Philosophy Courses | Dr. Andrew Cullison's Current Courses Page

The Soul Vs The Brain

By That Guy | September 2, 2010

In Theodore Sniders analysis of personal identity he comes to question the existence of a non-materialistic item called the soul. The idea is that when you are born god or some super natural being places a soul in you body and with out it you are not the same person as you first came to be in this world. So if indeed there is such thing as a soul and it does contain your identity, personality and memories what is there to say about people who have suffered massive memory loss from serious accidents? Do these people not have a soul any more due to the fact they don’t remember who they are and what they have done in the past? I believe that soul theorists are just confusing the idea of a soul with the existence of the human brain which is already proven to control the psychological and mental state of a human being. For example if someone looses there memory due to a serious incident there is always a strong chance that over time they will slowly start to gain their memory back through the remembrance of common things in there life. On the other had If there is in fact a soul and someone looses it due to a serious accident does some supernatural being just decided when to give it back to you restoring all your memories and ultimately you identity I think not.

Posted in Philosophical Inquiry | Leave a comment

A Snob You Say?

By kelseymarie92 | September 2, 2010

What do I think a snob is? Well, I feel it is someone who acts stuck up and thinks they are better than everyone else. They try and act superior towards others. Appearance can also contribute to being able to pick out the snob of the group.
Say you’re in a classroom and your job is to find who you think the snob(s) is/are. Some ways to find them are how they dress, how they look (hair, makeup, jewelry), and how they act. Snob will also dress like they are better then everyone which can show they have the personality they are too. Sometimes they will always be “dressed to impress”, but that doesn’t always mean that the “best dressed” person or people are snobs.
Snobs also can be described as “know-it-alls”, “teacher’s pets”, “suck ups”, etc. This is because they are trying to show they are better than everyone else and no one can beat them. They are the people that always have their hands raised and always answers the questions and doesn’t let anyone else get a chance. They tune everyone out and tell everyone that their answer is wrong even when they are right. They also like to take credit for everything. Superiority is a must for a snob.
This is my opinion on what a snob can be described as. You can either agree or disagree, but no matter what, it’s ALWAYS based on superiority.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Against B-Theory’s Decomposition

By who-me | September 2, 2010

B-Theory’s love of a singular conceptual primitives does satisfy Ideological Parsimony, no question. One primitive would be the most ideal case. But how practical is such a thing? I question the soundness of one primitive being able to cover all temporal talk.

In Mathematics, there was a man named Euclid, the father of modern logic. He conceived of five Primitives, often called postulates. Here they are:
1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
2. To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3. To describe a circle with any center and distance [radius].
4. That all right angles are equal to one another.
5. The parallel postulate: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

The first four seem acceptable and true. The final one was not so obviously true. To prove it is decomposable, it must be proved from the first four postulates or the theorems they derive. It was never proven. It took until the 1800s, roughly 2000 years, to realize it was not decomposable.

My point of this history lesson is maybe there is worth in more than one primitive. Maybe there are things we will be missing by assuming “past” and “the future” can be decomposed into “There is”. For mathematicians, realizing it was decomposable led to a new form of geometry, Hyperbolic Geometry. It gave them a whole new level of understanding, and there now views that our universe is more Hyperbolic compared to Euclidean, meaning it is not flat but curved. So maybe we shouldn’t be too quick to decompose those two ideas. We can have much to learn if we let go of the notions of decomposition.

Posted in Metaphysics | Leave a comment

Personal Identity

By aalbigese | September 1, 2010

In Theodore Sider’s article “Personal Identity” he discusses the ideas of what makes a person the same as the person they were in the past. He states that a person can go through many physical changes and/or change their mindset and therefore argue that they are not the same person as they were in the past. Later in the article he brings up the idea of a soul. How a person can change physically in any way but still has the same soul no matter what. This is the side of the debate that I take. I believe that every person has a soul and that is truly their identity. You may change in many different ways from the time you are born until the time you die, but you still have the same soul.
In the beginning of the article Theodore discusses a man on trial for murder who claims he is not the same man that committed the crime because he has changed in different physical ways. But, no matter how much he changed, he had the same soul when he committed the murder as he has now. Therefore, I believe that makes him the same person as he was 5 years ago when he committed the murder and he’s guilty.
Some people don’t believe in the idea of a soul so that’s where there is room to argue. But, in my opinion everyone has a soul and that is what makes them who they are and is what gives them their personal identity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A snob’s appearance

By ohheyholly | September 1, 2010

In class on Tuesday, we discussed what exactly a snob is considered to be. While there was a lot of talk of how a snob acts, there was nothing really said about what we all consider a snob to look like. I believe a snob can come in a variety of appearances. Most people I come across, however, usually have a set stereotype for a snob, and tend to base it more on the exterior then the interior of a person to get this judgment. There is the wealthy CEO with expensive taste, who takes his yacht out on the weekends with his well to do family. The young man who believes he is superior to others just because his line of descent has some wealth involved and will attend weekly golf tournaments and pick on the caddy boy for being so “low”.
The young heiress who has had everything handed to her since she was just a wee lass and does not hold any respect for anyone other than her Daddy, who gives her money for her ridiculous shopping habits. That one kid in your class who is a huge teacher’s pet, tattle tale, and goody two shoes, who never lets you borrow the notes from class when you missed one for being sick or had some sort of appointment and always says, “No sorry. You should have been in class to get them yourself. Maybe you’ll learn for next time”, in that tone that makes you feel that they are belittling you in a snobbish way.
All in all, there is a wide variety of what you call the typical snob. There will always be one wherever you will go, and they could always end up being that one person you thought looked really friendly and that you took an interest to. Heck, you could even be a snob and not even know it. We need to learn to not judge a snob based on appearance and wealth. In the end, what you may perceive as a snob, may not be perceived by others as a snob.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Moore: A Defense of Common Sense

By brianevanweitz | September 1, 2010

In G.E. Moore’s article entitled “A Defense of Common Sense”, he establishes several views, or propositions, about existence and humanity, and defends them from several views that other philosophers have held in contradiction to these views.

The propositions Moore asserts fall into two categories. The first are a set of propositions he asserts about himself. He asserts that (1) there exists a living human body which is his, (2) that this body was born at some point in the past and has existed ever since, (3) that this body has changed from its initial existent state, (4) that this body has been at various distances from other objects, all of which also exist, (5) that this body has always been in contact with or close to the earth, (6) that this body has at some point been in contact with some of the other objects that exist in the world, and (7) that there have been other living human bodies like his that have come into existence and died during the course of his existence. Finally, he goes on to say that, as a human being, he has had many different experiences, feelings, perceptions, and dreams.

The second category of propositions that Moore asserts is that every proposition he asserted in his first category, and knows to be true, is also known to be true in some form of a similar proposition by every other human being that exists, has existed, and will exist. Thus, he basically states that these truths asserted by him in his first category are A Priori truths, and that every human knows them to be true.

Moore then responds to those philosophers who would say that these propositions are not necessarily true with a very simple objection. The existence of human beings, space, time, dreams, feelings, and experiences depends on Moore’s propositions being true. To deny all of these propositions would be to deny the existence of material objects, humans, and everything else Moore asserts the existence of in his propositions. So the question is this: if a philosopher asserts that Moore’s propositions are false, how could that philosopher exist to make said assertion? Thus every philosopher who disagrees with Moore necessarily contradicts himself! This is Moore’s defense of his propositions, and it seems pretty common sense to me.

Posted in Age of Analysis | 1 Comment

Time

By Jordan Marsh | September 1, 2010

In Time (Markosian), the author analyzes McTaggart’s argument against the reality of time. McTaggart claims that A theory is necessary for the existence of time, because change is essential to time, and B theory does not represent change in time, but time as a static, “fixed” entity. A theories are able to make expressions about times being before or after other times, so there can be change in the relationship between one time and another. McTaggart also points out an apparent incoherency with A theories, which is that A properties (past, future) are incompatible. No time can be both past and future. Nothing can be both past and not past at the same time in the same way. Being past does not preclude something from also being future, because we are evaluating this property at different times. At one time, it is past, and at one time, it is future. So there is no contradiction. Seen from the perspective of 2010, 2010 is present. In 2001, 2010 is future, and in the year 2012, 2010 is past. Thus, no time holds contradictory properties of being both past and future at the same time, and in the same way. There is much more to be said on this topic, especially when considering what A and B properties seem to express about the truths of eternalism and presentism, if time travel is possible, etc. If time travel is possible into the past, those times must exist, and A theories deny that by using language stating that things only “existed” at times in the past. While A theory does not necessarily rule out the existence of time, it favors presentism, which there are also convincing arguments against. So right now my thoughts are leaning towards eternalism being true, at least for the past. I would love to read your feedback on this. Is my reasoning about the properties of time not being true at the same times sound/cogent?

Posted in Analysis Post, Metaphysics | Leave a comment

Jessica Lorusso

By jmlorusso | September 1, 2010

Through my experiences in life I have met several kinds of people, ranging from the mean, kind, compassionate, and my least favorite: the snob. To me, a snob is someone who only thinks of themselves and how every situation in life will affect them, and only them. They are secretive, and manipulative and hide the identity of their true personality.

(s1) S is a Snob= Df. S has the feeling of dominance over their peers and everyone surrounding them. Tries to be manipulative and convincing to others while seeking attention.

Not only do snobs surround us in our everyday life, but there are also “secretive” snobs that we look up to as heroic figures. For example the media is a very popular subject to many individuals, we easily turn to famous figures sometimes as guides in our life. We somewhat find ourselves praising these public figures/ support all their ideas and what they believe in. One thing that we may not know about them is that they are a flat out snob. An example that was fairly well-known was the Kayne West incident at the 2009 VMA Awards. People may laugh at this example/subject but we easily realized the true identity of Kayne West. When Taylor Swift was giving her acceptance speech for her award at the VMA’s, Kayne West abruptly got on stage and all hell broke loose. He snatched the microphone out of her hand and without wasting anytime, broke out into a rampage about how Beyonce deserved this award instead of Taylor Swift. Not only was Kayne West just straight up rude, but he wanted all the attention on himself. He caused a manipulative scene just as a snob would, trying to convince the whole audience that he is right when clearly he was completely and entirely wrong. Not only did Kayne West set himself up for embarrassment, but lost respect from others. This is one of many examples of the kinds of “snobby people” in our society today.

-Jessicalorusso

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Moore’s argument for things presented in space vs. things met with in space.

By mark5586 | September 1, 2010

I wanted to post on Moore’s Proof of the External World but as I read I found myself tripping up on some of his reasoning, specifically his method of how to prove his proof of the external world, or perhaps put more accurately, how he was able to bypass Immanuel Kant’s reasoning. So I will show Moore’s argument for things presented in space vs. things met with in space, which is his way of removing the “scandal” (Kant) for which Kant has based his views for the proof of the external world on.
Moore first sets out by attempting to come to a logical conclusion on what is meant by “existence outside of us”.(Kant) Moore looks at Kant’s word usage and tells us that what he describes is vague and does not give accurate easily understood definition to his proof so he settles on a better means to phrase what Kant was attempting to say by looking at three ways in which philosophers often interchangeably describe this method, and decides that of the three “things outside our minds”(Moore), works best but is not perfect. So instead of settling on this Moore uses another Kantian phrase which he decides works to explain existence outside of us even more accurately than things outside of our minds, and that is “things that are to be met with in space”. (Kant) Moore does however see certain problems with this phrase that could and likely would leave room for disproval by others. He explains that the existence of the term “things” within the phrase eludes to things within the physical realm. While this is good that that area is seemingly completely taken into account, Moore does realize that it does not cover everything. He uses the example of shadows, saying that shadows can be found in space but are not physically tangible. (Moore) The other Phrase Moore adopts from Kant is that of “things presented in space” (Kant), Moore explains that to Kant these two phrases of “presented in space” and “things met with in space” are synonymous however to Moore this is simply false and to disprove it he uses a method that psychologists use called the “negative after-image test”. This test showed that though anyone with the functionally adequate senses could carry out the test and see pretty much the same thing however it wouldn’t be the same thing exactly, that is to say that if the test was taken by subject A, subject B could not see what A has seen. If subject B took the test at the same time they too would see similar objects that A has seen but it would not be what A themselves saw but rather a similar shape that only B could see. This means that it is not simply present in space but rather a thing that needs to be met with in space.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Snob

By robshewitt | August 31, 2010

Today in class the question “what does it mean to be a snob?” was proposed. First I suppose we should look at a formal definition. According the Merriam Webster 2010 dictionary a snob is a person who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior. In a later definition it also says “one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste”. Although this definition may make good framework for the idea of a snob, I think it doesn’t completely cover all odds and ends.
So from the ground up I will work starting from the most basic of concepts. Obviously a snob is a noun, more specifically a type of person. The term is almost always used negatively to refer to a certain number of people. The snob is known for having a heightened sense of superiority (if not a superiority complex) in a given subject or area (if not in all subjects and areas). They are known to pride themselves on their vast knowledge of a subject for their superb “taste” (ability to declare something of value). Arrogance and sometimes ignorance are often key traits in distinguishing a snob. That being said not all people who are arrogant and or ignorant are snobs. The idea of their superiority is what ultimately creates the snob.

Example: The music snob
Although there are many different types of music snobs I will merely describe one. The hipster snob, but please not that I am not dictating all hipsters as snobs. Anyway the hipster snob prides itself on its individuality and musical preferences. The idea behind the music is they’re the only ones who have heard of the music they listen to. Basically they wish to set themselves apart from everyone else by their musical tastes. In doing so many acquire the idea that they are superior because of your lack of knowledge in their musical tastes. Some are very close minded and refuse to try any other genre and wish only to stay in their “perfect” word of individuality (if you can call it that).

*** Once again please note that I am in no way “bashing” hipsters or saying that anyone with musical differences is a snob. This is merely an example created from people of whom I have encountered in my experiences***

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Personal Identity: the Spatiotemporal duplication problem

By annabush092 | August 29, 2010

The reading this week was “Personal Identity” by Theodore Sider. In this article, he discusses the possible analyses of what the essence of personal identity is. What causes people to say “I am the same person as I was 2 minutes ago” or 20 years ago, etc? Simply saying that you are made of the same matter that you were made of when you were a baby is not sufficient for the simple reason that our bodies undergo natural recycling of their cells and atoms all the time. So we must find a more abstract, philosophical solution to explain personal identity. From this need came the theory of Spatiotemporal Continuity, the concept that a continuous series of locations in space and time connects a person or object to their past selves.

However, the article argues that in this theory there is a duplication problem. For an example, Sider uses a hypothetical story in which futuristic scientists can safely cut your body right down the middle to create two independent halves. They have performed the procedure on you. However, the continuity of half of the body is sufficient for personal identity to remain intact, so wouldn’t this mean that there are two new persons created, both with your old identity? This is an absurd consequence that results in two identical people coming from one. To solve this, he gave a hypothesis of modifying the theory to state that personal identity is only non-branching continuity. This means identity is only continuous between one person in the past and one person in the present, always in a 1 to 1 ratio. If we then go back to the story, this would mean that when two people are made from one, neither would get the original identity. The original identity would be lost.

This is more feasible than the duplication problem we had earlier. However, like Sider admits, it is a hard idea to accept. Going back to the story, what identity would the two new half-people have? My first reaction was to think of identical twins. They start out as one egg, before breaking in half to create two separate, and yet genetically identical, beings. Both still come from the same egg, and both can trace their personal history back and say that at one point they were the same egg. To me, this story is almost exactly the same as the story given by Sider, in which an adult is cut in half. However, this is a real-life example, and we know what happens: both twins are identical in biology, but still have separate identities. Why couldn’t this also be true in Sider’s story? In that case, the Spatiotemporal Theory still works, without the non-branching revision. Both new halves start with the identity of the original whole, but then grow into separate beings with separate identities as time goes on. This means that the duplication problem is also dealt with, as the two new individuals are not identical people, even though they started from the same place. They grow into new, unique individuals. Do you think this makes sense?

Posted in Analysis Post, Philosophical Inquiry | 5 Comments

Against Presentism

By Korey Bastian | August 27, 2010

In this article, Sider argues that time (as a function of past, present, and future), is just as real as distances are real for being alternately located spacially. He admits that presentism is intuitively “compelling”, but suggests that once more thought is given, it seems to make less and less sense. He also mentions a view which is a hybrid of presentism and eternalism, which suggests that the past is real but the future is not.

He also takes a standpoint on linguistics, as certain wordings or phrases in sentence infer a specific position on these topics. Presentism suggests the use of phrases that infer past and future, but nothing about the reality of those time-frames. Eternalism, however, suggests words that refer to one event relative to others in a linear perspective, but creates an equality of reality. It is also discussed on how a static amount of time still allows for the progression of change by a change in truth values of statements linked with their time. “It is raining on July 15, 2008″ and “It is not raining on July 16, 2008″ shows that change may occur.

Eternalists are able to group things together that exist at any point in time, since they view time as a whole block-entity where things do not have to exists in the same “moment” to be grouped together. If one were to try and fuse together a computer and a dinosaur, the eternalist would be theoretically able to, as they exist with the same reality. A presentist would be unable to fuse them, as a computer and dinosaur never existed at the same point in time, which would be necessary as the past has a lesser reality value than the present.

Presentism and eternalism’s hybrid was essentially the way I generally thought about time, though I often questioned whether it was linear, or solely perceived that way. Eternalism allows me to view time in a way that satisfies a lot of the curiosities that have crossed my mind. Originally, I felt that the past was real (as it had already happen and it could be proved that it had occurred, at least within our knowledge base), but the future was unknown. I have since realized that notion doesn’t make the future any less real, but simply unknown and yet-to-be-realized.

I think many of the arguments for eternalism are good and have allowed me to perceive time in a way I had never imagined previously. However, I think the ability to reduce tenses in the english language as an inference of time and reality, is an argument that does not even need to occur. I think that manipulating a language can be done in any way to achieve any result and if something does not exists to fit the meaning you are looking for, it can be created and accepted into the language, in the way that ever word, phrasing, tensing, and the overall functionality of language have come about. I think the debate of linguistic properties would be different in each language and if that is the case, than a language could be created to prove the necessity or impossibility or either side’s point of view.

Posted in Metaphysics | 3 Comments

Arguments: A Brief Introduction and Diagnostic

By Andrew Cullison | August 26, 2010

Here is one we will go over in class

Here is one you can go through at home

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Issues Logging in with Google ID

By Andrew Cullison | August 24, 2010

It looks like the Google ID plugin is being a bit buggy. If you get an error that says something like “We were temporarily unable to log you in…” there is a quick work around. Simply click the button that says “Use Another Account” and try again using the same Google Account you tried before.

Not sure why that works, but I’m contacting the plugin developers to see what the deal is.

Here’s a quick visual aid to help.