Summary of Michael Huemer's Knowledge, Reality, And Value

Everest Media

Description

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book.
Sample Book Insights:
#1 The Ship of Theseus is a classic philosophical problem. It asks whether a certain ship, which was damaged and replaced its wooden parts one by one, is the same ship as the original. It is not a scientific question, but it is not entirely without answer.
#2 The subject matter of philosophy is extremely broad. It ranges from general questions about what exists and what sort of world this is, to questions about the nature of knowledge and how we know what we think we know.
#3 The branches of philosophy are ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, logic, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science. They all study questions that are similar to those studied by religion and science, but they approach them using different methods.
#4 The difference between religion and philosophy is that with religion, there are often key claims that one is meant to accept because they come from a particular person, or institution, or book, etc. And one is supposed to trust that person or institution or book because it (or its author) had a form of supernatural access to the truth.

Sujets

• Religion
• Général
• Politique

Informations

• Publié par: Everest Media LLC
• Date de parution: 09 mars 2022
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781669351900
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Insights on Michael Huemer's Knowledge Reality and Value
Contents Insights from Chapter 1 Insights from Chapter 2 Insights from Chapter 3 Insights from Chapter 4 Insights from Chapter 5 Insights from Chapter 6 Insights from Chapter 7 Insights from Chapter 8 Insights from Chapter 9 Insights from Chapter 10 Insights from Chapter 11 Insights from Chapter 12 Insights from Chapter 13 Insights from Chapter 14 Insights from Chapter 15 Insights from Chapter 16 Insights from Chapter 17 Insights from Chapter 18 Insights from Chapter 19
Insights from Chapter 1

#1

The Ship of Theseus is a classic philosophical problem. It asks whether a certain ship, which was damaged and replaced its wooden parts one by one, is the same ship as the original. It is not a scientific question, but it is not entirely without answer.

#2

The subject matter of philosophy is extremely broad. It ranges from general questions about what exists and what sort of world this is, to questions about the nature of knowledge and how we know what we think we know.

#3

The branches of philosophy are ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, logic, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science. They all study questions that are similar to those studied by religion and science, but they approach them using different methods.

#4

The difference between religion and philosophy is that with religion, there are often key claims that one is meant to accept because they come from a particular person, or institution, or book, etc. And one is supposed to trust that person or institution or book because it (or its author) had a form of supernatural access to the truth.

#5

The first myth is that philosophers spend their days arguing about the meaning of life and the nature of truth. In reality, the meaning of life is a philosophical question, and philosophers argue about any philosophical question.

#6

The field of philosophy is full of myths that students have about it. These myths make it seem like doing philosophy is all about giving your opinion, or saying how you feel about things. But in reality, doing philosophy is about thinking things through carefully.
Insights from Chapter 2

#1

There are three types of things that can be true or false: sentences, beliefs, and propositions. A sentence is a sequence of words that can be true or false. A belief is a mental state, and can be either true or false. A proposition is the thing that a belief or statement is about.

#2

A proposition is not just a phrase or a sentence in a particular language. It is the thing that that phrase refers to. The simplest kind of proposition has a simple subject-predicate form.

#3

A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. They can be true or false, have probabilities, be possible or impossible, and be necessary or contingent.

#4

There are many different kinds of arguments: deductive, inductive, circumstantial, etc. A deductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion conclusively, that is, in such a way that it would be contradictory for the premises to be true and the conclusion not to be true.

#5

An argument is a series of premises and a conclusion. The premises provide some grounds for the conclusion, but not conclusive grounds. The premises are just supposed to show the conclusion to be probable, or more probable than one would otherwise think.

#6

An argument is valid if it is sound, and its premises are all true. An argument is unsound if it is invalid, or has a false premise. A cogent argument is one in which the premises make the conclusion more probable. An uncogent argument is one in which the premises do not make the conclusion more probable.

#7

The above categories are used to assess arguments, especially those that might be wrong with a given argument. If you have an invalid argument, or one that is based on false premises, then it is a bad argument.

#8

The terms valid and sound are often used in a confusing manner in philosophical circles. They are used to refer to the properties of an argument, but in normal English, they mean perfectly okay. The different terms should refer to separate properties.

#9

Category errors are a common type of mistake. They are the result of applying a predicate to a type of thing that the predicate doesn’t apply to. For example, saying that something is the uncle of something is a category error, since the uncle of something is a person, not a table.

#10

Category errors don’t express a coherent thought. If someone claims to have had a green idea, it’s not just that they’re violating a rule of language. It’s that we don’t know what they’re trying to say, because ideas can't have that property.

#11

The term concept is also subject to a lot of confusion. For some reason, it is very common to commit category errors of the form So-and-so is a concept. This means that they are confusing concepts with the things that the concepts represent.
Insights from Chapter 3

#1

Rationally believing something is the belief that is likely to be true given the experiences and information available to you at the time. It is what I mean by thinking correctly.

#2

The question why be rational. is a bit strange. It seems to imply that being rational is about having true beliefs, when in reality, being rational is about thinking correctly, and accepting what you have most reason to accept.

#3

The first thing to note is that if you form an irrational belief, and this has bad consequences, you are responsible for those consequences. But if you have a fully rational belief, and it unluckily has bad consequences, you are not to blame for those consequences.

#4

In the case of the Unlucky Samaritan, the driver had a spinal injury that was exacerbated by being moved. However, the driver did not catch on fire, so the Samaritan was not to blame.

#5

The argument states that if you form an irrational belief that causes a bad outcome, you are morally blameworthy. It is argued that moral blameworthiness cannot be a matter of luck.

#6

When I say that irrationality is immoral, I am not saying that everyone needs to be a completely unemotional (or even relatively unemotional) robotlike being. A rational thinker is not a person with no emotional reactions.

#7

The intellectual virtue of objectivity is the capacity to resist bias and form beliefs based on the objective facts. It is a disposition to resist the influence of your personal interests, emotions, or desires, and instead to evaluate situations based on their relevance to you.

#8

When you hear an argument against your position, you have a negative emotional reaction. You might misinterpret the argument, and then respond to that. You might impose an impossibly high standard of proof for every premise used in the argument, and then disregard the argument completely.

#9

Objectivity is not to be confused with neutrality. Neutrality is a matter of not taking a stand on a controversial issue. The objective person should still treat both sides fairly.

#10

The ideal of objectivity is important because human beings are not designed to discover abstract philosophical truths. Our natural tendency is to advance our own interests or the interests of the group we identify with, and we tend to treat intellectual issues as a proxy battleground for that endeavor.

#11

The idea of objectivity is not just a Western value, but a value that supports the allegedly correct political conclusions. If objective thinking leads people to reject your ideology, then your ideology is probably false.

#12

The concern about objectivity in journalism is legitimate, as it is true that the people with the most biases are also the most knowledgeable. But the concern also rests on a misunderstanding of objectivity. Objectivity does not require that you disregard the testimony of anyone who is biased.

#13

If you can only maintain your beliefs by being biased or irrational, then your beliefs are almost certainly wrong. A final point: Attacking objectivity and rationality is a short-sighted strategy. If you can convince anyone to give up the ideals of rationality and objectivity, that doesn’t mean they will automatically come over to your side and support whatever you want.

#14

When you are aware of a bias, you are less likely to be influenced by it. For example, if you are an educator and believe that educators should be paid more money, acknowledge the fact that you could be biased because of your self-interest.

#15

Open-mindedness is the opposite of dogmatism. Dogmatism is the most common form of failure of objectivity. People who are too quick to abandon beliefs are dogmatic.

#16

When discussing philosophy, your aim is to make progress in the discussion, not to cause delays or score points.