27 J.S. Mill- #6 Patrick S.
Charles Darwin & evolution- #5 Nathen w. #6 Charles M. #7 Jonathan Dopp
Kierkegaard- #5 Nate H. #6 Derienono S. #7 Nicholas L.
Karl Marx and revolutionary socialism- #5 "Anon" (Daniel W?) #6 Holland K. #7 Claire M.
FL 21-22 or HWT 23-24-
If you missed your reporting date due to illness or weather (etc.), be prepared to present when we have the opportunity.
LHP
1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
HWT
1. What two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy are essentially the same?
2. What are the four stages of Hindu life?
3. What is "the smile of philosophy"?
FL
1. What were Americans spending a third of their time doing, by the end of the '50s?
2. Who grew up in Marceline, MO?
3. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner sell?
4. What was added to currency in 1954?
5. What did Jane Roberts "discover" in 1963?
6. The sudden embrace of what, in the 60s, helped turn America into Fantasyland?
1.) Mill disagreed with Bentham about pleasure by refuting that all counts of happiness are the similar. He stated that some pleasures are more superior to others, based on their intellectual, moral, or social value. Mill believed that the pleasure derived from intellectual and higher-order activities (like philosophy, art, or friendship) is more valuable than the pleasure derived from mere physical satisfaction or base desires.
ReplyDeleteBoth ideas could be correct depending on how we view pleasure and the nature of happiness. Both are right in their own contexts, and the disagreement between them highlights the difference between a simpler, more utilitarian calculation and a more sophisticated understanding of human happiness.
I agree, something like happiness cannot be described so black and white. Like you said there are different levels of things that provide different levels of pleasure, so your level of happiness depends on what it is you are finding pleasure in, and the happy medium between happiness and pleasure.
DeleteI agree! Although things like art and active hobbies or activities help us grow as people, we do get burnt out, and simple happiness, like sitting and relaxing on the couch, is very valuable at that time.
DeleteI agree. However, i think for someone to truly claim they are happy i think there has to be a certain level of balance between pleasure and responsibility/duty.
Delete1. Mill believed that there were low and high pleasures. I think they are both correct. I liked Bentham's concept of all pleasures being equal in happiness because it shows that no one can truly make your happiness fade as long as you are happy with yourself. Although, Mill has a good point. I do believe in high and low pleasures for myself. Going on a walk on campus and going on a walk on the beach are two different levels of pleasure for me.
ReplyDelete2. Marx was upset because humans were being used for capitalism. They were working in factories, barely making a living wage. He did not like that they were being taken advantage of and knew they had much more potential. He believed that if people contribute to society, society will provide for the people. Marx had a good point, but this could not be done with everyone in the factories working under the rich. Lastly, he felt like he needed to change the world, unlike the past philosophers where the world is only observed and described.
3. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution has been proven due to fossils of birds in areas over time. Evidence is needed to prove a theory, and evidence was found. The observations were the finches beaks. The beaks had adapted over time to the environment of the bird. The birds that are nuts had sharp beaks, the ones that had flat beaks ate plants, and so on. At the time, Darwin was going off of his theory but now we can confirm that it is true with evidence.
I also agree with you! I think my high pleasure would be swimming in a creek, versus a low pleasure would be swimming in a pool! I like your example of taking walks.
DeleteEvolution as it related to natural selection does have evidence to confirm it; however, what do you believe in evolution as it relates to humans?
DeleteI believe that natural selection still happens today in humans even in a first world country that has so elements to give us a better survival rates.
Delete7.) The Danish Socrates is a nickname often attributed to Soren Kierkegaard, a 19th-century Danish philosopher. Most of Kierkegaard's writing revolves around the tension between faith and reason, the nature of individual existence, and the emotional and existential struggles of human life.
ReplyDeleteI think that his "leap" challenges the dominance of rationalism and suggests that true understanding and meaning often come from personal experience, commitment, and faith—though not without the potential for existential anxiety and despair in the face of uncertainty. Meanwhile, his irrationalism reflects the tension between the limits of human reason and the depths of human experience, particularly in the space of spirituality and existential choice.
10.) Marx was angry primarily because he believed that capitalism led to the exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) by the owning class (the bourgeoisie).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Marx, the course of human history could be explained primarily through the economic forces and class relations that define different historical epochs. Marx believed that the way in which societies produce and distribute goods shapes the social structure, political institutions, and ideologies of the time.
I believe that he did have a point, and his ideas have had a profound and lasting influence, and his analysis of capitalism has been both highly influential and highly controversial. Although, I think that it depends on the perspective of many different factors in our society.
I agree. The concept of communism is always a tricky discussion but I think only because it has failed in practice. Of course the way Marx describes it makes it seem like how we should have been living all along if it weren't for greed, and even if communism isn't the answer, his critique of capitalism was right on the nose.
DeleteMany people use Marxism nowadays to critique the inherent values of capitalist society, but I think it tends to blow up in late stage. When a single person could have the financial stability for a thousand lifetimes, it's hard to think of them as the bourgeoisie and not essentially "financial royalty". The way that Marx describes capitalism is at face value; in the same way that communism might be bad in practice, it would be difficult to predict how late stage capitalism interacts in practice.
DeleteThe United States of America became the most successful power of the modern age economically and politically through capitalism. Even China and Russia have some form of capitalism in there structure because captialism is essential for economic growth. In the United States, we function on regulated capitalism, which protects and prevents harmful business pratice (i.e. child labor laws). Socialism removes work value and personal success. If you have a hundred employees and pay them all the same, regardless of work ethic, this prevents advancement and depletes desire for working hard. If you realize your co-worker does not work as hard as you and you have no ground for advancement (unless ALL get recogntion), then why work as hard? Additionally, many dictators have derived out of socialist and and communist ideologies.
DeleteIs our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of open discussion is that it allows each individual's beliefs and values to be challenged by others without the threat of persecution. If this isn't the case, then everyone will be predisposed to defend their own unchallenged beliefs or dogmas which by nature refuse to change. I think our society is way more dogmatic than it ought to be in our age of information. Media algorithms really control how we consume information. These algorithms create our own special echo chambers where virtually the only media we consume confirms our own biases and beliefs. Although free speech is definitely still a thing, we still seem to be in our own bubbles.
I completely agree with you! I think we are unfortunately much more dogmatic than open in society. I agree with your example of the echo chamber of social media. I think people can so easily get into a certain area of social media and be so far in that everything other than that party's opinion looks evil. We see this for both sides of our nation's political parties. Too far in any direction is dangerous.
DeleteThe single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
ReplyDeleteThe single best idea is Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Evolution according to Daniel Dennett. I think Newton's Laws of Motion are a close contender. They are the bedrock of physics and science as a whole. These laws are universal constants that are here now and will always be.
I agree, but I personally would put Newton's Laws of motion above Darwin's theory of Natural Selection just because in this stage of my life I think about it more often and see the evidence almost everyday.
Delete1. I think Kierkegaard’s irrationalism is a fair and justifiable claim. I believe that faith does not include you knowing exactly what will or should happen next. Oftentimes with Christianity, and this was seen in the Danish churches, the mysticism found with in the belief is discarded. Yet, I believe that it is a crucial aspect of faith
ReplyDelete2. I agree partially with why Warburton claimed faith as irrational, I do believe risk is involved. But, not that it is something completely without reason. There are narratives now that tend to match the nature of God and can supply motive for faith. Though, how reasonable a leap of faith is in the moment may be a different discussion
I wonder if belief in God is tied with an inherent mysticism about the world we cannot see as mortal individuals. We have to believe in a world that we are not apart of, like Plato.
Delete4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
ReplyDeleteHe debated Thomas Henry Huxley on Darwin's idea of ancestry. I believe it was a very clever response in terms of a conversation but not much for a debate as although the response was explained in the book, for others watching the debate, it may have gone over their heads it and the point didn't come across. It would have been better if he said what he meant more explicitly after that comeback.
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
Daniel Dennett called Darwin's theory of evolution the best idea. I believe it is correct because there are many things that could be explained about how they are so much biodiversity in our ecosystems. There is also the fact that if there are extraterrestrial life, then Darwin's theory would apply to those lifeforms.
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
Marx called religion an opium that caused people to relax and be in a sleepy state unaware that they're being oppressed. I would not consider it unfair because it is not saying that religion should be terminated. In fact, I remember Marx believing that religion can be helpful. Marx's critique holds some truth because it can allow people to believe that their current situation is the best it can be when it has gotten worse or could be better.
Reading about Mill was very refreshing and exciting because of how progressive his ideas are. The fact that some of his opinions may be "hot takes" even today is truly appalling. I was especially surprised he had a stance on birth control because even progressive figures in history can vary on how much they think women should have. So his way of rationalizing was very refreshing. Makes me a little sick about how to this day people still care so much about what people do without causing harm to anyone, and how we still have such twisted ideas of what is considered normal.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly, most Philosophers so far were mostly focused on accepting things the way they are in some form, so Mill who had a stronger stance was really nice to see.
Delete1. What two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy are essentially the same?
ReplyDeleteAnātman (Hinduism) and Anattā (Buddhism) – Both reject a permanent self, but Hinduism says the true self (ātman) is one with Brahman, while Buddhism goes further, saying there’s no self at all (anattā), just constant change.
2. What are the four stages of Hindu life?
The Four Stages of Hindu Life:
• Brahmacharya – Student life, focused on learning.
• Grihastha – Householder stage, with family and work.
• Vānaprastha – Gradual retreat from worldly duties.
• Sannyāsa – Full renunciation, seeking spiritual liberation.
Unlike the Western idea of life as a straight path to success, it’s a cycle of duty and withdrawal.
3. What is "the smile of philosophy"?
“The Smile of Philosophy” – Daoism’s playful, relaxed approach to wisdom. Instead of strict logic, it embraces humor, paradox, and going with the flow—very different from Western philosophy’s seriousness.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of open discussion is that it allows for exchanging of ideas without restriction. Through this we can see the perspectives of others and the beliefs of those who come from different backgrounds. This allows for new ideas to develop and the discovery of truth.
This is Will Phillips
DeleteI agree with this. For a society to function properly, communication is definitely needed so that people’s needs are met. Without open discussion, there will always be people left out.
DeleteI agree with your answer. An open society is more likely to progress and develop than a closed society.
DeleteWhy is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteNigel believes that rationality requires us to have relevant evidence in order to have belief. Faith is something that is not based on evidence, rather trust. I believe that it is irrational, yet that does not change my personal beliefs no matter how irrational this may seem.
I mean our evidence is in our faith. There is also the Bible that provides accounts of Jesus Christ. This is my "evidence" as well as my personal beliefs. I see Him working in my life, and I know He has worked in others. I think belief doesn't need hard evidence, and even if there was, I still think people would choose not to believe.
DeleteI disagree with him simply based on the fact that everyone has a 'faith' i.e. belief they subscribe to whether it's rational or irrational.
DeleteIt is irrational, because faith is not reason. While it doesn't mean that any belief is wrong, it is definitely not based in hard evident experiences. Descartes would say if there's any doubt in your mind that your idea is wrong, then you should reject that idea. Maybe this could tie into faith as well.
DeleteFaith is based on evidence and trust. I have done extensive research on the historical, scientifc, cultural credibility on Jesus Christ existence, teachings, and writings of the Bible. Faith does involve trust, but to say there is no evidence for the existence of derives, at the root, out of a place of arrogance, unwillingness, and apathy. I recently watched a documentary title, "The God who Speaks." Very fascinating. Highly recommend.
Delete^^Aaron Mathys. I agree with your point except the first sentence you wrote. Having faith in something means to have a 'strong belief or trust in something.' Having faith in something is not contingent upon the thing having evidence or not. So whether that faith is irrational or rational depends on why you trust what you trust. I think it would be better for you to specify what type of faith you are talking about.
Delete3. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner sell?
ReplyDeleteHugh Hefner wa the founder of Playboy magazine. He sold a fantasy of luxury and refinement. He presented a world of freedom and liberation. Playboy was also known for its explicit content, Hefner framed this as a symbol of personal expression.
3. According to John Stuart Mill, the benefit of open discussion is that it allows for the exchange of ideas, leading to the discovery of truth. Open debate helps society avoid error, refine knowledge, and ensure that ideas are tested and challenged. Mill argues that being dogmatic, or refusing to engage in dialogue and consider alternative views, limits intellectual growth and stifles progress. Dogmatism leads to unquestioned beliefs, potentially causing harm by allowing false or incomplete ideas to persist. In modern society, while there is generally a push for open discussion, dogmatism can still be seen in political, religious, and social debates where people are less willing to engage with opposing views. Whether society is truly "open" or dogmatic depends on the context, but in many cases, polarized views and reluctance to listen to differing perspectives reflect a certain level of dogmatism.
ReplyDelete4. In 1860, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce debated Thomas Huxley (known as "Darwin's Bulldog") at the Oxford University on the topic of evolution and Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. During the debate, Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was related to an ape, to which Huxley famously responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from a man who used his position to ridicule scientific progress. Huxley's response was sharp, pointing out the absurdity of basing a scientific argument on the dignity of ancestry. His quick-witted retort emphasized the importance of evidence-based reasoning over emotional or religious appeals.
1. The two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy that are essentially the same are "Maya" and "Samsara". Both refer to the illusionary nature of the world and the cycle of suffering that one must transcend to reach true enlightenment or understanding. Maya refers to the illusion of the material world, while Samsara refers to the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth caused by attachment and ignorance. In both traditions, the goal is to overcome this illusion and reach a state of liberation or enlightenment.
McKinsley Slicker 005
1. Mill disagreed with Bentham about pleasure and stated that higher pleasure was better than lower pleasure. I think both are right in a way because you cant really measure pleasure or happiness so it all comes down to the situation or a persons preference.
ReplyDelete2. Mill defended his idea that letting people flourish, would increase happiness for the person and society as a whole. Its consistent with his criticize towards Bentham since happiness had different measurements.
3. Mill believed that open discussion was good for society because it forced people to think deeper about what they believe in. The issue with being dogmatic was that you wouldn't be able to defend your believes. I think most people are open minded and defend their claims a lot when they have conversations with people.
HWT
ReplyDeleteThe concepts of moksha (Hinduism) and nirvana (Buddhism) are essentially the same, both referring to liberation from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (samsara).
The four stages of Hindu life (ashramas) are:
Brahmacharya (Student) – A period of learning and discipline.
Grihastha (Householder) – A period of marriage, work, and family life.
Vanaprastha (Forest Dweller) – A period of semi-retirement and spiritual focus.
Sannyasa (Renunciate) – A period of full renunciation and pursuit of enlightenment.
"The smile of philosophy" is often associated with irony, as philosophy frequently challenges assumptions and finds humor or paradox in human beliefs and behaviors.
FL
By the end of the 1950s, Americans were spending about a third of their time watching television.
I find it interesting that James Mill and Bentham saw their education experiment as a success after John Stuart Mill turned out to be a genius. If his mind was truly a blank slate, then their experiment should be replicable with any human. Considering his father was a friend of Jeremy Bentham and was concerned with intellectual topics such as Locke's assertion that the mind of an infant is a blank slate, I wonder if John Stewart Mill would have just been a genius anyways with a more conventional education. I don't see how it's possible to teach a 7 year old how to read and understand Plato's manuscripts in Ancient Greek if that 7 year old wasn't born with the propensity to be a genius.
ReplyDelete^Nate Griffin 007
DeleteI recently read the short story "Omphalos" by Ted Chiang which featured in the collection of short stories titled "Exhalation" by Ted Chiang. The short story was named after the 1857 book "Omphalos" by Phillip Henry Gosse which argued that when God created the Earth, he created the trees with growth rings and Adam and Eve were created with full heads of hair, fingernails, and navels even though they were never "born" (the word "omphalos" is Greek for bellybutton). He concludes that because the Earth and all creatures were created fully formed, any attempt to date the age of the world by scientific means is inaccurate. He asserted that any evidence appearing older than that from the actual creation of Earth is false evidence created by God at the same time. The short story is set in a version of Earth where "primordial fossils" are commonly found and examples of primordial humans have no navels. I won't spoil the story, but it's well worth the read regardless of your religious preferences and definitely has a philosophical connotation.
ReplyDelete8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteHe believes faith is irrational because of the fact that you must believe unconditionally without logical evidence. Personally I agree because I'm a skeptical person and don't like to trust/believe something that isn't proven. Instead I believe in logical explanations.
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
He belived that communism and capitalism would be replaced by socialism, an that inequality would disappear, as would social classes.
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
He believed religion was just a way to control or pacify the people by giving false comfort or instilling fear. I think that to an extent he's right but I think it's unfair to assume that it was created to control people, rather i think it helps form morals, but ultimately I think we don't truly know the origins of religion.
1. Bentham applied a quantitative approach to pleasure, focusing on how much/many pleasurable experience people had. Mill expanded on this idea by introducing a qualitative aspect to pleasurable experiences. Mill felt that there were higher and lower values in different pleasures which made some pleasures superior to others, even at lower quantity. It is difficult to determine whether either is right or wrong, as what is/is not pleasurable differs from person to person. While I agree with Mill that different pleasures have different values, I think there is worth in Bentham’s emphasis on having abundant amounts of pleasures throughout life, even if they are inherently “lower value.”
ReplyDelete3. According to Mill, the benefit of open discussion is that it allowed people to think critically and challenge their beliefs, leading to progression in society. Mill felt that, if everybody thought the same things simply because they never challenged themselves, people would be following dead dogmas or prejudices that they couldn’t/didn’t genuinely understand, support, or defend. I think that most people in our society generally support the idea of open discussion and progression through critical examination of foundational beliefs.
6. Since Darwin’s time, scientific developments and studies in genetics, paleontology, and molecular, evolutionary, and developmental biology have provided greater evidence to support Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Faith without evidence is what prevents ideas from becoming facts. Over the years, the accumulation of evidence and research that supports Darwin’s theory is what has solidified his argument much more.
It is difficult to imagine Marx's ideal social system working out, especially via violence. The infrastructure that a violent revolution led by the "proletariat" class would seek to capture is reflexive of the needs of the capitalist society from which it originated and might not work for their purposes. The historical examples we have to draw upon seem to depict circumstances worsening drastically for workers involved in communist revolutions as a result of the inability to manage resource production and allocation on a national scale. The massive power vacuums violent revolutions create tend to be filled by authoritarian regimes with less than altruistic motives.
ReplyDelete1. Mill argued that pleasure differed in quality, not quantity, and that the intellectual pleasures were more valuable than physical pleasures. Both are right in a way depending on your stance on the matter. One is easily measurable and the other feels more intuitive.
ReplyDelete2. In On Liberty, known as the Harm Principle, Mill defended the view that individuals should have the freedom to think, speak and act as they choose, as long as they don’t harm others. This is consistent because Mill believed Bentham's focuses were too simple.
ReplyDelete5. The single best idea anyone ever had was Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, according to Daniel Dennett. I cannot think of a better one.
ReplyDelete1. Mill believed there were higher and lower kinds of pleasure. Lower pleasures were the kind that even an animal could experience whereas higher pleasures were strictly intellectual. In Mill’s mind, lower pleasures could never amount to higher pleasures and if given the option, it would be better to be a sad intellectual than a happy fool. Bentham had a much different approach to pleasure, believing that any pleasurable experience counts as pleasure and there is no hierarchy to the enjoyability or worth of pleasure. Ultimately, Bentham thought it would be better to be a happy pig living a simple life than to be a sad man living an unfulfilled life. I feel as though I agree more with Bentham on the value of pleasure. Everyone finds different things pleasurable or painful. While I may enjoy something, for example playing Pokémon, others may derive no joy from it, and vice versa. There is no indisputable “greatest” pleasure. I do not believe pleasure is comparable in that regard. While some pleasures may bring more value or benefit to a person, such as reading or cooking, that does not necessarily make other pleasures less than.
ReplyDelete5. According to the philosopher Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s theory of evolution was the “single best idea anyone has ever had.” This theory even to this day is quite phenomenal and pathed the way to many great developments in science thereafter. Personally, I believe this idea is absolutely one of the greatest ideas of all human history, however, I do not believe there is one singular "greatest idea." There are countless, great ideas that similarly shape our knowledge and our understanding so it would be unfair to limit it to one.
ReplyDelete10. Marx, a man who believed deeply in the equality of man, was resentful because he saw the unnecessary ways in which people suffered for the furthered benefit of the upper class. He believed the entirety of human history could be understood as a class struggle, a constant conflict between the wealthy class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). This exchange deprives most of humanity of achieving joy and fulfillment. I believe in this regard he has a point, we spend most of our lives working just to get by, only making the richest richer while the poorer get poorer. Capitalism incentivises always working and constantly out-besting those around you. People become so absorbed in climbing the ranks that they forget their passions or even their morals. It is a system that requires us to step on each other to get a leg up. All this said, I do not know quite what would be the best solution to this ongoing issue. I feel as though some ideas are much better on paper than in action, which makes it much harder to determine what would be best for humanity.
ReplyDelete