Philosophy of Mind

~ Nathan Smith

Today, we will be talking about the Philosophy of Mind in philosophy club. I am posting a powerpoint presentation for today’s talk. Please feel free to use this material and view this presentation as you please.

Philosophy of Mind

What is really real?

~ Nathan Smith

I always ask this question of my students in our online discussion board of Phil 1301. I think it’s crucial for us to try to answer that question and to realize that the our answers have important consequences for how we understand the world. One of the earliest and most influential pre-Socratic philosophers, Parminides, stated that “What Is is and cannot not be.” He believed that it was impossible for anything that truly existed to either go out of existence or come into existence. This created a puzzle for trying to explain the world around us which is always changing.

Since Aristotle, the answer to this question has been that substances are real. Substances persist throughout change. While they may have properties that change, the underlying substance or subject remains unchanged. Substances can be generated, corrupted, or anihilated. Aristotle believed that the ordinary objects around us, like dogs, trees, and human beings are substances. He likely did not think that artifacts of human creation like tables, chairs, and houses were not substances, even though he frequently uses such objects as examples for substances.

Now that we have the benefit of modern science, this question is even more difficult to answer. What are the real substances of our world? Are organisms even substances themselves, or is it just a matter of molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, or fundamental forces? I pose the question to you. Also, here’s a video that one of my students posted to our discussion board. It’s pretty cool:

Check out blob bot!

~ Nathan Smith

Totally cool technology called JAMMING. Sweetest robot ever.

New pages and information up…

~ Nathan Smith

Please check out the pages to the right: Activities and Events and Links and Calls for Papers in Philosophy.

I have put a bunch of new content on these pages, so check ‘em out.

Especially be aware of the New Mexico West Texas Philosophical Society Call for Papers NMWT’10. This is the main call for papers; they have not yet released a call for papers for the undergraduate/graduate papers symposium (but this will be taking place this year and we will be trying to get some school funding for a trip up there).

Science, Imagination, and Practice

I just watched this great episode of bloggingheads.tv (if you don’t know about this website, you should). Bloggingheads is a video blog that involves a split-screen discussion between two people (usually notable scholars, authors, or journalists). This is an episode recording a discussion between Alison Gopnik and Joshua Knobe on early childhood development.

I find this hugely interesting at least in part because I am the father of a two-year-old, but also because it offers a very interesting analysis of the distinctions between scientific reasoning and everyday reasoning. Gopnik is well known for advancing a controversial thesis that small children, even infants, reason more like scientists than adults. It has long been recognized that the natural, everyday reasoning of adult human beings is not very scientific: when cued with irrelevant moral information or when presented with statistical predictions about future events, adults are frequently very bad scientists. However, Gopnik’s theory is that unlike adult human beings, who are primarily concerned with practical issues, getting things done, and moral value, children in fact are much more like scientists, simply free and unencumbered explorers of the way the world works.

I find this hugely fascinating from the ancient Greek perspective which distinguishes the skill of philosophy, theoria, from the skills of practical production and action, techne and phronesis. The latter two are primarily interested in well-defined goals about action and production. But the former is disinterested. For that reason, the Greeks believed that only theoria would lead to true understanding, whereas phronesis and techne are essentially limited to the world of ever-changing human events.

Anyway, watch the episode and let us know what you think (I’ve tried to embed the video, but wordpress is being douchey so it it doesn’t appear, just click on the link):

What is the purpose of purpose?

~ Nathan Smith

Dovetailing with some of our recent discussions, I just watched this very interesting and extremely informative lecture by Richard Dawkins.

This is a lecture that he has recently given at a couple of locations in advance of his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth. I found the video highly compelling. It’s a testament to Dawkins that he makes sense of evolution in a simultaneously sweeping and clear way. However, I wonder what you think of his claim that the “why” question is a silly question, a product of our evolutionary psychology without (presumably) any real, metaphysical significance. I also wonder what you make of his distinction between neo-purpose and arche-purpose. This is a fascinating way to distinguish two senses of purpose, but I wonder if he occasionally muddies the waters… Watch it and let me know what you think:

The Philosophy of Working with your hands

Last week, I caught this interview on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. It is an interview with Matthew B. Crawford, a philosophy PhD from University of Chicago who now operates a motorcycle-repair shop. Crawford has written a book, “Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work” where he argues that one of the great benefits of shop class and manual labor is the sense of producing something of use, something that has a real, tangible value. He argues that the sense of accomplishment that comes from engaging in manual labor is a result of the fact that such labor engages our ’soul’ or our human agency. These kinds of activities force us to make decisions that have an immediate and obvious impact. His larger argument is that society has a whole has strayed from conceiving of manual labor as intellectual labor. In fact, he argues, it is quite the opposite, whereas many desk jobs and so-called white-color jobs require Bachelors degrees, they do not necessarily engage our minds. This was his experience. It was only when he returned to the shop (the motorcycle-repair shop) that he found himself really engaging his mind.

Check it out.

~Nathan Smith

Philosophy Talk on Facebook

This is a video from Professors John Perry and Ken Taylor from the syndicated radio show, Philosophy Talk. In this video, they respond to questions submitted from the Facebook community.

Also check out the videos on their Facebook page, I especially like the first video, which is linked here (you’ll need a FB account to access this page). The discussion of norms, normativity, and freedom of the will are closely related to a number of issues we have been discussing in our meetings. What do you think?

~Nathan Smith

The meaning of life, the meaning of ‘world’

I am attaching a powerpoint slide show where I address the ‘meaning of life’. I do this by referring to Martin Heidegger’s concept of world, which he develops most fully in Being and Time. It’s a bit long, but I hope you take some time to read it. I’d love to hear what you think. So leave a comment and we can discuss the nature of world, the meaning of life, and what it means for human beings to create meaning in the world.

World and Meaning of Life

If you’re really digging this topic, I recommend you check out Hubert Dreyfus’ classic Being-in-the-world: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I.

–Nathan Smith

The Self, Aesthetic Interest and the Search for Meaning

              I often find myself ensnared in appreciation of a particular object and left to wonder at the experience I was afforded by such an event. Caught in apprehension of a certain scene or the presentation of an idea I am often humbled by the sense of the sublime contained with in it. Whether the immense drama of a silently dominating mountain range, the intense emotion conveyed by the hand of Dutch master, the still majesty of the ethereal arena or the graceful imagery of a poem, I am continually struck with curiosity at the existence of the powerful experience they impart to me. Why should I have such an experience? As an animal among beasts man seems to be alone in this activity, to appreciate an object not for some end but merely for itself and perhaps his own relation to it. This seems, with the possible exception of a few other mammals of high intelligence (link to information on animal esthetics), the soul province of man. Can the nature of this experience tell us anything about ourselves? Can an understanding of ourselves tell us anything about this experience?