Conceptual Schemes
Cognitive relativism (or epistemological relativism) is the theory that truth is relative. There are different positions that cognitive relativism can take, depending on what truth is relative to.
1) What frameworks do you think truth may be relative to?
2) Do you think there’s any problem with saying that a ‘truth’ can be relative?
An argument for cognitive relativism is that when we say that a belief is true, we are not really saying the belief matches the facts. Instead, we mean it is compatible with our other beliefs.
3) What do you think about this?
Some philosophers have said that truth may be relative to conceptual schemes. By this they mean different groups may have such radically different concepts and ideas that they interpret the world in different ways, and furthermore no interpretation is more valid than any other.
4) Do you think it’s possible for different societies to have such radically different conceptual schemes? If not, do you think it ever was?
5) Do you think conceptual schemes are a priori or a posteriori?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attempts to show that the difficulty to translate between different languages reveals that societies have completely different concepts of reality from eachother.
6) Is it a problem to say that no interpretation of the world can ever be correct?
7) Do you think that truth is relative to conceptual schemes?
Monday, 15 December 2008
Lesson Plan - Ontological Argument for Year 12
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological argument goes as follows:
The concept of God is the concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
To exist is greater than to not exist
So if God did not exist, one could conceive of a greater being (i.e. an existent God)
Therefore, God exists.
Questions
A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it logically entails that the conclusion is true.
e.g. If A, then B
A
Therefore B
An argument is sound if all of its premises are true and it is valid.
1) Is the argument valid? Is it sound? If not, what premises do you think can be questioned?
Immanuel Kant raised the following objection:
“Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing … Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates - I posit the object in relation to my conception.”
2) Do you agree with Kant that existence is not a property?
Some philosophers have tried to rescue the argument from Kant’s objection by arguing that necessary existence is a property, and that this is a more perfect property than non-existence.
3) Do you think this reply helps save the original argument?
4) Does anything strike you as odd about using the properties of God in order to prove his existence?
5) Can you think of any way to save this argument? Do you think the attempt to prove the existence of God ‘a priori’ is a good approach in the first place?
The Ontological argument goes as follows:
The concept of God is the concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
To exist is greater than to not exist
So if God did not exist, one could conceive of a greater being (i.e. an existent God)
Therefore, God exists.
Questions
A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it logically entails that the conclusion is true.
e.g. If A, then B
A
Therefore B
An argument is sound if all of its premises are true and it is valid.
1) Is the argument valid? Is it sound? If not, what premises do you think can be questioned?
Immanuel Kant raised the following objection:
“Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing … Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates - I posit the object in relation to my conception.”
2) Do you agree with Kant that existence is not a property?
Some philosophers have tried to rescue the argument from Kant’s objection by arguing that necessary existence is a property, and that this is a more perfect property than non-existence.
3) Do you think this reply helps save the original argument?
4) Does anything strike you as odd about using the properties of God in order to prove his existence?
5) Can you think of any way to save this argument? Do you think the attempt to prove the existence of God ‘a priori’ is a good approach in the first place?
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Tapton Sixth Form
Dear all,
Tapton (S10 5RG, ten minutes walk from Broom Hill) would like to begin on December the 8th. That's Monday. They want to start a lunchtime philosophy club. Who's with me?!
The first session will be an introduction to philosophy - what it's for, why it's useful, what it actually is, etc. and then a relaxed question and answer thing.
I'm not sure of the details or how many people we'll need. I'll post as soon as I know.
If you want in, reply and let me know!
With love,
Graham
Tapton (S10 5RG, ten minutes walk from Broom Hill) would like to begin on December the 8th. That's Monday. They want to start a lunchtime philosophy club. Who's with me?!
The first session will be an introduction to philosophy - what it's for, why it's useful, what it actually is, etc. and then a relaxed question and answer thing.
I'm not sure of the details or how many people we'll need. I'll post as soon as I know.
If you want in, reply and let me know!
With love,
Graham
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Social
what are your opinions on date and place?
Thursday, 4th dec, university arms (i think thursday might be quiz night)
Thursday, 4th dec, university arms (i think thursday might be quiz night)
Friday, 7 November 2008
Adding "Labels"
Dear All,
Please add labels to your posts after this. (I already have added them to all the current posts). This will help to have a better browsing option as in the left side bar.
Merci!
Please add labels to your posts after this. (I already have added them to all the current posts). This will help to have a better browsing option as in the left side bar.
Merci!
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Lesson Plans - we should post as many as possible here as a reference
Examples of Some Possible Trolley Problems
Standard Trolley: Forked track, switch, 1 person v 5 people
Consequence Ignorance: Same. But [thinks that he has made the train kill the 5/was just messing around].
Footbridge: Straight track, [person/person strapped to a rock/yourself] v 5 People.
Means Ignorance: Press a button which you are told will stop the train by dropping a non-specified object. The object is a [man/rock].
Diversion: Switch diverts train on to alternative route temporarily. On the diversion there is a [rock/a man/a-rock-with-a-man] that would stop the train.
Looped Track: Diversion on to longer loop which gives time to free 5, kills 1.
Consequences, unbreakable rules, whether we can use people as a means, side-effects …brilliant! Keeping it fairly simple.
Kids will undoubtedly want to talk about “What if it was [Mum/Hitler”. This is okay and legitimate, but we shouldn’t let the whole conversation be around this.
Overall project is to get the kids to think about what factors in their reasoning about ethical issues, and perhaps most importantly we should get them to ask whether they SHOULD reason about trolley problems in any particular way.
Plan
We will introduce a few problems.
We will judge whether it is better to split the class or not.
We will use the interesting problems to move intuitions around a bit/get discussion going.
Little bit of a, “what you have been doing is philosophy,” schpeel.
Little bit of a, “would you like to do this a bit more,” interrogation.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
school profile: LONGLEY PARK
Longley Park 6th Form College
Horninglow Road
Sheffield
S5 6SG
The class we are teaching in is Hayley Rennie's Philosophy A level class, in the AS level year. There are about 20 pupils in the class.
The subjects cover a wide range of philosophy, and the seminars we give this year will cover philosophy of religion, epistemology and reason and argument, with more topics to be discussed later.
The college philosophy page is here: http://www.longleypark.ac.uk/course_details.php?id=70
Horninglow Road
Sheffield
S5 6SG
The class we are teaching in is Hayley Rennie's Philosophy A level class, in the AS level year. There are about 20 pupils in the class.
The subjects cover a wide range of philosophy, and the seminars we give this year will cover philosophy of religion, epistemology and reason and argument, with more topics to be discussed later.
The college philosophy page is here: http://www.longleypark.ac.uk/
King Ted
Johnny arranged the following sessions but cannot go himself as he is away for reading week.
can anyone go?
Monday,10th November from 10:15hrs - 11:15hrs
Tuesday, 11th November from 14:40 - 15:40hrs
Topic is the discussion of God as a human construct.
can anyone go?
Monday,10th November from 10:15hrs - 11:15hrs
Tuesday, 11th November from 14:40 - 15:40hrs
Topic is the discussion of God as a human construct.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Stocksbridge Project
Contact established!
We are looking at 1 hr sessions on Fridays 1-2, general ethics and/or thinking more carefully topics, yrs 9 and/or 10. Hopefully to start 31st Oct.
Yet to establish:
Expected frequency (hopefully weekly, although I suspect less frequently)
Expected format (not to say that we don't have an input in this)
Will be back with further details but a cursory getting-a-list-of-people-available-for-James-to-contact-when-the-time-comes would be great.
I thought that to gauge the class it might be a good idea to use a variant on Elaine's 'Trolley Problem' session as a first session.
We are looking at 1 hr sessions on Fridays 1-2, general ethics and/or thinking more carefully topics, yrs 9 and/or 10. Hopefully to start 31st Oct.
Yet to establish:
Expected frequency (hopefully weekly, although I suspect less frequently)
Expected format (not to say that we don't have an input in this)
Will be back with further details but a cursory getting-a-list-of-people-available-for-James-to-contact-when-the-time-comes would be great.
I thought that to gauge the class it might be a good idea to use a variant on Elaine's 'Trolley Problem' session as a first session.
Friday, 17 October 2008
uploading stuff
So, how do i upload files, reza?? i want to put the lesson plans i got from Elaine somewhere!
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Welcome to the Blog!
This is a weblog for Philosophy in the City project at the University of Sheffield. We will update this place with posts about course plans, news, opinions, stories about how things work and almost everything related to the project.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)