Presentations:
Mill - #2 Dean F
Marx - #1 Evie #2 Amelia #3 Jonah
Kierkegaard - #1 Sami
Darwin - #1 Sakina
LHP
1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic?
4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860? What do you think of his response to the Bishop on the matter of ancestry?
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
9. What is "the subjective point of view"? Do we need to value objectivity as well?
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
11. What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
HWT
1. What two concepts from Indian and Buddhist philosophy are essentially the same?
2. What are the four stages of Hindu life?
3. What is "the smile of philosophy"?
FL
1. What were Americans spending a third of their time doing, by the end of the '50s?
2. Who grew up in Marceline, MO?
3. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner sell?
4. What was added to currency in 1954?
5. What did Jane Roberts "discover" in 1963?
6. The sudden embrace of what, in the 60s, helped turn America into Fantasyland?
Mill and Bentham both agreed that the "right decision was the one that produced the most happiness" , they differed when Mill came to separate happiness into higher and lower pleasures.The book uses the example of pleasures an animal could experience versus pleasures a human could experience. Mill believed that if given the choice everyone would pick higher pleasures but that's not necessarily true. What I think of when hearing higher and lower pleasures are things like scrolling on your phone or picking up a real hobby like crocheting. A lot of people choose to be on their phones.
ReplyDeleteMill believed that open discussion was important to society because it made them think critically about their views. I totally agree, I think a lot of people believe what they believe in "just cause". For example, when reading the little history of philosophy and discussing views from different philosophers it forces me to think about what I believe in about general life and why.
I really like how Mills was an advocate for women. In the 1800's women were seen as an other and lacked rights compared to their male counterparts. I just think it's cool that he carried his philosophy onto women too and defended them to people he knew and asking them how they knew women were inferior if they kept stunting women's growth and prohibiting to do the same things as a man does.
Megan Johnson section #1
Delete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
ReplyDeleteMill disagreed with Bentham that all happiness was good pleasure, and instead distinguished higher and lower pleasures. He thought that large amounts of lower pleasures, like ones an animal can experience, could never match even small amounts of the higher pleasures. I don’t think either one of them are exactly right about this. I tend to side more with Mill’s idea that certain pleasures are more valuable than others; spending time with friends and family and creative pursuits have more value to me than scrolling on social media. However, I agree that Mill’s perspective may be too narrow in deciding what pleasures are good or bad based on his personal tastes. I think it’s probably more important for an individual to find what things are fulfilling pleasures for them, not for everyone to be content reading a book. I think I side more with Mill here, but I think what a “good” pleasure is should be left up to the individual.
6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis? What does it take to turn a theory into something more?
Since Darwin’s time, there has been a mass of new observations in support of the theory and of later versions of it. We now have a much better understanding of how genetics work and much more fossil evidence to support his theory. His hypothesis turned into a theory because it has very substantial weight of evidence in its support. I think to turn a theory into something more, the evidence behind it has to be so substantial that it can’t be disproven, consequently, the theory becomes factual.
10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?
Karl Marx was angry about the conditions that the Industrial Revolution had produced for workers all over Europe. He thought the whole of human history could be explained as a class struggle: the struggle between the rich capitalist class and the working class. I think he did have a point, but I think this generalization is a bit too simple. I think you could argue multiple revolutions and wars were started because of the class struggle, but I think saying “the whole of human history” could be explained by that is too broad. There have also been religious conflicts and economic motivations for countries being involved in war, which I think is substantial to human history. While I agree that a class struggle is central to many parts of human history, I think this statement is too broad and ignores other contributors.
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
ReplyDeleteKierkegaard was the Danish Socrates and most of his writing was about an individual’s subjective experience and relationship with God. I like Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” concept as a way to rationalize the irrational idea of having no physical tangible evidence of the things people are putting their faith in.
8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?
According to Nigel Warburton, faith is irrational because it involves holding beliefs without sufficient evidence. I can agree that faith can be irrational by definition, but I don’t think I agree with exactly what Warburton is meaning when he says that. I think faith as a concept can be described as irrational, but having faith doesn’t necessarily make you as a person irrational because some people have faith in things as a way of giving their life reason or rationality.
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
Marx called religion “the opium of the people.” I think his fairness could go either way. I think he was being fair in the way that he could’ve been sympathizing with the people, not making fun of them. However, I also think he was slightly unfair in the way that he didn’t highlight the very positive things religious communities can do for the world.
Section #1
ReplyDelete5) The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
The single best idea anyone has ever had was Darwin's Theory of Evolution, according to Daniel Dennett.
I can think of an equally brilliant idea, conjured by someone in ancient Rome: Grinding basil, pine nuts, cheese, and olive oil to make pesto.
While the recipe for pesto wasn't as influential as Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it certainly was a brilliant, and delicious, one.
11) What was Marx's "vision"? Is it an appealing one?
Marx, like Hegel, viewed history as a piece of paper unfolding. He believed we could expedite it for the better by the working class taking action. His "vision" was that the proletariat, or working class, would defeat their oppressors in a violent revolution that, according to him, would unfold naturally. In this ideal world, everyone would provide based on their abilities and get back based on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I can see how, on paper, this concept can be very appealing. In hindsight, however, I don't think what Marx envisioned could ever be truly implemented.
Comment: After reading only a few pages about Marx and his ideas, I am starting to see why his "vision" appealed to so many people. If I were a 19th-century industrial worker with no prior knowledge of in-practice communism, I would have fallen in love with the concept.
Pesto was the greatest idea, it has been settled
DeletePesto is good. Natural selection is brilliant.
DeleteLHP Q1. Mill believed that not everyone would automatically prefer a life centered around attaining the maximum amount of pleasure possible, and that rather, what motivates people is space and opportunity to become the best version of themselves. On the contrary, Bentham believed that the most useful thing to society was to maximize personal pleasure. I agree with Mill, because when people are given the freedom to explore things that excite them, as long as those things do not hurt anyone else, their lives appear to be richer. In my experience, something is more pleasurable the more novel it is. If I were hooked up to a maximum pleasure machine, eventually the pleasure would become my baseline, and I would not be able to exceed those metrics of happiness. This is why I dislike Bentham’s view on pleasure and its utility. Bentham overlooks the fact that sometimes the pursuit of something is more pleasurable than the thing itself.
ReplyDeleteLHP Q5 According to the philosopher Daniel Dennett, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was the best idea anyone ever had. For me, I cannot think of a better idea than the theory of evolution either. This might be because there isn't one, or I am just not creative enough to think of one at this moment. Darwin’s theory is so revolutionary and provocative that even today it has not been fully accepted by society. I remember when I was in high school, my friend took me to his church where his dad was a pastor. As we walked down one of the hallways, I noticed that the walls were lined with images of apes with red X’s through them. The images were attempting to discredit the theory of evolution in a fun, kid-like way of educating. Before this, I had known about evolution, agreed with it, and thought that everyone else did too. I was so wrong. Seeing these cartoonish anti-evolution images stuck with me and made me even more curious about science and the dogma of organized religion. Ideas like Darwin’s challenge the power structure of the world and therefore force humanity to reevaluate everything it believes in. These ideas matter the most.
LHP Q11 Marx’s vision was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” What he meant by this was that participants in his communist society would provide as much as they could to the collective, and in turn the society would take care of them. While this is a very appealing and borderline utopian vision, I struggle to imagine a world where this would work on a large scale. This has oftentimes been the consensus on communism from economists and historians. I think Marx had good intentions and that he saw the injustices of the hyper-industrial society he lived in and wanted to change it. I think that capitalism can get out of control and reach the same corrupt extremes as communism. In fact, the economic system we live in today promotes a hustle culture that idealizes material gain and climbing a social hierarchy through success and money, which can feel empty and pointless at times. I do not think this current model will survive. People are getting tired of the superficial rewards promised by the hyper, crony capitalist overlords we serve. It would not surprise me if more people started embracing Marxist ideologies to combat this extreme capitalist environment we find ourselves in.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Bentham defined happiness as any pleasurable experience; Mill agreed, but believed there were different kinds of pleasure, higher and lower. One example from the book is a happy pig and an unhappy human–Bentham would say become the pig and be happy, while Mill would argue that even the unhappy human is happier than the pig could ever be, because the human is capable of experiencing higher pleasures like music and reading. Both think about what it means to be happy and relate happiness to pleasure, but they have unique ideas about what happiness actually looks like.
2. The Danish Socrates is Kierkegaard, and most of his work revolved around finding how to live and knowing whether you had made the right decision. Alongside this, he thought a lot about faith, and found it to be something irrational, like a leap in the dark. You don’t know where you’ll land or if you should have jumped at all, just like how decisions made from faith may be confusing and even unwise. Based on Nigel Warburton’s summary, I find Kierkegaard’s philosophy quite relatable. We don’t have all the answers and we can’t see how the puzzle pieces fit together, but something keeps telling us to pick up the pieces anyways.
3. Karl Marx was angry because of the labor conditions he saw during Industrial Revolution-era Europe. Workers worked long hours for little pay and their livelihoods could be in jeopardy at the drop of a hat. The poor were exceedingly poor, the rich were exceedingly rich, and Marx explained human history as a class struggle between the wealthy bourgeoisie and the working class proletariat. I don’t agree with all his philosophy, but I do agree that for many people work is never-ending, for some because they are just workaholics, others because they are doing all they can to put food on the table. Either way, I think work is almost a dreadful chore that’s never fully finished and it consumes our lives, rather than something that provides structure and the means to live, but still allows time and energy for other activities.
#1
ReplyDeleteHey all, no notes from Sarah today. We had a terrible scare with my cat this morning, (yowling in pain, unable to move from her position on her side, panting, hyperventilating, pupils wide and glassy). She rallied, so I went to school, but shortly after I arrived back home she died.
I don't have the brain space for philosophy right now. I am planning on showing up to class tomorrow though.
Life goes on.
Cally will be missed.
I'm so sorry Sarah.
DeleteSo sorry to hear this Sarah. I am sure Cally was a cherished companion. My heart goes out to you and your family.
DeleteVery sorry, Sarah. I've lost a lot of pets in my time. It never gets easy.
Delete7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
ReplyDeleteThe “Danish Socrates” was Søren Kierkegaard. Most of his writing was about deliberation and making difficult choices. I really like his view of faith and the importance of obeying God above all else, even above doing what is considered morally right. I agree with his view of faith being a “leap” that involves an irrational component of believing in something that cannot be seen.
Also, I can relate to Kierkegaard a lot more than any of the other philosophers that we have read about so far. I think it is hilarious that he acted like he went out on the town to see plays but was actually at home working on his writing.
12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
Marx called religion the “opium of the people.” He believed that religion was a tool used to pacify the working class in order to prevent them from overthrowing the upper class. I do think that he was being unfair, as I’m sure religion gave people a purpose in life then just as it does now. I’m sure they needed it in a time as bleak as Marx’s, yet he dismisses religion as an excuse not to “realize their true oppressed condition.”
Side note: it was very interesting to learn about Marx’s background. I did not know about the societal environment he grew up in. It really helps to contextualize his ideas and the motivations behind them.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteHWT
1.) In Indian and Buddhist philosophy, the concepts of karma and dharma are closely linked, but more precisely, atman (the eternal self in Hinduism) and anatman (the “no-self” in Buddhism) are considered opposing ideas, yet they both address the nature of self and existence. Essentially, both traditions explore how life’s actions and understanding of self affect liberation or enlightenment.
2.) The four stages of Hindu life are Brahmacharya (student), Grihastha (householder), Vanaprastha (forest dweller or retirement), and Sannyasa (renunciation). Each stage has its duties and focuses on spiritual and social responsibilities.
3.) “The smile of philosophy” refers to a way of thinking that is gentle, questioning, and accepting of life’s mysteries. It’s a recognition that philosophy doesn’t have to be grim or purely rational; it can be light, curious, and even playful while still serious.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
- He defended the view that we need room to make our own decisions and not have all of our behaviors "paternalized" by the government. He thought that the best way to set up society is let everyone have space to develop as they want to. This has limits, that's why he came up with the "Harm Principle" that is as long as long as no harm comes to anyone else, you are free to live as you please. I think this is consistent with what he thought of Bentham and his thoughts on pleasure. The book doesn't say this but I feel that Bentham's thoughts on pleasure are more "strict" than Mill's with his one type of pleasure, while Mill's idea has more freedom in his multi-class pleasures.
What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic? Is our society generally "open" in this sense, or dogmatic? According to Mill, the benefit of open discussion is that it forced people to think critically and question everything that they believed. Being dogmatic is problematic because you may end up holding onto prejudices that we don’t fully understand. I believe our society has a balance between being open and dogmatic. In some areas, especially politics, people can be extremely polarized with little tolerance for alternative viewpoints. While I like to believe many people are driven by conviction and question their beliefs to some extent, I do fear people become dogmatic in these settings. Many controversial topics pick up attention and people quickly form opinions and aren’t easily swayed once they decide how they feel. Even when people are presented with evidence and explanations, people choose to deny the truth if it means holding onto their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one? According to Daniel Dennett, the most influential idea was Darwin’s concept of how humans and plants came to be how they are today, and how they continue changing. While I can’t deny that this was one of the most profound discoveries ever, I think there is value in exploring metaphysics, too. Darwin’s idea was about the nature of humanities' creation, but we should also appreciate philosophers that questioned why we exist and how we should exist. Questions that may never be answered with tangible evidence are equally as valuable as scientific hypotheses.
What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair? Marx called religion the opium of people. He compared religion to a drug for the people, an oppressing concept that keeps people negligent of their awful condition. I do believe that he was being unfair, and he made an overgeneralization about all religions. I don’t think it is fair to reduce religion to a pacifying thought, as it is the source of so much art, life, philosophy, and culture. It’s okay to not understand another’s faith, but it is absurd to assume that religion must be abandoned for society to advance.
LHP 1 - Mill disagreed with Bentham's idea that pleasure should be one's only goal in life. He believed that there could be higher pleasures, which give a more nuanced fulfillment, and lower pleasures, which are simply enjoyable. I think that this is pretty subjective, because you could ascribe higher or lower pleasures to the same act. You could watch a movie and appreciate things like cinematography, set design, editing, shot composition, or you could watch a movie because you want to see explosions and eat popcorn. I'd argue both are valid reasons to watch a movie.
ReplyDeleteLHP 10 - Marx believed that history could be described as a series of class struggles between the upper class and the lower class. I think that's pretty apt. Trade, territorial disputes, wars, imperialism—all pretty obviously economic. Even things like religious or racial discrimination can link back to class, since those are tools that the upper class can use to divide the lower class and prevent solidarity.
LHP 12 - Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses," in the sense that it distracted the lower class from the oppression that the upper class was inflicting on them. I think this undermines how faith can improve a person's life, giving them personal goals, and also the charitable potential of religious institutions. But I can't lie, a lot of hose institutions definitely see believers as easy money. Megachurches certainly use religion as an opiate.
Section #3
ReplyDelete2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
Mill had a kind of ultilitarian thinking that suggested that people, similar to trees, need room to grow in order to florish. His view is much more complicated than the simple view Bentham held.
5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom? Can you think of a better one?
According to Daniel Dennett, the Theory of Evolution is the best idea that humanity has ever had. Personally, I disagree with this thought, but I cant think of any singular idea that should be considered "better".
7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about? What do you think of his "leap" and his irrationalism?
Soren Kierkegaard is considered the "Danish Socrates". Most of his writings were about choosing the way in which you live, and having to live with difficult decisions that hurt you, but make you into a better person. Personally, I believe that there are some things that we must do that require a "leap of faith". That faith doesn't have to be in a God. For example, marrying someone is a leap of faith. You are forever sacrificing romantically loving anyone else because you are choosing to love one person forever, and you are also trusting them to love you forever.
10. Karl Marx was angry because he saw how factory workers during the Industrial Revolution were exploited. They worked long hours in dangerous conditions for very low wages while factory owners grew wealthy. He believed this inequality was unjust and dehumanizing. Marx argued that all of human history can be explained as a class struggle between the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat).
ReplyDelete11.Marx’s vision was a communist society where workers controlled production and wealth was shared fairly. He imagined a world without class divisions, where people contributed according to their abilities and received according to their needs. In this society, work would be meaningful rather than exploitative. It can sound appealing because it promises equality and fairness, but in practice, many communist governments became oppressive and inefficient.
12. Marx called religion “the opium of the people,” meaning he thought it comforted people and distracted them from recognizing their oppression. He believed religion kept workers passive instead of encouraging them to fight for change. I think religion can inspire justice and hope so I do not agree with him.
section #3
ReplyDeleteHwt
Buddhism and Hinduism both have similar ideas of a karmic cycle, or dharma and the idea of a consciousness beyond the physical form and beyond the ego in which we are all one.
In Hindu philosophy there are 4 stages of life. The first stage, Brahmacharya, is the stage that focuses on traditional and religious education. In the second stage, Grihastha, the focus is on creating a family and marriage. The third stage,Vanaprashta, is where ones spiritual practice should deepen and the pursuit should be on attaining moksha. The final stage is Sannyasa, where one can fully devote themself to spiritual growth and freeing themselves from the cycle of rebirth.
Lhp
According to Dennett, the best idea ever had was darwins theory of evolution. I think its a good idea, but maybe not the best idea ever? I feel like the best idea ever would be idk a vision of world peace or something haha, but maybe not because the idea of world peace has not been very succsessful in actually attaining it.
Well, it's possible that world peace is an ideal aspiration we must evolve to meet. If someone can figure out exactly how to achieve it, that would be the best idea. In the meantime we may need to settle for the idea that most plausibly allows for the possibility of our growth and development into a more peaceable species.
Delete