the feminist movement

Before Spring Break, we covered a lot of different aspects of feminism. I never wanted to associate myself with being called a "feminist." In my mind, being labeled as a feminist would make you radical, rebellious, angry, and almost power-hungry. Especially after reviewing Simone de Beavoir's perspective on society's view of women, I see that the feminist movement is not just about wanting power and acknowledgement. Women are really the second sex. I think that her point about women never having a time period where they were superior is valid. If you look at minority races even here in America, there was a time at some point in their generations of people in which that specific face was the upper hand, or the more powerful group. Women, on the other hand, never had that. That being said, sometimes I wonder what the feminist movement is actually trying to achieve. Is it expecting radical change in the way women are viewed? More rights? There is only so much you can do to change a social perspective.

which stage am I in?

Reading about Soren Kierkagaard, and how he sees all humans able to be categorized into three stages caused me to think: well then, what category would I fall under? Why are there only three? Is is good to be in one stage and bad to be in another? What does is mean to "deliberately" jump from one to another? Can some people adhere to not every characteristic of one who is also in that stage? I ultimately found myself struggling between weather I belonged in the ethical or religious stage of life's way. I like to consider myself especially able to choose to accept moral standards and recognize my duties over pleasure, which would make me in the ethical stage, but I also find myself further and more deeply identifying with the religious stage as well, just not as consistently. I see it as important to distinguish the voice of society (the universal), verses the voice of the "Absolute." Do I always choose one over the other? No. So even if I strive to be in the "religious" stage, does that make me a part of it?

class synopsis back from 3/23

In today’s class we began our discussion on Karl Marx. He is a materialist, and against the idealistic philosophy. He ultimately sees the world as a material process, as opposed to a “being” or “becoming” sort of existence; similarly, he sees history as a continual process of production and labor between individuals.

Marx sees the self as a natural, corporeal, sensual, objective being. Like his conception of the world, and its historical account, he views the human not as having an essence, but rather it creates itself through production and creation. We have no teleology or principle to history. The self is conditioned by its relation with external objects, namely, the products of his or her labor.

Humans are essentially producers. Therefore, we master nature in order to meet our needs, which are primarily material. We produce commodities to be consumed; first the basic, and then commodities of the imagination. In order to do this more efficiently, we create divisions of labor. Marx spoke against the capitalistic society of his time, and how the divisions of labor were no longer natural as they should be, but imposed on persons for the sake of exchange rather than self-production. The capitalist society promoted that the “free laborer” sells labor to capitalists for “equal” exchange value to meet basic needs—but then leaves profit for the capitalist. In his eyes, the social view of “freedom” had instead become “freedom from the means of production,” and freedom to sell one’s own labor power, leaving a wide divide between the capitalist and the laborers—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The modern state only managed the affairs of the bourgeoisie, who dominated production and alienated the proletariat from owning the process of production and the product itself, while allowing the proletariat subject to this “false freedom,” thinking that they are capitalists. Amidst his perspective of the modern state, his idea of socialism emerged.

3/28 Class Synopsis paper

In today’s class we were introduced to Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. While in school, he couldn’t find a major; in fact, philosophy dissatisfied him because he found it to be too abstract. Today, he is known as the father of existentialism, meaning that he prioritizes existence and living over abstract thinking. Existentialism focuses on living the authentic life and being responsible for decision-making. Additionally, Kierkegaard wrote in pseudonyms, taking on different characters in his writings. He did this in order to leave the reader “alone” with the work, so the audience won’t read his writings as a type of confession or autobiography, rather they are co-authors of them.

Furthermore, existentialism centers around living your own truth; committing for what ceases you, and living by it. This, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, gives one’s life meaning and allows one to live authentically. Truth, therefore, is subjective to each person. One man’s truth may not coincide with another’s.

Finally, Kierkegaard identifies the stages of life’s way into three categories, which all individuals fall under: aesthetic, ethical, and religious. What identifies each level is how one determines “what is the good life?” These spheres exist as modes of being, language games, or patterns of belief or practice. Movement from one level to another requires a movement of the will or a leap, which cannot be explained or supported by human reason.

The aesthetic stage of life’s way, for example, is not necessarily connected to the arts or being sensible, but more so living in the immediate. In the aesthetic stage, the individual is essentially uncommitted, detached, and an on-looker of life. The aesthetic avoids life via the simple immediacy, which means they do not preclude highly reflective forms of life, and they are pre-ethical and a-moral. Notions of right and wrong, good and evil, or virtue and vice, play no role in the aesthetic evaluation of life.

descartes' mind/body dualism

I personally am not a fan of Descartes' assumptions and conclusions about God being a demonic, and deceiving creator. I believe his value of logic and the dualism of the mind and body to be sensible, but to doubt all senses and to then conclude that God uses us as creatures to be tricked and toiled with is simply arrogant. It seems that he esteems the mind, but sees the body as a product of evil, and is used only to deceive our minds. It is true that we, as human beings are essentially minds, in that our soul constitutes who we are as individuals, but we are human because of our bodies. Therefore, although our minds and bodies are two separate entities, humans are a harmonic combination of body and mind. In contrast to Descartes' belief, we indeed are our minds, but we are also our bodies, "and God said that it was good."

reason grounded in faith

In light of our discussion about justification for the existence of God, I think the argument for justification through design is probably the weakest. Design arguments are based off the fact mere fact that the world has design. I can observe that any person who doesn't believe in God could logically say that the "design" of the universe is in fact random, and could have spontaneously occurred at any moment in time. There are simply too many questions that oppose the design argument if you want to justify the existence of God with one proof. Additionally, if the universe is firmly said to have design, how would one propose that there is really a resemblance between the design universe and things made by human beings? Human beings are authors of design as well, but we are merely finite and limited in power. There isn't exactly a formal base that says a designer must be omnipresent, all powerful, and mortal--all the things which believers know God to be. Cicero's quote that says, "what could be more clear or obvious when we look up to the sky and contemplate the heavens, that there is some activity or superior intelligence?", personally makes true sense to me. I, however, have a faith in God that not all people universally do. Faith is certainly the grounds for reason in this case, in that I only see how this argument to be true because I have faith in the existence of God. I understand the justification through design argument because I believe in God already; it simply makes sense to me. I do also see, however, that the design argument is not for everyone, it may appeal only to those who have faith, which is not a universal ideal to every being in the world.

exploring why virtue is knowledge

As discussed in class last Monday, I agree 100% that in order to be virtuous, one must also be knowledgeable. Like all attributes, one must know what it means to have or act upon that attribute, or else the attribute isn't there. To be virtuous, in my opinion, is abiding a universal moral conduct to do the good. Good actions are virtuous, but before deeming oneself as virtuous, habits of good action must be performed and knowledge of what virtue is must be attained.

in light of the pre-socratics

In our discussion of the pre-socratics this past week, I never exactly found a philosopher that I completely identified with or agreed with, but I did find that certain aspects and ideals of some of these philosophers especially appealed to me. I loved Thales' idea of priority over multiplicity, and his psychological idea that to know thyself is to know the all. I don't think I totally agree or understand how to know thyself is to know the all, but I do believe that having a sense of who you are as a human is a significant priority for further understanding and discovery. Also, through his philosophy, his ideology pertains to Phaedo in that the soul is deathless. Secondly, I also could identify with Anaximander's appreciation for mystery, because he says that the final goal of philosophy is unattainable. I agree with him in that I also believe that not all questions relating to philosophy can be answered, and that some ideas are meant to be beyond us as humans, because we are limited. Finally, I enjoyed Pythagorus' philosophical understanding because he has an appreciation for the soul being immortal. In saying that everything is number, he says that we are more than our bodies in essence, because number cannot be destroyed.

moral relativism

Today, the focus of our class discussion was different approaches to ethics. The practice of relativism, for example was deemed very popular among my classmates, and shown in an extremely positive light. I would definitely not call myself an anti-relativist per say, because I do believe that there are glimpses of truth in moral relativism. However, despite it's appealing aspects, I think that relativism is essentially a threat to the study of ethics. Relativists maintain that there are no moral rules that apply to all cultures or all people in one culture and that no country or person should impose his or her moral rules on any other culture or person. I definitely see the appeal in having a relativist point of view--it eliminates conflict and confusion. But if we all sat around a campfire and said "Well, he has his opinion and I have mine," we get nowhere in moral discussion and argument. Basically, we stand for nothing.

I once read somewhere that in medieval Japanese culture, the Samurai warrior class had a practice when they received their sword, it was necessary for him to try to see if it worked properly. The Samurai would then try out his new sword on a wanderer or traveler. If he could cut the stranger in half, the sword was deemed worthy. Additionally, even today such cruel practices occur in cultures outside of America. This past year I took an anthropology class on African and Middle Eastern cultures. In some of these, in order to prevent women from being promiscuous, people practice female circumcision. The reasoning goes that since the possibility of sexual pleasure is gone, then the possibility of one's wife being unfaithful is gone as well.

In response to these practices, a relativist is likely to approve of these. In reality though, human life and human dignity is significantly threatened. Should we really just stand by, watch, and let it all happen for the sake of "cultural acceptance"?

contemplating metaphysics

Last year, as a high school senior, my favorite class I had ever taken in high school was Bioethics, which combined the views of some of the most famous philosophers and applying their beliefs and theories to modern-day issues concerning the biology, dignity, and meaning of the human being. When I first enrolled in this philosophy course, I expected the material would be similar to that which I had already learned last year, and easy to master. I still remember day one of walking into Dr. Layne's class, and the first question she posed was, "What is philosophy?" Many different and sensible opinions were thrown into the discussion, but what really got me thinking was when she mentioned that philosophy was reflected upon itself, and that the simple question "what is philosophy," in and of itself is a philosophical question. Rather than concluding thought, philosophy inspires it. I absolutely couldn't agree more.

Last Friday, we began our discussion of metaphysics, it's concerns, and then problems and that it poses in the field of philosophy. When I used to ponder the questions of metaphysics, I felt as if my mind would enter into a trance of continual thought and questions which I absolutely couldn't wrap my mind around. I could sit there for hours and really try to think about the universe and its existence, life's purpose and end, the existence of God and what it means for Him to be eternal. One topic that struck me was that of the divide created between essence, the question which brings to light the required characteristics of a given object. We were asked: since not all desks may look exactly alike, are they still desks? Desks typically have four legs, but are four legs required for an object to be a desk? Can we make that comparison with people? Are there "required" characteristics of a human being for a certain person to be that exact person? I started thinking about my own inner characteristics, habits, emotions, and personality traits. Even if I eliminated a part of me that I considered to be a minimal aspect of my inner being, such as my affiliation for tye-dye clothing, I would not be the Katie that I know myself to be and that others know me to be. From this example, I can draw that every aspect of us as humans, makes up the essence of the individuals that we are; and we are simply incomparable to object characterization. Every small part of us is in fact required for us to be the people that we are.