3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
Weiner-
- Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
- What's the best Montaigne thinks we can do to find truth? Do you think he was trying to build a "tower of certainty"?
- How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
- What was Montaigne's experience of his equestrian accident? Do you share his newfound confidence that nature will make dying comfortable and easy? Is this a form of "denial" (notwithstanding his likely disapproval of our culture's form of denial)?
- What did Horace say to persuade yourself of? Is that a good idea?
- Montaigne's philosophy boils down, says Eric, to trust, surprise, responsibility, and ___? And what other four words sum up his philosophy and way of life?
HWT
1. What familiar western distinction is not commonly drawn in Islamic thought?
2. According to Sankara, the appearance of plurality is misleading. Everything is ____.
3. The Islamic concept of unity rules out what key western Enlightenment value, and offers little prospect of adopting modern views on what?
4. What Calvinist-sounding doctrine features heavily in Islamic thought?
5. What deep philosophical assumption, expressed by what phrase, has informed western philosophy for centuries? To what concept did Harry Frankfurt apply it?
* BONUS QUESTIONS- Sarah Bakewell says Montaigne's first answer to the question "How to live?" is: "Don't worry about _____."
- What was Montaigne's "near death experience," and what did it teach him?
- Montaigne said "my mind will not budge unless _____."
- What pragmatic American philosopher was Descartes' "most practical critic"?
- (T/F) A.C. Grayling thinks that, because Descartes was so wrong about consciousness and the mind-body problem, he cannot be considered a historically-important philosopher.
- What skeptical slogan did Montaigne inscribe on the ceiling of his study?
Will machines ever say "I think, therefore I am"?
Something to consider when we talk about Descartes...
We had a serious and sober conversation in Environmental Ethics yesterday about the difference between living longer vs. living better, between a life of many years vs. a life of completion and earned satisfaction. I was encouraged by the maturity and wisdom of the young people in the room, whose acceptance of mortality stands in striking contrast to that of futurologist/transhumanist Raymond Kurzweil.
Ray's the guy who pioneered optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology etc., and then went to work for Google to help Larry and Sergei figure out how to conquer aging and the biological restrictions of mortal life. He's the very antithesis, in this regard, of Wendell Berry.
I first became aware of Ray when I read his The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, which audaciously and (we should see now) prematurely, if not ludicrously, predicted that we'd have self-conscious machines "before 2030"... We'll talk about this in CoPhi soon, when we turn to Descartes.
Descartes’s famous dictum “I think, therefore I am” has often been cited as emblematic of Western rationalism. This view interprets Descartes to mean “I think, that is, I can manipulate logic and symbols, therefore I am worthwhile.” But in my view, Descartes was not intending to extol the virtues of rational thought. He was troubled by what has become known as the mind-body problem, the paradox of how mind can arise from non-mind, how thoughts and feelings can arise from the ordinary matter of the brain. Pushing rational skepticism to its limits, his statement really means “I think, that is, there is an undeniable mental phenomenon, some awareness, occurring, therefore all we know for sure is that something—let’s call it I—exists.” Viewed in this way, there is less of a gap than is commonly thought between Descartes and Buddhist notions of consciousness as the primary reality. Before 2030, we will have machines proclaiming Descartes’s dictum. And it won’t seem like a programmed response. The machines will be earnest and convincing. Should we believe them when they claim to be conscious entities with their own volition?
Ask that again when they make that claim. If they do.
At least Ray has inspired entertaining films like Her, Ex Machina, Transcendence...
But his desperate quest to "live long enough to live forever"-- see the Wired Magazine feature story on Ray,wherein it was revealed that he'd daily been popping upwards of 200 pill supplements and downing oceans of green tea every day in hopes of beating the Reaper (lately he's cut back to just 90)-- really does look sad and shallow, alongside the mature view we've explored in The World-Ending Fire and that I was gratified to hear echoed by my fellow mortals in class yesterday.
==
The World Is Waiting to Be Discovered. Take a Walk.
…Study after study after study have proved what we feel, intuitively, in our gut: Walking is good for us. Beneficial for our joints and muscles; astute at relieving tension, reducing anxiety and depression; a boon to creativity, likely; slows the aging process, maybe; excellent at prying our screens from our face, definitely. Shane O'Mara, a professor of experimental brain research in Dublin, has called walking a "superpower," claiming that walking, and only walking, unlocks specific parts of our brains, places that bequeath happiness and health.
I have no beef with any of this, but I believe we have it backward. We are asking what we can get out of a walk, rather than what a walk can get out of us. This might seem like a small distinction, a matter of semantics. But when we begin to think of walking in terms of the latter, we change the way we navigate and experience — literally and figuratively — the world around us... nyt
Keira Warren HO2- (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right? True
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteEric doesn’t agree with Epicurus because while the time before birth was always nothing, the time after death was once “something” that has now been taken away. I agree with this sentiment. Death means leaving everyone and everything you have ever loved. It seems natural to worry about it, even if you cannot control it.
LHP 4
ReplyDeletePascal’s best-know book is Pensées. I like the aphoristic style. I think you can definitely get your point across while being concise. In fact, I think it is even better because not having to read long paragraphs keeps your reader engaged.
What's the acronymn, DRTL--"Didn't read, too long?" So much for the Great Books idea of education. But the best things in life are not always quickly done.
DeleteLHP 5
ReplyDeletePascal’s argument for believing in God is called “Pascal’s Wager.” I can see the appeal behind this argument. However, this is not why I, personally, believe in God. Also, I don’t think believing in God because you don’t want to lose this gamble is enough for most people to join or stay in a religion. I don’t see this being the argument that absolutely brings people to God, but I won’t deny that it may be appealing or persuasive to some.
LHP 6
ReplyDeletePascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose nothing.” I do agree with this statement. I don’t believe that a life spent believing in God is wasted. I am speaking specifically about Christianity, because other religions may have serious restrictions about what you can eat, wear, etc. You can still ask questions and seek to gain more knowledge about the world. Contrary to popular belief, most religious people are not closed-minded. You don’t lose anything in believing in God. In fact, I think there is much to gain in having a relationship with God.
I agree! It's not like you're spending much of your life following serious restrictions. And many people also feel like they gain something from a relationship (speaking about Christianity) like less stress or more joy. It can't hurt to try something out, especially when you won't lose much.
DeleteHannah Ferreira H01 5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
ReplyDeletePascal’s argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I can see why it would be appealing, but I don’t think it’s an effective way to become a Christian. If you devote your life to something, you should be convinced of its truth, even if you have to have faith sometimes.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
He thought that if you gamble on God and lose you lose nothing. I would agree.
4. What Calvinist-sounding doctrine features heavily in Islamic thought?
The idea of the total sovereignty of God and predestination feature heavily in Islamic thought.
Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
ReplyDeleteHis best known book is Pensees. I like his style. It is difficult for me to pay attention to long winded paragraphs, so I really like how concise he is.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called _____. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
ReplyDeletePascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. It seems like it could be very effective in scaring someone into converting to Christianity, but I don't think that is how we should convince a person to become a Christian. Being a Christian is all about faith, you shouldn't follow something out of fear because you don't believe it.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
ReplyDeletePascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." As a Christian, I do agree. You won't know that you lost when you die, you just won't exist. To me, I'd rather put my faith in a personable creator who's whole purpose is love and salvation and end up being wrong and ceasing to exist than to not follow God and be eternally punished.
Descartes didn't seem to state with absolute certainty that he wasn't dreaming, only that he must exist on the basis that he had thoughts and was actively contemplating his existence. I've never questioned whether or not I was dreaming, but I have had the experience of a 'false awakening' from a nap. I believe the reasoning for this is that your mind is still fairly active since when you take a nap it's typically a very light state of rest. I hadn't given it much thought but I think it'd be interesting to look into.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
DeleteHe did eventually, in his Meditations, claim to have established with certainty ("indubitability") that he wasn't dreaming. But that's dubious, even if it seems (as it does to me) vanishingly unlikely that I'm dreaming right now. I go with Montaigne: we don't need absolute certainty, just actionable probability.
Delete5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing? His argument is called Pascal’s wager. I don’t find it appealing, but it certainly makes a valid argument that may make it persuasive to some people who may want to avoid suffering in an afterlife.
ReplyDeleteNot sure it's "valid" in the logician's sense, though it may be persuasive to some. It is a bit reductive though, isn't it?
Delete6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree? He thought you lose nothing. I can understand the merit behind this argument because if you live a life of faith, there can be many benefits whether or not God exists or not. However, I can also see the opposing side where you might lose on on certain things by putting unnecessary restrictions on your life if God turns out not to exist.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style? His best-known book is called “Pensées” meaning “Thoughts.” Yes, I like the aphoristic style because it is a good way to maintain interest and get your point across clearly and simply.
Early Conspiracy Theories: Freemasons presentation
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vTAZ4CJrWFO6HmyuUL1rgI4DHXAgzXmZpe5CXrrFBco/edit?usp=sharing
1. The Method of Doubt established thatyou only accept something if you are certain it can’t be wrong or misleading, leading to no doubt on the subject. Descartes wanted to show that some beliefs were immune to skepticism, whereas Pyrro had skepticism of everything. This is more sensible, and I do believe this state of mind could be sought.
ReplyDelete3. The Ghost in the machine; the body is the machine and the soul is the ghost operating the machine. This isn’t silly to me.
5. Pascal’s Wager. I don’t think it’s a good way to look at religion. It sounds like a choice to believe in something for personal gain, not faith. Religion is moreso “about the journey, not the destination.”
Tessa Wallace H03
ReplyDelete2. He did he said that he did not think that he was dreaming. Others still think that he was and that he could not know for sure if he was or was not dreaming.
3. He compared it to the ghost in the matachin. I think that it is a little bit odd that he used that to compare it to but not silly. He thought that the body was a machine and that the ghost was your soul that inhabited it.
7. By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right? This is true.
H02 - LHP 4
ReplyDeletePascal's best-known work is Pensées. I personally like this style for certain things because it gets the point of the written work across effectively and concisely.
Adriana Ramirez Speis
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
Descartes’ philosophy was to go through life only accepting things you can be 100% sure of and questioning everything else. This was different from Pyrrho’s idea because he believed that nothing could be certain. I do believe his approach was more sensible and realistic. I could see someone living this way to a certain degree, but not to the extreme of not knowing if they are truly awake or not.
LHP 2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He did not. He believed that you could not be 100% certain you are awake or if you are dreaming. I never think I am dreaming when I am awake, but I have had dreams so vivid that I wake up and think for a brief moment that it actually happened.
LHP 3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The ghost in the machine. As strange as it may sound initially, I can see that. I do believe that in some circumstances, like sports or life-threats, the mind can overpower the body. There have been times I have accomplished things I did not believe were possible for my body to do. I have walked away win absolute agony, almost unable to walk, but still able to say that I did it. When we need it to, our sympathetic nervous system can act as a machine, carrying us through to survival, ending in collapse and exhaustion; it’s called general adaptation syndrome: 1) alarm, 2) adaptation or resistance, and 3) exhaustion.
LHP 4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pascal’s best known book was called ‘Pensées.’ This means Thoughts. I can appreciate his writing style because it reminds me of the books of Psalm or Proverbs. It’s not something I would want to read every single day, but it’s not unbearable. I much prefer philosophical writings like The Republic, which tell a story, or Aquinas’ On the Law, which is very straight forward.
LHP 5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
His argument is called Pascal’s Wager. This is very commonly used in day to day life and shows like Young Sheldon. If you gamble that He exists and you’re wrong, what do you lose? If you gamble that He exists and you’re right, you gain everything. If you gamble that He does not exist and you’re wrong, you lose everything. So, isn’t it worth it to just live if your life as a Christian? I find this argument appealing, but I do believe there should be something further to rationalize your faith.
Adriana Ramirez Speis
ReplyDeleteLHP 6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
“You lose nothing.” I agree. I think you only have things to gain from going to church and engaging once or twice a week. Church offer opportunities to get involved in truly meaningful work that makes an impact on people in need (prison ministry, foster care, etc). People who are not christians also unknowingly follow a lot of biblical principles like the golden rule. That is in the Bible. These principles lead to a good and happy life. God wants what’s truly best for you, even if it’s not what you think is best.
LHP 7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True. I do believe that people need to examine the evidence of all, or as many choices as they can. Before settling on Christianity, I explored atheism, agnosticism, catholicism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Taoism. Don’t follow something simply because you don’t want to go to hell. You have to truly believe and buy into the principles of the faith.
Descartes evidence of god is pretty ironic considering that he invalidated his claim in an attempt to validate it. He supports his thesis that because I can think it, therefore it is — in the way that triangle exists simply I can conceive of it. However, triangles don’t actually exist. Geometry is entirely theoretical, true shapes exist only in our imagination.
ReplyDeletePascal’s Wager is quiet logical actually. It’s a conclusion that I myself have come to a long time ago, but it seems like succumbing to a threat more than being a decent human being. Are you truly good if you are only good out of fear? I’d say no. I’d also say that Pascal’s wager is based on ultimate cowardice more than anything. If God is more concerned with his worship than with decency, I’d rather stay in hell.
ReplyDelete