2. Review Zhuangzi Indexicals Terms whose reference changes –Refer but not fixed—always from here/now –Relational—relative: many answers Not none, or one mystical, or can’t say anything Rejects “all is one” – anti-language contradiction –Pointing to the one—makes two Dao Axis is infinite possibility –But no actual position –The view from nowhere –Needs careful statement Or run into anti-language position

3. Judgments Do make them—accept this –But always aware that could be different –From different “position” No view from cosmos (nowhere) –But can gain from others—broadening Maybe will work—maybe won’t –Handan walk –Absolute point of view useless No argument for quietism/stoicism No argument for absolute toleration –Mao and Gandhi are different from actual POV

4. So what advice? Strong skepticism doesn't entail anything –This is mild skepticism No argument against your perspective Just awareness that there are alternatives –Tolerance, openness, and don’t kill b/c different Three bits of advice –Flexibility and youth –Accept convention as useful (no more) –Skill transcendence (satisfaction in excelling) Cook/butcher Ting Slight inconsistency: life limited –Skill and Defect

5. Question Quiz and back to the West

6. Back to the West: Nietzsche Long wait for an antithesis: Nietzsche anti- rationalism Life –Born 1844 Lutheran father –Dependence on women. Anger!

7. Existentialism and Nietzsche Existence over essence (formula) –Plato’s forms  essence Opposes reason (rationalism) –God, abstractions, reality, meaning and value

8. Two Theses Under Attack Rational metaphysics and Christianity Metaphysical basis of morality –Plato & God Christianity as blend of Greek rationalism and Judaism Science as their offspring –Reason & science Investigating the “mind of god”

9. Science Attacks Its Parents (Oedipus?) God—the rational structure of the universe Thesis that gave science birth but –Scientific reality has no affinity with our rational souls –Cannot be known –Changing, dead, and valueless –No reality basis for meaning/value in life

10. God Holds It Together Constant threat from science –Western conflict of science and religion Dim awareness that it is a myth –God is dead—the madman in the marketplace –We can no longer fool ourselves with the myth –Nothing binds reality to value

11. Descartes "Father of modern philosophy" –Rationalize science Make it compatible with religion-rationalism –Classic detail of Nietzsche's target Science undermines his beliefs –Copernican revolution, evolution, dead matter, light waves –Can we really know anything? The evil demon ‑‑ brain in a vat fantasy –From new theory of vision

12. Cartesian "Radical" Skepticism Doubt everything—not from specific arguments, but general ones –Main target: objects and other minds Strategy: prove something immune to evil demon doubt I think, therefore I exist Even if I doubt, can't doubt that I'm thinking

13. Is Cogito Valid? Back to Parmenides –If a sentence is true then its subject term must denote something Any true sentence of the form "X Q's" entails "X exists" So, if the premise (I think) is true then it follows as a matter of form that I exist –"Santa Claus thinks" is false –Thought doesn't matter here » "Santa clause walks" is also false

14. Is Cogito Sound? Is the premise true? Certainly! Whenever I think it Can we know it is true? Yes –It is true –We believe it is true (When we think, we think we are thinking) –We have good reason to believe it We are good judges of our own conscious states

15. To think you do not think is a paradox –Different from semantic (liar) or prescriptive (Shendao) paradoxes The meaning inconsistent with truth Conforming inconsistent with meaning –Pragmatic (action) paradox What you say is inconsistent with the act of your saying it "I cannot speak one word of English" The speech act of asserting is inconsistent with its truth Paradox Analysis 我不會 想。 用中文 I cannot think In English.

16. Thinking Thoughts and Thinker Next step cannot reach outside thought –A way to get all rational truths back—prove God exists So ontological argument for God –Unique in following from definition alone

17. Ontological Argument St. Anselm model—easier and more famous Definition of the ‘god' concept: –The perfect being Start with that thought of god—a concept –Can be thought of by a non-believer The non-believer contradicts himself in thinking: –“God does not exist” Not derived just from thinking From the content (meaning/definition) of the thought

18. Existence Perfect= df has all positive qualities completely Qualities = predicates 'Exists' is a predicate ‘Exists’ is positive (better than 無 ) Not to predicate 'exists' of the being that has all positive qualities completely is a contradiction

19. So I am not deceived when I think clearly and distinctly