Song Reflection

Out of everything we have done this year in philosophy the song presentation was probably the hardest for me. When Mr. Summer's first told us that our project  involved us singing I was sure (at least hoping) he was joking. I just couldn't picture myself singing in front of a class. Finally, when the day of the presentation arrived (today) I kept thinking of an excuse not to do it. I was even tempted to say I didn't write a song. But I knew I couldn't do that so instead I hoped the bell would ring before it was my turn. I kept looking over to the board where my name was written hoping there would be more people in line before me but finally it was my turn. I knew there was no avoiding it. My stomach was in knots and my hands were shaking. Maybe to some people it wouldn't have been that big of a deal, especially since the class is so small but to me it was like I was about to deliver a speech in front of an arena filled with people. If it had been just a speech in front of the class it would have been fine but singing. Me?? I can't carry a tune to save my life.
But now as I reflect back on today I guess it was a good experience to have. In a way I think it eased my fear of public speaking (at least just a little bit) because now I can think, "at least I'm not about to sing."

What is Justice?

If someone were to ask me this question last year I probably would have answered with "justice is doing the right thing." But the more we discuss in class and  read The Republic I realize I don't really know what justice is.
There's so many different definitions of justice. I mean mine still is doing the right thing. But what does that really mean? The way I interpret doing the right thing as might be entirely different to someone else.
But no matter what definition justice is given I think it's a very important part of having a stable society. A society without justice, at least the justice decided upon by the majority, would be chaotic. This kind of reminds me of Freud's theory. Without the ego and the superego (justice) to keep the id in check people would be doing whatever they felt like doing whether it was destructive or not.
Even if Adeimantus and Glaucon are right that people only do the right thing when it benefits them or because they are afraid of the consequences, at least they are still doing what is considered right. No matter what someone's reason for being just is, the way I see it, as long as their being just that's all that matters.

Marx Alienation

When I was looking stuff up for the debate I found this video. I think she does a good job explaining Marx's theory of alienation in a more understandable/relatable way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvp-tlLyoWo&feature=related

"We're all mad here." - Cheshire Cat (Alice In Wonderland)

 Karen's blog  reminded me of a question that I've had for a while...


How can we be sure that we aren't all crazy? I guess we can't ever be sure of the answer but the possibility that I could be the one who's actually crazy and everything I am seeing is just all in my head is a scary thought. A schizophrenia sees and hears thing no one else does but how do we know it's not actually there? For all we know what ever they are seeing is what's actually real.
In the book The Giver by Lois Lowry people could only see in black and white and only the Receiver of Memory (Jonas) could see color. Does that make Jonas crazy? I would answer no to that question only because color is a normal part of our society but to the people in the story it was an idea beyond their comprehension. Just like many of the ideas of the people regarded as insane by our society. So how does someone just go crazy (by societies definition)? Have they reached a level of knowledge that we can't even being to comprehend? So where does that leave the rest of us...are we the crazy ones for not being able to see it?

Definition of philosophy...

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it" -Andre Gide

First quarter reflection

"There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers." - William James

One thing that bugs me about philosophy is that there is never a straight forward answer. In every other class every question has had one definite answer and I have become accustomed to that. But in philosophy no matter how much we debate one theory another one by a different philosopher is just as plausible. This annoys me. I feel like we aren't getting anywhere. But at the sometime that's something I'm actually starting to like about philosophy. In a way it's nice to know that a question has a billion answers and not one is wrong. 

Trying To Understand Hegel

  I never really questioned the possibility of my existence if  others weren't there before I learned about Hegel and his theory of mutual recognition. Though it was an interesting question it still makes no sense to me. This is where I agree more with Descartes that because I can think and reason I know I exist. I don't need people to come to that conclusion.
There's no way to prove that anyone exists and just because I recognize someone is there's doesn't mean anything. I can't read anyone's thoughts...for all I know everyone could be robots or a figment of my imagination and maybe I'm the only human on earth...scary thought. So the only thing I can ever be sure of is that I have thoughts and therefore I must exist...at least to some extent.

Paper

A blank piece of paper holds a limitless possibility to what it can become. It could become a piece of artwork, a novel or even a paper airplane. This paper is much like the entire world with the potential of becoming just about anything.The person writing/drawing on the paper has a great impact on it as do people living in earth. We have the option of protecting it and making sure it is filled with beautiful animals and plants or destroy it with pollutants to the point where we can no longer see its beauty. The paper can be recycled and used again to be made into many different things by doing this it is able to help reserve the earths beauty. Also, the paper unlike most man made things was once a part of the earth. It was once part of a tree, a tree created by the earth. It stayed a tree for years and benefited humans by producing oxygen before being cut down and made into paper. No matter what happens the paper has and will always benefit the earth. That's how the paper is able to hold the entire earth, it holds its past and now its future.

Free will?

The more I think about religion the more I begin to question free will. Even if God doesn't exist and no one in a completely different world is writing our story do we still have free will? Society no matter where you go plays a factor to what we do and don't do, the government sets up laws that its citizens are required to follow and our parents values are usually passed down to us.  There's always outside influences controlling our lives. For example, I come to school everyday because I know it's the right thing to do. Why? Because my parents have always told me it was, it's illegal to skip school and society frowns upon those who are less educated.  I don't really think of all this at the moment it's become almost instinct for me to go to school so I feel as though it is a choice I have made. But did I?

Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

To Kierkegaard the ultimate goal of life is reaching the stage of religion. To enter the religious stage one must first pass through the aesthetic and the ethical stage. It isn't until they finally reach the religious stage that they achieve eternal happiness. Nietzsche on the other hand believed in living in the present and celebrating life.

To defend Kierkegaard's point: Belief in a higher being is what gets a lot of people through any dark time in their lives. Like the example from class, a man holding on to a branch is going to die, unless there's a miracle, the branch will probably eventually break  but that submission to faith and trust in God is what makes life better at the moment. Coming to accept death makes life at the moment easier this is similar Nietzsche's belief  in living life for the present.

To defend Nietzsche's point: What if there is no God? You wasted your whole life living the life a God that never existed told you to live. Wouldn't you be much happier making the most of the time you had on earth in case there is no salvation? Death is inevitable part of life and I don't think Nietzsche would argue against that but it seems more rational to enjoy life then constantly think of death in hopes of finally gaining happiness that can't be guaranteed.

Hume

If you can't trust your senses what can you trust? Yes, reason is important, but without your senses what is there to even think about? What is the use of reason without senses? An idea must come from another idea. If you see a horse and then you see another house you connect those two horse as being the same creature. It was through your senses that you can make this conclusion. You know that the sun will rise tomorrow because you have seen the sun rise the day before and everyday since you were born, to come to the conclusion that it probably will rise again tomorrow.
 If you see and smell fire you shouldn't sit there and analyze whether it's real or not, at that time you have to trust your senses and run. Yes, your senses can't tell you everything, like that wax from a candle is still wax, but you must first observe the wax melting off the candle before you can come to the conclusion that its property did not change. We take in everything in the world through our sense then use our reason second to better understand it. Therefore, senses come first and reason is second.
Also, Descartes argues, that an imperfect being can't think up the notion of a perfect being so therefore God must exist. But everyone has a different perception of a what a perfect being is to them. So everyone's God has to exist to make his theory true. Also, there is no way to prove what perfect is. As an "imperfect being" how can you be sure that what you're thinking to be perfect is actually perfect?

Sophie's World Essay

“I am Sophie Amundsen,” Sophie tells herself the first time she receives a letter from the philosopher. Before that day that’s who she could confidently tell anyone that asked. She was Sophie, just an ordinary fourteen year old girl. But as we later learn Sophie is only a product of Albert Knag’s imagination. Sophie is unaware of this fact and believes she has free will but later with the help of the philosophy course she begins to understand how little free will she really has.

Knowledge plays a huge factor in Sophie’s understanding of her world and herself. Everything she has ever known had been fed to her by Albert Knag. Without the aid of knowledge she may never have stumbled upon the truth and tried to get freedom.

She could have easily lived her life oblivious to what was really going on and it probably wouldn’t have made a difference, but knowledge helped her recognize that there was more to her world then she had once believed. This is similar to the book 1984, by George Orwell. Winston, the main character, could have easily accepted his life the way it was and that there was nothing he could do to change it, which he probably would have if he hadn’t worked at the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth was responsible for making sure that anything unfavorable toward the government was erased. By working there Winston gained knowledge that he might never have otherwise and because of that he knows that there is a possibility of a better world.

Knowledge is also a major theme in another book, The Giver by Lois Lowry. The main character, Jonas, becomes the Receiver of Memory. Because of his job he gets to see and experience things that everyone else around him does not. This knowledge is what fuels his desire for freedom. Sophie, Winston and Jonas have that in common, they all have knowledge that the other characters in their stories lack. With this knowledge they decide that it is no longer possible for them to go back to their old life. Knowledge is what guides them in their search for freedom.

As Francis Bacon said, “knowledge is power.” Knowledge gave Sophie control over her situation and power to overcome it. Most people could live the rest of their lives blissfully unaware that all their actions are controlled by a higher being but Sophie is different. She and Alberto use the knowledge they’ve gained from philosophy to turn the tables on Albert, to the point where they know about his and Hilde’s reality, but Sophie’s and Alberto’s is now hidden. Gaarder illustrates, using Sophie’s World, the value of knowledge. Philosophy is nothing without knowledge and without knowledge a human being is no different from any other specie in the world. 

Heraclitus

According Heraclitus, the material substance (the water in the river) is constantly changing. This applies to humans too. Even if you are a human being and will always be a human being you are never the same person you were the day before. Something is always changing whether it's physically or mentally.  Even the things that appear not to be changing actually are. According to the atom theory, even though the atoms themselves are unchanged they change in other ways as they shed and gain valence electrons. Even though you cannot see an atom with the naked eye you know a change has occurred due to the fact that a type of reaction has occurred, for example, a piece of wood becoming ash. Change is an inevitable part of life.

“Wisest is she who knows she does not know.”

 "All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit's fine hairs, where they are in position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow older they work themselves deeper into the fur," (pg 18). That alone, I feel sums up Gaarder's definition of people. Those who have decided that the world should only be one way and refuse to believe any other possibilities and those who continue to ponder over philosophical issues. Sophie would fall into both categorize because though she isn't as narrow minded as the ones at the roots she too is beginning her downward climb. "Watch out! You are on thin ice," Gaarder warns her.
Though, I agree with Gaarder I think that it would be hard for anyone to be completely at the tip. Once you've figured something out,  like Copernicus figured out that the sun is at the center of the universe and not the earth, he had of settled into this belief and therefore was beginning to climb down the rabbit's hair.  Once he had figured out the heliocentric theory he was satisfied with it and didn't question there being another possibility.If all of a sudden, another planet were to take the sun's place at the center I'm sure Copernicus would be quite confused. This is similar to Gaarder's example of the mother freaking out over the fact that her husband had just floated out of his seat. If she hadn't been accustomed to the fact that people do not float she wouldn't have been so shocked. Just like most philosophers after coming up with a theory they believe to be right that becomes their truth. Because Copernicus had questioned the geocentric theory, unlike most adults who wouldn't have given much thought to it since that is what they were always taught, he isn't at the bottom of the fur but once he had found his theory and decided it to be right he was knocked off the tip.