Abhinav Philosopher

Stage II - Critical Thoughts

2012-01-08T08:58:00.002+05:30

Essay (10 Mk)

Given below are three quotes of certain philosophers on different subjects. Choose any one of them to write an essay of about a few pages of your notebook. The essay should not only explain the given view, but should either support it or oppose it with examples and logic. You do not need to have knowledge of the Philosopher’s work, but rather should be able to grasp the central idea and analyze the different aspects of the statement. Usually one goes about establishing the meaning and relevance of each phrase/clause separately and then sums up the whole argument. Your coherence, reasoning and depth of thought are most important. For more detailed instructions, refer http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/InPOInstructions.htm

i. Art is parasitic on life, just as criticism is parasitic on art. - Harry S Truman

ii. We should not say that one man’s hour is not worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time’s carcass. - Karl Marx, Das Capital

iii. Is Man one of God’s blunders? Or is God one of Man’s blunders? - Friedrich Nietzsche

iv. An object as separate from its cause is not perceptible, and the cause of the object as separate from the object itself cannot be perceived. – Nagarjun, Madhyamik Sutra, Ch. IV

Indian Team - Selection around the corner

2011-12-15T14:53:00.000+05:30

Stage I of the Indian Philosophy Olympiad begins 22 Dec 2011. Students (std 8 to 12) should download the paper linked to the site - http://abhinav.ac.in/DoV/Stimulus/Philosopher.htm - on the morning of 22 Dec. Then attempt the MCQ and subjective questions meant to test the student's language and reasoning skills. The solutions must be emailed to events@abhinav.ac.in by the 3rd Jan 2012. Instructions on how to send the solutions will be given in the paper. Those who cant email, may send by post / hand delivery by the same deadline.
20% from the top will be invited to the next stage.
Stage II will be an essay competition conducted on Sunday 8th Jan 2012 between 9 am and 12:30 pm. 4 essay topics will be announced at 9 am to the participants by email and on this blog. Students have to write an essay on one of them and submit by 12:30 pm (about 3 hrs writing time) by email.
Topper recieves the medal among other prizes. Top 10 percentile students get a prize.
Students are invited from the top to participate in the team going to Oslo in May 2012. If one refuses, the next in list is asked. Please remember - no part of this competition is charged a fee. However, the travel costs to Oslo and back and travel costs to the training center (Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli) for about a month, have to be borne by the student.

2011-12-14T22:05:00.000+05:30

2011-11-23T20:11:00.001+05:30

Hello,

Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the Abhinav Philosopher competition (first stage of the selection for IPO - team India) is postponed a bit. It will now be held from 19th Dec onwards, i.e. The first stage - Objective and Subjective questions will be put up on 19th Dec and the (thoughtful) answers will be expected by roughly the end of Dec. (So you get plenty of time) This is only a filter to go to the next level and it is a lenient one. The next stage (Essay round) will be taken on a given day (so only 3-4 hours of writing allowed) on 8th Jan 2012. Only those who clear the first stage will be allocated the essay topics by email.

Also, please look at the box on the top (below the title) for tasks / discussions related to the training. we need to gear up for the competition and need to learn to think elaborately with adequate reasoning. If you are participating, then please join the group (by sending me a mail at director@abhinav.ac.in).

Reviews from Chitra

2011-11-10T08:36:00.002+05:30

Shlok Bhurke: Lack of argument; No examples discussed; Deeper understanding of the topic and the corresponding philosophical issue, here- free will, determinism and comaptiblism isnt seen

Rutwik Borkar: Very less amount of the argument dedicated to 'compatiblism'; 'literal' explanation of the quote isnt required; argumentation, counter examples lack

Rounak Majumdar: missing discussion about possiblity of a 'better organized'; the concept of greater good should have been mentioned; both sides of the issue of 'superiority being far from being a bad thing'; examples not analogous to the whole issue, only sufficient to explain a term; conclusion is plainly assertive

Kinjal Shah: Point wise presentation and structure was good; conclusion actually comes out the presented arguement [again a plus]; less focus on dictates of the mind, no countering to it; more explanation about 'compatiblism' required

Anunay Kulashetra: Various possible angles of 'relative' not explored; Unanswered 'whys' all over; necessary to disprove belief in absolutes to strengthen the argument

Devendra Chavan: dictionary oriented explanation for 1 & 2; better examples required for the same; all possible interpretations of 'sign' required in 3 & 4 is a positive, quite complete and convincing

Ayushi Singh: good structure and flow; more examples should be quoted; mention compatiblism

Apurva Shinde: 'Relative' and 'related' are not as closely related that they will be the same; unecessary focus of human psychology about strong beliefs; conclusion doesnt come from the argument

Anand Chitrao: 'Relative' confused with all other types of non-confirmation; examples not analogous to the argument; Non conclusive

Ajayanand Chari: Focus on desire instead of free will; argument not analysed from opposite points of view

Abhinav Menon: Structure and flow is very logical; All nuances of the key term have been explored, which creates better understanding; More concrete examples required, at least two of them should be critically explored; Countering the believers in absolutes is required

Reviews from Vallari

2011-11-10T08:29:00.001+05:30

The positive things:
Great attempt by all of them. I could sense the interest and the efforts taken to write the essay and to analyse the topic. There were attempts by a few of them to be critical about the analysing the topic which was good, because I guess you really need to be very well prepared with your explanation when you go for a critical analysis. Good job. I’m happy, not satisfied!
Things to be worked on!
Usage of the words should be proper. You can’t be casual in using certain words. Be particular. Infect, VERY particular. Elaborate more on your views. The explanation that you offer to the reader is not sufficient. It should be simple n elaborate such that even a layman can understand it very clearly. Try and give better examples n explain them properly. It seems you assume certain things while writing the essay but you don’t mention about your assumptions. Look after your grammar. Though not very important, but it is definitely important. Your views won’t be clear enough to the reader if you don’t use proper grammar. In conclusion just don’t say that you agree or don’t with the philosopher but also try and add your own different view point about the topic. Try and hold the reader throughout your essay. Don’t make him disinterested in the essay as he proceeds through it. Make the presentation interesting. Not as if you tell a story but definitely better than a mathematical proof which has the pattern ‘Following are the points and so the conclusion’. You all are writing an essay so its very important that you hold the interest of the reader.

Individual Observations:

Shlok Bhurke: The choice of heading should have been little better. Form small, simple sentences instead of using too many conjunctions. It confuses the reader. Improve on the grammar part. It’s very poor. The explanation should have been little bit more. Try to think beyond the lines given to you but take care that you don’t get diverted from the main point which is to be discussed. Read in between the lines (for the topic) Avoid too many brackets. It might just suggest the reader that you aren’t sure about the words you are using or the point that you are listing.

Rutwik Borkar: Please be careful when you highlight certain points. Don’t just presume things. Mention about your presumptions especially when you are using them in your highlighted points. [This is for the 4 points which you have mentioned in the starting of the essay]

Kinjal Shah: The attempt was really good but a very poor approach towards the topic. The starting was different, as in quite a different point of view but the explanation presented was very poor. Moreover you lost the track of your point midway n so it seemed that you were just gathering points from here and there. It could have been much better had you thought over the topic little more deeply. One thing that is noticeably nice about the essay is that the conclusion is really presented in a good way. Different and nice.
Devendra Chavan: Use better words while mentioning ur sub-points in d essay than just saying ‘point 1’, ‘point 2’etc. Limited thinking or limited writing! The topic was such that you could have elaborated much more than you have.

Apurva Shinde: Sorry but I had quite a tough time reading this one. Too confusing for me. ‘Bohot ghuma firaake baat ki hai’ So I couldn’t really read through her mind!
Ajayanand Chari: No heading! Heading is very important. It tells the reader that what should he expect from your essay! Different approach or I would say different usage of words. But again, the explanation is not enough.
Anand Chitrao: Dunno whether the approach was correct or no but the presentation is nice. Convincing power is good. A layman would easily understand what you are tryin to say and will get convinced with your viewpoint as well. Again limited thinking but the explanation was pretty good [whatever chhota explanation is given]
Ayushi Singh: “But such a choice will drag the child to the sufferings of being hungry. Hence here the child was completely free and had entire freedom to react in any manner in order to fulfil his wish to eat something.” Here the later part is a conclusion of the point mentioned but is not derived actually from the 1st sentence. In fact the explanation provided does not lead you to this conclusion. I feel the explanation for this conclusion should have been different. So be careful about it. The reader won’t find the link in between your views. It’s a pretty clean essay compared to others. Clean in the sense, I could make out what your thought process was, though you need to work on detailing. I could read your mind through and I guess that’s important. Keep up the good work!

Rounak Majumdar: I appreciate the choice of topic! According to me it was the most difficult one!!! Nothing much to say. The general reviews are enough for this one.

Abhinav Menon: The views presented are good but the way of presentation needs to be cleaner. The language used is simple yet complicated and tends to confuse the reader [at least me!]. Here I mean, I had to actually keep the record, ‘This is the first point, ok so now he’s starting a new one and ok fine now that’s the conclusion!!!!’ I like the confidence!

Selection of Indian entries to Baltic Sea Competition

2011-11-05T19:26:00.000+05:30

Hello there,

The Baltic Sea Competition held as a celebration of UNESCO World Philosophy Day was conducted on 4th Nov, 2011. About 11 candidates, 3 of whom were from schools in Delhi, Dubai and the rest from Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli, participated. Out of these 2-3 essays are to be sent to Finland as entries from India. The scores of all those who appeared for the BSEC from India are listed here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag1_UBDDhAZ1dDFpVWNIT2cwT0JfNlBGOUlqN1otUUE

I have asked each examiner to post their comments so that the students will be guided into improving their performance for the Abhinav Philosopher Competition (Selection for IPO-Indian Team, roughly in Dec Week 1). We have sent the following students' essays to the Finnish Organizers:
1. Abhinav Menon (IB-MYP-Sophomore, Dubai Int'l School, Dubai)

2. Rounak Majumdar (SSC-X, Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli)

3. Ayushi Singh (SSC-X, Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli)

Results of BSEC will be posted at www.feto.fi on or soon after 17th Nov

On a personal note - I was amazed at the overall performance of most of the candidates. It has been much better in quality than previous years.

My observations:

Starting with Shlok, Apurva & Anand. Your performance has improved considerably from last year - you have written more and elaborated the points well. However, either you failed to grasp the full relevance of the issue or gave examples inconsistent with the topic. You should improve your reasoning and critical thinking by participating in brain storming sessions more often. Otherwise you seem to write well, especially Shlok.

Now Anunay. Being your first attempt, no regrets. However, the physics of Einstein's Relativity is that although things seem relative - their are always some invariants/absolutes that can help correlate observations. Thus it is in contrast with the metaphysics of Nagarjun. Also, an example cannot prove an idea correct, but only proves it possible. It can however, prove an idea as incorrect.

Then Ajayanand, Kinjal & Devendra. You guys have elaborated well and even structured your approach to the issue. You have tried to analyze the different clauses in the philosopher's quote. However, you either ignored a possible outcome of the quote or were slightly incoherent through the essay, i.e. your ideas did not connect well with the examples and the other ideas. Kinjal, you need to improve your language to make yourself crystal clear. Devendra needs to write simpler sentences and elaborate the idea rather than simply stating things as facts/rules. Ajay you need to discover beyond what the philosopher has already provided in the quote. (in terms of examples and mechanisms)

Rutwik. You present well. You even elaborate the ideas very critically and try to frame the arguments. This is expected from you since you have been to the IPO once. However, you need to take care of your language. Sometimes casual use of language causes misunderstandings when evaluated in a critical manner. Also, the argument of the author, which you presented (since you agreed with him) needs to be water-tight. The justifications for the observations of the author (which you provided) were not very critical. One can find a few slips and loopholes. Try to read more philosophers and brood over the meanings. But this is much better than your performance last year.

Ayushi & Rounak. You are both methodical and critical in presenting the argument. However, you also need to be watchful about your use of language/words. Using a word in a wrong context (Ayushi) or casual phrases where interpretation is left to the reader (Rounak) can cost a philosopher dearly. Avoid using bombastic words (Ayushi) or eccentric examples (Rounak). Also, you could have given the mechanisms of the effects described by the author in greater detail, analysing psychology / sociology in detail. I guess you can improve this by reading more works of philosophers. Also, you need to explore all possible interpretations of the quote (you have taken most, but left one or two very important ones out of the discussion)

Finally Abhinav. You have a good command over language and logic. Thus although you made a very strong attack on Nagarjun, "proving" him incorrect, thus causing a flutter, you pulled it off with grace. However, you should have elaborated more about the possible interpretations of the quote and their possible analyses as well as their supporting arguments. This would have either shown you that your dis-proof was acceptable only in a limited context or it would have helped you make a more convincing argument to prove the author wrong given any interpretation. At the IPO your essay would have come under a lot of flak and ultimately would have gown way below in ranking due to the above lacuna. I guess you need lots of brain storming to be able to "see" variety of angles into a quote.

Overall, I hope all of you who participated and others who may be "inspired" by this will stay focused on philosophy. We will try to remedy your shortcomings through our discussions as soon as I get some free time. Meanwhile, I intend to push some more essay-writing on you, say once-a-week throug this blog. (Those who are new to the whole idea are also welcome to try)

Baltic Sea Event

2011-11-03T20:17:00.001+05:30

The Baltic Sea event will be held tomorrow. This event can seen as an
opportunity for different schools from different countries to search
for their philosophy talent and then match it with each other. Idea is
to give the student an essay to write, based on either a philosophical
question or a quote by some philosopher. The student has to present
his/her views regarding the quote (or question) and argue either in
favor of or against the author, using proper reasoning to prove or
disprove the quote. You may support your arguments with examples but
you shoud not prove or disprove your point of view exclusively with
your examples.

The student has to choose an essay topic from among the four that will
be given. You have two hours to finish the essay. During this time,
you should not access the Internet or any other reference that will
help you with the essay (Use of a dictionary is allowed.). The essay
should be atleast 2-3 computer pages and the font size should 11 or
12.

All interested Abhinav students should come to the school tomorrow at
9 am for the competition. Others who are interested should contact
Prof. Kedar Soni (soni.kedar@gmail.com) for further details.

For more information about the Baltic Sea Event, visit
http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/PhiloDay.htm

All the best!!

Resources for philosophy

2011-10-27T17:26:00.000+05:30

Hi!!

The link attached below contains resources to different areas of philosophy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBcKiLo98JVmFzBhPIiduBmkVW_Fz7gf7...

This will give you a general idea about the important topics in each area of philosophy and will help you to train for the Baltic Sea event. I have not put up resources for all the areas now. I will keep on updating the document and inform you like-wise.

As these links will only give you a general idea, it will always be better if you read from other resources as well.

The Baltic Sea event will be conducted as scheduled- on 4th Nov. Topics will be disclosed only on 4th. Abhinav students are to come to the school premises to write the essay at on 4th at 9am.

Others who are interested will have to be online. The essay topics will be e-mailed to them on the 4th at 9, and they are to write the essay and email it back. For further queries please contact Kedar Soni (soni.ke ...@gmail.com).

You may post whatever doubts you may have.. All the best!!

About the Indian Philosophy Olympiad

2011-10-09T11:37:00.000+05:30

I am currently trying to shift base to an internal discussion group and a seperate website for conducting the assignments and delivering info and news about the Olympiad and other activities related to Philosophy, which we will undertake here at Abhinav. The location for further info would be http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/. However to keep the line open, I will keep repeating the info on this blog for a long time to come. So feel free to view either site for news. Detail info will however be posted / connected on the proper site (as given above). Discussions within students and mentors will be conducted exclusively on the discussion group - https://groups.google.com/a/abhinav.ac.in/group/philosophy/topics. So do join it. (by sending me a mail at director@abhinav.ac.in or the group address - philosophy@abhinav.ac.in)
Competition overview and task sheets for the first stage will be simultaneously put up at the above website as well as http://abhinav.ac.in/dov/stimulus/philosopher.htm.

The Indian Philosophy Olympiad Site

2011-10-07T07:56:00.002+05:30

The website for info regarding the Indian Olympiad is finally set up. Please have a look. Details about the preparation and the stages of the selection have been put up as well. They need to be updated, but thats a continuum of work and will be done as soon as I can get around to it.

Take this Team IPO

2011-05-20T19:37:00.000+05:30

Frame arguments for these topics ...

"Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt - particularly to doubt one's cherished beliefs, one's dogmas and one's axioms." -Will Durant
"If space is, it will be in something; for everything that is is in something; and to be in something is to be in space, and so on (ad infinitum). Therefore space does not exist." -Zeno of Elea

Another assignment

2011-05-19T10:12:00.000+05:30

Frame the author's argument and your counter-attack or support for the theme given below, send me a mail of it and then write an essay based on the same argument and counter-attack ...

Justice without force is powerless, force without justice is tyrannical. (Pascal) IPO 1997

Another Essay for Team IPO

2011-05-18T09:36:00.001+05:30

Write an essay on the following theme
In short, the actions of man are never free; they are always the necessary consequence of the temperament, of the received ideas, and of the notions, either true or false, which he has formed to himself of happiness; of his opinions, strengthened by example, by education, and by daily experience. (Holbach, Paul-Henri Dietrich, System of Nature)

The author's argument and a possible counter argument

A1) Man acts according to his beliefs

R) Actions are necessary consequences of the temperament of
a) recieved ideas

b) self notions of happiness (truth not important)

c) opinions (reinforced by edu., exp. & eg)

Rx) Being forced may govern your actions

X1) interactions with the world translate into experiential beliefs which in turn help construct a belief system (temperament)

X2) Temperament helps frame new beliefs

X3) A1 + X2 -> Actions follow from R)

C1) Man's beliefs are not independant

C2) Man is not free to act

Counter Argument:

1) if some ideas are dependant then is your entire belief system (temperament) dependant???

2) Can your most initial thoughts be ever your own? ... does this mean that you cant think on your own?

3) How do you explain the development of human knowledge if there is no independant idea???

4) Man always can choose to accept a belief in its given form or to modify it ... thats what R claims ...

CC) The above, especially 4, imply that beliefs are independant to quite a degree.... Thus C1 & hence C2 is WRONG!!!

Yet again for Team IPO

2011-05-17T17:28:00.002+05:30

Find the authors argument and your counter-argument

Nothing is true, everything is permitted... (Nietzsche) IPO, 1996
Should we start from the premise that one is totally forbidden to do injustice, or should we consider that under some circumstances that is permitted? (Plato) IPO, 1995

Shuvom's take on Nietzsche's argument

My take on Nietzsche ....
Nietszche's argument
A0) Truth is subjective
i.e. Everyone has their own version of truth
A1) Something may be true for someone OR Nothing is absolutely true for anybody
R1) Everyone thinks/acts as per what they think is true
R2) Therefore everyone would do whetever they please
C) Thus Everything is permitted
Counter-Argument
X1) R1 dictates that if the base of thought is removed, people would behave in whichever way they feel (which usually is without reason)
X2) Such behavior will be tested by nature and people will (usually) end up in suffering or trouble, endangering their lives and whetever they value in them
X3) Only a rational act/thought can survive ... thus rendering A0 untrue
X4) A0 needs to be changed ... Truth is objective / real / empirical / rational
XC) From X3 - Only the truth and thoughts/actions according to it are permitted

More assignments for team IPO 2011

2011-05-16T19:03:00.001+05:30

Frame the argument of the author of the quote and your counter argument to it.

The fundamental evil of government grants is the fact that men are forced to pay for the support of ideas diametrically opposed to their own. This is a profound violation of an individual’s integrity and conscience. It is viciously wrong to take the money of rational men for the support of B.F. Skinner—or vice versa. The Constitution forbids a governmental establishment of religion, properly regarding it as a violation of individual rights. Since a man’s beliefs are protected from the intrusion of force, the same principle should protect his reasoned convictions and forbid governmental establishments in the field of thought.
“The Establishing of an Establishment," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 168
In the whirling Heraclitean flux which is the pragmatist’s universe, there are no absolutes. There are no facts, no fixed laws of logic, no certainty, no objectivity.
There are no facts, only provisional “hypotheses” which for the moment facilitate human action. There are no fixed laws of logic, only mutable “conventions,” without any basis in reality. (Aristotle’s logic, Dewey remarks, worked so well for earlier cultures that it is now overdue for a replacement.) There is no certainty—the very quest for it, says Dewey, is a fundamental aberration, a “perversion.” There is no objectivity—the object is created by the thought and action of the subject.
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 126

Essay assignment for Team 2011

2011-05-15T00:04:00.000+05:30

History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them. - B. R. Ambedkar
“Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.” - Henry Louis Mencken

An assignment in Metaphysics

2011-03-09T11:40:00.000+05:30

Hello there!
Time to start seriously preparing for the IPO 2011 to be held in May in Vienna. Students who are present for the discussions we have at Abhinav Vidyalay & Jr. College, Dombivli, have just had an overview of metaphysics from some very basic web pages like http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ (Objectivism) or Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia to begin with. Metaphysics attempts to define (ontology) the world we live in - physical and mental, as also to address the fundamental questions concerned with existence, consciousness, mind, perception, etc.
The purpose of these discussions is not to train the students to do serious metaphysics, but only to make them aware o fthe various issues that it studies and hence to make an educated opinion about an issue when attempting to write an essay. Of course the olympians will need to go further and also learn about the various thoughts presented by various philosophers on the issue and try to frame their opinion in the context of these thoughts.
So here is an essay assignment:
"Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure." - Scott Adams

2010-05-18T16:48:00.006+05:30

Consciousness is what makes the mind-body problem really intractable. . . . Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless. (T. Nagel, 1979, pp.165–166)]

Necessity of Consciousness isn’t Sufficient to give it a Form

It is from the problem of mind-body dichotomy that mind and body have been conceptualized as different entities. What brings forward this problem is consciousness. Yet most of the viewpoints in this area tackle with many secondary products of the dualism vs. monism conflict, leaving consciousness unexplained by every possible and debatable angle. Consciousness has initiated the mind-body problem but still is undefined to either be a mental or a physical state [hardly anyone considers it to a physical state but it is undefined]. Thomas Nagel has stated that without consciousness the mind-body problem has no substantial grounds to raise questions about dualism or distinct ontological existence of both the mind and body. In other words, what brings in the interest in this issue is the nature of consciousness and its inexplicability, without that most of the other corresponding physical and mental phenomena do not necessitate the mind-body conflict. Yet the very existence of consciousness as a phenomenon leaves many queries in this issue unsolved as much as it raises them. I would support this argument by explaining the pivotal role of consciousness in the mind-body problem, doctrines explaining this problem without necessary consciousness and arguments that hold necessary consciousness and create newer questions in the mind-body problem.

Consciousness in the Mind-Body Problem

The mind-body problem is basically of the nature- dualism as against monism and thus giving rise to emergentism. Both ends accept consciousness; the argument starts form the existence of different physical and mental states of a being. Consciousness is the awareness of having a mind and its functioning. Thus from this argument follows the question- what states of a being give him his identity- physical or mental- and therefore what creates consciousness- where does it lie- what form does it have?

Physical states of our body are known to us; this knowledge about body is not consciousness, as knowing observable facts is not awareness. Awareness is the key word to understanding of consciousness- it is synonymous to wakefulness and responsiveness. Thus it implies a state of interaction: when P is conscious of his thoughts he is aware of his thoughts i.e. he has them not just as memories but reinforces a known route of thinking to a particular thought x and thus knows it actively. E.g. ‘I am aware that I love burgers’ implies that my love for burger is because of certain known reasons and that my love can’t be a dead fact because- love implies certain conditions and the absence of it means no love, therefore it can’t be memory; ‘I love’ implies continuity even though that thought as per its content doesn’t remain in the focus of thinking all the time. Therefore this awareness of having a certain thought is not knowledge through perception- no matter if it’s stored in the brain as memory or is in the focus of thinking i.e. the activity in hypothalamus. It requires necessary to be in a mental state.

Consciousness as a mental state: Now that one knows that consciousness is not reducible to brain states, why should it be a mental state? That is pretty obvious if the point is establishing either existence or inexistence of mind, but the question is how did this problem follow from proposed existence of mind? It would be very cyclical if this is established from the definition of consciousness as it means awareness of having a mind and its functioning. So what are the various senses of consciousness- awareness of existence, awareness of thoughts and awareness of awareness. The first sense seems trivial if we look at it this way- If I know I exist then can I know the same without existing. The complexity lies in the fact that what do I know as my existence- if it implies all by physical states as observed by me, then I haven’t yet observed that ‘I know’. My awareness is thus my belief and a belief is definitely a mental state but not a mental fact. Therefore the necessity of a mind-like entity follows from that. The other sense as in the example of the burger is awareness of having thoughts and not the state of thinking. For instance when it is said that p is morally conscious, he is aware of his thoughts about morality. If someone asks him a question are you aware that you think it is unethical to murder. If an obvious yes doesn’t come from him then he may have forgotten the reasons as to why he accepted that morality in the past, but then reinforcement is possible only when there is memory and loss of memory means need for fresh thought about any issue. If he says he yes, does it simply imply that he remembers- actually it means he still holds it to be valid which makes it a state of mind. Last sense of it is awareness of awareness. Let us continue with the same example- is p aware that he is aware of his thoughts about morality. The answer is – at this instant: no; but when he thinks about it: yes. The issue gets worse as, if there is awareness of awareness which is inactive at a particular instant and gets turned on with thought then, where is it? Is having this kind of awareness a mere belief formed on because of no counterevidence? If we can establish that this thinking in two layers is possible then it is not just a belief but such awareness exists and thus the need of explaining it in terms of mental state.

Subtract consciousness from the idea of mind

Before arguing for the necessity of consciousness in the mind body problem, I would like to discuss the other aspects of the issue and certain doctrines that go against this necessity.

Reasons behind the mind body problem: Given that mind and body have distinct ontological entities [a materialist would deny mind completely, but that very problem has been addressed to, therefore let us analyze between dualism and monism] mind has no empirical evidence. Therefore a dualist would argue that they are different components of the self. Also for instance the process of reasoning is explained by brain states, but what is implied by ‘having rationality’ doesn’t occur anywhere as a state by observing an association formed. Qualia are the subjective characteristics of experience; they are initiated by physical states but aren’t explained by them. So comes the question where do these mental events exist? All these problems also contribute to necessity of mind. The epiphenomenalists [mental states are causally ineffective but both mental states and brain states exist], panpsychists [both physical and mental states exist but only physical states create mental states] and the functionalists [mental states are functional, mind doesn’t exist] give solutions to these problems in a reductive manner. Hence what remains is consciousness.

A mind that requires no consciousness: Parallelism is doctrine that says mind and body function parallely and do not interfere with each other. Therefore if we accept that then there is no question of consciousness as- what is one aware of and who is the one that is aware? If mind and body don’t interact we cannot reach the peripheries of consciousness as every question about this issue doesn’t stand valid. If P sees a green parrot, then his perception is different and his thought of a green parrot isn’t related to that, therefore from where did the thought follow from if the brain state created from perception didn’t create it? How can he think of a green parrot as colour is dispositional in nature though may not be physical reality and why does he call the creature in his thought a parrot if he perceives something called a parrot too. Occasionalism [Malebranche] also argues on similar lines that mind and body have parallel functioning and occurrences of similarity between mental and brain states is because of God’s intervention. The same problem as parallelism persists here along with an assumption of intervention and undefined idea of God.

Mind is accessible to a conscious being. Simple questions revolving around identity of an entity and that unique attribute his beliefs will have is because he is aware of them. The mind body problem without consciousness is a reductionist approach.

Consciousness

If not this reductionist approach, then consciousness is the central problem of mind-body problem. So comes the question why is the problem unresolved because of consciousness again.

- Thomas Nagel explains consciousness to be a subjective character of experience. He puts forth the term- ‘what is it like’nes. By his thought experiment of a bat he explains a bat’s consciousness as only a bat knows what it is like to be one. The unique experiences constitute his character of consciousness and thus only the physical states aren’t sufficient to create the mental state of consciousness. Physical states are common to everyone who can perceive a certain object but there is subjective character to that experience which makes his consciousness. The other minds problem also raises the question that how do we know that a mind other than us thinks like us though we know it to have the same body.

- Hilary Putnam’s multiple realizabilty argues against functionalism by stating that one mental property, state or event can be implemented by different mental properties, states or events. Thus the mental property of consciousness is not functional in nature. This is true because our constant awareness cannot be result of every brain state. Seeing a red book doesn’t necessitate that one is aware of his thoughts [not just one thought about the red book] and aware of being aware.

- The concept of phenomenal consciousness states that phenomenal conscious properties are experiential properties. This argument is monist. It doesn’t explain every sense of consciousness- the awareness of being ware of thought isn’t any experience initiated by physical reality or isn’t purely mental too. Therefore consciousness requires independent mental states.

Any doctrine that doesn’t deny the ontological existence of consciousness cannot support its reducible existence. Yet none of them actually establish consciousness. There is no acceptable theory that explains the nature of every kind of consciousness as in terms of the nature of a mental state. Nagel too has defined consciousness but he establishes the need of it and the unique character of it only. Why is this insufficient then? Putnam’s semantic externalism says that meaning just ain’t in the head. The head implies internal counterpart of meaning of something and not just the brain state but a mind too; but the point is that if consciousness has meaning as understood by us, it has existence as a mental state independent of someone who thinks about it. This problem of consciousness cancels out almost every solution offered to the mind-body problem.

Conclusion

· Consciousness only offers strong grounds for interactionism and creates mind-body problem. Consciousness in every sense of it also goes against reducible monism. Consciousness disproves parallel functioning of the mind and the body.

· Most of the arguments in the mind-body problem have necessitated consciousness and have inclination towards explaining it as a mental state, but do not provide its exact mental form. This is the major reason for the mind-body problem to persist.

2010-05-16T16:04:00.002+05:30

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point however is to change it. - Karl Marx

A change because of philosophy

Interpreting for the sake of understanding is why we want to have knowledge. A philosopher’s job however is to verify if our understanding actually helps build knowledge or not: thus they various ways of interpretation. Marx shifts this aim of philosophy to a different one. He focuses on the fact that the end is change: change achieved through right understanding of issues, to detect flaws and alter them. Changing the world is similar to making it a better place to live. The question I would like to discuss about this is that –how can one achieve this through philosophy? And before that- is that what philosophy aims at?

11) What is philosophy???

Etymology and meaning: Philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia meaning the love for wisdom. Defining philosophy is not very easy for a philosopher because mostly she would already be belonging to a particular school of thought that defines philosophy, in other words restrain its meaning, than another. Everyone who philosophizes don’t really follow a previously established definition of philosophy, rather their varying aims give them different perspectives. The meaning of philosophy doesn’t much follow from its etymology, as ‘love for wisdom’ is rather a state of mind; it is ambiguous in the sense that it doesn’t necessitate a search and after that- passive acceptance of the truth or attaining a better state. This issue lies in the sphere of metaphilosophy to investigate what will be the right kind of philosophy. But someone who knows the different aims of philosophy is hardly in a position to deny one of them.

Aims of philosophy: Taking the example of naturalist philosophy- a naturalist philosopher follows a different definition of philosophy than others and therefore denies supernaturalism. His aim is to give epistemic justification to propositions about natural science only. Such a discipline in philosophy wouldn’t regard the answers to metaphysical questions to be philosophical knowledge unless they were expressed in terms of natural science. Thus a different set of aims originates from a different understanding of philosophy and provides a different perspective to the world and incidentally all the philosophical questions. The notion of interpretation thus is important for philosophers, as every doctrine holds different axioms to be true and gives a world-view. There are paradigm shifts in science but philosophy follows no such patterns- despite better understanding of necessity, propositional and existential, the Cartesian proof of existence of god is still held to be valid by some philosophers. It is difficult refute an argument of a skepticist about objective existence of men by foundherentism, as both doctrines see the world differently. Such unresolved conflicts in philosophy signify the importance of its aim of knowledge. To have knowledge about the world, we need to know the truth.

If philosophers are at loggerheads about the state of an x, how would they change it? But this doesn’t mean that changing the world becomes a secondary aim of philosophy. The fundamental questions in philosophy weren’t conceived in a completely abstract manner; they arose from problems in human understanding like occurrence of something counter-intuitional or difficulty in tracing causality. The questions were created in order to obtain answers. In the simplest sense changing the world is also achieved through attaining a better mental state by finding explanation for what is unexplained. Philosophy, if considered understood by its practical value, is not less than intellectual value. This brings us to our next question- how will this be achieved?

22) Change and philosophy

The philosopher’s job: How do philosophers change the world? By creating ideas. Every individual has more or less access to some kind of knowledge like perceptual knowledge for instance. What remains to question is understood by a philosopher who breaks down what he sees into previously defined terms, provides concrete analogies to abstract concepts and also forms newer conceptions. This understanding created by philosophy is meant for change- it either replaces older ideas with new ones or reinforces the older ones by providing justification for them. What else can be expected from a philosopher? If feminist philosophers start chalking out plans to uplift women, that means they have switched roles from someone who methodically points out flaws in the secondary positioning of women to activists who are always in a course of action by the virtue of what they do- there lies a great difference in thinking and acting. But action is the end of thought- it may be physical or mental. Philosophers are thinkers, when they become actors they are well supported by a belief-system which is created by them unlike a common person.

The notion of change: Mankind has philosophized and in turn initiated numerous changes since ages. Marx’s argument doesn’t limit to this notion of change. His question is analogous to- why spend years to figure out if the glass is half full or half empty, fill the rest with water. The ends of optimism and pessimism as by this classic example is what philosophers always do; some of them even say that the entire glass is full but half with air and half with water; but the very need of perspectives to describe it is because of the obvious perception of that glass. Therefore change it first. This logic is seen to be applied in case of socialism. Material productive forces drive the markets, thus the society is governed by productive force, because this leads to emergence of classes and therefore class conflicts, markets must be state controlled. The Marxist philosophy initiates change in this manner by answering questions about an issue called classism, followed by the concept of MPFs, thereby the change of replacing MPFs. Let us analyze this notion of change by finding out the philosopher’s exact role in it. The philosopher saw class conflict and traced the reason why this happens, therefore operated upon the reason to put an end to class conflict. Let us revise this understanding by going deeper. Class conflict is explained by Marxism in this way that individuals always think in reference to their classes. The other angle to it is of course that material productive forces create diverse economic conditions. But the concept of class, as it has effects on thinking, is defined to be more than economic conditions; thus the corollary of this concept someone who doesn’t pertain to class interests doesn’t belong to that class. A philosopher who knows this wouldn’t uphold the idea of a planned economy where there are no MPFs, as classism doesn’t apply to every individual. The change of notion as described by Marx, in this case considers that socialism follows from Marxism because he thinks of philosophy only in its practical angle, which is acceptable but- Marx sees issue p, comes to the know it follows from a and b, formulates a theory that b if replaced by c gives no p and considers c to be a valid method of change.

Why should this be an acceptable method in philosophy? As in the quote, ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways’- this interpretation is not as inconsequential as it sounds. If a philosopher sees truth, he cannot deny that as it naturally implies that he also has reasons to consider it to be the truth. If the change he aims at isn’t contradictory to what he holds to be true, then it is logical. If it aims for a change to deny a perspective he cannot refute otherwise, it is illogical. Changing the world is necessary, but in what aspects? Can one change natural laws? Can one deny complete rationality? Even such dispositions are derived from the world and thus a philosopher’s job would be to accept them if they are indefeasible and then there is no scope for changing them. The only change in such a process would be change in one’s belief that do not hold material or non-material existence in the objective world. The point of philosophy is change by means of interpretation. Both courses shouldn’t intervene with each other.

33) Conclusion

aa. Philosophy is meant for gaining knowledge about the world. This process follows a particular method in philosophy and requires to be complete.

ab. The aim of philosophy is to abstract knowledge out of the world by interpreting it and this aim is necessitated by the philosopher’s ends of changing.

cc. This change doesn’t necessarily imply changing changes in objects in the world and not change for the sake of change.

2010-05-15T13:23:00.002+05:30

Hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, eudaemonism - all these systems that measure the value of things taking into account the pleasure or pain that go along with them, that is to say, according to any non-core condition or facts, are seen as if they do not go in depth and being naive. Any man with his constructive faculty in place and a conscience of an artist can only regard this with irony and pity from a distance.

Objectivity in value determination

Value theory, by the sound of it, should be a consistent system of evaluation based on a belief system. That belief system should define value as a concept; no matter if one thinks of it to be a natural property to objects or the subjective measurement of goodness. As Nietzsche has pointed out various systems in axiology do make such equations that operate on pleasure-pain principle; pleasure and pain, being derived and subjective but still universal despite not being properties of objects, are the central problem in such value-systems. Analysis of human psychology in determining value and explaining what value means and a consistent operational method also goes astray because of such value systems. I would like to point out the differences between subjective and objective value theories, why objective theories pertain to reality and what is the right understanding of objective value determination.

Subjective measurement of value

It sounds inappropriate to talk about measurement of value before defining it, but I would first like to trace the propositions about value according to different schools of thought. Is value intrinsic or instrumental or subjective or objective? All these belief-systems have overlapping sense of value. Intrinsic value theory argues that value is contained within objects; while other theories consider it to be extrinsic of the object. The subjective value theory assigns value according to the utility of an object to an individual; instrumental value is the value of an object as means. This brings us to the major differences within these systems- they equate value to be means or to be the end [though none consider it to be means or ends itself].

Hedonism considers that objects have intrinsic value and only intrinsic value can be pleasure, therefore hedonists operate on the principle of minimize pain-maximize pleasure. Eudaemonists aim at happiness in life by reaching pleasure which is characterized by the absence of pain. Pessimism searches for the negative value present in every object intrinsically. Utilitarianism determines value by the utility an object has in giving pleasure. All of them consider value to be equivalent to pleasure. Pleasure is mental state of experiencing happiness. Therefore does one value a particular good because it gives pleasure or does it give pleasure because it gives value? All the subjective theories of value accept the first condition. Consider this- water has value. The subjectivists would say one ascribes value to the water because it gives pleasure; but we know water to have dietary value and the pleasure it gives is because of that. Let us take another example- a is blind and holds less value for a television, while b who can see does. Rather than saying b values the television because he can see unlike a, I would say he can see [therefore get pleasure, more than a] because television is audio-visual media. The value of the television wouldn’t change even if everyone who has access were blind.

If one takes into account such subjectivity, the process of determining exact value of commodities and non-material entities goes wrong. If giving pleasure is further based on subjective thinking and how can one quantify pleasure to equate it with value? E.g. while calculating market value of a product one considers the rewards to all factors of production and comes a certain value x. If this product is a burger, then a person who despises burgers will think of it to be 0.1x, a famished person would consider it to be 5x. If all consumers of that burger hold its value around 0.2 to 0.5 x then it obviously means that it gives less pleasure to them; but the content of the burger isn’t affected by it.

What is value?

Subjectivity in value gives contradictions about facts about an object, which makes it unacceptable. But then what is value? We speak things like, a is valuable to me, b is more valuable to me than c. we don’t think of value without the ‘I’. What does this imply? Gaining value is an end and value is the property of any object to be able to reach that end. What holds value lies outside us. Even if I value my own thoughts I actually value its contents to be true beliefs irrespective of it being in mind. Nietzsche points out such core facts to be missing in subjective value-theories. They are facts about ‘what’ does one value. And their importance lies in the fact that such facts are unchangeable properties of objects. My belief about x having value doesn’t cause the value creation; this belief of mine is grounded on my other thoughts about x that are in some degree self-evidentially true.

Value is the ultimate end of an action. If we equate content of the action to properties of an object, that would give us understanding why we value things. This understanding is important as a non-subjective equation of value would simply separate the existence of objects from ours- it wouldn’t explain value completely if I say if there were no minds to make sense of values that objects hold they would still have value. Value has no material existence, it doesn’t belong to the objective reality; but the point is- it is derived from objective reality. E.g. a painting depicting beautiful girl gives value that is unique to it as an object to someone who sees it. The painting as an object is equivalent and not equal to its value; even its abstract conception of a beautiful girl had no content value. A painter was required to ascribe value to the abstraction on account of what this content is and the individual who saw it valued it for exactly the same reason- its content [it didn’t matter that the abstract conception had taken a concrete form, what gave the properties still existed- this is important for one can talk about value creation in absence of objects and derive from it that object is equal to the value].

Objective reality and value

As in the above example of the painting, the concept of value is seen to be real yet intangible. The subjective axiological systems have therefore bypassed definition of value in independent terms and expressed it in different terms. Once we establish the error in that the solution is to connect value with objective reality. Nietzsche points that someone with constructive faculty or artist’s conscience sees the subjectivity to be ironical and pitiful. So despite this seemingly simple solution, why does one need constructive faculty to have a complete understanding of value? Value is defined to be property of objects to reach a particular end. The objective reality is not a parameter of ascribing value by its definition. But a person needs to understand that objective reality and the properties of the object cannot be contradictory. Let us bring in the water-diamond paradox. Utilitarianistically water should have more value than diamonds. In fact diamonds shouldn’t hold any value to someone dying of thirst. If such a person is asked do you accept the value of diamond to be 100x and that of water to be x, when he is about to die, he cannot deny that. This paradox is a problem in value-determination that rises out of incomplete definition of value. One would evaluate if he wants to quantify a good in terms of its value and thus he considers it to be an end. This condition is true to the meaning of value and in case of this paradox would resolve it along with other arguments about utility of diamonds and their scarcity, etc. thus the constructive faculty to understand value determination. And the artist’s conscience for thinking that objects have content.

Finally to put everything together, what has to be revised is the question that why does a rational thinker consider objectivity to be the right value system. Many times we operate upon value as measured by its utility. So I would put the question this way -what explains the objective value theory to be operationally accurate and therefore intelligible. As from the quote, it considers the core facts that qualify for value. These facts are real and unaffected by subjective thinking. Thus applying this method of determining value would leave no scope for contradictory values of same objects. This method makes cardinal measurement possible and provides grounds for ascribing worth of goods in quantifiable terms. E.g. an objective value theory is useful in price determination and stability in the market price of a good [a subjective determined price allows drastic rise and fall in price according to consumer demands]. Also painstakingly touching piece of music will have a particular aesthetic value if determined objective irrespective of the fact that the listener wouldn’t choose to listen to it. Thus the connection of the objective reality, from which the core facts and conditions are derived, to the value, is true.

Conclusion

The subjective value theories replace the concept of value with pleasure-pain principles and do not define value irrespective of that.

Value is the end of every action and value lies in the property of objects and those properties do not change.

The objective reality is where one derives value from and that being composed of known facts make objectivity a method of giving true value of things.

2010-05-14T11:20:00.003+05:30

Truth-value and its conditions

· Proposition- expresses truth or falsity

· In logic- proposition follows from an argument, e.g. Aristotelian logic, proposition talks about relation of subject with predicate

Subject is p, predicate follows from argument, logic in argument is valid

· Conditions of p being true lie in premises of the argument along and in validity

Conditions like soundness, consistency

· What conditions qualify for ‘true’ – conditionals should be valid for its sense? or truth about p?

E.g bad argument [of unrelated conditionals] vs. good argument [validity+ truth}]

· Sense of proposition - way to refer to an object, establish content as defined

· Sense of proposition allowing/ giving conditions that do not give meaning of subject in proposition

· Therefore determine the conditions required for p being true; then sense of proposition

Therefore knowing ‘black’ and ‘white’ is a pre-requisite, truth-value of a proposition can be understood when sense understood and truth-value be determined when conditions for it are known

· Knowing the truth important- to know its conditions

2010-05-14T00:37:00.001+05:30

If we hold a sense of freedom in common, we are still free

· Common sense- how does a ‘free’ man see

· Does common sense make us see freedom from different angle; personal freedom and political freedom

· How is change hindered by ‘freedom’- whimsical actions an important determinant of presence of freedom; changes- why and when do they seem impossible

· Why are we not free? We don’t choose to be born but aren’t we born free, the way we are born, way we ‘can’ think, therefore freedom not devoid of previous ideas, induced ideas

· field of freedom- to be void of boundaries: potency to break free [if not in its materialistic sense] when clashes with previous ideas

· If- I am what I am because of everything about my past, then impotency lying in wanting to be someone else and not being able to: we do not ‘escape’, we can change if we want to, most of us are seen not changing out of their understanding of common sense aligning with freedom

· Idea of freedom- when there is no coercion, when there is choice, acceptance of all aspects of freedom, thus tolerance, therefore understanding of that choice,

2010-05-13T23:56:00.002+05:30

· What is philosophy and who ‘needs’ it

Needs- what is the truth, what we consider to be true and hence how do we reach the truth (Not a very good definition of philosophy, particularly in the context of the topic. It should be more like JTB = Knowledge, but then thats only epistemology. Then there is metaphysics which raises questions not looked at by Science, thereby motivating science)

· Science- [literally knowledge] aimed at studying nature, systematic method: scientific method, devising laws and theories

· Between science and philosophy- philosophy has similar aims as science, philosophy has been proposed and stated since ages, but science is out of development (What do you mean? Hasn't the scientific method come from philosophical musings). Philosophy has doctrines [can be contradictory], but science accepts one standard of accuracy and correct perspective (Science can also have conflicting doctrines... precisely why philosophical guidance is needed; Science does have a standard method for "knowing" the truth and that is experimental evidence, not accuracy or perspective)

on same lines wrt - logic - justifiability, verifiability

· epistemology- perception true or not, when can one say I know [deductive proof vs statistical truths , axioms as foundations (Isn't the order of points topsy-turvy here)

· philosophy on science- norms regarding above subjects, normal sciences and paradigm shift: change due to shift in philosophy knowledge on fundamental issues

· science- causality in nature: our understanding; empirical, metaphysics is out of formalism

· philosophy needed, revise norms and accept presence of counter-evidence, conceptions be made objective, methodology of being able to know reality,

Workouts for IPO team

2010-05-13T20:24:00.000+05:30

Hello team,
With the frenzy to read and read and read and ... we also need to write a bit. So apart from the essays you have been writing, I need you to practice this: Sketch your argument for these topics into this blog. The argument should be about 10 lines and should roughly have the following structure:
A. What does the author say? Guess all the possible senses of the quote given and meanings thereof and all possible interpretations of the words within the quote.
B. What does the author stress on? Usually philosophical quotes are of the kind A is connected to B. Is the author stressing on the subject (A) of his discussion or the predicate (B) or on the connection between them, or is the stress on a hidden factor to the connection?
C. How does the author justify himself? Usually the quote contains some background to the proposition the author makes. (unless the quote is simply a question, in which case the background is common knowledge)
D. Do you think the justification is appropriate? If yes support; if no, oppose - with reasoning & examples. (establish the reasoning in this sketch)
E. What do you think? Justify? Sketch your counter-attack (if applicable)

Topics:

1. But to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know under what conditions a point is called white or black; in order to be able to say: "p" is true (or false), I must have determined under what conditions I call "p" true, and thereby determine the sense of the proposition. (L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosphicus, IPO 2002)

2. The decisive argument which is employed by common sense against freedom consists in reminding us of our impotence. Far from being able to modify our situation at our whim, we seem to be unable to change ourselves. I am not "free" either to escape the lot of my class, of my nation, of my family, or even to build up my own power or my fortune or to conquer my most insignificant appetites or habits. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, IPO 2004)

3. Does science need philosophy? (IPO 2004)

4. Hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, eudemonism - all these systems that measure the value of things taking into account the pleasure or pain that go along with them, that is to say, according to any non-core condition or facts, are seen as if they do not go in depth and being naive. Any man with his constructive faculty in place and a conscience of an artist, can only regard this with irony and pity from a distance. (Friedrich Nietzsche, IPO 2005)