Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, April 3, 2017

April 6 Quiz

Kant, Bentham, Hegel, Schopenhauer LH 19-23

1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. 

2. How does synthetic knowledge differ from analytic knowledge?

3. What was Kant's great insight?

4. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality?

5. Kant said you should never ___, because ___. Kant called the principle that supports this view the ____ _____.

6. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today?

7. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation?

8. What did Hegel mean when he spoke of the "owl of Minerva"? What did he think had been reached in his lifetime?

9. What Kantian view did Hegel reject?

10. What is Geist? When did Hegel say it achieved self-knowledge?

11. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)?

12. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire?

  • Do you think we all wear conceptual "spectacles" of some kind? If so, does that present a problem for the possibility of mutual understanding between ourselves and/or other kinds of knowers? 
  • Does the spectacles analogy work, given the impossibility of actually removing our conceptual spectacles or changing prescriptions?
  • Can we really achieve synthetic a priori knowledge from our armchairs? 114
  • If you help someone because you feel sorry for them, have you behaved morally? 116 What if, reflecting on why you feel sorry for them, you conclude that helping them would be the right thing to do?
  • Are there any moral rules you believe to be absolutely inviolable, never to be broken for any reason? Can you imagine a situation in which you think it would be right to lie, cheat, or steal?
  • Does history mean anything, either in advance or in retrospect? Is history (as Henry Ford said) "bunk"? Can we learn lessons from history that will enable us to avoid repeating past errors? Do you agree with George Santayana that if we don't learn from history's mistakes we're doomed to repeat them?
  • Is the world becoming more conscious, somehow? Does nature come to know itself through us?
  • If we could somehow know that the world had no ultimate purpose, would pessimism and despair be an appropriate response?
  • Do art, literature, and music have redemptive properties?


  1. John Locke was the father of classical liberalism and was born on August 29th, 1632 in Wrington, England and was very popular in the 17th century. He studied medicine at Oxford University which played a large part of his life. He wrote about many different topics such as epistemology, political philosophy, and education. Locke’s father was a lawyer and a former service member. His parents were both Puritans. Locke received the honor of the Kings scholar, with that and his father’s connections it was insured he would have attend Christ Church, Oxford. After graduating Locke returned to the Master of Arts program and eventually worked at the university. He had many revolutionary ideas such as social contract theories and the natural rights of man. He also helped form the French and American revolutions with this ideas. Locke soon became a person of interest to the government. He was forced to evade the government due to a failed assassination on the kind and leave England in 1683. Locke was to Holland where he composed An Essay Concerning Human Understanding which was spread throughout four books. Locke returned to England in 1688. He published a plethora of essays and books after his return. He was a hero to the Whig party. Locke brought the board of trade back to life in the Americas where he was a crucial member of the board. Locke developed poor health and eventually passed away on October 28, 1704 in Essex where he lived for the last ten years of his life.

  2. 8 4-6 AQQ
    1.When was Kant born?
    2.When did Kant die?
    3.What did Kant believe we were all walking around?
    4.The filter is what?
    5.What does the filter determine?
    6.Where does everything we perceive take place?
    7.What dont we have direct access to?
    8.Kants own mine was very ordered and what?
    9.Did Kant ever marry?
    10.Kant imposed a strict what to each day?
    11.When did he have his servant wake him up?
    12.What was the first thing he would do when he woke up?
    13.What would he do after he drank tea?
    14.Kant wrote numerous books and what?
    15.Where would Kant lecture?
    16.What time would he go for a walk?
    17.How many times would he walk up and down his street?
    18.Where did Kant live?
    19.What is this town called now?

    1. #8.

      1. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724.
      2. Kant died in 1804.
      3. Understanding the world through a filter like this.
      4. The human mind.
      5. How we experience everything.
      6. Time and space.
      7. The way the world is.
      8. Logical.
      9. Never.
      10. Pattern.
      11. At 5 a.m.
      12. Drink some tea.
      13. Smoke a pipe, and begin work.
      14. Essays
      15. University.
      16. 4:30.
      17. Eight times.
      18. Konigsberg
      19. Kaliningrad

  3. I had difficult time finding the reading for your post.

    Additional Questions

    1. Where did Kant live?

    2. When did he die?

    3. Where was he born?

    4. What was walking around according to Kant?

    5. What is the town called?

    6. Who did he marry?

    7. What did he do after he drank tea?

    8. He imposed us to do what each day?

    9. When did his servant wake him up?

    10. The filter is what?

    11. What does the filter determine.

    12. What don't we have direct access to?

    13. What is the first thing he did everyday?

    14. What were the name of his books?

    15. Where did he lecture?

    16. When would he go for a walk?

    17. How many times would he walk up and down his street?

    18. What is the town called now?

    19. Where did he live?

    I had to use Chris as a guide for my questions since I wasn't able to find the reading but still wanted to get credit for the post.

    If someone will link me to the reading I will gladly answer the questions, discussion questions and post additional content of my own

    1. Kant, Bentham, Hegel, Schopenhauer LH 19-23

    2. That doesn't help, what is that?

  4. Section 8 -- Discussion Questions

    1. Yes, I do think we all were “spectacles” of sorts. Our perspectives really do affect how we see the world and the knowledge that we gather from this world. People with different perspectives and outlooks do struggles to have mutual understanding with those whose perspective and outlook differ. It is impossible to fully understand someone else’s knowledge without having their exact perspective.

    2. I suppose the “spectacles” analogy would not actually work because I think we can change our perspectives, and new knowledge can aid in changing our perspectives.

    3. I think we have to get out of our armchairs to gain knowledge, synthetic of priori. Just sitting and thinking really hard cannot possibly give us this knowledge. We have to go out and experience things to collect this knowledge. It is my belief that knowledge is gained through experience in the world.

    4. If you feel sorry for someone and help him or her for just that reason, you are really just trying to make yourself feel better. Your good deed toward that person is not for their benefit, although they may end up benefitting from it. So no, if you do it because you feel sorry for the person, it is not a good moral action. It is only for you.

    5. I think that moral rules must sometimes be broken so that, for instance, evil cannot get ahead in the world. If someone must lie to prevent a bad person from doing harm, then I think that is the right thing to do. If they must steal from the bad person to prevent harm or cheat them, so be it. Although that may make the liar/cheater/stealer seem like a bad person, too, ultimately they are preventing the other bad person from causing more harm.

    6. I think history is very important, and we can find meaning in it. Many lessons can be learned from history, so yes, I think it has the potential to keep us from repeating errors. However, it doesn’t seem we are learning from our history and correcting ourselves/preventing more errors. (For example, racism is still a huge issue.) But I think paying attention and learning from our history is essential to fixing problems and preventing more mistakes.

    8. If we found out that the world had no purpose why should that affect our purpose in the world? We can give our world purpose. It does often seem that there is no purpose, and pessimism and despair and common responses (trust me, I know), but we can give our world purpose and not rely on some pre-assigned purpose for the world. Besides, how would there be a pre-assigned purpose anyways? “Purpose” is a human concept.

    9. I’m not entirely sure what this question is asking. What are they redeeming if they do indeed have redemptive properties? If the answer to this is “humans” then yes, I do think that music, literature, and art have redemptive properties. They offer new perspectives that can change a person’s way of thinking. This has the potential to prevent harm perpetrated by that person. I think that music, lit., and art can help us heal, change, and understand our world.

  5. Section 8- DQs

    1.) Yes, I think we all wear tinted lenses of some kind. We each are raised in different environments and witness our own experiences. I think that it sometimes presents problems in understanding; however, I do not think that different perspectives themselves actually cause those problems. I feel as though lack of empathy or sympathy or the willingness to try to understand one another causes those problems. The differences in perspectives may just further add to the confusion thereafter.

    2.) I do not think it works if we cannot change them. Arguably, we are different at each stage of our lives. We grow and learn. Even eyes themselves change prescription. That being said, without change, stubbornness may take over, and more conflicts may arise if we cannot learn to understand one another or change ourselves.

    3.) I think that in some cases we can achieve knowledge as such from our armchairs. I believe imagination is a great, motivational force. If we can believe and imagine ourselves doing something, we may actually get up and do it. I feel as though the armchair is a good start, but we need to get up from it eventually to continue to grow.

    4.) I do not think that doing something for someone because you feel sorry for them is the right thing to do. You should help someone on mostly their terms and because they need it and not just because you feel moved to do so. Regardless of how you feel, they are the one who has gotten themselves into a predicament. Sometimes, they are the only ones who know what they need. You should do something to make them feel better and not yourself, if they are the ones with the problem.

    5.) I think all rules can be broken, if the right reason occurs. Rules are subjective to the individual, even though there are more than just individual consequences for certain actions. For example, most would all agree that murder is wrong; however, killing someone for your country during war is considered okay. I feel it is mostly about perspective. I can think of many situations where it may be okay to lie, steal, or cheat. But, the main example that I am thinking of is an Irish blessing that is used in the movie "Leap Year." It goes like this:

    "May you never steal, lie, or cheat, but if you must steal, then steal away my sorrows, and if you must lie, lie with me all the nights of my life, and if you must cheat, then please cheat death because I couldn't live a day without you."

  6. DQ's Section 10
    1. Yes, we do wear conceptual spectacles. The problem isn’t having different perspectives when it comes to mutual understanding. The problem is typically not trying to understand a perspective other than your own.
    3. I think you can achieve knowledge from your armchair, but you can achieve a greater amount of knowledge by getting up and experiencing the world.
    4. No, because you did it to make yourself feel better. If you want to behave morally you should think of benefiting others and not yourself.
    5. I do believe moral rules should be broken if the situation demands it. If a lie could protect someone from physical harm, then it would be a situation where I would feel alright with lying.
    6. History is important if you want to understand the present. We learn lessons that could enable us from repeating past errors, but we do not always use them.
    8. It may an appropriate response for some, but I would not say it would be for everyone. I feel that if the world had no purpose then it is up to us to find our own. Despair would only yield me from making the best out of a bad situation. I think having one set purpose would be kind of boring. I look at it like an artist presenting their work to the world. They do not tell us what to feel. They let us make our own interpretations of the artwork. The world is like that because its ultimate purpose is open to interpretation.
    9. I like to think that it can, but it just depends on the situation.

  7. Section 10 Discussion Questions
    1. Yes, I think we do wear spectacles. Everyone perceives life in a different way and has different perspectives in different situations. It makes for an interesting conversation.

    2. No, I guess it really doesn't. As you grow and have different experiences, your perspective on life can change. So using the analogy of the spectacles, you would need to be able to take them off and put on new ones.

    3. You could achieve basic knowledge from your arm chair. However I think you would be better suited to get up and go experience things for yourself.

    4. I guess it wouldn't be behaving morally. When you do something morally, you do it because at the end of the day it is the right thing to do. Doing something to make you feel better about yourself isn't really for the greater good. The person may get helped by your actions, but at the end of the day it was really only to make you feel better.

    5. I think there are circumstances where you do have to bend the rules a little bit. If you have to lie when it's concerning someone's safety, then I think that's okay, Sometimes you just have to do what's best for people, even if it means bending the rules a little bit.

    6. I think history definitely means something. It does help you learn from past mistakes and try not to repeat them. It also Might give you a little insight about why things are the way they are today.

    8. It's different for everyone I'm sure, but I would choose to live my life to the fullest anyway. Why not take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way and make the most out of every situation?

    9. I think they do, they can be an outlet for people, a way to escape.

  8. #10

    4. Based on Kant, it is not the moral thing to do because emotions are clouding reasoning. The fact that I felt sorry for him regardless of how much I reason it, it will still not be considered as behaving morally because emotions were involved in the decision making.

    5. I don't think there is absolute moral. All rules have exceptions at some point. It is right to lie, cheat, and steal to save someone's life.

    7. Yes, I do believe that. For example, the fight for freedom and equality shows how we're becoming more conscious as a species. It started with Gender equality -> race equality -> sexual equality. As years pass, we're being open and try to understand humanity better.

    8. I don't think pessimism is the appropriate response. I believe we should make the most of what we've been given, there is no reason to be bitter.

  9. sec 10
    1. I think people usually see the a world from a specific perspective that may be different from others. This has presented problems between people with different view points.

    2. I would say that it doesn't work if you can't change them

    3. His synthetic knowledge seems to be the start of the modern deductive reasoning, where knowing one thing you can assume something encompassed by the already previous knowledge, but in order to reason correctly you need to to know the facts.

    4. With that question it is important to understand the different reasons of why people may lie, cheat, or steal. For example, someone that is starving may steal food. Is that considered wrong? We consider what is right or wrong based off of how much a situation may hurt someone, someone taking credit for something they don't deserve, and someone being taken advantage of. It is important to also consider both sides of the story as well because that also needs to be weighed in when determining how much something is wrong or right, and whether or not that person deserves punishment or not.

    5. knowing about our history is one of the best ways to learn which strategies do and don't work for handling certain strategies.

    6. people create their own purposes, and even if you haven't found a purpose you should strive to find something that makes you inspired.