Blog #78 - Aristotle's Ideas on Democracy

Using the article, "Aristotle's Philosophy of Equality, Peace, and Democracy" by Matt Qvortrup (Philosophy Now, October/November 2016), let's examine what Aristotle said about these three topics in his lecture notes, The Politics, and how they still resonate with us today. 

When it comes to equality, Aristotle felt that political leaders have to find ways to keep people happy.  "The truly democratic statesman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty" (Politics).  The official poverty rate in America in 2015 was 13.5% (for Black Americans it was 24.1% and Latino Americans it was 21.4% and Asian Americans 11.4%).  There are about 19 million people in America living in extreme poverty, making about $10,000 annually for a family of four.  This would be one area where an American President and Congress would start, according to Aristotle.  In order to make sure that everyone was happy, according to Qvortrup, Aristotle advocated "measures... that bring about lasting prosperity for all" and was willing to redistribute the wealth of all:  "The proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenue into a fund and ditribute them in lump sums" (Politics).  We do something similar today with our taxes that go for welfare, Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare, and other aid programs.  But it sounds like Aristotle advocated something more drastic than what we have today. 

In the second part of the article, Aristotle gives us the key to ending our culture of political violence and terrorism - including minorities and increasing democratic engagement in order to lessen inequality and lower levels of violence.  When we look at civic engagement in America, there has been a recent push by Emily's List to increase the number of women and specifically women of color to run for office in America since November 2016.  When looking at the gender make up of Congress, our highest law making body, it is 80% male, 80% white, and 92% Christian (see charts below).  Aristotle would likely scoff at these numbers and say that things need to change.  But the question remains how? 
Also, the article questions how we deal with terrorism and political violence.  Written from a British point of view (but similar to America's responses), Qvortrup questions whether increased surveillance and military action are the best ways to deal with domestic or international terrorism. 

In the last section of the article on constitutional democracy, Qvortrup stated that Aristotle made a massive study of constitutions, but only his study of Athens' constitution is the one that survives.  He found that balanced constitutions work best, with an enlightened and elected aristocracy (based on "uncommon prudence and intelligence, not wealth") making the laws and the people having a say-so on those laws.  Today, you practically need to be a millionaire to run for national office, or raise hundreds of millions of dollars to compete and possibly win.  A wealthy aristocracy (made up of white Christian men) appears to be running our country.  However, they seem to have listened to their constituents lately when it comes to health care repeal and possibly tax cuts for the rich.  The next issue Americans need to be heard on is net neutrality (here's an article on what it is and why you should care - http://gawker.com/what-is-net-neturality-and-why-should-i-care-the-non-g-1657354551).  Aristotle believed in the wisdom of the crowd and that the more people deliberated over an issue, the better.  I tend to agree with this, that enlightened discourse about a topic is much more effective than just watching commercials about it.  But is this enlightened discourse still possible today? 

Questions for you to answer (answer one from each part for a total of three questions): 
Part A 
1. Should the aim of government be to increase the general happiness of its people - even if this means redistributing peoples' wealth?  Why or why not?
Part B 
2. Should women and people of color be more included in governing bodies at all levels of government?  How do we get more people to run? 
3. Should America change the way it deals with political violence / terrorism from its current ways of increasing surveillance and military action?  Why or why not? 
Part C 
4. Do you trust the wisdom of the crowd to make the right decisions most of the time?  Why or why not? 
5. Is it impossible to have an enlightened discourse in today's age of sound bites and social media and fake news?  Why or why not?


Poverty facts came from https://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

Info on current Congress: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/?utm_term=.ed49da3978f6

350 word minimum response.  Due Wednesday, Dec. 20 by class time.

Blog #77 - What in the World is Wrong with Socrates?

We read the articles by Emily Wilson with her alternative take on the life of Socrates. In "What's Wrong with Socrates?"in The Philosophers' Magazine, 2nd Qtr., 2008, she listed 10 things that conflicted with the myth/legend of Socrates that we have grown familiar with.

Among Socrates' perceived transgressions (in Dr. Wilson's eyes), he was:
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;

2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind;

3. A chatterbox (talk over action is valued);

4. Psychologically naive - with statements like "nobody does wrong willingly", Wilson tears him apart;

5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;

6. Anti-political - he felt that few if any are smart enough to run a government properly, but could he do it? Could anyone? If not, why have gov't in the first place?

7. Parochial - there was little that Socrates believed could be learned outside of the walls of Athens;

8. Arrogant - when Dr. Wilson says arrogant, apparantly she means ill-mannered and inconsiderate among other things listed in the article;

9. Superstitious - sometimes, philosophers mean that someone who is religious is superstitious, but the way she wrote this passage, she made him sound a bit loony (eccentric if you want to put a good spin on it) for listening to the voice inside his head. Is that voice his conscience or was hearing voices like the math professor in A Beautiful Mind?

10. Rationalist - normally, you wouldn't think there's anything wrong with being rational, but Dr. Wilson finds that Socrates puts such a strong emphasis on being rational that he leaves no room for emotion in solving problems. He is devoid of emotion.

So, your job here is to pick 4 of these criticisms and discuss whether or not you agree or disagree with them and explain why for each of them. This would be a good place to refine your ideas about Socrates.

350 words minimum. Due Monday, Dec. 11 by class.  Please post your blog here and not on your blog. 

Who Am I? Paper

I'm asking you to do a paper about your identity.  If we know who we are, then we can figure out what we believe.

The paper should be a minimum of 1.5 pages, double spaced, 1 inch margins, no bigger than 12 point font.  It's subject is you and who you identify as.

1. Complete the social identity wheel.  Describe which of these social characteristics define you the most, the least, and why.  Don't lose this handout, you will turn it in w/ your paper on Friday, Dec. 8. 

2. Watch the two Crash Course videos on Identity below.  #19 Personal Identity talks about the two theories about identity - body and memory theory.  Which do you feel is more of an accurate reflection of you and why?  #20 Arguments Against Identity discusses the ideas of a fixed identity and one that is a bundle of impressions.  Also, there is a discussion about our identity and the promises, obligations, and responsibilities that we have.  Which of these critical ideas do you most agree with and why?

3.  Describe yourself.  Who are you to your family?  Who are you to your friends?  Who is the hidden you that no one sees?  Also, which do you think has influenced you more - nature or nurture?  Explain why with specific examples.  

If you missed the videos

We watched three videos in this unit, Kant and Categorical Imperative, Romanticism, and Hegel.

See below.

Kant.


Romanticism


Hegel


Enjoy!

Problem of Evil Paper, Rubric, and Crash Course

Here is a link to the Problem of Evil paper - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bjVJU8GBQ0Hb4dLt4tCNICA7Fsrfm76GH7uK8e6wTH0/edit?usp=sharing

Here is a link to the rubric for the paper.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rv6UQpBcHMrPDm5t1cWVUAUbEJKNud4HOFfJDiP1x6Y/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the episode of Crash Course Philosophy that we watched on Friday.




Paper is due Monday, April 24 by class.






 

Review for Hellenism, Christianity, Renaissance, and Baroque Test

Review for the Hellenism, Christianity, Renaissance, and Baroque Test - Wednesday, April 19 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1allQR65am8hNnzFvCZiehgk3qfLaSx5bKsmMobP9LmY/edit?usp=sharing

Crash Course - Anselm and Ontological Argument for God.



Crash Course - Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments for God



Crash Course - Intelligent Design / Teleological Argument for God

Candy Chang - Before I Die I Want to...

Here's the Ted Talk by Candy Chang. 




Her website is http://beforeidie.cc/site/

Blog #65 - Questions about the Source Code

We talked a lot about the film, Source Code, and how it relates to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I don't know if it's a perfect fit, but what is?  I think further research is needed for this topic and if you guys can find it pertaining to the film and Plato, that would be great (don't forget to read the illustrated handout for more details). 

The film opens up some questions about fate that I don't think it really answered or that we really touched upon too much.  When Capt. Stevens kept being pulled out of the SC and back into his "capsule," he saw these glimpses - call them deja vu, precognition, whatever - of himself and Christina at Chicago's Millenium Park and the big chrome bean.  These scenes occurred even before he felt like saving anybody on the train or understood his situation - as if he was headed towards that future "alternate universe" no matter happened.  Could it be that every obstacle that Stevens ran into (or literally ran into him - see below!) kept him moving towards that inexorable future? 



What about the morality of using Capt. Stevens as a lab rat for the Source Code?  It's obvious by the end of the movie that he's in a terrible state of physical trauma, and that only his mind is the most complete and functioning part of him.  At points in the film, it appeared that Dr. Rutledge was "torturing" Stevens by sending him back into the memories of Sean Fentress only to be blown up again and again.  We did mention that Capt. Stevens, as a member of the U.S. military, most likely, had signed away his rights to do with his remains as his parents wished.  However, it is hard to imagine a father wishing this for his son.  And by the end of the film, if it has reset and everything starts anew, Capt. Stevens will continue to be used further in the GWOT (global war on terror). 

Lastly, how do you explain the ending?  Goodwin and Rutledge have no knowledge of the previous day's events (if those events even occurred - but they had to have existed somewhere, b/c Stevens sent her the email - it came from somewhere, sometime, right?).  And at the end of the movie, it looked as if the whole day had been reset, Capt. Stevens was alive and in his previous "state of being," in addition to the bomber being caught and the initial train bombing never having occurred. 

Questions to choose from:
1. How could the filmmakers have changed the film to make it more or less like Plato's cave?  Explain your reasoning. 
2.  What role did fate play in this movie?  Why?  Or, did fate play no role at all and why not? 
3.  Did the military cross the line with the use of Capt. Stevens' body and mind for the Source Code?  Why or why not? 
4.  Is the ending a new "movie reality" (for lack of a better term)?  Why or why not?  Is it possible that Stevens' determination somehow merged the alternate universe with the movie's original reality? 
  

Pick one of the following questions and answer it as fully as you can.  Stay in the nuances of the question as long as you can.  Your response should be a minimum of 250 words and is due Thursday, December 18 before class begins. 

Online articles to check out if you have time:
"Here I Am: The Identity Philosophy of SC" - http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/here-i-am-the-identity-philosophy-of-source-code.php
"Who is Sean Fentress?: A (Completely Serious) Exploration of What Happened After the End of Source Code" - http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/what-happened-after-the-ending-of-source-code.php

Our own version of Kant's Practical Postulates

Immanuel Kant thought that there should be some things that we should stop arguing about b/c they're assumptions that cannot be proven, but in order to for an argument to move forward, we should just confirm them.  They are called Practical Postulates and they are:
1. Man has an immortal soul;
2. God exists;
3. Man has free will. 

So, there were nine of us sitting around discussing this on Friday, and we came up w/ our version of Practical Postulates:
1. We exist;
2. Space is infinite;
3. Politicians lie;
4. Total agreement is impossible;
5. Our perceptions are limited by our senses;
6. Seniorities is real;
7. Dogs are better than cats. 

Enjoy. A 2009 study on how much better dogs are than cats.

Blog #64 - Inception Ideas

I've probably seen Inception a dozen times, and so to get a fresh perspective, I read chapters out of a book, Inception and Philosophy: Ideas to Die For. 


Here are a couple of ideas:
1. Philosopher Immanuel Kant says that both inception and extraction are immoral, despite your intentions, because because you (as the extractor) are violating the autonomy of the individual.  These actions disrespect humanity because your personal autonomy (or ability to control yourself, your thoughts, and actions) is a mark of your humanity, what makes you different than other animals in this world.  If someone has implanted an idea in your head, how can you be responsible for it or the actions that come from it? 

2. We've briefly discussed this idea before, but I'd like you to make the opposite case - I think that we've established that extraction of an idea from your mind, if at all possible like in the movie, was illegal or considered theft because it's your intellectual property.  But since this idea does not have a physical component, I'd say it's just an idea and not really real.  Therefore, there's no theft.  In order for an idea to have true value, it has to be implemented into action or manifested into something real in the physical world, not just the world of the mind.  Agree or disagree?  Why?

3. Ariadne acts like Cobb's therapist throughout the movie and helps him with the guilt that is sabotaging his dreams and memories.  In the first dream (Yusuf's, in the scene in the warehouse), Cobb tells her why he feels so guilty - because, after 50 years in Limbo, he had planted the idea in Mal's head that this world (Limbo) wasn't real and that they needed to kill themselves to get back to reality (being awake).  She brought this idea back with her into reality and flipped the idea around - her waking state was Limbo and that she needed to get back to reality (in her mind, Limbo).  My question for you is: is Ariadne practicing her own version of inception w/ Cobb by placing the ideas in his head that he needs to confront Mal's projection and rid himself of the guilt of her suicide (which he eventually succeeds in doing)?  Why or why not? 



4. Catharsis -- a concept first introduced to us by Aristotle (a purging or purification of the self or the transformation as a result of the catharsis), Cobb, Arthur and Eames have all talked about Fischer reaching a state of catharsis with his father so that their inception idea can take hold.  Reconciliation with positive emotion is much stronger, according to Cobb, than with a negative emotion.  So we see that Fischer is reconciled with his father at the end and decides to break up his company when he awakes from the kidnapping scene.  But, does Cobb reach his own catharsis when he finds that he's allowed into the United States and can finally see his children's faces again?  Throughout the movie, that's all he's ever wanted is to get back home to his kids, and the ending scene shows that reunion (with his children a couple of years older - I checked the credits - there are two different pairs of child actors).  But does this catharsis really happen because of the ending scene with the top?  Did the scene turn off before the top fell over? 
 - Cobb also has another scene of catharsis near the end in limbo when he says goodbye to Mal  "you're just a shade of my real wife..."
Here's a link to someone's interpretation of three different times when catharsis is used: http://literaturemusings.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/inception-and-catharsis/



5. Movie - Making - Inception, as a film, is all a dream, but it's also an extended metaphor for filmmaker Christopher Nolan.  Like a dream, the movie is a shared dream for the audience and has its own rules and functions along those lines.  Some characters and scenes happen like dreams in which there seems to be no rhyme or reason: Mal comes out of a crowd and stabs Ariadne; the train in the first dream that blasts through downtown where there's no tracks; the elder Fischer's hospital bed in a huge vault inside of a mountain fortress; Cobb squeezing between an amazingly small gap of two buildings.   Mal even makes the case to Cobb at the end that he is in fact still stuck in a dream, with feelings of persecution (the authorities or Cobol's security forces), creeping doubts, and little remembrance of how he got there.   On another thought, the way the dream team works is similar to how a movie is made - they plan the scenes and sets down to the smallest details, always conscious of the audience (the dreamer's projections) and its reaction.  And, the way the movie ends with the cut scene of the top and then kicking into the music (Edith Piaf's haunting melody) as the credits roll is kind of like a dream because sometimes we are ripped out of a dream before its ending and we want to know how it ends.  Yet we can't go back.

 -- all of this is controlled by the master manipulator, the director, Christopher Nolan.  Everything in this movie is done for a reason.  Cobb is the director, Arthur is the producer who does the research, Ariadne the screenwriter when she acts as the architect, Eames is the actor and Yusuf is the technical guy that makes it all happen.  Saito is the money guy (also a producer) who finances the whole operation and Fischer is the audience who is taken for an exciting adventure by the director, Cobb.  Yet we are also the audience too, since this is a movie.  Arthur mentions continuously that they cannot mess with the dream too much, otherwise the dreamer knows something is wrong.  The same can be said for movies - when there's too much fakery or interference from the director, we as the audience snap out of the trance that the movie is weaving for us and see the movie for what it is.  We lose ourselves in well-made movies b/c we're not paying attention to the poor acting or screenwriting or plotholes or ridiculous scenes.  We care about the characters and want to see a satisfying resolution.   And so Cobb, as the director, makes an amazing movie, but also brings part of himself into the movie (Mal) which can influence the audience (she shoots Fischer in the 3rd dream).  Most of the jarring scenes in Inception include Mal.  And it's Mal who questions Cobb and raises doubt as to his true purpose. 

 - And since the movie is like a dream, it has planted the idea of itself in the mind of the movie audience as well - is this a movie or was the whole thing a dream?  This is where the movie becomes almost a meta-movie; it is Christopher Nolan dreaming about Cobb. 
 http://www.chud.com/24477/never-wake-up-the-meaning-and-secret-of-inception/

Pick two of these questions to answer by Monday, May 13 by class time. 
300 words minimum for your total answer. 
Links: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/27/the-neuroscience-of-inception
 http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/inception-aftermath-theories-thoughts-oscar-buzz-more/

Blog #62 - Reactions to Henry Poole is Here

Pick one of the following topics and write about it based on your own personal experience 

1. You can’t go to the past to fix the present.” - Esperanza said when Henry visited his parents' house. Agree or disagree? Why?

2. Noam Chomsky said: "As soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action arise, human science is at a loss" 1.

Patience quotes him in the movie, and then follows it up with these lines: "It means that not everything needs an explanation. Sometimes, things happen b/c we choose for them to happen. I chose to believe."

Is she saying that because she believed the miracle on Henry's wall to be true, then that made it true? Or is she saying something else? If you could choose for one thing to come true / exist, what would that be and why?

 

3. During the dinner date, Dawn said to Henry as he tried backing away from getting closer to her was: "I know you're gonna die. But all that either of us have is right now, and we should pay attention to that." We talked today about how Henry might be feeling selfish and keeping people out w/ the way he's acting. But when he said, "I am paying attention." And that's why he can't do this (meaning fall for Dawn, go where the date will eventually lead ). Did Henry stop being selfish there for a moment? Or did he revert back to himself again? Why?

4. I get the feeling that Henry senses that there are greater forces at work, somehow helping him, coming to heal him, yet he feels unworthy of this sense of grace. Why he feels unworthy, I don't know. Maybe it's not unworthy, maybe it's pride or stubbornness in his own beliefs that life has just dealt him an awful hand. Maybe he has accepted this fate, for lack of a better word, and decided to deal with it in his own way despite a higher power demanding an audience. What do you think of this idea?

5. There's got to be a reason why Patience is named Patience. What about the name Esperanza? It's Spanish for Hope. what made me think about Hope (besides the Obama-themed poster of Henry) was when he was about to destroy the wall and he yelled, "Hope can't save you!" And the last of the virtues would be Love symbolized by Dawn and Faith by Millie (who was the first one to test the validity of the wall).

Henry, on the other hand, would symbolize the seven deadly sins - sloth, gluttony, lust, greed, anger, envy and pride. A stretch? Maybe. How would he symbolize the seven?

6. Do you think Henry symbolizes Descartes' skepticism of one's senses?  Or does Henry go beyond that to a total skepticism of everything: religion, senses, peoples' good intentions, etc. until he finally discovers that he's not going to die?  Why?


7. "Everything happens for a reason."  When Esperanza talks to Henry about her old boyfriend, Leo, and how that she prayed to God to give her a sign that Leo was o.k., how does the sign on Henry's wall signify an answer to her prayers?  

Due Thursday, April 25 by class.  (200 words minimum).

Blog #61 - Fate and Free Will in the Matrix

After watching The Matrix this semester for what seems the umpteenth time, I was searching for something new to talk about.  This time, as with all good art, we can gather something new from it upon repeat viewings.

My question is: where do you see fate and / or free will in the movie?

Neo seems to disagree with the concept of fate (or the more technical term, determinism) "I don't like to think that I'm not in control of my life."  In fact, he seems to use free will by choosing the blue pill over the red pill when Morpheus gives him the options.

There are other scenes where Morpheus seems to give Neo choices - "I'm just trying to show you the door.  You're the one who has to walk through it" -  right before they go to visit the Oracle.  Morpheus also seems to make the choice to sacrifice himself when the agents attack the group in order to capture Neo.  Also, Neo appears to make the choice to go back into the Matrix to save Morpheus.  Even the Oracle tells Neo, "you don't believe in all that fate crap.  You're in control of your own life."



But, I think that all of these "choices" are fated to happen because of a number of factors, many of which can be traced back to the Oracle's prophecies:
1. Morpheus believes so strongly in the prophecy that he would be the person to find The One that he sacrificed himself to the agents.  "I did what I did because I had to.  I did what I did because I believe that search is over."
2. Neo would have chosen the red pill because of his natural curiosity, his inner determinism, that drove him to find the answers to the questions burrowing in his brain;

3. Trinity, Apoc, Tank and the others of the Nebuchadezzar follow Morpheus wherever he believes they need to go, even if it means their deaths.
4. The Matrix is, in fact, slavery - a contentment program for those who power the machines.  There are no choices to be made b/c the people that live in reality carefully choose those who seem to be discontent with their lives.

Cypher is the only character who has made a choice of free will when he decides to betray Morpheus and Neo.  He has lived in the "real world" for nine years and chooses to go back into the Matrix (though Agent Smith would most likely kill him regardless of the promise), because he feels discontent with Morpheus, his promises, and his need for mindless enjoyment (the steak).

Your question: Agree or disagree with the fate/ free will assertion in The Matrix?  Why?  If you believe that there is some element of free will that I have overlooked, please let me know.

250 words minimum.  Due Tuesday, April 16.  

#60 Criticism of Top Western Philosophers

n 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 best suits your own personal outlook on life or views about the world. The link to the grid notes we took on the board is here: http://groves.birmingham.k12.mi.us/modules/locker/files/group_files.phtml?gid=2188679&parent=19216123&msg_notify=File+uploaded.&sessionid=5a513032ef04bb306b331cb1a95a8dfb


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. 

- 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 of the Tea Party. 



Your Job: Pick one of these philosophers and critique his major ideas.  Make sure you include some details and explanation in your response. Feel free to use the article, "Philosophy 101."

Due Monday, March 25.  200 words minimum response. 

Blog #59 - Examined Life philosophers

Out of the several philosophers that we saw in The Examined Life, which of them seemed:
1. To have the most appealing outlooks on life;
2. To have the least appealing (or comprehensible) views of life?

In summary, here they are in order of appearance in the film:
1. Cornel West - Harvard and Princeton educated, Dr. West has spent the majority of his studies examining race, gender, and class in American society.  He is considered a "neopragmatist", similar to that of William James' pragmatism (something has value if it works), where language is the primary vehicle for understanding the world and trying to make meaning from it.  He has called himself a "non-Marxist socialist" primarily because he's a religious person and cannot reconcile the fact that Marxism dismisses religion.  He also tends to be suspicious of all forms of authority, because they can lead to tyranny and / or abuse.  One of his latest books is called Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. 

2. Avital Ronell - her parents were Israeli diplomats and she was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia.  She is a professor of German language in New York and has translated French philosopher Jacques Derrida in his earliest works introduced into America.  She follows a school of philosophy called Deconstructionism where she tries to discover the underlying meanings of words and language.  She feels that " language is a material that cannot not interrupt, suspend, resist, exceed, and otherwise trip up the very message it is charged to deliver," because "words can go AWOL (absent without leave" or in many instances, be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the listener / reader.  In many respects, this problem with language has led her to believe that there are no guiding Truths.  One of her latest books is called Stupidity.

3. Peter Singer - an Australian philosopher who has become very popular with his most well known for his strong moral beliefs about animals and eating meat.  He is opposed to animal experimentation as well as eating meat.  He follows in the school of Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) which tries to maximize the greatest good for the largest number of people.  He also feels very strongly that the wealthy have an obligation to provide help for those in extreme poverty (remember the $200 pair of shoes ruined to save a drowning child).  On his own website, he claims to give 25% of his income to non-profit groups that are devoted to the poor.  His latest book is The Life You Can Save. 

4. Kwame Anthony Appiah - as mentioned in the film, he's the product of a Ghanian father and an English mother, he studied at Cambridge and has taught at some of the top universities in the U.S.  His studies have included examining the intellectual history of African Americans and he also deals with language and semantics - the underlying meanings of words.  In the segment we watched, Appiah talked about our notion of identity in a multicultural world.  He doesn't believe that race should form your identity, but that we should look for universalities between us to do that.  Forbes Magazine named him one of the Top Seven Most Powerful Thinkers in the world - Judith Butler is also on this list as well.  Appiah's latest book is called The Honor Code. 

5. Martha Nussbaum - is a professor at the University of Chicago with an interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy along with concerns over feminism, political philosophy and morality.  From ancient Greek and Roman philosophies, she has explored the idea of neo-Stoicism which acknowledges that things outside of our control have a great influence on us.  She has also tried to draw attention to the political and gender inequality and the lack of opportunities for women.  She's a strong believer in inclusion of other cultures and feels that those who promote Western culture (our culture) at the expense of others is paternalistic.  In the field of moral psychology, she wrote that emotions like shame and disgust are legitimate emotions to use to make legal judgments.  Her latest book is The New Religious Intolerance.

6. Michael Hardt - Hardt is a political philosopher from Duke University who was born in 1960.  As he mentioned in the film, he spent time in Latin America during the 1980s learning from the Marxist political movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador.  He has criticized globalization and sees it as a form of American imperialism.  Nations' power to control their own destiny has declined as American (and European) companies have expanded to control various aspects of developing countries' resources.  His major work, written with Antonio Negri, is called Empire.  Globalization has spawned new forms of racism and cultural change, and that the focus of political power has shifted from governments to corporations.  This shift is less democratic because there's very little if any recourse to stop / control these corporations.

7. Slavoj Zizek - Zizek is a neo-Marxist and has been considered the "hippest philosopher in Europe" by many and also called "the Elvis of philosophy."  He hails from Slovenia and has written many books.  He tends to provoke with his statements, like comparing Julian Assange to Mahatma Gandhi.  He rarely gives straightforward answers to questions: "I like to complicate issues. I hate simple narratives. I suspect them. This is my automatic reaction."  He is also an athiest and has written extensively on movies, violence, and other topics.  He apparently wrote a review of Avatar first w/o having actually seen it first: "I'm a good Hegelian.  If you have a good theory, forget about the reality."  His primary influence is philosopher Jacques Lacan.  One of his latest book is Living in the End Times.  

8. Judith Butler - is currently a professor of rhetoric and literature at the University of Berkeley, California.  One of her primary philosophical keys is gender studies and how sex and gender roles are flexible or shouldn't be as confining as we tend to see them in our society.  Gender identity does not necessarily reflect who are in our "inner core" - meaning, that just because we are men or women does NOT mean that we should be bound by those male and female roles.  Gender is supposed to be a secondary characteristic to who are, not a primary one.  Also, her political philosophy has been influenced by her religion, Judaism, and she believes in a "Judaism that is not associated with state violence," and has said that Israel does not represent all Jews.  As mentioned in the segment on Appiah, Forbes named her one of the top seven thinkers in the world and she has been called "a big-deal academic, ... and oft-cited academic superstar...the most famous feminist philosopher in the United States," "the queer theorist par excellence," and "the most brilliantly eclectic theorist of sexuality in recent years."  Her most popular book has been Gender Trouble.  

This blog will be due by Monday night (March 11) by 11:59 p.m.  

Blog #58 - Take one thing away from our world...

After watching The Invention of Lying on Thurs. and Fri., we discussed what the true intentions of the movie were.

• Was it trying to show us that lying has its good points (little white lies, brutal honesty that numbs us to those in trouble around us, insults that should be better left unsaid)?;
• Was it a critique of religion as false hope? When Mark was on a TV interview show for a brief second at Anna's house, he looked and sounded like just another televangelist;
• Or did it show, even if religion may be a false hope (in the moviemakers' eyes), that hope is worth believing in b/c it gives the people in this world that their lives weren't for nothing (you're a loser on Earth and now you'll be rotting in the ground - geez, what's the point of life then? Look at Jonah Hill's character and his insistent research into suicide);
• Did the filmmakers add deliberate philosophical tie-ins with Nietzsche (bending reality to fit to one's will and lying creatively) or Christianity w/ Mark acting as a stand-in for God when he gave Anna the chance to love him on her own accord a few times (much like the Christian scholars have said that God gave mankind free will so that we can love Him on our own accord)? Though, I'm not sure what Mark sees in Anna...

So, your job is to think about something, just one single thing, that you would remove from our world in order to create a parallel world like the one in the movie so that this parallel world would somehow be better than our world.

Explain how your new world would be different, and try to be imaginative by thinking of both the positives and negatives. Don't be discouraged if someone has already taken your idea. Build on what they've already written or go off in a different direction or rethink your approach.

Try to stick to one thing - I know it will be difficult, but please try. 

250 words by Monday, March 4 by class. 

Sources:

Negative review of Invention: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/9910/weekend-box-office-anti-religion-invention-of-lying-awesome-zombieland-butch-feminist-whip-it-mikey-moore-agit-prop/

Another review of Invention from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/10/12/091012crci_cinema_lane

Another one from the L.A. Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/02/entertainment/et-lying2