Class Synopsis for January 24

On Monday, January 24, we covered nineteen common logical fallacies of philosophical arguments. Knowledge of these logical fallacies is important in disproving philosophical arguments, by giving one the tools to devalue an opposition:

Faulty Clause- Mistakes correlation/association with causation
Ex. Lightning struck a small home in Asia this morning, and then I ran late for class. Therefore, whenever lightning strikes in Asia, I am late for class.

Hasty or Sweeping Generalization- Assumes what is true of the whole must be true of the part, or that what is true most of the time will be true all of the time
Ex. All old people are bad drivers. Gene is old, thus Gene must be a bad driver.

Appeal to Ignorance- Uses the opponent’s inability to refute an argument to prove the argument
Ex. Heaven is made of cheese. Since there is no proof that it isn’t, it must be true.

Appeal to Pity- Acquiring acceptance of an argument by making the audience feel sorry for someone
Ex. I could not make it to class today because I found out that I lost my job and that my girlfriend is sleeping with my best friend. Please don’t make this day any worse for me than its already been.

Appeal to Force- Threat
Ex. Agree or else.

Bifurcation or False Dilemma- Assumes two conclusions are mutually exclusive, so that it implies one of two outcomes is inevitable
Ex. If you are not with us, then you are against us.



Ad Hominem- Slanders the source of an argument’s evidence, as opposed to the validity of the evidence itself
Ex. So what if Bill Clinton says we should consider marriage counseling, look what he got caught doing with Monica.

Tu Quoque- Pointing out a similar error committed in another situation
Ex. How can he represent animal rights? I’ve seen the leather boots he bought his wife for Christmas.

Equivocation- Shifts the meaning of a key word or term in an argument, so that the conclusion is not concerned with the same issue as the premise
Ex. Wood is sturdier than nothing. Nothing is sturdier than bricks. Wood is sturdier than bricks.

Begging the Question- Basing a conclusion on an unproven assumption
Ex. The Bible is an infallible source of facts, because it says it is.

Tautology- Qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument.
Ex. People’s actions reflect the manner in which those people choose to act.

Appeal to Authority- Justifying an argument by citing a celebrity or respected individual in favor of the argument’s conclusion
Ex. Everyone should buy Nike, because Michael Jordan buys Nike.

Appeal to Tradition- Things should continue to be done as has been done in the past
Ex. Gay marriage can never be legal, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Appeal to the Crowd- Referring to popular or majority opinion to support an argument
Ex. The majority of Americans do not want to pay taxes, so we should not have to pay taxes.

Straw Man- Re-stating an opponent’s argument in an extreme, exaggerated form, or attacking a minor or irrelevant part of one’s argument
Ex. We should distrust neopaganism because demonology is evil and dangerous.

Slippery Slope- Suggests than if one action is taken, it will invariably lead to similar actions, the end results of which are negative
Ex. Allowing eighteen-year-olds to drink is opening the doors to alcoholic pre-teens.

Non Sequitar- An argument which fails to establish a connection between its premises and its conclusion
Ex. There are hundreds of homeless pets in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, so I shouldn’t have to do anymore Philosophy homework for the semester.

Red Herring- A diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated.
Ex. Sure, crime rates have risen over the past year, but did you not see the new parks that we put in?

Class Synopsis- March 28th, 2011

Subject 1: Søren Kierkegaard

Monday’s class began with the introduction of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. As a student, the Danish writer had a Peter Pan-esque attitude toward life. He had difficulty even choosing a major in school, even finding philosophy dissatisfying as he was not interested in the abstract. These conundrums ultimately lead to the central theme of his work. Kierkegaard prioritized living over abstract thinking, affording him the title of “Father of Existentialism”, which promotes the importance of decision and decisiveness. Kierkegaard valued his anonymity, using many pseudonyms, or characters, as personae in his work. In his work Either/Or, Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. These characters voice different opinions so that the soul of the author is not considered as part of the work but seen as part of the character. Kierkegaard believed that the reader should be left alone with the work rather than in a dialogue with the author, thus allowing the point of view to speak for itself. He goes on to deny the intention of a religious telos in his working, attributing it to some divine providence. Kierkegaard believed that there is no authorial privilege, so the intention of the author does not matter and is not the meaning of the text. Dr.Layne used the example of her painting as intending to paint an apple, yet whatever is on the canvas is not her idea but is separate from her since the viewer adds meaning by what is extracted from it.

Subject 2: Existentialism

In Existentialism, Kierkegaard teaches the importance of giving life meaning and living “authentically”. The authentic life focuses on emotions such as guilt, boredom, and anxiety. Kierkegaard believes anxiety is the telos of being human as everyone has some form of anxiety stemming from our incompleteness or sinfulness. What matter is not the general or universal truth but the truth that is true for a person specifically and seizes their life; the subjective truth. Dr.Layne told us how she was seized by love for her husband before even knowing it. This truth led her to where she is today and shows that she is indeed living authentically. Chris then pointed out that Kierkegaard’s view of the truth points out a problem with divorce.

Subject 3: The Stages of Life’s Way

Kierkegaard’s Stages of Life’s Way has 3 levels of the aesthetic, ethical, and religious. All individuals fall into one of these forms. Dr. Layne explained that one cannot choose a sphere, but can sometimes move between them by a movement of the will. Each level is defined by how one answers the question, “What is the good life?”

Subject 4: Aesthetic

In Kierkegaard’s first stage, the aesthetic, one lives in the immediate. The individual is a detached on looker, avoiding life via immediacy which does not require reflective thought. Pre-ethical, right and wrong play no part in the aesthetic view of life. Kierkegaard argues that there is no authentic self in the aesthetic stage as everything is relative and there are no real matters in life. Commitment and either/or decisions are avoided. If one chooses one path, others are cut off. A student posed the question “How is a decision made if decision is not involved at all in paths (aesthetic, ethical, or religious)?” Dr. Layne explained that there is never an option, only the severed self from other possibilities, which are not actual options. The aesthetic person lives in the moment, only experiencing a series of “nows”. Chris asked, “Is this placing judgment because these claims are only made within the realm of the ethical?” Dr.Layne refuted that this doesn’t matter in the aesthetic since, once again, everything is relative. Kierkegaard claims that those of the aesthetic stage do not know who they are, leading to the despair of the unwillingness to be oneself.

Class Synopsis 2/23

Today’s lecture was a continuation of the German philosopher, Marx, and we started by discussing his metaphysics. Marx is against idealism and believes that there is no noumena without the phenomena and what is real is what appears. He believes that the creation of the world or man is a process and that history is production. We must create it.
We then moved on to his views psychology and the study of the soul. Very different to Descartes’ views, Marx thinks that the self is alienated from the world and we are what we make out of our relationships with external materials. He views the human as a producer whose first order of business is to meet our primary needs such as food and shelter. These primary needs will eventually expand into satisfying our wants. Dr. Layne used Plato’s Republic as an example. They had a city of basic needs, but the people of the city eventually wanted more of a luxurious place to live. He sees the human as simultaneously the creator and the creature of the world because we create our history through a process. This being said, Marx does not believe that there is teleology to history or the world because we are constantly creating and history is a “succession of the separate generations.”
We then discussed how labor is something we’re supposed to do as humans, but it now causes more alienation. In today’s world, labor is no longer natural but done for the sake of exchange instead of self- production. For example, a tailor who makes a coat in order to buy food, instead of the for the simple joy of making a coat. He believes that freedom now means “freedom from the means of production.” What he means by this is that we sell our labor for something supposedly of “equal” quality. But if your labor is equal to the product, then why is there profit?
Lastly, we started the discussion of Marx’s views of Bourgeois vs. proletariat, or Capitalist vs. the laborer. The bourgeois uses others as a tool for the production rather than producers themselves and the alienate the proletariat from owning the process of production. Marx predicts that the proletariat will join together to fight against the bourgeois for freedom of the rights of their products.

Class Synopsis for Friday 3/19

On Friday, we began the class by playing Jeopardy. When the game was over, we began discussing political philosophy, and the question, "What is justice?" In Book II of The Republic, Socrates asserts that the just person is happier than the unjust, marking the just person as virtuous. This opinion can be compared to those of other thinkers by looking at different kinds of good. For Kant, good exists for itself, and not for its consequences, resting on autonomous law. For Socrates, good exists for itself and for its consequences, a view he shares with Marx. For Rousseau and Mill, good exists not for itself, and only for its consequences.
In Socrates' view, justice is defined as "doing one's own." In Socrates' hypothetical city, each person would have one task that they performed well. By focusing on this task, their skills would improve, and each person would rely on others on work in area that differed from their own. For example, the shoemaker would make shoes for the farmer, and the farmer would keep the shoemaker fed. No one would pursue more than one task.
Although a political reading of the Republic presents similarities to Marx, we talked about cautions against a political reading. The Republic is the story of a city that parallels the individual. We talked about the Three Waves of Paradox: philosophers should be kings; men and women should be equal; and eugenics, or that philosopher kings should selectively breed. The idea of the philosopher kings, read psychologically, is the idea that the mind should rule the stomach and the heart. This point brought up two allegories. The first, the Ship of State, describes the helm of a boat as the arena of politics, governed by the most persuasive rather than the star-gazing philosopher who is actually involved in attempts to chart the course of the ship. The second, the allegory of The Cave, describes a part within the soul that only stares at images, and a part within the soul that escapes and is able to see reality. The part that knows the truth returns to the cave and attempts to free the rest of the soul from the cave. This creates a continued tension between the urge to be free of the cave and the urge to fall back into its slumber.
The second wave of paradox, that men and women should be equal, rested on the belief that there is no essential difference between the two. In modern times, we see a growing trend to promote an idea of essential difference, based in material and sensible components such as genetics and hormones. For Plato, anything material and sensible didn't matter.
We ended class before we could really talk about eugenics, the third Wave of Paradox.

2/21 Class Synopsis

For this class, we continued to discuss the difficult issue of proving the existence of God and focused primarily on the arguments proposed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Beginning with the distinction between faith and reason, Aquinas claimed that there was a fundamental difference separating these two categories of knowledge. This major distinction between belief and knowledge is dependent on the ability to observe and draw conclusions from the effect of a cause, sometimes through scientific inquiry or possibly just through innate knowledge, but we can never have knowledge of what actually causes these effects. Using the example of a triangle, we cannot know what a triangle is without also knowing that it is three-sided, just as we cannot know of the existence of God without first accepting that there is a cause behind the many mysteries of the world.

However, Aquinas did not agree with Plato in assuming that knowledge of God was self-evident or intuitive knowledge, nor did he agree with Anselm’s ontological argument of God being something which nothing greater can be thought. Instead, Aquinas gave two kinds of self-evident (analytic) statements that were “In itself but not to us” and “In itself and to us.” His cosmological arguement explained that since we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us but must be demonstrated by effects that are more known to us. The ontological argument stated, like before, that we can only know the subject (God, triangle) through its predicate (existence as a whole, three-sided), and also that the effects are not proportionate to the causes as no perfect knowledge of the cause can ever be obtained. These two kinds of demonstrations of God’s existence are known as A Priori (through the cause itself) and A Posterior (through the effect).

To streamline his argument into five major points, Aquinas created the Five Ways which included: (1) Minfestor Via, or the argument of an Unmoved Mover; (2) Efficient Cause, or that nothing can be the cause of itself without having existed first, making God the only uncaused cause; (3) Contingent and Necessary, which states that in nature there are things which can and cannot be generated and it is impossible for these things to always exist, requiring a source to initiate the entire sequence of being; (4) Gradiation, which uses Degrees of Perfection, Goodness and Truth, and Comparative Judgments to imply that there is an existence of the Absolute through the fact that we have comparative thoughts of perfection; and (5) Design Argument, which states that order and finality are doubtlessly the effects of an initial cause.

Regarding the question of what God actually is, Aquinas said that “Having recognized that a certain thing exists, we shall have to still investigate the way in which it exists, so that we may come to understand what it is that exists.” He said that via negativa, we can understand what God is not, namely that he is not corporeal but instead more than a body, and also that God is not potentiality (cause) but Pure Act (cannot be what is or what is not, but a constant state of being – God cannot be but what he is). Instead, Aquinas believed that God is simple and perfect, not just a composition of substance and form, but a fullness of being through one undivided and eternal act. As further evidence that God is not corporeal, we must confront some of the basic questions that would contradict these assertions such as whether or not he would take up space. What body characteristics would he have? Would his omnipresence physically push us away? Alternatively, Aquinas suggested our idea of God should be more abstract, like the concept of twoness, and rooted in the idea that we compose the very body of the bodiless known as God.

February 9th Class Synopsis

Today in class, we talked about Aristotle’s ethical beliefs and structure of the soul. Aristotle believes that happiness is the end in which we are all trying to reach. This belief is one that Socrates also shares. So in all the actions that we do in life we are ultimately trying to attain happiness and so it is teleological. He explains that the happiness he is referring to is not the mere psychological feeling, but an energia which is movement or process towards a certain end of being complete and lacking nothing. Along with happiness he explains his idea of virtue. He believes virtue is fulfilling our function in life; performing kind acts is not virtuous, rather doing the acts that are unique to the thing or person. An example of this Dr. Layne gave in class was a dog that is locked up in a cage. Because the dog is locked in the cage it cannot perform those actions that make it different or unique such as fetching a newspaper or running and playing with the owner so Aristotle would say this dog is not virtuous. Dr. Layne also brought up Aristotle’s theory that there is practical and theoretical reason. Basically Aristotle says that theoretical reason is more of reality and practical reason is idealism or how things should be. I don’t know how this ties in with happiness and virtue, but we talked about it, then we went into the structure of the soul.

Aristotle believes the soul is split up into two parts and these parts must cohere in order to reach happiness. The first part of the soul is the rational side which contains your virtues of thought which is the reasonable side. The second part is non-rational side which contains our appetite which disregards reason and desire which has a relationship with reason, but may not always listen. Aristotle state that our reason and desire must be in harmony in order to gain practical truth therefore we must train our habits or desires early. Some of the rules given to us by society and our parents help us to achieve this harmony.

Class Synopsis Monday January 31st

On Monday January 31^st in Philosophy class we began by discussing the “Good Life,” and what exactly the “Good Life” is. We threw around some ideas concerning consistent happiness and what constitutes a consistently happy life, be it relative or not. We moved on to consider the concept of virtue and what it is to be virtuous. Some common virtues we discussed were courage, Piety, Justice, Friendship. Socrates Considered Virtue to be knowledge and said that you can’t be virtuous if you know not what virtue is. Being virtuous means that while you do good things, you can also give a definition as to what makes your actions good.

After explaining how virtue is knowledge we moved on to discuss what a good definition of virtue would be. Any explanation of virtue must be fluid with all of the definer’s beliefs, if the definition lacks coherence with its creator’s ideals then the definition is false and the action in question is not virtuous. The definition must also be “Universally Applicable.” All aspects of a definition of virtue must be applicable to all aspects of reality. Third of all the Definition must be practical, it must be something that is based on practice and not theory, something that is based on theory and not practice is based on assumption which is born of ignorance.

After we defined virtue (or pondered ways of doing so) we moved on to ask if Virtue could be taught. Yes was the first answer which came to my mind because I have always assumed that everything I know was taught to me by my peers and my parents. Others believe that we are born with some instinctual knowledge like the instinct not to kill other human beings. With this in mind we asked what of the children who do kill people and receive a pardon due to their adolescence. The question was raised in class “what of those who know right from wrong and still strive for evil?” and we moved on to the question of desire over knowledge. Often times we know things are bad and we do them anyway, for example: Most everybody knows and believes that cigarette smoking is bad for you in the long run but the good in being healthy doesn’t always overcome the good feeling that comes immediately with the cigarette. This is not a question of weak will but a question of what is good to the individual; the immediate gratification from the cigarette, or knowing that your lungs are healthy. In conclusion we were told that nobody wants to do bad things or what they believe is bad, but what some people perceive as bad others may perceive as good. This scenario is what makes cigarette smokers keep smoking and serial killers keep killing. They believe the good is in the feeling they get when they’re committing their action, not the action itself.

Class Synopsis for Wednesday 01/26/11

Milesians, Thales, Anaximender, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoreans ---26^th January 2011.

Class Synopsis

Wednesday’s class focused on five different philosophers and what they thought the arche, meaning origin, was. Thales believed the arche was water. He was an epistemological optimist, saying knowledge is possible. Origin is unity and because of this, water must be the arche. Water exists in all living things. It is life-giving and runs through everything like the mind. Water cannot be destroyed, and so because the mind is like water, the mind is immortal. In relation to the Phaedo, the mind is immortal.

Anaximender believed the arche was indefinite, and said that which cannot be defined or limited, made definite. In this way he was an epistemological pessimist. All definition is futile, so finding an arche was futile since it can not be defined. There was appreciation in recognizing the mystery of people, and therefore the mystery of arche.

Anaximenes, however, was a metaphysical and epistemological optimist. He believed the arche was air. Like Thales, Anaximenes said all things are a certain amount of air, rather than water. Knowledge is not just abstract, but certainty. Because of Anaximenes, scientists look for measureable certainty.

Xenophanes was an epistemological pessimist. He had a denial of anthropomorphic gods, and he was the first to speak about monotheism. Monotheism was discussed before Christianity began. Xenophanes also believed there is no complete knowledge for man.

The last philosopher we covered was Pythagoras said the arche was numbers and that “all is number.” The world is not only rational, but also mathematical. In this way, like Anaximenes who believed in measurable certainty, he believed all things can be determined with an exact certainty. Everything is related in a unified whole, like all numbers are one. A definition is good and indefinite is evil. Anaximender believed the opposite, because he believed there is mystery in the indefinite. In relation to the Phaedo, numbers can not be destroyed just like the soul can not be destroyed, and the soul is man’s real nature.

Class Synopsis for Monday (1/24/2011)

Monday’s class focused on introducing common fallacies through definition and by the use of examples. Early in the class, one student respectfully questioned the purpose of learning them in the first place. Dr. Layne answered that by recognizing fallacies, we can learn to avoid them, which will help us make stronger arguments and leave us better suited to engage in responsible dialogue later on. The first common fallacy we discussed was “Faulty Cause”; which is based merely off superstition. “Faulty Cause” is when we associate a cause with another because it just so correlated at the same time. One example was a black cat crossing someone who’s involved in a car accident later that same day. The next common fallacy was “Hasty or Sweeping Generalization”. This is when we assume that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances. One example was claiming that because one student is lazy, all students are lazy. We then covered “Faulty Analogy” which can apply literally or figuratively. “Faulty Analogy” occurs when we assume that because two things are alike in some respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects. We used the analogy “Life is like a toilet paper, long and useful” as an example. There was then a discussion on the use of analogies in an argument. One student argued that starting off an argument with an analogy makes it weak, while Dr. Layne believed that an analogy is usually better than using than a definition because it appeals to all people rather than just one. We then moved on to cover “Appeal to Ignorance”. This fallacy attempts to use an opponent’s inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion. So by saying “You can’t prove I’m wrong” you’re practicing “Appeal to Ignorance”. The next fallacy was “Appeal to Pity”. This occurs when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. A student making excuses to his teacher about a grade is a perfect example of this fallacy. We then discussed “Appeal to Force”; which is the kind of argument that basically says if you don’t agree with my conclusion, bad things will happen to you. The seventh fallacy we covered was “Bifurcation/False Dilemma”, which is an “all or nothing” fallacy that offers no grey area. The quote “Either you’re with us or against us” directly applies here. “Ad hominen” followed afterward. This fallacy attempts to refute an argument by slandering the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. The example we used was “There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!” The next fallacy dealt with pointing out the hypocrisy of the person making the argument. This fallacy is referred to as “Tu Quoque”. One example was the U.S. criticizing the human rights policies of third world nations. The tenth fallacy was “Equivocation”, which allows a word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. Dr. Layne’s example was “Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.” We then discussed “Begging the Question”, A.K.A. Complex Question, which entails making an argument with a conclusion based on an unproven assumption. One example was stating that abortion is murder since killing a baby is an act of murder. We then discussed “Tautology” which is a sub-category of circular argument. It deals with defining terms and qualifying them. The second to last fallacy, “Appeal to Authority”, attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known, not necessarily qualified, figure. And finally, the last fallacy we covered was “Appeal to Tradition”. This fallacy means that we should simply continue to do things as they have been done in the past.