Podcasts for Why Should I be Governed

Why Should I be Governed? 

Hobbes - Leviathan (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/hobbes_leviathan

Locke - Second Treatise  (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/locke_2nd_treatise

Rousseau - Social Contract  (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/rousseau_social_contract

Jonathan Wolff on John Rawls' A Theory of Justice 

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/f/3/6/f3677a5c92658ba6/Jonathan_Wolff_on_John_Rawls_A_Theory_of_Justice.mp3?sid=36a6dbf82c40888896153052fea5393c&l_sid=18828&l_eid&l_mid=1730505

Podcasts for Reason & Experience

Below are links to all the podcasts that are relevant to the Reason & Experience unit. I've put them in more or less the right (chronological) order, but have made one or two adjustments for importance. I'm trying to help you:) 

Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave: (Philosophy Bites)

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/f/f/b/ffb30ad66308a7ee/BlackburnPlato.mp3?sid=09452ed17f823018e8585e980b3791a8&l_sid=18828&l_eid=&l_mid=1729828

Descartes - Meditations: (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/descartes_meditations

A.C. Grayling on Descartes' Cogito: (Philosophy Bites)

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/9/f/c/9fc4e9be7f199d1a/GraylingDesMixSes.MP3?sid=9409440722287f0ae7229015c6647564&l_sid=18828&l_eid=&l_mid=1730107

Locke - Essay on Human Understanding: (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/locke_essay

Hume - Enquiry: (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/hume_enquiry

Kant - Critique of Pure Reason: (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/kant_critique_of_pure_reason

Barry Smith on Wittgenstein's Conception of Philosophy

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/d/7/e/d7e128ee94380317/SmithWittMixSess.MP3?sid=5e09895ab922181e4c2296e78ada1ade&l_sid=18828&l_eid=&l_mid=1730056

Plato - The Republic: (Philosophy the Classics)

http://www.philclassics.libsyn.com/plato_the_republic

Adrian Moore on Kant's Metaphysics

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/1/4/d/14deb9087c1a2e23/Adrian_Moore_on_Kants_Metaphysics.mp3?sid=d580662eb5d28ff4211e8a71ecfd345c&l_sid=18828&l_eid=&l_mid=1730318

Hobbes Homework

Hobbes Homework: 

Hobbes: Leviathan (1651) 
1. Bullet point the key aspects of Hobbes’ view of humans in the ‘state of nature’. Then turn the bullets as prose.

2. Explain Hobbes idea of a ‘contract’ and how he justifies it. You could bullet point this first as well if you think that helps.

If this seems irksome then consider the people around the world prepared to take a bullet for some kind of 'social contract' with a legitimate government!! 

(Due Monday 4th April)

First exam: Reason & Experience + Why Should I be governed 6 weeks on monday! 15 lessons + 4 'after schools'

Next week's 'after school' on Tuesday unless popular demand for other day.

Hume & the Implications of his compatibilism

You all need to read the Hume below to understand the bit I rushed you through at the end of the lesson today. When you've read it you will be able to add a note to your mind map about the 'implications' of Hume's compatibilism. What does this mean for the way societies use praise and blame, reward and punishment? See if you can remember - we have talked about it, or work it out for yourself.

David Hume Section 8: Liberty and Necessity

Hal Ninethousand & Colby Fuller in Conversation

Hume thinks that our free will (liberty) must operate on the basis of causes (necessity) or it would be impossible to associate someone with their own behaviour and actions.

All laws are founded on rewards and punishments, which are based on assuming as a fundamental prin- ciple that rewards and punishments have a regular and uniform influence on the mind, producing good actions and preventing evil ones. We may call this influence anything we like; but as it is usually con- joined with the action it must be regarded as a cause, and as being an instance of the kind of necessity that I have been presenting.

The only proper object of hatred or vengeance is a person or creature that thinks and is conscious; and when any criminal or injurious actions arouse that passion, it is only by their connection to the person whose actions they are. Actions are by their very nature temporary and perishing; and when they don’t come from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can nei- ther bring him credit (if they are good) or discredit (if they are bad). Even if the actions themselves are blameable - even if they are contrary to all the rules of morality and religion - the person isn’t responsible for them, and can’t possibly become, on account of them, the object of punishment or vengeance, be- cause they didn’t come from anything in him that is durable and constant as his character is, and they leave nothing durable and constant behind them in him.

So according to the principle that denies necessity, and consequently denies causes in human behaviour, a man who has committed the most dreadful crime is as pure and untainted as a newborn baby. His character is in no way involved in his actions, since they aren’t caused by it; and the wickedness of the actions never be used as a proof of the depravity of the character.

• Colby Fuller:
  So who's responsible for a persons actions if they're not the person's that performed a crime or something similar?
• 
  
  Hal Ninethousand: 
  Hume is saying that they precisely are the responsibility of the person who, for example committed a crime. His point is that causality is exactly what ties a person to their actions. If someone acts badly we can say it was caused by a bad aspect of their character, or it was caused by their bad judgement. Many philosophers, particularly at the time Hume was writing, thought that human beings could only have free will if they were not subject to causality. Hume thinks this would separate actions from agents - if the action could not linked to any aspect of the person's character or judgement then how could you hold them responsible.
• 
  
  Hal Ninethousand:
  Does that help? this is a bit tricky!
  
  
• Colby Fuller:
   Ahh I see... So Causality is the main influence on ones behavior therefore you can't hold someone responsible for their actions if it isn't their actual own action?
  
  
• Hal Ninethousand:
   Yes! If someone did someone that was entirely 'free' in the sense of being disconnected from everything else in the world and the character and situation of that person - how would it have anything to do with them?
  
  
• Colby Fuller:
   Ahh ok I get it, thanks!
  
  
• Hal Ninethousand:
   For Hume a person's 'free' will can't be entirely free, it has to be connected to a person's situation and circumstances, influenced by all the causal factors that influence them, but free in the sense that they 'will' it free from coercion and constraint, and there 'willing' is a 'different kind of cause' from the physical causes that we see in nature. That's why it's compatibilism. Time for my cocoa and pipe now.
  
  

Representational Art Essay

Discuss the View that Art can Convey Truth by Representing reality.

(complete up to and including no.4 by Wednesday 2nd February) Make sure this is done. No more Mr Nice-guy!! :[

1. What is representation?
2. How might this convey truth, 
3. insight or a deeper understanding?
4. What did Plato think? (Uses idea of representation as false in his ‘cave allegory’)
5. Was Aristotle correct to think that art could convey ‘universal truth’ or is art always culturally specific? Can art transcend time and place?
6. Discuss two particular examples (a ‘high art’ one  and an Eastenders type one) How might people 'relate to' them - how might they convey truths be they universal a very personal and specific?
7. Discuss the problems with the view that art has value through its representational qualities. (see AQA pp 102-104 but don't just copy out bits you don't understand - make an effort and get your head round it!)  Also see your or my notes - mine are below. If you click it it gets big enough to read.

Happy New Big Revision Essay!!

I have finally put the final version of the very important revision essay plan on my website: you can find it and download it here:   http://www.mrbrodie.com/Philosophy/Units_%26_Themes.html just click on the 'Reason & Experience fish'.  Why not look at the other marvellous resources while you're there!

I know the essay is quite challenging in places, but it's really vital that you get to grips with it if you're going to have any chance of doing well in the exam. Use the text books and handouts - that's what they're for.


If you have any problems just email me. Please don't use the plan I've put on this blog below as the new one is different and better.

The Big Revision Essay & Colby's happy Day!

I suppose I was tempting fate! Have unpleasant virus and conjunctivitis (hideous bloodshot weeping eye disease!)  At least Colby will be happy.

Here is the Big Revision Essay plan. Please try to make progress. I'm sure I'll be back very soon - hopefully tomorrow. Sorry the formatting is a bit weird; I'll sort out when I'm recovered.

You should be able to complete the Hume section:

Q.2, refers to the Hume we read on Friday and only requires a summary of what he says.

Q.4, You can do the bit about ʻinductionʼ, but will need to research the bit on ʻcausalityʼ:

there are many excellent explanations of Humeʼs ideas on the internet - including these:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8538/Causality-Hume.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

Outline & Discuss the development of epistemology from Plato through Descartes, Locke, Hume & Kant, to Wittgenstein and the ‘linguistic turn’.

You must use all the ‘tools’ at your disposal:

The text book, the blog, (which is now searchable!!) the website.

• ·     Briefly explain Plato’s ‘cave’ metaphor and how it may be seen as shaping the development of epistemology.  

Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   Plato’s notion that philosophers can gain knowledge of the ‘reality’ beyond appearance through thought – through introspection

2.   How this powerful metaphor that suggests a divide between appearance and reality, helps inspire the whole idea of epistemology.

3.   Remember the ‘Plato and the Slave boy’, from the ‘Meno’ where Socrates showed that mathematical understanding was ‘in’ the slave boy waiting to brought out.

• ·     How does Descartes set about discovering some point of certainty. Why does he come to privilege the mental over the physical? 

Key Terms: ‘Cartesian doubt’ ‘Extreme scepticism’ ‘Cartesian dualism’,  ‘cogito ergo sum’ (I think therefore I am) Rationalist/rationalism

 Think about and discuss/explain:

1.     How Descartes tries to establish the existence of the mind, the physical world and god through a priori reasoning.

2.   His ideas about how we understand  the wax.

3.   The fact that he thinks his idea of God is innate.

·     What aspects of Descartes’ thought does Locke reject?

  Key Terms: Tabula rasa; empiricism; innatism;   

Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   Locke’s definition of innate ideas and his  three arguments against them.

2.   Locke’s beliefs about the two ways we get ideas about the world: ‘sensation’ & ‘reflection’

3.   Why Locke’s notion of primary and secondary qualities is significant. (realist)

4.   What Locke said about words and why it is problematic (You  mention  Wittgenstein now, but he comes later so save some!)

 key quote: ‘So words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them’ Locke, (Essay Bk 3, Ch. 1 -3)

•  How does Hume build on Locke’s Empiricist ideas?

Key Terms: empiricism; analytic; synthetic; innatism; a priori; a posteriori; necessary; contingent; scepticism

      Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   Hume’s method for gaining clarity and precision in philosophical questions.

2.   Hume’s ideas about the ‘association of ideas’ – how we construct ideas (Section 3 – 4 Enquiry)

3.   Hume’s fork.  Include reference to ‘relations of Ideas’ and ‘matters of Fact’

4.   Hume’s ideas about induction (causality - cause and effect – the billiard balls)   

key quote: ‘we never really advance a step beyond ourselves’.

·     How Kant attempt to synthesis the empiricist and rationalist theories of knowledge? (epistemologies)

Key Terms: empiricism; rationalism;, noumenal; phenomenal; empiricism; rationalism a priori; a posteriori; analytic; synthetic;    

          Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   Kant’s copernican turn.

2.   Conceptual schemes ‘Schema’ : the categories: time, space, cause & effect

3.   Kant’s synthesis.

·     Briefly outline the problems that Locke and Hume’s empiricism seems to run into: (Holland) (again)

·     Explain how Wittgenstein’s ideas about language inform our understanding of the problems of empiricism.

Key Terms: language use, community of language users.

Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   Solipsism and the private language argument (Beetle in the box)

2.   Language as a conceptual scheme.

3.   The difference between Kant’s ‘schema’ and language as a conceptual scheme.

·      The ‘Linguistic turn’: Sapir, Davidson, Rorty etc. (use the last bit of the text book Ch. 1 & the Rorty extract)

Key Terms: representationalism; antirepresentationalism, realism; antirealism.

Think about and discuss/explain:

1.   the move away from attempts to understand the way thought or the mind connects with the world to attempts to understand the way language connects to the ‘world’

And finally …. what do you think?

(The more I think the less I know!)