So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.
Check it out. Please join if you're interested.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Join the Club!
Still subscribed to this old course blog? Nice.
So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.
Check it out. Please join if you're interested.
So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.
Check it out. Please join if you're interested.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Final Exam Schedule
Here are the dates and times for the final exams of the classes I teach:
If you cannot make these days or times, please let me know as soon as possible. If necessary, we can make arrangments for you to take the final at the test center.
BCC's entire final exam schedule is available here.
Normal Class time: Final exam date & timeAll finals will be held in the same classroom where we hold class regularly.
Mondays (Holy Cross): Monday, May 7th, 6:30 p.m.
T/Th 6:30 a.m. (Mt. Laurel): Tuesday, May 8th, 6:30 a.m.
T/Th 9:30 a.m. (Mt. Holly): Tuesday, May 8th, 10:10 a.m.
T/Th 3:30 (Mt. Laurel): Thursday, May 10th, 2:30
If you cannot make these days or times, please let me know as soon as possible. If necessary, we can make arrangments for you to take the final at the test center.
BCC's entire final exam schedule is available here.
Reading Response #4
Here is the assignment for the final reading response of the semester. Sadz.
Do you think morality involves universal rules that apply in all circumstances with no exceptions? Or do you think circumstances are relevant to judging the morality of a particular action? Be sure to explain and philosophically defend your answer.The response is due Monday, April 30th for the Monday night class, and Tuesday, May 1st for the Tuesday & Thursday classes.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Links Worthy of a Swine
Here are some links that are very loosely related to the stuff on Utilitarianism that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first link is an overview of the psychology of happiness:
The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:
The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:
The last link is an advanced overview of "consequentialist" ethical theories. Utilitarianism is one of the most well-known consequentialist theories:
So what makes you happy? Ping pong? WaWa? Coldplay?
The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:
The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:
The last link is an advanced overview of "consequentialist" ethical theories. Utilitarianism is one of the most well-known consequentialist theories:
So what makes you happy? Ping pong? WaWa? Coldplay?
Relative to You, But Not to Me
Here's a trio of links on ethical relativism. The first is a sophisticated version of ethical relativism backed up by recent psychological research.
The second one is an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism from a great online resource.
The second one is an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism from a great online resource.
The last one is a dinosaur comic (what else?) on ethical relativism. Click on the comic to enlarge it:
Extra Credit Assignment
As we discussed in class, here is an optional extra credit assignment.
In an essay that's as long as a reading response, answer the following questions: Which do you think is more important to determining the morality of a particular action: the intentions behind someone's actions, or the consequences of that action? Why do you think this? Be sure to explain and philosophically defend your position.For the Monday night class, this assignment is due Monday, April 23rd. For the Tuesday/Thurdsay classes, this assignment is due Tuesday, April 24th. It is worth up to 2.5 points added to your final grade. I will not accept any late assignments (unless you have an excused absence).
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Reading Response #3
Here is the assignment for reading response #3. For the Tuesday/Thursday classes, it is due Tuesday, April 10th. For the Monday night class, it is due Monday, April 16th.
Explain and philosophically defend your beliefs about the existence of God. Are you a theist? Atheist? Agnostic? Are you a non-evidentialist? What reasons do you have for your position? Has your position changed at all as a result of studying arguments for and against the existence of God in this class? Have the reasons you use to support your beliefs changed?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Faith + Reason = Terry Gross
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Review: Deductive Soundness
DEFINED: A deductive argument is sound when:
(1) the argument is valid; and
(2) all the premises are true.
WHAT IT MEANS: This is the gold standard—as good as it gets for a deductive argument. From the start, a sound argument has to be valid. But on top of it, each premise must also be true.
So to test for soundness, we first do our validity test. We do the imagine-a-world test. If the arg fails this test, then it's invalid, and automatically unsound.
If it passes the validity test, then we need to check the actual truth of the premises. So we forget about the imaginary world, and come back to the real world. Are all of the premises actually true in the real world, or is one or more false or questionable (opinionated)? If they're all true, then the argument is sound. If one or more is false or questionable, then the argument is unsound.
An argument is unsound if it is not sound. (duh) But remember, it’s easy for an argument to be unsound. Only one of many things has to go wrong for an argument to be unsound. One false premise, and it’s unsound. One false move in an argument that makes it invalid, and it’s unsound.
(1) the argument is valid; and
(2) all the premises are true.
WHAT IT MEANS: This is the gold standard—as good as it gets for a deductive argument. From the start, a sound argument has to be valid. But on top of it, each premise must also be true.
So to test for soundness, we first do our validity test. We do the imagine-a-world test. If the arg fails this test, then it's invalid, and automatically unsound.
If it passes the validity test, then we need to check the actual truth of the premises. So we forget about the imaginary world, and come back to the real world. Are all of the premises actually true in the real world, or is one or more false or questionable (opinionated)? If they're all true, then the argument is sound. If one or more is false or questionable, then the argument is unsound.
An argument is unsound if it is not sound. (duh) But remember, it’s easy for an argument to be unsound. Only one of many things has to go wrong for an argument to be unsound. One false premise, and it’s unsound. One false move in an argument that makes it invalid, and it’s unsound.
Review: Deductive Invalidity
DEFINITION: A deductive argument is invalid when the truth of the premises does NOT guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
WHAT IT MEANS: If an argument isn’t valid, it is invalid. This means that you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Invalid arguments do not preserve truth.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.
3) All humans are mammals.
All BCC students are mammals.
All BCC students are humans.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still invalid, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).
Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that BCC starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.
The same for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.
WHAT IT MEANS: If an argument isn’t valid, it is invalid. This means that you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Invalid arguments do not preserve truth.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.
3) All humans are mammals.
All BCC students are mammals.
All BCC students are humans.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still invalid, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).
Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that BCC starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.
The same for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.
Review: Deductive Validity
Here's a review of the tricky term "valid" as it refers to deductive arguments:
DEFINED: A deductive argument is valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
WHAT IT MEANS: Validity focuses on the form or structure of the argument. If an argument is valid, then it has good form – truth preserving form.
Basically, if we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to be valid. Notice we are only assuming the truth of the premises, not checking to see whether they are actually true. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.
EXAMPLES:
(1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.
(2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It snows.
It’s below 32 degrees.
(3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.
(4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they are still valid—their form is good. The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a valid structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).
To evaluate validity, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument is not valid. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus valid.
IMPORTANT: Individual sentences are true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid.
DEFINED: A deductive argument is valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
WHAT IT MEANS: Validity focuses on the form or structure of the argument. If an argument is valid, then it has good form – truth preserving form.
Basically, if we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to be valid. Notice we are only assuming the truth of the premises, not checking to see whether they are actually true. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.
EXAMPLES:
(1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.
(2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It snows.
It’s below 32 degrees.
(3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.
(4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they are still valid—their form is good. The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a valid structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).
To evaluate validity, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument is not valid. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus valid.
IMPORTANT: Individual sentences are true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Links to God
Courtesy of Barry from the 3:30 Tuesday/Thursday class, here's yet another comic on the ontological argument.
There are also two articles on the psychology of religious beliefs that are somewhat relevant to what we're going over in class. Here is a very recent New York Times Magazine article, and here is a similar but older Atlantic Monthly article.
Finally, here is a short criticism of the design argument for God's existence, again from the New York Times Magazine.
Intelligent design is a hot topic in the mainstream media. If you've read a good article on the subject, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.
There are also two articles on the psychology of religious beliefs that are somewhat relevant to what we're going over in class. Here is a very recent New York Times Magazine article, and here is a similar but older Atlantic Monthly article.
Finally, here is a short criticism of the design argument for God's existence, again from the New York Times Magazine.
Intelligent design is a hot topic in the mainstream media. If you've read a good article on the subject, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Think [Tap-Dance] God
There's a philosophy comic strip that is running a whole series on the ontological argument that god exists. Here are the comics:
If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Reading Response #2
Reading Response #2 is due Monday, March 12th (for the Monday night class) or Thursday, March 15th (for the Tuesday/Thursday classes). The assignment is to write a 250- to 500-word essay in which you address the following:
Explain what you think the best version of the cosmological argument is. Then philosophically evaluate this version.As a reminder, we have already discussed three different versions of the cosmological argument in class: (1) Thomas Aquinas's "first cause" version, (2) an abductive (inference to the best explanation) version, and (3) Richard Taylor's version. Aquinas's and Taylor's versions are in the textbook, but we only talked about the abductive version in class.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Innate Ideas: I've Had a Few
Here are a couple articles by Steven Pinker that offer some psychological insights on the innate ideas debate we discussed in class:
But hey, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's his appearance on The Colbert Report (the second part is particularly relevant to innate ideas):
Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too.
But hey, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's his appearance on The Colbert Report (the second part is particularly relevant to innate ideas):
Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
So Important They Give It Away
The week of February 19th-23rd we'll be going over the debate in epistemology between rationalists and empiricists. Here's an advanced survey article on the debate from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:
Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia.
Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Revised Schedule (Tuesdays/Thursdays)
Hey, Tuesdays/Thursdays classes! We're switching up schedules -- adding a section on Rationalism & Empiricism and a section on Ethics at the end. Here's the new schedule:
February 13—15
Tuesday: Epistemology | Hume & Induction (pages 104—113)
Thursday: QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up & Intro to Rationalism vs. Empiricism
February 20—22
Tuesday: Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
Thursday: Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
February 27—March 1
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
March 6—8
SPRING BREAK!
March 13—15
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
March 20—March 22
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Design Arg Wrap-up & Review for Midterm
March 27—March 29
Tuesday: MIDTERM
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Camus & The Problem of Evil (pages 356—360)
April 3—5
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
Thursday: Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
(Reading Response #3 due)
April 10—12
Tuesday: Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
Thursday: Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
April 17—19
Tuesday: Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
Thursday: Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
(Reading Response #4 due)
April 24—26
Tuesday: Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
Thursday: Deontological Ethics Wrap-up; Intro to Virtue Ethics (pages 490—498)
May 1—3
Tuesday: Virtue Ethics | Aristotle (pages 490-504)
Thursday: Virtue Ethics Wrap-up & Final Exam Review
May 8
Tuesday: FINAL EXAM
February 13—15
Tuesday: Epistemology | Hume & Induction (pages 104—113)
Thursday: QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up & Intro to Rationalism vs. Empiricism
February 20—22
Tuesday: Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
Thursday: Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
February 27—March 1
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
March 6—8
SPRING BREAK!
March 13—15
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
March 20—March 22
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Design Arg Wrap-up & Review for Midterm
March 27—March 29
Tuesday: MIDTERM
Thursday: Does God Exist? | Camus & The Problem of Evil (pages 356—360)
April 3—5
Tuesday: Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
Thursday: Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
(Reading Response #3 due)
April 10—12
Tuesday: Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
Thursday: Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
April 17—19
Tuesday: Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
Thursday: Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
(Reading Response #4 due)
April 24—26
Tuesday: Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
Thursday: Deontological Ethics Wrap-up; Intro to Virtue Ethics (pages 490—498)
May 1—3
Tuesday: Virtue Ethics | Aristotle (pages 490-504)
Thursday: Virtue Ethics Wrap-up & Final Exam Review
May 8
Tuesday: FINAL EXAM
Revised Schedule (Mondays)
Hey, Monday Holy Cross class! We're switching up schedules -- adding a section on Rationalism & Empiricism and a section on Ethics at the end. Here's the new schedule:
February 12
-Epistemology | Hume & Induction (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up & Intro to Rationalism vs. Empiricism
February 19
-Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
February 26
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
March 5
SPRING BREAK!
March 12
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
March 19
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)
March 26
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
April 2
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)
April 9
-NO CLASS (Holy Cross closed)
April 16
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
April 23
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)
April 30
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up & Final Exam Review
May 7
FINAL EXAM
February 12
-Epistemology | Hume & Induction (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up & Intro to Rationalism vs. Empiricism
February 19
-Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
February 26
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
March 5
SPRING BREAK!
March 12
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
March 19
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)
March 26
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
April 2
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)
April 9
-NO CLASS (Holy Cross closed)
April 16
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
April 23
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)
April 30
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up & Final Exam Review
May 7
FINAL EXAM
The Antidote to Humeanism
Do you find yourself obsessed with Hume's question of what could justify inductive reasoning? Boy, do I have a link for you:
Or, you could watch a dog puppet insult people waiting in line to see Star Wars:
Hmmm... is Triumph justified in concluding that all Stars Wars fans are nerds?
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
3:30 Class: Room Change
To all the students in the 3:30-4:50 Tuesday/Thursday Philosophy class: we're changing classrooms.
Beginning this Thursday, class will be held in Room 112 of the Technology & Engineering Center (TEC). We'll be having class there for the rest of the semester.
TEC is right next to Laurel Hall at the Mt. Laurel Campus. Here's a map (click on it to enlarge):
Beginning this Thursday, class will be held in Room 112 of the Technology & Engineering Center (TEC). We'll be having class there for the rest of the semester.
TEC is right next to Laurel Hall at the Mt. Laurel Campus. Here's a map (click on it to enlarge):
Friday, February 2, 2007
NJ = OH Amplified?
Perhaps this is why my vacation to Ohio wasn't that exciting:
The"more so" comparison is also used in the design argument for God's existence. We'll be discussing that later on this semester.
Oops. Sorry for turning this into a post about philosophy.
John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey
"I'm from New Jersey | It's like Ohio | But even more so | Imagine that"
The"more so" comparison is also used in the design argument for God's existence. We'll be discussing that later on this semester.
Oops. Sorry for turning this into a post about philosophy.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Reading Response #1
The first reading response is due Thursday, February 8th (if you're in a Tuesday/Thursday class) or Monday, February 5th (if you're in the Monday night Holy Cross class). In a 250- to 500-word response, you are to answer the following question:
The response is based on the reading from pages 58-71 of the textbook.
What does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? What does Descartes say he can be certain of? Do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?
The response is based on the reading from pages 58-71 of the textbook.
Link Tested, Keanu-Approved
Here's a trio of links. The first one is a guide to reading philosophy that might help you if you're having trouble understanding the assigned readings.
Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy
The next two relate to epistemology and skepticism, which are what we'll be talking about starting with the Descartes reading. Both are about the movie The Matrix. The first is pretty straightforward (If Neo read it, he'd say 'whoa'), but the second is a little more advanced (If Neo read it, he'd say 'huh?').
The Matrix: Dream Skepticism
The Matrix: Brain-in-a-Vat Skepticism
By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.
Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy
The next two relate to epistemology and skepticism, which are what we'll be talking about starting with the Descartes reading. Both are about the movie The Matrix. The first is pretty straightforward (If Neo read it, he'd say 'whoa'), but the second is a little more advanced (If Neo read it, he'd say 'huh?').
The Matrix: Dream Skepticism
The Matrix: Brain-in-a-Vat SkepticismBy the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)