Decisions, Decisions...
From The Onion: Rock-Bottom Loser Entertaining Offers from Several Religions
« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
From The Onion: Rock-Bottom Loser Entertaining Offers from Several Religions
We continued our discussion of J. L. Austin, focusing on his account of performative utterances.
If you didn't come to class today, you missed my fabulous Joe Pesci impersonation.
Friday: Monty Python!
For Fri: read pp. 484-488
Course evaluations were administered at the beginning of class.
We spent the remainder of the class reading and commenting on each other's papers.
Everyone who participated in today's "peer review" exercise automatically gets at least a "B" for their final class participation log (which, by the way, is due next Friday, the last day of class).
No new reading was assigned.
Reminder: the papers are now due on Monday, May 5!
We introduced the rules for identity (=) and worked through some proofs and symbolizations.
HW #14 (last one!): Ex 10-12 (5, 7, 9), 13-1 (1,3,5), 13-2 (all odd)
For Wed.: pp. 289-290
It was "design your own final" day! We got into groups and came up with potential questions for the final. The results are below. (Note: there will also be questions on the ordinary language philosophers and Quine -- i.e., material we will cover in the remainder of the semester.)
For tomorrow: read pp. 471-483.
MOORE
What is his approach to philosophy? (analytic approach w/ emphasis on common sense)
What is emphasized in his method? (a critical examination of linguistic usage)
Knowledge – We can know something without being able to give an account of what we know
What is Moore’s approach (analytic approach)
What is the analytic approach (break down to atomic elements)
What is the common sense mentality (one modest problem at a time and try to solve it to find truth and resolve conflict)
What is Moore’s primary task of philosophy?
How is Moore’s sense data different from Russell?
What does Moore mean by “Pickwickian”?
RUSSELL
Which is NOT one of Russell’s six themes?
What is “Russell’s Paradox”?
What is Russell’s view on ethics? (not part of philosophy; it is the art of persuasion; only scientific knowledge is real knowledge)
What is his view on language, and how does this differ from Moore’s? (Sees ordinary language as sloppy and misleading)
What is the difference between hard and soft data? Give an example.
EARLY WITTGENSTEIN
Did Witt. Agree with Kant on his distinction of the knowable & unknowable? (Yes)
What is the verifiability principle? (meaning of a proposition is its method of verification)
What is every proposition a truth function of? (elementary propositions)
From what do philosophical problems arise? (confusion about logical structure of language)
What is a common trait of Kant and Witt.? (distinction between what is accessible and inaccessible)
What was the main reasoning behind the Tractatus
A logical picture of facts is a …?
The “picture” theory?
LOGICAL POSITIVISTS
What branch of philosophy did they despise? (metaphysics)
What is the verifiability principle? (meaning of a proposition is its method of verification)
Did the LPs agree with Moore or Russell’s view on ethics in philosophy (Russell)
Which science did the LPs say all other sciences could be broken down to? (physics)
Who were the four main figures in the Vienna Circle?
What is the central argument or core idea of logical positivism?
Would an LP think that murder Is wrong?
Who influenced the LPs?
What is a problem with the verifiability principle? (How can it be verified itself?)
HUSSERL, HEIDEGGER, SARTRE
What theory/philosophy influenced the phenomenological tradition?
Who introduced the “bracketing” technique?
Who was all about Dasein and its meaning? (awareness of consciousness specific to humans)
What did Sartre and Marx agree upon?
What is the basic component of life that the phenomenologists focus on? (consciousness)
Do phenomenologists concern themselves with moral and existential questions?
What do the phenomenologists hold to be indubitable? (experience)
LATER WITTGENSTEIN
How did Witt. determine the meanings of words (usage)
Would the later Witt. agree with the early Witt on the effectiveness of the Tractatus (no)
What was the biggest flaw the later Witt. saw in the Tractatus (the picture theory)
What is family resemblance to the later Witt.? (the blurred social use of concepts is effective enough for definition)
Are there any problems with philosophy?
We worked through a couple more problems from the current homework, then worked through some zero-premise deductions in predicate logic.
For tomorrow: read pp. 283-288
We finished our discussion of the later Wittgenstein and began on the ordinary language philosophers.
For tomorrow: read pp. 458-468
We talked about Pascal's Wager and finished up our discussion of faith and reason.
I changed the due date for the papers to Monday, May 5 (a week from today). HOWEVER, you must bring in a rough draft of your paper on Wednesday (for a peer review exercise).
Reading for Wed.: pp. 133-140
We worked through some problems from the current homework.
Quiz #8 was given at the end of class.
For Mon.: finish Chapter 12 (skip Section 6)
We began summarizing our discussion of the later Wittgenstein.
For Monday: read pp. 428-440
We discussed Aquinas's and James's views on the relation between faith and reason.
No new reading was assigned.
We worked through some evens from 10-10.
For Fri.: read pp. 269-275
Professor David Cole gave a guest lecture on the later Wittgenstein.
For Friday: finish Chapter 11
We watched part of The Rapture and began talking about the relation between faith and reason.
Reminder: your papers are due one week from today.
No new reading was assigned.
We talked a little more about proof strategy. We then got into groups and worked on Exercise 10-9. Finally, we worked through a couple of proofs from 10-10.
HW #13: Ex 10-10 (all odds), 10-11 (#1 only) – only one more after this!
Hint on 10-10, #7: instantiate with u, v, and w (don't use x, y, or z).
For Wed.: no new reading!
We continued our discussion of the later Wittgenstein.
For tomorrow: read pp. 409-415 + selections from Philosophical Investigations
In Exercise 10-1, problem 13, the authors do not provide an individual constant for Shakespeare. (Thanks to Becky E. for bringing this to my attention.) You can use "s" (even though it's used for something else in an earlier problem).
We worked through some problems from Exercise 10-3 and talked about proof strategy for relational predicate logic.
Quiz #7 was given at the end of class.
For Tues.: read through p. 265
We finished our discussion of Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, and started on the later Wittgenstein.
For Tues: read pp. 401-409
We finished our discussion of Chapter 11.
For Wed.: finish Chapter 6
There will be a Philosophy Colloquium on
Tuesday, April 22nd at 4:00 pm in Humanities 403.
"Happiness and Duty"
Presented by Jing Wang
UMD Philosophy major
People often use the word "happiness" in everyday life, but the term
"happiness" is ambiguous. Happiness can describe the overall structure
of a life, a state of feeling, or satisfaction of desires. The problem I
propose to study is whether one's life could be happy while still living
up to all one's duties and what this means for the nature of happiness
and duty.
I will contrast the ancient views of happiness with modern views.
I told a really good lawyer joke and analyzed if from a logical perspective.
Then I bored y'all to tears with the details of the proof rules for relational predicate logic.
For Mon.: read pp. 254-60.
We finished Sartre and began summarizing the phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre). Handout on Monday.
Professor David Cole will guest lecture on the later Wittgenstein on Wednesday of next week. Please read the selections I emailed you, and bring them to class that day.
For Mon: read pp. 391-401
Class was canceled today due to the fire alarm. Have a nice weekend!
Victor writes:
"I noticed that nearly everyone has been making the same
mistake in problem 9 of 9-3. Save one person, everyone instantiated
with either x or y via UI and then later instantiated again using the
same free variable they instantiated with while using UI. This
violates the second restriction on EI, as (...w...) cannot have
appeared free anywhere else in the proof. Maybe you want to note that
to the class as nearly everyone made the same mistake. I learned that
you nearly always want to use EI before UI."
He's right. In general it's a good idea to instantiate existentials before
universals. (I may not have emphasized this enough in class.)
I handed back exam #2. We worked through some problems from the current homework and the exam.
For Fri.: read through p. 249
We briefly discussed Heidegger and then got started on Sartre.
I also handed out the paper assignment.
For Fri: read pp. 382-390
We divided up into Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and answered some questions about our attitudes toward other religions. It was a great discussion!
For Fri.: read pp. 91-100
On Wednesday, April 16, I will hold my office hour from 2-3 instead of 10-11.
Today we worked through some more difficult symbolizations in relational predicate logic.
We also introduced a new class mascot: "Predicate" the Logic Horse! (thanks to Kristine O.)
HW #12: Ex 9-5 (every third odd: 1, 7, 13, 19); Ex 10-1, 10-3, 10-7 (all odd)
For Wed.: read through p. 242
Please join us for a talk on the role of Trust in Political
Reconciliation Tuesday April 15 at 4pm.
The talk, by Professor Colleen Murphy, is sponsored by the Center for
Ethics and Public policy and will be at 4:00 pm Tuesday April 15 in the
library rotunda on the 4th floor of the UMD library. All are invited
and the talk is open to the public. Professor Murphy has researched in
Northern Ireland and South Africa, and has studied at Oxford University,
the University of Notre Dame, and the University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill. She is currently an assistant professor of philosophy at
the Texas A&M University, where her research focus is on the role of
trust and rule of law in post-conflict political reconciliation.
Details of her research can be found below.
Colleen Murphy Research Statement
Political reconciliation refers to the process of re-building damaged
political relationships within societies transitioning from civil
conflict or repressive rule to democracy. Societies that have faced or
are facing the need for this type of political reconciliation include
South Africa, Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Political
reconciliation is an /important /and /controversial/ challenge. It is
/important/, given the consensus that reconciliation is a condition for
successful democratization. It is /controversial/, both because the
moral justifiability of the pursuit of political reconciliation has been
questioned and because there is significant disagreement about what
kinds of processes (e.g., amnesty, criminal trials, truth commissions)
actually promote political reconciliation. In my research, I am
articulating and arguing for 1) criteria for critically evaluating
particular accounts of political reconciliation and 2) a specific
analysis of what political reconciliation entails. I develop my
proposed understanding of political reconciliation by focusing on three
concepts in moral and political philosophy: the rule of law, substantive
justice, and trust. Each provides, I argue, distinctive resources for
1) explaining /how /intuitively problematic aspects of political
relations during civil conflict or repressive rule are damaging in
morally significant ways 2) suggesting /why/ and /how/ political
relations need to change and 3) evaluating the effectiveness and moral
justifiability of processes of reconciliation.
http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~cmmurphy/
We began and finished our discussion of Husserl. Tomorrow: a little bit of Heidegger and a whole lot of Sartre.
For Wed: read pp. 308-12, 358-370
We introduced relational predicate logic and worked through some symbolizations.
For Tues.: read through p. 234
We finished going over my slides on early Wittgenstein and the LPs.
Quiz #7 was given at the end of class.
For Tues: read J & F through p. 298.
Quiz #8 was given at the beginning of class (while I rebooted my stupid computer).
We then poked a bunch of holes in the argument from divine foreknowledge and concluded that it ain't all that.
For Wed.: read Chapter 11.
We finally get a snow day! Woo hoo! (I mean, D'oh!)
We reviewed the restrictions on the rules UI, UG, EI, and EG, and introduced the new rule QN. We also worked through a bunch of proofs from exercises 9-3 and 9-5.
For Fri.: read through p. 230
We began reviewing Early Wittgenstein and the Logical Positivists (sounds like a good name for a band!).
For Friday: read through p. 286
I handed out the paper assignment. It is due in class Wednesday, April 30 (three weeks from today).
We finished our discussion of life after death and got started on the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.
For Fri.: read Chapter 10
We discussed and illustrated the restrictions on the EI and UG rules. We then worked through some problems from Exercise 9-1.
HW #11: Ex’s 9-1, 9-3 (all odd problems)
For Wed.: Finish Chapter 9
We discussed some arguments for and against non-cognitivism in ethics.
For tomorrow: read pp. 272-80
The second midterm exam was given (and taken).
For tomorrow: read through p. 215.
We began discussing logical positivism.
For tomorrow: Finish Chapter 7
We finished the problem of evil and began discussing life after death.
For Wed: read Rowe, Chapter 9
We reviewed for the upcoming exam. No new reading was assigned.
We discussed the Tractatus and the "early" Wittgenstein.
There was a quiz on Moore and Russell at the end of class.
For Monday: read pp. 232-54.
We talked more about the problem of evil.
For Mon.: Finish Rowe Chapter 7
Tonight's presentation will be brought to you by Mike Wadding. He will be
leading a discussion on the evils of Facebook and how it is destroying
personal interaction.
7:30 pm in Kirby 355-57
Everyone is welcome.
We started discussing proofs in predicate logic.
On Friday we will review for the upcoming exam, so come prepared with questions and/or problems you want to work through.
For Fri: Read through p. 212
Participation logs due on Friday!
I went over the main points of our discussions of G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell.
Reading for Fri.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 216-232
We finished up our discussion of the argument from design and started on the problem of evil.
Reminder: Part. Logs due Friday April 4
For Fri.: Finish Rowe Chapter 4 + pp. 112-119
"V for Vendetta we will be viewing my friends. Complete government
control and submission of free choice are the topics. Is it ever ok to
lie to provide comfort in a society? And then we have a superhero, what
is there not to like. Monday April 7th, 2008 at 7pm in ABAH 345.
Hope to see you's a there."
--Mike Wadding
We worked through some problems from exercise 8-1.
Quiz #6 was given at the end of class.
For tomorrow: Read through p. 209
HW #10: 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-9 (every other odd: 1, 5, 9, etc.)
We discussed Russell's views on ethics, politics, and society.
Reading for Wed.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 216-232
Please join us for a Philosophy Colloquium
*"Free Will and Representation"*
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm in Humanities 403
*Presented by Dennis Stampe*
/Professor Stampe is currently on faculty at UW-Madison (Oxford,
D.Phil.) with research interests in philosophy of language, philosophy
of mind, epistemology.
/Abstract: In this paper, I present a novel account of what freedom of
the will is. The thesis is that freedom of the will is the capacity we
have to do as we will (what we want), that derives specifically from the
will itself as opposed to other cognitive or physical abilities we have.
I argue that this ability arises from the same endowments as does the
language capacity, namely the extraordinary powers of mental
representation unique to the human mind. Freedom of the will arises from
particular employments of this capacity, in the service of our own
desires and designs.
Everyone is welcome to attend.