Shutaro Aoyama

Search

SearchSearch

PHIL1001 Introduction to Philosophy

Jul 05, 2024, 10 min read

  • There are two approaches to conducting the Introductory class:
    • problems-oriented philosophy
    • Is this what PROB OF PHILOS THO is about? (blu3mo)
    • This falls under History of Philosophy.
  • This class is a blend of two aspects:
    • Discussing various topics while following a historical timeline
    • Covering topics like science, religion, and the meaning of life
    • In terms of religion, the focus is on “how we believe” rather than the existence of God
      • Oh, that sounds interesting (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)
      • Seems similar to Theory of Knowledge
      • Religion provides a worldview
    • Transitioning from there to discussions on science makes sense
      • Provides another perspective on the world
    • This then leads to discussions on the meaning of life
    • There is a cohesive context that connects everything throughout the course.
  • Logistics:
    • The final day coincides with the deadline for reports.

January 18th - Introductory Remarks January 23rd - Anselm, from Proslogion

  • Initially focusing on the famous question of “Does God exist,” but that’s not the main topic
    • Later on, a more metaphysical view of religion seems to be taken

  • Defining God as the “greatest thing possibly you can ever imagine”

  • Based on the premise that existence is better than non-existence,

    • When you have a great thing X in your mind, the actual version X’ of it is even greater

    • “The greatest thing possibly you can ever imagine” must exist

  • Haha (blu3mo)

    • Even those who deny God’s existence, by denying it, are imagining a better existence in their minds

      • Hmm…? (blu3mo)
      • A more metaphysical denial might seem more convincing
  • Counterargument (blu3mo)
    • How do we know that it is the greatest thing you can imagine?
    • X’ is not “existing in reality” but only “imagined to exist in reality”

Kant, from Critique of Pure Reason

  • a prior vs a posteriori a priori
    • These are discussions on how we acquire knowledge.
  • analytic vs synthetic
    • When there is a proposition like S is P,
    • If P is not included in the definition of S, it is synthetic
      • For example, “An unmarried man is not married”
      • Does this correspond to a priori?
        • Even without observing the world, if you define the term “unmarried man” as such, you can understand it a priori
    • If P is included in the definition of S, it is analytic
      • For example, “An unmarried man likes apples”
      • This can only be understood empirically
  • Is existence truly greater than non-existence for Anselm?
  • Predicate/quality of existence
    • When existence is denied, no further predicate can be attributed
      • Here, existence is not about physical reality but a more abstract definition
        • Whether something exists according to a certain concept’s definition
          • A “physical unicorn” can be said not to exist because nothing fulfilling its definition exists
          • A “square circle” can be said not to exist because nothing fulfilling its definition exists
      • Therefore, “existence” is a special predicate🌟
      • This challenges Anselm’s claim
        • I see (blu3mo)
  • The concept of existence:
    • Physical entity
    • Mental concept
    • Example: Unicorn (blu3mo)
      • A “horse with a single horn physically existing” does not exist
      • A “unicorn as a concept in stories” does exist
        • Is this similar to numbers?
  • Things that can be known to not exist a priori:
    • Like a square circle
    • Can be understood from definitions
  • Kant’s argument:
    • The concept of existence is not understood analytically/a priori
      • It is a posteriori/synthetic/empirical
      • Therefore, Anselm’s analytic claim does not hold
    • Q. Can’t we answer “square circle does not exist” analytically? What is the difference between this and “god does (does not) exist”
      • 🅰️ It seems we can analytically understand that square circles do not exist, but there seems to be something fundamentally different about God
        • The basis for this argument seems weak..? (blu3mo)

January 25th - Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Parts I–III (1–27)

  • Does Hume believe we can perceive God’s existence a posteriori?
  • image

    • Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.

    • Thought: Are philosophers simply creating their own definitions of “God”?- Answer: Yes, there seems to be criticism like “god of philosophers.”
    • Well, there is a certain common understanding, a middle ground.
  • image
  • Conclusion
    • A celantes-like impression from the “author.”
    • An expression suggesting a temptation to believe in cleantes’ argument? 30 JAN Dialogues, Parts, IV–IX (28–57) 1 FEB Dialogues, Parts X–XII (58–89) 6 FEB Pascal, Pensées, §§141–64 (35–43), §§180–253 (51–77)
  • Pascal’s Wager
  • deism: God created the world but does not interfere
  • fideism: Regardless of reason, one believes
    • Philo also follows this
    • “faith,” finding value in belief itself
      • Rather, if reason suffices, faith loses its meaning and is not good
  • There is something called just have to accept by faith, not reason.

    • it is doubtful whether these principles given to us are true, or false, or uncertain, according to our origin. Again, no person is certain, apart from faith, whether he is awake or sleeps, seeing that during sleep we believe that we are awake as firmly as we do when we are awake; we believe that we see space, figure, and motion; we are aware of the passage of time, we measure it; and in fact we act as if we were awake.

    • Similar to mathematical axioms or definitions of natural numbers, one must believe in reality
    • Pascal also argues for the existence of God through this
      • Well, if that’s what you want to do, is the impression (blu3mo)
    • Philosophically, you can doubt, but it’s impossible to doubt from the bottom of your heart, Pascal argued
      • Hume seems to say that belief is not voluntary
        • Philosophically, you can temporarily doubt, but ultimately due to the influence of environment and experience, in everyday life, you end up believing
      • Pursuing reason alone leads to skepticism, but at some point, you need to acknowledge something through faith
      • Well, that’s true, even if you think about physics instead of God, you still have to acknowledge the uniformity of nature through faith (blu3mo)
  • Pelagianism
    • The freedom to believe in faith, the power to choose
    • Those who believe are saved by mercy
  • Jansenism
  • Pascal’s view of God
    • Something that cannot be understood through perception and reason
    • Believing in the infinite rather than the finite?
    • Transforming despair into faith (?)
    • If you make going to church a habit, belief gradually arises as a habit
      • This is an assertion that you can start with your own will
        • If you continue, God will guide you further (?)
      • Something like faking to make it real
    • The world view of the wretchedness of animals and the greatness of God is repeatedly mentioned
      • Man is a thinking reed, probably this
        • Humans are between wretchedness and greatness
        • Humans alone have reason and can recognize wretchedness (hence thinking reed)
      • However, there is a sense of “so what” (blu3mo)
  • Somehow, after boldly stating “to believe” at the beginning, I felt like I was being imposed with a very religious worldview afterward (blu3mo)
    • Because it abandons all skepticism
    • image
  • image 8 FEB Pensées, §§409–14 (92–3), §§680–704 (152–73), The Memorial (178) 13 FEB Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”
  • Denys Turner, “How to Be an Atheist”
  • image
  • Gould: The conflict structure of science vs. religion is overstated
    • The interpretation of what the Bible says aligns with traditional science (like geocentrism), conflicting with new science
    • Moreover, the concept of science itself is relatively recent 15 FEB Assmann, The Price of Monotheism, ch 1 (8–30)
  • image First paper due Friday, 17 February
  • PHIL1001 Philosophy Paper 1 20 FEB Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil §§45, 46, 188
    • Gay Science §§108, 122, 124, 125, 343, 344, 347
  • image II. Science 22 FEB Bacon, from New Organon
  • Notes from reading
    • Talks about being prone to holding incorrect mental models- Four idols of Idols
  • It feels like calling someone considered a Bias an idol.

  • • The human understanding is naturally inclined to abstractions and tends to give substance and reality to fleeting things. But ~

  • The idol of the market, a story about how the appropriate use of “words” in understanding is like imposing idols.
    • I totally get it, this is so much like worshiping a god.

  • So that this parent stock of errors—this false philosophy—is of three kinds: the Sophistical, the Empirical, and the Superstitious.

    • People are claiming that doing too much science is inappropriate.
      • I don’t really understand the criticism of empirical either.
  • image
  • image 27 FEB Merchant, The Death of Nature, ch 1
  • image
  • Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ch. X (111–23)
    • Predecessor of Kuhn & Kuhn
      • When observing and interpreting, bringing in Theory Hypothesis, they bring in a related whorle network of theory and a way of seeing.
    • Kuhn argues that observation and the theory used are inseparable. Since there are presuppositions in observation and frames of thought, observation is not independent.
    • Popper
      • There are limits to evidence and indiction, the black swan problem.
      • It should be done through falsification.
    • Kuhn: It’s hard to say which side of a paradigm shift is clearly correct, and change is gradual.
      • Since the problems being addressed and interests are fundamentally different, it’s not about falsifying one side but more about shifting focus.
    • Kuhn states that there is no single “scientific method” (inductive, deductive, falsification, etc.).
      • Each paradigm has different problem settings, perspectives, and knowledge, and the mainstream paradigm keeps changing, in that sense.
    • A paradigm is a network of beliefs plus a way of viewing the world. 8 MAR Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ch. X (123–35)
  • S P R I N G B R E A K 20 MAR Feyerabend, Against Method, Intro, chs. 1, 2, 4 (9–23, 33–8) 22 MAR Against Method, ch. 13 & Postscript on Relativism (125–34, 268–72) I I I. The Meaning of Life 27 MAR Nagel, What Does It All Mean? ch. 10
    • Even if we seek a larger meaning in life, questioning it skeptically may lead to a sense of meaninglessness.
    • Believing in God or placing reasons there can be satisfying for some people.

    • Some people find this attitude perfectly satisfying. Others find it depressing, though unavoidable. Part of the problem is that some of us have an incurable tendency to take ourselves seriously. We want to matter to ourselves “from the outside.”

      • “From the outside,” what an interesting expression. 29 MAR Lucretius, from De rerum natura
  • Nagel, “Death” Second paper due Friday, 31 March
  • PHIL1001 Philosophy Paper 2 3 APR Augustine, from Confessions, BOOKS V & VII 5 APR Dostoevsky, Grand Inquisitor, 1–17
  • image 10 APR Grand Inquisitor, 19–37 12 APR Grand Inquisitor, 39–68 17 APR Kierkegaard, Sickness unto Death, Introduction (37–9), Part One (59–79) 19 APR Sickness unto Death, Part One cont. (80–105)
  • FILM: Hiroshima, mon amour
  • image 24 APR Nietzsche, from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue §§1–5, On the Three Metamorphoses, On Redemption, On the Vision and the Riddle
  • FILM: Breathless 26 APR The Gay Science, §295
  • FILM: Breathless, My Dinner with Andre PHIL1001 Philosophy Final Paper

Graph View

Backlinks