recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
Somebody Always Has To Cry

**Somebody Always Has To Cry**is the seventh episode of Season 1 of The Hills. It aired on July 12, 2006.

## Summary

Christmas is here and Lauren doesn't know what to get for Jason. Jordan accompanies Lauren to a jewellery store where Lauren designs diamond-encrusted dog tags to give to Jason. It's also time to get a tree. Jordan, Jason, Heidi and Lauren head to pick one out, then back to the girls' apartment to decorate. Heidi tells everyone that she usually ends up crying during the holidays, and everyone seems a little confused by this revelation. Lauren and Heidi go to breakfast together one morning and discuss Christmas presents. Though Lauren says that she would like necessities for the apartment, her dream gift would be a Chanel bag. Heidi tells Lauren that her hopes are high that Jordan will get her a puppy. Jason loves his dog tags and Lauren and Jason have bought Jordan a gift together, a tattoo. Lauren gets her Chanel bag, but when Heidi opens her gift, she finds a stuffed Chihuahua inside. Heidi asks Jordan when she can get a real one and he tells her "after Christmas."  When she asks if it's after Christmas yet, Lauren tells her yes and in walks Jordan with a wrapped box with air holes. When Heidi opens the box, inside she finds a live Chihuahua which she names Bella. Fast forward to New Year's Eve. Heidi and Lauren go to a hair salon to get their hair done for the party later in the evening. At the salon, Lauren receives a test message from Jason. Meanwhile, Jordan and Jason are working out and discussing an old friend of Lauren's. Jason tells Jordan that David, a guy Lauren used to like, is calling her when he knows that Lauren and Jason are together. At the salon, Lauren is asking Heidi what she did wrong when Jason calls her. Jason calls to argue with Lauren and then hangs up on her. Everybody's ready for a good night, but, at the club, Jason starts talking to Lauren and implies that they won't be together after the New Year. When Lauren asks him why he said this, Jason tells her he just meant that they should wait to discuss any tension until tomorrow. But the argument only gets more heated and Jason begins telling Lauren that all she does is constantly make mistakes. Lauren can't take it anymore and leaves the party. Heidi runs outside after Lauren. Though Lauren tells Heidi to go back to the party, Heidi refuses and leaves the party with Lauren. Jason realises that he's messed up big time and asks Jordan for help. Jason calls Lauren to apologise, but she doesn't want to talk to him. Jason buys a bouquet of roses from a street vendor and tells their limo driver to make it to Lauren's house before midnight. At 11:57pm, Jason calls Lauren and asks her to come downstairs. Though she tells him she won't, Heidi and Lauren head down to the garage where Jason and Jordan have just arrived. Jason gives Lauren a passionate kiss, right on the stroke of midnight.
Turing Test

## Introduction

Alan Turing, (rest in peperonis), was a massively important British computer scientist and codebreaker active around WWII, who was influential in the emergent thinking around sentient computers (artificial intelligence or A.I.). Turing proposed a test to gauge if a machine was intelligent or not: several participants would be placed in separate rooms, all conversing with one another as a group. If the machine could seamlessly fit into the conversation, without the human testers suspecting it, the machine passes. (Turing originally suggested that the machine would convince a human 70% of the time after five minutes of conversation), the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give correct answers to questions, only how closely the answers resemble those a human would give.

## Where are we up to now?

Turing predicted that in 100 years from his writing, we would be able to have deep and rich conversations with artificial minds, and that would be when his test would consistently be passed. So far, we're making good progress; 'Eugene Goostman', a Russian developed programme designed to emulate a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy that fooled 33% of human participants, as grammatical errors could be put down to english not being his first language.This trickery has been a source of contention, as people don't really think it was an entirely fair version of the test if it had to have an excuse for faltering language.

## Objections

John Searle proposed the Chinese Room thought experiment designed to discredit Turing's test by disputing what counts as thinking in these cases.
Non-Cognitivism

## Introduction

The part of Meta-Ethics that states that moral sentences*do not*express **moral propositions** (statements of truth that cannot be disputed). Yes, this sentence is the doppelganger of the cognitivism page, as most of this page is going to be, but ah well.

## Basically:

Suck it Mill! no matter how hard you try, your ethical language will never be able to speak about moral facts.
West highland white terrier

Es un terrier de pata corta color blanco y pelaje duro. Su cuerpo es compacto. El cráneo es un poco estrecho entre las orejas que son de implante alto y las porta erguidas, la nariz es negra, los ojos de color café oscuro. Tiene un cuello musculoso, su cuerpo es compacto, pecho profundo hasta la altura de los codos, la línea dorsal es recta. La cola mide entre 13 y 15 centímetros.

### Características:

Nivel de energía: 6/10

Amistoso con desconocidos: 8/10

Facilidad de entrenamiento: 7/10

Amistoso con otros perros: 6/10

Ejercicio obligatorio: 6/10

Necesidad de cepillado: 5/10

### Apariencia:

Peso: 6-9 kg.

Altura: 23-30 cm.

### Detalles físicos:

Patas: cortas y musculosas

Cola: erguida y de pelo duro

Hocico: estrechado hacia la nariz

Pelo: duro

Color: blanco
Leibniz's Law

## Intro

Well Leibniz put forward a principal which finds great use in wide swathes of philosophy, especially in **metaphysics**, but that's not important right now.

## Breakdown

It looks a bit like this: '*∀*F*(*Fx* ↔ *Fy*) → *x*=*y***.*** but for those of us who didn't take either symbolic logic or klingon, it would be better summarised as:

> *'No two objects can share **all** their properties; so that if what appear to be two objects turn out to have all the same properties then they must be **one object**.'*
>
>

This can still be a little confusing, for example, if you were confronted with two factory-made pens, which both had exactly the same measurements, took up identical amounts of space and had no differences in appearance, you would probably say that they were **identical**. However, they are composed of different atoms and take up different locations in space; they only way they could be identical is if they took up *exactly* the same space and used *exactly* the same atoms, but then they would be the same object.

## Masked Man Fallacy

The fallacy surfaces when one makes an **incorrect usage of Leibniz's Law**. For our purposes, it is used to disprove the indivisibility argument. If two things have different properties, then they can't be the same thing, but if you don't know that they have the same properties, then that leads to an incorrect application of the Law.

**For example:**

* I know who Max is.
* I do not know who the Axe Murderer is.
* Therefore Max is not the Axe Murderer.

Even if you have reached the conclusion logically, the premises may be true and the conclusion false if the person speaking is unaware of Max's murderous moonlighting. Therefore the argument is a fallacious one.

**A different example:**

* Foggy Nelson believes that The Devil of Hell's Kitchen can perform intense acrobatics
* Foggy Nelson does not believe that Matthew Murdock can perform intense acrobatics
* Therefore, Matthew Murdock cannot be The Devil of Hell's Kitchen

(I've been binge-watching Daredevil lately, no spoilers please).

**In Symbolic Form**

* I know who X is
* I don't know who Y is
* Therefore X is not Y

Overall, just because you don't think two things are connected, doesn't mean that they are.
Ethics

## What's the deal here?

The end game of all philosophical discussion around **ethics**or **morality** (the terms seem to have very little distinction and are used by some philosophers interchangeably) is to find a moral framework that gives a definitive '*right*' and ***'**wrong*' way of acting, *whether you then actually follow it is up to you...*

We will be looking at three attempts at making such a framework and then finally at the importance of ethical language itself. Overall, we are interested in three levels of ethical discussion, Meta-ethics, Normative Ethics and Applied Ethics.

Also, rather usefully, Routledge has collected all their powerpoints and handouts for the topic in one place: http://www.routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/9781138793934/ethics.php

## 1.1 **Ethical Theories**: How do we decide what it is morally right to do?

### 1.1.1 Utilitarianism

* What is meant by 'pleasure', including Mill's higher and lower pleasures
* How this might be calculated (Bentham's calculus)
* forms of utilitarianism: Act, Rule and Preference

#### **Issues**

* Individual liberty/rights
* problems with calculation
* The possible values of certain motives (does it matter if you meant to do good?) and the character of the person doing the action
* The possible moral status of our relations with others (is it important to value our family/friends more/less?)

### 1.1.2 Kantian deontological ethics

* The categorical and hypothetical imperatives
* First and Second formulations of the categorical imperatives

#### **Issues**

* The feeling (intuition) that consequences are of moral value
* Problems with the application of the principal
* The possible values of certain motives (e.g. the desire to do good) and commitments (those we have to family and friends)
* Clashing/competing duties

### 1.1.3 Aristotle's Virtue Ethics

* 'The good': pleasure; the function argument and eudaemonia
* The role of education and/habituation in developing a moral character
* voluntary and involuntary actions and moral responsibility
* Doctrine of the mean and Aristotle's account of vices and virtues.

#### **Issues**

* can it actually give clear guidance about how to act?
* clashing/competing virtues
* the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other

### **We need to be able to apply these issues:**

1. Crime and Punishment
2. War
3. Simulated Killing
4. The Treatment of Animals
5. Deception and the telling of lies

## 1.2 **Ethical Language**: What is the status of ethical language?

### 1.2.1 Cognitivism

* Moral realism: ethical language makes claims about mind-independent reality that are **true**

1. Ethical naturalism (e.g. utilitarianism)
2. Ethical non-naturalism (e.g. intuitionism)

* Error Theory: ethical language makes claims about mind-independent reality that are false (e.g. Makie's argument from queerness).

### 1.2.2 Non-Cognitivism

* Emotivism
* Perscriptivism
Physicalism

## Introduction

This is one of the simpler core ideas as what it starts out with is 'everything is physical'. This seems to make sense on first glance as everything we run into on a day-to-day basis is physical, however, when you start to apply this to the functions of the **mind**, this stops holding up so well.

## Wider Reading

* Materialism
* Behaviourism
* Functionalism
Plato

## Who he?

Plato is widely considered to be one of the most important members in the foundation of modern western philosophy and had a great influence on those to come. He founded the Athens Academy, which is where you went if you were brainy.

He sits somewhere in the middle of the influential greeks, as a young man, one of his more formative experiences was meeting Socrates, who instilled in him the desire to know more stuff. While he briefly considered a career in politics, like many in his family lineage, the execution of Socrates for the crime of being a troll gave him a hefty enough dose of skepticism for authority to turn him into an influential philosopher. Later, Plato would teach Aristotle, as such, the affect he would have had on Virtue Ethics is probably more considerable than he is given credit for.

Fun fact: there is speculation that 'Plato' was not actually his birth name, rather a moniker that related to his rather broad build, so all of you who've referred to him as such have been continuing one of the longest pieces of name-calling in history (over 1500 years, go team!).

## Wider reading:

* Here is the Harry Hiker intro quiz on Plato
* The Republic, one of Plato's more influential surviving works
Indivisibility Argument

## Introduction

This is an argument for Substance Dualism put forward by Descartes to demonstrate the separation between the physical and mental aspects of the body, using Leibniz's Law to suggest that they cannot be the same thing.

## Breakdown

**Premise 1:** My mind is indivisible.

**Premise 2:** My body is divisible.

**Conclusion:** Thus, my mind is not my body.

## Basically...

One of the ways Descartes kind of ultimately misuses Leibniz's Law of The Identity of Indiscernibles, or more simply '**Leibniz's Law'** in showing that mind and body are two separate and distinct things by demonstrating that they do not possess the same properties. You can imagine that your body can be divided, heck if you're careless, you don't have to imagine. The mind, on the other hand is a bit more tricky, you can't really imagine being half of yourself (your mind), or a quarter, for example, so they cannot be one and the same.
Deontology

## Introduction

Kant starts with a statement: the good will is the source of all moral worth.

He thinks that moral values are objective and universal, therefore any course of action (**maxim**) should be **universalisable**. That means that you should be able to logically want the entire world to follow your maxim.

## The Categorical Imperative

You should only follow a maxim if you can logically will everyone to follow the maxim.

There are two ways a maxim can fail the Categorical Imperative:

1. **Contradiction in conception.** It's impossible to actually imagine the entire world following your maxim. **For example**, the maxim *"I will break promises to make money"* would not be universalisable, because if everyone broke all promises, their would be no idea of promises so you can't possibly imagine a world where everyone follows the maxim. If a maxim commits contradiction in conception, you have a **perfect duty** to not follow it - it is never morally right to do it.
2. **Contradiction in will.** It's possible to imagine the entire world following your maxim BUT it is illogical to do so - it would contradict your original motive. **For example,** the maxim *"I won't help other people so that I am better off"* commits contradiction in will because you would not be better off if no-one helped each other - we all needed help from other people when we were babies or when we drank too much pink flamingo. If a maxim commits contradiction in will, you have an **imperfect duty** not to follow it - it is not necessarily morally wrong to follow it, but it's often quite a good thing to not follow it.

## The Humanity Formulation

Woah what, there's a whole another way of writing the categorical imperative? That's right, dear reader, Kant came up with **two different ways** of wording what he claims is the same thing. What a waste of time. The Humanity Formulation goes like this:

> Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
>
>

Kant argues that a rational being *cannot rationally consent* to being used merely as a means to an end, so they **must always be treated as an end in themselves**. For example, enslaving someone to do your bidding is treating them as a means to an end: they're getting nothing out of the arrangement, (other than degrading treatment and a limitless source of menial tasks), there's nothing in there for them. On the other hand, should you pay someone to do the same thing, they are an end in themselves; their end is to be paid, and it is fulfilled.
Mary's Room argument

**Frank Jackson** argues that the intrinsic nature of certain mental states - qualia - is irreducible. This is an argument for a kind of dualism. Jackson accepts that the brain must have some role to play in the production of consciousness.

## This totally wouldn't be okay in the real world

As philosophers are wanton to do; the Knowledge Argument involves hypothetically locking a woman named Mary in a black and white room.

Here, she is sealed away from all colour until well into adolescence. In this time, she learns all there is to know about colour; '*which neutrons fire when looking at blue', 'what the cosmic radiation of red is' and 'where purple sits on the electromagnetic spectrum'*, etc.

The question then is, if she escaped from the world of pretentious instagram, into the wider world of colour filters, **would she learn anything new****?**
Cocker spaniel inglés

Es un perro fuerte de cuerpo robusto casi cuadrado, su cabeza es angosta con una depresión frontal bien marcada, ojos inteligentes de color café, orejas de inserción baja bien cubiertas de pelo. Su cuello es musculoso bien insertado en la espalda que es descendente, la cola es amputada y la porta en forma alegre. Es un perro dulce, afectuoso, sociable y obediente.

### Características:

Nivel de energía: 7/10

Amistoso con desconocidos: 8/10

Facilidad de entrenamiento: 7/10

Amistoso con otros perros: 8/10

Ejercicio obligatorio: 7/10

Necesidad de cepillado: 6/10

### Apariencia:

Peso: 12-15 kg.

Altura: 38-43 cm.

### Detalles físicos:

Patas: cortas y finas

Cola: acortada

Hocico: bien cuadrado

Pelo: liso y sedoso, nunca ondulado

Color: café, negro
John Stuart Mill

## Who da man

**John Stuart Mill** (20 May 1806 – 8 May 1873) was a politician, philosopher, civil servant, political economist, feminist and all-round good guy. He held a position in the original Liberal Party (not the Lib-Dems) ran against the original W.H. Smith, (Tory) of stationary and overpriced water for long car journeys fame, for their local seat. Mill lost, but had he gone fully into politics, we may never have been left with Bentham's Hedonic Calculus form of Utilitarianism.

## Thoughts

Mill was a firm believer in the idea that the individual was sovereign of their own body, and thus should be in complete control of it. As such, the individual should be allowed to act as they pleased, so long as their actions did not violate the sovereignty of anyone else.

### Harm Principal

Continuing on from sovereignty, Mill's Harm Principal suggests that the only time an individual's actions should be limited are when they could harm another, as he puts it in *On Liberty*:

> *The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. **That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.** His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.*
>
>

- The J.S Millinator

## Nice Things About J.S. Mill (unconfirmed)

* Help you move house, *without complaining*,
* Always pay you back within the acceptable time-frame of borrowing money
* Listen to your mix-tape, and then say it was the best combination of fire tracks he'd ever heard

* Bring more than his fair share of food/drink to a party to balance out the people who 'forgot' and always tip the delivery guy
* would go to your newphew's flute recital with you because you're estranged from your sibling, but still care for the kid and don't know anyone there and feel it would be awkward without a friend
* If he saw you were not quite following in an advanced philosophical discussion, phrase his answers in such a way as to make it subtly easier for you to understand
* Doesn't Vape.
Applied Utilitarianism

### **Crime and Punishment**

As utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of normative ethics, it focuses on the consequences punishment would have on both the criminals and the victims. So, to calculate what the appropriate utilitarian response is to crime and punishment, we have to take into account the severity of the original crime and the effects of the subsequent punishment. Utilitarianism argues that punishment must be proportionate to the crime. There are five different factors we particularly need to focus on when considering punishment in response to crime:

1. Rehabilitation
2. Deterrence
3. Prevention
4. Retribution

With regard to the above points, some factors must be prioritised above others. For example, the concept of retribution does not seem to produce as much pleasure as pain, whereas the concept of deterrence seems to lead to greater pleasure for society as a whole. Rehabilitation seems to lead to more happiness for everyone, but may not be proportionate to the crime committed. Deterrence and prevention appear to make society happier in general but also need to be proportionate, for example, handing out a fine to someone who has littered, rather than cutting their hand off.

Rule utilitarians would argue that laws must be obeyed at all times, whereas act utilitarians would judge each case on its details. There is debate on whether the death penalty is utilitarian or not, as though capital punishment can be proportionate it does not appear to be a form of rehabilitation.

### **Treatment of Animals**

Applying utilitarianism to the issue of how to treat animals rests on whether we accept Singer's argument that as both humans and animals possess sentience, and so the suffering and happiness of animals should be taken into account when discussing how we should treat animals.
Moore

## Who he?

G.E. Moore (1873 - 1958) was a British philosopher and contemporary of Bertrand Russell, though I can't imagine the two got along very well as Moore cramped on Bertrand's pipe style, (Moore was born a year later than Russell, so we know he was the copycat).

As a non-naturalist, he is recognised for his salty criticisms of naturalism, namely the: Naturalistic Fallacy and Open Question arguments and generally being a downright grumpy man towards the theory as a whole.
Applied Ethics

## Introduction

**Applied Ethics** focuses on taking the ideas found in Normative Ethics and applying them to specific scenarios in order to see how they hold up to the moral dilemmas that people can face, to name the Axe Murderer as just one example.

## Examples

* Treatment of Animals
* War
* Crime and Punishment
* Simulated Killing
* Deception and the telling of lies
Homeworld Gems

**"Homeworld Gems"** is a term used by the cast, crew, and viewers to refer to the known, non-corrupted Gems who are or have been affiliated with the Gem Homeworld and are not members of the Crystal Gems. They are lead by The Great Diamond Authority.They are formed by:

* Jasper
* Yellow Diamond
* Blue Diamond
* Blue Pearl
* Yellow Pearl

## Affiliation with Peridot

Peridot used to be a member of the Homeworld Gems before she became an official Crystal Gem in Message Received.

In 'Jail Break', Peridot is shown to be loyal to Yellow Diamond through-and-through, wanting for Jasper to care for their mission more than the Crystal Gems.

In "Cry for Help", despite the odds of Peridot contacting Yellow Diamond being very slim, she still attempts to contact her and Homeworld.

In "Message Recieved" and "It Could've Been Great", Peridot  is shown to still be loyal to Homeworld, saying that Earth would look beautiful as a colony and respecting the Diamonds. This  changed when she realized she was wrong about the diamonds, and even calls Yellow Diamond a clod, thus becoming a Crystal Gem.
Searle

## Introduction

John Searle (1932 - sometime in the future) is a lecturer at Oxford and brain man who is rather dismissively rude about the idea that machines can think, ~~MACHINES ARE PEOPLE TOO JOHN!.~~ \**Ahem*\* Anyway, he is relevant to our course as he proposed the Chinese Room thought experiment as a counter to the Turing Test and the core concepts behind Functionalism as a whole.
Naturalistic Fallacy

## *"What's Crack?"*

G.E. Moore believed that Naturalism had committed a fallacy in attempting to **define something that was indefinable**, i.e. terms *such as good* (which Moore felt were **non-natural**) and that naturalists tried to define it in naturalistic terms, like *Pleasant,* or *Desirable* (though, to be fair, that was kind of their schtick). In particular, Moore singled out utilitarianism as being especially guilty.

This argument can also be seen as the ***ought***, section of the Is/Ought gap, I.e, he was telling off Mill and the crew for suggesting that something natural could give you an imperative. For example, in the utilitarian case of 'good': *freeing a captive Mary from her room* *would make her happy, therefore you ought to do it*. The first statement is factual, but it doesn't lead on that it just because it would increase happiness, you should do it.

The super imaginative name comes from a derivative of the two things he was talking about, namely, *the fallacy of the naturalists*. He certainly did some work on it, but he really could have put *Moore* effort into the title.
Qualia

## Introduction

Basically put, **Qualia** is the *"what it is like"* of mental states; what it is like to:

* **Smell** a rose
* **See** the colour red
* **Feel** the chill of the wind
* **Taste** the sweet deliciousness of chocolate
* **Hearing** the dulcet tones of Mr. Hedley's philosophical narration

## Where does it fit in?

Well, for physicalism, the *subjective* nature of these conscious experiences can be an issue if they cannot be accounted for in *objective* physical terms.

## Exam Use?

If you're asked about qualia specifically, or you want to give the impression you know exactly what you're talking about, the indicative content would be that **it is known through introspection, subjective and intrinsic or non-representational.**
A.I.

## What's this, what's this?

**Artificial Intelligence** (or more commonly, A.I.) is the term for intelligence exhibited by machines or robots. It is also a field of study as to whether we can **synthetically create consciousness** in an artificial mind, as well as being one of the most covered topics in science-fiction.

## So why is this article on a philosophy wiki?

Well, pushy reader, first of all, if you'd waited, I would have explained, but anyway, the idea of a machine that can think raises all sorts of questions both ethically and in terms of understanding our own minds.

Ethically, there are those who argue that humans trying to create thinking beings is basically just us playing god, but also, there's the whole Skynet question of if we made it, would it actually like us? Everything we've ever encountered with any form of a mind has been biological, with instincts that can date back through millennia of evolution, but a sythetic mind would be fresh, how much stuff goes on in our minds that we simply aren't aware of? So as to why that might be dangerous, a mind unshackled from biological needs like eating, sleeping and, *ya know*, might just take a logical stare at mankind and go **nope** ain't havin' none of that and try to go all machine apocolypse on our arses.

## You still haven't answered that question...

FINE. I was just enjoying a bit of classic sci-fi scare-mongering, but hey, maybe we'd enjoy having robot overlords, *if they don't just wipe us out instead*. Onto the aspect relating to Philosophy of Mind, the idea of machines having minds is kinda challenging for some theories of mind, which, rather chauvinistically believe that the only thing that can think would be a human mind, and that a robot could only be simulating thinking, rather than having thoughts of its own. **Turing** felt that a way of testing whether a robot could actually be classed as intelligent is if it was capable of fooling a human into believing that it wasn't a robot while they were talking.
Error Theory

## Introduction

Error Theory is a cognitivist proposal that has some non-cognitivist leanings. As a form of **Moral Nihilism**, it's effectively that weird guy on the bus/tube/train with a strange smell and dark sense of foreboding, whose hands you can't quite see and you've spent most of the resultingly uncomfortable journey trying to avoid eye-contact with.

It is set apart from naturalism and non-naturalism as an **Anti-Realist** theory, which does not believe there are any such thing as moral facts, or for that matter any reference to moral terms. According to Mackie, even in ordinary language, we all have a tendency, when making moral judgements, to **imply objectivity**; that what we are saying is *just correct*. Mackie thinks that this is silly, but unlike the non-cognitivists, Ayer and Hare (together they make the wonder duo: the Windswept Combover), he doesn't believe that the mistake is either **linguistic** or **conceptual**, rather it is a **systematic error**, based on our belief in things that don't *literally* exist (i.e moral properties of the world), this belief is promoted by moral realism in whatever form it crops up in.

## Arguments For

The ***Argument from Relativity*** - Here Mackie suggests that our moral values stem from our society and vary in places all over the world and over different time periods, as such, our moral values largely come from the society where we grew up. Here, variation in moral codes is explainable not by differing perceptions of some objective moral value, rather the ways of life they reflect.

The ***Argument from Queerness*** (he was from the 50's) - Mackie here argues against the idea of objective moral values, by highlighting the strange, or queer outcomes that such a belief would entail. (**needs expansion**)

## Q&A from the Perspective of an Error Theorist:

Do moral values lie in consequences? - **No. Neither do they come from catagorical imperatives.**

Can moral terms be understood in non-naturalistic terms? - **No. Nor can they be understood in naturalistic terms.**

Can moral values be learned through intuition? - **No, as there is nothing out there to be intuited.**

Then do moral terms refer to something independent of humans? - **They try to, but fail.**
Philosophy of Mind

## Introduction

The section most relevant to us as ascribed by the syllabus would be the '**mind-body problem**' of philosophy of mind, otherwise known as Dude, Where's my Brain?, Descartes' sloppy conundrum or why we can't have nice things.

## 2.1 Dualism: the mind is distinct from the physical

* 2.1.1 The Indivisibility Argument for Substance Dualism
* 2.1.2 The Conceivability Argument for Substance Dualism
* 2.1.3 The 'philosophical zombies' argument for Property Dualism
* 2.1.4 The knowledge/Mary's room argument for Property Dualism
* 2.1.5 The issues of casual interaction for versions of dualism
* 2.1.6 The problem of other minds and the threat of solipsism

## 2.2 Materialism: the mind is not ontologically distinct from the physical

* 2.2.1 Analytical behaviourism
* 2.2.2 The mind-brain identity theory
* 2.2.3 Functionalism
* 2.2.4 Eliminative materialism
Categorical Imperative

## Introduction

Kant's **Categorical Imperative** is a rule determining what is the right thing to do. Roughly, he says that the right thing to do is to act in a way that you could logically and consistently will all other people to do too (**Universalisability**). A successful application will result in a perfect duty and formulation of the Categorical Imperative.

## Maxims

A maxim is a potential moral rule, if this is impossible to consistently apply in all cases, it cannot be rationally universalised. If a maxim cannot be universalised, it is as the result of either a contradiction in conception, or a contradiction in will.

## Contradiction in Conception

Because we cannot conceive of a world where this was a law - it is inconceivable.

## Contradiction in Will

We can concieve of such a world, but cannot rationally will such a world.

## Wider Reading

* Kant
* Deontology
* Maxim
* Ethics
Universidad de Concepción

La **Universidad de Concepción**, también conocida por su acrónimo **UdeC**, es una universidad privada tradicional chilena, obra de la comunidad penquista, una de las de mayor tradición y prestigio de su país, considerada compleja por su extensión investigativa en las diversas áreas del conocimiento. Fundada el 14 de mayo de 1919, es la tercera universidad más antigua de Chile, y una de las veinticinco universidades pertenecientes al Consejo de Rectores de las Universidades Chilenas.

Su sede central se ubica en la ciudad de Concepción, y cuenta además con otros dos campus en Chillán y Los Ángeles. En una encuesta ciudadana realizada en 2012, salió escogida como el símbolo que más identifica a lospenquistas.

Fue la primera Universidad creada en la zona centro-sur del país, además de ser la primera en constituirse como corporación de derecho privado y pertenecer a la Red Universitaria Cruz del Sur; también pertenece a la Red Universitaria G9. La Universidad de Concepción tuvo también un rol pionero en el movimiento de reforma de las universidades chilenas que aconteció a fines de la década del sesenta del siglo XX. Fue la primera universidad chilena que aprobó la Reforma Universitaria en aquel período (1968), entregando una mayor participación a los estudiantes en la gestión universitaria.

Su impulsor principal fue el educador y abogado chileno Enrique Molina Garmendia, quien buscó crear la primera universidad laica de Chile. Como parte de su línea educacional, la Universidad de Concepción dedica gran parte de su presupuesto a la investigación académica. Posee en sus instalaciones el museo de arte chileno más completo del país, varios centros deportivos y una red de 11 bibliotecas, ocupando la principal de ellas una superficie de 10.000 m² con un total de 100.000 volúmenes.

Al año 2012 el total de alumnos titulados de esta casa de estudios ascendía a 57.000. Además imparte clases a 23.700 alumnos, 2.166 de ellos de carreras de postgrado; Un 72% de sus profesores poseen doctorados omaestrías y su infraestructura, con 243.556 m² construidos, es una de los más grandes de Chile.

En la clasificación 2014 del *QS World University Ranking*, la Universidad se posicionó en el lugar número 9 a nivel latinoamericano, obteniendo el tercer puesto dentro de las universidades chilenas. Además figura tercera a nivel nacional en la clasificación de *América Economía* y el *Ranking Iberoamericano SIR 2014*. Acorde esta última clasificación, está entre las 30 mejores universidades de América Latina.
Chalmers

## Who he?

**David Chalmers** is the punk-rock dad of modern philosophy, specialising in Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Language, he's relevant to us for his work on the former. He would also get on well with Mr. Bean because they're both Dualists.

Chalmers worked on the 'Hard' problem of consciousness as well as suggesting the Philosophical Zombies argument in response to physicalism as a whole, as such, he is entirely responsible for philosophers having some pop culture references to make in the mid to late 2000s, back when zombies were cool.
The Hills TV Wikia

## Welcome to **The Hills TV Wiki**

**The Hills** is an American reality television series that originally aired on MTV from May 31, 2006 until July 13, 2010. Developed as the spin-off of *Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County*, the series aired six seasons and focused on the personal and professional lives of several young women residing in Los Angeles, California.

In its series premiere, The Hills first introduced Lauren Conrad, who moved from Laguna Beach, California to Los Angeles to pursue a career in the fashion industry. She and her housemate Heidi Montag originally planned to attend the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising, though the latter left the college after receiving employment with Bolthouse Productions. Montag befriended their neighbor Audrina Patridge, while Conrad bonded with her fellow Teen Vogue co-intern Whitney Port.

The remainder of the first season highlighted the girls' romantic relationships, including Montag's and Patridge's brief relationships with Jordan Eubanks and Brian Drolet, respectively. The season concluded as Conrad rejects a summertime internship in Paris to reunite with her former boyfriend Jason Wahler. Consequentially, Port was offered and accepted the position in her place.

**10 Best MTV Reality Shows of the 2000s, Ranked - Collider - - 2024/01/14 08:00**

10 Best MTV Reality Shows of the 2000s, Ranked  Collider...

**Jen Bunney On MTV's 'The Hills' 'Memba Her?! - TMZ - - 2023/05/01 07:00**

Jen Bunney On MTV's 'The Hills' 'Memba Her?!  TMZ...

**How 'The Hills' and 'The City' Inspired the Current Guard of Black and Brown Fashion Editors - Harper's BAZAAR - - 2022/12/16 08:00**

How 'The Hills' and 'The City' Inspired the Current Guard of Black and Brown Fashion Editors  Harper's BAZAAR...

**Jordan On MTV's 'The Hills' 'Memba Him?! - TMZ - - 2022/08/05 07:00**

Jordan On MTV's 'The Hills' 'Memba Him?!  TMZ...

**Audrina Patridge Says Justin Timberlake 'Humiliated' Her at MTV VMAs - Business Insider - - 2022/07/27 07:00**

Audrina Patridge Says Justin Timberlake 'Humiliated' Her at MTV VMAs  Business Insider...

**America's Best Dance Crew** •
**Awkward.** •
**Beavis and Butt-Head** •
**Daria** •
**Faking It** •
**Finding Carter** •
**The Hills** •
**Jackass** •
**Jersey Shore** •
**Laguna Beach** •
**Scream** •
**Shannara** •
**Teen Mom** •
**Teen Wolf**
Identity Theory

## Key Quotes

> *"That everything should be explicable in terms of physics ... except the occurrence of sensations seems to me to be frankly unbelievable"* - J.J.C. Smart
>
>

## Strengths (needs to be put into a hierarchy)

* It's ***not*** Dualism,
* Ockham's Razor supports materialism, as reducing everything to physical states is more straightforward than introducing mental states,
Springer spaniel inglés

El más grande de los Spaniels, es muy juguetón, amable y de alta resistencia, lo que le permite disfrutar plenamente el campo y otros espacios abiertos. Es un perro simétrico, compacto con una cabeza ancha y de cráneo redondeado. El color de los ojos depende del color del manto y van del avellana al café oscuro. Tiene orejas largas pegadas a los lados de la cabeza, cuello largo y ligeramente arqueado se acopla a una línea dorsal ligeramente descendente hacia atrás. La cola es de implantación baja.

### Características:

Nivel de energía: 7/10

Amistoso con desconocidos: 8/10

Facilidad de entrenamiento: 7/10

Amistoso con otros perros: 8/10

Ejercicio obligatorio: 8/10

Necesidad de cepillado: 7/10

### Apariencia:

Peso: 18-24 kg.

Altura: 43-51 cm.

### Detalles físicos:

Patas: fuertes

Cola: nunca se levanta más arriba del nivel de la espalda

Hocico: ancho y alto

Pelo: apretado y derecho

Color: blanco con café y blanco con negro
Socrates

## ~~SOCRATES EATS HEMLOCK!~~ Ahem, anyway:

Socrates is one of the grandpappies of Western thought and a widely influential Greek philosopher, not much is known about his life because he was a little before Facebook and terrible at keeping diaries. What we do know comes from his students, including Plato, who wrote bits and bobs that were then cobbled together by ancient historians with nothing better to do into a mostly coherent series of events.

Physically, Plato rather unkindly wrote that Socrates was short and stocky, with bulging eyes that made it constantly appear as though he were staring. On an unrelated note, Socrates tended to play down the importance of the body and highlight the significance of having a good mind, you do you Socrates, you do you. This approach was also important in that is gave Plato his first grasp around the forms and the idea of a separation between the physical and the mental.

He was also remarkable for his time in pushing for a logic based approach to philosophy, focused on human reason, rather than theological doctrine ~~\*cough\* Descartes \*cough\*~~.

## Famous For:

* The Socratic Method (yeah science!)
* Teaching Plato
* Giving the middle finger to the Athenian ruling class
* Dying like a boss
* Very uncouthly refusing a rescue attempt
* Drinking poison in front of his would-be rescuer, just to prove a point
* Actually, that kind of sheer courage kind of makes up for the earlier ungrateful dick-move
Wittgenstein

Known by the wisest of people as '**The Philosophical Caretaker**'. Wittgenstein steps in whenever equilibrium is at risk, and re-balances the scales. Other nicknames 'The Bullshit Slayer' and 'The One Who Doesn't Talk Shite'. Wittgenstein is like a fairy who pops in and cleans up the place whenever it gets too cluttered with BS, offering often infallible and generally objective tidy uppers. Wittgenstein is neither a Jedi nor a Sith, but something else, something that makes sure neither side is completely destroyed by the other.
Folk Psychology

## Intro

'**Folk Psychology**is a semi-condescending term used by philosophers to refer to the common interpretation of how the mind works by 'folk' or the common people, and also the language they use to describe it (because calling it*plebeian psychology*' would have been a bit too obvious). The particular terms are not set in stone however. For example, after the works of ol' Siggers Freud, the idea of the **sub-conscious**, **Id** and **Ego** have become commonplace in referring to motivations and the causes for our actions.
Cognitivism

## Breakdown

The part of **meta-ethics** that says that ethical sentences express propositions (statements of truth, that cannot be disputed). **Non-cognitivism** is the opposite of this theory, that states that ethical statements do not express propositions, therefore moral knowledge is impossible. **Cognitivism** is a big subject, not as big as your mum, but potentially bigger than Kanye West's ego, on a bad day.

As it is so big, it encompasses ('includes' for everyone who doesn't like needlessly complicated words) **moral realism** - ethical statements express propositions about **mind-independent** facts of the world; **moral subjectivism** - ethical statements express propositions about people's attitudes or opinions; and **error theory** - ethical statements express propositions, but they are all false, whatever their nature. Bit of a strange one that last one.

## Moral Realism

Moral Realism is one of the two main parts that comprise meta-ethics, and if we take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes, we find that **Ethical Naturalism** and **Ethical Non-Naturalism** comprise Moral Realism, and then Ethical Naturalism is comprised of Reductive naturalism, and Non-reductive Naturalism. So essentially, once you reach Reductive Ethical Naturalism you are reading half of the half of Ethical Naturalism, which is half of meta-ethics, which is also a part of **ethics** as a whole, and ethics is, of course, half of this course. So we're talking at least 6 layers of dream here, and considering it's a week the first level down, 6 months the second, and a year the third, we might be here a while.

### Ethical Naturalism

##### Reductive Naturalism claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some of these propositions are true.
3. These propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion ("Sworn never to interfere, only to watch").
4. The moral features of the world *are* reducible to some set of non-moral features

##### Non-Reductive Naturalism claims that:

1. Well it's the same really, just that (4) says '*are not* reducible, but *instead supervened* by some set of non-moral features' while Reductive Naturalism says that moral features 'are reducible'. Not much point in writing out the whole thing again.

An example of a reduction that Red/Nat believes in is goodness is ultimately just pleasure, according to Hedonism. Altruism is a separate example - we can do good things for other people, while egoism, another one, states all good we do, we do it ultimately for ourselves.

No other examples were really offered unfortunately. If you do think of any other examples of reductions, don't hesitate to call 999 and whisper into the phone "Orange is the new black. Literally, orange has completely replaced black, we no longer have any concept of black. Someone needs to know about this." And you will be contacted shortly.

### Ethical Non-Naturalism

Ethical Non-Naturalism claims that:

1. Again, it's the same as the list for Red/Nat, just that it claims that moral features of the world are '*not* reducible'
Gordon setter

Es el Setter más robusto de las cuatro razas, su cabeza es maciza y tiene más desarrollo de los belfos, ojos oscuros y orejas colgantes recubiertas de pelo, su cuello es fuerte insertado en un cuerpo robusto con una línea dorsal inclinada su color es característico negro y caoba o lo que se denomina Black & Tan, es el más calmo de todos los setters y más reservado con los extraños muy confiable con los niños y fácil de entrenar.

### Características:

Nivel de energía: 9/10

Amistoso con desconocidos: 7/10

Facilidad de entrenamiento: 7/10

Amistoso con otros perros: 7/10

Ejercicio obligatorio: 9/19

Necesidad de cepillado: 7/10

### Apariencia:

Peso: 20-36 kg.

Altura: 58-69 cm.

### Detalles físicos:

Patas: fuertes

Cola: gruesa en la base y se afina hacia la punta

Hocico: mediano

Pelo: corto y fino en la cabeza, que se alarga hacia los flancos

Color: negro con café
Philosophy of Snakes Wikia

## Welcome to the Philosophy of Snakes Wikia

A breakdown of A-Level Philosophy Knowledge, found in a pit of Snakes. So, this is a massive work in progress; don't be surprised if you bump into a fragmented page, or in a really rare case, maybe just a title. Eventually, the goal is to get everything done and then maybe follow it up with a glossary, but that might not be necessary.

## They're more like guidelines, Ms. Turner

Students can break down the topics to an easy to review fashion perfect for revising. **All usernames must be the word Snake, followed by your initials.**

All content must be your own, no lifting passages directly from books without attributing them in quote form to the author, lets not let get done for copyright just for revising.

## Topics:

* Ethics
* Philosophy of Mind

## Featured Content:

> Virtue Ethics
>
>

## Pages that need work: (take them off the list when you're finished)

If you want to chip in, but either don't know which article you'd like to write or just have a correctionist drive then this is the list for you! They could be in need of just a few lines of text, the addition of new content or maybe a picture to spruce it up, or it may be a re-write/some critical editing. In each case refer to your own discretion:

* Folk Psychology
* Kant
* Dualism
* Substance and Property Dualism (though for this one they could just be put together in the overall dualism article)
* Ghost in the Machine objection

## Latest activity

Photos and videos are a great way to add visuals to your wiki. Find videos about your topic by exploring Wikia's Video Library.

File:Placeholder