Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Fashionably Late Philosoraptors 17,3

Hey dudes,

So it's my turn to post...oops.

Dr. Phil lectured on Hume, Smith, Rousseau, and Durant and left little time for any discussion. Though I think it can be said that these philosophers were not near as interesting as the ones we had to cover for the last test. We briefly pondered having a study group, but it was quickly shot down (sorry Jami). And I think that was it.

Reminder:  type and print out discussion question before the test in order to get full 10 point credit.


  1. Okay, consider me reprimanded. I'm back on the clock, and we're ALL going to work to make group discussion a success. Let's try some things. Two rotating floaters. Rotating discussion leaders. And any other good experimental ideas we can come up with. I'm tired of reading that people haven't had an opportunity to think of anything to say. Let's fix this!

  2. FQ: Who is quoted saying that "The significance of a critic is measured by the problems that he puts to us?" Answer Seldes. Pg 177 AP

    DQ: The book goes into length discussing wether or not political correctness is an actual problem in America or if it is being blown out of proportion. Do you think that as Americans we should pay special attention to being politically correct?

    This is a pretty funny video on political correctness.

  3. Good luck to everyone on the exam today!!

    FQ: Which philosopher had a theory on how we should live called the Greatest Happiness Principle? (pg. 122 PB)

    DQ: Kant believed that it is immorally wrong to lie under any circumstance, even to protect a friend. Do you agree with this statement? Is there any circumstances where it would be ok to lie?


  4. FQ: Which philosopher debated the definition of morality and defined it as "why you do something"? A: Kant (p 115 LH) '

    DQ: Do you agree with Kant's stance on morality and its definition? What about in the case of the Good Samaritan? (Which was a very good example of Warburton's part!)

    For those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

  5. We talked about every day morality and how that really just comes from doing good things and therefore having peace with yourself. But that we don't need religion for morality. Well that's ridiculous. Without faith in God, whats going to hold you accountable for doing these good things? Or have morality? Just my thoughts.

  6. You read the Rorty sections, Krystin? His thoughts were that we must hold ourselves accountable. And we do, pretty much. But maybe you mean, who's going to hold Hitler (eg) accountable? It's a hard pill to swallow, to think that maybe he got away with 6+ million murders. Question is, what will WE do to prevent another Hitler?

    Besides, I'm sure you know atheists and agnostics who are as good and kind and unmurderous as any of your theist friends. If not, I invite you to enroll in the "Atheism & Philosophy" course this spring.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. If you take into account Christian theology, God will hold Hitler accountable. If you take into the account the theory that we exist in the world after death in the form of our legacy and what we leave behind, the rest of humanity will hold Hitler accountable by criticizing him for the horrors he committed.

    3. Criticism goes only so far. It doesn't restore life to the victims.

  7. I love when we have a political philosopher! I cannot wait until I take my political theory classes next year to finally delve into the inner workings of political philosophy! Also, we finally got to Kant, who had been my favorite philosopher (recently replaced by Pascal), and a deeper look at metaphysics and epistemology. As for Kant's view of lying, I think there are specific circumstances in which lying can actually do more good than harm, but that principle has to be judged against the situation of course. I think Kant does a great job of balancing faith and science, something I have tried to do in my life. I believe that "knowledge is power," and as Pascal said: "Nothing gives rest but the sincere search for Truth." I think that Kant would agree with these sentiments, but he would just posit that although we can believe certain things and gather up as much knowledge as possible, we can never no anything for certain. That is where I think I break from Kant, because I believe that faith allows you know some things for certain, but that may be me reasoning through my rose-tinted glasses.

    FQ (PB pg. 124): What 18th century English political philosopher reacted against the French revolution and posited more conservative ideas?

    Answer: Edmund Burke

    DQ (PB): Can anything be known for certain?

    Here's a link to an article about Kant and Metaphysics:

  8. This morning while studying for the exam I realized I left LH at home, so in an attempt to google it, I found a pdf of the whole book. I know it's going to be super helpful for me so I hope ya'll enjoy it, too. Here's the link: http://rantingmath.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/0300152086littlehistoryofphilosophy-nigelwarburton.pdf

  9. I didn't see a post for our group for this week so I'm posting on this one

    FQ-What German philosopher said "The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk"?

    DQ-Hegel believed that we can move closer to the truth by following his dialectical method. First someone puts forth an idea (thesis) and it's met with it's contradiction (antithesis) and then once this two are put together, the truth emerges (synthesis). Do you find this method to be true?

    Link to an easier explanation of Hegel's dialectical method