PhilWikiWiki - Recently Updated Pages

Value And Meaning

arete — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:50:57 CST

So far we have said nothing about what makes something valuable. We have just made a distinction between different types of value. Nozick defines value in terms of the concept of Organic Unity. To say that something possesses organic unity is to say that it is integrated within its own boundaries, or that it has internal unified coherence. The main theme here is Unity and Diversity. The integration of a system provides unity. For example the theme that unifies the paragraphs of an essay. The paragraphs are the diverse elements unified by the theme. The tighter the unity and coherence the more value. Also, the more elements that are unified the greater the value. Perhaps math has ultimate organic unity since there are infinitely many numbers and they are unified by perfect mathematical principles. We can also apply this to a person's life. Their values are the unifiying principles, their actions are the things to be unified. Some values will organize our actions better than others. Hence some values are more valuable than others. I like that idea. This forces us to ask: What is the value of our values? Other examples of organic unity include Mind/Body, juggling, art, emotion, happiness. Recall Nozick's definition of emotion and happiness (in particular the third form) and see if you can see how these involve organic unity.

Ok, so much for value. What about meaning? Nozick says that meaning involves a connection to something beyond internal boundaries. This is different from value because value was determined by the internal connections between the elements of a system, not how it relates to anything beyond itself. Meaning requires a connection to something else. What is this something else? We might say that X is meaningful if it is connected to something else Y which possesses meaning. But Nozick sees that this will not work because it creates an infinite regress. What would make Y meaningful in the first place. By definition it would have to be connected to something else Z which has value. But how does Z get its meaning? It would have to be connected to something else meaningful, and so on and so on and so on. The process would never end, and meaning would never appear. So we cannot require that X must be connected to something meaningful in order to be meaningful. Hmmmm. Nozick refers back to the concept of value here. Clever. In order for X to be meaningful X must be related to something beyond itself Y which is valuable (rather than meaningful). So meaning is a connection between things of value. The degree of meaning will vary as the degree of value varies between the connected items. Meaning is a transference of value from one organic unity to another. I wonder if some meanings are more valuable than others on Nozick's definition.

Nozick does not answer this question: What is the meaning of life? However, with his definitions, we should be able to provide an answer, or at least the beginning of one. What answer would you give? Just a little question to leave you with.

An Examined Life

arete — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:14:47 CST

Topics to the left.

The book from which these notes are taken is The Examined Life by Robert Nozick. You can search philosophical topicsin the book itself here. Put in a search term, or browse. This is read ONLY from googlebooks.

Below are audio and notes I have created from The Examined Life. The focus is on the concepts on love, emotion and happiness from his book. There are a variety of topics to the left, somewhat randomly organized

The Logic Of Emotion

Emotional
Ambivalence

Love 's Bond
PhilWiki Link

Happiness

PhilWiki Link

Nozick On Happiness

More Happiness

Two Thought Experiments On Happines

Audio

Love
Emotion
Happiness

Life is examined in language.

For more on language...

new podcast

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:09:28 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

analysis questions

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:48:16 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

quiz 4

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:26:43 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Myth Of Sisyphus Or Allegory Of The Cave?

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:18:28 CST

WHICH AUTHOR GIVES A MORE COMPELLING ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE AND MEANING OF HUMAN EXISTENCE?

My audio for Plato and Camus

Below.

Read "Allegory Of The Cave"
*my audio here

Alert Camus- Myth Of Sisyphus
Read "Myth Of Sisyphus"

Listen To Allegory Of The Cave

Allegory Down to the basics!

Quiz 3

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:32:58 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

PhilWikiWiki

arete — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:09:54 CST

Wisdom Conquers Ignorance And Arrogance

(this is my friend's rendering of a famous Medieveal painting of the same title)

Feel Good!

Audio

arete — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:53:42 CST

Analysis Question Overveiw

USF Audio

arete — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:20:16 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Extra Credit: A Few Of Your Favorite (philosophical) Things

arete — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:33:46 CST

LEAVE VOICE COMMENT HERE!!!

What To Do?.....Talk

1. Think for a moment....what is your single favorite point covered in our philosophy class? Tell us about this philosophical concept you have chosen and why it appeals to you. What does this shed light on? What does this do for you which makes you like it? Talk to us! If you could also leave a link or two to some online sources that get into the philosophical point you are discussing that would be great. We all benefit from that.
2. Click 'Comment' on the image above, click 'record', and start talking. You will be speaking into your computer's microphone. They all have them. This is the part that might get tricky. If you are asked for a log in, you can use the one above.
3. Email me (Fairweather) through your course website (Blackboard or iLearn) and give me a brief summary of what you left here. This part is necessary to get points. I need a 'report' from you summarizing what you did here.
OR
Write.....
If the audio comment approach does not work, you can can leave a comment at the bottom of the page with the same prompt. Be sure to get into it a bit, tell us not only which point you chose but go on for a bit about what lead you to chose it. Also, be sure to leave a link or two.
OR
Make a page at this wiki: Common Thought. You'll see lots of other student pages, these are from different assignments. Find the 'add page' button and put in whatever content you like. This might require a little more web savy, but it's really pretty easy. The 'easy edit' button allows you to make as many changes as you like. You can embed video, music, whatever!

Four Models Of Philosophical Transformation

arete — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:02:16 CST

*See 'episode 5 & 6' on the audio

Kierkegaard Stages On Life's Way

arete — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:03:36 CST

6-7pages, double spaced.

Explain how the self changes through the three stages of life (Aesthetic, Ethical, Religious) according to Kierkegaard. Specifically, explain how the different forms of choice and inwardness result in different forms of selfhood at each stage. Finally, tell me how you can relate Kierkegaard's ideas on choice to significant choices that mankind faces, or the very fact that we have choice, and compare his philsophy toone other course reading we have covered. Finish by explaining some conclusion you have arrived at from the analysis given in your paper.

Reading:
"The Rotation Method" (Aesthetic)
"Equilibrium" (Ethical)
"Truth Is Subjectivity" (Religious)

Links For Research

PhilosophyPages

Anthony Storm's Commentary

Stanford Encycopedia Of Philosophy

Robert Adams On The Religious Stage

Aesthetic Audio

The Mind/Body Problem

arete — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:22:42 CST

Philosophy Talk radio show from Stanford ('bout an hour): Dualism
Philosophy Talk radio show from Stanford ('bout an hour):Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Philosophy Bites Interview ('bout 15 min): Tim Crane on the Mind-Body Problem

Philosophy Bites Interview ('bout 15 min): David Papeneiu on Physicalism

Wikipedia: Mind-Body
David Chalmers' Short Video Overview On Consciousness and Zombies
A History Of The Mind As We Know It
Just A Little Research To Start! (actually, tons of papers on philosophy of mind!)

A few essays below on qualia and consciousness. Nagel, in particular, will be of interest to us.

1BonJour, Lawrence -What Is It Like To Be A Human (Instead Of A Bat)?
2Nagel, Thomas -What Is It Like To Be A Bat?
3Jackson, Frank -Epiphenominal Qualia.
4Max Deutsch -Subjective Physical Facts.

Great Philosophical Debates

arete — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:10:20 CST

Freedom and Determinism(still finishing this one)
*two fun little videos:Free Will ,Determinism

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

The Mind-Body Problem
Personal identity (still finishing this one)

Descartes

arete — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:07:02 CDT

Cartesian Arguments: My notes

The life of Rene Descartes

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/

Interview:
ACGraying on Descartes
Barry Stroud (great Cal philosopher) on Skepticism

Short Audio Book: Discourse On Method
{Good Overview of Meditations}

Nice video that hits many of the same concerns:
Perceiving Reality

The Matrirx And Philosophy

Feminist critique of the Cartesian project
and the man of reason

An aboriginal take on Dreamtime!

Below is a nice overview from www.philosophypages.com. A couple links might be 'dead'.

Descartes: Starting with Doubt

For a more complete formal presentation of this foundational experience, we must turn to the Meditationes de prima Philosophia (Meditations on First Philosophy) (1641), in which Descartes offered to contemporary theologians his proofs of the existence of god and the immortality of the human soul. This explicit concern for religious matters does not reflect any loss of interest in pursuing the goals of science. By sharply distinguishing mind from body, Descartes hoped to preserve a distinct arena for the church while securing the freedom of scientists to develop mechanistic accounts of physical phenomena. In this way, he supposed it possible to satisfy the requirements of Christian doctrine, but discourage the interference of the church in scientific matters and promote further observational exploration of the material world. The arrangement of the Meditations, Descartes emphasized, is not the order of reasons; that is, it makes no effort to proceed from the metaphysical foundations of reality to the dependent existence of lesser beings, as Spinoza would later try to do. Instead, this book follows the order of thoughts; that is, it traces the epistemological progress an individual thinker might follow in establishing knowledge at a level of perfect certainty. Thus, these are truly Meditations: we are meant to put ourselves in the place of the first-person narrator, experiencing for ourselves the benefits of the philosophical method.

The Method of Doubt

The basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt is to defeat skepticism on its own ground. Begin by doubting the truth of everything—not only the evidence of the senses and the more extravagant cultural presuppositions, but even the fundamental process of reasoning itself. If any particular truth about the world can survive this extreme skeptical challenge, then it must be truly indubitable and therefore a perfectly certain foundation for knowledge. The First Meditation, then, is an extended exercise in learning to doubt everything that I believe, considered at three distinct levels:

Perceptual Illusion First, Descartes noted that the testimony of the senses with respect to any particular judgment about the external world may turn out to be mistaken. (Med. I) Things are not always just as they seem at first glance (or at first hearing, etc.) to be. But then, Descartes argues, it is prudent never wholly to trust in the truth of what we perceive. In ordinary life, of course, we adjust for mistaken perceptions by reference to correct perceptions. But since we cannot be sure at first which cases are veridical and which are not, it is possible (if not always feasible) to doubt any particular bit of apparent sensory knowledge.
The Dream Problem Second, Descartes raised a more systematic method for doubting the legitimacy of all sensory perception. Since my most vivid dreams are internally indistinguishible from waking experience, he argued, it is possible that everything I now "perceive" to be part of the physical world outside me is in fact nothing more than a fanciful fabrication of my own imagination. On this supposition, it is possible to doubt that any physical thing really exists, that there is an external world at all. (Med. I) Severe as it is, this level of doubt is not utterly comprehensive, since the truths of mathematics and the content of simple natures remain unaffected. Even if there is no material world (and thus, even in my dreams) two plus three makes five and red looks red to me. In order to doubt the veracity of such fundamental beliefs, I must extend the method of doubting even more hyperbolically.
A Deceiving God Finally, then, Descartes raises even more comprehensive doubts by inviting us to consider a radical hypothesis derived from one of our most treasured traditional beliefs. What if (as religion teaches) there is an omnipotent god, but that deity devotes its full attention to deceiving me? (Med. I) The problem here is not merely that I might be forced by god to believe what something which is in fact false. Descartes means to raise the far more devastating possibility that whenever I believe anything, even if it has always been true up until now, a truly omnipotent deceiver could at that very moment choose to change the world so as to render my belief false. On this supposition, it seems possible to doubt the truth of absolutely anything I might come to believe. Although the hypothesis of a deceiving god best serves the logical structure of the Meditations as a whole, Descartes offered two alternative versions of the hypothetical doubt for the benefit of those who might take offense at even a counter-factual suggestion of impiety. It may seem more palatable to the devout to consider the possibility that I systematically deceive myself or that there is some evil demon who perpetually tortures me with my own error. The point in each case is that it is possible for every belief I entertain to be false.

Remember that the point of the entire exercise is to out-do the skeptics at their own game, to raise the broadest possible grounds for doubt, so that whatever we come to believe in the face of such challenges will indeed be that which cannot be doubted. It is worthwhile to pause here, wallowing in the depths of Cartesian doubt at the end of the First Meditation, the better to appreciate the escape he offers at the outset of Meditation Two.

I Am, I Exist

The Second Meditation begins with a review of the First. Remember that I am committed to suspending judgment with respect to anything about which I can conceive any doubt, and my doubts are extensive. I mistrust every report of my senses, I regard the material world as nothing more than a dream, and I suppose that an omnipotent god renders false each proposition that I am even inclined to believe. Since everything therefore seems to be dubitable, does it follow that I can be certain of nothing at all? It does not. Descartes claimed that one thing emerges as true even under the strict conditions imposed by the otherwise universal doubt: "I am, I exist" is necessarily true whenever the thought occurs to me. (Med. II) This truth neither derives from sensory information nor depends upon the reality of an external world, and I would have to exist even if I were systematically deceived. For even an omnipotent god could not cause it to be true, at one and the same time, both that I am deceived and that I do not exist. If I am deceived, then at least I am. Although Descartes's reasoning here is best known in the Latin translation of its expression in the Discourse, "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"), it is not merely an inference from the activity of thinking to the existence of an agent which performs that activity. It is intended rather as an intuition of one's own reality, an expression of the indubitability of first-person experience, the logical self-certification of self-conscious awareness in any form. Skepticism is thereby defeated, according to Descartes. No matter how many skeptical challenges are raised—indeed, even if things are much worse than the most extravagant skeptic ever claimed—there is at least one fragment of genuine human knowledge: my perfect certainty of my own existence. From this starting-point, Descartes supposed, it is possible to achieve indubitable knowledge of many other propositions as well.

I Am a Thinking Thing An initial consequence may be drawn directly from the intuitive certainty of the cogito itself. If I know that I am, Descartes argued, I must also know what I am; an understanding of my true nature must be contained implicitly in the content of my awareness. What then, is this "I" that doubts, that may be deceived, that thinks? Since I became certain of my existence while entertaining serious doubts about sensory information and the existence of a material world, none of the apparent features of my human body can have been crucial for my understanding of myself. But all that is left is my thought itself, so Descartes concluded that "sum res cogitans" ("I am a thing that thinks"). (Med. II) In Descartes's terms, I am a substance whose inseparable attribute (or entire essence) is thought, with all its modes: doubting, willing, conceiving, believing, etc. What I really am is a mind [Lat. mens] or soul [Lat. anima]. So completely am I identified with my conscious awareness, Descartes claimed, that if I were to stop thinking altogether, it would follow that I no longer existed at all. At this point, nothing else about human nature can be determined with such perfect certainty. In ordinary life, my experience of bodies may appear to be more vivid than self-consciousness, but Descartes argued that sensory appearances actually provide no reliable knowledge of the external world. If I hold a piece of beeswax while approaching the fire, all of the qualities it presents to my senses change dramatically while the wax itself remains. (Med. II) It follows that the impressions of sense are unreliable guides even to the nature of bodies. (Notice here that the identity of the piece of wax depends solely upon its spatial location; that's a significant hint about Descartes's view of the true nature of material things, which we'll see in more detail in Meditation Five.)

Rationalism, Empiricism and Skepticism

arete — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:19:34 CDT

Philosophy Talk radio show from Stanford ('bout an hour): Skepticism

Stanford Encyclopedia:Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Two episodes of Philosophy Bites ('bout 15 min):

ACGraying on Descartes

Barry Stroud (great Cal philosopher) on Skepticism

Continue Your Philosophical Education with a Major Or Minor in Philosophy

arete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:13:28 CDT

FAMOUS PHILOSOPHY MAJORS

NICE "WHY MAJOR IN PHILOSOPHY" SITE FROM U. OF L.

voice

arete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:53:56 CDT

Audio Experiment: Anyone can leave a comment with the following log in, and a microphone on your computer! Give it a shot!
Log In: fairweatherphilosophy@gmail.com
Password: philtalk
*Note this is just a log in, not an email for you to use. That log in won't work anyhoo!

Press the comment button, and 'record', and you can record right from the computer.
Leave a comment by telling us one philosophical question/topic that you find interesting, perplexing, or important....OR, whether you think the U.S. should have a universal health care system. Either is fine, or you can even say something different. This is just to give you a prompt to say something, since this is really just a test! Give it a go!!

Nietzsche: Three Metamorphoses

arete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:12:15 CDT

The Three Metamorphoses Here: Camel, Lion, Child
My brief audio on Metamorphoses

Link To Audio Book (Intro. To Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Random Nietzsche Quotes & Cartoons

Nice Nietzsche Site

Below is the Introduction andThis links to just Metamorphoses. The Intro. is GREAT!

Towards the Ubermensch

"I teach you the overman.Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment...

Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth.Let your will say: the overmanshall bethe meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers,remain faithful to the earth,and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.

Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth...

What is the greatest experience you can have? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour when your happiness, too, arouses your disgust, and even your reason and your virtue.

The hour when you say, 'What matters my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness ought to justify existence itself.'

The hour when you say, 'What matters my reason? Does it crave knowledge as the lion his food? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'

The hour when you say, 'What matters my virtue? As yet it has not made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! All that is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is anovertureand agoing under...

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.

Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you thelast man.

'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.

The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...

One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.

No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...

One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."

from Nietzsche'sThus spoke Zarathustra,p.3,4,5, Walter Kaufmann transl.

ON THE THREE METAMORPHOSES OF THE SPIRIT

Of the three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.

There is much that is difficult for the spirit, the strong, reverent spirit that would bear much: but the difficult and the most difficult are what its strength demands.

What is difficult? asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength? Is it not humbling oneself to wound one's haughtiness? Letting one's folly shine to mock one's wisdom?...

Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: loving those that despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?

All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.

In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs: here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." "Thou shalt" lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden "thou shalt."

Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will.'" Thus speaks the dragon.

My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough?

To create new values -- that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred "No" even to duty -- for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values -- that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.

But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world.

from Nietzsche'sThus spoke Zarathustra,part I, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Bill Curry

PhilWikiWiki - Recently Updated Pages

Value And Meaning

An Examined Life

The Logic Of Emotion

Emotional Ambivalence

Love's BondPhilWiki Link

Happiness

PhilWiki Link

Nozick On Happiness

Two Thought Experiments On Happines

new podcast

analysis questions

quiz 4

Myth Of Sisyphus Or Allegory Of The Cave?

Quiz 3

PhilWikiWiki

Audio

USF Audio

Extra Credit: A Few Of Your Favorite (philosophical) Things

Four Models Of Philosophical Transformation

Kierkegaard Stages On Life's Way

The Mind/Body Problem

Great Philosophical Debates

Descartes

Descartes: Starting with Doubt

Rationalism, Empiricism and Skepticism

Continue Your Philosophical Education with a Major Or Minor in Philosophy

voice

Nietzsche: Three Metamorphoses

Towards the Ubermensch

Emotional
Ambivalence

Love 's Bond
PhilWiki Link