# Genetic Fallacy / More Spinoza

## February 5th

- There were no pre-class scribblings today, except for a battered drawing of a cake that looks like it has either sprinkles or smallpox (it's quite hard to tell)

- Okay; there's an assignment due SUNDAY for your 1st argument analysis on Descartes
    - The 1st question is about what Descartes thinks the substance, or "essence," of the mind/real world is (*especially* in Meditation 6)
- There's also a reading next week from Newton and Leibniz; we're doing the first 2 Newton letters AND Leibniz's "Letters to Clarke"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Okay, I've gotten some questions about psychological motivations for arguments; "Isn't Descartes motivated by his religious beliefs? So why should we take what he says seriously?"
    - It's a serious point, but logically that's NOT a good critique - it's something called the genetic fallacy!

- So, what makes an argument "valid?" Let's review!
    - An ARGUMENT is a series of statements that lend support to a conclusion
    - A VALID argument is one in which those statements - "premises" - are actually connected to the conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion *must* be true!
        - ...notice the "if" here; a valid argument, logically-speaking, doesn't mean its premises are true, but only that IF they are true then they would help show the conclusion is also true
    - The following, for example, is a valid argument even though its premises are false:

            All fish breathe air
            Everything that breathes air is dead
            Therefore, all fish are dead

    - Here's an INVALID argument:

            All puppies are cute dogs
            Some cute dogs win best-in-show awards
            Therefore, some puppies win best in show awards

        - ...this is invalid because we haven't shown that puppies must be a type of cute dog that wins those awards!
    - An argument can be valid, but still untrue, because the premises could be wrong - meaning the argument is UNSOUND!
        - A SOUND argument is one that is valid with true premises

- However, we can also have FALLACIES: common ways of making bad arguments or logical errors
    - The GENETIC FALLACY is a "fallacy of irrelevancy," where the objection doesn't actually deal with the truth of the premises
    - Specifically, this is where we reject an argument because of its origin (e.g. who's making the argument) - they're making a premise that doesn't lead to the conclusion "this argument is false"
        - Keep in mind that there *are* cases where the origin of a belief is relevant, e.g. lying in a court case
            - These largely take place in inductive arguments, where the premises only provide probable support to a conclusion (e.g. a serial liar is probably going to lie, and thus can't have their evidence admitted)

- "I know this isn't related to Spinoza, but I think it's important to review this stuff"

- Now, though, let's get back to Spinoza - "look at your handout from last time"
    - The ideas of substance, attributes, and modes are SUPER important to Spinoza's argument
    - Spinoza also holds to a very strong form of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), where everything that exists must have a reason for existing *and* everything that doesn't exist must not do so for some reason
        - "Spinoza thinks we may not know what that reason is, but it's out there in the universe somewhere"
    - Spinoza has this idea of EVERYTHING being connected in a causal chain; he was heavily critical of other philosophers for appealing to supernatural explanations, rather than natural ones, seeing them as cop-outs and "muddying the waters"
        - Note that all of these causes are efficient causes in the Aristotelian sense, and Spinoza believes those are the only actual causes in nature

- So, at some point this chain had to start, right? Spinoza would agree - and would say existence itself, i.e. the single substance "God - or Nature", which Spinoza infamously believed were interchangeable, was necessary
    - Spinoza is a "substance monist," believing that there's only 1 substance in the entire universe, unlike Descartes
    - Spinoza also thinks we don't have free will in the traditional sense, but are pre-determined for everything - so why come to this class? From Spinoza's view, how can ethics work?
        - Notice that Spinoza calls his book "The Ethics" - and, in the parts of his book we won't read, he tries to argue that it's most ethical to live an intellectual life, and that ignorance is bad - but if we're determined, what choice do we have?

- Alright, we'll wrap up Spinoza on Monday!