So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.
Check it out. Please join if you're interested.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4ec70/4ec7039500cd9aab66ef5c1b7890be04544b327e" alt="Real Original, Landis"
PHIL 111-01
Camden County College
Spring 2007
Here are some links that are very loosely related to the stuff on Utilitarianism that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first link is an overview of the psychology of happiness:
Explain and critically evaluate G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophical approach to epistemology.
(1) First, set the scene by explaining the traditional approach to epistemology that Hegel criticizes. According to Hegel, what mistaken assumptions do traditional philosophers like Descartes, Hume, and Kant make when they approach the study of knowledge? What does Hegel believe is wrong with these assumptions?
(2) Second, explain the theory of epistemology that Hegel offers to replace these traditional approaches. Why does Hegel focus on the historical aspect of knowledge? What is the dialectical process he describes? Explain Hegel’s notion of the Absolute.
(3) Third, explain the various criticisms of Hegel offered by the philosophers we’ve read throughout the second half of this semester. Be sure to explain the criticisms of Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. Why does Marx dislike Hegel’s idealism? Why does Kierkegaard disagree with Hegel’s claim that it’s possible to come to understand the Absolute? Why does Nietzsche dislike the notion of an Absolute, and Hegel’s dependence on (dialectical) reasoning?
(4) Fourth, evaluate these criticisms. Which, if any, do you find convincing? Which, if any, do you find unconvincing? How might a defender of Hegel’s theory respond to these criticisms? Are these responses convincing?
Ultimately, do you agree with Hegel’s critique of traditional epistemology? Do you believe his historical theory of epistemology is accurate? Or do you think there is something wrong with his approach to the study of knowledge? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend all your answers.
The idea of God exists in my mind.Most seem to think the problem with the argument occurs somewhere around the tap-dancing.
[fancy philosophical tap-dancing.]
Therefore, God must really exist.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rationalism vs. EmpiricismYes, there are more than one free online philosophy encyclopedias.