click here for more information,
ONE LAST ADVICE 'BOUT YOUR DRAFTS!
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Monday, December 9, 2019
Monday, December 2, 2019
final exam dates (all phi 2010 classes)
mwf, 10am wed, dec 18
mwf, 11am fri, dec 20
tr, 9:50 tues, dec 17
tr, 11:15 r, dec 19
m, 5:40pm m, dec 16
mwf, 11am fri, dec 20
tr, 9:50 tues, dec 17
tr, 11:15 r, dec 19
m, 5:40pm m, dec 16
final exam (fall 2020)
lectures on aristotle's virtue morality,
for questions with "justify" and "explain", please, provide a minimum of 40 words.
_____________________
1. Why is breaking a promise wrong according to Kant? In your explanation bring the Kant's categorical imperative's reversibility and universality angles.
2. What is the meaning of RESPECT according to Kant? Explain.
3. In Aristotle's virtue morality what is relationship between virtue and eudaimonia? Explain.
4. John is a "C" average student, but he has decided he wants to become an "A" student and apply for Honors College. Supposed you are a seasoned college advisor. How would you counsel John to go about becoming an A student based on Aristotle's idea of right habits?
5. Contrast Kant's and Aristotle's approaches to morality? Which do you find a better theory?
6. Why are aesthetic norms important? Justify your answer.
7. Suppose you have an artist friend that produces abstract paintings like the one below:
He's interested in your advice.Which approach would you consider to give him advice, Formalism? Intentionalism? Justify your answer.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
homework #8 (chapter 7)
1. Are there aesthetics facts? Explain. Provide an example (of your own) of an aesthetic fact.
2. How do aesthetic facts happen?
3. What's the difference between objectivism and subjectivism in aesthetics?
4. Is Heute Cuisine a form of art? Explain why.
5. What's intentionalism in aesthetics? (b) What's the "intentional fallacy argument". Do you agree with it?
6. What's a readymade and why is it called art?
7. Do you agree with Arthur Danto's argument on the separation between art and and non-art? ? (for Danto's argument look at the textbook on page. 339 under "Philosophers at Work").
Saturday, November 30, 2019
what is art? & aesthetic value
WHAT IS ART?
Art comprises a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory, performing, artifacts which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Other activities related to the production of works of art include art criticism and art history.
The three classical branches of visual art are painting, sculpture, and architecture. In addition there is music, theatre, film, dance, performance art, as well as literature and other media such as interactive media,
are included in a broader definition of the arts.
_______________
WHAT IS AN OBJECT "ART"?
1. SKILL, is the proficiency developed through training or experience at the specific art form.
2. CRAFTMANSHIP, is the ability to excel at one's proficiency.
3. ORIGINALITY, is the ability to innovate when necessary.
__________________
Why Heute cuisine is an art form (in 3 points)
Increasingly, crafts, and heute cuisine (characterized by the meticulous preparation and careful presentation of food at a high price) are considered art manifestations. Why is Heute cuisine an art form? "Heute" goes back to 17th century.
1. Classic Haute Cuisine distinguished itself from regular French cuisine by what was cooked and served such as foods like tongue and caviar, by serving foods such as fruit out of season, by making it difficult and time-consuming to cook, and by using exotic ingredients not typically found in France. The 17th-century chef and writer La Varenne marked a change from cookery known in the Middle Ages, to somewhat lighter dishes, and more modest presentations. In the 18th century, Antonin Carême also published works on cooking, and although many of his preparations today seem extravagant, he simplified and codified an earlier and even more complex cuisine.
2. Characteristics of Classic cuisine: Georges Auguste Escoffier is a central figure in the modernisation of haute cuisine since 1900, which became known as cuisine classique. It was practised in the grand restaurants and hotels of Europe and elsewhere for much of the 20th century. The major developments were to replace service à la française (serving all dishes at once) with service à la russe (serving meals in courses) and to develop a system of cookery, based on Escoffier's Le Guide Culinaire, which formalized the preparation of sauces and dishes. In its time, it was considered the pinnacle of haute cuisine, and was a style distinct from cuisine bourgeoise (the cuisine of affluent city dwellers), the working-class cuisine of bistros and homes, and cuisines of the French provinces.
3. Nouvelle cuisine (20th century). Nouvelle cuisine rebelled from Escoffier's "orthodoxy" and complexity. Nouvelle cuisine describes the cooking of Paul Bocuse, Alain Chapel, Jean and Pierre Troisgros, Michel Guérard, etc. It puts emphasis on natural flavors and the freshest possible ingredients, preparation is simplified, heavy sauces are less common, as are strong marinades for meat, and cooking times are often reduced. Nouvelle cuisine was a movement towards minimalism and it is less extravagant. Menus are short. Dishes use more inventive pairings and rely on inspiration from regional dishes
_________________
Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the FINE ARTS are separated and distinguished from DECORATIVE OR APPLIED ARTS.
Andy Warhol, Brillo Box, 1964, MOMA
AESTHETIC VALUE
OBJECTIVISM is the position that art has objective properties. SUBJECTIVISM denies objective criteria. Instead, art is in the eye of the beholder (a matter of opinion). INTERSUBJECTIVISM is the position that art is a bit of both objectivism and subjectivism.
FORMALISM: Art form refers to the elements of art that are independent of its interpretation or significance. It covers the methods adopted by the artist and the physical composition of the artwork, such as color, contour, dimension, medium, melody, space, texture, and value. Form may also include visual design principles, such as arrangement, balance, contrast, emphasis, harmony, proportion, proximity, and rhythm. These notes can be observed by any individual.
INTENTIONALISM: Authorial intention plays a decisive role in the meaning of a work of art, conveying the content or essential main idea. Intentionalism defines the subject as the persons or idea represented and the content as the artist's experience of that subject.
Jackson Pollock, Number 5, 1948.
What's the idea behind Pollock's Number 5, above?
In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt/Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text (in this case painting) was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.
All this takes us to the idea of MEANING, that is to say, what's behind the image, or what "supports" what we see, read, or listen to.
MEANING:
Rene Magritte, This is not a pipe, 1929.
What's the meaning of the painting above, by French artist Rene Magritte? The title of the painting "This is not a pipe" seems to throw one off. It's clearly a pipe. So, what is Magritte doing? Is this a joke?
One problem about abstract art is that it's difficult to understand any meaning behind it.
Michael Conrads, Untitled, 2007.
Abstraction in painting and sculpture is a move away from the idea of finding meaning in art.
Carl Andre, Equivalent VIII, 1964.
What's the meaning behind Andre's piece above? Wouldn't it be better to talk about Formalism here?
SKILL, CRAFT: Art can connote a sense of trained ability or mastery of a medium or the developed and efficient use of a language to convey meaning with immediacy or depth. THUS: THE READY MADE:
Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917, Tate Museum.
For example, the piece above, Fountain, doesn't exhibit a particular craft. It's just a urinal that Duchamp found and signed "R. Mutt" (who was the actual factory brand of the urinal) and exhibited in a show in 1917. Duchamp called this kind of artwork READY MADES.
Is this art?
As you can see, Fountain is at the Tate Museum in London. It's considered art by art critics, collectors, art historians. Again, we face the issue of ART CONSENSUS.
If art is man-made, it seems that Fountain IS NOT ART. And yet, according to philosopher Arthur C. Danto, what distinguishes art from non art cannot be perceived in the artwork itself. For Danto objects are artworks if they are situated in a particular artworld.
EXPRESSIVE THEORY OF ART: Art can be defined as an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations of the artist. Certainly, the artwork exhibits
Edvard Munch, The Scream, 1893, National Gallery.
The painting above, The Scream, by Edvard Munch, showing a man with an agonizing face, has become one of the most iconic images of art, seen as symbolising the anxiety of the human condition.
Munch recalled that he had been out for a walk at sunset when suddenly the setting sunlight turned the clouds "a blood red". He sensed an "infinite scream passing through nature". Scholars have located the spot to a fjord overlooking Oslo, and have suggested other explanations for the unnaturally orange sky, ranging from the effects of a volcanic eruption to a psychological reaction by Munch to his sister’s commitment at a nearby lunatic asylum.
Does it matter that we know these expressive facts about the artwork?
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Monday, November 25, 2019
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Aristotle in his own words
“If things do not turn out as we wish, we should wish for them as they turn out.”
“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.”
“Happiness depends upon ourselves.”
“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”
“A friend to all is a friend to none.”
“Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well.”
“He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.”
“I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies, for the hardest victory is over self.”
“The more you know, the more you know you don't know.”
“He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader.”
“Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them.”
“Nature does nothing uselessly.”
“Misfortune shows those who are not really friends.”
“Character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion.”
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
“Through discipline comes freedom.”
“Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”
“The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain.”
“Freedom is obedience to self-formulated rules.”
“Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient.”
Friday, November 22, 2019
Monday, November 18, 2019
homework #8 (kantian ethics)
this homework is based on our textbook, chapter 6,
and my two lectures: on this lecture and this lecture.
1. Why is keeping a promise a duty? In your defense, bring to bear Kant's first formulation.
2. Do you have duties to yourself? Explain why.
3. What does it mean to say that an action is universal and reversible?
4. What's Kant's idea of respect? Bring an example from your own life to apply this idea.
5. Explain the difference between treating a person "as a mean to," and "merely as a mean to and end"?
6. How do you apply the second principle to yourself? Explain.
Friday, November 15, 2019
phi 2604 exam #1 (miniterm) fall 2020
1. Of these 4 facts say propose an order of hardness beginning with hard and ending with the least hard.
a) "mammals have livers" b) "2+3 =5" c) "incest is wrong" d) "democracy is better than tyranny"
2. Can consensus be defeated?
3. Based on this lecture, What's the difference between "morality," "etiquette," and "law"?
1. State Ethical Egoism's position.
2. What does it mean to say: "best interests"? Provide an example of you own life where you balance your interest vs. your best interest.
3. Can the egoist actually do good to people? Explain.
4. What is traditional utilitarianism? What's the problem of happiness in utilitarianism?
5. Explain how a RULE UTILITARIAN would respond to a TRADITIONAL UTILITARIAN in the case of Brandt Utilitarian Heir counterexample?
on Divine Command Theory
6. What is a religion? Explain.
7. Why are religion symbols viable?
8. What is the role of the shaman in early human societies?
9. What's the Divine Command Theory?
10. What is faith? Why are faith and reason so different? Explain.
11. Why is MLK's religious message of faith so important? Explain.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
phi 2604 exam #2 fall 2020
send this assignment to atriff@mdc.edu by friday, november 6, 9pm.
remember: name, exam #2, class sequence in the email subject.
(for explanations a minimum 30 word is required).
1. State Ethical Egoism's position.
2. What does it mean to say: "best interests"? Provide an example of you own life where you balance your interest vs. your best interest.
3. Can the egoist actually do good to people? Explain.
4. What is traditional utilitarianism? What's the problem of happiness in utilitarianism?
5. Explain how a RULE UTILITARIAN would respond to a TRADITIONAL UTILITARIAN in the case of Brandt Utilitarian Heir counterexample?
on Divine Command Theory
6. What is a religion? Explain.
7. Why are religion symbols viable?
8. What is the role of the shaman in early human societies?
9. What's the Divine Command Theory?
10. What is faith? Why are faith and reason so different? Explain.
11. Why is MLK's religious message of faith so important? Explain.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Monday, November 4, 2019
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Monday, October 21, 2019
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
counters for our philosophy paper
I'M PROVIDING HERE COUNTERARGUMENTS THAT ARE NOT THAT EASY TO FIND IN INTERNET (FOR OBVIOUS REASONS), THIS IS PROVISIOINAL INFORMATION. NOW YOU SHOULD FIND BETTER SOURCES YOURSELF.
#metoo critics
1. they counter unproved accusations with presumption of innocence, 2. they point to an increase culture of victimization, 3. the problem is not the clear cases of harassment, which are wrong and illegal, but to subtle forms where is up for the accuser to "interpret" behavior that may not be meant as such, by the supposed perpetrator. 4. criticism to the #metoo, has come from women in France, with the motto "freedom to offend",
climate change critics
1. the problem of failed predictions. 2. disagreement: from 500 scientists, disagreement from Finland scientists, here, from a reputed MIT scientist, + this one + this one + this one, + the founder of Greenpeace on CO2, physicist Nir Shaviv explains how climate change became accepted + Nobel Physicist Ivar Giaver, 3. the failure of renewable energy in Europe. 5. the stubborn problem of mitigation vs. economic growth (China, India and Brazil are now the "big polluters"), 6. why is nuclear energy never addressed as more successful than renewables? + (this one from forbes), 7. the problem of reversing economic gains vs. social instability as result, 8. the tension between mitigation and adaptation, 9. unforeseen problems of climate engineering, in terms of unintended consequences. 10. finally address the unqualified acceptance of these ideas through panic and apocalypticism for political gain.
same sex marriage critics
1. these critics are neither religious fanatics, nor homophobes, 2. they're traditionalists, who make a case for the advantage of the man/woman nuclear family, which evolved as a natural process during millennia, with the purpose of human procreation and social cohesion. they believe such an important social institution shouldn't be tweaked for social upgrading purposes. 4. traditionalists take into account the weight of traditions as a counterbalance to quick, untested cultural changes exacted since the twentieth century (with little time for the slow, incremental test needed in the social sphere).
socialism critics
1. they are economic libertarians, 2. socialism as planned economy has failed in the URSS, the Eastern Block (during cold war). Also in Latin America (Cuba & Venezuela), and North Korea. 3. if we're talking about socialism-a-la-northern countries (citizens are taxed about 60% of their income for government programs). 4. even in 3. the differences between a country like Denmark and Sweden the USA are huge: a) Denmark, Sweden, Norway are very homogeneous societies with small populations, b) the cultural makeup of northern cooperation is quite different from the cultural make up of competition in the America (cultural habits are quite important when factoring untested policies). 5. the market, as a supervinient structure of free agents pursuing their own gain, is a better option than centrally planning the economy. why? 5. the libertarian argument again: why leave the fundamental wealth/making decisions of your life in the hand of bureaucrats? important critiques against: ludwig von mises' socialism an economic and sociological analysis, f. a. hayek's road to serfdom.
#metoo critics
1. they counter unproved accusations with presumption of innocence, 2. they point to an increase culture of victimization, 3. the problem is not the clear cases of harassment, which are wrong and illegal, but to subtle forms where is up for the accuser to "interpret" behavior that may not be meant as such, by the supposed perpetrator. 4. criticism to the #metoo, has come from women in France, with the motto "freedom to offend",
climate change critics
1. the problem of failed predictions. 2. disagreement: from 500 scientists, disagreement from Finland scientists, here, from a reputed MIT scientist, + this one + this one + this one, + the founder of Greenpeace on CO2, physicist Nir Shaviv explains how climate change became accepted + Nobel Physicist Ivar Giaver, 3. the failure of renewable energy in Europe. 5. the stubborn problem of mitigation vs. economic growth (China, India and Brazil are now the "big polluters"), 6. why is nuclear energy never addressed as more successful than renewables? + (this one from forbes), 7. the problem of reversing economic gains vs. social instability as result, 8. the tension between mitigation and adaptation, 9. unforeseen problems of climate engineering, in terms of unintended consequences. 10. finally address the unqualified acceptance of these ideas through panic and apocalypticism for political gain.
same sex marriage critics
1. these critics are neither religious fanatics, nor homophobes, 2. they're traditionalists, who make a case for the advantage of the man/woman nuclear family, which evolved as a natural process during millennia, with the purpose of human procreation and social cohesion. they believe such an important social institution shouldn't be tweaked for social upgrading purposes. 4. traditionalists take into account the weight of traditions as a counterbalance to quick, untested cultural changes exacted since the twentieth century (with little time for the slow, incremental test needed in the social sphere).
socialism critics
1. they are economic libertarians, 2. socialism as planned economy has failed in the URSS, the Eastern Block (during cold war). Also in Latin America (Cuba & Venezuela), and North Korea. 3. if we're talking about socialism-a-la-northern countries (citizens are taxed about 60% of their income for government programs). 4. even in 3. the differences between a country like Denmark and Sweden the USA are huge: a) Denmark, Sweden, Norway are very homogeneous societies with small populations, b) the cultural makeup of northern cooperation is quite different from the cultural make up of competition in the America (cultural habits are quite important when factoring untested policies). 5. the market, as a supervinient structure of free agents pursuing their own gain, is a better option than centrally planning the economy. why? 5. the libertarian argument again: why leave the fundamental wealth/making decisions of your life in the hand of bureaucrats? important critiques against: ludwig von mises' socialism an economic and sociological analysis, f. a. hayek's road to serfdom.
abortion pro and con
here is a good pro and con link with clear points,
here is a good link from a medical perspective,
here is a middle road argument: pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion,
here's a ok Britannica link,
here another pro-abortion link,
Monday, October 14, 2019
Sunday, October 13, 2019
a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric CO2, a new study from NASA
click here for more information,
deserts are greening from CO2,
deserts are greening from CO2,
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both. If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
chapter 4 homework
1. Why does Descartes believe that the mind is different from the body?
2. What is Logical Behaviorism? how can you refute this formula MS-->BS? Explain.
3. Why is Psychology a soft science? Explain.
4. What is Identity theory? Is Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism? Explain.
5. What is qualia? Why do we call qualia a first-person report?
5. What is Nagel's BAT thought experiment? What does it prove?
6. What is Functionalism?
7. What is Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment?
8. After going through questions 1-5 regarding the mind, what can we say about mental states?
9. So, finally what is the mind according to the systemic model of the brain?
ALL YOUR ANSWERS ARE DOWN HERE LOOK FOR THEM!!!
chapter 4
Epiphenomenalism: the mind is an ineffective byproduct of
physical processes. (The brain affects the mind, but the mind doesn't
affect the brain)
Problem of other minds: It is the philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible to know that there are other minds in the world.
CARTESIAN DUALISM (Rene Descartes) The mind is an immaterial
thinking substance that interacts with the body. Decartes uses a
deductive argument to prove it, 1. "I can conceive I exist without a
body", 2. "the body is divisible, the mind is not," therefore: "mind and
body are different."
Logical Behaviorism: MS ↔ BS (Mental states are Behavioral states) and
Behavioral States are Behavioral Dispositions (the ability to respond to certain stimulus) . So mental states are
reducible to behavioral dispositions.
HOWEVER...
A behavioral state is not sufficient OR necessary for being in a mental state. How do we know that?
FAKING BEHAVIOR/ Counterexamples to Logical Behaviorism: The Pretender Thought Experiment ● A who is born without
the ability to feel pain lears to exhibit the appropriate
pain behavior in appropriate situations. ● If someone kicks him, he
pretends that it hurts him (he acts/behaves like someone who is in
pain). According to this counterexample: Having the right behavioral
dispositions does NOT GUARANTEE (not sufficient) that someone is in a
certain mental state.
[Putnam's
Spartan Thought Experiment ]
● the spartan has the ability to suppress all involuntary pain behavior
though they feel pain and they dislike it just like we do. this
thought experiment
undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe
that the Spartans are never in pain because they never ACT as if they
are in pain. This is obviously not true.
So, mental states are not reducible to behavioral states.
Identity Theory: MS ↔ BrS (mental states are brain states)
It is simpler, better than Cartesian dualism because it doesn’t assume
the existence of an immaterial substance. There is no need to go beyond
the physical to explain the mental. Our behavior is caused by the brain,
NOT the mind. Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism
because (being the study of the brain) it's closer to the source of the
mind.
Many Identity theorists are epiphenomenalists, e.g., the
mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire.
HOWEVER… Knowing a person’s brain does NOT imply knowing what the person is thinking/feeling.
Counterexamples to Identity Theory:
[Thomas Nagel’s Bat Experiment ] ● We know how
bats use sonar as a form of perception. Nagel shows that there’s no way
that we can experience or imagine this form of perception. ● WHY NOT? Because facts
about what it is like for the experiencing organism are only accessible
from one's point of view, which is the organism itself (1st person). ●
All of the physical properties of bats can be known by non-bats, BUT, no
non-bat will ever know what it's like to be a bat. If mental states
were identical to brain states, then it would be possible to know
everything about the mind by knowing everything there is to know about
the brain. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
So, mental states exhibit Nagel's properties: 1- private (1st-person reports), 2. subjective.
They are felt from the inside. Physical properties are 1- public (third person point of view), 2- objective.
Functionalism: MS ↔ FS
When two things perform the same function, they are said to have the
same “causal role.” Functionalism claims that THE MIND IS WHAT THE BRAIN DOES.
If a robot and a human can perform the same task (same
causal role), they are said to be in the same state of mind. Something
else about functionalism is that mental states can cause other mental
states, i.e., if you see your boyfriend cheating with another woman
(input), the following mental states occur (outputs): 1- shock, 2-
jealousy, 3-
bitterness, (even vengeance).
Counterexamples to Functionalism: [Putnam's Inverted Spectrum Thought Experiment]
● Imagine an individual
is born with an inverted color spectrum. What is red she sees green and
vice-versa. ● Then she learns how to tell the difference. She grows up
and gets her driver's license. If you asked
her: “What color is the top light of the traffic light? She would say
RED (she sees it GREEN). ● Her visual experience
(the qualitative content - the feel IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF
US). This proves that not every time we are in a functional state
(STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT) we are in the same MENTAL STATE.
Lewis' Mad Man Thought Experiment: A person
feels a headache (input) but instead of going "ouch" (output, function of pain) he
studies calculus. Here he's in the same mental state normal people are,
but in a different functional state. This proves one can be in a mental
state and not in the same functional state.
TURING TEST FOR INTELLIGENCE: Imitation game. There is a man (A) and a woman (B) and an
interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. → The object of the game is
for the interrogator to determine which of the two is the man and which
is the woman. → It is A’s object in the game to try to cause C to make
the wrong identification. The object for the game of B is to help the
interrogator.
For Turing there’s nothing more to being intelligent than being able to
use language as we do. WHICH MEANS… If a computer is able to do this,
then it is smart.
WHAT
DO WE LEARN? MENTAL STATES ARE NOT REDUCIBLE TO BEHAVIORAL STATES, TO
BRAIN STATES, TO FUNCTIONAL STATES. MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE. WE
CALL PROPERTY OF MENTAL STATES A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY.
INTENTIONALITY IS A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY, it's the “ABOUTNESS” of a thought. Without
intentionality our life would be completely mechanical. A SYNONYM FOR
INTENTIONALITY IS QUALIA, i.e., THE UNIQUE PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE "FEEL" OF
YOUR MENTAL STATE.
NOW COMES MY ANALISYS OF THE MIND AS SYSTEMIC PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN.
this is a sketch of a systemic model for the mind (going up emergence, going down supervinience)
emergent property → is a property which is caused by things that lack that property & interact in certain ways. IN SISTEMS THE WHOLE IS BIGGER THAN THE PARTS. The emergent property arises when all parts are put together. ● The mind is emergent upon and caused by brain activity. EX: Love at first sight. ● Life is an emergent property. ● HURRICANES (wind-rain-destruction) ← ALL of these variables MUST happen in order for the emergent property to arise.
click here for examples of emergent properties,
Downward causation → Downward causation is used to explain the effect of the environment on biological evolution. It suggests the causal relationship between the HIGHER levels of a system to LOWER levels of that system. For example: mental events causes physical events. There is a two-way interaction between consciousness and the brain: Consciousness determines the succession of nerve impulses, and nerve impulses determine the content of consciousness.
click here for a better understanding of the brain-systemic-model for the mind,
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Monday, September 30, 2019
Friday, September 27, 2019
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Friday, September 20, 2019
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
necessary, sufficient conditions, exercise, fall 2020
Tell, whether the following examples are necessary or sufficient or neither.
1. Is being charged for a crime a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a criminal?
2. Is earning 95 points a necessary or sufficient condition for passing a class with an A?
3. Is having the flu virus in your blood a necessary or sufficient condition for being sick?
4. Is attending class regularly and punctually a necessary or sufficient condition for being successful in class?
5. Is being 20 years old a necessary or sufficient condition for being a college student?
6. Is completing all the requirements of your degree program a necessary or sufficient condition for earning your degree?
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Monday, September 9, 2019
Thursday, September 5, 2019
homework #1, spring 2021
explaining questions need
at least 40 words each. it's prohibited to answer definitions by
copy and paste. you must rephrase the definitions. send your assignments to: atriff@mdc.edu
The idea is to pick a proposition of your own (remember, a proposition is just a sentence in quotes) of your own for each of the four branches, then immediately after the proposition proceed to briefly critique like as I did in the post.
2. What are the main four branches of philosophy and what are their subject of study.
3. What is the Socratic method?
4. What is the fundamental stuff (arche) of the universe for Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides and the Atomists?
5. Try to write down a valid deductive argument with false premises.
6. What would take a deductive argument to be invalid? (think of what makes it valid)
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Friday, August 30, 2019
branches of philosophy in daily conversation
the art of philosophy is about propositions. here you have some examples:
"I know what I'm saying", (what does he/she means?)
" Jay is not a good person", (1. is he not, really? and 2. what sort of criteria are they using?)
"People in the 1800s thought that____", (how they know?, historic research?, hearsay?, opinions?)
"I hate math", (are you sure? do you hate it or is it more that you afraid of it?)
"I want to be a nurse", (are you a nurse cause you want to or because, say, your parents want you to and you don't want to disappoint them? what about a dear friend that is a nurse and you wish to be like her?)
logic in daily conversation (whether our thinking process is correct)
"Jay has covid symptoms, so I'm Jay has covid" (can a person have symptoms and not have the disease?)
"If it rains the streets are wet; the streets are wet, so it must have rained" (do you see why this is not true? we call it a fallacy).
"Jay has covid symptoms, so I'm Jay has covid" (can a person have symptoms and not have the disease?)
"If it rains the streets are wet; the streets are wet, so it must have rained" (do you see why this is not true? we call it a fallacy).
"If you don't love me then you hate me" (are there not other possibilities?)
ethics in daily conversation (what's right and wrong)
"John is a bad person", (what makes a bad person for you? quick perceptions about the person, vibes, behavior? and if so, how do you objectively analyze this?)
"Alice has a bad character", (what is character? & what makes Alice's character "bad"?)
aesthetics in daily conversation (issues of taste and subjectivity)
"I love this car", (is this an assumption or a good observation?)
"Wow, you look hot", (why? emotions and reasons are not the same )
"This is the best chicken soup I've tasted so far", (is this true or is it a hyperbole? and suppose someone asks why? is he/she prepared to explain it?)
metaphysics in daily conversation (ascertain the thing we refer to)
"The love I felt for you was not really love, it was more like infatuation", (the person being told this proposition needs an urgent definition of the distinction between the two, don't you think?)
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
here's the power of philosophy in a few charts (GMAT, LSAT, and GRE scores) including $alary!
Above is the Graduate Management Admission Test, a computer adaptive test intended to assess analytical, writing, quantitative, verbal, and reading skills in written English for use in admission to a graduate management program, such as MBA programs. This is sort of your MBA "bread and butter."
Above you have the results for the LSAT (entrance to Law School). Look at Philosophy with the arrow. It has the highest Mean High (159.47) and Median High (160).
Above are the GRE Verbal scores measure the ability to read and interpret. It includes both spoken and written communication. Very important in pursuing careers in all the Humanities & journalism. Also very important for interpersonal skills in management positions.
GRE Analytical, is essential for many different types of jobs in a variety of fields, including Business Analytics, Data Architecture, Data Sciences, Marketing, Project Management, Accounting, Business Development, Programming, Law, Medicine, and all the sciences.
Quantitative reasoning is the application of basic mathematics skills, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, etc, to the analysis and interpretation of real-world quantitative information in the context of any discipline.
GRE composite score is determined by combining your total scores for Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning, each scored on a scale of 130-170. GRE composite scores are important for graduate or business school admission and an aspect of your application admission officers weigh with great consideration.
How about salary?
Not bad.
Monday, July 29, 2019
phi 2010 final exam, ethics (open book test), summer a, 2020
Please, ATTACH THESE QUESTIONS TO YOUR EXAM. Send the exam in the same manner you sent the previous exams, 4888, NAME, FINAL EXAM.
SEND YOUR FINAL PAPER & YOUR FINAL EXAM IN THE SAME EMAIL! (it reduces the amounts of emails in my mailbox!)
Deadline for sending both final paper and final exam is Thursday, July 9, 2pm.
______________________________________________
1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain your answer from the evolutionary/historic point of view.
2. What does it mean to say that moral facts are "intersubjective"? (same link as above)
3. How do facts become morals norms? Explain in the case of incest. (same link as above)
4. What's the difference between moral norms and etiquette?
5. What is cultural relativism? Are there really that many discrepancies about moral norms between cultures?
6. Addressing ethical egoism, provide an example from real life where your interest would clash with your best interest.
6. Could a utilitarian kill somebody if it produces more overall happiness than unhappiness? Explain.
7. In your own words explain Kant's Categorical Imperative (in your explanation bring forth both Kant's universality and reversibility points).
8. Bring an example from your life when you felt you were treated merely as a means to an end by somebody. What did you learn? (minimum 50 words)
9. The idea of RESPECT is fundamental in Kantian ethics. Explain is SELF-RESPECT connected to respecting others. Again, bring an example from your personal experience (minimum 50 words).
SEND YOUR FINAL PAPER & YOUR FINAL EXAM IN THE SAME EMAIL! (it reduces the amounts of emails in my mailbox!)
Deadline for sending both final paper and final exam is Thursday, July 9, 2pm.
______________________________________________
FINAL EXAM
1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain your answer from the evolutionary/historic point of view.
2. What does it mean to say that moral facts are "intersubjective"? (same link as above)
3. How do facts become morals norms? Explain in the case of incest. (same link as above)
4. What's the difference between moral norms and etiquette?
5. What is cultural relativism? Are there really that many discrepancies about moral norms between cultures?
6. Addressing ethical egoism, provide an example from real life where your interest would clash with your best interest.
6. Could a utilitarian kill somebody if it produces more overall happiness than unhappiness? Explain.
7. In your own words explain Kant's Categorical Imperative (in your explanation bring forth both Kant's universality and reversibility points).
8. Bring an example from your life when you felt you were treated merely as a means to an end by somebody. What did you learn? (minimum 50 words)
9. The idea of RESPECT is fundamental in Kantian ethics. Explain is SELF-RESPECT connected to respecting others. Again, bring an example from your personal experience (minimum 50 words).
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
final paper guidelines (a biographical narrative paper)
FORM
1. Times New Roman p.12, at least 500 words, double spaced.
2. indented paragraphs,
3. heading (name, class title, #class sequence number, Final Paper)
4. Paper title: centered, bold,
_______________________
Lisa Clair, Phi 2010, #6735, Fall 2021
Final Paper
TITLE HERE
________________________
CONTENT
5. answer these two questions:
Now that you are almost done with this course: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PHILOSOPHY? & HOW --DO YOU THINK-- PHILOSOPHY HAS HELPED AND WILL HELP YOU?
6. the content of this paper is a personal narrative about YOU based on your experience of this PHILOSOPHY class.
IT IS ABOUT YOU!
7. bring your own biography and specific life examples.
8. HAVE FUN. SPEAK WITH YOUR VOICE.
8. HAVE FUN. SPEAK WITH YOUR VOICE.
Friday, June 14, 2019
phi 2010 midterm exam, fall 2021
* For every explain question you must provide a minimum of 40 words.
_________________________________
1. What does it mean to say: "To study for a test is a necessary condition for passing the test." (apply this definition).
2. Identify the following fallacies:
_________________________________
1. What does it mean to say: "To study for a test is a necessary condition for passing the test." (apply this definition).
2. Identify the following fallacies:
a) God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been shown to be unsound.
b) Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.
c) We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty.
3. Of these 2 deductive arguments, tell if valid or invalid and if valid whether sound or unsound.
3. Of these 2 deductive arguments, tell if valid or invalid and if valid whether sound or unsound.
a) All triangles have three sides. Therefore all pigs have four legs.
b) Socrates is a man. Men are quadrupeds. Therefore Socrates is quadruped.
4. Of these 2 inductive arguments. Tell if they are strong or weak.
4. Of these 2 inductive arguments. Tell if they are strong or weak.
a) As far as we know, every Marmot Day we've had has been held in freezing whether. So, probably, this Marmot Day will be held in freezing whether.
b) The last fifty lottery tickets that Francis purchased have been losers. Therefore, the next one he buys is virtually certain to be a winner.
5. Tell whether these examples are logically, or causally possible (logical @ causal possibility)
5. Tell whether these examples are logically, or causally possible (logical @ causal possibility)
a) Superman is not causally possible.
b) A squared circle is logically impossible, though it is causally possible.
c) Aliens are not logically possible.
d) A line without points is logically possible.
For the following questions, click here for my lecture.
For the following questions, click here for my lecture.
6. What does it mean to say that Plato is an idealist? Explain.
7. Within the program of skepticism, is there an advantage in suspending judgment?
8. Explain the role of "doubt" in Descartes' Rationalism.
9. Is the read apple red if no one sees it? Explain using Locke's ideas of primary and secondary qualities.
10. Why is Kant a synthesis between Rationalism and Empiricism? Explain.
7. Within the program of skepticism, is there an advantage in suspending judgment?
8. Explain the role of "doubt" in Descartes' Rationalism.
9. Is the read apple red if no one sees it? Explain using Locke's ideas of primary and secondary qualities.
10. Why is Kant a synthesis between Rationalism and Empiricism? Explain.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Monday, June 3, 2019
homework 1 (branches of philosophy)
take a look at this video,
what are the main branches of philosophy?
which of these branches is your favorite? why? (what do you think that says about yourself?)
what is the principle of charity? why is it useful?
(write these questions in a blank page and send it to me by Friday)
what are the main branches of philosophy?
which of these branches is your favorite? why? (what do you think that says about yourself?)
what is the principle of charity? why is it useful?
(write these questions in a blank page and send it to me by Friday)
Monday, May 20, 2019
Phi 2010, topics for Exam #1 (Fall 2019)
click here for more information,
you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E
if any of you need me to take a test to ACCESS, please send me an email to remind me.
you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E
if any of you need me to take a test to ACCESS, please send me an email to remind me.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Monday, April 22, 2019
topics for our final exam (IAC Honors and T, 5:40pm classes)
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Godisms
Theism: the belief in God (or gods).
Monotheism: The belief that only ONE deity exists, examples: Christianity, Islam.
Fideism: belief in God by Faith, or by Faith alone.
Polytheism: the belief in multiple deities, typical from late Neolithic through the Bronce Age, examples: Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, Santería.
Pantheism: the belief that God is synonymous with the the real universe. Famous pantheist philosophers: Baruch Spinoza, Giordano Bruno.
Deism: God crated the universe, but doesn't intervene with it. It seems that Deism was accepted by many important figures during the Anglo-saxon enlightenment, i.e., Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Hume (though he had atheist leanings). Montaigne, Voltaire, Montesquieu et al were French deists.
Atheism: the non-belief in deities. Some atheist don't disregard the possibility of a God in the future.
Agnosticism: the suspension of belief regarding deities.
Monotheism: The belief that only ONE deity exists, examples: Christianity, Islam.
Fideism: belief in God by Faith, or by Faith alone.
Polytheism: the belief in multiple deities, typical from late Neolithic through the Bronce Age, examples: Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, Santería.
Pantheism: the belief that God is synonymous with the the real universe. Famous pantheist philosophers: Baruch Spinoza, Giordano Bruno.
Deism: God crated the universe, but doesn't intervene with it. It seems that Deism was accepted by many important figures during the Anglo-saxon enlightenment, i.e., Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Hume (though he had atheist leanings). Montaigne, Voltaire, Montesquieu et al were French deists.
Atheism: the non-belief in deities. Some atheist don't disregard the possibility of a God in the future.
Agnosticism: the suspension of belief regarding deities.
Monday, April 15, 2019
exam #2 (open book) fall 2020
1. What’s Logical Behaviorism’s premise? Bring the “Perfect Pretender” counter to invalidate Logical Behaviorism’s premise.
2. Why is Identity Theory a better theory than Logical Behaviorism?
3. Do you need brains to think? Explain the answer from Functionalism’s perspective.
4. What is intentionality?
5. What does it mean to say that the mind is an emergent property of the brain?
6. What does it mean to say that the mind is irreducible to physical processes?
7. a) Explain Hard-Determinism. b) How does Hard Determinism deals with punishment?
8. Suppose film producer Harvey Weinstein invites an aspiring female actress to his Hollywood luxury apartment and asks her to have sex with him. Does the Hard Determinist believe Weinstein to be responsible for his actions? Is the actress responsible if she has sex with the producer?
9. What’s the principle of alternate possibilities? Explain it in the case of being 10 minutes late to your philosophy class at 9am, because of having coffee at McDonald’s
10. What’s the difference between Hard Determinism and Compatibilism?
11. What’s the Libertarian argument from experience?
12. Suppose the same scenario as in question #9, but now you’re a libertarian. Is Weinstein responsible for his actions? Is the actress responsible?
send this assignment to atriff@mdc.edu by friday, november 6, 9pm.
remember: name, exam #2, class sequence in the email subject.
(for explanations a minimum 30 word is required).
theodicies (good vs. evil) part 3
Theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the existence and nature of God with evidence of evil in the world by providing valid explanations for its occurrence. addresses the problem of evil in the world. it means vindication of god.
what's evil?
evil is bound to human suffering.
a world without humans in it can't be evil, which bring us back to the problem of free wil (non-human animals are not free, they aren't evil.
there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. they both cause suffering, though natural evil is not caused free will. our reaction to it is very different. there's no one to blame, except ourselves.
natural evil is pure cause/effect.
our problem is MORAL EVIL. we need a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.
necessary evil: is the evil that prevents further evil or brigs forth goodness. how about making someone suffer because they deserve it (as in the state killing a serial killer, or a person killing in self-defense? how about punishing a child for their misdeeds?
unnecessary evil: is evil for its own sake. more of this later.
theodicies must address the problem of evil while attempting to make the existence of an omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of moral evil in the world.
Here comes an argument from evil from evil skeptics:
1. If God exists, then a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good exists.Here's another line of argument attacking God's attributes:
2. A being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good would not create a world in which there is (avoidable) evil.
3. But there is (avoidable) evil in the world.
Therefore: God does not exist.
* If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
Counter: Unless God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
* If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
Counter: Not if doing so undercuts human free-will. What good is there in having humans behave like robots?
two theodicies: Irenaeus and Augustine
Irenaean Theodicy: Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation is still in progress, in the sense that creation is a theater stage that requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God. In order to achieve moral perfection, humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil. For free-will to properly operate, God must be at an epistemic distance (or intellectual distance) from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice. This proves that God is NEUTRAL insofar as outcome and yet, close insofar as faith.
Analysis: Free moral choices require that humans experience the results of their own actions. Moral evil has to exist for this to happen. Another way to look at it is that Reason without free will deprives humanity of moral growth, since morality is always a work in progress.
Agustine theodicy: (background) Agustine tries to respond to the evidential problem of evil, i,e., if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world.
1. Evil exists as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity's abuse of free will.Moral evil as a category is connected with free will, empathy, humanity, pity, redemption, etc.
2. God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), but God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence.
3. Evil is not attributed existence in its own right, but is described as the privation of good – the corruption of God's good creation.
Counterargument to the concept of evil: Inga Clendinnen argues that the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification. To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible.
Answer to Clendinnen: Explaining something as repulsive as sexual abuse of an infant, for example, cannot be explain merely by psychological or social concepts which explain, for instance, the abuse the abuser was submitted to. How do you begin to address the insurmountable suffering the abused has been subjected to without using moral evil as a starting point? Applying the concept of evil to sexually abusing a child is not dismissive, it's in fact quite descriptive.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Gaunilo's counter to Anselm
Gaunilo’s argument, thus, proceeds by attempting to use Anselm’s strategy to deduce the existence of a perfect island, which Gaunilo rightly views as a counterexample to the argument form.
The counterexample can be expressed as follows:
1- It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
2- A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
3- A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4- Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist). But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.
Therefore, a piland exists.
The counterexample can be expressed as follows:
1- It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
2- A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
3- A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4- Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist). But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.
Therefore, a piland exists.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
philosophy of religion, homework #5
1. a) what do we call a religion. b) mention the main features of a religion.
2. what did religions provide early societies with?
3. did religions spur civilizations? how?
4. what is fideism?
5. what's the advantage of religion according to the following disciplines?
a) sociology, Max Weber,
b) anthropology, C.G. Frazer,
c) moral/evolutionary biology, J.D. Gould,
d) philosophy, L. Wittgenstein,
6. what's the "spiritual realm" (from the stand point of the philosophy of religion)?
7. what does it mean to say that the shaman is the interface between the spiritual and the material world?
8. explain the idea of animism?
9. explain the idea of MEANING (in the context of our analysis of shamanism).
10. what's the divine command theory?
11. a) why is religion "liberating" according to MLK? b) what is your favorite King quote (from the ones read in class, justify why.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
phi 2010 final exams (all classes)
mwf, 10am, HONORS, wed. may 1
mwf, 11am, HONORS, fri. may 3
IAC HONORS, mon. april 29
t, 5:40pm, tues. april 30
mwf, 11am, HONORS, fri. may 3
IAC HONORS, mon. april 29
t, 5:40pm, tues. april 30
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
fideism & religion
St. Paul (philosopher, polyglot, founder of Christianity) makes a startling definition in his letter to Hebrews 11:1:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
FAITH cannot be epistemic, and yet, it has a place. philosophy defines epistemology as the study of knowledge and belief is central to it.
Is FAITH plain belief? no.
FAITH IS MUCH MORE: SOMETHING WHICH MOVES ONE TOWARDS THE FUTURE, i. e., PROVIDING PURPOSE IN LIFE .
the future, by definition is NOT YET, but almost there in one important aspect. BECOMING (DEVENIR).
you're NOT in the NOW cause the now is a flicker between the past and the next.
what you really are is be-coming.
faith deals with the bceoming the NOT SEEN YET
the anthropological question is why do we need faith?
let's bring a few scholars to this discussion.
here's Fideism as discussed by four important philosophers:
Blaise Pascal,
Søren Kierkegaard,
William James,
Ludwig Wittgenstein,
1. Pascal: For Pascal faith and reason are incommensurable. Here a couple of quotes:
deux excès: exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison, (neither exclude reason nor solely admit reason)
la foi et la raison ne peuvent pas suivre le même chemin, (faith and reason don't mix)
2. Kierkegaard:
1. truth lies in the search for an object, not in the object sought. "If God held truth in one hand and the eternal pursuit of it in the other, I choose the second hand."
2. faith is subjective, meaning IT IS FOR THE SUBJCT. the subject defines it.
3. William James: James is the founder of Pragmatism, the only American school of philosophy.
In Will to Believe, James defends what he calls a genuine option, which is a choice between two hypotheses, which the believer regards as "living" (meaningful), "forced" (mutually exclusive), and "momentous" (having important consequences).
A genuine option is always relative to the perspective of the believer.
see how James and Kierkegaard agree?
4. Wittgenstein's fideism: groups of people use different sprachspiel or "language games".
Religion is a language game.
People who talk this language MEAN AND PLAY THE GAME in the language. So, when the skeptic or the atheist press the issue of proof or justification to the theist, they are asking really a question not about reality but about PLAYING THE GAME.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
what is doomism? + why you have to fight it
doomism, is, simply put, the idea that we are doomed.
here the argument in 3 points.
1. There are too many people in the world. (this comes straight from Malthus)
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. (p. 4).
Not true. Many of the most populated countries are in, ready? Europe. Southeast Asia has the same number of people per sq/km than England.
There is consensus amongst economists that most of the earth's land mass will not become more densely populated than it is today. Why? Because population migrate to the cities. Over the next 30 years the estimation is that 97% of Europe will be less densely populated. (UNPD 1998a: 96-99, 104-107).
So?
Malthus was worried about the consequences of the French revolution in terms of availability of food. Remember, this is 18th century Political Economy (a bit of both and thus neither).
If political discontents were blended with the cries of hunger, and a revolution were to take place by the instrumentality of a mob clamouring for want of food, the consequences would be unceasing change and unceasing carnage, the bloody career of which nothing but the establishment of some complete despotism could arrest. (p. 418).
What are we discussing here: food availability, poverty, population density? These three things are not thesame!(but we have to move on). There was plenty of food and poor distribution of it in France during the French Revolution (Malthus got it wrong). There can be food and not enough money to buy it (deflation), no food and plenty of money (inflation); population density and food distribution coexist (look at China today). Finally, you can eat well or pretty decently and be poor.
The above argument is a hulling lie.
2. We're destroying the planet. Homo Sapiens is a destructive force; the planet our enemy.
Isn't Homo Sapiens part of nature? Why separate them as if they're different? Divide and conquer.
And isn't our faculty of reason so far helped us along the way to survive and thrive? Why any different now? It's in our best interest NOT TO -EVER- DESTROY THE VERY PLANET WE LIVE IN. Unless such destruction is just pure hyperbole.
Doomism keeps coming back in many guises. It's part and parcel of Homo Sapiens interpretation of doomsday.
Matter is neither destroyed nor created. Life is a consequence of matter. We're stardust!
That is not to say the planet has no problems. But they are solvable. And you, the beautiful youth of the world are here to help solve them.
Get to work!
3. Bringing children into the world is a mistake. Many of my students really believe (rather been induced to believe) that life will be so awful that procreating is a form murder.
Just think of Kant's first formulation. Do not to others what you would not like others do to you.
You're in the world, and enjoy it so far, don't you? Why would you not offer the opportunity of autonomy to someone to come? Clearly, that future being, a Homo Sapiens, would undoubtedly prefer to judge by herself. Here a hypothetic dialogue: Why did I miss my chance?/I thought the world was a mistake./ Why not bring me and leave that decision to me? Autonomy is untransferable.
Think for yourself.