Seriously, We're Done Here

Goodbye to Yesterday

Links Worthy of a Swine

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:

Some Dark Thoughts on Happiness

The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:

The Hedonic Set Point Can Go Up

The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:

Psychology of the Trolley Problem

The last link is an advanced overview of "consequentialist" ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry: Consequentialism

Finally, here's a video of Steven Singer, a modern-day utilitarian, on The Colbert Report:

Paper #2

Paper #2 is due the last day of class (Monday, May 7th). It's worth 15% of your final grade.

The assignment is to write an argumentative essay on the topic below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 900-1500 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

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.

Beep...Beep...Beep...

Here's a quick recap of what we've done in class this week.

Oh yeah, and this. Whatev.

Pragmatism Sucks?

Click on the comic to enlarge it.

Whadaya think? Is this a good criticism, or a bad criticism?

Midterm

The midterm exam is Friday, March 9th. We're having a review for the midterm on Wednesday, March 7th.

I hope to see you there.

Curious George: Curiously Good?

I don't get it. How could Curious George be a good movie?


I'll have to see it to be sure, Ryan, but this video isn't helping your case.

Paper #1 Guidelines

Due Date: Monday, March 5, 2007

Worth: 10% of final grade

Assignment:

Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 800—1200 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most word processing programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

1) Should we trust our senses? Do our sense experiences accurately represent an external, physical world? First, briefly explain the different answers that the philosophers we’ve read (Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant) give to these questions, as well as their arguments for their answers. Then critically evaluate the answers and arguments that at least two of these philosophers offer. Finally, provide your own answers to these questions. (You can either side with one of the philosophers we’ve read, or provide an original argument of your own.) Ultimately, can we know that there is an external world? Why or why not? Be sure to fully and philosophically defend your answers.

2) Critically evaluate both the theory of pragmatism and the various theories of feminist epistemology we’ve discussed. First, explain each theory. What does each theory is said is required for knowledge? What do they say we can know? What do they say we cannot know? Then, evaluate these theories. Do they accurately describe what you understand knowledge to be? What do they get right? What do they get wrong? Are any of these theories successful accounts of what it means to know something? Be sure to fully and philosophically defend your evaluation.

3) Within the parameters of epistemological debates we’ve discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by Monday, February 26th.)

It's On

Class will most likely NOT be canceled on Friday, February 16th.

BE THERE.

Class Cancelled (2/14)

Class is cancelled for today (Wednesday, February 14th). Camden County isn't opening until 10:00 a.m. today, due to the weather.

The Antidote for Humeanism

Do you find yourself obsessed with Hume's question of what could justify inductive reasoning? Boy, do I have a link for you:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Induction

Or, you could watch a dog puppet insult people waiting in line to see Star Wars:

Triumph vs. Star Wars Geeks

Hmmm... is Triumph justified in concluding that all Stars Wars fans are nerds?

Hitchcock Also Started in Nu Metal

Huh. Fred Durst is directing a film.

I didn't see that coming.

So. Uh. There's your Limp Bizkit update.

Think, Tap-Dance, God

Descartes's a priori argument that God exists is a version of what's called the Ontological Argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry on Ontological Arguments. They all have that weird structure:

The idea of God exists in my mind.
[fancy philosophical tap-dancing.]
Therefore, God must really exist.

Most seem to think the problem with the argument occurs somewhere around the tap-dancing.

Why Trust Our Senses?

We may not have a lot of time to go over this in class, so I thought we could try discussing it on the blog.

Descartes's argument for why we can trust our senses, and as a result have knowledge about the external world, is pretty unconvincing. So what do you think would be a good argument for trusting our senses? What's a good argument that we can and do know stuff about the external world?

In other words, why shouldn't we all be skeptics? (OK, some of you may think we should. If so, this post isn't for you. For all you know, this blog may not even exist. Did I just blow your mind?)

Link to the Future

Over the next two weeks we'll be going over the debate between rationalists and empiricists. Here's an advanced survey article on the debate from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Yes, there are more than one free online philosophy encyclopedias.

Keanu-Approved Links

Here's a trio of links. The first one's that guide to reading philosophy we talked about in class on Friday.

Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy

The next two relate to epistemology and skepticism, which are what we'll be talking about this week. Both are about the movie The Matrix. The first is pretty straightforward (Neo reads it and says 'whoa'), but the second is a little more advanced (Neo reads it and says 'huh?').

The Matrix: Dream Skepticism

The Matrix: Brain-in-a-Vat Skepticism

By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know.

Email Subscriptions

So why a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

The blog is an experiment. Hopefully it can benefit the course in some way. I’ll be posting course updates, discussion topics, and other stuff here throughout the semester. Go ahead and subscribe to the rss feed if you know what that means.

Otherwise, get an email subscription, so any new blog post gets emailed to you. To get an email subscription:

1. Enter your email address at the top of the right column and click "Subscribe me!"
2. This will take you to another page where you have to type in some random letters and numbers, and click "Subscribe me!" again.
3. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.
4. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; seanlandis@aol.com). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.