Presentations-
Ayer - #2 Truett
Camus - #2 Caleb
Sartre - #2 - Ava
Wittgenstein - #2 Johnathane #3 Shaun, Kiersten
Popper & Kuhn - #1 Graham W
1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
5. Both Popper and Kuhn changed the way people understood science. What did Popper say about the method for checking a hypothesis and what name did Kuhn give to major breaks in the history of science?
6. What is the Law of Double Effect? Many people who disagree with its principle--and with Thomson's violinist thought experiment--think that whatever our intentions we shouldn't play who?
Why Grow Up: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age by Susan Neiman (WGU)
1. Being grown-up is widely considered to be what? Do you agree?
2. Is Leibniz's optimism more likely to appeal to a small child? Why? 3
3. What was Kant's definition of Enlightenment? 5
4. What do Susan Neiman's children say she can't understand? Do you agree? 9
5. Why is judgement important? Is this a surprising thing to hear from a Kantian? 11
6. Being a grown-up comes to what? 12
7. What did Paul Goodman say about growing up? Are his observations are still relevant? 19
8. Why (in Neiman's opinion) should you not think this is the best time of your life, if you're a young college student? 20
9. What did Samoan children have that ours lack? 27 Can we fix that?
10. What is philosophy's greatest task? 31
Weiner ch4
- Thoreau was among the first western philosophers to do what? How does this make him like Marcus Aurelius? Is that good, philosophically?
- What's the difference between wilderness and wildness? Is it good to be wild, in the Thoreauvian sense? Are you wild that way?
- What was Thoreau's view of the rationalism-empiricism debate, and the reliability of the senses? Do you agree with him?
- What's another way Thoreau is like Marcus, and how is he like Socrates? Do you "vacillate" too?
- Why did Thoreau say he went to live at Walden? Do you think such an experience would expand your sense of what it means to live and/or "see"?
FL
- What did Henry David Thoreau do in 1844, at age 27? What American fantasy does Andersen say this epitomized? Do you agree? Do most Americans make an effort to live in harmony with nature? Do you?
Discussion Questions:
- Was Wittgenstein's main message in the Tractatus correct? 203
- What are some of the "language games" you play? (What are some different things you use language for?) 204
- Can there be a "private language"? 206
- "Eichmann wasn't responsible..." 208 Agree?
- Are unthinking people as dangerous as evil sadists? 211
- Is "the banality of evil" an apt phrase for our time? 212
- Was Popper right about falsifiability? 218
- Was Kuhn right about paradigms? 220
- How would you respond it you woke up with a violinist plugged into your kidneys? Is this a good analogy for unwanted or unintended pregnancy? 226
FL
- Pro wrestling is obviously staged. Why is it so popular?
- What do Burning Man attendees and other adults who like to play dress-up tell us about the state of adulthood in contemporary America? 245
- What do you think of Fantasy sports? 248
- Was Michael Jackson a tragic figure? 250
- Is pornography "normal"? 251
The main point of Wittgenstein's Tractatus was that the important questions relating to ethics and religion are beyond the limits of human understanding and since we can't talk meaningfully about them, we shouldn't talk about them at all.
ReplyDeleteAdolf Eichmann was a German Nazi who played a significant role in German railways and transporting jews to concentration camps including Auschwitz. During Eichmann's trail, Arendt described him as the banality of evil. To Arendt, Eichmann was simply boring, ordinary evil.
The law of double effect is basically a theory that says actions that cause harm, even death, can still be right based off intention. People who disagreed with this theory said it wasn't right to play God.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
-- What he meant by "language games" is that language is not linear, its not used only one way, its used to describe physical things, mental, and philosophical things, and it morphs into what we need it to be. We see this often in the English language with the changing use of words, usually in slang. For example the word "cold", this can mean absence of heat as in temperature or meaning that someone is mean and emotionless. In slang, the use of "sick", meaning one is ill, or that something is cool.
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
-- Her phrase was 'the banality of evil' meaning that he was evil in the boring basic way. He claimed in his trial that he was just following orders and didn't kill anyone himself, and didn't see the immorality of what he was truly orchestrating.
6. What is the Law of Double Effect? Many people who disagree with its principle--and with Thomson's violinist thought experiment--think that whatever our intentions we shouldn't play who?
-- The Law of Double Effect is the thought that an action (like murder) can be morally acceptable in one scenario, and not in another, even though the outcome is the same. Our book uses killing someone in self defense and purposely poisoning someone planning to kill you as an example. Killing someone in self defense is okay, because your intention was not to kill them, unlike purposely poisoning them. Both scenarios end the same, the other person dies, but your intentions are different, meaning that one is acceptable but the other is not. Whatever our intentions are, we shouldn't play God, Is what our book says.
What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus? The main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus was that our questions surrounding ethics and religion are beyond the limits of our understanding. That being said, we should not speak of such matters if we cannot talk meaningfully about them.
ReplyDeleteWho was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial? Adolf Eichmann was a nazi administrator. His job was to coordinate the transportation of Jewish people to the concentration camps they would be killed in. At his trial, he denied culpability and claimed he was simply following orders. Despite the severe role he played in killing millions, he only viewed it as carrying out his duties and doing what he was told. It became clear to Ardent that he was not intentionally evil, but committed heinous acts through his carelessness.
What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness? Ardent gave this thoughtless kind of evil the banality of evil. Banality is defined by being boring and common, much like the evil carried out by Eichmann. He was ignorant to the suffering he incurred on others, because he was so desensitized to the orders he carried out. He led millions to their deaths and didn't bat an eye, not because he was inherently evil, but because it was what he'd always done.
Natalie moreno #3
Delete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
ReplyDeleteThe main message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is that the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding and that if we can’t talk meaningfully about them, we should stay silent. I don’t think I agree with this. Even if there are some things that might be “beyond our understanding,” I think discussing them could still get us closer to the truth.
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi administrator and was in charge of transporting the Jews of Europe to concentration camps in Poland. Arendt found out that he was sincere in claiming he was doing his duty; he was an unthinking man and lived in a place where people did what they’re told. I feel like I have trouble believing that the thought that he could be doing something wrong didn’t cross his mind for a second. How could there be absolutely no hesitation or thought when asked to do something so horrible? I feel like it would have to be there at some point.
6. Both Popper and Kuhn changed the way people understood science. What did Popper say about the method for checking a hypothesis and what name did Kuhn give to major breaks in the history of science?
Popper said scientists try to prove their theories are false; testing a theory involves seeing if it can be refuted. They start with a guess, then try to undermine it in a series of experiments and observations. Science tries to get rid of false views and hopefully move towards truth. Kuhn called major breaks in the history of science a “paradigm shift.” It happens when a whole way of understanding is overturned. Popper’s idea about checking a hypothesis was interesting because I felt that it was the opposite way we were taught to test hypotheses in school. In school we were taught to construct experiments that would prove our hypothesis, and if they were successful, our hypothesis was proven. I think Popper’s idea is probably more thorough.
1. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
ReplyDeleteHe was the man who made sure that the trains were on time to transport jews to concentration camps during world war 2. We learn he did not think about what he was doing, he thought he was simply following orders.
2. Both Popper and Kuhn changed the way people understood science. What did Popper say about the method for checking a hypothesis, and what name did Kuhn give to major breaks in the history of science? Popper said that to prove a scientific theory, try to prove it wrong. Kuhn says that we never learn more because there is always more we don't know.
3. What is the Law of Double Effect? When an act is bad but can be permissible for the greater good or because the evil was not intended.
1.) wittengenstein book Tractatus attempts to explain how language and reality work together, and that our understanding of ethics and religious matters are beyond our the limits of understanding provided through language. it kind of reminded me of Kants theory of the noumeal and phenomenal
ReplyDelete6.) the law of double effect states that if an act is morally good or neutral but has the possibility of both a good and a bad outcome, its okay to do it because you didnt intend to do harm, even if the bad outcome comes to pass.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
2.) Language games, described by Wittgenstein, were different activities performed by using words. Wittgenstein believed the way to solve a philosophical problem was to open a bottle and let the cork fly out as opposed to getting confused by language, which stunts philosophy. Finally, Wittgenstein believed we could not describe sensations in language.
I agree with the first two views of Wittgenstein—language and words can limit our philosophy. However, I disagree with the fact that we cannot describe sensations. Saying “ow” does signify one is hurt—if not, then why would they be saying ow? Hurting is a sensation, and we express our pain with the word “ow”. “Ow”, however, is not the only interjection we use, so we’re not limiting our language there. Sure, we could question if this person is truly in pain by their tone or whatnot, but that doesn’t make their sensation any less valid.
3.) and 4.) Eichmann was a leading role in helping Adolf Hitler with his Final Solution. Ardent came to find out that while he was on trial, Eichmann didn’t see anything wrong with what he was doing because he did not directly kill anyone, he only led people to their death. Ardent also called him the banality of evil, which means it was common, and she viewed him as an evil bureaucrat as opposed to viewing him as a devil. I disagree with her. I think Eichmann is more evil than that because while he did not directly kill anyone, he is still at fault for a lot of people dying, and he felt no remorse. When they were reading the charges to him, he didn’t see anything wrong with it, and I think that’s evil in itself. What he participated in was immoral, and it was all for him to move up in positions because he didn’t want to be a doctor because he could not stand blood.
6.) The Law of Double Effect is the idea that harming someone is right in a scenario of self-defense, but it is wrong otherwise. I agree with this. Killing someone just because you want to is morally incorrect, however, killing an intruder that is threatening to harm you is more acceptable. You’ve killed someone in both cases, yes, but one was at the risk that your life was in danger, and the other one was just because you felt like it.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
A: Inquiries concerning ethics and religion fall beyond the scope of human understanding. Consequently, it's best if humans remain silent on the matters.
2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?
A: Wittgenstein described "language games" as different activities that we perform using words. There are many different ways to use language, and, according to Wittgenstein, philosophers mostly think that all language is doing the same sort of thing. To 'solve' a philosophical problem, Wittgenstein uses an analogy of a fly in a bottle, suggesting to "remove the cork and let the fly out." Additionally, Wittgenstein claimed that humans can't have their own private language due to the public nature of experiences.
3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?
A: Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi administrator who played a large role in Adolf Hitler's "Final Solution." Arendt, expecting a callous murderer, was surprised and disturbed to watch an "ordinary man" testify to his horrendous acts. This example serves as an example of how dangerous being impressionable is.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
The main message was that “the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding” (Warburton, 212). Wittgenstein included that if you cannot talk about ethics and religion in a meaningful way, then you should not talk about them at all. I partially agree with Wittgenstein that some important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond our understanding. However, if someone is hoping to explore these questions deeply, then I think it would help to talk about them, whether you think it is meaningful or not. You might never arrive at a fact or a conclusion that can be tested, but you will have a better understanding of how you feel about ethics and religion. Sometimes you can discover meaning by tossing ideas around and seeing what sticks. After reading a little bit more about Wittgenstein on the internet, I discovered that his early philosophy expressed the belief that ethical and religious topics were meaningless, but his later philosophy acknowledges that these topics can be meaningful in their own context.
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?
She used the phrase “banality of evil” to describe how plain and ordinary Adolf Eichmann was as a person. I think it is important that Arendt still includes the word evil in this terminology. Eichmann wasn’t the kind of person we typically think of when we hear “Nazi.” I imagine Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler when I think of the attitudes and essence of a Nazi. What made Eichmann evil was that he blindly followed orders because he believed that was the moral and correct thing to do. Arendt describes him as “something far more common but equally dangerous: an unthinking man” (Warburton, 211). Eichmann is a perfect example of how ignorance is a major driving force down the path of evil. Everything Eichmann did probably seemed normal while he was doing it; therefore, there was no reason to question it. He went to the office, planned train timetables, and probably enjoyed being good at his job. Arendt’s journalistic and philosophical works are fantastic and troubling reminders of how easy it is to aid evil if we never stop to think about what we are doing.
6. What is the Law of Double Effect? Many people who disagree with its principle--and with Thomson's violinist thought experiment--think that whatever our intentions we shouldn't play who?
DeleteWarburton uses an example of self defense to effectively portray the philosophical justification that the Law of Double Effect proposes. He writes that if you get into a physical altercation, because you need to defend yourself from an attacker, then punching the assailant so hard that it accidentally kills them is morally justified. The death that results from your punch is bad, however the self defense that led to it is permissible, and it was not your intention to kill anyone from the beginning. The people who disagree with Thomson and this idea of The Law of Double Effect say that no matter what our intentions are we should not play God in any decision that could lead to the death of an innocent person. I have contemplated the train dilemma before, and I still have no answer as to what choice I would make. The logical part of my brain says to take out the single person and save five. However, everything changes if I have any connection to any of the people. I think that context is the most important thing in all of these sensitive areas and that passing judgement on someone who has been forced to make a decision like that is not a wise thing to do. It would be traumatizing in almost every situation to be forced to make or not make a decision that resulted in death. Nonetheless, this thought experiment is fascinating and it is no surprise that this conversation has carried on so long in the philosophical community.
LHP 1 - The main message of Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" was that true understanding of ethics and religion was beyond our capability and that if we can't speak intelligently on them, we shouldn't speak on them at all.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2 - Wittgenstein says that communication is a series of "language games," where we all operate off of slightly different definitions of words. Not all language works the same way. The word "chair" isn't a chair, it's only alluding to a chair, and everyone will envision slightly different chairs upon hearing the word "chair."
LHP 5 - Popper said a good hypothesis must be falsifiable: that if it is false, that must be provable through practical testing. Kuhn called major breaks in the history of science "paradigm shifts," which change the framework upon which science is conducted.
Graham Waltenbaugh (section #1)
Delete1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus? The main message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus was that philosophical problems arise from misunderstanding the logic of language, which can be resolved by limiting what can be meaningfully said to empirical facts.
ReplyDelete3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial? Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi SS officer and key organizer of the Holocaust, responsible for the logistics of deporting millions of Jews to killing centers. Arendt learned that he was not a fanatical, demonic monster, but rather a terrifyingly normal, bureaucratic functionary.
4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness? Arendt’s descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann’s ordinariness was "banality of evil".
1. Wittgenstein’s main message in Tractatus was that we cannot fully understand ethics and religion, and if we are unable to say something meaningful about them, we should say nothing at all. This seems to reflect Socrates’ wisdom in knowing that he does not know everything, and choosing not to speak about things of which he lacks understanding. I think we should still consider and discuss these complicated topics, but with the knowledge that there will be questions we will never be able to answer completely and with the willingness to realize when we may be talking in circles.
ReplyDelete2. Adolf Eichmann organized the timetables for the trains that carried people to their deaths during the Holocaust. He never personally killed anyone with his own hands, but through his work he was responsible for the murder of millions. Hannah Arendt reported on his trial after World War II and found that he was not a sadistic monster who harbored an overpowering hatred for Jews, but was instead a man who was content to not ask questions. In his mind, he had simply been doing his duty and following orders, and had done nothing wrong.
3. Arendt described Eichmann’s deeds as an example of “the banality of evil.” He was an ordinary man who happened to be in a situation where he could make the choice to follow orders and further his own career, even though those orders were inhumane and destroyed many people’s lives. His evil came as the result of either not thinking or choosing to not think, to not care, about how these orders and his actions would affect others.
Section #3
ReplyDeleteLHP 1
The main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus was that the biggest questions concerning religion and ethics are beyond human comprehension, and since we cannot understand them, we should remain silent on these issues.
Was Wittgenstein's main message in the Tractatus correct? 203
I disagree with Wittgenstein's message. If we never question what is going on around us, what is stopping humanity from all following the exact same thought process? Our differences are what make us humanity, whether they are differences in thought, skin color, or preference.
I find Wittgenstein's language "games" to be incredibly fascinating. It is interesting that you can disagree with a person's main philosophy, and yet still find something new that you can believe in out of it.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1.) The later Wittgenstein argued that language works through what he called “language games,” meaning that the meaning of words depends on how they are used in everyday contexts rather than fixed definitions. He believed that philosophical problems arise when language is taken out of its normal use, so the way to solve these problems is to examine how words are actually used in real situations. When language is returned to its proper context, the confusion disappears because the problem was never truly meaningful. He also rejected the idea of a completely private language, arguing that language must be shared and publicly understood since meaning depends on common use rather than individual experience.
2.) Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi official responsible for organizing the transportation of Jews to concentration camps during the Holocaust. At his trial, Hannah Arendt expected to encounter a deeply evil individual, but instead found that he appeared ordinary and unremarkable. He was not driven by strong hatred, but by obedience and a desire to follow orders and advance within the system. Arendt concluded that extreme evil can be carried out by individuals who do not think critically about their actions and instead conform to authority without questioning it.
3.) Karl Popper argued that scientific hypotheses cannot be definitively proven, only tested through falsification. A valid scientific theory must be structured in a way that allows it to be proven wrong, and scientists should attempt to disprove their own hypotheses rather than confirm them. Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of paradigm shifts, which are major changes in scientific understanding that occur when an existing framework can no longer explain new evidence. These shifts replace old ways of thinking with entirely new models that better account for observed phenomena.
2.), 3.), and 5.) not 1,2,3
Delete