- Bertrand Russell - #H1 Hunter Dickson; #H2 Nick Luse; #H3 Daniel Chera
- Existentialism - #H1 Mai Gibbons; #H2 Sage Robinson; #H3 hadleigh Flowers
- Something in FL 25-26 or HWT 27-28 - #H1 Karim Al-Amin
- Something in QE Part VI - Does life have meaning? - #H1 Amelie; #H2 Liam Conran; #H3 John Owens
1. Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God? OR, What did he see as the logical problem with the First Cause Argument? Do you agree with Russell about this?
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical ______, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is ___." Do these examples show a deep problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality?3. A.J. Ayer's ______ Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as _____ ______. Is unverifiability the same thing as meaninglessness?
4. Humans don't have an _____, said Jean Paul Sartre, and are in "bad faith" like the ____ who thinks of himself as completely defined by his work. Is it possible to avoid bad faith in every situation?
5. What was Sartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? Should he have said something else?
6. When Simone de Beauvoir said women are not born that way, she meant that they tend to accept what? Are any essential identities conferred by birth?
7. Which Greek myth did Albert Camus use to illustrate human absurdity, as he saw it? Do you ever feel that way? Do you worry that someday you might, in work or relationships or something else?
Weiner ch 13
- What is an "unrealizable"? Can you imagine yourself at age 60+?
- What did Cicero say old age does to personality? Do you think that's inevitable?
- What was Sartre's metaphor for what to do instead of trying to "find" yourself? What metaphor for life is implied by de Beauvoir's early declaration that her life would be an improvised "beautiful story"? Do you like either or both?
- How does the "balance shift" as we age? When do you think the shift will begin for you?
- What is "bad faith"? How does Sartre's example of the waiter illustrate it? Can you think of another example?
- What does the latest happiness research confirm? Do you think this will matter more to you later?
- What did Camus say is "enough..."? Is he right, do you think, about absurdity and its overcoming?
- What wasBertrand Russell's advice? Do you know any older people who've followed it? Are they role-models for you?
HWT
- What do you think of the Japanese sensitivity to nature and the seasons? 293
- What do you think of Shinto's "no clear-cut separation between the aesthetic, the moral, and the religious"? 294
- What do you think it means to think without concepts? 295
- Do you agree with what "the enlightened [Buddhist] declares"? 296
- Is time more a feeling than a concept? 296 What would Kant say?
- What do you think of Hume's "is/ought gap"? 297
- What can tea teach us? 299
- What is wabi-sabi? 300
- Was Kravinsky crazy? 301 How about Peter Singer? 302
- Should we consider the welfare of distant strangers as much as of kith and kin? 303
- Are Mozi and Mill saying the same thing? 304
- Kant's categorical imperative, again: any comment? 309
- Do you like Rawls' veil of ignorance idea? 309
- Do you agree with the key principles of the Enlightenment? 310
- Is Owen Flanagan right about "no sensible person"? 312
- Is the mixing desk a good metaphor for moral pluralism? Do you agree that it's not the same as laissez-faire relativism? 314-15
Discussion Questions
- Reading Mill's autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Why? 185
I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day at the age of eighteen I read _____'s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. Why I Am Not a Christian
- Should it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy? 186
- Were young A.J. Ayer and the Positivists on the right track with their Verification Principle? Or was the older, post-Near Death Experience Ayer wiser about beliefs that cannot be conclusively verified? 190, 194
- Do you agree with Sartre that humans, unlike inanimate objects such as inkwells, don't have an essential nature? Is our common biology, DNA etc. not essential to our species identity? 197
- If you become deeply involved in your work (or seem to, like Sartre's Waiter) are you in "bad faith"? 198
- What do you think of Sartre's advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? 199
- Do you agree with Simone de Beauvoir about accepting a gender identity based on men's judgments? 200
- Is life a Sisyphean struggle? Is it "absurd"? Do you agree with Camus that Sisyphus must be happy? Why or why not? 201
FL
- Do you see any parallels between 1962 (as reflected in the SDS Manifesto, for instance) and today? 212
- What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America? 218
- Do you think of The Force (in Star Wars) as a "spiritual fantasy" or does it name something you consider real? 222
- Was the sudden and widespread availability of contraception (The Pill) in the '60s a positive development, all things considered? 230
- Is the fantasy of perpetual youth an infantilizing force in America? 233 (Compare with our next read, Why Grow Up)
- Are we becoming "fake humans"? 234
==
Podcasts-Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Arendt, Popper, Ordinary Language, Trolley Problems
In Our Time
Simone de Beauvoir. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Simone de Beauvoir. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," she wrote in her best known and most influential work, The Second Sex, her exploration of what it means to be a woman in a world defined by men. Published in 1949, it was an immediate success with the thousands of women who bought it. Many male critics felt men came out of it rather badly. Beauvoir was born in 1908 to a high bourgeois family and it was perhaps her good fortune that her father lost his money when she was a girl. With no dowry, she pursued her education in Paris to get work and in a key exam to allow her to teach philosophy, came second only to Jean Paul Sartre. He was retaking. They became lovers and, for the rest of their lives together, intellectual sparring partners. Sartre concentrated on existentialist philosophy; Beauvoir explored that, and existentialist ethics, plus the novel and, increasingly in the decades up to her death in 1986, the situation of women in the world.
Camus. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Algerian-French writer and Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Shortly after the new year of 1960, a powerful sports car crashed in the French town of Villeblevin in Burgundy, killing two of its occupants. One was the publisher Michel Gallimard; the other was the writer Albert Camus. In Camus’ pocket was an unused train ticket and in the boot of the car his unfinished autobiography The First Man. Camus was 46. Born in Algeria in 1913, Camus became a working class hero and icon of the French Resistance. His friendship with Sartre has been well documented, as has their falling out; and although Camus has been dubbed both an Absurdist and Existentialist philosopher, he denied he was even a philosopher at all, preferring to think of himself as a writer who expressed the realities of human existence. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, Camus’ legacy is a rich one, as an author of plays, novels and essays, and as a political thinker who desperately sought a peaceful solution to the War for Independence in his native Algeria.
Ordinary Language Philosophy. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such 'ordinary language' were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and JL Austin.
Hannah Arendt. In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.
Karl Popper. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true. Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.He called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called “pseudo sciences” which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the “murderer of Freud and Marx”. He went on to apply his ideas to politics, advocating an Open Society. His ideas influenced a wide range of politicians, from those close to Margaret Thatcher, to thinkers in the Eastern Communist bloc and South America. So how did Karl Popper change our approach to the philosophy of science? How have scientists and philosophers made use of his ideas? And how are his theories viewed today? Are we any closer to proving scientific principles are “true”?
The Scientific Method. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.
The Meaning of Life According to AJ Ayer. What was an English philosopher doing at a New York party, saving the young model Naomi Campbell from a rather pushy boxing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson? The philosopher was Alfred Jules Ayer, who was just as at home mixing with the glitterati as he was with Oxford dons. On the one hand he was an academic, on the other a celebrity and bon viveur.
The Philosopher's ArmsSeries 4 Episode 2 of 4
Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. This week, trolleyology: how should you decide between two morally troubling courses of action? This is a question which affects both soldiers in the heat of action and decision-makers in the NHS. Matthew is joined in the snug by philosopher David Edmonds.
Sartre. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Jean-Paul Sartre, the French novelist, playwright, and philosopher who became the king of intellectual Paris and a focus of post war politics and morals. Sartre's own life was coloured by jazz, affairs, Simone de Beauvoir and the intellectual camaraderie of Left Bank cafes. He maintained an extraordinary output of plays, novels, biographies, and philosophical treatises as well as membership of the communist party and a role in many political controversies. He produced some wonderful statements: "my heart is on the left, like everyone else's", and "a human person is what he is not, not what he is", and, most famously "we are condemned to be free". Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how Sartre's novels and plays express his ideas and what light Sartre's life brings to bear on his philosophy and his philosphy on his life.
Simone de Beauvoir. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Simone de Beauvoir. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," she wrote in her best known and most influential work, The Second Sex, her exploration of what it means to be a woman in a world defined by men. Published in 1949, it was an immediate success with the thousands of women who bought it. Many male critics felt men came out of it rather badly. Beauvoir was born in 1908 to a high bourgeois family and it was perhaps her good fortune that her father lost his money when she was a girl. With no dowry, she pursued her education in Paris to get work and in a key exam to allow her to teach philosophy, came second only to Jean Paul Sartre. He was retaking. They became lovers and, for the rest of their lives together, intellectual sparring partners. Sartre concentrated on existentialist philosophy; Beauvoir explored that, and existentialist ethics, plus the novel and, increasingly in the decades up to her death in 1986, the situation of women in the world.
Camus. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Algerian-French writer and Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Shortly after the new year of 1960, a powerful sports car crashed in the French town of Villeblevin in Burgundy, killing two of its occupants. One was the publisher Michel Gallimard; the other was the writer Albert Camus. In Camus’ pocket was an unused train ticket and in the boot of the car his unfinished autobiography The First Man. Camus was 46. Born in Algeria in 1913, Camus became a working class hero and icon of the French Resistance. His friendship with Sartre has been well documented, as has their falling out; and although Camus has been dubbed both an Absurdist and Existentialist philosopher, he denied he was even a philosopher at all, preferring to think of himself as a writer who expressed the realities of human existence. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, Camus’ legacy is a rich one, as an author of plays, novels and essays, and as a political thinker who desperately sought a peaceful solution to the War for Independence in his native Algeria.
Bertrand Russell. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the influential British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Born in 1872 into an aristocratic family, Russell is widely regarded as one of the founders of Analytic philosophy, which is today the dominant philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world. In his important book The Principles of Mathematics, he sought to reduce mathematics to logic. Its revolutionary ideas include Russell's Paradox, a problem which inspired Ludwig Wittgenstein to pursue philosophy. Russell's most significant and famous idea, the theory of descriptions, had profound consequences for the discipline.
In addition to his academic work, Russell played an active role in many social and political campaigns. He supported women's suffrage, was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and was a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Russell's many appearances on the BBC also helped to promote the public understanding of ideas.
In addition to his academic work, Russell played an active role in many social and political campaigns. He supported women's suffrage, was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and was a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Russell's many appearances on the BBC also helped to promote the public understanding of ideas.
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life, work and legacy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. There is little doubt that he was a towering figure of the twentieth century; on his return to Cambridge in 1929 Maynard Keynes wrote, “Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train”.Wittgenstein is credited with being the greatest philosopher of the modern age, a thinker who left not one but two philosophies for his descendents to argue over: The early Wittgenstein said, “the limits of my mind [language] mean the limits of my world”; the later Wittgenstein replied, “If God looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of”. Language was at the heart of both. Wittgenstein stated that his purpose was to finally free humanity from the pointless and neurotic philosophical questing that plagues us all. As he put it, “To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle”.How did he think language could solve all the problems of philosophy? How have his ideas influenced contemporary culture? And could his thought ever achieve the release for us that he hoped it would?With Ray Monk, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton and author of Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius; Barry Smith, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Marie McGinn, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of York.
Ordinary Language Philosophy. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such 'ordinary language' were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and JL Austin.
Hannah Arendt. In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.
Karl Popper. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true. Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.He called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called “pseudo sciences” which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the “murderer of Freud and Marx”. He went on to apply his ideas to politics, advocating an Open Society. His ideas influenced a wide range of politicians, from those close to Margaret Thatcher, to thinkers in the Eastern Communist bloc and South America. So how did Karl Popper change our approach to the philosophy of science? How have scientists and philosophers made use of his ideas? And how are his theories viewed today? Are we any closer to proving scientific principles are “true”?
==
The Scientific Method. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.
The Meaning of Life According to AJ Ayer. What was an English philosopher doing at a New York party, saving the young model Naomi Campbell from a rather pushy boxing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson? The philosopher was Alfred Jules Ayer, who was just as at home mixing with the glitterati as he was with Oxford dons. On the one hand he was an academic, on the other a celebrity and bon viveur.
So what does this logician have to say about the meaning of life?
In 1988, a year before his death, he gave a lecture at the Conway Hall in which he set out his notion of existence. By this time, ‘Freddie’ Ayer was one of the UK’s most prominent public intellectuals, with regular television and radio appearances, discussing the moral issues of the day.
Ayer’s former student at Oxford, philosopher AC Grayling, remembers the tutor that became his friend. He explores the man of contradictions – the atheist who almost recanted after a near-death incident; the deep thinker with a weakness for mistresses and Tottenham Hotspur. What was his contribution to philosophy? How did it inform the way he lived his life? What, if anything, can we learn from Freddie’s view on the big question?
The Philosopher's ArmsSeries 4 Episode 2 of 4
Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. This week, trolleyology: how should you decide between two morally troubling courses of action? This is a question which affects both soldiers in the heat of action and decision-makers in the NHS. Matthew is joined in the snug by philosopher David Edmonds.
==
Philosophy Bites
Sebastian Gardner on Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith
Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness is sometimes described as the bible of existentialism. At its core is the notion of Bad Faith. For this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Sebastian Gardner, author of a recent book about Bei...
Kate Manne on Misogyny and Male Entitlement
Cornell philosopher Kate Manne discusses misognyn, male entitlement, together with the notion of 'himpathy', a term she coined, in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Manne is the author of two recent highly influential books, ...
Ray Monk on Philosophy and Biography
Ray Monk discusses the relationship between philosophy and a philosopher's life in this interview with Nigel Warburton for the Philosophy Bites podcast. Can understanding the biographical context of a philosopher and the type of person t...
David Edmonds on Wittgenstein's Poker
For this second special lockdown episode of Philosophy Bites, Nigel Warburton interviewed David Edmonds about his bestseller Wittgenstein's Poker, which he wrote with John Eidinow. This brilliant book is an exploration of an event that...
Melissa Lane on Plato and Totalitarianism
Was Plato's ideal state a totalitarian one? Karl Popper, thought so, and made his case in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Melissa Lane, author of Plato's Progeny discusses Popper's critique of Plato in this episode of Philosophy Bites....
David Edmonds on Trolley Problems
Is it ever morally acceptable to kill one person to save five? Most people think that it can be. But are we consistent in this? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Nigel Warburton interviews David Edmonds (co-creator of Philo...
Julian Baggini on Thought Experiments
Philosophers often use elaborate thought experiments in their writing. Are these anything more than rhetorical flourishes? Or do they reveal important aspects of the questions under discussion. Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers'...
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Russell read his non religious godfather’s autobiography, which led him to reject God. In the autobiography, the question” what caused God?” Was seen as a logical problem in Russel’s eyes. I do think that everything had a cause.
3. AJ Ayer’s Verification principle, stated in his 1963 book language, truth, and logic, was part of the movement known as logical positivism. Ayer’s said if sentences were not true by definition or if it was unverifiable than it was meaningless.
Delete4. Sartre stated that humans don’t have an essence. He said the waiter of the cafe he was in was in bad faith because he was so engrossed
With his job that he didn’t have any freedom. I think it is possible to avoid bad faith. I agree that we have have the free will to do whatever and feel whatever we want.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. John Stuart Mill’s autobiography led Russel to reject God. Russel previously believed in the First Cause Argument, the idea that the first cause of everything must be God. Mill asked in his autobiography, “What caused God?” and this led Russel to question his faith. He thought that even God having a cause was more logical than God simply coming into existence.
LHP 3. A.J. Ayer’s Verification Principle was an idea part of the logical positivism movement, a movement that celebrated scientific discoveries and achievements. To Ayer, unverifiability is equal to meaninglessness. He thought that if a question or statement could not be defined by logic or the senses, then investigating it is a waste of time.
LHP 5. When a student asked Sartre if he should defend his country in the Resistance or stay home to care for his mother, Sartre told him that the decision was up to him. Sartre thought that no matter what advice he gave the student, he would still have a decision to make. I think this is a logical answer; sometimes an unusual reply can help someone make decisions. If Sartre told the student to stay home, he still could have chosen to join the Resistance, and vice versa. No matter what advice we give each other, each individual still has a decision to make.
What you said about lh5 is very true. Sometimes we seek advice when we know what we want to choose deep down just to hear the input of others. To either solidify our own opinion or to get the opinions of those we trust. Still, the decision is ultimately ours, and it is still a decision to agree with someone else's.
Delete#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- John Stuart Mill was Russel's Godfather and was a massive inspiration for his philosophy. Russel struggled with the first cause argument, as he followed the line of logic in which "everything must have a cause, therefore God must be caused". I do not agree with Russel's perspective on the issue, because it is made with the assumption that God is limited to reality and therefore must have a cause. Everything that exists within reality, which is time, space, and matter, must have a cause. This is why the cause argument works in favor of God, as if nothing exists beyond matter and energy, then the universe should not be able to exist since evidence suggests time is not infinite. Since time is not infinite, something must transcend the concept of time, and by association matter and space. What other definition do we have for something that transcends time, matter, and space other than God?
LHP 3- A.J. Ayer's Verification Principle was a concept that supported the Logical Positivism movement, which suggested that if ideas could not be defined or empirically proven, they were not worth thinking about. This viewpoint, in my opinion, is blatantly wrong. It is near impossible for a person to base their life on things which only have empirical evidence, as I would even argue it is completely impossible. Part of the human experience is trusting in the viewpoints of other people. For example, when someone sells you food, you can not empirically prove that the food you are eating is not poisoned. You can be almost certain that the food is not poisoned, but that is not the same thing as empirical proof. The way humans operate is based on probability and evidence. People choose to trust what they believe to be most likely in a certain situation, and this belief is almost always a matter of probability, rather than empirical proof. To live in society, one must learn to investigate evidence and come to conclusions based on probability, rather than seeking a false empirical proof that can not exist as far as we understand.
LHP 7- Albert Camus illustrated his beliefs through the Greek myth of Sisyphus, where a man was cursed to push a rock up a mountain for the rest of his life, but still found happiness in what he was doing as the act of living and working in a life with no meaning was better to experience than death. I think Camus belief works in a Godless worldview, as without a innate purpose to humanity, nothing really matters, morals hold no weight, and everything that happens is the result of a cosmic accident. This is an immensely tough pill to swallow and can very easily lead to a life that feels meaningless. Finding meaning in a meaningless world can make it easier for a person to move through this worldview and remain somewhat happy. The freeing aspect of a meaningless world, is that the meaning of life revolves around pleasure. A person never has to subscribe and abstain from anything they desire, as no moral structure would supress the urges of people and would allow them to act freely in any circumstance. The security that is offered through belief in morality also comes with constrictions to freedom, where a persons desires for evil must be silenced for the good of others.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. When Bertrand read John Stewart Mill's autobiography it led him to reject God because he had previously believed that everything had a cause and God was simply the first link in the chain, but after being asked what caused God he realized that logically having a first cause makes it so everything has a cause is a false statement.
LHP 2-The barber shaving only people who don't shave themselves story is a logical paradox because in order to be true it must also be false. The sentence this sentence is false is also a paradox because if the sentence was false it would say it was true and if it were true that the sentence was false than the content of the sentence would be true.
LHP 3- Ayer's famous verification principle said that if you could not prove it via definition or via testing than a statement was useless. This idea led a movement call the logical positivism movement. Questions about metaphysics, god, and ethics were all under scrutiny and A.J Ayer came to the conclusion that you couldn't have a meaningful talk about these subjects because there are no facts to argue just feelings and guesses.
ho2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The young Bertrand read the autobiography of John Stewart Mill, who was his godfather.
2. A logical paradox, this sentence is false
3. The verification principle, logical positivism.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #1:
Russell believed that, if God didn't have a cause, that meant that it was possible for things to be cause-less, so the first-cause argument was not valid (Warburton 185). I would disagree with Russell on this. In my understanding, the point of the first cause argument is that everything in the universe has a cause, but God is the first cause precisely because He is not under the rules of the universe. God is the first cause because He (or other gods) is the only thing that we could conceive of that does not have to obey this rule that nothing can be cause-less.
LHP #2:
Paradox; False.
You could say that this is a problem with language, or you could say that it is simply a side effect. You could also interpret this as not language's inability to convey reality but reality's inability to conform to language. Maybe language is just too powerful of a tool for reality to completely be able to keep up with it. Just like we can speak about things that aren't real, we can also talk of things that don't make sense, because reality is just not big enough to encompass everything that could be expressed in language. Most likely, I think it is both. Language and reality are two separate circles in a Venn diagram. Some parts of reality can be described by language (where the two circles overlap), but some language reaches beyond any tangible reality, and some realities are too unique to be described by language.
LHP #3:
Verification; Logical Positivism
No, I don't believe that everything that is neither true by definition nor verifiable is meaningless. For example, if someone says "I appreciate you," this is not true by definition, because there is no reason that one MUST believe the other person appreciates them by any sort of definition. It is also not empirically verifiable, since you can never really get into someone else's consciousness and see if they genuinely are grateful for another person. No matter how much they act like they are, they could be lying. However, if someone says this, it still means a lot to most people, even if they cannot prove it to be true. Now, yes, you could say this is a subjective sort of meaning, but not necessarily. One could say that gratitude is an objective good, depending on their approach to "good" and "bad."
LHP #5:
Sartre said that the student should make his own free choice (Warburton 199). I think what Sartre was missing here is that the student had probably already tried that, and was struggling. Sartre may also be missing the fact that the student IS choosing. He is choosing to ask for advice.
Warburton, Nigel. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Yale University
Press, 30 Oct. 2012.
HWT-1: The Japanese sensitivity to nature and the seasons fosters a deep connection between people and the natural world. It promotes mindfulness and appreciation of impermanence, contrasting with more utilitarian relationships with nature seen in other cultures.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: Shinto's integration of aesthetics, morality, and religion offers a holistic worldview where beauty, ethics, and spirituality blend seamlessly. This contrasts with Western traditions, which tend to compartmentalize these aspects of life.
HWT-3: Thinking without concepts refers to intuitive or non-conceptual understanding, as seen in Zen Buddhism. It challenges Western philosophy's emphasis on reason and logic, offering a way to grasp reality more directly.
HWT-4: The enlightened Buddhist’s declaration of emptiness and impermanence is compelling for its challenge to Western individualism. Whether one agrees depends on their acceptance of Buddhist metaphysical ideas.
HWT-5: In some Eastern traditions, time is experienced more as a feeling, while Kant viewed it as a fundamental, conceptual structure of human cognition. Both perspectives provide valuable insights into the nature of time.
HWT-6: Hume’s "is/ought gap" highlights the distinction between facts and ethical prescriptions. Baggini finds this distinction important in Western moral philosophy, emphasizing the need for separate reasoning for ethical judgments.
HWT-7: Tea, especially in the Japanese tea ceremony, teaches mindfulness, simplicity, and attentiveness. It emphasizes humility and the beauty found in everyday rituals and small actions.
HWT-8: Wabi-sabi is a Japanese aesthetic that celebrates imperfection, impermanence, and simplicity. It contrasts with Western ideals of perfection and invites appreciation of life’s transient and flawed beauty.
Roman Phillips H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Young Bertrand Russell read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography which led Russell to reject God. Having first believed in the First Cause Argument, used by Thomas Aquinas and others, Russell reasoned with Mill's argument about "Who created God?" He recognized God had a cause rather than something existing without being caused by anything else. After rejecting God, Russell reasoned the world was logically made up of independent facts and knowledge was a direct result of experiencing those facts. Having regularly attended church since I was a baby, I do not agree with Russell's thoughts on religion.
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false." Russell recognized that language needs to be analyzed to bring outs its underlying shape. Russell was convinced that translating language into its precise terms was a critical component of making important advances in philosophy. Paradoxes are puzzling and reveal a problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality. Honestly, I have never given much thought about this because when studying the grammatical side of English, I learned paradoxes are contradictory statements and moved on down the list of literary terms. I have not really thought about this from a philosophical standpoint, but indeed, these sentences create problems to further ponder.
7. Albert Camus used the Greek myth of Sisyphus to illustrate human absurdity as he saw it. To better understand this movement of absurdism, it is important to realize Camus wrote this essay during the German invasion of France and he pondered how a just God could cause such destruction in Europe. Camus believed that Sisyphus did not have a problem rolling the rock up the hill for the gods, only to watch it roll back down - making him constantly repeat the process. Camus reasoned Sisyphus accepted the absurdity of this task and lived in the moment. Personally, I do not worry that someday I will embrace absurdity in work, relationships, or anything else. My mom constantly tells me that adulting is hard and I am slowly beginning to understand what she means.
Weiner
2. Cicero said that old age does not create new personality traits, but it amplifies other ones. I think this is inevitable because as you grow older, you don't necessarily embrace change. Perhaps, it is because your personal ideas have become stronger and you tend to defend them more readily.
FL
3. I do believe THE FORCE (from Star Wars) is connected to a spiritual movement - I am not sure fantasy is the right term even though Andersen's book is titled Fantasyland. I do believe it is based on the existence of God and the balance between good and evil. I also believe there are numerous ideas floating around out there about THE FORCE (pun intended).
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
Reading the autobiography of John Stewart Mill, led young Bertrand Russell to reject God.
LHP - #2
The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false."
LHP - #3
A.J. Ayer's Verification Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as Logical Positivism.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP#1 - Bertrand Russell read John Stuart Mill's autobiography and rejected god because of it. He tried to disprove the first cause argument because he asked the question what created god? He didn't like the idea of something coming into existence out of nothing. I sort of agree with him on this because as someone who wasn't religious growing up and loves science, this was something I could never wrap my head around.
LHP#2 - It's a logical paradox and this sentence is false. I think these highlight issues with language but I think we have a well enough understanding of English to know when parts of sentences are false and some parts are true.
LHP#7 - He compared the human life to the Greek myth of Sisyphus having to roll the boulder up to mountain for his entire life. I think it's an interesting take. Being brought into this world with the idea we can make our own decisions and never really know a greater meaning can seem like a punishment or a constant struggle when you can't find answers. And I agree with the fact that being in a situation of pushing a boulder up the mountain for all of life is better than not living because if you go nowhere and make no progress, life is filled with opportunities and choices that can be made everyday. I worry that one day I'll feel that way at work, but I'll just have to get through it like Sisyphus.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Russell rejected God in part motivated by reading John Stuart Mill's biography. He saw a problem in the First Cause argument believing that for God to not have a cause did not make sense and he thought it was much more logical that God have a cause. I don't agree with him because really what reason does the universe have for existing? Did it just happen? Probably not, but I think that it is much easier to think of the answer to the First Cause Argument as something akin to to dividing by zero. Not possible to answer.
3: Ayers verification principle was part of the logical positivism. Personally I don't think that unverifiable statements are meaningless, after all we entertain some seemingly meaningless things, however they can still provide inspiration. That is why I don't think anything unverifiable is also meaningless.
5: Sartre's advice was that the student was free and they could choose for themselves. This is probably the best answer because humans have free will and the choice they make is decided on what they feel is most important and whether any risk is worth taking. While you can suggest what to do the choice still has to be made, and that comes down to the person making the choice (unless they're being forced under circumstances.)
H03
ReplyDelete(Personal comment)
What to make of the things I don't like doing?
Right now I have several projects in other classes that I am stressed about, which is an unpleasant feeling. I'd prefer to never be stressed about anything, but that's probably wishful thinking, there's always going to be things I'm concerned about. I guess you could argue that stress has a function, it brings your attention to something and (theoretically) motivates you to do something about it. But why is it that the pressure of deadlines and class expectations often push me to do nothing? The things I'm most worried about are also often the ones I procrastinate the most.
There's for sure a psychological explanation for that, but I think what I'm getting at it is that often I feel like the bad faith waiter described by Satre. Right now I am student and what I do is go to class and do homework and get good grades and maybe some other things, time and energy permitting. But why must I do those things? While I think describing myself as a student is accurate by definition (as in, I am currently enrolled at an educational institution) it doesn't feel accurate to my essence as a person. Gun to my head, if someone were to ask me to pick 20, 30, maybe even 40 words to describe myself, I don't know that 'student' would be amongst them, it just doesn't seem particular important to my identity. Despite this, student-ly activities take up the vast majority of my day-to-day life and demand persistent focus. That seems non-ideal.
To go back to my initial question, I suppose you could look at it from a Marcus Aurelius-esque perspective. Why do I do both the work I enjoy and the work I don't? Because I think (or at least thought at one point) that it would 'pay-off.' Some learning may be unpleasant now, but will sum-up to an ultimately pleasant or interesting future.
This leaves me feeling conflicted, though. On one hand, having goals or plans for the future is probably good, but on the other I don't want to live my life always trying to look three moves ahead. I'm hesitant to adopt Beauvoir's beaver-ish busyness because I fall into that thing Eric Weiner calls, "sleepwalk[ing] through life." It is difficult for me to be busy and philosophically aware at the same time, it's one or the other, bad faith persona or stopping and smelling the roses for eternity.
So what's the answer, then? I don't really know, but my best guess is to look at things like a utilitarian. There are things I want to do now, things I would like to do later, and in between those there are actions. Some of those actions may be fulfilling, others more of a schlep. I think the answer lies in finding some degree of balance satisfying to me, like this:
Is what I'm doing now enjoyable and progressing towards something greater?
If so, great, keep doing it.
If it isn't progressing towards something greater, is that idleness okay for right now?
If so, great, if not, do something else.
If what I'm doing is un-enjoyable but progressing towards something greater, is what I'm progressing towards worth the present uncomfortability?
If so, keep going, if not, stop.
Finally, if my present activity is both not enjoyable and not progressing towards anything meaningful, then I don't see any reason to continue subjecting myself to it.
This is my hypothetical flow-chart for evaluating the value of what I'm presently doing. Following it, I believe that those projects I'm stressed and putting off are worth doing. They may teach me something new that I never thought about, and their completion is required to continue progressing in my classes, which are required to continue progressing in my degree, which is something I want to pursue for my own edification and for the potential opportunities that may come-up through the process of obtaining it.
#H02-
ReplyDeleteWeiner-1
An "unrealizable" refers to something that cannot be achieved or made to happen. It's often used to describe impossible goals, dreams, or expectations due to various constraints or limitations.
I can imagine myself at the age of 60 or above, where I might still live without fulfilling some of my incomplete wishes. For instance, becoming the President of my nation might be a very unrealistic and irrational wish that I have, which might be unfulfilled.
Weiner-2
In his essay "On Old Age," Cicero suggested that old age doesn't change a person's personality. Instead, he believed that a person's character traits, whether reasonable, good-tempered, gracious, or mean-spirited and irritable, will determine how they experience aging. Essentially, he argued that old age reveals a person's true character.
I personally do not think that old age reveals a person's true character because there are many psychological disorders associated with old age, which we mostly cannot compare and contrast with a person's true colors.
I think that in old age, people mostly blame others, act babyish, and are short-temperate. So, it's not right to judge people in their old age.
Weiner-4
The "balance shift" in aging typically refers to the physical, cognitive, and emotional changes over time. Physically, we might notice changes in strength, coordination, and balance. Cognitively, there might be shifts in memory, processing speed, and problem-solving abilities. Emotionally, people often experience a change in priorities and perspectives, valuing different things than they did in their younger years.
I was really blown away by a meme that I saw recently. It says that childhood is when we have time and energy but no money, adulthood is when we have money and energy but no time and old age is when we have time and money but no energy.
For me, the shift does not begin after a specific age but rather happens every day because we grow every day, learn new things, and realize our mistakes every day. We learn to see the same thing from a completely different perspective daily.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
Gavin Cooley H2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Reading Mill's autobiography led him to reject God. In it, Mill had asked the question "what caused God," which led Russell to rethink hi position on Christianity. I disagree with this statement. God was the first cause, and before that there was always God. There was never a point where God wasn't there.
3. Ayer's Verification Principle was part of the Logical Positivism movement. Unverifiability is the same thing as meaninglessness. If a statement can't be verified, then it is not relevant to reality and is thus meaningless.
7. Camus uses the myth of Sisyphus to illustrate human absurdity. I feel like that occasionally. The dullness and defeat in repeating the same task over and over again to seemingly no ends can start to take a toll on me. I'm really afraid of experiencing this in life. I don't want to burn out. That's why, like Sisyphus, I try to find meaning in things and be content with my circumstances.
Section: H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q5: A student had asked Satre’s advice. He could either leave and fight for his country or stay and take care of his mother. Both choices could lead to failure or success. The student wanted his help with clarity or words of wisdom for his decision. Satre did not offer any helpful advice besides the idea of freedom. He tells the student he is free to choose for himself. The responsibility must weigh heavily, and the decision will impact the rest of the student's life. This decision is far too great for Satre to sway his opinion either way. In reality he is the only person that can truly make such a choice. I don't believe Satre should have said anything else.
LHP Q6: Simone de Beauvoir claims that women are not born women. I did not conclude she is talking physically rather than comprehensively. Becoming a woman is a thought process. That is what Beauvoir is discussing here. The thought process that is attached with understanding what a woman truly is. Beauvoir idea is claiming that women begin life with a male perspective of what a woman is. It is not until the development that a woman truly understands the female perspective of what she is.
LHP Q7: Albert Camus’ reference to the Greek mythology of the rock and hill is interesting. Carrying a rock up the hill to then allow to roll down to then find out the rock is right back to where it started. This analogy to human life is insightful. Sometimes when I take a step back and see how far in life, I have traveled I spiral to then remember all the conversations with older life and how fast they claim life goes. As a child I disregarded this aspect since life felt so slow. An hour to a child is 10 minutes to a developed mind. It is frightening how short we really get here on earth. Will we one day look back and think all of this schooling, hard work, and dedication was all for nothing? Should we be spending our life gaining exciting memories instead? This philosophy does peak into my brain from time to time to then be shut down by my perseverance to succeed and become something of myself.
Annlee Head H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1: Reading Mill’s autobiography led young Russell to reject God; Russell saw the logical problem for the First Cause argument and pushed that because one thing doesn’t have a cause, that invalidates the argument that everything has a cause.
LHP 2: Paradoxes are the contradictions that are both true and false. These examples don’t show a deep problem with language and its ability to portray reality, but otherwise prove that lapses in langage can and do exist. I view paradoxes as more of the ability for the mind to comprehend these situations, and it shows how complex the mind and thinking can be.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Reading the autobiography of John Stuart Mill led Bertrand Russell to reject God. Mill did not believe in any religions at the time and in fact made his own religion but one that did not support any supernatural being. His religion was called Religion of Humanity. It did not believe in an afterlife and just focused on the improving of the life we are currently living. Reading this type of work led Bertrand in the future to reject the idea of a God.
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false." These examples do show a problem with language and how accurately portrays reality. Language continues to become more and more complex. I think while these examples do show problems, it also shows how we use our language. Yes, there are instances where paradoxes happen, but there are other times when using these paradoxes allow us to truly feel like we are saying how we feel, think etc... The idea that language is more complex may cause problems, but we also benefit from it as we can use these paradoxes to relay information and our ideas that we store in our heads that are hard to put into words.
Discussion Question
If you become deeply involved in your work (or seem to, like Sartre's Waiter) are you in "bad faith"? I think there is a limit to how much we should be involved in anything we do. There has to be a balance between all that we do and yes, we can prioritize certain things are certain times, but to become deeply involved in a job is to live in bad faith. Spending your time stuck in a social role where we may forget how free we are, or even parts of our identity doesn't seem pleasant to me whatsoever. Everyone should be aware and not allow our minds to limit how much we think, which can be caused if we are deeply involved in work. But I also do believe that Sartre took away all of the realities of this situation. Some people have to work and that's their only way of surviving. Some people feel a calling and love what they do as a job. There are a ton a factors that could lead to someone to be deeply invested in their job So; while yes being deeply invested into our work can cause some restraints in our brain and our way of thinking, I don't blame the people who are and I think there are ways to restrict these restraints and also be devoted to a job.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - The autobiography of John Stuart Mill caused a young Bertrand Russell to reject God.
#2 - The idea of a barber who shaves all but doesn't shave himself is a logical paradox. Another example of the same thing is the statement "This sentence is false." I do not think these examples demonstrate s deep problem with language or its ability to portray reality accurately. I just think it is a clever manipulation of language that encourages conversation and thought.
#3 - A.J. Ayer's Verification principle, stated in his 1936 book "Language, Truth and Logic" was part of the movement known as the Logical Positivism Movement. I do not believe that unverifiability is the same thing as meaninglessness because while the statement may not be verifiable does not mean it has no worth to many.
1. Bertrand Russel refused the "First Cause Argument" or the idea that there is an origin for everything in the universe to be found in Christian belief. While it is very difficult to argue about something that no one could have or will ever see, I share Russel's sentiment about the First Cause. There is simply no way to know for sure how the universe came to be. We can give it any reason we find the most agreeable, but I find the idea that we don't have enough information the most believable. Sometimes "I don't know" is the best answer.
ReplyDelete2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false." While these questions certainly display a problem with the English language’s convention, I do not give much credence to paradoxes that have no practical purpose. It is just more work than I am willing to put into a puzzle with no real benefit (akin to James’ argument regarding the squirrel and hunter)
5. Sartre told his student that “he was free and he should choose for himself.” I don’t think it is essentially terrible advice, but it is inherently vague. I think it is actually beneficial to leave the idea vague as to create a person’s own purpose for themselves.
Quinny VanDerSlik H03
ReplyDeleteLHP 1-
When Bertrand Russell read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, he rejected God. Beforehand, he believed in the First Cause Argument Thomas Aquinas and others used. However, Mill asked the question, “What caused God” and this one question led Russell to see the logical problem with the First Cause argument. By saying that God does not have a cause, they contradict their statement, “Everything has a cause,” allowing one thing to get away with it, which causes a loophole and breaks down the whole argument. For Russell, it made more sense for God to have a cause than for something to exist without a cause. While I do not have much opinion on religion and God, I agree with Russell. Allowing flaws in their argument debunks their whole theory per se. The argument is not foolproof, and the flaw the Mill presented to Russell allowed him to see this.
LHP 2-
The idea of a barber who shaves all who don’t shave themselves is a logical paradox, “This sentence is false” is also a paradox. By saying that the sentence is false, what it states is confirmed, a contradiction. Using specific language makes it easy to create contradictions; the sentences and examples provided to show a paradox prove just how deep a problem language can have when trying to portray reality. No matter what one does, there will always be instances where language fails us, whether due to misunderstandings in meanings, phrases, or poor word choice. The fact that we have a word for these types of contradictions that are both accurate and false, where something contradicts itself, shows how deep and familiar the problem can be.
LHP 7-
Albert Camus used the Greek myth of Sisyphus to illustrate human absurdity as he saw it. He believed we should see that Sisyphus was happy, as he had a point; something made his life worth living, rolling the rock up the mountain. The struggle of Sisyphus's punishment was preferable to death for him. So, until we give life meaning with our choices, it is meaningless, and once we die, it will again lose all the meaning we previously gave it. I will always worry if what I am doing has meaning, as I believe life can be meaningless in certain aspects; it's filler for other parts of our lives or others. However, I do not think everything about life is pointless, so while death can be preferable in certain situations, there are still possibilities of better options after that point; there can be meaning in those moments that later make you happy to have lived.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false." These examples of paradoxes in logic are not indicative of of "problem" with language in my opinion. Instead, I believe these to be quirks of language that actually open windows for deeper thought of logic and reality. If all official languages were predicated on being logically infallible, we would lake the ability to verbally pontificate logical contradictions like the barber problem because they wouldn't e possible. There is value in exploring the grey areas of logic because it reminds us of how nuanced our reality is. Not many things have simple answers, and we need language to explore that.
3. A.J. Ayer's Verification Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as logical positivism. Unverifiability does not equate to meaninglessness directly. Of course, if something is unverifiable, it can't be stated with confidence and its verisimilitude should likely not be trusted. However, that does not entirely invalidate the pursuit or study of those unverifiable ideas. Religion, for example is - as we know it - empirically unverifiable. I don't think anyone would be wrong to disregard it as senseless, hopeful blather; however, countless anecdotes of religious discipline serving to turn people's lives around for the better can testify to its value. Despite the fact that this does not universally apply, that percent of people who were transformed by religious practice still find value in it. So, we can't entirely dismiss something as meaningless because of its uncertainty because there are still likely things to be studied and observed such as resulting phenomena or morals.
6. De Beauvoir believed that women accept an identity forced upon them by men. To be a "woman" meant to submit to the paradigm and accept the man's idea of what a woman is, but if a woman were to reject this identity, she could be what she chose to be. The are, of course, some essential identities decided at birth. For example, you are born with a phenotypical sex or race; however, a person's character - what truly defines their identity - is developed in life. Of course, there are physical factors, such as hormones, that may affect your character. But most of what defines us is based on a greater understanding of ourself that we develop by experiencing life. Things like your flaws, ideals, even gender expression are all more personal that what is simply assigned to you at birth.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. When Russell discovered the autobiography written by his godfather who was also a renowned modern philosopher, John Stewart Mill, he came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that God was in fact “real.” The logical problem he saw with the First Cause Argument is the question “what caused God?” Because Russell believed that is there was one thing that didn’t have a cause, then it can’t be true that everything has a cause.
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don’t shave themselves is a logical paradox. Along with statements like “this sentence is…” it shows a deeper rooted problem with both language and the ability to accurately portray our reality.