You will submit your course reflection here. This reflection must address the ways in which each of the topics we covered played out in your daily life, how it impacted you or made you think differently. You may submit this as an essay, an audio recording, a video–whatever you choose. I do not have any length requirements–I just want to see that you’ve put in the effort to get something out of this class. It’s your chance to be creative and tell me how the topics we covered mattered to you. And if they didn’t matter to you, then tell me why.

Week 1

How Should One Live?

This week, we are reading about the Buddha, and Socrates. More specifically, we are interested in what they are teaching us about the “good life.”

What can we learn from their ideas, and the way they lived their lives about how we ought to live our lives? What did they think was important in life? Finally, what were some similarities and differences in their beliefs about how one ought to live?

The Buddha and Socrates both teach ways to live a good life, focusing on self-improvement and ethical living. The Buddha emphasizes mindfulness, meditation, and letting go of attachments and desires as a way to reduce suffering and achieve inner peace. He encourages compassion for others and understanding the impermanent nature of life, suggesting that true happiness comes from within rather than from material possessions. Socrates, on the other hand, emphasizes questioning, reason, and living virtuously through knowledge and reflection. He believed that an examined lifeone in which individuals constantly seek truth and understand themselvesis essential to living well. Both stress morality, self-awareness, and personal growth, but they approach it differently: the Buddha focuses on cultivating inner calm and detachment from worldly desires, while Socrates focuses on rational understanding, dialogue, and the pursuit of wisdom. Despite these differences, both philosophies encourage living intentionally and ethically, showing that a meaningful life requires both awareness of oneself and consideration of others.

Week 2

Aristotle on Happiness

What does it mean for someone to have achieved “happiness” according to Aristotle. Do you agree with these requirements or not? Explain.

Next, respond to one or more of your peers with respect to how they answered the question. For example, did they help you understand something by their post? Did they cause you to think about something more deeply? Do you disagree with what they said?

Aristotle defines happiness as the greatest human good which is realized through a good life of living virtuously and achieving his responsibility of being a rational being. He viewed pleasure to be not a momentary feeling but a life longundertaking which indicates moral grandeur. Virtues and purity as well as reason to determine choices enable people to form a character and have a good life. Aristotle also found that external goods, e.g. friendship and health, are also conducive to happiness, though they cannot substitute virtue.

My personal responses to the needs of happiness as outlined by Aristotle are mostly positive since they focus on the issues of responsibility, self-discipline, and purposefulness. A virtuous life promotes growth and development of an individual and adds value to the society. Though, I do not quite agree with the concept that it is possible to determine happiness only in the end of life. In my opinion, human beings are able to perceive happiness in phases, despite their continuous growing and learning.

Week 3

Ethical Relativism

This week we are discussing ethical relativism. What are the pros and cons of the belief that ethics ought to be relative, i.e. normative ethical/cultural relativism? In other words, it might be obvious that certain cultures do indeed have different ethical beliefs, but what do we make of the claim that this should/ought to be the case?

Ethical relativism has both its advantages and disadvantages in regard to comprehending morality. The first benefit is that it fosters tolerance and respect to cultural differences. It makes us realize that we all did not revere in the same beliefs and traditions and what is normal to one people may not be normal to another. This view is able to minimize judgment and make people live contentedly together. One of the demerits however is that ethical relativism may render it hard to condemn harmful practices. When all is acceptable in a given culture, then the practices which are against the fundamental human rights may go unchecked. I believe, ethical relativism proves to be useful in the interpretation of other persons, yet there must be some worldwide norms to prevent people being hurt.

Tao Te Ching

This week, I’d like you to choose 2 or 3 passages from the Tao Te Ching and, in your own words, explain what you think it means. This is often students’ favorite reading of the semester, so have fun letting your mind wander with where the Tao takes it.

We shape clay into a pot, but its the emptiness inside that makes it useful.
This teaches that usefulness often comes from what isnt there and the space or quietness is what gives purpose.

Knowing others is clever; knowing yourself is wisdom.
This means real understanding starts from within, selfawareness is deeper than just understanding others.

Week 4

Descartes’ Meditations

Of the arguments that Descartes uses to show that (almost) all of our knowledge is subject to doubt, which seemed the strongest? Why?

Also, explain how Descartes arrives at his one “indubitable truth.”

One of the arguments that seemed strongest was the Dream Argument. Descartes explains how when we dream, these dreams can feel like it is real life. This is what makes it challenging to believe if we are actually living these experiences or if they are just a dream in your deep sleep. This argument seemed strongest to me because it really shows us how we can doubt due to what we believe we are seeing, hearing, and feeling.

Descartes arrives at his one “indubitable truth” by questioning our world, questioning the way we live. He believes that even if there was a chance that if everything we live in is fake or even like a simulation, that because he is questioning life that proves to him that he actually exists. I myself have been in the shoes of questioning life and everything around us, what also always proves to me that I truly exist is the fact that I am questioning what I am living.

Week 6: Evidence

This week, Clifford makes an interesting case for the moral responsibility we have to not believe anything without sufficient evidence. In fact, he states, “It is wrong everywhere for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” After reading Clifford, what do you think counts as sufficient evidence? When do we know we have done our due diligence in seeking out the required evidence for our beliefs? Finally, do you think we actually do this in life? If we do, in what situations are we most likely to seek evidence before adopting a belief?

In The Ethics of Belief, William Kingdon Clifford argues that it is wrong to believe something without enough evidence. I think sufficient evidence means information that comes from reliable sources and is supported by facts or research, not just personal opinions or rumors.

We can say we have done our due diligence when we take time to question information, check different sources, and make sure the evidence supports the belief. This helps us avoid believing something that may not be true. In real life, people do not always do this. Sometimes beliefs are based on emotions or what others say. However, in important situations such as health, finances, or major life decisions, people are more likely to look for strong evidence before forming a belief.

Week 6: James vs. Clifford

After reading James and Clifford, who do you think has the most compelling argument for their position? Does James convince you that we must sometimes believe without evidence, or does Clifford convince you that belief without sufficient evidence is a moral and epistemic failure? Why?

I feel as though both James and Clifford have compelling arguments and their positions can be applied to different situations. Clifford makes a strong point that we have an epistemic responsibility to form our beliefs based on sufficient evidence because careless beliefs that are not based on such evidence can lead to harmful consequences, not only for ourselves but for others as well. He emphasizes the importance of questioning our beliefs, doubting them, and then examining them. At the same time, James also makes a compelling argument that we cannot always wait to have sufficient evidence before making a decision or forming a belief. In situations where we face a genuine option, we may have to choose to believe even with uncertainty and rely on our values. In real life this makes sense because we cannot know everything, and sometimes it’s difficult to gather sufficient evidence, so we must accept some uncertainty and choose to believe. For example, when we put our trust in someone like a friend or partner, it often requires us to choose to believe that they will be loyal and not break our trust. However, if I had to choose one position, I would agree more with Clifford because it’s generally more responsible to base our beliefs on strong evidence.

Week 7

Minority Report

After watching the movie, if a system like Pre-Crime could ever be perfected, would it be something you think society should have? Moreover, if it could be perfected, what would that mean for free will?

A flawlessly accurate pre-crime system, akin to the one depicted in Minority Report, would remain highly contentious as it penalizes individuals for actions they have not yet committed. This challenges the principle that justice should be founded on actual behavior rather than anticipated actions. Even in the absence of errors, it raises significant issues regarding personal liberty, potential misuse of authority, and whether the prevention of harm justifies the infringement of autonomy. Furthermore, it presents a philosophical quandary concerning free will. If the system is indeed infallible, it suggests that our decisions are predetermined, rendering free will a mere illusion. Conversely, if individuals possess the ability to alter their predicted futures, then the system cannot be deemed truly perfect. This indicates that one cannot simultaneously achieve both absolute prediction and authentic human freedom.p

WRITE MY PAPER