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.