What Does It All Mean? Thomas Nagel's jargon-free introduction to Philosophy

No, I do not earn a commission for this post but because I use it for my Intro/Phil course I may as well note it.  Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean? is the ideal preview of philosophical questions for a college student who is not a Philosophy major.  It may even be good reading for the interested high school student as well.

You may buy it new but you can get it at a lower price at 

http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/submitRare.cgi?author=Thomas+Nagel&title=What+Does+It+All+Mean%3F&keyword=&isbn=&order=PRICE&ordering=ASC&binding=Any+Binding&min=&max=&exclude=&nopod=on&match=Y&dispCurr=USD&timeout=20&store=ABAA&store=Alibris&store=Abebooks&store=AbebooksAU&store=AbebooksDE&store=AbebooksFR&store=AbebooksUK&store=Amazon&store=AmazonCA&store=AmazonUK&store=AmazonDE&store=AmazonFR&store=Antiqbook&store=Biblio&store=BiblioUK&store=Bibliophile&store=Bibliopoly&store=Booksandcollectibles&store=ILAB&store=Half&store=Powells&store=ZVAB 

Building a Syllogism

A syllogism needs:

A major premise (M) and a minor premise (m).

Two terms and a middle term that is used in both premises.

A conclusion (“Therefore, etc.”) that uses both premises.

You can also use  ∴  for “Therefore.”

Shake together and you have a valid syllogism!

E.g.,

(M) Chadwick is a human being.
(m) Mr. Curly the Guinea Pig is smarter than all human beings.
Therefore, Mr. Curly the Guinea Pig is smarter than Chadwick.

This is a valid syllogism. It presents two premises and a conclusion, three terms (Mr. Curly, human beings, Chadwick), and a middle term (human being/s) which does not show up in the conclusion.

In the conclusion, the verb “to be” asserts a relation though the six uses of "to be" is another topic! 

OF course, the next question is whether it is sound. We may agree that Chadwick is a human being, but we likely would not agree that Mr. Curly is smarter than all human beings.   

And it may be questionable whether Chadwick is a human being.

Some rules:

The middle term must be distributed at least once (that is “all” or “no” should be understood).

From two negative premises no conclusion can be made.

From two particular premises (“some”) no conclusion can be made.

If one premise is negative then the conclusion must be negative.

If one premise is particular then the conclusion must be particular.

From two affirmative premises one cannot make a negative conclusion.

Philosophy of Religion and a Question of Reality

A minister gave a rousing sermon touching upon the point that even if one cannot see the divinity, God is still there watching over his flock.  
When he was done, he took up a special collection for the building remodeling project, and then after a few announcements the service was over.  
The minister shook hands with the congregants as they left, thanking people for donating to the project.
One woman noted that she put a $100-bill in the collection towards it.  
"We saw the envelope with your name and amount listed," said one elder, "but we didn't see anything inside."
"Even though you couldn't see it," she replied, "it's still there." 

What is right and what is wrong with this analogy?

Contra Anselm?

If the human mind can imagine a divinity, then a divinity does exist in reality.

The human mind can imagine a divinity.

Therefore, a divinity does exist in reality.

Although can the human mind imagine a divinity that is said to be "wholly other" and beyond the human experience?

Perhaps,

If the human mind cannot imagine a divinity, then there is no divinity.

The human mind cannot imagine a divinity.

Therefore, there is no divinity.

The Mirror Paradox of Interpretation

It is intriguing that sometimes a person’s interpretation reflects the person more than that which they interpret.  

This is the mirror paradox of interpretation. 

E.g., this statement of interpretation (either subjective or objective genitive, a statement resulting from interpretation or a statement about interpretation) “It is intriguing etc.” probably reflects me as much as it is an observation about how people tend to interpret. 

(Is the phenomenological reduction--putting preconceptions off the field of play--possible?)

A Person (P) has an observation (O)

and it is not the case that there is an observation without an interpretive event (I)

and it is not the case that there is an interpretive event without a Person reflecting the self (r)

Viz., P ends up with--what else?--P.

Nonetheless, if P interprets the information critically then they may understand the world in a new way albeit as P.  A human being perceives the world in a human way.  No surprise, but how much of that skews the information is part of the problem.

"...interprets the information critically" would take a lengthy article to make good on that subject.

Ethics and Objectivity

I think it depends upon what one means as an “objective” standard for humanity  This may mean at least three standards:

·          A heavenly, otherworldly standard
·         The standard of human reason
·         The human standard of survival and nourishing, the individual in a community

If the statement points to a heavenly standard, then it may not matter since human beings have already set guides without them in at least two instances: China and Confucianism for millennia and the US political philosophy for over a couple centuries. 

If it points to the standard of human reason, then the sentence may not apply since people have gotten together to decide what is a right way to live in families and larger clans.  Whether they always did so by reason is another question.

Same with the last sentence, the old mammalian/reptilian brain, our thalamus and hypothalamus, is a seat of our survival instinct.  All mammals and reptiles have this in common with us, I believe birds and fish do as well.  This concerns the "Fight, Flight, Food, Fun" aspects of living.

In any case, this may be the built-in “standard” for human beings.  Although that leads to another question concerning the importance of the cerebrum; do we use it just to rationalize our emotional feelings about ethical topics?