Copy of 0 Questions.docx.pdf

1. From Mythos to Logos What are some of the key features of mythical thinking? ○ it is considered to be more primitive or irrational ○ reasoning is not as important as imagination, intuition, emotion ○ Time that is important is real time or mystical, which is ongoin...

1. From Mythos to Logos What are some of the key features of mythical thinking? ○ it is considered to be more primitive or irrational ○ reasoning is not as important as imagination, intuition, emotion ○ Time that is important is real time or mystical, which is ongoing -eternal and cyclic, daily time is unimportant(where events repeat themselves in a ritualistic manner.) ○ there has been a fall from golden age to daily time- things now aren't as good as they used to be in a long ago eden ○ oral cultures- knowledge is limited to what a group can remember whereas rational thinking has writing ○ imagination over reason What is the difference between mythical and rational explanations? ○ in mythical interpretation most things are occurring ultimately due to divine actions immortals gods who hold peaks of snowy Olympus god explains the origin of everything and life ○ rational is more focused on causality, not the chance reason, logic, evidence tries to be objective in the conclusions They can be falsified or supported by evidence, and are open to revision based on new findings 2. What is Philosophy? What is the meaning of the word “philosophy”? ○ The word ‘Philosophy’ involves two Greek words – Philo meaning love and Sophia meaning knowledge. Thus literally speaking, philosophy means love of wisdom. What could be the origin of philosophy (or philosophical thinking)? ○ Ancient Greece,The earliest beginnings of philosophy are traced back to the sixth century B.C.E., when the first scientists of Western history, the Pre-Socratics – among them Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides ○ According to Aristotle, philosophy arises from wonder. As a result of his reflection, he thinks that the events can be explained. He proposes to explain them in terms of myths and control them by means of magical spells. Myths and magic give way to science, philosophy and religion in due course. ○ It seeks to have a comprehensive view of the whole reality: it tries to have a vision of the whole. The different sciences deal with different departments of the world. What are philosophical problems (and how are they different from religious and scientific problems)? ○ A general characteristic of these problems was that they were concerned with general and universal questions and not with the questions and not with the questions of particular nature ○ we know that physics explains how the world works= philosophy can ask about what actually is matter ○ What kinds of things exist? What is knowledge? What is mind? What is good and what is fair?...  What kinds of problems/questions are solved by the main philosophical disciplines (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics…)? ○ 3. The First Philosophers What was the goal of philosophy for the early philosophical thinkers? ○ or the Miletian (Milesian) school (6th ceentury BC, Miletus – city in Ionia, Asia Minor, present day Turkey). It was in Ionia that the first completely rationalistic attempts to describe the nature of the world took place. What does the term ‘arche’ mean? What is reductionism, monism, naturalism? ○ Arche - the first Greek philosophers were looking for the "origin" or "principle" (the Greek word "archê" has both meanings) of all things. E.g. Thales – the first philosopher, claimed that arche was water (see previous handout) ○ The earliest Greek philosophers focused their attention upon the origin and nature of the physical world, they are often called cosmologists, or naturalists. ○ Although monistic views (which trace the origin of the world to a single substance) prevailed at first, they were soon followed by several pluralistic theories (which trace it to several ultimate substances). Monism is the philosophical idea that all things in existence are part of the same essential oneness or whole. Monism is opposed to dualism, which holds that there is a fundamental difference between the mental realm and the physical realm. ○ Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory. What was arche according to Thales (and why did he think so)? ○ Thales' most famous belief was his cosmological doctrine, which held that the world originated from water. Thus it is sometimes assumed that Thales considered everything to be made from water. ○ Thales noted that water was needed to keep living things alive. He also observed that water was a source of change, as in the way water eroded land. From these observations, he concluded that water is the all-important, underlying, unifying, original principle; the arche of life and the Earth.  What were the key points of theories presented by Heraclitus and Parmenides? ○ ○ Why is the study of Greek philosophy still relevant today? ○ foundation of scientific thinking ○ questioning origin of life ○ transition from myth to rationalism 4. The Ship of Theseus please, read the article and watch the following video. You should be able to explain the problem and discuss conclusions / problems raised by the thought experiment. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/this-ancient-thought-exercise-will-have-you-questioning-your-identity/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHwVyplU3Pg&t=18s   The goal of this thought experiment was to illustrate Heraclitus's philosophy based on "panta rhei" - if you want to read more about the author, check the handout in this file https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-TgLf2ZecCyT6nNSys2NZub2yhFm5emI/view?usp=sharing. On the other hand, the following "aporias" aimed to illustrate Permenides' philosophy - more info can be found in the same file. 5. Zeno’s aporias – paradoxes check the article and watch the following videos. Also in this case, you should be able to explain the problem and discuss conclusions / problems raised by the thought experiment. https://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-zenos-paradoxes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skM37PcZmWE (short and simple) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqVnj-sgcc (more informative) 6. Socrates’s life and teaching Read the handout about Socrates and about the method he used and developed. After reading it, you should be able to answer the following questions:  How did Socrates react to the prophecy that he was the wisest man in the world? What did he find out? ○ he wanted to disprove the oracle by finding someone wiser. He could not find anyone like this. What was the main goal of his inquiry? ○ The main goal of Socrates' inquiry was to seek truth and knowledge, particularly regarding virtue and ethics. ○ He aimed to help people realize their ignorance and guide them toward living a more examined and virtuous life. ○ His philosophical method, known as the Socratic method, involved questioning assumptions and engaging in dialogue to reach deeper understanding. Why was he sentenced to death? What do you think – what was the main reason? ○ because his critical thinking was threatening to egos of some authorities as well as their reputation of being wise, it was uncomfortable to be shown you have gaps in your knowledge ○ Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian court for corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety (not respecting the gods of the state). ○ His teachings and behavior, which challenged the traditional beliefs and authority of the city, angered many influential figures. ○ He was accused of promoting ideas that undermined the social order and beliefs that had long been accepted in Athens. What was his view of the importance of knowledge (and its relation to quality of one's life)? ○ Socrates believed that knowledge was crucial for living a virtuous and meaningful life. ○ He thought that true knowledge, especially self-knowledge, was essential for moral and ethical behavior. ○ In his view, the quality of one’s life depended on how well one understood oneself and the world, and how that understanding guided one’s actions toward virtuous living. ○ Knowledge, for Socrates, was not just intellectual but also practical, leading to a higher quality of life based on wisdom, virtue, and self-reflection. 7. Socrates's method - What were the main principles of the Socratic method? Or Describe the method he used by Socrates (mention the main steps). 1. Receive First, receive what the other person has to say. Listen to the other person’s premise, view or argument. And remember you have to properly listen to be able to do the next step. 2. Reflect Sum up the person’s view-point or argument and reflect it back. Do this by first getting them to clarify and sum up their position and then by paraphrasing or repeating it back to them. 3. Refine Ask them to provide their evidence. Find out why they are thinking or acting in that way. Discover the facts, beliefs or assumptions that underpin their standpoint. Often the premise will be based on assumptions rather than hard facts. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity. Use further questions to uncover the fallacy of any wrong presuppositions. These are often ‘why’ questions. For example: “why do you think that?” Sometimes it can be helpful to construct the ‘why’ question as a ‘what’ question for example: “what makes you think that?” This is why questions can often feel confrontational. At times you may need to provide contrary evidence to challenge an assumption but try and structure this as a question too if possible. If there is a cognitive fallacy (a wrong way of thinking) then try and get them to find an exception (or if necessary provide one) that proves their own theory wrong. Discover and explore this circumstance to discover new, better thinking. In this way, you are refining the basic premise of the discussion. 4. Re-state Now that you have refined your thinking, get them to reformulate and re-state their position. If they see that they had a wrong assumption, get them to adapt or renew their wording and then re-state it. 5. Re-start Now they have a new viewpoint you can go back to the start of the process. You can assess the new premise and challenge any further wrong assumptions in their thinking. This iterative or dialectic process helps to drill down to the core of the issue. This method becomes a cycle of dialogue.A question framework for the Socratic method Here is an example 5 step framework for this type of Socratic questioning: 1. Receive First, receive what the other person has to say. Listen to the other person’s premise, view or argument. And remember you have to properly listen to be able to do the next step. 2. Reflect Sum up the person’s view-point or argument and reflect it back. Do this by first getting them to clarify and sum up their position and then by paraphrasing or repeating it back to them. 3. Refine Ask them to provide their evidence. Find out why they are thinking or acting in that way. Discover the facts, beliefs or assumptions that underpin their standpoint. Often the premise will be based on assumptions rather than hard facts. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity. Use further questions to uncover the fallacy of any wrong presuppositions. These are often ‘why’ questions. For example: “why do you think that?” Sometimes it can be helpful to construct the ‘why’ question as a ‘what’ question for example: “what makes you think that?” This is why questions can often feel confrontational. At times you may need to provide contrary evidence to challenge an assumption but try and structure this as a question too if possible. If there is a cognitive fallacy (a wrong way of thinking) then try and get them to find an exception (or if necessary provide one) that proves their own theory wrong. Discover and explore this circumstance to discover new, better thinking. In this way, you are refining the basic premise of the discussion. 4. Re-state Now that you have refined your thinking, get them to reformulate and re-state their position. If they see that they had a wrong assumption, get them to adapt or renew their wording and then re-state it. 5. Re-start Now they have a new viewpoint you can go back to the start of the process. You can assess the new premise and challenge any further wrong assumptions in their thinking. This iterative or dialectic process helps to drill down to the core of the issue. This method becomes a cycle of dialogue.