Philosophy 110 USD Midterm

Also Socratic Method

- (elenchus: cross-examination) - dialog/conversation - Socrates would always ask a question in the same form: "What is x?" (x being a general concept) - he was looking for the "essence" or "nature" of the x in question - the essence would be expressed as a definition of the single characteristic that is the essence - an essence is what makes things what they are; don't arrive at the essence through examples, have to straight to the essence (essence makes something the kind of thing it is) - ex. a house: Justin's house, the Whitehouse, etc. would not be answers, they are looking for the "houseness" - answers are given, criticized, and one tries again - almost never a final, satisfying answer reached

Three functions of social roles:

1). To identify a particular individual-within-the-family. Who anyone is is achieved through the performance of social roles (mothering, brothering, doctoring, studenting, neighboring, etc.) 2). To provide expectations/guidance for how to act. Roles are normative. When we say, for example, "she is a true friend," or "he isn't much of a father," we are acknowledging this. 3). To provide the medium through which one can achieve humanity or personhood. One becomes exemplary through cultivating exemplary relationships, and these relationships are always mediated by social roles.

1. Ego Theory

2024: There is some unchanging entity (variously called self, ego, atman, soul, mind) that is the subject of experiences, the doer of actions, the bearer of knowledge, feelings, memories, etc. This entity accounts for the unity of consciousness and for personal identity (sameness) over time. Some questions ego theorists deal with: what is this self? Is it material? Immaterial? How does it function? Does it change in any respects? How long does it last? Is it individual or universal? Very often, ego theorists are mind/body dualists. 2017: some unchanging entity that is the subject of experiences, the doer of actions, the bearer of knowledge, feelings, memories, etc.- this accounts for unity of consciousness and personal identity over time Examples of ego theorists include Socrates, Plato, Descartes, many religious philosophers, some Indian philosophy (e.g., Upanisads). Ego theorists are often mind/body dualists, but not always.

3. Relational View of Human Becoming

2024: What we call the person is a tissue of performances of social roles and relationships, not some entity or person who is bearing those relationships. What "makes" an identifiable person is the distinctive relational activity occurring among human beings. There is a mother, for example, only because there is "mothering" activity, and this involves others (Can there be mothering without childing? Brothering without siblinging?). It is only the form the relational activity takes that brings about an identifiable person, and that identity is sustained only for as long as the relational activities exist (e.g., mothering, sistering, soning, brothering, neighboring, doctoring, etc.) When the tissue of relationships dissolves, there is no person. These relationships are performed in multiple social contexts, and every "person" is a constellation of many social "relatings". 2017: what we call the person is a tissue of performances of social roles and relationships, not some entity or person who is bearing those relationships; what "makes" an identifiable person is the distinctive relational activity occurring among human beings. Examples of Relationalists include Confucius, some Buddhist social philosophers, some contemporary social theorists, some African philosophers. Notice that (as your textbook claims), "person" is not synonymous with "human being." Here, personhood has to be achieved through social relating. Your book suggests the possibility that non-humans can also have or achieve personhood (E. T. example)

What is Rationality 3) Pluralism

This is the position that there may be more than one set of standards and/or truths (e.g., Confucian and Utilitarian in ethics). The pluralist is convinced that we can learn from one another and that it's good to try to discover common ground among different sets of standards. The pluralist is willing to appeal to a variety of standards in order to reach a conclusion, but doesn't assume that all standards are equally valuable. Pluralism accepts fallibility, and admits that sometimes we cannot reach a clear answer. An underlying value of pluralism is that of understanding one another.

Numerical Identity

Two or more apparently different things are numerically identical if they are the same individual. Example: The Morning Star is the same individual as the Evening Star (both refer to Venus)

3. Continuous

Two or more things are continuous if one provides the primary causal conditions for the existence and characteristics of the other. Example: Buddhist notion of rebirth.

2. Qualitative Identity

Two or more things are qualitatively identical if they have the same characteristics. Example: The cloned dogs of Melvin: Harry and Ben

Plato: Psyche (Soul)

• Principle of Life; Origin of all movement • Seat of Identity • Psyche is tripartite (it has 3 parts) • Intellect or Rational part (immortal part) • Spirited or Emotional part • Appetitive Part

Socrates: Psyche (Soul)

• Psyche as principle of life, origin of all movement • Seat of Identity • Immortal • Basically mind or intellect: cognizes and exercises control over body and passions.

Plato

- 427 - 347 BCE - artisocratic method- didn't engage in politics (thought you couldn't do it without getting your hands dirty) - 27 dialogues, founded the first European university (The Academy) which is where Aristotle was taught - thought Philosophers should be kings - "Apology" was one of Plato's earliest dialogues - both Socrates and Plato believed in truth (truth is unchanging, universal aka the same for everyone, and objective aka it is what it is regardless of what anyone happens to believe

Socrates

- 469/470 - 399 BCE - Historical Socrates vs. Character Socrates - spent most of his life in Athens (during the "Golden Age") - father was a worker in stone, mother a midwife; had a stipend that allowed him to do philosophy, social class unclear but somewhere in the middle - soldier during Palapanesian War Socrates Socrates as an historical figure Socrates as a character authored by Plato Socrates wrote nothing. Many scholars believe that early works by Plato (including Apology) reflect the words and thought of the historical Socrates. Later works use the character of Socrates as a mouthpiece for Plato's own views.

Confucius

- 551 - 479 BCE - Lu, China (nowadays Shandong Province) - actual name: Kongzi, Kongfuzi; Confucius is a Latinized version - lived in a time where there was internal warfare; Zhou Dynasty - comes from a very rich culture (art, literature, tech) - inherited a lot in terms of philosophical tradition - Tradition of Scholars - these people had very loyal male followers: Analects - edited a lot of work, but didn't write his down

Early/First Accusers

- Socrates reads from a pretend document stating the charges of the First Accusers: 1. "Socrates searches into things under the earth and in the heavens" - charge of impiety (disrespect to the gods, religion was a state affair) 2. "Socrates makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger one" - accused of being a sophist (traveling teachers who charged a fee, had a bad reputation because they blurred lines between social classes) 3. "Socrates teaches these doctrines to others" - Response to the 1st Accusation: asks for witnesses (who have heard him talk/ask questions relating to religion), no one comes forward; denies charges - Response to the 2nd Accusation: is ironic (using words to convey a different meaning than it appears) about sophists, which makes it seem like he is praising them, which distances himself from them - believes these informal charges are important to discuss because it shows how tainted the jury is

Kisagotami

- is experiencing "serial" deaths in her family - goes to Buddha and wants her baby back - Buddha tells her to visit her neighbors and to bring back a mustard seed from a family who hasn't felt loss - INDIAN view: after awhile she realizes death is universal, becomes Buddha's student - CHINESE view: they believe she's deteriorating because she's no longer in relationships, Buddha's genius because by going to the neighbors, she's creating relationships

Second Accusers to the end of Apology

- really want to get rid of Socrates, went through a lot of trouble to bring Socrates to trial - 1st Accusation: "Socrates corrupts the youth" - 2nd Accusation: "Socrates does not believe in the gods of the State" - 3rd Accusation: "Socrates has other, new divinities of his own" - Response to the 1st Accusation: questioning Meletus by asking who is the youth's improver, who responds with laws which doesn't satisfy Socrates because it's a "what" not a "who"; Meletus finally says everyone in Athens improves the youth except for Socrates - Socrates introduces an analogical argument comparing horses to young men: most people harm horses, only the rare trainer can improve them, horses need training...assumes young men are similar, all of the above apply to them as well; if the argument works, the conclusion is that Meletus' claim is ridiculous and Meletus is thoughtless - Meletus claims Socrates' corrupts the youth intentionally, Socrates argument: If I intentionally corrupt the youth, then I intentionally run the risk of being harmed by them, and I would not intentionally run that risk...Conclusion (1): I do not intentionally corrupt the youth, Conclusion (2): Either I don't corrupt the youth, or I corrupt them unintentionally. - Response to 2nd and 3rd Accusations: Meletus changes his second charge to saying that Socrates is an Atheist, which produces a contradiction with the 3rd because he can't be an atheist and have "new divinities"

2. No-Self Theory

2024: While it may seem as if there is an enduring entity that is often called "self," this is only an idea or imaginative construction. There is no underlying, unchanging self; there is a multitude of experiences, thoughts, memories, feelings, ideas, views, actions and so on that is mistaken for a substantial self. There may be some continuity or series of experiences, etc., but there is no unifying entity or self. Some of the questions this approach deals with: What is the "string" that accounts for the illusion of a relatively coherent, unified self? Is it memory? Language (the grammatical 'I') or just a thought or story that is constructed? 2017: while it may seem as if there is an enduring entity that is often called "self," this is only an idea or imaginative construction, there is no underlying, unchanging self; there is a multitude of experiences, thoughts, memories, feelings, new ideas, views, actions, and so on that is mistaken for a substantial self. Examples of No-Self theorists include the Buddha, Hume, Sartre, some modern neuroscientists.

Joan's Story

A girl who ran away from home and took part of a robbery, did not know her friend was armed and the friend shot a guard, Joan leaves to another city to live a new life, become successful as a teacher and at 68 retires, but the evidence from when she was 17 comes back to get her and she is arrested with first degree murder. Should Joan be arrested even though the 68 year old version of Joan is much different then the 17th year old Joan?

Ruth's Story

A very smart economist who doesn't show a lot of emotion or joy writes in her living will that if she suffers a disease that makes her mentally incompetent that they should not treat her. This ends up happening but her emotions take a 180 turn and she looks to be living a joyful life. Should the living will apply even though the difference is between the old ruth and new ruth is night and day?

Socrates VS

Ethical Standard = Objective, universal truth of the what's good, right, just. Good life, being excellent = A life spent in pursuit of The truth and actions ordered by reason. Suffering Harm = Harm to the soul (psyche). Allowing the soul to become ethically corrupt through ignorance and irrational choices

Athenian VS

Ethical Standard = Public Opinion Good life, being excellent = emerging as the winner In the social world. Suffering Harm = Suffering whatever the public views as harm.

Weak Relativism (you will find different views about what constitutes weak relativism):

The weak relativist agrees that we are always seeing the world through a framework, and there are truths and standards that are only true relative to a framework. However, some philosophers describe weak relativism as accepting the possibility that there may be universal and objective truths and standards that are simply not available or expressible through certain frameworks.

What is "X" ? About Socratic Method

Meno--"What is X?" 1. Socrates asks questions in the form of "What is X?" X is always a general concept like virtue, beauty, piety or justice. 2. The answer he seeks must define that single characteristic which is the essence or nature of X itself ("form" or eidos in later dialogues). This characteristic is what any particular thing must have in order to be a true instance or example of X . Having X makes something the kind of thing it is. 3. Thus, any satisfactory answer will not define X by citing concrete examples or species of X. It will cite what any of these must have if they are truly examples or species of X

Foucault Description

There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all. People will say, perhaps, that these games with oneself would be better left backstage; or, at best, that they might properly form part of those preliminary exercises that are forgotten once they have served their purpose. But then, what is philosophy today - philosophical activity, I mean - if it is not the critical work that thought brings to bear on itself? In what does it consist, if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? - Michel Foucault (1992), The Use of Pleasure. The History of Sexuality, vol. 2, London: Penguin, pp. 8-9

Ren 仁

Ren 仁 appears to be an old term to which Confucius gives new meaning. He never defines ren, and in the Analects it is understood situationally. What it looks like depends upon the situation, and that's why Confucius constantly points back to the cultural heroes and how they acted in specific situations. The qualities of ren are not learned through definition but are read off of concrete examples of those who have developed ren (cf. the Socratic approach). Tentatively, we can think of ren as the best accomplishment a person can claim. It is a consummate way of being that includes all the excellences that Confucius emphasizes. Ren has been translated as authoritative conduct/person; consummate conduct/person; benevolence; human-heartedness; love; kindness; humaneness and more. Rosemont and Ames interpret ren literally as "becoming a person," and it shows up in the quality of one's cultivated sensibility as expressed in social roles and relationships. We might think of developing ren as an aesthetic, moral and spiritual project of becoming human. A metaphor for ren used in the Analects is that of a mountain. A mountain is stately, still, prominent, known to the community and worthy of deference. It adds to the culture of one's place. If you have the Rosemont and Ames translation of the Analects, be sure to read the lexicon entry for ren near the beginning of the book.

Confucian Relational View of the Person

The most basic unit of humanity is not the individual, as many of us might think, but the-individual-within-the-family Life is lived within the context of a particular family. And any "individual-within-the-family" gets their identity and personhood relationally. This process is mediated through social roles.

What is Rationality? 2) Constructivism

The position that there are no standards that are not conditioned in important ways by culture, history, language, community and the like, so there are no objective and universal standards as described above. This can take the form of relativism, which holds that standards of rationality (cognitive relativism) and/or ethics (ethical relativism) are relative to a community, culture, language group, etc. A consistent relativist can accept that from some (relative) point of view, the theory is false/irrational.

What is Rationality? 1) Foundationlism

The position that there are standards we can appeal to in order to determine if a belief, view or action is rational. These standards are --objective (they are true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels about the matter) --universal (they are true at all times and places; they are unchanging) --infallible (they cannot be wrong) --self-evident (they carry their evidence with them, and it excludes all grounds for doubt) There is only one set of correct standards.

What is Philosophy?

The rational attempt to formulate, understand, and answer fundamental questions

Strong Relativism

The view that truths and standards of rationality and/or ethics are only true relative to some framework provided by a community, era, culture or language group. There is no vantage point independent of a particular framework from which to establish the truth of something. There is no vantage point independent of a particular framework by which to judge one set of standards or truths as better than another. All points of view are equally valid, and no framework is privileged over another. "The world is flat."