DOCSLIB.ORG

Q.L (B) Values

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Q.L (B) Values Q.l (a) Philosophy and branches of philosophy o Definition of Philosophy: Philosophy literally means "Love of Knowledge" or,.Love of wisdom". o It is the study of ganeral and fundamental problems conceming matters such as, existence, knowledge, value, reason, mind and language. It deals with logical reasoning and critical thinking. o All faculty of knowledge comes under the umbrella of philosophy. o It helps us to think with clarity and act judiciously. c Major branches of philosophy are: Metaphysics, Epistemology, philosophy of Religion, Aesthetics, logic Ethics. Q.l (b) Values - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values o In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action with the aim of determining what actions are best to perform or what way is best to live or to describe the significance of different action. Philosophers define, value as an emotion of ..sentiment of approval or disapproval," the satisfaction of a human desire. Types of Values: Values are subjective and objective. o Values as Subjective- valuable till it serve our needs or desires , vary from person to person. ' Values as Objective- Value are like a quality or a group of qualities that calls for appreciation or preference. o Intrinsic values are preferred to extrinsic values. o Values that are productive and relatively permanent ought to be chosen rather than unproductive and passing. Q.l.(c) Ethical Relativism o Ethical Relativism- It is a doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person. Universal tnrth is either a myth or impossible to determine. o Different groups of people have different ethical standards. o It is a belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong. o Two forms of Ethical Relativism: a) Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism, b) Individualistic Ethical Relativism. o Criticism: a)Ethical Relativity Self Contradictory, b) Ethics reduce to head counting, c) Relativism an Inconsistent Ethics. Q.2 a) Nishkama karma Yoga o Nishkama karma Yoga is the central teaching of the ethics of Gita. o It means there ought not to be any selfish motive or any ulterior motive behind actions we perform. Two types of actions: Sakama and Nishkama. o In Nishkama karma actions are done in the spirit of detachment , without selfish interest. o Krishna makes Arjuna aware of his duty as a warrior or kshtriya by following the path of Nishkama karma. This attitude does not lead to bondage and cycle of births and rebirths. b) Stihthaprajna ' Stihthaprajna in Bhagvadgita: This is a moral ideal explained by Sri Krishna to Arjuna. o 'sthita' means steady, equanimity and'prajna' means vision, insight, wisdom. ' Sthitaprajna means one who is a stable minded wise person well established in divine consciousness and with balanced attitude. ' Such person is a yogi a disciplined soul.he is well balanced in extremities of life. t Such person develops love, compassion concern towards all animate and inanimate. (c) Purusharthas o Purusharthas: It literally means an "object of human pursuit". It is a key concept in Hinduism, and refers to the four proper goals or aims of a human life. o The four purugdrthas are Dharma (righteousness, moral values), Artha(prosperilr, economic values), KEma (pleasure, love, psychological values) and Mokqa (liberation, spiritual values). r Dharma -sigrrifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that rnakes life and universe possible, and includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and right way of living o Artha- signifies the "means of life", activities and resources that enables one to be in a starc one wants to be in' Artha incorporates wealth, career, activity to make a living, financial security and economic prosperity. o Kama-signifies desire, wish, passion, emotions, pleasure of the senses, the aesthetic enjoyrnent of life, affection, or love, with or without sexual connotations. o Moksha-signifies emancipation, liberation or release. In some schools of Hinduism, moksha connotes freedom from salnsdra, the cycle of death and rebirth, in other schools moksha connotes freedom, self-knowledge, self-realization and liberation in this life. Q.3 a) Socratic Ethlcs o Two features of Socratic philosophy 'scientific' and ,practical'. o "All knowledge is through concept" is the scientific aspect o 'Virtue is knowledge "is the practical aspect. o Care for wisdom and truth is the highest good. o It is better to suffer evil then to do evil. o No person is truly happy unless he is virtuous. o Virtue is its own reward. b) Four principal virtues of Plato o Cardinal virtues are fundamental virtues on which many other virtues are based, cardo means a hinge. o These virtues support the moral life. o The principal four virtues are wisdom, courage, Temperance, and Justice. c) Aristotelian Ethics o For Aristotle the goal of ethics was eudemonia which meant happiness. o According to Aristotle virtue is habit and virhre has to be cultivated in human character. o Ethics of Character o Ethics is the science of conduct. o Virtue is a permanent state of mind formed with concunence of the will and based upon an ideal of what is best in actual life. o For him virtue is quality a of character, a disposition to do what is right in a particular direction. o Virtue is habit. o It refers to inner moral personality and is indicative of good o character of a person. classification ofvirtues: a) self-regarding, b) other regarding, c) Ideal regarding. Q.4 a) Determinism o Determinism: Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, whicb is inconsistent with the existence of such free will. o Determinists are impressed by the order in nature and the underlying principle of causation. o Principle of causality is contradictory to freedom. r Detenninism must be distinguished from predestination and fatalism. o For philosophers freedom means capacity to choose between the alternatives .The basic problem of freedom is whether we are free or not? o Determinism rules out human freedom. ' The determinist approach proposes that all behaviour is caused by preceding factors and is thus predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science. o Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavio'r, in other words we are selfdetermined. o Tlpes of determinism: o Scientificdeterminism ' Since every event in nature has a cause or causes that account for its occurrence, and since human beings exist in nature, human acts and choices are as determined as anything else in the world. o Religious determinism States that all events that happen are pre-ordained to happen by God. Fatalism: the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable b) Indeterminism r Indeterminism: An individual can determine his actions without any motive or cause. o Indeterminist insists that some acts of choice are exempt from the operation of causal laws. o It stress that there are genuine possibilities in the future. o Everything is not causally connected. a According to James, this world is open. There is space for novelty, chance and spontaneity. a Certain decisions and acts (namely, "free" ones) have nothing that causes them to occur; they are pure chance events; they simply happen, having nothing to do with the person doing the act. Indeterminism as a philosophical theory: The scientific assumption that all events in nature are determined is unwarranted; indeed, chance events are perhaps even necessary to account for the diversity of things in the universe. Besides, current flreoretical physics recognizes that subatomic events occur in completely random and (in principle) unpredictable ways. a A completely caused (determined) event is one that is predictable. o But since not every event is completely predictable, not every event is caused. a Such indeterminacy opens up the possibility that we can really affect the future; and in this way we can be free and morally responsible. a Objections a Indeterminism reduces the whole scientific effort to explain nature and human beings to mere probability, and it makes such an effort a waste of time insofar as it does not guarantee that understanding human behavior will allow us to improve it. Ifchoices and actions are not determined even by one's personality or character, then a so-called "free" act would be one that occurs spontaneously and unpredictably (even to the person doing it); thus justifiably no one could be held responsible for doing an action which not even he/she could have predicted would occur. Pure chance is thus not freedom in any sense that we would ordinarily recognize c) Self determinism or Compatibilism a) Compatibilism reconciles freedom and determinism: a It maintains that determinism is compatible with free will. It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists deJine "free will" in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism (in the same way that incompatibilists define "free will" such that it cannot). Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in a situation for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. a This theory proposes that the selfis a causal agent. a Thus, determinism and freedom may be combined. a This view is a'Golden mean'between the two extremes- Determinism and Freedom. a Free will is the power or ability to make choices for which one can be held morally responsible. a Determinism is the thesis that at any one time the universe has exactly one physically possible future. a Compatibilism is the thesis that we can have free will in a deterministic world.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free Will of an Ontologically Open Mind
    Free Will of an Ontologically Open Mind Jan Scheffel Division of Fusion Plasma Physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, [email protected] Abstract The problem of free will has persistently resisted a solution throughout centuries. There is reason to believe that new elements need to be introduced into the analysis in order to make progress. In the present physicalist approach, these elements are emergence and information theory in relation to universal limits set by quantum physics. Furthermore, the common, but vague, characterization of having free will as "being able to act differently" is, in the spirit of Carnap, rephrased into an explicatum more suitable for formal analysis. It is argued that the mind is an ’ontologically open’ system; a causal high-level system, the future of which cannot be reduced to the states of its associated low-level neural systems, not even if it is rendered physically closed. We believe that a positive answer to the question of free will is outlined. Downward causation is supported and Kim’s problem of causal overdetermination is resolved. Keywords Free will, determinism, downward causation, emergence, ontologically open, mind-body problem, consciousness, subconsciousness. 1 Introduction and background Must we have the thoughts we have? Do our thoughts only happen, rather than being created by ourselves? Does determinism hold our will into an iron grip? The free will problem presumably is the most important existential problem and has generated shelf kilometers of literature throughout the centuries. One reason for the problematic situation can be traced to the common definition of free will as ’the ability to act differently’.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Free-Will
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Honors Theses Lee Honors College 4-21-2015 An Analysis of Free-Will Matthew Campbell Western Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Campbell, Matthew, "An Analysis of Free-Will" (2015). Honors Theses. 2614. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses/2614 This Honors Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Lee Honors College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Running head: ANALYSIS OF FREE-WILL 1 Matt Campbell A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Free-will Western Michigan University ANALYSIS OF FREE-WILL 2 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 3 Chapter 1: Physiology and Neuroscience of Free-will...………………………………………….……. 5 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….……. 5 Reflexive Movement……………………………………………………………………….……... 5 Diffusion………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 The Reflex Arc……………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Voluntary Muscle Movement…………………………………………………………………….. 7 The Hierarchy of the Brain……………………………………………………………………….. 7 Explaining the Hierarchy of the Brain…………………………………………………………..... 9 Neuroscience on Free-will………………………………………………………………………... 9 Volition as Initiation……………………………………………………………………………...10
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism and a Counterfactual Account of Freedom
    POLYMATH: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ARTS AND SCIENCES JOURNAL Libertarianism and a Counterfactual Account of Freedom Felipe Pereira Seton Hall University The question of free will frequently consists of a debate between two views: Hard Determinism and Libertarianism. Science often promotes the first. Yet, first-hand experience seems to support the latter. The impulse to rely blindly on the authority of some voices in the scientific community and reject Libertarianism, however, is a mistake. Despite its appeal, Hard Determinism relies on problematic assumptions about cause-effect relations, which provide reason to believe that its counterpart, Libertarianism, is a plausible, defensible account of free will—or so will I argue. With that aim, this paper will be divided into three sections. Section one will present the thesis of Hard Determinism. Section two will present, in contrast, the thesis of Libertarianism. And section three will describe how a counterfactual account of causation undermines Hard Determinism and provides support for the Libertarian thesis. Hard Determinism We ought first to define Hard Determinism. Hard Determinism is the view that laws of nature determine human behavior and that there is no free will.1 Still, for the sake of clarity, it may be worthwhile to break down this definition into its three comprising parts: deterministic laws of nature, human behavior, and free will. The first part alludes to the conceptual context in which modern Hard Determinism took shape—the context of Newtonian mechanistic physics: In Newton’s universe, space and time establish the stage, and everything else takes place in an orderly, explainable fashion. The “everything else” boils down to two things, matter and force .
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Free Will Problem
    68 Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy Indeterminism Chapter 7 Chapter Determinism Hard Determinism Compatibilism Libertarianism Soft Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Soft Compatibilism Event-Causal Agent-Causal The History Illusionism of Semicompatibilismthe Incompatibilism SFA Non-Causal ImpossibilismFree Will Problem Narrow Incompatibilism Broad Incompatibilism Soft Causality Valerian Model Soft Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Soft Libertarianism Source Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Cogito Daring Soft Libertarianism (Actual Sequence) (Alternative Sequences) Two-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history This chapter on the web The History 69 Indeterminism History of the Problem From its earliestLibertarianism beginnings, the problem of “free will” has been Determinism intimately connected with the question of moral responsibility. Most of the ancient thinkers on the problem were trying to show that we humans have control over our decisions,Agent-Causal that our actions “depend on us”, and that they are not pre-determined by fate, Compatibilism by arbitrary gods, by logical necessity, or by a natural causal determinismEvent-Causal. Soft Determinism Almost everything written about free will to date has been ver- 7 Chapter Hard Determinism bal and formal logical debate about the precise meaningNon-Causal of philo- sophical concepts like causality, necessity, and other dogmas of Soft Compatibilism determinism. SFA The “problem of free will” is often described as a question Incompatibilismof reconciling “free will” with one or more of the many kinds Hard Incompatibilism of determinism. As a result, the “problemSoft of Causality free will” depends on two things, the exact definition of free will and which of the Semicompatibilism determinisms is being reconciled. Broad IncompatibilismThere is also an even more difficultSoft reconciliationLibertarianism for Illusionism “libertarian” free will.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Dennett's Compatibilism
    About the Cover Information philosophy can now suggest plausible solutions for a number of well-known problems in philosophy and physics. The philosophical problems include metaphysics - what is there?, the problem of knowledge - how do we know what exists?, a theory of mind and the mind/body problem - can an immaterial mind move the material body?, the “hard problem” of consciousness, freedom of the will, theories of ethics - is there an objective universal Good?, what is Evil?, and problems from theology - does God exist?, is God responsible for the evil in the world, what is immortality? Another set of problems with plausible solutions comes from physics and the philosophy of science. They include an informa- tion interpretation of quantum mechanics to clarify the muddled Copenhagen interpretation, the collapse of the wave function, entanglement, decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transi- tion, the universe expansion as the fundamental arrow of arrow of time, which requires microscopic irreversibility, the emergence of the biological and mental from the physical and chemical, and the creative process behind the origin of cosmic information structures that made biology possible. What Philosophers Are Saying about Free Will “How Free Are You?”, asks the well-known determinist philosopher Ted Honderich, in his best-selling book. Though he is its foremost champion, Honderich frankly char- acterizes determinism as a “black thing” and an “incubus” which gives him dismay. “Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?”, asks Nancey Murphy, sum- marizing the concern of philosophers who think neuroscience will reveal us to be just biological machines that are running pro- grams determined by our heredity and envi- ronment, by our genes and our upbringing, “Is Conscious Will an Illusion?” Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner thinks so.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of 'Causation'1
    A Short History of ‘Causation’1 Menno Hulswit University of Nijmegen P.O. Box 9102 6500 HC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] ©This paper is not for reproduction without permission of the authors. ABSTRACT Philosophical theories are always answers to questions raised within certain historical contexts, which involve the common presuppositions of an era. A thorough insight into a particular philosophical problem therefore requires a historical perspective. Thus, in order to better understand the contemporary approaches to the com- plex issue of causation, and the problems they raise, it is necessary to have a clear insight into the historical evolution of the concept of cause. In this article, I will show that the development of the history of the concept of cause reveals a remarkable discrepancy between the constancy in the use of terminology and the gradual shift in the meaning of the terms used. This development - which has largely remained unnoticed - requires analysis, if only because most con- temporary discussions on the subject, which almost invariably stand in the tradition of Hume, seem to have been victimized by it. For, contrary to what is generally supposed, causation is not a univocal conception (which either can or cannot be further analyzed). It is an ambiguous conception, with at least two (or three) different meanings, each of which requires a critical analysis on its own. Hume's celebrated criticism concerns only one of these senses of cause, which is notably just a derivative sense. The objective of this article is to discuss some important historical moments in the evolution of the concept of cause, and, more specifically, to discuss the conceptual tensions that are inherent to this historical develop- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two-‐Stage Solution to the Problem of Free Will
    The Two-Stage Solution to the Problem of Free Will How Behavioral Freedom in Lower Animals Has Evolved to Become Free Will in Humans and Higher Animals Dr. Robert O. (“Bob”) Doyle Astronomy Department, Harvard University Abstract. Random noise in the neurobiology of animals allows for the generation of alternative possibilities for action. In lower animals, this shows up as behavioral freedom. Animals are not causally pre-determined by prior events going back in a causal chain to the origin of the universe. In higher animals, randomness can be consciously invoked to generate surprising new behaviors. In humans, creative new ideas can be critically evaluated and deliberated. On reflection, options can be rejected and sent back for “second thoughts” before a final responsible decision and action. We present new cosmological and microphysical reasons for doubting the deterministic picture of the world that was popular before quantum mechanics, one which still dominates philosophical discussions of free will. David Hume’s compatibilism reconciled free actions with that classical determinism. We attempt to reconcile free will with quantum indeterminism. When the indeterminism is limited to the early stage of a mental decision, the decision itself can be described as adequately determined. This is called a two-stage model, first “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determined “will.” We propose our Cogito model as the most plausible current explanation for human free will. We compare this model to past suggestions and situate it in the taxonomy of current free will positions. A credible free will model may restore some balance to a disturbing social trend that considers moral responsibility impossible on the basis of philosophical reasoning, psychological studies, and advances in neuroscience.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinism and the Illusion of Moral Responsibility
    DETERMINISM AND THE ILLUSION OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Paul Ree 1. Nothing Happens without a Cause To say that the will is not free means that it is subject to the law of causality. Every act of will is in fact preceded by a sufficient cause. Without such a cause the act of will cannot occur; and, if the sufficient cause is present, the act of will must occur. To say that the will is free would mean that it is not subject to the law of causality. In that case every act of will would be an absolute beginning [a first cause] and not a link [in a chain of events]: it would not be the effect of preceding causes. The reflections that follow may serve to clarify what is meant by saying that the will is not free . Every object—a stone, an animal, a human being—can pass from its present state to another one. The stone that now lies in front of me may, in the next moment, fly through the air, or it may disintegrate into dust or roll along the ground. If, however, one of these possible states is to be realized, its sufficient cause must first be present. The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed. It will roll if a force acts upon it. It will disintegrate into dust, given that some object hits and crushes it. It is helpful to use the terms “potential” and “actual” in this connection. At any moment there are innumerably many potential states. At a given time, however, only one can become actual, namely, the one that is triggered by its sufficient cause.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisseboomsluiter1365460 Master Thesis Final Version
    Wisse Boomsluiter 1365460 January 2018 The mediation between brain imaging technologies and libertarian free will theories. Master thesis Wisse Boomsluiter, s1365460 First supervisor: Ciano Aydin Second supervisor: Saskia Nagel University of Twente Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences MSc Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society - PSTS Enschede, the Netherlands, January 2018 Master thesis Page !1 of !38 Wisse Boomsluiter 1365460 January 2018 Contents Abstract 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Free will debate 7 1. Libertarianism 8 2. Indeterminism 10 3. Conclusions 11 3. Agency and libertarian theories of free will 12 1. Agency 12 2. Agent-causal framework 13 3. Noncausal (volitionist) framework 15 4. Event-causal framework 16 5. Two-stage models of free will 17 6. Conclusions 18 4. Brain imaging technologies and agency 18 1. fMRI 19 2. Libet experiments 21 3. Conclusions 24 5. Technological mediation theory 24 1. Technological mediation 25 2. Directly perceiving agency 26 3. Limiting agency to the brain 26 4. Shift towards event-causal libertarian theories 29 5. Conclusions 30 6. Conclusion 30 1. Discussion and follow-up research 33 Bibliography 35 Master thesis Page !2 of !38 Wisse Boomsluiter 1365460 January 2018 Abstract The debate around free will is not new in philosophy, it has been discussed by a great deal of well- known philosophers like Augustine, Descartes, and Kant. Free will is a topic that is debated about in contemporary literature, one of these contemporary discussions is within the field of brain imaging technologies (e.g. fMRI), as images derived from these technologies seem to have a bearing on a various amount of philosophical issues, including free will, consciousness, identity and agency.
    [Show full text]