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.