what to do with EROS?

"I love you"

what does this proposition mean? very little if at all --methinks. the proposition comes to us reified & depleted. its normativity in shambles:

here, 
here, 
here
here,
here, 

let's use new words: EROS, Agape, Philia, Storge,  

forget about one thing fits-all, that's ludicrous. let's be naturalists here. LOVE is an human emotion: a visceral, conscious reaction to an external stimulus. it serves a purpose, it brings us closer to OTHERness.

only that there are different "love-notes" for different given referents:

my parents and immediate family? they elicit storge. my friends? philia. my girlfriend? eros.
my mentors and role models? agape.

the picture is rich and complex.

now, i want to address EROS (because you're in the middle of it). EROS is lust, boundless desire for the flesh, a raw emotion which Nietzsche calls Bejahung ("life affirming").

If someone penetrated the depths of EROS, it was French poet Charles Baudelaire. in fact, he redefined EROS for fin-de-siècle european culture. here's a little taste from his Flowers of Evil:

Si le viol, le poison, le poignard, l'incendie, 
N'ont pas encore brodé de leurs plaisants dessins 
Le canevas banal de nos piteux destins, 
C'est que notre âme, hélas! n'est pas assez hardie.

(If rape, poison, dagger and fire,
Have still not embroidered their pleasant designs
On the banal canvas of our pitiable destinies,
It's because our soul, alas, is not bold enough!)

Baudelaire goes against the norms of political correctness of his time. This is a force as unbounded & self-destructive akin to the Freudian Todestrieb.

the problem of love is how to bring it under control (particularly these days of self-centered banality, with social media driving the narratives).

the key is not ever to repress EROS (you'll pay dearly if you do that), but to educate it. each one of us deserves to plunge in EROS' turbulent waters, at least once. How do you educate this riptide? By transforming sexual desire into a productive force.

Give yourself time to experiment. Explore relationships and learn the lessons. See how the sex drive can -at times- drain you or, on the other hand, make you sharp and resilient. for sure, you'll make mistakes, you'll break relationships, you'll suffer, but you'll grow.

it's possible to have pleasure and still respect persons. do not trade with persons. be fair with your lovers and be as honest as you can.

don't worry, Aphrodite will protect you.

final draft guidelines:

you're supposed to bring a hard copy of your final draft on finals date. here are the guidelines:

1- Font: Times New Roman p. 12
2- Heading, left hand side:

John Doe,
Final Draft
Phi 2010, Honors, 10am

3- Title, centered, bold,
4- Double-spaced,
5- Indent each new paragraph,
6- "Bibliography" on a separate page, following MLA protocols (with last day of revision for digital sources),
7- No binders, no blank page cover,
8- ALL DRAFTS MUST BE STAPLED,

W. D. Ross' pluralistic formalism

Kant is a formalist. Formalists believe that the rightness of an action is given by the action's form.

What's the form? A moral naturalist would say: the moral "fact" (recall moral facts are given by moral norms accepted by social-moral-selection). Kant doesn't need this. His categorical imperative works from the presumption that we're all inside the Sapiens Club. We all have REASON.

The problem is that Kant never allows for exceptions to the rule. "Breaking a promise" is wrong. Always wrong. This  is a problem for a comprehensive moral theory such as Formalism.

A theory must offer viable solutions in the world, and the world is a jungle.

What if I promise A something, but now, if I keep my promise to A, then B's life is in danger? Should I keep the promise? Kant doesn't say. But W.D. Ross, a 20th Century formalist, did. His theory is known as Pluralistic Formalism.

an action is right if it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.  

In our previous example, the promise to A is a prima facie duty (a duty at first sight). I must perform this duty unless... well, unless keeping my promise to A endangers the life of B.  This second duty (breaking the promise to A) though wrong in NORMAL circumstances, now becomes ACTUALLY right (Ross calls it ACTUAL duty. The duty doesn't say "break your promise." It says, rather, "DON'T ENDANGER THE LIFE OF A PERSON."

Ross recommends a criteria of duties that I have revised:

1. justice (being fair to people)
2. fidelity (keeping one's word, contracts, written & oral),
3. reparation (compensation in kind to others for one's breaking duties in 2.),
4. benevolence (doing good to people),
5. gratitude (making up, compensating what people have done for us),
6. non-maleficence (avoiding wishing or doing evil to people: think of treating people merely as a means to an end),
7. self-improvement (taking care of oneself).

Triff's Hollandaise

(rumors have it that Hollandaise is not really French but Dutch) then, consensus indicate that Hollandaise is incorporated to sauce status when venerable Cuisiner des Roi Pierre La Verenne calls it "mother of all sauces." The truth is that Hollandaise harks back to the genius of Escoffier. He is to French cuisine what Descartes is to French philosophy (Escofier's Hollandaise uses a reduction --me neither).

I learned my Hollandaise via Abdel, a Francophile Lebanese cook I met while cooking at this Greek Diner I've talked to you about on 95 and Broadway in NY. He was a decent chef, escaping the civil war in Lebanon, but too old to take BS from a Greek ignoramus. Abdel left in less than a month and I took his place and changed the Diner into a Dominican/Haitian/Cuban/Greek/ dive (in NY the neighborhood's ethnicity dictates your cuisine). Just when the place was full of patrons, Carmen made my life miserable and I took a TA at Rutgers fleeing from the crisis (this is when sweet the spirit of philosophy appeared for the first time: Triff, it's me, Sophia. I see what you need).

Hollandaise is the story of the evolution in emulsion sauces (i.e, mayonnaise, aïoli, rémoulade, vincent and béarnaise). The old classical Hollandaise almost qualifies as mayonnaise. My version is suited for our self-conscious, fitness-obsessed times: lighter & delicate.

Ingredients: 

3 egg yolks, 1 tablespoon water, 1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice, 6-8 ounces of soft unsalted butter, 1 dash cayenne pèpper, salt to taste, pepper to taste.

Directions:

Hollandaise is a temperamental woman, both in beauty and unpredictability. She demands undivided attention and self-confidence. Why? Emulsified butter sauces sense our human fears and break on us -if you let them, that is. Let's start with whisking egg yolks, water, and lemon juice in a saucepan for lemony happiness. If the emulsion breaks it still gives you a pass at redemption. Whisk the broken sauce back into a clean teaspoon of water and you’ll have it back in moments (as they say: it faut avoir foi en soi).

 this should be the consistency of your Hollandaise

Back to the saucepan: keep whisking tirelessly until the emulsion gets thicker and pale. Now set the pan over moderately low heat and continue to whisk at reasonable speed, reaching all over the bottom and insides of the pan. Careful: at this stage the eggs tend to overcook. Off the burner, but don't stop whisking! Then back to low-to-moderate heat for a few seconds, and then back on. If, by chance, the eggs seem to congeal too fast, set the pan in the bowl of cold water to cool the bottom, then back on whisking. Now the eggs become frothy and increase in volume, and then thicken. When you can see the pan bottom through the streaks of the whisk and the eggs are thick and smooth, remove from the heat.

if this happened, you have to follow these instructions.

Now comes the art: By spoonfuls, add the soft butter, whisking constantly to incorporate each addition. The emulsion begins to form and you may add the butter in slightly larger amounts, always whisking until fully absorbed. Continue incorporating butter until the sauce has thickened into a consistently light texture. Taste and adjust the seasoning, adding droplets of lemon juice if needed. Taste it, add some more lemon (the sauce should be distinctly lemony), and add a pinch of cayenne.  C' est ça!

Important guidelines for your final draft submission (HONORS classes) pay attention!!!

Guideline for final paper:

1- You're supposed to hand the final draft on the day of the final. 
2- The draft must be stapled, no binders, no cover page. 
3- At the top left the draft:

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

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

All of these details are worth points!! 

draft's second revision

* THESIS & COUNTER paragraphs: a two-point thesis composed of declaration "In this paper I argue in favor of..." followed by two points argument, each followed by an explanation. the explanation must respond these questions: how? why? only one sentence. so, first paragraph should have about five sentences, no much more than that.
 
* begin each paragraph with "so-and-so" ADVOCATES or "so-and-so" CRITICS.

* internal coherence: check paragraphs 3, 5 for arguments 1& 2 of your thesis and paragraphs 4, 6 for arguments 1 and 2 of the counter. there must be a correspondence between these paragraphs. example, if you find anything in paragraph 3 or 5 that doesn't correspond to your first or second points of your thesis YOU HAVE A PROBLEM OF COHERENCE. please, pay attention to this point!

* COPY AND PASTE PROBLEMS (70% for argument, 30% for quote). here if the paragraph looks too good then it's not good. Write down C/P (copy and paste), "I need your voice." Very likely these paragraphs are copied-and-pasted. Just call it! or I'll call it! 

AT LEAST 4 SOURCES  IN BIBLIOGRAPHY. EVERY FACTOID IN THE DRAFT PROPERLY OUTSOURCED. 

KANT'S SECOND FORMULATION APPLIED TO ONESELF

above you see the sun of respect and self-respect, they are both dependent, the rays going out are respect to the world, the rays coming in are self-respect. we can't respect if we don't self-respect. 

Kant's second formulation states:


TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS IN THEMSELVES, NEVER AS A MEANS TO AN END

1. "People" means a specific club of persons. Humans, in this case, we have:

* REASON, 

* FREE WILL, 

* SENTIENCE, 

* AUTONOMY, 

You, as human, belong in this group. You are an END in yourself. 

2- ENDS in THEMSELVES ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE.

3- MERELY,  as... turning people into INSTRUMENTS, means to further ENDS
 

ANALYSIS OF RESPECT

How does Kant define respect? SELF-WORTH. DIGNITY (ALL PRIMARY PROPERTIES OF SELF).

ALSO, SYMMETRY AND SELF-SYMMETRY. YOU RESPECT WHEN YOU SELF-RESPECT.

4- YOU SHOULD NOT TREAT YOURSELF AS A MEANS TO YOUR END. 

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS ONESELF! YOU OUGHT NOT TO DO (TO YOURSELF) WHAT YOU WOULDN'T DO TO YOURSELF (IF YOU WERE SOMEONE ELSE).

Does it make sense? 

5- DON'T DO ANYTHING BELOW YOURSELF.

arguments in favor of the existence of God

as always, we need a little historic background.

1. the scholastic philosophers of the middle ages used deductive arguments to prove the existence of God, but they didn't do it in the way we do it today. in the middle ages most -if not ALL- people believed in the existence of God. the arguments were supposed to add reasons to your (already existing) beliefs. it was a didactic exercise in reasoning more than a response to a counterargument.

2. I must remind you that in a deductive argument you don't need to speak of existence SOLELY as an empirical property. here's a definition of existence.

DEF: a, b, c... exist if they exist and have properties f-ness, g-ness, and h-ness independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.

if you want a good example of something that exists independently of our beliefs about it look no further than math itself. so, for instance:

every natural number greater than 1 is either a prime itself or can be factorized as a product of primes.

is independent of our beliefs.
__________

Aquinas cosmological argument (cause/effect)

1- There are things that are caused by other things.
2- Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3- There cannot be an infinite regress of objects causing other objects to exist.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause, called God.

Analysis: 2- goes back to Parmenides' point "nothing comes from nothing", meaning that a cause needs a previous cause, which is true. 3- now Aquinas discards infinite regress, He's appealing to a principle in physics, which is complex enough. His conclusion is axiomatic, the uncaused cause is GOD. 

Counter from Hume: For Hume there is no problem of imagining an infinite series of cause/effect. In other words, there is no beginning to the universe. Brian Greene inflation: Hume's idea brings us to the idea of 9 types of INFLATION, defended by physicist Brian Greene from Columbia University, in this scenario, there are different pockets in which inflation fields collapse and form new universes. In other words, universes come and go creating a permanent self-contained inflation.

Anselm's Ontological argument (aprioristic)1- God is by definition the greatest being possible.
2- Suppose that most perfect being exists only in the mind.
3- Let's agree that a being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4- If God exists only in the mind, we can imagine something greater than God (the greatest possible being that we established by hypothesis existing in reality).
5- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (we can be confident that God exists, because we know that a being that can be conceived and actually exists is greater than a being that merely can be conceived but does not exist. 

Therefore, God exists. 

Analysis: Anselm is appealing to an a priori deductive argument.

1- is true. 2- simply advances a hypothesis of existence only in the mind. 3- remember that SOLELY existing in the mind means that the most perfect may not exist in reality. 4- makes the obvious point that existing in reality is more perfect than not existing. now 5 takes us to a contradiction. The conclusion simply states that a being that can be conceived and actually exists is greater than a being that merely can be conceived but does not exist.

Gaunilo's counter to Anselm: click here for Gaunilo's counter to Anselm.

Decartes argument:

1. God by definition possesses all possible perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
Therefore: God exists. 

Pascal's wager (statistical argument)

1- God is, or God is not.
2- Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
3- Let's weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is.
4- If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that HE IS.

Counter to Pascal: Pascal's wager has been attacked from theists. In the sense that believing in God for the sake of probabilities is a demoted form of belief. Faith cannot be negotiated in the manner Pascal prescribes it. 

my notes on kantian formalism

We should start with this question: what is the right thing to do?, which Kant considers takes us into ethical territory.

TO UNDERSTAND THIS POINT, WE NEED PERSON PROPERTIES:

REASON, 

FREE WILL, 

AUTONOMY (the ability to pursue our own projects) & 

SENTICENCE (our emotional being). 

The human faculty dealing with this Kant calls PRACTICAL REASON. 

There is REASON (our thinking faculty) and theRE IS PRACTICAL REASON (how we represent a proposition before we act). 

For example: What should you do when you make a promise?  

BREAKING A PROMISE IS WRONG.

This brings up the idea of moral obligation. Kant says, 

WHAT MAKES AN ACTION RIGHT IS THAT 1. EVERYONE CAN ACT ON IT AND 2. YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE EVERYONE ACTING ON IT.  

There are two aspects here: 1. UNIVERSALIZABILITY, 2. REVERSIBILITY 

the Categorical Imperative (above) expresses moral obligations, derived from the idea of DUTY (Pflicht). 

The action must satisfy the two branches simultaneously. 

There are two maxims here, the left (universalizability) and the right (reversibility). 

"R" Reversibility (is one-to-one), and it requires "a putting in the place of b" the old Golden Rule: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

"U" Universalizability: one imagines oneself as representing the club of "Homo Sapiens," sort of saying: "my action now becomes universally required for all moral agents" (a one-to-all relationship).

Notes to Utilitarianism

                                                               John Stuart Mill (father of Utilitarianism)

Traditional utilitarianism: Action is right if it maximizes happiness everyone considered (the greatest majority of people) in construction....

Keep in mind that utilitarians are all consequentialists: An action is right because of the consequences of the actions.

Utilitarianism is a 100% British moral theory. A side note: Karl Marx loved England's political climate because of utilitarianism. A famous utilitarian in the 19th Century was J. Stuart Mill. In the 20th century, we have Richard M. Hare, and a great advocate for animal rights, Professor Peter Singer. 

Note: Utilitarianism wins over egoism as a social theory. Here we have to go to the explicit terms of the theory. One favors the individual, and the other favors the group. If you vote for politicians A & B and you know A is an egoist and B a utilitarian, you'd be smart enough to vote for B.

Utilitarianism seems logical in the case of the trolley mind experiment.

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? 

This is more difficult:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Should he let the five patients die or save their lives? 

Problems with the calculation of happiness

* HAPPINESS IS DEFINED NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF QUANTITY BUT ALSO OF QUALITY. Example: what gives more happiness, to watch a bad series on TV or a good film? To spend two hours watching porno or to have a nice conversation with your girlfriend? 

* HOW CAN HAPPINESS BE DISTRIBUTED? Suppose that what makes John happy is not what makes Peter happy. Take it to the social level: What makes Group A happy doesn't make Group B happy. Suppose furthermore that group A is a majority and group B is a minority. A seems to win more happiness because there are many more members of A than members of B.

  Three counterarguments against Traditional Utilitarianism (you need to know them).

* McCloskey Utilitarian Informant: In a mixed town there's racial strife brought about as a result of a black man raping a white woman. A chief of police decides that a quick arrest of a black person (who is innocent) will stop the riots. He concludes that he's doing the right thing by following the traditional utilitarian calculus. However, the action is wrong since it violates an innocent person's rights.

* Brandt Utilitarian Heir: A family of two brothers their wives and kids and an elderly, rich father, who is paying for a very expensive treatment which would only prolong his life a bit more at the expense of ruining his savings. The older brother decides to kill the father thus increasing the happiness everyone considered. And yet, is this his duty? It doesn't seem so.

* Godwin's Fire Rescue: A very religious man faces a dilemma of whom to save from a certain death in a fire. His best friend is in the opposite room where the Archbishop of Cambray is staying. It seems the right thing to do for a pious man to save the Archbishop, his life would be more valuable than that of his best friend.    

Rule utilitarianism: An action is right if it falls under a rule, which if followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. This is the same as above, but checked by local rules first.

We know there are rules. For instance "do not kill" is a rule. So now, the utilitarian is saying that in the examples above the utilitarian informant is wrong in arresting the black person (the  

Counterargument:  A rule that would allow you to kill somebody whenever doing so would produce more happiness than unhappiness is not permitted. But a rule that allowed you to kill somebody whenever it would produce a great deal more happiness would be morally correct.

happiness is a warm gun (with math included)

that's a John Lennon's lyric for a Beatles' song, but I discovered something in my discussion with you about happiness that's pretty warm.

I'm suggesting to you that happiness is not outside in the world. Happiness is INSIDE. Indeed,
Aristotle and the ancient Stoics talked about keeping an inner balance.

Let's call this balance "happiness." 

happiness is a distribution factor "soothing" adversity.

The world is in constant opposition with us. The only way to WIN the world is not by fighting back, that's stupid. Fighting the world means spending your energy for nothing (since the world is supervenient on you). The only way to WIN is to play with the world. Adversity is just a frame of mind. We should arm ourselves with a shield against adversity.

Here's the shield in 3 steps:

1- keep the world at bay (it's called ATARAXIA)
2- do as much good as you can (without loosing yourself in the effort, it's called EUNOIA  or benevolence), so the world gives you back what you sow.
3- when necessary be prepared to turn defeat into victory (it's called GRIT).

this is where math comes in,

there's a function suggested by Gauss & Laplace,  concerning probability distributions. I'm simplifying the details. The point is that you could see happiness as factor dealing with a distribution of adversity: 

to be happy you have to know how to deal with adversity.   

yeah, happiness is a warm gun.

IAC & T, 5:40pm classes homework chapter 2, part 2

1- answer questions 1, 2, 4, 5 of section 2.3, p. 91
2- answer questions 1, 2 of section 2.4,  p. 98
3- explain Pascal's "bet argument,"  p. 106
4- explain James' pragmatic faith, p. 99
5- what is evidentialism? p. 99

topics for final exam, chapter 5

Find the topics here.

Book website for questions.

Ethics egoism (pros and cons)

ETHICAL EGOISM: an action is right if it maximizes one's BEST interests.

Ethical egoism is embedded in the ideas of the classical school of economics. 

There is nothing wrong with pursuing my best interests, as long as in doing so I don't harm anybody.

BEST means self-preservation in society. 

Difference between interest and best interest: not everything I consider my interest is in my BEST INTEREST. 

Ex. having sex with a person I just met vs. being faithful to my girlfriend. 

My best interest is creating behavioral dispositions of fidelity toward my girlfriend. Why? It's good to keep my relationship healthy; better for me mentally (less preoccupation) and physically (danger of STDs). but more importantly for the egoist, being faithful helps me develop behaviors of SELF-GOVERNANCE that I need in my life.

1. BEST also means playing by the rules of society. the most important rule is RECIPROCITY, which translates as BENEVOLENCE (doing good).

2. BEST is equivalent to a long-term investment in the bank of LIFE. The maturity of the investment is not immediate, but it reaches life's horizon. 

SLOW is the path to building respect & reputation. 

So, how does BEST work? 

The egoist maximizes her relationships in the world by being good to others (whenever permitted) to increase her chances of success. The more good she does for others, the more good is owed to her.

This principle can be expressed as: YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

In the end, the ethical egoist becomes an altruist of sorts. She is not fooling herself that altruism should erase the expecting good in return. Why not? It reinforces the stereotype of the free rider. 

I don't care how altruistic you appear, you don't want a friend who doesn't reciprocate the good you do for her (if you do, you are a self-destructive masochist).

my counter to cultural relativism

CR is the view that mn are culturally bounded.

CR is a theory about inconmensurability between groups. in class i propose to refute this in two different ways, via group theory in algebra or via moral naturalism.

1. one way to go is through mathematics: here's my simplified proof for group isomorphism,

2. the second way is to through natural history: hierarchies within the findings of values within a group (we learn this through anthropology, unfortunately they generally agree with CR).

a) if there are values, this presupposes a hierarchy.
b) if there is a hierarchy, some values are harder than others (hard for naturalism are those values that ensure survival). remember those values can be considered moral values, i,e. mns.
c) harder values cannot be endogenous to groups, since groups are associations of homo sapiens. harder values make HS associations possible.

thus,
harder values are common to different groups, i.e., they are intercultural.
mns are culturally interdependent. LQQD.

notes to 5.2 (egoism and traditional utilitarianism)

mk = mn + facts  (you already know these facts are "soft," we've explained this)

from what we've learned, it all boils down to the difference between mn and mk,

let's see how this works for the following ethical positions. we use AIR for (an action is right):

1- ethical egoism: AIR if it maximizes one's (my) BEST interests. 

there are 3 modalities: a- individual, b- personal and c- universal
in a- it's "my" interests, b- someone's interests, c- the rule applies to everybody (everyone should act in this manner).

defenders: Max Stirner, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Sidgwick, etc.

ethical egoists believe in mn, but these values are subject-centered.

with BEST interest, the ethical egoist has a check to unregulated self-destructive interests. she should seek interests that ensure her prospering in the world. guess what? she has learned by moral natural selection that the best way to succeed in the world is to be a bit altruistic (that's benevolence, doing good). she also understands that this world is rule by a tit-for-tat social dynamics. free riders don't succeed in the long run.

the altruistic counter to ethical egoism? an ethical egoist is not altruist for its own sake, but enough that she fosters some altruism. which altruist is such that she doesn't care to reap what she sows? some people have presented the counter that the ethical egoist treats people as a means to an end. and this is true. later when we study kant's deontology this may become an opening.

our textbook presents an interesting counter on page 344. the ethical egoist is walking through the woods and finds his rival bleeding and in need of help and she lets him die (she is maximizing her best interest). it seems a good counter since ethical egoism doesn't have a check against that. one could retort that even an altruist may do that, after all humans may know what's their duty and yet, fail to act on it. it's called AKRASIA (the weakness of the will).

2- psychological hedonism: we are all egoists by default.

ethical hedonist's lemma: it would be impossible to cite an action that isn't done to maximize internal good.

this argument is very popular, but the problem is that it's too general. enough to come up with actions that one has done for the sake of one's duty. yes, ethical egoists have duties (filial duties, some social duties)

3-  utilitarianism: AIR if it maximizes happiness everyone considered (the greatest majority of people) in construction....

Utilitarians are all consequentialists: AIR because of the consequences of the actions.
(we think consequentialism begins in China with Mozi, who promoted a philosophy of impartial caring. Only the Chinese could do that).

Utilitarianism is a 100% British moral theory. A social theory, see the thrust of the theory goes for the greatest majority of people (a side note: Karl Marx loved England's political climate because of utilitarianism). Utilitarianism's main advocate in the 19th century is J. Stuart Mill. In the 20th century we have Richard M. Hare and a great advocate for animal rights: professor Peter Singer. 

It's clear that utilitarianism wins over egoism as a social theory. Here we have to go to the explicit terms of the theory. One favors the individual, the other favors the group. If you vote for politicians A & B and you know A is an egoist and B an utilitarian, you'd be smart enough to vote for B --unless A a member of your family.

Problems with the calculation of happiness

What is happiness? A kind of Greek eudaimonia.  Mill has a good point that happiness cannot only be defined in quantity but also in quality. Ex: what gives more happiness, to watch a bad series on TV or a good film? To spend two hours watching porno or to have a nice conversation with your girlfriend? (by the way I confess that my younger self was on the lesser side here, so I speak with propriety). How do you calculate happiness?

Then there are five counters from page 351 to 355 pointing to problems utilitarianism faces with rights, duties and justic (please, revise these).

4- rule utilitarian: AIR if it falls under a rule, which if followed would mzaximizes happiness everyone considered (this is same as above, but checked by local rules first).

RU needs now to defeat all the counters against TU. Ca it do that? The RU takes it case by case and imposes a rule. If the rule works, then the rule applies. Rules like "Never cheat," "Never steal," "Never lie," work but only accompanied by the subsequent "if it maximized happiness for the majority." The RU claims that she can face these counters to TU better.

McCloskey's informant: "Do not bear false witness" declares the action of apprehending an innocent negro wrong. The RU could argue that apprehending an innocent person doesn't solve the problem, only makes it worse. In Brand't utilitarian heir the RU applies "Never kill innocent people." Killing your own father is parricide and makes the TU's calculation bogus. In Ross unhappy promise, the rule is "Keep your promises," and so on.

On the other hand, the RU cannot undercut its own utilitarian bent. The definition still sates: "Keep your promises, unless it maximizes happiness," so when should one break the rule? Well, a rule that would allow you to kill somebody whenever doing so would produce more happiness than unhappiness is not permitted. But a rule that allowed you to kill somebody whenever it would produce a great deal more happiness than unhappiness probably would be morally correct.    

Spring Final Exams Schedule (all PHI 2010 classes)

Honors classes

MWF, 10am Honors  W April 26
MWF, 11am Honors   F April  28
MW,   1pm   Honors  W April 26

All other classes

T,R 8:25am     R, April 27
T,R 11:25am   R, April 27
M 5:40-8pm    M, April 24

here is my explanation of why #31 is not semantically obscure

We had animated discussions at the Honors, 11am and the IAC classes about question #31 while revising our test. Here are my ten cents. I want to show you that one needs time and patience to sort these things out. Here is the intro to questions #30 & #31.

Let’s come back to what we’ve learned in Parfit teleportation experiment: Parfit-the-copy comes back to earth to know that Parfit-the-original has died six months after the teleportation. Parfit-the-copy decides to visit Anne, Parfit-the-original’s wife. After the obvious surprise of seeing Parfit-the-copy the wife reluctantly listens to his long exposition about how much he loves her and his children. Then, as she’s ready to shut the door she hears: “Would you live happily knowing that our children are orphans?”

question #31 asks:

Knowing as she knows that this person in front of her is the copy of her deceased husband, is Parfit-the-copy’s claim compelling enough that Anne may “take him back?”

To answer #31 correctly you need this background knowledge:

1- p. id. is not a necessary cond. for survival, 2- Po & Pc are psy. connected (meaning they are the same qualitatively, meaning they feel the same way), 3- Po, age 38, died of a heart condition, while Pc has lived in Mars for 6 months, 3- Po is married with two children. 4- Pc, which survived Po (by definition) comes back to earth to claim his children. In #31 I quote "a long exposition of how much he loves his children". In addition Pc wants "his wife back" (the scare quote indicates that she is not "really" his wife, but from the inside Pc doesn't feel that. He has a real desire!) 

Some of you answered 31, choice b, which is wrong. Of many things that were said during our revision I remember these: "how do I know that wife takes Pc back?", "what if what you call 'compelling' is not enough for his wife to take him back?," what's compelling for you may not be compelling for me," and finally: "is this test fair?"

In response to the first three questions: I'm not saying Anne takes Pc back. All I ask you is to tell me whether the claim is "compelling enough" for her to take him back. Anne may take him back, but it depends of compelling reasons. As per the last point: "is the test fair," I hope that by answering the first points, I answer that one.

You realize that: it's true that it is possible that Po's wife will take Pc,(regardless of whether she finds his explanation compelling). To which you will retort: "well, it's equally possible that she won't take him back."

Precisely! This is why "compelling" becomes paramount.

To answer what's compelling, I propose to examine what's non-compelling: physically and behaviorally speaking. (a) Pc doesn't look like Po, (b) Pc doesn't act like Po, (c) when Anne cross-examines Pc about their previous history together, Pc gets it all wrong.

(a)-(c) are non-compelling reasons! On the other hand, if Pc resembles Po in all respects (except the numeric, (which Anne cannot notice, because Po's "number" disappears with Po's body), would you still say these are not compelling reasons? 

This is what I'm after because it brings us back to the title of this post: Is #31 semantically obscure? (please, click the link and check definitions).

Instead of doing semantics, I'm going to take a look at how the IAC class answered #31. I propose three types: A, B, C respectively. Here are my findings (as per question #31):

(A type) out of 12 As in the class:  9 got it right, 3 got it wrong 
(B type) out of 12 Bs in the class:  8 right, 4 wrong 
(C type) out of 4 Cs in the class: 0 right, 4 wrong

We get a total of 17 rights vs. 11 wrong, that's 60% right.

Of the 11 wrong, 4 belong in the (C type), incidentally the latter also got question #30 wrong! Of the 11 who got 31 wrong, 8 also picked 30 wrong. Why is this relevant?

(1) It shows they didn't get how Pc is psychologically connected with Po. And why is it relevant? Because #30 actually informs #31!

(2) Consensus? out of 28 students, 17 right vs 11 wrong. 
Best consensus? the (A type), which gets 31 right, by a 9 to 2 ratio!

After examining these numbers, would you still maintain that #31 is semantically obscure?
If you believe that, you have to find an argument to disprove my (1) and (2) above, that is:

60% consensus at #31, plus the (A type)'s strong agreement at #31, plus the #30-#31 connection (which only makes the (A type) stronger because their responses at 30 & 31 are more apt). In other words, getting both #30 & #31 right shows that the accuracy at #31 is the result of skills exhibited at #30.

the (A type) was not merely "guessing" #31: they knew it!

I doubt you (whoever you are) will find such argument.
Take care,

what's mysticism?

mysticism is as old as homo sapiens. basically mysticism concerns religious ecstasy (i.e., altered states of consciousness). yes, it's psychological, thus neurophysiological.* it's found in all traditions. it's real. they happen because we need them.

1- mystics are likely to be great poets (in trying to explain the inexplicable, not an easy feat).
2- mysticism is redemptive, i.e., saving oneself.
3- mystical experiences tap into the otherworldly understanding of human existence (ineffability).
4- the mystic is devoted to a life of spirituality, i.e, the inner process of re-formation, to recover the original self from oneself.
5- because they're so different, they become suspicious for institutionalized religions.

here are five mystic poet/masters:

Rumi,  (Islam)
Lao Tzu, (Taoism)
the amazing Hildegard, (Christian)
Teresa of Ávila (Christian)
Swendeborg,
Sandu Tudor,

_________________
* 1- neurophysilogists deem the temporal lobe as crucial to mystical experiences as well as the change of personality results from such experiences. 2- epilepsy may be a factor since some mystics may have had temporal lobe epilepsy. 3- The anterior insula may be involved in ineffability, a strong feeling of certainty which cannot be expressed in words, which is a common quality in mystical experiences.

IAC, T, 5:40pm classes homework chapter 2

answer questions 1-5 in yellow box 2.1, on page 66

answer questios 1-5 in yellow box 2.2, on page 83

the problem of faith vs. reason,

click here for my evolutionary argument for religion,

a helpful sketch here, 

here's a quintet of mystic poet masters: Rumi,  Lao Tzu, the amazing Hildegard, Teresa of Ávila & Swendeborg (read them, there's plenty to learn).

here a brief note on mysticism,

evolutionary/anthropological arguments in favor of religion

here are some of the most relevant theories in favor of religion:

1. evolutionary (Dr. Edward O. Wilson)

worship/rituals are a function of human survival! 

religion is an ancient form of solidarity having evolved to enhance cooperation and cohesion within groups whose membership provides benefits which can enhance an individual's chances for survival and reproduction.

2. cultic practices (J.G. Frazer): 

religion has a social advantage when faith & ritual become internalized. it adds meaning & purpose to the group.

3. epistemological (Wittgenstein): 

the supernatural provides a specific "language game" to cope with the world, while explaining the issue of mortality in the physical world.

4. aesthetic/psychic (Karl Jung): 

faith, worship, rituals are a form of social bonding.

5. psychoanalytic (Sigmund Freud ): 

the internalization of roles, totem and taboo myth archetypes become foundations of culture.

6. moral (Dr. Jay Gould):

religion becomes purveyor of social roles. i.e., it's a function of social growth & stability.

7. sociological (Max Weber): 

religion provides group cohesion & shapes peoples' image of the world, providing valuable dispositions.

8. tanatology: 

religion's theories of the soul are the best interpreter of disease and mortality. here come the analysis of FAITH.

Theism and evil notes

Theism: is the belief in a personal god who created and rules the universe.

Agnosticism: one who neither believes nor disbelives in God.

Atheism: One who doesn't believe in God.  

Monotheism: is the belief there's only one deity, examples: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism.

Polytheism: there is more than one god (usually a specific pantheon of deities). One finds it in schools of Hinduism as well as Hellenismos.

Pantheism: the belief that the physical universe is equivalent to god, and that there is no division between the creator and its creation.

Deism: the belief that one God exists and created the world, but the Creator does/do not alter the original plan for the universe, but presides over it in the form of Providence. The Deists believe in divine intervention. Deism typically rejects supernatural events.

Dystheism: is the belief that a god, goddess, or singular God is not wholly good (eutheism) as is commonly believed and is possibly evil. Here God decides to become malevolent.

Theodicy: the attempt to answer the question of why an all good God allows for the manifestation of evil. The argument brings forth the argument from free will. i.e., God and evil are not logically impossible, and free will helps explain the existence of evil without threatening the existence of God.

Evil: something that is the source of suffering, injury or destruction.


Natural evil: The evil that results from natural events.

Moral evil: The evil that humans suffer at the hands of other humans. 

Necessary evil: It prevents further evil or promotes a greater good.

Unnecessary evil: It neither prevents evil nor promotes any further good. Evil for no reason. Evil for its own sake. 

HAMLET as "best consensus"

lawrence olivier's hamlet, 1949 (one of the best hamlets in film)

i propose how to evaluate best consensus of a thing (whether literature, music, art, drama, food).

let's take Hamlet (only because it's so obvious)

1- presentations of the piece between 18th-20th century (and how it contributed to the art of drama).
2- Hamlet in the history of movies (how the play has contributed to the history of film).
3- Hamlet's influence in english literature (400 years)
4. hamlet is discussed in detail by Freud, Jung, Lacan, the existentialists, feminists, post-structuralists, etc.
5- Hamlet in asia, africa, in arab countries.

1-5 is only a sketchy approximation of what builds consensus and best consensus.

"Hamlet" as consensus, is a process that happens in time. consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Hamlet read, discussed and presented is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Hamlet, qualitatively there are many. this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).

remember that BC is not what makes Hamlet good. Hamlet is good because of "facts" in Hamlet. what consensus and BC do is flesh out these "facts." 

Is there moral knowledge?

 Pablo Picasso's Demoiselles, 1907

Is there moral knowledge? this is a question of great importance.

without moral knowledge, it becomes difficult if not impossible to evaluate human actions.

getting these standards right has taken more than 30 centuries of human history.

moral norms are the generally accepted rules of most societies. 

there is a historic/evolutionary argument to be made for moral norms, since late homo erectus and homo sapiens.

the main point is that the human species could not have survived in groups without moral norms. these norms presuppose human society.

what are moral facts??

See the diagram; we start at the bottom, with "killing your own" in the herd. The obvious consequence of such action is the erosion of the social fabric. The elders impose a punishment. This has two consequences 1. they already have a sense of behavior modification through punishment, 2. they maximized group survival. 

1. & 2. are moral facts. 

What we mean by "fact" is not necessarily "2+2=4" or "H₂O is water." 

moral facts are "softer" facts. This means that they are not as hard as physical or mathematical facts. 

Take a look at these propositions:

"gender is softer than sex,"
"incest is wrong,"
"Demoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso is a masterpiece of Cubism,"
"Veuve Cliquot is a very good champagne,"

The four statements are correct, but they represent a different degree of factuality. We call these facts intersubjective.  It means that they are made true by many people who share points of view on the subject.

SO: A MORAL FACT  IS A MORAL NORM SUPPORTED BY THE BEST CONSENSUS.

Here is a diagram:

Process of consensus: see that the opinions leading to consensus are negotiated via cause/effect, inter-subjectively, from the outside into consensus, and from consensus into best consensus. best consensus is more reliable than regular consensus because they are more cogent to the world and thus more "resistant" to changes from the outside

BEST CONSENSUS CAN NOT BE PRODUCED OVERNIGHT.

Over the centuries, the slow layer-upon layer of reasons becomes a formidable value accumulation.  

AND YET THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT BEST CONSENSUS = TRUTH!!

There were many instances in the history of human thought when the best consensus of the time proved to be simply FALSE.   

math vs. physics?

@ miamiburbaki I discuss Dr. Richard Feynman's (biased) view of mathematics. 

making death "optional"

News on aging and staying young this week. NASA, leaning in to a new treatment that could keep astronauts from aging out on the long trip to Mars. Space travel accelerates aging. On Earth, we're talking about "super-longevity," even immortality. Silicon Valley billionaires want it all, and are investing big brains and bucks to get it. Listen how the drive to make death "optional."

the podcast here. 

men's infidelity (it's nature and nurture togheter)

 who are you?

men are unfaithful @ twice the rate of women in the USA.

The evolutionary benefit of promiscuity for men is pretty straightforward: The more sexual partners you have, the greater your potential reproductive success. But women’s reproductive capacity is more limited by biology. So what’s in it for women? There may be no clear evolutionary advantage to female infidelity, but sex has never just been about procreation.

women get less of a rational basis.

it all harks back to homo erectus -and early sapiens. go here for homo erectus' sexuality (a suggestion is that they sublimated sex through art, but also engaged in hallucinogenic sexual orgies, called "festivals"). "orgy" or "drug" is not a proper term: wear the proper glasses here. this is not our frantic pleasure-seeking postmodern version without a proper theist-animistic components. in our PC ignorance, we keep ignoring these societal drives.    

on the other hand, women's promiscuity has increased in western societies (caveat: the poorer you are the less promiscuous you're permitted to be).

here are 13 reasons from psychology today. let's read some of them through our knowledge of
chapter 4. 

immaturity: that refers to character, not your present person and predetermined by your Np. a pretty vague concept, it means you don't act your age, and who does? :)
insecurity: same as above. "insecurity" cannot be a "willing" thing. nobody wants to be insecure, more so if you are a man. this is an unconscious mechanism. the more insecure you are, the more you're likely to show yourself as secure, which brings forth the stereotype, "men are spartans."
lack of male social support: indeed, your males friends are as detached as you are. men don't know how to give support to each other regarding romantic issues, they are supposed to be kept within masculinity boundaries, i.e., you don't show your friend you're suffering. again: "men are spartans."
child abuse: that's a complex one which can go in any direction. from infidelity to self-mutilation to abuse to murder.
selfishness: at the beginning of the relationship, during mating time, you do want to be with your significant other. it's later, when the sexual urges wane that you get restless. this is not selfishness, this is the EROS mechanism (studies reveal that polygamous men live longer). 
anger, revenge: yes, there's always anger. and anger only means repression  of a symptom. but we're not that aware of that either. if a man is angry he will deny it (i surmise women can sin of this too).  

__________________

this paper takes a deeper look at evolutionary biology theories. the finding is that males are more dismissive of romantic relationship (thus more unfaithful and promiscuous) than women in most cultures, except in africa (& the reason is not cultural, it's rather the "stressor" of their particular environments).
___________________

now, how do you approach these data as a male?

it's a fact that a man can be unfaithful and still love a woman. my father is a case in point. he loved my mother to her death with devotion and perseverance. being in love is always easy at first. then we fall out of love. we wonder, was it really love? why did we let it go? did we fight enough for it? some say "why fight over the other's freedom to move on?" a fight is worth it if there's hope (more about love later, let's stay on course).

i want to make a comment about male behavior around the "received" social norms of adultery. why does it happen? biology vs. cultural norms! supervening society makes for familial natural selection. in this version of the traditional family, if men aren't faithful at least they keep the contract going for the sake of family and social cohesion.

the man keeps his urges at a minimum, following a prudent check with the proviso that the wife is assured love, financial and familial stability. this "victorian" arrangement worked until modernity. don't think that women are unaware of their husbands' escapades. they are not stupid. the reason 19th literature gave us Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, Tolstoi, Chekhov, etc, was precisely this traditional arrangement. that women learned to live under this traditional norms doesn't mean that there was a "patriarchy" of male conspiracy against women. this is not wearing proper lenses. these men loved their wives and their views loved them back. presentism myopically judges the past. if these masters of literature critiqued their 19th-present it was because they were already moderns! 

after modernity everything changes. i, a twenty first-century person, tell my female students to finish college, become independent, and play it equally at home. but remember, as each epoch fixes the past it becomes outdated with its mounting problems. modernity brought its own problems with it, which we're dealing with now (this is a different topic we cannot pursue here).

let's come back to love. even with this tension in our biology, us men can do something about fidelity (this why i said fidelity is commendable -though gabrielle felt it was not the right word).

we men can fight our biology with better ideals of love.

real love is a difficult negotiation between passion and generosity. passion, to work, has to be selfish, otherwise it dies on arrival. generosity checks against our disparate sexual desires. through generosity we learn that this love deserves better. it means bringing forth trust by channeling our drives in the direction of our love. this doesn't mean one would stop incidentally having desires (you know that not all these desires are even "really" ours). only that we'll in a better position to redirect and color our desires with our best ideals. by the way, don't blame yourself if you fail. what's important is to keep trying. hopefully we'll succeed.

Sartre's lemma

This is Sartre's lemma: l'être n'est pas ce qu'il est, il est ce qu'il nes pas,

self is not what it is, it is what it is not.

Our identity, l'être, the self, IS in time.

There are two cuts: past to present and present to future. The yellow indicates past-to-present. the green, present-to-future

1- past-to-present.

this is our past, meaning all the q-memories and q-desires and beliefs of the past. ourselves' own movie, a unique, first-person-report movie.
 
This self-movie we all have is our NARRATIVE. Whatever you say about yourself, however you describe yourself is yours, whatever you think you can be (with all the emotional coloring of your-self). Did you lie? Do you hold back? Do you feel traumatized? Do you feel empowered? All this happens because of all the bits and pieces of your own narrative.

NARRATIVE always supervenes on your actual person.  

2- present-to-future. 

this is the projection of the self into the future. it hasn't happened, but it's contained in the NARRATIVE (for example what you want to do with your life). Whatever we wish for the future is part of our PROJECT. Selves have projects. We've done this in class. You "see yourself as..." the future self is different that the present self in the execution of the project. in fact, the self "as-projected" is already different than the present self. it's different in a potential sense, not in an actual sense.

Sartre's lemma indicates that PERSONAL IDENTITY IS A SELF-GENERATING PROCESS.