Midterm report presentations continue
OCT 1
- Arthur Schopenhauer - #H2 Bryant Kelly; #H3 Quinny VanDerSlik
- Something in FL 19-20 or HWT 20-22
- Something in QE Part IV - Should speech be free? - #H2 Kat Woodland
- Darwin & evolution - #H3 Andrew Griffith
OCT 3
- Charles Darwin & evolution - #H1 Zoe Kuhn; #H2 Sawyer Crain
- Something in FL 21-22 or HWT 23-24
- NV last chapter, on Kierkegaard
- Karl Marx & Socialism - #H1 Faith Carbonari; #H2 Haley Gauda; #H3 Traden Davis
LHP
1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
2. What was Kant's great insight? Is this a credible form of "armchair philosophy"? Or does it also depend on experience?
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
4. Kant said you should never ___, because ___. Kant called the principle that supports this view the ____ _____. Have you ever violated this principle? If so, do you regret it?
5. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today? If everyone followed this principle would it be a better world?
6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
7. What did Hegel mean when he spoke of the "owl of Minerva"? What did he think had been reached in his lifetime? What would Socrates say about that?
8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject? What would Kant say?
9. What is Geist? When did Hegel say it achieved self-knowledge? Does this seem supernatural and mystical to you, or could it be naturalistic?
10. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?
11. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire? Is that the only way? Is that cycle really universal?
Weiner ch5
- What was teenage Arthur Schopenhauer's worldview? What sort of world (by contrast with Leibniz/Pangloss) did he think it is? Do you, or have you ever, felt the same way?
- What kind of listening mattered most to Schopenhauer? Do you share his attitude about that?
- In what sense was Schopenhauer an Idealist? What analogy (similar to one I've suggested applies to Leibniz's monads) does Nigel Warburton suggest characterizes it? Does it seem reasonable to you?
- What are some different names philosophers have applied to the allegedly more real (than sensations) world of Ideas? What "dark twist" did Schopenhauer add?
- How did Schopenhauer say we can escape Will and "shake off the world"? Do you want to shake it off?
- What did Schopenhauer have in common with Rousseau? Do you think his affection-starved childhood may have contributed to his eventual philosophy?
- How does art differ from pornography, on S's view? What's your view?
- Weiner thinks Schopenhauer's Will made manifest in our time is what? Do you agree?
HWT
1. What one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life?
2. Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on what?
3. What did the late Archbishop Tutu say was "the greatest good"?
4. What omission in western ethics would seem bizarre to the classical Chinese thinkers?
5. What is the most famous Confucian maxim?
6. Virtue is never solitary, said Confucius, it always has ____.
FL
1. How, according to Scientific American in 1915, are motion pictures like drugs?
2. What came into existence simultaneously with America and created the concept of celebrity?
3. What place did film critic Pauline Kael call a "fantasy-brothel"?
==
In the “Critique of Pure Reason,” Immanuel Kant writes that “all the interests of my reason,” theoretical as well as practical, boil down to just three questions: “What can I know?” “What ought I do?” and “What can I hope for?” In these three questions, Kant delineated the whole scope of philosophical thought...
I do understand that when [Prof. Allesandri] writes "Against Cheerfulness," she means forced and phony cheer, the "American way [that] borders on psychosis." I don't think she's against the spontaneous and natural sort of joi'e de vivre that even the gloomiest of Guses can occasionally enjoy. No less committed a Scrooge than Schopenhauer, after all, said"Cheerfulness is a direct and immediate gain, — the very coin, as it were, of happiness… for it alone makes us immediately happy in the present moment, and that is the highest blessing for beings like us, whose existence is but an infinitesimal moment between two eternities. To secure and promote this feeling of cheerfulness should be the supreme aim of all our endeavors after happiness." -The Wisdom of Life
Schopenhauer!--the guy who said “What disturbs and depresses young people is the hunt for happiness on the firm assumption that it must be met with in life" (Schopenhauer also said “We can regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness”)...
But he also said "It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is impossible to find it anywhere else."
And aren't we in fact, in this present moment, happy to be here and looking forward to learning about feeling better about all kinds of feelings?
Though they were sharp philosophical rivals, they were in the same boat with respect to what Kant said about phenomena (appearances) and an ultimate reality beyond them (noumena): he threw up a stop sign, they ran through it (in their very different ways)...
―
“History is not the soil in which happiness grows. The periods of happiness in it are the blank pages of history.” The Philosophy of History
This is Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us."
#H02
ReplyDeleteHWT-1
I think "Harmony" is the best work that suits Chinese Philosophy. This characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life. This concept is deeply rooted in Chinese philosophy and culture, emphasizing balance, order, and the importance of harmonious relationships within society and with nature.
HWT-3
So, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, this incredible human being, had this beautiful way of looking at life and humanity. He believed that the greatest good, or as he called it, the “summum bonum,” was all about social harmony, friendliness, and community. He thought that anything that messed with this harmony, like anger, resentment, or even aggressive competitiveness, was just plain bad news. Tutu was all about togetherness and believed that we are all interconnected. He often talked about how our humanity is tied up in each other’s, and if one person is dehumanized, we all are. He saw the world as one big family where everyone, regardless of their background, belongs. His vision was that we should strive to create a world where everyone feels welcome and valued, and where we work together to build a better, more compassionate society.
HWT-5
So, when it comes to Confucianism, one of the most famous maxims is the Golden Rule: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” This principle is all about empathy and mutual respect, which are core values in Confucian thought. Imagine living in a society where everyone genuinely considers the impact of their actions on others before they act. It’s a pretty powerful idea, right? Confucius believed that if everyone followed this rule, it would lead to a harmonious and just society. It’s not just about avoiding harm, but also about actively promoting kindness and understanding. This maxim encourages people to think beyond their own needs and desires, and to consider the well-being of others. It’s a call to cultivate virtues like compassion, integrity, and respect in our daily interactions. Even though Confucius lived over 2,500 years ago, his teachings still resonate today because they touch on fundamental aspects of human nature and social harmony. So, next time we are faced with a decision, big or small, we must try to remember this Confucian wisdom and think about how our actions might affect those around us. It’s a timeless piece of advice that can help us all lead more thoughtful and considerate lives.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
Roman Phillips H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. According to Kant, emotions should not play a role in doing right or wrong. Because the consequences of our actions are not under our control, we can only be held morally accountable for those things under our direct control. Kant believed morality requires free will. Our will is under our control; therefore, our will is the only basis for moral evaluation of our actions. Some people can be courageous and bad at the same time. Moral behavior does not guarantee happiness. I am not sure so my emotions do not play a part in my moral obligations. For example, I am disgusted by littering and have volunteered with many litter pick-ups. Why do I feel it is my duty to pick up someone else's trash? While I am not the person who littered, I feel it is my duty to contribute to the cleanliness of our planet. And yes, I feel some type of satisfaction in helping our environment.
4. Kant believed you should never lie because it was morally wrong. Kant called the principle that supports this view the categorical imperative (absolute duty). Kant believed that morality was a system of categorical imperatives. While I have been taught not to lie, I have lied and immediately regretted doing so. Some of that regret comes from feeling guilty about not following this absolute duty. I try not to lie, but sometimes lying plays a vital role in human relationships - my phone died, traffic was horrible, this is the best cake I have ever eaten. Sometimes, lying is necessary to not hurt another person's feelings.
5.
Jeremy Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness Principle - the idea that the right thing to do is whatever will produce the most happiness. Although happiness means different things to different people, Bentham believed happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Bentham can be found on display at University College London. His idea is whatever is right will produce the most happiness. Bentham created a method for calculating happiness that he referred to as the Felicific Calculus. This algorithm was formulated by Bentham to calculate the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce.I feel that if everyone followed this principle, it would create a better world because everyone would be doing the right thing without spreading negativity.
Weiner Chapter 5
8.Weiner thinks Schopenhauer's Will manifested in our time the Internet. He explains how the Internet is omnipresent and purposeless only offering the illusion of happiness. I find myself agreeing with this idea of Weiner's. I believe we don't need to access the Internet, but there is a strong desire and want.
FL
1. In 1915, Scientific American published a three-volume encyclopedia called The Book of Progress. Regarding movies, the author suggested motion pictures were like drugs because they are magical. They eliminate the time between happenings and bring two events separated actually by hours of time and makes them seem to us as following each other with no interval between them. Harvard professor William James would later write that movies produce "hallucinations and illusions" as "vivid as realities." Movies offer escape from the real world and America quickly became the headquarters for this industry and color films made these fantasies extremely realistic.
3. New York film critic Pauline Kael called Los Angeles a "fantasy brothel" stating, "you can live any way you want (except the urban way); it's the fantasy brothel, where you can live the fantasy of your choice."
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2. Kant’s great insight was that we can discover characteristics of our minds without going out and experiencing new things. He thought that thinking through reason rather than prior experience can unlock new parts of the mind. This seems to be a form of armchair philosophy: a term for philosophies that do not require prior knowledge/experience and can be found by simply sitting in an armchair. We can learn new information without having to experience it. For example, Kant explains that we can learn 7 + 5 = 12 without using objects.
LHP 3. Kant believed that emotions were irrelevant to morality; emotions and actions do not always match. According to Kant, you can (and should) help someone in need whether or not you actually feel like it. In fact, if you help someone when you don’t want to, you would be more moral than someone that wants to. Kant said this is because people often hope they will receive something good if they help others, such as money or a blessing from God. It surprises me that some have not considered this philosophy; to me, this is just part of the human condition. We learn the philosophy of morality early in life when we are taught to share: children often do not want to share, but do so anyway out of morality. We do this throughout our life, striving to do good (hopefully) for the sake of morality.
LHP 5. Jeremy Bentham designed the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that the right thing to do is whatever makes one happy. To be able to find what makes one happiest, Bentham had a method: the Felicific Calculus. In this method, you find what action gives you the most pleasure then: consider how long its pleasure will last, how intense the pleasure is, if this pleasure will lead to more pleasures, and if there is any pain attached to this action. Though this seems like a simple method, I do not think this could work for everyone. Most people do not know themselves well enough to know what makes them happy, and everyone has different views of “happiness”. In addition, people might have conflicts with being able to do the things that make them happy.
W03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world, but not the noumena world. What Kant defined as the noumena world is what lies behind all the appearances of reality, and the phenomenal world is the one comprised of the senses of the world. What we feel and experience is what that is, but according to Kant, we can never see what is truly reality. If we accept Kant's philosophy, then we can never experience true reality. I do not agree with this, as I believe what we see right now is reality.
2. Kant believed that knowledge that reveals truth about the world, yet is arrived at independently of experience, is possible. I also disagree with this. Just like how "original" ideas are unique when all is said and done, but the elements of the idea stem from other, common ideas. We cannot make any conclusions about the world without a reason as to why we came up with that idea.
3. People's sympathy is irrelevant to the morality of situations. For the first time in this whole assignment, I agree. How we feel influences the morality of situations, but in order to make a truly moral decision, you cannot involve sympathy or any emotion in the matter. Emotions can modify our definition of morality, making a decision more complicated than it should be.
HWT-1: Harmony most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on the idea of individual autonomy and the fear that hierarchical systems suppress individual freedom.
HWT-3: The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that harmony is "the greatest good."
HWT-4: The omission in Western ethics that would seem bizarre to classical Chinese thinkers is the lack of focus on family and social relations as central to ethical thinking.
HWT-5: The most famous Confucian maxim is: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
HWT-6: Virtue is never solitary, said Confucius; it always has neighbors.
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 3)
1. Kant said that your sympathy (or you intention) is irrelevant to morality. Kant's view of morality was undeniably rational but also somewhat cold. He said that the only way to truly act morally was to do right things because of our knowledge that they were right in themselves. If you helped someone because you were sympathetic towards their situation, that wouldn't be moral to Kant because you only helped based on your own emotional response. I don't know that I agree with this view. I admit that I don't really have any philosophical or logical justifications for this feeling, but it just seems...not quite right to me. LHP gives the example of a parent knocking you over to protect their child vs. someone just knocking you over for fun. Kant would say that the intentions of the person are irrelevant, that both of them performed an immoral action. I agree with that last point, that both did something 'wrong,' but the difference to me is that one has a reasonable justification and the other doesn't. For the parent, protecting their child and knocking me over in the process is a net positive, but for the person knocking me over for fun, there is no justification that outweighs the mild annoyance I experienced. I guess I believe more in Bentham's measurement of happiness as opposed to Kant's 'true' morality.
(LHP, Question 5)
2. Jeremy Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness principle, and the method he used for calculating happiness was called the Felicific Calculus. Today, Bentham's actual body is on display as a memorial to him rather than a normal statue at UCL. I think I'd hesitantly wager that the world would be a better place if everyone earnestly followed Bentham's methodology, especially if they took its spirit to heart. Having literally everyone follow the exact letter of his philosophy would probably lead to some unintended consequences, but generally he sought for there to be less pain and suffering and more happiness in the world, the message of which I think many people could learn from.
(LHP, Question 7)
3. Hegel's quote, "The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk" is an anecdotal saying for his theory that the events of history will eventually culminate into a kind of final meaning or ending that we will only realize upon reaching the conclusion and looking back. Hegel thought that this inevitable events was Spirit understanding its own freedom, which he based on historical conflicts between groups and individuals that resulted in increased knowledge of their personal agency in life. Hegel also thought that this self-awareness had already been achieved in his lifetime, which is somewhat unsurprising given that he grew up in an era of revolutionary thought caused by literal revolution. Something I think Socrates would doubt in particular is the notion that this idea Hegel had just come up with had been achieved in his life. Socrates was insistent in his continual inquiry, and may be slightly skeptical of the idea that humans or the universe or whatever had achieved true knowledge of its self-awareness. He'd ask 'what do you mean by that?' in perpetuity.
It's crazy to me to read about Kant's view of morality vs emotions. With the whole "pushing over" example I think, honestly, his ideology is insane. I think due to his strong rational views he doesn't look beyond the fact which is why he views emotions and morality as two sides of the same coin.
DeleteSection H03:
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: Kant expresses that we can view and live in the phenomenal world however we do not have access to the noumenal world. The phenomenal world being the world as we experience it through our own eyes. The noumenal world is the world without bias or experience. It is simple the world as it comes on a deeper scale. Unfortunately, I think our own experience will always cloud the view of the noumenal world. Being able to see the world through no eyes at all and no experience is simply impossible.
LHP Q5: Bentham created the Felicific Calculus. This equation took in the thought of happiness. As many philosophers are Bentham was curious about the idea of happiness and how to achieve the most of it. He created a formula that added together pain and pleasure and calculated the highest rate of happiness. Today you can find him preserved at University College London. You would find his remains in a glass case and a wooden box as he instructed for his death wish. He claims the only thing that matters in life is happiness, however many would disagree with him as I do. Happiness might be a key aspect in life. What would you sacrifice for your own happiness. Using this equation incorrectly might lead to a vastly selfish world.
LHP Q9: Hegel believed in an odd philosophy. He had concluded life was about an unraveling idea of experiences. He believed as you live your life you gain an understanding of change. Slowly gaining an understanding for self-awareness. He believed humanity was a body. Hurt one and you hurt all. He uses the analogy that a snake can bite something else and finds out he is only biting into his own skin. He sees humanity as working towards individual freedoms.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1.Kant said that we can know the phenomenal world but we cannot see the nonumenal world.I think that he was right about how we experience the world by using our senses.
5. Jeremy Bentham was the one who created the Greatest Happiness principle. Bentham called this method the Felicific Calculus method. You can find his body at the University College in. London. I don't think it would be a nesasarially better world, everyone has a different idea of happiness and it may not be a good thing.
10.The blinding force that Schopenhauer said drives us is will. I think everyone has that drive to do better and be better so we will to do better. I think everyone knows that they have the will to do whatever they want but there are outside forces that stop us.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Kant said that we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world, because all that we know is what we perceive through our senses. This line of philosophy only holds up when you believe that there is a "hidden" world behind what we perceive (Plato's Theory of Forms), that is the true reality. I disagree that what we see isn't the true reality. The words "true" and "reality" are relative to each person, and so I believe that what we perceive is what is true, for us specifically. My reality is what I see and experience and involve myself in. Why would I want to concern myself with a "noumenal" world that I cannot access, when there is a whole "phenomenal" world that I can be a part of? Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me to even want to believe in that.
5- Jeremy Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness principle using a method he called the Felicific Calculus, to calculate how much pleasure something would bring you so that you can decide whether or not to do it. All you should rely on to make your choices was the prospect of pleasure or happiness, and he believed that the more pleasurable an action, the more useful it is to society. I think this is a nice philosophy to practice in limited situations. Day to day life might be made better if you made choices based on pleasure, but I don't think it is sustainable in the long run or inside of a society. People would be selfish, because not all pleasures are useful to society. And there are some things we must do even if they are not pleasurable, because we feel a sense of duty/obligation/responsibility toward others of our community.
11- Schopenhauer believed that the world was miserable and rotten, but there was an escape from the cycle of striving and desire through art. Specifically music. He thought music was the Will made manifest; when you listen to emotional music, you feel the true emotions (the Forms as Plato would say), instead of the emotion with a situation of yours tagged onto it. It is an interesting way to view music, and an idea that I honestly think I might take with me into my life. But I think he is wrong in saying art is the only reprieve from strife. Maybe it was to him. But I think love and companionship, the beauty of nature, and small happinesses all offer escapes. Life is not just "an endless cycle of striving and desire" because then I think many more people would be as miserable as him. And they're not. That has to mean something.
I didn't think to connect Plato's Theory of Forms to Kant's view of the world. Very interesting.
DeleteH01
ReplyDeleteLHP#3 The chapter says that to Kant, your sympathy is irrelevant to the morality of your actions, and that might be exactly what Kant thought but the example made those emotions seem relevant just in a counter intuitive way. In the first example, about a man at your door asking for help Kant says your reason is just as important as the morality of the action, however acting out of compassion is not moral because you already want to help them, but acting out of duty even though you feel disgusted is more moral because you are going against your natural gradient. But to me that seems like sympathy or lack of sympathy are relevant to morality of actions because the lack of sympathy only increases the morality of the act?
LHP #4 Kant said you should never lie, because it is morally wrong. Kant called the principle that supports this view the Categorical Impetrative. This principal is really boiled down to being dishonest is always, no matter what morally wrong, because we couldn’t live in a world where everyone ignored their duty to the truth, so he says we have an absolute duty to never lie. At the end of the day your principals aren’t principal if you pick and choose when to follow or diverge from those moral rules.
I have absolutely lied before, I have lied and regretted, and I’ve told lies that I will continue to stick by. For arguments sake one lie I have told was after losing her mom my youngest cousin came out through a text to her late mother. For safety reasons we had been monitoring those texts, so we read it. about a year later in her sister accidentally revealed that we had read that message. We lied and said no one else in the family knew about it, when in fact almost all of us knew. She hadn’t been ready to come out and we wanted that to be on her terms, and not yet another life experience that cancer had stolen from her.
LHP#5 Apparently, Jermery Bentham’s remains sit in a glass display in the college of London (although his head is now a wax replica I’d still be creeped out). Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness principal but is better known at utilitarianism. The concept is that humans are simple, we avoid pain and seek pleasure, therefore we should work to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. With this approach he had a method for ‘calculating’ happiness, by measuring the amount of time, intensity, and further pleasures it might cause. Then ‘subtracting’ any ‘units’ of pain it could cause to him this equaled the value and utility of that action. I don’t think the world would be better because his view simplifies life too much to be applicable, we couldn’t successfully have everyone follow this principal since it stresses equality, and that doesn’t exist in abundance in our world systems now.
I agree completely, I think that lying isn't exactly moral, but in some cases telling a small lie is 100% more moral than telling the truth at someone's expense. I don't think morality is always fully dependent on honesty. I know for a fact if I were to lead a killer in the direction of their victim because it's more "moral," then I would surely regret it and feel the guilt for the rest of my life, far more than if I were to lie to save them.
DeleteH#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #1 - Kant says we can know about the phenomenal world but we can't about the noumenal world. I think we can get a grasp of what's happening in the noumenal world but I agree that we'll never truly have a complete understanding of it because from the way it's explained in the book, it would be too hard to fully understand since of our "rose tinted glasses".
LHP #3 - Kant said that sympathy is irrelevant to morality. I disagree with this and his examples that he provides I think are so strange. I can't wrap my head around why just because you feel sympathy or compassion towards someone/something and then that causes you to do an action isn't a moral action. I think whenever someone feels that way and then acts on it, they also feel that it's their duty to help which causes them to. I think these emotions fuel peoples idea of their duties.
LHP #5 - Jeremy Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness Principle and called his method "The Felicific Calculus". You can find him today at the University College of London as a sort of statue. I think the world would be a happier place for sure, but a better place could be arguable. If everyone always did whatever made them happiest, there might not be as much progress in the world and some complications could arise.
LHP #10 - Schopenhauer said will is the blinding force that drives us. I don't think anyone can really know the reason behind what drives every individual. I feel like humans are so complex that while yes many people strive and live off of will, there are many exceptions.
Gino Palilla
DeleteH01
ReplyDeleteWeiner #4:
Ideal Forms and Brahman are the two examples listed in the text. Schopenhauer described it as the Will, or a sort of merciless hunger of reality, with no particular objective.
Weiner #5:
Schopenhauer thought that the two ways out were 1} living a life of abstinence from stimulation and 2} art (specifically music). I don't want to "shake it off." When I ask myself whether I would want to be free of all of my problems, the answer always comes up 'no.' Pretty much everyone seems to agree that there is a benefit to trials in life. Even if it seems like the solution would be to only have hardships that are not TOO hard, that would not really be hard, so it really can't be any other way.
LHP #1:
According to Kant, we can know the phenomenal world, but not the noumenal world. I think that there is not a complete lack of knowledge of the noumenal world, because I would say that Descartes had a point with "I think, therefore I am."
LHP #3:
Emotions are irrelevant to morality, according to Kant. As far as whether this is true, it depends on to what extent they are viewed as "irrelevant." They are irrelevant in the sense that someone's emotional state in a given situation does not determine the moral value of their actions, but I do believe that there are cases where one has a moral obligation to take their emotions (and how they will involuntarily affect their actions) into consideration when acting.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
5. Jeremy Bentham created the Greatest Happiness principle. His method was called Felicific Calculus. Bentham's body can be found in the University college London where he looks down on everyone who passes by. I don't think if everyone followed the Greatest Happiness principles, it would make a better world. I think it would cause more chaos. To base the choices on one emotion and not to mention the satisfaction of a majority is absurd. We have emotions other than happiness to base decisions on happiness is dangerous and wrong, especially since the measurement that Bentham uses seems very flawed. The reality is there will always be a minority but to base the future on what makes more people happy is far too subjective and can lead to dangerous outcomes.
6. Robert Nozick created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation. I would not opt for the machine because it takes away what it is to be human. As humans we aren't perfect, we cry, we laugh, we suffer, we enjoy, that's being human. To take away our suffering is essentially taking away our ability to adapt, to learn from our experience and to grow. We wouldn't be living in the machines; we would just be existing.
11. Schopenhauer believed that art could help us escape the cycle of striving and desires. He saw it as the only way. I would consider it universal; everyone struggles with desires and that may look like many different things. At the end of the day, we all struggle with this cycle and according to Schopenhauer, the only way out of the cycle is art such as music.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1 - Kant stated that we can know the phenomenal world but we can not know the noumenal world. What he meant by this was that we could understand the physical world as we perceive it, but we would never understand the true world as we are limited by the human mind and senses. I believe he is absolutely right, we can never truly know what a world beyond our senses would look like, as Kant's argument is completely reasonable.
LHP 2 - Kant believed in a priori knowledge, as he believed knowledge existed within the human prior to any experience. I would say this worldview is similar to an armchair philosophy, however I believe it to be a theory which most closely resembles the human experience. From the time of birth evidence suggests that humans do have some type of innate morality that is gained separate from experience. This does add credibility to Kant's theory and also works as a piece of evidence for an objective morality.
LHP 3 - Kant believed that feelings were irrelevant to morality. I completely agree. Due to my belief in objective morality, I believe there is a true absolute right and wrong which governs the universe above ones emotions. Through this worldview, I believe that ones feelings are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, I believe rather the moral obligation to the objective right thing is far more important and may not involve emotion at all. However, for most people I believe that emotion can be an indicator for navigating this objective morality.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Kant said we can see the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world which is something that I can find agreeable, because our perception of the world is ours alone and what we perceive is just our brain's processing of the world, thus we will never truly get a completely accurate view of the world. I would not doubt that there is more to the world given that we lack the senses that other animals have, thus the noumenal world is not something that we will really know much of.
3. Kant said that sympathy was irrelevant to morality, but I disagree because I believe that the action is still morally good if a person has sympathy in part because sympathy to me at least helps define what is just.
Jeremy Bentham forumlated the greatest happiness principle. He called it "Felicific Calculus". Today he can be found at the University College London in a glass case. If everyone followed this principle the world probably not be a better place because we would definitely misuse this idea by warping some definitions in order to suit desire. Given the chance humans will optimize anything for nefarious purposes.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP:
1) Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. Yes, we can see the phenomenal world, which is what you can see like cars, grass, buildings, etc. that you experience from your senses. However, what is the noumenal world? What is considered what exists at a “deeper level?” How will we ever really know if we can know the noumenal world since we have not seen evidence of the noumenal world? Does this just support the belief that we will never know the noumenal world? How would we know that there are two worlds if we can only know of the phenomenal world? This debate between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world seems like a never-ending whirlpool of unanswerable questions.
3) According to Kant, sympathy is irrelevant to the morality of your action. I do not believe that sympathy is necessarily “irrelevant” to morality, but it is also not the only factor that influences moral judgement. I think without sympathy we would find it difficult to act morally. I think a big part of moral evaluation involves sympathy. I think even if a situation is biased driven, it still can be considered morally right, of course depending on what you do.
4) Kant said you should never lie because it is always morally wrong. Kant called the principle that supports this view the categorical imperative. I have violated this principle, and I believe that everyone has lied at least once about something. I do regret some of the times I have lied, but it really depends on the situation. The times I have personally affected someone with a lie, I regret that, but lying to protect someone is a different story. Depending on the severity of the situation, I think a white lie can be more beneficial than the truth. Although, according to Kant, I guess I would be considered morally wrong in my thinking.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. I think Kant's ideology is fairly understandable. What we know about the world, despite what we learned from our guardians, is our own knowledge of it through our own drawn conclusions and experiences. We truly will never be able to see into someone else's mind. We know what they tell us, but we will never know their minds.
2. Kant asked, "is synthetic a priori knowledge possible". Synthethic meaning the opposite of "by definition" and priori knowledge being knowledge we have before any experience of the situation. I think it's a valid form of armchair knowledge because it doesn't require any research to develop such knowledge. It also does not depend on any experience. It is the knowledge we have something before experiencing it.
3. Kant thought that emotions shouldn't come into morality. I agree to an extent. I think acts of generosity should be done for the fact that it is the right thing to do, not out of pity or out of arrogance. I believe it is okay to do things for someone because you sympathize for them. For example, if your best friends goes through a breakup, I believe buying them a gift basket isn't out of morality, but out of love and sympathy. Now if you see a homeless person, despite your opinion on them or your assumption of their life, I believe it is the moral thing to do to help them out. "Helping out" doesn't necessarily have to be through money, but to someone who Kant says "has no emotions" it may be money. To someone who Kant says "has emotions" may help them out by speaking kindness over them, buying them food/clothes, etc.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - Kant says that we can see the phenomenal world, but not the noumenal world. What he means by this is we understand the world through our perceptions, but we cannot see the world for how it truly is because of lacking senses. I believe this is true even in scientific terms. For example, ultraviolet light exists, but it is something humans cannot see. I think this can apply to many things, even outside the scientific realm.
3 - Kant says emotions/feelings are irrelevant to morality. I do not necessarily agree with this because I think that having sympathy for another person could call for a moral action.
Weiner
5 - Schopenhauer believed that by either living a strict life (abstinence, meditation, etc.) or appreciating Music and Art were the best ways to "shake off" the Will of the world. I believe that these are both good ways to escape the suffering Schopenhauer saw in the world because they can cause us to experience a moment of serenity in the midst of a suffering world.
LHP 2:" That we could, by the power of reason, discover features of our own minds that tint all our experience." I believe this to be a credible form of armchair philosophy. Everyone's present interpretation of life is formed around past experiences. We approach life on how we've experienced it in the past. I believe it is possible to drop previous bias about past experiences and truly question.
ReplyDeleteLHP:3 Kant believed that sympathy is irrelevant to the morality of an action. Sympathy is an emotion that people experience. It can tie into the decision making process but should not account for what is morally right and wrong. The decision should be based Soley on reason and not based on the emotion present. I believe this reasoning to be true. If I am angry at someone, I will still hold the door for them, say hello, and eventually explain to them what upset me, and it'll resolve. I will still do what is morally right (treat a person with respect) even though they wronged me. According to what my emotions tell me, I should not treat them with respect. However, morally, I should treat them how I did before I was wronged.
LHP5: Jeremy Bentham formulated the greatest happiness principle. His body can be found in a display case at the University of London. His principle is based on what creates the most happiness. Whatever gives the person the most happiness is the right decision. I believe this to be a faulted approach. What if destroying the world gave people more happiness? Would that be the moral decision?
Quinny VanDerSlik H03
ReplyDeleteLHP1-
Kant said we can know the PHENOMENAL world but not the NOUMENAL one. The noumenal world is behind appearances and what we see and experience; it is beyond per se. The phenomenal world is the one that we experience, the one that we can see, like grass, buildings, trees, and more. I am unsure if we can truly see what he calls the noumenal world, but I think we can do so, which we are already trying to do. For example, wondering about things that could happen, aspects of science, and parallel worlds, I feel that that is seeing the world beyond what we experience. Another portion might be thinking of the world detached from our perspective but a combination of others. However, while I think we can try, I do not believe it would be possible to fully see the natural world.
LHP 4-
Kant said you should never lie because it is always morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. Kant called this principle the Categorical Imperative, where you must tell the truth, no matter what might happen. He also believed this was a crucial part of morality, a system of categorical imperative. I have violated this principle, and there are some instances where I have come to regret it, others not. I do not remember much specifically about what I have lied about explicitly. One example I remember is when I was not up to hanging out. In middle and high school, I felt pressured into doing something. I would lie about being unable to go as my parents did not approve or that I was busy. I don’t really regret these as I was not up for certain activities or was not feeling well that day. I know my limits regarding being social, but I still felt terrible refusing, so I lied about why I couldn’t hang out. It’s easier now to just tell them no, I don’t want to do that or feel up to it today, so go ahead without me.
Weiner 3-
Schopenhauer is an idealist because he believes the world is his idea and that the way we perceive the world is constructed in our minds. His world is different from ours, and we all see the world differently; this is what makes him an idealist. Nigel Warburton uses that analogy of a giant movie hall where everyone is watching their own screen in their own room, but they are all watching the same movie. So, while everyone is watching the same thing, they are separate. Nobody is watching it together as it would no longer be their own. This analogy and way of thinking do seem reasonable to me. Being able to view the same world as everyone but doing it separately, so to speak. I may see the world differently than my friends, family, and everyone else. However, I am not perceiving a whole different world. I just do not see it the same as anyone else. My view can match certain aspects of another, but it will not indeed be the exact same as anyone else.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Kant said that we can’t see the noumenal world only the phenomenal world. He is correct in that we don’t have a truly objective sight of the world. Our brain configures the sensory input that we receive and reconstructs what it interprets to be there.
LHP 2- Kant’s great insight was that people can come up with informative and true statements without the need of empirical evidence as shown by the equation 7+5=12. He says that while you do need some analytical knowledge to know what the symbols mean, you don’t need to check if 7+5=12 because you can do mental math and it’s still true. I would say that is a credible way of saying that your mind can come up with true, insightful ideas even without evidence.
LHP 3- Kant believed that sympathy was irrelevant to morality as something was not moral unless done and reasoned morally. That’s why he said if you help someone out of sympathy you aren’t helping because it’s right your helping because that’s how you would like to be treated in the same scenario. While I personally believe sympathy is a good thing that brings people together if we are looking at things objectively sure you aren’t doing it out of the goodness of your heart completely, but I would personally except good deeds as moral even if they have ulterior motives.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. We can know about the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. I think that we can't see the world for the objective reality that it is, and that we do experience it through our own lenses. So in regard to this idea from Kant, I do agree with him
2. Kant big breakthrough was with his ideas of a priori knowledge and how once you learn something that is true and factual, it is not only analytical but also a synthetic statement meaning that you can learn and base new ideas off of that. I think that this is more of an experience based form of philosophy, because that is more in line of what Kant teaches and believes but is still very useful in the setting of just sitting and thinking.
3. According to Kant, your sympathy is irrelevant to morality. I do partially believe in this sentiment, because I do feel that for an action to be truly good you must have good intention and reason for doing it, not just because it is the right thing or because you were told to do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLHP:
ReplyDelete1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal one. In essence, we can not understand what lies behind appearances. Although, much of science has done just that. Cause and effect becomes more and more predictable as technology evolves. Sure, we had no idea why the moon grew and shrank as time went on, but with later space exploration and understanding, we found moon “phases” to be a result of sunlight having limited reach to the moon at certain points in its orbit. Kant would call this a priori, or a predetermined truth that doesn’t need to be investigated to confirm. However, there’s actually no guarantee that the moon will stay there. A gamma ray burst could inexplicably wipe the moon out of orbit at a given moment. While the chance of this happening is practically negligible, it isn’t impossible. So, if you’re raised to believe that the moon has certain shapes on certain days, and you look to the sky to see that the moon has, in fact, disappeared entirely, you’re going to have some problems (both with trusting your parents and with the coming global apocalypse). Kant isn't entirely correct in believing that anything can be undeniably certain, as the universe/god/nature could have other plans at any given moment.
5. Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness principle, or that the right thing to do is whatever will bring the most happiness to the world. He said this method was “about how you feel”. On an unrelated note, you can find Bentham’s remains at University College London in a glass case, sitting and looking at you with his favorite walking cane. He thought his body would be better than a statue, which might be true. Going back to his principle, the idea of maximizing pleasure in the world sounds great, but it is very difficult to pinpoint what is generally acceptable as “pleasure.” Long walks in the park might be great for some people, but some might be deathly afraid of the outdoors. Instilling a wide sense of pleasure is very hard to do when “pleasure” may equal “terror” in some people.
7. When Hegel said that he spoke to the “owl of Minerva,” he meant that he firmly believed that he had reached a point of wisdom and understanding. Socrates would most likely have a lot of fun with this, arguing that no one ever truly knows everything, before asking him about the nuances of morality and deceit. Personally, I believe that assuming that there’s an apex in human understanding is ignorant at best. There is simply too much to understand and too little time.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP1: Kant said that we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. I believe that we can briefly see the noumenal world when negative events happen or we interact with people who aren’t inherently good people, because that can briefly break one out of the “rose-colored” appearance of the phenomenal world.
LHP 3: According to Kant, sympathy is irrelevant to morality, because morality for Kant is why you do an action. Although the “why” can be separate from sympathy, many times it is in tune with it, and I do not believe that having a sliver of sympathy immediately marks the action as immoral.
LHP 5: Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness principle, later renamed and known as utilitarianism. Bentham’s body is currently located in University College London, with a wax head in place and his actual head is mummified and kept in a wooden box. Although in theory if everyone followed the Greatest Happiness principle it could create a better world, but if put into practice, then people’s ways to achieve happiness may result in others being unhappy. This may create upset if taken too rationally, but in imperfect practice it would improve peoples’ lives.
Gavin Cooley H2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. I'm inclined to agree. The are limits on human perception. Even with the most advanced technology, we can only understand so much. Take the Electromagnetic Spectrum as an example. The light, colors, and everything we see are only a tiny fraction of the spectrum. There is so much more beyond our simple comprehension that we will never be able to understand, grasp, or experience.
2. Kant's breakthrough was that new knowledge can be gained through simply doing nothing but thinking. I think this is an acceptable form of armchair philosophy. Its credibility relies on logic. No experience is required. The human mind is capable of working through extremely complex problems, and the way we do that without experience is logic.
3. Kant argues that emotions are irrelevant in morality. While this argument makes sense at face value, it falls apart quickly. Just from personal experience, I can attest that both emotions and the idea of "maxims" can affect morality at the same time. For example, last night at my job, a man's order was delayed several times. I decided to offer him a free drink. I did this because I felt bad for the man, I would want the same thing done for me, and because it is of my benefit to not have a customer complaint. Like most decisions, it wasn't for any one reason, it was for a multitude of them.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP #1: Kant said we cannot see the noumenal world, only the phenomenal one. In other words, we can only see through our senses and experiences rather than the deeper world behind them. This makes sense as we view the world through a lens based on how our minds receive surrounding stimuli. We often ponder on the noumenal world's existence, but to see it is another story.
LHP #3: According to Kant, sympathy and emotions are irrelevant to morality. He justified this by saying that if you help someone because you feel bad for them, it does not make it a moral action. Instead, actions like these need to be based on reason, knowing the right thing to do. Despite any character traits one has or lacks, every individual should be able to make the same reasonable choices. I agree with Kant's idea of morality because this urgency should be based on the pure knowledge of right and wrong, not due to someone being more caring.
LHP #5: Jeremy Bentham coined the theory of the Greatest Happiness Principle. Within this, he ultimately believed that the right decision was whatever produced the most happiness. To measure this pleasure, he created the Felicific Calculus method; first, the intensity and longevity of the pleasure are gauged and then subtracted by any units of pain that may come from the action. The amount left displays how useful the action is based on how much happiness it brings. This essence sounds delightful to our modern society but inaccurate in many real-life scenarios. The most pleasurable action is not always the most needed one.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. We can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. The phenomenal world is the world that is what we can perceive and see on the surface level. Whole the noumenal world which is the deeper part of the world, what exists that we cannot perceive. I think that there is some validity behind this because we cannot understand everything or learn everything. We tend to believe what we see because we are humans and in our nature are gullible. So I kind of agree with this, slightly.
5. Bentham was the first to explain the Greatest Happiness Principle which said that you make the decision to yield the most happiness. Well the founder of this thinking was Francis Hutcheson, but Bentham was the first to explain it. He is currently residing, dead, in a glass case at the University College of London with his body covered in wax. I think that if everyone followed this, the world would be in chaos. You have to deal with the decisions that bring you bad because you learn. Not everyone can be happy all the time. Happiness is fluid and not absolute.
3.That your sympathy is irrelevant to your morality because sympathy is apart of your character not what is right and wrong. I disagree heavily with this because I think that your emotions define your morality.
HO3
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. According to Kant, we are able to understand the phenomenal world but not the noumenal one. When bad things happen or we engage with individuals who aren't naturally decent people, I think we can glimpse the noumenal world for a moment because it allows us to momentarily escape the "rose-colored" look of the phenomenal world.
LHP 3. Kant holds that morality is the reason behind an action, hence sympathy has no bearing on morality. While the "why" and sympathy can coexist, they frequently do, and I don't think that a hint of pity automatically renders an action immoral.
LHP 7. Hegel meant that he genuinely thought he had arrived at a place of knowledge and insight when he declared that he talked with the "owl of Minerva." Having argued that nobody ever truly understands everything, Socrates would probably have a great time with this before questioning him on the subtleties of morality and dishonesty. In my opinion, it is at best naive to assume that human understanding reaches a peak. There's just too much to learn and not enough time.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. I do not believe we can ever know the noumenal world, because one can never be sure something is what it seems. The only thing that one can be completely sure about is their own thoughts.
#3 - Kant believed that an action is dependent on morality, therefore emotions not related to morality. While I do believe that actions can be caused by morality, that is not the only factor, so the concept of sympathy can exist with morality.
#4 -
Kant said you should never lie because it is always morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. Kant called this principle the Categorical Imperative. It means that you must always tell the truth no matter what. I have violated this principle a lot, often to get me out of situations that I don't want to be in. I only ever regret the times I lied to people to make myself seem greater. However, I do not regret lying to get out of situations I am not comfortable with.
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: He believed that we could see the world through the tint of our minds but the true world as it exists. I think humans can see the true world but only when focusing on very specific areas and with lots of help to remain as impartial and observant as possible and even then, how we think could still easily impact how we perceive the world.
Q2: Kants great insight was that humans could use reason to discover and understand the parts of our minds that tint our experiences and views of our reality, meaning that people could think through parts of reality and know if they were true not just by definition or actual experience. I think that his logic makes sense but no matter what would still require some level of experience in certain areas to be able to think through them logically and understand how our own “tint” affects our view of the world.
Weiner
Q1: He had a depressing world view, even as a child. He believed that the world was his idea, as in the world was a reality that while every shared and existed in, was only observed and understood on an personal level. I don’t think I feel exactly the same way, yes bad stuff happens and sometimes life just kind of sucks, but if that's all you’re ever looking for that all you’re ever goanna find. My point being, there's good and bad it’s just all about what you choose to make of it.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. Kant said we could perceive the phenomenal world, a world of truth observed through the senses, but not the noumenal world, a world that is beyond physical senses. I suppose I can understand Kant's perspective on the illusiveness of the noumenal world. Of course, we can't see it because it likely isn't real. Kant is free to believe what he likes about a fantasy reality beyond human understanding, but if it is truly so impossible for us to grasp, then we probably shouldn't worry about it. This isn't to say that I merely believe what I can sense and only that, but if the "true world" is so beyond what we humans can comprehend, it's likely not for us to understand. I believe in a "noumenal world" that is perceptible to us I we make the conscious decision to tune into it. We can, of course, see what we observe on the surface, but we can open our minds to nuance and understand the noumenal reality of things as well. This keeps the "noumenal world" from being so mystical. It's not a secret fairy world, it's just hidden truth.
2. Kant's great realization was that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible, meaning that we can make observations about the world without experience. This "armchair philosophy" theory, in my eyes, is true. I think we are capable of making observations and finding truth simply by sitting and thinking. I do it all the time. However, where this falters, in my eyes, is its credibility. What we hold to be true based on our own thoughts may not be true to another, and without a synthetic observation or experience of evidence, we can't confidently assert absolute truth. It's still guessing even if you think about it really hard.
3. I believe that Kant has a point in saying that sympathy is not relevant to morality. It's almost like having integrity. To have integrity means to do good without promise of reward or recognition. If you only do something good because you think you'll get something out of it, you're not really moral. It's similar to say that if you only do good because you feel bad for not doing it is also not inherently moral. It doesn't discredit the morality of an action, in my opinion, but the morality of the person could be challenged. We should want to do good solely for the benefit of those to whom we do good, not to appease ourselves or avoid guilt.
128. In what sense was Schopenhauer an Idealist? What analogy (similar to one I've suggested applies to Leibniz's monads) does Nigel Warburton suggest characterizes it? Does it seem reasonable to you?
ReplyDelete129.
130. He was an idealist in the sense that he believed we only experience the world as our mental image or perception of it and not how it truly exists he uses the refrigerator light as an example when it is open it is on and thus you might conclude that it is always on which would be a mistake as you can not know that with certainty he also uses the example of a lake our mental constructions of the world are simply the glass like and shiny surface and not the whole lake there is more that exists that we cannot perceive. I would have to research more to say whether or not I agree however the argument does seem either reasonable or logically sound
131.
132. What are some different names philosophers have applied to the allegedly *more* real (than sensations) world of Ideas? What "dark twist" did Schopenhauer add?
133.
134. Kant called it the numinon, Plato called it the world of Ideal forms, for Indian philosophers it is Brahman, Schopenhauer viewed this place as an ever stretching and all encompasing entity which he believed to be unrelentingly evil and he called it “The Will”
H02-
ReplyDelete1. “phenomenal” and “noumenal”
2. A priori knowledge is not Analytical knowledge. I doubt this is very credible, as there are things we hold to be true that we have to figure out through mathematical proofs.
3. How we feel is irrelevant to how we act as long as we act in a moral way regardless of how we feel. I find this to be true, as feelings change, but morality shouldn’t.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Kant claimed that while we can know the phenomenal world, we cannot know the noumena world. Kant defined the noumena world as what lies behind the appearance of reality, and the phenomenal world as the one made up of the senses in the world, which is what we feel and experience. However, according to Kant, we can never see what is actually reality.
3. Kant believed that people's sympathy doesn’t matter when it comes to morality. I can’t decide how I feel about this, because to a certain extent, no you don’t need to feel sympathetic to know that you need to help someone in certain situations. However, you should at least try to feel some sympathy for them.
4. He said you should never lie because it’s always morally wrong.
ReplyDelete5. Bentham created the Felicific Calculus. You can find him in the University College London. No, as one person’s happiness can lead to another’s pain.
6. Robert Nozick. I would not opt for the Machine as it would negate/diminish my human will.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
Kant said we can know the phenomenal but not the noumenal world.
LHP - #2
Kant's great insight was that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible which means that without any experience we can still make observations about the world.
LHP - #3
According to Kant, sympathy is irrelevant to morality.