Module 3 Twitter Philosophy

Model Tweet
***************************************************

Mathematics will not help a cheetah catch its food. A shark does not worry about
his salary. You cannot judge the value and merit of all living things by human
standards. #Descartes #PaulTaylor #MechanicalCheetah #beggingthequestion
#findingtheirgood
#MechanicalCheetah #Anthropocentric -- Descartes argues that we cannot prove there is any thought in animals.
Unlike, Taylor, Descartes believes that animals are more like machines. They cannot feel pleasure in the same way
humans can. Therefore he believes that humans are superior to all other species. But Paul Taylor thinks Descartes
and other like him make a mistake in their so-called amazing logic. He agrees that humans do indeed have unique
characteristics such as rational thought, creativity and autonomy. But he also argues that those types of
characteristics are only valuable to humans. Other important characteristics he mentions is the speed of a cheetah. If
a cheetah would move as slowly as a human then it would not survive. Taylor argues that the ability to think or not
to think can be still provide a species a good life and so rational thought is only valuable to the human species. Paul
Taylor is criticizing Descartes and others for unjustifiably thinking humans are the most important element to
existence, and for only using human standards to judge the comparative value of the rest of the world. He gives us a
word for that unjustifiable thinking: Anthropocentrism (centrism = centering) (anthro human).
#Beggingthequestion #Findingtheirgood I chose these hashtags because begging the question gives a clear
example of what happens when you use human standards to judge nature. Many of us, including Descartes, believe
that humans are better because they have reason. But the only reason they say reason is better is, it turns out,
because humans have it, and we have declared that it is. If you judge all nature by what is most important to a
human, then we will always see ourselves as superior. We need to find a new standard. So, then, if we cannot
judge nature by human standards, then how should we judge them? We need to find their own good. This means
something to me my everyday life. I am often judging other peopleincluding those I loveby my own set of
standards, rather than considering who they are and how they understand their value, their goals, their strengths. I
judge others through my own eyes, rather than looking through theirs, so how could I ever get past begging the
questionusing my own standards, deeming my standards best, then judging others by those standards instead of
their own, and lo and behold, finding them lacking. I need to remember to look at their world through their eyes,
try to understand what they value and why. It turns out, then, that using our (human) reason well actually requires
us to disrupt centrisms and shift our views between different perspectives. Or else we fall into the trap of logical
fallacy of Begging the Question.

***************************************************

Note: in general, do you see how each hashtag explanation is substantive and, well, explanatory. Those hashtagexplanation paragraphs are really where most of the work for these assignments happens. The Tweet is your
inspiration, the hashtag explanation is your scholarship.

(Note: for this model, I borrowed pieces from a few Twitter assignments, because I saw multiple things I
really wanted to highlight. This model uses content from about three students submissions.)

Jane Drexler 2/15/2016 9:07 AM

Comment [1]: First of all, this is an
exceptionally clever tweet. It paints a
picture (a shark pouring over bills at his
desk.) J And expresses Paul Taylors
overall central point. (p.s. It is also,
*exactly*, 140 characters long, so thats
impressive too.)
(Remember that if you dont plan to actually
post your Tweet within the Twitter social
media site and only plan to turn it in here in
Canvas, then the body of your tweet can be
140 characters, and the hashtags can be
additions to that character-count. (if you
are posting on Twitter, then the whole
tweet, content and hashtags, has to be only
140 characters)). Anyway. This one is
great!
Jane Drexler 2/15/2016 9:02 AM
Comment [2]: This is why I wanted you to
see this hashtag explanation: The student
who wrote this one is putting two
philosophers into conversation with each
other. Here, the student is explaining how
Paul Taylor is directly critiquing the
thinking of Descartes and others. This is a
big part of what these Tweet assignments
are about: Connecting ideas to contexts.
Showing how ideas dont happen in a
vacuum, but are part of a long-going
interchange of ideas. Sometimes that
interchange of ideas and contextualizing is
about connecting what someone says to
your own personal experiences (see the
next hashtag explanation), and sometimes
its connecting what someone says to the
other scholars or philosophical frameworks
they have been responding to.
Jane Drexler 2/15/2016 9:03 AM
Comment [3]: While this student didnt
use direct quotes (which I would prefer),
s/he does make sure to highlight one of
most important new concepts from this
module, and connect it to the conversation it
is a part of. Great!
Jane Drexler 2/15/2016 8:59 AM
Comment [4]: Here is another major
concept from the module: that the circular
line of reasoning within Anthropocentrism
is a logical fallacya case of bad reasoning
and mistaken logiccalled begging the
question.
Jane Drexler 2/15/2016 9:00 AM
Comment [5]: And this is a nice
connection made to how a new concept
gives insight into ones daily life. Not only
does the concept help this student see
potential problems with how they relate to
others, but it also allows him/her to gain
new insights about how multiple-
perspective-taking is crucial to sound
thinking.