Women's Literature

In class today the topic of the "women's literature" section in a book store was discussed. I found it very interesting as I had never thought of the women's section to be something in any way degrading. When reflecting on how that section displays the idea Simon De Beauvoir described as putting women as "other" and man as the norm I was a little stirred up. It is interesting that we are so blind to the still lingering inequality that is so commonplace in everyday life that we fail to even notice it.

The 3 Stages

I too was considering what stage I am at when we were discussing Kierkegaard's Stages on Life's Way. I think that I probably fall equally into the asthetic and the ethical. But can one be in two stages at once? Is it possible to have qualities from all three or does a person have to be in one stage exclusively?

Marx: Labor=Product

When we were discussing Marx I found his idea that labor should be equal to the product to be very obviously implausible. Marx questions that if this is the truth then why is their a surplus value or profit? But if the value of labor is in fact equal and there is no profit then there can be no incentive or reason to produce a product or employ a "free laborer" in the first place. If there is no monetary gain for a company from producing a product then no one profits in the equation and it becomes redundent.

Republic Book Two

In the Republic Book two Glaucon discusses his idea that if being unjust had no reprecussions everyone would choose to act unjustly. This implies that humans are naturally bad as opposed to naturally good people that crave justice. If this is true, than the idea of Eutopia that was brought up later in Book two could never exisit because people are not only imperfect, but they are naturally and undeniably evil. It confuses me how we have no example of what perfection is but yet we have the idea that it could exisit.

Class Synopsis

In Class on Friday we discussed the books of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Book 1 discussed how Hume believes rationalism is just a shelter to cover error and that the self is just a various bundle of interconnected perceptions linked together to form an identity. In Book 2 Hume explored impressions vs. ideas and stated that perceptions is more lively than memory. This led him to believe perception and sensation is the cause of all ideas (empiricism). Nothing is a priori for Hume. In Book 3 Hume addresses the Idea of Association of Idea via Resemblence, Contiguity, and cause/effect (all ideas come from impressions). He believes all these associations are habit and don't reflect the real world. The example was given of Pavlov's Dog-Bells Cause Food Theory. We discussed Kant and the Copernican Revolution and his response to the skeptical empiricism of Hume. His one main question is are synthetic a priori judgements about noumena possible? The noumenal is what is really real (analytic). Synthetis vs. Analytis (kinds or propositions) means every sentence has two terms: a subject and a predicate that are different. Then we discussed the catagories of perception and asked the question are we color blind? The conclusion was the world itself is not orange and brown but time and space. Lastly, Kant agreed with Hume that we can never really experience cause and effect and that we humans do not need to think in terms of cause and effect becuase it is one of the catagories of our mind.

What is God; Via Negativa

I find the concept of via negatativa to be unusual. The definition of anything cannot be what it is not or it is in fact not a definition. To define something it must be clearly outlined. To say that we only know what God is not is not knowing what God is. And furthermore, how are we certain of what God is not? Is there some sort of proof for the notion that God is simple rather than complex? Are these not merely the speculations of men? Via Negative is not a solid argument for proveing exactly what God is.

Does God Exist?

In the discussion about the cosmological arguement in proving God's existence one argument was that there can be an infinite series of reasons or causes for existence of a contingent. If this is true then there must be some sort of creator for God. This seems to disprove God as the one infinite creator of all things. It is likely that there is a sort of "infinite regress" rather than a God that came from nothing that was always there or "eternal". I agreed with the idea that it is human nature to want to know the cause of things and by knowing the cause one can find happiness. I think that God is a creation in the minds of humans who are seeking that happiness that can only come from knowlege of causation.

The Mean

In our discussion of Aristotle's ethics we examined the idea of the balance between the extreme and the deficient. I thought it was interesting how in mathematics the mean is the average or the middle of a set of numbers and in philosophy the mean is defined as acting in the right way for the right reasons with the right feeling at the right time. It is the middle or average between the extreme and the deficient. They both mirror each other.

True Happiness

In class we debated on what "true happiness" really is. Some believed that happiness is simply a pschycological feeling while others think that it is fulfilling your duty as person. This made me consider what i believe defines happiness. I see happiness as a pschycological feeling as well, but I believe that feeling of "true" happiness can only come from doing what is right as a person. Any sort of happiness derived from something impure is not real happiness. Thus, I believe both explainations on the definition have merit.

Religion and Fear

In class when we discussed Pythagoreans arche "all is number" the point was brought up that definite is good and indefinite is bad. If this is true than we only fear what we do not understand. I thought that this could be relateable to religion. Some people find religion as a response to their fear of the unknown. They create a higher being as an explaination to the indefinite. They are buying in to pythagoreans philosophy.

Marrige; For Better or For Worse?

Ones interesting point that was brought up in class pertained to the idea of marrige. Is marrige a limitation on others or is it a combination of two people making better? I think the idea of marrige was obviously created for the latter but it seems that in modern society it has tended to shift to the former. With the increasing amount of divorce it seems that fostering a functioning marrige has become too difficult for most. It has indeed become a more of a limitation.

Is ignorance never ending?

In class when we discussed the three different types of ignorance I found it enlightening. I had always thought that all ignorance was the same. The idea that there is a progression from double ignorance to simple ignorance to virtuous ignorance and that one's own ignorance can improve to another state is baffling. If this is true than I suppose we can never escape a state of ignorance. Once we reach a state of virtuous ignorance can we improve from there? Do we go to a state of knowing or are we always ignorant? Is complete knowlege on a particular subject ever attainable?