Alrighty, I have a philosophy exam coming on Thursday. Any help would be welcome to the following questions, in which I must be able to answer two. At this point in time I have only a few ideas on 1, 2, 3, and 6. Even then, I cannot come up with the 'questions' that are going to have to be 'asked' at the questions in order to answer the original question, now that I know the answer to the original question in which I can now answer.

My problem comes from what I think is a bit of a learning disability. My reading retention is simply sub-par. I also have a great issue in the format that questions are given. They are given in the "What is the question to the question and once you've answered the question to the question in which you have the question now you need to answer the question to the question of the question in which I just gave you." This is absolutely maddening, and if I wasn't severely allergic to marijuana, I would be be trying to find some.

Anyways, I seem to pick up more by debating/arguing/etc over a topic rather than just reading. So I hope that I'm not breaking any forum rules by requesting assistance like this.

I'm going to attempt to answer each question. Please tear me apart at the seams if you must, because otherwise the rest of my classes and all of the money I have poured into my college career mean nothing. If I can't pass philosophy [basic], then I can't get into engineering ethics. So my aerospace engineering degree is well... it feels like it's being stolen for me in a way.

1) Plato presents three proposals that attempt to explain what justification ("account") is. Explain how one of these proposals might be thought to yield knowledge when combined with a true belief. What is a problem this proposal faces? Use an example to illustrate how this proposal and the problem you pose for it to work.

Alright, so the three proposals of 'account', which are according to my notes, "Making one's thought plain", "Most beliefs can be explained", and "Doesn't exclude accidentally true beliefs".

A true belief is something that is believed, and is also true.

Unfortunately, I don't understand where to even start? It's like the manner of the question is out of my reach. I'll pick the last one, if not out of simple desperation.

"An accidental true belief is something that is not known empirically, or even a priori, but is simply 'known' to the person who has that belief. If the orange is orange, and the believer believes it to be orange, and it also just happens to be orange, then that would count as an accidentally true belief.
Did the believe actually pose a test to see if there is empirical evidence to support that the orange is orange? What if it has some green in it? Is it orange then? Is it even an orange? What if its a tangerine? ....."

Well. I think I just broke my brain.



Ok, seriously. I don't get it. I apologize if the following text insults anyone. This is not intended as a rant, but a direct opinion on what I am experiencing on every level I can think of. I'll leave it out there purposely as I 'simply don't know any better'.

My 'general' understanding of what this is all 'about' is nothing but a tangled web of circular reasoning jumping back onto itself over and over. Where one philosopher has an idea of one thing against another philosopher, both philosophers are capable of determining that they are correct and the other is wrong regardless of what is actually said.

Philosophy translates, in general, to dead old bored guy drama akin to that of contemporary high school cheerleaders. Sure, some of what they have to say and some of their ideas can actually affect the world in some way shape or form, but in the end does it really matter? Seriously, no matter what the philosophers say, there are always going to be those that regard their decisions as wrong on emotional bias, if not another reason. Philosophy was once useful, but is no longer in the grander scheme as the greater sciences have come up in the roots of philosophy.

You can no longer really philosophize whether or not water is constructed of two parts hydrogen one part oxygen, because technological advances and scientific post-philosophical research has come up from the philosophical primordial goo. Whether or not an airplane is in flight cannot be philosophized in the same extent, unless you want to split the hairs of reality on whether or not it is the 'plane in flight', or it is a 'bending of reality as to perceive the plane as in flight'.

The concept of philosophy I understand on a very general level. "The discussion of ideas and their meanings." It's when you get into the differing ideas and for some reason treating them all equally when they contradict one another, all the while with my own personal philosophy being rendered 'wrong' in some ways amidst the whole. If the discussion of philosophy includes what is right and what is wrong, and all of those reasons as to why, then why is it that my own philosophy somehow means nothing in the midst of the fire fight?

My biggest problem with the subject matter pertaining to philosophy is that it begs you to ask the questions in every which way and to find the answers using the other 'old dead guys' objective and subjective explanations and notions; well what happens when the answer comes up as 'who cares'?

I understand that I'm supposed to be learning something, but the reason I have to take philosophy is that I need it as a prerequisite for Engineering Ethics so that I can get my aerospace engineering degree.

The problem goes towards my future in my field. When I am discussing the BIV or JTB or the God vs Evil or whether K(p->q) & K[->Kq or whether or not I'm awake and sitting on a chair in Jerusalem, or whether or not I know the difference between knowledge and reality in general, or whether or not I am alive; none of these things have a shred of anything to do with whether or not I am an ethical person or not. In fact, a basic psyche test could take care of that as far as a career goes.

Philosophy does not seem to have a direction that doesn't conclude itself in a perpetual time loop. I don't know if that's epistemology or philosophy in general, but I have yet to find a real purpose for it at all. I live, breath, and think like an engineer. Things have to have a conclusion to me. I am running in circles seeking a conclusion that does not involve me vomiting up memorized material out of the book in order to pass the class, but actually means me understanding the material to some extent. I am not finding that conclusion. The whole point behind education is understanding, not simply getting the piece of paper that says I know what I'm talking about. (Hell, a lot of the problems in todays society probably has a lot to do with people downing Aderol and other 'upper' pharmaceuticals in order to cheat themselves into a degree and then forget it once they have their degree.)

In the exchange between Theaetetus and Plato, I came away with nothing but a very simple understanding of the exchange. Petty girly bickering over something that doesn't matter. 6=6. 1+2+3=6. 4+2=6. Sum of this and what is the missing number or sum; 6. A third grader could tell you that 3+3=6 easily. I could go on to say that the square root of 36 is 6 just the same. Something that an algebra savvy student could tell you off the top of their head. If the big question is whether or not this is a priori or empirical, then does it really matter in the grand scheme? Math is of course the universal language. Numbers are a naturally occurring thing, and nature speaks to us with numbers and wavelengths and frequency in many different ways. Everything is a number. By definition, the universal language is empirical in nature, so numbers cannot be an a priori thing.

Even with the irrationality of pi or other transcendentals like e or i; these numbers are universal constants. The value of i is not a priori, its well known; the square root of -1, which is an impossible number. With that number however, I can tell you empirically that 1+1=0. This isn't even philosophical in nature, because math is a universal language and a universal constant.

So again I'm back to 'why?' and 'huh?' in my grand understanding of the purpose of it all. I don't understand what it is all about, and I'm at the point of throwing my hands up in retreat with the white flag of surrender because of a 100 level philosophy course.

If the questions could be made to be more DIRECT, I could possibly answer them, but all of the questions are Q=T=R=X=Wx=84=Q and like I said earlier, it's maddening.

WHATS THE POINT? WHY IS THIS CLASS REQUIRED? And .... help. Please. :surrender:

2) Explain one of the cases Gettier uses to demonstrate how having a justified true belief (JTB) is not sufficient for knowledge. How does that case present a problem for the JTB account of knowledge? In order to answer this question, you will need to explain what the JTB account is as well as the way in which Gettier's case is supposed to be troublesome for the account.



3) Brain in a vat (BIV) cases are usually presented to raise skeptical doubt about knowledge claims. What is the extent of our knowledge that is put into doubt by those cases, and how do BIV cases raise that doubt? Is there a plausible response that can be presented in defense of that knowledge? Explain why or why6 not using a response that someone might find plausible.

4) How does Hume argue that induction does not provide us with knowledge of the future? What problem does the argument pose? Use an example to illustrate your answer to both of these questions. In addition, explain one plausible objection to the argument in defense of claims to knowledge of the future.

5) What is the problem of other minds, and how does the argument from analogy claim to solve the problem? Once you have answered this question, present a problem case for the argument. Be sure to explain both how the argument purports to solve the problem of other minds and how the problem case raises doubt about the argument.

6) What is the mind-body problem, and how does Descartes argue for his response to the problem? Why does Descartes' response count as a dualist position? Present a plausible objection to Descartes' argument, and explain why the objection poses a problem for Descartes.

7) The identity theory claims that mental slates are numerically identical to physical states. What does it mean for two entities to be numerically identical, and how does the identity theory use this concept to explain the relationship of mind and body? What is a problem the identity theory is thought to face? Explain how this problem relates to the theory.

The book is Introduction to Philosophy - Classical and Contemporary Readings. Fourth edition, edited by John Perry, Michael Bratman, and John Martin Fischer. ...which doesn't even have a frigging index.

What is the mind-body problem, and how does Descartes argue for his response to the problem? Why does Descartes' response count as a dualist position? Present a plausible objection to Descartes' argument, and explain why the objection poses a problem for Descartes.

This has to do with being able to doubt that bodies exists (remember Meditations I and II), but not being able to doubt that minds exist. As soon as one begins to doubt that the mind exists, they are thinking, and thus the mind exists. Descartes response to this is that the mind and the body are separate entities, and the body is extended in space, and the mind is unextended in space. The objection to this that is most effective is that the mind and the body communicate through sensory stimulus and response. The problem it poses for Descartes argument is that he would need to explain how the two interact.

Anyway, that is the gist of the argument. It is rather simple, and I would say naive, but remember the argument was made back in the 1600s when everyone thought we had innate ideas implanted at birth.

Isn't the problem how an immaterial thing, the mind, can causally interact with a material thing, the body? For instance, I decide to raise my arm, and my arm goes up. My decision is mental, my arm is material. How can what is immaterial act on what is material? Descartes presented an analogy, by saying that the mind is to the body, as a pilot of a ship is to the ship he pilots. Only the connection is more intimate, since the person feels what happens to his body, but the pilot does not feel what happens to his ship. But that isn't a particularly helpful analogy. Descartes seems to think that the mind is like a kind of little person inside the body, driving it, and causing it to do things the little person (homunculus) decides it should do. So, Gilbert Ryle, the philosopher, called Descartes's view, "The Ghost in the Machine". By the way, Decartes speculated that the point of contact between the mind and the body was in the pineal gland in the forehead. No one knew about the function of the pineal gland at the time.

Your just using different language. Stimulus-response is a different way to say interaction, and extended-unextended are just other terms for material and immaterial. I was using the terms from the supplementary book that we are using in my early modern philosophy class.