Up@dawn 2.0 (blogger)

Delight Springs

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Questions Oct 12

We'll begin to discuss this after Thursday's exam, time permitting:

Russell, Ayer, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus-LH 31-33, HWT 24-26 (Transience, Impartiality), FL 25-26. 

Happy Fall Break

1. Reading whose autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God? OR, What did he see as the logical problem with the First Cause Argument? Do you agree with Russell about this?

2. The idea of a barber who shaves all who don't shave themselves is a logical ______, a seeming contradiction that is both true and false. Another example of the same thing would be a statement like "This sentence is ___." Do these examples show a deep problem with language and its ability to accurately portray reality?

3. A.J. Ayer's ______ Principle, stated in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic, was part of the movement known as _____ ______. Is unverifiability the same thing as meaninglessness?

4. Humans don't have an _____, said Jean Paul Sartre, and are in "bad faith" like the ____ who thinks of himself as completely defined by his work. Is it possible to avoid bad faith in every situation?

5. What was Sartre's frustrating advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? Should he have said something else?

6. When Simone de Beauvoir said women are not born that way, she meant that they tend to accept what? Are any essential identities conferred by birth?

7. Which Greek myth did Albert Camus use to illustrate human absurdity, as he saw it? Do you ever feel that way? Do you worry that someday you might, in work or relationships or something else?

HWT
  1. What do you think of the Japanese sensitivity to nature and the seasons? 293
  2. What do you think of Shinto's "no clear-cut separation between the aesthetic, the moral, and the religious"? 294
  3. What do you think it means to think without concepts? 295
  4. Do you agree with what "the enlightened [Buddhist] declares"? 296
  5. Is time more a feeling than a concept? 296 What would Kant say?
  6. What do you think of Hume's "is/ought gap"? 297
  7. What can tea teach us? 299
  8. What is wabi-sabi? 300
  9. Was Kravinsky crazy? 301 How about Peter Singer? 302
  10. Should we consider the welfare of distant strangers as much as of kith and kin? 303
  11. Are Mozi and Mill saying the same thing? 304
  12. Kant's categorical imperative, again: any comment? 309
  13. Do you like Rawls' veil of ignorance idea? 309
  14. Do you agree with the key principles of the Enlightenment? 310
  15. Is Owen Flanagan right about "no sensible person"? 312
  16. Is the mixing desk a good metaphor for moral pluralism? Do you agree that it's not the same as laissez-faire relativism? 314-15

Discussion Questions
  • Reading Mill's autobiography led young Bertrand Russell to reject God. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Why? 185
I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day at the age of eighteen I read _____'s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. Why I Am Not a Christian

  • Should it bother us that logical paradoxes that seem to be true AND false can be formulated in grammatically correct statements? Does this show something important about the limits of language, thought, and (thus) philosophy? 186
  • Were young A.J. Ayer and the Positivists on the right track with their Verification Principle? Or was the older, post-Near Death Experience Ayer wiser about beliefs that cannot be conclusively verified? 190, 194
  • Do you agree with Sartre that humans, unlike inanimate objects such as inkwells, don't have an essential nature? Is our common biology, DNA etc. not essential to our species identity? 197
  • If you become deeply involved in your work  (or seem to, like Sartre's Waiter) are you in "bad faith"? 198
  • What do you think of Sartre's advice to the student who didn't know whether to join the Resistance? 199
  • Do you agree with Simone de Beauvoir about accepting a gender identity based on men's judgments? 200
  • Is life a Sisyphean struggle? Is it "absurd"? Do you agree with Camus that Sisyphus must be happy? Why or why not? 201
FL
  • Do you see any parallels between 1962 (as reflected in the SDS Manifesto, for instance) and today? 212
  • What's your opinion of "Gun nuts"? And what should we do about the epidemic of gun violence in America? 218
  • Do you think of The Force (in Star Wars) as a "spiritual fantasy" or does it name something you consider real? 222
  • Was the sudden and widespread availability of contraception (The Pill) in the '60s a positive development, all things considered? 230
  • Is the fantasy of perpetual youth an infantilizing force in America? 233 (Compare with our next read, Why Grow Up)
  • Are we becoming "fake humans"? 234

==

Podcasts-Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Arendt, Popper, Ordinary Language, Trolley Problems

In Our Time

Sartre. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Jean-Paul Sartre, the French novelist, playwright, and philosopher who became the king of intellectual Paris and a focus of post war politics and morals. Sartre's own life was coloured by jazz, affairs, Simone de Beauvoir and the intellectual camaraderie of Left Bank cafes. He maintained an extraordinary output of plays, novels, biographies, and philosophical treatises as well as membership of the communist party and a role in many political controversies. He produced some wonderful statements: "my heart is on the left, like everyone else's", and "a human person is what he is not, not what he is", and, most famously "we are condemned to be free". Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how Sartre's novels and plays express his ideas and what light Sartre's life brings to bear on his philosophy and his philosphy on his life.


Simone de Beauvoir. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Simone de Beauvoir. "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," she wrote in her best known and most influential work, The Second Sex, her exploration of what it means to be a woman in a world defined by men. Published in 1949, it was an immediate success with the thousands of women who bought it. Many male critics felt men came out of it rather badly. Beauvoir was born in 1908 to a high bourgeois family and it was perhaps her good fortune that her father lost his money when she was a girl. With no dowry, she pursued her education in Paris to get work and in a key exam to allow her to teach philosophy, came second only to Jean Paul Sartre. He was retaking. They became lovers and, for the rest of their lives together, intellectual sparring partners. Sartre concentrated on existentialist philosophy; Beauvoir explored that, and existentialist ethics, plus the novel and, increasingly in the decades up to her death in 1986, the situation of women in the world.


Camus. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Algerian-French writer and Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Shortly after the new year of 1960, a powerful sports car crashed in the French town of Villeblevin in Burgundy, killing two of its occupants. One was the publisher Michel Gallimard; the other was the writer Albert Camus. In Camus’ pocket was an unused train ticket and in the boot of the car his unfinished autobiography The First Man. Camus was 46. Born in Algeria in 1913, Camus became a working class hero and icon of the French Resistance. His friendship with Sartre has been well documented, as has their falling out; and although Camus has been dubbed both an Absurdist and Existentialist philosopher, he denied he was even a philosopher at all, preferring to think of himself as a writer who expressed the realities of human existence. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, Camus’ legacy is a rich one, as an author of plays, novels and essays, and as a political thinker who desperately sought a peaceful solution to the War for Independence in his native Algeria.

Bertrand Russell. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the influential British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Born in 1872 into an aristocratic family, Russell is widely regarded as one of the founders of Analytic philosophy, which is today the dominant philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world. In his important book The Principles of Mathematics, he sought to reduce mathematics to logic. Its revolutionary ideas include Russell's Paradox, a problem which inspired Ludwig Wittgenstein to pursue philosophy. Russell's most significant and famous idea, the theory of descriptions, had profound consequences for the discipline.

In addition to his academic work, Russell played an active role in many social and political campaigns. He supported women's suffrage, was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and was a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Russell's many appearances on the BBC also helped to promote the public understanding of ideas.

Ludwig Wittgenstein. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life, work and legacy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. There is little doubt that he was a towering figure of the twentieth century; on his return to Cambridge in 1929 Maynard Keynes wrote, “Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train”.Wittgenstein is credited with being the greatest philosopher of the modern age, a thinker who left not one but two philosophies for his descendents to argue over: The early Wittgenstein said, “the limits of my mind [language] mean the limits of my world”; the later Wittgenstein replied, “If God looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of”. Language was at the heart of both. Wittgenstein stated that his purpose was to finally free humanity from the pointless and neurotic philosophical questing that plagues us all. As he put it, “To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle”.How did he think language could solve all the problems of philosophy? How have his ideas influenced contemporary culture? And could his thought ever achieve the release for us that he hoped it would?With Ray Monk, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton and author of Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius; Barry Smith, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Marie McGinn, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of York.


Ordinary Language Philosophy. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such 'ordinary language' were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and JL Austin.

Hannah Arendt. In a programme first broadcast in 2017, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She developed many of her ideas in response to the rise of totalitarianism in the C20th, partly informed by her own experience as a Jew in Nazi Germany before her escape to France and then America. She wanted to understand how politics had taken such a disastrous turn and, drawing on ideas of Greek philosophers as well as her peers, what might be done to create a better political life. Often unsettling, she wrote of 'the banality of evil' when covering the trial of Eichmann, one of the organisers of the Holocaust.


Karl Popper. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper whose ideas about science and politics robustly challenged the accepted ideas of the day. He strongly resisted the prevailing empiricist consensus that scientists' theories could be proved true. Popper wrote: “The more we learn about the world and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance”. He believed that even when a scientific principle had been successfully and repeatedly tested, it was not necessarily true. Instead it had simply not proved false, yet! This became known as the theory of falsification.He called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called “pseudo sciences” which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the “murderer of Freud and Marx”. He went on to apply his ideas to politics, advocating an Open Society. His ideas influenced a wide range of politicians, from those close to Margaret Thatcher, to thinkers in the Eastern Communist bloc and South America. So how did Karl Popper change our approach to the philosophy of science? How have scientists and philosophers made use of his ideas? And how are his theories viewed today? Are we any closer to proving scientific principles are “true”?
==

The Scientific Method. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.


The Meaning of Life According to AJ Ayer. What was an English philosopher doing at a New York party, saving the young model Naomi Campbell from a rather pushy boxing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson? The philosopher was Alfred Jules Ayer, who was just as at home mixing with the glitterati as he was with Oxford dons. On the one hand he was an academic, on the other a celebrity and bon viveur.


So what does this logician have to say about the meaning of life?

In 1988, a year before his death, he gave a lecture at the Conway Hall in which he set out his notion of existence. By this time, ‘Freddie’ Ayer was one of the UK’s most prominent public intellectuals, with regular television and radio appearances, discussing the moral issues of the day.

Ayer’s former student at Oxford, philosopher AC Grayling, remembers the tutor that became his friend. He explores the man of contradictions – the atheist who almost recanted after a near-death incident; the deep thinker with a weakness for mistresses and Tottenham Hotspur. What was his contribution to philosophy? How did it inform the way he lived his life? What, if anything, can we learn from Freddie’s view on the big question?

Trolleyology
The Philosopher's ArmsSeries 4 Episode 2 of 4

Pints and Philosophical Problems with Matthew Sweet. This week, trolleyology: how should you decide between two morally troubling courses of action? This is a question which affects both soldiers in the heat of action and decision-makers in the NHS. Matthew is joined in the snug by philosopher David Edmonds.
==
Philosophy Bites

Sebastian Gardner on Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith

Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness is sometimes described as the bible of existentialism. At its core is the notion of Bad Faith. For this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Sebastian Gardner, author of a recent book about Bei...

Kate Manne on Misogyny and Male Entitlement

Cornell philosopher Kate Manne discusses misognyn, male entitlement, together with the notion of 'himpathy', a term she coined, in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Manne is the author of two recent highly influential books, ...

Ray Monk on Philosophy and Biography

Ray Monk discusses the relationship between philosophy and a philosopher's life in this interview with Nigel Warburton for the Philosophy Bites podcast. Can understanding the biographical context of a philosopher and the type of person t...

David Edmonds on Wittgenstein's Poker

For this second special lockdown episode of Philosophy Bites, Nigel Warburton interviewed David Edmonds about his bestseller Wittgenstein's Poker, which he wrote with John Eidinow. This brilliant book is an exploration of an event that...

Melissa Lane on Plato and Totalitarianism

Was Plato's ideal state a totalitarian one? Karl Popper, thought so, and made his case in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Melissa Lane, author of Plato's Progeny discusses Popper's critique of Plato in this episode of Philosophy Bites....

David Edmonds on Trolley Problems

Is it ever morally acceptable to kill one person to save five? Most people think that it can be. But are we consistent in this? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Nigel Warburton interviews David Edmonds (co-creator of Philo...

Julian Baggini on Thought Experiments

Philosophers often use elaborate thought experiments in their writing. Are these anything more than rhetorical flourishes? Or do they reveal important aspects of the questions under discussion. Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers'...

Sunday, October 8, 2023

LHP (Even Number’s) Test Questions and Answers to Philosophy Test 1

Thanks for posting this, Chance. Give yourself a couple of bonus bases tomorrow. 

But I'll reiterate to the class: I have NOT vetted the answers here, and in any case the best preparation for Thursday's exam is to re-read and think about the assigned texts that address the questions. -jpo

==

·         Chapter 1:

2. What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?

 

Answers:

 2.This story of the cave is connected with what’s come to be known as Plato’s Theory of Forms.

 

·         Chapter 2

2. What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by The School of Athens? Whose side are you on, Plato's or Aristotle's?

 

4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?

 

Answers:

2. Plato’s philosophy is directed towards thinking about the abstract concept of a thing rather than directly observing it directly to understand its true nature. Whilst Aristotle’s philosophy is practically the opposite, he is intrigued by most things physical, and he believes by observing an object is how one can learn about the object’s nature. This is shown by Plato pointing upwards to the world of the Forms; in contrast, Aristotle is reaching out towards the world in front of him.

 

4. Truth by Authority is completely against Aristotle’s research, because his methods were investigation, research and clear reasoning, thus authority proves nothing on its own.

 

·         Chapter 3

2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?

 

4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?

 

Answers

2.     2.Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because our senses can be wrong, such as in the dark a figure could appear to be a fox yet only be a cat in reality. That decision is not prudent in most cases although it is very interesting to note that our senses are not what reality actually is.

 

4.     4.Pyrrho thought that one should free themselves from desires and not care how things turn out, since unhappiness comes from not getting what you want.

 

 

·         Chapter 4-5

2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?

 

4. How did Epicurus respond to the idea of divine punishment in the afterlife? Is the hypothesis of a punitive and torturous afterlife something you take seriously, as a real possibility? Why or why not?

 

6. Why did Cicero think we shouldn't worry about dying? Is his approach less or more worrisome than the Epicureans'?

 

8. What does the author say might be the cost of stoicism? Is it possible to be stoical but also appropriately compassionate, caring, sensitive to others' suffering, etc.?

 

Answers:

1

2.     2. Epicurean refers to someone who enjoys the expensive/fancy aspects of life, while Epicurus strictly renounced the finer aspects of life.

3.       

4.     4. Epicurus argued that the god’s exist apart from us and are not interested in punishing us after death, perhaps because they did not even care to watch our lives to begin with.

5.       

6.      6.Cicero believed that the soul lived for ever, so that old people shouldn’t worry about dying. Cicero’s attitude was that we should both accept the natural process of growing older and recognize that the attitude we take to that process need not be pessimistic. Since Cicero’s attitude was focused on doing the most with the life you have, I believe it is less worrisome than the Epicureans view.

7.       

8.      8.Unfortunately, though, even if you manage to calm your emotions, you may find that you have lost something important. The state of indifference championed by the Stoics may reduce unhappiness in the face of events we can’t control. But the cost might be that we become cold, heartless, and perhaps even less human. If that is the price of achieving calm, it may be too high.

 

·         Chapter 6-8

2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?

 

4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?

 

6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?

 

Answers:

2.      2.He was an early Christian

3.       

4.     4. That everyone has their own idea of what God is even if they do not believe in God then with that Ontological argument that proves God exists.

5.       

6.      6.The First Cause Argument, an argument which, like much of Aquinas’ philosophy, was based on one that Aristotle had used much earlier. Like Anselm, Aquinas wanted to use reason to provide proof for God’s existence. The First Cause Argument takes as its starting point the existence of the cosmos – everything that there is. Look around you. Where did everything come from? The simple answer is that each thing that exists has a cause of some kind that brought it into being and made it as it is. Take a football. That is the product of many causes – of people designing and making it, of the causes that produced the raw materials, and so on. But what caused the raw materials to exist? And what caused those causes? You can go back and trace that. And back and back. But does that chain of causes and effects go on back forever?

 

·         Chapter 9-10

2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?

 

4. Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they could get away with it?

 

6.Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?

 

Answers:

 

2.Machiavelli’s philosophy was not specifically mentioned to be “rooted” in anything, what it does mention is that he had cynicism in how he viewed things. How he views most humans to be untrustworthy and greedy.

 

4. In Hobbes’ memorable description, life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.

6. Hobbes did not believe in the soul. Soul meaning an esoteric eternal being that which we are comprised of but is eternal but somehow only begins its existence when we are born then becomes eternal.

 

 

 

·         Chapter 11-12

2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?

 

4. Pascal's best-known book is _____.  Do you like his aphoristic style?

 

6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?

 

 

Answers:

 

1.    2.  When he reaches his conclusion about god and that he must exist he believes in conclusion that means that this world does exist.

3.    

4.    4.Pascal’s best-known book, his Pensées (‘Thoughts’), was pieced together from fragments of his writing and published in 1670 after his early death at the age of 39. It is written in a series of beautifully crafted short paragraphs. No one is completely sure how he intended the parts to fit together, but the main point of the book is clear: it is a defense of his version of Christianity.

5.       

6.      6.Not only might you lose your chance of bliss in heaven, but you might end up in hell where you will be tortured for the whole of eternity.

 

·         Chapter 13-14

2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god?

 

4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______.  If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?

 

6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution? Do you think it matters if we say such rights are discovered rather than invented?

 

           

Answers:

1.                 

2.      2.If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if you discover something in the universe to not be god, god is indifferent to human beings.

3.       

4.     4. All our knowledge comes from our experiences; hence the mind of a newborn is blank.

5.       

6.      6.His view that we have a God-given right to life, freedom, happiness and property influenced the founding fathers who wrote the United States Constitution.

 

·         Chapter 15-18

2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?

 

4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?

 

6. What English poet declared that "whatever is, is right," and what German philosopher (with his "Principle of Sufficient Reason") agreed with the poet? Does this imply that nothing is ever wrong or bad? Is it really possible or reasonable to believe this?

 

 

8. What 1755 catastrophe deeply influenced Voltaire's philosophy? Do you have a philosophical perspective on natural catastrophes that makes rational and moral sense of them?

 

10. Did Hume think the human eye is so flawless in its patterned intricacy that, like Paley's watch, it constitutes powerful evidence of intelligent design? Why would an omnipotent designer design a flawed organ?

 

12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in ____, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the _______. Are we all more free when we act not only for ourselves but for the good of the whole community (world, species)?

 

Answers:

2.     2.  He was an idealist because he believed that all that exist are ideas; he was an immaterialist because he denied that material things – physical objects – exist. Generally I am neither because I aim to be as scientific as possible because that is how the world is fascinating to me. Although deep down I have no idea if anything is real and to be honest nobody can prove to me that they are not a figment of my imagination. Which might be another reason why I hold science so dear because I need there to be governing laws of the universe and me be able to understand them for my reality to exist.

4. Berkeley summed up this strange view in Latin as ‘Esse est percipi’ – to be (or exist) is to be perceived. I really do not have a complete answer either way if existing requires being perceived or not. 

6.  English poet Alexander Pope. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

8.      8. In 1755 one of the worst natural disasters of the eighteenth century occurred: the Lisbon earthquake that killed more than 20,000 people. This Portuguese city was devastated not just by the earthquake, but also by the tsunami that followed, and then by fires that raged for days.

9.       

10.    10. No he disagrees saying even if you reach the conclusion that something very powerful made the human eye, you don’t have evidence to say that it was all-powerful. The eye has some flaws.

11.   

12.  12.‘Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains,’ The General Will is whatever is best for the whole community, the whole state. When people choose to group together for protection, it seems that they have to give up many of their freedoms.

 

·         Chapter 19-23

2. What was Kant's great insight? Is this a credible form of "armchair philosophy"? Or does it also depend on experience?

4. Kant said you should never ___, because ___. Kant called the principle that supports this view the ____ _____.  Have you ever violated this principle? If so, do you regret it?

 

6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?

8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject? What would Kant say?

10. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?

 

Answers:

2.      2.His great insight was that we could, by the power of reason, discover features of our own minds that tint all our experience. Sitting in an armchair thinking hard, we could make discoveries about reality that had to be true yet weren’t just true by definition: they could be informative. This is absolutely a credible form of armchair philosophy, he is saying by sitting and thinking we ca gleam answers so yes! Even if contemplating over experimental data it is still thinking about the world within the confines of your thoughts so it appears to me to be armchair philosophy.


4.      4.Kant said you should never lie because it is morally wrong. Categorial Imperative, which is an order instructing you what your duty is.

5.       

6.        6. Robert Nozick. I would not opt to use the machine in fear of addiction to it.

7.       

8.     8. Hegel came to reject Kant’s view that noumenal reality lies beyond the phenomenal world. I feel like Kant would say something similar to how can we know what we do not know.

9.       

10.  10.Reality has two aspects. It exists both as Will and as Representation. Will is the blind driving force that is found in absolutely everything that exists.

 

·         Chapter 24-27

2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty? Is that view consistent with his criticisms of Bentham?

 

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?

 

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?

 

8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton? Do you agree?

 

10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained? DId he have a point?

 

12. What did Marx call religion? Was he being unfair?

 

 

Answers:

2.      2. In 1859 he published a short but inspiring book defending his view that giving each person space to develop as they saw fit was the best way to organize society. That book is called On Liberty and it is still widely read today.


4.      4. Prejudices that you can’t really defend.

6.      6. Genetics, for example, has given a detailed explanation of how inheritance works. We know about genes and chromosomes and about the chemical processes involved in passing on particular qualities. The fossil evidence today is also far more convincing than it was in Darwin’s day. For all these reasons the theory of evolution by natural selection is much more than ‘just a hypothesis’: it is a hypothesis that has a very substantial weight of evidence in its support.

7.       

8.      8. Søren Kierkegaard, most of his writing was about choosing how to live and the difficulty of knowing that your decision is the right one. He must had loved her very much to not want her to share in his gloomy life.

9.       

10.  10. For Kierkegaard, the subjective point of view, the experience of the individual making choices, was all-important. Karl Marx took a broader view. Like Hegel, he had a grand vision of how history was unfolding and of the forces driving it. Unlike Kierkegaard, he saw no hope whatsoever of salvation through religion.

11.   

12.  12. Each person would contribute whatever they could to society, and society in turn would provide for them: ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ was Marx’s vision. By taking control of factories, the workers would make sure that there was enough for everyone to have what they needed. No one need go hungry or without suitable clothing or shelter. This future was communism, a world based on sharing the benefits of co-operation.

 

·         Chapter 28-30

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


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? 


6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?


8. How did Nietzsche differ from Kant but anticipate Freud? Is rationality less available to us than we think?


10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?


12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree

            Answers:

2.     2. C.S. Peirce, it is pronounced purse so hearse could rhyme with his last name. That for something to be true it has to have tangible evidence to support it.

4.     4. Richard Rorty said words allow us to cope with the world, not copy it. He declared that ‘truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with’ and that no period of history gets reality more nearly right than any other. The meaning words have will change over time along with their interpretation. Rorty presumably believed that there was no correct interpretation of it in the same way that there’s no ‘right’ answer about whether the hunter was circling the squirrel as it scrambled round the tree. His approach seems reasonable and logical to me, to a spectrum of concepts though. Meaning that just because many things said by people can be interpreted several ways does not mean everything can. Moreover, even if words can be interpreted in most situations does not mean they are all not to be trusted.

6.     6. He thought they came from the slaves and poor envying the aristocrats so they made values directly opposite of the aristocrats and ones that would benefit themselves more.

 

DISCLAIMER

·         ALL answers have a 90% accuracy rating, so use your own judgment to trust them!

·         Some answers have been directly copied from text, while others are summations of text.

·         I omitted most of my opinions from the answers since each subjective question can only be answered by the individual. Some I felt explained the answer more precisely.

·         The remaining answers to Chapters 28-30 are missing because I have yet to get that far as of making this document. As well as Chapters 31-33 questions have not been posted yet.

·         Lastly, I apologize about the formatting, the blog site does not seem to accept word documents (or I did not find it) so I had to copy and paste onto here which did not go great.