Term
| What is the first recorded encounter between Christianity and academia? |
|
Definition
| Paul's encounter with the Epicureans and Stoics at the Areopagus in Athens, c 50 AD (Acts 17:18-23) |
|
|
Term
| What are the two commonalities between Epicureanism and Stoicism? |
|
Definition
1. Philosophy is a kind of askesis, or practice/way of life (as opposed to mere information)
2. They both have an eudaimonistic teleological structure |
|
|
Term
| What is an eudaimonistic teleological structure? |
|
Definition
| A structure where the aim of life (telos) is to achieve the objectively good/blessed life (eudaimonia) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The objectively good or blessed life; a well-lived life; a life worthy of the gods |
|
|
Term
| What is the goal of life according to Epicurus? |
|
Definition
To achieve a life of pleasure
Not thrill-seeking "spring-break hedonism," but a stable, static, calm state free of physical and mental affliction ("ataraxia") |
|
|
Term
| According to Epicurus, what are we all really after? |
|
Definition
The satisfaction of desires; the elimination of pain.
When you have a good meal, your enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of hunger, not the food itself. Eating more doesn't add more pleasure, unless you create more pains or unfulfilled desires for yourself |
|
|
Term
| What is Epicurus's prescribed lifestyle? |
|
Definition
| Have a simple, healthy lifestyle. Live in moderation, only doing what is necessary to eliminate pain. Lavishness will be difficult to sustain and lead to more pain. |
|
|
Term
| How do we achieve ataraxia according to Epicurus? |
|
Definition
We must eliminate bodily pain and mental disturbance, including irrational fears and unnecessary/unnatural desires.
We especially must eliminate the ever-present irrational fear of death. |
|
|
Term
| How, according Epicurus, do we overcome fear of death? |
|
Definition
We just have to look at it properly. Religion perpetuates fear of death, so we must listen instead to natural sciences.
The soul is made up of fine atoms distributed throughout the body, creating sensations of pain and pleasure. Upon death, these atoms scatter so the soul does not survive and we no longer feel pleasure or pain.
There is nothing to fear, for death is nothing to us while we're alive, and when we're dead we aren't around to experience anything. |
|
|
Term
| How did Epicurus feel about resurrection of the dead? |
|
Definition
| He rejected the idea, as it would suggest that the soul survives bodily death and disprove his whole basis for not fearing death. |
|
|
Term
| Who was the founder of Stoicism? Who were some other famous Stoics? |
|
Definition
Zeno of Citium founded Stoicism, who apparently lectured from his porch ("stoa")
He was followed by Cleanthes and Chrysippus
The Imperial Roman Stoics who preserved their philosophy were Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus |
|
|
Term
| What is the aim of life according to Epictetus's Stoicism? |
|
Definition
| To live a life of "good flow" - to live in agreement with the way things are (realigning or eliminating your desires) |
|
|
Term
| What is and is not under our control, according to Epictetus? |
|
Definition
We can control the mind
We can't control anything outside of the mind
We can't change how things are, but we can control how we respond to them |
|
|
Term
| How do we achieve eudaimonia, according to Epictetus? |
|
Definition
| Control your internal states (i.e. desires) so they align with the way things are. Don't desire for things to be different than they are. You don't need anything external for eudaimonia (contrary to Aristotle's beliefs); just internal control |
|
|
Term
| What does personal progress look like for the Stoic? |
|
Definition
1. You don't yield to having unwieldy desires (or yield to them)
2. You align desires to be for what is; eliminate aversions for what is not
3. You eliminate desire altogether, which is the highest realm of freedom/divinity |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between the Stoic and American views of happiness? |
|
Definition
Americans tend to think the more desires we fulfill, the happier we'll be.
Stoics think the fewer desires we have, the better off we'll be:
FULFILLED DESIRES
______________________
TOTAL # DESIRES I HAVE |
|
|
Term
| What is Sartre's view of the meaning of life? |
|
Definition
| There is no grand purpose waiting to be discovered, because there is no God to assign one to us. Instead each person must determine their own purpose. |
|
|
Term
| What is Sartre's point on essence and existence? |
|
Definition
The essence of a created thing precedes its existence.
All created things have an essence or purpose preceding their existence; I think of a scissors before I make it.
If humans had a preexisting essence, they would need some creator to conceive of this essence.
Since there is no creator, humans have no preexisting essence: their existence precedes their essence.
Thus we have no built-in purpose. We must make our own purpose. |
|
|
Term
| What is Sartre's case for human purpose? |
|
Definition
1. If God doesn't exist, then there's no God to conceive of what a human life is supposed to be like.
2. God doesn't exist.
3. So there's no God to conceive of what a human life is supposed to be like.
4. If 3 is true, then humans couldn't have any sort of essence preceding their existence.
5. Thus for humans, existence precedes essence.
6. If 5 is true, then individuals are completely free to determine their own sense of meaning for themselves - that is, to define themselves
7. Since 5 is true, so is 6
This is basically Divine Command Theory upside down: I say what is good! |
|
|
Term
| What is Nietzsche's catchphrase? |
|
Definition
| "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." |
|
|
Term
| If we're free to define ourselves, what does that entail according to Sartre? |
|
Definition
- Great freedom for humans
Unconstrained by divine purpose, we are "condemned to be free" - to be and do as we wish.
- Huge burden of responsibility for me and everyone else
Only *I* am responsible for what I become.
I'm also responsible for others, since whatever I do endorses that action for everybody |
|
|
Term
| What are Sartre's three burdens of human responsibility? |
|
Definition
1. Anguish about the heavy feeling of "total and deep responsibility" for ourselves
2. Forlornness about the distressing reality of God's nonexistence, and thus no way we're supposed to live
3. Despair over the possibility that we will blow our responsibility and make a mess of the world "We are alone, with no excuses." |
|
|
Term
| If there really is nothing to live for, what are our three options according to Camus? |
|
Definition
1. Suicide
Just give up
2. Take recourse in the transcendent
Refuse meaninglessness and blindly believe in transcendent meaning
3. Come to terms with the fact of absurdity
Accept meaninglessness, opening up the possibility of revolt, passion, and freedom
Camus chooses 3, viewing 1 and 2 as a cowardly "Quixotic" retreat from life |
|
|
Term
| According to Camus, what evidences life's absurdity? |
|
Definition
When we recognize that most of what we do in life comes from mere habit.
We seem to be striving toward some greater order, but the world never gives it to us. Still we keep doing the same things over and over in hope that it will. |
|
|
Term
| In light of life's absurdity, what keeps most people from killing themselves (according to Camus)? |
|
Definition
- Denial
People deny that life is meaningless, and keep pushing on in search of it
- Hypocrisy, cowardice, or laziness
People know life is meaningless, but they either ignore this fact, are too scared to kill themselves, or too lazy to leave habit behind |
|
|
Term
| According Camus, what does it mean to embrace the absurd? |
|
Definition
1. We remain aware of the fact that we desire meaning but the world has none (without resorting to faith in a transcendent meaning)
2. We revolt. We shake our fists at death and meaninglessness, and delight in this awareness and revolt.
3. We live in freedom. Without a way we're supposed to be, we just take life as it comes.
4. We soak up as many experiences as possible. Since no one experience leads to greater meaning, may as well try them all and become a "life-experience junky". |
|
|
Term
| What is Camus's analogy of human life? |
|
Definition
| Camus compares us to Sisyphus, who was eternally doomed by the gods to push a boulder up a mountain only for it to fall back down at the top. In the same way, we keep putting effort into life, but nothing is ever accomplished. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Million Years argument against mattering, and what is Nagel's response? |
|
Definition
M1. Nothing done now will matter in a million years.
M2. If something won't matter in a million years, then it doesn't actually matter now either.
M3. Thus nothing now matter.
Nagel:
According to M2, it doesn't matter now that nothing will matter in a million years (M1).
M2 is also dubious because it doesn't matter if something will matter later, but whether it matters period. Time has no effect on mattering. |
|
|
Term
| What are the Space and Time arguments against mattering, and what is Nagel's response? |
|
Definition
S1. We are but tiny specks in comparison to the vastness of the universe.
S2. Something that's cosmically tiny doesn't matter.
S3. Thus our lives don't matter.
T1. Our lives are only fleeting moments on a geological time scale.
T2. Something that is fleeting on a geologic time scale doesn't matter.
T3. Thus our lives don't matter.
Nagel:
S2 and T2 are dubious - neither smallness nor brevity entail absurdity. We can be huge and absurd, or old and absurd.
Of course, I say he's missing the undercurrent of the argument: that the universe seems like it wasn't made for us and is unaffected by us. It doesn't make us feel like we belong, like a person does. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Going-Nowhere argument against mattering, and what is Nagel's response? |
|
Definition
G1. Everything we do in life is justified simply because it leads to another end.
G2. Because we're all going to die eventually, this chain of ends will be interrupted mid-flight.
G3. If there's no great "Final End" reached before death, then nothing we do really matters.
G4. Thus nothing we do really matters.
Nagel:
G1 is false. We do many things "just cos" - for instance, taking an aspirin, going to an art museum, or stopping a child from putting their hand on a stove. We don't have any further reason in our heads (though logically we might point to one).
The argument invites an endless regress problem, where a chain of ends never results in something that matters in and of itself. |
|
|
Term
| How does Nagel describe everyday absurdity? How do we respond to it? |
|
Definition
Discrepancy between aspiration and reality.
Reality does something different (usually opposite) of what you expect or try to get it to do. For instance, confessing your love over the phone, only to realize you're speaking to a recorded message.
The three typical responses to absurdity are:
1. Modify aspirations in the moment ("I don't really love you!")
2. Try to bring the situation in better accord with your aspirations (call her cell phone)
3. Remove yourself from the situation altogether (go AWOL) |
|
|
Term
| What is Nagel's philosophical definition of absurdity? |
|
Definition
Collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we're so serious as being arbitrary, or open to doubt with respect to its importance.
Basically, life defies our expectations and serious efforts, which makes it seem arbitrary. The things that matter to us don't seem to matter to life. |
|
|
Term
| What is Nagel's theory of absurdity? |
|
Definition
1. We take ourselves very seriously In fact, this seriousness is necessary in successfully achieving our goals. Isn't there something you're dead serious about? Something that really *matters* to you?
2. We can back up and reflect on our lives "sub specie aeternitatis" ("under the aspect of eternity") We can ask, "Why does this matter so much to me?" and see that our strivings seem arbitrary. We have no good reason to be so serious.
3. Despite seeing we have no good reason to engage seriously, we still do
Just as we trust a chair is there without being able to fully prove its existence, we can trust that our serious work is good to continue pursuing. Now we just approach our "serious work" with some irony. |
|
|
Term
| According to Nagel, how can we escape life's absurdity? |
|
Definition
There is no escape.
We can try to justify our serious practice by appealing to something larger than ourselves: society, God, science, art...
But a "greater cause" cannot bestow meaning just by virtue of its being bigger than us; it must already have human meaning. If our purpose were to be et up by aliens, that would be meaningful only to the aliens.
More importantly, we can step back and ask: why take society, or God, or science, or art so seriously? And so on until we find no good reason.
Of course, Nagel ignores the idea that we'd eventually reach a bedrock (such as God or love) that is good for itself, or describes the very nature of reality. There's no need to assume the "default" of all reality is nothingness or absurdity. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between Camus's and Nagel's Existentialism? |
|
Definition
Camus recommends defiance.
Life refuses to satisfy our aimless needs, so all we can do is shake our fist at it and continue living as a rebellion against its absurdity.
Nagel thinks this is a romantic, self-pitying view.
Despair over pointlessness is also pointless. Absurdity doesn't warrant such distress or defiance, but rather demonstrates our unique human ability to reflect on life. |
|
|
Term
| What is the atheist position against religion, as Pojman describes? |
|
Definition
1. It's more important to be free/autonomous than to have a grand sense of meaning or purpose in life.
2. Even though religion may provide a grand sense of meaning and purpose to life, it doesn't allow humans to be free or autonomous.
Marx says religion is the "opiate of the masses," basically a drug to keep everyone calm.
Freud says it's just an expression of the human need for parental affection. |
|
|
Term
| What does it mean to be autonomous? |
|
Definition
| Self-governing; to make choices on the basis of good reasons rather than being coerced by threats or forces from without. |
|
|
Term
| What is Pojman's response to the atheist case for autonomy over purpose? |
|
Definition
1. Even if autonomy is more important than some purposes we have in life, it doesn't mean it's more important than ALL good purposes.
2. Autonomy is inseparable from purposiveness, since it's about being free to accomplish a purpose; so it can't be said that autonomy is in conflict with a grand purpose. |
|
|
Term
| What does Pojman think his atheist interlocutor meant to say, and what's his objection to it? |
|
Definition
She may have meant to say:
If there were a choice between [a] a world in which we're fully free and autonomous and [b] a world governed by God, she would choose [a].
Pojman sees two mistakes here:
1. She makes autonomy into an unjustified absolute
2. She offers a false dilemma between freedom and religion. In fact, the two are bound up together. |
|
|
Term
| What is Pojman's "autonotom" argument, and what does it illustrate? |
|
Definition
Imagine a person's autonomy were measured in units called "autonotoms." Now imagine these two scenarios:
[A] You have 100 autonotoms, so you can do whatever you want. You're in a large and interesting world that's being filled with poisonous gas, giving you five minutes to live.
[B] You have 95 autonotoms, so you are prohibited from such things as murder, adultery, etc. You are locked in a room full of fresh air and sunshine.
Since most of us would choose B over A, we clearly value other things over autonomy. |
|
|
Term
| According to Pojman, how does theism provide meaning to life? |
|
Definition
1. We know where the universe came from and why it continues
2. We're confident good will win over evil
3. We know God loves us
4. We know why morality's important
5. We're confident everyone will get their just deserts
6. We know all people have equal worth as God's children
7. We enjoy grace and forgiveness (i.e. we're confident things all will be well for all)
8. We know there's life after death and a better world to come
Now think: how exactly do each of these things bestow meaning to life? |
|
|
Term
| What is Nozick's "experience machine"? |
|
Definition
A thought experiment to determine whether personal experience is all that matters.
Imagine you could plug yourself into a machine that could provide you with any experience. You don't know you're in the machine when you're in it. You can escape your present reality and have exactly the kind of life you want. Would you plug in?
Most people would choose not to. Even if they were in a bad situation, they'd feel that they shouldn't plug in. So clearly, we value something more than personal experience. |
|
|
Term
| According to Nozick, what do we think matters other than experience? |
|
Definition
1. We want to actually DO certain things, not just *experience* doing them.
2. We want to BE a certain sort of person, not just a blob in a machine.
3. We want to be in a world greater than what we could construct or imagine. |
|
|
Term
| According to Aristotle, what conditions constitute the highest end that we're after? |
|
Definition
It must be an end...
1. ...for which all other ends are ultimately pursued.
2. ...which is pursued for itself.
3. ...which is never pursued as a means to some other end.
4. ...which is self-sufficient - that is, having this end makes life choice-worthy |
|
|
Term
| What are some of the things considered the final end in Aristotle's day, and how does Aristotle refute them? |
|
Definition
1. Pleasure
This can't be it, because pleasure is pursued for some higher end (wellbeing) and it's not self-sufficient
2. Honor
This can't be it, because honor depends on those who bestow it, not the bestowee. Honor also is pursued for some higher end (validation).
3. Virtue
This can't be it, because virtue is pursued for some higher end (living well)
4. Wealth
This can't be it, because wealth is pursued for some higher end (happiness, validation, wellbeing) |
|
|
Term
| What is the final end, according to Aristotle? How does he come to define it? |
|
Definition
Eudaimonia, the objectively good life
This must be something that applies specifically to humans, so he proceeds with his so-called "function argument" to determine what a human's "function" may be. He argues as a flute player's function is to play flute, so man must have a function.
It cannot be life, because that would make us no better than plants.
It cannot be sensation, because that would make us no better than animals.
It must be "the activity of the soul in accordance with reason, or not apart from reason." |
|
|
Term
| According to Aristotle, how do we achieve eudaimonia? |
|
Definition
We must live in reason with arete, or virtue (a sort of static state of unsurpassable perfection). You also need good luck.
Virtues are those character traits and habits that enable us to perform our function well - the means by which we achieve our end |
|
|
Term
| How does Aristotle view virtue? |
|
Definition
| He views virtues as a middle point between excessive and deficient behavior. For instance, courage is the mean between the extremes of cowardice and foolishness. |
|
|
