Takes you to the main page for this section

Glossary Of Technical Terms

ACT-UTILITARIANISM See UTILITARIANISM.

AESTHETICS The branch of philosophy that deals with beauty and art. Central questions in aesthetics include: What is art? What kinds of objects possess aesthetic value? Is aesthetic experience rational or emotional? What is the relationship between an artist, their artwork and the critics?

AGNOSTIC Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists.

ALTRUISM Altruistic actions are those performed for the sake of others. Altruism is the hypothesis that morality involves acting for the sake of others.

ANALYTIC Three common definitions (1) An analytic truth (e.g. ‘Bachelors are unmarried’) is true solely in virtue of the meanings of the words that express it; (2) an analytic truth (e.g. ‘Bachelors are unmarried’) is one whose negation is or implies a self-contradiction; (3) the idea or concept represented by the subject term contains that represented by the predicate term (this applies only where the proposition is of subject-predicate form) - e.g. the idea of a bachelor contains that of being unmarried. Analytic truths are to be contrasted with SYNTHETIC ones, and exemplify A PRIORI knowledge.

A POSTERIORI The opposite of ‘A PRIORI’. A posteriori knowledge can be established only by experience (usually: sense-experience) or reasoning from experience. Example: ‘There are nine planets in the solar system.’ ‘EMPIRICAL’ is a synonym for ‘A posteriori’. See also EMPIRICISM.

A PRIORI A priori knowkedge is knowledge which can be established independently of experience or reasoning from experience. Examples of a priori truths: ‘Bachelors are male’; ‘2+2=4’. ANALYTIC truths are a priori; whether there are other kinds of a priori truths is controversial. See also RATIONALISM.

ARGUMENT Piece of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to conclusion. Kinds include INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY In an argument from analogy we take two things which are similar in some observed ways and infer from this similarity that they are similar in other unobserved ways. If the observed similarity is not relevant to the posited unobserved similarity then this is a form of FALLACY.

ATHEIST Someone who believes that there is no God.

BEG(GING) THE QUESTION Unsound reasoning in which one needs already to have established the conclusion in order to be entitled to assert one of the premises offered in support of the conclusion one is trying to establish. Hence the argument assumes the truth of the very point one is trying to prove. (‘My client did not steal this money because she is not a thief’). Compare CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. People on TV chat shows, etc., have lately taken to using ‘begs the question’ as equivalent to ‘invites the question’ or ‘gives rise to the question’. Don’t confuse this popular usage with the philosophical meaning of the phrase.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES ‘Ought’-judgements which require certain conduct from you irrespective of whether or not it is a means to some end you want to attain.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT Unsound reasoning in which it is argued both that A is the case on the grounds that B is the case and that B is the case on the grounds that A is the case. (Consider: ‘That there is a god is reliably stated in our holy book, and we can be sure the holy book is reliable because it’s divinely inspired.’) Compare BEGGING THE QUESTION.

CONCLUSION The part of an ARGUMENT which states the result which the PREMISES are there to defend.

CONSEQUENTIALISM The doctrine that the right acts are right because they produce good consequences of some kind. UTILITARIANISM is the best-known example of a consequentialist moral position; ETHICAL EGOISM is another; so would be the claim, ‘An act is right in so far as it promotes God’s glory / my party’s advantage’. The opposite of consequentialism is DEONTOLOGY.

CONTINGENT Opposite of ‘NECESSARY’. Something is contingent if it could have been different. A contingent truth is a proposition which, though true, might have been false, e.g., ‘Mary owns an ice-axe.’

COUNTER-EXAMPLE A way of showing that an ARGUMENT is not VALID. A counter-example shows that the PREMISES can be true while the CONCLUSION is false.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument in which the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises in such a way that it would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion.

Example: All philosophers are wise. - Premise

Socrates is a philosopher. - Premise

Therefore: Socrates is wise. - Conclusion

DEONTOLOGY The doctrine that there are acts whose rightness or wrongness is not wholly dependent on the goodness or badness of their consequences. Deontological theories take duty as the basis of morality. The phrase, ‘no matter what the consequences’, is often the sign of a deontological view. The opposite of Deontology is CONSEQUENTIALISM.

DESCRIPTIVE MEANING Utterances whose meaning is to be elucidated in terms of reporting or describing actual or possible facts or states of affairs have descriptive meaning. Contrast EMOTIVE MEANING.

DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).

(N.B. it is wrong to define determinism as ‘the view that we have no freedom’, because whether determinism implies that we have no freedom is a key philosophical issue. Hard Determinists say determinism does imply that, whereas Soft Determinists or compatibilists say it doesn’t.)

EGOISM See ETHICAL EGOISM and PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM.

EMOTIVE MEANING Words have emotive meaning insofar as their meaning is to be elucidated in terms of the expression of feelings or attitudes (not ‘opinions’) in the hearer and / or the evocation of feelings or attitudes in the person addressed. In so far as an utterance has emotive meaning , it has no TRUTH-VALUE, but it may be sincere or insincere. Contrast DESCRIPTIVE MEANING.

EMOTIVISM Emotivism, or the emotive theory of moral judgements, maintains that moral utterances (‘…is good’; ‘…is wicked’) are to be understood wholly or primarily in terms of EMOTIVE MEANING.

EMPIRICAL See A POSTERIORI.

EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience, i.e. is A POSTERIORI.

EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.

EQUIVOCATION A form of FALLACY where an ambiguity arises because a term or phrase has been used in two different senses within the one argument. E.g. The college has a special scholarship designed for poor students. My lecturer says that I’m one of the poorest students he had ever known so I think that I should receive a scholarship .

ETHICAL EGOISM The doctrine that acts are right solely insofar as they are advance the agent’s own interests. Ethical Egoism is a form of CONSEQUENTIALISM. Note carefully how it differs from PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: Psychological Egoism is a doctrine about what actually motivates you, whereas Ethical Egoism is a doctrine about what it is right to do.

ETHICAL HEDONISM The doctrine that acts are right solely insofar as they promote pleasure (or happiness). Compare UTILITARIANISM.

ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?

EXPEDIENT/CY In ordinary speech, what is expedient (= useful or convenient) may be contrasted with what morality or justice demands, but Mill sometimes uses ‘expediency’ to refer to UTILITARIANISM.

FACTUAL When philosophers speak e.g. of a factual proposition or claim, they usually mean that it is true or false, especially that it is an EMPIRICAL or at least non-ANALYTIC truth or falsehood. Hence ‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ is factual.

FALLACY A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. A fallacious ARGUMENT is not a VALID argument.

FALSIFIABILITY A claim (or theory) is falsifiable if and only if there is some possible empirical observation which could show that it is false.

FELICIFIC Productive of happiness or tending to make happy; more generally, involving happiness or having to do with happiness.

FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs are can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.

FIRST-PERSON AUTHORITY I have first-person authority over a belief if it impossible for me to believe it falsely. A paradigmatic case of first-person authority is the claim that ‘I am in pain, now’. This cannot be falsely believed.

FOUNDATIONALISM An epistemological view which claims that we have two kinds of knowledge or beliefs: basic beliefs which are obvious or self-justifying and non-basic beliefs which are justified by those basic beliefs. The basic beliefs explain why the justification of knowledge does not involve an INFINITE REGRESS.

HIGH REDEFINITION Fallacy in which the meaning of a word is narrowed in an attempt to defend a questionable proposition (‘No Scot supports water privatisation; well, no true Scot does’). Contrast with LOW REDEFINITION.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument in which a general conclusion (i.e. one applying to all instances) is derived from a premise or premises concerning one or many instances (but not all instances).

Example: ‘This swan is white, and that one, and that one and …, therefore, all swans are white’.

In contrast to a valid DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT there is no self-contradiction in asserting the premise(s) but denying the conclusion of an inductive argument.

INFINITE REGRESS A chain or series that goes on forever. An infinite regress arises where we posit X 1 and, for whatever reason we posited X 1, we also have to posit X 2 and X 3 and so on without stop. (‘Every event has a cause’ requires us to say that my sudden stab of pain has a cause, that that cause has a further cause, that that further cause has a yet further cause, and so on indefinitely). If a claim or theory or argument implies an infinite regress, this is often taken to have a bearing on the plausibility of that claim or theory. An infinite regress may characterised as vicious or harmless. A claim or argument implies a vicious infinite regress where the infinite regress it implies is in principle impossible and so casts doubt on the claim or argument. A claim or argument implies a harmless infinite regress where the infinite regress in the case is not impossible. The claim, ‘Whatever you aim at, you seek it for the sake of some further goal’, probably implies a vicious infinite regress; the regress implied by ‘Every event has a cause’, would be widely regarded as non-vicious.

INTUITION (1) According to INTUITIONISM, a special faculty or power of apprehending moral truths; also any exercise or product of that faculty.

(2) ‘Intuition’ is also sometimes used for ordinary moral judgements (“Our intuitions are that…”), whether or not such judgements are thought of as involving the special faculty mentioned in (1).

Don’t confuse (1) and (2).

INTUITIONISM (1) The theory that there are moral truths, the apprehension of which involves the exercise of a power of INTUITION. This supposed power of intuition is usually likened to our power of apprehending truths independently of sense-experience in maths and logic. Intuitionists tend to be deontologists as well (see DEONTOLOGY), though it may be that logically intuitionism does not entail deontology, and when Mill talks of intuitionism it is usually deontology that is uppermost in his mind.

(2) The methodological view that theorising in ethics is to be tested against the moral judgements we are ordinarily disposed to make. Those who hold this view need not be intuitionists in sense (1) - in particular, they may not think of ordinary moral judgements as arising from the exercise of a special power of intuition.

Don’t confuse the two senses of ‘intuitionism’. Sense (1) is that often contrasted with EMOTIVISM.

LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes,or unicorns?

LOW REDEFINITION Fallacy in which the meaning of a word is stretched in an attempt to defend a questionable proposition (‘You’re still using your student discount card though you graduated five years ago’ - ‘Ah, but we’re all students, really’). Contrast with HIGH REDEFINITION.

MATERIALISM The claim that only material (physical) things exist. Often used in PHILOSOPHY OF MIND in contrast to the claim that mental objects and events cannot be reduced to physical objects and events.

METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?

NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.

NECESSARY / NECESSITY Necessity is signified by a ‘must’ and its cognates. What is necessarily so is what must be so, and a necessary truth (e.g. ‘2+2=4’ but not ‘Mary owns an ice-axe’) is one that must be true - that couldn’t not be true. Philosophers are apt to distinguish different kinds of necessity, e.g. logical necessity (exemplified by ANALYTIC truths), causal necessity, physical necessity, psychological necessity, metaphysical necessity moral necessity. (Consider the differences between: ‘If it’s a horse, it must be a mammal’; ‘It must have been something you ate’; ‘You mustn’t tell lies’). The opposite of ‘necessary’ is ‘CONTINGENT’.

NECESSARY CONDITION X is a necessary condition of Y if there cannot be Y without X. Thus, being unmarried is a necessary condition of being a bachelor, breaking eggs is a necessary condition of making an omelette, and under Scots law, corroboration is a necessary condition of being found guilty. Contrast with SUFFICIENT CONDITION.

OMNIPOTENCE Omnipotence is all-powerfulness. Many religions view God as omnipotent. Descartes discusses the possibility of an omnipotent demon who could manipulate our thoughts and deceive us.

OMNISCIENCE Omniscience is the property of knowing everything. Many religions view God as omniscient.

ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?

PHYSICAL DETERMINISM See DETERMINISM.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?

PREMISES The part of an ARGUMENT which gives reasons for accepting the CONCLUSION.

PRUDENCE (adjective: ‘prudential’) Sometimes ‘prudence’ is used as a synonym for ‘self-interest’; sometimes it is used as equivalent to something like ‘wisdom in the pursuit of goals’.

PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINISM See DETERMINISM.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM The doctrine that a person actually pursues nothing but his own interests. Note carefully how it differs from ETHICAL EGOISM.

PSYCHOLOGICAL HEDONISM The doctrine that a person actually pursues nothing but her own pleasure [or happiness].

RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone, and so is wholly or at least to a significant extent A PRIORI. Contrast EMPIRICISM

REFUTE To refute a proposition or theory is to establish or prove that it is false. Lately many people have taken to using ‘refute’ as a synonym for ‘deny’, but avoid this usage in philosophy. To deny that God exists is not, in philosophical usage, to refute (or disprove) the proposition that God exists.

RULE-UTILITARIANISM See UTILITARIANISM.

SCEPTICISM Scepticism is the claim that knowledge is either impossible or very difficult to obtain. Global scepticism is scepticism about all branches of knowledge. There are also several forms of local scepticism which involve scepticism about one or more areas of knowledge. E.g. local scepticism about the external world may lead to SOLIPSISM.

SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.

SOUND A sound ARGUMENT is a VALID argument in which all of the PREMISES are true.

SUFFICIENT CONDITION X is a sufficient condition of Y if, where there is X, there must be Y. Thus, being a bachelor is a sufficient condition of being unmarried, cutting off someone’s head is a sufficient condition of their dying, and being pregnant used to be a sufficient condition of having had sex. Contrast with NECESSARY CONDITION.

SYNTHETIC Best understood as the opposite of ‘ANALYTIC’. Example: ‘Bachelors are untidy’ - this is not true solely in virtue of the meanings of the words in question, its negation is not self-contradictory, and the idea of a bachelor does not include that of being untidy. (But it might still be true!)

THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.

TRUTH-VALUE A proposition’s truth-value is its being true or its being false. ‘Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland’ has the truth-value true, and ‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ has the truth-value false. (It may seem odd to speak of falsehood as a truth-value, but that is how the phrase is used). Many of the things we say don’t have a truth-value at all, e.g. ‘Shut up and get out’. EMOTIVISM says that a moral judgement doesn’t have a truth-value (just as ‘hooray’ doesn’t), but INTUITIONISM says moral judgements do have truth-values.

UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximise the general happiness (in some versions: maximise the general pleasure; in some versions: maximise the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.

Utilitarianism sub-divides into: act-utilitarianism, the doctrine that an act is right if it produces better consequences for the general happiness than any other available act; and rule-utilitarianism, the doctrine that an act is right if it conforms to a rule, general adherence to which maximises the general happiness.

Utilitarianism is a form of CONSEQUENTIALISM.

VALID Term of appraisal applying to arguments. An argument is valid if the truth of the premise(s) really does warrant us in asserting the truth of the conclusion. In philosophy, avoid using ‘valid’ as a multi-purpose term of vague commendation (‘The belief that God exists is valid’; ‘That’s a valid lifestyle’; ‘The theory of psychological egoism is fairly valid’). What’s valid or invalid is an argument; what’s true or false is a proposition; so shun the hybrid phrase, ‘valid proposition’.

VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful. Particularly associated with the philosophers of the Vienna Circle.

View this page as text only

University Home · Prospective students · Prospectuses · A to Z Index · Search
Email & Telephone Directories · Contacts/Help · Maps · Privacy Policy & Disclaimer · Accessibility Policy