The objectives of this class are as follows: (1) to introduce you to some of the most important texts (literary and philosophical) in western civilization; (2) to introduce you to questions and problems that have been addressed in different ways by thinkers throughout history; and (3) to begin to teach you how to read difficult texts, think about them, and respond to them.
EXAM #6 GRADES:
76-84 = A
72 = A-
68 = B+
64 = B
60 = B-
56 = C+
52 = C
48 = C-
44 = D+
40 = D
textbook, chapter 7
**************************************
CUMULATIVE GROUP SCORES SO FAR
(as of April 26; total possible # of pts. = 30)
FINAL SCORES! ALL HAIL, TEAM HERCULES!
Here is the grade breakdown for discussion summary total scores:
19-30 = A
18 = A-
17 = B+
16 = B
13-15 = B-
10-12 = C+
9=C
TeamHercules 30
HeadlssHors 26
Hogwarts4evr 26
EPluribusUnum 25
AeschylusEtrs 24
FreefrmBndits 24
RedGlasses 24
Requiem 24
FatKids 23
NavajoTaco 23
ThisSparta! 23
ABA 22
Einherjar 22
Elements 22
Fantastic4 22
Prometheus 22
CountryFolk 21
Devious Disc 21
Dmbldore’sArmy 21
Mediocrates 21
Perseph’sCrew 21
Skeptics 21
Spinoza 21
Studder 21
WhatyaGot 21
Wunderbar 21
Cowgirl 21
4Strangers 20
Chargers 20
CndianAllstrs 20
DreamTeam 20
Governator 20
LttrDaySaints 20
Olympians 20
PhilGurus 20
Tchapnda 20
Athena 19
Barbarians 19
Charlie’sAngels 19
Neanderthals 19
Philoctetes 19
PingPongWrrs 19
Serendipity 19
TrojanHorses 19
AbsurdIdeals 18
AthnianGddss 18
BCT 18
Groupies 18
Jesus 18
SomthinGood 18
Pink 17
Platypus 16
Phoenix 15
Artisans 13
Philosophers 9
**************************************
Below I have left 3 sample discussion group summaries from the last time I taught 1320, along with my evaluation of them.
(Prepared by Steffanie) Our group discussed Aristotle’s belief that the mean between two extremes is virtuous. Virtue is another word for excellence. As our group discussed how excellence fits with Aristotle’s belief, we couldn’t pinpoint the two extremes as being anything specific. The idea was brought up that perhaps Aristotle is wrong. The question was asked: How can excellence have a high extreme? We should always be striving for greater excellence. Is there a point where you can have too much excellence? We didn’t believe so. Perhaps excellence is one of the extremes instead of being the mean, and therefore, instead of striving for the mean, we need to strive for the high extreme.
When considering the mean as being virtuous, we discussed the solutions to a disagreement of where the mean is. We decided that Aristotle would recommend them to talk to a person of practical wisdom in order to determine the mean, because Aristotle believes that the only one qualified to decide the mean is the one that he defines as having practical wisdom. Many questions rose from this though. What is practical wisdom? People are always learning, and always gaining more experience. To what extent do people have to go in order to possess practical wisdom? Can anyone possibly learn or experience everything? If practical wisdom is somewhere in between then where is it, and how do you determine that?
Through looking back at our lecture notes and the text, we decided that it is possible for everyone to have different means. This would solve the argument of where the mean is between two people because they don’t have to worry about finding a common mean between the two of them. Then the question was asked: if this is true, then how do we figure out our own mean? It was mentioned that Aristotle’s belief about a person with practical wisdom could play a role in this. According to Aristotle, one who has practical wisdom is one who has had a lot of experience, and therefore can see the bigger picture. Because of his wisdom, he’d understand his own mean better and could help others to understand theirs a little more.
We were left with uncertainty about how virtue can be a mean, what point do we need to reach in order to have practical wisdom, and is it possible for everyone to have different means.
This week one of our questions comes form the Plato’s writing the republic. As Plato tries to reason what a just person I brought up the question, What is a just person and do you agree with what Plato describes as a just person. As we all agreed that most people base there live personal morals. And this is for the individual to set these morals. So each person has to set for himself what is a just person. As a socitiy we have set boundries of what we this is just. Austin brought up a very good point. He said that some guy goes out and kills somebody may not be just in our minds and he is probaly going to get killed for what he did but we never know what was going through his head when he did this. So he might not be just in out eyes but in his reasoning he is justified for what he has done. But we reasoned as a whole that a just person will set his or her own morals ans a just person is going to live by them, weither they are just in one persons eye or not.
The second point that I (Tyson) wanted to bring up and discuss comes from question two on Nicomachean Ethics. Suppose two people disagree about where the mean is– for example, what seems courageous to one person might seem reckless to another. How might Aristotle recommend that the disagreement be settled? This is what I believe is like to each man his own. First we have to evaluate what courage is. to each person courage is something different. So in essence one person might think that somebody is courageous but on the other had the other person might think that it was nothing more then a good act. We settled on the fact that there is no set fact on what is being courageous so to each man his own. We also talked about how we have to be open minded and find a medium and live with it. No one person has the right to tell the other person that they did not do something courageous because it wold be a difference of opnion and and who is to say that one person is wrong for beliveing what he belives.
Prepared by: Michael
Our group decided to discuss Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics because, as we were reading the text, his philosophies really stood out to us. We were impressed that his views went largely unchallenged in western civilization for almost 1500 years. Aristotle points out that “Virtue”(excellence) is the intermediate or mean of most things. Personally, I had never thought this way before, but Aristotle points out that it is the balance between the excess and the deficiency of most qualities. Clayton said, “My initial thinking is that excellence is found at the very end of one side of a continuum and we are progressing toward the one end”. And Angie said, she thinks that there should be a “happy medium” in all qualities that are found in the human nature.
Ryan then pointed out that we really hadn’t thought much about this topic before taking this class and reading Aristotle in our text, and since reading the text he totally agrees with what Aristotle wrote about “virtue” being the mean that men strive for. Clayton agreed that Virtue is what men strive for but disagreed with some of his thoughts. Clayton mentioned that in “The Scarlet Letter” the woman who committed adultery was labeled as a bad person and in her community and was treated poorly. Clayton didn’t like the labeling that occurred because people think that you have to be the intermediate. We agreed that this does happen, but for the most part men do strive to be “good” or virtuous and to be good, men must stay in balance. I firmly believe that “Balance” is the key to life. As for the second question, we agreed that Aristotle would probably just say that wise men, those men of “practical wisdom” would set the continuum in place.
Just three quick comments on some of these reports.
1. I really like the report by The Three Amigos. They point out that Aristotle can’t mean that everything should be pursued in moderation; excellence, for example, should be pursued to the extreme. And they come up with a good, inventive answer to the question, “What if two people disagree about the mean?” At first they say, “Go ask someone with practical wisdom” — an answer several groups hit upon — but then they suggest that maybe it’s okay for two people to disagree about the mean, since they might be very different individuals, and what the mean is for one may not be the mean for the other. They go on to ask how individuals should find their own mean — which is a good question, and it’s good that they thought to raise it on their own.
2. The Super Troopers’ report is good. I especially like the fact that they brought in the problem of letting a broader society determine what behavior is appropriate (“The Scarlet Letter”). In the end, the group seems to understand and go along with Aristotle — “balance is the key to life” — though I can’t say they shed new light upon his view or introduce important problems for Aristotle to work out. The report received a “2″.
3. The 3 Musketeers are on to some interesting things — people in a society disagree about what’s appropriate, and sometimes you can’t know another person’s motive or intention — but I can’t say it engages with Aristotle’s proposal in a deep way. “Everybody needs to determine for themselves what’s right” is roughly their conclusion, but I doubt any one member of the group really believes that. (If they did, they’d be happy with whatever people decide about anything.) And, unfortunately, there’s some sort of error in almost every sentence. So the report received a “1″.
I hope these comments help groups to see more clearly what I’m looking for in the reports.
(Prepared by Emily) (Prepared by Emily) Our group discussed the dilemma between showing mercy and respect towards your enemies. We discussed that mercy is a characteristic often found in conflict resolution. We acknowledged the fact that because we have been raised in a civilized world that it is hard to imagine not showing another human being at least some sense of human decency and mercy regardless if they are an enemy. This brought us to ask the question is mercy a natural instinct or is it a learned trait? In Achilles’ situation he showed no mercy. While his power and absence of fear may be admirable his unwillingness to show mercy or respect, if not for Hector but for his family, is somewhat barbaric. In regards to respect, we discussed that it is important to at least respect the power and abilities of your opponent so that you can fully assess the situation. When pride causes you to be blind to your opponent’s abilities you risk your own well being. In respect to the question: Are there some situations where it is wrong to show mercy, we discussed that when repeated wrongs have been done and mercy has previously been shown then the offender does not deserve to be shown any more mercy. This reminded us of the saying, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” In conclusion we believe that while generally mercy and respect would go hand-in-hand there are certain circumstances in which mercy should not prevail.
Barbarism
While we were studying about barbarism and about the greek culture Nic and I began thinking about how all of us can relate to the barbarism of early civilizations in some way. We also discussed how its quite possible that we might even have a small piece of barbarity in us today. Some of us may show more than others, and some might keep it hidden deep within ourselves. I liked when we watched Achilles and Hector fight to the death. When I saw the fury in Achilles and his pure ability I thought to myself that if he really was that good at fighting then maybe it was okay that Achilles chose the lifestyle that he did. Yes, it was a barbaric but it fit the character of Achilles.
Hector, in the script and the video clip, that we watched, he knew he wasn’t good enough to slay the mighty Achilles. He wanted to honor his name, country and family so he went to take on the tremendous task of fighting Achilles. But when we read how he was trying to make an agreement for funeral services shows that he knew he was going to die. I also believe that if hector never said anything about the funeral services Achilles would have left his dead body. But Achilles as a barbarian, knew what Hector wanted and wasn’t going to let him have it his way. I believe that he is great example of a true barbarian at heart.
There will always be barbarism within us. We have the choice to let it come out and be like Achilles, without rule, or to harness it and accept to be a law abiding citizen. We have prisons all over the world and they are full of all kinds of people. I think, there we might find some people who have made the decision to be like Achilles and do what they want to do. That is proof that there is still the battle between being obedient to law or disobedient and that there are people who are more disobedient and barbaric then law abiding citizens in our day.
(Newly formed group (Canadian Allstars)
Nicolas Kesler and Benjamin King
Our group discussed if there should have been more mercy shown by Achilles. Also where can we relate and almost find comfort in his actions. First, Heather thought that when Hector killed Patroclus, it put Hector ahead of Achilles. So naturally, in order for Achilles get ahead, not just even, it was essential that he kill Hector and torture his corpse. Taylor agreed and related it to our day saying we fight barbaric acts with barbaric acts. Michelle agreed, stating the cold war and other wars as examples. Kevin said if we look at WWII, we seen can see the similar actions. For example Japan attacked America – Hector killed Patroclus – and then America came back even stronger and dropped nuclear bombs on Japan – Achilles came back stronger and even tortured and defiled the corpse of Hector. We are not that much different than Achilles. But Michelle pointed out that she did not believe Achilles needed to be as cruel as he was. Before they even started fighting, Hector offered a plea that the winner would not defile the other’s corpse, and Achilles would not accept. Any sane or person with a conscience would have accepted that offer. Taylor said we may not be as barbaric as Achilles but we all relate and if we all had as much courage as Achilles we would be very likely to act in the same way. Heather commented that especially back in that time, it seemed like the motto was ‘an eye for an eye’. If Achilles showed any mercy, the onlookers might have seen that as a weakness. Kevin said he was not even disgusted by Achilles’ actions but somehow found them right and justifiable. The group agreed.
Discussion # 1 “Athena” (Nicole Bagwell and Caisie Peterson)
(Prepared by Nicole) Caisie and I discussed the benefits of examining human life. We pondered why Socrates wanted so badly to find a man wiser than he, but believes that he never does. Socrates is almost the symbol of human nature. It is very difficult for one to tell whether or not he is humble. He believes that even his own wisdom is worth nothing, and yet his wisdom is worth more than that of the other knowledgeable men he seeks out. This means his wisdom must be worth something. Should we look at Socrates in a light; where he is nearly angelic, only doing the will of God? Or perhaps we should focus on the negative: he really only wants to prove that he is the wisest of them al. Socrates is technically challenging God in searching for another wiser than he, even after God told him he was the wisest of all. Why go about ‘bragging’ about this fact, when indeed wouldn’t the idea of God be to simply be thankful for this gift and more than anything be humble about it? It seemed in our conversation Caisie is definitely an optimist, while I am by far the pessimist of the group. When we began discussing the actual purpose of human nature, Caisie pointed out that the main reason to do so is to learn from the mistakes of those leading the way before us. Looking into Socrates’ behavior however, I stated that that is never really what we do. Socrates went to the wise men seeking more knowledge, but when they did not have as great a knowledge as he, he did not listen anymore. Just because they didn’t have as strong and broad of a knowledge does not mean he could not have learned from them. Each person has his/her own specific knowledge. I believe that this is what we as humans do. We look to the past to learn from mistakes of generations past, but only see the negative side of the lesson at hand. We cannot learn if we do not apply the lessons. This is the point in examining human life: to learn about our own human nature. Perhaps if one wise being realizes that it is an endless cycle of mistakes and judgment, we may well be on our way to gaining an actual ‘greater knowledge’. Each of the Artisans, Poets, and knowledgeable men that Socrates goes to visit has his own wisdom, which Socrates does not believe to be as great as his own. This comes from the ideal we as humans cherish: that we each have a superior knowledge far beyond anybody else. If we are able to stop this need to out-do all others, we would all have a great knowledge and could learn from one another the endless possibilities of humanity.
(prepared Trent)
We all agreed that revenge used to be a bigger part of life than it is now. We felt that in ancient times it was more acted upon, whereas today it’s thought but it’s frowned upon to act upon your revenge. Dependent on the person it can be an out-of-control rage, to the point of barbarity. We felt that a lot of this is totally dependent on personal experience and your personal morals. It was hard for us to pin-point the correct time to show mercy. Do we show mercy to someone after they showed it to us? Do we show someone mercy after they showed us none? Although it was hard for us to agree on a correct time, we felt that mercy, pity and revenge all have such an important part in our society, without one of them it would be an unhealthy balance. Ancient culture and contemporary culture often parallel each other, meaning that you are able to find similarities in both. We felt that the government (although not as dramatic) is a lot like the Apollonian forces, where they try to direct and help us (the Dionysian) achieve. We felt that nobody would create art, or do art unless they loved it. We felt that Aeschylus showed us a really accurate picture. He showed us how dramatic and horrible life could be without it. If everyone went around doing whatever to whomever, pretty much everyone gets the short end of the stick and so much violence and war. The transformation that the furies took from vengeance to giving prosperity is a very powerful symbolism. We felt that Athena being younger and coming in and changing the way of life is also quite powerful.
(Prepared by Amber) Our group discussed Nietzsche’s idea that there’s more to art than the purpose of entertainment. While we don’t dispute the idea that art is entertaining, we agree that art doesn’t exist for the sole purpose of entertainment. In many situations isn’t art a product of the artist’s feelings? Does the artist need it to be accepted by the public in order to feel accomplished? A piece of supporting evidence is Emily Dickenson’s death in 1886. After Emily’s death her sister Vinnie came across 1,700 of Emily’s poems that she had no intention of publishing or sharing during her life. They were created with no intention of entertaining anyone, but were instead outlets for her feelings and experiences. Artists also use art to tell a story or relay a series of events, not for the sense of entertainment, but for the sake of preserving bits of history. Dating back thousands of years ago civilizations created art on the walls of caves, and though today we find them intriguing and entertaining, they were created as a civilizations only method of recording historic events. Many pieces of art, such as those created by Picasso, are very dramatic and meant to inspire a feeling of awe in the observer, however many pieces of art merely depict a simple landscape in which the artist is trying to relay a feeling of peace or calm. It may not be entertaining, and may even seem boring to many, but by conveying the artist’s sense of calm the artist’s goal has been accomplished. In contrast, Picasso may be noted as an artist that created many “entertaining” pieces, due to their shocking and graphic nature. However, in many of his paintings, such as Guernica, he depicts such harsh scenarios to inspire feelings strong enough to cause people to rise against the depicted situation and demand change. It reaches further than entertainment, and instead is meant to inspire action.
There are many artists today that have the same hope and purpose behind their art. We discussed that Homer is an “artist” for his contributions in literature. His tales are more than mere words scribed upon a page, they tell stories, demand thought, and can inspire change. As many sing along to their radio do they acknowledge the meaning embedded within the song? In many modern day pieces, as well as ancient art, symbolism is often used to convey deeper ideas then what may be visible at first glance. If art was meant only as “entertainment” these symbols and metaphors would not exist and an artist would not put such feeling and heart into these creations.
As we discussed Nietzsche’s belief that there is more to art than the purpose of entertainment, we were in unanimous agreement. Art has the power to inspire thought and show deeper meaning in the world through symbolism and metaphors. We also unanimously agreed that the art we find most entertaining is the art that has the power to inspire change and call for action.
(prepared by Nick Johnson)
Plato’s whole reasoning was to put people in classifications of what they do best determined by their schooling. Rulers would be chosen by their wisdom and their desire to find truth which would end up being the philosophers. The remainder of the society would not have the wisdom and desire to serve in a position of leadership and fall into two other categories being soldiers and workers. In our group it was discussed that this could be very efficient because in essence everyone would be doing what they do best, not necessarily what they enjoy most but what they do best. However, freedom of choice is removed and people are only given one shot at their future. Many times given different circumstances, experiences, and time, people change but in this society their opportunities would stay the same and they would not be able to change their classification. Our group decided that our society is definitely split into classifications; however those classifications are not determined by one’s ability to be best at their given task. Instead our society tends to be motivated by outside influences such as money and power. Rulers many times are in their position only to enforce their point of view rather than seeking wisdom and truth. We came to the conclusion that although Plato’s Utopian society would work and people would do what they are best at but it eliminates creativity and the ability to choose and strive for a different life.
(Prepared by Brittney) Our group discussed why the mean between two extremes is virtuous and what leads an individual to judge that mean as being virtuous. According to Aristotle, virtue is acting, feeling, and responding at the right time and in the right way. We came to the conclusion that having a virtuous lifestyle goes congruently with having a balanced lifestyle. It is known that too much of anything, good or bad, can have a negative effect on an individual, even if the individual cannot see it. For example, if a person does not have enough self-confidence they will not be able to use the full extent of their potential capabilities in their life. On the other end of the spectrum, however, if a person has an excessive amount of self-confidence then they will have a much harder time to see the potential in others and will be less willing to accept constructive criticism. A person needs to have enough self-confidence to believe in themselves to be able to achieve their full potential and yet maintain a level of humility in order to accept the value of others.
We were able to acknowledge that having a virtuous life is different for everyone due to the fact that no two people are the same; making the balance between the two ends of the spectrum unique to each individual. We believe that Aristotle would tell any two individuals who were in a disagreement that having a virtuous life would depend on the circumstances in each of their lives. Where would society be if all virtues were the same? If everyone had the same standard of being virtuous, would there be any room for individuality? Since virtue is about acting in a manner that feels right, an individual needs to be able to think about the consequences, both positive and negative, before initiating their final decision.
Throughout our discussion we asked ourselves if there was such a thing as having too much virtue and we came to the conclusion that there is no actual way to decipher the mean universally since it is based on individual experiences.
(prepared by Nicolas Kesler)
This past week Ben and I discussed the question in the readings on how Plato might separate those who should lead from those who shouldn’t. We both agreed that Plato would most likely avoid those who seemed hungry for power and leadership. As well as the wealthy and spoiled. In concurrence with our class discussions we both came to the same conclusion. That Plato would like to see someone with a philosophical point of view to be in control. Someone who thinks of every possible solution to a problem and then weighs out the consequence fairly, without any personal bias or opinion. This sounds like the perfect leader in almost every society, even today’s. Ben was very persistent with his views on what “the perfect ruler” would be like, and in several ways it was very similar to the views of Plato. I was very skeptic, however, on the idea of “the perfect ruler”. I don’t believe there is such a thing. Everyone has their flaws, and in these flaws lies bias. I agree that a perfect philosopher would be a good leader in most situations, but I also have a hard time being convinced that there is such a thing. In today’s society we ourselves try to sort out those who shouldn’t rule from those who should. But just like in the past, every leader makes mistakes. These mistakes are what make us human. But they also make us unable to rule without imperfection.
(Prepared by: Sam Wright)
Whatya Got Feb 1st 2010.
In our group discussed whether outside influences should effect whether or not a person should have a tendency towards a certain form.
Jayson started off the discussion by saying: “Controlling the appetites of the body and mind would lead to a more heightened sense of mastery of oneself. Exerting outside influence’s clouds rational judgment. A just person should not have a bias towards an influence that is not merited by law.” Sam interjected by postulating: “But what is ‘law’? What do you mean by that? Natural tendencies of consequence, or law set up by the state?” Jayson replied “. Whether that is a socially forced requirement or a universally endowed governing truth.” Jayson the continued “Having the reason to govern the appetite is key. Most humans have little idea that they are capably of control.” Sam chimed in with agreement “I think you have a point. This might explain (in the most literal sense) why some many people in America and other well-to-do situations are obese, for they have a control over their appetite for food.” As the discussion continued Jayson said: “Those that exercise their reason do become more just based on the merit of virtue, or of having a clearer vision of right and wrong.” Sam said to that “Yes, once again I mostly agree with you on that. But along with this clearer mental image of right and wrong that one will gain with discipline, is also accompanied with a superiority complex. This can only be prevented (I believe) if one then disciplines their pride. It seems almost like a never ending circle of discipline.
Mitchell was in virtual agreement with everything that was said and didn’t deem it necessary to put in any further input (or some of his emails with more content may have been lost in cyber space).
(Prepared by Taylor) In our discussion we talked about The Republic by Plato. Kevin and I did not agree with the way that Plato had his ideal society set up. Our argument was, how can you be sure that the rulers won’t become corrupt? Even with as much schooling as they had you cannot be sure that they won’t give in and misuse the power that they could have. They would still be men, and all men are subject to greed and selfishness. Heather and Michelle had a slightly more sympathetic view of humanity. They believe that all men are good by nature. They would be willing to trust someone with as much wisdom as rulers that are described in the passage. Are debate led us to the questions, what is the ideal society?, and can such a society exist? These questions don’t really have a right answer. Plato did they best he could at answering them. We would all like to think that we can all do what we do best and everything would work the way it is described in the passage. Unfortunately it does not work like that. You are always going to have people that want more than what they have. Humanity will never be satisfied with what we have, we will always strive for something bigger and better. There will always be greedy, and unjust leaders and rulers that take advantage or their power. Our group determined that even though our world is ruled by some very corrupt people we have to hope that some of our rulers are good men and women striving to do what is just.
Humanities
USU 1320
Group: Hercules
(Prepared by Jesse Laverty) Our group discussion came out of chapter 7a. We argued the point Plato made regarding logic. Plato referred to logic from a mathematic point of view. He focused on geometry because it teaches to, “…take nothing for granted and to follow the logic wherever it leads.” In context he is referring to thinking for yourself. Don’t compromise your own logic because others don’t agree. Continue in your own path, “…even if it leads you to conclusions that are at odds with the people around you.” In today’s society, people are so willing to let others think for them. The amount of trust put in the media is disconcerting. We live in a world where an outside opinion is not only overlooked, but shunned. Our everyday logic is put in question over and over if it is against mainstream popular belief. If Plato were to be around today, he would be so thwarted by the little notice given to each person, and the acceptance of the ideas shoved into everyone’s mind. Plato wants us to think for ourselves, have an original idea and run with it. Our group members beliefs were in unison with the idea that Plato’s encouragement of unique thinking would be denied by the hypnotized drones of today’s world.
Our group had a discussion on the bible, God’s creations, and how the several passages of Genesis do not support enough information. Also we discussed if it was right that Abraham obeyed God’s commands when it came down to sacrificing his son.
The above is not finished i hit the button by mistake.
(Prepared by Emily)
Our group discussed the Stoic perspective on life and how they prefer to life live from an observatory distance. While the distance does protect a person from being hurt and in a tranquil mindset it also keeps that individual from experiencing many of the wonderful things in life such as love, friendship and companionship. Human beings are social creatures that need human interaction in order to function at our fullest extent. The distance keeps a person from experiencing a full and happy life. A Stoic would counter our claims with the fact that if you don’t get involved there is no way for you to get hurt. However, life is about risks and most good things in life don’t come without the possibility of failure, heartache, or pain. Is life really worth living if you aren’t actively engaged in relationships and instead are just passively observing?
Aurelius’ statement is true in the fact that we control our reactions to other’s comments or actions. In reading this passage Eleanor Roosevelt’s words “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” came to mind. Nothing anyone says or does to you can hurt you if you don’t let it get to you. On the contrary, it is often more difficult to not be hurt by offensive comments than it is to simply brush it off so to speak. As humans we yearn for acceptance and approval from others and when harsh comments are spoken it is difficult not to allow our insecurities to take over. Why is it so difficult for humans to focus on the positive and less on the negative? Why do we care so much about other’s opinions of us if all that really matters is our own opinion?
The Elements (Sara, Nick, Derek, Blake):
Prepared by: Blake Kohler
Our group discussed the questions on the Old Testament stories in genesis and briefly talked about Job. We found these to be easier to relate to as most of our experience in thinking in a philosophical way came from learning to try and understand scriptures. We first began to discuss Abraham and his intended sacrifice of his son Jacob. We noted that while it might seem that his obedience was ‘blind’ it was most likely based in experiences in the past which following in a way that outsiders might see as ‘blind’ had work out for the betterment of Abraham. His trust in God was absolute. Nick noted that Abrahams test was to see if he would obey, and Abraham might have understood this as he preformed these actions. Sara talked about how Abraham would have learned a great lesson and that he must have needed to know something about himself that he was allowed to learn through this action. Blake found this story to be very much like a parent – child relationship, with God acting like a parent who asks a child to jump into his arms while in a swimming pool into a parents arms, a child will jump, not because he knows for certain what the outcome will be, but because of his past experiences with his parents. Derek believes that there is a large difference between blind obedience and faith, thus Abraham acted in the faith that he had. The trust that everything would work out if he did what god asked. We then discussed the first question. We noted that people tend to hear what they want to hear, and read what they want to read as opposed what it might actually say. By taking things out of context and ignoring certain parts they can justify their opinions and then be allowed in their own mind to have it based and backed in scripture. Derek thought that you can find a medium between the extremes of taking everything in the bible literally and the very loose and liberal interpretations that others use. Sara stated that because the bible is so large and poorly understood you can take almost anything that is stated inside and twist it to support the opinion that you want it to support. As we rapped up our discussion we decided to briefly discuss Job. We each thought that in Job’s case God was telling him that he sees the big picture and he allows job to see it and understand that he is truly merciful. Blake thought that it was a lot like piano lessons a child has that he doesn’t want to go to. Parents force us to go to them because it will be for our own good, but while you’re practicing it can be like misery. Job went through certain things to help him, but it was pure misery for him while he went through it.
(WhatYaGot)
Prepared by: Jayson W Dursteler
Me, Myself, and I stewed over the reading of Marcus Aurelius, hoping to draw a simplified answer to the questions presented at the end of the text. Although, contrary to my true intentions of completing the required assignment, my thought has shifted to a more perplexed plateau within my psyche. Let us analyze this quote from the reading. “The Universe is transformation: life is opinion.” What the hell does this mean? What if we reversed the order of that statement and said, “The Universe is opinion: life is transformation.” Let me exasperate. That which we might perceive to be truth could in all actuality just be opinion ingrained within our development by falsifications of individual entitlements accepted throughout our existence. This pre-dawning lie would erect a wall that was unscalable. This, would then conclude that as life transforms the Universe’s opinion follows. The transformation of life would then be engaged in removing itself from environment. The outside Universe would have no effect on human contemplation. Life would govern the Universe as transformation would govern opinion. To conclude with another quote from the reading “ Take away your opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint.” Me, Myself and I aren’t complaining. Yet.
Absent: Mitchel & Sam
The Canadian All stars
Nic and Ben
The Bible
Our group had the opportunity to get together to talk about what we went over in class about the bible. That being that we looked at it with the perspective of both sides one being, believing that it is actually a book from God, and on the other hand that it is more like a story book. i liked that some of the stories that we went over were really crazy and others seemed to have a believable story and others have Godly significants.
The bible as a whole we agreed is a book to give hope and inspiration to people to live better life’s. Also it give a sense of meaning or purpose to life. One thing is clear that it doesn’t matter what you believe in there is always a “good” and a “bad”. So it would seem the bible is one example that teaches about this common conflict between good and bad. I shared that i think that there are many more examples that aren’t in the bible. that there are examples of the fight between good and bad, right and wrong, light and darkness throughout all history. Socrates and Plato both taught about the never ending conflict between two opposing things in there plays and teachings. Such as the difference between justice and mercy. they also taught about the purpose of life which also the bible always talks about.
To follow the teaching in the bible is not a bad thing, to try to make more of your life would be considered the most important thing that one could do. The bible by itself isn’t going change ones life unless they have the desire to change it for them selfs.
(Prepared By Ty)
Our group was able to discuss the sections we read concerning the passages from Genesis and Job in the Bible. The main idea we pulled from this was that God was testing the FAITH of Abraham and Job by putting them through trials (in Jobs case) and asking them to do out of the ordinary things(Abraham’s case).
We expanded on this idea of faith and talked about what it really is and why we thought it was important enough to be put in the Bible. We came up with the idea that faith is believing in things that are not seen but are true, Such as a God. We thought that these two examples of faith in the bible were great examples, especially with Abraham. He had to trust that God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice. If you are familiar with the story, you know that God did live up to his promise of providing the sacrificial lamb, but not until after Abraham’s faith was tried and tested. We thought that this trial would be one of the hardest ever and that Abraham must have been extremely trusting in God to go forth with the task he was asked to do.
We also discussed the question that Job asked God, of “What have I done to deserve this?”. We felt that all the trials Job was put through were to test Job’s faith, but also for God to prove to Satan that Job was faithful to him and trusted in him. Job’s life was hard, but God’s will will be done in the end.
We felt that these examples of Faith from the Bible are things that we all, as individuals, can learn from and apply in our own lives to make ourselves better. It seemed rather foolish to us to not be trusting in God when we have a clear example of Abraham and how God kept his promises to him.
Our group discussed Caesar, especially focusing on his character. He was a magnificent ruler with a unique character. One obvious quality he did have was courage, enough courage to conquer an empire. He was brave enough to joke with his captors while he was in prison like they were his body guards. Another quality that wasn’t as obvious was dramatic. At 22 he cried because he realized he had not conquered as much as Alexander the Great had at his age. He then had to live the rest of his life trying to outdo someone else. The last quality we discussed was being honorable. Although his intention was to have as much power as possible, he did not simply seek to destroy others. When he wished to conquer Ariminum he told his men to do so with as little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He was also very honorable to his friends and allies. He was constantly making sure his men were happy so much that he received in return loyalty that was beyond belief. Character like his was necessary to be the ruler he was. Even the dramatic side of his character was necessary as a driving force to make him realize what he wanted to do with his life. We all agree that although his methods and life were a little extreme at times, his character was overall a good thing.
(Prepared by Amber Konakis)Our group discussed Aristotle’s theory of means. Aristotle believed that the mean between two extremes is where virtue is found, and we agreed with his opinion. To begin with, the definition of “virtuous” is “having or showing moral goodness.” We discussed what this means in relation to Aristotle’s theory and we personally define it as a mean between extremes, with regard to our character. We believe that to have moral integrity is to act justly and righteously, to the best of our abilities. We are looking to find a mean between extremes that lets us live our lives in a moral way. This is why it was appropriate for Aristotle say that virtue is found in the mean between two extremes. Aristotle applies this to individual traits and characteristics as well as character as a whole.
We discussed that there are many positive traits and qualities a person can possess. These include such traits as kindness, generosity, truthfulness, and etc. However, there are also many traits that we view as negative characteristics such as callousness, avariciousness, and dishonesty. When we began discussing what makes a trait negative or positive we all agreed it was whether or not the outcome of applying that trait was negative or positive. This let us to the idea that none of these traits are always negative or positive, and in fact the key element involved when judging these traits is quantity. We view kindness or friendliness as a positive quality, yet we teach our children to beware of strangers and connect a danger to excessive kindness or friendliness and encourage them to stand up for themselves. For example, in situations of abduction isn’t a child’s eagerness to be friendly a negative? Nevertheless, we don’t encourage our children to be cold towards others or too stiff. Think of the quality of truthfulness. It is true that we are taught from the time we learn to speak to always be truthful and honest. However, how is it then that the most truthful people are seen as harsh and uncompassionate? When someone asks, “How do I look? Be honest,” are they really looking for honesty? Do they really want to know if they do not “look good”. This is a common predicament for husbands and boyfriends around the globe. They are taught to be honest, but the second they answer, “Honestly, you look horrendous Honey,” they will find themselves sleeping on the couch. Yet, deceitfulness or dishonesty is seen as incredibly negative and a trait of terrible character.
What we are looking for is a balance, or a mean of the extremes, based on circumstance. We want our kids to be friendly yet reserved and we want honestly only when it flatters our egos. More importantly, we expect everyone to know where that median exists between the positive and negative extremes. While we agree that this mean is ideal, we also agree that it is like playing with fire trying to find it in certain situations, and that the mean is incredibly circumstantial. One needs to be able to appropriately judge a situation and adjust the mean based on the presented situation.
Athena—Summary #3 Section 10
(Prepared by Nicole)
This week our group discussed the readings in Matthew and Corinthians. We looked at the writings of Paul and what is meant by the love he speaks of. When Paul speaks of having faith to move mountains, and giving his body to the flames, he says none of it would count unless he did so with love. In the next verse he also states that love is ‘not self-seeking’. In my opinion, these two versus fit perfectly hand in hand. Love is not a selfish concept; indeed it is supposedly the essence of selflessness. Therefore, if one was to give his body up, or move a mountain so to speak, to do so without love would be pointless. To go through trials of such are usually for the sake of other people, and one must have love for those receiving the benefits of the sacrifice. Take Jesus Christ for example: he suffered and died on the cross so that all mankind could be saved. He did this out of pure love for both man and his Father in Heaven. Without love for us, what would be the point in completing a task so excruciatingly painful? This is of course the main reason for Christianity being so strongly based on love. The ultimate proof of love from Christ is what all Christians strive to have. A perfect love, that as Paul puts it, “…Always protects, always trusts, always hopes, [and] always preserves”. Paul tells us that one day, all things shall disappear except for faith, hope and love. He also says that love is the greatest of the three. I completely agree with this statement. One cannot have faith without love, neither hope without love; for you must have love for something to hope for it, as well as love for something to have faith in it. Why else yearn to believe in something? This passage can be related to the Sermon on the Mount because the Sermon on the Mount tells us to be humble, meek, and to put all else in front of ourselves. This we cannot do without love and compassion.
This week the group and I discussed Abraham’s decision of sacrificing his son, Isaac. Abraham’s choice to obey God seemed to have been blind. He was so willing to sacrifice his son because God told him too. Leaves us to wonder why Abraham didn’t question God as to why his son was chosen to be sacrificed. It almost seemed as if Abraham was brain washed in a sense. Maybe Abraham has more love for God compared to the love he has for his son. Abraham shouldn’t have agreed to sacrifice his son. Isn’t family sticking together stressed in church? So why would Abraham believe God really wanted him to sacrifice his son or why wouldn’t he ask questions or beg for his life to be sacrificed? When Issac asked his father, Abraham, about where the lamb is that would be sacrificed and Abraham answers back saying it will be provided up there where they were heading, how could Isaac not have known he was to be the one sacrificed. Especially after Abraham build the altar and layed Isaac down on it. Once the angel stopped Abraham from slaying his son I think that served a reaction in all of us. Right then, when the angel stops Abraham, was Abraham even thinking about what he was about to do? Was he motionless? Maybe he was in shock and relieved at the same time that God was only testing him, and because he shown he’d obey God, God let Isaac live. I think with this story, God wants us to do good, for the good things to come to us.
Athena
Christianity
For this section we read about Christianity and what Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 5. Jesus taught his followers to be meek and “poor in spirit.” He says to be completely humble, loving your enemies. Giving no explanation as to why. If you look from a Christian’s perspective God is perfect, and these are qualities that he possesses. In my opinion, because God is perfect, he would only wants what is best for his followers. At the end of Chapter 5 in verse 48 it says “ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.” We think its interesting to think of it from a parent’s point of view. It makes sense that you would want your children to live up to their full potential. He teaches to not hide from the world, but to emulate purity and love. Nicole and I both believe he is teaching his followers how to become perfect. Virtue means righteousness. I think these qualities of being humble and meek and what not, are definitely virtues. How much more righteous can you be if you’re doing what Jesus the Christ asks of you? Jesus, who’s whole purpose was to love.
What Ya Got
Dante’s Inferno
Jayson started off the discussion by stating:
“Lucifer’s body is bound in a frozen lake; this makes me think of a virtue and vice, a ying and yang type of analogy. The one thing that can control fire is water.” Sam asked: “Why do you that?” Jayson replied: “When water freezes it binds or traps whatever particle that it has contact with. Lucifer in his utmost tormented state of not being allowed to be loosed weeps! Further imprisoning himself in his own torment.” Sam proceeded to postulate and said thinking aloud “But this makes me question why we always consider Satan to be enclosed in a fiery realm under the earth? Wouldn’t fire be just as torturous as a frozen lake? I wonder if Dante is trying to get at something here?” Jayson replied: “A frozen lake is also made up of water. Water is the purist form of element, and makes me believe that Dante is trying to show that Virtue has the power to trump Vice. Or that something that is Pure, Clean and Transparent would have no weakness, this it would be able to govern all degrees of hell, but frozen water or ice is also a symbol of lacking love? Or the detachment from GOD? The punishment Mimics the Sin.” After thinking about it for a moment Sam said: “That’s an interesting point of view, the one thing that I want to touch on is, I think this does have to do more about a detachment from God – more than of governance. I’ve always held the point of view that Hell is the complete absence of God. But I think you may have an excellent point there in what Dante is trying to illustrate. His view of things is so comical yet his story is laced with deep metaphors – some of which I believe we still have yet to discover.”
(Prepared by Brittney) Our group discussed the journey Dante took through hell and the various components he saw at the center of it. One aspect we focused on was the frozen lake that laid in the core of hell and the possible meanings the lake could have. One of the possible symbols of the frozen lake we discussed is that in Hell, everything that can produce a sense of pleasure or good for mankind will be completely absent. Since man is naturally drawn towards warmth it would seem logical that Hell would be a cold, desolate place instead of a fiery inferno. Another possible explanation we came up with is that the frozen lake is meant to confine those individuals to an eternity of non progression where even if they had a desire to improve themselves there would be no possible way.
We asked ourselves why there were only three mortals in the very center of hell and not more. Why did Judas, Brutus, and Cassius get put into the most inner circle of hell? We came to the conclusion that it was due to the fact that Dante believed all three of these men betrayed two of the greatest, most powerful men of that time. We thought it ironic in that Christ’s life was exemplified by service, love, and mercy while Caesar showed no mercy. Why did Dante hold these completely opposite men to such great esteem that he would send their betrayers to a life of being gnawed on by the devil for all eternity? It would appear to the reader that Dante viewed the betrayal of a friend as the ultimate sin. Judas betrayed Jesus Christ just as Brutus and Cassius betrayed Julius Caesar. Why is betrayal the ultimate sin in Dante’s eyes? Why not murder, adultery, rape? In both cases Christ and Caesar had an immense trust for the people they considered friends which eventually led to their respective deaths.
The Trojan horses
(Prepared by Alexandria Boyle)
Christianity
We started off with “why might Jesus’ qualities be virtues?” we agreed on the fact that through struggles we can receive blessings for going though hardships even though we may not understand the reasoning behind them. The virtues help “display a god like persona” that helps the individual to become less worldly. Becoming less worldly can lead to a state of being that brings peace and solitude when you endure through the journey of life; this is the connection to Aurelius and Jesus.
While Christianity strives to bring out the “goodness” of the world, evil is usually not far behind. As the journey of Dante takes its readers into the nine layers of hell, the question arises “why is hell frozen and not inflamed with fire?” we agreed that being frozen is worse than being in fire, for the sheer reason that when you’re on or in fire you can escape or put it out. And once you are freezing or frozen in place there is no escape and you cannot change your circumstances, to rise out of your tribulations. Ice is the absence of life; there can be nothing “alive” when it is freezing even plants dies off in the winter. Symbolically when you look through a piece of ice the image you see becomes distorted or not perfect, thus Lucifer is not perfect and has been “cast down” and can no longer dwell with those that are perfect “gods” in heaven.
(Prepared by Nick)
Ben and I decided that for this section we would discuss the incredible impact art and advances in architecture in the renaissance era by artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Cosimo de’ Medici had on their surrounding civilizations. We discussed how Cosimo set new standards for patronage of the arts not associated with religion, and how his actions stirred a lot of controversy among powerful leaders. We also talked about how da Vinci’s work is was and will forever be considered one of the best painters, sculptors, and architects of all time. Ben and I also discussed the incredible architectural advances by some of these great artists that allowed buildings and great cathedrals to be completed when in the past such architecture was not possible. Artists and Architects still to this day have great impacts on our civilization. In creating great masterpieces, or towering skyscrapers, artists and architects will continue to push the latest limits of creativity and science in their work.
The Dream Team (Heather Foster, Michelle Boyer, Taylor Mulford and Kevin White)
prepared by Heather
We discussed Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the command given by Jesus to be meek and “poor in spirit”. Heather opened the discussion by saying that these might be virtues because as the world was shifting from barbarity to civilization, these attributes were beginning to be prized more heavily than those valued by Achilles, such as domination and destruction. Michelle agreed that this was possible, but then pointed out that there was still a lot of barbarity in the world, including the use of crucifixion, which was used to end the life of Jesus. She said that maybe these were important to Jesus because he understood in order to achieve a peaceful world, or establish the kingdom of god on the earth, people would have to work together and think about others instead of themselves. Taylor said that Jesus would have known that such a world was impossible, because there will always be those who only think about themselves. Although there are those who are more humanitarian in actions, it doesn’t matter because there will be people who are greedy and will exploit these actions, which will almost cancel them out.
Kevin then interrupted, saying that the real issue in the question was that Jesus told people to suffer all manner of persecution, and he doesn’t exactly explain why. Heather said that in her religious beliefs, this passage is taken as a list of qualities that are considered to be attributes of God. Taylor agreed that this would make sense, considering that the last line of the passage admonishes the reader to be “perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” If we accept our suffering as proof of our devotion to God and these god-like attributes which we are supposed to develop, we come closer to this goal. Michelle said that even though that’s how she understood it as well, it could be taken in a different context by those who had different viewpoints, such as those weren’t Christian. She said that others could view this passage as a way to simply make the world a better and more loving place, as impossible as it might seem. If we are willing to endure anything, we wouldn’t mind suffering as much, and that would make us happier people who are more willing to serve others. We all agreed that it was a possible explanation.
(Tiffany, Kaeli, Alyssa, and Troy) -by Tiffany.
Our group discussed the Big Bang Theory and the existence of God. Most of us agreed that asking “What caused the Big Bang” is a legitimate question. Kaeli felt that it was a ‘far-fetched’ idea in the first place, so it would not be necessary to ask the question at all. As for if it would be an argument for God’s existence, everyone agreed that it would be against his existence, except me. They said that it goes against what ‘God’ is all about, no matter what your definition of God is. I think that both could be possible, and that maybe the BB is how God brought the universe into existence. Troy agreed, and said there’s no true answer to the BB. We can study the theory as far as we’re able, but we’re likely to never find out what happened. If you look at it from that standpoint, I think it could verify both theories; of God and of the BB. We considered next why Aquinas wouldn’t think that God’s existence would need to be explained when suggested that God was the ‘ultimate explanation’ for all things. Alyssa and Kaeli kind of agreed on their answers. Alyssa said that most Christians learn from the Bible that those who questioned God were usually smitten or cursed, and Kaeli brought up Job, and asked “Should we really be questioning Him?” I disagreed, and think questioning is really a good idea, because the more you ask, the more you learn, and the more you learn, the better off you are. It makes sense to question, otherwise everyone would just walk around blindly twiddling their thumbs, ‘faithfully’ ignoring reason. I think Troy came up with a really great answer. He said “alot of people take comfort in believing in their God. That for Aquinas, God became an answer to all those unanswerable questions. When inexplicable things occur, God is who people turn to, and He becomes the ultimate answer to those things no one has an answer for.” And we discussed whether it would be possible or not for the universe to lack a beginning. Kaeli thought that if God has no beginning or end, then the universe will have neither a beginning, nor end, and that ‘no mere mortal would be able to understand such Godly knowledge’. Troy kept it simple and said that everything has to have a beginning somewhere. Alyssa said it’s possible that the universe is very old and that we could be the first beings to ever come up with a measurement of time. Without a ‘universal’ time frame, it’s also possible that it doesn’t have a beginning, but that she thinks it must, in fact, start somewhere. I tend to agree more with them. I don’t see how we can look at this world around us, see the affect we have on it, talk about ‘the end’ and how we’re destroying our planet, and say that it doesn’t begin or end. If one part of the universe can die, why not the rest of it? And if something is seemingly capable of having an end, doesn’t it makes sense that it would have a beginning? It stands to reason, that if it were ‘created’, either spontaneously or through celestial interference, it would begin somewhere. Right?
(prepared by Bryce)
The Red Glasses discussed The Inferno, by Dante. Throughout the story, Dante seemed to have different views of Hell then the average person. We thought that it was interesting how there were 9 stages of hell, rather then just one vast torturous landscape. Most people seem to associate Hell with fire and flames, and never ending torment of the things they hate most. However, in Dante’s story, the center of Hell was a frozen lake. This brought some discussion to our group, as to why Dante would make the center of Hell ice, rather then the more common associated element, fire. Fire seems to be the opposite of ice, as ice is water, just in a different state. If water is pure and clear, and can extinguish fire, it seems as if Dante was trying to enlighten us on the extremities of the elements, and how too much of one can be torture. Ice forms due to the lack of warmth, which could be taken as Hell is due to the lack of love, righteousness, or any other feeling that can be associated with warmth. We also thought that it was interesting that Dante could have placed any 3 historical figures into lucifers mouth, but he chose 3 betrayers. Judas, who betrayed his good friend Jesus Christ, and Brutus and Cassius, the 2 men that betrayed their friend Julius Caesar, who in this story, seems to be thought of as highly as Jesus, or perhaps he is just hinting at the worst punishment is from betraying a friend who is a great asset to the world. Both betrayals eventually led to death. It has been said that the deepest darkest part of Hell is reserved for betrayers. This fits well with the story, seeing as who the men in the devils mouth betrayed, as well with the extreme consequences of each betrayal.
Prepared by: Heidi
Our group discussed the idea behind Aurelias’s quote, “Take away the complaint, ‘I have been harmed,’ and the harm is taken away.” Aurelias, being a stoic, believed that one should live life in a simple manner, only doing what was necessary and not concerning oneself with things that would not be significant in the future. He believed that opinion was not significant, and not necessary. He states, “The universe is transformation: life is opinion.” This indicates that he believed opinion was not a part of the type of lifestyle he believed in and that all things of opinion would have no great effect on the future. In his literature, Aurelias notes that complaints are but opinions, and if one removes their opinion on the matter, the complaint is removed as well. As pertaining to the previously mentioned quote regarding harm, we believed that it is true, when interpreted a certain way.
We acknowledge that physical or emotional pain does cease just because someone desires it to. When someone loses a loved one it does not matter how long or hard they wish the harm was undone, it will not bring them back. That harm cannot be reversed. However, we discussed the many ways one can interpret “harm”. Is Aurelias speaking of the initial, physical or emotional pain? Or is he speaking of the effects of the harmful situation? We agreed that in order for Aurelias’s philosophy to be true, then we would have to interpret his “harm” not as the physical or emotional pain directly inflicted, but instead as the attitude the individual faces that pain. For example, consider a car accident in which the victim’s inflicted injuries result in paraplegia. If the individual removes the complaint “I have been harmed” they do not regain mobility just because they desired to, that “harm” cannot be removed. However, if they remove their complaint about being harmed, and no negative view of themselves or of their injuries is gained, by not letting it discourage them or cause a harmful outlook, then that “harm” is taken away. There are many negative situations that cause harm that cannot be undone or removed, but the way in which we let the situations affect or lives is in our control and can be removed. If someone does not let the situation harm them or their attitude, then Aurelias considers the “complaint” or “harm” as taken away. Another example would be in a setting in which someone has been verbally slandered. The hurtful things that were said will not be unsaid no matter how strongly one wills them to. However, if victim of the slander does not take offense or be concerned by the words, then they are just words, and the individual is free from their harm.
Aurelias’s idea reaches further into what really matters in life. It promotes one to concern themselves with only the things that will matter long term. We discussed that is caused us to reevaluate the things we see as valuable and consider whether or not they are really as important as we view them. It also caused us to consider the amount of time and energy wasted by dwelling on small negative occurrences in our lives and the amount of “harm” we caused ourselves by not taking away our opinions on the matters. We agreed Aurelias inspires us to free ourselves from the “harm” of small negatives and focus on our greater purpose to have a positive and tranquil outlook.
Prepared by Zach Basinger
Our group discussed the segment of the Divine Comedy provided for us. Our group felt so intrigued with the excerpt that we all read and completed the first segment of the Divine Comedy known as the Inferno. With doing so we found the center of hell a very lucrative addition to Dante’s perception of hell. Lucifer being frozen in a lake of his own tears did however, cause room for questioning. With modern Christianity placing Lucifer at the center of attention in Hell, We found it odd that he should be bound at the center of Hell. We felt as if his role was too small in Dante’s recollection, saying that Lucifer should have a larger influence in Hell. We also found it strange the selection of faces in which the beast was consuming, excluding Judas. We spoke as if wee thought it strange that Brutus and Cassius would be considered in the same league of betrayal as Judas, and wondered the respect the Dante must have had for Caesar, regarding the betrayal of Brutus and Cassius in the same league as Judas. We discussed that the frozen lake was appropriate for the Betrayers that the ninth circle consisted of, saying the cold desolate lake would effectively drain the hope for brighter futures away from the betrayers. She said the sight of even Lucifer being trapped by a lake of his own sin would show that they, mere mortals would have no outlook of a brighter future.
WhatYaGot
Prepared by Jayson
Our engagement this week in philosophy has lent our thoughts to the masterful works of William Shakespeare. “ To be, or not to be, that is the question.” A choice to merit the breath of the real with that of the unknown. A commitment to act instead of being acted upon. Oh! What power we have. The power to depart, to dream. “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come.” If, if only we refrain, what worth will it be? For nature will shutter your eyes and your agency to act, has been acted upon. That friend of the fortunate, that brute of perplexed souls. Fear of the ambiguous, we loathe thee. In death courage crowns no cowards. To walk to the horizon with confidence. That purpose has expelled her last ounce of legacy. Knowing your conscience has formed a shield around the uncertainty of that required destination. Oh the fulfillment of life! They shout from the rooftops. To take action to endure what nature doth offer, to triumph over her “ whips and scorns.” For they veil their faces to her uncertainties. Hamlet, fear not what follows death for your reward may be an eternal nightmare. Alas, it could also be jewels grander than that of all kingdoms.
(Prepared by Emily) Our discussion this week was on Thomas Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature. Through our discussion we decided that his depiction of the state of nature is plausible in that it is human nature to always want what we don’t have. In order to achieve greater power and wealth we have to be willing to fight for it. As was brought up in class, it only takes a few bad people to start a cascade of preemptive actions to cause chaos in a society. The chief aim of civil society is to escape the combative state of nature and evolve into a stable politically guided society. Without political regulation life becomes a constant battle against everyone for power. Political institutions provide laws, punishment, and enforcement. They also provide a single individual to hold responsibility for whatever oppression occurs. While it may not be ideal to live under an oppressive government it is a better alternative to living in a society where every man has to fight for himself. Lastly, when given the opportunity to break the law and not get caught Hobbes would advocate against doing so for he believes in living life by following the first law of nature. Hobbes’ first law of nature is to seek peace always; the second law is to be willing to give away some of your own power for the sake of peace. Although you may not get caught the act goes against seeking peace and therefore would not fit within Hobbes’ philosophy.
The Canadian All-stars
USU 1320 (004)
The Renaissance
The class we had on about the renaissance we thought was pretty cool about the Medici family. The investment of the the future Pope John 23rd or the ex-pirate was a good one for the Medici family. We talked about how modern the Medici family were for their time period. They did many modern things to get money such as they invested in people, just like a professional basketball team would invest in a professional player or a wealthy person would invest money in a Presidential Candidate. They like most rich people didn’t start out rich but poor but as the took risks to make money they had luck that helped help their investments. As they invested in Pope John the 23rd, Brunelleschi an architect, Botticelli an artist, Leonardo da Vinci artist, Michaelangelo artist, Galileo Scientist. Man that changed the Medieval world to more modern Renaissance.
I was really mad about what happened with Sanovnarola and how he tried to destroy the renaissance by burning the the art of the their age. We learned that more then 90 percent of all ancient writings and books were lost due to burnings. The fact that someone would burn something beautiful like classic art work and classical writing is beyond me. We both thought about would we could learn from the old writing and we can’t imagine that they were bad things.
In conclusion me and nick were both very against Sanovnarola and his ideas to destroy the renaissance priceless art work and and literature. So much was lost and nothing was gained.
(prepared by Caisie)
This week our discussion was on Thomas Hobbes and his outlook on the state of nature. Hobbes describes how a life without law would be the worst political state for man. He believed that enough people would murder, rob, loot, etc. that life would be disastrous. He believed that any stable state would be better than now law at all, even excepting kings. We think its interesting how Hobbes points out that we lock our doors and always put up our guard, assuming that there is evil in the world. We seem to know that mankind, more often than not, chooses themselves over others. Hobbes talks about how men have passions that incline them to move toward peace. Fear of death and the desire for necessities that provide commodious living are two that he named. I think he is right that men naturally fear, and strive to get what they need.
The first law of nature is “Seek peace when you can get it, and prepare for war when you can’t.” We both agree this is a very true statement. It makes sense for peace to come first. Nicole also said that at times you can’t avoid war. The second law talks about putting peace before your own power. If the powerful people in the world would surrender to this law, there would be a lot less tragedy. At the end of the chapter, Hobbes describes why men are subject to keeping their promises due to fear. We fear that there might be some “evil consequence.” Reading through the Leviathan, Nicole and I both agree that Hobbes’ opinion on the state of nature is quite plausible. We agree with what he has to say about mens lust’s, and fear’s. We agree with the laws of nature that he describes and how it would be if there was no law at all.
When we talked about Descartes and we decided that there is a way to tell if you are dreaming or not, we compared it to imagination and reality. In dreams your imagination takes over and depending on how extravagant you want, your imagination controls the outcome. When looking at reality, your mind and decision-making are in control and that’s what decides what will happen. When you are dreaming you can have pretty much anything happen in anyway, no limits. When you wake up and remember a dream it tends to be something that could never happen in real life. For example; in my dream if I were to take a big huge breath and blow all the air I possibly could at you, you would fall over. In reality, no matter how much air my lungs produced, that would never happen. God would be seen as the control of all in Descartes mind. So it would make sense that god can only create the idea of god. The origin of idea of god could be that the idea is created to maintain equality between all people who co-exist together, away to maintain peace and stability in an ever changing world. Descartes can trust his reasoning that god exists because he himself has cast away all that he knew before and is trying to re-explore things without knowledge. He did so and came up with the same answer as before when he had knowledge that god exists. So both ways he has discovered for himself that god does exist through two or more methods of learning knowledge.
On Feb. 28th I sent trent my answers to the discussion questions via email. He replyed to me that he couldn’t open the file.I have answered the questions and tryed to particapate in the discussion question for march 1st.
The Dream Team (Taylor Mulford, Michelle Boyer, Heather Foster, Kevin White)
Written by Kevin White
Since we all have been taught and studies the famous writing “Hamlet” and have never fully understood these writings, we decided to discuss “why in the end, does Hamlet refuse to kill himself?” Kevin started out quoting from the text where Hamlet says “makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of”. He continued stating that if Hamlet knew what was ahead, in the afterlife, he would have killed himself in a second. Taylor agreed saying that the uncertainty restrains him from doing that. Michelle disagreed in that she knew a few people that committed suicide and to those people, letting go of the pains in this life was worth more than not knowing the afterlife. Heather agreed in that there must have been more reasons that Hamlet decides not to kill himself. Sure the unknown is a scary thought but either his life was not that hard or he must have had someone to keep living for. Kevin added on saying, we only have a short section to go off of but I bet if there was more to read, it would talk about love or family that keeps him hanging on just enough to not kill himself. But Taylor continued to disagree in that Hamlet is pouring his heart out into this text, if there was another reason for not killing himself, other than the uncertainty, he would have stated it. I guess we can all conclude “to be or not to be—that is the question”.
Faith Without Reason, the Destruction of the Renaissance
Having faith without reason and power in your hands can be a destructive combination to ruin something great. The Renaissance was a period from 1400- 1600; this was a period where there was a rebirth of interest in the classical arts and literature. The Renaissance was a celebration of human potential. During this time period there were some major players who supported the Renaissance; the Medici family was by far the largest and the most powerful. The Medici were so powerful through their support Pope John 23 was put into the position. They were also patrons for many artists and an architect that named Brunelleschi who started the architectural revolution. Through the support of the Medici the Renaissance was put into full swing; this would all be reversed and destroyed by a man named Savonarola. Savonarola believed that the people of England were becoming vein and forgetting what mattered in the eternities; so he had a bonfire of the vanities. Savonarola had everything from paintings to makeup burnt. Great artists like Botticelli were forced to throw their paintings into the fire and watch their pieces burn, as well as the progression they had made. Savonarola is a prime example of having faith without reason. His actions were not justified by any sort of reason, he thoroughly believed that if his people had vanity (most art and things like makeup, jewelry, etc.) in their possession they would lose focus and later pay for it in Hell. When people have faith without reason they are very capable of doing things in which make no sense in an earthly perspective. We need to find a healthy balance of faith to reason, when one gets out of balance one may think irrationally and lose focus on what’s important in this life and the next. If a leader, such as Savonarola, were to have faith without any justification or reason they could very easily run a country into the ground. In Savonarola’s case he simply reversed all progress made by artists. He paid for it later when he was put on the rack and tortured until only his right arm remained, and they only left it so he could sign his confession. He was excommunicated and then executed; quite appropriate for someone who did as much damage and reversal as he did.
Prepared by Zach
We discussed the troubles of Hamlet, the endless question of whether life is worth living, even in the most sorrowful of times. This quandary cannot be answered so lightly, due to Hamlet’s uncertainty of what follows life. In the end Hamlet refrains from taking his own life due to this very same uncertainty, which raises the question that even in his great sorrow and irrationality, how can his rationality be the deciding factor as to whether or not to end his sorrow? Which leads one to suspect that he had not planned on taking his life, if he had indeed been rational the whole time in which he debated his lifes end, unless he himself considered an untimely end to be rational. One question that seemed prominent was, how Hamlet can have such uncertainty in a time greatly ruled by religion, as are all times. This also raised the question as to where Hamlet’s faith was placed, which was ultimately decided to be uncertainty. But in all we found the uncertainty enough to say that Hamlet, who in our minds proved himself rational, was correct in refraining from taking his own life.
Group Paper
Olympians
Prepared by Kirsten Frank
Section 19, Question 1: Is Hobbes’ depiction of the state of nature plausible?
Hobbes’ state of nature is the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state’s foundation.
Since the time that Hobbes presented this definition, politicians and philosophers alike have debated its validity and theorized about the impact that such a condition would have on mankind.
The question before us now is ‘Is Hobbes’ depiction of the state of nature possible?’ Hobbes wrote in his Leviathan that “[d]uring the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man”. The society presented here appears to be one pre-governmental rule, and Hobbes’ suggestion that the state of nature is also inherently a state of war seems to our group to be dead on.
Men naturally crave power, even when no governmental structure is there to support a society. In such a circumstance, any person has the natural right to protect and likewise make war against any other person. Every person in this state must also fight for protection, survival, livelihood, justice, and liberty all on their own. This ‘state of nature’ then appears to be pre-societal, and therefore must have existed at some point in antiquity, and is also therefore quite obviously plausible.
The question that seems to be at hand then is not IF but WHY societies all eventually turn from the ‘state of nature’ to a state with some type of governmental rule- whether it be democratic, republic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or tyrannical does not matter. Hobbes answers this question again in his Leviathan by stating that in the state of nature, life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.
This to us is clearly evidenced in the anxious creation of our own United States of America through our Declaration of Independence. Toward the end of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson states in context that ‘we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor’. In this line was the separation from English rule established, the progress out of the (although only temporarily held) state of nature made concrete, and the United States formed; a government where the subjects held therein pledge to each other their lives and liberties.
Thus we can clearly conclude that not only is Hobbes’ state of nature plausible, but that the progress of the world is defined in the way that societies chose to transition from the state of nature to one in which they are ruled in some way.
(Prepared By: Amber ) Our group discussed Hobbes’s concept of the “state of nature”. Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature is an uncivilized state where actions and behavior are driven by individuals’ self-interest. Hobbes believed that a state of nature is a life without law in which there is no sense of justice or injustice, and every man is against every man. Hobbes states that in a state of nature life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” We discussed the different aspects of Hobbes’ “state of nature” concept and decided that though it depicts a very vile way of life, it is also vey plausible.
Hobbes’ depiction of the state of nature is not only very plausible but we in fact believe it has occurred throughout time. Hobbes discusses in Levianthan that throughout history civilizations have always been in war with one another to keep and defend what they can. In some cases they were driven by their desires and personal gain, but they were in a state of nature. They had no moral concept of right or wrong while mercilessly killing and slaughtering one another, they had no notion of morality and there was no common power presiding over them to enforce these ideals. Examples of this are campaigns led by Alexander the Great or Caesar where battles were won and lost. Why was it considered honorable to mutilate soldiers and citizens for personal gain? How was the idea of expanding territory more valuable than then the millions of lives lost throughout time to do so? The answer is because in a state of nature people are driven merely by person interest with no regard to the personal loss of others. While these are examples of states of nature in ancient historical times, states of nature have occurred in our lifetimes as well. Many times when disaster strikes and chaos arises, so does a state of nature. This is because, according to Hobbes, when there is no longer a common power to preside over people they embrace their “right of nature”. The right of nature is “…the liberty each man hath to use his power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature…” In other words, every man’s right is to do whatever and as much as he can possibly manage. An example of this would be Hurricane Katrina. When New Orleans was devastated by the hurricane there was no sense of authority to assert power or consequence when laws were broken, the result was a loss of all sense of law and the concepts of right and wrong were dissolved. People began looting flooded stores and stealing from each other. There were murders and violence everyday as individuals did as much as they could manage to better themselves. It truly was every man, woman, or child again every other man, woman, or child in the fight to survive. It was like time reverted back to those historical periods of barbaric behavior with no sense of justice; it was a state of nature.
We discussed the specific events that depict states of nature, and how a sense of community and unity abolishes that state. However, even in our society we are not completely unified and do not trust each other. This is portrayed in our everyday behaviors. If we trusted those around us we would invest in pricey security systems, we would have no use for handguns, and we would not waste our time on self defense classes. It is clear that even though we laws and authorities to enforce them, we do not trust them alone to keep us safe. This is evidence that accredits Hobbes’s concept. We agreed that by reflecting upon events in the past and present Hobbes’s was correct and his concept of the state of nature is plausible. Hobbes’s concept expresses that nothing is unjust in a state of nature, and we can observe the devastating effects that occur from not only the states of nature in the past but also the sporadic states of nature that occur today.
I thought about the discussion topic of “is Decartes right that there is no way to tell now whether you are dreaming? What evidence is there if so?”
Decartes was one that started doubting everything so that he could see the transition of things and the reasoning behind it all to believe because with out transition and reason it is hard to believe anything. He makes claims of what is true such as knowing he has ideas, feelings, attitudes and knew that sometimes he makes judgments.Decartes said “I think there for I am” By this he means he exists as a mind, a thinking thing and he knows he has ideas. Decartes brings up interesting ideas about how a dream may be a dream but when you wake up are you really awake? It’s hard to know only because in a dream objects seem very close and real. For myself to know if I am or am not dreaming, I simply can feel objects for how they really feel compared to in a dream. Sometimes I may feel objects in my dream but not the true feel such as in my dream I know I have fallen off of my bed and hit the desk next to me but I haven’t felt pain so that’s how I know I am dreaming. In reality I would have felt that desk and it would have really hurt. I also know I am not dreaming because I like to run. I have noticed when I run in my dreams I don’t get anywhere and I can’t run fast because I have sheets and covers on my bed slowing me down. I think Decartes and I have way different thought processes but I can see why he wanted to doubt everything to believe it and know what he is in the world. I just don’t think that what Decartes says can convince me that I am the only one who exists and everyone around me isn’t real its just a figment of my imagination. If I can think clearly, feel every things real feel, hear, hurt, cry, laugh, be physically active and hold conversations with responses back and learn from others than I feel that is good enough to convince me that not only myself but the people who surround me are real.
Prepared By Blake:
The validity of the Christians arguments are based off the belief that the gospel writers are more credible witnesses. Christians hold the gospel writers in high regard and thus are able to believe that those accounts being falsified would be more miraculous then the miracle itself thus in their mind it would pass the test Hume established to determine if a miracle was real, or possible. Derek believes this question is stupid he believes it all depends on the person and the belief structure of the individual if one has faith in God then his understanding of what is true will come based off a the knowledge that has been recorded and passed down by the bible. It acts as a credible witness to the miracles. We discussed the idea that you can have a million different arguments over miracles. Sara mentioned that you can justify any miraculous. Blake wondered if there is any miracle that can’t be justified away. We talked about the different miracles that Moses and the children of israel saw and talked about how to them the miracles would have been beyond the need for credibility of the source as they are the source. There is the possibility that they were deceived although we felt that it would be pretty hard to fake enough bread falling from the sky each morning to feed an entire country. We did note that generations removed from the event it can then be questioned easily. The discussion then went into a conversation about how the longer the time had past the less credible the original story gets and the more easily able to refute it. We then discussed Hume’s understanding of miracles and believe that Hume wouldn’t have counted those natural wonders as miracles because they follow a natural law that we know of today. We then discussed how all miracles might be an understood as being an expression of a higher law that is controlled and understood by God. Something that we haven’t discovered yet could be responsible for all the miracles but this doesn’t discount hand of God within these. For instance if we went back in time to Hume’s day and brought with us any of the technology we have now, he’d think and believe that it was a miracle when really it was just a manifestation of a greater knowledge and understanding of the law’s of nature. In like manner God has perfect knowledge of all laws would allow him to exercise that knowledge to accomplish what to us would be deemed as miraculous or without explanation by natural law. This would seem to be contradictory to the idea of something being ‘miraculous’ unless you looked at the definition of a miracle as a display of God’s power in which case you could argue that a display of superior knowledge and understanding of natural laws is such a display of power and thus miraculous even when explained under the idea of ‘natural law’.
Rousseau sees that education comes from nature (1.Basic pleasures, individual inclinations, and what society deems as good), other people and our own experience. He mentions that we are born weak, so we need strength; we are born lacking everything, so we need aid; we are born stupid, so we need judgment. So therefore everything we lack at birth is given to us by education. Mary Wollstonecraft says that education is a matter of gaining strength and independence. My opinion is that they are both right and both have similar ideas of education. I know I have learned from personal experience in many cases. I have even learned from others as well. When I was younger I was told not to touch the stove after it was on because it would be hot and burn my fingers. Me being a little bit of a rebel, I decided to see for my self and I touched the stove. Exactly what others have told me about the burning stove was true and therefore I learned from personal experience and also learned to listen to others because other people can be very knowledgeable. I know i was born weak, lacked a lot of things, and was born knowing absolutely nothing. Going to school was my education and I learned from many others and I have learned from personal experience how to start from nothing but then get somewhere with knowledge. Mary Wollstonecraft’s idea of education had to do with strength and independence. In the world, strength is what keeps me pushing forward. To learn more is my advantage and strength helps me to put education first. i know that there are a lot smarter people than I. I know that there are a lot of people going into the same field as I. It takes strength though, to keep pushing yourself harder to make your self better. Same with independence. Independence makes me stronger because I don’t rely on others to do things for me or to help cheat for me. I grew from others, my self and experience, strength and independence.
Prepared by Nick:
This past week our group decided to focus our discussion towards Rousseau’s interpretation on human nature. More specifically his views on women nature. Ben and I both agreed that as society has progressed so too has our views and opinions on human nature and women nature. In reference to Rousseau’s views on women nature, I think modern society would deem these views as politically incorrect. As society has progressed women have become more and more independent. Women have progressed to have more similar natures to that of men and are becoming less like Rousseau’s views on women as every generation progresses.
Wollstonecraft’s objection to Rousseau Ben and I believe is more similar to the views of the common world. Her points on how women’s natures have should be nourished without deciding their specific roles are becoming more and more common in the beliefs of most American society as well as all other societies around the world. Women nature is constantly progressing into that of their own rather than what early society has set before them.
WhatYaGot USU 1320-006 Prepared by Jayson Dursteler 3/22/10
We chose to study Leibniz for this week’s discussion question. As we started into the text discussing the make-up of God. in section 43, Sam and I became perplexed and pondered for sometime about the commentary adjacent to this section. “Further more, in God there is not only the source or existences, but also that of essences, insofar as they are real, that is to say, the source of what is real in the possible. For the understanding of God is the region of eternal truths or of the ideas of which they depend, and without him there would be nothing real in the possibility of things, and not only would there be nothing in existence, but nothing would even be possible.” In the commentary, it states that “God’s understanding contains every possible idea; this is how we can think and reason about things that don’t really exist.” (Consider a million sided object, we can figure out some of its geometrical properties even if there is no such object.)” What I and Sam are having a hard time understanding and the conclusion that we have drawn is that this commentary has misinterpreted Leibniz’s statement about understanding eternal truth or ideas on which they depend. How can you think and reason about things that do not really exist when you would not have any description or definition of such things? These non-existent things would be undefined or indescribable and incomprehensible in thought and speech. I cannot describe what they would be because I cannot comprehend it. As opposed to a “million sided object” which could indeed exist. It can exist because I can think it and describe it. God’s understanding does contain every possible idea because everything is infinite. There is no non-existent thing that man can comprehend. By saying that we can think and reason about things that don’t really exist would be contradictory to the statement of “understanding all possible ideas.” This is why this commentary can be misleading. If we go back to Leibniz ideas, he validates this argument with “without him there would be nothing real… nothing would even be possible. “ By understanding this argument of God and having a description of God, it further validates the existence of God because all men that would read this would a have a descriptive essence of God’s character and attributes. They would be able to think and reason about things that they say really doesn’t exist.
Absent: Mitchell
Prepared by Nicole
For this Discussion, our group discussed the Critique of Immanuel Kant. Caisie and I both agreed that Kant was a man of practical, yet contemplative knowledge. He reinforced Copernican views with his own twist, something he called a “Copernican Revolution”. His ideas were simple, and at the same time profound; in my opinion. His focus was that of the human being the center of the earth, and that our cognition plays a great role not in observing, but organizing the knowledge we obtain. The views my group and I took on this was that Kant believed that we all exist with a predetermined knowledge, and that as our minds grow and develop, we learn how to organize and classify that knowledge. I personally fully agreed with Kant. Our minds arrange our experiences in a way that allows us to benefit most fully from them. How do we know which experiences are important; which ones we should choose to learn from; and which will leave our thoughts quickly? Kant imposes that our mind, our cognition is the center of all knowledge gained in this world. Caisie stated her view on Kant: He is almost and Human Rights believer in an odd sort of way. Do away with the boundary’s set by religion and laws, and let us each realize that it is our mind that creates such morals and ethics. We know the basics of math and science, because our minds set the limits of this knowledge, and we have trouble with metaphysics because it is not set by our cognition. We do not know the boundaries of metaphysics as we do math and science, and so our organizing, systematizing mind has a difficult time knowing how to accept and categorizing it. This all makes Kant’s belief that the mind is the center seem so much more appropriate. We have knowledge based on how we organize experience. Which is so true because we learn from our mistakes and experiences; the only thing left to do is filter out the unimportant and use the information left to study by. This maximizes the ability for human knowledge to grow.
Prepared by Nicole
For this Discussion, our group discussed the Critique of Immanuel Kant. Caisie and I both agreed that Kant was a man of practical, yet contemplative knowledge. He reinforced Copernican views with his own twist, something he called a “Copernican Revolution”. His ideas were simple, and at the same time profound; in my opinion. His focus was that of the human being the center of the earth, and that our cognition plays a great role not in observing, but organizing the knowledge we obtain. The views my group and I took on this was that Kant believed that we all exist with a predetermined knowledge, and that as our minds grow and develop, we learn how to organize and classify that knowledge. I personally fully agreed with Kant. Our minds arrange our experiences in a way that allows us to benefit most fully from them. How do we know which experiences are important; which ones we should choose to learn from; and which will leave our thoughts quickly? Kant imposes that our mind, our cognition is the center of all knowledge gained in this world. Caisie stated her view on Kant: He is almost and Human Rights believer in an odd sort of way. Do away with the boundary’s set by religion and laws, and let us each realize that it is our mind that creates such morals and ethics. We know the basics of math and science, because our minds set the limits of this knowledge, and we have trouble with metaphysics because it is not set by our cognition. We do not know the boundaries of metaphysics as we do math and science, and so our organizing, systematizing mind has a difficult time knowing how to accept and categorizing it. This all makes Kant’s belief that the mind is the center seem so much more appropriate. We have knowledge based on how we organize experience. Which is so true because we learn from our mistakes and experiences; the only thing left to do is filter out the unimportant and use the information left to study by. This maximizes the ability for human knowledge to grow.
(Prepared by Brittney)When writing ‘Emile’, Rousseau declares that culture and education corrupts human nature but thinks that there is a way to raise people so their nature will not be corrupted. We came to the conclusion that both education and culture do not corrupt out natural abilities but instead provide the opportunities to enhance them. However, could society convince us to use those abilities for the lesser good? We also discussed Rousseau’s view on a woman’s nature and came to the conclusion that we do not agree with him. According to Rousseau, a woman tends to be more timid and passive then men are. While in 1700’s women did tend to be passive and timid it was because the culture of that time period expected them to act that way. Not only did society dictate how women were supposed to act but religion played a fundamental role as well and those views are still seen around the world today.
When Rousseau talks about human nature in general, all of the remarks apply to men only. Where is the line drawn between general human nature and what specifically applies to men and specifically applies to women? Are the two not able to share any medium? Is Rousseau really saying that women are not technically given human rights because their only purpose in life is to serve men?
By Taylor Mulford
Our group dicussed the passage in the book from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau writes about our needs, what we seek in life and our goals. As children we seek only basic pleasures, but as we grow older we seek two different things. One of these is what suits us as an individual. The things that make us, as individuals, feel happy and accomplished. This can sometimes come into conflict with the final goal that we seek. This is becoming what society deems as good. In our group we came to the conclusion that the two goals almost always come into conflict with each other. It is the difference between doing something for yourself verses doing things for others. It is difficult to find a career that you not only enjoy but that society deems as good. In Rousseau’s passage he suggest a solution to the conflict. We would have to change the society’s oppinion of what is good. For the two goals to aline good should be thought of as an individual who has strong individuality, flourishes as an individual, has autonomy, and independence. We found most of Rousseau’s writings to be good and true until we came to his thoughts on women. We thought that his “nature” for women was unintelligent. Anyone can see that women are just as capable as men, if not more so. He suggests that it is a woman’s nature to be timid, passive and made to please men. I have met some women in my life that would be more than furious with this statement. While some women do seem to be more timid and passive there are just as many that are strong and capable.
Prepared by Zach Basinger
For this discussion I looked into Rousseau’s writing ‘Emile’. In this writing Rousseau states that ones environment or culture, and ones educations corrupts human nature as a whole. I would have to agree with Rousseau up to a certain point in this statement. One’s education could take away from one’s true nature, making them in all sense and purposes unnatural in Rousseau’s point of view. I found it strange that Rousseau categorized a woman’s nature differently than a mans. I wondered if this was not due to the time in which Rousseau was prominant, but as a read on I figured that to be more of a factor than anticipated. He states that women are more passive and gentle than men, though I agree to a point with that, I would say women have changed greatly since that period. But having said that I would also say that in a woman’s nature there are a higher percentage of women who are passive versus men, and I could only see that being magnified by the age in which Rousseau was active. That also brings up the question as to whether Rousseau’s culture may have changed the true nature of women, and men for having such an opinion about them proving part of his statement correct.
(Prepared By: Amber) Our group discussed the differences between Rousseau’s goals for education and the goals for education of Wollstonecraft. When discussing the goals each had for education, it was clear that they had many of the same ideas and principles on how education should be orchestrated in order to nourish individuals and help them naturally flourish to their full potential. The difference is that what Rousseau believed applied to men, he did not believe applied to women, whereas Wollstonecraft believed that the same principles that applied to men also applied to women. Ironically, Rousseau made the same mistake about women as he believed culture made about men.
Rousseau believed that the ultimate goal is to be natural. When applying this idea to education he believed that the “passions” should occur naturally, free of opinion from the outside would. This means that individuals should decide for themselves the roles they wish to play and the whether or not they are important. He believed that humans face conflict when trying to fulfill personal desires while also attempting to fulfill societal expectations creating a “for me vs. for them” conflict. Rousseau’s solution is to change societal expectations and encourage intellectual and personal flourishing so an individual can fulfill their personal desires and reach their maximum potential. By doing so Rousseau believed that it was possible to build a society which encourages development of natures without facing ruin, where our natural likes and dislikes are not corrupted by the opinions we are taught. However, he made a mistake in believing that these principles only applied to men and women were by nature different, less capable, and therefore needed different education which consisted of encouraging the timid and less capable behavior in which society had associated them with.
Wollstonecraft agreed with Rousseau’s ideas of education. She believed that people are influenced by society’s expectations of them and that when those stereotypes are lifted people are allowed to flourish to their natural potential instead of weighted down by opinions. Where her ideals differed from those of Rousseau is when concerning women. He believed women were timid and less capable by nature whereas she believed women had acquired these traits because they were stereotypes placed upon them by society and because society expected women to be this way it in return, through their form of education, taught them to be this way. It works like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because society sees these traits as customary for women, it seems them as ideal for women, and women are taught these traits in order to be seen as ideal. Wollstonecraft believed that if women were educated the same as men and given the opportunities to flourish through proper education and equal opportunity then they too were quite capable, if not more, than men of holding power and acquiring success.
We agree with Wollstonecraft. Men were seen as the dominant gender for centuries, however in the last century in times of war men were drafted into the services and women were left to fill their jobs and pick up their responsibility. Women rose to the occasion and proved that they too were capable of power and success. Though women are still trying to battle this stereotype that they are less capable than men, for example the United States has yet to see a female elected president, and white men do hold a majority of the power in today’s society, which is partly due to the longstanding discrimination reinforced by Rousseau and many others, there are many very powerful women that have proven to be just as capable and successful as men, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, PepsiCo Chief Executive Indra Nooyi, and Argentine President Christina Fernandez. As longstanding stereotypes are lifting, women around the world have proven that power and success are products of education and opportunity, regardless of gender.
The narrator’s (from: notes from underground) attitude sounds carefree. He states in the beginning that he is sick with a disease and he knows he is sick but not sure what he has. He refuses to see a doctor and thinks of his condition of only hurting himself and no other.If he could make somebody unhappy than he became happy. he talks about having elements swimming in his head, and that those elements swarming in him tormented him until he was ashamed. To me forty years of age is young but to Dostovevsky, he saw that forty was a whole life time and that by living beyond forty years was bad manners and immoral. So if he were to meet me, I believe he would be just as stubborn or irrigant to me as he was to others. I think that because I live my life happy and I don’t let things bring me down. Dostovevsky likes to make the happy, unhappy. From what I have read Dostovevsky isn’t a happy man and it is ashame his parents died when he was 16 for his mom and 18 when his dad died. I’m sure there may have been a lot of emotions those days and then going to prison I’m sure that had corrupted him. He had a lot to handle in life and maybe that’s why he shows now fear in life.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky has stolen my identity! That counter-enlightenment bastard! Will I do anything about it? I don’t think so. Not because I can’t but because I would much rather use my time and energy to complain and whine about that bastard stealing my identity. Together, our optimism is always overshadowed by our pessimism. To truly understand oneself, one has to explore the shadows of one’s own being. This is what the counter-enlightenment period contributed to the human existence. Sometimes within our exploration, our life’s compass can become uncaliberated and we don’t realize how lost we have become when we are walking an unfamiliar course. Dostoyevsky’s attitude about himself is that he knows he is dark and filthy. Yet he is comfortable and seeks refuge there and is justified, feeling that he owns this state that he is the ruler of his own destiny. If happiness is weighted upon the scale of injustice than the six thousand rubles would weigh but a small pittance compared to the love of spite he gives back to society, for society’s injustices upon him. Dostoyevsky might see me as his long lost friend. We both value the same things. We both enjoy our little space in this world, even if the space is horrid, small, and smelly because we can control our universe there. We can choose to beat the world in making ourselves unhappy. We’ll get ourselves before the world can get us! In reality, Dostoyevsky might find me as despicable as other members of society that he despises. That assumption is based on my distaste for his horridly simple use of spite. You would think that an educated man could be a little more creative in his interaction with the real?
Prepared by: Hailee Richman
Felecia Park
Danica Moran
Whitney Baxter
Discussion Summary
One of the topics our group discussed was Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground. Just in the first few sentences you get a feel that this man just seems so miserable in life. It seems as though nothing can make him happy. He has a very pessimistic and unpleasant view on the world. He even says that when he was in the government service he was a very spiteful official and “took pleasure in being so.” All of this was just for his own amusement though, he was rude and horrid just for his own pleasure. If the narrator every met any of us, we believe that he would have the same attitude toward us all, the same. He would just see us as useless beings, along with the rest of the world. He would do anything he could to make us unhappy. For a little while you start to think that the only thing he values is being spiteful and making people unhappy. But as you read on you understand that he doesn’t care about or value anyone or anything. He sees life as a useless period of time in which we all just wait for death, although he does seem to value himself over all others. We don’t think that anything could possibly make this man happy. He is just so miserable that he views everything in a negative way. He mentions his corner a few times, maybe that makes him happy, having something of his own that he can sit and judge the world. But even that I don’t believe could make him entirely happy.
Another topic we discussed was Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. We discussed what we thought it was that Kierkegaard found so amazing about Abraham. We all agreed that is was Abraham’s immense faith and love for the Lord that he would sacrifice his only son, who was very hard to conceive in the first place, just on pure faith and loyalty. A few of us believed that Abraham would have to be insane to be willing to do this for the Lord. They thought that if he went and did it easily with no thinking he would have to be insane, but of course he had doubts and was hesitant about it at first. He just knew it was something he had to do. So I personally believe that he had enough faith to know that the Lord wouldn’t ask him to do this seemingly impossible thing if he wasn’t going to give him anything in return. Abraham believed that he would be thoroughly blessed for his sacrifice.
(Prepared by Emily ) Immanuel Kant claimed that the human mind imposes order upon experience. He believed that we create categories such as space and time to better understand the world around us. What we experience as human beings doesn’t make sense unless we relate it to something that we have previously experienced or that we can relate to. Kant’s theory is very believable in that as humans we instinctively relate and group events into certain categories. When explaining an even we typically relate it to a time frame, a location, who you were with or other categorical descriptions. Kant’s ideas contributed to the Enlightenment in that he made the distinction of why we know so much about science and so little about metaphysics. The Enlightenment was all about discovering facts of life for ourselves and advancement in science. While many other philosophers of the time period asked why we don’t know much about metaphysics, Kant was the first to provide an answer. Kant’s answer was that God is greater than the human race and because our understanding is limited to what we can categorize we cannot comprehend what is greater than our limited scope of understanding. While many philosophers of the time had similar concepts as Kant, Kant was able to organize his ideas into a comprehendible matter that was easily understood by everyone allowing more people to participate in the Enlightenment.
Caisie Peterson
Fyodor Dostoyevsky is crazy! Basically his attitude is really bad, towards everything around him. The first thing he talks about is how he’s a sick, spiteful man. An unnatractive man. Getting his liver fixed would be what is expected of him, so of course he’s not going to do that! He claims that he acts this way to humor himself, but thats hard for us to believe. I think he has been a certain way for so long and he’s afraid to change or maybe he doesn’t know how. I think it would be very interesting to meet this man. I would like to see how nice I could be to him. Nicole and I however, believe he would act the same towards us as he does the rest. We also thought about how maybe someone could help him? Maybe if someone was constantly showing him love and compassion no matter what he did. We also discussed how he doesn’t seem to value life very much at all. He describes how a man older than fourty must be a fool. Fourty years in this life is not very long at all. He dwells in his “corner” contemplating in his mind how he doesn’t know how to be anything. That only a fool has character.He must be frustrated, and lonely but I think he prefers to be alone. We feel bad for him, but maybe he really does enjoy the way he lives. Maybe striving to be spiteful is all he really wants out of this life. Doubt it.
I will be discussing the writings by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The man starts his writings by confessing his spiteful nature, saying he would not get his diseased liver fixed because it would be what he was expected to do. He of course knows he would not be getting back at any one person particularly, so who is he trying to spite? Maybe he truly is trying to spite himself, though that seems unlikely. Maybe he spites at expectations, or the human nature saying that either of those are insignificant and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I think the man represents a growing minority of thoughts and emotions, he displeases others for personal pleasure. The man is broken, but he knows he is broken. The man is unimportant, and he knows he is unimportant. I think if we met this man, we would not be staring at someone all so different from ourselves.
(Prepared by Nick)
This Week Ben and I focused our discussions on Immanuel Kant. More specifically his idea that “ We impose order and laws upon our experience; we impose purpose in art and biology; and we establish the moral law”. To me this is a very powerful statement that I also agree with. The part of that statement which I feel I can relate the most is the section on how our laws and order is dependent upon our experience. I feel the way we were raised and the people we surround ourselves with his a huge reason we are who we are today. As individuals different cultures and social situations effect how we feel and how we act. I also believe religion can have a huge impact on this as well. Certain religions uphold different “laws” and “moral laws” that they expect their members to support and uphold. I think Kant was trying to impose the idea that we should be more open to ideas and try not to limit ourselves to that which we are immediately exposed.
Discussion 7
Team Hercules
(Prepared By: Amber) Our group discussed Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and whether or not Kierkegaard believed Abraham was insane to be willing to sacrifice his own son. We began by discussing Kierkegaard’s statement, “He believed by virtue of the absurd; for there could be no question of human calculation, and it indeed was absurd the God who required it of him should the next instant recall the requirement.” This statement translates to say that Abraham’s thinking was indeed absurd and not logical or calculated. Kierkegaard states that Abraham was relying on God not following through with his intentions, and yet would have still sacrificed his son if need be, and that he believed by virtue of the absurd. Later on in his writing Kierkegaard writes, “…for all human reckoning had long since ceased to function. That sorrow can derange a man’s mind, that we see, and it is sad enough.” This statement clarifies that, in Kierkegaard’s opinion, Abraham has lost the ability of human reckoning and that he was in fact deranged, or insane. After discussing these specific segments of Kierkegaard’s writing we believe that Kierkegaard views Abraham as insane. Our belief is supported further by Kierkegaard’s statements that his soul is appalled by the loss of reason and “the whole of finiteness of which reason is the broker.”
As we discussed the issue of Abraham’s sanity we discussed our state of mental states had we been in the same situation. We were astounded by the idea of hurting anyone, no matter the reason. How could someone sanely kill their own child? While the story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice for God is inspiring for many, we agreed that we could never make that same sacrifice and be sane. In fact, in today’s society it is seen as immoral and considered murder. There have been criminal cases in which people have claimed that a higher power has instructed them to commit such crimes, for example Deanna Laney and Andrea Yates. Laney claimed that God had instructed her to kill her children, and she stated that she either had to follow what she believed to be God’s will, or turn her back on God. Both Laney and Yates were both deemed legally insane during their trials. We do not intend in any way to compare the crimes these women committed to historical religious accounts, but just to show that in today’s society whether or not a person claims themselves insane, in these circumstances society deemed them insane and professionals diagnosed them with mental illnesses. We agree with this and believe that for an individual to sacrifice their own child, no matter what the situation, that individual would have to be insane.
(prepared by Ty)
In our group discussion this week were able to have the opportunity of talking about Mr. Fyodor Dostovsky, and also the “Disenchantments”. We all agreed that it seems like all the changes that were trying to be made all throughout the Enlightnment seem as if they are still trying to be made in this day and age. It seemed to us that some changes were made to society and life in general according to Human Reason, but that there are still many things mentioned long ago that are still desirable changes in the societies of the world in this day and age. We also talked about people who are existentialists and the way in which they think. I personally try my best to not put myself before the Higher Power that I believe in, the others in our group felt about the same way. We discussed how easy it is to only think about yourself in the world today, especially with how skewed people’s perceptions are of many different things that are important matters.
Next we talked about Dostovsky, we didn’t have much time left on the room we checked out, so we just talked about his life, rather than his work, “Notes from Underground”. As we read through the introduction to Dostovsky in our textbook, we all felt pretty bad for him. He turned out okay from what we discussed, but overall, he went through some of the hardest trials a person can go through in life. We all thought that he must be a decent man for being able to get through those trials and still live a somewhat normal life.
(Prepared by Brittney) Our group discussed Charles Darwin and his theories concerning common ancestry and natural selection. Darwin describes the common parent to all humans as one being that existed long ago and that over a certain amount of time adapted, mutated, and branched off into various species. Darwin claims that these mutations that lead to these different species occurred through freak reproductive accidents which eventually lead to the current organisms that are on the earth right now.
Darwin would explain the differences between the common ancestor and humans today through his theory of natural selection. If an offspring were to have a mutation that was more beneficial to them versus what is normal that offspring would be more likely to thrive in its environment than those without that mutation. That mutation from that one offspring would then be passed from generation to generation until a new species had occurred. In accordance with natural selection, Darwin believed that each organism was created to serve and suit its own purposes. Humans are meant to fulfill human-like tasks while apes are meant to fulfill ape-like tasks and neither can serve the others purpose. If a human were to serve an ape-like task and/or vice versa, it would be considered as going against nature. Many people who have considered Darwin’s theories have asked for an explanation as to why humans are so diverse if we all share the same common ancestor? If we were to take Darwin’s theory and say it was truth and not just a scientific guess, wouldn’t all humans look alike since we have the same parents? The tree of life is the most basic explanation for our differences. Members of the same family are born with unique differences that are passed on in to each child and yet are only manifested in one or two.
What reasonable objections might someone bring to Darwin’s theory?
First, the theory is completely atheistic. Second, it makes no common sense to be told that everything originates from the same source. Third, the theory cannot be true with its “assumption of an impossibility or that matter does the work of mind.” (Hodge)
Let’s discuss the first objection. In Darwin’s theory, there is no variety of a creator or a supreme organizer. It is hard for some people to believe that the entire world around us was created by chance. There has to be a catalyst in order for element to begin creation. But what that is, no one completely knows. It is what we rely on as faith and faith can mean many things to different individuals. Why would there be no purpose or design? Why would the only thing that exists be natural selection?
Second, It makes no common sense to assume that my child is the same as a jellyfish! Even though the time period of evolution has given the scientific community a benchmark at which to measure progression of species, common sense still tells us that the time to evolve from a microbe to a man is not just a couple million years. Adaptation, or changes in the allele frequency are greater explanations as to why we have become who we are.
Lastly, the factoring out of the use of our minds as a form of natural selection is absurd. If we had ten people and we removed the brains of 9 of those people and those nine zombies sat there drooling all day along side the person with the intelligence, which one would live the longest? Which one would adapt the fastest? EVERBODY KNOWS THAT YOU CAN OUT RUN A ZOMBIE. So to say that intelligence is not a factor in Natural Selection, I believe is false.
“The first rule of Zombieland: Cardio. When the zombie outbreak first hit, the first to go, for obvious reasons… were the fatties.”
(Zombieland. Rubin Fliescher. Columbia Pictures. 2009.DVD.)
(prepared by Alexandria Boyle) Our group discussed Friedrich Nietzsche’s book Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche was a advocate of individualism. Society is seen through Nietzsche’s eyes as something that holds you back or is not beneficial to your individualism or self development. A key factor of Nietzsche’s is self development and through self development we can be happy in current situations, which is to say be happy with what you have and make the best of it. He also maintained the mindset of breaking away from the herd which fueled his ideals on individualism.
Our group discussion focused on the questions regarding his book. The first one was an analysis of why Nietzsche disliked the traditional morality or society which is referred to as the herd. We agreed that Nietzsche didn’t like society, we can see this through his comparison of the society is like a herd, where the leader leads and commands, and the pack (members of society) follows, and thus it is not being true to ourselves or to your nature. This can also be seen in today’s society as social norms where it seems strange or frowned upon to dance in the middle of the hallway unless you are in a pack or herd that also dances in the middle of the hallway. He also saw society as ultimately leading to no individualism because there is so much obedience that there is little room to separate yourself from the crowd or herd. His book titled beyond the good and evil can be looked at as saying beyond the ideal of society and being able to realize the power that lives inside the individual and yourself. It is a form of obedience and order to the herd not to ones self. He suggests that you should defy the herd as he has tried for your benefit, which is similar to the ideal of if you can you have the right to, because your right is individualism and this can separate you from the herd. Throughout his book his ideas of individualism is said that we ourselves must recognize and act on our own to benefit our individualism which will separate us from the herd. Once we can act and live as individuals we can then prosper and live life to the fullest, with no regrets. Living life to the fullest, with no regrets, and making the best of it will make this world the best. And from that he can conclude that there is no god.
Trent also participated in this discussion. And should receive credit for his input.
Freud: Prepared by Nicole Bagwell
This week our group discussed Freud’s theories. Last semester in my psychology class I had already discussed Freud in depth so I was very comfortable with the topic. Caisie, on the other hand had never learned about him so it was interesting discussing his ideas. We conversed about Freud’s theories and how unorthodox they were. Freud argued that humans were basically animals who’s entire existence was based off underlying sexual desires. In my opinion, Freud believed that we were all born with these desires, but learn to suppress them. This idea conflicts greatly with the ideas of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment philosophers proposed that humans are born with the absolute necessity to do good. It is the way we are raised that determines whether or not we act on that good, or choose to do evil. Freud surprised many by proposing the exact opposite. There were extreme arguments towards Freud’s reasoning, because nobody wanted to see themselves as terrible beings with an innate urge to release the monster inside. Freud definitely fit the category of a Counter-Enlightenment philosopher, but to one of the most extreme ends. When Caisie and I discussed whether or not we agreed with his views, we realized we were both negative. However, as we looked into it, Caisie said that the only reason she didn’t want to believe it was because she didn’t want to be deemed a monster. So philosophically, we realized Freud really did hit a hot spot with the people. He made people see what they didn’t want to see, but then did that give people an excuse to act on these actions? If our entire system changed to follow Freud’s beliefs everybody would use their “nature” to commit crimes. Freud opened up a door that terrified nations because it disagreed with the righteous nature everybody wanted to live.
I took a look at the three questions in the book and read over some of the summaries summited by my classmates. I have disagreements and some I agree with. Darwin mentions that there are organisms in the world that have similar features and structure that we know as not related. Darwin looks at these birds on Galapagos island and takes a look at how specialized those birds were for different situations. Then he gets the idea that perhaps all life started from a single species. His theory is that an offspring mutated sometimes beneficially and generally to fit different habitats. If that mutated offspring survives then eventually you get more of that kind of mutated offspring and later may change overtime to fit its environment. Darwin explains that it takes time for these changes to occur and then people ask if the world is even old enough? My idea is that yes, I do believe the world is old enough. My thought it that mutations can occur my frequent than most think. One group mentions that it doesn’t make common sense and that his child could not come from a jelly fish but to me it is possible. It sound absurd but you can’t think of it as your child coming directly from a jelly fish. More like over time evolution started with a jelly fish and a mutated jelly fish came abouts and then it survived its environment and kept releasing more mutated jelly fish into the world and who knows may be that jelly fish gained legs later over time and arms and lungs. It makes more sense to me than other things. Next, the group talks about natural selections and how if you have ten zombies and you remove nine zombie’s brains and one is left with a brain, which would survive? Well i thought about that and decided that they have a good point that it’s obvious which may survive but I have an argument about that. Not all mutated species are missing a brain. Maybe just something little may occur in the mutated specie, there for one could live in my thoughts.
(Prepared by Heather) In our group discussion, we talked about Darwin, and the effect that his theories had on the modern world. To start off our discussion, Taylor said that he didn’t really understand why the theory of evolution was so controversial today, when it has been proven by so many notable scientists. Kevin repeated what we discussed in class, saying that a lot of it was because accepting evolution was like accepting that humans weren’t put here for a reason, that if we were only formed by a random set of mutations, then really, human existence was really an accident and we are in no way privileged. Heather added that if we believe that humans are mistakes, than we believe that God didn’t put us specifically here for a reason, which pretty much opposes the doctrine taught in the book of Genesis in the bible, and could have serious implications on the religions of the world. Michelle said that she thought that it was possible to for people to have Christian beliefs and still recognize the theory of evolution, to an extent, because maybe evolution was the means for God’s creation of us. Heather agreed, saying that it was possible that we started off as bacteria, and humans developed through a kind of evolution, only one that was not as random as Darwin makes it appear. If we are to believe in a divine Creator, than maybe he took control of evolution, kind of tinkering with it until he got the organisms that he wanted, like humans. Taylor said that while this was possible, it couldn’t really still be called evolution, since one of the main doctrines of evolution is the existence of completely random mutations. If these mutations are planned, than Darwin’s theory wouldn’t really be correct. Kevin interrupted, saying that maybe that was true, but to those who still believed in a creator, it was a way of syncing religious and scientific beliefs. Because of this, it doesn’t really matter if all parts of the theory match up, as long is they are able in their own mind to justify it, and to make sense of the world. Michelle added that because nobody knows the true nature of God, nobody knows exactly how he created the world, and he could have done whatever he wanted, no matter what Darwin says. It all depends on how you want to perceive the world.
Prepared by Zach Basinger
I decided to look into Freud’s theories, which have always interested me. Freud states that a human being is has repressed memories of sorts, saying that when we are younger we think differently and learn to hide their underlying desires. These desires that all humans according to Freud had, desires that he believed were primarily sexual in nature. This was almost completely the opposite of the average Enlightenment philosopher, who usually stated that man in his natural state was good. But Freud says the opposite, thinking that man is naturally devious and extremely sexual in nature. Which was a new proposal for the time, that people did not want to accept. Who would want to accept the fact that they are naturally bad? I have to agree with Freud in a few matters, I do think that people if given the chance would do bad to better themselves, though I do not know if man is as sexually obsessive as Freud makes them out to be.
(Prepared by Amber, Jesse, Heidi, & Britt) Our group discussed Darwin’s theory of evolution and how Darwin explained the differences between the “common parent” and modern human beings. We began by talking about what Darwin’s theory was and how it contrasted with the metaphysical theories previously used to account for creation. Darwin’s theory basically states that instead of a higher power being responsible for the creation of the world and the different species that inhabit it, life forms all started from a single species and over vast amounts of time the offspring slowly and subtly mutated from one generation to the next, each generation being slightly different than its predecessor. However, Darwin did not believe that these mutations occurred with a specific end or purpose, but believed they were natural mutations, both blind and random. Within this idea of evolution, Darwin introduces his idea of natural selection, which states that through these many mutations some were beneficial and some were not. This idea continues to account for “evolved beings” by stating that the mutations resulting in beneficial characteristics helped the species to survive and reproduce, whereas the negative mutations did not and therefore that trait died out over time through either lack of survival or lack of ability to reproduce.
We found it very odd to consider that the reason humans have evolved the way we have is simply by chance. To think that hundreds or thousands of generations ago we possibly resembled amphibians, and through an extensive strain of flukes have mutated to the beings we are today with the mental capacity that we have developed is very interesting and astonishing. Is it really a mere accident that the human species exists? According to Darwin’s theory, vertebrates originated from an asexual aquatic animal with branchiae and, as written in the Descendent of Man, “This animal seems to have been more like the larvae of the existing marine ascidians than any other known form,” with the most important organs, such as the brain and heart, imperfectly of not at all developed. Darwin states that eventually generations of mutations led to the evolution of an amphibian like creature, and as mutations continued eventually a marsupial species evolved, and Darwin believes that from this animal the Quadrumana and all higher animals were derived. It was very difficult for us to imagine that species evolved from such different species; however we have to consider the vast amount of time these changes are occurring over.
Darwin accounts for the differences between this common parent and our early progenitors by describing the minute changes that occur when one species would reproduce. He claims that each generation of offspring was very slightly different from their parents, and even from each other. Darwin states that these random traits either gave the organism an advantage in its lifestyle and were passed down through reproduction, strengthening that species and evolving it, or the trait gave the organism a disadvantage and that specific trait died with the organism through lack of ability to live or reproduce, and compete with the organisms that were affected by a beneficial mutation. This occurs with each generation, and becomes “survival of the fittest”, with the fittest organisms surviving to pass on the beneficial traits and the weaker organisms dying out, taking with then the negative traits. According to Darwin, after hundreds of thousands of years of this chain of mutations, we eventually end up with different species that have adapted and evolved through natural selection to their environments, locations, lifestyles, etc. We are very different from the organisms we derived from thousands of generations ago, but these differences are simply small, random variations that accumulated over time and through reproduction.
(prepared by Nick)
This week Ben and I decided to talk about Darwin’s ideas on evolution. Being brought up in a religious environment we both found several flaws in his ideas. We believe that rather than species evolving over time from a single species that instead each individual species was created by a greater being to be exactly what it is today. There are however certain species that do evolve or adapt to their environment, but those species were simply designed to adapt. If man evolved or transformed from apes, then why are there still apes today? Wouldn’t that itself prove Darwinism wrong? It does not make sense as to why some groups of the same species would evolve and others would not. If apes eventually evolved into humans then apes would no longer exist. And with evolution humankind has been around for thousands of years. Wouldn’t humanoids continue to evolve? Why would we simply halt at our current form instead of continue to evolve. Surely there are still plenty of flaws in the human design. These are the non religious flaws than Ben and I could find that would prove Darwinism to be a far fetched idea.
Heidegger and his claim that we have forgotten the question of Being resonates with in my thought, to the extent that by not questioning what our Dasein is, but by just existing one may never fully achieve his or her design for lack of comprehension. How would Being be reviled to us in our existence? How do we recognize Being? How is Being governed upon us? The answer is Time. Past, Present and Future. Dasein is the experience of being human. We can comprehend the past. We are comprehending the Present. The Future? What about the Future? Have we reached the potential for Being? There is always something ahead or nonexistent. “As long as Dasein is an entity, it has never reached its wholeness.” What purpose might you have? Have you forgotten? Did you ever know? When will you realize this? What progression can come about if no destination is set? Is this destination death? If we have lost that most a priori idea of our Being, where and how fast do we merit our goal of Dasein? These questions must be answered to the meaning of self. These questions will unlock those moments of authenticity that is your Being. (prep Jayson)
(Prepared by Emily) This week we discussed Freud and his impact on philosophy. Freud’s theories can be viewed as “counter enlightenment” in that he believed that what experiences we encounter on a daily basis does not necessarily match what desires, drives, and need for social acceptance that the id, ego, and superego emit. The Enlightenment was a time where individuals were encouraged to discover things for themselves and not blindly follow what political and religious traditions were accepted as right. Freud believed that what our mind actually processes and decides does not always correspond with these political and religious traditions. His theories were quite radical in challenging many long held beliefs, particularly his oedipal complex, which caused unrest among the religious community. Both Freud and Darwin’s revolutionary insights can be used to explain the excessive violence of the twentieth century. Darwin’s evolution theory explains the human drive to improve so that your traits will continue on into future generations. That combined with Freud’s theory about the id, superego, and ego may explain Hitler’s belief and desire to create an Arian race. He allowed his id to overpower the superego and ego and ignore the moral and social consequences that followed. The excessive violence of both World Wars also caused many people to realize the harsh realities of the world which caused their psyche to react more violently than they would if there wasn’t war, anger, and aggression everywhere.
The Dream Team (Kevin White, Taylor Mulford, Michelle Boyer, Heather Foster) Written by Kevin White
Our group discussed what are some reasonable objections to Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Kevin stated that after studying Darwin a little more in depth, he came upon a quote from Darwin confessing the following about his own theory, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Kevin believed that if even the author of this theory can discount it in any way, that there is no one it can be creditable. Taylor continued stating that he was in shock after hearing that quote but even before hearing that, he knew of many advances in science that would seem to disprove Darwin’s theory that we all came from the same thing and that we were accidents. Heather came in saying that the belief in Christianity would force someone to have a very strong objection to his theory. Christians believe that we came from heaven, and in no way did humans accidentally form on this earth. Michelle said that the greatest objection she has to Darwin’s theory is that there is no way that he could have tested many of his thoughts. How could he have known after a visit to the Galapagos Islands that over vasts amounts of time, species will change and adjust to their own environment. She, along with all of us believe that when Darwin produced this theory, he did not have the proper research or evidence to prove any of it.
James Joyce’s Ulysses is a parallel between homer’s poem odysseys; molly bloom is similar to Penelope, and Leopold bloom is similar to Odysseus. He writes in a Stream of consciousness technique! To capture the human mind and how it works. Ulysses went under a lot of scrutiny as the “Joyce wars” developed after his first publication of Ulysses. In the “war” others tried to fix or remake Joyce’s Ulysses. I wonder how he felt about that? probably not to great considering others where rewriting his book and getting money off of it when he wasn’t recieving money for their revisions. However, I particularly like how it is structured as a kind of random, jumping story that keeps you guessing, it shows how versatile the human mind can be. This part of the last sentence of James Joyce’s passage, it shows very well the many different and unique ways the human brain can wonder during the vast number of thoughts it processes during a short period of ones life. This was kind of hard to read, but after a little bit of reading it I actually found it quite funny and entertaining to read. This was because I was able to relate very well to the way in which the lady’s thoughts bounce around. I think we all would be able to relate to this passage in that manner.
Chapter 35 Question 1
I decided to write my discussion on Heidegger. It’s hard to really know if we have forgotten the question of being. Like someone said above me, it would be hard to establish being in our own existence. We need to know and understand our past, presence and future and beyond our future. As we live we experience Dasein because of our being-there-ness but we haven’t got a clue what our being is like after “being”. A lot of good questions are asked to start out with understanding “being” such as: What is being?, What is the problem of being? I think what makes it very confusing to most to really define being is the fact that everyone has different opinions as to how we all evolved and yet we don’t even know what happens to us when we leave this Earth..or do we? We may still be considered being after life but it is hard to answer these questions when we still don’t have all of the facts to back this claim up and understand what “being” is and teh problems of “being”.
Prepared by Caisie
Friedrich Nietzsche believes that mankind has been practicing obedience from the beginning of time. There has always been groups that stick together such as families, tribes, and nations who have always been ruled by a smaller group than they.Throughout history men have proven to be pretty much obedient to their commander. He calls this will to be obedient, a “formal conscience.” The question of Nietzche is what is wrong with traditional morality? He believed that these higher statures couldn’t deal with their conscience, except they give themselves a reason. A Commander or Lord might say he is only helping out for a greater good. If they too were only “obeying” it would set their minds at ease. Nicole and I find this theory fascinating. We agree that their had to be some way of blocking out the guilt and crualty. Nietzsche called it moral hypocrisy. He wanted to overcome this system, he wanted to reverse ‘eternal values.’ He talks about experimenting in discipline and breeding. Its interesting how passionate he gets about this idea of the “new philosophers.” His idea was for human’s to have self development, to grow away from the herd. Nietzsche wanted individuals to develop and live for themselves, to recognize what will be for our benefit. We have the right to be individuals and to live for that, not live to be obedient.
The Canadian All-Stars
Ben and Nick
The Leave of the Enlightenment
While studying for the test together we talked about Dostoyevsky, Kierkegraard and Neitzsche. We discussed how they were the main three philosophers that change the enlightenment to the disenlightenment. Although the first two Dostoyevsky and Kierkegraad believed in God their views of God were much different then those of the philosophers of the enlightenment. Then Neitzsche has the view that God is dead.
Dostoyevsky’s story of the underground man we thought was a story of his life. How he wasn’t accepted by society. He said he was neither dead nor alive but he was in between in crawling space of a house. He also pointed out that he was a smart man and a smart man could never be anything but an uneducated person could be something.
Dostoyevsky, Kierkegraard and Neitzsche had tough life’s they all grew up in tough situations. All of them we discussed experienced death in their families. Dostoyevsky his mother died when he was only 16 then his father died 2 years later. Neitzsche had the craziest story and that is why we think he thinks God is dead. The story that his dad died while he was a little one then 4 years later his brother died. His family had his father dug up and his dead brother placed in his dead father’s arms. Neitzsche was only 7 or 8 years old. These experiences impacted the rest of their life’s and the became famous philosophers. They are studied today although back when they were living they didn’t receive much if any credit for their work and ideas as philosophers.
Aeschylus Eaters- Prepared by: Justin Nelson
Speaking of Freud’s Id, superego, and ego; how do we base our daily decisions and motivations being aware of these three motivators?
Our group as a whole enjoyed the segment on Freud’s lecture concerning the id, ego, and superego; we could all see how these three factors play their roles in daily choices. In our discussion the id was considered the pleasure seeker only caring about the joys of life and having fun. The superego was the part of you that wanted approval and to do the ‘right’ thing. And finally the ego was the negotiator of the two. I particularly found myself captivated by this question because the warm weather has made the id side of me untamable; I find myself outside enjoying the weather rather than doing the things that I need to be doing. I asked the question is putting off some of these obligations and duties in life so bad as long as you are doing what you enjoy? I would argue that it is not. It is apparent that if you let your id take over like this continually life would soon no longer be fun and enjoyable but rather an unsuccessful mess. Our three group members have very similar opinions on how much to let your id and superego control you; David’s was very similar to mine and Kris’s differed slightly more. David believes in enjoying life as much as you can; he also understands that sometimes sacrifices must be made in order to set yourself up for success and happiness in life. David and I are both in college not because we are doing it for direct pleasure but rather to gain a further education so we can enjoy life more so in later years. We let our ego negotiate between our two controlling forces and try to enjoy life as much as possible now but still complete all tasks presented to us. Kris is in college in the Opera program and it is his passion; he enjoys that part of his schooling fully and is doing it because of his love for music. He attends school in order to further his knowledge and become the best person he can be later and also to polish his talents. We all enjoy life and have different pleasures in it. We are all motivated by the same forces and have completely different passions, hobbies, talents, and goals in life. We all agree that we need fall into societies groove of becoming something productive but will never let our superego or id control us completely.
I have chosen to discuss Freud’s discoveries being seen as “Counter-Enlightenment”. In my mind I see the Enlightenment simplified as good, happy, promising, and peaceful. Then the Counter-Enlightenment comes about and dark depths of human nature are observed and speculated about. The Counter-Enlightenment also seeked to uncover more about the human mind, as where the Enlightenment explained the universe in natural nature.
Freud, himself, is one of the first to study the human mind and why events happen because of the mind rather than nature. Freud believed that humans were capable of dark desires and secrets which the Enlightenment thinkers would have blushed at. Freud goes against the complete peaceful evolution of mankind. He believes men do things because of inner sexual desires and unconcious secrets. Instead of being content to explain the progression of mankind he seeks to understand what makes individuals progress. Freud is “disenchanted” about humans in his theories, rather than supposing mankind is in a fairy-tale state.
Prepared by Amber, Jesse, Heidi, & Britt) Our group discussed how Darwin’s insights and Freud’s insights might be combined to explain the extraordinary violence of the 20th century. We began by discussing the setting itself and how it differed from previous eras. Many philosophers prior to this new era used metaphysics and religion to explain the surrounding world. In fact, in previous centuries the church held such power as to banish, imprison, or even kill individuals who dared to seek scientific evidence or coin theories that were not in congruence with the church, faith, or tradition. In this new era science was thriving and it seemed that the church had less power and possibly less esteem due to the “counter-enlightenment” ideas and views that philosophers such as Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche presented. The 20th century was a time that no longer only looked to faith and religion but science and technology, and new ideas and philosophies were spreading.
One philosopher that did not lean on religion to explain the world was Darwin. Darwin theorized that evolution was capricious and over long expanses of time species mutated from their ancestors in ways that were both beneficial and detrimental. He believed that the organisms that evolved to have beneficial traits were more fit to survive than those that mutated to have detrimental traits, and therefore would survive longer and reproduce more, which would pass that beneficial trait on at a greater rate than the detrimental trait would be passed on, eventually eliminating the organisms with the detrimental trait. Over time this explains how organisms evolve to fit their needs and to survive in their surroundings. Due to this, he believed that humans are no more evolved than any other organism; we just happened to randomly evolve in a different direction. This was an extremely controversial theory in the 20th century, as it is today. Another individual whose theories are considered controversial are those of Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that our nature was driven by the unconscious. He stated that behind our behaviors and actions were deep rooted desires and intentions. He believed that we may not even be aware of these desires or intentions, but that they are a driving force behind our behavior and they could be brought to the surface through certain methods of therapy.
The 20th century was a time of extreme violence and war. As previously mentioned, faith and religion seemed to have less of a hold on society and we believe that with new scientific technology to explain things previously explained by metaphysics and faith, people’s actions may have been less driven by religion or morals. We asked ourselves what was driving them. What was fueling this violence? In Freud’s theory he speaks of the desires, fears, and deep rooted intentions that drive our behavior. Is Freud right? This was a very dark time, with war and poverty spreading across the world. With war and poverty came fear. While many people and nations were feeling this fear, on the opposite end was a clear desire for power. According to Freud, this desire for power may have begun this extraordinary violence. After the violence began, the fear fueled the opposing violence until it became an unending cycle in which people and nations were driven by these deep rooted emotions and desires, particularly the desire to survive. As we discussed this, we decided that Darwin’s theory very much could be used to explain the situation as well. For hundreds of thousands of years, from the first living organisms, there has been a competition to survive and those who cannot compete among the fittest are eliminated. This is explained by Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. He states that those species that cannot compete die out, and those that can compete thrive.
In the era of the 20th century, while Freud’s theory can be used to explain the desire to become the fittest opposed with the fear of dying out that may have driven such violence and behavior, Darwin’s theory may be used to imply that possibly we evolved through time to be violent creatures, because those who are not simply do not survive. Maybe we have evolved to desire power and fear extinction, which fuel a violent nature, because those species who did not inherit those traits died out, leaving those with these traits to survive. In this way, Darwin and Freud’s theories became entwined. Violence has not ceased in the past century, and we are in fact capable now of more violence than ever due to advancements in technology. The insights of these two individuals may be combined to say that we are violent because we desire power and fear death, which through evolution is a beneficial trait that has been passed down through generations, and species that do not have these desires and fears have not survived. Our violent nature is driven by a deep rooted desire to be the fittest because fittest survive.
For this discussion we talked about the class lecture we had on Art. Good art is subjective. We discussed this in detail as we shared our thoughts about art in general. We all had the same basic outlook on art and how it has affected our lives. Each of us have had the opportunity to take art classes and to be able to look at a few different types of art. When the word art is brought up, what usually comes to mind are paintings, sculptures, etc. We talked about all of the various types of art that really are out there and how big of a role each plays in our lives. The overall effect art has in our lives was remarkable to us. It was something that we, as a whole, generally don’t think about. A few of these other types of art we talked about were music, athletics, and design. All of these affected each of us in different ways and some of us were unaffected by one or more of these types. This fact shows the subjectivity of art as a whole. Even though these examples are not in the “norm” for art, it is still clearly subjective to all people.
We really like the way in which Kant defined art, “Purposiveness, without purpose.” In art there is really not a purpose, other than portraying personal ideas and getting people to think about it in a different way than they otherwise might. So, there is a purpose, but this purpose is different for all who allow themselves to be affected by the world of Art.
(Prepared by Amber, Jesse, Heidi, & Britt) Our group’s discussion pertained to the lecture on art and what art really is. We began by reviewing the inviting collections by Kinkade, the intriguing masterpieces of Van Gogh, and even the contemporary styles of Warhol. We debated which pieces were the most beautiful or intriguing, and we found that we did not agree. Our taste in art and perspectives on beauty were as different as our personalities. One individual was enthralled with art that was shocking, like Van Gogh’s Guernica, while one person enjoyed contemporary art, like that of Nadir Afonso. Still, others preferred works of Leonardo da Vinci, Gustav Klimt, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Peter Paul Rubens, Peter Paul Rubens, and Jason Pollock. We could not yet answer what was art, so we asked, “What makes art?” As we began discussing possible answers to this question we found that there was no answer, instead we were faced with more questions. One individual stated that art is beauty captured by an artist which he reproduces for the world. But what is beauty? What makes something beautiful?
Once again these questions cannot be answered and any possible answers seem to conflict with one another, after all, the idea of beauty is not universal. In America we view individuals with beauty as tall, slender, flawless individuals who strut down the runway or pose for the cover of Vogue magazine. However, centuries in the past had a very different idea of beauty. Portraits from ancient Rome and Greece do not depict the skin and bone images of women that strut today’s runways, but instead represent their goddesses as women with full hips and eating fruit! For centuries Chinese women participated in foot-binding, which we may view as ghastly and cruel, in order to be beautiful and show high social status. Certain tribes and civilizations wrap rings around their necks or pierce their bodies as a sign of beauty. These are just examples of how the idea of “beauty” is rarely the same and varies upon many factors.
Some people enjoy art that is violent and shocking, yet depicts a message or story. Others prefer simplistic art that may not involve a deeper meaning, but is merely aesthetically appeasing. Still others favor complex pieces with numerous focal points that inspire thought and intrigue into the artist’s life, mind, and perspective. We found that art, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no definition of what we find to be beautiful, and in fact are sometimes drawn to art that is not necessarily beautiful, but may be even be violent or bizarre. There are no set elements that indicate art and no equation that produce can produce it. Art, like the truth, is based on perspective and observation. We observe the earth through different perspectives and vocal points, and are guided by different ideas and views of the world. In the same way we have different perspectives on art and observe it differently. We have different experiences and opinions that guide our preferences and ideas of what art really is and what we find beautiful. We concluded that, like the truth, art is subjectivity.
This is TEAM HERCULES
(Prepared by Amber, Jesse, Heidi, & Britt) Our group’s discussion pertained to the lecture on art. What is art? We began by reviewing the inviting collections by Kinkade, the intriguing masterpieces of Van Gogh, and even the contemporary styles of Warhol. We debated which pieces were the most beautiful or intriguing, and we found that we did not agree. Our taste in art and perspectives on beauty were as different as our personalities. One individual was enthralled with art that was shocking, like Van Gogh’s Guernica, while one person enjoyed contemporary art, like that of Nadir Afonso. Still, others preferred works of Leonardo da Vinci, Gustav Klimt, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Peter Paul Rubens, Peter Paul Rubens, and Jason Pollock. We could not yet answer what was art, so we asked, “What makes art?” As we began discussing possible answers to this question we found that there was no answer, instead we were faced with more questions. One individual stated that art is beauty captured by an artist which he reproduces for the world. But what is beauty? What makes something beautiful?
Once again these questions cannot be answered and any possible answers seem to conflict with one another, after all, the idea of beauty is not universal. In America we view individuals with beauty as tall, slender, flawless individuals who strut down the runway or pose for the cover of Vogue magazine. However, centuries in the past had a very different idea of beauty. Portraits from ancient Rome and Greece do not depict the skin and bone images of women that strut today’s runways, but instead represent their goddesses as women with full hips and eating fruit! For centuries Chinese women participated in foot-binding, which we may view as ghastly and cruel, in order to be beautiful and show high social status. Certain tribes and civilizations wrap rings around their necks or pierce their bodies as a sign of beauty. These are just examples of how the idea of “beauty” is rarely the same and varies upon many factors.
Some people enjoy art that is violent and shocking, yet depicts a message or story. Others prefer simplistic art that may not involve a deeper meaning, but is merely aesthetically appeasing. Still others favor complex pieces with numerous focal points that inspire thought and intrigue into the artist’s life, mind, and perspective. We found that art, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no definition of what we find to be beautiful, and in fact are sometimes drawn to art that is not necessarily beautiful, but may be even be violent or bizarre. There are no set elements that indicate art and no equation that produce can produce it. Art, like the truth, is based on perspective and observation. We observe the earth through different perspectives and vocal points, and are guided by different ideas and views of the world. In the same way we have different perspectives on art and observe it differently. We have different experiences and opinions that guide our preferences and ideas of what art really is and what we find beautiful. We concluded that, like the truth, art is subjectivity.
Tthis isnt the one to be graded, I am really sorry, the first one labeled “anonymous” is the revised one, thanks!
(Prepared by Brittney) Our group discussed art and what it means to consider something as actual art. One of the questions raised in class was what could possibly define art? We came to the conclusion that in order for something to be considered a real piece of art it must evoke an emotion or an idea in an individual and must capture their attention. However, we were able to acknowledge that art comes in many diverse forms and different people consider different things to be art. Another question asked was what could possibly be an objective standard for a work of art being good? We decided that a piece of arts’ quality is also subjective to the individual as well. We also came to the conclusion that if the piece is universally grabbing, such as the Mona Lisa, then it would be considered to be a great piece of work. It must be taken into account that different cultures consider different things to be great art and will therefore interpret the art piece differently from other cultures.
In the matter of art being a matter of taste and the possibility of there being an intelligent dispute of taste, we decided that controversy is a necessity for a piece of art to be considered good. If everyone had the same taste then art would never be able to develop and some of the greatest art pieces today would lose their significance if everything looked the same. In conclusion, art is completely subjective to the individual making it so no two people will think the same exact thing about an art piece.
(By Tiffany)We came up with two of our own questions: What is art? and What’s the point of science?
For our first question, I said I thought art was anything that’s created. Examples to support that definition would be a 5-year old’s finger painting, Picasso, and Twisted Junk-Metal art. Kaeli said any person can create something they see as beautiful, put it in a gallery, and call it art. That doesn’t mean it’s art. Troy mentioned that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what we might not think is beautiful, someone else does. He said if you look at the critique of the creation, it differs greatly between artists and judges. Say the 5-year old shows his mother a hand-print and calls it’s a castle. She’d tell him it’s wonderful. But if an “artist” went in with a ladder from his garage, twisted and contorted, calling it a work of art, some critics would laugh him out of the gallery. Kaeli stated that art has changed over time. It went from having a point, be it religious discourse or educational, to being whatever you wanted. It doesn’t have to make sense or have a purpose. I argue that art is personal and there’s beauty in the fact that you don’t have to have a reason to create something. You can just create it and share it. Troy said it’s more of a way to express yourself, in style, emotion, a whatever.
For our second question, we talked about the validity of science. In class, it was discussed that science can be considered only theory. Troy said science is meant to try to figure out the world around us; to try to prove things. Kaeli replied that if we followed the musings of Descartes, where only your own existence can truly be proven, then science is just a waste of time. You’re just filling time observing and coming up with theories of what’s going on. Troy said you can have a bunch of ideas that are possible, but you’ll never know if they’re true or not because you’ll never have solid facts. I asked about gravity, and they both came up with answers about the possibility that no matter how many times you let go of an apple, you can never unfailingly predict the future. You would never know if there’ll be that one time you let go of the apple and it will stay stationary. We agreed it makes sense to say science means ‘everything’s right until proven wrong’.
We came up with two of our own questions: What is art? and What’s the point of science?
For our first question, I said I thought art was anything that’s created. Examples to support that definition would be a 5-year old’s finger painting, Picasso, and Twisted Junk-Metal art. Kaeli said any person can create something they see as beautiful, put it in a gallery, and call it art. That doesn’t mean it’s art. Troy mentioned that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what we might not think is beautiful, someone else does. He said if you look at the critique of the creation, it differs greatly between artists and judges. Say the 5-year old shows his mother a hand-print and calls it’s a castle. She’d tell him it’s wonderful. But if an “artist” went in with a ladder from his garage, twisted and contorted, calling it a work of art, some critics would laugh him out of the gallery. Kaeli stated that art has changed over time. It went from having a point, be it religious discourse or educational, to being whatever you wanted. It doesn’t have to make sense or have a purpose. I argue that art is personal and there’s beauty in the fact that you don’t have to have a reason to create something. You can just create it and share it. Troy said it’s more of a way to express yourself, in style, emotion, a whatever.
For our second question, we talked about the validity of science. In class, it was discussed that science can be considered only theory. Troy said science is meant to try to figure out the world around us; to try to prove things. Kaeli replied that if we followed the musings of Descartes, where only your own existence can truly be proven, then science is just a waste of time. You’re just filling time observing and coming up with theories of what’s going on. Troy said you can have a bunch of ideas that are possible, but you’ll never know if they’re true or not because you’ll never have solid facts. I asked about gravity, and they both came up with answers about the possibility that no matter how many times you let go of an apple, you can never unfailingly predict the future. You would never know if there’ll be that one time you let go of the apple and it will stay stationary. We agreed it makes sense to say science means ‘everything’s right until proven wrong’.
I decided to look into the discussion we had on art. In doing so I was reminded of the old phrase, “Art is in the eye of the beholder.” Which is very similar to the definition given in class, making one think without telling them what to think. But to me art requires more than just thought, mostly because if I take a pile of sticks and put it on a plate it will make someone think, but it still shouldn’t be considered as art. So I turn to the thought of what we call abstract and I find myself unable to take it serious. But if we look at the definition given to us or the old saying we all grew up with, we find ourselves unable to truly define art, due to the fact that someone somewhere will always be compelled to argue that what they are looking at, or listening to is indeed art. This exact argument is what, I think, has led to the digression of art over the last century with a few exceptions of course. Is art as simple as the way it is displayed? Is the frame just as important as the picture itself? So what is art? Art is the source of thought without provocation. Art is as grand as the Sistine Chapel and as small as a pile of sticks on a plate. What is art? I have no clue.
I am a fan of art. I think there is a lot to be said when just one painting is hung right in front of you. I don’t consider a circle an piece of art like I have seen in galleries. When a question such as “What could possibly define art?” is asked I could simply say that art is the relaxation to our mind and soul, in some cases. In other cases art is a learning tool and it help us understand many things such as history like the painting you shown in class of the people trying to figure out how the human body works. Without seeing that I would have never known that it was illegal to examine a body back way then when that painting was put into a masterpiece. That day in class I learned something from a simple, plain painting. Not many will see a picture or painting as a tool in human life but when I see pastel colors in a picture I think of peace and it helps clear my mind, which to me is a tool to get through the hard times in life. For religion I know a lot of people look at paintings of Jesus and the paintings are steps of when Jesus was born all the way to the day he was sacrificed. In first grade that’s how I learned about Jesus and what he looks like and what his life was like when he was on Earth. that was my learning tool. For art to be good, that all depends on a persons different tastes, moods, life and even there personality. Some people just think they have awesome taste and see that a circle painted red on a board is a work of art. I assume those people look deeper in the circle and see more than others do. I’m also sure that a card with information next to the circle grabs that persons attention and compares the painting to the reason why it was painted. I know for me, a good painting is looked at by what mood I am in. If I am in a spring mood i really appreciate pictures of flowers. If I am in an upset mood well, I like pictures of destroyed hearts or pictures that have a theme that is very noticeable such as a heart with legs running away from a lonely girl. With life I’m sure people have grown up much different from others and I’m thinking that if someone had a horrible childhood, maybe they’d look at more gloomy pictures because they can forget the past. Someone with a good childhood may look at pictures that are more uplifting an inspirational. Lastly is personality. I have a goofy personality, so I like looking at things that look like a jigsaw puzzle. I like to have to figure paintings out compared to someone with a more relaxed personality, I’m thinking maybe they’d like to see something more serious like.
So everyone has different tastes for a good painting. I guess every painting could be considered good when there is at least one person out there that would really admire any sort of painting.
I decided to ask the question of not “what is art” but rather “what makes an artist?”. There are the very rare examples of the suffering artist creating unrecognized masterpieces only to achieve recognition on their deathbed. Much more common is the artist who actually attracts attention during their lifetime only to sink into obscurity, creating a footnote in history rather than a chapter.
Artists have changed throughout history. In the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval times, artists were basically skilled craftsman employed by a wealthy monarch, the Church, or a corporation. But at the beginning of the 16th Century da Vinci began to argue that an artist should be treated equally at the social and intellectual level as aristocrats and scholars. The High Renaissance’s great artists proved with their flowering art how successful they were in establishing this role. This continued until the 19th century, allowing artists to play a full role in society. With the French Revolution came a fierce independence that argued artists should be an outsider of the rest of society, free of social conventions. Gustave Courbet is an example of this radical change that leads to modern art. Artists today like Andy Warhol grew wary of the poor artist image and threw himself into the executive lifestyle.
So I can’t help but think artists are not only who they want to be, but also what is the “norm” of an artist in their generation. Today artists seem to promote an idea then creates a project. I would like to say artists are people who create art and leave it simple as that, but it’s not that simple. Artists may or may not strive to leave a mark and some do or don’t. However, I think an artist is someone who devotes their life to creating art, who puts that as their priority. Even the great Medici family may be considered artists, because they were patronages of artists, promoting masterpieces. Renoir, Cezanne, and Raphael may have record price works but Caravaggio, Poussin, and Frederic Church have similar masterpieces. Maybe an artist is someone who leaves an imprint on themselves.
Apriori Synthetic Knowledge (last discussion)
Prepared by: Sam
Religion. This is an issue that no one in this class seems to want to touch – for it is a touchy subject. We are constantly reminded of it on this campus. Whether we are part of the predominate religion or not, we cannot help but encounter religion. When we finish this class on Wednesdays there is a man preaching from the Bible, questioning the beliefs of the LDS. As he shouts and preaches to the masses he often receives cruel, malicious remarks, from those whose doctrine dictates eternal progression through good works.
Every human on the planet (whether they admit it or not) has a need for a religion deep inside. They have an urge to worship something – anything – they can find to worship. They worship graven idols, unforeseen gods, celebrities, cars, nature, or whatever works for them, or in whichever way they’ve been brought up.
Why do we all have religion? Why do we all feel as though we need to worship something higher than ourselves? Something we need to pay homage to? If evolution is indeed true, then why is the vast majority of humanity enslaving itself to beliefs in things that do not exist – dedicating power to things that do not have power? None of this makes sense. There is no good explanation for this. If religion was only to be found in small microcosms like Utah where there is one dominating religion, and nowhere else, then I would say “Well these people are just an anomaly.” But in reality the whole of humanity participates in believing in something – anything – which in accordance to evolution is useless and nothing. Why would evolution allow this big waste of time to happen?
One might postulate “Well because we have a higher brain capacity that allows us to ask about the existence of our own self and the meaning behind it.” But wouldn’t you think that after all these years humanity would classify such thoughts as a sin and made a religion out of idea in furthering one’s self?
It is all very perplexing. In my opinion, every person is built with a spot in the brain/heart/soul (whatever you may call it) that is meant for God. In the Bible it says “God writes his word on the tablet of our hearts” (paraphrased). This is where I believe we get our sense of right and wrong – yet we do not fall it because it also says the Bible (book of Romans chapter 3) “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. I’m not about to give a lesson in the bible, I’m just saying that because of these two factors humanity chases religion relentlessly. Everyone is looking for God, but they don’t know what they are looking for and where. This causes insecurity; insecurity causes people to defend themselves vehemently along with their beliefs. Religion – the touchiest issue of all humanity.
Canadian All-stars
Ben King and Nick Kesler
Music
We discussed this week about music and the history behind it and well how he a song is simple way to get out your feelings. The old musicians really had a lot of meaning to each of there compositions and they expressed their feelings. The way music has evolved to be shallow and reflects the way that we think these days. If you turn on the radio to 94.5, you would hear maybe 20 to 30 songs half of them would song just about the same. Just about all of them would mention love, sex, money and drugs. I guess I would say that from what i have heard really hasn’t reached out and made me feel anything. I feel like the singers just are singing and creating music for money, sex, drugs and love.
Just as our music has evolved, all forms of art have evolved just as our life’s have evolved over time. We can see that these changes change the way we life and think in our everyday life’s. The difference between Mozart and say 50 Cent (a famous rapper, who uses profane lyrics and messages) are largely different but there popularity and influence are about the on the people. We can see the different reward for the two composers. For Mozart it might be a life changing symphony and for 50 Cent it would be a 50 million dollar endorsement.
Life changes and and we need to change with it but hold on to the best things in life don’t settle for shallow forms of entertainment. Hold on to what influences you to be a better person and that is the truest form of art on a personal level.
Group Discussion
Aeschylus Eaters
Arranged by: Kristopher King
Our group enjoyed a video in class on Friday about a special device. In our discussion this week, we spoke about that device that was created in Sudbury, Canada. This device is a “motorcycle helmet, wired to produce magnetic fields”, called “The God Helmet”, which activates strange activities from the individual’s brain to cause hallucination. This devices makes the wearer witness such things as; angels, ghosts, and even aliens.
We all agree that the device seemed very peculiar, but interesting. I personally felt the God Helmet, is messing with a higher power. Justin thought it could be used to discourage one’s spiritual experiences, and possibly their complete beliefs. David agreed, but would rather be told he was hallucinating. The God Helmet can make our brains see and feel things that aren’t there, but spirits can still be real and true. Especially if more than one individual are experiencing these “weird” hallucinations. We as human beings are trying to understand God and other unanswered questions without hesitating to think that we will not be able to. Some things should be left a mystery.
Prepared By: Nicole
This week Caisie and I discussed the relevance of fact and proof. Of course a main theme in this class has been the importance of proving theories, of which we learned, is not possible. It has been said that theories can only be disproven rather than proven. This makes sense because how can we be sure that life will not suddenly change course and all we know be flipped upside down? We could essentially be wearing shoes on our hands and it could be perfectly normal to us.
Caisie and I also discussed the guidelines of science. It was said that if a theory fits “too neatly” with existent social biases, or is too flattering to what we as human beings like, we must challenge it! Why must we do this? Is it really impossible to be content with the life you live, even if it is a paradise? Caisie and I both agreed that the answer to the question is ‘yes’. As both of us belong to the Mormon church, we have experienced what it is like to have someone constantly questioning and arguing against our beliefs. We are content with our religion and believe it is true. What is the problem there? There are those who dedicate their lives to attempting to disprove religious beliefs of others. What have they accomplished in their life? Nothing….nothing at all….except stir up anger. This can be applied to the scientific basis as well. There is always something to disprove, but there is also a limit. If one spends all their time disproving….it gets them nowhere. All they can say they have learned is what does not work. But what does work? This idea that we must challenge everything is extreme. Human beings need to have some flattery and perfect order, or our lives would be a depressing gloom. As Caisie said, “Yes, it is important to question some things to be sure of their value, but why fight life?” I agreed with her completely. Is the idea that sometimes life does actually work out great so unimaginable?
Prepared by Nicole
This week Caisie and I discussed the relevance of fact and proof. Of course a main theme in this class has been the importance of proving theories, of which we learned, is not possible. It has been said that theories can only be disproven rather than proven. This makes sense because how can we be sure that life will not suddenly change course and all we know be flipped upside down? We could essentially be wearing shoes on our hands and it could be perfectly normal to us.
Caisie and I also discussed the guidelines of science. It was said that if a theory fits “too neatly” with existent social biases, or is too flattering to what we as human beings like, we must challenge it! Why must we do this? Is it really impossible to be content with the life you live, even if it is a paradise? Caisie and I both agreed that the answer to the question is ‘yes’. As both of us belong to the Mormon church, we have experienced what it is like to have someone constantly questioning and arguing against our beliefs. We are content with our religion and believe it is true. What is the problem there? There are those who dedicate their lives to attempting to disprove religious beliefs of others. What have they accomplished in their life? Nothing….nothing at all….except stir up anger. This can be applied to the scientific basis as well. There is always something to disprove, but there is also a limit. If one spends all their time disproving….it gets them nowhere. All they can say they have learned is what does not work. But what does work? This idea that we must challenge everything is extreme. Human beings need to have some flattery and perfect order, or our lives would be a depressing gloom. As Caisie said, “Yes, it is important to question some things to be sure of their value, but why fight life?” I agreed with her completely. Is the idea that sometimes life does actually work out great so unimaginable?
Art! What can we gain from the expression of art? Is form the only constraint in art that merits its worth? Our history and archeological finds say that man has tried to express Being or the act of being human since our earliest understanding of these ancient cultures. Art has been the tool by which this message of Being has been transcended through out time. It is the soul governing thought by which all that man creates is manifest in the objectivity of said items. Color, Form, Weight, Ect. All are the basic fundamentals of the human junk pile. Expression of Being is the driver of cultural progression. Can you refute this? I think not.