Reading and Assignment Schedule

(1) What is Philosophy? [show]

(1) What is Philosophy? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO

[You should be able to discuss — based on the readings for the day — each of the below points when you arrive in class. On this first day, of course, you will not have had time or warning to do this, but beginning with the next class session, this will be expected.]

• Identify defining features of philosophy as a discipline

• Identify traditional areas of philosophy

• Explain the concepts of cognitive dissonance and belief perseverance.

• Explain the difference between knowledge, justified belief, and mere opinion.

• Explain the difference between proving X and having evidence for X.

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§1-3 [pdf]

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: What is Philosophy? [pdf]

• Video: Monty Python, “The Philosopher’s Song” [video]

• Video: Massimo Pigliucci, “What is Philosophy?” (4m 35s) [YouTube]

•[EC] Video/YouTube: Kevin deLaplante, “Five Reasons to Major in Philosophy?” (19m 16s) [YouTube]

• Blog: Buster Benson, "Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet [web]

•[EC] Essay: Mercier and Sperber, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory” (Behavioral and Brain Science, 2011) [text]

•[EC] TedTalk: Physicist David Deutsch on our place in the universe (19m 0s) [video]

(2) Analyzing Arguments [show]

(2) Analyzing Arguments [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe and explain Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”

• Describe and evaluate Postman’s point in his brief essay

• Distinguish sentences, statements, propositions

• Identify simple and complex statements

• Identify premises and conclusions

• Identify necessary and sufficient conditions

• Identify and complete enthymemes

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§4

• Plato, “Allegory of the Cave” (early 4th c. BCE)

• Neil Postman “Darkness and the Light” (1995)

Tuesday Essay: Briefly summarize Postman’s essay (that is, in a paragraph, describe his main claim or thesis and how he defends it), and then respond to Postman: What do you think?

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Analyzing Arguments [pdf]

• Slide Presentation: Dona Warren (Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point) has prepared a useful set of presentations on argument recognition, analysis, evaluation, and construction. Students still struggling with these issues might want to watch her presentation (about 40 minutes total) [slides with narration].

• Text/Video: Monty Python, “Argument Clinic” [text] [video]

•[EC] Film: The Truman Show (1998; Dir.: Peter Weir; 1h 43m) [trailer]

• Video: YouTube versions of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” [long and serious] [short and less serious]

• Illustration/Description: Marc Cohen, “Allegory of the Cave” [web page]

• YouTube Video: “The Matrix and Plato’s Cave” [video (5m 1s)]

•[EC] Audio: Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave (Philosophy Bites) (13m 42s) [audio]

(3) Extended (everyday) Arguments [show]

(3) Extended (everyday) Arguments [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Russell’s view of the value of philosophy

• Diagram extended arguments

READINGS:

• Naragon, §5

• Bertrand Russell, “The Value of Philosophy” (1912)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Extended Arguments [pdf]

(4) Deductive Logic [show]

(4) Deductive Logic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Define soundness and validity

• Use the method of counter-example to show invalidity:

- alternate scenario method

- substitution method

• Identify basic forms of deductive arguments (and two invalid forms)

READINGS:

• Naragon, §6

Tuesday Essay: Read the blog by Buster Benson (in the “Other Resources” list), then give an example of a bias that you’ve suffered recently, explaining which bias in Benson’s taxonomy best captures it. What might you do (next time) to avoid that kind of bias?

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Deductive Logic [pdf]

• Blog: Buster Benson, "Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet [web]

• Slide Presentation: Dona Warren (Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point) has prepared a useful set of presentations on argument recognition, analysis, evaluation, and construction. Students still struggling with these issues might want to watch her presentation (about 40 minutes total) [slides with narration].

(5) Inductive Logic [show]

(5) Inductive Logic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Distinguish inductive from deductive arguments

• Define cogency and strength

• Identify and evaluate different kinds of inductive argument

- generalization

- authority

- analogy

- hypothetical induction

• Explain and evaluate the highlights of Peirce’s essay

- What does it mean to "fix a belief"?

- What four methods of fixing beliefs does Peirce discuss?

- Which of the four does he favor? Why does he favor that one?

READINGS:

• Naragon, §7

• C. S. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief” (1877)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Inductive Logic [pdf]

•[EC] Essay: Mercier and Sperber, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory” (Behavioral and Brain Science, 2010) [text]

•[EC] David Deutsch, “A New Way to Explain Explanation” (16m 39s) [web video]

(6) On Belief [show]

(6) On Belief [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain and evaluate the highlights of Clifford’s essay

- Clifford’s thesis

- Justified beliefs vs true beliefs

- Beliefs and their consequences

• Distinguish “a reason for P’s truth” (being justified in believing P) from “a proof of P’s truth” (knowing that P is true).

Tuesday Essay: In a brief paragraph, summarize Clifford’s essay (What is his thesis? What reasons does he give for believing this thesis? — Warning: examples don't belong in a summary, so don't spend time discussing those; rather, give his reasons). In a longer paragraph, explain why and to what extent you agree or disagree with Clifford.

READINGS:

• W. K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief” (1877)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Peirce and Clifford [pdf]

•[EC] Film: Twelve Angry Men (1957; Dir.: Sydney Lumet; 1h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: American History X (1998; Dir.: Tony Kaye; 1h 58m) [trailer]

(7) Plato’s Apology: The Role of the Philosopher [show]

(7) Plato’s Apology: The Role of the Philosopher [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the beginning of philosophy with the Presocratics

- Appearance and reality

- Naturalism

• Compare Socrates and the Sophists

- Who were the sophists?

- Why was Socrates thought to be a sophist?

- How did they differ?

• Recognize and describe Socratic irony

• Describe and evaluate Socrates’ understanding of the philosophical way of life

- The nature and value of truth

- The human epistemic condition

- The philosopher’s role in society

• Discuss the relationship of Sartre’s short story to Plato's Apology

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§8-9

• Plato, Apology (early 4th c. BCE)

• Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Wall” (1939)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Socrates in Athens [pdf]

• Reading: Bertrand Russell on Socrates (9m 58s) [YouTube]

• Website: The Last Days of Socrates (Clark University): Plato’s dialogues with images and many helps for the beginning student. [web]

•[EC] Film: Cool Hand Luke (1967; Dir.: Stuart Rosenberg; 2h 7m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Malcolm X (1992; Dir.: Spike Lee; 3h 21m) [trailer]

•[EC] YouTube: Harry Frankfurt on Bullshit. [interview (6m 12s)]

(8) Plato’s Meno: The Benefits of Philosophy [show]

(8) Plato’s Meno: The Benefits of Philosophy [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe each of the three levels of reading Plato

- As a piece of literature

- Substantive claims

- Methodological claims

• Describe the various substantive claims made in the Meno:

- difference between knowledge and “true belief”,

- the Theory of Forms,

- the Learner’s Paradox,

- the Theory of Recollection

• Describe the various methodological claims made in the Meno:

- defining one’s terms,

- the benefits of the elenchus,

- the hypothetical method.

Tuesday Essay: You will be reading the Euthyphro for Thursday, but you don't need to have read and understood that dialogue in order to write about this short question that Socrates poses in that dialogue: At 10a, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether an act is pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious. This is the first time in literature that this question was raised. It might be easier to think about if it is put in terms of whether an action is morally right or wrong: Is it wrong because God says it is wrong? In other words, is God’s saying that it is wrong what makes it wrong? Or does God say it is wrong because it is wrong in and of itself? What do you think?

READINGS:

• Naragon, §10

• Plato, Meno (early 4th c. BCE)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Plato’s Meno [pdf]

•[EC] Poem: Thomas Gray, “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1747) [text]

(9) Plato’s Euthyphro: The Nature of Definitions [show]

(9) Plato’s Euthyphro: The Nature of Definitions [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe these substantive claims made in the Euthyphro:

- anthropomorphism

- religious epistemology

- religion and morality

• Describe these concepts related to the nature of definition:

- Necessary and sufficient conditions (see §4 for review)

• Describe the proper form of a definition (and the way in which the other forms fail)

- Ostensive definition

- Definition by subclass

- Definition by superclass

- Definition by genus and difference

READINGS:

• Naragon, §11

• Plato, Euthyphro (early 4th c. BCE)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Euthyphro [pdf]

(10) Why Be Moral? [show]

(10) Why Be Moral? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the difference between ethics and morality

• Identify and evaluate possible sources of morality

• Distinguish ethics-based morality from conventional morality, etiquette, the law, and prudence

• Describe what it means for an action to be morally required, supererogatory, prohibited, or morally neutral

• Explain the usefulness of moral theory

• Describe and evaluate Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates

• Describe the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the lesson Singer draws from it

READINGS:

• Naragon, §40

• Plato, “Ring of Gyges” (from The Republic; early 4th c. BCE)

• Peter Singer, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (1981)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Why be moral? [pdf]

• Video Lecture: Tamar Gendler (Yale University), “The Ring of Gyges: Morality and Hypocrisy” (42m 30s) [YouTube]

•[EC] Text: Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Kindest Cut” (The New Yorker, 27 July 2009) — on people who donate a kidney to a stranger [pdf]

•[EC] Podcast: “The Good Show” Radiolab (Season 9, Episode 1) [web]

•[EC] Text: Olivia Judson, “The Selfless Gene” [text]

•[EC] Frans de Waal: Moral Behavior in Animals (16m 52s) [web video]

•[EC] Film: Lord of the Flies (1990; director: Harry Hook; 1h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: High Noon (1952; director: Fred Zinnemann; 1h 51m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Crash (2005; director: Paul Haggis; 2h 2m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Paradise Now (2005; director: Hany Abu-Assad; 1h 31m) [trailer]

(11) From Moral Intuition to Moral Theory [show]

(11) From Moral Intuition to Moral Theory [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the following and how they are related: moral intuitions, judgments, principles, and theories

• Explain and evaluate the social-intuitionist model of moral judgment

• Explain the three forms of moral disagreement

• Explain the nature of a moral dilemma

• Explain what it means for one moral principle to override another

• Explain the three dimensions of morality and the corresponding moral theories

READINGS:

• Naragon, §41

• Mark Twain, selection from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885)

Tuesday Essay: “People are naturally selfish.” What does this claim mean? And what reason do you have to either believe or disbelieve this claim?

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: From Moral Intuitions to Moral Theory [pdf]

•[EC] Text: Jonathon Haidt, “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology” [text]

•[EC] Video: Jonathon Haidt on our Five Basic Moral Traits, and the difference between Liberals and Conservatives [web video]

•[EC] Text: Paul Bloom, “How do Morals Change?” (Nature, 2010) [text]

•[EC] Text: Franz de Waal, “Do Humans Alone ‘Feel your pain’?” [text]

•[EC] Text: Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, “Util-izing Animals” [text]

•[EC] Film: Dead Man Walking (1995; director: Tim Robbins; 2h 2m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Sophie’s Choice (1982; director: Alan Pakula; 2h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Erin Brockovich (2000; director: Steven Soderbergh; 2h 12m) [trailer]

(12) Ethical Subjectivism [show]

(12) Ethical Subjectivism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Distinguish normative ethics from metaethics

• Distinguish ethical subjectivism from ethical objectivism

• Describe and evaluate simple subjectivism

• Describe and evaluate divine command

• Describe and evaluate ethical relativism

• Describe the difference between cultural relativism and ethical relativism

• Describe the difference between ethical relativism and ethical universalism

READINGS:

• Naragon, §42

• Jesse Prinz, “Morality is a Culturally Determined Response” (2011)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Ethical Subjectivism [pdf]

•[EC] Blog: Louise M. Antony, “Good Minus God” (The New York Times — The Opinion Pages, 18 Dec 2011) [web]

•[EC] Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions (23m 7s) [web video]

•[EC] Ruth Benedict, “Anthropology and the Abnormal” (1934) [text]

•[EC] Text: Franz de Waal, “Fair Play: monkeys share our sense of injustice” (2009) [text]

•[EC] Text: Bruce Bower, “Morality Play” (2009) [text]

•[EC] Text: Desmond Stewart, “The Limits of Trooghaft” [text]

•[EC] Audio: Walter Sinott-Armstrong, “Morality without God” (Philosophy Bites)(13m 39s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Simon Blackburn on Moral Relativism (Philosophy Bites)(14m 14s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Paul Boghossian on Moral Relativism (Philosophy Bites)(17m 11s) [audio]

•[EC] Film: Amistad (1997; director: Steven Spielberg; 2h 35m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Thank You for Smoking (2006; director: Jason Reitman; 1h 32m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Lord of the Flies (1990; director: Harry Hook; 1h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Do the Right Thing (1989; director: Spike Lee; 2h 0m) [trailer]

(13) Aristotle’s Virtue Ethic [show]

(13) Aristotle’s Virtue Ethic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Aristotle’s account of science

• Explain Aristotle’s account of the good

• Explain the difference between final and instrumental goods

• Explain Aristotle’s distinction between theoretical and practical reason

• Explain Aristotle’s discussion of precision

• Explain how the good, happiness, function, and the parts of the human soul are connected in Aristotle’s ethics

• Describe Aristotle’s account of intellectual and moral virtue

READINGS:

• Naragon, §45

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (4th c. BCE) (selection)

Tuesday Essay: Aristotle begins his Nicomachean Ethics with a brief account of what is good and his claim about what he takes to be the “highest good”. In a brief paragraph, summarize Aristotle’s discussion (What is good? What is the highest good?). In a second paragraph, give your own account of the good and the highest good, and why you agree or disagree with Aristotle.

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Aristotle's Ethics [pdf]

•[EC] Barry Schwartz: On Our Loss of Moral Wisdom (20m 48s) [web video]

•[EC] Audio: Myles Burnyeat on Aristotle on Happiness (Philosophy Bites)(12m 15s) [audio]

•[EC] Film: Shane (1953; director: George Stevens; 1h 58m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Groundhog Day (1993; director: Harold Ramis; 1h 42m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989; director: Woody Allen; 1h 47m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Sling Blade (1996; director: Billy Bob Thornton; 2h 37m) [trailer]

(14) Mill’s Utilitarianism [show]

(14) Mill’s Utilitarianism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and how it is related to the following:

- Consequentialism

- Hedonism

- Impartiality

• Describe the difference between act and rule utilitarianism

READINGS:

• Naragon, §46

• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863) (selection)

• Ursula Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” (1973)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Mill's Utilitarian Ethics [pdf]

•[EC] Audio: Peter Singer on Animals (Philosophy Bites)(16m 43s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Brad Hooker defends Rule Utilitarianism (Philosophy Bites)(13m 24s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Roger Crisp on Utilitarianism (Philosophy Bites)(13m 7s) [audio]

•[EC] Film: Jacob the Liar (1974; Dir.: Frank Beyer; 1h 36m). There’s also a later version, in English, with Robin Williams [trailer].

(15) Kant’s Deontologism [show]

(15) Kant’s Deontologism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Kant’s understanding of the good will and its relationship to duty

• Explain how Mill and Kant differ regarding the moral relevance of the consequences of actions

• Explain the different conceptions of moral value

- Intrinsic vs extrinsic value

- Final vs instrumental value

• Explain Kant’s understanding of duty

- Actions conforming with duty and motivated by duty

- Perfect and imperfect duties

• Explain Kant’s Categorical Imperative

- The first two formulations (universal law; end-in-itself)

- The Categorical Imperative as a meta-rule

- Categorical vs hypothetical imperatives

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§47-48

• Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) (selection)

Tuesday Essay Consider the “end-in-itself” formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative. Would it permit plagiarizing the work of others when writing your essays for class? Would it permit using a bus driver to travel across town (one would do this by getting on their bus)?

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint slides: Kant's Deontologism [pdf].

•[EC] Onora O’Neill, “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” (1986) [text]

•[EC] Film: Dogville (2004; Dir.: Lars von Trier; 2h 57m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Life is Beautiful (1998; Dir.: Roberto Benigni; 1h 58m) [trailer]

(16) What Can I Know? [show]

(16) What Can I Know? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the differences between Aristotelian science and modern science

• Describe these central features of modernity:

- The new science

- Emphasis on the individual

- Questioning tradition and authority

• Explain the traditional understanding of knowledge and belief

• Describe the two basic models of justification

- Coherentism

- Foundationalism

• Explain why Descartes thinks the sciences need a new foundation

• Explain Descartes’ skeptical approach, and how it is related to the following:

- Methodological doubt

- Dreams and demons

- Radical skepticism

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§13-15

• René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, “First Meditation” (1641)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Descartes and Modernity [pdf]

•[EC] Film: Rashomon (1950; Dir.: Akira Kurosawa; 1h 29m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Matrix (1999; Dir.: Larry Wachowski; 2h 24m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: A Beautiful Mind (2001; Dir.: Ron Howard; 2h 16m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004; Dir.: Michael Gondry; 1h 48m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Open Your Eyes (1997; Dir.: Alejandro Amenabar; 1h 57m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Solaris (2002; Dir.: Steven Soderbergh; 1h 39m) [trailer]. The 1972 Tarkovksy film of the same name is preferable, but rather longer (2h 49m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Hubert Dreyfus and Stephen Dreyfus, “The Brave New World of The Matrix” [text]

•[EC] Text: Charles W. Bryant, “Why are eyewitnesses unreliable?” [web]

•[EC] Text: David Chalmers, “The Matrix as Metaphysics” [text]

• Video/YouTube: Mark Steel on Descartes’ Doubt (6m 18s) [video] More Steel on Descartes: [1/3 (9m 24s)] [2/3 (9m 39s)] [3/3 (10m 8s)]

•[EC] Audio: A. C. Grayling on Descartes’ Cogito (Philosophy Bites)(12m 50s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Barry Stroud on Skepticism (Philosophy Bites)(12m 51s) [audio]

(17) Cartesian Dualism [show]

(17) Cartesian Dualism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Descartes’ “Cogito Argument”

• Explain Borges’ story, and how Descartes would understand it

• Explain Descartes’ answer to the question: What am I?

- Explain what he means by Res cogitans

• Describe Descartes’ reconstruction of the world

- Solipsism

- Proving God’s existence

- Intellectual error

- Clear and distinct ideas

- Substances and attributes

• Explain Cartesian Dualism and its puzzles

- Two kinds of substance

- Substances and attributes

- Human beings as mind/body complexes

- Problem of mind/body interaction

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§16-18

• René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, “Second Meditation” (1641)

• Jorge Luis Borges, “The Circular Ruins” (1940)

Tuesday Essay: Do you agree with Descartes, at the end of the First Meditation, that we can be certain of nothing at all? What does this position of Descartes’s mean? Explain your position.

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Cartesian Dualism [pdf]

• Video/YouTube: Claymation version of Borges, “The Circular Ruins” (6m 18s) [video]

• (See the resources listed in the previous module.)

(18) Locke’s Empiricism [show]

(18) Locke’s Empiricism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the basic features of the physiology of perception

• Distinguish rationalism and empiricism

• Describe Locke’s view of the human mind at birth

• Describe innate ideas, and arguments for and against their existence

• Describe atomism

• Explain Locke’s distinction between qualities and ideas

• Explain the importance of distinguishing ideas from their causes

- representational theory of ideas

- real objects and sensible objects

• Explain the difference between primary and secondary qualities

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§19-20

• John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) (selection)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Locke’s Empiricism [pdf]

• Animation: Mark Newbold’s Animated Necker Cube [web]

• Video: Five Pretty Cool Optical Illusions [YouTube]

•[EC] Text: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, “Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling the World” (1995) [pdf]

•[EC] Text: Richard Gregory, “Brainy Mind” (1998) [text]

•[EC] Text: Frederick Lepore, “When Seeing is Not Believing” (2002) [text]

•[EC] Video: Steven Pinker, “Chalking it up to the Blank Slate” (2003) (22m 42s)[web video]

•[EC] Video: Henry Markham, “Building a Brain in a Supercomputer” (2009) (14m 51s)[web video]

(19) Minds, Brains, and Selves [show]

(19) Minds, Brains, and Selves [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Discuss the relationship between the mind and the self

• Distinguish the dualist and physicalist models of the mind

• Distinguish the following physicalist models

- Mind/Brain identity theory

- Functionalism

• Describe blindsight, phantom limbs, and their implications for our understanding of the mind

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§24-26

• René Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637) (selection)

• Daniel Dennett, “Where Am I?” (1978)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Minds, Brains, and Selves [pdf]

•[EC] Essay: Chris Frith, “Consciousness: why bother?” The Guardian (2 March 2012) [text]

•[EC] YouTube Videos: Alex the Parrot [PBS clip/Alan Alda (3m 11s)] [Video 2 (2m 6s)] [Video 3 (3m 29s)] [Video 4 (3m 49s)]

• Video: "Profile: Irene Pepperberg & Alex." Nova ScienceNow. 9 Feb. 2011. [11m 55s] [web]

• YouTube Videos: V. S. Ramachandran on the Brain (“Secrets of the Mind,” NOVA, 1st aired: 23 Oct 2001) [Part One (19m 54s)] [Part Two (20m 42s)] [Part Three (14m 39s)] The discussion of blindsight begins at the 15:40 mark of Part One, and continues for a few minutes into Part Two. If you have time and interest, of course, you may wish to view the entire episode.

•[EC] Video: Robert Sapolosky, “The Uniqueness of Humans” (2009) (37m 26s)[web video]

•[EC] Film: Awakenings (1990; Dir.: Penny Marshall; 2h 0m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Atul Gawande, “The Itch” (2008) [text]

•[EC] Audio: David Papineau on Physicalism (Philosophy Bites)(15m 50s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Tim Crane on Mind and Body (Philosophy Bites)(10m 45s) [audio]

(20) Minds and Machines [show]

(20) Minds and Machines [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Artificial Intelligence

• Describe a Turing machine

• Discuss how we might distinguish minds from non-minds

- Descartes’ two tests

- The Turing test

• Explain Searle’s arguments against AI, and Dennett’s response

- Searle’s “Chinese Room”

- “Syntax without semantics”

- “Simulation is not duplication”

- Dennett’s “systems” reply to Searle

READINGS:

• Naragon, §27

• Stephen Law, “Could a Machine Think?” (2003)

• Terry Bisson, “They’re Made out of Meat” (1991)

Tuesday Essay: Is Geena being unfair to Emit? In what sense, if any, does Emit lack a mind? Explain.

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Video: Business Insider interview with Sophie, the Hanson Robotics android (8 Nov 2017) (2m 58s)[YouTube]

• Video: Gabriel Axel interview with Sophie at the Barcelona Internet of Things conference (28 Oct 2017) (10m 14s)[YouTube]

•[EC] Essay: Tim Urban, “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence.” WaitButWhy (2015) [website]

•[EC] Video: Rodney Brooks, “The Robots are Coming” (2003) (18m 44s)[web video]

•[EC] News Item: Belle Dumé, “Organic Transistor Mimics Brain Synapse” (28 Jan 2010) [web page]

•[EC] TED talk: Paul Root Wolpe: It’s time to question bio-engineering (19m 43s) [web video]

(21) Believing and Disbelieving in God [show]

(21) Believing and Disbelieving in God [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain how one might justify “belief in God”

• Explain the difference between theism, atheism, and agnosticism

• Explain why belief in God might be thought problematic

- “God of the Gaps”

- Plurality of religions

- Problem of evil

• Explain Durkheim’s explanation of religious belief

• Explain Freud’s explanation of religious belief

• Describe the three kinds of religion discussed by Einstein

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§31-32

• Raymond Smullyan, “Conversation with God” (1977)

• Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science” (1930)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Believing in God [pdf]

• Web Site: America’s Four Gods [web]

• YouTube: Bertrand Russell on Belief in God (3m 26s)[web video]

• YouTube: Raymond Smullyan, in perhaps another conversation with God (3m 51s)[web video]

•[EC] Audio: Don Cupitt on Religious Non-Realism (Philosophy Bites)(15m 27s) [audio]

•[EC] Text: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “The Grand Inquisitor” (from The Brothers Karamazov) [text]

•[EC] Text: Stephen Pinker, “God and Science” (from the John Templeton Foundation series: “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” [2009]) [text]

•[EC] Film: Oh, God! (1977; Dir.: Carl Reiner; 1h 44m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Bruce Almighty (2003; Dir.: Tom Shadyac; 1h 42m) [trailer]

•[EC] Video: Sam Harris, “The View from the End of the World” (58m) [web video]

•[EC] Video: Walter Isaacson, “Einstein’s God” (5m 27s) [web video]

•[EC] Text: Jerome Groopman, “God on the Brain” [texts]

(22) Faith and Reason [show]

(22) Faith and Reason [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the different concepts of the word ‘faith’. How does Aquinas understand it?

• Describe Theism, Deism, and Fideism

• Describe natural and revealed religion

• Describe general and special revelation

• Explain and evaluate Rousseau’s arguments against revealed religion

• Explain the kinds of proofs of God’s existence, and the philosophical positions regarding these

READINGS:

• Naragon, §33

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Creed of the Priest of Savoy” (1762)

Tuesday Essay: In the reading, Rousseau’s priest gives a number of reasons for rejecting revealed religions. What are they? Do you agree? (Why or why not?)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Faith and Reason [pdf]

•[EC] Text: The Seventh Seal (transcript) [text]

•[EC] Video: Bill Moyer’s Journal interview with Karen Armstrong (13 March 2009) [web video]

•[EC] Film: The Seventh Seal (1957; Dir.: Ingmar Bergman; 1h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Breaking the Waves (1996; Dir.: Lars von Trier; 2h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Apostle (1998; Dir.: Robert Duvall; 2h 14m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Jerome Groopman, “God on the Brain” [texts]

(23) The Argument from Design [show]

(23) The Argument from Design [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Aquinas’ Fifth Way

• Describe Paley’s argument for God’s existence

• Explain the difference between the teleological argument and the argument from design

• Explain the features of a “machine-like structure” (MLS) and the nature of purpose.

• Explain how evolutionary biology weakens the argument from design

• Describe and evaluate the three kinds of design arguments (from the possibility of science; from the anthropic principle; from irreducible complexity)

• Describe Begley’s understanding of the relationship between religion and science

READINGS:

• Naragon, §36

• William Paley, Natural Theology (1802) (selection)

• Sharon Begley, “Science finds Religion” (1998)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Proofs of God's Existence [pdf]

•[EC] Film: Inherit the Wind (1960; Dir.: Stanley Kramer; 2h 13m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: William Phillips, “Science and Religion” (from the John Templeton Foundation series: “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” [2009]) [text]

•[EC] Text: Daniel Gilbert, “Vagaries of Religious Experience” [text]

• Video: Evolution of the Eye (PBS)(4m 8s) [video]

•[EC] Audio: Stewart Sutherland on Hume on Design (Philosophy Bites)(11m 18s) [audio]

•[EC] Video: Biologist Richard Dawkins on biological evolution [if you write on this, you will need to focus on just a portion of his lengthy (but wonderfully clear) talk] (1h 19m 8s) [web video]

•[EC] Video: Brian Eno and Will Wright on Generative Systems (1h 38m 40s) [web video]

• Video: Physicist George Smoot on the design in the universe [too complicated to offer for EC, but too cool not to post here] (19m 0s) [web video]

(24) The Problem of Evil [show]

(24) The Problem of Evil [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the basic features of a theodicy: What is it and why is it needed?

• Explain the difference between viewing evil as an instrumental good and as a by-product of the good

• Describe and evaluate the logical argument from evil

• Describe and evaluate the evidential argument from evil

• Describe the free will defense

• Explain why Leibniz believed that we live in “the best of all possible worlds”

• Explain Ivan Karamazov’s comment that he is “returning his ticket”

READINGS:

• Naragon, §37

• Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “Rebellion” (from The Brothers Karamazov) (1880)

Tuesday Essay: Explain Ivan Karamazov’s comment that he is “returning his ticket.” What do you think of that?

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: The Problem of Evil [pdf]

•[EC] Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian” (1927) [text]

•[EC] Text: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (selection) [text]

•[EC] Film: Shadowlands (1993; Dir.: Richard Attenborough; 2h 13m) [trailer]

•[EC] Audio: Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil (Philosophy Bites) (14m 27s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: A. C. Grayling on Atheism (Philosophy Bites)(12m 51s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Stephen Law on the Problem of Evil (Philosophy Bites)(14m 23s) [audio]

•[EC] Video: Reverend Tom Honey on making sense of God in the presence of evil (19m 33s) [web video]

(25) Pascal’s Wager [show]

(25) Pascal’s Wager [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Is Pascal a theist? Is he a philosophical theist?

• What does Pascal say about agnosticism?

• Explain and evaluate Pascal’s Wager.

• Explain Wittgenstein’s account of religion as a “form of life”

• What does Wittgenstein mean when he says that religious claims or beliefs are non-cognitive?

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§38-39

• Blaise Pascal, “The Wager” (from Pensées) (1662)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Powerpoint: Pascal's Wager [pdf]

•[EC] Video: Reverend Tom Honey on making sense of God in the presence of evil (19m 33s) [web video]