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?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
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?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Response to Bryan's Post
I think that just about anyone in the world who owns something that they take dear to their heart as a result of earning that certain something in one way or another supports this Sophist idea. The reason I say this is that most of the things that we try to earn in the world are things that we are seeking to achieve, a personal goal for us to become fixated on, and eventually proud of. This feeling of success is what I understand to be a "Sophist" way of thought, and even though it may not represent the whole set of Sophist ideals, it is definitely something that can be considered their own.
When it comes to the American people supporting wrong principles of living, this is what I have to say. Many people in the world, not only the United States live by the wrong principles of living these days. I think that a lot of what is wrong with our society today can be pinned directly to inappropriate approaches to living life happily.
To me there is more to life than representing what we can prove to be better at than one another; for life is about becoming one with what you are meant to be, wouldn't you agree?
When it comes to the American people supporting wrong principles of living, this is what I have to say. Many people in the world, not only the United States live by the wrong principles of living these days. I think that a lot of what is wrong with our society today can be pinned directly to inappropriate approaches to living life happily.
To me there is more to life than representing what we can prove to be better at than one another; for life is about becoming one with what you are meant to be, wouldn't you agree?
Feels Good Man
Something that was brought up in class the other day was a fascinating discussion about what sort of things are "good" and what makes them "good". The solution that was proposed for discussion was that of Socrates, and the first that was brought up was: "Doing things that make you feel good about yourself are good things, where as things that make you feel bad are just generally bad things". I thought that this was an interesting statement when it was first brought up, since I could immediately relate to the fact that doing the right thing indeed does feel good.
But then I had a strange thought, the question that had come to mind while disputing this theory in my head was that: "If feeling good makes what you are doing good, than are the people we see as evil just taking pleasure by doing bad?"
What is your opinion?
But then I had a strange thought, the question that had come to mind while disputing this theory in my head was that: "If feeling good makes what you are doing good, than are the people we see as evil just taking pleasure by doing bad?"
What is your opinion?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Response to Misty's Post on Scent
This is a response to a response about how smells are affective to people based on their being raised in different surroundings. Question: Do you think we would react differently to certain smells, if we werent raised to like or dislike them?
First, I personally think that your surroundings actually do not affect how you interpret a smell. To me it is more about the situation to which a smell has come into your life that determines how you are going to like or dislike that smell. For example, if you are attracted to someone and they are wearing a noticeable scent, then you are going to remember that smell very vividly as a good smell. Where alternatively if you disliked someone who wore a specific scent, then came across someone else who wore the same scent, it would have a negative effect towards you.
Secondly, I think that scent is sometimes based on what the body interprets as healthy or harmful to the body. As an example here, no one tells you that the smell of diarrhea is bad, but when you smell it you will know... I think that the reason is that your brain interprets that smell as something that is harmful to the body. Thus the nose explains that danger to the brain by making it smell bad.
Do you agree?
First, I personally think that your surroundings actually do not affect how you interpret a smell. To me it is more about the situation to which a smell has come into your life that determines how you are going to like or dislike that smell. For example, if you are attracted to someone and they are wearing a noticeable scent, then you are going to remember that smell very vividly as a good smell. Where alternatively if you disliked someone who wore a specific scent, then came across someone else who wore the same scent, it would have a negative effect towards you.
Secondly, I think that scent is sometimes based on what the body interprets as healthy or harmful to the body. As an example here, no one tells you that the smell of diarrhea is bad, but when you smell it you will know... I think that the reason is that your brain interprets that smell as something that is harmful to the body. Thus the nose explains that danger to the brain by making it smell bad.
Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
