Oct 12/13
LH
- What do you think of James's squirrel story? Do you agree with his point? 165
- Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
- Do you think Peirce's definition of truth is a good one? 166 If not, how would you define it?
- Was Bertrand Russell right about James's theory of truth? 168
- If true ideas "work," do they need to work for everyone? What if they only work for one person? Is "true for me" an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms?
- Was Richard Rorty right about how to think about the relation between words and the world? 169
- What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"?
- Was Nietzsche right about "Christian values"? 173
- Is the idea of an "Ubermensch" compatible with democracy, in light of what Nigel finds "a bit worrying"? 174
- Do we have to choose between the ideas of Nietzsche and Kant? 175
- Is Freud's "unconscious" real? Did he in fact "discover" it, or invent the idea of it? Is it a useful concept? 177
- Is psychoanalysis the only or the best "talking cure"? 178
- Was Freud unhealthily obsessed with sex and sexual imagery? 179
- Was Freud right about why (some) people believe in God? 180
- Was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis good? 181
FL
- What do you think of "the takeaway"? 190
- Would you have voted to give Charles Tart tenure? 195
- Are "ecstatic spiritualism" and "fundamentalist evangelical holy-rolling Christianity" drug-substitutes? 199
- Is the time ripe for another conspiratorial/apocalyptic bestseller like The Late, Great Planet Earth? 206
- Is there currently a religious leader with the "moderate" reputation of the late Billy Graham, deserved or not?207
HWT
- Do we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours?
- In The Second Mountain, the sequel to The Road to Character (269), David Brooks says when he wrote The Road to Character "I was still enclosed in the prison of individualism... I no longer believe that character formation is mostly an individual task... I now think good character is a by-product of giving yourself away." Do you think MLK Jr., Gandhi, Mandela, and other heroic icons, did that? What does it mean to build your character by "giving yourself away"?
- Must a "gentleman" be "a member of the ruling upper classes"?
- Is it better toi be a gentleman (gentleperson) or an exemplary person?
- Must you choose between persons and "positions"? 270
- Should prominent scholars be active public figures, and vice versa? 271
- Why do so many American politicians try so hard not to appear to be "intellectuals" but rather "populists"?
- Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
- Are Nordic nations now the most admired societies today? 274
- Is there anything more important than being honorable? 278
- Are riches and honor currently shameful in America, or should they be?
- What does "liberation" mean to you? How does it relate to "pleasure in this life"? 283
- What does it mean to be "free from your body while still alive"? 284
- Can you be "indifferent to wealth" without rejecting it? 287
- Should you be "a friend of the world"? 288
Robert Richardson's terrific James biography... Richardson speaking at the 2010 Chocorua James conference (YouTube)... Peirce's pragmatic maxim (in Richardson)... The pragmatic attitude (in Menand's Metaphysical Club... James on The Sentiment of Rationality and The Dilemma of Determinism...John Kaag, Hiking With Nietzsche (Longreads book excerpt)... Falling Out With Superman (nyt-on Nietzsche)... a skeptical critique of Freud... Story Corps at Thanksgiving... Should frats be scrapped?
==
Falling Out With Supermanstumbled upon Friedrich Nietzsche when I was 17, following the usual trail of existential candies -- Camus, Sartre, Beckett -- that unsuspecting teenagers find in the woods. The effect was more like a drug than a philosophy. I was whirled upward -- or was it downward? -- into a one-man universe, a secret cult demanding that you put a gun to the head of your dearest habits and beliefs. That intoxicating whiff of half-conscious madness; that casually hair-raising evisceration of everything moral, responsible and parentally approved -- these waves overwhelmed my adolescent dinghy. And even more than by his ideas -- many of which I didn't understand at all, but some of which I perhaps grasped better then than I do now -- I was seduced by his prose. At the end of his sentences you could hear an electric crack, like the whip of a steel blade being tested in the air. He might have been the Devil, but he had better lines than God.
I was sold. Like those German soldiers in World War I who were found dead with copies of ''Thus Spake Zarathustra'' in their pockets, I hauled my tattered purple-covered copy of the Viking Portable Nietzsche with me everywhere. It was with me when I dropped out of college after a semester to go work in a shipyard, with me years later when, sitting on a knoll on a tiny island off Vancouver, I decided to wake up from my dream of total escape and go back to school. I read him to elevate myself, to punish myself, to remind myself of the promises I had broken. He was the closest thing I had to a church.
Eventually, I stopped going to church. There were various reasons for this, some of them good and some of them not; I couldn't sort out which was which then, and can't now. Maybe it was just satiation. The philosopher John Searle once told me that reading Nietzsche was like drinking cognac -- a sip was good, but you didn't want to drink the whole bottle. I'd been pounding Nietzsche by the case.
So I left Nietzsche alone on his mountaintop. But as every lapsed believer knows, you never wholly escape the church. Nietzsche had come to stand for something absolute and pure, like gilded Byzantium or Ahab's whale; he represented what I imagined I might have been. He had become a permanent horizon.
Oddly, during this long, strange love affair, I avoided learning much about Nietzsche's life. Maybe this was because I had turned him into a shrine -- after all, totems have no history. I knew only the superficials: that he was a desperately lonely man, poor and largely unread, plagued by bad health, who went mad at the age of 44.
Then, last summer, I planned a trip to Switzerland. As a highlight, I decided to visit Sils-Maria -- the small village near St. Moritz where Nietzsche spent seven summers and wrote many of his masterpieces. The tourist soon won out over the iconoclast: now that I was going to stand where the Master stood, I couldn't pretend I didn't care about how he lived, what people he liked, what he wore. So I immersed myself in various biographical accounts: ''Nietzsche in Turin,'' Lesley Chamberlain's psychologically penetrating book about the philosopher's final year; Ronald Hayman's challenging ''Nietzsche: A Critical Life''; and a book that only a Nietzsche cultist would consume, ''The Good European: Nietzsche's Work Sites in Word and Image.''
It wasn't the grand narrative of his life but the details that stayed with me. The joke photograph in which he and his friend Paul Ree posed in a cart over which Lou Salome, the 21-year-old woman with whom he was timidly, desperately in love, held a whip. Nietzsche in the Caligari-shadowed last days of his sanity, once again turning himself into a character in an unhappy novel, lamenting that a journey was ''perhaps the most unfortunate I have made'' simply because he had climbed aboard the wrong train. The fact that he liked ''Tom Sawyer.'' The solicitude of an old female friend who tried to buck him up but was unable to teach him not to let everything wound him. The visitor who simply reported how much he liked Herr Nietzsche, the lonely, earnest professor with the bad eyes.
This wasn't the Nietzsche I remembered. The philosopher I had worshiped was an uncanny hybrid, simultaneously a terrifying Old Testament prophet and a 19th-century free spirit. To be sure, much of Nietzsche -- maybe the best of him -- was as lucid, critical and quick-footed as Stendhal. Yet it was the monstrous doctrines at the heart of his thought -- the Overman, the Eternal Recurrence -- that had drawn me; they hypnotized me because I couldn't figure out whether they were coming from man or some frightening gospel. Now that I understood how much of Nietzsche's work was an attempt to turn his personal torment into something lasting, I realized that perhaps those enigmatic pronouncements were best seen not as antitruths handed down from on high, but as words he whispered to himself, beacons he lighted in the darkness to cheer himself up. What was great in Nietzsche was not, I began to see, his holiness, maybe not even his wisdom. It was his courage.
Then I went to Sils.
Sils-Maria is a bland one-horse resort village under spectacular mountains between two crystalline lakes. Terminally respectable Swiss burghers polish their vacation homes; tourists (''They climb mountains like animals, stupid and sweating,'' Nietzsche wrote) fill the hotels. The Nietzsche-Haus stands near the center. In his day it was a tea and spice shop whose owner rented an upstairs room to Nietzsche; now it is a museum. In front of the tidy white-and-green building stands a sculpture of a large black eagle -- one of the companions that consoled Zarathustra in his last loneliness. On a gray afternoon I pulled open the door and climbed the stairs to his room.
No one was there. I looked in. A small, low-ceilinged room, walls of knotty pine. A lumpy-looking bed. A small table with a green silk cover. A washbasin. A single window, looking out onto a patch of the forest.
We go to literary shrines to touch things. We run our fingers along the writing table, we furtively step over the red velvet rope and finger the water jug by the edge of the bed. Yet to feel the pedestal is to call the very idea of the pedestal into question. Which is why there is something comic in all pilgrimages: while Don Quixote holds loftily forth, Sancho Panza steals the ashtray.
But as I ran my fingertips along the knotty pine, it all rose up: the indelible words that had been created here; the misery of the man who had shivered out his life in this room; and all the years I had spent charting my course by a dream. Standing outside in the hallway, I was surprised to find myself beginning to weep, like the most breast-heaving pilgrim.
A familiar voice, very old and once sacred to me, protested. I could not pity Nietzsche. It was a betrayal of everything he had believed. He had railed against pity. Compassion was for the hearth-huddlers, the followers, those who lacked the strength to turn themselves into ''dancing stars.'' The last temptation of the higher man, Nietzsche had taught, was pity; on its far side was a roaring, Dionysian, inhuman laughter.
I could recite this chapter and verse, but I had never been able to live it. It was the most alien and terrifying of Nietzsche's teachings. Still, long reverence pulled me up short. Here, of all places, I must feel no pity.
But my heart won the war. Maybe it was resignation -- the final acceptance that I was not going to forge myself into a new shape. Maybe it was weariness with a doctrine, with all doctrines, that sounded delirious but that couldn't be used. Whatever it was, I stopped fighting. Yes, part of Nietzsche would always stand far above the tree line, and I would treasure that iciness. But I had to walk on the paths where I could go.
Still confused, I stood in the doorway. And then, as a gift, the following words came into my head, words spoken by Zarathustra to his disciples, disciples that Nietzsche himself never had. ''You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? . . . Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.''
I took a last look at the room. Then I walked out the door.
NYT... Gary Kamiya is executive editor of the online magazine Salon.com.
==
by John Kaag (excerpt)
I often tell my students that philosophy saved my life. And it’s true. But on that first trip to Sils-Maria—on my way to Piz Corvatsch—it nearly killed me. It was 1999, and I was in the process of writing a thesis about genius, insanity, and aesthetic experience in the writings of Nietzsche and his American contemporary Ralph Waldo Emerson. On the sheltered brink of my twenties, I’d rarely ventured beyond the invisible walls of central Pennsylvania, so my adviser pulled some administrative strings and found a way for me to escape. At the end of my junior year he handed me an unmarked envelope—inside was a check for three thousand dollars. “You should go to Basel,” he suggested, probably knowing full well that I wouldn’t stay there.
Basel was a turning point, a pivot between Nietzsche’s early conventional life as a scholar and his increasingly erratic existence as Europe’s philosopher-poet. He had come to the city in 1869 as the youngest tenured faculty member at the University of Basel. In the ensuing years he would write his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, in which he argued that the allure of tragedy was its ability to harmonize the two competing urges of being human: the desire for order and the strange but undeniable longing for chaos. When I arrived in Basel, still a teenager, I couldn’t help thinking that the first of these drives—an obsessive craving for stability and reason that Nietzsche termed “the Apollonian”—had gotten the better of modern society.
The train station in Basel is a model of Swiss precision—beautiful people in beautiful clothes glide through a grand atrium to meet trains that never fail to run on time. Across the street stands a massive cylindrical skyscraper, home to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the most powerful financial institution in the world. I exited the station and ate my breakfast outside the bank as a throng of well-suited Apollos vanished inside on their way to work. “The educated classes,” Nietzsche explained, “are being swept along by a hugely contemptible money economy.” The prospects for life in modern capitalist society were lucrative but nonetheless bleak: “The world has never been so worldly, never poorer in love and goodness.” (continues)
==
Old post-
Peirce & James, LISTEN: Robert Talisse on Pragmatism (PB)... Podcast... Also see "On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings" and "Sentiment of Rationality/Dilemma of Determinism"
The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit; and different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise.
Oct 14/15
NO ZOOM MEETING TODAY, focus on your midterm blog post and weekly essay/comments
When I first read the squirrel story that was told by William James in chapter 28 of A little History of Philosophy, I tried to mathematically imagine a picture of his story. First I thought about the tree being a (0,0) on the coordinate plane and I randomly gave the tree a radius of 1. I put the squirrel traveling around the tree, so it would travel around the points (1,0), (0,1), (-1,0), and (0,-1) before restarting the journey around the tree again in that counterclockwise motion. I also randomly assigned the hunter to be a radius of 2 from the center of the tree. Since he starts on the opposite of the tree. His counterclockwise journey consists of (-2,0), (0,-2), (2,0), and (0,2) and repeats n-number of trials. So mathematically AND semantically, the squirrel is circling the tree while the hunter is also circling the tree in a larger circle therefore the hunter must also be circling the squirrel. It is kind of like the heliocentric solar system model. It would have the tree where the Sun is, the squirrel could be represented by Mercury and the hunter represented by the Earth. Both planets revolve around the sun but I see it as Earth is also circling (or encircling) Venus because it’s orbit is larger and totally surrounds Venus’ orbit. It almost feels like this was a semantic argument rather than a pragmatist one. I found a video on youtube that compared pragmatic vs. semantic definitions (https://youtu.be/A7pUbA_96Dw). This video gave a good example about telling someone to “Crack a window”. It explained how the pragmatist interpretation of this sentence was very important and could vary based on the context of the situation. In the first example, two people are in a hot room and one guy says to “crack the window”. The pragmatist knows that the sentence means open the window. In its second example, two guys are locked out of a house and one guy says “crack a window”. Now the different situation might actually mean to crack open or break the window. I wish that author Nigel Warburton had explained the semantic stance so that I could have understood William James better.
ReplyDeleteCommented on Don Enss October 13, 2020 at 11:03 AM
DeleteCommented on Calvin Parrack October 13, 2020 at 10:53 AM
Weekly Essay
Grand Total: 41
Yes, I agree with his point. Since I experienced this story growing up on the farm, James is correct that the squirrel’s belly is always facing the hunter as they move around the tree. No matter what direction the hunter moves to try and position himself for a shot, the squirrel will always move in the opposite direction. “The point of this example is to show that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences – the ‘cash value’ of what you decide” (Warburton, 165). So, the pragmatic approach to getting the squirrel was a simple trick. I would pick up a large stick and throw it on the opposite side of where I was standing and invariably the squirrel thinking I had gotten behind him would circle to the side of the tree that I was on and then it was an easy shot. Pierce could have easily tested this observation and proven it to be true by duplicating the number of times that the squirrel fell for the trick.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Don for pointing out that the important part is how did the hunter actually hunt the squirrel and not describe how he tracked it.If the practical consequence was the hunter was hungry and wanted squirrel for dinner then maybe we only care about the part of the story that you described and the argument about the word circle is just semantics.
DeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteI actually believe this is often the reason that problems don't get resolved. The dispute is due to a lack of communication causing people to argue when in fact their views are not actually that dissimilar. I feel that with the basic morals of human nature most people can agree on lots of opinions and if people focus on what they have in common they could resolve and understand their differences so much more efficiently. This is why when I get into “arguments” with anyone I always try to explain all of my feelings about the topic instead of just the differences. Because most likely we will agree on most things building a report of trust between us, After people understand that you share mutual beliefs about a topic they are way more likely to be open minded and consider the things that you might not agree on. Also if everyone had the same views on everything we would never advance socially, it is important to work through our differences to understand more about an issue and how it affects other people. This is why when I am in social situations where my friends are screaming and arguing I try to establish moments for everyone to share their entire truth, this helps clarify what exactly people mean without creating chaos. Like we saw with the presidential debate chaos and interruption creates an environment where no understanding or middle ground can ever be reached. This just emphasizes the important of a civil environment of respect in any debating situation, because more often than not your ideas on a topic are far more similar to your “opponents” than you realize.
I totally agree with your viewpoint here and I love how you applied this concept to politics. It is crazy how even in politics (which seems so polarizing) when you get down to a calm conversation where you explain what your are feeling and thinking and why, often you realize that the other person isn't so crazy different from you.
DeleteI think that your essay is a good argument and will work for many heated discussions. One thing that you say is "I always try to explain all of my feelings about the topic instead of just the differences"; I think that yes "feelings" are important but facts might be better to back up an argument or a position.I do really agree that people do not listen enough when having a discussion.Have you ever felt that you are just having a normal conversation but the tone of the space changes and everybody gets so serious or defensive? Those heated feelings about the conversation start to drive an argument and the discussion becomes less effective. So, yes, I think that people presenting facts and clarifying a position are good ways for them to have a successful discussion.
DeleteI agree with views but not for the exact same reasons. I believe that communication is hindered by language. Good read, thank you for sharing these thoughts.
DeleteClarifying viewpoints in discussions and arguments is so important. If you're able to reach a calm ground where both parties can talk about the topic with complete transparency, I feel like more can get done in the world.
DeleteHello Calvin. I enjoyed reading what you thought about this question because I also wrote about this. I agree with you in saying people get in arguments because many times its misunderstood. I believe if you are in a argument with someone then you should just sit down with them and talk to them.
DeleteI definitely agree with this a lot of chaos does come from people not fully understanding each side of the story. As a saying, I’ve always heard growing up “There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying.” I’ve avoided a lot of heated conversations by listening to comprehend rather than just to reply and then giving my opinion on the topic in a clear non-condescending way. We have to be willing to have these types of conversations with patience if we actually want to resolve situations and advance as a society.
DeleteAutumn Daniel
ReplyDeletePhilosophy 1030-10
Weekly Essay
Question:
Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
This post will be controversial to some so if you're a trumpie i wouldn’t continue reading. I think this is somewhat true. In my opinion, Trump is a corrupt politician. No other president would be able to get away the amount of things he has been able to get away with.I’m just gonna go ahead and list some of the things i can think of off the top of my head.This is a president who has referred to African countries as “shitholes;” to Mexicans as “rapists;” to neo-Nazis as “very fine people.” To be clear: bigotry, racism, and white nationalism are impeachable offenses. On top of that he couldn’t condemn white suprimicits during the last presidential debate.Over the past 12 months, six migrant children have died in federal custody. Over the previous 10 years, not a single migrant child died in custody. That is a clear sign this man does not care about human life. To add to that, he has handled this pandemic horribly and because of that the United States has more COVID deaths than any other country. He’s also been accused of sexual assult by dozens of women and rape… Any man who has 26 sexual misconduct allegations shouldn’t even be considered for presidency. As a woman, I particularly hate him because he’s been quoted commenting about “grabbing women by the pussy”-and has been quoted degrading women countless times because of their appearance. He’s also trying to get rid of the Affordable Care health act with no plan to put anything in his place. He’s also a liar, a fraud, and many more things I can't type in this essay. To be completely honest, I could write a book on all the things that should disqualify him for the presidency, but I won't continue because it should be pretty clear how corrupt he is. Despite all of this and 2 charges and Impeachment (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress), he somehow is allowed to run for another term. He doesn’t do nearly enough for this to be acceptable nor should it be.
Weekly Essay +3
DeleteTHERE IS FOUL
LANGUAGE IN THIS POST
I think another thing you should mention is despite all the corrupt behaviors you outlined he has not really done much to advance our society or move us in a positive direction. Like the question is saying politicians are tolerated in china IF THEY GET THINGS DONE, but like what has he really gotten done? not the wall, if you are going to make a claim you should back it up.
DeleteI agree Calvin. Our country is viewed as a laughing stock by other countries and we are retrogressing with him as president. It's truly sad and ignorant that people continue to support him.
DeleteThis conversation is so important and I feel that another problem with Trump is how his supporters have idolized him. If it were to be revealed that he ordered a hit man (and there was evidence) and Trump denied the allegation, accusing it on the "radical left," you could bet that his supporters would be behind him. They would still claim that he "has done more for than country than any other president" (which I have heard numerous times from his supporters) and completely ignore any corrupt actions and the fact that Trump really hasn't done much at all, except, of course, in the negative direction.
DeleteThe fact that we have such a horrific man as our president disgusts me, especially for the reasons you have provided; I can't fathom how his supports still think he's some messiah with all the factors pointing to his corruption and downright ugly behavior. I mean the guy literally tweeted happy columbus day... the ignorance is insane with him.
DeleteThere is a bit of a contradiction here: one cannot be both a Nazi and an American white nationalist as the ideologies don't coincide with eachother since the Nazi ideology saw the German Aryans to be superior and the American mixed races to be inferior. Just a little nitpick as a history buff, otherwise I agree.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have solved quite a few arguments by clarifying what each side actually means (I’m thinking of instances mostly between my siblings). If anyone is familiar with the enneagram personality types, I am a type 9. The nickname for this type is “the peacemaker,” essentially, I value peace above all. This helps a lot in arguments because I love to hear and try to understand both sides. I have found that most of the time people get offended in arguments because both sides think the other person is attacking them, and not their ideas. Once you pull people away from the heat of the argument and clarify what the other side of the argument is saying, I have found they calm down and have a more productive conversation. When people are respectful and try to understand or clarify what the other side means, a productive conversation can occur. When people are extremely disrespectful, like in the case with the author of Fantasyland, I find it extremely hard to read and accept even though I agree with many of his points and principles. This is a me-problem that not many people can probably identify with because I value respect as a means for peace so highly both in cases where I agree with the side being argued and in cases I don’t agree with that side.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, rich people in America (as in the top 1%) definitely is shameful to me and I think it should be to other people as well. Good capitalism, as republicans tend to love to praise, should not apply to the mega-rich. In most instances, these very rich people take advantage of their employees and the poorer populations (aka everyone because they’re mega-rich). They should not be praised because as we read, when the wage gap between the very rich and very poor becomes too large, the country as a whole is more dissatisfied. Also, to me it seems that they keep their wealth just to try to be richer than the people around them. Their “disposable” income is larger than the combined income of entire groups of our population. Also, their wealth is often used to get away with breaking laws and to avoid paying taxes. I think if a person is making that much money, they should be donating like 75% of their income or should be paying their taxes and maybe those taxes should also be like 75%. That probably seems extreme, but these people would still be way richer than everyone else even when you take that much of their income away from them. Honor does not have to follow riches, as you could argue for different meanings of honor. So, going back to my first question’s answer, you’d have to clarify what the person was being honored for.
Monday: posted weekly essay (3)
DeleteMonday: commented on Calvin Parrack and Autumn Daniel’s posts (2)
40/40 total
Hello Barbara. I also wrote about the arguments and clarifying question. I liked reading your post and how you said you value peace above all things. I also agree with you and if you sit down with that person then everything should be okay.
DeleteSection 10
ReplyDeleteI think of both religion and psychedelic drugs as tools which can benefit people by providing them with a greater sense of meaning as well as a mechanism to cope with our disposition. These tools should be non-partisan, but instead are obviously used as a means of manipulating the way people see reality. I think this is harmful to society and undermines their value to us. This week’s reading from Fantasyland shows that these tools were commandeered by anti-intellectuals around the same time in the 60’s. The effects of this are still apparent today.
I think “the takeaway” is an unfortunately common sentiment in society. Reality isn’t subjective and the scientific method should be more trusted than a hallucination of a person tripping on drugs or a vision experienced by a religious zealot. Additionally, Charles Tart should have never been taken seriously, let alone gotten tenure for his work. I believe he was simply opportunistic. He rejected objectivity in research because his research clearly relied on deception.
Tripping on drugs and engaging in extreme religious imaginings are vastly different experiences, but have both proven to be very convincing to some when trying to understand the actual truths of the world. For many, both of these practices take precedence over observable scientific facts when considering reality. I think the societal desire to believe anything that feels right without proof that made The Late, Great Planet Earth a bestseller is even more common today than it was at the time. However, I doubt another book like it will have the same success because the competition for such material is much greater than it was. Nowadays one can spend a lifetime reading into baseless conspiracy theories, the material is seemingly infinite. Those who want to believe anything have never-ending material to back up their claims and continue their lives with their eyes wide shut.
I don't think it is fair to put religion and psychedelic drugs on the same podium as one provides real experience and the other can never be proven.
DeleteSection 10
DeleteMain post 10/13= 3 points
Commented on Brittany Sherrell’s post 10/15= 1 point
Commented on Isaiah Bryanton’s post 10/15= 1 point
Grand Semester Total (excluding bonuses)= 40 points
Religion and drugs can both be potentially dangerous, religion probably more so than drugs, but in certain doses in certain variants both can be fine.
DeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that many arguments start and end with useless points and topics that get no one anywhere. However, within quarrels of friends, acquaintances, and even enemies, the largest barrier between the thoughts of each person is normally the way in which it is spoken. When using language of any kind to communicate we see extreme flaws in articulation and consistency within what is truly believed. Many great minds have spoken upon the fatal flaws of communication. Our brains are vastly more expressive in thought than language can detail to another human. What your brain knows can never be perfectly translated into any language o there will always be a barrier in thought, so with that being said if there was a way to understand what someones true thought on the argument is, then maybe there could be some intelligent conversation upon the topic. I have been in situation though where it is possible to see the other side of the argument and relate to it. Everyone has their own separate opinions though and as humans we try to make other people believe what we think to be true. I like to think about most things (as I have talked about in other weekly posts) in a cosmological perspective. What that means for me is that sometimes things don't have to be the way they are. We don't have to argue about meaningless topics when we could be colonizing the moon and even mars if everyone worked together.
Tuesday: posted weekly essay (3 points)
DeleteTuesday: commented on Anna Johnson's post (1 point)
Tuesday: commented on Calvin Patrick's post ( 1 point)
That is most certainly one of the issues relevant to modern times when people seemingly lost the ability to debate on topics that we may disagree with. Instead of asking each other to elaborate on our views to understand what we mean, we instead attribute things to others and then attempt to shut them down.
DeletePeople definitely encounter problems when they do not communicate their point clearly. I think this can often infurriate the person they have the disagreement with even more and make the entire sitaution a little worse.
DeleteDo we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours?
ReplyDeleteI think that, to some degree, we all need our own heroes or saviors. Whether they're superheroes of fantastical realities like Iron Man and Black Panther or general role models, like firefighters and our parents, they all come together to sort of represent what we want to be and what we want to do with our own lives. Black Panther is, for example, a fantastic hero for African Americans in our modern day society. He was one of the first major superhero protagonists to be black and represent his own culture as a black superhero; while to white people, like myself, this may not seem like such a big deal, for African American children and adults today Black Panther is a symbol of them being represented as heroes to others. I cannot relate to the struggles and hurt of black people who have been facing racial discrimination, as I am white, but I know that having more heroes like Black Panther help African Americans feel heard. In that regard, superheroes as a whole are needed to help people feel represented and safe in their own bubbles. Heroes, saviors, whatever you may call them, are able to show the masses that there are good people in the world who can impower you to do even greater things than you might have ever imagined. Personally, I have a couple heroes of my own; take Katniss Everdeen, or Spiderman, for example. Katniss was one of my first experiences seeing a strong, independent woman fight for a good cause in cinema - I then grew up to see that she was a hero for me in the sense that I wanted to be strong like her. With Spiderman, while he was one of my childhood superhero obsessions, I also saw an otherwise normal, dorky kid who just wanted to help others. His stories taught me that I can be perfectly normal and still strive to be a better person in whatever ways I can.
weekly essay +3
Deletecommented on autumn and calvin's posts +2
In a similar way I may relate to having heroes, role models, and even saviors. I have certainly found inspiration in America's warriors such as former Navy Seal, Physician, and present day astronaut Johnny Kim. Because of him, I have realized that there is no limit to human achievement.
DeleteThere's always going to be someone who we look up to that is considered our "hero" or our role model.It's like to be aspire to be like them or better than them. I think we all need a hero because sometimes we don't have the answer to everything, sometimes we don't know what is right or wrong,who or what is our example. Maybe it represents opened our comfort-zone out of the norm.How much do they influence and impact us and our world. Hmm... I'm not really sure if I have a particular hero, I do admire a lot of artist and cosplayers, since they are in the creative field and their purpose to they want to do their best to make everyone happy with their work and them. I know my high school art teacher has helped me break out of my mold and I feel like I have genuinely improved and changed because of him. I feel happier and I enjoy the tiny and different aspects of my work and the progress in it.
DeleteI feel like having "heroes" or role models is definitely valuable to development. In a way, most people's personalities wind up being an amalgamation of influential people in their lives.
DeleteI love your take on this!
DeleteI think "idols" such as superheroes, firefighters, etc. are very important to have in life, because they can help you sort through your own issues. They can help make you feel confident and powerful, and give you representation that you so desperately search for, like you mentioned, with Black Panther.
100% agree with what you said, and I, too, am a huge fan of Katniss. :) with various other heroes, as well, haha.
Great post!
Having someone to look up whether it's a fictional character or someone in real life, it can really help shape who you want to be in the future.
DeleteI do believe we need heroes in our lives especially when it comes to representation in all different communities. Like the example given with Black Panther I personally know young black kids and even adults who were amazed to see such an awesome character. Never before did we really see the main character like Black Panther have such a big role in the Marvel industry. From a young age it was normalized the common white man superhero but for it to be a black superhero instead made it a real a big impact. One of my heroes that I really look up to is probably Jordan Peele just because I love how he is a Black director that really focuses on showing the representation of black actors and black stories, it inspires me as I do have some interest in cinema so seeing someone in that field like me is pretty great.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your perspective on this topic. I also agree with you that we all have or need a "hero" or "savior" to some extent. I think often there are people around us too, guarding us and keeping us safe that we don't even know are placed there for a reason. I think you have some good insights and thoughts on this!
DeleteSection 10
DeleteI agree with the text, the impulse to admire heroes is apparent across all cultures. And with that I also think representation of our heroes in art is important. I was working at a movie theater during the opening weekend of Black Panther and the crowds were much larger than expected. The enthusiasm also seemed to be more than it was for other similar movie releases. Representation definitely does matter. For me personally, I really wish Rey would have been a character in Star Wars when I was a kid. I'm pretty sure I would have dressed like her for Halloween more than once. People clearly need heroes and along with that, it's important different types of people are portrayed as heroes.
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteMost arguments tend to go south because of the miscommunication and misunderstandings. There have been plenty of times where I would state something in an argument and then someone would end up getting offended. I would sit there and try to figure out how did I offend this person. I didn't say anything controversial or anything offensive. Then I come to realize that that person probably took it the wrong way. I had to clarify my statement and tell him what I actually meant. People usually only hear things in a negative way because that is all they care about. Is this person making fun of me? Is this person trying to deliver a low blow to me? Especially during group projects if the group is consisted of big personalities. When that happens, there needs to be someone with an open mind so they can help clarify everyone's statements. I think it is essential to have one of those because without them, the work could never be done or it could turn out bad. At the same time, it's crucial to work through the differences between people and watch out for what we say and how it can affect other people around us. It just brings attention that a civil environment is much needed. In the end, if people can be more understanding and try to find common ground after discussing their differences, everything can be done efficiently.
SECTION 10
Ah sometimes I have a hard time talking to the person because I don't want to cause trouble or alarm the person, sometimes it's easier to listen but it's difficult to cope with the offensive words that are addressed to other topics. Like for example, if someone makes racist comment towards a group of people even if they don't know them. Is that right? I feel like people these days take information at a face value and don't think about who we are on the inside, what makes us different or the same.I feel like people don't think deeply and understand without getting heated and argue. Maybe it has to do it patience and what do we really focus on, because throughout life it seems like things are overlooked or overshadowed.
DeleteI can strongly relate to accidentally offending someone and having no clue what happened. I often come off as brash and harsh and I try my best to correct it when I notice it, but it has started many arguments. I mainly spend most of it trying to calm the other party down and rephrasing what I meant. People so often want to escalate to anger and aggression than to try to understand.
DeleteThursday: posted Essay- 3 points
DeleteThursday: commented on Kate Allen's Essay on October 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM - 1 Point
Thursday: commented on Brittney Sherrell's Essay on October 15th, 2020 at 3:59 PM - 1 point
Okay so I'm going to combine questions if that's okay, hopefully it isn't confusing since these kinda go hand in hand.I ramble a lot and I want to say I'm sorry.
ReplyDelete-Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
-Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
I feel like these days , whenever the news is on and depending on the location, drama seems to stirrup. Like when I'm working at the nail salon, we always talk to our customers about anything,but when the news is on talking about COVID or our president's speaking about his concerns on how he will solve the issue. There tends to be an argument,while sometimes there has been times when people clarify and try to make sure they aren't offensive which further leads to more questions about the topic.I don't think I personally have resolved the argument that way, it was more of further understand what they are saying and also trying to find a conclusion. Since both sides of the conversation have their own belief and reasons, but I think it's rather important to not only listen but to acknowledge the differences and learn from it.Sometimes people don't take a few seconds to think to calm down,but instead become more over heated or broad details. Sometimes I wonder if I'm being misunderstood or if the connotation sounds negative, so I tend to be wary of the conversation,but Does that make them entitled,unaware,or selfish? You have to think about who are you talking to, whether it be a different age,race,or gender since society has influence our expectation of people.
When it comes to debates with Trump as his position in the presidency. How much did he benefit in the people, how much does he care about the people? We can assume from how the government is handling the situation with COVID and BLM movement, that things are getting out of hand. I wonder how do people support a man like Trump, how do people idolize him? Whenever he speaks, it's very bold and direct, very specific and easy to understand, anyone is able to make themselves sound good by talking, but what about their action or intention? Is it possible to execute them while being prepared for upcoming consequences or backlash.We live,learn,and make mistakes to make ourselves better for other or for just us. It's difficult for society to move forward from our mistakes if we have a leader that has a hard time facing it. We remember the past,because we are reminded, we reflect on it to ensure another possibility. We recognize our flaws, but they don't fully establish our identity. I think life is like a journey of finding ourselves in this world and how can we share our mistakes to give another route.
Section 10
Deleteweekly essay +3
commented on Brittney Sherrell and Randy posts +2
I think that corruption is mostly a bad thing. As humans today it is hard to have an actual conversation about something without arguing. We need to actually just talk about things and not yell and argue with each other.
DeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteI definitely have resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what is or what was said. Many times I believe arguments happen based on miscommunication. I often get into the biggest arguments with my parents because they were either on their phone and didn't hear me or they think I meant something else then what I thought. I believe if you talk and sit down with someone and explain why you are upset it goes much better then just yelling at someone. Communication I believe is the number one when it comes to fixing and apologizing during an argument. Many times when you have an argument with a lot of people it can be hard to sit down with them and be the bigger person but sometimes you have to be the big person and own up to things. The arguments that I get in which get misunderstood is with my boyfriend. Almost all the time he misunderstood what I was saying or vice versa. Men and women think differently so after we clarify we get passed the argument and move on. The best way to get passed a argument is to clarify and bring your concerns to the person.
Total +5 points. Essay and two response.
I also wrote on this topic and I agree that arguments occur because of miscommunication. I like how you say communication is number one to fixing an argument. I also like how you mention people being on their phones and not listening. I feel like that is a major problem in today's world. I really liked your response to this question.
Deletesection 11
I like your perspective on this topic. I agree that communication and listening can be of much importance in arguments and differences. Most of the time, that is how they start and go on.
DeleteCommented on Cole Walker post (+1 point)
ReplyDeleteCommented on Brittney Sherrell post (+1 point)
Weekly Essay (+3 points):
Are Nordic nations now the most admired societies today? HWT 274
From the things that I have heard regarding Nordic countries I have heard many positives about the societies that exist there. Generally, they are considered very socially progressive and have gone very far to pursue gender equality. Stemming from a recent interest that I have developed, the Vikings had relatively progressive societal structures in terms of gender relations considering the times. Nordic women, who technically could not be vikings (although this is still heavily debated today, remains of a female viking warrior were uncovered), enjoyed many freedoms including property rights/inheritance, free choice marriage laws, and power/influence in communities. Such progressive societies were certainly ahead of others and I think that this has certainly carried over to modern times where they are often a topic of discussion. However, I would like to point out that every nation has its own upsides and downsides and everything has a cost (which is something people seem to forget much to often). One downside is that Nordic countries, despite being attributed as loving of nature, have benefited greatly from fracking and working closely with oil industries. Another downside (depending how you look at this controversial topic) is the lack of racial diversity. However, it is important to note that Nordic countries (regardless of them being almost ethically homogeneous) are known to be very accepting and promote racial equality. In conclusion, Nordic countries are greatly admired by many but I urge people to realize that nothing is perfect and that life in another nations may be better in one sense and lacking in another. I hope that I will continue to learn more as I explore the historically fascinating Vikings and Nordic peoples and learn more about their ways of life.
This is a well thought out response. Personally i didnt know about the general exceptance of fracking in nordic countries and find it interesting. I think nordic countries are awesome and I think its even cooler that it isnt a new development.
DeleteI really like your response! I looked into the Viking time of Nordic culture just a little bit, but I have also seen that the women at the time did have much more freedom and power than those in other cultures. I think that nowadays, I do see their current culture as admirable. I agree with you though that not everything is entirely perfect. I think especially when comparing their society to America, I think that it is important to realize that the much larger population here would make changes reflecting their society more difficult to pass. Still, their societies do appeal to me and I hope we somewhat follow in their direction.
DeleteThis is a very well thought out response, I have taken a good amount of time looking into the Nordic culture but I think it is very overlooked in todays culture.
DeleteI love some Scandinavian countries and while all places have their downsides, these countries rank higher than the United States in almost all areas; even the Environmental Performance Index. US is ranked 33 while, for example, Norway is ranked 10. (2014 numbers) I had a table earlier with numbers from last year but haven't a clue what I did with it!
DeleteSection 10
ReplyDeleteCorrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
First, I feel as though it is necessary to understand how the Chinese government goes about things before answering this question. It’s not quite as cut and dry as just comparing it to our own, to the point that I would almost say the comparison can’t be made. The Chinese Communist Party is more reminiscent of a dictatorship than our current democracy. The corruption isn’t exactly tolerated as much as it is feared. I didn’t realize quite how bad it was until Henry, a man that was lucky enough to move from a country run by China (he did not specify which) told me about it. Henry works at a nail salon in Collierville, Tennessee and was talking to me about his family back home. He genuinely cannot stand the CCP, but he said that he would never say anything about that back home. He told me that if he says the wrong thing to the wrong person, he could be put on house arrest, or his family could be threatened, or he could disappear altogether. Quite frankly I do suppose that last one reminds me of a certain Clinton family, but I didn’t say that. (If I go missing tomorrow, make sure the cops see this post). In the words of Henry, “China used to run your country like it does mine. Now you have Trump. Trump is giving China what they deserve.” Whether you agree with Henry’s stance on politics or not, we live in a country where we get a say and a vote. Personally, if we’re going to talk about corruption and not just being offensive, I feel as though any career politician who has made a fortune off of it cannot be uncorrupt. Both parties in the US ignore certain aspects of their candidates in exchange for voting for who they think will do the right thing. However, it is nowhere near comparable what happens in China. In the US, if we don’t like a politician, we can remove them at the end of their term. In China, if you speak out loud enough, they just remove you.
Essay: +3
Reply to Brittney Sherrell and Randy: +2
35/40
I think corruption is a bad thing and is something that seems to be more and more accepted and thrown to the side in everything. People have become very greedy and it is something we have to work on as humans.
DeleteI get what you are saying about china and the US being different. I also think its cool how you have a story of someone who was under the control of china as one point. I think i can agree with what you said about them being too different to be compared in the question posted here.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete• What do you think of James's squirrel story? Do you agree with his point? 165
ReplyDeleteThe James squirrel story was basically a story that showed a hunter in the woods and a squirrel on a tree. The squirrel was on the opposite side of the tree as the hunter so every time the hunter began to try and close in by stepping to one side of the tree, the squirrel would move around the tree. This kept it so that the tree was always between the squirrel and the hunter.
The main argument here was whether or not the hunter was actually circling the squirrel as its prey or not. The first thing that has to come into play here is what the definition of circling is. In this situation, the hunter is really only circling the tree that the squirrel is on. The hunter is not going around the actual squirrel and they are basically facing each other the entire time except there is a tree between them. William James came up with the idea of saying that the argument was based on pragmatism. Pragmatism means and is an ideology that if a proposition is brought up and it is satisfactory, then it can be accepted as a reasonable school of thought about a subject. If something is brought up and is not practical or an incorrect way of thinking, then it is rejected. In this case it does not really matter what you come up with, it really just matters what the end result is. Both sides of view work for this as long as it is a reasonable school of thought.
Essay 8 40/40 points 17 comments
I enjoyed this because you summarized the story very well. To the point that a younger audience member who is not familiar with the story would get a brief understanding. Also, how you incorporated the meaning of pragmatism and supported it with an idea using your own words. Good job keep up the good work!
Delete• What do you think of James's squirrel story? Do you agree with his point? 165
ReplyDeleteWilliam James’s point about the argument evolving the squirrel is absolutely right. Without clearly defining what the words we use there is no hope of an argument that will be constructive. I remember when I went to theological debate camp the summer of my junior year, our goal was to construct a well-informed theological argument for a debate tournament that was held at the end of our time together. Throughout my debate lectures I learned a lot of crucial facts about debate but one of them stood out above them all. Before a debate can began both sides must define the terms they are using. Otherwise it’s a constant game of trying to impose each other’s definitions on one another or, even worse, fighting on grounds of a definition that wasn’t even discussed. Without any clear argumentative ground being gained on either side it can lead to more frustration than any kind of progress. I believe all arguments should serve a practical purpose at least in some regard. We humans are emotional being and need to understand that before getting into pointless arguments. Especially in a relationship with a significant other it can lead to a lot more issues than just a simple argument. Some of them may include such feelings as not being listened to, twisting of words, or even distrust. Arguments can be a very helpful tool in find a way to come to similar conclusions. However, if we do not construct them properly, they can lead to emotional fall out that creates boundaries for further arguments or even simple conversations.
Essay (3 points)
Commented on Shelby Pittmans post made October 13, 2020 at 11:26pm ( 1 point)
Commented on Simon Pargande post made October 13, 2020 at 9:17pm (1 point)
37/40 points earned in total
I agree with your post and I really like your answer. I have never been to a debate camp, but I like how you use your own experience to touch on this subject. I agree that we need to properly construct our arguments in order for them to be effective. I think it is also good there should be a clear argumentative ground. I like how you compared your experience to James's squirrel story.
Deletesection 11
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteI have actually resolved a lot of arguments this way. The amount of arguments that come from misunderstanding is quite astounding. I have been in a decent amount of arguments in my lifetime and most of them have been resolved by taking a minute and clarifying what we are all saying. I have misunderstood people a lot before and after hearing what they were really saying I realized I was wrong. We always want to think we are right and sometimes have our defenses up too much. We really want our point to be right, but sometimes by clarifying an argument can be over. Especially nowadays when we have text message things can be misinterpreted very easily. We aren't able to read facial expressions and sometimes it is hard to understand the tone. With clarification, things can be worked out and an argument can be over
Was Freud unhealthily obsessed with sex and sexual imagery?
I think Freud had a lot of problems and tried to use philosophy to justify them. When he discussed how men can want to compete with their dad's for their mother's attention was a little outrageous for me to comprehend. I have never felt this way about my dad and my mom. I think he had a very unhealthy relationship with these kinds of topics and used philosophy to tell himself they were okay to have. I am not a big fan of Freud and I think he had a very unhealthy relationship with these things.
section 11
Thursday:
Deleteweekly essay +3
reply to Nate Carley +1
reply to Miranda +1
grand total 40/40
I have also resolved many arguments through just clarification. I like that you mentioned text messages too, which often are taken in the wrong context.
DeleteI completely agree about misunderstandings. I never thought of the text message aspect of it though. It was a very good insight that got me thinking. In an increasingly isolated world using technology to communicate, this surely has caused many misunderstandings and arguments.
DeleteI like that you pointed out how texting can be misinterpreted and it's actually quite funny because I remember that happening to me and it caused me problems.
DeleteI mean I pretty much agree with the comments above me, but yea, like I've done that a few times, where I'm in an argument and then I state their side again, and then they clarify, and then we laugh about it. Texting has done that a few times too, because I've been told I always sound sarcastic when I'm texting, where when we meet up they like bring it up, and I have to say "Yo that's not what I meant." There's actually a law for this called Poe's law which is nice, because it means I'm not the only one.
DeleteLol, I so relate to this. I feel like it is a very common issue, where something is a simple misunderstanding, and everything just entirely blows up in everyone's faces.
ReplyDeleteBut, like you said, things get sorted out, and resolved, and they usually are ended right then and there.
Here's hoping they stay just being simple misunderstandings, with a simple solution. :)
Blake Hughes
ReplyDeleteSection 010
My Essay (+3)
Comments (+2): Kate Allen & Brittney Sherrell
Overall Points: 40
Weekly Question #8:
“Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?”
I think it would be tolerated, and praised, if it were the case in America. (Although, I don’t really agree with it.) But, given the current political state, I think people would have no problem with praising, and supporting, a politician like that. In a way, it’s already happened, with President Trump. The only difference is, he hasn’t really gotten anything done, or really helped most people. (Again, my opinion, and basing that by what I see, and hear from friends and family.)
I have a few close-ish family members, who are very avid Trump supporters, and believe anything that falls out of his mouth, like it’s the Bible. Despite multiple times of there being proof to disprove what Trump and his team says, as well as the countless scandals he is involved with, they still support him, and proudly do so. According to them, they are extremely religious people, and swear up and down by the Bible, and everything in-between. Yet, they happen to look over all of the misdoings Trump has, and never hold him accountable to the same standard they do for others, even if it’s the same/similar topic as what Trump is dealing with.
All in all, I am using them as an estimate for the question, knowing how they are, and what they would say. On top of that, I know for a fact there are many other Trump supporters, or supporters of other political figures (Democratic or Republican) who are very similar to that personality style. Just not as hardcore, and severe. So, in short, I do believe people would be perfectly content with having a politician like that in America.
I think no matter which political party you side with, there are people on both sides that are very willing to overlook corruption and much more if their candidate is doing what they want them to do. This, in my opinion, is one of America's biggest problem. Nobody can seem to put their bias away for even one second.
Deletethis is a great post, I would argue that one on the biggest issues with politics is the issue with people not being able to listen to the beliefs of others and only thinking what they want. A more open approach would allow for better conversations and a deeper understanding of each other.
DeleteI think you had an amazing post first of all. But I think that you made a great point, Americans wouldn’t care about corrupt politicians here if they still got done what we sent them to DC to do. I’m sure nobody would care about a scandal if people’s lives were made better.
DeleteWeekly Essay - Section 12
ReplyDeleteDo you think Peirce's definition of truth is a good one? 166 If not, how would you define it?
I think that his answer makes sense, but I would not personally say that that is the definition. Peirce defines truth as "what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we would ideally like to," (LHP 166). In theory, this should be the right answer. However, he says that he hated "abstract theories that didn’t make any difference in practice,"(LHP 166). There are some things that people believe to be true, such as ghosts or a god(s), that they will believe are real no matter what "proof" there is against it. The experiences that people have with these things are what make them true to them. I agree with Peirce that in general, what can be factually proven is what's true. However, when taking into consideration that there are some things that cannot completely be proven to be real or fake, I would change the definition a little bit. Honestly, I am not sure how I would truly define what "truth" is in a way that could encompass the stipulations. I think that in a general sense, Peirce is right, but there should be some modification to the wording.
Weekly Essay +
DeleteCommented on Simon Pergande's Post +
Commented on Kate Allen's Post
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteYes! I do this all the time. I have a brother and we often get in arguments. Everyday it's something new. I have found that probably 75% of our arguments are based off of a misunderstanding in either what was said or what one's position is. If you wait until an argument gets too heated, trying to clarify won't do much good most of the time. The best way to use this tactic is to clarify one's position at the very beginning of a discussion before people have time to get upset and hold grudges. Using this tactic will likely prevent any argument from ensuing in the first place. This is a lesson in basic interaction with others that we often overlook. We must first understand others before we criticize them. We cannot think that what we have to say is more important than what the other person has to say. This is what makes philosophy so great! It's all about understanding other's points of view and responding to it based off of your own point of view.
Kate Allen= reply (+1)
DeleteBlake Hughes=reply (+1)
Weekly blogpost= (+3)
Weekly Total=(+5)
I completely agree! Communication is key, but it's most important before the argument actually starts. If people don't fully understand what they're arguing about in the first place then it just becomes a fight for the sake of a fight. Verbally approving that you understand where the other person is coming from is vital.
DeleteI definitely agree that clarification is more successful the earlier it is used in an argument. Arguing with siblings can be a bit more difficult because I feel like the pride of being right can get in the way with family.
DeleteSection 10
ReplyDeleteNietzsche is an interesting character, I'm glad I read up on him for all I really knew/thought of him as the person who declared that 'God was dead' and being an icon for nihilists. That last part however I now know is no longer true, for his philosophy is actually rather more interesting than that. His viewpoint on Christianity and those famous words he uttered are a lot less 'edgy' than I thought, where it was really values that he was referencing in his works, and how humanity and religion shaped those values into what they are today. I'm not really sure of where he was going with his viewpoint on these values, I understand that our values of 'generosity and care for the weak' originated from Greek slaves out of their envy for the Aristocrats, which in Nietzsche's eyes is a bad thing. He further cements his viewpoint with the 'Ubermensch,' someone who is beyond values to create themselves to be better. I understand where he is trying to come from, however I can't agree with what he's trying to say. His works with how Christianity shaped our views on values and reinforced said values are thought-provoking to say the least, and I completely understand where he is coming from. However, again I wouldn't say that I would follow in his footsteps. Hell, the Nazi Party took his famous viewpoints and twisted them into their own liking, which actually did co-align to a degree (Except with what his sister did, which is absolutely deplorable). Even if I don't agree with what he said, I'd be lying if I didn't say I felt bad for his fate.
I pretty much share your sentiment, I definitely can see where Nietzsche is coming from, but I for one don't agree with the idea itself.
DeleteWeekly: 3/5
DeleteComment on Michael Clancy: 4/5
Comment on Patrick Wolff: 5/5
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to actually resolve an argument is to lay everything out on the table and use the different views as talking points. To understand another person's point of view you have to put yourself in their shoes and see how they think in order to be able to counter that opinion. In my fraternity I am vice president which means I handle all of the internal affairs in the chapter, including running our judicial board. So once a month I have to meet with a number of guys and have real conversations with them to get them to change their behaviors and fix their actions. Many times in these meetings arguments arise where I have to be able to think with a clear mind and allow everyone to speak their opinion on topics. This approach to conversations and arguments is so crucial to come to a common consensus on issues. Allowing people to voice their opinions makes them feel most comfortable and respected. In most cases people who are arguing, are arguing over the exact same point of view. But because of lack of communication they just continue to argue in circles. This is why it is so important to have calm and simple conversations where all sides can effectively communicate with each other.
Post +3
DeleteResponse to Blake Hughes
Response to Shelby Pittman
Total points 35/40
Section 10
DeleteI agree, when I am suddenly in a serious argument, the first thing I must do is put myself in the others shoes. Only then will I be able to make a fair compromise, or continue the conversation elsewhere.
It is a great virtue to have, being able to step back and really listen to what the other person is saying. It took a long time for me to be able to do that and I'm not always successful initially. I believe serving in the military and having to be that mediator between my staff was what really opened my eyes to the necessity in clear communication.
DeleteGood post, I agree with you saying that this is the best and most effective way to settle arguments, especially among a group or mire than 2 people. Personally, I'm not in a fraternity and I never have been so I don't know what your exact situation, but I have been the leader of groups of other people my age. And as leaders you sometimes have to have some really difficult conversations that everyone may or not have agree with, but you know its for the betterment of the group. getting clarification form everyone is a good way to do it, looks like your experiencing it first hand, good luck!
DeleteI agree with you, I think that the best way by far to solve an argument is with a level head and knowing where the other person is coming from.
DeleteWhat does "liberation" mean to you? How does it relate to "pleasure in this life"? 283
ReplyDeleteLiberation can mean a number of things to different people. I believe it can be found and experienced in many ways, but only if you allow in your life. For me, forgiving and giving yourself grace is a big way you can be liberated in life. The imperfection of humanity is real and the act of failing and making mistakes in life is inevitable. How we react and give ourselves the time and forgiveness can and will liberate us to let it go and try again. I think a big part of this is simply allowing yourself to feel these things, understand it is okay, and move on. In the same way, we must do with the people around us. People will confuse, anger, upset, and worry us. But giving them grace and talking honestly to them can liberate our hearts. If we don’t address the tension we have, it will become a burden to us and will be harder to talk honestly about how we feel. This can relate to the “pleasure in life” of not feeling any resentment, guilt, or shame. All of these emotions are tied to not forgiving, and not allowing honesty into your life. I believe this pleasure in life we can receive from liberation can be healing, happiness, and even relief. The actual definition of liberation is, “the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release.” I believe this to be true for the human heart and the way it affects our everyday life.
weekly essay: 3+
Deletecommented on Miranda's and Brittney Sherrell's post: 2+
I agree with this. One of the hardest things to except in life is that some things are unavoidable. It can be very hard just to let go
Delete• What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. Which is just basically saying Christianity was declining in the Western world. After the Enlightenment, the idea of a universe that was governed by laws and not by divine entities was now reality. Philosophy had shown that people and governments no longer needed “God” as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science became capable of doing that for us. These ideas led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world. Nietzsche also believed that the Western world’s foundation for morality had been destroyed. Personally I agree with this quote. I think that it is a good thing that “God is dead.” Philosophy opens a entirely different way of thinking and beliefs than Western Christianity. I feel that Philosophy as shaped our evolution because religion puts that weight on the mind and people’s morals. And religious personal moral can sometimes get in the way of future innovations. If we based life on religion and morals personally I think we would’ve never progressed to the future we live in now.
Essay (+3)
Commented on Calvin Parrack’s post- (+1)
Commented on Brittney Sherrell- (+1)
Total Points- (35)
I believe what nitcheze was meaning when he said this was the idea that science and philosophy was causing people to abandon their faith. I believe his scared of the idea that this concept of philosophy had replaced religion. This is why he said. "God is dead and we have killed him!" this exclamation point really adds to the sentence to give it a new meaning of fear and urgency
DeleteSection 10
DeleteI think you're correct that he meant that we've progressed to an understanding of our existence that we no longer need a God to rely on for our moral basis. I agree with you that this is a good thing and that by basing our morals off of better information, our society will be better off.
Spot on. On defining what Nietzsche meaning by God is dead. I never thought about that. I always thought that Nietzsche was pushing it too far or a crazy person but this good lead back to Epicurus
DeleteQuestion: Is psychoanalysis the only or the best "talking cure"?
ReplyDeleteI believe psycho analysis to be a useful tool however I do not believe it is entirely effective and I'll explain why. Very simply put it can be very difficult to talk about our feelings. It can very difficult to put feelings into words or accurately describe how you are feeling sometimes. I can speak to this on a personal level. I personally believe the best cure is free and simple. The best cure is quite simply sunlight and meditation. These two things can help a very wide variety of mental conditions. Get outside and enjoy the beauty of life and get some sunshine. It's an all natural remedy that has worked for years. However I do believe psychoanalysis has its place. I believe it is quite useful for understanding thought patterns and maybe opening a person up to new ways of thinking. But as a tool to cure the sick I don't see it as a good solution. Its a diagnostic rather than a solution
essay post 3pt
Deletecommented on: Isaiah Bryanton and anna collins 2pt
30/40
Section 10
DeleteWhile I can agree with some your points, such as meditation as a way to mediate with yourself, I believe that having someone to talk to is a much better way to relieve oneself of stress and disfunction, as well as assistance from the listener.
Although I agree that some feelings are too hard to express, and meditation is a very helpful practice, I think Freud was onto something with the therapy thing. Just talking things out, no judgement, nor interruption is very beneficial for some, not all.
DeleteI think that you do have some very useful points but I think that humans are social animals so, the best way to get of a dark place would be with other people. Like how people that go through addiction go to meetings.
DeleteI do agree with you. I think psychoanalysis our couch-therapy or whatever you want to call can be a wonderful tool that is very helpful to some people, but not to all. Some people feel perfectly comfortable talking about and diving into their feelings, fear, dreams and traumas as a form of expression. But tis can be understandably daunting. Some may be benefitted by this, but I see nothing wrong with a person dealing with these things by spending some time by themselves away from others and simply sorting through themselves, whether by meditation or deep thought or whatever helps. Both certainty wont hurt either.
DeleteWas Nietzsche right about "Christian values"? 173
ReplyDeleteI guess to an extent maybe? That’s not exactly a cut and dry answer, but at the very least I do understand where he was coming from. The world to him, I guess, was too bound by these morals, and virtues, and what was even worse was that these morals and virtues didn’t stem from positive beginnings but rather what we would call sinful, like envy and greed. And I guess the world he wanted was more of an emotional one, one where people acted for themselves, to better themselves, and like it says in the book, sure a few weak people might get trampled but who cares. But I think I challenge that idea, there are a lot of blossoming talents in the world, that come from the “common” or the “weak” that would never been achieved had we thrown our kindness away. So, while I don’t agree, I think I can understand what he’s saying.
What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"?
I think what he meant was that we moved beyond the need for a god. Before everything was controlled by the divines: the stars, the planets, the weather, the oceans, and even the beings that roam the earth. But with enlightenment, or the Enlightenment to be more specific, we started having reasons for everything. Math and Physics now made up the world where before it was faith and belief, the gods divine punishments could be described by weather phenomenon, or geologic location, and plagues to punish the sinners, could be attributed to just unhygienic practices. The book says it, and I also think it, we didn’t LITERALLY kill God, but we broke free from the idea that God is all. Humans started having governments that weren’t theocracies but rather, democracies backed by rational ideas. God, who used to be the center for all of our reasons, no longer was the reason for our morality and for our values. So, we, the humans, did kill god, or at least what he used to be to us.
Section 12
Did the prompt (+3)
DeleteReplied to Zalen Ingram (+1)
Replied to Kate Allen (+1)
Points this week 5/5
Points in Total 40/40
His ideas to me are more of a stretch. They may be reasonable, but like you said, "The world he wanted was more of an emotional one". That isn't a world I'd like to live in where we just throw ourselves away and continue with sinful actions. Also, yes the God we pursued is still the same God just us humans detached ourselves from him. Everyday less and less people follow him, but that's just the society we live in. We all have our own believes so that could be another reason why he isn't our center of reasoning anymore. I enjoyed this a lot keep up the Good work !
DeleteC.S. Peirce’s definition of truth would be my choice. Truth being based on what you can positively test and investigate is the type of truth I find most valuable. I believe personal experience can lead to the truth as well even if there is not a diagnostic test nor piece of technology that can with 100% accuracy prove such experiences. Though such experiences may just end up being very active imaginations or illusions. This may be why I have such a degree of disbelief when it comes to theism or perhaps more so in organized religion. William James’ view that God exists simply because it works for people and makes them feel better is more a psychological tool. Organized religion, as I believe it, was created to explain the natural phenomena in the world, create the code in which the developers wanted the people to live by, and organize people under a banner. Ultimately, organized religion is a most effective system to control society. It can bring comfort to people, sets rules and morality for the practitioners, bring rulers to their knees (literally and metaphorically), and scare people into behaving the way leaders wish. Another historic use of religion is the excuse for war. I remember learning in years past about the Crusades; lauded as a Holy War, it had much more to do with land, power, money than it really did with defending Christianity from the blasphemers. Byzantine Emperor wanted his land back, the Pope’s desire to be the head of Christendom, and the merchants with their monopolies.
ReplyDeleteWeekly: +3
DeleteComments: Simon Pegande, Michael Clancy +2
38/40
I agree with you about Peirce's truth being the most valuable kind but also that a persons own beliefs can make something true to them. Good job relating the topic to your personal beliefs while still staying on the assignment. Nice job.
DeleteDo we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours?
ReplyDelete-Yes I do believe in hero's and not necessarily the ones that fly or shoot spider webs. But the ones you look up to and would wish to be like them one day. I consider Police Officers, firefighters, Doctors, nurses, anyone from the military branches etc. I consider them hero's because those are strong minded people who are risking their life's in the frontlines trying to save another. It takes gut's to rush into a pit of fire just to save another person's life, or any situation just to help those in need. Those are the people you need to Thank because they made that choice to willingly fight for us. A hero could really be anyone you would consider usually it's someone powerful and caring or just a person who has helped you through tough situations. My hero's besides from government services would be my Mom. My Mom is the strongest on my team and my number 1 supporter. I wouldn't be here talking to you lovely folks if it wasn't for her strong will to push her children to be better. Coming from a low income family I wouldn't expect to go into a university. But God listens to prayer's and knows I need to do my best so I can give back to my mom and help her so she can finally retire. I love my mom so much she's my hero, and she's my actual role model. I look up to her a lot and I know she has lots of faith in me.
-Essay:[+3]
Commented:
-Moustafa Shamdeen[+1]
-Mason Schoonover[+1]
Section 10 35/40
What great people to call your heroes! As the wife of a LEO I have to agree that service men and women are inspirational heroes. Even with all the turmoil and scrutiny that has been going on this year, so many law enforcement officers continue to risk their lives for the people in their community because they really want to help and make things better. Also your mom sounds awesome and I think it’s so great that you’re doing your best for her!
DeleteI agree with you. We all need heroes and interesting way to summarized the this question.
DeleteI agree with you as well. Great work however God is my Savior.
DeleteWeekly essay on Squirrel question - Oct 12.
ReplyDeleteComment on Betsy Akpotu's midterm blogpost - Oct 15
Comment on Nate Carley's Oct 12 midterm blogpost - Oct 15
Weekly total 5pts.
Grand total 50 pts.
I like how Richard Rorty defines words as “tools we do things with.” Words are human made and used in human practice, so I think it’s silly to think that they wouldn’t also be human interpreted. Take the word “chips.” To Americans, chips are a crunch snack, but to the British “chips” are known as fries. I know this is kind of an odd example, and the Shakespeare one in the book is much better, but it holds true all the same. Words and language change throughout the decades, but that doesn’t make any of the previous lingo any less valid than they were during their time. The feeling of not knowing whether the people around us are internally alive with monologues of their own or not is something that makes my brain boggle, it always has. It’s crazy to think each minor character we interact with whether it be a conversation, passing by in a car, or subtle eye contact from a grocery store, they’re a fully functional human being. They have their own thoughts, feelings, and stories. Or do they??? We just simply cannot know for completely sure.
ReplyDeleteSection 010
Deleteweekly essay (3)
replied to: Patrick Wolff and Gavin Brown (2)
total (5)
I also really enjoyed words being “tools we do things with”. It can really make you “think before you speak” when you think of words as tools. Because just like tools have specific jobs to do, so then what are the words we use accomplishing? Are the words we write or say completing the job we wanted them to? Or should we have used different words/tools?
DeleteI really like how you question the minds of the people around us. I don't think that people stop and take a moment to consider that the people around them have their own thoughts and feelings, their own hopes and dreams. I mean, you are right about something else as well, we have no idea if they have these things, we only hope that they do.
DeleteI find the question of words being tools versus symbols interesting, and I tend to agree with James and Rorty on viewing them as tools. Language itself is nothing more than a tool for us to communicate with each other, so words only mean as much as they mean to the person saying or hearing them. In almost any given situation, a word means more in its context than it does as a pure symbol that represents something in the real world.
DeleteC.S. Peirce’s idea of truth is weirdly kind of infuriating to me because he’s so close, yet it seems so far. I’m assuming the reason he made it clear that the truth is a result of observation, because earlier in the book you remember that Plato believed in forms ( a perfect version of an object that we all use a reference for their real life versions) so of coarse he would try and make that clear that objects or things for example a glass bottle isn’t clear because there is something in the glass making it clear. The point where I get confused is that there is some property that makes certain things transparent. Glass is transparent because the electrons in it have a much higher energy gap between its states so photons can pass through it, now I don’t know about y’all but that sounds a lot more like a “mysterious” property to me.
ReplyDeleteIf true ideas "work," do they need to work for everyone? What if they only work for one person? Is "true for me" an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms? Yes I think that what is true has to work for everyone, not that everyone has to specifically agree that it makes sense fir them. For example, the statement that, “all life are life is made of cells” is true,(to our current understanding of life), now if someone just couldn’t except that or if society never progressed to the point where we made that discovery that statement would still be true, no matter if we agreed about it or not. While non-physical or abstract thoughts of morality, politics, or economics can never be true. There wouldn’t be a way of having one codified set of rules or ideas that are right or wrong so they can’t be true.
Post +3
DeleteReplied to Patrick +1
Replied to Blake +1
Is there currently a religious leader with the "moderate" reputation of the late Billy Graham, deserved or not?207
ReplyDeleteI don’t think there will ever be another evangelist like Billy Graham. I actually was able to go see him when I was a little girl. He was preaching at Everbank Field (NFL Jaguars stadium) in Jacksonville, FL. While Anderson calls him “moderate”, the Billy Graham I saw and have watched several of his sermons, he is anything but moderate. He preaches the Bible and nothing else. Everything is very black and white when it comes to his sermons; people are either going to heaven if they are saved or they are doomed to hell if they aren’t. But I think what does make him so loved and appealing to people of all rankings and backgrounds is that he preached with compassion. He really did exemplify Christ’s love for all and truly did t want anyone he came in contact with to go to hell. I believe he knew the joy of being a son of God that it just poured out of him in a way that made so many other people want what he had.
Weekly essay—3
DeleteComments (Pedro Rojas, Alexa Kruszewski)- 2
Total: 5
Is it always good to distinguish your views as "black and white" for the audience when you are speaking in public? I feel speaking in such a manner can almost scare the listener away from listening in the case of Billy Graham and his belief that if you did not become "saved" then you would automatically go to hell. I know sometimes if you stray too much within the gray area, sometimes it gives the audience permission to reason themselves out of either white or black side.
DeleteBetsy Akpotu
ReplyDeletePhil 1030-010
Weekly Essay # 8
10/15/2020
Do we have to choose between the ideas of Nietzsche and Kant? No, because Kant talks about the end of itself and Nietzsche talks about God is dead which Kant talks the end of itself. The kingdom of God. Who is the immoral of creating the Earth and cosmos? I wonder who created the cosmos and how did we come about as people from sand and clay? Do you think Peirce's definition of truth is a good one? 166 If not, how would you define it? Yes, Peirce’s definition of truth is a good one because you have told the fact, just like he said. If a cat is on the mat, then its on the mat. Its kind of saying the boy who cried wolf. People did not believe the boy at the end, he say the wolf and got eaten.
Do we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours? Yes, we do. People who are struggling to get out the fire in an apartment. A burglar, who stills money and police try to investigate or forensic scientist work on the DNA testing. We good people to help defeat the bad people. Show their true color of the world. What does it mean to be "free from your body while still alive"? Then you are in limbo or you are a zombie or maybe you are rip between mind and soul. Your soul is in a morality state while your body is still alive, like your brain is in conscious.
I agree with you about Kant.
Delete-Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteWhile an exact time does not come to mind of me doing this, I do know that I have employed it in my life. I grew up with 2 brothers, and I know from experience how pointless arguments, sometimes we'd be so far into it that we forgot what we were even mad about in the first place. I'm a communications major at school, and one of the things that we learned in my human communication class is paraphrasing, which is when we basically listen to what someone is telling us, whether a problem or an argument or otherwise, and then we basically repeat it back to them in a short version to make sure we got everything right. I think this can be a highly effective, especially in an argument setting. No matter who it is with, if you literally just stop and make sure you back have everything right so you wont be so high on emotion can be tremendously helpful and time-saving. This can especially be helpful in disagreement on politics and religion, so the argument does not become so ad-hominem.
-Was Freud about why some people believe in God?
Personally, I believe yes. There are certainly people who only believe in God simply for the fact that they want to feel protected. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting the protecting of a supreme being such as God, I personally seek it. But I personally do not think this is true faith and should be the sole reason for a person's belief. This would be just wanting to reap the benefits of this belief, and not giving or sacrificing anything. But I certainly understand and relate to the need for divine protection in this life.
I like how you mentioned paraphrasing when discussing arguments. I totally agree in its effectiveness. I know personally I become so emotional in my thoughts that I tend to forget the knowledge the opposing side is trying to reason with me. If I paraphrased the knowledge, then would I be able to break down what I was listening to and reason along with the opposing side.
DeleteWeekly Essay (3 pt)
Delete-Reply to Michael Clancy ( 1pt)
-Reply to Patrick Wolfe (1 pt)
I can relate to your response to the first question. Therefore I agree with you , but its not good to react on emotions so much definitely in arguments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete• Is it better to be a gentleman (gentleperson) or an exemplary person?
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of gentleman-like individuals, I like to think of one of the classic butlers within mansions. For them, they seem to have this very sophisticated manner towards others. A Gentle person is very much aware of their surroundings and other individuals within their vicinity. Whenever a man holds a door for a woman, the man is considered “gentleman-like” as opposed to exemplary. As for being an exemplary individual, I think there is a bit more of selfish side. When I think of exemplary individuals, I think of those who carry themselves to such high regard. They often carry themselves with a sense of pride that is not too stubborn but necessary for perhaps their profession. Exemplary individuals are like Mr. Hargreeves in Umbrella Academy. The man, although very sophisticated and well-rounded as a human being, is very mighty and proper in a royal sense. In today’s social climate it would be better to become an exemplary person simply because the competition within work environment. Becoming exemplary naturally makes you stand out as an individual, however I think it would be best to become a gentle person because I think this personality speaks more to our human nature to be in community with other human beings rather than compete for social dominance or acceptance. Gentleman in my opinion carry a humbler virtue, something which I try very hard to do each day because it allows us to experience the world without being stubborn or close-minded.
Commented Molly Belk (+1)
Commented Carter Stephens (+1)
1 - (+5)
2 - (+0)
3 - (+5)
4 - (+5)
5 - (+5)
6 - (+5)
7 - (+5)
8 – (+5)
Total: 35 pts
I agree with you on the classic butler example.
Deletei also agree with the butler example and characteristics of a being a true gentleman.
DeleteSection 011
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of James's squirrel story? Do you agree with his point?
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
Do you think Peirce's definition of truth is a good one? If not, how would you define it?
Was Bertrand Russell right about James's theory of truth?
I think that James's story about the squirrel serves to highlight the importance of clarifying what the question being asked is in an argument. If both sides are arguing from different perspectives, they could be advocating for the same thing and not even realize it because they phrased the question differently. That to say, yes I agree with the point that James was making. I have resolved an argument by having the two parties stop and clarify what they were saying, I have also been in an argument that was resolved with some clarification. I do agree with Peirce's definition of truth. I have a practical mind so logical and physical things appeal to me more than just abstract ideas. Peirce's definition of truth could have been pulled from the dictionary, Webster's defines "true" as being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. I have to agree with Bertrand on his opinion of James's theory on truth. While James's theory would be nice it would mean that truth is subjective and that's not something that I agree with. The truth should be held to a constant set of ideals, like being in accordance with the actual state of affairs, so that there is no question when it comes to truth.
Post on 10-15-20 (+3)
Responded to Emily Klunk on 10-15-20 (+1)
Responded to Michael Clancy on 10-15-20 (+1)
Responded to Gavin Brown on 10-15-20
Total points 33/40
Deletei agree with your idea of truth. it is not abstarct ideas but rather more of wisdom and logic.
DeleteWas Freud unhealthily obsessed with sex and sexual imagery?
ReplyDeleteI think I would have to say that Freud was a bit too obsessed with sex. Personally, I do not see everything around me in a sexual manner, and I think this is very important to say, I have never had sexual thoughts about my mother. I think it is safe to say that Freud may have personally felt this way and been unable to believe that other people may not feel the same. Perhaps that is why he says that people may not recognize sexual symbols in dreams, because he is denying to himself that they do not have the same thought process as he does. On a personal note, since it seems a lot of this is rather personal, I cannot think of a single dream I have had that had a sexual undertone. Most people have probably had a dream that was clearly sexual in some form or another, but it seems strange to have a dream in which there are sexual symbols. I think it is strange how Freud goes from saying that your thought process is a result of childhood events, to talking about how everything represents something sexual. I feel like it is a plausible idea to suggest that Freud had something happen to him as a child that resulted in him having this mindset. If we could meet Freud today, it is probably safe to say that he would seem like a junior high boy who has just started puberty and is incapable of thinking of anything but sex.
#12
TH- Weekly post
TH- Comment on Cole Walker’s post
TH- Comment on Alexa Kruszewski’s post
40/40 points
I think this is an interesting question, because I was under the impression that it's pretty widely accepted, even within the psychological community, that Freud was a little too obsessed with sex. I think you may be right about Freud sort of projecting his own sexual problems on to everyone, which I find ironic and amusing since he was a psychologist. I also would like to add that I think that while Freud was probably unhealthily obsessed with sex, many of his theories do explain a good bit of human nature, it's just that this is only one piece of the puzzle that is the human mind, and Freud didn't seem to realize that.
DeleteHonestly learning about Fraud always creeped me out. It does make you wonder if he was trying to justify his sex obsession. I like your answer and I agree with you that he was a bit obsessed.
DeleteAmmar Idris
ReplyDeleteSection 012
Philosophy
Essay 3p
Response to William (Vince) Murphy and Jared Quillosa 2p
• Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
• China’s government is completely opposite to American beliefs and the government is fundamentally different from the U.S. The people of China do not get to voice their opinion if their politician is corrupt or unjust due to their communist government. Anything said against the government negatively will result in punishment from the government. Thus, even if it is corrupt the people have no choice but to tolerate it and move forward with a fake smile. If the corrupt leader in china is getting things done the people will hate him as a person but can tolerate it because he is working for a better future. However, if this accord in the U.S there would be backlash left and right because the people have a right to voice their opinion. If the president is corrupt, but he is getting things done the people will still complain but it would be their own biased opinion of him not on his actions. Take Trump for example he is not loved by the people like Obama, but if followed through with his promises more people would at least respect him.
Mohap Siddig
ReplyDeletePhilosophy Section 012
Is it better to be a gentleman(gentleperson) or an exemplary person?
This is a really good question. But I think it’s better to be a gentleman. This is because if you are a gentle man than you are an exemplary person. This is because you set examples when you are a gentleman. You give examples of how you should be a gentleman and how you should respect others and etc. An exemplary person is a person who gives examples. This could be a gentleman because, what is a gentleman? A gentleman is a person who respects people, a clean person, a person who shows love and appreciation. This is a gentle =man and this can all be examples that can be set from a gentleman. If you were to look at a gentleman how would you know he is a gentleman. You would know he is a gentleman because of the examples he sets because if not than everyone would be a gentleman in your eyes but, the gentleman has special things that he does that can be recognized and can also be examples that he sets. This is why I would choose to be a gentleman. Because if you really think deeply about it it goes hand and hand because if you are a gentleman you give examples and if you are an exemplary person then you can be a gentleman. This is my thoughts on “ Is it better to be a gentleman (gentleperson) or an exemplary person”?
Weekly Essay- (3pt)
Reply to Jared Quillons-(1pt)
Reply to Betsy Akpotu- (1pt)
I like your reply to this question. Your answer is clear and I understand why it's better to be a gentle person than an exemplary person.
DeleteI think James’ response to the question of whether the hunter circled the squirrel was very clever. I have seen, or been a part of, many pointless debates like that, and I often wonder: why does this even matter? If one answer or the other being “true” has no practical outcome or application, why do we need an answer at all, and is there any real truth to be found? It is easy to simply dismiss these kinds of arguments, but I like how James took the time to show the practical outcome to each answer, and I think that type of clarification can usually resolve such debates as these pretty quickly. I’d say I agree with his point in this sense. However, the statement “truth is what works,” is a little bit too ambiguous for my taste. While the statement makes a lot of sense when looking at something like the squirrel example, I could see it being easily misconstrued to support a relative truth type of thinking, where each individual can decide what is true based on whatever works out in their best interest. I personally don’t think James would have supported that interpretation, because in his argument that the statement “God is real” is true, he makes it clear that he believes it is true because he believes everyone could benefit from believing it, not just himself. Therefore, I would say a more precise way of wording James’ philosophy is that truth is what works for everyone, as an individual using this philosophy could not decide something was true because it worked for their individual interests.
ReplyDeleteWeekly Post +3
DeleteReply to Eli +1
Reply to Alexa +1
What does it mean to be "free from your body while still alive"? 284
ReplyDeletePersonally, "free from your body while still alive" means you having a different kind of freedom , for instance while in your body you having emotions and feelings. However you have no feeling when free from the body , its like you're free to whatever don't have to worry about this and that. As in How the World Thinks it says "the passage means to say only that on the self departing from the body all specific cognition vanishes, not that the Self is destroyed."pg284 Therefore its relating to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.
weekly essay -(3pt)
Deletereply to Carter Stephens(1pt)
reply to Pedro Rojas(1pt)
Question: (3 points)
ReplyDelete1. What do you think of James's squirrel story? Do you agree with his point?
(LH p.76)
Question: (1 point)
2. What do you think of "the takeaway"?
(FL p.190)
Question: (1 point)
3. Can you be "indifferent to wealth" without rejecting it?
(HWT p.287)
1. I found James’ squirrel story very interesting. Mainly, because regardless if you say yes or no, there’s no wrong answer; as-long-as, your answer is practical and makes sense then it can’t be wrong nor right. It’s just your point of view on the subject. However, I would say, that the hunter is circling the squirrel. Point 1, he’s a hunter and is purposely in the act of hunting. Point 2, what is making him continue to go around the tree if he didn’t believe it was animal there to kill and make a meal. Point 3, he did this for hours, so this makes me believe that he knows why, what, and how he’ll complete the task that’s motivating him to go around, around, around a tree. So, he probably can hear or smell the squirrel; therefore, he doesn’t ever have to physically see the animal to know that it’s there. We do have 5 senses (Touch, Smell, Hear, Taste, See). Again, you don’t have to see in order to know that something is there. Did you know blind people are also hunters? Maybe, this individual was blind and was going off the sounds the squirrel was making by clawing around the tree, or maybe it’s smell was unique to the point that he knew what kind of animal it was and how to tire it down prior to making it his Sunday night dinner; who knows?
I agree with James’ point that everything isn’t what it always seem at times, and there’s always different was to understand a situation, questioned, or just ideally thinking on general/common topics. The problem that normally happens, most people don’t share or are open to pragmatism philosophizing approaches.
2. To be honest, there’s some merit to the takeaway point of view. Meaning, at the end-of-the-day a person(s), right or wrong, will always believe what they were either taught growing up or learned as an adult. It’s extremely hard to break their superstitions, myths, and delusional thinking, because in a way it has become more of that person’s ideals on beliefs, though process, and reality. This is a prime example of that statement “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
3. This is a great and interesting question, I say no. I can be indifferent from wealth but would have to reject it, because it doesn’t drive me to act a certain way (wanting more), nor do I act different when I’ve had it in the past. During my life, some of my friends or associates I’ve known have been extremely wealthy, and in most cases, they weren’t the happiest people either. They will pull you into their circles and want you to also become wealthy too. The price that comes with this, isn’t worth it for me. As long as I have a roof over my head, warm/clean clothes, food to eat, and a piece of mind, that’s enough for me. I’m not going to sacrifice my happiness nor moral beliefs to make an extra dollar or two. Life is to short to focus on material possessions, they always fade away. When this happens, what will you be left with in life if your main focus was always financially driven?!
***Summary Posts 15Oct20***
Reading summary James's squirrel story (LH) and answered an additional question for both FL & HWT.
“Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. Is that now true in America as well?”
ReplyDeleteIn regards to China I think it has less to do with the tolerance of the people and more to do with the people being purposefully left without information or a voice, as China is well known for its censorship and violent oppression of its people in the case that they rise up in the name of reform. The Tiananmen Square Massacre is evidence enough that the people of China don’t entirely tolerate their corrupt and oppressive politicians, but rather that these politicians are much better at suppressing these rebellious voices than places such as Tsarist Russia and the British Empire. As for America I also don’t believe that corrupt politicians are particularly tolerated, but rather many just don’t see whether by intention or by choice just how corrupt these politicians are. Take Trump’s supporters for instance, none of them will come out and say “yes I realize that he is in bed with the NRA and is making American unsafe as a result” or “yes I realize that he has a fantasy of being and autocrat and has made friendships with oppressive psychopaths as a result”. They will instead regurgitate the same line of calling these factually correct analyses “fake news”, as they want to have their cake and eat it too by supporting the radical leader who stands up for their backwards ideas without acknowledging the corrupt nature of said leader.
Weekly essay +3
Responded to Autumn Daniel +1
Responded to Anna Johnson +1
Corrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. Is that now true in America as well?
ReplyDeleteI would not say that Americans do not necessarily tolerate corrupt politicians, once a politician is exposed for their wrongdoings to the public they are disgraced. However, I believe American politician get away with a lot without the public knowing. The politicians in office today, in my opinion are probably the worst. I will say that I am not that educated when it comes to politics, but I think a lot of people will agree that most of the politicians in America are corrupt. However, I will say that I know that China’s government is significantly different than ours so of course there will be a difference in the way things are run between countries. If we look at this election happening now, I would say most people are just voting for the lesser of two evils and really would not prefer either presidential candidates in office because they have some sort of corruption about them.
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
I have had many arguments based on misunderstandings. A lot of the times people get worked up and do not want to listen to what the other person has to say because they are stuck on their beliefs. Clarity in an argument is important because then you can determine if what was said to be in the right or wrong. Personally, if I am arguing with someone and I misinterpreted what they said then it is an easy argument to resolve because all I needed was clarity. It is important to hear everyone out in an argument before making any quick remarks
Weekly Essay (3)
Comment (Eli Feck)(1)
Comment (Mohap Siddig) (1)
40/40
section 12