DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT ALONG WITH JOURNAL ENTRY ; ASSIGNMENT IS ATTACHED.
PHILOSOPHY W2 DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT TEMPLATE PHILOSOPHY W2 DISCUSSION REQUIRED READING LINKS; 1. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/w2-p1-required- reading--1--what-is-epistemology-.html 2. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/what-is-knowledge-.html 3. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/where-does-knowledge- come-from-.html PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT ; ( CHOOSE QUOTE FROM HERE ) 1. https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/dharmaraja-adhvarindra-- vedanta-paribhasa--selection-.html ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION ; • One (1) "Original Post" addressing one of the three question choices. Minimum of 250 words. Your Original Post must answer the question fully in all its parts and address possible objections to your logical reasoning. You must also connect your Original Post to the course by having at least one full sentence quote from each Philosophical Text(s) that you are studying. The quote should be word for word and contained inside quotation marks and then followed by an inline citation. Please refer to the following resources for help on MLA citation. {DUE SUNDAY MARCH 24TH} • Two (2) "Response Posts" to classmates who answered the other two questions (one each). Minimum of 100 words. Due Monday at 11:59PM ET. Your Response Post needs to analyze and consider the reasoning of two of your classmate's Original Posts. In addition to your reaction to your classmate's Original Post, your Response Post must ask one or two questions of your classmate's Original Post. Consider how you might disagree with your classmate's Original Post, or ask your classmate to clarify some part of their Original Post that you didn't understand. {DUE SUNDAY MARCH 24TH} • One "Reply Post" answering the questions of a classmate who asked questions in their Response Posts to your Original Post. Minimum of 50 words. Due Tuesday at 11:59PM ET. In your Reply Posts, answer as best you can the questions raised by your classmates. It is in the interactions of Original, Response and Reply posts that you will achieve the learning goals of the week. {DUE MONDAY MARCH 25TH} https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/w2-p1-required-reading--1--what-is-epistemology-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/w2-p1-required-reading--1--what-is-epistemology-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/what-is-knowledge-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/where-does-knowledge-come-from-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/where-does-knowledge-come-from-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/dharmaraja-adhvarindra--vedanta-paribhasa--selection-.html https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/phil/phil100/2232/dharmaraja-adhvarindra--vedanta-paribhasa--selection-.html PHILOSOPHY WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT JOURNAL ENTRY TEMPLATE PHILOSOPHY WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT JOURNAL ENTRY Complete two (2) Journal Activities (topics in weeks 1 & 2) one each from list A and B. Record your thoughts in writing, or audio, or video, and submit the files to the assignment folder. Submit A and B Journal Activities as separate files. A. Journal Activities - What is Philosophy? (Choose one) Activity A1: Record your thoughts. What does Philosophy mean to me, personally? How can I use Philosophy in everyday life? What is the value of Philosophy? Activity A2: Record your thoughts. If I could visually represent what Philosophy means to me, what would it look like? How would someone interpret my visual representation? Activity A3: Have a conversation with a friend or family member on the meaning and value of Philosophy. Reflect on this conversation for your Journal Entry. Activity A4: Record your thoughts: What does it mean to be part of a culture? How open am I to understand perspectives from different cultures? Am I willing to change my life to accommodate another culture's beliefs? Activity A5: Record Your Thoughts: Which philosopher/thinker discussed this week (week 1) intrigued me? why? B. Journal Activities - Epistemology: How Do We Know What We Know? (Choose One) Activity B1: Record your thoughts. This week, we saw that the sources of where knowledge can come from differ widely (experience, reason, and testimony). Each of them can give knowledge about the world. In your own experience, which of these three sources has given you the greatest confidence of having true knowledge? Does the answer to some questions depend on the source from which it came? Activity B2: Record your thoughts. What does truth mean to me, personally? Do I believe that others value truth in the same way that I do? How do I distinguish between truth and belief? Activity B3: Have a conversation with a friend or family member, or a priest, prophetess, or pastor, on the meaning of knowledge. Reflect on this conversation for your Journal Entry. Activity B4: Record your thoughts: Do other cultures arrive at knowledge in a different way than my culture? Do other cultures value truth and belief differently? How open am I to adopt another culture's way of arriving at knowledge? Activity B5: Record your thoughts: Which philosopher/thinker discussed this week (week 2) intrigued me? why? ______________________________________________________________________ Example of a Journal Entry from the prompt “What does it mean to judge someone?” I seem to belong to a highly judgmental species, and it is hard to refrain from judging and evaluating, praising and blaming. All around me, people are rating, reviewing, giving stars, thumbs up and down to films, hotels, household appliances, and life events. They write restaurant reviews that say ‘The fish was underdone and the staff were rude,’ as though the fish and the staff actually had those qualities, and they expect others to make use of the ‘information.’ They gossip about one another’s personal lives and decisions, admiring and disapproving of their friends’ actions. Human beings slap fines on one another and cart others of their species off to jail. They also award them medals, badges, and diplomas for achievements deemed meritorious. I find myself constantly judging my food and drink for its tastiness and value for money. I cannot seem to help judging some kinds of people for what I take to be their moral qualities, as well as for their non-moral qualities of being politically savvy or hilarious, or displaying athletic prowess or artistic ability. ________________________________________________________________ JOURNAL ENTRY SHOULD BE AROUND 200 WORDS AND AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE. Philisohphy w2 class response template Colten Young What does it mean to have knowledge by testimony? The English word of testimony has Latin roots. The word testis means "a witness" in Latin. This week I will analyze what it means to have knowledge by a witness. Most people, in non-legal settings, take testimony from people we find trustworthy to be true and accurate. However, after this week's reading, I found myself asking "By what measures do I consider a testimony to be true?" In the readings Vedanta -Paribhasa the author states "That sentence is a means of valid knowledge in which the relation among the meanings of words that is the object of its intention is not contradicted by any other means of valid knowledge." (Adhvarindra). I understand this sentence to mean that we find witness testimony to be true, as long as it does not contradict something we already know. For example, if my mother tells me the sky is blue, I would accept that as true because I know the sky is blue. By the same standards, if she told me the a plane crashed today, I could generally accept that to be true without research (to my own fault) because I know planes do crash. I also believe the sentence states that to use testimony as a means of knowledge, we must have somewhat of an understanding, whether through experience or reason, on that topic. Another example of knowledge through testimony is in the readings of The Sayings of Mo- tzu. In this quote, "But those who deny the existence of the spirits say: 'Many in the world have heard and seen something of ghosts and spirits. (Since they vary in their testimony,) who are to be accepted as really having heard and seen them?" (Mo-tzu) highlights the struggle of knowledge through testimony. The text later explains that those who doubt the existence of spirits do so because they have not heard or seen them. This reading highlights the struggle between believing those who have seen spirits (knowledge through testimony) and trusting one's knowledge through experience. I believe that knowledge through testimony is the least reliable form of knowledge- unless you have personal experience or logic to justify the claim. As Mo-tzu highlights in his writings, people who lack personal experience may find it difficult to believe or justify claims made through testimony. Although I don't have a solid answer to my question about classifying true testimony, I do better understand how to analyze someone's claim credibly. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Austin Lambert What does it mean to have knowledge by reason? By using reason, one uses rational analysis, logical deduction, and one's intellect to come to knowledge. At the most basic level, this is called rationalism. An important aspect of rationalism is the rejection of the notion that one can come to knowledge by relying simply upon one's personal experiences. Descartes was a rationalist, arguing that using reason is the primary mode by which one can come to knowledge. Descartes understood that there were universal notions, or innate ideas, that transcended human experience. This is best noted in his statement, "For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three makes five, and a square has only four sides. It seems impossible to suspect that such obvious truths might be false" (Descartes and Cottingham). Here, Descartes explains that one can use reason to detect universal and innate ideas, regardless of human experience. For instance, if there is an uncontacted tribe that has yet to explore mathematics, two plus three nevertheless still makes five, whether or not this uncontacted tribe is aware of it. On the other hand, John Locke's empiricism contrasts with Descartes' rationalism. Locke acknowledges that reason is important in coming to the truth and obtaining knowledge, but it is only secondary to sense data's role in obtaining knowledge. Empiricists do not believe in universal innate ideas. Rather, they argue that all knowledge is gathered from one's experiences. Still, Locke holds that reason is important to interpret sense data and personal experiences. To boast this point, Locke writes, "If Reason discovered them [truths], that would not prove them [truths] innate" (Locke). For Locke, experience is the foundation for knowledge, and reason is the tool to understand it. I disagree with some contemporary philosophers who argue that the discussion surrounding rationalism and empiricism is an either/or debate. I stand in contrast, in a way, with both rationalism and empiricism. However, while I do not hold to strict Cartesian rationalism, I think that he was closer to the truth than Locke, as he at least understood universal ideas. I would say that knowledge is both derived from sensory experience and one's reasoning. I agree with the importance of sensory data in forming ideas about the world, but I do not think this detracts from the notion of universal truths or innate moral principles, specifically in the context of natural law. For example, I hold that moral truths are innate in human nature and accessible by reason, but they are also not solely dependent on sense data or personal experiences. Rather, they are derived from natural law and are grounded in the innate nature of human beings as rational creatures created by God. Locke, in some nuanced way, did hold to natural law. In particular, under Locke's social contract, he argued that life, liberty, and property were all natural rights derived from nature. Yet, Locke did not take these natural rights further than his pragmatic political thought. In full opposition to Locke (in political thought, principle, and practice), I hold that natural law is grounded in metaphysics, theology, the natural order of the universe, and God. Philisohphy w2 class response template Colten Young What does it mean to have knowledge by testimony? The English word of testimony has Latin roots. The word testis means "a witness" in Latin. This week I will analyze what it means to have knowledge by a witness. Most people, in non-legal settings, take testimony from people we find trustworthy to be true and accurate. However, after this week's reading, I found myself asking "By what measures do I consider a testimony to be true?" In the readings Vedanta -Paribhasa the author states "That sentence is a means of valid knowledge in which the relation among the meanings of words that is the object of its intention is not contradicted by any other means of valid knowledge." (Adhvarindra). I understand this sentence to mean that we find witness testimony to be true, as long as it does not contradict something we already know. For example, if my mother tells me the sky is blue, I would accept that as true because I know the sky is blue. By the same standards, if she told me the a plane crashed today, I could generally accept that to be true without research (to my own fault) because I know planes do crash. I also believe the sentence states that to use testimony as a means of knowledge, we must have somewhat of an understanding, whether through experience or reason, on that topic. Another example of knowledge through testimony is in the readings of The Sayings of Mo- tzu. In this quote, "But those who deny the existence of the spirits say: 'Many in the world have heard and seen something of ghosts and spirits. (Since they vary in their testimony,) who are to be accepted as really having heard and seen them?" (Mo-tzu) highlights the struggle of knowledge through testimony. The text later explains that those who doubt the existence of spirits do so because