Sartre- #5 Justin McNaught. #6 Ernesto Gonzalez. #7 Angelo
Simone de Beauvoir- #5 Darvon H. #6 Emmanuel J.
Camus- #5 Sophia. #6 Taniya B. #7 Lore C.
FL 25-26 or HWT 27-28- #6 Kripa S.
1. Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God? OR, What did he see as the logical problem with the First Cause Argument? Do you agree with Russell about this?
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical ______, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is ___." Do these examples show a deep problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality?3. A.J. Ayer's ______ Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as _____ ______. Is unverifiability the same thing as meaninglessness?
4. Humans don't have an _____, said Jean Paul Sartre, and are in "bad faith" like the ____ who thinks of himself as completely defined by his work. Is it possible to avoid bad faith in every situation?
5. What was Sartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? Should he have said something else?
6. When Simone de Beauvoir said women are not born that way, she meant that they tend to accept what? Are any essential identities conferred by birth?
7. Which Greek myth did Albert Camus use to illustrate human absurdity, as he saw it? Do you ever feel that way? Do you worry that someday you might, in work or relationships or something else?
Weiner ch 13
- What is an "unrealizable"? Can you imagine yourself at age 60+?
- What did Cicero say old age does to personality? Do you think that's inevitable?
- What was Sartre's metaphor for what to do instead of trying to "find" yourself? What metaphor for life is implied by de Beauvoir's early declaration that her life would be an improvised "beautiful story"? Do you like either or both?
- How does the "balance shift" as we age? When do you think the shift will begin for you?
- What is "bad faith"? How does Sartre's example of the waiter illustrate it? Can you think of another example?
- What does the latest happiness research confirm? Do you think this will matter more to you later?
- What did Camus say is "enough..."? Is he right, do you think, about absurdity and its overcoming?
- What wasBertrand Russell's advice? Do you know any older people who've followed it? Are they role-models for you?
HWT
- What do you think of the Japanese sensitivity to nature and the seasons? 293
- What do you think of Shinto's "no clear-cut separation between the aesthetic, the moral, and the religious"? 294
- What do you think it means to think without concepts? 295
- Do you agree with what "the enlightened [Buddhist] declares"? 296
- Is time more a feeling than a concept? 296 What would Kant say?
- What do you think of Hume's "is/ought gap"? 297
- What can tea teach us? 299
- What is wabi-sabi? 300
- Was Kravinsky crazy? 301 How about Peter Singer? 302
- Should we consider the welfare of distant strangers as much as of kith and kin? 303
- Are Mozi and Mill saying the same thing? 304
- Kant's categorical imperative, again: any comment? 309
- Do you like Rawls' veil of ignorance idea? 309
- Do you agree with the key principles of the Enlightenment? 310
- Is Owen Flanagan right about "no sensible person"? 312
- Is the mixing desk a good metaphor for moral pluralism? Do you agree that it's not the same as laissez-faire relativism? 314-15
Discussion Questions
- Reading Mill's autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Why? 185
I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day at the age of eighteen I read _____'s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. Why I Am Not a Christian
- Should it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy? 186
- Were young A.J. Ayer and the Positivists on the right track with their Verification Principle? Or was the older, post-Near Death Experience Ayer wiser about beliefs that cannot be conclusively verified? 190, 194
- Do you agree with Sartre that humans, unlike inanimate objects such as inkwells, don't have an essential nature? Is our common biology, DNA etc. not essential to our species identity? 197
- If you become deeply involved in your work (or seem to, like Sartre's Waiter) are you in "bad faith"? 198
- What do you think of Sartre's advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? 199
- Do you agree with Simone de Beauvoir about accepting a gender identity based on men's judgments? 200
- Is life a Sisyphean struggle? Is it "absurd"? Do you agree with Camus that Sisyphus must be happy? Why or why not? 201
FL
- Do you see any parallels between 1962 (as reflected in the SDS Manifesto, for instance) and today? 212
- What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America? 218
- Do you think of The Force (in Star Wars) as a "spiritual fantasy" or does it name something you consider real? 222
- Was the sudden and widespread availability of contraception (The Pill) in the '60s a positive development, all things considered? 230
- Is the fantasy of perpetual youth an infantilizing force in America? 233 (Compare with our next read, Why Grow Up)
- Are we becoming "fake humans"? 234
==
Podcasts-Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Arendt, Popper, Ordinary Language, Trolley Problems
In Our Time
Simone de Beauvoir. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Simone de Beauvoir. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," she wrote in her best known and most influential work, The Second Sex, her exploration of what it means to be a woman in a world defined by men. Published in 1949, it was an immediate success with the thousands of women who bought it. Many male critics felt men came out of it rather badly. Beauvoir was born in 1908 to a high bourgeois family and it was perhaps her good fortune that her father lost his money when she was a girl. With no dowry, she pursued her education in Paris to get work and in a key exam to allow her to teach philosophy, came second only to Jean Paul Sartre. He was retaking. They became lovers and, for the rest of their lives together, intellectual sparring partners. Sartre concentrated on existentialist philosophy; Beauvoir explored that, and existentialist ethics, plus the novel and, increasingly in the decades up to her death in 1986, the situation of women in the world.
Camus. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Algerian-French writer and Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Shortly after the new year of 1960, a powerful sports car crashed in the French town of Villeblevin in Burgundy, killing two of its occupants. One was the publisher Michel Gallimard; the other was the writer Albert Camus. In Camus’ pocket was an unused train ticket and in the boot of the car his unfinished autobiography The First Man. Camus was 46. Born in Algeria in 1913, Camus became a working class hero and icon of the French Resistance. His friendship with Sartre has been well documented, as has their falling out; and although Camus has been dubbed both an Absurdist and Existentialist philosopher, he denied he was even a philosopher at all, preferring to think of himself as a writer who expressed the realities of human existence. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, Camus’ legacy is a rich one, as an author of plays, novels and essays, and as a political thinker who desperately sought a peaceful solution to the War for Independence in his native Algeria.
Ordinary Language Philosophy. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such 'ordinary language' were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and JL Austin.
Hannah Arendt. In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.
Karl Popper. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true. Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.He called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called “pseudo sciences” which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the “murderer of Freud and Marx”. He went on to apply his ideas to politics, advocating an Open Society. His ideas influenced a wide range of politicians, from those close to Margaret Thatcher, to thinkers in the Eastern Communist bloc and South America. So how did Karl Popper change our approach to the philosophy of science? How have scientists and philosophers made use of his ideas? And how are his theories viewed today? Are we any closer to proving scientific principles are “true”?
The Scientific Method. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.
The Meaning of Life According to AJ Ayer. What was an English philosopher doing at a New York party, saving the young model Naomi Campbell from a rather pushy boxing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson? The philosopher was Alfred Jules Ayer, who was just as at home mixing with the glitterati as he was with Oxford dons. On the one hand he was an academic, on the other a celebrity and bon viveur.
The Philosopher's ArmsSeries 4 Episode 2 of 4
Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. This week, trolleyology: how should you decide between two morally troubling courses of action? This is a question which affects both soldiers in the heat of action and decision-makers in the NHS. Matthew is joined in the snug by philosopher David Edmonds.
Sartre. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Jean-Paul Sartre, the French novelist, playwright, and philosopher who became the king of intellectual Paris and a focus of post war politics and morals. Sartre's own life was coloured by jazz, affairs, Simone de Beauvoir and the intellectual camaraderie of Left Bank cafes. He maintained an extraordinary output of plays, novels, biographies, and philosophical treatises as well as membership of the communist party and a role in many political controversies. He produced some wonderful statements: "my heart is on the left, like everyone else's", and "a human person is what he is not, not what he is", and, most famously "we are condemned to be free". Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how Sartre's novels and plays express his ideas and what light Sartre's life brings to bear on his philosophy and his philosphy on his life.
Simone de Beauvoir. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Simone de Beauvoir. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," she wrote in her best known and most influential work, The Second Sex, her exploration of what it means to be a woman in a world defined by men. Published in 1949, it was an immediate success with the thousands of women who bought it. Many male critics felt men came out of it rather badly. Beauvoir was born in 1908 to a high bourgeois family and it was perhaps her good fortune that her father lost his money when she was a girl. With no dowry, she pursued her education in Paris to get work and in a key exam to allow her to teach philosophy, came second only to Jean Paul Sartre. He was retaking. They became lovers and, for the rest of their lives together, intellectual sparring partners. Sartre concentrated on existentialist philosophy; Beauvoir explored that, and existentialist ethics, plus the novel and, increasingly in the decades up to her death in 1986, the situation of women in the world.
Camus. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Algerian-French writer and Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Shortly after the new year of 1960, a powerful sports car crashed in the French town of Villeblevin in Burgundy, killing two of its occupants. One was the publisher Michel Gallimard; the other was the writer Albert Camus. In Camus’ pocket was an unused train ticket and in the boot of the car his unfinished autobiography The First Man. Camus was 46. Born in Algeria in 1913, Camus became a working class hero and icon of the French Resistance. His friendship with Sartre has been well documented, as has their falling out; and although Camus has been dubbed both an Absurdist and Existentialist philosopher, he denied he was even a philosopher at all, preferring to think of himself as a writer who expressed the realities of human existence. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, Camus’ legacy is a rich one, as an author of plays, novels and essays, and as a political thinker who desperately sought a peaceful solution to the War for Independence in his native Algeria.
Bertrand Russell. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the influential British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Born in 1872 into an aristocratic family, Russell is widely regarded as one of the founders of Analytic philosophy, which is today the dominant philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world. In his important book The Principles of Mathematics, he sought to reduce mathematics to logic. Its revolutionary ideas include Russell's Paradox, a problem which inspired Ludwig Wittgenstein to pursue philosophy. Russell's most significant and famous idea, the theory of descriptions, had profound consequences for the discipline.
In addition to his academic work, Russell played an active role in many social and political campaigns. He supported women's suffrage, was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and was a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Russell's many appearances on the BBC also helped to promote the public understanding of ideas.
In addition to his academic work, Russell played an active role in many social and political campaigns. He supported women's suffrage, was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and was a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Russell's many appearances on the BBC also helped to promote the public understanding of ideas.
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life, work and legacy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. There is little doubt that he was a towering figure of the twentieth century; on his return to Cambridge in 1929 Maynard Keynes wrote, “Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train”.Wittgenstein is credited with being the greatest philosopher of the modern age, a thinker who left not one but two philosophies for his descendents to argue over: The early Wittgenstein said, “the limits of my mind [language] mean the limits of my world”; the later Wittgenstein replied, “If God looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of”. Language was at the heart of both. Wittgenstein stated that his purpose was to finally free humanity from the pointless and neurotic philosophical questing that plagues us all. As he put it, “To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle”.How did he think language could solve all the problems of philosophy? How have his ideas influenced contemporary culture? And could his thought ever achieve the release for us that he hoped it would?With Ray Monk, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton and author of Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius; Barry Smith, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Marie McGinn, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of York.
Ordinary Language Philosophy. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such 'ordinary language' were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and JL Austin.
Hannah Arendt. In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.
Karl Popper. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true. Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.He called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called “pseudo sciences” which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the “murderer of Freud and Marx”. He went on to apply his ideas to politics, advocating an Open Society. His ideas influenced a wide range of politicians, from those close to Margaret Thatcher, to thinkers in the Eastern Communist bloc and South America. So how did Karl Popper change our approach to the philosophy of science? How have scientists and philosophers made use of his ideas? And how are his theories viewed today? Are we any closer to proving scientific principles are “true”?
==
The Scientific Method. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.
The Meaning of Life According to AJ Ayer. What was an English philosopher doing at a New York party, saving the young model Naomi Campbell from a rather pushy boxing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson? The philosopher was Alfred Jules Ayer, who was just as at home mixing with the glitterati as he was with Oxford dons. On the one hand he was an academic, on the other a celebrity and bon viveur.
So what does this logician have to say about the meaning of life?
In 1988, a year before his death, he gave a lecture at the Conway Hall in which he set out his notion of existence. By this time, ‘Freddie’ Ayer was one of the UK’s most prominent public intellectuals, with regular television and radio appearances, discussing the moral issues of the day.
Ayer’s former student at Oxford, philosopher AC Grayling, remembers the tutor that became his friend. He explores the man of contradictions – the atheist who almost recanted after a near-death incident; the deep thinker with a weakness for mistresses and Tottenham Hotspur. What was his contribution to philosophy? How did it inform the way he lived his life? What, if anything, can we learn from Freddie’s view on the big question?
The Philosopher's ArmsSeries 4 Episode 2 of 4
Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. This week, trolleyology: how should you decide between two morally troubling courses of action? This is a question which affects both soldiers in the heat of action and decision-makers in the NHS. Matthew is joined in the snug by philosopher David Edmonds.
==
Philosophy Bites
Sebastian Gardner on Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith
Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness is sometimes described as the bible of existentialism. At its core is the notion of Bad Faith. For this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Sebastian Gardner, author of a recent book about Bei...
Kate Manne on Misogyny and Male Entitlement
Cornell philosopher Kate Manne discusses misognyn, male entitlement, together with the notion of 'himpathy', a term she coined, in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Manne is the author of two recent highly influential books, ...
Ray Monk on Philosophy and Biography
Ray Monk discusses the relationship between philosophy and a philosopher's life in this interview with Nigel Warburton for the Philosophy Bites podcast. Can understanding the biographical context of a philosopher and the type of person t...
David Edmonds on Wittgenstein's Poker
For this second special lockdown episode of Philosophy Bites, Nigel Warburton interviewed David Edmonds about his bestseller Wittgenstein's Poker, which he wrote with John Eidinow. This brilliant book is an exploration of an event that...
Melissa Lane on Plato and Totalitarianism
Was Plato's ideal state a totalitarian one? Karl Popper, thought so, and made his case in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Melissa Lane, author of Plato's Progeny discusses Popper's critique of Plato in this episode of Philosophy Bites....
David Edmonds on Trolley Problems
Is it ever morally acceptable to kill one person to save five? Most people think that it can be. But are we consistent in this? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Nigel Warburton interviews David Edmonds (co-creator of Philo...
Julian Baggini on Thought Experiments
Philosophers often use elaborate thought experiments in their writing. Are these anything more than rhetorical flourishes? Or do they reveal important aspects of the questions under discussion. Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers'...
Russell’s statement: “Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man” rings true in my personal opinion. I think war is only needed to defend a country against war… so if there was no war and a more civil matter of dissolving issues, I think this would make for a more peaceful existence for everyone in the world. There are wars happening all around the world every day, and if we didn’t have the means to weapons maybe that would force nations to sit back, talk, and come to an agreement or compromise about the issue at hand. I think people’s lives are more important than wars, even if that war was started as a defense. I understand defending your country and your own people, but at some point, the bombs and guns need to be set down. I find it quite tiresome to constantly hear about the wars happening in the world, and I know I am coming from a place of privilege to say that, and by no means am I trying to belittle anyone’s experience with war, but I think war will destroy us.
ReplyDeleteI really like your thoughtful take on this. The idea that conversation and compromise should replace violence is something the world could benefit from. War has shaped history, but imagining a future where people choose understanding over destruction is both hopeful and inspiring
DeleteI agree with your conclusion about war and its destructuve behavior. Unfortunately, war is a product of humanity's flaws; therefore, it has always existed and will always exist. There are more civil diplomatic ways to prevent and resolve wars; however, even in the absence of weapons, war would still ensue--it is impossible for every human on the earth to come to a unified agreement on all controversies and ideologies.
DeleteI agree!! People are sent out to fight because two different groups simply can’t reach a compromise. They’re used as tools, and we have already seen the toll it takes, both on them and civilians. If we can never reach agreements through conversation, it seems plausible that war will consume us all at some point.
DeleteI agree, however, I don't think that no use of force will lead to world peace either. I disagree with the use of nuclear weapons however, normal weapons to stop belligerent countries. Ex: Germany in WW2
DeleteI have to say I was chuckling a bit at chapter 32 about Alfred Jules Ayer. I can’t get over the fact that he created an entire philosophy about debates and theories being meaningless for humanity when in fact his own philosophy was deemed meaningless by his own tool. I know it isn’t supposed to be funny, but you would think his own philosophy would have passed his own test… but maybe that is the point is that nothing is meaningful, but that also can’t be true because some of the examples proved to be meaningful. If you get what I am trying to demonstrate is that this chapter was disappointingly funny, because it proved that Ayer’s own philosophy didn’t measure up to his own logic… well maybe it is more sad than funny…
ReplyDeleteAlfred Jules Ayer reminds me of the quote " beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Who is to say that philosophy is meaningless? You are your own judge.
DeleteI was a tad disappointed that Camus was not discussed further than his one work. I find his philosophy on the war to be rather interesting. I read a lot of Camus, and this break I just finished Committed Writings by him, where there were four letters included. These letters were all addressed to his German “friend” (more ex-friend) in the height of WWII. It showcased his feelings towards the war and towards Nazi Germany as a whole. I also think his ideas on the death penalty are rather interesting to discuss as well. In a lot of his fiction a character either rustles with suicide or the death penalty, which goes onto his philosophy that it should be abolished. I have a personal pull towards Camus and his work, so I was sad to not get more on him in this book, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteHumans don't have an essence, said Jean-Paul Sartre, and are in "bad faith" like the waiter who thinks of himself as completely defined by his work. Sartre's concept of bad faith refers to self-deception, where people deny their own freedom and responsibility by adopting fixed roles or identities. The classic example of the waiter is someone who over-identifies with their job, acting as if their essence is predetermined rather than recognizing their ability to choose and change
ReplyDeleteTrue, I feel as though humans tend to do this sort of self-deception as a defense mechanism against change. Having a set identity and idea of who you are supposed to be will always be easier than having to figure it out yourself.
DeleteI agree. Although I wouldn't call it self deception per se, I do think that we limit ourselves using a perceived idea of who we are.
Delete1. Russell's disbelief in God was influenced by John Stuart Mill's Autobiography. The first argument is valid depending on what you choose to believe. I believe that God came before everything else, therefore he created everything. Russell did not believe that God exists, nor was there a reason for his existence.
ReplyDelete2. The story that was shared about the barber is a logical paradox, also known as Russell's Paradox. "This sentence is false" is also a paradox. It is false and true at the same time which is a contradicting statement. These sentences are examples that our language can be contradicting, even though the sentences are paradoxes I still understand why they are so.
3. Ayer's Verification Principle was part of the Logical Positivism movement. The principle stated that if something is not true by definition or empirically verifiable it is meaningless. Personally, I don't think that being unverifiable is the same thing as meaningless. If something is unverified it is just not proven by scientists or by the facts. If something is meaningless, then it just has no meaning and no longer needs to be researched.
To your second point, do you think Russell's Paradox challeges how we define what is true and false?
Delete5. What was Sartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? Should he have said something else?
ReplyDelete"Choose, that is to say, invent". This advice was seen as frustrating because Satre did not provide a clear answer or direction. He emphasized freedom and the students personal freedom.
Is time more a feeling than a concept? 296 What would Kant say?
ReplyDeleteKant believed that time is a transcendental concept. He defined time as being a necessary condition for our experience of the world. I believe that time varies from individual to individual. Everyone perceives time differently based on how one lives their lives.
I agree, time isn’t necessarily set the same for everyone. It’s more of an idea to allow people to organize their life and they all do so differently. During the time we sleep, others will be awake and vice versa, views of time passing will be different for everyone.
DeleteI don't think time is necessarily subjective. Our perception of time passing is a manmade construct, but it's not necessarily variable from person to person. Our experiences can change how we perceive time as we get older, however, as certain periods of time represent less significant portions of our lives than when we were kids.
DeleteI think time is a fixed thing that cannot vary/change. How people perceive time can differ and vary however time itself does not.
DeleteWhat did Camus say is "enough..."? Is he right, do you think, about absurdity and its overcoming?
ReplyDelete"One's freedom to choose, one's invincible summer, is enough"
He believed that despite life seeming absurd and uncertain, one should use their ability to choose and find meaning in life. That choice is what makes life worth living.
I would agree; a lack of fulfillment in life often stems from a lack of purpose and direction. Some people try to wait for their purpose to come to them, in a sort of epiphany. I would argue that your choices, whether well respected or not, determine the direction you want your life to take.
DeleteThe issue arising nowadays is that some people don't have the ability to choose how their life unfolds. You have to do the best with the cards that you are dealt, reminiscent of the song "Brittle Bones Nicky".
Russell's take on the First Cause Argument was that it was illogical to say that while everything has a cause, God does not. He believed these two statements could not both be true at once and therefore found failure in the defense. In my opinion, I think the fact that God seems to be the Christian's sole exception to the statement "everything has a cause" makes complete sense. Even outside of just Christianity, the entire principle of religion is that there is a being that is different from mankind; these exact differences may vary from religion to religion, but the idea is still the same. The concept of "God" in and of itself implies something separate from people and human rules and ideologies- it might mean something or someone bigger, greater, older, or one that defies the laws of human nature in any way. Russell's critique on the First Cause Argument is not a clever "gotcha" to Christians, or any religious individuals for that matter, because it is clear that this attempt at dismantling religious teaching is simply a misunderstanding of what it means for one to be "God" rather than a true fallacy pointed out in Christian theology.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. We tend to humanize Gods as beings within our mortal realm, when they would exist, theoretically, outside of our existence as something greater. Thus, if they were to exist outside of time the way we perceive it, then there is no before and after. God would then in and of itself be its own cause.
Delete1. An "unrealizable" is when we cannot realize something that has been around us for so long. In Weiner's case, old age. Personally, I cannot think of myself at 60 years old because a. I don't want to think too far in the future and mainly focus on the present, but also b. I want to experience every single day equally. Maybe when I am 60 I will feel old or decrepit, however I do know that every day I want to live it to the fullest. Maybe by then I won't even realize time has passed, but that is for the future me to deal with.
ReplyDelete2. What Cicero said old age does to us is make us more aware of our personality traits rather than develop new ones. As we get older, we become more present and even judgmental of ourselves due to being with ourselves for so long. I think this concept however is not true as we do not have to be the same person as long as we always actively try to be the best versions of ourselves every single day. I think as a society when we get older, it is almost normalized to have the same personality and traits of our younger selves. Although, life changes and we have to adapt with those changes. I think becoming "an old grouchy man" is quite avoidable simply by valuing the small things in life everyday and never settling for average for oneself.
3. In Weiner's words, as we age "balance shifts from control to acceptance," indicating that when we get older we worry less about what we can control and start accepting the things that are already in our lives. Personally I want to believe that the "shift" won't occur until I am older as I want to keep learning and improving myself for as long as possible. I believe that as soon as we become complicit with life and "relax" is the exact moment when we become sedentary and stop caring about ourselves. So in the end, I always want to keep going for as long as possible, if not, up until the day I pass away.
5. What was Sartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? Should he have said something else?
ReplyDeleteSartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance was to make a choice and take responsibility for it, emphasizing that the act of choosing defines one's essence. Some may argue that a more empathetic or context-aware response might have helped the student better understand the gravity of the decision, but Sartre's point was about the existential responsibility of choice in uncertain circumstances.
6. When Simone de Beauvoir said women are not born that way, she meant that they tend to accept what? Are any essential identities conferred by birth?
Simone de Beauvoir's statement that women are not born that way meant that women tend to accept socially constructed roles and expectations placed upon them by society. According to existentialism and de Beauvoir’s philosophy, no essential identities—like gender or societal roles—are conferred by birth; rather, they are shaped by cultural and social forces.
1. Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God? OR, What did he see as the logical problem with the First Cause Argument? Do you agree with Russell about this?
Young Bertrand Russell was influenced by John Stuart Mill's autobiography, which led him to reject God. Russell argued that the First Cause Argument is flawed because it exempts God from needing a cause, which he saw as special pleading.
McKinsley Slicker 005
1. Do you see any parallels between 1962 (as reflected in the SDS Manifesto, for instance) and today?
ReplyDelete2. What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America?
3. Do you think of The Force (in Star Wars) as a "spiritual fantasy" or does it name something you consider real?
1.
The Port Huron Statement was all about young people frustrated with a broken system—racial injustice, economic inequality, and a political structure that felt out of touch. Sound familiar? A lot of the same themes run through today’s activism, from Black Lives Matter to climate protests. The difference is, back then, there was still a sense of optimism that real change was possible. Now, with political gridlock, social media chaos, and a deep distrust of institutions, people seem more cynical. But the core fight—grassroots activism vs. entrenched power—is the same.
2.
America’s gun obsession is like a national myth—people treat the Second Amendment almost like scripture. The idea that “more guns make us safer” doesn’t hold up anywhere else in the world, but here, it’s gospel. That’s why even common-sense gun laws hit a brick wall. It’s not just about guns—it’s about identity, fear, and this deep-rooted belief in rugged individualism. The hard truth is that other countries have figured out how to curb gun violence, and we refuse to because, for many, the idea of unlimited gun rights is more important than actual safety. What should we do? Stricter gun laws, better mental health care, and treating gun violence like the public health crisis it is. But as long as people cling to their gun fantasies, change is going to be an uphill battle.
3.
Is the Force real? In a literal sense, no—you can’t levitate objects with your mind (sorry, Jedi hopefuls). But the idea behind it—this energy that connects everything, a deeper flow to the universe—is something people have believed in for centuries. Whether it’s Eastern philosophy, spirituality, or even quantum physics, there’s something about the Force that feels true, even if it’s fictional. Maybe that’s why it resonates so much—because deep down, we all want to believe there’s more to life than what we can see.
1. Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God? OR, What did he see as the logical problem with the First Cause Argument? Do you agree with Russell about this?
ReplyDeleteBertrand Russell was influenced by John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, which encouraged him to question traditional beliefs — including religion — and ultimately led him to reject the idea of God. He also criticized the First Cause Argument, which claims everything must have a cause, and therefore the universe must be caused by God. Russell pointed out that if everything needs a cause, then God should need one too. If God doesn’t need a cause, why can’t the universe be uncaused as well? He saw this as a logical inconsistency. Whether one agrees depends on whether they believe the universe requires something external to explain its existence.
2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical ______, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is ___." Do these examples show a deep problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality?
The barber example is a classic paradox — a logical situation that contradicts itself. If the barber shaves those who don’t shave themselves, does he shave himself? If he does, he shouldn’t; if he doesn’t, he should — leading to a contradiction. Similarly, the sentence “This sentence is false” is another paradox that is both true and false at the same time. These kinds of examples suggest that language and logic can sometimes fail to fully capture or represent reality, revealing potential limits in how we express complex or self-referential ideas.
4. Humans don't have an _____, said Jean Paul Sartre, and are in "bad faith" like the ____ who thinks of himself as completely defined by his work. Is it possible to avoid bad faith in every situation?
Jean-Paul Sartre believed humans have no fixed essence — we aren’t born with a set nature or purpose. Instead, we define ourselves through our actions. He used the example of a waiter who believes he is only a waiter to show bad faith — the act of denying one’s freedom by identifying too closely with a role. Sartre argued that it’s very difficult to completely avoid bad faith because it requires constant awareness of our freedom and refusal to hide behind excuses. Still, he believed it’s possible if we live authentically and take responsibility for who we choose to be.
1. Reading John Stuart Mill's autobiography led Bertrand Russell to not believe in God. Russell saw a logical problem with the First Cause Argument, which claims that everything must have a cause, and God is the first cause. Russell asked "What caused God?" If God doesn’t need a cause, then why does everything else? This made him think the argument didn’t make sense.
ReplyDelete2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don’t shave themselves is a logical paradox, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is false." These show a problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality because they create confusing situations where something seems to be both true and false at the same time.
3. A.J. Ayer came up with the Verification Principle in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic. It was part of a philosophy movement called logical positivism. Ayer said if you can’t prove something true or false with science or logic, it’s basically meaningless. Some things, like emotions or art, might not be verifiable but still feel meaningful to people.
1. What is an "unrealizable"? Can you imagine yourself at age 60+?
ReplyDeleteSomething that is impossible to consider/realize despite it's possibility and occurance. I can't imagine myself at 60+, which i think is mostly because i do not want to get that old. I have a lot of time until then but I'm already dreading it.
2. What did Cicero say old age does to personality? Do you think that's inevitable?
Cicero argues that as you age, your character develops as well. For example, if you're a positive and uplifting person, you will continue to be so but at a greater extent. I think it's inevitable because with age comes wisdom and experience, so even if you dont realize it, you'll likely practice and grow certain skills that you already had.
3. What was Sartre's metaphor for what to do instead of trying to "find" yourself? What metaphor for life is implied by de Beauvoir's early declaration that her life would be an improvised "beautiful story"? Do you like either or both?
Sartre used "create yourself" while de Beauvoir implies that the choices we make spontaneously are what craft meaning and identity for us, and that life is an ongoing, "improvised" narrative.
Ariyanna Shannon 007
Delete1.) Young Bertrand Russell was influenced by reading Autobiography by John Stuart Mill, which contributed to his rejection of God. He saw that the logical problem was "Who made God?" If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause, which leads to an infinite regress. If, on the other hand, something can be uncaused, then why not the universe itself rather than God, which was an interesting take that I never thought about. As for whether I agree with Russell, it depends on one's perspective on God's purpose on our lives.
ReplyDelete3.) A.J. Ayer's Verification Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as Logical Positivism.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the words unverifiability and meaninglessness: in Ayer's framework, unverifiability often implied meaninglessness in a strict logical positivist sense. However, some critics argue that unverifiable statements (such as ethical judgments or metaphysical claims) may still carry meaning in different ways—such as emotional, existential, or pragmatic significance.
6.) Simone de Beauvoir meant that women tend to accept socially constructed roles and expectations rather than being inherently defined by biology. She argued that gender is not simply a natural fact or state but is shaped by societal norms, upbringing, and cultural conditioning, contributing to our day-to-day behaviors. While some traits of our identity are determined at birth such as genetic traits, biological sex, and ancestry, other traits such as gender, social roles, and personal identity are influenced by cultural and individual experiences.
ReplyDelete