Rachel Sargent
1) Griffiths does not believe that social constructions reveal what emotions are and wishes to look at them scientifically, yet he recognizes a dialectic relationship between emotion and social construction. If he focuses only on the scientific aspect, half the picture, as it were, can he ever fully discover what emotions are? Bailly: Does he propose to ignore the other half? I.e. does focusing on one half mean neglecting the other?
2) In chapter 8 Griffiths suggests that natural kinds are different, depending on your perspective. What does this mean for his project of defining emtion?
3) What is the significance, at the end of book 18 of the Iliad, that Hephaestus puts so much of life on Achilles' new shield? Bailly: Compare it to the similes in the rest of the Iliad. Also, it's a sort of genre piece: it's called a sphragis. Good question.
Graham Budd 1. Could it be possible for a machine (a technological construct) to feel emotions? If not, why is it impossible? If so, what would the machine have to demonstrate in order to be said to be experiencing emotions? Bailly: if emotions are like species, i.e. historical individuals, how could a machine fit into the history of emotions? Wouldn't we need a different causal homeostasis? Griffiths allows for that, but not at the same level of explanation.
2. If, as Griffith claims, the term "emotion" is like the term "superlunary" is it as daunting to write a book titled "What Emotions Really Are" as it would be to write "What Superlunary Objects Really Are?" Bailly: Griffiths makes a big deal about "intertheoretical reference" and its preservation: that is the key to this question.
3. Griffith discusses what he believes holds together the vernacular category of emotion. What do you think defines an emotion as the word is generally used?
Joe Briggs 1. If the japanese eventually develop a culture that shows no emotion whatsoever through interbreeding and natural selection (assuming that those who show less emotion fare better) then at what point could they be considered by Griffiths a subset of humans for purely that reason?
2. If Japan tends to breed out emotion, and in turn has very low crime and violence rates, it would appear to back up the theory that emotions are irrational, assuming crime and violence are for the most part also irrational?
3. Would it be appropriate to compare our current theories on behavior to the theories of the children that are tested in Griffiths' book, and then as science progresses we as a society will move into relative adulthood with more advanced and explicite theories as we learn to further differentiate and define the things around us, just as the children eventually do?
Lauren Barnett Hon100 Interesting Questions #2 1.)
Darnton states, ³Things hold together only because they can be slotted into a classificatory scheme that remains unquestioned. ŠIf we stopped to reflect on definitionsŠor on the other categories for sorting out life, we could never get on with the business of living²(192). Are categorization and classification inevitable occurrences? Even if not written down, is it possible that we, individually, would create our own categories in order to decipher and make sense of the world? Do we need steadfast classifications, or could we hypothetically handle this encumbrance on our own? 2.) 3.)
When thinking about the idea ³knowledge is power,² is it not also possible that ³ignorance is power?² If one is ignorant of injustice and wrongdoing in the world, does one not possess the power of happiness that one with knowledge of these atrocities could never possess? 4.)
3.) Theology has been said to be the ³queen of disciplines² until the advent of encyclopedists. However, how is it possible to deem a study the ³queen² when all that it encompasses is invariably sexist? And furthermore, on this note, is it possible that both of the disciplines in question are rooted in socially constructed ideals and therefore are sprung from the same place, only each one represents the main ideas of the period from which it emerged?
Zuzana Srostlik In the epic Iliad, written by Homer, all emotions are described by being caused or sent by a god to a person, or that a god appeared in a mortal form to persuade a person to the emotion that the god had wanted. What would Griffiths say about this, based on his What Emotions Really Are? Or, similarly, how do the accounts or basis of their respective descriptions of emotions differ/agree?
Was the Iliad, by Homer, written just to give a story about the hero Achilles, or does it serve other purposes (give some others and justify/support them)?
On Nature, by Parmenides, seems like a great start to all of science and scientific thought. But, it is still full of gods, and based on a dream of some type. How can it be that someone can hold underlying beliefs that are fully based on myth and not logically deductive, but they can also hold full truth to things that have arisen from logical deduction, yet not question the first set of beliefs? In other words, how can a person have the solid conviction that two sets of conflicting beliefs are each absolutely true?
Liz Guenard:
(1) How does 'Le poeme de Parmenides' relate to Grith's explanation of causal homeostasis and natural kinds? How does Parmenides explain what is and how does his explanatnion of continuity compare to Griffith's historical categorizations.
(2) Pick apart the categories of Hesiod's "Theogony". How and why do some figures (and what they encapsulate) derive from the others? What does this tell us about how the Greeks cut up the world they lived in?
(3) How do the values and actions of heroes in 'The Iliad' define the self? How is this a rational or irrational means of determining it considering the time period of the epic? What does the epic reveal about Greek society and their ideas of community? Compare and contrast with your own values, beliefs, and ideas of identity.
Nilima Abrams
Examine the roll that honor plays in both the Iliad and today's society. Is there a contradiction in referring to the soldiers as making "pledges to die for each other" (28)? Soldiers who die to protect their families act to preserve the lives of others, but these men seem willing to die for other dying men and thus aren't actually saving any lives. Do we have similar examples today? How about an athlete who would rather be injured and disqualified than to lose?
Discuss the role that infighting plays in the Iliad. Examples include Achilles and Agammenon or discuss Hector's treatment of Paris on P. 29. What purpose do these arguments serve? To show the humaness of the concerns? To make the characters easier to relate to, or something else?
We've discussed determinism and emotion a lot in class. Discuss the role of the Gods in the Iliad. DO you agree with Murnaghan in the introduction who says that the God only act in accordance with preexisting character traits? Do you think they are meant to be taken literally, or aspects of the characters' conscience?