Philosophy Final 2025. SUBJECT TO CHANGE MADE THIS BEFORE DISCUSSION!

What is a possibility, according to Epictetus?

A possibility isn't an actual thing, in the whole universe there are these variables that will dictate what will happen. If we knew every single variable then there we would always know what could happen. There are no possibilities because a situation can only occur as it did, not in any other way.

Consider the parking meter example that we discussed in class. Use the example to illustrate the difference between the view of Moderate Epictetus and the view of Extreme Epictetus.

Moderate Epictetus would not get mad at the parking meter being closed and would park somewhere else. Extreme Epictetus would try to find out why the parking meter is closed and would want to see how everything fits together. Extreme Epictetus would find great satisfaction at seeing how things fit together. The difference that this example highlights is that Extreme Epictetus gets satisfaction from seeing how things fit together while this is not a priority for Moderate Epictetus.

Present an example of a social injustice. How would Extreme Epictetus approach this specific injustice?

There is an on going genocide in Gaza. Extreme Epictetus would say that there is no good or bad in the world. They would say that whatever happens happens. Extreme Epictetus would be complacent and not intervene because they only have a desire to see how things fit together. So, Extreme Epictetus would not doing anything about this social injustice

Present an example of a social injustice. How would Moderate Epictetus approach this specific injustice?

Homelessness crisis in America. Moderate Epictetus would try to change this by implementing policies slowly and carefully to help try to end this problem. They would also be realistic about this issue and recognize that they cannot end it all in one day.

Epictetus says that a person can only act according to how things appear to them, and not how they appear to others. Explain this view.

People act to the best of their ability in a given situation with the knowledge that they have. People can only act with the knowledge that they have. When people are acting in ways that we find annoying, we would be wise to draw the conclusion that things must be appearing differently to them than they appear to us. This will help us not get mad at people.

Extreme Epictetus holds that everything happens by necessity. How is that a problem for his stoic recommendations?

If everything happens by necessity, then it is not up to you to become a stoic, it's all fate and whatever happens happens. This would mean that you have no control to become a stoic and thus you would not try to become a stoic. It would mean that it is either impossible or inevitable for you to become a stoic

Nagel considers the argument that human existence is pointless because in a million years no one will remember or care about what we are doing now. Explain this argument and Nagel's critique of it.

People say that what we do right now does not matter because it will not matter in a million years. Nobody will remember us or what we do. Nagel says that this argument is irrelevant because what is relevant is if what we are doing right now matters.

Nagel considers the argument that human existence is pointless because it is finite in terms of both time of space. Explain this argument and Nagel's critique of it.

People say that life is pointless because our lives are finite and we are little specks in the universe. Nagel would say that if we lived forever or we were bigger in comparison to the universe, our lives would have no more value than before.

Give a example of a foundational belief that we believe with 100% confidence. How is this example relevant to Nagel's view?

A foundational belief that we have is that human beings are more valuable than a rock. We have no proof of this, but we still believe it anyway. This is relevant to Nagel's view that human life is absurd because we (humans) consider ourselves as rational animals. However, we continue to go on believing stuff without having proof of it. This is irrational and thus absurd.

What is the sense in which Nagel thinks that human life is absurd? What is his reason for thinking this?

Human life is absurd because we perceive ourselves as rational human beings. However, we do not act rational. We strongly believe in things that we have no proof for; this is irrational. This contradiction is absurd and is why human life is absurd.

Explain external-world skepticism. How is it connected to Nagel's view that human life is absurd2?

External world skepticism is the belief that we do not have 100% of the external world. We cannot prove the outside world. We can see a tree in real life and in a dream. How do we know that the world we are experiencing right now is not the type of experience we have in a dream? In order to prove this, we would need to find out if the thing that causes our perpction matches our perception. But, we are never in the position to do this. Therefore, we can never fully know if what we are experiencing is the true reality and not a dream. The point is that we act as if we know for 100% that there is an external world even though we do not have 100% proof. This is irrational and therefore absurd because we see ourselves as rational beings. Rational beings would not act like they know for sure that there is an external world, we do though.

Nagel thinks that if we accept that human life is absurd2 we will be more light-hearted, and a lot more connected to others. More people will also have an enhanced experience of meaning. Explain his view here.

Nagel thinks that by taking our beliefs a little less seriously we can forge more connections with people. We can have more connections with people because you will be able to compromise more because you recognize that your beliefs are unable to be proven 100% correctly. By forging more connections you can have more freidns and enjoy more things. This will enhance your experience of meaning

Nagel thinks that if we accept that human life is absurd2 we will compromise more when it comes to foundational political beliefs. Give an example of a pressing political debate and discuss how the debate would be very different if Nagel's view were adopted. How might each of us gain if we accepted the view? What would we have to give up?

Take abortion for example. If both sides saw that they don't have 100% objective proof for their side, they would be more likely to compromise. Both sides might also soften their stances a bit. This could lead to many benefits. One is that both sides would be less demonized. This could lead to people on different sides of the aisles to get along with each other because they don't see each other as mortal enemies. A downside could be that since we recognize we have less proof than we thought we did, we are less likely to fight for what is right. In other words, we could potentially lose our zeal for political movements to fight for what is right.