Nature vs. Nurture

Are nature and nurture of equal influence and importance, or is one ultimately more influential or important than the other? Objectively I have no idea how to go about determining the answer to this question, but personally I've always been partial to nurture carrying more weight. Our nature doesn't necessarily determine our actions, personality, character, class, status, etc. However, nurture is incredibly influential in that sense. How we grow up, who we grow up with, where we grow up, when (what time period) we grow up in, what culture we grow up in, and how we are socialized have a lasting impact on who we become as individuals in a society. The kind of environment we are in, at any and every point in our lives, is what makes the biggest impact on us. Your nature can be radically altered by how you are nurtured, and which innate qualities are encouraged or discouraged. It has always seemed quite obvious to me that nurture overpowers nature more easily than nature could overpower nurture. What do you think? 

Predetermined Nature

If our nature is predetermined and fixed, does that mean that all of our actions are determined? If humans are, for example, innately aggressive, can we be held responsible for acting aggressively?  How does this impact morality? After our discussion in class today, I agree that even if our nature is determined, our actions are not. We may be more disposed to act in a certain way, but in the end we still have control over our actions. Furthermore, humans are not, by nature, only one thing. Humans are obviously very complex beings who may innately hold many different characteristics. For example, humans could be innately aggressive, cooperative, rational, social, competitive, etc. Therefore, even if humans were innately aggressive, there is no reason to suggest that another innate quality, such as rationality, could not overrule that quality. In other words, a person is most certainly responsible for their actions, even acting aggressively. 

Condemned to be Free?

Sartre maintains that we are condemned to be free. This kind of freedom is radical in nature because we are free to do anything except to cease being free. One might think that such freedom would be a good thing, especially compared to the alternative, but Sartre begs to differ. My question is, is being radically free better or worse than being radically determined? I always assumed that complete, or radical, freedom is what all people truly desire, but Sartre believes that radical freedom causes such anguish that what people truly desire is freedom from choice at all. Whenever I personally try to imagine such a world I find it perfectly horrid. Freedom is something that people have been fighting and dyeing for since the beginning of time, isn't freedom of choice one of the most valued things in this world? Yes, having freedom of choice might mean that you are responsible for your actions, and it might mean that you cannot necessarily justify your actions, but isn't that better still than not being able to choose for yourself any actions at all? No matter how difficult it might seem to make ones' own choices, I firmly believe that it is still better than someone, or something, else having complete control over one's choices. What does anyone else think? 

Limitations of Freedom

I was wondering what are, if any, the limitations of being free? For example, how does a person's socioeconomic standing affect their personal freedom? Are there not structural problems affecting ones ability to get out of a bad economic situation, such as poverty? Are all career opportunities equal for all people? Do racism, sexism, ageism, etc. have no affect on whether or not someone can 'get ahead'? Do people honestly have complete free will in deciding what their social roles in society will be? What about physical or mental illnesses or handicaps? Can they not affect someones ability to be 'truly' free? And what about biology? Are not some things biologically predetermined? I mean, of course, beyond things like hair, eye or skin color, because no rational person could argue that these things chosen for oneself, but is there nothing else predetermined? And what about instincts and impulses, are we to imagine that we are in complete control of such things? Do we really have the power to choose our sexuality, the situations we are in, what kinds of relationships we have, and our own character? Do we honestly have the freedom to choose how we feel? And if so, then why do all people, at least occasionally, feel negative emotions? Surely no one but a masochist would willingly choose to make him or herself miserable, and surely not all people are masochistic. It is a good thing that Sartre eventually put some limitations on his original idea of radical freedom, because that simply cannot be the case. 'Pure' freedom cannot exist; freedom always comes with some limitations and restrictions. 

Pros and Cons of Capitalism

Obviously, Marx found more cons with capitalism than pros. In his view, capitalism is a necessary stage of government development, but eventually needs to be surpassed. The lack of community and the struggle between classes is too great. Workers are both alienated and exploited. They are alienated because the workers don't work for themselves but for some other capitalist, and they often cannot enjoy the things they produce. The workers are exploited for their labor and often work in very poor and sometimes dangerous conditions. Furthermore, the capitalist system only grants rewards of property, land, and other general freedoms to a select few. If you are not one of the lucky ones, capitalism has no problem with letting you starve on the street. Of course, capitalism is very efficient and profitable, at least to some, and working conditions and regulations have improved over time. But even knowing that, I am now beginning to question if the capitalist system is as good as I originally thought...

Pros and Cons of Communism

In theory, communism resolves the "problem" of capitalism. It nationalizes banks, factories, transport, and land reduces alienation. It creates a strong sense of community and treats people as more than just an economic end. The creation of communism brings about the education of the proletariat and a raise in general consciousness. Communism also seeks to get rid of private property, however, which is a more controversial issue. And although it might at first seem to bring perfect equality, it hardly seems fair to have some people work harder than others be be rewarded financially in the same way. Another problem is the unrealistic expectation of altruism from the citizens who are already receiving great financial rewards, because why would they ever want to lower their standards of wealth? In theory, a lot of different things could happen with communism. I wonder what it would look like if it were ever actually put properly in to action?

Faith & Reason: Part 2

We were talking about faith and reason in regard to the Bible and Christianity this week, but I also wondered about other religions and religious texts. Do the roles of faith and reason alter in different religions, or is the relationship between those two things the same in all religions? From my point of view, it seems obvious that the Bible is full of contradictions. I am not acquainted with any other religious texts, and do not know if there are any other texts as contradictory as the Bible, or even more so. And I think that's what it all comes down to. Most religions, that I know of at least, are not intrinsically contradictory. It would appear that the contradiction lies in the words of a text assigned to a particular religion, and that is the further cause for the contradiction between faith and reason. Does that mean that the relationship between faith and reason shift for individuals depending on the religious text they believe in? Does this imply that some religions may be more reasonable than others, depending upon the amount of contradictions found in the text of that religion? 

Faith & Reason: Part 1

The chapter we read was about the Bible in particular, and the contradictions within it, but not all sects of Christianity subscribe to the Bible. Does acceptance of the Bible or not change the relationship between faith and reason for that individual? Faith and reason are often at odds when it comes to the Bible. The stories within become core ideas and beliefs for many Christians, but a lot of those stories are seemingly impossible. How could Noah build an arc big enough for two of every kind of animal in the world? How could Moses part the Red Sea? Reason strongly militates against these stories, and yet faith often refuses to see this. There are many parts of the Bible that are, at least seemingly, intrinsically contradictory. The relationship between faith and reason in regard to the Bible is a very tricky thing to balance out, and I wonder if removal of the Bible, or any religious text, might make it more or less balanced. Thoughts, anyone? 

Patriotism: Part 4

I found it very interesting when the author brought up the fact that when a lot of people talk about America as their country, and how much they love it, they often don't fully understand what they're talking about. Are they talking about the land, the ideology, they myths, the people, the government? I think you can love any one of these things, maybe all of them, although I haven't heard many people talking about their love of the government. I don't think it's difficult to love the land, the one you were born in or not. You may not be especially fond of every rock or patch of grass you see, but I know that many people, myself included, do love the mountains, lakes, trees, etc. of the place where they grew up. As for the people, you may have a certain love for some of your countrymen, and share a kind of bond with them, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they loved every single American by dint of being American, including rapists, serial killers, animal abusers, thieves, racists, etc. Loving your country, I think, goes beyond all of that. Every country was founded on certain principles, symbols, myths and ideals, many of them overlapping with other countries, and those are the things that seem to have the biggest impacts on the individual of that country. The mythology, ideology, and symbolism behind your country is what you love the most, whether or not those things are unique to your particular country. These things in America are most commonly represented by the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism, the symbol of the American flag and the Bald Eagle, and the myth of the American dream. I believe that these are the things that people most often refer to when talking about their love of America.

Patriotism: Part 3

I really liked the way the author brought up the fact that many Americans, though not all, only show sympathy or empathy to other Americans. Sometimes we, as Americans, act as though or pain, suffering, and grief is more important than others, even when we experience the same things. We can be far more sympathetic to an American parent who lost a child to the war than an Iraqi parent. Americans kill Middle Eastern people, and they kill American people, and everyone loses. In the end war is created by the nation's government, and they are typically not the ones losing family in friends in the horror they create. They can sit back and be almost completely untouched by it. It is the nation's citizens, and their soldiers of course, that know what war truly is. They are the ones who truly know pain, suffering, and grief. And they are the ones who should be the most sympathetic, and empathetic, to other victims of war. When we know the same pain as someone else, we have an obligation to share it with them, across country lines or not. Any parent who loses a child should be sympathized with, anyone who loses anyone should be sympathized with, and I wish more Americans could see that and realize that many of us across the world know the same pain, and we should strive to empathize with them as best we can instead of acting like our pain is the worst. 

Patriotism: Part 2

September 11 was a horrific day, a tragic day, and everybody knows that. Nothing can condone that kind of attack on the American people, or any people for that matter. It was brutal and savage, and brought upon a tidal wave of American vengeance on the Middle East. Over ten years later, we not only continue to morn the great losses of that day, we continue our campaign of hatred and violence in the Middle East. We were so horrified, grieved, furious and filled with so-called American pride that we sought to make everyone else pay. We did not want to stop with punishing a few people who may have been responsible for the crime; we wanted to punish everyone, especially if they wore headdresses or had a Muslim name. There have been instances here in America where one person killed another simply because they "looked" Muslim. I think patriotism in American changed that day. For a long time, patriotism did mean pride in your country, loving your country, whatever you think your country is. However, after that day patriotism became a much more heinous term. It now goes beyond loving your country, it is hating others. Beyond being proud of your country, it is thinking ill of others. Beyond wanting to protect the freedom of the individuals in your country, it is taking away the freedom of the individuals of others. I have heard over and over again the supremacy, the arrogance, and the ignorance spewing out of the mouths of Americans still filled with hatred because of that day, still looking for revenge,  still preaching about America. It's the greatest nation on Earth, they say. So, our citizens and their lives must take priority over everyone else in the world. I think it is more than understandable to be angry, and to be pained, over the loss of loved ones, and to want the ones behind the attacks to be punished, but the men that flew those planes are already dead. I do not think that it means that we need to kill hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern people to avenge the lives of the few thousand American people, especially when so many of those people are soldiers or civilians who had nothing to do with those attacks. Their lives will not bring back the lives we lost that day. I've heard that if you don't support the war(s) then you are un-American, un-patriotic. Well I support justice, not war. If that makes me un-patriotic, then so be it. I will not condone the killing of civilians on either side. I don't believe in it.

Patriotism: Part 1

This was a very unexpected topic, but one that I am very pleased to discuss. Compared to my family I have always felt somewhat unpatriotic, without even really ever understanding what it means to be patriotic in the first place. For some reason I always assumed that being patriotic had to do with more than simply being proud of the country you were born in, but I wasn't completely sure of the implications behind it all. Whenever I speak to self-proclaimed patriots about America, they often act or outright say that America is the greatest country in the world and that we can basically do no wrong. They are typically huge supporters of the war(s), and often use derogatory remarks when referring to foreigners, particularly anyone from the Middle East. I have heard on several occasions people talking about the lives of foreigners as less important than the lives of Americans, and even talk of these foreigners deserving to die -because of the country they were born in-. These are all issues Jensen addressed in his essay, and they are very dangerous beliefs for anyone to have. Jensen, in my opinion, correctly identifies these and many more disturbing aspects of patriotism. These aspects either are or lead to feelings of arrogance, ignorance, superiority, and a general lack of respect for other human life. I too believe that patriotism can have dangerous consequences when taken too far, and I think it normally is. I don't think there is anything wrong with being proud of your country, but I think patriotism goes beyond that. Patriotism has become ethnocentrism, and that is an idea no country can afford to keep.

Claims 2 & 3 in Dream Theory

Here are the second two claims again; 

2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 

3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst" 

As for the second claim, I agree completely that many of our wishes are unconscious, and that these unconscious wishes make their way into our dreams. I will even grant that there may be some wishes that are so dangerous our mind tries to disguise and censor them. However, I must again protest the "infantile" part. What wishes could an infant have that are so dangerous they must disguise them from themselves? In childhood, adolescence, and adulthood dreams grow increasingly complex, with many hidden symbols and meanings. A part of this change may have something to do with wishes that need to be disguised, but I think that change would happen anyways. I don't think dreams are so complex just because we are trying to hide something from ourselves. On the contrary, I have always thought that your mind was trying to make you more aware of something, then to try to hide anything. The third claim is a little trickier. I do believe that all dreams are meaningful and can and should be interpreted, but can't you do that yourself? I don't think you need a psychoanalyst to correctly interpret the madness of your own mind. You should know yourself better than anyone else would know you, so why wouldn't you be the perfect person to interpret your own dreams? Sure, it might help to look up certain dreams in books or online, it might even help you gain better insight into certain reoccurring symbols or situations in your dreams. However, I still think that in the end you can correctly interpret your dreams without the help of a psychoanalyst. 

Claim 1 in Dream Theory

As I mentioned before, Hobson pointed out three important factors of Freud's Dream Theory. Here is the first one again; 

1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 

If anyone doesn't know, I am a huge fan of Freud's. However, so far I have not been able to completely agree or disagree with any one of his theories, I always end up with agreeing with this part, and disagreeing with that part, and so on. I have the same problem here. For example, I agree that our secret wishes, our hidden thoughts and desires, etc. which are usually repressed, are strong instigators of dreams. On the other hand, to suggest that they are repressed infantile wishes seems to me to be completely absurd. People dream of such extraordinarily complex things and situations, and things that in our infancy we couldn't even possibly know about. In our infancy we seem to only wish for very simple things, things to eat and drink, a warm soft place to sleep, room to play, and loving arms to hold us. I don't see how dreams about going to school in your underwear or falling down a flight of stairs or having sex, or being chased goes relate to infantile wishes. Now, I think many dreams do go back to childhood, even early childhood, but I think it would be quite a stretch to try to relate most common dreams all the way back to infancy. 

Dream Content

I was almost shocked when Hobson seemed to suggest that there is no difference between manifest and latent content in dreams, and that dreams are random, unpredictable, and motivationally neutral. Those are, in my opinion, very careless remarks to make. Can he really find no patterns whatsoever in dreams? In what kinds of people dream certain kinds of dreams in certain circumstances? No patterns within the similar images and situations people experience in dreams? If he can find no patterns, no reason to look further into distinguishing the different types of content in dreams, he is obviously refusing to see them. The way he dismisses these aspects of dreams, like content, so easily makes it seem like he thinks dreams are meaningless and unimportant, which I think is a huge mistake. I appreciate that he says you may be able to draw some meaning from then, but I don't like the implication that dreams have no intrinsic meaning. I think dreams have a very powerful influence over people and shouldn't be dismissed so lightly, without seriously studying them on a deep level. Dreams can be reflective of what's going on in the back of your mind or in your everyday life, and they are certainly very meaningful. I think the content of dreams is the most important thing about them. The obvious symbols and the hidden meaning within the symbols if of the upmost importance not only to the dreamer, but also potentially to psychoanalysts and psychologists in general. I think Hobson should have looked a little closer in to dream content.

Freud's Dream Theory

Allan Hobson identified three cardinal points of Freud's Dream Theory; 


1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 
2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 
3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst"  


Hobson made clear in the article that he felt we should dismiss Freud's Dream Theory entirely, but I don't think he did a very good job in trying to dismiss those three claims. He stated again and again that Freud's theory is untestable, and therefore unscientific. Although Freud may have only written about his own dreams and didn't test his theory on other people, that does not automatically mean that no one could ever design an experiment that tests how a person dreams. Just because there may not be conclusive evidence supporting Freud's theory at this particular moment in time does not mean that we should simply assume that he was wrong or do away with his theory all together. I don't think he gave any good reasons why wishes would not at least help to instigate dreams, or why hidden wishes, desires, fears, etc. would not play an active role in our dreams. And oftentimes when a person has a thought, desire, etc. that seems to dark, gruesome, etc. we do try to consciously repress it. So why would we not do the same thing in our dreams by actively trying to disguise or censor that same thought or desire? And perhaps we don't need a specialized psychoanalyst to interpret our dreams for us, but can we honestly deny that they might have some keen insight into our dreams that even we may not possess? I think it was very foolish of Hobson to try to dismiss Freud so quickly and easily, and I was not convinced by any of his arguments at all. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 4

If you couldn't tell, I really didn't like this article. I don't think it defended vegetarianism very well and I think it did a terrible job of trying to equate patriarchy with meat eating. I will admit that there may be some small similarities between meat eating and male dominance, but vegetarianism alone is clearly not going to overthrow the patriarchy. It is actually pretty foolish to presume that there is any kind of real correlation between meat eating and patriarchy or vegetarianism and matriarchy. Besides that, becoming a vegetarian does not offer any solution to the "problem" of male dominance. Furthermore, women are not usually looked upon as mere “possessions” any more, they are not solely sex objects and they are not the only ones who are sexually objectified, and a lot of women eat meat. Women can be in a relationship or marriage with a man and still retain their individuality. Women are able to do paid work, vote in elections, and receive an education. Women in the Western world have a lot of independence for living in a patriarchy. And although women still have a lot more ground to gain in terms of egalitarianism, you can't simply ignore all that women have accomplished thus far. Women can be vegetarians if they want, but they don't need vegetarianism to challenge the patriarchy. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminisim Part 3

One thing that really bothered me about the article is when the author talks about how men “consume” women through sex shows, pornography, and prostitution, and makes no mention of how men are "consumed" by women in the same way. The focus is put completely on men and their sexual "appetites", as if women don't have any! As if women are the pinnacles of holiness or something and men are nothing more than lustful beasts. That's just completely biased and unfair. It may be true that the sexual “appetites” of men are aroused by women in a similar way to how their taste buds might be aroused by food, or animal flesh in particular, but doesn't the very same thing happen to women? Are men not just as frequently sexually objectified, and treated as "pieces of meat"? Women can just as easily “consume” men and lust after their flesh. Both men and women have distinct sexual “appetites”, so if you want to talk about the "consumption" of women by men, you have an obligation to talk about the "consumption" of men by women as well. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 2

The author claims that women/wives, in the Western world, are still looked upon as possession by their husbands, but I'm not convinced. It seems to me that that claim is fairly outdated. Of course women have been treated as possessions in the past, and there are still many other cultures across the world that still hold this ideal, I don't believe that this is a widespread ideal in modern day America. Obviously there are still some men that feel this way and do treat women as possessions, but nowadays that seems to be more the exception than the rule. It appears to be commonly accepted now that women are no longer looked at as objects or possessions. The author also says that during a marriage ceremony a woman’s identity is completely destroyed by uniting a husband and wife, which I think is fairly ridiculous. Arranged marriages are no longer common in the western world, women can keep their maiden name after marrying, and continue to have many individual rights while in the marriage. Divorce is also usually fairly easy to obtain, so no woman has to be stuck in a marriage if she wants to get out. A woman still retains her individuality while being in a marriage, she doesn't lose who her identity the way the author claims. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 1

There are so many things I found inadequate about this article I don't even know where to begin. For one thing, I really didn’t like that the author refused to mention what happens when women eat meat. You can’t just assume that women don't eat meat, because that would be absurd. There are many women who eat meat, like me. I occasionally enjoy cow, pig, chicken, and even fish, though not very often. I also consider myself to be a feminist. So where does that leave me? Should feminism prohibit me from eating something I enjoy? What does meat-eating say about me, and about all of the other women who are meat-eaters as well? Does it mean we are trying to assert our dominance over other women by making ourselves more “masculine”? I don't think so. The author undoubtedly should have addressed the "issue" of women meat-eaters in this article. Another thing that really bothered me was that the author could only try to find the link between meat eating and male dominance in the Western world. There are many cultures all over the world that are big on hunting and eating meat which are incredibly egalitarian, and I feel that that should have been mentioned. What about the article bothered you the most?

Determinism and Free Will

What are the biggest problems with believing in determinism or free will? Well, my big problem with determinism is that it does away with ethics, which I believe are absolutely essential. (If everything is determined, then no one can be held responsible for their actions and thereby punished for them. On the other hand, no one could be praised for doing the "right thing" either.) So, even if determinism turned out to be correct, I don't think we could accept it without falling into complete anarchy. My big problem with free will is that it seems obvious that certain things are determined, like the law of gravity, for example. If I drop a piece of chalk ten times, I would expect it to fall to the ground ten times. This appears to be absolutely determined and inevitable. I don't honestly believe that full determinism or full free will exist, so I'm a compatiblist. That seems to be the only rational choice to me. However, there are apparently issues with compatibilism too, especially concerning individuals and their behavior. Is there any right answer here? Probably not. 

Altruism Part 2

What is the difference between being altruistic and being virtuous? Can one be altruistic without being virtuous, or virtuous without being altruistic? I found the diagram in class to be very helpful. I now understand altruism as a kind of sub-category to virtuosity. One can be virtuous without being altruistic, however, one cannot be altruistic without being virtuous. After our discussions in class, I feel a little better about understand altruism as a whole. What still eludes me, however, is the exact definition of 'virtue'. The nature of virtue, and what is truly virtuous, still confuses me. Is it that altruism is supposed to have an air of disinterestedness, and virtue is not? Is it that virtuosity is more about morality and goodness of the self, rather than almost carelessly looking out for others? I understand that their are many important differences between altruism and virtue, but I still don't understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. Is there one, over-arching, all-encompassing definition of 'virtue'? And how does a virtuous person get away without showing any kind of altruism? 

Altruism Part 1

Is it technically possible to do good acts without feeling good about them? Or will every good act consequently and inevitably make you on some level feel some good? I keep hearing about altruism "for its own sake", and how that means that you aren't supposed to do it for yourself. But can you help if you get something good out of it? If feeling good is just naturally what happens after you commit an act of altruism, and you know that you are going to feel good before you do that act, does that no longer mean that the act is altruistic? I don't think so. You may do something good for somebody knowing that it will inevitably make you feel good, but that doesn't mean that you are selfish or simply not altruistic. It seems to me that the act in and of itself is either altruistic or not, I don't think intention plays a very prominent role. Even if you do something primarily for your own sake, if that something helps another person, then I   just don't think it can be called selfish. Or, at the very least, not entirely selfish. Even if you don't mean to help anyone, you may not be able to call yourself an altruist, but one can still say that you did an altruistic act. 

Aristotle Part 2

Why is one way of life considered to be so much better than the others? Why can’t there be a one life with all of these different attributes in it? Couldn’t that life be just as good as one purely devoted to reflection? Could that life be even better? I think that a life that could contain practical politics, pleasure, and reflection could easily be called the ultimate life, because you wouldn't  have to give up any one thing for anything else. I don't see why limiting yourself to just one thing, be it politics, pleasure or reflection, could lead you to fulfillment. I understand that perhaps it might be for the best to have reason, rationality, and reflection as top priorities, but I do not think that that means you need to exclude all other forms of enjoyment in life. Aristotle noted that lives devoted to pleasure or practical politics could be happy and fulfilled, just not as much as a live devoted purely to reason and reflection. That doesn't make sense to me.   I would assume that the lives that would be the happiest and most fulfilled would have balance, and elements from all walks of live without being so exclusive. 

Aristotle Part 1

On what basis does Aristotle reject the life devoted to honor and political success? Hardly anything is said about this, which I think is a big mistake. Why is this life still better than the pleasure-seeking one, anyways? We already noted that Aristotle immediately dismisses the hedonistic life, and then claims "practical" political activity the second best kind of life a person can lead. What makes political activity "practical" in the first place, when it is well known that so much corruption surrounds politics? And, knowing this, why is it still better than going about the hedonistic life? Is a life devoted to impractical political activity worse than one devoted to pleasure? And what does he mean when he talks about a life devoted to pleasure? Must pleasure always be a bad thing? What if someone felt great pleasure by helping other people, and that person devoted his/her life to that? Would that person's life be more unfulfilled than a politician? I think Aristotle make a great mistake when he only identifies three different types of lives, because there are many other ways to live your lives which might be just as good. Furthermore, I don't think most people only live in one way. That is, that they would devote their lives solely to one thing, such as reflection, politics, or pleasure. I think most people can live very fulfilled lives with any combination of those three things, or with others. I think that Aristotle cut himself off prematurely. 

5 Platonic Societies

Plato has outlined five different types of societies, or governments, in his Republic. These include aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny/anarchy. Of these, Plato choses to glorify aristocracy, finding the other four societies to be imperfect. He goes on to explain that in a timarchic society honor and fame are valued above all else. It is perfectly understandable to find flaw in such a society, I think. Then he explains oligarchy is a society based primarily on making money, and those with the money rule. Again, it would prove easy to find fault with this society. In an anarchy, chaos and disorder ensue until a tyrant arises. This, too, would easily be considered an imperfect society. All of this makes perfect sense to me. What confuses me is Plato's obvious disdain for democracy. Democracy, if only a limited one, seems like such a great choice to me. How could ancient Athenian democracy be so bad, so different from today, to cause Plato's distaste for it? I understand that no legal system can be truly perfect, but democracy seems to be pretty close, if not in practice then at least in theory. What really struck me was how Plato thought it was, as the authors put it, "absurd to give every person an equal say, when most people-in his views-do not know what is best." (83) At first the idea doesn't seem that strange, after all, a lot of people are 'in the dark' about an awful lot of things. Perhaps it isn't wise to let people who are exceptionally ignorant to carry the same amount of weight in their opinions as a well-educated person. And this is what really confuses me; Plato founded the very first Academy of Athens, surely he knew how important education was! And if he knew this, why wouldn't he simply declare that all persons, or at least all voting persons, should be enrolled in school? If all voting persons were well-educated, then wouldn't it make sense that they all have an equal vote?

"Philosopher-Kings" as "Guardians"

Plato’s ideas about how to best raise the “Guardians” confuse me. What is the point of keeping them from having a family life, for example? How would that help them to become all truth loving and wise? Isn’t it possible that by trying to keep them from knowing love could in some way inhibit them? I can understand why he thinks a lot of personal property and material things might get in the way of becoming all-wise, but how can love? The strangest part of all this isn't that Guardians can't have children, but that they can't have contact with them. The Guardians who are "suitable" for breeding should be organized into "mating rituals", where children are conceived. Then, these children are communally brought up by nurses. The children should not be able to recognize their parents, and the parents should not be able to recognize his or her child. Plato completely defies the very real, psychological need for the bonds between children and parents. That is not only unreasonable and unnatural, but would also severely hurt the child and parents. To keep someone from having a family life at all would be unnatural, and it just doesn't make sense. I see no correlation between being able to fall in love or have a family with the ultimate demise of the "Philosopher-Kings" turned "Guardians". The ability to love and be loved would not impair their ability to find truth and wisdom in their lives. 

The Tripartite of the Soul

Plato believes that there are three parts to the soul, Reason, Spirit, and Appetite. Although I must agree with him that these things are key ingredients to the soul, I cannot help but wonder if that is all there is. So, if these parts are necessary conditions to the soul, are they also sufficient? The authors suggest that "reason, will, non-bodily motivations or drives, emotions, and bodily appetites" (80) are also necessary. I would even go as far as to suggest that the authors themselves left out a crucial part of the human soul, intuition. Everyone has their intuition, their 'gut reaction' to something, our instincts are born with us and die with us and should not, under any circumstances, be ignored. Anyways, if "spirit" is the equivalent of "passion" and "emotion", and "appetite" includes all bodily functions, Then the new list of conditions for the human soul would read Reason, Spirit, Appetite, Will, and Intuition, as I put in. But still, this seems somehow inadequate. Human beings are incredibly complex creatures. How can the human soul be reduced to these five simple things? Are we missing any other parts to this equation? If these parts of the soul are indeed necessary conditions, are they sufficient enough to cover all of humanity? And how do we decide which conditions are sufficient, and which are only necessary? What if a person is somehow psychologically impaired, and this distorts their ability to "reason"? Is "reason" still a component of their soul? How do we know that these things even exist in our souls? What if they exist solely in our minds? Thoughts, anyone? 

Confucius Part 3

I really don't understand why Confucius thinks that just because someone might be a good family member automatically makes them a good citizen, or why a bad family member would make a bad citizen. What is really the correlation between those two things, if any? Confucius states, "It is rare for a man whose character is such that he is good as a son and obedient as a young man to have the inclination to transgress against his superiors." (15) Is that all it means to be a good citizen? To not try to transgress against his "superiors"? What if his "superiors" were wrong? What if they were evil? How is the measure of a good citizen based off of obedience? How often does obedience actually make for a better government, or a better world? And why are all of his quotes about the son obeying his father, being good to his father? Does the son need to do these things for his mother? And what about the daughter? Does she not have to obey or be good to anyone? It is very disappointing to see that Confucius didn't even want to bother with the idea of women in his teachings.

Confucius Part 2

Is it fair for Confucius to ‘invoke God’ when giving his answer to the problems of humanity?  How can people truly follow the “Decree of Heaven” if he didn’t elaborate farther than “benevolence” is a virtue? Is Confucius really offering any practical advice here? Personally, I don't really think so. First of all, as pointed out in class, invoking God in philosophy is basically outright cheating. All of your arguments are based upon one grand assumption which really is simply a matter of what you believe in, and that is just not logical. Then someone suggested that "Heaven" meant a place, but didn't really make reference to God. However, who would be making a "Decree of Heaven" if not God? And even if Confucius didn't mean God, he was still very vague as to what exactly that "decree" was. If people aren't aware of this all-powerful decree, which alone has the power to change the human condition, then how can the condition change? Also, Confucius himself states that humans aren't typically benevolent, the sole virtue of the "Decree of Heaven" that he actually explains. So if people aren't usually benevolent, and it takes years and years of hard work and studying the sages to become benevolent, but then people still don't fully understand the "decree", so the human condition doesn't actually change, then what is Confucius really saying? He has a pretty fair diagnoses of humanity, but then no practical cure for it? Being benevolent, or religious, or wise might be good for an individual, but it isn't going to cure humankind of all its ailments. 

Confucius Part 1

So, I understand that benevolence may be good for governments and society as a whole, but will it really rectify all of the problems of government and society? How so? Is nothing other than benevolence needed to change the world? It doesn't seem possible to me. I think Confucius really over-extends the power of benevolence here. I definitely agree that benevolence in politics could make a huge difference, but it just isn't rational to believe that by simply being kind to one another, the world at large will be cured of all of its problems. As someone mentioned already in class, humans have limited resources and unlimited desires. So, say for example that everyone in our government was benevolent and wanted to feed everyone in Mali, who are also all benevolent. However, it turns out that we don't have enough food to give to them and keep for ourselves, so a lot of people still go hungry. How does benevolence solve world hunger? How does it cure all illnesses? How does it stop an earthquake? I would never undermine the importance of benevolence, but it is obviously impractical and irrational to suggest benevolence as the ultimate cure for all of the problems of the human race. I am almost shocked that Confucius would make such a seemingly radical claim. 

The Philosophy Toolkit

One of the things that really interested me in this toolkit was section "Types of Definition", under "Logical Terms". Until last year I believed there was only one type of definition, but the toolkit mentions four types: lexical, stipulative, theoretical, and persuasive. Lexical definitions are used to clarify something, and are the types of definitions typically found in dictionaries. Stipulative definitions change the meanings for already existing terms. Theoretical definitions try to further the meaning of a term by proposing different hypotheses. Persuasive definitions try to "fix" the meaning of a word rhetorically. Personally, I don't understand the need for all of these definitions. I have always gone by purely "lexical" definitions, and that has always worked well for me. When working in Philosophy, one of the most important things is for everyone to understand the meaning of the terms being used. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to work with the same lexical definitions instead of constantly having to change them, or make up new ones? Stipulative definitions don't seem to make any sense at all; how can one simply up and change the meaning of firmly established terms? That just doesn't seem right. And although I think it's great to try and elaborate further a definition, I don't think the elaboration should count as a new definition itself. And, quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea of what purpose a "persuasive" definition has. What is the real purpose of any of these definitions? Are they truly essential to understanding a term, or is it time to let them go? I stand by the idea that a firm lexical definition is all we really need.

About Myself

Hello, my name is Stacy Alice Fisher and I was born on November 19, 1991 and I'm 20 years old. I am a sophomore here at MCLA and I am currently undeclared, but I'm leaning towards Anthropology/ Sociology for a major and I'm going to minor in Philosophy. I have been interested in Philosophy for as long as I can remember, and I believe it is the fundamentally most important thing a person should study. I am extremely opinionated and have a hard time keeping said opinions to myself. One of the things I have been trying to learn from Philosophy is that everyone has a valid opinion that deserves to be heard, this is a much more difficult lesson to learn than I originally thought. I think there is so much a person can take away from Philosophy if they only open their minds and give it a chance. This is only my second year seriously studying Philosophy, and I have already noticed a big difference in myself and how I perceive the world. When I believe in something, I truly do believe in it with every fiber of my being. This makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone who wishes to change my mind on a particular matter. However, this also means that I am exceedingly impressed with anyone who actually can. I thoroughly enjoy arguing with people, because that is, interestingly enough, how I learn best. I want to see every point on every matter from every direction there is, and listening to other people argue their point, listening to their opponents, and listening to the devil's advocates all help me to further understand a discussion. I simply love a good debate. Well, that's all for now I suppose. Have a great day everybody! :)