Please post your questions in the comment section.
best
Norman Schultz
Monday, December 5, 2016
Monday, November 7, 2016
1. Reconstruct Nietzsche's theory of the struggle between master's and slave's morality and explain this with regard to current examples from our current time.
2. Discuss Foucault's idea of discipline and how it replaces older practices of punishment. Find a current example and explain.
3. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the problem of prisons in our society.
4. Explain Foucault's theory of prisons and discuss the status of prisons in our society.
5. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the idea of punishment in our current society.
More difficult
Compare Nietzsche's master's morality after the revaluation of values with Plato's concept of Justice.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
I think, I am, I exist - Another writing prompt.
After the deconstruction of the basic foundations (the senses, imagination, and understanding), Descartes makes an argument for the only foundation of sciences: The I-Think.
The argument is structured as a reduction ad absurdum. This means that he starts with an assumption that will lead to a contradiction later, and thus disproves the original assumption.
Descartes starts with the assumption: "I am is a deception." This means that even "I exist" is something that might be a deception by an evil demon.
A deception, however, includes that somebody must be deceived. Even an evil demon is not deceiving nobody. If we take this into account it means that the evil demon deceives somebody of being himself.
This, however, is a contradiction, since the one who is deceived cannot be deceived of being the one who is deceived. If this is, therefore, a contradiction the original assumption must be false and its opposite must be true.
The opposite is: I am not a deception.
From this follows that even the strongest doubt cannot destroy the belief that I am, and thus I am, is an indubitable assumption. This "I am" is in the mode of thinking, since it tries to deny itself by virtue of thoughts. From this follows: I think, I exist.
6 Minutes, 1 minute revised
The argument is structured as a reduction ad absurdum. This means that he starts with an assumption that will lead to a contradiction later, and thus disproves the original assumption.
Descartes starts with the assumption: "I am is a deception." This means that even "I exist" is something that might be a deception by an evil demon.
A deception, however, includes that somebody must be deceived. Even an evil demon is not deceiving nobody. If we take this into account it means that the evil demon deceives somebody of being himself.
This, however, is a contradiction, since the one who is deceived cannot be deceived of being the one who is deceived. If this is, therefore, a contradiction the original assumption must be false and its opposite must be true.
The opposite is: I am not a deception.
From this follows that even the strongest doubt cannot destroy the belief that I am, and thus I am, is an indubitable assumption. This "I am" is in the mode of thinking, since it tries to deny itself by virtue of thoughts. From this follows: I think, I exist.
6 Minutes, 1 minute revised
Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)
1. Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception
2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Argument for Existence
2nd Meditation (Descartes), Specific Argument of Existence, A-Part
Result of 1st Meditation: Knowledge that nothing is certain?
No, because at least: I am I
Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)
1. Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception
2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence
Descartes, 10 Minute Prompt
Explain what is the content and the method of the Descartesian deconstruction, and explain the three steps of his deconstruction.
The goal of Descartes' Meditation is to give a new foundation to science, because if the foundation is unstable the house of sciences might be in danger. For this goal he uses the method of methodological doubt, this means that he rejects something as false if it has we have the slightest doubt about its truth. At the same time, he wants to find the foundation as efficiently as possible so that he does not criticize everything. Instead, he systematically attacks the most basic foundations.
The deconstruction follows three steps:
1) He attacks the senses because they seem to be most important for research. The senses, however, just give us knowledge from induction that means they only give us probably knowledge about objects. Since they, however, have deceived us already they cannot be trusted.
Transition: Even though the senses have deceived us, Descartes tries to argue that the images in our head might have been perceived by a transformation. The senses transform a presupposed real object outside of us so that we have an image in our head. If we understand this mechanism, we might be able to infer back to the real object. This is called a metaphysical realism.
2) Descartes rejects also this position, because our images might not have been caused by something outside, but they are the results of our imagination as if we only dream them. So he also rejects this foundation.
Transition to 3: Even though we could be dreaming, dreams, however, must be built on elements. We do not invent all of our dreams. So that these elements could be assumed to be real.
3) Descartes rejects this idea, because these elements could have been put by an evil demon into our mind. So we know them by convention and don't know whether they are really true. Because he has the slightest doubt he also rejects them as a foundation.
8 Minutes.
The goal of Descartes' Meditation is to give a new foundation to science, because if the foundation is unstable the house of sciences might be in danger. For this goal he uses the method of methodological doubt, this means that he rejects something as false if it has we have the slightest doubt about its truth. At the same time, he wants to find the foundation as efficiently as possible so that he does not criticize everything. Instead, he systematically attacks the most basic foundations.
The deconstruction follows three steps:
1) He attacks the senses because they seem to be most important for research. The senses, however, just give us knowledge from induction that means they only give us probably knowledge about objects. Since they, however, have deceived us already they cannot be trusted.
Transition: Even though the senses have deceived us, Descartes tries to argue that the images in our head might have been perceived by a transformation. The senses transform a presupposed real object outside of us so that we have an image in our head. If we understand this mechanism, we might be able to infer back to the real object. This is called a metaphysical realism.
2) Descartes rejects also this position, because our images might not have been caused by something outside, but they are the results of our imagination as if we only dream them. So he also rejects this foundation.
Transition to 3: Even though we could be dreaming, dreams, however, must be built on elements. We do not invent all of our dreams. So that these elements could be assumed to be real.
3) Descartes rejects this idea, because these elements could have been put by an evil demon into our mind. So we know them by convention and don't know whether they are really true. Because he has the slightest doubt he also rejects them as a foundation.
8 Minutes.
Friday, September 2, 2016
The Evil-Demon-Argument
Transitioning argument from the senses, and imagination to understanding:
After having demonstrated that we can neither trust the senses, nor our images as representations of real objects, Descartes tries to find another ground for sciences, namely understanding (rationality). So even though we might be trapped in a dream, dreams are composed of elements and these elements are simple. So we can, for example, invent, different objects that are combinations of simple elements, but can we also invent elements?
For example, objects have colors, but can you invent a new color in a dream? Can you invent new shapes?
The following picture resembles an absurd labyrinth, but despite its absurdity it uses elements, in order to be represented in our mind.
So Descartes concludes that the simple elements might qualify as foundations for sciences, but he can also find doubt about this.
The Evil-Demon
So we can believe in the simple elements of understanding. These elements include arithmetic sentences like 2+2=4, geometrical shapes, or even the method of deduction. These statements are evident, but this is not necessarily an indicator that they are true.
The simple task of teaching a child of let us say 4 years the sentence 2+2=4 is much more difficult then we expect. Usually children can count until 4, but they cannot understand what it means to build a some. Numbers are not simple truths, but actually presuppose a complex set of different skills. Because we have trained this sentence for thousands of times, since our early school days, the sentence occurs as evident to us. But could it be that the school has deceived us into believing such simple sentences, so that we believe they are without really knowing this?
The following picture represents this problem.
So the question of Descartes is legitimate. It could be that an evil teacher, or an evil demon has put these truths in our mind.
Since Descartes finds the slightest doubt, he dismisses the belief in understanding as a whole.
Further Sources:
Further Sources:
- Stories of different demons and paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment)
- It is always good to be informed on Realism, a central concept of our time http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/#2
- The wikipedia page gives background information on the evil demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Descartes' Dream-Argument - What is Wonderland? What is Truth?
After having dismissed the inductive character of our senses as insufficient to be a stable foundation for our house of knowledge, Descartes leads us to the question of imagination. This means maybe we cannot trust the senses, but the picture we have in our head are representations of real things that entered us through a certain kind of transformation. The idea is that if we know the kind of transformation, then we could easily infer back to the original reality that caused us to have these images. Descartes, however, disproves this argument of a so-called Metaphysical Realism by his famous dream-argument.
The Dream Argument
Descartes poses the question whether we can trust our imagination as results from a perception or whether all of our images could be the result of a dream. Descartes' thought experiment reminds us of the following movie.
What are the conclusions? As far as nobody like Morpheus frees us from our common existence, it might be hard to conclude that there is a reality distinct from our imagination. It remains a possibility that everything is a dream, and thus imagination cannot be a foundation for a secure science.
This teaches us the following lesson: It is at least difficult to infer back to an original point of reference from which our images that we in our head originate.
Please, however, keep in mind: this does not say that we have, first, no knowledge, and, second, Descartes also does not say that reality does not exist, he only states that we should suspend our belief and not take beliefs like images as foundational for our sciences.
Further Links: What is a "Metaphysical Realism"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/
I highly recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia as a reliable resource for basic philosophical problems. The article on realism is very helpful: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
Quote on Realism:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/322288917055400292/
The costs of misperception can be very high: You choose the wrong leaders, you decide to not vaccinate your children, or you ruin your life because of poor judgement. Media are certainly working on ourselves emotionally. If you learn how to argue, you do not learn for others. You also do not learn for being better than others, but you learn for yourself, in order to avoid mistakes for your own life.
Plato, an ancient philosopher who we will study later this semester, had a similar idea. According to him, we are chained in a cave, and all the truths we see are shadows produced by anonymous people in the background. This idea resembles very much Descartes' idea. For both philosophers the way out of this cave is walked by virtue of reason.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ryGPPc5Z5Ng/hqdefault.jpg
The question remains, however, how do we leave this concretely?
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbcmu7dH61rpxft9o1_400.jpg
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/040/017/91d.jpg
The Dream Argument
Descartes poses the question whether we can trust our imagination as results from a perception or whether all of our images could be the result of a dream. Descartes' thought experiment reminds us of the following movie.
What are the conclusions? As far as nobody like Morpheus frees us from our common existence, it might be hard to conclude that there is a reality distinct from our imagination. It remains a possibility that everything is a dream, and thus imagination cannot be a foundation for a secure science.
This teaches us the following lesson: It is at least difficult to infer back to an original point of reference from which our images that we in our head originate.
Please, however, keep in mind: this does not say that we have, first, no knowledge, and, second, Descartes also does not say that reality does not exist, he only states that we should suspend our belief and not take beliefs like images as foundational for our sciences.
Further Links: What is a "Metaphysical Realism"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/
I highly recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia as a reliable resource for basic philosophical problems. The article on realism is very helpful: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
"In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more-or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take."Prima facie, these questions might not be so interesting to you, but there are some consequences for our project to develop a critical mindset.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/322288917055400292/
The costs of misperception can be very high: You choose the wrong leaders, you decide to not vaccinate your children, or you ruin your life because of poor judgement. Media are certainly working on ourselves emotionally. If you learn how to argue, you do not learn for others. You also do not learn for being better than others, but you learn for yourself, in order to avoid mistakes for your own life.
Plato, an ancient philosopher who we will study later this semester, had a similar idea. According to him, we are chained in a cave, and all the truths we see are shadows produced by anonymous people in the background. This idea resembles very much Descartes' idea. For both philosophers the way out of this cave is walked by virtue of reason.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ryGPPc5Z5Ng/hqdefault.jpg
The question remains, however, how do we leave this concretely?
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbcmu7dH61rpxft9o1_400.jpg
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/040/017/91d.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)