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?
Why Grow Up: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age by Susan Neiman (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
Section #1
ReplyDeleteAdolf Eichmann was the train timetable administrator who transported masses of Jews to concentration camps under the orders of the Nazi regime. Hannah Arendt learned that he wasn't so much as a hater of Jews as he was a follower of authority. His defense was that he simply was doing his job and never DIRECTLY killed anyone. In this way, of course, Arendt concluded that Eichmann had no perspective of what his victims had experienced and that he hid behind his directors whilst doing as they ordered. I think his defense is pretty terrible and lacks any amount of human empathy. You're saying that you didn't think what you did was wrong? Even if it at least DIRECTLY LED to so many people's deaths? That's just plain stupid.
In response to question 3 of LHP.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you on this one. Ignorance of the law or "just following orders" is not a defense for the atrocities that Eichmann committed. I have studied the Holocaust quite extensively and have never found Eichmann to show any sort of regret for his actions, even upon his capture in 1960. How could he follow an authority that hated Jews and not hate Jews himself? Surely, he never would have admitted to not completely agreeing with Hitler. Therefore, he was either lying through his teeth or far more stupid than I thought.
DeleteIn hindsight I really should avoid just using the word 'stupid.' Perhaps 'depraved' would be a better choice. I tend to feel very strongly about this sort of thing.
DeleteI think that the assumption that he thought he was doing good works for the good of his leader is tempting but ultimately incorrectly dismissive of Eichmann's actions. I don't think it matters that he THOUGHT he was doing good, this is one of those scenarios that isn't excusable by ignorance. It's not like he was a Robin Hood figure who did an objective wrong for the purpose of helping people. I don't believe that Arendt's perspective is critical enough; Eichmann had enough fear of the consequences that he fled to Argentina so you can't tell me he had no idea why they were looking to convict him.
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteThe horrific rationality of "just following orders" is not one that is ridiculously stupid but blatantly evil. To choose to not question directives of genocidal proportions but rather just do as your told as efficiently as you can as you benefit from it is evil. Regardless of how bureaucratic the process is, it does not make it any lesser amoral than the fanatical zeal of the other Nazis.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
6. The Law of Double-Effect offers that it is alright to kill someone to defend yourself, and if not killing that person wouldn't adequately protect you from harm. This law can be applied to cases of abortion along with the tagged concept of the woman attempting to prevent getting pregnant in the first place. With both of these scenarios, many people believe that you shouldn't play God in any fashion. They believe that, in every circumstance, no human should decide the fate of another. I do not necessarily agree with that opposition because I think it paints the world as a prettier place than it is. Many times, especially in regards to capital punishment, people would say that it's not humanity's duty to judge one of their own-- citing that it's God's job. But in a world of serial killers, rapists, and sadists, I don't think rehabilitation is in the cards for a lot of people. That may be cynical or assumptive to say, not every person is the same.
And on the topic of abortion, I do agree with Thomson's point. She argued that if there was no intent to have the child, you should not be held responsible for carrying it to term. I'm sure that view was a very controversial one at the time, but it highlighted women's rights to their own bodies even at the risk of someone else's life-- the child's. I thought it was interesting that the issue of the life of the mother over the child connected with the train moral dilemma. I suppose this would also relate back to utilitarianism? Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people?
The way you explained your view is so good. I tend to agree that the world is often looked at in a unrealistically positive light when having discussions around "playing God." I am not vehemently for or against capital punishment, but if I had to choose, I would likely lean against. The Law of Double-Effect is slightly problematic in my mind after reading and researching due to the fact that it seems to easily write off a bad action as "not intended" and therefore not consider it enough when contemplating an action. What does it matter that it was not intended if it still happened? And what if it could have been avoidable? Of course, I could be misinterpreting this.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete4. She described Eichmann using the words "the banality of evil." This was to say that Eichmann was an "ordinary" person who committed atrocities in a similar manner to the way one would file paperwork. I would argue that "ordinary" evil is just evil, and that distinctions such as this between types of evils may lead to some easily rationalizing horrible actions.
I agree, Arendt seems to be giving a lot of grace to Nazis where it isn't due. I have a very hard time believing that anyone under that regime was ignorant of its motives just because as a collective they were all very informed about Hitler's thoughts, feelings, and wishes about Germany under the Third Reich.
DeleteSection 2
DeleteThough I do not necessarily agree with Arendt’s perspective on the matter of evil, I do actually believe there is a misconception about the meaning of banal evil. It, at least in my limited conception of Arendt’s philosophy, which very well could be mischaracterizing it myself, seems to be a statement more so about the source of evil than the degree of said evil’s importance. Essentially, she likely thought that Eichmann was complicit in and directly responsible for a great deal of suffering and evil (she supposedly supported his execution). The banal part of his evil was not the deed itself but that the source of the evil was what she judged a rather ordinary man who, due to circumstance and extreme ignorance, allowed himself to commit atrocities. Another distinction that I would make is that the ignorance in question is not a lack of information about what he was doing or what Hitler’s plans were, but the fact that he did not seem to have any compulsion to contemplate empathizing with those he condemned to death and never admitted to even attempting to try empathizing, before or after his conviction.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI do not believe that Ardent was calling the actions of Eichmann those of a lesser evil, rather was noting that evil exists in more than just the fanatical and violent processes of someone like Adolf Hitler. The bureaucratization of evil, the banality of it, is a shocking recognition that even as a seemingly normal man, he was utterly and totally evil in his participation in the Holocaust.
This is a very good point. The way we classify terms can often result in a misunderstanding of the subject matter. I agree that "ordinary" is not the best word to use in this case. Maybe "compliant".
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteToday is actually my presentation on Hannah Arendt, so I will be talking about her coverage of the Eichmann trial among other things. I think her views are interesting, because she criticized both sides of the political spectrum. She also prioritized political freedom over personal freedom, highlighting that it is not beneficial for society if its members became recluses in their own freedom. She had other questionable views as well, along with very controversial views when it came to topics like Palestine.
One thing is, if you can’t talk about religion in a meaningful way, then you shouldn’t talk about the.
ReplyDelete2. He said language is a game because he meant language can be used for many things; for him to solve any philosophical problem was to open the cork from the bottle, pretty much tell philosophers that they are asking the wrong questions and that they had been misled by language. He said there is no such thing as a private language.
3. Adlof Eichman was a hard-working administrator. From 1942 he was in charge of transporting the Jews of Europe to concentration camps in Poland, including Auschwitz. He wasn’t an evil man just an unthiking man for him what he was doing was just doing his job and that was all.
Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi official who helped organize extermination camps during the Holocaust. Arendt came to the conclusion that great evil can be committed not only by fanatics, but by ordinary people who refuse to think for themselves
ReplyDeleteThe Law of Double Effect is a moral principle stating that it can be permissible to cause harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result, even though it would be wrong to cause that same harm intentionally.
ReplyDeleteThe Law of Double Effect is simple in definition but also complicated. It all comes down to this: do we as human beings have the right to cause harm to prevent further harm? I personally think it depends on the situation. For example, self-defense. If someone has the intention of killing you and is actively trying, should you be able to defend yourself and others by any means necessary? Is it still murder? Yes, but at the same time, you were preventing more deaths by killing one. I personally think you should be able to, but I also think that it should be a last-ditch effort to prevent it.
Delete1. The main message of Wittgenstein's Tractacus is that problems often arise from a misunderstanding of our language, and we often confuse the logic of words.
ReplyDelete3. Eichmann was a nazi administrator who deported over 1.5 million Jews. From his trial, Arendt realized what she calls "the banality of evil" which the thought that evil isn't always outright expressed, but often comes from ordinary boring people who let it happen by just following orders.
4. "the banality of evil"
Corbin Medley - Section 3
ReplyDelete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
That the most important ethical and religious questions lie beyond our understanding and if we are incapable of talking about them meaningfully, then we should not at all. I think this is a problematic perspective to take, although I agree that if you are going to discuss a serious topic such as religion or ethics then you should take an informed or inquisitive approach to it. The problem lies in what it means to speak on something meaningfully, if we are incapable of asking or grasping the most important questions then how are we to meaningfully speak of them? It seems like an easy way to disregard or discredit people's opposing opinions simply by saying they're not "meaningful."
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
A Nazi and high ranking member of the SS - a major role in the development of the Holocaust. Ardent learned that he chose not to think too hard about his actions, that he convinced himself that what he was doing was right because he was "just following orders" and benefiting from a system of pure and utter evil. The book keeps reinstating that he was not evil but rather unthinking (this is earlier in the chapter until it gets to Ardent's main point), but to choose not to think and to simply follow orders of genocide KNOWING it would lead to the death of millions IS evil. There isn't anything about his decisions that isn't evil, it does not matter how much thought or weight he put into it; he was indifferent to his contribution to the mass genocide of millions of people based on ethnic, racial, and religious differences. Ardent eventually came to develop this concept into the banality of evil - the boring bureaucratization of evil.
1. The main message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is that language can only meaningfully describe facts about the world that can be pictured as true or false. He believed that anything beyond this, like ethics or religion, lies outside what can be expressed in language.
ReplyDelete2. In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein described “language games” as the many different ways we use language, where meaning depends on context and use. He thought philosophy should clarify how we use words, rejecting the idea of a private language that only one person could understand.
3. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi official responsible for coordinating the deportation of Jews during the Holocaust. At his trial, Hannah Arendt learned he was not a monstrous villain but an ordinary, thoughtless bureaucrat—leading her to describe the “banality of evil.”
Can there be a "private language"?
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought this seemed plausible at first, Wittgenstein's counterpoint about misremembering how things feel and misidentifying them in our private language makes a lot of sense to me. It may be possible to have a private language, but it would be very susceptible to the distortions of our minds.
"Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
It may be literally true that he wasn't responsible for the *creation* of that terrible policy, but he was absolutely responsible for the practical application and success of that policy. Following the events of the Holocaust, the notion that the excuse of "I was just following orders" doesn't exempt one from blame and prosecution has become commonplace. As is the case in our military laws today, it is the responsibility of each individual to critically assess their orders rather than blindly following them.
Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists?
I believe so because the unthinking people allow the evil sadists to achieve success, as was demonstrated in Nazi Germany. Dictators don't carry out their plans without followers and manpower, much of which may be provided by those who don't think critically about their own beliefs and their actions.
I agree. The excuse of "I was just following orders" doesn't mean you are responsible. Yes, you might not be responsible for creating or causing that event, but you still followed through. When one blindly follows orders, you are risking everything.
DeleteI also agree with your 3rd point. Yes, the unthinking people aren't actively harming others, but they are allowing others to. This might seem silly, but when you were younger, did you ever watch someone else push someone down and hurt them? If so, what did you do? If you did nothing, you aren't helping solve the problem. So yes, I think the unthinking people are as dangerous as evil sadists.
DeleteWhy Grow Up: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age by Susan Neiman (WGU) 8-10:
ReplyDelete8. Because it will make you very pessimistic towards growing up and adulthood. She believes as you grow, you gain freedom.
9. Samoan children have support and less confusion about Adulthood.
10. Helping us learn how to grow up.
I think the case of Adolf Eichman highlights the importance of maintaining a sense of personal cognitive morality. In my opinion, asking questions like "what is happening in my surroundings?", "am I in the right?", and "what can I do to make things better?" are essential to bettering society. I think if more people did that than there would much less of a chance for people with evil intentions to cause harm to the world.
ReplyDelete