Class Synopsis 4/13

We started today’s class by talking about Virginia Wolfe and A Room of Ones Own, and how in the book Wolfe is saying that all women want is a room of their own. Meaning that they want independence and freedom from being the “other” in the eyes of men. Dr. Layne then want on to connect to A Room of Ones Own to Sex and the City and how Sex and the City and how it shows what would be produced if a women in our society were given a room of her own. In the case of Sex and the City, this ends up being nothing, and the show ends up being sexist because all the independent women in the show want to either be tied to a man. Then we started talking about Alice Walker the author of The Color Purple and her beliefs on black feminism and her criticisms of Virginia Wolfe. We learned that in African Womanism the primary goal isn’t women’s rights but rather African Americans rights, because the opposition of black women comes from both race and class. Walker believed that the fight for race freedom should come before the fight for women’s rights and she disagreed with Wolfe because of this. We then learned about the gaining of voting rights for both women and black people. We learned that when women’s rights groups argued for voting rights for all the government took that as for all men, and gave voting rights to all American men including black men. Women’s rights activists then formed the National Association for Women’s Suffrage, which fought for voting rights for women. NAFWS promised the government that women’s votes would offset the African American vote, and therefore swing the vote back in favor of the white man, thus making suffrage a race issue once again. Over all the entire class was about feminism, and Virginia Wolfe’s A Room of Ones Own

3 Stages

In class this weekwee discussed kierkegaard and his 3 stages of life, the aesthetic, the religious, and the ethical. Because of this i found myself thinking about which stage of life I was in. I kept second guessing myself on what stage I thought I was in. I know I'm not in the religious stage, and I don't think I have enough life experience to claim I'm in the ethical stage. So that leaves the aesthetic, but I don't want to be that stage, it just seems unappetizing to me. But that seems to be where I fall. In the end I really don't know what stage I am in, and don't think it really matters that much in the long run but its fun to think about it.

Republic Book II

The Republic book II is centered around the question of wether an the just man is happier than the unjust man. Glaucon seems to argue that the just man is happier than the unjust man, because justice is only good because of its consequences. I don't really agree with Glaucon though. Is the just man really happier than the unjust man. those who are unjust, and always act immorally because it makes them happy. Those who always act justly are often unhappy because the just decision is usually not the pleasurable and favorable decisions. This is why I am curious to know who is actually happier the just or the unjust man.

Descartes

Descartes siad "I think therefore I exist." After thinking about what Descarte said in more detail I realized that it has to be true. If one thinks, how can they not exist? But then I got to thinking, is it possible that I am the only one who exists. Descarte also called God the great deciever. Could it be possible that ones whole lifetime could be a dream, and that in reality they are the only one who actually thinks and exists. I guess you really never know, but it is scary to think about.

God

Last week in class we began discussing medieval philosophers, and how their mane focus was to prove the existence of God. After hearing the ontological and teleological arguments of several of these philosophers I asked myself, why was it such a big deal that they prove God's existence anyway? In my opinion there is no possible way for man to be completely sure of God's existence, everyone makes a personal decision to be an atheist or a theist through their own faith. This seems to be even more proven by the fact that none of the arguments for Gods existence seem to be completely solid. I think it is beyond mans mental capacity to know if God really exists or not, so what is the point in philosophizing about it. You either believe or you don't.

Happiness

Aristotle believed that the end to all means is the good, and that final good is happiness. At first hearing this I thought "there is no way everyone strives for happiness, it seems like some people just want to be miserable." But after I thought about it more i realized that it is true that everyone strives to reach happiness in the end. It is the final end to everything people seem to do in their lives. All people want to do is be happy, even if that means them being miserable.

After learning about Thales, who as a philosophical optimist believed that the arche of the world was water, I started thinking about the reasons behind why he thought the arche was water. Things that Immediately came to mind were the obvious such as, the human body is primarily made of water, and same with the earth. Maybe Thales believed that the arche was water because water is the only substance that can completely change its own state, it is also the only substance that can take the shape of anything it is poured into. Water also flows, by Thales saying that the arche is water he may be saying that the world flows, and therefore the world is water. I'm sure there are many other reasons behind what made Thales think the arche was water, but these are the only things that came to mind when I thought about it.

Ethics and Morality

During Wednesday’s class we spent the majority of the meeting discussing ethics and the difference between ethical codes, and morality. Before that class I had never really thought about the differences between the too. What really is the difference between a moral decision and an ethical one? And is the ethical answer always necessarily the moral one? These are questions I began asking myself during the discussion. Traditionally ethical codes are typically standards held by an entire society. While moral codes are much more personal basing themselves on a persons individual beliefs. But who is to say that a person’s ethical choices don’t really coincide with their morals, or that their morals are not based on the traditional ethical codes of their society. I guess all these questions can be answered through the philosophy of relativism and absolutism, which questions weather moral standards are subjective to each individual or if there is an absolute code of conduct that everyone is born with. The answers to these questions will likely never be answered, as everyone has their own opinion, but I after Wednesdays class I found myself thinking of what the answers may be.

What Exactly is Color?

This week in class we learned about the very basic tenants of what philosophy is, and were given examples of questions that appear to be philosophical. I found one of these questions to be particularly intriguing, what is color? The question of what is color stuck out to me more than the other questions posed in class because it is something that I have thought about before. What really is color? Does everybody see it the same way? Can something exist if it lacks color? If so what would something look like without it? These are all questions I’ve asked myself, and my friends before I even knew I would be taking a philosophy class. This question is something that I have always found interesting, and I never realized that I was philosophizing until Dr. Layne posed the question about color in class.