PHIL 2010 Lecture 14: 14

29 views1 pages

magentarat431

5 May 2018

School

University of Georgia

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHIL 2010

Professor

Athanasios Samaras

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

-Descartes's idea of the table were two different things

-Spinoza’s idea of the table were the same thing but conceived in two different ways

-I am one thing but I can be thought of and can be conceived as many things

-Human beings can get to know thought and extension

-For D, my intuition gives me the idea of the table. God gives the idea that corresponds

to my idea

-For S, there is one table. Thought and Extension

-If everything in the world is divine or God (is in everything) and everything in the world is

necessary, how can anything be unethical or evil?

-Everything is divine. Natural

-How can you have ethics then?

-Book 3: Strong argument that says there is no evil in the world

- the problem with evil: if god is in everything what about evil? Spinoza

argues that everything is necessary and so they are good

-Everything is good by defintion

-S tells us how to be a good person

-Realizes and says that there is a way that we can be better people than we are

now

-Starts with the assumption that there is something in the world called conatus:

principle of vitality (instinct of survival) : desire to persevere my own being

-God has more being than anything

-For Spinoza, everything has desire to persevere in own beings and tries to stay what it

-Humans: I want to keep my being and if possible increase or improve myself

-I dont jump off buildings because it hurts and that means I am

decreasing my being/decreasing my well being of my extended body

-Can I desire something that wont make me happy? NO

-For S (Book 4)

1. “By good I shall understand what we certainly know to be useful to us”

2. “By evil, I shall undermine what we certainly know to be pretending us from good”

-I have desires. How can I be able to sort between what increases my being and which

desires do not

-If i am stoned, my well being decreases

-What is the criteria?

-Desire is good if it is in accordance with human nature and if i satisfy those

desires, I am increasing my well being

-There are actions that are based on desires

-Desires that go against nature decrease my well being

-How am i going to work out the things that decrease well being?

-How can I improve?? KNOWLEDGE

- “We certainly know…” means knowledge

-To be better people, we need to understand what decrease and increases our

well being so ill only do something to decrease my well being if i dont understand

find more resources at oneclass.com

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Descartes"s idea of the table were two different things. Spinoza"s idea of the table were the same thing but conceived in two different ways. I am one thing but i can be thought of and can be conceived as many things. Human beings can get to know thought and extension. For d, my intuition gives me the idea of the table. God gives the idea that corresponds to my idea. Book 3: strong argument that says there is no evil in the world. Spinoza argues that everything is necessary and so they are good my being/decreasing my well being of my extended body. Realizes and says that there is a way that we can be better people than we are now. Starts with the assumption that there is something in the world called conatus: principle of vitality (instinct of survival) : desire to persevere my own being. S tells us how to be a good person.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHIL 2010 Lecture 14: 14

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 2010 Study Guide - Final Guide: Determinism, Teleology, Baruch Spinoza

PHIL 2010 Study Guide - Final Guide: Deductive Reasoning, Systematic Chaos, Hellenistic Period

PHIL 2010 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Baruch Spinoza, Determinism

Related Questions