Presentations- First, CATCH UP: Everyone previously scheduled who's not yet presented should plan to present today. If your turn has passed, please speak up. Don't count on me remembering...
#1 Lanisa-Bentham. Amariah Woods-J.S. Mill. #1 Brian Hussels-Mill Darwin. Charlie Glendowne-Marx. #2 Robert Orr-Darwin. #3 Will Shelton-Marx. Alex stover-Mill. Ethan Licea Gonzalez-Darwin. Cecile-Katya McKenna-Kierkegaard
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?
Kaag 5
1. What "vectors of meaning" saved James's life?
2. Embracing the pragmatic theory of truth is a commitment to what?3. As a professional academic philosopher, Kaag has trouble remembering what?
4. James's hallway (corridor) metaphor, treating pragmatism primarily as a method in philosophy, reminds Kaag of what?
5. What's the difference between truth and facts, for WJ?
6. Embracing free will is the first step in what?
7. What is Binnenleben?
8. Where does "zest" come from, according to WJ, and what is it?
9. For James pragmatism was a protest against what proposition about salvation?
Kaag 6
1. The greatest use of life is what, according to WJ?
2. What did WJ write to Benjamin Blood about education?
3. What was WJ's final entreaty in "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings"?
4. What does WJ say is the difference between resignation and hope?
3. What was WJ's final entreaty in "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings"?
4. What does WJ say is the difference between resignation and hope?
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.
Delete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
ReplyDeleteMill agreed with Bentham that pleasure and the avoidance of pain are important for determining what is good, but he disagreed with Bentham’s idea that pleasures can mainly be measured by their amount. Mill argued that there are higher and lower pleasures. Intellectual, moral, and emotional pleasures can be more valuable than simple physical pleasures, even if they are not as immediately enjoyable. I think they can both be right in different ways: Bentham is right that pleasure matters, but Mill makes the stronger point that the quality of a pleasure matters, not just the quantity.
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
In On Liberty, Mill defended individual freedom and the right of people to think, speak, and live differently, as long as they are not harming others. He believed society should not control someone simply because it disapproves of that person's choices. This is consistent with his criticisms of Bentham because Mill became more concerned with individual development, individuality, and higher forms of human well-being, rather than simply calculating pleasure and pain. For Mill, freedom itself helps people develop their minds and become better thinkers.
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?
Mill believed open discussion benefits society because even an unpopular or incorrect opinion can help people understand the truth better. If an opinion is true, debate helps people understand why it is true; if it is false, discussion helps expose its weaknesses. Being dogmatic is a problem because people can accept beliefs without actually understanding or questioning them. I think our society is both open and dogmatic. We have many opportunities to express different opinions, especially through the internet and social media, but people can also become attached to their own beliefs and reject opposing views without seriously considering them.
Section H01
DeleteSection H01:
ReplyDelete1. Bentham said pleasures only differ in amount, so a longer pleasure is always better. Mill said they also differ in kind, and intellectual pleasures rank higher than bodily ones. I think Mill was right about that, though happiness is still the measure for both.
2. Mill defended the harm principle that people should be free to live as they choose unless they harm others. That fits his criticism of Bentham, since both come from a rcher view of human nature than pleasure math.
3. Mill said debate keeps truth alive and exposes partial truths, while dogmatism turns beliefs into things people repeat without understanding. I think our society is mixed: plenty of speech, but also plenty of punishment for saying the wrong thing.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
Mill disagreed with Bentham because he thought pleasures weren't all equal. Bentham mostly measured pleasure by how much of it you get, while Mill thought some pleasures were higher or more valuable than others. For example, he thought intellectual or emotional pleasures could be better than physical pleasures. I think they are both right in different ways because pleasure can be measured by how enjoyable something is, but some experiences can also be more meaningful or fulfilling than others.
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
Mill defended the idea that people should have a lot of individual freedom as long as they aren't harming other people. He believed society shouldn't control someone's choices just because it thinks those choices are wrong or unusual. I think this is mostly consistent with his criticisms of Bentham because Mill was trying to show that human well-being is more complicated than just maximizing pleasure. Individual freedom can lead to happiness and personal growth in ways that aren't always easy to measure.
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?
Mill thought open discussion was important because even if an idea is wrong, debating it helps people understand why they believe what they believe. If an idea is true, discussion can also help keep it from becoming just something people blindly repeat. Being dogmatic means accepting something without really questioning it, which can make people stop thinking critically. I think our society is a mix of both. There are definitely places where people are encouraged to question things, but there are also a lot of situations where people just repeat what their side already believes without listening to other perspectives.
Zander Gomez
ReplyDeleteSection 1
LHP
3.John Stuart Mill believed that open discussions help society discover truth. Even wrong opinions can create a better understanding of why other beliefs are correct. Being dogmatic is bad because one must accept beliefs without questioning them.
7. Kierkegaard is sometimes referred to the "Danish Socrates." His philosophy primarily focused on faith and what it meant to live as an individual. His idea of a "leap of faith" suggests that religious faith cannot always be proven strictly through reason and evidence, so people must sometimes make commitments despite uncertainty. I think this is interesting and relatable because sometimes we must make decisions based on our better judgement, and not necessarily on the evidence provided.
12. Karl Marx stated religion to be the "opium of the people." He thought that religion could be used to comfort those who were suffering while also discouraging any resistance to the social and economic standards that caused their suffering. I think that his reasoning can make sense in specific historical contexts, but religion can be used to motivate people to improve as well.
.LHP
ReplyDelete8.According to Warburton faith is irrational because he believes that sometimes people believe in something without sufficient evidence or reasoning. I would disagree because relegious beliefs can sometimes be rooted in personal expierences or family traditons.
11. Marx wanted a society where classes were eliminated and capatilism would be replaced by communism. I think on paper his idea was appealing but in practice it just wouldn't work because you need a high trust society and some people wouldn't see it as fair because the government has a total right to their assets.
Kaag 5
7. Binnenleben is a German word that means inner life so things like their thoughts, feelings, and imagination. It is important because everyone has a different inner life that we may never be able to see.
Section 1 LHP 10-12
ReplyDelete10. he was angry at capitalism and believed society was ruled by classes, he had a point to a degree
11. communism, yes but it will never work
12. the opium of the people, mostly no
1. Mill disagreed with Bentham about pleasure as he thought the idea of happiness as pleasure was too crude. He thought people would prefer to be a sad human over a happy pig which directly contradicts Bentham. I think there isn’t a right or wrong idea, just perspective.
ReplyDelete2. scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis include genetics and improved fossil evidence. It takes a substantial amount of evidence to support a theory to make it something more.
3. He thought religion was like a drug that keeps people sleepy so they didn’t realize their true oppressed state. I can see his point and I do think people can use religion as a blindfold and it can trick people into a false sense of security.
1.) Bentham believed that the right action is always the one that produces the most happiness and pleasure, while Mill believed that their are greater and lesser pleasures and that you should always choose the greater pleasure. For example, if you chose between being a pig rolling in the mud with no concept of higher pleasures or being a sad human with the ability to engage in higher pleasures, you should choose to be the human according to Mill. I think both perspectives make great points. If I had the choice to either drink a Starbucks coffee or go on a trip to Disneyworld, both would be pleasurable experiences, but the the trip to Disneyworld would be more pleasurable than just drinking a cup of coffee.
ReplyDelete2.) I wanted to share my own thoughts on Mill's views. Although it has some flaws, I think his view that every adult should be free to live as he or she pleases as long as no one else is harmed is a view that I very much agree with. I've never understood why people try to ban gay marriage, force others into a certain career, look down on someone for choosing not to have children, try to enforce or ban religious beliefs, ect. Your life is yours to do what you want with, and if you don't agree with how someone else lives their life, then oh well. People try to control others way too much, and it's ridiculous when someone criticizes others or even tries to make a law against others because that person just doesn't like it.
3.) Marx's vision was that capitalism would eventually fall and in its place a new society would emerge, one where each person would contribute what they could to society and society would in turn provide for them. Nobody would ever starve or go without necessities, and things like education would be free for everybody. I think this vision is appealing when you look at it at face value. However, once you start to try to apply those things to real life, it becomes a more complicated issue. We saw this with the Soviet Union. Also, the main problem I have with Marx's vision is that no matter how hard you work, you would still end up receiving the same things that other, less hardworking people receive. You could be a doctor and work long shifts and still get the same amount of money as someone who only answers phone calls. I think people should get the proper amount of money for the work that they do, so this is where I disagree with Marx. I do understand where he is coming from, though; he came from poverty and only wants the best for everyone in society. I can admire that. I think that, instead of making society exactly as he envisioned it, maybe we should create some kind of laws that stop the rich from being greedy and helps people get out of poverty.
Section 2:
ReplyDelete1.Daniel Dennett called Darwins scientific theory of the Origin of Species the "single best idea anyone has ever had".I think that it is a good idea and theory because it answers a lot of questions regarding evolution but its hard to say that its the best idea because there are billions of ideas that are important to the understanding of life and even other aspects in life. that some may consider more important.
2. Bishop Wilberforce debated Thomas Henry Huxley on the theory of evolution. I think his response was pretty clever, he was able to turn a ridiculous question into a winning response that flipped the irony back on Wilberforce.
Tyler Scherr - H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Bentham believed that happiness was from pleasure and a lack of pain, but Mill believed that pleasures and happiness should be grouped into lower and higher categories, citing the example of when prompted, he would choose to be a sad human over being a happy pig rolling around in the mud. I would say that both of them have points and that they are both right to an extent but a combination of the two would be the most appropriate.
2. He had the idea that people need to be given freedom so that they can develop into what they need to be in society. I think it was consistent because he went on to explore more ideas where he also applied it to his happiness theories.
11. Marx's vision was in essence that everyone would contribute what they can to society and in turn, society would provide what they needed and believed this to be a perfect system. It is an appealing system and overall, I believe it has the potential to work as Marxists believe it will, but only if humans were perfect and the overarching government the set it up wasn't oppressive or too involved.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
Bentham believed that you could have multiple pleasurable experiences and they all mattered, Mills disagreed and said that any smaller amount of pleasure is outweighed by a better experience. I think they are both right in a way.
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 enough evidence. I don't agree because I believe a sense of faith is needed in life.
What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?
He called religion the opium of people. I don't think he was being totally unfair.
Section 3
ReplyDelete1. Mill and Bentham both agreed on the fact that happiness is important, but Mill disagreed that all pleasures are equal. Mill believed that higher pleasures, such as learning or appreciating art, are more important than physical pleasure. I think they both make a good argument because people can enjoy lots of different types of pleasure, but certain people can get a more meaningful experience than others.
3. Mill believed that open discussions benefit society because it allows people to challenge ideas, correct mistakes, and discover the truth. He thought that even if an opinion is wrong, if people discuss it then it helps others understand why exactly it is wrong. Society today is somewhat open because of how freely people can say their beliefs and opinions, but they become quickly closed-minded if someone believes differently than them.
10. Marx was angry about the poor and dangerous conditions that workers experienced under capitalism. He thought that majority of history could be explained by the struggle between classes. Marx definitely had a point because economic inequality has influenced almost every society, but it doesn't explain the majority of history. Some things don't fall under this umbrella.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure? Are they both right?
Mill thought that there were different kinds of pleasure, almost tiers of it, and Bentham disagreed. I do think they are both right. There is pleasure in everything when you step back. If you had an unpleasant meal, maybe there was simple pleasure in being full afterward. There is always pleasure present when you look for it, and I agree with Bentham that even simple pleasures a pig can enjoy are still massive and grow into a mound of a pleasurable life. Still, Mill is also correct. I get immense amounts of pleasure watching a hockey game, for example. I get more highs from doing this than partaking in the pleasure of ice skating. Though I enjoy it, it challenges me, frustrates me, and leaves me sore. So, I think there is a spectrum of pleasure, but I like how Bentham stays humble with pleasure and can avoid becoming a modern-day Epicurean.
2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?
Giving each person room to develop was the best organization of society. You can make a child do something for their own good, but not an adult. This was known as the Harm Principle. This is in accordance with his criticism of Bentham because it focuses on how pleasure and happiness are aligned with higher pleasures and not the simple ones Bentham describes.
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?
He thought open discussion was important because it forced people to challenge what they believed. Issues with being dogmatic include holding prejudices or opinions without any defense for them. I believe we are open, but that is being challenged more and more every day. Just as Mill thinks journalism should be free, our government is pushing back on work that critiques the people in power. As a citizen, I still feel free, but if I were a politician, I might be struck with fear of expressing a negative opinion about my peers in office who might have a party majority over me. Still, I could argue my ideals and hone them like Mill wanted.
Bentham and Mill disagreed along quality/quantity measures, as well about natural pleasure and human pleasure. I disagree with the ethics of utilitarianism completely, but Mill is absolutely right to say human pleasure is much more preferrable to Natural pleasure. While its nice and preferrable for nature to be in a good state, it is in no way comparable to any modicum of human preference.
ReplyDeleteMill defended individualism in On Liberty, on the basis of harm reduction. Bentham doesn't believe in any sort of rights, so he would disagree with the concept at face value. There is a through line with mills delineation from bentham within the concept of rights as well as the purpose of the state. Bentham was more authoritarian with the concept of the pentopticon.
Faith is irrational because it doesnt rely on either empiricism or rationalism (reason). I personally do not have any dogmatic faith or anything of the sort, but I do have qualms with the word "irrational". If you define rationality on empiricism and reason then by definition it is an a priori statement. "All unmarried men are bachelors". I think there is a rationality within the emotion of belief and the fear of death. Suppose everything is meaningless, given that humans desire meaning, why is it totally irrational to fabricate meaning, wherever that leads? It's not irrational so much as it is just *human*. I sympathize greatly with the axiom. Within our mental frame we are still bound by logic, so ethics still apply, but if there is no "goal" to shoot for, something to act towards, a lot of the weight of action is more or less *irrational*. There is an epistemic issue of meaning, strictly because it is emergent. Who makes it? Us, of course! What if some are unmistakenly sucked in by the void of meaninglessness and grasping life upon their pinky, while in the most unrelenting storm ever conjured? God is the same exact meaninglessness that anyone else fabricated, for whatever purposes we each found fitting. We are all irrational if faced with--- why---.If faced with eternity I would take it every time, because the opposite would be the void. The irony is that no matter what I choose, life would eventually be a void. I hope at the end, all that is grasps me and never lets go and I can embrace the antithesis of void and never tire. This is equally irrational.