Wittgenstein, Arendt, Popper & Kuhn, Foot & Thomson-LH 34-37. REC: FL 27-28, WGU Introduction-p.35, Weiner ch4, FL ch15
- ...QE Part VI - Does life have meaning? - #H1 Amelie; #H2 Liam Conran
- Ludwig Wittgenstein - #H1 John Wise
- Hannah Arendt - #H2 Gino Palilla; #H3 Talan Lynch
- Something from FL 27-28 - #H1 Kayla
- Something in QE Part VII - Why can't we all just get along? - #H1 Ally Brumfield; #H2 Samwaeil Boules
1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
5. Both Popper and Kuhn changed the way people understood science. What did Popper say about the method for checking a hypothesis and what name did Kuhn give to major breaks in the history of science?
6. What is the Law of Double Effect? Many people who disagree with its principle--and with Thomson's violinist thought experiment--think that whatever our intentions we shouldn't play who?
WGU
1. Being grown-up is widely considered to be what? Do you agree?
2. Is Leibniz's optimism more likely to appeal to a small child? Why? 3
3. What was Kant's definition of Enlightenment? 5
4. What do Susan Neiman's children say she can't understand? Do you agree? 9
5. Why is judgement important? Is this a surprising thing to hear from a Kantian? 11
6. Being a grown-up comes to what? 12
7. What did Paul Goodman say about growing up? Are his observations are still relevant? 19
8. Why (in Neiman's opinion) should you not think this is the best time of your life, if you're a young college student? 20
9. What did Samoan children have that ours lack? 27 Can we fix that?
10. What is philosophy's greatest task? 31
Weiner ch4
- Thoreau was among the first western philosophers to do what? How does this make him like Marcus Aurelius? Is that good, philosophically?
- What's the difference between wilderness and wildness? Is it good to be wild, in the Thoreauvian sense? Are you wild that way?
- What was Thoreau's view of the rationalism-empiricism debate, and the reliability of the senses? Do you agree with him?
- What's another way Thoreau is like Marcus, and how is he like Socrates? Do you "vacillate" too?
- Why did Thoreau say he went to live at Walden? Do you think such an experience would expand your sense of what it means to live and/or "see"?
FL
- What did Henry David Thoreau do in 1844, at age 27? What American fantasy does Andersen say this epitomized? Do you agree? Do most Americans make an effort to live in harmony with nature? Do you?
Discussion Questions:
- Was Wittgenstein's main message in the Tractatus correct? 203
- What are some of the "language games" you play? (What are some different things you use language for?) 204
- Can there be a "private language"? 206
- "Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
- Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
- Is "the banality of evil" an apt phrase for our time? 212
- Was Popper right about falsifiability? 218
- Was Kuhn right about paradigms? 220
- How would you respond it you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
FL
- Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
- What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245
- What do you think of Fantasy sports? 248
- Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure? 250
- Is pornography "normal"? 251
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Wittgenstein's Tractatus states that the most significant questions about ethics and religion cannot be answered by our level of understanding. Wittgenstein argued that these questions should not even be debated about if we cannot talk about them meaningfully.
LHP 3. Adolf Eichmann was an administrator in the Nazi army. He was responsible for transporting Jewish people to concentration camps, specifically the railway system. After moving to Argentina to escape his treacherous crimes, he was caught by members of Mossad and stood trial. In the trial, philosopher Hannah Ardent learned that Eichmann was “an unthinking man”. Eichmann didn’t seem to think critically about his actions because he was persuaded into believing that what he did was right.
LHP 6. The Law of Double Effect is an ethical principle that states that an action can be moral if it has good intentions, even if the outcome is bad. Those that disagree with this principle think that we shouldn’t play God; only the consequences of our actions should be judged, not our intentions.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 3- Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi officer who ran the train system for transporting European Jews to concentration camps in Poland. Although he did not actively, physically kill anyone, he was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jewish people in transition to and at the concentration camps. Hannah Arendt was a philosopher during the mid-1900s who escaped Germany during WW2 and reported on Eichmann's trial when he was finally captured in the '60s. She learned that, instead of being an evil monster of a person, Eichmann was just an "unthinking man". He followed orders and didn't let himself think about the consequences of his actions.
4- The phrase that Hannah Arendt used to describe Eichmann's unthinking nature was "the banality of evil". She didn't consider him a devil, or a monster, or anything inhuman, because she thought his evilness had to do with his humanity. All he wanted to do was follow orders and prove he was a good worker, and that obedience led to millions of deaths. He did not consider anyone other than himself for the entire time he was working for the Nazis, which is a privilege that only "bureaucrats, or office managers" can have. He was high enough up on the food chain that he was "allowed" to be selfish. His work didn't impact him personally. This is most of the evil in the world right now, I believe. Wealthy people, bureaucrats, politicians, celebrities, who are so high status that they feel removed from the common citizen. They feel like their actions don't have consequences.
6- The Law of Double Effect is the belief that intention is the basis for whether an action is acceptable or not, regardless of the consequences. Self-defense resulting in the death of someone is acceptable, because your intentions were not to kill the person but to defend yourself. On the other hand, deliberately searching out and murdering someone you think is going to hurt you is not acceptable, because your intentions were harmful. This principle is used to explain why two famous thought experiments feel different, even though they result in the same outcome. Pulling a level to send a trolley onto a different track and pushing a man to his death are very different actions, even though in both scenarios one person dies and five are saved. The more involved we feel in a morally compromised situation, the less we'll tend to feel like it's acceptable to act. People who entirely disagree with this Law describe it as "playing God", and think we shouldn't act in ANY of the situations.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #1:
The main point of Wittgenstein's Tractatus was that if we can't meaningfully discuss questions about ethics and religion, we may as well not talk about it at all (Warburton 203). To me, this depends on what is considered meaningful. Just because we cannot know the answers for sure does not, in my opinion, mean that the questions are not meaningful. Even when the answers have some degree of uncertainty, they can still suggest to us what we should take the answers to be, as, most of the time, the answers to questions like these are indeed uncertain.
WGU #1:
Essentially, being grown-up has become synonymous with giving up on everything you once hoped for as a child (Neiman 1). I think this is a narrow view of getting older. We do in fact tend to change many of our beliefs and goals as we grow up, but that can be a good thing. It can mean we are more complete people than we were before. We get to navigate real life, not just the unrealistic views of it that we may have had as children.
WGU #4:
Neiman's children claim that she cannot understand the harsh realities of today's cultural landscape, and that this is because Neiman does not use social media (Neiman 9). I agree and disagree with this. While it may be true that she will not completely grasp the effect of social media in particular on culture, that doesn't mean that she is completely removed from it. She still lives in the world and experiences all of the many other facets of life influenced by current cultural properties.
WGU #8:
Neiman suggests that, since young people often don't feel good about their lives while they are young, they will only be afraid of what's to come if they are told they are supposed to be living the best years of their lives. I think that this is a good observation. Also, this mindset may prescribe values to young people, essentially teaching them that "good" and "young" are the same.
Neiman, Susan. WHY GROW UP?: SUBVERSIVE THOUGHTS FOR AN
INFANTILE AGE. Revised ed., Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 26 Apr.
2016.
Warburton, Nigel. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Yale University
Press, 30 Oct. 2012.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #1 - Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus' main meaning was that some of the most important questions we have on ethics and religion are too hard for us to understand and that we can't talk meaningfully about them so we shouldnt comment on them at all.
LHP#2 - By "language games" Wittgenstein meant that we have many ways that we use language and that we only know the meaning of words based on what we think it is as if we were following hidden rules like in a game.
LHP#4 - Arendt called Eichmann "the banality of evil"
WGU-1: Being grown-up is widely considered to be associated with responsibility, independence, and the ability to make responsible decisions. This often includes societal expectations about work, family, and maturity. I agree that being grown up comes with responsibilities and work as well as maturity.
ReplyDeleteWGU-2: Yes, Leibniz's optimism appeals to a small child because it emphasizes a positive view of the world, suggesting that everything happens for a reason and that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Children often possess a sense of wonder and innocence that aligns with such optimistic views.
WGU-3: Kant defined Enlightenment as the process of individuals emerging from self-imposed immaturity. He emphasized the importance of reason and the ability to think independently without relying on the guidance of others.
WGU-4: Susan Neiman's children say she can't understand their perspective on life and the complexities they face as young people. They express that adults often fail to grasp the challenges and realities of growing up. I do not agree with that statement because I think their perspective can actually be understood and perceived since the adult has lived through this phase of her life already, being able to directly feel what her children are feeling.
WGU-5: Judgment is important because it enables people to evaluate situations, make decisions, and act responsibly. It is not surprising to hear this from a Kantian, as Kant emphasized the role of reason and critical thinking in moral philosophy, arguing that good judgment is essential for moral action.
WGU-6: Being a grown-up comes to the realization of one’s own independence, the ability to go through life with responsibility, and the understanding that adulthood involves continuous growth and adaptation.
#H03
ReplyDeleteLHP-1
The main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus is that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings in logic and language. Almost like a insect stuck inside of a glass bottle.
LHP-3
Adolf Eichmann was the train runner responsible for getting the Jewish people to concentration camps for mass extermination. Arendt learned that he was a normal guy who convinced himself what he was doing was his job. He choose to be ignorant and not necessarily think about his actions which should still be held accountable.
LHP-6
The law of double effect is that predictable bad side effects of an action with a good intention can be acceptable, but deliberate harm is not. On the other hand, there are people who see it that people should not try to play God or intervene at all when faced with situation such as the train scenario. Hopefully, no one ever has to make this decision in their own life.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Wittgenstein's Tractatus is a book about the misunderstanding of language in philosophy. Wittgenstein believed that one of the greatest stumbling blocks for philosophers was language, as they tended to develop problems through language, where true problems did not actually exist. I agree with Wittgenstein completely on this issue, as an example of what he is talking about can be found in theological paradoxes, where some paradoxes only exist due to the limitations of language, rather than truly being paradoxes of reality itself.
LHP 3- Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who was responsible for creating the train routes used to bring Jews to concentration camps. Arendt learned that Eichmann was quite an ordinary man, and was not an evil demon like creature that many people expected him to be. Eichmann's evils, supposedly, was due to his ignorance. He was a man who was raised to never question authority, and simply took opportunities and followed orders whenever they were presented to him. Arendt noted his similarities to the common American individual, as people who are indirectly linked with an evil action often find themselves innocent of any wrong doing. The mindset of Eichmann should be something that is strongly discouraged in modern society, as people should understand the dangers of blindly following orders and taking opportunities, without realizing the consequences of what these things can bring about.
LHP 6- The Law of Double Effect is the belief that multiple complex moral solutions can be "right" without being "wrong". Many people refute this belief by saying "people should not play God". I disagree with this statement, as I do not believe people who make complex moral decisions are "playing God". A counter to this statement can be made in the analogy that the Allies fighting against the Nazi's in World War 2 was an act of "playing God" because they were attempting to stop something they deemed "immoral". Obviously the Allies were not "playing God", rather they saw a grave immoral action happening in the world and unified together to stop that immoral action. The same thing can be applied to the Law of Double Effect, just because an issue is morally complex, doesn't make it wrong to seek an answer to the complex situation. It is important to note that the more complex a moral issue is, the harder it is to understand a true moral solution. Due to this, I believe either decision one makes in the train situation is neither moral or immoral, as the complexity of the situation is almost unsolvable due to the limitations of the human mind.
[EXTERNAL] Re: Philosphy
ReplyDeleteYou
Mon 10/21/2024 12:41 PM
LHP 3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial? Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi officer who organized the transportation of Jewish people to their deaths. He fled to Argentina, but was later captured and brought to Israel for trial.
Lisa Phillips
Roman Phillips
LHP
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi officer who organized the transportation of Jewish people to their deaths. For years, Eichmann's job was to send people to their deaths. After the war ended, Eichmann fled to Argentina, but was later captured and brought to Israel for trial. At his trial philosopher Hannah Arendt learned he was not a monster, but someone who failed to oppose or question the higher authority and just continued to go about his job. Arendt believed Eichmann's sincerity when he claimed he was just doing his job and obeying the law.
4. Arendt used the phrase " the banality of evil" to describe Eichmann. She believed Eichmann's evilness to be common of a bureaucrat, of an office manager, not the devil.
WGU
6. Being a grown-up according to Kant comes down more of a matter of courage than knowledge. All of the information in the world does not compare to the instinct to use your own judgement. Growing up requires confronting the gap in between the two and not give up on either.
SE
2. Wilderness exists out there, while wildness resides within us. It is good to be wild in the Thoreauvian sense because wildness suggests being strong and willful. I believe I carry the wildness gene because I can be very determined when I want to achieve personal goals.
FL
In 1844 at the age of 27, Henry David Thoreau perceived a high concept plan for a project that epitomized the pastoral fantasy that American suburbanites and hippies and county-home owners have reenacted ever since. On a wooded lot owned by Emerson, Henry built a one-room cabin and moved in on July 4 - and imagined he was an American hinterlander, rustic, and self reliant, fully communing with nature, pure and virtuous. I do not agree with Andersen's belief that this epitomizes all Americans. It is nice to think most Americans want to live in harmony with nature, but I don't believe it as evidenced by the litter found everywhere. Better yet, look at the housing developments that have taken over the landscape. Most wildlife has nowhere to go. I can drive you through my neighborhood at dusk and find numerous deer. I try to live in harmony with nature when possible. I love to be outdoors and always try to follow the rules of Leave No Trace.
Annlee Head, H02
ReplyDeleteLHP1: The main message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus was that the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond our understanding. Wittgenstein believed that if we can’t talk meaningfully about them, we should stay silent.
LHP2: The later Wittgenstein meant that there are different activities we perform while using words when he spoke about “language games,” and that there are many different things that we use language for. He thought that the way to solve philosophical problems was to “remove the cork and let the fly out,” showing that the philosopher had been asking the wrong questions or had been misled by their language.
LHP3: Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi administrator who was in charge of transporting the Jews of Europe to Poland concentration camps. Although he never was on the scene at any of these transportations, his actions in Germany resulted in millions of people dying. At his trial, Arendt learned that he didn’t realize any of the terrible actions he did because of where he was located, and that he allowed Nazi views to affect anything that he did.
W03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The Tractatus's main message is that the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond our limits of understanding, and that if we do not have something meaningful to say about such topics, we should stay silent.
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi admin, who sent many jews to their deaths. What Ardent learned about him was that Adolf was an "unthinking man", one that did as he was told and did not ask questions.
4. Ardent used the phrase, "the banality of evil" to describe Adolf's ordinaries. Banal refers to something common or unoriginal.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The main message of Wittgensteins Tractates is the most important questions about ethics and religion are beyond our limits of understanding. If we can not say anything meaningful then we should stay silent.
3. Adolf Eichmann was apart of the Nazi administration, who was in charge of transporting Jews to different camps ultimately leading to their death. Arendt concluded that he was more of a follower than a leader. He was an unthinking man, he believed what he was told was right because it was law.
4. Arendt described him as boring by using the words " the banality of evil." She said he was evil like an office manager but not like the devil.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1) In Wittgenstein's first book, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, his main message was that the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding and that if we can not talk meaningfully about them, then we should just stay silent. Wittgenstein's book read more like poetry, in short numbered sections, and also included an interesting central theme of 'bewitchment by language'.
3) Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi in charge of transporting the Jews of Europe to concentration camps in Poland, including Auschwitz, which was part of Adolf Hitler's 'Final Solution' plan to kill all Jews. He was heavily involved in organizing the railway system that allowed the policy for future systematic killing. Hannah Arendt learned about him during his trial that he was not the evil sadist that she expected to find but was far more common but equally as dangerous. He was an unthinking man. He was a product of a system that had somehow prevented him from thinking critically about his own actions and the results they produced for real people.
4) Ardent used the words 'the banality of evil' to describe what she saw in Eichmann. If something is 'banal' it is common, boring, and unoriginal.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Wittgenstein's message was that the most important messages are about ethics and religion are far beyond our understanding and since we can' talk about it meaningfully we should remain silent on them.
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi that helped to organize the rail system that allowed the Holocaust to happen by transporting Jews to the concentration camps. Ardent realized that he was not a particularly evil (at least by Nazi standards), but did not think for himself and carried out orders that were vile.
4. Ardent called it the banality of evil since it was ordinary evil that came in a manner similar to a bureaucrat or an office manager rather than directly from the devil himself.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP #1: In Ludwig Wittgenstein's book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the main message was concerned with how the crucial questions about ethics and religion are beyond the limits of our understanding. Additionally, he believed that if we could not compose meaningful thoughts about them, we should not speak on them. I agree with this to an extent. It is true that the most important questions to ponder extend beyond humanity's comprehension, but also discourse of all levels should be valued as "meaningful" thoughts may be subjective.
LHP #3: Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi in charge of transporting Jews and although he did not have first-hand responsibility in their mass murder, he did organize the structure that enabled it. Especially with his role in movement of Jews to Auschwitz as part of Hitler's "final solution" to complete his genocidal agenda. Hannah Arendt learned from Eichmann's trial that he was not a necessarily evil man, but an unthinking man. He was a follower who was told what was right and followed without questioning. This is a concept that is not unfamiliar from a small local scale to a large world matter. Individuals will follow any orders because the system constructed around them has convinced them that is how it is supposed to be.
LHP #4: Arendt's phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness was "the banality of evil". What she meant by this was that his type of evil was boring like a corporate manager, not like a devil. He wasn't fueled by the hatred of the Jews, Eichmann was simply a cog in the machine who never questioned what his actions were really contributing to.
H01
ReplyDelete1. The main message of Tractatus was that the most important questions about religion and ethics were beyond the realm of understanding for humans, and if humans are unable of understanding these topics then they should stay silent.
2. Wittgenstein's 'language games' were used to show the different nuances that languages can have on certain questions. This was to show that there are no direct translations to something in any given language because the meaning will always vary based on that language.
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi admin, and he sent many jews to their deaths. Ardent believed that Adolf was an "unthinking man" that only listened to orders and never asked questions.
H1
ReplyDeleteFL1- Wrestling is so popular because people enjoy the "fake con" of the sport. Due to the intertwining of real and fake, people can immerse themselves in the fantasy of this "sport". It is entertaining to view this combination between staged and authentic.
FL2- Adults dressing up tells us that people are attempting to avoid their adult responsibilities and lives. They are using these fake characters and costumes to play pretend for however long they have the mask on.
FL3- I believe pornography has become normal, but I do not think it is at all. It gives fake expectations and unrealistic depictions of sex. It causes a multitude of issues in our society.
Discussion Questions
ReplyDelete226. If I woke up with a violinist plugged into my kidneys I would freak out. I don't think this is the best analogy for an unwanted pregnancy. Personally, I would use a parasite as an analogy, even though it sounds kind of bad it makes sense to me in the sense that there is an unwanted thing inside of you living off of your blood and nutrients.
FL
I think staged pro wrestling is so popular the same reason "reality" TV is so popular. I think it's because it's so dramatized that it's good entertainment.
Pornography as a concept has become normalized in our country, but the content of it is usually not normal or realistic. I think it's so popular for the same reason as staged TV.
H1
DeleteH02
ReplyDeleteWGU
1. Being grown up means limiting yourself and accepting your fate as you watch your hopes and dreams flutter past you. I don't agree with this at all. I think as a society we have demonized aging and the idea of becoming an adult. We are thrown responsibilities and given tasks in order to make us prepared, but still we are young. You have only lived 18 years before you are deemed as an adult and that is not a long time. We are so new to adulting and the only thing we learn is how to deal with things, but there is still hope, dreams, and immaturity that fills the adult soul; no one should forget that is apart of them.
2. Kants definition of enlightenment is defined as a reason's emancipation from its self-incurred immaturity. The self incurred immaturity is chosen for our own selfish reasons or feelings, and once someone is emancipated from that, enlightenment can be achieved.
4. Nieman's children says she cannot understand the abysmal nature of contemporary culture since she doesn't have social media, but I don't agree with what her children say. I think anyone can view a monster when you see one, and that is what modern contemporary culture is. You can tell that it can consume people and their everyday thoughts and ideas. I don't think you need social media to see how absurd it truly is.
#H02
ReplyDeleteWeiner-1
Thoreau was among the first Western philosophers to advocate for living a life of deliberate simplicity and deep contemplation, much like Marcus Aurelius. Both philosophers emphasized the importance of introspection and aligning one’s life with higher principles. Thoreau’s retreat to Walden Pond to live simply and reflect on life’s essentials mirrors Marcus Aurelius’s Stoic practice of self-examination and focusing on virtue. Philosophically, this approach is valuable as it encourages individuals to seek inner peace and clarity, fostering a life of purpose and integrity. In “The Socrates Express,” Eric Weiner highlights how these practices can lead to a more meaningful and examined life, suggesting that such philosophical pursuits are not only good but essential for personal growth and understanding.
Weiner-2
In Thoreau’s philosophy, “wilderness” refers to untouched, natural landscapes, while “wildness” is more about an inner state of being, an attitude of freedom and spontaneity. Thoreau believed that embracing wildness was essential for personal and spiritual growth, as it allowed individuals to connect deeply with nature and their true selves. This wildness is not about chaos but about living authentically and freely beyond societal constraints. Philosophically, this is beneficial because it fosters a deeper understanding of oneself and the world.
As for me, I embody the spirit of wildness in my adaptability and openness to new ideas, always ready to explore and learn.
Weiner-3
Thoreau leaned towards empiricism in the rationalism-empiricism debate, valuing direct experience and observation as the primary sources of knowledge. He believed that the senses, while not infallible, are crucial for understanding the world and oneself. Thoreau’s emphasis on living deliberately and immersing oneself in nature reflects his trust in experiential learning. Philosophically, this approach is compelling as it encourages a grounded and practical engagement with reality.
Personally, I find Thoreau’s perspective valuable because it promotes a holistic and authentic way of knowing, though balancing it with rational analysis can provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP 3- Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who helped organize the train lines during the late stages of WW2 during the final solution. Arendt realized during his trial long after the fall of Hitler that Eichmann didn’t think he did anything wrong. The reason he thought this way was because he was brought up to follow the law and because he didn’t break the law and never killed anybody by his own hand he thought he was doing his duty. Arendt saw this as the banality of evil, that by simply turning off your brain and not thinking the common man is capable of committing atrocities.
LHP 4- Arendt called it the banality of evil to say that he wasn’t a monster but and brainless man unwilling to think about his actions deeper.
Popper understood that scientists don’t try to prove their hypothesis but disprove it. If you only look to support your hypothesis you can ignore things that disprove it, and nobody learns anything from that. Kuhn introduced the idea of the paradigm and how it shifts. It’s the idea that when a certain idea is the basis for science it is the paradigm. Kuhn used the earth centric solar system to show that when we understood that that model was wrong that it took time to shift paradigms and basic science would be in question once again.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - The main idea of Wittgenstein's Tractatus was that the idea of religion and ethics is beyond human understanding and since this is the case, people should not speak about these topics.
#3 - Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi that was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many jews, by participating in the transportation of them. Arendt learned that Adolf was more of a man that blindly followed orders than an evil man.
#4 - Ardent's phrase was that Eichmann was the banality of evil. She meant that Eichmann's evil came from the fact that he was following orders without question rather than hate.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. The later Wittgenstein said the phrase, “Language games”. Wittgenstein wanted to draw attention to the fact that language doesn’t have just one use. Just like how we have many interpretations on what is considered a game, and most games don’t have any relations but that doesn’t matter, language is just as complex with variety, and it has a variety of uses not just one singular. He stated that the way to solve philosophical problems is to remove the cork and let the fly out. The flies were philosophers, and he meant that he wanted to show them that they have been asking the wrong questions due to them not understanding language, that they have been misled by language. Wittgenstein said we couldn’t have our own private language because we use words to describe our experiences and people can’t understand if they don’t understand your language. Language must be public in order to be understood.
4. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi during World War 2. He took part in transporting Jews all around Europe to concentration camps, this was his job and that’s all Eichmann saw it as. Although Eichmann can be seen as a regular man, the fact that he took a job that supported and coordinated the death of millions was why he was hated. Arendt was a Jewish Philosopher who took an interest to Eichmann’s case once he caught and put on trial. Arendt found that Eichmann wasn’t someone who felt strongly towards Hitler or what he was doing at the time, Eichmann just believed he was following orders, and he was in no wrong. He had not killed anyone personally so why was he on trial? Arendt considered him banality of evil. She believed he wasn’t the devil level of evil, but the everyday evil we come in contact with. He had still failed to see what he was doing was wrong even if he didn’t do it himself.
5. Popper said that a scientific hypothesis is one that had been falsified. Its goal should be to make a prediction that could in fact be false. Any hypothesis that couldn’t be falsified wasn’t considered scientific in his eyes. He also didn’t believe that observations could prove theories right, but it counted in its favor of being true. Kuhn gave the name Paradigm shifts to major breaks in the history of science. This meant that these breaks broke was thought be understood. This happens when scientist find things that don’t fit in the existing paradigm
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
3: Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi officer, managed the train system for transporting European Jews to concentration camps in Poland. Despite not directly killing anyone, his actions led to the deaths of millions of Jewish people during their transportation and at the concentration camps. Hannah Arendt, a philosopher in the mid-1900s who fled Germany during WW2, covered Eichmann's trial after his capture in the 1960s. She discovered that Eichmann, rather than being a malicious figure, was simply a "thoughtless" individual. He blindly followed orders and did not consider the consequences of his actions.
4: Hannah Arendt used the phrase "the banality of evil" to describe Eichmann's thoughtless nature. She did not see him as a devil, a monster, or anything inhuman because she believed his evilness was connected to his humanity. Eichmann simply wanted to follow orders and prove himself as a good worker, and this blind obedience resulted in millions of deaths. Throughout his time working for the Nazis, he only considered himself, a privilege that only "bureaucrats or office managers" can have. Eichmann was high enough in the hierarchy to be "allowed" to be self-centered, as his work did not personally affect him. I believe this is a major source of evil in the world today. Wealthy individuals, bureaucrats, politicians, and celebrities who are so high up in status that they feel disconnected from the average citizen. They believe that their actions do not have consequences.
6: The Law of Double Effect asserts that the acceptability of an action is determined by the intention behind it, regardless of the consequences. For example, if you act in self-defense and someone is killed as a result, it is considered acceptable because your intention was not to kill but to protect yourself. Conversely, seeking out and intentionally killing someone you believe will harm you is deemed unacceptable because your intentions were harmful. This principle explains why two well-known thought experiments evoke different moral responses despite leading to the same outcome. For instance, diverting a trolley onto a different track by pulling a lever and pushing a man to his death are distinct actions, even though both result in one person dying and five being saved. The greater our involvement in a morally complex situation, the less acceptable we tend to perceive it to be to act. Those who completely oppose this principle view it as "playing God" and argue that there should be no action taken in such situations.
HO3
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. In Wittgenstein’s message, Tractatus believed that significant questions of ethics and religion can’t be answered and that’s why we shouldn’t even pursue their reasoning or answers.
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi officer who worked in their systematic transportation of Jew. In the book Arendt learns at Eichmann’s trial that he didn’t actually think about his actions, he was just a follower and believed that what he was doing was right.
4. Arendt’s descriptive phrase for when he saw Eichmann’s ordinariness was “banality of evil”.
H02
ReplyDeleteWiener ch4
1. He was among the first to mine Indian and Chinese sources. He was a wisdom scavenger, like Marcus, who looks for wisdom and doesn’t care where it comes from. It is good, philosophically, as it helps keep you open to answers from outside.
2. Wilderness is out there; wildness is in us. Yes, it is good to be wild in the Thoreauvian sense, as it is a preservation of the world.
3.Trustworthy or not, our senses are all we’ve got, so we should use them as best as we can. I agree with him, as our senses are what allow us to observe the world.
H2
ReplyDelete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
The world can be analyzed into fundamentally simple, unanalyzable, indivisible, and mutually independent objects or facts.
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
He introduced the concept of "language games" to highlight the diverse ways language is used in different contexts. He argued that philosophical problems often arise from misunderstanding how language works in these different contexts. He believed that philosophical problems could be solved by carefully examining how language is actually used in everyday life, rather than by trying to construct grand theories about the nature of language or reality.
Wittgenstein believed that we cannot have a language that is completely free from ambiguity or misunderstanding
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi official who played a key role in the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt, a philosopher who attended his trial in Jerusalem, coined the term "the banality of evil" to describe Eichmann's seemingly ordinary personality and lack of remorse for his actions. She argued that Eichmann was not a monster, but rather a bureaucrat who followed orders without questioning their morality.
Section: H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q3: Adolf Eichmann facilitated the execution of millions of Jewish innocent lives. He worked for the Nazis. He organized the railroad system that made it possible to efficiently transfer Jewish lives, in such inhumane conditions. When he stood trial, it was evident that he saw no wrongdoing in his actions. He just saw his actions as a job that was ordered to be done.
LHP Q4: Arendt saw that by taking commands from others he was not responsible for those lives. Although, it was concluded he had no empathy for others' emotions. He was unable to register other people's feelings. He had no empathy for the ones he sentenced to death.
LHP Q6: Many people think that it is not our job as human being to play “God”. However, if people more people will die due to the actions you refused to make would not that give you the right? In which circumstances would it be viable to sacrifice human lives? Does saving more lives than sacrificing justify the lives loss?
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: The main message of his book was that most philosophical questions lay beyond human understanding. And unless someone was able to understand these questions have a genuine, meaningful conversation in order to understand them, then that person should just stay silent on the matter.
Q2: When he was describing “Language Games” he was describing how language has words that can overlap in their meaning, if you’re describing a certain thing not all things that are used to describe are 100% correct, but they share a general “essence” in how they’re related. He thought that this issue influenced philosophy since philosophers would use language thinking it always perfectly described certain things, even though it didn't, leading to confusion and misunderstanding. He thought the way to remove the issue was by “removing the quark” and showing the philosopher that he had been asking the wrong questions and had been misconceived by language. He thought no one could have a private language.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
The main message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus was that religion and ethics is beyond human understanding therefore, we shouldn't try to discuss them.
LHP - #3
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi and Ardent learned in Adolf’s trial that he was a man that followed orders without questioning them.
LHP - #4
Ardent’s descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann’s ordinariness was that he was the banality of evil.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. The key message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus was that religion and ethics is beyond any possible human understanding.
LHP 3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi. Ardent learned during Adolf’s trial that he was a man who followed orders without question.
LHP 4. Ardent’s detailed description of what she observed as Eichmann’s ordinariness was that he was the “banality of evil.”