Assignments and Resources:
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
- Ansel Adams
Thursday, April 6, 2006:
Quietly:
Answer the following six questions. Your answers are and will remain private. You will not share them with me or with the class. Save the document in your folder in a place that you can locate it.
You will refer to your answers in a later class assignment.
Six Questions:
1) Think back: (A distant event is better than a recent event for this exercise.) Locate one event in your life when you did something that was wrong, dishonest or hurtful to someone else and you tried to avoid thinking about it. Why did you try to avoid it?
2) Going back to that same event: What would it taken for you to have done things differently?
3) Going further: At any time after the event in #1 take place, or in relation to something else, did you feel Guilt? Shame? Confusion? Fear? If so, how did you address these feelings? (Corollary question: Did you try to work out in your mind ways to defend yourself and not look too badly in front on other people if they found out about what you had done?)
4) Have ever had awaken from a dream in which you knew that there was a message for you to learn from? If so: write about the dream and the lesson.
5) Think of one time in your life that you’ve wanted to own up to a poor choice. Did you? If so, what happened? If not, do you still think about this event?
6) Why are these important questions?
For Friday, March 3:
Read - Plato: The Republic Book VII: The Myth of the Cave
Please read the notes as well.
Discuss in small groups:
1) Judging by this passage, why do you think many people in the democracy of Athens might have been antagonistic to Plato's ideas?
2) What does the sun symbolize in the allegory?
According to Plato, there are 4 different levels of Being and 4 corresponding levels of Knowing. The progress of the soul is the ascent from lower to higher levels of Knowing, so that the soul also rises from lower to higher levels of Being. Plato describes these levels of Being and Knowing in his image of the Divided Line, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Plato's image of the Divided Line.
In the Myth of the Cave, Plato describes the progress of the soul as an educational journey: the soul is initially a prisoner trapped at the lowest level of Knowing and Being -- the hellish world of sheer illusion; the soul-prisoner is then freed, and begins the long ascent up the steep and rugged road out of the cave. This ascent is not easy: it is painful and the soul is filled with dread. But eventually, the soul emerges into the daylight of the heavenly intelligible world.
Figure 2. The Soul imprisoned in the Cave.
Please have cogent thoughts to present to the entire class on Monday.
Be kind to Ms. Rudolph!
For Wednesday’s class (February 22):
1) Costa, Sydney and David will present their philosophical questions.
2) Consider this announcement for an upcoming lecture in New Orleans:
Monday,
February 20, 2006, at 7 p.m.
Nunemaker Auditorium
Monroe Hall third floor
Loyola University New Orleans
Dr. Alexei Marcoux, an assistant professor of business ethics in the graduate
school of business at Loyola University Chicago, will give a presentation on
ethics and scandals in the accounting field from a slightly different point of
view. Philosophically-inclined novelist Ayn Rand championed two things of vital
importance: philosophy and capitalism. She argued that one holding a rational
philosophy must embrace capitalism as the only economic system consistent with
human existence. Marcoux argues that philosophy is inescapable--even and
especially for those engaged in the eminently practical pursuits of preparing
and auditing financial statements.
The questions Marcoux raises about accounting and recent scandals span
metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. How we answer them will tell us something
about what we can reasonably expect of those who prepare and audit financial
statements.
Question:
How do metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics affect good accounting practices?
3) In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for a robbery he committed many years ago. [Actually, no -- he is only wanted for breaking parole.] Although he will be returned to the galleys -- probably [in fact, actually] for life -- if he is caught, he is a good man who does not deserve to be punished. He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man's false identification, Jean reflects, is "an act of Providence meant to save me." Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning "monstrous and hypocritical." He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences. His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood -- especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses. Did he do the right thing?
Upcoming Presentations - Counts as "Major Presentation":
Presentation:
Present a philosophical question to the class from the area of philosophy that you’ve been assigned.
NOTE: Keep a record of your preparation notes and turn them in.
You will be evaluated on:
1) Thoughtful content
2) Apparent preparation
3) Accuracy of information and relevancy to topic
4) Ability to engage the class and follow through in leading the conversation. (i.e., Ask relevant questions that take class discussion to the next level.)
Tuesday, February 14:
Emily Brenes -Metaphysics
Patrick Roark - Esthetics
Bobby Attary - Ethics
Hannah Ng - Ethics
Nicho Mann - Metaphysics
Zan Bajwa - Epistemology
Sydney Matthews - Esthetics
Thursday, February 16:
Alexandra Aghajanian - Esthetics
Jill Brunswick - Metaphysics
David Perry - Ethics
Shunsuke Mikumo - Epistemology
Cairistiona Flatley - Esthetics
Friday, February 17:
Julian Lean - Epistemology
Irene Tung - Epistemology
Parker Murray - Ethics
Tessa Johnson – Ethics
Costa Kontoulis - Metaphysics
For Thursday, February 9:
Be prepared to discuss:
Is the path you take going up the mountain the same path when you come down the mountain?
Fern Canyon, Palm Springs, CA
South of Half Moon Bay, California
For Tuesday, February 7:
Part I:
Written exercise:
Think of one activity in your past that required you to make a personal sacrifice. Please write a reflection on that activity. (NOTE: All class reflections will be kept confidential.)
Part II:
Preparation for class discussion:
Any Rand Philosophy: Who Needs It?
By the time they are old enough to understand these questions, men believe that they know the answers. Where am I? Say, in New York City. How do I know it? It's self-evident. What should I do? Here, they are not too sure--but the usual answer is: whatever everybody does. The only trouble seems to be that they are not very active, not very confident, not very happy--and they experience, at times, a causeless fear and an undefined guilt, which they cannot explain or get rid of.
Philosophy would not tell you, for instance, whether you are in New York City or in Zanzibar (though it would give you the means to find out). But here is what it would tell you: Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute--and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real--or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer--or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man's consciousness? Are they what they are--or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?
Note philosophical term: Metaphysics: a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality.
(Note: Being Qua Being = Being as being... Being in the capacity of being...)
Note philosophical term: Epistemology: the theory of knowledge; how do we know.
Just as the astronaut in my story did not know what he should do, because he refused to know where he was and how to discover it, so you cannot know what you should do until you know the nature of the universe you deal with, the nature of your means of cognition--and your own nature. Before you come to ethics, you must answer the questions posed by metaphysics and epistemology: Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality--or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip buffeted by the universal flux? Are achievement and enjoyment possible to man on earth--or is he doomed to failure and disaster? Depending on the answers, you can proceed to consider the questions posed by ethics: What is good or evil for man--and why? Should man's primary concern be a quest for joy--or an escape from suffering? Should man hold self-fulfillment--or self-destruction--as the goal of his life? Should man pursue his values--or should he place the interests of others above his own? Should man seek happiness--or self-sacrifice?
Note philosophical term: Esthetics: the theory of beauty.
February 2, 2006:
For tomorrow:
January 31, 2006:
What's the difference?
Write a working definition for each term and prepare for class discussion on Thursday.
Recommended Resource: Wikepedia