Philosophy Dialogue

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By Jkelly37
Words 1719
Pages 7
Oh Sweet Marilyn, What has happened?

Narveson: Josh, would you mind introducing me to Marilyn’s parents?
Josh: Not a problem Jan! Right this way.
Narveson: I would like to have a word with them regarding the recent loss of their daughter.
Josh: Good evening you guys, I would like to introduce to you my newest friend Jan Narveson.
Narveson: (Reaches out his hand) I am terribly sorry for your loss. I heard nothing but good things about your daughter.
Marilyn’s Father: Hey, uh thank you sir. It’s been tough
Marilyn’s Mother: (Continues to sob)
Marilyn’s Father: We can’t believe our innocent little girl was taken from us. Do you know Barton, the pilot?
Marilyn’s Mother: That man Barton is a monster! He killed our daughter and didn’t do anything to avoid it. Just simply executed our daughter to save some lives? It is outrageous.
Josh: Let me grab you guys some drinks..
Narveson: Yes I know Barton; do you really think Barton didn’t do all he could for your daughter? I am kind of torn between the middle. Barton had two choices in what he ought to do in this dreadful situation.
Marilyn’s Parents: Well he chose the wrong one!!
Narveson: Here’s how I see it, Barton had two choices: Either your “innocent” Marilyn dies or all eight people die; Marilyn, Barton and six men. To whom are all “innocent”.
Marilyn’s Mother: I’m glad we can agree that Marilyn was innocent. All she did was stow away on the ship to see her brother. This should never have become a problem; its just Barton made it one.’
Marilyn’s Father: Was there any security or signs saying she wasn’t allowed in?
Josh: I heard there was a sign that read “UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT!”
Narveson: That’s right, we must put that into account, Marilyn has the absolute right to live, we have an absolute right to obey it.
Josh: What do you mean by that?
Marilyn’s Parents: Of course our girl has…...

Similar Documents

Interfaith Dialogue

...Goodness and badness Phil 315 Hello, All! Welcome again to the course! As a first intellectual exercise, I want you all to consider the basis or bases by which you decide whether a person is "good" or "bad". What criteria do you employ? What parameters do you set? After we have discussed this matter a bit in the Conference, I want to suggest some applications of Physics and other Philosophies, which might open up various options. Each one of you, please check in, and give a brief answer to these fundamental and starter questions. Please do so AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AFTER THE START OF THE COURSE. Your responses need not be elaborate-- perhaps only Impressionistic. If you wish to supplement them, that is permissible. Consider how you judge "goodness" and "badness", as concepts. Can a person be separated from his/her actions? The choices of whether good and bad are what makes us the persons we were made to be by fulfilling those needs that we have by virtue of our common human nature. Goodness displays the force of many sympathies of mankind, prudence, good judgment, integrity, and polite manners. Goodness can also be judged by our moral admiration and a controlled sense for a person’s ownership of qualities that come under us. A good person is genial, generous, and kind, does well as friend, as parent, as neighbor, as colleague, as employer. She is thoughtful and helpful to those she meets, both those close to her, friends, family, and work-mates, and also to......

Words: 395 - Pages: 2

Great Dialogues for Plato-Phaedo

...Great dialogues of Plato—Crito In this chapter, Plato talked about the dialogues between Socrates and Criton, Socrates’ best friend in his whole life. In this time, Socrates had already been put into prison by the unfair adjudgement in the court and he was waiting for the death penalty. When a Greek ship from Delos came back, he needed to get the death penalty. Before this time, Criton had visited Socrates for a few times, and tried to persuade him escape from this prison, but it was not worked. In the beginning of this dialogue, Socrates asked Criton, “Why have you come at this time of day”? He was sleeping and even forgot the time. Criton wanted to convince him leave the prison, and he had already found someone to help Socrates if he could escape. It must be the last time to get out from this prison, because the ship would come soon. However, Socrates refused his suggestion depending on his own opinion about moral and law. Then they began to debate by several aspects. Criton thought that he should leave the prison because he was guiltless. And he used a few ways to persuade him, just like, he let Socrates think of his sons and said “It is your power to bring them up and educate them, and now you will go off and leave them, and so far as you are concerned, they must take their life as they find it”. And they would be in orphan, if you leave them. He appealed by emotion to persuade him not giving up his life. On the other hand, Criton illustrated their friendship. If......

Words: 771 - Pages: 4

Philosophical Dialogue

...Philosophical Dialogue (from Philosophy Pages) Verbal discussion of serious topics is in no way tangential to the practice of philosophy. From Socratic gatherings to the philosophical conventions of today, thinking things through out loud—and in the presence of others—has always been of the essence of the philosophical method. (Most philosophical texts embody this give-and-take, either in explicit use of dialogue form or by a more subtle alteration of proposal, objection, and reply in expository prose.) Your philosophical education demands that you enter into the great conversation of Western thought. A few suggestions may help: Be prepared Productive dialogue presupposes informed participants. This means that during every class session, each of us will have read the material assigned for the day, we will pay careful attention to what others have already said, and we will think carefully before speaking. Of course, each of us will often be mistaken, but none of us should ever speak randomly. Respect others Joint participants in dialogue show a deep, personal respect for each other. We owe it to each other to listen well and to give each other the benefit of doubt in interpreting charitably what has been said, trying always to see the worthwhile point. Although we will rarely find ourselves in total agreement on the issues at stake, we will never attack or make fun of each other personally. Expect conflict Disagreement with an expressed opinion and criticism of its...

Words: 494 - Pages: 2

Philosophy

...GROUP ASSIGNMENT Greek philosophy Q) Critically assess the charges against and the defence given by Socrates in the apology? The apology- a compilation of Socrates dialogue- is a rare collection of works done by Plato which we must treasure. This work gives us a distinct clear picture of what must have happened in Athens in the 5th century. Each deep mystifying dialogue, if interpreted properly, unveils realities leaving us either enlightened or puzzled. Apprehending, such an abstruse matter, is indeed a tough task. So there may be a possibility of us misinterpreting him. First we feel that Socrates has misinterpreted the message of 'Oracle'. He has only partially comprehended oracle's message . In reference to the passage given : (the apology pg 22) "....he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser." (Pg30-) Socrates says, "......God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men....., (pg 34)".....And this is a duty which God has imposed upon me as i am assured by oracles, visions and in every sort of way .....one." Criticism: 1) May be what oracle wanted to say was that there was no man wiser than Socrates, the Oracle could have meant that everyone had the same level of wisdom as that of Socrates. Hence, when Socrates went about in finding out whether what Oracle said was really true, he was only bent upon......

Words: 1210 - Pages: 5

Philosophy

...PHILMAN PRELIM Lesson 3: Greek Wisdom of Man The Greek Triumvirate The Greek Triumvirate of philosophy is known for having a chain of teacher-student relationship. Socrates was the teacher of Plato; Plato was the teacher of Aristotle; and Aristotle was the teacher of one of history’s greatest conqueror – Alexander, the Great. The Greek Triumvirate & the Three Oriental Sages * Although the teachings of the Three Oriental Sages and the Greek Triumvirate are dissimilar, they however, have a resembling view on the soul of man. * The Oriental sages and the Greek triumvirate believed that man’s soul pre-existed his body. * The Greek triumvirate believes that man, in his original and ideal existence as a soul or a « pure mind », knew all things by direct intuition and had all knowledge stored in his mind. However, when man was banished into his world of sense, man blurred out and forgot almost everything he ever knew. * The Greek triumvirate posited that the present problems of man was caused by ignorance or lack of knowledge and that the only way for man to solve these problems is by recalling all his previous knowledge. * However, while they believe in the vitalityt of looking into one’s self as a method to resolve man’s problem, there are still major differences when it comes to the ‘specifics’ of their ideologies. Socrates * He was born in Athens circa 469 B.C. and died in 399 B.C. * He is known as one of mankind’s greatest teachers. ...

Words: 1611 - Pages: 7

Plato Five Dialogues

...Abdulaziz Alkhars 12016972 Phil 334W Euthyphro had a struggle explaining his definition of what is the pious and the impious to Socrates in Plato, Five Dialogues. Although Euthyphro was confident to say that he was in well knowledge and accurate of the pious and what is not. Socrates asked a simple and general question “what is the pious and what is the impious?” expecting a clear and logic answer, Euthyphro explained that the pious is to prosecute the wrongdoer whether it was a relative or a stranger. Clearly Euthyphro answered the question in a very deep manner rather than a clear logic definition. Socrates immediately knew that Euthyphro did not answer his question in the form he desired. The question asked, “what is the pious and what is the impious?” should be approached in a broad manner. For example, if person A asks “what is philosophy?” person B answers “what you are doing now is considered philosophy” instead of giving a complete or exact definition of philosophy, he metaphorically suggested that person's A act of asking questions is what philosophy is all about, i.e. thinking, asking questions about the unknown granted that acknowledgment of ignorance and asking questions to gain knowledge is wisdom, the goal or telos of philosophy. Socrates continues to ask more questions to clarify Euthyphro’s mind about his ideology of the pious and impious. Euthyphro then claimed that what is pious is what is dear to the gods and Socrates ironically agrees that......

Words: 503 - Pages: 3

Organisational Dialogue

...Introduction “Changes happen by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you do not believe is right.” – Jane Goodall. There are lots of critiques who argue that dialogue can precisely transform the organisational culture and learning methods. Dialogue is a mutual understanding among the people and empowering them by letting speak and hear (Senge et al. 1999). Dialogue is a controversial subject that generally covers entire communication channel of an organisation (Schein 1993). However, dialogue has been an argumentative communication method that is least comparable to traditional approach of communication. Therefore, Schien (1993) suggest that in order to balance communication and exchange information, ‘dialogue is not only different form of many techniques that have been proposed before, but also that it has considerable promise as problem solving and problem formulating.’ Communication is integrated with an organisation to flow messages and information from top to bottom and vice versa (Tourish, D & Hargie, O 2009) where dialogue acts as a part of bringing up information, frustrations, ideas, present scenario that highly influence firm’s active participation for positive change. According to the Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. and Trethewey, A (2010:33) communication plays a role of ‘moment to moment working out of tensions’ in an organisation. Basically to achieve targets and objectives that has been vision and paved by a......

Words: 1787 - Pages: 8

Philosophy

...------------------------------------------------- Philosophy Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies.[8] It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarised as follows:[9][10][11] 1. The goal of life is Eudaimonia and mental clarity or lucidity (ἁτυφια) - freedom from τύφος (smoke) which signified ignorance, mindlessness, folly, and conceit. 2. Eudaimonia is achieved by living in accord with Nature as understood by human reason. 3. τύφος (Arrogance) is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions, unnatural desires, and a vicious character. 4. Eudaimonia or human flourishing, depends on self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια), equanimity, arete, love of humanity, parrhesia and indifference to the vicissitudes of life (ἁδιαφορία). 5. One progresses towards flourishing and clarity through ascetic practices (ἄσκησις) which help one become free from influences – such as wealth, fame, or power – that have no value in Nature. Examples include Diogenes' practice of living in a tub and walking barefoot in winter. 6. A Cynic practices shamelessness or impudence (Αναιδεια) and defaces the Nomos of society; the laws, customs, and social conventions which people take for granted. Thus a Cynic has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame,......

Words: 1521 - Pages: 7

Dialogue Shakesphere

...cmbusch English III Segment 1 Module 3.07 Dialogue of what could have happened after the story (revision) Underlined the differences between 3.06 and 3.07 “I know why you felt offended by Fortunato” said Luchesi. “You could not begin to understand how he chuckled and made of my family prominence in our quaint town,” replied Montressor. He had this tight lip grin while he snickered, “he insulted the importance of my family throughout the years. History has been made by my family and all carcasses left in the town’s famous crypts shows affirmation of the strength of my family. The coat of arms is influential and Fortunato laughed at it”. Luchesi chortled and harshly replied, “Strength comes from within and your belief of how important your family is comes from within. Arrogantly deceiving a man, then killing him only shows that you are vulnerable and weak. You carry disbelief in yourself and your family. Silence shows strength, that is why I have such little to speak about”, confessed Luchesi. Dialogue of what could have happened after the story Module 3.06 “I know why you felt offended by Fortunato” said Luchesi. “You could not begin to understand how he made fun of my family status,” replied Montressor. “He mocked me and did not believe how important my family has been throughout the years. History has been made by my family and all those bodies in the crypts are evidence of the strength of my family. The coat of arms is important and Fortuntato laughed at it”....

Words: 311 - Pages: 2

Dialogue

...1.Write a dialogue between Jony and Nadim about illiteracy. Jony: Hello Nadim. How are you? Nadim: Fine. Thank you. What’s about you? Jony: I am also fine.thanks. May I know your opinion about Illiteracy? Nadim: yes. It’s a great problem and curse for our country. Jony: How? Nadim: You know, Education is the back bone of a nation. No nation can prosper without education. Jony: What should we do then? Nadim: We should work hand to hand to remove illiteracy. Jony: We should also need to create public awarness. Nadim: Yes, of course. It’s a vital factor. Jony: Thank you. Nadim: Welcome. 2.Write a dialogue between Nadim and Noyon about Tree plantation. Nadim: Hello Noyon , How are you? Noyon: Fine. Thank you. What’s about you? Nadim: I am also fine.thanks.Where are you going? Noyon: I am going to attend the tree plantation program. Nadim: What do you need to plant trees? Noyon: Don’t you know about the important of tree plantation. Nadim: Sorry friends. I don’t know. Noyon: Ok, I shall tell about it. Nadim: Please do. Noyon: Tree’s are very useful to us. They help us many Ways. They give us food shelter and shade. They also give us oxyzen and prevent natural calamities. Nadim: Yes, Now I can realize. When should we plant trees? Noyon: June and July are......

Words: 2653 - Pages: 11

Philosophy

...1: Philosophy, sophism/sophistry, “pilosopo” 1 [Published in Rolando M. Gripaldo, ed. 2004. Philosophical landscape. Manila: Philippine National Philosophical Research Society.] PHILOSOPHY, SOPHISM/SOPHISTRY, “PILOSOPO” Rolando M. Gripaldo PHILOSOPHY: Ancient Philosophy literally means “love of wisdom.” In contemporary philosophy there are as many definitions of philosophy as there are schools of philosophy.1 What is interesting is that one school defines philosophy to the exclusion of other schools. For instance, the analytic school defines philosophy as the clarification of the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences, and it rejects metaphysical propositions as cognitively meaningless. Its emphasis is logic and language. On the other hand, the continental school defines philosophy in terms of the meaning of life and one’s relationship with the world and the Other (other human beings and/ or God). It considers the activities of the analytic tradition as meaningless to one’s life. Its emphasis is life. It is therefore advisable to just leave the definition of philosophy in its original etymological meaning, although even this is not safe. Quite recently, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1989), an hermeneute, has rejected epistemic wisdom as within the realm of human control. The ancient Greeks defined philosophy as love of (epistemic) wisdom. Thales, who is traditionally considered the father of philosophy, was interested in “knowing” the ultimate reality,...

Words: 3853 - Pages: 16

The Melians Dialogue

...Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not unduly harsh and are justified because they needed to assert their power. The Melians’ senselessness of resistance and logicality of weakness enables Athens’ actions to be more reasonable. Athens is a nation that has demonstrated their power and authority towards other nations in situations of war and imperialism. In tactically trying to gain allies in the war against Sparta, Athens’ main objective is not to appear weak before their enemies and as a result, they needed to assert their power towards Melos. While asking the Melians to submit, the Athenians say to them, “for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power” (Thucydides 269). Here, the......

Words: 1292 - Pages: 6

Philosophy

...Anthony Charpentier Due Date: 10/7/14 PHI 307 – Ancient Philosophy First Essay Assignment Xenophanes, Socrates, Plato on the possibility of knowledge Skepticism – A skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. In ordinary skepticism this would mean someone who would doubt the existence of something. A difference between the two is normal skepticism is you try to get it clear in your head. Ordinary doubt - or local skepticism - can usually be tested - and even when it can't, there may well come a time when it can. Many philosophers have had their own version and interpretation of skepticism. Skeptics only denies we have knowledge but does not deny our belief or opinion. Most of which our true belief is just luck and lucky guesses are not knowledge. An example of this can be found in a reading from Humes which he explained that he does not perceive anything else besides his perceptions such as immaterial substance. From different philosophers and readings we can understand there are many different meanings and interpretations of skepticism. According to Philonous presents an argument against Hylas stating that only ideas are perceived, nothing else and thus that we are aware only of the mind. Philonous proceeds to use the same arguments as John Locke to prove things are independent of the mind. Philonous uses a similar example to that of John Locke in which he states, “suppose now one of your hands hot, and the other cold, and that they are both at once......

Words: 1675 - Pages: 7

Philosophy

...of New York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. For information, address State University of New York Press, 90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207 Production, Laurie Searl Marketing, Fran Keneston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mason, Richard, 1948– Understanding understanding / Richard Mason. p. cm. — (SUNY series in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7914-5871-7 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-7914-5872-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Comprehension (Theory of knowledge) I. Title. II. Series. BD181.5.M27 2003 121—dc21 2003042557 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Margie Contents INTRODUCTION, 1 CHAPTER ONE WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, 7 CHAPTER TWO HOW WE UNDERSTAND, 21 CHAPTER THREE UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE, 39 CHAPTER FOUR INTELLIGIBILITY, 51 CHAPTER FIVE FAILURES OF UNDERSTANDING, 67 CHAPTER SIX BEYOND UNDERSTANDING, 89 viii CONTENTS CHAPTER SEVEN WISDOM, 105 NOTES, 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 125 INDEX OF NAMES, 131 Introduction A physicist tries to understand quantum mechanics. A parent tries to understand a......

Words: 57755 - Pages: 232

Philosophy

...MyTeaching Philosophy ‘You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to find it for himself’ by Galileo Galilei My classroom will be child-centred and focus on their needs to empower them to be responsible for their learning. The fundamental basis of my teaching philosophy is the belief that it is more important to teach students how to think than what to think. As Rait (2009), states how Paulo Freire’s concept of liberation for freedom links to community education, and that there is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Social condition did not allow many of the poor to have an education. Rait (2009), suggests that Freire believed the current education system is oppressive to all those that are not part of the socioeconomic elite, experience showed the relationship between social class and knowledge. Educators should not treat students simply as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge. The concept of empty vessel also referred to as ‘Banking’ by Paulo Freire (Rait, 2009), is of similar suggestions by Rousseau that a child as an active learner (Noddings, 2007). Rather, students should be engaged with alternative viewpoints that challenge existing assumptions and encourage critical thinking. Said another way an aspect of my pedagogical teaching requires both teacher and student to work together to solve problems on an equal footing, or at least without the teacher claiming absolute knowledge and an authority superior to that of the......

Words: 1291 - Pages: 6