct reasoning; split into formal (symbolic) and informal (everyday) logic. Metaphysics: ontology (what exists) and issues like free will, identity, physicalism vs. dualism. Aesthetics, Philosophy of Language, Mind, Religion, Science, Politics: specialized sub‑domains. Key Epistemic Terms – truth, belief, justification, “justified true belief” (JTB), Gettier problem, regress problem, foundationalism, coherentism, skepticism. Ethical Sub‑branches – meta‑ethics (nature of moral language), normative ethics (theories), applied ethics (real‑world cases). Normative Ethical Theories – consequentialism (outcomes), deontology (duties), virtue ethics (character). Logical Forms – modus ponens: $$p,\; p \rightarrow q\;\; \therefore q$$ Deductive (guaranteed conclusion), inductive (probabilistic support), abductive (best‑explanation). Metaphysical Issues – physicalism vs. dualism, particulars vs. universals, identity over change, determinism vs. free will. Philosophical Methods – conceptual analysis, ordinary‑language analysis, thought experiments, intuition surveys, reflective equilibrium, pragmatism, phenomenology, experimental philosophy. --- 📌 Must Remember Philosophy ≠ empirical science; it focuses on conceptual clarification and argument. JTB is the classic analysis of knowledge; Gettier cases show it can be insufficient. Foundationalism: some beliefs are self‑justified; Coherentism: justification comes from coherence of the whole system. Consequentialism → judge by outcomes; Deontology → judge by duties; Virtue Ethics → judge by character. Modus ponens is the canonical valid inference rule. Deductive validity = premises guarantee conclusion; Inductive strength = premises make conclusion probable; Abduction = inference to the best explanation. Physicalism: only matter/energy exist; Dualism: mental/abstract entities also exist. Reflective Equilibrium: adjust intuitions and principles until they cohere. Thought experiment ≠ empirical experiment; it tests logical consequences of imagined scenarios. --- 🔄 Key Processes Justification Regress Resolution Identify whether a belief can be foundational (self‑justified) → adopt foundationalism, or Show that the belief network is mutually supportive → adopt coherentism. Reflective Equilibrium List considered judgments (intuitions). Propose general principles. Check for conflicts; revise judgments or principles iteratively until coherence. Conceptual Analysis Pinpoint target concept. Break into necessary and sufficient conditions. Test with counter‑examples (often via thought experiments). Evaluating an Argument (Formal) Identify premises and conclusion. Translate into symbolic form. Apply inference rules (e.g., modus ponens). Determine validity. Applying Normative Ethics Identify relevant facts of the case. Choose a theory (consequentialist, deontologist, virtue‑based). Apply the theory’s decision rule to reach a moral judgment. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Empiricism vs. Rationalism – knowledge from experience vs. innate ideas. Foundationalism vs. Coherentism – self‑justifying beliefs vs. coherence of belief web. Consequentialism vs. Deontology – outcomes vs. duties as moral yardsticks. Physicalism vs. Dualism – only physical entities vs. mental/abstract entities also real. Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic – symbolic structure vs. everyday content/context. Deductive vs. Inductive vs. Abductive – certainty, probability, best explanation. Liberalism vs. Conservatism vs. Socialism vs. Anarchism – individual liberty, tradition, collective ownership, anti‑authority. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Knowledge = justified true belief” – ignores Gettier counterexamples. “Philosophy is just another science” – it studies concepts and arguments, not empirical data. “All ethics are about personal morals” – normative ethics provides systematic, often universal, theories. “Logic only concerns symbolic formulas” – informal logic is crucial for everyday argument evaluation. “Dualism is obsolete” – still a major, contested metaphysical position. “Thought experiments provide empirical proof” – they test logical consistency, not empirical facts. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition Knowledge as a House – foundations (self‑justified beliefs) support rooms (coherent beliefs). Ethical Decision Tree – first ask “What are the consequences?” (consequentialist); if blocked, ask “Does a duty apply?” (deontologist); if still undecided, ask “What kind of person would act this way?” (virtue ethicist). Logical Flowchart – premises → apply rule (e.g., modus ponens) → conclusion; any break signals a fallacy. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Gettier Cases – situations where JTB holds but knowledge intuitively fails (e.g., mistaken justification). Circular Justification – a belief justified by a chain that loops back to itself; violates foundationalism. Moral Dilemmas – cases where consequentialist and deontological verdicts diverge (e.g., trolley problem). Dualist Intuitions – some ordinary‑language intuitions (e.g., “my mind is separate from my body”) support dualism despite physicalist trends. --- 📍 When to Use Which Epistemic Theory – use foundationalism when a self‑evident datum is evident; use coherentism for highly inter‑connected belief systems (e.g., scientific theory networks). Ethical Theory – apply consequentialism to policy‑level outcome analysis; deontology for rights‑based judgments; virtue ethics for personal character development. Logical Method – formal symbolic analysis for abstract argument forms; informal analysis when context, relevance, and language matter. Philosophical Method – conceptual analysis for clarifying definitions; thought experiments for testing implications of a theory; reflective equilibrium when conflicting intuitions need systematic reconciliation. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “If‑then‑therefore” pattern → likely modus ponens or conditional proof. Gettier‑type structure – justified true belief paired with a hidden flaw. Regress cue – any argument that asks “Why is this justified?” repeatedly signals the regress problem. Moral conflict cue – statements invoking both outcomes and duties often signal a clash between consequentialism and deontology. Dualism cue – language about “mind‑body separation” or “qualia” points to the mind‑body problem. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Knowledge is simply justified true belief.” Trap: ignores Gettier problems; answer should mention the need for a further condition. Distractor: “Ethics only concerns personal happiness.” Trap: conflates consequentialism with the entire field; remember deontology and virtue ethics. Distractor: “All logical fallacies are formal.” Trap: informal fallacies (e.g., ad hominem) are equally tested. Distractor: “Physicalism proves there are no minds.” Trap: physicalism asserts mental states are physical, not that they don’t exist. Distractor: “Thought experiments are empirical data.” Trap: they are logical tools, not observations. Distractor: “Philosophy of science is the same as science.” Trap: philosophy of science studies concepts, methods, and justification, not empirical results. ---