philosop
Mon 10/23/06
7 sa questions and an essay!!
allegory of the den
augustine
existentialism and buddhism -- nature of reality
almost all of the short answer questions are from the study guide
essay must be argumentative in nature - -
ex: one of the existentialism charges on sartre
look at the big picture of each of the authors we've read
absurdity
existentialims a form of humanism
buddhism --
noble truths
mindfullness
dependant arising
always vocalise - and therefore and hence -- connect ideas .. therefore that guy's guilty by itself is not enough
narrow!
debate:
plato:
different levels of reality - you havve to transcend to the true reality
changing world is just physical .. full of deceptionforms .. good
- counter:
how do you know -- why not meaning in this world?
if you have a human form, doesn't that limit freedom?
augustine:
human happiness is an understanding of God ..
main argument:
human nature to seek a higher truth. -- intellectual and (augustine) spiritual. path to higher truth achieved through spirituality.
deviding line -- what does not change and is true reality fulfills us.
counterarguments & their positions
your mind is distinct from the physical senses -- mind is higher that the body
mind is more permenant and capable of recognising higher truths.
buddhists acknowledge that something of the body lives on.
music -->
how do we now there is a God/Good
weaknessess of existentialism:
focus on the individual .. but we're shaped by the inflences
social vs. individual!!
pessimism charge ..
impracticle to make something
how do you know ethical values .. what gives you those ..
... . ..
if your mind is longer lasting than the body -- rebirth .., what separates that from the idea that your mind is higher than your body ..
nirvana - if you can't describe it .. isn't it like transcendence.
their opinion: you don't need higher transcendence to full fill human life.
the world is always changing ..
if your world is always changing -- how do you find morals and values.
can you be perminantly happy in a world that's always changing?
they say their's no evidence of transcendence .. there is
trip analogy -- what's your destination???
-------
Fri 10/27/06
for tuesday - augustine: 74-76
134-157--
164-166
170-183
monday's class is canceled .
what makes up a human being?
plato/augustine -- perminaant soul
buddhist -- body has a concious but not perminant -- part of this world -- result of complex biological fuctions
mind-body problem -- well, that presumes that there is a body -- plato says no.
dualism - most common view -- idea that there is both a mind and body as separate substances and they interact in a certain way.
has some problems with it.
idealism -- only mind exists
finally, idea that there is only a physical existance -- conciousness is just the functioning of the brain
plato's argument for the inmortality of the soul
afterlife -- just rewards and greater prizes : punnishments as well as rewards.
people want to believe that the cosmos is just -- how do people like hitler get away with what they get away with; where's mother theresa's reward?
if it doesn't happen here, it must happen elseware
is the soul immortal??
if we can prove an immortal soul, then we'd have a concern for eternity -- then we'd be more concerned over all eternity
if you really deep down belive that the rest of eternity depends on how youuive your life now -- it would seem that the people who say they belive that would be the kindest most generous people imaginable.
soul separates itself from the body to gain pure knowledge -- he says that knowleedge depends on inmortality of the soul.
a lot riding on the issue
what do you mean by soul -- psyche in greek
non physical or inmaterial
what's the real me?
plato had two theories of the soul -- inconsistant with each other
1.
three parts
1. rational intellect
2. spirited part (thumus -- enthusiasm)
3. appetites -- instincts, drives
spock -- rational
??? -- spirited
bones -- appetites
ψ
so justince .. the idea l republic is the harmony of each part -- each person does one part. -- when it comes to the indvidiaul soul -- its the harony to our own personal proportionality is what makes justice for the indvidual soul
in the phaedo -- plato defines the soul merely in terms of raltional intellect and also the principle of life -- what biings life to the body.
republic was written before the phaedo
conclusion: soul's immortal.
basic gist: the things that are bad for it can't destroy it so nothing can and its immortal.
a different socrates here.
premise 1. what destroys and corrupts is bad, what benefits and saves is good
premise 2. for each thing there is a particular or peculear good and evil -- restu is what destorys iron
premise 3. the evil naturally connected with a thing can destory it otherwise nothing will.
premise 4. if there ais antying that cannot be destoryed by its particular evil it is instructable.
the evil for the soul is injustice (the republic is about justice)
does injustice destory the soul? no!.
we said that if a thing has a particular evil that can't dstory it its instructible
therefore, the soul is immortal.
only the evils of the soul can destroy the soul.
valid but is it sound??
weaknesses -- how can we measure the destruction of the soul?
there's more than one thing that can destory something -- fire can destory wood as well as rot can
we might be able to revise that.-- say everything has evils
but then you have to show that all the evils of the soul aren't capable of destorying it.
so he has to show that none of them destory the soul.
finally, this argument presumes there is a soul ..
if you deny the soul then this argument doesn't work
but if you can prove the soul then this arguemtbn seems to suggest that the soul is inmaterial and so its really ahrd to think of what could destory it.
2nd argument -- from the Phaedo
starts out by making an observation about contrary properties. a stone can take on hot or cold -- we would call these properties accidential because there's nothing necessary about a stone being hot or cold.
but, 2, there are some thigs that we call eseential properties -- snow has to be cold.
when it has an essential property, it can't change over to the other one
if the soul is the principle of life -- it has aliveness and it can't become the opposite, or death .. therefore it must be immortal because it can't die.
problems:
assumes a soul
assumes life is an essential property
snow can cease to be cold.
so what if the soul can cease to be soul .. and DIE =-O.
but plat says in this case its must closer to 3 being odd. - its hard to imagine 3 any other way.
something special about tis aliveness.
sa: what are the key components of a human being according to augustine?
-------
Tue 10/31/06
humanity at the center of christian tradition -- we have a special dignity that God invested in us.
we are created in the image of God
human beings are belived of God
cares about us (sacrificed his son)
parts of the human being
body and soul
dualism. augustine held a form of dualism.
two very different or ditinct substances which desribe the person.
decartes - says that the two can interact -- menal can cause body events and body events can cause mental events
i make choices and my hand goes up ; something hits it and hurts me.
augustine says that the body can't affect the soul -- so he can't explain sensation.
human being -- rational soul using a mortal and material body
more predominate: soul .. soul is above the body -- huand stands right between devine essence and matter. human beings stand inbetween
all three level sof existance are there -- we have the soul in the middle.
soul is the body's true chief good / best medicine -- body is ruled over by the soul.
the level above rules over that which is below it.
what is the nature of the soul
"a soul is a substance endowed with reason and fitted to rule the body
anything that's alove has a soul -- soul has something to do with beng the very principle of life -- animate vs inanimate -- podium vs worm.
clearly tthere must be different types of soul -- human soul is endowned with reason -- that's what distunguishes it.
soul is dominate partner
ruler and ruled -- soverign over the citizen but also the user and the tool -- arttizan and crafstman -- the soul uses the body
the body is a tool for the soul.
the soul can cause things to happen in the body but the body cann't do that for the soul -- the artizan and tool -- tool can't command the artizan.
important that soul > body ..
the soul is what get's to see God -- if the body is essential, then at death, you really do die.
augustine trues to keep the body integrted but its detachable at the same time because you go on in the afterlife as only the soul.
but there is still the idea of the ressurection of teh body
soul is the inmaterial and intellectual part -- pythagorians belived that the soul was material.
the soul brings life to the body -- distinction between living and non-living things
if you're gonna argue for the existance of the soul -- - we've all seen dead bodies -- the difference between a dead body and a living one is the soul -- a sponge is a live and a rock isn't the difference is thh soul.
modern argument: conciusness and awareness --> we have this strange function of self-awareness.
that sense of selfhood -- that conciousness is the soul.
like plato, the soul is immortal -- he doesn't try to argue for that -- but even though the soul is immortal -- it is caangeable.. there has to be moral development.
there has to be some chageability in the soul.
soul is not little pieces of god
is each soul an act of creation or are they passed down?
traducionsionst -- they are passed down
creationist -- God makes each one.
the soul decends into the fetus -- it choses the come in to the body -- that's why we are already so bad off morally.
human beings have an intellectual rational capacity
and a will
the intellect does fine but the corruption that the will sends it interferes.
moral good or virtue is the goo dof the soul -- the soul is the locus of our moral devlopment.
material - not evil but a lower form of being.
the soul can act on the body but not vise versa
can't explain sensation.
the body. : unlike plato -- says the body is real .. lower mode of being but still real.
ocrporial nature interferrers with the soul's operations -- interfere's without causing it .. but it is not inherently evil -- we just give it more credit than it deserves.
we stand between matter and god -- on the 2nd rung of existance.
we are inbetween because we partake of the lover body existance.
the body is not bad but seems to be dispensible
human depravity -
original sin -- when we turn up .. naturally sinful
through adam's fall we sinned all
human beings by their very nature we are so currupted we can't possibly choose the good ourselves
a way is open by the coming of christ
god bestwoed upon us a POSSILBILITY of salvation.
human beings are so sinful that we can't do anything for bettering our human condition without God.
god has to give us grace.
Grace is a kind of devine illumination by God's mind
but that means that salvation is in the hand of God -- to do a good act is to have grace. You don't earn grace by doing good acts .. our human anture is so damnable that there isn't relaly anything it can do on its own.
the only way human beings can do a good act is trhought he free and arbitrary gift of grace by God.
if salvation is dependant on Good acts
God gives grace -- you can't earn it you cant merit it.
to be good is to already have grace.
why does God give it to some and not others?
this is maddening.
leads to the pelagain herrisy.
isnt it true that we really should only hold people morally responsible if they can't do it .. most people say NO! -- ought inplies can.
if the only way human begins can be saved is good works and good works only by grace and grace is from God, how can you hold the others morally responsible.
how can we talk about God's justice? it seems fundamentally wrong to damn those who can't have done otherwise,
sin - turning away from the devine good and to the body good etc
conversion is partly a matter of the intellect, but only partly -- the will perfeverts everyting that's presented in front of the intellect.
the heart has to be converted first. . a tool digging the wrong place is good but useless.
so this is not a change of intellect (relgion, i mean) but of the heart / will .. to say you believe is not enough.
ascending to a proposition is not the same as living it
action!! is a funciion of the will
to be truly virtuous is to have the will clensed.
heart religion -- religion isn't just about asserting propositions.
two cities from "city of god"
1. made up of those prodestioned for being saved.
2. the rest of us -- damned because without grace.
the human race is made up of mostly the damned masses.
God doesn't have to do anything to damn some one -- they're all like that .
no computer could have done otherwise -- f its broken its broken.
can a human being on his or her own choose th e good without god's grace
can grace be earned?
this is where plagious comes in .. he says God's grace isn't completely necessary .. you can to some extent ern it -- otherwise it doesn't realy make sense -- God's justice??
palagious seems to have a point and most christians today are plagians even though Augustine spent the lst 30 years trying to stamp it out.
are we really free to choose the good without God's help
there is not good execpt from god
god doesn't sent you to hell -- its your natural home
the fact that God saves a few of us .. that's the miraculous thing.
its in our nature to be corrupt.
sa for thursday: what did the budda mean by his no-self theory?
-------
Thu 11/02/06
augustine: modified form of dualism
body does exist but soul is more essential .. soul has realson / will , intellect. most important part
human person is corrupt.
christianity would not be without the plato philosophy, aristotle. foundation of chrisitian teaching.
jewish tradittion was not so emphasizing of the helenistic teaching.
one exceptiion: john's gospel
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
plagian heresy ..
grace etc.
Arminius - "there's got to be a free will, so there has to be in the human being the ability to have done otherwise"
open to god's grace?
......
hindu view of self
atmon - from the upondishads -- commentary on the veda.
atmon -- pure self-illumincating concous -- our ture self is the spiritual self .
atmon is:
perminant
blissful
inner controller
buddhist will say that there is nothing in the human person that is like these things
hindu's reason to this when they say "there must be some I" that thinks when I think.
that pure inner spirit is identical with Brahmon -- the source of all real
inner most self is the same as all reality
finger on hand analigy
the atmon is thee underlying sprit that we all share
you truly are the one atmon.. if you realize this, you don't have suffering.
he is your self.
lord of the chariot - you couldn't drive the chariot yourself and fight.
so .. atmon is that.
sa: raise a couple of questions about the buddhist conception of no-self!
do ssay that there is a dependantly arisen self. middle way.
-------
Fri 11/03/06
for monday -- photocopy worksheet. fill out copy .. or make a copy of it filled out?
hindu - atman
1) permenant
2) blissful
3) pure agent/inner controller
buddhist view is kind of middle way
denies the single atman , but doesn't say there's no self at all.
middle way.
self is a dependantly arizen self.
no-self theory
anatta - no atman .. not no self at all;
.. no /permenant/ self theory.
two aspects
1) negative thesis -- objections to an atman
the buddha's rejections:
the body can't have control .. not a pure agent .. but the hindu's never said the body was the self.
feeling is not the self -- you can't have control over it
sankara -- dispositions or will .. not in control either -- or we wouldn't have addition
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
conciousness is not the permenant self either -- its not completely in control of itself. from the buddhist point of view, these five factors are an extensive analysis of the things that amek a human .. and no where among any of those is a pure agent or inner controller found.
this is mine, i am this .. comes right out of the upanishad.
each on eof the five factors are imperenant and subject to pain. the other two characteristics are rejected here .. nothing there that is permanent or blissful .. can't find anything and these are all the factors of the human being.
this is the negative thesis. the attack.
conception of the person is the one doctrine that separates buddhism from other relgions. . . .
belief in a permenant and devine soul is the most permisious and dangerous view ..
but also a positive part ..
questions of king melinda
is there a self at all?
melinda -- was a greek bactirian king -- monander corrupted to Melinda.
Greek bactirian king questing buddhist monk.
not canoncial .. but more accessible mode of expressing the teachings .. considered accurate, but not cannonical
what's your name?
well there is no self.
well if there is no permenant self -- who is it that does the monk stuff.
are these nagasena?
are everything together the PERMENANT person?
because he's not found a permenant self, he thinks there's no self at all.
chooses the chariet because chariot metaphor is used in the upanishad -- atamon as driver of chariot
is that a PERMENANT chariot?
even as the word chariot means that the members joined as whole .. when those things come to gether, we use the phrase a living being.
five bundles
1) processes of the body
2) processes of feeling
3) processes of perception
4) dispositions to action/willl
5)consciouness
just as the word chariot is but a word for the members put together but when we discover the members , in the absolute sense there's no permenant self. the words living entity are but a mode of expression for the living bundles. but when we examine the members there is no absolute self.
lecture not permanent but its not nothing there at all.. when the parts come together is this complicated way, we call it a lecturn.
or 18 factors .. sensory organ, sensory object, conciousness with it. .. six senses .. just a different way of cutting the pie
while everything is natural, there's something more than the physical
painting on canvas, vibrations from a symphony
we can make a difference between looking at the matirial parts and the whole but doesn't think you need a soul to say that.
must have 5 bundles to bbe fully human -- but no clear line on that.
4 & 5 .. may be longer lating than the body, but not permenant.
how can you accoundt for this rebirth .. well that's not essential .. or rebirth in this very life.
-------
Mon 11/06/06
mind-body problem
metaphysics of a person
1596-1650 - rene decartes
mind -res cogitence -- thinking stuff
body -res extensa - stuff that's extended .. likterally means stuff that's extended in space -- matter
but he says that e're more essentially the mind than the body
optical illusions - demonstrate that the senses decieve but ultimately can give real knowledge. mind can have real ideas that can't exist in the natural world.
leads him to belive that there are two pprts
body -- connected to the natural world; mind -- aware of itself and has ideas.
end result: there are two separate very distinct things -- you have a line between them -- science -- body .. mind -- the religion stuff.
conciouness -- marker for a readicaaly different source -- substance.
dualism -- most popular, interactionism by far the most popular form of dualism.
different substances, how do they interact?
the incompatible forms
1) interactionism - causal interaction, mental events cause body events, body events cause mental events.
body event causes mental: listening to speaking.
popular because has millions of examples to support it.
but one problem: if they're such radically different substances, how can they interact?
if a ghost can walk through walls, how can he pick up a lamp? you need something that interfaces.
decartes says what connects them is the pineal gland -- but that's physical.
parallelism: correlation between mental and body events but no causal connection.
like movie real -- audio track independant of video film.
doesn't connect the two -- its accidential.
how do they stay in sync.
libnitz -> God is the one that keeps everything in sync. but why don't you just say God makes the mind and the body interact.
not a very popular view.
epiphenaminalism - "over and above the .."
body events cause mental events but not vice versa.
popular because of the ideas of modern science .. gets close to physicalism but keeps the idea of conciousness.
cut hand --> brain --> wince
but also an effervessence of mental events .. brain generates the pain.
but that's a self-contained thing.
analogy - book of sonnets -- in one way, ink impressed on wood fibers .. the meaning of the sonnets is epiphonomical .. it effervesses -- its results on a different plane that requires, of course the physical stuff.
this is more than the buddhist emergence; they keep it all natural.
two major flaws/objections ..
one half of the problem of interactionism.
and also no idea ever changed anything.
no choice you make has any effect on your body.
....
monistic theory
physicalism/materialism: body only
1) unintellibility thesis -- we shouldn't even talk about the mental types. these words are left overs from religion and superstition; we don't talk about ghosts and goblins, nor should we use these words. we should just say such and such is firing.
2) less radical (most of them) -> identity theorists. -- keep the words but all the mental is really brain states. .. then why are we different? well our brains are different.. evidence: modern neuro science. can stimulate very specific parts of the brain to get very specific reactions. -- dualists would say yeah but is that identical with the mental experience or causing it -- they'd say its just causing the mental. we always said there was an interaction.
idealism: mind only; in the history of philosophy more prominant-> plato.
dualist-- if all we were was mental states, then we wouldn't have a single sense of self.
physicalist would say that maybe it was adapted from the instct to save itself.
sa: for thursday .. pick a theory .. which one do you think is strongest? which one would you try to defend?
-------
Thu 11/09/06
idealism:
mind only
- ~~ plato -- from an ultimate point of view, anyway .. because bodies are changing .. but from the limited pov, there are bodies
because plato believes only truly real is unchanging.
physical relm not truly real.
more modern argument for idealism: george barkley -- in my mind, i have my mind's eye, which sees ideas .. idea as we percieve that desk. we want to check if that representation is right .. we go over and and touch the desk.. but what we really are doing is having another idea.
we want to say that this idea of the desk has its source to the real world. but how can we be sure of that? .. color is a secondary quality .. not really part of the thing.
the physical world is just a series of ideas in my mind.
physical : i have an ida of it as hard, or yellow or white.
like .. you're stuck in the movie theatre and you are asked if the things on the screen are like things outside of the theatre but you cant leave.
reaction to physicalist approach.
representationalist view of experiences.
what a rediculous theory!
refutation: human experience isn't just an interior movie theatre. .. you feel your pains .. you don't represent them.
wanted to get rid of the idea that its all reducible to a substance.
byproduct of this idealism: if all i can know are the ideas in my mind .. then i have reason to believe that I and I alone exists. -- now some think that's what makes this absurd. .. you certainly can't spread this then -- who would you spread this to?
maybe the problem is how we see mind and body
maybe something can be both physical & mental
human conciousness seems to be a different thing of some sort
maybe they're not a different substance, but there's a distinction!
why do we feel unified if all we are is physical -- physicalist answer: evolution .. advantagous to think that way.
buddhism isn't dualist but isn't physicalist either
one school of thought is in light with barkley.
naturalistic emergentism .. everything's natural but its not just reducable to physics.
like painting .. hard pressed to say there's a perminant essence.
essay: argumentation, not summary. just small recounting.
sa: layout the argument for why we should not take into account the opinions of the majority?
-------
Mon 11/13/06
are humans by nature social -- what part?
one of the charges against existentialism was ignoring solidarity.
to what extent is the social dimention a prerequ for fullfilling ourselves?
are human beings naturally social?
biologically: yeah they group up in groups
but is the core of who we are social?
is the social dimension a prereq. for fullfillment?
large questions.
narrow to more specific questions ...
origin and extent of political obligation -- ie, each one of us is a citzen of the country -- how did you get that way? how far does it go?
role of the majority
according to socrates, in ethical contexts, the majority shouldn't have a role to play.
why sould the majority rule even in plitical ccontexts?
holder thesis: all differences of political theory ultimately derive from differences in theories of human nature.
absolute power of the government
vs.
liberarianism -- anarchism
despite what the democrates say, liberalism mean /less/ government.
we'll use the historial sense
conservative: people need lots of government
libertarians: people need very little government.
this is the spectrim of policital theory .. can be mapped 1:1 to a similar spectrum of theories of human nature
pessimistic view: humans are rotten nastly animals and they need a government.
optimistic view: humans are angels .. government would only corrupt.
as we go through the different authors, put them on these scales. scrates fits towards the pessemisitic/big government side.
loche -- balence of the two.
crito:
while this ship was en route to thank such-and-such (gods(?)) .. there was a festival .. and so they put off executions.
just something really wrong with executing someone on christmas.
so socrates got a month long stay
crito comes early in the morning and finds socrates asleep. .. this tells us: he's accepting his fate. .. the whole situation does not undermine his tranquility.
crito says socrates should escape. is this plausible? yeah. crito says they can buy every guard in the place .. buy his way out. they wouldn't have minded him leaving .. as long as it was to some place else. there were only 2-3 guards around at any time and socrates had up to 20 visitors sometimes. so they chould be easily overcome.
it seems to implie something if socrates is not being so well guarded..
right up against the street. not vry big, not easily made secure. it was very plausible to suggest that socrates could escape if he wanted to. a lot of people didn't really want oo see him killed. he was an old man. they didn't want him around but didn't need to kill him .. they wanted him exiled. . wanted him to escape.
why should he escape? -- people will think that his friends didn't try -- and they would think of them as if they didn't care enough to spend the money to get socrates out. .. gonna look like they valued their $$ more than their friendship of socrates.
44b-c. -- it would be a bad reputation to put $$ over friends.
socrates: we shouldn't take into account the opinions of the majority.
2nd argument -- he'd be abandoning his children .. taking the easy way out .. you're just kinda letting this go. .. playing in to the hands of the enemies. essentially, this aint right.
socrates doesn't think the opinions of the majority don't matter.
conclusion -- in matters of injustice one should not value the opinions of the majority but rather that of a few experts.
1. one should value some opionis and not others. (nothing to do with dignity of person)
2. one should values the good opinions and not the bad ones.
3. the good opinions come foom the wise and the bad opinions come the foolish people (untrained, uneducated).
4. wise/ experts are one/few .. certainly not the majority
5. 47d -- this applies to just and unjust.
its really only the wise opinion tht matters.
48a -- we should not then think so much of what the majority says abbout this but the One.
premise 1 -- you can't believe 1+1=2 and 1+1=7. you can't belive everything .. sounds good.
but with the 2nd premise: how do you know which are good and are bad?
we there's evidence that back up the good opinions and not the bad.
you do make judgemets between what's a good and a bad opinion .. but there also seems some question here.
next premise: how do we know who's wise and follish?
... yeah we can identify those who experts who are MORE LIKELY to have the better opinion.
its probably true that the experts are more likely to be in the minority -- not really that many lawyers.
and this applies to morals because its independant of how many people vote for it.
democracy: wisdom of the people is in selecting leaders not in leading.
aristocracy -- if we totally follow socrates's logic.
sa: according to socrates, how did he become obligated to the city-state?
-------
Tue 11/14/06
previous argument -- week or strong.
well how can you tell what's a good and a bad judgement.
but you make judgements all the time
there must be some difference between good and bad .. we have to make judgements.
2nd arguement
you won't be doing the couragous thing,. . you'll be leaving the family behind. you're not doing the right thing.
after first argument -- most important thing is not life but the good life
socrates argues that it would be wrong for him to escape.
has a kind of agreement with the state -- that he has to fullfill -- if ihe doesn't he's breaking that agreement -- wouldnt escaping break the agreement?
socrates make our political obligation based on our moral standards -- we have a moral obligation to fullfill our political obligations.
therou says that the moral obligations are separate , moral greater.
argument conclusion: it would be wrong for socrates to escape.
1. One must never do wrong willingly.
2. Thus, Even if one has been wronged, it's wrong to wrong them in return. -- eye for an eye is overturned.
socrates makes a big point in this -- they believe in retributive justice. -- socrates says vvery special view -- don't agree to it without knowing what you're getting into.
earliest case of this view!
adique -- injustice -- you don't return an injustice for an injustice.
3. One must fullfill one's just agreements.
socrates has a just agreement with the laws of the city state.
has an agreement to persuade or obey.
how did socrates get obligated? -- he was born and raised and educated there.. and aside from the military service, he never left the city-state in 70 years.
chose to abide by the laws and chose to raise his children there. he's been nurtured by these laws.
lot of benefits: we've defended your house .. ancestors etc.
socrates believes that its the cvilizing influences of the law that make us civilized persons -- these people have rational thought --> philosophy.
people who did not live in the city state - barbarian -- savage, unthinking, uncivilized, etc.
view tht human beings are by there nature beast-like. they have potential but need the right social context.
so socrates owes the laws a lot more. How could he hit back at the laws tht have make him who he is -- that would undermine the very potential for human beings to be civil rationalized beings. very conservative (old sense) to the laws.
pursuade or obey the laws.
by escaping, socrates would be breaking his agreement wwth the city-state.
what kind of power cna the law have if people flaunt it. soggests that socrates is a lawless person. socrates won't do it.
belives that you can't flaunt the law without undermining it.
if you don't recognize the coercive powr of the law, then laws are just suggestions -- the law has to have a coersive effect -- we have to recognize that. we have to obey if we can't persuade.
while the laws in the books it has to be followed.
for him to hit back at the city state is to undermine the very principle of the city state.
1. one must never do wrong willingly - plausible!
2. one must never return a wrong for the wrong. -- but what exactly is a wrong in return for a wrong. .. if i steal back my bicycle .. is that a wrong? .. yeah but once you go down that path .. its close to the retribution system. -- but what about the judicial system. distinction between harm and wrong .. socrates treats them as the same thing. may be cases where harming is needed -- stop some one from killing people.
4. we must keep all our just agreements. counterargument: imagine i'm helping some one move with a gun collection. you agree to keep the guns until they come calling for them .. but what if that person whats to kill someone at 3 in the morning .. you don't give the guns back!
it seems we have two agreements -- give the guns back -- but also don't aid a homocidal maniac. we can't always fullfill all our just agreements.
therou is going to enter here -- we do have political obligations but also moral and he sees that moral trumps. socrates says that political obligations are moral.
what if our just agreements conflict!
pursuade or obey: in the end law has to be obeyed.
how do we maintain our autonamy with the laws.
if the state breaks its end of the agreement ...
what woul socrates do in nazi germany? -- persuade or obey??? no. say its not a just agreement .. he might also say that my agreement is with the laws -> deeper than the administrator.
.. hitler flaunted the laws to do what he wanted.
but this does water down the strong sense of obligation.. socrates didn't say it had to be a perfect state. but you do have a right to say no i won't go out and kill lots of people. slope to therou though.
shurly socrates thinks that its not right to kill him.. but he goes through with it.
martyr complex!
sa for thursday: what kind of government does thorou think best; what's the best kind of government according to thorou.
-------
Thu 11/16/06
Thoreau's civil disobedience
Thoreau's philosophy
Thoreau 1817-1862 (died at 45)
transendentalism - philosophical movement
naturalism
anarchism
walden.
transcendentalism was a movement that borrowed german idealism -- movement to go beyound the moral conventions of society -- go deep into onself and seek out the inner spirit -> devine spark.
studied ubanishad.
transcendence -- moving beyound the world certainly but moving beyound the external values -- they tend to focus on peasure -- governmental policy
central value -- self-reliance. -- reliance on the inner individual. but how we are raised we tend to sell ourselves short
our concious is part of that
very optimistic view of human nature -- we have our core like good -- and if we do wrong its because of external influences.
transcend all externally oppposed rules -- even christianity .. emmerson was a unitaritan and that wasn't liberal enough for him
any rules -- to be come a slave to them is not to live spiritually ..
one needs to constantly reinvent by drawing on his own concious
even the golden rule.
golden not to hagve any rule at all.
so tetached that he was tought to be arrogant -- not a folower - wanted to blase a path on his own.
tereau , unlike the other trancendentalists did have something to say of nature -- saw it as symbols for inner truth.
walden -- can we not minimize or effort sin the necessicities so that we can maximize our spiritual discovery.
for toreau's pov we've turned the wrong way -- we judge by the clothes they wear instead of the purity of their souls.
so first chapter is to cut down cut out everything that's not necessary. . only a few hours to how your beans .. the rest for spiritual stuff.
the idealized year -- starts in summer -- cresendo is the spring -- world comes back to life -- whole notion of resurrection -- we can escape all these conventional standars if we are willing to do the hard work.
so in the cycle of the year there is the image of rebirth.
pond itself represents the human self -- prsitne and pure of its own nature -- no one knows how deep it is -- unjulating shore -- what we shouw to the outside world - reflects the sky because its etherial. pont is connect to another pont just ike all of our indiviudual spirits are connectted.
so nature gives us all kinds of analogies for what makes human life fullfilling.
other transdentalists didnn't want much to do with nature. therou thought that we're embodied in the world and so the world itself is an emmination of the spirit.
arachism -- without rrule -- not government. no externally imposed rules. -- belived that when were prepared for it, human beings should be completely self -aligned -- not relying on anyting to decide what our principles are. .. we really do know what's right and what's wrong w/o the government telling us this -- you don't rob because you know its wrong -- don't need government to tell you that.
and the people who break these rules do so whether there is law or not and they do this because they are corrupted by a society that says you've got ot ahve this and that.
eventually we should have no government -- rely on ourselves to do the right thing.
not chaos -- we have the same values mostly -- but if people are corrupted by the government, we go out and kill tpeople.
thinks we've already gone a long way there -- gone from feudal society -- eventually we can go to anarchy.
political party based on these ideas: libertarian. - think that they only need government for country defense.
civil disobedience is not an argument for anarchism! -- "here im talking as a citizen"
arguing that we need a better kind of government that allows the individual to be the concientious indvidual that we are.
"civil disobedience"
not necessarily nonviolent .. but violence would be rarely justified by concious but doesn't want to say that in all cases violence is wrong .. because in each case you need a fresh spirit.
influenced by this: MLK, ghandi .. and many other peace movements .. directly refer to civil disobedience.
specifically worried about war with mexico 1840, and slavery.
we picked a war with a much weaker neighbor and now we have a lot of southern USA. for intellectuals it was obvious what was happening: imperialism.
mexico had no chance at this war. vietnam of its day. certainly didn't rize to the high levels of american idealism.
slavery was still legal at the moment-- as states were added would they be slave states or free states?
thereau was an ardent abolitionist -- so he's venting his abhorance of being assistant to slave holders.
idea that in an unjust society, the only place for a just person is in a jail.
civil disobedience is about what is the proper relationship between government and individual.
opening lines: what does the government do?
government that governs the least -- a jefferson quote.
bloody revoltion every 20 years. =-O.
government is at best an expedient -- at best sometimes useful.
but most re inexpedient -- they want to take credit for doing all sorts of thigs but thereau says that its the character of tht people that does this when the government gets the heck out of the way
..
we're not quite ready for no government but lets see if we can have a better government
first order of business : poltical and moral obligations are very different -- doing moral right is something humans always have an obligation to do.
people think they can let the government make their choices for them.
not so much to cultivate respect for the law as to be diposed to doing right.
!: law never made a man a wit more just.
people who follow the lines blindly think they are being moral but often doing what's wrong.
he says sure fullfill your just agreements but there are moral agreements you need to fullfill.
putting street signs .. no moral obligation there -- practicality, but if you let the government get into morals -- co-opts your own concious
goes against the idea of doing what your country was you to.
says the people serve the government as machines.
.. and these are considered heros!
does being a concientous being really mean i have to stand against the government?
..idea that if the goernment is doing more right than wrong, then we'll work with the government.
payley doesn't take into account where expediency dna ...
moral concious is the thing of highest value -- you have to do the right thing at ALL costs.
"being nailed to a tree is rather inconvenient"
sa_tomorrow: what is exactly the duty of civil disobedience?
-------
Mon 11/27/06
into the Locke box
2nd treatise of government -- foundation of us government.
based profoundly on the state of nature..
1632-1704
physician
at the service of the earl of shatsberry.
glorious revolution of 1688 -- firm limits on the power of the monarchy .. gave power to parliment.
2nd treatise is written as a defense of that revolution
but americans would then use his writing to justify their own revolution
declaration of independance first paragraphs are basically locke.
ideas not all together brand new -- borrowed ideas that were prevelant at the time and systemetized them -- created a philosophical defense of them. -- that was new and novel
people think that the guys in 1776 just came up with these ideas out of the blue.
no taxation w/o representation -- right out of locke
innovations of locke -
1) natural rights - human rights -- rights that you have by virtue of being human. - the is normal to us but radical to our ancesorts a mere 200 years ago -- profuond shift --
governments are constructed ; they're not natural - created to preserve these natural rights.
100 years earlier than locke -- unthinkable
his theory of human nature is the starting point for our whole government
middle ground between socrates and thoreou: locke
2) limited rather than absolute government - some people think that the government should have ablsolute authority .. people today don't think so (hobbs thought so) -- government has limits in terms of what it can and can't do. if peopel are forming a government to preserve our natural rights, then its not doing its job if it takes them away
3) a theory of revolution: (locke primarily responsible for) - many people think revolution never justified .. locke says there are times when the government becomes so opressive that it does justify taking down the government and putting it back to its purposes -- revolution is justified but only in certain unusual circomstances.
all these ideas are novel in the last 300 - 400 years.
how did these ideas evolve?
how did things turn topsy turvy?
in the 17th centruy economics changed dramatically -- there imerged in the 17th century a wealthy class of people that began to put pressure on the government to serve their interests. to make sure the shipping lanes were kept open, etc.
because of the changes that took place, the demands of those who had financial power and turned it into political power.
but that's not the only story.
an intellectual shift that took place in the 17th century -- enlightenment --> driven by growth of modern science.
one way to concieve this shift in politics -- its a mimic of the shift in science from mideval.
shift to thinking of things as their parts -- atomism - came about as part of the shift to modern science.
ancient/med science
-------------------
wholes came first, then parts -- to understand the behavior of chalk you treat it as its whole -- form chalk
things came as their whole -- you bake a whole pie and then carve it up into pieces of pie.. that's the way the natural world was concieved.
breaking things down into their parts then was always derivative
modern science
--------------
parts are primary -- wholes are derivative
you wanna talk about chalk, you don't talk about chalkness, you talk about the litte bits and pieces -- you can understnad why chalk behaves that way because its how its molecule behaves.
but what makes the whole - force.
you don't need the concept of force in ancient science.
f = m * a
this is what happened to political theory.
people thought themselves as part of a greater community
holder -- held the metal for the blacksmith.
on this model, no one could have thought of the theory of natural human rights in this model.
in modern sense, start of looking at individuals.
outside of society -- free individuals -- each with their own human rights.
but now you have to explain how society emerged.
why would they want to do it?
the way they do it - social contract. in ancient view you don't have a social contract -- you were already a part.
social contract = force from science
that's the glue that glues people together.
this notion of atomism is so deeply rooted in our society
there still are parts of this sense of whole community -- "american"
sometimes part-whole thinknng really leads you astray.
we use it instictively today.
what locke was against:
1) devine right of kings theory. - robert fillmore -- the kings and queens are devienly designated to hold authority. -- more direct desendants of adam and eve. idea that they had dominion over the earth and they can pass it along.
2) 2nd treatise is aimed at the theory of nature by hobbs.
1651 - laviathon-> absolute ruler .. hobbs justifies absolute government -- to keep the peace and make the world manageable.
without this -- humans would live in a war against all .. because human beings are aweful by nature. so aweful that left to their own devices they'd just kill each other.
locke disagrees -- doesn't say that our human nature is perfect, but doesn't justify absolute government.
locke thinks the state of nature is not a state of war ..
state of nature -- no government on earth -- right now if i punched you in the nose, you could take me to court.
where there is no common superiour on earth. - state of nature.
characteristics:
peacable and cooperative -- people by and large will get along
power to execute the law of nature-> reason -- even if there isnt a political law, there's still god's moral laws.
look how rational the whole world is ..
law of nature: reason
when some one transgresses, i execute the law of nature myself. but this power is what i have to give up this power when joining into civil society. -- in order to maximize the rest of our rights.
state of equality.
americans love to say it but its not all true.
not a state of war .. section 19.
state of war rare.
can still be in state of war -- if some one comes in with a gun.
if you get the gun, we're back in the state of society -- now you can call the police.
locke seems to believe that historically we were all in the state of nature
but he has to explain how people got together.
foundation for everything else he's going to say.
based firmly in his protestant, christian theology. our political theory derived from certain christian fundations -- whole theory of human rights is based on christian theology.. else: where do they come from.
sa: how do we acquire property in the state of nature?
-------
Tue 11/28/06
locke in the middle on his theory of human nature and in the middle for political theory.
property -- what accrues to a human being simply by virtue of being a human being.
state of nature -
property - life, liberty, material possessions
old meaning of the word: self determination - you have a properted interested in your own self
later this comes to mean material possessions
locke uses it in both senses.-- sometimes both at once
going to use the abiguity to explain how we acquire property
original condition -- god govae to humanity the bounty of the earth to all of us in common.
but if god gave to humanity everything in common -- how is it that i take from the common and use it for personal use.
there must be some personal use or they would be useless -- left in common the apple doesn't serve anyone's interest.
can't go around and ask everyone.
right to preservation and survival! - there has to be.
therefore there must be a right to the means -- to the things necessary -- we must have a natural right to those.
well then that right to subsistance is a right to private property.
very minimalist now -- not saying a right to a mercedes benz.
how do we take from the stock and make them our own ?
we labor on it . by laboring we cut off some one elses claim to it and make it our own.
in effect we annex a certain piece of ourselves into that which we are working on.
so then no one has a claim to the apple jsst like they don't have a cliam to my hands
its labor that makes property by mixing one's labor, it becomes one's property.
uses both meaning of property
person mixes himself with the thing wich he makes his property.
example: gathering up the acorns.
but objection: how much can you take? what's to keep me from taking it all?
might leave some people out.
section 31.
as much as anyone can take before it spoils --
spoilage is a limitation. take as much as you like but don't let it spoil.
another limitation -- end of section 27.
must be enough and good enough left for others. -- suggests how rational locke sees the universe -- idea that god would not have put 10,000 people on the earth and only 5,000 people worth of stuff to survive. but there are limited resources.
this rationalism is also in another belief: -- if there's a disease, the cure must be nearby.
but way around: money -- its non-perishable
that means that some people can get really super rich.
locke hung out with a $$$ so maybe this is a defense.
on the other side, locke hinds that we are idiots to allow a non-perishable thing of value. this makes this unequal distribution. may break the rule of leaving enough for everyone.
how do we get around "good enough left for others"?
well when we take land, we maximize its use --
labor theory of value.
labor is the rpimary input.
it takes 100 acres to get all the berries needed to sustain a family of 3. but what if that family took just one of the acres? it might only take that one acre of land to do the same job when worked.
protestant belief that we were sennt to labor
a privatized piece of land does a lot greater service than wild land.
in effect by laborihng on the land he has given back 99 acres to humanity .. so we don't have to wrry about enough for others because by privetizing we creat so much.
this is important in the development of economics. this is a very critical idea.
human input into a goodd is the most important part.
but fell apart -- as manufacturing progessed, problme of surplus value arose.
-- the money made over and above the cost of the labor etc.
where does that surplus value come from?
it seems to be money making money.
surplus value can't be explained by the labor theory of value because labor is not most important anymore. -- sweatshop.
person who explained this -- carl marx .
began the process of understanding the problem.
captial itself is a source of value and _its_ the primary source of value -- not labor.
but labor is human dignity -- to devalue that, marx thought was wrongheaded.
equality -
but people are smarter than other people etc.
chapter six, 54. i cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality.
but equality -- equal right to natural freedom .. right to enjoy our natural lives w/o power foom everyone else unless we consent to it.
law and freedom.
some people think that law and freedom are always in opposition to each other.
locke disagrees. laws are aimed at enlarging our freedoms rather tahn simply be a mater of restriction.
if you want perfect freedom, then others have the right to kill me
if there are no limits on stealing, then how can i enojy my personal posetions
so in order maximize my freedom, have to restrict.
dont kill is actually an enlargement of freedom -- peopple who would be killed get to enjoy their lives.
maybe there are laws that are nothing but restrictions .. those should be rethought.
seatbelt law -- serves the person that hits hou in an accident -- so they haven't killed you
test: does the law enlarge freedom? if it diminishes freedom and restricts for the sake of restricting, then its a bad law.
parental authority --
some peolle think that sjust as parents have absolute authoity over children liewise government have absolute authority of citzens.
locke doesn't like this .. analogy doesn't work .. parents create children but government doesn't create citizens.
there is a sense in which parents have authority and the government too but is parental authority absolute? can a parent take the life of a child? NO.
parents have authority over children for their good
government should have authority over citzens for their own good. and in a limited way.
sa: answer 1 worksheet question.
-------
Mon 12/04/05
bring to discussion --
declaration, question sheet from last week
exam -- only a unit exam
crito
civil disobedience
2nd treatise
declaration of independance
thomas hobbs
six sa questions
1 essay - prepare in advance -- run by dr. holder.
argumentative.
state of nature -> political society
there are feature in the state of naure that vgive us a shove to forming this social contract
1) conjugal society - a family -- since human beings evven in the state of nautre requre the nurture of at least one adult human being, human beings are already put in a situaltion where the social environment is already developed -- recursor to political society.
good social bonds.. all the more likely if we make similar connectins to people outiside oour siociety.
2) language - enhances and amblifies our social behaviors -- we can do aloot more if we are able to communicate with human beings -- emerges from but also reinforces strong social interactions -- further societal associations -- language makes comon our experience.
so even in the state of nature, we are already given a good shove to form social connections.
locke defines a political society in section 87, 89.
giving up executive power to form a society.
we give away one natural right to preserve the others.
very reason why people leave the state of nature and join into political society is to preserve and amplify their rights -- protection of property.
saying that the ste of nature is OK but pretty risky. sure you could protect them by yourself but not as effectively.
not only protection and presevation .. but amplification -- we can do so much more when we pull together. -- ie, building a modern house.
when people pull together their resources, ithings are made possible that would never have been possible. therefore, locke thinks highly of political society.
if the purpose of preserving natural rights is the purpose of government, then absolute government (hobbs) is inconsistant.
an absolute government takes all your rights.
by joinging an absolute government you are giving away the very same things you are trying to preserve.
absolute monarchy excludes rulers - becuase he's in the state of nature
being a ruler over others demands that a social contract has already been established -- to join the social contract as rulers would assume that there was already a social contract. social contract is made by free individuals.
no one joins as a ruler. later on, some serve the role as rulers.
some people thought that the social contract was that the rulers contracted with the citizens.
locke doesn't deny that such contracts exist, but that's not the social contract -- this already presumes the social contract.
fourth point MOST IMPORTANT: - contract is made by conscent .. unanimous consent -- otherwise if you don't conscent then you are furced to join and you are not free.
two objections - if you're already born under the government, when did any of us give their consent?
now its ovious if someone takes a public oath, but most of us haven't done that.
so how do we consent?
historical problem -- we don't have any records at all of "the german people becoming the german people" etc.
now the us is a bit different, but in locke's day, very few of the countries had anything like that.
locke says that the writing of a record preassumes the existance of society. but the objection doesn't apply. he seems to misunderstand his own theory -- the 2nd treatise is not supposed to be a historial record but a theoretical work -- he should just doge the question and say i'm not talking historical.
the other objection is must more important --
ther are two ways in which someone can give conscent
express
and tacit
what exactly is a tacit consent?
tacit -- conscent that we give when we use things
section 119. IMPORTANT
take the benefits, you've implied your conscent. stop taking the benefits, stop your consent.
government realizes that they have to give some sacrifice -- ie education. but if you inherit land, yo must accept it under the terms of that government or you lose them.
after the contract is formed, majority rules.
the socail contrct only takes us from the state of nature to a common law .. establishing a government involves a seecond step which involves majority rules. government is just a system -- does not change the people you are (that's social contract). forms of government have to be erected therefore by the people.
why majority rules? - why?
what justifies this?
recognize: form doesn't have to be majority rules -- our frame is not majority rules once the election is over.
powers in a few law officers.
section 96.
body metaphor -- if my right arm doesn't want to move by my body does than either my right arm has to go along or it ceases to be part of the body.
by creating a 3 tier structure , it creats a great deal of rezilliance to how thse governments are formed --
we almost never go back to the sate of nnture -- rare reare circomstances send us ouside of being part of a civil society.
revolution is some instances is justified therefore.
this business of majority rules have a big downside -- can become a mob rule -- french revolution; uneducated people might use their own interest to get their way. in other words, the tirnay of the majority -- what's to stop the people in the first two rows to pass a law saying the las row has to give all their money.
what's to stop the majoity from taking over and terrorizing the elite.
locke has no answer
locke says that the goernment should always act for the good of the people - but a bridge through your land is not for your good.
in ourown system - checks and balences & BILL OF RIGHTS -- doesn't solve tirany of the majority completely but helps a great deal.
in hereint tense between popular government that favors the interest of the majority and to put checks on that so that it doesn't exploit the minorities.
sa: how does lock justify a revolution?
-------
Tue 12/05/06
social cotract
unanimous concent
not the same as government -- that's made separately and by majority rules.
frame of government
political society
---------------
state of nature
after seated, probably not majority -- we have representatives
when we frame a government
goverment has power to make laws -- that's the supreme power -- anyone who controls the law can dictate what others should do -- legislative
executive power -- carry the laws out (for locke, includes judicial),
federative - powers of state - powers between countries that have to be regulated -- external relation.
put these in the hands of one few or many
there has to be limits on the legislative power
the american colonists drew on this very idea of the limit of legislative power. - no taxation w/o representation
from section 138 / 140
people joined government to protect their property
no one can take their substance w/o their own consent -- how can you claim thattyou haveave a right to soemthg as your propoerty if someone else can take it at their whim
section 140 - taxation destroys the fundamental law of property if it is without consent
each state of the colonies had legislatives --
they had no representattives in the parliment - therefore they shouldn't levey taxes on them
without representation in parliment, there was no consent -- so invading the fundamental right of property
but they also need ways of being extended -- can't forsee everything.. any frame has to be flexible and in some whays allow the extension of governmental power into areas that were not given in the frame
extension of power:
two ways:
peragative - when the government extends the power but IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. justified. example: thomas jefferson's luisiana purchase -- not in the constitution but for the good of the people . in the public interest. that's legit.
tyranny - to extend pwer beyound th frame but agains the public good -- that's tyranny --> gets applyed to king george iii
gives an idea of what justifies a revolution
locke makes a fundamental distinction between the disollution of government and the disollution of society. people think that if you tear down the government you send the people back to the state of nature -- locke disagrees.
there are a # of things which disolve a government:
revolution
legislative acts / new people elected
change the constitution / bill of rights
foreign invasion
there may be other ways as well -- form of government might change
but does not change the society.
even a revolution .. doesn't change the fact that there was a french people.
so noe of these will actually undermine the political society / social contract.
a forgien invasion is probably the only way to go back to the state of nature -- and it woul have to whipe out larges numbers of people and that almost never happens.
so we don't have to worry about revoltion taking us back to the state of nature -- this makes the 3 tiered structure that locke has extremely stable.
what justifies a revolution - -
whenever the rights of the people are invaded. these people aren't really the government anymore at that point -- just using governmental power to invade the people
if that happens, people have every right to stand against these people because they're not relly government anymore.
section 222 -
when government oversteps, power goes back to the people
if the government uses its power to invade rights, people have the power to take it back.
people might try to use this all the time
section 223 - people are creates of habit
people won't use this right to revolutin for any old whim
people will tolerate a lot but when they see that the main thrust of the government is to take advantage of them -- how can we blame them for taking it back?
after government is pulled down from a revolution -- goes back to social contract and a new government is erected.
worst thing one can do (according to locke) -- is to stand against a just government -- that's rebellion. so, he justifies revolution but still a friend of government. 99 out 100 are perfectly legit governments.
sa: (bring declaration of independence) -- note 3 ideas in the declaration that connect with locke's 2nd treatise -- pay attention to first two paragraphs.
→→
5920717
3660102
4974488