A little about philosophy, a little about the class...

We might begin with a story told by Socrates at his trial and repeated for us in Plato's famous dialogue, Apology.

Chaerephon, a friend of Socrates, once approached the oracle at Delphi (priestess of Apollo) and asked her whether there was anyone wiser than Socrates. She answered that there was not. Socrates couldn’t believe that this could be true, but believed that the oracle couldn’t lie. “What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.”

Socrates decided to test her answer by questioning men he thought wiser than himself, believing that by so doing he might “refute the god.” He found that none of these “wise” men knew what they claimed to know. He went from man to man, questioning and angering them—a routine that led ultimately to his condemnation and death.  (We’ll look at an example of Socrates’ questioning of one claiming to know next week when we discuss the second week’s reading, Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro.). Socrates did not claim to have the answers to the questions he asked. He knew that he didn’t know. And this was enough to make him the wisest of the Athenians. 

Until I began studying philosophy, not only did I not have the answers to many important questions, I didn’t even know what the questions were. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. Now, at the very least, I know what I don’t know.

What is philosophy? The Greek word ‘philosophy’ means ‘love of wisdom.’ This love is an activity. It’s a kind of seeking. But a seeking of what? and what is the point of seeking this thing? and are we required to seek it? and how do we seek it? By what methods? and are we really able to find what we’re seeking? These are some of the preliminary questions of philosophy. 

Some see philosophy as a path to knowledge and truth (and ultimately happiness, if Aristotle is right). This is my approach to philosophy. We’ll discuss other approaches later. Aristotle famously said that “all men desire to know.” Was he right about this? A teacher of mine once quipped that most of us do not want to know, especially about ourselves. Perhaps this is true. Many of us do not want to learn that we’re wrong or discover our limitations—not the philosopher.

In this class we will address the above as well as some of the most important questions that have been asked by philosophers. What (if anything) can we know? and when (if ever) are we justified in believing? What is there? and how are things explained? Is there a God? and (if so) what can be known about him? Are we free to choose? or are our choices decided for us? or might both of these be true? 

Philosophy is a labor of love. It takes a certain amount of devotion, a readiness to carefully examine one’s own beliefs, and a readiness to change them if necessary. It can also be a good deal of fun. Over the next twelve weeks you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to do a bit of reading, you’re going to do a bit of writing, and (if you put in the effort) you’re going to learn how to think for yourself.

A reason to study philosophy...

One reason to study philosophy: In life we face serious questions. Most address these questions with the false idea that their unfiltered intuitions are as good a guide as any to answer them.

It will be worth describing some puzzles. Consider Sorites paradoxes… 

The heap...

Imagine a heap of sand. Now take away one grain of sand at a time. At 1000 grains left, it’s still a heap. At 500 left, it’s still a heap… Is there a number at which it is no longer a heap? If so, then what is it? If there’s no answer to this (if there’s no number of grains at which it’s not a heap), then we will have to keep calling it a heap no matter how many are removed. But this is absurd. One grain, let alone 50 grains is not a heap!

The bald man...

Imagine a bald man. Now add a hair. Is he still bald? Now add another. Still bald? And another after that. Is there a number of hairs at which, after that one, he’s no longer bald? If not, then by logic we’ll have to keep calling him bald with a full head of hair!

Consider Theseus’s Ship…

 

Consider a ship that is taken on a long expedition. Along the way each part of the ship is replaced with a new part and the old part tossed overboard. Is the ship that returns to port the same ship? The answer is not obvious. Now suppose that a scavenger had followed behind the ship, retrieved all of the discarded parts, and constructed a “new” ship with those parts. Is this the original ship?

Also Twin Earth…

Suppose that there is a planet, Twin Earth, that is identical to Earth in every way except for one thing: The substance that they call water on Twin Earth, which is identical in every other respect to what is called water on Earth, is made not of H₂O but a different chemical compound, XYZ. (Suppose that the year is 1750 and the chemical make-up of water has not yet been identified). Do the people of Twin Earth mean the same thing by the term ‘water’ as those of Earth? The terms have the same sense (or concept) but a different referent.

Lastly, the Hesperus and Phosphorus illustration… 

The ancients made a distinction between Hesperus (the morning star) and Phosphorus (the evening star) not knowing that they were both the planet Venus. The Terms ‘Hesperus’ and ‘Phosphorus’ had different senses (and mythologies) but the same referent. When speaking of Hesperus, did they mean to speak of Phosphorus? The answer, again, is far from obvious.

Why have I introduced these puzzles? What can they tell us about our way of thinking? about the meanings of our words and about our concepts? Does our ordinary unfiltered thinking about the world cleanly "map on" to the reality of it? Not always. And, if not, this would, perhaps, be a good thing to know and address before addressing the pressing moral problems of out time. 

For next class

For next class, read Plato's Euthyphro and be sure to write your short report to show that you've read it (to get your 5 points). In it, Socrates learns that Euthyphro, a fellow citizen, is prosecuting his own father for murder and, moreover, that he is doing so because he believes that doing so is pious (morally right). Euthyphro claims to know all about piety. Socrates begins to question him, thus revealing that Euthyphro doesn't know what piety is at all. This dialogue will serve as a good introduction to next week's question: "What makes an action morally right?"

The plan going forward (turn to the class and reading schedule page)

About the assignments and grading plan (turn to that page)

 

Writing a Philosophy Paper

OK, it’s time to start thinking about writing papers. Here again is the assignment:

Write a 1000 word essay on one of the topics below. Clearly state a position on the topic and supply a positive argument for that position. Also, consider carefully at least one argument against your position. Include a brief paragraph in which you introduce the topic and state your claim. Your paper must be between 900 and 1100 words to be accepted. Papers are due at the final class. You may write in the first person.

1. What makes a good action good? Answer with reference to the Euthyphro. Defend your answer. Consider one or more objection.
2. Am I justified in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow? Answer with reference to Hume. Defend your answer. Consider one or more objection.
3. Is it OK to believe without sufficient evidence? Which is the more important, to believe what is true or to avoid error? Defend your answer. Consider one or more objection.
4. Does God exist? Defend your answer. Consider one or more objection.
5. Are we free? Defend your answer. Consider one or more objection.

So how to go about doing this? There are many ways to write a great philosophy paper but I recommend a certain structure. A good paper will have the following features…

1. A section in which you present your thesis
2. A section in which you present of the target view or argument
3. A section in which you present your own argument
4. A section in which you introduce objections to your argument
5. A section in which you address the objections  

… and the most coherent way to order these sections is as I have ordered them.

1. The reader needs to know what you’re trying to do… so tell him right away.
2. It's best to present your subject before you start talking about it.
3. You should get out your argument before presenting objections to it.
4. And you should present the objections before answering them.
5. All that is left, then, is to answer them.

A concluding paragraph, in which you restate your thesis, is unnecessary.

Two words to live by: ‘clear’ and ‘concise’ 

You must faithfully present views or arguments which you will later ctiticize. No Strawmen.

Sometimes you’ll find that you have shown something other that what you’d said you’d show. It’s not too late to go back and revise your thesis statement. If you find that you haven’t done what you said you would do, go back and say that you’ll do what you did.

Again…

1. Thesis
2. Target view or argument
3. Your argument
4. Objections
5. Objections answered

We can apply this to the second option above…

You may want to refute Hume…

1. David Hume argues that beliefs based upon inductive reasoning are unjustified. If his argument is sound, I am not justified in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. But this can’t be true! I will show that Hume’s argument is unsound.
2. Hume argues as follows…
3. Hume’s argument is unsound. Here’s why…
4. This is how one might object to what I have said…
5. But this objection fails and this is the reason…

Or you may want to support him…

1. David Hume argues that beliefs based upon inductive reasoning are unjustified. If his argument is sound, I am not justified in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. This might not seem true, but it is. I will defend the soundness of his argument.
2. Hume argues… Some claim his argument is unsound. They argue as follows…
3. Their argument is unsound. Here’s why…
4. This is how one might object to what I have said…
5. But this objection fails and this is the reason…