Sartre 3

QUIZ!!! Last One! 

1. Final Exam Tips

(a)

Final Exam Study Tip

(b) Come see Ami during office hours.
Friday Dec. 11 11:00am-1pm
Monday Dec 14 Noon-1:30 or 2 (depending on attendance).

(c) http://philosophy1010atbgsu.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-prepare-for-exam.html
(d) Otis babysitter

2A. (9:30am class only)
Existentialism is charged with making it so "anything goes." That is, there are no moral constraints on our choices. In response to this charge, Sartre offers analogy between making a piece of artwork and making a moral decision (p. 42)
(a) Explain the analogy.
(b) What does he mean when he says that there are no a priori values "but that there are values that appear subsequently in the coherence of the painting, in the correspondence between what the artist intended and the result"?

2B. Comprehension check:
(a) What are the three objections to the subjectivity of existentialism?
(b) Consider the second objection:

• (i) Explain: "Every man who takes refuge behind excuse of his passions, every man that sets up a determinism, is a dishonest man." (p. 44-45)
• (i) In what way is Sartre presenting an objective value? (Bottom of p. 45)
• (ii) Does this constrain my choices? (+Discuss Sidgwick)
• (iii) Explain: Only the freedom of others keeps each one of us from hardening in the absurdity of facticity (i.e., what can't be changed). And if we are to believe the Christian myth of creation, God himself was in agreement with the existential doctrine since, in the words of an anti-fascist priest, "He had such respect for man that He created him free." (De Beauvoir, Ethics of Ambiguity) (See also Sartre p. 38 top and p. 46 top).

3. Subjectivity, interpretation, bad faith.
(a) On p. 28 Sartre says "there are no omens." Explain what he means in the context of the story of the Jesuit priest. (School story)
(b) Some people turn to religious texts for guidance. What would Sartre say about this strategy (hint: think about subjectivity) (p. 46).  Also "Even if God did exist, that would change nothing." (Last paragraph of p. 51)

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic...But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.”
According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

Slavery
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." 

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." 

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 

Adultery
 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Rape
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Women
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

The Sabbath
" For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

Homosexuality
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Prisoners of War
"Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children."

Non-Believers
 "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

"Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."




Final Words
1.  Your own happiness is bound up in the happiness of others.
2.  There are two things that are necessary to have a meaningful life.  There are others as well, but without these two you have no chance:  You must cultivate and strive for personal excellence in whatever you do and with equal or greater effort you must help others cultivate and realize their own personal excellence.  You cannot have a meaningful life if your life does not include both of these things.
3.  The suffering of others matters.  You have an obligation to reduce the suffering of others in so far as you are able.
4. An attitude of love, engagement, and vitality can reveal meaning and purpose in the world but (channelling Camus) revolt and rage can get you through the tough times when you can't see possibilities. 
5. Take care of your feet. If they're injured, you can't go anywhere. 

Aim high

When we love the world we see it as beautiful. In beauty, meaning and purpose are revealed.

Travel and see the world.

Your own happiness is bound up in the happiness of others.

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/college/most-schools-don-t-itemize-spending-of-athletic-fees-br.html

"At Bowling Green, $12.7 million of the school's $18 million athletic budget comes from fees paid by its 15,461 students. Over a four-year college career, that adds up to a student paying $3,290 in fees for intercollegiate athletics."

Sartre 2

I ate too much turkey...I'm not getting up.

I beg you to go see Ami during office hours if you're having trouble

Collect HW

1. For Sartre, what is mean by Despair? (p. 29) 
(a) For Sartre, what is the roll of probabilities is determining our life plan? 
(b) What is Sartre's view of collaborative projects? (p. 30-31) Why does he take this position? Contrast this with Kierkegaard's view (I'll present it).
(c) Why doesn't his answer to (b) imply quietism? How is his doctrine "the very opposite of quietism"? 

2. (a) Why does Sartre think Existentialism horrifies some people? (p. 32)
(b) For the Existentialist, what makes someone a coward?
(c) Regarding (a), is he right? Support your answer.

3. Existentialism is charged with making it so "anything goes."  That is, there are no moral constraints on our choices. In response to this charge, Sartre offers analogy between making a piece of artwork and making a moral decision (p. 42)
(a) Explain the analogy.
(b) What does he mean when he says that there are no a priori values "but that there are values that appear subsequently in the coherence of the painting, in the correspondence between what the artist intended and the result"?
(c) Do you agree with his analogy? In what respects yes, in what respects no? Defend your position. 

4. Existentialism is accused of not being able to judge others' choices (p. 44).
(a) How does Sartre respond to this charge? 
(b) How does Sartre think he can make moral judgments?

5. For Sartre everything is a matter of human subjectivity. Texts, speeches, actions, events don't come with ready-made meaning. We choose their meaning. 
(a) Consider the story of the Jesuit. How might he have interpreted events differently?
(b) Some people turn to religious texts for guidance. What would Sartre say about this strategy in regards to subjectivity?


Biblical Interpretation Selected Quotes: "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw
Slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 – "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." 

Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." 

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 

Matthew 5:17-19 – "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 

Adultery
Leviticus 20:10 - 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Rape
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Women
1 Timothy 2:11-12 – "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 – "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

The Sabbath
Exodus 35:2 – " For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

Homosexuality
Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Prisoners of War
Isaiah 13:15-18 - "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children."

Non-Believers
Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

Leviticus 24:13-16 - "Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."


1. If Sartre is right about the themes in question 8, how do we make our first 'movement'.

(a) How do we decide which of the infinite directions we can take our lives, the millions of possible ways to 'be'?  If I'm a student, doctor, engineer, mother, etc... I have a framework from within which to make my choices (Sartre calls this an 'ethic'). However, how do I choose my ethic?

Sartre 1

I need coffee

Remind students to bring homework (from week of Nov. 20).


A. Mini Test
B. Focus on Anguish, Forlornness and Despair. Review existence precedes essence.
C. The following Monday, do the other stuff.

Religious interpretation: http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/
What in Sartre would prevent this from being someone's project?

1. (a) Explain what "existence precedes essence" means (p. 15).
(b) Give 2 examples of essence preceding existence.
(c) Why does Sartre think there is no human nature?
(d) In terms of answering the question of the meaning of life, what does existence precedes essence imply?
(e) Is this a good thing or a bad thing or both? Why/Why not?

2.  On p. 10, Sartre says "By existentialism we mean a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity."
(a) What does this mean?
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Support your answer.

3. Sartre says "man will be what he will have planned to be, not what he wants to be."
(a) What does this mean? What is the difference between wanting and planning?
(b) Apply this advice to your own life. Think about some of the things you want to be. What would it mean to plan to be these things? How would you go about doing it?

4. Sartre says "man is responsible for what he is" (p. 16).
(a) What does this mean?
(b) Why does he believe this?
(c) Do you agree or disagree with his position? Support your argument.
(d) Are you responsible for what you are?

5. Sartre says that by "man is responsible for what he is" that this doesn't only apply to the individual person but also to all of humanity (p. 16-17).
(a) What does he mean?
(b) Do you agree? Support your position.

6. "Man is anguish" (p. 18)
(a) What does he mean?
(b) Have you experienced anguish in the sense he describes?
(c) Is he right that man is anguish?
(d) Is he right that people engage in self-deception? Do you?

7. One charge against existentialism is that 'anything goes'. At the bottom of p. 18 and top of p. 19 he partially addresses the charge.
(a) How successful is this response?
(b) Defend your position.

8. On p. 19 and 20, Sartre discusses Kierkegaard and the story of Abraham.
(a) How does this story relate to "man is anguish"?
(b) How does this story relate to subjectivism?

9. If Sartre is right about the themes in question 8, how do we make our first 'movement'.
(a) How do we decide which of the infinite directions we can take our lives, the millions of possible ways to 'be'?  If I'm a student, doctor, engineer, mother, etc... I have a framework from within which to make my choices (Sartre calls this an 'ethic'). However, how do I choose my ethic?

Teller Part 2

1. No Quiz (Yay!) Collect Homework (Boo!)

2. I introduced existentialism with the opening of Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus.  He begins: 

There is only one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answer the fundamental question of philosophy. [...] I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.

The children in Teller's Nothing build a pile of things as a response to whether life has meaning. 
(a) Refugee Interview (to 3:24) What could a refugee or a concentration camp prisoner put in a pile? If nothing, how do you explain why they don't/didn't commit suicide? 
(b) What is the underlying assumption in how the children go about proving that life has meaning?
(c) Do you think this assumption is true?

3. Events that transpired this weekend are a powerful example of what Kierkegaard calls "the law of indifference" or what Camus refers to as "the absurd". Watch some of the following videos. 
Concert
Syrian Refugees in Turkey 
Beirut 
Kenya

(a) Think about some of the responses to the inhumanity of the world you've seen on social media, in your family, and among friends, and within yourself. Is there a way to respond that can make life meaningful or at least worth living?
French response
(b) In the second half of the story the meaning starts to evaporate. (i) Why? (Hint: Read top of p. 183) (ii) Is there any lesson we can learn from this in terms of how to respond to a world with no intrinsic meaning?
(c) Read the last paragraph of p. 154 and the first paragraph of p. 155. What do you think the light in Sophie's eye's represents? 

4. Read Camus p. 479 or p. 480 2nd paragraph. What does it mean?

That revolt gives life its value. Spread out over the whole length of a life, it restores its majesty to that life. To a man devoid of blinders, there is no finer sight than that of the intelligence at grips with a reality that transcends it. The sight of human pride is unequalled. No disparagement is of any use. That discipline that the mind imposes on itself, that will conjured up out of nothing, that face-to-face struggle have something exceptional about them. To impoverish that reality whose inhumanity constitutes man's majesty is tantamount to impoverishing him himself. I understand then why the doctrines that explain everything to me also debilitate me at the same time. They relieve me of the weight of my own life, and yet I must carry it alone. At this juncture, I cannot conceive that a skeptical metaphysics can be joined to an ethics of renunciation. 

(a) Read the top of p. 217. Suppose Pierre Anthon is a metaphor for something else. What is he a metaphor for? In light of this metaphor, how can we interpret the passage on p. 217 and Camus above? 
(b) Why might these be examples of revolt against an indifferent world: (i) Holly Holm, (ii) the first people to summit Everest, (iii) First people to reach the north/south pole. Add your own example.
(c) Think of an example when 'revolt against the absurd' gave your life meaning. 



5. On Teller p. 100-101, Hussein loses his prayer mat and both he and his father are upset. Later, Holy Karl is devastated by the idea of putting the statue of Jesus on the pile. Read the passage below by Kierkegaard. 
(a) What does it mean? 
(b) What would Kierkegaard think about Hussein and Hussein's father's reaction. 
(c) What would Kierkegaard think about the Jesus statue? 

Kierkegaard: 

There is a knowledge which would presumptuously introduce into the world of spirit the same law of indifference under which the external world sighs. It counts it enough to think the great--other work is not necessary. But therefore it doesn't get the bread, it perishes in hunger, while everything is transformed into gold. And what does it really know? there were many thousands of Greek contemporaries, and countless numbers in subsequent generations, who knew all the triumphs of Miltiades, but only one was made sleepless by them. There were countless generations which knew by rote, word for word, the story of Abraham--how many were made sleepless by it?

6. Read the last paragraph p. 144.  
(a) What does the narrator mean? 
(b) How can we be many people yet still be the same person?
(c) Is this true?
(d) What makes you "you".
(e) Sartre on identity. 

7. On p. 148 and elsewhere throughout the story, it's implied that suffering is required for something to have meaning. 
"And if it didn't hurt," Anna-Li added quietly, "there wouldn't be any meaning in it."
(a) Is this true?
(b) Can you think of a counter-example?
(c) Sunday at the park

Teller Part 1

"To catch the squirrel, one must become the squirrel."

Existentialist Parking: Nothing Matters

1. "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." 
(a) What do you think this means? 
(b) How is it relevant to what we are studying?

2. (a) Interpret the following passage from Kierkegaard. How is it relevant to Camus concern? 

An old proverb fetched from the outward and visible world says: "Only the man that works gets the bread." Strangely enough this proverb does not aptly apply in the world to which it expressly belongs. For the outward world is subjected to the law of imperfection, and again and again the experience is repeated that he too who does not work gets the bread, and the he who sleeps gets it more abundantly than the man who works. In the outward world everything is made payable to the bearer, this world is in bondage to the law of indifference, and to him who has the ring, the spirit of the ring is obedient, whether he be Noureddin or Aladdin, and he who has the world's treasure, has it, however he got it.  (Philistines, Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith)

(b) What is the law of indifference? 
(c) How is the law of indifference relevant to children's concerns in the Teller story?
(c) Come up with at least two examples from your own life that illustrate the law of indifference. 




3. (a) What do you think the door represents? (Teller, p. 5, 9)
(b) Read Camus on emotions (Myth of Sisyphus, p. 10). 
(c) Why do the children try to resist going through the door?


4. (a) What does Camus say about the feeling of the absurd?  (Myth of Sisyphus, p. 12) Do you agree? 
(b) How do the children in Teller attempt to respond to the absurd? What do you think of their response?
(c) What, if anything follows from the absurd?



6. On Teller p. 100, Hussein loses his prayer mat and both he and his father are upset. Read the passage below by Kierkegaard. What does it mean? What would Kierkegaard think about Hussein and Hussein's father's reaction. What would Kierkegaard think about the Jesus statue? 

Kierkegaard:

There is a knowledge which would presumptuously introduce into the world of spirit the same law of indifference under which the external world sighs. It counts it enough to think the great--other work is not necessary. But therefore it doesn't get the bread, it perishes in hunger, while everything is transformed into gold. And what does it really know? there were many thousands of Greek contemporaries, and countless numbers in subsequent generations, who knew all the triumphs of Miltiades, but only one was made sleepless by them. There were countless generations which knew by rote, word for word, the story of Abraham--how many were made sleepless by it?

5. (a) What is the pile supposed to represent? Read Frankl passage (Man's Search for Meaning p. 32-37). How is this analogous with the pile? How might the Frankl passage give us hope for an answer to the central problem of existentialism? 

Intro to Existentialism and the Meaning of Life

1. Surprise! (Quiz)

2. The Test: Tips for Improvement 

1. Read Ami's tips for test-taking.
2. Read each question carefully and follow the instructions.
1. Tip: Divide your answer into 3 clear sections.
3. Good news: Most people did a better job with argument analysis. 
4. Bad news: Too many people didn't get a high score on Question 1.
5. Hand-writing...
6. Essay question: Let's go over the answer. 

Existentialism: Camus and Kierkegaard

3. (a). What is the most important philosophical question one could ask? (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 3-4)

(b). Discuss Camus' answer. Do you agree or disagree? 

4. (a) What does suicide entail? What consequences does it imply? (b) Read Camus, p. 5.

(c) Discuss Camus's answer. 

4. (a) Interpret the following passage from Kierkegaard. How is it relevant to Camus concern?: 

An old proverb fetched from the outward and visible world says: "Only the man the works gets the bread." Strangely enough this proverb does not aptly apply in the world to which it expressly belongs. For the outward world is subjected to the law of imperfection, and again and again the experience is repeated that he too who does not work gets the bread, and the he who sleeps gets it more abundantly than the man who works. In the outward world everything is made payable to the bearer, this world is in bondage to the law of indifference, and to him who has the ring, the spirit of the ring is obedient, whether he be Noureddin or Aladdin, and he who has the world's treasure, has it, however he got it.  (Philistines, Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith)

(b) Come up with at least two examples from your own life that illustrate the law of indifference. 

5. (a) For Camus, how do existential thoughts begin? (p. 12)
(b) Camus says "we live on the future". What does he mean? (p. 12)

6. Suppose Camus and Kierkegaard are right. Life is fundamentally absurd, unjust, and without intrinsic meaning. What follows from this?

7. (a) Read 32-35 + 35-37, Victor Frankl. 

(b) Why do you think some prisoners committed suicide while others didn't? Does this tell us anything about how to respond to the absurd?

(c) What gives your life meaning? 

(d) Suppose the law of indifference removed these things from you. How do you think you would you respond? Why? 

Descartes: Meditation 4 and Review

Otis is studying. What's your excuse? 

Comprehension Check:
1. What is the whole purpose of Descartes' meditations? 
2. What is the cogito and why is it important to Descartes' project?
3. In terms of 'ways of knowing', what is the theme common to (a) Mediation 1 (3 levels of doubt), (b) the wax section, (c) the proofs of God?
4. Why does Descartes try prove the existence of God? I.e., what problem(s) is it supposed to solve in the context of his project?
5. What is Descartes' criterion of knowledge? 

Discussion Questions
1. (a) Write down what is contained in the concept of an infinitely perfect being.  
(b) What might this tell us about Descartes's argument for the existence of God?  (discuss the concept of infinity in math)

2. (a) Think about a time that you made a mistake that wasn't caused by someone else's deliberate deception; that is, you believed something was true that turned out to be false. 
(b) Write down and describe what you think caused you to make a mistake. 

3. (a) Why do machines make mistakes? When a machine makes a mistake, who or what is responsible? 
(b) Suppose you had the capacity to design and make a perfect machine. Would you make one that is less perfect than what you can make even if both took the same amount of effort? Why or why not? (c) If you made a less perfect machine than you were able to, what would be responsible for the machine's mistakes, you or the machine? Why? 


4. (a) Descartes says that we were created by an infinitely perfect and powerful being. God is our 'craftsman'. Let's suppose he's right. There's a problem. We make mistakes (i.e., we have defects).  If God had both the ability and the power to make us so we'd never make mistakes, why didn't He?  
(b) If we draw an analogy with question 3, it seems like God is ultimately responsible for our mistakes, but Descartes doesn't think so...
(c) What is Descartes' answer? (Hint: You'll need to discuss the roles of and distinctions between the 'will', the intellect, and 'judgment').
(d) (i) Critically evaluate Descartes' argument. [Hint: (a) are the concepts clear? (b) are the premises true? (check for counter-examples), (c) is the argument valid? (does the conclusion follow necessarily? Can you run a reductio?)]. (ii) Is Descartes right that we are ultimately responsible for our own mistakes?
(e) Does Descartes solution solve the problem of the two world view? Does it give him the tools to accomplish his ultimate goal: a scientific understanding of the world? (Hint: Think about the first 2 levels of doubt in the 1st Meditation). 

5. Consider Descartes' answer in light of moral judgments and particularly in light of the divine consequences of getting the wrong answer. Is this a problem for Descartes? Why/why not?

How to Prepare for an Exam

Preparing for Exams
The most common mistake students make in preparing for exams is to study 'passively' rather than 'actively'. Let me explain the difference. Passive studying is when you simply reread the material and/or the notes. This will not help you very much. To figure out how to do well on an exam let's think about what an exam is. An exam is a demonstration of your comprehension of a topic. So, to do well on an exam you have to be able to do two things: (a) recall the information being asked of you and (b) show that you understand it. Here's the thing, if you focus on (b), (a) will follow without any effort. Going from (a) to (b) takes more work. That is, when you are studying, try to understand WHY Descartes is making a particular argument (what's he trying to prove in relation to his project) and how each step in the argument connects to previous premises and supports that conclusion. Once you've done this, you will also have recreated the argument! Pure memorization without understanding is much harder to do.

The other vital part of studying is to RECREATE EXAM CONDITIONS. On an exam you are being asked to RECALL information. Simply rereading doesn't train you to recall. To practice recalling information, you have to--well--recall information. This is the same for any skill. If I want to get better at basketball, I practice throwing the ball into the hoop. Reading about it won't help much. If I want to get better at guitar, reading about it won't help. I have to PLAY the guitar.  You get the idea... So, to recap, on a test you are being asked to RECALL and so you should practice recalling the information. In practical terms this means after reviewing a potential exam question, you should WRITE OUT in point form your answers to the question while your text and notes are closed. This is what it is to recreate exam conditions. If you can do this at home for all the questions, you will ace the test (so long as you took good notes). Also, you'll have a lot less stress because YOU"VE ALREADY WRITTEN THE TEST SEVERAL TIMES AT HOME. When I write exams I use this technique. If I get stuck while recall in an argument at home, I peek at my notes, complete the answer then I DO IT AGAIN, this time without peeking. I keep repeating as many times as I have to until I can recreate the answer without peeking at my notes (i.e., I recreate the exam conditions). When I can do it perfectly, I KNOW I will ace the test because I've already aced it before even stepping into the exam room.

I prefer to study alone but this isn't for everyone. If you do better studying in a group or with a partner, you can practice by quizzing each other on each question. This tests recall. However, you should still also test yourself at least once in your ability to write your answer in point form because this is what you will be asked to do on the exam (i.e., recreate test conditions).

Descartes Meditation 3

COLLLECT HOMEWORK

I.  (a) How can you know that you know something instead of that you just believe it? (b) What is Descartes' answer; i.e., his 'criterion of knowledge' ? (sec. 35) (c) Give two examples of things Descartes thinks we can know. Give an example of something we can't know for certain. (d) Can you think of a counter-example to Descartes criterion of knowledge?

II. Comprehension check: What's the problem of the two-world view?

III. Descartes 1st Argument for the Existence of God

1.  It is clear from the light of nature that there must be as least as much reality in the cause as in the effect.

• How could the effect get its reality if not from what caused it? 
• How could the cause give that reality if it did not possess it itself?

2. It follows that: 

(a) Something can't come into being from nothing and 

(b) The more perfect (or real) cannot come from the less perfect.

3. This is true of both things in the world and ideas in the mind.

• I cannot have an idea unless it caused by something that has as much reality as the idea

4. Great Chain of Being: Levels of Perfection or Reality. I have an idea of “a substance [God] that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful”.

5. The idea could not originate with me because I am finite and the infinite is more real than the finite.

• This comes from premise 2.
• The more real cannot come from what is less real. 
• So, this idea must have been placed in me.

6. Thus, the idea must have been placed in me by a being who is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful

In other words, from the idea I have of God as a perfect being I can concluded that God must exist. 

IV. Descartes Second Argument for the Existence of God
The Basic Argument
A) i)    Every event must have a cause.
     ii)   This cannot go back indefinitely (infinitely).
     iii)  Thus, there must be a first cause.
     iv)  The first cause must be the cause of itself.
     v)   The source of my own (or anything's) existence isn't either (a) myself, (b) my parents, (c)                    anything less perfect less than God.
     vi)   The first cause is God.

(a)  I could not have created myself (sec. 48). Argument: If he had he would have given himself all the perfections he can imagine. But he has imperfections. So, he must not be God and have the power of self-creation nor be the source of the idea of God. 

(b) I can't self-sustain my existence. Even if I suppose I always existed, something must sustain my existence. However, this can't be true since I have no awareness of any such power within me (sec. 48-49).  Is this true that you can't sustain your own existence as a thinking thing? Does this apply to everything? Is it true that the only evidence you have for capacities are ones you are aware of? Can you think of a capacity you have but that you aren't conscious of?

Discussion for Descartes Meditations 1 and 2

Argument against empiricism: Could you know if you were in the Matrix?

1. Comprehension: Why is Descartes trying to discover what cannot possibly be false? What are the three stages of doubt, and what is the point of having all three? Why not just jump to the last one? Explain what foundationalism is. Motivation for Foundationalism.

2. Concept of Knowledge: What is Descartes standard for what counts as knowledge? Why does Descartes make the standard so high?Is it too high? If so, propose an alternative standard.  

3. The Cogito: Explain why "I think therefore I am" is important to Descartes's project and what it means. Do you see any problems with the cogito, either in its implications or in its truth (i.e., can you find counter examples)? 

4. The Wax: How do you know it's the same thing? What's Descartes's answer? Why does he think it is not via perception (sec. 32)? Do you agree or disagree? Whether you agree or not, suppose you wanted to reject his answer, how would you do it? 

5. Truth, Knowledge, and Representational Realism: What does it mean for a statement to be true? How is Descartes representational realism going to make truth about the world difficult to establish?