Helpful Stuff
The purchase of your text gives you access to an interactive web site that includes
chapter summaries, further resources, and self grading practice quizzes. Go to http://www.oup.com/us/philosophicalquestions.
In addition the instructor’s web page for this course will include sample exams, lists of important terms, and outlines of every class. All quizzes will also be preserved on that page for review purposes. Finally, it will eventually give you a fairly up-to-date record of your grades as we progress. Access the link for the Phil. 120 web page through the UTM page (click on faculty staff, then on faculty web pages) or by using this address directly: www.utm.edu/~nlillega/lillegard.htm.
Class Conduct, Instructor's Role, etc. 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. Do not leave the room without permission except in extreme emergency. 5. Be on time.
6. Be eager to learn. The best indication of progress is engagement with the issues and ideas we deal with.
7. Do not be afraid to say "I don't understand."
8. Expect the same of me as I expect of you. (Except for #3, and #4, of course. You will see that I follow #7 a lot.)
Classes will consist of a mix of lecture, discussion, possible occasional reports, and watching of a few videos (designated as >ICA@ (in class assignments) in the outline) followed by discussion and/or written reviews. Students are expected to treat other students in a polite fashion, even though they should feel free to express disagreement on ANY topic or ANY claim that is advanced by anyone, including the instructor. At the same time, each student must attempt to exercise responsibility by keeping discussion focused on the subject at hand and by listening carefully to the responses of the instructor and other participants.
Particular value is placed on argument, as opposed to mere expression of opinion. Say what you believe, but be prepared to say why. The instructor will attempt to clarify difficult concepts and passages in the text, and will attempt to model philosophical dialogue in his own lectures, which will be devoted primarily to showing the patterns of argument in the textual assignments. Students should feel free to interrupt with questions or comments, even though on occasion answers may be postponed for the sake of coherence. The instructor will be available for help in and out of class, and is eager to engage in one‑on‑one (or one‑ on‑two, three, etc.) discussion of the course's issues with any student any time. He is pledged to careful consideration of any view, including those which he finds unsupportable, and to critical thinking with any student who values thoughtful discussion. Students who feel a need for individual help should feel free to ask..
Academic Dishonesty (AKA ‘cheating’). Any kind of cheating is a serious offense and will be dealt with accordingly. It also ought to be beneath the dignity of each and every student. You may not
Solicit or offer help during an exam or quiz
Look at a cell phone during a quiz or exam
Copy someone else’s study guide answers
Do someone else’s study guides.
Anyone caught
violating any of these common-sense rules will AUTOMATICALLY GET AN ‘F’ for the
particular test or assignment involved and possibly FOR THE ENTIRE COURSE
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 Student Academic Support Center within the first
two weeks of the semester."
COURSE OUTLINE: (Approximate. Content and time periods may vary slightly.)
Week 1 (1/14) Philosophical Perplexity in Children and Adults. The Can of Worms A little logic.
Week 2 (1/21) (MLKing day) Belief in God and the problem of Evil.
Week 3 (1/28) Mystical experience. The cosmological argument. Religion and rationality.
Week 4 (2/4) Human nature. Determinism and free will.
Mini-exam I Monday, Feb.11.
Week 5 (2/11) . Frankfurt on freedom of the will. Achieving self-hood. Kierkegaard, Marx.
Week 6 (2/18) Achieving self-hood. Nietzsche.. Chuang Tzu, Darwin
Week 7 (2/25) Mind and Body. Intentionality ; Review.TEST I Friday, Feb. 29th.
Week 8 (3/3) Minds and machines. ICA. “The Measure of a Man”
Week 9 (3/10 – 16 - SPRING BREAK)
Week 10 (3/17) Week 9 continued March 21-Good Friday
Week 11 (3/24) The social construction of Knowledge. Moral relativism. Morality and self-interest
Week 12 (3/31).
Virtue and the best kind of life. ICA
“Weapons of the Spirit” Utilitarianism and Mill. Mini-Exam II, Wed. April 2.
Week 13 (4/7) Week XII cont. ICA Cruzan Video.
Week 14 (4/14). Theories of Justice
Week 15 (4/21) Individual rights and the Limits of State Coercion.
Week 16. Classes end Mon. April 28. Review. FINAL EXAMS, MAY 1-7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract:
I have read the full syllabus, I am familiar with all requirements and directions, I consider these requirements to be reasonable, and I will do my best to fulfill and observe them.
Signed _________________________________________________________
Print name _________________________________________
Section time___________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Those who use on-line dictionaries, or very large printed
dictionaries, must write down the definitions of any unfamiliar words and bring
them to class.
Study Guides Phil. 120
Sp 2008
Read Answer
Questions
p. 2-12 Jan 14 q. 1-10
Jan 21
p. 35-41 // q. 37-42
p. 48-56 q.
54-56, 58-62
Jan. 28
p. 63-68 q.
73,74,76,77.
p. 90-99 q.
99-108
p. 103-110 q.
112-114, 116-118 and
EQ 1. If you follow the “agnostic
rule” for truth seeking, what do you stand to gain? To lose?
Feb. 4
p. 116-122 // q. 1-4,
p. 125-129 7- 11
p. 129- 137 q.
16-21
Feb. 11
p. 137- 146 // q. 22- 34
p. 164-183 // q. 57-88
Feb.
18
p. 202-208 // q. 114-116, 118
215-221 q.
129-140
Feb. 25
222,23
p. 248-53 q. 34-42
Mon. Mar. 3
253-60 q.
43-51
282-292 q.
79-92
293-314 ANSWER q.
93-121
Mon. Mar. 17
Questions on “The
Measure of a Man”
D1. Data keeps a book
from Picard and a “photo” of a crewmate. What are we supposed to infer about
Data from these facts?
D2. The robotologist
asks Data whether the words in his book are just words or whether they mean something
to him. What does this question have to do with intentionality and mind? What
would Searle say?
D3. The robotologist
claims that if Data were a “box on wheels” rather than “human in appearance”
there would be no question about his civil rights. This amounts to the claim
that we may_______ when we think about Data. Do we? Argue.
D4. Could an android
be “intimate” with a human being? Does the fact that Data does “not alter with
the passage of time” have any bearing on this question? Discuss and argue pro
and con.
D5. Picard claims that there are three criteria
for sentience. What are they? Are all of them actually criteria for sentience? Discuss.
D6. Data can be
disassembled, reprogrammed, and turned off with a switch. What bearing would
those facts have on the claim that Data is sentient, according to Ziff?
Monday
March 24
p. 406-420 q.
131-136, 138-147
p. 428-439 q.
4-16
p. 440, 444-452 q.
22-37
Monday
March 31
p. 484-489
q. 86-92
Monday,
April 7
p. 516-524 q.
122-136
Cham. 1. Virtues are
fairly stable dispositions that, on MacIntyre’s view, are acquired partly through
learning to identify with particular historical traditions and stories.
a. mention three virtues of the Chambonais.
b. How are those
virtues related to the particular stories and traditions shared by these
people? Mention three such stories or traditions and relate them to their
virtues.
c. how do some of the adjectives used to
describe the Chambonais, and their behavior,
reveal virtues?
Cham. 2. Compare and
contrast the moral thinking of the people of Le Chambon with Mill’s ideas about
moral thinking.
Mon. April
14
p. 561-577 q.41-59
Mon. April
21
pp. 592-616 ques.
79-115
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri.
Mar. 9
290-299 88-98
SPRING
BREAK
Mon.
Mar. 19
299 – 315 99-121
plus
Wed.
Mar. 21
Continue Mondays
work.
Frd.
Mar. 23
316-17
342-348 39-46
Mon.
Mar. 26
Continue with Fri 23rd.
Wed.
Mar. 28
p. 405-408 q.
129-30
p. 415-21 q.
140-46
Fri
Mar 30
Mini
exam
Mon.
April 2
p. 422-23
p. 428-439 q.
4 – 16
Wed.
April 4
Repeat
Monday
Mon.
April 9
p. 444- 50 q.
24-35
Wed.
Apr 11
515 – 519 q.122
– 29
Fri.
Apr. 13
520-26 q.
130-136
Mon.
Apr. 16
p.484-89 q.
85-92
Wed.
Apr. 18
Continued
Fri.
April 20
Cham. 1. Virtues are
fairly stable dispositions that, on MacIntyre’s view, are acquired partly
through learning to identify with particular historical traditions and stories.
a. mention three virtues of the Chambonais.
b. How are those
virtues related to the particular stories and traditions shared by these
people? Mention three such stories or traditions and relate them to their
virtues.
c. how do some of the adjectives used to
describe the Chambonais, and their behavior,
reveal virtues?
Cham. 2. Compare and
contrast the moral thinking of the people of Le Chambon with Mill’s ideas about
moral thinking. With Kant’s.
Mon.
Apr. 23
562-568 q.
41-48
571-576 q.
53-59
Wed.
Apr. 25
609-616 q.
105-115
Fri.
Apr. 27
Review
Mon.
Apr. 30
Review
Ch. 3: 1-9, 11-13,
15, 16, 18.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I. Wonder and a
Little Logic
A.Wonder and
philosophy.
Wonder
Wondering how
Wondering at
Wonderful
A world of wonder
A winter wonderland
Children and wonder
Wondering what sorts
of things can feel. Could plants?
(How could you know?)
B. The Can of
Worms What do you know?
(epistemology).
What sorts of things
are there? Minds? Souls? Gods? (metaphysics)
What sort of thing is
X?
What sort of thing is
a tomato plant?
C. A little logic.
1. Being logical. Means what?
a. logic and
argument. Give an example of an argument
(1.1).
b. deductive arguments;
for example?
Validity: If
So, they are world
soccer champs.
1.
2.
3.
Valid?
c. SOUND deductive
arguments. Is that one? Cook one up.
2. Questions 2,3,4.
3. Criticizing
arguments:
a. counterexamples: q. 5. q. 6.
what is the missing premise in “pro
life”? (Think about that!)
b. confusing necessary and
sufficient conditions; Answer 1.9
RELIGION AND REASON
Terms to know: atheism; agnosticism; theodicy; fideism.
I. THE PROBLEM OF
EVIL:
A. People who believe in God believe
the following:
·
E1. God
exists and is all good and all powerful;
·
E2 An all
good and all powerful being eliminates (or prevents) all evil.
·
E3 There
is evil.
These three
statements appear to be inconsistent! So, you cannot believe all three.
B. How about rejecting E3? But, Look
at Doestoevski’s descriptions!
C. How about E2? It can be denied
that E2 is necessarily true (Rowe’s
view). (What does ‘neccesarily true’
mean?) Examples.
Perhaps E2 could be
rephrased:
E2’ A good, all powerful
(omnipotent)
being prevents any evil
that is not necessary for a
greater good.
E1, E2, and E3’ are NOT
inconsistent.
C. Problem with E3’; there seem to
be many evils such that it is difficult to see what greater good requires them.
Cf. Some of Doestoevsky’s examples.
Perhaps we just cannot know.
An example of an evil that is required for a
greater good.
an example of an evil that is not required for
a greater good(?)
Ivan’s reactions
D. Hick. A soul making theodicy.
1. Moral imperfection
and a dangerous environment are necessary to the development of perfected finite beings (people).
a.
development is necessary for “character.” It cannot be “popped into
existence.” Why not?
Cf. courage,
patience, love.
The argument from evil seeks to
disprove the existence of God.
Are there any
arguments that seek to prove the
existence of God?
Sure. Lots of them.
II. The argument from religious experience.
A. What KIND of experience?
1. Yah right type
2. Mystical type
B. Hindu mysticism and Yoga.
1. Description of Yoga,
p.54
C. Are such experiences reliable?
1. No
a. Depend upon
abnormal bodily state (cf. drug induced visions etc.)
b. Apparent
agreement does not go very far.
D. Yes (Swineburn)
1. What are some general
principles for sorting out reliable from not reliable experiences?
2. The principle of
credulity, PC. (in general, I am
warranted in believing A exists if, for example, I see A.)
3. Perhaps we need to
check experiences in light of what is typical. Uniformity. Mystical experiences
are too odd, untypical.
a.Uniformity
in experience not necessary (why believe my own memories, for instance?)
4. Perhaps the mystic
experiences something but the claim that it is God is an “interpretation”.
a. cannot
draw line between experience and its interpretation. Cf. Swineburn on his wife,
or tea.
b. ordinary
cases where training is required for determining what one is experiencing.
Wine.
III. The argument
from design:
A.Design requires a designer.
1. Paley’s analogy.
2.
3. A new type of design argument: “intelligent
design”.
The
fine tuning argument.
How should we decide
about issues like this? NOT like this:
"”When mainstream science accepts
this, we can put them in science classes," said board member Janet Waugh,
of
What mainstream science accepts?
Cf. Paul Davies
Only twenty-five years ago it was not considered appropriate to consider the physical mechanism of the birth of the universe. I remember a lecture I attended as a graduate student at University College London. This was a couple of years after the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the implications of that discovery had not yet generally sunk in. A professor was talking about how theorists had computed, based on the existence of this radiation, that there would be about 25 percent helium and 75 percent hydrogen in the universe, and that this had come from an analysis of the nuclear processes that took place in the first few minutes after the big bang. Everyone in the lecture hall fell about laughing, because they thought it was so absurd and audacious to talk about the first three minutes after the big bang, just on the basis of the discovery of this radiation. Now, of course, it is absolutely standard cosmological theory. We feel we understand the first few minutes of the universe very well.
What seems laughable
today may not seem laughable tomorrow.
III. MIGHT IT BE
RATIONAL TO BELIEVE IN GOD EVEN WITHOUT PROOF?
A. Pascal: Yes!
How come?
1. Here is the
situation:
Either God exists (G)
OR not-God exists(not G, i.e. ~G)
a. There can
be no proof or disproof of either G or not G. (why?). So “reason” cannot decide
about either G or not G.
b. but
reason tells you to BET(wager) that G, rather than not G, is true! Why?
Because G is the best
(most rational) bet possible in this situation!
Why not refuse to bet at
all? You can’t. (A forced option). Why not? You are “on the way.” (north pole).
There is too much at stake to just opt out? The consequences of not betting are
exactly the same as the consequences of betting on ~G? Check James.
Assuming you have to wager, why is G
the best bet?
The betting situation:
G is false (~G) G
is true
|
Gain
Loss |
Gain Loss |
|
Gain
Loss |
Gain
Loss |
Bet G
Bet ~ G
B. Enter William James
1. James’ problems with Pascal;
* distorts faith
* many gods
Nonetheless, James
agrees with Pascal that it is still RATIONAL TO BELIEVE IN GOD EVEN WITHOUT PROOF
How come?
2. First, consider some possible
types of beliefs.
Types of beliefs (hypotheses):
* a hypothesis (belief)
can be living or dead. E.g.
* a Hypothesis(belief) can
be forced or not. E.g.
* a Hypothesis can be
momentous or trivial. E.g.
Suppose you are faced with this
option;
either believe in God or don’t (that
is, either accept the “hypothesis” that G or, accept ~G).
Is that option living (are the belief alternatives
alive for you)?