Rocio Roig: Feminism, and Dualism
For my seminar on Monday, I will be touching on the subject of feminism, and
the dualism that additionally comes with the feminist challenge. I will be
talking from when women started to take a say, in a men's world, and the
challenges that come with the feminist society. How individuals see woman in
our community that are sexist, and the one's that are not. I will interact
with the students, and explore the consequences of sexism and what comes
from it. Would you say this has started a war between man and women? Will
this situation bring problems in the future? Is it in our human nature to act
and think this way? My goal is to make the students think open-minded about
this subject, and communicate with one another, to talk and explore the
questions of feminism and dualism.
The feminist challenge is the most disturbing, to human nature.
- Discrimination against women
- Women are sneaky, seductive creatures, temptresses
- Adam and Eve, Eve is tempted first, she tempts Adam into eating the apple.
- Women were said to be impure because of this.
- Plato made a critical assumption, which the soul and reason are superior
and that should rule.
- Aristotle Plato's student made a move that gave a view of sexist bias,
when he associated men with reason and claimed that women do not share fully
in reason, meaning men should rule over women.
- Males are seen as the masters, ruling over slaves at first, then his wife,
following his children.
- Men were known as KINGS
- How discrimination build walls
- Reason is male and must rule, whereas feelings are feelings and must be
ruled.
-Women are more sensitive, whereas men are more aggressive and less sensitive
- I will disagree about the men been rulers over women.
- Oppression of women came from the sexist times.
- We should all be treated equally
- The war between Men and Women
- How it has changed over the years, how far women have come.
- Why it is not easy to ignore the rationalist view if it is sexist?
- Women should be content with their place in society, be proud of your
femininity.
I: Materialism & Behaviourism By: Michele Molino - Materialism:
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything,
including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of
matter and physical phenomena. Materialists believe that there is only one,
material body that we observe with our senses which includes our brain and
mental experience.
Thomas Hobbes View: Supported Reductionism; Reductionism is the idea that
one kind of thing is, or can be defined as another. Example: Human
activities
as working much like those of a machine
. Although the mind seems to be an immaterial entity, it is
nothing more than a physical thing
. Thomas rejects the idea of an immaterial mind because he could
not see how an immaterial mind could affect a material body
. Science reaches no further than observable facts, and these
observable facts can explain human nature, including the mind.
General Materialistic Views: Encourages us to view the physical world the
way that natural sciences view the world.
The Identity Theory: The states of consciousness are identical with the
states of the brain, which is a physical and material organ; Mental
experiences like thought is a product of the material brain working. Insists
that some day they will discover that mental states are identical to brain
states thus a dependent relationship.
J.J.C Smart - Agrees that science will discover which particular brain
states will turn out to be identical with a particular mental state like the
feeling of pain; Norman Malcolm's contradictions: Our conscious experiences
are not observable: Which means since only you can have your conscious
experiences, literally no one else can see your experiences; If a brain
event were identical to thought, it would require the same to function; Any
thought requires a background of circumstance; Thinking has no precise
location in the brain
Behaviourism: A school of psychology that restricts the study of humans, of
what can be observed externally (human behaviour). It is the belief that we
can explain mental activities through people's behaviour. All feelings are
external behaviours that can never be completely masked, although many
people have mastered the art of concealing their feelings through their
behaviour.
Questions: Does a brain state and conscious experience have different
qualities? If so, what are they? What is emotion? Is it an experience or a
physical reaction in the brain? How can we analyze human behaviour? Does
analyzing human behaviour project a true image of the person, or the person
they want to project?
K: Enduring Self? pp. 118-130: By: Alexandra Pighin
Overview: Through this chapter we will learn about enduring our "human
self," and explore concepts of the body and soul. We will read about the
different philosophic theories made, investigate subjects of bodily
continuity, the immaterial and spiritual soul, and body consciousness while
incorporating the ideas of whether a person changes or stays the same
through body and the mind over their life time. We will also focus on the
Traditional Western and Buddhist views dealing with individual existence and
the "enduring self" in constant change.
Discussion Points:
-Do we continue to be the same being as time passes, through all life's
changes whether physical or emotional; what is the basis of who we are?
-Our lives would fall apart if we did not remain the same person day to day.
ex. Tasks would never be completed, personal relationships would never grow
or develop.
-Even though little things change day to day (hair looks different, outfit
is changed, our mood changes) we insist we are the same person. As we grow
older do we change and become an entirely new person compared to who we were
in the past? Do we ever truly remain the same person after sudden changes
due to mental disorders or accidents that alter our self as a human being?
-Life after death- does our soul still exist even after the body dies; does
it take on a new self or are we still the same person we were before we
passed?
Key Points:
The "enduring self" questioned by many philosophers on how a human being
remains their same self; individual self Belief that we remain the same
person and same self through our lives.
"Problems of personal identity"- what is it that makes a person the same
from one moment to the next? Diotima (philosopher) - argues that people do
not remain the same person as time passes, so they long for immorality. "We
speak of an individual as a being the same as long as he continues to exist
in the same form (bodily continuity). Immaterial soul or mind remains the
same even as the body changes.
Rene Descarte- the self is a "thinking thing", continuity of the thinking
mind or soul that makes a person endure as the same person over time
John Locke - continuity of consciousness; what makes a person at one time
the same person later is memory. Our memory serves as who we become today. "
my memory of what happened to me in the past or of what I did in the past is
what makes me today the person I am" (our past experience make us who we are
as enduring people)
No-Self View: Buddhism (eastern view)- (humans have no self; notion of
fiction) all things are composed of elements that inevitably change; nothing
is permanent in an individual. Constant flux; give up idea that we have an
individual self, find salvation
Traditional Western view: assumes that you are today the same person you
were earlier in your life; humans are selves that endure through time (soul
and mind is immaterial or spiritual) the self is in constant change
L: Independence, Individuals, pp. 130-140: Alyssa Nevills
Summary: Parents ensure that they teach children independence,
individuality, and to value and cultivate self-reliance. This is based on a
certain view that humans that the self is and should be independent of
others and self-sufficient ("Song of Myself"- Walt Whitman")
Descartes: believes we don't need others to find our inner being, what he
believes in, fears, loves, hates is all dependant on him, the real you lies
within
Taylor: believes that finding your inner self is my interacting with others
and having relationships, in order to see yourself for who you are you need
to interact with others
Aristotle: also believes that we find out inner self with interaction and
relationships, without out these the human will fall into the category of a
animal or God
Hegel: also believes that we find our inner self with interaction, but that
he only develop certain human qualities when others notice them in us ex.
Freedom, independence, loveable, valuable; he also believes independence
comes from culture and that the qualities that define you depend on the
culture and the relationships with the people you love, you are who others
tell you, you are.
The challenge: what comes from others and what comes from you.
Questions to Ponder:
- How do you get to the inner you?
- Is independence really possible?
- With all the different theories, how do you find the inner you?
- Who is correct in their theory?
- If Taylor is correct, does this mean that there are many me's? Which
face really am I?
Discussion: Which theory is correct? Do you feel you are an independent
being?
Possible quiz ideas: Which philosopher belongs to which theory: list
options,
M: Plato, Aristotle and Confucius, pp. 144-161 Plato as a wealthy Greek man;
Plato's hero and teacher was Socrates; he felt that Socrates' reliance on
reason was the key to solving political and cultural problems in Athens; he
was the first philosopher to ponder human nature, human knowledge, and
metaphysics
Objects in our world never perfectly embody their forms. These forms, which
consist of a set of characteristics, make objects what they are. Since
visible objects are imperfect, they are simply changing reflections of their
invisible and unchanging forms.
The human soul consists of three parts. the first is reason, the second in
emotion and the third is desire/appetite. Reason must control the other two
parts in order for the soul to be in harmony. When the soul is in harmony, a
person can be happy and virtuous. Virtue comes from the knowledge of a
perfect goodness that exists unchanging in a world separate from our own.
Happiness comes from gaining knowledge of form in another world.
Aristotle was a student of Plato; tutored Alexander the Great, taught at
Plato's University; created his own school after Plato's death, called the
Lyceum; he rejected Plato's view on invisible forms and the belief that the
soul is separate from the body. He believed that forms are visible. For
example: In our minds we can distinguish between "roundness" and "round
objects". This does not mean that in reality "roundness" exists as a
separate object from actually round objects. The world consists of material
things, agents that create changes and purposes for those changes.
The question WHY? can be answered in four different ways. Material cause:
identify material of object. Formal cause: identify form or plan of thing.
Efficient cause: identify the agent who produced or changed something. Final
cause: give and end or purpose of a thing. Humans are constantly seeking
the "final cause" of their lives and their actions.
Soul does not exist separately from the body. We know forms because we
learned them, not because our soul has recollections of them from a previous
time. Happiness comes from living life with reason.
Confucius was a Chinese philosopher who lived about a century before Plato
and Aristotle; he did not care much for metaphysics including the soul and
human nature; he focused on how people should behave/ethics; his teachings
now part of the official philosophy of China
Happiness can be found when all people adhere to humanistic principles of
morality. To develop human nature, one must develop virtue. Virtue
consists of human qualities of benevolence that serve as the foundation for
all relationships. Love for humanity separates humans from animals. virtue
is to treat others like you would want others to treat you. It is the key to
inner peace, which is not easy. It requires us to channel selfishness into
civilized manner. He believes that the government is in part responsible for
the virtue of its people, even though it is a self driven characteristic.
QUESTIONS:
How can we account for the fact that our mind comprehends perfect ideals
that this world only imperfectly duplicates? Do you personally believe that
perfection exists? What must we do to achieve happiness? Must all emotions
be subject to reason? What is human nature meant to do and that nothing
else can do? How can the happiness of society be achieved? Is it the
government's responsibility to make people good?:
N: Chapter 3: Metaphysics: Reality and Being, pp. 178-189: Ariel Delurey
Augustine held that reality - the real existing universe - contains within
itself every possible kind of being, from the "lowest" kind of inert matter
to the "highest" kind of spirit. Since God is all powerful and wanted to
fill reality with goodness, Augustine reasoned, God placed in the universe
every possible kind of creature that within itself had some degree of
goodness. Augustine placed human beings somewhere in the middle of his
hierarchy reality : humans have material bodies, so we belong to the lower
material world, but we also have spirits, or souls making us part of the
higher spiritual world. Humans are both matter and spirit : we straddle two
realms of reality.
Materialism is the view that matter is the ultimate constituent of reality;
its as old as philosophy itself. Both eastern and western philosophers have
argued for the view that only material things are real.
Eastern Materialism - Charvaka philosophers - views were based on the idea
that there is only one valid source of knowledge about the world around us;
sense perception. They argued that if we cannot know something then it is
wrong to say it exists. Any things we cannot perceive with our senses such
as souls, god or any other spiritual realities, cannot be said to exist at
all. Beyond the material world there is nothing. No god, so religious
worship is pointless. Human life begins in this world and ends in this
world, so people should try to get as much of the bodily pleasures of this
life as they can.
Western Materialism - Democritus believed reality could be explained in
terms of matter. Atoms - solid, indivisible, indestructible, eternal, and
uncreated. They combined to form recognizable objects of universe. Believed
that event he soul consisted of atoms. Thomas Hobbes says matter is all
there is in the universe. Only matter is real. Pierre Laplace proposed the
universe is self regulating.
Materialism seeks answers through objective methodology, materialism is
deterministic - it believes that every event has a cause. Materialism denies
any form of supernatural belief - spirit, soul, mind, etc. Materialism is
reductionistic it attempts to explain the whole exclusively in terms of its
parts or units.
Objections to Materialism: difficulty in accounting for human consciousness -
for our conscious mental activities , thinking, wishing, experiencing etc.
When we have a mental experience - thought - this is nothing more than the
material brain functioning a certain way.
Intentionality - when your dreaming you can experience things that don't
exist. Brain state and state of consciousness are two different things.
Energy is in motion and gives off a force. Heisenberg - believes that we may
live in an idealistic universe, one whose reality depends on the mind.
O: Idealism, Objections to Idealism, pp. 190-199: Brian D
1. the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals,
2. the practice of idealizing.
3. something idealized; an ideal representation.
4. Fine Arts. treatment of subject matter in a work of art in which a mental
conception of beauty or form is stressed,characterized usually by the
selection of particular features of various models and their combination
into a whole according to a standard of perfection.
Philosophy is any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the
nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of
ideas; the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or
as they might or should be rather than as they are, with
emphasis on values.
Notes for Class: Idealism and Dualism
I. Idealism: Mind/Spirit and ideas are the only things that are really real;
physical objects exist only insofar as they are expressions of what is
ideal.
A. Plato's Objective idealism: The world of changing, material objects (the
visible world) is merely a fleeting image of the intelligible world--what
Plato calls the realm of the Forms. Physical objects are real only insofar
as they are itelligible, but they can be intelligible only in terms of that
which does not change. What makes a thing intelligible as a certain kind of
thing cannot be constantly changing: otherwise, it could not be identified
as that kind of thing, nor would it be that kind of thing. So a thing is
what it is in virtue of something that is not changing. But since the
visible wrld is constantly changing, it cannot be used as the basis for
identifying what things are. There must be an intelligible (non-sensual)
realm in terms of which physical things are said to exist intelligibly. That
is the realm of the Forms. Plato's allegory of the cave and his image of the
divided line are intended to clarify exactly how the things we experience in
the sensible, ordinary world (e.g., chairs, drawn triangles) are less real
than (and depend on) the ideal models (or "Forms") on which they rely for
their existence and in terms of which they are intelligible. Just as
drawings, reflections, or copies of sensible objects are not as real as
the sensible things on which they depend, so sensible things are not as real
as the concepts in terms of which they are identifiable. Concepts that rely
on sensual imagination for their intelligibility--for example, mathematical
concepts such as triangularity--are more real than, say, triangular blocks
of wod or drawings of triangles. But even though concepts that are based on
sense experience are not limited to any particular expression and are
unchanging, they are not as real as the Forms, which do not rely for their
existence or intelligibility on anything sensual and changing.
Some Forms (e.g., chair-ness) are the ideal models in terms of which
physical objects (e.g., chairs) exist and are intelligible. Other even
higher Forms (e.g., equality, justice) provide the means by which not only
physical objects but also activities, relations, and even lower Foms
themselves are identifiable. The Forms are not abstractions or
generalizations based on our sensual experience of physical objects; rather,
we know physical objects as what they are by knowing them in terms of their
Forms. As such, in order to know that a chair is a chair, we have to know
what chair-ness is first, and that means that we cannot begin with sensible
experience. Likewise, in order to know that two numbers are equal, or that
an action is a just action, we have to know first what equality or justice
is. But that already assumes we know what a number or action is; and that
can only be known by appealing to lower Forms that rely for their
intelligibility and existence on higher Forms.
The highest Forms are themselves intelligible and exist ultimately in terms
of the "super" Form, the Good.
B. Other Forms of Idealism (e.g., Hegel): Mind (or Mentality itself) is what
makes the universe intelligible: in fact, Mind is the intelligibility of the
universe, the means by which it is conceivable as some thing in the first
place. All reality, including individual minds) is an expression of a
universal or absolute Mind. Through Mind, evolution is not merely a process
of random, chance variations, but rather is a process whose aim is revealed
in the success (not simply, the survival) of the fittest. The universe has a
purpose, goal, or direction: in short, it exhibits a teleology. Guiding the
universe is a purposive mind, God.
C. Subjective idealism (Berkeley): reality is what we experience of things,
for we have no idea what it would mean to talk about reality apart from the
reality that we perceive: to be is to be perceived or to perceive.
[Objection: this seems to make reality depend on the individual subject.]
Objections to Idealism in general: (1) Idealists believe that, because human
beings think in terms of mind and purpose, then the universe must be that
way; but that is mere anthropomorphizing (reducing everything to human
terms). 2 Idealists forget that, while structure or form is part of what
things are, there is matter too; for there is no such thing as a form or
structure without its being a form or structure of some matter. (3) Talk of
minds or spirits is unnecessary if we can explain what we observe in
material terms alone.
J FUNCTIONALISM pp112-118 & P: Pragmatism & Positivism, pp. 200-211:
What is functionalism? Is a theory of the mind in philosophy, developed
largely as an alternative to both the identity theory of mind and
behaviorism. Its idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain,
etc.) are composed only by their functional role and their casual relations
to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs. During the
middle part of the twentieth century, scientist made great strides in
inventing powerful machines that could calculate and maneuver bits of
information at an amazing rate. Unlike earlier forms of behaviorism,
functionalism allows that mental states can explain other mental states;
thus, it gives a greater role to mental states than did earlier forms of
behaviorism. But functionalism seems to leave something out. People argue
that functionalism leaves out ehe inner conscious states we are directly
aware of. Now, functionalism says that if two people have exactly the same
inputs and give exactly the same outputs, those two people have exactly the
same inner mental state. So functionalism says that the inner conscious
states of the two people must be exactly the same. That is wrong. Inside,
what one person consciously experiences is different from what the other
person consciously experiences. In spite of the difficulties of
functionalism, it led some philosophers to the view that the human brain is a
kind of computer that processes inputs and generates outputs. Some
functionalists believe that very soon computers will be able to imitate the
input-output processing of the human brain. Alan Turing for example predicted
that it is only a matter of time before computers will match the abilities of
the human mind and pass the “Turing Test” According to Alan, “If we cannot
distinguish between the answers a computer gives to questions and the answers
a human being gives, then the computer has a mind.”
Another philosophy John Searle pointed out that a computer is nothing more
than a machine that follows the instructions in its program. He states that
human minds have something that a computer program does not have.
Consciousness. Consciousness is necessary to the human mind, and a computer
program does not have consciousness. An American philosophy David J. Chalmers
argues that there could be a world that is physically identical to ours
except that it has no conscious beings in it. Consciousness is not a physical
feature of the world. Instead, it is a nonmaterial property of the world.
If Functionalism were correct it would mean that the mind is a physical
thing, and we are not immaterial. This means that we are not unique and
therefore there is no spiritual realm. Also we do not have souls and we die
with our bodies. Functionalism may be compared both to behaviorism and
identity theory in its relation of mental events. Behaviorism defines mental
events only in relation to sensory input and behavioral output.
Unfortunately, this includes any input/output device, such as a mousetrap, to
which we would not want to feature mental states. However, in addition to
input and output relations, functionalism also acknowledges causal relations
with other internal mental states, which mousetraps do not demonstrate (such
as the mental state of worry). Identity theory controls mental events to
brain activity. Functionalism acknowledges that mental events may be
instantly in systems or machines other than brains.
Pragmatism & Positivism, pp. 200-211: Pragmatism is the philosophical school
of thought associated with Dewey, James and Pierce, that tries to mediate
between idealism and materialism by rejecting all absolute first principles,
tests truth through workability and views the universe as pluralistic.
Pragmatism believes that philosophy is an instrument used by living
individuals who are wrestling with personal and social problems and
struggling to clarify their standards, directions, and goals. It suggests a
confidence in the ability and power of the mind to make the world over. The
universe is pluralistic and unfinished: the human intellect can make its
ideals a reality. Dewey, James, and Pierce believed that ideas can actually
lead the way in human life. The truth of an idea lies in its capacity to get
us through life in a desirable way. All thinking strengthens or secures some
human interest. Pragmatism goes against any belief that limits what the human
mind and will, can accomplish. The future is limited only by aspiration and
that is limited by the human capacity to slough off inherited beliefs in
eternal truths- pragmatism looks to the future. It denies sharp distinctions
between matter and mind, science and morals, and experience and reason. John
Dewey believed that all philosophy arises out of people’s continual struggles
to deal with social and moral problems. He made two important observations:
1) we cannot understand a philosophy without an awareness of the social
forces that have produced it. And 2) any philosophy or doctrine has worth
only to the degree that it helps people resolve their problems. “Philosophy
originated not out of intellectual material, but out of social and emotional
material,” –John Dewey. The Pragmatic Method is a way to discover what our
ideas mean by studying their consequences in actual experience. Any judgement
must be rooted in the things of experience that are meaningful to humans. Any
view of reality is tied to the values inherent to social traditions.
Pragmatism allows no certainties. The pragmatic method indicates a certain
criteria for determining what is real. William James argued that people
recognize a number of realities and among them are the worlds of sense
experience; of scientific knowledge; of belief and opinion; and of the
transcendent, the religious, or the spiritual. Reality is what stimulates and
interests us, and our interests will ultimately determine what our reality
is. An objection to pragmatism is whether it erases the distinction between
the structure of the mind and the structure of the universe, between the
knowledge of facts, and the existence of facts apart from our knowledge. Do
the pragmatist beliefs mean that there is no antecedent order in the world?
Positivism- Positivism is the view that only analytic and synthetic
propositions are meaningful. Logical positivism concentrates on language and
meaning, and is a reaction to the dispute between idealists and materialists.
According Alfred J. Ayer (one of the most influential logical positivists),
philosophers have to be extremely careful to ensure that they are not
speaking nonsense, and almost all metaphysics is mere nonsense. He divided
all meaningful propositions into two classes; those which concern “relations
of ideas” (tautologies) and those concerning “matters of fact” (empirical
hypothesis). Tautologies are propositions in which the meaning of the
predicate is part of the meaning of the subject. They do not give us any real
information about the world, but only about the meanings of words, whereas
empirical statements can be verified by some imaginable observation. These
statements DO give us information about the world. Ayer argued that if a
statement is neither of these two, than it is meaningless and nonsensical.
For the fact that a conclusion does not follow from its putative premise is
not sufficient to show that it is false. No statement which refers to
a “reality” transcending the limits of all possible sense-experience can
possibly have any literal significance. Philosophers in general use words to
express feelings and not to represent facts about the world. A major
objection the views of logical positivism, is that the basic” criterion of
meaning” is and unproved assumption. There is also the argument that if
logical positivism was judged by its own “criterion of meaning,” that it
would turn out to be meaningless itself
Q: Antirealism, pp. 211-218:
R: Phenomenology, pp. 218-224:
S: Existentialism, pp. 224-230: Danielle Jobb - Existentialism Seminar
1. Who is the founder of modern existentialism?
2. Who stated that existence precedes essence?
3. Kierkegaard believed that reality cannot be separated from existence.
4. Name Sartre's 2 kinds of reality and briefly explain.
Kierkegaard: Not so much absolute truth, truth is different for every
person; To exist is to struggle, face opposition, experience passion, make
decisions; What is really real in your reality?
Sartre: No fixed human nature, free to believe what we choose; We can choose
whatever we like so long as we act (take on a project) ie intention; We do
not derive from our environments; everything is choice, free will (thief is
a thief because he steals, not because he grew up in a bad neighbourhood, he
still knows stealing is wrong and could stop at any time.)
Nothing about our past makes the future inevitable: Existence precedes
essence; nothing is predetermined, depends on how we act
Other: Explain how we create our own reality; acting in bad faith -- Show a
movie clip (Crash or The Crossing Guard, both contain strong existentialist
ideas and examples) -- Discuss how the Matrix is the definition of an
existentialist world (there is no spoon)
lifemyths.com/existentialarticles/--> tons of articles here to hand out
T: Freedom & Determinism, pp. 231-240: Milena D'agostino
Determinism- the theory that everything that occurs happens in accordance
with some regular patter or law
Determinist view of reality: 1. All events and actions are casually
determined by previous events and the laws of nature; 2. Casual determinism
rules out human freedom and personal responsibility. 3. So humans are not
free, nor are they personally responsible for what they do.
Libertarianism- the view that determinism is false and that people are free
to choose to act other than they do
Libertarian view: 1. Humans are free and are personally responsible for
what they do 2. Human freedom and personal responsibility rule out
casual determinism 3. So human actions are not casually determined by
previous events and the laws of nature
Compatibilism- a view that attempts to reconcile freedom and responsibility
with determinism; Compatibilist view: 1.Human actions are casually
determined by previous events and the laws of nature 2. Casual determinism
does not rule out freedom and personal responsibility 3. So humans are
predetermined yet can be free and personally responsible for what they do
Reflection Questions: What is freedom? How free are we actually? Or are we
free at all? Which view do you support?
"The unconscious is the master of every fate and the captain of every soul"
- John Hosper
U: Is Time Real?, pp. 241-247 -- By: Lisa Pallotta
Homework Questions: Describe the nature and sensation of time? What is the
difference between subjective and objective time? How might the flow of time
be described as an illusion?
Key Topics for Class Discussion
Do we really understand what time is? How important it is in our lives? Time
our most familiar realties(our use of the words 'yesterday, today, tomorrow,
now, later, earlier, before') Time makes us who we are: because to find who
we are we must look in our 'memory' to see how we acted in the'past'(judging
both ourselves and others); Regret (cannot change the past)
Mysterious: time flows with us or past us(examples/life experience)
Key Notes: Saint Augustine -"If no one asks me, I know what time is; if
someone asks and I want to explain it, I do not know"; concluded that time
doesn't exist: only the present instant exists; times in the past and future
do not exist Memory preserves moments in time; God time is a fixed line of
events lying stretched out before him. God's point of view before and after,
it doesn't have future or past.
Two different ways at looking at time: time as a fixed series or line of
earlier and later events viewed as it from someplace outside time; time as
we experience it from within, as a flow from future, through present and
into the past.
Objective and Subjective Time: OBJECTIVE: a fixed line of events: peace and
mind; don't feel the pain of separation;everything that happens is still
there, fixed in objective time, never lost. SUBJECTIVE: time as we
experience it: source of all our pain and sorrow; separation of loved ones &
other things we treasure (youth vanishes)Merleau-Ponty- the flow of time, as
we experience it is not real.We experience time as changing and moving toward
the future because the way our minds relates to real objective time. The
flow of time we experience is an illusion because we experience objective
time one moment at a time.
McTaggart says it makes sense to think of time as a fixed series of moments:
objective time is real, but makes no sense; our ideas of time(past, present,
future) are contradictory because every event is classified as them all
JJC Smart- time the passing of illusion .
Kant- both subjective and objective time is a construct of the human mind;
we cannot comprehend the chaos the universe throws at us unless we put some
kind of order and regulation to the events.
Henry Bergson- time: a construct of the mind
V: Chapter 4: Philosophy & God, pp. 276-282: Marianna Di Palma
Religious Belief in it's broadcast sense, the belief that there is an unseen
order and that we can do no better than to be in harmony with that order.
Theology is the rational study of God, including religious doctrines.
Theism is the belief in a personal God who is the creator of the world, that
goes through process, and may come into contact with and Monotheism is the
belief in a one single God.
What is Religion? It depends on the choice between belief and nonbelief. We
are able to possess the divine (God) qualities of consciousness and the
ability to love. We see ourselves as beings with a destiny, as a life after
death, being immortal. The ones who reject all religious belief do not see
their life having a natural destiny, or any destiny after death. Any choice
of accepting or rejecting religion can influence our view of ourselves. When
you hear the word religion, what do you think of? A church? Belief in God?
For most people it's a belief in God and teachings of some religions such as
Christianity, Judaism etc. Our religious choices can change through our
journey through life, and it can transform the way we think and look at
ourselves and at our final destiny. By the end of the journey, which should
we choose? To accept or reject religion? Which is more reasonable? Is it
reasonable to believe what religion asks us to believe and the experiences of
it? We look at whether it is reasonable to believe that God exists, and look
closer to see what religious belief itself is and whether it is possible to
believe even without good reasons to believe.
Does God Exist? Most of us have been raised to accept the concept of God,
as a single God; powerful, knowing and good. He is the basis view of human as
divine, immortal soul, and a natural destiny. Theologians are asking whether
they should continue to believe in the tradition of God. Some people ask
themselves, Do we know the God who rules the world? Some theologians have
argued about the existence of God, and some argue if there really is a God.
Such people don't believe on the evidence, that may or may not support their
belief in God and others believe that God's existence is so obvious that it
barely needs proof. Some people believe he that he could be made up by
others, and have no proof whether he is real or not. With the earth, and
massiveness of it all, it's impossible not to believe that God
brought all this to us.
W: Arguments for God's Existence, pp. 283-290 John Pilla
Does God Exist? Every culture has had its gods. The ancient agrarian
cultures had their fertility gods; the Greeks and Romans had their pantheon;
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their one god of all. At all times and
in all places people have thought that there is more to life than the
material world around us.
Belief in a god or gods, it seems, arises naturally the world over. It seems
that there is some element common to all human experience that causes us to
look for something transcendent on which to build our lives, to ask the
question Does God exist? and to affirm, at least in some sense, that he does.
That so many societies have independently come to religious belief requires
an explanation. Is this just a coincidence? Or is religious belief a natural
psychological defence-mechanism against the difficulties that life
inevitably throws at us? Or is there some truth that this widespread
instinct to look beyond the physical world leads us towards?
The Ontological Argument: The ontological argument is an argument for God's
existence based entirely on reason. According to this argument, there is no
need to go out looking for physical evidence of God's existence; we can work
out that he exists just by thinking about it. Philosophers call such
arguments a priori arguments.
The First Cause Argument: The first cause argument (or "cosmological
argument") takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a
being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a
beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that
caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The Argument from Design: The argument from design focuses on the fact that
the universe is fit for human habitation. There are many ways that the
universe might have been, the argument from design tells us-it might have
had different laws of physics; it might have had a different arrangement of
planets and stars; it might have begun with a bigger or a smaller big bang-
and the vast majority of these universes would not have allowed for the
existence of life. We are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that doe
X: Alternatives to Religion, pp. 291-301: Catheryn Videnov
.William James - issue of what religion is towards us
."Do not decide but leave the question open"
.Deadness or aliveness of a hypothesis - determined by the individual thinker
.Hypothesis is most alive when we're willing to believe
.Options : living or dead, forced or avoidable, & momentous or trivial
.Living option - both hypotheses are live ones
.Eg. Theosophist or Muhammadan - dead option - neither proposal is likely to
be live On the other hand - Christian or Atheist - living option - both
choices are live .If you can't avoid a decision the option than
becomes 'forced'
.Momentous - opportunity is unique, stakes are significant, decision is
irreversible
.Ineffability - state defies expression, experience could not be reported
adequately
.Noetic quality - experiences appear to be knowledge, provide insight to
human experience, revelations and illuminations full of meaning, truth &
importance
.Mysticism - 'experience of a reality that we can truly know only when we
surrender our individual selves and sense a union with the divine ground of
all existence'
.There are four Numinous experiences: 1.Infinite dependence - values change,
new sense of reality 2.Mystery - points of reference are different so one
is unable to convey experience 3.Terror - removal of all stability and
substance from our existence 4.Bliss - heaven, paradise, salvation and love
Y: Belief & Mysticism, pp. 302-309: Nicholas Cirlincione
Belief: Ask class what they think belief is: Belief is the psychological
state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true,
-give an example of belief
-discuss how you have to decide on your own and weigh the data and decide
but ultimately believe in what your doing is right.
-William James: breaking down into options, 3 types of options, living,
avoidable,momentous; living example: a decision that is live to you like be
christian or atheist; avoidable example: an avoidable decision like vote
for me or my opponent; momentous example: unique once in a lifetime decision
James and his passional nature, 2 elements, knowing truth and avoiding
error; he believes we should chase truth not avoid error-Example of this
reason.
Mysticism: Other reasons for people believing in god are claims of having
extraordinary experiences.; definition of mysticism: the experience of a
reality that we can truly know only when we surrender our individual selves
and sense a union with the divine ground of all existence. This is called
a numinous experience, several elements to it; Thomas Aquinas example
(infinite independence) Mystery (Plato's cave story)terror (old testament
passages)biss (heaven) Religious Experience Linked to Brain's Social
Regions article
Z: Western Theology, pp. 309-318:
Western Theology: the question that many philosophers look to answer is the
existence and nature of a Supreme Being. Radical Theologians view Christians
relationship with God as more experiential than rational. Kierkegaard who was
raised as a catholic had great reservations about the faith. He believed that
few people actually focused on their belief and more focused on the social
aspect of things. They all attended the same Lutheran churches and church
functions and just mouthed the doctrines that had been learned and memorized
in previous years. Kierkegaard believes that those who showed this had a lack
of passion towards their faith. Kierkegaard was actually revolted by these
self- indulged "Catholics". Other than Kierkegaards view on religion he was
also studying the difference between objective and subjective thinkers,
which in the end is really distinguishing between reason and faith.
OBJECTIVE THINKER-> strikes an intellectual, dispassionate, scientific
posture toward life. An objective thinker is more likely to be an observer.
SUBJECTIVE THINKER-> passionately and intensely involved with truth. A
subjective thinker does not look for evidence out of establishing a
viewpoint, but out of pure passion for the interest. Subjective thinkers
often become pre- occupied with questions of life and death, ones
existence, or ones ultimate destiny. Kierkegaard is for the most part a
subjective thinker but admits that there is room for objective thinking.
Sometimes. But not in this case for example, Religious Belief is not open to
objective thinking because it involves a relationship with God. Because
Religious Belief is something of the unknown, not something knowable. READ
QUESTION BOX 310. Is it impossible to finally discover the truth of God and
get rid of all doubts that arise? Kierkegaard dismisses any proof of Gods
existence, even attempts to "know" God. Kierkegaard believes God cannot be
known. But if the point of religion and faith is to not know God than what
is the point of Religion? To feel rather than know. Rational thinking,
objective thinking is in favor of the existence of God.
William James "The Will To Believe": James proposed the idea that the
question of belief should be decided with heart, not reason or empirical
evidence. James also believed that deciding to leave an option unanswered
holds the same risk of losing truth as does answering it passionately.
Options of belief are characterized three ways.
1) Living or Dead: whether or not an option is a viable possibility
e.g. the option "be a Theosophist or a Muhammadan", the options are dead
because they have little relevance to us and are not a possibility.
2) Forced or Avoidable: whether or not the option can be left undecided e.g.
the option "vote for me or my rival" you could avoid the question by not
voting at all.
3) Momentous or Trivial: a momentous option is unique, the decision is
irreversible, and the stakes are significant. E.g. the chance to invest in
a "surefire" stock.
James describes our passional nature, he believes that the quest for truth
is driven by desire and feeling, not reason. He suggests that the passional
element has two purposes, one finding truth, and two avoiding error.
James believes that when our main concern is the avoidance of error, we lose
truth. James believes it is acceptable to put option that isnt momentous on
hold, that way we save our selves from falsehood. However, James encourages
us to use our passional nature to pick a side when faced with a momentous
option. To simplify James believes that when a question cannot be answered on
intellectual grounds we should allow our passions to decide it.
Does God Exist? - Definitions
Theism- the belief in a personal God who interferes in the lives of the
creation. Monotheism- the belief in a single God. Pantheism-the belief that
everything is God. Panentheism is the belief that God is both fixed and
changing, inclusive; God- the creator and ruler of the universe; the Lord ;
the Supreme Being; the Almighty
AA: Eastern Perspectives, pp. 318-325: Ryan Joaquin
Hinduism: One of the oldest and biggest religions in the East; it has many
subdivisions; Brahman the concept of an impersonal Supreme Being the goal of
everything; The world is an illusion; Atman is the Hindu idea of the self
after enlightenment; Karma is the actions and duties that determine each
state of; reincarnation; Birth and Rebirth; Sri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
Buddhism: Founder Siddhartha Gautama or Buddha; Four Noble Truths; Noble
Eightfold Path; Samsara which is the cycle of birth and rebirth; Avidya is
the cause of suffering and frustration; Nirvana is the release or liberation;
Dharma doctrine whereby self frustration is ended; the Eightfold Path
Zen Buddhism: One form of Buddhism; Attractive to Westerners; D.T. Suzuki:
Buddhahood; Mind and Nature
Difference between East and West: East rejects West's "objectified" God;
East's and West's beliefs; Practices
BB: Ethics Chapter 7, What is Ethics? pp. 510-519: Carla Correa
What is Ethics?
o To decide to choose your own values is to decide to philosophize.
The attempt to examine one's values, to shape and rethink them in the light
of one's own experience and reason is the philosophical task. This
philosophical task is called ethics.
o Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also
commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of
this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral
principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.
Difference between Morals Ethics?
o Morality consists of the standards that an individual/group has
about what is right and wrong or good and evil.
o Ethics determines the good and right thing to do. When a person asks
questions about their morals/ moral standards in society and within
themselves they have begun to do ethics.
What is an absolutist? What is a relativist?
o Ethical Relativism: is the prescriptive view that 1) Different
groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating
acts as right or wrong; (2) These different beliefs are true in their
respective societies; (3) These different beliefs are not instances of a
basic moral principle. Relativism is the denial of any absolute or
objective values (truth, moral goodness, beauty, etc.) and the affirmation
of the individual, community or culture as the source of values.
o Ethical Absolutism: the prescriptive view that there are basic or
fundamental ethical principles which are true without qualification or
exception as to time, condition, or circumstance. Absolutism is the view
that values (truth, beauty, and/or moral goodness) are independent of human
opinion and have a common or universal application.
What is cultural relativism?
o Cultural relativism: value priorities and moral judgements in fact
differ across cultures. (ie: gift giving & bribery; employing family
members, etc.)
CC: Egoism, Utilitarianism, pp. 519-530: Consequentialist Theory: measures
the morality of action by the non-moral consequences (the ratio of good to
evil that an action produces is considered; the right action is the one that
produces or will probably produce the most good). If you evaluate the
consequences just for yourself, your judgment will be different than if you
evaluate the consequences for the other party involved. Should we evaluate
consequences only for ourselves, or should we consider the effects on all
people involved? Egoism: states that we act morally when we act in a way that
promotes our own best long-term interests. What do egoists mean by "self-
interests"? Hedonism: states that only pleasure("freedom from bodily pain and
mental agitation") is worth having for its own sake. Utilitarianism: claims
that we act morally when our actions produce the greatest possible ratio of
good to evil for ALL concerned. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart lay the basis
for the utilitarian moral principle that actions are right to the extent that
they promote pleasure, wrong to the extent that they produce pain. Should
only pleasure be considered, or are there other things(ex. knowledge)
DD: Natural Law, KANT's Ethics, pp. 531-548: Michael Primerano
Immanuel Kant was born in the East Prussian city of Königsberg, studied at
its university, and worked there as a tutor and professor for more than forty
years, never travelling more than fifty miles from home. But his central
thesis-that the possibility of human knowledge presupposes the active
participation of the human mind-is deceptively simple, but the details of its
application are notoriously complex. [1]
Kant created a new widespread perspective in philosophy which influenced
philosophy through to the 21st Century. He published important works on
epistemology, as well as works relevant to religion, law, and history. One of
his most prominent works is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation
into the limitations and structure of reason itself. It encompasses an attack
on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own
contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the
Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique
of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology. [2]
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of
reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed through
epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources and limits of
human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an
object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of
that object. He concluded that all objects about which the mind can think
must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only
in terms of causality - which he concluded that it does - then we can know
prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a
cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it is possible that
there are objects of such nature which the mind cannot think, and so the
principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of
experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always
existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative
metaphysics cannot be answered by the human mind, but the sciences are firmly
grounded in laws of the mind. [2]
Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and
the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through
experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open
to artesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant
argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will
only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without
first being subsumed under pure reason. [2]
The monumental Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason) (1781,
1787) fully spells out the conditions for mathematical, scientific, and
metaphysical knowledge in its "Transcendental Aesthetic," "Transcendental
Analytic," and "Transcendental Dialectic," but Kant found it helpful to offer
a less technical exposition of the same themes in the Prolegomena zu einer
jeden künftigen Metaphysik die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können
(Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic) (1783). Carefully distinguishing
judgments as analytic or synthetic and as a priori or a posteriori, Kant
held that the most interesting and useful varieties of human knowledge rely
upon synthetic a priori judgments, which are, in turn, possible only when the
mind determines the conditions of its own experience. Thus, it is we who
impose the forms of space and time upon all possible sensation in
mathematics, and it is we who render all experience coherent as scientific
knowledge governed by traditional notions of substance and causality by
applying the pure concepts of the understanding to all possible experience
EE: Buddhist Ethics, pp. 548-554: Maria Christina Bonventre - Buddhism's
emphasis on ethical behaviour can be generalised in two ways.
1) volitional (voluntary) actions are considered extremely important, because
of Karma,the moral law of causation, what we do will determine who we become.
2) Ethics is considered the parent if wisdom, in that reflection on the
wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of volitional actions leads to discipline of
the mind, which eventually results in insight and enlightenment
** It is important to stress that Buddhists believe that blind obedience is
not encouraged, and the following are precepts which can help a person to
better follow the teachings of Buddhism.
- Central to Buddhism, are the Four Noble Truths which enlightens people to
the suffering of this world and leads to the end of Samsara, the cycle of
death and re-birth (suffering) 1) noble truth of suffering: all of life is
suffering; 2) noble truth of the origin of suffering: the origin of suffering
is ignorance and attachment; 3) Noble truth of the extinction of suffering:
cessation of suffering is attainable 4) Noble truth of the path leading to
the extinction to suffering: the way to end suffering is to follow the Eight-
Fold Path.
-The Eight-Fold Path : An ethical and mental development with the goal of
freeing the individual from attachments and delusions; and it finally leads
to understanding the truth about all things. Together with the Four Noble
Truths it constitutes the gist of Buddhism. Great emphasis is put on the
practical aspect, because it is only through practice that one can attain a
higher level of existence and finally reach Nirvana. The eight aspects of the
path are not to be understood as a sequence of single steps, instead they are
highly interdependent principles that should work in correlation with
one another.
1) Right View 5) Right Conduct
2) Right Thought 6) Right Livelihood
3) Right Effort 7) Right Mindfulness
4) Right Speech 8) Right Concentration
Though there are similarities between traditional Western Ethics and Buddhist
Ethics there are also fundamental differences. they are:
The eastern interpretation of rules and commandments. The Buddhist precepts
are looked on as invitations and not proscriptions.
The emphasis on the individual. The individual must avoid evil for ones self,
to achieve personal enlightenment.
Buddhism encourages practitioners to dig into their own experiences, to be
open to the universe. If we are open to the disclosure of the world, then
congruence of the cosmos will follow.
FF: Character, Virtue, pp. 554-565: Jocelyn Rutgers
Virtue Ethics: The position that the moral life should be concerned with
cultivating a virtuous character rather than following rules of action.
Virtue: A morally good character trait, such as honesty, courage, or
integrity.
Aristotle's Theory of Virtue: Aristotle wrote that human beings can only be
happy if they fulfill their basic human purpose or "Function". In other
words, humans can only be happy if they act as humans are specifically meant
to act. Since only human beings can reason, Aristotle concluded that humans
are meant to act with reason. That is, we will only be happy if we are able
to act with reason in the various circumstances of our life. Since the
ability to do something well is a virtue, he concludes that humans will
achieve happiness only by developing their virtues.
Male and Female Ethics: Philosophers have often claimed that men and women
have different ethics. Recently several female philosophers have begun to
suggest that men and women have different moralities. They have suggested
that men tend to focus on issues that an ethics of principles emphasizes,
whereas women tend to focus on issues that an ethics of virtue emphasizes.
I will be going more in depth into Aristotle's theory, and the idea that
males and females have different ethics. The focus will be on these two
categories.
GG: Applying Ethics, pp. 565-575:
Throughout this chapter many ethical theories are analyzed, however there is
no set theory that is completely right or wrong. Ethical theories need to be
examined for many different reasons. One reason is to examine different
truths and opinions and to weigh out the pros and cons of each point of view.
These reasons are evaluated by three different kinds of methods;
Utilitarianism, Virtue theory, and Kant. A major question in ethics is the
issue of abortion. The definition of abortion is the deliberate ending of
pregnancy before the baby is born. In 1973 the U.S Supreme Court made
abortion legal stating that is a woman’s personal business and choice of her
own. However, after a woman is pregnant after 6 months, the Supreme Court
states that abortion is only considered moral if the mother’s health is in
danger. The question raised with this issue is; when is it considered moral
to have an abortion? An example in the textbook of this issue is with a woman
called “Jane Doe”. She agreed with her husband to have an abortion because
they felt the timing in their lives was not appropriate for a baby. Kant
Method: A philosopher called Mary Anne Warren argues that this couple did the
right thing because the fetus is not a person. She backs up her argument by
saying that it can only be a person if it has consciousness, reasoning,
having self-motivation, being able to communicate and self concepts. This
theory was proven invalid when adults with disabilities and even infants lack
these traits, however they still have the right to life. A woman named Janet
Smith feels that we need to evaluate the virtue theory in order to judge the
act as being moral or immoral. Virtue theory: evaluates the morality of
behavior by examining the person this type of behavior produces. For example,
she states that those receiving an abortion were obviously careless about
birth control and even irresponsible and those will be the type of people
that will get an abortion. Utilitarianism: This theory thinks that we should
evaluate both the pros and cons of this situation and make a “moral” decision
based on the circumstances, whatever that may be. Euthanasia literally
means “good death”. It is when a person suffering from an incurable disease
with great pain wishes for a purposeful death. There are two approaches to
this topic. Passive Euthanasia: when the disease is left alone to run its
natural course and no medication is prescribed to the patient resulting in
death. Active Euthanasia: a deliberate cause of death upon the patient. In
1996 a law was passed and made active euthanasia legal. Kant Method: says to
do whatever you would want to be wished upon yourself. Utilitarianism: this
theory says that the patient has the right to make the choice to be put to
death or to stay alive. Sometimes the pain may be so great that they wish
death but really do not mean it. This method says the patient must be
completely voluntary. Natural Law approach: cannot take this person’s life
without great consideration.
HH: Moral Responsibility, pp. 576-590: Jordan_Marra
Determinism is the idea that everything in the universe in under control of
casual law. Determinism really says that we are controlled by outside
forces, that it is not our decision only that affects our actions but the
power the outside world has on humanity, It is also due to our habits that we
find ourselves in certain situations, good habits help us; spiritually,
physically, mentally and the people around us, where bad habits hurt us and
the ones we love and eventually comeback to get you.
Libertarianism is the idea that all humans ultimately have the choice between
right and wrong and that nothing is predetermined, that outcomes are merely
thanks to our actions and habits that lead to the events in life. When
making a decision our ethics play a very important role and that is to guide
us morally through our decisions.
Fatalism is the acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined
and inevitable. Fatalism has very little to do with ethics because our
morality cannot control one's fate. The choices one makes cannot elude the
predetermined fate one has.
Compatibilism is a view that attempts to reconcile freedom and responsibility
to determinism. Compatibilism says that people are predetermined, that fate
affects them slightly, however our freewill will ultimately affect our
choices and actions and the events in our lives. Compatibilism is basically
a combination between determinism and libertarianism. One if not the most
important modern philosopher is regards to moral responsibility was Friedrich
Nietzsche, a German man born in 1844 and raised by women; his mother,
grandmother and sisters. Nietzsche was most famous for saying that the human
population has killed God by taking him out of our lives, by replacing our
faith with extra things. He says that this has the body wandering in open
space with no guidance. Nietzsche also said that there are no absolute truths
about morality, he stated that morality is merely an interpretation of the
world. "There are no moral phenomena only moralistic interpretations of
phenomena. There are no moral facts like any other kind of interpretation, a
morality cannot be said to be absolutely true or false: it can only be a more-
or-less useful instrument for the will to power. (Nietzsche, 586-587 in text)
