Resumen filosofia alevel

Solo disponible en BuenasTareas
  • Páginas : 7 (1636 palabras )
  • Descarga(s) : 0
  • Publicado : 25 de abril de 2011
Leer documento completo
Vista previa del texto


 Anthropomorphism: talk of god in human terms
 How can we talk of god if the terms we use are from our mundane reality and we use them to talk of things of this “world”
 We have to find a way to talk of god, otherwise the talk of god will be nonsense. We need to find a middle point between anthropomorphism and nonsenseLOGICAL POSITIVISM AND THE VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE

 Says that the talk of god is simply nonsense and that there is no middle point
 They put philosophy in a new foundation and science was their model
 If you can approve a proposition with our senses, then the proposition is true, if you or anybody can’t then the proposition is false
 If there is a proposition and we can’t use our senses totell if it is true or false, then the proposition is meaningless
 Verification principle: a proposition has meaning only if it is possible to make observations about it in principle to tell if it is true or false.
 Logical positivists say that a proposition has meaning IN PRINCIPLE because some times you cant prove that something is true or false but you know that there is some way that it couldbe proved.
 There are strong and weak propositions:
o Weak: a body tens to expand when hated: to be sure that this proposition is true, you should heat all the bodies in the world
o Strong: a priori propositions: all bachelors are unmarried man
 Only factual or empirical propositions have meaning Ayer discredits all theological propositions
 Logical positivists say that all the talk ofgod is nonsense


 Hick: talks about the “post – mortem” sense experience where the pv could be used in terms of god but not now, when we die.
 Swinburne:
o There are verifications thar are certanely not meaningless but no one knows how to verify ir
o There are some prpositions that can have sense to some people without even knowing the argumentsthat exist against that proposition
 We can see the verification principle as self refuting because it is meaningless according to itself
 There are some empirist propositions that cant be proved through senses (an electron carries a negative charge). Ayer says that some propositions can me deduced from other.
 Finally ayer accepted that his test was useless and said thet the VP had to berejected. Because of this rejection, the claim thet the VP makes about the talk of god being meaningless, should be rejected.


 Maimonides:
o Via negativa: we can only talk about the things that god is not because if we say positive things we are giving him human characteristics
o Maimonides sees religion as something inexpressible.
 Wittgenstein:
o Even though itis almost impossible to talk about religion, we have to respect that people have no other ways of talking about it.
 Thomas:
o “god is wise, but his wisdom is complete and perfect” this doesent mean that we can understand completely his wisdom. This terms can not be applied literally to god. The term “wise” that we use to describe god is different from the one the term “wise” that we use todescribe creatures.
o The thing signified is the same but the mode of signification is different.
o Metaphorical talk of god: there are words that can be applied to something infinite (good, wise) this is where thomas applies the univocal, equivocal and analogous terms.
 Equivocal terms: words that have completely different meanings
 Univocal terms: terms that can be used in the same sensen¡but to different things (cat: lion, cheetah, blossom)
 Analogous use of terms: the use of the word wise or good in god is neither univocal or equivocal but analogous: partially similar.
o Analogy of attribution:
 When we apply the term good to god it is different as if we apply it to creatures. This word has its primary meaning when we apply it to god and to apply it to creatures we a re...
tracking img