First of all, thanks for putting so much time and thought into your reply. Your class plan is well thought out and interesting, but I think you and I are standing on opposite sides of a substantial inferential revine. So far as I could tell, you answer to my two questions were the following:
1) What would it mean to save the world? To bring about, however incrementally, my vision for the world.
2) What does it mean to live a fulfilling life? To get what one wants.
These two answers seems to place very great confidence in my (or my students) vision for the world, and my (or my students) desires. I take it, however, that one of the more serious philosophical questions we should be discussing is what our vision for the world should be, and what we should want. So by saying you don’t want to persuade me to adopt your own vision for the world, etc. it seems to me you skipped the most important part of the question. That’s exactly what I’d need to know in order to structure a course well.
Otherwise, if I teach my students to be more effective at getting what they want and bringing about their vision, while what they want is harmful and their vision is terrible, then I’ll be doing them and everyone else a great deal of harm.
1) What would it mean to save the world? To bring about, however incrementally, my vision for the world.
That’s not the meaning of ‘save the world.’ I just took it for granted that the preservation of human-like things would probably be part of your vision.
2) What does it mean to live a fulfilling life? To get what one wants.
Better: To get what one would most want, given perfect knowledge, computational capacities, and reasoning skills. (At least, this would be closer to the optimally fulfilling life.)
These two answers seems to place very great confidence in my (or my students) vision for the world, and my (or my students) desires.
We’re humans. We don’t have anyone to appeal to but ourselves and each other.
So by saying you don’t want to persuade me to adopt your own vision for the world, etc. it seems to me you skipped the most important part of the question.
Sure. Though you can read a fair amount of that out of what I did tell you about course layout.
if I teach my students to be more effective at getting what they want and bringing about their vision, while what they want is harmful and their vision is terrible
There are two questions here. First, are people’s most profound and reflective goals in the end perverse and destructive? If so, then humanity may do better if kept in ignorance than if enlightened.
Second, can we teach people to re-evaluate and improve their values? Their current vision may be ‘terrible,’ but part of teaching people to understand how to attain their values is teaching people how to recognize, assess, and revise their values. This is an essential component of Part 3 of the course structure.
Acting may be very dangerous. But doing nothing is far more dangerous.
There are two questions here. First, are people’s most profound and reflective goals in the end perverse and destructive? If so, then humanity may do better if kept in ignorance than if enlightened.
No, I agree with you that there is a right thing to want, and a right vision of the world, and that we can by learning at least some closer to understanding and realizing these things. This last post was helpful, and I see that we disagree less than I thought we did. Really, I think the only substantial difference between our two course designs is selection of texts, and that I think part 2 should be a larger part of the course, and should focus more directly on the question of what is right, what there is, etc. (incidentally, I only have 10 weeks, with two meetings per week to work with). Aside from ethics (which we learn in order to be better people), philosophy is in general not a means to an end, so I don’t think there’s as much a question of application.
10 weeks is pretty short! Sounds like a good challenge. I was assuming 16 weeks while trying to lay out a simple curriculum last night, and I got the following structure:
I. The Problem of Doubt
Week 1: What are we doing here?
Week 2: Case studies in ignorance and error
Week 3: Case studies in irrationality and arbitrariness
Week 4: Evaluating arguments
Week 5: Descartes and certainty
Week 6: Reasoning with uncertainty
II. The Problem of Death
Week 7: Test case: The immortality of the soul
Week 8: How to want to change your mind
Week 9: Test case: The self
Week 10: Learning how to learn things
III. The Problem of Life
Week 11: Vagueness, ambiguity, and semantics
Week 12: Meta-ethical confusions
Week 13: Rationality and decision theory
Week 14: Existentialism, nihilism, and pragmatism
Week 15: “Know thyself” and discovering your values
First of all, thanks for putting so much time and thought into your reply. Your class plan is well thought out and interesting, but I think you and I are standing on opposite sides of a substantial inferential revine. So far as I could tell, you answer to my two questions were the following:
1) What would it mean to save the world? To bring about, however incrementally, my vision for the world.
2) What does it mean to live a fulfilling life? To get what one wants.
These two answers seems to place very great confidence in my (or my students) vision for the world, and my (or my students) desires. I take it, however, that one of the more serious philosophical questions we should be discussing is what our vision for the world should be, and what we should want. So by saying you don’t want to persuade me to adopt your own vision for the world, etc. it seems to me you skipped the most important part of the question. That’s exactly what I’d need to know in order to structure a course well.
Otherwise, if I teach my students to be more effective at getting what they want and bringing about their vision, while what they want is harmful and their vision is terrible, then I’ll be doing them and everyone else a great deal of harm.
That’s not the meaning of ‘save the world.’ I just took it for granted that the preservation of human-like things would probably be part of your vision.
Better: To get what one would most want, given perfect knowledge, computational capacities, and reasoning skills. (At least, this would be closer to the optimally fulfilling life.)
We’re humans. We don’t have anyone to appeal to but ourselves and each other.
Sure. Though you can read a fair amount of that out of what I did tell you about course layout.
There are two questions here. First, are people’s most profound and reflective goals in the end perverse and destructive? If so, then humanity may do better if kept in ignorance than if enlightened.
Second, can we teach people to re-evaluate and improve their values? Their current vision may be ‘terrible,’ but part of teaching people to understand how to attain their values is teaching people how to recognize, assess, and revise their values. This is an essential component of Part 3 of the course structure.
Acting may be very dangerous. But doing nothing is far more dangerous.
No, I agree with you that there is a right thing to want, and a right vision of the world, and that we can by learning at least some closer to understanding and realizing these things. This last post was helpful, and I see that we disagree less than I thought we did. Really, I think the only substantial difference between our two course designs is selection of texts, and that I think part 2 should be a larger part of the course, and should focus more directly on the question of what is right, what there is, etc. (incidentally, I only have 10 weeks, with two meetings per week to work with). Aside from ethics (which we learn in order to be better people), philosophy is in general not a means to an end, so I don’t think there’s as much a question of application.
10 weeks is pretty short! Sounds like a good challenge. I was assuming 16 weeks while trying to lay out a simple curriculum last night, and I got the following structure:
I. The Problem of Doubt
II. The Problem of Death
III. The Problem of Life