Class Notes (834,991)
Canada (508,850)
Philosophy (612)
PHL 201 (50)

PHL 201 week 9.docx

3 Pages
Unlock Document

PHL 201
James Cunningham

PHL 201 week 9 Monday Questions: difference between Pascale and Kierkegaard’s information on subjectivity and passions Should I discuss P on subjectivism then K on both passion and subjectivism, followed by P on passion? K on individualism and P on communitarianism should be discussed within the subjectivism parts or saved along with the purpose of the church for the conclusion Response I’d do the same with Pascal, prove that for P, we are subjective, because we believe in things for which there is no objective evidence, and are convinced by arguments that are not based on evidence, like the wager: why? Because we are hopers and fearers (believe because of emotional reasons). Leave mention of the passions for the second section as the type of desire on which we act, for K. Communitarianism vs. individualism should be saved for the conclusion. Pascal on desire, why desire, not objectivity K on desire, why desire, not objectivity Both think we are motivated by passions, P- bad thing, K – good thing but cannot be changed First part – what of belief If you’re objective, how long can you wait to believe – forever Subjective – you cant wait NEW PROBLEM : Are we (as humans) free? 1700’s – J’Holbach 1900’s – J.-P. Sartre New terms – determinism – even if we make choices, these choices are determined for us - free-will – is a type of determinism o soft-case – D. Hume – we are affected by outside things  we are compelled when we do things that are out of character o Character?  choices are caused, but free  Can be changed  How?  changing habits, ways  First you change the action to change the belief  Example – having a parent forcing a kid into piano, it becomes a habit after a year (feels weird when you don’t do it anymore) – comfort o Actions that come from character – can be changed o Actions that are not in character – actions as a result of restraint  Example – if in a cage, cannot do something that you do usually o All action is o Soft determinism – no free will o Hard case  J’Holbach – for him, free will , the will, and nothing else is the base of our actions, which doesn’t exist  Sartre – agrees with basis of free will , but says it does exist o Free will is the will being the sole cause of our actions o Agree : The will’s choices are not determined by external causes o Disagree : J’Holbach – ya, but it doesn’t exist ; Sartre – ya, but it does exist - We are creatures of nature and nature controls us – because we are organisms (natural equivalent of the mechanism; works as of impact) o Watch is a mechanism o According to science, if you can’t observe it, it’s not there o Free will cannot exist, o We are entirely determined by will, which mean will itself is deter
More Less

Related notes for PHL 201

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.