Too much thinking

I asked a friend from South America how he felt about socialism, just to get a different perspective on the matter. Quickly we got into a debate about people destroying the world, pros and cons of religions, etc. It seemed like with everything we talked about, he had a pessimistic attitude regarding the world around us, while I had a more optimistic one. It was evident that he had thought about all of this before because his arguments were fast, almost prerecorded. He brought the conversation to a halt because he was getting really upset.

This is an aspect of philosophy that I just don’t like. It makes people question everything and some people just get depressed because they don’t like any of the conclusions they reach. He literally asked me “what is good and lasting in life?” After having cheered him up, I decided I should probably not ask him about philosophical questions anymore. And now I wonder how many other people become upset like him.

Beck vs. Webb

Last week, we mostly discussed Karl Marx and his ideology towards human development and production/labor. But during Friday’s class, when Dr. Layne played us a brief segment of Glenn Beck’s interview with national chair of the Communist Party, Sam Webb, I couldn’t help but relate the material back to English philosopher, John Stuart Mill. Mill’s philosophy stresses that the person who has spoken and heard all opinions has more right to hold their own opinions. In other words, if we simply take the time to listen to others, regardless if their opinions are contradictory to ours, our own opinions are then tested and justified. From the very start of the interview, Beck is on the offensive; rudely interrupting Webb and blatantly mocking his ideals. Now although I don't agree with Webb's political agenda, I still found the interview downright ridiculous. If Beck didn’t want to listen to what Webb had to say (which is clearly the case), then why’d he ask in the first place? Webb is defenseless. Beck, in my honest opinion, displays ignorance and a biased demeanor to the highest capacity.

Check out the full interview below:

Consequences of Good Will

As we discussed deontological duties this week, we recalled Glaucon's encounter with the gold ring in Republic: Book II. We determined that the actions of the just man must be good themselves and good without qualification, or regardless of consequences. The example of the invisibility ring pointed out that humans are naturally inclined to abuse power and that they do not for fear of another's abuse of power affecting them. But even if someone were to have invisibility and not abuse the power, wouldnt the reason still be for its consequences? If the person were to say that "I want to be the one that does not abuse power", aren't they doing it to be held in higher esteem than others that would not do the same? Even if the person explained that "it was just the right thing to do", doesn't it suggest that what they did should be common knowledge? It seems that even the most modest explanation would derive from some form of consequence, even if it was just done for pleasure.