Philosophy and Ethics 2009

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. If you know you are going to be absent for any reason on a date you are scheduled to present, it is your responsibility to let me know about that in advance.

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 cause 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.)

Who says that there is no room for Current Events in Philosophy class? Here's an article on Karl Marx from the most recent issue of Foreign Policy:  "Thoroughly Modern Marx." Apparently, sales of Das Kapital "have shot up" in the recent economic downturn.

More from 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.

>>>>>

Here's another article relevant for today: "'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence." The author being referred to is Ayn Rand, and she's our final "Philosopher For a Day."

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.

Between the Cabaret rehearsal and miscellaneous sports and absences, it looks like more than half of the class is out today. Consider this to officially be a "work day" for your Ethics Debates. Remember that those will start in two weeks.  I'll recopy the directions and claimed topics below...

Ethics Debates: Don't forget about these. Here are the topics which have been claimed...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED:
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization
Animal testing
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia

* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day.

Rumor has it that we may be joined by Noam Chomsky today. Ayn Rand is set to wrap things up for us next Tuesday.

Ethics Debates: Don't forget about these. Here are the topics which have been claimed...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED:
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization
Animal testing
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia

>>>>

Friedrich Nietzsche: We had the presentation last week as well. 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.

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 TUESDAY, APRIL 28th 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?

Bertrand Russell is scheduled to make an appearance today...

We met Karl Marx last week. 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"?

>>>>>>

Friedrich Nietzsche: We had the presentation last session as well. 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.

This will look a lot like the last blog entry, as we spent a lot of the time on Tuesday getting things squared away for the rest of the quarter...

REMINDERS: Look for the Sophie's World - Blog Entries #4 and #5. They are already up. You can also find specific information for the "Squashed Philosophers" and "Popular Culture and Philosophy" assignments on their respective "pages." We'll have a schedule available on Tuesday so you can sign up for particular days. The links are over to the right on the blog page, or you can get there from "Assignments" as well.

Existentialism- An Introduction: This is a pretty interesting web site, and it is clearly coming from a pro-existential persepctive.

First, here is the list of five "diamond point" central ideas of existentialism.

• Mankind has free will.
  
• Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
  
• Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
  
• Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
  
• If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Second, we'll look at the contributions of some famous existentialists lower on the page. Scroll down so that you can find these names.

• Camus
  
• de Beauvoir
  
• Dostoevsky
  
• Heidegger
  
• Kafka

Let's try to put them in a historical context, and explain their significance. In particular, tell us why they are considered to be existentialists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will 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.

Here are some quotations by Karl Marx.

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"?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ethics Debate guidelines: You've seen this before, but it's time to start thinking/planning...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED: None so far...
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization

* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day. (THESE WILL BE STARTING MONDAY, MAY 4th)

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 22nd. 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: Barack Obama, Tim Pawlenty, Hillary Clinton 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.)

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 MONDAY, APRIL 20th 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?