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.
Minimum 300 words for your answer. Due Tuesday, 9/8, by the beginning of class.
I disagree with Descarte giving meaning to only things with sentience. To think that something that doesn’t think on the same level as humans and do have the same type of power of self examination is flawed. A person may love their pet, but their pet does not have the brain power to think of something as abstract as love. Does that pet still exist and hold meaning? Maybe not to the animal itself, but to put your meaning in the hands of only you, who reject your connection with anyone or anything around you. Descartes statement would also be hard to apply to babies who only think of primal things, and lack important brain functions like object permanence. Of course that baby still exists, but to put existence in the presence of thought is absurd. While I understand what Descartes is saying, which I believe means the people must doubt before they can think, and think before they have an impact on the world (therefore existing), to ignore the impact of thoughtless primal urges like hunger would be foolish. The problem with this is the order and that I create a paradox. There must be something to think first before, therefore Descarte is already thinking, therefore he is existing before he is thinking so he could have the thought that would give his existence. From a logical point, Descartes usages of ‘I’ would not make sense because he would need to exist before thinking, because something has to do the thinking, but if you don’t exist, no one else would, but once you exist it would be on you. So the problem with Descartes quote is that it puts consciousness over existence when it is really the other way around and forgets the impact that no sentience has on the sentient.
ReplyDeleteEric.
DeleteBen Glick
ReplyDeleteI’m going to critique Descartes. I find the idea that the mind and body are separate to be interesting but probably not true. The Philosophy 101 article says that while Descartes believes that they are separate, they communicate through the brain. To me that is proof that his theory doesn’t work. Modern science can look at a brain and see which sections are firing up. If it were true that the mind and body were separate but communicated through the brain, one’s brain would still be working after death. Also, Descartes philosophy seems to be based only on faith, I can’t think of any reason someone would say that they are separate other than a though experiment. There is just no evidence or reason to believe this is truer than the concept that your mind an body are connected. I imagine most of the reasoning Descartes would give could be explained away a lot by modern science. I also think if you believe in this philosophy you probably must believe in the philosophy that the self is consistent because of the mind. This philosophy seems to argue that the mind is separate and is you, the body is just a vehicle. But that would mean any issues with the mind theory of the self are probably also issues with Descartes’ philosophy. If the mind and body are separate, and the mind isn’t the brain, how do brain diseases exist? How do things like Alzheimer’s or concussions affect memory? They are things that happen to your brain, but they shouldn’t, based on Descartes theory, affect your mind
I disagree with Descartes because I feel that the mind and body are heavily connected. The analogy on the blog about a person dying in a dream was reasonably supported But I actually believe the opposite: the mind and body are intertwined. There are many examples where the mind takes over the body. When people are nervous their hands and voice start to shake and when you talk to someone you like, you get butterflies in your stomach and your heart speeds up. These are feelings that tons of people can agree on as they’re almost symbols of the emotions they’re attached to. I also feel that if Descartes’ idea was about the mind and body was true, then which part would we believe truly existed? The body or the mind? For a situation like Avatar, where the body is in a world or dimension that isn’t in the realm of reality, what would you believe? The physical conditions of the place you’re in is easy to trust because you have physical evidence, but in the movie the people’s minds were in the avatar world but in a different body, and they kept their memories with both bodies. If our mind has no attachment to our body, what makes it so that my body is mine? Why can’t I experience other things from other bodies, why am I confined to just me? Why are my experiences and memories confined to situations my physical body has experienced?
ReplyDeleteI simply disagree with Descartes because there isn’t much proof of his theory. I feel that more people on average have proof of their mind controlling their body. It’s something that anyone can experience if they think about something they feel strongly about. In addition to personal experiences, scientifically the mind and body are connected as certain parts of the brain control certain things in the body. The brain (a physical part of the body) can send out things like serotonin and dopamine which affect the mood and someone’s mental state. For these reasons I disagree with Descartes ideas on the mind and body.
I disagree with Descartes because I feel that the mind and body are heavily connected. The analogy on the blog about a person dying in a dream was reasonably supported But I actually believe the opposite: the mind and body are intertwined. There are many examples where the mind takes over the body. When people are nervous their hands and voice start to shake and when you talk to someone you like, you get butterflies in your stomach and your heart speeds up. These are feelings that tons of people can agree on as they’re almost symbols of the emotions they’re attached to. I also feel that if Descartes’ idea was about the mind and body was true, then which part would we believe truly existed? The body or the mind? For a situation like Avatar, where the body is in a world or dimension that isn’t in the realm of reality, what would you believe? The physical conditions of the place you’re in is easy to trust because you have physical evidence, but in the movie the people’s minds were in the avatar world but in a different body, and they kept their memories with both bodies. If our mind has no attachment to our body, what makes it so that my body is mine? Why can’t I experience other things from other bodies, why am I confined to just me? Why are my experiences and memories confined to situations my physical body has experienced?
ReplyDeleteI simply disagree with Descartes because there isn’t much proof of his theory. I feel that more people on average have proof of their mind controlling their body. It’s something that anyone can experience if they think about something they feel strongly about. In addition to personal experiences, scientifically the mind and body are connected as certain parts of the brain control certain things in the body. The brain (a physical part of the body) can send out things like serotonin and dopamine which affect the mood and someone’s mental state. For these reasons I disagree with Descartes ideas on the mind and body.
I disagree with Kant for a few reasons. He is saying that because a person does something then they can expect others to do the same. However, many people have their own set of morals in which they follow. For example, a man could be the perfect citizen, he pays his taxes and goes to work 5 days a week and provides for his family. There are many people who do not follow this mold in fact this type of person is growing more and more scarce in modern society. People all have their own way of living and because i do something doesn't mean that others will also do it. Another example is a serial killer. serial killers are far and few between but their actions are based on what is happening in their mind and not what other people do or think. I understand the theory that Kant has created but i think that a moral test would never apply to the real world because you can't predict how people will act. Also, I believe that sometimes you can perceive what others may be going through with past experiences. You may be able to feel empathy for another person because you have lived through what they have lived through. But it could possibly be true because unless you are in the exact same situation then you can never feel what another person may be feeling. However, maybe you have seen what such an event has caused a person near you or you can see how it is affecting the other person. If you are able to successfully read the other person then you can feel empathy and perceive what they are feeling or going through. Once again, we can never have the full and exact perception of a person so in that way Kant in my opinion is 100% correct.
ReplyDeleteI am choosing to critique Plato. Plato had the idea that there is a perfect version of everybody and everything in this world. But even in the article it is said "Plato felt that achieving this perfection would be impossible". So right there is a red flag for me, if the man himself doesn't believe in the end goal of his own theory why should anyone else. He did in fact completely believe that everything had a perfect person he just didn't think that it was attainable by anyone. I think that chasing a goal that is impossible to reach is a sad way to live your life, knowing you will never reach your whole life's goal no matter how hard you try just seems like a waste of time. and even if you believe you reached that perfection nothing lasts forever, nothing is 100% perfect 100% of the time. When people use this method of finding perfection they forget to live in the moment as well, you have your eyes so focused on this goal of yours you are completely blinded by the things happening around you. It just seems like an incredibly plain life to live. And lets say that you achieve this perfection, you will look back at your life and realise that you were so focused on finding it that you may not have any memories or experiences to look back on. When looking back on your life and seeing nothing, just a plain and boring life, can be a horrendous feeling when you make it to your death bed. You shouldn’t care about this all powerful definition of a perfect life all that matters is that you are happy and are content with your life. Make your own definition of perfect for yourself don't make it some unachievable thing. Your definition of perfect is different from even your closest friends so make your life your own. Live your life so that when you are on your deathbed you can look back and feel satisfied. - andersen
ReplyDeleteOlivia Laser- I think the person in this list with the most problematic views is Rene Descartes. I think that his theory that your mind and body are not one is the most problematic. I do not think it makes sense that your mind and body are not one and they are not linked together. Using dying in a dream isn’t much evidence to back up this theory either. Your dreams are not you or purely your mind, they are an imaginary situation that you have no control over. I do not think he has much evidence to back this up either, it seems based on belief rather than reality. So using that to say your mind and body are not connected does not make sense to me. In the blog it says his theory was that your mind and body are separate and not linked is very problematic for me. If they are not one and they aren’t linked then how would my body know what to do based on what I am thinking or feeling. If I am having sad thoughts and my mind is thinking of bad or sad situations, my body might grab a tissue even if I am not crying. If my mind and body are not connected how would my body know what to do because I am thinking sad thoughts. I do not think his idea of “I think therefore I am” makes much sense either. For something to exist it does not need to think. An inanimate object can not think but it still exists. Descartes theory about your mind and body being separate and not linked makes the least sense to me. Rene Descartes has some unusual ideas to me, that is why I think he is the most problematic from the list.
ReplyDeleteI will be critiquing Descartes. While thinking about his idea that the mind and body are separate I get pulled in a few different directions. As the idea itself may not be hard to grasp without putting much thought into it, after thinking about everything it you can begin to see the cracks in the idea. One of the ‘cracks’ of the idea is you basically need to believe in a ‘god’ or ‘higher power’ because if your mind and spirit are not physically connected to your body where else would you be. The only idea for that would be that your mind is up with the ‘higher power’ Another ‘problem’ I have with his idea is the connection between the mind and the body. If we aren't physically connected how are we mentally connected? How am I thinking about what I am typing right now as I am physically typing it out. You could easily say the connection is within the soul but then again you would have to believe that souls exist within us. This whole philosophy does not seem to be backed up at all by any sciences, it's just all faith, religion, or beliefs.
ReplyDeleteEmily.
DeleteI disagree with Plato's idea of striving for perfection. I think it's actually very unhealthy. If everyone tries to be as perfect as possible, any little mishap or bump in the road would mean that somehow you are straying away from a happy life. But I think what makes a happy life is dealing with imperfections and accepting our personal imperfections, and loving ourselves no matter how "imperfect" we are.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing the six major philosophers in this blog post and the “Philosophy 101” article I have decided to remain with my previous choice: Descartes has the most problematic views. The main explanation for my reasoning would have to be his ideal that the mind and body are separate and his infamous statement “I think, therefore I am,” I see these two beliefs as contradictory to one another. By stating “I think, therefore I am” or in other words, “in order to exist, you must first think” he contradicts his ideals of a separate mind and body. How? I believe that existence is in the body and thinking is in the mind, which would infer that existence is connected to thinking, body is connected to mind. I do realize that my statements are strictly opinionated but this is my reasoning for disagreeing with Descartes and why his ideals make no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen playing a sport, for example softball, the mind and body must work together or you will not be successful. When I pitch on my softball team I have to have a clear mind, so my body can do the work. I have to not worry about the batter and I cannot overanalyze or my pitches will be off… I just have to throw a strike where I want it to go. By allowing my mind to stay clear, my body can do the work for me and I will not throw a ball. If I overanalyze and worry or get frustrated then I will throw a ball. This is a prime example of how my mind and body work together to complete my goal, throw a strike, to then get the batter out. How can my mind and body be seperate if I have first hand experience of how they can affect each other and how they can work together?
Out of all these philosophers the one I had the most problem with when it came to accepting and understanding these philosophers was Emmanuel Kant. He speaks about how if you decide do something, (usually something seen as morally wrong), then you should consider what would happen if everyone else in the world did the same exact thing you did. I think this reasoning is flawed and isn't the best way to living a righteous life. Just because I've decided to do something "wrong", that doesn't mean that I feel like all people should follow what I did. Humans are naturally selfish, and I think I pinch of selfishness is required to live a good life. Furthermore, there are many examples that conflict with this idea. If I am lying for the greater good, or stealing something for my family (the classic example), obviously I wouldn't want everyone else to do the same, but I would still do it. When we do something wrong it's not just cause, but it's usually tied to something deeper that we want, and i don't think Kant takes that into consideration.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Descartes theory of dualism where the idea that the human mind and body are totally separate and distinct. According to Descartes the mind is immaterial and our human capacity for thought and reason is in no way connected to our physical bodies. I believe that the body and mind work together. I don't think that they are one in the same but instead that they are intertwined. The mind and body are connected on a fundamental level. Without thought and reasoning i don't think that we would be able to function properly as a normal human being. Thoughts can be formed in the mind but they are carried throughout the body. For example if you get nervous about something people usually get butterflies in their stomach or goosebumps and when you get mad your face might turn red. I think that we express our emotions in a physical way. The mind is constantly monitoring and reporting back on the state of the body. The mind is the focal point of out body. We need it in order to survive and function in society.
ReplyDeleteZion A.
Scottish philosopher David Hume’s major ideas are very questionable. Although he made improvements to Descartes’ theories, his post hoc fallacy is flawed. I disagree with the notion that one occurrence always causes the other in sight. There is also space to argue his idea of skepticism, the idea that we can never be sure of something because we don’t know what might happen.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the post hoc fallacy because like the example, two completely unrelated objects can function at the same time with no link to one another. There is a possibility that two occurrences in sight can happen from a chain reaction, but is never guaranteed. For example, a bowling ball that is rolling down a lane can cause the bowling pins to collapse, the same way that there is a large chance that the ball doesn’t touch the pins at all.
In addition, Hume’s idea of skepticism is flawed as well. I feel as if the randomness of life and the unlimited number of variables in life can debunk this idea because that would mean that there is an even higher chance of possibility in occurrence. Some occurrences are just bound to happen due inevitable forces such as gravity. For instance, The chances of me falling from a cliff and breaking a bone is higher than an animal swooping down and rescuing me from the sky to prevent me from falling. So, we know that some things are simply inevitable
Nia D.