DAY 70 May 20 Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights

Step 1: As usual we'll start with the Card Game of Ethical Fun!

Step 2: clearly we didn't get through yesterday's posted stuff so we'll do that today.

Step 3: if we have time we'll get working on your next marked assignment, Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights.  First I'll distribute a copy of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights, we'll have a look at this video on some of the shortcomings of governments when it comes to following basic tenets of human rights, and then we'll get on with the assignment.

DAY 69 May 19 Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights

Today we'll start our exploration of Ethics and Human Rights.

Step 1: In your Green Philosophy Bites Folder, please spend two minutes on each of these four basic Ethical Questions, answering them for yourself.

1. Are Moral Choices Possible?
2. Why Do the Right Thing?
3. Can People Be Good Without Religion?
4. How Should the Rightness and Wrongness of an Action Be Determined?



Step 2:  Please complete the chart below: most philosophers address all the questions, some do not.
How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?
Socrates: 
Epicurus: 
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard:
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre:
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill:
Immanuel Kant:
Ayn Rand:


Why Do the Right Thing?
Socrates:
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard:
Friedrich Nietzsche: 
Jean Paul Sartre:
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill:
Immanuel Kant:
Ayn Rand:

Can People Be Good Without Religion?
Socrates:
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas:
Søren Kierkegaard: 
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre: 
Jeremy Bentham:
John Stuart Mill: 
Immanuel Kant: 
Ayn Rand:

How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?
Socrates: 
Epicurus:
Thomas Aquinas: 
Søren Kierkegaard: 
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Jean Paul Sartre: 
Jeremy Bentham: 
John Stuart Mill: 
Immanuel Kant: 
Ayn Rand: 

How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?

Socrates: Yes moral choices are possible.
Epicurus: Yes moral choices are possible, doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia.
Thomas Aquinas: Yes moral choices are
Søren Kierkegaard: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Jeremy Bentham: Yes moral choices are possible. The moral choice is the one which brings the most good to the most people. (consequentalist theory)
John Stuart Mill: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
Immanuel Kant: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has a moral intent.
Ayn Rand: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has the best interests of the self at heart.



Why Do the Right Thing?

Socrates: Because doing the right/ethical thing is the cornerstone to living "the good life".
Epicurus: Doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia/serenity which is the greatest pleasure of the mind.
Thomas Aquinas: God deemed it right, and Aquinas is condemned to a perpetual life of follwing gods word without fail.
Søren Kierkegaard: Because going against your authenticity feels wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Because moral actions lead society towards the cultivating the overman, the advent of whom benefits all.
Jean Paul Sartre-----------------
Jeremy Bentham: ---------------
John Stuart Mill:--------------
Immanuel Kant:----------------
Ayn Rand: Because you wouldnt want "wrong" things done to yourself, so do not do them to others.


Can People Be Good Without Religion?

Socrates: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Epicurus: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Thomas Aquinas: No, conforming to God's rules is "good" to Aquinas.
Søren Kierkegaard: No, people must move beyond judging their actions according to reason or the standards of society, and become only accountable to god.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes people can be good without religion. "Faith in god is disappearing, and with it the universal values provided by that faith. 
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes people can be good without religion.
Jeremy Bentham: Not specified, but yes considering he believes that the greatest good to the greatest number of people is equivalent to right.
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian, so probably.
Immanuel Kant: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Ayn Rand: Probably, but it doesn't specify.


How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?

Socrates: Actions that go against the society made up of family and friends (laws) is wrong. Anything that conforms is right.
Epicurus: Right actions pave the way for ataraxia/serenity, wrong actions do the opposite.
Thomas Aquinas: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.
Søren Kierkegaard: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche: People determine their own values.
Jean Paul Sartre: Each person defines right and wrong themselves and acts accordingly.
Jeremy Bentham: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one. (Hitler believed by eliminating the jews he was doing a great good for germany, there were far more aryans than jews in germany so was he doing the "right" thing for germans?)
John Stuart Mill: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one.
Immanuel Kant: The rightness of actions can be determined by the intent of the actions themselves (non-consequentialist)
Ayn Rand: Right actions are those which are in the selfs best interest.

DAY 68 May 18 Ethical Schools of Thought

In my absence today, please continue to work through Chapter 13 on the information below (this assumes, of course, that you have completed your work through Chapter 12 already!):

Chapter 13.  Your task now is to explain the 11 major schools of thoughts on the question of living a good life.  For each (Buddhism, Confucianism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Thomists, Existentialism, Divine Command Theory, Utilitarianism, Egoism, Intuitionism, Post-modernism) school of thought make an organizer in your notes with the sub-headings below. At first you can each have a go at one of these schools of thought on chart paper and share it with the class, then tackle them all on your own for your notebook.

• School of Thought
•  Brief History
•  Main proponents
•  Summary of  the School's Response
•  Strengths of the Response
• Weaknesses of the Response  

DAY 67 May 17 Continue from Friday

Because so few of you showed up Friday it was impossible to do what we had planned, so we'll do it today.

Step 1: Ethical Card Game of Fun!

Step 2: Everyone will have a chance to run through their chart paper work from yesterday and present it to the class - in this way we can discuss your awesome ideas of the value of the various theories.

Step 3: Time for completing your notes on the various schools of thought on A Life Worth Living.

DAY 66 May 14 A Good Life Cont'd

Step 1:  Because of the success of some of the films at last night's Film Fest, we started out today's class by watching some of the best, in particular Sophie's and Sam's contributions - fabulous stuff, ladies!

Step 2: Ethical Card Game of Fun!

Step 3: Everyone will have a chance to run through their chart paper work from yesterday and present it to the class - in this way we can discuss your awesome ideas of the value of the various theories.

Step 4: Time for completing your notes on the various schools of thought on A Life Worth Living.

DAY 65 May 13 A Good Life

Step 1: Back to the card game of fun and five minutes of interesting discussion!

Step 2: For the written record now . . . let's make a clear distinction between Ethics and Morals.

Ethics can generally be described throughout humanity as the Golden Rule.  In all cultures going back through history, as far as we know we have always adhered to the principle that we should treat other people no differently than the way we would like to be treated.

Morals on the other hand can best be described as the practices, principles and teachings of right or wrong behaviour - these change across time, generations, cultures and they can change based on experience.

Philosophers ask questions like these when thinking about Ethics and Morals:

1. What is a good life?

2. What is a good person?

3. What is the right thing to do?

In your Green Philosophy Bites folder please spend 2 minutes on each of the questions above, but answer them as if you were once again FIVE YEARS OLD.

Here's an example of an issue you might face sometime soon - "Lawyers".

Step 3: Now we'll spend a little time figuring out what you think today.  One of the main questions of Philosophy is, "What is the life worth living?".  Let's list your answers below (by the way, that question is what Socrates taught Plato as the most basic Philosophical question, so we're in good company here!):

Your answers will go here . . . . 
Love
Success
Fulfilment
Pleasure
Happiness
Experience
Career
Compassion
Fun
Companionship
No regrets


Step 4: Chapter 13.  Your task now is to explain the 11 major schools of thoughts on the question of living a good life.  For each (Buddhism, Confucianism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Thomists, Existentialism, Divine Command Theory, Utilitarianism, Egoism, Intuitionism, Post-modernism) school of thought make an organizer in your notes with the sub-headings below. At first you can each have a go at one of these schools of thought on chart paper and share it with the class, then tackle them all on your own for your notebook.

• School of Thought
•  Brief History
•  Main proponents
•  Summary of  the School's Response
•  Strengths of the Response
• Weaknesses of the Response 

DAY 64 May 12 Ashley Article

Step 1: As usual we'll start with the card game of fun and your discussions about the ideas from some great minds of the past.

Step 2: Quick review of the Golden Mean Thought Experiment from yesterday.

Step 3: In your Green Philosophy Bites folder please choose ONE option from each category for your future unborn child and explain to yourself why you chose that option.  One minute for each choice, total of five minutes!

Physical Features
Make my child beautiful
Make my child athletic
Make my child tall
       
Health
Remove all genes for inherited diseases
Add a gene strengthening my child's immune system
       
Intelligence
Make my child shrewd in business
Make my child a musical prodigy
Make my child an artistic genius
       
Emotions
Remove the gene for feeling emotional pain
Remove the genes for lying, cheating, and stealing
Add a gene for honesty
   
Social Skills 
Make my child the life of the party
Make my child compassionate
Make my child confident


Step 4: Please read the Ashley Article handout.  For further information on Ashley and her family's journey check out their family blog: Ashley Treatment.  And check out the family's suggestion for the ethical treatment of patients in Ashley's condition, Ashley Treatment Summary.

Please answer these Ashley Article Questions fully in your notebook:

1.  Who is the moral agent who exhibited the virtues or extremes of behaviour?

2.  Describe the moral agent's behaviour.

3.  Do you think the moral agent's actions were morally right or morally wrong?  Why?

4.  Draw a continuum similar to the one show in Fig 12.2 on p. 245 of your text.  Label it with a virtue exhibited (or not exhibited) by the moral agent and add the extremes at either end.  Locate the moral agent on the continuum .  Please comment on what you've drawn.

5.  Were the actions of the moral agent good?  Were they right?  Explain the difference.

6.  Please comment, using quotes, on what two different philosophers might say about the situation in which Ashley and her family find themselves.

We'll take these up tomorrow.

DAY 63 May 11 Ethics Intro Still

Step 1: As usual, we'll start the class by having one of you pick a card from the 12 remaining and then that person will lead a discussion on their corresponding idea.

Step 2: Quick review of the note-taking you've done so far . . . .  I want to see your notebooks!

Step 3: In your Green Philosophy Bites folder please respond to this question in five minutes:

How do we determine the rightness or wrongness of an action?


Step 4: Pick a partner for the Finding the Golden Mean thought experiment.

DAY 62 May 10 Ethics Intro

Step 1: Today we'll start thinking about some new ideas below.  I'd like to open the next 13 classes with a discussion about one of them.

One of you will choose a card which will match with one of the ideas below.  Then your job will be to lead a five minute discussion with the class on the idea - clearly what we're trying to open up, apart from lots of cans of worms, is a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What you will aim to do is get people to identify the main ethical idea, perhaps a theory, and perhaps even a philosopher (other than the one who made the statement) who would agree or disagree with the statement and we'll see where the discussions go.  I'm really hoping that QUESTIONS arise from our discussions.

ACE. (Albert Einstein)  Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.

2. (Salman Rushdie)  I hate admitting that my enemies have a point..

3. (Thomas Edison) Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.

4. (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn't the will to do what is right.

5. (Elvin Stackman) Science cannot stop while ethics catches up.    


6. (Potter Stewart) Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. 

7. (George Bernard Shaw) Liberty means responsibility. That is why most people dread it.  

8. (H.A. Pritchard) Right action is that which is morally suitable to the situation in which an individual finds herself.

9. (Plato)  Is something holy beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods?  

10. (Jeremy Bentham) Nature has placed people under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.

JACK. (Aristotle) Intellectual virtue owes its strength to teaching, while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit. 

QUEEN. (Isaac Asimov)  Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right.

KING. (Elie Wiesel)  If one is indifferent, one dies before one actually dies.  


Step 2: Next we'll go through some Ethics Vocabulary.

Step 3: In your Green Philosophy Bites folder, please respond in 5 minutes to this question:

Can People Be Good Without Religious Involvement?  Who determines this?




Step 4: Read pp. 248 - 259 in the text and take notes on the main ideas, the philosophers and their theories.  You should consider the questions you come across in the text too.  These need to be completed before tomorrow's class.
 

Day 61 May 7 Ethics Introduction

Today is the first day of Ethics!!  Yay, a new unit and one which always fills students' hearts with passion about personal beliefs, values, morals and other fun things like that.

Introduction to Ethics

ETHICS is the area of Philosophy that deals with the study of the how we decide what to think or do in a given situation: how do we apply values, how do we classify something as good or bad, how do we know something is right or wrong, what is morality, are moral choices even possible?

UNIT EXPECTATIONS
By the end of this unit you will be able to:
•  demonstrate an understanding of the main questions, concepts, and theories of ethics
•  evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of responses to ethical questions and moral problems defended by some major philosophers and schools of philosophy, and defend your own responses
•  describe how problems in ethics and the theories that address them may be illustrated in stories
•  illustrate the relevance of philosophical theories of ethics to concrete moral problems in everyday life
•  demonstrate an understanding of how philosophical theories of ethics are implicit in other subjects

UNIT OVERVIEW
This unit introduces you to the fundamental questions of Ethics and discusses many of the answers that ethicists have developed.  We will use the following chapters in your textbook:

Chapter 12, “Introducing Ethics,” examines what ethics is and provides a brief overview of the history of ethics, then focuses on some of the key questions that Ethicists attempt to answer.

Chapter 13, “Answering Questions That Matter,” extends the discussion of key ethical questions and explores how they have been answered by philosophers from various world traditions.

Chapter 14, “Ethics in the World,” focuses on several current ethical issues and discusses how ethical theories can be applied to them.

Step 1:  Take 5 minutes to write everything you possibly can into your Philosophy Bites Green Folder on the topic: Ethics.  Themes to keep in mind include ideas, people, choices, circumstances - you can write single words or short phrases. 

Step 2:  We'll watch this short Friends video and then respond to each of the questions below.  We'll have three people discuss each of these questions below - should be fun!

1. Are Moral Choices Possible?

2. Why Do the Right Thing?


Step 3:  Read and take notes on pp. 242 - 247 of the text. 

DAY 60 May 6 Seminar Epistemology

Today, the Epistemology Seminar will run with these folks:
Emily
Kara
Sean
Jessica
Kalsey
Sophie
Tia
Raven

I realize that there's a buyout for Dodgeball today but if you're on this list your may NOT buy out for it.  Seminar's must get done today.  Tomorrow (Friday) we start Ethics.

DAY 59 May 5 Work Period

I am away at a conference today so there is no class today.

You should use this time to get prepared for the upcoming seminar (8 of you) or to study or complete any work that's still outstanding (oh I know, I know, ALL of your work is outstanding in quality, but some is outstanding as in, "not yet submitted").

DAY 58 May 4 Play Preview

As we had Robin Hood previews today and four of our members are in it, we couldn't very well miss is so we went to the preview.  Afterward you had a catch up day for work still outstanding and/or studying that needed to be done.

DAY 57 May 3 Seminar 2 Epistemology

Seminar 2 group 1 is today - Epistemology. 

All Q & A are due at the beginning of class.

Carly, Hayley, Cara, Sam and Jeff are on deck today.

DAY 56 April 30 Seminar 2 Prep

Q & A are on the plate today.  The Internet was down so I didn't update the blog on time, however, to confirm yesterday's decision, the play people and Jeff will go for their seminar on Monday. 

All Q & A are due on Monday at the beginning of class.

DAY 55 April 29 Seminar Q & A

This was a day to start preparing your actual Q & A for the upcoming Epistemology Seminar.

We decided that since the play previews are on Tuesday, that on Monday the group for seminar would be:
Sam
Carly
Hayley
Cara
Jeff volunteered to be the fifth.

All Q & A are due at the beginning of class on Monday.

DAY 54 April 28 Seminar Prep

We completed Popper's document as a class today but because we had started it yesterday, I just reopened yesterday's blog post and finished Popper's document there.  So if you want to see the entire three documents with the class' comments, please look at yesterday's post.

We'll start our pre-prepared Questions and Answers for the documents on Thursday and complete them on Friday, then run seminars on Monday and Tuesday.  I'm not here Wednesday, then we'll start Ethics on Thursday and Friday!

DAY 53 April 27 Seminar 2 Preparation Day

After submitting your good copy along with two peer edited copies of your Matrix projects today, we will start prep for the upcoming seminar for Epistemology.

Here are the readings:  Seminar 2 Readings in Epistemology: Locke, Bacon, Popper

As in the first seminar, you are to prepare ahead of time six questions, two based on each of the readings.  Your questions should deal with  topics the emerge from the readings and that have to do with Epistemology.

Your questions should include a quote from the reading to ensure the connection.

Your answers should include references, direct quotes, use of theories of not only the philosopher that wrote the reading but at least one other, preferably two other philosophers which can lend support to your point of view in answering the question you've posed.

You should also be very clear about connecting the Epistemological ideas with links to society today or through history in order to make the topic relevant to life.

Everyone got that?  Direct quotes from more than one philosopher, societal links, use of theories.

Today we'll spend going over the documents as a class so that the language used is understandable and that the main ideas are clear to everyone.

Below are notes on the readings:

Seminar # 2 Readings

Essay Concerning Human Understanding – John Locke   [1690 "All ideas come from sensation or reflection".] 
Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? He's really asking, "Where does our knowledge come from?" Whence (i.e. from what source) has it all the materials of reason and knowledge?  To this I answer, in one word, from experience. Locke is suggesting that our knowledge comes from experience - empiricism, also a posteriori knowledge Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking.  These two are the fountains of knowledge, from which all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.  He's talking about empiricism and then rationalism as the sources of knowledge.  In other words, we collected information, data, sensory-supplied etc. and then we think about it.

The object of sensation is one source of ideas.  First, our senses do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them; we collect data/information through our senses  and thus we come by those ideas we have of yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, sweet, and all those which we call sensible qualities.  This great source of most of the ideas we have, depending wholly upon our senses, and derived by them to the understanding, I call sensation.  Further clarification of what he means by sensory information - he calls it sensation.

The operation of our minds is the other source of them.  Secondly, the other fountain, from which experience furnishes the understanding with ideas, is the perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it is employed about the ideas it has got;  Locke is suggesting that a second source of ideas/information is our mind, which thinks about, processes, the sensory data it gets which operations do furnish the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without; and such are perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and all the different actings of our own minds; which we, being conscious of, and observing in ourselves, do from these receive into our understandings as distinct ideas.  I call this reflection, understood to mean that notice which the mind takes of its own operations.  Further clarifying what he means by the actions of the mind - he calls it reflection.

All our ideas are of the one or the other of these.  Locke's big statement - it's either sensation, reflection or both  The understanding seems to me not to have the least glimmering of any ideas which it does not receive from one of these two. Ideas MUST come from experience first, no such thing as a priori knowledge for Locke  External objects furnish the mind with the ideas of sensible qualities, which are all those different perceptions they produce in us; and the mind furnishes the understanding with ideas of its own operations.

Observable in children.  He that attentively considers that the state of a child at his first coming into the world will have little reason to think him stored with plenty of ideas that are to be the matter of his future knowledge.  Locke suggests that we are NOT born with knowledge or innate ideas, in other words, NO a priori knowledge  It is by degrees he comes to be furnished with them.

Men are differently furnished with these according to the different objects they converse with.  Men then come to be furnished with fewer or more simple ideas from without, according as the objects they converse with afford greater or less variety; and from the operations of their minds within, according as they more or less reflect on them.  Knowledge varies according to the different experiences that people have.  He suggests that potential for knowledge is generally the same, but environment then plays a role




Novum Organum (The New Method) – Sir Francis Bacon [The New Method, 1620, Book 1.  London: Routledge, pp. 259-266]

Where did people at that time (1620) in Europe get their ideas/knowledge?  Church, religion, government, old wives' tales, superstition, other people, family traditions, etc.

Where do YOU get your ideas/knowledge today?  TV, school, government, parents, Google, media, Internet.  What have you been school in in the acquisition of knowledge ?  The Scientific Method.  You don't believe most things unless there is some substantial proof behind it.
 
As all the sciences we now have do not help us in finding out new works, so neither does the logic we now have help us in finding out new sciences.  The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors what errors? which have their foundations in commonly received notions.  if the source of your information is from the list above, notably the church, does it leave room for EMPIRICAL information?  No, because most of what was "known" was based on faith   So it does more harm than good.

The discoveries which have hitherto (i.e. up to this time) been made in the sciences are such as lie close to vulgar [everyday, commonplace] notions, scarcely beneath the surface.  In order to penetrate into the more and further recesses of nature it is necessary to determine a more sure and guarded way; and that a method of intellectual operation be introduced altogether better and more certain.  Introduces the need for a "new method" of discovery

It is idle [pointless] to expect any great advancement in science from the engraving of new things upon old. If we base new ideas on old, incorrect ones, it will surely hinder our advancement We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with contemptible [useless] progress.  He calls for change, what we now know as the beginning of the Scientific Method

One method of discovery alone remains to us, which is simply this: we must lead men to the particulars themselves by particulars here, he's referring to data/information etc. while men on their side must force themselves for a while to lay their notions aside and begin to familiarize themselves with facts.  What facts does he refer to?  Something NOT based on faith alone

The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance.  Old ways of thinking and getting information actually prevent us from finding the truth (thus, let's consider the new Scientific Method)


---------------

Science and Falsifiability  -  Karl Popper  [“Science: Conjectures and Refutation.”  In British Philosophy in Mid-Century, ed. By C.A. Mace, 1957.  London: Routledge, 1963 (3rd ed. 1969), chap 1.]
The problem which troubled me was that I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science [“pseudo-science” means “non-science” or “false science” in this context], knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth.  He's suggesting that both methods can actually arrive at the truth. 

I know, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudo-science by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment.  But this did not satisfy me.  I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method – that is to say, a method which although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards.  The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation – on horoscopes and on biographies.  For fun we checked some horoscopes today and yes, they had lots of truth to them.  Clearly we find truth in our horoscopes, but are they a valid method of searching for the truth?  In the examples below Popper suggests that we find ways to make the data fit into our preconceived notions/theories - therefore it's not valid to use pseudo-science to search for the truth

I found those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power.  These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.  The world was full of verification of the theory.  Whatever happened always confirmed it.

A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history.  The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.”  It would seem that everywhere they looked they gathered evidence that supported their theories.  Is this valid?  According to Popper, no, it's not a valid method to search for the truth.

With Einstein’s theory the situation was strikingly different.  Take one typical instance – Einstein’s prediction that light must be attracted by heavy bodies.  [This was confirmed by Eddington’s expedition which measured the shift in the light coming from a star.]

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind.

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows:
1.         It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verification, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations.  As seen in the examples of Freud, Adler, Marx and others, we'll probably always find confirmations if we look for them, thus, not entirely scientific.
2.         Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3.         Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen.  The more a theory forbids, the better it is.  Limit the variables, i.e. discounting as many other possibilities as possible
4.         A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
5.         Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.  To falsify something means to prove it incorrect.  
E.g.  All swans are white.
Is this statement falsifiable?  Yes, because all someone has to do is find a swan that's not white.  It would help to find every existing swan and check its colour.  Swans in Australia are, in fact, black

E.g. Is it possible to DISprove the existence of God?  Therefore, the realm of something that is not falsifiable is "faith", or belief.
6.         Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory.  Evidence should only be accepted as evidence if it's been collected considering # 4 & 5 above.
7.         The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity.  He's saying that Scientific Method comes first, then we use it to collect information etc. etc.

But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd; as many be illustrated by the story of the man who dedicated his life to natural science, wrote down everything he could observe, and bequeathed his priceless collection of observations to the Royal Society to be used as inductive evidence.  This story should show us that though beetles may profitably be collected, observations may not.

I tried to bring home the same point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: “Take pencil and paper, carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!”  They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe.  Clearly the instruction, “Observe!” is absurd.  Observation is always selective.  It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, and a problem.  An eloquent (simplified) version of his call for Scientific Methods to collect information and draw meaning from it.

DAY 52 April 26 The Matrix Peer Edit Day

This is the day for peer editing your Matrix projects.  Two copies, peer edited, good copies along with your peer edited copies are due at the beginning of class tomorrow.

Then we'll start prepping for the upcoming seminars.

DAY 51 April 23 The Matrix

In my absence today, Mrs. Boychuk will help anyone in need of assistance in working on your Matrix assignments. 

A reminder that two copies for peer editing are due Monday, good copy is due Tuesday.

DAY 50 April 22 The Matrix

We finished the film today and then I had everyone use their green Philosophy Bytes folders to get started on the assignment for the Matrix Film Review.  I had everyone go through the first steps of the assignment thus creating a skeleton outline.  We of course discussed everyone's thoughts along the way.

I also told everyone that the timeline was too tight so that the due date for two copies for peer editing is moved ahead one day to Monday, and that the submission date for your good copy plus the two peer-edited copies is Tuesday.

DAY 49 April 21 Matrix some more

Second day for The Matrix - assignment and marking sheet are on yesterday's post.

Just a reminder that your How I Know What I Know assignment is due - if it's not in by now it's late.

DAY 48 The Matrix

The Matrix

SYNOPSIS: Neo, a software developer by day and computer hacker by night, is recruited by an underground rebel named Morpheus.  Morpheus explains that Neo and everyone else has been living in an illusion generated by a massive computer called the Matrix.  The Matrix, in turn, is powered by the biologically-created electricity of millions of humans that are wired to it in a dream-like state.  Neo physically breaks free of the Matrix and, now in the real world, attempts to expose the illusion with Morpheus and other rebels.  They re-enter the world of the Matrix where Neo successfully battles the Matrix’s law enforcement agents and learns that he himself is a messianic leader.

This assignment is due on Monday, April 26 at the beginning of class.

Rough draft for peer editing is due on Friday, April 23.  Two copies of rough work are due for peer editing during class - these are to be submitted with your final work on Monday.

After watching the 1999 movie The Matrix, please write a 1000 word review of the film.  In your review address the following:

a.    What main epistemological question(s) is dealt with in the movie?

b.    What philosophers and their theories could you use in helping to address and explain these questions?

c.    In your opinion, what main epistemological issue was raised but not answered?

d.    How could you answer this issue? 

e.    What theorist would you use to help support your response?

The marking scheme for this is as follows:


Evaluation

Knowledge   /20
/10  Main epistemological question(s) is/are identified correctly and explained correctly.
/10  You use philosophers' theories correctly, clearly and precisely in answering the question(s) posed.

Thinking       /20
/10  You correctly identify and explain a main epistemological question that was raised but not answered.
/10  You respond to that question clearly and effectively using at least one philosopher’s theory.

Communication   /20
/10  Maturity in thought, sentence structure and language is evident.
/10  Proper language conventions are followed and there are no errors in grammar, spelling, syntax.


Application     /20
/10  You provide a very detailed and balanced evaluation of the philosopher and his/her suggested answer to the main Matrix question(s) including good use of quotes and theories.
/10  Two copies of peer edited rough work are submitted on time with your good copy.

DAY 47 April 19 Brain in a Vat

Brain in a Vat

We will now have a look at how we can come to a conclusion that what we think we know is actually reality, a main idea in epistemology.  We will be looking at concepts of how we can actually know anything at all: 

Skepticism and Rationalism are the main themes in this section. 

Please read the thought experiment, "The Brain in the Vat" on p. 201 of the text.  Then respond to this question: 

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat and how can you know this for certain?" 

in your Philosophy Bytes green folder.  Be prepared that another person in the class will read your work on this so that they can comment on it.

Tomorrow we will begin our study of The Matrix.

Some of the ideas that the class came up with for The Brain in a Vat include:
1. Circular argument - how could we ever come up with the idea of being a Brain in a Vat?
2. Breakdown of the probability.
3. Scientists could never actually know the inner workings of the mind.
4. The reality and truth experienced by someone as a brain in a vat would still be the truth and reality to that person (i.e. perception).
5. Snowdon reference - some connection here.
6. It's not scientifically possible therefore it's a ridiculous notion - rationalization proves that this can't happen.
7. No evidence can possible disprove that you're not a brain in a vat (???), ahh, but the evidence could be simulated.
8. Not enough knowledge - it's just an idea where there are no other actual events, past or present . . .

DAY 46 April 16 How I Know What I Know

Last work day for How I Know What I Know - 3 Questions Project.  I'm looking forward to reading these research projects as they're due Monday, beginning of class.

Day 45 April 15 How I Know What I Know

2nd last day of How I Know What I Know.

Here are the next two parts of this project.  Of course the time lines I set out below are guidelines.  ALL of your work on this should be done by the end of Day 5.

Day 4:
Complete your ANNOTATED bibliography.  Be sure to include your textbook as a source plus a minimum of four other sources.  Your annotations must discuss the validity of the sources and what areas you used.

Day 5:
Personal reflection:  After having completed your research notes identify ONE important epistemological question he has asked.  (eg. What is knowledge?).  Explain how he answered the question.  Ask yourself what is missing from his response, what appealed to you about his answer and what counter-arguments you might propose to his answer.  How is his philosophy used in today’s world?  (eg. Law, government, education etc).  Write a 300-500 word personal reflection that formulates and defends your own responses to the epistemological question you selected.

DAY 44 April 14 How I Know What I Know

This was the third day of the project, please continue with the work.  Tomorrow I'll post the next part of this project.

I returned all of your marked work today and we determined that anything that is outstanding that you can submit by class time on Monday will make it's way onto the report card, otherwise the zeros stand.

DAY 43 April 13 How I Know What I Know Day 2

Please continue your work on How I Know What I Know (in my absence).  Mrs. Boychuk will look after everyone and, of course, you can email me any time.

DAY 42 April 12 How I Know What I Know . . . 3 Questions Project

How I Know What I Know Project
Answering Key Epistemological Questions

Your study of epistemology requires you to understand the relationships between asking questions, receiving answers, theories of philosophers and your own interpretation of that information.
Check out the handout for How I Know What I Know to get you started.


This is a four day project, entirely done in class, so there is a great deal of pressure on you to perform and get this done in four days.  Remember, 12U classes are demanding and this is one of those weeks where I am demanding your BEST ! !

Today you are in the Library - if you have your laptop please use it.  Otherwise please use one of the 5 machines along the wall.  Tomorrow we'll be in class so please bring your laptop again - we'll accommodate those who cannot bring one.

DAY 41 April 9 More on Philosophers and Knowing

Originally I thought that today would work for starting the How I Know Project but there are many people out of class for sports and/or the Music - Grade 8 Day, so Monday it will be.  Please bring a laptop if at all possible for Monday through Thursday next week.

Today's work will focus on getting caught up - i.e notes through Chapters 9 and 10 in preparation for the project next week.

DAY 40 April 8 Philosophers and Knowing

We spent the first part of the class reassembling the desks after the Grade 10 Literacy Test.  Then we got to the business of discussing various ways of acquiring knowledge - see the list of seven at the bottom of the handout Philosophers and Knowing.  You should then complete the chart and do the questions.

I asked that everyone try to bring a laptop to class so that we could start the How I Know What I Know (3 Questions) project.  We'll do this as a blog so that the class can see what others are writing.

DAY 39 April 7 More on Acquiring Knowledge

As a following up and review of the work so far in Epistemology we went through some of the postings from earlier in the unit.  See the Intro to Epistemology for these postings.

We watched the Bill Nye video on optical illusions and we looked at a couple of other YouTube videos of your choice, one regarding a blind painter and another regarding a woman with synaesthesia.  Good discussions followed.

DAY 38 April 6 A Priori vs A Posteriori

We spent time today going through some of the theories of acquiring knowledge, in particular acquiring knowledge by thinking about information, i.e. before actually experiencing it  =  " a priori "   and then we looked at acquiring knowledge by experiencing something  =  " a posteriori ".

You then completed the handout on Acquiring Knowledge.

DAY 37 April 1 Seminar 1 Metaphysics

Jessica, Sean, Danny, Jeff, Tia, Kalsey and Carli did their seminar 1 today and again, they did just great!

For the long weekend - well, I realize that this is a holiday and I hope you all treat it as such but if you have fallen behind, and I know some of you have, then take some time out of the weekend to get caught up.  You should have completed all of the introductory work, posted earlier, by Tuesday.

DAY 36 Seminar 1 Metaphysics

Sophie, Emily, Raven, Cara, Sam and Hayley participated in our first seminar and hey, they did just beautifully!

Tomorrow Group 2!

DAY 35 March 30 Epistemology Intro

We continued going through the original Epistemology Introduction material posted earlier and then we spent a bit of time prepping further for the upcoming seminars.

DAY 34 Epistemology Intro

Seminars on Metaphysics will be tomorrow and Wednesday, each group is moved forward one day.  Q & A are due at the end of today so that I know everyone is ready for the seminars.

DAY 33 March 26 Extra Day

I'm at home sick today so you have an extra day to complete your seminar questions / answers and to catch up on any missing work.

All dates and seminars are pushed forward one day to accommodate this extra day.

DAY 29 to DAY 32 March 22 - 25 Epistemology

While I'm away in the Alps until Friday, you should get to work on completing your Q & A for Monday/Tuesday seminars.  In addition you can work on the new Introduction to Epistemology stuff as follows:

Introduction to Epistemology
EPISTEMOLOGY is the area of Philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge: how we know things, what knowledge is, reliability of evidence, sources of evidence, how we acquire knowledge, sensory information and direct vs. indirect evidence.

UNIT EXPECTATIONS
By the end of this unit you will be able to:
• identify the main questions, concepts, and theories of epistemology
• evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the responses to some of the main questions of metaphysics defended by some major philosophers and schools of epistemology, and defend those responses
• demonstrate the relevance of epistemological questions and theories to everyday life
• illustrate how various epistemological theories apply to other subject areas

UNIT OVERVIEW
This unit introduces you to the fundamental questions of Epistemology and discusses many of the answers that epistemologists have developed.  We will use the following chapters in your textbook:

Chapter 9, “Introducing Epistemology,” examines what epistemology is and provides a brief overview of the history of epistemology, then focuses on knowledge and knowing. It introduces rationalism and empiricism, discusses various conditions for knowing, and examines various kinds of knowledge.

Chapter 10, “Theories and Methods of Epistemology,” extends the discussion of knowledge and knowing by examining rationalism and empiricism in greater depth. It also introduces theories that to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism and summarizes contemporary thinking about knowledge.

Chapter 11, “Knowledge and Truth,” examines the links between truth and knowledge and investigates some of the difficulties of defining truth.

Step 1:  Go to Epistemology Intro.   Please read this page and take notes on what you think are the most important parts.  This will provide you with a good framework of topics, theories and "isms" for Epistemology.

Step 2:  Add to your note above or make a new one by "doing" and then commenting on your own illusions in this Optical Illusions and Acquiring Knowledge sheet.

Step 3:  Using p. 196, Question 1 as a guide, read and take notes on Chapter 9 of the text.

Step 4:  Watch this short Bill Nye video on YouTube.

You will end up taking notes on all three of the chapters listed above so if you can, start note-taking this week.

DAY 28 Mar 12 Seminar Prep and Fun

We spent some time discussing what's expected of you when you return from March Break and then we played a little trivia for fun!

DAY 27 Mar 11 Seminar Prep

Today is a day to continue prepping for the seminars - we looked at the 5 Proofs of God reading by Aquinas and then you had time for creating your Q & A in preparation for the seminar.

Because of the timelines we're working under (March Break, Alps Trip), the schedule will be as follows:

All Q & A are due on Friday, March 26, BEGINNING of class.
Seminar 1 - Monday, March 30  Raven, Emily, Sophie, Hayley, Sam, Kara, Jessica
Seminar 2 - Tuesday, March 31  Kalsey, Tia, Danny, Sean, Carli, Jeff

DAY 26 Mar 10 Seminar Prep Continued

More prep - hooray!

DAY 25 Mar 9 Seminar Prep Begins

Today we'll start prepping for our first seminar. We sat as a group and spent 20 minutes on each of the three primary source documents giving everyone the opportunity to take notes to help get you started in your understanding of each document.

In this course we explore the ideas of many Western and non-Western thinkers who have influenced modern thought, social structures and law and punishment.

An important way to learn about these thinkers is to read their ideas, stories, diary entries etc. (primary source documents) to gain a further understanding of their point of view during their time period and then to examine how that point of view has changed or adapted through the years.  Seminars are an important part of university studies so to help prepare you for that you will be part of a group that discusses the main ideas and philosophies from the writings - we'll do this in a round-table discussion in class.
---------------

1.  Read each document, and take notes on the main ideas presented in them.
2.  Think of other areas of human life (law and order, education, health care, environment, politics etc.) where these ideas are used.  Pair the main ideas of the writer with these societal links.
3.  Write six (6) questions (two for each document).  In one of the two questions per document base the question on a quote from the reading.  For the other question, make a societal link.

eg:  In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Plato writes, "Those prisoners are like ourselves.  The prisoners see nothing of themselves or each other except for the shadows each one's body casts on the back wall of the cave.  Similarly, they see nothing of the objects behind them, except for their shadows moving on the wall."  In this quote Plato is explaining to the reader that freedom of thought and vision is lacking in the lives of the prisoners.  How does this lack of freedom control the prisoners and what does Plato believe determines their lack of actions?

eg:  The prisoners is Plato's Allegory of the Cave are bound by physical chains.  These chains keep them together, and yet deny them any kind of interaction.  How does the high school education system in Ontario achieve the same goals, albeit without the actual use of chains?

4.  Write an answer for each of your questions.  Use the vocabulary, ideas and philosophers from the unit to fully and articulately answer your questions at the Grade 12 University level.
5.  Participate in a seminar.  In this format I will moderate and you will participate.  This is much like an informal debate or an intense discussion.  Someone will start by asking one of their questions and then you will answer, debate or object to their point of view.  You will be marked not on the number of your formal questions that you ask, but on your ability to answer and debate the questions of your peers.

The marking scheme will be based on the following:
Evaluation

Preprepared Questions for the seminar
Thinking:        /20
Questions are comprehensive, thorough, challenging                /10   
Responses are thorough, discuss several different possibilities            /10   

Knowledge        /10
Links to modern thought, social structures and law and punishment
 are clear, precise and have justifiable examples                    /10   

Mark During Seminar Discussion
Communication    /20
Ability to participate with clear responses to questions                 /10   
Expansion of given ideas and creative societal links clearly explained, justified    /10   

Application        /10
Precise, justified and creative contributions made, explaining the significance
of the articles, and your interpretation of them                    /10   

DAY 24 Mar 8 Peer Edit ALFQ

This is your day to peer edit your ALFQ project - many of you did, others worked on ALFQ because it wasn't quite ready for peer editing. 

Tomorrow we'll start getting ready for seminars.

DAY 23 Mar 5 ALFQs Last Day to Work on It

This is the last day to work on this project in class.  I'm here to help clarify.  It's due Monday.  See previous posts for the assignment and for other information about it.

DAY 22 Mar 4 ALFQs Further Work

We spent the first 2/3 of class offering ideas to each other.  Each of you spent some time explaining to the rest of the class a clear connection that you have made between your book and an idea or thinker in Metaphysics.

For example, Dan explained how Elie is a Nihilist.  Cam explained the theory of Determinism in the The Shack.

This was a powerful way for everyone to articulate understanding of various concepts in Metaphysics.

Then you spent some time with further reading and study of your books.

DAY 21 Mar 3 ALFQs

This was a day to continue working on your project in class - please see previous posts for the assignments.

DAY 20 Mar 2 Life Is Beautiful

We finished watching the film today and then discussed several possible questions that arise in the movie.

Here are links to Life is Beautiful Questions and to Life is Beautiful Quotes to help your thinking.

DAY 19 Mar 1 Life is Beautiful

Continuing with your work on the Answering Life's Fundamental Questions project, today is a day to watch Life is Beautiful with English Subtitles.  See the last couple of posts for information on the project.

DAY 18 More ALFQs

In my absence today, please continue working on your novel in class as you have been for a couple days now - great job everyone!  We'll watch the film next week.

Bon Weekend!

DAY 17 Feb 25 More ALFQs

This was another in-class reading note-taking day.  A good opportunity to get some clarification from me on expectations and content of the books.

See yesterday's blog for options and the handout for this assignment.

DAY 16 Feb 24 Answering Life's Fundamental Questions

Metaphysical questions permeate every aspect of human existence. Perhaps this is why so
many books and movies focus on answering questions such as, What is reality? What is the
meaning of life? and Does a supreme being exist?

Books and movies that deal with metaphysical questions challenge people to clarify their
responses to the questions raised, something that I have challenged you to do throughout Metaphysics.

This Answering Life's Fundamental Questions activity requires you to watch a movie and read a book, each of which deals with an issues of Metaphysical importance. In doing so, you will draw on your understanding
of metaphysical questions, concepts, and theories to evaluate how effectively the book and movie handles them.

Day 15 Feb 23 Life's Fundamental Questions

First things first - I collected the rest of the Snowdon projects along with the two copies of peer edited work.

Then I had a lookie at your notebooks - clearly some of you think you can get through a Grade 12U course without taking notes and well, I'm going to be marking your notebooks so please get over that thought (those of you who don't take notes).

To complete your prep for the next project, you spent the rest of the class on the following work listed below.
We started this by having a light-hearted look at Aquinas by having a boo at this video (ignore the first 30 seconds, I can't understand it either??).  You may want to have a look at some of the other related videos on that page of YouTube, although some are not for the faint of heart as there is a fair bit of bad language so be careful.


Read Chapter 8, pp. 155 - 171 and take notes where relevant.
Create a new note to complete Questions 1, 2 & 3 on page 172.  

For Question 2 you can use this chart on the Arguments FOR and AGAINST the Existence of a Supreme Being to help organize your thoughts. 

DAY 14 Feb 22 Meaning for Existence

First things first - everyone submitted their good copy of Snowdon along with their two peer edited rough drafts.  Yay!  Obviously I had a belief (faith) that was greater than the collective ability of the class to live up to.  Several of you did, in fact, submit a good copy of Snowdon and two peer edited copies (Tia, Emily, Sam, Dan).

This next section of Metaphysics deals with the meaning of life and systems of belief.  We will be looking at the concepts of Supreme Beings and their existence or non-existence, Freedom of Thought, and the influence of the non-physical.   Is there a Supreme Being or God?  Why are we here?  Are we free to make our own decisions?  These are some of the main ideas we'll examine.

Keeping in mind the ideas above, we first watched this video of a light-hearted look at how the 10 Commandments came to be followed by a brief discussion.

Next I asked everyone to respond in writing to the question, "Are we free to believe?" as your first Philosophy Bites entry - this is a little like your own diary, journal, in your head meeting minutes, record, thinking legacy . . . well, it's hard to describe, but a place to write what you're thinking when a new idea is raised in this class.

Next I asked everyone to respond in one coherent sentence to the question, a oldie but a goody, "What is the meaning of life for you?"

Some of the ideas that arose from this ended up in three categories on chart paper on the back wall (Tia, Raven and Sophie wrote for the class):
Theological - emotions, divine purpose, altruism, passing traditions and beliefs to the next generation, 

Philosophical - leaving a legacy, exploring, happiness, nihilism, creating your own meaning, gain power,

Scientific - procreation, survival, finding beauty in nature, finding the meaning in life,

DAY 13 Feb 19 Snowdon Peer Edit Day

See yesterday's post for the Snowdon assignment and the note-taking preceding it.

Today is peer edit day - your peer edited work needs to be submitted along with your good copy on Monday.

So far I'm thoroughly enjoying listening to all of your insightful comments in this class - well done everyone! 

And welcome to Emily !

DAY 12 Feb 18 Mind or Matter and Snowdon

This is generally a work period for everyone as you probably haven't finished the work below as of last night.
Your job: read pp. 133 - 139.  Create a new note, as per good note taking form discussed earlier, on the following:
    Personhood
    John Locke
    Daniel Dennett
    Mary Anne Warren
    Annette Baier
    Personal Identity
    Derek Parfit

For each person above be sure to create a note covering their entire theory, including quotes if possible.

Here's your first marked assignment:

Listen to Paul Snowdon's discussion on Persons and Animals".  Based on this discussion, in approximately 1000 words explain which Philosopher (from Step 4 above) you think Paul Snowdon would agree with the most, in terms of constituting personhood.  Do you think animals with no understanding of consciousness should be considered persons?

Rough draft is due on Friday, Feb 19 - two copies for peer editing - beginning of class.
Final good copy including peer edited copies due on Monday, Feb 22, beginning of class.

Here's the marking scheme:

Knowledge:        /20
   /10 Your chosen philosopher's theory is clearly explained and you use quotes to support your idea.
   /10 You clearly link the premises (ideas) outlined in your philosopher's theory, supported with quotes, to the ideas in Snowdon's discussion, again supported with quotes.       

Thinking:        /20

   /10  The inferences/assumptions that you make about Snowdon's opinion regarding consciousness are warranted based on reason.   
   /10  You use substantiated evidence (quotations/examples from the lecture) of Snowdon's ideas to support your assumptions.   

Application:        /20
   /5  A clear connection has been made between your philosopher's theory and Snowdon's idea of a person, using quotes to support the connection(s) you make.           
   /5 Your personal opinion as to why animals are or are not persons is clearly and effectively explained.         
   /10 Two copies of your rough draft are ready on Friday for peer editing.  They are both submitted, with your peers' edits on them, along with the final good copy on Monday.

Communication    /20
   /5 Written language clearly conveys your understanding of information and ideas.                       
   /5 Proper language conventions (style, syntax) are used and there are no spelling or grammar errors.                   
   /10 None of your ideas overstep evidentiary limits (you use substantial proof from your philosopher and the lecture).  

Here's a link to Snowdon assignment including the marksheet.

DAY 11 Feb 17 Mind or Matter

After excellent discussions yesterday we finished the lecture on the Bonobo Monkeys with a brief discussion.  Again, the discussion came around to physical attributes vs. potentialities.  What about the baby who cannot yet walk but has every potential to walk in the future - are they currently "persons"?  What about the person who can do less than the Bonobo monkey (e.g. brain damage)? 

Next step: respond to the question: "What is more important to your personal identity: Mind (Consciousness) or Matter (Brain & Body)?"

Read pp. 133 - 139.  Create a new note, as per good note taking form discussed earlier, on the following:
    Personhood
    John Locke
    Daniel Dennett
    Mary Anne Warren
    Annette Baier
    Personal Identity
    Derek Parfit

For each person above be sure to create a note covering their entire theory, including quotes if possible.

DAY 10 Feb 16 Persons, Minds & Brains

We started by having a discussion about your responses to First Class Travel - interesting indeed!  We had responses including:

Teleportation = a way of dying.  Body and mind no longer exist during the process, therefore from a Materialistic (materialism) point of view, one cannot be alive, hence cannot be considered a person.

Teleportation = is a quick way of cell replacement in the same way that nature replaces most of our cells in a seven year cycle, therefore it's not equivalent to dying. 

Teleportation = the experience of teleportation does not change the ultimate outcome wherein one's personality/mind/spirit etc. remains intact therefore it's not equivalent to dying.

Teleportation = we can ignore the idea of the "goo" in the process as that's total fantasy.  But the idea of dismantling and then reconstructing the same cellular structure through teleportation only accounts for a physical replica and the same human potential, in fact we couldn't even tell if someone had been through the teleporter.

Then I asked everyone to consider the questions, "What is a Person?" and "What is Personal Identity?" as we watched this video of an orangutan behaving like a human.  Discussion followed.

Then, still keeping in mind the questions, "What is a Person?" and "What is Personal Identity?" watch this video clip from a lecture of Susan Savage-Rumbaugh discussing Bonobo monkeys and her challenge to us to rethink how much of what a species can do is determined by biology -- and how much by cultural exposure.


Then a discussion of this question: "What is more important to your personal identity: Mind (Consciousness) or Matter (Brain & Body)?

DAY 9 Feb 12 First Class Travel

This was an in-class work day for you to complete First Class Travel - see yesterday's post for details.

DAY 8 Feb 11 Review of Metaphysics Theories & First Class Travel

Today we did some review of the theories discussed so far in Metaphysics (see yesterday's work).  Many of you spoke to the class about which theory resonates best with you and you offered splendid examples of how that is so.

Read "First Class Travel", p. 140 and complete this question:

1.  Is stepping into the transporter a way of traveling or a way of dying?  Why?
2.  What would Hobbes (a materialist) say about Q. 1 above?
3.  Would this be an acceptable way of travel to a philosopher who adheres to the:
    - substance theory (Descartes)
    - bundle theory (Hume)
    - project theory (Sartre)

DAY 7 Feb 10 Metaphysics Note-Taking

This is an in-class work period for you to complete the text work as assigned at the end of yesterday's class as follows:

Read Chapter 6, pp. 112 - 119, and p. 122 & p. 125 and take notes on the following ideas:
    Idealism
    Realism
    Materialism
    Monoism
    Dualism
    Determinism
    Ontology
    Substance Theory
    Bundle Theory
    Narrative Structure
    Project Theory

The key to making effective notes is to use headings and sub-headings and to write the information in your own words.  For each new piece of information you should include an example.  What you want to create are notes that are easy to scan each day (or at least 4 times a week) and then read, so please don't be shy of colours for heading and subheadings and use colours for underlining too.

DAY 6 Feb 9 More on Reality vs. Perception

We did a review for a few students who missed yesterday's introduction to Metaphysics - Dualism, Idealism, Materialism, God, etc.

We watched the 6 minute clip on Survivor (an immunity challenge) and then we watched another animation of the Allegory of the Cave.  Your next question was, "What is Reality and what is Perception?".  Many of you wrote answers and some did not - but those who did not thought well about the issue and explained it well to the class.

One underlying theme that many of you raised is the potential for multiple realities . . .  e.g. based on your experiences you interpret things differently and hence have different realities.  Look at Truman from the Truman Show - the only thing he ever knew was the reality created for him by Christof, the show's producer along with all of the other people who helped to maintain the world.

Here's your next job:
Read Chapter 6, pp. 112 - 119, and p. 122 & p. 125 and take notes on the following ideas:
    Idealism
    Realism
    Materialism
    Monoism
    Dualism
    Determinism
    Ontology
    Substance Theory
    Bundle Theory
    Narrative Structure
    Project Theory

DAY 5 Feb 8 METAPHYSICS

This was a day of discussion and introduction to Metaphysics, the first big unit of study in the course.

We had a nice round-table discussion of various ideas in Metaphysics and everyone present was pushed to their intellectual limits with some of the questions posed.

In the handout, Intro to Metaphysics, we covered Idealism, Dualism, Materialism, The Problem if Evil, and then the Idea of God (Cosmological Argument, Argument from Design, Ontological Argument).

Today a number of people skipped my class.  This was very disappointing to me - it's an academic level Grade 12 class from which you can use your mark for College or University applications so this mark counts!  You cannot do well if you miss many classes.  Also, I'm "Mr. Approachable" so there's really no reason not to speak to me if you need to miss my class for a legitimate reason.

Day 4 Feb 5 THIS: I Believe

This I Believe is an international project engaging people in writing, sharing, and discussing the core values that guide their daily lives. These short statements of belief, written by people from all walks of life, are archived here and featured on public radio in the United States and Canada, as well as in regular broadcasts on National Public Radio. The project is based on the popular 1950s radio series of the same name hosted by Edward R. Murrow.

Listen
Go to the website  This I Believe   or this site as a backup This I Believe CBC .  Look around the site to see who has contributed.  Writers include famous actors, Nobel Prize winners, students, parents ... people from all walks of life.  Find an essay that appeals to you.  Listen to it, and answer the following question: 
How does this belief mesh with my own beliefs?  Make sure your answer includes the name and author of the essay. Respond in writing (a full paragraph or two or three, please - this IS a 12U course so get to work.

Read
Look at the work of one of your peers after they've printed it or sent it to you via email.  Write a response to your peer's response to the "essay" that they listened to online.

DAY 3 Feb 4 Intro

The Socratic Method ("Ya But . .")- Question and Answer -
Ask a simple question which is straightforward, e.g.
Q. What is Courage? (Straightforward Question)
A. Courage is the lack of fear in facing a potentially hazardous situation. (Straightforward answer).

Then - ask a question with a counter-example refuting some of what was in the first answer.
Q. What about the mother who is afraid of dogs yet still protects her small child from a bad dog?  (This question indicates that the original answer was somehow incomplete, incorrect, biased, or needing further clarification).
A. Well, yes, the mother has fear in that case, but not enough fear to keep her from protecting her kid.

This Q & A continues until both sides agree that the original question has been answered clearly enough.

Then people practiced with topics like love, justice, loyalty, happiness, what a swan is. 

SYLLOGISM
An Argument - a series of statements beginning with a premise (or premises) and a conclusion.
The premise is a statement (proposition) that provide a reason for arriving at the conclusion.
e.g. The premise, "All humans are mortal", is true.
"I am human, therefore . . . 
I am mortal".

It wouldn't work to leave out the middle premise, "I am human."   e.g.
"All humans are mortal.
Therefore I am mortal."   Because there's no logical connection between the two statements.

Also, you must start with and continue with correct premises to reach a valid conclusion.
e.g. "All mortals are human.
I am a mortal, therefore . . .
I am a human."    This is not true because the first premise is incorrect.

or "All humans are immortal.  I am a human.  Therefore, I am immortal."

or . .  "All swans are white.  I am a swan, therefore I am white."

Aristotle's "syllogism" consists of two premises and a conclusion.

In these invalid cases, the argument is valid but the conclusion is not.

DAY 2 Feb 3

We started by rolling the dice and we came up with some ideas that you want to discuss (as well as some ideas about what Philosophy is all about . . . as follows:


Raven knows that it is not true that Sophie's hair is blonde. She knows this because she can see that Sophie's hair is red.

Sam would like to know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Danny suggests that this requires circular reasoning.

Sean knows that anything that you can sense must be reason, a cat for example.

The Ship of Theseus - is it the various parts of the ship that make it the ship? What makes the ship the ship? Is it the "intention" of the ship? At what point could it be a new ship during the reconstruction process?


Then we went to the Library to make everyone a Gmail account that includes your first and last name and then you joined as a follower of our class blog where everything you ever needed to know about this course will be stored and we'll update it daily.

Welcome to Philosophy ! !

This is where to find all the information you could ever imagine you'd want about the course - dates that you choose for assignments, notes from class, assignments, whatever, it will be here.

Yay for us!!

Here's a link for the licensed online text.

Welcome to Philosophy ! !

Welcome to our class - this is where all the information you could ever possibly want about the course will be posted. Notes from class, dates that the class agrees to, my comments, whatever, it's all here.

In class review

Thank you Nicole for sending me the in-class notes! Here it is for all to enjoy!

Philosophy Exam Review (Long paper)
 
Question 1. New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common”
Theories, appropriate vocabulary and philosophers, explain the validity of Locke's words (metaphysics/epistemology)
 
Idealism- that says reality consists of ideas in the minds of people who create their own reality, the idea of a person is right in their own mind, and anything that opposes it would be wrong and therefore rejected
Seen in Religion, mainly Christians, values for example sins, some people have different views on what a
sin is and what it isn't and what should be and shouldn't be.
 
St. Aquinas would back up this theory as a Christian philosopher who wrote the five proof of God
How do we know that these ideas are reality right in the first place?
 
Question 2. “We make wars so that we may live in peace” ( metaphysics)
            Explaining the essence of being human with that quote.
 
Cosmological; everything comes from something else, for something to get peace, you must sacrifice some peace. You need the opposite side of the spectrum to know what good and bad. Continuum...
 
Free will-ism; free to live in peace, give a little get a lot, give up something to gave something
 
Narrative theory; actions of war have better outcome then peace.
 
Question 3. Are there some things that human can never know?
 
Rationalism; Descartes, Doubt
 
Empiricism; Locke; you experience to know, and because you can't experience everything therefore you can’t know everything.
 
Brain in a Vat; we can't know anything because we don’t know
 
Matrix; reality vs perception, You see what is in front of you but you don't know if it is really there
 
Question 4
 
What moral obligations do parents have to their children? Point of view of at least two other schools of
ethical thought.
 
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment on that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence, basically, "the ends justify the means". A parent's moral obligation to their children is to craft them into a competent individual who has an equal opportunity in life compared to everyone else. Thus, if the kid's upbringing will have a negative effect on their development, from a consequentialist's standpoint, it would be morally wrong. 

 

Deontological ethics is the approach to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics ]ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Opposite to consequentialism, deontologists believe that the character of the decision matters more than the consequence. Therefore if they believed that having children was a morally correct thing then they would not care about whether or not you

 
Question 5. Invasion of the Body-snatchers (Ethics)
 
Thomas Malthus; population control.
The five deadly ill people are bringing down society, because they are not contributing anything thing to society, nature be allowed to take its course and the people should just die! (Peacefully as it is
there right...though Malthus would not care)
 
Kant; Do whatever the moral agent says, Meaning it is not up to the doctor to make this decision it is
up to the pizza guy, and he has the liberty to decided what he felt was morally right to him.
 
 

Exam: Part A examples

1. "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till ..." -Plato
Agree or disagree?

Agree:
- gov't link: objective because of need of evidence (philosophers are subjective)
- Locke: use senses (empirical evidence used)
- Utilitarianism: greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, philosophers would look out for more people than the gov't (ex: Fort Erie has closed hospital rooms to save money)
Disagree:
- nothing can be known, therefore a ruler is not any more knowledgable (Pyrros)

2. What is the nature of being human?
- theism: believing that a supreme being created everything and is interested in the well-being of its creations; need for supreme being to give purpose to life
- Locke: scope of intelligence separtes us from other animals, as do reason and reflection (Locke does allow for non-humans to fall into the criteria of being "human")
- deism: a god created the world but does not interfere with it's running; therefore we can make our own decisions because there is a belief that we are created in God's image, link to personhood because we are keepers
- Descartes: use of imagination (thoughts and decisions separate us from animal)
- pragmitism: acquisition of knowledge, looking for more (John Dewey)

3. "The opposite of love is not hate ..." (Wiesel)
Comment on and defend/reject this statement ...
Defend statement:
- Descartes: substance theory (cannot be changed - being)
- Hume: Bundle (objects in purse); perception of experiences in life that change you, need to experience it in order for it to affect you
- metaphysical continuum: perception of experience is not indifference
- Monism: Spinoza realties exist of one particular thing and everything else is an expression of that one thing (God is the one thing, everything branches off it); in this case indifference is the one thing that everything branches off of

Declaration of Human Rights

1. Choose three philosophers.
2. Write two declarations from the point of view of your chosen philosophers.
3. Brainstorm possible societal links.
4. Write a paragraph otlining why your article links to your person.
5. Outline the tangible societal link.

EX:

My Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1

Every person has the right to the conditions necessary to subsist. This includes the right to food, shelter, clothing, and medicine. – The Buddha

Article 2

Every person has the right to their choice of religion – or choice of none - as well as the freedom to safely practice their beliefs. –The Buddha

Buddha and modern Buddhists follow a philosophy of equality, peace, comfort and temperance. This makes them perfect candidates for formulating a declaration of human rights. As well, they have a admirable tolerance and acceptance with people of all creeds; everyone deserves basic rights.2
The first article covers the bare minimum required for human survival. Although obviously not every person is a Buddhist, the minimum requirements preached by the Buddha should be available to all. As mentioned, Buddha stated that the conditions necessary to live a comfortable life are food, shelter, clothing, and medicine. While it is totally acceptable to indulge ones self further the inhabitants of society should never be denied those 4 conditions.1

The second article is one that Buddhists are well respected for. Buddha realized that not everyone has the same inclinations and beliefs, and so he taught a variety of methods of practice; variation depended on the beliefs of the person. Following the Buddha the Dali Lama has acknowledged the wonder of a world filled with so many religions. It is a Buddhist understanding that just as one food will not appeal to everybody, one religion will not satisfy everyone’s needs. Thus it is common, even required, for a Buddhist to allow different beliefs to exist; the world benefits from such a ranging selection of beliefs to choose.3
____________________

Article 5- Thomas Aquinas
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude

Thomas Aquinas, Italian philosopher and Christian theologian, was the first to combine the idea of God with reasoning, happiness and virtue. He believed that people could only achieve perfection by using their reason to know God. Thomas said an action is considered moral if God accepts it. “What God deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.”(Aquinas) He believed an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our human end, which is happiness.

How it relates to today

On Wednesday November 25th, 2009 federal prosecutors reported that they discovered an infant of a Mexican prostitute. However, this lady was not a prostitute by choice; a New York couple that resided in Brooklyn forced her. She was smuggled to the U.S by these two people. They kept her in a home where she was treated horribly. She was made to do disgusting things. On top of that, she was beaten so frequently with bricks and wooden boards that her body was covered with scars and bruises. Thomas Aquinas would disapprove of this event because not only did the couple break the law but they also broke one of the ten commandants, “Thou shalt not steal.” This New York couple stole the Mexican lady’s innocence and dignity and they stole her away from her country and family. Essentially, they stole her life without killing her.

Chapter 13 Notes

Notes from today!

Chapter 13: Review

Three main questions:
1. What is a good life
2. What is a good person
3. What is the right thing to do

Buddhism:
· Gautama (the Buddha), 6th century India
· Must follow eightfold path to reach nirvana (enlightenment)
· Live in harmony with self and nature
· Virtues such as non-violence and patience enables people to get closer to enlightenment
· Right to choice essential
· Why is Buddhism important in ethics?

Confucianism:
· People are not individuals but part of a whole
· The whole can include family and community

Taoism: History and Differences/Similarities to Confucianism
· A virtue ethic
· If you live a good life you display the 5 main virtues; kindness, righteousness, decorum, wisdom (integrity), faithfulness
· Similar to Confucianism in that a person is a part of a whole (community and family but also a member of the universe)
· Focus on defining and cultivating a harmonious society
· Lao-tzu, 6th century BCE, China

Hedonism:
· A philosophy that emphasizes that the good life is one devoted to pleasure

Aristotle and Virtue Ethicism:
· Moral choices are decided by the character of the person rather than by the actions of the person and the results they garner
· Defined as using the role of character in defining moral actions
· Must act according to right reason; rational part of person must work with irrational part to decide a middle path between the two extremes of virtue (golden mean)
Aquinas and virtue ethicism:
· Christian theologian who said that people can act good and perfect only if they use their reason to know God

Ross and virtue ethicism:
· 20th century English philosopher
· had 7 virtues that were more than virtues. They were duties or obligations of humans towards others
· 7 virtues are: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence (improving the conditions of others), self-improvement, non-maleficence (not hurting others)

Existentialism:
· Kierkegaard: 19th century Danish philosopher
· Authentic choices are essential to humans
· Must have consistency of perception, thought and action
· Kierkegaard focuses on the existence of the individual
· Nietzche: 19th century German philosopher
· make own moral choices instead of deciding based on the ideas of the masses
· Said that faith in God was disappearing, therefore people must determine their own values
· Sartre: 20th century French philosopher
· Became an atheist as a result of watching the horrors of WWII
· Said that no master plan or planner governs human existence
· Defined as a movement that focuses on individual autonomy and the necessity of making reasoned decisions for oneself
· Theory has been disputed recently as complete personal freedom could/may lead to anarchy

Divine Command:
· Defined as: a theory that says that right and wrong are defined by the commands of a supreme being
· In every religion (basically)
· Always being debated because it is favoured by the gods, or do the gods favour it because it is right?

Utilitarianism:
· The greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is the reason for any moral decision
· All decisions are moral
· Jeremy Bentham (18th century English philosopher)
· John Stuart Mill (Bentham’s godson) added to Bentham’s ideas
· A chief strength of utilitarianism is that it encourages choice and discussion when making decisions
· A critique of utilitarianism is that the words happiness (pleasure, good) can be interpreted in many different ways

Kantian Ethicism:
· Immanuel Kant (German philosopher)
· Moral choices must be judged, not by the consequences, but by the good will of the moral agent