INTRODUCTION TO
PHILOSOPHY
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Professor David
Christopher Lane, Ph.D.
DIRECTIONS: Answer all of the following questions fully and
comprehensively and be sure to put your word document or PDF file attached on
your own website. Also be sure to use pertinent quotes to support your answers.
Send a direct to your website (and/or test) to your professor at
dlane@mtsac.edu. Plagiarism is not tolerated
so please be sure that it is your own work and that you fully cite your sources
when necessary.
1.
Your name
Zhiren
(Isaac) Zheng
2.
How much of the required reading have you done?
5
3.
How many of the required films did you watch?
26
4.
Please copy and paste the 6 essays you were
required to write for the first three weeks of this course.
1.
Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
To the
public, it was widely told that Socrates was accused of two charges—"one
that he did not believe in the gods recognized by the State, the other that he
had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings" (How Socrates died, 10) However,
these charges were placed on Socrates by people whose reputation were
challenged by Socrates. As Socrates kept searching for the truth and knowledge,
he had conversation with a variety of "wise" men, who claimed
themselves to be wisest. However, when he examined and questioned those
politicians, poets, and artists, he found that they just fancied themselves to
be wise. Politician could not answer Socrates 's question and even contradict
themselves; Poets "say many fine things, but they understand nothing that
they say"; artist, who "excelled in the practice of his art, thought
that he was very wise in other most important matters, and this mistake of
theirs obscured the wisdom that they really possessed' (How Socrates died, 42). When
these "wise" people found themselves "have been detected
pretending to possess knowledge," Socrates became odious to them(How
Socrates died, 42). Young
people started to follow Socrates with the real wisdom and examine those
"wise" people. Realized that their reputation was in danger, those
"wise" people blamed Socrates on corrupting the youth. Even though
Socrates insisted on search for the truth, his wisdom was distorted by
"wise" people who actually knew nothing. Socrates 's wisdom
enlightened some people, but, at the same time, put himself to death.
2. Why
is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
The
reason that there was a conflict between science and religion for some people
was that in their mindset, anything that violated or went against their belief
is blasphemous. However, back in that time, religion spread from people to
people by words. To a great extend, what people learned about their religion
depended heavily on the sources that they received. But the problem is that
those "wise" people who were looked up to by ordinary Athenians did
not really know about the truth and science, but merely relying on their own
senses. Euthyphro regarded himself as a wise man who did the right thing
accusing his own father of murdering. But when he was questioned by Socrates of
"what is piety, and what is impiety," what he said can all boil down
to his own assumption that the god was pleased with what he did, and therefore,
it was pious (How Socrates died, 42). At the end, after Socrates pointed out
the contradictory statement he made, he finally realized that he did not really
know what is piety and impiety. Therefore, it revealed the fact that many
"wise" people equaled things that challenged their own thoughts to
things that were against the religion. Apparently, because of their ignorance,
on the way of searching for truth and exploring science, there would be a lot
of things that differ from what they thought. Therefore, they would think
science is in conflict with religion. Also, people regarded themselves to be
holy and supreme. As it was mentioned in the book of The Great Mystery, when
" Francis Crick say as that consciousness is just a bundle of neurons or
when Patricia Churchland indicates we are just three pounds of meat,"
people tended to resisted this idea. They did not want to bring themselves down
to the same level as other creatures. Instead of learning about the science,
people would stick to their belief and put their religion above science.
Therefore, this also caused the conflict between science and religion.
1. Why is understanding physics and
the general rules of the universe so important
in doing philosophy?
By definition, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality,
and existence. That is saying that seeking the truth of the universe is
also part of the study of philosophy. In order to differentiate the appearance
and the truth behind the veil, often time, philosopher need to applied physics,
which is the ground of our understanding of the universe, to their logical
thinking. Along the time, the mean we study the subject of physics align with
our approaches to truth. However, the discovery of quantum mechanics challenges
the way we seek the truth. We are now told whether or not we make the
observation alters the experimental result, which is saying that when we observe
the objects, this very action makes an influence on how the objects behave. The
validity of what we see and the pattern we conclude based on the observation
are challenged. What we see, named Phenomena, "which constitute the our
experience" and the truth, named
noumena, "which are the (presumed) things themselves" are not
necessary the same (Quantum weirdness 31). All the achievements on
science, which are examined by our observation, "apply only to the
phenomenal realm, not the noumenal" (Quantum weirdness 31). That
also means "we don't unlock nature pure and
pristine, but as nature reacts to our measuring devices" (Quantum
weirdness 31). We may question that whether we are "the prisoners in Plato's allegory of the cave" as we cannot tell the difference
between what we see and what the truth really is (Quantum weirdness 34). This
dilemma in science realm also put philosopher into confusion. As Bohr said,
"it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature
is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature” (Quantum weirdness 34).
Is the way we explore about the truth still right? Only when we have
a better understanding of physics and the general rules of the universe, can we
make a better shoot on what the truth may be.
On our way to the understanding of
the nature, we don't usually go directly to the point. At the time we observed some phenomena that we
cannot explain using the knowledge
of one subject, we turned to another one. But if we still could give them a good explanation based on our
knowledge, we tended to link that to our religion
consciousness. However, when we make advance on the subject of science and we have a better
understanding of the phenomena, we replace "the old and outdated concept of the part with
the new and more accurate terminology, which
reflects our new understanding of our body and universe at large" (Eliminative
materialism, part two). By doing that, " We eliminated god and spirits in favor of more precise and
accurate physiological explanation, hence the eliminative
materialism" (Eliminative materialism, part three). Even
though we made good progress on
the understanding of the nature, to ourselves, we still do not know our emotions very well. As it was
said in the video, " the words we use to
describe our motivation emerged from religion consciousness rather than the understanding of neurology"
(Eliminative materialism, part three).
1.
Why is the theory of evolution so important in understanding how human beings
behave?
Starting
with the effect of theory of evolution on our physical appearance, we will then link it to the influence on
human beings behave. Natural selection is the key of evolution. The variation of DNA provides the chances for
species to survive different
kind of environment. However, as it says, "evolution by natural selection isn't so much about “fittest” or
“strongest” or “best,” but rather as contingently successful"( The DNA of consciousness 11). Therefore, it is more about the odds instead of ability. Every new born creature has proved that its "unique
genome has some fundamental
traits that have led to" the birth(The DNA of consciousness 14). The success of the genome concerns more
about the traits rather than "whether
something is a defined species or not" (The DNA of consciousness 15). The
physical existence of DNA gives us the chance to trace back our evolution. However, it also shows the evolution of
our consciousness. Again, natural selection
is about whether we can survive long enough to pass our genome to our offspring. A consciousness where we can
image different scenario with any physical
harm and real consequence enables us to think of a series of action and pick the one will probably help us
the most. In other words, consciousness let us be
ahead of the game and have a better chance to survive chance contingencies. However, a mistaken simulation will
also result in death. Here comes our second order
consciousness. "Second nature is our ability to absorb such information and
have the wherewithal to
reconstruct models of varying probabilities about what this information means" (The DNA of consciousness 30). This
not only allows us to simulate the
reality, but also let us to analyze the situation. It "allow for better odds in our ultimate reactions to whatever
stimuli or information we encounter" (The
DNA of consciousness 30). That is saying our behave depends on what our simulations are and which option we choose to
act on. An understanding of the
evolution of our consciousness and awareness will, therefore, help us to understand human beings behave.
2. Which questions do you think
evolutionary theory cannot answer?
Evolutionary
theory explains why we look the way we do and why we think the way we do, but it cannot answer the mastery
on our motivation. Even though we now
have an understanding of the first and second order of consciousness and how they work together for the sake of our
survival. But we have little understanding
why we have our emotions. And how our consciousness is generated from the physical component of our brains. If we
consider consciousness "as a
virtual simulator with an amplified probability feedback loop" (The DNA of consciousness 41). Then why do we
have our different kind of feelings?
Do they also play a role in our
evolution? Are they necessary for our survival?
Are we really " a bundle of neurons and nerve endings tied to together in a huge neural complex that gives
rises to consciousness" (The DNA of consciousness
41)? If there is no soul, why do we have such different personality from each other? How would we understand the
word "self"?
5.
Describe Socrates’ method for understanding
another person’s truth claims. Why was it so effective and why did it get him
into so much trouble?
To
understand another person's truth claims, Socrates asked them what they believed
was truth. Every time they answered in ambiguity or they avoided answering the
question directly, Socrates changed the question and redirect them to a
question that would lead them to directly point out what is truth. After the
person answered the questions at this best and found that he was in conflict
with himself, Socrates politely pointed out contradicts and illustrated his own
opinions. As many people who thought they knew the truth only touched the
surface of the mystery, Socrates' questions were an effective tool that guided
them to further explore the conundrum. Because they did not really think about
the conundrum critically before, it was very easy for them to find they were
contradictory with themselves. These people, who called themselves
"wise" people, often times, were embarrassed as they were not able to
answer Socrates' questions. Therefore, hate against Socrates began to build up,
which brought him so much trouble later on.
6.
Why is the conflict between science and religion
(according to the required reading) a linguistic conundrum? Be sure to back up
your answer with pertinent details from the readings/films.
Science
and religion can be considered to be two different kind of mind set. They are
both generated from people's simulation and imagination. For religion, it
"tends to accept certain simulations above all others without resorting to
any empirical verification and habitually substances such imaginary
permutations as being beyond physical testing" (The DNA
of consciousness 37). In other words, in terms of
religion, people tend to believe that it is self-proven and it requires no
physical evidence to show it validity. It is merely a reflection of people's
thoughts. However, for science, it requires an actual testing to prove the
original speculations and imaginings are true. Only when it goes through a
test, can it turns from a hypothesis to a theory. As it says in the book,
"Science, in other words, attempts to falsify what consciousness conjures
up so as to see which model best explains reality" (The DNA of
consciousness 37).
7.
Who do you think won the Einstein-Bohr debate?
Back up your answer. You are
free to do further research on this topic as well.
I
think neither Einstein nor Bohr can we say is the winner of the debate. For
Einstein, even though the series of paper he wrote in order to challenge the quantum
mechanics did not really overthrow the theory or even further prove
it, he did make a good point that quantum mechanics may be "an incomplete
theory and most likely a bridge theory to something much more comprehensive and
complete" (Quantum weirdness 23). As he said, "the whole scientific
enterprise was predicated on the notion of an external world which was
independent of the machinations of the subjective participants that arose
within it (Quantum weirdness 24). As a tiny part of the universe,
the world will still exist with or without our presence and observation.
Therefore, concluding the rules of universe merely based on our observation may
not be very convincing. Many things we thought were true are replaced by our
new understanding. From this perspective, saying that quantum mechanics is a
temporary stop on the way to ultimate truth is a rather reasonable statement.
For Bohr, besides supported by many experiments, he also made a strong
philosophical argument on whether quantum mechanics is true. As he said,
"the poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with
creating images; it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out
how Nature is; physics concerns what we say about Nature.” (Quantum weirdness
31). The only criteria we can apply to validate the theory we made is our
observation. We receive any information from the nature through our senses. The
conclusions and rules we made are solely for the world we observe. Rather to
say that we don't care about what real universe is, we simply cannot examine it
as "our very act of illuminating the hidden play fundamentally alters what
we unearth (Quantum weirdness 36). Both
Einstein and Bohr brought us a series of questions not only on quantum
mechanics, but also on what we consider to be truth. As Richard Feynman said,
" It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
(Quantum weirdness 36). Before we can safely say we are not the prisoner in
Plato's allegory of the cave, we don't know who win the Einstein-Bohr debate.
8.
Why is understanding physics elemental in doing
philosophy well?
Physics
is our understanding of the universe, while philosophy is the study of the
fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. The similarity of the
purpose on each subject bind them together inevitably. Philosophy provides
people with the ability to think about reality and what is truth critically,
which provokes the search of the principle of the nature. These academic
questions leads to the study of science, such as physics, chemistry, and
biology and so on. However, in the other way, these science subjects act as a
mean to examine the concepts brought by in philosophy. Often times, new discoveries
in science will alter the philosophical thoughts that we used to have and lead
to new ideas about what the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence is. In
order to further dive into the study of philosophy, an understanding of physics
will help to generate an foundation, on which philosophers can look further
into the truth.
9.
What is string theory? How can such radical
ideas potentially alter our own philosophical outlooks on life in general?
String
theory claims that instead of small particles like atoms, the universe is made
out of a energy string that constantly jiggles. According to the series of film
by Brain Greene, in a very small scale,
a six dimensional space is created as a track that the string jiggles
along. With different vibration, the string displays different property and
when numerous string comes together, they form different kind of matters.
However, we still cannot prove the string theory. We cannot either see it
through the most powerful microscope or present in the eleven dimensions that
it creates. If this theory is true, it dramatically alter our own philosophical
outlooks on life in general as it indicates that everything will ultimately
comes down to a little tiny string. Living and non-living things will no longer
be so much a different. But it also shows that how amazing it is that only a
little difference in its vibration can create so many different matters.
10. Why is the theory of evolution considered to
be the cornerstone of modern biology? How does a deep understanding of natural
selection help in understanding human behavior?
Because
the theory of evolution "explains so much so simply" and it enables
us to "explain all phenomena by its constituent parts" using one
single theory (21). It open up our understanding of our physical and mental
traits. As Theodosius Dobzhansky says, "Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution" (22). According to natural selection, in
order to survive the challenge, we need to live long enough to pass our genome
to our offspring. A suitable genome and a environmental preferable behave are
the key to survive. Our behavior is determined by our consciousness, which has
its own advantage over the natural selection. Our first order consciousness
enables us to image different scenario with any physical harm and real
consequence enables us to think of a series of action and pick the one will
probably help us the most. This is very crucial to our success of surviving the
challenge as " Any reproducing DNA that can develop a virtual simulator
within itself has a huge advantage over a genetic strand that cannot" (27).
However, in order to be able to handle the chance contingencies, we need to
generate more virtual simulation so that we can "think of varying options
and what they portend" (37). That is where our second order consciousness
comes in. It provides us an ability to learn and summarize the experience and
act in a certain way, which ensure our survival. Our consciousness is the key
we become the survivor, but it also sharp the way our consciousness works and
how we behave. Therefore, a deep understanding of natural selection give us an
insight of how our consciousness evolve and how it determines our behave.
11. What
is the evolutionary reason behind why we ask why?
Asking
why is essentially a tool which helps us survive the chance contingencies. According to the film Pivotal Consciousness and the book The DNA of Consciousness, "any organism that can develop a
mental pivotal will have a tremendous advantage indicated new unexpected
strategies". Asking why is the pivotal foot of consciousness. "It
allows for a virtual simulator to turn to think of various options and what
they portend" (36). As F. Scott Fitzgerald writes, "the test of a
first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the
same time and still retain the ability to function" (37). A good analogy
is that " 'why' is similar to an all-purpose function key on your laptop,
which open up programs that are otherwise hidden from display" (37). It helps us to generate more simulations and
learn from different scenario, which will give us the best solution when we are
facing different situations.
12. How
does Plato’s allegory of the cave relate to our current understanding of
science?
Plato's
allegory of the cave illustrates that the prisoners whose heads are fixed to
only see the shadow on the wall believe that what they see is true. People who
summarizes the pattern of the shadows and comes up with a order which can
predict what shows up the next were praised by their peers and the pattern is
regarded as truth. However, when one person is released and tells his peers
what he sees outside is the truth, people think he is wrong and laugh at him.
For thousands of year, with the advance in our understanding of the universe
and the development of science, we discovered many universal laws and we
examine them by experiments. However, the discovery of quantum mechanics
challenges what we think as the rules of universe. It was shown that different
results come out depending on whether or not we observe the experiment. That is
saying our observation will affect the object's motion and what we see is not
what it really is but a condition with observation applied. That means all the
laws proved by experiment may come out differently if we don't observe it. In
other words, what we believe is true is not necessary to be true anymore. We
thought we discover the universal principle, but maybe we are like the
prisoners in Plato's cave, regarding what we see is true while it is not.
13. What
is Nietzsche’s myth of eternal recurrence? How could such a concept alter one’s
life here and now?
Nietzsche's
myth of eternal recurrence is saying that time is like a flat circle, we will
repeat our lives over and over again innumerous times. Every actions and every
detail will be exactly the same. If it is true, then it throws the questions to
people. Do you want to do it again and again? Those lead a happy life may be
glad, while others who lead an miserable
life may be cursing. Also, is your life that you are living in predetermined
already or you are creating a version of life that you are going to live over
and over again? For an unfortunate person, should he/she just give up as it's
all decided or should he/she fight for a better life as it will repeat again
and again? Different understanding of the concept may affect one's attitude of
life and change the way he/she lives.
14. What
did Darwin and Wallace agree and disagree on when it came to evolution by
natural selection? Be sure to elaborate.
They both
agreed that natural selection is valid in explaining the evolution of different
species. However, Wallace disagreed that evolution natural selection is able to
explain the issue on human mind entirely. He believed that "human
consciousness specifically was of such a high order of organization (and
apparently unlike anything else arising in nature by physical and natural
processes) that natural selection was insufficient to explain it"
(Darwin-Wallace Debate). In his opinion, the change of unconscious molecules
because of natural selection was not sufficient enough to explain
consciousness. However, Darwin believed that natural selection would not have
problem explaining
15.
What is the “evolutionary” imperative? How
does it work?
Evolutionary imperative is saying that we are all in the
stream of inevitable evolution, which has been flowing since the very beginning
of lives. Our ancestors had survived every challenge posted by natural
selection, otherwise, we will not be able to exist today. There is no return on
the road of evolution. Even when we know the end of the story would be death,
we can either choose to die earlier or die at the end. As it says in the film The Evolutionary Imperative, "everything is
competing, consciously or otherwise, for a temporary safe haven, realizing all
too well how easy it is to be eliminated from the proceedings." We can
only follow the rules unless we choose to end our lives.
16. Of the films you have watched so far, which
one is your favorite? Why?
I like the series of Elegant Universe by Brain Greene.
They provided me with a much detail description about four forces and
string theory. They give many analogies, which helps me to understand how this
theory was developed and what the significance it has in the subject of
physics. They also show me how the discovery of the string theory may relate to
philosophy. They make a complicated conundrum easy to understand.
17. Of the required readings so far, which one is
your favorite? Why?
My
favorite reading is The DNA of
Consciousness. The first part of the book provides a very good analogy,
which gives us the general idea of natural selection. When we accepted the
effects that natural selection impose on our physical appearance, it turns to
the question why we think the way we do, which is a very smooth transition, but
also arouses my interest. Further down, when it talks about how first and
second order of consciousness developed, it provides me a special perspective
to look at our consciousness that I never thought of. Also, it reminds me of
quantum mechanics that we discussed in week two, where everything is about the
possibilities. The simulation in our minds provides us with more possibilities,
which helps us to choose the best fits to the reality. In general, this book broaden
the ways I think about our consciousness, which is very fascinating.
EXTRA CREDIT
18. Have you done any extra credit reading? If so,
which texts? Give a 100 hundred-word analysis.
19. Have
you responded to other students’ essay answers? If so, copy and paste your
responses here.
Response
1: I found this a very interesting opinion and it mentioned a few points that I
failed to bring up in my essay, so I would like to talk about my opinions
regarding this post. First, I think neither science nor religion proved the way
nature or universe exactly work. Both of them are just the assumptions that we
made that will fit our interpretation of how the nature and science work. In
other words, they are the imagery of our thoughts. They can and will always
change as we learn more about the universe and when our view changes. That also
links to my second point. I agree with your opinion that the more you know, the
less you know. I believe human's understanding of the world is still at the
elementary level. As we find out more and compare them to what we thought, we
will realize there will be a even longer way towards the complete
understanding. However, that does not necessarily mean we cannot possibly know
everything. I mean as a individual, I agree. But as a combination of human
intelligence, there is no limit of our understanding. It might be a very long
period of time, and it will probably extend to infinity. But as I said, that
does not give a boundary of our knowledge. Third, I absolutely agree that
"matter can be just as special and amazing as being called to have
holiness or purity". As we explore more about the cells that we are made
up of, we discover that the cell itself is an incredible art, which can be as
complicated as the universe. This is holy. This is pious. Not even to mention
that how amazing it is that all our thoughts come from these so-called
matter . But to the end, I admitted that there will still be a conflict between
science and religion as they reflect our thoughts based on different mind sets,
though there exists only one truth.
Response
2: I agreed on your point that "both philosophy and physics allow our
minds to alter our limits" and they have "the coincide with one
another'. Indeed, before human beings ever advance in physics, philosophy
provided people a general guideline on the exploration of the universe and the
truth. When people learn more and more about the universe and form physics,
still, philosophy works as a criteria how we should view the discovery we
found. Just like the dilemma we face in quantum physics, it brought us back to
the question of philosophy, but at the same time, it also alternate our way of
viewing things philosophically.
Response
3: I found it very interesting that the writer use an analogy of programming to
describe the human behavior. My understanding of this response is that our
behavior is determined by the genome and these genome are the result from the
past. I think I can look at it in this way. If we want to study an historical
architecture, we need to first understand when it was built and learn about the
history of that period so that we can understand why it was presented in this
way. In order to understand our behavior, we need to look back to our history,
which is theory of evolution. By learning how natural selection impact on our
genome, we can have a better idea how these genome further determine our
behavior.
20. Compare and contrast the philosophy of Plato
with Aristotle.
