From 4/29: Analytic Philosophy

To wrap up the semester, we dabbled a bit in analytic philosophy where the focus is not so much on the history of ideas as it is on the logical congency of arguments. For analytics, thinking and language are inseparable. As Wittgenstein asserts, the limits of our language are the limits of our thought, rendering philosophy as a tool to separate that which can be said from that which cannot. In thinking about Wittgenstein, consider the merits and demerits of analytic philosophy, including whether it's emphasis on a third-person perspective effectively overthrows the Cartesian first-person bias.

For 3/29: Ludwig Wittgenstein

As one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century, Wittgenstein was largely responsible for an entirely new breed of philosophy, generally referred to as analytic. For Wittgenstein, philosophy is principally charged with differentiating between sense and non-sense, i.e., between what can be properly said and what cannot. A premium is thereby placed on logic and linguistic analysis - both being hallmarks of the analytic tradition. In reading about Wittgenstein, consider the strengths and weakness of his approach, including the ways in which he echoes Hume and Kant and yet, at the same time, strikes out on his own.

From 4/22: Existence before Essence

In wrapping up existentialism, we dealt with Sartre's contention that each and every individual is self-made, being the sum total of his or her actions. Along the way, this assertion of invidual existence over a universal essence brings to light isssues of despair, abandonment, freedom, and accountability. So what do we make of the existentialists? What of this call to authenticity? Is existentialism pessimistic and quietistic or is there an underlying cheerfulness and call to action here? And where are our values to come from if existentialism is indeed a form of humanism? Perhaps only you - as an individual - can decide!

For 4/22: Jean-Paul Sartre

For many, Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" offers the clearest and most concise account of existentialism as a philosophical doctrine. Ironically, this clarity may have aided in bringing the existentialist movement to an end as other thinkers began to distance themselves from Sartre's brand of existentialism, to the point where existentialists were no longer to be found. Nevertheless, how does Sartre understand existentialism? Is it as dark as its critics claim or is there, in fact, a latent humanism here? And what might existentialim still say to us today, more than a half century past its prime?

From 4/7: The Nothing

Heidegger's questioning of metaphysics focuses both on the uniqueness of human Dasein as well as the very essence of philosophical thinking. We are the beings who raise the question of Being, making philosophical inquiry an important part of who we are. So what is metaphysics afterall? What is the place of philosophy in an age dominated by modern science and technology? Though answers here don't come easy, we must nevertheless persist in our questioning.

For 4/7: Martin Heidegger

Heidegger's work may be best described as a combination of phenomenology and existentialism. The question of Being, for Heidegger, is the most fundamental of all philosophical questions, yet one which can only be raised from within the individual subject. For Heidegger, human beings are the beings for which Being is an issue. His use of the word "Dasein" is meant to capture the uniqueness of this human experience. In "What is Metaphysics?," the question of Being (or Nothing) is front and center, as Heidegger tries to carve out a place for philosophy particularly within an age dominated by the natural sciences. Whether he succeeds, you decide!

From 4/1: The Existentialists

Though Kierkegaard and Nietzsche certainly differ when it comes to questions about God and Christianity, they both fight against what we might generally call inauthenticity. Both call for us to choose our own lives, to embrace our existence, and to take reponsibility for our own individual choices. We can do no worse than to fall in line with the herd or the mob, the source of untruth for Kierkegaard and nihilism for Nietzsche. So what do we make of this turn towards the individual in Western philosophy? Is existentialism something we are willing to embrace or are there certain aspects of it that we might find troubling?