DAY 89 Performance Task

You will have today and tomorrow to complete the Performance Task.  Here it is - enjoy!

Performance Task for Online Philosophy, HZT4UO

Outline your personal philosophy regarding the issue(s) raised in one of the news articles listed below.  Also choose two philosophers and outline how and why they would agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy.  You can choose one philosopher who agrees and one who disagrees with your personal philosophy if you like.

Your answer must include the following:

·        Paragraph 1: your personal philosophy regarding the news article (it's a good idea to start with a brief discussion of the issue raised in the article and which part of philosophy (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics) it falls under).

·        Paragraph 2: an outline of a philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.

·        Paragraph 3: an outline of a second philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.

This is meant to be a relatively small assignment so please limit your writing to two pages (500 words) excluding any direct quotes or paraphrases that you use.

Please upload your work to the Performance Task Dropbox when you’re done.

Evaluation:  This response will be worth 10% of your final mark.  The Exam is 20%.

KNOWLEDGE                        /10

You summarize THEORIES correctly and fully and use appropriate UNIT VOCABULARY.  

THINKING                              /10

You outline your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY regarding the news article and explain how it links to one of the studied units.

COMMUNICATION              /10

You COMMUNICATE IDEAS with clarity using appropriate language and vocabulary from the course/unit, with purpose and audience in mind and without errors in grammar, spelling or syntax.

APPLICATION                       /10

You identify and evaluate conclusions, implications, and consequences while making connections between your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY and the THEORIES you use.  You OUTLINE HOW AND WHY your chosen philosophers would agree/disagree with you and use direct quotes to help in this process.

 List of articles from which to choose – please do this assignment for only one of these articles  J   

If you would like to search further on any of these topics to help your thinking please do so.

SurvivorSpeaks About Being a Bangladeshi Garment Worker

Is Therea Place in the Brain for God?  

Conflictat the Top of the World

AntiAbortion Bill in the USA

MercuryPoisoning in First Nations

AntiBullying Bill Passes into Law in Ontario

TanningBeds and the Rights of Minors

TraditionalInuit Knowledge

DAY 76 - The Biggest Ethics Question: YES or NO ? ?

This is the beginning of your next project, "Yes / No Presentation."

Please have a look at the assignment first, Yes / No Presentation.

Then look at  My examples.

Then look at this first Student Example. Presentation    Document

Then look at this second Student Example.  Example 2   Document 2 

Now Start  :-)

DAY 74 Cont'd. - Some Ethics Terminology

Some Ethical Terms

1. Right and Wrong

You can make a right turn and go the wrong way and still have done nothing right or wrong, in an ethical sense. In ethics, right is defined as the act that you should do, according to the rules of normative ethics. Wrong, then, is the act you should not do, the opposite of right.

2. Good and Bad

A good act is one that should be done and a bad act is one that should not be done. But how is this different from right and wrong? This is a confusing question and some philosophers argue there is no difference between these sets of terms. On the other hand, some would argue that right actions will bring about good, while wrong actions will not. The good is thus an end and right is a means to it: the right thing to do is the act that brings about the good. It is the same as what you want and how you get it.

However, sometimes acts usually considered wrong can be considered good. For example, killing is wrong, and in normal society it is severely punished. But when Canada fielded large armies in both World Wars, Canadian soldiers killed enemy troops and civilians. Some of them did it so efficiently they received high praise, medals, and were honoured by having streets and schools named after them. Clearly then, killing is wrong only some of the time, and can be deemed to be not wrong in some contexts.

Can a wrong act bring about a good result? Likewise, can a right action bring about bad results? Or do acts need to be taken in isolation, rather than in terms of their outcomes?

3. Moral, Immoral, and Amoral

These terms describe people or actions. A moral person acts according to the ethical norms of society, behaving in the way that one should behave. A moral act is one that is in accordance with these norms. For example, a person who is scrupulously honest is considered moral; the act of being honest is a moral act. Immoral means the opposite.

Amoral, on the other hand, concerns acts or people not covered by moral norms. For example, stealing candy from a baby would be considered immoral, while stealing candy from a squirrel would not be. In fact, the act of taking candy from a squirrel would not even be considered stealing in the normal sense of the term. What is the difference? Babies are within the "moral community" and people owe them moral obligations, whereas squirrels are not owed obligations. Acts towards them are considered neither moral nor immoral.

Of course, some philosophers would argue that we do have moral obligations to squirrels...

4. Duties and Obligations and the Moral Community

The 'moral community' is defined as the group to which you owe duties and obligations, which are the "shoulds" of ethical behaviour. For example, most people would agree that the moral community includes other humans, and that we have an obligation to act morally towards them, not to lie or steal from them.

But consider animals: some would argue that animals should be members of the human 'moral community' and are owed obligations. This is especially the case with pet animals. For example, do you have moral obligations to your pet dog? Would it be immoral to tell your dog a lie or to steal from her in the same way it would be immoral to do the same to your 

brother? If you feel that lying to your dog is immoral, then perhaps you are including your dog in the group to whom you owe moral obligations.

On the other hand, some ethical normative systems exclude humans who do not belong to the group that follows the system, thus putting these humans outside the moral community. An example would be societies practising slavery. In this case, human slaves are regarded as being outside the moral community. Some religious ethical systems set out different moral obligations owed to believers and non-believers.

5. Egoism and Altruism

Egoism is acting to benefit one's self. It is also known as 'self-interest' or 'selfishness'. An egoist always looks out for him or herself. The opposite of this is altruism, or 'selflessness'. Altruistic behaviour takes into account the needs of others and an altruist might sacrifice him or herself to help others. An example of this is someone jumping into an ice-choked river to save a child who is drowning. Some philosophers argue that people are by nature egoistic, even if they appear to be acting altruistically. In this example, it could be argued that the rescuer was behaving egoistically, and their motive was an expectation that they would receive praise for their heroism, or, if not that, a knowledge that if they didn't attempt the rescue they would feel guilty and awful forever. On the other hand, maybe they were acting altruistically. Some philosophers argue that altruism is a defining characteristic of being human and that helping others is the right thing to do, by nature.

6. Right, Legal, and Just

Codes of law and codes of ethics both aim to provide guidance for one's behaviour. However, law is the attempt to codify and enforce moral behaviour, and often includes exceptions to the rule. The law will be concerned if you physically harm your little brother without good cause, but not if you scare the day lights out of him with that story about the monster under his bed. Morally, both acts are wrong. Lying is a central concern of Ethics, but usually not of law.

In addition, law is a tool for social policy. As such, laws change over time in response to changing social norms. For example, in Canada, women were not considered legal 'persons' in the full sense until 1929. In Ontario, slavery was legal until 1833 with the passing of the 1833 British Imperial Act. In 1968 the federal government of Canada decriminalized homosexual behaviour between adults. Thus it can be seen that laws change, but when a law changes does it mean that something once immoral is now moral?

Just laws are those that are fair to everyone. Unjust laws by comparison are those that are not fair or right, in the ethical sense. If slavery is legal, does that make it right? The Holocaust was legal, but did that make it right? Many would argue that we have the right—even the obligation—of fighting unjust laws.

One of America's best known 19th century writers, Henry David Thoreau, argued there were times when people needed to resist the law and choose a course of civil disobedience. Thus it was morally right to disobey the government under certain circumstances.

DAY 74 - Ethics and You Again

BIG QUESTION: Can People Be Good Without God?

_

What are some possible answers?

Humanists would say that Ethics is so deeply ingrained in human culture that even we all adhere to common values.

Social Peace is always a goal in societies throughout time - and the way societies reach that goal is through the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, rational moral inquiry, etc. and both Religious and Non-Religious people can and do share these values.

Is God Necessary for Morality?

Many would argue that without a Supreme Being, there can be no morality. This was famously expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, where two characters argue about the possibility of an atheistic morality. The conclusion is that God is needed for morality to exist, for without God 'everything is permitted'.

Here's how he said it: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth?" (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov, Toronto: Penguin Classics, 2003, p 227.)

In plain English, "Imagine that you are creating a society in which the purpose is to make people happy and peaceful.  But in order to create this society it was essential to torture to death only one tiny creature, an innocent baby.  Would you be a part of this?

The formulation above basically makes a case that the existence of evil in our world is incompatible with the existence of God.

Many would agree that a Divinity is needed to guarantee moral behaviour, through a system of punishment and reward in the Afterlife. In Christianity, those who behave morally can hope to be rewarded with a place in Heaven. For those who behave immorally, their place will be somewhat warmer and less pleasant. Other religions have a different system of reward and punishment, but the basic principle is the same. For example, in the karmic religions, good behaviour is rewarded with a higher reincarnation than bad behaviour. For those who believe in a Supreme Being and the reward/punishment system, the question, "Why behave morally?" can be answered in two ways:

1. Because that is what the Supreme Being wants and that is how you have been made, and
2. if you don't, you'll be sorry!

But what of people who don't believe in God? Can an atheist behave morally - will the term even have any meaning? Of course there are many atheists who behave in ways that most would recognize as moral. But what makes them behave? Or what of those who believe in a Supreme Being, but not in the system of reward and punishment or the Afterlife? Both groups could argue for a morality based on Humanist values, which takes into account the relations between members of society, without reference to the Divine. Many ethical systems, such as Confucianism, Aristotleanism, or Utilitarianism fall into this category, and God is irrelevant to the question, "Why behave morally?".

For You to Do:

List 3 Reasons to "Do the Right Thing".

Possible answers include:

1. To avoid getting caught and punished.  But what if you were invisible, would you still be virtuous?

2.  To earn trust and respect from others.  But what if no-one knew of you being virtuous?

3.  Golden Rule.

These answers to these questions suggest that the outcome - security, peace, justice, etc. - are inherently good things, so this is a somewhat circular argument.

Two schools of thought on Ethics.

Ethical Absolutists - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action.  They think that everyone, regardless of consequences, circumstances, culture, etc. should observe this moral code.

Ethical Universalitsts - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action.  But, they believe that it's ok for the code to be broken in certain circumstances, so that the ethical code is universal but not absolute.

Sophie's Choice film clip - What would an Ethical Absolutist say about the choice that Sophie made?  What would an Ethical Universalist say?

Absolutists and Universalists are at one end of the Ethical spectrum.  AT the other end are Ethical Relativists - reject the idea of a universal moral code.  Rather they say that all values are relative to time, place, persons and situations.  They believe that all rules about ethics and moral are acceptable because we cannot judge between them - they are subject to time, place, persons and situations..

The underlying point to Ethical Relativism is that morality depends on social customs.  E.g. in 13 American states the death penalty is legal, presumably because those societies agree with it, but in the other 37 states it is not legal, presumably, for the same reason.  Same with Canada - society as a whole does not think that capital punishment is just (i.e. moral or ethical) therefore in Canada capital punishment is not ethical.

The idea that  some moral rules are absolute while others are relative is important in a democracy  like Canada.  In fact we think it just (moral, ethical) to recognize the cultures of peoples from around the world and are, as a result, a very "relativist" society, while some ethics are absolute.

I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year.  This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer.  For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago).  So for these people that is one universal moral law.  Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed.  The Golden Rule also came up in discussion.  The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.

Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.

Now, fill in the chart - My Personal Moral Choices.

DAY 73 - Ethics and YOU !

Brief review and overview on what Ethics means.

Now, break into groups as per the list below and each group write up five examples of your own particular part of being an "Ethical Person in a Modern Country like Canada."

Groups:
Caring - volunteering and giving back, helping others, environmental protection, looking after your immediate circle of friends and family.
Fairness - equality, freedoms, justice for all, education for all, open representation in government
Respect - "Love is Love", respect all beliefs and traditions
Responsibility - pay taxes, help when possible, don't be part of the environmental problem.
Trustworthiness - don't mislead, take responsibility, be reliable, spirit of the "law"
Citizenship - mature citizenship, don't break law, get a job, don't litter

Follow Up Discussion.

View from from the 30 second mark - Immanuel Kant in Three Minutes.

Kid Rock - Steal Everything!  Sorry, he swears at the very beginning but it's still worth a look.

How do these videos relate to the groups that you were in??

The terms “ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably  (from the Latin, “mores” = character, customs, habits).

Generally speaking, we use the term “morals” or “morality” to describe one’s beliefs about how people should act.

Generally speaking we use the term “ethics” as the study of the theories about these beliefs.

Is there goodness in being selfish?  Youtube link.  First minute and a half

Three main schools of thought in Ethics:

1.       

Theories of Action – how people should act and why.  

E.g. Do you download music illegally?  (This question is NOT an ethical question)

Should you download music illegally?  (This question IS an ethical question)

2.       Theories of Character  (Virtue Ethics) – examination of peoples’ character traits as either good or bad.

E.g. Hitler had vision, wisdom and courage but was a mass murderer, a fanatic and a racist.

3.       Theories of Value – examination of the assessment of worth (value).

E.g. What is goodness?  Badness?  Justice?  Injustice?  Can you describe these ideas objectively or are they subject to cultural interpretation?  What groups share similar values?

Ethical dilemmas arise in all of humanity’s pursuits.

E.g. What are good and what is evil?

What is a good life?

What is a virtue?

Why should I be moral?

What obligations to people have to one another?

What obligations do people have to shared resources?

Question for YOU:

List FIVE Ethical Choices that you have already made or that you will have to make in the future.

For each of these choices, list all of the sources that you will consult for guidance.

Humanism – way of making moral decisions (behaviour) emphasizing human or secular, i.e. non-religious, sources for guidance, focusing on the role of free will in one’s decision-making.

Kongfuzi (Confucius) and Guatama (Buddha) are some of the earliest writers in Humanism.  Based on the Golden Rule – “What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others.”

This begs the question, “Is something right because the gods favour it, or do the gods favour it because it is right?”  Plato and Aristotle developed this question in a time where society believed in multiple gods (Roman and Greek gods).

More recently Gandhi said, “For a long time I believed that God was truth.  Now I know that truth is God.”

Aristotle took this a step further and developed the “Golden Mean” (virtue, or moral excellent) which is  the middle path between two extremes.   E.g. Generosity is the happy medium between Extreme Stinginess and Extreme Wastefulness.

Morality in Animals - Big Question about Humanism

Question for YOU:  List FIVE of your personal VIRTUES in the middle of three columns and list, on either side of it, the two extremes.  

Here are some virtues that might apply to you:

Acceptance, Accountability, Bravery, Caring, Charity, Commitment, Compassion, Confidence, Consideration, Cooperation, Courtesy, Dependability, Determination, Discretion, Discipline, Empathy, Enthusiasm, Forgiveness, Generosity, Grace, Gratitude, Helpfulness, Honesty, Humility, Humour, Integrity, Joyfulness, Kindness, Love, Perseverance, Reliability, Responsibility, Sincerity, Tact, Trustworthiness, Vitality, etc.

Moral Agents – someone who is capable of thinking about a moral problem, making a decision on how to act and then taking responsibility for her/his action.  E.g. most adults are considered moral agents.  Babies and most non-human animals are not considered moral agents because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions.  However babies and most non-human animals are still part of the equation because their interests and desires are considered to be important and deserving of moral treatment and consideration – these moral “patients” (not “moral agents”) have moral standing in the moral community.  So, you cannot abuse animals and you must give the necessities of life to babies.

Why study Ethics?  I think the best reasons are:

1.       To recognize moral issues

2.       To clarify your own values.

3.       To act upon your personal values as per # 1 & 2 above rather than to act upon values you have inherited or have been conditioned to accept.

4.       To be able to communicate your decisions and actions.

Some have suggested that Moral Choices are Not Possible. 

Nihilism is a school of thought whereby moral truths do not exist because not everyone can agree on the morality of anything – there are no universal truths when it comes to morality (Gorgias also argued that nothing exists, or at least that because we use words and symbols to think about things they cannot exist with certainty, thus knowledge, and moral truths, cannot every be known universally.  Others also said similar things – Determinists like Darwin, Newton, Freud – all said similar things, that nature does not care whether something is right or wrong, it just is (e.g. our brains are made of atoms arranged in a particular way so it’s that structure that is our biology which determines our thoughts.  This, however, leaves little or no room for “nurture” or “experience” in the nature/nurture debate.

DAY 70 - Ethics, Here We Come!

Where do we begin?

We can now begin our study of Ethics.  Everyone is familiar with Ethics and by the time you're finished this unit you will be the most Ethical person ever - Epistemologically speaking, anyway.

Here is a short video on Animal Rights and Vegetarianism I'd like you to watch and then take the Poll Anywhere one question questionnaire.

Oh, and by the way, here's an image to consider . . . 

1.  Is there such a thing as a selfless act?  Phoebe

2.  Small group discussions:
  Are Moral Choices Possible?
  Why Do the Right Thing?
  Can People Be Good Without a Common Idea of Good?
  How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions Be Determined?

3.  Ethics Vocab List:
Vocabulary for Ethics

Humanism
An approach that emphasizes the human or secular (non-religious)realm over the religious or spiritual realm.

Theories of action
Theories that deal with how people should act.

Theories of character (virtue theories)
Theories that deal with questions about character traits that are morally good and morally bad.

Theories of value
Theories that deal with questions about the things people value.

Moral Agent
Someone who is capable of thinking about a moral problem, making a decision how to act, and taking responsibility for this action.

Divine Command Theory
Right and wrong are defined by the commands of the supreme being.

Divine Command Ethicists
A person whose actions are defined by the commands of the supreme being.

Utilitarianism (Developed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham)
Morally good choices are those that result in the greatest good (amount of happiness) for the greatest number of people.

Kantian Ethicists
Believe that moral choices must be judged, not by their consequences, but by the good will of the moral agent.

Egoists
Believe that people should act in their own interest.

Intuitionists
Believe that truths, and therefore morals, are understood by intuition (an experience that is independent of reasoning).

Objective
Knowledge that is supported by evidence.

Subjective
Opinions that depend on personal feelings, experience, or thought.


5.  Read and take notes on pp. 242 - 259 of the text.

DAY 63 Does the Truth Matter?

We have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.

William James (1842 - 1910)

A jury is comprised of a set of selected citizens whose job is to determine the guilt or non-guilt of an offender in question. Juries play a pivotal role in permitting democracy to flourish, since a trial by peers is requisite to avoid unfair deliberations or punishments. But are jurors valid truth tellers? After all, you no doubt read about or have heard of instances were jurors came back with a seemingly unjustifiable verdict. Were the jurors mislead or mistaken? Is there a difference if the outcome is already decided?

1. Meh (A multi-purpose response, primarily used to imply a degree of indifference).

Have you ever been in a class and watched the clock move backwards? Why was that? Were you bored? Have something better to do? Not interested? Didn't care?

Sometimes, learning isn't fun. And knowledge is not enough of an incentive to encourage us to try. But does that mean that the truth doesn't matter? For that matter, is the truth even attainable?

2. Absolute vs. Relative Truth

Have you ever had someone tell you couldn't do something? When asked 'why?', was their answer 'because I said so'? How did you react?

Well, depending on your age, you may have reacted with anything from a tantrum to contemplation (which, by the way, is called a continuum, but more on that later). From your perspective (and depending on your age), the answer was either unquestionable or negotiable. This, then, reflects the difference between absolute and relative truth. That is, absolute truth means that there is only one possible answer, whereas relative truth suggests and permits variation as fits the observer and audience.

For example, the question 'what is 2+2?' has an absolute answer = 4. However, the answer to the question 'why is math important?' varies widely. But can truth be called truth if it is relative? And if not, does absolute truth tell us anything important?

3. Nihilism

Nihilism popularly originated in Russia after Ivan Turgenev used it in his famous novel Fathers and Sons. However, nihilism is more often associated with Germany, especially the philosopher Nietzsche. Nietzsche argued that true knowledge was impossible to attain since we are varied and destructive beings.

In essence, Nietzsche had little faith in humanity's ability to circumvent the problems of its own creation, and so true knowledge was impossible to gain.

Not surprisingly, unlike Pyrrho and Sextus nihilists do not believe in Ataraxia!

But is a general distrust in the human spirit enough to extinguish the search for truth?

4. What's in a Name?

In ancient cultures, names held power. Indeed, the giving of your name often signified a deep seated trust, a named-based olive branch if you will, since to know someone's name was to have power over them. The name represented more than just your calling card - it was your identity. Even today, names are significant. For example, think back to the last time you had trouble pronouncing a name; did you attach any implications to this (whether positive or negative)? If so, what were they and where did they stem from? Or consider the ever-widening debate around online privacy. Why would anonymity matter then?

But does providing a name tell you anything about the person? Or is it merely a convenient label for summarizing the individual? If your name is Max or Plato, does that truly make a difference? Or is the difference only a result of how people treat you?

Truth carries with it the same connotations. Can you see how?

5. The Victors Write the History Books

Perhaps you have heard this phrase. If you haven't, the concept is simple: those who win wars (physical, mental, spiritual, etc) determine how history will remember the event. After all, what is the difference between a revolution and a rebellion?

For that matter, which is the truth? And how can the absolute truth be known if one side is largely unaccounted for?

You have all heard of Leo Tolstoy - a Russian author who wrote the monumental book, War and Peace.  Please read the first two pages of the 2nd Epilogue, Chapter IX (it's a rather long book so it will take a minute for Google Books to load up the whole book, and then you need to scroll to near the end to find the 2nd Epilogue, Chapter IX.  Click War & Peace to open it.  In this brief bit of writing Tolstoy makes the case for the notion that "The Victors write the History."  You will find several quotes in there that will help you to support that idea, at least from Tolstoy's perspective.

On a side note, I have read War & Peace on two different occasions - it's such a large novel that it came in two thick paperbacks.  I highly recommend that you make it a project of yours to get a copy and read it, it's worth the effort.

6. It is madness, yet there is method to it...

Speaking of labeling people, where did the label 'mad' come from? Today, people with mental disorders are often categorized as being abnormal, and may even be separated from society. Yet, in olden times, these same people would be categorized as having received a divine message from God. Why the change? Which is the truth?

Well, perhaps neither. Famed philosopher Michael Foucault, in his paper Madness and Civilization, outlines how our society moved from acceptance to isolation with regards to abnormality. He outlines how civilization's growing health and expansion encouraged a review of things different from the masses. With this, then, came the concept of normality, and then, necessarily too, abnormality. Soon abnormality was seen to oppose normality, and so was deemed dangerous.

So what does this mean for truth? Well, if a certain segment of the population is removed (whether physically or otherwise), then clearly their weltanschauung is not heeded. And if a portion of the public's viewpoint is omitted, can any decisions truly be said to reflect everyone's 'best interest'?

Did you know?

Witness testimony in a trial often determines a jury's verdict. That verdict, then, affects the defendant's life. Clearly, such a decision is important and considering that life imprisonment is an option, here truth must be evident.

But can it be? Many studies have shown that perception and bias impact an eye witness' knowledge of the event in question, especially when time delays are involved. Little details such as height, shirt colour, hour and location can have a huge impact on a trial.
So what does this mean for truth?

Eye Witness Testimony Concerns

7. Sometimes a Pipe Is Just a Pipe

Sigmund Freud is perhaps one of the best known psychiatrists. Indeed, he did much to label

and create modern day psychology.

In his practice of psychoanalysis, Freud delved deeply into the psyches of several patients. His goal was to determine the underlying cause for mental disorders, especially neurotic behaviour. He concluded that unconscious sexual desires played a large role in such illnesses.

However, Freud's subjects were all suffering from some sort of mental malady. So, can his theories, derived from such sources, be considered valid? In other words, is there any truth to them?

8. So, there's no point then?

No?   Yes?

You decide.

1. Madness and Civilization Overview
2. Freud: Scientist or Storyteller?

Epistemology Film Review Assignment

Film Review Marking Sheet

DAY 62 What Can You Know For Certain?

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

Consider this: did you immediately find out that Santa Claus wasn't real (apologies are extended to all believers...) or did you initially have suspicions? Perhaps it was the fact that Santa's handwriting was the same as your Dad's, or that he used the same wrapping paper as your Mom, or you had previously spied a gift from Santa hidden in closet within your home, or even your own understanding of physics gave you a clue. (For more on the physics of Santa Claus, click here.)

1. Does That Mean No More Presents?

No matter the reason, you were becoming skeptical. That is, you doubted and questioned the truth as you previously understood it, even despite authority figures and/or common belief telling you something different.

Intellectually, being skeptical is important, particularly for the advancement of knowledge. After all, most scientists will readily admit that their hypotheses are transitory and will, with new information, be changed. Indeed, that is often the point.

In your search for truth so far, you have explored a number of questions regarding what you can know, and how you can know it. To recap, the rationalists believe you can discover truth and knowledge through inward thinking whereas empiricists believe knowledge and truth stem from experience.

But what if they are both wrong? What if being skeptical also meant questioning and doubting the very concept of knowledge itself?

2. Doubting Early

One of the earliest Western skeptics was Pyrrho of Elis (360 BCE - 270 BCE). Pyrrho's philosophy centres on the idea of Acatalepsy - the impossibility of being able to consider or comprehend something as it actually is. Consider (assuming you can) Plato's Cave; few people successfully exit the cave, and even if they do, Descartes would later deconstruct his own doubts.

Another famous skeptic was Sextus Empiricus. He believed that there were roughly ten types of skepticism; these types were separated into three categories: subjective perceiver, objective world, and the relationship between perceiver and the world. This breakdown can be found in his "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". In short, Sextus was beginning to explore the mind-body problem where the perceiver cannot be certain that what they perceive is "real" (like a mirage). 

However, rather than focus on overcoming the perceiver's flaws, Sextus believed that the flaws were insurmountable when it came to understanding "real" knowledge.

Supplementary Reading

Click here to read more about Sextus Empiricus' skepticism - scroll down to the Sextus Empiricus part.

And here is how Aenesidemus explains why we should never, at first glance, accept a theory or someone's idea about something.  These are the "top ten" reasons to be skeptical - also known as "tropes" or "modes" of skepticism and they're from Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonism c. 200 AD:

1. "The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences in animals." 
2. The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among human beings.
3. The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among the senses.
4. Owing to the "circumstances, conditions or dispositions," the same objects appear different. The same temperature, as established by instrument, feels very different after an extended period of cold winter weather than after mild weather in the autumn. Time appears slow when young and fast as aging proceeds. Honey tastes sweet to most but bitter to someone with jaundice. A person with influenza will feel cold and shiver even though she is hot with a fever.
5. "Based on positions, distances, and locations; for owing to each of these the same objects appear different." The same tower appears rectangular at close distance and round from far away. The moon looks like a perfect sphere to the human eye, yet cratered from the view of a telescope.
6. “We deduce that since no object strikes us entirely by itself, but along with something else, it may perhaps be possible to say what the mixture compounded out of the external object and the thing perceived with it is like, but we would not be able to say what the external object is like by itself."
7. "Based, as we said, on the quantity and constitution of the underlying objects, meaning generally by "constitution" the manner of composition." So, for example, goat horn appears black when intact and appears white when ground up. Snow appears white when frozen and translucent as a liquid.
8. "Since all things appear relative, we will suspend judgement about what things exist absolutely and really existent. Do things which exist "differentially" as opposed to those things that have a distinct existence of their own, differ from relative things or not? If they do not differ, then they too are relative; but if they differ, then, since everything which differs is relative to something..., things which exist absolutely are relative."
9. "Based on constancy or rarity of occurrence." The sun is more amazing than a comet, but because we see and feel the warmth of the sun daily and the comet rarely, the latter commands our attention.
10. "There is a Tenth Mode, which is mainly concerned with Ethics, being based on rules of conduct, habits, laws, legendary beliefs, and dogmatic conceptions."

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Many people seem to associate skepticism with depression. After all, doubting that you can know anything for certain carries with it certain concerns, including 'can you trust anyone?', or 'does he/she really love you?', and even 'do you exist?'.

But sometimes, isn't it easier not to know?

Pyrrho and Sextus didn't wallow in their scepticism; instead, they argued that the resolution to not knowing anything for certain was Ataraxia - an ancient variation on the idea 'don't worry, be happy'.

After all, what if the reality really was you as a brain in a jar? Would you want to know that or would you rather continue as a virtual entity within an ultimately satisfying existence?

3. "Hume"r Me

David Hume is famous (in some cases, infamous) for being a modern skeptic. He argued that knowledge of the external world could be gained from neither induction (moving from specific to general) nor deduction(moving from general to specific). To do so, he argued, you would first need to accept that there was some sort of uniformity in the universe. Given that change can and does occur, this needed assumption can be doubted.

For example, you are probably certain the sun will rise tomorrow. But can you be sure? Certainly, past practice strongly suggests it will, but just because it has done so in the past doesn't require it to do so in the future. After all, weren't you or your friends once certain Santa Claus existed, or the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, witches on broomsticks, or the Ancients and their belief that the Sun orbited the Earth?

Required Reading

Click here to read Part I of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. In it you will read first hand how and why Hume argues you can never be sure of anything.

Once you've opened Hume's writings above you'll probably want to have a look at this Summary of Part 1 of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature.

Did you know?

When you think of philosophers, what comes to your mind? Do you see them as noble, enlightened visionaries who strive to think their way toward a better world? Sadly, this belief is not always deserved. Hume is one such example.

As insightful and philosophically engaging as his writings were, Hume was racist. He firmly believed in the superiority of white skinned people and vocally denounced black skinned people. If you want to read examples of his racist writings, you can search the Web.

Later in the course you will be examining ethical issues. Here is an early opportunity to do so. How should you respond to Hume, his theories and his beliefs? Should his works be banned? Or should he be read realizing he was a 'man of his times'? Does this weaken his philosophy or merely his personal life? Should we hold the great thinkers of history accountable because their writing may have reflected the prevailing popularly held views and social norms of their era?

4. Five Minute Hypothesis

How long has the Earth existed? Modern science suggests approximately 4.6 billion years. Famed philosophy Bertrand Russell, however, suggests a shorter time frame: 5 minutes!
Okay, so maybe Russell didn't believe that the world was only five minutes old, but he did argue that you cannot prove it isn't. As Russell notes in his Analysis of Mind, "[t]here is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." Source

Granted, this does fly in the face of a lot of evidence and personal experience. However, it does demonstrate the central skeptical argument: you can never truly know.

This idea can also be applied to Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' solution. As you recall, Descartes was able to determine that he was, at the very least, a thinking thing. Later, he used God to justify his sensations, perceptions and beliefs. However, Hume argued that all Descartes could really know was that he was a thinking thing in that instance; the devil to which Descartes refers could be implanting false memories and/or destroying and recreating him at will.

Resources

1. Ancient Skepticism
2. Skepticism Overview
3. Induction and Deduction

DAY 55 - Empiricism and two-brained dinosaurs....

Had to include this poem from the late 1800s.  It was published when new "evidence" indicated that the Stegasauri family of dinosaurs had a second brain near the base of it's spine near the hip.  Much was made of this new discovery but it is now thought that the enlarged cavity did not contain a second brain.  We think that it contained excess nerves and fluids, likely glycogen, as a "battery backup" for bursts of energy, clearly for a purpose other than thinking!  How often do you see clear philosophical terms in poetry?

The Riddle Of The Dinosaur - Bert Taylor

Behold the mighty dinosaur,
Famous in prehistoric lore,
Not only for his weight and length,
But for his intellectual strength.
You will observe by these remains
The creature had two sets of brains,
The one in his head, the usual place,
The other at his spinal base.
Thus he could reason a priori
As well as a posteriori.
No problem bothered him a bit,
He made both head and tail of it.
So wise he was
So wise and solemn
Each thought filled just a spinal column.
If one brain found the pressure strong,
It passed a few ideas along.
It something slipped the forward mind
’Twas rescued by the one behind.
And if in error he was caught
He had a saving afterthought.
As he thought twice before he spoke
He had no judgment to revoke.
For he could think without congestion
Upon both sides of every question.
O gaze upon this noble beast,
Defunct ten million years at least.

Day 53 Empiricism

No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience.  

John Locke (1632-1704)

Can you imagine plummeting from the sky at 300 km/hr? What would you experience? The wind tearing through your hair. Your friends screaming in your ears. And of course, the sight of the earth growing steadily closer would be a key component of the experience.

Rationalists might suggest you close your eyes and imagine the sensations, but can that really compare to actually experiencing it? As you will discover, empiricists argue a clear "no!"

1. And Now For Something Completely Different...

Consider this ancient Chinese proverb: 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'.

So how do you teach a man to fish? Rationalists would, of course, argue that the man can simply close his eyes and rationalize his way toward understanding.

Empiricists, however, disagree. They would tell the man to go with someone who knows how to fish and practice the art.

After all, if you ask most people how they learn, they will probably tell you by experience. And this makes a lot of sense. Every day you go out into the world you are awash in sensations, some of which you attend to and some of which you do not. Nevertheless, when attended to, these sensations become experiences, and then, in turn, these experiences become knowledge. So, for empiricists, how you know something is through real-world experiences.

Key Empiricist Philosophers

Sophists     Aristotle     Aquinas     Bacon     Locke     Berkeley     Hume     Russell

Please check these links and take a note or two about each - if you can find a direct quote, even better!
In addition, please look at pp. 209 - 213 to look specifically at what some of these philosophers said and thought.

Sophistry!

Nowadays, saying someone is using a sophist argument is an insult (go ahead, try it); it suggests that the speaker is using persuasive techniques, rather than sound arguments and evidence, to sway the listener. No doubt you've seen evidence of this in your classes when homework assignments lie forgotten at home...

However, the original sophists were among the first Western empiricists. They denied rationalist arguments in favour of concrete experiences. Of course, given their 'pay-for-say' outlook this is not surprising. After all, people have a much more emotional connection to experiences than to rationalized thought experiments.

If you want to learn more about the Sophists, click here to read Plato's dialogue entitled "Sophist". Be forewarned, Plato was NOT a fan of the Sophists!

2. A Blank Slate

Perhaps you have heard of this term before. What do you think it means? Well, if you're an empiricist, it is a central cornerstone to your theory of knowledge. Let's consider some of the famous statements made about it:

Aristotle

"What the mind thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet which bears no actual writing; this is just what happens in the case of the mind."

Aquinas

"But the human intellect, which is the lowest in the order of intellects and the most removed from the perfection of the Divine intellect, is in potency with regard to things intelligible, and is at first "like a clean tablet on which nothing is written", as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says."

Locke

"Men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions, and may arrive at certainty without any such original notions or principles."

Basically, Empiricists say that you are born with a practically empty mind (practically, since most philosophers argue an awareness of God pre-exists) upon which all of your experiences and sensations write your memories, and thus knowledge. You are not born knowing anything. It is what you do that makes you who you are. If this is true, then rationalists must necessarily rely on experience to fuel their inward reflections.

However, this runs contrary to some basic understandings of human nature. Babies, for example, are born knowing instinctively how to suck and grasp. Likewise, insects are born with enough genetic knowledge to be born, survive, thrive and spawn. In fact, psychologist Carl Jung went so far as to suggest humanity had a shared collective unconscious, whereby the memories of all our past ancestors were stored. How does this affect an empirical weltanschauung?

Did You Know?

Although our experiences provide a rich tapestry of memory to recall and enjoy, metaphysics forces you to wonder whether they are, in fact, real. And while the prospect of being a brain in a vat is distressing, it cannot be fully discounted.

However, you need not go to science fiction movies for this. In the 1930s, Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield's experiments with open brain surgery on seizure victims resulted in vivid sensation stimulus recalls by only stimulating parts of brain tissue.

The famous cry "I smell burnt toast!" occurred when Ms. Phoebe Stanley's brain was exposed and probed by Dr. Penfield. This helped Penfield locate where our memories were stored in the brain.

Recreation video of Wilder Penfield's Experiment

3. Contemporary Applications

Have you ever wondered what you can "do" with philosophy (other than amuse and annoy your friends of course)? Well, empiricism is a great example of how philosophy and the "real world" intertwine.

Whether they refer to themselves this way or not, most scientists are empiricists. They rely on experiences to create, define and refine their theories. Likewise, lawyers, psychiatrists, mechanics and sports stars are also empiricists. Can you see how?

Resources to Consider

1. Empiricism Overview
2. Biology Vs. Blank Slate