What I’ve learned from IB Philosophy this year

Herclitus -

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice”
• Flux and constant change are the thread of life.

Parmenides -

• Change is impossible and existence is both timeless and unchanging.

Hume -

• You can only assume that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you don’t KNOW it is.
• Reason always is rooted in our passions, first and foremost.
• You have to trust your sensory perceptions, because you need to be aware of your surroundings in order to get anywhere.
• If you ignore the context under which you are operating, then you are lost.

Descartes -

• To “know” anything, you must first doubt everything.
• Only by looking at the limitations of your knowledge can you realize any truths about the world.
• There is so much to be gained from thinking rationally about a subject, trying to anlzye it without bias and without subjectivity.

Nietzsche -

• By existing, you have the will to exist, you want to exist, and nobody can take that away from you.
• The Church, or any other powerful institution like it, will always look to control people. Life is about going through a process of self-affirmation and realizing your own value and worth.

Kierkegaard -

• How to look at events from a teleological perspective, and how to recognize the limitations of that sort of thinking.
• How to live in the moment.
• Your existence in this very moment, the fact that you are alive, conscious, and can make decisions is something that is absolutely incredible.

Plato -

• The importance of justice.
• Why do people act well?
• Because they need to be just.
• But WHY?
• How important it is to look at all sides of an issue to reach a consensus, because if you only approach something from a single viewpoint, you lose the valuable aspect of preventing a completely insular view.

Marx -

• You only get out of something what you put into it.
• Your identity is based off of your job because how else can you identiy yourself, if not by that which you contribute to this world?

Hegel -

• You cannot live as a hermit, you must integrate yourself to others.
• You are not dependent on others to form your identity, but you only realize yourself by connecting and talking with others.

Buddhism -

• You do not exist in a bubble - everything is a part of something else.
• We do not exist as seperate beings; we need to rid ourselves of the notion of the Western Ego.
• “If we look closely at both the concepts of defiled and immaculate, we return to the notion of inter-being.”

Kant -

• Treat others how you want to be treated.
• Respect other people’s autonomy.
• Look at other people not as a means to an end, but as end-in-themselves.

Wittgenstein -

• Never generalize anything - everything exists as a unique instance.
• There are certain things that cannot be expressed through words.
• The best kind of learning is experiential learning.

In conclusion, in philosophy, you can have both the essence and existence. Both the Dao and the self. Both oneness and a soul. In philosophy, it’s all about what you want to do with your life, and the choices you make. It’s about realizing what surrounds you, and realizing that you are a part of it. Philosophy, like life, is all about inspiration.

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!