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.

S. Freud II

What I did like about Freud was that he believed all behavior was caused by antecedent affairs. Things such as slips of the tongue, dreaming, hallucinating, neurosis, repressing memories, and psychosis are caused by forces in the mind in relation to one's environment. Freud saw it as his mission to discover the nature of these causes and by understanding them, could act as a therapist for a patient and make changes for the better. A part of his theory stated that the patient was not morally responsible for his or her neurosis; that the state of their mental being came from influences brought upon us.

I agree with Freud here in the cases of people having chemical imbalances, growing up in situations that they can't help, and other events that would lead to situations of neurosis and the like. I do not agree with him in the way that, I'm assuming, all patients are responsible for their neurosis: what about a patient who ends up with a disorder because of decisions that they consciously made and they knew would lead to neurosis? I can't think of an extremely good example, but I know there are some out there. I just think their are some people out their who are responsible for the actions they make and cannot blame it on the forces in their mind.

S. Freud

Sigmund Freud is the most complicated philosopher we have read about thus far. He began what is referred to as the 'sexual revolution'. While I agree with many of of Freud's theories, I do not agree with his view on human nature that the sex drive is the most powerful drive in humans. One reason is that he contradicts himself (or rather Pojman contradicts what Freud believes in Freud's words) directly after this statement: he says that everyone has varied sexual drives. So, how can the sexual drive be the most powerful force in the human being if some people repress the drive out?

I also don't agree with Freud's argument that women tend to have weaker sexual drives then men. I think that the sexual drive depends biologically on the individual personal (not relating to their gender) and is affected by their surroundings. Saying that women were more likely to get a psychoneurotic illness is unrelated to the sexual drive. Freud's theory may have been more likely back in the early 1900s because people were unsure of what to diagnose a person as, but is definitely not true today because both men and women are equally able to be neurotic.

Oh, and I never hoped I'd get a penis.

International Socialist Organization

In 10th grade I never thought of the word "socialist" as taboo, naughty, or something I should not be. In fact, I was part of a group called 'PVPA (my high school) Anti-War Act Coalition' (PAAC). The group was run by students, who were my age, and considered themselves to be socialists. Although, at the time, I wasn't quite sure what the term meant. I knew that they were very aware of what was going on politically at the time (with the war in Iraq) and would state their opinion in a very textbook manner whenever they could. In my short time at PAAC I attended one anti-war protest that took place at an army recruiting station, and actually forced them to shut down forth night. I also went to an International Socialist Organization (ISO) meeting. At this meeting people mainly talked about how the troops shouldn't be in Iraq, and they talked about their newspaper, which members have to sell in order to be a member. I'm being very general here but there's this http://www.internationalsocialist.org/what_we_stand_for.html .

So, I really don't understand why the term 'socialist' is so bad.

Karl Marx's Religious Opium

On pg. 161 in the text, Pojman references one of Marx's classical passages. The one part we discussed about in class was "Religious suffering...It is the opium of the people." The overall point that Marx was trying to make (or the point that I thought he was trying to make from the way everyone was analyzing this passage) was that he viewed religion as good and bad, which is a very different perspective for most philosophers* to view it.

He parallels religion (or religious suffering, I'm actually not sure) to the drug opium. The simplest analysis of this parallel is how [in Marx's view] in religion, one can suffer and one can be enlightened. The same is true for drugs: while using drugs, one can experience great feelings of ecstasy (which are similar to sensations felt in the religious world), and then they can also experience feelings of addiction and withdrawls (when the drug is taken away).

I wasn't sure I agreed with Marx's view that the only way someone can find salvation through [for example] a drug addiction is by filling that addiction with something else. Why can't they just take away the drug addiction and not have to replace it with something? However, his view did apply with religion. Most people who have religion removed from their lives usually replace it with something. Which goes back to Marx's saying 'religion is the opium of the people."

*This was one of the questions on my Q&A's but, was Marx's considered a philosopher? Or did he consider himself a philosopher? There is a quote on page 153, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." It seems as though Marx considered himself above the philosophers because they did not 'change the world', but did he?

Look at it This Way:

"Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing." - Ambrose Bierce

I'm not sure if we can blog about other things, but I was looking at philosophy quotes, and I found this one, so I'm going to blog about it. If it's not okay, I won't do it again.

While this is an extremely pessimistic view of philosophy, I do have to say I agree with Bierce. People [who practice some sort of philosophy] spend their whole lives on something that is based off of nothing and leads to nowhere (I realized I just rearranged the wording). However, I think it is accurate to say this definition could be loosely true for religion, and life. I realize I am being extremely pessimistic, but this definition pretty much sums up the definition of the existence of humans: we came from nowhere and we [at the rate we are going] will be nothing.

Go Ask Alice

Last class I wrote down, in quotes, "Knowledge is possible because we make it so." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was Schopenhauer furthering Kant's idea of the mind, the world and how they work together. I'm not sure why, but this sentence really struck me. Like, the only reason I have knowledge of something, is because I make it that way. I make up my own knowledge. This idea is almost unattainable to me, the idea that, for example, in class, the tree that is the tree, and the tree that is in our minds.

In any event, I loved Schopenhauer's view of the mind and the world as one.

Je pense, donc je suis.

Translated to English, it- "I think therefore I am". I like how it sounds it French better than in English. Pictured above, a very nice gentleman has done the infamous pose of "The Thinker" (which is also French, Le Penseur).

"The Thinker (French: Le Penseur) is a bronze and marble sculpture by Auguste Rodin held in the Musée Rodin in Paris. It depicts a man in sober meditation battling with a powerful internal struggle[citation needed]. It is often used to represent philosophy." - Wikipedia

I like how The Thinker is representing something, someone's philosophy and it's frozen in time. Although it has been casted over, at a bigger scale and also re-named from "The Poet" to "The Thinker"- the idea remains the same. I think it's easier for me to relate art and philosophy together, being an amature artist than it is to relate my own philosophical ideas to other philosophers. However, maybe that it is because I could not be opening my mind up enough to such ideas.

You Say Tomato and I Say Tomoto,

... but it's all the same idea.

When I was reading Chapter 8 "Immanuel Kant's Copernican Revolution", I did not really get the idea that his theories were quite unique. This is because many of his theories and ideas reminded me of the Hindu and Buddhist religions. An example of this is on page 126 in the text, "For every change there is an antecedent event which is necessarily connected with it." Karma, anyone? The Law of Karma (in the Hindu religion) has to do with moral justice and reincarnation. In the Buddhist religion it is simply a cause and effect action; every action has a an effect: bad action= bad effect, good action=good effect; but there is no reincarnation. So, when Pojman discusses Kant's view of the above quote, he is implying that Kant thought of that theory all by himself. However I suppose this could be the idea of 'people thinking of similar thoughts/theories at different/same time in different parts of the world' deal. I just don't understand that if his idea is so 'revolutionary', why don't people think that the Buddhist/Hindu aspects of religion are as well if they are so similar?

Hobbes

I would like this post to be counted for last week. Just pretend that I made it last Friday. So, it's actually October the 3rd, 2008 right now, okay? Okay. I'm not sure if I can do that, but I will attempt to anyways.

Question #3 on page 120 in Who Are We? particularly caught my interest. Pojman asks: Is Hobbes' view of human nature accurate? Do we always act out of the motivations of fear and distrust? Are people entirely self-interested egoists? Is psychological egoism, the view that we always do what we perceive to be in our best interest, too bleak and one-sided?

To answer Pojman's first question, no, in my opinion Hobbes' view of human nature is not accurate. To support my argument, I'll first state (in short) Hobbes' view of human nature: "(1) humans are selfish egoists, (2) life is tragic, and (3) morality and strong government are necessary to constrain humans and provide a deterrent against mischief." (Pojman 110) Hobbes had a very pessimistic view on human nature, which is a new view on human nature I have read about thus far. It seems a very small portion of people have this outlook on human nature.

The second question out of the series of question 3 is an extreme one. Using the word always in reference to humans is difficult because I believe that unlike Hobbes' comparison of humans to machines, humans are, in fact, NOT machines, but beings and are ever changing, in constant change, every day. Humans cannot always act out of the motivations of fear and distrust because that leaves out all of the other human emotions that play a part in living- love, jealousy, hate, curiosity, etc. So, to say that a human is always acting out of the same emotion implies that we are similar to machines, which is what Hobbes' what theorizing, which is what I disagree with.

The third question's answer is similar to that of the paragraph above. If people were entirely self-interested egoists, wouldn't that mean that we were all the same, at the same time? What makes humans so unique is that we, in some way or another, are different. Sure, we have some similar qualities, but can one find someone out there who you identify yourself with inside and out? I also wanted to make the point that the only way one could be an entirely self-interested egoist or always acting out of fear and distrust is if they were forced into that situation (i.e. "The Lord of the Flies" and "1984")

As for the last question, I don't know too much about psychological egoism, except for first hand experience and observation of others doing it, but I think since the word 'perceive' is in the definition of the word, we are not always doing what is really in our best interest. Since perception is different for everyone, I guess it would be one-sided if we are only looking at "what is in my best interest for _______" if we are solely concentrating on ourselves.

My Philosophy

Alright. I'm already starting to slack on these blogs and it's barely October. But here it goes:

I've noticed on the blogs (that I've read) and not commented on (because I just don't feel that comfortable commented on everybody's blog-- I don't want to be a blog whore) that a lot of people summarize what we talk about in class or other philosopher's philosophies. Now, don't get me wrong, if that's cool to do then, cool, but I thought these 'blogs' were to develop our own ideas, our own philosophies on life. I suppose they're probably for both-- am I right?

Anyways, I'm beginning to develop a philosophy of my own, but of course, it won't really be mine, because it will be influenced by things I've heard, read, and seen. Hell, maybe it may have been influenced by my previous life, if I've had one, or several. Right now my thoughts on humans are that they need other humans. I'd like to see one who doesn't, today.

The Existence of Socrates

This is something I wanted to ask in class, but I didn't want to feel and/or look stupid. Instead, I shall blog about it: did Socrates exist? All we really know about Socrates is what Plato has "said" he said. Did Plato just make him up. Was Socrates a figment of Plato's imagination. Was Plato crazy? We'll never know.

I don't understand how someone can live by someone else's guildlines to life (Plato's, Aristotle's, etc). Why not make you own? Is it because everything that we know is influenced by what we read, see, and hear and therefore have no unique thoughts? I'm babbling. I guess what I am trying to say is, are there any unique ideas today? If people around the world were having the same ideas around the world at once (flying) and then Plato's ideas of the forms and then you lose it through reincarnation. IJUSTDON'TGETIT.

Philosophy and I

Philosophy: "Hi."

Me: "..."

(End)

Like oil and water, philosophy and I do not mix, er, rather communicate. I'm not sure I can even think in a philosophical sense. So, when I am blogging, asking questions in class, or mumbling something in classing, I'm merely poking out into the dark. Is this what philosophers do in general? Poke out in the dark until something makes sense to them? Why does there have to be an explanation for everything? I'm going to talk about science for a bit. Just because someone 'proves' something with an equation with science, doesn't make it true. What are numbers and letters? Something humans made up so they could use as a way to count and spell and therefore communicate and further/complex their existence. It scares me that everything I know is just something someone else made up.

But maybe I'm crazy and this makes absolutely no sense to anyone whatsoever.

Language

The question of whether or not logos (word and reason) was the primary reason that humans could communicate with God; or simply with the language that we as humans have, we are able to reason. Does this reasoning, however, let us communicate with God was the question asked in class. This is not what my post will be about.

Why is it that humans use language to make their lives so complex? Why is it so hard to say 'what you really mean' or 'how you really feel'? In Alaska, there are more than 7 different words for snow and how it falls. Why don't we have that here? Well, I supposed it has something to do with the climate, but why don't more people know about the 7 different words for snow? Is it because they don't need to know it? Why do people feel the need to use extremely large words that the average person has no idea as to what it means? And then when the average person asks them to define it, the person who said the extremely large word is unable to give an accurate and understandable definition.

Free Flowing Thoughts

So, my attempt at video blogging failed. I did make a video blog, however I was unable to post it to the website. I will try to summarize what I said in my video:

During class on Monday, the class (or more accurately the same few students) discussed (or more accurately argued) about the various kinds of the Christian religion, the Bible and its meaning, and Jesus, the Radical One. My question is (to Professor DKJ and anyone else who chooses to answer) why is it that Who Are We? by Pojman keeps turning back to religion when the question of the book is "who are we?" Is the answer to human nature religion? Do humans make up ideas because that is how they have to cope with the world around them?

If one is going to make any reference to the Bible, one has to realize that no one knows who wrote it. And, if they did write it, it is all opinionated bullshit similar to what I am writing right now. Why does one choose to listen to anything they read or hear? That answer is based off of some pre-cognitive decision of what the listener or reader already knows and is willing to know and know because of the world around him or her.

(I want people to know that I do not go over my posts before I post them, because then they would not be my free flowing thought, but rather some essay-like assignment that is not of my creative mind.)
(I do, however, use spellcheck.)
(P.S. I said none of this in my video)

What If There Were No Laws?

This is a question that popped into my head last class (Wednesday), although I'm sure it has crossed my mind before. I believe we were discussing whether people are born with a clean slate, innately 'good' or innately 'bad'. Someone (in the class) came up with the notion that it is because of the laws of society that people behave the way they do. What I don't understand or comprehend or not know that I don't know is what about before the word 'law'? Before language? Before 'good' and 'bad'? And why is 'good' and 'bad' the way that it is? Who comes up with the word for it, decides what defines it and what can be categorized under it? Is it society? Why is it 'bad' to not be 'good'. Ooh, I'm losing my point. So, what if there were no laws? I know, well I don't know, but I think many people do think about this question. The world may wreak havoc and possibly destroy itself, because people do like to have some structure in their life. And if there were any future generations they could become innately bad. Or, possibly, because no one can say for sure, because laws are something that we as humans do not like to follow or like to break, the freeness of not having them would provide for an open environment, where people could just be.

"The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living"

Today in class, someone quoted Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I believe this quote can be interpreted in a number of ways.

First off, the way Socrates would have wanted his philosophy to be interpreted. What did he mean by unexamined? There are many different definitions for examined today (carefully observed, tested, legal inquistion, etc); however did examine have a different definition when Socrates used it? What/whose life is Socrates talking about? Is he talking about one's (let's say mine) life, or life in general?

I also think that one can possibly overexamine their life (or maybe someone else's) to some aspect. So, how do you know if you've examined your life enough, Socrates? When is it worth living?

The way I interpreted the quote is such that one should question everything. Do not take everything in without an answer for why it is the way it is. I strongly disagree that anyone can say someone's life is not worth living. It does not matter your political, religious, moral, ethical, racial, gender, or sexual orientation standing. This is kind of a rant and off topic.