Early morning philosophy

Discovering that waking at 6 for an hour or so of fireside philosophy is really helping with getting the essays done. So is cogitating a tricky article for an hour or two, then coming back to it afresh. Let’s hope the marks bear out my intuitions about better writing!

Life with a Sony Reader

 

Sony Reader image

 

 

 

I’ve had my Sony Reader for about 5 months now, so I thought I’d post about how I’ve found it. I wouldn’t say it has made books obsolete for me, but it comes pretty close- about 90% of my reading is now on the Reader rather than books.

The screen is really something; a real boon when reading long PDF articles for my philosophy course. I’ve also tracked down some shareware, Calibre, which is great for importing and converting various free ebooks, and turning news RSS into a handy ‘magazine’ format.

I would say that the relatively ‘open’ formats supported by the Reader really give it the edge compared to the likes of the Kindle. And, since long battery life is a key feature for extended reading, I think the lack of WiFi is probably no bad thing.

I’m still very underwhelmed by the book-purchasing options (via Waterstones et al). It’s quite a fiddly process- you have to install Adobe Digital Editions on a PC, authorise the Reader there, then install Adobe Digital Editions on a Mac, then buy books, then locate them on the Finder, then drag and drop them into the Reader. Considerably more complicated than getting free books or RSS feeds- have Sony learnt nothing from Amazon/itunes??

Induction reading

Sending this link to self (can’t access webmail in BL)

Knowing and Gettier’s gotcha

In a philosophy class last night, I was reminded of why I enjoy philosophy so much. In 1963, an American philosopher called Edmund Gettier wrote a three-page paper that upset thousands of years worth of consensus on the definition of knowledge.

I was amazed at the thought of such a short piece of thought having such a big impact, but also the simplicity of the form of his ‘counter-examples’. So simple, in fact, that I can give one in this blog post!

The historic definition of knowledge had three parts. To say you have ‘knowledge’ of something, you need:

• Truth (the thing you claim to know must be true)
• Justification (you must have reasonable grounds for your claim to knowledge)
• Belief (you must genuinely believe something to say you ‘know’ it)

This would seem a fairly comprehensive definition of knowledge, but Gettier found a gaping hole in it. Take the following example:

You are walking through London, at two minutes to noon. You’re not wearing a watch, and so look at Big Ben to check the time. It shows the time as 11.58. So, you have justification for believing something which is also true. But is your claim to know the time watertight?

Imagine the following condition applies to the scenario:

Unknown to you (and those around you), Big Ben stopped working at 11.58pm the night before. In this case, your ‘knowledge’ about the time is mere coincidence. Does it still seem right to claim that you ‘know’ the correct time?

(This ‘counter-example’ is not one that Gettier used in his paper, but it has exactly the same form. You can probably think of other ‘counter-examples’ pretty easily)

Philosophers have responded to Gettier in a number of ways. One approach is to add an extra condition to the definition of knowledge- that the match between the way the world is and your knowledge is non-accidental. Other philosophers have argued for a narrower definition of justification, which would exclude Gettier’s counter-examples. However, there doesn’t seem to be a neat answer to Gettier’s challenge yet (see this Princeton lecture).

Switching courses?

I’m considering switching courses at Birkbeck, from combined Politics, Philosophy and History to straight Philosophy.

One major reason is that I find Philosophy a lot easier (and did better in the exam). Also, I like the fact that Philosophy tends to consist of shorter readings, where you really get your teeth into the writer’s argument.

Enjoying exams…

When I told someone how I felt about a recent exam (I enjoyed it), they said I was ‘sick’. Am I really that odd? Because I enjoy my courses a lot, I’ve been relishing the chance to put my knowledge into practice and finally sit the exams. Perhaps it’s just the novelty of first year? Maybe I’ll have a tough exam next Tuesday, and eat my words.

In the library

A slightly retrospective post, this. I revised for my first exam in the British Library. In theory, as an undergrad with access to the Birkbeck library, I shouldn’t really be in the British Library. However, they seem flexible on this, and the BL is much better than Birkbeck. For example, they have every book published in the UK, which beats competing with all my classmates for a few key texts. The books are closed access, though, so you have to order them in advance.

The BL also has an incredibly studious atmosphere- no pens or bags in the reading room, spacious and comfortable desks, each with their own little lamp. When I go there, I shift easily into ‘study mode’. I find it much harder to do that at Birkbeck– my distractible nature means I’m always breaking my concentration.

Essay plan 2 / Mill

Does Mill’s liberty principle provide a satisfactory criterion by which to judge whether interference in another person’s actions is justifiable?

Introduction

Be clear- I agree!

Mill’s principle is not absolute

The appeal to liberty as default condition is strongly intuitive

The ‘harm’ qualification is useful and clear

But!

Problems posed by utilitarianism (not compatible with ‘rights’)
How to (and who) discerns ‘good’

Examples of where utilitarianism is useful (and where it isn’t)

Conclusion

Essay plan 1 / Rousseau

Why according to Rousseau are dissentient individuals obliged to obey the general will under the conditions of the Social Contract?

Introduction

What is the general will?

Background- what is Rousseau trying to do?

How is it discerned (problems with this process?)

What is the social contract?

Contrast with other kinds of ‘contract’

NB not the same as ‘accepting’ benign authority

Why R. states that all must obey general will

Examples (murder)

Consequences of not obeying

Problems this leads to

Conclusion

Does one faith exclude all others?

In a comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, AC Grayling* says that the reason he has a problem with faith is because:

“…faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the
history of their relationship is one of bloodshed…”

I think Grayling’s blanket condemnation is wide of the mark. Quakers (myself included) have certainly never advocated bloodshed towards anyone, and indeed are highly unlikely to accuse other faiths of ‘blaspheming’. In fact, Advices & Queries 6 and 7 are pretty clear on the benefits of learning from other faiths. (See here for background to Quaker Advices & Queries).

The problem is that the ‘faith’ which makes it into the media these days is ‘faith’ which impels people towards extreme views, and, even worse, extreme actions. Faith which doesn’t intrude on others probably falls into the category of ‘mostly harmless’ and so of no interest to the public. I’d rather be harmless than sensational though.

*Interestingly, AC Grayling is a Professor at Birkbeck. His philosophy lectures are really good.