1. Class 1 (Sept.6): “First steps …”

2.  You all are philosophers. You all are theologians.  Your Philosophy Should Evolve.  You are not required to have all the answers.  It is okay to disagree with a philosopher or think them nuts.

3.  Homer and Hesiod :  Greek Changes, People Change :  The Fathers of Greek Philosophy:

4. Will Philosophy Change My Life? Maybe. Philosophy does NOT require you to go through rite of passage or to give up current beliefs. It should neither ruin your life or depress you about it. You get what you put in. Philosophy is NOT finding a GURU! Will Philosophy Change My Life? Maybe. Philosophy does NOT require you to go through rite of passage or to give up current beliefs. It should neither ruin your life or depress you about it. You get what you put in. Philosophy is NOT finding a GURU!

5.  A rational argument is one that makes sense, is coherent, and is well founded. “... philosophy seeks to eradicate from our perspectives every taint and vestige of ignorance, superstition, prejudice, blind acceptance of ideas, and any other form of irrationality. It challenges our ideas, analyzes them, and tests them in light of evidence and arguments. It presses us to a coherent and valid expressions of our ideas.”  PHILOSOPHY WILL NEVER, EVER ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT WANTS TO DO. But WHY?  The "nonrational" steps in: a nonrational claim is one that is justified, if at all, through appealing to something other than reason: such as, authority, feelings, intuition, religious illumination, etc.  The "nonrational" is not the same as the "irrational": irrational claims are simply contrary to reason. It comes in 2 forms: a claim that flies in the face of everything we would expect from history, experience and nature. AND TWO: a claim that could not conceivably be true; it involves a self-contradiction and is therefore logically impossible. COULD I HAVE A COLLECTION OF ROUND SQUARES? NO? IF I CLAIM I DO THEN THIS IS IRRATIONAL.

6. "Premises" and "conclusions” DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:  Basically: Deductive arguments reason from the whole to the part, or from the general to the specific.  Better: "in a valid deductive argument the premises ensure our GUARANTEE, the conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true also. It is a matter of NECESSITY.  syllogism: it is simply an argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion.  FORM: deductive reasoning has to do with FORM and FORM ALONE. We call a deductive argument "valid" if it conforms to a valid form: meaning, essentially, that each premises is logically connected with the other. The SYLLOGISM is an example of proper form.

7. FALLACIES  NOTE: Logic Fallacies come in two overarching categories: FORMAL and INFORMAL and the two types couldn't be more different.  FORMAL: Mistakes in reasoning due to a failure in following the rules for the formal structure of valid arguments. These fallacies do not concern TRUTH or FALSITY but VALIDITY (pg. 23) Mistakes with respect to the FORM of an argument  INFORMAL: Mistakes in reasoning due to carelessness regarding relevance and clarity of language. These fallacies bear directly on issues of truth and falsity. They are mistakes with respect to the relevance of ideas or carelessness with respect to the clarity and consistency of our language.

8. 1)Loaded Language 2) Equivocation 3) Begging the Question 4) Ad hominem 5) Straw Man 6) “Person Who…” 7) Ad populum 8) Ad ignorantiam 9) Red Herring 10) False dilemma