\VUR-bee-ij\, noun:
1. An overabundance of words; wordiness.
2. Manner or style of expression; diction.
~~~~~~~
Our lengthy discussion in class was an astute one, I think—examining Aristotle’s literature and language, it was noted by several students that the subjective connotations of the word “happy” fell in direct contradiction to claims that one could be deluded, and therefore not be experiencing true happiness. It was quickly understood that, should this be true, it would be extremely difficult to know whether or not one was happy, sad, angry, etc.
The problem, perhaps, is the word happy. In the example mentioned, a woman could live her entire life believing herself to be happy, but experiencing a delusion (Matrix?). Would it be fair, then, to say that she was not actually happy, and that after learning of her delusion, would believe herself never to have been happy?
The example Johnson gave in class is one I’ve heard before, and wrote down as an example—if one is experiencing a toothache, then there is no person better qualified to make that assessment. One can speak of the toothache’s origin, one can even say that the toothache is entirely a mental delusion, but this does not change the subjective impression of a toothache.
I think happiness is the same way. The women, being unable to recognize her delusion, experiences the mental, psychological and emotional effects of happiness. Though her directives are skewed and her life a sham, she still experiences happiness. This is the point that everyone is class was quick to jump on, and sensibly so.
The problem is the word—we most commonly associate it with the mood, rather than the lesser used (but in my opinion, still valid) definition as a state of satisfaction or fulfillment. Surely neither the woman nor we would deny that in fact she was bereft of a consciously fulfilled life, and upon learning of her delusion is forced to change her understanding, and now see her life as a sham. Her happiness, however, is a subjective reaction to her belief in a fulfilled life, and is not necessarily changed by revelation.
Marx seemed to advocate this view when he spoke of (at least some) housewives not having conscious happiness—instead of denying their subjective impression of happiness, he is denying their fulfillment as people, and the validity of their satisfaction. None of us would deny, then, that if happiness is defined as a mood, it cannot be contradicted by an outside authority, but neither should we agree that one’s satisfaction cannot be an objective truth.
There are subjective truths in the world, and something like a mood or a toothache are good examples of this. We need be wary, however, of stretching that medium too far—as it seems to me that there are far more objective truths that will have great bearing on human nature (such as one’s fulfillment and personal, conscious, autonomous satisfaction) that exist, and that these, on the whole, will set the stage for true insight into the matters at hand.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Panache
\puh-NASH; -NAHSH\, noun:
1. Dash or flamboyance in manner or style.
2. A plume or bunch of feathers, esp. such a bunch worn on the helmet; any military plume, or ornamental group of feathers.
~~~~~~~
Look up more.
http://www.xkcd.com/482/
1. Dash or flamboyance in manner or style.
2. A plume or bunch of feathers, esp. such a bunch worn on the helmet; any military plume, or ornamental group of feathers.
~~~~~~~
Look up more.
http://www.xkcd.com/482/
Friday, September 26, 2008
Edify
\ED-uh-fy\, transitive verb:
To instruct and improve, especially in moral and religious knowledge; to teach.
~~~~~~~
A small note from class—it is no secret that many government officials are not true representatives. They are elected on at least the ideal principle that they will provide representation in the government for the opinions of those who elected them. What often happens, and to no current reprimand, is nearly all elected officials arrive in government and are immediately influenced, paid for and essentially bribed by corporate interests. What was, in ideal, a representative for the people becomes a representative for monetary interests.
This comes to light especially in the rushed bail out plan of our current treasurer, which thankfully fell flat on its face. As it was discussed in class, and as I agree, the government needs to intervene when it comes to an enormous threat to the economy—we cannot tolerate another great depression. However, neither can it fix these massive economic problems with haste. So why try?
The treasurer is supposed to be a representative of our collective interests, not his own or that of his companions. His impartiality in fixing economic disasters such as this one is crucial—one cannot wait until disaster looms for personal interests, as these decisions affect us all. Rather than trying to fix Wall Street as a whole, it seems the makeshift bail-out plan was for a cause the treasurer is not designed to represent—and such bias could cause our country disaster if left unchecked. It is this kind of monetary, rather than representative, interest that seems of vital danger to the nation as a whole.
To instruct and improve, especially in moral and religious knowledge; to teach.
~~~~~~~
A small note from class—it is no secret that many government officials are not true representatives. They are elected on at least the ideal principle that they will provide representation in the government for the opinions of those who elected them. What often happens, and to no current reprimand, is nearly all elected officials arrive in government and are immediately influenced, paid for and essentially bribed by corporate interests. What was, in ideal, a representative for the people becomes a representative for monetary interests.
This comes to light especially in the rushed bail out plan of our current treasurer, which thankfully fell flat on its face. As it was discussed in class, and as I agree, the government needs to intervene when it comes to an enormous threat to the economy—we cannot tolerate another great depression. However, neither can it fix these massive economic problems with haste. So why try?
The treasurer is supposed to be a representative of our collective interests, not his own or that of his companions. His impartiality in fixing economic disasters such as this one is crucial—one cannot wait until disaster looms for personal interests, as these decisions affect us all. Rather than trying to fix Wall Street as a whole, it seems the makeshift bail-out plan was for a cause the treasurer is not designed to represent—and such bias could cause our country disaster if left unchecked. It is this kind of monetary, rather than representative, interest that seems of vital danger to the nation as a whole.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Beneficence
\buh-NEFF-i-suhns\, noun:
1. The practice of doing good; active goodness, kindness, or charity.
2. A charitable gift or act.
~~~~~~~
“No wise person would ever do evil voluntarily.”
The paragraph preceding this statement, as mentioned in chapter 2, entails Socrates’ beliefs on the necessity of self-knowledge. It is difficult, he says, no only to have a full life, but to act respectfully, morally and ethically without self-knowledge.
I think his thoughts on ethics are correct. While other discussions can be had about what really makes a happy life (and if the intellectually life would be happy for all), exploring morality suggest to me that investigation is an absolute and persistent necessity for it to function.
First of all, I must construct a platform—ethics is a self-governed set of principles concerning interaction and the self. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, as his enforcements and punishments are impossible to perceive in the natural world—in other words, even if he’s the one setting all the rules, we’re the ones choosing to follow, needing to explore and figuring out them. With or without God, we personally experience moral dilemmas, determine what hurts and harms, and act (or do not act) accordingly. If at the end of the day we believe in an absolute moral principle set by a higher authority, we have still delineated the details of that authority in much the same manner (provided we are all thoughtful) as a secular ethicist.
With that out of the way, I agree with Socrates that to construct an active, viable and compassionate morality, we must give thought to discover what helps and what harms. We must know what effect our actions have on others, and search inside ourselves unflinchingly to ensure we know why we act as we do. A strong sense of self-identity will allow conviction in times of moral indecision.
So in his statement, Socrates is not merely saying that an intelligent person would do no harm, but that to be an intelligent person, one must have a strong sense of self, and a similarly strong sense of morality. Wisdom entails a sort of moral exploration—it is departed from mere knowledge, and instead rings of a fuller intelligence, a thoughtful parsing of both natural details and human interaction—thoughtful both in observation and in compassion. If the word were knowledge or intelligence, I would say its colloquial term cannot be stretched, but I think the word wise still rings true in this manner.
1. The practice of doing good; active goodness, kindness, or charity.
2. A charitable gift or act.
~~~~~~~
“No wise person would ever do evil voluntarily.”
The paragraph preceding this statement, as mentioned in chapter 2, entails Socrates’ beliefs on the necessity of self-knowledge. It is difficult, he says, no only to have a full life, but to act respectfully, morally and ethically without self-knowledge.
I think his thoughts on ethics are correct. While other discussions can be had about what really makes a happy life (and if the intellectually life would be happy for all), exploring morality suggest to me that investigation is an absolute and persistent necessity for it to function.
First of all, I must construct a platform—ethics is a self-governed set of principles concerning interaction and the self. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, as his enforcements and punishments are impossible to perceive in the natural world—in other words, even if he’s the one setting all the rules, we’re the ones choosing to follow, needing to explore and figuring out them. With or without God, we personally experience moral dilemmas, determine what hurts and harms, and act (or do not act) accordingly. If at the end of the day we believe in an absolute moral principle set by a higher authority, we have still delineated the details of that authority in much the same manner (provided we are all thoughtful) as a secular ethicist.
With that out of the way, I agree with Socrates that to construct an active, viable and compassionate morality, we must give thought to discover what helps and what harms. We must know what effect our actions have on others, and search inside ourselves unflinchingly to ensure we know why we act as we do. A strong sense of self-identity will allow conviction in times of moral indecision.
So in his statement, Socrates is not merely saying that an intelligent person would do no harm, but that to be an intelligent person, one must have a strong sense of self, and a similarly strong sense of morality. Wisdom entails a sort of moral exploration—it is departed from mere knowledge, and instead rings of a fuller intelligence, a thoughtful parsing of both natural details and human interaction—thoughtful both in observation and in compassion. If the word were knowledge or intelligence, I would say its colloquial term cannot be stretched, but I think the word wise still rings true in this manner.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Hebetude
–noun
the state of being dull; lethargy.
~~~~~~~
Our discussions in class today were centered around Christianity and Jesus’ message. A lot of the dialogue helped to prune images of the Bible as a constant message (which few of us seemed to believe), and iron out Christian ideals. Throughout the entire discussion, though, and perhaps because it would have shifted focus too drastically, never once was the possibility of God’s nonexistence brought to the table.
Our discussion assumed that God existed. In the course of the Q&A, this was not necessary, as the question regarding Christian ethics/Jesus’ message and how they were applied to modern Christian. However, I feel it an absolutely necessary topic of discussion not only for the issues presented in class, but for human nature. Most certainly, our natures would vary incredibly with or without the hand of God.
We all seemed in relative agreement that at least occasionally the Bible was not an authoritative source of truth. Objections were levied as to who wrote the book, how we can trust the accuracy of such an old document, and the many places in which it contradicts itself. But on a larger level, what proof do we have beyond this document (as we’ve already questions the supposed proofs within it) to believe there is a God?
Indeed, a critical or scientific analysis of the world reveals no proof or need for a God. Many places that God was thought to be and many things he was thought to control have been explained through a rational lens. It would seem, in no uncertain terms, that the advancement of rational thinking has produced less and less proofs for God.
While I will probably at some point individually parse them, the ideas of Hell, micromanagement, miracles, supernatural phenomenon, personal revelation and natural proofs for God all fall flat under rational scrutiny. The only place left for God is to be the cause behind the effect of the universe—in other words, the hand that sprung the Big Bang. And even in this instance, though it is certain that there was a cause for that effect, it is not clear or reasonable to assume that that effect was God.
Some might question the veracity of a scientific way of thinking—in fact, this is probably the most common complaint against such clear evidence. But as I suspect (and hope) we will discuss in class, there seems no train of thought more suited to the endeavor of truth. For us to place our trust in faith, we are allowing truth to devolve into something wholly dependent on personal interpretation, a lack of conclusive evidence, and the imagination. It seems to me that truth emerges from demanding of oneself a reason to believe, and that a lack thereof is not virtue.
To round this up, I think instead of discussing details about the Bible, it would be more conducive to question the whole thing, and while we’re at it, the existence of God.
I am already suspecting, however, that there will be no small divergence of opinion. This is my eighth philosophy seminar at MCLA, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one like ours before.
the state of being dull; lethargy.
~~~~~~~
Our discussions in class today were centered around Christianity and Jesus’ message. A lot of the dialogue helped to prune images of the Bible as a constant message (which few of us seemed to believe), and iron out Christian ideals. Throughout the entire discussion, though, and perhaps because it would have shifted focus too drastically, never once was the possibility of God’s nonexistence brought to the table.
Our discussion assumed that God existed. In the course of the Q&A, this was not necessary, as the question regarding Christian ethics/Jesus’ message and how they were applied to modern Christian. However, I feel it an absolutely necessary topic of discussion not only for the issues presented in class, but for human nature. Most certainly, our natures would vary incredibly with or without the hand of God.
We all seemed in relative agreement that at least occasionally the Bible was not an authoritative source of truth. Objections were levied as to who wrote the book, how we can trust the accuracy of such an old document, and the many places in which it contradicts itself. But on a larger level, what proof do we have beyond this document (as we’ve already questions the supposed proofs within it) to believe there is a God?
Indeed, a critical or scientific analysis of the world reveals no proof or need for a God. Many places that God was thought to be and many things he was thought to control have been explained through a rational lens. It would seem, in no uncertain terms, that the advancement of rational thinking has produced less and less proofs for God.
While I will probably at some point individually parse them, the ideas of Hell, micromanagement, miracles, supernatural phenomenon, personal revelation and natural proofs for God all fall flat under rational scrutiny. The only place left for God is to be the cause behind the effect of the universe—in other words, the hand that sprung the Big Bang. And even in this instance, though it is certain that there was a cause for that effect, it is not clear or reasonable to assume that that effect was God.
Some might question the veracity of a scientific way of thinking—in fact, this is probably the most common complaint against such clear evidence. But as I suspect (and hope) we will discuss in class, there seems no train of thought more suited to the endeavor of truth. For us to place our trust in faith, we are allowing truth to devolve into something wholly dependent on personal interpretation, a lack of conclusive evidence, and the imagination. It seems to me that truth emerges from demanding of oneself a reason to believe, and that a lack thereof is not virtue.
To round this up, I think instead of discussing details about the Bible, it would be more conducive to question the whole thing, and while we’re at it, the existence of God.
I am already suspecting, however, that there will be no small divergence of opinion. This is my eighth philosophy seminar at MCLA, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one like ours before.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Evanescent
ev-uh-NES-unt, adjective
Liable to vanish or pass away like vapor; fleeting.
~~~~~~~
I often wonder why so many people I meet are attracted to or in many cases fully immersed in the idea that all of knowledge is subjective, that seeking truth is futile, and that those who claim to have it are pretentious and wrong. At first I thought it merely intellectual lethargy, but I think it goes deeper.
As explained in the previous post, it is easy to make the leap from a diversity of stupid opinions (our world is full of them, else we would not be arguing so often) to a doubtfulness about the existence of truth. It might even seem that humans on average are incapable of grasping some of the universe's greater truths, and in some respect, they are. I do not hesitate to claim we are at a very low tier in the wealth of potential knowledge--examining the bounds beyond the Earth alone can humble one into silence and even despondency.
But to me, the wealth of unknown is no criteria for forgoing explanation of it. If anything, the amount left to be known in the universe is exciting--imagine how boring the universe (and our intellectual lives) would be if there was nothing left to find. Similarly, I would be a very despondent person myself if I didn't believe that there is WAY more objective truth existing in the world than subjective truths that really do depend on the observer.
I suppose my conclusion is that the advances of science and even merely curious minds have produced startling correct observations about humans and the universe in the very short time humans have been on this planet, and researching (if only on wikipedia!) this information is a great boon to confidence about human potential and human reason in general. Reading many of the blogs, it seems to me a general infection of doubtfulness proliferates--I felt exactly the same when approaching philosophy, and occasionally, I feel the same now. But I hope very much that this mindset will not remain by the end of the course, or else we are in for 15 weeks of people shrugging and defending prefabricated points of view.
Not that I will be innocent of the same for the course of the semester (I have already occasionally noticed instinctual, rather than reasonable defense), but I too will strive for an open mind, and retain my understanding that truth does exist, and that we'll be able to find it even in the ludicrously wide bounds of human nature.
Liable to vanish or pass away like vapor; fleeting.
~~~~~~~
I often wonder why so many people I meet are attracted to or in many cases fully immersed in the idea that all of knowledge is subjective, that seeking truth is futile, and that those who claim to have it are pretentious and wrong. At first I thought it merely intellectual lethargy, but I think it goes deeper.
As explained in the previous post, it is easy to make the leap from a diversity of stupid opinions (our world is full of them, else we would not be arguing so often) to a doubtfulness about the existence of truth. It might even seem that humans on average are incapable of grasping some of the universe's greater truths, and in some respect, they are. I do not hesitate to claim we are at a very low tier in the wealth of potential knowledge--examining the bounds beyond the Earth alone can humble one into silence and even despondency.
But to me, the wealth of unknown is no criteria for forgoing explanation of it. If anything, the amount left to be known in the universe is exciting--imagine how boring the universe (and our intellectual lives) would be if there was nothing left to find. Similarly, I would be a very despondent person myself if I didn't believe that there is WAY more objective truth existing in the world than subjective truths that really do depend on the observer.
I suppose my conclusion is that the advances of science and even merely curious minds have produced startling correct observations about humans and the universe in the very short time humans have been on this planet, and researching (if only on wikipedia!) this information is a great boon to confidence about human potential and human reason in general. Reading many of the blogs, it seems to me a general infection of doubtfulness proliferates--I felt exactly the same when approaching philosophy, and occasionally, I feel the same now. But I hope very much that this mindset will not remain by the end of the course, or else we are in for 15 weeks of people shrugging and defending prefabricated points of view.
Not that I will be innocent of the same for the course of the semester (I have already occasionally noticed instinctual, rather than reasonable defense), but I too will strive for an open mind, and retain my understanding that truth does exist, and that we'll be able to find it even in the ludicrously wide bounds of human nature.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Subjectivism
–noun
1. Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.
(Ethical half of dictionary.com's definition of subjectivism excluding for irrelevance.)
~~~~~~~
The world is organized in a certain way. One’s initial inclination, in many cases, is to deny such a premise—the incredible perplexity of the world paired with a great diversity of opinion creates a sense of dubiousness about the human ability to reason. I know in my own experiences that frustration seizes the forefront when treading the wide range of possible explanations for any given phenomena. But does this impression rob us of the ability to find truth? And if so, in what areas?
Firstly, we can begin with an easy one, the natural world. Remember the desk (Sink counter? Ledge? I don’t know, whatever that thing is, you know what I’m talking about) Professor Johnson stands behind during class? There is little doubt to be had about its existence. We all see it, we can all mutually agree on its presence even if our perception of it varies (and variations will be minor—we aren’t doing anything but identifying its existence), and we can generally agree, as it exists among us and we can perform tests to ensure this, that it exists.
Is it so much of a jump to apply such a method to the natural world? It is obvious what I’m getting at now, the rub is science. While the word has a vast assortment of connotations by now, critical analysis (which here implies consideration for evidence, a recognition and discard of unsupported intuitions and careful consideration for facets) has perhaps less. When we perceive something in the natural world, we can first determine its existence, then its function, relation and components as part of our investigative analysis. I find it almost impossible to deny that there are a wide range of truths discovered and confirmed through this demanding critical analysis.
I am suggesting that science and its component of critical analysis acknowledges the ridiculously broad range of opinions in the world, and across centuries has bettered itself in the interest of finding the truth—by determining a set of criteria (evidence, testing, reason) that can whittle down the false. We all know an idiotic opinion when we hear one, and we can train ourselves to recognize even more.
This is no esoteric endeavor, either, as we are all imbued with such a tendency For example: you hear someone has transferred to another school from a person who is not always informed. You are initial skeptical due to this person’s dubious information, and then later, you see the aforementioned person in the quad. You hypothesize intuitively that they have not transferred, and by then asking them, and being told this is not the case, have confirmed your hypothesis as truth.
Blah blah blah, I am still not feeling that I am sufficiently clear. True, the natural world is an appealing target for this scientific approach, but what about the subjects we were discussing in class, the reason I am prattling in the first place? Instead of going with my natural inclination right now and listing what I think, I am only going to suggest that during the class, we try and transpose the access to truths that critical/scientific thinking provides about the natural world onto the subjects at hand.
We may very well find, as scientists did when trying to unearth the natural world, that the diversity of opinion is inevitable, but is incapable of rendering truth subjective. Is it so hard to believe, considering that so many things in the universe can be whittled down to one accurate fact, that the same can be found among more contentious topics? Certainly the mutating aspect of human nature will play a role, but I have never found a question rendered impossible to resolve by too many false answers, only questions that have yet to receive a correct answer. Without critical analysis, the shrug and the “who can say” approach will get tedious quickly. I look forward to seeing what truths (whatever they are) we can derive.
And I apologize to anyone I interrupted in class. It is an unfortunate tendency of mine and I hope I did not offend; my eagerness precedes me too often.
1. Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.
(Ethical half of dictionary.com's definition of subjectivism excluding for irrelevance.)
~~~~~~~
The world is organized in a certain way. One’s initial inclination, in many cases, is to deny such a premise—the incredible perplexity of the world paired with a great diversity of opinion creates a sense of dubiousness about the human ability to reason. I know in my own experiences that frustration seizes the forefront when treading the wide range of possible explanations for any given phenomena. But does this impression rob us of the ability to find truth? And if so, in what areas?
Firstly, we can begin with an easy one, the natural world. Remember the desk (Sink counter? Ledge? I don’t know, whatever that thing is, you know what I’m talking about) Professor Johnson stands behind during class? There is little doubt to be had about its existence. We all see it, we can all mutually agree on its presence even if our perception of it varies (and variations will be minor—we aren’t doing anything but identifying its existence), and we can generally agree, as it exists among us and we can perform tests to ensure this, that it exists.
Is it so much of a jump to apply such a method to the natural world? It is obvious what I’m getting at now, the rub is science. While the word has a vast assortment of connotations by now, critical analysis (which here implies consideration for evidence, a recognition and discard of unsupported intuitions and careful consideration for facets) has perhaps less. When we perceive something in the natural world, we can first determine its existence, then its function, relation and components as part of our investigative analysis. I find it almost impossible to deny that there are a wide range of truths discovered and confirmed through this demanding critical analysis.
I am suggesting that science and its component of critical analysis acknowledges the ridiculously broad range of opinions in the world, and across centuries has bettered itself in the interest of finding the truth—by determining a set of criteria (evidence, testing, reason) that can whittle down the false. We all know an idiotic opinion when we hear one, and we can train ourselves to recognize even more.
This is no esoteric endeavor, either, as we are all imbued with such a tendency For example: you hear someone has transferred to another school from a person who is not always informed. You are initial skeptical due to this person’s dubious information, and then later, you see the aforementioned person in the quad. You hypothesize intuitively that they have not transferred, and by then asking them, and being told this is not the case, have confirmed your hypothesis as truth.
Blah blah blah, I am still not feeling that I am sufficiently clear. True, the natural world is an appealing target for this scientific approach, but what about the subjects we were discussing in class, the reason I am prattling in the first place? Instead of going with my natural inclination right now and listing what I think, I am only going to suggest that during the class, we try and transpose the access to truths that critical/scientific thinking provides about the natural world onto the subjects at hand.
We may very well find, as scientists did when trying to unearth the natural world, that the diversity of opinion is inevitable, but is incapable of rendering truth subjective. Is it so hard to believe, considering that so many things in the universe can be whittled down to one accurate fact, that the same can be found among more contentious topics? Certainly the mutating aspect of human nature will play a role, but I have never found a question rendered impossible to resolve by too many false answers, only questions that have yet to receive a correct answer. Without critical analysis, the shrug and the “who can say” approach will get tedious quickly. I look forward to seeing what truths (whatever they are) we can derive.
And I apologize to anyone I interrupted in class. It is an unfortunate tendency of mine and I hope I did not offend; my eagerness precedes me too often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
