Well, I have my first homework assignment. Florka sent it for our first class, Body Knowledge. It's a seminar class, but looks to be quite difficult indeed judging by the preliminary assignment.
Here's the assignment: first meeting Tuesday September 1.
I want you to look at the opening couple sections of Chapter 5 from Part Two of O’Shaughnessy’s The Will, pp. 179–87 (see attachment).
expect to hand it in.
background and explanation. In Part One O’Shaughnessy explored the limits of basic physical action. (I can’t just will that cup to move “with my mind,” as we say. Why? On the other hand, I can just will my arm to move.) A basic bodily action is, for example, raising your arm, and he counts that as an exercise of the will. He uses uppercase F (big phi) for the basic action, which is something you will, and lowercase j (small phi) for the movement of your limb. So, F may be raising your arm, while j is arm-rise, that is, the arm going up. Obviously, these are closely related (you can’t successfully raise your arm without your arm rising), but they are not the same thing: j (arm-rise, my arm going up) can occur without its being a willed action (i.e. without my raising my arm).
Opening a door is NOT a willed action, though it requires a willed bodily action, namely intentionally moving your hand and arm in a certain way. Opening a door is an instrumental action (which he symbolizes as F¢—big phi prime). (If I could open the door just “with my mind,” that is, without moving my body, that would be a willed action.) It is instrumental because it can only occur because I engaged in a basic bodily action.
First assignment. What he concluded in Part One is summarized in the first couple pages of Chapter Five. It includes some difficult claims about our knowledge of our actions and our limb movements. For example, our knowledge of j is “immediate,” it is something we “just know.” That is to say, our knowledge of j (when it is intentional) is not derived from knowing something else.
Thus—your first assignment here—consider his argument (p. 180) that “our relation to willed j [e.g. my arm’s rising when it is willed] is most unlike that either to unwilled j [for example, lifting my arm due to wind] or a willed j by another [my relation to your arm rising because you willed it].” His claim: our relation to our own willed j is not that of observer to what he observes. (That is, our special relation to our own willed limb movements is not that we observe it happening.)
Why is it not that of observer? He first considers three attempts to explain why our relation to our own willed movements is not that of observer and dismisses each one. (So, his discussion takes the form: the relation is NOT that of observer is “not because …”). Finally, he settles on the explanation he favors.
Your task: explain all of these, failed and successful, candidates in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions. (Wikipedia has a decent explanation of these terms. Learn it: make it part of your regular philosophical vocabulary: we will use it in every discussion.)
In logic, the words necessity and sufficiency refer to the implicational relationships between statements. The assertion that one statement is a necessary and sufficient condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.
A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true. Formally, a statement P is a necessary condition of a statement Q if Q implies P. For example, the ability to breathe is necessary to a human's survival. Likewise, for the whole numbers greater than two, being odd is necessary to being prime, since two is the only whole number that is both even and prime.
A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth. Formally, a statement P is a sufficient condition of a statement Q if P implies Q. Thus, jumping is sufficient to leave the ground, since an intrinsic element of the concept jumping is leaving the ground. A number's being divisible by 2 is sufficient for its being even.
Your second assignment. Play out what are or are not necessary and what are and are not sufficient conditions for some material object’s being “immediately present” to you. This is a matter of understanding O’Shaughnessy’s claims in section 2(a)(1) pp. 181–82. He does a lot of the work for you, but I want you to get comfortable with the use of this vocabulary and get some idea of what he has in mind by the “immediate presence” of a phenomenon j or a limb L.
Third assignment. O’Shaughnessy’s discussion in 2(c) (pp. 184–85)—of the epistemology and metaphysics of the self—is staggeringly complicated and subtle. (It is brilliant philosophy, setting up the answer to why the notion of the soul is so attractive and so close to the truth, so to speak, while yet being an illusion.)
Your assignment: figure out what he’s saying here, all of it. Beware that he (mostly) distinguishes between awareness of something and knowledge of it, and between immediate givenness and immediate presence. (Here, unlike pp. 188ff, O’Shaughnessy mostly restricts himself to the notion of the given as something that is not derived (it is immediate) and also something that we know with certainty, something that cannot be denied. Here he mostly wants to contrast what is immediately given/known but not experienced with what is immediately present as experienced. (You will not need to hand anything in for this third assignment.)
A warning. You will find the reading and the assignments difficult. Your frustration, along with your natural urge to do some philosophy of your own, may lead you to seek out what is wrong in what O’Shaughnessy says, what you disagree with. While that’s always worth doing, avoid focusing on your objections. He may be wrong, sure, but, believe me, there’s a lot to be gained from trying to understand what O’Shaughnessy is saying (even if you can’t understand all of it). So put your energies into that at the start.
A good shot at completing the reading and these assignments would involves 10–20 hours of work. So don’t leave it until the last minute.
--Roger Florka
Yep. And taking a look at the material, I can vouch for its difficulty.
Still. ...Doesn't that topic sound -awesome-! I want to read an intelligent account of the illusory nature of the soul! ...having trouble getting to that part, but I will!
Eager to do a good job right off the bat, since I feel like I need to work on Florka more now, since I didn't go to any of his little parties this summer. need to remind him I'm his girl. Competent, sensitive, insightful. Rawr.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Doctor Rafa Talks Shop
I'm stuck in an airport for some time (flight delayed because of...well, a hurricane. Should be here awhile), so I'm thinking about what I want to do for my thesis next year.
I was talking about it in some detail with my mother over lunch, and I thought I needed to write down what I said before the wording went out of my head (as I thought the wording sounded...not eloquent, but at least somewhat sane).
Ultimately, I want to talk about a government's role in creating citizens capable of fully experiencing love. That is, I want to talk about a government's role in creating good citizens, and define a good citizen as someone fully capable of recognizing their ability to love and fulfilling their human nature. To do that, I would start with something similar to my paper for summer fellows (but more extensive and better written), talking about what it means to love and how it is one of those unique features of humanity that allows one to be ennobled, to be fulfilled. I'd talk about the character of partnership, what it means to incorporate someone into your definition of self--that kind of thing.
Nesting egg metaphor. Go with me. Next egg, I'd talk about government, how the government forms citizens, and then next egg what a government does to make someone capable of loving and loving well. I'd talk about what kinds of things need to be taught, what kinds of insitutions need to exist, what can't exist, what needs to be guarded, and give an opinion as to the best structure.
Ultimately, I would talk about my own government, the US, and do a full critique of the US's ability to prepare its citizens for love and fulfilling their nature, w hile noting of course that I'm not taking into account the other things a government must be able to do. I'd have to talk about those things too, of course, but with a note that they aren't what I'm talking about and that I consider them secondary governmental functions.
I know I can't do this in an undergraduate senior thesis, I should note. It's too much. Way too much. I intend to send my whole plan to Stern and Florka, however, and see what they think, and pick one or two of my 'layers' to write now. Then I'll take those and do the third layer with my MA thesis, and then...with the benefit of a lot more knowledge and experience years later, the last as my disseratation maybe?
Other projects I want to do: I want to write a casual nonfiction book on the philosophy of love meant for a general audience. I want it to take a modern conception of love in some detail, and relate it to classical definitions (likely Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Aristophanes, those guys), with the intent to think through the consequences of thinking of love in various ways.
Ultimately, as my TRUE work as a philosopher: I want to write a philosophical novel. This would be my opus. In the tradition of Camus, Dante, and Plato. A real work that comes at my true message through a work of fiction.
Thoughts?
Thinking rather clearly today,
Rafa.
I was talking about it in some detail with my mother over lunch, and I thought I needed to write down what I said before the wording went out of my head (as I thought the wording sounded...not eloquent, but at least somewhat sane).
Ultimately, I want to talk about a government's role in creating citizens capable of fully experiencing love. That is, I want to talk about a government's role in creating good citizens, and define a good citizen as someone fully capable of recognizing their ability to love and fulfilling their human nature. To do that, I would start with something similar to my paper for summer fellows (but more extensive and better written), talking about what it means to love and how it is one of those unique features of humanity that allows one to be ennobled, to be fulfilled. I'd talk about the character of partnership, what it means to incorporate someone into your definition of self--that kind of thing.
Nesting egg metaphor. Go with me. Next egg, I'd talk about government, how the government forms citizens, and then next egg what a government does to make someone capable of loving and loving well. I'd talk about what kinds of things need to be taught, what kinds of insitutions need to exist, what can't exist, what needs to be guarded, and give an opinion as to the best structure.
Ultimately, I would talk about my own government, the US, and do a full critique of the US's ability to prepare its citizens for love and fulfilling their nature, w hile noting of course that I'm not taking into account the other things a government must be able to do. I'd have to talk about those things too, of course, but with a note that they aren't what I'm talking about and that I consider them secondary governmental functions.
I know I can't do this in an undergraduate senior thesis, I should note. It's too much. Way too much. I intend to send my whole plan to Stern and Florka, however, and see what they think, and pick one or two of my 'layers' to write now. Then I'll take those and do the third layer with my MA thesis, and then...with the benefit of a lot more knowledge and experience years later, the last as my disseratation maybe?
Other projects I want to do: I want to write a casual nonfiction book on the philosophy of love meant for a general audience. I want it to take a modern conception of love in some detail, and relate it to classical definitions (likely Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Aristophanes, those guys), with the intent to think through the consequences of thinking of love in various ways.
Ultimately, as my TRUE work as a philosopher: I want to write a philosophical novel. This would be my opus. In the tradition of Camus, Dante, and Plato. A real work that comes at my true message through a work of fiction.
Thoughts?
Thinking rather clearly today,
Rafa.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Doctor Rafa Discovers a Fish
It’s been an eventful day. It all started at 5:20, an hour that usually only exists for me as the tail end of a particularly good night (or a particularly lazy one).
A shuttle picked me up at my house, and proceeded to drive around all corners of Maryland for two and a half hours (which, by the way, is a longer time than my actual flight, especially since my very cheery pilot landed us fifteen minutes early). He was nice enough, with a very attractive Turkish accent (I think, I’m not great with non-obvious accents, a skill I’d like to pick up), but obviously didn’t know at all where he was going as the trip usually takes about an hour.
Another man we picked up was rather good conversation. Especially for 7:20 in the morning (which it was, by the time we got him in silver spring, usually about twenty minutes away). Spent most of the time talking about health care reform, generally not my topic of choice in the morning hours, but he was entertaining enough and had that new York caller personality to him that makes it fun to speak boldly and passionately.
Flight was uneventful, except that I lost my government ID somewhere in the time between getting off the plane and getting to the hotel in Tampa. Ah well, I’ll get back to Maryland somehow.
The rest of the day was great. I went to the aquarium, and I must say—I’m a sucker for aquariums. I don’t know what it is.
Or rather, I do I guess. I love the water. I’m fascinated by all water creatures. Especially those at the bottom of the ocean, but not by any means limited to just the bottom.
They had lights that shown through jellyfish (a creature I could just watch move for hours), and turned them all different, brilliant colors (I took pictures with my phone).
They had these sea dragons from somewhere in south eastern Australia that looked like they were made out of leaves. It was the most beautiful thing, I never imagined creatures could look like that. Or—well, I’ve seen stick bugs and toads that look like they’re fashioned out of wood, but this was different. There were ridges exactly like leaves and seaweed, in foam blue and translucent green and yellow-lime. It was so delicate, and they moved so slowly, every bit a waving tendril—it was like something out of a fae legend.
There was another sea dragon I loved too, but it’s particularly difficult to describe. I ‘ll post a picture of him, when I get a chance to charge up my phone.
I also fed stingrays (petting them is like stroking a wet feather; curious sensation), messed with crocodiles (glass between us, I’m not that stupid), looked over a great, burnt-sienna octopus that looked like every inch of its flesh was waving with constant, feather-in-the-wind motion…
Mm. I love aquariums. I have far too many pictures of fish on my phone now.
Other than go to the aquarium, I just sort of wandered around Tampa. Went to a movie theatre here to see Julie and Julia with my mother, we both got cocktails and then beers right in the theatre at our seat. It was awesome.
Movie was good too. Of course, now I want to cook…
Then ice cream, and torrential rain, and talkative cab drivers.
Now I’m in the hotel room, ordering room service soup and trying to work out how to make the room a little less frigid.
A shuttle picked me up at my house, and proceeded to drive around all corners of Maryland for two and a half hours (which, by the way, is a longer time than my actual flight, especially since my very cheery pilot landed us fifteen minutes early). He was nice enough, with a very attractive Turkish accent (I think, I’m not great with non-obvious accents, a skill I’d like to pick up), but obviously didn’t know at all where he was going as the trip usually takes about an hour.
Another man we picked up was rather good conversation. Especially for 7:20 in the morning (which it was, by the time we got him in silver spring, usually about twenty minutes away). Spent most of the time talking about health care reform, generally not my topic of choice in the morning hours, but he was entertaining enough and had that new York caller personality to him that makes it fun to speak boldly and passionately.
Flight was uneventful, except that I lost my government ID somewhere in the time between getting off the plane and getting to the hotel in Tampa. Ah well, I’ll get back to Maryland somehow.
The rest of the day was great. I went to the aquarium, and I must say—I’m a sucker for aquariums. I don’t know what it is.
Or rather, I do I guess. I love the water. I’m fascinated by all water creatures. Especially those at the bottom of the ocean, but not by any means limited to just the bottom.
They had lights that shown through jellyfish (a creature I could just watch move for hours), and turned them all different, brilliant colors (I took pictures with my phone).
They had these sea dragons from somewhere in south eastern Australia that looked like they were made out of leaves. It was the most beautiful thing, I never imagined creatures could look like that. Or—well, I’ve seen stick bugs and toads that look like they’re fashioned out of wood, but this was different. There were ridges exactly like leaves and seaweed, in foam blue and translucent green and yellow-lime. It was so delicate, and they moved so slowly, every bit a waving tendril—it was like something out of a fae legend.
There was another sea dragon I loved too, but it’s particularly difficult to describe. I ‘ll post a picture of him, when I get a chance to charge up my phone.
I also fed stingrays (petting them is like stroking a wet feather; curious sensation), messed with crocodiles (glass between us, I’m not that stupid), looked over a great, burnt-sienna octopus that looked like every inch of its flesh was waving with constant, feather-in-the-wind motion…
Mm. I love aquariums. I have far too many pictures of fish on my phone now.
Other than go to the aquarium, I just sort of wandered around Tampa. Went to a movie theatre here to see Julie and Julia with my mother, we both got cocktails and then beers right in the theatre at our seat. It was awesome.
Movie was good too. Of course, now I want to cook…
Then ice cream, and torrential rain, and talkative cab drivers.
Now I’m in the hotel room, ordering room service soup and trying to work out how to make the room a little less frigid.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Get this
Morning now, not usually a propitious time to write anything. I slept alright, but had the strangest thing happen this morning. When I woke up, my right eye wasn't working. Or rather, it wasn't completely dark, but it felt odd, and I could barely see anything through it (left eye was fine). Still half asleep, I was looking around the room, and I must have spent five minutes staring at my mirror across the room (the gold one that hangs above my bookcase). With my eye screwed up, I swore I could see a pale, dark-haired face in the mirror, elongated with this impressive hawk nose, features blurred out (as everything is blurred out, since I didn't have my contacts in). For those five minutes, we just stared at each other, the face and I, until I remembered that I should be frightened of faces in mirrors. Then I scrambled up in my bed, still staring, and started rubbing my eyes like I wanted them out of my face. A little bit later, there was something like a click, and my vision came back. Now I have contacts in, and everything's normal.
I wonder what happened.
Going to see District 9 with my dad today; that and clean. Exciting day, ne? Heh. Exciting and normal.
Hoping to see you,
Rafa
I wonder what happened.
Going to see District 9 with my dad today; that and clean. Exciting day, ne? Heh. Exciting and normal.
Hoping to see you,
Rafa
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
This
Dear Andrew,
Think I'm sick. I can't get to sleep. Can't think. Feel like I'm paralyzed, but I think I'm just exhausted.
Where are you?
Rafa.
Think I'm sick. I can't get to sleep. Can't think. Feel like I'm paralyzed, but I think I'm just exhausted.
Where are you?
Rafa.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Channel 137
People are making it hard for me to honor my goal to be more positive and not complain. I'm not going to stop, but I have this annoyed feeling in my stomach.
I'm not really having that much fun with St. Vier anymore. I don't like Zyke. But it's not important.
I'm watching the Haunting in Connecticut. It's interesting. Just started, but there was a man cutting words into every inch of some body. The hilarious thing was that the body was still oozing/gushing blood, I presume for effect. Silly. The man also cut off the man's eyelids. Something particularly disturbing about watching anything happen to someone's eyes: Aya and I used to have these...affectionate tortures for each other. For some reason. Hers for me was to have me stay exactly still while she pushed a needle through my eye. I wouldn't go blind unless I moved...
Mine was to cut her legs off and make a cane out of her femurs. Heh. Twisted, I don't remember why it was supposed to be romantic. We always laughed.
I'm not really having that much fun with St. Vier anymore. I don't like Zyke. But it's not important.
I'm watching the Haunting in Connecticut. It's interesting. Just started, but there was a man cutting words into every inch of some body. The hilarious thing was that the body was still oozing/gushing blood, I presume for effect. Silly. The man also cut off the man's eyelids. Something particularly disturbing about watching anything happen to someone's eyes: Aya and I used to have these...affectionate tortures for each other. For some reason. Hers for me was to have me stay exactly still while she pushed a needle through my eye. I wouldn't go blind unless I moved...
Mine was to cut her legs off and make a cane out of her femurs. Heh. Twisted, I don't remember why it was supposed to be romantic. We always laughed.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cultural Ethical Relativism
Reading Bioethics today, I came across a topic that never ceases to annoy me, that I bring up again because I do have difficulty understanding your position on it: relativism.
Specifically in this case, cultural relativism, and retrograde relativism.
For the latter...Remarks such as "It was a different world then" and "We can't judge the past by contemporary standards" are revealing. The assumption must be that the validity of moral judgements depends upon their cultural context, and that cultural contexts change over time. In other words, skepticism about retrospective moral judgments is simply a special case of the more general position known as cultural ehthical relativism. Acoording to this position, the validity of all moral udgments is culturally relative. This position implies that moral judgments about the past are invalid if they are applied across cultural boundaries.
According to cultural ethical relativism, moral judgments applied across cultural boundaries are invalid because moral judgments can be justified only by reference to shared values, and shared values are found only within a particular culture. We cannot
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Postscript to a Twenty Cent Picture Card
Sometimes, I just want to be soft.
Is it so bad to not be prideful? To not be so fierce, so intimidating?
Would it be so bad if I was just quieter, and kind? A little more gentle? Are there people who respect strength that isn't so blatantly ostentatious?
I don't know...I think I'm just tired. And I like to think that it's desirable to just be a good, sweet person.
Is it so bad to not be prideful? To not be so fierce, so intimidating?
Would it be so bad if I was just quieter, and kind? A little more gentle? Are there people who respect strength that isn't so blatantly ostentatious?
I don't know...I think I'm just tired. And I like to think that it's desirable to just be a good, sweet person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
