Final exam (written by Devorah Korf)

Find the link here.

facts & america (... and the "bigot" charge)

the homophobic charge: As per same-sex marriage, (67% in favor, 82% D, 44% R, 71% I) not bad if you ask me,

the xenophobic charge: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: majority of US citizens say illegal immigrants should be deported (of those 38% are Latinos themselves!) Are these Latinos xenophobic?

the pro-gun charge: only 20% of Americans oppose the second amendment, Americans are pro-gun (and ALSO pro gun-control, that needs to be tweaked).

Theism vs. atheism: 69% believe in God, 26% don't. Americans are THEISTS.

The bigot charge: First, the definitions. A bigot is "strongly" partial to his beliefs, (are many of us any different?). Secondly, the definition allows for subtlety; it seems the problem lies in the adverbial modification: "strongly." If I was just partial to my beliefs, presumably that doesn't make me a bigot. But being partial to my beliefs is REDUNDANT! because that's EXACTLY THE VERY DEFINITION OF BELIEF (look at definition #2 in dictionary the link). But having beliefs IS Quite NORMAL. It gets more bizarre: Consider that if you had strong beliefs against the "bigot," that makes you ANOTHER BIGOT! 

topics for our final exam (WOLFSON HONORS)

Ethics is the study of moral values. Metaethics is the study of ethics.

Moral values are behaviors of fundamental consequence for human welfare.

mj = mn + facts :::: moral judgments = moral norms + "facts"

Is there moral knowledge? (here I flesh out moral naturalism)

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: mj = mn + "facts" (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a "fact"? 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. We could point to at least two: 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2 

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 (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. This is equivalent to a calculus of prudence. C/A (a) Moral agents are mot mere instruments for one's interest. (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office if you could vote for an utilitarian).

Click here for my notes on Ethical Egoism

 4. Act Utilitarianism (or Traditional utilitarianism): What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (remember this is only a particular milieu: family, class, Miami, Florida, the USA). C/A (a) McCloskey’s informant (problems with rights) (b) Brandt’s Heir (problems with duties), (c) Goodwin's Fire Rescue (problems with duties), (e) Ross Unhappy promise (problems with duties) (6) Ewing's Utilitarian torture (problems with justice).

Click here for my notes on utilitarianism

Section 5.3 

Kant's Formalism. Formalism is the theory that AIR because of the action's form.

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. Duties: obligations one has by virtue of one's embeddedness in society. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties.

Here are my notes on Kantian ethics.

3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? C/A The problem with Kantian theory is the problem of exceptions to the rule. Should I keep a promise even if it puts someone's life in danger? Then, some times we have to treat people as means to ends.

Here are my notes on Kant's second formulation.

Here are my notes on Political Philosophy. 

Study the freedoms, equality and rights (Capitalism is not part of it).

Final paper submission guidline

this is what your final paper should look like (see the staple on the top left hand-side)

1- You're supposed to hand the final draft on the date of the final. 
2- The final paper must comes with both peer-revisions. 
3- The draft must be stapled, no binders, no cover page. 
4- At the top left the draft:

PHI 2010 
John Doe (your name)
MWF 10am class  

5- Your draft should be written in Times New Roman point 12, paginated on the top, right hand side.
6- Title in bold (centered). 
7- Your draft must be double spaced, with a minimum of 1,000-1,200 words.
8- MLS style of citations, (all same font, same size, including online sources). 
9- Please, properly spell check your drafts.

EACH OF THESE DETAILS ARE WORTH POINTS!

Is social media responsible for our democracy’s current crisis?

take a look at this interesting article in the NYTimes,

political philosophy (only this post)

Here a quick breakdown of three categories freedoms, rights and equality, they are all important, the discussion is what's (more important).

FREEDOMS

personal freedoms: freedom of speech, private property, inheritance, etc

social freedoms: religious freedom, freedom of political assembly (generally it means a freedom of association), 

RIGHTS 

what is a right? a right is a normative rule about what is owed of people or allowed of people.

natural rights: are "natural" in the sense of "not man-made", one owns them because one belongs in the HOMO SAPIENS club. therefore, they are universal. they apply to all people, and do not depend from the laws of any specific society. they are inherent.

absolute right: an absolute right is the strongest right, which cannot be overridden by any other types of considerations (e.g., utility or expedience) that do not involve rights.

prima facie rights: it means that at first sight, the right appears applicable but upon closer scrutiny, we may decide that other considerations outweigh it. 

legal rights: these are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures 8the right to vote, a felon may not enjoy that right).

negative rights: these are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. another way of looking at it is that negative rights are natural. Lockean proviso of rights: right to freedom, private property and pursuit of happiness.

positive right: is an entitlement ("one is entitled to") a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. example: welfare rights. see that positive rights are rights one consents in others having. one is not "born with them".

a difference between negative and positive rights is that positive rights are not inherent. 

political rights: they protect individuals' freedoms from infringement by governments, social organizations, and other private individuals. they include peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety. they include: protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability. they also include negative rights such as freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement. 

from the previous definition of prolitical rights, one infers the rights to equal opportunity.

right to equal opportunity: is a state of fairness in society (in education or employment or housing) where people are treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.

example: take a person applying for a job. 1- her chances should be based solely on her qualifications. she should not be discriminated against because of position, connections, religion, sex, ethnicity,  race, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

making a distinction based on anything other than her qualifications would amount to denying others of equal opportunity.
autonomy = freedom/self-beliefs

EQUALITY: "TREAT EQUALS EQUALLY & UNEQUAL UNEQUALLY"

E1 the principle of opportunities: we all SHOULD have the same right to opportunities, regardless of our differences (even if one may end with unequal results).

E2 equality of outcomes: people should have approximately the same material wealth and income (now it has been extended to identity politics).

COUNTERS: 

1- Striving for equal outcomes generally backfires, since normalizing the outcomes may require a degree of discrimination between groups to achieve the desired outcome. example: giving positions, grants, admissions in universities, etc, to people not because of merit. In fact, policies that seek equality of outcomes often require a deviation from the strict application of meritocracy and equality for all citizens.

2- If I have reasons to believe that my autonomy is being squashed at the expense of someone else, both of us having had the same equality of opportunities, I'd feel that I've been treated unfairly (imagine I come up with a grading method that averages the Ds to a general "C" at the expense of the Bs and As). In this case the principle of equality violates a principle of fairness.

Look above at the intersection of freedoms and rights: which of the spheres is more important?

The ideal situation is seems to be to keep them in balance. But recently there are ideological slants. Libertarians prefer freedom, socialists prefer equality. Liberals are kind of in the middle (favoring both).

Now, there are problems with both Libertarianism and Socialism Why? Socialism is idea of distributing wealth (and the engine of communism) has failed.

Yet, there are socialist policies of various degrees, for example, medicare and medicaid, TANF, and foodstamps, and plan 8 housing, in the US or the much touted programs of Universal Health in Denmark, Sweden, Norway. However it's a mistake to assume that these northern countries are socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with socialist policies. 

As per Libertarianism, the idea of the minimal state presents problems for increasingly bigger nations with heterogeneous populations.

It seems a negotiation of moderate liberalism is the best option with an emphasis on safeguarding personal freedoms while keeping economic inequalities at bay.  

talke a look a this case, which pits claims of religious freedom against the fight for gay rights

the story in this article from the NYTimes.

the story of Esraa, a courageous girl in Egypt

FIRST DRAFT in-class peer-review

1- BEGGING THE QUESTION ISSUES (THESIS AND COUNTER DECLARATIONS)

Take a look at each explanatory sentence in the THESIS and COUNTER declarations. Make sure that these sentences are not begging the question on the points presented!  Your explanatory sentence should give reasons for the declarative sentence. Be careful NOT TO BEG THE QUESTION!

what's in RED, below, is redundant:

In this paper, I will argue against the excessive use of social media. Firstly, social media excessive use has reduced face-to-face interaction. Individuals are more comfortable engaging with each other online rather than talking face to face. Additionally, social media have also led to a lack of privacy in our society. Any personal information that is shared on social media is no longer considered to be personal because any other users can capture that information without your approval.

The explanations in red are repeating the declarations, SAYING THE SAME THING with different words. THIS IS A GRAVE SIN IN LOGIC!

2- INJECTING THE THESIS INTO THE COUNTER'S PARAGRAPH

This student writes a paper on the side of fast food critics. Below is the paragraph for his counter, a fast-food advocate. See how he purposefully misrepresents the position of the advocate INSIDE the fast-food advocate:

Fast food advocates disagree, simply by stating that trans fats in the food are non-consequential, so it wouldn’t matter to them. The advocate will also bluntly disagree on the ingredients, stating that non-nutritious food is not necessarily harmful, which of course it is. 

3- TAKE A LOOK AT PARAGRAPH 7. PLAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SEE IF THE THESIS MAKES A CONVINCING CASE AGAINST THE COUNTER'S LAST POINT. THIS PARAGRAPH WINS THE PAPER. 

4- Make sure that every factoid in your paper is properly sourced! Any number, whether average or percentage or total, must be properly sourced. You have to provide source where yu get it from.  Example: 

Accordingly we see an increase of 5% in the number of deaths due to suicide amongst drug users (McCulloch, 23). The realization prompted the DSCT of New York to raise the alarm that its facilities should ID such cases (Yorvis, 4). Even then, skeptics like Dr. Mathew Jordan, from Baptist Hospital in New York, declares that there is no correlation between drug usage and depression (New York Times, 1996).  

See above that the student has mentioned three different factoids and they're ALL properly sourced.

5- LOOK HERE FOR MLA IN-TEXT CITATIONS PROTOCOL. FOLLOW IT!

If you know your author, there should have a parenthetical citation (  ,  ) like this:

Human beings have been described as "symbol-using animals" (Burke, 3). 

The entry "Burke" will appear in the bibliography as such:

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 

If you don't know your author, do it this way:

We see so many global warming hot spots in North America likely because this region has "more readily accessible climatic data and more comprehensive programs to monitor and study environmental change . . ." ("Impact of Global Warming"). 

And this is how to cite it in the bibliography:

"The Impact of Global Warming in North America." Global Warming: Early Signs. 1999. www.climatehotmap.org. Accessed 23 Mar. 2009.
 
6- IS YOUR DRAFT COHERENT? FOR INTERNAL COHERENCE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS EXAMPLE: 

see the thesis paragraph above, each point preceded by "First," "Second," declarative sentence, explanatory sentence. Now let's look at the thesis first point above properly fleshed out in thesis paragraph 3 of the draft:

recall that the thesis' second point was that "social media increases happiness of its users." see below how the point is taken and flesed out in paragraph 5 of the draft.

boyfriend girlfriend discuss moral norms (he's a relativst, she's an objectivist)

She: You know, I'm tired of you looking at girls every time we go out.
He: Ehem, sorry. Looking at what?
She: Girls! You do it! Even as I'm by your side. So disrespectful.  
He: Wait, babe.
She: Don't babe me.
He: Are you upset?
She: Of course I am!
He: Apple of my eye.  I wouldn't do anything to hurt you. Look, if it makes you upset I'll stop it. It's just a involuntary reflex, a vestige of Homo Erectus in my subconscious male mind.
She: You don't get it! I don't want you to stop it just because I'm upset (she is making an objectivist point here).
He: What is that supposed to mean?
She: I want you to understand it's wrong.
He: I do, you're upset and that makes it wrong.
She: No! It's not wrong because I'm upset. It's the other way around: I'm upset because IT is wrong.
He: Alright, since when looking at a girl is wrong?  
She: First, it's not merely "looking." What makes your "looking" wrong is that you have your girlfriend by your side. And I deserves your respect. And that's a fact.
He: Ok, help me here. Would it be wrong if you didn't object to it? (he's compelling her to admit wrong is dependent to her beliefs)
She: Yes. If I had no self-esteem, and was therefore blind to your constant ogling at girls in my presence, it would still be wrong. Go find a woman that respects herself and finds that entertaining (she is successfully pointing to moral facts independent of her beliefs) 
He: Look, my love, I'm ready to stop it if that offends you. But we're going to have to agree to disagree (this is the limit of the subjective relativist).

objectivism, subjectivism and relativism

1- we have learned that moral norms come from moral behaviors, which contribute to group survival.
these behaviors are enforced by the group by ELDERS. they have the cosmogony of the group. the cosmogony is the narrative of the group.

2- these behaviors are passed on as MEMES. this is what we know as religion (which is the group sets of rituals to ensure survival.

3- moral norms are guarded by the DEITY, in the form of moral COMMANDS (DO NOT DO...)

  
see that the division is whether moral judgments are either dependent (SUBJECTIVIST) or independent (OBJECTIVISTS) of people's beliefs.

moral relativism is the view that moral judgements are relative to people's beliefs or cultural values.

descriptive moral relativism is the view that people do disagree about what is right and wrong, so we owe to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

here's a sketch:

 1- moral relativism is infallible because it declares moral values a consequence of people's beliefs. your beliefs determine your moral norms. here's an example in real life:

therefore, what makes an action is right is that someone approves of it. 

2- the impossibility of debating moral differences is a result of moral relativism's infallibility.

3- the contradiction of relativism is that an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. 

4- actually, moral values are deeper than the relativist make them to be. they are not merely arbitrary, but the result of incremental social behaviors which ensure the survival of the species. these behaviors are passed on to the next generation as social memes. 

instructions for your draft's first four paragraphs (MINITERM)

click here,

problems with your drafts? here is a list students who can help YOU

This is a list of students whose drafts are good enough that they can give sound advice:

MWF 10 am

Antonio Cardenas,
Paul Miniet,

Diego Rodriguez, 

Humbert Torres,

MWF 11am

Vanessa Arrieta,

Julian Mier,
Selena Bridges,
Karen Palacios,
Chandra Diaz de Arce,

T,R 950am

Renel Desir,

Kevin Restrepo,

Alicia Wilmot,
Yuniska Castaneda,

T,R 11:15am

Wilson Pena,

Pamela Monfort,

Dorian Ruiz,

Brittany Hall,

T 5:40pm

Devorah Korf,

Schneider Pierre,

Sofia Ocoro,

All regular classes: I reviewed your drafts already

If you still need to fix draft issues don't resend them to me via email. 

See me in my office. It will likely take 12 minutes. 

Here are my office hours (again)

famous mind experiments!

1- Alcubierre drive, Physics (imagine a spacecraft going faster than the speed of light)

2- The battle of Waterloo, History (what if it had not rained?)

3- The Ship of Theseus Identity Philosophy (are you all your parts even if all the parts have been exchanged already?)

4- The Chinese Room, A.I. (are computers smart if all they do is translate orders?)

5- Schrödinger's cat, Physics (this deals with the bizarre behavior of photons in quantum mechanics)

an so on,

revision of your drafts (glossary of my symbols)

I'm revising your drafts. In order to save time, I've come up with these abbreviations, which you will find at the right-hand side margin of your doc. 

Topics for Phi 2010 Midterm (MINITERM)

Click here for the topics for the Midterm Exam.

Link for your book for true/false tests, multiple choice, etc.

please, send your drafts in word format, not pdf, no google docs. cannot make edits in those

now that your drafts are peer-reviewed, input your peer's suggestions and send your revised drafts to

atriff@mdc.edu

in the subject of your email please, write down:

Elizabeth Doe, First Draft Revision, MWF 10am class (whichever your class and name happens to be)

YOU HAVE A WEEK AFTER THE PEER-REVIEW TO DO THIS

First draft in-class peer-review: What to look for,

Formal issues

* left hand side:name, First Draft Philosophy Paper, class time,
* title: middle, bold,
* Times New Roman p. 12,
* double spaced,
* indented paragraphs,
* spelled check and grammar checked (very important!)
* 9 paragraphs (at least)
* minimum 1000 words,
* no front-and-back printing of draft,

Paragraph format issues

* first two paragraphs: Thesis and Counter, 3 points per paragraph.
* total of 6 sentences per paragraph. first sentence presents, the following sentence explains, 
* each paragraphs properly prefaced: either GS "advocates" or GS "critics" or SSM "advocates" or SSM "critics," etc. don't mind the repetition.
* 4th parag. should be Thesis 1st point, 5th parag. Counter 1st point and so on, alternating until the conclusion.
* Bibliography in separate page, at least 4 different sources,
* Only reputable sources to be cited, NO URLs, consult this for MLA conventions of citability  of digital references,


Content issues

* avoid unnecessary wordiness. the more wordy the more indication of poor research, 
* look for argument/citation ratio, 70% for argument,  30% for citation. if there is more, this is a red flag for plagiarism,
* proper introduction of each quote, "who talks" (Dr. John Doe, professor of Biology), "provenance," (at Penn State University),
* if a website, find the writer's name, her position, etc. google her name that if necessary,
* look for fat thesis paragraphs vs. thin counter paragraphs. this is a sign of poor research or bias, which is worse. your paper is as good as your counter's presentation,
* look for RELEVANCE, i.e., what is presented is properly explained and justified. 
* look for COHERENCE, i.e, the presented points in the draft successfully justify your thesis and counter's introductory paragraphs. 

CALL A SPADE A SPADE!
it's time to tell your friend the following 

* this draft needs more research
* this draft has dubious sources
* your draft is too biased towards your thesis
* the points are not presented in a coherent manner
* the points presented are not relevant,
* the sources presented are not relevant,

If you have an intuition, call it, you're probably right!

Section 4.1 & 4.2 (diagrams)

Above, Animalism and Locke's Memory Theory of P:I: with counters. Below the Psyhcological Continuity Theory with counters.

Second assignment for the Philosophy paper due next Monday (MINITERM)

Find the second assignment here. 

The identity of history

dead British soldiers at the battle of Fromelles, 1916

of history:

* history is one big glunk,
* history is not the summation of all events (not all events will be recorded), 

* history is not "in" time, time is not a bucket,
* time is a mode of being of reality, time is the becoming of reality,
* from the future we cannot cherry-pick globally while ignoring local regions,

of necessity:

* whatever happens necessarily happens (otherwise SOMETHING ELSE would happen),
* what happens supervenes on the agents contributing the diverse processes including the agents themselves,

problems with presentism:

* presentism is the distortion that the present is normatively better than the past,
* the past cannot be retrofitted into a principle of satisfaction: it is what it is,
* the past can only be understood as IT IS not as it should've been (principle of necessity)
* to understand the past one has to go to the past, rather than bring the past to the present,

________________________________

Let's apply what we've learned about the philosophy and neurophysiology of memories in chapter 4 to the idea of history.  

* History is an archive of human events in the world. All events of the past are fair game. A historian is an archivist of all these events.  

* History is not an exact science for two reasons: first, historians dig the past from the present (like a  social memory, whether in the form of texts of archaeological sites. The facts need to be reconstructed). This is where interpretation comes in. second, history is an interpretive science because as the historian describes the facts, he also prescribes (for example: which facts should be selected and what we learn from the past).

* Interpretation is all we have in history and it's OK (as long as we end up with a reliable interpretation), how? getting as close as possible to the truth.

Let's add three points:

1- The past is the memory retention of history,
2- We cannot cherry pick globally ignoring local contexts,
3- Whatever happened, necessarily happened,

Explanation of these points:

1- History is all we have to understand the past. Now, the whole past is a big glunk.

History can be divided into chunks of time that we call epochs. However, be mindful that making a cut in history remains local decision of a global occurrence. Whatever we bring back from the past has to be brought back discreetly. And local decisions always sacrifice global causation (which brings us to 2- and cherry-picking).

History supervenes on society, which supervenes on the agents contributing the diverse processes engulfing the agents themselves.

2- Marx's historical materialism proposes that history is dialectical in that each "moment" is always superseded in the next moment and so on. Supervening all the different "moments" is HISTORY, the glunk, which is as blind to previous and future moments as society is blind to individual agents -or groups trying to bring up change or lack of thereof (this feature of blindness is very important for Marx's historical materialism and Darwin's evolutionary biology).

The machine of history is always in automatic mode. THAT'S A LAW.

For example: we know, now, that slavery is shameful. But there was a moment when slavery was the lay of the land. Take the Rome of the 1st Century AD. At this time, slavery happens (following Marx's hypothesis) not because of specific agents' choices, but because of historic modes and relations of production within societies causing agents to act in certain ways.

Following Marx, one could argue that what ends slavery in America was not this or that particular action of agents, but rather, the North's industrial power plus the civil war, which was a result of fundamental economic changes taking place in America.

here are some moral questions to history (they distort more than they help), history's EVENTUALISM IS NOT MORAL.

1- If the French had a revolution in 1789, how come they had an emperor in 1804, just a few years later? we're asking history what went wrong.

2- Jefferson had slaves, but he was also an enlightened man for his epoch. How do we reconcile the two? Click here and look for 3 different contemporaneous assessments. Here we compare the past with the present to learn a lesson.

3- Are we better off now than before say 200 years ago? The answer seems affirmative (and yet, many people think we're worse off). Here the question compares historic periods.

PRESENTISM and ITS PROBLEMS

Presentism is the idea that we have the duty to correct the moral failings of the past:

1- Presentists ignore that the past is already full. It cannot be retrofitted. 
2- Let's apply proposition 3 above to the present. The present happens necessarily. This has important consequences.
3- Each "moment" is self-contained by its own complexity. Individuals at the bottom can only do so much.

We forget to include ourselves inside the complexity above ourselves!  

Presentism takes for granted that being in the present automatically grants the present epoch a particular privilege over the past. Clearly a mistake, since each cut in the process of history is necessarily caused by the previous one. In other words, the past is full of itself. This unbounded zeal to correct the past has had horrible consequences to the historic sites and memories from the past.

Take a look at this list of genocides committed throughout history.

Are they fair? Of course not. But the question and answer are out of order. It already happened! And it happened as a result of specific conditions IN THE PAST.

Genghis Khan's armies killed about 5% of the combined population of the world! Yet, it's not black and white,  (there are endogenous and exogenous reasons, dependent upon ethnic, economic, social, technological contexts). As you move up the complexity you better understand the seeming absurdity of it all, not to mention the causes for the Mongol's Empire expansion, without which you would not have, as ripple effects) the histories of Muslim and Russian expansion, plus the Renaissance in Europe.

Following their logic, Presentists would see the Mongol invaders as "monsters," "rapists" or "terrorists," etc. To understand the epoch, you have to travel to the past; don't completely give up your epoch, you just suspend it to gain insight into the Mongols' particular context. A good exercise is to become a Mongol soldier ready to fight, and then a native Alans, horrified at the prospect of Khan's army approaching your territory).

to understand the past we must travel to the past rather than bring the past to the present,
the present is always presenting. the past IS NOT.

doing history means "traveling" to the past to apprehend REALITY (reality is neither past nor present). accepting REALITY's own terms.
only then we're ready to bring that lesson to the present. 

let's take a look at some nasty consequences of presentism:

the pyramid of Menkaure, (destroyed by Saladin's son, 12th Century AD),  
Bash Tapia Castle (destroyed by ISIS, 2014),
the destruction of Warsaw (the Nazis 1940s)
Entartete Kunst (presented by the Nazis, 1937)
the Buddhas of Bamiyan (destroyed by the Taliban, 2001)
the Mosque of Babur, (destroyed by Hindus, 1990s)
the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, (destroyed by Stalin in 1931)
Larung Gar, Tibet (demolition by China in 2016)

presentists miss a didactic lesson: better to keep the records of our past, instead of repressing and or destroying and hiding it. for the sake of the future, so it may not happen again.

Midterm review furnished by Devorah Korf (Tuesday 5:40pm class)

Here is a review for the midterm by Devorah Korf (from our Tuesday 5:40pm class)

Triff's Office Hours

M-F 8-9:40 
M 3:30-5:30pm
T 3:30-5:30pm

Final exam schedule (Fall 2017)

Many of you have approached me about final exam dates.

Here is the Fall 2017 Exam schedule.

what is a synapse? (the most basic brain state)

a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron or to the target effector cell.

different kinds of synapses

Synapses are essential to neuronal function. Neurons are cells that are specialized to pass signals to individual target cells, and synapses are the means by which they do so.

At a synapse, the plasma membrane of the signal-passing neuron (the presynaptic neuron) comes into close apposition with the membrane of the target (postsynaptic) cell. Both the presynaptic and postsynaptic sites contain extensive arrays of a molecular machinery that link the two membranes together and carry out the signaling process. In many synapses, the presynaptic part is located on an axon and the postsynaptic part is located on a dendrite or soma.

List of student assistants (so far)

MWF 10am
Rosangela Rizo
Humbert Torres
Roxy Ochoa

MWF 11am
Selena Bridges
Wilda Jean
Ryan Figueredo

TR 9:50am
Ana Esclusa
Daffodyle Saget

TR 11:15am
Ashley Leonard
Wilson Pena
Gary Zamora

Student Assistant Duties: Organizing reviews before the tests. This takes coordinating the review with me0, as I will post these reviews by sending email blasts to the class and posting review dates on our website. Being available for consultation.

THANKS,

chapter 4: philosophy of mind (all sections)

4.1 Mind/Body problem

(you should know all the definition boxes in section 2.1)

Descartes believes the mind = res cogitans (non-physical substance)
body =  res extensa (matter has extension)

1- according to Descartes, the mind is a thinking, non-physical substance.
proof: conceivability argument: "I can conceive that I exist without a body"
divisibility argument: If the body and the mind were the same, what I say of the mind I can say of the body (Principle of Indiscernibility of Identicals), but mind and body are different, one is extended the other is not, one can be divided, the other not. so, mind & body are different.
  

therefore: mental states (MS) are non-physical.

2- The hypothesis that the mind and the body are completely different is called cartesian dualism.

3- how does the mind interact with the body? Descartes believes through a interactive process that passes through the pineal gland (clearly this explanation is flawed, given today's advancements in neurophysiology).

Counter to Descartes & the principle of closure of the physical
4- a physical effect can only have a physical cause, this is known as the principle of closure of the physical. clearly, since cartesian dualism violates this, many conclude that the mind (if it exists at all) must be epiphenomenal, e.g., the body affects the mind, but the mind doesn't affect the body).

5- the problem of other minds.
both epiphenomenalism and cartesianism are face the problem of other minds. the mind is experienced directly, but there's no way of telling from the outside whether one has a mind or not. you cannot experience anybody else's mind.

the importance of descartes' argument is that he provides a deductive argument for the mind as non-physical thinking substance that is valid (though not sound). 

(physicalist theories, MIND DISAPPEARS)

Logical behaviorism: (the mind as behavior)  is the theory that mental states are behavioral dispositions.

a behavioral disposition (behavioral states) is a tendency to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways.

ex: smoking. how is "smoking" a behavioral disposition? a person is in contact with smokers environments (parents, friends providing the stimuli, etc). the behavior is repeated (without the repetition we don't get the disposition), once the behavior becomes automatic we have a disposition, i.e., the person smokes given the right conditions.    

behaviorism is an important measure understanding habits, human actions, freedom and responsibility, it's essential in the analysis of character.

so, MS --> BhS 

counters to logical behaviorism: The Perfect Pretender & and Putnam's Superspartans (you should know these).

problem with logical behaviorism is that it defines

summary: logical behaviorism is a materialistic theory. it doesn't postulate immaterial entities. it's also reductive because any statement about minds can be reduced to statements about behavior.

Identity theory: (the mind as a brain) mental states are brain states MS --> BrS

summary: the idea now is that any discussion about the mind is really a discussion about the brain. identity theory seems a better theory than behaviorism because it's closer to the source which causes mental states.

counters to identity theory: Nagel's Bat and Lewis' Pained Martian (you have to know these).

see that from Nagel's Bats thought experiment we learn two important features of the mind: it's 1- subjective and 2-private. so, the fact that we feel our minds from the inside is actually points to a quality (qualia).

another problem for identity theory is multiple realizability:  the thesis that the same mental property, state, or event can be implemented by different physical properties, states, or events. in other words, a supercomputer, an alien, can have a mind (think of a property that must be able to be instantiated by different realizers and different mechanisms: for example: the classic spring mousetrap and the glue mousetrap instantiate the same property, the ability to trap mice, but they do so through different mechanisms).  

summary: brains states can be known by empirical investigation, not so with mental states. 
identity theory is a reductive theory because any talk about mental states means talking about brain activity. 

Functionalism: (the mind as a program) mental states are functional states. MS --> FS

for functionalism the mind is what the brain does. and it allows mental states to serve both as input and output of other mental states. example: suppose you believe your boyfriend is cheating on you, now your mind causes you to become jealous. so, mental states don't only cause behaviors, in addition, they also cause other mental states.  

counters to functionalism: Lewis' Pained Madman and Putnam's Inverted Spectrum.

let me know ASAP if you need special ACCESS acommodations for the exam, so I can prepare

some words of advice (file under philosophy for life)

Hi class. We've had some interesting discussions in class.

Let me state a few assumptions I have defended this week.

Whatever happens in the Universe has a sufficient reason to happen.

I modify this somewhat into: Whatever happens is perfect.

But you recall this "perfect" is not normative (meaning good/bad, right/wrong). I'm not saying what happens is good or bad for the simple reason that the Universe is value/neutral. 

Facts are facts. Values are our evaluations of the facts.
_______________

What's next? YOU ARE PERFECT.

What this means is that actually you are a full expression of YOURSELF. Again, no value laden. Only facts about you.

This is good. It allows to look at oneself without any bad faith for dodging one's responsibility into one's own affairs. WE ARE FULL EXPRESSIONS OF WHAT WE ARE.

On the other hand I have this surprise:

YOU ARE A POTENTIAL REALIZATION OF YOUR BEST SELF. 


This is beautiful. Now I'm evaluating. I say "potential", this is a future, not the present self. This best self is not just any self. It's a wiser, better, happier self.

But this is not easy. There are so many variations about to unfold of your potential self. BE CAREFUL AND DELIBERATE.

Sophia can definitely help. May she be with you.

Topics for exam #2 SUMMER B (miniterm 2018)

Chapter 3


3.1
 
Causal Determinism (C-->E + LN) and Hard determinism (the doctrine that there are no free actions). 

Hard determinism assumes that: if CD is true ---> -Fw  

As our bodies made up of matter, we must be subjects to the same laws of causation which apply to all matter.

In addition, if HD is true ---> -HR (there's no human responsibility) if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices). 

3.2
 
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free.

1- 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." 


which means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." 

Think of this example: 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. Here the physiologist plants desires in the subject and he acts on these desires. But the desires are not his. This brings the problem that not all of our desires at a given time are necessarily ours.

 Taylor is also getting at the fact that there are internal constraints one may not be aware of. Take for example phobias and addictions. These may not be external constraints.


Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? Take a look at 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 according to the Compatibilist nothing people do is really up to them. 

Punishment is good as education. It can teach criminals their error and help rehabilitate them.

3.3 Libertarianism
 
You should know the difference between "event causation" and "agent causation." 
synaptic activity is event causation. mental states causing synaptic activity is agent causation. 

Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? Well, our actions are under our control because they are caused by ourselves. 

Keep in mind that acting freely requires deciding for yourself what desires you're going to act on. If your actions are based on desires that have been programmed into you from without, then you don't act freely.

There are two arguments here:


Argument from Experience. Argument from deliberation. In class I called it argument from experience, because you experience it from the inside. You feel you wanted to come to class, you got ready, drove through rush hour and got to the class on time. You feel you chose that. You are responsible for that action. 


Read pages 216 and 217! For the libertarian if the wants you act on are not yours, you are not free and therefore not responsible. If you declared nursing as a major because it's the dream of your parents that doesn't automatically make you free.That may not be your desire. In fact you may not even know what you really want! 
 

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.

List of student assistants for Summer B class

Sofia Fascia
Selina Savage
Gersch Schiff
James Reyes

Final exam, Chapter 5 MINITERM

Section 5.1

Ethics is the study of moral norms & values.

Moral norms emerge from non-moral norms. i.e., "incest is wrong" only when brother & sister have sick babies.

Moral norms are behaviors of fundamental consequence for human welfare. They ensure survival.

mj= mn + mf (moral judgments are equivalent of moral norms and moral facts)

Ethics can be broadly divided into objectivism (Formalism, Realism)  and subjectivism (Relativism, Consequentialism). Formalism is the view that right and wrong are independent from peoples' beliefs. Relativism is the view that right and wrong are dependent of peoples' beliefs.

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

Counterarguments to cultural relativism here. 

What's the structure of moral knowledge? Find it here.

6. Are there universal moral principles? YES. 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) 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).

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).

Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's BEST interest. This is equivalent to a calculus of prudence.

Find more arguments for Ethical Egoism here.

Counterargument: Moral agents are mot mere instruments for one's interest.

 Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered.
Counterarguments: (a) McCloskey’s informant (problems with rights) (b) Brandt’s Heir (problems with duties), (c) Goodwin's Fire Rescue (problems with duties), (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture (problems with justice). Duties: obligations one has by virtue of one's embeddedness in society. Filial, social, etc. Justice: justice is fairness.


Here you have more arguments for traditional utilitarianism. 

Section 5.3

 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). Remember Triff's circuit.

Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what (keeping our promises). Imperfect duty: A duty that doesn't have to be performed always (taking a shower every day). 

Problem with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (I've commented this as the Al Qaeda paradigm). The Al Qaeda jihadist tells you that he's following Kantian ethics. He follows reversibility since he immolates himself with his victims. His actions follow a universalizability principle since (even if he was an infidel) he would wish that all infidels die -including himself.

Can Kant respond to that counter?

Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER MERELY AS MEANS TO AN END. 

Kant's second formulation yields the principle of respect.  Are there problems with the second formulation? Counterargument: This is known as the problems of "exceptions to the rule". Some times we have no choice but to treat people as means to ends. In the book you have  Broad's Typhoid Man. In class we discussed a Danish family protecting a family of Jews in their basement and telling the truth (??)  to the Gestapo officer looking for Jews to be sent to Concentration Camps. In this case it's clear we're supposed to lie to the Gestapo. Moreover it's our duty to do so.

draft revisions (glossary of my symbols)

here are the symbols I use in the revision of your drafts:
______________________________
C/P: Fix copy and paste ratio, this is a red rflag for plagiarism. Fix it by paraphrasing in your own words the whole paragraph.

FixSent: Fix the sentence, it reads awkwardly.


FdbetAr: Find a better argument. Generally it means the argument is not relevant. Find a new one.

InsuffRsrch: Insufficient research.

?? : Don't get it, "what do you mean," vague, etc.

Hypb: Hyperbolic. Fix the tone of your sentence. Hyperbolic language is a sign of poor research.  

TooW: Too wordy, cut, trim, less is more.

Need+W: The draft is short on words. 1,000 words minimum,

WT: Who talks? Proper prefacing, i.e., Same-marriage critics, or Same-marriage activists, never mind the cacophony, what we need is clarity.

Mss1Pt, missing first point, Mss2Pt, missing second point, Mss3Pt, missing third point,

Insffexpl: Insufficient explanation,

Insffinfo: Insufficient information,

ITC: Missing in-text-citation,

OS: The paragraph needs outside source,

Prefproprly: Preface the paragraph properly with either _____ advocate or ______ critic,

On the distinction between number and quality when talking about ourselves (for Summer A class)

Because of our discussion yesterday and some of the comments put forward just before the class ended. We talked about how a white person is not qualified to talk for a black person (and viceversa), a man for a woman (and viceversa), a heterosexual for a homosexual (and viceversa), a non-transgender for a transgender and viceversa). At first, these qualifications may seem limiting, indeed overbearing. After all (as Roberto pointed out), even amongst blacks, a black person may say (referring to another black person) "this black person is not qualified to talk for me."

discussion continues here.

Student assistants for Summer A class

Athenais Acquaviva
Emily Mader
Julio Cesar Leyva

Final Exam (written by Devorah Korf)

Review for Midterm (Athenais Aquaviva) SUMMER A

Click here for Athenais' review for the Midterm.

watson: the smartest machine ever built!

as part of our conversation about functionalism & AI (see the discussion about hypothesis and the talk about "corpus" around 4:00).

also, read this article, by ray kurzweil.

to proper understand what Watson does you should be proficient in these areas:

natural language processing, which includes

SYNTAX
morphological linguistics,
parsing, 
lexical semantics (a promising subfield of the intersection between syntax and semantics)

SEMANTICS
machine translation,
natural language understanding (this is where the name AI comes from)
sentiment analysis (I love this, where the psychology intersects para-logical processes) 
disambiguation,
discourse analysis,

Prostitution, choice and Kant's second formulation

Now that we're talking about Kant's formalism and the issue of treating people as "means to an end" the topic of prostitution came up. Jose brought up a dissenting point to Kant's formulation, well done! Here is Kant's response if he lived now. Treating yourself as a means to an end is to ignore your DIGNITY. Your body is important and transactions through it will pay a price.

As I said, even the Ethical Egoist would pause and think: "Doing that to my body may not be a good in the long run" (prudence is a plus for the ethical egoist). You know, the formalist would see the practice as wrong on reversible and universalizable grounds.

Now, the problem is more complicated. Prostitution is global phenomenon:

Cheated out of childhood in Russia.
Sex slaves in Italy.
Child sex workers in Nepal.
Child prostitution in South Africa.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on prostitution in the USA (see that there are different kinds, from brothel, to escort to child prostitution).

As I discussed in class, prostitution is not generally a "choice" but a socially determined malaise, young woman or man may exhibit certain behaviors and happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time:

* About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape. It's hard to talk about this because... the experience of prostitution is just like rape. Prostitutes are raped, on the average, eight to ten times per year. They are the most raped class of women in the history of our planet (Susan Kay Hunter and K.C. Reed, July, 1990 "Taking the side of bought and sold rape," speech at National Coalition against Sexual Assault, Washington, D.C. ).

* Other studies report 68% to 70% of women in prostitution being raped (M Silbert, "Compounding factors in the rape of street prostitutes," in A.W. Burgess, ed., Rape and Sexual Assault II, Garland Publishing, 1988; Melissa Farley and Howard Barkan, "Prostitution, Violence, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder," 1998, Women & Health.

* Prostitution is an act of violence against women which is intrinsically traumatizing. In a study of 475 people in prostitution (including women, men, and the transgendered) from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
62% reported having been raped in prostitution.
73% reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
72% were currently or formerly homeless.
92% stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
(Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder" (1998) Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426.

* Many of the health problems of women in prostitution are a direct result of violence. For example, several women had their ribs broken by the police in Istanbul, a woman in San Francisco broke her hips jumping out of a car when a john was attempting to kidnap her. Many women had their teeth knocked out by pimps and johns. (Melissa Farley, unpublished manuscript, 2000). A woman (in another study) said about her health: "I’ve had three broken arms, nose broken twice, [and] I’m partially deaf in one ear….I have a small fragment of a bone floating in my head that gives me migraines. I’ve had a fractured skull. My legs ain’t worth shit no more; my toes have been broken. My feet, bottom of my feet, have been burned; they've been whopped with a hot iron and clothes hanger… the hair on my pussy had been burned off at one time…I have scars. I’ve been cut with a knife, beat with guns, two by fours. There hasn’t been a place on my body that hasn’t been bruised somehow, some way, some big, some small." (Giobbe, E. (1992) Juvenile Prostitution: Profile of Recruitment in Ann W. Burgess (ed.) Child Trauma: Issues & Research.Garland Publishing Inc, New York, page 126).

*The commercial sex industry includes: street prostitution, massage brothels, escort services, out-call services, strip clubs, lap-dancing, phone sex, adult and child pornography, video and internet pornography, and prostitution tourism. Most women who are in prostitution for longer than a few months drift among these various permutations of the commercial sex industry. All prostitution causes harm to women. Whether it is being sold by one’s family to a brothel, or whether it is being sexually abused in one’s family, running away from home, and then being pimped by one’s boyfriend, or whether one is in college and needs to pay for next semester’s tuition and one works at a strip club behind glass where men never actually touch you – all these forms of prostitution hurt the women in it. (Melissa Farley, paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Women’s Health Issues, University of California College of Nursing, San Francisco, 2000).

So? Is Kant right or wrong?

lecture on theodicies

definition of evil: something that is the source or cause of suffering, injury or destruction.
natural evil: evil that humans suffer at the hands of nature.
moral evil: the evil that humans suffer at the hands of other humans.
necessary evil: evil that is necessary to prevent a greater evil of promote a greater good.
unnecessary evil: evil that is fortuitous (this is REAL evil).
____________________

The Ontological Defense: Goodness cannot exist without evil. So a world without evil is impossible.

Knowledge Defense: Knowledge of evil is important (even to understand goodness) and it cannot exist unless there’s evil in the world.
 
C/A: Suppose this is true, then how can one explain the excess of evil? Unnecessary evil is not justified by the knowledge defense.
 
Free will defense: Evil is necessary for free will. We choose and sometimes we choose evil over good. Defended by: St. Agustin and Alvin Plantinga.

C/A: 1- A being with free will who always chooses good is logically possible. God is such a being. 2- There’s still much more evil in the world that is necessary. Why is unnecessary evil chosen so often? The theist needs to answer this question.

Ideal Humanity Defense: Evil evolves us humans into an ideal humanity.

C/A: There is little evidence that the struggle for survival has improved the human race. One could argue that the advancements we've made in science are not the result of natural evil.Finally, the ideal humanity defense seems to contradict the Christian principle that each human is of infinite value.
 
Character (or soul) building defense: According to philosopher/theologian John Hicks, evil is not wrong for our own sake.

C/A: It works both ways, suffering can also debase us. If this is true, then fighting evil becomes wrong (you shouldn’t alleviate a person’s suffering because it’s good for her character)

Topics for Exam #1 FALL 2018

Chapter 1
 
1- Necessary and sufficient conditions (think of some examples as we did in the Homeworks):

"X" is nec. for "Y", iff Y cannot exist w/o "X," or if "X" is not present, "Y" will not occur.
"X" is suf. for "Y", iff "X" cannot exist w/o "Y," or if "X" is present then "Y" will happen.

2- Logical impossibility, i.e. if it violates a law of noncontradiction (something cannot both be and not be at the same time), causal impossibility (i.e. if it violates a law of nature).
Example: Levitating is logically possible, but causally impossible. QUESTION: If something is logically impossible, can it be causally possible?

3- Argument A set of premises and a conclusion.

4- Deductive arguments: valid (if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises); sound (a valid argument with true premises).
REMEMBER: There are valid arguments which are unsound.

5- Inductive arguments: strong (an argument that would establish its conclusion with a high degree of probability if the premises were true), cogent: a strong argument with true premises.

6- IBE (or Inference to the Best Explanation) also known as Hypothetical Induction: Hypothesis, which if true, would provide the BEST EXPLANATION for the evidence.7- Criteria of adequacy: Simplicity, consistency, fruitfulness, conservatism and scope.

8- Thought experiment, counterexample, test implication

9- The difference between conceivability and possibility

10- Fallacies. These are the fallacies I want you to know: Begging the question, Appeal to the person (Ad Hominem), Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to the Masses, Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma.

Chapter 7

1- All boxes in 537, 539, 541.

Belief: A mental state of acceptance (a belief could be false).
Justification: The reasons why one holds a belief (there are good and bad justifications).
Truth: Truth is a fact.
Suspension of belief. Neither accept nor reject a belief.
Theories of truth: 
Correspondence Theory: Truth is a fact (example: "Snow is white.") 
Pragmatic Theory: Truth is what best does the job at hand (example: "Dom Perignon is a good champagne.")
Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge (example: "The theory of evolution is true because it best coheres with the rest of our natural sciences").

When we don't have all the evidence, or when we're dealing with complicated problems, we may use the pragmatic criteria: With history, forensics, matters of opinion and taste we are more likely to deal with truth as pragmatic than as correspondence. 

Guess which theories are expressed by these propositions:
a- "2+3 =5", 
b- "all triangles have three sides," 
c- "H₂O is water,"  
d- "Democracy is better than tyranny." 
e- "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso is a masterpiece of Cubism."

Section 7.1 & Section 7.2 are summarized here.