Philosophical arguments

Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share.

analogy devised by Bertrand Russell

considering hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences

thought experiment arguing that a computer cannot exhibit "understanding"

argument that posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not

the proposition that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable

thought experiment about the impossibility of proving any truth: in response to repeated "but why?"s, only the circular argument, infinite regress, or axiomatic argument are possible

In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to an argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe." Eristic is defined by Rankin as arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.

philosophical problem

thought experiment in philosophy

legend

Platonic philosophical analogy

5 logical arguments for the existence of God made by Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica: the argument from motion; the argument from causation; the argument from contingency; the argument from degree; the argument from final cause

type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed

expression of the problem of infinite regress

logical argument

argument by Wittgenstein that the concept of a language understandable by only a single individual is incoherent

philosophical argument for animal rights stating that, since human marginal cases (infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled) have direct moral status, so do animals

problem in epistemology that any proposition can be endlessly questioned

thought experiment

potential mistake in reasoning attributed to René Descartes

thought experiment about a machine that provides any pleasurable experience one wants

argument for the existence of sense-data

philosophical argument put forward by British philosopher G. E. Moore, to refute the equating of the property of goodness with some non-moral property, X, whether naturalistic (e.g. pleasure) or supernatural

philosophical argument against compatilibism by Peter van Inwagen

thought experiment critiquing utilitarianism