tarea #1

 click here for more information.

HOMEWORK 1

From The Presocratics post, Aug 28.  Answer the following: 

 What is the fundamental stuff of the universe called? 

1.  Try to explain why they engaged in this sort of endeavor (35 words minimum).

2.  Mention the definition of archê for the following philosophers: Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, the Atomists, Empedocles, and Parmenides.

3.  You may realize that Parmenides and Heraclitus have opposite definitions. Which  do you prefer? In your opinion, explain why. 

From our textbook:

4. (For your own edification, not for homework) to take the quiz (on page 5). Of course, you don't have enough knowledge now to even understand the scope of your answers (never mind).  

5.  Section 1. 1 (page 7), #1, #2, #5 (35 words minimum).

6.  Even though we're just starting, what is a possible favorite branch of philosophy? Justify your answer (35 words minimum).

Guidelines for our in-class first-draft peer-revision session (you become teachers now)

Let's peer-review our drafts! 

25 MINUTES EACH PARTICIPANT. STOP BEING NICE. BE TOUGH AND WRITE DOWN ANYTHING YOU FIND IN NEED OF CORRECTION. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOOD ADVICE. 

1- Proper heading, top, left-hand side, 

Bertha Gonzalez
First Draft Philosophy Paper, 
Phi 2010 Honors MWF

2-DONT FORGET! Times New Roman pt. 12 font, double spaced, indented paragraphs, separate page for bibliography. The bibliography page is titled Bibliography. 

Title: middle, bold. You must present a title that represents a distillation of the content of your paper.

NO FRONT-AND-BACK DRAFTS!

MATTERS OF CLARITY 

3- FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS: Two-point thesis composed of first: declaration-sentence followed by an explanation sentence. Same with the counter! Be clear and succinct. Less is more. These thesis and counter-paragraphs don't need to be long.  

4- Proper prefacing of each paragraph. The reader must understand "who owns the paragraph," (begin with either "advocate" or "critic"). Whether "same-sex marriage advocates" vs "same-sex marriage critics" "fast-food advocates" vs "fast-food critics," or "government surveillance advocates" vs "government surveillance critics," etc. It doesn't matter if it sounds cacophonous.

4.5- Internal coherence: Check paragraphs 3, and 5 for arguments 1 and 2 of your thesis and paragraphs 4, and 6 for arguments 1 and 2 of the counter. 

There must be a correspondence between these paragraphs. Example: if you find anything in paragraph 5 that doesn't correspond to your second argument in your thesis, the draft suffers from internal coherence. Pay attention to this point.

5- Argument vs. quote ratio (70% for argument, 30% for quotes). I will reject paragraphs that are just copied and pasted. I need your voice. We've talked about how to make a copy/paste paragraph look admissible.

6- How to present a quote in a paragraph: Each quote must be properly prefaced, what I call "dropping quotes" issues! 

a) You must prepare the reader for each quote by providing context for each quotation. b) Attribute each quotation to its source: tell the reader who is writing the quote and job description, c) Avoid "he/she said" USE THESE SYNONYMS INSTEAD: she/he adds, remarks, replies, states, comments, points out, argues, suggests, proposes, declares, opines, etc. d) lead the quote with a colon, example:

Penn State University Professor Oakenshot denies Marx's claim that capitalism causes poverty when he declares: "Poverty predates capitalism by two thousand and odd years of civilization." or,  John Beherman, professor of Biology at Berkeley University argues that____________" instead of just dropping the quote without introduction. (Oakenshot, 46).

MATTERS OF CONVENTION

7- Proper bibliography MLA source presentation 

a) Include in the text the first item that appears in the Work Cited entry that corresponds to the citation (e.g. author name, article name, website name, film name).

b) No URLs in-text. Only provide partial URLs titles, i.e., domain name, like CNN.com or Forbes.com as opposed to http://www.cnn.com or http://www.forbes.com.

MATTERS OF STYLE

8- Check for "too-wordy" sentences. This is a no-no. Sentences should be short and clear. If the sentences are long, cut them in two.

9- Checkmark for improper interjection of thesis into counter. Each side has a paragraph to expose its point. You are not to express your view inside the counter's paragraph.

10- Check mark for colloquialism. These are prohibited:

"you" (one), "kinda" (kind of), "it is like," (similar to, such as), "okay" or "OK," "real" & "really" (very), "sorta" or "sort of" (rather, somewhat), "pretty" (very), "anyways"(anyway), "a lot," (several, many), "kids"(children),  "cops" (policeman), "guys" (men)... etc.

11- Check mark for "fillers":  "basically," "absolutely", "definitely" "certainly," "for all intents and purposes," "due to the fact that" (use "because"),   etc.

12- Check mark for redundant adjectives: "totally unique," "completely finished," "thoroughly complete," "productively useful," etc,

Repaso para el Examen Final

Moral knowledge & consensus.

Notes on Egoism and Hedonism.

Utilitarianism. 

Kantian Ethics.

Moral Traditionalism.

Aristotle's virtue morality.

Aristotle's Virtue morality

here's a video. 

click here for more information.

quotes by Aristotle.

My notes on Moral Traditionalism

here's a video.

 click here for more.

Kantian ethics

let's look at this video,

here are my notes on Kant's categorical imperative,
my notes on Kant's second formulation,

what is self-respect?

First drafts guidelines. Observe them!

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

Doe, John 
Final Paper First Draft 
Phi 2010 Honors 

3- Title, centered, bold,
4- Draft body: double-spaced,
5- Indent each new paragraph,
6- "Works cited" or "Bibliography" on a separate page, following MLA protocols (with last day of revision for digital sources),
7- All drafts must be STAPLED,

My notes on Utilitarianism

click here for more information,

Ethics, Homework #14

 Pincha aquí.

Hedonism and Ethical Egoism

Here are my notes on Hedonism.

Here are my notes on Ethical Egoism.

Homework #7 (CHAPTER 3, ETHICS)

Questions 1-4 are taken from this post.

1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain with one example from your daily life. Think of a good/or bad action coming from a friend (no less than 50 words). 

2. What are moral facts? (in your own words, avoid copying my text).

3. In what sense is Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People a masterpiece? Is this moral knowledge?

4. Why is it that Best Consensus cannot be produced overnight? Is Best Consensus infallible? Explain your answer. 

Questions 5-7 are based on this lecture. 

5. a) What is the difference between morality and etiquette. 

b) Provide an example of each from your own life based on the definitions.  

c) Why is etiquette (LI) so important for Confucius?

6. Morality and law are not the same, in what manner? Again, from your personal experience, bring up an instance when there's a law you consider immoral and wish it would change (or else, something immoral in need of a law.   

7. Why is slavery wrong now in 2024? Why was it not wrong in, say, 424 B.C.?

Defensible moral judgments, moral values, etiquette, law, cultural relativism

click here for more information,

If you can make it...

 

How to conquer mathphobia

 Click this link. 

How do you know an argument is good?

 

El secreto está en encontrar un principio fuerte. Por ejemplo, la regla de oro.

Haz con otros lo que quisieras que te hicieran a ti. 

¿Cómo sabemos que el principio es fuerte? 

1. Es claro (es decir, no es contradictorio)  

2. Es proporcional. 

3. Es justo (aplica a uno y a todos).

Apliquemos ahora el principio en el caso de ejemplos particulares de los pecados llamados veniales: adulterio, falso testimonio, hurto, robo, malversación, perjurio, chisme, schadenfreude, la gula, la pereza. 

Por ejemplo, la gula y la pereza son pecados que me tocamn a mí y nadie más. ¿Cómo aplicar la ley de oro? Es muy sencillo. Yo = Yo. 

Volvamos a la regla. Lo que me aplica a mí me aplica porque es universal y reversible. Siendo universal me aplica por igual. Si aplico la regla de oro a mi mismo, no debo tratarme meramente como medio para un fin. 

Ahí tienen la respuesta a asuntos más polémicos, como la guerra, la pena de muerte, el aborto, etc.

philosophy paper second assignment (how to start the discussion, 4 paragraphs)

This second assignment takes care of four paragraphs.

This is an example. Please, do not copy, and do not submit anything underlined in color. I do it just to make a point. 

The first two paragraphs are the most important in your paper.  These are theses paragraphs. 

These two paragraphs are YOUR PROGRAM. Thesis and a counter-thesis: Each thesis and counter-thesis contains two points. You present the point and explain it. When you explain, you give reasons for holding the point. One paragraph each. 

ORDER OF PARAGRAPHS:

FIRST PARAGRAPH: EXPOSITION OF THESIS AND COUNTERTHESIS

SECOND PARAGRAH: THESIS FIRST ARGUMENT.

THIRD PARAGRAPH: COUNTER'S FIRST ARGUMENT.

FOURTH PARAGRAPH: THESIS SECOND ARGUMENT.

FIFTH PARAGRAPH: COUNTER'S SECOND ARGUMENT.

SIXTH PARAGRAPH: THESIS REBUTTAL OF COUNTER'S REBUTTAL.

LAST PARAGRAPH: A SHORT CONCLUSION 

whatever is in this color are either thesis or counter,
whatever is in this color is the first point, with an explanation,
whatever is in this color is the second point with an explanation,
_______________________________________

FISRT PARAGRAPH

                  In this paper I argue against the prohibition of marijuana. First, marijuana prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. The point is that our laws should take into account citizens' right to self-determination. Second, the War on Drugs has only served the immediate interests of politicians. By taking a moral stand against recreational drugs or fighting the evils caused by the illegal drug trade, they have only increased their popularity among constituents. 

(You should add relevant data supporting each point and properly cite it as END NOTE).

SECOND PARAGRAPH

    Prohibitionists disagree. They believe that marijuana is an addictive drug, which increases consumption and dependency. According to Dr. John Dickens, citing a 10 year study from Stanford University, "addiction is a result of marijuana's power to induce dependency" (New York Times, 2004).  In addition, marijuana is a gateway to other illicit and more harmful substances, thus increasing the possibility of committing crimes. It is a fact that addiction is generally sustained within a social network linked to organized crime (Center for Drug Studies, Catalog A, 2010). 

_______

Now comes the discussion. In paragraph 3, you go back to your thesis. You flesh out the first point, bringing in outside experts and relevant data. In paragraph 4, you take the counterthesis and do the same thing you did in paragraph 3. 
_______ 

THIRD PARAGRAPH

Abolitionists believe that prohibition must be weighed against our loss of personal freedoms. They argue that citizens 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 British philosopher John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which states 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). Mill's harm principle is designed to restrict the scope of government restrictions on personal liberty. Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin states that social disapproval or dislike for a person's actions isn't enough to justify intervention by the government unless they actually harm someone (New York Times, 2013).

FOURTHT PARAGRAPH

Prohibitionists reject this idea. They bring relevant statistics: According to recent data, marijuana remains addictive, with 25% of recurrence among people ages 16 to 25 (Buck-Norris, 17). Marijuana remains intractable not because it's more addictive than other drugs but because addicts are more reluctant to let it go (Casas & Weimer, 33). Marijuana happens to be affordable and available in our inner cities. Dr. John Samaras, a professor of psychology at Penn Sate University, argues that parental substance dependence and abuse can have profound effects on children, including child abuse and neglect. (Samaras, Drug Addiction in America, 44).

From consensus to best consensus

Our diverging ideas of diet.

Hormone therapy.

Critical care.

Historiography.

Physics.

Chemistry.

Here is a list of accepted consensuses proven wrong later. 

Homework #6 (Capítulo 5) PHI 2010 HONORS, 2024

1. Briefly state the following views concerning free will (p. 253):

a) Hard determinism.

b) Incompatibilism.

c) Indeterminism.

d) Compatibilism.

e) Libertarianism.

Now, contrast a) with b), d), and e)

2. I know it's too early (and you may switch sides), but which view do you feel has more explanatory power (always look for "detractors")? 

3. Briefly state Baron d'Holbach's argument?

4. Why is William James' Indeterminism problematic?

5. Explain the Compatibilist "could do otherwise argument. Do you find it plausible? Explain.

6. Does belief in free will matter? (p. 262) 

7. What's van Inwagen argument in favor of free will?

8. Explain Benjamin Libet's argument against free will. (p. 266) 

9. What is Jean Paul Sarttre's idea of profound (or radical) freedom? (p. 271, 272)

10. Look at the key terms on p. 277 (important definitions).

11. Imagina por un momento un sistema carcelario predeterminista tipo Clockwork Orange.

¿Cual sería el método para rehabilitar al criminal? ¿Crees que serían "recidivistas"? Y si lo fueran ¿qué hacer entonces?   

Aquí una conferencia interesante del neurólogo y profesor de Stanford Robert Sapolsky que me mandó Isabella. En ella lidia con el difícil tópico de la depresión. ¿Creen que Sapolsky es predeterminista?  

Final paper (How to argue a point)

click here for assignment sample: how to argue a point.

Homework, Chapter 5

 Pincha aquí.

This is the list of my confirmed student assistants (¡muchas gracias!)

Manuel Martinez, 

Andrea Terrero, 

Gabriel Gamez, 

Aliane Castillo-Diaz, 

Paola Cuba Alvarez. 

Jesús Galarza.

Final paper's process

El final paper es acaso la parte más importante de mi clase. Me enorgullece la técnica que he desarrollado con años de enseñanza y feedback de mis estudiantes. 

Este es el proceso:  

1. first draft of the paper (noviembre 13)

2. second draft of the paper (IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT (diciembre 4)

between 1. and 2. there are these recommendations.

Aquí tienen mi receta de hummus (bueno, de mi abuela)

click here for more info,

Cosensus to Best Consensus (from Impetus to Newtons Second Law

Look at my diagram above. See the concentric circles? we have INFO, Consensus and Best Consensus.

How do we get there? Through a process of iteration, the previous consensus is improved by the new one. 

What is the best consensus of inertia right before Newton's Second Law?

Before Newton, the accepted law was Aristotle's Impetus Theory. Let's start with this.

INFO

1. Aristotle (Fourth Century BC): distinguished between "natural motion" (such as objects falling due to gravity) and "violent motion" (caused by external forces). Natural motion was thought to be due to the tendency of objects to reach their natural place (e.g., heavy objects falling down). 

What's the problem? The impetus theory lacked a clear concept of Inertia: 

Objects were thought to naturally come to rest without a sustained force. 

Jean Buridan: Professor at the University of Paris Aristotle's theory was improved during the Middle Ages). What is Impetus? The impetus theory, developed by medieval scholars like Jean Buridan, attempted to explain projectile motion and address the deficiencies in Aristotelian physics. It posited that an object in motion had an internal "impetus" imparted by the force that set it in motion, which would gradually dissipate, causing the object to slow down and stop. 

CONSENSUS 

Buridan's formula: impetus = weight x velocity

Problem: By discounting the possibility of any resistance either due to a contrary inclination to move in any opposite direction or due to any external resistance, he concluded their impetus was therefore not corrupted by any resistance.  So, the problem is that impetus theory lacked the mathematical rigor to describe motion quantitatively. 

ITERATION: So by the year 1614, Kepler introduces the concept of inertia in this book.

BEST CONSENSUS: Now, by 1687, we finally get to Newton's Second Law!  

As you can see, consensus doesn't mean truth. Many instances of consensus have led nowhere. Some forms of consensus, like the one above, lead to a happy ending.

Paper proposal sample (next Thursday, october 17)

1- Heading (in Times New Roman, point 12). Left hand side: write your name (last name first), "Philosophy Paper Proposal."
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle alignment.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph has the counter thesis and contains a brief explanation supporting it. So and so depends of your paper topic, i.e., Me too critics, Pro-choice advocates, Climate skeptic advocates, etc. 

4- Try to mimic this model. This is how you learn to be clear and succinct.
   
______________________________________________

Rodriguez, Juan 
Philosophy Paper Proposal

Phi 2010 Honors

  Even with factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse

          In this paper, I try to prove that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve a better treatment. My argument shows the public health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong. 

         So and So advocates disagree by stating that our present regulations are necessary to offer much needed food products at competitive market prices. 

Homework #5 (chapter 4) 2024

Section 4.1 p. 223

#1, #3, #4

Is property dualism a better theory than Descartes' dualism? Explain.

#4 p. 224

Section 4. 2 p. 229 

#5

Section 4. 3 p. 233

#1, #3, #4,

Section 4. 4, p. 241

#1, #2, 

Section 4. 4  p. 245

#1, #4,

Law of Unintended Consequences (due to the limits of our knowledge)

The complexity of society supervenes on individuals and societies (of societies) supervene on societies. 

The reason for supervenience is that we cannot stop messing things up. In economics, history, and system theory, this is known as Law of Unintended Consequences (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in economics in the link's page's second paragraph). 

Here are some examples from History: 

*Spain's discovery of the New World and gold actually made Spanish mercantilism stronger (more money, more mismanagement), which made for more war (England, France, etc.), which ended up depleting the very sources of wealth. Spain became poorer and weaker. 

*Antibiotics are one of the significant medical advances, but their overprescription has resulted in the development of antibiotic-resistant diseases. 

*The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia announces a new era of human equality and progress. Instead, it brings the horrors of the gulag labor camps and the purges of the 1930s under Stalin. *The discovery of nuclear fission, crucial for nuclear power, simultaneously became the main ingredient for the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. 

*More recently, Germany’s "green" policies. In 2000, Germany passed a major green initiative Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government. It forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for twenty years. In 2011, stubborn Angela Merkel doubled down and shut down eight reactors in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster (which was caused by a tsunami –a threat Germany isn’t exposed to!)😅 "Green power" is so unreliable that Germany is constructing four new coal plants to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. And most of these coal-fired facilities lignite! which is strip-mined and emits nearly 35% more carbon dioxide than hard coal!

Here are some additional variables to the Law of Unintended Consequences:

There are so many variables:

1- Ignorance! We can't tell the distant future. 

2- Errors in our models (remember induction?) What worked in the past doesn't have to apply to the current situation. 

3- Immediate interests override long-term interests (it's called short-termism). Though someone's long-termism may be someone else's short-termism!

4- Basic values that may require or prohibit specific actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values). 

5- Self-defeating prophecy, or the fear of some consequence, which drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs; thus, the non-occurrence of the problem is not anticipated. 

This is also known as the Munchausen paradox.

6- Grupthink is definitely a candidate.

Review Capítulo 1 y 6 (Honors, 2024)

Capítulo 1, Introducción y Lógica

La filosofía y sus ramas.

Presocráticos.

What is truth (three criteria)

Argumentos deductivos e inductivos.

Necessary and sufficient conditions.

Logical and causal possibility.

Causa y efecto.

Thought experiment.

Fallacies.

Thought experiment.

Capítulo 6, Epistemología

Consensus and Best Consensus.

Different versions of knowledge.

Breve historia de la epistemología (skepticism, rationalism, empiricism, and kantian theory)

Philosophy of mind videos

An introduction to the philosophy of the mind.

Cartesian dualism. 

This is about functionalism.

Lecture on Thomas Nagel's "What is like to be a bat."

Searle's Chinese room thought experiment.