Philosophy revision notes

These links will only work when the corresponding section of the file has loaded, which may take a while. Welcome to my collection of online philosophy resources. If you are stuck in a frame, click here to escape.

Philosophy revision notes

They hold that there is nothing more to the mental, biological and social realms than arrangements of physical entities. The driving motivation for this kind of ontological naturalism is the need to explain how special entities can have physical effects.

Philosophy of Religion

Thus many contemporary thinkers adopt a physicalist view of the mental realm because they think that otherwise we will be unable to explain how mental processes can causally influence our bodies and other physical items.

Similar considerations motivate ontologically naturalist views of the biological realm, the social realm, and so on.

It may not be immediately obvious why this need to account for physical effects should impose any substantial naturalist constraints on some category.

However, there may be a posteriori objections to such non-natural causal influences on the physical world, even if there are no a priori objections.

We shall see below how modern scientific theory places strong restrictions on the kinds of entities that Philosophy revision notes have physical effects. Given that mental, biological and social phenomena do have such effects, it follows that they must satisfy the relevant restrictions.

Already a member?

Note how this kind of argument bites directly only on those categories that do have physical effects. It places no immediate constraints on Philosophy revision notes that lack any such effects, which arguably include the mathematical and modal realms, and perhaps the moral realm.

We shall return to the question of whether there are any further reasons for ontologically naturalist views about causally non-efficacious categories in sections 1.

Philosophy revision notes

It will be worth rehearsing this history in outline, if only to forestall a common reaction to ontological naturalism. However, familiarity with the relevant scientific history casts the matter in a different light. It turns out that naturalist doctrines, far from varying with ephemeral fashion, are closely responsive to received scientific opinion about the range of causes that can have physical effects.

A short version of this history runs like this: Let us now rehearse this story more slowly. So stated, the mechanical philosophy immediately precludes anything except impacting material particles from producing physical effects. Views which avoid ontological naturalistic views of the mind by denying that it has any physical effects will be discussed further in section 1.

This reinstated the possibility of interactive dualism, since it allowed disembodied forces as well as impacts to cause physical effects.

Newtonian physics was open-ended about the kinds of forces that exist. Early Newtonians posited fundamental mental and vital forces alongside magnetic, chemical, cohesive, gravitational and impact forces.

Accordingly, they took sui generis mental action in the material world to be perfectly consistent with the principle of physics.

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber)

Moreover, there is nothing in the original principles of Newtonian mechanics to stop mental forces arising autonomously and spontaneously, in line with common assumptions about the operation of the mind Papineau However, the conservation of energy does imply that any such special forces must be governed by strict deterministic laws: Detailed physiological research, especially into nerve cells, gave no indication of any physical effects that cannot be explained in terms of basic physical forces that also occur outside living bodies.

By the middle of the twentieth century, belief in sui generis mental or vital forces had become a minority view. In the initial seventeenth-century mechanical phase, there was a tension, as Leibniz observed, between the dominant strict mechanism and interactive dualism.

However, once mechanism was replaced by the more liberal doctrines of Newtonian physics in the second phase, science ceased to raise any objections to dualism and more generally to non-physical causes of physical effects.

In the third phase, the nineteenth-century discovery of the conservation of energy continued to allow that sui generis non-physical forces can interact with the physical world, but required that they be governed by strict force laws.

We might usefully view this as a species of ontological naturalism that falls short of full physicalism.

The entire course…

Mental and other special forces were non-physical in the sense that they arose only in special circumstances and not throughout the spatiotemporal realm, but even so they fell within the realm of scientific law and lacked spontaneous autonomy.

As many commentators at the time recognized, this weaker form of naturalism already carried significant philosophical implications, particularly for the possibility of free will. The causal closure thesis implied that, if mental and other special causes are to produce physical effects, they must themselves be physically constituted.

It thus gave rise to the strong physicalist doctrine that anything that has physical effects must itself be physical. In support of this understanding of the twentieth-century history, it is noteworthy how philosophers began to formulate arguments for physicalism from the s onwards.

Some of these arguments appealed explicitly to the causal closure of the physical realm Feigl ; Oppenheim and Putnam In other cases, the reliance on causal closure lay below the surface. However, it is not hard to see that even in these latter cases the causal closure thesis played a crucial role.

Thus, for example, consider J. At first sight, it might not be obvious that these arguments require the causal closure thesis.Shakespeare’s play about the doomed romance of two teenagers from feuding families is the most famous love story ever written.

First performed around , Romeo and Juliet has been adapted as a ballet, an opera, the musical West Side Story, and a dozen a character analysis of Juliet, plot summary, and important quotes.

RELIGIOUS STUDIES Philosophy and Ethics REVISION MATERIAL B Answering Exam Questions Religion and Science Good and Evil Revision Ideas. Shakespeare’s play about the doomed romance of two teenagers from feuding families is the most famous love story ever written.

First performed around , Romeo and Juliet has been adapted as a ballet, an opera, the musical West Side Story, and a dozen a character analysis of Juliet, plot summary, and important quotes.

SparkNotes are the most helpful study guides around to literature, math, science, and more. Find sample tests, essay help, and translations of Shakespeare. Here are some revision notes on the teleological argument for God’s existence, I hope it’s helpful 🙂 I have also attached a revision sheet at the bottom if you’d like to print it out.

Also see the sections on Bibliographies and Miscellaneous philosophy sites.. For topics not on this list, try the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and/or the Hippias search engine..

Philosophy revision notes

Academic Dialogue on Applied caninariojana.comic topics scheduled for public, interactive discussion on certain dates.

Philosophy A Level – The entire course in a few pages!