Philosophy 101 - Week 6 - Ethics and Moral Philosophy

While listening to the audio book version of The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, one phrase caught my attention and has remained with me ever since.  The phrase was, "Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child" (Lukianoff).  Implied in this bit of advice is an ethical framework for navigating the world and preparing oneself for the multifaceted experiences and interactions.  This ethical mindset places the locus of control in the individual, rather the environment.

Our situation in this existence is not singular; meaning, as individuals, we are not the only person on a planet with unlimited resources.  Rather, existence is such, that we live on a planet with billions of other people and therefore, our actions can and often do impact others.  We cannot demand the world conform to our desires and aversions in order to achieve the summum bonum or the ultimate good.

Regarding the definition of the ultimate good, one author wrote, "Aristotle claims that all the things that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is the greatest good of all" (Athanassoulis).

Furthermore, the ethical framework ought to provide a lifetime motivation for the individual, so he has a reason to want to continue to adhere to the framework for the duration of his life - it must have a catalyst and a sustaining force.

The virtue ethics of ancient Greek schools sought to marry the multi-fold aspects of living, while attempting to persuade the individual to live a certain way, which would not only promote the common welfare of the social structure, but also that of the individual.  One author observes this connection.  The Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean "Schools of philosophy associated happiness not so much with feeling a certain way about how one’s life was going, but rather with the behaviour resulting from one’s cultivation of an excellent or virtuous character. This crucial linkage by these Schools of happiness with virtue is called eudaimonism, and is based on the principal Greek word for happiness, eudaimonia. Binding the pursuit of happiness with the cultivation of an excellent or virtuous character framed within an overarching philosophical view of reality was central to the development of the Graeco-Christian apophatic tradition" (Cook).

By cultivating one's character to be virtuous, one can achieve happiness and flourishing for himself, while also being a benefit to those around him.  The person would not only be concerned about how to live well as an individual, but also how to live well as a father, employee, neighbor, or citizen.

One failing of this ethical framework is the requisite education and rigor needed to learn and pursue a virtuous life.  Because of humanity's primal urges for survival, many of our motivations and desires stem from our non-rational human instincts, and less educated people, who come from less 'lucky' circumstances are never afforded the opportunity to learn how to flourish.  To put it differently, we could ask "is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that was outside of their control? (Athanassoulis).  This leaves open the possibility that virtue ethics is subject to moral luck.

If, however, humanity is able to devise a large-scale method for promoting the framework of virtue ethics, then perhaps moral luck is minimized, and as it flourishes, the framework and way of living becomes self-sustaining on the grand social scale.

References

Athanassoulis, Nafsika. “Virtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH3a.

Cook, Brendan. Pursuing Eudaimonia : Re-appropriating the Greek Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Apophatic Tradition, Cambridge Scholars Publisher, 2012.

Lukianoff, Greg. CODDLING of the AMERICAN MIND : How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation For... Failure. S.L., Penguin Books, 2019.

Philosophy 101 - Week 5 - Philosophy and Religion

Evaluate the Teleological argument for God’s existence and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses as an empirical argument.

The word 'Teleological' stems from the Greek word 'telos' which means 'end' or 'purpose' or 'goal.'  The Teleological argument for God seeks to prove God's existence by observing natural and man-made creations which serve a purpose or outcome.  By showing evidence of a purpose, proponents of the Teleological argument wish to persuade others that God designed and created the world and universe.

For example, it would appear that termites are created for the purpose of decomposition of organic material, which decomposed material produces dirt with enriching qualities which purpose is for the growing of new organic material.  One can observe the causes and effects of many environmental systems in the world; each entity fulfilling its purpose.  The proponent of the Teleological argument will attribute the design of each entity, to God.

Another example, as formulated by William Paley, uses the analogy of a watch found in a field.  The discoverer of the complex nature of the watch could reasonably infer it was intelligently designed for a purpose and if this argument could be made for the watch, then why not for the rest of the complex ecosystems and nature of the world and universe, or even the complex nature of the human eye?  The discoverer of the watch could note, "For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it" (Himma).

One strength of the Teleological argument is the plethora of evidence of complexity of diverse systems and entities.  We can point to order in the universe as well as complexity of animals, humans and even whole ecosystems as evidence of design.  As an argument, it is quite convincing, especially given that the most intelligent species on the planet (humans) cannot reproduce something with equal complexity, on the scale of the world.

However, this argument begins to fail when one considers evolution and natural selection as explanations for complexity.  "Darwin argued that more complex biological organisms evolved gradually over millions of years from simpler organisms through a process of natural selection" (Himma).  As these mutations occurred from different parts of the world and in differing environments, one can easily see the evidence of a multifaceted complexity as the explanation instead of these entities springing from a single designer.

Another strength of the argument is based on the idea the universe has been finely tuned for our existence.  "For example, life would not be possible if the force of the big bang explosion had differed by one part in 10^60; the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form" (Himma).  The odds of this occuring are truly astronomical!

But we can apply some skepticism to refute this argument, with the notion that simply due to the fact of extreme odds, does not mean it cannot happen.  Indeed it can happen, but that does not force us to ascribe the reason for it happening, to God.  Because a lottery winner won, does that mean they won by design?  No!

References

Himma, K., n.d. Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Iep.utm.edu. Available at: <https://iep.utm.edu/design/>

Philosophy 101 - Week 4 - Metaphysics and Epistemology

Do you believe Locke's primary and secondary qualities adequately explain all of reality?

Locke explains primary qualities as the substance of the thing which "solidity, extension, figure, or mobility" could not be taken from it if it were divided.  The thing, thus retains a quality that can be perceived (Locke).

Secondary qualities due to their substance "produce various sensations in us" such as the ideas of color, taste, sounds and the like (Locke).

"Thus, for example, the primary qualities of this rose include all of its quantifiable features, its mass and momentum, its chemical composition and microscopic structure; these are the features of the thing itself. The secondary qualities of the rose, on the other hand, include the ideas it produces in me, its yellow color, its delicate fragrance; these are the merely the effects of the primary qualities of its corpuscles on my eyes and nose" (Kemerling).

While a useful framework for explaining most of our reality, I do not think it is adequate to explain all of reality.  While Steve might see a red rose on a green leafed plant, Michel, who is color-blind might see the entire plant as one single shade of color.  The two might argue over the primary qualities of the rose (which is the same), but not comprehend the secondary qualities are different due to their lack of knowledge of color-blindness.  The broader reality is that primary qualities may be stable, but secondary qualities may present differently to different people.

References

Locke, John. “An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 2 MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 3 and 4.” https://Www.gutenberg.org/Files/10616/10616.Txt, 4 Jan. 2004, www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10616/pg10616.html.

Kemerling G. Locke: Ideas. Philosophypages.com. Published 2011. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4l.htm

Philosophy 101 - Week 3 - Metaphysics and Epistemology, Part 1: What Is Real and How Do We Know?

In Meditation II, Descartes states, "I am; I exist - this is certain." Explain why Descartes claims that his knowledge here about this cannot be doubted?

Descartes, in a very organized fashion, and with the help of a thought experiment in the form of a demon who is actively deceiving him about everything, he decides to reject everything as completely false.  He writes:

"I will suppose, then, that everything I see is fictitious. I will believe that my memory tells me nothing but lies. I have no senses. Body, shape, extension, movement and place are illusions. So what remains true? Perhaps just the one fact that nothing is certain!"

He notes how our senses can deceive us.

"Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."

He observes how people make reasoning mistakes even when they think they have all the information.

"I sometimes think that others go wrong even when they think they have the most perfect knowledge."

He even notices that a very real dream is indistinguishable from real life!

"Often in my dreams I am convinced of just such familiar events – that I am sitting by the fire in my dressing-gown – when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!"

Despite all the examples he could conceive of being deceived, there was one thing in which he could not disprove, nor could the theoretical deceiving demon cause him to be deceived: the fact that he is thinking - that he exists.  If he can think the thought "I am, I exist" then he must actually exist; even if he exists in order to be deceived.  Said differently, if he doubts he exists, then his very thought that he is doubting his own existence proves that he exists!  On this one fact, he can place his complete certainty.

He writes,

"Thinking? At last I have discovered it – thought! This is the one thing that can’t be separated from me. I am, I exist – that is certain."

He later writes,

"even if I am in a perpetual dream, and even if my creator is doing his best to deceive me? These activities are all aspects of my thinking, and are all inseparable from myself. The fact that it is I who doubt and understand and want is so obvious that I can’t see how to make it any clearer."

In sum, if an entity conceives of the thought, "I exist" then the statement is true and beyond doubt.  Even if the entity were to doubt it existed, then it could still be certain it exists because it is an entity actually doing the doubting and, subsequently, exists!

Having established that an entity exists, it becomes free to begin a deep and complex inquiry into why it exists - what its purpose is.  And that will become the topic for another day.

Reference

Descartes, R. (1639). Meditations on First Philosophy. (A. Blunden, Trans., J. Cottingham, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.  https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/descartes/1639/meditations.htm

Philosophy 101 - Week 2 - Socratic Method & Wisdom

Based on Plato's dialogue, Apology, (a) in what sense does Socrates claim to be wise? (b) Summarize and evaluate the value of the Socratic Method and Socratic wisdom and whether this method and attitude are valuable for a democratic society such as ours.

Response

During his defense, Socrates recounted the time his friend, Chaerephon, asked the oracle at Delphi if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. The oracle replied that no one was wiser than Socrates. Upon hearing this, Socrates thought to himself:

“What can the god be saying? What does his riddle mean? For I’m only too aware that I’ve no claim to being wise in anything either great or small. What can he mean, then, by saying that I’m wisest? Surely he can’t be lying: that isn’t lawful for him” (Apology, 21b).

After much thought, Socrates resolved to determine if the oracle was telling the truth or not. He approached people who were thought to be wise and he examined them. Upon examination, he found them not to be wise and then he tried to show them how they were not wise. But this simply upset them and they would not admit to not being wise. The self-awareness of not knowing is where Socrates has the upper hand in the wisdom department and makes true the oracle's pronouncement that no one is wiser. He claims,

“I’m wiser than that person. For it’s likely that neither of us knows anything fine and good, but he thinks he knows something he doesn’t know, whereas I, since I don’t in fact know, don’t think that I do either. At any rate, it seems that I’m wiser than he in just this one small way: that what I don’t know, I don’t think I know” (Apology, 21d).

During his examination of various people, in an effort to find someone wiser than himself, Socrates used a form of questioning and dialogue which has come to be known as the Socratic Method. His method would sometimes begin with a flattering invitation, in a sense to establish in the other person's mind that they are knowledgeable on a particular subject. Once this is established, Socrates posed a question to the interlocutor, asking for a definition of something. The interlocutor responded with an answer or statement and then the back and forth dialogue began.

At each turn, Socrates either sought clarification, or put forth a premise in an attempt to break the ideas into manageable concepts and ideas, until either they arrived at the essence of the answer or at least they think they've arrived closer to the essence.

The use of the Socratic method, coupled with an attitude of curiosity and probing toward truth, can be very valuable for all who participate in this rich and caring exercise. It's valuable for the questioner, who out of a sense of genuine curiosity, is able to uncover or advance the discovery of profound truths. The questioner seeks clarification so that he and others many benefit from knowledge. Even if truths are not discovered, the questioner helps himself and others arrive at a clearer definition of the problem which is being discussed.

The method and attitude of curiosity are also valuable to the interlocutor who may have assumed too much and is too confident in his position. By engaging in the method and dialogue, the interlocutor is brought to an awareness (whether he cares to admit it or not is another thing) of how little he knows or how his previous thinking may have been faulty or incomplete. If the interlocutor is open to being skeptical about any previous notions he had, he will have greatly benefitted from the line of questioning and dialogue and will become more aware and even more knowledgeable.

Another way the method and attitude benefit both is how they provide a framework for respectful discourse. In a sense, the method assumes good intent, instead of taking a dogmatic, know-it-all approach. The Socratic method invites discussion rather than preaching on one person's part and passive listening on the other's. This discussion gradually, and in an organized fashion, makes mental connections in the minds of the participants and helps them learn, together, more deeply.

The method and attitude are valuable and needed in our democratic society, perhaps now more than ever. In the age of 'soundbites' and tweets, where statements are seemingly one-sided and restricted to 280 characters, people who wish to persuade have to maximize impact and in the process take strong stances. These are then responded to with equally forceful and adamant statements. No where to be seen are questions, curiosity and dialogue. And in some cases, people become so dogmatic in their views, they figuratively wish to plug their ears and yell "la-la-la-la-la!" while remaining protected in their "safe zone."

The authors of The Coddling of the American Mind noted this phenomena in the mid-2010's and asked many questions about this trend in American universities. They wondered,

"What are the effects of this new protectiveness on the students themselves? Does it benefit the people it is supposed to help? What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and in many other ways conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence that require strict control by campus authorities, who are expected to act as both protectors and prosecutors?" (Lukianoff).

Further in in the article, they note that what begins in the university, later spills into our political and workplace discourse. "Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship."

Besides many detailed recommendations for parents and educators, the authors advocate for the use of the Socratic method to help our students and young citizens learn how to think instead of what to think. 

"Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding."

Unfortunately, as of the 2020 census, the highest educational level of about 40% of Americans age 25 and over is only a high school degree or less. Another 16% only had partial college credit or no associates degree (Educational Attainment in the United States: 2019). One can assume that of this 56% of the population, a small portion may have learned or heard of the Socratic method, as philosophy and rhetoric courses are not widely required in the curriculum. How we tackle this potential problem is left for another day.

References

Plato, & Reeve, C. D. C. (2012). A Plato reader: Eight essential dialogues. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

Greg Lukianoff, J. H. (2017, July 31). How trigger warnings are hurting mental health on campus. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/.

Philosophy 101 - Week 1 - Thales' Method of Knowing

Discuss what makes Thales' method of knowing distinctly philosophical as opposed to mythology and religion.

Mythology and religion explained earthly and celestial events by attribution to the gods such as found in Hesiod's Theogony, which explained the creation of the world and natural events as being caused by the gods. By contrast, Thales' method for explaining natural phenomena changed the narrative from myth to empirical observation. Patricia O’Grady notes, "Thales would have recognized evaporation, and have been familiar with traditional views, such as the nutritive capacity of mist and ancient theories about spontaneous generation, phenomena which he may have ‘observed’".

Thales' idea to not default to the traditional, myth-based narrative, and instead, to hypothesize on the causes of events based on real world observation, fundamentally changed how the ancients philosophized about the natural world. Instead of purely mythical causes, Thales could point to undeniable natural events and ascribe the process to a hypothesis, which could then debated and refined. In sum, he gained knowledge through observation and reasoning as opposed to a revelation based (i.e. from reading a poet such as Hesiod) tradition or myth.

Furthermore, he leveraged this way of learning to prove his point to others. Through observation of the stars, Thales was able to predict that the olive crop was going to be bounteous. His foresight allowed him to corner the market on all the olive presses and when the harvest came, he owned and controlled the production. He did not ascribe the cause of the bumper crop to the gods, but rather to inquiry of natural events.

Patricia Curd succinctly sums up this fundamental change in philosophizing when she notes, "Aristotle is confident that Thales belongs, even if honorifically, to that group of thinkers that he calls “inquirers into nature” and distinguishes him from earlier poetical “myth-makers.” In Book I of Metaphysics, Aristotle claims that the earliest of these, among whom he places the Milesians, explained things only in terms of their matter (Met. I.3 983b6–18)".

References

O’Grady, P. (n.d.). Thales of Miletus (c. 620 B.C.E.—c. 546 B.C.E.). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/thales/.

Curd, Patricia, "Presocratic Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/presocratics/.