*Question: What is "your" relationship to the rest of the Universe? Right off the bat this raises another ontological question: 1. What is my nature as a self (“a being”), and what is the nature of The Universe (“Being” itself)? And that raises a related epistemological question, plus an ethical question, too: 2. How can I know the nature of the universe when I’m stuck on here Earth (and in NEW JERSEY no less!)? 3. How should I, a mortal being, live in the absence of complete knowledge about the nature of Being? ____________________________________________________________________________________ This unit will explore that key question, and those three sub-questions, using The Lego Movie as a counterpoint for the ideas. The film reflects all three of the broad approaches to these questions we have already seen: I. The Monist Approach – ALL IS ONE. "YOU" ARE A WAVE IN THE UNIVERSAL OCEAN, NO MORE - OR LESS. (See: Buddha, Heraclitus/Parmenides) * I have these Lego sets with their separate bricks, but ultimately they are all just One Lego Set. Even though I have made many different and separate sculptures, they are still One, because they’re the same “stuff.” The individual sculptures I make will always return to the buckets of Legos; they have no “essence” behind them. II. The Dualist Approach – THE "TRUE SELF" IS THE ETERNAL SOUL, NOT THE BODY. (See: Socrates, Plato, Christianity/Islam, some varieties of Judaism and Hinduism) * I have all these Lego sets with their separate bricks, but ultimately those aren’t important. What truly matters is the instructions, the IDEA or FORM behind the physical sculptures. Praise the Instruction Book! III. Aristotle’s Pluralism – I AM MY "CHARACTER " - MY UNIQUE AND PERSONAL HABITS, VALUES, SKILLS, ETC. (Wait, what is "Pluralism?" Isn't there only Monism and Dualism in ontology? Not quite.....) * I have all these Lego sets with their separate bricks, and their separateness is what defines them. Each brick is unique, each set is unique, and each sculpture I make is unique. There are basic instructions to follow, but I can create path by carefully attending to every brick I add into my personal sculpture. * Pluralist ontology is like a variant of monism that emphasizes differentiation over sameness. Aristotle only believes in the existence of our one physical or "material" world. BUT, he thinks each individual thing or “being” in this world has its own ontological “ESSENCE." What is an Essence? It is like a Platonic Form, only it exists inside the particular things (rather than things "participating" in the other-worldly Forms). And where the Platonic Form represented an Ideal, a Perfection, an "Essence" is just a blueprint to be colored in by experience. * The Essence is the total of the things's Four Causes, which are its "Essential properties" - so a thing's essence includes its Telos or species-specific "purpose." * You can think of a lifeform's Essence at its species' DNA. The Human Essence, meaning the specific form of life we have developed and passed on through our genes, is Zoon Politikon - the rational, speaking "Political Animal." So your Character is what you do with your Human Essence. And since "we are what we repeatedly do," excellence (virtue, arete) is not in one act, but in "habit." * RECAP of Aristotle's pluralism: there is one world, but it is divided up into many things. Life is about understanding the kind of thing WE are (our ESSENCE) and developing it to its full potential (since our ESSENCE is to be rational-political animals, our TELOS or purpose is to develop our human creativity and intelligence to the maximum by working in harmony with others as part of a civilized political community (POLIS). TAOISM can also be interpreted as form of pluralism too: The Tao gives each thing “Inner Nature” to follow; these little parts make an overall Pattern. Or, the Lego City is defined by the Harmony of the many small, interlocking bricks. __________________________________________________________________________________ Most of the ontological philosophies that develop after Ancient Greece's conquest by Alexander the Great (which was partially Aristotle's fault, since he taught the young warrior-prince) are variants or mixtures of these three basic ideas: The Self is EVERYTHING, The Self is THE SOUL, The Self is COMPOSED. Here are 3. IV. HEDONISM/STOICISM - YOU'RE JUST A TINY PIECE OF NATURE. TRY TO ENJOY THE RIDE. (These two "competing" Greco-Roman philosophies are actually similar - both focus on avoiding stress and pain) * EPICURUS: Invents "Hedonist" ethics, stating that a good life = happiness (simple pleasures). -Epicureanism: Everything is made of temporarily-arranged atoms, including you (another "pluralist" ontology). -So carpe diem: "Don't fear God(s), don't worry about death; what is good [in life] is easy to get." * STOICS: Greek ethicists urging total control of the emotions and perfect acceptance of all things. -Seneca: Roman statesman who popularizes Stoic philosophy among the elite. -Marcus Aurelius: Roman Emperor who governs based on Stoic compassion. V. SKEPTICISM - IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT "I" AM OR WHAT "THE WORLD" IS (At best, you can know the contents of your own mind, which can lead to "solipsism": denial of the external world!) * Skepticism = denial of the possibility of complete knowledge (or sometimes, any knowledge) * RENE DESCARTES, Rationalist Skeptic: "I am thinking, therefore I exist." -Descartes attempts "radical doubt": if I cannot trust my senses, how do I know anything really exists? -He concludes that because he is asking that question, he is thinking, and therefore must exist as "a thinking thing" (res cogitans). That thinking "I" (ego) is the only thing I can trust is real, a position called "solipsism." -Descartes doesn't embrace solipsism though: he falls back on faith that God guarantees the world's reality *DAVID HUME, Empiricist Skeptic: "Custom is the great guide of life." -The self is nothing but a "bundle of sensations" or "stream of consciousness," much as Buddha said. -This means all we have is our sensory experience. We look for patterns in it and base our lives around them. -What we call knowledge is a thus matter of memory and inference: it is CUSTOM or HABIT. -Most "Truths" are just customs, especially religious beliefs: there's no basis for them in experience -"Hume's Fork": All we can "know" is our own experience, and truths of math/logic. That's it. VI. MARXISM - IDEOLOGICAL "SUPERSTRUCTURE" AND MATERIAL "BASE" (Ideology = "Imaginary Relationship of Individuals to their Real Conditions of Living") *Karl Marx followed in the Realist tradition of Aristotle, so he rejected the Platonic concept of a "higher world." He believed such concepts were invented by powerful classes to keep people obedient. He even compared religion to an addictive painkiller, an "opium" which kept people from rebelling against exploitative leaders, keeping them focused on "Eternal Life" instead of bettering their real lives. * So leaders present their favored Ideals (their vision of "proper" order) as if they were "Eternal Truths" from the higher world, and people buy into them. This keeps society running the way the Ruling Class likes it - think of how Lord Business uses "Everything is Awesome!" to keep workers thinking they're CHOOSING to follow his instructions, when really, he plans everything out according to his own Plato-type Ideals of "total perfection." *Marx called the "ruling ideas" in a culture its "Ideology." Today we use the word ideology to mean any political philosophy, but Marx's concept of society's collective Ideology, what people believe is Truth, remains useful, as shown by Slavoj Zizek. So for Marx "Who Am I?" can only be asked by first challenging society's Ideological image of who I "should be," which has "alienated" me from my human Essence: cooperation and creativity. __________________________________________________________________________________ THE UNIT'S ASSIGNMENTS: In class, we'll be watching the film and discussing it in relation to these topics. Your task is to work through the following multi-part assignment both outside of class and during the time I will give you after we finish the movie. Figure out beforehand which projects you are going to do so you don't forget! -Complete your personal notes first, including these thinkers here, plus at least 3 others (40 points). -Once you’ve finished and gotten them approved, you are free to start on these activities. -You must complete four activities, including 2 blog posts, for 40 points (a total of 200 points) -You may complete a fifth activity for extra credit. Also note that activities 5-8 can be done in small groups. -The blog posts will go up near the film's end. The articles you will read for them are about 4 pages. 1. ARTICLE REVIEW: PERSONAL CHOICE (Research or ask me: 1-2 page summary/evaluation of piece) 2. ARTICLE/BLOG A: ONTOLOGY OF THE SELF (Descartes’s Skepticism: how do I really know I “exist”?) 3. ARTICLE/BLOG B: ONTO-EPISTEMOLOGY (David Hume’s Skepticism: do I really “know” anything?) 4. ARTICLE/BLOG C: ONTOLOGY AND ETHICS (Stoicism vs. Epicureanism: should I “accept” reality?) 5. ORIGINAL DIALOGUE: EXISTENTIAL ISSUES (1 philosopher, 1 thinker from anywhere, 1 random) 6. THREE-MINUTE VIDEO/TWO-MINUTE ANIMATION (8-bit philosophy type format on a question) 7. PHILO-SURVEY: BACKGROUND, FOCUSED QUESTION, DATA REPORT, ANALYSIS (email me report) 8. LEGO SCULPTURE: DEMONSTRATE A KEY CONCEPT WITH A PHYSICAL MODEL (add description)
0 Comments
(Note: You'll complete one of these a marking period. Due by midnight on Friday 10/9. Download as Word doc)
TASK: Choose one or more writing prompts as a vehicle for presenting YOUR personal reactions, interpretations and objections after learning about humanity’s most ancient philosophical thinkers: Heraclitus and Parmenides, The Sophists, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, plus Buddha and Laozi. CRITERIA: -Format: Use a simple font, 11 or 12 point, with margins set to normal or moderate, and be sure to double space -Requirements: Minimum 3, maximum 6 pages; discuss at least one philosopher in depth alongside one other -Grading: 100* points, 10 off for each day late without prearranged valid excuse *25 each for: Personality (ontology), Comprehension, (epistemology), Effort (ethics), and Relevance (politics) PROMPT OPTIONS: Remember, you can write the whole paper on one of these prompts, or you can do short pieces on two or three if you can’t (or don’t want to) write 3+ pages on a single question. It’s your call. I. Assessing Assessment (Critical) I’ll be using this assignment as your “Student Growth Objective” (SGO) for the year. In case you don’t know what this is, the NJ Department of Education requires us to “pre-assess” you on some skill early in the year, record results, and then “reassess” that skill later in the year. This is billed as a “method by which teachers can improve their practice while clearly demonstrating” that their “students [have made] progress” toward “specific and measurable academic goals” (AchieveNJ SGO Overview 2015-6). What do you think Socrates, Plato and/or Aristotle would say about the epistemology and ethics behind this concept - meaning, how would they define “student growth” and important “academic goals,” and would they agree that formal assessments can “measure” that growth? Give your own take, too. II. Learning about the Ancient Greats: Valuable? (Historical) It is easy to go through high school today without exploring any philosophical questions, let alone learning the ideas of Plato, Aristotle or the Buddha. Why do you think that is? And do you think these ideas are still relevant? Should they become part of the history curriculum, or of other curricula (like English)? Have they helped you understand anything about yourself, your world or your history which you think would make them valuable to a larger audience of your peers? If you want, you can present your answer in the form of a persuasive letter to a politician suggesting curriculum changes (or better, to Bill Gates, whose fortune largely financed the Common Core reforms and accompanying tests). III. Present-Day Platonic Dialogues (Ethical) Write about any contemporary (modern-day) ethical issue using a dialogue format (that just means characters talk to each other, so you could write it as a back-and-forth Twitter or Text exchange, even a series of emails). You must include at least one philosopher in the dialogue, but can include yourself and anyone else too. The dialogue can be humorous and have an absurd setting, but the ethical issue has to be serious and seriously-addressed. (Think about immigration, the “war on drugs,” Church and State, economic inequality, political correctness, access to healthcare, technology addiction, the environment, globalization, shallow friendships – anything that asks “what is good?”) IV. Dear Philosopher X (Creative) The magazine Philosophy Now used to do a “Dear Socrates” column where people would write in with personal questions, and a columnist would respond to these modern concerns in the ancient philosopher’s style. Make up a question and write your own advice column from any philosopher we’ve studied (I recommended Buddha, Protagoras, Plato or Aristotle – you can do even do multiple short advice columns for this whole assignment). ___________________________________________________________________________________ See me or post in the comments below for questions, especially if you want me to OK your topic idea(s). Aristotle's dense philosophical system can be summarized as follows:
Ontology - Teleological Realism (a.k.a. "Materialism") Epistemology - Empiricism with Logical Classification (via the "Four Causes") Ethics - Virtue as Active Excellence (Eudaimonia, "Flourishing") Explain ONE of these three concepts in your own words, comparing or contrasting with another philosopher (Plato is the obvious choice, but Buddha and Heraclitus would be interesting too). Remember, if you need help, see the NOTES AND LINKS page (under the Philosophy tab above): there are videos on Aristotle, notes on the earlier philosophers, and a PowerPoint on Socrates/Plato plus one on "Ancient Ethics" that might be really useful for jogging your memory! In all three classes, we had very interesting and intense discussions of the ontology of time, meaning, what exactly is it? This is a space to extend the conversation about whether time is the same thing as change, whether the past and future are "real," and whether our measurements of time are trustworthy. You can also consider how time ties into ethics, as in Buddhism. Post in the comments below (yes, this counts for extra participation points). I'll start us off by referring back to Hugh Mellor's quote on time from the Ontology 101 packet: "Nothing about past, present and future is built into time. What IS built into time is the difference between earlier and later," which is like the difference between "north and south." Time has a "direction," but it does not have future and past as really existing things. "We are 'reading' into the world something that [is part of] our relation to it." (Incidentally, that'd mean Parmenides is wrong, and time travel is impossible.) What do you think?? This post is mainly for my 4B class, who did not get copies of the "Socrates 101" packet. Here is the main information from that packet in the form of a word document - print, highlight key information, and make marginal notes which put things in your own words, connect them to stuff you've already learned, and add helpful examples.
Once you have read and text-marked this information on Socrates and his thought, you should watch this video, which summarizes and animates the argument on Justice, which will be the basis of our second Seminar on Moral Relativism. (Those of you who find the argument interesting should watch the second part of the video, which automatically loads when it finishes, but only the first part is mandatory viewing.)
|
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |