Here again is your audio review for next Thursday's exam...
And here's William James's advice for how best to prepare for an exam...
Presentations:
- Freud - #2 thatgirldayz
- Peirce/James - #2 Simeon
- Nietzsche - #1 Haylie #2 Liam #3 Presley
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
4. What 20th century philosopher carried on the pragmatist tradition? What did he say about the way words work? Does his approach seem reasonable to you?
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
7. What is an Ubermensch, and why does Nigel find it "a bit worrying"? Does it worry you that some of our peers think of themselves as exempt from the rules and norms that the rest of us follow?
8. How did Nietzsche differ from Kant but anticipate Freud? Is rationality less available to us than we think?
9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud? Was he overrating his own contributions?
10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
- What is Weiner's favorite movie? What philosophical themes does it wrestle with? What Nietzschean idea does it resemble? How would you respond to the "demon" who proposes it?
- How do we write well, according to Nietzsche? Have you tried it?
- What is amor fati? Do you have an "all or nothing" attitude towards life? What does that mean to you?
- What is the "as if" approach to life? Do you take it? Does it work?
- What is Sonya's opinion of Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence? Do you share it?
- How does the "Hollywood version" of ER differ from Nietzsche's? Which do you prefer? Why?
==
"Best book in the MTSU library" (more modestly, the best book by me in the library):
7. What is an Ubermensch, and why does Nigel find it "a bit worrying"? Does it worry you that some of our peers think of themselves as exempt from the rules and norms that the rest of us follow?
ReplyDeleteAn Übermensch is an imagined person of the future who is not held back by conventional moral codes. Nigel thought this was worrying because it seems to support those who see themselves as heroic and want to have their way without consideration of other people’s interests. I think I’m always a little bit worried about people becoming inconsiderate of others and what that might cause. I think we’ve seen examples in history of people seeing themselves as “better” than others and using that as an excuse to violate the moral codes that we all follow, committing really horrible acts, and that’s not something I would want to see happen ever again.
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
His criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis is that Freud’s theory could be used to explain every possible observation, and it couldn’t be proved false, so the theory couldn’t be scientific at all. I think I side with Popper in this situation; I agree that it seems like Freud’s theory could be used to explain almost anything, and I think that discounts some of its merit. Since it could be an explanation for anything, I don’t think there’s something that can be used as solid enough evidence to definitively prove his theory.
5. What is Sonya's opinion of Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence? Do you share it?
Sonya doesn’t like Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence and wouldn’t want her life to recur forever. This is a hard question for me. Of course, there are things in my life that I wouldn’t want to relive; however, I think there has been so much good in my life that I would want to relive that it may be worth it. I’m not sure that I feel the pain of the mistakes I’ve made in life will end up outweighing all the good. I don’t exactly know how I feel about this; I cringe thinking of needing to relive some things from my past, but I think I would rather relive my life, awkward moments and all, than not live at all.
#1
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
The point of the squirrel story is to showcase how pragmatism resolves conflict-- and that the ultimate truth is based on definitions and perceptions, therefore being up to each persons understanding. Circling has two meanings, so each person can be right depending on their usage of the word.
I never thought of arguing about semantics as discussions on metaphysics, but such debates often take place in the Holzmann household and usually resolve themselves in a similarly definitive manner with both sides acknowledging the root in the multiple meanings of a phrase. Either that or they peter out, never to be heard from again.
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
Nietzsche meant that there was no more need to adhere to Christian morality, that we were beyond belief in God, such a thing had stopped being reasonable. Do I find this nihilistic? Not really, I associate nihilism less with the abdication of traditional Christian morality and more with the 'life is meaningless' people. Saying it is no longer reasonable to unquestioningly agree with Christianity and instead we should focus on where our morals have come from and make sure they make sense is very much not a proclamation that 'life has no meaning' instead it's an invitation to question where and why and how-- which can itself be a meaning to life. (Ask historians)
Also, it's pronounced like Beatcha -- a shortening of beat ya which is slang for "beat you!" (in a speed/racing sense, not an abuse sense)
A few more thoughts on Nietzsche-- Yeah, his sister took his stuff way too far into Nazi land, but I don't think Nietzsche would have necessarily been so much against it given what I've read in the LHP text. Compassion, kindness, and consideration were slave traits based on sour grapes envy in his eyes. (instead of being things that make societies work and an integral part of ancient Greek culture-- have you heard what their gods did to people who didn't follow the laws of hospitality?) It sounds like red-pilled Alpha male bullsh-- er... rhetoric, and there's a reason that's a pipeline to neo-nazis.
If you don't care about other people, why should you give a darn when they're rounded up and executed? You're too busy trying to be the Übermensch and create your own morality that puts you at the top.
He didn't realize...
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
--Pastor Martin Niemöller
https://hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/
Agreed, Nietzsche's bluster fits right in with the mindset of too many self-important authoritarian neo-fascist types. But in his only-partial defense, he did often mean "will to power" to be self-referential. That is, he thought the greatest exertion of power was over one's one impulses, inclinations, and aversions, and not so much over other people. And yet, he did exalt the vision of a heroic "philosopher of the future" not bound by the same rules the rest of us are expected to honor. We see how that works out, lately.
Delete11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
ReplyDeleteFreud thought that some people believe in God because they are seeking a comforting, fatherly figure that they were lacking earlier in life. Believing that there is an ever-present and loving God who takes care of them helps satiate this desire of theirs. I can’t say with certainty whether this is true for anybody, but I think it’s very likely.
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
Popper’s criticism was that a theory should not be regarded as true if it could technically be applied to any given situation. He argued that Freud’s idea of suppressed thoughts and desires affecting everyone’s actions couldn’t really be true if it also couldn’t be proved false. I do agree with him, because the application of Freud’s idea seems like a stretch in many situations. It can’t possibly apply to EVERYTHING.
My thoughts on Nietzsche: I don’t get why he thought that people need a logical and “beneficial” reason to show kindness towards others. It seems to me like he was looking for an excuse to make up his own rules for morality.
Section #3
ReplyDeleteWeiner-
1. What is Weiner's favorite movie? What philosophical themes does it wrestle with? What Nietzschean idea does it resemble? How would you respond to the "demon" who proposes it?
Weiner declares that his favorite movie is Groundhog Day, and refers to it as the most philosophical film of all time, as it wrestles with themes such as moral action and free will. The film is similar to Nietzsche's theory of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Personally, I would respond to it with panic if this were to happen to me.
2. How do we write well, according to Nietzsche? Have you tried it?
Nietzsche said that we "write with our hands, but we write well with our feet", meaning that the best ideas are made in the open air. I actually use this method quite frequently.
4. What is the "as if" approach to life? Do you take it? Does it work?
The "as if" approach to life works by viewing the world in a different way, possibly even an incorrect way, in order to enrich our lives. Personally, I view the world somewhat in this way, and I personally find it very helpful.
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche believed Christian values came from “slave morality,” a system born out of resentment by the weak against the strong. I think its really interesting, and honestly could be true, as they attempt to paint self-denial and meekness as good, which can be bad sometimes, and power as evil, which is not always correct.
9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud? Was he overrating his own contributions?
The three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud, were Copernican (Earth is not the center), Darwinian (humans evolved from animals), and his own revolution (the conscious mind is not master of its own house). I think you could argue both, that he was overrating his own contributions and that he was not. However, since a lot of modern philosophy is still cornerstoned by his revolution, he might not have been overrating his contributions.
11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
Freud thought people believed in God as a psychological coping mechanism to manage feelings of helplessness, fear of nature, and the terror of death. I definitely think Freud was right about at least some people. I feel like many people who identify as christians, but don’t walk like christians believe in God for these reasons. They just need an answer to their feelings of helplessness and fear of death, but don’t actually want to live the life the way the bible says to.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. William James believed that something was true if it was beneficial to believe. For example, the statement ‘God exists’ is true because believing it may give someone a better quality of life. However, Bertrand Russell countered that in that case, the statement ‘Santa Claus exists’ must also be true, since children benefit from believing it, yet since Santa does not exist and therefore can’t give presents, adults must not believe in him. Russell makes a good point here, since James’ approach makes truth subjective and dependent on how it makes one feel, rather than objective, external, and sure. For something to be true, it must be consistent.
2. Richard Rorty continued the pragmatist tradition and viewed words as tools, not symbols. We use them to interpret the world, but our interpretations vary from person to person and by time and place, and they may not even be accurate at all. No one really has a correct view of reality. I think there are often complexities to each situation that we don’t get from our own individual perspectives, like other people’s intentions or emotions, so in that sense we may not accurately see what is happening. But I still think truth exists, so there is one true account of things.
3. The first revolution in thought was the Copernican revolution, when Nicholas Copernicus realized that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. The second revolution was when Darwin explained his theory of evolution by natural selection. Sigmund Freud argued that the third revolution was his own psychological discovery of the unconscious. Each of us has hidden desires that we do not realize, but they affect the way we act around and treat others. Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis and the talking cure were influential to modern psychology, however, I’m not sure someone can describe their own ideas as a ‘revolution’, especially since in Freud’s case, his theories cannot really be proven.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud? Was he overrating his own contributions?
--The "revolutions" he's talking about are the Copernican revolution, when the thought of the solar system was turned inside out. The Darwinian revolution, bringing this new thought of human origin. And the Freudian revolution, with the renewing of the medical thought of the unconscious mind. No I don't really think he overinflated his contributions, he really did contribute a lot of theories and discoveries to the field of psychology.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteThe point of William James's squirrel story is to show that perspective is what curates answers and debate. Everyone has different perspectives. William James was able to step back and see multiple different perspectives because pragmatism is concerned with the "cash value" t or the practical consequences of thought.
C.S Pierce (rhymes with purse!) believed that truth was what would happen if we just ran all the experiments we wanted to. I think that has a lot of basis in today's world because of the science that we have today.
Bertand Russell made fun of William James, mocking his theories saying that James must has to believe "Santa Claus exists". I don't necessarily understand William James's response. Yes adults don't believe in Santa so the reality is that they go buy presents, but a lot of people don't believe in god just like they don't believe in Santa. They don't necessarily depend on a god they don't think is real? How do you prepare for not having a god like you prepare for Santa not being real? I think I'm just being critical.
When Nietzsche said "God is dead", he didn't mean he was actually dead, just that the rationality of believing in God has stopped.
"C.S Pierce (rhymes with purse!)" - Right! But it's spelled Peirce.
Delete"William James's response" - he understood that belief in Santa has to work not just for kids at Christmas but for everyone, "on the whole and in the long run"... Russell was uncharitable in not acknowledging that last quoted clause. (Semi-pun not quite intended.)
"the rationality of believing in God has stopped"- Or the credibility? But that always depends, doesn't it, on who you ask?
Section #1
ReplyDelete1) The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
The talking cure gave birth to psychoanalysis and modern psychotherapy, a process that seeks to explore the unconscious in order to ease the mind and accelerate personal growth. I believe talking does really help. In my experience, it doesn't even have to be with another person. I've found that talking to myself, sometimes even through back-and-forth arguments, helps me clear up my thoughts.
2) Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
As other comments have pointed out, Freud claimed people believe in God due to unconscious fears or the desire to always have someone they can trust or rely on. I don't think this unconscious desire arises from a "lack of fatherly figure" in early life, but rather the need to safeguard that figure as one grows older and more independent. I think Freud has a really interesting point.
3) Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
Nietzsche claimed Christian values originated from a "slave revolt in morality," where the "lower class" gilded their weakness into virtue. Frankly, this idea really scared me when I first read it... maybe because it seems to apply so well to today's world. I hope Nietzsche's claim is untrue, and I like to believe it is.
LHP 7. An Ubermensch is Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of a person who creates their own set of morals and values. This person does not conform to conventional religious morals or societal norms. Good and evil are subjective ideas to the Ubermensch and are decided by the individual. This is worrying to Nigel because it could empower the wrong kind of people who believe that their wants and desires for the world exceed those of the people around them. Nigel points out that the Nazis used Nietzsche’s ideas of the Ubermensch to spread propaganda that supported ideas of a master race.
ReplyDeleteI do find this idea of the Ubermensch worrying. When someone thinks that their ideas, desires, and motivations are superior to those of all other humans, chaos is bound to follow. When it comes to thinking outside the box and using creativity to solve complex issues, I think that really benefits society. However, encouraging people to live like Ubermenschen is another story. Having a bunch of Ubermenschen running around means the inherently selfish might feel no shame in lying, cheating, or stealing their way into the future. While nobody wants to feel shame for their actions, I think it serves a valuable and corrective purpose for a good society.
LHP 9. Sigmund Freud thought that the three great revolutions in thought were the Copernican, Darwinian, and Freudian revolutions. Freud’s decision to include his own contribution in the three great revolutions is a little silly, and I think it reveals how highly he thought of himself. Freud’s ideas are fascinating nonetheless, and from what I know about him, he influenced science, especially psychology, to a great degree. Through studying his patients, I think Freud did uncover truths about the mind and about how we understand ourselves.
Thinking of consciousness as an iceberg made up of the id, ego, and superego makes a lot of sense, and psychotherapists have found it helpful to treat patients by approaching the mind in this way. Like all pioneers in history, and humans in general, they have bias. Freud certainly thought highly of his ideas, and based on what I’ve read, it seems like he tried to interpret a lot of what someone was feeling, dreaming, or saying as having some special significance connected to one of his theories. I agree with him that we have repressed desires, thoughts, and blocked memories, I just don’t think all of it is that deep, and that a lot of what our consciousness does can be random.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
A: James' response was rooted in his pragmatist philosophy. Pragmatism is "concerned with practical consequences - the [cash value] of thought." Essentially, the interpretation of the "truth" varies by the substance it brings to the table. If it proved consequential to the matter at hand, then it would constitute "truth" to William James.
I've often engaged in arguments with others that never yielded in an objective truth. Some took sides and others believed the clash to be trivial. Many times, the situation diluted before the parties could arrive at a consensus. Regardless, through these experiences, I've familiarized myself with the concept of "circumstantial truth."
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
A: C.S Peirce "believed that for a statement to be true there had to be some possible experiment or observation to support it." Science is a stringent, exacting practice. In order to determine whether or not a hypothesis is true, it must be falsifiable. Resultingly, Peirce's view didn't align with James' metaphysical theory. Peirce's point is reflected in the rigorous testing we now observe in any scientific field before holding anything to be true and accurate.
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
A: Bertrand Russell criticized James' claim that "all that makes a sentence true is the effect on the believer of believing it." He believed this sentiment to be highly impractical. I personally agree with Russell here. While certain scenarios may warrant the application of James' pragmatic theory of truth, frivolous/complex situations cannot be mitigated with the same system of thought.
1. The squirrel story describes a man chasing a squirrel around a tree. The question is: does the man go “around” the squirrel? If “around” means geographically circling the tree, yes. If it means passing in front of, behind, and to each side of the squirrel, then no because the squirrel keeps rotating to face him. James’s point is that many philosophical disputes are not about facts but about how we use words. Once you clarify the practical consequences of each definition, the disagreement dissolves. This reflects pragmatism: the meaning of an idea lies in its practical effects.
ReplyDelete3. Bertrand Russell criticized James’s pragmatic theory of truth by suggesting it collapses truth into mere usefulness. Russell argued that something can be useful without being true, and something can be true even if it is not useful. He worried that James’s view blurred the distinction between “it works” and “it corresponds to reality.”
Weiner chap 11
1. Eric Weiner’s favorite movie is Groundhog Day. The film wrestles with themes of repetition, moral growth, freedom, and the search for meaning in an apparently monotonous life. It closely resembles Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence: the thought experiment that you must live your exact same life over and over forever. Nietzsche asks whether you would curse the demon who announces this, or embrace it as a blessing. The best response would be to live in such a way that you could joyfully say yes to the repetition, affirming your life completely rather than resenting it.
LHP 1 - James argues that whether the hunter is "circling" the squirrel or not changes based on what you measure as "circling," but also that it isn't really relevant to the lives of the hunter or squirrel. By arguing over the definition of circling, you obscure what practically matters about the scenario. I've been in disputes that lead to the same arguments over defining words or highly subjective ideas, but I usually just leave the room.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2 - C.S. Pierce (rhymes with hearse) said that truth is the result of experimentation and analysis. The idea that "truth" can be proven and acted upon in a useful way. If it doesn't mean anything significant, it might as well be nonsense. This implies that we may not know the entire truth of things, since we may not have the ability to perform tests that would disprove what we believe. We still don't know much about how the brain works, for example. Any "truth" we may know about the brain could be disproven with further testing, but we don't have the capability to perform "further testing," so the truth of how the brain works is up in the air.
LHP 3 - William James said that the idea of believing it God would make it true if that idea itself improved the life of the believer. Bertrand Russell said you could say the same thing about Santa Claus, since that improves the lives of children who believe he exists. I think that's fair, it kind of highlights how the argument could be seen as patronizing.
1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved? The point of James’s squirrel story was that while you can argue about the abstract concepts of a situation, it would be more beneficial to conclude practical consequences. I have found myself in similar squirrel question scenarios, and the dispute is often only resolved by agreeing to disagree. I do like James’s approach because it leaves both parties feeling satisfied and proactive about an otherwise aimless dispute.
ReplyDelete2. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"? The talking cure gave birth to psychoanalysis. While I haven’t experienced this kind of therapy in a clinical sense, we learned about it in a psychology class and practiced the questioning and streamlining of thoughts that he explained. I think journaling is almost a form of the talking cure, because it allows us to sort through our thoughts and explore the “why” behind them that we couldn’t discover without brain dumping a bit. In this way, I have also experienced a “talking cure” although it is more of a writing cure.
3. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least? Freud connected the believe in God with a desire to be protected as a child. While I do think it would be an overgeneralization to attribute all religious beliefs to a childhood desire, it is not unreasonable ot assume that some people’s faith is born out of a need to feel protected and secure. Some people believe in God because that is how they were raised and it may have nothing to do with protection. For others, they found faith during hardship, like grieving or addiction rehabilitation. Maybe these people turned to God for protection like Freud explains. Some people may fear eternal damnation and practice religion to protect themselves from hell, like Pascal’s philosophy.
1) James uses the squirrel story to show that many philosophical disagreements are not really about facts, but about how we use words. In the story, a man runs around a tree trying to catch a squirrel, and the question becomes whether the man goes around the squirrel. The answer depends entirely on how around is defined.
ReplyDelete2)The idea that truth is what we would end up believing after doing all possible experiments and investigations comes from Charles Sanders Peirce (his name rhymes with purse). He believed that truth is not just what seems right right now, but what would still hold up after endless testing and questioning. This means that what we call true today might change in the future if we discover new evidence. Our current truths are the best answers we have at the moment but they are always open to improvement or correction as we learn more.
7) The word means “overman” or “superman.” Nietzsche describes the Übermensch as someone who creates their own values instead of simply accepting society’s rules, traditions, or moral codes. Nigel finds the idea “a bit worrying” because it can sound like a justification for people who think they are above the rules that govern everyone else. It can be worrying when people see themselves as exempt from the rules and norms the rest of us follow, because shared rules are what allow trust, fairness, and cooperation to exist. If someone believes they are above those standards, it can create resentment, instability, or harm, since rules usually exist to protect the group as a whole.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1.) The point of the squirrel story from William James is that many philosophical arguments are really arguments about definitions. In the story, people argue about whether a man going around a tree is also going around a squirrel on the other side. James says the answer depends on what you mean by “going around.” If you mean circling the tree, then yes. If you mean passing the squirrel’s front, back, left, and right sides, then no. Once the terms are clearly defined, the disagreement disappears. I have seen arguments like this where people debate something for a long time but later realize they were using the same words in different ways. It usually gets resolved when someone explains what each person actually means.
2.) The philosopher who said truth is what we would end up believing if we could carry out all the experiments and investigations we want is Charles Sanders Peirce. His name rhymes with “purse.” His idea implies that what we consider true right now might not be the final truth. Our current beliefs are the best conclusions we have based on the evidence available, but they could change if new discoveries or investigations happen in the future.
3.) Bertrand Russell criticized James’s theory of truth by arguing that if truth is defined by what works, then even false beliefs might count as true if they happen to be useful. Russell thought this made truth too subjective and separated from facts about reality. He was partly being fair because he was pointing out a possible weakness in pragmatism. At the same time, he may have simplified James’s view too much because James did not mean that any useful idea becomes true. James believed true ideas are those that prove reliable and consistent through experience.
(p.s., sorry for just posting these now! I had them written in a word document but they never got transferred.)