1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
4. What 20th century philosopher carried on the pragmatist tradition? What did he say about the way words work? Does his approach seem reasonable to you?
5. What did Nietzsche mean by "God is dead"? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) Does that statement seem nihilistic to you?
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
7. What is an Ubermensch, and why does Nigel find it "a bit worrying"? Does it worry you that some of our peers think of themselves as exempt from the rules and norms that the rest of us follow?
8. How did Nietzsche differ from Kant but anticipate Freud? Is rationality less available to us than we think?
9. What were the three great revolutions in thought, according to Freud? Was he overrating his own contributions?
10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
- What is Weiner's favorite movie? What philosophical themes does it wrestle with? What Nietzschean idea does it resemble? How would you respond to the "demon" who proposes it?
- How do we write well, according to Nietzsche? Have you tried it?
- What is amor fati? Do you have an "all or nothing" attitude towards life? What does that mean to you?
- What is the "as if" approach to life? Do you take it? Does it work?
- What is Sonya's opinion of Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence? Do you share it?
- How does the "Hollywood version" of ER differ from Nietzsche's? Which do you prefer? Why?
Ed Craig (a distinguished MTSU alum, class of '21) introduces the philosophy of William James
MY FIVE STEP PLAN FOR KNOWING WILLIAM JAMES by Ed Craig ("Grandfather Philosophy" on YouTube)
I never had heard of William James before I went back to college at age 74, and I think of myself as a fairly well-educated man. I knew his brother Henry, the author. I have discovered that I am not alone in not encountering James in my education. I have been educating myself in James over the past couple of years and have come to love him. I have found that James speaks to me, and that there are great lessons in how to live in his writings. It has been worthwhile for me to know him better, and I think it would be for others. For any interested, here is a 5-step plan to get to know (perhaps) America’s greatest philosopher.
Step 1 Do a quick Google search. Read Wikipedia.
It helps your introduction to William James to get some sense of who he was and his place as an American philosopher. James is not part of the philosophical canon and does not belong to any “school” of philosophy. English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861 – 1947) claimed that the four great philosophical “assemblers” were Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, and William James. Good company. James was a remarkable man. A quick read of his Wikipedia entry on his early life, career, and family gives a taste of who he was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
Step 2 Watch an address by James biographer Robert Richardson.
An address by James biographer Robert Richardson in August 2010 to the William James Symposium in Chocorua, New Hampshire, on the 100th anniversary of the death of James, provides helpful insight into the type of thinking that makes James so valuable in understanding how to live. (Chocorua was one of James’s homes, and the view of Mount Chocorua from his home, which “had 14 doors which all opened outwards,” is on the home page of Phil Oliver’s blog, Up@dawn 2.0) https://jposopher.blogspot.com/
Robert Richardson, Will You or Won’t You Have It So
A second video from the conference contains the introduction of Robert Richardson and the Q&A discussion after the talk. Watch from @17:40. Note specifically James scholar John McDermott beginning at 19:40 when the discussion turned to James’s philosophical “school,” in which he says that James was not a part of any school, nor would he want to be, and that “in my experience there are persons who suddenly get introduced to James and things change, and that James becomes some kind of a presence in their lives.” (Richardson and Phil Oliver @26:04)
Step 3 Read Jamesian scholar John McDermott’s introduction to The Writings of William James.
John McDermott edited an excellent collection of James’s work in The Writings of William James. In his introduction to this collection, McDermott presents James's thinking in all its manifestations, stressing the importance of radical empiricism and placing into perspective the doctrines of pragmatism and the will to believe. The critical periods of James's life are highlighted to illuminate the development of his philosophical and psychological thought. The Preface and Introduction are the best place to start your journey into James.
Step 4 Read John Kaag’s Sick Souls and Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life.
Before turning to James’s essays and his biography, read John Kaag’s popular book, Sick Souls and Healthy Minds: How William James Can Save Your Life. John Kaag is professor and Chair of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts. In addition to Sick Souls, he is the author of American Philosophy: A Love Story (2016), and Hiking with Nietzsche: Becoming Who You Are (2018). It is a good story that shows how James can be a positive influence in your life.
Step 5 Read biographies and essays.
Now begins the study of James. He was a prolific writer and popular public lecturer. The best way to begin a study of James is with a biography and selected essays in hand and read the essays as they appear in the biography.
Biographies:
Robert Richardson, William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism
Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, two volumes (the gold standard for James biographies)
Essays:
Robert Richardson, The Heart of William James
John McDermott, The Writings of William James
William James: Writings – The Library of America, two volumes (Best collection for the serious)
(essays can be found online at https://www.gutenberg.org/
==
"Best book in the MTSU library" (more modestly, the best book by me in the library):
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP-5
Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous declaration “God is dead” means that the belief in the Christian God has lost its power and influence in the modern world. He wasn’t saying that a deity had literally died, but rather that the traditional religious and moral absolutes had declined due to the rise of scientific and secular thinking. Nietzsche saw this as both a crisis and an opportunity. A crisis because it left a void in society’s moral and existential framework and an opportunity because it allowed for the creation of new values and meanings.
A word that rhymes with “Nietzsche” is “peachy.”
I think that the statement seems nihilistic. It can be seen as nihilistic because it acknowledges the absence of inherent meaning or value in the universe without God. However, Nietzsche himself was not a nihilist because he believed that individuals could overcome this void by creating their own values and purpose, a concept he referred to as the “will to power.”
LHP-10
The “talking cure” gave birth to the field of psychoanalysis. Bertha Pappenheim, also known as Anna O., coined this term during her treatment with Josef Breuer. The process involved expressing repressed emotions and traumas through verbal communication, which alleviated her symptoms. Sigmund Freud later adopted and expanded upon this method, which became the foundation of psychoanalysis and modern psychotherapy.
I personally do not have any experience with it because I have never expressed my traumas through verbal communication. Instead, during my low times, I start doing physical activities like going to the gym or playing badminton and sweating hard to overcome stress and anxiety. I also listen to music and bike alone to make myself relieved because I'm not the kind of person who shares verbally.
LHP-12
Karl Popper criticized Freudian psychoanalysis by arguing that it is a pseudoscience. His main point was that psychoanalysis is not falsifiable, meaning its claims cannot be tested and potentially refuted. For example, if a client’s reaction did not align with the psychosexual theory, an alternate explanation would be provided, such as defense mechanisms or reaction formation. This lack of testability and refutability led Popper to classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific.
Popper’s criticism has been influential and has sparked significant debate in the scientific and philosophical communities. I feel that psychoanalysis has value in understanding human behavior and mental processes and is not directly linked with reaction formations.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. James’ squirrel story is an example showing that pragmatic philosophy concerns practical consequences. For example, there are two different ways a hunter can “circle” a squirrel on a tree depending on how you view the situation. James thought that truth depended on what people were looking for; it is whatever has a positive impact on us. To him, truth could only be found by experimenting with all the possible consequences and discovering what works best.
LHP 3. Bertrand Russel objected to James' theory by arguing that according to his theory, Santa Claus exists. Russel does make a fair point, truth cannot always be what “works best” for people, this can lead to negative consequences. I can see how James’ theory can be beneficial for those experiencing dilemmas with spiritual/religious beliefs, but it cannot be used in every sense. There is a difference between what would be nice to be true and what is actually true. Truth is not subjective.
Weiner 1. Weiner’s favorite movie, Groundhog Day, is a great showcase of Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Nietzsche's idea asks what we would do if we, like Phil Connors, were fated to live the same exact day for eternity. The movie tackles major philosophical themes, such as: what constitutes an action as moral? Do we have free will? If I were approached by some demon that forces me to live the same day, I am sure I would experience shock and frustration similar to Phil Connors’ in Groundhog Day, but would eventually succumb to my fate and learn to accept it.
I have tried to publish this multiple times.
ReplyDeletePosted for Roman Phillips H#03 (If anyone else is having technical difficulties, you can send your attempted comments directly to me: phil.oliver@mtsu.edu.)
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Hating abstract theories that did not make any difference in practice, C.S.Peirce believed truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations. Peirce is pronounced like purse so a word that rhymes with how his last name sounds would be curse. His philosophical views point to a scientific approach using logic and deductive reasoning. Peirce, the founder of American pragmaticism, was a practicing scientist who examined the meaning of the concept of truth. Peirce suggested true beliefs often gain general acceptance by withstanding future questioning. Peirce used inquiry as a process to remove doubt, replacing it with belief.
3. Although vague, James's version of truth is what works. Bertrand Russell made fun of James's theory of truth by saying that James thinks that all that makes a sentence true is the effect on the believer of believing it. The British philosopher poked fun at James's theory of truth by suggesting James believed in Santa Claus. Russell points out that there is a problem between believing what would be nice if it were true and what is actually true by pointing out how truth might be subjective. I don't think Russell was fair because James's opinions made things true, not the fact that the sentence was true.
12. Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis was that he could not scientifically test Freud's ideas. I agree with Popper on this because for something to be considered a science then, I feel it should be tested and one should be able to make observations. For my entire school career, I have been taught the scientific method to answer questions based on experimentation, observation, and analysis.
Weiner
6. The "Hollywood version" of eternal recurrence is "Groundhog Day." The movie differs from Nietzsche's version of eternal recurrence because it finally ends on a happy note. Nietzche's version of eternal recurrence does not offer a happy ending. Neitzsche felt even with minor changes, the result would still be endless failure. I prefer the Hollywood version where adjustments can be made to get to the happy ending.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #3:
Russell said that James' theory of truth would suggest the existence of Santa Clause. I think that Russell had a good point, and I agree that James' idea of truth doesn't really make sense. It is also a little bit paradoxical, since you can't really say that the statement "truth is what has practical value to believe" is true, just that that is what James chose to believe because it worked for him. But, if this is the case, then that "truth" that "truth is what has practical value" does not apply to me, and therefore I cannot base my conception of truth on this statement. In other words, even the idea that truth is subjective would have to only be a subjective truth, meaning that for some people it is not, except that that can't be the case because if truth is objective, it must be objective for all people.
Weiner #2:
Nietzsche believed that we write well by walking. If what we mean is simply that walking can help you express your thoughts better or express better thoughts, then yes, I have thought a lot when walking; it seems plausible that most people do this regularly. Walking can be good to create some movement in the background, which can aid thinking.
Weiner #4:
The "as if" approach is the idea that you can (or maybe should) experiment by living life as if a certain philosophical idea is true. I think this is a very valuable concept. It allows you to adopt different ideas or perspectives temporarily without committing to it. I often take an "as if" approach in philosophy, even if I already know I don't agree with the idea I am experimenting with.
Weiner #5:
Sonya did not want to experience Eternal Recurrence; she thought it would be a very bad situation. I would say that I disagree with this view. One of the prominent aspects of the theory is that you cannot prove it wrong, and that's because we don't have access to ourselves in the other renditions of the cycle. So, in other words, the question of what the experience of Eternal Recurrence would be like is basically irrelevant. It wouldn't be like anything. You wouldn't remember your past lives and so you wouldn't actually experience them. You would only experience one, and then the next one, but you would have no idea that you had experienced it before, so you cannot actually know what Eternal Recurrence is like from your own perspective, meaning it would be no more uncomfortable than living your life one time, since it would feel exactly the same.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #2 - C.S. Peirce (rhymes with purse) said this. I think this says a lot about how we currently think because over the years we've tried to find the truth in everything. We as humans have so much curiosity and want to find the answer to everything which I feel like resembles some of his views.
LHP #3 - Bertrand Russell said that for James' theory of truths he would have to believe in Santa Claus as well. One thing that i've noticed about philosphers theorys is that other philosophers often disprove them and refute them in their entirety. I think it's harsh to completely discredit it because I honestly think there it's a good and positive theory. Just because there may be a flaw in the reasoning doesnt mean it should be ignored.
LHP #7 - Ubermensch basically means "superman" and Nigel found it worrying because the nazis took Nietzsche's work and shaped it into a nationalist, racist view that they were above everyone else. This idea is scary because people who dont have regards for others and think of themselves as better will use people and can get a superiority complex which can lead to dangerous actions.
LHP #11 - Freud thought people believed in God because they wanted a loving father figure who would protect them. It was for people who wanted the feeling of being safe that they had during childhood. I think this is definitely true for some people but I think there's not enough evidence to fully agree with this. I think it fully deals with the unconscious which we don't have enough evidence of to fully prove this so I disagree with this and will say that I think people believe in god for a sense of fulfillment and guidance in their daily life.
I agree with what you said about believing in God. I think it is unfair to claim people only believe in him for pretty selfish reasons. I think many people also wish for the guidance and support and not just the return of protection and "fatherly love."
DeleteI also agree that it's unfair. I would say most people wouldn't identify themselves as Christian due to any sort of selfish reason.
DeleteH02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. American Philosopher and scientist C.S Peirce said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to. His named rhymes with purse. I think it shows how much how little we have changed through the years with our beliefs. I think there are many people that think how C.S Peirce thought. People won't believe something unless they see it or if its somehow proven to them. While there are people who think like William James and create their own ideas of what's true based on their thoughts and experiences. If you were to go up to someone who's an atheist and tell them God is real, they will most likely want you to prove in somehow. Thats how humans are, we want to see the truth not just be told, and we won't acknowledge something is the truth unless we can believe it and the only way to believe something is to see it.
7. Ubermensch is compared to "Superman". Essentially Nietzsche believed our next step of evolution if following his beliefs would be to become super humans who would create their own values and morals. Nigel finds this concerning because having everyone think they are superior will cause less consideration of other people and make us feel like we could get our way no matter what. I do worry that some peers think themselves of superior and exempt from rules. I am mostly just curious why they might think that? What makes people think they're above everyone around them? Is that healthy for the mind to think that way? I think it's very concerning that people think they could they are exempt from rules and norms like their peers because if everyone thought that way, it would lead to chaos. While I do think some rule-breaking is acceptable especially in situations where people in power are wrong, I think acting on these feeling due to the belief that you are superior is wrong.
9. The three great revolutions according to Freud were the Copernican revolution which was the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. The second was the Darwinian revolution which believed that we as humans have evolved from apes, and we weren't designed by God. The third was the discovery of the unconscious. which believed that many of our actions are driven by our unconscious desires that we don't even realize influence us. I do believe Freud was hyping himself up a little too much. I do think Freuds discovery makes sense, and some actions are controlled by our unconscious desires, this does not compare to the great discoveries prior. Copernicus make a scientific discover that we are not in the center of the universe, we aren't as special as we believed, and this led to far more explanations on how the Earth works. Darwin's theory, although not believed by everyone gave us a scientific explanation as to where we come from, how we got started on this earth. It continues to be discussed, and we will likely never find an answer. Freuds discovery supported that we our unconscious desires have a deep influence as to what we do. While its interesting, it doesn't spark a discussion like the other two or explain something that continues to impact how we see the world.
7) I also think that those who view themselves as above others or feel superior to others concerning, but I do think that humans think that way more often than we like to admit. I think we naturally have a competitive desire, but that does not mean it is necessarily healthy for the mind depending on how often you get superior thoughts/feelings and how you act upon them. The thought that someone can view themselves superior and exempt themselves from rules, just because they believe they can, is not only chaos inducing but disturbing.
DeleteH01
Delete#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP-10
The talking cure gave birth to what some would consider modern day therapy. Where one lays on a couch and just pours out their heart to a trained professional. Prayer and self evaluation has been my " talking cure".
LHP- 12
Poppers counterargument was his Santa Clause analogy. Yes, I agree with him on his critique simply because just if something works for someone and not for another does not make anything less or more true. This would create truth to be completely subjective to what one feels. Truth should not be determined by what one feels. While it can be used as one of the factors there are numerous reasons as to why one should consider aspects beyond the emotions. Similarly to how Descartes claimed our senses could be betraying us.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 5: Nietzsche was essentially making the point that God did not exist to begin with; therefore, it was unreasonable to uphold Christian-like morality if one acknowledged the "reality" that God did not exist at all. The viewpoint is definitely nihilistic, but that does not mean it does not reflect reality. If God does not exist, then the most reasonable world view to adapt is Nietzsche's, as what is the point of subscribing to self defeating moral systems if there is no benefit in them? However, Nietzsche's error is that he declared with certainty that God did not exist, which is a statement no one can make with certainty.
LHP 6: Nietzsche believed that concepts for Christian morality came from what he deemed the "Slave Morality". This morality developed from the ancient world where those who were enslaved became envious of those who were powerful and heroic, and thus developed a morality to make them "feel better" about themselves. This statement is highly unlikely to hold merit, as psychological studies suggest humans have some kind of innate form of morality from birth, which suggests some kind of transcending moral system, whether that be from God or evolution.
LHP 9: The three great revolutions were the discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe, the theory of evolution, and Freud's discovery of the subconscious. Although I think self proclaiming your discovery as "one of the great revolutions" is a bit arrogant, I believe the evidence for the subconscious playing a massive role in ones life to be highly probable. Through my experience of life, the subconscious seems to be the root for one's desires, interests, and fantasy's; but, is not the sole driving factor for a persons actions. Despite being the source of compulsions and urges, these things go through a filter of consciousness before one truly decides to act upon them. A person is capable of controlling their desires and ultimately can have the conscious mind overpower and outwill the subconscious in my view.
LHP 11: Freud believed that the belief in God was created from societies psychological inability to cope with the harshness of reality. In his view, humans had the raw emotional desire for protection and a father figure, a desire which could be fulfilled through the belief in God. What society has crafted itself around was, in his view, all caused by a nonsensical psychological need almost all of humanity had been plagued with. I don't disagree with Freud that many people likely have a belief in God because of the security it offers, but I also agree with C.S. Lewis's logical explanation of the issue. Let's say one is God and is the root of all goodness and love and has a deep desire to be in connection with other living creatures. Wouldn't it make sense for God to create a psychological need in every human being that would cause them to seek out a relationship with him? Why is our security blanket for dealing with the chaos of the universe a transdimensional father figure of goodness? It seems odd that an evolution desire would be fulfilled through the concept of a being we could not fathomably understand, yet for some reason it is. In this sense the absurdity of the issue Freud points out could be considered a piece of evidence for the existence of God in a way, as humans beings are designed with an innate need for one.
DeleteHis error is definitely something interesting to me. Something people were so sure about and backed so much truly cannot be taken in full due to a statement that cannot be said with true certainty.
DeleteH1
ReplyDelete1- The squirrel example highlights his pragmatic philosophy. Pragmatism is concerned with the practical consequences of thought. Truth can be defined, according to him, as what works best for our lives, as many things have different definitions depending on the context.
11- Freud thought that people believed in a God because they felt the need for protection in their life, the type they felt as a small child. I believe that this could be true for some people, because believing in a God provides security and protection to your life, but I believe that it is more nuanced than that. I believe that faith can come from more than needing to be protected, but more wanting to be supported.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP 7- The Ubermensch was an evolution of the human race that doesn't follow set rules but instead creates its own. Nigel finds this idea worrying because of how it portrays stomping on other's ideas as a noble thing. I do also dislike when people think that they are so entitled that the ways of the world don't apply to them.
LHP 10- The talking cure gave birth to what we call therapy. A way of getting distressing things off your chest to help clear your mental state. I myself have not undergone any form of therapy, but my sister during middle school did and I think it helped her deal with whatever drama she was going through. I'm not versed enough in psychology to say how effective it was.
LHP 11- Freud believed that people believed in God from a place of wanting protection like a child does. He said that whether they knew it or not they had an unconscious needs for a fatherly figure to protect us from the dangers of the world. I think this could be fairly accurate as to why some people believe especially if their parents were not very good at parenting.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The point of the example was to show that answers to questions have no relevance if there is nothing to be gained from obtaining that knowledge. While I have never been a part of discussions that are like the squirrel problem, I can relate to the idea of "so what?" What difference will it make to know the answer? Unless, a drastic change will be made as a result, there is no point in determining the answer.
2. C.S. Peirce, who's name rhymes with purse, believed that all truth has to have an experiment or observation that proves it. I believe this way of thinking creates a divide between logic and faith. Certain things cannot be proven real, but the faithful may still consider those things are truth. All of this to say, we cannot say something is true just because it cannot be proven. We know a tree makes a noise when it falls and no one is there to hear it, and we cannot or should not have to experiment to figure that out.
3. Bertrand Russel said that Jame's theory of truth all derived from belief. James thinks that all that makes a sentence true is the effect on the believer of believing it. I believe this is fair, because William James would always look for the "truth" that was most beneficial. Like I discussed earlier, there is no reason to accept a truth that is not meaningful. This way of thinking may make truth subjective, but with the world constantly changing, who's to say the truth cannot change too?
H01
ReplyDeleteWeiner 1- Weiner's favorite move is Groundhog Day because it discusses the concepts of free will versus fate or determination, of the meaning of morality when your actions don't seem to have consequences. It greatly resembles Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of the Same, where a demon comes and tells you that you will live the same life you have done for ever and ever without being able to change it. I like how Weiner specifically said that it "enthralled" and "terrified" him. Because it very much is a terrifying thought, to be forced into a neverending chain of your own life in which you cannot grow or become better. I would be quite upset with this demon. To relive your life is one thing, but to relive it without the opportunities for growth is useless. What's the point?
2- Nietzsche believed that we "write well with our feet". Meaning that walking sparks the greatest ideas while our hands only write those thoughts down. Honestly, I agree. I always think more and greater while I'm walking because the activity allows my mind to wander freely. So many philosophers were and are walkers and I fully understand why. It's great cardiovascular exercise and it prompts a brainstorm of every little interesting thing you can think of, because what else are you going to do? I have appreciated a silent walk much more after starting this class.
4- The "as if" approach to life is quite simple in theory but perhaps complicated in application. It means to live your life "as if" something else were true: a noumenal world hidden beneath the phenomenal or endless chain of this same life awaiting you. What life would you want to live endlessly? Make it happen now. Don't wait until you die to learn you have to redo this life, live "as if" you already know it. Make the choices you would want to make again and don't regret anything. See, simple in theory, difficult in practice. I've never thought about life this way, but it coincides with the ideology of "no regrets" which does make sense to me. Your choices are your choices, no matter how much you wish you cuold change them. So what's the point of wishing to change them?
5- Weiner's daughter Sonya thinks Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of the Same is dumb and stupid, "the idea of a sociopath". She thinks the Big Bad things in life will always outweigh the good, and nothing is worth reliving them. In that view of Nietzsche, I agree. Who would want to relive being murdered, or going through chemo? And even if the Big Bad thing in your life is not so bad, what's the point of reliving your life if you can't improve it? I guess his idea of living "as if" your life were repeating makes a lot more sense to me than actually wanting it to. Make good choices now, or choices you are happy with, "as if" you would have to make them again and again for ever.
H01
ReplyDeleteWeiner 1. Eric Wieners favorite movie is Groundhog Day, he even says that he believes it to be the most philosophical movie ever made. The philosophical themes the main character faces through his reoccurring day are free will, and moral action. Weiner says that the storyline sprung from Nietzsche’s lakeside revelation that he called Eternal Recurrence of the Same. I have no idea how I would respond to the demon in that situation, but id hope that I could question the demon to learn more: like is this repetition for all of eternity? How come there was a time before now that this recurrence wasn’t taking place if it happens for all time? Has it always been this way but I cannot remember it. if so that wouldn’t be any different than my experience of this normal life.
I wonder if Nietzsche’s Eternal recurrence of the same was so hard to grapple with because his chronic illness was so devastating to his life. My life has had tragedy and joy, I’ve lived a privileged, Christian, white, gay, female life. Obviously, everything is relative but like Nietzsche I also have a chronic illness, and a multitude of unfortunate meetings with death. In different seasons of my life I think I would be devasted by the fate of eternal recurrence and yet in this moment, although it may change by the time I press “post” I feel like if I were cursed/blessed to live this life over and over, I could accept that with minimal distress. I’d maybe even find it a gift.
Weiner 2. The words directly from wiener are “we write with our hands. We write well with our feet.” In the literally sense I cannot recall successfully writing anything profound with the pencil clutched between my toes (although I do recall my sister challenging me to write the alphabet with my foot for some reason). But of course in the way the question means, I do think I have better ideas and writing when I walk. I used to purposefully spend time walking without music, podcasts, or people so that I could think and write but I found that often I would have forgotten my ideas by the time I had a pen and paper. I think Nietzsche definitely had a point but I find the ‘we write well with our feet’ quite funny
Wiener 4. I like the “as if” approach, of course it comes in seasons, maybe for a while ill live as if it does repeat endlessly but in a few weeks that will fade, and in my quest to continue finding meaning in life i'll adopt another “as if” and maybe next like wieners epicurean friend, i'll live as if goodness happens to me.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP3: Bertrand Russel said that James’s theory of truth by saying that it meant Santa Claus exists. I don't think this is being fair, because there’s always a clear difference between what could be true and what likely couldn’t be true. As the text states, Santa Claus is only really believable by children while adults can comprehend that Santa Claus is very much not real.
LHP5: Nietzche meant that the belief in God had stopped being reasonable by saying “God is dead.” I don’t think that it’s a nihilistic statement, but I do believe that the statement is criticizing the people who believe in God fully devoutly.
LHP6: Nietzche thought that the Christian values came from history, or genealogy, and everything that we do has a history of objective facts that we have learned to behave by. Out of negative values in the past we may have created new sets of values, and challenge has brought on better values.
HWT-1: Utilitarianism, for Baggini, is defined by its focus on consequences. It determines right actions based on whether they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, prioritizing outcomes over intentions or rules.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: Mozi's maxim resembles J.S. Mill's principle of utility in that both emphasize maximizing overall benefit or happiness, advocating for actions that serve the broader good.
HWT-3: Jonathan Israel's key Enlightenment principles center on reason, equality, and freedom as universal guiding ideals.
HWT-4: Pluralism is often mistaken for relativism, but pluralism acknowledges diverse viewpoints without suggesting that all are equally valid.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - The point of the squirrel story is to show pragmatic philosophy's concern with practical consequences. The ultimate meaning of this story is that truth can be realized based on what the seeker is looking for. Truth is whatever works and has the best impact on our lives.
3 - Bertrand Russell made fun of James by saying he had to believe "Santa Claus Exists" to be a true statement. I do see Russell's point in this argument, because while the idea of Santa "works" for children, I do not see it as a complete and universal truth.
7 - An Ubermensch (Over-Man or Super Man) was Nietzsche's idea of the "next step" in humanity's progression. Warburton finds this problematic because this idea only supports those who view themselves as powerful and disconcerning themselves with the well-beings of others.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
The point of James’s squirrel story was to show that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences, also known as the ‘cash value’ of thought.
LHP - #2
The American philosopher and scientist, C.S. Pierce said that truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we’d like to. The word Pierce’s name rhymes with is purse. It implies that for a statement to be true there has to be some kind of observation or experiment to prove it.
LHP - #3
Betrand Russell said that James’s theory of truth was like saying Santa Claus exists.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
10) The "talking cure" is what we now know as therapy, which gave birth to psychoanalysis. I have had friends who went to therapy for this "talking cure" and have had great results. Although I have never had a professional therapy session, I have essentially had the same thing through conversations with friends and family. The relief that talking freely to others can bring is substantial. Even just having normal conversations with people can act as a therapeutical release for the mind. Conversing with others can be just as beneficial as professional grade therapy. I think we all need some "talking cure" in our life.
11) Freud thought that people who believe in God believed because they still feel the need for protection that they felt as a child. He thinks that the belief in God is an illusion that there is a strong-father figure out there somewhere who will meet your unmet needs for protection. This is an interesting take, one that I do not agree on. I think that we are a broken people naturally, and those that believe and rely on God are searching for forgiveness, salvation, and peace, which only God can supply. Freud might be right about or referring to some believers, I hope not but it is possible, but this should not be generalized about believers as a whole.
#H03
ReplyDelete1. What's the point of James's squirrel story? Have you ever been involved in a "metaphysical dispute" of this sort? How was it resolved?
The point was to prove that pragmatism is only concerned with practical consequences. If you have a belief but it doesn't have negative effects, you are free to have it. I have always heard of these arguments, but one doesn't necessarily come to mind. They just seem like those silly arguments you get into with a five-year-old about why something is the way it is or how it is.
2. Who said truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to? (And what's a word his name rhymes with?) What does it imply about the present status of what we now consider true?
C.S. Peirce. It rhymes with purse. His method of philosophy was extremely scientific, which guided his thinking that truth had to be found, not known. He believed experiments were the only way to determine truth. This is similar to modern thought in that people want proof that things have happened when it contradicts their beliefs.
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
Bertrand Russell said that if William James was able to believe that anything was true as long as someone believed it, was indicative that he had to say "Santa Claus exists". He was extremely harsh with this statement, but again, as humans we always seek proof of adverse thoughts.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
5: Nietzsche meant that belief in God was not reasonable anymore and was fading. He wanted to point out that if there was no belief in God there was nothing tying us to morals such as the ones from Christianity. In a sense I find it nihilistic because its disregarding morals if God doesn't exist when I don't believe you need to have a god to have morals.
6. Nietzsche believed that Christian values came from envy which is why they emphasis equality and compassion for the weak. However, I don't agree since I believe that a lot of values arise as a need and don't believe that envy would be beneficial to maintain order.
9. Freud believed that the great revolutions in thought were the Copernican, Darwinian, and his own Freudian revolution. He overrated his own contribution in the sense that his belief in the unconscious was a great new belief, but I would say he doesn't exactly overrate himself given that a lot of the advancements in psychology were done to test Freud's theories.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. Bertrand Russel said that James’s theory of truth meant Santa Claus exists. I don't think this is being fair, because there’s always a clear difference between what could be true and what likely couldn’t be true. Different people have different perceptions of different things.
5. Nietzche meant that the belief in God had stopped being reasonable by saying “God is dead.” I don’t think that it’s a nihilistic statement, but I do believe that the statement is criticizing the people who follow God.
6. Nietzche thought that the Christian values came from history, or genealogy, and everything that we do has a history of objective facts that we have learned to behave by. Out of negative values in the past we may have created new sets of values, and challenge has brought on better values.
#HO1
ReplyDeleteLHP
1.Bertrand Russell said that Santa Claus has to be true if James said that believing everything is true because others also think it is true. Russell was trying to poke fun at his philosophy but it is also justified.
5. Nietzsche meant that the idea or belief is God had stopped being reasonable. He was saying that our morals don't fit in a Godless world. I would say it does sound a bit nihilistic because if you don't have morals then what do you have?
11. Freud said that people believing in God comes from the need for protection when you were a child. I agree that believing in whatever God you do, you feel aa sense of protection but I do not agree that it is why people believe in the first place.
H03
ReplyDelete(Personal comment, William James)
1. While learning about all these differing philosophies in class I've had this feeling that I think I can only now put into words. Many of them seem to be born from a premise that is reasonable and that I agree with (like Epictetus' view on controlling emotions, Descartes' view on the unknowable reality, James' view on practical consequences, etc.) but then, once they start digging into specifics and attempting to codify their ideas, it loses me. I don't mean that I can't understand their point, although some are definitely difficult to comprehend, but their focus on stricter rules and definitions of the human experience seem counter-productive.
In LHP's discussion of William James, for example, I begin completely onboard. His pragmatism and focus on the observable consequences of philosophy is refreshing and clear. "Are you circling the squirrel? It depends...what do you mean by 'circling'?" he'd say. He says, "Truth is what works," and I nod my head, but then he gets into specifics of what he means by 'what works' and I start getting a little skeptical. James says that truth is what's good for the believer to believe, but I don't feel those concepts are connected. In the case of Santa Claus, I think it is good for children to believe it and not so much for adults, but at no point in answering the question, 'Does Santa Claus exist?' should the response be 'yes' because...he doesn't. At least, he doesn't in the colloquial sense of the word 'exist', which asks if a magical white-bearded jolly man that delivers presents to every household on Christmas is physically in reality. There is certainly a debate to be had about what we mean by the word 'truth', but I think most would agree that it is in some way more objective than deciding what's good for someone.
I understand that trying to be specific with philosophy is important because it may aid in understanding or with sanding an idea down so that it may be disseminated. But at the end of the day, I believe in philosophy in the way that Marcus Aurelius did; as self-help. The experience of being human is messy and unpredictable and unsatisfying, and I think some philosophies could benefit from being described a little bit more fast and loose, as general thoughts and guidelines as opposed to rigid, scientific ways of approaching living.
(LHP, Question 5)
Nietzsche's famous saying that "God is dead" was meant to be a shocking one that prompted the reader to think. Nietzsche was not saying that God was literally once alive and now no longer, but that belief in God is no longer reasonable. Nietzsche's main line of inquiry was, "IF God is dead, what now?" which was the jumping off point for his argument about moving beyond our inherited sense of morality. On its face, it is a nihilistic statement, but I don't think he meant it like that. Nietzsche was using that statement very functional way, as a hook to discuss the broader topic of morality, and less so to talk about what that means about God or religion.
(LHP, Question 11)
Freud thought that people believe in God primarily because of the mostly unconscious desire for love and protection from a seemingly larger-than-life parental figure that originates from childhood feelings and memories. I don't know that this is applicable to everyone, but I think there is something to Freud's hypothesis because the existence of God is undeniably a comforting thought. Some people devote their lives to religion for loftier goals or just different reasons, but I think a contributing factor is definitely that the idea that someone out there is watching over us with a plan in mind would be nice if it was true.
H02
ReplyDeleteWeiner Chapter 11
1. Weiner's favorite movie is Groundhog Day, resembling. the impending doom of Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche's philosophy proposes the premise of his philosophy through a demon. The demon declares that you will have to relive your life again and again through a time paradox. Your being is never ending and you must be born and die over and over again. Nietzsche, tells everyone the only way to respond to the demon is to accept your fate; you can't escape it and you must accept it.
4. Nietzsche promotes and as if approach to a lot of things. He says live as if your life repeats endlessly, as if there is another level of reality, and etc. I think this way eases Nietzsche's philosophy a bit and makes people feel at ease, even if his philosophy dooms people to live their life over and over again. I like this approach to an extent. We always hear, "live your life like no one is watching," or whatever Pinterest quote comes up next. I think it's important to live like that, but I also think it is human nature to eliminate the if part. Doesn't if get scary and boring? Isn't "if" very ominous? I think the if way helps us get through life with less questions and allows us to take the back seat, but I don't think it works for long.
5. Sonya's perspective of the Eternal Recurrence resonates with me a lot. Sonya says that it is "an idea of a sociopath," and that it honestly is depressing to think about. Many would have to live through chemo over and over again, and no one can edit their life. I agree with this heavily. The whole part of living is that you have a choice.The choice to buy lunch, the choice to go to sleep early, and the choice to do whatever you want to do, so when looking over Eternal Recurrence it eliminates the whole point of being human. You consistently make choices that alters your life and what you experience, so the hypothesis of Recurrence really just strips that part of humanity away.
LHP:
ReplyDelete3. Bertrand Russell says that James’ theory of truth was unfounded, as he would believe Santa was real if it proved to be beneficial for the believer to believe it. James would argue that this is erroneous, because the truth of Santa simply does not work for everyone. However, I believe the same argument could apply to God, as Christianity doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Some, including me, find the belief to be more of a stressor than a comforter, and some may just outright think that it must be impossible. Still, if some irrefutable evidence of God is made known, I, and many others, will most likely believe in it.
5. Nietzsche believed the innate human sense of right and wrong comes from what he calls “slave morality.” Essentially, the virtues of slaves - who held resentment for authority - later transformed into a natural instinct to care for the weak and dissent the powerful. I think this idea works when discussing classism, and how we naturally prejudice those who are “above us” based upon prior experience. However, I do not find any reason to believe that a history of envy has led to an integral sense of right and wrong. I think the idea of morality is formed through the simple fact that it’s better in the long run to be a good person. It is just fundamentally beneficial to be kind and supportive, as those you help will view you in a more positive light and maybe even be more likely to be nicer in the future as well.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP #5: Friedrich Nietzsche is associated with the statement "God is dead"; he did not mean in the sense of life and death, but to provoke thoughts on what is a godless world. He considered the possibility of no moral guidelines or rules for how to live... this was a discussion a lot of people were and still are not ready to have. I do not see this as a nihilistic statement because Nietzsche did not reject the presence of religion. Instead, he wanted to prompt discourse on a sensitive topic to analyze many features of human nature in relation to God. It is an interesting perspective to dive into and one that we should be more comfortable engaging in.
LHP #10: Sigmund Freud's "talking cure" led to the development of psychoanalysis. His main point was that we all have inappropriate, dangerous, intrusive thoughts that our brain represses. They may not necessarily be shameful thoughts like the Oedipus complex, but they may address a deep-rooted conflict. These unconscious desires are displayed in our dreams. Here, we have the surface content, which appears to be happening in the dream, and the latent content as its true meaning. I am familiar with this concept as a psychology major; we all experience this, whether we admit it or not. I have had many dreams with ridiculous scenarios that I could not accept without actually analyzing what aspect of my life they may be addressing.
LHP #11: Freud applied his psychoanalysis principles to religious beliefs. He stated that people needed to believe in God to receive the protection and guidance they lacked in their younger years. It all comes down to that internal need. This argument is applicable, but individuals will never admit that this plays a role in their religious decisions. I often ponder how people orient themselves around religion because they need something to believe in. It's a safety net, especially in the chaos of modern society. I connect with many of Freud's lines of argument; perhaps that is due to my investment in psychology.
Section: H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: James story with the squirrel created a story with a question that seemed irrelevant till it was brought to light the greater purpose he was trying to gather an understanding for. The nonsense squirrel story was to allow the comprehension that some questions don't necessarily need an answer. If the question is not going to have a direct impact on the outcome of life does the answer need to be answered and if that is correct? No, there are questions out there that simply have more than one answer or opinion and that ultimately don't matter in the grand scheme of life.
LHP Q11: Frued thought people believe in God to cope with their childhood. He thought some people never outgrew the feeling of needing protection. Those that struggle with childhood trauma often believe in God for the sense of warming protection. I understand this philosophy and can sympathize with it. Having that sense of protection can go along way because if he is on your side. There is a greater understanding that your day is set by him and when it is time to go home then it was the lord above that called you home.
Weiner Q1: Weiner elaborates on the movie Groundhog Day. A movie about the concept of one never ending reoccurring day. Neitzschean took the idea of reincarnation and manipulated it a bit. He claims a demon came to him and put this idea in his head. The idea that after this life ends, we will live this exact life replicated all over again nothing new or different than this one. I want to ask the question why? What would be the point, however. If we analyze our lives from a bird's eye-view type of perspective. This makes absolute sense. I cannot speak for every person; however, I can speak for myself. Do you ever get a sense that your life is going in circles? I have so many times. When I take a step back and assess yet another outrageous situation, I have been placed in I feel as if i have already learned the lesson life is attempting to teach me. Life throws the same situation at you repeatedly just in different fonts until you learned the lesson and make the correct decision. I feel this idea directly lines up with Neitzschean philosophy.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - The point of James's squirrel story was to show that anyone can have any belief they want, as long as it doesn't come to harm anyone or anything. I have never been in a dispute like this, the people I surround myself with have beliefs that lead them to help people.
#3 - Bertrand Russell was critical of James's theory because it would mean that someone could believe in Santa Clause and nothing be wrong with it because it didn't have consequences on others. I do think there is some truth to what Bertrand is saying but I think it is unfair to think it is a bad thing to be critical of someone's point of view.
#5 - Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead" was meant to cause conversation and to get people to think. Because the phrase is meant to inspire a sharing of ideas, I do not think it is nihilistic, at least it isn't meant to be.
1. Ground hog day. It delves on morality, free will, and life. It resembles eternal recurrence. I would throw holy oil at it and generally try to banish it.
ReplyDelete3.Loving one’s fate. All of it, even the stuff we would rather forget. No, I am quite iffy with how I spend my time/life. I really need to control it better.
5. It’s incredibly stupid. I do share that same option.
6. The version in Hollywood only occurs for one day, while ER is for your entire life. You also don’t have memory when it happens. I prefer Hollywood’s version, as I can gain and amass a wealth of knowledge and skills.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP #1: James' anecdote about the squirrel illustrates how pragmatic philosophy focuses on practical outcomes. For instance, a hunter can "circle" a squirrel on a tree in two ways, depending on one's perspective. According to James, truth is contingent on individuals' objectives; it is whatever yields positive effects for us. He believed truth could only be ascertained by testing all potential outcomes and determining the most effective.
LHP #3: Bertrand Russel opposed James' theory by stating that, according to the theory, Santa Claus exists. Russel raises a valid argument: truth is not always determined by what is most beneficial for people, which can have negative consequences. I understand how James' theory can be helpful for individuals grappling with spiritual or religious uncertainties, but its applicability is limited. There is a distinction between what would be pleasant and what is true. Truth is not a matter of personal opinion.
LHP #5: Friedrich Nietzsche's well-known statement "The death of God" signifies the waning influence and power of the belief in the Christian God in the contemporary world. He did not suggest the demise of a deity but rather the diminishing impact of traditional religious and moral certainties in light of the ascent of scientific and secular ideologies. Nietzsche perceived this as both a crisis and a chance. It posed a situation by creating a void in society's moral and existential structure and an opportunity by permitting the formation of new values and significance.
H03 Quinny VanDerSlik
ReplyDeleteLHP 2-
C.S. Peirce (Purse) said that if we could run any experiments and investigations we wanted, then we would have the truth. However, this is something other than what we can do. Instead, we run experiments and investigations that are similar enough that we can accurately rely on the results. Some certain morals and ethics stop many experiments from taking place. Even with all these in place, investigations help determine what could happen. Overall, we cannot follow what Peirce believed to give us the truth, as we cannot run the investigation or experiment however we want. Therefore, we only end up with the truth sometimes. Everything we know then must not be as authentic as we might think it to be; some people will take the results and consider them infallible, to the point where if something happens that contradicts the results, they will instead think of that as fake, even if it happens to be an outlier result.
LHP 11-
Freud thought people believed in God due to the need for protection that one felt as a child. This specifically refers to how God is an almighty being who can protect those who are his and will meet those who want protection. Freud also mentions that this continues into adulthood, as that are feelings left over from childhood, even if one denies where this feeling comes from. Overall, I feel that he might be right about some people, even if not in the particular sense that they want someone almighty to protect them, but instead, the protection that comes from having a normalcy of someone to fall back on unknowingly for their beliefs and morals. Religion can be used as one’s base guide for morals, and seeing as God is meant to be almighty and an all-good being, his morals must be unshakable, perfectly moral, and correct. Therefore, those who do hold onto religion into adulthood might follow the want for protection if needed by this being. Still, it is not why most people stick with their religion for their whole lives, in all honesty.
Weiner 5-
Sonya does not like Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence. She thought that to have to have forever to be stuck in an infinite loop of one’s life was something only a sociopath could enjoy. Life can be painful, tedious, melancholy, and miserable at times. There can only be so many times a person can be forced to relive every moment, whether something might change or not, over and over again. The idea of being in a loop of my life over again does not please me, and I have only been alive for eighteen years. Life is fun, but it is also unpleasant at times. I agree with Sonya. The good does not always outweigh the bad, I might change my mind later in ten years, but as of right now, I would never want to relive my life. Repetition can be a curse. It can cause one to relive the worst moments of their or other's lives, as it is not you alone who suffers in your life; you have to watch your loved ones suffering occur again forever. The idea of it alone is not one I would wish upon anyone; even to be immortal is something I would not wish for, and it comes with too many miserable years.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. Bertrand Russel mocked James's theory of truth with the example of Santa Clause. He said that, by James's logic, Santa Clause must be real because the concept of Santa Clause brings joy to many. Bertrand's comparison, while flawed, is fair in my opinion. He has the right to question James's logic. I, myself, question James's logic because I think it could lead to blissful ignorance. It may have been mean spirited, but Russel's rebuttal was not unfair.
5. Nietzsche was asserting that God had ceased being reasonable and had essentially stopped caring about humanity, leaving it to its debauchery and sin. It seems nihilistic for sure, but not totally irrational. Personally, I don't think there was ever a God to care about humanity in the first place, but given the rotten state of the world and all the evil and corruption within it, I couldn't blame Nietzsche for this statement.
10. Freud's talking cure lead the way to psychoanalysis and talk therapy. It opened the door for more holistic, non-medical treatments for mental illness. I have had therapy or the "talking cure" before. I never found it to be much of a "cure," though. Talk therapy doesn't cure mental illness. It's meant to provide you with guidance so that you can cure yourself. You have to learn coping strategies and expand your mindset through talk therapy to be "cured."
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: The point of the story was to express the values and use of pragmatism. The issue and the solution in the problem are meant to be seen as un-important by themselves, since there are multiple solutions that ultimately mean nothing, what makes them matter is who and why someone is asking the question as their reasons change the value of the answer. I think everyone has been in a similar situation with the squirrel, having a question that can be answered multiple different ways and the solution being specific to a situation.
Q2: C.S. Peirce said that “truth is what we would end up with if we could run all the experiments and investigations we'd like to.” His names pronunciation rhymes with nurse. That truth is simply what we can do as an observer, with only the practical actions of behavior and consequences mattering and abstract thoughts being meaningless.
Q3: He thought that his theory of truth didn't actually work and mocked it. He said that if anything, believed to be true or untrue, had a positive benefit than by James's theory must believed in even if silly like Santa. I think its sort of fair since it does just sound a lot like wishful thinking
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 2. The person who said this was Charles Sanders Peirce, who’s name is pronounced like “purse.” This says a lot about how we think in the modern world because we have had to seek out the truth amidst a sea of untrue media.
LHP 5. What Nietzsche meant by claiming “God is dead” was that the belief in God had stopped becoming reasonable. I don’t think his statement in nihilistic, but I do think he is somewhat criticizing the kinds of people who use God as an excuse for hatred and are fully devout to him.
LHP 7. An Ubermensch (meaning Over-Man or Super Man) was Nietzsche's idea of the "next step" for humanity's progression. The reason Warburton finds this problematic is because this idea of evolution further supports those who view themselves as “superior” and believes they will beat out all others who don’’t fit their idea of progression.