being?

I never thought that the term "being" could mean so many different things. J.P. Satre spoke and lectured about the three different kinds of beings:

1. Being for itself

2. Being in itself

3. Being with others

The one which intrigues me the most is "being with others" and the idea of intersubjectivity and that we have to believe that others are conscious beings like ourselves... that kinda freaks me out. It seems like a reasonable assumption, right? I would think so.

My Stage

I cannot say for sure which stage I am in right now, but I can say for sure that for a long time I was in the Religious stage. I can also say for sure that I know when I grew out of that stage... my senior year of high school. For many years all i could focus on and all I put first was my religion. It was a way of life for me. Not to say I'm not religious anymore, but not to the degree I was in a few years ago. I hope that I am in a stage where I'm still learning and absorbing lessons from experiences in life.

Socialism

This past week we talked a lot about Marx, communism, socialism, etc. I have a very difficult time with this debate because I see both sides so clearly and understand each perspective quite well. I think the real issue isn't so much "which way of life is better" according to the government, but it should be according to the people that would be living under those conditions. So often we find ourselves analyzing what way of life is better for others. Who are we to debate, when we are not even in the picture? I feel like I cannot say yes or no to socialism/communism since I have never lived it. I can speak on capitalism and give my opinion about this, but that's all I feel I can do. I cannot compare.

Kinds of Goods

I thought it was interesting how Glaucon made three categories for the different kinds of goods.

We do things because of their end result, for the sake of the good, or a combination of both. I've never really thought of this and I am becoming more and more conscious of when I make a decision and most importantly why I chose what I chose. Once you become more aware of the decisions that you make everyday, I think that this concept could actually change your everyday routine. Notice, Glaucon never mentioned anything about right and wrong. It was simply asking why without any ethical or moral weight.

Class Synopsis - Friday March 18

Besides playing a fun and interesting game of Jeopardy on Friday, we discussed Political Philosophy according to Plato, Socrates, and John Stuart Mills. We talked about the meaning/definition of Justice. In book II of The Republic, Socrates expresses that the "just person is happier than the unjust person." Also, it puts off a sense of dystopia and mentions three Waves of Paradox:

1. Men and women should be equal. (Same rights to Philosophers King)

2. Eugenic (something is very wrong)

3. Philosopher's King

We also went into further detail and covered the different kinds of good that Glaucon talked about in the Republic:

1. Goods we desire because of their consequences (what the majority of people decide)

2. Goods we desire for their own sake

3. Good we desire for both – their own sake and for what we get from them

Justice is something that is more than desirable; it is something that is amongst the most desirable things on earth and it is desired because of the third reason. It is necessary and is a result of human weakness and vulnerability.

We learned about John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarianism beliefs. He gets very defensive about the concept and believes that most people misinterpret the utilitarianism to be an antonym to pleasure.

House and Decatres

I loved loved loved watching that episode of House in class. That was the most fun I've had with Philosophy - ever. House is actually my favorite show. I was surprised that I had never seen that episode before. It was very out of the ordinary. I had always been left mindful of certain messages after each episode from the moral decision House has to make every day. It wasn't until this class that I realized there were so many philosophical relations to this series.

It's hard to not trust your senses. You react to them naturally. Luck for us, House was smart enough to figure this out in his own hallucination.

The Perfect Island?

At my former college, I studied and wrote a paper on Gaunilo's concept of "The Perfect Island." This subject was so interesting and fascinating to me because it made me think of the infinite possibilities. And that's all it is - the possibility that there could always be something greater - it doesn't even have to exist - you just have to imagine it.

The only problem I have with this argument is that everyone has a different interpretation of "perfect". To me, the perfect husband would be one that makes me happy. According to Gaunilo, the perfect husband could not exist because there could always be a husband that could make me HAPPIER. But, what if the point is just to be happy? I was not measuring the degree of happiness I was feeling - just stating that my perception of the perfect husband could make me happy - period.

So what if it's a habit?

In class this week, I was slightly bewildered by one of Aristotle's beliefs/assumptions: that if a person is performing a virtuous act by habit that it does not make him a virtuous person. An example in class was a soldier in the military. A soldier can be trained to save people's lives. So every time he saves a life because it is his duty to do so, it does not count as being virtuous? What about the fact that he's even in the military? Maybe he joined because he is a virtuous person, and in the eyes of the solider, joining the military was a virtuous act in itself and later on, after training, it became a duty, a habit, and maybe even a natural reaction to save lives.

I disagree, and hope to understand more of how Aristotle's thought originated, or gain a better perspective from his point of view.

The Phaedo

When I read about Phaedo, there was one argument that was bothering me the whole time. I understood and like the theory that learning is merely recollection, and that knowledge is fully recalling. If the soul has been jumping around to different "bodies" and the soul is a continuance, where did the soul begin? When did it first "learn" in order for the following bodies to recall. In order to remember something, you must have learned of it at one point. There is a single moment when you learn something for the first time. The problem with that theory is, then, where/when did the soul first begin? There must have been a beginning. Right?

If there was no beginning then it always was - like a finite circle....