What would Mill say to Marx?

I think Mill and Marx would have a very compelling argument..I mean, discussion. I wouldn't think they would agree at all. Mill is very individualistic and while Marx wants what's best for the individual, he thinks the way to achieve that is through coming together as a society. I can already hear Mill screaming "What is right for the individuals is not right for the whole GROUP!"

If Mill were around now I think he would subscribe to a libertarian style of government. A very free and open type of control where individuals are free to live how THEY want to live and find other with the same wants to achieve their goals. Mill would be all about Ron Paul.

If Marx were around he's probably be a little angry at the stigma that the word "communist" has on it. I personally feel like if we didn't demonize the world communist a lot more people would be open to that style of government. I personally wouldn't, but I think people don't fully understand it enough.

3-21 Class Synopsis

We started class with a review of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the belief a society should focus on the making the most people happy. We had a lively discussion about Mill’s opinions on free speech. As a class we discussed Mill’s theory and applied to some real life issues, such as Westboro Baptist Church.

The new topic discussed was Mill’s opinion on the individual. More specifically, how does one make a “good” choice? I use good in quotations because there is no universal definition good. Mill feels that copying someone else blindly is not a good thing. Why, exactly, is it not good? It’s because what is correct for one individual can be wrong for another. Maybe the choice is not well understood by the individual, or it is not well suited for her and doesn’t educate or further her growth in any way. Mill would say making a choice because it suits you as an individual is a better than the choice that makes you fit in. But Mill realizes this type of reasoning is very rare which is why he discusses the Tyranny of the Customary.

Mill feels everyone is living under censorship. We aren’t allowed to make independent (read good) decisions because we must conform to customs. This doesn’t bother most people since the average person would rather live customarily because he or she doesn’t want to make independent decisions. Mill doesn’t like this at all! He feels one of the greatest wrongs is when a person models her behavior on what a person in a high positions would do in that situation. To Mill the decisive individual is rare because the average individual is king.

Aquinas and the Cop-outs

It's not a band name! Though it might be a good one....dibs!
As I was reading Aquinas' Summa Theologica I kept thinking to myself "He uses really unstable proof for his arguments, all this feeling crap and appeal to authority is really a cop out to me." Thus, the title of this blog was born. It a nice title, I enjoy it.
BUT... I thought a little about where Aquinas was coming from and where I was coming from. I have never really had/understood religion. Well, I understand it but I've never felt the need for it. So most times my way of explaining the world is very dry and notably unromantic. Aquinas on the other hand was a monk (I think), a man dedicated to God and religion and faith. A type of dedication I've never had and never experienced.
I came to the conclusion that the "cop out" I was thinking about was just a type of proof that can be just as real as other type of proof to the same person. I don't think Aquinas wanting to proof to atheists and agnostics that God does exist and the are logically wrong for not believing 100% in him but instead he was giving people with preexisting faith some good reasoning and justification for their feelings.

Family, desire and eating disorders

I, obviously, enjoy posting about psychology and its connection to philosophy. This week in class we were talking about virtue and family. Family is one of the ways a person has virtue or the desire for virtue instilled in her. We used the example of Dr. Layne having her young son go to bed at 8pm in the hopes of him wanting to go to bed earlier when he is older and makes bedtime decisions himself. This got me THINKING about the way family influences your thoughts and action
It got me thinking about eating disorders. Eating disorders are a complicated and multifaceted mental illness. Often times it can run in families. Mothers (or fathers in some cases) can consciously or unconsciously pass down poor eating habits or body image to their daughters (or sons.) These things, in a way, are values that Aristotle believes can be passed down from family member to family member just as easily as sleeping habits. I, of course, don't mean to devalue the severity of eating disorders by comparing them to sleeping habits. This is just another part of a difficult disease that has to be addressed in finding a way to cope with the illness.

In class we were discussing the philosophy of Parmenides who believed anything you could think of existed and the guide to knowledge was existence. This somehow got me thinking about thought and existence. Do you always of the knowledge of a thing and it is just a dormant thought in your head (very Socratic!) or does "sensing" the object put the thought in your head? I think Parmenides reject both options and say if you can think it, it exists and you can't trust your senses since those can be decieved (how Cartesian!)
This little play in my head of what could come first got me to thinking of a debate in a subject I hold near to my heart, psychology!
Theories of emotions are psychological theories (of course) about how the brain and body react to emotions. Basically the debate is do physiological response to stimuli evoke the cognitive response or does the felt emotion evoke the physiological response or do they both happen at the same time? It's really a chicken or the egg type debate.
There are three main theories on this subject:
James-Lange theory- This is James as in William James, father of Psychology. How exciting! Basically these bros say that the physical response to a stimuli precedes the cognitive response. In modern times this theory is not widely accepted because we now know it takes a few seconds for the physiological response to take full effect. I'm sure most people can tell you feeling and thinking emotions happens close to simultaneously. Which brings us to our next theory...
Cannon-Bard Theory- Physiological response and cognition happens simultaneously. This one to me is a little boring. Not really much to discuss. Next please!
Two-factor Theory - This is my favorite because it is very complex (not very, but more complex than the formers.) This theory does believe that physical stimulus comes first but instead neatly going to emotion your brain must process the reason for the arousal. Cheesy example: You walk to class feeling more elated than the norm. Your brain at the speed of light thinks of reasons why this could happen...why that cute guy/girl who gave you a cute smile in the gym is in the next class! My oh my! But real the reason you feel so elated is your endocrine system felt like testing out its endorphins. I'm a romance killer...sorry yall :(
I'm currently dating a philosophy major who took a psychology class last semester. After most classes he had this to say "Psychology is figuring out all the things Philosophy did like 200 years ago!" Too bad psychology>philosophy!

Is falling asleep in class ethical?

I fell asleep in class on Friday. I did, I really did. Am I proud I fell asleep in class? Nope, it was quite rude and showed a lack of respect. I'll remember to brew some coffee before the next class.
Because the only good notes I have for this class are for the section on ethics I will decide based on different ethical schools of thought (is schools the right term?) if falling asleep in class is ethical.
RELATIVISM- In the context that I had just come from a music therapy class where we were doing relaxation activities and had had a restless sleep I would say falling asleep just this once was probably ethical.
NIHILISM- **** this **** none of it matters. Verdict? Ethical!
CONSEQUENTIALISM- At the end of class did I learn what I should have learn? Nope. Not ethical
UTILITARIANISM- Did the majority of the class learn? I hope so. Did I snore and make class an unpleasant experience? I don't think so. Ethical!
INTENTIONALISM-Did I go into class meaning to take good notes and participate in class discussion? of course I did. I am a failed student :( Ethical!
After examining my various conclusions I can come to the ultimate conclusion that sleeping was a-okay! But really it wasn't. I'll do better next time!