Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Quiz March 24

Hume, Rousseau (LH); WATCH: The Is/Ought Problem; LISTEN:Peter Millican on Hume's Significance, Melissa Lane on Rousseau on Civilization (PB); Hume & the philosophy of good taste (HI); Hume (IOT); Hume the greatest philosopher? (IOT)

Also of interest: "How Hume helped me solve my midlife crisis, Simon Blackburn on David Hume, David Hume's essays on happiness; see also Essays Moral, Political, LiteraryThe ScepticDavid Hume-a new perspective; LISTEN: Gopnik on Hume & Buddhism (PB); WATCH: Hume on miracles
Podcast... Dawn post-Supremely happy

1. (T/F) Hume thought the human eye so flawless in its patterned intricacy that, like Paley's watch, it constitutes powerful evidence of intelligent design.

2. (T/F) Hume's view was that it's occasionally more plausible to believe that a miracle (the unexplained suspension of a law of nature) has happened, than not.

3. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in ____, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the _______.

4. The ______ is what we say we want, when we think selfishly.

5. Which of Hume's books was published posthumously?

6. What was Hume's Epicurean deathbed statement to Boswell?

BONUS: Whose ex-boyfriend said the eye was proof of intelligent design?

BONUS: Melissa Lane says it was a paradox of civilization for Rousseau that we're in a society of plenty, but are less _____ than when we wandered naked in the glades of some barbaric past.


BONUS+: Who has a "walk" in Edinburgh? Who had a dog?

BONUS++: Bertrand Russell says Hume cannot refute the lunatic who thinks he's a what?

DQ:

1. What's your reaction to the claim that nature is full of design without a designer (as reflected in the eye), complexity without a goal, adaptation and survival without any ulterior purpose? Is this marvelous or weird or grand (as in "grandeur") or what?

2. Have you encountered or directly experienced an event you would consider a "miracle" in Hume's sense of the term? Was it a "miracle on ice" when the U.S. beat the U.S.S.R. in 1980? Is it a miracle that K.C. almost won the World Series? Is it a miracle that you and I are alive? Do we need a better word for these events?

3. Do you think we should attempt to balance personal freedom with the public interest? Are taxes and other civic obligations (including voting) examples of an attempt to do that? Can anyone ever be compelled to be free? Can an individual be truly free while others remain "chained"? Would life in a "state of nature" be a form of freedom worth having? Is anti-government libertarianism a step forward or back, progress or regress? If Rand Paul had been President in the 1960s, would there have been an effective Civil Rights movement in America?

4. Can freedom be forced? Would we be more free or less, if the law didn't compel us to pay our taxes and behave lawfully? How would you feel, as a law-abiding citizen, if your neighbor could get away with lawlessness? 

5. Comment: [We have insufficient experience of universes, to generalize an opinion as to their probable origins.]

6. Comment, in light of Boswell's last interview with Hume (see "Supremely happy"), on the cliche that "There are no atheists in foxholes."





No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…. Whoever is moved by Faith to assent to [miracles] is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience. David Hume
==
Are you an Inductivist? Do you regularly anticipate, worry about, plan for the events of the day? Would it be reasonable or prudent to do otherwise? What is the practical point of entertaining Humean skeptical arguments about what we can know, based on our experience? Do such considerations make you kinder and gentler, less judgmental, more humble and carefree? Or do they annoy you?

Do you trust the marketplace to provide justice, fairness, security, and a shot at (the pursuit of) happiness for all? Are there some things money cannot buy, but that the public interest requires us to try and provide for one another? Is there an internal mechanism ("hand") in capitalism to insure the public interest's being met? Is capitalism inherently geared to short-term private profit, not long-term public good? Can a market-oriented economy deal adequately with climate change? (On this issue, see Naomi Klein's new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.)

Asking again: Are you happy? Would you be happier if you had better access to health care, if college costs were lower, if career competition were less intense, if you didn't have to commute to school and work, if your neighbors were your closest friends, if your community was more supportive and caring, ...? What if any or all of that could be achieved through higher taxes and a more activist government?
==
An old post-
Thursday, April 2, 2015

Hume & Rousseau

In CoPhi today: David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (LH), Millican on Hume, Phillipson on Hume's pal Adam Smith, and Melissa Lane on Rousseau.

Also note: not assigned but highly recommended, Alison Gopnik's recent PB discussion of the Hume-Buddhist connection.

David Hume (follow his little finger) has a public "walk" in Edinburgh.

In 1724 the town council bought Calton Hill, making it one of the first public parks in the country. The famous philosopher David Hume lobbied the council to build a walk ‘for the health and amusement of the inhabitants’, and you can still stroll along ‘Hume Walk’ to this day.He agreed with Diderot that good and honest people don't need threats to make them so, they just need to be well nurtured and postively reinforced in the customs and habits of a good and honest society. Divine justice, he thought, is an oxymoron. “Epicurus’ old questions are still unanswered… (continues)”

Everyday morality is based on the simple fact that doing good brings you peace of mind and praise from others and doing evil brings rejection and sorrow. We don’t need religion for morality… religion itself got its morality from everyday morality in the first place… JMH

Hume was an interestingly-birfurcated empiricist/skeptic, doubting metaphysics and causal demonstrations but still sure that “we can know the world of daily life.” That’s because the life-world is full of people collaboratively correcting one another’s errors. Hume and friends “believed morality was available to anyone through reason,” though not moral “knowledge” in the absolute and indubitable Cartesian sense. Custom is fallible but (fortunately) fixable. [Hume at 300… in 3 minutes... Belief in miracles subverts understanding]

On the question of Design, intelligent or otherwise, Hume would definitely join in the February celebration of Darwin Day. Scientific thinking is a natural human instinct, for him, for "clever animals" like ourselves, providing "the only basis we have for learning from experience." (Millican) [Hume vs. design (PB)... Hume on religion (SEP)]

Open your eyes,” Richard Dawkins likes to say. They really are an incredible evolutionary design. Not “perfect” or previsioned, but naturally astounding.



An early episode of the new Cosmos takes a good look at the eye as well.

Julia Sweeney's ex-boyfriend notwithstanding, an evolving eye is quite a useful adaptation at every stage.

Hume, open-eyed but possibly blind to the worst implications of his skeptical brand of empiricism, is on Team Aristotle. Russell, though, says we must look hard for an escape from the "dead-end" conclusion that real knowledge must always elude us, that (for instance) we cannot refute "the lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg." Russell says this is a "desperate" result. I say it would be more desperate to feel compelled to refute Mr. Egg in the first place. Remember the old Groucho line? "My brother thinks he's a chicken - we don't talk him out of it because we need the eggs."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, of Team Plato along with other celebrants (like the other Marx) of "a communitarian ideal based on men's dreams," was an emotional thinker with a romantically-inflated opinion of human nature and the “noble savages” who would have embodied it in a hypothetical state of nature.



What’s most interesting to me about Rousseau is that his Emile so arrested the attention of Immanuel Kant that he allowed it to disrupt his daily walking routine “for a few days.” Nothing short of seriously-incapacitating illness would do that to me. Apparently Kant was typically the same way, except for just that once.
Kant could get very upset if well-meaning acquaintances disturbed his routines. Accepting on one occasion an invitation to an outing into the country, Kant got very nervous when he realised that he would be home later than his usual bedtime, and when he was finally delivered to his doorstep just a few minutes after ten, he was shaken with worry and disgruntlement, making it at once one of his principles never to go on such a tour again.

So what’s in Emile that could so dis-comport a creature of such deeply ingrained habit? A generally-favorable evaluation of human nature, and a prescription for education reflective of that evaluation. Kant thought highly enough of Rousseau’s point of view to hold us all to a high standard of reasoned conduct. We should always treat others as ends in themselves, never as mere means to our own ends. We have a duty to regard one another with mutual respect.
The character of Emile begins learning important moral lessons from his infancy, through childhood, and into early adulthood. His education relies on the tutor’s constant supervision. The tutor must even manipulate the environment in order to teach sometimes difficult moral lessons about humility, chastity, and honesty. IEP

Yes, fine. But what precisely in Emile kept Kant off the streets, until he was finished with it?

Could have something to do with other characters in the story. “Rousseau discusses in great detail how the young pupil is to be brought up to regard women and sexuality.” Now maybe we’re getting somewhere.

Or not. Rousseau’s observations regarding women sound pretty sexist and ill-informed, nothing Kant (as a relatively un-Enlightenend male) wouldn’t already have shared.

Maybe it’s what Emile says about freedom that so arrested Kant? “The will is known to me in its action, not in its nature.”

Or religion? “It is categorically opposed to orthodox Christian views, specifically the claim that Christianity is the one true religion.” Maybe.
The Vicar claims that the correct view of the universe is to see oneself not at the center of things, but rather on the circumference, with all people realizing that we have a common center. This same notion is expressed in Rousseau’s political theory, particularly in the concept of the general will.
That’s very promising. Kant’s Copernican Revolution etc.

I wonder if the mystery of Kant’s lost walks could be related, too, to another of fellow-pedestrian Rousseau’s books, Reveries of the Solitary Walker?
The work is divided into ten “walks” in which Rousseau reflects on his life, what he sees as his contribution to the public good, and how he and his work have been misunderstood. It is interesting that Rousseau returns to nature, which he had always praised throughout his career… The Reveries, like many of Rousseau’s other works, is part story and part philosophical treatise. The reader sees in it, not only philosophy, but also the reflections of the philosopher himself.
That may not be a clue but it’s a definite inspiration for my own Philosophy Walks project, still seeking its legs.

Melissa Lane, like me, is very interested in Rousseau's walking.

BTW: we know Rousseau had a dog. Did Kant? If so, wasn’t he neglecting his duty to walk her?

Is nature full of design without a designer (as possibly reflected in the eye), complexity without a goal, adaptation and survival without any ulterior purpose? Is this marvelous or weird or grand (as in the "grandeur" of nature, in Darwin's view) or what? Most designers sign their work unambiguously, even ostentatiously.

We talked miracles earlier in the semester, so this may be redundant. But so many of us were so sure that we'd encountered or directly experienced suspensions of natural law that it seems worth a second pass. Was it a "miracle on ice" when the U.S. beat the U.S.S.R. in 1980? Is it a miracle that K.C. almost won the World Series? Isn't it a miracle that you and I are alive? Or that your friend or loved one, who'd received the very bad prognosis, is? Well, not exactly. All of those are plenty improbable, given certain assumptions. But none of them is an obvious law-breaker. We need a better word for these events, a word that conveys astonished and grateful surprise but does not court woo. Or I do, anyway.

J-J Rousseau seems to have been a self-indulgent paranoiac scoundrel, but he wasn't wrong to say we need to balance personal freedom with the public interest. Minimally, we need to tax ourselves enough to provide good public education, reliable infrastructure, and a secure peace. And we need to vote. (I'll ask in class how many are registered and how many will actually cast a ballot tomorrow, then I'll ask what would J-J say.)

Maybe he was just phrase-making, but "compelled to be free" has a chillier aspect from our end of the twentieth century. Whenever we act to pad our own nest wile neglecting the well-being of others, we reinforce the "chains" of oppression. Yet life is a chain. We should remember that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Whenever I hear libertarians rail against government activism, I wonder: if a Rand Paul had been President in the 1960s, would there have been an effective Civil Rights movement in America?

Last Fall I tried to buoy the spirits of my friend from Kansas City, after his upstart Royals fell to the Giants. I pointed out that teams more often rally when down 3-2 than not. His pessimistic reply: I'm a skeptic about induction. It was a joke, and maybe Hume was joking too. Aren't we all Inductivists, regularly anticipating, worring about, planning for the events of our days? Would it be reasonable or prudent to do otherwise?

Of course we could do with less worry, but that's because experience has taught the truism that most of our worries are unfounded. So what, really, is the practical point of entertaining Humean skeptical arguments? It's not to urge us over the Pyrrhonic cliff, but to redouble our curiosity and our humility: to make us kinder, gentler, less neurotic friends and fellow citizens. As Hume said, "Be a philosopher; but amidst your philosophy, be still a man."

Melissa Lane's interview on Rousseau raises important questions for our time, when the marketplace so clearly has faile to provide justice, fairness, security, and a shot at (the pursuit of) happiness for all. Michael Sandel rightly says there are some things money cannot buy, but that the public interest and common decency nonetheless require us to try and provide for one another.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" seems more invisible than ever, short-term private profiteering more prevalent. Can a market-oriented economy deal adequately, for instance, with climate change? Naomi Klein's new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate says no.

More Rousseau-inspired challenges: Are we happy? Would we be happier if we had better access to health care, if college costs were lower, if career competition were less intense, if you didn't have to commute to school and work, if your neighbors were your closest friends, if your community was more supportive and caring, ...? What if any or all of that could be achieved through higher taxes and a more activist government?

But let's be real, Jean-Jacques: most of that was never on offer in any realistic state of nature.

42 comments:

  1. Sierra Cox #11
    I believe Hume had a point in saying the design argument was based on bad logic because we all see things differently and what some view as beautiful others can see it as an imperfection. therefore you can not just see the beauty of things and assume that a higher being created those things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I never thought vegetarians had a reasonable argument until I looked at from the perspective of Hume's law

    ReplyDelete
  3. #12
    Bonus Quiz Questions:
    Was Hume afraid of death? (T/F)
    Did Hume profess a belief in the afterlife on his deathbed? (T/F)
    Rousseau felt that _____ seemed to be corrupting human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The whole argument of "no atheists in foxholes" has always irked me. In light of reading Hume's deathbed response I think it's more accurate to say that there are no non-believers in foxholes. Hume may not have been a Christian per se, but he clearly had well-defined beliefs that allowed him to not fear the idea of death. He may not have believed in the Christian god, but he did believe in something more. To that end, you could say that there are no non-believers in foxholes, in other words, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty issues of life, everyone has firm beliefs in life and how live it, Christian or otherwise.

    Zack #11

    ReplyDelete
  5. 8
    Can freedom be forced? Would we be more free or less, if the law didn't compel us to pay our taxes and behave lawfully? How would you feel, as a law-abiding citizen, if your neighbor could get away with lawlessness?
    Freedom can be forced in that sense that one can be abandoned in a strange place, such as the Sahara Desert and “set free.” But freedom could never truly be forced. Freedom is an internal sense of feeling unbridled. Being free to be the completeness of oneself without constraint. Yes, one can still feel free while paying taxes, abiding the law and behaving within social norms if they have learned how to feel free within themselves. It is true that some cannot ever feel free inside of societal norms or laws and need to be free with nature outside of governance, and those should be allowed to do so, so long as they do not disrupt the general well-being of those around or outside of their frame of beliefs, assuming that everyone honors respect and tolerance. Though we all know what to “assume” means.
    To close this comment I would like to say that it is unlikely that I will be able to attend class again this Tuesday, an oncoming fever tells me that I would be better off with less human interaction. That being said, I will post my quiz questions in the morning after everyone has had the chance to answer them on their own.

    Extra Bonus Question: Was Hume an atheist?

    ReplyDelete
  6. (#8) [DQ4] Freedom, in the most literal sense, cannot be something that is forced. If we were not required to pay taxes or behave in a lawful manner, there would be more freedom in society in that we would be able to do as we please. However, this would more than likely cause a large amount of issues within this totally free/unguided society which could propagate lots of fear, rebellion, and just plain chaos among the people. In other words, we would be slaves to the freedom in a sense; therefore, total freedom is usually an unheard of phenomenon. Anyways, those are just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:57 AM CDT

    Morgan, Whitney, Elsbeth (#8):
    In class we continued our discussion based on discussion questions three and four. We talked about healthcare, wealth inequality, and insurance companies. We all had a different opinion on freedoms and what should and shouldn't be infringed upon other people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 8 Quiz since I couldn't make it to class:
    1) False
    2) False
    3)Everything in chains/ General Will
    4) Will of All
    5) Dialogues Concerning Religion
    6) More concerned about the time he had not existed before birth than the time spent after his death
    *Julia Sweeney
    **?
    ***Hume's Walk in Edinburgh /Rousseau
    ****Poached Egg

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:26 PM CDT

    # 12 Kali Sunstrom
    DQ 10/26/15 extra credit

    1. The claim that nature is full of design without a designer is in my opinion false, but could be true. We could be a result of a natural occurrence, but what created that natural object that caused the design? I wish to believe it was God. There is no cost if I bet on god; unlike those who don’t believe in a god and die and find out that there really was one. Those who believe in adaptation have to believe that we will keep changing because humans aren’t perfect, so we would need to adapt to get closer to perfection, but we are not, so I conclude that we don’t adapt, but I do think that survival of the fittest is real. The strong seem to thrive in the world. Those with money or knowledge are the ones that are considered strong because they have something to offer that a normal human doesn’t. If there is not a god then the purpose for humans would simply be to live aimlessly. If there was a god we would have a purpose. The purpose would to live a life that was to make god happy which is to live as a decent human being. Those who don’t believe in god wouldn’t have morals and would be able to walk over the weak like it were nothing.

    2. I am a "miracle" in Hume's sense of the term because I was diagnosed in the womb with dwarfism. They tried to convince my mom to abort me, but she didn’t. after I was born I grew as a normal human being should. I may not be tall, but I am not a dwarf. It was unlike the "miracle on ice" when the U.S. beat the U.S.S.R. in 1980 they had a chance at being victorious; I was definitively supposed to be miniature.

    4. I don’t think you can be forced to be free. If you don’t summit to the general will and you are forced you won’t be free. It is a general will to pay taxes, but if you don’t like al capon you are imprisoned. Being in chains is not being free. If we didn’t stop these people from being free they might suppress our freedom like a dictator. So it is better to do what is best for the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vanessa Beard Section: 012. EXTRA CREDIT EXAM POST

    I chose to answer the question about nature being full of design but having no designer. I don't believe this is true nor that it is possible. Consider this: sometimes you watch a movie and you think "Oh, Michael Bay must have directed this" because you are familiar with his style. You may look at a painting and immediately recognize Andy Warhol's finesse. You can read a book and instantly recognize the author. You can hear a song and immediately know which artist sings it. Graphologists study handwriting, doodles, paintings, etc. in order to gain knowledge about the author. Everything in the human design has things in common because it all has the same author: God. To me, this makes as much sense as the things I compared it to. One could argue all day that there is no definitive proof of a designer, but there is also no concrete evidence to disprove the theory. As I like to say, I'd rather study and find out there wasn't a test than not study and realize there was.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Section 012 EXAM EXTRA CREDIT CONTINUED

    Also, I agree with Pascal that if you gamble on God "you lose nothing".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Justin Fox10:36 AM CDT

    Justin, Trent and Kali(#12)
    We discussed the use of technology and how it can promote or damage the general will. A current issue that reflects the general will/will of all debate is the issue of gun rights. The two-party system used within the USA hurts the general will.

    ReplyDelete
  13. McKayla Boatwright (12):
    Exam 2 Extra Credit
    Q: What have you learned, so far, about "how to live"? Have you formulated any life-lessons based on personal experience, inscribed any slogans, written down any "rules"?

    I do not know if I can honestly say I have learned a lot about living. My parents always tell me that I am young and that I should make the best of my college years because I will never get them back. I understand that but at the same time, I believe there is more to living then just partying. Living to me is making the best of any experience, and being willing enough to experience new things. Even though I am young, I have experienced enough to have come up with some life lessons. For example, when I was 15 years old a close friend of mine was murdered. Before his death we had gotten into a big argument, and because I was so prideful I held a grudge. Because of this grudge or vendetta that I had against him I never got the chance to say goodbye or make any more memories with him. This is my one life lesson that I will never forget, and because of this lesson I refuse to hold a grudge, or even to be mad at a friend for long periods of time because life is too short and you never know when it is your turn, or a friends turn to go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Exam 2 Extra Credit:

    Can freedom be forced? Would we be more free or less, if the law didn't compel us to pay our taxes and behave lawfully? How would you feel, as a law-abiding citizen, if your neighbor could get away with lawlessness?

    Freedom ultimately cannot be forced. Some people will always be captive by their thoughts, vices, fears, or spiritual beliefs, but I believe we would be less free without some form of structure or forced compliance to a set of rules or standards. People already get away without abiding rules of some sort. Even if they are just small rules. It's impossible to follow every single rule given, because people mess up. It's human nature. Humanity at its worst would be chaos, but in some ways it already is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. arol zague2:09 PM CDT

    Arol Zague
    Extra Credit
    Question

    Do you agree that, contrary to Pascal, most nonreligious people would consider it a huge sacrifice to devote their lives to religion? Why?

    I dont believe that nonreligious people consider it a huge sacrifice to devote their lives to religion, There is a difference with nonreligious people and spiritual people. Some would rather not follow a religion and would rather follow their own beliefs, some are more spiritual than religious and focus more on having a deeper spiritual relationship with GOD. Others are just living life day by day with no care of whats happening in the after world, (if there is such a thing). I dont think its a sacrifice to devote yourself in your religion, if it something your truly all in and believe in, I think its going to just be a part of your life regardless. Me personally I have a religion I follow in and believe everybody should go with what they believe, who am i to say one religion is wrong in comparison to mine, live what you follow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:21 PM CDT

    Exam 2 extra credit
    Ashley Stancil section 12 (2:20-3:45)

    Q: why do people still worship God after an earthquake even though people have died?

    I think people still worship God because even though people lost their lives they are greatful that they didn't lose their lives too. In Christianity the bible states that you should worship God at all times not just when things are going good or when you're receiving a blessing but also when you're going through trials. I think some people worship God in order to get something in return, but when something bad happens they turn away from God or want to be upset because things didn't go the way they expected it to. People should worship God I. All situations because it's by his grace and mercy that we're even here on earth. I think people forget the reason for worshipping. It's not to suck up to God or to get a blessing It's to thank him for being who he is in your life. Those people felt the pain of losing their loved ones because let's be honest that hurts. They still worshipped God though because the situation could have been way worse.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Extra credit
    Sec. 12
    Q: Is safety more important than freedom? How does this question play out in our current politics, regarding (for instance) gun rights and violence in America, or privacy versus national security?
    A: I believe that safety is more important than freedom, but without limiting our freedom too much. It would be bad if the world was "too free" cause then violence would be ten times worse than what it actually is currently. This falls into gun control. I rather gun control to be as strict as possible than to make it possible for anyone to get hold of one. Some people say it is their right to have a gun. But some people are just to crazy to have one. So in this, safety plays a bigger part than freedom in gun control. It is better to be safe than sorry. And also national security is important, but also is our safety. I feel like spying and getting into business of other countries could put our country in harmony at times. Spying on a country could aggravate them and possibly lead to threats and eventually war. I would say privacy and freedom are about equal though. People want their freedom but they also want to be safe.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Noah Silver #8, Exam 2 - Extra Credit
    Q: Comment, in light of Boswell's last interview with Hume (see "Supremely happy"), on the cliche that "There are no atheists in foxholes."

    A: I think that to say there are no atheists in foxholes is a gross overstatement. While some people do turn religion or have their beliefs reinforced, the converse must also be true. War runs counter to the beliefs of many world religions, notably the nonviolent and pacifist leanings in Christianity. Moreover, the conditions and horrors of war could certainly lead many to reconsider their beliefs. Why would a loving god let such a thing happen? If one prays for deliverance, it might not be entirely comforting to know that their dead friend and the enemy they're trying to kill are also praying for the same thing. This is not to entirely disregard religion, many people find solace in their beliefs, giving them the will to carry on. I think it's important to note though that both strains of though will likely exist side by side as long as we keep insisting on building foxholes in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  19. (#6)

    Pretty quick video on Hume.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg&ab_channel=CollegeBinary

    ReplyDelete
  20. Section 6

    Quiz Question:
    Rousseau believed that true religion came from _______ and didn't need _________.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True religion came from the heart and didn't need religious ceremonies.

      Delete
  21. Section 6

    DQ #2
    I do not believe in "miracles" in the definition that the book states. There is and always will be explanations for occurrences in our universe. Even things like bad luck can be explained by situational probability. Events like the "Miracle on Ice" are astounding events indeed, but they either need a new word, or we need to redefine miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Section 4 Danielle Bonner
    Here's a video on Rousseau
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81KfDXTTtXE

    QUIZ QUESTIONS:

    (T/F) Rousseau believed human beings were naturally good.

    What do you need to keep large groups of people under control, that may impact freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quiz Question

    Who was inspired by Rousseau's words "Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Stephen Martin (4)
      Maximilien Robespierre

      Delete
  24. Sean Byars Section 6
    DQ #2: I have never experienced a miracle, but I do believe they can and have happened. As to your sports examples, we do need a better name than miracle as I believe these events were highly unlikely, but not miraculous by any means.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sean Byars Section 6
    Quiz Question: Hume believed our knowledge derived from where?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen Martin (4)
      Hume believed knowledge came from observation and experience.

      Delete
  26. Sterling Smith (#6)6:43 AM CDT

    DQ: Do you prefer the ideas of Hume or Rousseau?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sterling Smith (#6)6:45 AM CDT

    Quiz Question: (T/F) Hume agreed with the Design Argument

    ReplyDelete
  28. Harrison Matteau

    Professor Oliver

    March 20, 2016

    The Apostle Paul

    Our presentation was over the Apostle Paul of the bible. A man credited with writing 13 books in the current bible, and speculated to have written many more that he was not given credit for. Paul was instrumental in the spread of Christianity as a religion in the early years A.D. and is still considered one of the highest regarded saints in the Catholic faith.

    The Apostle Paul was actually born Saul of Tarsus and was raised a Pharisee, the strictest and oldest sect of Judaism in the area. At age thirteen Saul left to become a rabbi at the University of Jerusalem to study under the famed Rabbi Gamaliel. There he was brought up under the law of the Torah and became a strict Pharisee.

    In his adulthood Saul began to persecute Christians, beginning with the evangelical Stephen under Sanhedrin. Saul did this for years until one day on the road to Demascus to round up Christians he was greeted by Jesus Christ. Jesus appeared to him as a blinding white light and a booming voice as told in Acts 9:3-9:8. It is said that at that moment Saul converted to

    Christianity and changed his name forever to Paul.

    This conversion changed Paul’s life immensely and he immediately became an advocate and evangelical for Christianity (1 Corinthians 13). He began to write many books of the bible from first hand accounts and his own teachings including: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Ephesians. There are even some people who believe Paul wrote Colossians, Titus, and Hebrews in the New Testament. All of his books were

    taken from letters that he had written to the church to describe what was wrong with their teachings, and why Christianity was the correct.

    Some people did not believe in the authority of Paul, but in Acts 22:3 it says, “God chose a man that once persecuted believers to become an apostle” showing that God chose him specifically to be an apostle.

    So what did Paul teach? Well he believed in a relationship with Christ, not observation of the Law. He also believed that salvation alone is through Jesus and accepting that He died for our sins and by God’s grace we are forgiven. He also believed that once we accept Christ into our hearts we are forever joined with him as stated in Romans 6:1.

    So the persecutor who became a Christian who then became one of the most famous voices of The Bible, Paul has certainly made an impact on Philosophy and Christianity as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Section 4: Intro to philosophy: Where was Rousseau from?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Intro to philosophy: Section 4:

    Where was Hume from?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Amy Young (4)
    DQ 2: I don't believe in miracles. I've never seen one.

    QQ: How many books did Humes publish?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sect 6
    (T/F)The Devine Argument is based on the fact that the world seems to have been designed

    What is an example Hume gives to show people's willingness to attribute any unexplained to the work of miracles?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sect 6
    DQ:How do Hume and Rousseau compare? Which philosophy would you relate to more?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Section 4: Ian Law and Skylar Dean

    We talked on forcing freedoms on others. We talked on the complexity of nature and whether it proves an intelligent designer or not. Lastly, we talked about the cliche "There's no atheists in foxholes"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lucas Futrell (6)
    Additional Questions
    1. What did Rousseau say should happen if an individual did not want to obey a law that was in the interest of the greater community?

    2. (T/F) Hume openly admitted to being an atheist on his death bed.

    3. What kind of dog did Rousseau have?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think the design of the earth is so complex that there had to be a designer. Just looking at the earth's position to the sun tells us everything. if we get any closer, we will burn and if any further, we will freeze.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sect 6
    Emmanuela, Courtney, Sophie
    We discussed different types of miracles we have experienced. We talked about how to some everyday experiences can be miracles, while to others, they are of little intrinsic value. I think we all came to a conclusion that miracles can happen although it may not be by another's standards.

    ReplyDelete