The meaning of life ast exam questions with answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The meaning of life ast exam questions with answers PDF

Description

Philosophy 1200A: The Meaning of Life Study Guide for the Final Exam Fall Term, 2019 Instructions The final examination for Philosophy 1200A has been scheduled for Dec. 18, at 2 pm in AH, rows 21-33. On the exam, you will be asked to answer 6 questions, all of which will be taken from the list of questions below. Each of your answers should be approximately ¾ to 1 page (about 200 words) in length, though some of your answers may be a little longer, others a little shorter, depending on the question you are answering. There will be some choice, but not much. The questions will be selected from the list below. The exam is closed-book and counts for 40% of your final grade.

List of Questions  ow convincing is A.J. Ayer’s deconstructionist thesis that there is no serious problem 1)H about the meaning of life that needs to be resolved or overcome? Defend your assessment of Ayer’s view by argument. Ayer would argue that the question is too ambiguous. Ayer would say there’s no reason to be sad if life has no meaning because meaning itself does not make any sense. A nihilist would say a lack of meaning in life is bad, but Ayer argues that we shouldnt waste our time finding and being troubled over the lack of meaning of life. There can be no one meaning of life, but doing small scale purposeful acts would /serve the purpose of making meaning in your life. An argument aga.. inst this is that ayer does not take individualism into account, so even if your individual definition of a meaningful life makes sense, he argues that all definitions of meaning are senseless.

Ayer believes that we shouldn’t waste our time trying to find the meaning of life because it doesn’t exist and that we shouldn’t be troubled by the fact that it doesn’t exist. His argument is convincing because it’s impossible to find a meaning of life that satisfies everyone. Instead of trying to find one concrete meaning for life, which we may never

find, I think it would make more sense to focus on doing things for an individual sense of purpose and happiness rather than trying to satisfy the meaning of life. Maybe we’ll never find the meaning of life, but it could be enough to simply do things for an individual sense of meaning and for our own happiness.

A.J. Ayer’s deconstructionist approach to the problem or issue of the meaning of life is to say that it’s meaningless. However, for Ayer, life itself is not meaningless, it is the phrase ‘meaning of life’ that is meaningless. The term ‘meaning of life’ is very vague and ambiguous. It is pointless to answer, especially since there is not one meaning for life that could make everyone feel satisfied. Ayer doesn’t exactly confront the issue, it is more like he is saying to leave it, since it does not matter. In this phrase, Ayer thinks that because there is no sense in it, there is nothing to be concerned about since we never knew meaning in the first place. It’s like the saying ‘you can’t miss what you never had.’ There is no meaning in the phrase ‘meaning of life’ almost like how there is no meaning in someone telling you your life has no ‘afndsjk’ /I made that up/ You could not be upset if someone told you that because that phrase has no meaning. What that person tells you is meaningless, doesn’t make sense and lacks value, which is why you shouldn’t be upset or unsatisfied. This is Ayer’s point when he explains that the phrase ‘meaning of life’ makes no sense as ‘meaning of afndsjk’ has no sense or any meaning behind it. Also note, Nihilism believes that life itself has no meaning while Ayer believes the saying ‘meaning of life’ has no meaning// Deconstructionist approach to the problem of issue of the meaning of life is to say that its meaningless Except - for Ayer life itself is not meaningless – just the phrase “meaning of life” that is meaningless (very ambiguous and vague, pointless to answer esp bc there is not one meaning for life that could make everyone satisfied) Ayer does not really confront the issue, just suggests that we leave it alone since it does not really matter Because there is no sense in it, there is nothing to be concerned about since we never knew the meaning in the first place, thus we are not losing anything.

I believe Ayer has a pretty fair assessment of the meaning of life and makes good points. The meaning of life is not anything anyone is going to find out anytime soon and could be anything, thus it should be subjective and open for interpretation as there is no “right” answer to the question “what is the meaning of life” that we can find in this lifetime.

2) What are the strongest arguments or considerations that can be offered in support of the hedonist view that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good or valuable? (Just describe them, don’t evaluate them.) Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing. There is no meaning of life but existence is desirable. This entails that the goal of the rational person is to maximise long term pleasure and minimize pain. Normative hedonism: Pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing Psychological hedonism: pleasure is the only thing people aim for as an end in itself Hedonist is the belief that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Hedonist say that human life has no meaning or purpose. What makes life valuable is the fact that we have the opportunity to experience pleasure. For the hedonist thats what makes life worth living. The goal is to maximize long term pleasure and minimize long term pain. The two types of Hedonist are Normative hedonism and Psychological hedonism. Normative hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the only intrinsically good or valuable thing. While, Psychological hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the only thing people aim for as an end in itself. Are we just supposed to state what hedonism is and the types or actually list supporting arguments for hedonism?? Cus neither of these r providing arguments (no offence, just confused) - You’re supposed to provide supporting arguments for hedonism: - Okay thanks that’s what i thought i was just confused and worried I was doing it wrong lmao - 1) Very simple, straightforward account of the value of life. - 2) Introspection – the goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are self-evident - 3) People aim only for pleasure: pleasure is the only thing people actually do aim for, or want, even if conventional morality pretends that other things are also good. - 4) The idea that a state of affairs in the world can be good or bad, have value or disvalue, only in so far as it impinges on the experience of some sentient being. (Is a beautiful painting that no one ever sees of any value or worth?)

1. Its account of the meaning of life is very simple and straightforward thus making it easy to understand and follow 2. Pleasure really is the only thing people want and actually aim for as an end result – regardless of conventional morality a. Pleasure is the only intrinsically valuable thing people aim for as an end in itself and the only thing people place intrinsic value on 3. Self-evident that pleasure and experiencing pleasure is good and pain is bad a. Able to see this directly from our own experiences b. Supports hedonism bc of everyone is able to see for themselves that this is true then it removes a lot of doubts

3) Describe as clearly as you can Robert Nozick’s argument (in Reading 30), involving the experience machine thought experiment, against hedonism. Nozicks trying to show that humans are definitely not hedonist- we value some things other than pleasure 1)I f we were hedonists, we would plug into the pleasure machine.

 e would definitely not p  lug into the experience machine(why?) 2)W  herefore, we are not hedonists. 3)T  herefore, there are things other than pleasure that we place intrinsic value on (i.e. psychological 4)T hedonism is false). 5)N  o good reason can be given why we should not place value on these other things. 6)T  herefore, pleasure is not the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. 7)T  herefore, normative hedonism is false.

What makes life valuable for the hedonist is the opportunity given to experience pleasure and pleasure is intrinsically good and valuable for the hedonist. It is the possibility of experiencing pleasure that makes life worth living. In his argument against hedonism, nozick asks us to engage in a certain thought experiment. He asks us what we would do if we were given a certain choice. This choice involves what Nozick calls the experience (or pleasure) machine. The pleasure machine is when electrodes are hooked up to the subject’s brain , which causes the subject to undergo various experiences. The subject can program any

series of experiences into the machine beforehand so that, when she then is hooked up to the machine she will undergo exactly this series of experiences. e hooked up to the machine, the subject does not know she is hooked up to it. We will assume that the machine is completely reliable- it won’t break down, the experiences are totally realistic. The thought experiment is designed in such a way that, by hypothesis we would maximize the amount of pleasure and minimize the amoount of pain by plugging into the machine. So Nozick assumes that, if we are hedonists, if pleasure and the absence of pain, is the only thing we value, then we would definitely plug into the machine. But Nozick believes that virtually s3no human being would choose to plug into the machine- no sane person. If Nozick is right, that we would not plug in, this reveals that we are not hedonists, that there are some things other than pleasure that we regard as intrinsically Escape satans matrix^^^ this is quite literally what reality is #redpill #wake up good and valuable. 4) Describe as clearly as you can three objections against Nozick’s argument (involving the experience machine thought experiment) against hedonism. (For the purpose of this question, just describe the objections, don’t evaluate them.) 1. What if we have always been plugged into an experience machine and are then given the choice to unplug. Many of us wouldn’t want to unplug because we’d have no conception of what world we’d find ourselves in. There could be enormous suffering, maybe none of our friends or family exist. The prospect of unplugging would be frightening, and many of us would prefer to remain in the world of illusion. Therefore, if we wouldn’t want to plug into Nozick’s machine, all this shows is that we have a preference for the status quo. We can’t definitively say what is or isn’t intrinsically valuable or that interacting with the world is preferable to an illusion. All we can say is that we prefer what we have already, not that pleasure isn’t intrinsically valuable. 2 . Nozick’s argument refutes psychological hedonism, but the falsehood of normative hedonism has to be inferred from that. If we value things other than pleasure, we could be wrong to do so, which can lead us to mistakenly believe that things other than pleasure are important. 3. It wouldn’t be reasonable to plug into the machine because we can experience a lot of pleasure in our daily lives. We have many opportunities to experience pleasure, and by acting wisely, we can make it so that we experience a lot of pleasure and avoid a lot of pain and suffering. Even if we were hedonists, we wouldn’t have to plug into the machine because our lives are set up in a way that already allows us to experience pleasure.

I dont understand this, can anyone help briefly go over the objections again^^?

Hellooo i still dont understand thissss :( Read it again than Its pretty much saying that if we had the choice to plug into the pleasure machine (experience and feel all great pleasures and once we are in it not know we are in it )... we wouldn’t because we are not hedonists. Its also saying that basically every person would rather create their own pleasures for themselves than artificial ones. If this machine was real only a hedonist would plug in because they only put value on pleasure… but we experience the best pleasures by comparing it to pain. How can you know pleasure if you do not know the other side of the spectrum? You would just feel numb. Does that make sense? ^^^ Yes thank youuu!!^ i appreciate it :) If you are a hedonist and want to avoid pain, the experience machine would be a terrible option. Once you’ve experienced the best kind of pleasures and need to be unplugged, you would experience the worst pain of loss. You would also then realize that you cannot actually accomplish the things you desire to do, therefore feeling like a failure. They don’t know that they are plugged in though. ^^^If you had the choice to unplug then you would

Also, once they’re plugged in, they would only know pleasure, despite being in a machine, all they’ll feel is pleasure which is the goal of a hedonist.

1. All he has really done is demonstrate that there is a possibility that we do value things other than pleasure – just because we do doesn’t mean it is correct to do so

a. We make mistakes and bad judgement calls all the time b. Maybe we are mistaken to value other things as pleasure is still the only thing that is intrinsically valuable 2. His argument isn’t even fully anti-hedonistic as the general notion of hedonism is based around being good and that experiencing pleasure is the purpose of our existence a. His argument does not remove pleasure from the question – just “edits” it so that pleasure is not considered to be the main thing (which I have already disputed in the point above) 3. By choosing not to plug in, he assumes it means that pleasure is not the only thing we value in life but people are choosing not to plug in as they consider life and it’s downsides to be more pleasurable, so maybe they are still choosing pleasure in a sense a. I do not believe that things are as black and white as Nozick is making them appear to be 5) All things considered, how convincing is Nozick’s objection (involving the experience machine thought experiment) against hedonism? Defend your view.

Nozick’s objection involving the experience machine thought experiment against hedonism is very convincing. Nozick’s objection is directed in the first instance against psychological hedonism. In other words, Nozick is trying to show that we humans are definitely not hedonists because we value some things other than pleasure. His objection may then indirectly  also count against normative hedonism as well. A line of reasoning to take us to the conclusion that Normative hedonism is also false. In his argument against hedonism, Nozick asks us to engage in a certain thought experiment, he wants to know what we should do if we were given a certain choice, this choice involves Nozick’s experience machine. This experiment is when electrodes are hooked up to the subject's brain, which causes the subject to undergo various experiences. The subject can program any series of experiences into the machine beforehand so that when they themselves are hooked up to the machine they will undergo exactly this

series of experiences. The subject does not know they are hooked up to this machine and we will assume that the machine is completely reliable. Nozick believes that no human being would choose to plug into the machine, therefore we are not hedonists and that there are some things other than pleasure that we regard as intrinsically good and valuable. Maybe things like creating bonds with new friends, spending time with a family member, idk I don’t know what else. Nozick’s objection is convincing. Through Nozick’s experience machine thought experiment he proves that we are not willing to give up our current life including our daily struggles and non-pleasurable experiences for a sole pleasure-filled life with exclusively pleasurable experiences. Instead of wanting that exclusively pleasurable life, the humans that choose not to plug into the machine proves that as humans we desire intrinsic experiences, not only pleasure. This directly disproves normative hedonism and indirectly disproves psychological hedonism because we’re accepting that by not plugging into the machine, we could live a miserable non-pleasurable life, but we’re fine with that because we value our current lives more than pleasure itself. 6) Explain as clearly as you can the stoic philosophy of life and how we should live if we wish to achieve happiness. Stoic is defined as unemotional, strong in the face of adversity, indifferent to pain and pleasure. Stoicism views the world as permeated by rationality. The goal of life is happiness, in order to achieve this you must be a virtuous, morally good person. To do this you must have control over your own mindset. The mention of logos is brought up, which means the rational order of thought. Emotions are defined as a main source of unhappiness, and so in order to domesticate them it must be remembered that 1. Everything is for the best even if you don’t see it that way, and 2. You must train your mind to accept all things, good and bad. There is the distinction between our natural desires for shelter and food etc, and our induced desires: money, power, fame.

The stoic philosophy of life has its ultimate goal of happiness. A state of complete inner peace and tranquility unaffected by the cares, worries, and even joys of everyday life. Attitudes and emotions cause unhappiness and therefore we must control them. In order to achieve this state of inner peace, is to become a virtuous or excellent person. As long as virtue is our ultimate goal. Nothing can really hurt us. To achieve virtue, it is necessary to gain control over our own mental states, especially our emotions and desires. This requires some level of detachment from worldly matters and concerns. Yet stoicism does not categorically reject emotions. Feelings of joy love or sympathy for existing are natural parts of living a virtuous life. For stoics we should aim to avoid bad, unreasonable, or excessive emotions and behaviours associated with them. Emotions should always be informed by and under the control of reason. In order to be a proper stoic must you be self- actualized?

The prof said question 7 is on the final and also one of the questions asking for arguments against stoicism/buddhism. So question 7 and 10 are on the final? 7 for sure, but he wasn’t clear about which criticism question so it could be 9 or 10. towards more of the stoic side of things. 7) Explain clearly what stoics mean by the following passage (quoted from Reading 33 by Sedley): “Everybody wants to be rich, free, powerful, beautiful, lovable, and so on, but, paradoxically, only the wise achieve these goals. Everyone else is, whatever they may think, actually poor, enslaved, powerless, ugly and unlovable.”

Sedley argues that only the wise are truly virtuous because only those who are capable of understanding know what it truly means to be virtuous. Because virtue is the only thing of genuine value, only the wise can be rich and wealthy. Only the wise can have true freedom. The unwise experience imitation freedom, they inherent what they believe to be knowledge from their society, which will lead them to act in certain ways. There's ice cream in the fridge and I desire ice cream, leads me to eat the ice cream. If you are under the control of your society, you are not truly free. Real power is the ability to achieve everything you truly want, Not induced desires. Only the wise can determine their true desires over those induced.

“This is because real wealth is to have something of genuine worth (that is, virtue), or to lack nothing that you need; real freedom is to be in full control of your life (including the knowledge of when to accept death rather than ever be forced to do what you do not truly want to do); real power is to be able to achieve everything you want; real beauty is a quality of the soul not the body; and only the genuinely beautiful are genuinely lovable. These Stoic 'paradoxes' are of Socratic inspiration.” (quoted from reading)

8) Explain in detail the stoic view of emotions...