Condemned to be free

Sartre's condemned to be free principle reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode I saw. In the episode I saw, hell is a place where everything occurs as you want it. For example, you play a game of pool- you always win. You like a girl- you always get her. You want a mansion- its yours. In this way, Rod Sterling (the writer of the Twilight Zone) created a world with no variability, and everything is predictable, a product of one's will. Similarly, freedom being a product of one's will, if one could achieve absolute freedom- would it be the heaven we all think it would be? Or, after further examination would it become something like Sterling's Hell?

George Orwell once said "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." I believe that this statement is true, because everyone is born with certain advantages or comes across unique opportunities in life. This is the exact problem that socialism and communism try to fix, as they strive to achieve exact equality for all people. This points out the problem with Communism and Socialism- that the government strives for uniformity while nature works in the opposite direction, towards chaos and variation. In this way, communism will never result in perfect consistency, but just place the power somewhere else- in many cases to government officials. In this way, perfect communism can never be reached.

Why The Ideal City Could Never Exist

The Principle of Specialization is one of the central axioms of Plato's Republic. This law states that each person must perform the role for which he/she is naturally best suited for, and that one cannot meddle in other areas that he/she is deemed less suitable for. As abstract as this concept sounds from an American standpoint, many nations have been practicing the Principle of Specialization for years. These countries are communist and socialist countries such as modern day China and the late Soviet Union. Although countries such as these were often considered world-powers during their respective primes, they are also noted for violating humanly rights; the same rights Democracy argues are 'endowed from God.' For instance, a current controversy with China is that they filter what their citizens are allowed to access online. Consequently, the Chinese people are not allowed to use popular websites such as Facebook, but instead have to settle for a social network called Renren. Although this is just one example of an inconvenience, this can turn deadly when governments manufacture all the media, and the people are led to believe in fallacies. And because specialization and communism/socialism go hand in hand, it is hard to argue for one without arguing for the other as well. But, there are many other detractions to specialization. In an ideal society, people should be able to do what they want, not just what they are good at. And indeed just because I may be could at math does not necessarily mean I want to be an accountant. If people are forced to do something, and are not happy, then what is the point of the 'ideal society' in the first place?

Hume in the 21st Century

In class on Friday we discussed Hume and his dealings with emotions or 'passions and the will.' I was thinking if Hume were alive today, would his teachings be any different? With our medical advances in medicine we can basically engineer a mindset through chemicals. That means to a certain degree, we can alter peoples emotions. In this way, our emotions can be founded on ideas rather than impressions. This is the exact opposite of what Hume believed. Hume also stressed a "power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of will." This principle I believed is amplified by today's society because business is stressed above all, and monetary gains are a huge facet of our society. In today's world, not only do individuals and military units decide whether to act or not, but huge corporations need to stay active to enjoy staying relevant in today's markets.

Class Summary 2/18

Subject 1: Medieval Cosmological Arguments

Medieval Cosmological Arguments deal with the principle “existence to get essence.” In these arguments, God is viewed as the essential cause, or formal cause. The cause of existence can best be described as “sheer existence subsisting of his very nature.” All other things share in the existence of God. This is the same cause that does not account for why things are like this or like that, but that they exist at all. The example that was given in class is fire. Fire is the hottest, and the cause of heat is everything else. We can have an infinite cause on a cat. However, its identity/form is finite or limited. For example, we can follow a cat’s evolutionary pattern back to the saber-tooth tiger, but its physical composition is finite.

Subject 2: Evaluating Cosmological Arguments

1. Why should we suppose that the beginnings of existence need a cause?

2. Why should we accept that the universe had a beginning?

3. Why is it absurd to suppose that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes?

4. Why is cause always necessary?

5. Can the universe just be there?

Subject 3: Design Arguments

While Cosmological arguments deal with the fact that the world exists, Design arguments pertain to the world’s certain features. These features suggest mind or intelligence and encompass:

1. Why the world seems ordered vs. random

2. Teleogical (The doctrine that final cause exists.)

3. Regularity (Are people born from people?)

Subject 4: History of Design Argument

1. Plato – Demiurgos

2. Cicero: “What could be more clear or obvious when we look up to the sky and contemplate the heavens, than that there is some divinity or superior intelligence?”

3. Aquinas described that nature is ruled by an “intellect” which gives order to nature.

4. Aristotelian Causes- material (such as cups), efficient (parents of a cat), formal (why a cat acts the way it acts, and final (medicine).

5. -Final Causation is something found in nature.

-Newton, Boyle-“We live in a context not a chaos”

Subject 5: Problems with Design

1. Is there really a resemblance between the universe and things made by human beings?

2. Human designers are finite, why then could the world’s designer be finite?

3. Human things are often constructed via many people, could there not be any Gods then?

4. Is this God too anthropomorphic?

5. Temporary Construction

6. Is order only a product of the human mind?

Subject 6: Ontological Argument

- The meaning of God makes God an absolutely necessary being

- Once we understand what a triangle means, we realize we cannot imagine one with four sides. If we understand what God means, we can’t imagine him/her.

Subject 7: Proslogian

1. The word God signifies “Something which nothing greater can be thought

2. Gaunilo: “For I would still not admit, indeed I would doubt or deny, that this is greater than any real thing. Neither would I grant it any other existence be than you have when the mind, on the basis of a word one only hears, tries to imagine something it has no knowledge of. For I deny or doubt that it is in my intellect or thought in any greater measure than are many dubious and uncertain things.”

3. Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Principle: “If one were to try to prove to me that this island in truth exists and its existence should no longer be questioned, either I would think he was joking or I would not know whether to consider him or me the greater fool, me for conceding his argument or him for supposing he had established with any certainty such an island’s existence without first showing such excellence to be real and its existence indubitable rather than just a figment of my understanding, whose existence is uncertain.”

Ontological Argument

The ontological argument states that the meaning of God makes God an absolutely necessary being. That is, to understand God is to understand that we can not comprehend God's form. The example that was given in class is that if we understand what a triangle means, we realize we cant imagine one with four sides. Therefore, if we understand what God means, we can not imagine him/her. However, I don't think this is a fair example. A triangle is something everyone agrees upon- a shape with three sides. But God is something more abstract, and everyone has a different idea of what exactly the concept of God is. So the whole concept that "if we understand what God means, we cannot imagine him/her" does not hold any weight, since nobody truly understands what God is.

Ontological Argument

The ontological argument states that the meaning of God makes God an absolutely necessary being. That is, to understand God is to understand that we can not comprehend God's form. The example that was given in class is that if we understand what a triangle means, we realize we cant imagine one with four sides. Therefore, if we understand what God means, we can not imagine him/her. However, I don't think this is a fair example. I realize that

Physics, Metaphysics and Happiness

Happiness is unusual because everyone has different views of how to achieve it; or once acquiring it, what exactly happens? I have to disagree with the traditional physics view that happiness is the final end of all activity because the most successful people I know are also the happiest and hardest working. Just because they are successful and happy, doesn't stop them from working even harder to achieve there next goal. In fact, I would argue happiness is the beginning of all activity because once something gives someone happiness, they work hard at that one thing to achieve the feeling of happiness again. Furthermore, I only partially agree with the statement that happiness is not a state but an activity. Dictionary.com states that an activity is "a specific deed, action, function, or sphere of action." So by this definition, it isn't exactly clear whether happiness is an activity. Allow me to elaborate, happiness definitely isn't an action, because if it were an action, it would be something we would all carry out on an everyday basis. However, if we take the latter part of the definition, happiness can be a activity because happiness is a function of all the different things we achieve, do and accomplish. If one does nothing with their lives, their happiness is going to be a function of that inactivity. And consequently, if one really does strive to achieve a lot, their happiness will directly be affected by all that activity.

Happiness VS. Virtuous

Happiness and Virtue are interesting because they are both hard to define, not concrete, and interweaved heavily into our culture. Happiness is defined as 1. The quality or state of being happy. 2. Good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy. Virtuous is defined as 1. Conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright: Lead a virtuous life. Consequently, the two principles of virtue and happiness are often affected by each other. For example there are many rich people that aren’t happy because they did not take a virtuous path to achieve their wealth. Happiness often also influences being virtuous. For example, often when people are having a great day, they are more pleasant to be around. Because they feel they are more in control of their destiny, happy people are more likely to give towards the destinies of others, thus making them more virtuous then unhappy people. However, this brings up several questions. Is it fair to measure people’s virtue even if they are of opposite ends of the happiness spectrum? Do happiness and virtue always have a direct relationship? My immediate answer to both of these questions would have to be no. You cannot compare someone with a horrible life vs. a great life evenly, judging them based off of how much of a “good” person they are. Also, I’m sure you can think of many happy people that aren’t virtuous, just as you can probably find some people with really harsh lives that are virtuous beyond belief. My biggest question about this topic is regarding virtue; is virtue an element of nature or is it something man-made? Originally I thought it must be ingrained in nature because we all agree that some qualities are great such as courage, kindness, and ambition, while qualities such as laziness, anger and greed are frowned upon. However from an animalistic standpoint, often “evil” qualities such as greed and selfishness prevail when creatures are in competition for resources and food.

The Best Possible World

It is interesting to look at the history of philosophy and compare and contrast all the common themes among the great philosophers. One of the most persistent themes in philosophical discussions is that of optimism and pessimism. I find that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), has some of the most convincing, if unconventional arguments. Although most philosophers view the world with a pessimistic attitude, Leibniz's perspective is strikingly utopian and buoyant. He believes that God thought about all the different possible templates that the world could be created in, and chose the one in which we live because it's the best. His argument is based off of the premise that God could have created a world with no evil and no bad things, but that world would deprive free wills from humans. Therefore, because a world without evil is also a world without free will, it is not the best possible world. Leibniz's expresses this theory among others in his "Principle of sufficient Reason" which states that for everything, there must be adequate reason for it to exist. I do believe in Leibniz's hypothesis that this is the best world, because without the world's imperfections, we would not be able to appreciate how amazing everything is. We wouldn't be able to "appreciate the sunshine without the rain", if you will. Can you imagine how the world would be if you didn't have to go through hardships. Many people ask for a world like that everyday. But i believe hardships and obstacles are what makes the world interesting and rewarding for someone that achieves his/her goals. If there were no evils, there would be no fear, no obstacles, no overwhelming tasks. However, without all this, i think the world be unlivable to a certain extent. Therefore, I think we all need to stop asking ourselves "what if" and embrace the world the way it is.

5 Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence

I believe in order for anyone to truly be happy they have to master the five dimensions of emotional intelligence. The first dimension, self-awareness serves as a personal reflection. If one is not self-aware, that is, having the ability to be aware of what he/she is feeling, one cannot be conscious of the various opportunities and experiences out there. In order to make logical progressions in your life, you have to know what you feel and what gives you those feelings, which brings us to the next dimension of emotional intelligence; Self-management. Self-management is extremely important because once your awareness brings you to grips with what’s important, it will be your ability of management to prioritize and put action to your various emotions. Most people have some degree of both self-awareness and self-management, but what separates regular from great people is the third dimension; Self-motivation. Self-motivation is ones ability to persist when obstacles temporarily prevent them from achieving what their awareness and management have deemed so important to them. Many people have an extent of motivation, but very few will persevere through almost anything. An example of someone who has this rare class of motivation is Soichiro Honda, the founder of the Honda Corporation. In 1938, Honda toiled day and night, sleeping in his own shop to produce a piston-ring in hopes of selling his product to Toyota. However, when he presented the end result to Toyota, Honda was told it didn’t meet Toyota’s standards. After two more years of hard work, Honda finally received the contract from Honda. However, after all this, the Japanese government was getting ready for war and wouldn’t give Honda the concrete necessary to build his factory. Instead of quitting there, Honda decided to invent his own process for making concrete, and then used it to make the factory. Despite his factory being bombed several times, Honda saw opportunities, using gasoline cans disposed by the U.S. fighters to manufacture products. These cans contained materials that were unavailable at the time in Japan. Soichiro Honda was an extremely motivating individual, and that is why Honda is one of the most profitable automakers in today’s world. Empathy is another dimension of Emotional intelligence that is a pivotal aspect in one’s life. Empathy refers to the ability to sense how others are feeling. Empathy is especially important in one’s relationship(s) with family, friends and significant other. You have to be able to know how others are feeling in order to be there for them when they’re in need. And finally, the fifth dimension of emotional intelligence is social skills: the ability to handle the emotions of others. An example of someone who has to have enormous empathy and social skills is the President of the United States. Not only does he have to be able to know what is important to the majority of Americans, and how they are feeling at the time, but he has to act on these emotions with his social skills, writing bills and creating laws that enhance the quality of life for America, and in many cases the world. I believe that truly happy and successful people exhibit each of the aforementioned five traits. These dimensions of emotional intelligence are involved in every aspect of one’s life from social, financial, emotional, physical and sexual facets, among others.

Bertrand Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy Reaction

My initial reaction of Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy was that it was informative, well written and covered many broad aspects about the field of Philosophy. However, I do disagree with some of his rhetoric as well. Firstly, the section on ‘practical men’ is un-supported and hinders his literature as a whole. The specific line I had a problem with is when Russell writes “The ‘practical’ man… is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.” This line suggests that practical society does not feed the mind. Practical society as I know it is when one who goes to school, studies a subject, earns a degree, and gets a job. To me this process is extremely academically oriented. And while it is practical in the sense that the end goal is to earn money, one cannot say that people of this process are ignorant of the goods of the mind. In fact, in order to advance in this process, people are picked often solely based on their mental capabilities and nothing else (ex: SAT Scores & GPA). The second aspect of his work I disagreed with was when Russell stated “It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found…” I found this ironic because in the next class we discussed The Mind-Body problem and how mental processes often relate to various physical states. Dr. Layne noted that the traditional answer to this often incorporates some form of dualism; how the body and mind are distinct yet interweaved forms of reality. I find that the Mind-Body problem contrasts greatly with Russell’s exclusive mind theory. They are mutually exclusive because to believe in one you can’t really accept the other. I personally have to reject Russell’s notion and agree with the Mind-Body proposal because one can experience something physical that inspires a rush of philosophical thinking. For example, many great musicians liked to take drugs and write their music high. They believed the physical attributes of the drugs helped them write better, deeper music and take their mind to previously unprecedented areas. But if detractors of this argument say drugs are not a good example because they are not a true aspect of the body, there are plenty of other examples. Exercise, food, relaxation, and most notably: sex, are all physical experiences of the body that can often translate to profound emotions and deep thinking, which in turn, often result in philosophical questions. Therefore, to bring it full circle, Russell’s theory that goods of the mind is exclusively where philosophy can be found is false, because philosophy can be found in the body as well.