Pаper: Rаndоlph.pdf | Yоu dоwnloаd and/or print this for reference as you complete part 2 of the exam. PSU Library Access: Click on the Library Resources link in the left-hand navigation bar to access the PSU libraries and assist in completing this exam. You may download PDFs from the library and access/reference them throughout this exam. In addition, here is a quick to Penn State University Libraries search.
Ancient/Mоdern: Pаscаl, Epicureаnism, Utilitarianism Blaise Pascal (1622-1662) is easily оne оf the smartest people in all of human history. I mean it. He singlehandedly invented probability theory in math (after watching a game of dice), and made a ton of other mathematical advances, was also an inventor, a philosopher, and a theologian. He's so smart they named a computer programming language after him! Pretty impressive!! Pascal was strongly influenced by Montaigne's skepticism (who we read last week), but his work in math and philosophy led him to think there were many things that we could know through the use of reason and science. In short, he’s more committed to science than Montaigne. Pascal also thought that reason and faith were not opposed (as many today do) but rather complementary. Pascal thought that science and reason could be used to discover the physical laws of nature and the moral laws of men, and he even viewed the practice of science to be helpful to religion as part of uncovering part of God’s plan. If God is a kind of clockmaker, then discovering how the clock works through science comes to have a kind of divine meaning as well. As Blaise Pascal argued, “Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them,” (Pascal, 172-273) and “Each is master in its house but nowhere else,” (Pascal, 58-322). His friend and collaborator Pierre Nicole wrote, “reason and faith are in perfect agreement, like streams from the same source, and that we can scarcely distance ourselves from one without removing ourselves from the other.” (Arnauld and Nicole, 1996, p. ii). Pascal’s idea is simple, and it is quite similar to the is-ought distinction we have used in this course. Is questions are for science to determine, whereas religious questions are for faith. He even argued that when Biblical verses contrary to the certain knowledge of science should be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally, although he did leave room for the possibility of miracles. Interestingly, proving the existence of God is not something science can determine. Pascal is quite clear that science and philosophy cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Montaigne and Pascal together serve as our transition from ancient to modern political theory. Montaigne’s skepticism is too doubtful of the possibility for science to help determine what is actually happening in the world, but Pascal successfully carves out both a stronger defense of science and of religion than Montaigne. That’s impressive! Where Montaigne had strong roots in ancient skepticism, partially shared by Pascal, when we look at the Wager, we see that his is also drawing from Epicureanism. Epicurus was an important ancient philosopher who focused his philosophy on the search for pleasure. In some sense, to Epicurus, all actions are self-interested or ego-centric and, with this (supposedly) empirical argument in hand, he constructs his philosophical system on the search for pleasure and avoiding pain. While the base of his theory sits on this hedonistic foundation, Epicurius was clear that getting as much as possible, as fast as possible, is not the true path to happiness. Rather, we must calculate our long-term versus our short-term interests and think about what will lead to the greatest long-term happiness. To Epicurius what that meant was first and foremost reducing the number of desires an individual has, so as to be able to satisfy them more easily and to be less subject to the emotional turbulence of seeking pleasure after pleasure. Secondly, Epicureanism focuses strongly on friendship and community. The importance of social bonds and relationships for individual happiness is one of the elements of Epicureanism that finds a lot of empirical support in the modern social science literature on happiness. Lastly, Epicurus advises avoiding emotions such as fear or anxiety that are linked to unhappiness. Epicureanism advisees certain strategies to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, some of which might seem counter-intuitive to you: First, rather than just pursue more and more pleasure, if you can use self-discipline to reduce the number of desires you have, you will have fewer needs to satisfy. He advocated eating and living simply, for example. True happiness is not moving without end from pleasure to pleasure, but in reducing the amount of pleasure you need, with the result that you find more satisfaction with less. Second, by following your long-term interests instead of your short-term ones, you will behave quite ethically. You will be kind, generous, helpful, and avoid harming others to their person or possessions as well. In the long-term, nice guys actually win but not by having more necessarily, just by being happier (according to him). Third, some desires he described as unworthy of pursuit: power, fame, and social esteem just for the sake of it. Because these relate to how we are perceived by others in society, they are based on false needs to feel strong, wealthy, or famous. These “social needs” are similar to the Montaigne’s problem with the European vices we saw last week. They make you dependent upon others to think of you as smart, beautiful, strong, etc. Think Instagram influencer-Kardashian types here (although many politicians, entertainers, and more are in this box as well). Fourth, extreme wealth is also unlikely to lead to true happiness, because with more money comes more ability to satisfy desires, and hence greater need to satisfy. One Porsche isn't enough, you need a garage of cars, Jay Leno style. Not only do your desires increase, but the amount of pleasure you get from each additional dollar spent decreases, in what economists today call the law of diminishing returns. Basically, the more you have of something, the less of a happiness bump you get from each additional unit. The first time you go to the Ritz Carlton it blows your mind, if you vacation at the Ritz every year then it becomes normalized and you no longer get the same happiness increase. As the law says, diminishing returns. Ultimately, true happiness is the feeling of satisfaction and tranquility that one feels after a healthy meal shared with good friends. You will see a lot of Epicureanism when you read Pascal’s Wager and his other writings are marked by these themes as well. At many points, for example, he argues that belief in God will help you reduce your “passions” (an old-fashioned word for desires). In comparison to Stoicism and skepticism, Epicureanism has some pretty strong advantages. In many ways, I think it is likely that most of us would be pretty happy by following the formulas prescribed. On the other hand, it has almost a cultish kind of feel in the withdraw from the larger social world and retreat into a small private circle of friends. Here the Stoics have a pretty strong criticism of the Epicurean: can we be truly happy by leaving society at large to itself, and not doing acts of service and duty to others? We will call this the duty objection, and if the Stoics are right then there is a greater sense of satisfaction that comes from doing the right thing and dedicating yourself to others that the Epicureans cannot understand. A second, and very important objection, relates to the psychology of pleasure and pain. It’s very clear that our psychological make-up is not this simple, and we have a bundle of emotions and needs that aren’t easily understood as pleasure and pain. We will call this the psychodynamic criticism because psychodynamic is just a word that mean “how does the mind work”, and Epicureanism fails strongly on this front. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, for example, is just one element of modern psychology that shows the great variety of human needs. To take this criticism further, are there more value to the types of desires that are not considered ‘worthy’ pursuits such as social distinction than the Epicureans make out? Even if many celebrities and sports stars ultimately find fame to be insufficient for complete happiness, isn’t there something praiseworthy about individuals who are driven to excel in these ways? What would the world be without Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Vincent van Gogh, or the Beatles?
Essаy – Crаft аn essay with a defensible thesis that directly addresses the prоmpt. Within the periоd 1600-1763, the British Nоrth American colonies became increasingly more diversified WHILE becoming increasingly more unified under a common identity. Using evidence, explain the forces that drove the development of a unified colonial identity despite differences among the colonies. Essay Outline I. THESIS (Should make a defensible claim that directly addresses the question and highlights specific themes/arguments.) II. Themes/Arguments (Evidence should validate your themes/arguments in answering your thesis) - Theme/Argument A - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence - etc. - Theme/Argument B - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence - etc. - Theme/Argument C - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence - Supporting evidence