We'll discuss these after after Spring Break.
Remember William James's advice for NEXT exam day (and the night before): RELAX. "If you want really to do your best in an examination, fling away the book the day before..."
LHP
1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
HWT
1. What two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy are essentially the same?
2. What are the four stages of Hindu life?
3. What is "the smile of philosophy"?
FL
1. What were Americans spending a third of their time doing, by the end of the '50s?
2. Who grew up in Marceline, MO?
3. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner sell?
4. What was added to currency in 1954?
5. What did Jane Roberts "discover" in 1963?
6. The sudden embrace of what, in the 60s, helped turn America into Fantasyland?
1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
ReplyDeleteHe thought Bentham was right that the right action is the one that brings the most happiness but distinguished between “higher” and “lower” pleasures. Mill would say that it is better to be a sad person than a happy pig because humans experience higher pleasure. I don’t know that it’s necessarily possible to call one or both right– it comes down to opinion. Some people may be happy “rolling around in the mud” and would not care to experience a so called “higher pleasure”, while others may feel the opposite.
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
According to Warburton, faith is irrational because is not based on reason. I can’t say I agree. This seems like a blanket statement that unfairly characterizes all “faithful” people as unable or unwilling to think for themselves. Oftentimes faith is based on a mix of reason and a trust in that which cannot be seen/proven. Not all faith is blind.
H02 - LHP 11
ReplyDeleteMarx's vision was for the working class to overthrow the rich in a bloody revolution and form a society in which everyone works for the benefit of everyone and everyone's needs are met. It sounds appealing on paper.
That does sound appealing! However, it has not worked out in the past for the societies that tried to do this. The government ultimately becomes way to involved, and people begin to feel trapped. It’s part of the argument about how much the government should be involved in the economy. I do think we need some government involvement, but how much is too much?
DeleteH02 - LHP 12
ReplyDeleteHe called religion "the opium of the people". I believe that he was being kind of unfair. While I agree that religion can and has been used to keep people under the control of others, I don't believe that is fully why it exists.
H02 - LHP 10
ReplyDeleteMarx was angry about the conditions that the Industrial Revolution produced in England. He believed all of history could be summed up as a class struggle. I do believe most of human history has been a class struggle, but not all.
H02 - LHP 5
ReplyDeleteDaniel Dennett believed the single best idea anyone has ever had is Darwin's idea of evolution. I'm unsure of any better ideas.
Hannah Ferreira H01
ReplyDelete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
Bentham said that all things could count as pleasurable. Mill thought that there were different qualities of pleasure, and that higher, intellectual pleasure was always superior to lower pleasures. I think that they both have a point, there is room for simple pleasures as well as sophisticated ones. However, I think we do ourselves, our humanity, a disservice when our primary pleasures are simple. We are capable of great things and cannot waste our time on earth doing trivial things with our time.
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
He believes faith is irrational because it is not based on reason. I do not agree. Faith is future and current trust based on reasons to believe. God proved Himself time and time again faithful to Abraham regardless of circumstance or Abraham’s moral failings, Abraham had literally every reason to trust Abraham. We do a lot of things in our daily life out of faith. We set alarms with the faith that they will wake us up in the morning, even if they haven’t 100% of the time. We sit in chairs trusting that they won’t fall beneath us because we have sat in plenty of chairs before and know what a chair that won’t break vaguely looks like. Faith in God is truly the one thing that won’t ever betray you.
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
The conditions for workers that the Industrial Revolution had produced made Karl Marx angry. He thought the whole of human history could be explained as a class struggle. I would say he has a point. I’m not a communist (haha) but whenever there is a “system” per se, there will be those who end up on top and those who do not.
I think Karl Marx definitely had a right to be angry. However, the debate about whether we need to demolish classes is a big one. I do think everyone should have equal economic opportunities, but how do we bring everyone closer to equality without ruining the economy and infringing on people’s rights? Capitalism has its pros, but it also has its cons. Do the pros outweigh the cons?
DeleteMill has a very libertarian perspective on personal freedom. A modern application of his thinking is the seatbelt law. Should people be legally obligated to wear a seatbelt? Statistics show that those who wear seatbelts are FAR more likely to survive car accidents than those who don't, so the seatbelt law does protect people, but it also strips them of the right to choose. In my opinion he's spot on. People can choose whether or not they want to die in a car wreck. It's a slippery slope when the government starts mandating the safety of the public. Pretty soon they'll be legally requiring vaccination...
ReplyDeleteWho determines what is best for everyone, who determines the extent to which safety is mandated. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Benjamin Franklin
Granted this quote is a bit dramatic for such a circumstance as seatbelts, but the same logic can be applied on and on down the line.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03 LHP
ReplyDelete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right? Mill believed in a distinction between lower and higher pleasures. Bentham thought all pleasures were valuable, meaning life as a happy pig would be better than life as a sad human. I believe there are different kinds of pleasure. I believe types of pleasure include sexual, career, familial, etc. I take deep pleasure in aceing an exam or doing something good for someone in need or getting a raise at work, but not the same kind of pleasure I would have on my wedding night.
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
Bishop Wilberforce debated Thomas Henry Huxley at Oxford’s Museum of Natural History in 1860. I honestly don’t believe in macroevolution but I do believe in microevolution, at least for humans. I believe God created us as the uniquely intelligent and advanced species on earth. I don’t believe we descended from monkeys or apes. I think species can adapt over time (micro), like camels getting longer eyelashes to protect their eyes from sand or a plant with thorns outliving the one that does not in turn causing only plants with thorns to continue reproducing - I believe in natural selection. I don’t believe a lizard can turn into a bird or a chicken into a horse or a monkey into a human or a catfish into a whale (macro). Here’s a great podcast episode explaining the Christian worldview on evolution: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1sy0adJh0bEyMW9riLThHZ?si=e696acf4ada94516
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one? Daniel Bennett called the theory of evolution the “single best idea anyone has ever had.”
I can think of any better ideas, haha. I idea to create air conditioning, the idea to test various life saving medications, etc.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03 LHP
ReplyDelete5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one? Daniel Bennett called the theory of evolution the “single best idea anyone has ever had.”
I can think of any better ideas, haha. I idea to create air conditioning, the idea to test various life saving medications, etc.
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
Kierkegaard was the Danish Socrates. He wrote mostly about faith in God and the story of Abraham, specifically his almost sacrifice of his son Isaac. He believed that duty to God overpowered any other duty. Abraham was willing to take a ‘leap’ of faith, trusting in God’s Will and His Plan. I don’t believe faith is irrational. Much like Augustine, I believe people looking into religion can develop an understanding. There is an intellect and reasoning involved in true belief. That is what the whole study of apologetics is for, defending the faith. But, there’s something else needed to push you to the top of the mountain - faith. That faith, though, is built on reason. You have all of the evidence, archeological, literary and from your own life experience - all that’s left is to trust.
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
Nigel believed faith was irrational because it was no based on reason. I do not agree with that for the reasons I stated above. Faith is based upon reason and evidence.
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
The subjective point of view is someone’s lived experience. It is how someone feels. I’ll take a medical approach for this. When I ask a patient, “are you in any pain? How much on a scale of 1 to 10?” I am looking for a subjective response. When I take a patient’s vital signs, that is an objective measure. However, things like chronic anemia can influence a pulse oximetry reading to make it appear like their oxygen sat is lower than it truly is. In those cases, I need to rely on what the patient is telling me and how they are presenting. If they are wheezing with accessory muscle us and retractions, and speak only in words, that tells me I can trust that the pulse ox is correct. If I look at them and see they are rambling on and on and their skin is pink and dry and they don’t report any shortness of breath, there is probably something off with the device - it could even be nailpolish. My point is, we need to value and compare both objective and subjective reports to figure out the truth.
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one?
Marx’s vision was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It would be a place where people would contribute what they could and only take what they needed. They provide for their neighbors and their neighbors provide for them. I do like the idea of this, everyone having their basic needs met, but there are also quite a few luxuries I enjoy. I don’t think throwing everything into a pot and dividing it evenly is fair, some people just work harder than other or their skills are more valuable and they deserve to be compensated for that. I think free school, cheaper housing, better public transport, etc are great ideas and should be implemented, but that comes at a cost. If someone has the money and the desire, who am I to stop them from buying a boat or a mansion? I like renting yachts, I should get to do that. Someone flipping burgers should make a wage they can live off of but they should not make the same as someone performing neurosurgery.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03 LHP
ReplyDelete12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
Karl Marx called religion the “opium of the people” that kept them blissfully unaware of just how terrible their lives are. I do not believe he was being fair. If his dream world is a place where people were all of equal ‘class’/status and shared resources, I don’t believe that kind of kindness and willingness for others to live good lives is possible without religion. As a Christian, I believe all humans were created by God and have intrinsic value. If someone is an atheist and believes there is nothing after this life and this was all up chance and we’re just hunks of flesh, why would they care for others?
I agree with this. I don’t believe we are good people in the absence of religion. Without God, who sets our moral standard? Scientifically speaking, our job as a part of the animal kingdom is to survive and reproduce. This idea would outlaw morals if there had not been a standard set. If we can all agree that humans are inherently flawed, then we can agree that we shouldn’t be in charge of setting moral standards.
DeleteWell funny enough even those people who have their moral standard set for them are often the most immoral of us all. Humans aren't inherently flawed.. we simply are. We are as we were as we always will be until our extinction event. To recognize a flaw one must first have a picture of perfection- which is not a reality. You are starting with a preconception of God and working down rather than starting with what you know and working up. Also, pretty ironically, your moral standards are still being set by a human- only one who existed thousands of years ago in a land with entirely distinct cultural standards from our own. Take a look through any of your books, the Old Testament, the Quran, and see if their sense of morality still holds today. The old testament justifies slavery, and the execution of gay people; Muhammed married a 9 year old girl then conquered and murdered thousands.
DeleteA conversation I might like to have with Mill is on drug policy. Should everyone be able to do hard drugs like meth or heroine, etc. The right to choose what you want to do to your seems straight forward here, but he does stipulate that you can choose so long as effects no one else. Use of drugs like meth for example cause people to become erratic and violent, to disregard the responsibility of their children, and to steal from others. The use of the drug does not necessarily require these following behaviors, but it drastically increases their probability. Does the freedom to do as you wish outweigh the likelihood that you will do harm to others?
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx is single handedly responsible for more death than any human being that has ever existed. Every aspect of his philosophy is fool hearty and written in an ignorant pursuit of utopia. "There will be no ownership of land, education will be free, the factories will produce food for everyone". So, what makes people want to teach, who is going to run the factories, who is going to till the land. If everyone just gets, then who is going to have to give. DIDN'T THINK THAT FAR AHEAD?? Maybe they get paid in food rations or something? well then I guess bread becomes your new currency and we just start all over and have to commit another genocide to overthrow our bread overlords. Maybe if he looked over the Atlantic to the US he would see a nation who -though still had its issues- was doing a whole lot better than anyone in Europe. He continuously claims to be fighting capitalism but he was not at all. He was in fact fighting kleptocracy, and a monarchy- which we already knew was bad so his 50 volumes were a bit pointless. Anyone who supports this viral theology is painfully ignorant of every conflict in the last 150 years, and of basic human nature. Human want things, Human have no morals if hungry, human have no morals if power. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then Marxism is the amphetamine.
ReplyDeleteFL #5
ReplyDeleteWhat did Jane Roberts "discover" in 1963? She discovered a supernatural being called Seth by using a ouija board.
Tessa Wallace H03
ReplyDelete11. His vison was that the working class would overthrow the rich in a bloody revolution. He also wanted a society to form that everyone would help everyone, and their needs would be met. I think that it sounds appealing but would not end up working out.
12. He called religion the opium of the people. I think he had some reason for this statement, but it is not why religion should be followed. I think that it should not be compared to a drug.