Henock Daniel 6/27/16 Phi 2010: (Day 1) Philosophy isn’t: ∙ What is philosophy and why does it matter? It is not a collection of riddles. It’s a collection of different opinions such that everyone is correct. A long series of pointless bickering that ultimately gets us nowhere. A discipline that asks most of the fundamental questions: What is there? Does god exist? What is a mind? What am I? Does free will exist? What should I do? What makes for a just society? ∙ In order to answer these questions, philosophers make arguments based on opinions, in some areas of philosophy when we get definitive answers, the answers become a new field. ∙ Practically speaking philosophy can help you: think critically, analyze arguments, and write better. ∙ 95% of all Wikipedia pages eventually link back to philosophy articles.Henock Daniel 6/28/16 (Day 2) Arguments: An argument in philosophy consists of one or more statements intended to give reasons for believing another statement. A statement is a sentence that can be either true or false. Supporting statements are premises. The supported statement is the conclusion. Types of arguments: ∙ Deductive: A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. ∙ Inductive an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. A Simple Argument: Contain no other arguments and are normally straightforward in truth. Paragraph Arguments: Not all paragraph arguments are usually intended to direct truth during an argument. It must be pulled apart allowing for the conclusion and premises to be identified. Conclusion Identifiers: Consequently, thus, therefore, It follows that, As a result, So, which means. Premise Identifiers: In view of the fact that, because, due to the fact that, assuming that, since for, given that.Complex and Simple Arguments: Simple arguments contain no other arguments. ∙ Sady is a pug. ∙ All pugs are dogs. ∙ Sady is a dog. ∙ All dogs are mammals. ∙ Sady is mammal. ∙ All mammals are animals. ∙ Sady is an animal. Deductive Argument Standards: ∙ Deductive arguments are intended to be valid, which means: ∙ If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. ∙ If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false. Validity: Validity is important because it allows for philosophers to start at obviously true premises and reach conclusions that might be counterintuitive. Counter Example: All good TA’s are smart. Brett is smart. Therefore, Brett is a good TA. (Invalid) A counter example would be that Brett is not a TA but in fact a smart person in general. Modus Ponens: If Andrew is from Texas, then cats have wings. Andrew is from Texas.Therefore, cats have wings. If p, then q. p. Therefore q. valid. Affirming the Consequent: If Batman caught the Joker, then the joker is in prison. The Joker is in prison. Therefore, the Batman caught Joker. P,Q, (Invalid). Denying the Antecedent: If p, then q. Not p. therefore, not q. (Invalid) If Lucy barks at the door, the mail is here. Lucy has not barked at the door. Therefore, the mail is not here. Hypothetical Syllogism: If Steph Curry misses this threepoint shot the Warriors, will lose the game. If the warriors lose the game, they wil lose the NBA championship. Therefore, if Steph Curry misses this threepoint shot, then Warriors will lose the NBA championship. ∙ If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if p, then r. “Valid.” Process of Elimination: Either Troy or Sady had an accident on the floor. Troy didn’t have an accident on the floor. So, Sady had an accident on the floor. Either p or q. Not q.Therefore, p. Valid! Inductive Argument Standards: Inductive arguments are intended to be strong. (Inductive arguments cannot be valid or invalid. Only strong with true premises). Strong/NotStrong. Strong arguments are such that if their premises are true, their conclusions are probably true. ∙ A good inductive argument is cogent: o It is strong and has true premises. Inductive Argument (Ex.1): ∙ 90% of FSU students are from Florida. ∙ Tina is a student at FSU. ∙ Therefore, Tina is from Florida. (Strong) Inductive Argument (Ex.2): ∙ I flipped this quarter twice and it came up heads both times. ∙ Therefore, this quarter will always come up heads. (Not Strong). Inductive Argument (Ex.3): ∙ Physicianassisted suicide interferes with a natural process. (1) ∙ Therefore, Physicianassisted suicide should be banned. (3) This ex, is missing the 2nd premise. The second premise is: Anything that interferes with a natural process should be banned. Implied Premises: When you evaluate an argument, explicitly state any implied premise(s) when the implied premise. ∙ Is necessary to make the argument valid or strong. ∙ Is not common sense∙ Implied premises should be both plausible and fitting. Adding Implied Premises: Ex: Someone from using performance enhancing drugs during a competition should be banned. Lance Armstrong uses performance enhancing drugs Therefore, he should be banned from the competition he was participating in.Henock Daniel 6/29/16 (Day 3) Skepticism: (examples): ∙ Skepticism about the supernatural “We don’t know anything about supernatural entities.” ∙ Skepticism about external objects: “we don’t know anything about physical things outside our own minds.” Skepticism about anything: “We don’t know anything at all.” Huemer’s Arguments: Infinite Regress Argument: Claim: “The world is going to end in 2100.” If you can’t respond to the questions being prompted about the claim being made, then we can’t count the claim as knowledge, only as a belief. Principle: We know that some claim is true only if we have good reason for believing it to be true. Principle: In order for me to know something to be true, I must have an adequate reason for believing it. Should we accept this principle? Avoiding the Regress Argument: Belief A Belief B Belief C Can we have an infinite series of reasons supporting some belief? Why/Why not? Requires knowledge of infinite number of facts. No one knows an infinite number of facts. So it looks like it’s impossible to have an infinite number of facts.Two ways to avoid infinite regress are: ∙ To use circular reasoning and starting belief(s) without reasons. Circular Reasoning: ∙ The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Starting Beliefs: A belief that lacks supporting reasons. But if we accept this principle. “We know some belief is true only if we have good reasons for believing it to be true.” Objection (s): Objections to skeptics varies depending on the topic of choice and the amount of skepticism applied to the claim being made by a person. Ex: (See below) ∙ “The world will end in the year 2100 because Plutonians will nuke the planet.” ∙ *How do you know this? * ∙ “It’s just a hunch.” Skeptic’s Reply? What’s the difference between selfevident beliefs (SEB) and arbitrary beliefs (AB)? SEB= One that we need no reason for in order to be fully justified in accepting it. “2 + 2= 4” AB= one that we have no reason for and would be unjustified in accepting. SEBs must have some feature (F) that Abs do not. If SEBs have some feature F in virtue of which they are true, and Abs are false, then SEBs are not foundational after fall. Because I do have a reason for accepting for SEBs= that they possess F. Can the foundationlist respond to this?Yes. Problem of the Criterion: Magic eight ball If you were to ask a magic eight ball if it were reliable and it came up, “yes.” Would this prove the ball was reliable. ∙ No, this method of reasoning already presupposes the eight ball is already reliable. Senses: If you were to go around and have various doctors test your senses, and they report back that your senses are reliable, would this prove your senses are reliable? No, because this assumes your sense are already reliable.Henock Daniel 6/30/16 (Day 4) How Can You Get Outside Your Head?: In actuality, everything that is seen is not as it is interpreted “I see a brown table.” While it should actually be, “The brown table is being seen.” ∙ A mental image made up of sense data. Sense data is known as anything that is an immediate sensation. ∙ Sensations range from touch, taste, smell, etc. Principle: In order to know A Causes B, one must have experience of A & B. Should we accept this? Depending if the object is physical and can tangibly be explained: ∙ To have knowledge of the physical world, we must know that our sense data are caused by physical objects. ∙ In order to know that one thing causes another, we must have direct experience with both things. ∙ We have no direct experience of physical objects. ∙ Therefore, We do not know physical objects case our sense data (from 2, & 3). Knowledge of the External World: Solipsism: Nothing outside of your mind can be known. Appearance and Reality: Russell admits that we cannot strictly prove there is an external world comprised of matter, but yet there still is no reason to think matter doesn’t exist. Matter: Is something which can occupy space and is incapable of consciousness Inanimate. Can we doubt our own sense data? (Yes, under a numerous amount of circumstances, the way something is perceived by someone about a particular object is not always perceived the same way by someone else under the same circumstances). Rene Descartes “Doubt everything that can be doubted and only accept only what can be perceived as true.” Most known for the “I think therefore, I am.” The one thing that could not however be explained, is that a thought of doubt is currently being experienced while in doubt. (In layman’s terms, while in doubt, the idea of doubt cannot be explained). Appearance and Reality: ∙ Therefore, our doubts have primitive certainty. ∙ They are even more apparent to us than even that I am some kind of selfego. Why Think Sense Data, Corresponds to Something? : ∙ If sense data does not relate to anything, then physical objects don’t exist apart from our very experience of them. ∙ If a table cloth completely covers a table, we will derive no sensedata from the table, only the cloth. Ex: ∙ For public objects to exist there must be something beyond our private sensedata. ∙ When you gather around Thanksgiving dinner it seems that everyone is interacting with the same physical objects. ∙ When you buy a used textbook from a friend, it seems you are buying a public object. Inference to the best explanation (IBE): Imagine you come home and your house has been broken into. Several of your valued possessions have been stolen. Possible Explanations: 1. A robber stole your things. 2. Aliens stole your possessions. Each of these theories equally explains the evidence, so how do we choose between them? Theory Virtues: 1. Simplicity. 2. Coherence with other theories/beliefs. Theories vs common belief, we’ll look at the two terms: Geocentricism: The earth is in the center of the universe. Heliocentric: The sun is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. One was thought to be actual for a certain period of years(geocentricism), but after decades of testing and observation, it came to be false and the new theory (heliocentric) was put into play. Possible Explanations of Sense Data: ∙ Dream Hypothesis: Sensedata part of a dream, caused by my brain while I sleep. ∙ Brain in a Vat Hypothesis: Sensedata implanted in my mind by a mad scientist/evil demon. ∙ Common Sense Hypothesis: Sensedata caused by physical objects interacting with sense organs. Which explanation best explains our experiences? #3.Henock Daniel 7/1/16 (Day 5) The Existence and Nature of God: “God Truly Exists vs skepticism of a superior Being Not Existing”: Said to have been “impractical”, philosophers ignored the concept of God in the early 1940’s and 1950’s as it was widely believed that any talk about him was meaningless since it was not verifiable by any of the five senses. With that a deductive argument can arise Ranging from but not limited to various arguments. ∙ The Ontological Argument: An analytical argument, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. The first and best known argument that the being exists, was made by St. Anselm of the 11th century. ∙ The First Cause Argument: Among one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God. One of the five ways, the fifth, in which the argument focuses on the aspect of design, which takes the detail of the universe and entails it the existence that a greater being created it. ∙ The Argument from Design: An argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". ∙ The Moral Argument: Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God is the best or only explanation for this, concluding that God must exist. ∙ Lord, Liar, or Lunatic (emphasis will be provided, questioned). Diverse Religious Entails: Every culture has its God(s) and with that a belief in god or god(s) seems to arise globally on a natural scale. There is some element common to all human experience that causes us to look to an essence of superiority that there is something more to life than casual live, work, eat, rest. There are many societies that have independently come to a religious belief which frames their way of life and as such the way their culture and heritage has transcribed over the ages. Among the varying forms of religion, the major identities (not ignoring smaller sects but merely focusing on the larger halves), Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha’i Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic, Neopaganism, Celtic Polytheism, Heathenism, Semitic Neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism, Hellenism, ItaloRoman Neopaganism. Are religious beliefs a natural psychological defensemechanism against the difficulties that life inevitably throws at us? Of course with answering such questions, there comes a price of who is asking and to whom the answer is being retorted to in a valid argument manner not in arguing with retort to retort, rather valid argument tested against with solid evidence that such controversial subjects can really be understood. Inferences to the Best Explanation (IBE): (in reference to day 4 notes) Imagine you come home and your house has been broken into. Several of your valued possessions have been stolen. Possible Explanations: 1. A robber stole your things. 2. Aliens stole your possessions. Each of these theories equally explains the evidence, so how do we choose between them? Theory Virtues: 1. Simplicity. 2. Coherence with other theories/beliefs. Religion in and of itself is a sensitive topic for people to approach from a philosophers’ point of view, the concept itself is not difficult, but none of these arguments are controversially successful, of course; many philosophers have rejected them in time. As a notable preface to the arguments, it is worth noting an argument that the claim that God exists is made more plausible by the fact of such globally spread religious belief and dedication to preserving it. For further reference, please refer to the provided site to gain more knowledge on the forms of arguments if pressed to do so. http://www.existenceofgod.com/lordliarlunatic.htmlHenock Daniel 7/5/16 7/6/16 (Day 6) Possible Explanations of Sense Data: (This is in regards to the continuation of the ontological argument): A Distinction: If an arguent is a posterior, then at least one of the premises requires some kind of experience for verification. However, with that having been said, then the argument of the priori can only be proven to be true via previous experience. God and Possibility: ∙ In order to determine whether things are possible, we use test given to us from the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. To determine if something is possible, we examine the concept to see if its’s coherent. ∙ Leibniz’s test does not always produce realistic results. The test fails when the concept includes that the things they are concepts of exist. ∙ And this is how the concept of God is in Anselm’s argument no nonexisting thing could be God. Ex: Round squares, square circles, etc. God and Possibility: To see how Leibniz’s test fails with concepts comparable to “God”, consider the following two closely related concepts: Unicorn: Something having horsiness and a horn. Unirchorn: Something having horsiness, a horn, and existence. God and Possibility (cont): Recall possible things are either (i), things that exist or (ii) things that don’t exist but could have existed. ∙ So if a unichorn is a possible thing, it has to fit into one of these categories. Does a unichorn fall into (i)? No, because unichorns do not actually exist? Does a unichorn fall into (ii)? No, because anything lacking existence isn’t a unichorn by definition. What does this mean for the ontological argument? We cannot determine whether premise 2(It is possible for God to exist in reality), is true. Understanding the Premise: ∙ This first premise says that just likes machines (say a watch), display order, the world (or nature) and all of its parts (natural objects) and also display order. Do you agree that the world is like a machine? Like a machine, the world fixes itself natural through methods of deconstruction volcanoes erupting, earthquakes, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc. Premise 2: ∙ The second premise says: “Machines are products of design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.” ∙ We can think of a variety of machines, all of which are designed by intelligent beings for some purpose. o This premise is another premise we verify by our experience with the world. Premise 3: ∙ Premise (3) states that “Generally, when effect resemble each other, their cause do as well.” This is yet another premise we verify by experience. When we use this principle we can see the argument more clearly: ∙ Machines are designed by intelligent beings. ∙ The world and the objects in the world are like machines. ∙ So probably the world was designed by an intelligent being or beings. The Teleological Argument: Some very famous objections to this argument were raised by an 18th century Scotish philosopher named David Hume, in his book, Dialogues on Natural Religion. There are two main types of objections that Hume raised: ∙ Competing Hypotheses Objections: o The argument doesn’t show that God can come to exist in this plane or is an actual thing od existence (intelligent being). o Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. o The mind in question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural. Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present labored to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. ∙ WeakAnalogy Objections: o The argument doesn’t provide good evidence that the world was designed because the analogy between the world and machines is weak.Henock Daniel 7/7/16 (Day 7) The Teleological Argument: David Hume created the book “Dialogues on Natural Religion.” Monotheistic: ∙ There’s only one. ∙ It is infinitely perfect ∙ It is eternal ∙ It is immaterial, or spiritual. Polytheistic Hypothesis: ∙ There are many ∙ They are (it is) only finite) ∙ They are (it is) mortal ∙ They are (it is) material. Competing Hypothesis Objection: ∙ We don’t seem tale to know which hypothesis to choose from, each pair just by observing the world and noting the design. ∙ If we take what we know about machines as evidence, we might be tempted to think that teleological argument shows that there are many intelligent designers. ∙ The bigger and more complex a machine, is the more people there were involved in the creation of it. ∙ Our observational evidence of the world also might lead us to think that the beings that designed the world were only finite, not infinitely perfect. ∙ We are only finite creatures, and we make machines that break down and have flaws. ∙ So perhaps the world was created by finite beings. Weak Analogy Objections: ∙ This type of objection says that whatever similarity we can observe between the world and a machine is too weak to support the conclusion that the world was designed by an intelligent being (or beings). ∙ We know that when two things are exactly alike, they are general caused by things that are exactly alike. So there are two plausible causes that can produce things with “parts adjusted to each other, with means adapted to ends”: ∙ Intelligent design ∙ Random variation and natural selection. ∙ Just from observing the world we don’t have any reason to choose (a) over (b). What might Paley say in response to these objections? “He never directly addressed God, but rather kept mentioning a creator and the universe was designed by creators, but not an allpowerful single being.” The world is somewhat similar to a machine but much more like an organism. The FineTuning Argument: ∙ The laws of nature could have been different from what they are. ∙ If the laws of nature had been even a little different from what they are, the universe would not have been able to produce living things like us. ∙ So it is extremely unlikely thtat the universe should have had laws that enabled it to produce living things like us. ∙ Such an unlikely fact very likely has an explanation. To see why this argument might seem plausible, consider a case with a lottery drawing. If there are vastly many worlds, then there’s no reason to think that design is the best explanation for why this world has living creatures like us.The Problem of Evil: According to Mackie, these three claims are inconsistent: ∙ God is omnipotent. ∙ God is omnibenevolent. ∙ Evil exists. I. A good (or benevolent) thing, is opposed to evil, and it always eliminates evil as much as it can. II. An omnipotent thing has power that is unlimited. Evil consists of, but is not limited to, pain, death, destruction, murder, suffering, war, disease, famine, and natural disasters. So Mackie claims that the thesis is being inconsistent. Insofar as them is committed to three inconsistent claims, theism is irrational. The Problem of Evil (premises and conclusion example): We might put the argument as follows: ∙ If there existed an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, then evil would not exist at all. ∙ Evil does exist. ∙ Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Mackie’s argument, “What solutions can you think of to solve the problem of evil?” Adequate Solutions: Mackie argues that the problem doesn’t arise if one is willing to give up one of the three claims: ∙ God is omnipotent ∙ God is omnibenevolent ∙ Evil exists He (Mackie) calls these adequate solutions because he thinks they would adequately resolve the rpolem of evil.Henock Daniel 7/08/16 (Day 8) Evil as Good’s Necessary Counterpart: ∙ The theist would be forced to admit, Mackie thinks, that God is not committed to promoting good. ∙ Perhaps one can reply that goodness and evil are necessary logical opposites. E.g. redness and nonredness. Even if they do have logical opposites, there still seems to be a problem; only a tiny speck of evil is needed as a counterpart to good, just as a tiny speck of redness is needed as a counterpart to nonredness. “There is so much more than a speck of evil/redness in the world than necessarily needed.” Evil as a Necessary Means to Good: Another solution is that evil is a necessary means to good: ∙ One cannot have good without some means of evil/badness. o Mackie rejects this solution because it constrains “God’s” omnipotence: God is subject to causal laws. The Universe is Better with Some Evil: ∙ Another solution says that there is a justified reason for having evil: the universe as a whole is better off with some evil in it than it would be without evil. How would the universe be better? ∙ Aesthetically: The universe makes it more beautiful overall, like discord adds to beauty of a piece of music. ∙ Progressively: The gradual process of goodness overcoming evil allows for progress and so is better than unchallenged goodness. Evil is Due to Free Will: ∙ Genuine human freedom will involve humans sometimes making evil or wrong choices. ∙ But it is better for humans to have genuine free will and choose to do good out of evil.The Paradox of Omnipotence asks: “Can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control?” ∙ If not, then God is not omnipotent, there is something he cannot do. ∙ If so, then if God makes those things then he is no longer omnipotent. Another way to phrase the paradox: “Can an omnipotent being make rules which then binf himself?” If not, then God is not omnipotent. Mackie raises a problem with an omnipotent God creating humans with free will. Either God chooses not to control humans and not to intervene in their lives, or God cannot control humans because they have free will. If God chooses not to intervene but could, then Mackie’s argument would become inconsistent.MindBody Dualism: ∙ What sort of beings are we? ∙ Are we bodies, minds, souls, or some combination of both? ∙ What are minds, and are they reducible to material substances or are they immaterial? o If they are immaterial how do, they arise from some chunk of matter? Gertler’s Dualism (More information coming in next week’s notes). MindBody Problem: ∙ Rene Descartes argued for dualism. ∙ Dualism means that something is divided into two fundamental types/categories or made up of two fundamental things. Physicalism: About the mind says that the mind is just reducible to matter, so all mental states are just physical states of some sort. Physicalism about the universe says that everything is physical. Identity Theory: One physicalist theory Is the identity theory, which holds that every type f mental state is identical to some type of physical state. ∙ The identity theorist might hold something like the following: (P) Pain= Cfiber stimulation (P) is a claim about what is possible and what is impossible. Pain just is Cfiber stimulation. Other examples include but are not limited to: ∙ H2O and water. ∙ Clark Kent and Superman.Henock Daniel 7/11/16 (Day 9) Identity theory: One materialist theory is the “identity theory”, which holds that every type of mental state is identical to some types of physical state. ∙ The identity theorist might hold something like the following (P) Pain = Cfiber stimulation. ∙ Gertler argues that P is false. MindBody Dualism: ∙ What sort of beings are we? ∙ Are we bodies, minds, souls, or some combination of both? ∙ What are minds, and are they reducible to material substances or are they immaterial? o If they are immaterial how do, they arise from some chunk of matter? Gertler’s Dualism (More information coming in next week’s notes). MindBody Problem: ∙ Rene Descartes argued for dualism. ∙ Dualism means that something is divided into two fundamental types/categories or made up of two fundamental things. Physicalism: About the mind says that the mind is just reducible to matter, so all mental states are just physical states of some sort. Physicalism about the universe says that everything is physical. Identity Theory: One physicalist theory Is the identity theory, which holds that every type f mental state is identical to some type of physical state. ∙ The identity theorist might hold something like the following: (P) Pain= Cfiber stimulation(P) is a claim about what is possible and what is impossible. Pain just is Cfiber stimulation. Other examples include but are not limited to: ∙ H2O and water. ∙ Clark Kent and Superman. To show that the identity theory is true, we want to know whether there is a relationship between the two. Thought Experiments: ∙ So instead of empirical methods, we have to use a thought experiment to the possibility. ∙ In a thought experiment, one reflects very carefully on a certain scenario. Gertler’s Dualism: First premise of Gertler “Even though I firmly believe that I have physical features, I can conceive of experiencing this very pain while possessing no physical features”. To be in a physical state, there is a physical pain, just as when in a mental state, there is a physical pain associated with it as well. ∙ Conception of what being human is, or what being space is, becomes clouded as the perception of what we can understand will always be different and changing. ∙ Therefore, it is possible that this very pain occurs, in a disembodied being Physical: What does it mean for something to be physical? ∙ Extended in space. o But fields and waves aren’t extended in space. Using a term that is biased toward some theory of physics is not the goal of the lesson. So for premise (1), we need to conceive of experiencing pain as a purely mental entity.“What is our concept of water?”: ∙ Clear liquid substance. Naturally occurs in lakes, rivers, and rain. ∙ It seems conceivable that this substance, water, could be something other than H2O. “PAIN”: ∙ Because my concept of water doesn’t involve tits hidden essence, I think I can conceive water isn’t H2O. ∙ Materialistic claims that similarity, our concept of pain is not sufficiently comprehensive to make (premise 1) true. ∙ If you feel like you’re in pain, then you’re in pain. The appearance or feeling of pain just is pain. ∙ Unlike water, our concept of pain is sufficiently comprehensive. The Identity Theory is false. Disembodied Pain Redux: Imagine that you have no body. What are you imagining? Having just looked at reasons to look at (physical and pain), then there is a conceivable pain without having a body metaphysical aspect. Objections: The materialist might claim that if the dualism is true, there is no way to explain casual interaction between mind and bodies. We can completely explain why something happens in purely physical terms. There is no room for mental to do any casual work. The Casual Argument: ∙ Some mental events cause physical events ∙ Every caused physical event can be mentally enforced or physically. ∙ Some mental events cause physical events ∙ My experience of pain in my foot causes me to go to the doctor. ∙ Every caused physical event is wholly caused by some physical event. Carruthers thinks that scientific evidence is on his side and supports the casual argument.Henock Daniel 7/12/16 Phi 2010: (Day 10) The Casual Argument: (Argument): ∙ Some mental states cause physical events ∙ Every caused physical event is wholly caused by some physical event. ∙ Therefore, some mental events are physical events. Certainty Objection: ∙ I am absolutely certain of having a particular conscious states. ∙ I am not absolutely certain of having particular brain states. ∙ Therefore, these conscious states are not identical with these brain states (by Leibniz’s Law). ∙ The man who is both Batman and Bruce Wayne presents himself to Joker under different guises. ∙ Similarly, my brain state may be presented to me under two different guises: Batman and Bruce Wayne. ∙ A thirdperson way and a qualitative feel of what was said and observed. Spatial Position Objection: ∙ Brain events are spatially located. ∙ Mental events are no spatially located. ∙ Therefore, mental events are not brain events. Spatial Position: In virtue of what changes in what parts of Mary’s body is becoming true that she has a cold? ∙ Clogged sinuses, sore throat, etc. In virtue of changes in what specific region of Mary is it becoming true that she is thinking of her mother? ∙ Her brain. Chauvinism:Because pain is just Cfiber stimulation and if other animals or aliens don’t have Cfibers, then they may not feel pain or come close to the feeling of it. They may exhibit all the attributes of pain, but it’s not pain. It may be something very much like pain; i.e. pain +, pain –, pain * etc. Personal Identity: Williams is considering the following question: in virtue of what do we persist through time, assuming what we do? Notes from lecture given by T.A. Andrew’s Lecture Psychological Continuity: Taking a selfie one year from now and looking back in retrospect, although those two people are the same in their genetic makeup and mannerisms. o A lot can change, from the physical aspect and mental alike. With new memories now being present in this person, there is a distinction that the person from a year ago no longer exists and is now a memory in the current person anybody of person who is current is the present host. Bodily Continuity: Although there is bodily continuity, there is also physiological. William sides with bodily as he felt it had a much more direct approach, with more for the premises to support thereof. “Someone in whose power I am tells me that I am going to be tortured tomorrow. I am frightened, and look forward to tomorrow in great apprehension. He adds that when the time comes, I shall not remember being told that this was going to happen to me, since shortly before the torture something else will be done to me which will make me forget the announcement.” (167 BB). Would we fear this torture? ∙ It seems like the answer is yes: after all, the torture is still coming even if we don’t anticipate it. Things become “more complicated.” ∙ “The main” then adds that my forgetting the announcement will be only part of a larger process: when the moment of torture comes, I shall not remember any of the things I am now in a position to remember.” ∙ In other words, you will undergo a memory wipe o Would we still torture? It seems like the answer is yes.Henock Daniel 7/13/16 Phi 2010: (Day 11) Things to Know: ∙ What is the ego theory? ∙ What is the Bundle Theory? ∙ How does Parfit support his theory? Splitbrains. Teletransportation. The Ego Theory: What is an ego? ∙ A person’s sense of selfesteem or selfimportance, otherwise known as a metaphysical way of conscious thinking towards a subject. What grounds personal identity on this view? ∙ A literal question of life and death, as the correct answer to it determines which types of changes a person can undergo without ceasing to exist hence, it’s a distinguishing viewpoint of person. The Soul or subject of experience from consciousness. The Bundle Theory? What is a bundle? (general question, not relating philosophy) ∙ A collection of items/things into a group, typically untidy. What are the parts of the bundles? ∙ The parts of the bundles as it relates to philosophy and the Bundle Theory are a collection of mind + body experiences, person(s). What grounds personal identity on this view? The grounding factor for identity in this view are split viewpoint.Teletransportation: What is Teletransportation? The immediate breaking down of the person and reassembly when leaving to a different location. SplitBrains: If the hemispheres of the brain were split, then the input that the person receives from the environment are for two different streams of consciousness (hence there are two people present). Among the key inferences of having a split brain there comes the personhood of Teletransportation with any person ex: A person attempts to beam themselves up from Earth to Mars as they are a convicted criminal. If something goes wrong and there is now a copy of the conscious memories of the criminal and the body on Mars, which has no recollection of why the crimes were committed vs the actual criminal who is still on the run back on Earth. The personhood of this situation brings the question the supernatural being could have given you a body which bears no physical continuity or causal relation to the one you possessed before your death, or that it could have resurrected you, in some sense or other, as a bodiless being?Henock Daniel 7/1816 (Day 12) Moral Responsibility: ∙ To be morally responsible for something is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction, normally praise, blame, or something similar. ∙ Praise, blame, and similar reactions are only attribute to moral agents as often they are intended to reinforce or discourage behavior. “Moral Responsibility vs Causal Responsibility” Basic Argument: ∙ Donate to Oxfam vs buying your favorite treat. o Strawson says in moments like these, it feels like we are completely free and ultimately morally responsible for our actions. o Although no one is manipulating or coercing you to make the decisions left completely up to you the undermining factors include but are not limited to “guilt”, for feeling responsible for an action about to be committed. What might undermine our confidence in our freedom or responsibility in cases like this? Basic Argument (cont.): ∙ You do what you of because of the way you are. ∙ To be ultimately morally responsible for wat you do, you must be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least in certain crucial mental respects. ∙ You cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are. ∙ Therefore, you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do. Why do you think (3) is true?Support for premise (3): ∙ The way you are initially is a result if your genetic inheritance and early experiences ∙ You are not responsible for your genetics or early experiences. ∙ Even if alter in life you try to change the way you are, this will only be based on the way that you currently are. Support for premise (2): ∙ To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you must be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least crucial mental respects. ∙ When we are interested in free actions we are interested in actions performed for reasons. Conclusion: ∙ You do what you do because of what you are. ∙ To be ultimately morally responsible for what you do, you must be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least in certain crucial mental respects. ∙ You cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are. Compatibilist Objections: ∙ Perhaps notions of true or ultimate moral responsibility and justice that are used in the argument don’t have application to anything real. ∙ Why think we need ultimate or true mora responsibility and not just moral responsibility? ∙ NO TRUE Scotsman Fallacy (if they wear something under their kilt). Strawson’s Response: He agrees that the notions of true moral responsibility and justice in question cannot have application to anything real? Strawson deals with true and ultimate notions because they are central to ordinary thought about moral responsibility and justice (remember the Oxfam case) http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/P._F._Strawson_Freedom_&_Resentment.pdf Evidential claim, but why should we think this? Even if true, why not seek to revise people’s everyday beliefs?Determinism: ∙ Strawson says this argument works whether or not determinism is true, but what is determinism? “The theory that all events, including human actions and choices, are, without exception, totally determined.” ∙ Why isn’t this a good definition? ∙ The relativity varies. ∙ The thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future (Van Inwagen) (rewind) No matter how many times the decision is made, should God roll back time, the same thing will occur again and again. The past combined with the laws of nature entail/casually ensure one unique future. ∙ A being with complete knowledge of the state of the universe and complete knowledge of the laws could predict with 100% accuracy every subsequent state. Fatalism vs Determinism: ∙ When events are fated, in a way that conflicts with determinism, certain future events transpire no matter what actions an agent performs. ∙ All events (or some events) will occur no matter what we do (to avoid it). o Source of guarantee that events will occur is located in the will of the gods, magic, or something other than the natural laws and cause and effect relation. Indeterminism: ∙ An indeterministic universe is a universe in which determinism is false. ∙ The thesis that there is at any instant more than one physically possible future. o The past combined with the laws of nature do not entail/casually ensure one unique future.Henock Daniel 7/22/16 Phi 2010: (Day 13, 14, & 15): Basic Argument: You do what you do because of the way you are. •To be ultimately morally responsible for what you do, you must be ultimately responsible for the way you are at least in certain crucial mental respects. •Mother Teresa i.e. Hitler both could not be he held accountable for their actions. Strawson's Response: •He agrees that the notions of true moral responsibility, and justice in question cannot have application to anything real. •Strawson says with true and ultimate notions because they are central to ordinary thought. Indeterminism: •An Indeterministic universe is a universe in which determinism is false. •The thesis that there is at any instant more than one physically possible future. •Fatalism: things occur no matter what we do. •Determinism: things occur precisely because of what we do. Libertarian Objection: ∙ If indeterminism is true, then the past and laws aren’t sufficient to bring about the future, so we can escape our initial conditions. Strawson's Response: • Indeterminism doesn't save you from the regress. In order to be responsible for your actions, you gave to be responsible for your prior character which is formed by prior actions. ●Independent Self objection: One’s self is independent of one’s character or personality or motivational structure and therefore can overcome the initial conditions. The Mystery of Free Will: The thesis that there i.e. at any instant exactly one physically possible future (van inwagen) Only one continuation. Are Determinism and Free Will Compatible? A few important notes: These are projections about logical possibilities, not about what the real world is like. Compatibilists do not claim that determinism is ∙ Compatibilism: Van Inwagen says that the Compatibilists must solve two philosophical ideas. One Compatibilist response to the first question: Any action that is consistent with the laws of nature but physically possible. All it takes for an action to be open to us is for it to be continuous. No ChoicePrinciple: Van Inwagen thinks that his compatibilist view is problematic. Determinism seems to rule out our control. Suppose that the universe was a particular way at the time of the Big Bang, and that no one has ever (or ever) had a choice about whether, the universe was that particular way at the time of the Big Bang. The Luck Problem: ∙ Incompatibilists who think we have free will are faced with the luck problem. Imagine Alice is deciding between lying or telling the truth. ∙ If a decision is undetermined, it looks like a matter of luck, or random chance, that one makes that decision rather than the latter. o In regards to this, one can conclude that Incompatibilists apply the idea that, if a crossroad of decisions is met but the options can have varying consequences, without a solidified end result, the choice is up to luck meaning the decision cannot be held morally responsible for one’s self at that moment. Agent Causation: ∙ One can appeal to a different sort of causation to explain the Indeterministic causation. ∙ Event causation understands causation in terms of events. A “ SelfContradictory” Concept?: Compatibilists must deny the NoChoice Principle, which seems plausible.Incompatibilists who believe we have free will must explain and answer the mysteries of luck and gent causation. Whilst, free will is incompatible with determinism and incompatible with indeterminism. Henock Daniel 7/26/16 PHI 2010 (Day 16 & 17): Indeterminism Makes Control Impossible: If an event is undetermined, it is a matter as to whether it takes place. But if something is a matter of chance, it is not within one’s control even if the events can be swayed to favor one’s outcome, it is still out of their control. Ex: (from previous lecture). The business woman has control over whether she performs some action: ∙ She makes an effort to perform it. ∙ She tries to perform it. ∙ She performs it voluntarily and intentionally. ∙ She succeeds in performing one action over another. ∙ She has reasons for the action she performs. ∙ She endorses the outcome. Arbitrariness: There is a third objection related to the second: an individual’s choice is still arbitrary in an SFA. While the businesswoman may choose M and support it for variable reasons, she could have just as easily chosen P instead of various other reasons. But is she could have picked M or P, and the reasons for picking either aren’t enough themselves, it seems she has no reason to choose one over the other. Moral Luck: The Problem of Moral Luck When we judge someone as morally responsible for some act, we assess that person’s moral worth. The Principle of Control: “People cannot be morally assessed for what is not their fault, or for what is due to factors beyond their control.” ∙ People are morally responsible only for what is under their control. ∙ i.e. late due to forgetting to set an alarm as opposed to being late because of a natural disaster. In the case of on event, that was the persons’ responsibility, meanwhile the natural disaster was out of their control. Four Kinds of Moral Luck: Nagel discusses four different kinds of moral luck, which are: ∙ Consequential Luck with respect to how one’s actions turn out, or with respect to the consequences of one’s actions. ∙ Circumstantial Luck with respect to the circumstances in which one finds oneself, lucky with respect to the opportunities one has to display one’s character. ∙ Constitutive Luck with respect to the kind of person one is, including your inclinations, capacities, temperament, character traits, dispositions, and personality. Some of our personality is due to our own influence, but some of it, perhaps event most is it, is not. ∙ Antecedent Luck with respect to the antecedents that bring about one’s intentions or choices. ∙ We might admit that the first here kinds of moral luck conflict with the Principle of Control.(Day 18): God and Morality: ∙ If God does not exist, everything is permitted. ∙ Do you agree or disagree with this? ∙ There could potentially be the saying that, without God there is no motivation to be good. ∙ Or that without God there is no objective moral truth, so nothing is really “right or wrong.” With there being no penalty for everyone to pay, should there not be a God, then truth is subjective if aligns without attitude or utterances, it depends completely on attitude. ∙ Focus of topic “Does Objective moral truth depend on God.” o Plato’s mentor o Main character in Plato’s dialogues o One of the founders of Western Philosophy Plato Student of Socrates, mentor to Aristotle. Most famous for his dialogues where he examines almost every area of philosophy. “The safes general characterization of European philosophical tradition.” The Setting: Socrates has just been indicted for corrupting the minds of the youth and teaching about false gods. As he awaits his trial he meets a man named Euthyphro who has come to present charges of manslaughter. Why is Socrates surprised about what Euthyphro is doing? Euthyphro’s Motivation: Euthyphro’s father left a man to die after he killed one of their household servants. What is Piety? Socrates wonders how Euthyphro can be so sure that what he is doing is right. ∙ Socrates “Bear in mind then that I did not bid you tell me one or two of the many pious actions but that the form itself that makes all pious actions pious.” Divine Command Theory: ∙ God’s will be relevant to determining the moral status of a particular act.∙ If God commands that X is morally permissible, obligatory or forbidden then X is morally permissible, obligatory, or forbidden. Socrates’ Initial Response: ∙ The Greeks were polytheistic, so Socrates asks whether the gods could differ about what they think is good. ∙ Euthyphro says the gods can differ about thinking some things are good, but over justice and piety they cannot. ∙ He concludes all god’s love what is pious and hate what is impious. The Euthyphro Dilemma: ∙ The question, “What makes a thing good or morally right?” The gods love what is good (morally right because it is good morally right). ∙ Or what the gods love is good (morally right). First Horn: ∙ If God is relying on reasons to know what is good and bad, there must be as source of ethical truth that exists independently of God. ∙ So the objectivity of what is good or bad does not depend on what God commands, but rather depends on external reasons. ∙ Theoretically, if we had access to the right reasons, we could determine what is wrong and wrong without God. Second Horn: ∙ If God’s commands are arbitrary, then it’s hard to see how they can be objectively true. ∙ If God lacks any reasons to command the things that he does, then they wouldn’t be good or bad separate from his attitude towards them. If what is good or bad depends on a being’s attitude toward them, ten they are no objective. The Euthyphro Dilemma: Either God has reasons for commanding what is good or he doesn’t. If he does have reasons then the objectivity, it seems whichever way we answer that objective moral truth doesn’t depend on God.Henock Daniel 7/27/16 Phi 2010 (Day 19): Utilitarianism: Is it always wrong to lie? Is murder always wrong? *These questions have a broad area of answers to which can be made. Clearcut examples to where lying is not always wrong and murder is justified is not as simple as implied. * ∙ Utilitarianism was developed in the 18th century by an English philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, and alter in the 19th century by another English philosopher. The Greatest Happiness Principle: According to Mill, there is just one fundamental principle of right and wrong: The Greatest Happiness principle also known as the Principle of Utility. In other words, what morality fundamentally requires is that we maximize the sum of happiness. “Do you like this conception of morality?” (personal opinions can be noted; this is entirely subjective). Consequentialism: ∙ Consequentialism says that an action is right just insofar as it has consequences that are intrinsically good. ∙ The rightness of an action depends solely on what its consequences are in particular, on whether they’re intrinsically good. ∙ Note that this means that your intentions, on this view, do not factor into whether an act is right or wrong. This claim about what can constitute a reason for doing a certain thing is what lies at the core of consequentialism.∙ In contrast, something that is intrinsically good is good in itself, independently of whether or not it produces other things that are good. “Do we value justice for justices’ sake, or because it is lead to make us believe in something else?” What are examples of something that are instrumentally good? (Health i.e. exercise, leads to good health, however some forms of exercise are not enjoyed overall, bu the effects of it are beneficial for its own sake and for the person.) Welfarism: ∙ Mill says that what is good is what is desirable, or what is worthy of being desired. ∙ What is intrinsically good is what is worthy of being desired for its own sake. o So what things are desirable for their own sakes? Happiness, or pleasure and the absence of pain, is something that people desire for its own sake. Whatever is thought to be ultimately good, can be traced back to pleasure or happiness. “Is anything else intrinsically good?” (For the purpose of this class, happiness is good, good is pleasure).Henock Daniel 7/29/16 Phi 2010 Day 20 & Day 21: Utilitarianism: Objection: Intentions Matter ∙ According to the consequentialism portion of utilitarianism, only consequences matter when assessing moral worth. ∙ This means we shouldn’t factor in intentions when deciding whether an act is good. Even though they help produce an act, they are not consequences of an act. ∙ Developed in the 18th century by an English Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, and alter furthered by a 19th century by another English philosopher named John Stuart Mill. Assassin who produces good i.e. the assassin shoots the prime minister, which in turn cause him to go to the hospital to be treated for the gunshot wound. In turn they find out that the prime minister had a tumor, which, as it turns out, was a good thing for the prime minister to have been shot. Good came out of the bad of the action committed by the assassin. “Is it always wrong to lie?” The Good Will: According to Mill, the one and only thing that is intrinsically good is happiness. Kant says that happiness is good when it is deserved, but when wicked people enjoy happiness, it isn’t good. The Great Happiness Principle: ∙ According to Mill, there is just one fundamental principle of right and wrong the Great Happiness Principle also known as the Principle of Utility. ∙ Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” • According to this principle, what one morally ought to do, from among the available alternatives, is the thing that will produce the greatest sum of happiness, taking into account the effects of each alternative on all who would be affected.Secondary Principles: The only times that we need to revert to the Greatest Happiness Principle is when two or more of these secondary principles are in conflict or they obviously violate the Greatest Happiness Principle. Wisdom passed from previous ancestors where the form of moral principles come to play, i.e.: ∙ Keeping promises. ∙ Telling the Truth. ∙ Respecting others’ property. ∙ Don’t Murder. o Such secondary rules are derived from the one fundamental principle of right and wrong, such is the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” The only time that someone can fall back on this principle, is when two or more aspects or the ones listed above are in contradiction with one another. Ex: Keeping a promise to murder someone who did not respect someone else’s property and lied about respecting it. Objection: Too Demanding: If morality requires that one is to constantly maximize happiness for the greatest amount of people, then that would mean the person is not acting morally they are only appealing to the objective feelings of others, constrained to satisfy but not to live up to their free will. With that in mind, Mill would agree that so long as you are not promoting pain or the opposite of pleasure then you are perhaps, not acting immorally. Large Man Case: Do you push the Man off the bride in order to stop a trolley from running over five people? Modified Transplant Case: In this case, a doctor has prescribed the wrong medication to his patients (five people), of whom now suffer from organ failure as a result of that medication. Another patient walks in who has a blood type compatible with every other blood type and organ type. Would killing this one person and transplant the organs into the dying patients, justify the incorrect prescription? This question is subject to a standpoints opinion. Ronald Dworkin: “Rights ‘trump’ the outcome”.Rights > Utility? : It looks like this response won’t work because we still think that pulling the level is morally permissible even though the one person on the track has just as much a right to life as the patient. Even though we might think the worker’s predicament was part of the job he signed up for, Thomson thinks that’s silly. Certain jobs may come with risk, but Thomson doesn’t think a railroad worker can’t be sacrificed in regards to this. Thomson: “Any plausible theory of rights must make room for the possibility of waiving a right.”Henock Daniel 8/1/16 8/2/16 PHI 2010 (Day 22 & 23): Singer’s Principle: ∙ Strong Principle (SP): If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. o That being said, there is an example of the following, i.e.: “child is drowning” “you have expensive items on hand” Do you jump in to save the child or avoid the situation entirely?” The Strong Principle: ∙ Two more important features of SP: ∙ My obligation to prevent the suffering of someone who lives far away is just as strong as may obligation to prevent he starvation of someone I see every day. ∙ Even though those closer to us suffering are harder to ignore this doesn’t lessen our obligation to help all those in need. ∙ In this case, whether a child is drowning near me or half way across the world, if I can prevent it from happening I should. Objection, Government: ∙ Overseas aid is the government’s responsibility. If individuals give privately to charities, the government does not need to take too much part in it. Objection, Population Control: ∙ Until there is effective population control, relieving famine just postpones starvation. o Reply: If this is true, Singer’s argument implies that we should do all we can to promote population control. Objection, Economy: ∙ If we give at the level required even by Singer’s the state of Global collapse would increase the population would increase exponentially, therefore resulting in a limitation of food and available space, the limited technology and access to resources no longer fit to sustain. Is Rawls Right? Should we be giving to charity much more than we currently do? Yes and No. The Original Position: ∙ Rawls realizes that our inherent differences in the real world will always be bias in what principles society will be based upon. ∙ Behind the veil of ignorance do not know: o The race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, wealth, endowments, etc. ∙ Or any of the citizen’s society or to which generation in the history of the society these citizens belong in. ∙ The political system of the society, its class structure, economic system, or level of economic development. ∙ As for natural endowments, people won’t know their intelligence, athletic ability, future wealth, and development within society until they are of the age to understand. ∙ We are to imagine that it is just as likely that we are born well advantaged with a lot of natural talents or disadvantaged with no natural state. Individuals to know: ∙ That citizens in the society have difference comprehensive doctrines and plans of life; that all citizens have interest in more primary goods. ∙ That society is under conditions of moderate scarcity: there is enough to go around but not enough for everyone to get what they want. General Facts about human social life: ∙ Facts of common sense. ∙ The participants are rational in that they take effective means to meet their ends and aim to make their preferences consistent.Two Principles of Justice: Rawls argues that there are two principles that would be chosen in the original position: 1. “First: each person is to have equal rights to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. 2. Second: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and officers open to all, by the way of general comment. 3. The process of mutual judgement. The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are arranged to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Within this, everyone should have the opportunity to be the greatest at being disadvantaged of the worst at being advantaged, from the very day that they are come to existence. Distribution of Good: Remember these charts when looking at utilitarianism: Which society is better off? ∙ Society 1 with equal units of wealth at 7 for A, B, & C. ∙ Society 2 with A at 20, B at 3, and C at 2. ∙ Society 3 with A at 15, B at 8, and C at 8. The society that is better off, would be A. Seeing as how this is the one that is “justified through fairness”. However, this is in regards to Rawls’ argument. With a normal standpoint, it’s better to have a society based on 2 where the normal distribution of wealth is spread unevenly everyone is provided with an amount of resources made available to whoever can attain it. The Difference Principle: Which of the following economies would be the difference principle select?
Least Advantaged Group
Most Advantaged Group
” ∙ *How do you know this?
What makes for a just society?
∙ What is philosophy and why does it matter?
If you want to learn more check out hold a pencil in front of your eye at a position where it blunt end
Don't forget about the age old question of What do you call a subset of a population?
If you want to learn more check out What are the top ten neoliberalist policies?
If you want to learn more check out ua d2l
Don't forget about the age old question of ohio u spring break
Don't forget about the age old question of ub citi training
∙ The best one would be C, seeing as how the distribution of wealth can be spread amongst one another, but each is limited in their ability to gain resources. ∙ Working your way up to the most advantaged, would dub you the “most advantaged” while working your way down is a label upon becoming the “least advantaged.” ∙ An income inequality might be needed to incentivize the most talented to do work that benefits the least talented, however, ∙ The DP implies that massive redistribution of wealth might be required by justice in order to benefit the least advantaged in society. “Is wealth or income distribution justified?” “Behind the veil of ignorance, you had no way of knowing. Once someone gains a lot of money, the chances of them partaking in