Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, November 18, 2013

Plato's Beard (16,2) 11/18/13

Hi everyone,
Today Dr. Oliver said we could do another parapatetic run, but our group opted to stay inside.
We went over a previous discussion of pragmatism, playing off a post by Dr. Oliver.
We also discussed Ayer's argument for "meaningless" language. I think the consensus was that Ayer makes sense, but "So what?". We probably are not going to only say things that are intrinsically true (meaning we would only state the obvious, which I would find pretty boring) or that are empirically verifiable, which would turn conversations very dry in my opinion.
We also briefly discussed religion and the motives for obeying laws.
That's about it.
See you all Wednesday,
Brandon

9 comments:

  1. (16-1)My group doesn't have a post up yet, so I'll just post here.I believe there can be a lot of substance in things that are not 'empirically verifiable', but it's true that to structure a proper argument you must have supporting facts that are such. I don't particularly like Ayer's view on logic in all, but Russell is a bit more appealing.

    FQ: Which philosopher founded the school of thought known as Existentialism, which believes that human life is meaningless and the only purpose for our lives are what we give them? (Sartre)
    DQ: Examining this from both theist and atheist points of view, Is there a purpose to human existence?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq3B5prBsK0

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:18 PM CST

    abigail jones (16,3)

    I am curious to hear what your group had to say about the motives for obeying laws. Personally, I just follow them because i know the consequences for disobeying them are something I do not want to have to go through.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We somewhat talked about that, Abigail. Just because person does not want to deal with the consequence shows that he or she is being selfish; if a person has a true moral understanding,empathy, and respect they would not need any laws and would not break so called laws that would be in place.

    FQ: Who was the best known philosopher of the twentieth century? (Jean-Paul Sartre)
    DQ: Do you believe that our existence comes before our essence or vise-versa?

    link: goofy video that explains that is existentialism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzGEend32LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. (16-2) For me, it is extremely difficult to distinguish reasons for obeying the law or acting morally. Sometimes it can be the honest attempt to practice morality. Other times we react out of fear of the consequences of our actions.

    FQ: What was the name of the cafe in which Jean-Paul Sartre would often spend his time? (Les Deux Magots - The Two Wise Men)
    DQ: Sartre believes that humans have no pre-set purpose and all that matters is what we decide to make meaningful. Do you believe humans have an intended purpose?

    Link: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3293/2652442057_62251e949c_z.jpg?zz=1

    ReplyDelete
  5. Taylore (16-2)11:49 AM CST

    I enjoyed our Monday discussion!
    FQ: _______ came from the ideas that we find ourselves first existing in the world, then having to decide what will make of our lives? ( Existentialism)
    DQ: What is your personal opinion on giving advice to someone, and them not following it?
    Link: Dialogue between Beauvoir and Sartre
    http://www.jantoo.com/cartoons/keywords/dialogues

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:52 AM CST

    Anthony Helton 16-3
    Obeying laws is something you do to avoid harm or punishment to yourself. People do not always follow rules and that can sometimes lead to trouble but there are plenty of stories where people got away with things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:28 PM CST

    Natalie Blackwell 16-3
    FQ: _______ is pretending to yourself something which if you thought about it for 5 minutes you would realize was not true. (bad faith)
    DQ: Do you agree with Sartre's point of view that there is no predetermined plan in life?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhJBZz9_KQk

    ReplyDelete
  8. Didn't see a new summary so I will post here.

    FQ: Scientists and philosophers of the nineteenth century were impressed by which philosopher's description of scientific method? ( Karl Popper)

    DQ: No doubt, Adolf Eichmann was doing wrong by not standing up against what he was told to do, but maybe he was just at the wrong place at the time. If he chose not to do his job, besides the fact that he would probably be murdered, someone else would have done it. What would you have done in his case?

    link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVPYTHxZ-4U
    Karl Popper and Falsification explained.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:58 AM CST

    Natalie Blackwell

    FQ: Where was Arendt born? (Linden, Germany)
    DQ: What would you have done if you were in the place of Eichmann?

    this is a movie trailer for a movie about Hannah Arendt:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDO5u2YSbm0

    ReplyDelete