PHL final

6. How does Aristotle put together a religious-free ethic?

a. Aristotle puts together a religion free defense for himself by explaining that he is doing his duty to Athens by asking difficult questions to the leaders, eve if it makes them look incompetent. He explains that the youth just watched him and this makes the youth want to follow him. He can control what they do.

23. What is the dialectic? Why is it powerful? Plato, Marx and Ellacuria all used it - describe the changes the later thinker(s) made over the earlier one(s) - do these changes represent advances? w/wn? What are your thoughts on the dialectic?

a. Dialectic is the name Plato gives to his method, to the highest form of thought. In the dialectic one examines one's assumptions, one's basic concepts, and one arrives at better assumptions and concepts. It is the idea that subsequent answers are arrived at/ with the knowledge is what was wrong with preceeding answers. i. The dialect is a series of questions that get refuted and then answered. It's powerful because that's how important and hard questions get answered. b. Ellacuria thought that the truth could not be found except in dialectical interactions with some social values. The dialectic is truth and justice

Enlightenment for Kant, is both an individual and a social phenomenon. Explain this statement and explore its implications. (How and Why enlightenment an individual phenomenon? How and why is it a social phenomenon? What are the implications for the individual? For society?)

a. Enlightenment is social phenomenon because if someone is a member of an organization they have duty to that organization, but also for humanity, and if that organization is doing something wrong they need to be criticized, and who better to do that then someone within the organization. This will make that organization better. An individual use of knowledge is writing something that that it can be analyzed by the public.

8. For Kant, what is enlightenment? What is needed to bring it about and what obstacles can stand in its way?

a. For Kant, Enlightenment is when you follow your own reasoning with no outside influences. In order to be enlightened one needs freedom, courage and proactiveness. The obstacles that get in the way are cowardice, laziness, and the guardian.

9. Why, for Kant, is freedom needed for enlightenment? Thought is always free, but that's not enough for Kant. He argues that we need real, concrete freedoms ("the freedom to make public use of one's reason"). Why isn't it good enough to just sit in your room and think your thoughts? Why does enlightenment need more than this? Why is Kant not satisfied with just asking questions? Are Plato and Rilke satisfied with just asking questions?

a. Freedom is needed for enlightenment because if someone doesn't have the freedom to make decisions for themselves then they cannot think for themselves. Freedom is the most important factor because it allows people to have new thoughts and the ability to spread them. It's not good enough to just sit in your room and think because the only people that would affect is yourself, not the society as a whole. Enlightenment requires more of a social conversation because more people can contribute to the conversation, which leads to a dialectic. Kant isn't satisfied with just asking questions because all it would ever be is a question, he wants people to think for themselves so that humanity can reach enlightenment, not just society. Plato and Rilke's ideas seem to be more concerned with isolation and letting the smartest people make the decisions.

18. What is zinn's main reason for undertaking an investigation into the origin or racism? How does he proceed? What evidence does he use to support his conclusion?

a. He believed that slavery caused racism which is what motivated him to dig into this idea. He says that people draw color lines and the division of people is based on their color. He argues that racism was not always there and gives to explanations. 1. Kinds of laws that were passed in the colonies to breakdown cowarperation between poor whites and enslaved blacks. 2. Looks at the culture in sub saharan africa. White people did not find themselves superior, they actually thought the africans were superior and had something to teach them. If poor whites and enslaved blacks came together then they would be the majority. This was a threat to the powerful so they put laws in place to keep this from happening. Slaves also proved to be a great source for cheap labor. He says the origin or labor is greed. Racism is the ideology/story white people go with to justify their actions. In order to keep people enslaved, with horrible conditions and no pay you had to scare them with violence. The people doing these things justified their actions by saying that these people were less than human. b. He wants to understand how racism started because by understanding that we can learn to stop it from happening in the future. The evidence he uses from his conclusion are the conquering/genocide of the Native Americans and the enslavement of African Americans.

13. Comment on this passage from Rilke. "The thought of being creator, or procreating, of making is nothing without its continuous great confirmation and realization in the world."

a. He is essentially saying he doesn't need any affirmation from anyone and that his creative thoughts are his and his alone.

22. Ellacuria claims that Christianity and a civilization of capital are irreconcilable. What does he mean? Why does he think it's right? Do you think he's right? How might he respond to your objections?

a. He says that we can live in a capitalist society and have the values of christianity because christianity advocates for the poor. I think he's right, the gap between rich and poor is so large the poor can't exceed in this society

20. What is a "human essence" argument? Among the folks we've studied, who used it? Give some examples

a. Human essence arguement is trying to understand the fundamental values of what makes a person human. i. When you know this you can figure out what is good and bad for humans. b. Human essence system is the combination of logos and polis. Because of human essence we know what constitutes the word virtue. i. King use it in his letter when he talks about the unjust laws and how everyone is human and should be given the same rights. ii. Plato uses it in the apology iii. Socrates was talking about how the athen leaders care more about the money and power rather than the best state of their soul, and what it truly means to be human.

11. Kant argues that there is something social about enlightenment - would Plato and Rilke agree with him? Imagine a discussion between these three thinkers. How would Kant support his claim that real enlightenment cannot be achieved alone? How would the other two thinkers respond to Kant? How would Kant, in turn, respond back to them?

a. I don't think plato or rilke would agree with kant because they believe that enlightenment comes from solitude, not within society. Kant would support his claim by saying the more ideas that are being brought to the table, the more room there is to criticize them because there are more perspectives. The other two thinkers would respond by saying that the more important question that you ask, you have to think about it alone because any other thoughts contaminate the idea. The only person who can answer the hard questions for you is yourself because you know yourself best.

19. Cesaire asserts that Hitler and the Nazis did not represent something new in Europe - how does he support his surprising assertion? What are your thoughts on his argument?

a. People knew that what was going on in the colonies was the same as the holocaust but because it was white people being persecuted during the holocaust everyone objected against it. The brutality that was necessary to enforce colonization was the same as the brutality used during the holocaust. Europe wants to present themselves as humanists but they cannot (they don't care about human beings they care about the elite europeans.) Hitler isn't exceptional, it's because europeans have been doing it for centuries hitler just dared to do it to other europeans. b. He supports this surprising assertion by saying that slavery wasn't always racial, it was based on class like in greece or even africa but american slavery was based on race. I think his argument is extremely valid and truthful. It's important to understand the past so we don't make the same mistakes.

12. Rilke writes, "After all i do only want to advise you to keep growing quietly and seriously throughout your whole development; you cannot disturb it more rudely then by looking outward and expecting from outside replies to question that only your inmost feeling in your most hushed hour can perhaps answer." What does he mean? If he's right, what is the value of the education in which you are presently engaged? Can his suggested approach to life avoid relativism?

a. Rilke wants people to go into the darkness where no outside influences and contaminate the thought. He is stressing the importance of solitude because when you succeed in diving in yourself and finding the "ah-ha" moment and getting that genuine insight. The insight is the reward and it was reached by your own thoughts and no one else's. The value of education is extremely important because through intelligence comes human progressions. I think his whole idea is relativism, so no. Everyone thinks different things, so if there alone then everything is relative.

2. Socrates, in the Apology, compares himself to a gadfly. What is his point?

a. Socrates compares himself to the gadfly because he want to explain his role in society. He is the one annoying the people so that they are forced to put their attention towards it. The real difficult questions "sting", so many people want to avoid them, Socrates is there to make them analyze those questions

4. Socrates in the Apology, has an implicit criticism of the Sophists. What is it? Why does Socrates think that sophistry is a problem? How does sophistry differ from genuine philosophical inquiry? What do you think of sophistry?

a. Socrates thinks that sophistry is a problem proposed. Sophist claim that they can help anyone win an argument whereas Philosophical inquiry is about finding the real truth and why it's important. I think sophistry is deceiving in the fact that all they want to do is win. They don't really care it its right or not, they just want to satisfaction of being the right one.

15. What is Standpoint Epistemology? How is it used in some of the other authors we've read this term? (include at least two authors in your answer.)

a. Standpoint epistemology is where there are different branches of power. Where poor people know nothing and the rich are the ones with all the knowledge. You don't have your own thoughts. If you are poor then you are living through other people's thoughts. (understanding the oppressed and their viewpoints) i. Andrew Carnegie uses this idea. Saying that the rich are better than the poor and it is the job of the wealthy to improve society ii. King uses this because in his letter he is urging the ministers from other churches, and state officials to understand that segregating the African Americans is wrong and that they are being oppressed. He wants them to know the conditions that they have to live in everyday so that maybe they will emphasize and understand that what they are doing it wrong. iii. Zinn uses this idea saying: there are many different perspectives available and the more of those you can collect the richer your knowledge is and the more you know the better off you are. & because we're finite we don't have time to collect all the perspectives, so we have to figure out which ones are best. He says that it is the idea that where you stand and where you're looking influence what we know. He believed that history should be told only from the oppressed point of view because they had the consequences of the oppressor. iv. Cesaire used standpoint epistemology. Saying the developed part of the world looks at colonization as if its a good thing. Things look different from the perspective of the oppressed

21. For Ellacuria, what was discovered in 1492?

a. The Nature of the Discoverer is what was truly discovered in 1492

7. Aristotle presents a two-pronged root for human essence: what are the prongs? How are they related? Do you think this represents a helpful way of discussing human essence? Does it leave out things that would want to include? How might aristotle (a bright guy, after all. Who might have thought about your objections) respond to your suggestions/ criticisms?

a. The first part of the two-pronged roots for human essence is that there is a social aspect because we are social animals (polis). Humans can only flourish in company of other humans because we are fundamentally social creatures. The second part is this is that we have the capacity to act based off of moral systems and values not but just reacting. We have to reflect on each action that we do. We are logical being (logos). Logos structures polis and polis fosters logos.

3. In the Apology, the oracle at Delphi says something about Socrates -- What? How does this motivate the rest of Socrates' life?

a. The oracle at Delphi told Socrates he was given to Athens by the gods because he has superior knowledge to everyone in Athens. This motivates Socrates to try to prove the oracle wrong by asking the smartest people in Athens questions about their professions

24. What is the preferential option for the poor? What are your thoughts on it? How does it relate to the idea of perspectival knowledge?

a. The preferential option for the poor is preference being given to the well-being of the poor and powerless of society in the teachings and commands of God as well as the prophets and other righteous people. I think it's important that we need to find a solution to fill the gap and make more of an effort to help other countries out but it doesn't have to be because God told us

1. In the "Allegory of the Cave," the prisoners in the cave do not believe the "experienced" one who has been outside the cave. If we're supposed to think for ourselves, why should the prisoners believe the "experienced" one? How, then, can the "experienced" one ever pass on his/ her wisdom?

a. The prisoner should believe the experienced one because he has physical proof that what they are living in is not true reality. The experienced one id the person who just breaks the chains and let the prisoner find out for himself what reality truly is. The role of the experienced one isn't to teach the prisoner what is real and what isn't, him role is to give the freedom needed for the prisoners to see what they believed what reality is.

5. In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks whether something is pious because the gods love it, or do they love it because it is pious. How is this question the beginning of philosophy?

a. This question is the beginning of philosophy because it introduces the dialectic. It doesn't have a straight answer so socrates and Euthyphro have to ask a lot of questions to attempt to find an answer.

14. King argues that we have a duty to disobey unjust laws. Why do we have this duty? What are the various ways he discusses in which we can identify unjust laws?

a. We have this duty because if a law is unjust it poisons the society in which we live in. It puts a precedent that being ignorant is okay, when it's not. The various ways in which a law is unjust is when the law doesn't apply to the people enforcing it, or that if it singles out a specific group or minority

16. Zinn's philosophy of history argues that the victim's point of view is not just another view that helps to complete an otherwise accurate picture, but that the victim's point of view is actually the best one. Explain this, and relate it to the concept of human progress. How does this tie into a understanding of what a human being is?

a. Zinn says that taking the side of the oppressed means that you are acknowledging that there is an oppressed and realizing that what happened did not benefit everyone. It means seeing things from the individuals perspective and realizing that some people did suffer. He says that the best best view point is the one that tells us what really happened/ is going on. The perspective of the oppressed is the best b/c it allows us to understand what really happened. In order to understand the magnitude about what happened we look at the oppressed & by doing that we are actively looking at the things that were purposefully covered up.

a. What is alienation? What is the relationship between alienated labor and private property?

i. Alienation describes the estrangement of people from aspects of their "species-essence" as a consequence of living in a society of stratified social class. It is the decoupling of something that was once coupled. ii. The worker feels alienated from and antagonist toward the entire system of private property through which that capitalist appropriates both the objects of production for his own enrichment at the expense of the worker and the worker's sense of identity and wholeness as a human being.

a. What is the division of labor? How does it get started? Why does it expand? Is there any end to its expansion?

i. DoL is the splitting up of work. People doing what they specialize in/ are good at. People trade with other people in order to have everything. The procute of self interest is what makes it so wide spread. There is no end to this expansion. 1. The DoL is the relationship between the worker and the labor. He says the workers are affected negatively because the worker "is improved but the man is degraded." The man who created the idea for an invention takes a lot of creativity, but the worker who does the task is discouraged to have creativity because time is money.

a. For Locke, what permits a person to claim something as her property? Does Locke's answer to this question have any weaknesses?

i. Everyone has property in own person. Labor of his property is also his. When labor is mixed with unowned objects, you mix something that is yours to it. No one has a right to what is yours. Labor is responsible for most of the property value. Only you can have that object 1. He says if you take something out of nature, it becomes your property. He says that by putting effort into creating something new, it gives you the right to "claim" it as your own. The way he describes it is that there are no flaws, but in reality people are selfish and would take all the best things so others can't have them. ii. Some weaknesses to his argument is that what is multiple people work on something then whose property is it? iii. You gain property by cultivating it (adding value to the property) & having it enclosed (having a fence)

c. Tocqueville is arguing that the DoL somehow presents a threat to democracy - what is his argument? Do you think Tocqueville is right or wrong?

i. He thinks that the Division of Labor creates inequality because if you have a better skill then you will get more money which creates inequality because some people will end up having more money than others. And according to Tocqueville 1$ = 1 vote so the more money you have the more votes you get. So this is bad for democracy.

c. Do you think there should be limits on the amount of property a person can own?

i. I think a person should be able to own as much property as they want just as long as they are not being greedy. If they are taking more than they need just because they can and are not leaving any for others then that is a problem.

c. Do you think history his proved Marx wrong? w/wn?

i. I think history has proven marx wrong. Private property is still around today so if we are there was something wrong with it then we would have changed it already. History showed that private property does not alienate people but instead it allows us to have everything we want.

b. Who does the DoL negatively impact? Why? How? Who does it positively impact? Why? How?

i. Positives about the DoL : 1. Increase in the workman's skill and dexterity, saving labor time, invention of machinery which facilitates labor ii. Negatives about the DoL: 1. Most countries: women underpaid and seen as more suitable to take care of the family iii. He says the workers are affected negatively because the worker "is improved but the man is degraded." The man who created the idea for an invention takes a lot of creativity, but the worker who does the task is discouraged to have creativity because time is money. It possibly impacts the manager because he has the freedom to be creative and smarter.

b. Marx argues that the institution of private property has unavoidable and extremely negative impacts on humanity. What's his argument? Do you agree?

i. Private property is the means by which labor is alienated. According to marx it is still motivated by material want; it just lets everyone satisfy their wants: marx says "no" to crude communism.

b. What's the invisible hand? What is Smith trying to say by use of this metaphor? How is this idea used in political and economic discourse today?

i. The invisible hand is the belief that each of us operating in a free market for ourselves is what's best for everyone else too. 1. The invisible hand is guiding society. The force that drives the invisible hand is the market forces. ii. If we allow this free market to stay in place then it will place the resources where it is most needed/ in the best possible place like it was placed there by an invisible hand. This is what smith is saying by using this metaphor. iii. People use this idea today "The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government." And it makes sense why the idea appeals to so many people. For those who are already wealthy, they have little to gain from economic interference. Others are reassured that by simply looking out for themselves they can work towards the greater good. If the invisible hand reflects reality, we have no moral obligation to look beyond our own interests. How convenient.

a. Smith seems to suggest that the division of labor (DoL) is an unqualified good thing. Would Tocqueville agree? w/wn?

i. Tocqueville fears that the division of labor would make people stupid - elite does mental work. New aristocrats wouldn't be aware of class - driven by money 1. He would not agree because he believes it degrades the worker

b. For Locke, are there any limitations to how much property a person can own? Do these limitations ever disappear?

i. You can take as much as you want as long as you leave enough and as good for others. You can not let things go to waste ii. What is already owned cannot usually be claimed