Voltaire

6.

In my next few blogs, I'll talk about philosophers or philosophical topics that we didn't talk about in class because I've run out of things to blog about (or I'm just bored with Pojman).

On a side note, I used one of Voltaire's quotes/aphorisms for my senior quote: "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." Meaning that (at least what I think it means) individually, people do not feel responsible when something on a larger scale happens that they have inadvertently effected.

Voltaire also had an interesting view on religion. He believed that, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." However, because of this, many people thought of him as an atheist. Reading this line makes me think that people invent "God" for the simple reason why we invent anything else. We "invent" God so we can feel better about our lives. We "invent" technology so we can live more comfortably. Etc.

Voltaire also said, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." This, again, is interesting because he insisting that faith is reason-- that to believe is to reason.

The Paradox of Human Nature:

Are We Free?

Determinism versus free will is an issue which is always at combat. Determinism has a causal thesis meaning that every act and event in the universe is caused by antecedent events. The libertarian view is that of free will.

The question one often asks is, "How do I pick one side/or believe in one when both are absolute and cannot be proven?"

I believe that we have both free will and causal thesis because of what I talked about in my last blog post. Determinism and free will are too extreme and therefore it is makes more sense that we as humans lie somewhere between the middle of the two.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Darwin's view on human nature was that of the nature of animality, that humans are not different or unique from other animals. However, because humans have a relatively larger brain than the rest of the animals, we are able to control our destiny and evolution and therefore are different than other animals.



I had this written down in my notes (I'm not sure if it related to Darwin though): "God of the Gap", meaning that when people didn't know what caused the thunder, rain, etc. they invented a "God" for it, "God of Thunder." Then, when they realized what actually caused the thunder, rain etc., there was not longer a "God" for it. Now they claim there is only "God the creator." I think it is safe to say that if all the other "Gods" got cancelled out, so can the last one.


I thought it was interesting how Darwin never used "the survival of the fittest" in his writings. I think that just goes to show how loosely based theories and facts are and cannot be depended. What if whoever came up with "the survival of the fittest" was talking about bowl movements?

"A popular misnomer, the 'food chain' is not actually a linear chain but a complex web. Energy is passed from one organism to another in a complex network like a spider's web." I agree with this statement more than the one we talked about in class that it is like a pyramid.


Why do things die?
Because they live.

The Absurdity of Existence

The three theses of existentialism are:

1) Existence precedes essence

2) The absurdity of existence

3) Radical freedom

As I catch up on my blogs (with this new week I have 6 more to go), I will be discussing the second thesis, the absurdity of existence.

In chapter 12, the one on existentialism, Pojman talks about the existentialist Albert Camus who believed the only philosophical question worth pondering is that of suicide. A quote from this section that popped out at me was, "An act like this [suicide] is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art. The man himself is ignorant of it." (192)

I thought it odd of him to choose to compare suicide to art-- although that is not exactly what he is doing. Let me explain what I think he means: when one makes a great work of art- be it visual, musical, theatrical, etc.- it comes from a deep place inside a person, usually from sorrow or another negative emotion. Since he used the word 'silence' of the heart I think it would mean that the person would have to produce the artwork alone, as a person would have to commit suicide alone.

In this chapter Camus compares our existence to Greek mythology: Sisyphus having to keep rolling a bolder up a mountain his whole life and the average person's tedious everyday life. However, I think that if we did not have our 'absurd' everyday habitual patterns, we would go crazy with no routine, and eventually go back to a pattern.

Nietzsche; one BAMF

A man by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "whatever doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." Being raised by 'pious, fussy women' who always told him to 'be careful', Nietzsche developed the theory that one should not live as if they are dying. That is, he was an adventurer who believed that stimuli was provoked by pleasure and pain; not just pain as most other pessimistic philosophers before him believed.

Nietzsche's theories are perfect examples that human nature is partly influenced by nuture. While Nietzche did not grow up to be fearful of everything like his guardians would have expected him to do, he did grow up to go out and seek adventure- something that may not of happened would he have been raised in a different environment.

Kierkegaard & the Leap of Faith

Once upon a Nature of Human Nature class, Professor Johnson brought in tape cassette and told the students that he was going to try something new. What the eager honors students didn't know was that this tape cassette was actually a guest lecturer in disguise of a tape cassette. The guest lecturer, whose name escapes me, gives insight to the philosophies of Soren Aabye Kierkegaard.

While I did not enjoy the tone of this lecturer's voice at all, I did enjoy what he had to say about Kierkegaard. I think I got more out of it than I would have reading it out of a book.

The lecturer, Professor Carey, introduces Kierkegaard as a radical Christian who was the first existentialist because he was really the first person to question (and attempt to answer) "where does one's own existence fit in to the world surrounding him/her?" From there, Professor Carey begins to tackle, as he supposes Kierkegaard would, Kierkegaard's view of a the "leap of faith."

This "leap of faith" idea of really stuck with me. As Professor Carey made the distinction between reason and faith- reason being proof and faith being believing for oneself, the leap of faith becomes paradoxical. The 'leap' that Kierkegaard is referring to is over a ditch, over eternity and time. There were some philosophers (I can't think of their names right now) who questioned his theory saying, "how do I get from believing about Jesus...I can't seem to make this leap." Instead of just saying "God will help you" or something to that effect, Kierkegaard had a theory of "inwardness". It was this inwardness that would get you to make the leap. However, you had to do it on your own and it could not be directly communicated.

The Ever Present Aspect of Religion

... And still blogging about Freud. I agreed with Freud's view on how religion is an illusion and how children's parents (usually the father) is viewed as "god-like" and powerful. What I got out of reading Freud's religion section [in Pojman's book] was that parents usually instill some kind of religious aspect into their child's world, whether the child wants to be open to it or not. When the child reaches around the age where he/she is able to form peer groups (friendships, cliques, crowds), he/she may see that the stance they have taken on religion (because of what was forced on them as a child) is not the only one and may begin to question it. If faith in the family, as well as family bonds are strong, the child will probably continue to stick with the families religion; if not the child who is now entering adolescence will venture off into different forms of religion or have none at all.

Personally, if I were to follow Freud's view that children viewed their father's as 'god-like', it would make perfect sense that I questioned my belief in the Roman Catholic faith at age 11, when my parents finalized their divorce, 8 years after my dad cheated on my mom, moved out, and left her with me and my two brothers. Being raised in the Catholic religion, I didn't see why it was fair that I had to go to CCD every week, when they're wasn't even a god; my dad committed adultery and my parents got divorced- two things that were shunned in The Bible. So, why should I be the one to sit through an hour of bullshit of some lady telling me that Jesus walked on water and healed the sick? My family didn't even go to church anymore. So I told my mom I didn't believe in god and that I wasn't going to be a Catholic anymore. And I'm not ever going to god damn CCD again.