Stages of Life and Relationships

Kierkegaard is definitely one of the philosophers this semester I have fully grasped. His “Stages on Life’s Way” are very relatable and one can ponder upon which stage they fall into. Discovering which stage you are in is quite simple with the criteria Kierkegaard gives, this is where things get interesting. In thinking about our conversations about the stages of life, I thought, “What happens when people in different stages decide to date?” Not that I’m any Dr Phil or anything, but I think this may be an issue in relationships. In each stage in life, I would argue one’s thinking is different from those of different stages. For example, if a couple were made up of one aesthetic person and one ethical person, many everyday decisions might be disagreed upon. Examples might be going out a night before an important board meeting at the office, or maybe purchasing a vehicle above your means. An ethical person would obviously see an issue here, however, aesthetics, being the “free spirit” they are, would worry about the potential consequences of their actions at a later time. One may question why two people of such different stages might even be attracted to one another. Well, we can’t control whom we’re attracted to right? I think if everyone evaluated themselves to these life stage criteria, relationships might be better contemplated on things other than looks.

When reading Descartes' meditation, the first discusses his doubts. When Descartes talks about his doubts of human senses, I sat back and thought about it. While pondering this idea, I concluded I felt the same doubt at times. While riding home one night earlier this week, the moon was bright, full, and what appeared to be close to the earth. My sisters' first response were, "Look at the moon! Almost seems like we can jump off the roof and hang on.". This reminded me of the meditations. While looking at the moon, one could even make out figures that appeared to be craters. However, everyone knows that the moon is considerably far out of reach. So how is it that it appears so close? I'm sure there is a scientific answer to that question, however, the sense of sight has nonetheless deceived me.

My sight was not the only senses that has deceived me this week, but my hearing also. While on my job, I was continuously deceived by my hearing. My mom has always told me there was a problem with my hearing but I have to side with Descartes again. I repeatedly thought I heard my manager and shift leader calling me. I'm sure everybody can also relate to thinking you heard your phone alerting you of a text message but to no avail. This phenomena kept me going into my pockets for my phone throughout my shift.

Descartes has a point with doubt. Doubting your senses can be easy when one has the aforementioned occurrences.

Februrary 7, 2011 Class Synopsis

Monday’s class began with an opening subject of virtue. We determined that virtue is a kind of knowledge. We tied this into Plato and Aristotle. Once this was set, questions began to flow. An ever-present subject was the comparison of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle was a student of Aristotle’s for twenty years at the Academy. Therefore, Aristotle follows platonic ethics. Plato felt that ethics is based on metaphysics. Plato’s metaphysic was that the soul is immortal. He believed in a two-world theory of material versus immaterial. An example by Dr Layne of this theory was that what allows the desk to be a desk is its “deskness”. The essence and purpose of its creation is what makes it a desk, not only its physical make-up. This idea is very important in ethics, the idea that something exists along with the desk. In saying this, we began conversation on idealism. This is the idea that without seeing or experiencing something, we can still know what it is. An example is that, as an idealist, without seeing justice, once can know what justice is. The same concept applies to virtue. Once virtue was mentioned, Dr Layne prompted us to think idealism when we think Plato. To Aristotle, virtue is the fulfilling of one’s function. Then points were made that one can act against knowledge as well as be unhappy under duress.

At the conclusion of these ideas, Dr. Layne moved on into the PowerPoint presentation. The topics covered in the presentation were the life of Aristotle, universals, and physics/metaphysics. Brief points of Aristotle’s life are that he was born in 384 BC and died 322 BC. He was a student of Plato and teacher to Alexander the Great. He was a prolific writer and interested in the imperial investigations. After going abroad to teach Alexander for thirteen years, he is dissatisfied with the state of the Academy. Thus, Aristotle creates the Lyceum, the school in opposition to the Academy of Xenocrates. This was controversial since he was a resident alien so the school was in a public gymnasium. Soon after, Plato dies and things become dogmatic and the Academy is no longer an open-minded eclectic school.

Next came universals. Universals exist only in things, never apart from things. Unlike Plato, we must stud particular phenomena to discover the essence/form residing in them. A common example used by Dr Layne is deskness. The universal of desks is that all desks are similar in that there is the same universal, deskness in each desk.

Seeing that class time was running short, Dr Layne then moved to physics/metaphysics. When asked what metaphysics was, someone answered it was structure. An example given was all is water, meaning all is one. This is a metaphysical statement. A main idea of physics and metaphysics is substance, being a combination of matter (potential) and form (actual). Also discussed at this point was potency connected to rock, human being, acorn, actuality connected kinesis, movement: proper work leading to fulfillment of potency, and entelechia being toward an end/completeness. Lastly, we talked about four causes: material (linked to potency}, formal (linked to entelechia), efficient (cause), and final. Class ended with conversation comparing Aristotle and Plato.