Wednesday, December 9, 2009
60 lashes to a female journalist in Saudi Arabia
Her name is Rozanna al-Yami. She is 22 years of age: All because she was involved in a TV show where a man openly talked about sex? INSANE!
______
The same court sentenced the man in the show, Abdul-Jawad, to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.
______
The same court sentenced the man in the show, Abdul-Jawad, to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
More on Big Bang
From this site:
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? We don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.
After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.
What is the evidence for the theory? 1- We are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
2- Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 3- If the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. 4- The abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
For an interesting visual rendition, click here.
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? We don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.
After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.
What is the evidence for the theory? 1- We are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
2- Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 3- If the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. 4- The abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
For an interesting visual rendition, click here.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Anselm Ontological Argument
God then exists in the understanding, since we understand this concept. But if He only existed in the understanding, something greater could be conceived, for a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the understanding. But then we can conceive of something greater than that than which nothing greater can be conceived, which is contradictory. Hence, God cannot exist only in the understanding, but exists in reality.
In Anselm's own time the argument was criticized by a monk called Gaunilo, who urged that the same pattern of reasoning would prove the existence of a perfect island (for a perfect island existing only in the imagination is obviously not as good as one that really exists). The argument was not accepted by Aquinas, but was resurrected by Descartes, who made plain the requirement that existence be thought of as part of the definition or essence of a supremely perfect being. This, in turn, opened the way to criticism by Hume and especially Kant, that existence is not a property or predicate. Kant's criticism has been generally sustained by modern logic.
Pari de Pascal
The wager builds on the theme of other Pensées where Pascal systematically dismantles the notion that we can trust reason, especially in the areas of religion. Although his notes were found without definite order after his death (the Pensées numbering scheme was added by publishers for reference purposes), it can be inferred that the section regarding the wager would have followed his other thoughts that supply the foundation. Much of the book attacks certainty, and is often cited as the first work on existentialism for thoughts like the following:
Uncertainty in all:
This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet.
Man's purpose:
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either.
On certitude:
If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Philosophy of Religion
I invited you to look at religion from an anthropological/historic perspective. Why are there so many different "creation" myths and who is to say one is better than the other?
What is a religion? I hinted that in most religions we find 1- cosmogony and 2- eschatology (how things end). There are rituals (the act of worship) , and a sacred text. There is also the prophetic idea of religion.
What is a religion? I hinted that in most religions we find 1- cosmogony and 2- eschatology (how things end). There are rituals (the act of worship) , and a sacred text. There is also the prophetic idea of religion.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
If you're interested in Aquinas' Cosmological Argument.
Big Bang Theory (again). Brief history of the theory: 1-In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. 2-Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the Universe might be expanding in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein at that time. 3-In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe. 4-Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2,500 mm) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law. 5- 1990's, Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.
Big Bang Theory (again). Brief history of the theory: 1-In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. 2-Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the Universe might be expanding in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein at that time. 3-In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe. 4-Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2,500 mm) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law. 5- 1990's, Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.
Monday, November 16, 2009
For all of you 2012 doomsayers!
There are hundreds of books devoted to 2012, and millions of Web sites, depending on what combination of “2012” and “doomsday” you type into Google.
All of it, astronomers say, is bunk.
Freedom, choice, responsibility
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
STOP THE BLOODY WHALE SLAUGHTER
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Homosexuality in Uganda is illegal (!)
Being gay in Uganda is illegal, but the parlament is considering a new anti-gay law:
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A further place for discussion
If you enjoy political and aesthetic ranting, music, and provocative discussions, I invite you to become a friend @ Miami Bourbaki. I just posted an article on "Miami gentrification." Simply sign in there as you did for here. Check it out and thanks.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Do we come back from the dead?
About our discussion of whether one can come back from the dead. Death as process:
Death in this context is now seen as less an event than a process: conditions once considered indicative of death are now reversible. Where in the process a dividing line is drawn between life and death depends on factors beyond the presence or absence of vital signs. In general, clinical death is neither necessary nor sufficient for a determination of legal death. A patient with working heart and lungs determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death occurring. Precise medical definition of death, in other words, becomes more problematic, paradoxically, as scientific knowledge and technology advance.
How to define death?
Death would seem to refer to either the moment at which life ends, or when the state that follows life begins. However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic however because there is little consensus over how to define life. Some have suggested defining life in terms of consciousness. When consciousness ceases, a living organism can be said to have died. One of the notable flaws in this approach is that there are many organisms which are alive but probably not conscious (for example, single-celled organisms). Another problem with this approach is in defining consciousness, which remains a mystery to modern scientists, psychologists and philosophers. This general problem of defining death applies to the particular challenge of defining death in the context of medicine.
Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.
Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being clinically dead; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that an end of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.
Death in this context is now seen as less an event than a process: conditions once considered indicative of death are now reversible. Where in the process a dividing line is drawn between life and death depends on factors beyond the presence or absence of vital signs. In general, clinical death is neither necessary nor sufficient for a determination of legal death. A patient with working heart and lungs determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death occurring. Precise medical definition of death, in other words, becomes more problematic, paradoxically, as scientific knowledge and technology advance.
How to define death?
Death would seem to refer to either the moment at which life ends, or when the state that follows life begins. However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic however because there is little consensus over how to define life. Some have suggested defining life in terms of consciousness. When consciousness ceases, a living organism can be said to have died. One of the notable flaws in this approach is that there are many organisms which are alive but probably not conscious (for example, single-celled organisms). Another problem with this approach is in defining consciousness, which remains a mystery to modern scientists, psychologists and philosophers. This general problem of defining death applies to the particular challenge of defining death in the context of medicine.
Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.
Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being clinically dead; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that an end of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Update: Assignment #2 Guidelines (extended until Tuesday, November 3, 8pm)
Find the guidlines for assignment #2 below. I've picked the subject of animal rights for several reasons. It's a cutting edge moral topic and it reflects upon one of our most important industries. Read the Wikipedia article of the different arguments: Utilitarian, Rights and Abolitionist, to get an idea of the field you're talking about. This time, I've posted some suggestions as to how to construct your comment. If you have any questions regarding the assignment, you can post them here. I'll close this post, Monday Tuesday, November 3, at 8pm 10pm.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
How to construct your next 150-word comment
1. Offer a reasoned argument correctly. Actually if you state the reason for your arguments correctly there is no wrong answer.
2. Keep it simple. Less is more.
3. If you can, incorporate some independent thoughts into your answer.
4. Discuss your answer to yourself.
5. Don’t write compulsively.
6. Write a draft on WP and correct misspellings and any errors in logic. Write clearly, in proper English. Avoid slang and broken phrases.
Here is an example of a short paper. And here is another. Obviously you are not writing a paper, but a 150 word comment can be considered a sort of mini-paper.
Here are some pointers:
You can state a position by defining it. For example: “Libertarians believe that…” of if talking about a person: “Sartre suggests that so-and-so.”
If you want to suggest a hypothetical situation of your own, go like this: “Suppose that,” or “Imagine so-and-so,” or “Just for the sake of argument…”
Phrase your views properly: “I believe that” or “I suppose,” or any other similar form.
Whenever you compare, you can use, “on the other hand, Locke holds that memories are…”
For conclusion, use: “Therefore”, “As a result,” “Thus,” “In conclusion,” etc.
2. Keep it simple. Less is more.
3. If you can, incorporate some independent thoughts into your answer.
4. Discuss your answer to yourself.
5. Don’t write compulsively.
6. Write a draft on WP and correct misspellings and any errors in logic. Write clearly, in proper English. Avoid slang and broken phrases.
Here is an example of a short paper. And here is another. Obviously you are not writing a paper, but a 150 word comment can be considered a sort of mini-paper.
Here are some pointers:
You can state a position by defining it. For example: “Libertarians believe that…” of if talking about a person: “Sartre suggests that so-and-so.”
If you want to suggest a hypothetical situation of your own, go like this: “Suppose that,” or “Imagine so-and-so,” or “Just for the sake of argument…”
Phrase your views properly: “I believe that” or “I suppose,” or any other similar form.
Whenever you compare, you can use, “on the other hand, Locke holds that memories are…”
For conclusion, use: “Therefore”, “As a result,” “Thus,” “In conclusion,” etc.
Questions about quiz #2?
Morning classes: We have the quiz at the end of the week. Friday, for MWF classes; Thursday for TR classes. If you have any questions regarding the quiz, post it here.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Hensel sisters (and the issue of human identity)
This example points to "identity" as being more than just our bodies.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Crisis in Guinea (female rape)
From the NYTimes:
In the city’s poor neighborhoods, survivors stood in knots in front of shuttered shacklike stores, vowing revenge and rehearsing in painful detail the attack on Monday that appears to have killed as many as 157 people protesting against the government at the September 28th Stadium here, according to opposition and human rights figures. Too fearful to return to work, some vowed to wage civil war against the nation’s new military strongman, the 45-year-old Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara.
At the central morgue, soldiers waved motorists away, shouting at them to “keep moving.” Reclaiming bodies has proved impossible. At the leafy home of Jean-Marie Doré, an elderly opposition leader with half his head covered in a bandage, the crowd fell silent as Mr. Doré described seeing women being sexually assaulted with guns wielded by enraged soldiers two days earlier, as other protesters were hit point blank with bullets.
More on female rape, here.
In the city’s poor neighborhoods, survivors stood in knots in front of shuttered shacklike stores, vowing revenge and rehearsing in painful detail the attack on Monday that appears to have killed as many as 157 people protesting against the government at the September 28th Stadium here, according to opposition and human rights figures. Too fearful to return to work, some vowed to wage civil war against the nation’s new military strongman, the 45-year-old Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara.
At the central morgue, soldiers waved motorists away, shouting at them to “keep moving.” Reclaiming bodies has proved impossible. At the leafy home of Jean-Marie Doré, an elderly opposition leader with half his head covered in a bandage, the crowd fell silent as Mr. Doré described seeing women being sexually assaulted with guns wielded by enraged soldiers two days earlier, as other protesters were hit point blank with bullets.
More on female rape, here.
Monday, October 5, 2009
To be (and not to be) at the same time
Here's Schrödinger's mind experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat.
The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox : the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)
You have to understand (1) wave–particle duality: It's a fact that all matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully describing the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this ostensible paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.
(2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle: The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.
Because of the uncertainty principle, statements about both the position and momentum of particles can only assign a probability that the position or momentum will have some numerical value. Therefore it is necessary to formulate clearly the difference between the state of something that is indeterminate, such as an electron in a probability cloud, and the state of something having a definite value. When an object can definitely be "pinned-down" in some respect, it is said to possess an eigenstate.
The paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics is explained by Schrodinger's thought experiment.
Here, a history of quantum mechanics.
Determinism (in process)
The discussion of determinism here. How do Hard Determinists (or Determinists) deal with the ethical problem of responsibility? They assert morality as being caused through hereditary and environmental means.
I'll be adding different arguments in favor and against Determinism.
The counterargument is that without belief in uncaused free will, humans will not have reason to behave ethically. But Determinism, however, does not negate emotions and reason of a person, but simply proposes the source of what causes us to fall back on moral behavior. Determinism implies that moral differences between two people are caused by hereditary predispositions and environmental effects and events. This does not mean determinists are against punishment of people who commit crimes because the cause of a person's morality (depending on the branch of determinism) is not necessarily themselves.
In his 1997 book, The End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine contends that determinism is no longer a viable scientific belief. "The more we know about our universe, the more difficult it becomes to believe in determinism." This is a major departure from the approach of Newton, Einstein and Schrödinger, all of whom expressed their theories in terms of deterministic equations. According to Prigogine, determinism loses its explanatory power in the face of irreversibility and instability.
I'll be adding different arguments in favor and against Determinism.
The counterargument is that without belief in uncaused free will, humans will not have reason to behave ethically. But Determinism, however, does not negate emotions and reason of a person, but simply proposes the source of what causes us to fall back on moral behavior. Determinism implies that moral differences between two people are caused by hereditary predispositions and environmental effects and events. This does not mean determinists are against punishment of people who commit crimes because the cause of a person's morality (depending on the branch of determinism) is not necessarily themselves.
In his 1997 book, The End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine contends that determinism is no longer a viable scientific belief. "The more we know about our universe, the more difficult it becomes to believe in determinism." This is a major departure from the approach of Newton, Einstein and Schrödinger, all of whom expressed their theories in terms of deterministic equations. According to Prigogine, determinism loses its explanatory power in the face of irreversibility and instability.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The anxious mind
“I don’t know,” Baby 19 says after a long pause, twirling her hair faster, touching her face, her knee. She smiles a little, shrugs. Another pause. And then the list of troubles spills out: “When I don’t quite know what to do and it’s really frustrating and I feel really uncomfortable, especially if other people around me know what they’re doing. I’m always thinking, Should I go here? Should I go there? Am I in someone’s way? ... I worry about things like getting projects done... I think, Will I get it done? How am I going to do it? ... If I’m going to be in a big crowd, it makes me nervous about what I’m going to do and say and what other people are going to do and say.” Baby 19 is wringing her hands now. “How I’m going to deal with the world when I’m grown. Or if I’m going to sort of do anything that really means anything.”
It turns that it has to do with brain states:
Kagan often talks about the three ways to identify an emotion: the physiological brain state, the way an individual describes the feeling and the behavior the feeling leads to. Not every brain state sparks the same subjective experience; one person might describe a hyperaroused brain in a negative way, as feeling anxious or tense, while another might enjoy the sensation and instead uses a positive word like “alert.” Nor does every brain state spark the same behavior: some might repress the bad feelings and act normally; others might withdraw. But while the behavior and the subjective experience associated with an emotion like anxiety might be in a person’s conscious control, physiology usually is not.
One possible conclusion is how we interpret the mental state. How it "feels" to us (in class we called it qualia).
...having all the earmarks of anxiety in the brain does not always translate into a subjective experience of anxiety. “The brain state does not make it a disorder,” Kagan told me. “The brain state exists, and the statement ‘I’m anxious,’ exists, and the correlation is imperfect.” Two people can experience the same level of anxiety, he said, but one who has interesting work to distract her from the jittery feelings might do fine, while another who has just lost his job spends all day at home fretting and might be quicker to reach a point where the thrum becomes overwhelming. It’s all in the context, the interpretation, the ability to divert your attention from the knot in your gut.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Paleoanthropology
For those of you interested in the recent developments in paloanthropology. See that most of the findings date from less than 10 years. Click each one of the links for more details of these early ancestors.
By the way, there was a "hobbit." It's called Homo Floresiensis.
For a PBS interactive site, click here.
For the evolution of continents, here.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Ardi, the oldest human skeleton, is a female
Front page on the NYTimes on line: Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, is the newest fossil skeleton out of Africa to take its place in the gallery of human origins. At an age of 4.4 million years, it lived well before and was much more primitive than the famous 3.2-million-year-old Lucy, of the species Australopithecus afarensis.
___________
From the Huffington Post: The big news in the Journal of Science tomorrow is the discovery of the oldest human skeleton -a small-brained, 110-pound female of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed "Ardi." She lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago, which makes her over a million years older than the famous "Lucy" fossil, found in the same region thirty-five years ago.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mind-Brain
There is the brain, (15-33 billion neurons each working about 10,000 synaptic conections). Then, there is the mind.
Emergent properties: bird flight, tornadoes, depression, ant colonies
An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. In such a case, the whole system is sometimes said to have Gestalt. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division. For example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.
Read this link about tornadoes, depressions and bird flight.
Is there free will (2)
Causal determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are causally necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature.
Hard determinists, also known as incompatibilists believe that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the idea of free will. The reason you might be drinking now at the bar can be traced back to brain synapses, or behavior, that has been caused 10 years ago.
The argument goes this way: If causal determinism is true, then we can't act freely.
If this was true, we have to examine what happens with our idea of responsibility. For you see, can you hold someone responsible for an action that could be predicted from the beginning of time?
But even the idea of a cause is slippery. There is a school shooting and the editorialists debate whether it was caused by the shooter's parents, TV violence, stress on students, Hollywood or the accessibility of guns. Why not say that all may have necessarily contributed?
Then there is the issue of physiological predispositions. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, argue that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions. They argue that cognitive neuroscience research is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our actions, not only in cases of psychosis, but even in less obvious situations (i.e., damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions).
_____
On the other hand, freedom requires que ability to choose. We can even present this sequence Reason ---> Freedom ----> Responsibility. It seems that they are necessarily connected. Who can accuse a teller of robbing a bank if we find out later that the reason he did it was that his family was handicapped by assailants and threatened unless he did it? So we have to add one more premise.
If we can't act freely, we can't be held responsible for our actions. That makes sense from the legal point of view. What cuts the difference between, say, murder and manslaughter is mens rea, that is to say, intent (the idea of malice or afterthought). Most courts accept a major mental illness, such as psychosis (though will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense).
_____
According to sociobiology there is a relationship between our genetic makeup and our upbringing (how we're nurtured) to that of a photographic negative and developing fluid. Just as the negative can be developed well or poorly, so can our innate propensities. Recent dramatic findings by researchers at North Carolina Chapell Hill lend creedence to this hypothesis. They discovered three genes that predispose teens to serious and violent delinquency:
_____
Then there is Compatibilism, (in the textbook appears as soft-determinism). That is to say, free will and determinism are compatible ideas. It is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Now, keep in mind that compatibilists (or soft-determinists) define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. Here free will is a sort of liberty: i.e, "freedom to act (according to one's determined motives)".
This video on the limits of free will is helpful.
(Go back to the first page)
Hard determinists, also known as incompatibilists believe that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the idea of free will. The reason you might be drinking now at the bar can be traced back to brain synapses, or behavior, that has been caused 10 years ago.
The argument goes this way: If causal determinism is true, then we can't act freely.
If this was true, we have to examine what happens with our idea of responsibility. For you see, can you hold someone responsible for an action that could be predicted from the beginning of time?
But even the idea of a cause is slippery. There is a school shooting and the editorialists debate whether it was caused by the shooter's parents, TV violence, stress on students, Hollywood or the accessibility of guns. Why not say that all may have necessarily contributed?
Then there is the issue of physiological predispositions. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, argue that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions. They argue that cognitive neuroscience research is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our actions, not only in cases of psychosis, but even in less obvious situations (i.e., damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions).
_____
On the other hand, freedom requires que ability to choose. We can even present this sequence Reason ---> Freedom ----> Responsibility. It seems that they are necessarily connected. Who can accuse a teller of robbing a bank if we find out later that the reason he did it was that his family was handicapped by assailants and threatened unless he did it? So we have to add one more premise.
If we can't act freely, we can't be held responsible for our actions. That makes sense from the legal point of view. What cuts the difference between, say, murder and manslaughter is mens rea, that is to say, intent (the idea of malice or afterthought). Most courts accept a major mental illness, such as psychosis (though will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense).
_____
According to sociobiology there is a relationship between our genetic makeup and our upbringing (how we're nurtured) to that of a photographic negative and developing fluid. Just as the negative can be developed well or poorly, so can our innate propensities. Recent dramatic findings by researchers at North Carolina Chapell Hill lend creedence to this hypothesis. They discovered three genes that predispose teens to serious and violent delinquency:
The team studied information from 1,100 boys in grades 7–12. Variations in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, the dopamine transporter 1 (DAT1) gene and the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene were linked to delinquency, but “Positive influences appeared to reduce the effect of the genes, while an absence of positive influences amplified the effects,” according to Canwest News Service. For example, having regular meals with parents served to moderate the effects of the “risky” DRD2 gene, whereas not having those meals amplified the aggression.Now, imagine Hard determinism was true. Would there be any justification for punishment? Why and why not?
_____
Then there is Compatibilism, (in the textbook appears as soft-determinism). That is to say, free will and determinism are compatible ideas. It is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Now, keep in mind that compatibilists (or soft-determinists) define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. Here free will is a sort of liberty: i.e, "freedom to act (according to one's determined motives)".
This video on the limits of free will is helpful.
(Go back to the first page)
Monday, September 28, 2009
"Trickle down economics?" (2)
On the other hand, proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down", arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are direct across the entire economy, not toward one specific group.
The NYTimes has taken up the argument to a group of experts in a new section Room for Debate. These are the different arguments, which surprisingly, seem to point to a kind of consensus:
William Gale advises:
The Congressional Budget Office recently considered 11 options for stimulating the economy and extending the tax cuts tied for least effective. Policy makers could do far more good for the economy in the short run by allowing the same increase in the deficit as would come from extending the tax cuts (or the tax cuts that help only high income households) and using the money instead to pay for infrastructure and investment programs and aid to the states so that they can avoid laying off workers.
Laura Tyson writes:
Trickle-down arguments in favor of tax cuts focus on their effects on supply, not demand. According to trickle-down logic, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for top taxpayers will reduce how much they work and how much they invest, not how much they consume. Samuelson makes a trickle-down argument when he warns that higher taxes for top income earners will discourage small business activity. But less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two brackets, so 98 percent of small-business owners will not be affected if the Bush tax cuts for these brackets expire. Moreover, the trickle-down theory about the relationship between tax rates and economic activity, even though it has superficial appeal, is not supported by the evidence.Linda Beale explains:
These arguments essentially amount to a claim that a tax cut for the wealthy is the best use for the $700 billion in additional revenue the cut would cost over 10 years. Yet respected studies have shown that tax cuts are not the most effective way to stimulate the economy. The affluent will still spend, even if they cut back a small amount: generally, higher taxes merely lead the affluent to save less.James K. Galbraith asks:
But let's also ask: Is supporting the private consumption of a wealthy minority really a national goal? Is this the motor we wish to drive the economy forward? Should we go on expanding the frontiers of high living, while teachers and police face layoffs and parks and libraries close?Matthew C. Weinzierl:
As important, these tax increases will not threaten the recovery. The taxpayers fortunate enough to qualify for them are unlikely to reduce spending substantially in response. In normal times, these households save a greater share of their incomes than Americans who earn less, so changes in their incomes translate into smaller changes in spending. Today, when the government has built up a large debt, these households rationally expect much of that debt to be repaid through increased taxes on them at some point. If they are not asked to pay higher tax rates now, they will simply save much of the excess for the day when they are.After hearing the experts. What's your take?
(Go back to the initial page here).
Echolocation in action
Remember Nagel's Bats thought experiment? Read this definition of echolocation. Scroll down to "Auditory Cortex," with a diagram of a bat's brain. Again, as much as we know their brains we don't know their mentals states.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Dolphin massacre in Japan
Dolphins are developed human-friendly mammals. However, they don't get the best treatment from some dolphin-hungry Japanese. The Cove won Best Documentary at the Sundance Festival this year.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Philosophy Club
The Philosophy Club is on. The president of the club is Margo Gignac from T,R 11:15am class. Other positions are being filled right now. If you're interested in participating let me or Margo know. Act now!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Right to die
An Australian quadriplegic who won a landmark legal battle to starve himself to death by refusing food died on Monday, his family said, ending an existence he described as a "living hell".
Domestic violence around the world
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Religion and engineering
Dennet sees religion as a powerful and highly adaptable social institution. His idea is to teach an unbiased, factual History of World Religions in schools all over America. His goal? Watch and learn.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Link for "Doing Philosophy"
Check out the link for our textbook, Doing Philosophy. I'd like you to start fiddling with the quizzes for Chapter 1 and 7 (with different sections). They have flashcards and all sort of interactive tools.
The test is multiple choice and a truth-and-false section. Remember to bring your own scantrons 48TMS (rectangular, with 5 questions per row) to our exam. They have it in two colors, red and teel.
How to study for my test? You should make flash cards. Write down each concept in a card. Separating concepts is better for memorization. When you are done with all our definitions, then suffle the cards and try to memorize the definitions.
The comment box is open in case you have questions.
The test is multiple choice and a truth-and-false section. Remember to bring your own scantrons 48TMS (rectangular, with 5 questions per row) to our exam. They have it in two colors, red and teel.
How to study for my test? You should make flash cards. Write down each concept in a card. Separating concepts is better for memorization. When you are done with all our definitions, then suffle the cards and try to memorize the definitions.
The comment box is open in case you have questions.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Assignment #1 (All PHI classes)
How about (more important) topics, such as euthanasia, death penalty, marijuana legalization, prostitution, torture, stem cell research, global warming, gay marriage, etc?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
How light enters the brain via eyes (very detailed video)
We discussed secondary qualities. The red apple. Redness is not in the apple's surface. Red happens in the brain as a result of a very complicated process.
Here is an approximate conversion of anstrom (wavelegnth) to color:
Ultraviolet - Shorter than 3,770 K. units.
Violet - From 3,770 to 4,300 K. units.
Blue - From 4,300 to 4,550 K. units.
Blue Green - From 4,550 to 4,850 K. units.
Green - From 4,850 to 5,400 K units.
Yellow - From 5,400 to 5,900 K. units.
Orange - From 5,900 to 6,300 K. units.
Red - From 6,300 to 7,550 K. units.
Infrared - More than 7,700 K. units.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What's a true belief?
A belief is (a mental state), something one takes to be the case. If someone believes "X" he/she generally believes that "X" is true. But it turns that my believing "X" doesn't make "X" true. The link between belief and truth is knowledge: B-------------K----------- Truth
Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (those which you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those which you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers eat grass?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.
The main problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. (the justification is necessary. It shows that our belief is more than a lucky guess. A sort of "warrant."
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Now, Let's define truth.
Correspondence Theory of Truth: Truth is a fact. “Snow is white.” Facts are obvious. But what happens when you don't have the facts?
Pragmatic Theory of Truth: Truth is what best does the job at hand.
According to pragmatism, truth is a process of inquiry. A crime investigation requires a good inference process, we get to the truth by a process of trial & error. The best our explanations and inferences become, the closer we get to the truth. We get more truth as we go along. as I said in class, 20% of truth is better than nothing. Coherence theory of truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of our knowledge.
Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (those which you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those which you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers eat grass?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.
The main problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. (the justification is necessary. It shows that our belief is more than a lucky guess. A sort of "warrant."
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Now, Let's define truth.
Correspondence Theory of Truth: Truth is a fact. “Snow is white.” Facts are obvious. But what happens when you don't have the facts?
Pragmatic Theory of Truth: Truth is what best does the job at hand.
According to pragmatism, truth is a process of inquiry. A crime investigation requires a good inference process, we get to the truth by a process of trial & error. The best our explanations and inferences become, the closer we get to the truth. We get more truth as we go along. as I said in class, 20% of truth is better than nothing. Coherence theory of truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of our knowledge.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Where is the juice?
We had an interesting discussion about wine on Friday. Some of you seem to indicate that one has all the right in the world not to like Clos de los Siete (above), a wine you can buy for about $15. I agree.
Now, while our preference for wine is somewhat subjective, there must be something in the Clos de los Siete, 2007, that is beyond a -mere- subjective opinion on my part. Namely, the quality of the juice itself. This is –ultimately- what decides the difference between a good and a mediocre wine.
What makes "good wine" good? A good combination of terroir, viticulture and vinification.
1- Terroir addresses the the influence of the place where the grapes are grown. Variations in factors, such as micro-climate (topography), soil properties (drainage and water availability, but possibly also chemical differences). The right viticulture: Yield is very important, this is how many grapes are grown per hectare of land; it is quoted in hectoliters per hectare e.g. 50 hl/ha. For example, fewer grape bunches per vine the more intense their flavor will be. At the very best vineyards yields can be as low as 30hl/ha, e.g. top quality Burgundy, as opposed to around 100hl/ha for non-quality wines, e.g. Liebfraumilch. The right vinification: Grapes must be made into wine as soon after they have been picked as possible, because contact with air causes oxidization, which spoils their flavor. Understanding the effects of air, as well as temperature control during fermentation have been breakthroughs in modern wine-making techniques. It can work in art as well.
So whereas one is entitled to say "Triff, I hate Clos de los Siete", saying "Clos de los Siete is a bad wine" is simply not true.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Is the food we eat that cheap?
Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Possible destruction of the universe?
From Techfreep: By accelerating protons toward each other at 99.999999% the speed of light the LHC can recreate conditions similar to those that resulted from the Big Bang, ultimately alighting a great deal about the particles and forces that comprise our Universe. A press release from CERN better illuminates their intent for the project. Another interesting article in Radiant Reality.
Dark Rosted Blend has very good photographs. It quotes some additional material worth speculating.
__________
CERN's main function is to provide the particle accelerators and other infrastructure needed for high-energy physics research.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Are you interested in possibilities?
So, we have:
*Logical possibility is usually considered the broadest sort of possibility; a proposition is said to be logically possible if there is no logical contradiction involved in its being true. "Dick Cheney is a bachelor" is logically possible, though in fact false.
* Metaphysical possibility is either equivalent to logical possibility or narrower than it. For instance, "Water is H2O" is metaphysically necessary but not logically necessary.
* Nomological possibility is a possibility under the actual laws of nature. Most philosophers since David Hume have held that the laws of nature are metaphysically contingent -i.e., that there could have been different natural laws than the ones that actually obtain. If so, then it would not be logically or metaphysically impossible, for example, for you to travel to Alpha Centauri in one day; it would just have to be the case that you could travel faster than the speed of light. But of course there is an important sense in which this is not possible; given that the laws of nature are what they are, there is no way that you could do it.
* Temporal possibility is a possibility given the actual history of the world. Barack Obama could have chosen a degree in Accounting rather than Law, but there is an important sense in which he cannot do it now. So, the "could have" expresses the fact that there is no logical, metaphysical impossibility involved in Obama's having a degree in Accounting instead of Law; the "cannot now" expresses the fact that that possibility is no longer open, given that the past is as it actually is.
Laws of nature and origins of the universe
As per how these laws can change (a point one of you suggested in class), read this Wikipedia article:
Experiments and observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout its extent and history. The dominant force at cosmological distances is gravity and general relativity is currently the most accurate theory of gravitation.
I think for the sake of our future discussions it would be a good idea to check out the origins of the universe. Here is a PBS presentation entitled NOVA. Click "launch interactive."
What's the age of the universe? Click here for a brief discussion of the time-line of cosmology.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Important note for Summer A&B and Summer B classes
Below you find reviews for Final Exam for two different classes: Summer B and Summer A&B.
Summer A&B have chapters 5 & 6. Summer B have chapters 4 & 5. If you have any questions, I'll leave the comment-box open.
Summer A&B have chapters 5 & 6. Summer B have chapters 4 & 5. If you have any questions, I'll leave the comment-box open.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Summer B Topics for Final Exam (2009)
Review for Chapter 4
1. Numerical identity: two people are identical if they are one and the same. The idea of "individuality" = indivisibility. Qualitative Identity: Two people are identical if they share same qualities.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
2. Memory Theory. "I'm my memories." a- Direct memory, indirect memory. C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Psychological connectedness. C/E: Parfit's Teletransportation Machine: If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych. continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of 4.2 is this: Is identity a necessary condition for survival? The answer is no.
5. Brain Theory: "I'm my psyche caused and realized in my brain." C/A: Split Brains, Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
6. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility.
7. Self as "process." Character. What's character? The consistency of behavior through time. An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
2. Memory Theory. "I'm my memories." a- Direct memory, indirect memory. C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Psychological connectedness. C/E: Parfit's Teletransportation Machine: If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych. continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of 4.2 is this: Is identity a necessary condition for survival? The answer is no.
5. Brain Theory: "I'm my psyche caused and realized in my brain." C/A: Split Brains, Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
6. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility.
7. Self as "process." Character. What's character? The consistency of behavior through time. An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.
Chapter 5
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).
5. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).
Section 5.2.
Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
3. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
4. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.Section
5.3.1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
3. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
4. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).
5. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).
Section 5.2.
Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
3. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
4. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.Section
5.3.1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
3. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
4. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thanks
We had a nice party last night. Thanks for the empanadas, tiramisu, cakes, brownies, risotto, chicken wings, cheeses, bread, quiche and coffee. Keep in touch and have a nice summer.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Your turn #4: Update, Update2 Update 3 (last post, closes next Tuesday) keep it going-growing
Today: Zen techniques, "talking silence" (John Cage's 4:33), "the fool," (think of Arlecchino, Lazarillo, from Simplicius, Scapin, Melville's deaf-mute, to Felix Krull and Erasmus' The Praise of Folly), "doing poetry" (from the poet as "possessed" [manikos] in the same sense as the Pythia at Delphi), "doing nothing" (read: doing the laundry), etc. Anyone can be a master, Zen is nothing special. See you this Thursday for the final exam and later, dinner, chez moi. By the way, here is a review of Just Another Love Story (the Danish movie we talked about in class).
___________
Today: poesis as antidote for unproductive lives, The Art of War: Sun Tsu's meaning of "force," winning without fighting, contrarian philosophy, Tao's cycles, strategy, suntsuian "complete victory," Chuang-Tzu's dream thought experiment (or "how to connect verbal subjunctive with travel in parallel realities"), levels of insult, "the impossible is possible" as chuang-tzuian poetry, Tzu's "leveling of all things into ONE," Who is crippled?
_________
Since we only have a week left, let's make this post more ambitious and include Taoism (up to the post below on wu-wei), even if it means making your comments a little more comprehensive. Feel free to comment on Confucianism or Taoism or -better- both.
____________
I enjoyed our last discussion because of its socio-political dimension. Confucianism's social project strikes me as a sort of communitarianism. The jūnzǐ suggest a middle-point between individuality and community. Each one of us -as individuals- is embedded. “Li” is the social bond, a proto-ethical set of habits that translate as civility, the cohesion needed to foster individual happiness. Aristotle would agree with Confucius that personal fulfillment (eudaimonia) cannot exist without a community. Can “li” become petrified? Certainly, but this is no fault of its original purpose, not at least if “shu” is properly applied. Go ahead.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
D.T. Suzuki's Zen
From Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki's Essays on Zen Buddhism
Zen is the art of seeing into the nature of one's own being. It points the way from bondage to freedom. By making us drink right from the fountain of life, it liberates us from all the yokes under which we finite beings are usually suffering in this world. We can say that Zen liberates all the energies properly and naturally stored in each of us, which are in ordinary circumstances cramped and distorted so that they find no adequate channel for activity. 2- This body of ours is something like an electric battery in which a mysterious power latently lies. When this power is not properly brought into operation, it either grows moldy and withers away or is warped and expresses itself abnormally. It is the object of Zen, therefore, to save us from going crazy or being crippled. This is what I mean by “freedom,” giving free play to all the creative and benevolent impulses inherently lying in our hearts.
(Read more)
War within
Je suis en guerre contre moi-même. Cette guerre... terrifiante et pénible, mais en même temps je sais que c’est la vie... donc je ne peux pas dire que j’assume cette contradiction, mais je sais aussi que c’est ce qui me laisse en vie, et me fait poser la question, justement: “Comment apprendre à vivre?”
(I am at war with myself... a terrible, pitiful war... that’s life. But I cannot say that I can solve that contradiction; although it is this riddle that keeps me alive and moves me to bring forth the question: How can one learn to live?).-- Jacques Derrida
_________________________
With a little help from Derrida's quote above, let's take Sun-Tzu's Taoist strategy of battle inside of ourselves. It's the endless struggle of becoming...
(I am at war with myself... a terrible, pitiful war... that’s life. But I cannot say that I can solve that contradiction; although it is this riddle that keeps me alive and moves me to bring forth the question: How can one learn to live?).-- Jacques Derrida
_________________________
With a little help from Derrida's quote above, let's take Sun-Tzu's Taoist strategy of battle inside of ourselves. It's the endless struggle of becoming...
Monday, June 8, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Confucianism
Confucius molded Chinese civilization in general and judging by the Analects, one can see that he exerted great influence on Chinese philosophical development. There is a humanistic tendency in Confucius’ thought; he did not care to talk about spiritual beings or even about life after death. Instead, he believed that we can make the Way (Tao) great. Confucius concentrated on man.
His primary concern is a good society based on good government and harmonious human relations. Confucius believed in the perfectibility of all men and in this connection he radically modified a traditional concept, that of the “superior man” or chün-tzu. One can broadly sum up Confucius system in a handful of principles:
1- T’ien (or heaven) is purposive, the master of all things. Tian is immanent: “Heaven sees through the eyes of the people, Heavens listens through the ears of the people.” Not necessarily anthropomorphic but anthropogenic, T'ien is embodied in the people and exemplified by the people. Heaven is a principle and that relates to human as that of part/whole relationship. 2- The Mandate of Heaven or T’ien-Ming consists of a Supreme Being who institutes a moral principle which then operates all by itself. That’s the principle of Heaven, T’ien Tao (later on called T’ien-li).
2- Jen (also pronounced as “ren” means indistinctly, altruism, humanity and fairness and appears more than 100 times in the Analects. Jen requires compassion.
3- “Do not impose to others what you don’t want.” This is a negative form of the Golden Rule, which is essential in Confucianism. “If you want to establish yourself, establish others. If you want to promote yourself, promote others.” To be able to apply the golden rule one has to follow a method,
4- “Shu,” which means to be empathetic, i.e., to be able to understand the circumstances. Shu necessitates
5- “Xue” or learning. Not an achievement verb, but rather a stronger sense of affecting oneself whether by improving one’s sensitivity, understanding or ability. With “xue’ one appropriates what’s learned, a process of becoming transforming. Xue is accompanied by
6- “Si,” that is, reflecting. “Learning without thinking, one will be perplexed, thinking without learning, one will be in peril.” (A, 2:15).
7- The Doctrine of the Mean or “Zhong-Yong.” It means centrality, not to be “one-sided.” It doesn’t mean staying in the middle regardless or no matter what. The idea is to stay between two vices, not between excellence and vice. “Excess is as bad as deficiency.” (A, 20:1). One very important element in Confucianism is the idea of
8- Li which is the idea of ritual propriety. Li can be seen as the embodiment of refinement that rules one’s life. If jen is the internal quality that makes a person an authentic person, then li is the body of external behavior that allows jen to be manifested and applied publicly. When li is properly performed, it becomes "yi,” a word that can be translated as righteousness. Li provides the fabric of social order. It’s the proper social behavior of a person embedded in a community of equals. Li is also a vital constituent of education: Humans are like raw materials, they need to be carved, chiseled, grounded and polished to become authentic individuals. By doing li one learns and instills oneself in the practice of li.
Finally, there’s an aesthetic dimension to the cultivation of li. Elegance and aptness has a beauty to it, i.e., the cultivation of oneself that is expressed through the individual’s actions.
His primary concern is a good society based on good government and harmonious human relations. Confucius believed in the perfectibility of all men and in this connection he radically modified a traditional concept, that of the “superior man” or chün-tzu. One can broadly sum up Confucius system in a handful of principles:
1- T’ien (or heaven) is purposive, the master of all things. Tian is immanent: “Heaven sees through the eyes of the people, Heavens listens through the ears of the people.” Not necessarily anthropomorphic but anthropogenic, T'ien is embodied in the people and exemplified by the people. Heaven is a principle and that relates to human as that of part/whole relationship. 2- The Mandate of Heaven or T’ien-Ming consists of a Supreme Being who institutes a moral principle which then operates all by itself. That’s the principle of Heaven, T’ien Tao (later on called T’ien-li).
2- Jen (also pronounced as “ren” means indistinctly, altruism, humanity and fairness and appears more than 100 times in the Analects. Jen requires compassion.
3- “Do not impose to others what you don’t want.” This is a negative form of the Golden Rule, which is essential in Confucianism. “If you want to establish yourself, establish others. If you want to promote yourself, promote others.” To be able to apply the golden rule one has to follow a method,
4- “Shu,” which means to be empathetic, i.e., to be able to understand the circumstances. Shu necessitates
5- “Xue” or learning. Not an achievement verb, but rather a stronger sense of affecting oneself whether by improving one’s sensitivity, understanding or ability. With “xue’ one appropriates what’s learned, a process of becoming transforming. Xue is accompanied by
6- “Si,” that is, reflecting. “Learning without thinking, one will be perplexed, thinking without learning, one will be in peril.” (A, 2:15).
7- The Doctrine of the Mean or “Zhong-Yong.” It means centrality, not to be “one-sided.” It doesn’t mean staying in the middle regardless or no matter what. The idea is to stay between two vices, not between excellence and vice. “Excess is as bad as deficiency.” (A, 20:1). One very important element in Confucianism is the idea of
8- Li which is the idea of ritual propriety. Li can be seen as the embodiment of refinement that rules one’s life. If jen is the internal quality that makes a person an authentic person, then li is the body of external behavior that allows jen to be manifested and applied publicly. When li is properly performed, it becomes "yi,” a word that can be translated as righteousness. Li provides the fabric of social order. It’s the proper social behavior of a person embedded in a community of equals. Li is also a vital constituent of education: Humans are like raw materials, they need to be carved, chiseled, grounded and polished to become authentic individuals. By doing li one learns and instills oneself in the practice of li.
Finally, there’s an aesthetic dimension to the cultivation of li. Elegance and aptness has a beauty to it, i.e., the cultivation of oneself that is expressed through the individual’s actions.