Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
Topics for exam #2 (MINITERM)
Chapter 7: Epistemology
belief: a mental state of acceptance
justification: reason for holding your belief
suspension: neither belief nor disbelief
truth by correspondence: truth is a fact
pragmatic theory of truth: truth is whatever does the best job at hand
coherence theory of truth: truth is whatever best coheres with the rest of our knowledge
standard theory of knowledge: knowledge is true belief
you should be familiar with the definitional boxes on chapter 7, pages 537 & 539.
Idealism (Plato):
Reality is always changing, senses are limited. Knowledge is acquired through an exercise of Reason. These are the Forms. Reason is used to discover unchanging forms through the dialectical method, a process of question and answer designed to elicit a "real definition". These are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the concept to apply. Example: a chair is a form, "this blue chair in my office" is an example of the form. the actual chair is but a manifestation of the "real" chair in the forms.
Skepticism: An attitude of suspension to the possibility of knowledge or absolute knowledge. The skeptics use suspension as a method. The he goal of ancient skepticism is to produce a state of "ataraxia" or "freedom of mind" in the souls of its practitioners. It is not about eliminating doubt, but eliminating the cause of the mental distress people experience when doubts assail their minds.
Faith and reason: A
fundamental discussion throughout the Middle Ages is the dichotomy
between faith and reason. Faith takes St. Paul's definition: "... faith
is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not
see." There are three moments: 1- Emphasis on faith over reason in the
early patristic theology 2-
both faith and reason become complementary in St. Thomas Aquinas, 3-
with William of Ockham faith and reason are not related.
Rationalism: (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) In epistemology, rationalism is the view that regards reason, la Raison in Descartes, as the chief source and test of knowledge. How does reason operates. Take the idea of a priori or knowledge independent of experience. You don't need to know that it's actually raining to know that the proposition "it's either raining or not raining" is true. The proposition is true a priori. 1=1 is a priori, "all triangles have three sides" is a priori, etc.
The arguments used in Rationalism are generally deductive arguments.
That's why Descartes believed that scientific knowledge can be derived a priori from "innate ideas" through deductive reasoning.
Empiricism: Empiricism is the idea that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas. Instead of Cartesian "innate ideas," humans have a posteriori knowledge (i.e. based on experience).
Empiricists believe in inductive reasoning (making generalizations based on individual instances) in order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations. This is the basis of modern science, and the scientific method.
Kantianism: Kant provide a synthesis between Empiricism and Rationalism.
Kant acknowledges both reason and sense experience. This is how he does it:
We have a sort of "hardware" of a priori knowledge. He calls them "pure intuitions" which make experience possible. These pure intuitions are space, time and causality.
Chapter 3
3.1
Causal Determinism (C-->E + LN) and Hard determinism (the doctrine that there are no free actions).
Hard determinism assumes that: if CD is true ---> -Fw
As our bodies made up of matter, we must be subjects to the same laws of causation which apply to all matter.
In addition, if HD is true ---> -HR (there's no human responsibility) if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices).
belief: a mental state of acceptance
justification: reason for holding your belief
suspension: neither belief nor disbelief
truth by correspondence: truth is a fact
pragmatic theory of truth: truth is whatever does the best job at hand
coherence theory of truth: truth is whatever best coheres with the rest of our knowledge
standard theory of knowledge: knowledge is true belief
you should be familiar with the definitional boxes on chapter 7, pages 537 & 539.
Idealism (Plato):
Reality is always changing, senses are limited. Knowledge is acquired through an exercise of Reason. These are the Forms. Reason is used to discover unchanging forms through the dialectical method, a process of question and answer designed to elicit a "real definition". These are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the concept to apply. Example: a chair is a form, "this blue chair in my office" is an example of the form. the actual chair is but a manifestation of the "real" chair in the forms.
Skepticism: An attitude of suspension to the possibility of knowledge or absolute knowledge. The skeptics use suspension as a method. The he goal of ancient skepticism is to produce a state of "ataraxia" or "freedom of mind" in the souls of its practitioners. It is not about eliminating doubt, but eliminating the cause of the mental distress people experience when doubts assail their minds.
Rationalism: (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) In epistemology, rationalism is the view that regards reason, la Raison in Descartes, as the chief source and test of knowledge. How does reason operates. Take the idea of a priori or knowledge independent of experience. You don't need to know that it's actually raining to know that the proposition "it's either raining or not raining" is true. The proposition is true a priori. 1=1 is a priori, "all triangles have three sides" is a priori, etc.
The arguments used in Rationalism are generally deductive arguments.
That's why Descartes believed that scientific knowledge can be derived a priori from "innate ideas" through deductive reasoning.
Empiricism: Empiricism is the idea that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas. Instead of Cartesian "innate ideas," humans have a posteriori knowledge (i.e. based on experience).
Empiricists believe in inductive reasoning (making generalizations based on individual instances) in order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations. This is the basis of modern science, and the scientific method.
Kantianism: Kant provide a synthesis between Empiricism and Rationalism.
Kant acknowledges both reason and sense experience. This is how he does it:
We have a sort of "hardware" of a priori knowledge. He calls them "pure intuitions" which make experience possible. These pure intuitions are space, time and causality.
Chapter 3
3.1
Causal Determinism (C-->E + LN) and Hard determinism (the doctrine that there are no free actions).
Hard determinism assumes that: if CD is true ---> -Fw
As our bodies made up of matter, we must be subjects to the same laws of causation which apply to all matter.
In addition, if HD is true ---> -HR (there's no human responsibility) if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices).
Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free.
1- Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions are 1- caused by one's will and 2- not externally constrained). The reasoning is this:
Principle of alternative possibilities: one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "could have done otherwise."
I suggested this formula.
f(b) iff -f(a) (you are free at b if you could have taken a but didn't)
which means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise."
Think of our "fork-example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism the student is responsible for being late since "if he had choosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class.
C/E "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. Here the phisiologies plants desires in the subject and he acts on these desires. But the desires are not his.
1- Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions are 1- caused by one's will and 2- not externally constrained). The reasoning is this:
Principle of alternative possibilities: one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "could have done otherwise."
I suggested this formula.
f(b) iff -f(a) (you are free at b if you could have taken a but didn't)
which means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise."
Think of our "fork-example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism the student is responsible for being late since "if he had choosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class.
C/E "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. Here the phisiologies plants desires in the subject and he acts on these desires. But the desires are not his.
2- "Hierarchical Compatibilism:
Harry Frankfurt postulates first and second order desires; then there are second order volitions.
Remember: A first order desire is directed to an object or state of affairs; a second order desire is a desire about a desire; a second order volition is a second order desire on which wants to act.
Then Harry Frankfurt's three drug addicts: Let's call a first order desire: FOD, a second order desire: SOD, a second order volition: SOV. So we get the following:
Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free.
Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
Unwilling Addict: FOD, SOD (only this desire is against his taking the drug), SOV, but now he cannot act on these SOV, so he's not free). Remember, to be free one has to either formulate a SOV or be able to act on it.
Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? look at p. 203. Punishment cannot be retributive (eye-for-an-eye). The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them.
3.3 Libertarianism
You should know the difference between "event causation" and "agent causation."
synaptic activity is event causation. mental states causing synaptic activity is agent causation.
Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? Well, this is how the mind causes actions. There are two arguments here:
Argument from Experience. Argument from deliberation. In class I called it argument from experience, because you experience it from the inside. You feel you wanted to come to class, you got ready, drove through rush hour and got to the class on time. You feel you chose that. You are responsible for that action.
Read pages 216 and 217! For the libertarian if the wants you act on are not yours, you are not free and therefore not responsible. If you declared nursing as a major because it's the dream of your parents that doesn't automatically make you free.That may not be your desire. In fact you may not even know what you really want!
Libet's Neurophysiological challenge: it seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal). Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.
How to find reliable sources for your Philosophy Paper
I know some of you have asked me where to find reliable arguments in favor and against our topics.
I cannot do this for you. It's part of the effort to find it yourself. So, I'm going to help you help yourself:
1- Make a PHI Paper Folder with FOR and AGAINST points
2- Type: "Fast food, arguments in favor" and then, "fast food, arguments against" in your google search bar.
3- Narrow the search by typing "fast food.org" and "fast food.edu" you get a more specialized more reliable kind of aggregation.
After you look for .org and .edu articles, look for magazines like The Economist, The Atlantic, National Review, The New Yorker, Scientific American, or reputed newspapers like New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, etc.
So, in the FOR subfolder I find:
this,
this (from The New Yorker),
this,
this (from The Atlantic, discussing the issues)
this,
this (with the best 7 Fast Food restaurants)
this, (at fastfoodnutrition.org)
Now you would do the same now with the AGAINST subfolder.
Another option is google scholar
If you have three article in each file, you have plenty to start, then as your discussion gets more interesting, you may want to search in more detail. For example, suppose you are talking about a particular issue, like obesity. I typed for a more specific search: "fast food, obesity, .edu". I got 15 M articles!
this Princeton study on the effects of Fast Food on obesity.
If you don't find the topics it's because you are not doing a good search. Believe me, the topics are out there!
I cannot do this for you. It's part of the effort to find it yourself. So, I'm going to help you help yourself:
1- Make a PHI Paper Folder with FOR and AGAINST points
2- Type: "Fast food, arguments in favor" and then, "fast food, arguments against" in your google search bar.
3- Narrow the search by typing "fast food.org" and "fast food.edu" you get a more specialized more reliable kind of aggregation.
After you look for .org and .edu articles, look for magazines like The Economist, The Atlantic, National Review, The New Yorker, Scientific American, or reputed newspapers like New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, etc.
So, in the FOR subfolder I find:
this,
this (from The New Yorker),
this,
this (from The Atlantic, discussing the issues)
this,
this (with the best 7 Fast Food restaurants)
this, (at fastfoodnutrition.org)
Now you would do the same now with the AGAINST subfolder.
Another option is google scholar
If you have three article in each file, you have plenty to start, then as your discussion gets more interesting, you may want to search in more detail. For example, suppose you are talking about a particular issue, like obesity. I typed for a more specific search: "fast food, obesity, .edu". I got 15 M articles!
this Princeton study on the effects of Fast Food on obesity.
If you don't find the topics it's because you are not doing a good search. Believe me, the topics are out there!
Sunday, February 26, 2017
second assignment, philosophy paper
This assignment takes care of four paragraphs. The first two are the
most important in your paper. This is the
program you will follow in your paper. You tell the reader what you are going todo. Each
thesis and counter paragraph has two points. Each each point is
explained.
_________________________
in green you have the thesis and counter thesis entries.
in red you have the thesis and counter thesis points.
in yellow you have the explanation of the points
_________________________
In this paper I argue in favor the legalization of marijuana. First, the prohibition of marijuana attempts against personal freedoms we take for granted. Our laws should respect individual free will and the right of self-determination. Secondly, there is a majority of the public in favor of marijuana legalization. If Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, they should change the laws prohibiting the use of marijuana.
Prohibitionists disagree. First, they believe that marijuana is addictive and may help create new consumers rather than rescuing current ones. Studies reported by The National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that 30 percent of those who use marijuana may have some degree of "marijuana use disorder." In addition, marijuana can be a gateway to more addictive drugs, such as meth and heroin. Studies have consistenly shown that individuals who have had experiences with marijuana are more likely to try these other drugs.
Paragraph 1 is the thesis paragraph. Paragraph 2 is the Counterthesis paragraph. See that each paragraph above has about 5 sentences. Keep your explanatory sentences (in yellow) short and to the point. Avoid unnecessary wording. Use my pluggings in green. Separate each point with "First" and "Secondly" or "In addition."
___________________________
Below comes the discussion of these points. In Paragraph 3 you go back to your thesis, but now you're going to take your first point, only now you flesh it out. Bring outside sources (experts, known magazines, studies, following MLA conventions). Paragraph 4 is the counter thesis turn to do the same. And so on...
_______
Marijuana legalization advocates argue that tax payers should be able to choose what they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which urged that "the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society." (Mill, Liberty, 75).
Marijuana legalization critics reject this idea. They believe marijuana is addictive and people who use marijuana before age 18 are four to seven times more likely to develop this use disorder than adults. Peter Maswell, a fellow researcher at St. Paul Hospital in Fresno cites a recent study where out of four million people with marijuana addiction only 140,000 voluntarily sought treatment. This shows that the disorder can morph into an addiction when the person can't stop using the drug even when it interferes with their daily activities. ( Maswell & Tipper, Fresno Journal).
_________________________
in green you have the thesis and counter thesis entries.
in red you have the thesis and counter thesis points.
in yellow you have the explanation of the points
_________________________
In this paper I argue in favor the legalization of marijuana. First, the prohibition of marijuana attempts against personal freedoms we take for granted. Our laws should respect individual free will and the right of self-determination. Secondly, there is a majority of the public in favor of marijuana legalization. If Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, they should change the laws prohibiting the use of marijuana.
Prohibitionists disagree. First, they believe that marijuana is addictive and may help create new consumers rather than rescuing current ones. Studies reported by The National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that 30 percent of those who use marijuana may have some degree of "marijuana use disorder." In addition, marijuana can be a gateway to more addictive drugs, such as meth and heroin. Studies have consistenly shown that individuals who have had experiences with marijuana are more likely to try these other drugs.
Paragraph 1 is the thesis paragraph. Paragraph 2 is the Counterthesis paragraph. See that each paragraph above has about 5 sentences. Keep your explanatory sentences (in yellow) short and to the point. Avoid unnecessary wording. Use my pluggings in green. Separate each point with "First" and "Secondly" or "In addition."
___________________________
Below comes the discussion of these points. In Paragraph 3 you go back to your thesis, but now you're going to take your first point, only now you flesh it out. Bring outside sources (experts, known magazines, studies, following MLA conventions). Paragraph 4 is the counter thesis turn to do the same. And so on...
_______
Marijuana legalization advocates argue that tax payers should be able to choose what they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which urged that "the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society." (Mill, Liberty, 75).
Marijuana legalization critics reject this idea. They believe marijuana is addictive and people who use marijuana before age 18 are four to seven times more likely to develop this use disorder than adults. Peter Maswell, a fellow researcher at St. Paul Hospital in Fresno cites a recent study where out of four million people with marijuana addiction only 140,000 voluntarily sought treatment. This shows that the disorder can morph into an addiction when the person can't stop using the drug even when it interferes with their daily activities. ( Maswell & Tipper, Fresno Journal).
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
MINDWORK: let's find likes and dislikes by tracing back their causal series
1. 3 foods you hate, dislike, or love,
2. 3 genres of music you hate, dislike or love,
3. 3 movies you hate, dislike or love,
4. 3 individuals you hate, dislike, or love,
5. your actual major (why not your second choice of major),
6. your present boyfriend & your previous boyfriend,
next, find in each case try to put together a tentative series, think of what triggered the series and how did it become a behavioral disposition. you may have to go back to your infancy (ages 4-8), look for events, picture your parents or family members, or a teacher, or a friend or admired peer, whether they play as reward or aversives,
remember for the determinist, no disposition happens on its own. it must have a cause, we only have to find it!
__________________
for you foodies or chocolate or avocado haters, we've talked about this in class already (scroll down the oxford academic article.
student assistants TR classes
TR 8:25am
Maria Trinidad Guerra
TR 11:15am
Federico Colombo
Tamara Jean
Daniela Silva
Maria Trinidad Guerra
TR 11:15am
Federico Colombo
Tamara Jean
Daniela Silva
Saturday, February 18, 2017
brain causing our minds
see how brain causes mind states. this is a good introduction to brain function (read the whole thing)
which you need to know when we discuss hard determinism, because it all happens inside the brain.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Proposal for phi 2010 paper Spring 2018
Page, Betrice Philosophy Paper Proposal T,R 8:15am
Why animals should be protected against abuse
In this paper, I will try to prove that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve a better treatment. My main argument will show the public and environmental health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong.
Monday, February 13, 2017
can a computer think, fall in love, understand? (Triff's movie list)
conceivably, yes!(you don't need brains to think)
Her (Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Scarlett Johansson)
Blade Runner (Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young)
ExMachina (Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson )
tHE maTRIX (Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss)
and the best of all:
2001 A Space Odyssey (directed by Stanley Kubrick)
Phi 2010 Student Assistants (Honors Classes)
MWF 10am HONORS
Rose Norton
Sebastian Gallo
Sebastian Espina
Kiana Vidal
MWF 11am HONORS
Mia Marotta
Marcos Perez
Nicole Rodriguez
Karina Rivadeneira
Karina Rivadeneira
MW 1pm IAC HONORS
Darlin Gonzalez
Alejandro Fortes
Ana Suarez
Maria Guirado
Ana Suarez
Maria Guirado
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Is this question ambiguous?
Alice decides to invest in a mutual fund recommended by her best friend Nancy, which has shown solid gains for the past three quarters. Alice's investment in the fund is then a _______________ condition for her to make a gain in the next quarter.
(...) in a mutual fund recommended by Nancy (call it F), which has shown gains in the last 9 months.
the punch comes now: "Alice investment in the fund (F, that is) is a necessary condition for her to make a gain in the next quarter."
Couple of students claim that there is ambiguity here. First let's apply the def. of necessity between f and G
f n→ G iff "G cannot exist without f," or if "there's no f, there is no G"
She can invest in other funds for sure (I was referring to Nancy's particular fund). It doesn't matter which fund it is! If Alice wants to make a gain in ANY funds she has to invest in them (which is precisely what a necessary condition stipulates).
F→ GM
n
(investment in this fund, or ANY, it's a necessary condition for it (this one, ANY) to make a gain in the market)
(...) in a mutual fund recommended by Nancy (call it F), which has shown gains in the last 9 months.
the punch comes now: "Alice investment in the fund (F, that is) is a necessary condition for her to make a gain in the next quarter."
Couple of students claim that there is ambiguity here. First let's apply the def. of necessity between f and G
f n→ G iff "G cannot exist without f," or if "there's no f, there is no G"
She can invest in other funds for sure (I was referring to Nancy's particular fund). It doesn't matter which fund it is! If Alice wants to make a gain in ANY funds she has to invest in them (which is precisely what a necessary condition stipulates).
F→ GM
n
(investment in this fund, or ANY, it's a necessary condition for it (this one, ANY) to make a gain in the market)
Monday, February 6, 2017
exam #2 (on textbook chapter 4)
4.1 mind as immaterial substance
1- state the mind/body problem in your own words (section 4.1 pp. 206-210)
2- define substance dualism,
3- what is Cartesian dualism?
4- define physicalism, also provide a definition for epiphenomenalism
5- define logical behaviorism,
6- what is identity theory?
7- provide a definition for functionalism,
4.2, 4.3 mind as brain
8. regarding Mind-Body Identity, explain J.C. Smart description of a "sensation," p. 217
9. how does David Chalmers use "zombies" to counter J.C Smart's identity theory? p. 218, 219
10. what's Thomas Nagel's "bat" argument? p. 220
11. what is "qualia"?
12. answer question 1 & 3 section 4.3, p. 221,
4.4 mind as software
13 what's the definition of A.I. according to John Searle? p. 222-229
14. what's Searle's Chinese Room mind experiment?
15. Why does Searle believe computers cannot think?
4.5 mind as system (find my lecture here)
16. what does it mean to say that consciousness is a systemic property of the brain?
17. why is it that consciousness cannot be eliminated from scientific discourse? Explain.
1- state the mind/body problem in your own words (section 4.1 pp. 206-210)
2- define substance dualism,
3- what is Cartesian dualism?
4- define physicalism, also provide a definition for epiphenomenalism
5- define logical behaviorism,
6- what is identity theory?
7- provide a definition for functionalism,
4.2, 4.3 mind as brain
8. regarding Mind-Body Identity, explain J.C. Smart description of a "sensation," p. 217
9. how does David Chalmers use "zombies" to counter J.C Smart's identity theory? p. 218, 219
10. what's Thomas Nagel's "bat" argument? p. 220
11. what is "qualia"?
12. answer question 1 & 3 section 4.3, p. 221,
4.4 mind as software
13 what's the definition of A.I. according to John Searle? p. 222-229
14. what's Searle's Chinese Room mind experiment?
15. Why does Searle believe computers cannot think?
4.5 mind as system (find my lecture here)
16. what does it mean to say that consciousness is a systemic property of the brain?
17. why is it that consciousness cannot be eliminated from scientific discourse? Explain.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
If you have a special need for testing let me know ASAP
Dear students: I know some of you have given me letters regarding arrangements for taking the exam. But I need to have which group you belong to.
So, could you send me an email to atriff@mdc.edu with your name and group (days of the week) you belong to so I can go ahead and have these tests ready for you for test next week? Understandably, the people at testing require detailed information for these accommodations.
Example, Angel Vicario, MWF 10am HONORS, or Julia Smith, T,R 8:25am.
Thanks!
So, could you send me an email to atriff@mdc.edu with your name and group (days of the week) you belong to so I can go ahead and have these tests ready for you for test next week? Understandably, the people at testing require detailed information for these accommodations.
Example, Angel Vicario, MWF 10am HONORS, or Julia Smith, T,R 8:25am.
Thanks!
Monday, January 30, 2017
Our Philosophy Club board + members!
Board
Sebastian Gallo, President
Sebastian Perez-Espina, Vice President
Alenys Jimenez, Treasurer
Mayra Ona, Secretary
Members
1. Akeem Anglin
2. Sebastian Duque
3. Glen Camilo
4. Marcos Manuel
5. Karina Rivadeneira
6. Jormailin Valdes
7. Victor Ramirez
8. Natalie Ortega
9. Abraham Elmir
10. Yaqueline Jimenez
11. Carolina Fernandez
12. Salua Rivero
13. Juliane Patricia Alvarado
14. Nataly Gonzalez
15. Brigitte Iglesias
(more members will be added as they sign up)
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Examples of conclusions from recent phi 2010 papers
for your conclusion you don't have to say "In conclusion." That's pretty stale. HERE YOU HAVE SOME EXAMPLES:
The conclusion should be assertive, but also deferential. You believe what you say but you don't sound bombastic.
or this,
The conclusion should be assertive, but also deferential. You believe what you say but you don't sound bombastic.
or this,
Saturday, January 28, 2017
On the distinction between number and quality when talking about ourselves
Because of our discussion yesterday, and some of the comments put forward just before the class ended, we talked about how a white person is not qualified to speak for a black person (and vice versa), a man for a woman (and vice versa), a heterosexual for a homosexual (and vice versa), a non-transgender for a transgender and vice versa). At first, these qualifications may seem limiting, indeed overbearing. After all (as Roberto pointed out), even amongst blacks, a black person may say (referring to another black person), "this black person is not qualified to talk for me."
Let us take, for example, Samuel Horace, a black person, age 21, born in Haiti; an only child, honor student, living in Miami, attending MDC.
We advanced that he belongs in a club all by himself. That's his number. Then comes the qualities (characteristics) he shares with others, let's see: sex (man), race (black), gender (male), age bracket (in his 20s), health features (if he has diabetes, or if he's myopic, or if he's 6 tall, or if he's a math wizard. Even less obvious ones: being an orphan, or having traumatic social memories for being different, etc.
So,
one's own club (SH)
Black person club (..., SH, ...)
Haitian club (..., SH, ...)
Only child club (..., SH, ...)
20-year-old people club (..., SH, ...)
living in Miami (..., SH, ...)
going to MDC (..., SH, ...)
6' tall (..., SH, ...)
And so on...
The club race is more important than being 6' tall. Yes, there are both substance clubs, but culturally, one matters more than the other. I, Triff, don't belong to the black club (that doesn't mean I may be admitted to it later). Race is sort of biological; it's a substance. I don't share Horace's "black experience" (meaning culture). Historically, Homo sapiens has been embedded in cultures. Cultural practices and cultural presumptions generally precede our social interactions.
As a white person, can I have opinions about blacks? You bet (this was Athenais' point). That's quite different from the assumption that I can speak as a black, which I'm not. "But I'm a human being." Sure, but to talk about Samuel, I'd have to move up to the human-being club.
What can I say as a human being to Samuel? All the stuff we share, all the OTHER clubs he and I both belong to! For example, I'm also myopic, live in Miami, and go to MDC. I could also speak about "having been in my 20s" (which I was), or "having been a student" (which I was), etc. I could speak of "being a minority" (which I am) or "being an only child."There's plenty, Samuel, and I share. And yet, not enough.
This will require deliberate, careful threading through the deep. We have a tool: Understanding.
Let us explore the deep: "Under," one must go below the foundation: "the standing": layers of different clubs, horizons of information.
We must get to the task: Not quickly, peremptorily, carelessly, hastily, no. Carefully, deliberately, patiently. The more we try, the more we bridge. We thread the cultural divide, learn the language, cook the food, travel to Port-au-Prince, befriend college students and professors, etc. The more I do this, the closer I come to understanding Samuel. He'll come to see it.
Can I speak for Samuel now? Sort of. Understanding takes threading the deep, but there is always more to understand. One never understands fully (this is the point Zion made). Infinite number of clubs, many of which --surprise!-- Samuel himself does not understand.
Although in principle I will never "fully" understand Samuel, over time (and with effort), I can understand more and more, even to the extent of others who are in the black club. And that's plenty.
This will require deliberate, careful threading through the deep. We have a tool: Understanding.
Let us explore the deep: "Under," one must go below the foundation: "the standing": layers of different clubs, horizons of information.
We must get to the task: Not quickly, peremptorily, carelessly, hastily, no. Carefully, deliberately, patiently. The more we try, the more we bridge. We thread the cultural divide, learn the language, cook the food, travel to Port-au-Prince, befriend college students and professors, etc. The more I do this, the closer I come to understanding Samuel. He'll come to see it.
Can I speak for Samuel now? Sort of. Understanding takes threading the deep, but there is always more to understand. One never understands fully (this is the point Zion made). Infinite number of clubs, many of which --surprise!-- Samuel himself does not understand.
Although in principle I will never "fully" understand Samuel, over time (and with effort), I can understand more and more, even to the extent of others who are in the black club. And that's plenty.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
We have a president for the MDC Wolfson Philosophy Club!
Sebastian Gallo is the president of the MDC Wolfson Philosophy Club.
He has the names of the students that got in tough with me. Further elections are forthcoming.
Thanks,
He has the names of the students that got in tough with me. Further elections are forthcoming.
Thanks,
Thursday, January 19, 2017
A brief history of epistemology (IMPORTANT)
PLATONISM: Plato believes that reality is always changing, senses are illusory. Knowledge (episteme) needs to be permanent and unchanging.
For Plato, knowledge is acquired through anamnesis, which is an innate form of recollection, a sort of hardware we come with (for example, humans come with a memory function already built-in by our brain evolution).
Here comes the idea of Forms. Forms exist independently of us: Think of math, logic, geometry, etc. Plato believes these Forms are "universals." A universal is a property that can be possessed by many things at once. Examples of universals: "goodness," "beautiful," "extended," "redness," "human," etc. See that each applies to many things at once. Take "beauty", it is not a physical concept. So, how do we know it? It's a concept that applies to many different things.¿
Hay mucha discusión sobre realismo e idealismo.
¿Dónde están las formas? La palabra griega que Platón usa es εἶδος (eîdos), y también ἰδέα (idéa). Ambas están estrechamente relacionadas y suelen traducirse como «Forma» o «Idea». Pero ojo. La «Idea» platónica no significa lo que normalmente entendemos hoy por una idea.
1. Eîdos / idéa • εἶδος (eîdos) viene de una raíz relacionada con ver (ideîn, «ver»). • Originalmente significa algo como aspecto, figura, forma, aquello que se ve. • ἰδέα (idéa) tiene la misma raíz y también significa originalmente forma, aspecto, apariencia. Platón toma estas palabras y les da un sentido filosófico extraordinariamente preciso. Cuando habla de Idea de Belleza (to kalon), por ejemplo, no está hablando de: mi concepto de lo bello. Platón se refiere a aquello que hace que las cosas bellas sean bellas, una realidad inteligible que no depende de que alguien la piense.
2. La diferencia con nuestra «idea» Hoy decimos: «Tengo una idea para una película.» Aquí idea significa un contenido mental, algo que ocurre en la mente de alguien. Para Platón la Idea no está primero en la mente; la mente debe llegar a conocerla. ¿En las cosas? No. Entonces la Forma sería simplemente una propiedad. En nuestra mente → tampoco: entonces dependería de nosotros. En un ámbito inteligible → ¡Caliente! Es un ámbito, no físico.
Take a look at Plato's allegory of the CAVE.
__________________________________________
OTHER SCHOOLS
Skepticism: An attitude of suspension to the possibility of knowledge or absolute knowledge.
It comes from Pyrrho of Elis (c. 365–275 bc). Pyrrhonists, while not asserting or denying anything, attempt to show that one ought to suspend judgment and avoid making any knowledge claims at all. The Pyrrhonist’s strategy is to show that for every proposition supported by some evidence, there is an opposite proposition supported by evidence that is equally good.
Rationalism: (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) rationalism is the view that regards REASON as the chief source of knowledge. Rationalism is also a methodology or a theory in which the criterion of the truth is not sense-based but instead deductive.
There is a connection between Skepticism and Rationalism.
Descartes uses skepticism in his Cartesian method. Doubt requires further rational proof. There are three parts:
1- the Dream Argument, 2- the Evil Demon argument and the 3- the Cogito
argument (... I can't doubt that I doubt. Therefore I think, therefore I am). The conclusion is that Descartes believes that scientific knowledge can be derived a priori from "innate ideas" through deductive reasoning. Where these "innate ideas" come from? GOD.
Empiricism: (John Locke, George Bishop, David Hume) Empiricism is the idea that experience as the main source of knowledge. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception.
Here's an interesting video.
Empiricists believe in inductive reasoning (making generalizations based
on individual instances) in order to build a more complex body of
knowledge from these direct observations. This is the basis of modern
science, and the scientific method, is considered to be methodologically
empirical in nature, relying as it does on an inductive methodology for
scientific inquiry.
There are two schools: Locke's Representative Realism and Berkeley's Phenomenalism.
(Primary and seconday qualitites)
For Locke, the world is divided into two qualities: primary qualities, which exist in the object independently of our perception (solid, movement, shape) and secondary qualities, which are dependent of our sense perception (sight, taste, hearing, touch, smell).
Berkeley believes that all qualities are secondary. The result is that there is no world independent of our perceptions, except what he calls unperceived perceptions. These are a bundle of perceptions caused by God.
David Hume's skepticism about cause an effect. Hume is an empiricist, so he believes that only experience gives us knowledge. Ok, this is why he remains skeptical about the idea of causation (every effect has a cause that makes it happen).
He goes: "Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Yet, we don't experience A causing B. We take the conjunction for a fact and have a certainty that this conjunction "will continue to happen."
This is known as Hume's problem of induction.
Causality is a posteriori, based on experience. We use induction to justify it. Now, can you conceive of yourself dropping a ball on earth that doesn't fall? YES YOU CAN! So, Hume says: "the contrary of every matter of fact never implies a contradiction." We are left with a weak notion of causal necessity.
KANT
Kant's synthesis between Empiricism and Rationalism. Kant takes Hume's challenge. He proposes the following:
a priori: analytic propositions are a priori (independent from experience): "all triangles have three sides," "all bachelors are unmarried males,"
a posteriori: synthetic propositions are a posteriori (based on experience): "Water boils at 100º C," "All creatures with hearts have kidneys."
then he adds another one: synthetic a priori: for example, "7+5=12" or
"the shortest distance between two points is a straight line."
KANT's CATEGORIES
LAS CATEGORÍAS KANTIANAS Cuando percibimos algo, ¿qué tiene que hacer nuestra mente para poder pensarlo como un objeto?
Comencemos con algo sencillo: «El vaso se rompió porque cayó al suelo.»
¿Qué tenemos ahí?
1. Algo: el vaso. → sustancia
2. Algo ocurrió: se rompió. → causalidad
3. Algo existió: el vaso existe. → existencia
4. Hay una determinación: el vaso es un vaso particular; tiene ciertas propiedades. → categorías de cualidad, cantidad, etc.
Kant no dice que inventemos esas relaciones. Lo que dice es que sin esas (categories of understanding) categorías del entendimiento no podríamos organizar los datos sensibles como experiencia objetiva.
the synthetic apriori is a marvel!
1. Every event has a cause.
It's synthetic: the concept event does not logically contain having a cause.
Now, why is it a priori? Kant holds that causality is a category of the understanding, a condition for experience.
2. 7 + 5 = 12
Synthetic: the concept 12 is not simply contained in the concepts 7, 5, and addition. You could get 12 by endless processes of addition.
Addition: 7 + 5 = 12
Multiplication: 3 × 4 = 12
Substraction: 15 − 3 = 12
A priori: we don't need to count twelve objects in experience to know it.
3. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Synthetic: the predicate adds something to the concept of a straight line: two points.
A priori: its truth doesn't depend on measuring physical distances. This is probably the classic Kantian example of synthetic a priori knowledge.
KANT'S MIDDLE POINT BETWEEN RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM
RATIONALIST SIDE: Kant believes there are categories that we bring with our perceptual apparatuses. They are part of our reason capabilities. Ex: time, space, causation, quantity, quality, relation, modality, etc. He agrees with Hume that these properties are not experienced. They are not in the world. Instead, THEY ARE INNATE, HARDWIRED.
EMPIRICIST SIDE: Kant believes that experience is a posteriori: what the empiricists called SENSE DATA obtained through our senses, which is fundamental for the physical sciences.
So, Kant's synthesis proves that both Empiricism and Rationalism hold.
STANDARD ACCOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge is justified true belief.
K = JTB
Monday, January 16, 2017
Phi 2010 syllabus
alfredo triff, ph.d.
room 3604-28 (Building #3, 6th floor)
tel. 305.237.7554
email: atriff@mdc.edu (math buff, student-shrink, parodist, cook, music lover, design lecturer, cigar smoker, cat lover, part-time hedonist)
office hours: posted
text: Philosophy Here and Now, by Lewis Vaughn (Third Edition).
goals
* become familiar with contemporary trends in philosophy. *learning how to problematize issues. basically philosophy seeks truth and honesty. the issues are pursued regardless of PC assumptions. *stimulate the philosophical spirit (curiosity & perseverance), *ethics of dialogue, which is the art of conveying your point & finally, * philosophy for life, which is Sophia's advice to the neophyte.
evaluation
1. grades "A," "B" and "C" stand for outstanding, good and average respectively. "D" is below average. "F" means not enough work to justify credit for the course.
2. we have 4 exams and a paper. all exams are worth the same. the final paper is about 15 pts of the final grade, punctuality and participation the remaining points.
the breakdown is a qualitative approximation (my grades are generally curved).
3. attendance is mandatory. 3 non-excused absences are permitted. each absence thereafter will lower the participation grade by a 1/3 of a grade. missing exams must be justified by a doctor’s note or the equivalent. under no circumstances a student will take two exams in my office!
4. homeworks are important but they are your duty. the routine is that we start each class with a HW-review.
schedule of classes
Chapter 1: Philosophical and You
Chapter 7: Epistemology
Exam #1
Chapter 4: Mind and the Body
Chapter 5: Free Will and Determinism
Midterm Exam
Chapter 3: The Moral Life
Chapter 8: The Just Society
Exam #3
Chapter 7: Aesthetics
Chapter 2: God and Religion
Final Exam
i reserve the right to make changes in the order or chapters, provided i let you know in advance.
____________________
missing tests: if a student has valid reasons for missing an exam, i will grant a makeup (with proper justification). once justification is provided, the student may take the exam in my office. however, there is only one such opportunity. a student will not be allowed to take two exams in my office (or else they forfeit the result of the second test taken for a "C").
Thursday, January 12, 2017
are there aesthetic facts?
picasso's Guernica, 1937
is there aesthetic knowledge?
this is a very important question.
without aesthetic knowledge it becomes quite difficult to evaluate why we like what we like other than begging the question on our taste. "
It's good because I like it"? (kind of circular)
I propose this soft formula
aesthetic judgments = aesthetic facts + aesthetic norms
aesthetic norms evolve through a process of trial and error in time (hundred of thousand of years). there is an evolutionary argument to be made for aesthetic norms (since late homo erectus and homo sapiens). they already had internalized certain facts pertaining early medicine, early cooking, moral norms (which we already discussed), early art, early religion.
I propose this soft formula
aesthetic judgments = aesthetic facts + aesthetic norms
aesthetic norms evolve through a process of trial and error in time (hundred of thousand of years). there is an evolutionary argument to be made for aesthetic norms (since late homo erectus and homo sapiens). they already had internalized certain facts pertaining early medicine, early cooking, moral norms (which we already discussed), early art, early religion.
why do we enjoy certain colors? the smell of firewood? the sight of a sunset? why did we have to make this figurine?
Willendorf Venus, circa 30,000 BC
Our paleolithic ancestors are telling us what matters: THE GODDESS OF FERTILITY. The figurine conjures at once beauty and magic.
homo sapiens could not have built civilizations without aesthetic norms (Lacaux paintings)
look at the Karnak Temple in Egypt. the construction requires a degree of consensus pertaining planning, measuring, transportation of materials, construction methods, manufacture, masonry technology, etc. yet, from the anthropological standpoint it's difficult to establish which comes first, the norms or the society (since any society comes with norms in it).
NOT ONLY IN ART and ARCHITECTURE, BUT ALSO IN THE CULINARY ARTS.
are there aesthetic facts in the chicken broth?
you bet.
in the long evolution of the production of the stock (we call it CULINARY SCIENCE) we get the right method. it's right because it tastes better, it tastes better because of the facts of the matter of the preparation. YES, SLOW IS MUCH BETTER.
why? MORE COLLAGEN EXTRACTED FROM THE BONES. this is a chemical property, which translates into TASTE. this is a CULINARY FACT.
there are culinary facts, musical facts, political facts, etc:
what makes an aesthetic "fact"?
look at the Karnak Temple in Egypt. the construction requires a degree of consensus pertaining planning, measuring, transportation of materials, construction methods, manufacture, masonry technology, etc. yet, from the anthropological standpoint it's difficult to establish which comes first, the norms or the society (since any society comes with norms in it).
NOT ONLY IN ART and ARCHITECTURE, BUT ALSO IN THE CULINARY ARTS.
are there aesthetic facts in the chicken broth?
you bet.
in the long evolution of the production of the stock (we call it CULINARY SCIENCE) we get the right method. it's right because it tastes better, it tastes better because of the facts of the matter of the preparation. YES, SLOW IS MUCH BETTER.
why? MORE COLLAGEN EXTRACTED FROM THE BONES. this is a chemical property, which translates into TASTE. this is a CULINARY FACT.
there are culinary facts, musical facts, political facts, etc:
what makes an aesthetic "fact"?
aesthetic facts = aesthetic norms + facts
here is a diagram about the construction of consensus:
take picasso's GUERNICA above. we'd examine the painting's formal qualities, the new style it represents (Cubism & Surrealism), as well as the painting's reception (Spanish pavillion 1937 and all the people that have written about the painting) and its influence in subsequent 20th & 21st century art (the intersubjectivity explain the consensus, which takes time to build: best consensus cannot be produced overnight).
the best consensus provides the best explanation for these "notes." this slow layer-upon-layer of reasons through the centuries become a formidable value accumulation. the term "masterpiece" simply describes the process.
this is when i made a distinction between saying:
1. I hate Guernica and 2. Guernica is a mediocre painting.
there differences here to note:
1. is a personal opinion, which one is entitled to; 2. is a statement of "fact" going against the best consensus.
2. is actually quite difficult. to prove 2. one would have to produce an argument to defeat 81 years of consensus; not impossible, but unlikely.
from 1. to 2. there is an enormous value/gap, which the counter would have to defeat.
Guernica is a masterpiece because of the "facts" pertaining Guernica, which is why it is in the CANON.
consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Guernica reviewed and written about, discussed, is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Guernica, qualitatively there are many.
this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).
consensus lends itself to best consensus. best consensus is just the best of the previous consensus. "best" is important because it is more reliable. less subject to negotiation with plain info.
best consensus is not what makes Guernica a masterpiece. Guernica is a masterpice because of "facts" in Guernica. what the best consensus does is flesh out these "facts".
here is a diagram about the construction of consensus:
see that the info is negotiated via cause/effect
inter-subjectively from the outside into consensus and from consensus into best consensus. best consensus' main property is that it's more reliable, more resistant to to and fro from the outside
take picasso's GUERNICA above. we'd examine the painting's formal qualities, the new style it represents (Cubism & Surrealism), as well as the painting's reception (Spanish pavillion 1937 and all the people that have written about the painting) and its influence in subsequent 20th & 21st century art (the intersubjectivity explain the consensus, which takes time to build: best consensus cannot be produced overnight).
the best consensus provides the best explanation for these "notes." this slow layer-upon-layer of reasons through the centuries become a formidable value accumulation. the term "masterpiece" simply describes the process.
this is when i made a distinction between saying:
1. I hate Guernica and 2. Guernica is a mediocre painting.
there differences here to note:
1. is a personal opinion, which one is entitled to; 2. is a statement of "fact" going against the best consensus.
2. is actually quite difficult. to prove 2. one would have to produce an argument to defeat 81 years of consensus; not impossible, but unlikely.
from 1. to 2. there is an enormous value/gap, which the counter would have to defeat.
Guernica is a masterpiece because of the "facts" pertaining Guernica, which is why it is in the CANON.
consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Guernica reviewed and written about, discussed, is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Guernica, qualitatively there are many.
this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).
consensus lends itself to best consensus. best consensus is just the best of the previous consensus. "best" is important because it is more reliable. less subject to negotiation with plain info.
best consensus is not what makes Guernica a masterpiece. Guernica is a masterpice because of "facts" in Guernica. what the best consensus does is flesh out these "facts".
