Monday, December 7, 2015

paragraph structure of your draft


Suppose these below are paragraphs (P1, P2, ... etc). The most important paragraphs in your paper are the first two (P1 and P2).
1- the thesis (T) with 3 arguments, (let's call them a, b, c),
2- your counter (CT) with 3 points, (let's call them ¬a, ¬b, ¬c).

So we have:
_____
P1

T (one sentence), followed by reasons (two or three sentences presenting your a, b, c, arguments.
Example of thesis: In this paper I argue against Fast Food. 
_____
P2

CT (one sentence) followed with the counter's denying your arguments ¬a, ¬b, ¬c.
Ex of counter thesis: Fast Food advocates disagree. 
_____
P3

T a Thesis takes argument a and develops it (Bring outside sources to defend your point and cite them).
_____
P4

C ¬a Counter denies your a and develops it. (Bring outside sources to the counter's defense and cite them in the paragraph)
_____
P5

T b  (same as before)
_____
P6

C ¬b  (same as before)
_____
P7

T c 
_____
P8

C ¬c
_____
P9

T c  (this penultimate paragraph you come back to win c and get ready for your conclusion paragraph)
_____
P10

T (Conclusion) "I hope I have shown that ______________________"

Friday, December 4, 2015

final exam schedule

MWF 9am    monday Dec. 14

MWF 11am   friday Dec. 18

TR 9:50am    tuesday Dec. 15

TR 11:15     thursday Dec. 17

T 5:40pm    tuesday Dec.15

Friday, November 20, 2015

valuable tips for your philosophy paper (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)


via Rashila Fernando: How to write a "good philosophy paper."   

nota bene: Rashila's reference to my "hating" German only applies to writing long/ruderless English sentences. English is succinct and clear. Ich liebe Deutsch!    

Here, The Voltaire Society's link. 

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

SUMMER AB Revision for Exam #3

Chapter 3 


3.1
Causal Determinism (every event has a cause that makes it happen + laws of nature) and 
Hard determinism (the doctrine that there are no free actions). Hard determinism assumes that if CD is true, then there are no free actions because as our bodies made up of matter, we must be subjects to the same laws of causation. In class we discussed an argument to problematize HD. If HD is true, then there is no human responsibility: i.e., if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices). 
Indeterminism: Is the view that certain events are not caused deterministically. That is, since the advent of quantum mechanics and according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the most basic constituents of matter can behave indeterministically. But if that was the case, there is not freedom either, that is, if my brain event is caused by a probabilistic event, and not my own causing it.

3.2
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free. One "soft" theory is Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions are 1- caused by one's will and 2- not externally constrained). The reasoning is this:

Principle of alternative possibilities:  one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "could have done otherwise" means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." Think of our "fork-example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism the student is responsible for being late since "if he had choosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class. 

C/E "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. In class we discussed how TV can "plant" desires. So in a way is a kind of ingenious physiologist.

"Hierarchical Compatibilism: First and Second Order Desires; Second Order Volitions. Remember: A first order desire is directed to an object or state of affairs, a second order desire is a desire about a desire, a second order volition is a second order desire one decisely acts upon. Harry Frankfurt's three drug addicts: 
(Let's call a first order desire: FOD, a second order desire: SOD, a second order volition: SOV) So we get the following: 
Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free. 
Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
Unwilling Addict: FOD, SOD (only this desire is against his taking the drug, not SOV, not free). C/E to Hierarchical Compatibilism: Slote's Hypnotized patient and The Willing Bank Teller. One proves that SOV can be manipulated from the inside. The other shows rthat SOV can be manipulated beyond our control. 


Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? p. 203. Punishment cannot be  retributive (eye-for-an-eye). The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them.

3.3
Libertarianism
Event and Agent Causation. Event---> event or Agent---> event.


Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? remember we talked about the possibility that the mind causes the brain. There are two arguments:

Argument from Experience. Argument from deliberation. 

Libet's Neurophysiological challenge: it seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal). Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.
 
__________________

Radical Libertarianism (Existentialism): Jean-Paul Sartre's kind of libertarianism (known as Existentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. His analysis is ontological. Let's begin with Sartre's lemma: existence precedes essence. We exist first, and are "defined" later. This happens because the self (l'être) is in a constant state of becoming (devenir).

For the purpose of the analysis, there are two kinds of being:

being-for-itself: l'être-pour-soi. main property: being for itself, which is essentially "a freedom that chooses." 
being in itselfl'être-en-soi, which is fundamentally without qualification (sans nuance).

To cope with this heavy "weight" of our own FREEDOM we come up with justifications which Sartre calls "bad faith." However, since not choosing is choosing, in the end we remain responsible for our actions. 


The only possible constraint to our freedom is our facticity (the stuff we don't choose, like being born and having a certain name and parents). 

AMAZING NEWS THE FIRST HEAD TRANSLPLANT???


via mariaelisa carbonell. 
Though researchers have seriously questioned the feasibility of Dr. Canavero's plans, it seems the first human head transplantation is a step closer to becoming a reality; Valery Spiridonov, a 30-year-old computer scientist from Vladimir, Russia, is the first person to volunteer for the procedure. Spiridonov has Werdnig-Hoffman disease - a rare genetic muscle wasting condition, also referred to as type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The condition is caused by the loss of motor neurons in the spinal cord and the brain region connected to the spinal cord. Individuals with the disease are unable to walk and are often unable to sit unaided.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

regarding personal identity...........

becoming nicole: the story of a transgender young woman... 
When Wayne and Kelly Maines adopted identical twin boys, Jonas and Wyatt, at birth in 1997, they were thrilled at the idea of having two sons. For a while, it was virtually impossible to tell the boys apart. But as they grew older, one child, Wyatt, started insisting that he was a girl.
"the secret lies within"... check identity, it's good and it's right in the midst of our topic! 


another movie about identity is a history of violence (this one is really good!) this reminds us of the robert/frank dichotomy. we'll talk about this in class soon.

transcendence (with Johnny Depp) this movie brings up the question of the difference between human and artificial intelligence. as you know i don't believe AI and HI are necessarily isomorphic. i.e., if we apply nagel's reasoning, the difference between AI and HI is qualia discrete, only bridged by a cyborg unit, and even then, one could make the argument that a cyborg it's not strictly "artificial."  

Friday, October 30, 2015

Final Exam Topics

Buddhism:

The Four Noble Truths: 1- The truth of misery, 2- the truth that misery originates from the craving for pleasure, 3- the truth that this craving for pleasure can be eliminated (controlled), 4- the truth that this elimination is the result of a method that must be followed:

Eightfold Path: 1- The right views, 2- right aspirations, 3- right speech, 4- right conduct, 5- right livelihood, 6- right effort, 7- right mindfulness, and 8- right meditational attainment.

Dharma: cosmic law, duty, also the teaching of Buddha.  

Karma: The principle of causality,

Nirvana: same as moksha: liberation.

Confucianism

1- T’ien (or heaven) is purposive, the master of all things. T'ien 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- Jen (also pronounced as “ren” means indistinctly, altruism, humanity and fairness and appears more than 100 times in the Analects. Jen requires compassion. 

Zhong-Yong: the Doctrine of the Mean = centrality = not to be “one-sided.” It doesn't mean just being in the middle regardless of context. The idea is to stay between two vices, not between excellence and vice. “Excess is as bad as deficiency.” (A, 20:1). Confucius defines it as: “Do not impose to others what you don't want,” the negative form of the Golden Rule. “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 Shu

4- Shu, means to be empathetic, i.e., to be able to understand the circumstances. Shu needs... 

5- Xue or learning. It means a stronger sense of affecting oneself by improving one’s sensitivity, understanding or ability. With xue one appropriates what’s learned, a process of becoming transforming.

6- Si, means reflecting. “Learning without Si, one will be perplexed, thinking (Si) without learning, one will be in peril.” (A, 2:15). 

7- Li which is the idea of ritual. 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

Taoism

1- Tao (the Way) is the ONE. Natural, eternal, spontaneous, nameless and indescribable

Lao Tzu assumes the YING YANG principle. Yang is the cosmic energy of Heaven, male, aggression, firmness and brightness. Ying is the cosmic energy of earth, a female element that is receptive, yielding and dark. Harmony in nature is achieved through these two cosmic energies. They are both equally important. 

2- Being/Non-being, meaning the dialectic aspect of the universe. It's duck-rabbit. The second part of the dichotomy is referred to as Wuji (limitless, infinite)It's the ultimate nothingness. 
Know whiteness, Maintain blackness, and be a model for all under heaven. By being a model for all under heaven, Eternal integrity will not err. If eternal integrity does not err, You will return to infinity. 
3- Cycles: Tao moves in cycles. But the life cycle is an unchanging truth. While everything in nature and all sentient beings follow their respective cycles, so do worldly events. The main lesson here is that there is no rule by which one can foresee the future. Beware of Black Swans!

4- If a person shows Tao, he/she has applied Te (virtue). The ideal life for the individual and the ideal order for society and government are based on and guided by it. Te = harmony with your milieu, thus the universe.   

One who understand the the dominating character of the male yet keeps to the passive nature of the female, behaves properly

Te "produces but does not possess, cares but does not control; it leads but does not subjugate." 

5- Tao has a 5-point method: 

a- Simplicity: "less is more"
"less" here is not deficient, or lacking, or reduced. It's the best possible less: the just less that makes it happen.   

b- Spontaneity or tzu-yan: "blaze the trail not often followed" 
Even at the verge of erring, err honestly.  

c- Tranquility: "moon illumines the crystal blue water" 
The quiet horizon amidst the noise. Levelheadedness in crisis.  

d- Flexibility: "be a blade of grass" 
Dare let the weather lead.  

e- Non-action or wu-weiBecause of its importance, I intend to explain wu-wei in more detail in my next post.

Zen

1- Talking silence (Dogen):

"Avoid unnecessary words.
Speak with your mind.
Read people’s minds."

2- Being a fool (Master Ikkyu):

"How to reach out?"
Listen… ask.
"How can I obtain wisdom?"
Be a fool.
....

"What is Zen?
Nothing special."

A monk asked Ummon: "What is Buddha?" Ummon answered him: "Dried shit."
....
3- Gentle Face (Shin-Hiu)

"Gentle face means a happy spirit,
Let people know it.
Let people see it.
What if they resent it?
Since they need it, they will come to love it."

4- Compelling mind (Ryokan)

"The compelling mind is peaceful."
....

"How can I feel my mind?
Look at the mountain…"
.....

"Read minds and look at the mountains.".....

"Beathe with your mind and think with your heart!"

5- Cultivate Poetry (the koan as a device for enlightenment)*

Language is evoked by the present occasion itself; it is not merely a mapping of the present in terms of learned structures. thus, language has more of a poetic than a discursive dimension. poetry proper is never merely a higher mode of everyday language. it's rather the reverse: everyday language is a forgotten and therefore used-up poem, from which there hardly resounds a call any longer.

6- Doing Nothing

"Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water."

"When you seek it, you cannot find it."

"After enlightenment, the laundry."

what does a black female philosopher look like?

professor sybol cook anderson, @ st. mary's college maryland

professor angela davis, educated in brandeis and frankfurt (germany)

professor kathryn t. gines, @ penn state university


professor desiree melton, @ notre dame university

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

philosophy club's first meeting next tuesday november 3 @ 2:30pm



the philosophy club is on! 

first meeting is tuesday november 3, room #3327 at 2:30pm.

trending topic: NSA and government surveillance!

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Bodhidharma and the great hall of mirrors


Illustration by Clay Hickson, via Juxtapoz

MANY roads lead to the Path, but basically there are only two: reason and practice.

To enter by reason means to realize the essence through instruction and to believe that all living things share the same true nature, which isn’t apparent because it’s shrouded by sensation and delusion. Those who turn from delusion back to reality, who meditate on walls,’ the absence of self and other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with reason.

Without moving, without effort, they (we all) enter, we say, by reason.

To enter by practice refers to four practices:

Suffering injustice,
adapting to conditions,
seeking nothing, and
practicing the Dharma.

First, suffering injustice. When those who search for the Path encounter adversity, they should think to themselves: "In Countless ages gone by, I’ve turned from the essential to the trivial and wandered through all manner of existence, often angry without cause and guilty of numberless transgressions.

Second, adapting to conditions. I say, be a blade of grass.

Third, seeking nothing. People of this world are deluded. They’re always longing for something-always, in a word, seeking. The wise wake up. They choose reason over custom. They fix their minds on the sublime and let their bodies change with the seasons. All phenomena are empty. They contain nothing worth desiring. Calamity forever alternates with Prosperity!

To dwell in the three realms is to dwell in a burning house. To have a body is to suffer. Does anyone with a body has peace? The more reason to have it! Those who understand this detach themselves from all they have and stop imagining or seeking. The sutras say, To seek is to suffer.

The Way:

The Way is wordless. Words are illusions. They’re no different from things that appear in your dreams at night, be they palaces or carriages, forested parks or lakeside ‘lions. Don’t conceive any delight for such things. Don’t cling to appearances, and you’ll break through all barriers.

Your real body is pure and impervious. But you’re unaware of it. And because of this you suffer karma in vain. Wherever you find delight, you find bondage. Feel it. But once you awaken to your original body and mind," you’re no longer bound by attachments.

Using the mind to look for reality is delusion. Not using the mind to took for reality is awareness.

Freeing oneself from words is liberation. No appearance of the mind is the other shore.

Aware:

When you’re deluded, this shore exists. When you wake tip, it doesn’t exist. Mortals stay on this shore. But those who discover the greatest of all vehicles stay on neither this shore nor the other shore. They’re able to leave both shores.

Delusion means mortality. Awareness means Buddhahood. They’re not the same. And they’re not different.

When we’re deluded there’s a world to escape. When we’re aware, there’s nothing to escape.

Limit of paradox:

If you use your mind to study reality, you won’t understand either your mind or reality.

If you study reality without using your mind, you’ll understand both.

Those who don’t understand don’t understand understanding. And those who understand, understand not understanding.

People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding. The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding

When you don’t understand, your wrong. When you understand, you re not wrong. This is because the nature of wrong is empty. When you don’t understand right seems wrong. When you understand, wrong isn’t wrong, because wrong doesn’t exist.

The sutras say, Nothing has a nature of its own.

Act. 

Don’t question. When you question, you’re wrong. Wrong is the result of questioning.

take a look at five good search engines for your paper

1. infotopia from google

2. academic info

3. base

4. citeyoulike

5. google scholar

how to connect paragraphs (the secret of transitional phrases)

1. transitions of similarity: (use these when moving from thesis to a second thesis paragraph)

also, 
in the same way, 
(just as ... so too), 
likewise, 
similarly

2. transitions of contrast: (use this when moving from thesis to counter)

but
however, 
 in spite of, 
on the one hand ... on the other hand, 
nevertheless, 
nonetheless, 
notwithstanding, 
in contrast, 
on the contrary, 
still, 
yet, 
despite the previous argument...

3. transitions of example: (use this when you want to show something, in the same sentence or in the next, or the next paragraph)

for example, 
for instance, 
namely, 
specifically,
 indeed, 
in fact, 
of course, 

4.  transitions of cause and effect: (this looks like a conclusion of a previous argument) 

accordingly, 
consequently, 
hence, 
so, 
therefore, 
thus 

5. transitions of evidence: (you use this transitions to further show more evidence)

additionally, 
again, 
also, 
and, 
as well, 
besides, 
equally important,
further, 
furthermore, 
in addition, 
moreover, 
then

6. transitions of summary or conclusion: (any time you want to announce a conclusive point)

finally, 
 in a word, 
in brief, 
briefly, 
in conclusion, 
in the end, 
in the final analysis, 
on the whole, 
thus, 
to conclude, 
to summarize, 
in sum, 
to sum up, 
in summary

if you move from a Thesis -Counter or Counter-Thesis you need transitions of contrast.  

if you are giving more reasons for Thesis or Counter in the following paragraph you need transitions of evidence.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

We have a Philosophy Club!



Good news. Our Phi 2010 philosophy club is on!

The president of the club is Fritz Charles. Cristopher Labora is the vice-president.

If you are interested in joining, please leave your name and a way for Fritz to contact you here.

you are what you present, you are what you show. what else is there?

non-content problems

1- loose sheets, unstapled.
2- the written assignment presented front-and-back (as if you'll save the planet with this assignment).
3- list of work cited in the same page of the discussion (as if one more page is a sin).
4- MLA conventions not followed with in-text citations and at the end of the draft (remember, no URLs allowed!)
5- ink marks (on the presented assignment),
6- no time of class (i.e., "MWF 10am"),
7- drafts without titles.

content problems (definitely more important)

1- too much copy-and-paste (I call it C/P ratio, people call it plagiarism).
2- syntax problems (broken sentences, hanging phrases, rambling sentences).
3- colloquialisms left and right,  
4- hyperbole (when you exaggerate a point)
5- ad hominem, circularity (remember fallacies?)
6- Paragraphs without the proper thesis or counter identification (as  in "same-sex marriage advocates" vs. "same-sex marriage critics"),
7- coherence problems: broken threads, disconnected points in a same paragraph, etc (the problem here is lack f research and excessive copy-and-paste  without revision)

once finished, read your discussions to point to structural deficiencies in your arguments.

follow these suggestions:

1- prioritize your args. hone them, make them better. read your sentences. make them good with explanatory power.  
2- read your drafts out loud! 
3- redink your own weak points and fix them. build the best possible paragraphs you can build.
4- talk from your heart. digest your appropriated content (so it doesn't look carelessly plagiarized).

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

downward causation and emergence (only deeper)

for those of you interested in a deeper discussion about downward causation and emergence, click here. 

Monday, October 12, 2015

the robots are coming!


In his new book, Rise of the Robots, Martin Ford considers the social and economic disruption that is likely to result when educated workers can no longer find employment.
But what we're seeing now in robotics is that finally the machines are ... being driven by advances in areas like visual perception. You now have got robots that can see in three-dimension and that's getting much better and also becoming much less expensive. So you're beginning to see machines that are starting to have the kind of perception and dexterity that begins to approach what human beings can do. A lot more jobs are becoming susceptible to this and that's something that's going to continue to accelerate, and more and more of those jobs are going to disappear and factories are just going to relentlessly approach full-automation where there really aren't going to be many people at all.
for example, machines can now fully produce very, very high quality hamburgers ... about 350 to 400 per hour; they come out fully configured on a conveyor belt ready to serve to the customer. ... it's all fresh vegetables and freshly ground meat and so forth; it's not frozen patties like you might find at a fast food joint. These are actually much higher quality hamburgers than you'd find at a typical fast food restaurant.

wine tasting aesthetics


let's do a little wine axiology here. take this advice from winefolly.com: How to Taste Wine?
Look: Look at the shade of color and opacity. How does it compare to other wines of the same varietal? Is it darker? More intense? Harder to see through? Take a mental snapshot for later, these hints will show how bold, rich and viscous the wine is.
Smell: Time to pay attention. Identifying smells beforehand makes tasting flavors in wine easier. Start by swirling the glass to aerate the wine and release its aromas. To swirl a glass, place it flat on a table and move your hand as though you are drawing tiny circles with the base. Now stick your nose in there and take a big sniff. What do you smell?
Taste: Who doesn’t love this step? Take a mouthwash size sip and briefly swish it around your mouth to make sure it coats your entire tongue before you swallow. Think about the flavors, textures and body of the wine. Is it sharp? Does it make your tongue feel dry? Do the flavors match the smells from earlier? Can you name a fruit, mineral or spice? Does it have an alcohol burn?
Swallow/Spit: Oh my. Have you ever rationalized swallowing because you’d hate to waste wine? There are some good reasons to spit. Maybe the wine doesn’t suit your taste or you want to save yourself for better wine. Maybe you need to drive. Or better yet, maybe you want to be sober enough to actually taste all the wines at a tasting. As long as you’re safe, we won’t judge you either way.
Think: Too many guides focus on the superficial nuances of wine tasting. Wine tasting is a head game. Confidence and bold assertion can often make someone look like a pro who actually knows nothing. Don’t be afraid to pipe up and offer your suggestions! There are no wrong answers. Although, if every wine smells like burnt toast you might want to see a doctor.
scroll down and check the video of the young female somm discussing primitivo. she is really cool. we've discussed this in class, basically the more you discriminate taste the better you're able to taste.

Friday, October 9, 2015

our philosophy club has a blog!


philosophers, the philosophy club is alive, it breathes the spirit of enlightenment, free exchange of idea in the , pursuit of truth. thus, they have called it,

the voltaire society!

rashila fernando (president)
max imbert (vice-president)
stanley othello (organizer)
susana martinez (secretary)

i quote from their manifesto:
Regardless, even if you are a student completely unfamiliar with Philosophical concepts, there is nothing that can prevent the evolution of a thought or the blooming of a brilliant idea. And the beauty of it lies in the fact that it can happen anywhere, anytime.
don't wait any longer to join this group of intrepid thinkers! 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

key to abbreviations in grading your discussion assignment

P: proper prefacing the paragraph. remember transitional phrases.

+Arg: The paragraph needs a better or more substantive argument. In general what is written could be said better.

Sx: syntax issues: run-on sentences, sentence fragments, rambling sentences

Relevance: Relevance, some sort of problem with what has been said that needs correction.

Usage: ways in which words are used needs attention

Grammar:  whether sentence construction, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, misplaced modifiers/split Infinitives, mixed construction.

C/D: too many citations and sources, very little discussion, a red flag for plagiarism.

Coll: Too colloquial a style.  

Red.: Redundant sentence, the point is too repetitive.  

Coherence: there is a problem with the internal thread, sentences are disparate, tackling too much in too little space, the argument doesn't follow, etc.




Thursday, October 1, 2015

list of student assistants for all phi 2010 classes


m,w,f, 9am

Daymara Roque
Jorge Marrero
Adriana Olmos

m,w,f, 11am

Lauren Parson
Spencer Daphnis
Erick Briones
Mariaelisa Carbonell

t,r 9:50am

Cecilia Castillo
Alexander Jimenez
Patrick Robinson
David Gomez
Susana Martinez

t,r 11:15am

Jenny Guerrier
Brandon Milian
Alexandra Vazquez
Stephanie Desouza

t 5:40pm

Mariana Murillo
Nile Lofters
Shena Othello

Friday, September 25, 2015

result of (automated) elections for our philosophy club!


Rashila Sanduli (President)
Max Isambert (Vicepresident)
Stanley Othello (Treasurer)
Susana Martinez (Secretary)

we had 4 rounds out of 7 members : for president, then for vice, for treasurer and lastly for secretary. if you have an issue with your actual position let me know ASAP.

now you have to meet and discuss the next move: recruiting!

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

are you interested in being part of the philosophy club?


the philosophy club (PHICLUB from hereon) at wolfson campus & it's ready for business.

if you're interested in becoming a president, vice, secretary, treasurer and eliciting philosophical discussions with the support of your professor and student union, etc, come to me, first-come, first-served.

PHICLUB points.

1- the responsibility of the PHICLUB: elect a president, secretary, treasurer, etc.

2- to stimulate a democratic environment,  the president conducts issues to be treated and assigns issues to be discussed in future meetings. based on suggestions and/or criticisms, he/she stipulates what to do next.

3- it's advisable to have an agenda that the president will provide. at least, the agenda must be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

4- since much of philosophy is about arguments, all disagreements be treated in a civilized manner. there should be a box for suggestions to be examined by the president and the secretary & suggestions should be aired and confronted.

5- the PHICLUB should meet weekly, preferable inside a classroom (accommodations are possible & the president could arrange it).

6- it's good to keep minutes of each meeting. they are the club's proof of direction.

7- the PHICLUB should try to expand and reach out to other students.

8- it's advisable to come up with some kind of calendar for the rest of the term served by the president.

9- events should include presentations, debates, field trips and others.

are you ready? send me an email!! election is next week.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

philosophy club members up for election (so far)

Max Isambert

Gabriella Becerril

Stanley Othello

Susana Martinez

Juan Jimenez

Rashila Sanduli

Martina Korganoff

R.J. Hatfield

Thursday, September 10, 2015

neledi: a new member of the human family tree discovered in south africa

the neledi are a handsome hominid ancestor type, if you ask me

find the article here.
The creature, which evidently walked upright, represents a mix of traits. For example, the hands and feet look like Homo, but the shoulders and the small brain recall Homo's more ape-like ancestors, the researchers said. Lee Berger, a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the work, said naledi's anatomy suggest that it arose at or near the root of the Homo group, which would make the species some 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old. The discovered bones themselves may be younger, said Berger, an American.
 ordered neledi bones

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

need a math tutor? i have one for you


you have problems with math and you're falling behind. don't wait any longer. the investment in a tutor is absolutely necessary. but not just any tutor. i recommend johnny nguyen:
mat1033, mac1105, mac1147 and mac2311: $15/hour for mac 1105/1147 and mat1033. $12/hour for calculus (mac2311).
if interested send an email to: Johnny.nguyen001@mymdc.net

Chapter 5 Topics for Review

Ethics is the study of moral values.

Moral values are behaviors of fundamental consequence for human welfare.

Moral Judgements = Moral standards + Factual beliefs.

Ethics can be broadly divided into objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivism is the view that right and wrong are independent from peoples' beliefs. Subjectivism is the view that right and wrong are dependent of peoples' beliefs.

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to 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. 

5. 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,). 6. 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 Consequentialism

1. 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. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else).
3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: Egoism may condone acts that are obviously wrong as right (you walk into the forest and see your rival who has been attacked by a wild animal. If it is in your best interest to eliminate him without getting caught then you are morally obligated to finish him off. In addition, you would not vote for an egoist in office. 
4. 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) McCloskey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue, (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality. 
5. 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 Kantian Ethics

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. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. 
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? Problem of exceptions to the rule. Sometimes we have to treat people as means to ends. Example: Broad's Typhoid Man. What to do then?

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

why induction is not foolproof

an example of inductive reasoning: 

a, b, c & d are observed to be true therefore a may be true.

(a is a reasonable explanation for b, c, & d being true).

ex:

p1: A large enough asteroid impact would create a very large crater and cause a severe impact winter that could drive the non-avian dinosaurs to extinction.
p2: We observe that there is a very large crater in the gulf of Mexico dating to very near the time of the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs
_____________________
c: Therefore it is possible that this impact could explain why the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct.

note: see that c is not necessarily the case, other events also coincide with the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.

remember: inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. it only deals in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Tiktaalik, the transitional 375-million-year-old fish


check this article in the NYTimes:
... on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans. The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
this is proof for evolution. why? transitionality,
... scientists have concluded that Tiktaalik is an intermediate between the fish Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago.

why do you need physics? because physics is the study of reality!


check out this wonderful site (those of you who haven't taken physics).

click on the particular subjects, whether light, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, sun, black holes, condensed matter, etc. 

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Final Exam Chapter 5 Spring 17

Ethics is the study of moral values.

Moral values are behaviors of fundamental consequence for human welfare.

Moral Judgements = Moral standards + Factual beliefs.

Ethics can be broadly divided into objectivism and subjectivism.

Objectivism is the view that right and wrong are independent from peoples' beliefs. Subjectivism is the view that right and wrong are dependent of peoples' beliefs.

1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.

Counters: (a) SA makes moral evaluations a matter of personal opinion, (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.

Counters (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. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE!

Counters: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering). I've brought up the argument of throwing acid into women's faces, as a proof that these women's suffering warrant a moral judgment of condemnation. 

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture.

Counters: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to 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. 

5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: we can make the case that moral standards are sort of facts. Not 1+1=2 kind-of-fact, but "unnecessary suffering is wrong" kind-of-fact. For example, "slavery is wrong" seems to be morally factual, i.e., the unjust exploitation of the slave and his/her suffering seems to address facts in the world. So, 

Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation).

So we talk of factual beliefs, which is 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,).

6. The text suggests one can defend the idea of universal moral principles?

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. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; moral agency & personhood are essential values: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and

Instrumental values: values for the sake of something else, "Peter is a good mechanic" is an example of instrumental value.

3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes one's best interest. We talk about this calculation as PRUDENCE. The egoist understand the social rules of engagement: favor for favor, and that maximizing means a long term commitment to one's interest. 

Counters: (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). 

4. Act or Traditional Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered. Remember "everyone" means here the group the utilitarian is considering, i.e., family, community, state, nation, etc.

Counters: (a) McCloskey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue, (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality. 

5. 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 better than TU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.

In McCloskey's case, the rule is "Do not bear false witness." In Brandt's Utilitarian Heir case, the rule is "Do not kill (your father)," in Ewing's Torture, the rule is "Do not torture." Yet if one knew that this particular individual, John Doe had information that would save the lives of 100 people, Rule Utilitarianism would justify torturing him (given the second clause of the definition: to "maximize happiness everyone considered").  Once a utilitarian, always a utilitarian. 

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. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. Problem with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (I've commented this as the Jihadist counter. He follows reversibility and universalizability. It's perverse formulation but it satisfies both R and U).

How can we solve this?

3. Kant's Second Formulation: "treat people as ends, never merely as a means to an end." 

Counters: Problem of exceptions to the rule. Some times we have to treat people as means to ends. Example: Broad's Typhoid Man. What to do then?

 Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation. 

4. 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, 3- reparation, (are the three most important) followed by:
4- beneficence, 5- non-maleficence, 6- gratitude, 7- self-improvement. 5. Pluralistic Formalism improves upon Kantian theory's problem with exceptions.

Section 5.4

Aristotle's virtue.

Aristotle begins by saying that virtue is an admirable human quality.

There are intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are dispositions, such as wisdom and understanding, which help discover truth.  Moral virtues are dispositions such as courage, temperance, friendliness, justice, etc. Intellectual virtues can be thought, moral virtues need to be practiced. They help us avoid moral problems but more importantly, they help our moral balance (since generally a poor action is a manifestation of defect or excess).

The highest good for humans, the highest aim of all human practical thinking, is eudaimonia. What makes a virtuous character (ethikē aretē) possible, which is in turn necessary if happiness is to be possible.

He describes a sequence of necessary steps: righteous actions (under the influence of teachers) allow the development of the right habits, which in turn can allow the development of a good character in which the habits are voluntary, and this in turn gives a chance of achieving eudaimonia. Virtue is an admirable human quality, marked by a disposition to behave in certain ways in certain circumstances. Then, there is the mean between excess and defect.

Here are some examples:

defect       golden mean      excess
cowardice----courage----rashness
apathy----gentleness----short temper
stinginess----generosity----extravagance
grouchiness----friendliness----flattery
boorishness----wittiness----buffoonery
self-deprecation----truthfulness----boastfulness
insensibility----self-control----debauchery