If a Trees Falls in the Woods. . .

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?  Discuss.  You might want to define what you mean by a "sound," by "nobody," and perhaps even a "tree."

A Noble Failure?

Many of us in class found Descartes' foundational project to fail. Let's assume that he cannot justify all his claims to knowledge by an appeal to the Cogito. What can we learn from this failure? Should we look for a wider class of foundational beliefs? Should we avoid appeals to a God who is not a deceiver? Should we find a different way to justify beliefs that does not require an appeal to foundational beliefs?

A God Chasing Its Tail?

Antoine Arnauld (among others) famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?

The Cogito

In Meditation II, Descartes believes he has both defeated skepticism and discovered a foundational belief that he will use to justify all his other claims to knowledge. He argues that the very act of doubt proves that he exists. Is he right? Does the Cogito disprove skepticism? Even if it does is it a Pyrrhic victory -- or can this belief be the basis for the rest of his knowledge?

When the Walls Come Tumbling Down

Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs?

Is Ignorance Bliss?

In Chapter 12 of the Republic Socrates argues that pleasure based on the truth is more substantial than pleasure based on illusion and falsehood. Since a moral person is ruled by reason, he or she will have a clearer access to the truth and therefore will choose more substantial pleasure.  But is Socrates correct?  Does it matter if pleasure is based on truth -- or are all pleasure equally valuable?  Does it matter if your pleasure in your spouse's love is based on actual love -- or an amazing acting job designed to finagle your inheritance when you die?  Does it matter if the pleasure you have in the belief you scored a winning touchdown is based on reality -- or a dream which you will never wake up from (since you are in a coma from trying to play a game of football)?   Is ignorance bliss?

Plato's Cave

Plato argues that most of us are like prisoners in a cave who are bound in such a way that we can only see shadows of objects projected on a wall. Not only can we not see the objects that cast the shadows, we cannot even see the objects outside of the cave. A more modern analogy might have the prisoner's watching a movie or perhaps "plugged in" to a virtual reality program. What is Plato claiming about the ordinary person? What is our epistemic state? Do we have any hope in escaping? And most importantly, is Plato correct? In short, what is your interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave and is the allegory the correct way to view the human quest for knowledge?