Difference between revisions of "2010 Fall Proseminar Class Notes"
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
‘A genetic supermarket, modified by some central regulation, may still be better than a system of purely central decision. The liberal value is not obliterated because it may sometimes be compromised for the sake of other things we care about.’ | ‘A genetic supermarket, modified by some central regulation, may still be better than a system of purely central decision. The liberal value is not obliterated because it may sometimes be compromised for the sake of other things we care about.’ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Extra articles: some food for thought on the topic''' | ||
| + | I realize this may be a little late for people to actually read the articles but here are links to two articles I focused on last semester when I did a project on HGE, one is in favor of HGE and the other is against it: | ||
| + | [http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010302256&source=gale&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0] and [http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010138265&source=gale&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 20:17, 14 September 2010
Return to Philosophy Proseminar
August 31, 2010
Introductory Class:
- Student Introductions: Prompt:
- General awareness and curiosities about history of philosophy (pitch for timelines)
- Philosophy Problem 101
- What If . . . Searle's Brain Replacement
Student Interests (in no particular order):
- Eastern Philosophies -- Daoism
- Postmodernism
- Applied Ethics / Env. Ethics / Business Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Descartes / Scientific Revolution
- Phenomenology
- Philosophy NOW
- Aesthetics
- Philosophy/Econ - Game Theory
- Lonergan
- Analytic
- Feminism
- Existtentialism
- Kant
September 7
Investigating Philosophy as a Discipline
Question for investigating Philosophy as a discipline
- What is philosophy?
- What are the major fields of Philosophy? See this wiki list.
- What are some basic concepts, issues, and methods of each? Browse.
- What are the major temporal epochs of Western philosophy?
- Is philosophy a global phenomenon? What is comparative philosophy? How do you identify philosophy in other cultures? (See course unit)
- What is the difference between continental and analytic philoosphy? (Course unit)
- What are: existentialism, postmodernism, positivism, romanticism, enlightenment philosophy, scientific revolution, renaissance, neo-platonism, scholasticism, game theory, cognitive science, moral psychology, ...
- How does philosophy relate to literature and religion?
- What are contemporary philosophers saying about art & politics?
- Why did language become so important in 20th century philosophy?
Major Sub-fields
Discussion of Hadot, "Spiritual Exercises"
- "Spiritual exercises can be best observed in the context of Hellenistic and Roman schools of philosophy. The Stoics, for instance, declared explicitly that philosophy, for them, was an "exercise."n In their view, philosophy did not consist in teaching an abstract theory - much less in the exegesis of texts'n, out rather in the art of living.n It is a concrete attitude and determinate life-Style, which engages the whole of existence. The philosophical act is not situated merely on the cognitive level, but on that of the self and of being. It is a progress which causes us to be more fully, and makes us better.'n It is a conversion'n which turns our entire life upside down, changing the life of the person who goes through it.n It raises the individual from an inauthentic condition of life, darkened by unconsciousness and harassed by worry, to an authentic state of life, in which he attains self-consciousness, an exact vision of the world, inner peace, and freedom." 82
- 86: "For the Stoic, then, doing philosophy meant practicing how to "live": thatis, how to live freely and consciously. Consciously, in that we pass beyond thelimits of individuality, to recognize ourselves as a part of the reason-animatedcosmos. Freely, in that we give up desiring that which does not depend on usand is beyond our control, so as to attach ourselves only to what depends onus: actions which are just and in conformity with reason."
- Philosophers as therapists / Philosophy as therapeutic.
- In Epicurean thought -- the tetrapharmakos; also in Phaedrus.
- 88: "For the Epicureans, in the last analysis, pleasure is a spiritual exercise. Notpleasure in the form of mere sensual gratification, but the intellectual pleasurederived from contemplating nature, the thought of pleasures past and present,and lastly the pleasure of friendship. "
- Prosoche -- attention.
- Learning to Die -- It's role in defining philosophy.
- Plotinus - sculpting your statue.
Begin Review of Theory of Argument and Explanation
We'll work from the following three documents for this line of instruction:
Discussion of Haidt, "The Divided Self"
- If one wants to understand consciousness, does one have to understand the brain? Yes or No: choose a position
No - Traditional philosophical Dualism (Platonic, Cartesian, etc.); Ideas are incorporeal
Yes - Phil of Mind: consciousness is an illusion. Premise: the brain is a necessary condition of consciousness. Consciousness is related to physical environment.
- Bodies/Persons - Vocabularies for talking about bodies and persons: divided; consciousness seems to be on the 'person' side
- Epiphenomenon! too complicated to explain... (Sorry about that. Could someone post/report next week on epiphenomenalism next week? It would have been a huge digression at this point, and I don't think I'd have done a precise enough job of it. (Alfino)
- Consciousness seems subjective
Four Areas of Separation: (uncontroversial) Good Places to start understanding the Human Mind
Mind/Body: Plato's Emo Horse/Reason Horse vs. Rider on an Elephant. Embedded consciousness - thinking with the whole body.
Left/Right: confabulation. is reason happening in language? or does our ability to think well depend on the physiology of our brain? unsure of the logic center in the brain. Philosophers' traditional picture of thinking as an isolated activity called into question.
Old/New: Old Brain - parts in the middle. New Brain grew around the Old Brain. Reason is a recent addition to the brain (new brain).
Controlled/Automatic: huge area of research - Daniel Gilbert's "Stumbling onto Happiness". Philosophers have had too much faith in our ability to control thoughts. We have been unaware of how controlled we are by physiological factors.
- Philosophy has to be informed by what we know.
- Nice notes! Thanks (Alfino)
== How much attention should Philosophers pay to Science? ==
September 14
Topics to browse and possibly report back on for this week: the field of genetic engineering, transhumanism, torts, the field of Philosophy of Law. Additional scholarship on Hart & Honore's view. Research on HLA Hart.
Discussion of Glover article
The main point of this article is that a case can be made to show the beneficial effects, and therefore support for, positive genetic engineering; where positive means aiming to improve some aspect of a person, where that aspect is found in a majority of the population, and where that aspect is therefore characterized as normal. Negative genetic engineering, in contrast, defines the act of fixing or removing a defect.
Risks and Mistakes the threat of disaster versus the benefits of genetic engineering
Argument for the threat of disaster being to great – we would be unable to control the will of the people we would ‘create’ and therefore if they had unforeseen side effects, such as creating extremely violent and aggressive personality traits, there would be no way to keep those traits out of future generations, as the modified humans would feel themselves worthy of the same basic rights that we ourselves enjoy today. Glover illustrates two further paths from this argument. 1. Rule out genetic engineering altogether 2. Negative engineering is perhaps acceptable, but positive engineering is not
Glover agrees that the risk of disaster is present and says that if genetic engineering is adopted extreme caution must be used, and mentions it is similar to the nuclear power debate. ‘We should alter genes only where we have strong reasons for thinking the risk of disaster is very small, and where the benefit is great enough to justify the risk’
He counters the argument by saying that there may be risks from not using positive genetic engineering that are far greater then the risks stemming from actually using positive genetic engineering. Here he draws again on the nuclear power debate and says that unless we can rule out, absolutely, the possibility of such a risk with genetic engineering, the principle of risk provides an argument for the principle of caution rather that providing support for a ban on all positive engineering.
I broke down his argument as follows:
If the principle of caution is less strong than a principle of no positive engineering Then there is room within the principle caution for the possibility that the dangers of positive engineering may turn out to be very remote or that greater risks of a different kind are involved in not using positive engineering THEREFORE If we can’t rule out that the dangers from positive engineering may turn out to be very remote or that greater risks of a different kind stem from NOT using positive engineering Then the argument from risk gives more support to the principle of caution and less support to the argument the principle of no positive engineering
Not Playing God How can we know that it is better for one sort of person to be born then another?
Objectors to Positive Engineering say we should not use genetic engineering to raise the average IQ by - 15 points, not because it would be bad to have the average higher, but rather because they are of the - opinion that we are in no position to decide what the average IQ level should be.
Glover argues against this by saying that: If there is a God that has a plan for us that will be broken if we stray outside the boundaries of our existence, how can we say that medicine (i.e. longer average life span) and other things have already not broken those boundaries down. And therefore, an argument against positive engineering as a means that man will use to break these boundaries is invalid.
His next argument is from a standpoint based on the findings Charles Darwin: If our species is constantly adapting and evolving for survival, then it is not wrong to take into our own hands the power to do exactly that, because it is nature’s way.
His next argument against the ideology of not playing god is to disprove the theory proponents of that idea have about not interfering with natural selection and is made up of multiple premises: If we do not interfere with natural selection. Then we would not have a multitude of positive things (one of the biggest being medicine). If we should only not interfere with nature on a genetic level. Then negative engineering would not be OK. If negative engineering is OK. Then the parameters around positive engineering need some work.
The basic objection to positive engineering, he states, comes down to some variation of the populous having a general objection to a person or group of people planning out what other’s lives should be like, and he gives numerous examples of why this is an objection for some.
'The group of people controlling a positive engineering policy would inevitably have limited horizons, and we are right to worry that the limitations of their outlook might become the boundaries of human variety.'
The Genetic Supermarket A counter argument to show control of positive genetic engineering by a small group of people is not necessarily the only scenario in which positive genetic engineering could take place but that due to the will of the masses, and the problems that result from that will, some sort of control via a centralized decision making group would be necessary.
His main point is that instead of dwelling on ‘design’ in positive genetic engineering, we should take an approach similar to that of a supermarket, where parents can browse & pick the traits of their offspring. Nozick believes this system to be virtuous because it is free from the control of a small group of people.
Glover responds by saying that while this may be an improvement on a centralized process of deciding the outcomes of positive genetic engineering, personal choice by the masses does not guarantee diversity (which philosophically is very easy to see, and I believe, valid)
He makes a few points about the boundaries that should be placed around parents who are picking out their children in the ‘genetic supermarket’ using laws against cruelty and basic human rights as justification. He concludes that if this system were to exist, it would be necessary to have some form of centralized process in order to protect the subjects from the parents. He also puts forth the idea that restriction on parent choice due to the social imbalance that could occur in society.
In the conclusion of this section, Glover mentions that there are problems with having a system based purely on the choice of the parent as well as a system governed by a small decision making group but he ends with a statement that shows the basic idea of how he believes we could get around this problem.
‘A genetic supermarket, modified by some central regulation, may still be better than a system of purely central decision. The liberal value is not obliterated because it may sometimes be compromised for the sake of other things we care about.’
Extra articles: some food for thought on the topic I realize this may be a little late for people to actually read the articles but here are links to two articles I focused on last semester when I did a project on HGE, one is in favor of HGE and the other is against it:
[1] and [2]
Couldn't really get a hang of the formatting. Feel free to edit & clean up.
