Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Group 3 Honors 3

Well, today we had quite a discussion, which I enjoyed immensely (in case my fellow Wanderers couldn't tell). We began on the subject of selfishness and whether or not humans are inherently selfish, or if selfishness is merely activated by interacting with other humans. We concluded quickly that selfishness is inherent to human beings. We then went on to the Design Argument and whether or not we agreed with it. We spent the majority of our time on this question, including the time that Dr. Phil spent with us. After rattling about the issues of the complexity of things and order in the world, we came to the issue of love and chemical interactions in the brain. We got onto that part of the discussion from Kayla's example of studying the complexity of things in science. The whole thing of love was saying that love is a chemical reaction in the brain and nothing more. Dr. Phil mentioned William James's idea that we communicate at different levels and in different ways depending on the context. He linked that to science by pointing out that science is one form of communication. In the midst of the discussion of love, Seneca and I came in with questions about how we know the difference between a stranger touching us and someone we know and love touching us; Kayla and Shannon said the chemical reactions are different; the follow up question to that was how we know the difference without some kind of preset inclination. (This whole explanation is a bit patchwork and jumps around a bit, but we jumped around a bit in our discussion.) Eventually, the whole discussion came down to the question of right and wrong. Dr. Phil mentioned that Rorty thought the societal tendency to pursue truth was silly and that things needed simply to be a conversation among people. He also mentioned progress away from killing others and being more inclusive. Seneca and I (took a large part in the discussion; ha, that's not obvious) asked then how we know what is better and what end objective we're working toward. Dr. Phil responded that we don't have to have one; the Platonic view isn't necessarily accurate.

Anyway, long and detailed, but there it is.

8 comments:

  1. Austin Duke9:56 PM CDT

    (16-1) Wow, wish I had been in that conversation. All we talked about was how Rousseau would feel about conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FACT: Who argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality? (Kant)
    DISCUSS: Do we have a moral compass inside of us? If not, why then do we do what we do? If so, why do we do bad things?
    COMMENT: liked the discussion; we could have used more laughter though!!
    LINK: "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." -Kant

    ReplyDelete
  3. FACT: Who argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality? (Kant)
    DISCUSS: Do we have a moral compass inside of us? If not, why then do we do what we do? If so, why do we do bad things?
    COMMENT: liked the discussion; we could have used more laughter though!!
    LINK: "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." -Kant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fact: Who said that morality wasn't just about what you do but why you do it? -Kant

    Another factual question: Who left instructions on how to deal with his body when he died- mummify it and put in on display at University College London? - Bentham

    Discussion: Do you agree with Kant that emotions shouldn't come into morality?

    I have another discussion question: Do you agree with Kant that it is always wrong to lie, even if you are helping someone?

    Comment: I agree Seneca, it was a good discussion, but we could have laughed more!

    Link: "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." -Jeremy Bentham

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comment: After we got going, I felt like we had a very serious discussion.

    Fact: What is the noumenal world according to Kant? (Whatever lies behind appearances.)

    Discussion: Does Kant's claim that we've never experienced the "noumenal world" hold true based on the many different perceptions/views individuals hold?

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw More 3min philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fact: In what work did Kant explore the limits of thought? The Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

    Discuss: Do you agree with Bentham that pleasure can be quantified?

    Comment: The part of the discussion I was there for was very intriguing, good job everyone.

    Link: On Bentham
    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who

    ReplyDelete
  7. Olivia (The Highlanders)9:43 AM CDT

    This sounds like a very interesting discussion! I would agree that selfishness is inherent in humans and maybe some more than others. I love that Dr. Phil said that science is a way of communication. I never thought of it like that, but it makes sense to me!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Comment: After we started getting on task, I think we had a very good discussion. I, personally, am not a fan of floaters. Some really jump into the discussion and add good input, but I wouldn't be one of those people. I can participate with my group because I have gotten to know them and am comfortable talking with them.

    Fact: What was the Panopticon? (Design for a circular prison)

    Discussion: Is Bentham's Felicific Calculus basically just weighing out pros and cons?

    Link: His calculus is also called Hedonistic Calculus and here is a link I found with examples:
    http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html

    ReplyDelete