4 of 4 Philosophers (Hume)

Hume

• Nothing is actually invented by the mind; mind puts things together and constructs false ideas
• Descartes believes in distinct idea of God while Hume refutes this by calling it a 'complex idea'
• Ideas are regularly connected
• Empiricism: knowledge comes from our senses
• Skepticism: doubt and ambiguity
• Humans only have knowledge of what they directly experience
• Content of the mind is whole product of experience
• Miracles are not true because there is no tangible proof they are possible or exist
• Reason is a process in human condition, but is secondary to emotions and senses
• Epistemology
• Questioned common notions of personal identity
• Argued that there is no permanent self that continues over time
• Person is a collection of properties and nothing more; bundle theory
• Theory of passions
• Passions fall under the category of impressions of reflection as opposed to impressions of sensation

3 of 4 Philosophers (Kierkegaard)

Kierkegaard

• Existentialism: our being as 'subjective individuals' is more important that what we have in common objectively with other human beings (essence)
• More important to search for personal truths than the ultimate 'truth'
• Reasoned truth not relevant to our everyday lives
• Three stages of life's way
• Aesthetic stage: living in the moment; slave to desires; our senses
• Ethical stage: living by the law of morals
• Religious stage: road to redemption
• Meaning of existence
• Escaping the despairs of life and striving for happiness is what gives life meaning
• Absolute faith can overcome the meaninglessness of your existence
• Confrontation with existential dread -- obsessive, unavoidable fact of death
• Insignificance of life
• Problem of fear
• Meaning is embedded in a broader sense of God's plan; human life is full of suffering
• Morals are universal; we know things innately that are morally right and wrong; because of permeating wonder of faith, we have the 'teleological suspension of the ethical'; Abraham, when going to sacrifice his son, goes against his moral law to obey God; faith goes beyond morality
• Morals are objective; moral law comes from God
• Sees beauty of individual; every person has anxiety and fears
• Ubermensch: recognize own weakness and fallibility but put faith in something greater than oneself; strength to put oneself into unknown

2 of 4 Philosophers (Hegel)

Hegel

• Romanticist
• Self-consciousness: the recognition and confirmation of self-understanding that we receive from others
• Consciousness: awareness of environment and surroundings
• Desire: self-consciousness takes the form of desire through the negation of surrounding objects; find desire through negation
• Absolute knowing: self-knowing spirit
• Everything is here and now, because the present is the manifestation of the past and history. Without the past, the present would not exist; it is a paradox
• Perception ceases and becomes understanding; at first, we look around us and observe what surrounds us, but when we notice the inner unity of the objects we sense, then it transforms into inner understanding
• Unity of the one with itself; we seek to enjoy objects, because ultimately, we want to enjoy ourselves
• Self-consciousness achieves its satisfaction only in another self-consciousness; reciprocity between self-consciousnesses; they affirm each other; we can't expect others to affirm our self-understanding without doing the same for them
• Mutual recognition will never be sustainable
• Intersubjectivity: shared between conscious minds; like Twitter
• Mutual recognition is the ideal situation, but something like that will never by perfectly lived out
• I can't fully understand who I am if I remain alone

1 of 4 Philosophers (Marx)

Marx

• Dialectical materialism
• Capitalism -- mode of production in which a few humans own and control the major forces or means of production as their private property and they employ those who have nothing to sell but their own labor power
• Real material man in a real material world; existence is in the material world
• Man becomes alienated from the products of his own labor in the money economy of capitalism
• Trapped in a state of uneasiness
• Deepest alienation: alienation from one's own family
• Division of labor, class struggle, class consciousness, and revolutionary overthrow of capitalism
• Every concept, structure, institution must be criticized
• Ultimate weapon to change the world is the organized power of the proletariat
• Man's divinity can be realized with a worldwide revolution against the existing conditions of the world...a human being can then live as God
• Master/slave relationship
• Moral regeneration of humanity through world revolution

Wittgenstein Notes 2

Atomic propositions contain the material of every proposition -- like a base. The theory of knowledge has the task of finding truths. Wittgenstein believes that if you find them, you can find the logical nature of problems themselves.


According to Ramsey, a particle in two places at the same time is a statement that it cannot have two velocities at the same time. Space, time, and matter are physical, while logic is abstract.


Wittgenstein had to rethink his whole approach to "logic and language" because he found that "adequate symbolism" is not sufficient to say whether a conjunction of a proposition is or is not a contradiction. He then said that some atomic propositions are mutually exclusive. His use of space, time, and matter weren't right: they're physical.


Explanation would cause an idea to change, because it's based only on something inexpressible. An explanation would essentially give new information. Description, however, would only rearrange what has always been known.


Ubersicht is understanding in seeing connections. There is a contrast with the kind of understanding produced by explanation. Language becomes a product of the changing of people.

Wittgenstein Notes

Tautologies can be true, such as in the case, "Either it is raining or it not raining", but that doesn't mean anything because it's merely an either/or statement. It's always true, so really, there's no importance in it...it's senseless. Tautologies are not nonsense, however, because they are true.


Logic, ethics, aesthetics, and religion are all part of the transcendent, according to Wittgenstein, because each of them has to be shown rather than said. This means that nothing can be said about them.


Wittgenstein asks, "What is a proposition?" A proposition is the basis of everything and constitutes everything. Even things like words don't have any meaning unless they are a part of a proposition.


Take philosophy out of language and put in into math. Logic is the only way to truth.

Yoga

Last week, Jordan's dad came to our class to help us do yoga, being a yoga teacher and all. So we all went outside with our yoga mats and, well, did yoga! Fortunately, it was a beautiful day out, which was better for me because I think the nice atmosphere definitely adds to the feeling you get when you do yoga.

I've done yoga before, but not seriously. I was able to better experience yoga the day we did it in class because I took myself doing it more seriously. The physical part of it wasn't easy, but it wasn't painfully difficult, either. You definitely have to relax yourself in order to stretch yourself farther. That applies to your mindset, too. When you do yoga, I think it's best to forget about your situation, whether you're overwhelmed with a million problems at the moment or you have an essay due next period. It's like mind-cleansing!

After yoga, I did feel more relaxed and "loose", and also more refreshed. Just laying down on the grass towards the end of the session allowed me to rest a bit so I was ready for the rest of the day.

Buddhist Temple

Yesterday, I visited a Buddhist temple with my classmates. Although it wasn't my first time at a Buddhist temple, I don't really have much knowledge about it, so I still found it interesting.

I was born into a Buddhist family, but I never visit my temple. I ended up learning a number of new things yesterday! For instance, I learned that nirvana means disappearance...essentially, it's death. Also, you can't "convert" to Buddhism: it's just that in Buddhism, you have to make choices for yourself, and there is no certain way to do things. You have to take responsibility for yourself. You can be Christian and Buddhist, which I didn't know was really possible, either.

We had to take off our shoes before entering the main room of the temple because the atmosphere is made to feel like home. We had to strip away our "public" appearances and show our true selves.

It was also weird to learn that Buddhists don't believe that love lasts forever. It seems like a depressing thought, but they believe that since we don't live forever, love doesn't last forever. It seems logical if you think about it, but I feel better thinking that love does last forever!

I was surprised by how calm the minister was. He was very friendly, and the practices and ideas that he talked about weren't strict at all. For instance, although love doesn't last forever, we should all have compassion: we should share with others and help those in distress.

I really enjoyed the trip and learned a lot of things I had never known. It was funny how the minister noted that when he was younger, he'd only go to the temple for parties and festivals. That's exactly what I did when I was younger! For that, I really didn't have much sense of my own religion, but yesterday, I was able to learn a little more.

Some Interpretations

In order for creation to happen, ruthlessness must be a part of the process.

A bellows is something that expands and contracts, like a lungs...

In order to gain success, we may have to tire ourselves out. There must be something negative for something positive. (No pain, no gain~)

We can't have both worlds: there has to be more of one thing than the other.

A person who knows a lot is always thinking. He knows so much that other people cannot understand, so he makes his intelligence more understandable to others. This makes his knowledge less powerful.

Meditating

So a few days ago, our class tried some meditation by sitting on desks and listening to a recording of a "Chi Master" as the lights were turned off. For the first few minutes, I was pretty into it, as I tried to follow all the motions that were instructed and I had no problem. But after staying still for a while, I began to become fidgety. Maybe it's just me, but I can't be still for too long, or else I become restless. But first, I sat still, put my hands in the positions instructed, and so forth. I think that I wasn't able to stay in the position for too long because I don't think I was doing correctly, and therefore wouldn't get anything out of the meditation. I felt as if I was not only becoming tired, but my back became sore from sitting in such a motionless position and I also didn't think that I was actually achieving anything. So for the rest of class, I sat on the desk with my feet dangling and stayed quiet. I would try meditating again, though, if I knew I was doing it right.

Philosophy And Wall-E

The first time I watched Wall-E in theatres, I was pretty disappointed. It just honestly seemed kind of boring to me.

But now that I've watched it in Philosophy class, and being more aware of philosophical ideas and contexts, I enjoyed it much more. 

I never noticed such small details, like how the robots seem to be even more human than humans themselves. Also, I found that the name "Buy 'n Large" signified how humans are used to living so excessively, and that we keep wanting more and more. And sure, the Axiom seems like a nice place to live (no working? EVER? Having everything done for you?), but really, it's not a utopic kind of place at all. What kind of world is it where you can't live and be human? You're pretty much just a blob that can't do much if you live on the Axiom.

Another thing that I noticed was that as he searches through the Avalanche of Detritus, he finds a box with a wedding ring, but throws away the ring and keeps the box. I think that this shows that people nowadays are so caught up in material value. Wall-E doesn't care -- whatever he likes, he keeps. We place such high value on so many things that we're obsessed with wanting them and having them for ourselves. Simple things can still please people though, right?

The Simpsons And Art

Collingwood said that art is not for amusement.

I think it could be, though. Perhaps the main purpose of art isn't to amuse, but it could definitely be a part of it.

The most obvious example that I can think of right now is the The Simpsons, especially since, well, we watched an episode in class. The show comments on society in general, and makes sometimes strong, and maybe offensive statements about the U.S. Don't we all just want to be famous? It's possible. That's probably the main idea that has gotten across through the show. But The Simpsons make people feel something, whether it be disgust, agreement, or something that just triggers a thought. Because of that, I think it's art. Sure, it might not exactly be the most high-class (or highbrow?) piece of art, but it can have something that we can all relate to in some way.

Plus, it's funny! And who doesn't like to laugh? :)

A Boat Beneath A Sunny Sky

A poem by Lewis Carroll (who is also the author of Alice in Wonderland!)

A boat beneath a sunny sky,
Lingering onward dreamily,
In an evening of July --

Children three that nestle near,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Pleased a simple tale to hear --

Long has paled that sunny sky:
Echoes fade and memories die:
Autumn frosts have slain July.

Still she haunts me, phantomwise,
Alice moving under skies
Never seen by waking eyes.

Children yet, the tale to hear,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Lovingly shall nestle near.

In a Wonderland they lie,
Dreaming as the days go by,
Dreaming as the summers die:

Ever drifting down the stream --
Lingering in the golden gleam --
Life, what is it but a dream?

What Is Art?

I definitely agree with the statement that art should elicit feeling, whether it be positive or negative. That means that psychological harm can be a product of art...I suppose that the main purpose should not be only to harm, though.

Art's also open to interpretation, and should allow you to think. It should be something that triggers some sort of emotion or thought. It should allow you to express internal ideas, and let you "express the unexpressable".

Art is an escape from daily life. Whatever it is, it's an escape from reality. We all want that sometimes, don't we?

King Of Anything

This is called "King Of Anything" by Sara Bareilles.

This was kind of a last-minute choice, but I thought it was fitting. Well, if you haven't noticed yet, I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to put my opinions out there: I'd rather keep them to myself. I'd rather do something to please others than to please myself. So, I sit back and let others tell me what's better for me. They're probably right, anyway! In fear of others telling me that I'm wrong or even just disagreeing with me, I'd rather stay quiet.

Now that I think about it, this mostly just applies to my preschool life :). Sometimes, my kiddie classmates just told me what to do and I did it. But these days, I follow this song. In casual conversations, I'll tell my friends what I personally think. It might take me more time to get used to that in class, though. You should be the king of yourself. You make your own decisions. Unless you're talking about your parents...that might be a different story...

Dear TV

This song is called "Dear TV" by Tablo. He's an Asian artist, but this song is in English. The song is quite short itself, but the actual lyrical genius begins at about 0:42 seconds. :)

I think that this song does not only have relevance to me, but many people all over the world. It definitely reflects the point in my life that is happening right now, because it shows that technology, including the TV, has influenced us all. It seems as if we've been born knowing whatever the media has told us, and are desensitized by all of the bad things we've seen. We understand that we are so influenced by our TVs, but does it stay true the other way around? Do we influence our TVs? Nope. Tablo could be saying that we must remain our own person and not fall into the traps of our TVs/media. After all, people on TV are portrayed as things that they're not. We must stay true to ourselves.

This relates to my belief that you shouldn't be too influenced by the media. Things like advertisements/commercials cause greed in people. It's incessant, like he says: it continues without interruption. Be known for who you are and not for someone else. To me, it's more beautiful to be yourself than what seems better according to the media. Don't let the media break you down into something you're not.

Oligarchy

These are some possible arguments against oligarchy for the debate.

It's a society in which only the wealthy rule: that means that only a few rule.

Many men find ways to become extravagant in this way.

They value wealth more than they value goodness. Wealth and goodness are like objects on a balance: one has to rise and the other has to fall.

Admiration is reserved for the rich, while the poor are despised.

If only wealth is considered, than those who rule may not be fit to rule. What if someone who is not wealthy is better fit?

It splits society into two parts, the rich and the poor. A house divided upon itself cannot stand! They live in the same place, yet are plotting against one another.

Oligarchs cannot wage war, because they have to arm their people whom they may think are worse than the enemy. They also just might not want to pay for the costs of war.

Poor people could have a lack of education and a bad upbringing, which in combination with a bad form of government could turn them into criminals.

The oligarchic character's main purpose is to make money. He satisfies only necessary wants and indulges in no other expenses.

First Impressions

Today, we began the debates.

These are the debates that I've been dreading since the beginning of winter break. There was no way that I could answer a question (proficiently) at the top of my head...I'm one of the slowest people I know. Really! Today, I wasn't put on the spot because I read the prepared opening statement, but I'm sure the time will come. Fortunately, I have group members to help me, but not if I'm the first one up.

I think that I'll just have to prepare myself as much as possible.

However, I do think that these debates are more organized than our previous ones, and they keep us more focused on the task at hand. We're sort of forced to rebut and make specific arguments against the other societies. At first, the system seemed confusing, but now, I'm pleased that it's a lot more straightforward than I thought.

Obviously, I would want more time to prepare my rebuttals and even arguments, but maybe that's asking too much. I suppose that the time we have is sufficient. After all, that's the beauty of the debates!