Wittgenstein- #5 William P. #6 Kal I.
Hannah Arendt- #5 Jadyn Cortes. #6 Adam S. #7 Sidney S.
FL 27-28-
Something in QE Part IV - Should speech be free?- #5 Inas I
Something in QE Part V - What is happiness?- #6 Liz E. #7 Alexzander P.
1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
5. Both Popper and Kuhn changed the way people understood science. What did Popper say about the method for checking a hypothesis and what name did Kuhn give to major breaks in the history of science?
6. What is the Law of Double Effect? Many people who disagree with its principle--and with Thomson's violinist thought experiment--think that whatever our intentions we shouldn't play who?
WGU
1. Being grown-up is widely considered to be what? Do you agree?
2. Is Leibniz's optimism more likely to appeal to a small child? Why? 3
3. What was Kant's definition of Enlightenment? 5
4. What do Susan Neiman's children say she can't understand? Do you agree? 9
5. Why is judgement important? Is this a surprising thing to hear from a Kantian? 11
6. Being a grown-up comes to what? 12
7. What did Paul Goodman say about growing up? Are his observations are still relevant? 19
8. Why (in Neiman's opinion) should you not think this is the best time of your life, if you're a young college student? 20
9. What did Samoan children have that ours lack? 27 Can we fix that?
10. What is philosophy's greatest task? 31
Weiner ch4
- Thoreau was among the first western philosophers to do what? How does this make him like Marcus Aurelius? Is that good, philosophically?
- What's the difference between wilderness and wildness? Is it good to be wild, in the Thoreauvian sense? Are you wild that way?
- What was Thoreau's view of the rationalism-empiricism debate, and the reliability of the senses? Do you agree with him?
- What's another way Thoreau is like Marcus, and how is he like Socrates? Do you "vacillate" too?
- Why did Thoreau say he went to live at Walden? Do you think such an experience would expand your sense of what it means to live and/or "see"?
FL
- What did Henry David Thoreau do in 1844, at age 27? What American fantasy does Andersen say this epitomized? Do you agree? Do most Americans make an effort to live in harmony with nature? Do you?
Discussion Questions:
- Was Wittgenstein's main message in the Tractatus correct? 203
- What are some of the "language games" you play? (What are some different things you use language for?) 204
- Can there be a "private language"? 206
- "Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
- Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
- Is "the banality of evil" an apt phrase for our time? 212
- Was Popper right about falsifiability? 218
- Was Kuhn right about paradigms? 220
- How would you respond it you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
FL
- Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
- What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245
- What do you think of Fantasy sports? 248
- Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure? 250
- Is pornography "normal"? 251
I was quite confused on the whole language discussion until Wittgenstein’s example of the ‘S’ in the diary. This made his discussion on the private and public ways we use language clear to me. The idea that language cannot be private is interesting to me. I say this mainly because I initially thought of your inner voice or inner monologue everyone has in their head. Would your inner voice be considered a private language? Would thinking be considered a private language? I am curious on how Wittgenstein would answer this… do any of you have ideas on these questions?
ReplyDeleteI believe that in a way it can be. We can try to explain to someone else our train of thought, but when translated into actual coherent words, it doesn’t always come out the way we’d like.
DeleteI think that we have private thoughts in our mind, but once we put words to them they are no longer private because the language we use to describe them is understood from everyone. So maybe it's just private when its abstract ideas in our minds before even we ourselves understand them.
DeleteThe thought experiments about the trains in chapter 37 stumped me. I honestly do not know what I would do. It scares me to think I wouldn’t be able to move the switch and it would in turn be partially my fault for killing five people even though I would have saved one person. This is troubling to me, because I don’t know what to make of my decision. I would be devastated either way and blame myself for the death of either one or five people. I am curious on how you guys would answer this… would you flip the switch or let the train stay on the path?
ReplyDeleteI agree, it’s a challenging question and hard on your morals. It makes you question wether it’s in your right to choose who’s life is worth more; to pick the lesser evils. Either way, someone dies, there is no success.
Delete3. Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi officer and one of the key architects of the Holocaust. Arendt’s key observation was that Eichmann was not a fanatical, monstrous figure but an ordinary bureaucrat, blindly following orders without deep ideological commitment.
ReplyDelete4. Hannah Arendt famously described Eichmann’s ordinariness with the phrase “the banality of evil.”
Delete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
ReplyDelete"The limits of my language are the limits of my world." He believed language was a tool for describing the reality we live in. We can not explain things beyond our understanding though. This only causes more philosophical problems.
2. Is Leibniz's optimism more likely to appeal to a small child? Why?
ReplyDeleteYes, he believed in the idea of the best of all possible worlds. Meaning that everything happens for the best. This idea is simple and easy to comprehend for children. It offers a hopeful outlook on life that would not startle a child.
I agree, unlike other philosophers who question everything and try to get more complex answers, this one I quite simple to understand. To beeline that it was always meant to be for the better, you don’t panic as much when things happen.
DeleteI agree with your point abouts kids, however, I don't agree with the interpretation of the 'best of all possible worlds' being 'everything happens for the best.' Everything happens for a reason, for me, would be a better interpretation.
DeleteWhy did Thoreau say he went to live at Walden? Do you think such an experience would expand your sense of what it means to live and/or "see"?
ReplyDeleteHe wanted to live at walden because he wished to live deliberately and truly live his life for himself. Troreau wanted to live simple in order to understand the world around him. And most importantly gain a deeper understanding of himself.
1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
ReplyDeleteThe main message is that important questions about religion and ethics should be dicussed meaningfully as they are beyond our understanding. I believe that these discussions are important because there can be no actual conversation if someone were to just dismiss many important question with responses that make them seem that they don't care or that these questions shouldn't matter.
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
Arendt learned that Eichmann in a way was a normal man who apparently was just following orders without every thinking or questioning them. This led for Arendt to see that lack of critically thinking makes people lose any. sense of morality which I agree with. I agree with what Arendt concluded because it is still very relevant in today's world as many people are sheltered and therefore, don't question what is taught to them or discuss them with others outside their sheltered society. This could be someone in a cult who doesn't think as it become more extreme or someone who lives in a small town with very bigoted views and doesn't question.
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
She called Eichmann "the banality of evil" which meant that Eichmann was born a normal man affected by the evil around him and not someone who embraced or enjoyed the evil that came to Germany.
Well. While I do agree with you. It is a little hard for me to agree completely. It is tough to discern a person's innocence when it come to huge situations. Per se, the U.S decides to go to war with a country due to it's terrorism. You are being given orders on these inhumane people so you shoot, kill, plunder, e.c.t.... How do you reconcile the fact that those people were innocent and you were a killer? To what degree should you be punished?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEichmann's case is entirely uncomplicated. Deciding not to look at the horrors in front of you, the horrors you had a hand in creating, doesn't make you innocent. Reminds me very much of the quote about refusing to choose a side is choosing a side. If you aren't against something, you are for it. Following orders isn't moral, being completely unable to think for yourself and do what you're told because it's your job doesn't absolve you. In my opinion, he was as bad as Hitler. Actions speak louder than words. And what Arendt said about him not looking like a monster, I don't believe evil at first glance ever looks like evil. Evil could be your next door neighbor, evil can be present in the most beautiful person you've ever seen. This man is no better than the Nazis who beat and killed Jews with their own hands, in fact I think he is worse.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was that the big questions about ethics and religion are beyond what we can really understand. He basically said if we can’t talk about these things in a meaningful way, we should just shut up about it. The book was written in short, numbered sections that resembled poetry. It was about how language can’t deeper things in philosophy.
ReplyDelete2. Wittgenstein talked about "language games," which basically means that language is used in a bunch of different ways depending on the situation. He thought philosophers get confused because they assume all language works the same way, like just naming things. To fix philosophical problems, he said we should look at how language is actually used in real life instead of overthinking it. He also didn’t believe in private language. He argued that language has to be public because we need shared rules to make sense of it.
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi official who was responsible for organizing the transportation of Jews to concentration camps during the Holocaust. At his trial, Hannah Arendt observed that Eichmann was not the monstrous, sadistic figure many expected. Instead, she described him as an ordinary, unthinking bureaucrat who followed orders without critically reflecting on the moral implications of his actions. Arendt calls it "the banality of evil" to describe Eichmann's role in the Holocaust and that his evil was not extraordinary or demonic but rather, the result of a failure to think critically and question the immoral system he served. Eichmann saw himself as a law abiding citizen who was simply doing his job. He failed to recognize the humanity of the people. Arendt stated that his lack of imagination and moral reflection made him complicit.
1.) The main message is that the structure of language mirrors the structure of reality and that meaningful statements must correspond to facts about the world. Wittgenstein argues that language can only meaningfully describe things that can be pictured or logically represented; anything beyond that—such as metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics—is nonsensical in a strict logical sense.
ReplyDelete3.) Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of the main architects of the Holocaust. Hannah Ardent observed that Eichmann was not a fanatical monster but an ordinary, bureaucratic functionary who followed orders without deep ideological conviction or personal hatred. He showed little independent thought, relying on clichés and bureaucratic justifications rather than moral reasoning.
ReplyDelete^Caitlyn Williams
Delete6.) The Law of Double Effect is a principle in moral philosophy and ethics that states an action with both good and bad consequences can be morally permissible if:
ReplyDeleteThe act itself is morally good or neutral.
The bad effect is not intended, even if it is foreseen.
The good effect is not achieved by means of the bad effect.
There is a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect.
Many people who disagree argue that we shouldn't "play God" by making life-or-death decisions based on intent alone.
1. Adolf Eichmann was a man who organized things for Hitler during the Holocaust. He scheduled the times and locations of everything. Eichmann thought he should not be held accountable for killing the Jews because he did not physically kill any, he was only following orders. Hannah Arendt described him as the banality of evil. I do believe that Eichmann was guilty by association. He knew what was going on but did not care to have a say.
ReplyDelete2. Karl Popper introduced the Problem of Induction. He said if it rains every Tuesday for four weeks straight, you would expect it to rain every Tuesday. If it doesn't, that's where the problem of induction comes in.
3. Thomas Kuhn said that there is a pattern of history of science. He said when the way of understanding science is changed that is called a paradigm shift.
1. I think fantasy sports is just another excuse people use to gamble as well as brush off their problems they have in their lives. While sports betting can be a fun activity for some, many fall into a deep addiction of always wanting to win more. Not only does this addiction hurt the wallet of those who fall into it, but it also hurts their time. Because sports gambling relies so much on the actual sport, many with devote their time to constantly and consistently viewing these sports games in their free time. This allows for laziness, aggression, and demotivation to creep into their lives.
ReplyDelete2. I strongly believe pornography is NOT normal and absolutely is destructive to the young children who are unfortunately exposed to it. To keep it relatively short, there is nothing normal about watching two people do the deed on your phone while pleasuring yourself. Not only can our brains not distinguish between what is real and what is fake, but the entire concept is completely backwards. We as a society today promote porn usage as a way to "educate" ourselves on our sexuality and simultaneously "explore" our own bodies. In the same breathe however, we wonder why the dating scene is decreasing steadily, wonder why teens are not interacting with the opposite sex at record low numbers, and wonder why those having sex at a young age has been exponentially decreasing (Not that I support that, but it is a good basis to see where we are a society relationship wise). I apologize for the non-professional language but this is complete BS. Assuming that the statistics are correct, the average age to view porn today is around 8-10 years old and over 70% of teens will be exposed to porn before the age of 18. From this data we can assume that the majority of teens exposed to porn will fall into a consistent porn watching basis before their brains are even fully developed. In another research study in a high school, roughly 80% of teen boys at the school consumed pornographic content. This is not just a lighthearted topic, this is a full blown crisis in America unfolding at our hands. What consistent porn usage can lead to are unrealistic body standards for both genders, sexual aggression, erectile dysfunction in males, loss of control, and withdrawal symptoms in individuals; exactly mirroring symptoms of those recovering from drug and substance abuse. While I said I would try and keep this short, I do want to express that porn is the 4th reason why people use the internet, making up 25% of searches (not including incognito mode), pornography generates more revenue than the MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL combined coming in at over $70 billion, and generates more visits than NBC, CBS, and ABC combined coming in at 42 billion visits per year; that is 115 million a day, 5 million an hour, and 80,000 per minute. Finally, 88% of porn videos contain violent acts while 50% contain verbal abuse. All while being accessible to the public. Not to mention the online sex trafficking ring which has existed on public porn websites for decades with minimal intervention, but that is a story for another time. The craziest part to me is even with all of these things I have mentioned.... porn addiction is not even recognized in Psychology's biggest manual of mental disorders, the "DSM-5." It is disruptive to children's developing brains, destructive for the mindset of all humans, disgusting the way it is positively promoted, specifically in the Western World, and is widely recognized as shameful. While this won't change the entire population's perspective of porn usage and porn addiction, I sure hope it can help some to open their eyes to reality.
Much online content, porn included, is age-inappropriate for children and adolescents. Far better for them to explore unfamiliar but compelling topics via conversation with responsible and respectable people they know and trust... and to read GOOD books and articles (etc.), and then discuss them with those people.
DeleteWhy is pro wrestling so popular, even though it’s obviously staged?
ReplyDeletePro wrestling thrives because it blends spectacle, storytelling, and emotional investment—much like reality TV, superhero movies, or even politics. Fans suspend disbelief, not because they think it's "real," but because they enjoy the drama and larger-than-life characters. Fantasyland argues that American culture has long blurred the lines between reality and fiction, and wrestling fits into that tradition by offering a fantasy of good vs. evil, personal rivalries, and heroic triumphs, all wrapped in an athletic performance.
What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America?
The rise of events like Burning Man, cosplay conventions, and Renaissance fairs reflects a shift in adulthood—where play, self-expression, and escape from everyday responsibilities are more culturally accepted. Fantasyland suggests that modern America increasingly values self-invention and personal myth-making, blurring traditional lines between childhood and adulthood. In a society that prioritizes individualism and experience, dressing up and immersing in fantasy worlds aren’t just for kids anymore—they’re part of how many adults explore identity and escape the constraints of reality.
What do you think of fantasy sports?
Fantasy sports are another example of how Americans blur reality with fantasy, something Fantasyland argues is deeply ingrained in the culture. While they’re based on real athletic performances, they transform sports into a game of imagination, statistics, and personal narrative—where fans feel like coaches, strategists, or even team owners. This shift from passive spectator to active participant reflects the larger American tendency to reshape reality into a more engaging, personalized fantasy.
Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure?
Yes, Michael Jackson was deeply tragic, both in his personal struggles and in how he embodied Fantasyland’s themes. He lived in an extreme fantasy of self-reinvention, from his changing appearance to his Neverland Ranch, where he tried to escape adulthood entirely. His life reflected America’s obsession with celebrity, myth-making, and the pursuit of an idealized self, but it also showed the darker consequences—alienation, controversy, and self-destruction. In the end, his inability to reconcile reality with fantasy made him both an icon and a cautionary tale.