Transcript Notes on Cunning

The Author of
Our Textbook
David Cunning is a
Professor of
Philosophy at the
University of Iowa.
Here are two useful
links.
1.
2.
For his academic
website:
http://myweb.uiowa.
edu/cunni/
For his
book:http://everyda
yexamples.net
Preliminary Questions
•
•
•
•
What is philosophy?
What are some examples of philosophical questions?
What are the main divisions of philosophy?
Is everyone capable of doing philosophy?
What is “Philosophy”?
This compound word originates from two Greek words:
1. philia (“friendly love”)
2. sophia (“wisdom”)
Some Important Philosophical
Questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Does God exist?
Why is there evil in the world?
Who am I?
What happens after I die?
Am I free or determined in my beliefs and actions?
What is the relationship between the self and society?
What is a just society?
When is it morally permissible to break an unjust law?
How should political change happen?
Is there progress in history?
What is the meaning of life?
The Four Main Divisions of Philosophy
•
•
•
•
Metaphysics = the study of reality
Epistemology = the study of knowledge
Axiology = the study of value
Logic = the study of correct reasoning
An Example: God
• Metaphysical Questions: Does God exist? How does God’s
existence (or nonexistence) compare to mythical beasts,
fictional characters, or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”?
• Epistemological Questions: How can I know whether or not
God exists? Should I rely on reason or experience?
• Axiological Questions: Why should I care whether or not God
exists? What is the relevance of this question for ethics,
politics, art, or science?
• Logical (Conceptual) Questions: To what does the concept
“God” even refer? What are the best arguments for and
against the existence of God?
Another Example: Climate Change
• Metaphysical Questions: Is climate change real? Or is it a
“hoax”?
• Epistemological Questions: Is climate change human caused?
If so, how can we know? Or is climate change just a matter of
natural variations?
• Axiological Questions: Should we care about climate change?
If so, why? If not, why not? What should we (individuals,
groups, organizations, states) do, if anything, about climate
change?
• Logical (Conceptual) Questions: Has humanity altered the
previous geological epoch, the “Holocene,” and entered into a
new one? Should it be called the “Anthropocene”? Or should it
be called the “Capitalocene”?
Is Everyone Capable of Doing Philosophy?
According to the ancient Greek philosophy Aristotle (384 –
322 BCE), there are two conditions that are necessary for
the practice of philosophy:
1. a sense of wonder
2. leisure time
Types of Philosopher
In his book The Philosopher: A History in Six Types (Princeton University Press, 2016)
Justin Smith has usefully classified philosophers into six ideal types:
1. The Curiosus (or Curiosa) = inquirers into the natural world
2. The Sage = seekers of wisdom beyond the realm of ordinary human experience
3. The Gadfly = challengers of social norms in order to correct and improve them
4. The Ascetic = renouncers of conventional social roles who seeks inner self control
5. The Mandarin = members of a social elite who seeks to provide advice to rulers
6. The Courtier = public intellectuals who, unlike gadflies, seek not to change society,
but to advance their own careers and reputations
But we could add a seventh type:
7. The Militant = organizers of collective social transformation
MLK on the Need to be “Maladjusted”
A clip from his 1963 speech at Michigan State
University:
http://youtu.be/MNxsXlu5DqY
Chapter 1
The Nature and Existence of the External World
•
•
•
Commonsense or direct realism (Aristotle)
Skepticism about the reliability of perceptions of the external
world
Descartes's use of skepticism to defend indirect realism (doubt
[e.g., the Dream Argument] => cogito => existence of God => non-deceiving God => pretty
reliable perception of the external world [as long as we do our part])
•
•
Aristotle on the four causes or explanatory factors (material,
formal, efficient, final)
Heidegger’s critique of technology and "enframing" (for
example, an automobile, computer, or cellphone)
Descartes’s Dream Argument
“How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events—that I am here in
my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire—when in fact I am lying undressed in bed! Yet at the
moment my eyes are certainly wide awake when I look at this piece of paper; I shake my
head and it is not asleep; as I stretch out and feel my hand I do so deliberately, and I know
what I am doing. All this would not happen with such distinctness to someone asleep.
Indeed! As if I did not remember other occasions when I have been tricked by exactly
similar thoughts in sleep. As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are
never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being
asleep.”
“[E]very sensory experience I have ever thought I was having while awake I can also think
of myself as sometimes having while asleep; and since I do not believe that what I seem
to perceive in sleep comes from things located outside of me, I did not see why I should
be any more inclined to believe this of “what I think I perceive while awake.”
(From René Descartes, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume II, trans. and ed.
John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and “Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984, pp. 13, 53)
Externalism vs. Internalism
• Externalism = “all we need for knowledge is for our minds to be hooked up
to the world in the right way, whether we know it or not” (p. 12); the
thermometer analogy (p. 14)
• Internalism = “in order for a mind to know about objects, it is not enough
that it reliably forms true beliefs about those objects … it [also] has to be
able to see for itself – on the basis of evidence of which it is aware – that its
beliefs are true” (p. 12); the thermostat analogy (?)
Thought Experiment: Norman the Clairvoyant and the Fortune Teller in the
Forest (pp. 14-16)
Two Kinds of Knowledge?
Ernest Sosa has argued that there are two kinds of knowledge (p. 20):
– Animal knowledge
– Reflective knowledge
Kant on Reality as a Mental Construction
• Space and Time
• The Jerk analogy
• Relativity of sense perception – feeling the temperature of objects
Technology and Social Media
• Heidegger on Enframing and standpoint epistemology
• Race and gender biases
• Social media
– Sherry Turkle on Facebook friends
– Louis C.K. on cell phones
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c)
An Anti-Realist Argument
1. All human knowledge is subjectively framed in terms of
gender, race, class, and other such epistemic
standpoints.
2. Therefore, there is no objective external physical world.
A Climate Realist Argument
1. Regardless of how human knowledge is subjectively framed in
terms of various epistemic standpoints, the condition of the
earth’s climate system nonetheless affects human physical
well-being for better or worse.
2. Therefore, there exists an objective external physical world
prior to, and independent of, any and all various epistemic
standpoints on it.
Chapter 2
Morality and Value
Possible Sources of Morality and Value:
•
•
•
•
God
Objective structure of the world
Subjective feeling or sentiment
Evolution by natural selection (not covered by Cunning)
God and Morality
Euthyphro’s Dilemma – How do we understand the relationship
between God and morality? There are two options:
1.
2.
Something is good (bad) because God commands
(forbids) it.
God commands (or forbids) something because it is
independently good (or bad).
An objection to #1 => morality is arbitrary
An objection to #2 => morality is self-standing and independent
of God
Morality is Objective
•
•
Definition: What is good or bad can be identified by
anyone through rational inquiry into the moral order of
the universe.
Objections: How exactly do we identify this objective
moral order? Why should we follow this order?
Morality is Subjective
•
•
Definition: Everyone has an inner moral sense that
enables him or her to identify bad from bad.
Objections: What about differences among
individuals or cultures? What if an individual or a
culture lacks moral sentiment?
Evolution by Natural Selection
The Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal has identified the
following basic features involved in the emergence of “morality
from the bottom up”:
• Empathy and Consolation
• Pro-social Tendencies
• Reciprocity and Fairness
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_
morals?language=en
Chapter 3
Material Minds: A No-Brainer?
•
•
•
Materialism
Immaterialism
Eliminative materialism
Arguments for Materialism
•
•
•
•
•
Only matter exists (Epicurus, Lucretius, Thomas Hobbes)
Minds travel with bodies (Margaret Cavendish)
Mind-Body interaction (Princess Elizabeth)
Aging and brain trauma (Julien Offray de la Mettrie)
Artificial intelligence (Alan Turing vs. John Searle)
Arguments for Immaterialism
•
•
•
•
•
Dualism (Socrates, René Descartes)
Matter is too low-grade to explain consciousness
(Plotinus, Augustine)
Human beings are made in the image (tselem) of God
(Genesis 1:26-28)
How could physical parts interact to create the unity of
consciousness? (G.W. Leibniz)
Physicalism is false; there exists an irreducible
subjective viewpoint (Thomas Nagel, Frank Jackson)
An Argument for Eliminative Materialism
• Paul Churchland’s position is that external mental categories
like belief and desire (“folk psychology”) are misleading and
can (and should) be reduced to internal brain states and
activities.
The Extended Mind Hypothesis
"...[The] 'extended mind' hypothesis suggests that ... our minds are ...
extended past the boundaries of our skin ... When we remember what we
are looking for in a store by consulting a shopping list on our phone ... our
mental state of remembering to buy bread is spread out; part of that state
is neural, and part of it is digital. The phone's note app is part of my
remembering. If [the extended mind hypothesis] is right ... we already
share minds when I consult your memory and you consult mine." (From
Michael Patrick Lynch, The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Less in the
Age of Big Data, New York: Liveright, 2016, p. 115.)
Watch Lynch discuss extended forms of knowledge:
https://youtu.be/Kph3r87IPn0
28
Chapter 4
The Meaning of Life
• Epicurus on hedonism (= maximizing net pleasure over pain)
• Epictetus on rational self-control over one’s emotions and “going with the
grain”
• Susan Wolf on the four criteria for a having a meaningful life:
– The person must be excited about, and actively engaged in, some set of projects
(vs. the Blob);
– The person must have some goal(s) that he or she sees as having long-term value,
and that their everyday pursuits contribute to these (vs. the Useless);
– The person - to some degree – must be successful at the pursuits to which he or
she is committed (vs. the Bankrupt);
– The person’s life must actually be valuable or important (vs. the Failure).
– Two case studies:
 Walter Palmer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHGvxFAhE0)
 Rachel Beckwith https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXpkBJ5r0Qg)
• Harry Frankfurt on first-order and second-order desires (for example,
having a desire to eat nutritious food vs. having a desire to have the desire
to eat nutritious food).
• Socrates on the best life as one that emphasizes spiritual and intellectual
activity over embodiment
• The question of an eternal afterlife
Chapter 5
• Arguments for and Against the Existence of God
A Working Definition of the Concept
“God”
In the Abrahamic religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)
believers usually regard God as “an all-powerful, all-knowing, allloving being.”
NOTE: Philosophical arguments for the existence of God don’t rely
on sacred texts like the Bible or Qur’an but primarily on human
reason and experience.
Arguments for the Existence of God
•
•
•
•
•
First Cause (Cosmological)
Ontological Argument
Religious Experience (*)
Moral Argument (*)
Intelligent Design (Teleological)
*Not covered by Cunning
The First Cause Argument
1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The chain of causes cannot reach back
indefinitely. At some point, we must come to a
First Cause.
3. The First Cause we may call God.
Watch a brief video overview of the argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&sns=em
Objections to the First Cause Argument
•
•
•
•
Buddhists reject the idea of a First Cause and argue that
the universe goes through innumerable cycles (the concept
of “conditioned genesis”)
Why think that a First Cause would be all-good?
Why think that a First Cause would be a person, as
opposed to a non-personal consciousness or force like
Brahman or Dao?
Why worship a First Cause?
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
1. Define “God” as a being greater than which
none can be thought.
2. Assume that God exists only in the imagination.
3. But it is greater for something to exist not only
in the imagination but also in reality.
4. Therefore, God is not a being greater than
which none can be thought.
5. But this contradicts #1.
6. Therefore, God exists not only in the
imagination but also in reality.
Descartes’s Ontological Argument
1. There must be as much reality in a cause as in
the effect of that cause.
2. I have an idea of God.
3. But my idea of God is only the effect of a prior
cause.
4. Therefore, God exists not only as an idea but
as a reality.
Objections to the Ontological Argument
•
•
•
God as a perfect being is not conceivable
The Perfect Island counter-analogy
Why think that a perfect being is a person?
The Argument from Religious
Experience
1.
2.
3.
There are widespread reports by persons
across time and culture who claim to have
experienced a transcendent, divine reality.
These persons couldn’t all be mistaken or
lying about their experiences.
Therefore, there exists such a transcendent,
divine reality.
Objections to the Argument
from Religious Experience
• Religious experiences aren’t the same as
perceptual experiences
• Religious experiences have naturalistic
explanations
The “Hiddenness of God” Objection
1. We live in a world in which people persist in disbelieving
God or having cruel views of God.
2. God does not appear to correct these views.
3. An all-good God would never allow a creature to seek God
without finding God in an obvious way.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
(For a response, consider the plot of the 1950 movie The Next Voice You Hear:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRxf9qS5PUk)
The Moral Argument
1. There is no guarantee of justice in this world.
2. The virtuous are not necessarily rewarded with
the happiness that ought to complement their
virtue.
3. But without some such future reward, there
would be no motivation to act justly—the result
would be a condition of moral futility.
4. Therefore, there must be a God-given guarantee
of justice in the next world.
Objections to the Moral Argument
•
•
•
•
But why would only a personal single God bring
about such a reward for virtue? (Why couldn’t it
result from many deities or a nonpersonal
cosmic moral law like karma?)
Perhaps virtue has simply evolved.
Perhaps virtue is its own reward.
Perhaps moral futility is correct.
An Intelligent Design Argument
1. We conclude that watches were made by
intelligent designers because they have parts
that work together to serve a purpose.
2. We have the same evidence that the universe,
and some of the natural objects in it, were made
by an intelligent designer: they are also
composed of parts that work together to serve a
purpose.
3. Therefore, we are entitled to conclude that the
universe was made by an intelligent designer.
Objections to
Arguments for Intelligent Design
•
•
•
•
Could there be multiple designers (a polytheistic
objection)?
How orderly, harmonious, and beautiful is the
universe really? (a Humean objection)
Why think that a designer would be all-good?
(another Humean objection)
There is an alternative explanation for the
emergence of natural order and complexity. (a
Darwinian objection)
Darwin on Paley and Intelligent Design
“Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a
considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to
which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of
natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for
instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an
intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no
more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the
result of fixed laws.”
(The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Barlow [NY: Norton,
2005 (1958)], p. 73.)
Darwin’s Argument for Natural Selection
1. There is a geometrical increase in organisms.
2. The “struggle for existence” over survival leads to the
emergence of variations in characteristics of members of a
species.
3. There exists a heritability of characteristics.
4. Characteristics with “survival value” will be passed on to
future generations.
5. Therefore, there exists a variation among and modification
of species.
A Darwinian Best-Explanation Argument
1.
2.
3.
The wonders of nature occurred (a) by chance, (b) as
the product of intelligent design, or (c) as the result
of evolution by natural selection.
Evolution by natural selection explains the existence
of these things much better than either chance or
intelligent design does.
Therefore, the wonders of nature are best explained
as the products of evolution by natural selection.
Evolutionary Theism
1. Everything that exists within the universe—including
evolution by natural selection—is part of a vast system
of causes and effects
2. But the universe itself requires an explanation—why
does it exist?
3. The only plausible explanation is that God created it.
4. Therefore, to explain the existence of the universe, it is
reasonable to believe in God.
5. Therefore, to explain the existence of evolution by
natural selection, it is also reasonable to believe in
God.
Darwin’s Conclusion to On the Origin of Species
“It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many
kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with
worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately
constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so
complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws,
taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is
almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the
external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to
lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing
Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war
of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of
conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is
grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed [by
the Creator*] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (From Charles
Darwin, On the Origin of Species [1859], pp. 489-90)
*A
phrase Darwin added to the 2nd edition (1860) and maintained through the 6th edition (1876).
Super-Matter and Unconscious Intelligence
• Hume on the self-organization of thoughts /
association of ideas
• Cavendish on "fairies in the brain"
• Stefano Mancuso on "plant intelligence"
(www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence)
Heidegger on Being “In the Zone"
• Homo sapiens and Dasein
• How is the self given? (p.166)
• Unreflective skillful activity given prior to the
conscious "I"
• An example: using an automotive wrench (p.
171)
• Disclosing or uncovering worlds
Chapter 6: Free Will
• Alan Alda recreates the famous Benjamin Libet experiment
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnGDrc_s6KA).
• Three possible philosophical interpretations:
Determinism
Libertarianism
Compatibilism
Determinism
Determinism is "the view that things have to unfold in one
specific way given the causes that are in place at the prior
moment" (p. 202).
Libertarianism
Libertarianism is "the view that decisions are not dictated by
prior causes" (p. 187).
Compatibilism
Compatibilism is "the view that free action is action that is the
result of our desires and preferences, and is not involuntary or
counter to our will. Our desires and preferences are dictated by
antecedent causes, on this view, but we can still be identified as
free so long as our behavior is in line with our wishes" (p. 187).
Chapter 7: Two Components to
Freedom
Margaret Cavendish and Simone de Beauvoir
emphasized two components of freedom:
1.
2.
Control over our thoughts and decisions.
To be linked with the external world in such a
way that our thoughts and decisions are
effective.
Two Obstacles to Freedom
1. Lack of self-control.
2. Corrosion of linkage between our thoughts and
decisions and the external world.
Examples of such corrosion: poverty, sexism,
racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, climate
destabilization and other forms of deterioration of
the external natural world
An Example
•
Jean Kilbourne on advertising and images of
gender (http://youtu.be/Uy8yLaoWybk)
Objections to the “Corrosion” Theory
• An individual can always move to a less
corrosive environment.
• An individual has a lot of control over whether or
not she or he adapts to an environment.
• An individual has the ability to change the
amount of corrosion in the interface between
their decisions and the world.
Example: Sartre on facticity, transcendence, and the
experience of anxiety
Objections to Sartre
• Freedom appears to be arbitrary
• Just because there are many occasions in
which we are not choosing, that does not mean
that we are choosing not to choose
• Sartre exaggerates the degree of freedom
each of us has
• Freedom appears to arise from nothingness