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.