Severus Snape

So, while reading Plato's Republic, on page 45, I read Glaucon's account of the perfectly "just" man - and got that eureka! moment. This description came when Glaucon was saying that one needed to have a perfectly just man and a perfectly unjust man, and judge them against each other to determine which was indeed happier. And his description of the perfectly just man was strikingly similar to many movies and TV shows that I have seen. "Our just man must have the worst of reputations for wrongdoing even though he has done no wrong". My first two thoughts were Severus Snape from Harry Potter and House, played by Hugh Laurie in the TV series, House.
Both of these characters are ones whom you only learn about their amazing sense of ethics in very short bursts or at the very end of their life. Their entire "justness" is concealed in their "UNjustness" - and Glaucon argues that the truly just man is always SEEN to be unjust, while the truly unjust man is seen to be just.
The fact that this idea is still prevalent in modern society is a testament to its accuracy. I personally always thought that Snape was just the most self-serving coward who lacked any ethics at all. He is then, at the end of the books, shown to be the one who, in fact, has some of the highest ethical standards.
House plays this mean doctor who seems to be all in it for himself. He shows no empathy for anyone else and actually delights in their misery. However, every now and then there are slight glimmers of him in which you realize, wow, he is actually super-empathetic and CARES so much - but he has to hide it under this shell of aloofness and cruelty.
I just wonder if there is any credence to this theory. Are the people who actually seem to not care at all some remarkable human beings, while some other angelesque people are, in fact, quite malicious? It seems to be the case with most politicians at least. Or is there a more murky, not as clear-cut definition of the "just" and "unjust" person?

Last quote! (V for Vendetta as well)

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

this is a variation of :
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

V for Vendetta quote (November 5th!)

It seems strange that my life should end in such a terrible place, but for three years I had roses and apologized to no one. I shall die here. Every inch of me shall perish. Every inch, but one. An inch. It is small and it is fragile and it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must NEVER let them take it from us. I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the worlds turns, and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you.
-Valerie.

Sartre quote

You and me are real people, operating in a real world. We are not figments of each other’s imagination. I am the architect of my own self, my own character and destiny. It is no use whining about what I might have been, I am the things I have done and nothing more. We are all free, completely free. We can each do any damn thing we want. Which is more than most of us dare to imagine.
-Jean Paul Sartre

Hegel was on to something

So, I've been thinking about Hegel's idea of mutual recognition (thank you Anne and Nomka! - the two Sartre quotes), and I'm pretty sure that Hegel has a good idea. His whole concept of only being able to attain this level of self-consciousness through mutual recognition was a little confusing at first, and, in fact, I considered it downright incorrect. However, thinking on it more, I have discovered more validity in this statement. Sure, you can be yourself, define yourself by your own morals, and not by what others may think of you, but there is also a part, a significant part of you which is STRONGLY influenced by others. We have no control over this influence for at least the first 13-15 years of our life, because we are not consciousness of it. But I think the point that Hegel is trying to make, or at least what I'm getting out of it, is that by realizing that this other influence exists, and   that it is exerting influence on you, you are able to understand yourself more fully. This recognition of the other being's recognition of YOU is what allows us to understand ourselves to the greatest extent.

Truths

1. Everything is subjective


2. Nothing is absolute


3. Life is inherently meaningless - which therefore provokes its meaning. This is a representation of Hegel's mutual self-recognition. By acknowledging that life is meaningless, you are acknowledging the existence, and power struggle of this object of life itself. By acknowledging this, and having it acknowledge you (in the process of recognition) you are given self-consciousness - a rise to purpose. 


4. The point of life is to be happy

Hegel Questions

Paragraph on page 10: Consciousness, Self-Consciousness, Desire, what are they?

• Consciousness: Recognition or awareness of an object
• Self-Consciousness: A full understanding of who you are - awareness of self
• Desire: the practical activity of negating objects, ‘In Hegel’s own words, the origin of desire is thus the fact that “self-consciousness is . . . essentially the return from otherness.”’ - how we get to self-consciousness?

Paragraph 2 on p.10 - What does it remind you of?
Hume - sensory perception is only way to attain this self-consciousness

p.11 “sensous certainty” to “absolute knowing” -define

• sensuous certainty - consciousness from its most primitive or naïve form
• absolute knowing - consciousness in its most mature form = self-consciouness

p.11, “this, here, now”, “many nows, many heres”

• time is a series of individual immediacies
• consciousness and time are intertwined
• through perception you gain self-consciousness

p.11 “perception ceases and becomes understanding”

• this is the maturation of consciousness into self-consciousness
• “Perception ends up distinguishing between the manifold character and the inner unity of the object. As soon as it regards its object as having an inner unity, however, it ceases to be mere perception and becomes understanding”
• Perception is an attempt to grasp a concept, object, anything
• Understanding is a state of consciousness
• It’s like an enlightenment
• Pure, internalized, comprehension

p.13 - Unity of the one with itself

• “Note that what we desire, in Hegel’s view, is not the object as such, but rather, as Jean Hyppolite puts it, “the unity of the I with itself.” If Hegel is right, in seeking to enjoy the object, we are in fact seeking to enjoy ourselves.”

top of p.15 bottom of 1st Paragraph

• ‘The logic of self-consciousness demands, however, that we achieve self-certainty in relating to objects that retain their independence from us. We can satisfy this demand only by relating to an object that negates itself but that is “equally independent in this negativity of itself.” Such an object, Hegel maintains, cannot merely be a living thing (or an inorganic object), but must be another consciousness or self- consciousness. Consequently, “self-consciousness achieves its satisfaction only in another self-consciousness.”’

Last 2 paragraphs of page 17

• Hegel truly believes that genuine, mutual recognition is possible, but almost all post-Hegelians disagree and state that it is, at most, simply idealist, and can be viewed a a moral ideal in an essentially imperfect world
• saying that Hegel is too optimistic - believes in the good in people

“Intersubectivity” - page 18

• only enlightened people have a lack of social conflict
• mutual recognitions of self-consciousnesses

Page 19, 4th paragraph down, “mutual....”

• ‘Mutual recognition, for Hegel, requires the uncoerced cooperation of the two (or more) self-consciousnesses involved. Indeed, not only must the two self- consciousnesses freely recognize one another; in fact, they must both recognize that their mutual recognition and cooperation is needed for either to be concretely and objectively self-conscious. In Hegel’s own words, they must “recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.”’
• pretty self-explanatory

How is the entire world contained in this piece of paper?

Mr. Summers asked us an interesting question last class, while holding up a plain piece of blank, white, printer paper - "How is the entire world contained in this piece of paper?"

And honestly, I don't know the answer.

If I would have to guess, I would say that it is something involving the fact that the paper is blank - there is absolutely nothing written on it. Therefore, it has pure potentiality. Which is kinda like the whole world - there is unlimited potential to achieve anything we want, anything we desire, and anything we can even imagine. Which is absolutely incredible!

But that's just my take on it.

Websites to read for hw - 10/25/11

1. http://files.meetup.com/299745/hegel%20descartes%20marx.pdf

2. http://www.matthewtgrant.com/2010/06/09/the-web-of-intentions/

Three items that I want right now, in 6 months, and in 5 years

New shoes

Graduate

Switzerland

I chose each of these because:
1. New shoes - my current running shoes are about 3-4 months old and have approximately 5 sizable holes in them. Some new ones would be much appreciated - and much more comfy. There are a representation of my self-consciousness because they show my passion, as well as commitment to running.

2. Graduate- I want to graduate in six months. That would be ideal. It's not really a fear that I wouldn't be able to, but it is a nice thought to know that I will. I think this represents my self-consciousness because it demonstrates my love of knowledge, and my goal of pursuing further education.

3. Switzerland! - This is where I want to be in 5 years. I am currently applying to Franklin College Switzerland, which is my top choice. It would be absolutely amazing to me if I got in, and I think this is why it represents part of my self-consciousness, because it shows how much I want to travel, and learn about foreign cultures, and languages, etc.

Read the beginning of this article

http://psg275.bham.ac.uk/personal/braithwaitej/Critical%20Thinkingv6.pdf

Quote of the day!

Every age has its own poetry; in every age the circumstances of history choose a nation, a race, a class to take up the torch by creating situations that can be expressed or transcended only through poetry. 
-Jean-Paul Sartre

How terribly sad it was that people are made in such a way that they get used to something as extraordinary as living.

Jostein Gaarder

Reflection on Kierkegaard vs Nietzsche debate

Firstly, I'm going to post my question and response on my blog.

What is the most fundamental aspect of the human condition?
We’ve defined the human condition as the experiences of being human. So then, Nietzsche asks, What motivates us as human beings? What wills us to do things?
The Will to Power. This is broken down into 3 parts.
Will to Power:

• Primal Will - The primal will is all about CHOICE. It is the basis of consciousness. This was influenced by Schopenhauer’s emphasis on will, specifically of the "will to live". This primal will allows us to exist. Example: you choose to be born.
• Child’s Will - Born from the primal will, b/c we cannot isolate the will, the Child’s will is all about survival. Individual self-affirmation over doubt. “the spirit now will’s its own will” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) “sacred yes of the child”; saying yes to life
• Will to Power - The final “stage”, the will to power is about looking to achieve the ability to be powerful in all situations. You are the master of your own destiny (which is motivated by your want for power)

The person who achieves this will to power, has done so through conscious action.
We’ll touch on this later, but the “good” and “bad”, the “master and slave” morality which we’ll get to later is all about the good having this “will to power” and the bad not having it, and thus wanting it.
In conclusion, Mr. Summers said that "We either do or we do not," a very concise way of saying that we are given a choice (primal will) and then we must make a decision (a child's will). This leads to the will to power.

That was my response to our first question.

In reflection about both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard though, I feel that it is almost odd to debate them, as they aren't exactly opposites of each other. True, they each have different methods for thinking about the human condition, with Nietzsche thinking of the Will to Power and Kierkegaard thinking about his atheistic, ethical, and faith stages (the teleological suspension of the ethical), but I feel as if the main point of contention is just that - how they deal with this "fear and trembling" that comes with being human. However, the methods in which they deal with it aren't directly opposing. Nietzsche is focusing on the present, on the Dionysian pleasure, while Kierkegaard is focusing on attempting to escape this suffering through religion. They are both just simply existentialists who have different opinions on the role that religion should play in the daily life of the average human.

Critical Reading of an Essay's Argument

I'm going to try to bring this up in class.

Critical Reading of an Essay's Argument:

'via Blog this'

Notes From a Dragon Mom - NYTimes.com

Reading this article actually connects both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's existentialist philosophies, and makes me see and understand how they relate to my own life.

Notes From a Dragon Mom - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Digital Nation

I'll create this when we finish the video......

List of classmate's websites

http://philosophyramblings.wordpress.com/
http://anne-philosophyblog.blogspot.com/
http://philogibberish.blogspot.com/
http://perhapssomephilosophicalthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://lifeintherabbitfur.blogspot.com/
http://alexstephanson.blogspot.com/
http://hothemcity.blogspot.com/
http://thinkingblog.tumblr.com/
http://japhilosophy.blogspot.com/ ( need to be invited to this one!)
http://kdvallejos.blogspot.com/
http://nomkasworld.tumblr.com/
http://lgphilosophy.blogspot.com/
http://21centuryphilosopher.blogspot.com/

All these people are fantastic!! :)

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides debate

Since I was not there last week for our debate on Heraclitus vs. Parmenides, I'm going to state how I would have argued a few points for each of them.
1. The issue of change.

• Heraclitus argues that there is ever-present change in the universe, as stated in his famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice".  (this idea of universal flux)
• Parmenides, on the other hand, would state that change is impossible because nothing can come from nothing, and that existence is necessarily eternal. - Existence is timeless.

2. "Unity of Opposites"

• Heraclitus believed in the unity of opposites, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same", all existing things being characterized by pairs of contrary properties.
• Parmenides would stalk about the unity of nature and its variety, as discussed in his only known work, a poem entitled, On Nature.

3. Logos -

• Heraclitus and Parmenides would actually agree on the importance of logos. Heraclitus would apply it more to his idea of universal flux, and would say that everything is in accordance with logos in a constantly-shifting world. Parmenides would say that the logos is the only true method of discovering the truth, because sensory perceptions (the doxa) can be deceptive. 

Descartes point of view during the argument

So, if I was Descartes, arguing against Hume, I would have hammered home my method of doubt even more, turning Hume's favorite question, "How do you know?" back on Hume. I would have said, there is no way to know anything for sure, thus, you must doubt anything. "How do you know?" - I am a thinking substance, but all your senses can deceive you, you don't know ANYTHING for certain. Using your inductive reasoning, you can only make uncertain knowledge, only form assumptions about anything. There is no deductive reasoning, no certainty anywhere. Lastly, Hume's statement, "Reason is the slave of the passions" is ludicrous, because there is no pure passion, there is only logical and rational reasoning, which comes first and foremost before all emotions.

Reflection on Hume versus Descartes

Thinking back on the debate we had on Friday of Hume vs. Descartes, first, I thought that it was a fantastic experience. I unfortunately wasn't there for our first debate of the year on Monday, so I'm glad we had another one this soon. I also felt that every single person really contributed something of importance, and that each group really worked together very well. A few things from the debate were very poignant to me. These would be:
1. The Cogito Proof that Jasmine and Karen presented - This was the argument that Descartes initial assumption, "I think" is, in itself, flawed. This is because Descartes truly does not know whether or not he really exists. Yes, I know, he feels that the fact that he is a rational, thinking substance, is something which can pass his "method of doubt," but in reality, it cannot. Everything is doubtable.
This really leads me to think what the purpose of life is. Because if everything is doubtable, then what is your purpose in life? What is the point if you can never determine what is real, what is completely objective to everything else?
However, as I'm typing this, I came across the thought, is love doubtable? Which I do not know the answer to.....which is disquieting. I feel as if an emotion that strong should pass the "method of doubt" test.
Maybe I'm just a solipsist.

Hume vs. Descartes

So today we decided that we are going to have a debate on Friday, on Hume versus Descartes. I'm on Hume's side.
So we basically have to have a rationalist vs. empiricist debate, which I've been looking forward to since reading Sophie's World. It's very interesting, because I feel as if I want to ideally follow the rationalists view, but I feel as if I personally agree with the empiricists, especially Hume's line, "Reason is the slave of the passions," because I really do feel that the first reaction to any situation is NOT logical, but based on your emotions, and passions. However, there is also the irrational response, which is backed by rationalists. Therefore, I think, on the whole, that I simply agree with Kant. I feel that both views have valid points, but only by including both can we really get a true picture.
This is a nice connection to Taoism, which I studied a bit for English this year. In Taoism, one of the main themes is the taijitu, or more commonly known as the yin and yang symbol. In this, Taoism states that nothing can exist without part of the other, and that "seemingly opposite things actually give rise to each other." But I haven't fully developed this idea. Maybe it will appear during the debate on Friday!

Quote of the day

"How you see the world is the same as how you react to fear"

Sophie’s World Essay (Online Submission)

Sophie’s World Essay

This book that we read over the summer has been one of my favorite books of all time. I think this is because it tells of and describes all these different philosophies, as well as simply these vastly different methods of thinking. And it wasn’t only just the content which astounded me. It was the method in which it was communicated to the reader. Gaarder (through Alberto) didn’t try to promote any philosopher, or state anything in his novel as an absolute truth. He simply stated that each of these different schools of thought exist, and allowed the reader take their pick, and decide for themselves if they wanted to believe it or not. There were certain philosophers who I adamantly agreed with on all points, and then there were others who I was certainly skeptical, if not downright angry with. An example of this later point was Sigmund Freud. Personally, I disagree with a vast amount of his theories. However, there are a few others which I have to admit that I feel a strong basis for truth about. If I had to state my favorite philosopher in the book though, it would be Rene Descartes.
Descartes is described in Sophie’s World as believing, “...that certain knowledge is only attainable through reason” (p.230). This statement correctly identifies Descartes as a rationalist. Being a rationalist, Descartes then relied heavily, if not solely, on his reason and logic to come to all conclusions about the world and reality. However, using this basis of reason, he quickly figured out that all the knowledge of philosophy passed down from the Middle Ages, “was not necessarily reliable” (p.230). Thus, this prompted Descartes to construct his own philosophical system, from the ground-up, thereby vastly limiting the possibilities for doubt. Soon, Descartes arrived at the point where he simply doubted everything. But this is where Descartes differed from many others. He figured, since I can doubt, I can think, which means I must exists - Cogito, ergo sum - I think, therefore I am (p.235).

This statement, I had heard before. It was not a new concept, or a new phrase. But the explanation which proceeded it, and the clarity with which it was expressed, let me truly understand this idea of “I think, therefore I am.” It was an epiphany moment of mine. I realized, truly, fully realized what this Latin phrase meant. For me, as a regular human being to be in the process of simply thinking, I was alive. I was more sure that I was alive, and self-consciousness than ever before. It was a fantastic moment of self-awareness.

Descartes’ rationalism also had another significant and profound effect on me. This was brought out during a discussion in class today. We talked about the differences between Descartes rationalism and Hume’s empiricism. This eventually led to a discussion about rationality versus emotions. And this was best summed up when Mr. Summers asked, “What is the strongest emotion?” The immediate response (me included) was “fear”. Almost instantly afterwards, people said, “wait, isn’t it love?” Thinking about this later totally blew my mind. It made me think, wait, what truly does control  or lead us? Our rational mind, or our emotions? Can a mutually exclusive relationship exist between them? This debate has made me question what rules the decisions that I myself make, and, to what extent, I really control them.

In short, this book has made me laugh, made me angry, made me question, but most of all it has made me think.

Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com

Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com:

'via Blog this'

Quote-A-Day

"How terribly sad it was that people are made in such a way that they get used to something as extraordinary as living."
- Jostein Gaarder (The Solitaire Mystery)

Mr. Summers' "speech"

Fun--I'm having fun--thinking about why it all works--it all develops itself--and that's what gets your excited to teach--fun learning should be fun--to those in Philosophy class who haven't participated much; we need to remove the shackles of our fear and anxiety over speaking up and not sounding perfect--if ever the was in imperfect discipline or academic subject it is philosophy and its admission that all of our certainty is suspect and subject to revision and that we must be able to question and to question is to use our faculty of reason and to live in the questions ala Rainer Maria Rilke--live in the questions and enjoy the process--as it is more about process than it is about scoring points and achievement, it all has it's rightful place, and accolades are nice--however, they mask the journey and the processing of experience that are essential to the realization and often times we expect epiphanies when goals are reached, only to find a hollow feeling an emptiness as expectations unfulfilled leave us wanting and confused about what it is we are supposed to be feeling and where our expectations align with reality and how our human thirst for knowledge and experience won't let ourselves rest upon goals and accolades when we know there is always more to be done, more to be seen, more to be shared, more to absorb, more to contemplate and learn from, more of the vastness and expansion of the universe to taste, see, feel, hear and smell--this cycle of the season and life's eternal cycles, unending, unchanging, but promoting the illusion of change thanks to the essence of time, this, this great big embracing of the big unanswerable questions; of the life of the mind, of the curiosities and wonder and mystery of the world--yes--this--is--what--we--seek.

Classroom discussion (9/15) and Sophie's World questions 7-10

Will write more on this later.

Blindfold and Earplug activity on 9/14

On Wednesday, as a class, we put earplugs in, left school, and walked to a nearby park. We had to walk there the entire way without talking, and, while still not talking, explain to a partner our views on Philosophy. I partnered with Elaine. It was a magnificent experience. Without being able to talk, it was down to gestures. So I had to think of hand movements to represent words like "me", "thinking", "Philosophy", etc. It was difficult. We both kinda got our points across, but when we discussed it afterwards, we both found out that we had gotten a crucial fact or two wrong. This made me think about what happens when someone tells something else something, and due to a simple misunderstanding, or even not hearing an entire sentence, how something can be misconstrued into something entirely different. Also while we were walking back later, Elaine was telling me about when she visits family in a different country (I cant't remember the country at the moment), how she understands the language they're speaking, but can't speak it herself. So, when they ask her a question, she can say yes and no and such, but can't ask them questions, or tell them anything. She told me instead she had to learn to gesture quite a lot to them. This speaks loads to me. Even if you cannot speak the same language as someone, who's to say you cannot befriend them? Why, just because you can't usher forth the same sounds from your mouth, should you not be able to interact peacefully? It left a lot to think about.

The 2nd part of the activity was when we reached the park. There, we sat in a circle, and put on our blindfolds, with our earplugs still in.
to be continued.........

Class Discussions on 9/13/11 and Sophie's World Questions 4-6

"The hardest kind of thinking is thinking about thinking" Anna, aged 9

This was our morning quote, which prompted our discussion on metacognition. Also known as Introspection or reflection, this is the process of thinking about what thinking is.

There were some good points made, especially by Maddy, "What do blind people dream of?" and by Jasmine, talking about our blindfold experience and how things were suddenly "in the forefront of your mind."

This prompted me to think about Plato's world of ideas, and world of the senses. I wondered, what did blind people dream of? Could they imagine colors, and shapes? What credit did this give to Plato's world of ideas? Can you ever discover something without relating it back to something else for a frame of reference?

Emma also made a comment about how the premise of Sophie's World (questions 4) is about the "top hat, and the white hairs of the rabbit." She stated that Hilde's father wants her (Hilde) to be on the very tips of the fur.

Also on question 4, Jasmine made a comment about how no one is too young to think about the philosophical topics discussed in the book, and how these are actually some of the most important things to discuss - about who we are, what are purpose is, etc.

Lastly, Anne stated that Philosophy matters to everyone.

Question 5:

I stated my thoughts that one of the author's beliefs was women's rights. I think this because of the frequency of times that Alberto brings it up when discussing his plethora of philosophers.
Emma - I think the author made the subject a girl to show how women can also think critically.
Kevin - More women actually go to college than men.
Helen - Even though women can be more educated, you look at Forbes list of top 100 CEO's and they're almost all men ( referencing Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers)


Question 6:
Luke- Free will is illusion- look at Sophie within her world
Alex - How is anything we perceive, even if it's all an illusion, any less real, at least to us?
Maddy - Sophie and Alberto think they have free will, but do they really influence anything?


This last question got me to thinking about free will. Do we actually have free will or not? Is there such a thing as destiny? Do our choices matter? I was talking to Alex about this, and we thought, that maybe there is a sort of fate, but it's not all-encompassing. Maybe, as Hegel believes, there is this "world spirit" which ultimately leads us to this end point, but there are a couple different choices for us to choose from. It's like a combination of free will and destiny, but with limits on all your choices. For example, I have the choice or option of jumping out my window right now, but it's quite rainy, and I'm warm and cozy at the moment. So that is something that is so unlikely to happen that it actually limits my choices. Maybe free will DOES exist, but in stricter sense than we imagine.

Blindfold Activity

Today, the 9th of September, 2011, each person in the class partnered up and was blindfolded for a portion of time.

To me, this demonstrated quite a few things:
1) The empiricists belief in sensory perception.
2.) The importance of the emotions, specifically trust.
3.) The sharpened focus of my mind on the task at hand. It was quite similar to the day where Mr. Summers asked us to "feel" each and every step.
4) It highlighted each of the 4 senses that I had left. The fact that my hearing was more acute was the most obvious change.

I really liked this activity, and I felt that I was an excellent way of demonstrating what exactly we are able to perceive.

First day of Class

This was our first day of IB Philosophy, 3rd Period, with Mr. Summers. We discussed our first three questions about Sophie's World, eventually ending up with the question, "What defines reality?"

Also, our quote of the day was "Reason is the slave of the passion." - D. Hume

From this quote, we stated that Hume would prefer instinct and reaction over reason and response.