As our group identified different fallacies in philosophy on Wednesday, my thought ventured. It was in the same neighborhood, just not the exact address as any of the fallacies on the study guide. Rather, I began to think about the fallacy of authority and how much we rely on it. Think about how often we take someone's word on it just because they look like they know it. Or even if the person is "qualified," aren't we committing the fallacy an initial time with the qualifiers? That is, deeming the works and materials that give a person authority must have their own authority. How do we know that these people can provide knowledgeable insight on a topic?
I am the champion of this fallacy. I commit it all the time. Hell, it drives my outlook on life. "Oh, science has proven evolution and explains many of the miracles of life? The scientists said that? Good enough for me." When people ask why I am atheist, especially when they seem to be looking for a spiteful reason to hate God, I will flatly reply, "Science." I trust the scientists' word on things, when I really shouldn't. I have this egotistical worldview that we cannot really innovate any more and that the world won't be carved up into pieces by destructive powers as it was in the past. It's a very rational and intelligent view with about zero support by world history. However, the scientists could be proven wrong in many aspects in just one lifetime. Yet I still take their word with foolish trust.
How can we ever really know what we are learning? Who can we trust with the authority of knowledge? Why couldn't we leave this fallacy of the list so I would never know about it?!
Showing posts with label Karl Gommel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karl Gommel. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
The Drive for Existence
My best friend Kayce's birthday was yesterday, the 28th. I have no classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thus, I left Loyola on Wednesday for Baton Rouge to be with her at midnight. After eating some exquisite chicken at P.F. Chang's, we went to our friends' apartment to really "celebrate." This apartment is a mecca for imbibing, and Wednesday night was no different. We all had a great time, and eventually everybody returned home, including Kayce (not driving, praise Adonis).
At the end of the night I remained awake with two friends, Nick and Zach. Previously Nick had told us of a horror movie called the "Poughkeepsie Tapes." It is a horror film presented in the form of documentary, under the premise that the film is a true story with real video. The "real video" part is the interesting aspect: The plot says that after many murders and disappearances in an upstate NY/Pennsylvania area, the cops had no leads. Eventually they were led to an abandoned home, which happened to have ten bodies buried in the backyard. What's more, there are over 800 tapes in the house, in which the killer tapes all of his actions, from stalking his targets to abducting them to killing them and disposing of the bodies. This low-grade "real" film material is interspersed with interviews and sessions with the FBI and forensics departments.
Impressive acting makes the idea of serial killing and torture much more personal. There are only two murder scenes in the movie, but it is still a genuinely haunting film. Far more harrowing were the scenes involving poor Cheryl Dempsey, the girl abducted by the killer. He never killed her, but rather imprisoned her for eight years, brutally torturing and psychologically re-circuiting her. One cannot help but feel horrible as he or she watches this girl go from the screaming, terrified captive Cheryl to the timid, submissive and mentally obliterated servant named "Slave." When the cops raid the abandoned house they find Cheryl with her eerie porcelain mask on, lying in a wooden coffin in the living room, still alive. The officers brought Cheryl to the hospital to recover from her torture and eventually be returned to her mother. Her mother received Slave, though. Cheryl continued to proclaim her love for her master, who she said would come back for her. Shortly after an interview with the documentary, which only resulted in her constantly answering with "What do you want me to say?", she took her own life.
This Cheryl/Slave plot point is the creepiest part of the film, and the focus of this post. In this abduction and torture, the "Water Street Butcher" created existence. He took Cheryl's existence and destroyed it, replacing it with a being he wanted and specifically crafted. As the idea that he was her "master" implied, the guy likes power. With this in mind it is worth noting that he aimed to be a god, creating new life. This torture was his means of not only taking away life, but making it. He did not procreate, but tortured. New existence sprung not from new cells but from new mentality. When I begun this post I was going to write on Cheryl's fight to be something. I was going to say that Cheryl was so desperate to not be murdered and become nonexistent that she assumed the person that she could be. She took it and nurtured it, becoming Slave because she was being. Now that I consider it, however, I realize that the killer would never kill her. He would keep torturing her until she complied and until she knew nothing else except love for her master. Cheryl was going to get the brunt of vile sadism until she became what she had to be.
Though that point on Cheryl falls through, I still like to propose a thesis that we all seek to exist. We all want to be something. We will do whatever is necessary to be what we want to be, but in many circumstances people will settle with being something else, so long as they are in fact being.
I advise against watching this movie. It freaked me the hell out. I have been checking closets and making sure all doors are locked in my house every night. But I'm also a huge gash. The film is not on DVD/Netflix, but the entire thing is uploaded on Youtube. I tell you this so you can make the choice to watch it. Once again, I advise that you can and should go through life without watching it.
At the end of the night I remained awake with two friends, Nick and Zach. Previously Nick had told us of a horror movie called the "Poughkeepsie Tapes." It is a horror film presented in the form of documentary, under the premise that the film is a true story with real video. The "real video" part is the interesting aspect: The plot says that after many murders and disappearances in an upstate NY/Pennsylvania area, the cops had no leads. Eventually they were led to an abandoned home, which happened to have ten bodies buried in the backyard. What's more, there are over 800 tapes in the house, in which the killer tapes all of his actions, from stalking his targets to abducting them to killing them and disposing of the bodies. This low-grade "real" film material is interspersed with interviews and sessions with the FBI and forensics departments.
Impressive acting makes the idea of serial killing and torture much more personal. There are only two murder scenes in the movie, but it is still a genuinely haunting film. Far more harrowing were the scenes involving poor Cheryl Dempsey, the girl abducted by the killer. He never killed her, but rather imprisoned her for eight years, brutally torturing and psychologically re-circuiting her. One cannot help but feel horrible as he or she watches this girl go from the screaming, terrified captive Cheryl to the timid, submissive and mentally obliterated servant named "Slave." When the cops raid the abandoned house they find Cheryl with her eerie porcelain mask on, lying in a wooden coffin in the living room, still alive. The officers brought Cheryl to the hospital to recover from her torture and eventually be returned to her mother. Her mother received Slave, though. Cheryl continued to proclaim her love for her master, who she said would come back for her. Shortly after an interview with the documentary, which only resulted in her constantly answering with "What do you want me to say?", she took her own life.
This Cheryl/Slave plot point is the creepiest part of the film, and the focus of this post. In this abduction and torture, the "Water Street Butcher" created existence. He took Cheryl's existence and destroyed it, replacing it with a being he wanted and specifically crafted. As the idea that he was her "master" implied, the guy likes power. With this in mind it is worth noting that he aimed to be a god, creating new life. This torture was his means of not only taking away life, but making it. He did not procreate, but tortured. New existence sprung not from new cells but from new mentality. When I begun this post I was going to write on Cheryl's fight to be something. I was going to say that Cheryl was so desperate to not be murdered and become nonexistent that she assumed the person that she could be. She took it and nurtured it, becoming Slave because she was being. Now that I consider it, however, I realize that the killer would never kill her. He would keep torturing her until she complied and until she knew nothing else except love for her master. Cheryl was going to get the brunt of vile sadism until she became what she had to be.
Though that point on Cheryl falls through, I still like to propose a thesis that we all seek to exist. We all want to be something. We will do whatever is necessary to be what we want to be, but in many circumstances people will settle with being something else, so long as they are in fact being.
I advise against watching this movie. It freaked me the hell out. I have been checking closets and making sure all doors are locked in my house every night. But I'm also a huge gash. The film is not on DVD/Netflix, but the entire thing is uploaded on Youtube. I tell you this so you can make the choice to watch it. Once again, I advise that you can and should go through life without watching it.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Class Synopsis, March 30
On Wednesday we continued our discussion of Kierkegaard. Dr. Layne first finished covering the first stage of life, the aesthetic. Kierkegaard asserted that the aesthete falls short in life by living amorally and refusing responsibility. By giving oneself responsibility, one is free to act.
Upon finishing the aesthetic stage, Dr. Layne pressed forward with an explanation of the ethical life. The ethical life begins by taking a "leap" to choose to accept moral standards and to place duty above pleasure. This choice requires an either/or scenario; that is, a necessary loss is imperative in the choice. By choosing one side and giving up the other, one attains an identity. Kierkegaard states that the move to the ethical sphere is marked by despair and self-choice. In the ethical world, all must follow a universal standard. The embodiment of the ethical world is the knight of infinite resignation, who resigns oneself to relinquished rewards for the sake of duty. However, the ethical life also has flaws. The ethical person still feels one's own imperfection through sin. Furthermore, an inability to obey the laws produces an inability to always be oneself, which is a big no-no for Kierkegaard.
The third and final stage of life is the religious. This is the highest in Kierkegaard's opinion, as it transcends both aesthetics and ethics. The aesthetic life focuses solely on the individual and his or her desires. The ethical life focuses on the universal. The religious life instead focuses on the individual's personal relationship with the universal figure of God. Kierkegaard states that the religious life cannot be justified by reason, and even calls it absurd. This is not a rational choice that can be made, but rather will of the faith to a higher meaning. An example of the religious person is the knight of faith who goes to church every Sunday just because one is impelled to by one's very being, in contrast to one going for a duty to society or for pleasure. The knight of faith just feels it to go to Church.
Dr. Layne then focused on the change that precipitates the move to the religious life, the "leap of faith." Those who are in love or who believe in God exemplify this leap. There is no evidence to support such a belief; they just believe. In fact, there must be reasons to doubt such faith. True faith will believe in the face of these doubts. Dr. Layne then used the situation of two lovers who could not marry to further distinguish the three stages. In the aesthetic life, the boy would move on and accept there is another lover in the world. The ethical boy would not give up his love for the girl, but would be resigned to the fact that they could not be together. The religious boy, however, would insist that even through the absurdity of it all they will be together. He is steadfast in his faith in their love, and does not halt in attaining and exacting it.
Upon finishing the aesthetic stage, Dr. Layne pressed forward with an explanation of the ethical life. The ethical life begins by taking a "leap" to choose to accept moral standards and to place duty above pleasure. This choice requires an either/or scenario; that is, a necessary loss is imperative in the choice. By choosing one side and giving up the other, one attains an identity. Kierkegaard states that the move to the ethical sphere is marked by despair and self-choice. In the ethical world, all must follow a universal standard. The embodiment of the ethical world is the knight of infinite resignation, who resigns oneself to relinquished rewards for the sake of duty. However, the ethical life also has flaws. The ethical person still feels one's own imperfection through sin. Furthermore, an inability to obey the laws produces an inability to always be oneself, which is a big no-no for Kierkegaard.
The third and final stage of life is the religious. This is the highest in Kierkegaard's opinion, as it transcends both aesthetics and ethics. The aesthetic life focuses solely on the individual and his or her desires. The ethical life focuses on the universal. The religious life instead focuses on the individual's personal relationship with the universal figure of God. Kierkegaard states that the religious life cannot be justified by reason, and even calls it absurd. This is not a rational choice that can be made, but rather will of the faith to a higher meaning. An example of the religious person is the knight of faith who goes to church every Sunday just because one is impelled to by one's very being, in contrast to one going for a duty to society or for pleasure. The knight of faith just feels it to go to Church.
Dr. Layne then focused on the change that precipitates the move to the religious life, the "leap of faith." Those who are in love or who believe in God exemplify this leap. There is no evidence to support such a belief; they just believe. In fact, there must be reasons to doubt such faith. True faith will believe in the face of these doubts. Dr. Layne then used the situation of two lovers who could not marry to further distinguish the three stages. In the aesthetic life, the boy would move on and accept there is another lover in the world. The ethical boy would not give up his love for the girl, but would be resigned to the fact that they could not be together. The religious boy, however, would insist that even through the absurdity of it all they will be together. He is steadfast in his faith in their love, and does not halt in attaining and exacting it.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Class Summary, March 28
Monday's class began with a wrap-up on Marx and the Manifesto. Dr. Layne brought up the way capital was valued above all else in the world. She used our own families as a collective example. Each of us has family members who wish for our major in college to be practical, i.e. profitable, rather than what we really want.
This talk about majors segues nicely for the main topic of class, Kierkegaard. Like many college students, Kierkegaard couldn't find a major in school. Even the abstract nature of philosophy turned him off. The writer from Copenhagen prioritized living over abstract thinking, and based much of his work on the importance of the decision (Miami Heat Bandwagoner). Kierkegaard used many pseudonyms in his work, and the pseudonyms spoke from the first person perspective. In his work Either/Or Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. He sought to leave the reader alone with the work, implying that the intention of the author is not the meaning of the text. These works focused on living and decisiveness earned Kierkegaard the title of "Father of Existentialism."
In existentialism, existence comes first. Kierkegaard stressed the importance of giving life meaning and living an authentic life. He focused on emotions such as anxiety and despair, which were genuinely human feelings that pushed us to make decisions. Kierkegaard cared not for universal truths, but for subjective truths. That is a truth that a person lives by and bases his or her life on. We learned that Dr. Layne loves Tyler and wants to maaarrrryyy him. (And did)
Dr. Layne then explained Kierkegaard's Three Stages on Life's Way, which are the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. We all fall into one of these three categories. A move from one sphere to another is a movement of the will, simplified by Kierkegaard as a "leap." Human reason cannot explain or support these leaps. The litmus test for each level is a person's answer to the question, "What is the good life?"
For the aesthete, life is focused on the present. An aesthete is essentially a detached on-looker in life. He/she focuses on the immediate and worries not of reflective thought. Also, everything is amoral in this worldview. The aesthete does not see past or present, and only views life as a series of disconnected "nows." Kierkegaard, who was once an aesthete, criticizes this worldview for its lack of authenticity. He says that aesthetes have no authentic selves and do not know who they are. He says they will feel the despair or the "unwillingness to be oneself." In this, they would be guilty of double ignorance in refusing to pursue the ethical life when they know it is better.
Then class ended because it was 1:22.
This talk about majors segues nicely for the main topic of class, Kierkegaard. Like many college students, Kierkegaard couldn't find a major in school. Even the abstract nature of philosophy turned him off. The writer from Copenhagen prioritized living over abstract thinking, and based much of his work on the importance of the decision (Miami Heat Bandwagoner). Kierkegaard used many pseudonyms in his work, and the pseudonyms spoke from the first person perspective. In his work Either/Or Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. He sought to leave the reader alone with the work, implying that the intention of the author is not the meaning of the text. These works focused on living and decisiveness earned Kierkegaard the title of "Father of Existentialism."
In existentialism, existence comes first. Kierkegaard stressed the importance of giving life meaning and living an authentic life. He focused on emotions such as anxiety and despair, which were genuinely human feelings that pushed us to make decisions. Kierkegaard cared not for universal truths, but for subjective truths. That is a truth that a person lives by and bases his or her life on. We learned that Dr. Layne loves Tyler and wants to maaarrrryyy him. (And did)
Dr. Layne then explained Kierkegaard's Three Stages on Life's Way, which are the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. We all fall into one of these three categories. A move from one sphere to another is a movement of the will, simplified by Kierkegaard as a "leap." Human reason cannot explain or support these leaps. The litmus test for each level is a person's answer to the question, "What is the good life?"
For the aesthete, life is focused on the present. An aesthete is essentially a detached on-looker in life. He/she focuses on the immediate and worries not of reflective thought. Also, everything is amoral in this worldview. The aesthete does not see past or present, and only views life as a series of disconnected "nows." Kierkegaard, who was once an aesthete, criticizes this worldview for its lack of authenticity. He says that aesthetes have no authentic selves and do not know who they are. He says they will feel the despair or the "unwillingness to be oneself." In this, they would be guilty of double ignorance in refusing to pursue the ethical life when they know it is better.
Then class ended because it was 1:22.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Damn Commies
I like to call things "effing hipsters." It's a great way to be jokingly accusatory. The only thing I like more than that is calling people or things communist. Anytime somebody disagrees with me or doesn't go to a party I'm at, they're immediately part of the Red Guard. It's obviously for comedic effect, and I beat the shtick over the head. I take much pleasure in being a faux-McCarthyist, and I'll find a way to link someone to communism through circular and irrational logic.
That being said, this communism talk has me feeling nostalgic. At one point in life I considered myself a communist and/or socialist. Hell, I am the proud owner of not one, not two, but THREE Che Guevara tee shirts. I still wear them sparingly, as he was a great anti-imperialist and Latin American thinker, but not with the same zeal I once did. I truly believed an entire of people could work together in an ideal state where the right to starve was eradicated. However, my switch to free market ideals was tied in with my cynicism about humanity. Upon seeing the failures of communism across the world and feeling less inspired by people's attitudes, I formed the notion that capitalism was the most perfect imperfection for an economy. (I'm sure it wasn't a year spent in business school that convinced me otherwise. Positive.)
I am actually a registered member of the Socialist Party. I may be a proponent of the free market, but I still thought Mr. Obama was the man for the job. Now, this would normally just be a political belief and nothing more. However, when you go to Catholic school is South Louisiana Obama becomes the black harbinger of Muslim abortion clinics on every collectivized farm. All I heard at my school, from authority figures and students alike, was their ardent support of McCain and how Obama was an idiot socialist. I could not vote in the presidential election, but there was a table to register to vote at the end of the year. With the same accusations swirling in my head as I signed up, I happily told the nice old lady (who'd said she was pro-McCain pre-election) that I wanted to register with the Communist Party. Taken aback a bit, she said, "Louisiana doesn't recognize the Communist Party." She offered me solace, though, in the Socialist Party. Thus, I signed up with them to laugh at the zealous right-wingers at school, using irony to make a statement about society defining someone by their politics. Wait, that sounds like something done by a...no, I can't be! DAMMIT!
That being said, this communism talk has me feeling nostalgic. At one point in life I considered myself a communist and/or socialist. Hell, I am the proud owner of not one, not two, but THREE Che Guevara tee shirts. I still wear them sparingly, as he was a great anti-imperialist and Latin American thinker, but not with the same zeal I once did. I truly believed an entire of people could work together in an ideal state where the right to starve was eradicated. However, my switch to free market ideals was tied in with my cynicism about humanity. Upon seeing the failures of communism across the world and feeling less inspired by people's attitudes, I formed the notion that capitalism was the most perfect imperfection for an economy. (I'm sure it wasn't a year spent in business school that convinced me otherwise. Positive.)
I am actually a registered member of the Socialist Party. I may be a proponent of the free market, but I still thought Mr. Obama was the man for the job. Now, this would normally just be a political belief and nothing more. However, when you go to Catholic school is South Louisiana Obama becomes the black harbinger of Muslim abortion clinics on every collectivized farm. All I heard at my school, from authority figures and students alike, was their ardent support of McCain and how Obama was an idiot socialist. I could not vote in the presidential election, but there was a table to register to vote at the end of the year. With the same accusations swirling in my head as I signed up, I happily told the nice old lady (who'd said she was pro-McCain pre-election) that I wanted to register with the Communist Party. Taken aback a bit, she said, "Louisiana doesn't recognize the Communist Party." She offered me solace, though, in the Socialist Party. Thus, I signed up with them to laugh at the zealous right-wingers at school, using irony to make a statement about society defining someone by their politics. Wait, that sounds like something done by a...no, I can't be! DAMMIT!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Class Summary, February 28
In class on Monday, we watched an episode of House with the instructions of a Descartes-ian reading of the show. In the episode, a disgruntled former patient enters House's office and shoots him. He awakes to find himself in ICU with his assailant, Moriarty, as his roommate. House attempts to treat a patient who has a swollen tongue and high temperature, but to no avail. Every diagnosis falls through, as every test fails to find the root of the problem.
A professional conundrum is hard enough, but House also faces a personal one: during surgery for his shooting, the hospital put him into a ketamine-induced coma as a radical method of "restarting" his brain to heal his hurt leg. House is having hallucinations and struggles to discern what is real and what isn't. This conflict is where we get the heaviest Descartes presence, surprisingly pointed out by House's shooter. Moriarty points out that House's anger over his hallucinations reveals House's personal philosophy: the body and mind are entirely separate entities. House cares not of his bodily healing from the treatment, and expresses only contempt for his mental state. Moriarty asserts that the body and mind are one, while House identifies only with the intellectual aspect of life.
House continues to fail to diagnose his patient as he starts to doubt everything. He cannot grasp what is real or fake, and nothing makes sense. Instead of questioning the results, he questions the assumptions he and his staff have made. He cannot find the reason for his patient's condition, and ultimately realize nothing makes sense. With this epiphany, House rushes to take control of the surgery robot that is about to operate on his patient. House wants to grasp what is real, and pushes things too far: he eviscerates the patient's torso, killing him. With this extreme resolution, House wakes up from what was entirely a hallucination. He is being carted to an operating room to be treated for his gunshot wounds, and he requests that the ketamine be used.
The episode ended and we had a discussion of how this relates to Descartes. As mentioned above, the closest connection was House's separation of mental and physical. This is a nod to Descartes' mind/body dualism, in which the body acts as a machine while the soul is embodied (no pun intended) in the intellect. House saw it that if one messed with his mind, they are messing with the essence of House. Another connection is in their doubt. Descartes doubted everything, much as House does. House steadfastly believes people lie, and seeks to find out any information he can to figure out a medical mystery. House's doubt is furthered by his hallucinations within the hallucinations. He doubts whether anything is real, much like Descartes. House also stated that if his perceptions are warped, then his judgments too will be warped. He ends up questioning his basic assumptions as logical sense continues to evaporate. Dr. Layne also noted the parallels between the "evil geniuses" in the two texts. In Meditations, the evil genius is God and what he does in the world. In the show, the evil genius is House, who is deceiving himself about using ketamine in real life. House's acceptance of the ketamine in real life shows that he has acknowledged that mind and body are connected, and he seeks to improve himself by improving the corporeal House.
A professional conundrum is hard enough, but House also faces a personal one: during surgery for his shooting, the hospital put him into a ketamine-induced coma as a radical method of "restarting" his brain to heal his hurt leg. House is having hallucinations and struggles to discern what is real and what isn't. This conflict is where we get the heaviest Descartes presence, surprisingly pointed out by House's shooter. Moriarty points out that House's anger over his hallucinations reveals House's personal philosophy: the body and mind are entirely separate entities. House cares not of his bodily healing from the treatment, and expresses only contempt for his mental state. Moriarty asserts that the body and mind are one, while House identifies only with the intellectual aspect of life.
House continues to fail to diagnose his patient as he starts to doubt everything. He cannot grasp what is real or fake, and nothing makes sense. Instead of questioning the results, he questions the assumptions he and his staff have made. He cannot find the reason for his patient's condition, and ultimately realize nothing makes sense. With this epiphany, House rushes to take control of the surgery robot that is about to operate on his patient. House wants to grasp what is real, and pushes things too far: he eviscerates the patient's torso, killing him. With this extreme resolution, House wakes up from what was entirely a hallucination. He is being carted to an operating room to be treated for his gunshot wounds, and he requests that the ketamine be used.
The episode ended and we had a discussion of how this relates to Descartes. As mentioned above, the closest connection was House's separation of mental and physical. This is a nod to Descartes' mind/body dualism, in which the body acts as a machine while the soul is embodied (no pun intended) in the intellect. House saw it that if one messed with his mind, they are messing with the essence of House. Another connection is in their doubt. Descartes doubted everything, much as House does. House steadfastly believes people lie, and seeks to find out any information he can to figure out a medical mystery. House's doubt is furthered by his hallucinations within the hallucinations. He doubts whether anything is real, much like Descartes. House also stated that if his perceptions are warped, then his judgments too will be warped. He ends up questioning his basic assumptions as logical sense continues to evaporate. Dr. Layne also noted the parallels between the "evil geniuses" in the two texts. In Meditations, the evil genius is God and what he does in the world. In the show, the evil genius is House, who is deceiving himself about using ketamine in real life. House's acceptance of the ketamine in real life shows that he has acknowledged that mind and body are connected, and he seeks to improve himself by improving the corporeal House.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Soul
Yes, it's 16 minutes before class starts. I'm playing catch up. I'm going to be a real man and make an excuse: I was focused on my paper. In it I fought Socrates' assertion of the soul's immortality. It was hard for me to take a definitive stand on this, but it was at least something I definitely did not agree with. Making a decision is hard for me, because you see, I am a coward.
Okay, I like to say that I'm humble, which leads to my lack of a stance on the afterlife and such. I utilize my agnosticism to say "I don't know," so I see atheism as equally as arrogant as organized religion. Gun to head, I will pick no holy existence, though. But it was still challenging to act like I knew what I was talking about as I tried to take down Socrates. Maybe this class will actually grow a pair for me. Of guts, I mean.
Okay, I like to say that I'm humble, which leads to my lack of a stance on the afterlife and such. I utilize my agnosticism to say "I don't know," so I see atheism as equally as arrogant as organized religion. Gun to head, I will pick no holy existence, though. But it was still challenging to act like I knew what I was talking about as I tried to take down Socrates. Maybe this class will actually grow a pair for me. Of guts, I mean.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Ethics of Pragmatism
Loyola's generosity with newspapers is a great resource. Though I don't read papers daily, having The New York Times and USA Today on hand makes my soul smile. I'm the lazy reader who will read one paper for five days. So make sure to prolong your "Israel-Palestine Peace" parties until I finish the article.
I read a USA Today article about President Obama's pragmatism. In summary, Obama's pragmatism makes him hard to define. We don't "know who he is yet." I remember reading about his pragmatism as a benefit in the run-up to election day. Now it seems as though it is more of a haze than a quality. It should still be viewed as a strength, as results should drive the action.
Sure, pragmatists can give themselves lots of wiggle room in how they approach things. And they could be seen as "fake", which would make them hated by about 75% of 13-16 year olds (approximation based on Facebook profiles). However, even if a person changes his views, it does not necessarily make him inconsistent. The person is loyal to the end, not the method. And no person should have to be pigeonholed by some standard. We are growing, changing creatures. Nobody is static throughout life, nor are values. I'd like to think I'm a pretty cool person right now. I also realize when I'm 28 I'll probably think I was a 19-year-old dickhead. Pragmatism lets us grow to tackle situations, so long as we respeck' the mind of the result.
I read a USA Today article about President Obama's pragmatism. In summary, Obama's pragmatism makes him hard to define. We don't "know who he is yet." I remember reading about his pragmatism as a benefit in the run-up to election day. Now it seems as though it is more of a haze than a quality. It should still be viewed as a strength, as results should drive the action.
Sure, pragmatists can give themselves lots of wiggle room in how they approach things. And they could be seen as "fake", which would make them hated by about 75% of 13-16 year olds (approximation based on Facebook profiles). However, even if a person changes his views, it does not necessarily make him inconsistent. The person is loyal to the end, not the method. And no person should have to be pigeonholed by some standard. We are growing, changing creatures. Nobody is static throughout life, nor are values. I'd like to think I'm a pretty cool person right now. I also realize when I'm 28 I'll probably think I was a 19-year-old dickhead. Pragmatism lets us grow to tackle situations, so long as we respeck' the mind of the result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)