Up@dawn 2.0 (blogger)

Delight Springs

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Questions NOV 6

 WGU

1. What mixed messages keep us in states of immaturity?

2. The older you get, the more you know what?

3. What does the U-bend tell us about aging?

4. Growing up means realizing what?

5. Philosophy is an attempt to wrestle with what three questions, according to Kant?

6. The young have only vague and erroneous notions of what, according to de Beauvoir?

7. Shakespeare's As You Like It is a gloss on what modern message?

8. Philosophers seek answers to children's questions such as what?


SSHM

1. "Anhedonia" is what?

2. What was Renouvier's definition of free will?

3. Renouvier said an individual's will could break what?

4. What must one frequently do, according to James, to establish reciprocity in a relationship?

5. "Looking on the bright side," though often not objectively warranted, is nonetheless what?

6. Why did James think most of his contemporaries would not have preferred to "expunge" the Civil War?

7. Readiness for war is the essence of what, according to General Lea?

8. James says he devoutly believes in what, and in a future that has outlawed what?

9. Non-military conscription of our "gilded youth" would do what for them, according to James?

==

LH

  1. What sort of childhood did Kieran Setiya have? Can you relate?
  2. What was KS's response to the pandemic? What was yours?
  3. What did Aristotle and Hume say about friendship?
  4. What is the impact of social isolation on health?
  5. What does KS say about Descartes, Hegel, Sartre, and Wittgenstein?
  6. KS is unsure about which view of Aristotle's?
  7. What "dual propensity" did Kant say belongs to human nature?
  8. What is KS's picture of friendship?
  9. What is the path to strong relationships?

Discussion Questions

  • Is suffering the rule, not the exception, in the human condition? 43
  • Can facing death provide an impetus to live? 46
  • Why do you think so many who attempt and fail suicide say they experienced immediate regret for the attempt? 47
  • What has believing in free will enabled you to do, that you couldn't or wouldn't have done otherwise? 
  • Are you ever unsettled by a "psychological upturn"? 51
  • Do you consider yourself fully "embodied"? 54
  • Do you find anything about war "ideal, sacred, spiritual" etc.?
  • Can sports function as a moral equivalent of war, at least to the extent of channeling our martial imupulses into benign forms of expression on playing fields, in harmless competition? Or do sports intensify and exacerbate the aggressive side of human nature?
  • Are most politicians "pliant" like McKinley, easily "swept away" by war fever?
  • Do we glorify war and millitarism excessively, in this culture? 
  • "Patriotism no one thinks discreditable" (1284). True? Should we sharply distinguish patriotism from nationalism?
  • What do you think of James's references to our "feminism" as a mark of weakness or lack of hardihood? 1285-6
  • Instead of an army enlisted "against Nature," do you think we can muster an army in defense of nature and against anthropogenic environmental destruction?

==

FL

1. What gives Andersen "the heebie-jeebies"?

2.  What does Disneyfication denote?

3.  A third of people at theme parks are what?

4. Andersen thinks we've become more like what?

5. Andersen argues that Americans are not just exceptionally religious, but that what?


DQ

  • Should we be worried or excited (both, neither?) about the future impact of "augmented reality" technologies? 395
  • Does the prevalence of adults infatuated with the world of Disney indicate an increasingly infantilized public (in Susan Neiman's sense of the tern)?
  • What do you think of Rhonda Byrne's Secret advice? 408


LISTEN (11.9.21). "The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party," begins James's "Moral Equivalent of War." This is no idle metaphysical dispute about squirrels and trees, it's ultimately about our collective decision as to what sort of species we intend to become. It's predicated on the very possibility of  deciding anything, of choosing and enacting one identity and way of being in the world over another. Can we be more pacifistic and mutually supportive, less belligerent and violent? Can we pull together and work cooperatively in some grand common cause that dwarfs our differences? Go to Mars and beyond with Elon, maybe? 

It's Carl Sagan's birthday today, he'd remind us that while Mars is a nice place to visit we wouldn't probably want to live there. Here, on this "mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam," is where we must make our stand. Here, on the PBDThe only home we've ever known.

In light of our long human history of mutual- and self-destruction, the substitution for war of constructive and non-rapacious energies directed to the public good ought to be an easier sell. Those who love the Peace Corps and its cousin public service organizations are legion, and I'm always happy to welcome their representatives to my classroom. Did that just last year... (continues)

==

The Moral Equivalent of War

by William James
This essay, based on a speech delivered at Stanford University in 1906, is the origin of the idea of organized national service. The line of descent runs directly from this address to the depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps to the Peace Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps. Though some phrases grate upon modern ears, particularly the assumption that only males can perform such service, several racially-biased comments, and the notion that the main form of service should be viewed as a "warfare against nature," it still sounds a rallying cry for service in the interests of the individual and the nation.

The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party. The military feelings are too deeply grounded to abdicate their place among our ideals until better substitutes are offered than the glory and shame that come to nations as well as to individuals from the ups and downs of politics and the vicissitudes of trade. There is something highly paradoxical in the modern man's relation to war. Ask all our millions, north and south, whether they would vote now (were such a thing possible) to have our war for the Union expunged from history, and the record of a peaceful transition to the present time substituted for that of its marches and battles, and probably hardly a handful of eccentrics would say yes. Those ancestors, those efforts, those memories and legends, are the most ideal part of what we now own together, a sacred spiritual possession worth more than all the blood poured out. Yet ask those same people whether they would be willing, in cold blood, to start another civil war now to gain another similar possession, and not one man or woman would vote for the proposition. In modern eyes, precious though wars may be they must not be waged solely for the sake of the ideal harvest. Only when forced upon one, is a war now thought permissible... (continues)

==

War

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

Some reject the very idea of the “morality of war”.[1] Of those, some deny that morality applies at all once the guns strike up; for others, no plausible moral theory could license the exceptional horrors of war. The first group are sometimes called realists. The second group are pacifists. The task of just war theory is to seek a middle path between them: to justify at least some wars, but also to limit them (Ramsey 1961). Although realism undoubtedly has its adherents, few philosophers find it compelling.[2] The real challenge to just war theory comes from pacifism. And we should remember, from the outset, that this challenge is real. The justified war might well be a chimera.

However, this entry explores the middle path between realism and pacifism. It begins by outlining the central substantive divide in contemporary just war theory, before introducing the methodological schisms underpinning that debate. It then discusses the moral evaluation of wars as a whole, and of individual acts within war (traditionally, though somewhat misleadingly, called jus ad bellum and jus in bello respectively)... (continues)

==



==

...war poetry... Top 10 War Poems... Poems Against War... Teddy Roosevelt on "The Strenuous Life"...

  

14 comments:

  1. Section #1
    SSHM
    2. What was Renouvier's definition of free will?

    The sustaining of a thought because I chose to when I might have other thoughts.
    This seems more to me like discipline. While discipline can be linked to free will I feel like there is more to free will than just discipline.

    WGU
    3. What does the U-bend tell us about aging?

    People become increasingly unhappy until middle age and then people increasingly become happier.
    I never knew about this until now. Reading about Beauvoir's outlook on aging earlier in the semester made me fear aging a little but this alleviates that.

    5. Philosophy is an attempt to wrestle with what three questions, according to Kant?

    What can I know? What should I know? What may I hope?
    I don't think I have heard a lot of philosophy wrestle with "What should I know?" The other two I can think of examples but nothing comes to mind with that question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack Bortz, Section 1November 5, 2025 at 1:06 PM

      I also had not known of the U-bend before. When looking at the people I've known in life, it does seem to make sense. I look forward to being old and happy one day. Knowing this will make the difficult parts of life easier to bear! I suppose that is what philosophy is for.

      Delete
    2. Definitely! I have always believed that being young cannot possibly be the happiest part of your life. While I still look back on my childhood freedom with nostalgia, I realize my current life is even more rewarding/fulfilling.

      Delete
    3. ^Bella York, Section #3

      Delete
    4. I agree! I hope to grow old and have a loving family that I can care for. I look forward to that, and it definitely helps me push through the harder times. It is sad, though, that people become increasingly unhappy until they hit middle age. I mean, you are wasting so much of your life feeling unhappy. Obviously, bad things will happen, but I hope that all of us can see through the bad times to a better future and not get stuck in the bad moments.

      Delete
  2. Jack Bortz, Section 1November 5, 2025 at 1:04 PM

    WGU

    1. Some mixed messages say, "never grow up, stay young." Others urge us to "grow up and get our lives together." This can keep us locked in a state of immaturity. It does not have to be this way!

    2. The older you get, the more you know that "the plateaus are not endless, the plunges rarely fatal."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corbin Medley - Section 3

      I agree it does not have to be this way; while the concept of youth will always be desirable, I think it is important for us to equally romanticize the idea of being an adult as it is to be young. Improving the world and guiding the next generation can be as wonderful as it is daunting. Of course it is difficult to romanticize the loss of one's physical/biological peak, but there are downsides in all aspects of life, even in youth.

      Delete
  3. Bella York, Section #3November 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM

    Whether you lean more towards a belief in free will or determinism, I agree that giving up hope in free will is detrimental. My dad says, “If you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.” This has resonated with me. Even if it isn’t possible, why not try? It sounds like cheesy “you miss all the shots you don’t take” stuff, but it’s pretty true. We mentioned in class how depressing it would be to believe that you had absolutely no power in your own life. Personally, rash self-belief has served me well. Even if I don’t hit those insanely high goals, I get further than expected every time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corbin Medley - Section 3

      I think that is an incredible way to look at the argument of free will vs. determinism. I lean more to a deterministic perspective, but I think that saying from your dad is absolutely true - if you are not in the mindset in which you think you are capable, then you will not be. You have to be open to doing things even if it means failing. Failing is nothing more than learning, and it should not be taken as discouragement. I do not believe determinism means you have no power over your own life, I was not there for that class so I don't know if that's what it was related to but - this is all something known in psychology as learned-helplessness which is something people do experience even with the concept of free will. It's as that saying expresses, if you feel helpless, you will be.

      Delete
  4. Bella York, Section #3November 5, 2025 at 1:36 PM

    "where bad news is no longer news... I incline as much to rosary beads as to the jottings and analyses of politicians and newspapermen."
    - Seamus Heaney, "Whatever You Say, Say Nothing" (1975)

    How applicable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Corbin Medley - Section 3
    WGU

    1. What mixed messages keep us in states of immaturity?

    We are told as children/adolescence that we need to grow up and accept a "realistic" perspective on life rather than the optimistic perception of children - capitulation to the status quo; but, the image of growing up is a dismally projected one that causes us to be reluctant to it's calling which serves the ideals of those who do not wish to see the world any better of than it is now.

    3. What does the U-bend tell us about aging?

    The turn of phrase "growing up" is misleading in the way it conceptualizes life as a journey towards the top of the hill. Life is full of ups and downs some bigger and smaller than the previous/one ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. When we reach middle school or high school, we are told it is time to grow up. While I agree that it is time to start learning to make decisions on your own and to be accountable for them, I think the phrase "grow up" has a bad connotation. Just because you "grow up" doesn't mean you can't still find that childlike joy while you go through life. I still find happiness in many simple things, and I still act like a kid in some areas. For example, I love LEGO. While they are technically a kids' toy, I love building things with them. That might have been a weird way to put it, but I think I get my point across. Growing up doesn't mean not finding joy and being stuck in the "real world."

      Delete
  6. Section 2

    SSHM
    3. Renouvier said an individual's will could break what?

    Renouvier decidedly asserted that, despite the claims of logical positivism and determinism, free will must exist because it permits the disruption of logically-compelled systems. In other words, systems which function rigidly by the laws of the universe can still be halted or altered by human intervention.

    Though I understand the motivation and thought-process behind this position, I see it as too readily dismissive of the properties of the universe, regardless of whether the conclusion itself holds any merit. It begins with the assumption that the logical systems which humans can disrupt thereby disrupt the course that logic would otherwise enforce, though I see this as a weak argument: so far, it has not been demonstrated tangible examples of what systems are being described and it has not been discussed whether or not human minds are logical systems in and of themselves (though I am admittedly working off of a fragment of his full assertion and so he could very well have done so, I just would not know based on what is presented in the book). The lack of examples is very pressing to me, as it would illustrate what metaphysical level of structure is being disrupted. To put it simply, if the example is not the most fundamental principle of a given interaction in the universe, then its alteration is not a deviation from logic, but from the impression of logic which arises from smaller, more consistent laws. If these fundamental laws (assuming they exist and are consistent) are disobeyed to any capacity, then I could see the validity of Renouvier’s logic, otherwise, it seems an unhelpfully unsubstantial bit of information. The second component (whether or not human minds are, themselves, bound to logic) also confounds this assertion with its absence: if a logically-operating system is disrupted by another logically-operating system, this seems a paradox or at the very least a completely different argument than free will. If human minds are still, at the end of the day, logically-compelled, then they do not defy logic by acting. Perhaps the answer is intended to be deduced from the example, where a mind which can break the logic of an external system could, thereby, break the logic of its own systems. This dilemma itself could even reveal a logical problem with the larger argument. If logical rules must be violated to permit true free will, then how are human minds as consistent as they are? What constrains them, if they supposedly can violate any or at least many constraints? It is reminiscent to me of the “ghost in the machine” argument against souls, where, instead of arguing that an immaterial being cannot interact with the material by definition, an illogical entity could not be confined by logical systems by definition. Such logical systems could be anything from obeying gravity to molecular interactions which permit the consistent function of neural activity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. philopateer iskandar #3November 6, 2025 at 1:40 PM

    1.Anhedonia is the inability to feel pleasure


    2. For him free will is when you chose to have it or you can’t just say you have it you actually need to have free nd think tht you have free will.

    3.logical continuity of a mechanical serie and be the initial cause of another series of phenomena.

    ReplyDelete