Monday, November 28, 2011
A Definite Answer?
As I read Book 1 of The Republic, I start to agree with Glaucon and Adeimantus in that people do right only for their benefit, but I am unsure about if this applies to justice. Each human has a different aptitude, and we keep with this skill. Socrates would agree with this, as it seems evident that he would say that each human has a certain function that can be used for a specific purpose. However, I am not so sure that Socrates would agree that people only do such things in the interest of themselves, because after all, he criticized Thrasymachus’s thought of self-interest, in which self-interest does not always come into play with one’s “functions”. I do not specifically believe that justice is just a matter of convenience, but I agree that it does factor into it. Justice, I believe, is more about truth and morals, which fall into a subjective category: justice is keeping with and following the morals of humans, but this is entirely what each of us thinks. Therefore, I do not think that there is a “correct” definition of justice, because so far, in our time, justice is only what we as humans believe is correct.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Justice
Is justice subjective?
I think so. Morals are subjective...justice, I think, is just respecting the fact that morals are relative. You could say that nothing is truly just or unjust. It's all what WE think. Like Jordan said, though, there's a bubble of objectivity in the bubble of subjectivity, because something could be objective in our minds, but that means it's still subjective. Hmm, that's kind of confusing, but if you think about it, it makes sense. However, the idea of relativism is dangerous, because that means that you could justify almost anything using subjectivity. It could become destructive. We could say that we have the right to do what we want, which, in some instances, might not be good.
Ah! But saying that something "isn't good" is subjective! So, I'm back to my first point...
I think so. Morals are subjective...justice, I think, is just respecting the fact that morals are relative. You could say that nothing is truly just or unjust. It's all what WE think. Like Jordan said, though, there's a bubble of objectivity in the bubble of subjectivity, because something could be objective in our minds, but that means it's still subjective. Hmm, that's kind of confusing, but if you think about it, it makes sense. However, the idea of relativism is dangerous, because that means that you could justify almost anything using subjectivity. It could become destructive. We could say that we have the right to do what we want, which, in some instances, might not be good.
Ah! But saying that something "isn't good" is subjective! So, I'm back to my first point...
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
What's The Point?
Being in a philosophy class is something that's completely new to me. But is my grade a good indicator of what I've gotten out of the class? I mean, it could be, because it means that I've grasped what other philosophers in history have said: I, at least, can understand their thoughts. On the other hand, don't you think that it's not just the grade that matters? I believe that I'll know that I have gotten something out of the course when I start to implement these concepts into my daily life, especially when I do it without knowing. Why am I even in this class if I won't get anything out of it? What's the point? Well, when I start to develop my own ideas and thoughts based on the concepts that I learn about in class, I think it should become habitual. I should start thinking about things that I don't usually think about...but this should become normal. I should ask simple questions, but I should ask profound questions that trigger deeper thought. That's when I think that I have gotten at least something out of the class, something more important than a grade.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Marx
Hegel holds the philosophy of reality being the only reality of concepts. But does this actually tell us about the variety of the material part of reality: the one with problems about economic production or technology? Does it give us a grasp of the material side of the world? It doesn't adequately hold all of the mutability and contigency of the material side of reality.
By the way, mutability is change or alteration.
Contingency is dependence on the fulfillment of something.
Moreover, concepts should be practical, grounded in reality, and concrete. They shouldn't be abstract, like Hegel says. We have the philosophy to put into practice and change the world: we have to apply it. "Philosophers have so far only interpreted the world in various ways: the point, however, is to change it."
By the way, mutability is change or alteration.
Contingency is dependence on the fulfillment of something.
Moreover, concepts should be practical, grounded in reality, and concrete. They shouldn't be abstract, like Hegel says. We have the philosophy to put into practice and change the world: we have to apply it. "Philosophers have so far only interpreted the world in various ways: the point, however, is to change it."
Monday, November 7, 2011
Reflection
I actually really like Philosophy class.
Really! Sure, it seems like I'm completely uninvolved in the discussions during class. I just sit there, taking notes, but I'm just trying to absorb everything that we learn.
I know, I know, I rarely talk during these discussions. Actually, now that I think about it, I never talk.
But this class is such a great gateway to ideas that are so new to me. I've never, ever, had a class like this one. It's all so overwhelming! I just don't know how to respond to these kinds of ideas, mostly because I've never encountered them. I really don't know what to say. Anyways, these new concepts have probably passed me during my sixteen years, but I just have never acknowledged them. Maybe they've existed at the back of my mind, but I definitely never thougth about them to this depth.
I used to think about things like, "Wow...when I die, that's it. I'm never going to wake up. I'm going to be asleep forever." I could never grasp concepts like that.
I'm taking small steps, though. Like I said, I've never acknowledged thoughts as deep as the ones that I have to encounter now.
With this class, I can.
Really! Sure, it seems like I'm completely uninvolved in the discussions during class. I just sit there, taking notes, but I'm just trying to absorb everything that we learn.
I know, I know, I rarely talk during these discussions. Actually, now that I think about it, I never talk.
But this class is such a great gateway to ideas that are so new to me. I've never, ever, had a class like this one. It's all so overwhelming! I just don't know how to respond to these kinds of ideas, mostly because I've never encountered them. I really don't know what to say. Anyways, these new concepts have probably passed me during my sixteen years, but I just have never acknowledged them. Maybe they've existed at the back of my mind, but I definitely never thougth about them to this depth.
I used to think about things like, "Wow...when I die, that's it. I'm never going to wake up. I'm going to be asleep forever." I could never grasp concepts like that.
I'm taking small steps, though. Like I said, I've never acknowledged thoughts as deep as the ones that I have to encounter now.
With this class, I can.
A Hermit
Is it possible to be a hermit?
According to Hegel, I can't fully understand who I am if I remain alone by myself with only the objects of nature to attend to. I only gain a proper consciousness of myself when self-understanding is recognized and confirmed by others.
Just imagine being a hermit. A hermit, by definition, is any person living in seclusion. If you're living in seclusion, are you recognized by others? Maybe not, but you're still conscious...aren't you? Are you self-conscious? There's no "mutual recognition" going on, so it's debatable...
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
According to Hegel, I can't fully understand who I am if I remain alone by myself with only the objects of nature to attend to. I only gain a proper consciousness of myself when self-understanding is recognized and confirmed by others.
Just imagine being a hermit. A hermit, by definition, is any person living in seclusion. If you're living in seclusion, are you recognized by others? Maybe not, but you're still conscious...aren't you? Are you self-conscious? There's no "mutual recognition" going on, so it's debatable...
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Alienation
The deepest form of alienation is alienation from your own family. Isn't that sad?
Alienation is actually different from isolation. It's "not being recognized": it's being estranged. If you're estranged from your family, then what are you? What do you have? That is what seems so sad to me.
We all have to choose a path to identity. Sure, I'm pretty young if I do say so myself (!), but I could say that I've still sort of chosen a path. Right now, I'm pretty much walking the path of replication. That is, replication of my parents. I've definitely embraced my parents' values, since they've raised me. But I think that since I've lived with the ideas of my parents my entire life, everything that they tell me is right just seems normal to me. Of course, I can't speak for other people my age. It just seems normal for me to listen to my mom all the time.
Like Hegel said, we're trapped in a state of uneasiness. Even if we choose to be free, we don't feel free. It's like what we talked about in class: I could choose not to go to school, but I'd have a certain guilt looming over me all day. In this way, I have freedom, but at the same time, I don't. Ah, but this goes back to the "path" that I'm on...I've replicated my mom's values, so I go to school anyways. It's a value she holds, too.
Alienation is actually different from isolation. It's "not being recognized": it's being estranged. If you're estranged from your family, then what are you? What do you have? That is what seems so sad to me.
We all have to choose a path to identity. Sure, I'm pretty young if I do say so myself (!), but I could say that I've still sort of chosen a path. Right now, I'm pretty much walking the path of replication. That is, replication of my parents. I've definitely embraced my parents' values, since they've raised me. But I think that since I've lived with the ideas of my parents my entire life, everything that they tell me is right just seems normal to me. Of course, I can't speak for other people my age. It just seems normal for me to listen to my mom all the time.
Like Hegel said, we're trapped in a state of uneasiness. Even if we choose to be free, we don't feel free. It's like what we talked about in class: I could choose not to go to school, but I'd have a certain guilt looming over me all day. In this way, I have freedom, but at the same time, I don't. Ah, but this goes back to the "path" that I'm on...I've replicated my mom's values, so I go to school anyways. It's a value she holds, too.
Being A Baby
Consciousness is the negation of general objects.
With mutual recognition comes self-consciousness.
So can you say that babies aren't actually conscious? After all, it could be said that they only become conscious after they touch someone else's hand. "Finding hands", as it's called, sort of marks the moment when a baby becomes conscious of himself or herself. Before that, however, they're in a state of pre-consciousness. After consciousness actually happens, the baby becomes aware that he or she is, indeed, a baby! At first, the baby doesn't even have a cause-and-effect relationship with objects.
Babies are just so interesting. There's a lot of unique characteristics that they have: for instance, one of the first things that they do is use their fingers to pinch. My mom actually told me that when I was younger, I'd be laying in my crib with my hands in the air, pinching something invisible (to her) with my fingers. But I had actually just learned to use my fingers, because for the first time, I used my fingers to pick up and eat Cheerios.
With mutual recognition comes self-consciousness.
So can you say that babies aren't actually conscious? After all, it could be said that they only become conscious after they touch someone else's hand. "Finding hands", as it's called, sort of marks the moment when a baby becomes conscious of himself or herself. Before that, however, they're in a state of pre-consciousness. After consciousness actually happens, the baby becomes aware that he or she is, indeed, a baby! At first, the baby doesn't even have a cause-and-effect relationship with objects.
Babies are just so interesting. There's a lot of unique characteristics that they have: for instance, one of the first things that they do is use their fingers to pinch. My mom actually told me that when I was younger, I'd be laying in my crib with my hands in the air, pinching something invisible (to her) with my fingers. But I had actually just learned to use my fingers, because for the first time, I used my fingers to pick up and eat Cheerios.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)