That's all

Posting is now closed for Spring '24. Grades will soon be reported to the registrar. 

Have a good break. Keep asking questions. Stay humble like Socrates and Ambrose Bierce. 

And consider registering for Environmental Ethics in the Fall.

Kieran Setiya, Loneliness & Grief - Jackson Stewart H01

 

What Is Loneliness?

     

Kieran Setiya, Author and Professor at M.I.T

  Loneliness is often termed as the effects of being isolated or lacking personal connection. However someone may be alone and yet not feel lonely, while someone else might be surrounded by friends yet still feel lonely. In chapter two of Life is Hard, Kieran Setiya gives a more in depth view on page 41 stating, "The pain of social disconnection, loneliness, is not to be confused with being alone. One can be by oneself, in quiet solitude, without feeling lonely; and one can be lonely in a crowd." Setiya gives further distinction on page 41 distinguishing between situational loneliness and chronic loneliness. At some point most people will inevitably face situational loneliness whether it be the loss of friendship or relocating to a new place with new people. Chronic loneliness, which Setiya stated on page 41 as lasting for months to years, is something the majority people did not anticipate enduring. That was the common belief until the pandemic which quite literally altered everyone's life.

                         

                                Loneliness and The Pandemic 

    Prior to the pandemic Setiya claims on page 42 that loneliness had become such a concern the U.K. had decided to appoint the first "Minister of Loneliness" in 2018, Tracey Crouch. Even so loneliness is something that's hard to quantify and even more difficult to study on a large scale basis. On pages 42-43 Setiya explains how a survey was conducted to try and determine the amount of people who had someone to talk to regarding "important issues". The original survey was conducted in 1985, then repeated again in 2004. The 2004 survey showed that Americans were three times more likely to have no one to talk to regarding these matters. Eventually suspicions arose and sociologist Claude Fischer determined the order of the questions had been altered in a way that would shift responses towards the more lonely response. When the questions were returned to their original order and the survey was readministered in 2010, the results showed that more people felt they had someone to talk to than they did in 1985. These results only complicated things further. People wanted to know, are we lonelier now than we were previously? Answers were unsure and hard to come by until March 2020. As Setiya puts it on page 42, "The virus was spreading and loneliness was epidemic, too." Some became well adjusted and relied on the interactions with those they lived with, such as Setiya. Others became completely isolated living alone and starting to feel a sense of chronic loneliness. On page 44 Setiya, quoting David Hume, writes, "A perfect solitude is, perhaps, the greatest punishment we can suffer." If untreated this complete isolation and sense of chronic loneliness can have detrimental effects on ones health.

The Effects of Chronic Loneliness

        While most people are well versed on the emotional toll of loneliness, many are unaware just how impactful chronic loneliness can be on ones physical health. The CDC lists the following as side effects of loneliness. 

• Heart disease and stroke.
• Type 2 diabetes.
• Depression and anxiety.
• Addiction.
• Suicidality and self-harm.
• Dementia.
• Earlier death.

The CDC also notes that loneliness increases your risk for dementia by 50%. Setiya along with many philosophers believe these side effects can, in some cases, however be avoided or reversed through meaningful connections and friendships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdcDKpLUajs

The Importance of Friendship

    While allocating for the importance of social interaction, Setiya explains on page 51, "We are social animals with social needs; and when those needs are frustrated, we suffer." While this seems straight forward enough, it doesn't take into account those who are already isolated or lonely. On page 59 Setiya verbalizes the difficulty pronouncing, "It's hard to escape from loneliness without getting help from others, which makes being lonely a catch-22." While it is difficult to encapsulate a one size fits all solution to loneliness, the fact remains that most people are better of when surrounded by meaningful relationships.

What is Grief?

    Grief is typically defined as a deep sense of despair that usually coincides with loss. On page 66 Setiya elaborates on this, explaining, "Grief is not a simple emotion. People in grief feel sorrow, yes-but also anger, guilt, fear, and moments of lightness as well as depth." There is a long held belief that grief is "predictable" and comes in stages. Those stages being: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. However on page 68 George A. Bonanno equates grief to coming in waves and instead explains that, "Bereavement is essentially a stress reaction." So now it's established that grief is stil difficult grasp. How is one supposed to deal with such a complex emotion?

Methods of Grief

    Some might attempt to take the stoic approach and view grief as something harmful, something to avoid. Setiya dissuades from that on page 71 stating, "The Stoic attitude may dull our pain, but it does so by distancing us from things that really matter." If we spend all of our energy trying to avoid grief, we inadvertently avoid the subject of the grief. If the subject of the grief is the loss of a loved one, why would we want to avoid the subject. While it will inevitably take time to process and heal, we should try and embrace their memory even when it's difficult. Most of us wouldn't want to suppress their memory totally to try and avoid any difficult emotions that may come along. On page 81 Setiya echoes this claiming, "If we did not grieve, we would not love." This raises a question however, how long should we grieve?

How Long to Grieve

     When you add in the complex emotions and personal differences, many people are unsure how they will or should grieve. On pages 81 and 82 Setiya explains that research shows the majority of people are more "emotionally resilient" than they thought and typically pass through the grieving process sooner than they expected. While many would be relieved to hear that it does get better and probably sooner than you thought, Setiya doesn't fully see it this way. On page 82 he writes, "In another way, it's disturbing. Does our resilience mean that we no longer value the life of the one we've lost or that we never really did?" While on one hand I can see the argument that if we were to quickly get over the loss of someone then perhaps we didn't care as much as we thought. However I'm much more inclined to believe our sense of resilience isn't a sign that we lacked empathy or love for that person, but simply our brains objective to take care of our own well being so we don't end up spiraling. I wouldn't want to questions someones love for another person they had lost based off of my perception on whether or not they had grieved long enough, that seems wrong. While we now know there are no exact seps in the grieving process, I believe there is no exact time frame either. For some it might take longer than others, but the only certain is that approaching the grieving process from a place of love and honoring ones memory can make the daunting process have a sense of meaning as opposed to simply unavoidable pain.

    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEcaUhxAH2g

Loneliness and Grief Articles 

https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-psychology-loneliness-23566/#:~:text=Loneliness%20is%20associated%20with%20unique,and%20even%20physical%20health%20problems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/03/08/grief-brain-healing-coping-strategies/#

https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/40/2/218/4569527#102561765

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735806000444

 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481189108252441

https://www.americanbrainfoundation.org/how-tragedy-affects-the-brain/

Simone Weil - Eliah Shea H02

Simone Weil

    This is Simone Weil. I chose to do my project about Simone Weil on a whim, honestly. The name just stuck out to me, but I ended up really enjoying learning about her life. I am Jewish as well, so when I found out she was, too, I connected more with her story. I find her ideas about attention interesting, and her activism perhaps even more fascinating.

   

Simone Weil was born in 1909 in Paris. She was born to an upper class, educated Jewish family, who raised her secularly. Because of her family's wealth, she and her brother, a talented mathematician, attended some of the best schools in Paris (Rozelle-Stone and Davis).

    Weil was an unusual child. She was extremely empathetic from a young age. When she heard that soldiers in World War I would not receive their rations of candy, she abstained from sugar as well (Setiya, 123). She was like this her whole life; as a young adult, she did not heat her apartment in solidarity with workers who could not afford to, and she insisted on sleeping on hard floors (Weiner, 125).

    It should be noted that Weil's family was extremely germaphobic. She and her siblings were taught to wash their hands frequently, open doors with their elbows, and to never kiss anyone. She was afraid of touch into adulthood. She was also said to get sick frequently, and experienced regular headaches her entire life (Weiner, 124).

   Weil was exposed to complex philisophical material around high school age, which is also when she began to develop her own personal philosophy. Her first philosophy teacher was René Le Senne. He introduced her to the idea that "contradiction is a theoretical obstacle generative of nuanced, alert thinking", which became central to her personal philosophy. Weil also studied under Émile-Auguste Chartier, better known as Alain, a prolific philosophical writer. He taught about all the great philosophers before the year 1925, and gave her extensive readings of classic Greek literature like Homer (Rozelle-Stone and Davis).

    When I first read this quote, I was a bit flabberghasted as to its meaning, but after rereading it several times, I think that he meant that when you encounter something that conflicts with your views in some way, that is an obstacle that you can either choose to reject or choose to use to generate a highly attentive and open state of mind. This idea of contradiction generating attentive thinking is interesting to me. I can think of times where I have encountered someone with different views or experiences than me and I rejected them, and I can also think of times where I have tried to understand the person. I think that I agree with Weil and Le Senne in that it is better to immediately approach someone with contradictory beliefs to yours, or even a belief that you have that is contradictory to another, with understanding rather than rejection.

    I chose to do my presentation and this blogpost about Simone Weil completely randomly, but I actually relate somewhat to her upbringing. While I don't come from a rich background, and my family weren't germaphobes, I was solidly upper-middle class for a lot of my childhood, especially my teenage years. Also, I am Jewish--at least a quarter--ancestrally, but I was raised secularly, like Weil. My great grandfather is from Hungary and he came with his family to the United States in the early 1900s. He and his family were Jewish. He died when I was really young, so I don't really remember him, but my mom talks a lot about him. She remembers him very fondly, and seems to view him as a sort of role model. His daughter, my grandma, raised my mom to be assimilated with the wider culture, which, at the time, was rural Mississippi, so she didn't get the full Jewish experience, and my mom raised me and my sister completely agnostically. She did not push any one religion on us, but we still did Hannukah and ate latkes, and I've been to temple a few times, but we also did Christmas. I never considered myself religious, nor do I now. I respect religion, I just didn't grow up with it.

    Weil went to École Normale for her university studies. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, she was the only woman in her class, but Kieren Setiya's "Life Is Hard" claims that she scored first place in her entrance exams, and second place went to Simone de Beauvoir, so I don't know what to believe. Another source, the Internet Encyclopia of Philosophy, even specifies that Weil beat de Beauvoir on the Exam for General Philosophy and Logic.

    Anyway, she studied to become a public school teacher and she acquired her diploma in two years. She did her dissertation on knowledge and perception in Descartes. After she graduated, she taught in the French public school system for three years, from 1931 to 1934. During this time, outside of her teachings, she taught philosophy to and advocated for workers' groups, and did manual labor herself.

    Weil's philosophy focused on finding the causes of oppression in society. She was primarily inspired by Marx, Descartes, and Kant. In 1932, she went to Germany to understand the conditions that fostered Nazism. She observed that economic causes were the predominant reason for the rise and proliferation of Nazism, saying that unemployment weakened Germans' self esteem and bureaucracy disenfranchised the common worker, among other issues (Rozelle-Stone and Davis).

    In 1934, she published an essay called "Reflections Concerning the Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression" in which she critiqued marxism, saying that the problem with capitalism is not property ownership but the essence of work, and that the problems with work lie in specialization (Vaquero, 331-332).

    "Work is no longer done with the proud consciousness that one is being useful, but with the humiliating and agonizing feeling of enjoying a privilege bestowed by a temporary stroke of fortune, a privilege from which one excludes several human beings by the mere fact that one enjoys, in short, a job (Weil).

    The same year she published "Reflections Concerning the Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression", she applied for a sabbatical from teaching. She planned to work in Parisian factories because she wanted to experience life working with Paris' most oppressed group: unskilled female factory workers. While she planned to work in the factories for a year, she only ended up working in them for 24 months, but her experience in the factories was an impactful one. She kept a "Factory Journal" during her time in them, and she wrote of unrealistic speed expectations from superiors and extreme fatigue. She felt dehumanized and humiliated. She described her experience as "a kind of slavery".

    Her time in the factories can be seen as a turning point in her religious beliefs. The year after, on a trip to Portugal, Weil wrote while witnessing a procession to honor the patron saint of fishing villagers that she had realized that Christianity was "the religion of slaves" and that "slaves cannot thelp belonging to it". Additionally, in her "Factory Journal", a shift to the use of "humiliation" and "affliction" can be seen as opposed to the word "oppression".

    In 1936, Weil participated in a large-scale occupation of Paris' factories by workers. She planned to return to factory work afterwards, but the Spanish Civil War started, which piqued her interest. She was against French participation in the war, but privately she joined the front lines by obtaining journalist's credentials and joining an anarchist brigade. In August of 1936, she accidentally stepped in a pot of hot oil, severely injuring her left leg, forcing her to leave the front lines. Her parents persuaded her not to return, but she kept publishing her writing. In her writing, she argued against French colonization, and she criticized Marx for claiming revolution to be inevitable.

    During Easter week of 1938, Weil visited the Benedictine abbey of Solesmes for several days. If you don't know, as I did not, an abbey is like a community of Catholic monks. There, she found solace from a particularly bad headache in a Gregorian chant. She wrote that in that service, she felt "the passion of Christ [enter] into [her] being once and for all." There, also, she said she felt Christ's presence while reciting George Herbert's poem "Love". Born agnostically Jewish, she now believed in Christ.

    In May 1940, Weil and her family fled France by train as Germany invaded, with WWII already under way. They settled temporarily in Marseilles, a sanctuary city in a part of France yet uncontrolled by Germany. There, she worked with the Resistance and became a farmer's apprentice. She also met there a Dominican priest, Joseph-Marie Perrin, who came her close friend and spiritual advisor.

    Weil started working at a grape vineyard in 1941. In 1942, she and her family went to New York to flee from the Nazis. However, Weil felt disconnected from the struggle of her fellow Frenchmen there, so in 1943 she moved back to Europe, to London, alone. In London, she worked for the Free French movement, a French anti-Nazi group.

    She wrote "night and day" for four months before she resigned from the group. One month later, she died. She was 34. The coroner pronounced her death a suicide: she had died from a combination of self-starvation and tuberculosis. You see, while in London she had been living on the same rations given to the French people in Germany-occupied France in solidarity with her countrymen, and this comined with tubercolosis caused her death in the end (Rozelle-Stone and Davis).

    In conclusion, Simone Weil was a highly eccentric character. She was ethnically Jewish, religiously Catholic, extremely empathetic, and ruthlessly righteous. I see some of myself in her, helped by the fact that I was raised secularly Jewish myself. I find her empathy inspiring, and the lengths that she went to understand disenfranchisement in society are admirable. She was a great activist and philosopher who embodies the spirit of love well.

This is a reading of a poem by Simone Weil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8JEbAIY2ls

This is a presentation about Weil and her life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDBSvigmejo&t=805s

Works Cited:

Rozelle-Stone, A. Rebecca and Benjamin P. Davis, "Simone Weil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/simone-weil/>.

Setiya, Kieran. "Life Is Hard." 2022.

Weiner, Eric. "The Socrates Express." 2020.

Weil, Simone. "Reflections Concerning the Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression." 1958.

Vaquero, Alberto. G. "Reseñas." 2015.

Life is Hard (chapter 7) Hope-Kendal Johnson H03

Hope

Life is Hard

Life is Hard is a book written by author Kieran Setiya that takes a look at some of life's many challenges such as loneliness, grief, failure, and hope through the lens of philosophy.  

The purpose of his book is not to give you advice on how to fix the problems in a person's life but to provide a way to grapple with them. To understand more about his book Setiya goes more into depth with this video. 

The Jar

In chapter seven of Setiya's book "Life is Hard" he talks about the feeling of hope. The idea of hope is always seen as this empowering feeling of a better future or as a way to power through the obstacles in a person's life. Setiya explains how this was not always the case by sharing the story of Pandora's Box. The story starts with Prometheus a human who stole fire from the gods. Zeus wanting revenge on humankind demands Hephaestus to make a beautiful woman named Pandora that will unleash a jar of "gifts" upon humans. The gifts in the box were the upsets of life such as grief, greed, and violence. However, hope was also in the box and Pandora closed the 

box before it could escape. The jar being full of the plagues makes it seem like hope is a plague but hope staying locked in the jar unveils the possibility of different meanings of hope. The question was why was hope left in the jar? Does being free from hope keep humankind from worse fates? Or does it make us damned if we have a life without hope? The meaning of hope leading Setiya to ask these types of questions makes what it is sound like an intangible idea. Hope seems to be something indescribable. 

What is hope

Setiya says that he never thinks about hope and the few times that he did he was suspicious of it. He has chronic pain and believes hoping for it to be gone would make him dishonest towards himself. To him, if there is something that you want then you should do what it takes to make it happen. Hope is not needed for that. To put it clearly hope is not important to him. Setiya's therapist disagrees with him because his being resistant to hope is what places it in his life. His problem is not that hope is not important to him but that he is scared to hope and needs courage. Setiya's problems with hope do not end with him many people have trouble with it. His problems stem from not hoping enough others have trouble with hoping too much. Their hope turns into delusion which leads to pain. Considering the varying reactions to hope maybe it is best that it stays an ambivalent feeling. 

Attachment

Ambivalent or not people especially philosophers are going to want to know what hope is. Throughout these debates, they have mostly settled on hope being a mixture of desire and belief. When a person hopes they are in a way wishing for it to happen. People hope for the things they want and they do not hope for the things that are impossible or that they already know can happen. When a person is hoping they are thinking that the end result does not fall on them. As Setiya says, "It doesn't make sense to hope for what you can simply bring about. Hope is a concession to what you cannot control" (138). Desire and belief being the two sides of hope make way for the idea that hope is emotional attachment. To hope for something, it needs to be taken seriously. A plan must be in place for the feeling of hope to set in. If the possibility of something is lowered in a person's head, then their "attitude toward it is despair. When attachment fade, you are resigned" (138). Resignation is a bad feeling Setiya does not deny it but what good is to hope if it can lead to agony? The knowledge of this makes hope feel more daunting than despair. 

Action

The negative aspects of hope were defended by author and activist Rebecca Solnit said, "Hope is not like a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky...hope should shove you out the door, because it will take everything you have to steer the future away from endless war, from the annihilation of the earth's treasures and the grinding down of the poor and marginal. Hope just means another world might be possible, not promised, not guaranteed. Hope calls for action; action is impossible without hope" (139). Setiya thinks that hope can be like betting on the lottery. Hope is needed for someone to take action because the probability of success lowers without the hope of success. If someone is actively fighting against any of the hardships in their life they are living a life of hope.

Hope is...

Hope is not something that can be summed up in one word. Hope has a multitude of meanings all interpreted differently from person to person. Setiya wants his readers to understand that to hope for something a true understanding is needed. People should not hope for the impossible because it will only hurt them. They also should not be indifferent to what they are hoping for because, without belief or action, the chances of their hopes being true are weakened. Hope is whatever we wish for it to be and if your desires are unclear Setiya believes a person should hope to learn. However, a person should not hope for the best life possible. Wishing away grief and pain or trying to fast-track love is all unnecessary. A person's life is not and should not be about getting everything done as fast as possible. To further prove his point Setiya explains the play "The Cure at Troy". The play speaks on "infirmity, loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, absurdity, and hope" (144) which are a lot of the same topics Setiya covers. Even with all of these hardships, the play shows how hope can peak through even the hardest times and action will not be that far behind. 

Why Grow Up?- Tessa Wallace H03

 Why Grow Up is a book written by Susan Neiman she talks about how we grow up and what she thinks we need to do as we grow up. She starts the book off with what is enlightenment and says that you are committed to enlightenment if you are committed to understanding the world. She says that philosophy’s greatest task is to point out the range of possibilities to us.  Some of the main point throughout the book she talks about is how she thinks that when we are young it is the best time to learn things like music and languages. She also mentions that one of the best ways to understand where you came from and appreciate it is by traveling. When she says travel, she is not just talking about going somewhere for a quick vacation. She means that you need to move there and immerse yourself in the culture of the place you travel to. In this blog post the main thing that I will focus on is her last chapter of the book. In this chapter I will reflect on what she says in the book and brings up some new thing in reference to Kant  and some other ideas. 

 

In the last chapter of this book, she talks about how we are fed these mixed messages. She says “We’re besieged by mixed messages. Half of them urge us to get serious, stop dreaming and accept the world as it is, promoting the picture of adulthood as capitulation to the status quo. The other half blast us with products and suggestions that are meant to keep us young.” (Page 180 WGU). I think that this is very true especially in today’s world of social media. I think that kids today are fed these images of twenty-to-thirty-year-old as influencers, so they want to be like them. We can see this by where these little kids shop. A few months ago there were stories about how ten-year old were shopping a make-up store like Sephora. We can also see this in the way that these make-up shops are selling all these anti-aging and anti-wrinkling creams and serums trying to sell to the older people to “keep them young”. 

She also says in this chapter that maturity cannot be commanded it must be desired. She says that we can offer persuasion for maturity by presenting models that are more compelling than the ones we now know. I think that this is very true, and that maturity cannot be commanded from someone. I have an older brother and sometimes when I am with his friends, I wish I could just teach them how to be mature but unfortunately, I cannot. I think that some ways to show people persuasion to be mature would be to show them where you can go in life with maturity. 

Something Neiman says is that Kant believed that philosophy was not just for a privileged few but something that was the very nature of reason itself, so it is natural for all of us to think about it. He said there was three questions that philosophy is an attempt to wrestle. These questions are: what can I know? What should I do? What may I hope? He goes on to say that they can be reduced to what is a human being. I think that the first three questions are a good way to look at philosophy but not that they all condense down to what is a human being. I think that these three questions are something that everyone should ask themselves at one point and time during their life. 

Neiman talks about Neurath’s boat. She talks about how “as your judgment improves, so will your ability to learn, travel and work in ways that minimize the pitfalls we saw. And that the more you learn where you can, travel freely, find work you cherish, the better your judgment will be.” She goes on to say that ideally, we can develop good judgment from either watching good judgment and copying it or watching bad judgment and doing the opposite of it. I think that these things are true, and I have personally been able to gain better judgment form watching others. 

Neiman says that people between the ages of 18 and 30 are constantly being told that these are the best years of your life. But then goes on to say that in fact those years are the often the hardest years. I think that is especially true in today’s world. The hardest years that most people will have will have been their 18s to 30s. I think this because in today’s world the amount of money you must make compared to how much you need to live is crazy. Just the gap for how much a house is to how much you make is absurd. I think that these years are the hardest right now because of all the financial stress you are put through these years. This is from college to owning a house to maybe even trying to start a family. 

 

Susian Neiman answers her question why grow up in this last chapter by saying “The short answer is: because its’ harder than you think, so hard that it can amount to resistance. The forces that shape our world are no more interested in real grown-ups than they were in Kant’s day, for children make more compliant subjects (and consumers.) in pointing this out Kant was careful to point out the ways in which we collude in our own immaturity: thinking for yourself is less comfortable than letting someone do it for you.” I think that this is a great way of answering this question and that the world doesn’t really care about you other than as a consumer so you should try and do the most with is no matter what anyone says. 

In conclusion this book tries to give answers to the question “Why grow up?”. It does this by giving what it looks like to grow up then untimely answers the question of why grow up. I think that this book was a great read and would recommend it to anyone who is struggling with growing up or what it looks like to grow up. I like how she ties in Kant’s philosophy to this chapter more because I think it helps answer these questions she brings up. 

SSHM Chapter 6: A Jamesian Approach to the Value of Life (and a Christian's Response)

                                                                                            The Question of Suicide

Chapter 6 of SSHM by John Kaag begins with a discourse about whether or not life is truly worth living. Kaag recounts the story of a young man named Steven Rose who committed suicide by jumping from a tall building in 2014, and he frequently asks himself whether or not James' philosophies about the meaning of life would have perhaps prevented him from that fateful jump (SSHM, 171). The primary question of this section of the chapter is why people kill themselves when life's worth is so seemingly obvious. According to James, "no man is educated who has never dallied with the thought of suicide"(SSHM, 170). With this idea in mind, Kaag describes how he believes a Pragmatist philosophy may be a lifesaving mentality for the person in despair, but that it will never bring someone out of that state once and for all (SSHM, 170-171). Pragmatism evaluates all decisions that one can make by how practical or useful they would be to one's self and the world around them, and it follows logically that this outlook could be lifesaving to a person who is considering suicide, as it forces them to look at things from a more objective point of view. They will likely conclude that their despair in life is worth persevering through, as it is more beneficial to the world around them that they keep on living, because of the effect their loss would have on their loved ones, the things in life that they are responsible for maintaining, and other such things. The only downside is that this requires a relatively clear mental state to evaluate these things, and many suicidal people are not in such a state, leading them to make rash decisions about their life's value, or to believe that things would continue as normal if they were removed from the picture. James had a famous quip that he used to sum up this issue, stating: "Is life worth living? Maybe- it depends on the liver" (SSHM, 171). This quote very succinctly sums up the pragmatic view of suicide, that life might be worth living, but that we cannot say that as a blanket statement, because we can only truly say whether or not our own life has value. Th idea behind James' "maybe" hinges on the concept of human free will. He believed that the thing that would make life truly worth living was the possibility of a better future that one could make for themselves, but that said future may not be possible for everyone. Kaag summarized it by saying (while referring to Steven Rose mentioned earlier),  "Perhaps James' 'maybe' could have saved him- the suggestion that he was still in charge of his life, that the decision to end it all might be reasonable, even respectable, but so too was the possibility to live" (SSHM, 171). This idea is the core of the Jamesian idea of how to understand the value, or lack thereof, of human life. 

    Personally, I understand this point of view but I find it to be inherently misguided. The notion that everyone gets to decide for themselves whether or not their life has value makes sense, but it abandons the objective value that human life holds within its very existence, whether "the liver" realizes it or not. Kaag states that he believes the worst thing one could say to a suicidal person is that their life has value and that they should keep on living for that reason, and he believes that said suicidal person may even commit out of spite just to prove you wrong (SSHM, 172). This view, however, implies that the only value that a human life holds is that which is perceived by the individual, which is simply not true. When taken to its logical conclusion, this idea undermines the very foundation of civilized life and sets the stage for many dire consequences. If there is no objective value to human life, then laws preventing murder and other things that destroy human life, such as rape, battery, theft, and other things are entirely arbitrary, because all of these principles require a basic understanding that life has inherent value in itself. If the value of life is subjective, then the only thing that makes these aforementioned crimes wrong is the fact that society as a whole has simply decided that these things are wrong. I hold a Christian worldview, and therefore approach all topics through that lens, and the relativistic philosophy contained within this understanding of the value of life is simply incongruent with what I believe to be true. The Bible clearly states that human life has value, because humans are created by God in His image, which in itself gives human life value, as it is a reflection of the divine. For a Christian to say that human life even might not have value is to claim that the reflection of God Himself may not be

good enough to be deemed valuable, and no Christian can say that without going against the foundation of the religion they claim to hold to. Psalm 139:13-16 states: "For you formed my inward parts;  you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;   my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret,    intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them,    the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." This Christian view, that every person is "fearfully and wonderfully made" is fundamentally opposed to the Jamesian idea of life's value being defined by "the liver". Human life's value is determined by the fact that its very existence points to something greater than itself, something that is capable of giving infinite meaning to even the most broken soul. To close, i would like to bring up what is likely the most cited verse in the Bible, John 3:16. It says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life". This verse by itself proves that all human life has value, because God loves everyone, and He values the life of every person, thus giving every life value. Beyond this, He loves everyone to such a great extent that He sent God the Son to earth to bridge the gap between us and God by paying the price due for all sin, the ultimate expression of sacrificial love of all time, all to provide a path for humanity to be reunited with the glory of God, just as we were created to be.  

Simone Weil - Grace Woods H01

THE VIRTUE OF ATTENTION

Much of Weil's philosophy lies in empathy. True understanding and compassion could only arise from a genuine willingness to share the pain of others, as she believed. Even as a child, she was acutely aware of other's suffering. Particularly there were her concepts of affliction and attention: physical and mental suffering that was almost a necessity to achieve spiritual transformation, and the importance of bearing witness to this pain in others wholeheartedly. How people respond to suffering is crucial: there is no running away from it through any number of distractions. Affliction, she argued, had the power to strip away the superficial layers of self-interest and allow people to confront the deeper truths of existence. In order to do so, Weil emphasized the great importance in paying attention and being fully present in every moment. There is a rarity and purity to true attention, and it is a form of generosity more important than simple warmth and pity. Things such as consumerism and the relentless pursuit of pleasure present in modern society were seen as obstacles; true attention involved a deep engagement with reality and a detachment from one's own desires and prejudices.

"Complete attention is like unconsciousness."

In order to fully experience another's pain, and let them grab your attention, Weil presented the concept of decreation, or letting go of your sense of self; only then can you perceive the world as it is. This notion involves a radical transformation of the self, a deliberate undoing of the ego and its desires. Through this loss of personality and individuality, you could immerse yourself entirely in someone's emotions, and truly feel with them. Decreation is a way of breaking down the self in order to be filled with a higher, transcendent reality. This process of self-emptying fosters a sense of humility and solidarity with those who are suffering. Ego, with its attachments and illusions of separateness, was a barrier to this union, but by detaching from it, one can better understand the needs and experiences of others and act with compassion.

FINDING A SENSE OF BELONGING

Weil described the concept of "rootedness" as the need for individuals to have a sense of belonging and connection to a community or culture. This was a human need almost as fundamental as food or water. It provides people with a sense of purpose and stability. Rootedness, for Weil, was not just about physical location--it encompasses one's connection to heritage and tradition. People thrive when they are part of a community. Uprootedness, caused by factors such as industrialization and urbanization, leads to alienation, which in turn gives rise to social and political problems. People become disconnected from their own humanity and the humanity of others, and are more susceptible to manipulation and control by authoritarian regimes with this loss of identity and purpose, an issue that was prominent within Weil's lifetime.

"We can only know one thing about God—that he is what we are not."

In Weil's later years, she converted to Christianity (having been raised agnostic), and was a Christian mystic. Christian mysticism is defined as "the sense of some form of contact with the divine or transcendent, often understood in Christian tradition as involving union with God." She believed that God is a perfect being that fills all space, and because of that, creatures can only exist in the absence of God. Thus, creation only occurred when God "withdrew" from the picture. Humans are inherently unholy because they were created in this absence of divinity, she argued. Evil is present not because God is incapable of creating a perfect world, but instead creation itself implies that perfection is impossible. However, Weil did not believe this doomed us as a race, rather evil and the suffering that followed only drives us closer to God. "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world," as she said. Once again, the concept of decreation comes into play; in order to have a deeper relationship with God, one must let go of their "self." In her book Waiting for God, she explores the interplay between human longing and the presence of the divine. The work is a collection of her writings compiled after her death, including letters and essays, where her quest for truth and her pursuit of a higher, transcendent reality resonate throughout.

LINGERING MORALS

In the final year of her life, Weil battled with tuberculosis, although her cause of death was ultimately ruled suicide. She would refuse food while in the hospital; after all, her French country men had only meager rations to live off of, as she said. Weil's philosophy, and her entire life, was based around other people. How do others feel? How do they hurt? How can I understand them? Focus was only placed on the self when it came to "emptying" it. While it's tricky to advocate going to the extremes that Weil did, i.e. self-starvation, her beliefs of working to understand and connect with people in more deeper and meaningful ways, and cultivating true empathy, are virtues that should be of greater importance in our modern society. If we tried harder to understand one another, what pain people are experiencing, would our world look a lot less bleak? At least, it would seem a lot more compassionate.

Final Blog Post

Kieran Setiya’s evaluation of the meaning of life 

The purpose of life is an obscure question however a better question to ask would be how to live a meaningful life and why it matters. According to a source that Setiya quotes to live a meaningful life is to engage in activities whether happily, successfully, or neither. These activities will look different for everyone. However, a common philosophical threat to this idea is the idea of nihilism, the idea that nothing matters. This is viewed as philosophical skepticism because the idea that nothing matters contradicts almost every philosophical idea. You often cannot argue with nihilists because you’ll stall, because they don’t even believe the argument matters. This leads into Setiya’s main point of chapter 6 that how to live a meaningful life is a different question than the meaning of life. He then raises the question, when we ask for the meaning of life, are we asking whether life has meaning? Setiya builds on this by giving philosopher Thomas Nagels version of whether life even has meaning or purpose

Nagel writes, “If we learned we were being raised to provide food for other creatures fond of human flesh, who planned to turn us into cutlets before we got too stringy– even if we learned that the human race had been developed by animal breeders specifically for this purpose — that would still not give our lives meaning.”

This allows the audience to reevaluate the way they think about life. There could be a larger purpose for us on this  planet, in this universe; however, this would not create meaning in our lives, as we would still be living, but always aware of our fate. This is kind of similar to how we live now, we live our whole lives waiting to die, and slowly dying as we age, so how do we make our time worthwhile? Setiya ponders this same question.

Setiya presents the critic's view that often the purpose or meaning of life is to serve a higher being, but he argues that this is different than finding the meaning of life because it is rather something that interests us and something we hope to live for, but it does not function as a meaning of life. It is at this point that Setiya makes readers aware that at this point is when philosophers tend to throw in the towel, because it seemingly gets cyclical, never finding an answer. However, he argues that even with throwing in the towel, the question still lingers in the mind, eventually leading you right back to the beginning. 

Setiya presents the idea that humans have not always pondered the meaning of life, because it was never mentioned by great philosophers such as Plato or aristotle. In turn, they ask what it means to live a good human life. The idea of pondering the meaning of life did not originate until 1834. Personally, this makes me think that at some point humans began to reach for questions they knew could not be answered, but rather just wanted to dig at in order to feel accomplished and satisfied in life. While in reality, you could live a good and meaningful life without ever knowing the meaning of your life. Setiya backs up this thought of mine later in the chapter. He writes that its a question we ask in times of emptiness or anguish, when life feels meaningless or absurd. 

Following this point Setiya dives even deeper into analyzing the question and begins to ask what does the word meaning even mean in the phrase meaning of life? He points out that for different things there is a wide array to interpret meaning, such as in art where different people often take away different meanings than intended and we end up with a wide array of possible meanings. If this occurs in miniscule things that are just part of our life, how can the question possibly be applied to the whole of human life? 

As stated in the latter, many people break the meaning of their life down to a higher being. This is often in the form of some sort of religion whether it is Christianity with the belief in God or Stanism with the belief of a different holy being. Setiya argues that what binds together religion as a whole is binding together a total reaction upon life, meaning that there are principles that have been set forth for them and applied in the ordinary world that must be followed to have both a meaningful life and afterlife. He believes that religion is essentially metaphysical meaning that it is being dictated how we are meant to feel about everything. While some may argue that this is a valid meaning of life, Satiya states that it cannot possibly be the meaning of life because beliefs aside, it does not discover any such truth. He says that rather than seeing our religions as the meaning of our lives we should rather seek the truth about our world and universe, as well as trace the ills of society that are in our power to fix. This is because if we find even one ill of society that can be fixed, and make a step towards it, we will feel as if we lived a life with meaning. 

Setiya quotes William James in his idea that why should we believe that there is any way we ought to feel, that really dictates our total reaction to life, James states, “It is notorious that facts are compatible with opposite emotional compliments, since the same fact will inspire entirely different feelings in different persons, and at different times in the same person. And there is no rationally deducible connection between any outer fact and the sentiments it may happen to provoke,” I believe in William James writing this he was getting at the fact that there cannot possibly be one reality that fits for everyone, or even one person, because everyone has different feelings at different times. This ties into the meaning of life because it alludes to the fact that the meaning of life cannot have one answer, and it might change at different times depending on the person and the stage of life that they are in. 

Riley Webb H01 - Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

Unraveling the Enigma of Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Deep Dive into Philosophy, Life, and Legacy

Ludwig Wittgenstein is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, reshaping the landscape of Western thought. Born in Austria in 1889, his life was characterized by tragedy, intellectual curiosity, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. Let's investigate the intricacies of his life and ideas, exploring the depths of his philosophical insights and the complexities of his existence.

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

The Legacy of Karl Wittgenstein

To fully understand Ludwig's story, it's essential to know his family background. Ludwig's father, Karl Wittgenstein, played a pivotal role in shaping the family's wealth. A shrewd entrepreneur, Karl initially ventured to America at a young age armed with nothing but his violin and a dream of entertaining. However, fate intervened when the assassination of Abraham Lincoln disrupted the public entertainment industry, leading to Karl’s return home.

Karl Wittgenstein, Ludwig’s father and tycoon

 

Undeterred by adversity, Karl shifted his focus towards mastering the craft of iron and steel. His expertise proved invaluable during the 1878 war between Russia and Turkey, propelling him to wealth and prominence. This legacy of resilience and entrepreneurial spirit heavily influenced Ludwig's worldview and philosophical inquiries.

 

The Early Years: A World of Privilege and Tragedy

Ludwig Wittgenstein, the youngest of nine siblings, was born into one of the wealthiest families in Austria. Beneath the privilege, however, was a profound feeling of tragedy. Three of Ludwig's brothers battled mental illness, casting a shadow over his younger years. Despite the material comforts surrounding him, Ludwig battled with existential questions from a young age, laying the foundation for his later philosophical explorations.

 

An Intellectual Oasis: Encounters with Brilliance

Growing up, Ludwig was immersed in an ocean of intellectual brilliance. Other philosophers such as Sigmund Freud, Johannes Brahms, and Karl Kraus were frequent guests in the Wittgenstein household, stimulating Ludwig's intellect and nurturing his curiosity. However, even among the promise of intellectual stimulation, Ludwig wrestled with his demons, haunted by thoughts of suicide and existential angst.

Sigmund Freud, who frequently visited the Wittgenstein home

 

A Quest for Clarity: The Influence of Bertrand Russell

Contrary to the expectations his family held for him, Ludwig was drawn to logic and mathematics. His studies in England brought him into contact with the eminent philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. Their partnership proved to be revolutionary, igniting Ludwig's lifelong quest for clarity and precision in thought. Amid the quest for intellectual pursuits, however, Ludwig fought with profound feelings of inadequacy and despair, confiding in Russell about his suicidal thoughts and existential anguish.

Bertrand Russell, Ludwig’s mentor and confidant

 

War and Reflection: A Crucible of Existential Inquiry

The outbreak of World War I marked a rough period in Ludwig's life. Grieving the loss of his father, Karl Wittgenstein, Ludwig rejected his inheritance and enlisted in the Austrian Army. Ludwig embraced the chaos of war, viewing it as an opportunity to think about life's deepest questions. His experiences on the battlefield would shape his philosophical outlook, prompting reflections on the nature of death, meaning, and the limitations of language.

Ludwig Wittgenstein during WWI

 

Philosophical Musings: "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and Beyond

In the aftermath of the war, Ludwig retreated to take to his work. It was during this period of solitude that he wrote his seminal work, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus." In this, Ludwig sought to unravel the mysteries of language, logic, and reality. His thesis—that the limits of language are the limits of our world—sent waves through the philosophical community, challenging centuries of thought and tradition.

Cover of a first-edition Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

 

Language as a Tool: Unlocking the Mysteries of Communication

At the heart of Wittgenstein's philosophy is a radical proposition: that language is not a static entity, but a dynamic tool shaped by its context and usage. Rejecting universal definitions, he argued that words take their meaning from their pragmatic function within a specific linguistic context. This groundbreaking insight laid the foundation for his later explorations into the nature of language and its role in shaping human understanding. Wittgenstein's concept of "language games" showcased the intricate dynamic between language, context, and meaning, offering a precise framework for understanding the complexities of communication.

 

Final Reflections: A Life Well Lived

In his final moments, Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a simple yet profound reflection on his life: "Tell them I had a wonderful life." It was a testament to the quality of his experience and the depth of insight learned through a lifetime of philosophical inquiry. As we reflect on the life and ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein, we are reminded of the quest for understanding that defines the human condition—a quest that transcends the boundaries of time, space, and language itself. Through the lens of Wittgenstein's philosophy, we glimpse the profound beauty and mystery of the universe, inviting us to explore its depths with wonder and awe.

 

A Vendetta Against Socrates: Questioning the Role of Philosophical Inquiry

Wittgenstein's critique of Socratic philosophy represents a departure from traditional philosophical inquiry. He challenges the notion that the unexamined life is not worth living. In contrast to Socrates' relentless pursuit of truth through questioning, Wittgenstein suggests that such inquiries may ultimately lead us down the wrong path, distracting us from the complexity of life. Central to Wittgenstein's critique is the idea that metaphysical questions and philosophical speculation can blind us to the wonders of the world around us. By constantly questioning the nature of reality, we risk losing vision of the beauty and mystery that surrounds us.

 

A bust of Socrates

 

In his questioning of the value of metaphysical inquiry, Wittgenstein invites us to embrace the uncertainty of human existence, recognizing that some questions may be beyond the grasp of human understanding. Among the limitations of language and thought, however, he encourages us to engage with the world with openness and curiosity, confronting the existential depths of human experience with humility and wonder.

 

Final Thoughts: Reflecting on Wittgenstein's Legacy

As we reflect on the life and ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein, we are reminded of the enduring power of philosophical inquiry to challenge our assumptions, expand our horizons, and deepen our understanding of the human condition. His profound insights into the nature of language, logic, and reality continue to inspire and provoke scholars and thinkers across disciplines, inviting us to confront the deepest mysteries of existence with courage and curiosity.

In honoring Wittgenstein's legacy, we are called to embrace the complexities of existence with humility and wonder, recognizing the profound beauty and mystery that surrounds us. Through the lens of his philosophy, we glimpse the depths of human experience, inviting us to explore the mysteries of existence with courage, curiosity, and an unwavering commitment to truth.