2010 Fall Philosophy Proseminar

Return to Philosophy Proseminar

Report your examples here under a heading identifying the method. For example:

Logical Argumentation

Spinoza's "Ethics" is basically one gigantic deductive argument sprawling from a few foundational premises outlined as definitions and axioms. If one accepts his premises, he provides an astonishingly airtight logical framework for his ontological view of God and Monism. This is logical argumentation because Spinoza sticks to this rigid form of deductive rationale throughout the whole book. ----this may belong in the "arguments section" below... wasn't sure how we were organizing.

Case Method

Hart's article uses case method because it distinguishes generalized scenarios (two involving fires and one involving assault/murder) which, he thinks, helps us clarify the problem of "tracing consequences".

Thought Experiment

(also falls under "Case Method" ) Nagel's case method asking "what is it like to be a bat" falls under this category. By pointing out that people cannot possibly imagine the experience accurately due to different sensory experience, etc., Nagel manages to draw general conclusions on the subjective nature of human experience.

Dennet's quotes by Hume include Hume's character Philo engaging in thought experiments about different kinds of Gods, specifically the possibility of a Spider god to a world entirely inhabited by Spiders.

Careful Definitions

Not sure if this is the kind of example that your looking for, but i believe Spinoza does this in "Ethics" on multiple occasions. The one example that sticks out to me the most is his definition of the term: Attributes. By carefully defining attributes as, "what the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence," Spinoza attempts to bridge Descartes mind/body issue. (I think that this would also fall under traditional logical argumentation given the way he organizes his writing. the theory of attributes that he asserts also serves as a premise supporting his theory of ontology.)

This seems like what is going on for the ending part of Euthyphro, where Socrates says to Euthyphro that he must know what Piety is before he can determine what is Pious, prompting the definition that Piety is what the Gods love and argument about if what the Gods love is Pious because the Gods love it or if the Gods love it because it is Pious.

Phenomenological Reduction

Heidegger uses phenomenological reduction to outline his theory on how Dasein percieves and assigns meaning. An example would be how he reduces perception and meaning to ready-to-hand objects and present-at-hand objects.

Arguments -- All types

Socrates makes the argument in the Apology after he is accused of being an atheist that because you cannot believe in the study of something but not something itself (his examples are you cannot believe in horsemanship and not in horses), and because his accusers have accused him of teaching and studying 'divinities', he cannot study divinities and not believe in gods. This argument boils down to


You cannot believe in the study of something and not the thing itself. (if A[belief in the study of something] then B [belief in the object studied])
Socrates believes in the study of Divinities/Gods (A: Belief in the study of Gods)
__
Socrates beleives in the Divine, or Gods (B: Belief in Gods)

This is a Modus Ponens argument.