April 2008 Archives

We've got kind of a mixed bag today...

REMINDERS:
Blog entry #1 is now past due. Blog entry #2 is due Friday.
Philosophy Exam #1 was due yesterday. (A few of you did talk to me about brief extensions. For others, get me the exam ASAP or talk to me about it.)

I forgot to give people a chance to claim "Ethics Debate" topics. Let's do that right at the top today... In addition to the College Counseling "reception" tomorrow, you'll have some time to start looking into this assignment.

Philosophers For the Day: George Hegel (Chris) and Arthur Schopenhauer (Harper) are scheduled for today. John Stuart Mill (Anna O.) should be joining us on Friday.

Ethics and Ethical Theories: Most of our discussions on ethical issues thus far have probably fallen into the realm of "applied ethics." While that will continue to be a strong emphasis, we'll step back and look at more of the theory behind the study of ethics today.

We've all got notions of their meanings, but let's think about these two questions.

• What is ethics?


• What is morality?

On the back of the half-sheet is a quick little survey on morality. We can chat about anything interesting that came up there...

Here's a pretty good overview of one way of looking at common ethical theories... Yeah, it doesn't show very well on the blog, but click on the image and it will open in a pop-up window.

We're going to dig into four of the approaches in a bit more detail. We'll have you work on one of the four, and then we'll hear back from everyone. (You'll notice that much of what we do in ethics borrows heavily from Professor Lawrence Hinman's work. I think you'll find it both accessible and thoughtful.)

The Moral Point of View - This is a good PowerPoint overview on the whole idea of studying morality.

Basic Moral Orientations - This is another quick PowerPoint overview focusing on various approaches to ethical theory.

You'll work on one of these four theories: (The link will download a PowerPoint presentation.)

• Ethical Egoism


• Mill and Utilitarianism - Watch at least through slide 8.


• Kantian Ethics and Deontology


• Aristotle and Virtue Ethics - Watch at least through slide 14.

Once you've "adopted" your theory for the day, here's what I'd like you to do...

• Download and take a look at the two introductory PowerPoints on morality. (Links above)


• Download and work through the PowerPoint for your theory. (Links above)


• Discuss your views on the pros and cons of each theory.


• Choose one of the "Case Studies" from yesterday and assess it from the vantage point of "your" theory.


• Think of another situation where you think this theory might be particularly relevant and/or useful.

We'll hear back on each ethical theory toward the end of the hour.

"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withalnever as means only."- Immanuel Kant

REMINDERS: Your Philosophy Exam #1 is due today. I can take those either printed out (double-sided and/or single-spaced are fine) or emailed to me as an attachment.

Blog entry #1 is due by tomorrow's class time, and blog entry #2 is due by Friday.

"Philosopher for the Day": Immanuel Kant is scheduled for his presentation today. We've got both Hegel and Schopenauer up for tomorrow, and John Stuart Mill should be showing up on Friday.

We'll get to an introduction to some ethical theories tomorrow, but we'll jump into the actual topic of ethics today without worrying as much about formal approaches.

Ethics- Case studies: I think you will enjoy this activity based on information from the web site, Ethics Updates. They have a list of case studies for use in classes such as this. I'd like each of you to select a different one. (We'll have you put the number on the board so that we don't duplicate selections.) Read it and think about the question(s). You will group with two others, sharing and discussing your respective case studies.

Finally, I'd like your group to select the case study you feel would be "best" for further discussion by the larger class. Please let me know the number of your selection. We will come back to these in the larger group.

>>>>>>

This is reprinted from yesterday... PROCEDURE FOR GETTING A TOPIC: If you want to "claim" (or attempt to claim) a particular topic for this assignment, get me a note card with the topic you want and the name of you and your partner for this assignment. I'll give people their first choice if no one else claims it. We'll sort multiple claims out first thing on Wednesday.

Ethics Debates/ Discussions

* 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 8:30 on the class day of your scheduled 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.

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from "Athens" through "Hellenism" 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 2nd 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 a reader, what do you make of the author's decision to have Sophie receive her "lesson" via the videotape in "Athens?" Is it just to change things up a bit, or should we make more of it than that?

2. In what way(s) did you impression or understanding of Plato's philosophical contributions change after reading the chapter called "Plato?" Do you leave that chapter more or less impressed with his work? Why?

3. In "The Major's Cabin," Sophie finds the note with a series of questions on it. You can pick one of these two and take your best crack at answering it: "What is the difference between a plant, an animal, and a human?" OR "What does it take to live a good life?"

4. In "Aristotle," we learn more about his views on women. To what degree should this revelation impact our assessment of his contributions? In what ways, if any, do this change your views of him?

5. "Cynic," "Stoic," or "Epicurean" - Which comes closest to describing you as they are mentioned in "Hellenism?"

6. What are your thoughts on the types of "mysticism" discussed toward the end of the chapter on "Hellenism?"

REMINDERS: The Assignments page has information on just about everything you'll be doing in here yet this quarter.
Exam #1 is due tomorrow.
Blog entry #1 is due by Wednesday.
Blog entry #2 is due by Friday.
We'll choose Ethics Debate topics this week, and they will start on Wednesday, May 14th.
Your "Squashed Philosopher" write-up will be due on Friday, May 16th.
The "Popular Culture and Philosophy" presentations will start on Monday, May 12th.

"Philosopher For a Day" - David Hume
Philosophers scheduled for this week: Kant (Tuesday), Hegel and Schoenauer (Wednesday), and Mill (Thursday)

We'll have the Hume presentation today, but we won't do anything more with empiricism today. We'll come back to it after meeting more of his gang.

Leadership: This following topic is one that we'll return to several times in the remainder of the course: leadership. The following, brief discussion seems to follow logically on our study of Machiavelli and the other political philosophers.

"Mini"-Discussion - Leadership: I wanted to spend about twenty or thirty minutes here today.

What do you identify as the most important qualities of leadership?

What types of leadership are there?

Is a Western conception of "leadership" more or less desirable than those of other cultures?

What world figures do you feel best exemplify that which is desirable in "leadership"? If you had to identify the single person in the world who you feel best demonstrates "leadership", who would that be? Why?

Additional questions of a more local focus:

* Are you a leader? In what ways do you demonstrate leadership? In what ways do you not demonstrate leadership?

* Who do you identify as "leaders" at Mounds Park Academy? Why?

* Is leadership a "double-edged" sword? Why or why not?

>>>>>>

Ethics Debates/ Discussions: Information

* 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 8:30 on the class day of your scheduled 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.

"Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better." - Niccolo Machiavelli

REMINDERS:
Assignments is a brand new page. Guess what it is about...
Sophie's World - Blog Entry #1 - CHANGE: Since it's been tough to post for many, we'll make this "due" before class time on Wednesday.
Philosophy Exam #1 - Due Tuesday, April 29th
Sophie's World Reading Schedule - updated
Philosopher for a Day - I added your names.
Squashed Philosophers - I've added your names and will get you directions.

Our next general topic will be leadership. We'll begin with our Machiavelli "Philosopher For a Day" presentation. (Aristotle may also be making his appearance. I guess he was kind of a leader as well...)

Machiavelli's Words: Following the presentations, I have a quick activity for you. You can download a page of "advice" from Machiavelli. Pair up and evaluate the quotations. With which do you agree? Which are incorrect in today's political context? Be prepared to defend your reasoning.

Maybe take 15 minutes in the pairs and then return to chat as a larger group.

Mini-Discussion - Leadership

Are you a leader? In what ways do you demonstrate leadership? In what ways do you not demonstrate leadership?

Who do you think best epitomizes "leadership" in the United States? Why? What about worldwide?

Who do you identify as "leaders" at Mounds Park Academy? Why?

If we have extra time, you can use it to work on any of the assignments that are upcoming...

"Philosophy Problem" of the Day- We'll see if we can pick something of interest to you...

"Philosopher for the Day": Hopefully, Locke and Rousseau find their way to join us today. John Rawls should also be here. (He's out of chronological order, but makes sense here due to his work on the social contract.) Nicolo Machiavelli and Aristotle are scheduled to grace us with visits tomorrow.

"Debating" the Social Contracts: Each of you received a copy of a summary of a philosopher's work last class session. We'll take five minutes to hear an overview of key points from each of the three approaches.

* Thomas Hobbes
* John Locke
* Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Discussion: "The State of Nature" and the Role of Government

* Whose view of the "state of nature" do you believe is most correct- Hobbes', Locke's or Rousseau's? Why?

* Which best describes modern America? Why?

* Which best describes life at Mounds Park Academy? Why?

* Why do governments exist?

* Is political power ultimately nothing but the rule of the strongest?

* Is government anything more that the power of those who run it?

* How well did our "Founding Fathers" protect the rights of American citizens?

* What changes would you have made had you participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights?

* What changes would you recommend today? Why?

We'll begin to shift more of our emphasis from epistemology and metaphysics to a study of political philosophy. Today, we will focus on social contract theory.

REMINDERS:
Assignments is a brand new page. Guess what it is about...
Sophie's World - Blog Entry #1 - Due before class time on Friday.
Philosophy Exam #1 - Due Tuesday, April 29th
Sophie's World Reading Schedule - updated
Philosopher for a Day - I added your names.
Squashed Philosophers - I've added your names and will get you directions.

First, we'll return to the articles on science and faith from yesterday. We can discuss these for as long or short as you'd like...

"Thinking about fundamentalism" - Robert Fulford, National Post (Canada), 4/5/08

"Senate debates evolution academic freedom bill" - James Smith, Florida Baptist Witness, 4/17/08

"Intelligent design film far worse than stupid" - Dr. Arthur Caplan, MSNBC.com, 4/21/08

"Is Science a Religion?" - Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, January/February 1997 (OK, this one is older...)

"Is religion a threat to rationality and science?" - Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston, The Guardian (UK), 2/22/08

"The Divided Scientist" - The Harvard Crimson, 2/22/07

THE "SOCIAL CONTRACT" -

"Philosophy Problem" of the Day- We'll start up with one of these for today.

"Philosophers for the Day": Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rosseau are all scheduled.

"Philosophers for the Near Future": John Rawls (Thursday) and Niccolo Machiavelli and Aristotle (Friday).

First, we'll have some information on Thomas Hobbes, since his work actually predates that of John Locke. You might want to download the Thomas Hobbes - class notes.

Next up is the John Locke presentation... These old John Locke - class notes may be useful for you.

To round out today's "Social Contract" theorists, we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau to present. These Jean-Jacques Rousseau - class notes may be of use to you.

Getting to know a social contract: We'll divide you into three groups. Inside those groups, you will probably divide again two or three ways. Here is what we want from each group:

* an overview of his version of the "social contract"

* a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses as viewed by yourselves and others

Use any or all of these materials... presentation, my old notes, "evidence" on each social contract, The Story of Thought handout, Internet resources.

If time permits, we'll do five minutes on introducing each of the three social contracts, starting when there are 20 minutes left in the class period. That should help set up our discussion for next time. If we're up against the clock, we'll save this for next time.

Note that much of this is simply reprinted from yesterday's blog entry. We're still on track for starting the social contract theory lessons tomorrow.

REMINDERS: If you have been absent, or not paying attention, check these out.

• Sophie's World - Blog Entry #1 - Due before class time on Friday.


• Philosophy Exam #1 - Due Tuesday, April 29th


• Sophie's World Reading Schedule - updated


• Philosopher for a Day - I added your names. Hopefully, we're done having people miss their dates.


• Squashed Philosophers - This is a new one. I'll explain.

"Philosophers for the Day": Hopefully, our revised schedule has Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza presenting today. Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau are all set to join us on Wednesday. Rawls comes Thursday, and Machiavelli is set to visit on Friday. (I think Aristotle will also be visiting on Friday. That seems like a good match.)

Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza: Philosopher for a Day presentation
Rene Descartes: Philosopher for a Day presentation

Descartes and the Legacy of Galileo- Most of you probably recall that Galileo was condemned by the Church for teaching Copernicanism in the 1630s. Descartes decides not to publish a similar work until after his own death.

Questions to consider:

* Does Descartes make the right decision? Why or why not? If not, what should he have done?

* Did the Church have a legitimate interest in challenging new scientific theories?

* When, if ever, does the state (or another "power") have the right to supress free thought and/or speech?

* When faith and reason "collide", it is possible to accomodate both? Do the responsibilities of the individual and the "state" differ in these circumstances?

The Intersection of Science and Religion:
I've copied some articles and editorials from the last year or two on this topic. Take a few minutes to read one or two, and we'll hear what you have to say about them.

"Thinking about fundamentalism" - Robert Fulford, National Post (Canada), 4/5/08

"Senate debates evolution academic freedom bill" - James Smith, Florida Baptist Witness, 4/17/08

"Intelligent design film far worse than stupid" - Dr. Arthur Caplan, MSNBC.com, 4/21/08

"Is Science a Religion?" - Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, January/February 1997 (OK, this one is older...)

"Is religion a threat to rationality and science?" - Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston, The Guardian (UK), 2/22/08

"The Divided Scientist" - The Harvard Crimson, 2/22/07

I know, I'm about a week late with this. Sorry. Now that speech is over, I will work on actually getting caught up with everything.

So, here's how this will work. You'll have five required blog entries related to Sophie's World. Basically, each set of questions will cover about seven of the chapters. On this one, for example, I'm concentrating on material from "The Garden of Eden" through "Socrates" 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, APRIL 30th 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 "The Garden of Eden," Sophie's opens the first envelopes. On page 2, she is asked, "Who are you?" I want to know how you would go about answering that question. You don't need to spell everything about you out, but I want to know what type of answer you would give to that question. What types of things would you include? What would you leave out? Why?

2. In "The Top Hat," what should we make of the metaphors of the top hat and the white rabbit? How would you explain them?

3. "The Myths" - To what degree does our world depend on "myth" today? Would we benefit from depending on it either more or less? Why?

4. I think the Lego is a pretty ingenious way to describe much of what "Democritus" was about. Assume you are visiting a third grade class. Without stealing an idea from the reading or class, describe one way in which you would use a common object (or objects) to explain a philosophical idea that we have studied so far.

5. "Fate" - Simple question, but the answer is probably not so simple... "Do you believe in Fate?" If so, what does it mean to you? If not, why? What replaces that concept in your world view?

6. In "Socrates," the man himself is quoted on page 69 as saying, "He who knows what good is will do good." Do you agree? Explain why or why not.

"Cogito ergo sum..."- Rene Descartes

REMINDER: There is a separate blog entry with the questions for Philosophy Exam #1. Those are due a week from tomorrow. I can take any questions about those.

I am also interested in reactions from anyone regarding the two video clips that you saw on Friday. Any thoughts on either of the speakers or on this broader issue of evil and how it is best faced/ overcome?

"Philosophers for the Day": Our schedule has Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza presenting today. Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau are all set to join us on Wednesday. Rawls comes Thursday, and Machiavelli is set to visit on Friday.

Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza: Philosopher for a Day presentation

Rene Descartes: We'll begin with the presentation. Following that, I have a series of overheads that walk us through some of Descartes thinking.

DISCLAIMER: In no way am I endorsing this service, but I thought this was an interesting example of just what is out there on the Internet. (For only $9.95 a page, you too can become an expert... Actually, there is some good, free information on Descartes here as well.)

For those of you who prefer the more traditional, here is a solid biography of Rene Descartes.

Descartes and the Legacy of Galileo- Most of you probably recall that Galileo was condemned by the Church for teaching Copernicanism in the 1630s. Descartes decides not to publish a similar work until after his own death.

Questions to consider:

* Does Descartes make the right decision? Why or why not? If not, what should he have done?

* Did the Church have a legitimate interest in challenging new scientific theories?

* When, if ever, does the state (or another "power") have the right to supress free thought and/or speech?

* When faith and reason "collide", it is possible to accomodate both? Do the responsibilities of the individual and the "state" differ in these circumstances?

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.

I want these answers by Tuesday, April 29th. It is assumed that you will write in complete sentences, etc. I would expect most answers to be in the 500 - 600 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.

NOTE: We haven't gotten to the material for questions #5 through #7 yet... Don't panic because you don't know what they are talking about yet.

1. A bizarre cryogenic project is discovered high in the Swiss Alps. It appears that someone has "frozen" the great philosophers of the West. You have time to "defrost" two of them. Socrates is an easy choice for #1. Of course, as soon as he thaws he starts asking questions. He wants to know all about the "Big Questions" faced by the others. Your task is this: Identify the second philosopher you would defrost, and construct a Socratic dialogue of at least five exchanges were Socrates learns about a "Big Question" addressed by the other philosopher.

2. "Dualism" is a concept with a long and influential history in Western philosophy. Your task is to identify three philosophers and explain how they incorporated this idea into their philosophies. (I cannot think of any lame set-up for this one. Just answer the question.)

3. The Middle Ages were, of course, dominated by Christian philosophy during the Europe of that time. Both Augustine and Aquinas worked to "Christianize" the non-Christian philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Explain how Augustine and Aquinas each took one of the men and reinterpreted their ideas portraying them as "pre-Christians". Is such reinterpretation defensible as a form of "philosophy"?

4. You are on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire's" special all-philosophy, all short-essay question edition. Regis has you stumped with the following question: "Explain and critically evaluate one of the following 'proofs' of God's existence. A. cosmological. B. teleological C. ontological." (Regis cannot even pronounce choice 'D', so he skips it.) You have no life lines. Choose wisely.

5. Two of the most fearsome gangs in all of Philosophy Land are, of course, the "Rationalists" and the "Empiricists". You are chosen to mediate their discussion. You need to correctly match each group with one or more of their major leaders and then identify the major sources of disagreement between the two groups. If their epistemolgical turf war is fought over the question of where we get knowledge from, who do you think has the better explanation? Why?

6. You awake to find yourself wearing a red-shirt and white hat stranded on a deserted island along with a pilot, a billionaire (and her husband), a television star, a student, and Mario Andy. Your sole source of food appears to be a small grove of banana trees. Explain how both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would advise you to manage your resources. Which philosopher do you believe has the better view of this "state of nature"? Why?

7. We are truly a society that likes to make those annoying lists. This time, the category is "Philosophers (we have studied so far) Who Most Influenced Modern Views of Government." You need to rank your top three choices and explain why you believe they were so important.

8. We considered philsophers who both worked to "prove" God's existence and those who claimed such "proof" was impossible. It's your chance to weigh in on this issue. Choose one or the monotheistic religions of the West. Write an "open letter" that lays out your position on this issue and what implications you believe that position has for the faith.

9. Review Sophie's World up to the point you are currently at in your reading. (I, of course, assume you are close to up to date...) You can talk about the style of the book, what you like/ dislike, analyze her character, or whatever your little heart desires... This can take the form of a letter to Sophie if you would prefer.

10. Write your own appropriate question and answer it. Remember who is the judge of what is "appropriate." If in doubt, I'd check it out in advance...

"Facing Evil: with Bill Moyers"- This videotape was produced at a 1987 symposium called"Understanding Evil" at the Institute for the Humanities in Salado, Texas. I have always found it very thought-provoking and challenging. Give it a chance.

Featured speakers include:

* Maya Angelou- author and poet
* Philip Paul Hallie- philosopher
* Barbara Jordan- former U.S. Congresswoman
* Chung-Liang Al Huang- author and chereographer
* Raul Hilberg- Holocaust scholar
* Sam Proctor- preacher

We'll watch have you watch the introduction and the Maya Angelou and Philip Hallie excerpts today.

If you want, revisit these questions:

* What is evil?
* Is evil moral, natural, or both?
* Is evil subjective, or is there an objective standard of evil?
* How should evil be combated?
* Is forgiveness possible? Is it advisable?

Before we shift to Thomas Aquinas, I've got one more "Augustine" topic on which to pick your brains...

Augustine on Evil: For Augustine, "evil" was the lack of complete order or harmony in the human will. It is a consequence of free will, not the activity of God.

Discussion Questions:

• What is evil?


• Does evil "exist"? (What are the implications of your answer here?)


• Is evil moral, natural, or both? Is religion necessary for understanding evil?


• How should evil be combated?


• Is forgiveness possible? Is it advisable?


• Augustine argued that soldiers have an ultimate obligation to carry out all commands, wicked or not. Do you agree? Why or why not?

"Philosopher For a Day" - Thomas Aquinas

I've got a quick "The Do-It-Yourself Deity" exercise from Do You Think What You Think You Think? for us to start off this topic with...

"Proving" the Existence of God- Perhaps the central challenge for the Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages was attempting to "prove" the existence of their God. You will receive a handout which explains three of these "proofs": teleological, cosmological, and ontological.

Please do this: Work in a group of three. Each of you should carefully read through ONE of the descriptions and attempt to understand the argument. After several minutes, share the three proofs within your group. Of the three, come to a consensus as to which proof you find most credible. You will share this opinion with the larger group.

In the "large" group: Each group should explain which proof they find the most credible and/or persuasive. If all three are not mentioned, be sure the basics of each are understood by the group. Then, the group should consider the following:

• Can the existence of God be "proven"? Explain.
• If you say "yes", what implications does that have for Christianity? For other religions?
• If you say "no", what implications does this have for Christianity? For other religions?
• Is it worth our time to even try to answer this question? Why or why not?

SITE OF THE DAY: This is only tangentially relevant, but there's a Thomas Aquinas College in California that uses a curriculum based on the "Great Books." Here's a link to the curriculum, so you can decide whether or not to consider a transfer... (Scroll down a bit to find it.)

"Philosopher For a Day" - St. Augustine
"Philosopher for Tomorrow" - Thomas Aquinas

The Hellenistic Philosophies - Jigsaw
It looked like most of you had a chance to complete the matrix yesterday. For now, we'll quickly recap the main points for each philosophy, and then we'll take a look at the more general questions on the bottom.

Augustine: Augustine is often viewed as the central figure in the movement from "antiquity" to the Middle Ages. He lived from 354 to 430, and he spent most of his time in north Africa. His chief contribution to philosophy was probably to link Plato's ideas with those of Christianity. He believed that both philosophy and religion were aimed at living the "happy" or blessed life. His most famous work is "The City of God".

Here is a neat website devoted to Augustine of Hippo.

Today, we're going to have you look at his work on the theory of "just war."

Augustine and the "Just War" Theory: Download this summary of Augustine's "Just War" theory and discuss these questions with a couple of partners.

* Would the United States' actions in Iraq qualify as a "just war?" (Set aside for the moment any issues of whether or not the United States should be considered a Christian nation.) Explain your position. We'll come back to these in the "big group.'

* Would the "War on Terrorism" qualify as a "just war?"

* Vietnam?
* World War II?
* World War I?
* The Revolutionary War?

* What revisions or modifications would you make to Augustine's theory?

* How does this theory resemble (or differ from) what you know about the Islamic concept of jihad?

"The City of God"- We will look at an excerpt from this famous work. It's challenging, but we're only considering a very short selection.

Augustine on Evil: For Augustine, "evil" was the lack of complete order or harmony in the human will. It is a consequence of free will, not the activity of God.

Discussion Questions:

* What is evil?

* Does evil "exist"? (What are the implications of your answer here?)

* Is evil moral, natural, or both? Is religion necessary for understanding evil?

* How should evil be combated?

* Is forgiveness possible? Is it advisable?

* Augustine argued that soldiers have an ultimate obligation to carry out all commands, wicked or not. Do you agree? Why or why not?

REMINDER: There is a reading schedule for Sophie's World linked to the right.

"Philosophers for the Day": Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are all scheduled to appear today. Here's a copy of the very general Presentation Feedback form I'll use for these. I'll also link it to the schedule page found permanently linked to the right.

"Philosophers for Tomorrow": St. Augustine is scheduled to appear at our next class on Wednesday.

Aristotle and Cicero on Friendship- You were asked to complete the questions that went along with these two short readings. (Download the "Questions on Friendship" here if you lost them.) Please briefly discuss your answers

Jigsaw Activity - The Hellenistic Philosophers - You will be introduced to four schools of philosophy influenced by the Greeks and then carried out by the Romans. (You probably remember the term Hellenistic from Western Civilization, referring to the culture spread by the Greeks.)

Directions: The four philosophies are Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and Scepticism. Each reading is on a different colored sheet of paper. In the first step, those of you with the same color sheets should get together and fill in your column on the guide (or matrix) that you are given. These are what are called "expert" groups.

Next, the "jigsaw" part is where you group with students each having a different color sheet. Share your "expert" group's answers, and record the answers from the other groups. You should be able to finish the matrix today.

If time permits, we'll discuss the questions on the bottom of the handout for a few minutes.

"Men are good in one way, but bad in many."
- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

REMINDER: We'll have our first three "Philosopher for a Day" presentations on Tuesday. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle will be joining us. Remember to let me know if you need any technology, etc. (Do that before 8:35 that morning...)

REMINDER #2: Keep up with the reading schedule for Sophie's World. Now that you've had a chance to get into it a bit, we'll do more with it next week...

As you no doubt know, Aristotle was influential on a wide range of topics. Today, we will look at his thoughts on the issues of "happiness" and "friendship". Before those, however, we'll play with one of his major contributions to formal logic, the syllogism. I've got a set of ten for you to try...

Here's the most famous syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Your job is to determine if the examples are valid arguments. What does that mean? Easy: "An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises."

Let's try these ten I have for you...

Among Aristotle's many writings were those on friendship. To get us thinking about such ideas, we'll look at four short stories related to that topic. Read yours (5 minutes) and be prepared to summarize the story and share it with your group. (15 minutes)

Friendship "jigsaw"-

* Cat and Mouse in Partnership
* Baucis and Philemon
* Damon and Pythias
* Little Girls Wiser Than Men

Aristotle on "Happiness"

Aristotle's Ethics- "[Happiness is] that state of well-being which leaves nothing more to be desired."

Aristotle's "Five Ingredients of Happiness"

* Health
* Wealth
* Friendship
* Knowledge
* Virtue

Questions for Discussion:

• Who is someone you know personally who seems to have achieved happiness?


• Who is a famous person who you believe has found the "key" to happiness?


• Is it easier or harder to find "happiness" now that in the past?


• Given this definition, are you happy?

Aristotle and Cicero on Friendship- These short readings will allow you to compare two viewpoints on the types and degrees of friendships possible. Download and answer these Questions on Friendship for our next meeting.

Plato: Our goal for today will be to more closely examine several of Plato's key philosophical concepts and ideas. We will also have our second "seminar," this one dedicated to questions raised by his philosophy.

Plato's "Theory of the Forms"- Let me show you a couple of visual interpretations...

Let's discuss which of the "items" from the back of the "Allegory" reading that you categorized as belonging to the "higher" and "lower" worlds.

We can also show off your "Allegory of the Cave" pictures here...

While we're at it, let's talk about those "quizzes" that you took last time.

Plato's The Republic: written 385-380 BC

Plato's vision of a perfect society
- neither a democracy nor dictatorship

* first ten years- young separated from their parents
strengthen bodies for stronger minds
training is coeducational
children belong to the state

* ages 10 to 20- add music and study of harmony
mathematics - harmonious numbers
history - harmonious progress
religion - harmonious faith

* marriage and the family- communal mating of "best" men and women

* age 20- "examinations"- weeding out process
physical mental, and spiritual examination
"base metals"- farmers, workers, businessmen

* ages 20-30- focus on the sciences and computation
second examinations- more rigorous
"silver metals"- middle class, military personnel, low officials

* five-year course in philosophy- training as potential rulers
15 years of experience- internship of practical experience
"gold metals"- "philosopher-kings" and "philosopher queens"

Platonic Philosophy - Seminar: We will use the remaining time to discuss some questions prompted by Plato's views. We'll just discuss as a large group this time.

* Plato believed that his Republic was just. Do you agree with this assessment?
* What is justice? What is justice in American society today? What should it be?

* Are elements of Plato's Republic feasible? Why or why not?
* Would you like to have lived in a society modeled after Plato's Republic? Why or why not?

* Who plays the role of "Philosopher Kings/ Queens" in American society?
* Should there be a place for a "Philosopher King/ Queen" in today's American society?

* Is there a human soul? Is it immortal?

* What is the proper function of art (as broadly defined) in society? What role does art play in our society?

"The ideal society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed of humanity itself, until philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers." - Plato, The Republic

Remember that the "Philosopher For a Day" presentations start next Tuesday. The links to that schedule and the reading schedule for Sophie's World can be found to the right.

Socrates

* The "Apology of Socrates" from the Dialogues of Plato
* The final "scene" from The Last Days of Socrates by Plato
* "A Contemporary Response" by Stephen T. Davis

We'll give you five minutes to meet with the others with the same reading that you had. Think about what is most worth sharing with others. Following that, we'll form "jigsaw" groups with one person representing each reading/color. We'll give you about 10 minutes to share with each other before we return to the big group. At that point, we can finish up with any closing thoughts on Socrates.

Plato

We'll spend the rest of today and most of tomorrow on Plato. Our focus today will be on his Theory of Forms and on the "Allegory of the Cave." Tomorrow, we'll look at the work from which the "Allegory of the Cave" is taken, The Republic.

Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"- This is unquestionably the single most influential work in the history of Western Philosophy. Even if you have seen it before, it is worth another look. We'll have you do four things with this:

1. Read the handout which contains an excerpt from the "Allegory of the Cave."
2. Use the blank sheet of paper and draw the allegory as you understand it. (Yes, we'll share these tomorrow.)
3. Work through the items where you are asked to indicate if they belong to the "higher" or "lower" worlds. We'll check your answers tomorrow.
4. Take the "Are You A Platonist" quiz from the end of the reading. Once you have marked them, you can check your answers on the back. Keep track of the number of questions where your answer matched Plato's. (Note that doesn't make you right; just in agreement with Plato...)

Here is another concise explanation of the Allegory of the Cave.

The wisest is he who realizes, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is worthless. - Plato, Apology

Don't forget that "your" day for the "Philosopher for a Day" project is listed on a "Page" to the right on the blog main page. We begin our series of these by meeting Socrates and his Greek pals next Tuesday. (Remember that the Sophie's World schedule is over there as well...)

I've got a short handout for you on Socrates that I've handed out in years where we have not had a Socrates present... ("Our" Socrates should feel free to touch on any/none of this in the presentation. This is just to provide folks with some background information for today.)

Socrates - "Fishbowl" Seminar

The "Fishbowl" discussion format is one of the methods we will use occasionally this semester. There are several "rules" we will follow.

* You will be randomly assigned to one of two groups.

* The "inner" group discusses the questions, while the "outer" group silently observes.

* We switch roles after a period of time.

* 5 minutes quiet preparation time for both groups

* 15 minutes for "Group A" to discuss- 3-5 minutes for "Group B" to comment

* The roles are reversed.

* Evaluation is based on indivdual, group, and audience participation (or lack of...)

I will hand you copies of the discussion questions, and then we will begin.

Socrates Reading Groups I'll give you one of three readings to get done before our next session. If time permits, you can meet with others with the same reading to compare thoughts and ideas. Next time, you'll group with the someone doing each of the other two readings and share your ideas. (You'll get your own copy of the other two readings tomorrow as well.)

Here is what the readings are:

* The final "scene" from The Last Days of Socrates by Plato
* The "Apology of Socrates" from the Dialogues of Plato
*"A Contemporary Response" by Stephen T. Davis

We'll go over any questions you have on either the "Visual Introduction to Philosophy" or the "A Little Logic..." activity today.

As I mentioned, today will be the one day where I give you class time to research and work on your "Philosopher For a Day" presentation.

Please remember to be up through the first four chapters in Sophie's World by Monday. We'll use the blog to facilitate commentary on the book as we go. I should have that up and running by then.

"Philosopher For a Day" Guidelines

* The presentation should be in "first-person," as if you were the philosopher. You may decide whether the format is lecture, conversation, discussion, skit, "teaching," or whatever you would prefer.

* You may speak from a script, notes, an outline, memory, or some combination. You need to let me know in advance if you need additional technology, such as the computer projector.

* It is expected that your presentation be a minimum of six to eight minutes in length. That would not include questions, subsequent discussions, etc.

* You need to prepare some sort of Microsoft Word "handout," presumably which frees your audience from the responsiblity of taking detailed notes. It should be limited to a single page. Again, you decide on the most useful format (outline, timeline, questions, quotations, links, etc.) If you want me to make copies, I need the original no later than 8:25 on the morning of your presentation.

Here are a couple of starting links:

Philosophers: Alphabetical Index - I can't vouch for the quality of all the links, but there should be information on just about everyone here...

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet - Peter Suber, Earlham College. Suber has stopped updating his page, so he also recommends EpistemeLinks as another good source.

Today, we will take a quick look at the earliest Westerners who could probably be called "philosophers." This group is commonly called the pre-Socratics. We won't spend a ton of time here, but I'll try and introduce you to the basics. You should download this Pre-Socratics note guide.

Here's a website with more information than you could possibly want on the Pre-Socratics.

Rather than go over the "Visual Introduction to Philosophy" and the "A Little Logic..." activity today, I want to hold those until tomorrow. Instead, we'll get one of these "Popular Culture and Philosophy" books into your hands. (There seemed to be more interest in these than I expected, so I figure I'll get them to you right away...) We'll go over those two handouts tomorrow, taking any questions. After that, tomorrow will be the one day where I give you class time to research and work on your "Philosopher For a Day" presentation. (I aim to have the schedule posted for you by tomorrow.)

Please remember to be up through the first four chapters in Sophie's World by Monday. We'll use the blog to facilitate commentary on the book as we go. I should have that up and running by then.

"Logic is the last scientific ingredient of Philosophy; its extraction leaves behind only a confusion of non-scientific, pseudo problems."
- Rudolph Carnap

"A Little Logic"- Logic is defined as the branch of philosophy that analyzes the strength of arguments and argument forms. To some, it can be painfully boring to study. Many college students will rank it among their least pleasurable experiences. Others find it challenging and exciting to learn. "Doing" logic, however, can be almost like a game. Clicking on the link above will download a set of examples of various logic "problems". Pair up or work through them on your own. We can talk about some of these on Thursday.

With any remaining time... You can

-- Finish the "Visual Introduction to Philosophy" handout you have already gotten from me. We'll discuss areas of interest on Thursday.

-- Read in Sophie's World. Try and be through the four chapters listed on the Sophie's World Reading Schedule by the time we meet on Monday. I will continue to update that schedule.

-- Research for your "Philosopher For a Day" presentation. (More information for that can be found on yesterday's blog entry...) I should have the days on which you will present up by the end of the week.

We'll set up the "Philosopher For a Day" project today, as some of you will be "appearing" next week. After that, we'll chat about some "big questions." I think you'll enjoy that.

"Philosopher For a Day" Guidelines

* The presentation should be in "first-person," as if you were the philosopher. You may decide whether the format is lecture, conversation, discussion, skit, "teaching," or whatever you would prefer.

* You may speak from a script, notes, an outline, memory, or some combination. You need to let me know in advance if you need additional technology, such as the computer projector.

* It is expected that your presentation be a minimum of six to eight minutes in length. That would not include questions, subsequent discussions, etc.

* You need to prepare some sort of Microsoft Word "handout," presumably which frees your audience from the responsiblity of taking detailed notes. It should be limited to a single page. Again, you decide on the most useful format (outline, timeline, questions, quotations, links, etc.) If you want me to make copies, I need the original no later than 8:25 on the morning of your presentation.

Here are a couple of starting links:

Philosophers: Alphabetical Index - I can't vouch for the quality of all the links, but there should be information on just about everyone here...

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet - Peter Suber, Earlham College. Suber has stopped updating his page, so he also recommends EpistemeLinks as another good source.

Here is the list from which you will be drawing...

Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Augustine
Thomas Aquinas
Rene Descartes
Baruch Spinoza
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
Jean Jacques-Rosseau
John Rawls
Nicolo Machiavelli
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
George Hegel
Arthur Schopenhauer
Soren Kierkegaard
Martin Heidegger
John Paul Sartre
John Stuart Mill
Karl Marx
Fredreich Nietzsche
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Bertrand Russell
Noam Chomsky
Ayn Rand

BACK TO TODAY'S LESSON:
Let's dig into some "Big Questions" of philosophy via a handout. We'll have particular people start off the discussions on individual questions. Others are free to comment on the ideas or also answer the questions.

READING: If you haven't already, you should start reading in Sophie's World. I'll expect that you are through the first four chapters by the end of the weekend... (I'll post an updated "day by day" reading schedule for you by the end of the week.)

We'll discuss some of the material from "A Visual Introduction to Philosophy" at our next session.