They canmislead us not only when we are in emotional turmoil, such as when inanger the red mist comes down over the eyes; they can also mislead uswhen we are ignorant of our emotions, such as when a deeply sup-pressed envy is quietly lurking in the background. If we do not have theright emotional dispositions, prudential and moral, that properly attuneus to the world, then, I will argue, our emotions can distort perceptionand reason so that the world seems to us other than it really is: as I willput it, the emotionsskew the epistemic landscape.

Moreover, feel-ings are inessential and peripheral to an account of what emotions are,although, of course, one might admit that they do sometimes occur. Thismisconception of the place of feelings—I have called it theadd-onview

The second omission is that there is no mention of how pro-foundly and systematically our emotional feelings can mislead us—of howthe emotions can distort perception and reason.

Without emotions, we would be worseoff, prudentially and morally: we would not see things as they are, andaccordingly we would not act as we should.

When we are angry at an insult, or afraid of a burglar, ouremotions involve evaluative perceptions and thoughts directed toward theway something is in the world that impinges on our well-being, or on thewell-being of those that matter to us.

It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT 1s WARmetaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

In most of the little things we do every day, we simply think and act more or less automatically along certain lines.

The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect. They also govern our everyd�y functioning, down to the most mundane details.

Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagina­tion and the rhetorical flourish-a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language.

This suggests the following, alternative account of open-mindedness: open-mindedness is essentially a matter of assessing one or more sides of an intellectual dispute in a fair and impartial way.

In the context of intellectual con-fl ict or opposition, open-mindedness is an antidote to vices like nar-row-mindedness, closed-mindedness, dogmatism, prejudice, and bias.

The latter might take the form of giving a careful and pro-tracted hearing to the full range of arguments on both sides of the case prior to allowing herself to form an opinion about it or to be swayed in one direction or another.4

This initial characterization suggests the following account of open-mindedness: open-mindedness is essentially a willingness and ability to temporarily set aside one’s doxastic commitments in order to give a fair and impartial hearing to an opposing belief, argument, or body of evidence.

He does not ignore, distort, or caricature oppos-ing positions. He is not narrow-minded, dogmatic, or biased. While he may have many fi rm convictions, his hold on them does not prevent him from giving serious consideration to the ‘other side.

Whatever its fundamental nature or structure, it is tempting to think of open-mindedness as essentially relevant to situations involving intel-lectual confl ict, opposition, challenge, or argument, and in particular, to situations involving a confl ict between a person’s beliefs, on the one hand, and an opposing position, argument, or body of evidence, on the other.

Intellectual skills in and of themselves can be used either for good or ill, to enlighten or to propagandize, to gain narrow, self-serving ends, or to further the general and public good.

To accomplish this re-orientation of curriculum and teaching, we need new criteria of what constitutes success and failure in school. We need to begin this re-orientation as early as possible. Integrating teaching for critical think-ing, moral integrity, and citizenship is an essential part of this re-orientation.

Superficially absorbed content, the inevitable by-product of extensive but shallow coverage, inevitably leads to intellectual arrogance. Such learning discourages intellectual perseverance and confidence in reason.

Curricula is so highly compartmentalized and teaching so committed to "speed learning" (covering large chunks of content quickly) that it has little room for fostering what I call the intellectual virtues.

These virtues include intellectual empathy, intellectual perseverance, intellectual confidence in reason, and an intellectual sense of justice (fairmindedness).

In this paper, I provide the outlines of an answer to that objection by sug-gesting an intimate connection between critical thinking, moral integrity, and citizenship. Specifically, I distinguish a weak and a strong sense of each and hold that the strong sense ought to guide, not only our understanding of the nature of the educated person, but also our redesigning the curriculum.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

f we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed

. I’ll be able to see my parents again and introduce them to the grandchildren they never knew. And all this will happen not once, but an infinite number of times.

J. Z. Knight of the State of Washington claims to be in touch with a 35,000-year-old somebody called “Ramtha.” He speaks English very well, using Knight’s tongue, lips and vocal chords, producing what sounds to me to be an accent from the Indian Raj.

As with the face on Mars and alien abductions, better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy

Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.

Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man?

The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs.

The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.

If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effects upon the lives of those who study it.

t is the more necessary to consider this question, in view of the fact that many men, under the influence of science or of practical affairs, are inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning which knowledge is impossible.

The officer says, "Don't argue, just drill!"  The tax bureau says, "Don't argue, just pay up!"  The clergyman says, "Don't argue, just believe!"

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a part of humanity prefers to remain in a lifelong condition of dependency long after Nature (granting them majority in years) has freed them from management by others

"Have the courage to make use of your own mind!" is thus the slogan of the Enlightenment.

"Dependency" is the inability to make use of one's intellect without the supervision of another.

When you are trying to write a good argument, the story will be much the same. You will want to provide good reasons to your read-ers for accepting the premises, for you understand that simply ex-plaining your premises is not enough. You will have to provide sup-port for each premise requiring it and ensure that the support is adequate and reliable.

The theory making the fewest assumptions is less likely to be false because there are fewer ways for it to go wrong.

If p, then q. Notq. Therefore, not p.

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive arguments are meant to provide probable support for their conclusions. If an inductive argu-ment succeeds in providing such probable support, it is said to be strong. In a strong argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. If an inductive argument fails to provide probable support for its conclusion, it is said to be weak.

De-ductive arguments are supposed to offer logically conclusive support for their conclusions. If a deductive argument actually manages to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion, it is said to be valid. If it fails to provide logically conclusive support for the conclu-sion, it is said to be invalid.

outlining, paraphrasing, or summarizing the argumen

"Then, if this is true," I said, "we must hold the following about . these things: education is not what the professions of certain men assert . it to be. They presumably assert that they put into the soul knowledge that isn't in it, as though they were putting sight into blind eyes."

No, he wouldn't," he said, "at least not right away." "Then I suppose he'd have to get accustomed

"And what if the prison also had an echo from the side facing them? Whenever one of the men passing by happens to utter a sound do you suppose they would believe that anything other than the passin~ shadow was uttering the sound?"

They are in it from childhood with their legs and necks in bonds so that they are fixed, seeing only in front of them, unabJe because of the bond to tum their heads all the way around

"make an image of our nature in its educa-tion and want of education, likening it to a condition of the following kind

Sometimes thinkers do unwittingly contradict themselves. Most of the time, however, people perceive a contradiction where there isn’t one because they fail to notice a change in “voice.” Authors will describe many sides, and camps within a side, but they will voice agreement with only one side or camp

Take lots of notes. In these notes, rephrase what the author says in your own words

This is a problem-based class. In problem-based classes, students spend most of their time identifying, reflecting upon, and defending their beliefs.

When you read philosophy you should look for arguments, reasons, and conclusions, not facts, plot or character development, to help you reach your goal of evaluating the plausibility of various positions a person might take on some issue

It is likely that you will find unfamiliar vocabulary, abstract ideas, complexly organized writing, and unsettling views.

Some students did not enter class knowing that re-reading is important for understanding