Philosophy
110
Links: Units
Review Lists and Sample Quizzes
Sample Mid-Term Exam
SAMPLE FINAL EXAM
Questions on Moral Relativism,
Diversity, Multiculturalism, Tolerance
Phil. 110:
Adventure of Ideas: Fall, 2009
Instructor:
Dr.
Office
Ph. 881 7384 nlillega@utm.edu. Best contact – e-mail.
Texts: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy by
Jim Fieser and
On Epicurus ( at UC, Bradley).
An English Dictionary
COURSE
TITLE: Historical Perspectives on
(a) “Science” and metaphysics (the
attempt to determine the fundamental structures of reality); (b) the nature of
Knowledge (c)Virtue and a Good Life; (d) Morality, Justice, Rights and
Community; (e)The Soul and the nature of the Self; (f ) Religion (faith) and
Reason.
COURSE
REQUIREMENTS: Attend class and
participate, do the readings, do all written assignments, pass the exams.
Two
exams (midterm and final; multiple
choice, T/F. See sample exams on the
Instructor’s Web Site). Mid-term exam worth 120 pts. Final exam is
comprehensive, 180 pts..
Two
mini-exams (60 pts. each). Total for
exams=420 pts.
Unannounced quizzes, at least one a week. Ca.
90 points, some of which are extra credit.
Selected
Study guide questions and /or Short Essays are due from time to
time. (Ca. 100 pts). They must be turned in when due. Date of
collection will NOT be announced ahead of time. In order to adequately meet
this requirement, you MUST have ALL the questions assigned for each class ready
on that class date. If you miss a class when a question is due, you will not be
able to hand it in late unless you have a
documented excuse for missing that day. No question will be accepted more
than two days late. Each guide handed in must be marked with the
following items: your name, class number
(phil 110) and question numbers..
Further information is given below.
Format for
Study Guide Questions
1. Do
not let answers run to a second sheet.
2. Questions that are turned in
MUST contain the following:
a. Your NAME
b. Phil. 110
c. The QUESTION
NUMBERS, like this
2: 3 (The first number is the chapter number, the
second is the question number)
D.
QUESTIONS MUST BE PRINTED FROM A COMPUTER
Attendance 40pts. Regular attendance and informed participation
in class are essential since (a) not everything covered in class is included in
the text (b) you will need help with this material, and that is what class
sessions, and the instructor, are for.
Students who sleep in class are counted absent. Students who converse on
cell phones or read or send text messages are counted as absent.
Total points
=ca. 600. Normally %90 of total points
gets you an 'A', %80 a 'B' and so forth, but significant adjustments for curve
are made when necessary.
Bonus points: about half of the Quiz points (ca. 40 pts)
Quizzes will be given about once a week. They will not be announced ahead of
time. They CANNOT BE MADE UP (if they could that would make them
pointless!). Remember, if you skip classes you stand to lose not only
attendance points but also the chance for bonus points. BE THERE!
Other
extra credit: Attendance at a
philosophy forum, with a report, can earn a few points extra.(Forum times,
places and topics will be announced). Study guide questions that are done with
notable care and thoroughness can earn a few extra points. Total possible extra
points, including quizzes=50. No kidding.
ROLE
OF THE INSTRUCTOR: The instructor is
available for individual or group discussion when a need is expressed. His
primary interest is in helping you to achieve mature thoughtfulness about the
crucial sorts of matters indicated in the course title. Feel free to call on
him as needed and be assured that he will be available personally to
each one of you. E-mail is a good way to contact him.
WHAT
I EXPECT OF STUDENTS. 1.Treat each other with respect. 2.Treat the instructor with
respect. 3.Do not talk unless
called on. 4. Turn cell phones
off and keep them off till class is dismissed. 5.Do not leave the room without
permission except in extreme emergency. 6.
Be on time. 7. Be eager to learn.
The best indication of progress is engagement with the issues and ideas
upon which we will focus. 8. Do
not be afraid to say "I don't understand." 9. Expect the same of me as I
expect of you (except #3!) (You will
find that I follow #7 a lot!)
Academic
Integrity: Any form of cheating, on study guides, quizzes, or
exams, will result in an ‘F’ for that assignment and possibly for the entire course. NO EXCEPTIONS. Policies regarding academic integrity are
further detailed in the student handbook. Cheating includes plagiarism. DO YOUR
OWN WORK.
Cell Phones: phones must be OFF during classes. You may not make ANY use of cell phones
during any exam or quiz.. Use of cell phones in such circumstances counts as
cheating and results in an F for that exam
.
Class
format: Classes will consist of a
mixture of lecture and discussion. Feel free to interrupt with questions. Always
do so by raising your hand. Acknowledgment may not always be immediate but
it will come. Try to keep your remarks relevant. Listen respectfully to other
students even if you think they are “way off.”
They might be doing better than you think!
THE
PURPOSE OF THIS COURSE is to help you develop the capacity to READ
difficult texts with COMPREHENSION, and to THINK CRITICALLY about issues which
are of concern to all educated and thoughtful persons and which have figured
prominently in the history of western thought.
The figures we study will be your guides, but they are not infallible oracles.
The general areas for reflection are indicated in the course title.
This is a “historical” introduction to
philosophy. Therefore a further purpose is to familiarize you with some of the
main figures and movements in the history of philosophy, and their significance
for the history of politics, the arts, science, and culture generally..
You will be tested on critical
reading and critical thought, on your understanding of the issues raised by the
figures you study, your ability to respond relevantly to arguments, and your
ability to identify salient historical/philosophical facts.
The purpose of the study guides is
threefold:
1.To
ensure that you actually read the assigned texts, and read them carefully;
2. To
assist you in developing capacities for close reading of difficult texts
(development of reading comprehension);
3. To
help you determine what parts of the texts give you the most difficulty. #3 will be achieved if you come to class
prepared to ask about questions which you could not figure out or are very
unsure of, AFTER you have made a reasonable effort.. Reading the
text once does not generally constitute a reasonable effort if you find
yourself "stopped" by a question.
You may need to go over a text several times, make notes on it, and
THINK about it. If, having done that,
you still do not "get" a certain question or questions, bring it
(them) up in class.
What
the study guides are NOT for: The
study guides are not intended to serve as review material, though you
can use them for that purpose if you think it will be safe.
How the Study
Guide Questions that are Handed In are
Graded The questions are graded generously. If your
answers indicate that you have indeed read the material and made a genuine
attempt to understand, you will generally get full credit or almost full
credit even if your answers are not strictly correct.! Answers that are
irrelevant or “off the wall” will get no credit. Very simple questions, including many of the
fill-in-the-blank questions will be graded more strictly.
ON-LINE HELP Make sure you regularly visit www.utm.edu/~nlillega/lillegard.htm. There you will find a link for Phil. 110. Under that link you will find study guide assignments, sample exams, sample quizzes, lists of terms to know, study questions, discussions of selected issues, class outlines, quizzes already taken, and links to other helpful sites. If you use the internet on your own, understand that it contains an enormous amount of trash and may mislead as much as it may help.
[NOTE: "Any
student eligible for and requesting academic accommodations due to a disability
is requested to provide a letter of accommodation from P.A.C.E. or
Course Outline: (adjustments to this outline may be necessary).
Week II Sept. 7. (the 7th
is Labor Day):. Heraclitus, Parmenides, pluralists, atomists, The Sophists
(relativism). NO CLASS ON THURSDAY,
SEPT. 10.
Week III Sept. 14: Socrates.
Week IV Sept. 21: Plato
(Phaedo, Republic). Mini exam I, TH. Sept.
24.
Week V Sept. 28: Aristotle,
physics, ethics.
Week VI Oct. 5: Aristotle
ethics; The Hellenistic/Roman era. Epicurus.
Week VII Oct. 12: Epicurus.
Review. MIDTERM EXAM, Th. Oct. 15.
Week VIII Oct. 17-20: FALL BREAK. Oct. 22, Epictetus. The Medieval Era.
Augustine.
Week IX. Oct. 26, Augustine, Anselm..
Week X.Nov. 2:, Averroes,
Aquinas..
Week XI Nov. 9: Renaissance,
Reformation ,Scientific Revolution. (Bayle, Pascal, Galileo, Descartes). Mini-exam
II Th. Nov. 19.
Week XII Nov. 16: Descartes (Meditations),
Locke.
Week XIII Nov. 23: The
Enlightenment era. (Nov. 25-29,
Thanksgiving Break)
Week XIV Nov. 30: Hume
(Treatise, Enquiries). Kant on Duty..
Week XV Dec. 7 Review. Dec.
11, last day of classes.
FINAL EXAM -
Wednesday, Dec. 16, 10-12 a.m. Hu 215.
CONTRACT
1. I have read and understand the rules for class conduct and
agree to abide by them.
2. I understand the purposes of the
Study Guides, and that Study Guides must be handed in
When due, that any Study Guide handed
in one class late for a legitimate reason
will be accepted,
but with a loss of %10 of the points,
and that no Study Guide will be accepted
more than one week
after the due date.
3. I understand that quizzes will be
unannounced, and cannot be made up, and
that most of them
will be based on material covered in part of a
study guide.
4. I am able to access the Phil. 110
web page, and will use it to keep track of assignments, and for study and
review purposes.
5. I own my own textbook and
dictionary and will bring them to every class.
6. I have read and understand the
list of requirements for this course, consider them fair, and will do my best
to fulfill them.
Signed
______________________________________________
Circle the number that corresponds to your class meeting time: 9:00,
11:00, 12:00
Print your name
_________________________________________________
UNITS
Terms you
must understand by Midterm;
Metaphysics; Epistemology,
Pluralism, Dualism; Monism,
Rationalism; !!
Empiricism;
Unity of Science
Teleology vs. mechanism
Materialism
The concerns of the pre-socratics
logos, nomos, cosmos,
Eleatic, ++
Pythagoreanism, the tetractys
Sophism,** antilogic, Relativism, rhetoric (persuasive
speech, vs. truth) Absolutism;
Socratic Dialectic; Elenchus; Irony; Profession of
Ignorance; Search for Definitions.
anthropomorphism;
Euthyphro
dilemma:
The soul and the theory of Forms (Ideas);
Forms as necessary for thinking, speaking, knowledge,
judgment. Can’t be known empirically (cf. the two sticks). Empirical things
merely jog the memory.
Empirical particulars as shadows or reflections in a
mirror. Reflections of the form “equality itself.”
Recollection
and immortality
Ring of Gyges,
Aristotle's four "causes,"
(What are the formal, material, efficient and final
causes of a seed?)
More on teleology and teleological explanation vs.
mechanism;
Happiness as pleasure
Happiness as a final goal or end (wanted for its own
sake, not as a means).
The function of human beings and eudaimonia;
Virtue;
Virtue and the mean; phronesis; “perceptiveness.” “Political” science,
REASON in ethics as "substantive." As
"instrumental."
stoicism; detachment; apatheia; what are you
averse to? If not in your control, forget about it.
Main
Figures: Homer, Hesiod, Thales, Anaximines, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Heraclitus,
Parmenides,++ !!Zeno++!!, Protagoras**, Gorgias**, Socrates, (In order. Know
centuries)
Plato, !!
Aristotle,
Epicurus.
UNIT I : ANCIENT GREEK PERSPECTIVES
Terms; logos,
nomos, cosmos, Monism, Eleatic, Pluralism,
Dualism; Rationalism; Empiricism; Metaphysics; Epistemology, Sophism,
antilogic, Relativism, anthropomorphism;
rhetoric, Absolutism; Socratic Dialectic; Elenchus; Euthyphro dilemma: Forms (Ideas); Teleology and teleological explanation vs. mechanism; Ring of Gyges, (for
Midterm) Aristotle's four
"causes," Virtue; eudaimonia; Virtue and the mean; phronesis;
“Political” science, “perceptiveness.” Materialism. Happiness as pleasure.
Things to Think About:
- Relativism vs. Absolutism
1.Is there any absolute
right or wrong? That is, are there actions which are always wrong, or
always right?
2. If your answer to #1 is
"no" what reasons can you give for that answer?
3. Assuming there are absolute rights and
wrongs, how could you KNOW what they are?
4. Assuming there are absolute rights and
wrongs, what would be some examples? Give some reasons for thinking your
examples are NOT good examples. ARE
good examples.
5. Are there ways of living that are
objectively better than other ways of living? (How does Aristotle answer this?)
- Justice, Rights, Comnmunity
1. What is justice (how
does Plato answer that?)
2. Does it pay to be just or fair? If so,
why, if not, why not?
3. Is it possible to lead a good life apart
from a community in which people are generally just?
4. Is Justice mainly a matter of LAW, or is
it a personal attribute? Some combination?
5. Does the notion of "rights"
apart from specific legal enactments make sense? If so, how?
- The Soul
1. Is there such a thing
as a "soul"?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how do you
know, and what is the soul like?
3. If the answer to #1 is no, why do you
think that?
4. If there is a soul, is it immortal? Did it
exist before your physical birth?
5. If the answer to either part of #4 is
"yes", justify your belief in that answer. Give Plato’s views
and reasons.
6. What is the connection, if any, between
soul and mind or thought? Soul and "Spirit?" Soul and reason?
Soul and feeling?
- Religion
1. Is there such a thing
as a God, or Gods?
2. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes', how do you
know? Or is it just a matter of faith, or opinion?
3. Assuming there is a God or are Gods, would
it be right to obey God's commands, no matter what they might be? Discuss
pro and con.
4. Does the fact that God commands something
make it right?
5. Do the Gods, or does God,
intervene in nature and human life?
- Knowledge and What Counts as Real.
1. Is there some basic or
ultimate stuff (e.g atoms) or principle (e.g. laws of nature, or divine order)
or being (e.g. God) or set of beings (e.g. transcendent forms or ideals) which
explains where the universe comes from or what keeps it in existence and why it
has the features it has?
2. Whatever the answer to question #1, how
could you know it was correct?
3. Does permanence matter? Does something that constantly changes seem less “real” than something stable?
UNIT
II: Hellenistic/Roman
Perspectives
Terms you must understand;
skepticism; hedonism; epicureanism;
stoicism; atomism and the swerve in atomism;
hedonism; ataraxia;
apatheia; REASON in ethics as "substantive." As
"instrumental."
Things to Think About:
Ethics, Pleasure, and Nature
1.Are there ways of living which are
objectively better than other ways of living? Prove it, using Epicurean
arguments. Stoic arguments.
2. If you want to answer “NO”to #1,
what reasons can you give for that answer? Do not put down
clichés. Try to defeat the Epicurean and Stoic arguments.
3. Assume the answer to #1 is ‘yes' and give
arguments for that answer. Give one argument that begins from some
“natural” fact about human beings.
4. Try to think of five
different KINDS of pleasure and say what makes them different KINDS, as opposed
to merely different. (the pleasure of tasting a hot fudge sundae differs from
the pleasure of tasting a
5. What are some connections between atheism,
materialism, empiricism and hedonism? Relate to Epicurus.
6. Much misery results from
being overly attached to people or things. Illustrate.
7. Can reason tell you how to
live, or does desire and feeling tell you, with reason playing only an
instrumental role?
8. How do answers to q.1- 3 and
6-8 bear on the relativism debate?
Knowledge and the Real
1. How can an empiricist like
Epicurus know that there are atoms?
2. If all that exists is atoms
and the void, could there be free will? Argue pro and con. How do Epicureans
answer?
.
UNIT III: Medieval Perspectives.
Terms
you must understand: Augustinianism; Natural law; Theodicy; Two Cities/Two laws; Ontological
argument; Cosmological arguments; Teleological argument.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
Justice and Rights
1. Does our concept of what is just and right depend upon there being a
divine law giver?
2. Assuming the answer to #1 is ‘yes' how could you know what the will of the divine law giver is? Consider at least two possibilities.
3. Should divine law determine the content of civil law? Always? Never? Sometimes? Explain
4. If the answer to #3 is 'yes' does that imply the "establishment of religion" in the civil realm?
5. Augustine says that the kind of government that would be right for people A might be wrong for people B. Does that make him a relativist? Explain
Religion
1. Is there such a thing as a God, or Gods?
2. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes', how do you
know? Could there be proof? If so, give an example.
3. If the answer to #1 is ‘yes' what is that
God like? List as many characteristics as you can think of.
4. Other than belief in God, what are some other
religious beliefs that you have? (For
example, do you believe people will be punished for their sins? Do you believe
God created the universe? Do you believe God created YOU?) Be as
comprehensive as you can.
5.If there is a God, then must there also be
"souls?" Assume yes, and say why. Assume yes, and say
what sort of thing the soul might be. Explain your answers.
6. Is the
existence of God compatible with the existence of evil? How, or why not?
7. Is the foreknowledge of God compatible with free will? Think
about it, and explain.
8. If God has revealed something about God's self in some sacred
scripture, would that fact rule out reasoning about religion, or make reasoning
about it pointless? Explain
9. Does the existence of order or design in the natural world point to a
divine designer? Argue pro and con.
UNIT IV: SOME MODERN
PERSPECTIVES
Terms you must understand: humanism, fideism, skepticism, epistemology; Cartesian doubt;
Pyrrhonian skepticism; causal theory of
perception; law of nature; principle of
parsimony; rationalism; empiricism, mechanical
vs. teleological explanation; the CORRECT account of 'tolerance;'
relativism; innate ideas; emotivism;
‘idea’ in modern philosophy; deriving “ought” from “is;” Common sense
philosophy.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
Knowledge
1. HOW do you know what you know? (There are
at least two main ways. Give examples illustrating each way.)
2. Are there ways of coming to know which are
absolutely reliable? Give examples or possible examples.
3. Does the possibility that you are dreaming upset
ALL claims to knowledge?
4. Is there any way I could be sure that when I
perceive something that there is indeed something "out there" causing
the perception? If so how?
5. Is any of our knowledge "innate" or
programmed into us at birth? (Recall Plato on recollection)
6. How does an empiricist like Locke account for
our knowledge?
7. How does an empiricist account for such
"ideas" as the idea of a unicorn?
8. How might an empiricist account for the order in our thoughts or experiences?
RELIGION
1. Do you believe that miracles
could occur? If not, why not, if so, why?
2. Does religious belief
generally require belief in miracles? Explain and illustrate.
3. Is skepticism always the enemy of faith?
4. Might it be rational to believe in God even though there are no good arguments for God’s existence? If so, how?
MORALITY
1. Are moral distinctions (the distinction between
right and wrong e.g.) discovered by reason, or are they merely matters of
feeling? Or both? Illustrate and explain.
1. DO NOT WRITE THE
QUESTIONS OUT. JUST THE ANSWERS.
2. For fill in the
blank questions, just put down the terms that fill the blank, in order. If two
or more blanks require the same term, write it twice or more. Don’t write out
the question.
3. Questions that
have parts should have the parts clearly marked. These questions are often
worth more, so do ALL the parts.
Read Answer
Questions
By
9/3
p. 3- 15 1.1
- 19
By 9/8
p. 15 - 34 1. 20-48
By 9/15
p. 37-71 2.1-28
By 9/17
2.
29-42
By 9/22
p. 71-80 2.43-49
p. 83-87 2.58-59
p. 89-93 2.64-66
By 9/24
BE PREPARED FOR
MINI-EXAM
by 9/29
p. 101 3.1
p. 106-113 3.9-16
p. 113-132 3.19-52
by 10/1
p. 132-150 3.53-90
Questions for A
Man for all Seasons
1. Is the focus of this film primarily on character, or is it primarily on particular actions? Justify your answer.
2. Aristotle argues that a good (or happy, eudaimon) life requires the use of reason to determine how to live and act: does Thomas More
a. use reason more than the other people in this story? Give some evidence for your answer.
b. does More show emotions?
c. does Richard Rich use reason, and if so, is it reason in the same sense as applied to More?
3. Virtues, Aristotle says, are dispositions or settled tendencies to act in certain good ways (and vices are dispositions to act in bad ways). Some people have no consistent or settled tendencies. They constantly “waffle.” So, there are three kinds of people according to Aristotle: 1. Virtuous people 2. Vicious people 3. people who are neither
Classify the following: Thomas More; Richard Rich; the Son in law, Will.
4. Virtues and vices have names (e.g. ‘courage’ is the name of a virtue).
(a)Name some of the virtues and vices that are important to the story told in this film, and (b)say to whom they belong.
5. Virtues, according to Aristotle, are not only tendencies to act in certain ways, but also tendencies to feel in certain ways. For example, a person with courage not only acts in certain ways (stands firm in the face of danger ) but also feels less fear than a coward, and feels more strongly about such things as loyalty,etc. Pick a character in this film (it could be More) who has certain virtues, say what one of them is, and describe what feelings and actions go with it (or constitute it).
by 10/6
p. 153-59
Purchase On Epicurus and begin the following
assignment.
by 10/8
Put an ‘E’ (for Epicurus) in front of each of the following
22 questions
Read p. 1-3..
Read p. 4,5.
(1). Epicurus claims that all that exists is ___________ and the ____________. His views are indebted to ________________ (see HI p. 4, 6)
p. 6.,7
(2)Why does Epicurus insist that derivative entities must be real?
p.8. , p. 24, 25
(3) The “swerve” accounts for the collisions of atoms which make possible the development of large objects. What else does it account for, according to the Epicureans?
p. 12, 13.
(4) Epicurus is an empiricist. He thinks experience provides a criterion for genuine knowledge. What does he mean by “experience”?
p.14, 15
*(5). (a) what is one of the main problems with empiricism?
(b) how is that problem supposedly
solved by "anticipatory schema?" (Explain what they are).
(c) what
problems FOR empiricism do the schema produce?
(d) why doesn’t Plato have this problem?
p. 18, 19, 20.
(6) Epicurus avoids explanations in terms of purposes, that is, ____________ explanations. Instead he uses mechanical explanations or what Aristotle called _____________ explanations exclusively.
(7) Epicurus refuses to explain any natural events in terms of the actions of God or Gods. All explanations must be in terms of material efficient causes. His view is thus like modern views that are frankly ___________ and ______________. That explains why many later religious thinkers rejected or ignored Epicurus.
By 10/13
p. 27 – 29, 34-36.
*(7). (a)Mention a pleasure which certainly consists in
having certain sensations.
(b)
"
"
"
" "
does NOT consist in having certain sensations.
(8). What problem does 7(b) pose for Epicurus' attempt to find an empirical, naturalistic basis for ethics?
(9) What is the difference between normative and psychological hedonism? What shows that Epicurus is a __________________hedonist?
(10) The best kind of life, according to Epicurus, consists in avoiding __________more than in pursuing _____________.
p. 38-44
(11) Give an example of an inborn desire that is necessary. What makes it necessary?
(12) Give an example of an inborn desire that is not necessary.
(13) Vain desires are neither natural nor necessary. Give two examples.
(14) What shows that Epicurus thinks that eudaimonia consists in more than simply bodily health plus ataraxia? You must use examples to answer this.
p. 45 – 55.
* (15) (a) Aristotle thinks that reason belongs to the substance of a good happy life. Explain.
(b)
Epicurus thinks of reason a merely an “instrument” employed by a prudent person
when pursuing the good, happy life. Illustrate and explain. Use the example of
the imaginary “Xantippe” if it will help.
(16). Argue pro and con the view that death should not be feared.
p. 56-62
(17) Friendship does not fit easily into the Epicurean view of happiness. Why not?
(18) State the hedonistic paradox.
(19) Describe Epicurus’ account of justice. Contrast it with Plato.
p. 63-71
(20) On the Epicurean view, false beliefs produced by the surrounding culture which make us “sick in the head” include the belief that
a. owning lots of luxurious things will make us happy
b. the Gods will punish us in this life or the next for our
wicked deeds
c. we can achieve happiness through sexual contact with “love Gods or
Goddesses,” or from “eternal love and unity”
Describe the Epicurean therapy
for each of these ills. Mention all facets.
21. There are tensions in Epicureanism between the value placed on
(a)friendship (b) ataraxia (c)”pleasure”
in the sense of sensation (raw feels) (d) eudaimonia.
Describe them.
22. Epicurus is in many ways very modern. He is an empiricist, a materialist, an atheist (for all practical purposes), and he tries to view human beings as simply pleasure maximizers. His ethical views fit his way of thinking of nature and human beings. Is it possible to have a viable ethics given his assumptions? Argue pro and con, and keep in mind the criticisms implied in questions 7b. 17, 19 and 21.
10/15
Midterm exam
By 10/22
Read Answer
177-195 q.
5:1-37
By 10/27
Read
195-201 q.
38-47
206-221
55-79
By 11/3
Read
228-236 q.
89-100
236-247 q.101-122
By 11/10
Continue from
previous week.
Read
251-53 q.
1-3
258-61 q.
12-15
272-81 q.
35-46
By 11/17/09
Read
281-83
288-94 q.
52-58
312-15 q.
79-80
.
By
Wed. 10/24
206-210 5:55-62
By
Fri. 10/26
211-21 5:63-80
By Mon.
10/29
227-236 5:89-100
By Wed.
10/31
236- 247 5:101-122
By Fri. Nov.
2
Same as Wed.
By Mon. Nov.
5
251-53 6:1-3
258-60 6:12-15
By Wed. Nov.
7
272, 276-81 6:40-46
289-94 6:51-58
312-15 6:79-80
By Fri. Nov.
9
Continue Wednesday
By Mon. Nov.
12
Continue Wednesday
Wed. Nov. 14
Review
Fri. Nov. 16
Mon. Nov. 19
Mini Exam II
319-
326 7: 1-5, 7-12,
(notice omitted item).
notice correction, given in class, to Q.
11).
plus the following (list them using capital letters).
A. Select from the following
properties (qualities or traits) those that are primary qualities, and list
them by name;
i. yellow
ii. duration
iii. sweetness
iv. quantity
v. spatial properties (length, etc.)
B. How, according to Descartes, might he be deceived in the belief that
2+2=4
--------------------------------------------------------
(notice
omitted items).
326 – 340 7:14-17, 20-26 (notice
corrections to q. 20),
28-35
Plus
the following
C. How does the dream argument relate to the film The Matrix? What do both suggest about knowledge?
D. The ‘I’ whose existence Descartes is absolutely certain about is
(list correct answers)
(a) himself
(b) a thinking thing
(c) a thing that can
doubt
(d) a thing that can
feel
(e) a thing that is a
rational animal
(f) a thing with arms
and legs.
E. Much mathematical knowledge is about quantities.
i.Explain what this has to do with the primary qualities.
ii. Explain what this has to do with Descartes’ rationalism.
By Mon.
Nov. 26
Continue Mon. Nov. 19
Wed. Nov.
28
403-417 8:1-3, 8 - 11, 13, 14,
16-19.
423-427 8:32, 33
Plus
the following
G. Locke assumes that if someone knows something they should be able to
state it. Is he right? Try to think of something you know even though you could
not state it. (It could be “how” to do something.)
H. Locke claims that primary qualities have the “power” to produce
secondary qualities “in us”. (cf. p. 426
para. 23). What would be an example of that?
What argument from Descartes supports Locke’s notion?
J. Locke claims that our “ideas” of primary qualities are more or less
accurate “copies” of the actual features of things existing outside our minds.
(cf. p. 426 para. 15
i. Is there any way
Locke could know that?(cf. question 36).
ii. If there is, how,
if not why not?
By Fri.
Nov. 30
Continue Wed.
By
Mon. Dec. 3
p. 8:491-94 125-29
498- 503 136-141
By Wed.
Dec. 5
510-515 9:1-7
Relativism Questions
(see link, above. 11 questions).
By Fri.
Dec. 7
REVIEW
________________________________________________________________________________
Exam Schedule:
9:00 Section – Mon.,
Dec. 10, 7.45 a.m. 215 Hu.
11:00 -
Wed, Dec. 12 “ “
12:00
- Fri. Dec. 14 “ “
Review List for Midterm Exam
Terms (See Unit I and II terms
above)
Dates (Centuries)
Relativism
Thales, Anaximines, Heracleitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Protagoras, Gorgias,
Thrasymachus, Sophism, Anti-logic.
Socrates
Dialectic, Elenchus, Irony, Search for definitions,
Socratic ignorance,
the Nature of Moral disagreement, the relations
of religion to morality. The 3 things Socrates knows.
Socrates/Plato
Theory of Forms or Ideas, Plato’s rationalism.
The Cave allegory.
Theory of knowledge and Recollection.
Concept of Soul in Phaedo
Concept of Soul in Republic: Definition of Justice in
individual compared to justice in State.
Why should anyone be just? (Ring of Gyges)
Aristotle
The nature of explanation. Final causes and Teleology.
Idea of Aim of all actions, and," for its own sake"/ for sake
of something else" contrast.
Concept of Happiness (eudaimonia)-its
relation to function of humans .
Concept of Virtue, and of the mean
relative to oneself.
Upbringing, Training and practical wisdom.
Epicurus
Atomism
Hedonism and minimizing pain. (The importance of “mental” pains, such as fear of death).
Instrumental use of reason in ethics (contrast to Aristotle).
Following nature (contrast to Aristotle)
Tensions in trying to achieve ataraxia.
Epictetus
Happiness
and duty
Playing
ones role, fate.
Apatheia the ideal of non-attachment. What kind of “happiness” would that be?
Getting
rid of desire in Hellenistic philosophy.
Review
quizzes for mid-term
Quiz #1
1. Democritus does not contradict himself when he says “no-thing
exists” since he thinks of the void as real.
2. Democritus was a pluralist,
in contrast to Parmenides.
3. Democritus would say that if
a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear the noise, there is no
noise.
QZ 2
1. Plato argued that knowledge can be
acquired through the senses.
2. In the Phaedo Plato holds that the soul
(a)
can exist apart from the body
(b)
must have existed before birth
(c)
is by nature morally pure
(d)
all of these
QZ. 3.
1. Aristotle claims that all ideas about
what makes a life a good life are merely subjective.
2. The virtues are excellences of
character, and thus are what makes a good person good, according to Aristotle.
Qz 4
1.
Virtue, Aristotle argues,
(a)
is the result of a kind of training
(b)
involves having reasonable desires,
fears, and other emotions.
(c)
comes naturally
(d)
all of these
(e)
a and b.
2. On Aristotle’s account, a virtuous,
practically wise person, must be perceptive about particular circumstances.
3. Choice, on Aristotle’s account, is no
more than freedom of the will.
Qz 5.
1. Epicurus argued that it is more
important to accumulate pleasures than to avoid pains.
2. If we were unable to achieve knowledge,
that would be disturbing to us, and therefore painful, according to Epicurus.
3. One source of mental disturbance,
Epicurus claims, is false beliefs about the Gods.
True or False
1. Socrates was a sophist.
2. Some people thought Socrates was a sophist.
3. Relativism is often expressed by such remarks as ‘everyone has their own
lifestyle, and what is right for you may not be right for me.'
4. Gorgias was a sophist who compared persuasive speech to drugs.
5. The 5th century BCE in
6. Plato argued that there are no absolute rights and wrongs.
7. Aristotle tried to show that you could not have a good or happy life without
the virtues.
8. Parmenides gave arguments for the claim that reality is one, infinite and
eternal.
9. If relativism is correct then moral disagreements can only be resolved by
force or majority vote.
10. Patience is a mean between impatience and indifference to how things go.
11. Plato thought that ordinary empirical objects, such as a chair or a
tree, are fully real.
12. Plato thought that what is really real is the "form" of a
chair, "chairness itself" since only the form is eternal and
unchanging.
13. Heraclitus was so overwhelmed by the fact of constant change that the
universe seemed meaningless to him.
14. Socrates thought that bodily life and bodily desires corrupted the
soul and got in the way of true self development.
15. The concept of the self or human person in Plato is strongly
dualistic.
16. Epistemology is the attempt to answer such questions as "what is
knowledge?", and "is knowledge possible and if so under what
circumstances?"
17. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all lived in Athens Greece between the
middle of the 5th and the middle of the 4th century BCE, a time of great
cultural flourishing in that city.
18. Metaphysics is that part of philosophy which tries to answer such
questions as "what is really real?" "are there minds as well as
bodies?" etc.
Choose the BEST answer.
19. Pythagoras thought that
(A) you cannot count what is real
(B) what is real has a mathematical structure
(C) what is real does not count
(D) all of the above.
20. Plato's theory of forms is connected to
his theory
(A) about the soul
(B) about knowledge as recollection
(C) about knowledge as premonition
(D) a and b.
21. A practically rational person according to
Aristotle understands
(A) what is truly fearful
(B) how to control their appetites
(C) how to do geometry
(D) All of these
(E) A and B.
22. Aristotle tries to show that
(A) The virtues are dispositions to choose the mean relative
to oneself
( B) What is courageous for one person might be rash for
another
(C) wisdom is required for all the virtues
(D) all of the above.
23. Socrates tried to show Euthyphro that you could
not define ‘piety' as
(A) that which pleases the Gods
(B) that which pleases yourself
(C) that which your culture teaches
(D) none of these.
24. People chained up in Plato's "Cave"
illustrate or stand for people who
(A) think they can get real knowledge through the senses
(B) are taken in easily by rhetoric and popular opinion
(C) actually live in caves
(D) all of these
(E) A and B.
25. Plato's allegory of the cave is meant to
illustrate
(A) the ignorance which traps most people
(B) the unreality of the things that most people believe in
(C) the difficulty of escaping from ignorance and achieving knowledge
(D) all of these
26. Epicurus’ views on ethics affect his views about
(a) epistemology
(b) free will and determinism
(c) geography
(d) a and b.
27. Epicurus’s concern to achieve ataraxia affects his thinking about
(a) the Gods
(b) derivative entities
(c) the forms
(d) a and b.
28. Epicurus and Epictetus both
(a) belong to the Greco-Roman period
(b) think that attachment to material good promotes happiness
(c) consider pleasure to be a natural good
(d) none of these.
\
Study the following numbered quotes and
answer the questions which follow them.
#I "Well, but there is another thing, Simmias:
Is there or is there not an absolute justice?
Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
...
And he attains to the knowledge of them in their highest purity who goes
to each of them with the mind alone, not allowing...the intrusion ...of sight
or any other sense in the company of reason...he has got rid, as far as he can,
of eyes and ears and of the whole body, which he conceives of only as a
disturbing element, hindering the soul from the acquisition of
knowledge...?"
29. This quote is by
(A) an empiricist
(B) Protagoras
(C)Plato
(D)
30. The author of this quote is clearly
(A) a rationalist
(B)someone who believes that genuine knowledge comes through reason
alone, not through the senses
(C)someone who endorses some kind of body/soul dualism
(D)all of these.
#II This is making the weaker argument the stronger. And people were rightly annoyed at Protagoras' promise.
31. This quote alludes to the sophistical
practice of
(A) antilogic
(B) blaming the victim
(C) arguing in a way that made people question whether there was any
truth at all
(D) A and C.
32. Protagoras was
(A) a sophist
(B) a rationalist
(C) an absolutist
(D) none of these.
.#III . .each of us is the measure of the things which are and the things which are not. Nonetheless there is a difference between one person and another in just this respect: the things which both are and appear to one person are different from the things which are and appear to another person. I do not mean to say that there is no such thing as wisdom or a wise man, but I say that a wise man is one who can make what is and appears evil to any of us, appear and be good. . .Not that any one ever made another think truly, who previously thought falsely. For no one can think what is not, or think anything different from that which he feels; and this is always true.. .[what] the inexperienced call true, I maintain to be only better, and not truer than others. . .and the wise and good rhetoricians make the good instead of the evil to seem just to states; for whatever appears to a state to be just and fair, so long as it is regarded as such, is just and fair to it; but the wise one makes what seems and is beneficial replace the evil [which seemed beneficial to the state]. And in like manner the Sophist who is able to train his pupils in this spirit is a wise man, and deserves to be well paid by them. And so one man is wiser than another; and no one thinks falsely, and you, whether you will or not, must endure to be a measure. (166d- 167d)
33. This passage clearly expresses the views
of
(A)the sophists
(B) relativists
(C) thinkers like Protagoras and Gorgias
(D) all of the above
34. The argument being advanced in #III
(A) claims that although relativism is correct there still is such a
thing as wisdom
(B) tries to show that even though what you believe is true for you and
what I believe is true for me, it might be the case that you can change my mind
by getting me to see that what is you believe is more beneficial
(C) assumes a standard for what is beneficial which is not relativistic
(D) is not consistent
(E) all of the above
#IV It follows that the good of human beings is an activity of soul [ or a course of action] in accordance with [human beings'] proper excellence or virtue or if there are more virtues than one, in accordance with the best and most complete virtue. But it is necessary to add the words "in a complete life." For as one swallow or one day does not make a spring, so one day or a short time does not make a blessed or happy man.
35. The author of #IV is claiming that
(A) the ultimate good at which all humans aim is a certain
kind of active life
(B) the good for humans is a matter of excellent action of
the sort proper to humans
(C) that you should not swallow more than once a day
(D) A and B
36. The "proper excellence" of human
beings according to the author of IV is
(A) living according to reason
(B) that characteristic or those characteristics which
enable(s) humans to function optimally
(C) that strength or virtue which enables a person to
achieve happiness
(D) all of the above.
#V "Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer. "
37. The author of #V is trying to show that
(A)death should not be feared
(B) we should be able to enjoy life even though death comes at the end
(C) what most people consider a great evil is really nothing
(D) all of these
3 8. The author of #V obviously
(A)does not believe in any kind of immortality (heaven or hell)
(B) is worried about whether he will go to heaven
(C) is not Plato
(D) is Epicurus.
(E) A, C and D
#VI“However, he who fails to obtain the object of
his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion
wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are
contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own
control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are
averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove
aversion, then, from all things that are not in our control, and transfer it to
things contrary to the nature of what is in our control. But, for the present,
totally suppress desire: for, if you desire any of the things which are not in
your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are,
and which it would be laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession.
Use only the appropriate actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these
lightly, and with gentleness and reservation.
39. The Author of #VI is expressing views which
(A) are similar in some respects to some Christian views
(B) belong to a broadly Socratic tradition where the focus is on personal
self-control
(C) Hugh Heffner would certainly endorse
(D) A and B.
40. The views expressed in #VI are
(A) those of Epictetus
(B) those of Hume
(C) those of a Stoic
(D) A and C
T or F
1. If I disagree with you about what is moral or immoral, I must be an
intolerant person.
2. If I am a tolerant person, then I MUST disagree with those I tolerate.
3. If ‘we must learn to accept our differences' means that we should
never criticize or judge those who are different, then we should accept Nazis
who want to exterminate communists, Jews and handicapped people.
4. The fact that some Germanic tribes may have considered theft morally OK
might be due to
(A)unusual environmental circumstances
(B) culture-wide moral deterioration
(C) an abundance of personal property
(D) none of these
5. Augustine thought that what is right for one group of people, might be
wrong for a different group. Therefore
(A) Augustine was a relativist
(B) Augustine believed that different people deserve different things,
in accordance with universal principles of desert
(C) He must have been confused
(D) A and B.
6. "We must learn to accept our differences" is not obviously
false if it is taken to mean that
(A) we should never judge anyone negatively no matter in what respect
they are different from us
(B) we should respect people even when we think they are wrong and are
trying to get them to change
(C) what each person or group believes is right for them, so we must
accept them
(D) all of the above.
7. Many differences which appear to be differences in morality can be traced
to
(A) differences in religious or metaphysical beliefs
(B) differences in physical circumstances
(C) differences in moral context
(D) all of these
key
Remarks
on (Moral) Relativism, Accepting Differences, Tolerance and Related Topics.
Relativism
Relativism is the idea that there are no absolute standards of conduct or character for human beings. Some action, or trait, (usually the former) could be right or virtuous for one person or culture or society and wrong or vicious for another person or culture or society, even though there is no morally relevant difference between them. For example, it might be right in one society to kill handicapped infants, and wrong in another society, even though there is no special difference between them that would explain these opposing norms. The relativist claims that “that is just the way it is, there is no basis for saying that one of these societies is immoral or wrong; all we can say is that they differ.”
Relativist ideas or approaches to ethics gets expressed in many ways; for example, it is sometimes said that what is "true for me" might not be "true for you" (even when there is no morally relevant difference between us), or that it is never right to “judge” those who are “different” or that everyone should be able to “do their own thing.”
What arguments can be given for thinking relativism is correct? Perhaps the most common one goes like this:
1. People (cultures, societies) differ in their views over what is right and what is wrong.
2. Therefore, there is no absolute right or wrong, or, morality is just a matter of opinion
That argument is worthless. It is strictly analogous to the following worthless argument:
1. People (cultures, societies) differ over the shape of the earth (some think it is flat, for instance)
2. Therefore there is no absolute right or wrong regarding the shape of the earth; it is just a matter of opinion.
It is certainly true that people
(societies, cultures) disagree with one another, to some extent, respecting
right and wrong. But it is a mistake to suppose that the differences themselves
entail or prove relativism, as the preceding argument should show.. (Question
1. Say why)
The following are some purported examples of "moral" differences between people or societies or cultures:
1. Some Hindus have thought that it is right to burn widows alive on the
funeral pyres of their husbands, whereas all Christians would think that wrong.
2. Aztecs generally thought that it was right, even necessary, to take selected
captives and slowly slash them to death, the longer the agony, the better,
whereas most people now would think that a terrible thing to do.
3. The Japanese bushido code stipulated that the proper test for the
sharpness of a warrior's sword was to cleave a stranger in two in one blow. If
it took more than one blow the sword was not sharp enough and the warrior had
failed in his duty to keep his sword sharp at all times. Most people now
would think such a practice morally vicious and absolutely inexcusable.
4. Some African tribes still think it is right, and even necessary, to
perform clitorectomies on young women, whereas virtually everyone in western
societies would think that to be vicious and cruel.
5. Augustine claimed that it might be right in one situation to have a
dictator, but not right in others.
6. Aquinas argued that it would generally be morally required to return
borrowed property, but sometimes, for certain people, it would be wrong.
7. Desert Arabs would consider it immoral for a person to use up huge amounts
of water for such purposes as daily washing down a car (or a camel for that
matter), whereas no one would think that immoral in
8. The ancient Romans thought that is was morally OK to
"expose" defective infants, e.g. take a little child with a defective
leg and throw him or her over a cliff. Most people now would think that
wrong and vicious (though there are notable exceptions!).
9. Aquinas reports Julius Ceasar as claiming that some Germanic tribes
did not think theft was wrong, whereas nearly all people at all times in
history have thought it was..
10. Some people now think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong,
while others think that the people who think that are themselves immoral, or
perhaps mentally ill.
11. Many people in the old south thought that slavery was morally
permissible, whereas hardly anyone thinks that now.
12. Some people now think it is OK to embezzle from large
prosperous firms, whereas others think it clearly wrong.
13. Some students think it is OK to cheat on exams (or so they claim),
while others think it wrong.
As already pointed out, no such differences prove relativism, and it is foolish to think they do. But do some of them at least constitute a kind of evidence for it, or confer some probability upon relativist claims?
Let's begin thinking about this by looking at 1,2,3 and 4. In all of
these cases the purported "moral" differences are rooted in varying
conceptions of nature and the Gods or other deep cultural differences.
For example, the Aztecs may have thought that the sun only rose as a result of
sacrifices made by the Gods themselves on behalf of humans, and that humans had
to respond by maintaining a constant flow of blood, otherwise the Gods would respond
very negatively to their lack of gratitude; in particular, the sun would not
rise. It is quite possible that if they had not had those particular non-moral
beliefs, they would have thought of the sacrifice of innocent people as
inexcusably cruel. So there is some question as to just how great the moral difference between them and (most
of) us really is. Similar considerations apply to 1,3 and 4. It is
possible that differences respecting 10 fall into this same category.
Call this "Category I." In category I, what appear to be
moral differences can be traced to varying conceptions of such things as the
Gods, the order of nature, etc. Perhaps such differences do amount to moral differences, but it is not obvious that they do.
Now consider 5, 6, and 7. In each of these cases the purportedly moral difference is very likely not a moral difference at all, but a difference in circumstances. This is so obvious in the case of 7 that it should not need explaining. Students in Phil. 110 should know what to say about 5 and 6 (question 2 requires you to say it).. Call this class of cases "Category II." Category II differences are traceable to such factors as different physical circumstances, unusual circumstances of other sorts, or in some cases differences that are themselves the result of other moral differences (so it is a pretty mixed bag).
What about 8-13? Regarding #9, Aquinas
remarks of the Germanic tribes in question that they had simply become morally
corrupt en masse. There are extremely good reasons for thinking such a
thing possible. (A case like that which sets the stage for les Miserables
in which a man steals food for his starving children, and accepts his
punishment as just, would NOT figure into those reasons. Why not? What should
we say about it then?(question 3 requires answers to these questions).
Similar remarks may well apply to 8 and 11-13. The beliefs described there are
arguably simply the beliefs of people who are morally corrupt or have become
morally desensitized. (Anyone who thinks that it is not possible to
become morally desensitized needs to read the newspapers). Let us call the
differences in this class "Category III" differences. Category III
differences are traceable to the fact that some people are deeply corrupted morally,
or desensitized to an important range of moral considerations, or are
constrained in their thinking by previous immoral acts or ways of
thinking. 10 provides a particular sort of case. People may differ on
whether 10 belongs in Category I, II or III. Arguments could be given for
locating it in any of them. (Question 4 asks you to say what some of
those arguments might be.)
In general, disputes can break out respecting how to
classify some of the differences which I have divided up into these three
categories. Some people have argued that slavery in the old south was a deeply
ingrained part of a culture (and thus in some sense did not imply general moral
corruption in the white populace), in somewhat the way human sacrifice was
deeply ingrained in Aztec culture. Many people would want to place #3 in
category III. And so forth. There is room for plenty of argument on these
matters, but argument is relevant and there are very few people who really
believe that it is not (prove that!) (question 5 requires that
proof). Those who do not believe argument is pertinent are the real, as
opposed to the superficial knee-jerk type, relativists.
One thing that emerges from a consideration of such
cases is that there may in fact be much less in the way of actual moral
disagreement between people than relativists commonly suppose. It may be
possible to explain away all those disagreements belonging in Categories I and
II , i.e. show that they are not real moral
differences. The category III cases can be explained in various ways, but the
relativist cannot rule out explaining them this way: some people are just
immoral, and that is why their beliefs differ from the beliefs of some other,
moral, people. If he rules that out he begs the question in favor of his own view.
I.e. he just assumes his position (namely that there are no morally
right views) is the right one, rather than giving reasons for believing it is
the right one.
ACCEPTING DIFFERENCES and MULTICULTURALISM
The preceding section should make it clear why the notion of accepting
differences can easily become pernicious. Clearly not all differences
should be accepted. But which ones should be accepted and which should
not? That needs discussion. Unfortunately people tend to deny there could be
any point to such discussions, because they have been brought up in a
pseudo-genial relativist culture in which they are constantly exhorted to
" accept one another's differences" but virtually never told that
some differences should not be accepted, and that which ones should or should
not needs to be kept open as a matter for discussion. Someone might
claim that no one would infer from such exhortations as “we should all accept
our differences” that we should accept as just "different" Nazis who
have been conditioned by a whole, long standing culture, to think it is OK to
gas Jews en masse. Unfortunately, people DO make such an
inference. One student in a Phil. 110 class, fall ‘99, actually explicitly made
that very inference.
It is, though, very difficult to be a consistent
"accepter" of differences. It is comical to observe people who
are extremely emphatic about the importance of accepting differences but who
also get very heated up morally about, say, cases like 4. Nonetheless
some anthropologists and others inclined towards relativism do try to be
perfectly consistent “accepters of differences.” That is why some anthropologists have claimed
that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it is claimed that
there are many moral norms that apply to all
people and all cultures or societies,
is merely a product of white male western imperialist ethnocentrism. The
rights and duties the Declaration enumerates are not really universal they say, and those who think
they are have not learned to accept differences.
Accepting people who are "different" might
be interpreted to mean simply accepting people who are different with respect
to race, religion, intelligence, looks, social graces or the lack
thereof. That seems OK till you start thinking about Aztec religion(2) or
the aforementioned feature of Hinduism(1). Or, accepting people who are
"different" might be interpreted to mean "continuing to
believe in the dignity and worth of all people, even those who are wrong,
immoral, etc." That might be a good thing. But it is hardly
ever what people mean, judging by other things that are said and done (such as
what? Question 6 requires you to answer that).
It is worth noticing that so called “multiculturalism” often encourages the idea that one must accept or be “open to” all the beliefs and customs of people who are “different,” and even have a positive attitude towards such differences. Give an example from the discussion above that shows how implausible such a view must be. (Question 7)
TOLERANCE
It is amazing that people
who know the English language are so confused about tolerance. Tolerance is
often equated with "acceptance." But if I accept what you believe (in
the sense of agreeing with it, or being indifferent towards it), then I cannot
"tolerate" you or your beliefs. (Why not?Question 8 requires
an answer to this) It is necessary for genuine, morally worthy tolerance
that I actually disagree with those I tolerate, think them wrong, and, often,
think it necessary to argue with them in the attempt to show them that they are
wrong. One should not tolerate the burning of widows or the holding of slaves.
One probably should tolerate those
with differing religious beliefs (depending upon what behavior those beliefs
involve) even though one disagrees with those beliefs. But in either kind of
case you might have to look for a respectful and nuanced way of expressing your
disagreement. That would make tolerance a matter of style, so to speak. But the
notion that tolerance, in a substantive sense, is always a good thing is
manifestly false. The notion that we should respect other people simply
because they are fellow human beings is, on the other hand, something that can
be argued (cf. Kant). These two things, tolerance and respect, are by no
means equivalent. There is a sense in which we should respect even an axe
murderer. He should not be treated like dirt, like a mere animal. But we
certainly should not tolerate axe murderers.
PROBLEMS WITH RELATIVISM
1. General
relativism must deal with “Obvious man.”
2. If
relativism were correct there could not be such a thing as moral progress (why
not? Question 9 requires an answer
to that question).
3. If
relativism were correct there could not be such a thing as moral criticism, of
oneself or of others. (why not? Question 10 requires an answer to that
question. Remember that the first
interpretation of the sophist Protagoras is that each person is the measure, or
standard, for himself.)
4. If relativism were correct, moral advice would be impossible (why? Question 11 requires an answer to that question).
The following questions have been raised in the preceding discussion, and should be answered and handed in under the title "Relativism Questions."
Relativism Questions (Use YOUR OWN WORDS. Not MY words.)
1. Why does the mere fact that people sometimes disagree with each other about moral matters NOT in itself prove relativism (relativism being the belief that ‘what is true for you is true for you, what is true for me is true for me" and other such stuff). In answering this question, give one clear counter-examples to the claim that differences in belief are in themselves a reason for accepting relativism.
2. How does what Augustine says about forms of government, and what Aquinas says about returning borrowed goods, show that the moral differences they point out belong in Category II. (Category II differences are differences based upon differences in particular circumstances or situations.)
3. Why should we NOT say that the theft committed by Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is like the sort of thievery attributed to the Germans by Julius Ceasar? \ a. Take into account what Aquinas says about the Germans, and give reasons for thinking that what he says does NOT apply to Jean Valjean.
b. What does this have to do with relativism?
4. Give arguments for locating the moral disagreement mentioned in 10 above in Category I, Category II, and Category III. Which seems the most plausible to you? Explain.
5. (A)Give some reasons for thinking that very few
people actually believe that argument is not relevant in resolving moral
disagreements. Illustrate, and give an example of how a moral disagreement
might be resolved by argument.
(B) Even though many people talk like relativists, a REAL
relativist would be someone who thought argument is pointless when it comes to
moral disagreements. Explain why.
6. "We must learn to accept our differences" could mean "we must believe in the dignity and worth of all people, even those who are wrong, vicious, immoral, etc." However, judging by things that are commonly said and done, that is NOT what most people who say such things have in mind. What might some of those common sayings that show that is not what they mean?
7. Give an example to show how implausible it is to suppose that I should always appreciate or approve of differences between my culture or traditions and the culture or traditions of those who are “outside” my own culture.
8. I cannot tolerate you or your beliefs if I agree with them, or do not care one way or the other about them. Why?
9. Suppose someone thought that the elimination of slavery amounted to moral progress. Give another example of what seems like obvious moral progress. Why would a moral relativist have to disagree with the claim that either of these are in fact examples of moral progress?
10. (a) Give an example of moral self criticism. Then explain why such criticism should not be taken seriously, if we take the first interpretation of Protagoras’s relativism. (b.) Give an example of moral criticism of someone from another culture which seems justified to you. Explain why a relativist could not accept such criticism.
11. Describe a case of moral advice that you have received and one you have given. Then explain why such advice could not make sense to an individual relativist.
T or F
1. The sophists were generally relativists.
2. Aquinas was a relativist since he thought that sometimes borrowed
property should not be returned.
3. Descartes, like Plato, was an empiricist.
4. Empiricists believe that we could not come to know anything without
innate ideas.
5. Philosophers in the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition have tended to
favor teleological explanations.
6. Descartes thought that there was absolutely nothing we could be
absolutely sure of.
7. Locke argued that children do not understand that it is not possible
for a thing both to be and not to be.
8. Locke confuses knowing something with being able to formulate it.
9. Pascal thought belief in God is a good bet since there is a lot of
evidence that God exists.
10. The reformation in the 16th century broke apart the church and
challenged traditional religious authority.
11. Galileo lived in the 19th century CE
12. Augustine thought that disordered desire brings punishments only in
the after-life.
13. When Aristotle says virtue consists in choosing the mean, he shows
that being a mean person is a virtue.
14. Plato was a relativist.
15. Plato thought that all truth, including moral truth, was rooted in
the forms and above all in the highest form, the form of the good.
16. Hume argued that inquiry should be limited to investigations of matters of fact and relations of ideas.
17. Aquinas held the view that the use of reason, unaided by revelation, could establish the existence of God
18. Anselm formulated an argument called the “ontological argument.”
19. Augustine lived before Descartes and after Aquinas.
20. Hume lived during the enlightenment.
Multiple choice
21. Epicurus advocated
(A) a life of unrestrained pleasure seeking
(B) a life lived rationally so as to avoid pain
(C) a life lived in strict obedience to moral norms
(D) all of these.
22. Epictetus and other Stoics
emphasized
a. the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure
b. the performance of duty
c. accepting whatever fate hands us
d. none of these
e. b and c.
23. Socrates argued that
a. it is impossible to know anything
b. the unexamined life is not worth living
c. the examined life is not worth living
d. all of these.
24. When Galileo finds an apparent conflict
between demonstrative reason and faith
(A) he adjusts faith to reason through allegorical or non-literal
interpretation
(B) he adjusts reason to faith
(C) he buries his head in the sand
(D) none of these.
25. If I do not tolerate every kind of diversity or “difference” then I
am
(A) necessarily a bigot
(B) possibly morally discerning
(C) a white male European chauvinist pig
(D) A and C.
26.The following are characteristic of the renaissance era:
(a)a revival of classical learning (humanism)
(b)the rise of a new science and astronomy
(c)widespread rejection of the teaching authority of the Catholic church
and a stress on individual conscience
(d)all of these.
27. Descartes argued that the senses are not a reliable source of
knowledge since
(a)they have often misled us
(b)we are subject to sensory illusions and delusions
(c)they are not sensible things
(d)all of these
(e)a and b.
28. Aristotle views the purpose for which something is done or happens as
its
(a)formal cause
(b)efficient cause
(c)final cause
(d)all of these
29.The following are among the reasons Descartes thinks you cannot coherently
doubt that you exist
(a)your body is solid and fills up space
(b)it is clearly taught in the Bible that we do exist
(c)if you tried to doubt whether you exist the doubting itself would
prove you do exist, since you have to exist to doubt
(d)all of the above
30. One of the most important developments in the modern era was
(a) the rejection, by the new scientists, of teleological explanations
(b)the tendency to view the universe as a vast machine
(c)almost exclusive reliance on what Aristotle would have called
"efficient cause" explanations
(d)all of these.
31. ____________________is the theory that there is only one basic kind of
substance or reality
(a)dualism
(b)millenarianism
(c)monism
(d)pluralism
32. According to many of the sophists
(a)might makes right
(b)right makes might
(c)absolute power corrupts absolutely
(d) a few very basic values are not relative.
33.Augustine argued that the law governing the earthly city
(A) must conform perfectly to the law of the heavenly city
(B) is sometimes designed to prevent worse evils in a fallen world
(C) should allow people to indulge themselves
(D) A and C.
34.The Aristotelian idea of a "final cause" is the idea of
(a)an explanation in terms of goals or purposes
(b)the last thing to bang into or cause another thing to move
(c)that for the sake of which something moves or changes
(d) a and c.
35.According to Aquinas natural law
(a)is a subset of eternal law
(b)is knowable by reason apart from revelation
(c)covers all inner intentions and thoughts as well as external acts
(d)a and b
(e) a and c.
36. The following are true;
(a) Aristotle lived before Protagoras
(b)Aquinas lived before Anselm
(c)Descartes lived after Hume
(d)none of these
(e)all of these
37. The following are true:
(a)the protestant reformation preceded the founding of the American
colonies
(b)Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm were all medieval Christians
(c)the protestant reformation came after the people mentioned in (b)
(d)Descartes, Locke, and Hume all lived in the modern era (1500 -
present)
(e) all of the above
38. The rise of the new science in the modern era crucially involved
a. the rejection of teleological reasoning
b. the rejection of explanations in terms of Aristotelian final causes
c. the rejection of explanations of natural phenomena in terms of purposes being pursued
d. all of the above.
39. During the medieval era many philosophers focused their attention on
a. proving the existence of God
b. proving the existence of the Forms
c. proving that the existence of evil is consistent with the existence of an all-good God
d. all of these.
e. a and c.
40. Hume’s views on morality
a. are relativistic
b. are Platonist
c. reflect typical 18th century disputes about the role of reason and sentiment in morality
d. all of these.
Study the following quotes and answer
the questions which follow:
#I And if any of the learned be
inclined, from their natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small
tincture of Pyrrhonism might
abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which they may
have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared with the
universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human nature. In
general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all
kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner.
41. This quote is from
a. Hume
b. Plato
c. Epictetus
d. Parmenides
42. The author of this quote thinks that
a. skepticism has some value
b. very educated people should not be to cocky or sure that they really know what they think they know
c. it is part of human nature to be confused and uncertain
d. all of these.
#II "It is now
many years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my
earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since
constructed on this basis. . .I was convinced that I must. . .build anew from
the foundation if I wanted to establish any firm and permanent structure in the
sciences.. ."
43. The author of #II is obviously
(a)inclined to accept things on authority
(b)inclined to doubt everything not firmly established
(c)self-critical
(d)b and c
44.The concern for a firm foundation for knowledge expressed in #II, and the
hope of finding such a foundation, is typical of
(a) Thales
(b)Aristotle
(c)Descartes
(d)none of these.
#III "A
human being is the measure of all things; of the things that are, that they
are, and of the things that are not, that they are not. "
45. This famous statement was made by
(A) Protagoras
(B) a sophist
(C) a relativist
(D) all of the above.
46. The "measure" mentioned in the quote could include such
things as
(A)standards of ethical conduct
(B)standards for judging how something tastes or smells
(C) standards for determining what is true or false in general
(D) all of these
#IV Hence there
remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is
something which cannot have proceeded from me myself. By the name God I
understand a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing,
all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does
exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more
diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from
me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God
necessarily exists.
47. The author of #IV is
(A)proving the non-existence of God
(B) using external facts about nature to prove that there must be a God
(C) arguing that only God could have produced in me the idea of God
(D) all of these
48. The author of #IV
(A) argues that I could not have simply imagined the idea of God
(B) argues like a rationalist, since he does not appeal to empirical
experience
(C) argues the way you would expect Descartes to argue
(D) all of these.
#V. But what then am
I? A thing which thinks. What is a thing which thinks? It is a thing which
doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also
imagines and feels.
49. According to the account of "thinking" in #V
(A) the sensation of a tickle in my toe would count as
"thinking"
(B) thinking would be identical with a brain activity
(C) thinking would be impossible
(D) none of these
50. The author of #V
(A) thinks that "I" am essentially a body joined to a soul
(B) is Descartes
(C) argues that thinking always involves denying something
(D) all of these.
#VI. ". .
. since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose
every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater
annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures
when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a
greater pleasure."
51. This quote is probably by
(a)a hedonist
(b)Plato
(c)Kant
(d)Epicurus
(e)a and d.
52. The author of #VI is arguing that
(a)you should eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die
(b)you should try to get an overall balance of pleasure over pain
(c)you should try to avoid all pain
(d)all of these.
#VII "Well, but
there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not
an absolute justice?
Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?
Certainly not.
Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? (and I speak not
of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the
essence or true nature of everything). Has the reality of them ever been
perceived by you through the bodily organs?or rather, is not the nearest
approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders
his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of
that which he considers?
Certainly.
53. This is obviously from
(a) a fragment of Locke
(b)Thales
(c)a Platonic dialogue
(d)Mortimer Snerd
54. The claims made in this quote clearly align the author with
(a)rationalism
(b)Cartesian ideas about knowledge
(c)the Platonic theory of forms
(d)all of these
(e)a and c.
#VIII "There is
nothing more commonly taken for granted than that there are certain principles.
. .which the souls of people receive in their first beings, and which they
bring into the world with them. . .but yet there are a great part of humanity
to whom they are not so much as known. . .[such as] all children and idiots. .
.whence [it follows that] there are no such impressions."
55.. This passage clearly is part of an argument against
(a) the theory of innate ideas
(b)the theory that we are born with certain basic principles already in
the understanding
(c)empiricism
(d)a and b.
56. The author of this passage is undoubtedly
(a)an empiricist
(b)a rationalist
(c)a Platonist
(d)British
(e) a and d.
IX Every art and
every scientific inquiry, and similarly every action and purpose, may be said
to aim at some good. Hence the good has been well defined as that at which all
things aim.
57. This passage is
a. the beginning of Aristotle’s ethics
b. the beginning of Descartes’ ethics
c. the beginning of a scientific inquiry
d. none of these.
58. This quote is
a. full of teleological terminology
b. the sort of thing one might expect from Hume
c. empiricist in nature
d. all of these.
#X “. . . suppose that God foreknew that the first human being was going to
sin. Anyone who admits, as I do, that God foreknows everything in the future
will have to grant me that.. . . since God foreknew that he was going to sin,
his sin necessarily had to happen. How, then, is the will free when such
inescapable necessity is found in it?”
59. The problem under discussion in #X is
(A) the problem of God’s foreknowledge and free will
(B) the problem of evil
(C) a problem typically discussed by ancient and hellenistic philosophy
(D) all of these
60. Augustine argues that the problem presented in #X can be solved by pointing
out that
(A) knowing ahead of time that E will happen does not itself MAKE E
happen
(B) what God foreknows is that people will do certain things which are
within their own power
(C) together with B, when what people do what is within their own power,
their will is free
(D) all of these.
1. F
2. D
Q. 3
1. F
2. T
Q. 4
1. E
2. T
3. F
Q. 5
1. F
2. T
3.T
Quiz #2
1. D
2. F
3. T
4. T
Sample Exam I
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. T
9.T
10. T
11. F
12. T
13. F
14. T
15. T
16. T
17. T
18. T
19. B
20 D
21. E
22. D
23. A
24. E
25. D
26. D
27. D
28. A
29. C
30. D
31. D
32. A
33. D
34. E
35. D
36. D
37. D
38. E
39. D
40. D
Sample Exam II Key
1.t
2.t
3.f
4.f
5.f
6.f
7.f
8.t
9.t
10.f
11.f
12.f
13.f
14.f
15.t
16.b
17.b
18.d
19.d
20.d
21.d
22.e
23.d
24.e
25.d
26.b
27. d
28. d
29. a
30. d
31. d
32. d
|
1.T |
28..C |
|
2. F |
29.C |
|
3.F |
30. D |
|
4.F |
31.C |
|
5. T |
32. A |
|
6. F |
33. B |
|
7. T |
34. D |
|
8.T |
35. D |
|
9. F |
36. D |
|
10.T |
37. E |
|
11.F |
38.D |
|
12.F |
39. E |
|
13.F. |
40.C |
|
14.F |
41.A |
|
15.T |
42.D |
|
16.T |
43.D |
|
.17.T |
44. C |
|
18.T |
45. D |
|
19 F |
46.D |
|
20.T |
47. C |
|
.21. B |
48. D |
|
22. E |
49. A |
|
23.B |
50. B 51. E |
|
24.A |
52. B |
|
25. B |
53. C |
|
26.D |
54. E |
|
27.E |
55. D 56. E 57. A 58. A 59. A 60. D |
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. B
5. B
6. B
I. Requirements, grading, exams, etc.
A. Features of the
text: Time Line (xvii – xxiv)
Glossary:
(697-703)
B. Philo sophy. Science=Knowledge=wisdom. (epistemology). Search for reality beneath
(beyond) appearances (metaphysics).
1. What is real? God? Atoms?
Chemical substances? Moral norms?
2.
What is permanent? In nature? In human life? In religion?
3.
What is worth living for (or, what makes life worth living, or isn’t it)?
Intellectual, scientific, moral,
religious, TRADITIONS and History. LEARN it!
-----------------------------------------------------
Choose A or B, and say WHY:
The changes
we observe (e.g. shorter days,
rust on the
fender) are understandable in terms of
EITHER
A. “Nature” (a underlying stuff, or a process,
or natural forces, or some sort of natural order )
OR
B. The actions of governance of God or
Gods.
B. Homer (dates?) and Hesiod (dates?)
1.
Explanations in terms of “Gods” (do YOU do that?)
[1] Sing, O goddess, the anger [męnis] of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul [psukhę] did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs
[5] and vultures, for so was the will of Zeus fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another. And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel? It was the son of Zeus and Leto; for he was angry with the king
[10] and sent a pestilence upon the host to plague the people, because the son of Atreus had dishonored Chryses his priest. Now Chryses had come to the ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, and had brought with him a great ransom: moreover he bore in his hand the scepter of Apollo wreathed with a suppliant's wreath
[15] and he besought the Achaeans, but most of all the two sons of Atreus, who were their chiefs. "Sons of Atreus," he cried, "and all other Achaeans, may the gods who dwell in Olympus grant you to sack the city of Priam, and to reach your homes in safety;
[20] but free my daughter, and accept a ransom for her, in reverence to Apollo, son of Zeus." On this the rest of the Achaeans with one voice were for respecting the priest and taking the ransom that he offered; but not so Agamemnon,
Apollo (apollonian)
2. Hesiod: Explanations in terms of impersonal principles?
Hesiod on “gaia”
etc. “Theo gony.” 
In truth at first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the
ever-sure foundation of all4
the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus,
and dim Tartarus
in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, [120] and Eros
(Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes
the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came
forth Erebus
and black Night; but of Night were born Aether5
and Day, [125] whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus.
And Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every
side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods.
I)
Ancient Greek Philosophy: The PreSocratics.
A) Reason in search of understanding. “Making sense of it all”
1)
Understanding
“what is real” (*Metaphysics), understanding God(s), understanding change, that is, making it
intelligible, perhaps in terms of something Permanent. Unity VS variety.
B) The *one over the many (e.g. Thales, Anaximines).
1)
“Making
Sense” =being able to “unify data” in the search for “scientific
understanding” (the unity of science).
2)
Thales
(600 BCE)– Making sense in terms of “stuff.” The “one” is water. Primitive
chemistry?
3)
Anaximines
(580 BCE) - Making sense by showing how qualitatively different things are the
result of quantitative variation in ONE substance, i.e. AIR. Condense it. Spread it out (rarefaction).
Change initiated by cold and heat, moisture and motion. Cf. q. 10.
Fire, Air, water, earth. N.B. Thales and
Anaximines are “MONISTS” of a certain kind. “Stuff” monists. Only ONE stuff is
fundamental.
PLURALISTS claim that there is more than
one fundamental stuff. Example: Empedocles.
The Milesians are
unclear about what gets change going.
C)
Change
vs. Permanence (Heraclitus vs. Parmenides)
1)
The one as “permanent substrate” vs.
“process.”
2)
Heraclitus – the “dark”
a. Change is everywhere. “Everything
flows.” “You cannot step into the same
river twice.” The “religious” (human)
yearning for permanence (cf. Trip to
Bountiful).
b. What makes it the “same” river?
Structure. The *LOGOS. A central concept.
Means “word”, “structure” , “account”, “explanatory principle”
c. Images (?) for the logos. Fire. Ordered process vs. stuff (cf. Thales).
d. *nomos
and logos. Human law and divine
order.
3. Permanence, Change, and Rationalism.
a. *Rationalism. The use of “reasoning” or logic
(dialectic) to reach truth.
b. . Two basic assumptions of rationalism
1. the senses are worthless as a source of real
knowledge. A basic position in “epistemology.”
2. Only what is thinkable is real.
c. Epistemology (rationalism, empiricism,) and
metaphysics; Different epistemologies produce different metaphysics.
4. for example, Parmenides of Elea (500-450 BC)
a. Logic shows that there is only one reality,
eternal, infinite! there is no change! (*Eleatic philosophy).
(ii) Basic strategy: it is impossible to “think
nothing” or “think what is not”
(iii) Thus, There is only one reality: why? If
there were two, R1 and R2, in order to think R1, one would have to think it as
“not R2.” But, one cannot think what is not.
(iv) It is infinite: Suppose the “one” were
finite. What would the problem be?
(v) Parmenides and religious mysticism.
5.
Zeno (475 BCE): more proofs for the Eleatic way: Achilles and the
Tortoise. To catch up, Achilles must go
half the distance.
And so?
Note again: different epistemologies,
different metaphysics.
D. Reality and Mathematics
|
Oversat: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Reality is
numbers! (Pythagoras. 550 BCE. The brotherhood and beans. Pythagoreanism)
a.
Music and metaphysics. Sounds can be thought of as ratios. E. g. a note and its
octave can be expressed as 1:2. A note
and its fourth (4 steps above it) can be expressed as 1:3.
b.
The most “beautiful and harmonious intervals” are the most basic. Octave,
fourth, fifth. (cf. the 12 bar blues!).
The Tetractys. The universe is a “cosmos” (cf. “cosmetic”, cosmology,
cosmopolitan).
c.
*Pythagoreanism, mysticism, and modern mathematical physics.
Summary: Pre Socratic Greek
“Science.” Reason, Experience, and the rejection or modification of mythical
explanations. Religious vision and Reason in tension. Science, wisdom, reason,
experience. Physis and nomos.
E. Sophism and Relativism
1.
The Sophists. Gorgias. Protagoras
a.
“drugging” the mind. Examples
2.
3.
Relativism
a.
Relativism and cosmopolitanism. Xenophanes, Gorgias, Protagoras.
b.
relativism about the gods; about morals.
F. Socrates. (as seen by Plato).
1. five
traits.
a.
elenchus (the Euthyphro) –
i.
Piety (rightness, good action) is what the Gods approve (impiety is what they
disapprove).
ii.
Some Gods approve of action X, some approve of not-X.
iii. therefore ??
(finish the argument)
b.
dialectic
c.
irony
d.
ignorance
e.
search for definitions
2. The
Euthyphro dilemma.
a.
Either (i)what is right (pious) is so because the Gods approve it, or,
(ii)the
Gods approve of what is right because it is right.
Both
(i) and ii) seem unacceptable.
Why?
Solution:
divorce religion and ethics?
3. Socrates DOES claim to know certain things.
For example,
a.
Virtue and Knowledge. =?
Do vicious people “know” what they are doing?
Socrates’
argument:
i.
nothing is profitable without wisdom (knowledge)
ii.
virtue is profitable
iii.
virtue includes (or is) wisdom.
b.
True harm (real injury)=
c.
The unexamined life is
d.
Socrates as gadfly.
G. Rationalism, idealism. Plato
and the “forms.”
1. The
“semantic” argument for the existence of forms.
a.
one word – one meaning.
2. Forms are
3.
Rationalism, Dualism, Immortality, Recollection and the Forms.
a. The senses, the “body” and
knowledge.
i.
“Body” includes a moral dimension.
ii.
The senses cannot account for possession of concepts. Cf. the concept
“equality” and the two pencils
example.
iii.
The sense cannot operate without concepts. Therefore, the concepts needed could
not be derived from sense experience.
iv.
possession of concepts presupposes familiarity with forms.
4.
Justice, the soul, straining for the truth.
a.
The cave. An allegory illustrating the confusion and general intellectual/moral
degradation of most people.
b.
The form of the GOOD. (like “God”?).
There is something beyond this world, that provides a basis for all that
exists, and grounds moral value.
a.
has a theological sound.
5. Why be
just (honest, fair, etc.)?
a.
The ring of Gyges. Does justice “pay?”
b.
Contemporary examples.
c.
“Body heat.”
IV. Ancient Greek Philosophy: Aristotle
life, background, style.
The
A. Physics – physis=nature. An inquiry into change (cf. pre-Socratics).
Making “nature” intelligible.
1. (“Unnatural” things can also change and
those changes can be explained. But, consider changes in artifacts that occur
naturally – the coat that rots or gets musty in certain environments. Those are
the special concern of “physics.”
2. The
Four “CAUSES.” Explanations of change are answers to “why” questions. Why is
the coat musty smelling?
a. There are four different KINDS of “why”
questions. The answers to them cite “causes” in Aristotle’s special sense.
i. formal cause – “why do the interior
angles of a triangle = 180 degrees?” The
answer states the “form” or essence or definition of ‘triangle.’ (This actually does not describe a change in
anything).
ii. efficient cause – “why is the tree on
top of my car?” Answer states the “force” so to speak that put it there, e.g.
Katrina.
iii. material cause – “why is the
coat moldy?” Answer: it is made of a kind of stuff (e.g.
cotton) that interacts with dampness etc. (if it was made of plastic “material”
it wouldn’t get moldy).
iv. final cause – “Why does this bird have
such a long beak?” Answer: in order to
reach the nectar in certain types of “long” flowers. TELEOLOGY, TELEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION. (These
kind are special, and are (always?) used to explain human actions)
v. Clearly some (but not all) “why”
questions can have multiple answers: “why do the leaves of the plant turn
towards the light?” Answer this four
ways. Notice formal cause can include
final. A hammer.
|
|
||
|
home : index : ancient Persia : ancient Greece : Alexander |
||
|
|
Alexander the Great |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(©!!!) |
Alexander was educated by the great philosopher Aristotle of Stagira. The school at Mieza can still be visited (a little to the east and below modern Naousa). The Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea describes the school in section 6 of his Life of Alexander. |
|
|
Aristotle |
|
|
B. Ethics Book I– a focus on character and
a good life, rather than on
particular actions and their rightness or wrongness.
a.
All our actions aim at something (obviously. Action is teleological). That
something is thought of as GOOD.
i. There must be some over-all aim (telos) that structures particular aims.
(Be able to illustrate).
b. Over-all aim is happiness. (THAT “good”)
i. What is happiness? Aristotle considers
various answers, rejects some. (Which ones, and why?)
c. How define happiness? (Or
is it all “subjective” and a “matter of opinion”?).
i. Two senses of “a single account” or “a
single definition.”
#
the ridiculous sense. A complete specification. E.g. only the life of a doctor
is a happy life. That would imply
exactness in ethics. But ethics is never exact.
#
the plausible sense – there are certain essential ingredients in any happy
(eudaimon) life.
a. Defining happiness by finding
the “function.”
i. Happiness and proper human functioning.
A happy person is a well functioning person.
ii.What kind of person is that? What is good functioning in the
case of persons simply qua persons? (in contrast to good functioning qua
doctor, or ditch digger).
iii.
When we are unsure about the function of a thing, the distinguishing
trait of that thing may clue us in to its function qua that kind of thing (cf.
the quarterback), and to “functioning well.”
c. REASON is the distinguishing trait of persons qua persons. Other
living things lack reason (the rational “soul” or part of the soul). Human functioning is distinguished by
reasoning (whether good or bad) or “looking for and giving of reasons”). Rational SOUL.
iii. So, A well functioning person is doing
a good job of reasoning about practical
matters (matters pertaining to living).
iv. A well functioning person is a person who typically functions well (consistency). Happiness and a “whole life.”
d. Any well functioning
thing has an “excellence” (or several of them) that makes that good functioning
possible. (aręte)
i. What would they (it) be in the case of a
quarterback? A knife?
ii. What would they (or it) be in the case
of a human person qua human person?
Answer: Whatever traits good practical
reasoning has.
e. VIRTUE, excellence, proper
functioning, happiness. The “moral
virtues” give us a specification of good practical reason.
i. They involve taking desires etc. under
the dominion of reason.
ii. They are what “statesmen” or
politicians are concerned with
(!!!!!).
Humans are “political animals.”
f. Happiness is thus NOT a matter of what happens to a person. The
problem of moral luck, and Aristotle’s uncertainty.
WEEK V
3. Ethics Book II.
a. Virtues (states of character) are
neither natural nor unnatural. They are acquired by repetition, and training.
i.
Thus a good upbringing is essential to the acquisition of virtues.
ii.
We acquire both ways of acting and ways of feeling. We can be trained into
both.
iii.
The virtuous state does not produce “automatic” actions. The virtuous agent is
attuned to the requirements of the moment.
b. Pleasure and pain
vary with training. I feel pleasure, or at least feel less pain, when doing
what I have gotten good at. Cf. courage.
(cf. the long distance runner).
i. Good
training produces a person who feels pleasure and pain with respect to the
RIGHT objects, in the RIGHT way, in the RIGHT circumstances, in the RIGHT
amount.
ii.
Virtuous act vs. virtuous person. Three features of a virtuous person.
c. Virtue is a disposition (define) to act
reasonably (in accord with human excellence. “excellence” = “virtue.”)
d. To act reasonably is to choose and act
in the MEAN.
e. The definition of virtue: a disposition
to choose the mean relative to oneself, the mean being determined by a reasoned
principle.
i.
How do you know that principle? (Models)
f. Reason as “substantive” in ethics.
Contrast with reason as a “means.”
Living reasonably is part of what CONSTITUTUES being happy. That follows from Aristotle’s entire account.
Right?
f. a list of virtues.
g.
Self correction principles. Lean
towards what you don’t lean towards.
4. Ethics Book III.
a. Virtue is a disposition to “choose” (etc.)
What is choice?
i. not simply
“freedom” to act any old way. (Not the “voluntary”)
ii. Choice presupposes
“deliberation.”
iii.
Deliberation is the exercise of practical reason.
b. The object of deliberation is life, how to live. Includes how to
feel, what to desire. Human beings and “second order desires.”
i. Thus Aristotle is
NOT claiming that the virtuous person has to “deliberate” about every single
action. Why not?
WEEK VI
THE HELLENISTIC ERA
a. The social setting – Alexander, Empire, individualism. “Schools”
b. Epicurus – The most important consideration – avoid pain. Examples –
Epicurean physics and
epistemology. cf. Democritus, p. 26-29
i. Atomism – Materialism-
Determinism –
Practical atheism –
Epicurus – the epistemology –
i. Empiricism and “experience”
ii. Experience and sensation
iii. Problems with empiricism
iv. anticipatory schema
c. Epicurean ethics.
i. Pleasure – list some kinds of pleasure
ii. Pain – list some kinds of pain
iii. Mental pains to be avoided – Gods,
Death, ignorance. Ways to do it.
1.
Death is no problem when it arrives
2.
If so, its approach should not bother us.
3.
So, it should not bother us at all.
iv. end result? Ataraxia
v. Kinds of desire –
inborn – necessary
inborn are those which?
necessary are those which?
Inborn necessary-for life, bodily repose, eudaimonia
Inborn not necessary
Vain
Eudaimonia – what is the
POSITIVE content? Ataraxia not sufficient?
D. The highest good, eudaimonia
and “prudence.”
i. instrumental
rationality – be smart, maximize pleasure, avoid addiction, avoid mental pains,
do what is mutually advantageous.
ii. contrast with
Aristotle.
E. Friendship and pleasure –
i. obvious problems with “pleasure as
sensations.”
ii. the Hedonistic paradox and intrinsic
value.
iii. Vulnerability created by strong
feelings vs. ataraxia.
F. Justice – reducible to mutual advantage?
i.The ring again.
ii. instrumental rationality vs. intrinsic
value.
G. Epicurean therapy
i. get rid of
illusions, baseless hopes. (sex, passionate love, material things).
ii. use your brains.
Avoid such stuff. But what should you PURSUE?
iii. problems again
with friendship and ataraxia.
STOICISM Nature, fate, the
logos.
a. Control over self
(you cannot control anything else!).
i. control
reactions to “stuff that happens”
ii. avoid
setting yourself up for disappointment.
Suppress desire. Avoid aversion
to things that will happen anyway. examples
a.–
loved ones and ceramic cups!
b. what happens at the baths (or on the road)
iii.
attitude towards death (contrast with Epicurus). Apatheia
vs ataraxia.
I. The Medieval era – the main formative
event from the Roman era?
i.
The setting
ii.
Problems of ancient philosophy –
iii.
new problems for theism.
II. Augustine – a pivot (a hinge).
i. One big
problem – evil in a world created by a good omnipotent God.
The
argument
1.
2.
3.
4.
ii. Faith and
understanding – which comes first?
Should it?
iii. The nature of
evildoing – what makes evil acts evil?
1.
legal requirements?
2. the golden rule?
Augustine’s solution – disordered desire.
iv. Disordered desire =?
III Civil and Divine law – still a very hot topic.
i. Civil law permits
things that divine law prohibits. For example –
1. reasons –
ii. Different strokes
for different folks.
Relativism?
iii. temporal law and
eternal law
earthly
city and heavenly city
iii. Augustine is a
principal source for Christian teaching about warfare, violence.
1.
Anti-pacifist
2. lower
standard for human law (don’t expect too much from the “earthly city”).
iv. Reason and the
well ordered soul (26-29)
v. the concept of WILL.
vi. vice and
punishment (p. 191)
vii. detachment
IV. Evil is turning away from the eternal and unchangeable to the
temporal etc.
i. another account of
disordered desire-excessive desire for the temporal and changing that makes us
“turn away.”
ii. Is this “Greek
philosophy” or Christian teaching?
iii. Turning to
“nothing.”
Plato: goodness = being, evil =
non-being.
Knowledge and being. p. 196
iv. two solutions to
the problem of the origin of evil. (where did it come from?)
1. evil is the result
of free choices
2. those choices are
choices of ‘nothing’ (more or less!) and nothing doesn’t come from anywhere.
V. God’s foreknowledge and free will.
A problem; how could there be both?
i.The argument: (199)
ii. the solution: (200)
The Holy Isle (
ANSELM
1. Faith seeking
understanding.
i. Why is
the one who says there is no God a “fool?”
2. Define God – the
being more perfect than any other conceivable
being. (Greater than which cannot be
conceived).
3. There must be such
a being--two arguments.
i. Ordinary existence
is a “good making property”
P is a good making property if for any X that can have P, X is a better X with P than without. E.g.
height is a good making property for a basketball player.
God is the absolute goodest. So God must exist (by i).
ii Necessary existence
is a “good making property.” To exist necessarily means?
“necessarily x”=df “not possibly not x”
“God” =df. “that being such that it is not possible that he not
exist”(i.e. God is eternal).
Therefore, to deny that God exists is to say the following;
God (the being such that it is not possible that he not exist) does not
exist.
Only a fool would say that!
4. Guanilo’s
response. Does not work on argument ii.
AVERROES (philosopher, doctor, jurist)
The conflict between “science” and religion.
Averroes claims that when science and religion conflict
1. allegorical
interpretations of scripture are always available.
a. not any
old interpretation will do – only those that are supported by other,
non-allegorical parts of scripture.
b. there
is room for disagreement on theoretical matters.
c.
unanimity is needed on practical (e.g. ethical) matters.
Aristotelian ideas that generated conflict:
i. the
world is eternal
ii. God
does not know particulars
iii. there
is no immortal soul
With respect to I, consider Gen. 1 and p. 217
Three “grades”
a. texts that must be
taken literally
b. texts that can be
taken allegorically
c. between a and b.
Is the belief in the resurrection a, b or c. cf. p. 219.
Averroism and “double
truth.”
The way scholars read scripture and the way ordinary folk do need not
be the same.
What would Augustine or Anselm say?
AQUINAS
I Aquinas and scholasticism.
II The existence of God
i not self
evident – cf. reply to Anselm.
ii A posteriori demonstration of God’s
existence is possible.
iii
Objections to claim that God exists
1.problem of evil
reply
2.
principle of parsimony
Reply
III Proofs for the existence of God
i. “Cosmological”
arguments.
ii. The “five Ways”
1. Motion
2.
Efficient Cause
3,4, 5.
Design (teleological argument).
iii. Response to the
design argument.
1.
Apparent design in nature and the theory of natural selection.
IV. Natural Law
i. Four kinds of law –
all related to God.
1. eternal
(cf. 103). God as “governor.”
2.
natural - by reason we “participate” in
eternal law, discern good and evil.
a.
i.e. we discern what is good for us, what contributes to our happiness or
eudaimonia.
b.
compare a plant to a human (105).
c.
Aquinas and Aristotle. Reason guides the inclinations, produces virtues.
d.
Aquinas and the first Amendment.
The First Amendment
to the
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3. human
law– derived from natural law. Application of natural law to cases.
i.
For example: “be social” (natural law). Apply it – “don’t steal,” etc. Human
laws against theft etc. Human laws specifying varying penalties for the theft.
ii.
“custom” (nomos) rooted in nature. Nature rooted in God.
iii.
Law as a measure – remember Protagoras? Contrast to Aquinas.
4. divine
(revealed). Natural, and human, law are not sufficient.
Four
reasons we need divine law (q. 112)
There is ONE divine law that covers all people at all times and all
places.
What then explains diversity of moral customs and beliefs?
1. Inferences from
general principles can vary. E.g.
Most general principle
– be sociable
·
Inference
- do not steal
·
Inference
– punish those who do
·
Inference
– fine those who do
The further down you go, the more differences break out.
2. Circumstances may make a difference
·
Returning
borrowed goods is right, except in certain circumstances.
3. Passions may corrupt.
Renaissance and Early Modern 1--- - 1---?
Rouen
Cathedral (1200)
St.
Peter’s,
Humanism, Reformation, Scepticism/Fideism, RISE OF THE NEW SCIENCE.
1. Humanism – 14th and 15th cent.
“Rebirth” of certain classical
ideals.
i. Pico – eclectic,
focus on human nature, human “dignity.” What makes humans “different”?
Answers;
Pico’s own striking answer:
2. Reformation –
i. problems in the church.
ii. Luther –
a. salvation is a gift – cannot sell it!
b.
Rejection of Aristotle, “reason.” Stress on faith, “unreasonableness” of
gospel. (
3. Fideism and Scepticism – what
is the connection?
i. Bayle (early
modern).
ii. Pascal – fideism, plus an argument.
(Pascal – 1623-62)
a. weakness of reason – we lack capacity to know what
God is
that
God is
b. either
God exists, or not – reason cannot decide. But we must! (must “wager”).
Because?
c. What are the stakes?
Wager
(bet) God exists –
God does –
result?
God does
not – result?
Wager God
does not exist –
God does –
result?
God does
not – result?
d. what is
the rational thing to do?
e. does a bet produce FAITH? No. So, what should we do?
f. James’
objection – “many Gods”
how that
changes the betting scenario
4. The Scientific
Revolution
i. The move from teleology to mechanism.
Illustration
ii Astronomy
1 Observation and instrumentation
1. Scientific “method.”
2 The standard account of Galileo is
faulty.
3.
Science and religion – when there is a conflict, what does Galileo
recommend?
4.
what is the real purpose of holy scripture?
iiiNewton 16-- 17—
1. mathematics and the new science-
Galileo on the “book of nature”, p. 315
2.
a few principles explaining a lot of different stuff (remember the pre
Socratics?) p.293
3. intelligent design
4. the principle of parsimony
Descartes – a contemporary of the -------?
Continental (?) rationalism.
1. Systematic doubting - We must free ourselves from prejudice
(inherited opinions).
i. start from scratch,
seek certainty – “foundationalism.”
ii. not found in the
senses (cannot trust them – why not?)
iii. the dream
argument
iv. cannot even trust
mathematical truths – demons and gods.
2. Absolute certainty – about what?
i. a foundation, a
starting point, (the Archimedean point) in knowledge of existence of the ‘I’
ii. cannot doubt its
existence. Why not?
iii. what kind of thing is this ‘I’? A thinking
thing.
a.
“thinking” includes -
3. The wax, the senses, and the mathematical nature of reality.
i. primary and
secondary qualities
ii. what do I
understand the wax to be? REALLY.
Only that which
persists through change.
iii. clarity and
distinctness as criteria of truth.
Namely, those features
grasped by mind – which are?
4. Proof for the existence of
God
i. begins simply with
idea or concept of God (cf. Anselm)
ii. “there must be as
much reality in the cause as in the effect” and, only God could be the cause of
such an idea (why?).
iii.
a. There is a God and God is no deceiver.
b. I could only be mistaken in beliefs that are clear and distinct if God was
deceiving me.
c. Therefore, clear and distinct beliefs
are true.
5. The nature of the self
i. a thinking thing,
THEREFORE not a bodily thing.
ii. Metaphysical dualism. The physical world has purely quantitative
properties. The mental world has only the property of thinking, which cannot be
measured, weighed etc. Therefore they are completely distinct.
iii. The big problem –
mind and body obviously interact (examples?). But, if they are metaphysically
distinct, how could they interact? They
could not interact in a certain place (the pineal gland, say). Why not?
Week XIII
1. British Empiricism -
Locke, Hume. Locke and the US
constitution.
i. Locke – there are no innate ideas (what
are they, and why not?)
ii. The mind at birth
is a tabula rasa. (see i. ) What fills it?
a. two
sources –
b.
operations on those sources include-
iii. the idea of an idea.
2. Locke on the causal theory of perception.
i. two kinds of “ideas” – primary, secondary –
ii. primary qualities
are in things, and our ideas of them are good “copies” of what exists outside
the mind.
iii. primary qualities have “power” to
cause secondary “ideas.”
iii. what is the
problem? To see that A is a good copy
of B, where do you have to be looking
from?
WEEK XIV
1. The limits of inquiry.
i. Matters of fact.
ii. relations of
“ideas.”
iii. any book of
philosophy, science etc. that relies upon claims which are not one of the two,
should be burned. Hume’s fork.
p. 494. Implications
for “philosophical theology”
2. Moral Theory – the “general foundations of morals” p. 498
i. reason? Reason
deals with fact. Criminal trials.
ii. feeling? Cool
assent vs. “sentiment”
“sentiment” =
1.
compare; ‘x is beautiful’
‘x
is four feet long.’
iii. what is “contrary
to reason”? 499
iv. “is vs.
ought”(502)
v. the actual role of
reason.
vi. utility and
feeling. Reason calculates consequences. Consequences of particular actions,
and also of RULES, such as rules of justice.
(501) Beneficial consequences
only matter because sentiment “cares” about benefit.
vii. Hume supposes
human beings generally are constituted similarly with respect to feelings. E.g.
Nearly all people like to see other people, not just themselves, happy.
5. Compare Hume to
The sophists –
Plato – pure reason
Aristotle – feeling and reason combined
Augustine –
Aquinas –
Reid – Common Sense
1. The tradition from
Descartes through Hume is founded on the “ideal system” (i.e. “theory of
ideas.”)
a. that
theory conflicts COMPLETELY with common sense.
2. That tradition
produces skepticism, which is
a. unlivable
b. reduces itself to absurdity.
i.
sensation without a senser.
ii. a world with nothing in it but ideas
and impressions.
c. compare the ancient skeptics.
RELATIVISM
The view that there are no (moral) absolutes, no across-the-board moral
truths (truths that apply to all people at all times and in all places).
Or
The view that what is right or wrong for one person or culture may not
be so for a different person or culture EVEN
WHEN THERE IS NO MORALLY RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
1. Why are people relativists?
a. there is in fact a
certain amount of diversity in beliefs and practices.
b. that diversity is
taken to entail relativism.
i. does
it?
ii. does
it provide evidence for it?
2. How much diversity is there, really?
a. you cannot count
differences rooted in varying circumstances, or non moral beliefs.
Examples:
b. you cannot rule out
the possibility that some differences are due to moral corruption.
c.
all things considered, there is not that much diversity after all. But there is some.
3. If relativism is correct, what follows?
a. no moral progress
b. no moral criticism
or advice
4. Relativism, multiculturalism,
and an appreciation for diversity.
a. no necessary
connection.
b. there is a
connection in many people’s minds.
5. Relativism and tolerance.
a. again, no necessary
connection.
b. what does tolerance MEAN?
c. should we tolerate all diverse beliefs
and practices? If not, how do we decide which to tolerate and which not?
Relativism in the history of philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|