Chapter 1-3 Question Assignment 1. Explain some of the benefits a student may gain by studying philosophy.
Knowing philosophy can be very beneficial. It can help a student develop knowledge between knowing how and understanding how. Knowing helps comprehend questions, from different perspectives. Someone learning philosophy can improve their critical thinking skills and create their own thoughts, not just the thoughts of others. Reaching from within and providing your own ideas can help create and understand your own personality. Students will be able to improve their analytical, reasoning and evaluation skills. Overall any student studying philosophy can benefit greatly from it.

2. Explain the Socratic Method of Teaching. Is this a useful way for students to learn? The Socratic Method of Teaching dates back to ancient Athenian times. Socrates was the wisest man states the Oracle. Socrates replied saying “he was wise because he admitted his ignorance.” Sadly Socrates never wrote down any of his thoughts however, Pluto wrote dialogue that reflected his views. His method is a good way for students to learn because it helps them develop critical thinking skills. It helps students improve their skills in analysis and opening up to thoughts and ideas. This method helps provide a foundation for answers we are looking for and puts those answers into perspective.

3. Explain how critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue. Critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue because it helps with understanding the issue at hand and comprehending those issues. Being able to think critically means that you are able make rational evaluations to investigate facts and reasons to philosophical issues. Philosophy itself is a thinkers game. It is a way to evaluate arguments in the world and critical thinking is necessary to find rational reasoning for these arguments. 4. Compare and contrast induction, abduction, and deduction. Different forms of reasoning and seeking explanations include induction, abduction and deduction. Deduction deals with 100% certainties. Finding reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logical certain conclusion. Abduction is reasoning to the best explanation. And lastly, Induction deals with probabilities .The conclusion for the argument is probable based on the evidence but not completely certain so there is some degree of support.

5. Explain some different areas of philosophy, which will be discussed in this course. Critical thinking deals with the evolution of philosophical arguments consisting of a number of premises and a conclusion. Some of the different areas of philosophy are Metaphysics, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Political Philosophy. Metaphysics deals with the nature of existence. Basically asking the question, “What is real?” Ontology is a sub-field of metaphysics, which deals with the answering of reality to prove the existence of things in the world. Epistemology deals with the nature of the foundation of knowledge. The subcategories of epistemology include rationalism, which deals with logical analysis and Empiricism, which deals with observation and experience. Aesthetics deals with the appreciation of beauty. Ethics deals with human action and the judgment of what is considered right and wrong when answering a question. And lastly, Political philosophy deals with the philosophy of law in government. 6. Compare and contrast various views on substance such as materialism, dualism and idealism.

There are various views on substance such as materialism, dualism, and idealism. Materialism deals more with the physicality of reality and tangible objects. Idealism is the direct opposite of this. In idealistic cultures people believe that reality consists of the intangible things, unlike matter. And lastly, dualism claims that both of these views coincide and exist together. This view claims that we encounter objects everyday which makes them material, but also immaterial objects exist such as thoughts feelings and ideas.

7. Evaluate the 4 views as to the nature of universals and particulars.

A universal is something that is true of anything’s nature. A particular is something that is particular to a nature, but not in the definition of the nature (a property).There are 4 main views that deal with universals and particulars. First, extreme or platonic realism ideals are real.. The second view involves exaggerated realism, which holds that universal in the particular as a part of them. For example, a blue desk and a blue cup both have the form blue, so the particulars have a universal within them. The conceptualism view states that ideas are real dependent union the mind or thoughts. And lastly, extreme nominalism states that ideas are not objects. In other words, universals do not exist and only particular or individual objects exist.

8. Explain and evaluate the views of Anaximander regarding the nature of substance.

Anaximander believed that all objects are composed of air. The difference densities of air explain the different types of objects. For example, air in a car will be denser than the air that we breathe. He believed that air is the center of human life and that air itself was infinite. He didn’t believe that primary substances were observable anywhere in the world, which is somewhat correct.

9. Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras regarding the nature of substance.

Pythagoras views regarding the nature of substance was based upon the reality of numbers. He believed that the world’s explanation was answered through numbers. Numbers never lie. For example, it is impossible to say that 2+2 does not equal 4. So numbers provide the truth of substance in Pythagoras view of the world.

10. Explain Aristotle’s 4 causes.

Aristotle's 4 causes reason can take us closer to reality if we simply ask the right questions. The first cause is what is it? The second cause is what made of? This is a material cause. The third cause is how was it made, or who made it? And the fourth cause, the most important, is what is it for? For example, a sailboat might be for sailing, and a racecar to drive fast.

11. Compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism.

Rationalism deals mainly with knowledge through logic and reasoning. Empiricism on the other hand, deals more with experience and inquiry. A rationalist might claim that we do not need experience to have knowledge. They believe in prior knowledge, which in their eyes must be true since it was known without any experience. An empiricist will be more likely to answer a question because of their prior experience.

12. Explain the difference between A priori and A posteriori knowledge.

A posterirori knowledge is comparable to empiricism. Also known as synthetic knowledge. On the other hand priori knowledge, is more comparable to Rationalism. They believe that knowledge doesn’t need any experience and therefore is necessary and certain. This is known as analytic knowledge.

13. Compare and contrast Foundationalism and Coherentism Foundationalism is a theory which claims that knowledge id based on basic true beliefs. One of the most well known functionalists Rene Descartes who argued that a rational method is required to have knowledge. On the other hand, Coherentism is a metaphorical belief. It does not involve knowledge as the foundation of belief. Unlike foundation, Cohenterists do not believe in the basic foundational beliefs. Instead they argue that other believers justify our own beliefs.

14. Compare and contrast pragmatic theories of truth with the correspondence theory of truth.

Pragmatic theories claim that truth may be relative to the individual, society or science. For example, William James who supported this theory claimed, that beliefs about our free will could be true for some people and false for others. This theory doesn't need evidence to be viewed as truthful, but rather beliefs. In this view self-fulfilling beliefs are true for the individual. Correspondence theory claims that beliefs are true if they correspond with something that exists in the world.

15. What are some of the implications of Gödel’s Theorem?

Gödel’s Theorem regarding the nature of truth states that artificial intelligence or a machine cannot always be up to the tasks of the human mind. The most a computer can do is imitate the human mind. So basically, there is always something true that even a computer with unlimited capabilities cannot prove. Gödel’s believed that the human mind was superior to artificial intelligence.