Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Like Russell, Hume took the same view on religion. He took an opposed view on religion also. He felt that religion was just a mystical experience. Hume felt that religion was good, in the fact that it gave for a wonderful feeling for some, but that was all. There is no more to religion other then the feeling of bliss it can bring. Hume used Aquinas’ idea of the design argument. It said that in religion, nobody ever looks at the negatives, just the positive. He also used the idea, “cosmological argument”. Which said that we tend to use metaphors way too much and the way you think stuff works (like religion) depends on the metaphor you use? In the case of religion, the universe is looked at as a machine and someone had to start that machine (the universe). Furthermore, he argues that we should not believe religion because it is based on scriptures from something that was written down over 2,000 years ago. The reason we should not believe ideas from this time is because scribes tended to over exaggerate what they write. Although a weaker argument, Hume says that we should not believe because of miracles, which are based on ignorance. We should try to figure out why they occur and not use God as an escape.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Erick Fromm
Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was a strong believer in the idea that existential problem cannot be solved by technology, compared to the easier and more solvable dilemma of historic problems. Existential problems are problems that deal with fear and situations of the inner self. For example, the awareness of death becomes more and more prevalent as one gets older. It also becomes more recognized if and when someone close to you that is the same ages dies, because the idea of death is now put on the table. Another example is the complex choices that we all have to make throughout our lives. Thirdly, the sense of aloneness is also an existential problem because it is something that must be faced-although people may help you-ultimately the problem needs to be dealt with the inner self. These are examples of existential problems because they need to be solved within, and not with technology.
Fromm used three examples of anxiety to help one work through problems. He broke up the anxiety into the following categories: normal, neurotic, and existential anxiety. You do not want to any neurotic anxiety. Normal anxiety is okay in moderation and existential is something that should be worked through. Neurotic anxiety is simple fears like snake, spider, or anything that is an irrational fear.
Fromm felt that the authentic way to solve a problem was to face life without excuse and become totally responsible for own existence. Fromm would say that following a cult leader would not be authentic because it does not face life head on. He would argue that turning to a cult is an inauthentic way to deal with existential anxiety. He claims, in an inauthentic solution the subject will use southing ideologies to comfort the mind and run away from real decisions. Inauthentic ideology is a way to keep people busy all the time, it is a way for people to not think about their problems. An example of this is workaholics or people that seek the following of a cult.
Being a Cyrenaica hedonist could be a way of avoiding being authentic. Since a Cyrenaica hedonist is all about doing what bring the most pleasure and what make you feel good, a Cyrenaica hedonist could be the way to go. They could explore the inauthentic way to deal with anxiety. Ultimately, it does not matter in the eyes of this group, just as long as it makes someone feel the happiest.
Fromm said that love is to care about someone other than yourself and that love gets easier the more you practice it. He argues that love is training, an art porsay. It is difficult, but also possible. Fromm expresses his beliefs in “The art of living” on page 4, “The first step to take is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering.”
Fromm used three examples of anxiety to help one work through problems. He broke up the anxiety into the following categories: normal, neurotic, and existential anxiety. You do not want to any neurotic anxiety. Normal anxiety is okay in moderation and existential is something that should be worked through. Neurotic anxiety is simple fears like snake, spider, or anything that is an irrational fear.
Fromm felt that the authentic way to solve a problem was to face life without excuse and become totally responsible for own existence. Fromm would say that following a cult leader would not be authentic because it does not face life head on. He would argue that turning to a cult is an inauthentic way to deal with existential anxiety. He claims, in an inauthentic solution the subject will use southing ideologies to comfort the mind and run away from real decisions. Inauthentic ideology is a way to keep people busy all the time, it is a way for people to not think about their problems. An example of this is workaholics or people that seek the following of a cult.
Being a Cyrenaica hedonist could be a way of avoiding being authentic. Since a Cyrenaica hedonist is all about doing what bring the most pleasure and what make you feel good, a Cyrenaica hedonist could be the way to go. They could explore the inauthentic way to deal with anxiety. Ultimately, it does not matter in the eyes of this group, just as long as it makes someone feel the happiest.
Fromm said that love is to care about someone other than yourself and that love gets easier the more you practice it. He argues that love is training, an art porsay. It is difficult, but also possible. Fromm expresses his beliefs in “The art of living” on page 4, “The first step to take is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering.”
Gabriel Marcel
Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) believed that there are three steps to knowledge. His process to knowledge started with participation. It is the wiliness to focus and listen to others and not focus on ourselves, to not be egocentric all the time. Participation can go hand in hand with creativity which as Marcel defines, is the transfer of ideas especially between one another. For example, a conversation and the chemical formula of water. Hydrogen and oxygen come together to form what we call water. Next in his process is primary reflection, which is when someone analyzes what they did before. For example, if someone were to edit an essay they have written the editing process would be an example of the primary reflection. Finally comes secondary reflection, which is when someone learns from the first two processes and in reality can now participate better.
Marcel says that we need to always be available in life. Marcel defines availability as always being ready to participate in life, especially with other people and their conversations. He claims that availability leads to happiness. Marcel says that with the availability we need to trust people because there is something more in life and we need faith in more than just facts.
Availability does have something to do with religion. A spiritual presence is one of the reasons why we need to trust people. When we trust people we can become happier and when we are happy we are available. Marcel also says that we need to be open in our life towards God. He claims that we sometime get tricked by turning God into a noun. And the more we participate the more morals we will have and the more ethical we will be.
Marcel said that our faith comes from the person that started it. We must believe and trust in the person who gave the fact on the faith. It is described in the Marcel handout on page 144, “We see the primacy of person again when we consider the nature of faith or belief. Marcel tells us “in order to believe that…we must first believe in.” In short, before we can believe any fact, we must first believe in the person who has related the fact. For the Christian, belief must first be in Christ, the in Christianity, first in the person, only then in dogmas.”
Even during his time, Marcel saw the fact the technology tends to depersonalize us. He recognized that technology does however increase the quality of life. On the down end, he stressed the idea that technology tend to play down the worth of a man or woman. It promotes the idea that humans are just creatures that live among one another.
Marcel says that we need to always be available in life. Marcel defines availability as always being ready to participate in life, especially with other people and their conversations. He claims that availability leads to happiness. Marcel says that with the availability we need to trust people because there is something more in life and we need faith in more than just facts.
Availability does have something to do with religion. A spiritual presence is one of the reasons why we need to trust people. When we trust people we can become happier and when we are happy we are available. Marcel also says that we need to be open in our life towards God. He claims that we sometime get tricked by turning God into a noun. And the more we participate the more morals we will have and the more ethical we will be.
Marcel said that our faith comes from the person that started it. We must believe and trust in the person who gave the fact on the faith. It is described in the Marcel handout on page 144, “We see the primacy of person again when we consider the nature of faith or belief. Marcel tells us “in order to believe that…we must first believe in.” In short, before we can believe any fact, we must first believe in the person who has related the fact. For the Christian, belief must first be in Christ, the in Christianity, first in the person, only then in dogmas.”
Even during his time, Marcel saw the fact the technology tends to depersonalize us. He recognized that technology does however increase the quality of life. On the down end, he stressed the idea that technology tend to play down the worth of a man or woman. It promotes the idea that humans are just creatures that live among one another.
Aristotle and Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre (1906-1980) was born in Paris, France. Aristotle (384 B.C – 322 B.C) said that we are happy when we fulfill our essence. Sartre can be viewed as the anti-Aristotle. Sartre says that there is no such thing as a human essence. He explains that it is what we choose to do that determines who we are, not our essence. He also states that we convince ourselves we do not have choices, known as self-deception. At the end of the day, Sartre and Aristotle are on opposite sides of the coin when it comes to essence, and happiness.
Sartre believed in a do what you what attitude. He coined the phrase, “Existence Precedes Existence” Which basically says, you are your choices. He said that humans should be able to do what they want to do. They should have full freedom over their actions. There are reasons why humans feel they cannot do what they. Society does have an effect, but this is not the vital role in reasoning. Sartre says that people convince themselves that they cannot do something, these people do not have “freedom”. So Sartre would say that humans are completely free to act as we choose, but most do not choose to exercise this inner freedom.
Sartre says that there is no meaning to life for anyone. Sartre says that life is absurd and gives three reasons why. He states that the supposedly meaning of life varies across cultures. He says that the meaning of life and religion is an invention. Furthermore, he claims that the meaning of life differs across time. Also life is absurd because of personal tragedies.
Sartre would not agree with Kant in the terms of ethics. Sartre felt that we are free to make whatever choice we want, ww just have to live with the consequences. In the handout on page 442, “According to Sartre, since nothing limits our choices, we are not psychologically required to be this or that person. We are not chained to the past through heredity or environmental conditioning. Science and nature cannot tell us what to do, Sartre thought, and neither can God.”
Sartre was unique in the way that he claimed everyone is automatically self-centered. Even when they appear to be doing something good they are actually it for an ulterior motive that is not seem by the impartial observer. He argued that it is not possible to love another person and love is just a made up idea. What appears to be love is actually a relationship that has two people that are trying to dominate the other person. All relationships are power struggles. During the mid 1900s Sartre brought a somewhat strange philosophical approach to philosophy, in a way that proves to be a selfish thought.
Sartre believed in a do what you what attitude. He coined the phrase, “Existence Precedes Existence” Which basically says, you are your choices. He said that humans should be able to do what they want to do. They should have full freedom over their actions. There are reasons why humans feel they cannot do what they. Society does have an effect, but this is not the vital role in reasoning. Sartre says that people convince themselves that they cannot do something, these people do not have “freedom”. So Sartre would say that humans are completely free to act as we choose, but most do not choose to exercise this inner freedom.
Sartre says that there is no meaning to life for anyone. Sartre says that life is absurd and gives three reasons why. He states that the supposedly meaning of life varies across cultures. He says that the meaning of life and religion is an invention. Furthermore, he claims that the meaning of life differs across time. Also life is absurd because of personal tragedies.
Sartre would not agree with Kant in the terms of ethics. Sartre felt that we are free to make whatever choice we want, ww just have to live with the consequences. In the handout on page 442, “According to Sartre, since nothing limits our choices, we are not psychologically required to be this or that person. We are not chained to the past through heredity or environmental conditioning. Science and nature cannot tell us what to do, Sartre thought, and neither can God.”
Sartre was unique in the way that he claimed everyone is automatically self-centered. Even when they appear to be doing something good they are actually it for an ulterior motive that is not seem by the impartial observer. He argued that it is not possible to love another person and love is just a made up idea. What appears to be love is actually a relationship that has two people that are trying to dominate the other person. All relationships are power struggles. During the mid 1900s Sartre brought a somewhat strange philosophical approach to philosophy, in a way that proves to be a selfish thought.
Emiricism and Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was an empiricist. He believed that knowledge is through our senses, it is through sense impressions. He stressed the idea that knowledge must be verifiable, to be considered as reality. He coined the phrase, “What is knowledge must be capable of being directly or indirectly verified through the senses.”
Russell felt that verifications came in two forms. One form of verification is direct verification and the other, less reliable, indirect verification. Direct-to Russell- is the act of actually seeing something and being able to know that what you are actually seeing is real. For example, if your see a dog running across the road you can verify that the dog is indeed running. Another example is when your see a thunderstorm rolling in you can verify with your eyes that the thunderstorm is prevalent. Indirect verification, on the other hand, is far less reliable. Russell divides this idea into two subsections: historical and cumulative. Historical evidence is when you check sources and documents for information, but do not actually see what happened, hence the tern indirectly verifiable. The further back in time you go the less reliable the information is, because events were sometimes exaggerated or recorded in error. Cumulative is when science can point toward something being the case. For example, at the speed of light time is supposedly zero. Scientists cannot prove this, but all evidence points toward it being the case. An example of how science build and builds in on page 21 in Russell handout, “Newton discovered the law of gravitation, which lasted without modification for over 200 years, Tiny discrepancies led Einstein to a change which was in practice very minute, through very revolutionary are regards, was not exactly right, although the errors in its prediction could only be discovered in a few cases, and then only by the utmost precision in measurement. This development may serve as a sample and model of scientific method. Hypothesis and observation alternate; each new hypothesis calls for new observations, and, if it is to be accepted, must fit the facts better that any previous hypothesis.” And finally, anecdotal evidence is when someone tells you something that happened. This is neither direct verification nor indirect verification it is not verifiable at all, like religion.
Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Russell felt that verifications came in two forms. One form of verification is direct verification and the other, less reliable, indirect verification. Direct-to Russell- is the act of actually seeing something and being able to know that what you are actually seeing is real. For example, if your see a dog running across the road you can verify that the dog is indeed running. Another example is when your see a thunderstorm rolling in you can verify with your eyes that the thunderstorm is prevalent. Indirect verification, on the other hand, is far less reliable. Russell divides this idea into two subsections: historical and cumulative. Historical evidence is when you check sources and documents for information, but do not actually see what happened, hence the tern indirectly verifiable. The further back in time you go the less reliable the information is, because events were sometimes exaggerated or recorded in error. Cumulative is when science can point toward something being the case. For example, at the speed of light time is supposedly zero. Scientists cannot prove this, but all evidence points toward it being the case. An example of how science build and builds in on page 21 in Russell handout, “Newton discovered the law of gravitation, which lasted without modification for over 200 years, Tiny discrepancies led Einstein to a change which was in practice very minute, through very revolutionary are regards, was not exactly right, although the errors in its prediction could only be discovered in a few cases, and then only by the utmost precision in measurement. This development may serve as a sample and model of scientific method. Hypothesis and observation alternate; each new hypothesis calls for new observations, and, if it is to be accepted, must fit the facts better that any previous hypothesis.” And finally, anecdotal evidence is when someone tells you something that happened. This is neither direct verification nor indirect verification it is not verifiable at all, like religion.
Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Women, and Feminism
Feminism, voting rights for women, and simple ethical rights for women all came on strong in the 20th century. There are two main branches of feminism. One being liberal feminism and the other being social feminism. Liberal feminism is about how men and women are equals. They feel that there is a faith in the rationality of the universe and the possessions of reason by all human, men and women. Also there needs to be an acceptance of natural right for all humans. The liberal feminists stress the idea that every person is the center of his or her own life decisions. Finally, they feel that education is the key to unlocking the potential of both men and women.
Social feminists on the other hand, feel that there are things that women tend have more or not all at of something compared to men. Carol Gilligan was a strong social feminist. A social feminist believes that women are more prone to emotional sensitivity. They are more likely to cry or to feel bad for others. Gilligan and her counterparts believed that women can look at something and better understand the larger picture, they are holistic. The main point that social feminists stressed was that they are more sharing and are more empathetic. They like to explore relationships and are very life-affirming people.
Carol Gilligan is a true social feminist. She felt that the way of thinking is simply different than that of a man. The contrast of thoughts is in no superior or inferior to men alike, it is just different. James Rachels explains it in the handout on page 164, “Gilligan suggests that women’s basic moral orientation is caring for others-“taking care” of others in a personal way, not just being concerned for humanity in general-and attending to their needs.” Believing this, Gilligan scrutinized Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages. She said that during his time psychology only focused on behavior, and there is far more than just behavior and the popular image. She did not agree with his stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Preconventional is all about self interest, egocentrism, and the affect of an authority figure. Convention has to deal with the want to please others. Although Kohlberg says not everyone get here, the postconventional stage is about the great good and start to think about principals and ideas. Gilligan did agree with the preconventional stage, but was not to certain about the second and third stage. She felt the stages to moral development were: self-centered, self-giving, and a mature combination of the first two.
Men and women do see moral situations differently. There are three likely categories why this is the case: culture, biology, and psychology. The cultural impact deals with the toys, the colors, and the overall sense of what a boy and a girl should be. Society says that girls play with dolls and have tea party like game and boys play with toy trucks and play rough sports. The biological impact roots simply from the fact that women give birth and men don’t. Because of the experience of birth women tend to be more sensitive and caring to other humans. Also, men have the presence of testosterone and women do not. This chemical is proven to produce a higher degree of aggression then males. The psychological fact is that the female is the primary care-giver in the family. Girls can relate to the mom and boys cannot.
Social feminists on the other hand, feel that there are things that women tend have more or not all at of something compared to men. Carol Gilligan was a strong social feminist. A social feminist believes that women are more prone to emotional sensitivity. They are more likely to cry or to feel bad for others. Gilligan and her counterparts believed that women can look at something and better understand the larger picture, they are holistic. The main point that social feminists stressed was that they are more sharing and are more empathetic. They like to explore relationships and are very life-affirming people.
Carol Gilligan is a true social feminist. She felt that the way of thinking is simply different than that of a man. The contrast of thoughts is in no superior or inferior to men alike, it is just different. James Rachels explains it in the handout on page 164, “Gilligan suggests that women’s basic moral orientation is caring for others-“taking care” of others in a personal way, not just being concerned for humanity in general-and attending to their needs.” Believing this, Gilligan scrutinized Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages. She said that during his time psychology only focused on behavior, and there is far more than just behavior and the popular image. She did not agree with his stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Preconventional is all about self interest, egocentrism, and the affect of an authority figure. Convention has to deal with the want to please others. Although Kohlberg says not everyone get here, the postconventional stage is about the great good and start to think about principals and ideas. Gilligan did agree with the preconventional stage, but was not to certain about the second and third stage. She felt the stages to moral development were: self-centered, self-giving, and a mature combination of the first two.
Men and women do see moral situations differently. There are three likely categories why this is the case: culture, biology, and psychology. The cultural impact deals with the toys, the colors, and the overall sense of what a boy and a girl should be. Society says that girls play with dolls and have tea party like game and boys play with toy trucks and play rough sports. The biological impact roots simply from the fact that women give birth and men don’t. Because of the experience of birth women tend to be more sensitive and caring to other humans. Also, men have the presence of testosterone and women do not. This chemical is proven to produce a higher degree of aggression then males. The psychological fact is that the female is the primary care-giver in the family. Girls can relate to the mom and boys cannot.
The Two-Sided Topic of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a hot topic these days. There is, however, a fine line between active and passive euthanasia. The clear difference is that active is illegal in all states (except Oregon) and passive euthanasia is not. Active is when someone helps another human to die. Active euthanasia is two-fold: it can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary is when the person dying and someone else both agree to kill the patient. Involuntary is when the patient is too sick to talk or express desires that their family or someone else for that matter steps in and kills the patient so that he or she does not have to suffer, or in some cases another reason. Moving on to passive, it is the simple and legal procedure that let nature take its course. For example, just letting someone die instead of hooking them up to a life support system like the more conventional way people do things when a patient is sick. Like active euthanasia, there are two ways of doing this, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is when the patient can express that they want to end their life. Involuntary is when-for example- the family helps someone die so that the patient does not suffer, it is not active because they are not helping them die, but rather letting nature take its course.
Personally, I feel that the intention on euthanasia depends on the situation. For voluntary euthanasia the intention is usually to end the pain and suffering and to let God take His course. James Rachels said on page one in the handout, “To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactory alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.” And lets him die. In this case it seems to be no ulterior motives, but this may not be entirely true. The family could be in pursuit of the patient’s inheritance and let die for the desire of the money. This is even more especially true in involuntary active euthanasia, where the family may want to have the patient let go in life solely for the inheritance. For me, the intention of euthanasia always depends on the situation, most of the time it is because the family cares and does not want to see a loved one suffer. These feelings can be prevalent in active and passive euthanasia. Same holds true for the want for money, but this desire is most likely to occur in involuntary active euthanasia, where the patient has no say in the matter.
Active euthanasia, in any form, is never morally justified. I feel that killing someone is never reasonable to do. My main argument is that there is no way to prove that someone is actually going to die definitely. By killing them you never give that particular person a chance to survive. At least with a deadly sickness there is always a, although very slim, chance to live.
Personally, I feel that the intention on euthanasia depends on the situation. For voluntary euthanasia the intention is usually to end the pain and suffering and to let God take His course. James Rachels said on page one in the handout, “To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactory alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.” And lets him die. In this case it seems to be no ulterior motives, but this may not be entirely true. The family could be in pursuit of the patient’s inheritance and let die for the desire of the money. This is even more especially true in involuntary active euthanasia, where the family may want to have the patient let go in life solely for the inheritance. For me, the intention of euthanasia always depends on the situation, most of the time it is because the family cares and does not want to see a loved one suffer. These feelings can be prevalent in active and passive euthanasia. Same holds true for the want for money, but this desire is most likely to occur in involuntary active euthanasia, where the patient has no say in the matter.
Active euthanasia, in any form, is never morally justified. I feel that killing someone is never reasonable to do. My main argument is that there is no way to prove that someone is actually going to die definitely. By killing them you never give that particular person a chance to survive. At least with a deadly sickness there is always a, although very slim, chance to live.
The Classic Milgram Experiment
The Milgram experiment on obedience tested the affect of authority figures on bystanders. It was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. The experiment focused and measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.
1) Notice how hard it is to go against social expectations. The two people in the film who quit at 150 volts had to disobey the experimenter and showed real courage. That was the point of the experiment- how many people would disobey someone who looked like a legitimate authority who ordered them to harm someone. If that seem unrealistic to you, think about how hard it is in your own life to go against the “authority”
2) Over 50% of all participants in the experiment shown in the film went all the way to 450 volts. This is an incredible result that ran against all expectation and shows that tremendous hidden power of social context
3) But the experiment has a major ethical problem. Utilitarians say the incredible results justified the means. Milgram was lying to the participants from the very beginning and put them under a huge amount of psychological pressure. You will see that in the film. Many ethicists who agree more with Kant say Milgram was wrong to run this experiment. Simply being under a psychologist at Yale gave him no right to lie to these people and put them under so much stress. But utilitarians say” yes, he lied and put them under stress but look at the incredibly important results we learned about human behavior. That is the ethical issue.
1) Notice how hard it is to go against social expectations. The two people in the film who quit at 150 volts had to disobey the experimenter and showed real courage. That was the point of the experiment- how many people would disobey someone who looked like a legitimate authority who ordered them to harm someone. If that seem unrealistic to you, think about how hard it is in your own life to go against the “authority”
2) Over 50% of all participants in the experiment shown in the film went all the way to 450 volts. This is an incredible result that ran against all expectation and shows that tremendous hidden power of social context
3) But the experiment has a major ethical problem. Utilitarians say the incredible results justified the means. Milgram was lying to the participants from the very beginning and put them under a huge amount of psychological pressure. You will see that in the film. Many ethicists who agree more with Kant say Milgram was wrong to run this experiment. Simply being under a psychologist at Yale gave him no right to lie to these people and put them under so much stress. But utilitarians say” yes, he lied and put them under stress but look at the incredibly important results we learned about human behavior. That is the ethical issue.
The Greater Good as Seen by an Utilitarian
Utilitarianism is all about the greater good. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a true utilitarian. He believed that in the end, whatever deed is the most positive is the correct one. Utilitarianism can also be defined as the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing the net result. It also means that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its outcome.
One example of utilitarianism at work takes place in the American 1950s into the 1970s. During this time school desegregation was a hot topic. Many people called for a separate, but equal situation. The problem with this was that the richer community was far more likely to be of whites, giving for a better schooling situation. There were many ideas and solutions put on the table to solve this, but the utilitarian approach is as follows on page 371 of Soccio, “One utilitarian solution to school integration was to take advantage of the self-interest of those parents with the most social and political influence. How could this be done? By sending their children to schools in other neighborhoods. The corollary to this, of course, involved busing black children to white schools. Even if many families resented school busing and integration, in the long run their unhappiness would be balanced against a greater good for society as a whole.”
Another example could be a situation where a terrorist kidnaps the president’s wife and threatens to kill her if the president does not tell the hostage taker where he can find a nuclear bomb. This situation would be a no brainer for a utilitarian. They would say that the president must sacrifice his wife for the greater good. Although, in the short term, things will be devastating but eventually the greater good will be clearly prevalent when thousands of people are saved.
Utilitarians believe that no act is automatically right. They say that every act depends in the situations. Furthermore, doing nothing can also be considered and act, to a utilitarian. Many times doing nothing is actually worse than doing someone. A simple example of this would be watching someone die while you know you could have helped them. Again, a utilitarian belief wants to get the most happiness out of situation. Mill blames the lack of happiness, for some, on the society as a whole. Mill’s view is explained in Soccio on page 372, “Mill argued that the principal cause of unhappiness is elfishness. He believed that happiness requires a balance between tranquility and excitement, and selfishness robs us both. It robs us of tranquility because it is never satisfied, and it diminishes out possibilities for excitement (or stimulation) by narrowing out range of interests.”
Mill had a very optimistic view when it came to utilitarianism. He felt that basically, humans are good and eventually if everyone follows his views then the world will be a much better place. Soccio examines Mill’s ideas on page 373 as, “In the end, Mill remained an optimist who believed that by applying reason and good will, the vast majority of human beings could live with dignity, political and moral freedom, and harmonious happiness.” Mill thought that the “wisdom of society” could indeed extinguish poverty completely. Furthermore, it could alleviate the scourge of disease.
One example of utilitarianism at work takes place in the American 1950s into the 1970s. During this time school desegregation was a hot topic. Many people called for a separate, but equal situation. The problem with this was that the richer community was far more likely to be of whites, giving for a better schooling situation. There were many ideas and solutions put on the table to solve this, but the utilitarian approach is as follows on page 371 of Soccio, “One utilitarian solution to school integration was to take advantage of the self-interest of those parents with the most social and political influence. How could this be done? By sending their children to schools in other neighborhoods. The corollary to this, of course, involved busing black children to white schools. Even if many families resented school busing and integration, in the long run their unhappiness would be balanced against a greater good for society as a whole.”
Another example could be a situation where a terrorist kidnaps the president’s wife and threatens to kill her if the president does not tell the hostage taker where he can find a nuclear bomb. This situation would be a no brainer for a utilitarian. They would say that the president must sacrifice his wife for the greater good. Although, in the short term, things will be devastating but eventually the greater good will be clearly prevalent when thousands of people are saved.
Utilitarians believe that no act is automatically right. They say that every act depends in the situations. Furthermore, doing nothing can also be considered and act, to a utilitarian. Many times doing nothing is actually worse than doing someone. A simple example of this would be watching someone die while you know you could have helped them. Again, a utilitarian belief wants to get the most happiness out of situation. Mill blames the lack of happiness, for some, on the society as a whole. Mill’s view is explained in Soccio on page 372, “Mill argued that the principal cause of unhappiness is elfishness. He believed that happiness requires a balance between tranquility and excitement, and selfishness robs us both. It robs us of tranquility because it is never satisfied, and it diminishes out possibilities for excitement (or stimulation) by narrowing out range of interests.”
Mill had a very optimistic view when it came to utilitarianism. He felt that basically, humans are good and eventually if everyone follows his views then the world will be a much better place. Soccio examines Mill’s ideas on page 373 as, “In the end, Mill remained an optimist who believed that by applying reason and good will, the vast majority of human beings could live with dignity, political and moral freedom, and harmonious happiness.” Mill thought that the “wisdom of society” could indeed extinguish poverty completely. Furthermore, it could alleviate the scourge of disease.
Immanuel Kant and Utilitarianism
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) showed a great respect for powerful thinking and the persistent ways of thinking. Kant says that since he has a mind of his own morals should be based on cause and effect, self-identity, the external world, and God. Kant is a strong believer in his categorical Imperative and his distinction of theoretical reason and practical reason.
According to Kant, the death penalty is a practical idea. He says that the death penalty is what a person deserves from their actions, or from their choices. He explains that what people feel is irrelevant and that only rational humans deserve that death penalty. He says that the moral law is a function of reason and is not discovered by daily life. Soccio exclaims it on page 337 as, “The moral law cannot be discovered in actual behavior. It is a function of reason, a component of how we think. From this if follows that only rational creatures can be moral and held morally accountable. It also follows that any and all rational creatures are moral beings. The capacity for reason is the source of morality. Reason imposes moral obligation.”
“According to Kant, what is needed is a categorical imperative, a command that is universally binding on all rational creatures. This alone can guide the good will. Indeed, the good will is precisely that which summons all its powers in order to obey such an imperative.” Soccio page 342. In the categorical imperative, Kant says that the basis of moral right is that humans must always look at the ends and not the means. He also said that if everyone lied then the meaning of truth would be gone. For example, if someone said they would fulfill a promise, but didn’t the trust in that promise would get progressively less and less. He coined the phrase, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can will my maxim should be a universal law.” He also stated that a moral rule must be self-imposed (prudential), not imposed from outside (ethics). He view on laws was that they may or may not be morally wrong, but a law is not moral rights. So for Kant, the categorical imperative is essential.
Utilitarianism is all about the greater good. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a true utilitarian. He believed that in the end, whatever deed is the most positive is the correct one. Kant, on the other hand, believed that it is all about rules and principals. But for ultilitarians principals were in significant, it was all about the situation, it was all relative.
According to Kant, the death penalty is a practical idea. He says that the death penalty is what a person deserves from their actions, or from their choices. He explains that what people feel is irrelevant and that only rational humans deserve that death penalty. He says that the moral law is a function of reason and is not discovered by daily life. Soccio exclaims it on page 337 as, “The moral law cannot be discovered in actual behavior. It is a function of reason, a component of how we think. From this if follows that only rational creatures can be moral and held morally accountable. It also follows that any and all rational creatures are moral beings. The capacity for reason is the source of morality. Reason imposes moral obligation.”
“According to Kant, what is needed is a categorical imperative, a command that is universally binding on all rational creatures. This alone can guide the good will. Indeed, the good will is precisely that which summons all its powers in order to obey such an imperative.” Soccio page 342. In the categorical imperative, Kant says that the basis of moral right is that humans must always look at the ends and not the means. He also said that if everyone lied then the meaning of truth would be gone. For example, if someone said they would fulfill a promise, but didn’t the trust in that promise would get progressively less and less. He coined the phrase, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can will my maxim should be a universal law.” He also stated that a moral rule must be self-imposed (prudential), not imposed from outside (ethics). He view on laws was that they may or may not be morally wrong, but a law is not moral rights. So for Kant, the categorical imperative is essential.
Utilitarianism is all about the greater good. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a true utilitarian. He believed that in the end, whatever deed is the most positive is the correct one. Kant, on the other hand, believed that it is all about rules and principals. But for ultilitarians principals were in significant, it was all about the situation, it was all relative.
Karl Marx, a Classic Contributor to Communism
Karl Marx (1818-1883) recognizes the idea of the dialectical process but he is against Hegel’s idea of an absolute mind. When Marx was a student in Germany his studies on thinking were rounded around the ideas of Hegel. Marx believed strong in communism, which is sometimes called Marxism or the Marx synthesis. He believed in dialectical materialism which he based directly from George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Although Marx based his ideas on Hegel, he was not completely in unison. Unlike Hegel, Marx did not think that everything is about ideas, but rather that everything is material.
As stated before, Marx is a strict communist. He is not what we would call today, a “Big business” type of person. He was a strong believer against alienation. He thought that alienation is prevalent is a capitalist society. He viewed, like many, that alienation was a selfish quality. That is it described as bad thing someone does to other people to help yourself, especially in an economic sense. Soccio puts it on page 396 as, “Alienation occurs when that worker no longer feel at one with the product of his or her labor. An alienated individual rarely feels at home with himself or herself, or with others. Alienation is a state of powerlessness, frustration, repressed resentment, and despair. I results from the transformation of a human being into a commodity.” A modern example of this would be an owner or boss of a large scale company that inflicts harm on the employees. For instance, cut backs…….
According to Karl Marx, if a slave thought that slavery was good then it would be okay as long as it is was the slave truly believes. It would not be hurting anyone, if the slave and the master are both happy what the harm? Marx argues. Soccio argues on page 397 that, “The result, therefore, is that …the worker…feels that he is acting freely only his animal functions-eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his shelter and finery-while in his human functions he feels only like an animal. The animalistic becomes human and the human becomes animalistic.” Thus no harm is done, so as long as the slave feels he has a good life then there is nothing ethically wrong with this scenario, Marx claims.
Marx’s idea on communism (Marxism) all started when an influential group of French laborers who were unhappy with their situation of work. Marx and the workers felt that the property should all be owned evenly, thus giving way to the name, “communist.” Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) worked together to create the Communist Manifesto. This piece of writing included all the ideas of rights for employees and how workers should own the means of production. Marx explains this in his “Communist Manifesto” on page 384 in Soccio; The communists disdain to conceal their views on aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their claims. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite!” Basically, Marx is saying that rights need to be given to workers and Communism is not the terrible idea that American today believes, and is taught today.
Karl Marx coined the phrase, “Religion is the opium of the people.” This simple phrase is still mentioned today and has numerous levels of meaning. He says that it is a way for people to use drugs to escape their real life. Similar to drugs, where the drugs will give you a “high” and all your problems, at that particular moment, will be put to bay. Religion is the same way, in that is gives you a reason to feel content with your life. For example, religion tells you that there is a afterlife. The idea of an afterlife helps many people get through the day, the week, and even their whole life. Marx would say that it puts people to sleep with their problems in the real world. He further goes on to say that religion is only prevalent because people do not feel content with their life, without religion.
As stated before, Marx is a strict communist. He is not what we would call today, a “Big business” type of person. He was a strong believer against alienation. He thought that alienation is prevalent is a capitalist society. He viewed, like many, that alienation was a selfish quality. That is it described as bad thing someone does to other people to help yourself, especially in an economic sense. Soccio puts it on page 396 as, “Alienation occurs when that worker no longer feel at one with the product of his or her labor. An alienated individual rarely feels at home with himself or herself, or with others. Alienation is a state of powerlessness, frustration, repressed resentment, and despair. I results from the transformation of a human being into a commodity.” A modern example of this would be an owner or boss of a large scale company that inflicts harm on the employees. For instance, cut backs…….
According to Karl Marx, if a slave thought that slavery was good then it would be okay as long as it is was the slave truly believes. It would not be hurting anyone, if the slave and the master are both happy what the harm? Marx argues. Soccio argues on page 397 that, “The result, therefore, is that …the worker…feels that he is acting freely only his animal functions-eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his shelter and finery-while in his human functions he feels only like an animal. The animalistic becomes human and the human becomes animalistic.” Thus no harm is done, so as long as the slave feels he has a good life then there is nothing ethically wrong with this scenario, Marx claims.
Marx’s idea on communism (Marxism) all started when an influential group of French laborers who were unhappy with their situation of work. Marx and the workers felt that the property should all be owned evenly, thus giving way to the name, “communist.” Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) worked together to create the Communist Manifesto. This piece of writing included all the ideas of rights for employees and how workers should own the means of production. Marx explains this in his “Communist Manifesto” on page 384 in Soccio; The communists disdain to conceal their views on aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their claims. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite!” Basically, Marx is saying that rights need to be given to workers and Communism is not the terrible idea that American today believes, and is taught today.
Karl Marx coined the phrase, “Religion is the opium of the people.” This simple phrase is still mentioned today and has numerous levels of meaning. He says that it is a way for people to use drugs to escape their real life. Similar to drugs, where the drugs will give you a “high” and all your problems, at that particular moment, will be put to bay. Religion is the same way, in that is gives you a reason to feel content with your life. For example, religion tells you that there is a afterlife. The idea of an afterlife helps many people get through the day, the week, and even their whole life. Marx would say that it puts people to sleep with their problems in the real world. He further goes on to say that religion is only prevalent because people do not feel content with their life, without religion.
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) believed that the World was created in a incomplete and ever changing way. For one to understand Hegel, they must know “The Dialectical Method.” This is explained in the class handout on page 85, “According to Hegel, to understand all, we must understand the laws of reason, for the real is rational and the rational is real. Now the laws which govern things for Hegel are not static and inert. Rather are they dynamic, changing, evolutionary and even contradictory.” According to Hegel’s process, three things need to occur to keep the World spinning. His dialectical process cancels conflict people may have. It preserves the truth and keeps the best information and adds new information. Finally it simply shows a higher truth. Furthermore, he says that World works in a distinct way. In the beginning, society was just individuals. As time progressed those individual became tribes which then became a nation. Currently, we are living at the nation level and the next level to come will be a World government. Put into a perspective, Hegel thought the world was forever changing, as evidenced by his dialectical process.
Hegel argues that if our mind and universe are the process then the universe must just be someone else’s thought process. There follows the condition of absolute mind, the state in which mind rises above all the limitations of nature and institutions. The absolute mind is subjected to itself alone in art, religion, and philosophy. An example of the absolute mind at work could be a desk, with the desk being an “idea” of an absolute mind.
Hegel has a very strong reasoning that deals with mind and matter. He is a believer in monism, which is the reduction of processes, structures, and even concepts. Monism reduces matter to a single governing principle which is the theoretical explanation of everything in terms of one principle. In Hegel’s case the one principal is “mind.” He says that although important, the actual matter used to make something is not as important as the idea or mathematics used to make that “thing” possible. Looking at a building one will see various walls, roofs, window, etc. Yes, these examples of matter are essential to the building, but the real idea is the mind that made the building. The mind is what universalizes everything. Every building and every painting needs a mind. Hegel does recognize matter, but the key to understanding Hegel is that he all about the mind and how it unifies the World.
Even more backing of Hegel’s dialectical process at work is evident in today’s modern society. Today numerous examples come up in everyday life. Example need two things to function and need to two things to make them what they are. Many situations of two things coming together actually make something new. Like water, hydrogen and oxygen are completely different to the visual observer and one would not see any relationships unless looked at through the means of chemistry. Another simpler idea is a magnet. Each and every home magnet has a positive and negative hemisphere. Showing the two thing make a whole. Hegel’s process can be found throughout history and even in the present.
Hegel brought a new perspective on religion. He said that although it may be great for some, religion is just the feeling of awe and wonder. Furthermore, Hegel stated that mythological creatures in society simple help us to give and to solve reason why thing happen. He also said that we must be able to understand other religions in order to the society to flourish. Hegel says that in our own political evolution the synthesis of science and religion combines elements from both. And that a political system was very close to a constitutional monarchy which included elements of Christianity and also had elements of the German ideas. So for Hegel, religion and science will eventually become compatible.
Hegel argues that if our mind and universe are the process then the universe must just be someone else’s thought process. There follows the condition of absolute mind, the state in which mind rises above all the limitations of nature and institutions. The absolute mind is subjected to itself alone in art, religion, and philosophy. An example of the absolute mind at work could be a desk, with the desk being an “idea” of an absolute mind.
Hegel has a very strong reasoning that deals with mind and matter. He is a believer in monism, which is the reduction of processes, structures, and even concepts. Monism reduces matter to a single governing principle which is the theoretical explanation of everything in terms of one principle. In Hegel’s case the one principal is “mind.” He says that although important, the actual matter used to make something is not as important as the idea or mathematics used to make that “thing” possible. Looking at a building one will see various walls, roofs, window, etc. Yes, these examples of matter are essential to the building, but the real idea is the mind that made the building. The mind is what universalizes everything. Every building and every painting needs a mind. Hegel does recognize matter, but the key to understanding Hegel is that he all about the mind and how it unifies the World.
Even more backing of Hegel’s dialectical process at work is evident in today’s modern society. Today numerous examples come up in everyday life. Example need two things to function and need to two things to make them what they are. Many situations of two things coming together actually make something new. Like water, hydrogen and oxygen are completely different to the visual observer and one would not see any relationships unless looked at through the means of chemistry. Another simpler idea is a magnet. Each and every home magnet has a positive and negative hemisphere. Showing the two thing make a whole. Hegel’s process can be found throughout history and even in the present.
Hegel brought a new perspective on religion. He said that although it may be great for some, religion is just the feeling of awe and wonder. Furthermore, Hegel stated that mythological creatures in society simple help us to give and to solve reason why thing happen. He also said that we must be able to understand other religions in order to the society to flourish. Hegel says that in our own political evolution the synthesis of science and religion combines elements from both. And that a political system was very close to a constitutional monarchy which included elements of Christianity and also had elements of the German ideas. So for Hegel, religion and science will eventually become compatible.
Knowledge, formed by Two Things According to Kant
“According to Kant, out knowledge is formed by two things: our actual experiences and the mind’s faculties of judgment. If Kant is correct, then we cannot know reality as it is.” Soccio page 332. Kant says that we can only know reality through a human understanding. Kant uses the term, “Phenomenal reality” for the world as we experience it. On the other side of the coin, Kant uses the term, “Noumenal reality” for the reality as it is independent. Basically, all we can know defiantly is our very own perceived reality. Kant goes on to say that our mind takes in and organizes it into distinct categories. Aristotle says that own mind actually “grasps” the idea/substance/item.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) said that all knowledge is through sense impression. David Hume (1711-1776) and Kant were in a unison agreement on the idea of our mind taking in all our knowledge through our senses. Kant said that we must use substances (through sense impressions) to understand the World. It was a necessary way of thinking. He also said that we identify and re-identify substances during everyday life. We re-identify substances the sequential times after the first appearance of the object.
Kant did not agree that knowledge is impossible without the senses. He felt that knowledge comes in through raw data. He said that the raw date does not have anything in it and that your brain decodes the new raw data. Hume agrees fully with the statement that knowledge is impossible without the senses. He felt that all ideas came from sense impressions. Furthermore, he stressed that we are born with a blank slate. Finally, he stated that the senses complete the way of knowledge. Kant and Hume were nearly total opposites on the idea that knowledge is impossible without senses, Kant being against the idea and Hume being for the idea
Born with innate ideas, another topic that put Kant on the other side of the coin, relative to a philosopher. Kant did not feel that we are born with ideas. He felt that there are numerous categories built into our mind and it is through sense impressions that we sort through them. He felt that sense impressions are automatically categorized into out brain. And for us to know anything we must think in terms of the categories and every mind must have them. Descartes (1595-1650) was on the other hand with this issue. He felt that ideas were built into your head at birth. He stressed that even language structures were built in at birth. He was clear to say that it is not the language itself, but rather something that helps one to learn any particular language, depending on the culture they were born into. Descartes did believe in innate ideas, while Kant clearly did not.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) said that all knowledge is through sense impression. David Hume (1711-1776) and Kant were in a unison agreement on the idea of our mind taking in all our knowledge through our senses. Kant said that we must use substances (through sense impressions) to understand the World. It was a necessary way of thinking. He also said that we identify and re-identify substances during everyday life. We re-identify substances the sequential times after the first appearance of the object.
Kant did not agree that knowledge is impossible without the senses. He felt that knowledge comes in through raw data. He said that the raw date does not have anything in it and that your brain decodes the new raw data. Hume agrees fully with the statement that knowledge is impossible without the senses. He felt that all ideas came from sense impressions. Furthermore, he stressed that we are born with a blank slate. Finally, he stated that the senses complete the way of knowledge. Kant and Hume were nearly total opposites on the idea that knowledge is impossible without senses, Kant being against the idea and Hume being for the idea
Born with innate ideas, another topic that put Kant on the other side of the coin, relative to a philosopher. Kant did not feel that we are born with ideas. He felt that there are numerous categories built into our mind and it is through sense impressions that we sort through them. He felt that sense impressions are automatically categorized into out brain. And for us to know anything we must think in terms of the categories and every mind must have them. Descartes (1595-1650) was on the other hand with this issue. He felt that ideas were built into your head at birth. He stressed that even language structures were built in at birth. He was clear to say that it is not the language itself, but rather something that helps one to learn any particular language, depending on the culture they were born into. Descartes did believe in innate ideas, while Kant clearly did not.
David Hume and Empiricism
David Hume (1711-1776) was a strong and influential empiricist. Empiricists believe that all idea come from the sense impressions. Hume was born in Edinburgh, Scotland and was raised by his single mother. Hume enrolled in the University of Edinburgh when he was only 12 years old. However, he did drop out of college after only three years. He wanted to pursue his intellectual interests in philosophy. He convinced himself to throw out his ideals on religion. His abandonment on religion is expressed in Soccio on page 301 as, “A short time later, Hume admitted he had lost the faith of his childhood, writing that once he read Locke and other philosophers, he never again “entertained and belief in religion”15.”
His childhood and adolescence philosophical heroes were what led him to take an opposed view on religion. He felt that religion was just a mystical experience. Hume felt that religion was good, in the fact that it gave for a wonderful feeling for some, but that was all. There is no more to religion other then the feeling of bliss it can bring. Hume used Aquinas’ idea of the design argument. It said that in religion, nobody ever looks at the negatives, just the positive. He also used the idea, “cosmological argument”. Which said that we tend to use metaphors way too much and the way you think stuff works (like religion) depends on the metaphor you use? In the case of religion, the universe is looked at as a machine and someone had to start that machine (the universe). Furthermore, he argues that we should not believe religion because it is based on scriptures from something that was written down over 2,000 years ago. The reason we should not believe ideas from this time is because scribes tended to over exaggerate what they write. Although a weaker argument, Hume says that we should not believe because of miracles, which are based on ignorance. We should try to figure out why they occur and not use God as an escape.
David Hume was a strong empiricist. He did not believe in the idea that the World is composed of two substances. In fact, he argued that the planet has no substances, and there is no such thing as one. He felt that what many people perceive as substance is just sense impressions. For example, is someone shows you an apple you sense that the apple is red, round and smooth. Hume argues that these nouns are actually shortcuts humans use for our sense impressions. And culture gives you a noun to use. Furthermore, he does say that what our five senses take in is reality.
The view that ethics is based on feelings and sentiment is not felt by David Hume. He says that there is no such thing as ethics. It is just a state of mind on what people feel about controversies. He defends this by saying something like, “Show me wrong.” He argues that since there is no clear answer to this simple question he must be correct. He also states that morality isn’t anything, it is just what people feel and that there is nothing wrong or right in the World. If people feel that something is bad then it is an unwritten rule in society that it is “wrong.” …………..
Hume feels that there is no such thing as beauty. He claims that beauty is just the effect of feeling. Examples how beauty is relative!!
Contrary to many other philosophers, Hume declares that math and geometry are simply inventions. He explains how a right triangle is an invention. He also pleads his case by saying that humans use basic 10 math which roots from the amount of fingers we have. Proving that math is an invention, he states that math could have just as easily been based on the number 15 or 17 or any other amount. He argues that math is a game, it starts out simple, but get progressively more complicated. …..
His childhood and adolescence philosophical heroes were what led him to take an opposed view on religion. He felt that religion was just a mystical experience. Hume felt that religion was good, in the fact that it gave for a wonderful feeling for some, but that was all. There is no more to religion other then the feeling of bliss it can bring. Hume used Aquinas’ idea of the design argument. It said that in religion, nobody ever looks at the negatives, just the positive. He also used the idea, “cosmological argument”. Which said that we tend to use metaphors way too much and the way you think stuff works (like religion) depends on the metaphor you use? In the case of religion, the universe is looked at as a machine and someone had to start that machine (the universe). Furthermore, he argues that we should not believe religion because it is based on scriptures from something that was written down over 2,000 years ago. The reason we should not believe ideas from this time is because scribes tended to over exaggerate what they write. Although a weaker argument, Hume says that we should not believe because of miracles, which are based on ignorance. We should try to figure out why they occur and not use God as an escape.
David Hume was a strong empiricist. He did not believe in the idea that the World is composed of two substances. In fact, he argued that the planet has no substances, and there is no such thing as one. He felt that what many people perceive as substance is just sense impressions. For example, is someone shows you an apple you sense that the apple is red, round and smooth. Hume argues that these nouns are actually shortcuts humans use for our sense impressions. And culture gives you a noun to use. Furthermore, he does say that what our five senses take in is reality.
The view that ethics is based on feelings and sentiment is not felt by David Hume. He says that there is no such thing as ethics. It is just a state of mind on what people feel about controversies. He defends this by saying something like, “Show me wrong.” He argues that since there is no clear answer to this simple question he must be correct. He also states that morality isn’t anything, it is just what people feel and that there is nothing wrong or right in the World. If people feel that something is bad then it is an unwritten rule in society that it is “wrong.” …………..
Hume feels that there is no such thing as beauty. He claims that beauty is just the effect of feeling. Examples how beauty is relative!!
Contrary to many other philosophers, Hume declares that math and geometry are simply inventions. He explains how a right triangle is an invention. He also pleads his case by saying that humans use basic 10 math which roots from the amount of fingers we have. Proving that math is an invention, he states that math could have just as easily been based on the number 15 or 17 or any other amount. He argues that math is a game, it starts out simple, but get progressively more complicated. …..
The Stoic View of Life
The stoic view on life is an intriguing one. They strongly believe that we cannot control nearly all parts of our lives. Our inter attitude is up to the individual human. We control how we feel and should not let anyone control our lives. On page 213 Soccio says, “Given the Stoic position that our lives are fated but that our wills remain free, our first task must be to distinguish what we can control from what we cannot control. Because Stoic literature is sometimes imprecise and inconsistent, it is important to be sensitive to the distinction between control and influence.” Even if one would hit our car or burglarize our house, the attitude about the situation is up to the individual and nobody can change that.
The stoics classified their ideas into three major categories: cosmic determinism, fatalism-fate, and inner freedom. Cosmic determinism has to do with natural causes, cause and effect. Cosmic determinism also- to an even higher degree- deals with religion. Stoics believe that there is a “Logos” mind behind the universe, a “knows all” type of phenomenon. This Logos can be compared to the Christian God. Soccio says that, “Under the guidance of the Logos, the universe remains rational and ordered. Seneca said, “Events do not just happen, but arrive by appointment.” Everything that occurs is connected to everything else. Everything that exists is connected to the Logos. Our individual minds are “emanations” or “sparks” from the Logos, which is sometime characterized as “fire.” (The stoics borrowed this idea from Heraclitus.) Our finite human reason is, thus, a small reflection of divine reason.” pg 209 They also believe that everything happen by fate (God’s plan). This belief helps to control emotions because they can say they had no control when something bad happens. Finally, they believe in free will: choosing what you want to do.
There were many famous stoics including: Zeno, Cleathes, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus who was a freed slave. Soccio clearly puts it on page 206 as, “Ironically however, one of the most important Stoic philosophers was a former slave named Epictetus (50-130). Perhaps because a slave’s life is not his own, Epictetus acquired special insight into the major issue of Stoicism: controlling what we can and accepting what is beyond our control.” Epictetus even had his leg broken and continued to have a positive attitude (a true Stoic!). He even wrote a handbook during his time on Earth.
The Stoics offer more ideas on relationships, the cost of everything, courage, and suffering. Stoics state that we suffer from the fact that we take our live and our relationships to personal. They claim that we need to put the degree of feeling we receive from relationships with everything else, and we need to maintain that positive attitude. One reason we may feel discouraged by events is because we tend to focus on the object of our desire and tend to look past the cost. Yet everything has a cost. The courage a stoic feels increases with experience in life. The ability to look on the bright side inches higher and higher as time goes by.
The stoics classified their ideas into three major categories: cosmic determinism, fatalism-fate, and inner freedom. Cosmic determinism has to do with natural causes, cause and effect. Cosmic determinism also- to an even higher degree- deals with religion. Stoics believe that there is a “Logos” mind behind the universe, a “knows all” type of phenomenon. This Logos can be compared to the Christian God. Soccio says that, “Under the guidance of the Logos, the universe remains rational and ordered. Seneca said, “Events do not just happen, but arrive by appointment.” Everything that occurs is connected to everything else. Everything that exists is connected to the Logos. Our individual minds are “emanations” or “sparks” from the Logos, which is sometime characterized as “fire.” (The stoics borrowed this idea from Heraclitus.) Our finite human reason is, thus, a small reflection of divine reason.” pg 209 They also believe that everything happen by fate (God’s plan). This belief helps to control emotions because they can say they had no control when something bad happens. Finally, they believe in free will: choosing what you want to do.
There were many famous stoics including: Zeno, Cleathes, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus who was a freed slave. Soccio clearly puts it on page 206 as, “Ironically however, one of the most important Stoic philosophers was a former slave named Epictetus (50-130). Perhaps because a slave’s life is not his own, Epictetus acquired special insight into the major issue of Stoicism: controlling what we can and accepting what is beyond our control.” Epictetus even had his leg broken and continued to have a positive attitude (a true Stoic!). He even wrote a handbook during his time on Earth.
The Stoics offer more ideas on relationships, the cost of everything, courage, and suffering. Stoics state that we suffer from the fact that we take our live and our relationships to personal. They claim that we need to put the degree of feeling we receive from relationships with everything else, and we need to maintain that positive attitude. One reason we may feel discouraged by events is because we tend to focus on the object of our desire and tend to look past the cost. Yet everything has a cost. The courage a stoic feels increases with experience in life. The ability to look on the bright side inches higher and higher as time goes by.
Spinoza, What a Guy
Spinoza born in 1632 died from possibly lung cancer in 1677 from the dust in which he made eyeglasses for a living. His true name was Baruch, but these two ideas were not essential to the legacy of Spinoza.
The philosophers of Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza had very diverse ideas on the topic of substances. Aristotle believed that there were many substances. That everything exists as a separate substance. Descartes believed that there were two major substances. He believed that there is a material substance and a mental substance. Material substance, meaning everything is just a different version of the material. The second substance is mental substances, having to do with everything inside the brain. So Aristotle believed in many substances, Descartes two, and now comes Spinoza who only believed that there is one substance. He believed that everything is just composed of energy and matter.
Spinoza believed that the universe can be compared to a tapestry (A heavy cloth woven with rich, often varicolored designs or scenes, usually hung on walls for decoration and sometimes used to cover furniture). He goes on to say that like a tapestry, everything in the universe is connected.
Spinoza was rejected during his time and the community in the 1660s. People during his time thought that our world was the only thing. They believed that our way of thinking was the only way. Spinoza said our minds are small and this is why we cannot comprehend any other ways of intellect. Our belief cannot ever be absolute. Spinoza then says that the more you know about the universe and that more you know the better understanding you have about how the tapestry applies.
Spinoza claims that the universe and Nature is God. Spinoza on page 257 says, ”Individual person are finite modes of substance. Man is not a special creation of a treatment Deity. Man, along with everything else, is a part of Nature and the product of casual laws. In the sense we can say that, along with pebbles, thunderstorms, roses, stars, apes, ect., man is part of God. For God is Natur.” Many philosophers before him say that the universe had to have a cause and that cause would be God. Spinoza raises the question, “Why can’t the universe just exist?” His believe that God is the universe is defined as pantheism.
The development of the “mode scale” rooted from Spinoza. He thought up a scale that included (in order) “stuff” like: rocks, ameba, toads, deer, chimps, and then finally humans. Even humans have a secondary mode; some humans who are more advanced in thought are higher on the scale. The higher on the scale the more the entity is its own causal agent. For example, a rock is not in control of its life. Then moving up the scale, ameba has a hint of control in its life. Continuing up the scale the higher you go the more control on life.
The philosophers of Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza had very diverse ideas on the topic of substances. Aristotle believed that there were many substances. That everything exists as a separate substance. Descartes believed that there were two major substances. He believed that there is a material substance and a mental substance. Material substance, meaning everything is just a different version of the material. The second substance is mental substances, having to do with everything inside the brain. So Aristotle believed in many substances, Descartes two, and now comes Spinoza who only believed that there is one substance. He believed that everything is just composed of energy and matter.
Spinoza believed that the universe can be compared to a tapestry (A heavy cloth woven with rich, often varicolored designs or scenes, usually hung on walls for decoration and sometimes used to cover furniture). He goes on to say that like a tapestry, everything in the universe is connected.
Spinoza was rejected during his time and the community in the 1660s. People during his time thought that our world was the only thing. They believed that our way of thinking was the only way. Spinoza said our minds are small and this is why we cannot comprehend any other ways of intellect. Our belief cannot ever be absolute. Spinoza then says that the more you know about the universe and that more you know the better understanding you have about how the tapestry applies.
Spinoza claims that the universe and Nature is God. Spinoza on page 257 says, ”Individual person are finite modes of substance. Man is not a special creation of a treatment Deity. Man, along with everything else, is a part of Nature and the product of casual laws. In the sense we can say that, along with pebbles, thunderstorms, roses, stars, apes, ect., man is part of God. For God is Natur.” Many philosophers before him say that the universe had to have a cause and that cause would be God. Spinoza raises the question, “Why can’t the universe just exist?” His believe that God is the universe is defined as pantheism.
The development of the “mode scale” rooted from Spinoza. He thought up a scale that included (in order) “stuff” like: rocks, ameba, toads, deer, chimps, and then finally humans. Even humans have a secondary mode; some humans who are more advanced in thought are higher on the scale. The higher on the scale the more the entity is its own causal agent. For example, a rock is not in control of its life. Then moving up the scale, ameba has a hint of control in its life. Continuing up the scale the higher you go the more control on life.
John Locke and Empiricism
John Locke (1632-1704) believed in empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge passes through the senses. Empiricism comes from the Greek word empeiria meaning experience. Locke who is an empiricist would agree with the following passage from Soccio on page 291, “Empiricists believe that all ideas can be traced back to sense data. Abstractions and complex beliefs are said to be combinations and mental alterations of original impressions and perceptions, as when, for example, we imagine a man with a horse’s head.” So Locke would agree that all knowledge is through the senses.
Locke believed in the idea of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities being the qualities that makes up the object. These qualities include: solidity, number, and figure. On the flip side of the coin, the secondary qualities depend on the individual. Secondary qualities include: color, taste, smell and sound. Locke would disagree with the statement that color red is in the object itself. He would say that since color is a secondary quality, the color red is not in the object it is in the person viewing the object.
Locke stated that if people were put on a deserted island the two things that the people on the island would need to do is to preserve the peace and to preserve the species. He also says that there would be the assumption of a social contract. These expectations lead to the idea that the government protects the social contract and a civil government follows life, liberty, and property. He says that democracy is the best form of government and must follow three branches of government. Legislative which take our place in government, Executive the branch that carries out the laws and judiciary that makes sure laws are fair and followed fairly.
Locke says that no matter what we should tolerate all religions. There is one exception, if a religion does not tolerate other religions that we should not tolerate that one. For example, If the was three religions (and we will pretend to be the A religion) , A, B, C and A and B was accepted by C then we would all accept C. But if B didn’t accept A or C then we would not accept B.
Locke says that there should be a separation from church and state. Therefore Locke would want a government that does not have an official religion. If there was an official religion then there would still be a minority that is not happy.
Locke believed in the idea of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities being the qualities that makes up the object. These qualities include: solidity, number, and figure. On the flip side of the coin, the secondary qualities depend on the individual. Secondary qualities include: color, taste, smell and sound. Locke would disagree with the statement that color red is in the object itself. He would say that since color is a secondary quality, the color red is not in the object it is in the person viewing the object.
Locke stated that if people were put on a deserted island the two things that the people on the island would need to do is to preserve the peace and to preserve the species. He also says that there would be the assumption of a social contract. These expectations lead to the idea that the government protects the social contract and a civil government follows life, liberty, and property. He says that democracy is the best form of government and must follow three branches of government. Legislative which take our place in government, Executive the branch that carries out the laws and judiciary that makes sure laws are fair and followed fairly.
Locke says that no matter what we should tolerate all religions. There is one exception, if a religion does not tolerate other religions that we should not tolerate that one. For example, If the was three religions (and we will pretend to be the A religion) , A, B, C and A and B was accepted by C then we would all accept C. But if B didn’t accept A or C then we would not accept B.
Locke says that there should be a separation from church and state. Therefore Locke would want a government that does not have an official religion. If there was an official religion then there would still be a minority that is not happy.
Rene Descartes and the Eight Philosophies
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) talks about eight philosophies about the relationship between mind and body. On page 281 Soccio says, “By showing that the mind is different in kind from the body, Descartes hoped to prove that the discoveries of the physicists posed no threat to free will or the existence of an incorporeal soul. The laws of physics apply only to matter, but the mind (soul) is an incorporeal thinking substance. Mind and body are two completely different kinds of substance. Thus, science turns out to be the language of bodies; it cannot address minds or souls, so it is no threat to the church or basic Christian theology.”
Descartes believed in only two substances in the universe. One being material substance, meaning everything is just a different version of the material. The second substance is mental substances, having to do with everything inside the brain. Descartes believed the there was a thing called “innate ideas.” These ideas were built into your head at birth. For example, language structures were built into your head. It was not the actual language, but rather a language structure. He also said that math is the starting point and chemistry is much more definite then psychology because one can use numbers. He then said that the mind is separate from the brain. There is much more ideas dealing with the mind and the brain.
Interactionism says that the body and mind are separate, but the do interact with each other, Hence the term Interactionism. Next is epiphenomenalism is when the soul is around you and you can feel the presence of people. Then materialism says that there is no such thing as mind ora, all you have is your brain. It says that your mind and brain are the same thing. Materialism also says that there is no afterlife. Idealism states that there is no material world, everything is an idea and every material is an assumption. Fifthly, the double aspect theory is defined as composed of one thing and has two aspects. Next comes parallelism which says that mind and body have no interaction at all. This to me does not seem possible to any degree and does not make sense. Occasionalism says that God “zaps” you mind for everything that happens. And finally Pre-established harmony says that mind and body do everything in a simutainulous fashion.
My views on the subject are expressed in Soccio on page 282, “Any philosophical position that divided existence into two completely distinct, independent, unique substance or kinds of thing is a form of dualism. The distinction can be between mind and body, natural and supernatural, sprit and matter, soul and body, good and evil, and so on.”
Descartes believed in only two substances in the universe. One being material substance, meaning everything is just a different version of the material. The second substance is mental substances, having to do with everything inside the brain. Descartes believed the there was a thing called “innate ideas.” These ideas were built into your head at birth. For example, language structures were built into your head. It was not the actual language, but rather a language structure. He also said that math is the starting point and chemistry is much more definite then psychology because one can use numbers. He then said that the mind is separate from the brain. There is much more ideas dealing with the mind and the brain.
Interactionism says that the body and mind are separate, but the do interact with each other, Hence the term Interactionism. Next is epiphenomenalism is when the soul is around you and you can feel the presence of people. Then materialism says that there is no such thing as mind ora, all you have is your brain. It says that your mind and brain are the same thing. Materialism also says that there is no afterlife. Idealism states that there is no material world, everything is an idea and every material is an assumption. Fifthly, the double aspect theory is defined as composed of one thing and has two aspects. Next comes parallelism which says that mind and body have no interaction at all. This to me does not seem possible to any degree and does not make sense. Occasionalism says that God “zaps” you mind for everything that happens. And finally Pre-established harmony says that mind and body do everything in a simutainulous fashion.
My views on the subject are expressed in Soccio on page 282, “Any philosophical position that divided existence into two completely distinct, independent, unique substance or kinds of thing is a form of dualism. The distinction can be between mind and body, natural and supernatural, sprit and matter, soul and body, good and evil, and so on.”
Rene Descartes and his Idea that Life is a "Trick"
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) who wrote in first person believed that there must be an absolute starting point when talking about doubt. He said that our sense could trick us (optical illusions). He explained that everything we see could just be a dream. However some things are different here on earth: extension (details), figure (boundaries), color, and number. His last idea was that of an evil genius. The evil genius tricks us in to believing this is all real. Descartes does not believe that this is real, but he is saying that there is no way to prove that there is not evil genius, or a dream, or an optical illusion. These ideas are roots to the popular Descartes quote, “I think therefore I am.”
Is there a way to trust your senses completely? No, any one thing could be an optical illusion and there is now way to prove its not. For example, if one were to look out on the horizon on a hot hazy day they are prone to see what looks like water on the road. This is an optical illusion, and how can one know that our whole life is not an optical illusion.
Descartes says that life could just all be a dream and there is not sure way to tell. Soccio says, “Descartes rejects sense knowledge as sufficient foundation for certainty. In so doing, he also rejects the primary of the external, physical world because it is possible that the whole so-called real world is nothing but an elaborate mental construct, a hallucination. Remember, in the interest of constructing a flawless philosophy, Descartes is being ultracautious. He will not settle for degrees of probability, no matter how “virtually certain” they may be. Whether or not you consider it probable that your world is a dream, Descartes points out that it is at least possible.” Page: 273
The last stage of Descartes doubt is that of an evil genius. The idea is that there could be an evil genius that is tricking us into believing ideas. For example, the evil genius could be tricking us into believing that 1+1=2 when it really equals four. Soccio explains in his book on page 274, “I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity…”
Is there a way to trust your senses completely? No, any one thing could be an optical illusion and there is now way to prove its not. For example, if one were to look out on the horizon on a hot hazy day they are prone to see what looks like water on the road. This is an optical illusion, and how can one know that our whole life is not an optical illusion.
Descartes says that life could just all be a dream and there is not sure way to tell. Soccio says, “Descartes rejects sense knowledge as sufficient foundation for certainty. In so doing, he also rejects the primary of the external, physical world because it is possible that the whole so-called real world is nothing but an elaborate mental construct, a hallucination. Remember, in the interest of constructing a flawless philosophy, Descartes is being ultracautious. He will not settle for degrees of probability, no matter how “virtually certain” they may be. Whether or not you consider it probable that your world is a dream, Descartes points out that it is at least possible.” Page: 273
The last stage of Descartes doubt is that of an evil genius. The idea is that there could be an evil genius that is tricking us into believing ideas. For example, the evil genius could be tricking us into believing that 1+1=2 when it really equals four. Soccio explains in his book on page 274, “I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity…”
Thomas Aquinas, and the Existence of God
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 AD) brought up many points to prove the existence of God. He had five total points. His first one was the argument from Gradation; it is based on the metaphysical concept of hierarchy of souls. It said that there is a good, a better, and a best. God is classified as the best. Soccio says, “In ascending order, being progresses from inanimate objects to increasingly complex animated creatures. (For instance, a dog had more being than a worm, and a person more than a dog) Thomas believed that what contemporary philosopher Arthur O. Lovejoy called “the great chain of being” continued upward through angels to God.” On page 244.
Next, Aquinas raised the argument from motion. This argument said that the natural state of matter is rest. That everything in the universe is now in motion. The only possible reason, as Aquinas says, for the movement is God had to initiate the movement. In other terms, the original motion comes from God.
Thirdly, Aquinas talks about his Cosmological Argument. It says that everything has causes so there must have been a first cause. The first cause would clearly be God. Someone had to start it all and of course, that someone would be God.
His fourth argument is an argument for necessity. Rooting from Richard Taylor, everything depends on something for existence. The existence of the universe comes from God.
Finally, his last argument is called design argument. It states that everything is designed for other things; therefore there must be a designer. Soccio says, “Thomas asserts that the entire natural World exhibits order and design. Water behaves on orderly ways, as do rocks, crabs, clouds, reindeer, and people. Today, we are even more aware of the complex interrelatedness of the natural world then Thomas was: Rain forests in the Amazon basin scrub the atmosphere in ways that affect the whole earth; this is their telos.” Page: 245
Counter arguments include, but are limited to, the following. In the cosmological Argument, why does there need to be a start to the universe, why can it not just be there? In the argument from necessity, Why does the universe need anything to depend on?
Next, Aquinas raised the argument from motion. This argument said that the natural state of matter is rest. That everything in the universe is now in motion. The only possible reason, as Aquinas says, for the movement is God had to initiate the movement. In other terms, the original motion comes from God.
Thirdly, Aquinas talks about his Cosmological Argument. It says that everything has causes so there must have been a first cause. The first cause would clearly be God. Someone had to start it all and of course, that someone would be God.
His fourth argument is an argument for necessity. Rooting from Richard Taylor, everything depends on something for existence. The existence of the universe comes from God.
Finally, his last argument is called design argument. It states that everything is designed for other things; therefore there must be a designer. Soccio says, “Thomas asserts that the entire natural World exhibits order and design. Water behaves on orderly ways, as do rocks, crabs, clouds, reindeer, and people. Today, we are even more aware of the complex interrelatedness of the natural world then Thomas was: Rain forests in the Amazon basin scrub the atmosphere in ways that affect the whole earth; this is their telos.” Page: 245
Counter arguments include, but are limited to, the following. In the cosmological Argument, why does there need to be a start to the universe, why can it not just be there? In the argument from necessity, Why does the universe need anything to depend on?
The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil exists in earnest in western religions. The western religions include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The most common quote from the problem of evil, as stated on page 249 from Soccio is, “If God can prevent the destructive suffering of the innocent, yet chooses not to, He is not good. If God chooses to prevent the suffering but cannot, He is not omnipotent. If God cannot recognize the suffering of innocent, He is not wise.” This minimal metaphysical idea does make sense in its simplistic form, but it is far more complicated then it seems.
Evil exists in two categories. It can occur as moral evil or nature evil. Moral evil is what people do to other people, this can include animals sometimes, but is mainly in humans. An example of this would be if someone would punch you in the face. The other form of evil is natural evil. Natural evil is what nature does to people. For example if a flood, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or any form of a natural disaster would affect you negatively. The problem with this and the existence of God is, how can an all-wise, all-good, all-powerful God let all this happen?
Most of the atheists in the World are against God solely because of the “Problem of Evil.” They feel that the Problem of Evil is a strong enough case to prove the fact that God does not exist. Augustine (354-420 A.D), a theist, did not by it. He felt that there is more to the existence of God then just the Problem of Evil. He rose two points. He said that evil is a corruption of good. The only reason evil exists is because of the idea of free-will. For example, people are faced with various decisions in their life. If someone is driving down the road to their favorite concert in subzero temperature and sees someone on the side of the road that needs help, they could either help that person out or go to the concert. This is the idea of evil is a corruption of good. Secondly he raises the point of Aesthetic view of evil. It says that we do not know what evil truly is. So what looks to be an evil could actually be a blessing (God’s Plan).
John Hick, a theist, raises he own three points against the Problem of evil. He said that as a species people do not grow unless they are tested. That to better a species bad things need to happen. For example, a long time ago, if someone burned themselves to death the rest of the species would now know not to let this happen to them and therefore would become a stronger breed. He then says that the species only advances if challenged. Finally he stated that the only reason the things we value most are there is because bad thing happen.
On the other side of the coin, the Atheists raise a few counter arguments. They say that the vast majority of suffering does not improve the human species. They also say that it is way too hard for the victims to understand. That, for example, the death of their daughter is to help the human race. This alone causes many to become Atheists. While Christians say it is a test of your faith. Lastly, Atheists say that it only affects a small percent of people.
Evil exists in two categories. It can occur as moral evil or nature evil. Moral evil is what people do to other people, this can include animals sometimes, but is mainly in humans. An example of this would be if someone would punch you in the face. The other form of evil is natural evil. Natural evil is what nature does to people. For example if a flood, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or any form of a natural disaster would affect you negatively. The problem with this and the existence of God is, how can an all-wise, all-good, all-powerful God let all this happen?
Most of the atheists in the World are against God solely because of the “Problem of Evil.” They feel that the Problem of Evil is a strong enough case to prove the fact that God does not exist. Augustine (354-420 A.D), a theist, did not by it. He felt that there is more to the existence of God then just the Problem of Evil. He rose two points. He said that evil is a corruption of good. The only reason evil exists is because of the idea of free-will. For example, people are faced with various decisions in their life. If someone is driving down the road to their favorite concert in subzero temperature and sees someone on the side of the road that needs help, they could either help that person out or go to the concert. This is the idea of evil is a corruption of good. Secondly he raises the point of Aesthetic view of evil. It says that we do not know what evil truly is. So what looks to be an evil could actually be a blessing (God’s Plan).
John Hick, a theist, raises he own three points against the Problem of evil. He said that as a species people do not grow unless they are tested. That to better a species bad things need to happen. For example, a long time ago, if someone burned themselves to death the rest of the species would now know not to let this happen to them and therefore would become a stronger breed. He then says that the species only advances if challenged. Finally he stated that the only reason the things we value most are there is because bad thing happen.
On the other side of the coin, the Atheists raise a few counter arguments. They say that the vast majority of suffering does not improve the human species. They also say that it is way too hard for the victims to understand. That, for example, the death of their daughter is to help the human race. This alone causes many to become Atheists. While Christians say it is a test of your faith. Lastly, Atheists say that it only affects a small percent of people.
The Classic View of Life, from a Stoic
The stoic view on life is an intriguing one. They strongly believe that we cannot control nearly all parts of our lives. Our inter attitude is up to the individual human. We control how we feel and should not let anyone control our lives. Even if one would hit our car or burglarize our house, the attitude about the situation is up to the individual and nobody can change that.
The stoics classified their ideas into three major categories: cosmic determinism, fatalism-fate, and inner freedom. Cosmic determinism has to do with natural causes, cause and effect. Cosmic determinism also- to an even higher degree- deals with religion. Stoics believe that there is a “Logos” mind behind the universe, a “knows all” type of phenomenon. This Logos can be compared to the Christian God. They also believe that everything happen by fate (God’s plan). This belief helps to control emotions because they can say they had no control when something bad happens. Finally, the believe in free will: choosing what you want to do.
There were many famous stoics including: Zeno, Cleathes, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus who was a freed slave. Epictetus even had his leg broken and continued to have a positive attitude (a true Stoic!). He even wrote a handbook during his time on Earth.
From the Handbook of Epictetus, proving Stoics are positive people on page 12, “In the case of everything attractive or useful or that you are fond of, remember to say just what sort of thing it is, beginning with that least little things. If you are fond of a jug, say “I am fond of a jug!” For then when it is broken you will not be upset. If you kiss your child or wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.”
More from the Handbook of Epictetus on page 15, “When you see someone weeping in grief at the depature of his child or the loss of his property, take care not to be carried away by the appearance that the externals he is involved in are bad, and be ready to say immediately, “What weighs down on this man is not what has happened (since it does not weigh down on someone else), but his judgement about it.” Do not hesitate, however, to sympathize with him verbally, and even to moan with him if the occasion arises; but be careful not to main inwardly.
The stoics classified their ideas into three major categories: cosmic determinism, fatalism-fate, and inner freedom. Cosmic determinism has to do with natural causes, cause and effect. Cosmic determinism also- to an even higher degree- deals with religion. Stoics believe that there is a “Logos” mind behind the universe, a “knows all” type of phenomenon. This Logos can be compared to the Christian God. They also believe that everything happen by fate (God’s plan). This belief helps to control emotions because they can say they had no control when something bad happens. Finally, the believe in free will: choosing what you want to do.
There were many famous stoics including: Zeno, Cleathes, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus who was a freed slave. Epictetus even had his leg broken and continued to have a positive attitude (a true Stoic!). He even wrote a handbook during his time on Earth.
From the Handbook of Epictetus, proving Stoics are positive people on page 12, “In the case of everything attractive or useful or that you are fond of, remember to say just what sort of thing it is, beginning with that least little things. If you are fond of a jug, say “I am fond of a jug!” For then when it is broken you will not be upset. If you kiss your child or wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.”
More from the Handbook of Epictetus on page 15, “When you see someone weeping in grief at the depature of his child or the loss of his property, take care not to be carried away by the appearance that the externals he is involved in are bad, and be ready to say immediately, “What weighs down on this man is not what has happened (since it does not weigh down on someone else), but his judgement about it.” Do not hesitate, however, to sympathize with him verbally, and even to moan with him if the occasion arises; but be careful not to main inwardly.
Aristotle and his Four Causes
Aristotle (384-322 B.C) believed in the four causes. Soccio explains the four causes as the following, “Aristotles “four causes” are thus offered as accounts of (1) the material thing is made of (Material Cause); (2) the form the thing take (Formal Cause); (3) the “triggering” action or motion that begins the thing (Efficient Cause; and (4) the ultimate purpose or goal for which the things exists (Final Cause).” (pg 176)
The material cause of a thing refers to the substance from which the thing comes and in which change occurs. It is the cause that makes a difference about what the result is. In other words, cars and houses are made up of many diverse things, and some wood or some metal do not ever become a car or a house. It is not essential to identify the materials of an object. After all, it is not the destiny or nature for the wood or metal to become a car or a house, they could become anything else and are not limited to just cars and houses.
The formal cause is the shape, or form into what the matter is changed, must know what something is (essence). It is exemplified in Soccio on page 177, “Until wood is fashioned into some particular thing, a bed or table, it is potentially but not actually a bed or table. Wood needs to be formed into beds and table and other crafted objects “according to the results of an art.” It is not just wood (matter), then that makes a bed or table, but the form the wood takes. Therefore, in addition to identifying the Material Cause of a thing, we need to know its formal cause, the shape or from, into which “this matter” Is changed.
Efficient cause is the act of doing it (The action). It is also named as the thing’s triggering cause, or in today’s terms known as “cause.” The efficient cause is what initiates activity, it is what brings change to something. This cause needs some sort of “motion.” The motion is what converts the potential into an actual change.
And finally, the final cause is the goal of what you are doing, it is the final product and is the reason for what you doing. Soccio puts it as, “Aristotle called the ultimate why of a thing that thing’s telos, or “final” goal, the purpose of its very existence. Thus, the very last answer in a series of “why” questions identifies the “final cause” needed to complete our understanding of the thing.” (pg 178)
Even in everyday life situations the causes still apply. In a short story for English class, the material cause is simply the materials needed to make the short story. The formal cause of a short story is the ________. The efficient cause is the “first why” one would be making the short story. A reason could be that the student wants to achieve a good grade on the story. Lastly, the final cause is the thing telos, its final goal. In this case it could be the want for the student to be granted their degree.
The material cause of a thing refers to the substance from which the thing comes and in which change occurs. It is the cause that makes a difference about what the result is. In other words, cars and houses are made up of many diverse things, and some wood or some metal do not ever become a car or a house. It is not essential to identify the materials of an object. After all, it is not the destiny or nature for the wood or metal to become a car or a house, they could become anything else and are not limited to just cars and houses.
The formal cause is the shape, or form into what the matter is changed, must know what something is (essence). It is exemplified in Soccio on page 177, “Until wood is fashioned into some particular thing, a bed or table, it is potentially but not actually a bed or table. Wood needs to be formed into beds and table and other crafted objects “according to the results of an art.” It is not just wood (matter), then that makes a bed or table, but the form the wood takes. Therefore, in addition to identifying the Material Cause of a thing, we need to know its formal cause, the shape or from, into which “this matter” Is changed.
Efficient cause is the act of doing it (The action). It is also named as the thing’s triggering cause, or in today’s terms known as “cause.” The efficient cause is what initiates activity, it is what brings change to something. This cause needs some sort of “motion.” The motion is what converts the potential into an actual change.
And finally, the final cause is the goal of what you are doing, it is the final product and is the reason for what you doing. Soccio puts it as, “Aristotle called the ultimate why of a thing that thing’s telos, or “final” goal, the purpose of its very existence. Thus, the very last answer in a series of “why” questions identifies the “final cause” needed to complete our understanding of the thing.” (pg 178)
Even in everyday life situations the causes still apply. In a short story for English class, the material cause is simply the materials needed to make the short story. The formal cause of a short story is the ________. The efficient cause is the “first why” one would be making the short story. A reason could be that the student wants to achieve a good grade on the story. Lastly, the final cause is the thing telos, its final goal. In this case it could be the want for the student to be granted their degree.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C)
Aristotle would say that people who do malicious acts are not doing them because they think they are okay, they know what they are doing self desires take over and they do what can make them happy. This happiness is not the same as Aristotle’s “reason for every final cause” but rather the pleasure at that moment in time that will bring that person happiness.
“A mean is the midpoint between two other points. On a line, it is the exact middle. Aristotle characterized moral virtue as a mean between too little and too much. In his terms, the mean is located between deficiency and excess.” As Soccio puts it, on page 190. Aristotle stresses the idea that every virtue has a mean. Our goal should be to have all of our virtue at or as close to the mean as possible. For example a virtue of generosity could have a line graph like: one side of the line is “too generous” and the other side of the line is “selfish.” Our goal is to be in the middle of those two extremes and to simply be generous. Another example of a virtue is courage. One side of the line could be a coward the other side could be to brave (rashness). Again, our goal should be to be in the middle or be right at the mean of the line of virtues. To sum up, Aristotle would say the mean is a good thing and not a mediocre, should not be avoided but rather we should strive to reach it.
C| Aristotle would completely agree with the statement that human essence is connected to virtue. He later go as far to say that it is virtues that perfect our essence. Aristotle had two separate categories for virtues: Practical Virtues and Intellectual Virtues. Practical virtues are the action of something while intellectual virtues are those of the mind. Practical virtues include, but are not limited to, courage, generosity temperance, and mildness. Intellectual Virtues can be broken into two more subcategories: Phronesis and Sophia. Phronesis is practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that this is the best thing to do in a situation. Sophia, on the other hand, is the thirst of wanting to increase one’s knowledge base, it also opens up the mind of the individual.
D| Aristotle would say that running away from danger is a cowardly act. Aristotle him self says, “As a rock on the seashore he standeth firm, and the dashing of the waves disturbeth him not. He raiseth his head like a tower on a hill, and the arrows of fortune drop at his feet. In the instant of danger, the courage of his heart sustaineth him; and the steadiness of his mind beareth him out.”
“A mean is the midpoint between two other points. On a line, it is the exact middle. Aristotle characterized moral virtue as a mean between too little and too much. In his terms, the mean is located between deficiency and excess.” As Soccio puts it, on page 190. Aristotle stresses the idea that every virtue has a mean. Our goal should be to have all of our virtue at or as close to the mean as possible. For example a virtue of generosity could have a line graph like: one side of the line is “too generous” and the other side of the line is “selfish.” Our goal is to be in the middle of those two extremes and to simply be generous. Another example of a virtue is courage. One side of the line could be a coward the other side could be to brave (rashness). Again, our goal should be to be in the middle or be right at the mean of the line of virtues. To sum up, Aristotle would say the mean is a good thing and not a mediocre, should not be avoided but rather we should strive to reach it.
C| Aristotle would completely agree with the statement that human essence is connected to virtue. He later go as far to say that it is virtues that perfect our essence. Aristotle had two separate categories for virtues: Practical Virtues and Intellectual Virtues. Practical virtues are the action of something while intellectual virtues are those of the mind. Practical virtues include, but are not limited to, courage, generosity temperance, and mildness. Intellectual Virtues can be broken into two more subcategories: Phronesis and Sophia. Phronesis is practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that this is the best thing to do in a situation. Sophia, on the other hand, is the thirst of wanting to increase one’s knowledge base, it also opens up the mind of the individual.
D| Aristotle would say that running away from danger is a cowardly act. Aristotle him self says, “As a rock on the seashore he standeth firm, and the dashing of the waves disturbeth him not. He raiseth his head like a tower on a hill, and the arrows of fortune drop at his feet. In the instant of danger, the courage of his heart sustaineth him; and the steadiness of his mind beareth him out.”
Plato, and his Five Major Concerns for Humanity
Plato (426-348 B.C) believed in five major concerns. The study of Plato is mainly focused in these five concerns. The first concern is the “Basis of Morality.” It says that there is a good that exists in a different dimension. Everyone is born with a seed of good, one can either come close to it or can drift away from it. This good exists in the World of Forms. Finally, every species has its own good. Plato then talks about the “Basis of math/geometry” which explains that there is a right triangle, for example, in the World of Forms. His main point about mathematics is that one cannot invent math but rather can discover the math in the World of Forms. Next he brings up the argument about the “Basis of Beauty.” There must be a standard for beauty. Furthermore, beauty exists in the World of Forms. On the contrary, human beauty is all relative. Finally goodness/beauty comes together. Another concern of Plato was the “Knowing everyday objects.” These concerns said that knowledge does not come from the senses and understanding objects comes from the mind (geometry). Finally his last concern is, “Why is nature the way it is?” Because animals like cats and dogs model the cat and dog that exists in the 3rd dimension.
Plato used the World of Forms in nearly all his concerns and the platonic forms can be defined in Soccio as, “independently existing, nonspatial, nontemporal “somethings” that cannot be known through the senses. Known in thought, these Forms are not ideas in the usual sense. Knowledge is always about Forms.” (pg. 141) Plato then classifies the Forms as the following: beyond space, beyond time, objective (not subjective), grasp by the mind, and not senses and the idea of “perfect.”
Aristotle (384-322 B.C) believed in the four causes. Soccio explains the four causes as the following, “Aristotles “four causes” are thus offered as accounts of (1) the material thing is made of (Material Cause); (2) the form the thing take (Formal Cause); (3) the “triggering” action or motion that begins the thing (Efficient Cause; and (4) the ultimate purpose or goal for which the things exists (Final Cause).” (pg 176)
The material cause of a thing refers to the substance from which the thing comes and in which change occurs. It is the cause that makes a difference about what the result is. The formal cause is the shape, or form into what the matter is changed, must know what something is (essence). Efficient cause is the act of doing it (The action). It is also named as the thing’s triggering cause, or in today’s terms known as “cause.” And finally, the final cause is the goal of what you are doing, it is the final product and is the reason for what you doing. Soccio puts it as, “Aristotle called the ultimate why of a thing that thing’s telos, or “final” goal, the purpose of its very existence. Thus, the very last answer in a series of “why” questions identifies the “final cause” needed to complete our understanding of the thing.” (pg 178)
Plato used the World of Forms in nearly all his concerns and the platonic forms can be defined in Soccio as, “independently existing, nonspatial, nontemporal “somethings” that cannot be known through the senses. Known in thought, these Forms are not ideas in the usual sense. Knowledge is always about Forms.” (pg. 141) Plato then classifies the Forms as the following: beyond space, beyond time, objective (not subjective), grasp by the mind, and not senses and the idea of “perfect.”
Aristotle (384-322 B.C) believed in the four causes. Soccio explains the four causes as the following, “Aristotles “four causes” are thus offered as accounts of (1) the material thing is made of (Material Cause); (2) the form the thing take (Formal Cause); (3) the “triggering” action or motion that begins the thing (Efficient Cause; and (4) the ultimate purpose or goal for which the things exists (Final Cause).” (pg 176)
The material cause of a thing refers to the substance from which the thing comes and in which change occurs. It is the cause that makes a difference about what the result is. The formal cause is the shape, or form into what the matter is changed, must know what something is (essence). Efficient cause is the act of doing it (The action). It is also named as the thing’s triggering cause, or in today’s terms known as “cause.” And finally, the final cause is the goal of what you are doing, it is the final product and is the reason for what you doing. Soccio puts it as, “Aristotle called the ultimate why of a thing that thing’s telos, or “final” goal, the purpose of its very existence. Thus, the very last answer in a series of “why” questions identifies the “final cause” needed to complete our understanding of the thing.” (pg 178)
Plato (427-348 B.C)
Plato (427-348 B.C) When ever Plato talked about knowledge and opinion has compared it to the idea of a divided line and the World of Forms. In Soccio on page 148 Plato says,”The whole procedure involves nothing in the sensible world, but deals throughout with Forms and finishes with Forms.” The divided line would separate idea like: reality to appearance, metaphysics to epistemology. He also used the distinction of the world of “being” and the world of “becoming” The divided line shows how the factors of knowledge and opinion deal with “Forms” but in diverse ways.
Describing the dividing line is a simple task, it consists of two basic sections. The two sections are then broke up into two segments. Soccio says on page 146, “The four segments illustrate four ways of apprehending four components of reality; two each of being and becoming.”
The divided line can be further explained and are as following. Understanding and reasoning sit on the top and are the “World of Form” ort as Plato also says, the being. Those top two are the intelligible world. They also help to separate from knowledge and opinion; in this case the top two are knowledge. Secondly are the two ideas of perception and imagination. These two ideals are, as Plato puts it, in the visible world. They are also included in the idea of opinion.
Plato says that as you move down the “Divided Line” the degree of truth is on a constant decrease. For example, the highest form is “The Good.” Next, but still in the top tear of the divided line, comes the lower forms which are humans. Then when you break the barrier to the visible world/opinion you will find sensible objects. For example, one would find the Pope in this category. Finally, the last part (imagination) one could find a picture of the Pope.
In the column of epistemology, holds understanding, reasoning, perception, imagination. Understanding is the level of pure intelligence. It is the place what the highest of all truths is here. Next comes reasoning, here is ideas like mathematical thinking and deductive reasoning. Thirdly, perception is the level of belief, common ideas or politics, things of a lower degree of thinking. Lastly in Plato’s epistemological views is imagination, uncritical impressions are here.
To sum up, on page 146 in Soccio, “Well, take a line divided into two unequal parts, corresponding to the visible and intelligible worlds, and then divide the two parts again in the same ratio, to represent degrees of clarity and obscurity.”
Describing the dividing line is a simple task, it consists of two basic sections. The two sections are then broke up into two segments. Soccio says on page 146, “The four segments illustrate four ways of apprehending four components of reality; two each of being and becoming.”
The divided line can be further explained and are as following. Understanding and reasoning sit on the top and are the “World of Form” ort as Plato also says, the being. Those top two are the intelligible world. They also help to separate from knowledge and opinion; in this case the top two are knowledge. Secondly are the two ideas of perception and imagination. These two ideals are, as Plato puts it, in the visible world. They are also included in the idea of opinion.
Plato says that as you move down the “Divided Line” the degree of truth is on a constant decrease. For example, the highest form is “The Good.” Next, but still in the top tear of the divided line, comes the lower forms which are humans. Then when you break the barrier to the visible world/opinion you will find sensible objects. For example, one would find the Pope in this category. Finally, the last part (imagination) one could find a picture of the Pope.
In the column of epistemology, holds understanding, reasoning, perception, imagination. Understanding is the level of pure intelligence. It is the place what the highest of all truths is here. Next comes reasoning, here is ideas like mathematical thinking and deductive reasoning. Thirdly, perception is the level of belief, common ideas or politics, things of a lower degree of thinking. Lastly in Plato’s epistemological views is imagination, uncritical impressions are here.
To sum up, on page 146 in Soccio, “Well, take a line divided into two unequal parts, corresponding to the visible and intelligible worlds, and then divide the two parts again in the same ratio, to represent degrees of clarity and obscurity.”
Plato (student of Scocretes, 427-348 B.C)
Plato (student of Scocretes, 427-348 B.C) said that the universe has two basic dimensions of existence. He said that there is a World of Forms and a normal world. The normal world would be the one that we are living on.
Plato says that there must be a standard for beauty. For beauty to fully exist there has to be something to compare it to. When we look at beauty here on Earth we know that there is a beauty in the World of Forms. The beauty in the World of Forms can be stated as the absolute beauty or the top degree of beauty. Plato says that all human beauty does not exist because it is relative to each human and the only reason we think someone is beautiful is because of what we see in other humans. He also says that goodness and beauty come together.
Plato says that math is discovered. He says that it is discovered in the World of forms. In the World of forms holds every math formula known to man, and even some that have yet to be “discovered” in the World. He also says, for example, that there is a perfect right triangle in the World of Forms that all the right triangles on Earth are compared to. Plato’s main idea is that one cannot invent math, but rather they can discover math in the World of Forms.
Plato held a strong belief against democracy, even though nearly all thought it to be the ideal form of government. For Plato, the ideal form of government would be controlled by philosopher-kings. Soccio raises this point, “In Book VIII of the Republic, Plato discusses different kinds of governments and the types of souls each produces. He argues that democracy grows out of a type of government called oligarchy, the rule of a wealthy few. Because the chief aim of the oligarchs is to get rich, they create a constitution and type of government that encourage the acquisition of property.” (pg. 158) Plato also says that the as the rich get richer the poor get poorer and as the rich get richer the poor get angrier and will eventually overthrow the government because of this. Plato would be completely against anyone who say the democracy is the best form of government.
Plato says that there must be a standard for beauty. For beauty to fully exist there has to be something to compare it to. When we look at beauty here on Earth we know that there is a beauty in the World of Forms. The beauty in the World of Forms can be stated as the absolute beauty or the top degree of beauty. Plato says that all human beauty does not exist because it is relative to each human and the only reason we think someone is beautiful is because of what we see in other humans. He also says that goodness and beauty come together.
Plato says that math is discovered. He says that it is discovered in the World of forms. In the World of forms holds every math formula known to man, and even some that have yet to be “discovered” in the World. He also says, for example, that there is a perfect right triangle in the World of Forms that all the right triangles on Earth are compared to. Plato’s main idea is that one cannot invent math, but rather they can discover math in the World of Forms.
Plato held a strong belief against democracy, even though nearly all thought it to be the ideal form of government. For Plato, the ideal form of government would be controlled by philosopher-kings. Soccio raises this point, “In Book VIII of the Republic, Plato discusses different kinds of governments and the types of souls each produces. He argues that democracy grows out of a type of government called oligarchy, the rule of a wealthy few. Because the chief aim of the oligarchs is to get rich, they create a constitution and type of government that encourage the acquisition of property.” (pg. 158) Plato also says that the as the rich get richer the poor get poorer and as the rich get richer the poor get angrier and will eventually overthrow the government because of this. Plato would be completely against anyone who say the democracy is the best form of government.
Socrates (470-399 B.C)
Socrates (470-399 B.C) constantly preached the phrase, “Know thyself.” Then in the final hours of Socrates, he spoke the phrase, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He said that a life like this would be incomplete, it is not fully functioning and it lacks virtue or any from an excellence. Greek for soul, psyche was a major point in the ideals of Socrates. Psyche in today’s terms, is a combination of mind and soul. As Soccio puts it, “An unexamined life is a life that takes the psyche for granted. An unexamined life is, in a sense and unconscious life. It is lived on the minimal level: Thinking never rises above practical concerns; desires are rarely pondered; custom habit and unquestioned beliefs substitute for reflection and assessment.” (pg. 116) An examined life is a life that is devoted to the advancement of intellect and does not and cannot take the psyche for granted.
B| Socrates would say that ethics is relative to the culture. One thing in a western culture could have a completely different view point to an Islamic culture. For example, sacrificing of animals is considered pointless and cruel to and American culture. On the other side of the coin, the killing of animals is considered necessary and is practiced frequently in other cultures.
Virtues defined as, human excellence is it a combination of knowledge and understanding. A word that Socrates uses to describe this is, techne. Techno is a Greek term for practical knowledge of how to do things. Soccio says that, “At various times, teche meant art, skill, craft, technique, trade, system, or method o doing something. It is the root of English words such as technique, technical, and technology. Techne is knowledge of what to do and how to do it. It is knowledge of both mean and ultimate ends.” (pg. 122) Good virtues will lead to happiness. One must follow three specific virtues: mind, body and character. Must have a good mind, a good body (that exercises) and have great character, no lying or stealing. If one does this that will reach human excellence, which leads to happiness.
No one knowingly does evil as Soccio states, “The fundamental Socratic imperative “Know thyself” takes on special significance in light of Socrates’ views that human beings always seek what they believe to be their own welfare and cannot deliberately do otherwise.” (pg. 121) Socrates says that the good and the harm are determined by what the individual thinks is good for their soul. They think that at the moment of the wrong doing they are ignorant to what the effects are and what they are truly doing.
B| Socrates would say that ethics is relative to the culture. One thing in a western culture could have a completely different view point to an Islamic culture. For example, sacrificing of animals is considered pointless and cruel to and American culture. On the other side of the coin, the killing of animals is considered necessary and is practiced frequently in other cultures.
Virtues defined as, human excellence is it a combination of knowledge and understanding. A word that Socrates uses to describe this is, techne. Techno is a Greek term for practical knowledge of how to do things. Soccio says that, “At various times, teche meant art, skill, craft, technique, trade, system, or method o doing something. It is the root of English words such as technique, technical, and technology. Techne is knowledge of what to do and how to do it. It is knowledge of both mean and ultimate ends.” (pg. 122) Good virtues will lead to happiness. One must follow three specific virtues: mind, body and character. Must have a good mind, a good body (that exercises) and have great character, no lying or stealing. If one does this that will reach human excellence, which leads to happiness.
No one knowingly does evil as Soccio states, “The fundamental Socratic imperative “Know thyself” takes on special significance in light of Socrates’ views that human beings always seek what they believe to be their own welfare and cannot deliberately do otherwise.” (pg. 121) Socrates says that the good and the harm are determined by what the individual thinks is good for their soul. They think that at the moment of the wrong doing they are ignorant to what the effects are and what they are truly doing.
greatest sophist to ever live
As some would say, the was Protagoras (481-411 B.C). He became a famous teacher in Athens and became wealthy and powerful. Protagoras concluded that morals are just social traditions of a society. The reason it is right is that it is the best and almost only way to live and be successful in life in Athens.
In Soccio on page 87, “Protagoras predicted a crucial tenet of modern social science: Our values are determined by our culture, our conditioning, our experience, and our particular biopsychology. It is, according to Protagoras, utterly impossible to form a culture-free or context-free belief. For instance, philosophy students born, raised and educated in Moscow, Russia, cannot help but “see” a different world that do those born, raised in Moscow, Idaho.” Rooting from the Greek word, “pragma” pragmatics believe that beliefs are to be interpreted in terms of whether they work or their usefulness. Pragmatic ideas have meaning or truth value to the extent that they produce practical results and are effective in furthinering arms.
Those who do not willingly submit to those in power or depend on a group for clout are represented well by Callicles. His version of moral realism goes by many names including, the doctrine of the superior individual, the true man, the natural man and the superman. These ideas lead to hints of racism. He goes on to say that a person can be superior, but not because of race of any religious back but rather the individual virtues and traits.
Callicles separated what is right by nature from what is right by convention. It is further explained in Soccio on page 93,” Callicles asserts that by nature the strong dominate the weak, whereas conventional morality tries to restrain the superior, strong, truly powerful individual. In nature, the survival of the fittest is the rule. This, said Sophists such as Callicles, shows that power is the ultimate value and that the superior and powerful individual has a natural right to dominate others. All people are no more created equal than all animals are.
In Soccio on page 87, “Protagoras predicted a crucial tenet of modern social science: Our values are determined by our culture, our conditioning, our experience, and our particular biopsychology. It is, according to Protagoras, utterly impossible to form a culture-free or context-free belief. For instance, philosophy students born, raised and educated in Moscow, Russia, cannot help but “see” a different world that do those born, raised in Moscow, Idaho.” Rooting from the Greek word, “pragma” pragmatics believe that beliefs are to be interpreted in terms of whether they work or their usefulness. Pragmatic ideas have meaning or truth value to the extent that they produce practical results and are effective in furthinering arms.
Those who do not willingly submit to those in power or depend on a group for clout are represented well by Callicles. His version of moral realism goes by many names including, the doctrine of the superior individual, the true man, the natural man and the superman. These ideas lead to hints of racism. He goes on to say that a person can be superior, but not because of race of any religious back but rather the individual virtues and traits.
Callicles separated what is right by nature from what is right by convention. It is further explained in Soccio on page 93,” Callicles asserts that by nature the strong dominate the weak, whereas conventional morality tries to restrain the superior, strong, truly powerful individual. In nature, the survival of the fittest is the rule. This, said Sophists such as Callicles, shows that power is the ultimate value and that the superior and powerful individual has a natural right to dominate others. All people are no more created equal than all animals are.
Is Technology a Positive or Negative, in a Personal Respect?
Whether we like it or not technology changes the way we live and is here to stay. It can help us with communication across the world in the flick of a second. It can help us to improve the intellectual status of our minds. Technology helps people basically get through the day. After being exposed to the invention of technology, there is no turning back. It may make things more complicated, but isn’t that the goal of humans as a species, to advance ourselves as we see possible. Although people may think that technology depersonalizes us, it really doesn’t. Technology does also help people expose their identity, where without technology they could not.
Technology plays a vital role in today’s society. It helps us to personalize ourselves. For example, people that who would usually sit home and not explore the world and the world’s people can now use the internet to express themselves. Other humans can learn about certain attributes of people they would normally not have any such contact with. For example, someone can easily find out a personal bio out on the internet that shares their unique and personal qualities. Without the bio internet users and other people would not know the personal qualities of the blogger. The internet helps to personalize people because otherwise their personal qualities would not be exposed and they would just be a microscopic little human on a large planet.
Furthermore, there are many more ways in which technology can help to personalize us. Another simple example is the mobile telephone. People can interact with each other with the click of a button. They can share ideals and educate themselves on each and others personal qualities just through the phone. They can discover if someone is mean or if someone is caring or even generous. People can use the phone to set up events and to establish how they will plan their lives. Without the phone they might be on their own and they might end up being secluded from society. Without the phone they might be depersonalized in their residence.
At the end of the day, technology has a positive personal affect on mankind. Technology helps us to share our ideals with the world. It helps us to share our qualities with the world and to increase our quality of life. Without technology many of us would be just an insignificant human being on this earth. Technology helps us to live a life that can include a personal level. In conclusion, technology helps us to learn other person’s attributes and to share our own.
Technology plays a vital role in today’s society. It helps us to personalize ourselves. For example, people that who would usually sit home and not explore the world and the world’s people can now use the internet to express themselves. Other humans can learn about certain attributes of people they would normally not have any such contact with. For example, someone can easily find out a personal bio out on the internet that shares their unique and personal qualities. Without the bio internet users and other people would not know the personal qualities of the blogger. The internet helps to personalize people because otherwise their personal qualities would not be exposed and they would just be a microscopic little human on a large planet.
Furthermore, there are many more ways in which technology can help to personalize us. Another simple example is the mobile telephone. People can interact with each other with the click of a button. They can share ideals and educate themselves on each and others personal qualities just through the phone. They can discover if someone is mean or if someone is caring or even generous. People can use the phone to set up events and to establish how they will plan their lives. Without the phone they might be on their own and they might end up being secluded from society. Without the phone they might be depersonalized in their residence.
At the end of the day, technology has a positive personal affect on mankind. Technology helps us to share our ideals with the world. It helps us to share our qualities with the world and to increase our quality of life. Without technology many of us would be just an insignificant human being on this earth. Technology helps us to live a life that can include a personal level. In conclusion, technology helps us to learn other person’s attributes and to share our own.
Are Beliefs Actually Believed by the Believer?
Everyone has diverse ideas on numerous ideas and topics. But do people really believe what they think they do? Do people feel that something is true when it may not be? I feel that no matter what someone sees or hears they cannot know for sure it is real. I feel that some things have a higher probability of being real while others are more uncertain. Directly verifiable qualities fall in the greater than 99 percent likely category. They are qualities that appear real, but there is no definite way to prove them. It could always just be a dream, the 1%. Indirectly qualities are less likely, but still is easily over 50 percent likely to be real. Moving on, anything that is not verifiable is even less likely to be real. Although people may feel they believe something is real (even though it most likely is) they should keep an open mind on the fact that it may not be true.
Directly verifiable qualities, including sights and sounds, are nearly always a true occurrence. For example, if someone sees a dog running through a park they can directly verify that the dog is taking a stroll through the park. Although they can verify the dogs existence does not mean that it is real. According to the viewers perspective, the dog is there. But the dog could be an illusion of some sort. For example, the dog running through the park could be a part a dream that is so vivid it seems real. These dreams or illusions are what could fall into the category of less than one percent of all cases that people presume to be real.
In direct verification is a little less probable. It has to do with ideas and events that you hear through people or documents. Also the further back you go in history the less reliable the “thing” is. For example, if someone tells you about the civil war and you read the same thing in documents from during this time period, this is an example of indirect verification. The chances of it being true are slightly slimmer than those of direct verification. The true facts could have easily been lost in the shuffle or could have easily been exaggerated at the point when it was written down or even when the stories were told between person and person. Also the idea of it being a dream could be included in the indirect verification. There is no definite way of knowing that anything is real.
Similar to Russell I feel that you should not believe everything you see or hear. You can believe stuff, but must have an open mind as there is no single way to absolutely prove something’s existence. Beliefs are ideas that help people get through the day. I am not saying that people should not believe in anything, just that they need to prepare themselves for the one percent of the time that something that they truly believe does not hold true. So whether or not something is proven to be directly verifiable or indirectly verifiable, one must be able to not let their beliefs on something limit their imagination. Basically, I feel that you can believe anything you want no matter if it is concrete or not, one just must be able to look at possibilities they thought were not possible.
Directly verifiable qualities, including sights and sounds, are nearly always a true occurrence. For example, if someone sees a dog running through a park they can directly verify that the dog is taking a stroll through the park. Although they can verify the dogs existence does not mean that it is real. According to the viewers perspective, the dog is there. But the dog could be an illusion of some sort. For example, the dog running through the park could be a part a dream that is so vivid it seems real. These dreams or illusions are what could fall into the category of less than one percent of all cases that people presume to be real.
In direct verification is a little less probable. It has to do with ideas and events that you hear through people or documents. Also the further back you go in history the less reliable the “thing” is. For example, if someone tells you about the civil war and you read the same thing in documents from during this time period, this is an example of indirect verification. The chances of it being true are slightly slimmer than those of direct verification. The true facts could have easily been lost in the shuffle or could have easily been exaggerated at the point when it was written down or even when the stories were told between person and person. Also the idea of it being a dream could be included in the indirect verification. There is no definite way of knowing that anything is real.
Similar to Russell I feel that you should not believe everything you see or hear. You can believe stuff, but must have an open mind as there is no single way to absolutely prove something’s existence. Beliefs are ideas that help people get through the day. I am not saying that people should not believe in anything, just that they need to prepare themselves for the one percent of the time that something that they truly believe does not hold true. So whether or not something is proven to be directly verifiable or indirectly verifiable, one must be able to not let their beliefs on something limit their imagination. Basically, I feel that you can believe anything you want no matter if it is concrete or not, one just must be able to look at possibilities they thought were not possible.
Is lying always relative? Or are there different situations?
When someone is criticized for spilling a lie they must be given the benefit of the doubt. Many times a lie proves to be more of a positive then a negative. It truly depends on the situation. For example, common parenthood has proven to use the ideal of lying. The most common form of lying is explaining the existence of creature such as Santa or the Easter Bunny. Parents use this technique to keep children in good behavior and to improve the childhood excitement of their children. In many other parenting situation It unconditionally proves to be the simple, easier, and better way to express something through a lie to a child. To me, it all depends on the situation. There are, in fact, isolated situations that happen only 99 percent of the time.
Can the same lie be deemed right and wrong at the same time? Most lies depend on the situation in hand. For example, if someone came out of their room and had a new outfit on and asked their husband how they looked, the husband would have to options. If it was time to go, otherwise the couple would be late then he should say his wife looks good even if she doesn’t because otherwise she would feel bad all night and the truth would not help anyone in the long run. On the other side of the coin, if there was still a half an hour left before the two had to depart then the obvious thing to do would be to tell the truth in a thoughtful manner. In this case the truth helps because it exposes a possible flaw that, with the truth, could be fixed. In this example the rightness and wrongness of a lie can be variable. It all depends on if the lie will do more “good” then it will “bad.”
On the other hand there are situations where lying is always wrong. Although a small percentage some lies do not have a positive outcome for the situation as a whole. For example, if one were to commit a murder they could be forced to continue making lies to cover the first lie, the second lie, and so on. Then ultimately the final and 1% of always bad lies can occur in trial on the “witness bench.” A lawyer may ask something that would contradict the facts of the events that occur during the murder, and the lie would add merit to false evidence and in the end send an innocent man to prison for a crime that the liar committed. The lie would prove to be far more bad then good. The convicted murderer and his family and friends would have to live with the fact that he will be in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. The liar would be given a guilty conscience. In this case, it is never ok the lie about something that can have such high affects and lying about capital crimes is never an okay thing to do.
At the end of the day, a lie usually depends on the situation. It is okay to tell lies that either help everyone are for greater good. It is okay to tell lies that make people feel good and have no harm on other bystanders. A common example is saying “good game” to people after a sporting event. Sometime, in some situations it is never okay to lie, but again these cases only happen about 1 percent of the time.
Can the same lie be deemed right and wrong at the same time? Most lies depend on the situation in hand. For example, if someone came out of their room and had a new outfit on and asked their husband how they looked, the husband would have to options. If it was time to go, otherwise the couple would be late then he should say his wife looks good even if she doesn’t because otherwise she would feel bad all night and the truth would not help anyone in the long run. On the other side of the coin, if there was still a half an hour left before the two had to depart then the obvious thing to do would be to tell the truth in a thoughtful manner. In this case the truth helps because it exposes a possible flaw that, with the truth, could be fixed. In this example the rightness and wrongness of a lie can be variable. It all depends on if the lie will do more “good” then it will “bad.”
On the other hand there are situations where lying is always wrong. Although a small percentage some lies do not have a positive outcome for the situation as a whole. For example, if one were to commit a murder they could be forced to continue making lies to cover the first lie, the second lie, and so on. Then ultimately the final and 1% of always bad lies can occur in trial on the “witness bench.” A lawyer may ask something that would contradict the facts of the events that occur during the murder, and the lie would add merit to false evidence and in the end send an innocent man to prison for a crime that the liar committed. The lie would prove to be far more bad then good. The convicted murderer and his family and friends would have to live with the fact that he will be in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. The liar would be given a guilty conscience. In this case, it is never ok the lie about something that can have such high affects and lying about capital crimes is never an okay thing to do.
At the end of the day, a lie usually depends on the situation. It is okay to tell lies that either help everyone are for greater good. It is okay to tell lies that make people feel good and have no harm on other bystanders. A common example is saying “good game” to people after a sporting event. Sometime, in some situations it is never okay to lie, but again these cases only happen about 1 percent of the time.
Is Religion just an Idea to help someone get through the Day?
According to Karl Marx, “Religion is the opium of the people.” In other words it is the escape goat for people that want an explanation in their lives. It also helps people feel that their live are not all negative. The “opium” in the phrase, is the commonly used drug during the times of Marx. Like using the opium for pleasure, Marx says that religion is the same thing. He claims that religion is only prevalent so that people who do not enjoy their lives they can look to religion for answers. And that there will be a happy afterlife so that all the work they are doing on Earth will pay off when they reach eternal life. But the real question is, why does religion need to be an idea, why can’t it just a coincidence that it works this way and gives people a better quality of life?
To me, religion can exist as a reality and an “opium of the people.” Every single cause can have many diverse effects. For example, food may become expired and then give food poison to the person that intakes that spoiled food. Just because someone got sick from the food does not mean the sickness is the single reason why the food was in existence. This goes for religion too. In a Christian view, God can exist and give an “opium” to the people and still be the Christian God he is. Religion is not only there because people do not like their lives and need an escape valve. It just happens to be one of the offshoots that religion can give to people who believe in it.
Marx is not completely wrong with his idea of the “Opium of the people.” I feel he is half correct. Religion has a way of making people look on the bright side and give people a reason to live their lives knowing they will have a fabulous afterlife. Marx is wrong in the idea that religion is just an idea to make people work more and make people happier. It seems that Marx thinks religion is too good to be true. Religion could technically be the opium of the people, but it can also be far more than that.
It would make sense for someone to develop the idea of God and religion as a way of making people feel more content and to increase their working productivity. But looking at the roots of religion one will find that there would be no point to this idea during the time religion would have been “invented.” Historians can date scriptures back hundreds (MOM!! Thousands?) of years before Christ. During this time it would not make much sense to invent religion because humans were not putting in 12 hour days and they would have to be content with their lives because they do not have much to compare other live with their own. People may continue to say that religion is false, but what would drive someone to develop such a sophisticated “system?” In the end, Marx is somewhat correct, but fails to look at the fact that religion could be a real thing that tends to give followers a better outlook on life.
To me, religion can exist as a reality and an “opium of the people.” Every single cause can have many diverse effects. For example, food may become expired and then give food poison to the person that intakes that spoiled food. Just because someone got sick from the food does not mean the sickness is the single reason why the food was in existence. This goes for religion too. In a Christian view, God can exist and give an “opium” to the people and still be the Christian God he is. Religion is not only there because people do not like their lives and need an escape valve. It just happens to be one of the offshoots that religion can give to people who believe in it.
Marx is not completely wrong with his idea of the “Opium of the people.” I feel he is half correct. Religion has a way of making people look on the bright side and give people a reason to live their lives knowing they will have a fabulous afterlife. Marx is wrong in the idea that religion is just an idea to make people work more and make people happier. It seems that Marx thinks religion is too good to be true. Religion could technically be the opium of the people, but it can also be far more than that.
It would make sense for someone to develop the idea of God and religion as a way of making people feel more content and to increase their working productivity. But looking at the roots of religion one will find that there would be no point to this idea during the time religion would have been “invented.” Historians can date scriptures back hundreds (MOM!! Thousands?) of years before Christ. During this time it would not make much sense to invent religion because humans were not putting in 12 hour days and they would have to be content with their lives because they do not have much to compare other live with their own. People may continue to say that religion is false, but what would drive someone to develop such a sophisticated “system?” In the end, Marx is somewhat correct, but fails to look at the fact that religion could be a real thing that tends to give followers a better outlook on life.
Is Religion just an Idea to help someone get through the Day?
According to Karl Marx, “Religion is the opium of the people.” In other words it is the escape goat for people that want an explanation in their lives. It also helps people feel that their live are not all negative. The “opium” in the phrase, is the commonly used drug during the times of Marx. Like using the opium for pleasure, Marx says that religion is the same thing. He claims that religion is only prevalent so that people who do not enjoy their lives they can look to religion for answers. And that there will be a happy afterlife so that all the work they are doing on Earth will pay off when they reach eternal life. But the real question is, why does religion need to be an idea, why can’t it just a coincidence that it works this way and gives people a better quality of life?
To me, religion can exist as a reality and an “opium of the people.” Every single cause can have many diverse effects. For example, food may become expired and then give food poison to the person that intakes that spoiled food. Just because someone got sick from the food does not mean the sickness is the single reason why the food was in existence. This goes for religion too. In a Christian view, God can exist and give an “opium” to the people and still be the Christian God he is. Religion is not only there because people do not like their lives and need an escape valve. It just happens to be one of the offshoots that religion can give to people who believe in it.
Marx is not completely wrong with his idea of the “Opium of the people.” I feel he is half correct. Religion has a way of making people look on the bright side and give people a reason to live their lives knowing they will have a fabulous afterlife. Marx is wrong in the idea that religion is just an idea to make people work more and make people happier. It seems that Marx thinks religion is too good to be true. Religion could technically be the opium of the people, but it can also be far more than that.
It would make sense for someone to develop the idea of God and religion as a way of making people feel more content and to increase their working productivity. But looking at the roots of religion one will find that there would be no point to this idea during the time religion would have been “invented.” Historians can date scriptures back hundreds (MOM!! Thousands?) of years before Christ. During this time it would not make much sense to invent religion because humans were not putting in 12 hour days and they would have to be content with their lives because they do not have much to compare other live with their own. People may continue to say that religion is false, but what would drive someone to develop such a sophisticated “system?” In the end, Marx is somewhat correct, but fails to look at the fact that religion could be a real thing that tends to give followers a better outlook on life.
To me, religion can exist as a reality and an “opium of the people.” Every single cause can have many diverse effects. For example, food may become expired and then give food poison to the person that intakes that spoiled food. Just because someone got sick from the food does not mean the sickness is the single reason why the food was in existence. This goes for religion too. In a Christian view, God can exist and give an “opium” to the people and still be the Christian God he is. Religion is not only there because people do not like their lives and need an escape valve. It just happens to be one of the offshoots that religion can give to people who believe in it.
Marx is not completely wrong with his idea of the “Opium of the people.” I feel he is half correct. Religion has a way of making people look on the bright side and give people a reason to live their lives knowing they will have a fabulous afterlife. Marx is wrong in the idea that religion is just an idea to make people work more and make people happier. It seems that Marx thinks religion is too good to be true. Religion could technically be the opium of the people, but it can also be far more than that.
It would make sense for someone to develop the idea of God and religion as a way of making people feel more content and to increase their working productivity. But looking at the roots of religion one will find that there would be no point to this idea during the time religion would have been “invented.” Historians can date scriptures back hundreds (MOM!! Thousands?) of years before Christ. During this time it would not make much sense to invent religion because humans were not putting in 12 hour days and they would have to be content with their lives because they do not have much to compare other live with their own. People may continue to say that religion is false, but what would drive someone to develop such a sophisticated “system?” In the end, Marx is somewhat correct, but fails to look at the fact that religion could be a real thing that tends to give followers a better outlook on life.
The Longstanding Debate over Primary/Secondary Qualities
When we look at an object at rest, we can use such words as blue, heavy, dense, single, quiet, loud or any other word like this to describe it. But do we ever think about what the words actually mean or represent behind the actual description? A philosopher named John Locke attempts to argue that everything has primary qualities and secondary qualities. I do agree with his reasoning except for the categories where he places the qualities. Locke says that primary qualities include solidity, amount, and figure. He then says that everything has secondary qualities that include color, taste, smell, and sound. But are the qualities in the correct categories?
Take number for example, there always has to be a certain amount of something. The quality of a number does not change when a different person looks at it. The quality is definite and a basic scientific quality of the piece of matter. For this reason alone the quality of a number is a primary quality because it is not dependent on who is observing the object.
John Locke argues that color is a secondary quality because he states that it depends on the person looking at it. I believe that since color depends on the reflection of light that the quality of the object is set in stone. Unless altered, a red apple will always be red no matter whom or what looks at it. Although a counter argument may say that animals see in black and white and would not be able to see the red in the apple. I would say that is not true because although the animal may see a shade of gray, that shade would be the red and the animal’s eye just cannot see the color. And since the color is always the same, the quality is a primary one.
On the flip side of the coin, taste has all to do with the beholder. If taste was a primary quality then everyone would always eat one food that was the “best” tasting food. The taste is different for every person. Sometimes taste can depend on what someone was eating before or what kind of tastes they have lurking in their mouth from previous foods. The quality of taste is secondary because it changes, depending on the person tasting it.
The same holds true for smell. Although many psychologists will say that there is an absolute threshold for smell, I feel everyone has a different degree of smell and that degree of smell can change with mood and attitude. For example, if one is hungry and they are inclined to use their senses to find food then the increase of senses is mainly focused in to the sense of smell. Therefore the quality of smell is secondary because the smell is always different and can even change throughout the day.
The idea of primary and secondary qualities is a strong case. To me, it all depends on whether or not the quality is definite. If it can be different for every person and if it cannot be consistent then the quality is primary. If the quality is different for even one person then the quality is secondary.
Take number for example, there always has to be a certain amount of something. The quality of a number does not change when a different person looks at it. The quality is definite and a basic scientific quality of the piece of matter. For this reason alone the quality of a number is a primary quality because it is not dependent on who is observing the object.
John Locke argues that color is a secondary quality because he states that it depends on the person looking at it. I believe that since color depends on the reflection of light that the quality of the object is set in stone. Unless altered, a red apple will always be red no matter whom or what looks at it. Although a counter argument may say that animals see in black and white and would not be able to see the red in the apple. I would say that is not true because although the animal may see a shade of gray, that shade would be the red and the animal’s eye just cannot see the color. And since the color is always the same, the quality is a primary one.
On the flip side of the coin, taste has all to do with the beholder. If taste was a primary quality then everyone would always eat one food that was the “best” tasting food. The taste is different for every person. Sometimes taste can depend on what someone was eating before or what kind of tastes they have lurking in their mouth from previous foods. The quality of taste is secondary because it changes, depending on the person tasting it.
The same holds true for smell. Although many psychologists will say that there is an absolute threshold for smell, I feel everyone has a different degree of smell and that degree of smell can change with mood and attitude. For example, if one is hungry and they are inclined to use their senses to find food then the increase of senses is mainly focused in to the sense of smell. Therefore the quality of smell is secondary because the smell is always different and can even change throughout the day.
The idea of primary and secondary qualities is a strong case. To me, it all depends on whether or not the quality is definite. If it can be different for every person and if it cannot be consistent then the quality is primary. If the quality is different for even one person then the quality is secondary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)