directed studies philosophy spring

foundationalism

some knowledge is self-evident and certain, and that is where everything else builds off of (descartes)

rationalism

the belief that certainty in knowledge is based on reason and logic (spinoza, descartes)

empiricism

the belief that certainty in knowledge is based on sense experience (berkeley, hume)

realism

objects/things that are known are independent of the mind (descartes, kant’s empirical realism)

idealism

objects that are known are dependent on the activity of the mind (berkeley’s immaterialism, kant’s transcendental idealism, hegel)

deontology

duty or rule based ethics (kant)

consequentialism

consequence based ethics (mill)

monism

mind and body are different manifestations of one reality (spinoza)

dualism

mind and body are distinct and separate (descartes)

antecedent skepticism

precautionary provision made by an inquirer which results in an incurable and self defeating skepticism (descartes who solves it with cogito argument)

consequent skepticism

questions specific conclusions reached, like those through the senses about the existence of external objects (berkeley)

mitigated skepticism

doubting certain kinds of knowledge (hume, we can only reason about relations of ideas)

descartes: ideology + comparisons

ideology: rationalist that believes there is innate knowledge and power in ideas

comparisons: empiricism (berkeley, hume) comes in response to rationalism, the mind-body dualism and spinoza who doesn’t believe they are separate

descartes: first med skeptical argument

1. the roots of philosophy is metaphysics, but we don’t know if metaphysics is true, so we have to cut down the tree and start from scratch.

2. we do so by doubting everything, including our senses and anything else that can be doubted.

3. example: we can start with all perceptual appearances, but this is fooled because the moon looks to be the size of our thumb even though that is obviously not true.

4. then we look to ordinary perceptual seemings (like sitting in a chair) but when you are dreaming you do not know that you are awake. when you are awake, you do not know you are dreaming.

5. then we look to simple natures, like color. evil demon could be fooling us, we don’t even know if that is true.

6. basically, if our knowledge is derived from sense experience but we can’t be sure of our senses, then we can’t be sure of anything.

big question: how do we know anything?

descartes: second meditation cogito argument

1. we can’t figure out if anything exists at all

2. however, we know we exist. i think, therefore i am.

3. we don’t know what we are or how we came to be, simply that we are a thinking thing. we do not know if we have a body or any connection to the material world.

descartes: clear and distinct perception

• we only know the cogito is true because it is clear and distinct

• argument

1. i know with certainty i am a thinking thing

2. this is based on a clear and distinct perception

3. clear and distinct perception would not be sufficient to yield knowledge if it was fallible

4. clear and distinct perceptions are sufficient. whatever i perceive is true

whenever I am clearly and distinctly perceiving something, that which I perceive is true

descartes: cartesian circle

1. I am certain that god exists

2. god is all perfect

3. god does not deceive me

4. i am certain about what i know

clear and distinct perceptions are reliable because god does not deceive, but relies on his clear and distinct perception to prove god’s existence

descartes: god’s existence (third med)

1. I have concept of god

2. concept of god = infinite and perfect

3. i am a thinking thing. i can think of many ideas like people and objects

4. i am finite. god is infinite

5. god must be a concept that has more reality than my own mind.

6. my mind could not have created this concept.

7. only god could have created this concept.

8. god is real.

descartes: mind body dualism

two ways

1. god exists, does not deceive bc he is perfect

2. our perceptions are reliable given c/d perceptions

3. when we perceive our body + reality, it must be real

4. body is distinct from mind bc we perceive body as external object through senses (we can feel our legs with our hands, etc)

5. mind senses do not act as strongly as body, so we have two separate entities

or

1. my body is divisible (amputation)

2. mind is indivisible (no separate parts)

3. this distinction makes them distinct

think substance dualism: two substances, mind/soul and body

descartes: fourth med certainity and error

how can god be infinitely good but we error?

1. god does not deceive

   1. difference between intent and ability. ability = power, intent = malice.

   2. god does not need to have a motive because he is all powerful and can tell truth. god would not have malicious intent because he is perfect

2. why do humans err

   1. humans are in between perfection and nothingness (lack of being). error is from lack of being

3. how do humans err

   1. we have two faculties: intellect and will

   2. intellect is limited, will is unlimited

   3. both are perfect because god gave it to us.

   4. sometimes, will exceeds intellect and makes choices beyond the knowledge is possesses. this is our mistakes

descartes + princess elisabeth: problem of mind body interaction

how can two different subjects causally affect each other? it requires contact

material bodies can be moved in three ways

1. by impulsion of the thing moved

2. by being moved

3. by qualities and shape of object moving

   1. 1+2 need physical contact, 3 needs extension

   2. physical contact is impossible by the mind, extension is not apart of the soul, how does the body give feeling and perception to the mind

descartes response

• the connection to each other is inherent to mind-body dualism, even if they are distinct.

spinoza: ideology and comparision

ideology: there is only one substance and it is god and nature and everything

comparison: descartes, the mind and body are modes of the same substance and thus there is no interaction issue

spinoza: some key definitions

substance: something that is self-causing, infinite, and necessarily exists

attribute: underlying nature of a substance (mind and body are different attributes to the mode of human)

mode: a particular way a substance exists

principle of sufficient reason: each thing has an explanation that explains its existence

necessitarianism: everything that happened had to happen

spinoza: god and monism

1. an attribute cannot be shared by two substances

2. it is in the nature of a substance to exist

3. there can only be one substance

   1. substance are prior in nature to its attributes, so if we strip the extra stuff away then the substances are indistinguishable

4. god exists and has all the attributes

5. god is the only substance

Descartes God: someone you can play chess with, Spinoza’s God: chess is God because everything is God

spinoza: mind-body paralleism

• there is only one substance, so the mind and body are modes of the substance

  • mind = idea, body = extension

• parallelism: order and connection of ideas are the same as the order and connection of things

  • the same thing seen in two different ways

  • the idea of apple in head = extended apple

spinoza: mind-body correspondance

• when extended body sees extended apple, mind has a corresponding idea of apple

• the corresponding effect is how the mind and body interacts

  • example: two train tracks where, because everything is necessary and determined (and they are also the same train track), the same train crosses it. they come across the extended train and the idea of a train

  • this means there really isn’t a free will

spinoza: moral notions

• notions of good and bad and of a personal god are constructed to understand what we cannot explain

• critique of the view of an anthropocentric god and that everything exists to benefit humankind

• nature has no particular goal in view and anything that appears like it does come from the human mind’s imperfection

  • The world is = the world must be = no need for good or evil or anything objective and working towards a telos is objective and they are mistaken

• there is no morality because everything is determined and there is no free will

  • thinking of free will as the ability to make your own choices is the wrong way of viewing it. when you realize that perfection comes from acceptance and succumbing to nature/god, then we are experiencing free will because it is a choice to do so

berkeley: ideology and comparisions

ideology: idealism, immaterialism, empiricism, esse ist percipi: to exist is to be perceived

comparisons: opposes descartes and kant because he doesn’t think material things exist, also against mind-body dualism because he rejects that there are mind independent things because everything must be perceived to exist

berkeley: primary v secondary qualities

primary: extension, figure, motion, rest, number (innate)

secondary: color, sounds, tastes, size

argument

1. we perceive primary qualities differently because of our subjective perspective

   1. a dog sees his limbs differently than a human would

2. we cannot perceive primary qualities separate from secondary qualities. this is true for all primary qualities

   1. motion cannot be conceived of without thinking of some sort of colored, shaped object moving. can’t conceive of the number one without thinking of one thing.

3. the idea of a primary quality alone and separate from other qualities is a general abstract idea, which berkeley rejects

4. therefore no objects outside of sense perception

berkeley: where do sensory ideas come from

1. other ideas

   1. ideas are passive (no activity within them)

   2. ideas have no causal power (cannot cause sensory ideas)

   3. cannot have characteristics which they are not sensory perceived to have

2. me

   1. can imagine some ideas, but sensory ideas are involuntary

      1. we cannot choose whether to smell or see something first

   2. what my mind causes is done by willing, and willing is accessible to the consciousness

   3. we are unconscious and unwilling by the sensory ideas, so they don’t come from us

3. another spirit

   1. because it cannot come from ourselves or other ideas, it must come from another spirit

   2. god!

      1. always perceiving and coordinating our thoughts

      2. things exist to be perceived, which is why we have natural things that kind of always happen like that

         1. everything is a bundle of ideas that god produces in our mind in a consistent orderly fashion

berkeley: ideas and spirits

spirits

• active being that perceives and wills

  • finite: human minds

  • infinite: god

• active, perceiving (ideas exist only in relation to them). not perceivable

ideas

• immediate objects of perception

• passive, perceived, dependent on spirits

• only exist as they are perceived

two ways of knowing

• perceptions (ideas) which are the only way sensible objects are given to us

• notions are non-ideational grasp of an active being which arises through reflection not sensation

hume enquiry: ideology and comparisions

ideology: empiricist, we get ideas from seeing things, causation from conjunction

comparisons: no empirical necessary connection is like refuting all science, addressed by kant

hume enquiry: ideas from impressions

• copy principle: ideas are copies of impressions

  • impressions have more force and vivacity

  • impression of the taste of cake is better than the idea of the taste of cake

• nothing in the intellect that is not first in the senses

  • even god comes from the idea of ourselves that is then augmented into our own mind without limitation

• objection: blue

  • can someone discern a missing shade of blue from every shade but one, hume says its possible but example doesn’t matter anyways because its too specific

hume enquiry: principles of association

• resemblance: a picture → a person

• contiguity: one cat → other cats

• cause and effect: wound → hurts

• only things that unite our thoughts

hume enquiry: fork

• relations of ideas (geometry, algebra, arithmetic)

  • intuitively or demonstratively certain, uncontradictable

  • ex. bachelors are unmarried

  • kant’s analytic a priori

• matters of fact

  • cannot be demonstrated a priori because to be contrary to them isn’t an explict contradiction

  • ex. just because the sky is blue today doesn’t meant it has to be blue tomorrow

  • kant’s synthetic a posteriori

hume enquiry: is ought problem + solution

• also known as problems of induction

• matters of fact are conclusions based on experience and are only valid to the extent of our experience

• however, we have to generalize to infer about the future so our expectations of what will happen actually have no basis in reason

• is to ought

• the solution here is custom

  • custom gives our experience meaning as it gives us reason to assume that the future resembles the past

hume enquiry: necessary connection

• causal interactions aren’t derived from contemplation or reflection because our understandings are limited by the extent of our experience

• causation is merely constant conjunction

  • Billiard ball example: Ball A doesn’t make Ball B move when we see it strike, it is just a followed B repeatedly which makes the mind conditioned into expecting B to move when A makes it.

hume enquiry: free will

• still a compatibilist

  • defines liberty as acting or not acting according to determinations of the will

• doesn’t matter if there are many causes leading up to final decision because you are what makes it happen

• everything leading up to your final decision could have been pre-determined based on a long chain of cause-and-effect, but you still made that final choice

hume treatise: ideology and comparisons

ideology: skeptical of the self, no reason but only subjectivity in morals

comparisons: descartes certainity of self, kant and mill rational morality

hume treatise: existence of self

• considered impossible

  • we cannot perceive the self because all we perceive are perceptions

  • nothing but a bundle of different perceptions

  • perceptions are numerous and in constant flux so we must fabricate the self to make sense of the world

hume treatise: perceptions and identity

• when associating two individual perceptions to the same object, we do so through resemblance, contiguity, or causation

  • ideas are connected sensorily

  • resemblance: seeing a photo of someone and thinking of that person

    • abstract connection

  • contiguity: thinking of a toothbrush and thinking of toothpaste

    • actual physical connection through space and time

  • cause and effect: seeing ruins and assuming there were people there prior

    • cause and effect is repeated resemblance and repeated contiguity

descartes: second proof for god

preservation for finite beings

• process of elimination for causes of beings

  • can’t have parents going all the way bc infinite regress

  • self causation would be god but we aren’t god

  • same power needed to preserve something as to create it, but beings cannot preserve anyone’s existence constantly so the power must come from something infinite

    • god

hume treatise: passions

impressions are either original or secondary

• original impressions arise directly from body, like pain or sense perceptions

• secondary impressions come from original, like passions and emotions

  • pain or pleasure is expected due to custom

hume treatise: motivation

• coke machine

• you need desire and belief to act

  • desire for coke, belief that putting a dollar into machine will give coke

  • cannot have the coke in your hand wihtout both

• reason is the slave of the passions

  • only evaluates beliefs, does not determine desires

  • we act due to passion, not reason

  • can only influence through informing of the source of pleasure or pain or by giving means to discover it

• passions are unreasonable when founded on a false belief or insufficient for expected effect

  • cooling a burn by using a hot towel or lightly blowing on it

hume treatise: moral judgements

• not rooted in reason because then there would be no morality (no right answer)

  • if reason could determine morality, then it would be within the action itself

    • actions are only considered immoral if done by a human or circumstantial (like cannibalism)

    • therefore, the action itself does not contain moral quality

• morality is more properly felt than judged and are discovered through sentiment caused

• highly subjective

hume: treatise vs enquiry

treatise and enquiry both discuss the same things in varying coherence

• we use treatise for morality arguments and enquiry for metaphysical ideas

kant critique: ideology and comparisons

ideology: in between rationalist and empiricist, things are real but we can only see them through the phenomenal lens while they exist within the noumenal

comparisons: disagrees with hume and spinoza on the type of judgements people can make

kant critique: analytic synthetic a priori a posteriori

• a priori: universal and necessary

• a posteriori: not universal and necessary, based on individual expeirence

• analytic: b is within a, a self contained truth

  • analytic a priori: all effects have causes

• synthetic: b is not within a, truth by experience and not deduction

  • synthetic a priori: all events have causes

  • synthetic a posterori: bodies are heavy, the sun will rise tomorrow

• to know anything about the world mentally, we have to make synthetic a priori judgements

  • this happens in math, physics, etc

  • therefore, knowledge isn’t from the fork (hume) or is it purely analytic (spinoza)

kant critique: space and time

• space is a necessary a priori feature of experience and the condition for all outer appearance

  • can conceive of empty space, but not absence of space, therefore is necessary

• space and time are not objective, but instead how the mind organizes and represents experience

  • this is the phenomenal world

• space is empirically real but transcendentally ideal

  • empirically real: necessary characteristics of objects of intuition (color, sound)

  • transcendentally ideal: conditions from our experience, not all experience

    • god might conceptualize space and time differently, time feels like it moves differently

kant critique: substance and nature

• principle of the persistence of substance

• quality as an underlying subject, so alteration occurs when we see substance change

• we perceive things as extended in time because there are substances that persist (physical world is constant)

• the mind cannot be constant because we are not constantly perceiving (sleep, unconscious)

  • we only perceive because of the external world

kant critique: cause and effect and nature

• principle of temporal sequence

• alterations must have causes according to law

  • pen is in a different place → there is some cause for it

  • you don’t need to know the cause, just that there is one

kant critique: community and nature

• everything existing simultaneously in space are in a state of reciprocal interaction (community)

• to be perceived, objects cannot exist in isolation but in conjunction with another as they act upon each other which allows us to determine order of events objectively

• house and boat example

  • we see parts at different times (roof wall etc) but when a boat floats down a river we all see it at point a, b, then c

kant critique: second analogy

• cause and effect

• everything happens with cause and effect in our consciousness even if the objective relation is unknown

  • we don’t know the exact cause but we do know that there is a cause

• synthetic faculty: we are the ones who subject appearances to cause and effect

  • how our brain understands it

  • experience is only possible in accordance with cause and effect

kant critique: argument for free will (third antimony)

1. suppose there is no free will and causality occurs completely in accordance with nature

2. every event must have a previous state from where it comes from

3. if the state from where the event follows exists forever and doesn’t have a state previous to it, then it would stay the same and could not have caused the event

   1. state without a prior state would just be everything (spinoza?) with no before or after

4. state from which an event follows is also a state

5. infinite regress with no first event (unmoved mover)

6. therefore, must have some sort of causality distinct from causality that comes from nature. this is transcendental freedom

kant critique: antithesis argument

• if there is free will then there is a spontaneous cause at the beginning of a series of events

• laws of nature still demand that an event follows from some previous state

• even spontaneous causes must have some previous state

• this is contradictory for a spontaneous cause to have a previous state, so there cannot be free will

kant critique: phenomenal and noumenal

• kant considers argument and antithesis for free will valid through his two worlds

• phenomenal: of the appearances

  • constitutes our experience

  • reality seems determined, like spinoza where everything is caused by laws of nature (argument for free will)

• noumenal: of the things in themselves

  • constitutes reality

  • we can think we are free, even though we cannot know we have freedom because we don’t know anything about things in themselves

  • freedom in world of thoughts not objects (antithesis)

kant grounding: ideology and comparisons

ideology: categorical imperative, principles that should be done in good will and are universal

comparisons: centered around good will and intentions while mill cares about consequences

kant grounding: good will

• good will is the only thing good in itself

  • not consequential, it can still be good if nothing comes from it

  • things like intelligence are conditionally good because they can be used in a harmful manner

  • reason’s function is to produce good will

    • humans often defer to reason

• our end is to achieve a will good in itself

  • cannot be happiness otherwise our facilities would be organized by nature to achieve it

kant grounding: inclinations and duty

• duty is the necessity of an action from respect from the law

• inclinations or subjective desires distract from duty

• good will is motivated by duty

• cases of adherence to duty

  • not following duty (lying cheating etc is morally wrong in all circumstances)

  • following duty for mediate inclinations

    • shopkeeper gives back change so the customers come back, not because it is the right thing to do

  • following duty while being supported by immediate inclinations

    • everyone wants to preserve their life but because there isn’t anything actively pulling them away from that, they are acting in accordance with duty and not from duty

  • following duty while overcoming an immediate inclination

    • depressed person wants to kill themself but doesn’t is acting from duty

kant grounding: kingdom of end

• kingdom of ends: rational beings treat each other as ends in themselves and not as means to an end

  • governed by moral and rational principles in comparison to the kingdom of nature that is governed by physical and external causes

• humans should be treated as having dignity and autonomy but this is ignored when they are treated as means

• this stems from the first formulation of the categorical imperative

kant grounding: categorical imperative

• i should never act except in such a way that i can also will my maxim should be a universal law

  • what you do should be obeyed in all circumstances (like do not lie)

  • contrasted to the hypothetical imperative where someone wants to achieve a specific end (i have to study to pass the exam tomorrow)

• all formulas come back to this same categorical imperative

  • always regard yourself as a legislator in the kingdom of ends, always act in a way where you treat humanity as an end not a means, etc

mill: ideology and comparisons

ideology: consequentalist, distinguishing between pleasures

comparisions: kant believes in intentions and good will, hume thinks there is subjectivity of morals while mill is objective

mill: principle of utility

his main theory is that pleasure is the only thing that is naturally desirable and actions are right in proportion to their ability to create pleasure

mill: pleasures

• there are higher and lower pleasures, unlike benthams framework which is linear

  • higher pleasures appeal to our intellectual faculties

  • lower pleasures are bodily in nature

  • it is better to be someone with the capacity of higher pleasure and not have it then to be satisfied with lower pleasures (socrates pig)

• we desire things other than pleasure because they are tools that lead to other goods, like money and health, but the only thing that is good in itself is happiness

mill: rule v act utility

• rule: considers the consequences of following a rule of conduct

  • legal law

  • based on experience, not principles, so there isn’t really something moral about it (telling a kid they aren’t allowed to go near the stove)

  • abiding by a rule might lead to long term happiness in contrast to abiding by individual acts

  • kantian

• act: considers only the consequences of an act, regardless of rule

  • rules are only social constructs so should be violated at times

• we all have a moral obligation to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people

mill: objections

1. makes people cold and uncaring

   1. no framework cares about the personality of people, but instead their standard of action

2. too hard to adopt and impractical

   1. utilitarianism sets the standard of action not the motive

   2. easier to define what is moral than to figure out the best possible action for everyone

   3. ethics tells us what our duties are

3. godless doctrine

   1. god would want to say that we should adopt this framework because god would want the most happiness for everyone, but it doesn’t matter because everyone defines god differently anyways

hegel: ideology and comparisons

ideology: slave is more free than the master, language muddles our certainty

comparisons: other philosophers thinks we cannot get to perfect knowledge, hegel basically applies scientific method to philosophy (phenomenology) and improves our understanding little by little until we get to the ultimate knowledge through dialectic

hegel: sense certainity

• it seems to be the best way to get knowledge because it is right in front of us

• however, it is actually the worst because your senses cannot be truly trusted

  • now it is night, but then it will be morning so it can’t be absolute

  • our sensory perceptions are in flux (recall Hume!) so there is no certainty

  • every attempt to say any single particular (this, here, now) slips into the universal

    • language shapes and influences our experience which muddles our understanding of reality

      • all verbal descriptions are given in universal terms because using this could mean any this but there is no other way to describe

hegel: bondsman/ master-slave dialectic

• initial power dynamics start with superiority

• slave must be submissive in the face of death, leading to a state of dependence on the master

• through labor the slave gains skills and becomes self aware/autonomous, transcending initial condition of servitude

• eventually the labor becomes the slave’s source of liberation as they become more confident in their autonomy, reversing the power dynamics

• slave’s freedom is better because it isn’t constrained by societal or external sources of power but instead a personal engagement with the world

  • the lord’s freedom. is dependent on external sources of power and recognition which is harder to develop further

• we learn about ourselves through others

kierkegaard: ideology and comparisons

ideology: god takes precedence to ethics, have faith when all seems futile

comparisons: ethical as universal (kant, kinda hegel)

kierkegaard: lifestyles

• aesthetic

  • pre moral, constant pursuit of pleasure

• ethical

  • socially acceptable, rationally justified commitment

• religious

  • life of faith beyond ethics

  • issued by god

kierkegaard: problem 1

• problem: is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?

• context: abraham excludes himself from the universal ethical duty of not killing his son

• solution: leap of faith

  • abraham suspends obedience to fulfill his obedience to god, which is higher and beyond reason

kierkegaard: problem 2

• problem: is there an absolute duty to god?

• context: abraham excludes himself by having a non-ethical relationship with god

• solution: one’s duty to god is prior to and always takes precedence which renders the knight of faith always alone

kierkegaard: problem 3

• problem: was it ethically defensible for abraham to conceal his duty?

• context: abraham doesn’t speak or tell isaac his duty

• solution: sin faith paradox

  • abraham must have faith in his individual relationship with God to follow God even as he suspends the moral system he endorses (father son bond, thou shalt not kill)

kierkegaard: archetypes

• tragic hero

  • embodies highest ethical ideals but doomed to external circumstances that causes him to relinquish himself to express the universal

  • think agamemnon: his sacrifice of Iphigenia was fro a higher ethical goal of a victory at troy

    • not abraham, his was a purely private undertaking

• knight of infinite resignation

  • selfhood depends on a certain goal that we understand is impossible to achieve, so we put that energy and feeling to something higher, allowing us to find peace and rest from the finite world

• knight of faith

  • selfhood that depends on a goal that we understand is impossible to achieve but we still believe we can achieve it so we now enjoy the finite

  • so enlightened they pursue something beyond comprehension

beauvoir: ideology and comparisons

ideology: women are othered, we must collectively transcend immanence

comparisons: women and men in hegel’s master slave dialectic without the self realization

beauvoir: otherness

• women are made into the other, never the subject

  • receives identify from men

  • not like marginalized groups because they aren’t the minority

• society has given man transcendence (ability to control one’s identity) while women are immanent (inanimate matter that is passive and internal)

• women are raised differently than men

  • boys are encourages to explore and be active while women are encourages to stay within domestic spaces

  • leads to internalization of gender norms from a young age and expectations of autonomy

beauvoir: role of myth

• women are always portrayed as faulty and incomplete

  • made from adam’s rib

  • never normal, either infantilized or villianized

  • object, not subject

• these are used to culturally preserve system of oppression and to legitimize differences because women shouldn’t historically be oppressed because they aren’t a minority

  • hard to break dialectic due to legitimization in biblical stories

• eternal feminine: a vague basic essence of femininity that denies women individuality

  • it can honestly be all sorts of things, but it is never because they are people with those characteristics but because they are women that they act like that

beauvoir: solution to oppression

• only solution is collective liberation

• must transcend internalism and immanence

• solidariy across class and nationality

  • does somewhat critique lack of intersectionality when discussing bourgeois women allying with men but is still a white upper class woman

beauvoir: master-slave

• unlike hegel, believes that self-recognition isn’t enough for happiness but instead must also be externally liberated

• freedom is uncomfortable to fight for but necessary

• you can also be happy in ignorance or comfort so its also not enough

authors and texts

descartes meditations + correspondence with princess elisabeth, spinoza’s ethics, berkeley’s a treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge, hume’s enquiry concerning human understanding and treatise of human nature, kant’s critique of pure reason and grounding for the metaphysics of morals, mill’s utilitarianism, hegel’s phenomenology of spirit, kierkegaard’s fear and trembling, de beauvoir the second sex