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