Conceptual Schemes
Cognitive relativism (or epistemological relativism) is the theory that truth is relative. There are different positions that cognitive relativism can take, depending on what truth is relative to.
1) What frameworks do you think truth may be relative to?
2) Do you think there’s any problem with saying that a ‘truth’ can be relative?
An argument for cognitive relativism is that when we say that a belief is true, we are not really saying the belief matches the facts. Instead, we mean it is compatible with our other beliefs.
3) What do you think about this?
Some philosophers have said that truth may be relative to conceptual schemes. By this they mean different groups may have such radically different concepts and ideas that they interpret the world in different ways, and furthermore no interpretation is more valid than any other.
4) Do you think it’s possible for different societies to have such radically different conceptual schemes? If not, do you think it ever was?
5) Do you think conceptual schemes are a priori or a posteriori?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attempts to show that the difficulty to translate between different languages reveals that societies have completely different concepts of reality from eachother.
6) Is it a problem to say that no interpretation of the world can ever be correct?
7) Do you think that truth is relative to conceptual schemes?
Monday, 15 December 2008
Lesson Plan - Ontological Argument for Year 12
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological argument goes as follows:
The concept of God is the concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
To exist is greater than to not exist
So if God did not exist, one could conceive of a greater being (i.e. an existent God)
Therefore, God exists.
Questions
A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it logically entails that the conclusion is true.
e.g. If A, then B
A
Therefore B
An argument is sound if all of its premises are true and it is valid.
1) Is the argument valid? Is it sound? If not, what premises do you think can be questioned?
Immanuel Kant raised the following objection:
“Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing … Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates - I posit the object in relation to my conception.”
2) Do you agree with Kant that existence is not a property?
Some philosophers have tried to rescue the argument from Kant’s objection by arguing that necessary existence is a property, and that this is a more perfect property than non-existence.
3) Do you think this reply helps save the original argument?
4) Does anything strike you as odd about using the properties of God in order to prove his existence?
5) Can you think of any way to save this argument? Do you think the attempt to prove the existence of God ‘a priori’ is a good approach in the first place?
The Ontological argument goes as follows:
The concept of God is the concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
To exist is greater than to not exist
So if God did not exist, one could conceive of a greater being (i.e. an existent God)
Therefore, God exists.
Questions
A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it logically entails that the conclusion is true.
e.g. If A, then B
A
Therefore B
An argument is sound if all of its premises are true and it is valid.
1) Is the argument valid? Is it sound? If not, what premises do you think can be questioned?
Immanuel Kant raised the following objection:
“Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing … Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates - I posit the object in relation to my conception.”
2) Do you agree with Kant that existence is not a property?
Some philosophers have tried to rescue the argument from Kant’s objection by arguing that necessary existence is a property, and that this is a more perfect property than non-existence.
3) Do you think this reply helps save the original argument?
4) Does anything strike you as odd about using the properties of God in order to prove his existence?
5) Can you think of any way to save this argument? Do you think the attempt to prove the existence of God ‘a priori’ is a good approach in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)