In class this week one thing that we had talked about briefly was that of where philosophers get their true ideas. It had been mentioned that "No great philosopher gets his ideas by himself, that there must always be some stealing."
When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:
One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.
What are your thoughts?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Noble Scholar
During class this week we spent a lot of time talking about Hobbes and Rousseau. While discussing the things that Rousseau thought about in terms of his philosophy I started to really think about his idea of "Emile" or what would be the best way to raise a child.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
this concept was really striking to me because it is something that I had considered from time to time, but never really sat down and though about, because as it is, it isn't particularly urgent in my life yet. When really thinking about it though, I wonder what sort of things would be said when asked what you think the perfect way to raise a child is.
So this is my general outlook at a good parenting guide, and my question to you is, what would yours consist of?
From birth until schooling the child should spend almost every waking moment with at least one of the parents learning about life within the confines of natural skills (i.e. music, language, communication in arts, science, coordination, and understanding).
The child should be brought out into the real world in all kinds of conditions (like sun, snow and rain) so that they can begin to learn what life is like beyond the confines of their home and begin to explore the worlld around them.
I think that adventuring would be important to their life, but its not necessary that they do it alone, go out on hikes and explore rivers or other surrounding natural interesting things, let them become experienced in the immidiate world with you.
Avoid current stereotypical cartoons and "toys r' us": instead let them watch some charlie brown... break out the old lego's and brio train sets, these are things that would be more educational to them than any elmo toy, trust me.
Play to their interests, if you start teaching them about everything and they pertain to certain skills, let them thrive on that, but make sure not to give up on the other important things for them to learn about.
Julia's Happiness Machine
This is a response to your thought provoking question about the happiness machine..
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
I think that it would be hard for me to decide on every single thing that would be different in my happiness machine especially with respect to things that would be physically possible / probable. Assuming that anything could be different in this happiness machine, I would add some fun to life in terms of super natural ability: i.e. the ability to control given surroundings with telepathy, to be able to shoot flames out of my fingertips or the ability to fly :)
however, I think that if given the option to walk into my own happiness machine... Where I am right now I don't think that I would go inside, because my life is pretty happy the way it is, and stepping inside would take away the things that I have worked for to get to where I am now. I would leave it to someone else who needed it.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
When in class on Friday, we were talking about the theories of Hobbes’ views of human nature. The thing that absolutely caught my attention when we discussed his philosophies was our quick discussion on Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When we had talked about this I ended up writing about why I think people help one another out in terms of Hobbes’ idea of psychological egoists. My idea of this is similar to the ideal of the psychological egoist in that we feel like we need to help someone in order to quell our own needs, but the difference in my thoughts is that it is most definitely not a selfish / selfless act situation.
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
To my understanding, we slingshot each other by doing good acts in order to slowly bring one another closer to the greater good. The great part about this is that even the most simple of “selfless acts” can be put through this test.
As an example, there are two people in the given situation, person “A” and person “B”. If person “A” has fallen on the ground (thus being slightly on the lesser pleasant side of their day) allowing for person “B” to offer a hand up to the fallen one; then person “B” is offering a free ride on the slingshot to happiness. By helping out, person “B” has brought “A” through a very small level of bad and left them better off than they were before, but at the same time leaving themselves back where they had started in terms of happiness. This is just part of the ladder of happiness, and if we can all help one another climb the steep climb that has been presented, then in the end we would all be better off, wouldn’t you agree?
Response to Isreal's Question
This is a response to your question: Should there be perfect balance between logic/proof and faith?
When I really think about this question, there is a lot that comes to my mind. The thing that really stands out though is a theory that I have grown quite accustom to in the recent years of my life. The theory goes as follows: “It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission”. This relates directly to how I look at the balance of faith and logic, for it allows an understanding and fairness to both sides of the argument. The logic side to this is that it allows for you to logically take in and interpret the two situations at hand before making a decision. However, at the same time it leaves open the availability that there is some faith to the things that you end up choosing to do; for in this situation it takes some faith to believe that you will hopefully be without trouble in asking for the forgiveness.
What I am really trying to say here is that there should definitely be some balance in these types of decisions, but that as with all things there must be some moderation in everything that you do. For without balance all things begin to get out of hand, thus leading a life of strict logic would be a life that is too thought out; and a life that is too faithful would be a life lead recklessly.
Do you agree with this philosophy in terms of true human nature?
~Alex
When I really think about this question, there is a lot that comes to my mind. The thing that really stands out though is a theory that I have grown quite accustom to in the recent years of my life. The theory goes as follows: “It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission”. This relates directly to how I look at the balance of faith and logic, for it allows an understanding and fairness to both sides of the argument. The logic side to this is that it allows for you to logically take in and interpret the two situations at hand before making a decision. However, at the same time it leaves open the availability that there is some faith to the things that you end up choosing to do; for in this situation it takes some faith to believe that you will hopefully be without trouble in asking for the forgiveness.
What I am really trying to say here is that there should definitely be some balance in these types of decisions, but that as with all things there must be some moderation in everything that you do. For without balance all things begin to get out of hand, thus leading a life of strict logic would be a life that is too thought out; and a life that is too faithful would be a life lead recklessly.
Do you agree with this philosophy in terms of true human nature?
~Alex
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Platolotics
So this week while in class we had spent a lot of time talking about the Greeks, and their views on human nature. During our discussion on Plato, a very interesting point had come up that i wanted to elaborate on.
The statement was that: "Life leaders should not be a group of people who are all rich".
I think that this may or may not be one of the most clever solution statements that I have heard of in terms of politics in a very long time. The reason that this makes so much sense to me is that it would allow for so much more personality and equality in our society in terms of how things are run for the everyday people. Another thing that I think I really like about this is that it would be kind of scary at first to just elect people who were seemingly "unworthy" as we see it currently, but at the same time it would open up a lot of doors in terms of understanding, and I think in the long run of things really help.
The most important difference in my mind is simply this: how can someone who has been elected based on their money and importance in offic understand the poor side of civilization in their area? Unless that person had grown up being very poor then managed to become rich enough to run an official campaign, (which in my mind can only possibly be so many of the people we have elected in the past... if any) it just doesnt seem very fitting.
Personally, the number of representatives that we host per state shouldn't change, but that there should be an added distinguishing factor between them, one that represents the different class levels of that same state. In my mind this would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?
The statement was that: "Life leaders should not be a group of people who are all rich".
I think that this may or may not be one of the most clever solution statements that I have heard of in terms of politics in a very long time. The reason that this makes so much sense to me is that it would allow for so much more personality and equality in our society in terms of how things are run for the everyday people. Another thing that I think I really like about this is that it would be kind of scary at first to just elect people who were seemingly "unworthy" as we see it currently, but at the same time it would open up a lot of doors in terms of understanding, and I think in the long run of things really help.
The most important difference in my mind is simply this: how can someone who has been elected based on their money and importance in offic understand the poor side of civilization in their area? Unless that person had grown up being very poor then managed to become rich enough to run an official campaign, (which in my mind can only possibly be so many of the people we have elected in the past... if any) it just doesnt seem very fitting.
Personally, the number of representatives that we host per state shouldn't change, but that there should be an added distinguishing factor between them, one that represents the different class levels of that same state. In my mind this would make for the most effective means of political power change within society, do you agree?
Response to Julie's Post
I personally think that the term "selfless act" is a little bit of an oxymoron, for in order to perform an act of kindness, you have to want to help that person / thing in need.
When it really comes down to it, I feel like the term "selfless act" causes more argument than is needed on the subject, for why should it be questioned in the first plac wether or not you were being selfish to help someone? In the end if you have actually been a help, that is all the matters, you shouldn't need a proof of purchase to make you feel like a better person.
After all, its almost better that the person you have helped doesn't even know that you have been there to help them, for it means that you are just genuinely good, and for a splinter of time you get to be someone's guardian angel
Do you agree?
When it really comes down to it, I feel like the term "selfless act" causes more argument than is needed on the subject, for why should it be questioned in the first plac wether or not you were being selfish to help someone? In the end if you have actually been a help, that is all the matters, you shouldn't need a proof of purchase to make you feel like a better person.
After all, its almost better that the person you have helped doesn't even know that you have been there to help them, for it means that you are just genuinely good, and for a splinter of time you get to be someone's guardian angel
Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
