User:Rpowers2/sandbox

Reasons not to plug in
Nozick provides us with three reasons not to plug into the machine.


 * 1) We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.
 * 2) * "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." (Nozick, 43)
 * 3) We want to be a certain sort of person.
 * 4) * "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." (Nozick, 43)
 * 5) Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make).
 * 6) * "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated." (Nozick, 43)

Additionally
These are not quoted by Nozick himself, but rather other philosophers who have come up with additional reasons.
 * Status Quo Bias, humans tend to dislike change, especially when considering the thought of having to be prodded with wires. (Bramble, 4)
 * We would never see your real family and friends again, although unbeknownst to us. (Kawall, 383)
 * The concept of free will becomes murky. (Bramble, 142)
 * Plugging in is a form of suicide. (Bramble, 141)

Argument against hedonism
Hedonism states that the things in life worth pursuing are the highest good, or the things that will make you happiest both long term and short term. Happiness is the highest value in human life. The Experience Machine is hedonistic, and yet people still refuse to be plugged in for the reasons listed above. Therefore, a conclusion is made that being personally happy is not the greatest value everyone carries. (Lin)

Add to the "See Also":
Hedonism

Robert Nozick

Article Selection
Experience machine

Rating: Start Class

I chose this article because I've reviewed this concept many times in many different philosophy classes. I believe it is lacking in it's argument against hedonism, and it does not accurately set up the rules for the experience machine.

Scholarly Article: Kawall, Jason (1999). The experience machine and mental state theories of well-being. _Journal of Value Inquiry_ 33 (3):381-387.

https://philpapers.org/rec/KAWTEM

Liar paradox

Rating: C Class

I chose this article because it seems to neglect what the actual intent of a paradox is, and therefore creates some confusion about the "liar's paradox." If I could, I would want to clarify what a paradox is, and then relate this specific paradox to said definition.

Scholarly Article: Martin, Robert L. “Toward a Solution to the Liar Paradox.” The Philosophical Review, vol. 76, no. 3, 1967, pp. 279–311. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2183621. Accessed 14 Sept. 2020.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183621

Kantianism

Rating: C Class

I chose this article for a few reasons. I love Kant, and consider myself to be a follower of Kantian ethics (which I can fully understand why perhaps I should not be the one to edit this article as I have already stated my bias.) The article showed a pop up right as I clicked on it saying it needed help, and I would change a few things. I'm unsure how big of a deal this is, but the language used is very formal and almost difficult to understand. Secondly, there is barely any information presented.

Scholarly Article: Wood, Allen W. “Unsociable Sociability: The Anthropological Basis of Kantian Ethics.” Philosophical Topics, vol. 19, no. 1, 1991, pp. 325–351. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43154098. Accessed 15 Sept. 2020.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43154098

Liar paradox

I believe that the article is well researched, and includes many different historical origins. Most of the links that I checked worked (except for one) and don't seem to be that biased, although I assume to even understand that I would have to look more deeply into the authors, publishers, and platform on which it was published, as well as thoroughly read every single reference.