When philosophers become kings ...

Yet another essay to write team 2015 ...
This quote by Marcus Aurelius should take you on a tour of personal ethics, politics, human rights and self-interest. Post your essay today itself as a comment to this blog-post and not in the Facebook page.

Different things delight different people. But it is my delight to keep the ruling faculty sound without turning away either from any man or from any of the things which happen to men, but by looking at and receiving all with welcome eyes and using everything according to its value.

Marcus Aurelius, 121-180 AD, Roman emperor and philosopher in "Ta eis heauton" (The things you say to yourself), VIII, 43

Crime and the Collective

Analyse this quote and present your point of view in brief (as a comment)

When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.

HANNAH ARENDT, Crises of the Republic

Abhishek on What Arendt may be saying:

 

Key ideas -
Culprit - one who commits the crime
Guilty - one who bears responsibility for the crime

Arendt’s argument

A - Only the culprit ought to be be held guilty
B -  In a society where A is not applicable, the entire collective may be considered guilty for the crimes of an individual culprit. This is equivalent to saying that no specific culprit is considered guilty
C - The magnitude of the crime ought to determine the magnitude of the penalty
D - In the societies that where A is applicable, the penalty applies only to the culprit
E1 - In a society where A is not applicable, the penalty would apply not just to the culprit but to entire collective (which is guilty)
E2 - Therefore, a crime of greater magnitude would lead to a penalty of greater magnitude applicable to the entire collective
F - E2 would be against the interest of the collective and thus the collective would avoid implementing the penalty
G (follows from F) - A greater magnitude of the penalty (stemming from a greater magnitude of the crime) would increase the chances of the collective not implementing the penalty

Arendt’s position - Societies ought to be such that A & D are applicable, and B & G are avoided

(Look for Abhishek's supporting argument in the comments)

Analysing Agnosticism

Hey Team 2015!

Take the next quote analysis assignment on a scathing remark made by Peikoff on agnosticism. Analyse the author's point of view, her argument and hence construct your arguments in favor and/or opposition. To view previous quote analyses read here.

"The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be." 

- Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6

Analysis by Nihar Kulkarni & Abhishek Dedhe

Note- *no. assigned to arguments, (*no.) denotes to what argument the current argument is opposing., ...for supporting a pt.

Argument of Peikoff:

• P1- Acceptance of Agnosticism is to avoid being antagonistic toward any belief.
• P2- Considering 2 antagonistic claims equal involves allotting equal possibility of being true to the false proposition as well.
• P3-Considering 2 contradictory propositions simultaneously true is irrational
• C1-Agnoscicism is irrational.( P1+P2+P3)
• P4-Agnosticism a concept in epistemology as it is defining a limit to epistemological reach i.e. impossible to `know` whether the god exists or not.
• P5-Epistemology exists to reach a valid & sound conclusion through reasoning & available evidence.
• P6-Agnostics consider to reach a conclusion to be impossible.
• P7-Agnostics deny certainty of available evidence.
• C2-Agnostics harm epistemology. (P4+P5+P6+P7)

 Counter Argument:

• Assumption wrong – P1.*1
• Currently person – Diff of support for any 1 claim=negligible(P4)
• Waiting for more evidence for one.(P5)
• Rationally chosen indecision.*2
• Can the result of a rational method be irrational? (C1)
• Agnosticism, Atheism & Theism are related with an individual.*3
• Allotting values to different claims depends on that individual.
• No right to any other individual to judge the allotting. (P2)
• Why not aim of epistemology Search for a conclusion rather than reach it?*4
• Also, as the assumption P1 is wrong the quote is wrong.*5
• As agnosticism allows theism & atheism i.e high level of tolerance of both.
• Wouldn’t world be more peaceful if more people were agnostics?*6

• Counter to counter arguments:

• If the claim is that there may be something you do not know, how do you know that that something exists.
• Rational stand is to have a conclusion from what you know.*7
• Is the stand to reject changing the beliefs for the sake of individuality correct?
• Growth of individual & society hampered.
• Result of rational method applied to a consideration starting from an irrational claim can be irrational.*8
• In reality 2 kinds of agnostics-
• A)Temporary Agnostics-Confusion whether to choose theism or atheism, but they do choose at some point of time.
• B)Permanent Agnostics-They choose not to arrive at any conclusion.
• Every person consciously choosing a belief system was a temporary agnostic at some point.
• Opposition is to permanent agnostics for the reasons mentioned in *7 & *8.....*9.
• Plenty of reasoning for Atheism & no reasoning nor evidence for theism.
• Pt of negligible diff for any claim meaningless.(*1)
• Once you decide to reach no conclusion at all despite evidence & reasoning, no longer the decision is rational *9. (*2)....C1
• Different isms exist because every belief tries to portrait reality in the way they see.
• The picture of their reality could only be complete & absolute truth when others do not hold any other contradictory reality to be true.
• Involving others in our beliefs a fundamental part of any ism.
• So existence of uninfluenced individual beliefs unrealistic.(*3)
• Also, if the agnostics become powerful enough they may start opposing theists & atheists.
• The basic claim is that it is impossible to know the existence of god.
• The people claiming possible in opp to them. (*6)
• The aim of all kinds of sciences including philosophy is to reach certainty at the fundamental level possible.
• Epistemological methods are a mean to do so.
• Though searching for a more fundamental certainty an inseparable part of epistemology,
• the search for next fundamental certainty starts by holding the current one as basis.
• i.e. at each step, you have to choose one most rationally reasoned & evidential possibility by eliminating others.
• Not choosing one means not being antagonistic with any other...P1,(*1)
• Agnostics refuse to do so i.e. they do not apply epistemological methods,
• though limit the reach of epistemology.
• This stance is misleading & harm the epistemological reasoning of the individuals who hold Agnosticism to be a righteous epistemological stance...C2. 

Chosen Side –Supporting Peikoff. 

Structuring our Intuitions

Dear students of philosophy,

I continue with the next step to understanding philosophy (contd. from the previous step based on the plan ). For those who are new to this business (the business of philosophizing) let me tell you that the word I used many times up till now - intuiting or intuition - is not some hocus-pocus. Its just an happy-ish way of saying that you need to think about doing philosophy. Only since most of us are not so trained, we are unawares of the method we may adopt while thinking about something. I refer to this "unaware use of methods" which already are a part of our thinking process as "Intuition". So let us do some more of this and then eventually grab-the-method, so to say.

I had asked you to read some stuff from the internet such as Jim Pryor's notes and Wikipedia on syllogisms and fallacies. So by now you must know that when we present our philosophical ideas, we do so in form of arguments. (Not that we bash each other up ...) These arguments are similar to the proofs that we study in math or the derivations we do in physics or the case that a lawyer presents in court on behalf of his client. The argument is a neatly structured set of statements, which imply (as rigorously as possible) the truth of a certain statement. They begin with presenting facts (axioms / premises / observations) and continue to present connections (conditionals / middle-terms / reasons). These connections then employ the reader's "logical" thinking to arrive at the conclusion. The emphasis of logic is because, it has many forms. The word could refer to the strict mathematical / deductive logic, where A connects to B and B connects to C leads to saying that A connects to C. The word may also mean syllogistic logic where the connections between the subject, middle-term and predicate exist as strictly as in math, but the meanings of the words denoting the subject, etc. may not be straight-forward and would depend upon correct interpretations, hence leading to some of the fallacies. (Some of the other fallacies are simply devious arguments made so to help the arguer win)

Then again, the word "logic" taken in the lay sense could also mean - reasoning  which itself has many forms - deductive as in the syllogistic logic or inductive (as in: I saw the Sun rise in the east for the past 4 days and so I conclude that it will always rise in the east.) or more vague forms. Read this quick summary. 

Thus you see that arguments need not be automatically foolproof. Hence the need to consider whether they are valid (conclusion follows from the premises, even if the premises or the conclusion may be incorrect) or sound (valid with true premises; conclusion may still be false).

The assignment (What is wrong with the argument? Why?)

Now see if you can find out whats wrong with each of the following arguments. It could be a problem of validity or soundness or simply a fallacy. Try to answer critically by pointing out the exact sentence / sentences where the problem lies and also name the fallacy (if any) and explain in the context of the argument, why is it a problem, i.e. what was probably being implied here and what it ended up with OR what are the implications of the (wrong) argument and why are these implications wrong, etc. It would be helpful if you could start by distinguishing between the premises and the conclusion. Hint: Ask yourself - Are you convinced by the conclusion?

1. God is Divine
2. Love is like a rainbow. It looks good from far away, but the moment you get closer to it, it disappears. Hence love is but an illusion.
3. Most educated Indians wish that Modi becomes the prime minister. Thus Modi is the ideal choice.
4. The following is an argument between a Democratic Statist (D) and an Anarchist (A):

D: Humans can't be trusted to self-govern!

A: If you can't trust the people with freedom, how can you trust the people in power?

D: Because they were elected!

A: But they are also one of the people (who can't be trusted), are elected by the people (who can't be trusted) and represent the people (who can't be trusted). Why should I trust the system? Is the system run by people made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind?

D: The system is based on a "social contract" and represents the "will of the people"...

A: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D: "We the people of India....."

A: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D: Did you vote?

A: No.

D: Then you cannot complain.

A: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D: "We the people of India....."

Anarchist: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D: Did you vote?

A: No.

D: Then you cannot complain.

5. Read the pro-communism argument at http://leninism.org/some/index.htm#pseudopod_vs_hand focusing chiefly on the 4th big statement. Look here for a more elaborate argument.
6.  .... ...... . .... now I am sure you are completely whacked out, so just send me the answers.

We talk about analyzing concepts, thought experiments and outlining arguments in the next session.

Solutions to "intuiting about philosophy" - part 2

... continued

5. Does a person have a right to complain about the religious practices of his neighbors if the sound of these practices is reaching his home, loudly? Does this mean that he is being intolerant? Is this morally wrong?

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Meta-ethics and Descriptive ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way (normative ethics); evaluating the rightness or wrongness of that action - morality (meta-ethics). It also considers whether that person has a "right" to act in a particular way, i.e. - people's views about the action (descriptive ethics).

Me: It is broadly stemming from Ethics or the study of the rules of behavior in a society. However, this goes more to the applied area of Praxeology where human action is studied in the context of its consequences on a larger societal setup as also the consequences of setting rules to be followed by certain components of society. Praxeology deals with areas like politics and economics where we discuss about not the behavior of one individual person, but a whole community. Note that if the individual X suffering on account of his neighbors (Y's) loud prayers, decides to engage in conflict or call the cops, then ANY such individual in that community must get the same right. (Unless the community has agreed that some members are ethnically superior to others, as is the case in ethnic dictatorships or nations with strong and fanatic religious majorities) If yes, then any other individual (Z) may protest about X's practices, which may be subtle, but the very idea that X eats meat (just an example) on the "holy" days can be intolerable to Z ... and so on. Taking this reasoning further we see that the issue of tolerating someone's culture/behavior, as long as it does not intentionally harm us, is an essential in a multi-cultural environment such as India. Now maybe you see the link to Politics. 

All the same tolerance with no limits can be considered a sign of weakness by some and can lead to deliberate attacks on the tolerant. This in turn necessitates conditions on the governance of the community. This raises questions of whether religion (or God) are / are not above the country. This also raises issues of economic stability which again have a bearing on the rules of governance. So you see, it is not an individual's moral choice alone, although every individual has a right to protest (in a democracy) against anything "intolerable". It is more of an issue to be resolved by the whole community or the government that represents it.

6. Is it appropriate to feed lots of chocolates to a chimpanzee to see if the chimp starts suffering from diabetes?

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Applied ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way (normative ethics); and whether this action is moral in a particular with respect to a particular issue (clinical or medical ethics in this case) (applied ethics)

Me: Personally, I would be glad to have the chimp be tested in order that my diabetes can be eventually treated; or to think of it, I would actually feed the poor chap with lots of chocolate, which I am sure he would enjoy to the sweet end. But that's all from personal experience and desires. Now lets think professionally. ;)

Would I like to be in the chimp's place, suppose an superior alien race wants to test a virus? So this is a question pertaining an action by some humans and supported by a larger group of humans, either knowingly or otherwise. However, it is an issue where the individual has to take a decisive stand and its consequences need not affect the larger society directly. So we can rule out Praxeology or any other applied areas. This is Ethics, sub branch - Bioethics. The issue here is about how much we understand other forms of life and value life as a whole. It is at a deeper level how we evaluate the value of something which is not really tangible or direct, viz., the idea of Man's superiority and hence benevolence against his efforts for solutions (which may or may not materialize) to further his survival. This goes to the extent of discussing whether Man gets to play God. Read some essays by Peter Singer. Try doing this free course by Singer to get some perspective.

7. Is it 'OK' to mimic Shah Rukh Khan (dance or speech or fashion) because you adore him? Girls may choose Katrina Kaif.

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Descriptive ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way - imitating a particular actor/actress (normative ethics), based on people's views about the action (descriptive ethics).

Incidentally, the part of the question that stated that a girl may choose Katrina Kaif is an example of descriptive ethics. Girls choosing an actress to imitate while boys choosing an actor is based on people's views about gender. Normative ethics would also involve asking whether it is okay for a boy to imitate Katrina Kaif? And a girl to imitate Shah Rukh Khan?

Me: I realized that I should have used a newer role model than K-K-K-Khan uncle, but I guess you get the point. Mimicking someone is the natural method of learning new things - when you are a baby, that's how you learnt to speak or move or dance (well you weren't really a baby then, I suppose) - when you grew older, that's how you learnt to socialize, to dress-up, etc. - when you get really old, you still use it now and then to learn new physical skills or complex tasks or to blend in. But you see, the dependence on this method as against deliberate cognition - analyse, classify, reason, discriminate, synthesize, hypothesize, verify, justify, ... - should decrease as you grow more mature. 

So you see, the issue is largely about what you feel is acceptable in society and hence what you should or not do. This is again Ethics, but as all of the students who answered so far have pointed out - Normative Ethics. What is the norm, i.e. standard of social acceptability? How should I behave to blend in more? As also, what do I think is heroic or idealistic? This last part usually depends upon the social norm, but need not be always so. So as long as it is a questions of and for an individual, it is normative ethics.

Now further on, while taking a decision about whether it is "OK" to do so, you end up dabbling with meta-ethics as well. If you extend the question to society at large and for all individuals, i.e. should all barbers trim the hair of youngsters in the Khan or the Kaif style and therefore should all heads of school make this a part of the school dress code, etc. you are questioning "whether it is right to act as per the norm" OR "should the norms be enforced". I am sure some of my students who had the misfortune of watching my hands work synchronously with my scissors, from very close, wouldn't dare support the allowance of fashion as a norm. In essence here you could go as far as to question, whether a philosophy which support / opposes normative thinking, is the better one. 

Coming to Abhishek's final comment there: There is indeed a connection between Descriptive and Normative theories wherein it is the people's views which eventually create the norm and you could question whether it is appropriate for a girl to dress like a boy or vice verse. 

8. What is a joke? What makes us laugh?

Abhishek: Main branch - Aesthetics. This is because the question deals with the study of art and beauty. Specific branch - Nature of Art and Aesthetic Judgement and Aesthetic Taste. This is because the question deals with what a joke is (nature of art), whether we consider a given something to be a joke based on our understanding of what a joke is (aesthetic judgement), and whether we find the joke funny - whether we appreciate it (aesthetic taste)

Me: Yes Abhishek & Aparna, it is Aesthetics and no Aparna it is not ethics, although it does raise ethical questions, such as whether we should laugh a certain community based on some of their common characteristics, etc. Humor is usually associated with the idea of difference or oddness, particularly with the difference in something or someone which makes the thing or person appear wrong in the given context. For instance imagine me hogging chocolates instead of the chimp, (Oh I'm loving it) or Abhishek dressed up like Katrina, or a plump chap slipping on a banana peel. Feels funny doesn't it. "How silly can these people be", "How weird would that look", etc.

Now think of the same in a different context: The great and handsome and muscular me (as I actually am) eating a chocolates with an air of gracefulness. (how sensuous - you would say) Abhishek dressed like Katrina when he was 2 year old. (Ohh! how cute - you may say) Plump guy slipping on the peel and hitting his head into a coma, and wait it minute - its your uncle!!! (now try laughing)

So you see, humor is an issue of evaluating the effect of certain situations on people and determining which ones they would find odd / wrong / weird, but without a feeling of personal involvement. It is a process of evaluation of the psycho-epistemology of people. (why you feel that which you feel) The degree of laughter and hence the degree of the humor presented as an art-form has to be evaluated on the basis of the metaphysics of the artist and the audience. (what do they think is unreal / unnatural, hence humorous)

 So here goes the first assignment. Abhishek you gave really good answers; Satya and Aparna - well tried - next time elaborate your thoughts; and everyone - put your thoughts in the comments (FB or blogger) for all to see and discuss. Thus Abhishek, you get a reward - You are hereby allowed (even at the peril of losing face) to wear ANY costume at the official ceremonies of the IPO (Please try to be more confirming, ;) ). 

So long. Stay tuned for the next assignment. (in a day or two ...)

Solutions to "intuiting about philosophy" - part 1

In the assignment posted a few days ago, I had asked learners to classify 8 different issues as to the branch of philosophy that deals with them. I got some really good answers from Abhishek, Satyasarvani and Aparna. Lets dissect these.

1. In what way should one submit oneself to God.

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics; This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Applied Ethics; This is because the questions considers how a person ought to act (normative ethics). It also deals with a specific issue - religion and thus would be related to personal or private religious ethics (a part of applied ethics)

Me: The question is usually answered as a diktat from a certain theological standpoint and as such is outside the purview of systematic philosophy. i.e. One religion may ask its follower to submit via penance, while another may advocate highest learning about the world and beyond. These diktats usually have some reasoning (although based on fallacious grounds) which usually end up with "God said so" or that "God likes it like this" or some such variant. Philosophy is about asking questions and finding out deeper truths. Diktats are therefore not what philosophers do. However, questioning the rationale behind such theocratic doctrines is left to Philosophy of Religion. Ethics deals with behavior in human society, while the question above pertains to behavior towards that which transcends all that is human. Hence although normative ethics would analyse how people follow tenets of religion or applied ethics would discuss how subjugating oneself to God may be beneficial (or not) and how should one go about it, neither can define the method by which this may be done. So technically this question is theological and not philosophical, however, philosophy of religion is the closest tool to analyse various theologies and their take on this issue. 

2. What are the conditions for saying "I Know"? Is it sufficient to have heard it from someone or is it necessary to actually have seen it / sensed it?

Abhishek: Main branch - Epistemology. This is because the question is regarding the study of knowledge. Specific branch - Acquisition of knowledge : A priori and A posteriori knowledge. This is because the question asks whether obtaining knowledge should be experience-independent (A priori) or experience-dependent (A posteriori).

Me: This is definitely a question from Epistemology. Epistemology deals with what is knowledge?, what does it mean "to know"?, is knowledge subjective or objective? and so on. As Abhishek rightly points out, it is an issue of whether we need to have an experience of something to truly "know" it or is learning indirectly from a trusted source, sufficient. It further deals with issues such as sensory data (what we sense) as being different from perception (what we make of it and is it necessarily the same) and the cognition (what we consciously think about it and learn from it or connecting it with other knowledge) as being the ultimate stage of "knowing". It also questions - if we have never sensed it ourselves, then can we be sure about its existence?. In this, it enters into the realm of metaphysics and would need to discuss what is existence. Thus the Theory of knowledge is an epistemic inquiry with a metaphysical basis. 

3. What is the meaning of adding the number 1 to any number?

Abhishek: Main branch - Epistemology. This is because the question is regarding the study of knowledge. Specific branch - Nature of knowledge - Propositional knowledge. This is because the question is regarding knowing that (propositional knowledge) addition of 1 to number means something and about finding out this meaning.

Aparna: Epistemology, Rationalism

Me: The study of math entails the study and acceptance of many abstractions, one of which is 'numbers'. Although we can point out objects and count them, the idea of numbers remains abstract. Just to highlight this point, consider this question: If we count all the objects in the known universe (from people to mountains to fishes to molecules to toothpicks and then to stars and so on) we should be able to come up with some (very large) number. So, so far we know what each number we counted stood for. However, if we add 1 to this number, what would that stand for? (of course I already counted myself). So, if a number does not correspond to something, does it have meaning? Does meaning have to do with correspondance, or is it more about implication? (for example if an ant gave birth to another ant, then our counting would increase by 1 and thus the new number "would" exist and hence "has" meaning) Have a look at Max Tegmarks hypothesis for an interesting viewpoint. So to answer my question, this is partly epistemology, in the sense that we discuss about what is the knowledge associated with numbers or mathematical operations, but it is a more specific application of epistemology and partly metaphysics (what is the meaning of?) of reality into the field of abstractions, namely - Philosophy of Mathematics.

Response to Aparna: Rationalism like many other '-isms' (e.g. logical positivism) take different standpoints to answer a question. Strict Realism for example may say that the numbers are just referrals to real objects and as such have no meaning and hence addition by 1 is simply a mechanism to refer to 1 more object. So in the absence of objects, this process has no meaning. Whereas, Plato's idealism or even Tegmark's hypothesis would claim that the numbers have their own existence in a world transcending our's and thus addition is just our way of understanding relations between different, already existing numbers. So you see, that is what isms do. They however do not change the area of philosophy in which the question is posed. Sometimes, questions are posed from one ism to counter another. Very rarely, questions from one area (from any ism) may lead to redefining another area by reclassifying the issues that come under it. e.g. Darwin's observations and the scientific questions he posed, shifted the focus of origin of life from religion to science.

4. Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder or is it really about the hand of the artist?

Abhishek: Main branch - Aesthetics. This is because the question deals with the study of art and beauty. Specific branch - Aesthetic judgement - Objective and Subjective Nature of Art. This is because the question deals with whether beauty is objective - innate, or viewer-independent; or subjective - viewer-dependent.

Me: Abhishek, Satya & Aparna are all pretty much on the mark here. It is Aesthetics. It has been a raging debate in this field for more than 2000 years about whether beauty is objective or subjective (read more here). Aparna is close in saying that it is an issue of values; more specifically of value judgement. It calls for a metaphysical understanding of how (and why) one forms a value judgement about something. For example, the ancient Greeks held that strength and heroism was something to be aspired to and this is depicted in most art of that era. Another example is where a teenager who cannot handle his emotional turbulence, prefers the escape into the world of films or songs, almost all the time, and thus finds songs about dreams and maybe love, to be extremely beautiful. Read The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand to a get a clearer picture of this issue.

The next four answers in the next post. Stay tuned ...

Developing a little intuition about Philosophy

Hello learners,

As I had mentioned in my earlier post, we need to start grappling with philosophy as a subject of study. This means we get our heads around a little jargon. An introductory piece was in the links in that post - step 1. Some more stuff in a quick form can be found here. Having read this and some other books on philosophy, you should be able to figure out which branch of philosophy deals with which kind of issues. The purpose for learning this is:

1. To take a narrow view - it helps when you are faced with a quote at the IPO or a similar exam/competition, to know which branch the issue belongs to, as this helps you recollect the different thinkers / isms contributing to this area. (assuming to store information systematically) Hence you can construct your argument for the essay.
2. To take it slightly broader - It helps you to store info systematically, when you learn about the ideas in context of their development and the thinkers' backgrounds - more like learning the history of philosophy. However, to achieve this in a short time, its best to take a quick input of material, such as in the links above.

So now, try to sort out the following as an assignment and answer the same as comments to this post.

Which branch(es) would deal with the following issues? Give the broad branch first, then be more specific

e.g. Q: What is Life? What do you call as "alive"? Answer: broadly - Metaphysics; finer look - Ontology

1. In what way should one submit oneself to God.
2. What are the conditions for saying "I Know"? Is it sufficient to have heard it from someone or is it necessary to actually have seen it / sensed it?
3. What is the meaning of adding the number 1 to any number?
4. Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder or is it really about the hand of the artist?
5. Does a person have a right to complain about the religious practices of his neighbors if the sound of these practices is reaching his home, loudly? Does this mean that he is being intolerant? Is this morally wrong?
6. Is it appropriate to feed lots of chocolates to a chimpanzee to see if the chimp starts suffering from diabetes?
7. Is it 'OK' to mimic Shah Rukh Khan (dance or speech or fashion) because you adore him? Girls may choose Katrina Kaif.
8. What is a joke? What makes us laugh?

So send me the answers in a couple of days. I intend to move to the next step by this weekend.

Another context ... another quote ... Do you agree? Why?

Hi All,
Just thought that a warm up might be good for those preparing for the Stage 1. Maybe too little and too late, but here it is:
The image here is a excerpt of the context of the quote which is in bold on the top. Read the context and more if you will, and try to put forth your arguments about the quote. I do not need a rigorous essay. This is just to tune up your thought process. Hence a brief argument with abbreviations or sketches will do. Post it by email to me at soni.kedar@gmail.com. I will put up my views in a couple of days.

An assignment on the application of Ethics / Metaphysics to Psychology

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” – Albert Camus

Work on this quote, while I work on the responses to the earlier (Aristotle's) quote. Try to finish by the 6th evening

Another assignment

Understand this quote and frame an argument for or against it, say by 3rd March 2013 evening.

"The worst form of inequality is to try and make unequal things equal" - Aristotle

For previous such analyses see the posts with label Quote Analysis.

The topic was:
“The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of all things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics

Analysis by Abhinav Menon: (and my comments and questions to Abhinav)

 

I have split my argument into Aristotle's argument, Sec A is my analysis of Aristotle's Arg, Sec B and C are further discussions. 

Aristotle’s Argument

P1. Every individual can say ‘something true’ about nature of things in virtue of   ‘things’ existing
P2. Truth is an all-encompassing concept (How) – thus an individual alone cannot comprehend the vastness of truth (Why)
P3. Truth as a concept is being investigated and thus so is the nature of truth. Investigating the nature of truth contributes to the investigation of truth. (Does he mean concept OR individual truths?)
(P1 + P2 => C1.) The union of all P1s leads to a larger portion of the truth (indicated in P2 + P3) being discovered
C2. Physics (saying something true about the nature of things) (i.e. facts, often named as truths) is different from Metaphysics (investigation of truth) (i.e. the concept or 'Truth', what constitutes Truth?, what characterizes it?, How do we arrive at it?)
(C1 + C2 + P3 => C3.) Truth in its entirety cannot be known. All we can say is that we can know a large part of truth by knowing about the nature of things. (I think he means that sum of knowledge of ALL men gives us a large portion of the Truth and not one man's knowledge)

Sec A
A1.’Investigation of the truth’ (what you mean is the Truth in such and such a case, i.e. an instance of truth and not Truth as an idea?) affirms a something/concept called truth with certain properties, which form its nature
A2. Things have elements of truth in them (this follows from ‘the nature of all things’ argument) and only by piecing together the elements of truth and taking its union can we arrive at an understanding/attainment of truth
A3. Inherent in truth’s nature is that it encompasses everything (this is a restatement of P2)
(A1 + A2) A4. A3 is inconsistent and Aristotle’s reasoning is circular. He is in a process of investigating something called truth, and yet he is able to assign a property like “all-encompassing” to truth without fully investigating its nature. I.e. he has defined truth but he is still in search of it.
(I think Aristotle would be unhappy with this unfair interpretation. I think you are confusing the 'idea' with the 'instance')

Sec B
B1. A definition of the notion of truth is not clear in Aristotle’s argument (i.e. truth is some sort of an abstract entity not well defined)
B2. If truth is everything under the sun then why call it truth? (If existing objects have element of truth in that, they are, as they appear, why do we need a separate notion of truth.)
B3. If purpose of philosophy is to ‘investigate truth,’ then what is, ‘to say something true about the nature of things?’ (is it science). What is the purpose of this distinction and can one lead to another?
(B4) Say something true about nature of things is saying: - the ball is red
B5. If I were to call a red ball blue, the fact does not change.
(B4 + B5 = B6) Truth is unaffected by what people may say about it or perceive it as (however they may do so) (This is the notion of objectivity of Truth. Some philosophers may not agree on the basis that your only means of perceiving truth are your senses and cognition, both of which could be faulty. Hence the TRUTH you perceive, may not be THE Truth. So it may change from person to person or from time to time. Science on the other hand {or real/rational/empirical philosophies} agree on objectivity. So you should state your position before asserting 'a fact')
B7. What everyone says about the nature of all things may not be necessarily true. Thus unions of all is not necessarily lead to a ‘considerable amount.’
(Agreed. However, let us say that 1 out of a million persons spoke 0.1% truth about a certain issue/situation/human condition/etc.; then in the entire span of history, given that there have been at least a few ten's of billion people who have lived and died and transmitted their ideas to the next generation - the amount of truth thus amassed adds up to nearly 100%. Of course 'truth' is not so simply seen and transferred. Their are losses in transmission due to religious / political interferences in history or simply due to people's neglect of the responsibility of handing over the truth to the next gen. Also, perceptions may be equally faulty for many of the truth seekers and the actual percentage of truth amassed may be reduced greatly.)
 Sec C
C1. Truth can be broken down into constituents.
C2. Each constituent can be analyzed, providing better understanding of truth.
C1 + C2 = C3) Truth is fundamental atomic facts. When a fact (a true proposition) is broken down, there are individual elements of the proposition which create meaning by referring to particulars/concepts/universals (clearer definition needed here)
C4) In a certain sense Aristotle’s quote can be seen as discussing the nature of propositions however the whole truth can be attained and affirmed through analysis of individual propositions.
(More discussion on how this links to empiricism)
 (Now, that's where the problem of Truth lies. Can we actually atomize truth, always? Sometimes, even as the truth is obvious, its difficult to analyse/atomize it. e.g. A mother loves her child. You can point out many ways in which she indicates this love. But does that prove her love as a truth? What about the times when she hits the child? What if there is a disaster and only one of them would survive? What if she survives by accident? Would she then commit suicide for her child? Then again - does dying for the one you love show the Truth of your love? If not sacrifice, then what proves love? O.K. leave all that, can we compare the love of one mother towards her child, with another mother towards hers? So how do you go about atomizing this further? But, don't you accept this as a general Truth of humanity? How come?)

Most facts of human interactions (a domain of sociology) are impenetrable in this manner. It is difficult to be deductive about them as an idealist would try. Now empiricism is somewhat the answer and I guess that's what Aristotle is trying to say. Empirically you observe (human nature or human interactions) and collect data, pass it down generations, until a huge amount of data is collected. Humans are not capable of retaining ALL data, such as Every Mother's EVERY Act of love towards her child. Hence they form truths by interpolating and extrapolating from the limited observation and hand these over to the next gen. Next gen further refines and redefines the conclusions with their  own observations. and so on....

Also, Truth about any matter needs to be observed with keen and faultless senses of one individual and then the next and thus many to consider it coherent with reality. "Truth" has to be found to be consistent with the other "truths" known to Man. And then again, the "Truth's" need to be analysed in reference to other known truths to understand their origin and nature. This demands a great effort and is seldom possible for any one Man in his lifetime. Hence, Aristotle says that men perceive fragments of truth.

Thus, the process of discovery and transmission of Truth as described by Aristotle is fine. But you could question his assertion that THAT is how Truth is. So maybe our process of discovery needs to be refined with objectivity and logic. Our process of transmission is already better with books and other technology (unfortunately, facebook un-does that, :-( ...) So maybe Truth can be formed more completely and definitively now.
OR ... you could argue that Truth is a metaphysic myth. Its purely relative and subjective. :-o

An assignment in Metaphysics

Hello there!
Time to start seriously preparing for the IPO 2011 to be held in May in Vienna. Students who are present for the discussions we have at Abhinav Vidyalay & Jr. College, Dombivli, have just had an overview of metaphysics from some very basic web pages like http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ (Objectivism) or Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia to begin with. Metaphysics attempts to define (ontology) the world we live in - physical and mental, as also to address the fundamental questions concerned with existence, consciousness, mind, perception, etc.
The purpose of these discussions is not to train the students to do serious metaphysics, but only to make them aware o fthe various issues that it studies and hence to make an educated opinion about an issue when attempting to write an essay. Of course the olympians will need to go further and also learn about the various thoughts presented by various philosophers on the issue and try to frame their opinion in the context of these thoughts.
So here is an essay assignment:
"Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure." - Scott Adams

Workouts for IPO team

Hello team,
With the frenzy to read and read and read and ... we also need to write a bit. So apart from the essays you have been writing, I need you to practice this: Sketch your argument for these topics into this blog. The argument should be about 10 lines and should roughly have the following structure:
A. What does the author say? Guess all the possible senses of the quote given and meanings thereof and all possible interpretations of the words within the quote.
B. What does the author stress on? Usually philosophical quotes are of the kind A is connected to B. Is the author stressing on the subject (A) of his discussion or the predicate (B) or on the connection between them, or is the stress on a hidden factor to the connection?
C. How does the author justify himself? Usually the quote contains some background to the proposition the author makes. (unless the quote is simply a question, in which case the background is common knowledge)
D. Do you think the justification is appropriate? If yes support; if no, oppose  - with reasoning & examples. (establish the reasoning in this sketch)
E. What do you think? Justify? Sketch your counter-attack (if applicable)

Topics:

1. But to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know under what conditions a point is called white or black; in order to be able to say: "p" is true (or false), I must have determined under what conditions I call "p" true, and thereby determine the sense of the proposition. (L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosphicus, IPO 2002)

2. The decisive argument which is employed by common sense against freedom consists in reminding us of our impotence. Far from being able to modify our situation at our whim, we seem to be unable to change ourselves. I am not "free" either to escape the lot of my class, of my nation, of my family, or even to build up my own power or my fortune or to conquer my most insignificant appetites or habits. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, IPO 2004)

3. Does science need philosophy? (IPO 2004)

4. Hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, eudemonism - all these systems that measure the value of things taking into account the pleasure or pain that go along with them, that is to say, according to any non-core condition or facts, are seen as if they do not go in depth and being naive. Any man with his constructive faculty in place and a conscience of an artist, can only regard this with irony and pity from a distance. (Friedrich Nietzsche, IPO 2005)

Lets talk about beliefs and rationality

Hi everyone,
Its been a long break and I have been quite busy and am sure so were you all. But now its time to brush up our skills of reading-for-understanding, chunking & analysing, brainstorming & finally writing with coherenece and clarity for proving a point. So much to do and so little time ...
So here's the assignment. Read lectures 6 & 7 from the MIT open courseware course on Problems in Philosophy at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-00Fall-2005/LectureNotes/index.htm. You may read the previous stuff as well if you like. Hence answer the following by about 3rd of April. Please answer precisely to the question and dont give a lump-sum answer.

1. How is pragmatism different from evidentialism in the context of beliefs? Which side are you on?
2. Is explicit ideology inevitably "distorted"? Is there always an "imposed" ideology? Is such imposition "intentional"? Is it possible for individuals to "see through" the distortions of their group's ideology?
3. What determines the shape and content of a group's ideology? How do we change existing ideologies?
4. Is science ideological, or is it a route to undistorted understanding?

You may ignore the racism & morality section. You may take further information from Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
With this I wish you a very HAPPY BRAIN-BASHING VACATION...
Send me your email ID's here as a comment and I will call you to author the blog. Hence you may write properly and not in the short comment space.

Is determinism against free will?

Hi all,
(New assignment at the bottom)

We discussed the problem of induction in the scientific method and the conclusion seems to be as follows:
1. Most of the key hypothesis made in science are based on inductive thinking, which can be simply put as our ability to find patterns in different incidences of certain phenomena. We cannot always go to the cause of each phenomenon at the beginning. However, this alone cannot lead to scientific truth, but only notions, hypothesis or beliefs, which need to be either verified by experiments (usually this is the case) or reinforced by reason for them to be accepted as fact.
2. Ockham's razor is a means of differentiating between hypothesis, when they are not entirely deductive (and therefore are inconclusive) and thus allows us to select from between half-baked theories and a little more "baked" theories. Thus it is only helpful and not assuring.
3. Scientists are supposed to and so most, do follow the scientific method, wherein we understand that induction is a part of creating the hypothesis. However, due to personal limitations or prevailing peer-bias, they may be misled (usually while creating the hypothesis) and thus may unintentionally break away from the method. Only on rare occassions do scientiists intentionally comitt fraud by manipulating the evidence or ignoring some of it. And yet, science does not fail, since the inbuilt mechanism of peer review (i.e. scientists checking each others work before it is accepted by the rest of the community) ensures that frauds & mistakes come to light and scientific truth prevails.
So let us move further in our random walk through the philosophy of science, to take a look at another debate - Determinism Vs Free-Will.
Determinism simply put is the position that everything in the universe can be determined through certain computational steps once and if we know how to describe each phenomenon in the universe. In loose variants we could restrict this calculation to our immediate surroundings and to certain phenomena.
Free Will is about our abiliyt to choose what we want.
Q. If things are all pre-determined, then how can free will exist? If free will exists then the universe is unpredictable and un-calculable, then whats the point of doing science - an endeavour to explain the universe?
Use the following links to prepare your response -
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43791 (a pedagogical view)
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm (a parochial view)
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/17/freeWillVsDeterminism.html (the theological view)
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/free_will.html (a synopsis)

(I am exaggerating things a little bit but this is the extreme and mostly resolved part of the debate. the actual ongoing debate is rather subtle and somewhet difficult to comprehend at first sight)

About the Scientific Method

As a part of preparations for the IPO, we must learn to dabble with the prominent (albeit somewhat simple) issues from different areas of philosophy; the objective being to hone your skills in following & presenting philosophical arguments. Most of January we will spend on issues in the Philosophy of Science.

We already saw things about the scientific method and Kuhn's observations on the paradigms in science. Some may argue that the scientific method is not so well defined or that inductive thinking is not as well constrained as reasoning & logic, but works quite well. On this note comment on the following:

1. 
   
   Role of inductive reasoning in creating an hypothesis
   
   
2. 
   
   Is Ockham's razor justified, i.e. can it be used with certainty
   
   
3. 
   
   Is the scientific method rigidly followed? Should it be?
   
   

You may find Wikipedia very helpful along with maybe this link - http://www.sciencebuddies.org/

Chitra's response to Philosophy of Science Assignment

A-


By definition in sociology, a community is an organized group of people holding same values. This explains why a ‘scientific community’ requires a set of beliefs to exist. This set of beliefs is actually the postulates. But the problem is that they are received- which clearly refers to tacit knowledge and not inductive reasoning. The process of formation of a scientific community comes in with a pre-exiting set of beliefs that are true to the ongoing ideas of science. Thus is the term ‘trade’ used to signify give and take within that sphere.

The first offshoot of the assumption is agreeable as the time factor comes in. The student class of a community will be ‘in education’ when professionals are practicing their trade. As long as they belong to the students class- 1. They have to abide by their job of studying science i.e. what the current set of laws sees to be right. 2.They have to remain a student i.e. the completion of having all knowledge about the set of beliefs makes them professional and unacceptance towards community’s laws outcasts them. A student is under an impression that he s learning science and not a version of it. Absence of any counterevidence to the set of beliefs will further aggravate it. In the end the student’s mind will follow the given rationality and that will be the license for scientific practice.

The second point is about the nature of education. The rigor and rigidity actually comes from the limitations of a set of beliefs and limits imposed upon the physical and mental experimentation a student applies in the learning process.



This set of beliefs form a paradigm. Kuhn gives the concept of paradigm in science which ca be explained as- 1. Outcome of a set of postulates give science a famous notion. 2. In Kuhn’s words paradigm comes from a great work. 3. This gives a sense of sufficiency and completeness which is not necessarily true but remains unquestioned in the reign of the paradigm.

B-

Normal science is a science that follows a norm of routine work in experimentation within a paradigm. This is more than normative as the need of a norm in science puts an end to questioning of the postulates which is the basis for that science. Restriction on introduction of thought that might violate this norm is the reason why the community gives the world a false impression that they know what the world is like. They actually explain world they way they see it, which in itself is not enough to know the truth about how the world actually is.

Scientists being temperamental about their assumption being true in all cases of science and more than that sufficiently occupying all the areas of science, is a result of absence of counterevidence [which obscurely continues from their studenthood] or wanton discarding of that counterevidence.

C-

Here comes the point when the scientific community chooses to overlook facts which shake the foundation of normal science. Once such a blasphemous evidence which falsifies the postulates of normal science is accepted, that will be the end of that science. Thus it is suppressed; but after the suppression the science part of the concept of ‘normal science’ is at threat.

D-

Research- as the word suggests is a repeated search. Nothing wrong with repetition of the act of searching but following a prescribed search route devaluates its productivity. In science the sense of what is implied by this word should be an organized, extensive and objective process executed by an open mind. Kuhn has described the clash of the etymological basis and entailed meaning of the word research. It is strenuous as it demanding because of the licensing system in a normal science and also tiring in the other implication of the same word. This tiring factor and devoted efforts are closely related. No matter what outcome does a scientist’s mind provides, oppression of the undesirable factors is a requirement to remain a scientist. Thus forcing nature i.e. explaining how the world works and creating versions of truth is the solution to it. That is where the ‘conceptual boxes’ come into the picture. They are rigid definitions of concepts which do have limitations at their ends but a large capacity to fit in the modified inferences. This is highly professional for a scientist in normal science as this is what his education system taught him; it makes him the saviour for the norm.

E-

Here we consider cases where normal science dies away- because of the high potency of the counterevidence or an external pressure on the scientific community which demeans its norms. These are scientific revolutions as Kuhn describes them. They liberate the shackled ‘fundamental novelties’. In the earlier assumption Kuhn uses the word fundamental as the largely observed facts and go against the older principles.

Thus the need for a new set of beliefs comes in. The newly taken evidence modifies or replaces the postulates that make a paradigm. The resistance continues until new science strengthens itself to explain truth, explains the older problems or cases in science as well and reaches far and wide to call for acceptance.

The shift described is a step of rationality. It puts an end to subjectivity and makes science a concept that can be derived from reality all over. The qualitative transformation refers to the experimentation by open-minded scientific practitioners that has lesser limitations. This is not completely different from the quantitative enrichment as science has to be that way. All the theories sanctioned by science should be scientific in the right sense and all that comes to be evidence naturally cannot be ignored by science.

Prathamesh's reply to the Philosophy of Science Assignment

A.Can Received beliefs be considered as the backbone on the present studies?
According to Kuhn, some beliefs are taken to be granted from the past scientific theories. These beliefs are then considered to be as the backbone of the present scientific world. These theories are applicable to each & every individual in that particular field. The received beliefs must be firm enough to create a deep impact on the present individuals. It must prove the individual to accept it for approving & disqualifying other things. Received beliefs can capture a strong hold on the mind only when it makes the person think its importance, & tries to prove other arguments wrong.

Here the scientific community may mean as the community of people who are involved in developing new & fundamental laws of science. These, community cannot arbitrarily make laws on their own, to prove them they have to show proofs supporting them. But as the proofs mainly contain a part of past theories, it can be said that the proof given by the new community is slightly based on the past beliefs. For e.g.: Einstein’s ‘Special Theory of Relativity”. He used the Galilean theory of “addition of velocities” to be right as well as Michelson-Morley’s theory that the “light did not appear to have velocities” . He thus, assumed both the theories to be right & than formulate the theories to overcome the laps in both the theories. Thus his, theory contains an assumption that light has a constant velocity.

The students use these received beliefs to tackle the problems in front of them, but these received beliefs loose their hold when the students start their higher studies in a particular filed. For e.g.: Newtonian physics is considered as to be the firm base of physics for the high school, even though it has its own weak points. Some concepts of ‘frames of reference’ are proved to be false when the whole system (universe) is seen from a point outside it. Each & every particle is in non-uniform motion. The motions considered to be uniform have some or the other kind of loss in it, which is immaterial to us at a particular instant. Things cannot be accurate, they can be precise. Accuracy depends upon the measurement techniques that we use. More sensitive the measurement tool, more the level of accuracy is obtained. The Newtonian laws have a deep impact on the high school students. As they are used to these laws they use them in their problem solving tactics. Hence, I agree to Kuhn’s first point (including subpoints).

Philosophy Of Science - Assignment

Thomas Kuhn begins his book - "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by outlining some assumptions about how science works. Analyse them and try to either prove or disprove each of them with supportive arguments or examples from scientific theories or discoveries. (These points are taken from notes made by Prof. Frank Pajares, from Emory Univ.) Submit your notes / essay / discussion / ..... whetever by Thursday by email. You may lok up the net for Kuhn's theories.

A. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs

1. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice"

2. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.

B. Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" - scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.

C. To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments"

D. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education"

E. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice". These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science".

1. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.

2. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory"