Spring 2008 Study Question Collaboration

Let's use this for sharing Study Question Answers. Follow the format below, putting two "=" signs around the date of the study questions you're posting. That will make a nice little table of contents at some point.

Alfino

Study Questions for Jan. 17

Topic: The Nature of Philosophy and Enlightenment

1. What are some of the distinguishing traits of philosophical thought? (ed. by Brittany Fitzpatrick)

Philosophy is using reason to attempt to develop a "big picture" point of view of the universe. Therefore, philosophy never appeals to divine revelation or to tradition when trying to prove theories true. In philosophy, there must be questions and with that comes arguments in order to defend what claims are made. The defense of such arguments further the development of the "big picture" view. The ultimate goal of philosophy is to provide one truthful picture of the universe.

The three key elements of philosophical reflections are as follows:

-we need to know more about the arguments

-we need to know how to construct arguments

-we need to know how to evaluate arguments

2. How do philosophy, myth, and religion relate to each other? Identify both difference and areas of overlap. (ed. by Brittany Fitzpatrick)

Philosophy, myth, and religion all try to make sense of the world. Myth uses stories in order to explain the world. Mythology can often merge into religion when a divine revelation becomes part of the story. Religion, therefore, can closely resemble myth because they both contain stories. However, religious stories have a key difference: they contain a reason why we should believe that they're true. Again, philosophy shares with myth and religion the pursuit of providing a "big picture" view of reality. Additionally, philosophy resembles religion in the sense that philosophers provide reasons for why their pictures of reality are true. But, the difference in philosophy is there is never an appeal to divine revelation or tradition.

*Extra: On page 4 in our thin book "Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy" there's a good visual aid

3. Do we need to know the truth of all the things we believe in? (ed. by Brittany Fitzpatrick)

We had a class discussion about this question. Some thought yes, we should know the truth in what we believe because to because living in ignorance is undesirable. The example of medicine was brought up in support of this view point--"You want to know that the medicine will work". On the flip side, some said no, you don't need to know the truth in everything you believe. Some people brought up religion and argued that it is enough to simply believe something is true. In addition, knowing the truth is not always positive.

I would like to add one way of looking at this. As you said, some would say that we don't need to know the truth of everything we believe in. The idea of believing something is very tricky. One can certainly believe in something without knowing the truth, but that person should acknowledge that. Faith should never be substituted for knowledge. One can believe something completely unsubstantiated, like God, but that belief is different from actual knowledge. There is, of course, nothing wrong with living a life based on assumptions that can't be proven. Trust is based on a belief in something that can't be known for sure, and trust is essential to meaningful relationships. The point is that beliefs and facts are completely different. We should strive for knowledge, but some things are unknowable. Until we can know everything, faith will have to suffice. TJ

4. What is the difference between philosophy and science? Identify an example of an overlap between the two. (ed. by Brittany Fitzpatrick)

First of all, it must be noted that science was originally a part of philosophy. However, science deals with only a part of reality, not all of it. If we were to mesh each scientific discipline together, we would not be able to obtain a comprehensive rational analysis of the universe. The key difference between philosophy and science is that science obtains information about the world predominately by measurements and experimentation while philosophy analyzes and clarifies complex concepts. However, once the appropriate set of scientific rules/methods are determined, many philosophical questions turn into scientific ones. Still, philosophy has a personal component that science lacks which is that the purpose of philosophy is to clarify your own mind.

5. Summarize Kant's position in "What is Enlightenment?" and give your reaction. Should we value reason in our everyday life in the way Kant suggests? Why or why not?

Kant believes that we should "dare to know." ....sorry. I will finish this later. I have to go to mass

Study Questions for February 5

3. Is it a problem that philosophical practice can make your fellow citizens angry at you? Is that a problem with philosophy or everyone else?

The first thing that should be said here is that we usually use Socrates as the example of people hating a philosopher. All of us read his work, and I think we'd all agree, to some degree, that he was not a nice guy and perhaps is not a good example of how people will react to philosophy generally. Even still, it is a valid question. Some philosophies are not at all pleasing. Just looking at the ones we've discussed, how would you like someone telling you that the only way to enlightenment is through renouncing worldly pleasures? Philosophy asks the tough questions and that is a noble goal even if some of the answers are displeasing. The problem lies with those who refuse to accept these answers. They don't have to agree, but they have to have something better. It is similar to a religion that refuses to question its teachings. If you can't critically examine the most basic assumptions of your being, you're just hiding.

Study Questions for February 21 (Casey Schaub)

1. Who were the sramana and what is the general cultural context for Buddhism?

The sramana were people who dedicated their lives to finding answers to spiritual questions. The general cultural context for Buddhism is that it is not regarded as a revealed religion. Instead, those who believe in it ground the religion in human experience rather than divine. The basis of the religion is ridding the body of suffering through the use of the four noble truths and the eight fold path. With the aid of these rules people will essentially rid their lives of suffering and reach ultimate nirvana.

2. Explicate and critically analyze the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path in terms of its theory of reality and enlightenment. Does the Buddhist focus on cessation of suffering make sense as a primary goal in the pursuit of enlightenment?

Buddhists believe in the four noble truths: 1) There is suffering 2) Origin of Suffering 3) Cessation of Suffering 4) Path to Cessation of suffering. In addition, they also regard the 8 fold path as essential to enlightenment: Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Understanding, and Right Thought. It is understood that if believers follow the four noble truths and the eight fold path they will reach enlightenment. However, I would have to criticize the Buddhists view of removing all suffering from one’s life. In doing so, I think the Buddhists are doing themselves a large injustice. Enlightenment comes from suffering not from the lack of suffering. In experiencing suffering, humans often come away from the situation with a clearer outlook on things. The suffering has caused them to learn. For this reason, it doesn’t seem realistic to remove suffering from the world.

3. What is paradoxical about liberation, according to Siderits? What is the solution to the paradox?

The paradox of liberation involves the idea that the Buddhists offer countless ways of attaining liberation but they don’t offer information on how to attain this liberation while remaining alive. The paradox states, 1) liberation is inherently desirable, 2) Selfish desires prevent us from attaining liberation 3) In order to attain liberation one must train oneself to live without selfish desires, 4) One does not engage in deliberate action unless one desires the foreseen result of the action. These rules of liberation create the paradox because 3 and 4 show that liberation cannot be attained unless it is desired. However, while 1 says it is okay to desire liberation, 2 states that if we desire liberation we will never attain it. Essentially, while it is okay to desire liberation it will never be attained. Some solutions to this paradox include eliminating 1 altogether or simply justifying with 2 that it isn’t a selfish desire. Siderits suggests indirectly attaining liberation without desiring it. In this way, humans bypass the paradox of liberation because they attain nirvana without desiring to do so.