Midterm report presentations continue
OCT 3
- Charles Darwin & evolution - #H1 Zoe Kuhn; #H2 Sawyer Crain
- Something in FL 21-22 or HWT 23-24
- NV last chapter, on Kierkegaard
- Karl Marx & Socialism - #H1 Faith Carbonari; #H2 Haley Gauda; #H3 Traden Davis
LHP
1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
HWT
1. What two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy are essentially the same?
2. What are the four stages of Hindu life?
3. What is "the smile of philosophy"?
FL
1. What were Americans spending a third of their time doing, by the end of the '50s?
2. Who grew up in Marceline, MO?
3. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner sell?
4. What was added to currency in 1954?
5. What did Jane Roberts "discover" in 1963?
6. The sudden embrace of what, in the 60s, helped turn America into Fantasyland?
HWT-1: In Indian and Buddhist philosophy, the concepts of moksha and nirvana are essentially the same, representing liberation from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. While these terms are rooted in different traditions, they both seek the ultimate spiritual goal of freedom from suffering and the endless cycle of reincarnation. The paths to attaining moksha and nirvana may differ, but the underlying principle of release from worldly attachments and desires is central to both.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: The four stages of Hindu life, known as ashramas, guide individuals through different phases of life. These stages are: Brahmacharya, the student phase focused on learning; Grihastha, the householder phase dedicated mainly to family; Vanaprastha, the retirement phase where people withdraw from material pursuits; and Sannyasa, the final stage of abandonment, where an individual seeks spiritual liberation. Each stage represents a progression in one’s journey toward self-realization and balance between worldly and spiritual duties.
HWT-3: "The smile of philosophy" refers to the calm and detached perspective that comes from philosophical wisdom. It symbolizes the serenity and understanding that allow individuals to rise above the challenges of everyday life. This metaphor suggests that with a philosophical outlook, you can navigate the world’s difficulties with a sense of inner peace, allowing for a balanced and thoughtful approach to life’s challenges.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP-1
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham had differing views on the nature of pleasure. Bentham believed that the value of pleasure could be measured solely by its quantity. In other words, he thought that all pleasures were of equal quality and could be compared based on their intensity and duration.
Mill, on the other hand, argued that the quality of pleasure was also important. He believed that some pleasures were inherently superior to others, and that higher-quality pleasures (such as intellectual and moral pleasures) were more valuable than lower-quality ones (such as physical pleasures). Mill’s perspective introduced a qualitative dimension to the evaluation of pleasure, which he believed was essential for a more accurate and meaningful assessment of human happiness.
I think that they are both right in their own ways. Bentham’s approach is more straightforward and easier to apply in a quantitative manner, while Mill’s approach acknowledges the complexity and richness of human experiences. Both perspectives offer valuable insights, and their combined consideration provides a more comprehensive understanding of pleasure and happiness.
LHP-4
We know that Bishop Wilberforce debated Thomas Huxley at Oxford. This event is often referred to as the “Huxley-Wilberforce debate.”
During the debate, Wilberforce reportedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey. Huxley’s response was sharp and memorable because he stated that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who used his great talents to obscure the truth.
Huxley’s response was a powerful rebuttal that highlighted his commitment to scientific truth and his disdain for what he saw as Wilberforce’s misuse of his position to mislead people. It was a defining moment in the debate and is often cited as a key example of the clash between science and religion during that period.
LHP-10
Karl Marx was angry because he saw the exploitation and suffering of the working class under the capitalist system. He believed that capitalism created vast inequalities and alienated workers from the products of their labor, leading to a dehumanizing existence. Marx thought that the whole of human history could be explained through the lens of class struggle, where the oppressed classes would eventually rise up against their oppressors to create a more just and equitable society. This theory, known as historical materialism, tells that economic factors and the means of production are the primary drivers of social and political change. While some aspects of Marx’s analysis, such as his critique of capitalism’s inequalities, remain relevant, his prediction of an inevitable proletarian revolution has not come to pass in the way he envisioned. Nonetheless, his ideas continue to influence discussions on economic systems and social justice.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Disagreeing with Bentham, Mill suggested there were various levels of pleasure - both high and low and that people would prefer the highs. Some suggest that Mill assumed everyone was like him and that once Mill offered different qualities of happiness, then the outcome was different quantities of happiness, making it extremely hard to calculate what to do. Bentham's approach was simple in that there was some type of acceptance of pleasure and pain while Mill gave no options for figuring out how to distinguish pleasure on a high/low scale. Mill believed intellectual pleasure was better. Personally, I tend to agree with Mill because I think there is some stuff that provides higher degrees of happiness than others. I am not confident that my happiness correlates with intellectual thought, but I know cake is delicious. I also know cake with ice cream is more delicious. I admit there is nothing intellectual about that - it is my personal opinion.
2. While both Mill and Bentham are philosophers of utilitarianism and believed that the moral value of an act was done by the pleasure the act produced, their processes were different. In his book On Liberty, Mill defended his view that in "right circumstances," humans can rise to their potential and that is most beneficial to society. Bentham, however, believed that no one should get special treatment and that everyone is equal. Mill believed that guilt and remorse played an important part in how we choose to act
11. Marx's vision was no one would own property, there would be no inheritance, education was free, and there was no religion. Marx felt that after the revolution, people would cooperate and their work would be meaningful, but before this occurred there would be violence since the rich people would not willingly forgo their wealth. Desiring a change in the world, Marx's ideas were contagious and sparked revolutions. Marx did not reveal how competitiveness and greed motivate some humans more than others. Honestly, Marx's vision is not appealing to me because as an American, I believe in the "American Dream" and hope to own property one day. I also grew up going to church regularly so I do not want to be denied my right to worship (and as an American, I am given that right).
12. Marx referred to religion as a drug, specifically opium, and prevented people from truly understanding how oppressed they were. As stated, I grew up regularly attending church so I believe his statement is unfair. I believe religion often motivates people, gives purpose to having a meaningful life, and provides a sense of hope.
FL
1. By the end of the 1950s, average Americans were spending one-third of his or her waking hours watching television so there was an enormous consumption of fictional stories and advertisements.
2. Walt Disney grew up in Marceline, Missouri.
3. While one could have their fill of naughty fantasies when visiting Las Vegas in the 1950s, it was still necessary to travel to Nevada to indulge in those fantasies. With his advertising background, Hugh Hefner made a disreputable fantasy classy and attainable with the publication of Playboy magazine. Featuring Marilyn Monroe in his first issue in 1953, Hefner took photos of "dreamgirls" in varying stages of undress and made men believe these girls were accessible, thus his magazine became acceptable.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 5: The philosopher Daniel Dennett believed Darwin's Theory of Evolution was one of the best ideas anyone ever had. I agree with Dennett to a degree as, at least to some degree, the theory of evolution has essentially been proven. Micro-Evolution is a process that has been recorded in the development of human beings in recent history, as humans have had physical traits adapt to their needs as the world has changed throughout human history. Animals and plants, in the same way, can be found biologically adapting to their surrounding from generation to generation, as their needs require. My skepticism with the theory is not found at all in micro-evolution, but is found in macro-evolution, as the evidence for interspecies development is far weaker than the ladder. Although many species, such as dogs and apes, do likely have a singular common ancestor which developed into a variety of creatures, the evidence for humanity being entangled with any of these ancient species is incredibly weak. Although humanity definitely has adapted and changed as time has progressed, their is little evidence to suggest that we were once a creature that shared the same ancestor as an ape like creature. Along with this, I find the primordial soup theory to be very unconvincing, considering there is no scientific evidence that has even remotely suggested it as a possibility. To me, Darwin's theory holds many merits and likely has much truth to it, but for me, it is not convincing as an absolute origin for life in the universe.
LHP 7: The man who referred to himself as the Danish Socrates, was named Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard's primary point in most of his writing revolved around decision making, as he often referenced the story of Abraham and Isaac as an example of what he meant. Kierkegaard wrestled with ideas of what Abraham would have been going through as he took his son up the mountain to sacrifice his son to God. He questioned if Abraham doubted himself and wondered how Abraham knew he wasn't hallucinating or going insane as he was confident in killing the son which he loved more than anything. Kierkegaard believed that basic ethics and morality were not concrete rules as many philosophers believed, rather they were outlines that could be ratified by the will of God whenever God saw it fit to do so. He believed that this belief and faith in God was often a leap of faith, as Abraham was likely slightly uncertain that sacrificing his son was truly the will of God, as it sounds like something that would commonly be contrary to God's will. He had to have faith and confidence in not just God; but himself, as he had to be certain that his interpretation of God's will was concrete, in order for him to give up what he loved for God's sake. I do not find this line of thinking irrational at all, but see it as one that is completely rational if you think of it objectively. If ethics and morals are objective rules that govern the universe, and determine what is truly right and wrong, then what other force could truly ratify that code of ethics other than the creator of the ethics themselves? If the creator of right and wrong tells you that something is right which you deem wrong, who are you to question the initial creator of morality? Kierkegaard wrestled with this idea and struggled with the choice of making this leap of faith, as he saw that one could make the decision to trust in God and live according to his form of morality according to his will, or one could abandon all morality and live in a way that is self-seeking and self-pleasuring. Any other world view, in his mind, was illogical if one truly looked at it from an Abraham like perspective.
LHP 9: "The Subjective Point of View" is a perspective that is not absolutely true, but is rather one of opinion that is not entirely based in fact. For example, ones subjective perspective on morality is one that is not absolute, as one is not "more right" about morals than anyone else. There is little we can objectively know about the universe at all, as everyone's experience of life leads them to a subjective perspective on every matter, making it hard for people to come to an objective understanding about anything. Although there is little we can look to for objectivity, one logical objective source would be the creator of all things, God. If God exists than there is a source which determines the objective truths of the universe, which is one of the only conceivable ways any person can truly find objectivity.
DeleteLHP 12: Marx believed religion was a way for people to cope with the injustice found in the world, specifically within the classist system which oppressed the majority of the world during his lifetime. I do believe Marx is being unfair; however, I do understand where he is coming from. Marx grew up surrounded by injustice, where he watched his friends and family die to the oppressive system that was beginning to destroy the world right before his eyes. He had every reason to hold his nihilistic views of morality and the world as it would be difficult for a person to rationalize the evil they were drowning in during his lifetime. That being said, Marx had hope in human nature and believed humans to be intrinsically valuable, his ideals do not necessarily align with his anti-religious world view as he pursued philosophies that brought about a perfect society, and dreamed for the good of humanity at the cost of ones self satisfaction. Marx believed humanity was naive and did not believe that religious perspectives had any value, and were simply the result of people being deceived. I disagree with Marx on his overall opinion of humanities deception and believe there is merit to religious perspectives throughout history.
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 1)
1. Mill was raised in Bentham's utilitarianism, but disagreed that all pleasure was equal. Mill thought that some pleasures are higher and some are lower, and no amount of the lower pleasure could ever add up to a single instance of the higher pleasure. Both theories have useful points to take away, like Bentham's formulaic approach to maximizing pleasure and Mill's caution to pay attention to the kind of pleasure we indulge in, but they both miss the mark a little bit for me. Rather than Mill's idea that some pleasures are higher than others, I think that instead there are some pleasures that are just different than others -- not higher or lower but like...next to each other, in their own category. For example, eating 'junk' foods and eating 'healthy' foods are both pleasurable to me, but in different ways. Going to McDonald's is nice because chicken nuggets and fries and hamburgers are tasty, the act of eating is what makes it pleasurable. On the other hand, when I make a more nutritious smoothie, that pleasure comes from the knowledge that drinking it is probably better for my health in the long-term and the satisfaction at having resisted the urge to go eat fast-food. I don't think these feelings are in contradiction or that one is intrinsically higher than the other, one fulfills the desire to treat myself after a long day, and the other fulfills my desire to work on my physical health.
(LHP, Question 7)
2. Soren Kierkegaard liked to think of himself as the Danish Socrates. After basically self-sabotaging his seemingly very loving relationship, Kierkegaard wrote mostly about the difficulty of choosing how to live and the ambiguity of knowing whether or not you're making the right decision. Thinking about the biblical story of Abraham and Issac, he wrote about how having faith is extraordinarily difficult because it necessarily requires making an irrational decision, one not based on observable, reasonable phenomena. What exactly he thought about that fact is hard to discern, though, as much of his writing uses fictional characters and anecdotes to invite the reader to come to their own decision about the subject. For me, thinking about my faith in God is rather difficult, as I grew up in a religious household but have gradually drifted away from the church. I agree with his premise that true faith is a hard thing to achieve, but I don't really know what to do with that information, it seems too complicated to comprehend to me.
(LHP, Question 11)
3. In a phrase, Marx's vision was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." His ideal view of society was one where workers had control of the means of production (primarily referring to industrial factories in his time) and could thereby cooperate to distribute food, clothing, and shelter to everyone. Marx also believed that this way of society was inevitable, that capitalism was doomed to destroy itself, but that the pace of change could be accelerated through reform and revolution. Marx's concept of a truly egalitarian society is appealing on its face, I think, but I find it difficult to appraise its value. His ideas have been muddied throughout the 20th and 21st century, vilified in the United States and used as justification for xenophobic behavior and interventionism under the guise of stopping its spread, while also serving as the basis for the establishment of dictatorships in Russia, China, and North Korea (although Russia and North Korea don't identify communist nations anymore). I don't know, though, from how LHP describes the basics of his ideology it seems pretty great to me.
H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP
10. Karl Marx was critical of capitalism, believing it led to inequality and alienation of workers. He proposed historical materialism, which suggests that economic factors are the primary drivers of social and political change. He did have a point as most well know revolutions (American, French, Russian) were heavily based on economic factors or class disputes.
11. Marx's vision was a society where no one owned property, there was no inheritance, education was free, and there was no religion. Marx believed in meaningful work and cooperation after the revolution.
12. Marx described religion as a form of drug that obscured people's awareness of their oppression. I think he's being unfair because religion has its value.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Mill disagreed that all forms of pleasure are equal. He thought that there were different kinds, lower (like animalistic pleasures) and higher (intellectual pleasures), and that the category of pleasure should be taken into account. All forms of higher pleasure were more valuable to him, in a way that was maybe a little too self-centered, but thoughtful enough. Reading a book or going to the opera, for example, were higher qualities of pleasure than playing around in the dirt like a pig. I understand where he was coming from and I even agree that certain activities, actions, events, bring about more pleasure than others. But I don't think that that should determine how you decide what to do all the time. Sometimes lower pleasures are good enough, to use the Epicurean philosophy. It does no one any good being told what they SHOULD take the most pleasure from, because everyone is different. Not all forms of pleasure are equal and that's okay.
5- The single best idea anyone ever had, according to Daniel Dennett, was Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection that he published in 1859. It described how animals evolve over time to be best suited for their environments and humans were not excluded from that. We are closely related to other primates. I don't think I agree that it was "the single best idea" from anyone at any time on the planet because that is minimizing so many other important developments and discoveries. For example, the concept of writing. It was a revolutionary way to record information and changed the game for historical record and communication across the globe. Also, agriculture. That is pretty much the main reason we even have civilization at all. The domestication of crops and animals encouraged communities which eventually formed societies. Lots of new ideas and theories about mathematics were incredibly important, medicinal developments maybe even more so (vaccines, for example, I would argue is more revolutionary than Darwin's theory of evolution). I do agree it was critical in reinventing how we understand our place in the world, but I probably would not call it the best idea anyone ever had.
12- Karl Marx called religion "the opium of the people" because he thought it was like a drug keeping them ignorant and complacent in a world of oppression. Although I understand where he was coming from, I do think he was being unfair and also incredibly rude. Religion is so important and powerful to so many people around the world and oftentimes it is one of the only things getting them through difficult situations. To regard the entirety of religion as a drug makes me feel like he didn't know about or understand the wide variety of religions in the world and how different cultures use and view religion. He was so focused on how religion affected his people in Europe that he made too wide of a generalization. I do believe that religion (often Christianity) makes it easier for people to stay complacent and ignorant, but I would never say that all religion is bad.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Mill disagreed with Bentham's perspective, all counts are pleasurable experiences, by stating "You could have different kinds of pleasure and that some were much better than others." I agree with Mill, mostly due to the idea that I experience this day to day. Pleasure is not measured on a flat rate, it varies.
2. Will defended the notion that everyone should be given space to grow and develop, and that would best make a society. I believe this view is consistent with his other critiques about Bentham, mostly because Bentham's ideas revolved around simplicity whereas Will fleshed his out.
3. The benefit of open discussion is that it makes people think hard about their beliefs, and holding dogmas are just opinions you cannot defend. Our society is very dogmatic. All the evidence you need is just to look at social media and "canceling."
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
11. Marx's vision was summed up by his quote ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Personally, I do not believe this to be appealing in the world we live in. Without being in a perfect society majority of people would take advantage of this system and some people are driven to work harder than others which is unfair for them. Yet, I do not think it is a bad economic philosophy but one almost impossible to pull off because of the selfishness of society. Late end capitalism does have its same issues because the very people who got to where they did through capitalism want to restrict others from acquiring similar wealth or power.
12. Marx called religion ' the opium of the people' because it kept them from recognizing their true oppressed condition. I do not think he was being unfair but exercising his opinion and freedom of an idea. Although it does raise a contention to the purpose of why it matters. Without belief in God, a soul, or anything after death (often proposed in the "opium of religion" or as I would call it hope) one is fighting for the idea of a better society for humans who are nothing but a mere means of chemical compounds and biological processes that experience certain events. If we are nothing but a random series of events people should do everything in their power to get ahead at all costs. If existence before birth is nothing then clearly existence after death is nothing. The tyrannical oppressor should not be viewed any differently than their employees who are subdued below them; this can just be viewed as natural selection and survival of the fittest in our own "animal kingdom" of society. If all humans are created equal we have to ask why.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #1 - Mill disagreed with Bentham on pleasure in regards to high and low pleasures. Bentham believed whatever brought you the most happiness in a situation was the optimal decision but Mill took it a step farther and compared the happiness in regards to high and low pleasures. He said that a low pleasure like a pig rolling around in the mud might be appealing to Bentham over being a sad human. That sad human has the potential to do something that can cause them more pleasure than that pig could experience like reading. I think both are correct but I agree with Mill more.
LHP #3 - Mill believed the benefit of open discussions in our society was that it made people really understand and think about what they believed in. The problem with being dogmatic is that it makes you never listen to other opinions and this makes you not able to defend your own. I think that our society is very dogmatic in this sense and that in recent years it has become a major struggle to openly discuss views.
LHP #12 - Marx said that religion was the opium of the people. I think this is definitely an extreme way to sum up religion. Religion is a way to help people through hard times but to compare it to opium is a little crazy.
Gino Palilla
DeleteH01
ReplyDeleteLHP #1:
Bentham thought that all pleasures were essentially equal, whereas Mill believed some were worth more than others. I think that there are indeed different kinds of pleasure. The pleasure you experience from giving money is not the same as you experience from getting money, for example. Although you could make a value judgment about the two different actions that cause the pleasure, I don't think you could necessarily make a value judgment about the pleasure itself, since, at the end of the day, it is still just pleasure.
LHP #8:
According to Warburton, faith is "irrational" because it is "not based on reason" (154). I would say that it depends on how you are defining the word "faith." If you are taking it to mean a sort of belief in something based tradition, convenience, or societal pressure rather than reason or evidence, then yes, it is irrational. However, if we are taking faith to mean believing based on evidence in something that one cannot prove, it is of course not irrational. As a side note, we also cannot prove the existence of the outside world, and yet we find it rational to believe such a world exists.
LHP #9:
The subjective point of view was "the experience of the individual making choices" (Warburton 157). I think that properly using this subjective point of view requires knowledge (or at least ideas) of the objective world, because, otherwise, how are you to make good decisions? How would you make the personal choice not to step into busy traffic if you weren't aware that the busy traffic was an objective reality?
HWT #1:
Mokṣa and Nirvana are essentially the same. I think that this idea of ending one's sense craving is a very useful concept, although I don't think it could ever be fully achieved. Also, there are some cravings, like the desire to do good, that are not bad, but I think the principle is still helpful in some ways.
Warburton, Nigel. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Yale University
Press, 30 Oct. 2012.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
8) Faith is irrational because it is not based on fact; faith involves risk. Those who are rationalists would agree with faith being irrational due to the lack of supporting evidence. I do agree that faith is irrational, and it has taken me awhile to come to terms with the fact that faith does not have much rationality, but I should still have faith. Total trust in God, with only support and encouragement found in the Bible, is not easy sometimes, but nothing worth having is easy. Those who have unwavering faith are impressive because it takes a lot of courage when the evidence has been stacked against you and when we are uncertain. So, yes, faith is irrational, but faith is also selfless.
10) Karl Marx was angry due to the horrific conditions those all over Europe were facing during the Industrial Revolution, and the unfairness of how workers were sacrificing themselves to work while the income they were working for ended up going to the wealthy, or those who own mills. For Marx, the entirety of human history can be explained as a class struggle between the rich and the poor. I do think that Marx has a point when it comes to human history because many of the major problems we have faced and still do face within our society revolve around money and economic conflict.
11) Marx’s vision was that no one would own land, where there was no inheritance, where education was free, and where public factories provided for everyone. There would be no need for religion or morality either. Work would be meaningful, and people would co-operate in ways that benefited everyone. Now, most of this sounds appealing other than the lack of religious freedom.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP:
3: Mill believed that discussion was good for society because it made people defend their beliefs and more importantly think about it. Mill also believed that if a belief became dogmatic it was problematic because it risked becoming indefensible if it was just accepted as is. I would say that our society is a somewhat dogmatic since alot of our views are unwavering which is partially why we struggle to argue properly.
5. Daniel Dennett said that the theory evolution was the greatest idea that anyone has ever had. I can think of a better idea and that is the idea to put create symbols that carry the meaning of words that is to say writing because it allows idea to travel much farther than they would by word of mouth and have the added benefit of being harder to lose (unless it was writing on papyrus in a certain library in Alexandria).
12. Marx called religion, "the opium of the people" because he believed it made them blind to how bad their conditions are. In a sense I agree given the structure of some religious institutions, but I don't agree fully because it is just too broad of statement and is unfair to put religion under one umbrella.
ReplyDeleteH01
1.How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?After spending time with Bentham, Mill decided that Bentham’s equation of all pleasures was incorrect. He distinguished higher pleasures from lower ones. Mills upbringing has to play into his theory, since he didn’t indulge in the usual childish games and experiences and instead, he grew to be highly sophisticated at a young age. It makes sense that he holds higher regard to the pleasures he had been experiencing such as music and literature over any ‘lower’ recreational happiness. both Mills and Bentham are a little bit right, to say that based on experience people have different higher and lower pleasures.
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
In his book On Liberty Mills he discusses how paternalism can be applied to disciplining children but not adults, unless under special circumstances. Of course, his view is again easily explained by his childhood, he was not allowed or aware of the normal way children are raised and turned out a genius from it. So, in his eyes it is right to direct children, but once grown they need space to flourish and explore to reach their full potential. Once adults he thought Mill argued people should have freedom to make mistakes and explore.
6. Many scientific discoveries have further proven, and Darwin’s discoveries. The book mentions the exploration of genetics, chromosomes, and fossils.
H1
ReplyDeleteLHP 8. Warburton called faith irrational due to it being "not based on reason." I agree. The entire concept of faith is blind trust, especially from a religious standpoint. It's complete trust that something there is no evidence of is there.
LHP 12. Marx referred to religion as "the opium of the people." I believe this is fair. As someone who grew up going to church, religion in my opinion may seem very appealing, but can be very harmful, like drugs.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Bentham and Mill disagreed in the value of certain pleasures. Mill believed that higher level pleasures that relied on our ability to think were more valuable than that of lower pleasures. This contrast with Bentham's idea of all pleasures being created equal as long as the amount of pleasure is equivalent as well. I think Bentham is more correct because it applies to all people. Some people may enjoy higher level pleasures more than low always, but myself for example would rather eat a really tasty steak than read something I'm not very interested in which would go against Mill's idea.
LHP 2- In his book "On Liberty", Mill defends his belief that without proper space to grow that people become shells of what they could be. He relates it to a tree being twisted and weak. This is consistent with his criticisms of Bentham because he wants people to develop themselves as they see fit not in a way that applies universally.
LHP 3- Mill thought that being open in society's thinking was very important because it forced people to truly believe what they believed. He said that with dogma oftentimes overtime they die and the people who believe them don't know how to defend why they believe what they do. Our society is in a weird spot because in most places you can't say your beliefs if they aren't for the "right side". Cancel culture and division have made it where if you disagree with someone else there isn't a 0% chance that you don't even try to have an intelligent discussion, but instead end up throwing insults and attacks at each others character with minimal basis to go off of.
Gavin Cooley H2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Bentham believes that pleasures should be prioritized over pains in every scenario. Mill expanded the idea, coming to the conclusion that there were higher pleasures and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures outweigh the lower pleasures every time. I think that Bentham was mislead with his concept of pleasure, and that Mill's is more correct. For example, is it much better to be a college student, despite the entailing suffering, than a moose. The moose may have a nice life eating twigs (a lower pleasure), but a college student is learning and growing (a higher pleasure) despite the hardships.
4. Bishop Samuel Wilberforce debated Thomas Huxley at Oxford. Huxley's response involved criticizing the Bishop for ignoring the topic of the debate by deferring to personal insults. I love Huxley's response. It's all too common in modern politics for candidates to ignore the topic at hand and defer to personal insults, attacking the character of their opponent over addressing the content of the question. We need to take Huxley's approach more often, calling people out for such behavior.
11. Marx's vision was a world in which every person operated "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The society would provide for the people, giving them everything they needed, and the people would give whatever they could back to the society. While this idea is appealing, it is severely flawed. The question of 'what if nobody wanted to work, and thus lived off of society and contributed nothing back' is a common one in regard to communism. Without any input into society and only output, it would quickly fall apart. I agree with the principles of this question. While it is a good idea in concept, is is not possible in the real world, as history has suggested.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1: Mill disagreed with Bentham about pleasure because Mill believed that there were different kinds of pleasures, each with their own rating as a higher or lower pleasure. Bentham believed that all pleasures are equal, no matter the cause. I believe in Mill’s philosophy more solely because some pleasures last longer than others may, and pleasure shouldn’t come from harming someone else.
LHP 4: Bishop Wilberforce seated Thomas Henry Huxlet at Oxford in 1860, and Huxlet’s response to the Bishop was that he would rather be related to an ape than to a human being who held back debate by making fun of scientific ideas. I think the response was cheeky, and made sense, because one doesn’t need to reject scientific ‘facts’ based on their religious views, because one of the two is slightly easier to prove, or get close to proving, right.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Bentham believed that the feeling of pleasure, didn't have ranks, that the everything that made us feel pleasure or the context of the feeling was the same regardless of the context. Mills disagree. He saw pleasure as having levels and that some things pleasure us more than other, but it was the same feeling. For example, he believed low pleasure was experienced by all living things, and high pleasure such as reading or listening to music was considered higher pleasure. I do think they could both be right in this argument. Sometimes we don't categorize how pleasurable something makes us feel, in that moment it could be the best feeling on earth but in a day or two that could change. I do think there are times though that can be considered our happiest, or our most pleasurable, it all depends on the person and what ticks their emotions, so I don't think either side is wrong in this case.
4. Bishop Wilberforce debated Thomas Henry Huxley at Oxford in 1860. The bishop asked Thomas "Are you related to monkeys on your grandmothers or your grandfathers' side?" Thomas replied by stating he would rather be related to an ape than to a human being who held back debate by making fun of scientific ideas. I think the response was very powerful. It showed not only how much Thomas supported Darwin's theory of evolution, but it also expressed how disappointed Thomas was at the bishop as he did not see him as a equal to be debating the theory. The bishop's question was obviously to mess with Thomas as the theory clearly states that we are all evolved from apes, not just some of us. But Thomas didn't let that get to him, and he threw the same energy back to his "competitor".
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher and considered himself the Danish Socrates. Most of his writing was about God and having to take leaps and decision making. One of his books is even titled, "Either/Or". I think his beliefs of having to take ignore social duties and listen to what god tell us, is somewhat true. I dont think we can forget entirely all our social duties. For example, the book brings an example from the bible when Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son for God but was eventually stopped. Kierkegaard believed Abraham did the right thing. While I do believe if someone believed in God, there are things that can be sacrificed in order to grow that relationship with him, duties such as being a father should not be questioned. A father should always protect their child, that is just morally right, and no God should put you in a position to choose who gets to live and who dies. So, in the example of Abraham, I think it's wrong and too extreme to prove to a god who should be all-knowing, that you are his servant. But there are some instances that could make sense such as being called by God to do some good whatever that may look like.
Section H03:
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: Mill raised his child isolated from the rest of the world. He thought without the influence of less superior minds his son would transform into an intellectual genius. However, to what existent would this impact his child. Was it moral of him to sacrifice his child's happiness for intelligence? The only human interaction his son had was around highly intelligent scholars. Mill was correct with his assessment and his son extraordinarily succeeded; regardless did this cancel out the lifestyle he forced among his son.
LHP Q2: Mill had an idea about open discussion. He thought that freedom to speak was heavily important for open conversation. Being able to talk freely was a skill everyone needed to possess. I strongly believe in this ideology. People take this for granted, being able to speak freely is a gift. However, today it is a bit more restricted than when this was written. Cancel culture has caught the world by the throat. Is free speech an attribute human nature can possess anymore? Mills idea says words should never be stopped unless it threatens their personal safety or someone else’s. I believe this should be implicated in society today. Instead, the internet “cancels” a new celebrity or average person every other day. Living on a planet with 8 billion different hearts and souls will cause controversy and society needs to learn how to agree to disagree.
LHP Q8: As we mentioned the story of Abrahm and his son Isaac, it is evident how heroic Abrahm is. He was to sacrifice is own child as God has come to him and asked. In the book, the author is having a challenging time tussling with the fact it could have been something or some else that had come to him with this thought. However, knowing God and who he is, leads you to understand him and what he is to ask of you. Without having faith, it is difficult to understand. Those that don't know him, don’t know what they don’t know. That said, I disagree with the author's perspective. God always has a reason therefore no ask can be too big or too small. God knows all therefore trusting in him will enviably lead for no less than the greater good. Not claiming this assessment to be easy at all but obedience is a part of believing in him.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - Mill thought that there were low and high forms of pleasure while Bentham thought that pleasure should be chosen in any scenario rather than pain. I believe that Mill is more in the right. One who indulges in lower pleasure such as eating food or having sex does not gain form of knowledge or wisdom from the experience. However, one who chooses higher pleasure such as a good education can lead to self fulfillment over a large period of time.
#2 - On his book "On Liberty", Mill defends the idea that people should prioritize growing and flourishing as a person. This view is consistent with his criticisms of Bentham by saying that people should develop themselves rather than being developed by the world around them.
#3 - Mill thought that open discussions were useful by being a way to understand others and they're philosophy much better. This way, one can take others information to grow they're knowledge to grow their self development. The problem with being dogmatic is that people only have their own opinions that are indefensible. I believe that this society dogmatic.
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: Mills thought that Bentham's understanding or explanation of what pleasure it was too simple. Mills thought that while pleasure should be the ultimate goal, the types of possible pleasures, high or low, need to be distinguished. I think they can both be somewhat right since pleasure isn’t universal, different people find happiness in different things and trying to distinguish human pleasures with simple animalistic pleasures is fine. But it should be remembered that humans are also animals, advanced and much more complicated but still just animals.
Q2: In his On Liberty Mills defended the right of every individual to grow up with a certain amount of “space” from other people for them to develop their own way of thinking; producing more productive members of society in the process. The belief that he expresses in On Liberty seems somewhat hypocritical of his criticisms towards Bentham, since Mill’s was the one trying to add value to different types of pleasure while also encouraging people to develop on their own without outside influence. Basically, just repeating Bentham's utilitarian beliefs over his own.
Q3: Mill believed that a society that allowed and encouraged open discussion was a much place for people to develop into humans. Mills thought that dogmatism was a strain on society that only held it back and prevented it from advancing by enforcing unreasonable or non-sensible beliefs on its citizens. I think that our society, especially when compared with Mill’s, is much more open in many ways and less dogmatic.
H03 Quinny VanDerSlik
ReplyDeleteLHP 3-
According to Mill, an open discussion will benefit society as it will force people to think about their beliefs; if your beliefs are left unchallenged, they will become prejudiced with no defendable backing. Being dogmatic allows little room for good change or any change at times, and when it does happen, people will still hold onto their prejudiced ideas as they let the change, but only reluctantly. Our society is not generally open; society likes the rules and boundaries they have created, hates to be told they are wrong and hates change. Humans are not creatures that enjoy change even when necessary and has already occurred. Overall, the general population in our society is dogmatic. No matter how much they try not to be, change has always been difficult for humans, even when they can see harm from their beliefs.
LHP 4-
Bishop Wilberforce debated Thomas Henry Huxley at Oxford in 1860. The Bishop had asked which side of Huxley’s family he related to monkeys on, prompting a response. Initially, the question was supposed to be triggering; it was mocking and an insult. However, Huxley turned it back on him by stating he would rather be related to an ape than someone holding debate back with his joking manner about scientific ideas. His response is hilarious; it seems the perfect way to shut someone up for a minute. It is also possible that he explained he was related to them on both sides, but very distantly, further educating the Bishop. In my opinion, either response is perfect; becoming rash could cause a whole argument where neither side gets anywhere and is frustrated. However, Huxley’s responses can cause a moment of pause and make the Bishop’s words less meaningful to him, as he did not take it as an insult but as a chance to prove a point.
LHP 12-
Marx called religion “the opium of the people,” declaring that it was a drug blinding people's sense, making it so they did not realize how deeply oppressed they were. I feel like he was being unfair in some ways; religion is a part of some cultures. They are either a big part or a tiny part of these cultures. However, he was right, no matter how unfair he was. Religion can cause blindness towards specific problems, making these problems insignificant or justified. Others will use religion to their advantage, using it to turn people on each other or using it to justify their cruel actions. As Marx put it, not everyone will agree, but calling it a drug makes sense. No matter what, though, people should still be free to be religious. They only need to take a moment and think outside of their religion to see if their beliefs are harmful, unjustified, or cruel to make sure they are not being blind to any harm they could cause inadvertently.
H03
ReplyDelete1. Bentham's pursuit of pleasure was far more radical than Mills's. Bentham believed that happiness, regardless of form, is equally pleasurable. He believed in the value of simple joy. Mills viewed happiness on a spectrum. He believed that there is smaller, less significant happiness found in simple, non-challenging pleasure as well as higher, intellectual pleasures that are better suited to the sophisticated human mind. I strongly favor Mills's view, but I acknowledge that it may not be for everyone. I personally believe that there are more fulfilling things than the simple, passing pleasures that are easily available to us. The challenge oneself and overcome is one of the greatest pleasures there is. Unfortunately, the simple pleasures are easier to come by, so we often get caught up in them, indulging in the frequently to fill the space.
3. From Mills's Perspective, open discussion is vital to society, as it provokes individuals to question their own beliefs. To challenge one's beliefs with others' opposing views can either change a misinformed perspective or strengthen an argument. Dogmatism goes unchallenged, so its potential flaws are ignored and no progress can be made. I believe our society is becoming increasingly more dogmatic in our political environment. Two sides of the political spectrum are becoming more polarized, and sympathetic discussion and compromise are at jeopardy.
8. Faith, according to Warburton, is irrational because it is a risk that does not rely on reason or evidence. I agree in some respects. Placing blind faith in something when the consequences of such seem too great to ignore is completely irrational. I wouldn't be the one to stake it all on mere hope. However, I recognize that sometimes irrationality is a factor of life. Not every decision has to be founded on fact or evidence. Some things we just feel. I think beliefs are dangerous, but we have them anyway. My faith in science over a divine God is somewhat irrational, and according to Pascal's Wager, I would be better off simply choosing to believe in God for my own safety. However, I cant bring my self to do it. I have a few reasons for this, and I think if I were to place faith in a God, it wouldn't be true faith because it wouldn't be genuine. Despite the seeming irrationality and risk of my faith in nothing, I continue to have it because I simply feel that it's right.
HO3
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Bentham thinks that in any situation, pleasures should take precedence over pains. Expanding on the concept, Mill concluded that there were pleasures that were higher and lower. Every time, the higher pleasures are greater than the lower pleasures. I believe that Mill's definition of pleasure is more accurate and that Bentham was misguided in his conception. For instance, even with all of the hardships involved, being a college student is still preferable to being a moose.
LHP 2. In his book On Liberty, Mills argued that each person has the right to a certain amount of space from others so that they may develop up and form their own unique perspectives, becoming more useful members of society in the process. The views he articulates in On Liberty appear to be a little hypocritical in light of his critiques of Bentham, given that Mills was the one attempting to elevate various forms of pleasure while also promoting individual growth free from outside interference. essentially restating Bentham's views rather than his own.
LHP 4 When Thomas Henry Huxlet was seated by Bishop Wilberforce at Oxford in 1860, Huxlet responded by saying he would rather be linked to an ape than a human who suppressed debate by mocking scientific theories. The was clever and reasonable since it shows that one should not abandon scientific facts and reason because of one's religious beliefs because one of the two is considerably simpler to prove or come close to being true
LHP
ReplyDelete1. Mill did not agree with Bentham on the idea that all experiences are pleasurable, by claiming that you could have different kinds of pleasure, and some are better than others.
3. One benefit of open discussion is that you get differing views and anecdotes about what you believe, which allows you to see how you could possibly be wrong. Another, is that it forces you to, whether you like it or not, listen to other people’s opinions on what you believe or don’t believe.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
Bentham thought all pleasures meant the same but Mill thought some were worth more than others.
LHP - #2
The view that Mill defended in On Liberty is that without proper space to grow, people will just stand in the shadow of what they could be.
LHP - #3
According to Mill, the benefit to society of open discussion is important because it makes people speak up about their beliefs and share them.