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.
Section 7.
ReplyDeleteOh geez, learning about Freud in psychology class was interesting. 100% unhealthily obsessed with sex. There's more to life than that. I was shocked to learn and see how absorbed he was with it. He has some intriguing (but stupid) ideas.
Peirce wouldn't have liked imaginary numbers! I agree mostly, but for some reason when I think about it, I begin to conflict. I try to find an example of where there is truth without proof through observation. Maybe that's a me thing. At the basic level, I agree with him -- truth is observation, experiments, tangible things. Grass is green, fire is hot, I have five fingers -- yes/no questions, qualitative questions. For some reason though, there's a back-of-my-head thought thinking "what if there's more." There's always more beyond the surface.
I think it's what's on your agenda. You can get stuff done but be corrupt. You're progressing your nation through a straightforward method. However, you can take the lengthy route and do it morally. It's all about how you want to do it. You can be like Batman, who takes down criminals non-lethally. It would be 100x more efficient if he didn't but his that's where his morals lie. In some situations, it's better to do it the clean way, others the contrary. It's always subjective, but also depends on said decision maker's conscience.
Peirce believed in "more" too, mostly in the form of the vast field of knowledge still to be disclosed by inquiry in the long-term future. (“The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth”etc.) And he speculated metaphysically as well. Check out, for instance, his essay of "Evolutionary Love"--
Delete"Philosophy, when just escaping from its golden pupa-skin, mythology, proclaimed the great evolutionary agency of the universe to be Love..." https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm
Wonder what Freud would say about that?
Section 4
ReplyDeleteA gentleman does NOT need to be in an “upper class”. I see a gentleman as a person who respect the people around them, has manners, and cares for those around them without the expectation of a reward. Anyone can be a gentleman, not just men (of course it would have a slightly different name). It does not matter what class or poverty you are in, you are capable of being a gentleman because you don’t need to have money in your pocket to show and give respect.
The gentlemen title may have been given to upper class due to their appearance and how clean they appear with the best clothing and house and transport. But plenty of gentlemen are on the street too that people pass by without a second glance.
If I had to choose, I wouldn’t even want to use to title gentleman because you shouldn’t get a special title for showing basic human kindness! It should be a natural thing that everyone should do without hoping for a title or reward! :)
I did not think about it that way when you said "I wouldn’t even want to use to title gentleman because you shouldn’t get a special title for showing basic human kindness.'' I love that. I feel as though standards have been degraded that now men who show the slightest bit of manners are praised for.
DeleteProphetess Turner, Section 4:
ReplyDeleteWhat did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"?
I think that Nietzsche was trying to promote society thinking for themselves as well as questioning old traditions rather than just take them at face value. By saying God is Dead, I feel he is advocating that we stop living according to old ways and religious beliefs; we should focus less on living for what we can't see and instead live for ourselves.
Prophetess Turner, Section 4
ReplyDeleteMarch 10, 2021
Friedrich Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence
Friedrich Nietzsche was born October 15, 1844 in Prussia. He was a German philosopher, poet, and classical scholar who ended up becoming one of the most influential modern speakers we know today. Nietzsche based his beliefs in questioning and research; his goal was to inspire and encourage others to think for themselves. He spent the majority of his lifetime dissecting the motives behind western religion, morality, and other various philosophies.
One of Nietzche’s most well known philosophies is the idea of Eternal Recurrence (also known as the eternal return.) In this theory, Nietzsche proposes the idea that all events in the world repeat themselves in the same sequence through an eternal series of cycles. He goes on to explain that those who accept this as a possibility should make sure to live each day of their lives to the fullest because it is this existence that they will return to once they die. Eternal Recurrence became very popular because it offered a reprieve to the somewhat disheartening Christian belief that peace would only be had in the afterlife, and that's if you made it to heaven. Nietzsche’s theory, on the other hand, encouraged readers to not accept misery in this life and strive for what they really wanted.
Though Nietzsche introduced Eternal Recurrence in his book, The Gay Science, he did not speak on it much afterwards. The last time this idea was really fleshed out was in his work Thus Spoke Zarathrusta, in which his prophet-like main character praised living by the philosophy of Eternal Recurrence and the benefits it could have on an individual.
Nietzsche ended up passing away on August 25 in 1900 after a long battle with health problems, spending years in both asylums and under the care of various family members.
Sadly his life’s work ended up in the hands of his anti semetic sister who combed through them, releasing many of his writings that she manipulated to fit her anti Jewish narrative.
Though he went on to inspire many, such as the psychologist Sigmund Freud, he is most well known to be tied to Nazism.
powerpoint:https://www.slideshare.net/ProphetessTurner/eternal-recurrence-powerpoint-2
Questions?
1. Do you believe in Eternal Recurrence? If you do, does it affect the way you live your life?
2. Do you belief that the universe continually transforms?
3.How does the afterlife in Eternal Recurrence and the afterlife in Christianity differ?
Works Cited:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Nietzsche/Decade-of-isolation-and-creativity-1879-89#ref23657
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/10/12/the-influence-of-nietzsche/
https://www.thoughtco.com/nietzsches-idea-of-the-eternal-recurrence-2670659
Do you belief that the universe continually transforms?
DeleteI believe that the universe transforms and changed in order for it to stay in existence because the moment that the universe stops or ceases to grow and develop, much like animals species in nature, "it" would become extinct.
Marim Sameer (3/11)
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Discussion answer/ weekly essay
Must a "gentleman" be "a member of the ruling upper classes"?
Is it better to be a gentleman (gentleperson) or an exemplary person?
A gentleman most defiantly does not have to be a member of the upper class. It is not a social status that makes you a gentleman, but it is your action and manners. A gentleman must be respectful to all those around him and continuously wanting the best for them. They must put the other person before themselves. Nice clothes and ungraded technology or any type of materialistic item does not define the person you are. That is all based on your personality and actions. Someone from the lower class could be more appreciative of what they have and be more respectful than the one who has a larger title of being in the upper class. I feel as though it is better to be a gentleman/ gentleperson. It would have people respect you more. They will treat you as you treat them. As long as you are respectful and well-mannered you are most likely going to be well liked.
Section #4
ReplyDeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
I have done this many times as it seems to me that many arguments come out of simply not understanding what someone else meant. I also believe that many arguments draw on this ignorance of understanding and likewise can be avoided by taking time to stop and listen. Sometimes it comes down to people not being able to accurately use the correct words to get their point across and then it causes other to believe they mean something else and misconstrue it. In a ever increasing fast paced world it sometimes becomes hard to understand someone's side. So I believe we should all just take a step back and listen instead of constantly moving forward without regard to what around us.
What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"?
He meant that at the time of the enlightenment, god had been killed as a necessity with scientific rationality taking its place. He was of the belief that Christianity could no longer exist in the western world under the spur of scientific innovation. Also that with the death of Christianity came the death of those morals it brought and would create a new code of nihilism. Although science is starting to outpace religion I believe that moral codes are starting to be carried on as the right thing to do. people no longer need a god to say that murder is wrong to know not to kill, they now just know that murder is not something to do. I see his statement as a drift away from religiously established morals and more of independently set and followed code that everyone agrees what is right and what is not.
I completely agree with your answer for the first one. I have been in so many arguments with loved ones and all it took was for everyone to speak calmly about what it is they meant. I feel like this gives everyone the opportunity to calmly hear each other out because 9/10 that person had pure intentions they just did not know hoe to deliver the message
DeleteI believe that a gentleman does not need to be a member of the upper class. There have been plenty of instances where I have met people from all classes of wealth, as determined by society, that have been gentlemen. A gentleman does not mean you are of a higher social status than another and it certainly does not limit people based on their class status. It is not determined by what you wear but by what you do and how you treat others. There are people in my life that have less than I do, unfortunately, and I aspire to be at least half the person they are when I grow up. There are people are over this world that society looks over, but I have found that if we give them a chance they can be some of the nicest people there are.
ReplyDeleteSection 7
DeleteDo we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours?
DeleteYes, I believe we need heroes in this life. My mother is my biggest hero and I've learned so much from her example. I am a musician so I have tons of musical heroes and inspirations such as: Bill Evans, Stevie Wonder, Ryan O'Neal, Kris Bowers, Jon Bellion, and Chad Lawson. There are plenty more, but these are the names that come to my mind right now. Historically: I look up Richard and Mildred Loving and Martin Luther King Jr. As far as Saviors, my Savior is Jesus Christ. That's the only place salvation comes from. I wouldn't call any person and hero I mentioned a savior.
I think having heroes and inspirations in this life are important. Find people in your particular field of interest who are exceptional at what they do and learn from them. Find people who motivate you to live a better life. Choose your heroes wisely, but choose some none the less.
Replied to a comment for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 4th
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
Responded to questions for Feb 16th
Responded to questions for Feb 18th
Responded to questions for Feb 25th
Responded to questions for March 2nd
Responded to questions for March 4th
Responded to questions for March 9th
Do we need heroes? Saviors? 268 Who are yours?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe we need heroes in this life. My mother is my biggest hero and I've learned so much from her example. I am a musician so I have tons of musical heroes and inspirations such as: Bill Evans, Stevie Wonder, Ryan O'Neal, Kris Bowers, Jon Bellion, and Chad Lawson. There are plenty more, but these are the names that come to my mind right now. Historically: I look up Richard and Mildred Loving and Martin Luther King Jr. As far as Saviors, my Savior is Jesus Christ. That's the only place salvation comes from. I wouldn't call any person and hero I mentioned a savior.
I think having heroes and inspirations in this life are important. Find people in your particular field of interest who are exceptional at what they do and learn from them. Find people who motivate you to live a better life. Choose your heroes wisely, but choose some none the less.
Replied to a comment for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 4th
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
Responded to questions for Feb 16th
Responded to questions for Feb 18th
Responded to questions for Feb 25th
Responded to questions for March 2nd
Responded to questions for March 4th
Responded to questions for March 9th
Keylee Crutcher (Section 8): Nietzsche on morality-
ReplyDeleteNietzsche was a German philosopher who lived from 1844-1900. One thing he was famous for was his ideas about morality and religion. One of his most famous quotes is “God is dead.” He doesn’t necessarily mean this in an atheistic way, but more in a ‘the belief in the Christian god is not believable anymore, therefore he is dead.’
So, his argument is that, if god is dead, what happens next? If there’s no god, we’ve lost the foundation for our morals and now there’s no clear guidelines between what’s right and what’s wrong. He believes that morality would collapse because of this; and that the religious moral we had been following were actually harmful for us and that we need to reconstruct ourselves.
He talks more about morality in “The Genealogy of Morality”. He talks about the idea that morals come from our consciousness and that they’re based on helping others. He doesn’t agree and says that that idea came from history, not some innate sense of consciousness. To briefly summarize it, he believes that people who were powerful and on top of the social hierarchy became associated with “good.” This made people associate the traits these people had as “good,” like being brave, strong, powerful, etc. Eventually he talks about how this idea developed into good vs. evil. Nietzsche thinks it evolved into this because of what he calls “slave morality.” Essentially, he thinks that people who suffered from oppression of these higher up “good” people grew to hate and resent them. They didn’t like how the powerful people were, so they basically started valuing traits that were more compassionate and not like the power-hungry people at the top of the pyramid. This caused them to value things that helped them like selflessness, compassion, sharing, etc. Nietzsche didn’t like this slave morality mindset; he thought the best way to be was like the high ups. He goes more in depth with how he thinks people should be with his idea of the Ubermensch (which isn’t my topic).
But overall, he called himself an immoralist and thought that we should go beyond morals; and that our values and moral views are not objective facts at all.
Also, as of March 11th this is everything I’ve done:
Posted my introduction on Jan 28th
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 4th
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
Responded to questions for Feb 16th
Responded to questions for Feb 18th
Responded to questions for Feb 25th
Responded to questions for March 2nd
Responded to questions for March 4th
Responded to questions for March 9th
Posted my Midterm summary under Questions March 11th
I forgot to do citations, I used Little History and this website:
Deletehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#CritReliMora
Section 8
ReplyDeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
Yes, because a lot of the time emotion gets in the way of reason, or a person’s argument is generalized leaving the other person(s) to make their own conclusion without knowing the true meaning of the other person’s word. What they said and what they meant might not link up.
What do you think of "the takeaway"? 190
I think it's like to each their own. Reality is objective, it can be whatever you want it to be.
What does he mean by “to me the living sense of reality only comes in the artificial mystic state of mind”? I thought that was interesting.
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2
Responded to questions for Feb 4
Responded to questions for Feb 9
Responded to questions for Feb 11
Responded to questions for Feb 16
Responded to questions for Feb 25
Did presentation and summary Mar 2
Responded to questions for Mar 4
Responded to questions for Mar 9
Responded to questions for Mar 11
Section 7
ReplyDeleteWilliam James's Pragmatism:
Before we discuss what pragmatism meant to William James, here is some background information. William James was born on January 11th, 1842 in New York City, NY. James was the eldest of 5 children, with his younger brother Henry also finding fame by becoming a novelist and writer. The James children were born into a wealthy and incredibly intellectual family. Since James’s father traveled often and brough the family with them, he was primarily educated by tutors. In 1860 (when James was 18) he left to attend college with the aspirations of becoming a famous artist. It didn’t take long for James to change his mind, because in 1861 he enrolled at Lawrence Scientific School majoring in psychology. After receiving his undergraduate degree in psychology, he enrolled at Harvard Medical School in 1864. While attending Harvard to receive his M.D., he took a break from his academics to travel to the Amazon. While traveling, he contracted smallpox and became very seriously ill. James did achieve traveling through the amazon, but when he returned, he was still very ill and battles with suicidal depression. James received his M.D. in 1869 but unfortunately never practices, which causes him to fall into suicidal depression again. His luck seemed to turn around in 1872 when James was offered an undergraduate professor’s position at Harvard to teach physiology. Throughout his 30+ years teaching he taught several courses about physiology, anatomy, psychology, and philosophy as well. In 1907 James makes the decision to resign from Harvard as a professor, the same year his lectures are published “Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking”. Three short years later, James passed in his summer home of heart failure.
Pragmatism is a philosophical approach and movement that considers words and thoughts to be tools and instruments to help us predict, problem solve, and action. Pragmatists tend to reject the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. They tend to oppose most philosophical topics because they believe they are best viewed in terms of practical uses and successes. Pragmatists can also consider something to be true without it needing to be confirmed that it is universally true. For example, humans commonly perceive the ocean as beautiful, so according to pragmatists the ocean therefore is beautiful. William James’s version of pragmatism is different from other well-known pragmatists and is best illustrated by his lectures published in “Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking”. Pragmatism emerges in James’s book as six things: First, Philosophical temperament, where he separates philosophers into tender and tough minded. With James believing that pragmatists would play the role of the mediator. Then as a theory of meaning and a method for resolving philosophical disputes, showing that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences. Next, Theory of truth which means that what makes a sentence true is that it accurately describes how the world works. Lastly, he embraces a metaphysical view in the claim that “for pragmatism [reality] is still in the making”. James characterizes truth in terms of its usefulness and acceptance. Specifically concerning an idea or belief, James’s thought “It is useful because it is true” or that “it is true because it is useful”. Thinking that beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. Although this movement was very common in the 19th century, there were many people who accused James of reducing truth to a subjective play of opinions. Where James returned with “what immediately feels most ‘good’ is not always most ‘true’ when measured by the verdict of the rest of experience”.
Responded to questions on 1/28, 2/2, 2/4, 2/9, 2/11, 2/16, 2/18, 2/25, 3/2, 3/9
Giving my presentation on 3/11
Brandon Lienhart section 4
ReplyDeletepower point presentation link
https://www.slideshare.net/BrandonLienhart/friedrich-nietzsche-244235361
Graham Anglin Section 4
ReplyDeleteMy presentation is over Charles Sanders Peirce's Pragmatic philosophy. I will attach a link below for my Powerpoint presentation over this topic as well as questions both over the presentation and your own opinions. Charles Sanders Peirce is widely considered to be the "father of pragmatism" where his influence among western pragmatic philosophy can be seen among many popular modern western philosopher. Read more about him and his views below at https://mtmailmtsu-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/gsa2m_mtmail_mtsu_edu/EUqEvPdFrr9LnDmYSUgcSdQBVA29Zei1L3YI61t1eg_Kyg?e=7fhcNO
Questions:
1. What is Pragmatism?
2. Was Charles Sanders Pierce a believer in determinism?
3. Do you believe that the scientific method is the best way to identify logical explanation of our reality?
4. Do you agree with Peirce's three main propositions of pragmatism?
Section 8
ReplyDeleteHave you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
---Yes. People can mean so many different things with the same word. It’s ridiculous. And it’s usually an argument about something that doesn’t matter or has nothing to do with them, which makes it even worse. I think people should take a bit more time to define their words. It would make everyone’s lives easier.
Was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis good? 181
---I’m not sure. I think he has a good point about Freud’s theories not being able to be tested, but not about them not being able to be proved wrong. The book says, “If every possible observation is taken as further evidence that the theory is true, whatever the observation is, and no imaginable evidence could show that it was false, Popper believed, the theory couldn’t be scientific at all.” I haven’t thought about Freud’s theory long enough to believe that no imaginable evidence could prove it false, but if that is the case, I don’t think that makes the theory unscientific, I think it makes it true.
Responded to questions for 01/28/21
Responded to questions for 02/02/21
Responded to questions for 02/09/21
Responded to questions for 02/11/21
Responded to questions for 02/23/2021 (which is 02/16/2021 and 02/18/2021)
Responded to questions for 02/25/21
Responded to questions for 03/04/21
Responded to questions for 03/09/21
Responded to questions for 03/11/21
Section 7
ReplyDeleteI believe that often times, arguments begin because people aren't being clear with what they are trying to say. I have certainly stopped people from arguing by having them both clarify what they are saying. Often times, they are even arguing for the same side of things.
It seems like riches and honor are shameful in America at the moment and I am not sure why. Most of the time people have gotten rich off of hard work. I don't see anything wrong with that. But, some people are putting them down for having more money than them.
Responded to questions for Jan 28
Responded to questions for Feb 2nd
Responded to questions for Feb 9th
Responded to questions for Feb 11th
Responded to questions for Feb 16th
Responded to questions for Feb 18th
Responded to questions for Feb 25th
Responded to questions for March 2nd
Responded to questions for March 4th
Responded to questions for March 9th
Responded to questions for March 11th
Nietzsche was a German philosopher, among many other things, who had a very complex view on life. His idea of the Ubermensch, often translated to “superman or overman” was a phrase coined in his novel “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” and isn’t what you would typically think of in modern day. He felt that the overman is someone who takes great risks to enhance the quality of humanity whereas the Letzter Mensch or last man is comfortable never taking risks and contributes nothing to society. The overman is somewhat of a leader in this sense and the last man is a follower and can be influenced by an over man. The over man’s ideas will live on for eternity in other minds. He wasn’t necessarily saying that the overman should be incredibly physically gifted, but his thought process is superior to that of his ancestors. The overman does not conform to traditional and cultural norms. He is a creator of his own values. Men are not created equal but rather only some are born talented enough to become an overman different from Marx who involves everyone into his ideal society. The overman looks back at his past and is satisfied with every aspect of it, has no regrets although some parts of life may have been painful the past is what made him who he is today.
ReplyDeleteIs Freud's "unconscious" real? Did he in fact "discover" it, or invent the idea of it? Is it a useful concept? 177
ReplyDeleteI think that the unconscious is real because in my dreams I will be seeing things that I totally forgot about reappear in my dreams. And honestly, it really explains certain mental disorders that appear due to something in the unconscious. I think he discovered it, and not invent it. Those are two different things. Before Mt. Everest was discovered to be the tallest mountain in the world, Mt. Everest was still there. But to invent means something like the invention was never like it in existence. Yes, I believe that it is a useful concept to explaining the mind.
Is there currently a religious leader with the "moderate" reputation of the late Billy Graham, deserved or not?207
In my opinion, no, nobody has the reputation of Billy Graham. Billy Graham was without a doubt a man of God, and showed it in his actions and lifestyle. People sensed his genuineness, and people would flock to him to feel the love of God in him. He was considered America's pastor even to when he passed away and continues to hold that legacy title. He was the only pastor whose body was held in honor at Congress. Today's preachers are so out of touch with the reality of the everyday people and I don't feel a connection with them like Billy Graham, after all Billy Graham started as a farm boy and continued in his humble behavior all the way until he died. But people with money in their hands change their behavior, and I think that's what most pastors are like today. So again, I don't even think that today's pastors deserve Billy Graham's reputation.
Should you be "a friend of the world"?
No, in my beliefs, the world is filled with three things: lust of the flesh, lust of eyes, and the pride of life. These three things are evil and will bring you down in your life. I also believe that this world will disappear and a new one will come, so there is no point in storing big riches and immaculate wealth, just for me to leave it all here and have it one day all gone. I believe the world is a corrupted place and will continue to be more worse with each passing day. The world will not give me anything useful. And I also try to follow Jesus' example when the devil tempted him with the whole entire world to Jesus, Jesus resisted the devil and his temptations and told the devil to get behind Him. So with those beliefs, I don't want to be a friend of the world.
Sydney Davis
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Should you be "a friend of the world"? 288
I definitely think we should be considered a friend of the world.I believe having decency and kindness goes a long way towards other people, as well as to nature. To me the idea of being a friend to the world means to take care of nature, take care of the earth. Be kind to others and respectful. If everyone acted this way and with the mentality there's a greater change at having a peaceful life, and to have a cleaner environment.People in this day and age are too selfish and self-centered. If its convenient to them then that's how they'll go, even if that way may harm other people or the environment.
Have you ever resolved an argument by getting everyone to clarify what they actually meant?
ReplyDeleteYes, I have done this many times. I think that people often argue out of misunderstanding. I am guilty of this myself. I think the phrase “blind with rage” is quite accurate. Sometimes people believe themselves to be so right that the opinions of others are immediately shot down. Most arguments can be avoided or lessened if those involved just take a step back and calmly explain their point of view. It is also crucial for everyone to listen and consider others’ views.
Was Freud unhealthily obsessed with sex and sexual imagery? 179
I think that Freud was unhealthily obsessed with sex and sexual imagery. The notion that all men want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers is insane to me. It leads me to believe that Freud himself was messed up as normal men do not have this desire. Most of Freud’s work revolved around sex and sexual desires which becomes weird to an extent. Sex is a normal part of life, and I think it is okay to have some curiosity on the subject, but Freud became a bit obsessed.
Ash Warner Section 7
ReplyDeleteWhy do so many American politicians try so hard not to appear to be "intellectuals" but rather "populists"?
The reason why stems from simply that the average American does not understand politics past their own political affiliations. How exactly are you supposed to discuss tough subjects like climate change when half the people in the country not just don’t believe it but also just don’t understand it? You can’t that’s how, so in substitute of being an intellectual, they’ve dumbed down politics in America to simple phrases so everyone can understand politics which has ultimately become our worst enemy. We’ve gone from having to make sure all of our sources and records were in check, now as long as one article found online from an untrustworthy website says so, then it must be the truth. This job makes being a populist easier for politicians because that’s means they can just bull jive and say whatever they want and as long s they speak in a confident enough one, anyone will believe them and the reason why is because they’re saying what they agree with so it doesn’t matter if its factual or not, they already believe it.
Section 4
ReplyDeleteCorrupt politicians are tolerated in China if they get things done. 272 Is that now true in America as well?
It is not the same in america. We should have a few corrupt politicians but they need to be above a certain life and have to provie their capabileisi.