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 in your response. Also, pick one which has ideas closest to your own and explain why. Again, use details from the article and our discussion.
Blog due by Thursday by class. Minimum of 300 words for your answer.
I find myself disagreeing with Hume in certain aspects. What really bothers me is the idea that causation does not equal effect. The idea that something will not always happen, such as just because the sun went up yesterday does not mean that will happen again, goes against my scientific theories. The link of actions and the evidence pointing toward the sun rising again gives no indication that it will not rise. A healthy amount of skepticism is beneficial, but being too skeptical to the point of not fully knowing if the sun will rise the next day with no indication otherwise is aloof and improbable. Seying as reliable as the sun should not be called into question without any good reasoning behind it. If humans did that everyday, worry about the sun not rising just because, most people would live in fear of nothing and everything happening and changing on a whim. Constants get people through their day and allow them to function. If one thought their car was not guaranteed to start every day and they loved with that skepticism, perhaps they would be late everyday asking for a ride to work, or checking under the hood, or many other variables that in the long run, do not need to be checked as there is no indication to it, like a check engine light.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing with Aristotle and the Golden Mean most. I am a true believer that everything has its place, and balancing life, be it thoughts, good, or friends, is the most beneficial way to live. For example, when looking at diet, one needs to be aware of what they are eating and if it is good for them, but they shouldn't be so worried about the food they are eating that they never enjoy it. Yes, salads are good for the body, but depriving yourself of that really yummy donut isn't going to give you abs, it will just make you sad. You shouldn't just eat donuts because they are yummy, but balance them with healthier foods like salads to balance and feed the body. A balanced diet without restrictions is the best way to be healthy but also enjoy the food one is eating.
- Lily Dittrich
I have issues with the majority of Plato's ideas.
ReplyDeleteFirst, "The Good". Striving for perfection is ultimately an exercise in futility, and will only cause harm to those attempting it. As Plato himself has said, perfection is impossible; but then there's the question of why try to achieve something that's impossible? If you know that you can't attain perfection, why try to be perfect? However, I do acknowledge that my opinion is probably shaped by the worldviews of my time. I've heard many stories about those who post pictures on social media that have been modified to the point of "perfection", and many people that try to emulate that image get themselves hurt. I've seen so many ads for "magic pills" that dissolve body fat and show "before and after" pictures of people supposedly after a week or two of using this medicine, but have actually made that transition in a much longer amount of time. Striving for perfection, at least in my mind, will only lead to problems.
Next, there’s the “Theory of Forms”. It might be because I don’t entirely understand the theory itself, but as someone who isn’t very religious, it's very hard to believe that somewhere on a heavenly plane, a flawless version of Cars 2 exists. In addition, there are so many ideas that have existed in this world during history, such as slavery, Nazism, etc., that a “perfect form” of does not exist; those concepts are inherently imperfect and evil. However, if those things didn’t have forms, would they still exist in Plato’s version of the world?
Finally, the platonic relationship is the one thing that I think makes sense. I have many friendships that I believe I would absolutely cherish more than physical love. Overall, however, Plato’s ideas seem contradictory to a lot of my modern worldview.
Also, I completely forgot to name a philosopher whose ideas I agree with; so I'll go with Aristotle. The golden mean is something that I find to be very true, and is something that I feel that I struggle with, specifically relating to humility. It's by far the trait that I value most in people, and I strive to be as humble as possible, but in doing so I lose a lot of my confidence. It's taken a lot of introspection, but I can say that I've made a bit of progress in that front, and believe that I am good at what I do, and just saying that I am a good singer is not as self-aggrandizing as I usually make it out to be in my mind.
DeleteI most disagree with the ideas and concepts created by Plato. His idea of perfection and to always strive for perfection is unreasonable and unrealistic as well. While he feels that “It would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection,” I feel the complete opposite. A life that is spent trying to do everything perfectly is a wasted life, and rather, life should be spent doing things you love and not worrying about little mistakes because they help you learn and grow. There really is no such thing as “The perfect form” or a “perfect concept” for everything. There’s no perfect person, no perfect horse, no perfect chair and his thought that the farther you strive from the ideal form, the less perfect you are, makes no sense and I can’t think of anything that could back that up. No two humans are exactly the same, which to him, means they’re not perfect. No two animals are exactly the same, again, proving that they’re not perfect in Plato’s opinion. He’s self-aware that his idea to be perfect is unachievable but the fact that he proceeds to still strive for perfection for the rest of his life is what loses me.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t really pick out a philosopher that I felt shared all the same ideas as me, but the philosopher that I felt closest to based on my own ideas was David Hume. Hume’s ideas explain skepticism and that we can’t be 100% sure about anything because it may not reoccur, and that we can be skeptical because there’s so many aspects about life that are random and unpredictable. I don’t really see myself as a skeptical person but the idea that life is so random and unpredictable that we don’t know what to expect makes sense to me. It shouldn’t get in the way of our day-to-day lives and decisions, but I think it’s normal to be skeptical about certain things because of the randomness of the world.
The philosopher I find my self disagreeing with the most is Immanuel Kent.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of problems with his idea of interpretation. First, how can an object be more than what we observe it to be. If I take a piece of ice, for example, I can observe its properties; what its made of, its melting point, the color, ect. I don't agree that there is something more to a piece of ice than what you can observe on a chemical or even a superficial level. The ice can't fly, heal fatal wounds or have any other special "essence." It's just a piece of ice.
I also have a problem with Kant's idea of transcendental idealism. While I do think that there is much more to the world that we as humans have not yet discovered, I think that we there are somethings about the world that we do have complete understanding about, exactly like the ice example.
Kant's theory of categorical imperative is the idea that I have the strongest dissidence towards. Even if your action is not something everybody should do, it can still be within the lines of being ethical. For example, it is moral for one person cut down a tree to use its' timber, but would not be ethical for everyone in the world to do so, because there would be no trees left. I also disagree with the view that something should not be done just because it is unethical (to a certain extent). The topic of punching a Nazi that we discussed in class comes to mind. I think it is unethical to punch a Nazi, and I would still do it and not have a problem with it. I think there are more important things in life than ethics.
I found myself actually agreeing with a lot of the different philosophies. However, I believe that the most unbelievable philosopher is Rene Descartes. The biggest issue I hold with his ideas is his support for dualism. My reason for this is because dualism is probably the most reputable concept based on modern day research, knowledge, and progression. In fact, our minds and bodies are extremely connected and in tune with one another. First off, in order to even control our bodies our brain must somehow be tied to it, and in order to feel all of our physical senses such as pain, warmth, and more. What impacts our body has an impact on our brain, and vice versa. Mental illness, for example, is rooted within the brain and a chemical imbalance in it. Despite being formed in our brain however, physical side effects are extremely common such as chills, heart palpitations, and fatigue. Thus, I don’t think that the idea of dualism can truly exist, especially in today’s modern science.
ReplyDeleteAs for a philosopher whom I agree with the most, I think I align myself most with is Aristotle. The idea of the golden mean is one that I am extremely familiar with. It reminds me of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where there was always something that was “just right.” A big aspect of life is having to find balance; do I study all night or go out with friends? We have to make decisions that set us up for success. However, we have to blend our opposing thoughts and actions so that we may experience the most out of life. Is it worth spending every night alone drowning yourself in assignments and studying, halting the opportunity to have an enjoyable time with friends and family? Or is it better to throw all of those worries aside and spend every night partying instead? Just as Aristotle would believe, a balance is what is needed. That way, you can still manage your schoolwork, but not at the cost of your social well being.
Overall, there were a lot of ideas to have to decide between, but the ideas of Descartes and Aristotle stuck out to me the most in their own ways.
I believe in science. So I have various rejections to various philosophers. The philosopher I feel that I disagree with most is Descartes, which is likely a very popular response. We know through the vigorous study of the mind and body that they are connected, and I believe that advocating for this philosophy may be problematic in the modern world.
ReplyDeleteWith the recent trend in awareness for mental health, the mind and its importance to all other aspects of life have been looked at closely, and understanding its influence on the body is a useful tool to making life more livable. The most common evidence of this is the body’s reaction to stress. Stress is not a physical being, stress can’t slap you in the face, but stress has a physical effect on the body despite its origin existing in the mind. Simple things like a rise in heartbeat or sweat can occur when one is feeling stressed or anxious, but it has also been known to directly cause muscle tension, nausea, dizziness, exhaustion, and other physical discomfort and pain. It is critical to understand information like this so we don’t approach temporary pain like permanent pain.
I think the example of dying in a dream is unrelated. You can imagine dying or made-up conversations and neither will happen in real life but that doesn’t mean that there are two separate planes of reality (physical, non-physical). I feel like this example assumes the alternate hypothesis is that humans have mind control and whatever we are thinking must occur. That isn’t true, but in my opinion, neither is Descartes.
I have mixed feelings about the philosophy of Hume. On the one hand, it’s incredibly important to be skeptical in some situations so you are not manipulated easily, but to be skeptical of absolutely everything is counterproductive and also problematic. It all comes back to not trusting science for me, for example not giving your child the smallpox vaccine because you don’t believe that just because it’s worked for millions before that it will do anything for your child. This can lead to hazardous situations so I think it's important to have a balance of skeptecism and belief.
I personally do not vibe with Rene Descartes. One of the main ideas that I do not agree with Descartes on is that of dualism. Descartes believed that the mind and body were not connected and are separate from each other. Obviously, we know that this scientifically not true. However, this is not what bothers me. I believe that many of our thoughts and feelings in our mind can impact our body and many parts of our body can impact our mind. I also find it confusing that, with using Descartes’s logic, how our mental state can be separated from our physical state. I am also not a big fan of Decartes’s belief that all of our ideas are innate, or inborn. I believe that our ideas can change, just like I believe that humans are not born with hate, rather they are taught to hate. Just like how we can be taught or convinced of ideas, not simply born with them. Another one of Descartes’s main beliefs is that experience is not the source of knowledge, but reason is. I particularly do not quite agree with this belief mainly because many of the thing that we learn, we learn by actually doing it. Many of the lessons that we are taught, we are taught through experience. While knowledge can come from reason in some cases, most of our knowledge about many things in life comes particularly from experience, as we learn from actually doing. Overall, many of Descartes beliefs do not really encompass everybody. However, if there is one of his beliefs that I agree with, it would be his belief that humans display more complex truths as they go on in life. As we move through life, we try to find who we are and who we want to be, and I believe that this belief most closely aligns with my personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I disagreed with most was Hume and his ideas on cause and effect. Yes, just because one thing happens doesn't mean another will. However, this cannot be applied to all cases. One example used in the article was about a glass of water falling off a table. He says it won’t automatically break. The problem is that this is not true, the glass will break because it is glass and highly fragile, even if the cup is plastic it may still break. Another thing is how it’s impossible to be certain with the exception of mathematical equations. If I am absolutely certain that I will be hit by a tornado because it is 100ft from me and I am in it’s path then it is absolutely certain that I will be hit by the tornado. Lastly it says in the article “everything we think we know,” which might not be his actual belief, but mine is that I know what I know and I don’t really need to second guess that.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of agreement the person I agreed with most was Aristotle because the golden mean is something that is very important to have in everyday life. The idea of for example eating but not eating too much, resting but not resting too much, or working but not working too much is something that is very important to being alive. Another area that I agree with is syllogism. The idea that if someone can create a deductive argument with two premises to reach a conclusion. Although it may not always be the most accurate it is a very interesting idea that allows you to simplify an argument or thesis statement. Lastly there is catharsis. Catharsis is maybe not something you agree with but a very interesting concept that is more of something that you argue over the existence of. Personally, it is something I would believe in because sometimes you need to feel something to let stuff out.
-Emma
The Philosopher I don’t think I vibe with is Plato. I don’t think that there is a perfect way to do something, a perfect object, I don’t think anything that exists has a perfect form. Especially when it comes to living things. There is a wide range of people in the world. There are people with different body types, different gender identities, and different backgrounds. Just like other living things like animals or plants. Also when it comes to something being “ideal” I think it depends on the person you ask. If we take trees for example, my ideal looking tree could have dead leaves on it and limb branches for the Autumn, while someone else’s is full with green leaves and ready for the summer. But because we have different ideas of trees it doesn’t make either of our trees any less perfect than others. On another note, I don’t think that spending your life trying to find perfect and aim to be perfect is a good way to live. I love to see people developing on their own and forming their own being. But trying to be “perfect” seems to be ideal for some people.
ReplyDeleteI think the philosopher that I vibe with the most is Hegel. The idea that I was the most intrigued by was the idea that everything can be traced back to someone, something, or somewhere. It’s this philosophy that keeps me up at night. It’s easy to say that I can be traced back to my parents and they’ll be traced back and suddenly you have my whole 23 and me break down. But once you take this philosophy and take it higher up like the first human on earth. How did the first human get here? How do you trace that back? But it’s something we don’t know. I think you can say I’m the most intrigued by Hegel’s idea.
The philosopher which I agree with the least is Rene Descartes for a variety of reasons. I disagree with the idea that the body and the mind are separate entities. The mind tells the body what to do and the body in turn carries out the request. They work together to achieve full function. When one's body feels good, it can have a positive effect on one's mood and vice versa. This shows that the mind and body have correlation, and are not separate. I also disagree with his statement, “I think therefore I am”. One does not have to think to exist. For example, someone in a coma may not have thoughts, but their body is still alive. Another example is babies, who do not have thoughts but their body still functions properly. Therefore, one does not need to think to exist, which opposes Rene Descartes' claim. Immanuel Kant has ideas that most closely align with my personal beliefs. I especially love the idea that we can never fully what we perceive because we are not that object which we perceive. An example that comes to mind is someone with a mental illness such as bipolar disorder. If it is not known that someone has this disorder, we may think the person is crazy. Even if we do acknowledge that this person is bipolar we cannot fully understand it because we could never go through the exact same circumstances. Everyone has different circumstances and situations, so even people with mental illnesses cannot fully understand another person with the same mental illnesses. I also agree, to a lesser extent, with the categorical imperative idea. If one did every action with this idea in mind, they would of course be happier because they are leading a positive life that includes zero guilt. When doing positive things for others, they will most likely return that.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Hume’s major ideas. Hume was skeptical about whether we could truly know anything- he thought it was possible that any prediction a person could make that’s based off of past events (glass breaking when it falls, the sun rising, etc.) could end up not happening. I think that, while an interesting concept, this idea is wrong in action. Although events may sometimes seem random, I firmly believe that they never are. And I don’t mean in a spiritual way- if we knew everything there was to know about how the universe operated, down to every little atom, then we could surely predict the outcome of any situation. I would also like to point out that if we were never sure of what our actions would result in, then it would be difficult to decide anything, ever.
ReplyDeleteA lot of Aristotle’s ideas are similar to my own personal philosophy. I think that finding common ground between two extremes is very helpful, and it’s something I do frequently when making decisions. It just makes sense to do this when you’re making a tough decision. Aristotle also came up with deductive reasoning. If Google isn’t lying to me, then deductive reasoning takes general ideas and shifts them around until they become more specific. For example: School happens Monday-Friday > Bailey goes to (and doesn’t skip) school > Therefore Bailey is in school Monday-Friday. This is a helpful logic to follow, and definitely something I’ll employ if I ever have to solve a murder. Another concept he thought up was catharsis: an emotional cleansing, often by watching a moving performance. I’ve watched my fair share of those, and I can attest to feeling cleansed emotionally. Feeling your own emotions not just affirmed, but carrying the mood of an entire screen, soundtrack, or even theater, can be very comforting. I definitely find Aristotle’s ideas more comforting than Hume’s; I’d like to think that I at least know something sometimes.
Bailey
EMELIA MOORE
ReplyDeleteI think the philosopher I most disagree with is Rene Decartes. My explanation is because of Ekhart Tolle, a spiritual teacher, who quoted in his book “Power of the Now” that Decartes infamous statement of “I think, therefore I am” is the most misleading philosophical statement to be made. My disagreement to this idea is rooted in the idea that we are not our thoughts. If we were our thoughts, many of us would be terrible people. Our consciousness is not defined or derived from thinking, thinking is rather a mental noise that blocks us from reaching enlightenment and seeing the world as it is. If this concept were true, things like intrusive thoughts may define us. Excessive thinking is as Ekhart defines it, is “a disease” that plagues humanity, excessive thinking leads to mental disabilities such as depression and anxiety. It gives us an inability to live in the now. Animals do not think, but they are. Simplistic consciousness does not make a being less than. In fact, in my belief human beings need to ascend to the next level of consciousness above thinking. The idea that the body and mind are not linked is an idea I also disagree with. I think the mind responds to the body or the body responds to the mind. Otherwise why would worried thoughts, translate to a nauseous adrenaline rush body response. I believe our being is one with consciousness and body, this is why meditation is a practice for many people. It calms both the mind and body simultaneously, and slowed breathing leads to a calm mind. Thoughts and feelings go hand in hand. Therefore I disagree with Decartes' concepts for a variety of reasons on his perception of consciousness and identity. The philosopher I most agree with is Georg Hegel, because it closely resonates with pantheism.
The Philosopher I don’t personally vibe with is the philosopher plato. I do not believe that everything has a single perfect form. I don’t think that one should be trying to achieve “absolute goodness” or “absolute perfection”, firstly because there is no ideal or perfect form of every object and every idea, so people don't know what they are trying to achieve or imitate. Nobody has the common knowledge of what is the true perfect form of something, nobody can try to achieve perfection since nobody really knows what it is. Second, not everybody should be trying to achieve the same thing, for example every chair is going to be and should be different, if everybody tries to achieve the perfect chairs then all chairs will look and be the exact same. Plato also says that chasing perfection is what leads to happiness, but I personally don't think that constantly trying to reach something impossible will bring somebody to find real happiness because you will never have moments of satisfaction in your life. One of the philosophers I do vibe with and agree with is the philosopher Aristotle and his ideas of deductive reasoning and the golden mean. First deductive thinking because I personally think that almost all decisions are made by practicing deductive thinking, whether done voluntarily or not you combine different known facts to reach a specific conclusion while you are thinking. I also agree with Aristotle’s philosophical idea of the golden mean, balancing different extremes in life is a good way to live a happy life as you don't let one single activity or one single person take all your focus and take over your whole life. Striking balance between extremes in your life allows one to live and experience different aspects of life available to them.
ReplyDelete-Elliot VM
I most disagree with the philosopher Rene Descartes. To start, I strongly disagree with Descartes’ concept of dualism. Knowing what we know today, the idea that the mind and body are separate and not linked does not make any sense. Your mind and body work together everyday to perform many functions. Your mind tells your body what to do and the body acts out the functions. Your body can also give signals to your mind such as the feeling of hunger to get you to focus on getting something to eat. We also now know that many psychological disorders are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. The excessive or lack of amount of certain chemicals can have great effects on the mind. For example, a surplus amount of dopamine in the brain can cause schizophrenia. This proves that the body can influence the brain and vice versa. We can also look at stress, even though stress is originated in the mind it can produce many physical symptoms such as rapid heartbeat, stomach problems, fatigue, high blood pressure, etc. I also disagree with Descrates’ claim “I think therefore I am”. He emphasized that one must think in order to exist. This also does not make any sense considering that inanimate objects do not think but very well do exist. Even if you look at living creatures, plants and many animals do not think but definitely exist. Babies also do not start thinking until they are a few months old.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher that I have to agree with the most is Immanuel Kant. I like his takes on perspective and how space and time can vary with how we perceive them. Our only perspective is our own so we really have no idea what others are experiencing. This ties into categorical imperative because we should treat everyone and everything with utmost respect because it is impossible to walk a mile in their shoes and experience their perspective.
Max Kepler 3rd hour
I disagree with Rene Descartes' views the most. His entire philosophy is based off of the idea that the
ReplyDeletemind and body are not connected. I would disagree with this because the mind and body share signals as well as they both make up part of my identity. For me to move my body my mind must tell my body what to do. If my body stopped doing the work to keep me
alive (heart beat/breathing) then my mind would also die. I also sort of disagree with his “i think therefore i am” motto. I disagree with this because of certain mindfulness/meditation practices. In meditation the goal is to not be thinking so you can get
into a deep mindful state. Another part of mindfulness is being in the now, to do this the goal is to not be thinking and to be focused on the present. Also in my experience with anxiety, thinking can lead to worse anxious feelings. Anxiety can influence your
thinking into a downward spiral.
I agree most with Aristotle's views.
His deductive reasoning I really like because it means knowing something so well that you can simplify it. I really appreciate this because it is more straight to the point which is how I learn best. This idea seems to be what teachers do, they study a subject
so much that they are able to teach it to students. His other ideas on the golden mean I liked due to it showing fairness and balance. I think if society made more of an effort to be fair then the world could be a better place. Aristotle's ideas seem to be
less “spiritual” and more fact/logic based. I don't fully understand his views on catharsis and emotional cleansing. I cant tell if catharsis refers to strong emotions or emotional relief or something completely different.
Oli
The philosopher i disagree with most is Descartes. His main ideas depict someone not of sound mind at least in my opinion. Descartes believes the mind and body are not connected at least in a three dimensional world (like the one we live in). Descartes thinks he is a person there for he is a person. He doesn’t exist in any other way other than a perception or thought- and to him only he can be the one to believe himself into existence.
ReplyDeleteHe was known as the first philosopher and the true father of modern philosophy. But definitely had a minimum scientific understanding of the body. The mind must be connected if it wasn’t how we would feel and interpret sensory information, or know how to react to a sudden change of environment? The way he interprets peoples thoughts is more closely connected to observations of mental/dissociative disorders like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder. In those disorders the thoughts don’t align with the action of the person(the body). Another philosophical plot hole Descartes created is with his idea of experience not being the source of knowledge but, reason is. How do you make a reason for something without using knowledge? Would that not just be babbling aimlessly?
Morgan s
The philosopher that I find that I disagree with the most would be Plato. The idea that there is a perfect form and that we should strive for it I find flies in the face of the philosopher that I agree with and that being Aristotle and his philosophy of the golden mean.
ReplyDeleteThere is a saying that goes something like “perfection is the enemy of progress”. For example, if I were to write the perfect blog about these philosophers, I might still be studying them instead of writing. I think that often my parents search for the perfect response to a problem that I present to them. Let’s use the example of some scrapes and scratches that I might leave in one of our automobiles, a common occurrence for a teen-driver. I can see my parents considering whether a reprimand, discipline, more driving instruction, or support would be in order as they search for the perfect response to the dilemma. Aristotle‘s golden mean presents a better approach to create balance between feeling resentment for a driving misjudgment, balanced with timely guidance that could actually help me make progress towards being a better driver. The balance would be more beneficial both too putting my bruised feelings behind me as well as making progress to being a more responsible driver.
In fact, the more that I ponder the golden mean the more I find I agree with it. Striking a balance between doing homework and having fun promotes both development academically, which is important, as well as development socially. The social aspect in balance, is at least equal if not more important to preparing for a healthy and successful life in our evermore complex society.
The fact that Aristotle was one of the first true scientists of the ancient era could likely have provided him the foundation for his golden mean philosophy. The study of cataloging plants and animals would support that balance. For example, a balance can be seen in the struggle between a plant developing roots to find water and growing tall to capture sunlight. Both required for the photosynthesis necessary to sustain plant life.
Having put these words to paper now causes me to reflect on Plato‘s perfect form and consider that perhaps the perfect form could be argued to be the ideal balance (golden mean) that is struck amongst the many constraints in which a plant, animal, student, teacher, or parent must find in their pursuit of life and happiness.
Pauline
The philosopher that I find that I disagree with the most would be Plato. The idea that there is a perfect form and that we should strive for it I find flies in the face of the philosopher that I agree with and that being Aristotle and his philosophy of the golden mean.
ReplyDeleteThere is a saying that goes something like “perfection is the enemy of progress”. For example, if I were to write the perfect blog about these philosophers, I might still be studying them instead of writing. I think that often my parents search for the perfect response to a problem that I present to them. Let’s use the example of some scrapes and scratches that I might leave in one of our automobiles, a common occurrence for a teen-driver. I can see my parents considering whether a reprimand, discipline, more driving instruction, or support would be in order as they search for the perfect response to the dilemma. Aristotle‘s golden mean presents a better approach to create balance between feeling resentment for a driving misjudgment, balanced with timely guidance that could actually help me make progress towards being a better driver. The balance would be more beneficial both too putting my bruised feelings behind me as well as making progress to being a more responsible driver.
In fact, the more that I ponder the golden mean the more I find I agree with it. Striking a balance between doing homework and having fun promotes both development academically, which is important, as well as development socially. The social aspect in balance, is at least equal if not more important to preparing for a healthy and successful life in our evermore complex society.
The fact that Aristotle was one of the first true scientists of the ancient era could likely have provided him the foundation for his golden mean philosophy. The study of cataloging plants and animals would support that balance. For example, a balance can be seen in the struggle between a plant developing roots to find water and growing tall to capture sunlight. Both required for the photosynthesis necessary to sustain plant life.
Having put these words to paper now causes me to reflect on Plato‘s perfect form and consider that perhaps the perfect form could be argued to be the ideal balance (golden mean) that is struck amongst the many constraints in which a plant, animal, student, teacher, or parent must find in their pursuit of life and happiness.
Pauline