Logic - Friday Feb 29
We worked through problem #7 in Exercise 4-11.
We then got into groups and discussed questions 1-4 and 7 in Exercise 4-14. On Monday I will review the answers.
Quiz #3 was given at the end of class.
« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
We worked through problem #7 in Exercise 4-11.
We then got into groups and discussed questions 1-4 and 7 in Exercise 4-14. On Monday I will review the answers.
Quiz #3 was given at the end of class.
We continued our review of the social philosophers of the 19th century (the utilitarians, Comte, and Marx).
Quiz #4 was given at the end of class.
Reading for Monday: Jones through p. 234
Today we had a guest speaker: Professor Sean Walsh of the UMD Philosophy Department. He spoke on the relations between faith, reason, and community in Catholicism.
Reading for Mon.:
Smith pp. 146-155
There will be a Philosophy Colloquium on Monday, March 3rd
at 4:00 pm in ABAH 235. All are welcome to attend.
Sympathy, Moral Psychology, and Mass Suffering
Presented by Ramona Cristina Ilea
Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
Pacific University
http://www.pacificu.edu/as/philosophy/faculty/ramona-ilea.cfm
Abstract: Starting with David Hume, philosophers have praised the virtues
of sympathy. In this presentation, I will argue that we cannot and should
not depend on our natural feeling of sympathy to motivate us to take action
against mass suffering and death. I will analyze psychological literature
to support the view that our individual sympathy has major limitations: (1)
psychological studies indicate that our natural sympathetic responses are
not trustworthy; (2) sympathy can lead us astray, moving us away from
caring
about mass suffering and death; and (3) sympathy can have a paralyzing
effect that leads to ignorance and inaction.
We basically finished up Chapter 4 today. At the end of class, we began working on Exercise 4-11, #7. Here's a big juicy hint: The proof can be completed in 3 steps (4 lines altogether), using Dist, Simp, and Comm (though not necessarily in that order).
Reading for Fri: through p. 138
We talked about Darwin's influence on philosophy and society in general. As an illustration of this influence, and an example of how Darwin's views are often seen as being incompatible with religious beliefs, we watched a chapter from Inherit the Wind (one of my favorite films).
We then got started on summarizing the main points of the chapter.
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 224
I'll be back at UMD for another year (this time as "Assistant Professor"). Woo hoo!
"Philm Night is back and kicken Monday March 3rd at 7pm in ABAH 345.
We will be watching "Ghost in the Shell." It's an animation film about
the blurred line between what makes a human different from a robot. Is
there a difference? Can robots eventually be like us? We'll find out by
the end of the night :). Hope to see you all there!"
--Mike Wadding
We finished up our discussion of Christianity and started on Islam.
On Friday, Professor Sean Walsh of the UMD Philosophy Department will be our guest speaker. He will talk about Catholicism.
For Fri.: Smith, pp. 218-229
Socratic Society discussion 7:30 tomorrow evening, Thursday Feb 28,
will be led by student Simon R:
"The Ontological Argument revisted, again"
The famous ontological argument, devised by St. Anselm circa 1000 a.d.
and endorsed by Descartes, and, for a couple hours, Bertrand Russell,
is an argument that the very concept of God entails that He exists.
Note that this week discussion will be in room Kirby 311, across from
the Dining Center.
Today we discussed more proof strategies and worked through a bunch of proofs.
Homework #6:
Ex 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13 (every third odd: 1, 7, 13, 19 in each exercise)
Reading for Wed: through p. 133
Today we had the debate between the "Utilitarians," "Comteans" (who got their ideas "straight outta Comte"), and "Marxists." The Utilitarians advocated European-style democratic socialism, the Comteans advocated a centralized, planned society run by social engineers, and the Marxists (predictably) advocated violent overthrow of the capitalist system, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat (which would be only temporary, of course).
Reminder: The midterm exam will be given on Friday, March 14 (the day before Spring Break).
Reading for Wed.: Read Jones through p. 219
Exam #1 was given today. I've graded them already (took all afternoon). All in all, you did pretty well! There were a few As, tons of Bs, a few Cs, a few Ds, and not a single F. I graded by percentage of the highest score (which was 930/1000), and then made a few minor adjustments for natural breaks.
Reading for tomorrow: Finish Chapter 4.
Today we talked about good ol' Karl Marx.
We then got into three groups, the "Utilitarians," the "Comteans," and the "Marxists," and discussed the following questions (from their respective points of view):
1) What is wrong with society?
2) What should we do about it?
Tomorrow we will continue this discussion, and perhaps have a little debate.
Reading for Tues.: Read Jones through p. 208
Today we had a guest speaker: Don Ross, rabbinical assistant at Temple Israel Duluth. He spoke on the topic of -- you guessed it -- Judaism.
Reading for Wed:
Smith pp. 206-217
Anthology, pp. 271-274
In Exercise 4-4, #1, it seems like the conclusion should be R, not Q. (Even I thought that this was a typo at first.) However, there is a sentence that can be placed in line 2 that will make the proof work. (Hint: a conditional can be part of a larger conditional!)
To download a list of real errors in the textbook, click here.
Here are the answers to the exercise I posted here on Friday.
"I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something."
--Jackie Mason
M = "I have enough money to last me the rest of my life"
B = "I buy something"
~B => M
~M => B
M v B
(Note: I'm using '=>' for the horseshoe.)
If you set up a truth table for these three sentences (in the standard format, listing B first), the column under the main connective of each should read:
T
T
T
F
This shows that the three translations are logically equivalent.
We reviewed for the exam on Monday.
Participation log #1 was turned in.
For Mon.: Study! (no new reading)
Here's a little (unofficial) exercise that will help prepare you for the exam:
"I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something."
--Jackie Mason
Exercise: Give three logically equivalent translations of the above statement, using the following abbreviations:
M = "I have enough money to last me the rest of my life"
B = "I buy something"
Your translations should contain no more than two logical connectives.
Use truth tables to prove that your translations are logically equivalent.
(I will post the answers sometime over the weekend.)
We finished discussing the utilitarians and moved on to Comte.
Quiz #3 was given at the end of class.
Increment #1 of the participation log was collected.
Reading for Mon.: Jones through p. 198
We finished up Judaism and started on Christianity.
Quiz #3 was given at the end of class.
Increment #1 of the participation log was collected.
Reading for Mon:
Smith pp. 192-203
Anthology, pp. 221-222, 227
"Midlife Suicide Rises, Puzzling Researchers"
--headline, New York Times, Feb. 19
Question:
> I was just wondering one thing about
> the homework. Is it ok to write out a proof rather than rewriting
> just the answers like in the back of the book?
Answer: Yes, you should definitely write out the whole proof.
We introduced a bunch of new rules and worked through a bunch of proofs.
Friday is a review day. We will work through a number of problems similar to what will be on the exam.
For Fri.: Read through p. 116, study for exam
We finished up Chapter 4 and started on Chapter 5
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 186
We finished up our discussion of Taoism and started on Judaism.
Remember: Participation logs due Friday!
Reading for Fri:
Smith pp. 179-191
We talked about proof strategies and worked through some proofs.
Homework #5:
Exercises 3-10, 3-11, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5 (every other odd problem: 1, 5, 9, etc. in each exercise)
Note that the graders only grade selected problems in your homework--typically about half of the problems you are assigned. Of course, you don't know ahead of time which ones they will be grading.
For Wed.: Read through p. 111
We just about finished our discussion of Hegel and Schopenhauer.
Reading for Wed., Feb. 20: Jones through p. 173
Hear Ye, Hear Ye:
The Socratic Society meets for the second time this semester!
Thursday, February 21, 7:30 – 9:00 pm, Kirby 355-57
“Free Will, Determinism, and Counterfactuals”
A discussion led by Professor Casey McGinnis.
Casey will explain why free will is compatible with determinism.
Then everyone else will explain why he is wrong.
All are welcome.
----------------
P.S.:
Socratic Society is looking for presenters! Or, at the very
least, discussion leading. No Ph.D. or expert knowledge needed. You can
tell us about the view of a philosopher you have read about, you can
present an argument, or you can merely pose a series of questions.
Previous topics have included the meaning of life, freewill vs
determinism, infinity, religious experiences, aesthetics, and various
thought experiments.
Socratic Society meets on Thursday evenings from 7:30 pm - 9:00 pm in
Kirby 355-57 (unless noted).
If you are interested, feel free to sign up for a meeting date on the
door of the seminar room, ABAH 301.
We continued discussing proofs and worked through some problems.
Homework #3 was handed back.
I handed out a study guide for the first exam, which will be a week from today.
For Tues: read through p. 103
We finished up our discussion of Hegel and started on Schopenhauer.
Reminder: participation logs due this Friday.
Announcement: midterm will be on Friday Mar. 14 (last day before Spring Break).
For Tues:
Read Jones through p. 164
A few of you have asked about the comparative sizes (in terms of number of adherents) of the different religions we have been studying. Here are some statistics that you mind find interesting/helpful.
We watched a PBS video on Confucianism and Taoism (featuring Huston Smith).
Reminder: participation logs due this Friday.
Reading for Wed.:
Smith through p. 143
Anthology, pp. 147-8, 171
We started by talking about how the truth tables (especially for implication) can be justified. We then moved on to start talking about proofs.
Quiz #2 was handed back.
For Monday: read through p. 98.
We finished up our overview of Kant and got started on Hegel (yuck).
I admitted that I can't stand Hegel (worst ... philosopher ... ever), but nevertheless tried to present his views in a somewhat sympathetic light. On Monday we will finish up Hegel and move on to his bitter rival Schopenhauer (whom I like quite a bit).
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Mon.: finish Chapter 4.
We covered the entire chapter on Confucianism today (!) and got started on Taoism.
We also watched (the rest of) this totally awesome video on the Four Noble Truths:
Oh yeah, and there was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Monday: Smith through p. 121.
Announcements:
- Participation logs (first increment) are due on Friday of next week (Feb. 22)
- The midterm exam will be given on Wednesday, March 12
Since you guys bombed the quiz yesterday, we reviewed some problems similar to what was on the quiz. We also worked through a few problems from the current homework.
I announced that the first exam will be on Monday, Feb. 25. I will hand out a review sheet on Monday, Feb. 18, and we will have a review session (in class) on the Friday before the exam. For the exam, you will be allowed a 3" x 5" index card with any information you want on it (both sides). I will enforce the 3 x 5 inch restriction by arbitrarily ripping your card if it is too big!
For Friday: read through p. 93.
Tautological* quote of the day:
"Things are more like they are now than they have ever been."
--Gerald Ford
*This is a tautology in the colloquial sense, not in the logical sense.
Today I tried to summarize Kant's philosophical views in 50 minutes -- not an easy task!
For Friday: read Jones pp. 140-144 (we are skipping over pp. 124-140)
We finished up our discussion of Buddhism today.
Here's proof that Buddhists aren't always non-violent!
Next time, we'll start on Confucianism.
Reading for Fri.:
Smith through p. 97 (start on next chapter if you like)
We talked about why an argument is automatically valid whenever either its premise set is inconsistent or its conclusion is a tautology. We also discussed the short truth table test for invalidity.
Quiz #2 was given at the end of class.
Reading for tomorrow: finish chapter 3
Homework #4 (due next Tues):
Exercises 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9 (every other odd –i.e., do problems 1, 5, 9, etc. in each problem set)
We discussed Kant's (rather perplexing) account of free will, as well as his views on God and immortality.
Tomorrow we will summarize our discussion of Kant, emphasizing the points and concepts that are most important to understand and remember.
For tomorrow: read Jones through p. 124.
Today we covered the notion of logical equivalence, the truth table tests for validity and consistency, and the definition of an argument's "counterexample set".
Important to remember:
1. An argument is valid if and only if its counterexample set is inconsistent.
2. An argument is invalid if and only if its counterexample set is consistent.
(These two statements are equivalent.)
For tomorrow: read through p. 82.
We covered the 2nd and 3rd formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and got started on Kant's account of free will.
For tomorrow: read Jones through p. 117 (feel free to skim over the poetry)
For ambitious students who like to read ahead: note that we will be skipping over pp. 124-140
Today we finished up our discussion of Hinduism and began on Buddhism.
Reading for Wed.:
Smith through p. 85
Anthology, pp. 81-82
Reminder: your first participation log will be due in class on Friday, Feb. 22 (the last day of the fifth week). (This applies to all of the classes I'm teaching this semester.)
Here's an example participation log you can use as a model (I handed this out earlier in the semester):
Jane Q. Student
PHIL 1234
Class Participation Log
For 9/4/07 – 10/5/07
In-class comments/questions:
9/5/07: You asked us what we think of when we hear the word “philosophy.” I suggested “old guys with long beards who think really hard about stuff and say profound things that no one can understand.”
9/17/07: You asked us whether we thought that the “Last Man” in the Routleys’ thought experiment had done anything wrong. I said that I thought the Last Man had indeed done something wrong, because he caused harm to creatures that are capable of feeling pain. I said that the ability to feel pain is the important thing. If he didn’t harm any beings capable of feeling pain, then he didn’t do anything wrong.
9/26/07: I raised my hand and asked how Kant’s idealism is different from Berkeley’s.
In-class assignments:
9/7/07: Participated in group exercise where we were asked to think of an instance of a “chain argument” with false premises and a true conclusion. (Worked on this with Ann Anderson and Bob Roberts.)
9/21/07: Wrote and turned in “minute paper” on what I found most interesting and most confusing about Buddhism.
Discussions with instructor outside of class:
9/14/07: Came in during office hours for help with writing assignment #1. (I wasn’t sure about the significance of Descartes’ “Evil Genius.” We talked about the role that the “Evil Genius” plays in Descartes’ attempt to find a solid foundation for his knowledge.)
10/3/07: Approached you after class to talk a little bit about the argument that relativism is self-defeating. I wasn’t sure I understood the argument, but after talking to you I think I understand it. (I’m still not sure it’s sound, though.)
Homework and quizzes were handed back.
After reviewing the concepts of sentence forms and substitution instances, we introduced the concepts of tautologies, contradictions, and contingent sentences. We constructed truth tables for numerous examples.
For Mon.: read through p. 78.
After reviewing Kant's Categorical Imperative (first formulation), we got into small groups and discussed some ways in which it might be considered problematic or defective. (Be sure to record small group participation in your participation log!)
For Mon.: read Jones through p. 99
Today we had a guest speaker: Shane Courtland of Tulane University, who discussed the "problem of evil" -- a topic we will return to later in the semester.
For Mon.: read Smith through p. 75.
We finished up Chapter 2 and got started on Chapter 3.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
For Friday: read through p. 70.
We got started on Kant's theory of value.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Friday: Jones through p. 90.
We talked about some important sacred texts of Hinduism (the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads), as well as the stages and stations of life in Hinduism. There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Friday: Smith through p. 69.
We introduced the material conditional and biconditional connectives, and talked about how to translate various types of English statements, including those involving "only if" and "unless".
Homework #3 (due in class Tues Feb 12):
Exercises 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8 (odd)
For tomorrow: read through p. 64
We finished up our discussion of Kant's theory of knowledge, making as much sense of it as we could.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones through p. 78.
We introduced negation (~) and disjunction (v) and discussed the role of parentheses in disambiguating sentences. We worked through some of the homework problems from the assignment that's due tomorrow. We also discussed the notion of a main connective, and how to translate "neither ... nor ..." and "not both ... and ...".
Reading for tomorrow: finish Chapter 2.
Today we continued our discussion of Kant's attempted solution to the "general problem of pure reason". In particular, we talked about Kant's view that certain synthetic a priori judgments are not justified by experience, but rather are necessary conditions for experience.
Reading for tomorrow: finish Jones, Chapter 2.
Today we talked about the four different types of yoga.
Reading for Monday: Van Voorst, pp. 55-59 (selection from the Bhagavad Gita)