Total Presentation - Anthropology Semester 5 PDF

case 1: choosing a journal subscription The 2nd option (“print subscription”), even though noone chooses it anyway, changes the order of preference between options 1 and 3 Is it rational? Why? (see Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational, The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions) case 2: detecting cont...

case 1: choosing a journal subscription The 2nd option (“print subscription”), even though noone chooses it anyway, changes the order of preference between options 1 and 3 Is it rational? Why? (see Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational, The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions) case 2: detecting contradictions Drew Westen’s experiment: – study of the brain activity of political partisans (liberals / conservatives) when reading statements attributed to John Kerry (liberal) or George W. Bush (conservative) – the same contradictory statements were attributed to both, and partisans had to make a judgment whether they were contradictory or not case 2: detecting contradictions Drew Westen’s experiment: – Result 1: liberals tended to judge Kerry’s statements as noncontradictory and Bush’s statements as contradictory, and vice versa for conservatives. Is is rational? Why? – Result 2: the brain seemed to reward the disregarding of contradictions by providing positive emotions 2 striking cases of irrationality case 1: irrational preferences / choice – not tracking our own best interest – a practical irrationality – goes against (Practical) Reason case 2: irrational blindness to contradiction – not tracking truth – a theoretical irrationality – goes against (Theoretical) Reason Plan 1) Reason, Passion, Desires: the “Faculties of the Mind” 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) 3) Should Reason “rule”? 1) The Faculties of the Mind Traditional description of human irrationality – greek tragedy (ex: Phaedra), characters driven by their passions Implicit theory of the mind: – there is not just Reason, but Reason + Passions (+ Desires etc.) 1) The Faculties of the Mind Plato and the three “parts” of the Soul (The Republic) 1) The Faculties of the Mind Plato and the role of Reason: the Chariot Allegory (Phaedrus) 1) The Faculties of the Mind According to Plato: – the soul has three parts (Rational, Spirited and Appetitive) – and the proper harmony of the soul is when the Rational part rules – … otherwise the person is a slave of passions or desires – real freedom requires the proper harmony of the different faculties of the soul 1) The Faculties of the Mind Part of this year – Part II: what are human beings? (souls? bodies?) – Part III: what are the origin and the purpose of human life? – Part IV: what are the powers of the human animal? (Reason, Passion, Desire, Freedom) – Part V: what are the essential characteristics of the human community? (religion, politics, family, etc.) 1) The Faculties of the Mind Is this linked to Dualism? – Plato’s theory: Reason and Passions as parts of the Soul – … but for a Materialist, the same questions arise about Reason and Passions as faculties of the (material) Mind 1) The Faculties of the Mind Is this Psychology? – in a sense yes: theory of the “psyche” (soul or mind) – … but purely philosophical theory, not empirical psychology – empirical psychology will never ask the normative question of the harmonious relations that the faculties should / ought to have between each other (it only asks descriptive or factual questions) 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) The traditional (ancient greek) picture – the « Logos » = Reason… … but also Language, and Thought – Logos = the properly human faculty other animals have appetites and passions, but they don’t have « Logos » that’s why it should rule (in order to be fully human, and not driven by instinctive desires, like animals) 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) A more contemporary distinction – Language and Thought: capacities of representation (representation of the world by sentences, or by mental pictures) « descriptive » faculties – Reason: not just a « descriptive » faculty but a « normative » faculty normative = it says what is correct / incorrect, as it should be / not as it should be Norm of Reason: distinction between Rational / Irrational 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – when do we « detect » that something is « irrational », is not as it should be? 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Example 1: Drew Westen and the contradictory claims causing « conflict and discomfort » … though the brain sometimes silences this conflict and discomfort (to preserve our political bias) – Irrational here = lack of sensitivity to contradiction 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – First principle of Reason: The Principle of Contradiction why? a theory or statement that is contradictory is internally problematic, it is wrong in itself, it is incoherent other forms of incoherence? 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Example 2: refusing the consequences A: You say that God knows everything about all times? B: yes, I do A: but then you have to admit that He knows everything about the Future B: perhaps A: and then you have to admit that He knows what our future free actions will be B: no, I refuse this consequence A: but it’s a logical consequence of what you have accepted at the start, you cannot refuse it! 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Second principle of Reason: The Principle of Logical Consequences we are committed (by the norm of Reason) to accept all the logical consequences of what we affirm if we don’t accept the consequences in our theory, our theory may not be contradictory but it is still internally defective, it is still incoherent 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Example 3: wishful thinking Robert really wants Betty to love him, and when he considers this possibility, he finds it really pleasant and comforting. Therefore, he starts believing that Betty loves him, for the comfort that this belief brings him. or: Mr Marlboro doesn’t want to believe that cigarettes cause cancer, because that would ruin his industry, therefore he starts disregarding all evidence suggesting that cigarettes cause cancer and believes that it doesn’t. 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Third principle of Reason: The Norm of Truth we should adapt our beliefs not to our wishes or interests… … rather we should adapt them to the world they describe (set in « correspondance with the facts », which is the definition of Truth) … and for this we should follow the indications of truth = 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Third principle of Reason: The Norm of Truth we should adapt our beliefs not to our wishes or interests… … rather we should adapt them to the world they describe (set in « correspondance with the facts », which is the definition of Truth) … and for this we should follow the indications of truth = « Evidence » 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) What is the « norm » of the Rational / Irrational? – Internal Coherence 1st principle: Contradiction 2nd principle: Logical Consequences – Orientation to Truth or Facts 3rd principle: Norm of Truth (or Evidence) (NB: a theory can be internally coherent and yet have no link whatsoever with the facts. Example: paranoid delusions, conspiracy theories, etc.) = Norms of Theoretical Reason (what to believe? which theory about the world?) 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) Practical Reason – Example: the choice of journal subscription (Dan Ariely) if our best interest is 3 rather than 1 in the first scenario, our best interest cannot coherently be 1 rather than 3 in the second scenario. our choices are irrational because they do not adapt our means to our best interest NB: still a matter of logical coherence 2) The Faculty of Reason (or Rationality) Practical Reason – Principle of Means-Ends: adapt your means in a way that is coherent with your ends – Principle of Best Interest: adapt your choices and all your means to your best interest = « Economic Rationality » of classical Economy Dan Ariely ! « Behavioral Economy » (economic agents do not follow their best interest) 3) Should Reason “rule”? Plato: Reason should be the charioteer who gives the direction, and passions should be the horses that obey Reason. Hume: “Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” (Treatise on Human Nature) 3) Should Reason “rule”? The element of truth in Hume: – the role of practical Reason is mainly to adapt means to ends, not to give the ends themselves, which are given by our desires – to be rich, to have a family, etc. for Hume: desires give the destination and Reason is only there to calculate the path = Instrumental Reason – (mainly or only? Can practical reason give us some prescriptions that are absolute independently of any desires? see Immanuel Kant next year...) GIVE US SOME PRESCRIPTIONS THAT 3) Should Reason “rule”? The element of truth in Hume: – the role of practical Reason is mainly to adapt means to ends, not to give the ends themselves, which are given by our desires – to be rich, to have a family, etc. – (mainly or only? Can practical reason give us some prescriptions that are absolute independently of any desires? see Immanuel Kant next year...) The element of truth in Plato: – when our desires not only provide some ends but also prevent Reason from playing its role (role of maintaining coherence in our means), there is something going wrong Synthesis (close to Michael Lynch): – desires should « rule » in the sense that they give the ultimate goal or « destination » and the motivation for (practical) Reason – but (practical) Reason should « rule » in the sense of leading on the right path that will arrive at the destination 3) Should Reason “rule”? What about theoretical Reason? Should it “rule”? – theoretical Reason is not first and foremost oriented to action but to knowledge – Aristotle, Metaphysics, I,1: “All men by nature desire to know” – this desire to know, oriented at Truth (and coherence) should never be impeded by the faculties that are not oriented at Truth – (even for Action, if our beliefs are not corresponding to Truth, it is very inconvenient to arrive at our ends…)