Ok, that's a wrap!

Here's how we finish:

1. Final draft of Analysis 3 due Sunday December 11
2. Upload your finished Google Doc to Turnitin per the instructions in the syllabus.
3. Final exam: Tuesday December 13, 10:15 - 12:15
 

We'll finish the explanatory co-existence paper on Thursday.

Last thought question:

• What, if anything, that we studied this semester do you expect to find yourself thinking about later when you don't have to anymore?

The final exam questions are now posted on the top of the schedule page and here.

See previous post for Tuesday's thought question.

Be sure to read the previous post if you missed it.

Thought question for Tuesday

Identify a phenomenon for which you find yourself inclined to accept multiple but mutually incompatible explanations. Do you regard this tendency as irrational or otherwise undesirable? Why or why not?

(Note: This should not be one that you simply can't make your mind up about because of inadequate evidence, but something more of the kind considered in the current reading.)

Please note that you have all received invitations to evaluate this class in your Saclink email. I would personally appreciate it if you would do so, but you will note that there is a significant incentive provided as well. The incentive is:

• As an incentive to participation, all students will receive 5 extra points if 95% of students who take the final exam participate in the survey.

Since there are only 12 people enrolled in the class, we will need everyone to do the evaluations for the incentive to kick in. Feel free to encourage each other.

We will move on to our last reading on Monday Bundles of contradiction, by T. Lombrozo & A. Shtulman. I will have all the relevant materials up by today or tomorrow. 

Note that the first draft for your last analysis is due on Tuesday night.

Since you are all working on it, I will make the test due Wednesday night.

Thought question for Thursday:

Can a belief discordant alief ever be the target of rationalization? If so, provide an example showing how. If not, explain why.

Thought question for Tuesday:

1. Do you think rationalization, as Ellis and Schwitzgebel define it, is irrational?

2. Do you think it is ever to our benefit to rationalize in this sense? 

3. Are your answers to the above questions compatible with your answer to the question from last week?  It was:

Do you think it can ever be to one's benefit to behave in a way that is unequivocally irrational? Why or why not? Be clear about the sense of irrationality you are employing.

 

The target article for your final paper is "The Pragmatic Metaphysics of Belief," by Eric Schwitzgebel. This article is in draft form and has not yet been published. You will find the topic familiar.

We will not meet on Tuesday so that people can attend the Ethics Symposium. The thought question below must be turned in to me at the Symposium during the session that corresponds to our classes. I'll hang around outside of the room until it starts. Note that you can get extra credit for this class for attending and writing on the content of any particular session in the designated place in your journal. Study the syllabus carefully for the correct way to do this and for the due dates. If you do it incorrectly or submit it after the due date you won't get credit.

There are two weeks left in the semester after Thanksgiving. We will only cover two more of the essays on our list. The first one will be "Rationalization in moral and philosophical thought," by E. Schwitzgebel and J. Ellis. The second one will be  "Bundles of contradiction," by T. Lombrozo & A. Shtulman.

In the syllabus I guaranteed 15 tests but we are only doing 13 articles. My view  is that what is essential is the number of points available, rather than the number of tests, so the final two tests will be worth 20 points rather than 10. If anyone finds this to be an unreasonable solution, please let me know right away and we can discuss it.

I will have the study questions, test and the discussion questions link available by this Sunday, but nothing will be due until the Monday after Thanksgiving.

Thought question

Do you think it can ever be to one's benefit to behave in a way that is unequivocally irrational? Why or why not? Be clear about the sense of irrationality you are employing.

We'll do Nagel's reply to Gendler on Thursday.  Thought question:

Nagel defends the Platonic view that knowledge is a commanding force against Gendler's argument that the reality of implicit bias, aversive racism etc. implies that it is not. 

Question: Is this really an argument about the power of knowledge or something else (belief, rationality, etc.)? In other words, is there some sense in which the truth of the things we believe (rationally or not) figures essentially into either Nagel's or Gendler's perspective?

 

Here is the thought question for Tuesday. You may recognize it as a variation on a previous thought question but it may provoke a different response:

Consider the following statement:  

Everyone does what they believe to be right. Hitler and Stalin may have been profoundly evil men, but they believed in the rectitude of what they were doing. When people do what is wrong, it is because they lack moral knowledge. That's just what it is to be evil. 

By the same token, anyone who really knows what is right, will do what is right.  Jeremy didn't stop and help that old lady by the side of the road. Today he is feeling all guilty and says he knew he should have. But that's not correct. If he knew he should have, then he would have. That's just what it is to have moral knowledge.

Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Do you think this is more intuitively compelling than the same sort of argument made with respect to non moral contexts? For example, if someone were to say: If you really knew your glasses were on your head, you wouldn't have been looking for them just now in the drawer. Why or why not?

Tuesday we'll be on Nagel's "Intuition, Reflection and Command of Knowledge." I'll post the usuals by today or tomorrow and quiz will be due Monday night. This paper is actually a response to Tamar Gendler's essay "The Third Horse." Gendler's paper is also available on BB, but here are my notes on it as well (in the form of answered study questions.) It is worth reviewing these at least.

We're on Gendler's "Alief and Belief" on Thursday.  Thought question:

Identify one of your belief discordant aliefs and explain how you deal with it. Do you think the alief has any value to you despite the fact that you don't believe it? Why or why not?

There are two talks tomorrow. One right after class, the other at 1:30. Good chance to do one or two extra credit colloquium analyses. See CPPE or FB for details.

On Tuesday we will finish the Cassam article. I will post the study questions, and quiz over Tamar Gendler's paper "Alief and Belief" by tomorrow, but they will not be due until Wednesday.

Final draft of Analysis 2 due Sunday night!


Thought question for Tuesday

What do you think of the following claim? Although there are clearly times when people simply do not exercise rational control over irrational impulses, reason does have the power to take charge of impulsive behavior and redirect it according to its own light; it is just a matter of our choosing to do so. 

After you have written your answer to the above comment on the significance of your answer for this video.

Thought question for Thursday

Mika is a Christian. Her friend Aaron is an agnostic. Mika often tells Aaron that one of the wonderful things about being a Christian is the knowledge that when she and her loved ones die they will be going to a far better place. Hence there is no reason to fear death or to grieve for them when people you love die. God is infinitely wise and loving. He has a plan for all those who accept Jesus into their lives. One day Mika's mother, a school teacher and also a devout Christian, is killed in a school yard shooting along with many elementary school children. Months later Mika grieves her mother's death intensely and she tells Aaron that she is having a crisis of faith.

Did Mika believe the things she told Aaron prior to her mother's death? Explain.

All class materials for the Cassam article have been posted.

We will finish Schwitzgebel on Tuesday and move on to Cassam's "Knowing what you believe," which you will find on BB.  Study questions, quiz and discussion questions on the latter will be available by Sunday, but not due until Wednesday.

Remember rough draft for Analysis 2 is due Tuesday and final draft is due Sunday.

Thought question for Tuesday:

Jim sincerely expresses the following opinion: Jury duty is a huge pain in the rump and if people don’t feel like doing it they should just ignore the summons because the county can’t enforce it anyway. 

Marie sincerely find Jim's opinion repulsive and expresses strong disagreement, arguing that jury service is a very strong civic responsibility and Jim's view is positively shameful. 

Interestingly, Jim has served on many juries and has never failed to respond to a summons. On the other hand, the three times Marie has received a summons, she has not shown up. Once she called in sick when she thought she might be coming down with a cold, and once she just couldn’t because she got a last minute chance to go to Disneyland for free and once she just somehow, sort of, you know forgot. 

Does Jim know what he believes in this case? Does Marie? Explain.

Finish the following dialogue in light of your current thinking on the reliability of introspection. Does your completed dialogue tend to support or deny Schwitzgebel's views on the reliability of introspection?

Thought question for Thursday:

Sahar: Is that a sheep out there in the field?
Sherman: Uh...yep. Appears to be.
Sahar: Are you sure? Maybe it's just a rock that looks like a sheep.
Sherman: What? No. It appears to be moving.
Sahar: Hmmm, well it could be like a little motorized decoy sheep or something.
Sherman: Is there something wrong with you? Look, it could be a lot of things. But it appears to me to be a sheep. I am quite certain of that.
Sahar: Interesting. Why are you more sure that it appears to be a sheep than that it is a sheep?

I've moved the analysis due dates back a week. (See schedule) Sorry for the late notice. It is partly to accommodate my schedule but I think most of you wont' mind the extra time.  We've got room so that the last one won't be rushed.

We'll finish up Sartwell the first 10 minutes of Tuesday, then move on to Schwitzgebel's "The unreliability of naive introspection." Study questions will be posted by Friday and test/discussion link by Sunday, due Monday night.

Thought question for Tuesday:

Can you be happy or unhappy without knowing about it?
If not, why not? If so, how?
Write an answer that shows a reflective awareness of whether you are answering as an internalist or as an externalist.