1. Explain what reasons Socrates gives in the Crito for not fleeing Athens, even though staying means certain death. Explain why you do, or don’t, find these arguments sound.

Crito visits Socrates in prison and tries to persuade him to escape because the majority expects it and wont blame them, he would be alive to teach philosophy, could raise his (young) children and be with friends. Socrates is not moved because he considers injustice to be feared more than death, he would also prefer his children as citizens of Athens than to be in exile with him, and public opinion does no one real harm or good, so his friends should not worry.

He further explains his main reasons for not escaping because he thinks doing so would be unjust and it is never correct to act unjustly. He argues that escaping would harm the city, and since the city is like a parent, then escaping is like harming a parent, which is unjust, and therefore escaping is an unjust action that would lead to the corruption of the soul. He also feels that life is worthless with a corrupted body, and since the soul is more important than the body, life is worthless with a corrupted soul. Socrates believes the life of an escapee is worthless and therefore, it is better to die.

The arguments by Socrates are not sound because we could question the analogy between parent and state. Obedience to our parents is temporary that we outgrow eventually, by learning to make decisions, however Socrates means it is a requirement to obey the state until we die. Furthermore, we cannot always predict the consequence of an action. So by escaping the city, there are number of possibilities that could be beneficial to the city, for example incorruptible warders that will not collect bribe, better security and fortifications. Finally, it could be argued that it is unjust for a parent to kill a child as a form of punishment.

2. In the Apology Plato claims that "no evil can happen to a good man”, but in the Crito he suggests that “life is not worth living with a corrupted body”. Explain why one might think that these two views are in tension with each other. Do you think that there is a way for Socrates to resolve this tension? If so, suggest how he could do it. If not, explain why not.

The statement appears as though the good person is “untouchable”, no matter what the person is going through, it does not change the person’s virtue. The claim here, “no evil can happen to a good man”, is that such things we consider as evil (death, disease, poverty etc.) are not really evil but what can really hurt are the things that damage our soul, namely injustice. The good pertains to virtue, and one’s value comes from virtue, which is self-fostered and not the consequence of others and endures even after death. Socrates argued further that even if they kill the person, it is not harm because either the person goes into an endless deep sleep or an after life. On the other side, Socrates giving an opportunity to escape argues that it would be unjust and it is never correct to act unjustly. He argues that escaping would harm the city, and since the city is like a parent, then escaping is like harming a parent, which is unjust, and therefore escaping is an unjust action that would lead to the corruption of the soul. He also feels that life is worthless with a corrupted body, and since the soul is more important than the body, life is worthless with a corrupted soul. Socrates believes the life of an escapee is worthless and

therefore, it is better to die. The tension that arises from these two views is that every person is responsible for their actions. You can only become corrupt by going against your values and virtues. To which, Socrates believes it is better to die

3. Socrates claims that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” while Aristotle argued that external events could seriously damage the quality of a person’s life. Leaving aside the question of whether the good person can be harmed after death, present these competing positions about what harm can be done to the good person during their life, and explain why you find one or the other more persuasive?

Socrates is stating that the things we consider as traditional views of evil (death, disease, poverty, etc.) is sometimes misinterpreted, as meaning these things can’t happen to a good person. This is obviously false, however the he suggests that the things that can harm us are those that damage our soul such as injustice. He believes that driving someone into exile, depriving him of his civil rights and even killing someone will not cause him harm. Socrates believes that the body is not as important as the soul therefore only acting unjustly can we harm ourselves.

In contrast to Socrates, Aristotle believes a man can be harmed in life if there are bad circumstances.· He believes if we are unlucky, we will not have a good life no matter how good we are.· Aristotle also believes we need some external things to live a good life.· External things on their own will not be enough to have a good life though, you still need virtue. You can be virtuous and not happy but you cannot be happy without being virtuous.· I find Aristotle’s more persuasive because we need external goods to be happy but I also agree with Socrates that you cannot be harmed in the afterlife.

4. How does Epictetus recommend that we view our friends and family, and why does he make such a recommendation? Would you adopt this sort of attitude towards them if you could, explain why, or why not.

Epictetus believes that unhappy feelings don’t come from an object or person but from our attitudes towards it. How we value something determines how we feel if it is taken away. Stoics believe we should remove aversion from all things that we cannot control, viewing family as unimportant since there is no control over whether they live or die. Epictetus explains this as “if kiss your child or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, thus you will not be

disturbed if either of them dies”· If you get attached to your wife and children ,they may die and you’ll be disappointed. You won’t be free if you attach yourselves to people. Epictetus believes we will be better off if we do not desire anything we cannot control. There are three principles for this. The first principle is desire: We believe our friends and family make us happy but if they die we will be devastated. Loving our family is a bad idea. The second principle is action; we should detach ourselves from our family. The third principle is assent where we realize family and friends are not important for our happiness. · Epictetus believes we cannot necessarily live like this but he believes we need to try.

5. What reasons do Epicurus and Socrates give for not fearing death? Explain why you do, or don’t find their arguments sound.

Socrates first reason for not fearing death is based on his oracle, which warns him against any action that would have bad consequences. Considering the oracle did not object to the way he defended himself which led to a death sentence, he believes death cannot be bad for him. The second reason is that he believes death is either an endless sleep or it involves an afterlife. Hence no reason to fear an endless sleep because it is utter unconsciousness, and also there’s no reason for the just to fear the afterlife because of the rewards.

Epicurus however does not believe in the afterlife, rather he based his reasons on the epistemic – the truth or falsity of the belief in question and the pragmatic – the effects the belief in question holds upon its believers. He claims that death is not a bad thing, and whether or not it is, we shouldn’t be thinking about it because if we fear death, then we become anxious and can never really be happy. Death is inevitable and having a generalized fear of it, is pointless because it causes no harm while we are either alive or dead. In fact, we should only fear that which causes us to suffer but death does not produce suffering to either the dead because they cant experience anything at all or to the living because they are not dead.

Socrates first reason is personal and hence we cannot vouch for the oracle, and his second reason, the unjust have reasons to fear death, though, we can argue on what qualifies someone to be called just. Epicurus reason however putting aside an after life looks sound because it makes us appreciate life because it brings us pleasure, and we must be alive to experience pleasure.

6. What is Epicurus’s conception of the human good, and what problems does Nozick's discussion of the "experience Machine" pose for it? Do you find Nozick’s criticisms persuasive?

Epicurus believed that there was only pleasure and pain and that anything that gave us pleasure was good so it should be pursued. Nozik’s experience machine offers us to program an alternate reality where we could have a completely different life or we could have the same life with some variable that are different (more wealth etc.). Nozik says that we could also program in obstacles to overcome to make the experience more fulfilling and we could also make it so we are unaware that we are in the machine once plugged in. Nozik says that most of us would not want to be plugged into the machine, however, since we actually want to do things, not just feel them. He says that to many this machine would be a type of suicide. This refutes Epicurus's egoistic hedonism in its descriptive sense, Epicurus could still hold onto the normative view by arguing that even if we wouldn't plug into such a machine, we should plug ourselves in. Nevertheless, once it’s pulled apart from the descriptive view, the normative egoism is harder to defend.

7. Why does Epicurus think that a life that focuses on pleasure should still be a just (i.e. law abiding) one? Explain why you do, or don't, find his argument sound.

Epicurus believes pleasure is our first and kindred good, hence we need a just life to live peacefully and pleasurably in true sense. His concern is with the highest levels of mental pleasures, which are the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. This is attainable only when our life has absence of anxiety. He takes justice to be a set of rules generated to maximize our pleasure collectively. He thinks it is not just the act of doing something unjust that is evil, but rather the anxiety that it causes in us of getting caught and punished is what the real evil is. The just man is most free from disturbance, while the unjust is full of the utmost disturbance, so it is never in our own interest to act unjustly. One cannot live a pleasurable life if one is always anxious about the future and such anxiety can never be escaped if one lives unjustly.

His argument looks sound because if we pursue pleasure for our own selfish reasons, we are bound to carry out actions that are unjust. A guilty person not caught, until their death, would always have that fear of being caught and hence cannot pursue pleasure but instead would be suffering

8. Compare the views of Nagel and Epicurus…

9. What does Aristotle take to be the function of human life? Explain what arguments he gives for his position and why you do, or don’t, find such arguments sound.

He defines life as an intrinsic good Rational thought = intrinsically human – Differs us from animals -Aristotle thinks as each thing has a defined function (e.g. knife to cut), even humans have a distinct function which is not shared by any other things. -Aristotle thinks the function of human life has to be unique. Reasoning, rational thoughts or some kind of active life is what the true function of human life is. - Aristotle thinks that “we state the function of man to be ... an activity ... of the soul implying a rational principle ... If this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete (pp. 3-4). - Aristotle thinks that human function should be to perform virtuous activity of the soul. -We need to understand virtue of soul to get happiness -Happiness is the highest virtue. - Aristotle thinks we must have some characteristics that define our function because as being a theorist of human nature he thinks we ought to have a given human function, and our nature is what defines for us “what the best life for us is”. His arguments are sound because I think I agree with Aristotle’s claim that we must have a fixed function given to us. I believe that everything and anything in this world has a definite order and this can only work if everyone has Pre-assigned roles already. As we made scissors to cut clothe, we also exist because we have some function to do in this world. Also Aristotle’s second argument that human function is virtuous activity of soul is reasonable and persuasive because he does not only state that but also gives reasons to why he thinks goods of soul are ultimately important.

10. Why does Aristotle claim that children and animals are incapable of happiness, and what difference does this show between what he calls "happiness" and what we do? Which conception of happiness do you find superior and why?

Aristotle states that the highest goal of all human deliberate action is happiness and insists that the conduct by which we strive for the highest good is learned, not inborn. He saw happiness as the virtuous activity of the soul in accordance to reason. Since the quality of a person’s habit is determined by to a large extent their character, good habits, or virtues which are necessary to happiness, as is intelligence so that one may guide their actions within the boundaries of reason. Aristotle concludes that children, more so animals are incapable of happiness inasmuch as they have not developed the ability to use their intelligence.

Many confuse happiness with pleasure or joy. Joy is the emotion evoked by well being, success, or good fortunes, or the prospect of possessing what one desires. Joy is not lasting and is dependent on one’s fortune. Pleasure can be found in amusement, diversion, or worldly enjoyment. It is a temporary cause for delight and a temporary joy. This is what a child experiences – not happiness. Happiness is lasting joy that comes from the practice of virtue in accordance with reason, which is the highest good of the soul.

- Aristotle’s idea of happiness comes from the word Greek word eudemonia - This word is not the psychological state of happiness that we know, but rather means “wellbeing” – it is a metaphysical state-He says animals and children are incapable of being happy because the activities in their lives are limited and so is the type of life they lead. so then they cannot accomplish living a life of wellbeing or a “complete life”- Children and animals can still show joy as a psychological state, but they cannot by “happy” as they do not have the ability to reason

11. What are Hume’s views on the moral status of suicide? Explain why you do, or don’t, find his arguments on this topic to be sound.

- Hume argues that suicide should be free of guilt and blame and that it is sometimes permissible - It can only be impermissible if it goes against ourselves, our neighbour or God. He argues that it doesn’t go against God since the rebuttal would assert that we should not be in control of the length of our lives (which is not supported by scripture according to Hume), but then that would mean we should not take medication (which we do) so then this is not disrespectful to God to end our lives. -Hume is arguing that suicide is sometimes permissible, and therefore there are some situations when it will not hurt our neighbour such as when we are old and have nothing left to contribute and are more of a burden – or if we are captured by an enemy and would reveal information under torture -Hume says it is natural for us to be afraid of death, so if someone decides to kill themselves then it must be for a serious reason -> therefore if we are suffering so much that we want to kill ourselves then we are doing no disservice to our self.

Hume's argument can be summarized as follows: If Suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbour, or our self. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to God. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to our neighbour. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to our self. Therefore Suicide isn't (always) criminal. Now this argument is clearly valid (if 1-4 are true, then 5 has to be)

12. Explain the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer’s and Hume’s views on suicide. Whose views do you ultimately find more persuasive and why?

Both Schopenhauer and Hume are positive about suicide. They both also defend it against the church. Schopenhauer and Hume both believe that religion denies suicide because of the idea that God created us and therefore we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. Hume says that we are not going against God’s will, however, since there is no scripture that condemns suicide and also we use medicine to prolong our lives, so why should we not be able to shorten them?

Schopenhauer does not believe that god exists at all. Schopenhauer and Hume also both agree that humans have a will to live, but Hume uses that to argue that humans who commit suicide must have a very good reason, whereas Schopenhauer says that our will is what keeps the world running despite the suffering. Although Hume argues that suicide is sometimes permissible, Schopenhauer says that the way to avoid suffering in this world is for one to turn their back on it, but by committing suicide they are more expressing their frustration for the world than rising above it. Unlike Hume, Schopenhauer also suggests that one might commit suicide out of curiosity about what will happen after death (or if there is an afterlife), however, he says this is a bad idea since once dead if our fate is to suffer then we have not improved anything and if there is no afterlife then we won’t be alive to find out. I find Hume’s argument much more persuasive since he allows for a variety of circumstances and demonstrates that we

13. Briefly outline the "argument from Evil" as it was found in Schopenhauer's work, discuss how it differs to similar arguments from Epicurus. Explain why you do, or don't, find the argument from evil to be sound.

- Schopenhauer prefers creation stories in which the creation of the world was viewed as a bad thing, or a mistake. - Schopenhauer doesn't believe in the existence of a perfect God. He argues that it is impossible to believe that this world was the "successful work of an all-wise, all-good and at the same time, all-powerful being" because of the misery that abounds in the world, and the obvious imperfections that he sees in man.

1. If there were an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God, there would be no suffering in the world. 2. There is suffering in the world. 3. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God does not exist.

- Epicurus believed in the existence of perfect Gods, who had the ability to make things on earth perfect, but didn't think they were interested in the world's affairs. - According to Epicurus, we are material beings that don't survive the death of our bodies, and while Gods existed, they didn't bother with us. I do not believe that Schopenhauer's argument is sound. Schopenhauer's argument assumes that if there were all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving Gods, that they would be interested in our earth. We see in Epicurus' argument that this is not necessarily the case. There is still a possibility that these Gods exist but do not care about us, or that they have provided us choice and free will, which accounts for our suffering.

14. What does Schopenhauer recommend as the best life for us? Explain why you do, or don't, find his views compatible with Marx's. Whose views are ultimately the most persuasive?

Schopenhauer recommended a transcendental life for us, which meant turning our backs on the world and stepping outside of human activity for a life of contemplation. This type of life rejected the desires of our will and focused on intellect instead. Marx believed that engaging in a certain sort of activity – not just how we feel during our lives – is what gave us meaningful lives. He said we should enjoy our labour and that it should give us meaning to our lives. It should not be labour that we were doing for extenuating benefits (for a wage etc.). Marx’s ideas embrace the will (our desires) and focus on activity rather than contemplation.

15. Epicurus argues that, if one follows his four maxims, one can live a life comparatively free of suffering. By contrast, Schopenhauer argues that living a life free of suffering is almost impossible. Outline the reasons they give for their positions, and state which argument you find the most persuasive and why.

Epicurus believes that we can create a happy life for ourselves by vanquishing anxiety and mental suffering by following his four maxims. Before a person can follow his maxims, however, they must be willing to pursue the knowledge of science which will allow a person to attain peace of mind since they will understand how the world works. The four maxims are:- “don’t fear God,” the Gods do not care about us anyway so we should not fear them as they are not interested in what we are doing.- “don’t fear death” he provides both epistemic and pragmatic reasoning to support his claim. His epistemic reason is that death causes no suffering for the living since they haven’t experienced it yet and no suffering for the death since they no longer exist therefore cannot experience anything.. His pragmatic reason is that even if death is a bad thing, we only cause more pain for ourselves by letting it stress us out.- “the good is easy to get” which says that our natural desires for food and shelter are easy to obtain and that if we limit our desires to a type of Stoic outlook then we will be much happier since we will not be stressed out by going after luxuries.- “the bad is easy to endure” dictates that if our desires are moderate enough then the only pain we will encounter is physical pain. This sort of pain is either really short lived or mild in nature, which makes it easy to endure.

Schopenhauer believes that suffering is everywhere and inescapable on earth. He asserts that the basis of human existence is suffering since we are in a constant cycle of pain that is the result of striving for our desires that, even if obtained, only provide a fleeting sense of pleasure that soon dissipates into boredom (which is a form of suffering as well). The vapid nature of our desires can only satisfy us for a short time, and then the cycle will begin again as another desire arises. Furthermore, Schopenhauer says that we worry about not only natural needs, but also our “ambitions” such as what our peers think of us. In our plans to attain our wants and garner status we create worry about the future and past which creates anxiety and an immense amount of pressure since we constantly are afraid of death since our lives are so short. To achieve the transcendental life that Schopenhauer says will provide the most happiness one must abstain from giving into the wants of his or her Will, and instead and lead a life of contemplation. This can be achieved by relying on “intellect and knowledge,” which to Schopenhauer does not mean an individual who is immersed academic work, but rather one who realizes that life is “fleeting”

and “that nothing can possibly happen over which is worth his while to spend emotion”. The abandonment of participation in the world means that he or she “examines and considers [the world]” rather than “play a part in it”.

Epicurus and Schopenhauer seem to agree that humans need and pursue their natural needs (food, shelter etc.) and that aspiring to attain luxuries (costly food, status and popularity) will ultimately cause more anxiety. Schopenhauer seems to think, however, that the bad is much harder to endure than Epicurus. Epicurus asserts that we can withstand suffering since it only lasts a short while, but Schopenhauer says we must detach ourselves from the world to be happy. In many ways the two philosophers agree that happiness comes from not going after luxuries and living a life that pursues knowledge. I would argue that Epicurus’ philosophy is much more sustainable than Schopenhauer’s because he does not advocate such an extreme departure from life, but rather a more Stoic approach which I believe is much more sustainable. In detaching yourself from the world you might avoid pain, but you will also miss out on pleasure. Schopenhauer would argue that our desires are an “illusion” since they never produce permanent happiness. I suggest, however, that even if the satisfaction achieved is temporary, it is better to embrace the pleasure that you worked for, and use it to offset any pain in your life. Schopenhauer argues that by not indulging in a desire you are destroying it, but in reality the only action that makes a desire go away is fulfilling it. Therefore by ignoring your desires just means that you are in denial of your suffering.

16. Why does Marx consider most labor "alienated"? Explain why you do, or don't, think that his analysis applies to the type of service work (say, being a teller at a bank) that is more common today.

Marx found labour alienated in non-communist societies (especially capitalist ones) for the following reasons:

A. Workers are alienated from the product of work.

1. The product being created is owned by someone else

2. The harder the worker works the less valuable they are and the more valuable the owner is

B. Workers are alienated from the act of production.

1. Workers do not work to satisfy a need, but rather needs external from the product

2. It has become an instrumental rather than an intrinsic good.

3. Labour is forced – our human life is spent to fulfill animal needs

4. If some luck befalls us we would quit our jobs like the plague

5. We are free in other activities such as eating, procreating etc. – but are like slave at work, which is why increased wages would not help the worker feel significant

C. Workers are alienated from their "species being".

1. We are distinguished from animals because we freely choose our activities -> animals innately carry out activities

2. If we are alienated from the act of production, then we are alienated from our own nature

3. Essence becomes mere means for existence

D. Workers are alienated from other people

1. If you are alienated from humanity, then you are alienated from those around you

2. Human nature is just serving animal instincts. We should look for a job that the activity you are doing is intrinsically good – something that is meaningful for us.

17. Both Marx and Aristotle understood

18. What criticisms does Nietzsche have of traditional ‘Christian’ morality, and what sort of morals would he rather put in its place? Explain why you do, or don’t, find his arguments to be sound.

Nietzsche challenged the basics of traditional morality and of Christianity. He believed in Creativity and realities of the world in which we live, rather than any contemplation of a world beyond. He argued that there were two different sorts of morality, the positive ‘master’ morality and the reactive slave morality. The positive master morality came naturally to the conquering warrior classes in our history. The master morality might properly reflect the strength and independence of one who is able to finally become liberated from all more traditional values, except those that he personally considers to be valid. Nietzsche maintained that all human behaviour is motivated by the will to power. In its positive sense, this will to power is not simply power over others, but the power over oneself that is necessary for creativity. Such power is manifested in the over man’s independence, creativity, and originality. The reactive slave morality is developed among the people who had been conquered. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one’s will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility. However for Nietzsche Christianity is a slave morality, because it is the morality of the slave mindset and the slave wishes to weaken its masters. He believes that, this morality if formed because the slaves are unable to assert themselves in the world of the nobles and so are forced into inaction.

These slaves all have a will to power, but they cannot assert it in a physical sense, so they express it by changing the values of good and bad to good and evil.

Nietzsche believes that “Christian morality” is the “slave morality” because this type of morality values humility, weakness, and obedience. -This type of morality is constructed around God’s needs and the only justification for actions is based on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate defined by Christian religion and once people acted based on those morals they will be rewarded in an afterlife.-Nietzsche has problem with this kind of morality and thinks people who follow this morality are slaves who have no power to justify their actions for their own sake; they simply following a morality that values weakness and obedience without questioning them. - He rather thinks we should replace the “slave morality” by the “master morality” that values pride, ambition and success. Actions in this morality are justified for their own sake and all we do is in this world and by valuing “master morality” we will be rewarded in this world.- “master morality” perceives “slave morality” as bad just because it is basic, and “slave morality perceives “master morality” as evil. -The argument by Nietzsche is sound since there is no empirical evidence that there is an afterlife, so this aspect of slave morality that we will be rewarded in next life is questionable. - Since by valuing honor, pride and ambition we will be successful in this life according to experience that I have it makes more sense to take the “master morality” as the right morality to believe in.-According to Nietzsche the best life is to live dangerously and to gain knowledge and this is possible only through believing the “master morality” that values these things, by gaining knowledge the god’s existence becomes more doubtable and since he is invisible and we have no access to him to clarify any doubt, there is no reason to act based on his needs and justify actions based on what satisfies him, Nietzsche wants us to value actions for their own sake which is more reasonable since we are not sure about god’s existence.

19. Consider the following passage…

20. Consider the following passage from Nietzsche:

Seeking work for the sake of wages – in this, nearly all people in civilized countries are alike; to all of them, work is just a means and not itself the end, which is why they are unrefined in their choice of work, provided it yields an ample reward. Now there are rare individuals who would rather perish than work without taking pleasure in their work: they are choosy, hard to please, and have no use for ample rewards if the work is not itself the reward of rewards. To this rare breed belong artists and contemplative men of all kinds, but also men of leisure who spend their lives hunting, travelling, in love affairs, or on adventures. All of them want work and misery as long as it is joined with pleasure, and the heaviest, hardest work, if need be. Otherwise they are resolutely idle, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonor, and danger to life and limb. (The Gay Science, #42).

Explain what you think that Marx would, and wouldn't approve of in this paragraph. Whose views on Work do you find more plausible, Marx's or Nietzsche's? Explain why.

In The Gay Science, number 42, Friedrich Nietzsche describes the attitude that an individual should take toward their work. The view he states is similar to the one Karl Marx expresses in his work, Alienated Labour, in the sense that he believes work should be considered an intrinsic (valued for its own sake), rewarding, goal in life rather than an instrumental (valued for the sake of something else) monetary means to live one’s life. Yet despite agreeing with Nietzsche’ assessment of the intrinsic value of work, I think Marx would disagree with Nietzsche’s paragraph. Marx applies Aristotle’s function argument when he discusses the relationship of work to man. He believes that the function (the quality unique to an object, and therefore its real purpose) of man is conscious, creative, activity; that is work that we freely create ourselves for its’ own good, and Nietzsche seems to agree with this. However, related to Aristotle’s function argument, Marx also states that what is not the true function of man are the actions shared with other species; actions such as eating, sleeping, and procreation. When those actions become our emphasis in life, rather than meaningful work, we become alienated from our species being. Nietzsche seems to miss the mark on this. He explains that hunting and love affairs as well as idleness are possible options for individuals who take pleasure in their work. Marx may say that these activities have the possibility of alienating the individual from their species being because they are activities humans have in common with other animals. However this may be with the caveat that it depends upon the meaning that the individual applied to these jobs. I agree with Marx that humans seem to need something more to life than the experience of pleasure promoted by Epicurus. I also agree that meaning for life can be found in the conscious activity of work. I don’t feel that Nietzsche’s pursuit of pleasure and adventure can be considered meaningful in most cases.

21. How do Sartre's views relate to Nietzsche's writings on the theme of "God is dead"? Do you find Sartre's resulting views persuasive?

Sartre’s views relate to Nietzsche’s writing on the theme of “God is dead” in the sense that both recognize how the “death of God” would challenge mankind to look at what justifies their moral framework. Both views agree that with the “death of God” would cause an uneasy feeling among people. We cannot think of the world in theological terms. That is to say, we cannot believe the world to have purpose and order given to it by some greater power. Sartre believes we need to look beyond this and understand that man gives life its own purpose and meaning and that we have no pre-determined plans, in the sense that our existence precedes our essence. As Nietzsche’s suggests, we need to escape the shadow of God that is still before us. Life has no order and meaning other than the one given to it by those who live it. We need to look at what justifies our moral framework and according to Sartre, is not God, but man. We are responsible for our own actions and we choose to act based on what we believe is the best

choice. We can no longer make excuses for our actions by saying it is the way we were created since we create ourselves and choose our own values and must take on this full responsibility. I do fine Sartre’s resulting views persuasive because there many times when you see people acting purely based on their faith and what they believe God told them to do but I agree with Sartre that we must be responsible for our own choices and actions. We have no ground to fall back on except out own choices and values and we have the choice to change who we are at any time, we have no set characteristics to follow. In this sense, I would agree that Sartre’s arguments persuaded me to believe in this full responsibility of mankind.

22. What does Sartre mean when he says that, in our case, "existence precedes essence", and what do the consequences he draw from this fact (forlornness, anguish, despair) entail for how we should think about our lives? Explain why you do, or don't, find his views plausible

Sartre argues that there is no God so that means that humans just “showed up” without pre-determined human nature- Since humans are not given pre-determined characteristics, every decision a person makes and action he or she performs- That means that man creates his own nature- Since we cannot make any excuses for our actions (or mistakes) it causes us to feel anguish, forlornness and despair as a result of the pressure we feel- This responsibility means that each choice we make is a message that this is what is important to ourselves and what we think is important for all of humankind- Since we have this power we should act according to what is actually important to us- Although I found Sartre’s arguments interesting, I felt that he did not place enough emphasis on the persuasiveness of other people's actions. Sartre does allow that the situation we are in wiill impact how we act, but I feel as though aspects such as our upbringings and friendships and interaction with others will be more persuasive to our characters than he allows. Although Sartre would argue that it is our choice to be persuaded, I think that there should be allowances in his argument that account for variables such as age, education etc. For example, a young child is arguably easier to change than an adult, so then our upbringings must have an impact.

23. What are the two senses of “Humanism” that Sartre contrasts, and which of the two does he endorse? Explain why you do, or don’t, find Sartre’s version of Humanism to be plausible.

Sartre dismisses the type of Humanism that focuses on the deeds of other individuals- This type of places value on the accomplishments of other people, which he thinks is absurd since we take pride in being a part of humankind because of the achievements of people like Picasso or

Plato, which are things that have nothing to do with us – we never accomplished any of these things- He says there is an existentialist Humanism, however, that values the laws that are set by us, and not determined by God or nature etc. -> humanism in the sense that it is a human-created world- His Humanism is secular- I agree with Sartre’s example of the best type of Humanism since it is much more inclusive than the Humanism based on the accomplishments of others. His Humanism means that we all play a part in creating the world we live in (which he says can be a good or bad thing, depending on our outlook). If we only based the value in our live on the accomplishments of others who have contributed a great deal to the world then I think that we would be living vicariously through them instead of creating our own value.

24. Give a brief account of the egoistic hedonism that Epicurus thinks that we should use to govern our lives and explain what, if any, criticisms Sartre would have of Epicurus's view. Which philosopher do you think has a more accurate conception of the point of human life?

Epicurus’s Egotistic Hedonism is a concept which suggests that the most important aspect of an individual’s life is to augment personal pleasure within his or her life, whilst diminishing pain. - it was important to him from what source people sought pleasure - not indulgence in baser instincts, but rather the philosopher stipulates that in order to achieve the highest amount of pleasure for oneself he or she must live a just life. - The concept of justice is grounded in laws and regulations created for communal harmony. - Epicurus asserted that adhering to these rules is beneficial to individual happiness since breaking the law would create unrest in a person’s mind. - Even if the person is not caught after committing an unjust action, he or she can never be tranquil because - To the Epicurean, living justly also means choosing actions that are wise and promote long-term happiness - Epicurus also ensures us that any discomfort we do experience on our path to true pleasure is temporary and will not detract from our happiness in the end. - Sartre would argue that pleasure is not innate and that we are actually choosing what is important to us since our existence precedes our existence - He would also argue that if we are caught up in only our own ideas of pleasure that we are not concerned with the fact that are choices are an example of how we think everyone should act - Finally, he would say that it is impossible to fully pursue a pleasure filled life because of the pressure on us that comes from the fact that we have no one to blame but ourselves for our actions and mistakes so that creates anguish, despair and forlornness which would disrupt our happiness

25. Explain why Tolstoy sunk into a depression in spite of the outward success he seemed to be having with every aspect of his life. Explain why you do, or don't, find his reaction justified.

- Existential dilemma and pragmatic solution. - He says there are 5 ways to respond to things not having any point: Live in ignorance - Whatever you decide is important to you, then focus on it and remain ignorant that in the end it is not important- Once you’ve hit the crisis point (the realization that life is meaningless) you cannot revert to ignorance, however - Pursuing pleasure - Live a debauched existence, which will push the worries of life away - Not a long term option, however, as eventually you will sober up to the fact that none of this is getting you anywhere- Committing suicide - If life has no point then you might as well kill yourself- Living aimlessly If life has n point then it doesn’t matter whether you live or die so you can just float around and live a pointless aimless life- Faith - Gloom comes from a naturalistic/materialistic view of the world - Faith is a way of getting around this view

26. What is the difference, for James, between the 'healthy minded' temperament, and the 'sick soul', and what are the differences between what is required to make each type of person happy? Explain which of the two world views you find more compelling and why.

-James categories people on two categories, healthy minded and sick soul people.-Healthy minded: perceive evil as changeable and not a negative aspect of life because they have the power to either change themselves or the environment. These people can solve the problems, they ignore the negative features of the world, but those negative features are crucial to understanding our condition-Sick soul: more sensitive to the problems surrounding them, and their perception of the world isn’t inaccurate, but can lead to unhappiness, they also have a deeper understanding of the world. -sick soul can’t make pleasure in any part of his life if he thinks everything will eventually and permanently, perish. The trouble for them is the sense that our life has no meaning- struggle for a while on this earth then fades into oblivion remembrance by no one. -healthy-minded can try to live with this situation, but if it really bothers one, they think that we should make the best of what little we have -this will seems inadequate to the sick soul & will view the healthy-minded response to be "unspeakably blind and shallow-sick soul consider healthy minded approach doomed to failure, because it suggests a course of action which fails to appreciate the depth of the perceived problem. Happiness: -healthy minded "need to be born only once" in order to be happy -they can be happy in the world that they initially find themselves in.-may have to change either themselves or the world itself to achieve their happiness, but the changes are not to the essential nature of either. -for the once born, the world we currently experience is the only one, and happiness can be found there-the sick souls must be twice-born in order to be happy-'reborn' in the sense of finding themselves in a new world that encompasses the old-When one is 'born again' one finds oneself in a world of a radically different sort than that in which the once-born live -for the twice born, real happiness can't be found in the world we experience, but comes only by putting it in a larger context-James sees religions of deliverance as most complete. _ I think the two stories world view is hard to believe, there is no evidence for another world, also as James pointed out sick soul

need to live with this belief in order to achieve happiness, so there is no evidence for the existence of another world, it is only a belief that helps sick soul to find a meaning in this world. _ the one stories world is more convincing because all we do is rewarded in this life, therefore our actions should be guided in a way to make us happy in this world, healthy minded people might not have a deeper conception of the world around them but their belief is more reasonable; what they see is what they got, they do not fool themselves by promising themselves another life and think that any suffering will be rewarded in a bigger world. I think the healthy minded people’s belief of this life is more convincing because they believe they can change either themselves or the environment to experience happiness and the power is in their hands without believing in any bigger world.

27. Why does James think that we are justified in believing that the natural world is only part of a larger reality, and how does this help us take life to be worth living? Explain why you do, or don’t, find his arguments in this area sound.

-James gives a pragmatic argument for why we are justified in believing that the natural world is only part of a larger reality- according to him, the healthy minded only need to be born once because they can be happy regardless of what world they are born into- the sick souls, however, need to be reborn, or born twice in order to achieve happiness-for the once born (healthy minded) the world we currently experience is the only world there is and thus, happiness can be achieved here (in this world) by the addition or subtraction of (presumably) goods and evils respectively --> one storied world-for the twice born however 'real' happiness cannot be achieved in the world that we currently experience; it can only be achieved by putting this world into a larger context i.e.. heaven--> two storied world- James argues that assuming that heaven exists would be a sort of consolation for the sick souled person, that gives him a reason to live; the sick souled person would think that even though he is going to live a life plagued with problems and eventually die, he will be reborn into a world that, presumably, is infinitely better than this one, and thus meaningful.- James purports that we are justified in believing in an afterlife despite metaphysical proof IF it would make our lives seem worth living again- he argues that the assurance of an afterlife is the only thing that makes life 'bearable' for some (sick souls)- like Tolstoy, James thinks that faith gives meaning to life -he recognizes that a lot of people will argue that the belief in an afterlife is unscientific, however, he believes this is a result of agnostic positivism (which he thinks to be an illegitimate stance) for 2 reasons:1. Even in science, faith is at work--> they need to believe something (have a hypothesis) before they can set out to prove it2. it is not possible to have a neutral stance on the subject of the afterlife i.e.. agnostic positivism (or the "you can't believe it to be true/false until you prove it" stance) because refusing to act as if the afterlife exists (or inaction) is an action in itself that amounts to you acting as if it really doesn't exist.-I think this argument is sound because James is not arguing that the natural world is definitively a part of a larger reality, he is merely arguing that believing this would give a sick souled person a reason to think that life is worth living. -the

objections raised by agnostic positivists would not be a problem for James because he does not need for his argument to stand up to scientific inquiry; his argument is based on faith, and faith, by nature is outside the realm of Science.

28. Explain (1) why Camus thinks that "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide", and (2) why you do, or don't, find his arguments sound.

Camus believes that there is one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Someone who judges that life is not worth living will commit suicide, and those who feel they have found some meaning to life may be inclined to die or kill to defend that meaning. He argues that other philosophical problems do not entail such drastic consequences. He believes having a reason for something is more important than the suffering it brings, and people don’t commit suicide because of suffering but often people suffer and recognize the suffering is for a reason. On the other hand, if the suffering is meaningless, then the natural progression is to commit suicide, same argument for life if it is meaningless. Suicide is the recognition that life is meaningless. A person who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action, and same for those who believe in absurdity of existence, it should dictate the person. However, he believes it is not cheating when people don’t act accordingly on the realization that life is absurd, because they don’t necessarily have to do anything, except if there is a strong impulse. He suggests we should not only feel despair but recommends we face this aspect with scorn and by showing contempt value the fact that we are ultimately responsible to no one and nothing but ourselves and thus value the freedom that comes with the lack of meaning.

Camus is trying to make suicide a philosophical problem, but it is almost never a philosophical issue for people who are serious about committing suicide and not just idly toying with the idea as Camus is doing. When do we get to the point that we will realize its all absurd, and what happens to people who never get to that point.

29. What is Hare’s response to the worry that, ultimately, ‘nothing matters’? Explain how you think either one of Sartre, Camus or Nagel might respond to Hare, and explain whose views in this area you find to be closer to the truth.

The meaning of the word matter is misunderstood- if people say that nothing matters at all they fail to recognize what mattering means- something matters when you begin to care about it, or as soon as one starts to care about something, it matters. It follows then, that: 2. few people actually believe that nothing matters because something has to matter to someone, so when

someone says "nothing matters" he must either be saying it doesn't matter to himself or someone else-if he is referring to himself he must certainly be making a false claim because only a person who is psychologically abnormal would say nothing matters because we are naturally inclined to feel concern about things- if he is referring to someone else then he might be using the word "matter" to refer to what really matters for people in general and thus might just be confused about what mattering means because as stated before, mattering is not an action in itself, but rather a function of what we care about-Sartre and Camus could say Hare does not completely understand the question--> this question is existential- the question is about whether life is ultimately absurd and is more than a semantic confusion that Hare supposes it to be.- Hare's argument is conceptual that doesn't answer the deeper question to the emotional response of the absurdity of life. Hare says that anyone that says that life doesn’t matter is confused. He says that it is human nature to care about things, and there are very few people that care about nothing -> so few in fact that it does it really matter. He pays a great amount of attention to the phrase “nothing matters” and the meaning of the language. He says that “mattering” is not an activity -> so therefore someone must do it. Mattering is not an objective feature that is independent of us.

30. What does Nagel think make something ‘absurd’, and why does he think that our lives often are absurd in this way? Do you think that his arguments for this are sound? Explain why, or why not.