Askesis of Desire and Money Does not Bring Happiness

According to the Epicureans there are 3 different types of desires. According to their philosophy, human being are plagues by worries and pain produced by unsatisfied desires, thus we musch discipline ourselves to know what one should desire in terms of naturally and necessarily. The division of desires is as follows: Natural and necassary desires include the desire for food and water. Natural and unnecessary include things like sex, because we do not need sex to survive individualy. And then there is unnatural and unnecessary which includes unneeded materials like a big house and a fancy car.
I think happiness has alot to do with ones ability to control their desires. In America, we give alot of emphasis to material wealth. In other words Americans are focused alot on the unnatural and unnecassary. We want to live in the suburbs with a front lawn, drive way, air conditioning, and car. People want the fanciest things they can get, and if they can afford it they very well might get it. However, America has the highest depression rates in the world.
Why is it that a country like Nigeria, with one of the porrest populations in the world, is also said to be one of the happiest countries in the world. Perhaps their inability to obtain unnecassary and unnatural things help them in their ability to avoid being plagued by worries and pain produced by unsatisfied desires. They, perhaps, have disciplined themselves not to actively desire a fancy sports car and a big house. Rather, they are happy living in small huts with all the natural and necassary stuff they need like food and water, as well as pleasurable but unnecassary stuff like sex.
The saying money does not bring happiness is very true. People might feel happier that they have made enough money to afford a fancy house, but if they had disciplined themselves never to want unnecassary things like that then they would never have had to worry about satisfying that desire.

What is Love?

What is Love Music Video By Haddaway,
Seriously, what is love? There is the love between family which is quite different from the love between partners. We love our family because they care for us and we care for them. Love is an essential part of life because we need to feel like someone cares about us. Otherwise we are alone in this world and that is scary. But do friends love each other? I think so because I care about those people I call my good friends and I think they care about me. Thus, love does not have to be sexual what so ever.
Where does love come from? Well according to Socrates' theory of recollection, our soulds are immortal and thus have learned everything about life we need to know. Thus when we live our lives we are relearning what we have learned countless times before. Perhaps this explains why love is such a powerful feeling. We have learned to love countless times, thus when we feel like we are in love it is seemingly and undoubtedly the feeling of love, even if our minds are playing a trick on us due to having our heart beat increased before meeting someone and mistaking that heart beat for love.
I believe the fact that we have recollecting everything from our past lives we thus have an innate feeling of love. This includes love for our parents when they cares for us, love for others such as boyfriends and girlfriends and love ( a very differently love) for our friends and family.

Osama Bin Laden is DEAD

Was Osama's death ethically sound? Is vengeance what we should be focusing on? Why is it that everyone went crazy and partied so hard on a Sunday night for one person's death?
It was madness on the Sunday Obama announced Osama was killed by US Seals, along with 30 other people in the compound. College kids basically used it as an excuse to party. However, if he is a criminal why did we not try him in court. Other people, like Sadam Hussein and Egypts president were tried by an international court. He was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but does killing him really make it better? Does "an eye for an eye make the whole world blind"? It was a very emotional death as we all remember the tragic day of 9/11.
From a utalitarian stand point I would argue his death was the least amount useful to people. Instead of killing the man, who is not ruthless and thugish like other Al Queda leaders but described more as a calm philosopher type, we should have tried him in court so that he could be righfully and legally convicted for his crimes and so that the world could see the truth. Now, due to the USA's actions there is alot of skepticism and hatred towards the USA. We should have been civilized about it allowing justice to play its role, instead of putting vengeance as the main aspect. Still, as useful to the maximum amount of people the truth would have been, I bet so many people wish they were the hero to pull the trigger

Utility vs. Self Interest

I personally enjoyed learning about utilitarianism this year. I think that society should be ran on a utilitarian system, however I know that there have been very few successful modern utopias. Utopias, I believe, existed when more often when humans lived as primitive beings and closer to nature. Nowadays, humans are living in cities and suburbs. Our decisions to do such things as turn off the light, or throw away our trash now effects not only the people around us but people and nature far away from us, as such things as power plants and landfills are needed.
Self Interest can and has jeopardized the greatest happiness for the most amount of people, otherwise known as the greatest happiness principle. Our taxes are used in a utalitarian manner, attempting to help the most amount of people. But, when politicians ear mark money for the sake of their own self interest, such as governor Palin's "bridge to nowhere" then there is a serious breach in the greatest happiness principle because a population of people are not made happy by the bad legislation. Also, another thing to conciser is whether Osama Bin Ladens sudden death was the best way to deal with the crimes he committed

Knowledge blank slate?

Rene Descartes believes all the knowledge he has acquired throughout the years could be false information. This makes him want a “fresh start” or to start from the foundations of knowledge. The way Descartes plans on doing this is by, somehow, forgetting everything he knows, and “learn” again what is useful and true information. But i ask how is it possible to forget something that is once learned? One might forget small details for example in recalling an event that happened 20 or so years before but never the whole event. Unless medical damage was done of course. But this would be cool i guess, being able to basically choose what to listen to and what not to listen to. This goes into free will and how it basically proven that it is only true during the present moment of making that decision. Because everyone makes decisions that they regret in life.

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

God (aquinas)

I believe that God is the driving force behind all that lacks intelligence in its pursue of an end. Aquinas stated that (1) Mindless beings will definitely achieve an end. (2) That which lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end unless it is being lead by some Supreme Being /intelligent designer. Therefore, (3) all mindless beings achieve an end through the guidance of an intelligent designer. I agree with Aquinas' five ways because explain how the marvel of design and guidance God has on everything in a large scale.

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

Religion

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses.”- Karl Marx. Why do people have to believe in God? Why do so many need “religion”? As early as ancient time’s man has always pondered on the purpose and creation of life, and looking back at those times, we see the presence of religion and beliefs in a deity or being of higher power. This belief stems from man’s never-ending struggle to solve the puzzles of life that concern purpose and origin. To many people religion is just a compass of morality and purpose which allows them to cope with the uncertainties of life and all it entails.

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

Askesis of Desire:

The tripartite division of humans' worry and pain by unsatisfied desires sums up all of what man desire. The division consists of Natural and Necessary, Natural and Unnecessary, lastly Unnatural and Unnecessary. I believe that if this last part is true, does that mean desire is unnatural? Is desire something bad? God supplied us with nature and its abundance of creation to live just fine with the natural. Why do we have to desire the unnatural and unnecessary if they are insignificant?

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

Noumena vs Phenomena

Noumena vs Phenomena are the aspects of reality according to Kant.

Noumena vs Phenoma
The Thing Itself / How it appears

However I believe that to have knowledge of one thing, you must have some certain idea of how it functions because of form. If not you could not know what the thing itself appeared like, you would not know the function. In Cells & Heredity there is a universal law that function follows form. I believe that in order know Noumena you must know both; although, with phenomena you can first encounter a new object and how it appears and learn about it after.

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

Rationalism (repost)

Descartes was the father of Rationalism which believes in human reason to be the most valuable source of knowledge. I agree with descartes because rationalism uses the abstract principles of logic and pure reason to then be able to learn and interpret knowledge. Not like epistemology which is concerned with the nature of knowledge, Rationalism allows for us to make judgment and analysis.

Sebastian Guerra-Mondragon

Godot, forgot to post this:)

While watching Waiting for Godot I could not help but be intrigued at the mysteriousness. The contents of what the men considered a normal day was mind boggling. They rarely remembered what just happened or what they intended to do that day. The most disterbing partwas when the pompus slave owner barks at his servant and snaps the leash. Not only was it inhumain I couldnt honestly stand watching. To even consider the idea that this act was acceptable made me uneasy. I wondered though why this Godot character was so important and if all along Vladimir knew in the back of his mind that Godot wasn’t going to show. Godot could have just been hope for something new to happen in the two friends simple lives. Even though at the end when the messanger boy comes to tell them that Godot will not be coming once again Vladimir angered had to have known it was going to happen. If every day is the same then why would Godot finally come?

Kierkegaard's Stages

One class, we discussed Kierkegaard's stages of life. They seem to fit the average person and, to ma at least, they make sense in one's life. Aesthetic is the first stage. At this stage, a person lives in the present and is a hedonist. She or he aims to please themselves, with little regard for others. Once the person has entered the next stage, the ethical stage, she or he sees more trouble in the world, and is more assertive to others. The person chooses right from wrong now that she or he has defined it. The last stage is religious, which entails a leap of faith. A person in this stage does not sense what they believe is real, such as God. Personally, I agree with Kierkegaard in that it seems very likely a person with enter the world focused on oneself. In the ethical stage, they see what the world really does hold. Finally, the religious stage helps them take a leap of faith to believe what they cannot see. I do believe, however, that some people can remain in one stage and never advance to the next stage. For instance, if a person is in one stage and hasn't advanced, and then gets hit by a car, they remained in that stage their entire life.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre says that we are all subjects, and that only a subject can identify another subject. At the same time, a subject can refuse to recognize another subject and see view them as strictly an object, a tool for their use. I have recently attempted to remove this failure to recognize people as subjects, and make every individual a subject from my perspective. It's unfortunate, but I realized that this is much easier said than done. It is very hard to recognize a person as a subject, when we see the benefit of them being strictly an object. If you make someone just an object, they are unable to effect our vulnerabilities. Subjectifying someone allows them to harm you because you recognize their autonomy and if they're autonomous, they have the ability to make you an object. I think of the example as a waiter. Many a time, when we are in restaurants, we look at our waiters as just an object that is suppose to provide us with the service of bringing and serving our food. When they do something wrong, like bring us the wrong drink or wrong entree, when they're just an object, its easy to correct the problem, you inform them they made a mistake and assume they will fix it. However, upon recognizing them as a subject, it makes me feel like I am inconveniencing them by making them correct such an insignificant mistake (in the grander scheme of life). There is very much a negative connotation of objectifying another human being, but some times I think it is essential in terms of services we pay for because it creates a barrier that can easily be taken away once myself and the individual are not put in a consumer/worker situation.

Descartes vs. Hume

In the comparison of Descartes vs. Hume, I believe that both, by only accepting one form of knowledge (For Descartes, pure reason) and (for Hume, personal experience) both fail to reach a balance, thus both are ignorant towards a certain type of knowledge. Both reason and personal experience are essential in order to possess knowledge. By failing to recognize one type or the other, they truly restrict their own intellect. I do, however, find Descartes use of doubt to be essential in developing knowledge. After watching House in class, I have continued to watch the series on my own time. His development of knowledge through doubt is incredible to watch (even if it's fictional) because it displays what we should all do in our daily lives. I, myself, have applied this form of finding knowledge in my own life and it has led me to discover things about myself I would have never found had I never taken this philosophy class.

Originally Posted January 23rd, 2011

Arguing

One of the subjects we discussed in class this week was the art of arguing. Without making a hasty generalization, it seems that some, if not most people, would agree that arguing seems to almost immediately have a negative connotation. This would make sense, seeing as an argument is the exchange of two conflicting ideas with each individual and their ideas are exchanged with the idea of both proving your point correct, and proving the opposition's point wrong. For myself, however, I have never seen arguing as a negative thing, as it resolves conflict, and allows one to express their individual view. In class, Dr. Layne and myself began exchanging ideas, or arguing, about the validity of nihilism. Although, I would not completely define my view on the world as nihilistic, my views do share certain commonalities with nihilist. By arguing with Dr. Layne, she was able to gain a better grasp on my view, and I was able to gain a better grasp on her. Although we argued, it seems that the result of our arguing was not only positive but enlightening for the both of us.

Originally Posted January 30th, 2011

Logic Fallacies

I thoroughly enjoyed going over logic fallacies. In my senior year of high school, I took a class for my International Baccalaureate program called Theory of Knowledge. During our first semester, we learned the exact same fallacies, and since then, they have been instilled in my memory. I think it's necessary that everyone keeps them in their memory. It allows the individual to keep a concise argument, whatever the occasion. It also allows to someone to criticize their oppositions argument, possibly proving a point that is either relevant, or possibly important. If an individual is in a serious argument determining their fate, and someone uses one of these fallacies, they could possibly reverse their fate in their favor. I definitely thinking know those fallacies is essential to anyone who wants to maintain a legitimate argument.

Karl Marx

At a certain point in my life, I used to very much identify with Marxism, and have even referred to myself as a Marxist. For much of my life, I grew up incredibly materialist, lavishing in our capitalistic culture. I eventually became sympathetic towards the plight of people who had less than I. I thought that Marxism, would create equality amongst men by stripping away the classist biases we possess as a capitalistic nation. As I've gotten younger, I realized that as nice as this sentiment seems, at this point in history, I just do not believe that we, as a people, are selfless enough to enact Marxism. I do not ever think we will be selfless enough. Not only is just about our own selfishness that makes Marxism implausible. I believe there are far too many people in this world to have a truly effective and efficient system of Marxism. It would be impossible to create an organized system in which all 9 billion people in the world are equal. We can look at the utopian societies that were created in the 18th and 17th century as examples of Marxism's implausibility. Even with small groups, things like romantic quarrels stood in the way of equality amongst all the people in society. This exemplifies my thought that people are too selfish for equality to exist amongst all people in society. It's unfortunate that this is the case but I believe it to be true.

Alice Walker

Being a half black male, primarily raised by his half black mother, I am incredibly sympathetic towards the plight of the black woman. I have been fortunate to have a successful black mother, removing me from many of the stereotypes that are accompanied with the situation but I have also been given a unique perspective. I most definitely believe that the plight of the feminist, is drastically different than that of the plight of the black feminist. White women are not oppressed by the black man, they are oppressed on the by the white man, and in many regards, have had the ability to establish some sort of equality amongst themselves and their male counterparts. Black women are also oppressed by white men as well. However, not only are they oppressed by white men, they are also oppressed by the black male. Now, I am fortunate enough to have had my father in my life for all of my childhood up until the time I graduated high school. But for many black women (and half black women for that matter) are oppressed by black men. My grandmother, my mother's mother, was abandoned by my mother's father upon discovery that she was pregnant. This was because she was a black woman and he was a white man. She was unable to overcome her devastation and died at 27, when my mother was just 7 years old. I think the black feminist has a much tougher struggle than the white feminist does. I believe many black women are incredibly courageous to continue to fight everyday, especially when they are put up against to much adversity.

Simone De Beauvoir

I must say that Simone de Beauvoir has completely changed my view towards feminism in its entirety. I suppose before this class I was completely ignorant to what feminism truly was/is. I have always had a problem with gender equality, mostly because of the societal constructs that exit in the United States. I always assumed that equality was unnecessay because the position women are in life, is seemingly easier in comparison to men. It's socially acceptable for a woman to be a housewife and never work a day in her life. For a man, this is not only social acceptable but nearly impossible depending on your family circumstances. I, however, have clearly been wrong. Women have been objectified since the beginning of society for men's use. They have not chosen their position but have had it chosen for them. Our lesson on de Beauvoir has changed my view towards feminism 180 degrees. I'm really proud of that.

Stages of Life

Originally posted: April 10th. So, my reply doesn't relate to the post above but it's my own comment about this current weeks lectures. I wanted to discuss Kiekegaard's Stages of Life's Way. I'm currently in a transition from going to the aesthetic way of living to an ethical way of living. I recognize the ethical but have unfortunately because of immaturity made decisions that have forced me to live an aesthetic lifestyle. I'm currently in on of the hardest battles I've ever encountered in my life. I know that once I am beyond this battle, that I will be in the ethical way of life and remain that way. I don't ever think I was ever manage to become a part of the religious life because I just don't think it is plausible or reasonable, an aspect I which to employ. I think in order to be successful, the ethical way is the best way in order for one to strive for and I am currently in the process in my own life of doing so.

-Chris Branchcomb

does god exist

I believe that he does. What questions my mind is how some religions don't believe that there is a God when i thought religion was first based off of the belief in a God. I am open to many religions even though i dont practice my own religion as often as i would like. How does is it that there are religions that dont believe in a God?

Karl Marx

Karl Marx was one of the most progressive writers of his era who produced some of the most controversial works written to this day. Marx posited many radical assertions as the fate of our capitalist society, and though history has contradicted many of his assertions his insight on capitalist exploration can still be applied to more contemporary relationships.

Flourishing = Death?

I don't see how Plato can say that his telos is happiness or human flourishing if he thinks happiness can only be attained when the soul separates from the body. Human flourishing is, in essence, living. One can not be fulfilling what it means to be humans if her mind and body are not one. This dualism within ourselves is what makes us who we are and once they are separated we can no longer be human and we cannot flourish.

Dominant Race/Gender

I believe black women have always been the subject of their lives. They are alongside their men providers for their families. Often times the black woman has been the leveled head in the household. Men have been known to be hot-headed at times and the black woman of the household has always been the one to know just what to say to keep her man monetarily providing as well as being a role n=model for his family.
In more recent times we see the black woman is the provider. If there is no father figure the black woman assumes the role of the father in order to provide for her children. The black woman has been the subject of her time only because she has stuck it out trying to be a care taker, advice giver as well as provider for her family.

I'm uncertain which position to take because I do not believe I can fully explain either. Socrates came up with the theory of recollection. People know only because they have been previously taught this information because the soul is immortal. if this is true then why must the soul, even though it is in a new body, re-learn the information it is said to have known? Does the information die within the mind/body of the person? and if so, then where did the theory of recollection come from?
I do not believe people come to this earth with amnesia. Whether the soul dies or not the minds are only formed through learned knowledge of that life time. Because if it were true that knowledge stays with the soul then how do we explain our children who are slow learners? Is it that for each time that particular soul entered into a body it knew nothing of what it is being taught this time around? This cannot be. At some point would not one conclude that at least one body the soul has entered has obtained knowledge the current body can use?

Experiences shape Knowledge

Hume declared all knowledge is gained via the things one experiences. I believe this can be helpful and hurtful at the same time. In each life there are different experiences. One's experiences can scar them for the rest of his/her life. However, this explains an ordeal of people. at the beginning of the semester we learned about Simple ignorance and it says these are the people that know themselves to be ignorant but do nothing about it. If knowledge is experience, and experience has taught you negativity about knowlegde, then should that person really be considered simply ignorant?
Experience forms all opinions of who a person turn out to be or is molded to be. Some of my very own experiences have left me confused and wary about doing many things. My knowledge may be incorrect, however, I believe i is only until one is versed better through new experiences can it help can outlooks if they are initially bad.

When I Grow Up..

While babysitting I hear many interesting comments from the children. I periodically ask the twin six year olds what they want to be when they grow up because I enjoy hearing the creative answers. Recently the girl answered I want to be a dance teacher like my mom. This showed me two things. First, she most likely does not realize that some people in our society would look down on this because the amount of money that she would most likely make. And Second, that enormous influence that adults have on their children and the importance in raising children with great morals and values.

The little boy refused to answer for awhile but finally answer that he just wants to be happy and help people. This was very inspiring to me. I hope that everyone focuses on what will make them truly happy and the importance of relationships and helping others. Their comments make me take a second look at my life and my future goals. Children are a great example of what our mindset should be. They often teach me not to fall into the social norms and to accept people for who they are.

God's Existence

God does exist. This is a belief that I have been brought up with all my life. He is the source of all Good. Aquinas was correct in saying God is the cause of existence. I am a firm believer that if we can conceive of something being greater than us then it has to be real. I believe there is no greater law for people to follow. HE is the very nature of all.
God is the reason for our existence. what can prove how we first evolved? Humans from dust alone is not conceivable. However, an all powerful being creating us is conceivable. We exist through God.
Belief in God is the source of all comfort. One can easily find this comfort when he/she is distressed or in need of someone to lift his/her burden. There is a song that says "the presence of the Lord is here, I can feel it in hte atmosphere." God's presence is always present. He is there in all situations. This is most apparent when the unthinkable happens and the impossible has come true. It is only God who makes these things happen in our lives.

Role in Society

Because the year is coming to an end and classes are being scheduled for next semester, I have been rethinking my major. As a visual arts major, one of the most common questions that I am asked is " What are you going to do with that?". I find it frustrating to keep defending my major. It has me questioning what my major should actually be and how I can best contribute to society. In America we are so consumed with money and material objects and I wonder if staying a visual arts major is right for me. At the beginning of the year I was embarrassed to tell anyone what my major was because I knew that there would immediately be assumptions, and some people would misunderstand. Some people look at having this major as being a "cop out" or being uneducated in anything else. This class has helped me accept the social norms and work to overcome them. I hope that I am successful, maybe not in terms of money and material objects, but because I am doing what I truly should be doing regardless of any factors that would normally inhibit artist.

Perceptions

We are just a bunch of perceptions that make up our identity. I believe this to be true. You are born with a mind that society helps you to mold so that you may form your own opinions. One's opinions are only perceptions of what they liked or disliked or what they thought things ought to be like.
I believe perceptions are what make people exactly who they are. Perceptions are neither a good thing nor a bad thing but they can take a turn for the worst. Perceptions come from the experiences one goes through daily. Therefore Perceptions are constantly changing as well as changing the person you are now.

Number

We watched an episode of House in class. Dr. House goes through these stages while he is in his coma from being shot by a husband of a dead patient. He goes through theories that many philosophers explain. Here is one:
Dr. House makes reference to another philosopher’s theory. He mentions to the wife that he is imagining, that she is not match for the husband (he believes is her husband). He explains to her the theory of numbers. Most people gravitate themselves toward a same number as themselves. Meaning your appearances rates your category. Pythagorean says all is number.Man can be understood in terms of numbers. House proved Pythagorean’s theory when the audience figured out whose wife the mystery lady was. In essence, as numbers, the two did match and have equal “rates”.
Often times in life this is how we view people. Just as Pythagoras declared all is number. We as humans scale one another and put each other on this made-up numbering system to rate one another's looks or appearance. We, as humans, let formulas define us whether we realize it or not. We measure ourselves and calculate our images just so we can eventually come up with a whole number that suits not only ourselve but society.

Meaning of life

I asked my dad what the meaning of life was today and he said,"Son that is a good question they have many meanings to life and some peoples are better than others". There are many meaning to life such as helping others,being important,seeking the good in life such as pleasure, and helping make the world in which we live be a better place. Then i thought about what makes humans so much better than a mosquito or a wasp. Yes, humans have the ability to express feeling and relate to one another but we destroy our own planet. We pollute the air we breath. We have wars that kill. Which makes me wonder if the human race is as smart as we think we are.

Fallacy #2

Hasty Generalizations are what I believe keep racism alive. All racism is is a general view of an entire race based on maybe one shameful experience with one person of that race. It is not knowledge of the entire community. I don't believe one can make a comment and it generally concern the entire community. I may be wrong but there is no way (in my opinion) one man can be the "model" of what a race represents.

When one argues based on a hasty generalization, his/her argument is invalid. I question if this knowledge is readily available and it taught in colleges and all important figures are supposed to be taught philosophy, then why do we still today have hatred in the world. Is it not the job of the educated to teach the uneducated what is correct? Hatred comes from the immediate dislike of someone based on factors unknown. Since this is common knowledge (or it should be), then why in the media do we still register every known crime with a specific race? When in court why are many not given their due justice? It is because we have not conquered how to properly argue our opinions.

waiting for Godot

Some may say the movie was boring, but i found it interesting. I found it wasn't boring because the whole movie i was thinking about all kinds of different things. At one point in the play i thought they were in purgatory and they were waiting for Godot to come to see if they were going to go to heaven or hell. This movie was whatever you make it out to be because it really didn't have a story line and was about nothing.

Simple Ignorance and happiness

One of the first things we learned were the forms of ignorance. The one that struck me the most was the one about Simple ignorance. It is recognizing your ignorance and doing nothing about it. The definition screams someone with a lazy mentality. I believe philosophy calls for one to be concerned with everything and letting one thing slide away without you grasping knowledge about it is sheer laziness. In today's world, I'm not sure if i was enlightened enough to still learn everything i no nothing about. It is partly because of laziness, but it is partly because I'm uncertain there is truly a way to have both a life and verse yourself on everything you do not know. in order to know one must take time to research and research about such things. Only reading one "thing" about the subject does not make you knowledgeable but it somewhat informs you a little more than you may have been informed before. To devote one's time and efforts to all the things he/she does not will consume the little life he/she has. Is it fair to consume oneself with only knowledge and have no other substances to their life?

Virtuous Knowledge says you do not know but you are on a continuous quest for that knowledge. Does what life offers today call for the time to only be knowledgeable or does it call for other aspects of life to keep one moving? And can't one be happy with gradually learning information instead of being on a constant quest for total knowledge.

I believe life is Progressive Ignorance. As your world continues you are versed on things of concern to what your life pertains to. being knowledgeable on everything takes away from the other aspects of the world one is here to learn about and absorb.

the stages of lifes way

The Stages of lifes way

Their are three forms of life in which are aesthetic,ethical,and religious. moving from each requires a movemnt of will. Humans can not explain such leaps nor support the moves from each. It is difficult to be religious in a difficlut time when your innocent but everyone thinks your guilty. I had a family member who went to jail and was religious but his life didnt revolve around God. After he completed his sentence he came back a changed man and everything he said was revolved around God. This showed that when everyone in society frowns upon you how easy it is to be very religious in order to win approval of the community.

K Kierkagaard Simple

In our day to day occurrences we have to make simple choices each day. We can make good choices or bad choices. Either we can choose between good or evil. When someone is going through a rough time it can be easy for someone to choose to forget about being religious,because they have much hope. When someone is on cloud 9 they feel blessed and it is easier for them to be religious since everything is going smooth.Kierkegaard stated,"If having a lack of identity is good its going to contradict itself in the end". What i thought when i heard this was although you may make a wrong choice that handles your problem now it may not be the best choice for later

class secretary

class secretary humans as producers

Humans’ beings master nature to meet needs, primarily material. Human beings are producers and everything we are involved in we do to better ourselves. We satisfy needs by approaching nature and producing commodities to be consumed. Everything we do is resolved around a need/a want. “Men must be in a position to live in order to be able to make history”. At the end of the day everyone wants to make history in some way shape or form. People feel a need to important and they will go up and beyond to do so.

Human beings compete against each other in order to make their place in life and hard work is the determining factor. “A commodity is an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference”. Human work first for the basic needs such as shelter and food. Then Second materialistic things such as nice cars, jewelry, and clothes.

Human relationships can either be productive or alienated. In order to make the most out of life and meet the common needs having good relationships with people is

important. When people get along and like each other things get done a lot easier and a lot faster.Differences between socialism and capitalism: Socialism takes care of some everyday worries such as going to doctor which may be nice. In Capitalism human beings have to work for certain things and i like that because it makes me feel I have a responsibility and I don’t want everything dumped on my plate and given to me. I want to work hard for everything I have and have it because I earned it.

we can understand but not relate

We learned phenomena is based upon experience. Which means we learn through experience and we can understand because we have experienced it. I do believe people can understand phenomena that are experienced by people but cannot relate. I find that we can understand what experience the person is going through but we cant relate simple cause we havent been through the same thing they have.

Human Beings

In Class we talked about human being differ from our direct experience. Their was an example that someone who see's sounds as colors. This sounds hard to believe but i have seen a documentary on a blind kid who could see without eyes by clicking. He can see empty places and walk threw gaps of space but this is entirely self taught. This is rare but he made up in his mind that he wanted to live life to the full so their was nothing his friends cant do that he does such as playing video games and basketball. This guys Eye Doctor was very impressed by him and he was feautured in peoples magazine and on TV shows.

Language Creates Thought

I heard about a study on NPR about language development in babies. The researchers looked into this to see just how much our minds are affected by language. The study showed signs that thought may develop after or, because of language. While I am unable to convey his persuasiveness here, the interviewed researcher was very convincing. This made me start wondering about the nature of human thought. What if human thought is caused, not by our brain, but by our language. Is sentience only possible because of speech? What if concepts like justice and courage only exist because we have names for them and the ability to talk about them? If abstract thought grows from language would a person be sentient if they were never taught language? Is human language the source of human intelligence? If abstract concepts are dependent upon language, is it possible to say that independent thought truly exists?

Satre - Object and/or Subject

Dr. Layne has taught us that sex is a great example of going back and forth between subject and object but never both. That at any given point of intercourse you are either the subject (the doer) or the object (the one being done).

I agree that most of the time we, couples, are teeter tottering between being the object and the subject. I disagree that you can not be both. I have been married for almost 15 years now and with going into to pornographic detail have been both the object and the subject simultaneously.

When you give everything you have of yourself to your self and to your partner there is an amazing sense of freedom, comfort, safety, love, passion, animalistic urges, fear, craziness, euphoria and love that I feel only comes after both parties agree to be free. Free to share anything and everything with each other. Being vulnerable enough to make mistakes, learn from them and be a better lover afterwards.

I have been both Subject and Object............have you?

Marx - Existence

Marx - “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

I wish I could disagree with Marx’s quote stated above. Unfortunately it is true. What do for a living (our jobs/careers) “makes” us who we are or who we are thought to be. What type of car we drive, how big our house is, where our kids go to school all affect peoples perceptions of us.

Why is it not that what we think and know we should be doing be more important then what material object we possess. I think we can all agree that we take no physical possessions with us when we pass away. With that in mind why then are those material belongings so important? Why do we “keep up with the Jones’?” I am in my mid 30’s now and have come to realize that the only “thing” that matters really, is spending time with my family and showing them how much I love them.

I agree with Marx but I try to live like my consciousness is determining my existence.

What are your thoughts?

Kierkegaard - What stage of life are you in? Aesthetic, Ethical or Religion?

I hoped, after learning the three stages life we live in base on Kierkegaard’s philosophy, that I would be one of the few living in the ethical realm. Unfortunately I am not. I do think life is a game sometimes. I am focused on life’s pleasures, food, material items, love, etc. I have not found out who or what my authentic self is. I am often bored with life’s flow. I feel a great amount of despair being my own individual. I am a slave in my own body.

What stage are you living in?

How honest are being with your self.

Descartes.........The mind is not just a Thinking Thing

Descartes objected against the fact that the mind was not just a thinking thing. Well, I agree and disagree. Our brains purpose is to think, contemplate, rationalize, make decisions. To think is just that we are processing information from all of our senses and bam, there is our thought(s).

On the other hand what about our 6th sense? What about the fact that we are not just simple mortals, human beings, animals? What about the unexplainable things that occur in our lives? Haven’t you ever picked up the phone to call someone and they called you first and they are already on the line one you answered it? Have you ever had that feeling of something outside of me is happening, greater then me, bigger then me, something unexplainable?

Do you think the mind is or is not just a thinking thing?

Hume - No innate knowledge?

David Hume thought that there was no innate knowledge. He thought that all knowledge was gained via experience. I agree that a very high percentage of our knowledge is gained via experience but definitely not all of our knowledge.

Why you ask? Well simply because I know without a shadow of a doubt that everything we “know” does not just come from what we experience after birth. Here are only a few examples/proof that their is innate knowledge after all. First His Holiness The Dalai Lama is the 14th Dalai Lama and each is viewed as reincarnations of past buddhist ancestors.

Savants are also a great example of their are things we are simply born with both knowledge and ability. Kim Peek, the real Rain Man was the person that the character Dustin Hoffman played was based off of. Mr. Peek is severely disabled, can’t walk, and can’t even button his own shirt. But, what he can do is amazing. He has read over 12,000 books and remembers everything about them. He remembers everything about music after only hearing it once. He reads two pages of a book at one time. His left eye reads the left page and his right eye reads the right page. How else could this be possible if he was not born with the ability?

Leslie Lemke, a severely disabled young man who at birth lost his eyes in order to safe his life was adopted by the Lemke family, had amazing gifts. He could not talk, walk, dress himself, etc. But, at the age of 16 he woke his parents up playing the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1 flawlessly, after only hearing it once earlier that day on the television.

By the examples above I hope you can see that we, I hope all of us, have innate knowledge that we are born with.

Please check out the following website for great videos and more detailed examples of savants: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/09/05/10-most-fascinating-savants-in-the-world/

Ignorance iS........Bliss?

A few weeks ago we were discussing Plato and Socrates and this quote has stuck with me ever since.

“You yourselves, surely, know that wrong action done without knowledge is done because of ignorance.” PLATO, Protagoras, 357d.

My wrong action most recently is assumption of knowledge. See, my wife is a high school band director and works well over 40 hours a week, some late nights and often on the weekend there is something she must attend to. Being married for over 13 years I have loved her will all I have. My heart, my soul, my pain, my wishes, me as I am figuring me out.

I assumed I knew why she shouldn’t be spending all those extra hours at school and could somehow find a better balance with her work and family obligations. I assumed I knew what it was like to take over a band program after turmoil and unrest. I assumed I knew what decisions she should be making for her which might better serve my wants and guess what, I was wrong.

I do not know what is better for anyone as I do not yet still know what is truly the best for me because it is ever changing. A fine balance between figuring oneself out, finding out what works and what doesn’t work. Please do not assume knowledge as I have. I think Descartes would agree by this point that challenging everything, all senses and truths would be a wise decision.

What do you think?

Aristotle: Happy

Aristotle believed that The Golden Mean, temperance, was the balance between too much and too little, i.e. courage, too much courage would make a man reckless and too little courage would make a man a coward. I do not see how then if our end goal for all of our choices, our choices in life, are to be happy how his thinks also there could be a temperance in everything else. Why would it not be that if we were happy all the time would that not be the extreme, the too much, thus not balancing, and having temperance with happiness as well? Would we not become unhappy by being happy all the time? Isn't being unhappy part of knowing what being happy is and then balancing it out?

Feminist? - Reposted

Nellie McKay “Feminists don’t have a sense of humor”

I found this video amazing in several different ways. Musically she is playing a stringed instrument and singing at the same time while looking into the audience and interacting with them. As a French Horn player I know the difficulty of performing on stage but not on this level.

Irony is defined as, the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony. I am in awe of McKay’s ability to perform, rap, sing, “argue”, share her feeling and thoughts about such sensitive things; such as, politics, abortion, sexual issues, men vs. women, etc.

I found Ms. McKay an extremely versatile performer and greatly appreciated Dr. Layne sharing this video. Thank you.

Here are a few more links I found interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZY-Czcp2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbpxHBmvYY&feature=related

http://www.nelliemckay.com

Philosophy Really.......Reposted

When discussing the definition vs. examining definition of Philosophy, my brain started spinning. What is life all about? Why do we think and not think about things? Why are some things/people more important than others? Why do we need such precise answers in life, i.e. scientific exacts, mathematical precision, etc.?

Long story short, I am greatly appreciating that something as simple as a required Introduction to Philosophy class can help wake me up, stir the gumbo!

I know life is very short. My older brother was killed in a car accident and that devastated me. The reason I am sharing this to everyone is I am challenging everyone to question, seriously, what they are thinking about. What drives them to make the choices they make?

To me, we are what we think we are!

His/Her or Her/His?

Since the school year is winding down I, like all other students, have to write a couple of papers. Each time I face the same challenge when referring to individuals. Do I say their, his/her, or her/his? Or do I avoid the issue and try to reword my sentence. As absurd as it is, there has been plenty of times where I have found it easier to reword my sentence than to conquer the issue and write it as I planned.

It reminds me of when I was learning my body parts when I was younger. My mom would refuse for my to have nicknames for any part of my body. Although I was made sure to know that they were considered private parts, I was taught that girls have vaginas and breasts while boys have penises. My mom explains today that she believes giving these "private parts" nicknames only gives them more power. A penis is a part of your body just like an elbow is. Although we laugh about it today, I can appreciate what my mom was trying to teach my siblings and me.

I feel the same way about the issue of choosing which way to write "his/her". I think that there is entirely too much conversation about the grammatical way of writing it. I am actually a tad upset that I am contributing to the commotion by blogging about it. I understand the argument that "his" should not be first all of the time because, well why should it? And I understand that in a very literal way it is still putting men before women. But if we make so much fuss over the issue than we are just showing that there is power behind "his" being first ( just like my childhood lesson). It shouldn't matter. If women are constantly trying to become equal with men than we should not be affected that "his" is first instead of "her". If equality means that neither has more weight or pull than the fact that people are so upset when "his" is placed first does not make entire sense. It would be the same issue if "her" was always placed first.

Or maybe I am misinterpreting my mother's lesson? Maybe the fact that "his" is first IS giving power to the man behind the word. Maybe we should find a neutral word. But to me that would completely erase all identity. It would erase the essence of men and women.

I know that this is a very small problem in the bigger picture , but I think it tells a lot. It shows that we have a long way to go before men and women are considered equal. It shows that there is a great amount of progress that needs to be made before his or her, she and him, manhood and womanhood, do not have power behind their placement in a sentence. I am happy the fact that these questions are being proposed and addressed and that even these small issues are not being tip-toed around anymore. But, where should we draw the line between acknowledging women's equality and completely bashing men and their history? I am not sure the solution to this problem or if by not changing it I am just surrendering to the problem and avoiding it, but it is something to consider.

Two Types of Arguing

We went over the nineteen common logical fallacies of philosophical arguments in class. Some of them pointed out mistakes in arguments when people generalize, threaten, ask for sympathy or just ignorance. This got me thinking that most arguments I've ever been in or won have involved one of these. Most of my arguments involve emotion. I feel like when an argument involves emotion it involved a little piece of each person involved. Meaning their opinions and their issues, meaning the argument pretty much isn't logical and cannot be taken seriously. Which made me think is there two types of arguing? Arguing that can help improve a person's outlook on life and personality through seeing things purely the way another sees things. Then the other form: arguing just to prove a point. Arguing with only logic and third person perspectives that help a larger number of people. I think both types of arguing help our society in large and small ways.

Truth

In class we discussed Kierkegaard's idea that everyone can only be sure of one thing, that they know nothing. Which brings up his next point that truth is unique. That truth is different for everyone. That everyone has their own idea of what is true and their truth helps form their identity. This relates to the idea that people only know that they know nothing because if no knows anything for sure and everything can be doubted then there is no truth. Truth is someone's own interpretation. This kind of scared me. Is there really no universal truth? Doesn't this idea mean that everyone can go around doing what they want because they think it is true. That any person can win any argument because what they think is true and nothing else can change their mind. This makes me think that everyone therefore is just ignorant in Kierkegaard's theory is true. But is it true? Or is it just something else that should not be taken seriously because it is only his truth, and no one else.

Identity

In class we have discussed Nietzsche and his idea that every culture should have it's own identity to survive. How we can look at and study other cultures but that doesn't mean we should lose site of our own cultural identity or traditions. Also that a country's identity must be formed naturally and over time. A country that tries to gain an identity by war or fighting will never survive. This got me thinking about America's identity and how we are perceived to other countries across the world. I don't think we are very loved right now because of the war we are in right now with Afghanistan. This got me thinking that Nietzsche is completely right. Not that we are trying to gain identity through this war but we do lose a little bit of our identity by engaging in war. By engaging in war most people were very upset and lost faith in America. This proves his point perfectly that war just separates a culture. It separates us because by losing faith in our own country we start to doubt what our identity really is. With all this doubt our country's identity will start to falter. Which shows that if everyone as a group has faith in our country and our identity then only good can come from it.

In Your Mind

I'm a big fan of the band Built to Spill. One of my favorite songs is called "In Your Mind." The chorus of the song goes, "And no one can tell me to listen, and no one can tell me what's right, cause nobody has my permission, and no one can see in your mind." These lyrics really resonate with me because I find so much truth in them. How can I say what's right for someone else? I don't know their emotions, their thought processes, their perception of things and people. My view of the world could be totally different from another's, but this doesn't mean that one of us is wrong and the other is right; it simply means that they're different. This is why I get so angry when I encounter intolerance. For example, I clearly remember coming home on the evening that votes were casted for same-sex marriage. My parents had another couple (who happen to be extremely conservative) whom they're friends with over for dinner. When the subject of homosexual marriage came up, Mr. Brock, one of my parents' friends, proudly proclaimed, "We voted against the fags." Now, I'm not homosexual, but my cousin is, and I have many gay friends. Thus, I was rather offended. Why should he have even been able to vote on the issue? He's not gay; same-sex marriage has no effect on him, so why does he get to make such an important decision in other people's lives? Why does he get to define what valid love is? Or what marriage should be? He's totally homophobic, and therefore could not possibly understand a homosexual relationship. It's a shame how we let our prejudices get in the way of letting other people live their lives to the fullest. Every time I catch myself making a judgement, I always think about that Built to Spilt song. It's not my place to tell someone else what is right, and I will never let anyone make that decision for me.

Original Identity

In class we discussed Simone De Beauvoir and referenced the show Sex and the City. I LOVE Sex and the City. I use to always view it as an empowering feminist show. Carry has all her friends, they all have jobs, they all can afford fancy clothes, shoes all from their own income. For once a show with no BS and actually makes women look awesome and independent. But Dr. Layne completely put it into perspective for me. They weren't independent at all. If anything it could be called a high class dating show, the whole premises of the show is about them finding a man. And basically showing a women audience the type of woman personas they can take on to attract a certain type of man. Which is my next point; can women really be their own person? Can women have their own identity? Because women can only be the opposite of man or just fit a feministic ideal men have setup for them whats a woman to do? This is exactly Beauvoir's idea to save women, that for them to have an identity they have to become original and unique with their identity. I found this puzzling but at the same time exciting to see what identity I will form in my future now that I have become aware of the faults in becoming the "ideal woman".

Fear Behind Religion?

I feel as though college is much better for me than high school was. I've always been an outside-the-box kind of thinker, and I feel like Loyola has helped expand my mind, while the Catholic high school I attended tried to shove all of us into the conservative, religious mold they had created. I never really understood why there's such reluctance to doubt and question; some of my teachers even told us that doubting is a sin. This didn't sit right with me because humans are naturally curious. Why can we test the limits of math and science, but religion is untouchable? The more I thought about it, the more I came to suspect that this refusal is based on fear. Religion gives people something to hold on to; it can give people meaning in their lives. The thought that there may be nothing "out there" and that we're just a small speck in the universe can definitely be unsettling. It can turn people's worlds upside down because they have put so much faith and have structured so much of their lives and identities around the concept that God exists. People don't even want to explore the grounds for their own beliefs. I've come across so many people who don't even know why they follow the religion they follow; they were simply raised that way and aren't willing to try and break away from the path that's been set out for them. I don't mean to sound arrogant or self-righteous, but I almost feel bad for these people. Our world can be so much more than the one society tries to shove down our throats. I would hate to live in the reality completely constructed by religion because in a sense, it strips away our imagination and ability to explore.

Aristotle's Take on Friendship

I recently read Aristotle's theory on friendship from his work Nicomachean Ethics. He says that the best form of friendship is a friendship based on what is good, in which friends enjoy each other's virtue. This friendship will endure because the only motive for it is the care that each friend feels for one another. He also states that this form of friendship is rare because good people are hard to come by, and friendship based on the good is outnumbered by friendships of pleasure and friendships of utility. I could not help but agree with Aristotle because the friendships I share with my friends have always seemed so different from other groups of friends. We genuinely love and care about each other, and we fully accept each other. I attended an all girl's high school, and I was never able to understand how girls could bounce from friend to friend. I almost feel as if people don't understand the true meaning of friendship. Without my friends, I would go crazy. I confide in them, and they confide in me. Our group has no cattiness; we don't secretly hate each other as many friends do, and we're completely real with one another. I think this is the reason why I don't make strong friendships very easily. I've always prided myself on my judge of character; and when I come across a genuine person, they stand out to me almost immediately. The only problem is that, in my opinion, genuine people are tough to come by. I guess that's why I only have four people whom I consider my best friends.

Changed view of Sex and the City

Virginia Woolfe says that in order for a woman to be a successful writer, she needs a little bit of money and a room of her own. Little did she know that now that most women have these two things, most women are not writing breakthrough novels. Take the main character of the hit TV show Sex and the City for example. Carrie Bradshaw is a middle class New Yorker who eventually moves in with her boyfriend but keeps her old apartment for when she wants to be alone and has enough money to buy $600 shoes. According to Woolfe’s theory, Bradshaw is set up to be the world’s greatest writer and write life changing books about women. But what does Bradshaw write about? Sex, men, and relationships.
I was one of those girls who watched the show and though, “Yeah! A show about four powerful and independent women!” However, learning about feminist philosophy has made me realize how degrading it is. The whole show revolves around men and how dependent these “independent” women are on them.

The Cosmology of Authority

As our group identified different fallacies in philosophy on Wednesday, my thought ventured. It was in the same neighborhood, just not the exact address as any of the fallacies on the study guide. Rather, I began to think about the fallacy of authority and how much we rely on it. Think about how often we take someone's word on it just because they look like they know it. Or even if the person is "qualified," aren't we committing the fallacy an initial time with the qualifiers? That is, deeming the works and materials that give a person authority must have their own authority. How do we know that these people can provide knowledgeable insight on a topic?

I am the champion of this fallacy. I commit it all the time. Hell, it drives my outlook on life. "Oh, science has proven evolution and explains many of the miracles of life? The scientists said that? Good enough for me." When people ask why I am atheist, especially when they seem to be looking for a spiteful reason to hate God, I will flatly reply, "Science." I trust the scientists' word on things, when I really shouldn't. I have this egotistical worldview that we cannot really innovate any more and that the world won't be carved up into pieces by destructive powers as it was in the past. It's a very rational and intelligent view with about zero support by world history. However, the scientists could be proven wrong in many aspects in just one lifetime. Yet I still take their word with foolish trust.

How can we ever really know what we are learning? Who can we trust with the authority of knowledge? Why couldn't we leave this fallacy of the list so I would never know about it?!