Religious stage of life's way

Throughout life there is one question that no one can ever prove and that is "Is there a God." In the religious stage of life people are said to have leaps of faith from the aesthetic or ethical to the religious. My own personal experience is probably similar to most college students. Being grown up in a family who is not big on going to church I have never felt the need to go to church every Sunday. However being grown up in catholic school all of my life I have felt it a commitment to go to church on the holidays. One example of a leap of faith for me was after my car accident I felt closer to God because he spared my life. I felt committed to him on another level therefore i felt obliged to make it up to him by attending church and praying to him. This is my example of my leap of faith.

The free laborer

When it comes to freedom of one's own labor freedom comes with a cost. Freedom has said to be "freedom from the means of production" and freedom to sell one's own labor power. A free laborer will sell his labor for "equal" exchange to meet his or her basic needs. An example of this is a man will work his whole life off shore on oil rigs. He rarely sees his family maybe once every three months. However, because of his hard work on the oil rig he always supports his family with enough money for food, clothing, and shelter. The equality is understood as ignoring qualitative difference and making quantitative sameness. This is the conflict of Marx idea of let freedom pay.

My class synopsis paper

In last class, we discussed Socrates and Plato’s Republic book II. In the republic there are three types of good. First, which Kant is going to agree with is to do good for it self and not for the consequences. Second, is good for itself and good for the consequences, which is what Socrates is going to fight for. And last, not doing good for itself but only for its consequences, which is what Glaucon agrees with.

Glaucon says, “Justice is only good for its consequences.” Everyone wishes to do what he or she pleases. No one wants to suffer from others doing as they please. This is saying that every person must take responsibility for themselves and not each person take responsibility for the whole. The social contract wants to fix this by saying if we minimize freedom we will minimize the suffering from other’s freedom. The downfall to this is that if one could do as they please without suffering from other’s freedom and punishment; then the people would not act justly.

The social contract theory is stating that people give up freedom to an authority in order to maintain order via abiding by the law. Rousseau believes those who do not follow the general will, will not be forced to be free. Hobbes thinks that there will be a war against all if we have no law. And Locke believes in complete individualism. That individuals should ask why is it in our interest to give up our natural freedom for the sake of the social order.

God

Everyone has the questions "Who is God?" "What is God?", however can we really ask these questions. From studying philosophy we have come across that God is not a body. God has no shape or form. God is not a place. So can we really ask who is God if it does not have a body. And can we ask what is God when he is not a place. This whole talk has really made me look at God from a totally different perspective. It makes me think more how did God come about and how was he started. There are just endless questions to this subject and plenty more discoveries.

Cosmological Arguments

Two of the questions I want to discuss are "why should we suppose the beginnings of existence need to be cause," and " can the universe just be there." These two questions kind of go hand and hand with each other. Everyone in the world is looking for a cause, especially in Biology. In biology, everything is lied out there are no questions because everything and everyone can be traced back to there descendants. Biology is the opposite of philosophy where philosophy is all about the unknown and questions. Biology is all about tracing back every bit of existence and finding out the cause of everything. Being a biology major and taking philosophy I have seen the huge differences between each of them every time I go to class.

Blonde's

When looking over the common fallacies the one that stood out to me the most was the hasty or sweeping generalization. This fallacy states that whatever is true in most instances will be true in all instances. Everyone has heard of all the dumb blonde jokes, or how brunettes are smarter than blondes. I have been blonde since birth, and I have constantly gotten the dumb blonde jokes, or the "blonde moments". Mostly happening in college and having a major in Biology, I felt like the teachers would automatically judge me because of my blonde hair and bubbly personality. Just last December, I finally died my hair brown and I really noticed how much people judge by the color of your hair. This was my real life experience of a hasty or sweeping generalization.

Sophism

When looking through my notes on arguments I came across the term sophistic. Sophism means to deceive someone. When looking up information on this topic I came across Plato response to this idea. "Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power." I believe most "rock stars" have this mentality. The whole rock star image is basically to do whatever it take to get to the top of the business. Rock star's will deceive anyone, lie to anyone, do anything humanly possible just to seek power. The typical rock star will take both sides of an argument because he or she does not want to lose their fans. I believe rock star's feed off of the bad boy style because they are addicted to the feeling of being powerful. This is what I saw as an example of sophist.

What I relate philosophy to

All of my life I have danced. I have danced for over 15 years and still to this day I learn every time I step into the studio. I relate philosophy to dance in the ways of attitude, source, aim, and the play between the knowing and the not-knowing. First, to understand philosophy you must have the attitude. You have to have the passion, desire, and the passion to keep searching. Just like in dance you need passion and desire. Next, is the source of how philosophy, and how people are in awe and amazement to how it came about. When I watch someone dance or I learn a new movement in dance I am in awe and amazement. After, is the aim of philosophy. Dance has aim in it because of all the wisdom of the history dance derives from and the truth of the movements dancers learn. Last, is the play between the knowing and the not-knowing. Dance is constantly adding new moves and new genres. Dance is a knowing from the beginning of time when the first move was made, and going into the not-knowing of adding new moves and steps. Dance is your own way of moving no two people are alike just like philosophy everyone has their own opinions on it.