« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »
I handed out a study guide for Exam #2 (which is a week from today), and talked about what will be on it. For some reason I agreed to let y'all have a full sheet of paper (8.5" x 11"), rather than just a 3" x 5" card, as a "cheat sheet".
We then worked through some problems from the current homework.
Reminder: Participation logs due this Friday April 4
For Tues.: read through p. 204
We finished G. E. Moore and started on Bertrand Russell.
Reading for Tues.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 207-215
We finished up our discussion of the ontological argument and started on the argument from design.
Reminder: participation log #2 due this Friday.
For Wed: read Rowe through p. 59.
We discussed the semantics of predicate logic.
Participation logs due Friday April 4
Exam #2 Monday April 7 (study guides handed out on Monday)
Reading for Mon.: read Chapter 8
We discussed G. E. Moore's "philosophy of common sense," and evaluated his "Proof of an External World."
Reminder: 2nd participation log due Friday, April 4
Reading for Mon.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 169-187
We discussed and criticized Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.
Quiz #7 was given at the end of class.
For Mon: finish Rowe, chapter 3
We talked some more about English symbolizing sentences in predicate logic and worked through some problems from Exercises 7-6, 7-7, 7-9, and 7-10.
For Friday: Finish Chapter 7
We began our discussion of Moore and spent some time on his attempt to refute idealism.
Reading for Fri: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 129-138 (skip over section titled “Ethics”)
We finished our discussion of the cosmological argument and began on the ontological argument.
For Fri.: read Rowe through p. 43
My office hour will be 2-3 pm instead of 10-11 am today.
We talked about the four basic sentence forms that make up the four corners of the "square of opposition", and went over some common mistakes that students make when symbolizing English sentences in predicate logic. Then we got into groups and worked through some symbolization problems (the odds in exercise 7-6). We will go over these tomorrow.
2nd participation log is due Friday, April 4.
2nd midterm will be on Monday, April 7. It will focus primarily on the material in Chapters 4-8.
HW #9: Ex’s 6-1, 7-1, 7-3, 7-4 (ALL odd problems)
Reading for Wed.: through p. 181.
I presented a broad overview of some of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 105-119
Reminder: 2nd participation log is due on Friday, April 4
We started on predicate logic today, introducing some of the basic concepts such as predicates, individual constants, and quantifiers.
For tomorrow: read through p. 177
We reviewed Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 90-105.
We reviewed the seven attributes traditionally ascribed to God, and then began discussing the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Wed: Rowe through p. 30
I will be teaching the following course in the fall:
PHIL 1101: Honors Introduction to Philosophy
Course Description:
In this course we will address some basic philosophical questions, such as:
- What does it mean to know something? What can be known? What can’t?
- What is the nature of the self? What makes you you?
- What makes an action right or wrong? What makes a person virtuous or vicious?
- How should society be organized?
- What are the ethical implications of certain scientific and technological
developments such as genetic engineering?
- What makes an argument (i.e., piece of reasoning) good or bad, strong or weak?
We will approach these and other questions via classic philosophical readings and philosophically-oriented films.
Some of the philosophers whose views we will discuss are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Mill, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Sartre. Some of the films we will discuss are A Clockwork Orange, Being John Malkovich, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fight Club, Memento, Office Space, Schindler’s List, and The Truman Show. We will watch clips from some of these films in class.
After completing this course, students will:
- be familiar with the fundamental problems traditionally addressed by philosophers
- have critically examined some theories that have been proposed to solve these problems
- have a good idea how philosophy has developed historically
- understand how philosophy is relevant to contemporary life and culture
More information can be found in the UMD Course Guide.
I will be teaching the following course in the fall:
PHIL 3118: Special Topics ("Logic, Language, and Life")
More information can be found in the UMD Course Guide.
They're in eGradebook. Y'all did pretty well, for the most part. Each question was worth ten points. The highest score was 480/500. Here's how the points will convert to grades:
450-500 A-range
400-440 B-range
350-390 C-range
300-340 D-range
0-290 F
The plus and minus cutoffs are to be determined.
We played "Truth Tree Showdown". Prizes were distributed and fun was had by all (or at least some).
No new reading was assigned.
The midterm was given today.
No new reading was assigned.
Have a great spring break!
We watched a video of a "religious roundtable" discussion led by Professor Ali G. It was very dry, serious, and boring. ;)
Then we got started discussing the seven basic attributes of God, and some ways in which they are philosophically interesting and potentially problematic.
Reading for Monday (after the break): Finish Rowe, Chapter 1.
We worked through some more truth tree problems, and discussed how to use truth trees to check:
- whether an argument is valid
- whether a sentence is a tautology, contradiction, or contingent
- whether a set of sentences is consistent
Quiz #5 was given at the end of class.
Reading for Fri: finish Chapter 6
You can check your score in eGradebook. I will be using the grading scale in the syllabus (90-100% A, 80-89% B, etc.). Overall, I am very pleased with the scores. There were lots of As and Bs. Three of you even got a perfect 40/40!
We finished up our discussion of Nietzsche.
We then had a "philosophical battle royale" between the "Kierkegaardians," "Schopenhauerians," and "Nietzscheans" on the topic of "The Ideal Individual". The highlight of the class was Kevin G.'s spot-on impression of Schopenhauer, complete with thick German accent, vigorous gesticulations, and wild, spiky hair!
The midterm is on Friday. It will consist of 40-50 multiple choice questions. Be sure to bring a #2 pencil and know your student ID number. The questions will span everything we have covered up through Nietzsche.
For the Monday after Spring Break: read Jones & Fogelin, Chapter 1.
The midterm was today.
No new reading was assigned.
We WILL be having class on Friday. There may even be a quiz. (Mwah ha ha hah! [evil laughter])
There will be a colloquium on Thursday, March 13 at 4:00 pm in ABAH 345.
All are welcome to attend.
Scott Forschler
Minneapolis Community and Technical College, North Hennepin Community
College, Northland Community and Technical College
"Morality as a System of Justificatory Rules"
Abstract
This paper shows how to derive fundamental ethical norms from
practical reason. I argue that any justification of intentional action
must be expressible as a justificatory syllogism, the major premise of
which is a justificatory rule stating that under specified conditions,
the pursuit of a specified end is justified. Potential conflicts
between these rules and the ends they purportedly justify must be
adjudicated with higher-order rules which specify when exceptions can be
made to lower-order rules. I argue that such conflicts can only be
resolved via the endorsement of three very general higher-order rules,
specifying the ultimate ground of justification, our obligations to
improve the information on which we act as well as our general capacity
to be rational agents, and our obligations with respect to others’
justified ends. These rules broadly encompass several widely-shared and
defensible moral views, and their derivation from the logic of practical
reason can explain the perceived universality and objectivity of
morality.
We finished up Chapter 5 and started on Chapter 6 (truth trees).
HW #8:
Ex’s 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8 (every other odd – i.e. 1, 5, 9, 13 in each exercise)
Reading for Wed.: through p. 159
We talked about Nietzsche's idea of the Overman (Übermensch), focusing in particular on a few salient passages from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (which you can read here).
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, Introduction.
I will be offering the following course this fall semester at UMD. I hope you'll consider taking it! It should be fun!
Phil 3118: Special Topics
Logic, Language, and Life
Description: Shows how logic and linguistic analysis are relevant and applicable to various fields of knowledge and aspects of life.
Objectives/Outcomes:
In this course we will study logic in a broader sense than it is typically studied in an introductory logic class. We will focus on how logic in general is relevant to “real-world” issues, problems, and challenges such as persuading others, making rational decisions, recognizing and avoiding mistakes in reasoning, communicating clearly and effectively, understanding difficult reading material, and even doing well on standardized tests like the LSAT and GRE. We will discuss both deductive (certain) and inductive (probabilistic) reasoning.
Students will:
• become familiar with various types of meaning and reasoning
• learn to evaluate various instances of reasoning as good/bad, better/worse
• learn to recognize various patterns of reasoning in real-world situations
• become familiar with some interesting and problematic aspects of certain types of reasoning
Anyone can take this course, but it will appeal especially to students with interests in communication, computer science, economics, engineering, law, linguistics, literature, marketing, mathematics, philosophy, political science, psychology, and writing. While some familiarity with logic or critical thinking will be helpful, it is neither required nor presupposed. Grades will be based primarily on homework assignments and a term project (e.g. a paper, video, or presentation).
Probable readings:
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blackburn, Simon. 1984. Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Epstein, Richard L. 2002. Five Ways of Saying “Therefore.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Priest, Graham. 2000. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
We worked through some zero-premise deductions (proving theorems) and talked about adding valid argument forms.
For Tues: read through p. 157
We started talking about Nietzsche (whose name DOES NOT rhyme with "peachy"), and watched a couple of videos:
First, some not-very-lively footage of the the Übermensch himself (in his last days, after his brains had turned to mush):
Second, English comedian Ricky Gervais (who, incidentally, was a philosophy major) imagines a hypothetical encounter between Nietzsche and Hitler:
For Tues: Finish Chapter 6.
The midterm is on Friday. Here are the potential questions that y'all came up with:
The Age of Reason
What was the basic assumption of the Enlightenment?
What was the mood of the Enlightenment?
What caused the change in the mood of the Enlightenment?
Kant’s Theory of Knowledge
What was Kant’s “Copernican revolution”?
For Kant, in what realm do “cause and effect” exist?
How does Kant define a priori, a posteriori, analytic, synthetic?
Why does Kant think God can be rationally justified?
What does it mean to be synthetic a priori?
What is the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal realms?
The general problem of pure reason is, A priori synthetic knowledge is impossible. What did Kant think about this?
Kant’s Theory of Value
How many of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative are equivalent?
What is the first (second, third) formulation of the categorical imperative?
What is a good will?
What is a potential problem with the categorical imperative?
Hegel and Schopenhauer
How is Hegel’s view of reality different from Kant’s?
How does Schopenhauer’s view of the will differ from Kant’s?
Explain Hegel’s dialectic method and how it relates to his philosophy of holism.
How does Schopenhauer’s philosophy parallel with Buddhism?
What is Hegel’s “Geist”?
How does Schopenhauer view rationality?
Who was Hegel’s arch-nemesis?
What was the ultimate reality for Hegel?
According to Schopenhauer, what is sainthood?
Did Hegel accept Kant’s noumenal/phenomenal distinction?
What philosopher was Hegel most influenced by, and how did he disagree with this philosopher?
What makes up Hegel's triad?
How was Schopenhauer influenced by Buddhism?
Utilitarians, Comte, and Marx
Does science play a role in solving social problems for Utilitarians/Comte/Marx?
What is the main objection raised in class to the Greatest Happiness Principle?
What, for Marx, was the main problem brought about by industrial work?
As objections to utilitarianism, what do the “problem of rights” and “problem of omniscience” state?
In what way did Marx feel the proletariat were alienated in capitalism?
Who formulated the “Greatest Happiness Principle”?
State an objection to utilitarianism.
What did Schopenhauer and Comte have in common?
How does Utilitarianism differ from Kant's view?
How did Mill use GHP to justify political liberty?
Kierkegaard
What is the cure for misery?
How do you go from the ethical to the religious stage?
What was Kierkegaard’s main objection to Hegel?
We wrapped up the first half of the course, talked a little bit about secular humanism, and watched part of a video of Richard Dawkins reading from his book, The God Delusion:
The midterm is on Wednesday. It will consist of 40 multiple-choice questions. Be sure to bring a #2 pencil and know your student ID number!
No new reading was assigned.
The glitches have been resolved, and everything should be correct and up to date in eGradebook now.
We introduced the indirect proof rule, IP, and worked through a number of proofs that use it.
Reading for Mon: through p. 153
We got into groups of 4-5 and came up with potential questions for the midterm.
I will compile all the questions and post them here soon. My aim will be to draw most, if not all, of the questions on the midterm from the ones you suggested.
Reading for Mon.: Jones through p. 256
We finished up our discussion of Islam today.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
For Mon: read Rowe through p. 11
We (the graders and I) have been experiencing a weird glitch with eGradebook. In particular, some of you have "F"s when you should have "A"s, "B"s, etc. We're looking into it, and the problem will be corrected soon. So don't panic!
Don't worry, your grades are safe. We back up everything. (Still, you should hold on to all graded work in case there's an error.)
Students in my logic class can get (a small but not-insignificant amount of) extra credit for attending this colloquium and writing a brief (about one page, double spaced) report on what it was about. The report is due by Wed., March 12.
Philosophy Department Colloquium
Thursday, March 6, 4 p.m. ABAH 345
“Contradiction in Fiction (How to Imagine the Impossible without Inferring the Insane)"
A presentation by Casey McGinnis
Logic plays a role in determining what’s true in a work of fiction. For example, if X is true in a work of fiction, and X logically implies Y, then Y is also true in that work of fiction. Many works of fiction are inconsistent or contradictory — some even deliberately so. For example, the philosopher and logician Graham Priest has written a thought-provoking story (“Sylvan’s Box”) about a mysterious box that is somehow both empty and not empty (at the same time). Classical logic tells us that contradictions imply everything, so, from a classical point of view, everything must be true in an inconsistent work of fiction! Intuitively, this seems wrong.
For this and other reasons, some (such as Priest) have recommended that we give up classical logic in favor of a paraconsistent (inconsistency-tolerant) logic. I will argue that replacing classical logic with paraconsistent logic is neither necessary nor sufficient for solving the puzzle about inconsistent fiction. The alternative solution I propose appeals to what I call logical relativism — roughly, the view that judgments about what follows from what are correct or incorrect only relative to a set of background assumptions about what is considered a “live” possibility.
After talking about "gumball logic" (you had to be there), we worked through some fairly simple proofs involving the very useful rule CP (conditional proof).
Reading for Friday: finish Chapter 5
We talked more about Kierkegaard, and went off on some tangents about various religions and religious beliefs (including the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
On Friday we will come up with some potential questions for the midterm. Also, I will provide you with the questions that were asked in Quizzes 1-3 (in case you didn't write them down).
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 253
We watched a Huston Smith video on Islam.
I handed out a study guide for the midterm (which is a week from today).
Quizzes 3 and 4 and participation logs will be handed back on Friday.
Reading for Friday: Smith, pp. 170-7, 245-9
We worked through some proofs from the homework that was due today.
Quiz #4 was given at the end of class.
For Wed.: no new reading!
HW #7 (due next Tues.): Ex 4-14 (problems 1-4), Ex 5-1 (all odd problems)
Socratic Society presents
Eugenics and Elitism:
What a Wonderful Idea!
A panel of students will defend this position.
All are welcome. Come and voice your own opinion.
In Search of Utopia
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Kirby 355-57
7:30 pm
Today we continued our discussion of Kierkegaard. We also watched a couple of "philosophical attack ads":
Reading for Wed.: Jones through p. 246
Thanks, all, for coming to Professor Ilea's colloquium today. It was a great success!
Next:
Thursday, March 6, 4 p.m. ABAH 345
“Contradiction in Fiction"
Casey McGinnis
All are welcome!
---
Contradiction in Fiction:
How to Imagine the Impossible without Inferring the Insane
Logic plays a role in determining what’s true in a work of fiction. For example, if X is true in a work of fiction, and X logically implies Y, then Y is also true in that work of fiction. Many works of fiction are inconsistent or contradictory — some even deliberately so. For example, the philosopher and logician Graham Priest has written a thought-provoking story (“Sylvan’s Box”) about a mysterious box that is somehow both empty and not empty (at the same time). Classical logic tells us that contradictions imply everything, so, from a classical point of view, everything must be true in an inconsistent work of fiction! Intuitively, this seems wrong.
For this and other reasons, some (such as Priest) have recommended that we give up classical logic in favor of a paraconsistent (inconsistency-tolerant) logic. I will argue that replacing classical logic with paraconsistent logic is neither necessary nor sufficient for solving the puzzle about inconsistent fiction. The alternative solution I propose appeals to what I call logical relativism — roughly, the view that judgments about what follows from what are correct or incorrect only relative to a set of background assumptions about what is considered a “live” possibility.
We finished up Chapter 4 and started on Chapter 5.
I noted that the problems in Exercise 4-13 are extremely hard. (Even I found some of them difficult.) Just give them your best shot!
Reading for Tues: through p. 143
We finished up our summary of the Utilitarians, Comte, and Marx, and started on Kierkegaard.
Reading for Tues.: Jones through p. 243
We talked about Islam some more.
Midterm exam is on Wed. March 12.
Study guide handed out this Wed (3/5).
Reading for Wed.:
Smith pp. 157-69
Anthology, 301-6