To help you review, here is a checklist of the key philosophers and terms and concepts

of this chapter. The brief descriptive sentences summarize the philosophers leading
ideas. Keep in mind that some of these summary statements are oversimplifications of
complex positions.

Philosophy

Philosophers
Presocratics
Anaxagoras maintained that all things are composed of infinitely divisible particles;
the universe was caused by mind (nous) acting on matter.
Anaximander held that the original source of all things is a boundless, indeterminate
element.
Anaximenes said that the underlying principle of all things is air.
The Atomists (especially Leucippus and Democritus) said that all things are
composed of imperceptible, indestructible, indivisible, eternal, and uncreated atoms.
Motion needs no explanation.
Empedocles held that apparent changes in things are in fact changes in the positions
of basic particles, of which there are four types: earth, air, fire, and water.Two forces
cause these basic changes: love and strife.
Heraclitus held that the only reality is ceaseless change and that the underlying
substance of the universe is fire.
Parmenides said that the only reality is permanent, unchanging, indivisible, and
undifferentiated being and that change and motion are illusions of the senses.
Pythagoras maintained that enumerability constitutes the true nature of things.
Thales held that water is the basic stuff of which all else is composed.
Zeno devised clever paradoxes seeming to show that motion is impossible.

Ancient Philosphers
Plato was most famous for his Theory of Forms and his two-realm doctrine: two
separate worlds with two types of knowledge.
Socrates was Platos mentor and philosophys most illustrious practitioner of the
Socratic/ dialectic method.
Aristotle
Sophists were ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric.Through them and Socrates, moral
philosophy began.
Medieval Philosophers
St. Augustine provided Platonic philosophical justification for the Christian belief in a
nonmaterial God, rejected skepticism, and diagnosed the cause of error in sense
perception.
St.Thomas Aquinas blended Christianity with the philosophy of Aristotle, delineating
the boundary between philosophy and theology.

Modern Philosophers

Rationalists
Ren Descartes was the fatherof modern philosophy,a Continental rationalist,and a
dualist.Hesaid there are two separate and distinct substances:material substance and
mind.
Benedictus de Spinoza was a Continental rationalist. He maintained that thought and
extension are attributes of a single substance.
Thomas Hobbes was the first great modern materialist. He held that all that exists is
bodies in motion.
Gottfried Wilhelm, Baron von Leibniz was a Continental rationalist who held that the
ultimate constituents of reality are monads, which are nonmaterial, indivisible units of
force.

Empiricists
George Berkeley was a British empiricist and idealist who denied the existence of
material substance and held that sensible objects exist only in the mind.
John Locke was a British empiricist who held that we perceive objects indirectly by
means of our perceptions of them, some of which he believed were accurate copies of
the real properties of objects.
David Hume held that there is no metaphysical knowledge and maintained that
knowledge is limited to what we experience. He summoned powerful arguments to
question our supposed knowledge of the self, causality, God, and the external world.

Critical Philosopher
 Immanuel Kant believed the mind imposes a certain form and order on
experienceable objects. He held that there can be no knowledge of things as they are
in themselves, independent of experience.

Logic
Logic: The science that evaluates arguments.

Argument: A group of statements comprising one or more premises and one conclusion
To distinguish premises from conclusion, look for:
Indicator words (hence, therefore, since, because, etc.)
An inferential relation among the statements

Not all groups of statements are arguments. To distinguish arguments from

nonarguments, look for:
Indicator words (hence, since, etc.)
An inferential relation among the statements
Typical kinds of nonarguments (warnings, reports, expository passages, etc.)

The most problematic kinds of nonarguments:

Expository passages (Is the topic sentence proved by the other statements?)
Illustrations (Could the passage be an argument from an example?)
Explanations (Could the explanandum also be a conclusion?)

Conditional statements express the relation between suffi cient conditions and
necessary conditions:
A is a sufficient condition for B: The occurrence of A is all that is needed for the
occurrence of B.
A is a necessary condition for B: A cannot occur without the occurrence of B.

Arguments are traditionally divided into deductive and inductive:

Deductive argument: The conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the
premises.
Inductive argument: The conclusion is claimed to follow probably from the premises.

Evaluating an argument (either deductive or inductive) involves two steps:

Evaluating the link between premises and conclusion
Evaluating the truth of the premises

Fallacy: A mistake in an argument that arises from defective reasoning or the

creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. There are two
kinds of fallacy:
 Formal fallacy: Detectable by analyzing the form of an argument
Informal fallacy: Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument

Fallacies of Relevance: The premises are not relevant to the conclusion:

Appeal to Force: Arguer threatens the reader/listener.
Appeal to Pity: Arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener.
Appeal to the People: Arguer incites a mob mentality (direct form) or appeals to our
desire for security, love, or respect (indirect form).
Argument against the Person: Arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by
verbally abusing the opponent (ad hominem abusive), presenting the opponent as
predisposed to argue as he or she does (ad hominen circumstantial), or by presenting
the opponent as a hypocrite (tu quoque). Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be
two arguers.
Accident: A general rule is applied to a specifi c case it was not intended to cover.
Straw Man: Arguer distorts an opponents argument and then attacks the distorted
argument. Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.
Missing the Point: Arguer draws a conclusion diff erent from the one supported by the
premises. Note: Do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fi ts.
Red herring: Arguer leads the reader/listener off the track.

Fallacies of Weak Induction: The premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they
supply insufficient support for the conclusion:
Appeal to Unqualifi ed Authority: Arguer cites an untrustworthy authority.
Appeal to Ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved about some
subject, and then a conclusion is drawn about that subject.
Hasty Generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
False Cause: Conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection. This
fallacy has four forms: post hoc ergo propter hoc, non causa pro causa, oversimplified
cause, and the gamblers fallacy. Slippery Slope: Conclusion depends on an unlikely
chain reaction of causes.
Weak Analogy: Conclusion depends on a defective analogy (similarity).

Categorical Proposition: A proposition that relates two classes (or categories).

Standardform categorical propositions occur in four forms and are identifi ed by letter
names:
A: All S are P.
E: No S are P.
I: Some S are P.
O: Some S are not P.

Every standard-form categorical proposition has four components:

Quantifi er (all, no, some)
 Subject Term
Copula (are, are not)
Predicate Term

The quality of a categorical proposition:

Affirmative (All S are P, Some S are P.)
Negative (No S are P, Some S are not P.)

The quantity of a categorical proposition:

Universal (All S are P, No S are P.)
Particular (Some S are P, Some S are not P.)

The subject and predicate terms are distributed if the proposition makes an assertion
about every member of the class denoted by the term; otherwise, undistributed:
A: Subject term is distributed.
E: Subject and predicate terms are distributed.
I: Neither term is distributed.
O: Predicate term is distributed.

Three operations that sometimes yield logically equivalent results:

Conversion: Switch S and P. Logically equivalent results for E, I
Obversion: Change the quality, replace P with its term complement. Logically
equivalent results for A, E, I, O.
Contraposition: Switch S and P, replace S and P with term complements. Logically
equivalent results for A, O.

Two formal fallacies may occur when these operations are used to derive conclusions:
Illicit conversion: Performing conversion on an A or O premise
Illicit contraposition: Performing contraposition on an E or I premise

The traditional square of opposition applies to categorical propositions when the

Aristotelian standpoint is adopted and the subject term refers to existing things:
Contrary: Holds between A and E. At least one is false.
Subcontrary: Holds between I and O. At least one is true.
Subalternation: Holds between A and I and between E and O. Truth fl ows downward
and falsity fl ows upward.
Contradiction: Holds as in the modern square.

Categorical Syllogism:
A deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions
Containing three diff erent terms
Each term occurs twice in distinct propositions
Terms in a categorical syllogism:
Major term: The term that occurs in the predicate of the conclusion
Minor term: The term that occurs in the subject of the conclusion
Middle term: The term that occurs twice in the premises

Premises of a categorical syllogism:

Major premise: The premise that contains the major term
Minor premise: The premise that contains the minor term

Standard-form categorical syllogism:

All three propositions are in standard form.
The two occurrences of each term are identical.
Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument.
The major premise is listed fi rst, minor premise second, conclusion last.

The validity of a categorical syllogism is determined by its mood and fi gure:

Mood: Consists of the letter names of the propositions in the syllogism
Figure: Is determined by how the occurrences of the middle term are arranged

Rules for syllogisms:

The middle term must be distributed in at least one premise;
A term distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in a premise;
At least one premise must be affi rmative;
A negative conclusion requires a negative premise, and vice versa;
A particular conclusion requires a particular premise.
If only the last rule is violated, a syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint on
condition that the critical term refers to actually existing things.

Some syllogisms having more than three terms can be reduced to standard form:
Each additional term must be a complement of one of the others.
Conversion, obversion, and contraposition must be applied only when they yield
logically equivalent results.