INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY
INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY PHIL 1000
Popular in Course
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 26 page Class Notes was uploaded by Breanna Sipes Sr. on Saturday September 12, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 1000 at University of Georgia taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 15 views. For similar materials see /class/202549/phil-1000-university-of-georgia in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Georgia.
Reviews for INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/12/15
PHIL 1252012 55100 PM 1392312 discuss whether or n0t Aquinas 1St way is a good argumentgo through each premise and see iF it seems true 8seems tO be the strongest premise but people are trying tO Figure out why it must be God unmoved mover mustmove things Ahas to exist what else could it be how cosmological argument woriltssays First mover must be outside our world because they are never moving or changing 39 the argument From eFFicieht causation 1 In the material world there is eFFicient causation there is ca use and eFFeCt in the world 2 thing can be the eFFicient ca use oF itselF 3 There cahnOt be an i nFinite series oF ca uses 0 there is a temporal arrangement OF ca usesca uses always come beFore eFFect iF we remove a ca use the eFFeCt is removed iF you try to say that there are no SUCh things as parents you are also saying that there is no such thing as children iF we remove the First cause in a series there won t be any Further eFFects iF there were an i nFinite series oF ca use there would be no First ca use which would meant there are no eFFeCt nowclearly False Conclusion there must a First cause God 1392512 atta0ilt on God 1St Claim Cosmological argument does nOt prove GOD s existence 2Dd Claim Cosmological argument doesn t prOVe a single ca use or mover why can t there be different ca uses for everything sldzDoes nOt prove that the first mover or ca use STILL exist Why ca n t the effect still live without the ca use attaCIlt in there must be a first moverca use 4 does nOt prove that a first ca usemover is necessary unfair to defenders of the infinite series because the argument does nOt distinguish between o 1 A did nOt exist 2 A is nOt uncaused Defenders of the infinite series agree with 2 but nOt 1 All infinite means is that there is no first that doesn t mean the being doesn t exist but just that it wasn t first A supporter of Aquinas mayl Still try to argue that while it is possible to haVe an infinite series the whole series still needs a cause EszsKimos in New YorIltexpained why they are all there doesn t make sense to asilt why the entire group is there because they don t make one thing that needs ONE cause They are individuals and thus need individual causes all traces back to big ba ngdoesn t seem like Edwards acknowledge that piCIlt one point for my own ahalelsmy pointaquinas doesn t do a good job of proving that the first mover must be Godthe first mover does not necessarily have to have all of those characteristics 1252012 55100 PM ontological argumentbegins with the idea of God and argues to God s necessary existence God that than which no greater can be conceived l i 1 God is conceivable its logically possible that there is a perfect being 2 God exist in the understanding there is an idea of God 3 God cannot exist in the understanding alone o A assume God exist in the understanding aloneonly as an idea o B God can be conceived to exist in reality imagine in reality o C it is greaternot better but greater in relation to the substance I realitydoesn t depend on anything to exist in reality than just in the understanding o D if God exist in the understanding alone then God is one than which a greater can be conceived ltby definition above if Godwrong o E therefore it is impossible that God exist only in the understanding Conclusion God must exist in the understanding and in reality Modes of existence o nonexistence o contingent in terms of timethere is a time in which that things doesn t existin terms of dependencydepend of things o necessaryhas always existed doesn t depend on anything Argument for the mode of God s existence as necessary 1 God cannot exist contingently a lets assume that God exist contingently b God can be conceived to exist necessarilywhich is greater c therefore if God can exist contingently then God is the one that which a greater can be conceivedcannot be the case d God cannot exist contingently Conclusion God must exist necessarily Why does Anselm cal non believer fool atheistadmit they know of God but don t believe it Anselm says you can t conceive and not believe What s wrong with the argument only two options conceive or don tso exist or doesn t just because one person can t conceive it doesn t mean everybody else can t How argument works he proves through contradiction Gaunilo Perfect IslandI can conceive of a perfect Island so it has to exist If there is something wrong with this argument then there must be something wrong with Anselm argument o Anselm says the idea of perfect island 5 abuse of the word perfect because that means that nothing can be added to itwith the island you can always make it better God has the kind of qualities that can t be added to Anselms Rejoindor or Response 1 I cannot conceive of the non existence of God a ifI try to conceive of the non existence of God then I have God in the understanding which proves God s existenceyou can t take existence way from the perfect being b ifI don t have God in the understanding then it s not God I am conceiving the nonexistence of 2 I can conceive the nonexistence of a perfect island ConclusionGod must exist necessarily but the perfect island is not possible 1252012 55100 PM The problem of Evil 0 if God is God why would he allow These Things To happen If God is an allpower ful allgood and allknowing Then There should noT be any evil There is evil Therefore God does noT exisT Johnson Example Baby bur ning Why doesn39T God inTer vene 1The baby will go To heaven 0 JeiTher H was necessary for The baby To suffer on ear Th or H was noT o if H was noT necessar y God should noT have allowed iT o if H was necessary Then The facT ThaT The baby goes To heaven does noT explain why The suffering had To happen 2 The baby39s deaTh will have good r esulTs 0 J Confuses issues of mor aliTy wher e duTies are known only afTer39 The facT o iT assumes whaT we are Trying To prove lr39ll 7quot l s i 3 Free will defenseGod is noT r esponsible we as human being are if we expecTed god To inTer veneer39ase free will 0 Jmakes God a guilTy bysTander39 0 maybe God wanTs us To independenT 0 maybe God doesn39T wanT To desTr oy any moral ur gencyur genT need To do someThing for someone else I buT we r especT fir emen I if mor al ur gency is so gr eaT Then God need To cr eaTe more F 4 A world wiThouT suffer ing no vir Tues o J isn39T Ther39e excessive suffering 0 should we be cr eaTing oppor TuniTies for people To suffer c we should sTop Trying To pr evenT suffer39ing 5 Evil is a necessary bipr oducT of The laws of naTur eelecTr iciTy is a wonderful Thing so someTimes Ther e maybe an elecTr ical fir e ThaT kills The baby 0 Jwhy doesn39T God inTer vene in a small way 6 Evil is a necessary conTr39asT To The good 0 Jwhy so much evilholocausT necessar y 7 God has a higher mor39aliTy Than which To be Judgedwe Think iTs bad buT good in God39s eyes 0 mor aliTy would Then have no meaning for us 8 God is noT allpower fulcan39T force us To do Things so can39T blame him 0 buT God was supposed To have cr eaTed The universe 9The reliance on faiTh o misinTer pr eTaTion of faiTh39means Tr usT and loyalTy because of proofGod hasn39T given reasons To Tr usT himblindly accepTing Theodicy offer s reason for believing ThaT The presence of evil does noT pr evenT r39aTional belief in God Mor al evil cr eaTed by human wickedness Nor mal evil all The pain and suffering noT dir echy caused by human beings or human wickedness MoraewexisTs because of human fr eedom fr eedom means having The real abiliTy To do oTher wise So The idea of a person who musT always do The r ighT Thing is selfconTr39adicTor39y fr eedom means having choices and if musT always do The r ighT choicequot you don39T really have choices So The possibiliTy of wrong doing is logically inseparable from The cr39eaTion of free being To say God should noT have cr eaTed being who doing wrong is The same as saying God should have noT cr eaTed fr ee beings Does iT mean ThaT God is omnipoTenT if we claim ThaT God cannoT cr eaTe being who always do The r ighT Thing 0 No God can only do whaT is logically conceivable IT is impossible To cr eaTe fr ee unfr ee beings Why didn39T God cr eaTe unfr ee beings 0 because only free beings can enTer inTo a personal r elaTionship wiTh God NonmoraevIexisT for The purpose of soulbuildingbuilding char acTer39 and vir Tues 1252012 55100 PM a EpistemoIogythe study of knowledge 0 Know how simpIy having the ability to do somethingcan breathe without knowing exactly how it happens 0 knowledge be acquaintance example acquainted with the person next to me but do not know them 0 propositional knowledge knowledge that something is the case the knowledge that we refI ect upon Definition knowledge is a justified true belief you have to believe it and it has to be true also need adequate reason and support Questions to consider 0 What is the structure of knowledge what would a body of beliefs look like 0 How do we come to know things 0 what is the source of knowledge what sorts of things do we have knowledge of 0 what is the extent of knowledge how much can we have RationaIism There are innate ideas ideas the mind is born with that the mind can come to know aprior 0 Descartes is considered a rationalist Empiricism There are no innate ideas the source of all ideas is experience 0 Lock BarkIey Hume Skepticism challenges claims to knowledge 0 extreme skeptics claim that knowledge is impossible Lehrer Descartes 0 rationalist 0 FoundationaIism structure of knowIedgeFoundation that rest of beliefs are sitting on need criteria For beIieFcIear and indubitabIe method of doubt only by doubting can find those indubitabIe MEDITATION ONE BEGIN THE METHOD OF DOUBT tearing down Foundations The Foundations For his beliefs either came From his senses or doubt He was looking For Foundations that did not have any doubt 0 senses 0 sense can deceive you if you39re a madmanquot or you39re a dreamerquot 93 o logical truthsZZ4lt how can you doubt that gt evil deceivera being as powerful as God deceiving me 0 even though its not likely its slightly possible which means that logical truths are indubitable MEDITATION TWOBEGIN REBLIlLDlNG PROCESS Is there anything at all that is indubitable thoughtexistence How could the evil deceiver deceive you into think that you don39t exist it can39t because you have to exist to be deceived l 1 think therefore I am lSt Foundation I existquot 2 God exist 2quotd Foundation i proof I the cause of something has to have at least as much reality as the e ectprinciple of sufficient reasoniyou cant get something from nothing This counts For ideas too ideas are ultimately traced back to real entities l have the idea of a perFect being this idea could only have come From the perFect being www SO the perFect being God must exist God created me with my Faculties God is not a deceiver So I can trust my Faculties 104k Propositional Knowledge Representationalist Corpuscular theory small bits of matter that Founding parts of everything you see an object made of corpuscles which bounce OFF things into ideas that create thoughts I introduction purposetry to discover what we knowwhy we knowhow we know method 2 Reject innateideas born with ideas a argument given in Favor of innate ideas is unique assent everybody has these ideas and agree with them ZZ4 b Problem i universal assent does not prove innateness does not prove that we all have it but instead how we came about it ii infants and quotidiotsquot Empiricism all knowledge comes From experience 0 we are born with a blank slate i sensation ii reflection believes in representationalism there are object in the world and we don39t have those objects in our mind but instead a representation of those objects 4 Our ideas and the power of the objects to produce ideas a ideaswhatever the mind perceives in itself or is the immediate object of perception b qualitythe power to produce idea in our mind primaryinherent in the object mind independentextension I shape size solidity motion or rest numberlt defining qualities of an object which taking up spacequot secondaryare not in the object dependent on the mindheatcold color taste odor and sound Things that lead to a contradiction must be False 0 PROBLEM gtRelativity of perceptionthings are perceived differently by some peoplewhy secondary qualities are secondary According to Locke is a tree Falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it it doesn39t make a soundsound that is never heard is just vibrations 5 Our sensible ideas are produced by objects a those who lack a sense organ lack any corresponding idea Berkeley idealistimmaterialist only minds and ideas nothing else empiricist attacks Locke quality theory an attack on primary qualitiessays apply the relativity of perception Philonous lover of mindBERKELEY VS Hylasmatterone who believes in the independent existence of material objects LOCKE Philonous argument that there is no such things as material existence 0 sensible thingsimmediately perceived by the sense 1 Material objects are nothing more than sensible things 2 IF you take away all sensible qualities nothing remains 3 Sensible qualities are divided into primary and secondary 4 Secondary qualities are not in objects they are mind dependent 5 Primary qualities are not in objects they are mind dependent 6 ThereFore there are no sensible qualities in objects All qualities are mind dependent Conclusion Material objects do no exist independent oF the mind 0 To be a material object is to be perceived Because oF relativity oF perception we have to conclude that secondary qualities must be dependent upon the mind ARGUMENT FOR GOD Where do we get our sensible ideas 0 They can39t come From the material worldall that exist For Barkley are minds and ideas 0 Our ideas do not come From other ideas because ideas are passive 0 The ideas must come From the mind 0 They do not come From my own mind 0 Must be a mind that can support all sensible qualities and produce them in all minds Sensible ideas have order and unity They must come From God M I There is a diFFerence between a current impression a memory or anticipation a The most lively thought is still inFerior to the dullest sensation 2 Division oF perceptions oF the mind 3 Our thoughts are limited by our impressions can39t have a thought about something without actually have an impression oF it a prooF i provide a counter example ii those who lack sensory organ lack only corresponding idea 9 Method in abstract reasoning Find the impressions ideas are broken Divisions oF human reason 9 a relation oF ideacontrary is not logically possiblenot logically possible 139 matter oF Fact contrarylogically possible 6 What justiFies any latter iF Facebook beyond out cur cilmnetiasism a all reading remains matters oF Fact depends on the creation oF cause and eFFect 7 How can we justiFy the relation oF cause and eFFect 8 our justiFication must come From experience 9 So what do we learn about cause ad eFFect From experience Conclusion we may not required necessary connection Consequences 0 we do not want to know that conjoined in the life wife 0 our knowledge is limited ideas and first impressions 0 our external world 0 what produced the impressions 0 knowledge of our own mind and the minds of others 0 Locke 0 Berkeley agree with Berkeley What produces ideas 0 God m Skeptics in general challenge claims to knowledge 0 extreme skeptics claim that knowledge us impossible knowledgejustified something belief Googols skeptical toolshypothesis 0 possibility that we39re always wrong so we have reason to doubt One way to look at the skeptical hypothesis is that it challenges our claims to complete justification 0 how can we be completely justified in our claims unless we can show that the googols is impossible The hint of doubt is enough to challenge the criterion of justification that is necessary for knowledge Conclusion since the justification for knowledge cannot be met knowledge is impossible 1252012 55100 PM How does Locke think that things are existing dependent of our mind 0 because they have primary qualities How does Locke know that my ideas are caused by external objects 0 you cannot come up with ideas spontaneously or come up with simple ideas without an object to bass them one if you39re blind you cannot have or create the idea of color HUME What would Hume say about our knowledge of the physical world 0 what we really experience are sensations so primary qualities are non sense our knowledge is limited to the mind can39t extend to outside of the mind What would he say produces impressions 0 aggrees with Berkeley that there is no physical world Berkeley says sensations come From God Hume how can we have1 I J ofquot r 39 without t39 have no knowledge of causation so question of what produces impressions doesn t matter what would he say about the knowledge of our minds and the minds of others 0 the mind is not observable so Forget about it we are a bundle of impressions and nothing more Locke Berkeley Hume doesn39t believe in a being or god there is no I to think STUDY QUESTIONS 1 How does Locke argue For the existence of the physical world Assess 0 the world that exist outside of our mind primary qualities give them their existence and primary qualities exist independently because they have physical qualitiestaking up spa ceprimary qualities 2 What argument does Locke give For thinking the physical world causes our sense perceptions Assess 0 if you lack sensory organs you lack any corresponding idea these things are real because we can sense them due to their physical qualities 3 How does Berkeley argue For Idealism against the existence of the physical world Assess 0 he thinks primary qualities are mind dependent to be is to be pericieved 4 What does Berkeley think the source of our sensible ideas is Why Assess 0 God because it has to be a great mind that gives us these ideas 5 Comparecontrast Locke and Berkeley Who makes the stronger arguments and why 0 WARNING do not present argument for what you believe but instead who makes stronger argument about primary qualitiesquot 6 How does Hume distinguish Relations of Ideas from Matters of Fact 7 How does he argue that Matters of Fact are not completely justified Assess 8 What are some consequences of this claim Assess 9 How does Hume39s view differ from the extreme skepticism of Lehrer Explain hume says we can have some knowledge Lehrer says T10 10 What is Foundationalism What criteria does Descartes propose for foundational beliefs Why 0 what you build your structure of knowledge on clear and indubitable 1 Why does he reject his previous foundations What is his first new foundational belief How does this belief fit his criteria Assess 0 they are indubitable 0 I think therefore I am 12 What is DescartesY argument for God39s existence Assess 0 idea could only have come from perfect thing God 13 How does Descartes justify the superstructure of beliefs Assess 0 god gave us faculties and god is not a deceiver 14 What is extreme skepticism How does Lehrer argue for it What role does his Googol example play Is the Googol example strong enough to challenge DescartesY claims to knowledge Why or why not Develop and defend 0 googolbasically the same thing as evil deceiver 1252012 55100 PM W Point justify an absolute sovereignruler or rulers with no restriction lt he thinks this is ideal and should be in the Form of a hereditary monarchy State ofNaturz no government or laws logical deduction based on how people are gt people are egoistseveryone is concerned with their own interest Men are all equal in our ability to kill one anothersane rational adult beings 0 This gives to equality of hope if you want something From someone you have equal hope of attaining it because you have equal hope of killing each other 0 This makes enemies of man 39 3 principle quarrels of man 393 competition 393 dimdence Fear glory 0 State of nature is state of war with every man against every other man 0 Life of man is solitary poor brutish and short Proof 1 Look at how people behave 2 Look at how nations behave Self preservation is the ruling principleour primary concern and this is what leads to a civil society Right of nature the Freedom each man has to use his own power as he sees hit or the preservation of his own life Law of nature a general rule Founded by reason by which a man is Forbidden to do that which is destructive of his own life or takes away the means of preserving his life 0 ISt law everyone ought to seek peace there is reasonable hope of attaining it otherwise use all advantages of war Zquotd law A man must be willing when others are too to give up his right to all things and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against him the only way to love peacefully together is to give up our rights what you don39t want people to do to you you give up the right too exdon39t want people to steal so I wont steal Ways to give up rights 0 Renouncing a general giving up of right I don39t want it so 1 say I give up the right to that thingquot 0 Transferring giving someone else specifically the right to that thing 0 Contracts mutual transferring of rights give something to get something 0 Covenants contracts that involve a promise or Faith I don39t have it now but ill bring it tomorrow make that promise and have Faith they39ll do it 0 Covenants are void in the state of nature unless there is a power to Force compliance The establishment of civil Society requires an outside Force to Force compliance 0 Absolute Sovereign gt the people make the agreement to live together peacefully and the sovereign lives outside so they have no right or wrong because they are outside the contract so it cannot do any wrong and it has absolute power all it does is enforce the agreement of the people Hereditary monarchy I from whence it Follows that where the public and private interest are most closely united there is the public most advanced the interest of both are the same the monarch wants the same thing we do so if were protected so is she Z A monarch receives counsel of whom when and where she pleases 3 The resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of human nature 4 A monarch cannot disagree with herself 5 Any subject may be deprived of all he possesses but the same may well happen when the power is in an assembly biggest problem 1252012 55100 PM Locke 1 State of Nature State ofliberty and equalityequal in the eyes of God 2 But it is not a state oflicense because it is governed by the law of naturethe right to do anything we choose in self defense since we are the sewers of God there is no license We have a God given right to self govern We have a duty to preserve all of man kind 3 when men join together they make a whole body where the majority rules For the purpose of protecting life and property this is the only way to maintain our god given right to self govern 4 Original contract 0 men agree to join together in societyestablishes the common wealth 0 if you are within the domain oFa common wealth you are bound by its laws thus you must give up your own belief that con ict with the common wealth because you are enjoying the benefits of that common wealth you agree to annex to it all your property and Future property to be regulated if you have not joined a commonwealth you are free to join whichever you choose 0 once you join you are a citizen as long as it exist and you cannot become a citizen of another For majority to work there must be a minority so ifleave cant vote in other place 0 you have to explicitly declare your citizenship just being born there is not enough have the right to choose 5 why would anyone leave the state of nature to better preserve like and property 0 there are deficiencies in the state of nature 0 no known law 0 no judge 0 no real power 6 Role of government 0 protect people and their property 7 Extent of legislative power 0 establish laws that do not vary 0 laws must be For the good of the people 0 no taxation without consent 0 cannot transfer legislative power 8 legitimacy of revolution revolution is only legit when the legislature makes itself an enemy of the people and the people will decide when this is the case the peoplequot have to be the majority hobbes says harder to escape the oppression of the majority than an sovereign Hobbes vs Locke H we need to stay out of state of nature because war and only way to do that is by monarchy his premise only work for him because we are egoist L we are gods children and we have god given rights so we should Follow common wealthmajority rules this only works because of god and what he has given us and how he made us equal 1252012 55100 PM Mills subject social liberty gt the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately excised over the individual or society As history progressed the need For a single ruler or rulers subsides The people took over the power so that the rulers became identified with the people over time people realized they didn39t need someone to tell them what to do New problem tyranny of the majority 0 2 form politicalmallting laws and social inappropriate things 0 Mills principle the only reason an individual or a society may interfere with the liberty of another member of society is For self protection so the only purpose of power is to prevent harm to others over himself over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign IN SHORT gtpeople should be Free to live their lives as they see fit just so long as they don39t harm anyone else only societies that adhere to these principles are truly Free Are there any problems with interpreting this principle 1252012 55100 PM Marx The history of society is the history of class struggle where classes are broken up into the oppressor or the oppressed 0 resultreconstitution of society at large or common ruin Our modern epicpost industrialized world has simplified the struggle into the opposing classes 0 bourgeoisieowners ofthe means of production and exchange 0 proletariat everyone else 0 only two classes now because of revolution in means of production and exchange Modern epic has converted everyone physicians lawyers priest poets and men of science to paid laborers it has even reduced Family to a money relation the more family you have the more money you need so children become a burden Globalization industrialization creates a world after its own image pushing products and acts into other parts of the world Urbanization Concentration of property in a Few hands Political centralization in the hands of the boogie Proletariat 0 appendages to the machine and as such they become slaves to the machine 0 exploited all money eventually comes back to owner recruited from all Classes Stages of development for proletariat 0 birth struggle with the bourgeoisie 0 struggle by individuals 0 struggle by work people in a certain Factory 0 by operatives of one trade in one locality ex all the machine men in the southeast 0 unionization 0 into a political party communist what happens is the bourgeoisie produce their own grave diggers communist are not a separate party From the proletariat no interest apart From them as a whole because it developed From them 0 aims to bring out proletariat interest regardless of nationalitywant to stop being impressed much reach everyone or else cheap goods will still come that they have to find money to pay For 0 immediate aim Formation of the proletariat into a class and overthrow a bourgeoisie supremacy take away their ownership of the means of production ways to overthrow them at end of reading 1252012 55100 PM Study Guide Exam 3 I What is the State of Nature theoretical toolstate man would be in if there was no government 2 How does Hobbes describe the State of Nature What arguments does he present to support this view all egoist imagine what would be like without it look at nations 3 What is an absolute sovereign and how does Hobbes justify this kind of authority ruler with no power its in our interest to get out of state of nature but must give up some rights and need someone to Force us to 4 Why does Hobbes support an Absolute Sovereign in the Form of a hereditary monarchy keeps us out of state of nature and in our own interest so as egoist that39s what we want 5 Assess HobbesY arguments 6 How does Locke describe the State of Nature Why state ofliberty and equality and not one oflicense because we are all property of god 7 Why does Locke support the establishment oFa commonwealth under majority rule the only government that maintains our god given right to self govern 8 Why would anyone leave the State of Nature according to Locke there are certain deficiencies no law no judge no power to enforce 9 Assess Locke39s arguments are we all property of god and do we have a duty to 10 Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke39s arguments Who presents the stronger arguments and why 1 According to Mill what is tyranny of the majority when the majority exercises its will over the minority 12 Do you think tyranny of the majority poses a problem to Locke39s view Why or why not 13 What is political tyranny Social tyranny Give examples of each and show how your examples illustrate the particular form of tyranny 14 What is Mill39s Principle and what is the point of it 15 How effective would Mill39s Principle be in practice Explain and defend your answer interpreting the notion of no harm to others how to strengthen the rule 16 According to Marx how has society been reduced to two classes What are the two classes Give a description of each Discuss the relationship between the two classes 17 What are the stages of development of the proletariat What is the result of this development How are the Communists related to the proletariat struggle 18 Assess Marx39s claims Is our modern epoch characterized by the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat 1s Communism the solution 1252012 55100 PM Paper 5 topic one due 23quotl or topic 2 due 25m Directions Please write a short paper on one of the following topics Your paper should be no more than one page in length If you write on Topic I then your paper is due at the beginning of class on Monday April 23rd If you write on Topic 2 then your paper is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday April 25th If you fail to turn your paper in on time you will receive a zero for the assignment You may be asked to share your paper with the class Topic What do you think the meaning oflife is Develop and defend your answer by providing strong definitions for your terms and support for your answer Topic 2 Present a guide for how you think we ought to live the good lifequot Develop and defend your answer by providing strong definitions for your terms and support for your answer develop give good definitions for your terms define key terms if you say good lifehappiness define happiness defend give some background how did you come to this conclusion meaning oflife in the end feeling satisfied with your life no one wants to live in misery no matter what you want to believe in you want to live a proud life to make it to the after life or just to die 1252012 55100 PM Ru ssell no one can ever Feel what someone else is Feeling so Russell is struck by solitude everything we have done and will do eventually Fades to nothing when the world ends or we die Develop 0 love temporary ecstasysexual relationsampintimate relations closest we can come to relieving human solitude 0 knowledge he believes in the eternal truth of mathematics but doesn39t believe in eternal life with God knowledge opens up the human mind 0 pity we have the burden of atheism to help otherampwe all sui39Terhuman solitude cant break human solitude but can share the Feeling as we suffer together Defend whatever purpose of life found has to be Found within these limits 0 Human solitudethe ultimate condition of man is solitariness 0 Atheism 1252012 55100 PM Epicurus Moderate Hedonism seek pleasure we seek pleasure in moderation they believe pleasure is the greatest good and if you want to live the good life you must seek pleasureseek pleasure in moderations because tOO much pleasure can be bad such as tOO much wine Background 0 Atomism everything is made up oflittle particles called atoms even the soul when we die the particles disperse Chance because he believes in atoms he believe in chance and not a divine being no Fate or o a divine plan 0 Freedom 0 Pleasuresimply the absence of pain either in pain or pleasure simply pleasures vary or may be different but there is no such thing as one thing more pleasurable than another 0 Anxiety one thing standing in the way of pleasure we ruin our state of no pain with worry and concernstate of pain but only we can do this we have control of it gtworrylife of pain 39 4 part cure For anxiety 393 no divine being that threaten usno saying that no divine beings just none that threaten us I there is no after life all made up of atoms so no need to worry go back to nothing 393 what we need is easy to get Food shelter water clothing we do not need extravagant things the basics are easy to get 393 what is terrible is easy to endureit is possible
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'