Final paper, model

homework, chapter 7

click here for more information,

triff's "dominican" okra stew with plantain dumplings

still life with magazine and italian amaro, photo by RI

moi learned this Dominican recipe in NY, during my years as cook at Apollo95 @ 95 & broadway.

ingredients:
1 to 1-1/2 pound of meat cubes for stew (the pieces should be about an inch diameter), okra, onion, garlic powder, salt, pepper, fresh rosemary, fresh lemon peel, 2 cloves, ground cinnamon (a pinch), coarsely chopped (ad lib), chopped green pepper (ad lib), coarsely chopped onions, 1 little can of cento, or flora peeled tomatoes, dollop of white wine, chicken stock ad. lib. (if you don't make stock like I do, buy a box of good brand of unsalted chicken stock)

marinating the meat:
cut stew all the meat into 1 inch cubes,
salt/pepper it,
garlic powder,
finely chopped rosemary,
lemon peel (thinly chopped),
put the meat in a bowl with all the above ingredients & let it sit for an hour.

preparation: wash and cut the heads of the pods (u do this to let the liquid permeate the pod, mmm) and slice them into 1/2 inch rounds. pour a good dollop of olive oil into a heavy pot or dutch oven, set to medium high. sauté the okra for 7 minutes and get them out the pot into a bowl. add more oil, bring on the heat to medium high again. add the meat, turning them until they are browned on all sides, about 5 minutes. lower heat to medium, add the onions and peppers and sauté until soft and translucent. put back the okra, pour some white wine (nothing old & musty, please) in the mix, add the peeled tomatoes (with your hands, squeeze the tomatoes into the mix along with the tomato juice. now you're set. bring to a steady simmer.

plantains dumplings: cut the plantains in pieces (leave the peel on!). put plantains in a heavy saucepan with enough water to cover. bring to a rolling boil. lower to heat to medium and simmer covered until the plantains are tender and peeking out of the peel, about 10 minutes. when cool enough to handle but still warm, peel, place in a large bowl and mash together with the
triffian secret (thinly chop rosemary, sage, fresh ginger & orange peel plus a dash of cinnamon)
scoop out one tablespoon of mashed plantain and shape into 1-inch balls.

add the dumplings into the stew and allow them to sink a bit into the mix without breaking them!

voilá! 😅

chapter 3 (part 2)

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

An action is right if God commands it. God has infinite wisdom and goodness and knows what's good for humans.

FAITH VS REASON

the basic problem of faith and reason in religion comes from the tension between the spiritual realm and the physical realm. the spiritual realm involves supernatural facts, ecstasy, divine revelation, sacred pronouncements, which are immune from rational critique and evaluation. see that the spiritual realm consistently appears in all cultures. 

Fideism: faith is a belief that doesn't need physical proof.  

St. Paul's definition: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
given this definition, the fideist doesn't need physical evidence for their beliefs.

there are three approaches to the faith/reason problem: 

1. conflict model: faith and reason are incompatible because they claim different things. they should be kept separate.
2. incompatibilist model: faith and reason are distinct. reason aims at empirical truth faith deals with spiritual truths. so, there's no rivalry.
3. compatibilist model: faith and reason have a connection. compatibilism entertains a rational explanation for the existence of god, such as st. anselm's ontological argument, or thomas aquinas's prime mover, etc.

COUNTERS TO RELIGION

Marx's opiate of the people argument. Like opium, religion—in Marx’s eyes—dulls the senses, lulls people into a false sense of security, and undermines their motivation to bring about effective social change to remedy conditions of injustice.

Nietzsche's "slave morality":  According to Nietzsche, Christianity is founded on ressentiment, the desire of the weak to gain control over the strong without themselves developing strengths. It is an example of what Nietzsche called the ‘‘herd morality’’ or ‘‘slave morality.’’ Humility, according to Nietzsche, is a sign of weakness, of lack of power, and of a failure to believe in oneself.

going over your blackboard numbers

here is the breakdown of points for this miniterm,

yesterday, some of you seemed confused -and frustrated- about averages as they show in blackboard. 

this is what i said: don't pay attention to that average!

here's my criteria

exams: 40% of the final grade. 

grades here are letters A,B,C, D (D for "failing," F for "no show"). 

this is a qualitative (not quantitative) average. "A" for example is a ratio between 90-100, not a precise numeral. 

homeworks: 30% of final grade. 

i have set homeworks to show percentage. yet, here's what you need to know. 60% for example is the max. number of homeworks i've set for this miniterm. if you have 60% you have actually the max. number of points in that category, which is 30 points.

attendance: 20 % of final grade. 

if you have 100% attendance that is equivalent to 20 points of the final grade. if you have 80% that is 16 points. 

final paper: that's 10 points. 

so, go back now to your grade center and look at your grades. suppose John Doe has 100% attendance, a B in the exam and 6 homeworks. that means: 20 + B (about 85 points) + 30. 

that means you got 17 points of the final grade. 

we're ready for the total: 20+17+30= 67 points (you still have 30 points up for final exam and final paper). 

you see?  🧐

criteria for our narrative-style final paper

click here for more information,

topics for exam #3 (on chapter 3 and 6)

click here for notes on chapter 3,

click here for notes on chapter 6,

you should bring your own scantrons: #888-P or #882-E, pencil, no pen.

homework, chapter 9

click here for more information,

homework #6, chapter 9

1. what is the difference between "What I ought to do?" and "What kind of person should I be"?
2. temperate people do what's right because they want to do so. The book's author offers the example of his wife's eating habits. Provide an example from your own life?
4. what's eudaimonia?
5. what is Aristotle's idea of VIRTUE?
6. how does virtue and eudamonia combine in the idea of human flourishing? think of the idea of "uniqueness".
7. the textbook brings two ideas of flourishing. discuss them.
8. Mention one vice of defect and one vice of defect you really repudiate. Explain why.  

faith vs. reason

click here for more information,

Cultural relativism, deep values, peripheral values, defensible moral judgments,

Moral realism: morality is real; it's rooted in reality. It's a product of homo sapiens interaction with their environment. Example. Killing an animal for sustenance is not the same as killing it for fun. The difference between the two is proportionality. The first brought us animal farming, and the second is a sadistic practice condemned in ancient traditions. Animals were our early totems. An animal's life is worthy (homos are animals too).

This brings up the idea of moral standards. 

1. Moral vs. non-moral standards: Human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare. 

2. Morality and etiquette (etiquette are codes of polite behavior in different societies). If a person doesn't shower, he's somewhat unpolite, but we don't call him immoral.

Etiquette is quite important and part of a culture's sacred rites. Each culture's etiquette must be respected. The ancient saying goes: "When in Rome, do as Romans do." In Confucian Philosophy, this is known as LI. 

3. Morality and Law (not everything that is legal is moral; for example, slavery was legal but not moral).

SO WE WANT MORALITY TO BE ALWAYS ABOVE LEGALITY.

4. Are there moral standards? YES. Click here for more of my lecture on moral knowledge,

Moral relativism points to two main arguments: Morals are relative to...

History: Moral standards of the past are relative to time/space. For example, Rome was a slavery/bound society. In America during the 18th century, slavery was legal. 

HERE IS THE ARGUMENT: As a moral realist, how do I approach the issue when I know that slavery is wrong in 2023? No contradiction exists in a moral action being right in 2023 and not in 1723. Why not? It's not contradictory. Remember the definition "something cannot be both right and wrong at the same time". But this is not the same time.

Another way at it is this: Slavery would still be wrong in 1723, only they couldn't see it. WHY NOT? They miss the 300 years of development of ideas we enjoy in 2023. That's called Weltanschauung (or worldview). The same argument can be made concerning our future in 2323 (300 years into the future). There will be issues in 2323 that cannot be seen today in 2023. Are we wrong? PROBABLY. That doesn't mean that we are wrong about what we don't know.......... YET. 

5. Cultural relativism: what makes an action right for the members of a culture is that it's approved by the culture. 

Counterarguments to subjective and cultural relativism: 1—Both theories are self-contradictory; an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. 

Difference between fundamental moral values SHARED BY MOST CULTURES (such as killing your own, stealing from the group, adultery, respecting the elders, incest, etc), and ETIQUETTE values (fashion, marrying customs, eating, rituals, etc).

7. Defensible Moral Judgments: Moral judgments = Moral norms + facts (what this means is that we want our moral judgments to be defensible. We want to be able to give reasons for why we believe what we believe. 

8. Are there universal moral principles? YES. And one can point to two important principles. Principle of justice: Treat people fairly. Principle of mercy: Avoid unnecessary suffering.

cause and effect for exam 1

1. A causes B (direct causation). if A is necessary and sufficient for B, meaning A precedes B and A guarantees B. Ex: The pool stick striking the billiard ball causing it to jump. 
2. A & B & C cause D (contributory causes): if A & B & C, are contributory, they are co-occurrent causes. therefore, for the specific effect, a contributory cause is neither necessary nor sufficient for the effect (because it is by definition accompanied by other causes). 
3. correlation is not sufficient for causation.

Ex: If Pluto's barking causes Dick to wake up, 
 
Pluto's barking is a necessary cause of Dick's waking up if the barking precedes the waking, but it doesn't imply the latter will occur, i.e., Dick may not wake up (it's not guaranteed).      

Pluto's barking is a sufficient cause of Dick's waking up if the the barking guarantees the waking, although a another cause may also contribute to Dick's waking (noise coming from the bathroom where Dick's wife was taking a shower). here the presence of the waking doesn't guarantee the prior occurrence of the barking.

Deductive and inductive arguments

click this link for more information,

questionnaire on fallacies

Below, identify the following fallacies (based on this post)

1. Thomas Elder attack on social welfare should not be taken seriously. He is said to have been a degenerate.

2. You will get pregnant if you have sex. Sally had sex once, and now she is pregnant. 

3. Your honor, the defendant must be guilty because no one can prove his innocence. 

4. Rare taste: you either have taste or you don't. 

5. Men are all alike: selfish creatures who spend every weekend glued to a television tube. 

6. I am sure that you will agree that we should all work together to increase the profit of this company. Anyone not agreeing with this policy will be fired immediately.  

7. Everyone believes that Lander University is improving its academic programs yearly; therefore, I conclude that Lander will be a much higher rated school several years from now. 

8. Theodore Teabody, the great historian, says that H. Beard's book is the best logic book in the world. I believe him since the word of such a great man shouldn't be disputed. 

questions about values

1. as per values, which secondary value do you find more important?
2. as per religious and spiritual values, do you find a lack of some of these values today? why do you think?
3- what does it mean to say that correlation doesn't imply causation?

questions about cause and effect?

1. are you surprised that most causes are not direct? could you give an example of your own of a cause you thought it was direct and it is not?
2. what difference do you think it would made (for human responsibility) if some of the causes you took to be "direct" are really "indirect" or "contributory"? 
3. has this discussion of cause-and-effect made you reevaluate "received" ideas of causation in the media, or from yourself? can you offer an example?

Homework #2 (deduction and induction)

Are these deductive or inductive?

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is 30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°. 
2. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 
3. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does.
4. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 
5. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

are these valid or invalid? 

1. If it rained, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must have rained. 
2. If Richard Roe is willing to testify then he's innocent. He's not willing to testify therefore he's not innocent. 
3. If Bogotá is north of New Orleans and New Orleans is north of Mexico City, then Bogota is north of Mexico City. 

are these strong or weak? 

4. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 
5. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.
6. Every day you've ever lived has been a day before tomorrow, so, every day you will ever live will be a day before tomorrow. 

Triff's office hours

M,W,F, 8-9:50am
T,R, 8-11am
T, 3:30-5:30pm (let me know via email you're coming for this slot)
W, 4-5:30pm (let me know via email if you're coming for this slot)

axiology & the importance of values

imagine a world without values? without right, wrong, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, pleasant, nice, hateful, etc?

the branch of philosophy that studies value is axiology (from the Greek axios meaning "worth").

aesthetic values: depending the capacity to elicit pleasure (positive value) or displeasure (negative value) when appreciated or experienced aesthetically. examples: beauty, ugliness, elegance, taste, harmony, token: beauty,

economic values: (we are homo economicus): the measure here is efficiency, affordability & productivity (productivity = output volume/ labor input), then, practicality, token: price,

social/cultural values: the measure is how humans live in groups and which traits are seen as worth having, such as honor, honesty, valor, sympathy, benevolence, gratitude; token: sociability,

political values: these are traits that balance power with justice, such as influence, leadership, competitiveness; token: fairness,

religious values: these are values that are associated with purposefulness, worship and rituals, such as faithfulness, altruism, unity, token: holiness, 

spiritual values: values that are meant to strengthen the inner self, such as freedom, achievement, , simplicity, health, vigor; token: blessedness,

how to argue your point (in philosophy)

1. Discussion is a civilized enterprise between two (or more). One talks one listens.
2. Be always prepared.
3. DO NOT talk on top of your interlocutor. Wait until they finish their point. expect the same, if they interrupt you politely say: "Excuse me, I'm not finished."
4. DO NOT EVER raise your voice (it shows you're emotionally invested making your argument weak).
5. DO NOT hurry, avoid speaking fast. you need to be in command of your thoughts. take your time to answer back; be deliberate and in control.
6. If there's room for agreement, say: "I agree," or "That's a good point." it makes your interlocutor feel comfortable, which is always good for you.  
7. Be generous (even if you're winning). how? give a point if you can, for ex. "You're right about that."
8. Be affable throughout the exchange. smile if there's a chance (there always is). affability shows you're ease which shows open mindedness, a great trait of character.
9. The discussion doesn't have to be won. not in one meeting. you can say "we should continue this at some other time."