This document provides summaries of key concepts from several philosophers and topics in philosophy, including: - Locke's view of personal identity as consisting in consciousness over time. - Hume's argument that the self has no empirical basis and is just a "bundle of perceptions." - Parfit's arguments that psychological continuity, not numerical identity, is central to personal identity, and that we are not fully the same person over time. - Paley's argument from design comparing the natural world to a designed watch. - Popper's view that science progresses through falsifying theories, not just accumulating observations.

1. A222
Revision

2. • SELF: What Am I? / Locke / Self as Fiction / Self
and Future
• RELIGION: Introducing PoR / Design / Modern
Design / Acts of God
• ETHICS: Plato / Bentham & Mill / Kant / Abortion
• KNOWLEDGE: Descartes / Hume / Popper / Kuhn
• MIND: Cartesian Dualism / Functionalism /
Extended Mind / Consciousness
• POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: Plato / Consent &
Consequences / Distributive Justice / Equality
• The topics focused on by the TMAs are less likely
to come up (in any case, there‟s less need to cover
Topics covered

3. Locke on Self
• The orthodox view in Locke‟s
day was that a person
consisted of a material body
and an immaterial soul.
• Locke argues that the
consciousness a person has
of being him or herself, and of
being the same now as at
earlier times is what personal
identity consists in.
• Prince and Cobbler.
• OBJECTION: Butler claimed
that consciousness of
personal identity pre-
supposed, and so could not

4. • Although Hume was the focus of TMA 01, I‟ve included
a slide on his view because that was so long ago.
• Hume, like Locke, was an empiricist. He believed that all
knowledge came from experience and divided our
perceptions into two kinds: impressions and ideas.
• Simple impressions come from experience and ideas
are derived from them.
• Hume argues that the self has no empirical basis. When
we introspect we find „nothing but a bundle or collection
of different impressions‟ in a state of continual change.
• OBJECTION: Hume seems unable to adequately
explain what keeps a particular bundle of experiences
together.
• OBJECTION: Hume‟s argument only works if we accept
Hume on Self

5. Parfit on Self
• Parfit‟s view is influenced by
both Locke and Hume. He
argues both that psychological
continuity is central to identity
and that I am not the same
person now as I will be in 20
years.
• Brain bisection: both resulting
people remember my life, have
my character. Which is me?
Both? Neither?
• Teletransporter: In „beaming‟ to
Mars my body is destroyed
and „I‟ am reconstituted from
new matter. Does someone
who uses the teletransporter
commit suicide?

6. Taylor on Self
• Argues that the „neutral‟ or
„bleached‟ view of the self
taken by Parfit cannot account
for the way our conception of
the good shapes our lives.
• For Taylor we must consider
our whole life narrative if we
are to understand ourselves.
• EXAM TIPS:
• Although the section on Taylor
is small, it‟s worth knowing as
it can be used in almost any
question on Parfit.
• Book 1 is smaller than the
others which means there is a
chance of an unexpected

7. • Paley offered an argument
from design. He used an
analogy between the
natural world and a watch.
• PREMISE Given a watch‟s
precise organisation and
functionality, it is
overwhelmingly more likely
that the watch should be the
result of design than of
accident.
• SUB-CONCLUSION By
analogy, for all the features
of nature that display
precise organisation and
functionality, it is
overwhelmingly more likely
Paley’s Design Argument

8. • 1. The universe is not like a
machine. Hume instead
suggests that the universe is
more like something organic
than a machine. A better
analogy is that the universe is
like a giant vegetable. We
wouldn‟t think a carrot in a
field must have had a
designer, so we don‟t need to
think that about the universe.
• 2. Our experience is too
limited to draw the analogy.
Hume poses the rhetorical
question, „from observing the
growth of a single hair, can we
learn anything concerning the
Hume’s Objections to the Design Argument

9. • The basic irreducible complexity argument is:
• PREMISE: Evolution can explain how things change
gradually, through a process of natural selection.
• PREMISE: There are some phenomena that cannot
be explained by gradual change, because their
complexity could not have come about in slow
stages.
• CONCLUSION: Evolution cannot explain such
phenomena (and this conclusion is then used to
support the design argument).
• Youtube video outlining arguments against
irreducible complexity:
Modern Arguments From Design:
Irreducible Complexity

10. • PREMISE: If the initial
cosmological conditions
had not been just right,
the universe could not
contain life.
• PREMISE: The fact that
the initial cosmological
conditions were just right
was either a result of
chance or it was a result
of design.
• PREMISE: It is hugely
improbable that these
initial conditions could
have been right by any
sort of chance.
Modern Arguments From Design: Fine
Tuning
• Objections:
• A – We could still offer Hume‟s
objection that the argument does
not prove the existence of God in
the traditional sense.
• B – We could deny that the
universe needs to have been fine
tuned. Physicist Victor Stenger
denies that the universe needs to
have a narrow range of constants.
• C – Some physicists claim that
there have been / are numerous
universes. Eventually one of them
would have the constants of our
universe, so the appearance of
design is an illusion.
• D – A complex universe needs a
complex designer, but then the
complex designer needs to be
explain... Possibly by another
complex designer! This would

11. Epicurus on Evil
• 4 basic possibilities:
• 1- God is willing to help but unable, in
which case he is weak.
• 2- God is able to help but is unwilling,
in which case he is malevolent.
• 3- God is neither willing nor able, in
which case he is weak and
malevolent.
• 4- God is willing and able, in which
case it is impossible to explain the
existence of evil.
• The existence of evil is taken to show
that God cannot be omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• RESPONSE: free will defence.
• RESPONSE: revised conception of
omnipotence.
• RESPONSE: illusion of evil. (These
responses are compatible)

12. Socrates’ response to Glaucon
• Glaucon‟s challenge: Show me
that justice pays!
• Based on the Ring of Gyges.
• EXAM TIP: don‟t spend too
long explaining the Ring of
Gyges myth itself. Note that it
is a ring that makes those who
wear it invisible and then move
on to the philosophical
argument. There‟s no need to
remember much about the
myth, it‟s far more important to
remember the arguments that
follow. It you suddenly develop
a mental block and call it „an
invisibility cloak‟ you can still
produce an equally good
• Socrates response:
• Argument from mental health.
The unjust person cannot
flourish because they are not
ruled by the rational part of
their mind.
• Argument from superior
judgement. Those who love
knowledge will be unlikely to
be unjust and will be best able
to decide what is good and
best to do.
• EXAM TIP: It wouldn‟t be all
that surprising for there to be a
question comparing Kant and
Socrates/Plato.

13. Mill
• Consequentialism + Hedonism =
Utilitarianism
• Objection to Bentham‟s version of
utilitarianism: it is a swinish morality!
Bentham leaves us with no way to
justify preferring noble and dignified
human pursuits over base pleasures
(or even pleasures derived from
cruelty).
• Mill attempts to solve this problem by
distinguishing between higher and
lower pleasures. One pleasure is
higher than another if those who
have adequate experience, and are
therefore competent judges, of both
would chose it.
• Mill happened to think that people
would generally prefer intellectual
pleasures over bodily pleasures, but
OBJECTION: The notion of „competent
judge‟ is unclear.
OBJECTION: We cannot easily compare
pleasures of different kinds. The pleasure
of reading a good book is totally different
to the pleasure of swimming in the sea.
OBJECTION: Sometimes ignoring rules
(e.g. Never murder the innocent) could,
conceivably, lead to greater utility, so even

14. • 4 Kantian themes:
• 1) our reasoning must be universal, 2) the good will is
valuable even when it doesn‟t yield the best consequences,
3) an act has no moral worth if it is done because the agent
enjoys doing so, 4) it is wrong to treat others as mere
means, they must be treated as ends.
• Universalisability test (the Categorical Imperative):
• “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will
that my maxim should become a universal law”
• The maxim „I will make false promises when doing so
benefits me‟ fails this test.
• Trickier cases: the miser‟s maxim: „when I want things to
continue going well for me, I will refuse to aid those who
need some assistance. Kant argues this fails the test
because it causes my will to conflict with itself. If I could
never rely on assistance from others things wouldn‟t go well
Kant on Ethics

15. • Descartes‟ method to establish certainty was to doubt
everything he could.
• We are going to consider his arguments for establishing
the method of doubt.
• 1) The unreliability of the senses.
• 2) The dream hypothesis.
• 3) The demon hypothesis.
• Sceptics, in the course of their ordinary lives, do not doubt
whether they exist, whether being hit by a bus would harm
them, etc. Instead Sceptics think that it is important that
we should be able to „know‟ that we are not dreaming, or
being deceived by a demon.
• Scepticism challenges the notion that our ordinary
justifications are adequate.
• OBJECTION: Descartes does not doubt the fact that the
words he uses are meaningful, however all languages
require a system of publically governed rules, so we
Rene Descartes on Knowledge

16. Hume on Induction
• Hume argues that induction
cannot be rationally justified.
• The constant conjunctions of
impressions in our experience
leads us to suppose there is a
necessary connection
between events (whenever I
throw a stone into the sea it
sinks), but we do not directly
perceive this connection.
• There is nothing in the nature
of our ideas which determines
such a connection – a belief
in this connection is the result
of experience and custom.
• POSSIBLE OBJECTION:

17. Popper on Science
• Popper‟s aim is to challenge the
„received view‟ of science as an
endeavour which progresses by
observing natural phenomena and
increasing knowledge. Popper
claims that there is no such thing
as pure observation.
• For Popper science must be
falsifiable. Theories which are
compatible with any and every
state of affairs (Marxism and
Freudianism, in his view) cannot
be scientific.
• Science progresses through a
series of conjectures and
refutations. If I claim that all birds
can fly(conjecture), and then come
across a piece of evidence which
falsifies, e.g. A penguin, my claim
is refuted.
• A theory which survives serious
OBJECTION: Popper‟s view
does not adequately
distinguish between when a
view should be rejected and

18. Kuhn on Science
• Kuhn argues that scientific
change is best explained as a
series of paradigm shifts.
• Paradigms are “accepted
examples of actual scientific
practice – examples which include
law, theory, application and
instrumentation together – [and
which] provide models from which
spring particular coherent
traditions of scientific research”
• According to Kuhn normal science
solves puzzles. When a scientific
tradition finds it impossible to
solve the puzzles it sets itself it
might enter a revolutionary period
(note: Kuhn does not specify the
exact conditions under which a

19. • Based on Descartes‟ method of doubt. I can doubt that I
have a body but I cannot doubt that I have a mind.
• If it is possible that my mind is distinct from my body, then
there must be a real distinction between them.
• Cartesian dualism captures some of our basic intuitions
about mind and body. It makes sense to say “She has a
probing mind” but perhaps not “She has a probing brain”.
Mind and matter seem to be conceptually distinct.
• OBJECTION: Perhaps Mind and Body only appear to be
distinct, but are two aspects of a single substance.
• OBJECTION: The Interaction problem. Elizabeth of Bohemia
ask Descartes how something solely immaterial could
interact with something solely material.
• EXAM TIP: People sometimes think that Descartes‟ view is
obviously false and that the interaction problem is
insurmountable. This leads them to write slightly dismissive
rebuttals. Be as charitable as possible (and remember that
those marking the exams will probably have read hundreds
Descartes on Mind

20. • Clark and Chalmers argue that our minds can, and do,
extend beyond our brains.
• They give the example of Otto. Otto has Alzheimer‟s, so
can‟t remember things well. He uses a notebook to record
useful information.
• Clark and Chalmers argue that the information in Otto‟s
notebook is just like the information in our memories. They
are both mental states. The notebook has become part of
Otto‟s mind.
• Features of the case: 1) Otto always keeps his notebook
with him. 2) Otto always checks his notebook
automatically when asked a question (or when wondering
about a question) that relates to the information in his
notebook. 3) Otto trusts his notebook implicitly, just as
much as we trust our memories.
The Extended Mind

21. • Nagel‟s “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?” is a response to
physicalist theories of mind.
• According to Nagel it is hard to see how consciousness can
be adequately accounted for in physicalist terms.
• An explanation of subjective phenomena is essentially
connected to a subjective point of view.
• Bats have a point of view in a way that bricks don‟t. We can
understand bricks in solely objective terms – they have no
subjective point of view.
• This means that a reduction of consciousness or an objective
explanation of consciousness that can be grasped by any
intelligent creature seems impossible.
• We can‟t yet conclude that physicalism is false: “It would be
a mistake to conclude that physicalism must be false…. It
would be truer to say that physicalism is a position we cannot
understand because we do not at present have any
Nagel on Mind

22. Nozick: Entitlement theory
• Robert Nozick, in his Anarchy, State and Utopia,
argues that justice involves three ideas:
• 1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire
property rights over something that has not
previously been owned.
• 2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property
rights over something that has been transferred
(e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone
else.
• 3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore
something to its rightful owner, in case of
injustice in either acquisition or transfer.

23. • Nozick's „Wilt Chamberlain‟ argument is an attempt to
show that patterned principles of just distribution are
incompatible with liberty.
• Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball
player. Let‟s assume 1 million people are willing to
freely give him 25p each to watch him play basketball
over the course of a season (we assume no other
transactions occur). Wilt now has £250,000, a much
larger sum than any of the other people in the society.
The new distribution in society obviously is no longer
ordered by our favoured pattern. However Nozick
argues that this society is just.
Nozick

24. Public address system
• Imagine a group of your neighbours invests in a
public address system with the aim of entertaining
people on your street.
• There just so happens to be 365 people living on
your street.
• Those who bought the system assign everyone a
day on which they are to spend a few hours
entertaining people using the system.
• “On his assigned day a person is to run the public
address system, play records over it, give news
bulletins, tell amusing stories he has heard, and so
on. After 138 days on which each person has done
his part, your day arrives. Are you obligated to take
your turn? You have benefited from it… but must

25. • There isn‟t enough time in the exam to think up a totally new
answer to a particular question. Therefore it is important to
know your main argument in advance.
• The best way to do this is to write practice essays. The very
best way is to write 1000 word long essays (or however long
you think you can manage in an hour) on your favourite
aspects of the course. Take as long as you like and be sure
that you‟re happy with the essays, and then practice writing
similar answers in exam conditions.
• So: if as you revise you write down your thoughts (arguments)
on Kant‟s ethics, turn these notes into an essay entitled
„Outline and assess Kant‟s ethics‟. You‟ll find that you‟ll be
able to produce a very similar answer to „Is it ever right to
lie?‟, „Kant claims that we should act only on universalisable
maxims. Is he correct?‟ and so on.
• Questions that look different are often very similar.
Good luck!