Showing posts with label Christopher Branchcomb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Branchcomb. Show all posts

Friday, April 29, 2011

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