Imagine: Big Ideas For Bright Minds (P4C)

Big Ideas for Bright Minds

JOHNS HOPKINSU N I V E R S I T Y

Center for Talented Youth

Robots, Zombies,and Descartes

Exploring Ethics

Philosophy & The Matrix

Students Review Davidson College

Philosophy

VOL.17 NO.4 | Mar/Apr 2010Big Ideas for Bright Minds


VOL.17 NO.4VOL.17 NO.4 | Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010

2 imagine Mar/Apr 2010imagine Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010

contents

8 ...........Why Study Philosophy?The benefi ts of thinking deeply

The Great Conversation . . . . . . . .10A survey of philosophy’s big ideas over the millennia

14 .......Robots, Zombies, and DescartesPhilosophy of the Mind at CTY

The Wide World of Philosophy . . . .16For almost every academic discipline, there is a philosophical specialization

The Philosopher’s Toolbox . . . . . . .20What does it mean to “do philosophy”?

Bad Dreams, Evil Demons, . . . . . .22and The Experience MachinePhilosophy & The Matrix

26 ......Harry Potter and PlatoSeeking virtue at Hogwarts and in Athens

28 .......Exploring Ethics (or, Why I Give Up Saturdays in Spring)The Baltimore High School Ethics Bowl

How to Start a Philosophy Club . . .30Next steps for inquiring minds

www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 3imagine 3

departmentsEditor’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Big Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5What’s your question?

In My Own Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Philosopher Bas van Fraassen

Selected Opportunities & Resources . . . . . . . . . . .32

Middle Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Is it still cheating if I don’t get caught?

Off the Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Word Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Exploring Career Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Interview with epidemiologist Mark Parascandola

One Step Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40The class I used to hate

Planning Ahead for College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Taking responsibility

Students Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Davidson College

Creative Minds Imagine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Winning essays from the 2009 Kids Philosophy Slam

Sudoku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Knossos Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

for supporting the digital edition of this issue, which is available free at

www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/imagine/20100304_SFF

We encourage our readers to explore the digital magazine and to share it widely with

friends, family, teachers, school administrators, and others who would enjoy the issue.

ABOUT THE SQUIRE FAMILY FOUNDATIONThe Squire Family Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, believes that all students in American elementary and

secondary schools should have an opportunity to study philosophy because it teaches us not what to think but how

to think; that is, to critically and systematically examine and reflect on our beliefs so we can act responsibly. Since 2007, SFF has been working with philosophers, educators,

and administrators to make this vision a reality.Visit www.squirefoundation.org

for more information.

thanks

4 imagine Mar/Apr 2010

BIG IDEAS FOR BRIGHT MINDS™

EDITOR

Melissa Hartman

ASSISTANT EDITOR

Amy Entwisle

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS & EDITORS

Kristi BirchCarol C. Blackburn

Linda E. BrodyStuart Gluck

Michelle MuratoriCarlos Rodriguez

PROOFREADER

Melissa House

DESIGN & PRODUCTION

Bonotom Studio, Inc.

ART DIRECTOR

Abigail Noonan

ISSN 1071-605X

Vol.17 No.4 | Mar/Apr 2010

Copyright © 2010 by The Johns Hopkins University

All rights reserved. No portion of this journal may be reproduced by any process or technique without the formal consent of The Johns Hopkins University Center for

Talented Youth.

Published five times a year: September/October

November/DecemberJanuary/February

March/AprilMay/June

ADDRESS SUBSCRIPTION INQUIRIES TO:

Imagine, JHU Press Journals Division, P.O. Box 19966

Baltimore, MD 21211-0966800-548-1784, 410-516-6968 (fax)

or order online:cty.jhu.edu/imagine

ADDRESS EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE TO:

Melissa Hartman, CTY/Imagine 5801 Smith Avenue, Suite 400

Baltimore, MD 21209 [email protected]

editor’s note

Why philosophy?In Imagine’s 17-year history, we’ve published four issues

focusing on math, four on writing, and fi ve on the arts.

We’ve devoted multiple issues to engineering, physics,

astronomy, and biology. But no previous issue has focused

on philosophy.

When two colleagues from CTY’s Department of

Summer Academic Programs approached our staff with

the idea of devoting an issue to philosophy, we were

reluctant. More precisely, I was reluctant. Philosophy intim-

idated me. I had taken one philosophy class in college, and that was because it

was required. I thought philosophy was abstract, esoteric, and narrower and less

practical even than my own major, English. I was wrong—but I wasn’t alone. Many

people share these misperceptions about philosophy.

This bias might stem in part from philosophy’s absence in the American

curriculum. As one of our contributors, Jana Mohr Lone, points out, “The United

States is one of the few countries in the world that doesn’t require high school

students to take philosophy.” With mathematics, literature, science, and history, it

might seem that the curriculum is already quite full. But philosophy is at the core

of all of these disciplines. It is foundational.

Philosophy develops students’ analytical, critical thinking, and problem-solving

skills—valuable assets in a wide range of careers from medicine and law to

information technology and business. And a 2008 report by Payscale.com shows

that the major pays off: Philosophy majors rank 16th out of 50 majors in mid-career

median salary—higher than majors in information technology, business manage-

ment, and architecture, to name a few.

But as this issue of Imagine shows, you don’t have to major in philosophy or

wait until college to study it, even if your school doesn’t offer philosophy classes.

You’ll hear from three high school students—one who took a summer course,

another who competed in Ethics Bowl, and still another who wrote an award-

winning philosophy portfolio—who explored philosophy outside of school. If

you want to bring philosophy into your school, you’ll find advice on how to start

a philosophy club. You’ll see some of the underlying philosophical concepts

of movies such as The Matrix and fiction such as the Harry Potter series. You’ll

even find a brief (and fun!) introduction to some of the biggest names and

ideas in philosophy. Of course, you will also hear from students of philosophy

themselves—and from someone whose philosophy degree led to a career in

epidemiology. And you’ll hear from one of today’s most influential contemporary

philosophers, Bas van Fraassen, whose interest in philosophy began when he was

a teenager.

Working on this issue has been a revelation, and we hope that you have a simi-

lar experience when you read it. Instead of asking “Why philosophy?”—as I did

when Stu Gluck and Carlos Rodriguez fi rst proposed this issue—we think you’ll be

asking, “What took you so long?” —mh

ch

ARL

es B

eckM

AN

www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 5www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine

It all starts with a question.

From the sublimely metaphysical

(Are we really here? If so, why are we

here?) to the more contrived and quirky

(Is Schrödinger’s cat alive or dead?), phi-

losophy is all about questions. You’ve probably asked

some philosophical questions yourself, even if only at

a subconscious level: What is love? Why do bad things

happen to good people? What is goodness and how

do we achieve it? What is the meaning of life? Bringing

these questions to light and using logic to answer them

is the work of philosophers.

Thinking up questions, the fi rst act of “philosophizing,”

has always been my favorite part of the process. I have

always been fascinated by the roots of actions:

Why did a person act in a particular way?

What triggers acts of kindness, indiffer-

ence, or evil? I remember reading the

World section of the New York Times as

a 10-year-old, wondering what motivated

the atrocities—from assaults on individuals

to genocides—I’d read about.

Wanting to understand the causes of these

actions, I eventually decided to focus on a specifi c

question: “What spurs human acts of evil and hate?”

When I was in ninth grade, I began an intensive explo-

ration of this question. Saturdays and Sundays would

often fi nd me curled up in the school library’s com-

fortable chairs, fl ipping through stacks of books and

journals, furiously scribbling notes and musings in my

notebook. Three years later, I pulled all my thoughts

together into a portfolio of fi ve papers drawing from

sources in literature, history, and philosophy, and all

tied to the theme of “The Roots of Evil.”

Crafting questions that truly fascinate me and then

investigating them to discover my own truth—that, for

me, is the beauty of this process, and why I took so

much joy in writing these papers in philosophy.

Friends sometimes scrunch up their faces in baffl e-

ment. Philosophy? Why philosophy? Isn’t this a theoretical,

abstract, and inaccessible fi eld reserved for academics?

(At this point, they might refer to the stereotypical image

of wizened men with white beards and thick glasses.) I

explain that philosophy transcends age, background, and

boundaries; that anyone any-

where can philosophize; that it is a

universal impulse to ask questions

and seek answers. And philosophy

doesn’t have to be abstruse. In

fact, philosophical inquiry can be as

satisfying as fi nishing a marathon or

fi nally understanding that tricky math

problem.

As I face the future, I know I’ll always

turn to philosophy to challenge, frus-

trate, enlighten, and ultimately empower

me. I’ve already benefi ted from

philosophy by becoming

a more critical thinker,

a more fearless

student, and more

thoughtful in and

out of the classroom.

As Immanuel Kant

observed, “The sum

total of all possible

knowledge of God is

not possible for a human

being … but it is one of the worthiest

inquiries to see how far our reason can go.”

So that’s what philosophy means to me, but it’s up

to you to discover its potential for you. Pave your own

exploration in philosophy. Start with a question. i

Doreen Xu is a senior at Baylor school in tennessee, where she is editor of the yearbook, literary magazine, and the school

newspaper. she is also president of her school’s Amnesty international chapter, captain of the debate and economics teams, a member of the varsity swim and lacrosse teams, and a writing center tutor, and participates in several other activities. For “the Roots of evil,” Doreen was named a Davidson Fellow by the Davidson institute for talent Development and awarded a $25,000 scholarship.

www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 5

big questions

istock

Davidson Fellows Scholarships are awarded for work in mathematics, science, literature, music, technology, philosophy, and “outside the box.” For more information, see www.ditd.org.

What’s Your Question? by Doreen Xu

6 imagine Mar/Apr 20106 imagine Mar/Apr 2010

The value of philosophyPhilosophy begins with wonder,

and happens when wonder is

indulged—on any subject at all.

So it may seem like just an intel-

lectual luxury. In practical life,

with its many demands, ques-

tions often have to be set aside

while we strive for the goals at

hand. But it also happens that we

look back and wish we hadn’t set

some questions aside, because

lack of understanding can

hamper us. I don’t think, though,

that we can or should justify

thinking, refl ecting, wondering,

and puzzling purely on a basis

of practical advantages that may

come from them. Isn’t gaining understanding, about

anything, of value in itself?

Meeting PlatoSomething happened when I was 17, working a

part-time job in the Edmonton public library. I was

reading everything I had time for, but especially in the

Dewey Decimal 100 and 200 categories, which were

a mishmash of religion, psychology, psychoanalysis,

mysticism, occultism, but also real philosophy. At that

point I read for the fi rst time some real philosophy at

fi rst hand: I had gone in my reading from Freud, yoga,

and fl ying saucers to a book about St. Paul’s debt to

Plato, and then read Plato’s Phaedo, which was an

incredible discovery for me. I realized with a shock

how different it was from all the stuff I’d been thinking

of as philosophy. In this dialogue, Socrates was arguing

with his friends about whether we are immortal,

whether there is life after death, and each view they

offered was in turn scrutinized, weighed, and found

wanting, until fi nally it seemed that only some argu-

ment for immortality was left standing.

I was not yet able to deal with it very well. For

one thing, I assumed that understanding the Phaedo

would mean seeing that the arguments were right, that

Socrates’ arguments against the others were con-

clusive, and that his arguments for immortality were

really good arguments. Now I fi gure that Plato wrote

these dialogues to train his students how to evaluate

arguments—and especially to pick out the bad ones.

But this was, in retrospect, a milestone for me, and the

single most important thing that happened to make me

a philosopher.

Math, science, philosophyIn college I had a combined physics and math minor,

and in graduate school I took more math that I needed

to understand more physics. But mostly I learned those

subjects on my own, always just going to what I needed

next for what I was thinking about. Well, I still do.

In my fi rst year of college, my heroes were Jean Paul

Sartre, whom I’d been reading already, and Bertrand

Russell, who talked a lot about science. Then, at the

beginning of my second year, while I was shelving

books in the University of Alberta library, I came

across Hans Reichenbach’s Philosophy of Space and

Time. That was my second revelation. Here were really

deep questions, really philosophical, but that were still

solidly connected with the physics and mathematics

that I also loved.

Questions of scienceScience is in a position to describe everything

completely and accurately. But there is a lot to be

understood, a lot of understanding to be gained, that

a complete scientifi c description would not give you.

I can imagine another philosopher asking me what

I mean by “understand”—isn’t getting answers to all

in my own words

Wonder and Discovery

bas Van FRaassenOne of the most infl uential contemporary philosophers of science, Bas van Fraassen has taught at Yale, the University of Toronto, the University of Southern California, Princeton, and, since retiring from Princeton in 2008, at San Francisco State University. His books—widely considered required reading in the fi eld—include The Scientifi c Image, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, The Empirical Stance, and his most recent title, Scientifi c Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. As Dr. van Fraassen explains here, his prolifi c career has roots in the public library, a high school classroom, and the irresistible urge to ask questions.

www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 7www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 7

in my own words

requests for description precisely what gaining under-

standing is? And I would say no, there is understanding

that we gain when we fi nd different ways of seeing the

world, of seeing ourselves in the world, that we come

to through interacting with other people and through

art, literature, and religious experience.

Philosophy of science is very diverse; there are

many different philosophical approaches to science.

But all of them begin with questions that occur to

people at a young age. How could people have been

sure that the earth was round, before we had satellite

pictures? Well, we can think about what reasons they

could have for thinking so, what evidence they could

offer. It might have been enough to make them confi -

dent, but maybe not enough to prove it conclusively. Is

it any different now with other scientifi c theories, such

as that the universe is expanding or that there was a

Big Bang or that evolution is punctiform rather than

continuous? What is evidence, anyway?

What I’m wonderingOnce, in high school in Canada—I remember it

because I felt embarrassed at the time—the physics

teacher gave us an assignment: Find out whether you

see more of yourself in the mirror if you step back

from it. The next day I brought in a geometric proof

that you do not. He told me that was nice, but I had

done the wrong thing: I should have gone to a mirror

and experimented. At the time I thought he was totally

wrong! But later I came to see his point very well: You

can’t prove something about how things happen in the

world independent of experience; you need factual

evidence from observation.

One question that I’ve been preoccupied with since

I began studying philosophy really harks back to that

occasion, when I had to realize that what the world

is like is something beyond what we can fi nd out by

thinking, reasoning, and calculating alone. This was

the central insight of the empiricists in the history of

philosophy—and there were many important empiri-

cist philosophers—but looking back, they got an awful

lot wrong, too. So the question for me is, What can

empiricism be now, today? I’ve tried to answer it, but

I’m not fi nished with it.

Another question, which relates to both art and

science, is what representation and interpretation

are. Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is about a family, and it

represents that family as unhappy—but if I say this,

even just this, you may already begin to object that I

am imposing some interpretation of my own. What do

we mean by that? Do we mean the same thing if we say

that Darwin represented organic life on earth as evolv-

ing? That he imposed some interpretation derived

from the prevalent capitalist economic theories of his

day? Are there criteria by which we can judge different

interpretations of the same theory?

What it takes to be a philosopherI’m a little embarrassed to say that it takes something

that could easily become intellectual arrogance. For

as a philosopher today, you need to think that you can

engage critically with all those great philosophers

of the past, contest Descartes’ arguments, discover

Galileo’s fallacies, disagree with Kant, offer arguments

to refute Russell. Thomas Kuhn, who was mainly a

historian of science (though also a philosopher) once

told me, “Philosophers don’t go to the past to study

their predecessors, but to cross swords with them.” I

just hope that this can combine with a good measure of

personal humility. i

isto

ck

WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY

Mar/Apr 2010

Th e United States is one of the few countries in the world that doesn’t require

high school students to take philosophy, so the subject is oft en a mystery to students. But most of us actually start asking philosophical questions early on. I remember wondering as a child what it meant to live a good life, and whether life had any meaning. Participating in a philosophy class encourages students to consider and express their own perspectives about such questions, listen to one another, challenge and build on each other’s thinking, and better understand their own ideas.

Love of WisdomTh e word “philosophy” comes from the Greek, meaning

“love of wisdom.” Philosophers explore the unsettled questions of human existence by analyzing the

meaning of the basic concepts that comprise our understanding of the world. What is

knowledge and how do we obtain it? What is goodness? What is the mind?

What is time? What is beauty? In other words, philosophy explores

questions about fundamental

aspects of human life and our relation to the world. Rather than accept what we’ve been taught, we carefully refl ect on our views and then critically assess the arguments constructed by ourselves and others.

In your teen years, questions about identity, the nature of reality, and the meaning of life are paramount. Th inking about these questions in a systematic way provides a strong founda-tion for learning how to think for yourself. Th ere is much talk about the importance of “thinking for yourself,” but not a lot of education about how to do so. Our attitudes about even such things as what books are worth reading, which movies we want to see, and what clothes we wear are oft en infl uenced by the media, our peers, teachers, and family. It’s important to be able to recognize and analyze these forces in order to develop what is truly your own set of beliefs and values.

Students of philosophy learn to evaluate claims based on reason and analysis rather than on fi xed beliefs and prejudice, setting the stage for becoming effective critical thinkers. When you’re fi guring out what you think about issues such as immigration or capital punishment, you’ll be able to think through all the reasons off ered for one viewpoint or another and decide which are strongest, rather than just accepting what your friends, parents, or teachers say.

WHY WHY STUDYSTUDYWHY WHY STUDYWHY WHY WHY STUDY

PHILOSOPHY?

by Jana Mohr Lone, Ph.D.

I took my fi rst philosophy class in a large public high school in New York. For the fi rst time, questions I had puzzled about so oft en—why I existed, whether things actually were the way they appeared to me, and why

our society is organized the way it is—were taken seriously. Th ese questions had already been the subject of study for thousands of

years, and now I was part of a rigorous discussion about them.

isto

ck

WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?WHY STUDY WHY STUDY


Thinking about ThinkingI like to think of philosophy as “thinking about thinking.” It begins with questions: How can we know anything? How can we justify our beliefs? Philosophical inquiry is not restricted to any particular subject matter. You can ask philosophical ques-tions about history, science, literature, and mathematics. Can history change over time? What is the purpose of science? Does the answer to what a poem is about depend on what the poet thinks or thought? Are numbers real?

What characterizes a philosophical question is not what it is about, but at what level it is asked. For example, a teenager might wonder whether it is fair that the drinking age is 21 and not younger. A student of philosophy will begin to think about that issue by asking, “What is fairness?” Someone might contend that a person is a good friend; a student of philosophy will ask, “What makes someone a friend, and a good friend? What is friendship?”

By defi nition, questions of philosophy do not have one “right” answer. Th e experience of understanding that there are many ways to see the same thing—all of them unique and valuable— is a powerful one. Philosophy teaches us that any view must be taken seriously, no matter how outlandish it seems, if there are good reasons off ered for it. For example, when we talk about what we know about the world, it might seem foolish to suggest that the tree in front of the school might not exist. How do we know it’s there? We see it, but are we sure everything we see is really there? Isn’t it possible we are dreaming right now, that we’ll wake up and fi nd there’s no tree in front of the school? Or that (as in the fi lm Th e Matrix) everything we see is only in our minds and we are being fooled to believe that we are really experiencing the physical world? Th e more you think about this, the more you might consider the possibility that the tree really isn’t there.

The Meaning of Life and Other ThingsSometimes what seem to be the simplest questions are also the most complex and diffi cult to answer. As we grow older, we tend to take for granted that we know the answers to many of these basic questions. When we stop to examine them, however,

we fi nd that we’re not so sure aft er all. Consider happiness. We talk about the importance of being happy, but when asked what happiness is, we fi nd the concept complex: Is happiness the way you feel, or does it involve doing something? What is the connection between pleasure and happiness?

Somewhere along the line in our education, many of us conclude that it’s a waste of time to think about questions that are unlikely to be resolved defi nitively. But part of what is mysterious and wonderful about human consciousness is our curiosity about such questions as “What is the meaning of life?” Studying philosophy allows us to stop and think about founda-tional questions, and to do so in a dialogue with other people.

Thinking Critically—for LifeI believe that there is no better education for critical thinking than philosophy. As a law school student and then a lawyer, I found philosophy’s emphasis on constructing well-reasoned arguments, anticipating counterexamples, and expressing points of view invaluable training for legal advocacy.

When the Association of American Colleges and Universities recently asked employers what they want institu-tions to teach, 89 percent indicated they wanted more emphasis on “the ability to eff ectively communicate orally and in writing,” and 81 percent requested better “critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills.”

Studying philosophy trains you to think analytically at a very high level of abstraction, and the advanced reasoning and language skills that you use in the process are marvelous train-ing for any career and simply for life. If you can think deeply about the intensely abstract questions of philosophy, you can think deeply about anything. i

Jana Mohr Lone is the director of the Northwest center for Philosophy for children at the University of Washington’s Department of Philosophy. You can see her blog at http://philosophyforchildren.blogspot.com.


The first philosopher

was an ancient Greek named

Thales. One of the wisest men in the

world, Th ales walked along so deep in thought

that he once fell down a well. At the bottom, he

found what he thought was the nature of all reality:

water. Everything is solid, liquid, or gas, and water takes

on all of these forms as ice, water, and steam. And no rain

meant no life, so he thought everything must be some

form of water. Th is was the fi rst time someone tried to

make sense of things by thinking about the universe

itself rather than giving explanations in terms of the

gods. Th e great conversation had started.

Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010

Socrates lived

in Athens, and when he was

a boy, priests at the Oracle of Delphi—a

temple to the god Apollo—proclaimed him the

wisest person in the city. He was confused because

he thought he knew nothing, while others seemed to

know a lot. But when he started questioning people closely

about such issues as piety, courage, or death, he found that

no one else knew anything, either. He spent his days inter-

rogating people in the Athens marketplace, showing them

that they needed to think more carefully about what they

thought they knew. His wife Xanthippe got so tired of his

talking instead of working and bringing home money

that she hid his robe. Undeterred, Socrates went to

the marketplace naked, and from then on, his

friends always brought an extra robe to the

marketplace … just in case.

Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 Mar/Apr 2010

Socrates’ followers included a young man named

Plato. Aft er Socrates’ death, Plato realized that Socrates’ words needed to be saved for history,

so Plato began to write plays starring Socrates. Th ese dialogues became the most important books in philosophy. In the largest, Th e Republic, Plato argues that reality is to be found not in the world we see around us, but in the World of Forms, which can only be seen through the eye of the mind. Tuna sandwiches, for example, do not really exist—only the form of the tuna sandwich, the essence of the tuna sandwich, pure tuna sandwichidity, and only the philosopher, who has a well-trained mind, understands this. Since philosophers alone have

knowledge of reality, including knowledge of goodness, he thought, it is only Philosopher Kings who should rule the

nations of the world.

Many people picture philosophers sitting alone on a mountaintop, pondering the deep

mysteries of existence. But the truth is that for 2,500 years, philosophers have had an ongoing

conversation amongst themselves, covering issues from what is real to what we can know, from how we should think to how we should act.


by Steven Gimbel, Ph.D.

Th e star pupil at Plato’s school, the Academy, was named Aristotle. Aristotle studied

there until Plato died, aft er which his lectures became unac-ceptably boring. Aristotle disagreed with Plato, thinking that the world

around us is the real world and needs to be explained in terms of its form, what

it’s made of, how it was made, and why it was made. With these four questions,

Aristotle investigated almost everything, and his writings are the start of our

modern understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, economics, literary theory, logic … Th is was one smart guy.

René Descartes was a

mathematician, scientist, and philosopher,

but it was as a soldier that he made his great

discovery. He hated that in virtually every fi eld, great

thinkers argued about pretty much everything. Surely, there’s

something we all agree on, something we know with absolute

certainty. During a wintertime lull in the fi ghting, he spent his

days curled up inside the oven aft er the day’s bread was done (this

is one reason some people think his ideas were only half-baked).

In the dark quiet, he pretended an evil demon controlled his mind,

making him think wrong thoughts about everything. Was there

something, anything, he wondered, that the demon couldn’t fool

him about? He found one thing: his own existence. (To be

fooled, he would have to exist.) From this fi rst undeniable

truth—I think, therefore I am—Descartes tried to use

nothing but a strict logic to justify all of his other

beliefs so he couldn’t be wrong about anything.

continued on page 12


But wrong he was … or at least that’s what John Locke thought. Locke

was a doctor who thought that thought needed more than thought—it needed eyes and ears and even a nose. According to Locke, we cannot

justify our beliefs with just pure logic because logic is only glue; it needs things to stick together, and those things come from observation. We begin life, he argued, as a blank slate; and through sensation, we are written upon. Once we see something,

we can use logic to create more complex ideas. Once we’ve seen horses and horns, for example, it’s easy to dream up unicorns. But

underneath it all is observation. It’s not “I think therefore I

am,” but rather “I see, therefore …

oh, I see.”

Immanuel Kant looked at Descartes’ and Locke’s disagreement and called for a group hug. All our knowledge, he posited, is a combination of the senses and the mind. Th e mind is like a pair of glasses. Without them, we only see a blur of color; we need the lenses to bring reality into focus. Th e mind takes what comes in through our senses and creates the world we see by adding its own concepts, such as numbers, space, time, and even absolute rules of right and wrong. According to Kant, these concepts are all prepro-

grammed into our brains, and all people have them—and have the same ones.

stick together, and those things come from observation. We begin life, he argued, as a blank slate; and through sensation, we are written upon. Once we see something,

we can use logic to create more complex ideas. Once we’ve seen horses and horns, for

Immanuel Kant looked at Descartes’ and Locke’s disagreement and called for a group hug. All our knowledge, he posited, is a combination of the senses and the mind. Th e mind is like a pair of glasses. Without them, we only see a blur of color; we need the lenses to bring reality into focus. Th e mind takes what comes in through our senses and creates the world we see by adding its own concepts, such as numbers, space, time, and even absolute rules of right and wrong. According to Kant, these concepts are all prepro-

grammed into our brains, and all people have them

at Descartes’ and Locke’s disagreement and called for a group hug. All our knowledge, he posited, is a combination of the senses and the mind. Th e mind is like a pair of glasses. Without them, we only see a blur of color; we need the lenses to bring reality into focus. Th e mind takes what comes in through our senses and creates the world we see by adding its own concepts, such as numbers, space, time, and even absolute rules of right and wrong. According to Kant, these concepts are all prepro-grammed into our brains, and all people have

them—and have the same ones.Friedrich Hegel thought Kant was right that we need lenses

to understand reality, but he thought that the lens changed

over time. Indeed, the lens turns out to be history itself. Hegel thought

that the universe unfolds in a well-ordered pattern. He also thought that a thing

requires its opposite (as Arlo Guthrie said, “You can’t have a light without a dark to

stick it in”), so the state of the universe gives rise to its opposite. Th ese opposites inevita-

bly start a war. If one were stronger, it would win; but because they are exact opposites, they

destroy each other. From their smoldering ashes arises a new, higher form of the universe,

and the cycle starts again. History chugs along according to this pattern, regardless of what

we silly little humans think, do, or want. According to Hegel, real wisdom comes from

stepping back and seeing how our role fi ts in

the larger script of history.

Hegel and

Friedrich Nietzsche shared a fi rst

name, but that is all they had in common.

Nietzsche was a very short man with a very large

moustache who liked to say he philosophized with

a hammer. He thought his job was to smash what came

before—and that meant Hegel. We are not pawns in the chess

match of history, he argued, but great individuals who leave

our mark on the world. History does not make us; we make

history. But making history requires breaking history: writing

better music, climbing higher mountains, being faster,

stronger, smarter, and more creative.

John Stuart Mill thought this was silly. We live in a world with other people, and our

actions aff ect them, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Our job, Mill believed, is to make life as

good as it can be for as many people as possible. Th is idea was instilled in him by his father, also a philosopher, who raised Mill to be the world’s most useful person, teaching him Greek at age 3, Latin at 7, and calculus at 12. With

this background, Mill wrote books about logic, scientifi c thinking, ethics, and liberty. He was a free thinker

and part of a group of political rabble rousers in England who protested for more freedom,

including rights for women.

These are not the only characters in the conversation, and they certainly aren’t the

end of it. Even today, the questions raised in ancient Greece by Th ales, Socrates, and Plato remain open for us to ponder. What is real? How do we know whether an act is morally good? What can we know? Th e conversation continues, and you are invited to chime in any time you have something to say. i

steven Gimbel is chair of the philosophy department at Gettysburg college. he is the author of several books, including Profi les in Mathematics: René Descartes, a biography for high school students, and many articles, including one considering questions of sportsmanship in the Deep Blue/Garry kasparov chess match. in his spare time, he is an amateur stand-up comic. his blog is available at http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com.

Bertrand Russell never met Mill. But his parents, who died when Russell was

young, were close friends of Mill’s, and Russell found Mill’s

books in his grandfather’s library. Mill’s ideas about science and politics

had a big infl uence on Russell, who came to think that philosophy had gotten

itself into a muddle because of its sloppy use of language. If only we were more

careful with our words, we would realize that many of the problems philosophers had

been wrestling with since Plato would be seen as pseudo-problems, fake problems, like

asking a friend what color his sister’s hair is when he doesn’t have a sister. Logic, he

thought, would get us out of the jam by letting us know what questions we could

really ask and how to go about answering them.Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir—possibly the smartest couple in history—

thought that the muddle resulted not from a lack of logic, but from neglecting human experience. We create ourselves with the choices

we make. A painter paints, a baker bakes, a butler butles. We make ourselves by choosing what we do. But oft en we think we are trapped by our circumstances—particularly women, de Beauvoir

thought, because society tells them that most interest-ing jobs are just for men. Th at’s why all people,

but girls especially, must be bold in making themselves who they want to be.

imagine 13imagine 13

we make. A painter paints, a baker bakes, a butler butles. We make ourselves by choosing what we do. But oft en we think we are trapped

particularly women, de Beauvoir thought, because society tells them that most interest-

ing jobs are just for men. Th at’s why all people, but girls especially, must be bold in making

themselves who they want to be.

imagine

It was zombie day in my Philosophy of the Mind course at CTY. After having discussed the philosophical concept of zombies (wearing appropriately morbid attire), we were constructing and playing a philosophy-based board game. Outside the classroom, two of our classmates completed their installment of a podcast we had been researching, scripting, and recording for the past week. Not only had we learned about questions that had baffled some of the world’s great-est minds for centuries, but now we were also beginning to analyze them and present our own views in creative ways.

I had signed up for this philosophy course in hopes that it might provide me with a little insight into my own life, a perception that was very quickly countered by an intoxicating whirlwind of contradictory treatises. After only a day of orientation, we submerged ourselves deep within a world of speculation and logic. Our instructor addressed each topic with a level of intensity and quirkiness I had never associated with philosophy. Where I had attempted to find meaning, I instead found a state of informed confu-sion—which I reveled in.

Bodies and/or Minds?The course opened with a reading from Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, one of the earliest and most influential writings in philosophy of mind. It was here that Descartes penned the phrase famously translated into Latin as cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). Through a roundabout thought experiment in which he called into doubt everything that he believed to be true, Descartes encountered only a single truth that he could be absolutely sure of: the existence

of his mind. Drawing from this revelation, he proposed that the world was divided into two fundamentally different sub-stances, bodies and minds. Bodies, he posited, were extended things—they took up space—while minds were thinking things. Descartes considered these attributes, thought and extension, to be mutually exclusive. This school of thought is called dualism. Since Descartes, numerous different dualist theories have emerged, attempting to answer the troublesome question of how two substances of completely distinct and separate natures could be able to interact.

Every evening we would take out our textbooks and read an essay presenting a new philosophical argument, and every morning we would discuss its implications and weaknesses. The reading could be tedious. With titles like “Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction” and “The Problem of Psychophysical Causation,” these were not exactly Reader’s Digest articles. Once you got past the jargon, though, the content was fascinating, and every once in a while you might even find an argument written like a story.

The first topic we discussed involved the nature of the mind. In addition to the aforementioned dualist theories, there is an opposing school of thought called monism, which essentially states that there is only one type of substance that makes up the universe, although it is hotly debated which substance this is. The materialist perspective claims that our universe is entirely physical, and that our minds are our brains. The idealist perspective claims that there is no physical world, and that all things we perceive are essentially bundles of experience. Solipsists go even further, claiming that the only mind in existence is their own.

“Fail to solve the mind-body problem, move back three spaces.” Tom dropped the game card in frustration and moved his zombie token backwards on the game board, his discouraged frown transformed into a comical grimace by the zombie makeup plastered across his face.

Zombies, Robots,

and descaRtes:


isto

ck

Perhaps the most alluring aspect of these arguments is that they are complex and not easily proven. Even today, these intriguing questions continue to be intensely dis-cussed within philosophy.

Rethinking IntelligenceI became particularly excited when our instructor told us that we would be exploring the topic of artificial intelligence. As an avid science fiction geek, I had spent many hours reading the works of Isaac Asimov and wondering about the technological achievements of tomorrow. The readings were clear-cut and easy to understand, and our instructor even produced an arti-cle about whether cylons, the antagonistic robots of Battlestar Galactica, could be said to have human minds.

Toward the end of the session, the entire class staged a formal debate. Was it theoretically possible to create truly intelligent machines? To my consternation, I found myself arguing for the negative, and our evenhanded victory forced me to revise my conception of robotic brains. It seemed irrefutable that Alexander Turing’s vision of a machine that could pass as human would not, in actuality, have intelligence. After all, if a computer could be said to have a mind, then so could any number of theoretical constructs, including crude imitation-brains formed by plumbing or large communes of people.

For those three weeks, I became embroiled in consid-erations of free will, animal minds, the privacy of thoughts, and, yes, zombies, although not in the traditional lumber-ing and brain-devouring sense. (Not that this prevented us from dressing up like something out of Night of the Living

Dead.) Philosophers define a zombie as a person exactly like you or me in every way, except for a complete lack of qualitative experiences. In other words, a zombie in an alternate universe could behave exactly as you do yourself, but whenever he tasted a casserole or saw a red stop sign, he would not actually experience the sensation that you associate with those actions. He would know pain without ever truly feeling it, and even so he would find it to be distasteful. It was bizarre ideas like these that compelled me so strongly to question my assumptions about the way the human mind works.

I may not take another philosophy class in the future, and I certainly don’t plan to turn it into a career path, but my background in the subject has provided me with an enlightening spirit of inquiry. I strongly encourage anyone with a questioning mind and an interest in human nature to at least take a dip into the world of philosophy. Although you may not find what you think you are looking for, the discoveries you will make along the way could redefine the universe you live in. And those revelations are what philosophy is all about. i

sean Youngstone is a five-year ctY veteran. A sophomore, he attends Maggie L. Walker Governor’s school in Richmond, VA, and spends his scant free time running cross-country, writing, and debating. Unable to decide between his zillions of academic interests, he has no idea what his major will be in college.


PhilosoPhy oF the mind at cty

by Sean Youngstone


WIDEWIDEPHILOSOPHY

OF BIOLOGYBY LEONORE MILLER

I went to college planning to be a geneticist, and although I graduated with a degree in biology, I majored in philosophy as well. While fi nishing my junior year—about the time I began thinking about my future

beyond college—I learned about philosophy of biology

from a professor who taught me philosophy of science. I real-

ized that I was already reading some popular philosophy of biology books,

such as Richard Dawkins’s Th e Selfi sh Geneand Matt Ridley’s Genome, so I decided to write

my senior thesis on philosophy of biology and apply to gradu-ate schools in this area of study.

For simplicity’s sake, I’ll say there are three general types of questions in philosophy of biology. Th e fi rst are questions from philosophy of science that have been narrowed to the subject of biology. For example, general epistemological ques-tions—such as what we know and how we can know—about scientifi c explanations are narrowed to questions specifi c to

biology. Other questions concern problems in biology that biology itself has been unable to answer, such as whether organisms have become more complex over time. To answer this question, one has to define what “complex” means, whether it is something that can be objectively understood, and whether organisms can be compared on any absolute scale. Questions like these are answered using ideas and reason rather than data from the lab or fi eld. Finally, there are questions that apply biology to traditionally philosophi-cal concepts; for example, we might use biology as a way to understand the basis of morality. Biology is the study of life, so we oft en turn to biology when we have questions not just about life in general, but about human nature.

My research centers on a new biological law put forward by Robert Brandon and Daniel McShea called Th e Zero Force Evolutionary Law (ZFEL), which concerns the tendency of complexity and diversity to increase in evolutionary systems. My questions are about how universal the ZFEL is. For example, does it apply anywhere in the universe where its assumptions are met? Does it fi t easily into the Darwinian framework? Does the ZFEL aff ect current debates in biology? And does it show that it is important for biology, as a fi eld, to seek more universal laws, or should biology stick to explaining earthly science?

Philosophy of biology examines a rich and diverse set of issues that change as biological theories change. Not only does philosophy of biology theorize about the latest biological

I went to college planning to be a geneticist, and although I graduated with a degree in biology, I majored in

fi nishing my junior year—

You might not think of philosophy when you’re doing a chemistry lab, proving a theorem, or writing a paper about Macbeth. But science, math, and literature—like all academic disciplines—are rich with questions of interest to philosophers. In fact, for almost every academic discipline, there is a philosophical specialization.

We asked graduate students specializing in four di� erent areas of philosophy to share some of the big questions they’re pursuing in their research. As these writers reveal, a philosophical approach to math, science, religion, and language opens these fi elds to a whole new level of exploration.

WORLDTHE

isto

ck


WIDEfi ndings, but it also examines problems that have plagued phi-losophy for centuries, rendering them in a new light with new possibilities for understanding and discovery.

Leonore Miller is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Duke University and is simultaneously completing a master’s in biology. Leonore is the assistant director of the center for Philosophy of Biology at Duke, and she also designed and runs the website for Duke’s center for Philosophy, Arts, and Literature. Leonore has a passion for classical music and opera.

PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICSBY JUSTIN CLARKE-DOANEI used to think of analytic philosophy as shallow, concerned with logical puzzles of no deep signifi cance. But I was very interested

in Asian religious thought and pure mathematics, and between my fi rst and second years in college, I found myself trying to “disprove” a Buddhist philosophical doctrine using mathematical analysis. One of my math professors suggested that I talk about it to the lone analytic philosopher at my college. I did, and from then on, I was hooked. Toward the end of college, I became inter-ested in philosophy of mathematics in particular.

Philosophy of mathematics is the investigation of philosophical questions raised by mathematics. Two central philosophical questions raised by mathematics that are of special interest to me are the question of what mathematical axioms, if any, are true, and the related question of in what sense mathematical axioms could be true.

Mathematical axioms are basic principles from which one seeks to prove or refute mathematical conjectures. For instance, one axiom of arithmetic states that if 0 has a property, and if the number n + 1 has the property whenever n has it, then all natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...) have the property. From this axiom, along with other axioms of arithmetic, one can prove the standard claims of arithmetic, such as 2 + 2 = 4, or that for for any natural numbers, x and y, x + y = y + x.

It is easy to think that axioms are unquestionable proposi-tions, but in fact there are longstanding disagreements over many axioms of our mathematical theories—namely set theory, calculus, and arithmetic. Can such disagreements be resolved by reason alone? What does the existence of such disagreements tell us about mathematical inquiry, and what are the implica-tions of such disagreements for the other sciences? Th ese are some of the questions I’ve been trying to answer lately.

I’m also interested in determining what mathematics can tell us about philosophy itself. Mathematics is similar to philosophy in that it seems to proceed via reason alone—to the exclusion of experiment. But while it is commonly assumed that we can

OFPHILOSOPHY


arrive at basic principles in mathematics that are transparently true (namely the standard axioms), it is commonly assumed that we cannot arrive at basic principles in philosophy (e.g., that one ought to treat others as one would wish to be treated, or that there is a God) that are transparently true. However, one might argue that the existence of disagreement over axioms in mathematics calls into question the fi rst assumption. Is math-ematical knowledge on no fi rmer footing than paradigmatic philosophical “knowledge”?

As with all diffi cult questions—philosophical or otherwise—it is possible that there are simply no answers to questions such as this, or that we may never be able to know the answers. But the mere fact that questions are diffi cult is not suffi cient reason to think that they lack answers, or that we may never be able to know their answers.

Justin clarke-Doane earned a joint B.A. in philosophy and mathematics from the New college of Florida and is now a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at New York University. in addition to philosophy, he enjoys history, acting, studying Asian religious thought, making music, and hiking.

PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

BY LUVELL ANDERSONHenry Adams once wrote, “No one

means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and

thought is viscous.” Th e interchange between the viscosity of thought and the slipperiness of

words is profound and mysterious. We have an amazing ability to share thoughts with one another

through the vehicle of words. And such sharing does not

happen in a particular way—we can communicate the same information using diff erent words:

“Please move out of the way of the TV. I can’t see.” “Do you think you’re made of glass?”“Move!”

All three statements communicate the same thing: Th e speaker wants somebody to stop obstructing her view of the television. Th e fact that language can be manipulated in so many diff er-ent ways for communicative purposes is what drew me to the philosophy of language.

Linguistics aims to accurately describe the linguistic behav-ior of specific language communities. Linguists do this by observing particular language systems and noting the behav-ior of those languages’ users. Philosophers of language, on the other hand, investigate the larger foundational concepts of the nature of language. I chose to study philosophy of language because I wanted to learn and think about those elements that might be common to all languages.

Issues in the philosophy of language generally center on three areas: meaning, reference, and pragmatics. What exactly is it for some string of words to mean something? Why is, say, “Th e cat is on the mat” meaningful while “Run were and fi ll red” is not? One view is that words mean just what they refer to. So the meaning of “cat” is just a little furry creature that meows, for example. But not every word refers to something: What exactly does “is” refer to? Th is brings us to reference. Although not every word refers to something, it still seems plausible that at least some words refer to things. Th e name “Jay-Z” refers to the rapper from Brooklyn. So we might say that the meaning of proper names, at least, is the object the name denotes. But then what does “Gollum” refer to, since nothing by that name exists? Pragmatics deals with how we can communicate information by what we say when that information is not a part of the literal meaning of what is said. For example, if I ask, “Do you have a watch?” you will probably understand that I’m asking you for the time. But this is not what my statement literally meant. How do we do that?

My specifi c research centers on the way “bad” language, such as curse words and racial slurs, works. What do bad words mean and why are they offensive? Are racial slurs off ensive because of what they mean? Because of the attitudes they express? Or because they violate social taboos? Th ese powerful words have even become a subject of debate among legislators: Should derogatory words be protected by the First Amendment, or should their use be restricted by hate speech

PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

BY LUVELL ANDERSONHenry Adams once wrote, “No one

means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and

thought is viscous.” Th e interchange between the viscosity of thought and the slipperiness of

words is profound and mysterious. We have an amazing ability to share thoughts with one another

isto

ck


legislation? I hope that by getting clear on what they mean, we can better understand what—if anything—to do about them.

Luvell Anderson is a fourth-year graduate student in philosophy at Rutgers University. his main research interests lie at the intersection of the philosophy of language and issues of race and ethnicity. Luvell is also a jazz enthusiast who enjoys attending live performances and learning jazz standards on piano and trumpet.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGIONBY MATTHEW LEEI started doing philosophy long before I knew what philosophy was. I grew up in an evangelical Protestant church, and my faith was important to me from a very young age. But I had lots of questions. Does God respond to everyone’s prayers? Why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent people? Can people from other religions go to heaven? If God controls everything, how can people be responsible for their actions?

As a teenager, I wrote down my thoughts in spiral notebooks, trying to work out answers to these and other questions that bothered me. When I got to college, I learned that what I was doing was called philosophy. In particular, this was philosophy of religion.

Most philosophers of religion in the English-speaking world focus on questions concerning Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have traditionally believed that there is one God who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, who has acted in miraculous ways in human history, and who is ultimately in control of the future. Th ese beliefs raise a number of interesting questions:

• The problem of evil: If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God can prevent bad things from hap-pening, and if God is perfectly good, then God would presumably be motivated to prevent bad things from happening. So why is there evil in the world?

• Divine foreknowledge and human freedom: How can God know the future without controlling everything, including all of your actions? But if God controls what you do, then how can you be responsible for your actions?

• Divine intervention in human history: What is a miracle? When should we believe that a miracle has happened? Would a miracle break the laws of nature or work withinand through the laws of nature?

• God’s existence: Can we prove that God exists? Some argue that the existence of a universe—or of such things as stars, planets, living organisms, and conscious beings—points to the existence of God. Others argue that it is more reasonable to think that these amazing things came into existence by purely “natural” processes.

I’ve been working on the question of whether there is some-thing wrong with believing in God without good evidence for the existence of God. Some people think there is very good evidence for God’s existence. Others think there’s not such good evidence and that we shouldn’t believe in God. Still others say there’s not such good evidence but claim that we should (or at least may) believe in God anyway. My current research is on the question of whether we should limit our beliefs to those things for which we have good evidence, and if so, why?

What I like most about philosophy of religion is that as I read and discuss it with other people, I feel connected with the many others who have been wrestling with the same questions I have. I hope to fi nd satisfactory answers to my questions one day, but in the meantime, I fi nd satisfaction in working through the ques-tions with others who also seek answers. i

Matthew Lee earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of texas at Austin and his M.Phil. in philosophical theology from oxford University. Matthew is now completing his Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. in his spare time, he plays basketball, climbs rocks (and other objects), and, occasionally, makes tentative forays into the culinary arts.

The


Unlike other academic disciplines, philosophy is not defi ned by a specifi c content area. Biologists study living things, economists study economies, but philosophers systematically examine knowledge and the fundamental nature of the world. Philosophy is essentially a process for investigating certain types of questions.

Philosophical Method: Logic and Lady GagaTh ere are an endless number of extremely interesting and diffi cult philosophical questions, but how do philosophers go about trying to answer them? Here is what philoso-phers don’t do: Th ey don’t give opinions, speculate, or just talk aimlessly. Instead, they employ logical analysis to evaluate the validity of the reasoning in an argument. Philosophers investigate questions by giving (or critiqu-ing) arguments for particular answers, and logic allows us to evaluate the reasoning in those arguments precisely.

Logic is essentially rules for avoiding inconsistency in our beliefs. If someone believes something and also its negation (opposite), then that person is irrational. For example, only a crazy person would believe both that today is Tuesday and that today is not Tuesday at the same time. Logic keeps us from accidentally adopting such inconsistent beliefs.

Consider the claim that Lady Gaga is the best-dressed pop star. To be rational and follow the rules of logic, one who believes this also has to be committed to a plethora of other propositions. For instance, one would be commit-ted to the proposition that it is not the case that all of the

best-dressed pop stars have been men. Suppose I said that I think Lady Gaga is the best-dressed pop star, and also that all the best-dressed pop stars have been men. Using logic, you could demonstrate to me that my beliefs are inconsistent and compel me to give up one of those beliefs. If I just shrug and say that I don’t care, and that I’ll continue to believe both of those propositions, then there’s nothing more you can say to me. At that point, I am choosing to be irrational. Logic provides the most fundamental, basic, and indispensible ground rules for intellectual inquiry. Without it, there is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

Arguments and AnswersLogic is the tool for evaluating the reasoning in an argu-ment, but what is an argument? An argument is a set of propositions, one of which (the conclusion) is said to be supported by the others (the premises). Philosophers employ arguments to support or refute a specifi c answer to a philosophical question. Logic determines whether the conclusion actually follows from the premises of the philosopher’s argument.

Where do the premises of philosophical arguments come from? A philosopher begins answering a question by considering what is known about the issue. For some questions, there may be a body of accepted knowledge for which any answer to the question must account. Consider a philosopher exploring questions about the nature of mind. Her pursuit of answers to these questions must be consistent with or explain in some way the currently accepted knowledge in neurophysiology, psychology,

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? Th e word “philosophy” derives from Greek roots meaning “love of wisdom.” It’s an apt description. Philosophers relentlessly pursue answers to mankind’s most fundamental questions. But how do they seek this wisdom? Socrates, perhaps the fi rst professional philosopher, is famous for saying that he knew nothing. Yet everyone considered him exceed-

ingly wise. How could this be? Philosophy is not a collection of facts to know, but a method for rigorous intellectual inquiry. Philosophers speak of doing philosophy, not of knowing it. Socrates was wise because he was highly skilled at exploring philosophical questions.

Philosopher’s Toolboxby Stuart Gluck, Ph.D., and Carlos Rodriguez


etc., about the mind and mental processes. Alongside this knowledge, a philosopher generally has a set of intuitions, or deeply held instinctive beliefs, about how to answer the ques-tion. However, there are some questions that aren’t informed by an existing body of knowledge, such as whether a particular action is right or wrong. For such questions, intuitions are really the only place for a philosopher to begin.

So the philosophical method is just this: We start with a philosophical question about which we had at least some intu-itions and maybe also some accepted knowledge (from science, for example). A philosopher uses that information to formulate a philosophical hypothesis and then uses logical analysis to support or discount the hypothesis.

Doing PhilosophySuppose we’re trying to fi gure out what makes an action right or wrong. It seems plausible that an action can be regarded as morally right if it does the greatest good for the greatest num-ber of people. Let’s test this starting point by fi nding a situation in which taking an action that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people doesn’t seem morally right. Suppose Bad Temper Bill is stuck in a horrible traffi c jam on an overpass. A driver from another lane squeezes in front of Bill, despite Bill’s best eff orts to prevent it. Bill jumps out of his car, rips the other driver out of the driver’s seat, and tosses him off the overpass. As it turns out, the guy Bill threw off the overpass was a terrorist who was just about to detonate a bomb that would have killed many innocent people. But the man was a complete stranger to Bill, who was simply acting in a fi t of rage. Bill’s action did the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but given Bill’s motives, it seems ridiculous to claim that Bill’s actions were morally good.

We have arrived at a point where the proposition from which we began has created a contradiction. Th e initial propo-sition confl icts with our strong intuition in the Bill case. We now need to revise the initial proposition to make it consistent with that intuition. Once we’ve revised our proposition, we begin testing it again by analyzing what follows from it.

We contrived the Bill case as an intuition pump—a kind of scenario designed to elicit and refi ne intuitions on a question. Intuition pumps are to philosophers what experiments are to scientists. In fact, they are oft en referred to as thought experi-ments. Th ey are powerful tools for philosophers because the intuitions that are elicited, along with the rules of logic, can be used to test philosophical claims.

As this example shows, while logical analysis is the pri-mary tool in the philosopher’s toolbox, the philosophical method isn’t simply rote application of rules of logic. Rather, it’s a process of creating clever thought experiments, draw-ing fine distinctions, reflecting carefully, and developing the judgment to employ logical analysis eff ectively. It’s this process of thoughtful refl ection at which Socrates excelled and through which contemporary philosophers continue to pursue their love of wisdom. i

stuart Gluck earned both his M.A. and his Ph.D. in philosophy from the Johns hopkins University. his research focus was on philosophy of science (particularly of physics) and logic. A senior program manager at ctY, he also works with the American Philosophical Association committee on Pre-collegiate instruction in Philosophy.

carlos Rodriguez earned his M.A. in philosophy from the Johns hopkins University. his focus was philosophy of mind (especially issues of representation). he is a senior program manager at ctY, where along with stuart, he develops philosophy curriculum. carlos is also a member of the American Philosophical Association committee on Pre-collegiate instruction in Philosophy.

shU

tteR

sto

ck

Philosopher’s Toolbox


BAD DREAMS, EVIL DEMONS, & THE

EXPERIENCE MACHINE: PhilosoPhy & the matRiX

In the 1999 sci-fi fi lm Th e Matrix, a computer hacker named Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) discovers that his life has been an illusion. He wakes to discover himself in a pod, wired to a tower to which countless other pods are also wired. Like all the humans in those other pods, Neo has been used essentially as a battery by intelligent machines that have taken over Earth. To keep the humans docile, the machines feed them (through sockets in their heads) an illusory—yet completely realistic—world known as the Matrix, which the occupants have no way to know is not real.

Th is brief summary does little justice to the mov-ie’s thrilling plot, but it does provide a hint of some of the big philosophical questions raised by the fi lm. Here, philosopher Christopher Grau discusses some of the parallels between the scenario described in Th e Matrix and similar situations imagined by Descartes and other more recent philosophers. As Grau points out, such scenarios continue to fascinate and engage philoso-phers (and sci-fi buff s) today.

isto

ck

by Christopher Grau, Ph.D.

Dream SkepticismIt is the nature of most dreams that we take them for real-ity—while dreaming, we are unaware that we are in fact in a dreamworld. When we do wake up, we realize that our experi-ence was all in our mind. Neo’s predicament makes one wonder, though: How can any of us be sure that we have ever genuinely woken up?

Arguably the most famous exponent of this worry in the Western philosophical tradition is René Descartes. In an attempt to provide a fi rm foundation for knowledge, he began his Meditations by doubting all that could be doubted. His fi rst step was to raise (through his fi ctional narrator) the possibility that he might be dreaming:

How oft en, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events—that I am here in my dressing gown, sitting by the fi re—when in fact I am lying undressed in bed! Yet at the moment my eyes are certainly wide awake when I look at this piece of paper; I shake my head and it is not asleep;

as I stretch out and feel my hand I do so deliberately, and I know what I am doing. All this

would not happen with such distinct-ness to someone asleep. Indeed! As

if I did not remember other occasions when I have been

tricked by exactly similar thoughts while asleep! As I think about this

more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep. The result is that I begin to feel dazed, and this very feeling

only reinforces the notion that I may

be asleep.

How can you rule out the possibility that you might

be dreaming even now, as you sit and read this? Th is is the kind

of perplexing thought Descartes forces us to confront. If we have no justifi cation for believing that we are not dreaming, we have no justifi cation for thinking that the world we experience is the real world. Indeed, it becomes questionable whether we are justifi ed in thinking that any of our beliefs are true.

Th e narrator of Descartes’ Meditations ultimately maintains that the possibility that one might be dreaming cannot by itself cast doubt on all we think we know; he points out that even if all our sensory experience is but a dream, we can still conclude that we have some knowledge of the nature of reality. Just as a painter cannot create ex nihilo but must rely on pigments with which to create her image, certain elements of our thought must exist prior to our imaginings. Among the items of knowledge that Descartes thought survived dream skepticism are truths arrived at through the use of reason, such as the truths of mathematics: “For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are fi ve, and a square has no more than four sides.”

Th is insight served Descartes’ larger philosophical project: He sought, among other things, to provide a foundation for knowl-edge in which truths arrived at through reason are given priority over knowledge gained from the senses. Descartes employs this skeptical argument to help remind the reader that the truths of mathematics (and other truths of reason) are on fi rmer ground than the data provided to us by our senses. He proceeds in the Meditations, however, to use a much more radical skeptical argu-ment that casts doubt on even his beloved mathematical truths. Indeed, many years before the Wachowskis dreamed up Th e Matrix, Descartes had imagined an equally terrifying possibility.

Brains in Vats and the Evil DemonBefore breaking out of the Matrix, Neo’s life was what Morpheus described as a “dreamworld,” but unlike a dream, this world was not the creation of Neo’s mind. Th e truth is more sinister: Th e world was a creation of the artificially intelligent computers that have taken over the Earth and have subjugated mankind in the process. Th ese creatures have fed Neo a simulation that he couldn’t possibly help but take as the real thing.

A viewer of Th e Matrix is naturally led to wonder, “How do I know for sure that my world is not also a sophisticated charade, put forward by some super-human intelligence in such a way that I cannot possibly detect the ruse?” Descartes suggested a similar worry—the frightening possibility that all of one’s experiences might be the result of a powerful outside force, a “malicious demon”:

And yet firmly implanted in my mind is the long-standing opinion that there is an omnipotent God who made

imagine 23

me the kind of creature that I am. How do I know that he has not brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, while at the same time ensur-ing that all these things appear to me to exist just as they do now? What is more, just as I consider that others sometimes go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect

knowledge, how do I know that God has not brought it about that I too go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable? But perhaps God would not have allowed me to be deceived in this way, since he is said to be supremely good; [...] I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment.

Th e narrator of Descartes’ Meditations concludes that none of his former opinions are safe. Such a demon could not only deceive him about his perceptions, but also cause him to go wrong when perform-ing even the simplest acts of reasoning.

Many contemporary philosophers have discussed a similar skeptical dilemma that has come to be known as the “brain in a vat” hypothesis. One powerful formulation of the idea is presented by the philosopher Jonathan Dancy:

You do not know that you are not a brain, suspended in a vat full of liquid in a laboratory, and wired to a computer which is feeding you your current experiences under the control of some ingenious technician scientist (benevolent or malevolent according to taste). For if you were such a brain, then, provided that the scientist is successful, nothing in your experience could possibly reveal that you were; for your experience is ex hypothesi identical with that of something which is not a brain in a vat. Since you have only your own experience to appeal to, and that experience is the same in either situation, nothing can reveal to you which situation is the actual one.

If you cannot know whether you are in the real world or in the world of a computer simulation, you cannot be sure that your beliefs about the world are true. And your ability to reason is no safer than the deliverances of the senses; the evil demon or malicious scientist

How can you rule out the

possibility that you might be

dreaming even now, as you

sit and read this? This is the

kind of perplexing thought

Descartes forces us to confront.

isto

ck



could be ensuring that your reasoning is just as fl awed as your perceptions.

Th ere is no easy way out of this philosophical problem (or at least there is no easy philosophical way out!). Philosophers have proposed a dizzying variety of “solutions” to this kind of skepticism, but, as with many philosophical problems, there is nothing close to unanimous agreement regarding how the puzzle should be solved.

The Experience MachineAfter spending time in the real world, the character Cypher decides he wants to be reinserted into the Matrix. Is he right to want this? As long as his experiences will be pleasant, how can this situation be worse than the life he would lead outside of the Matrix? What could matter beyond the quality of his experience? Once he’s back in, living his fantasy life, he won’t even know he made the deal. What he doesn’t know can’t hurt him, right?

But is feeling good the only thing that has value in itself? Th e question of whether only conscious experience can matter has been explored in depth by several contemporary philosophers. In the course of discussing this issue in his 1971 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick introduced a thought experi-ment known as “the experience machine” that has become a staple of introductory philosophy classes everywhere:

Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsy-chologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be fl oating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life’s desires?...Of course, while in the tank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think it’s all actually happening. Others can also plug in to have the experiences they want, so there’s no need to stay unplugged to serve them. (Ignore problems such as who will service the machines if everyone plugs in.) Would you plug in? What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?

Nozick goes on to argue that other things do matter to us— that we actually do certain things, for instance, as opposed to simply have the experience of doing them. Nozick thinks that it matters to most of us that we be the authors of our lives and

that our lives involve interacting with the world. Th e fact that most people would not choose to enter into such an experience machine, he argues, demonstrates that they do value these other things: “We learn that something matters to us in addition to experience by imagining an experience machine and then real-izing that we would not use it.”

It appears that there is at least one important difference between Nozick’s machine and the simulated world of the Matrix. Nozick implies that someone hooked up to the expe-rience machine will not be able exercise their agency—they become the passive recipients of preprogrammed experiences. Th e Matrix seems to be set up in such a way that one can enter it and retain one’s free will and capacity for decision making, and perhaps this would make it a signifi cantly more attractive option than the experience machine Nozick describes.

Nonetheless, a loss of freedom is not the only disturbing aspect of Nozick’s story. As he points out, we seem to mourn the loss of contact with the real world as well. Even if a modifi ed experience machine is presented to us, one which allows us to keep our free will but enter into an entirely virtual world, many would still object that permanently going into such a machine involves the loss of something valuable.

T he Matrix is a fi lm that astounds not only with action and special eff ects, but also with ideas. Th e fascinating skepti-

cal and moral puzzles it presents have engaged philosophers for centuries, and that they translate so well from the 18th century to the sci-fi future hints at the timelessness and signifi cance of the questions they raise. i

christopher Grau is an assistant professor of philosophy at clemson University. he is the editor of three books about philosophy and fi lm: Philosophers Explore The Matrix (oxford University Press, 2005), Philosophers on Film: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Routledge, 2009), and,

with co-editor susan Wolf, Understanding Love through Philosophy, Film, and Fiction (forthcoming from oxford University Press).

This article is adapted from a chapter of the same name

that appeared in Philosophers Explore The Matrix, edited

by Christopher Grau (Oxford University Press, 2005).

harry potter plato

by Charles R. Comer

plato

isto

ck/

BoN

oto

M


It’s a long way from Athens to Hogwarts, but perhaps the birthplace of Western philosophy is closer to the pre-emi-nent school of wizardry than you might think. If knowledge is power, and magic is power, then a wise wizard must be

very powerful indeed. But as Plato made clear, and as Harry Potter exempli� es, the ingredient that makes life worth living—and that makes a powerful wizard a great one—is the quality known as virtue.

Many people hold the simplistic belief that ethics is about rules and fol-lowing them. Indeed, there is a component of ethics that examines such concepts, and philosophers spend considerable time and energy trying to � gure out what those rules might be and how to justify them. But

virtue is a di� erent kind of ethics. Instead of asking what one should do, virtue ethics asks what kind of person one should be. It asks about character. What makes Harry Potter a great wizard is not just his talents at wizardry, but also his character. � is is what we see Dumbledore praising more than anything: Harry’s virtue.

Seeking Virtue at Hogwarts and in Athens

potter plato plato&harry harry potter potter potter potter plato plato plato plato plato plato

isto

ck/

BoN

oto

M

26 imagine

It’s a long way from Athens to Hogwarts, but perhaps the birthplace of Western philosophy is closer to the pre-emi-nent school of wizardry than you might think. If knowledge is power, and magic is power, then a wise wizard must be

very powerful indeed. But as Plato made clear, and as Harry Potter exempli� es, the ingredient that makes life worth living—and that makes a powerful wizard a great one—is the quality known as virtue.

Many people hold the simplistic belief that ethics is about rules and fol-lowing them. Indeed, there is a component of ethics that examines such concepts, and philosophers spend considerable time and energy trying to � gure out what those rules might be and how to justify them. But

virtue is a di� erent kind of ethics. Instead of asking what one should do, virtue ethics asks what kind of person one should be. It asks about character. What makes Harry Potter a great wizard is not just his talents at wizardry, but also his character. � is is what we see Dumbledore praising more than anything: Harry’s

Seeking Virtue at Hogwarts and in Athens


The Power of GoodWhat magic is to the world of wizardry, politics and the art of persuasion were to ancient Greece. Socrates said that power is at most an instrument of good, but not good in itself.

In the fi ft h and fourth centuries B.C.E., a group of people in Athens called Sophists were very good at speaking and persuasion. Th is was an important skill, since the Athens city council was easily persuaded and the majority ruled. Socrates, however, doubted that this was the best way to conduct aff airs since it did not consider the truth of things. Socrates went around Athens discussing such matters with people, especially with the Sophists, who believed that it was better to gain political clout and power than to worry about being good. In fact, they identifi ed power with good-ness. Socrates would always show them that their thinking was fl awed, that power in itself is not good and will not make a person happy. But proving people wrong—especially those in power—can be dangerous: Socrates was condemned to death by the Athenian council. Yet his legacy lives on.

Socrates’ loyal friend and student, Plato, dramatically depicted Socrates’ last days in the form of dialogues. In these dialogues, Plato gives us an understanding of the kind of virtues extolled by Socrates. He defi ned virtues as traits that are good to have and develop, and he founded a school, called the Academy, to teach them.

From the Academy to HogwartsAt Hogwarts, the diff erent houses emphasize certain virtues. Gryffi ndor, for example, values courage. Huff elpuff promotes hard work, loyalty, tolerance, and fair play. Ravenclaw encourages intelligence, creativity, learning, and wit, while Slytherin prizes ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness. Although all of these may seem like good qualities, they can easily move from virtue to vice: Courage can become foolish bravado. Unbridled loyalty can lead to support of dangerous regimes. Intelligence, unchecked by a sense of justice, can be instrumental in evil deeds. According to Plato, something more is needed to keep such qualities in check.

For Plato, a truly virtuous person had four chief virtues: courage, which allows one to stand up for what is right and good; temperance, which con-trols desires and keeps one balanced; wisdom, which is needed to achieve what one sets out to do; and the chief virtue, which he called justice, which ensures that the other virtues are cultivated and practiced in the right way, at the right time, and in the right setting.

At Hogwarts, an excellent and virtuous wizard is one who is in control of his unique powers of wizardry, as well as what we might call the human element. In other words, a virtuous wizard is powerful and talented, and is able to control his power. He is courageous in the face of danger, and able to intelligently use his unique gift s. But he will also be selfl ess, looking out for the best interests of others.

Dumbledore seems to lead Hogwarts in the philosophy of Plato. Dumbledore frequently praises Harry for his virtue, most notably for his courage, but even more importantly, for his sense of justice. We oft en see Harry making sacrifi ces for a greater good without any sense of reaping benefi t; he acts virtuously for the sake of acting virtuously.

On the other hand, Voldemort is very much Harry’s opposite, although both have great powers. Not only does Voldemort not possess the virtue of temperance, but he is also not courageous. More than anything, he fears his own death, and that is what leads him on his insatiable quest for power. And while Voldemort is very intelligent, he uses his intelligence for selfi sh gain, thus exhibiting no sense of the cardinal virtue of justice. His skills and talents are not being controlled or used in an excellent manner, and he exemplifi es the ways in which great talent can become corrupted.

Virtue and Happiness at Hogwarts and Beyond

In Plato’s most famous dialogue, Th e Republic, a character named Thrasymachus challenges

Socrates, saying that those who practice virtue simply aren’t as happy as those who pursue

self-interest and power. Is there something to this?

Consider Harry, Ron, Hermione, and friends at Hogwarts. Th ey’re relatively happy despite the hardships they oft en endure, while Draco Malfoy and his ilk are oft en seen sulking about.

For Plato, being virtuous rests on two questions: What is most prudent for us? And, Which part of ourselves do we most identify with? For the fi rst question, we already know that if we go around always acting in our own self-interest, we will lose favor with others and soon live isolated lives, which does not lead to happiness. Th e second question is a more diffi cult one. Do we ultimately identify with that part of ourselves which he termed our appe-tites, or with our rationality, and which of these seems to be most responsible for our happiness?

For Plato, the appetites—including power, control, and fame—lead only to fl eeting moments of happiness, while rationality provides a deeper and more enduring happiness. When our true selves—our rational and virtuous

selves—are in control, happiness is rich and last-ing. Th is is a lesson well understood by Harry, of whom Plato would undoubtedly approve. i

charles R. comer teaches philosophy and art history at harrisburg Area community college in harrisburg, PA. he is currently writing a book on the theories, meanings, and practices of religion. one day he hopes to perfect his snape impression.

www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine

From the Academy to HogwartsAt Hogwarts, the diff erent houses emphasize certain virtues. Gryffi ndor, for example, values courage. Huff elpuff promotes hard work, loyalty, tolerance, and fair play. Ravenclaw encourages intelligence, creativity, learning, and wit, while Slytherin prizes ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness. Although all of these may seem like good qualities, they can easily move from virtue to vice: Courage can become foolish bravado. Unbridled loyalty can lead to support of dangerous regimes. Intelligence, unchecked by a sense of justice, can be instrumental in evil deeds. According to Plato, something more is needed to keep such qualities in check.

For Plato, a truly virtuous person had four chief virtues: courage, which allows one to stand up for what is right and good; temperance, which con-trols desires and keeps one balanced; wisdom, which is needed to achieve what one sets out to do; and the chief virtue, which he called ensures that the other virtues are cultivated and practiced in the right way, at the right time, and in the right setting.

At Hogwarts, an excellent and virtuous wizard is one who is in control of his unique powers of wizardry, as well as what we might call the human element. In other words, a virtuous wizard is powerful and talented, and is able to control his power. He is courageous in the face of danger, and able to intelligently use his unique gift s. But he will also be selfl ess, looking out for the best interests of others.

Exploring


EthicsI had been on my high school’s public speaking team and

participated in debate, so when I learned that UB wanted to start a high school Ethics Bowl, I was interested. I believe that ethics are more than rules and standards that govern our behavior and decisions. Th ey represent who we are, present a model for others, and provide a baseline for understanding right and wrong so we can talk about issues that aff ect all of us.

Becoming Ethical ThinkersTeams would have ten members, fi ve of whom would com-pete in a given Ethics Bowl. My teammates and I stayed aft er school twice a week to practice. Our coach, who also headed our debate team, composed sample topics and guided our discussions. As we became more experienced, he became less involved in our practices.

Each problem in the competition would be classifi ed under systems of ethics such as bioethics, academic ethics, legal eth-ics, or personal ethics, and would pose a question with some basis in fact. Problems might include the legitimacy of remov-ing questions on standardized tests that evidence racial bias, or whether organizations like the Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to participate in the Adopt-a-Highway program. Some seemed to have easy answers. Others, such as the question of killing a mother to save a child, divided the team and led to diffi cult, fascinating debates.

We searched the Internet and texts to understand sys-tems of ethics, including utilitarianism as pioneered by John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. Utilitarianism suggests that we should do the most good for the greatest number of people. The categorical imperative

states that moral laws must be absolute and unconditional. Consider Jack Bauer-style torture of people suspected of with-holding information vital to national security. Utilitarians would argue that the possibility of saving thousands of lives justifies torture, whereas deontologists—those who judge morality based on adherence to rules—would say that torture is never moral and should never be used. Th ese traditionally competing systems of morality have been at the root of almost all ethical thought since the 19th century.

Ethical ConsiderationsRather than focus on a single theory, we compared mul-tiple theories in our study of ethical problems. Studying many approaches would help us discover our own positions—and defend them.

For practice, we each chose an ethical theory that we agreed with and used these theories to evaluate diff erent issues. We engaged in mock debates, trying to convince each other of diff erent opinions.

While we weren’t required to use specifi c ethical systems in our arguments, we felt that it would be educational if we alluded to them in our debates. In addition, since we needn’t present a unanimous opinion, we decided that one of us should present a dissenting opinion. It would provide for deeper dis-course and show that we had considered other perspectives.

In the competition, we would face four rounds of two ques-tions each. Each round would center on a case the university provided to us a few weeks beforehand. Th e case would contain such information as historical background, legal rulings, and cultural considerations to help us understand the context.

F or the past two years, I’ve spent a beautiful spring Saturday in a conference room at the University of Baltimore’s Business Center. On these Saturdays, I have gathered with class-mates and students from other schools for Ethics Bowl, a competition sponsored by the University of Baltimore (UB) to promote ethics in high schools. Th ese have been some of

the most enjoyable and intellectually stimulating days of my life.

Exploring


by Gareth ImparatoOff to the RacesAft er weeks spent determining our arguments and applying sys-tems of moral thought to the issues, we were ready to compete. One team would get eight minutes to speak, the other would offer a five-minute rebuttal, and the initial team would have three minutes to summarize its points. Th en the two sides would switch, and a new case would be presented. Th ree judges from the university would evaluate the competition, with the winning team demonstrating the best knowledge of ethical understanding, regardless of the judges’ personal opinions on the issues.

Since I had some experience with public speaking, I would be our closing speaker, summing up my team’s theories and explaining how we concluded that the problem should be considered and solved. One case we debated was based on a school’s honor code, which stated that a single instance of plagiarism would result in automatic suspension. In this case, it seemed that a kid had made a mistake, and it was the beginning of his freshman year. We had to decide if allowances should be made under such circumstances, or whether there should be a hard and fast rule. Th en we had to argue for why.

Ultimately we won all of our debates against the other four schools that competed. Our team received a traveling trophy, and we each got a bag of gift s that included t-shirts and caps. We felt triumphant, but we knew the real prize was the educa-tion in ethics we received.

Th e following year, we came in second in a fi eld of more than 15 schools, but I felt as excited and fulfi lled coming in second as I did coming in fi rst. Th e point of the contest was not merely to expend competitive urges. It was to establish that there is a place for rational discourse in modern society, for real systems of ethics.

The Power of the Human MindInherent in the pursuit of ethical thought is the recognition that humanity can be motivated by more than basic urges. It affi rms the power of the human mind. In our case, it also brought together kids from diverse backgrounds. At Ethics Bowl, we were just groups of young people talking about ethics.

Th rough Ethics Bowl, I’ve learned a lot about ethics and how they relate to my own life. I have a better understanding of what I believe and why. I’ve become more eloquent in express-ing my opinions on issues that spark national and international discourse. For example, technology has advanced faster than our ability to evaluate the ethical issues it raises. Cloning and stem-cell research, problems of booming populations, global warming, and ever-increasing electronic technology, as well as the growth of centralized government all present ethical chal-lenges. Studying ethics allows us to examine these problems and defi ne guiding principles to deal with them.

I urge everyone to study ethics. Find out which universities near you sponsor Ethics Bowl teams at the collegiate level, and see if any of them might be interested in hosting or funding this kind of activity at your school—because ethics is for everyone. i

Gareth imparato is a junior at Baltimore city college high school in Baltimore, MD. he participates on the national level in Lincoln Douglas debate and locally in many public speaking competitions including Mock trial, speech tournaments, and ethics Bowl. he has been in a number of school theatrical productions. in his spare time, he enjoys reading and writing. he has a black belt in tae kwon do.

(or, Why I Give Up Saturdays in Spring)

Vec

toRs

toc

k

Members of the 2009 Baltimore City College Ethics Bowl team (L to R): Martrez Price, Dallas Bell, Kaine Cherry, Adrian Figueroa, Nic Daney-Cuffi e, Takhirah Thompson, Derrick Wilder, Coach Patrick Daniels (Not pictured: Shakira Gaskins, Gareth Imparato, David Neustadt, and Keegan Williams)

For information on how to start a high school ethics bowl in your area, contact the Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics at the University of Baltimore at (410) 837-5379.


How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a How to Start a Philosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy ClubPhilosophy Club

by Wendy Way

As the students settle into the circle of chairs in my classroom, I write today’s question on the board: Which is more powerful, love or hate?

“Love. No doubt about it,” says Colin.

“Why do you think so?” asks Annie.

“Because love can overcome hate, but hate does not overcome love,” he replies.

Rosette interjects, “Before we discuss love and hate, shouldn’t we de� ne what we mean by powerful?”

And so today’s philosophy club discussion begins.

Th e questions we discuss aft er school in our club are the same ones that have been pondered ever since Socrates himself stood in the Agora of Athens and challenged people to defend their beliefs about love, truth, religion, and politics. Across the country, more and more high schools are starting philosophy clubs, giving the students the opportunity to meet for a few hours aft er school to discuss philosophy’s big questions.

Th e really cool thing about philosophical questions is that there is no right or wrong answer. What is truth? Do we exist? Do we have free will? What is most fun about philosophy is the discussion created by questions like these.

Philosophy allows you to engage your curiosity and think more deeply about questions that may at fi rst seem to have obvious answers. Once you start discussing a question with others, you slowly peel back the layers of your thoughts about the topic and eventually formulate a position. By learning how to make skillful judgments about any information presented to you, you will start to actively process it rather than passively accept it. And then you are really thinking—critically!

isto

ck


Getting StartedStarting a philosophy club is easy because students love to get together and talk, even when it is about the meaning of life or whether humans are naturally good or evil. Th e club can be made up of any number of students, but the best discussions happen when the group is large enough to allow for diverse ideas but small enough to give everyone a chance to participate. For our club, that number is between 10 and 25 students. Depending on how busy everyone’s schedule is, you can meet once a week, every other week, or once a month. Discussions in our group oft en last for one or two hours depending upon the question, but you can set a time limit for your meeting if your schedule does not permit a lengthy dialogue. If an aft er-school club is not feasible, you could meet during lunch or a free period during the school day.

Th ere are, however, a few things that you may need to do to get your philosophy club started. First, fi nd a teacher or staff member who might be interested in being your club advisor and discussion facilitator. Th en check with your principal to learn your district’s policy for forming new school clubs. You may be asked to write a proposal for your principal, superinten-dent, or Board of Education in order to get permission to start your club. If so, be sure to list your club’s objectives, the types of activities you will be doing (consider including a list of some of the philosophical questions you might be discussing), how your club will benefi t students academically and socially, and the details of when and where you will be meeting.

Once you have the green light, advertise! Get the word out in school that there is a new club in town! Make announcements during homeroom, put up posters in the hallways, hand out fl yers during lunch, and have the founding club members and the faculty advisor spread the word in their classes.

Your First MeetingFostering interest in a new club can be a challenge, but with a little planning, you can ensure that your meetings will run smoothly and that students will be excited to return. To begin, you should fi nd a room that can comfortably accommodate approximately 30 people, and position the desks or chairs in a circle so that club members can interact with each other face to face.

If your club will be gathering aft er school, you might consider providing snacks and beverages. Meeting over coff ee, tea, or hot chocolate is a natural extension of our love of coff eehouses and vibrant conversation. You can collect a small amount of money from each member or rotate the respon-sibility of providing the snacks to two or three members per meeting.

At your initial meeting, get the group members involved right away by deciding when you will hold future meetings. Setting up a consistent schedule (e.g., every other Wednesday or the first Thursday of every month) will let students know when they need to be available so they can make plans to attend.

Once you have established the dates for future meetings, it is time to go over some basic ground rules. Although too many rules can ruin a good conversation, following a few

guidelines will ensure that you will have a great discussion and that students will continue to attend your meetings:• Only one person speaks at a time.• No side conversations should be going on during the discussion.• Discuss, don’t debate. Since there is no right or wrong answer, there is no

winning side. Concentrate on the conversation, not about whether you are right.

• Be respectful of others’ opinions even if you disagree with them. Agree to disagree.

Ready, Set, ReasonTo make members feel comfortable discussing philosophical questions, start with something basic, such as “What is love?” or “Which is more important, appearance or intellect?”

Begin the conversation by defi ning the diff erent terms in the question. How do you defi ne love? Have students discuss their defi nitions without resorting to a dictionary. Does everyone have the same defi nition or are some diff erent? Do you agree or disagree with anyone’s defi nition? Why?

Th ere may be some moments of silence while people are thinking about the question or what a club member has said; this is normal and will happen less as students get better at philosophical discussion. Oft en, the philosophi-cal question being discussed may send your group down paths leading to other questions. Th is is okay. Philosophy is ultimately not about the question, but the process of fi nding answers and the journey the question leads you on. However, if the conversation begins to get too far off topic, your faculty advisor should act as a facilitator and get the conversation back on track.

I see the benefi ts that philosophy has had on my students both academically and socially. It has given them clarity of thought, the ability to engage in

meaningful conversation, to own their beliefs and opinions, and to evaluate the beliefs and opinions of others. In this age of Facebook and texting, when human

conversation has been reduced to keystrokes of oft en empty conversation, philosophy gives students the opportunity to engage in purposeful dialogue that is relevant to their lives. i

Wendy Way teaches two philosophy classes and is the advisor of the philosophy club at Bethpage high school in New York, which was named the Most Philosophical school in America for 2009 by the kids Philosophy slam.

Starting a philosophy club is easy because students love to get together and talk, even when it is about the meaning of life or whether humans are

Once you have established the dates for future meetings, it is time to go over some basic ground rules. Although too many rules can ruin a good conversation, following a few


Selected Opportunities and Resources in Philosophy

OPPORTUNITIES AT CTYAt the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, students who have earned qualifying test scores can explore a range of math, science, and humanities topics in summer and online courses. This list features courses in philosophy.

CTY Summer Programs (multiple sites)Grades 7–11; 3 weeks; residential. course off erings include etymologies, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, existentialism, ethics, Bioethics, introduction to Logic, and Logic: Principles of Reasoning.(410) 735-6277; www.cty.jhu.edu/summer

ADDITIONAL SUMMER PROGRAMSGrades specifi ed refer to students’ 2010–11 status. All programs are residential unless otherwise noted.

Boston University Summer Term (MA)Grades 11–12; 6 weeks; residential and commuter. Qualifying students choose two honors courses, which include introduction to Philosophy, Great Philosophers, Politics and Philosophy, Reasoning and Argumentation, Philosophy of science, history of Ancient Philosophy, and history of Modern Philosophy. (617) 353-1378; www.bu.edu/summer/program_high_school_students/honors

Choate Rosemary Hall Summer Programs (CT)Grades 9 –12; 2 or 5 weeks. in the Big Questions, students examine human attempts to understand such concepts as God, faith, fate, free will, good, and evil. in First Principles, they examine liberalism, conservatism, racism, feminism, human rights, capitalism, socialism, and communism. Additional course off erings include exploring ethical Dilemmas. students in the John F. kennedy institute in Government explore topics that include Foundations of economics and Political thought. (203) 697-2365; www.choate.edu

Columbia University Summer Programs for High School Students (NY)Grades 9–12; 4 weeks; residential and commuter. in Philosophy of Food and the Body, students explore philosophical concepts as they relate to attitudes about food. in Debating the ethics of War and Political Violence, they examine the relationship among war, politics, and ethics. (212) 854-9666; www.ce.columbia.edu/hs

Cornell University Summer College (NY)Grades 10–12; 3 or 6 weeks. students in the 6-week program take two courses which may include introduction to Philosophy, and contemporary Moral issues. those in the 3-week program focus intensely on a single course which may include introduction to Political Philosophy, or Nature and culture: history, Philosophy, and the environment. (607) 255-6203; www.summercollege.cornell.edu

Davidson Institute THINK Summer Institute (NV)Ages 13–16; 3 weeks. students qualifying for this intensive program may take introduction to Philosophy, where they explore basic problems in ethics, political theory, metaphysics, and epistemology. (775) 852-3483 x6; www.thinksummerinstitute.org

Duke University TIP (multiple sites)Grades 7–10; 3 weeks. course off erings for qualifying students include Philosophy of knowledge and Philosophy of time. (919) 668-9100; www.tip.duke.edu/summer

Harvard Secondary School (MA) Grades 10–12; 7 weeks. students in this program experience life on harvard’s campus while taking courses alongside college students. off erings include introduction to Philosophy, Deductive Logic, Philosophy of Mind, and introduction to Biomedical ethics. (617) 495-3192; www.summer.harvard.edu

Iowa State University O¢ ce of Pre-collegiate Programs for Talented and Gifted (IA)Grades 8–11; 3 weeks. in socrates, Plato, and the origin of Greek Philosophy, qualifying students in grades 8–10 examine the life and work of socrates and its infl uence on later philosophical thinking. those in grades 8–11 may take Artifi cial intelligence, in which they explore machine learning topics in computer science as well as such topics as reasoning, planning, decision-making, and learning. (800) 262-3810; www.opptag.iastate.edu/summer

Johns Hopkins University Precollege Program (MD)Grades 10–12; 5 weeks; residential and commuter. off erings include Foundations of Modern Political Philosophy, introduction to eastern Philosophy, Democracy and Ancient Political thought, and Bioethics. (800) 548-0548; www.jhu.edu/summer/precollege/summer

Northwestern University CTD (IL)Grades 7–12; 3 weeks; residential and commuter. Qualifying students in grades 7 and 8 may take Foundations of Philosophy. those in grades 9–12 may choose from ethics and contemporary issues, and Reason and imagination: the Philosophy of cognition. (847) 491-3782; www.ctd.northwestern.edu/summer

NYU Pre-College Program (NY)Grades 10–12; 6 weeks; commuter. Rising juniors and seniors may select from an extensive list of philosophy courses, including introduction to Philosophy, history of Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, the Ancient Greeks and their infl uence, Minds and Machines, ethics, Medical ethics, topics in Modern Political thought, and Logic. (212) 998-2292; www.nyu.edu/summer/2010/highschool

Stanford University High School Summer College (CA)Grades 11–12; 8 weeks; residential and commuter. off erings include introduction to Moral

Selected Opportunities and Resources in Philosophy

Philosophy, introductory Logic, and happiness: Positive Psychology and Philosophy. (650) 723-3109; http://summer.stanford.edu

Summer at Brown Precollege Program (RI)Grades 9–12; 1–3 weeks. students choose one or two courses from an extensive list of philosophy off erings, including introduction to Philosophy, Giants of Philosophy, the Meaning of Life, themes from existentialism, skepticism, ethical Dilemmas in Foreign Policy, Freedom and Responsibility, Mind and Matter, existential Questions of the heart, and science, Perception, and Reality. (401) 863-7900; www.brown.edu/scs/pre-college

University of Pennsylvania Pre-college (PA)Grades 11 –12; 6 weeks; residential and commuter. students choose two courses, which include introduction to Philosophy, history of Ancient Philosophy, Political Philosophy, introduction to Decision theory, and Mortal Bioethics: issues in the end of Life.(215) 898-7326; www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/highschool/summer/precollege

University of Virginia Summer Session (VA)Grades 11–12; 4 weeks; commuter. Qualifying students take one course alongside college students. offerings include the Nature of the Mind, Why Be Moral, and human Minds and Artificial intelligence. (434) 924-3371; www.virginia.edu/summer/courses

Washington University in St. Louis (MO)Grades 10–11; 5 weeks; residential and commuter. students taking Logic and critical Analysis work to develop critical reasoning skills; those in introduction to environmental ethics focus on problems such as the obligation to future generations. in introduction to Aesthetics, students examine the question of what is art, and in Biomedical ethics they explore issues that include genetic engineering, euthanasia, and the allocation of medical resources. Additional course off erings include Philosophy, and Great Philosophers. (866) 209-0691; http://ucollege.wustl.edu/programs/highschool

Yale University Exploration Summer Programs (CT)Grades 10 –12; 3 weeks; residential and commuter. in Beyond the Matrix: Philosophy of Physics, students consider theories of einstein and Newton as well as popular science fi ction while exploring such questions as what is possible and what is real. students taking Does God exist? investigate the infl uence of religious tradition, philosophical argument, and scientifi c research for insight into ethics, morality, and the meaning of life. Also off ered is Questions in time: introduction to Philosophy. (781) 762-7400; www.explo.org

ACADEMIC COMPETITIONSDavidson Fellows Awardsstudents ages 17 and under submit a signifi cant piece of work in science, technology, mathematics, literature, music, philosophy, or “outside the box.” eight to fi fteen students are typically selected each year and named a Davidson Fellow. Fellows receive a $50,000, $25,000, or $10,000 scholarship and are recognized for their achievements in Washington, Dc.(775) 852-3483 x 423; www.davidsongifted.org/fellows

International Philosophy Olympiadstudents gather in a diff erent country each May, where they have four hours to write a philosophical essay in a language other than their own. Winners receive medals and are featured on the website of the international Federation of Philosophical societies. www.fi sp.org/olympiad.html

Kids Philosophy Slamstudents compete for over $5,000 in prizes by writing, creating poetry, music, or artwork about their personal experiences regarding a philosophical question posed each year (2010: is the Pen Mightier than the sword?). see pages 44–45 for winning entries from the 2009 competition. www.philosophyslam.org

skills; those in introduction to environmental ethics focus on problems such as the obligation to future generations. in introduction future generations. in introduction to Aesthetics, students examine the question of what is art, and in Biomedical ethics they explore issues that include genetic engineering, euthanasia, and the allocation of medical resources. Additional course off erings include Philosophy, and Great Philosophers. (866) 209-0691; http://ucollege.wustl.edu/programs/highschool

Yale University Exploration Summer Programs (CT)Grades 10 –12; 3 weeks; residential and commuter. in Beyond the Matrix: Philosophy of Physics, students consider theories of einstein and Newton as well as popular science fi ction while exploring such questions as what is possible and what is real. students taking Does God exist? investigate the infl uence of religious tradition, philosophical argument, and scientifi c research for insight into ethics, morality, and the meaning of life. Also off ered is Questions in time: introduction to Philosophy. (781) 762-7400; www.explo.org

literature, music, philosophy, or “outside the box.” eight to fi fteen students are typically selected each year and named a Davidson Fellow. Fellows receive a $50,000, $25,000, or $10,000 scholarship and are recognized for their achievements in Washington, Dc.(775) 852-3483 x 423; www.davidsongifted.org/fellows

International Philosophy Olympiadstudents gather in a diff erent country each May, where they have four hours to write a philosophical essay in a language other than their own. Winners receive medals and are featured on the website of the international Federation of Philosophical societies.www.fi sp.org/olympiad.html

posed each year (2010: is the Pen Mightier than the sword?). see pages 44–45 for winning entries from the 2009 competitionfrom the 2009 competition. . www.philosophyslam.org

shU

tteR

sto

ck


34 imagine Mar/Apr 201034 imagine Mar/Apr 2010

WEB SITESAmerican Philosophical Associationthis site features a variety of educational resources, including links to the internet encyclopedia of Philosophy and a comprehensive Philosophy Research Base.www.apaonline.org/resources/guides.aspx

Ask-A-Philosopherthe motto at this site is “You ask. Philosophers answer,” and here, dozens of panelists answer philosophical questions on any topic. Ask a question, browse categories to fi nd answers to questions already posed, or lose yourself in the concept cloud, where you can read questions—and answers—on topics from self-interest to santa.www.askphilosophers.org

BBC: In Our Time Philosophy Resource (iTunes)Listen to a discussion of philosophy on itunes, take the Philosophy Quotes Quiz, or cast your vote for the greatest philosopher. (if you haven’t yet decided, click on any name on the Philosopher timeline to learn more about a particular philosopher.) www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher.shtml

The Digital Locke Projectin an ongoing project sponsored by oxford University Press, infl uential philosopher John Locke’s manuscripts are presented along with historical and philosophical notes, as well as reconstruction of the genesis of the texts. Future planned additions include historical footnotes and introductions. Not for the fainthearted, but fascinating to contemplate, and watching the

site evolve is simply way cool.www.digitallockeproject.nl

EpistemeLinksthis comprehensive site provides more than 19,000 categorized links to philosophy resources on the internet, as well as lists of books and jokes on philosophy.www.epistemelinks.com

Ethics in Science and Engineering National Clearinghousethis site, sponsored by the National science Foundation, is an up-to-the-minute compendium on ethics and responsible conduct of research in science and engineering. Visitors can learn the latest Research ethics News, read the “Paper of the Day,” and check out the most popular downloaded items from the site (What ethical concepts are others currently interested in?).www.ethicslibrary.org

Great Issues Forumthis forum of the Graduate center of the city University of New York explores critical issues through a single thematic lens. the 2009-10 issue is religion, which will be examined by civic and religious leaders, scientists, and philosophers.www.greatissuesforum.org

Philosophical HumorWhy did the philosopher cross the road? to fi nd out, check out this site, which is actually a list of links to a variety of sites containing philosophical humor.http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/humor.html

PhilosophyPages.comthis well-organized site includes a dictionary of philosophical terms and names, a survey of the history of Western philosophy, a

philosophy study guide, links to other philosophy sites, and more.www.philosophypages.com

Society for Philosophical Inquirythis site features advice on how to start a philosophy club, how to become a conscientious thinker and doer, and much more.www.philosopher.org/en/SPI.html

Squire Family Foundationthis philanthropic organization helps promote the study of ethics for secondary school students. Accordingly, their website features an extensive list of ethics and philosophy resources, philosophy topics in the news, and a Philosophy toolbox for students and teachers. Be sure to check out their blog, the Philosophical student.www.squirefoundation.org/forstudents

The Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyA virtual encyclopedia of philosophy, each entry in this comprehensive reference work is maintained and updated by experts in the fi eld.http://plato.stanford.edu

BOOKSHow We Decide by Jonah Lehrer (houghton, Miffl in, harcourt, 2009).

Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by simon Blackburn (oxford University Press, 2007).

Philosophers Explore the Matrix by christopher Grau (oxford University Press, 2005).

The Philosophy Files by stephen Law (orion childrens, 2002).

The Philosophy Gym: 25 Short Adventures in Thinking by stephen Law (thomas Dunne Books, 2003).

Philosophy, Invention, and Engineering ed. by Derek hall (Brown Bear, 2009).

Philosophy for Teens by sharon kaye and Paul thomson (Prufrock Press, 2006).

Sophie’s World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy by Jostein Gaarder (Berkeley trade, 1997).

The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin hoff (Penguin, 1983).

Young Person’s Guide to Philosophy by Jeremy Weate (Dk children, 1998).

MAGAZINES & JOURNALS The Philosopher’s Magazinethis international magazine includes news, essays, reviews, and features that present “top-class philosophy in an accessible and entertaining format.” the website off ers interactive features related to the magazine’s content.www.philosophersnet.com

Philosophy Nowthis bimonthly magazine includes articles on all aspects of Western philosophy, book reviews, news, cartoons, and even short stories of interest to students, academics, and general readers. But be warned: the publisher’s aim is to “corrupt innocent citizens by convincing them that philosophy can be exciting, worthwhile, and comprehensible.”www.philosophynow.org

Questions: Philosophy for Young Peoplethis annual journal showcases the work of precollege philosophers and those doing philosophical work at the precollege level. each issue includes philosophical discussions, drawings, and philosophical writing by students in a newsletter format.http://depts.washington.edu/nwcenter/resourcesquestions.html


Dear Dr. Weinstein,

During a test, I saw a girl copying off of the person next to her.

She saw that I had seen her, and after class, asked me not to tell.

She said she’d never cheated before and that she was going

through a dif� cult time at home. Her parents were getting a

divorce, and she hadn’t been able to concentrate on her home-

work. She promised she wouldn’t do it again.

We have an honor code at school, and we’re supposed to

report violations of the code. But I’m not a rat. Besides, if she’s

telling the truth about her parents, I can kind of understand

why she did it. What should I do?

There’s no way around it; this is a tough situation. Not only

did a fellow student cheat, but she also violated the school’s

honor code. Presumably the code doesn’t say, “Students may

not cheat, unless they are going through a diffi cult time at home,

or have just broken up with someone, or simply didn’t feel like

studying.” It likely says that if you present someone else’s work

as your own, you are cheating, and you will be punished.

Whether your school has an honor code or not, it might be

tempting to forget the incident and go on with your life. But is

that the right thing to do?

The Fairness FactorCheating is one of the most fl agrant violations of the ethical

principle of fairness. Suppose the cheater gets an A after

copying the answers from the student who achieved that

grade through hard work. Two people are now being treated

unfairly: the person the cheater copied from, whose grade

now means less, and the cheater herself, who is posing as

someone she isn’t. Actually, everyone in the class who did hon-

est work is being treated unfairly by the cheater. They could

rightly say, “I studied for this exam and got an honest grade,

but the cheater got the best grade possible without doing any

work. That’s not fair!”

If you go along with what the cheater has asked of you, she

might cheat again. One reason people cheat is because they

haven’t been held accountable for their actions. Of course,

telling the teacher what you witnessed isn’t a guarantee that

the cheater won’t repeat the offense. For that to stop, the

school must punish her and make clear that further miscon-

duct won’t be tolerated. She also has to make a commitment

not to cheat again. Schools and parents can do their best to

prevent students from

taking the easy way out,

but ultimately it’s up to

students themselves to

do the right thing.

The reluctance to be

a “rat” is understandable,

but what might happen

to you if your teacher

fi nds out you knew about

the cheating but did

nothing about it? The

teacher might sympa-

thize with your dilemma,

but might also be disap-

pointed that you didn’t

come forward. You could

also face a reprimand

from the school for not

following the honor code.

Keeping quiet simply isn’t the right thing to do. You must

tell your teacher what you saw. No one likes having to do

such a thing, but you have nothing to be ashamed of. You

haven’t done anything wrong.

Besides the ethical principle of fairness, we must also

consider the ethical principle of compassion. If the cheater is

telling the truth and really is experiencing a turbulent home

life, she would benefi t from counseling, which the school can

provide. Yes, she should be punished, but a compassionate

response would also include help.

Understanding ethical principles can help you know how to do

the right thing at school, at home, or wherever you happen to be. i

Dr. Bruce Weinstein, the ethics Guy®, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com and is a frequent lecturer at schools, businesses, and non-profi t groups across the country. his latest book, Is It Still Cheating If I Don’t Get Caught? (Roaring Brook Press, 2009), from which this article was excerpted, shows tweens and teens how to make the right decisions. For more about Dr. Weinstein and his book, visit theethicsGuy.com.


middle ground

Is It Still Cheating If I Don’t Get Caught?by Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.


off the shelf

Anne Fadiman’s The Spirit

Catches You and You Fall

Down is the chronicle of a

Hmong refugee family from

Laos and a tragic case of

cultural misunderstanding

that took place in California

in 1982. The story, centered

on Lia Lee, the family’s

second-youngest and most

favored daughter, is so

compelling that the 288

pages fl y by. Fadiman is an outstanding

storyteller, weaving in Hmong history,

culture, spiritual beliefs, and moral ethics

with her own personal recollections and

numerous folk stories, providing vivid

context the reader needs to understand

the Hmong experience.

Lia had what was known in Hmong

culture as qaug dab peg, translated into

English as “the spirit catches you and

you fall down.” In the Western world,

it’s known as epilepsy. The Hmong

considered this an honorable condition

that came with the ability to fuse with the

spirit realm. Chosen to host a heal-

ing spirit, most people like Lia would

become sacred shamans. When Lia had

her fi rst epileptic seizure at three months

old, it was cause for celebration rather

than a trip to the emergency room.

Of course, Lia’s doctors and the

Merced Hospital staff would hardly

agree: Lia’s severe case of epilepsy

meant violent seizures that could be

fatal. While the doctors devised what

they believed to be the best course of

treatment for Lia, the Lees saw Lia’s

chart grow longer and longer until it

contained more than 400,000 words.

Fadiman writes, “Every one of those

words refl ected its author’s intelligence,

training, and good intentions, but

not a single one dealt with the Lees’

perception of their daughter’s illness.”

Changing Lia’s complicated medication

regimen 23 times or sending her away

from reluctant parents to foster care

were medically sound decisions. But

those decisions did not prevent Lia from

becoming irreversibly brain dead.

Both Lia’s doctors and her parents

had assumed that they knew what was

best for her. The Merced Hospital staff

administered countless pills to treat her

condition while the Hmong sacrifi ced

livestock to celebrate her gift. Unable

to bridge the cultural gap, the doctors

saw uncooperative parents refusing

to medicate a patient properly. Lia’s

parents saw doctors stripping their

daughter of her divine powers and mak-

ing her sicker from side effects. By the

time parents and doctors fi nally com-

municated through a nuanced translator

and realized their misunderstandings, it

was too late for Lia.

This book is a must read for anyone

who considers medicine, writing, or

participation in the global community

of the 21st century to be in their future.

Lia’s treatment was nearly perfect,

even textbook worthy. Tell that to her

parents, who performed an elaborate

pig sacrifice in hopes of reuniting

Lia’s soul with her body. What Fadiman

makes you realize is that the Lees are

not fictional people in a remote village

on the other side of the world: They are

your neighbors. Read this book and

then take a look at the world and the

people around you. You won’t see them

the same again.

Bran shim is a senior at horace Greeley high school in New York. he has been the principal bassist of the Juilliard Pre-college orchestra, New York Youth symphony, and Aspen concert orchestra. his

article about the Aspen Music Festival appeared in the January/February 2010 issue of Imagine.

Also recommended:

The Killer Angelsby Michael Shaara

The Killer Angels is a fascinating work of

historical fi ction that tells the story of the

Battle of Gettysburg through the viewpoints

of the military leaders in the Union and

Confederate armies. Shaara’s story pro-

vides an engaging and in-depth study of

the battle and the impact on those involved,

and I would recommend it strongly to

anyone who is familiar with or interested in

learning more about the Civil War.

—Elyse Cox, 16, PA

Reading Lolita in Tehranby Azar Nafi si

Reading Lolita in Tehran is one woman’s

account of her experience of the revolution

and wars in Iran. Nafi si is a literature pro-

fessor who keeps a secret literary circle in

her home with seven other girls. Together,

they discuss Lolita, Pride and Prejudice, The

Great Gatsby, and their own lives, which

to us might sound fi ctional. Nafi si does not

rant and complain about the cruelties of

her experience, but rather explains it all

in a straightforward language that leaves a

lasting impact on the reader.

—Catherine Chen, 14, MA

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne FadimanReview by Bran Shim

off the shelf word wise

Words of Wisdom by Amy Entwisle

ACROSS

1 Indonesian island

5 Grain

8 Taxi

11 Location

13 Respiratory disease

14 Highest value playing card

15 Cried like a cat

16 Levy

17 Shoshonean

18 Baby dining apparel

20 “The law is ___, free from passion.” –Aristotle

22 Of crucial importance

26 Colorer

27 Kids’ cereal brand

28 Punctuation mark

30 Also known as (abbr.)

31 Pathos, Ethos, ___

32 Food regulating agency (abbr.)

35 Philosopher who believes that virtue is attainable through self-control and independence

36 Experts

37 Persia

39 Reduce

41 Vile person

43 Distress call

44 Term of affection

45 Embrace

47 Hypothesis

51 The ___ and the many

52 Flightless bird

53 To debate opposing viewpoints

54 Sailor’s yes

55 Where humans live in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

56 Socrates’ lyceum may have had one

DOWN

1 Beats per minute

2 Lager

3 Aristotle is the father of natural ___

4 Freezer

5 Often, poetically

6 Winged

7 Black tie outfi ts

8 “Truth never damages a ___ that is just.” –Mahatma Ghandi

9 One who acts

10 According to Whittier, the saddest words are “What might have ___.”

12 Alter

19 “A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.”

–English philosopher Francis ___

21 Author ___ Rand

22 School group

23 Make angry

24 By way of

25 A type of critical thinking

29 Venue

31 Hanged

32 Formal concept analysis (abbr.)

33 Last month of year

34 Request

35 Schrödinger’s ___

36 Contrary to reason

37 Socrates employed this method to demonstrate others’ ignorance

38 Opera great Fleming

40 Cicero might have worn one

41 Hold it there

42 Scottish philosopher David ___

46 Weapon

48 Freud’s conscious mind

49 Cogito ergo ___

50 “All that we ___ or seem

is but a dream within a

dream.” –Edgar Allan Poe

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34

35 36

37 38 39 40

41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53

54 55 56

imagine 37shUtteRstock

How does someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy end up as an epidemiologist?I’ve had an interest in both science and

philosophy for a long time. As an under-

graduate, I was interested in philosophy of

science. Working on my Ph.D., I focused on

the science of epidemiology; in particular,

I was looking at how patterns of disease

were used to inform public policy. After

fi nishing my Ph.D., I wanted practical

experience working in a public health

environment, so I did a post-doctoral fel-

lowship at the National Institutes of Health.

That put me on the path to where I am now.

Was your post-doc at NIH in the same area you’re working now?I actually had two fellowships. The fi rst

was in bioethics, which is one fi eld where

philosophers commonly fi nd a niche in

a medical research setting. One of the

projects I was working on was looking at

how we deal with uncertainty in the clinic

setting. Sometimes we don’t have all the

information we’d like on novel drugs and

other therapies: Are they equally effective

in all patients, for example, or are there

certain treatments that will be more effec-

tive in some patients than in others? And

sometimes there are differences of opinion

among experts regarding which therapy

is best in a particular situation. That’s

partly a scientifi c question, in that we use

science to try to answer these questions.

But there are also ethical questions. How

do you communicate the uncertainty to

the patient? How do you ensure that the

patient understands not only what science

can tell us, but also what we don’t know,

so they can play an active role in making

decisions about their healthcare?

So how did you end up at the Tobacco Control Research Branch in particular?My other post-doc fellowship was

designed for people who want to work in

cancer prevention and also want a more

comprehensive public health education.

Cancer prevention covers a wide range

of research and requires knowledge

from a variety of disciplines. I focused

on tobacco because I think so many

of the questions that I fi nd interesting

about philosophy of science, particularly

the challenges of translating scientifi c

evidence into public health policy, are

very relevant to this area.

Your dissertation focused in part on something called “causal inference.” Is that related to what you’re doing now?Yes. Here’s an example, a classic case

in the history of epidemiology: How do

we reach a conclusion about whether

smoking causes lung cancer? We know

now, of course, that smoking causes lung

cancer and a range of other diseases.

But when the fi rst studies were done in

the 1950s, there was a lot of debate over

what kind of scientifi c information was

needed to fi nally conclude that smoking

actually causes lung cancer. One of the

alternative hypotheses was that maybe

smokers are somehow constitutionally

different, which makes them more prone

to lung cancer. Maybe smokers tend

to be nervous people who have more

anxiety, for example, and who perhaps

are also more prone to other types

of diseases. One of the fundamental

questions in philosophy of science is,

when you see an association between

some activity and a disease, how do you

determine if it’s actually a cause-and-

effect relationship?

Even though we know a lot now about

what the effects of tobacco are, we’re

still trying to fi gure out the best policies

to put into place to reduce tobacco use.

We have found some things that we know

are helpful. For example, we know that if


Epidemiologist Interview by Melissa Hartman

exploring career options

Mark Parascandola, Ph.D., MPHEpidemiologist, Tobacco Control Research Branch, National Cancer InstituteMark Parascandola earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Maryland and his Ph.D. in philosophy of science from Cambridge University. Then, while completing post-doctoral fellowships at the National Institutes of Health, he earned his Master’s of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. Now, as an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, he continues to pursue his interests at the intersection of science and philosophy through research on tobacco control policy, ethical issues in public health, and epidemiologic methods.

stiR

LiN

G e

LMeN

Do

RF

we raise the price of cigarettes, fewer kids and

adolescents start to smoke because they tend

to be very sensitive to price. So epidemiology

is important not only for measuring disease, but

also for measuring how policies change people’s

behavior in ways that might, down the road,

impact their disease risk.

Does your research extend beyond cigarettes?One thing we’re looking into is what are called

“potential reduced exposure products.” In

the 1970s, there was a big effort to introduce

so-called light and low-tar cigarettes, which

smokers perceived as less harmful because

they were claimed to have less nicotine and

lower amounts of tar. And we know now that

those cigarettes were in fact not safer or less

harmful than conventional cigarettes because

smokers could modify their behavior in a way

so that they would still end up taking in the

same amount of tar and nicotine.

There are some new products, such as oral

lozenges and moist snuff, that have come out

on the market with claims that they may be

an alternative to conventional cigarettes. They

might be presented as either less harmful or as

a product to use when you can’t smoke, such as

when you’re at work or in another public place.

Hookah smoking and other types of alternative

tobacco products are also becoming more

popular, and I think sometimes people may not

associate the same risks with them as they do

with cigarettes. But so far there is no evidence

to suggest that these kinds of alternative prod-

ucts and things like hookah smoking are less

harmful than cigarettes on a population level.

Where do you conduct your scientifi c work?In the field of epidemiology, we’re often

dealing with large data sets. A lot of the work

is done at the computer, analyzing data, often

in collaboration with a statistician. I don’t

actually go out and collect data—that’s a

huge project in itself—but I might develop

questions to add to existing surveys that go

out across the country, and then we analyze

the results from those.

What do you fi nd most challenging about the work you do?One of the biggest challenges in the fi eld of

tobacco research is that things move quickly.

There are always new policies, such as last

summer’s new law giving the FDA authority to

regulate tobacco, and states and cities placing

restrictions on where people can smoke. But

often we’re not able to collect data on what’s

happening fast enough. Just keeping up with

the pace of such changes is challenging, but

that also makes the work exciting.

What do you fi nd most rewarding about your work? One of the most exciting things is collaborating

with scientists who are at the top of their fi eld

around the country. Being in Washington, and

at the National Institutes of Health in particular,

gives me the opportunity to work with world-

class scientists and to collaborate with them.

What skills or qualities do you think are important for people to succeed in your fi eld?For me, the philosophy background was

helpful. It’s certainly not necessary in order

to be an epidemiologist, but philosophy

trains you how to structure an argument and

how to use evidence to support a conclu-

sion. Those things are really important in

any branch of science. It’s also important to

have some proficiency in quantitative skills,

some training in mathematics and statistics.

That’s not a strong point of mine, but with

so much software available and the ability

to collaborate with statisticians, you don’t

necessarily have to be a math scholar to be

an epidemiologist. Finally, I think it’s impor-

tant to have a passion about public health.

Although epidemiology is a science, its goal

is to improve public health. i


exploring career options What epidemiologists doEpidemiologists study how diseases and medical treatments a� ect groups of people. Epidemiologists often work with policymakers to prevent the spread of disease and develop treatment guidelines for those who are sick.

Where they workEpidemiologists work in universities, hospitals, non-profi t organizations, private o� ces, government organizations, and public health departments. They work as researchers, health professionals, grant writers, policy advisors, and teachers. Epidemiologists who study populations abroad must travel a lot. When conduct-ing a study, they often work as members of large teams of professionals.

educationMost epidemiologists have a Ph.D.; however, some positions only require an M.S. in fi elds such as biology or statistics, or a Master’s of Public Health.

Job outlookFaster than average employment growth is anticipated for epidemiologists due to risks to the public from obesity, bioterror-ism, emerging infectious diseases such as H1N1 and West Nile Virus, and product safety issues. In general, the demand will be higher for applied vs. research epidemiologists.

salary rangeThe U.S. Department of Labor listed the median annual salary for epidemiologists in 2008 at $61,360.

What you can do nowTalk to epidemiologists in your com-munity. Volunteer with a public health organization. Observe a research project. Study biology and statistics. Participate in science fairs.

For more informationCenters for Disease Control and Preventionwww.cdc.gov/phtrain/epidemiology.html

U.S. Department of Laborwww.bls.gov/oco/ocos310.htm

one step ahead college

College is a change of pace from high school in a big

way. You can choose which classes you want to take

and therefore avoid the boredom and drudgery

that come from classes that don’t interest you. It’s

wonderful to be able to focus only on the things

that really make you happy.

That’s what I was doing. I declared my major

in psychology and never looked back. Sure,

there are general education requirements, but,

on the whole, I was taking psychology courses

and learning about things that I loved and

enjoyed. I was focused and interested. Life was

great. Then I took a class I hated, and life got

even better.

Halfway through my sophomore year, I’d

taken my fair share of psychology courses,

most of them focusing on psychology in a

very clinical way, like

a doctor treating

patients. One of

the courses for the

upcoming semester

was described as

breaking away from this

norm. It took the stance

that psychology was about

one person helping another

become happier. This idea

appealed to me a lot, so I signed

up for the class immediately.

I soon found myself in the book-

store, picking up my textbooks for the

semester. Looking at the reading list, I

was even more excited for my new class.

There was as much philosophy on the book

list as there was psychology. This fact alone, I

felt, guaranteed the quality of the class.

When I got to class, though, my excitement

evaporated. My professor informed the class that we

would not be discussing most of the books on the read-

ing list; in fact, the books we would focus on were the

dullest-looking ones. This was just the fi rst step in the

long, downward spiral of that course.

Over the next weeks, I found myself dreading the

class more and more. I would sit there, unable to

understand half of what my professor was saying, even

after asking questions and re-reading texts. And what

I could understand, I disagreed with. I found myself

mired in frustration and questions. Why did I take this

class? What am I doing? What am I actually learning?

Just when I had given up, I was struck by that question:

What am I actually learning? This one question led

me to ask other questions. Why do I disagree with my

professor? What do I think is the right approach? Why

is that the right approach?

I started listening, really listening in class. I asked

more questions than ever, because I wanted to under-

stand more than ever. I realized that my reactions to the

material and the ideas that my professor was present-

ing were just as important as the material itself. I no

longer dreaded going to class. Instead, I was excited. I

couldn’t wait to react to more ideas. I wound up doing

well, because even though my opinions differed from

my professor’s, I had integrated and synthesized the

information I was presented, so I could make a good

argument against it.

And that’s really what learning is about. It’s not

about simply acquiring knowledge, or formulas, or

dates, or authors’ names. It’s about taking this knowl-

edge and reacting to it. Thinking about the “why” and

“how” of ideas you’re presented with, rather than just

accepting the knowledge, will help you learn better—

and learn more.

So, when you get to college, don’t just give up and

drop that class you hate. You’ll learn more than you

might think. i

Benet Reynolds is a junior at Goucher college in Maryland. A self-proclaimed nerd, he loves fantasy and science fi ction as much as he enjoys studying psychology. he is studying abroad this semester at the University of Westminster in London.

The Class I Used to Hate by Benet Reynolds

isto

ck

College is a change of pace from high school in a big

way. You can choose which classes you want to take

and therefore avoid the boredom and drudgery

that come from classes that don’t interest you. It’s

wonderful to be able to focus only on the things

that really make you happy.

That’s what I was doing. I declared my major

in psychology and never looked back. Sure,

there are general education requirements, but,

on the whole, I was taking psychology courses

and learning about things that I loved and

enjoyed. I was focused and interested. Life was

great. Then I took a class I hated, and life got

even better.

Halfway through my sophomore year, I’d

taken my fair share of psychology courses,

most of them focusing on psychology in a

very clinical way, like

a doctor treating

patients. One of

the courses for the

upcoming semester

was described as

breaking away from this

norm. It took the stance

that psychology was about

one person helping another

become happier. This idea

appealed to me a lot, so I signed

up for the class immediately.

I soon found myself in the book-

store, picking up my textbooks for the

semester. Looking at the reading list, I

was even more excited for my new class.

There was as much philosophy on the book

list as there was psychology. This fact alone, I

felt, guaranteed the quality of the class.

When I got to class, though, my excitement

evaporated. My professor informed the class that we

would not be discussing most of the books on the read-

ing list; in fact, the books we would focus on were the

dullest-looking ones. This was just the fi rst step in the

isto

ck

I asked more

questions than

ever, because

I wanted to

understand

more than ever.


one step ahead planning ahead for college


Everyone can expect to experience some stress

during the transition to college. Leaving home,

living in a dormitory with a roommate, and find-

ing balance among academics, extracurricular

activities, social life, and sleep are adjustments

most first-year college students need to make.

Some of these changes may be exciting and

liberating, but as existentialists would suggest,

with freedom comes responsibility. This is where

the R-factor comes in.

R=Responsibility In college, you will be expected to manage your academic, social,

and personal life on a day-to-day basis and take responsibility

(be accountable) for all of your choices and actions. The concept

of taking responsibility might seem straightforward, but there are

degrees of being accountable for one’s choices.

We often equate taking responsibility with admitting wrong-

doing or mistakes and facing the consequences for our actions.

But taking responsibility can happen on a much smaller scale

and in more subtle ways. Consider two scenarios in which

students shy away from taking charge of their lives. As you read

them, think about how they could behave differently to better

meet their own needs.

Scenario 1: Olivia doesn’t let her friends know when they have

hurt her feelings and then resents and blames them for being

insensitive to her needs. By blaming her friends and making

them responsible for her happiness, she has chosen to assume

a passive role in her own life.

Scenario 2: Samuel procrastinates on completing applications

for summer research internships and misses the application

deadlines. By not taking action, Samuel is still making a choice

and is responsible for his academic progress or lack of it.

Conversely, there are those who feel burdened by taking

responsibility that is not theirs to take. For instance, some students

feel obligated to make sure that their friends are always happy or

feel completely responsible if their team loses. If you fall into this

category, you may realize that being a “responsibility magnet” can

feel draining and can compromise your own well-being.

Guidelines for Taking Charge of Your LifeLearning to take appropriate responsibility becomes easier with

maturity and practice. Think about how active you are in making deci-

sions that affect your life, and consider adopting these guidelines:

Identify what is within your power to control. In any situation

(academic, social, or personal), assess what you have control over

and what is beyond your control. Take responsibility for what you

can control, trying not to dwell on what you cannot. For instance,

it’s up to you to decide how well prepared to be for a test, how to

manage time, and how to treat your friends, yet you cannot control

how fair your teachers are or how your friends behave. That is their

responsibility.

Be your own advocate. If you feel that your academic develop-

ment is being stifl ed in any way, identify ways to get “unstuck”

and follow through by taking action. This may entail asking to be

accelerated in one or more subjects to increase your level of chal-

lenge or addressing any academic weaknesses.

Fill in the gaps. If your social/emotional development is

lagging behind your academic progress, don’t be hard on

yourself. This is common among gifted and talented students.

But to prepare yourself for the social and emotional demands

of college, you’ll need to address any deficits you might have

now. Ask friends and family for specific feedback about how you

come across, and be open to modifying your behavior if it is

preventing you from connecting well with others. Participate in a

social skills group or attend a summer program to get “practice”

interacting with your intellectual peers. Like other skills, these

can be learned.

Ultimately, you have a responsibility to yourself to make deci-

sions in all aspects of your life that will help you become your

best self. Whether you’re still in middle school or are preparing

for college, remember that freedom and responsibility are a

package deal. i

The R Factor by Michelle Muratori, Ph.D.

shU

tteR

sto

ck


students review

The Students Review series is intended to aid

prospective college students in their search

by offering insiders’ views of selected colleges

and universities, as expressed by current

undergraduates or recent graduates who have

high academic ability. Note that the number

of reviewers is small. Consider their personal

perspectives as only one factor as you gather

information and impressions from many sources.

Our reviewers include 17 students who

major(ed) in anthropology (1), biology (2),

chemistry (1), economics (1), English (6),

history (2), political science (2), psychology (2),

Spanish (1), and theater (1). (The number of

majors exceeds 17 because two students had

double majors.) Reviewers’ comments appear

within quotation marks.

Quality of Academic Instruction for UndergraduatesReviewers used superlatives in praising the

education Davidson offers.

�� “I am convinced that no university could

have given me a better, more comprehen-

sive, more personalized college education

than Davidson. The liberal arts curriculum

forced me to take classes I would not

otherwise have taken, and thereby become

a truly more educated human being. And I

retained an incredible amount of informa-

tion due to the interesting, challenging

way that information was presented. I was

a theatre major, but, just two days ago, I

was at an art exhibit at the Metropolitan

Art Institute in New York, spouting facts I

had learned in my Chemistry of Art and

Artifacts lab. In every class I took, I was

given lots of individual attention due not

only to the small class sizes, but also to

the personalities of my professors who, I

believe, always have each student’s best

interests at heart.”

�� “I couldn’t have been happier with my

choice of college. The core curriculum

exposes students to samplings of almost

every discipline and is a great springboard

for finding one’s personal passions and

gifts. As such, Davidson is especially well-

suited for students who may not yet know

where they’re going next and who want

to make the most of their college experi-

ence by taking diverse courses across

disciplines.”

�� “I’m not sure that any school in the

country has finer instruction than Davidson.

The professors make themselves not only

accessible, but a truly valuable part of their

students’ lives, and they instill a lifelong

dedication to learning. Now that I’m in a

graduate program and teach undergradu-

ates, I really appreciate how challenging

it is to make yourself available to students.

The effortless kindness that my professors

showed me has given me something to

strive for in my own teaching.”

�� “Davidson is an amazing place to learn.

It taught me how to write intelligently

and eloquently, how to research the best

sources, how to convey my ideas and

thoughts on paper and in discussions, and

most of all, how to learn. Classes were

always very small—I think my largest class

was around 30, but more often 15 or less.

Most were discussion based, and I felt like

I learned as much from my classmates as

I did from the professors’ lectures or the

readings. Grading was certainly tough—I

had never received lower than an A- in my

life before Davidson, and I quickly learned

to accept that Bs (and the occasional C)

were acceptable as long as I’d put in my

best effort.”

�� “The small classes create a bond

between students that lasts long after

graduation. While I still keep in touch with

my close friends, I find myself reaching out

to former classmates on a purely academic

level, to find out what they’re reading, etc.”

�� “I can’t talk about academics at

Davidson without mentioning the Honor

Code. This cornerstone of all things

Davidsonian is especially apparent in the

classroom. Your professors trust you implic-

itly and this leads to a lot of freedom in the

learning process, such as self-scheduled/

self-proctored final exams.”

�� “Davidson has a well-deserved reputa-

tion for being challenging. But while the

professors expect much of each student,

they also empower students to meet those

expectations. There’s never a shortage

of academic resources to bolster one’s

performance. It’s tough, but very rewarding.

I felt I was truly learning on a daily basis,

and I was proud of what I accomplished

during my time there.”

Social LifeAll reviewers enjoyed Davidson’s social life.

�� “The almost entirely campus-based

housing helps foster a great social life.

Davidson students are busy, so during the

week, social life tends to revolve around

study groups and blowing off steam in the

student union, which is the central social

hub of the campus. Weekends typically

involve students descending upon the

fraternities and eating houses (social

eating clubs for women) for parties that

feature typical college themes and the

occasional live band. Charlotte is only 20

minutes away without traffic, but students

find the trek daunting unless there is a

show or concert in town. Students tend to

stick to campus or, when the weather is

nice, the lake campus.”

Davidson College


students review

�� “I had a great time at Davidson. There

are so many ways to build upon what you

learn in the classroom and to plug into your

passions. Through clubs, I developed many

new skills and a great support network.

Davidson places great emphasis on com-

munity involvement, and there are endless

ways to participate in community service

and advocacy.”

�� “Davidson definitely has a small com-

munity feel, and that’s one of my favorite

things about it. But some people feel that

it can be almost too personal at times. It’s

difficult to be anonymous at Davidson.”

�� “Politically, Davidson has it all—from

passionate conservatives to green party

activists—fairly peacefully coexisting.

Socioeconomically, the school is also quite

diverse. Davidson has people from differ-

ent backgrounds and from all around the

world … but we’re mostly white. The school

is working diligently to get a more diverse

application pool, but we aren’t there yet.”

What Do You Like Best about Davidson?�� “I am grateful for the unparalleled

educational opportunities I had and the

intimacy of the college atmosphere. I truly

felt like I belonged to a community of

dedicated learners. As a graduate student

at a huge university, I can now appreci-

ate how much each student at Davidson

becomes an essential strand in the tapestry

of the community there.”

�� “I’ve never felt more included in a tight-

knit community than when I was a Davidson

student. This begins even before the first

year, as the school takes meticulous care

to pair you with a roommate who matches

your living habits and personality. They

then take the same care to put you on a

compatible first-year hall. But the com-

munity feeling goes beyond the students.

Everyone at Davidson—faculty, staff, and

administration—really tries to make sure

students feel at home.”

What Do You Like Least about Davidson?Most comments concerned the academic

(and related psychological) demands.

�� “The constant, ever-present feeling of

inadequacy due to such difficult classes

and impressive peers.”

�� “The grading doesn’t allow some very

brilliant students a chance at the high GPAs

they would assuredly have at other schools.”

�� “There were very few things about

Davidson that I disliked. But if I had to pick

one, I’d say that some students tend to be

too high-strung for their own good.”

Who Would Be Most Compatible with the Academic and Social Atmosphere at Davidson?�� “Davidson is a place for highly principled

scholars. The Honor Code is the foundation

for the College, and that dedication to

integrity sets Davidson students apart. While

dedication to academics may be found at

any top college, Davidson students have a

deep-rooted desire to achieve beyond the

classroom, to put their excellent education to

use in the world, to make it a better place.”

�� “Above all, I think that Davidson stu-

dents need to be people who genuinely

enjoy the pursuit of knowledge and

intellectual discourse. Davidson has very

few pre-professional programs, although

those it does have (pre-med, pre-law, etc.)

strongly prepare students for their future

education and careers.”

�� If You Had It to Do over Again,

Would You Go to Davidson?

All reviewers said yes with great enthusiasm.

�� “Given a thousand iterations of

reality, I would choose Davidson every time.

It educated the human and the humanist in

me as well as the scholar. It instilled in me a

desire to pursue right in all I do, to use the

precision of thought taught by my profes-

sors to interrogate the norm, and to always,

above all else, be good. It educated the

whole of me in a way I’m not sure any other

institution in the country could have.”

�� “Without a doubt. I love Davidson for

who it made me and who it set me up to be.

Davidson provided me with true friends

and a fantastic education that set me up for

success in ‘the real world.’”

�� “Absolutely. I wouldn’t give up the

Davidson experience for the world. It

was demanding, but I’m very grateful; it

prepared me for the levels of stress I’m

going to face for the rest of my life as a

doctor. I don’t think I would have made it

past the second week of med school if it

hadn’t been for my Davidson education.

Davidson not only prepared me well for

medical classes, but more importantly,

it taught me how to be a well-rounded

person who can balance academics with

the rest of my life.”

�� “Yes. We’re a unique community, friendly

and dedicated to our work. Davidson kind of

drives you crazy, but it’s worth it in the end.” i

Note: The reviewers quoted in the Students

Review series are expressing their own views,

which are not necessarily those of JHU or CTY.

Davidson College

Davidson, NC 28035

www.davidson.edu

* 4-year coed private college

* Suburban campus 15 miles from Charlotte, NC

* Full-time undergraduate enrollment 2009-10: 856 men, 887 women.

* Special features: 109-acre Lake Campus seven miles away.

creative minds imagine

Greed is a tsunami that engulfs all but those with the purest of souls and the noblest of resolve. In a society plagued by avarice, is there any wonder that the most notable people in history are oft en those who stole selfi shly from the world? Greed is that insatiable hunger that devours all but leaves little. No matter how much one may give to this ravenous leviathan, the desire for more will never disappear, ultimately consuming any acts of selfl essness and leaving behind great scars upon the world.

In almost all historical cases, greed has made a greater impres-sion on the people than has giving, in part due to its worldwide implications, in part due to the shock of fi nding out the ugly side of life. Take the recent housing crisis, for example. Refl ect upon the catastrophe that would eventually manifest itself, when many years ago, a little seed of greed implanted itself in the minds of a few loan brokers. Th is little seed grew unchecked, becoming so widespread, so imbedded in workings of the system, that all it took was one little boost in taxes, one little push, one little tap on the dominos of disaster to mark the beginning of the end. Wall Street’s greed caused a global crisis and perniciously aff ected the lives of millions upon millions of people. From one little selfi sh act, events conspired to cruelly shatter the illusions of security and opened the eyes of the people to the harsh truth of reality. Th e devastating eff ects of greed are almost unimaginable and yet this is but one of many cases in history.

Giving, on the other hand, aff ects a much smaller group. The daily, almost mundane, act of holding a door for the elderly, or helping a friend, aff ects few. Giving may provide temporary relief; however, the benevolent deed will most likely be forgotten soon aft er. Even in the rare cases where giving has made a worldwide impact, greed has inevitably warped

its eff ect and used its “good” to wreak havoc upon the world.Just how does greed distort the actions of giving? Take Jesus,

for example. In what was perhaps the most infl uential act of altruism in history, Jesus sacrifi ced himself to spread his ideas to the people. While his gift did spread to all corners of the world, one must not forget what greed has done to it; greed twisted his sacrifi ce to its own ends, and used his ideals to promote violence, ensure segregation, and maintain a wall of sexism for hundreds of years. Ironically, in encouraging peace and love, Jesus has inadvertently promoted the evils of the world by providing a façade for the greedy to cower behind.

Th e charity of humanity is almost expected, and thus, giving will inevitably be forgotten. Greed, on the other hand, will lead to death, violence, and hatred, all of which shock and frighten us, causing an everlasting impression. In a world fi lled with naïve notions of mankind’s “inherent good,” greed will forever eclipse the fragile light of altruism.

Bert Geng is a senior at Bethpage high school in New York, where he is the vice president of the students Putting an end to cancer club and the assistant program director of civic club. in addition to philosophy and volunteer work, Bert enjoys playing tennis and running. he plans to major in biomedical engineering, an interest that stems largely from his love of science- fi ction books and movies.

Kids Philosophy SlamKids Philosophy Slam is an annual program in which students in grades K–12 answer a philosophical question (2010: “Is the pen mightier than the sword?”). Depending on their age, students may respond in an essay, artwork, poetry, or musical composition. One national winner is selected from each grade level. The top four high school students debate the year’s question at the national fi nals, with the winner earning the title of The Most Philosophical Student in America. For more information, see www.philosophyslam.org.

2009 Question: Greed or Giving: Which Has a Greater Impact on Society?

First Place Essay by Bert Geng

There is no fi re like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. —Buddha



creative minds imagine

In the deep of a beautiful wood lays a still pool of collected water. How all the molecules of liquid came to form this pres-ence has been forgotten, but in the deepest place of the pond is an ancient memory of fulfi llment. It is because of this memory that water always regains its presence…

Deeply throughout human history are stories of generos-ity. Th e memories passed through books, word of mouth, and embedded in the teachings of religion contain the wisdom of how generosity has sustained society. Th ese stories remind us of the generosity engrained in the human story. Th ey keep the complications of a busy world from allowing greed to have a permanent impact on society.

…Presently, a lost Labrador, driven mad by the city, stumbles into the clearing in the woods. Th rough his frantic condition, he notices a dead fl y drift ing across the surface of the water. Th e pond feels his presence and trembles, as the starved dog snatches this parcel of food off the surface of the water. Th e eff ect is powerful. Large ripples move through the water, crash into the sides of the bank, and are sent rapidly back into the center of the pool. For a short time the water is restless. But in the deepest place of the pond, there is the memory of peace…

…Th e Labrador begins to whine. He gnaws desperately at the fl y in an attempt to satisfy his large mouth. As the realiza-tion that this small insect cannot save him attacks his sanity, his last stroke of fearful determination sends him scrambling into the dark. For a moment, there is silence. Th e water is wary, but a sense of almost forgotten peace from the depths of the pond

soon settles the liquid. And in the deepest place of the pond, an innately perfect spring emerges…

…Th e spring sends out a small fl ow of water that creeps through the rocky crevices of the deepest place of the pond. Th is small amount of liquid cannot be noticed by the outside world, but because of it, the water begins to swell and then slowly rise. Th e gentle pressure brings the water to the tip of the pond-side.

And the pond cries.A cold trickle of persistent liquid escapes from the pond’s

edge in a slender rivulet and sneaks through the underbrush, deep into the woods. It follows an irregular path, but its course is certain and its purpose determined as the water slips across the head of a panting Labrador, lying exhausted across the forest fl oor. Ever so soft ly, the rivulet creates the smallest puddle at the corners of the dog’s mouth. And even more gently in the shadow of the forest, this dog takes a long cool drink.

…and from the deepest place of the pond, generosity has made its impact. i

hannah Lufkin is in 8th grade, enjoying her last year at Lake county Middle school. she lives off the grid in Leadville, co. in her spare time, she plays the fl ute, skis, practices spanish, munches on pot stickers, and spends time with her dogs.

Most Poetic Essay by Hannah Lufkin

People have an innate natural perfection which, distracted by daily living, we often forget. —Buddha


4

5

6

821

82

97

6

9

2

6

3

85

2

94

7

1

2

5

9

52

41

791

5

2

3Puzzle by websudoku.com

49

1

3

2

8

7

5

78

136

4

7

631

42

2

8

6

5

1

5

37

1

5

2

7

9

4

96

4

8

53

2

94

2

5

93

6

58

1

6

31

5

2

7

8

8

6

Puzzle by websudoku.com

sudoku

B A L I O A T C A B P L A C E F L U A C E M E W E D T A X U T E

B I B R E A S O N P I V O T A L D Y E R T R I X C O L O N A K A L O G O S F D A

C Y N I C A C E S I R A N C U T B A C K

W R E T C H S O S H O N H U G G U E S S O N E E M U A R G U E A Y E D E N D O M E

easy medium

hard word wise solution (from page 37)

shU

tteR

sto

ck


www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine imagine 47www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine www.cty.jhu.edu/imagine

The ten contestants left on Survivor have formed four alliances within their tribe: an alliance with four people, an

alliance with three, an alliance with two, and a person who has formed an alliance of one. The people within each

alliance have secretly agreed to vote off the same person in the next tribal council. Naturally, the contestants vote to

oust people outside their own alliance (and thus no one votes for themselves).

When talking to the people within their alliance, each person speaks truthfully about whom they will vote off.

However, when speaking with someone outside their alliance, they always lie. (Thus, the person who is in the alli-

ance of one lies to everyone.)

word wise solution (from page 37)

by Tim Boester

shU

tteR

sto

ck

knossos games

Survivor

Knossos Games 17.3 Solution

In order to make the lie more believable,

they say that they will vote off someone

who isn’t in their own alliance.

In order to make the lie non-threatening, they say that

they will vote off someone who isn’t in the alliance of

the person with which they are speaking.

In order to make the lie uninformative, they say that

they will vote off someone who isn’t in the alliance of

the person they actually are voting off.

(Note: depending upon who is speaking to whom,

some of these conditions may be redundant.)

Clues:Jacob to Teresa: “I’m voting for Michael.”

Allison to Chris: “I’m voting for Jacob.”

Michael to Donte: “I’m voting for Allison.”

Allison to Sara: “I’m voting for Michael.”

Jacob to Chris: “I’m voting for Teresa.”

Allison to Genevieve: “I’m voting for Sara.”

Samantha to Donte: “I’m voting for Teresa.”

Jacob to Peter: “I’m voting for Allison.”

Tribal Council vote:6 votes for Jacob

4 votes for Allison

From the statements above and the results of the actual

tribal council vote, can you determine who was in each

alliance, and how each alliance voted?

tim Boester is an Assistant Professor in Mathematics education at Wright state University. You can find more puzzles on his website at homepage.mac.com/boester.

minimum path score: 67 maximum path score: 10,978

Vec

toRs

toc

k


If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

—Descartes

JOHNS HOPKINSU N I V E R S I T Y


McAuley Hall

5801 Smith Avenue, Ste 400

Baltimore, MD 21209

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Non-Profi t Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

Dulles, VA

Permit No. 439

Documents

Imagine: Big Ideas For Bright Minds (P4C)