In the article, "Philosophy 101," we surveyed six major philosophers and came up with some modern-day applications / examples of their ideas. What you should do with this blog is review their ideas and pick which one you think has the most problematic views, whether their philosophy can apply to today, or if you think it doesn't make sense. Explain why.
I. Ancient Greece
A. Plato - he believed in the idea of the perfect form, that there is a perfect concept for everything (person, horse, chair, etc.) and that everything manmade or natural on Earth is an imperfect copy of that perfect form (In the picture to the left, you have a photo of a chair, a definition of a chair printed out, and an actual chair - each one is a chair but they each have different degrees of reality to them - the farther away from the ideal form they are, the less perfect they are).
- Plato felt that achieving this perfection would be impossible but it would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection.
B. Aristotle - Some of his ideas included deductive reasoning (that we might see in cop/mystery movies or forensics TV shows), the Golden Mean (choosing between two extremes), and the feelings of catharsis or an emotional cleansing. Aristotle was also one of the first true scientists of the ancient era who had the means to study and catalogue numerous plants and animals.
- With the Golden Mean, Aristotle might feel today that a balance should be struck somewhere between being totally in touch with one's friends through social networking and cutting one's self off completely.
- Here's an interesting website about a concept called the Overton Window - the points along the scale (if you mapped out the spots between one extreme and another) at which the public is willing to accept an option.
II. Modern Philosophy
C. Rene Descartes - He is the father of modern philosophy and started many snowballs rolling downhill, but the one we focused on here was the idea of dualism, the mind and body are separate and not linked. An example the article gave was that if you died in a dream, you wouldn't die in actuality. Movies like The Matrix and Inception deal fully with this mind / body dualism. Descartes is also known for the statement "I think, therefore I am" in which in order to exist, you must first think. Quite a concept! (See link for a further elaboration on different types of dualism).
D. David Hume - This Scottish philosopher improved upon some of Descares' ideas like skepticism (that we cannot truly ever be sure of something b/c it might not reoccur - the article uses the example of a bottle breaking when knocked off of a table). Part of the reason that this type of skepticism exists is b/c of the randomness of life and the infinite number of variables that play into it (later to be called the chaos theory in Jurassic Park or the butterfly effect). Lastly, there's the post hoc fallacy, or to believe that because we see two things occur together, one must have caused the other. Let us say that one morning I get up and turn my coffee machine on, but at the same time, the dishwasher starts up. Does that mean that X (turning coffee machine on) causes Y (dishwasher turns on)? No, not necessarily.
E. Immanuel Kant - One of his biggest ideas was the categorical imperative, or in other words, putting yourself to a moral test for each of your actions. You should consider what would happen if everyone followed your course of actions and how that would impact society. Applying this standard to all of your actions would be the key to living a righteous life. If you cheat on taxes, then you are expecting everyone to cheat on their taxes.
- Also, perception matters, and it differs for everyone. We can never fully perceive what we perceive b/c we are not that object which we perceive.
F. Georg Hegel - Hegel had an idea that had been around for awhile but he refined it to something called absolute spirit - a network that connected every thing to ideas, people and other things around the universe. Hegel also came up with an idea called zeitgeist(German for time-spirit) where peoples' thoughts are guided by the political and cultural atmosphere of a specific time in history. For instance, our time period represented the angry Populist revolt, originally seen in the 1890s when farmers revolted against big business and economic inequality, is seen today in the Tea Party or Trump populism or the left-wing populism of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Your Job: Pick one of these philosophers and critique his major ideas. Make sure you include some details and explanation from the article (and Google Doc notes that we compiled) in your response.
I. Ancient Greece
A. Plato - he believed in the idea of the perfect form, that there is a perfect concept for everything (person, horse, chair, etc.) and that everything manmade or natural on Earth is an imperfect copy of that perfect form (In the picture to the left, you have a photo of a chair, a definition of a chair printed out, and an actual chair - each one is a chair but they each have different degrees of reality to them - the farther away from the ideal form they are, the less perfect they are).
- Plato felt that achieving this perfection would be impossible but it would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection.
B. Aristotle - Some of his ideas included deductive reasoning (that we might see in cop/mystery movies or forensics TV shows), the Golden Mean (choosing between two extremes), and the feelings of catharsis or an emotional cleansing. Aristotle was also one of the first true scientists of the ancient era who had the means to study and catalogue numerous plants and animals.
- With the Golden Mean, Aristotle might feel today that a balance should be struck somewhere between being totally in touch with one's friends through social networking and cutting one's self off completely.
- Here's an interesting website about a concept called the Overton Window - the points along the scale (if you mapped out the spots between one extreme and another) at which the public is willing to accept an option.
II. Modern Philosophy
C. Rene Descartes - He is the father of modern philosophy and started many snowballs rolling downhill, but the one we focused on here was the idea of dualism, the mind and body are separate and not linked. An example the article gave was that if you died in a dream, you wouldn't die in actuality. Movies like The Matrix and Inception deal fully with this mind / body dualism. Descartes is also known for the statement "I think, therefore I am" in which in order to exist, you must first think. Quite a concept! (See link for a further elaboration on different types of dualism).
D. David Hume - This Scottish philosopher improved upon some of Descares' ideas like skepticism (that we cannot truly ever be sure of something b/c it might not reoccur - the article uses the example of a bottle breaking when knocked off of a table). Part of the reason that this type of skepticism exists is b/c of the randomness of life and the infinite number of variables that play into it (later to be called the chaos theory in Jurassic Park or the butterfly effect). Lastly, there's the post hoc fallacy, or to believe that because we see two things occur together, one must have caused the other. Let us say that one morning I get up and turn my coffee machine on, but at the same time, the dishwasher starts up. Does that mean that X (turning coffee machine on) causes Y (dishwasher turns on)? No, not necessarily.
E. Immanuel Kant - One of his biggest ideas was the categorical imperative, or in other words, putting yourself to a moral test for each of your actions. You should consider what would happen if everyone followed your course of actions and how that would impact society. Applying this standard to all of your actions would be the key to living a righteous life. If you cheat on taxes, then you are expecting everyone to cheat on their taxes.
- Also, perception matters, and it differs for everyone. We can never fully perceive what we perceive b/c we are not that object which we perceive.
F. Georg Hegel - Hegel had an idea that had been around for awhile but he refined it to something called absolute spirit - a network that connected every thing to ideas, people and other things around the universe. Hegel also came up with an idea called zeitgeist(German for time-spirit) where peoples' thoughts are guided by the political and cultural atmosphere of a specific time in history. For instance, our time period represented the angry Populist revolt, originally seen in the 1890s when farmers revolted against big business and economic inequality, is seen today in the Tea Party or Trump populism or the left-wing populism of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Your Job: Pick one of these philosophers and critique his major ideas. Make sure you include some details and explanation from the article (and Google Doc notes that we compiled) in your response.
Minimum 300 words for your answer. Due Wednesday 3/20 by the beginning of class.
Aristotle is one of our greatest philosophers. As a student studying under Plato, Aristotle learned from the best when it came to questioning the outside world and thinking just like a philosopher. One of Ari’s greatest ideas is deductive reasoning. This idea goes as follows: if A=B and B=C then A=C. Not only is this a common formula used in geometry, but people also use this in their day to day lives. A popular example of deductive reasoning is this syllogism: “All men are mortal, Plato is a man, therefore Plato must be mortal.” This example shows the flow of logic from understanding that Plato is a man and that he is a mortal. Another one of his ideas is known as the golden mean, which states that courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. To me this means in order to do something that you are afraid of doing(show courage), then one must stop cowering in fear and also think clearly. As human beings, we are highly emotional. There are times where our emotions can cloud our judgments and be the catalyst to us colossally messing up. But if we learn to control our emotions and put ourselves out of our comfort zone, we’ll be able to show courage and achieve great things. In the present day, I must say that these ideas that Aristotle had come up with have stood the test of time. If anything, I think that people need to get in tune with their emotions more. Often times on the news we’ll hear of some mass shooting somewhere in the country. People are always left heartbroken and changed forever. If only those people who murdered innocents didn’t resort to violence and chose a better outlet. If only they came and talked to someone about how they felt, people wouldn’t have to get hurt.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Matthews 5th Hour
Immanuel Kant is the philosopher that I have chosen to critique. I have chosen Kant not because his name is really short but because his idea that “if I do something that everyone else will and that that will lead to true righteousness” this theory while rather solid in principle is simply not effective in all situations because the inverse of it would also need to be in effect because if one person who tries to follow Kant’s rules is surrounded socially by people who disregard it then that means that the one “righteous” person will begin to disregard Kant’s ideas to conform with the group that doesn’t because social pressure works both ways.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kant’s plan for everyone to look at their actions and decide what would happen if everybody else did the same and thus they’ll be righteous is a flawed concept. I think this because some people plainly don’t care if others convert to a life of crime so this theory would not apply to them even still there are others who are breaking laws and social contracts for good and righteous reasons and his theory would condemn their actions to be unjustifiable through his diction. Furthermore part of someone's actions being justifiable is merely being justifiably moral and since the definition of morality is scattered from person to person his use of the word righteous is incorrect he would have been better served by using a word or group of words to end his theory such as living a life that is infallibly correct in the eyes of other people and governments. That would have made his theory wordier yes; however, it would have been more of a definite statement than a simple out like righteous.
Another issue that I found with Immanuel Kant’s work is with his claim that we can never truly perceive something because we are not the object that we are attempting to perceive. To that statement, I say good because if we were everything that we were trying to perceive then being that split up we would hardly perceive anything at all because our consciousness would be so spread out that we wouldn’t be able to notice things let alone think about them.
Beto's comment.
DeletePlato’s belief in the ideals of a perfect form for everything on Earth holds many flaws. First, if everything created by man is flawed or imperfect, then all human life and everything man-made is imperfect. Plato’s ideals lead to the notion that a god is present, and that god creates perfect creations of everything. If we were made by that same god, then we should all be perfect and never hold any flaws. Obviously, since we’re all technically man-made, we cannot both be perfect, made by a god or gods, or flawed as we are human and created ourselves. Plato’s views could not be implemented today, as our society is making vast changes to be a much more accepting and open community. We are trying to broaden our views as a society in terms of sexuality, sexual orientation, body type, shape and size, as well as race and ethnicity. If we live our lives striving for perfection, we will always be reaching for an unattainable goal. If we are taught as young children, perfection is the meaning of life, we would be an extremely depressed, distraught generation that will never feel any sort of self-fulfillment. It is important for us to teach our youngest generations not to strive for something literally unattainable, but to follow their dreams and do what they wish with their lives. Plato’s idea that anything and everything man-made is flawed, yet as humans we are supposed to be perfect, is a complete and utter non-sequitur argument. All humans are made perfectly. But all humans also make themselves, leading to the conclusion that nothing can truly be perfect and nothing will ever be or has been perfect, thus, Plato was vastly incorrect. Plato’s ideals would hold no weight in our society today. Even though he has a cool name.
ReplyDelete-Sam Googasian
I personally don’t believe in Plato’s theory of “perfect form” and that there is a perfect concept for everything. I believe that in order for there to be a universal definition of “perfection” we’d all have to literally be the same person. I don’t believe that everyone has the same views and opinions as everyone else. One person may see the perfect chair as a furry beanbag chair, and another person may see the perfect chair as a plain old chair that serves its function and that’s it. Nobody’s perception of perfect is the same. I don’t think that a photo of a chair, definition, and actual chair are different enough for any of them to be “less perfect” than another. They’re all chairs. I personally just don’t think the idea of perfect form makes a lot of sense. I don’t see how there can be a “perfect form” for everything if the ideals for perfection are literally endless and vary from person to person. How can there be a perfect form if everything on Earth is imperfect, but we invented all the objects we currently have like chairs, desks, phones. These are all man-made things that we invented so how can there be a “perfect form” for man-made things. Phones are what we make them, chairs are what we make them / what we want them to be. We are the designers of all the man-made things in this world (which is almost everything). So I don’t quite understand how there could be a perfect form of anything. Perfect is whatever we define it as. I don’t really think this is necessarily something that can apply today. There are so many differing opinions on everything and there’s no way to categorize the whole world and assume everyone’s idea and perception of perfection.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Burke 5th hour
Plato believed in the idea of perfection, that there is a perfect concept for everything. That everything manmade or natural on Earth is imperfect. Plato said that achieving perfection would be impossible but that it's important to strive for perfection. I mostly disagree with Plato's claim about perfection. I think this because I think that things that are/were created were meant to be imperfect. I agree with his claim that perfection is impossible but I think that since perfection is impossible, you shouldn't spend your life striving for perfection. I also think that Plato somewhat contradicts himself by stating that all creations are imperfect because that would mean that even human life is imperfect. If this is true then Plato himself could not be perfect therefore what he is saying would also be imperfect. I think that everything is imperfect in a way that people make mistakes and fail, and learn from them. That's part of being human. Back to my point about striving for perfection I think that it is important to teach children to strive for their dreams rather than perfection. You should not spend you life trying to reach something literally impossible, you should rather do the "impossible". Striving for your dream job or to travel/ live in your dream city is something that we should teach the next generations to strive for.
ReplyDeleteHalle 5th Hour
Alexander Grunewald
ReplyDeleteI think that Aristotle’s philosophy is still relevant today especially when you talk about the golden mean. The golden mean basically states that the virtuous halfway point between two extremes is the best place to be. When you have to extremes such as courage and cowardness you want to go somewhere in between so that you wont act too passively or too rashly in certain situations. How does this apply to our daily lives you may ask? Well, when you are a student for example you need to adjust your time on how you want to spend it. You can spend it for school or spend that time with your family and friends. Both of which are important, and you need to find a good halfway point to satisfy both parties. If you spend too much time at school, you may get good grades and secure yourself a good future but what about your family and friends? You are spending little time with them and they are starting to grow distant. But if you only spend time with your family and friends you are hurting your future to get to a good college or job, if that’s what you are striving for. Well then you need to adjust your time so that you spend time both with your family and friends and spend time at your school to get the grades that you want. The virtues halfway point has been reached if you succeed to satisfy both parties.
Aristotle also talked about the way you are supposed to reason. If you know a subject well according to him, you can form a deductive argument. What does that mean? Well essentially it means that you start of with a general statement of that concept and extrapolate your argument to a more specific one. According to the Philosophy 101 article they said that Aristotle favored deductive reasoning called syllogism. “All men are mortal. George Clooney is a man. Therefore, George Clooney is mortal”.
Immanuel Kant believed that the key to living a righteous life was considering your course of action through another individual. This moral test should be applied to our daily decisions, and used before we make choices that could impact society. I believe that Kant’s reasoning has fallacies. Although lying isn’t ideal, sometimes it is the best option in specific times. For example, if a robber runs up to you with a bat, asking if you have anything valuable with you, instinctually, you are going to lie rather than accepting the risk of getting hit. According to Kant, you’d tell the robber about the $50 dollars you have in your wallet and get robbed. His logic would not make sense in this case. His views could not work in today’s society, because, whether we like it or not, everyone lies especially when telling the truth can cause pain to you or someone else.
ReplyDeleteI think Kant’s ideas on perception is true. He believed that one can know entirely what something is. I agree that it is impossible for anyone to know exactly what something is, even if you boil it all the way down to its atomic makeup. I think that not fully knowing what something is, is good for us. It helps us to create our own perceptions, opinions and it allows us to stay curious. If everyone knew exactly what everything was, we’d all be fairly like minded in that sense, rather than basing our perceptions on what we believe to be true.
Danielle V.
Riana Richards 5th Hour
ReplyDeleteOne of Aristotle's major ideas was deductive reasoning also called syllogism. Which is reasoning one general statement from the likelihood of another general statement . The most common example being A=B B=C so C=D. I have and always will believe a firm believer of its opposer, Inductive reasoning. This is reasoning from specific instances to a general conclusion of the action. Inductive reasoning makes entirely more sense because it is essentially taking specific evidence and using that to make a broader assumption about a topic or area . An example of inductive reasoning would be if a scientist were to look at all of their evidence and discovered that most of whatever they may have collected led to his or hers broader conclusion. In some way or another I guess someone could argue that inductive reasoning could also have systematic flaws. But in my opinion inductive reasoning makes much more sense than the logic of deductive reasoning.
The other key theory from Aristotle is “The Golden Mean”. Which is the theory that there is always a desirable halfway point between two extremes. I don't feel that this is always the case. Although yes in some situations it could be. I feel that it is all situational and could fairy depending on the topic. One example would be something like a debate on whether the death penalty or life in prison is more enviable or lesser. In my opinion there is no “happy medium” or “Golden Mean” for an argument such as this. In this blog there is also mention to that the golden mean would be applied to social networking and completely cutting oneself off. This is one example that I think the Golden Mean should be applied. Each of these extremes have results that are unfavorable and their should be a happy medium between the two to reach your own few of success and happiness. Overall I have found that I generally do not agree with most of Aristotle's theories and that I tend to more from Plato and David Hume.
In my opinion, the philosopher David Hume’s ideals have some deal breakers when being applied to modern society. Hume improved upon the idea of skepticism, meaning nothing can ever be certain because there is no certainty in recurrence. While I do see that this makes sense and is valid, it just doesn’t carry much weight in my life. I don’t generally do the same exact thing twice on purpose and if I did on accident, how would i know the result of the original occurrence. In today’s world, things are changing constantly. Nothing seems to be the same as it was a hundred years ago, so how could the same results possibly come when the thing giving that result no longer exists. As for the Post Hoc theory, I can see how that makes sense in some situations. For example, I spill my coffee and burn my arm. My arm got burned because I spilled the coffee. But in many situations it just doesn’t apply. If I turn my computer off and I hear a police siren racing by, the siren was not caused by me shutting off my computer. Hume’s ideals can make sense sometimes, but not at other times. Because of that, I do not believe that it is a good way to base your life or live. Say I drop a glass bottle and it breaks. If I drop another bottle with the same properties and in the same conditions, there is no reason that the second bottle would remain intact because there are no physical or environmental changes. For a different result to occur with anything, there must be some sort of slight change to lead to different results than the original. Also, time can have it’s own effects on results. Foreign policy that worked well in the 1800’s probably will not work today, even if kept exactly the same. Hume’s fundamentals are too inconsistent to be associated with today's times.
ReplyDeletePlato was a believer of multiple forms of perfection in everything. While perfection itself is unattainable, he believes the act of striving for it will only yield beneficial results. For humans, this can be a bit problematic because we will never be satisfied or happy. We will constantly be wanting more without end and unable to achieve true happiness. According to our class’s google doc about the different philosophers, the one with Plato explains Platonic relationships are relationships that are entirely mental and emotional, not physical. This means that sex and other displays of affection are not included. This was Plato’s ideal vision of a relationship and I agree but find this very unrealistic. He doesn’t take in account the natural release of sex hormones from the brain that make you want to indulge in the naughtiest of acts. But then again, I couldn’t see how Plato himself could of predicted this with the lackluster information on the human hormones. I understand I fail to realize that Plato knew these perfections were unobtainable but striving for a Platonic relationship will create many problems for both parties involved. In conclusion, attempting to create a perfect life is impossible and we must understand that there’s always going to be speed bumps. The idea of something being “perfect” is relative to each person’s image of perfection and that I believe Plato failed to realize this. He saw everything in his image of perfection without realizing that there are multiple forms of perfection in itself.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI found Georg Hegel’s idea of a zeitgeist, or a single idea or mindset that connected us all and guided the cultural climate for a specific time period. It makes sense in a lot of ways when we think about revolutions, popular music/movies, and viral videos.
However, there is many ways in which this is simply not true. We see splits in popular interest all the time. We have as many different genres as there is numbers for every platform you can think of, the amount of food options we have are significant, and the political climate is split almost 50% in America. Why doesn’t the zeitgeist apply to all the factions made in our society? Wouldn’t a common spirit nesting in all of our subconsciousses compel us to like the same things, and eliminate our natural desires to create factions among us?
I agree to a tee with Georg Hegel when I acknowledge that social concepts, man-made events, and morals we established in our society may help guide our intuitive preferences. But, to what exact extent does this alleged zeitgeist effect what humans actually do in society, and how is it that another human can have a completely opposite viewpoint? These questions are too pressing for us to assume something as binding as a interconnected spirit lingering in our heads.
I believe in a zeitgeist that moves people’s decisions, like seeing negative images of the Vietnam War would result in people moving against the war. Is that a spirit that’s connected to all of us, though? Or is that just a reality that was presented in contrast by the morals and code we decided to live by? With that being said, I know everyone feels that way.
Plato believed that everything we know to exist on Earth is not in its real form. All objects have an alternate perfect form in an alternate state and we should strive to achieve that form. Plato believed that even if we make mistakes, we should still strive for greatness. This theory is known as The Theory of Forms. First of all, this goal of becoming a perfect form assumes that there is an alternate place where such forms must exist (ex. heaven). To agree with Plato, you must already believe in an after life or an alternate universe, which not all of us do. The Theory of Forms also assumes that everything on Earth is imperfect. As humans, we should strive to do good, as Plato says, but we should not look upon ourselves as imperfect forms or a version of ourselves that needs to be fixed or is not complete. There is no final destination or goal we must achieve by the end of our lifetime that we are failing if we do not reach. It is, by all means, not necessary to have proof or evidence of something you wish to believe in. Having no proof does not mean that something does not exist, but within Plato's theory, there is no substantial proof of this "perfect form". There is also no proof of the place where these forms exist. Besides having no proof, it is impossible to strive for a form that we have never seen. That would be like doing a puzzle when you've never seen the completed image. On Earth and within human nature, we often try to find excuses for why we do bad things. But this is simply because we are living things who have a conscience. There does not have to be a vast, philosophical meaning for why.
ReplyDeletePlato is too much of an idealist for my taste. His belief in perfection is unattainable and if your entire point deals in hypotheticals I feel that it does not have a leg to stand on. That is Plato’s problem his reasoning is all anecdotal and not at all empirical and you need some sort of combination of the two to really swing people. If he had some sort of real situation to prove that this is more perfect than the man made version then it’d be more convincing but there isn’t. I also find problems in some of his beliefs like his belief in a perfect king existing because it is self contradicting. He believed that there is a king that loves knowledge and intelligence but also is not overbearing. He believes in such a perfect leader while simultaneously believing that humans are imperfect. Finally I also feel that perfect is a heavily subjective word. I find the concept of leading a rewarding life with plenty of implicit benefits is better than working all the time to make a ton of money and live in excess. That kind of life is perfect to me but obviously not to others. For Plato, to argue that there is no perfect in a humans life is a wrong way of looking at it. That being said I only disagree with Plato from a point of evidence and reasoning, I feel the results from his doctrine is actually better for people that follow it. If you accept that there is nothing we can do to be perfect but you need to strive for protection then you will get the best results. It’s like training a person on a treadmill while holding a donut in there face, the person training will never get the donut but they can dream and chase after it and it is a great motivator.
ReplyDeleteOut of the six philosophers, I was most interested by Descartes. Rene Descartes’s main claim was that the body and mind are separate and not linked. His example is that when you die in a dream, you do not physically die. But outside of dreaming, our minds and bodies are very connected. Our minds control everything our bodies do. Our minds control how we evaluate sensory input our bodies gathers and our minds control what words come out of our mouths. If the mind existed without the body then the mind would be pointless because the mind would not have means to carry though any actions or communicate with other minds. The mind would not know what to think, what to do, how to evaluate itself, how to be useful, or how to develop. The body and mind are intertwined. When we are stressed it takes a toll on not only our minds, but also our bodies. For example get headaches caused by stress and we get acne caused by stress from what goes on in our minds. The health of our minds can often be seen in the health of our bodies. Heart attacks and panic attacks can occur when our minds are overwhelmed and cause our bodies to stop working as well. The mental health disorder depressions has many physical symptoms like aches in the body and insomnia. Several studies have proved that a positive mental outlook improves physical health and life span. Despite my criticisms of Descartes’ theory I am glad that it reformed the way medicine was viewed in the 1600s. The Church believed human beings were spiritual beings and any diseases contracted were because of wrongdoing. Descartes’ theory is more correct than the church’s and allowed for development in the medicine field. Descartes’ theory did make positive change but I don’t think it was accurate.
ReplyDeleteRiley M
Plato’s idea of striving to achieve perfection just does not make sense to live by. In class we got into groups and looked into philosophers and their ideas, and Plato was one of them. We said that Plato’s main idea was there is a “perfect form” of everything and that people should strive to reach and be at this level of complete perfection. However, I do not agree. I mean everyone knows that nobody, and nothing is perfect, but I think that working to meet a level of perfection can be a bad thing for a person. For example, if you were working really hard to reach perfection but could not, this could cause a lot of stress and sadness in your life because you would feel like you were “not good enough,” or “incapable” of being your best self. I think that if you work your hardest and push yourself to do your best, then you are being your best self. It is not determined by whether or not you are perfect, because nobody is. It is whether or not you feel that you have done your best. However, this does not mean: “if nothing is perfect then why should I work hard at all?” If people were like that, the world would be in much worse shape than it is in now. An example to explain this that our groups used in class is: Let us say you are cleaning the kitchen. You can do a great job cleaning the kitchen to where it looks well done, but do not worry about how the counter is not perfect because it is not sparkling clean, even though you have already washed it twice. However, do not throw all the dishes in the sink instead of the empty dishwashers just because “oh nothing is perfect why should I work hard?” All in all, I think people should strive to be the best they can be without worrying about perfection.
ReplyDeleteI believe Plato has the most problematic views rather than the other great philosophers for one big reason. Plato said “achieving this perfection would be impossible but it would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection.” I feel that this is a terrible statement and a bad way to live by. Nobody is perfect and people should not live their lives searching for perfection. They need to live their own life and be happy and content with what they have. If you’re always striving to be perfect, then when is it good enough for you. When will you stop striving to be better and suddenly that desire for perfection takes over your life. I am confused, if man made or natural is not the perfect form, then what is? Everything created by man is flawed or imperfect, then all human life and everything man-made is imperfect. What are the other forms? This philosophy can always be applied, and I am sure many people follow this philosophy, but I personally don’t believe it should be followed. Lebron James has a great motto, “strive for greatness” I like this motto because it gives the same message as Plato but it doesn’t include perfection. We can obtain perfection in the end, so fighting to reach for a goal that we can never achieve will, in the end, diminish our confidence. Plato has the idea that everything manmade is flawed and is not perfect. But god says that all humans are made perfectly, so by that means we are all already perfect and their for everything we make is perfect. Plato's point is wrong and can be argued in several different ways.
ReplyDeleteBrody
Each philosopher that we have discussed in class has made such a huge impact on the way we see things today. These men were truly ahead of their time. With that being said, however, I did find a couple of their theories to be questionable.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher's theory that I believe is the most flawed out of the six philosophers we discussed would have to be that of Immanuel Kant. He believed that in order for everyone to live an honest and righteous life, people should never lie. I agree that honesty is important in most situations, but what if you find yourself to be a part of something where you could put yourself or others at risk unless you tell a little white lie? In class, Mr. Wickersham gave us an example: if a gunman walked into your house demanding to see your brother, would you lie and say you don't know where he is? Or would you point the gunman straight in his direction? Personally, I know that if I were in this situation, I would never give up my brother’s whereabouts; I would lie to get this crazy person with a weapon off of my property. But according to Kant's philosophy, what I would have done is wrong. It is never acceptable to lie, even in such a severe situation; Kant would give up his brother's location.
Kant said that our will is defined as the faculty of acting according to a conception of law. When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome. What we can control, however, is the will behind the action.
Plato theorizes that everything has its form. I would say it does, but it is merely not as physical nor as easily compatible with interactive involvement as one would have previously thought. It is perhaps the way we all have the form of everything as we take it in until it eventually manifests as an idealistic image of reality that resides deeply within our mind.
ReplyDeleteWith objects, the Form Theory is represented by their present appearance.
Plato believes that philosopher kings know what is good and just.
Plato's divided line analogy dictates people are more comfortable with opinion than they are with knowledge; this is a relevant explanation of the way we act in society because some people have been really violently-resistant against certain things in the past, their opinions felt comfortable even if they were surrounded by immense amounts and sources of knowledge.
If we were to be comfortable with knowledge, we would have to pretend or feel like it was our own opinion, and that action is just as hard as coming up with a new opinion. Plato is still a very influential philosopher, he influenced most philosophers since he taught us a lot about himself and taught a lot of what he knew to others who wanted to learn about him.