Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, April 7, 2017

Quizzes Apr 11 & 13

T 11 - Mill, Darwin, Kierkegaard, Marx LH 24-27

1. How did Mill disagree with Bentham about pleasure?

2. What view did Mill defend in On Liberty?

3. What's the benefit to society of open discussion, according to Mill, and what's wrong with being dogmatic?

4. Who did Bishop Wilberforce debate at Oxford in 1860?

5. The single best idea anyone ever had was what, according to whom?

6. What scientific developments since Darwin's time establish evolution by natural selection as more than just a theory or hypothesis?

7. Who was the Danish Socrates, and what was most of his writing about?

8. Why is faith irrational, according to Nigel Warburton?

9. What is "the subjective point of view"?

10. Why was Karl Marx angry? How did he think the whole of human history could be explained?

11. What was Marx's "vision"?

12. What did Marx call religion?

DQ
  • Name two or three of your favorite pleasures. Are any of them higher or better than the others? In what way? Are any of yours higher or better than those of a friend whose list includes none of yours? Why or why not?
  • Is state paternalism ever warranted? 
  • Why don't we ever talk about state maternalism?
  • What are the appropriate legal limits on speech and expression in a free society, if any? 
  • How would you reply to Wilberforce's debate question?
  • What do you think was the best idea ever?
  • Do you want a map of your own genome? Why or why not?
  • Do you agree with Darwin that the subject of God is "too profound for human intellect"? Does it mean we should all be agnostic?
  • What would you have done, in Abraham's position? Would you have doubted the "message" or challenged the messenger? 
  • Does it damage the parent-child relationship if Mom or Dad make it clear to the child that they'll always defer to the perceived instructions of a "heavenly father," even including murderous instructions? Does anything "trump the duty to be a good [parent]"?
  • Would you ever do something you considered morally wrong, in the name of faith? 
  • Does taking a "leap of faith" make you irrational?
  • How do you balance your subjective point of view with objectivity, and with the subjectivity of others? What role should inter-subjectivity play, in forming that balance?
  • If you ever own a business will you pay your workers as little as possible and extract as much "surplus value" from them as you can?
  • Is anything in history "inevitable"?
  • Does religion make people more reconciled to oppression and exploitation, and less likely to revolt?
Th 13 - Peirce & James, Nietzsche, Freud LH 28-30

1. What's the point of James's squirrel story?

2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?)

3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth?

4. What 20th century philosopher carried on the pragmatist tradition? What did he say about the way words work?

5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?)

6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from?

7. What is an Ubermensch, and why does Nigel find it "a bit worrying"?

8. How did Nietzsche differ from Kant but anticipate Freud?

9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud?

10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what?

11. Why did Freud think people believe in God?

12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis?

DQ

  • Have you ever been involved in an interminable debate that finally ended when someone clarified the definitions of the terms involved? Are most philosophical disputes like that?
  • Can something be true, but then later found to be false? Can a statement that was previously false be made true by events? (Consider: if you'd said "Neil Armstrong walked on the moon" in 1968...)
  • Should we distinguish provisional, falsifiable truth from ultimate truth?
  • Does it really "work" to believe in Santa? Didn't you continue to receive presents after you stopped believing? Is believing in Santa analogous to believing in God?
  • Are words tools, or more like pictures?
  • Is it possible that God is dead for some but not others, in some places and times more and in others less?
  • Are compassion and kindness distinctively religious values? Do you know any kind and compassionate atheists? ("Please allow me to introduce myself...")
  • Should we embrace the irrational and emotional aspects of human nature, or try to overcome them?
  • Is the "unconscious" well-supported scientifically? Does it need to be, in order to be useful to people in coming to terms with their own inner lives?
  • Is Freudian dream symbolism (snakes and caves etc.) profound or silly? Could it be both?
  • Have you ever committed an interesting Freudian slip?
  • What do you think of Freud's account of religion?
Old post-
Peirce & James, LISTEN: Robert Talisse on Pragmatism (PB)... Podcast... Also see "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings" and "Sentiment of Rationality/Dilemma of Determinism"

The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit; and different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise.
Charles Sanders Peirce's quote #1 

Image result for william james quotes



DQ
1. Will there ever be an end of science, or a complete catalog of truths?

2. Do you agree that a "distinction without a (practical) difference" is irrelevant, and that truth and falsehood are practically the same if you can't specify the difference? 

3. When James said truth is what works, did he mean what works for me, now? Or for us, on the whole and in the long run? Does this matter, practically? Does it bear on Bertrand Russell's criticism?

4. Do you think of words as tools for expressing your ideas and feelings, communicating with yourself and others, and generally "coping"... or as mental photographs that copy the world? Could they be both? What would it be like to have no words? (Could you even think about that, or about anything?) Do words ever get in the way of thought, or distort it?

5. What makes an idea valuable to you?

6. What's the difference between a fiction and a lie? Can fiction convey truth?
==
William James would agree:



Marco Rubio said in last night's (11.10/15) GOP debate: "Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers." William James would disagree. We need more philosophical welders, business-people, people generally... so we need more philosophers.

An old post-
April 21, 2015
It's Peirce and James (and Vandy's Robert Talisse on the pragmatists and truth)...

Through the years I've written repeatedly and delightedly on PeirceJames, and Nietzsche@dawn, especially WJ.


I’m not especially pleased with Nigel Warburton’s take on James, true enough to the letter but not at all to the spirit of his pragmatic conception of truth. More on that later. At least he gets thesquirrel right.



               
Here's what James actually said, about the squirrel and about pragmatism's conception of truth:
...Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion or the other."
Altho one or two of the hotter disputants called my speech a shuffling evasion, saying they wanted no quibbling or scholastic hair-splitting, but meant just plain honest English 'round,' the majority seemed to think that the distinction had assuaged the dispute.



I tell this trivial anecdote because it is a peculiarly simple example of what I wish now to speak of as THE PRAGMATIC METHOD. The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many?—fated or free?—material or spiritual?—here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right... Pragmatism, Lecture II
==
Truth, as any dictionary will tell you, is a property of certain of our ideas. It means their 'agreement,' as falsity means their disagreement, with 'reality.' Pragmatists and intellectualists both accept this definition as a matter of course. They begin to quarrel only after the question is raised as to what may precisely be meant by the term 'agreement,' and what by the term 'reality,' when reality is taken as something for our ideas to agree with...
Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"
The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: TRUE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CAN ASSIMILATE, VALIDATE, CORROBORATE AND VERIFY. FALSE IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT WE CANNOT. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as...
...truth is ONE SPECIES OF GOOD, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. THE TRUE IS THE NAME OF WHATEVER PROVES ITSELF TO BE GOOD IN THE WAY OF BELIEF, AND GOOD, TOO, FOR DEFINITE, ASSIGNABLE REASONS... 
Certain ideas are not only agreeable to think about, or agreeable as supporting other ideas that we are fond of, but they are also helpful in life's practical struggles. If there be any life that it is really better we should lead, and if there be any idea which, if believed in, would help us to lead that life, then it would be really BETTER FOR US to believe in that idea, UNLESS, INDEED, BELIEF IN IT INCIDENTALLY CLASHED WITH OTHER GREATER VITAL BENEFITS.
'What would be better for us to believe'! This sounds very like a definition of truth. It comes very near to saying 'what we OUGHT to believe': and in THAT definition none of you would find any oddity. Ought we ever not to believe what it is BETTER FOR US to believe? And can we then keep the notion of what is better for us, and what is true for us, permanently apart?
Pragmatism says no... Pragmatism, Lec. VI

This is a contentious and contestable view, admittedly, but it is not the caricatured reduction to whatever is "expedient" in a situation James's critics (like Bertrand Russell) made it out to be. It's more like Richard Rorty's invitation to an open and ongoing conversation between all comers with something to contribute. It is decidedly not a "Santa Claus" philosophy of truth.

James may have been wrong about truth, but (to paraphrase A.C. Grayling's comment on Descartes) if he was, he was interestingly, constructively, engagingly, entertainingly, provocatively wrong.

Besides, he's the best writer in the James family (sorry, Henry) and possibly the best writer in the entire stable of American philosophers. I call him my favorite because he's the one I'd most like to invite to the Boulevard for a beer. Unfortunately he didn't drink. (Too bad they don't serve nitrous oxide.) Also, unfortunately, he died in 1910. Read his letters and correspondence, they humanize his philosophy and place his "radical" views in the context of their genesis: the context of experience, and of life.

They also counter my friend Talisse's hasty semi-assent to Nigel's outrageous misreading of the pragmatists as missing "a sense of awe and wonder." James had it in spades, and so did Dewey and Peirce in their own ways. Likewise Rorty, who did not like being called a "relativist" and who would not agree that "Nazism and western liberal democracy are the same." Not at all.

But, I do think Talisse does a good job of summarizing James's rejection of "truth-as-correspondence" as an unhelpful formula, once you move past trivial matters like catching the bus. He's also correct in pointing out James's interest in religion as rooted in the lives and experience of individuals, not particularly in God, heaven, the afterlife and so on. He psychologizes and naturalizes religion. It's mostly about life on earth, for Jamesians, not (again) about Santa.

21 comments:

  1. 8 AQQ 4-11
    1.When was John Stuart Mill born?
    2.When did he die?
    3.What was his fathers name?
    4.Who was his father a friend of?
    5.They shared who's view about a child?
    6.Did they believe that a young childs mind was full or empty?
    7.Where did James teach his son at?
    8.Was he aloud to play with kids his own age?
    9.James taught his son using who's method of cross questioning?
    10.At what age was John studying ancient Greek?
    11.What could he do by age 6?
    12.At what age could he understand Plato's dialogue?
    13.When did he learn Latin?
    14.What could he do by age 12?
    15.Did he remain lonely throughout his life?
    16.John became a campaigner against what?
    17.He was an early what?
    18.Mill had been brought up as an what?
    19.Where would the Mills stay every summer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8-

      1. 1806.
      2. 1873.
      3. James Mill.
      4. Jeremy Bentham.
      5. John Locke.
      6. Empty.
      7. At home.
      8. No.
      9. Socrates.
      10. Three.
      11. Written a history of Rome.
      12. Seven.
      13. Eight.
      14. Solve complex mathematical equations.
      15. Yes.
      16. Injustice.
      17. Feminist.
      18. Utilitarian.
      19. Bentham's house.

      Delete
  2. 8 AQQ 4-13
    1.William James was an American philosopher and what else?
    2.When was he born?
    3.When did he die?
    4.Where did pragmatism become a philosophical approach?
    5.When did it become a philosophical approach?
    6.Who did pragmatism start with?
    7.When was C.S. Peirce born?
    8.When did he die?
    9.Was his work widely read?
    10.Who was William James's brother?
    11.What was his brother's occupation?
    12.At what university was Peirce a lecturer?
    13.For James, pragmatism boiled down to what?
    14.What did James think about the statement "God exists"?
    15.What book did James write?
    16.When did this book come out?
    17.What did the book examine?
    18.When was Richard Rorty born?
    19.When did he die?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8-

      1. Psychologist.
      2. 1842.
      3. 1910.
      4. United States.
      5. The late nineteenth century.
      6. The American philosopher and scientist C.S. Peirce.
      7. 1839.
      8. 1914.
      9. No.
      10. Henry James.
      11. Novelist and short story writer.
      12. Harvard University.
      13. Truth is what works.
      14. He thought that the statement was true.
      15. The Varieties of Religious Experience.
      16. 1902.
      17. A wide range of effects that religious belief can have.
      18. 1931.
      19. 2007.

      Delete
  3. 8 - DQ
    1. Painting, Cooking, reading a really good book. I can't say if one is higher than the other, they all have their own uniqueness that makes me happy. I would certainly think that anyone would have a different opinion of what makes them happy, and I wouldn't be able to say if mine were better or worse than theirs. I think that happiness is an individual, personal experience, and not the same for anyone.
    2. I don't think that state paternalism is warranted, I tend to agree with Mill's Harm Principle. Let people do what hey want as long as it does not harm someone else.
    3. I think we don't really talk about state maternalism because our society's history is very patriarchal.
    4. Again, I agree with Mill's Harm Principle. I think that people in a free society should be free to speak and express themselves as they wish, as long as it does no harm.
    5. I believe I am actually related to monkeys on your grandmother's side, sir. :P
    6. First response, without thinking about it, the computer. That is also of my own bias, I am a computer science major.
    7. I would love to map my own genome, and I've bookmarked 23 and me for another day in the future when I can. There is a bit of mystery in my family tree and I would love to see some of that mystery solved through genome mapping.
    9. I would have doubted the messenger I think. I also think that that is a difficult situation to try to imagine, one where I don't think I could actually know what I would do until it happened.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 10- D.Q

    1.) Drawing, riding, and training/working out are a few pleasures of mine that I enjoy, neither is higher in satisfaction than the other, and I don't see my pleasures greater or less than someone else's because everyone has different pleasures of their own.

    2.) I do not believe state paternalism is warranted because what is decided by the state may/is not best for inhabitants of the state that are subjected to acts passed through paternalism.

    4.) I don't see any speech limits or regulations in a free society due to the fact that a true free society would indorse actual freedom of speech, regardless of topic or viewpoints/opinions.

    5.) I would reply to Wilberforce's debate question as neither due to the fact/belief that man is not in any way related to monkeys, although the animal does show human characteristics, they are still nothing more than animals, unrelated to humans in every way and vice-versa.

    8.) I do not personally agree with Darwin's approach of God being to profound for human intellect. The fact on the matter of God and creation is certainly over anyone's head, but that does not mean we should be agnostic to the belief in God. Darwin's approach of theory of natural selection could be conjured due to his inability to believe in religious theory itself.

    11.) To do something morally wrong in the name of the 'faith' depends on the source of why and what you are doing morally wrong. In relation to Abraham, to do what he may have considered to be morally wrong was reasonable due to direct dialogue and direction from God. To do something morally wrong based on whim is irrational, but to do something morally wrong based on factual evidence in relation to faith is acceptable.

    12.) To take a 'leap of faith' can be irrational based solely on no supporting evidence or facts to strengthen your 'leap', but to take a 'leap of faith' on something we feel is right can be rational due to trusting your 'gut feeling' on regards to a specific matter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Clayton Thomas (10)10:43 AM CDT

    4/11 DQ's:
    1. Some of my pleasures include solitude and Netflix, baseball (both playing and spectating), and occasionally just wondering the outdoors, whether it be walking or sitting and observing. I couldn't specifically put one over the other because it all depends on the mood I'm in the weather outside to determine which one I want to even do. But they all provide pretty similar pleasures in my life. There is no way for me to compare my list to a friend's because there life and experience of life is completely different than that of mine so to compare these two lists would be illogical.

    2. No, state paternalism is never warranted because the "greater good" isn't always what's best for everyone. Just because an authority figure perceives an action to be necessary to benefit the greater good, it has no truth behind is it really for the greater good? Or just the perceived greater good?

    4. I say the only legal limits on speech and expression in a free society are when you begin to slander with falsities or physically damage or harm things/people. If you do not have truth behind your stance and you intend to harm others with these lies then that should not be allowed. If your expression involves burning the American flag then go for it, although you will likely be highly stigmatized for it, but if you want to burn houses down to express something then that shouldn't be allowed. Other than these two things I say go for it.

    6. I think that the best idea ever was language, without language, written or spoken, there would be no means of communication between humans.

    7. I would say no I wouldn't want a complete map of my own genome because I may find something that I don't necessarily want to see. Some things are better left untold.

    8. I do agree with Darwin, that the subject of God is "too profound for human intellect" because as long as God has supposedly been around there is no concrete proof that God does exist. There is experiences, stories, and plenty of circumstantial evidence but nothing that cannot be refuted. I don't believe that that should imply we should all be agnostic because if there is a God out there someone needs to keep searching for the proof and truth.

    10. I do believe it would damage the parent-child relationship if they deferred their instructions to a heavenly being because what if there is no heavenly being? What if what you are doing is enabling your child to do as they wish and say it as God commands because I did it? Parents have to have limits when it comes to their parenting and God.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Discussion Questions

    Favorite Pleasures
    7. My favorite memories are as a kid playing sports/tournaments on the weekends traveling the country with my teammates.

    8. I have had many amazing memories/pleasures with my girlfriend Mary traveling to Mexico, Portland, California, New York, Florida. Experiencing places with her has been such a pleasure of mine and look forward to doing even more together as we plan to visit Europe this year.

    Best Idea Ever

    9. One of the best ideas ever has to transportation. We used to walk, ride horses, trains, subways, and now we have personal vehicles and air planes. That's incredible. Could you imagine how different our lives would be if planes, cars, subways, trains didn't exist?

    Map of Genome

    10. Yes! Why not? It would just be extremely fascinating to me to see what my genetic make up is. I also really want to see my family tree and find out more about my past family. Where did we come from, how did we get to the States. I know my family grew up in Boston, MA and then to Buffalo, NY. Yet how did we come from Europe? I know my family moved from MA to NY for work. Is that the only reason people move? What did my family do in Europe? What did they do in Europe? I really want to know!

    Doing something morally wrong

    11. The reason I am no longer a Christian is because nearly EVERYTHING you do is against the Bible. If you look at a women, that's considering lust. Lust is a sin. All sins are considered equal. In that case, looking at a woman is as equal to murder. I didn't like the feeling of guilt all the time. If I was having pre-marital sex this was also not acceptable. I was tired of the rules and the guilt I was having all the time. Feeling as I was being watched even if I was alone. I wanted/want to live a life of making my own choices of morality. I am happier than ever and live with peace and no guilt.

    Paying workers.

    12. If I owned a business I would not pay my workers extremely low or of min. wages. For several reasons of course but one obvious one to me. If you care about who is representing your business/company and are paying people $7.25 you are going to get $7.25 quality workers. You get what you pay for. You will have constant turn over and lack of ambition and passion with your products or services. It cost a lot of money, time and effort to train someone each time. Invest in your employees and they will value you and your company.

    Additional Discussion Questions

    13. Do you believe in Evolution?

    13. Do you believe in Creation?

    14. Can you believe in both?

    15. Why do we have a minimum wage? We know that you can't survive off it. It's nearly a waste of your time. You typically can't live close to your job likely because the rent is more expensive in the city. So you have to drive to work and that cost fuel, wear and tear on tires and oil changes. How do you view min wage and how would you pay your employees if you owned and ran a business?

    16. Why is religion more popular in the South? I moved from California and religion isn't talked about much, why here?

    17. When you are sad do you think about all sad moments? And you become more sad? If you are in a relationship and you have a relapse and you think of all the other times this has happened? If so when you are sad, know that you are and shift your thoughts to not only think of all the past sad thoughts as well. But begin to force your thoughts to accept the moment and think of positive things. You control your mind.

    Debate Question

    19. I would respond to his questions with simply asking for evidence. I would want proof with something I could see with my own eyes and not a story tale of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quiz Answers

    1. He came to believe that his teachers account of happiness was too crude. He developed his theory one that distinguished between higher and lower pleasures.

    2. Giving each person space to develop as they saw fit was the best way to organize society.

    3. You need freedom in order to develop into your true potential/happiness. If you cramp their development, then we all lose because they probably won't make the contributions to society that they might otherwise would have done.

    It made people think hard about what they believed. And if you don't have opposing views challenging your thoughts, you will not grow in character.

    4. Thomas Henry Huxley

    5. Humanity, the most influential scientific theory of all time.

    6. "The best adapted to survive to pass on their characteristics.

    It's a hypothesis that has very substantial weight of evidence to support.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DQ sec 10

    1. Achieving goals that I have worked hard for, and spending time with friends. There both high pleasures but for different reasons and effect me in different ways. We all have different things that we think are worth more in or lives, and therefore will gain more or less pleasure from things that other people enjoy.

    2. It is warranted for people that participate in activities that are harmful to other people, and for people that have severe mental disorders that require assistance for their own safety and others.

    3. many people have a different perspective of what maternalism is, and don't see as authoritative as paternalism.

    4. Freedom of speech and expression should be allowed until people start spreading lies that can hurt someone's reputation, and hate crimes should not be allowed either. These things are debilitating to a functioning society and should be restricted as much as possible.

    5. I would tell him that nothing proves his idea of a supernatural being and therefore should not be forced upon people, and Darwin's reasoning was more believable due to certain behaviors that primates display, as well as certain superficial characteristics that they have.

    6. I don't think there is really one best idea ever but really multiple ones.

    7. I think people should believe in what has evidence supporting it, but I don't mind if other peoples' religious orientations are as long as their respectful to other people.

    8. I think in that case, the "messenger" should be challenged.

    9. I think that It does damage the parent-child relationships. I've known and heard of a lot of people who came from very religious families, and do not really care for and sometimes resent their parents for it. parent's should take their role seriously as being responsible for their child's well being, and not try to put that role on another entity or someone else.

    10. I think of faith more as hope in better outcomes, which I have done at times such as cramming for a test that I didn't have much time to study for.

    11. I think It is in a way irrational, but you need think how much do I have to loose?

    12. It is important to only believe in what is supported by data. If there is something that is not supported by data you should use reason when using subjective thinking.

    13. No because that is inhumane.

    14. If it has already happened than there is nothing you can do to change it. If it has not already happened than there is a possibility for it to be changed.

    15. Throughout history leaders have used religion as a way to manipulate and oppress people and it still happens to this day. It can be effective to very long period of time, but sometimes people do get tired of the horrible treatment they receive and rebel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. April 13th DQs:
    Yes I have, however this does not usually end the debate. It just turns into whose definition is correct.

    No, unless the statement had evidence of the statement being true. It is comepletely false, even as a prediction.

    Yes we should.

    I do not believe that believing in Santa has any connection with believing in God. Santa is a child's tale while religion is more of a lifestyle.

    A phone or another device that can be used for communication is considered a tool. With this I would consider words as a tool for communication.

    It would depend on the religion. But yes it is possible for some.

    No they are not exclusive. True morals are not affected by religion.

    We should embrace them, as ignoring them would only allow us to misinterpret them as logic.

    It does not have to be supported scientifically to be useful in some cases. Just like how a fictional piece can teach you life lessons.

    I find it weird. To me it appears that it is all made up without any actual way to prove it wrong or right.

    I cannot remember, but I am sure I have.

    Some of it makes sense, other parts of it does not. Religion should not replace morals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. April 11 Discussion questions:

    Music and eating are two of mine. And it depends on my mood which on is ranked higher.

    In a job situation where your actions can harm the company, I believe it is fair.

    I believe this is something that will be discussed more in the future.

    Threats, slander, and hatespeech. The issue we currently have is that it is hard to define hatespeech.

    I would respond by saying that he is fundementally misinterpreting what I say.

    Computers. They have made a significant impact on humanity.

    I would, it would be extremely interesting.

    I partially agree. I feel like worrying about what happens after we die is pointless. We can direct our energy elsewhere.

    Challenged the messenger.

    There are biological duties, and societal duties. Being a parent is the top on both.

    If it is morally wrong, then why is that my faith?

    Irrational, yes.

    I have not figured that out yet. That is something I am trying to better achieve.

    Happy employees give you more "surplus value" to extract them. They are your company.

    In most cases yes.

    Yes. In a lot of cases it keeps people from seeing the world objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Section 10 Discussion Questions
    1. Traveling and hanging out with my friends and family. Hanging out with my friends and family would be higher up because they're what matter most in my life.

    2. As long as people don't participate in activities that harm other people, then I think they should be free to express themselves however they want. But if there comes a time when they do start to harm other people, then I think paternalism is warranted.

    4. I think freedom of speech is very important and so is free expression, but people should learn to be respectful of others' views and there should be limitations when those actions could harm others.

    5. I would reply like Huxley did.

    6. I don't think there's one best idea ever, just very many small ones that are equally as great.

    7. I think it would be cool to see, it would be very interesting if I ever got the opportunity to do that.

    8. No, I don't agree. People believe in God to the best of their ability, and I think that's good enough.

    9. I think it would have been very difficult if I had been in that situation, I believe in and have faith in God but it would be difficult to make that decision.

    10. It could damage the parent-child relationship, the child could always end up worrying that something like that could happen. So I could see how it could damage the relationship.

    11. I don't think I would be able to fully answer that question until I was actually in that situation myself. It would be very hard for me to do something that is morally wrong.

    12. I don't think it makes you irrational, it just might make you a little more impulsive.

    13. I think you need both points of view, and you just need to learn how to use them.

    14. No, I would pair them a fair amount. If they're going to work for me and give 100% while on the job, then they deserve to be payed well. I wouldn't let them work for me and treat them badly and not give them what they deserve.

    15. Yes, I think some things in history can be inevitable.

    16. It could, and in some instances it has been used for that in the past. People believe it is their religious duty to follow and do as they're told, in some situations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1.Cooking, shopping, and watching television are some of my favorite pleasures. Some are higher than others depending on the mood I am in. Different people like different things I would not say that my pleasures are better.
    2.I do not think state paternalism is warranted?
    3.We live in more of a patriarchal society, so we tend to not talk about it.
    4.I would say that there shouldn’t be any slanderous, or hate speech.
    6.The television because I am obsessed with shows and movies.
    7.I would because I would love to know where my roots are. It would be nice to know where my ancestors are from, and what makes me who I am.
    8.I would have to disagree with Darwin. Also, I would say we shouldn’t all be agnostic. There will be some who will be skeptical, but I think everyone should be open to the possibility.
    12. I wouldn’t say it makes you irrational. It might seem that way to some, but taking chances can be a good thing.
    14. No, I would pay them depending on their quality of work. I think when businesses do that it really can impact the way your workers see you.
    15. Maybe death.
    16. I think that it does not. Some people try to take advantage of others, but religion can remind a person that doing wrong to others isn’t always the way to go. It then makes it appears they are easy to run over because of their kindness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. #10

    2. I guess the only time it will be warranted is if they are preventing someone from being harmed.

    4. As long as it doesn't reveal company or national secret (if there is a contract).

    5. Aren't we all?

    6. The invention of the internet. It has changed how we get information and also helped humanity come closer as a species.

    7. Yes, I would like a map of my own genome because I like to know where my ancestors came from.

    8. In some way yes, there are so many things we don't know and disregarding the existence of God would mean that we've proven that there is no God and that is simply not correct.

    9. Because I've knowledge of schizophrenia, I would doubt that God is speaking to me. I would most likely not make any decisions until I'm sure that I'm healthy.

    11. Yes, I would do something against what is moral in the name of faith. But I will always be haunted by it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Section 8:
    AQQ 4/13/17
    1. What is pragmatism concerned with?
    2. Who did pragmatism start with?
    3. What kind of theories did Pierce hate?
    4. What question did Nietzsche ask himself?
    5. In a world of heroes, who would the powerless be envious of?
    6. According to Freud, what was the third great revolution in human thought brought upon by?
    7. What two categories did Freud mainly classify unconscious thoughts under?
    8. What complex was Freud famous for?

    ReplyDelete
  15. LH 28-30

    Quiz Answers

    1. The point of the example is to show that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences- the cash value of thought.

    2. C.S Pierce, Purse

    3. It meant that James had to believe that Santa Claus exist is true

    4. Richard Rorty, he thought of words as tools that we do things with, rather than symbols that somehow mirror the way the world is.

    5. He was playing the idea that God couldn't die.

    6. Generosity and care

    7. Superman, described as imagined person of the future who is not held back by moral codes, but goes beyond them and creates new values

    8. Kant celebrated reason, and he on the other hand emphasized how emotions and irrational forces play to their part in shaping human values.

    9. Unconscious

    10. Psychoanalysis

    11. He felt you still need the protection that you felt as a small child.

    12. Unfalsifable

    13. I remember having a strong debate with fitness co workers of who would win this race...An olympic marathon runner or 400M olympic specialst...the mile. Who would win?

    14. I believe something can be "true" and then find out to be wrong. I think it's more of your mindset of you "knowing" that you are right and then later find out you were wrong. You think you knew it and were so confident you did, but you didn't.

    15. Interesting... we still do get gifts after not believing in Santa. It certainly has created a culture and a fun day, and really a lead of the entire year. Listening to clues from your spouse about things she wants so you can later surprise her on Christmas day.

    16. Are words tools? I like to think of them as an opportunity to describe a picture, a thought, and what someone is thinking/feeling.

    17. I have committed a Freud slip. After just talking about sex to my girlfriend, my mom calls and I answer the phone with a non appropriate comment, luckily she didn't hear me.

    18. Freud account on religion is interesting that you in a sense are trying to create the protection you had as a child. But some kids didn't have protection and grew up different that others. I like to think of the Bible/God as a world view of ethics and morals that should take place otherwise we would no rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot 19.

      How do you view God? Is is all true? Is it a way for us to just have rules? Is there a heaven? Is there a hell? How will we ever find out? What happens when we die?

      Delete
  16. Section 10 Discussion Questions
    1. I have been in a debate before, and in the end we decided to get the opinion of someone we both respected and tried to come to a place where we could agree.

    2. I think some things are facts and they can't be proved false. The Cubs won the world series in 2016, that is a fact and it can be proved. However, if it something that you just believe to be true, if it's just an opinion that you have, I guess someone could prove that it's wrong.

    4. I think it's really just fun to believe in Santa when you're little, it brings magic to your life. You do continue to get presents, but it just adds a little more excitement.

    5. I think words can be tools if you know how to use them correctly. It's all about the things you choose to say and how you choose to say them.

    6. Everyone has different belief systems so some people could consider God to be dead. It's all about what you choose to believe.

    7. I don't think they're distinctly religious values. Anyone can be kind and compassionate. I've met people from all walks of life that are kind and compassionate.

    8. I think that it's good to embrace your emotions, they're part of who you are and you shouldn't try to overcome them. They're part of who you are.

    9. It is supported scientifically, but I don't know if I would say it's very well supported. I think it could be useful in some situations.

    10. I think it's a little bit silly. I'm not sure it has those hidden meanings every time you have a dream with those things in it.

    11. Yes, I have committed a Freudian slip once or twice. That's where your unconscious can get you in trouble.

    12. I can see how some people would agree with that because if you're thinking strictly scientifically then it makes a little sense. However overall, I don't agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. #10

    2. Yes, I think things that were thought to be true are later found false or the vice versa. This can be scene clearly in human history. People used to believe that the Earth was flat until it was proven to be false. Science and philosophy continue to challenge what we believe to be true or false to come to something absolute.

    3. I think it works to some point. The idea 'Santa' could direct kids to behave properly to get a good gift. But after a certain age, it will no longer work. 'Santa' and 'God' represent different things. Not believing in 'Santa' wouldn't result in any kind of punishment or someone's whole life wasn't based on the belief of 'Santa'. So, I don't think it is analogous.

    5. Words are tools. Although a picture can send a message, it will not be the same message to everyone. Words are how history is passed from generation. Words are used to pass ideas, messages. It is because of words that I'm sharing this comment. So, words are tools to communicate in writing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. sec 10
    DQ

    1.Yes because sometimes people have different understandings of a word which can make it's meanings ambiguous. So once people decide to stick to a specific meaning it can make people come to an agreement faster. I think many philosophical disputes have this problem.

    2. Yes because truth is directly correlated with results.

    3. There is no such things as different kinds or truth, only one truth.

    4. You can believe in whatever you want, but just because you believe in something doesn't make it true.

    5. I would say that they can come off as both.

    7. No they are not. You do not have to believe in an omnipotent being to be a compassionate person.

    8. We should try to overcome irrationality, but not consider it wrong to be irrational or emotional.

    9. It is supported that there are parts of the brain that are in control of emotions and storing memories.

    10. I think that it is more opinionated than true.

    11. I have, mainly when I have been angry with someone.

    12. I think their is some weight to his account, but it might not be like that for other people that believe in a God.

    ReplyDelete