Philosophy and Ethics 2008

For those of you that have looked at PowerSchool but not read your email, here's the scoop. (Actually, I'll cross post the email here...)

If you look at PowerSchool, I've put "Missing" in for all assignments that I don't believe I have as of now. That does NOT mean you are in trouble, it does NOT mean you shouldn't do them, etc. It is simply showing you where your grade will be if you do not do those particular assignments. I know I told you that you have the weekend, and you do have the weekend to get things done. I just had several people asking what would happen if they stopped turning things in, etc. Now, you can know.

Here's how you should read it...

* If you have all work in to me by now, the posted grade is what you will receive.

* If you are still going to submit work, your grade will go up accordingly. (It cannot go down from where it is.) I'll try and update each day starting Monday as people submit work.

* You need to be at 180 points to get passing credit for the quarter. If you are not at 180 by the end of Monday evening, you should be reporting to class first hour on Tuesday as Mr. Comfort instructed.

* If "Missing" appears in red, I'll consider that work late, and you will lose some credit. It "Missing" appears in black on PowerSchool, you can still get full credit.

I believe I still need to get SEVEN of my "Popular Culture and Philosophy" books back, so take care of that as well...

Let me know if you have questions or think that I have made a mistake somewhere here.

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "Marx" through "The Big Bang" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 21st IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.

You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.

1. In "Marx," we see his famous quote that "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it." What does this have to do with Sophie, Hilde and/or the Major at this point in the book?

2. Is it too much to say that the Major is like God? Why or why not?

3. In "Darwin," the chapters closes with excerpts from both Goethe and Thomas Hardy poems. Pick either one and tell us why you think Gaarder includes it at this point in the novel.

4. At the conclusion of "Our Own Time," Alberto shows Sophie a copy of the book, Sophie's World. What should we take away from this? How can one find a book about oneself in a book about oneself? What would happen if Sophie started reading the book?

5. Pick something from "The Garden Party," and tell us why you thought it was particularly interesting and/or important.

6. Where ARE Sophie and Alberto throughout "Counterpoint?" I mean more than just saying, "In Oslo." Have they become real? More real? How do you describe what is going on here?

7. Did you feel like the final lines of the novel "resolve" the whole mystery, or do they just make it deeper? Why?

As you know, we are basically done with new material for the quarter. The focus over our last eight sessions will be on the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" presentations and on the Ethics Debates.

I won't remind you again where you can find information on all of the remaining assignments. (Hint, try the "Assignments" page...)

You all have paper copies of the schedule, and there's one posted on the bulletin board in the front of my room.

I will post Sophie's World Blog entry #6 yet this week. That's probably the one remaining post that I'll make...

I believe that I finally have grades pretty well updated. Take a look, and let me know if something isn't right...

Sophie's World Blog entry #5 is posted. It's due on Friday, May 16th.
Your "Squashed Philosophers" should be posted as a comment by Friday, May 16th.
Philosophy Exam #2 is posted. It is due on Friday, May 23rd.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you can find the information you need on the "Assignments" page linked to the right...

>>>>

This is the final day where our focus will not be on student presentations. We'll pick up with a look at the work of our "final" two philosophers Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand.

You were asked to take a look at one article, editorial, debate, etc. from BOTH Noam Chomsky and from the Ayn Rand Institute. Here are the links:

The Noam Chomsky Website - Articles

Op-Eds: The Ayn Rand Institute

I'd like to briefly hear from everyone on ONE of the two articles that you read. You decide whether you want to agree/disagree with its conclusions.

>>>>>>

Civil Disobedience: I did not pick this topic because it fits neatly with the philosophers that we are currently studying, or because I want you all to go out and cuase trouble... Instead, I think the philosophical perspectives used to justify civil disobedience by some are both interesting and timely. In addition, I think it fits nicely with some of what you have studied as juniors in US history and English.

Here's what we'll do:

Define "civil disobedience" - breaking the law in pursuit of a higher good...

The organization ACTUP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) has a website with a brief history of acts of civil disobedience. Take time to read the web page alone or with a partner. Consider each of the examples as "justified" or "not justified". Be prepared to defend your choices.

Discuss: Feel free to chat about these in smaller groups or simply ponder them yourself.

"When is it right, if ever, to break laws and oppose the state? What are the boundaries between legitimate dissent and lawlessness?"

"Can civil disobedience lead to anarchy? to relativism? to fanaticism?"

"I would be willing to . . ."

"What are the responsibilities of the citizen when it comes to respecting legitimate authority?"

In the current political "climate" in America, are there issues for which you believe civil disobedience is appropriate? Under what terms would you participate?

Going to the sources: Pick either of the following (or both) and skim them...

"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. This site from the Henry D. Thoreau homepage provides some context for the selection.

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Consider these issues for your source:

What is the historical context for this writing?

Do you agree or disagree with the author's main points?

Would you have been willing to make the same sacrifices? Why or why not?

Identify three "bumper stickers" from the work. (In other words, pick three quotes which best sum up the work.)

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "The Enlightenment" through "Kierkegaard" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON FRIDAY, MAY 16th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.

You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.

1. As we begin "The Enlightenment," the book is certainly raising metaphysical issues about the nature of reality. At this point, do you consider Sophie to be "real?" Hilde? Explain why you believe as you do.

2. Is it more than a coincidence that Sophie and Alberto are saying things like, "We are right now starting from scratch. We don't even know whether we think..." in a chapter called "The Enlightenment?" What about this time in the history of philosophy makes this an appropriate fit for the uncertain feelings of these two characters?

3. You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.

4. In "Kant," Sophie and Alberto's visitors include Little Red Ridinghood and Winnie-the-Pooh. What purpose do you suppose they serve in advancing the plot of the novel? Are they randomly placed here, or do you think there is more significance?

5. In "Romanticism," Alberto says, "We are but shadows in the major's soul. And it is no easy matter for a shadow to turn on its master, Sophie... Only an angel can rebel against God." What do you make of this? What is the relation between the "Creator" and the "Created?"

6. "Philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit" is written on the last page of "Hegel." Recall the earlier use of the brass mirror as well. What do you think Gaarder is trying to tell us?

7. Sophie asks in "Kierkegaard," "Is it the red or the blue bottle that gives the true picture?" Alberto answers that both do, but that's too easy. Which of the two do you feel offers the more true picture? Why?

You will write on four questions of your choice. You are allowed to use your notes, Internet resources, and handouts; even your copy of Sophie's World if you would like.

You should complete and submit these exams by May 23rd. It is assumed that you will write in complete sentences, etc. I would expect most answers to be in the 300- 500 word range. You may dispense with formal introductions and conclusions. You do not need to offer formal citations if you use quotations from primary sources, but it should be clear from where you got your information.

1. You've just completed your second year of studies at the Academy founded by Plato. It's fallen into Roman hands, and they say it's time for you to declare your major. Of course, you say "PHILOSOPHY," but they want more specifics. You're allowed to focus on Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, or Skepticism. Make your choice by demonstrating an understanding of that philosophy and explaining how it best fits your current (and/or future) personality and plans.

2. Take a good look in the mirror. Are you an ethical person? In answering this question, you need to incorporate at least three specific ideas, terms, or philosophers that we discussed during the course.

3. John Rawls advanced an ethical concept called the "veil of ignorance" where he argued that "justice" was best achieved when people "decide upon social rules whilst behind a 'veil of ignorance' which prevents their knowing anything about their own situation in the hypothesized society." In other words, you would attempt to decide what is "just" without considering yourself and your own situation at all. Choose one of these leaders: George Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Condolezza Rice or another of your choice, and determine whether you believe their leadership style is consistent with Rawls' theory of social justice.

4. Do you think you're an "existentialist?" Citing the ideas of at least two existentialist philosophers, explain why you do or do not believe that you are "one of them."

5. Our recent war with Iraq remains controversial. On the last exam, you were asked to analyze the campaign against Augustine's criteria for a "just war." (Actually, I skipped that question this year.) That's old school. The utilitarians are in charge now, and they want you to demonstrate your understanding of their approach by determining whether or not the US-led coalition war in Iraq was ethical. (Obviously, you're not expected to take every consequence, benefit, and harm of the war into account.)

6. Niccolo Machiavelli is hired as the Mounds Park Academy Assistant Upper School Director. (Ignore the part about him being long dead and all.) Using real (or potentially real) issues, explain how you think life around MPA would change. (Be sure your answer demonstrates an understanding of Machiavelli's philosophy.)

7. Ronald Reagan once said that the ideas of Karl Marx have now been consigned to the "ash heap of history." My question is simple: Should the ideas of Karl Marx be/ have been consigned to that "ash heap?" Your answer should demonstrate an understanding of the basics of Marx's philosophy.

8. Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism was the last major "school" of philosophy that we considered. You've been invited to appear on an episode of The Jerry Springer Show dedicated to a discussion of her philosophy. Assume that the other guest radically disagrees with your own assessment of Rand's philosophy. Discuss.

9. The International Criminal Court has developed a technology to raise people from the dead for the purpose of making them stand trial. Fredreich Nietzsche has been brought back and charged with genocide. The prosecution argues that his idea of a "master race" of "ubermensch" (Superman) and his concepts of the "die Herren" and "die Herden" were cornerstones of Nazi philosophy and actions. The defense argues that he is not responsible for how others interpreted his ideas and that he played no direct role in any of the events perpetrated by the Nazis. You're a member of the jury. What do you decide? Why?

10. Sophie's World was first published in 1991, making the title character approximately 30 years old right now. I want you to imagine and explain some of what Sophie's been up to since the end of the book. In particular, you need to incorporate the ideas of at least three different philosophers from the book in your "story" of what she's been up to and how these experiences in philosophy influenced her life.

11. This is for those of you who are shy, or those of you who talk all the time and want to talk even more. Express your position on any of the "Ethical Debate" topics other than your own. In stating your position, you need to make use of the concepts or views of at least two philosophers that we have learned about. (You can argue that they would either support or contradict your own view, but be sure to show why their ideas are relevant to your discussion.)

Lots of REMINDERS for today:

Sophie's World Blog entry #5 is posted. It's due on Friday, May 16th.
Your "Squashed Philosophers" should be posted as a comment by Friday, May 16th.
Philosophy Exam #2 is posted. It is due on Friday, May 23rd.

The "Popular Culture and Philosophy" presentations begin today. You all have schedules.
The "Ethics Debates" begin on Wednesday, and you also have those schedules.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you can find the information you need on the "Assignments" page linked to the right...

>>>>

"Philosophers For a Day" - Both Noam Chomsky (Anna K.) and Ayn Rand (Hannah) are scheduled to appear. We have a couple to make-up, but that concludes our regularly scheduled visitors...

Noam Chomsky: In addition to his philosophical works, Noam Chomsky has written extensively on US foreign policy and other issues. He has labeled himself both an "anarchist" and a "libertarian socialist." Take a look around The Noam Chomsky Website, as that contains a long list or articles, debates, etc. Browse around a bit and see what you think.

DO THIS: I'll give you ten minutes to browse through the articles, debates, interviews and whatever else interests you from the site. Select one to read.

You'll be asked to briefly summarize what you've read, and you are invited to critique, criticize or support his ideas as well. We'll just go around the room.

I'd also direct your attention to the transcript of his CNN "On 9-11" debate with William Bennett.

Given his potential to stir up controversy, I thought Wikipedia's entry on Noam Chomsky was pretty interesting.

>>>>>

Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Truly, technology meets philosophy today. You really should check out the web page for The Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. Some specific things you might find interesting are:

* Essentials of Objectivism: This is the best concise introduction to the basics of Rand's philosophy that I have seen.

* Op-Eds: The group writes extensively on current issues.

DO THIS: Pick one of the categories of interest to you from the menu on the right. Read any one of the pieces that catches your eye. Be ready to share their perspective and your reaction to it.

I couldn't pick, so I've got three quotes here from Ludwig Wittgenstein...

• "A new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion."


• "A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring."


• "A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push."

We'll plan on hearing from three "Philosopher For a Day" presenters, and then we'll do a couple things with Nietzsche.

"Philosopher for a Day" presentations scheduled for today:
Martin Heidegger - Beth
Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tom
Bertrand Russell - Justin

Friedrich Nietzsche: We had the presentation yesterday. Let's take a look at some of the Writings and Quotations by Nietzsche. I'm thinking some dramatic readings and spirited discussions are in store...

Nihilism: Here are a couple of "definitions" of the concept. Notice that both make value judgments on the term.

"A common unofficial description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. But a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism, faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance. They are invalid, serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome."

"Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word comes from the Latin root for "nothing", with more ancient connexions with the word for "trifle". Nihilism is the general phenomenon of human values having no evocatory power, in that questions about meaning fail to yield answers that are trustworthy or in the truth, but rather a void of senseless silence. "

Excerpt from Looking at Philosophy by Donald Palmer: I warn you, this is tough. I'd like you to spend maybe 15 minutes on this secondary source. Work with someone if you prefer. Try to understand what Nietzsche is saying on several of these topics for when the group comes back together...

* What does he mean by "perspectivism"?

* What did Nietzsche mean by the "will to power"?

* What role does "lying" play in the philosophy of Nietzsche?

* Do you agree with his view of "der Ubermensch," the "overman" (or Superman)?

* What does he mean by "the death of God"?

* Was Nietzsche a nihilist?

Want to join the Friedrich Nietzsche Society? Here it is.

>>>>>>

The remaining time will be yours to work on the Ethics Debates. You received a schedule yesterday, and the guidelines for this (and any other) assignment can be found on the pages linked to the right.

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "Descartes" through "Bjerkely" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON MONDAY, MAY 12th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.

You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.

1. Almost nothing in this book is as simple as it first appears. What do you make of Sophie's dialogue with the computer near the end of "Descartes?" Is the author trying to tell us some things about technology as well as advancing his plot? Seventeen years after the book was first written, has the passage of time confirmed or refuted Gaarder's view of technology?

2. There's a lot of talk about God in "Spinoza." What here resonates with your own view of God, whether you choose to believe or not? Are there things here particularly in tension with your views? Explain.

3. In "Locke," there are explicit discussions of empiricism and rationalism. Up until this point in the novel, which perspective do you think Sophie has most displayed? What about Alberto Knox? Explain.

4. Using at least two specific philosophical concepts, ideas or philosophers, tell us what you think Sophie is experiencing and/or coming to understand in "Berkeley."

5. Things take a bit of a turn, to say the least, in "Bjerkely." Be honest with us. Were you surprised? Did you expect this? Were you confused? Irritated? Amused? Basically, I want to know what you were feeling and thinking as you moved through this chapter.

6. Metaphysics or epistemology - you pick. What do you think Jostein Gaarder is trying to tell us about one of these two "biggies" given the events in the last several chapters>

Well, we've gotten off to a sort of slow start this week. Hopefully, we can get back on track here these last four days of actual lessons...

REMINDERS: I'll get you a copy of the schedule for our last two weeks. It'll tell you when you do both your "Popular Culture and Philosophy" presentation and your "Ethics Debate." Remember that you can find information for both on their specific pages linked on the right side of the blog.

Your "Squashed Philosopher" write-up should be posted by Friday, May 16th.

"Are you Philosophers out there???" We'll hopefully pick up visits from Soren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidigger and their brands of existential philosophy... Check previous blog entries for more information on the existentialists.

We are also scheduled to meet Karl Marx today. You have all studied the ideas of socialism and Marxism to some degree in several classes. Here, we'll give you a chance to share what you think.

Some of you may want to visit the Marxists Internet Archive. If it was written by a Marxist, you can probably find it here...

Questions for discussion:

In an "ideal" world, what would be the strengths and weaknesses of a socialist society?

In our world, what are the strengths and weaknesses of socialism?

Should Marx' ideas be relegated to the "dustbin" (or "ash-heap") of history? Why or why not?

Are there ideas of Marx which should be more a part of American society?

What should be the goal of a state or society? How should it pursue "happiness"?

>>>>>>

We'll hopefully close today with Freidrich Nietzsche as our "Philosopher For a Day," and we'll take a look at his work tomorrow. (If Wittgenstein (Tom) or Russell (Justin) want to present today, you can. Otherwise, we'll shoot for tomorrow for you guys, and Noam Chomsky (Anna K.) and Ayn Rand (Hannah) will wrap things up on Monday.)