Extra credit

I attended the philosophy conference on April 8, 2011 at 7pm. Although it ran a little behind schedule. The speaker was David Solomon and he is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Solomon was discussing “The Virtue Revolution: Moral Philosophy and Cultural Change." He started about the revival of virtue ethics by faith and learning. He also mentioned how the movie Ground Hog day relates to Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics. I've never seen that movie so I think now I want to go watch the movie to checkout how it relates to the book, since we read that in class. Getting back to the recent revival of virtue ethics. Dr. Solomon discussed about three categories. Virtue theories, Rule theories and Consequential theories. A person who fits in the virtues theories category is a person who views their success in life is based on who they are; they way they created their life. A person who fits in the rule theories category is a person who views their success in life is based on what they did and how they conformed to the rules. What it means by conformed to the rules are like for an example, following the 10 commandments and what you abide.. Like a record of your actions. A person that fits in the consequential theories category is a person that views their success in life by not who they are but by what they left behind. After listening to that I was trying to see what category I'd fit in. I think I'm a combination of the virtue theories and rule theories. Because of course my success is based of what I want to do with my life. If I fulfill my personal goals then I view myself as successful. I also look at my moral values because that matters to me to. So knowing I was a good person and trying my best to obey Gods rule that confirms me being successful in my mind. He also explained the conflicts between those three theories. Conflicts such as virtue ethics dominated ancient thinking. He discussed about the contemporary revival of virtue theory. He said, part of a larger revival of normative theory in general is associated frequently with a critique of modernity and a larger Roman Catholic view of the world. Our culture influences philosophy. I agree because as generations pass what is acceptable and moral changes as time changes. Virtue revolution in moral philosophy is partly prompted by cultural development. It is also impossible for moral philosophers to keep their philosophy untainted by cultural concerns, because many people criticize and think differently. For our culture to revive virtue, we have to work together and to remember our dignity. Dignity is a property we have in virtue of being human beings, it gives us status and rights. We have to exercise those status and rights.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Schuylkill River Trail - Philadelphia to Valley Forge,Philadelphia,United States

Power (Nietzsche #2)

“What is good?- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad?- All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness?- The feeling that power increases-that a resistance is overcome.”(p.127)

The topic for today’s blog is power. That is what we thrive for in today’s society…power. Actually not only today’s society, but you get where I’m going with this. When one has power, they feel like they have the highest authority, and that people want to be like them. Nietzsche also believed in this, but he believed that the person must be a respectable person that we can look up to. But when one acquires so much power, it is hard to keep a level head. It is hard to find a person who has a lot of power and is also humble. That is a rare commodity. When I thought of power, the Kanye song “Power” came to mind. Kanye West is viewed also one of the top celebrities that has so much power. Just like any rapper, they view having a lot of money, swagger, a lot of flashy expensive things, and also having a big fan base is being on top and powerful. The more power you have in the rap game, the more successful you are. There are tons of rap songs where they brag about the flashy things that they have and having a lot of power. I don't feel like listing a lot of rap quotes. If you are familiar with rap then you know what I'm talking about. If you aren't just google songs from big artists such as: Jay-Z, 50 cent, and Kanye West. To give you an idea there is a song by a rap group named the Lox, and they have a song called 'Money Power Respect'. To them, first you make get money, which then gives you power, then when you get the power people start respecting you. To take a line or two from their song, "It's the key to life. Money, power, and respect.Whatchu' need in life." Rappers actually have the power to influence others. As for power making you happy, I don’t think it truly makes you happy. I actually think that some celebrities that have power struggle to find meaning and happiness in their life. People that have a lot of power are still just like anybody else, trying to find the meaning of life. Power doesn't mean that you rest, you keep trying to get more and look forward to what's next or what's to come.  Nietzsche actually thought if you start asking yourself what's the meaning of life, then you're "sick" and not living life (p.44). But going back to Kanye, many people look up to Kanye but I think he power trips a lot. Like his ego gets in the way of him being a person to look up to. Even in Kanye song Power, he says, "No one man should have all that power." Because the potency of having too much power is dangerous. Power more often than not tends to corrupt a person as they become aware of the fact that they solely decide their circumstances, and the circumstances of others. Ambition can be good as long as it doesn't get too far out of hand.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Wall St, Manhattan, NY,United States

Nietzsche

My thoughts on Nietzsche was that he is just trying to lighten up the mood. I do agree with him that philosophers have sucked the fun out of life and kind of made life seem depressing. That we can't even be happy in this life sounds crazy to me. I remember I think my blog on Aristotle I was actually saying how it seems silly to me to say that we can't be happy until we die. Most philosophers that we read before Nietzsche did make it seem as if they were trying to be like God. Which is impossible and I think God wants us to have his likeness but not be the exact of Him. That's why I really laughed when Nietzsche said, "To live alone one must be an animal or a God-says Aristotle. There is yet a third case: one must be both-a philosopher" (pg.33). The whole Maxims and Arrows section made me smirk at some points. Nietzsche reminded me of a comedian; it's like somethings you kind of think deep down but you don't want to say, he says them. I mean I was skeptical that I would even like anything he had to say after reading the title 'Twilight of the idols and The Anti-Christ'. When I saw Anti-Christ my face kind of went like this =/.. but after reading some of the book he's just trying to tone that serious vibe down and kind of make you have an open mind. But Nietzsche sounded so mean when he was talking about Socrates being ugly. That he is "monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo"(a monster in face, a monster in soul) (pg.40). That's not nice! I know he was trying to make a point about how the people of Athens were already beautiful, and typically when somebody sees beauty they are intrigued and want to know more about them and follow them. Nietzsche suggested that Socrates did philosophy to get followers, because he couldn't get them naturally. But you know I actually thought Socrates was arrogant at first, but then after reading more I think he generally just wanted people to be better morally. Hey hey hey Nietzsche don't try to knock down the Socratic equation reason=virtue=happiness (pg.41). Nietzche says that the equation is the "bizzarest of equations and one which has in particular all the instincts of the older Hellenes against it." That equations is right in some sense for others. Because that equation is right for me in some sense. For an example, like giving money to someone in need. I use my reasons to deduce that that person really needs help and just something small like spare change will help them get through that day. Instead of having that mindset that anything I give that person will not help. Actions like that build up my moral characteristics or moral virtues (and in turn makes me who I am today). I look back and I'm happy for who I am today. Plainly, those reasons and actions shaped my virtues and I'm happy with it.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:W Shore Expy,Staten Island,United States

One-Two Freddy's coming for you.. (Berkeley #2)

I struggled with thinking of something related to pop culture with Berkley. The only thing that comes to mind is pretty much anything and everything we do on a day-to-day basis since his concept is that perception creates our reality. One quote that stuck with me is when Philonous said, “It is evident that the things I perceive are of my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind…”(p.163)

Ok so this quote reminded me of the Boogieman and monsters that kids believe in. When kids stop believing in them and get that idea out of their minds, it doesn’t exist anymore. They have that idea of a monster in their minds so then it exists to them and become reality. I was watching Stephen King’s IT and only the kids in that town could see that horrible evil clown. “It” is a predator that has the ability to transform itself into its prey's worst fears allowing it to exploit the fears and phobias of its victims, while also disguising itself when hunting. The movie tells two parallel stories. The first part of the movie is what happened in 1958 when the children first faced “It” as a clown and also in its true form (that of a fifteen-foot-long spider) and nearly killed the monster. The second part is of their reunion in 1985 when they band together once again finally to vanquish It from the face of the earth. I guess “It” was always somewhere in their mind, because even as adults they still saw “It”. Wow I’m even having flashbacks right now, as a kid this movie terrified me. I was afraid to even shower sometimes because I had the idea of It just popping up out of nowhere. To make that idea go away I just kept telling myself it’s not real. I remember a part of the movie where there’s blood all over the sink and the girl could see it, but not the dad.

Another perfect horror movie example is ‘Freddy vs. Jason’. Freddy Krueger is a fictional character from ‘A nightmare on Elm Street’ series horror film. He is a disfigured dream stalker who uses a glove with sharp razors to kill his victims in their dreams taking their souls, which ultimately results in their death in the real world. Freddy could only operate when people believed he existed, and also when that person feared him. Jason is a fictional character from ‘Friday the 13^th’ series of horror films. Jason is a masked man that stalks and murders his targets. He is a psychological threat to his victims. In ‘Freddy Vs. Jason,” Freddy has grown weak as the citizens of Springwood have forgotten about Freddy. If Freddy is forgotten then he is not feared, and he loses his power to appear in people’s nightmares. In order to regain his power, Freddy resurrects Jason and manipulates him into traveling to Springwood to cause panic and fear. However, while Jason succeeds in causing enough fear for Freddy to haunt the town again, he continues to intrude on Freddy's territory and steal his potential victims. This sends the two monsters into a violent conflict with each other.

Berkley blog 1

Ok call me crazy but I actually like Berkley’s thinking more than Descartes. Descartes was actually my least favorite read. But both Descartes and Berkley makes you do a lot of critical thinking. Ok anyway back to the main topic, Berkley. Berkley pulls us back to Christianity and says that everything that is out there can be confirmed by, “common sense and natural notions of mankind” (pg.118). It sounds a little crazy, because I feel like common sense is not common anymore. So we cannot always rely on common sense and have to go back to reasoning. I feel like common sense is half of our thinking (if that makes any sense), but by reasoning we get the whole picture. Berkley says if he proves the principles then, “atheism and skepticism will be utterly destroyed, many intricate points made plain, great difficulties solved, several useless parts of science retrenched, speculation referred to practice, and men reduced from paradoxes to common sense.” If only it were that easy. I guess I’m being a skeptic.

 The dialogues start off like Euthyphro in Plato’s dialogue. Instead of Socrates and Euthyphro having a conversation, it is Hylas and Philonous having a conversation. All you really need to know is that Philonous is a lover of mind, and Hoylas loves matter. Philonous thinks, “there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance…”(pg.122). Hmmm… I don’t know how to feel about that because I do believe in matter so I don’t agree with that statement. I agree when Philonous tries to remove skepticism from Hylas. Skepticism is “denying the real existence of sensible things” (pg.123) and sensible things are “those only which can be perceived immediately by sense” (pg.124). I agree with Philonous. If I’m seeing something then common sense tells me that it’s real. So I don’t get why Descartes says that we cannot see reality. I don’t know how to explain to someone that I’m seeing a table, or explain the scent of strawberries, or that something feels rough. It’s just common sense; God gave me that common sense and I’m not going to mistrust it… The reason why I am seeing a table, tv, and the laptop in front of me because it is God’s idea; “It is evident that the things I perceive are my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind. Nor is it less plain that these ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind, since I know myself not to be their author, it being out of my power to determine at pleasure, what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears. They must therefore exist in some mind, whose will it is they should be exhibited to me.” But you know every now and then you have to doubt certain senses. Ugh I don’t know...I’m confused. A reason why I said that is because it reminded me of my last blog on illusions and magic.Now I sound wishy washy going back and forth. But I'm kind of just typing whatever I'm thinking off the top of my head, it's not very organized right now.

One last thing I want to talk about in the blog is that Berkley wants us to avoid skepticism because our ideas are reality, and that tells us the truth. So basically all of reality is in our mind. But I was asking myself so imaginary things are real? But then on page 182 he breaks down the difference between real and imaginary, “the ideas formed by the imagination are faint and indistinct; they have besides an entire dependence on the will. But the ideas perceived by sense, that is, real things, are more vivid and clear, and being imprinted on the mind by a spirit distinct from us, have not a like dependence on our will.” This idea bothers me though. Because ok have you ever felt something that feels so real, but it’s not? I mean you’ve foreseen it, you dream about and it’s a reoccurring dream; everything seems so ‘vivid’ and clear. You even find yourself thinking about it unwillingly, it just feels so real and right. But then you pause and then ask yourself why does this idea always cross my mind if it’s not real? It’s so hard to explain without getting into details, so I’ll leave it at that.

Ta-da!! Magic (Descartes blog 2)

I’m still sticking to the same topic about how your senses deceive you. When we discussed about this topic this automatically made me think of magic. Magicians have many techniques to make you see and to belief something that isn’t real. Magicians use misdirection to get you to not focus on what they’re really doing. I’m not a big magic fan because I just never really believed in it. I guess my mind is stronger than my senses on this particular subject. Magicians play on your senses and make you want to doubt what your mind really perceives. But Descartes teaches us to not doubt ourselves..right? “I am, I exist” (pg.17). So we can’t go wrong. Let’s break down a magic trick. Let’s use our reasoning and not use our senses to see reality. Descartes says that we use our senses to see reality, “whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(pg.12). Magicians are the deceivers trying to get you to think a certain way different from reality. There was a show on Fox network called ‘Breaking the Magician’s Code: Magic’s Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed’. The show explained the methods behind magic tricks and illusions. One of the most famous tricks was revealed, how to “saw a woman in half.” Now we know that can’t be true. I mean in reality if that were to happen, that person would be dead. But remember the magician is trying to deceive you because they want you to use your senses, you see it so it must be true. Well here is how they perform the trick. They get an assistant that is willing to participate in the trick and shackle her at the neck and her ankles on a table. The magician shackles her to make you think that she cannot move. Two special boxes are then put on top of her and are then strapped to the table. The doors of the boxes are then open so we can see the assistant. By doing that, this is what makes the trick so effective. We rely so much on what we see, our senses! Her hand is then tied after they open the doors of the box. The magician then closes the doors and brings out the saw. The saw is real and is very sharp. He then cuts through the middle of the box and sometimes the assistant in the box will scream (another sense that would make us think it’s real) as if she were getting cut. To even add more effect he gets out more blades to “cut” the lady in the box and acts as if he was cutting bone (appearing to struggle to put the blade completely through). After the blades are inserted he removes them, and pulls the assistant in the box apart. He spins the table around to give more of an illusion. The magician then brings the table back together and then removes the blades. After that, he then unties the restraints and the boxes are removed. Low and behold, the assistant is still shackled to the table. The shackles are removed and magically she seems to be still whole, uncut. Well here is what really happens. The shackles that were placed on this assistant gave us an illusion that she can’t escape, when really she can. All the locks placed on the shackle made us think, “oh there is no way to escape.” But, when the doors of the boxes are closed, she can slip her feet out of the shackles and positions herself so that her whole body will fit in one box (the top half). Magicians sometimes even put fake feet that move around on the 2^nd box to create that illusion that the person hasn’t moved. So after the trick has been performed, she then slips her feet back in the shackles. So there you have it, our senses lying to us. But using our reasoning is the only solid foundation to not be deceived by magic. There are so many tricks that have been revealed on that show. I will post a few more. Challenge yourself. Watch the magic trick, and then use your reasoning to explain how the magic trick works before they tell you how it’s really done. 

Descartes

The philosopher of the week that we are discussing about in class is Descartes. Descartes was the “Father of modern philosophy”. He is a French dude and also a mathematician. I think that’s pretty cool, except that so far his thoughts and reasoning are confusing. It’s actually intriguing but I’m kind of waiting for Dr. McAteer to break down the book for us, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding correctly.  I agree with his approach to understanding philosophy by applying math and science because when it is explained in that aspect I feel that it is clearer for people to understand that way. So Descartes is saying that we have to go all the way back to the beginning, back to Plato. He actually wants us to forget everything we know.  Descartes tells us, "I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last" (pg.12) Ugh!! This rollercoaster never ends. It feels like after I have taken a step, I get taken back two steps. I was actually getting comfortable with Aquinas. Although I agree with some of what Plato thought. I actually agree somewhat with every philosopher we have learned about. As a philosopher, it is up to me to figure out what’s the truth. Ok let’s go let’s go let’s go!! Getting back to Descartes, he said that  we need to use our reason to correct our senses; that our mind is more reliable than senses because the "senses deceive you" (pg.12).  Funny story is that about an hour or so after philosophy class my friend texted me commenting on a picture I had sent. My friend told me that I look “darker” in that picture and asked if I had gotten a tan. I laughed because it reminded me of lecture. The setting in the picture was of me standing at the car wash as the sun was setting. So I had to explain to my friend that in the picture my body is blocking the sunrays in a particular spot and that is casting shadows on my body and making my skin look darker. I jokingly told them to take a philosophy class to correct their senses because their sense and mind is playing tricks on them.  The picture looks so awesome that it actually does look like I had a tan or something and not shadows. Hmm, maybe my senses are tricking me?? Descartes wants us to pretend that an evil demon is deceiving us, because that’s a way to break the habit of using your senses. I don’t know about this one. It’s too hard to do because I feel that I am not crazy and nothing is deceiving me. God is guiding me so how am I deceived? So I guess I’ll give it a try. So according to Descartes I have to pretend that the demon made my mind crazy so I should doubt my mind and reasoning. So I’m not doing an assignment for philosophy, I might be actually doing an assignment for my chemistry class. I’m not in this philosophy class and this assignment is made up. Dr. McAteer is steering me wrong, he is not teaching philosophy, he is teaching us how to make homemade ice cream and that is actually our assignment. Good deal! I’d rather be making and eating ice cream right now. So why am I typing on my laptop? Or is this even a laptop? Twilight zone! Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo! See how crazy this sounds. But hmmm maybe he has a point; it really makes you think or wonder…

Paging Dr. House. (Aquinas blog 2).

In class during a lecture we were discussing about everything that we do aims to philosophy. So we discussed about the active versus contemplative life. Things that fall under an active life are: doing/applying something, political activity, and phronesis (practical wisdom). Living in a contemplative life we understand, practice philosophy, and gain sophia (contemplating the forms or theoretical wisdom) (pg. 685 -686). In my previous blog I was wondering why moral virtues isn’t happiness. Aquinas believed that moral virtues are ordered to something else. Moral virtues make emotions in the right order so you can do philosophy. So that means we use practical application (action) to understand the truth (contemplation) (pg.278-80). But in our society we generally don’t see it that way. Even Plato did not see it that way. In our society we contemplate and then take action.

(We all should remember this sketch)

Aquinas believed: Action ----------->Contemplation

Plato believed: Action<---------------Contemplation

I actually saw it both ways, but Aquinas says it can’t be both ways because one has to be the end (aim or purpose). An interesting topic came about in class where a pupil questioned Aquinas belief on why the arrow pointed this way ------->. She said if that’s true, then that means a doctor is supposed to act (practice medicine) and then understand medicine (fundamental knowledge that one achieves by going to medical school). That seems bizarre to me that a doctor would act before understanding what he/she is doing. I don’t think anybody would trust doctors to perform surgeries at all if that were the case. And I also thought generally doctors practice medicine (contemplation) to become doctors to save lives (action). My dream is to become a doctor just to help save lives and also to understand the human body. That’s why I thought the arrow could go both ways <----->, like its in equilibrium. This topic made me think about the tv show House (by the way I really love this show, it is one of my personal favorites). Dr. House I believe sees the arrow going the way Aquinas sees it. Gregory House, M.D., is a fictional character played by actor Hugh Laurie. House is a medical genius and a diagnostician and specializes in infectious diseases and nephrology. He works as the Chief of Diagnostic Medicine at Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey, where he heads a team of diagnosticians. House's character is seen as a cynical, misanthropical, narcissist. His team and anybody who knows him calls him an “ass”. House flaunts his vast knowledge around and always wants to prove that he’s right.  His friend and colleague James Wilson M.D., says that some doctors have the “Messiah complex” (feeling like they need to save lives or save the world), but House has the “Rubik’s complex” (he needs to solve the puzzle).  House always wants to try crazy treatments just to prove that he’s right. He even disregards patients’ feelings or consent just to find out why a certain disease is causing the patient to die. Not because they are dying, but just because he wants to understand and to know the truth. I remember an episode on the show called “house training” where one of his colleagues Eric Foreman M.D., misdiagnosed a patient and ended up causing her death. House wanted to give her an aspiration while the patient was suffering and dying. He didn’t care that the patient was dying; he wanted to do a procedure on an already dying patient and didn’t want to wait until she died to do the aspiration to find out the cause of her falling ill. He needed to know so badly what the team missed and what the big mystery of her fatal illness was. But Dr. Foreman made him wait until she was dead. Dr. House even wanted to inject a patient with Hepatitis A to prove that his theory is right and will cure a patient that had some other infectious disease. He comes up with crazy ideas that are usually right and usually performs these actions and cures patients. These actions helps to reaffirm what he knows and also that he’s right.

Aquinas

Philosophy is really starting to aggravate me! Arggh! It seems like you know and then you have no idea, or then you get confused.  Aquinas really threw me off. I just don’t know anymore. I just want to start off by saying I believe God exists because history, nature, the Bible, faith, and Jesus Christ. When we look at the mountains, the moon, how the sun rotates, humans, creatures, anything and everything on this world, then you know that God exists. Nature and history shows us some truths about God, but it does not tell us enough about God. But most of all Jesus Christ confirms his existence and through Jesus he shows us what we need to do to be a good human being and how to have a close relationship with God. I think so far Aquinas agrees with that. But what throws me off is that Aquinas thinks, “human happiness does not consist in moral activities” (page 278). Why not? I think that is a part of happiness. Aquinas says that because, “ The ultimate end of things is to be assimilated to God. Therefore, man’s happiness will lie in that which most assimilates him to God. But this does not come about through the moral virtues, since such acts can only be attributed to God metaphorically, because God does not have passions or anything like them, which are the moral subject of moral virtues.” It makes it seem like he is telling us to be God. That just doesn’t seem right to me. It is impossible to me because we aren’t God, we are humans. I know we are suppose to imitate God, but we are not perfect. I get the whole negative theory and that God does not express emotions because he doesn’t have emotions. The bible is symbolic but through Jesus we should know how to act, and that consists of moral virtues. Jesus displayed characteristics of moral virtues and emotions. Like for example, I believe that to enter into the Kingdom of God and also to be close to God, we must show compassion. Jesus was very compassionate. I remember a parable in the bible where it talks about a slave that owes his master money and the slave then begged to have mercy on him. The master forgave the slaves debt. But that same slave didn’t show mercy to someone that owed him money. When the master found out, he threw that slave into prison. I just don’t know, this whole order thing gets confusing. It feels like Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristotle beliefs are all just running together. So moral activities are ordered to something else so that cannot be happiness according to Aquinas. I just really believe that it’s a part of being happy but I understand that it does not mean complete happiness. I’m on Aristotle’s side with this situation. Aquinas says that since we can’t have the form of God in us, then we must understand God to be close to Him. True happiness is contemplating the form of God. I’m still searching for the answer on what that exactly means that we should do.

St. Augustine and the Desperate Housewives

While I was trying to catch up on watching desperate housewives, there was a particular part on the show that caught my attention because it was a topic that we discussed in class about St. Augustine. Well to summarize the show Desperate Housewives, it is basically about the lives of female friends living in a suburban neighborhood.  Each episode uncovers secrets and truths among the housewives and even their husbands at times. Bree Van de Kamp-Hodge is a fictional character on desperate housewives that is played by actress Marcia Cross. Bree is a mother of two and was widowed after her husband died, but then remarried a guy named Orson Hodge. Orson Hodge is a fictional character off the show played by actor Kyle MacLachian. Orson Hodge was a prestigious dentist that lost his career after hitting one of the other housewives husband with his car and driving off. He was sent to prison. The reason he did that was to keep his secrets hidden. But anyway, at the end of season 4, Bree became an author and wrote her own cookbook (Bree is known for her wonderful culinary skills). In season 5 her cookbook was published and she also opened a successful catering business. When Orson got out of jail he needed a job since nobody would hire him because he’s an ex-con. Bree gave him a job in her business, but it didn’t hold any weight. She also didn’t like him making decisions or trying to change recipes. Bree felt like his management was totally different from her vision of her business. Bree didn’t want him to have any say in the company, and the company started a schism between Bree and Orson. Orson begins stealing, initially to punish people who he feels have been rude, and then to hurt Bree for not making him apart of the company and because Bree was too consumed with the company. Ok now to connect the reading with the show… so I was reading “The Stolen Fruit”, “Why Men Sin”, and “The Anatomy of Evil” (book 2 chapters 4-6) in St. Augustine’s confessions and it just reminded me of Orson Hodge. St. Augustine stole a pear that he didn’t want or even need at all. The same with Orson Hodge, he stole miscellaneous things that were of no importance to him. Foul was the evil, and he loved it. Because Bree has a high reputation and he wanted to see her squirm so then she will quit the business. He put his wife and other people through grief, because he was angry and wanted to get revenge. St. Augustine said, “Anger seeks vengeance: who takes vengeance with more justice than you?” Stealing random items was not what his “unhappy soul” desired. He wanted to become closer to his wife but he went about it the wrong way.  To me he had disorderly love of God, and the sanctity of his marriage. After Orson told his wife why he has been stealing, he demanded that she sell the business. In the end Bree got a divorce with Orson and Orson really didn’t want a divorce. Everything he did to Bree to teach her a lesson, ended his marriage; “sadness wastes away over things now lost which desires once took delight.”

St Augustine's Confessions

Ok so there are a few topics I would like to talk about in St. Augustine’s confessions.  One thing that caught my attention was in book 1 Chapter 13 where St. Augustine was talking about studies in Greek and Latin. St. Augustine talks about a fictional character named Dido, who killed herself for love.  He claims that if people cried for her, then they are sinning because they love the fictional character more than their selves. To quote Augustine he said, “Who can be more wretched than the wretched one who takes no pity on himself, who weeps over Dido’s death, which she brought to pass by love for Aeneas, and who does not weep over his own death, brought to pass by not loving you, O God, light of my heart, bread for the inner mouth of my soul, power wedding together my mind and the bosom of my thoughts? I did not love you, and I committed fornication against you…”God made me a human being. Which means I have emotions, and as a being, emotions can’t be controlled all the time. I think God made me extra emotional too, lol. There isn’t an off and on switch that tells me to stop displaying emotions no matter the situation. Trust me I wish it were that easy. I’m known to cry during a sad part of a movie or show. Like the movie ‘John Q’, I practically cried my eyes out during that movie. I cry during sad movies, not really because the character is dying, but mostly because I sometimes put myself in those certain situations and then I see how stuff like that effects people and how situations like that happen everyday in real life. So watching ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and crying during the movie is a sin? Because I get a mental image of my Lord suffering that is a sin? I get that St. Augustine is saying a fictional character (such as an actor), but sometimes a fictional character helps us see and understand certain situations. To enter into the Lords Kingdom, we must show compassion. That does not mean that I care about a fictional character more than myself or more than God, because I know in the end its acting coming from the character, but then again something like that is happening to someone in the world. I disagree that in doing that, that is a sin of disordered love. So, St. Augustine: 0 Nena: 1. Lol, that was a joke, har har. If St. Augustine were still alive, I would tell him that he needs to relax a little. He is very obsessed with sin. I’m afraid to even say I love ice cream or anything for that matter because it is a sin of disordered love. One thing I do agree with St. Augustine is that in book 4 chapter 10 about a changing universe. “For whatever way the soul of man turns, it is fixed upon sorrows any place except in you, even though it is fixed upon beautiful things that are outside of you and outside itself.” St. Augustine is saying that anything you turn to will cause you sorrow except for God. Because, God never changes but everything else does. A particular reason this passage caught my attention is because at this moment, I’m having a difficult time with one of my good friends. I feel like they have really disappointed me and this is not the only time, there have been other times too.  Even your own mother causes you sorrow, anything you think that won’t will. The people that you love will cause you sorrow because they are always changing; they are becoming more or less everyday. I now understand why St. Augustine says, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” You can’t rest your heart in any human being because they will cause you sorrow.

Kanye West's Version of the Good Life

Ok, well I was sitting in my room listening to the Kanye West album titled ‘Graduation’ and there is a song called ‘The Good Life’ on the album. Then I started thinking, if Aristotle were still alive he would be shaking his head in disapproval, lol. On page 97 & 98 (1095b15-1095b25) Aristotle believed there are three different lives: The life of consumption (life of pleasure), life of political activity (virtue), and the life of reflection (wisdom). Well obviously their views on living the good life are different. Aristotle believed the life of consumption, which most view as happiness, is wrong and will not give you happiness. “Now most of the utterly slavish sort of people obviously decide in favour of a life that belongs to grazing cattle, and not without reason, given that many of those things in high places behave like Sardanapallus.” In this quote Aristotle is trying to say us human beings are rational human beings. We have to find a unique function and to live with rational activity. We will not achieve full potential as human beings with the life of consumption.

Well let’s move along to Kanye’s type of living the good life. Kanye cites a lot of material items like the features of owning a Ferrari vs. owning a regular car, alcohol, and going on vacations, as the reason he's living the good life. In the song Kanye says, “I always had a passion for flashin’ (meaning having flashy things), befo’ I had it, I closed my eyes and imagined. The good life!” Kanye feels good and happy when he has the fine things in life (extravagant clothes, jewelry, cars etc.) However, it should be noted that Kanye spent years of his life going to school, working regular jobs, attempting to get a conventional education, and all the things people claim you should do to live a good life. However, he wasn't happy with that life. Those were other people's paths, not his. He did it his way, making beats and writing songs that he's always dreamed about. To him, that's the good life. In the process, he's helped open doors to individuals who have the passions of making music to express their talent and uniqueness. Also in the song, he sort of leaves what the "the good life" is open to interpretation when he exclaims the good life feeling like an array of different cities; “The good life, it feels like Houston, it feels like Philly, it feels like D.C., it feels like V.A. or the Bay or Yay. Ayy! This is the good life.” The good life could be just how you feel when you're trying something new or seeing new things, that weren't possible when you were not happy with what you're doing. I feel that Kanye thinks he has already achieved his maximum potential. That he is already unique, and that makes him happy. But the question is, “Is he really happy?”

In our society pleasure is the main source of happiness. Whatever makes you feel good you get happiness from that. Most people look at the entertainment media and try to imitate their lives. The entertainment media shows that living the glamorous, luxurious life is the good life (i.e. being rich and spending money on fabulous things such as: vacations, clothes, cars, house, etc.) There are plenty songs that view the good life as being rich and getting anything you want. But Aristotle is questioning if all that really makes you happy? Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which means happiness. Eudaimonia is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by living in a way that reaches your full potential you flourish and show the best version of you that you can be. Aristotle thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation (pg. 117 1107a1-1107a25). Every action that Kanye makes to achieve happiness is certainly not intermediate. So pretty much Aristotle disagrees, and that’s not living the good life.

Aristotle's Happiness

Ok, so Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics is a little hard to digest. I had a hard time trying to grasp a few of his concepts. But after a few lectures, it starts to make sense. What I gathered so far from this book is that Aristotle is teaching us human beings the art of living, and how to live the good life.

           

            In book one, chapter one it describes how an intentional action leads to a telos; which means an end, goal, aim, or purpose. Every intentional action we make is aiming at something good, and it may or may not be a selfish good. Everything we do on purpose is good for somebody. This reminds me of the typical scenario in wars. A bomb is being thrown at many soldiers and one courageous soldier risks his life and covers the bomb with his body in order to save others lives. This isn’t a selfish good. The end result is not good for him, but good for others. But there is a difference among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities that produce them. Activities an action is good whereas products is not necessarily good and may give you a different end product. One action can lead to a sequence of many ends. But ultimately the chain stops (1094 a20) and we achieve the chief good. For me, in attending college, I seek to get a degree so I can get a good job and live comfortably. The end result, living comfortably, would make me happy which is my chief good. But there are many products from the action of attending college. Such as, following my course requirements made me aware of different topics that educated me on different aspects of life and also gave me the tools to endure situations in life. But that wasn’t my intended goal; it just came along with trying to reach my chief good. Chief good= happiness= living well, doing well, and flourishing=healthy soul. Some equation right?  Feels like I’m in math class now. Anyway, but people have different opinions on what happiness is to them. Christians believe that just existence is being happy. Many people equate happiness with pleasure. Aristotle says happiness is not a feeling but an objective fact. Acting well is when you’re happy. Doing the right thing is happiness. “For a single swallow does not make spring, nor does a single day; in the same way, neither does a single day, short time, make a man blessed.” You must act well throughout a long period of time to achieve happiness. Happiness can only be achieved in complete excellence and living a complete life (p. 105 1100a1). So wait a minute, according to Aristotle I’m not happy. When I tell people I am living a happy life, it is not true? I have to die first to know if I lived a happy life? Wow, seems depressing to me. I somewhat disagree but I see what he is saying. I have to look at the time line of my life (which is still going on) to judge if I was happy. Because I don’t know if later in life something will cause me to be unhappy. Well my solution is I’ll just tell people I’m happy with my life right now for the time being :) Lol.

An issue that I wanted to also discuss is the differences of happiness between Plato and Aristotle. Plato believes your choices make you happy and Aristotle believes it is not up to your choices only, but fate as well. Hmmm.. I’m kind of stuck in the middle with this. To me it can go both ways. At first I was with Plato because I’ve been in a situation where I was very ill; this was a life and death situation. But that did not lead me to become a worse person, and I was still happy even though I had an unfortunate illness. Most people would have been unhappy but I wasn’t. Ultimately staying happy kept me alive and made me better. But I’ve seen somebody who was considered “good” by everybody lose everything in a blink of an eye. Even though he had faith in God, he was still unhappy. The loss of all his prized possessions in life harmed him.  *sigh* So I can see why the meaning of happiness is so hard to grasp. What do y’all think??

The Apology and Pop Culture: Socrates and Tupac??

Hello everybody! Well I have to admit I struggled with this assignment. I’m not sure why, it’s like I have a lot of ideas but I still was not sure what to write about. After discussing with a few people that are close to me about my ideas, I decided to compare Tupac and Socrates.  Music to Tupac was like what Philosophy was to Socrates. I picked up a bit of similarities in Plato’s Apology with the life of Tupac. Tupac and Socrates didn’t live the same life and maybe weren’t similar at all, but their love for something great caused them to die.  Y’all should already know the background of Socrates since we’ve been studying about him for the past two and a half weeks. But I’d like to give a little bit of information on Tupac, for those that don’t know who Tupac was.  Tupac was considered the best and most influential rapper of all times. He was also a promising actor, and a social activist. Most of Tupac's songs are about growing up with violence and hardship in ghettos, racism, other social problems, and conflicts with other rappers during the East coast-West coast hip hop rivalry.  Ok, stay with me... I’m trying to connect the similarities together with parts of the Apology.

They say: “That man Socrates is a pestilential fellow who corrupts the young." In the same way some people thought Tupac corrupted the young with his lyrics and his actions. People protested against his music in order to silence him. C. Delores Tucker is a person that wanted him silenced. She is an outspoken anti-rap activist, who used references to him often when campaigning against rap before and after his death.  She wanted him to learn the power of words and use them to inspire and heal, instead of denigrate and destroy. I then thought about what Socrates says in the Apology: “Do you accuse me here of corrupting the young and making them worse deliberately or unwillingly.” I believe Tupac did not do it deliberately. It was more unwillingly, to express what he went through, what he sees, and what he think is his truths and to enlighten others. In one of Tupac’s interviews, he claims he is only telling about his life, and that his music is spiritual. He doesn’t believe his songs give off any image of corruptive nature that some people see. There is positive also. In Tupac’s songs he attacked social injustice, poverty and police brutality.  A friend of Tupac believed another reason some people felt Tupac was a threat to society and the youth was that when he worked ‘Rock the Vote,’ he was getting a lot of young people to vote who probably wouldn’t of voted. Tupac got those young people to vote, and their views were now turning into votes against and for certain political figures, they now were helping to decide the fate of the nation. Tupac also defends himself against the sexual assault charges that sent him to prison and he felt that people are trying to slander him, and that wasn’t the truth.

Ok Tupac didn’t necessarily live the pious life, but he never backed down from what he had to say, he defended everything he had to say. People may or may not have liked him for what he had to say, but that did not stop him from doing what he did; which was to write music/poetry on what he believed to be was the truth.  Just like piety was embedded in Socrates heart, “thug life” was embedded in Tupac’s heart (Which ultimately led to his death). He couldn’t stop the way he was. He felt that he was not doing anything wrong, just expressing his feelings, and by expressing his feeling led to his death. Tupac knew the consequences of what will happen if he said certain things, and I believe he knew he was about to die. The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory was Tupac’s last album.  Like Socrates, Tupac did not fear death.  In songs like “Hail Mary”, he talks about not fearing death. Also on his song, “Against all Odds”, he says “Probably be murdered for the s&%# that I said, I bring the real, be a legend, breathin the dead.” It’s like he will not stop preaching his truths, even if his punishment is death. “Neither I nor any other man should, on trial or in war, contrive to avoid death in every cost.” Tupac did just that, he didn’t avoid death; on his The Don Killumanti album he constantly portrays himself as a soldier at war.

Tupac says, “The only thing that can kill me is death, that’s the only thing that will ever stop me is death. And even then, my music will live forever.” It’s like how Socrates will not stop preaching Philosophy no matter where he goes. Even in death he will still be spending his time “examining” people. Indeed, Socrates Philosophy and Tupac’s music will live on forever. Many people draw inspiration from the two. Influencing the young and the old, from generation to generation, from country to country.  

Below is a video on where I got some of my ideas about Tupac. I think there are 7 parts to that video, but I chose Tupac 7 Day Adventist aka 7 Day Theory pt.3 *WARNING. CONTENT IS EXPLICIT* 

Plato's Five Dialouges.

I would like to first start off by saying I’ve enjoyed reading the dialogues that I’ve read so far.  They have really expanded my mind and made me want to make more room for self-improvement based on the way I think, and to question my logic as well as others to get a full knowledge or understanding of the truth.  So let me summarize Euthyphro then give my thoughts on this dialogue.

            Plato opens up the dialogue with Euthyphro, and showcases the Socrates technique and manner in questioning people. In the Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates is on his way to court to defend the charges of Meletus that he creates his own gods and does not believe in the gods of society.  On his way to the court he meets Euthyphro, who is supposedly a lawyer-priest of some sort who tells Socrates that he is prosecuting his own father for the murder of a slave. But the slave also murdered someone else too. Socrates then asks the “wise” Euthyphro to explain to him the truth about what is pious and what impious, since he claims to know the answer and that he could explain it to Socrates; if he can tell the court what he has learned from the knowledgeable Euthyphro, he will have no trouble answering Meletus' charges. Euthyphro tries to define what is pious as that which is pleasing to the gods, but Socrates shows him that his definition is really just an effect of piety, and Euthyphro never gives Socrates the answer to what pious and impious means.

When I first started reading Euthyphro, I actually thought Socrates himself was a sophist. He just came off as an arrogant, know it all, wise guy, that was trying to make a fool out of people. Socrates then suggests he should be a pupil of Euthyphro and asks questions that he knows Euthyphro cannot answer. I felt that Socrates knew Euthphyro could not answer his question, I don’t know if anyone else got that vibe. It then made me feel that Socrates was being dishonest to be a pupil to people he knows that can't answer his questions. It was as if he just kept asking questions to make Euthyphro dig a deeper hole for himself. Maybe he was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. But upon further reading, I genuinely believe that Socrates just really wants to enlighten people and point out contradictions to make you take a step back and reevaluate, to open your eyes and realize you’re not always right. What you think you know, may or may not be the truth, and we must further examine. By going in any conversation ignorant and leaving behind what you think you know, is actually wisdom; a person is wise because he or she is not wise. Socrates is amongst the wise because he admits his ignorance but at the same time displaying true wisdom in his usual manner of questioning. In this dialogue, Socrates used repetitive questions and uses of analogies to point out Euthyphro’s contradictions. On page 12-18 is the part I had to reread until I think I had a clear understanding. It blew my mind, it was very mind boggling. It sounded like a riddle. I know I’m not the only one who had to reread that part, lol. I swear I read those pages at least a dozen times. There were just too many repetitive questions and analogies, I had to go back and connect them with the original question of what is pious and impious.  I was really hoping Euthyphro would just admit that he is not as wise as he thinks he is and just say he really doesn’t know the answer. We as humans sometimes do not like self-correction. It is hard to admit you’re wrong or you don’t know something, due to your beliefs.  My hopes upon reading this are that myself and others will change how we view life and interaction between others. Socrates is just seeking the truth and will not stop seeking wisdom until the truth is revealed.  I too want to seek the truth and now ask a series of questions just like Socrates. Although, it drives my parents and friends crazy, I will not stop. :)