University of Texas at El Paso



PHILOSOPHY 1301: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHYCRN: 14175DR. STEVE BESTFALL 2018OFFICE HOURS: WEDNESDAYS, 1-3 PM, WORRELL HALL 301OFFICE PHONE: 915-747-5097EMAIL: best@utep.edu"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Voltaire "He is a philosopher who tramples underfoot prejudices, tradition, antiquity, universal assent, authority, in a word, everything that overawes the mass of minds, who dares to think for himself, to go back to the clearest general principles, examine them, discuss them, admit nothing save on the testimony of his experience and reasoning." Diderot"Why stay we on the earth unless to grow?" Robert BrowningCourse DescriptionThis course is a broad, general, overview and introduction to philosophy. Hardly an ending, it is meant as a beginning to introduce the student to some of the main figures, themes, topics, problems, and traditions of philosophy, with the hope that the student can and will use this course as a basis for further explorations in philosophy, and to learn the joy of doing philosophy. Philosophy can be defined in many ways; literally, it means the love of wisdom or passion for learning; it is a quest for what is “true” or “real” about the world and many topics. Less pretentiously, it is a quest for sound and accurate knowledge about a rich variety of topics and questions. Philosophy can be understood as both a form and a content: as a form, it is a means, method, or art of questioning and thinking; as a content, it is about different things, and while these are limitless, philosophy has been divided into some core areas and branches of study, many of which we will engage in this class.To fully utilize the online course format, and to enliven and concretize the learning, we will frequently complement textual readings, both primary and secondary, with films and documentaries, and to enliven classical figures, texts, and traditions we will often apply them to contemporary culture and events. Course Purpose and GoalsKey objectives of this course are to introduce students to traditional philosophical figures, theories, and traditions, and to constantly relate these to current issues and problems in our contemporary world. By the end of the course, ideally, I hope that each student will:Be able to identify key figures, traditions, themes, and problems in the history of philosophyKnow the core themes and issues of each main branch of philosophyIdentify enduring questions and topics that are perennial themes in the history of philosophyUnderstand the importance of philosophy in one’s daily life, whatever one’s career professionDevelop a great joy for reading, learning, and thinkingComprehend and use philosophical methods and techniques of thinkingApply critical thinking skills to various texts (articles, books, videos, etc) and diverse areas of personal and social lifeBe more capable in debate and argumentation, and in reflecting on ethical issues as they relate to their own life and to the contemporary worldBecome more autonomous as a person and better decision-makerBecome a citizen instead of a consumer – a concerned, informed, and active person, involved in the community and in civic lifeCourse Requirements and GradingThe class is 7 weeks long, and each week is a different and coherent unit unto itself, yet each also builds on and advances preceding lessons. Each module is divided into sections, which include:An italicized overview of the topicsA background lectureA set of reading assignmentsQuestions and issues for discussion, review, and self-evaluationSuggested further research for maximal learningThe discussion section provides questions and materials for students to critically reflect on in posts and conversations with one another, their groups, and myself. Students are encouraged to introduce their own perspectives, questions, and topics. The review section summarizes the key ideas you should have mastered for each section and serves as a self-examination to assess your comprehension of the material.There are no textbooks to buy for this course; all course material is online and free, and linked in the syllabus reading assignments. It is crucial that you do all reading assignments on time and keep up with the syllabus and discussion. In addition to doing all the reading assignments, and demonstrating a good understand and ideally critical grasp of the main ideas, students are required to participate regularly and meaningfully in online discussion, engaging other students, and to write a final exam. Note: this class may prove difficult: there is a fair amount of work to do in a short period of time, do not take it lightly or underestimate the challenge you will face, as well as the rewards you will gain. Immediately below and in the next section, I clarify what I expect in the 2 different areas I will evaluate your work and which will comprise your final grade:I. Discussion PostsI expect each student to make a minimum of 3 original INDEPENDENT discussion posts per week. These are to be responses to chosen discussion topics that I have written up in the “Discussion” section following the assignments list for each week. These same questions are reproduced in the Blackboard discussion section. Do NOT attempt to respond to all questions and topics, it is impossible to do justice to more than three.I deem a “quality” discussion post to fulfill key criteria such as the following: It is 3-5 GOOD paragraphs in length, 4-5 sentences per paragraphIt is clear and coherent in meaning, syntax, and styleIt reflects a full reading and accurate understanding of the course material beingIt displays an ability to relate the issues, themes, and problems addressed in the material to other topics, current events, or other figures, themes, and texts generally; and It demonstrates a grasp of “philosophical” thinking in its ability, for instance, to define terms, separate various issues and draw relevant distinctions, and critically analyze (rather than take at face value as true) and challenge claims made by authors, commentators, and philosophers. No argument or theory is flawless, perfect or immune to questioning) IN ADDITION, I am looking for evidence of INTERACTIVE posts whereby you comment on others’ thoughts and they comment on yours. These need not be as carefully constructed and thought out as you primary posts, and can be improvisational and free flowing as a good discussion would be. At the same time, they must be more substantive that merely agreeing with or “liking” another’s post without saying why and saying more. You should have a minimum of THREE comments PER WEEK on posts from other students in the class, and allow an open discussion dynamic. Thus, that is a minimum of 6 posts a week (3 independent and 3 interactive), and 42 for the entire course, 21 posts in each (independent and interactive) category. Roughly, 42 good total posts would constitute an “A,” 32 would make a “B,” and 25 would be a “C,” etc., for your discussion grade.To summarize and clarify:You are to chose 3 questions to addressEach independent post is to be substantive, thought through, and well-composed, and at least 3-4 good paragraphs in lengthThe interactive posts in no way need to be as long, but nor should they be thin, one sentence replies to someone (“Really liked your point, Jose!”) without elaborating on why one agrees or disagrees with someone elseThe idea of the interactive posts is to critically dialogue with other students about philosophical issues and thus to allow free playDo all the required reading first, making notes; then respond to the discussion questions that most interest youAt the same time, read what other students have posted and do the minimum responses to any post that interests you mostBegin the reading for each module on each Monday and complete your posts by the following Sunday, try to keep up with the paceAs philosophy is no doubt new to almost everyone in this course, I expect modest evidence of critical reading and thinking skills at first, but also to see gradually improvement and real learning demonstrated as the course proceeds. See the next section below on posting etiquette; I also expect polite, civil, and respectful tones to be maintained in class discussion at all times.II. Final ExamThe final exam is a “take-home” and is to be 6-8 pages in length, double-spaced, and using a 12 point font. The final exam is comprehensive in nature, and thus will cover the entire semester’s course material. The questions will be handed out at least a week before the due date. You may discuss the exam with other class members should that prove helpful, but you must write wholly independent of one another and in your own words, or risk plagiarism (see below).Final GradeThe final grade for the course will be broken down as follows:Discussion forum participation: 50%Final Essay exam: 50%I will provide general class feedback on performance after the first and second week, and I will provide each of you individual feedback on your posts after the third week, for weeks 1-3 only, so that you can improve in weeks 4-7 if need be.Online Etiquette When you log on for discussion, be prepared by having done the reading and assignments, and also be active and strive to put philosophical skills and methods into practice. Because of the controversial nature of the topics we will explore, there will naturally be differences in viewpoint, and thus arguments. But disagreements need not be disagreeable, and the clash of ideas is vital to learning, the enterprise of philosophy, and personal growth. It is imperative that you always express yourself and interact with others with sincerity, honesty, kindness, and respect. Humility, openness, and self-questioning are cardinal virtues in philosophy, whereas dogma, arrogance, and closed-mindedness are debilitating vices. Whatever your views, don’t assume they are the best or correct ones, that they cannot or should not be modified or even abandoned, or that you cannot learn from dialogue with others. Please avoid self-righteousness, hostility, ridicule, sarcasm, or other disrespectful behaviors. While of course I encourage your active participation in class discussions, please seek the Golden Mean: speak not too little, nor too much; be neither passive, nor aggressive. Your grade for the discussion part of the course will be based on the quantity of your contribution (doing the minimum required posting) and the quality of your input, based on accuracy of understanding texts and ideas, creative application of ideas, critical thinking skills, and ability to dialogue and argue in productive, persuasive, and interesting ways.Students are not expected or required to believe any particular viewpoint or to agree with me on any issue, in fact you may freely disagree with and challenge me when you find it productive to do so. But you are asked to be open to exploring different viewpoints and challenging ideas, and to think critically about your own assumptions, received values, and worldview. This class asks you to study new information, to understand and critically assess ideas, and to apply new ideas and skills toward your everyday life and involvement in this world in crisis. Contacting Me and Tech SupportStudents of course may freely contact me at any time they have a concern, question, or need. My email is: best@utep.edu, and phone is: 915-747-5097.If you are new to online courses, you will want to take the Blackboard tutorials, which you can find by clicking on the “Help” link at the top right of the front page (see: ; and: ). You may also contact the Technology Support Help Desk, which lists hours of operation, phone numbers, and other relevant information here: . Plagiarism PolicyRegarding your presentations and final exam, plagiarism will not be tolerated. Any use of material from reference works not cited, footnoted, quoted, or paraphrased in your own words, or any two student exams too closely resembling one another, is considered plagiarism. Instances of suspected plagiarism will be reported to the Dean of Students, and thereafter no questions will be asked or taken. For the UTEP plagiarism policy, see: . Disability StatementIf you have a disability and need classroom accommodations, please contact The Center for Accommodations and Support Services (CASS) at 747-5148, or by email to cass@utep.edu, or visit their office located in UTEP Union East, Room 106. For additional information, please visit the CASS website at sa.utep.edu/cass.*************************************************Weekly Assignments and ModulesWeek I, August 27: Introduction to PhilosophyWhat is Philosophy? What are the different branches and some main traditions? Why pursue philosophy in a materialist, profit-driven, consumerist society? Is philosophy relevant to my life, concerns, problems, goals, and happiness? Does it have any “practical value” in a crude utilitarian society? How can the study of philosophy enhance our lives in numerous ways?Lecture: Introduction to PhilosophyReadingBertrand Russell, “10 Commandments of Philosophy” Main Branches of Philosophy “The Field of Philosophy” “Why Study Philosophy?” (practical implications; feel free to browse links at:) is philosophy such a foreign, misunderstood, largely ignored, and stereotyped discipline, when it has obvious benefits for training the mind, deepening culture and education, producing better citizens, and even benefiting career pursuits?What forces in society militate against philosophical thinking and a more prominent role for philosophy in our lives, schools, and culture? Consider, for instance, the imperatives, logic, and goals of the scientific-technological world, on the one hand, and those of the capitalist, consumerist, and mass media cultures as well. What would you propose for boosting the role and influence of philosophy in the education system and cultural life? Can philosophy help to promote better citizenship skills, and thus a more vigorous democracy?Upon viewing the film, “Philosophy: Guide to Happiness” (), what can you say about the role and relevance of philosophy to history, cultural development, and the pursuit of happiness and the good life?How is philosophy portrayed and realized in various critical perspectives given by contemporary thinkers in the documentary The Examined Life? For sample short clips, see: (Peter Singer) (Cornel West) (Martha Nussbaum) (Kwame Anthony Appiah) (Slavoj Zizek) (Michael Hardt) (Avital Ronell)ReviewDefine philosophy and the main traits of each branch of the discipline.What are key virtues for the practice of philosophy?How is philosophy a unique discipline and pursuit knowledge as opposed to science on one side and religion on the other?What benefits does studying philosophy have for the spiritual, moral, and practical life, as well as for various career pursuits?Further ResearchLou Marinoff, Plato Not Prozac: Appling Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems (). This book is a vivid, clear, and compelling example of the new (and controversial and contested) field of “philosophical therapy.” It shows that there is deep wisdom in the philosophical traditions that are directly relevant to between life management and coping skills, and to increasing meaning, happiness, and satisfaction in one’s life. “In the Cave: Philosophy and Addiction.” Can Plato's allegory of the cave shed light on the condition of addiction? ().“The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy” (video) Numerous satirical films and videos attack widespread ignorance and apathy in a soulless society dominated by corporations, government, media monopoly, and apathy. For a few of these, see: (1) Being There (starring Peter Sellers as an illiterate gardener who is mistaken for a genius and then elected President of the United States) () ; (2) Processed People (which critiques a gullible, na?ve, ignorant, and easily manipulated American public) ( ); (3) Idiocracy (in which a man wakes up 500 years in the future to discover a society so stupid he is easily the most intelligent person on earth (on Netflix at: ); and (4) The Age of Stupid (a future archivist tries to understand why humans in the 20th and 21st centuries so stupidly, callously, and complacently ignored the signs of impending climate change and ecological disaster) (on Netflix at: (). For classic literary and philosophical critiques of conformist societies devoid of critical thinking, see Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, and Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man.For a compelling call for a new way of thinking that is distinctly philosophical and ethical in nature, see “Why We Need New Ways of Thinking”(). Week II, September 3: The Art of Thinking and ReasoningIf ethical judgments are not merely arbitrary, subjective, or capricious, and there is something called “the better argument,” then clearly ethical argument and debate depends on logic and reasoning, and indeed these are foundational skills for ethics, for philosophy in general, and for a rational life. It is therefore imperative that we learn some basic concepts and skills in logic and reasoning.Lecture: Introduction to Logic and Critical ThinkingReadingPaul Gregory, “A Brief Introduction to Logic” “Logical Fallacies and practical Logic”“Logical Fallacies” Roger Darlington, “How to Think Critically” the difference between deductive and inductive logic, and give an original example of each. Explain why it is one argument or the other, and what the different criteria are for evaluating it as a good argument.Identify some of the main principles of critical thinking and apply them to an analysis of a media text, news story, or editorial of your own choice. Identify at least three fallacies, and explain why they are such types of logical errors.The documentary, “Outfoxed,” is a powerful critique of the willful manipulation of fallacies and propaganda methods by the “FOX News” network (the same critique, albeit it a bit more nuanced, could be made of any corporate media outlet, “conservative” or “liberal”). What fallacies and propaganda techniques can you detect being used by the network and its executives and owner, Rupert Murdoch? (You can view it free online at: ). What do you think is a good example of the type of scams and hoaxes that Roger Darlington warns us against in his article, “How to Think Critically”?Comment on this short video clip in terms of critical thinking themes: “The Majority is Always Wrong” ().If you read and especially liked one of the articles in the “further research” section for this unit below, share your thoughts about it.How have social media forms such as YouTube and Facebook affected our critical thinking capacities?ReviewYou should be able to:Define logical, critical thinking, and fallaciesDistinguish an argument from an assertion or explanationDefine "validity" and "soundness" and distinguish between themDefine "deductive" and "inductive" arguments and distinguish between themDefine "critical thinking" and know some attributes of it and barriers to itReconstruct an argument, locate implied premises and conclusions, and begin to evaluate itYou should also know and be able to recognize the following fallacies:Begging the questionCircular reasoningVaguenessAmbiguityEquivocationSlippery slopeAd hominemAppeal to authorityAppeal to ignoranceAppeal to pityAppeal to popularityStraw manHasty generalizationConfusing cause and effectDisanalogyFalse dichotomy (also known as: black and white, or either/or fallacy) Non sequiturFurther Research“Questioning the Lecture Format”assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_05_05.pdf “Critical Thinking on the Web” (a rich and long site with longs of interesting things to peruse) “A Guide to Non-Mainstream Media”“14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans”“Everything Is A Lie: The Deliberate Intent To Deceive People Is At An All Time High” III, September 10: The Specters of Relativism and EgoismIs there such a thing as “the right” or “the good,” as some kind of real or objective qualities, acts, or things in the world, or is everything hopelessly relative and subject to individual, cultural, and historical conditioning without objective, substantive, and enduring weight and meaning? How be ethical? How distinguish good/bad and right/wrong at all? Also, is there really an ethical core to human behavior, one that truly and irreducibly seeks the good of others, or are all altruistic acts ultimately done for selfish reasons, such as to make people feel good about themselves?Lecture: The Challenges of Ethical Relativism and EgoismReading“Moral Relativism” Jesse Prinz, “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response” [DEAD LINK]“Psychological Egoism” Peter Singer, “The Biological Basis of Ethics” [note: if Singer links don’t click on, cut and paste URLs into a browser] Peter Singer, “My Better Nature” Peter Singer, “The Escalator of Reason” DiscussionClearly define the concepts of egoism and altruism, giving them some nuance. How does engaging the biological dimension of human nature, as does Singer, help to frame these issues?Is altruism really reducible to (psychological) egoism, as cynics and skeptics like to say? Can you think of examples of actions that clearly were selfless and meant to benefit others?Does the fact that humans are animals with a long biological past mean that they are violent and egoistic? Do animals have a sense of care and mutual aid that might have shaped our moral life? Describe Singer’s effort to ground ethics in evolution, and provide a critical assessment of it.What are some of the main implications for ethics, the notion of “rational man,” and strict rational accounts of ethics (such as given by Kant) if they have evolved from other animals and over millions of years of time? What roles do both feeling and reason play in ethics and moral judgments? Is it true, as David Hume argues, that “reason is the slave to the passions,” or does reason play an important role in ethical life (through deliberation, justification, and so on)?Watch some of the vignettes from CNN’s inspiring show, Heroes, which honors the extraordinary achievements of “ordinary” people (see the archives for the show at: ). What pattern do you see throughout the various examples? How do all these people represent the “ethical life”? Does the argument that humans are egoistic and selfish stand in the face of these real-life examples of people leading an ethical life? ReviewWhat is absolutism? What is relativism? What are the problems with each position?Define psychological egoism and describe some of the main arguments for and against it.Is there a way beyond the impasse of relativism, toward factual and ethical judgments that are not arbitrary and purely subjective, yet not “absolute truth” either?Further ResearchPeter Singer, “Ethics and Sociobiology” “Emotivism Week IV, September 17: Justice and InequalityLecture #4: Justice: A Noble Discourse or Debased Practice?ReadingAncient History Sourcebook: Plato, The Republic (the “philosopher-king” discussion), The Republic, Book I (the Thrasymachus-Socrates debate on justice) Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Chapters 1&2) Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (Section I) Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream” Speech (the full video version you likely have never seen) Transcript of King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech Garret on John Rawls’ The Theory of Justice“Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power”“Why Inequality in America is Even Worse Than You Thought” “The Paradox of the New Elite”“Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed” Moyer, “How Wall Street Occupied America” (text and video)“The Shocking, Graphic Data That Shows Exactly What Motivates the Occupy Movement” some contemporary examples of retributive and restorative justice and take a critical position on one side or the other, explaining your reasoning.Would a free-market capitalist see “distributive justice” as an oxymoron and non-issue? Why are political liberals concerned so much with distributive justice issues? Is it plausible to think there actually can be real distributive justice in capitalist society, especially given how the class and income gaps have so dramatically widened in the US and globally over the last few decades? Is Marx correct to insist that distributive justice can only mean that the workers control what they produce and that classes must be abolished for any semblance of a just society? Or is Rawls’ liberal-reformist, virtually “trickle-down” approach a better and more plausible model? Who has a better understanding of the dynamics of capitalist economics and why?How would you define “social justice” and what connection does it have to do with economic and distributive justice? Describe how King emphasizes the theme of distributive justice in his “I Have a Dream Speech.” Is his vision more akin to Marx or Rawls (whatever your response to his 1963 speech, note the late King took sharp turns toward more radical and left politics).Relate the general theme of justice, and distributive justice in particular to the recent occupation movements which erupted all across the US and elsewhere. Discuss the conditions that led millions of Americans to rise up in revolt and begin making substantive demands on the entire social system. Is the right-wing fair in its typical dismissal of these protestors, or the peoples’ demands in fact just ones? Why or why not? How radical a change do you think is necessary in the American economic, political, and legal system to address the degree to which you think their demands are just and cannot be addressed with some paltry reforms? Why does Rawls think justice is the “first virtue” of a society? What if it were not? How would not negatively affect the overall character of a society and how would justice elevate it a culture and people to a higher level? Why is this better than the “might is right” and “survival of the fittest” points of view?Describe the concept of “global justice” and how this differs from other concepts of justice focused on in this week’s section. What kind of emerging awareness is taking shape throughout the world that the concept of justice, to have weight at all, really must be global in nature? How does this relate to institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and multinational capitalism, and to the “anti-globalization” movement (more accurately called the “alter-globalization” movement because they are not opposed to all forms of globalization)? What forms of globalization can you think of that are negative and unjust and which might be far more positive and just? Review/Self EvaluationWhat are the similarities and differences in the conceptions of justice advanced by Socrates and Thrasymachus? Describe the differences among retributive, restorative, and distributive justice and relate to social justice generally. Provide contemporary examples of each kind of justice.Be able to account for how justice has become an increasingly universal concern, moving from the elitist rule of the philosopher-kings to a general social contract to a Marxist notion of a classless society, to a vast and diverse movement against global capitalism, and even including now the need to broaden the notion of justice to include our treatment of other animal species.How does Rawls define justice, and what interesting device does he construct to theorize the “rules” of justice? What are these rules and how adequate are they to abolishing all forms of social injustice?Further Research“Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic””“Distributive Justice”“Economic Justice”“Social Justice”“Global Justice” “Globalization”“Global Justice”“Anti-Globalization Movement”“Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?” (Harvard University professor, Dr. Michael Sandel’s excellent 12 episode video lecture series on various facets of justice, covering a diverse set of issues ranging from and ancient and modern thinkers’ views; to racism, slavery, and affirmative action; to corruption on Wall Street and bank bailouts). Week V, September 24: Epistemology: The Origins and Limits of KnowledgeLecture: The Origins, Nature, and Limits to KnowledgeReading“Classical Skepticism” Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditations I and II) Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (excerpt)“Bishop Berkeley: An Introduction” David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (excerpt) Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (excerpt) some of the main forms, schools, and figures of skepticism in ancient Greece? How did skepticism persist in modernity, in the figures of Descartes, Hume, and Kant and to what extent in each of those figures? What was Descartes’ program of “methodological doubt”? Did he carry it very far or adopt it sincerely and convincingly? What problems can you find in the move from “I think” to “therefore, I am”? from What do find was most radical in Hume’s skeptical attitudes and provocations? What was Kant’s reaction, and how did Kant attempt to respond to Hume, whom he credited for having awakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers”?How important is the role of doubt of skepticism in the pursuit of science and philosophy, and living one’s everyday life as a citizen and individual? How far should they be pursued? At what points can and/or should they be abandoned? What are the advantages and disadvantages of skepticism over dogmatism or (less rigidly) confidence in certain “truths” or beliefs?Describe the differences between the “rationalist” approach to knowledge, such as one finds in Descartes, and the “empiricist” orientation, as evident in Locke and Hume. How does Kant try to mediate and overcome the opposition between these two methods in his synthetic view of the origins, nature, and limits of knowledge, which he calls “transcendental idealism”? How can this be considered an “active” view of the mind and of knowledge, rather than the “passive” view of the mind as a mere vessel or receiver of sensations? And how can there be objectively valid knowledge for Kant if in large part our minds construct what we call “nature”? George Berkeley certainly makes an interesting critique of materialism and empiricism, (specifically against Locke) from his idealist perspective that we never know the world not only as it really is outside of the a priori categories we unavoidable use to process our sensations (such as space, time, and causality), but that, more radically, the world is nothing but our idea or perceptions of it (e.g., when I “feel” the “table,” I am not “feeling” a material or real thing, but rather just sensations or ideas that exist only in my head). “It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing among men,” he argues, “that houses, mountains, rivers and in a word, all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding ... For what are the aforementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? And what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? And is it plainly repugnant that anyone of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?” (Of the Principles of Human Understanding) Oddly compelling in its unflinching logic, in his claim that he is taking empiricism to its “logical conclusion,” his argument is also extremely counter-intuitive and frankly, wrong. Can you identify the false assumptions or logical errors in his reasoning? Or is he actually right?Review/Self EvaluationWhat is the difference between skepticism and dogmatism? What is the positive role skepticism can play toward positive and productive forms of knowledge?Describe the main differences between rationalism and empiricism in their accounts of the origins knowledge.Describe Hume’s critique of causality and explain why or why not you find his skeptical provocation plausible.What is the difference between materialist and idealist theories of knowledge? How would you describe the differences between the types of idealism one finds in Berkeley and Kant? How would you describe the differences between the theories of knowledge proposed by Locke and by Kant?Suggested reading“Rationalism and Empiricism” René Descartes “John Locke”“George Berkeley”“David Hume”“Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics” VI, October 1: Metaphysics: Reality, God, and TechnoscienceLecture: “Metaphysics, God, and the Fate of the Real”Reading and Viewing “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave” “Philosophy and the Matrix: Return to the Source” (documentary) “God: A Confusing Concept” Steven Best, “Technoculture, Posthumanism, and the End of `Reality’”“Arguments for the Existence of God” “Ontological Argument” “Design Arguments for the Existence of God” (teleological arguments)“Existence of God” Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian” “The New Atheists” is the purpose of Plato’s parable of the Cave, and how can you relate it to his epistemology (his theory of Forms and Truth)? Do you find the parable of people living in the darkness of ignorance and mistaking shadows of reality for reality itself compelling in our contemporary society organized around mass media, advertising, entertainment spectacles, disinformation industries, and the like? How does the move, The Matrix, dramatize these and other themes in philosophy? Has the movie shaped your metaphysical and epistemological views at all? How so?Describe some of the three major arguments for the existence of God (namely: ontological, teleological/argument by design, and the cosmological), and explain how they are used variously by Anselm, Aquinas, and Paley? Provide the strongest argument against each argument you can, and rethink your belief in God consequently? Has it changed in any way? Is the existence of God something one can either prove or disprove? In his video, “Curiosity -- Did God Create the Universe” (), physicist Stephen Hawking argues why he things the universe is self-organizing and we do not need to posit a God to account for its origins. Discuss the arguments he opposes, what alternative arguments he makes, and whether or not you find his overall claim sound or not, and why? While Hawking seems most untroubled about the lack of a God, inherent meaning in the world, and an afterlife, do you find the implications of his argument disturbing? Have your feelings colored your “rational” assessment of his position? Or can you understand his equanimity and feel you could embrace the same atheistic view? Why or why not? What are Bertrand Russell’s main arguments against the existence of God and Christianity in general? Are his critiques fair? Are they convincing? Why or why not? What do the infamous “new atheists” add to the conversation, and how would you assess some of their views as well?Describe your overall reaction to the dramatic changes in science and technology, such as I describe in my essay, “Technoculture, Posthumanism, and the End of `Reality.’” How have classical ideas of metaphysics and epistemology and human nature radically changed in light of these and other fast-changing and radical developments in the human ability to alter and manipulate life? Are we dangerous close now to “playing God”? In which senses can you say that concept, and its implied critique, do and do not make sense? Do you think -- such as I use my analysis of the novel Frankenstein to describe -- that scientists and technicians have exceeded legitimate ethical boundaries in their revolutionary work, such as genetic engineering and creating and patenting hybrid species? Why or what not? Should there be limits to how we should try to shape and remake the world? Do even brilliant scientists and technicians truly know what they are doing, and are they capable of understanding and controlling the consequences of their work? Should there be oversight of such consequential work, or is it ethically sound and adequate to leave it, at best, to internal review board or perhaps to politicians who may neither be honest nor intelligent enough to assess these difficult ethical questions? And/or should we bring the public into this, such that they have some meaningful critical oversight of this work? What changes would have to be made for science to be ethical and accountable, or should freedom of research trump any regulation or oversight of any significant kind?Review/Self EvaluationHow can The Matrix be seen as a sophisticated contemporary version of Plato’s parable of “The Cave”? What other classical philosophical concerns can you identify in the movie?How has contemporary science and technology altered classical concepts of metaphysics, ontology (theory of being), and “reality” itself as we understood in quaint terms just two or three decades ago?Describe the various classical ways of arguing for the existence of God, and how they play out in the work of St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley. Identify a key problem with each type of argument.What motivated Bertrand Russell to write his essay, “Why I Am Not a Christian?” What are the strongest and weakest parts of his arguments?Who are the “new atheists” today and how have they updated or modified Russell’s arguments? Assess the pros and cons of at least two of the “new atheist’s” arguments. Suggested Reading and Viewing“Plato’s Allegory of the Cave” (video) “St. Anselm on God’s Existence,” selection from Proslogion Aquinas, selection from Summa Theologica “The New Atheists”“10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked”“Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?” Best lecture in Slovenia, July 2011: “Everything You Know About Human Nature is Wrong” (video): VII, October 8: Existentialism, Absurdity, and the Meaning of LifeLecture: Existentialism: Angst and the Task of Being and BecomingReading and Viewing“The Meaning of Life”“The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism” “Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript” Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, pp. 119-151 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Chapters 1 and 5) Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist (sections 1-50) “Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil” (video) Heidegger, “Existence and Being” “Heidegger: Thinking the Unthinkable” (video) Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” Sartre: The Road to Freedom (video) the “Four Noble Truths” of Buddhism, and how they underpin a philosophy of life as suffering. If to live is essentially to suffer, because of thwarted desires, pain, and so on, how then can we be happy – for Buddhism is designed ultimately to be a philosophy of happiness. What do you think are the most important insights in Buddhism, such as they could concretely apply to your life? Critically assess the overall adequacy of Buddhism as both a diagnosis of a problem (life is suffering) and a solution to it (how to overcome suffering to attain happiness).Albert Camus says that the only real philosophical question is whether or not one ought to suicide; to suicide is an admission that life has no meaning, or not enough to justify undue amounts of suffering. Does life have meaning? Is there a meaning for life, a single meaning, or a plurality of noble and worthy meanings? What is the logical relationship between a meaningful life and a purposeful life? If there is any type of meaning(s) in life, from where and how does meaning arise? Is meaning inherent in the universe? Or is meaning solely a human social-psychological construction? Does a meaningful life require the existence of a God? Can an atheist live a meaningful a life as a theist, or even a more meaningful life? Think critically and explain your answers. All the concerns described above are central preoccupations of the nineteenth and twentieth century tradition of existentialism, a philosophy which raises questions relating the nature of our being, both as a general issue, and in very concrete terms, such as relate to human emotions such as anxiety and dread, and the contingency of life and immanence of death in a universe where God seems uncertain at best. Provide a definition of existentialism, describing how it raises the question of the meaning of existence, with or without the existence of a God (note that some existentialists like Kierkegaard are Christians, some like Heidegger are mystics, and others like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus are atheists). Include in your answer another key aspect common to the existentialist tradition, which is a critique of mass society (the “mob,” the “They self,” the “herd,” etc.) and call for individuals (or those “higher types” up to the task) to become “authentic,” free, and creative selves.What are the core points in Kierkegaard’s essays “Fear and Trembling” and “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”? What is the significance of the extended account of Abraham being ordered to kill his son in the first essay, and the critique of Hegel’s God which reduces individuals to mere abstractions and the insistence that “truth is subjectivity” in the second essay? Given that Kierkegaard was a Christian, how is it that a Christian – whose primary virtues is considered to be faith and to follow the laws of God and not be an individual – can be the “founding father” of modern existentialism?What does Sartre mean by the phrase “existentialism is a humanism”? What is the significance and meaning of Sartre’s inversion of the Platonic idea that “essence precedes existence” to insist that, instead, “existence precedes essence” (by “essence” in this second case, understand not Plato’s forms, but rather the belief in a fixed human nature or static definition of oneself as a thing, type, or limited social role or function)? Describe Sartre’s extreme theory of freedom, such that he insists we are “condemned to be free” and that we are completely responsible for everything we do, are, and make or do not make of ourselves. Review/Self EvaluationHow is Buddhism better considered a “spirituality” rather than a conventional “religion” such as Christianity? What are the four noble truths of Buddhism? What distinguishes Kierkegaard as a “Christian existentialist”?What general pattern of criticism of philosophers can you identify Nietzsche making in the Section I of Beyond Good and Evil? Describe his powerful critique of Christianity in section V of the same book: How does he trace the origins of the Christian religion as a “slave revolt in morality” against Roman oppressors? As a philosophy of “resentment” of “lower types” against “higher types,” not an ethics of love and compassion. To what extent does this critique seem incisive and how does his Aristocratic elitism and contempt for values such as pity and equality prevent him from a more nuanced and favorable assessment of early Christianity, if such an assessment is indeed warranted?Suggested Reading“Buddha”“The Life of the Buddha” (video) “Philosophy: Guide to Happiness” (video)-“Existentialism” “S?ren Kierkegaard”“Friedrich Nietzsche”“Martin Heidegger” “Jean Paul Sartre” “Albert Camus” final exams ARE DUE TO ME BY midnight, Wednesday October 17; please send them to me at: best@utep.edu. Do NOT post your exam to Blackboard email. Keep a copy of your exam should there be a problem. The deadline for dropping the course is March 29. Failure to submit a final exam could lead to your failing the course altogether. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download