Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

What are Emotions? – Discussion + Active Learning

Discussion

After discussing with my peers regarding this topic, it turns out that we can all agree and relate to the general theory of emotions – emotions are automatic responses to a previous value judgment.  However, we ran into other questions as well, such as if emotions can be taught and learned from others prior to experiencing it ourselves? It is not unusual to experience new emotions as we age, but how do we know what emotions we are experiencing when it is completely new for us. Generally, emotions such as anger and fear are easy to show and “teach” others. However, there are also emotions such as depression  that cannot be simply identified and interpreted. The mystery behind emotions is that we cannot be sure that human beings as a whole have experienced every possible emotion that can occur within us. Referring to the theory of emotions mentioned from the start, we can also conclude that new emotions can be developed as our value judgement changes. And our value judgement does change or evolve over time.

Phils Day Off

For my phils day off, I decided to look for some ways to explore my own emotions and maybe even learn to control them. Specific details and tips can be found in this link:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-some-headspace/201304/exploring-emotions

 

By

Epistemology – Final

Reading

Upon searching on the internet for epistemology and knowledge, I happen to encounter The Gettier Problem which caught my attention. For some time, the justified true belief (JTB) account was widely agreed to capture the nature of knowledge. However, in 1963, Edmund Gettier published a short but widely influential article which has shaped epistemology quite differently. Gettier provided two examples in which someone had a true and justified belief, but in which we seem to want to deny that the individual has knowledge because luck still seems to play a role in his belief having turned out to be true.

Consider an example. Suppose that the clock on campus (which keeps accurate time and is well maintained) stopped working at 11:56pm last night, and has yet to be repaired. On my way to my noon class, exactly twelve hours later, I glance at the clock and form the belief that the time is 11:56. My belief is true, of course, since the time is indeed 11:56. And my belief is justified, as I have no reason to doubt that the clock is working, and I cannot be blamed for basing beliefs about the time on what the clock says. Nonetheless, it seems evident that I do not know that the time is 11:56. After all, if I had walked past the clock a bit earlier or a bit later, I would have ended up with a false belief rather than a true one.

This example and others like it seem to show that it is possible for justified true belief to fail to represent knowledge. Initially, the justification condition was meant to ensure that knowledge was based on solid evidence rather than on luck or misinformation, but Gettier-type examples seem to show that justified true belief can still involve luck and thus fall short of knowledge. To solve this problem, we must either show that all instances of justified true belief do indeed constitute knowledge, or alternatively reevaluate our analysis of knowledge.

 


Discussion

My discussion with others is mainly upon whether our knowledge, to some extent, is based on “luck”. The Gettier Problem somewhat proves that without luck, the knowledge that we think is true and justified can actually be wrong. After hearing the theory behind The Gettier Problem, all of us agree that justified true knowledge does rely on luck to a certain extent. Which brought us further to questions like:

Are the JTF we know right now ACTUALLY true, or just true because of luck?

Can knowledge justified by luck still be Knowledge?

Is “luck” one of the limitations of knowledge?

There are many JTF that we can prove to be true at any moment, such as 2 + 2 =4. However, what if the person who discovered 2+2=4 used clay to prove the theory? His answer would no longer be 4, instead, it should be 1. These kinds of “what ifs…” may be a bit far-fetched, but consider the fact that these JTFs are so widely used, it may seem a bit shaky when the equation 2+2=4 can actually be published and taught as 2+2=1.

My conclusion after the discussions is that knowledge does have a lot of limitations, and “luck” happens to be one of them. It may sound absurd because “knowledge” and “luck” doesn’t mix well together since luck doesn’t happen as often while knowledge should be applicable at all times to be considered as knowledge.


Active Learning

What is my goal?

To explore all sorts of justified true knowledge and evaluate whether they are justified at all times, or justified by luck.

What did I achieve & learn?

After investigating some of the most obvious JTF I can find around myself, I realize that many of the truth I see can be true just by luck. For example, it is debatable that many of the equations we are using in Calculus 12 are proven true because of partially luck. Also, it is unreasonable to assume that the clock in my house is working properly just because I see 9:16am and 9:16pm correctly out of the whole day. There are many knowledge that I know which can be true at certain moments because of “luck”, and false when it is not at the exact moment or condition.

What do you still want to know?

I would like to know if there is a way to prove that knowledge is true for eternity, not only for a period of time but forever.

How is this Phils Day Off different from the last one?

I feel like this Phils Day Off is more close to me than the last one because I try to associate my thinking and mind into the topic. Last time I simply search up on the internet for methods to discover and calm my emotions. This time, I try to discover different kinds of JTF around me and try to prove to myself that whether this knowledge can be true for all cases, or it might be true because of “luck”.


Final Thoughts

The idea of The Gettier Problem truely opens up a lot of questions for me. The reading part was surprisingly interesting than Metaphysics because I was able to ask myself several questions along the way. Discussion with others didn’t seem to have much debate or exchange in opinions, but instead most of the people I talked to were able to understand and agree with the idea that knowledge, to a certain extent, relys on luck. I was looking forward to people who might have a different opinion that can contradict the Gettier Problem, but no one really poses a solid arguement. Phils Day Off was probably the most interesting one i have experienced through out the unit. I was able to relate my surroundings with my topic, and really get to think and evaluate the obvoius knowledge I think are JTF. Over all, I feel like this unit gave me a really different view towards knowledge as a whole. I am starting to doubt almost everything I am taught in Calculus and physics thanks to this unit.

 

 

 

By

Epistemology – Phils Day Off

What is my goal?

To explore all sorts of justified true knowledge and evaluate whether they are justified at all times, or justified by luck.

What did I achieve & learn?

After investigating some of the most obvious JTF I can find around myself, I realize that many of the truth I see can be true just by luck. For example, it is debatable that many of the equations we are using in Calculus 12 are proven true because of partially luck. Also, it is unreasonable to assume that the clock in my house is working properly just because I see 9:16am and 9:16pm correctly out of the whole day. There are many knowledge that I know which can be true at certain moments because of “luck”, and false when it is not at the exact moment or condition.

What do you still want to know?

I would like to know if there is a way to prove that knowledge is true for eternity, not only for a period of time but forever.

How is this Phils Day Off different from the last one?

I feel like this Phils Day Off is more close to me than the last one because I try to associate my thinking and mind into the topic. Last time I simply search up on the internet for methods to discover and calm my emotions. This time, I try to discover different kinds of JTF around me and try to prove to myself that whether this knowledge can be true for all cases, or it might be true because of “luck”.

 

By

Epistemology – Discussion

My discussion with others is mainly upon whether our knowledge, to some extent, is based on “luck”. The Gettier Problem somewhat proves that without luck, the knowledge that we think is true and justified can actually be wrong. After hearing the theory behind The Gettier Problem, all of us agree that justified true knowledge does rely on luck to a certain extent. Which brought us further to questions like:

Are the JTF we know right now ACTUALLY true, or just true because of luck?

Can knowledge justified by luck still be Knowledge?

Is “luck” one of the limitations of knowledge?

There are many JTF that we can prove to be true at any moment, such as 2 + 2 =4. However, what if the person who discovered 2+2=4 used clay to prove the theory? His answer would no longer be 4, instead, it should be 1. These kinds of “what ifs…” may be a bit far-fetched, but consider the fact that these JTFs are so widely used, it may seem a bit shaky when the equation 2+2=4 can actually be published and taught as 2+2=1.

My conclusion after the discussions is that knowledge does have a lot of limitations, and “luck” happens to be one of them. It may sound absurd because “knowledge” and “luck” doesn’t mix well together since luck doesn’t happen as often while knowledge should be applicable at all times to be considered as knowledge.

 

By

Epistemology – Reading

Initial Question: Is Justified True Belief (JTF) Always Knowledge?

Upon searching on the internet for epistemology and knowledge, I happen to encounter The Gettier Problem which caught my attention. For some time, the justified true belief (JTB) account was widely agreed to capture the nature of knowledge. However, in 1963, Edmund Gettier published a short but widely influential article which has shaped epistemology quite differently. Gettier provided two examples in which someone had a true and justified belief, but in which we seem to want to deny that the individual has knowledge because luck still seems to play a role in his belief having turned out to be true.

Consider an example. Suppose that the clock on campus (which keeps accurate time and is well maintained) stopped working at 11:56pm last night, and has yet to be repaired. On my way to my noon class, exactly twelve hours later, I glance at the clock and form the belief that the time is 11:56. My belief is true, of course, since the time is indeed 11:56. And my belief is justified, as I have no reason to doubt that the clock is working, and I cannot be blamed for basing beliefs about the time on what the clock says. Nonetheless, it seems evident that I do not know that the time is 11:56. After all, if I had walked past the clock a bit earlier or a bit later, I would have ended up with a false belief rather than a true one.

This example and others like it seem to show that it is possible for justified true belief to fail to represent knowledge. Initially, the justification condition was meant to ensure that knowledge was based on solid evidence rather than on luck or misinformation, but Gettier-type examples seem to show that justified true belief can still involve luck and thus fall short of knowledge. To solve this problem, we must either show that all instances of justified true belief do indeed constitute knowledge, or alternatively reevaluate our analysis of knowledge.

 

By

What are Emotions? – Reading Summary

We experience countless emotions throughout a day, and yet it is rather challenging to describe those emotions or even prove its existence. This sparks my interest to explore more about emotions in the history of philosophy, and how philosophers from different time interpret emotion as. The theory that I found myself to agree with is that emotions are automatic responses to previous value judgment.  

Emotions are caused by one’s thoughts. They are both triggered by one’s thoughts and programmed by one’s thoughts. The triggering is straightforward to show. Hearing the words “rape”, “murder”, “death”, or “genocide”, etc., one experiences an emotion. Hearing the same words in an unknown language, the words would be meaningless. One wouldn’t be able to make the mental connection between the sounds and the meaning of the words. The emotions that one normally feels with respect to these words would not be present. Only understanding can trigger an emotion.

I find this theory very convincing because almost every emotion of mine is triggered by my understanding and interpretation of a situation. For example, if a gunman suddenly walks into the room one day, I would immediately experience the emotion of fear. However, that is based on the fact that I know the man is carrying a lethal weapon…but what if I didn’t know what a gun is? This proves that our emotions are largely triggered based on our understanding. Also, when one sees the gunman, one doesn’t need to follow the full chain of thought to the judgment that causes the emotion. The emotion occurs almost immediately after the gunman is seen. This is because of an automatized judgment: the judgment that life is worth living and death is to be feared. The gunman triggers this emotion when one realized that one’s life is threatened. The evaluation of whether life is good isn’t made at that time. It was made before.

 

By

FIFA Corruption Scandal – Sam Wei

In this video, John Oliver addresses the dark side of the governing body of association football, FIFA.

Premises

  1. In 2014 FIFA World Cup, Brazil was chosen as the host of this massive soccer event. Back in 2003, Brazil banned alcohol in all stadiums due to the enormous amount of deaths after games. This seems like a good idea, life-saving even. However, since Budweiser is one of FIFA’s biggest sponsor, FIFA force and demand Brazil to change their law for them. FIFA Secretary General Jarome Valcke stated “I’m sorry to say, and maybe I look a bit arrogant, but that’s something we will not negotiate. I mean, there will be and there must be as part of the law, the fact that we have the right to sell beer.”
  2. The host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup has already been decided, and it’s Qatar. Many people question FIFA’s decision and suspect that there must be some sort of bribery that leads to this result. There are several reasons why Qatar is not a good place to hold the world cup. One of them being that the temperature in Qatar can sometimes reach to 50 Celcius, which is not a good condition for soccer players or fans. Also, there are data showing that more than one worker per day died during the construction of the world cup stadiums.
  3. FIFA had more than one billion dollars in the bank, even though they call themselves a non-profit organization. Sepp Blatter, former head of FIFA, address that money as being only “reserves”.

Conclusion

  1. FIFA is not a non-profit organization, instead, it is extremely corrupted and cares more about money than football.

The premises are all proven to be true and valid individually. The whole argument is valid and factually correct.

 
css.php