These are possible reading assignments for the course. Details and timing may change. Assignments will be announced in class and/or by e-mail. If you're not sure what the next assignment is, please ask.
About
Our Texts
What is Philosophy? assignment 1)
Basic Logic (assignments 2-3)
Does God Exist? (assignments 4-12)
Can We Know if Matter Exists? (assignments 13-26)
Do We Have Free Will? (assignments 27-33)
How Should We Live? (assignments 34-9)
What is Philosophy? assignment 1)
Basic Logic (assignments 2-3)
Does God Exist? (assignments 4-12)
Can We Know if Matter Exists? (assignments 13-26)
Do We Have Free Will? (assignments 27-33)
How Should We Live? (assignments 34-9)
About Our Texts
Most
of our readings are in the Broadview
Introduction to Philosophy, Volume I.You should know:
There are several different Broadview
Introductions to Philosophy, including the big
full one (orange cover), Volume I (blue cover--this
one), and Volume II (yellow cover).
The
book comes in printed and PDF versions. Printed
copies are available at Eli's. You can get printed
and downloadable versions via
the publisher's site.
I'll abbreviate the title BIP.
Page numbers below are for the printed version. The page numbers in the PDF version may be different than in the printed version, but you can find content using your e-reader's Search.
I will supply a PDF of our first two readings while you get the book. After that, I expect you to have your own.
I'll abbreviate the title BIP.
Page numbers below are for the printed version. The page numbers in the PDF version may be different than in the printed version, but you can find content using your e-reader's Search.
I will supply a PDF of our first two readings while you get the book. After that, I expect you to have your own.
Any other assignments for this course will be posted online, either in our Google drive or linked directly from this page.
Any problems? Let me know.
What is Philosophy?
Assignment 1.
Read:
- Online: Phil 101 Syllabus
(here on the class Moodle site). Get to know the course
web site.
- Andrew Bailey, "What is
Philosophy?" in BIP (Broadview Introduction to Philosophy,
Volume I) pp. xiii
- xv
(If you don't have the book yet, a PDF of this reading is here on our Google Drive. Get the book as soon as you can.)
(Be ready to discuss reading questions in class each day. Also, starting in the first full week of class, respond to at least one reading question per week in your reading responses--as a reminder, here is the reading responses assignment, and the forums to submit your responses are here):
A. In what
ways do philosophy’s methods differ from those used in
sciences such as neuroscience and economics? Why do
they differ?
B. What are the three main branches of philosophy? (See "Philosophy as a Subject Matter," pp. xiv - xv, and look for the "three basic philosophical questions.") Notice that each branch raises one "foundational" question, and other related questions. What are these questions?
B. What are the three main branches of philosophy? (See "Philosophy as a Subject Matter," pp. xiv - xv, and look for the "three basic philosophical questions.") Notice that each branch raises one "foundational" question, and other related questions. What are these questions?
Basic Logic
Assignment 2: ideas and terms that philosophers use a lot
- Read: Excerpt from Aristotle's Rhetoric
- Watch on YouTube:
- Read: Andrew Bailey, "A Brief Introduction to Arguments" in BIP, pp. xvi - xxi
- Read it all, but focus most on pp. xvi - xviii.
- Bailey uses "strong" and "weak" to
describe both deductive and inductive arguments, but
in this course we will only use "strong" and "weak"
to describe inductive arguments.
- In case your book has not arrived, a
PDF of this Bailey reading is here
on our Google Drive. Again, get the book as
soon as you can.
- Read: Anderson, Logic Terms (on our Google Drive). This summarizes the definitions you will need to know.
- (Optional) Anderson, "Evaluating Arguments: Some Helpful Concepts"
- This explains many of the same
things as "A Brief Introduction to Arguments," but
in a different way, in case you find that helpful.
Reading
questions:
(Be ready to discuss reading questions in class each day. Also, starting in the first full week of class, respond to at least one reading question per week in your reading responses--as a reminder, here is the reading responses assignment, and the forums to submit your responses are here):
In BIP: p. xxii, question #4.
(Be ready to discuss reading questions in class each day. Also, starting in the first full week of class, respond to at least one reading question per week in your reading responses--as a reminder, here is the reading responses assignment, and the forums to submit your responses are here):
In BIP: p. xxii, question #4.
A.
According to Aristotle, what are ethos, pathos, and
logos (Aristotle, 7-8)? Can you give an example of each,
other than the assigned videos?
B. Can you explain where the ethos is in the "Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad"? Explain how the "Pathos commercial" is an example of pathos. Use Aristotle's text to support your answers.
C. Bailey provides an argument for the conclusion that “this rope will bear my weight” (Bailey, xvi). Is this argument deductive or inductive? How come?
D. Explain what philosophers mean when they say an argument is valid, and when they say it is sound (Bailey, xvii - xviii).
B. Can you explain where the ethos is in the "Willie Horton 1988 Attack Ad"? Explain how the "Pathos commercial" is an example of pathos. Use Aristotle's text to support your answers.
C. Bailey provides an argument for the conclusion that “this rope will bear my weight” (Bailey, xvi). Is this argument deductive or inductive? How come?
D. Explain what philosophers mean when they say an argument is valid, and when they say it is sound (Bailey, xvii - xviii).
Assignment 3: Logic, cont.; more terms, and identifying fallacies.
Readings:
(Be ready to discuss these in class each day; also, starting in the first full week of class, respond to at least one reading question per week in your reading responses--as a reminder, here is the reading responses assignment, and the forums to submit your responses are here):
In BIP: p. xxii, question #3
- Bailey, "A Brief Introduction to
Arguments" in BIP pp. xvi - xxi again
(again, especially pp. xvi - xviii). Pay special
attention to the definitions of these terms:
premise; conclusion; argument; inductive; strong;
weak; deductive; valid; sound.
- Review the Logic
Terms (on our Google Drive). You will need
to use these terms properly for the rest of the
course.
- (Optional) Anderson, "Putting
an Argument in Standard Form." This will
help you put arguments into the numbered
premise-conclusion form philosophers often use.
(Be ready to discuss these in class each day; also, starting in the first full week of class, respond to at least one reading question per week in your reading responses--as a reminder, here is the reading responses assignment, and the forums to submit your responses are here):
In BIP: p. xxii, question #3
A.
Find--from outside our texts--or make up three bad arguments. Don't just re-word ones from the assigned
readings; try to find really different
sorts of bad arguments: bad inductive
arguments, bad deductive arguments,
arguments that seem bad in different ways.
(Remember to cite whatever sources you use,
per the
integrity instructions.)
B. Identify what is wrong with the following argument: “God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.”
B. Identify what is wrong with the following argument: “God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.”
Does God Exist?
Assignment 4: Anselm's ontological
argument--what is it?
Read:
- BIP 1-2: Andrew Bailey, "Does God Exist?"
- BIP 3-17. This includes:
- Andrew Bailey, "St. Anselm of
Canterbury" (3-6); pay special attention to "Some
Common Misconceptions" (5),
- Anselm’s Proslogion (6-8; focus especially on chapter 2),
- Gaunilo’s Pro Insipiente, (8-11;
focus especially on Paragraphs 4 and 6), and
- Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
(11-17).
- Note:
BIP has good advice on reading philosophy (pp.
xxii - xxiii). I recommend following his advice here
and on our other assignments.
Reading
questions:
In BIP: pp. 17, questions #1, 2.
In BIP: pp. 17, questions #1, 2.
A.
Bailey describes three types of argument for God's
existence (Bailey, 2). In your own words, define
each one.
B. Try to restate Anselm’s ontological argument in chapter 2 of Proslogion (Anselm, 7) in standard form. (Standard form is the numbered premise-conclusion format I often use in class; here is a guide to standard form.)
B. Try to restate Anselm’s ontological argument in chapter 2 of Proslogion (Anselm, 7) in standard form. (Standard form is the numbered premise-conclusion format I often use in class; here is a guide to standard form.)
Assignment 5: Anselm's ontological argument--is it sound?
Re-read:
In BIP pp. 17, #4, 6, 7, 8
- Bailey, "Some Common Misconceptions" (BIP 5)
- BIP 3-17: Anselm's Proslogion (especially ch. 2), Gaunilo’s Pro Insipiente (especially Paragraphs 4 and 6), and Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo.
In BIP pp. 17, #4, 6, 7, 8
A.
Many people have the sense that something is wrong
with Anselm's argument. But what is it? Before
criticizing it, review the "Common Misconceptions"
in the introductory material (Bailey, 5). After
that, what do you think is wrong with it (if you
think something is wrong with it)?
B. Look carefully at Gaunilo's Paragraph 4 (Gaunilo, 9-10). What is Gaunilo saying about our understanding of God? How might this cause a problem for Anselm's argument?
C. Do the same for Gaunilo's Paragraph 6 (Gaunilo, 10): what does Gaunilo say about an island? How might this be a problem for Anselm's argument?
B. Look carefully at Gaunilo's Paragraph 4 (Gaunilo, 9-10). What is Gaunilo saying about our understanding of God? How might this cause a problem for Anselm's argument?
C. Do the same for Gaunilo's Paragraph 6 (Gaunilo, 10): what does Gaunilo say about an island? How might this be a problem for Anselm's argument?
Assignment 6: Aquinas' cosmological (and other) arguments.
- Read: BIP
19-27:
- Andrew Bailey, "St. Thomas Aquinas"
- Aquinas, Summa Theologiae excerpts.
Pay most attention to the "five ways" in Article
3, pp. 26-7.
- Watch: "Book
Domino Chain World Record" on YouTube
- Note that the Aquinas
selection is pretty short; the introductory material
is actually longer. This is because Aquinas’ text is
dense and uses words in unfamiliar ways. Don't let
that discourage you. Use the introductory material
to make sense of what Aquinas is saying, and read
Aquinas slowly and carefully.
Reading
questions (you may respond to any of them you like,
but I really encourage you to try A):
In BIP p. 28, questions #1, 2, 3.
A. Look carefully at Aquinas' "first way" (26). Try to restate his argument in standard form. It will likely have more steps than Anselm's ontological argument. (Again, standard form is the numbered premise-conclusion form I often use in class; here is a guide to standard form.)
B. How does the "Book Domino Chain World Record" video demonstrate what Aquinas is saying? Can you connect what happens in the video to the premises and conclusion of Aquinas's argument? (In other words, can you point out similarities between them?)
(For Spring 2021, we will skip #7 and 8. Do #9.)
Assignment 7: The cosmological argument in Hume (from Demea).
Read:
- Andrew Bailey, "David Hume" (BIP 29-33)
- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part IX (BIP 45-7)
- Note:
We'll have two meetings on Hume. Our first
one will focus on the cosmological argument given
in Part IX by Demea; the second meeting will look
at Cleanthes' design argument in Part II.
Reading
questions:
In BIP p. 49, question #8.
In BIP p. 49, question #8.
A. Can
you restate Demea's cosmological argument (45-6), in
a paragraph or in standard form?
(It begins at, "The argument, replied Demea, which I
would insist on, is the common one," and continues
to the end of that paragraph.)
B. Cleanthes presents several objections to Demea's cosmological argument on pp. 46-7. Can you restate any of them in a paragraph, or in standard form?
B. Cleanthes presents several objections to Demea's cosmological argument on pp. 46-7. Can you restate any of them in a paragraph, or in standard form?
Assignment 8: The design argument in Hume (from Cleanthes).
Read:
- Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part II re the design argument (BIP 34-40)
- Hume, Dialogues, Part V re the design argument (BIP 43-5)
- BIP xix: re-read Bailey's
discussion of arguments from analogy. Cleanthes'
design argument (35) is an analogy.
Reading
questions:
In BIP p. 49, #2, 4, 6.
A. In these readings we have Cleanthes' design
argument (Hume, 35) and several criticisms of it from
Philo (e.g., Hume 35-40, 43-5). Take any
one of those arguments and restate it either in a
paragraph, or in standard form.
B. Philo presents several objections to Cleanthes' design argument. Rather than rebut the objections, Cleanthes seems content to conclude, "To this concession I adhere steadily; and this I regard as a sufficient foundation for religion" (Hume, 45). What does Cleanthes mean by this? Do you agree it is a sufficient foundation for religion? How come?
B. Philo presents several objections to Cleanthes' design argument. Rather than rebut the objections, Cleanthes seems content to conclude, "To this concession I adhere steadily; and this I regard as a sufficient foundation for religion" (Hume, 45). What does Cleanthes mean by this? Do you agree it is a sufficient foundation for religion? How come?
Assignment 9: A contemporary design argument using DNA.
The design
argument, often called “Intelligent Design,” is still
important in contemporary American affairs. Various
groups have been trying for years to get some version
of it (there are many) taught in public school science
courses. Discussion of design arguments, both
favorable and critical, is abundant on the internet.
View and read these:
View and read these:
- Video: “Evidence for
Intelligent Design” (YouTube; 9 minutes)
This video features Dean Kenyon (the older guy) and William Dembski (the younger guy in the purple jacket). It favors a particular design argument which focuses on the origin of DNA.
A transcript of the video is available on our Google drive.
- Videos: "Carl
Sagan Cosmos - The Stuff of Life" (5
minutes) and "Carl
Sagan Cosmos Update - Origin of Life" (1.5
minutes)
In the first video, scientist Carl Sagan explains the Miller-Urey experiment. In the second, he briefly discusses more recent developments in theories of the origin of life on Earth.
- (Optional) Wikipedia
contributors, "Miller-Urey
experiment"
This discusses the experiment demonstrated in the Sagan "Stuff of Life" video.
- BIP xix - xx from Bailey's
"A Brief Introduction to Arguments" (available
on our Google drive):
re-read Bailey's discussion of inference
to the best explanation. (Dean Kenyon's design
argument can be interpreted this way.)
Reading
questions:
A. In "Evidence for Intelligent Design,"
Kenyon & Dembski argue for an intelligent designer
to account for DNA. Try to restate their argument
either in a paragraph or standard form.
(Remember to cite; the academic
integrity instructions show how to cite videos.)
B. How is the argument presented in "Evidence for Intelligent Design" similar to, and different from, those we have looked at so far?
C. In "Carl Sagan on the origin of DNA," Sagan argues for a naturalistic account of the origin of life. Try to restate his argument either in a paragraph or standard form. (Remember to cite; the academic integrity instructions show how to cite videos.)
D. What weaknesses can you find in Kenyon & Dembski's argument, and in Sagan's?
B. How is the argument presented in "Evidence for Intelligent Design" similar to, and different from, those we have looked at so far?
C. In "Carl Sagan on the origin of DNA," Sagan argues for a naturalistic account of the origin of life. Try to restate his argument either in a paragraph or standard form. (Remember to cite; the academic integrity instructions show how to cite videos.)
D. What weaknesses can you find in Kenyon & Dembski's argument, and in Sagan's?
Assignment 10: Another contemporary design argument using "irreducible complexity."
Read & watch:
- Michael Behe, “Molecular
Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
Inference”
Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. Here he makes a case for "irreducible complexity" as evidence of intelligent design. (I have added paragraph numbers for ease of reference; the original document is here.)
- Video: excerpt
from "Intelligent Design on Trial"(the video should start at 1:05:03;
watch from there to 1:14:38--about ten minutes)
I am only assigning this portion; viewing the rest of the video is optional.
This is part of a PBS Nova documentary on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case on the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. The assigned portion is a dramatization which criticizes Michael Behe's argument from irreducible complexity.
- Philip Kitcher, "Born
Again Creationism: Behe’s Big Idea" (on our
Google Drive)
This is Kitcher's critique of Behe. Unfortunately there are several big typos in it, but they don't obscure his argument too much. I have added paragraph numbers for ease of reference.
A. Behe
claims that "irreducible complexity" is evidence of
design. What is irreducible complexity, and how does
Behe think it indicates there is a designer?
B. The
segment from "Intelligent Design on Trial" presents
Behe's design argument and criticism of it. What is
that criticism?
C. Kitcher claims Behe has misrepresented evolution; he says that Behe's account of evolution "is just plain silly, and Darwinians ought to disavow any commitment to it." Why does Kitcher think it is silly?
C. Kitcher claims Behe has misrepresented evolution; he says that Behe's account of evolution "is just plain silly, and Darwinians ought to disavow any commitment to it." Why does Kitcher think it is silly?
Assignment 11: Mackie's argument that an omnipotent, good God cannot exist.
Read:
- BIP 72-80:
- Andrew Bailey, "J.L. Mackie" (BIP 72-3), expecially "A Common Misconception" (73)
- J.L. Mackie, "Evil and
Omnipotence"(BIP 73-80)
- Here are some things that may be
helpful.
Second, Mackie explains his main argument--that an omnipotent, wholly good God cannot exist if evil does--in his first six paragraphs (Mackie, 73-4).
Third, the rest of his piece (74 onward) discusses ways theists try to evade Mackie's conclusion, and why Mackie thinks they all fail.
Fourth, things get really complicated toward the end (79-80 -- Mackie's discussion of the "paradox of omnipotence"), and you may ignore that part.
- These other readings will help you
understand "the problem of evil" which
philosophers and others have discussed for a long
time and which Mackie is using in his argument:
- (Optional) BIP 47-9: Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X re the problem of evil
- Some recent examples of (very large)
evils:
- Kazumi Saeki, "In Japan, No Time Yet for Grief," New York Times
- "Satellite
Photos of Japan, Before and After the Quake
and Tsunami," New York Times. Each photo
is divided down the middle; move the slider
back and forth to see the damage.
- "Haiti,
48 Hours Later," Boston Globe.
Photos of the devastation in Haiti just after
the January 2010 earthquake.
- Yoram
Hazony, "An
Imperfect God," New York Times,
November 25, 2012.
- Hazony,
in effect, solves the problem of evil by
arguing that the God of the Bible is not
perfect.
Assignment 12: James' pragmatic defense
of Pascal's wager.
Read BIP 108-23
Read BIP 108-23
- Andrew Bailey, "William James" (BIP 108-11)
- William James, "The Will to Believe" (BIP -23)
- Note: unlike other philosophers in this unit, James is not concerned with the (metaphysical) question of whether God exists. Rather, he is concerned with the (epistemological) question of whether we are entitled to believe in God even if we lack hard proof. In other words, in discussing James and Pascal, we are not discussing whether there is a God, but whether it is rational to believe in God without proof.
In BIP 124, questions #1, 4-7.
A. James
mentions a famous argument for belief in God called
"Pascal's wager" (113-4). What is Pascal's argument?
Do you find it persuasive?
B. James claims that our passions "not only lawfully may, but must, decide" whenever we have options which cannot be decided purely by evidence (part IV, p. 116, and part VIII, p. 119). How does James argue for this?
C. How does James argue that it is hopeless to wait for proof (part VI)?
D. Clifford says we must refuse to believe without proof. How does James argue that refusing to believe may be costly (section IX)? (Look at his example of "Do you like me or not?" on p. 121.) How is this supposed to help James show we may believe in God?
B. James claims that our passions "not only lawfully may, but must, decide" whenever we have options which cannot be decided purely by evidence (part IV, p. 116, and part VIII, p. 119). How does James argue for this?
C. How does James argue that it is hopeless to wait for proof (part VI)?
D. Clifford says we must refuse to believe without proof. How does James argue that refusing to believe may be costly (section IX)? (Look at his example of "Do you like me or not?" on p. 121.) How is this supposed to help James show we may believe in God?
Can We Know if Matter Exists?
Assignment 13: starting Descartes.
Read:
- Andrew Bailey, "Epistemology: Is the External World the Way it Appears to Be?" (BIP 125-7)
- Andrew Bailey, "René Descartes" (BIP 134-41). Pay most attention to "Some Common Misconceptions" #1, 2, and 3 (p. 139).
- René Descartes, "First Meditation" (BIP 143-5)
- Optional: Descartes, "Synopsis of the following Six Meditations" (BIP 141-3)
Exercise:
before coming to class,
- Estimate how many beliefs you have. Just think about it for a minute and write down an approximate number. (By "beliefs" I don't mean only your deeply-held convictions; I mean anything that might honestly complete the sentence, "I believe that..." or "I think that...," like "I believe the sky is blue," "I believe 2+2=4," "I believe broccoli is gross," etc.)
- Write down ten of these beliefs.
State each briefly. Make them different kinds of
beliefs (i.e., not just “I have a hand, I have a
foot, I have clothes...”).
Reading questions:
A. In the
first paragraph of the First Meditation Descartes says
he will devote himself to “an earnest and unfettered
demolition of my [former] opinions” (143). Why does he
want to do this? How does he propose to accomplish it?
(See the second paragraph.)
B. How does Descartes argue that his apparently waking experiences might be dreams (144, second full paragraph)? Which of his former beliefs does this “Dream Doubt” cast doubt on? Which are left over--i.e., what things are still true "whether I am awake or asleep" (144)?
B. How does Descartes argue that his apparently waking experiences might be dreams (144, second full paragraph)? Which of his former beliefs does this “Dream Doubt” cast doubt on? Which are left over--i.e., what things are still true "whether I am awake or asleep" (144)?
Assignment 14: Dream Doubt and Defective Nature Doubt.
- Re-read Descartes, First Meditation (BIP 143-5). Pay special attention to 144-5.
- Chuang-tzu, “Dreams”:
|
Dreams
Chuang-tzu Those who dream of a banquet may wake to lamentation and sorrow. Those who dream of lamentation and sorrow may wake to join a hunt. While they dream, they do not know that they dream. Some will even experience a dream within a dream; and only when they awake do they realize they dreamed of a dream. By and by comes the great awakening, and then we may find out that this life is really an extended dream. Fools think they are awake now, and flatter themselves they know if they are really princes or peasants. Confucius and you are both dreams; and I who say you are dreams—I am but a dream myself. This is a paradox. Tomorrow a wise man may come forward to explain it; but that tomorrow will not be until ten thousand generations have gone by. Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man. |
(This
excerpt is borrowed from Humanistic
Texts.)
Reading
questions:
A. On p.
144 Descartes says, "it becomes completely clear to
me that there are no certain indicators which ever
enable us to differentiate between being awake and
being asleep." In other words, he is saying there is
no absolutely sure way to tell whether you are awake
or asleep. This is the conclusion of an argument.
What are the premises for it? Try to put the
argument in standard form. Is the argument inductive
or deductive?
B. If Descartes is right that we cannot tell for sure whether we are dreaming or awake, what would that imply about our knowledge of material things? Why?
C. In the first two paragraphs of p. 145, Descartes argues that he may be wrong even about the simplest things, such as that 2+3=5. Can you explain his argument, or put it in standard form? (The argument starts at with "Nevertheless, a certain opinion has for a long time been fixed in my mind..." and ends with "there is nothing in the beliefs which I formerly held to be true about which one cannot raise doubts.")
B. If Descartes is right that we cannot tell for sure whether we are dreaming or awake, what would that imply about our knowledge of material things? Why?
C. In the first two paragraphs of p. 145, Descartes argues that he may be wrong even about the simplest things, such as that 2+3=5. Can you explain his argument, or put it in standard form? (The argument starts at with "Nevertheless, a certain opinion has for a long time been fixed in my mind..." and ends with "there is nothing in the beliefs which I formerly held to be true about which one cannot raise doubts.")
Assignment 15: Descartes, cont.: proving some small things.
Assignments:
- Read Descartes, "Second
Meditation" (BIP pp.
146-50). We will discuss it
from the beginning through the first paragraph on
148.
- BBC, "René
Descartes -- 'I think, therefore I am'"
(YouTube; 2 minutes)
This short video explains how Descartes believed he could know (a) he exists and (b) he's a thinking thing despite the severe doubts raised in the First Meditation. (FYI, lots more of these little philosophical videos are available on YouTube, and longer programs can be found at the BBC's History of Ideas site.)
A. How
does Descartes come to be certain that he exists
(Second Meditation, third paragraph)?
B. How does Descartes argue that he is a "thinking thing" (pp. 146, fourth paragraph, through the first paragraph on 148)? What does he mean by "a thing that thinks" (148, first paragraph)? (Proving what kind of thing he is is different from showing that he exists.)
C. Put yourself in Descartes' position, with Dream Doubt and Defective Nature Doubt. Suppose that "I exist" and "I am a thinking thing" are the only things you know. How might you proceed to find other things you could be absolutely certain of? Is it even possible? How come?
B. How does Descartes argue that he is a "thinking thing" (pp. 146, fourth paragraph, through the first paragraph on 148)? What does he mean by "a thing that thinks" (148, first paragraph)? (Proving what kind of thing he is is different from showing that he exists.)
C. Put yourself in Descartes' position, with Dream Doubt and Defective Nature Doubt. Suppose that "I exist" and "I am a thinking thing" are the only things you know. How might you proceed to find other things you could be absolutely certain of? Is it even possible? How come?
Assignment 16: Descartes, cont.: proving some big things.
Read:
- Read Descartes's "Synopsis of the
following six Meditations" (141-3) to get some
sense of what happens in Meditations 3, 4, and 5,
which we will mostly skip.
- Anderson,
"Descartes' Arguments that God Exists &
Would Not Deceive" (on our Google Drive).
This summarizes and helps explain how Descartes tries to prove these things.
Reading
questions:
A. How is proving God exists helpful for Descartes's overall project? Specifically, how would it help him overcome "defective nature doubt"?
B. In the Third Meditation, Descartes argues that God must exist. (See especially lines 31-91; the brief restatements of his argument in lines 219-30 and 249-54 may be helpful.) Try to identify the premises and restate the argument in your own words (no quoting), in standard form. (Here is a guide to standard form.) Of the three types of argument that God exists (cf. assignment #4), which type is this argument? (This question is harder than it might seem. Consider all three kinds.)
C. In the second paragraph of the Fourth Meditation (lines 258-61), Descartes argues that God would never deceive him. Try to identify the premises and restate the argument (again, in your own words), in standard form. What do you think of the argument?
A. How is proving God exists helpful for Descartes's overall project? Specifically, how would it help him overcome "defective nature doubt"?
B. In the Third Meditation, Descartes argues that God must exist. (See especially lines 31-91; the brief restatements of his argument in lines 219-30 and 249-54 may be helpful.) Try to identify the premises and restate the argument in your own words (no quoting), in standard form. (Here is a guide to standard form.) Of the three types of argument that God exists (cf. assignment #4), which type is this argument? (This question is harder than it might seem. Consider all three kinds.)
C. In the second paragraph of the Fourth Meditation (lines 258-61), Descartes argues that God would never deceive him. Try to identify the premises and restate the argument (again, in your own words), in standard form. What do you think of the argument?
Assignment 17: Descartes, cont.: did he succeed?
Re-read the texts for assignment 16, plus Anderson, "Weaponizing Descartes's Method of Doubt" (on our Google Drive).
Reading questions:
A.
Descartes argues that his idea of God could only have
come from God. Keeping in mind his descriptions of his
idea of God (in the handout, see lines 82-6, 136-50,
167-75, 203-4, 228-30, 251-2), in what other way(s)
could he have gotten this idea? (Keep in mind you must
account for it being an idea of an actually infinite being
that is perfect in all ways.)
B. What other objections might there be to Descartes' argument that God exists?
C. (If you haven't already written a response to this question before...) In the second paragraph of the Fourth Meditation, Descartes argues that God would never deceive him (lines 258-61). Try to identify the premises and restate the argument (again, in your own words), in standard form. What do you think of the argument?
B. What other objections might there be to Descartes' argument that God exists?
C. (If you haven't already written a response to this question before...) In the second paragraph of the Fourth Meditation, Descartes argues that God would never deceive him (lines 258-61). Try to identify the premises and restate the argument (again, in your own words), in standard form. What do you think of the argument?
Assignment 18: Descartes, cont.: the "real distinction" of mind and body, and the mind/body problem.
Read:
- Descartes, "Sixth Meditation" (BIP 164-71).
Focus on p. 166-7, where Descartes argues that "it
is certain that my mind is completely distinct
from my body and can exist without it" (167).
Note: "completely distinct" here means "separable from"--not "separate from." Descartes is not saying mind and body are separated, but that they are radically different sorts of stuff, so that God could separate them.
- Anderson,
"Mind/Body Problem Handout" (on our Google
Drive); there is also a version organized
into a chart in case you
find that helpful)
Reading
questions:
In BIP p. 172, question #9. Also:
A. Descartes argues for the conclusion that "my mind is completely distinct from my body and can exist without it" (167). Try to identify the premises and restate the argument, in your own words, in standard form.
A. Descartes argues for the conclusion that "my mind is completely distinct from my body and can exist without it" (167). Try to identify the premises and restate the argument, in your own words, in standard form.
Assignment 19: Descartes, cont.: matter exists.
Re-read the Sixth Meditation (M6). Focus most on pages 167, where he argues that "corporeal things" (that is, material things) exist, and 168-9, where he discusses the role of the senses.
Reading questions:
A. How does Descartes argue that “corporeal
things exist”? (The argument is on p. 167; it starts
at "Now, it is, in fact, true that I do have a
certain passive faculty of perception..." and ends
with "And therefore corporeal things exist.") Can
you put this argument into standard form? (Here is the guide
to standard form.)
B. What does Descartes think the proper purpose of his senses is (169)?
B. What does Descartes think the proper purpose of his senses is (169)?
Assignment 20: Descartes, cont.: matter exists, cont.
Re-read the texts for assignment 19.
Reading
questions:
(For Wednesday March 23: since we haven't yet completed Descartes's argument for material things, you may, if you like, do a reading response to either question from assignment #19 that you haven't already answered. I especially encourage you to try to finish putting the argument into standard form.)
(For Wednesday March 23: since we haven't yet completed Descartes's argument for material things, you may, if you like, do a reading response to either question from assignment #19 that you haven't already answered. I especially encourage you to try to finish putting the argument into standard form.)
A. How
convincing is Descartes' argument that material
things exist? What objections can you think of besides any
already discussed in class? Try make each objection
into an argument with the conclusion "So,
Descartes's argument is unsound."
B. If Descartes' argument for material things is bad, what would a good argument be? Is a good argument possible? (Don't forget Dream Doubt! Unless you can refute Dream Doubt, you cannot just say "material things exist because I can sense them," because your sensations could be dreams.)
B. If Descartes' argument for material things is bad, what would a good argument be? Is a good argument possible? (Don't forget Dream Doubt! Unless you can refute Dream Doubt, you cannot just say "material things exist because I can sense them," because your sensations could be dreams.)
Assignment 21: Locke's argument for matter.
Read:
Reading questions:
- Andrew Bailey, "John Locke" (BIP pp. 173-7)
- John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, Chapter XI: Of Our Knowledge of the Existence of Other Things (BIP pp. 184-8). Focus especially on Locke's argument that material objects exist (pp. 184-7).
- Note: Locke’s writing
style is very strange to modern readers. Be sure
to read “Some Useful Background Information” on
pp. 175-6 before starting to read the
Locke selection.
Reading questions:
A. How does Locke argue that we
can be sure material things (e.g., tables and
chairs) exist? His argument is in Book IV chapter
XI, which starts on p. 184. Notice the text is
divided into numbered sections (§1, §2, etc.). In
sections 1-2 Locke says, essentially, that the way
to show material things exist is to show that our ideas of them were
caused by things outside us--in other
words, he needs to show that our ideas of tables and
chairs are not just dreams or hallucinations. That
much is similar to Descartes. But Locke's argument,
given in sections 3-8 (pp. 184-6) is very different
from Descartes's. Try to piece it together.
Assignment 22: Locke's argument for matter, cont.
Re-read Locke pp. 184-6, sections 3-8.
Reading questions:
In BIP
p. 189: questions #4, 6. Also:
A. Evaluate Locke's arguments that material objects exist. How are the various parts of it helpful (or not) in showing material objects exist? How strong are the various parts of it?
A. Evaluate Locke's arguments that material objects exist. How are the various parts of it helpful (or not) in showing material objects exist? How strong are the various parts of it?
(we will likely skip #23)
Assignment 23: Locke on what we can know of the material world.
Read:
- Locke's Essay, pp. 177-84. Here we focus on Locke's discussion of "simple"
and "complex" ideas, and "qualities."
- Kent Baldner, "Locke on
Primary and Secondary Qualities."
- Locke's explanation of primary
and secondary qualities can be very confusing.
This short piece by Baldner helps clarify what
they are.
- Nell Greenfieldboyce, "These
X's Are The Same Shade, So What Does That Say
About Color?" NPR.org, November 10, 2014.
- Locke says that "secondary
qualities" of objects give us sense impressions
that don't
show how things really are, and that color is a
secondary quality--in
other words, the color we perceive something to
have does not show us how that thing really is. This article from NPR discusses why
color is that way.
- Here are some more fascinating
color illusions; scroll down to the
"Koffka ring like illusion" and the various
"Munker illusions"--it's hard to believe those
hearts are the same color, but they are.
In BIP pp. 189, questions #1, 2, 5, 7.
A.
According to Locke, what are primary qualities? (See
especially p. 178 § 8, where he defines "idea"
and "quality"; §§ 9-10, where
he says which of our ideas come from primary
qualities and which come from secondary qualities;
and p. 179 § 15, where he says which ideas resemble
the things that cause them.) Don't just list the
primary qualities; try to define what makes
something a primary quality. This can be
confusing; Locke describes it differently in
different places.
B. According to Locke, what are secondary qualities? (Again, see especially §§ 8-10 and 15.) Don't just list the secondary qualities; try to define what makes something a secondary quality.
C. How does Locke think we come to have an idea of substance (182-4)? How much does he think we actually know about substances?
B. According to Locke, what are secondary qualities? (Again, see especially §§ 8-10 and 15.) Don't just list the secondary qualities; try to define what makes something a secondary quality.
C. How does Locke think we come to have an idea of substance (182-4)? How much does he think we actually know about substances?
Assignment 24: Berkeley's immaterialist monism.
Read:
- George Berkeley, excerpts from A Treatise Concerning
the Principles of Human Knowledge (on our
Google Drive)
- As always, have the reading
available during class.
- Read the Preface and the following sections (numbered
paragraphs): 1-36, 139-156. (The PDF contains only
the assigned material.)
- BBC, "Esse
est Percipi" (YouTube; 2 minutes)
This video briefly introduces one of Berkeley's central ideas: "esse est percipi" (Latin for "to be is to be perceived") -- that is, that the existence of material things consists solely in their being perceived. (Open Culture has links to other interesting videos, BTW.)
Reading
questions:
A. Look carefully at sections 1-4 of
Berkeley's Treatise.
There is an argument here--or rather, the premises
of an argument for the conclusion, "Material
substance (matter) is inconceivable" or "We cannot
know anything about material things." Can you piece
the argument together? (It may be helpful to look
carefully at sections 6, 22-3, and 34-36, where
Berkeley sums up his view.)
B. How effectively, if at all, does Berkeley undermine your conviction (if you have it) that material things exist? Point to specific parts of his argument that you find especially relevant.
C. Berkeley denies we can know that matter exists, because we can have no idea of it. Yet he says we can know that mind exists. How does he argue for our knowledge of mind (sections 25-6)?
B. How effectively, if at all, does Berkeley undermine your conviction (if you have it) that material things exist? Point to specific parts of his argument that you find especially relevant.
C. Berkeley denies we can know that matter exists, because we can have no idea of it. Yet he says we can know that mind exists. How does he argue for our knowledge of mind (sections 25-6)?
Assignment 25: Berkeley, cont.
Re-read Berkeley's Treatise (on our Google Drive), sections 1-36, 139-156.
Reading questions:
A. Look
carefully at section 18. Starting at, "So if we are
to have any knowledge of external things [i.e.,
material objects], it must be by reason, inferring their
existence from what is immediately perceived by
sense...," Berkeley argues that we cannot prove material
things exist (i.e., that there can be no sound deductive argument
for material things). Can you state the argument?
B. Look carefully at section 19. Beginning with, "But this is not tenable either," Berkeley argues that we cannot know that material things probably exist (i.e., that there can be no strong inductive argument for material things). Can you state the argument here?
C. In sections 29-32 and again in 145-149, Berkeley argues that God exists. What is his argument?
B. Look carefully at section 19. Beginning with, "But this is not tenable either," Berkeley argues that we cannot know that material things probably exist (i.e., that there can be no strong inductive argument for material things). Can you state the argument here?
C. In sections 29-32 and again in 145-149, Berkeley argues that God exists. What is his argument?
Assignment 26: Russell.
Read:
- Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy chapters 1-2 (on our Google drive)
- BIP xix - xx from Bailey's
"A Brief Introduction to Arguments" (available
on our Google drive):
re-read Bailey's discussion of inference
to the best explanation. (Russell's
argument using the cat and the conversation with
another person is an inference to the best
explanation.)
A. (This
question only makes sense if we did assignment #23.)
Locke identified certain qualities as primary
qualities, claiming that the ideas they cause in us match how
things really are. How might Russell's
discussion of the table--especially his examples of
texture, shape, and touch--challenge Locke on this
point (Russell, 3)?
B. How does Russell argue that our perceptions of color, texture, and shape don't match how things really are (Russell, 2-3)?
C. Russell says it is "simpler" and more "natural" to believe that "there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations" (10). He argues for this in his discussion of the cat and the conversation with a person (10-1), which is an inference to the best explanation. How well does Russell show that the best explanation of our sense-data is that there is a real cat? How about with human beings (11)?
B. How does Russell argue that our perceptions of color, texture, and shape don't match how things really are (Russell, 2-3)?
C. Russell says it is "simpler" and more "natural" to believe that "there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations" (10). He argues for this in his discussion of the cat and the conversation with a person (10-1), which is an inference to the best explanation. How well does Russell show that the best explanation of our sense-data is that there is a real cat? How about with human beings (11)?
Do We Have Free Will?
Assignment 27: Rée's hard
determinism.
Read:
- Andrew Bailey, "Free Will: Do We Have Free Will?" (BIP pp. 413-4)
- Bailey, "Paul Rée" (BIP pp. 415-6)
- Paul Rée, The Illusion of Free Will (BIP pp. 417-2)
- David
Eagleman, excerpt from Incognito: The Secret Lives Of The Brain
(on our Google Drive).
This is a short introductory article and portions of Eagleman's Incognito chapter 1; read both. This is from an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," May 31, 2011. (The original is here at NPR.org.)
Reading questions:
(We will stay on this assignment for Monday April 19. You may do another reading response to it if you answer some question(s) you haven't already answered. Notice that there are three questions here (A, B, and C) plus four more in our textbook (p. 428, #2, 3, 5, and 7) in our textbook that you could respond to.)
(We will stay on this assignment for Monday April 19. You may do another reading response to it if you answer some question(s) you haven't already answered. Notice that there are three questions here (A, B, and C) plus four more in our textbook (p. 428, #2, 3, 5, and 7) in our textbook that you could respond to.)
In BIP p.
428, questions # 2, 3, 5, 7.
A.
Rée compares a stone, a donkey, and a person.
Explain the comparison, and what it is supposed to
show. How plausible is the comparison?
B. Eagleman claims that "most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control" and that "Your consciousness is like a tiny stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, taking credit for the journey without acknowledging the massive engineering underfoot" (3-4). What do these claims imply about how free we are? What evidence does Eagleman give for them?
C. Explain how Eagleman compares your conscious mind to a newspaper reader (4-5). What does this suggest about how free we are?
B. Eagleman claims that "most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control" and that "Your consciousness is like a tiny stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, taking credit for the journey without acknowledging the massive engineering underfoot" (3-4). What do these claims imply about how free we are? What evidence does Eagleman give for them?
C. Explain how Eagleman compares your conscious mind to a newspaper reader (4-5). What does this suggest about how free we are?
Assignment 28: Campbell's libertarianism.
Read: Campbell introductory material (by Bailey) and Campbell's On Selfhood and Godhood (on our Google drive).
Reading questions:
In the PDF, p. 544, questions #1, 3-5.
A. Campbell says that we are free, but only
in very specific, limited circumstances (e.g., on p.
550, at the very end of section 5). Try to
articulate precisely
what those circumstances are. When you choose
freely, according to Campbell, what exactly are you
choosing between? Does he
think you always do
what you choose to do?
Assignment 29: Campbell vs. Rée, continued.
Re-read Rée, Eagleman, & Campbell.
Reading questions:
A. A
determinist might say, "Human behavior is very
predictable. That shows that we do not have free
will." How does Campbell respond to this objection
(section 9, 552-3)?
B. Campbell considers the following objection: "Free will as you [Campbell] describe it is completely unintelligible" (section 10, 553). In your own words, explain what this objection means (Campbell explains it in the following sentences). How does Campbell respond to it?
C. How much are you persuaded by Rée that we are not free? How come?
D. How well do Campbell’s arguments respond to Rée’s? Why do you think so?
B. Campbell considers the following objection: "Free will as you [Campbell] describe it is completely unintelligible" (section 10, 553). In your own words, explain what this objection means (Campbell explains it in the following sentences). How does Campbell respond to it?
C. How much are you persuaded by Rée that we are not free? How come?
D. How well do Campbell’s arguments respond to Rée’s? Why do you think so?
Assignment 30: Ayer's compatibilism.
Read:
- Bailey, "A.J. Ayer" (BIP pp. 438)
- A.J. Ayer, "Freedom and Necessity" (BIP 439-44)
In BIP p.
444, questions #1, 2.
A. Ayer
discusses determinism, and concludes that we cannot
be sure whether it is true (439-40). What reasons
does he give for this? (Look for what he says about
the claim that everything has a cause, 439, and
about our ability to predict what people will do,
440.)
B. How does Ayer argue that the only way we can be responsible is if determinism is true (440)?
C. How does Ayer distinguish between "constrained" and "free" actions? In other words, when does he think you are constrained, and when are you "free" (442)? Notice the different examples of constraint, such as the gun to the head and the kleptomaniac. How are these cases alike, and how are they different?
D. Ayer says you are free, and responsible, when your actions are not constrained, even though such "free" actions are determined. Do you think being unconstrained is a satisfactory basis for holding people responsible? How come?
B. How does Ayer argue that the only way we can be responsible is if determinism is true (440)?
C. How does Ayer distinguish between "constrained" and "free" actions? In other words, when does he think you are constrained, and when are you "free" (442)? Notice the different examples of constraint, such as the gun to the head and the kleptomaniac. How are these cases alike, and how are they different?
D. Ayer says you are free, and responsible, when your actions are not constrained, even though such "free" actions are determined. Do you think being unconstrained is a satisfactory basis for holding people responsible? How come?
Assignment 31: Frankfurt's compatibilism.
Read:
- Bailey, "Harry G. Frankfurt" (BIP 445)
- Harry Frankfurt, "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility" (BIP 446-52)
Reading
questions:
A.
B.
C.
B.
C.
Assignment 32: Dennett's defense of (a version of) free will.
Read: Daniel Dennett introductory material (by Bailey) and "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want" (on our Google drive)
Reading questions:
In the Dennett introductory material, pp.
566-7, #7,8.
A. One of
the most important parts of Dennett's article is his
third case (572-3). Look at it closely.
Then think about how you have made some major decision
in life, such as whether to come to DePauw. How well
does this third case match your decision process? How
plausible is it, then, as a description of how we
decide?
B. Another important part of Dennett's article is his reasons why the third case is good (574-5). Do you think Dennett makes a good case here? Is there something about his third case--either positive or negative--that he has left out?
B. Another important part of Dennett's article is his reasons why the third case is good (574-5). Do you think Dennett makes a good case here? Is there something about his third case--either positive or negative--that he has left out?
Assignment 33: Wolf's compatibilism.
Read:
- Bailey, "Susan Wolf" (BIP 468-78)
- Susan Wolf, "Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility" (BIP 468-78)
A.
Pulling from the writings of Frankfurt, Watson, and
Taylor, Wolf identifies what she calls the "deep
self" view. What is this view?
B. How does Wolf use the example of JoJo to identify a problem with the deep self view?
C. How does Wolf think that adding a condition of sanity to the deep self view helps remedy it?
B. How does Wolf use the example of JoJo to identify a problem with the deep self view?
C. How does Wolf think that adding a condition of sanity to the deep self view helps remedy it?
How Should We Live?
We
will likely skip and/or change the order of some of
these assignments, so, as always, pay attention to
assignments announced in class.
Assignment 34: a Taoist approach.
Read Chuang-tzu, “Three Tales” (on our Google Drive)
Assignment 34: a Taoist approach.
Read Chuang-tzu, “Three Tales” (on our Google Drive)
This
excerpt contains three short pieces: "The Tale of the Butcher,” “The Tale of
the Dying Men,” and "The Tale of the Horses."
You'll see that each tale has its
overt content, but also hints at deeper meanings,
suggesting broader lessons about how to live, the
proper attitude to have towards adversity, and human
nature & society. Our task will be to find those
lessons. Look for them as you read.
Reading questions:
A. At
the end of “The Tale of the Butcher” the Prince
declares that he has "learned how to care for life."
What is it that he has learned? The lesson here is
not about butchering meat, but about something
deeper. What is it?
B. In “The Tale of the Dying Men,” how do the men’s attitudes towards death and suffering differ from what is “normal”? What do the men seem to tell us about our place in the world?
C. “The Tale of the Horses” suggests we compare ourselves with horses, and compare the history of our society with the history of our management of horses. What are we supposed to learn from this?
B. In “The Tale of the Dying Men,” how do the men’s attitudes towards death and suffering differ from what is “normal”? What do the men seem to tell us about our place in the world?
C. “The Tale of the Horses” suggests we compare ourselves with horses, and compare the history of our society with the history of our management of horses. What are we supposed to learn from this?
Assignment 35: Taylor's roundabout approach.
Read Richard Taylor, “The Meaning of Life” (on our Google Drive)
Reading questions:
A.
Taylor uses the myth of Sisyphus, and the example of
the glow worms, to identify a perfectly meaningless
existence. What, exactly, makes this existence
meaningless? Do you agree that it is meaningless?
B. Taylor identifies two ways in which a life could acquire meaning. One is by culminating in something, such as if Sisyphus built a temple. Why does Taylor later condemn this as "the picture of infinite boredom"? Do you agree with his evaluation of it?
C. How does Taylor think that our lives can have meaning? He seems to think that this is the only way; do you agree that it is?
B. Taylor identifies two ways in which a life could acquire meaning. One is by culminating in something, such as if Sisyphus built a temple. Why does Taylor later condemn this as "the picture of infinite boredom"? Do you agree with his evaluation of it?
C. How does Taylor think that our lives can have meaning? He seems to think that this is the only way; do you agree that it is?
Assignment 36: Tolstoy's theistic approach.
Read Leo Tolstoy, "What is the Aim of Life?" (on our Google Drive)
Reading questions:
A.
Imagine a conversation between Tolstoy and
Chuang-Tzu's Dying Men. What might the dying men say
to Tolstoy? How might Tolstoy respond?
B. Imagine a conversation between Tolstoy and Taylor. What might Taylor say to Tolstoy? How might Tolstoy respond?
C. What do you take to be Tolstoy's main point in this reading? Do you agree with it?
D. Which argument or claim in this reading struck you as most interesting, or enlightening, or wrongheaded? How come?
B. Imagine a conversation between Tolstoy and Taylor. What might Taylor say to Tolstoy? How might Tolstoy respond?
C. What do you take to be Tolstoy's main point in this reading? Do you agree with it?
D. Which argument or claim in this reading struck you as most interesting, or enlightening, or wrongheaded? How come?
(For spring 2021 we will skip #37.)
Assignment 37: the Euthyphro problem.
Read:
- Plato, Euthyphro
- An easier-to-print version is here.
The famous "Euthyphro Dilemma" stated
here, poses a problem for those who rely
on some divine being(s) as the standard of
value. This problem has been widely discussed by
philosophers and others. A discussion generally
sympathetic to such reliance is here
on Wikipedia; a more extensive and less
sympathetic discussion is here at the Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Note:
The Euthyphro explores
several big ideas. We will not have time to
explore them all. Rather, we will focus on the
famous "Euthyphro problem" which is raised most
pointedly on the sixth page.
- Either
the Wikipedia
or the Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussion of the
Euthyphro problem.
Reading questions:
A.
Socrates raises the question "whether the pious or
holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or
holy because it is beloved of the gods" (10a). What
is the difference between these two?
B. What is the Euthyphro problem?
C. How might Tolstoy's proposal (having faith, following God's law, 38) run into the Euthyphro problem?
D. Identify at least one proposed solution to the Euthyphro problem. How satisfactory is it?
B. What is the Euthyphro problem?
C. How might Tolstoy's proposal (having faith, following God's law, 38) run into the Euthyphro problem?
D. Identify at least one proposed solution to the Euthyphro problem. How satisfactory is it?
Assignment 38: Glaucon's pessimism about human nature and the value of justice.
Read: Plato, Glaucon's Challenge (PDF on our Google drive; pay most attention to pp. 611-3)
Reading questions:
A.
Glaucon explains "what justice is and what its
origins are" (Plato, end of 611). What does he say
its origin is? What is justice, then?
B. In "The Tale of the Horses" Chuang-tzu suggests that we are naturally good, and that governance is bad for us. How does Glaucon (or, more precisely, Glaucon's account of what "most people" think justice is) differ?
C. How does Glaucon's account of morality (Plato, end of 611) differ from Tolstoy's? (Think about where morality comes from, what it tells us to do, what may be gained from following it, etc.)
B. In "The Tale of the Horses" Chuang-tzu suggests that we are naturally good, and that governance is bad for us. How does Glaucon (or, more precisely, Glaucon's account of what "most people" think justice is) differ?
C. How does Glaucon's account of morality (Plato, end of 611) differ from Tolstoy's? (Think about where morality comes from, what it tells us to do, what may be gained from following it, etc.)
Assignment 39: Sartre's existentialism.
Read:
- Jean-Paul Sartre, excerpt from Existentialism is a Humanism
- (Optional) Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Man Has
No Nature"
This short reading is helpful for grasping one of Sartre's most important points: that "existence comes before essence" (§ 7).
Reading
questions:
A.
Sartre claims that, for us (as opposed to a
paper-knife), "existence
comes before essence."
What does he mean by this? How does it support his
claim that "man is in anguish"?
B. What does Sartre mean by "abandonment"? How does he use the example of the pupil who came for advice to explain what abandonment is?
C. What is Sartre telling us about the meaning of life? How is it different from what Chuang-Tzu is telling us?
B. What does Sartre mean by "abandonment"? How does he use the example of the pupil who came for advice to explain what abandonment is?
C. What is Sartre telling us about the meaning of life? How is it different from what Chuang-Tzu is telling us?
Further assignments TBA.
TOP
.