Audio review for Exam 1 (Oct 9), & how to prepare
Here's your audio review for next Thursday's exam...
And here's William James's advice for how best to prepare for an exam (after you've listened to the review and re-read the relevant texts):
"If you want really to do your best in an examination, fling away the book the day before, say to yourself, "I won't waste another minute on this miserable thing, and I don't care an iota whether I succeed or not." Say this sincerely, and feel it; and go out and play, or go to bed and sleep, and I am sure the results next day will encourage you to use the method permanently." -Talks to Students-The Gospel of Relaxation
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):
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?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that: pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences, if there is no practical difference there is no truth, in other words there is no right or wrong answer. "Is water wet?" is a dispute that comes to mind. It has never been resolved, I have seen rooms of entirely different people unanimously agree to different conclusions. I haven't had anyone change my mind on the matter.
10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
Psychoanalysis, I learned about it in AP psychology last year, and it may have been used on me. I did have to go to therapy when I was younger but I didn't relinquish much information so even if my therapist did use it, I doubt that is what cured me.
The way you explained pragmatism with the “is water wet” argument is brilliant and I could not agree more. I suppose I may be a bit of a pragmatist myself at this point, seeing as I have grown tired over arguments for things that have no practical effect on the lives of average people.
DeletePhilopateer Iskandar 3
DeleteI feel that most arguments that we have had this year in the world all come from issues that could so easily be solved if we actually listen to the others view and come to our own conclusion and listen to what others tells us because most arguments just end in screaming matches that makes no sense in the end.
The talking cure is a method that i could envision being helpful for some but definitely not for most because of exactly what you said. The efficacy of talk therapy is based solely on how comfortable and willing to share the patient is and I don't see that being very common.
DeleteGracyn Schmidt
ReplyDeleteSection 1
1. The point of James' squirrel story is to say that many philosophical questions are based on how a word is defined and through argument, it can be impossible to come to an agreement because, well, people use words differently and associate them differently. Religion comes to mind. Im sure most of us have discussed religion at nauseum trying to convince one another of what we believe, however, most of the time it ends up being a "agree to disagree" situation.
3. Bertrand Russell saw James's Theory of Truth as subjective and problematic. He thought that instead of believing a "truth" based on the mere fact of it working as not the right way to go about it. Instead, he thought truth should be determined based on what corresponds to reality instead of what feels good. I think this is valid to an extent because people definitely have different perceptions of what " feels right"
6. Nietzsche believed that Christian values came from "slave morality" due to their origins as a powerless entity in the Roman empire. This is because they emphasize obedience as a way to cope with weakness. I think this take is a decent historical perspective on Christian morality, however, it is overly simple. Many christians view forgiveness and compassion as a sign of strength and an ability to overcome worldly emotion. Additionally, many christians think it is important to adopt a servant mindset and I think this is a valuable attribute because it allows us to be humble and compassionate.
I totally agree with religion being an “agree to disagree” situation. I am so tired of people who are set in their ways continuing to fight about it and being a general disturbance to the peace, all while pretending to consider the viewpoints of on another. Perhaps that is just my experience though. William James has quickly become one of my favorite philosophers because of how widely applicable and real his ideas were and still are.
DeletePhilopateer Iskandar 3
DeleteI can understand your point on religion and how others will try to shove it down your throat I apologise if you ever had a bad expiernce with it. I would just would like to share my own conclusion that I think they they just want you to be able to enjoy religion and yes sometimes others really do take to far and it will drive you away so just do what ever feels right for you and don’t let the ones who represent the religion in a bad way turn you away from it.
LHP
ReplyDelete11. Why did Freud think people believe in God? Was he right, about some people at least?
Freud thought that people believe in God because they lack the secure and safe existence from childhood and feel unprotected. I do believe he was right about some people, but definitely not all. I am sure I have met people who fit in to this category is some respect. As much as there is to say about whether one’s faith is genuine or a reaction to a specific event in life, I have endeavored to let that remain a mystery if the person wishes it to be. It is none of my business why someone believes in God, but instead it is my duty to respect that belief as long as no one else is harmed. However, if they are being deceitful about their beliefs for personal gain, as many are, I may react in a more critical manner.
I agree with your thoughts on Freud’s perspective. His idea that a belief in God might stem from a desire for safety seems true for some, but it doesn't apply to everyone's. Faith can come from sources like curiosity or traditions. As you mentioned, the key is to show respect for each other’s beliefs, as long as they don’t lead to harm.
DeleteSo well said. Faith is a fascinating concept. While I am curious about where peoples' faith comes from, I strongly believe in respecting everyone's religious opinions.
DeleteI do understand Nietzche's 'God is dead' theory. I think it is a weird way to word it and may confuse some people, but the core of it makes sense. God is dead because he never existed, or to some people, he has always existed. Nietzche things freedom comes with the death of God, and I have to agree. Even if some people still choose to believe and follow God, I think they would be able to see the freedom that those who don't follow Him have. Though they would probably counter that freedom by saying there is freedom in the afterlife with him.
ReplyDeleteSection #1
DeleteThis is a very interesting point. As a Christian, I've noticed how a lot of people seem more "free" than me, but I'm not sure that my religion doesn't allow me freedom. Maybe psychological freedom? Maybe those who don't believe feel less guilt? I definitely notice that in other people. I don't know if I can put a direct definition on freedom to decide whether or not I have it. Or whether or not anyone has it. I don't necessarily feel like God keeps me from doing the things I truly want to do.
I agree with your take on Nietzsche’s “God is dead” idea. The phrasing is definitely striking, but once you understand what he meant, it makes sense. He wasn’t necessarily celebrating the death of God, but pointing out how society was moving away from relying on religious belief for moral or existential guidance. I also agree that his view of freedom is compelling—without the boundaries of religion, people are free to define their own values and purpose. Still, you make a great point that believers might see a different kind of freedom through faith and the hope of an afterlife.
DeleteResponse to Lily Agee:
DeleteI can see where you're coming from regarding unbelievers seeming "more free." I've had this thought myself. But doing the right thing, and living morally saves you from so much pain. You could say you're "free from it."
Children get guidance and rules from their parents. Often the child isn't initially happy with these rules, but the parent can see the bigger picture.
While it would initially feel good to let out my anger and lash out at my boyfriend for example, the consequences would be much worse than the initial self control. I'd rather be slightly uncomfortable by holding my tongue, than painstakingly repair my relationship after my actions.
Response to Lily Agee and Bella York:
DeleteYour points are both interesting, I can see where Lily is coming from when saying that Christianity is constricting you from being free, but I agree with Bella's point that it's not constricting your freedom your getting guided. You're still able to physically do the same as anyone else, but following God makes you more conscious of your actions.
Antonella Comaschi- Section 3
DeleteSection 2
ReplyDeleteLHP
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?
By claiming that "God is dead," Nietzsche wants us to break out of the traditional Christian values of good and evil. He wants us to question the basis of our value system and what we believe. Later in the quote, Nietzsche goes on to ask what water is left "for us to clean ourselves?" and if we have to "become gods simply to appear worthy" of such a feat. I believe he meant that God's death signified a major perspective change. Everything we thought to be concrete and divine becomes irrelevant. We have to tear down everything we believe in and start from scratch. Next, by "becoming gods," I believe Nietzsche was referring to his concept of the Übermensch. He wants us to become our own Gods, to be the authors of our own value and belief system.
No, I don't think his statement sounds nihilistic. From my understanding, he meant it as a way to challenge society's views. To shake the foundation people thought of as unshakeable. I also don't believe his words are truly that controversial. If a person truly believes in their God, words on a screen from a stranger shouldn't detract from their belief.
I agree with your statement on Nietzsche's claim that "God is dead." I think that this statement sort of makes me think about if God was really dead/didn't exist, and how it would change the behavior of Christians.
DeleteWhen I was younger, I asked my grandmother, a very religious person, why she does good things around the community. She responded with "Because it's the right and Godly thing to do." I thought nothing of it when I was younger, but now I wonder why she said that. Did she believe it was right in the eyes of God, and that's what motivated her to give back? If God didn't exist, would continue to do what's right, even without the implication of her good deeds rewarding her with heaven in the afterlife?
Mackenzie Harris, Section 2.
ReplyDelete1. The point of Jame's squirrel story was to prove that it doesn't matter what you decide, but more importantly is to know why you want to know and what difference it will make in the end.
2. C.S Pierce said this. This speaks to our present status of what we consider to be true because now you have to be careful with what you believe since there is so much technology to manipulate just about anything. Most believe have to see with their own eyes to believe in something.
3. He made fun of William James by saying that he must believe "Santa Clause exists" is actually true. He backs this up by saying that James's philosophy is based on the effect of believers believing in something.
Philopateer iskandar 3
ReplyDeleteNietzsche believed that Christina values come from the fact that there is a God and that he was alive and if there wasn’t God then Christian values mean nothing. I think that the values wouldn’t exist with without God because most common rules we have are from things like the 10 commandments and before them nobody followed these rules.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
11. Freud believed that people believed in God because they unconsciously craved a protective, paternal figure in their lives. If I didn't believe in God, I would absolutely take this claim at face value. Even growing up, I was always told in church that God would always be watching over me-- protecting and comforting me. I took (and still do take) comfort in that. It is nice to believe that someone is always supporting me or always open to listen to me. I can cry to Him or share my daily joys with Him. I can't lie that it wrenches my heart a bit reading Freud's statement. It's one that makes a LOT of sense. Uncomfortably so for me.
I completely agree with your perspective. Freud’s explanation really does make a lot of sense, even if it feels a bit uncomfortable to acknowledge. The idea of seeking a protective, paternal figure resonates with how many people are raised to view God—as a source of comfort, guidance, and unconditional support. It’s interesting how Freud’s theory can coexist with genuine faith, too; even if his reasoning focuses on psychology, it doesn’t necessarily take away from the emotional truth of finding peace and strength through belief.
DeleteAntonella Comaschi- section 3
DeleteI understand where Freud is coming from by making this assumption for if you don't follow the Christian faith it might seem like they are searching for a protective or 'paternal' figure. However, I disagree. If someone has a paternal figure, and even if they don't, God can't take their place and he shouldn't. God has a higher place then any parent, or person in that case. He is a protective figure for most people, but he is ultimately our God. We are meant to worship him and honor him. Paternal figures aren't meant to be worshiped, they are meant to be honored but not in the same way God is.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteWeiner
1.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?
Groundhog Day, what constitutes moral action, do we possess free will or are our lives fated, and eternal recurrence. As of now, no, I am still young so maybe I will have experiences that change my answer. As far as my knowledge extends right now I would have to agree with Weiner and his daughter on that matter, I don't want to relive my life all the way through, no changes, over and over again. I feel like my negative experiences outweigh my positive ones.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteWeiner
5. Sonya's response to Nietzsche's theory is negative-- "the ideology of a sociopath." I suppose I relate to her more than Weiner, as we are both young and haven't lived much of our lives. However, I have experienced good things and bad things in life...at this point in time, I wouldn't mind reliving it. I haven't done anything horrible yet and the good in my life has outweighed the bad. I think the question is so subjective, because not everyone lives through the same good and bad things. If my life was terrible up to this point, with neglect and suffering all around me, I doubt that I would want to experience it again. If I were old, and had an all-encompassing look at the life I lived, I suppose it would depend on what lessons I drew from my experiences. If all I learned was that life sucked, then I wouldn't want to live it again. If I learned and loved, or was content with my actions and what happened to me, then maybe I would.
You make a good point that this question really depends on the person. I think Nietzsche’s challenge isn’t something meant to have a simple answer and it’s more like a reflection of how we live our lives right now.
DeleteThis is a very well thought out answer. I agree with your stance. One of the things I have analyzed about my life is that one of my biggest sources of happiness is my ability to observe and marvel at things. The more that I realize how much beauty is in the world, I feel like a happier person. So from this point of view, maybe I would live life over again. But as for now, I am trying to live my life as if this were my only chance.
DeleteI found Freud's idea of the unconscious mind to be very interesting. I've never considered the possibility that my actions could stem from an unknown motive or desire. His discover of this idea makes me curious as to what kind of person he was.
ReplyDeleteFreud's arguments are certainly compelling but I do agree with Karl Poppers assertions that his method is not scientific at all. Philosophical and Psychological theories which claim to explain everything are hard for me to recognize as valid just because I don't believe in one all-encompassing law that describes human nature and internal drives. Freud's theories that describe everything often seem like they are reaching and grasping at straws.
ReplyDeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think a lot of Freud's arguments are astounding leaps in the development of psychotherapy and our understanding of the human mind as a whole; however, I absolutely agree that Freud tended to overstep his theories into territories that were unscientific. Not only this but a lot of his theories were obviously influenced by his own experiences. Psychoanalysis is a scientifically backed approach to psychology that sees results to this day, it is when this theory is taken too far when it becomes unreliable and more of a mystic interpretation of how what a person truly wants rather than a tool used to treat a patient who needs help.
3. I do think Russell is being fair in regards to James' theory of truth. Despite having very different connotations to adults, Santa and God are both figures that are very difficult to prove with certainty, even to those who believe in them. While it is true that the example of Santa only really applies to children, the argument is positioned this way to try to make James' theory seem as absurd as possible rather than choosing a more dull or contentious example.
ReplyDelete9. I think Freud is right to think highly of his work as it was revolutionary for the time and he is still one of the most talked about philosophers today. However, I do think he discredits some of the early philosophers by only choosing three great advances rather than including more works.
11. Freud believed that people believe in God to feel the same sense of protection they felt as small children. I think this certainly applies in many cases since believing in God certainly does offer the sense of protection he talks about but I'm not sure I would be confident enough in this applying to everyone to make such a blanket statement.
I agree. Freud did have the right to think highly of his own work. After all, he did lay down the foundation for one of the larger fields of work today. However, he might have been a little full of himself when he credited himself as the third greatest advance.
DeleteLHP 6. Nietzsche believed that christian values emerged from envy and what he calls "slave morality". I think I agree and that Christian morality stems from a "better than thou" mentality. Christians give charity because it makes them feel good and makes them look better than those who do not. They act like good people and try to put themselves above others. Many such cases.
ReplyDeleteSkylar Bishop section 3
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think that your interpretation of Christian values is fascinating. I do agree that a "better than thou" mentality is not uncommon among Christians, but I do not believe that is the fundamental basis of humanitarian values. I believe that human nature is inherently good-willed, especially towards one another and that is why we seek cooperation when possible (there are always variables and there is a lot to say about that) and it is in our nature to take joy out of doing what is right. That does not make it any less good-willed simply because it provides joy, only if the motivation is simply for a self-fulfilling reason rather than out of compassion for the other. Overall, I believe your perspective on Christian values of morality hold some merit but may be somewhat pessimistic from a holistic stance.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
ReplyDelete2. 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 (sounds like Purse) said this. It implies that our understanding of reality is purely based on empirical evidence, anything that can not be proven through experimentation holds little significance in practicality. He hated abstract theories.
3. What did Bertrand Russell say about James's theory of truth? Was he being fair?
He claimed that Jame's theory, that something is true if it is useful to the believer then it is true, was a ridiculous concept in application because it meant that Santa is real just as God is. James argued there is a difference but it seems like he is just changing what he believes the truth is for God and in practical application of everything else. I think Bertrand was more than fair in his criticism. As the author puts it, it sounds more like wishful thinking.
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?
What he meant when he said "God is dead" is that the belief in God had become an unreasonable process. It represents the intellectual change at the time to one of secular scientific thought. It does seem Nihilistic but it could also be seen as an opportunity to create one's own path.
6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
Slaves, he believed that the Christian morality of human compassion and generosity originated from Ancient Greek era slaves who believed the acts of the powerful as evil and the acts of their fellow beings as good. I think this has incredible implications for the morality of our system of inequality that functions off the morality of the ruling class.
10. The "talking cure" gave birth to what? Have you had any direct experience with it, or any other form of "talking cure"?
The talking cure gave birth to the field of psychoanalysis. I have not had any personal experience with any forms of the talking cure, but I have studied it and think it is a profound way of extracting subliminal thoughts from someone who may not realize what is bothering them.
12. What was Karl Popper's criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis? Do you agree?
Popper claimed that Freud's theory of psychoanalysis was "unfalsifiable" in the way that you cannot test it or disprove it because it claims that any rejection of the theory comes from the unconscious refusing to accept it. Regardless of the evidence gathered, it always supports the theory. I strongly agree with this claim as have many if not most of Freud's contemporaries who devoted their lives to the same field as him. I believe fundamentally Freud had incredible ideas and laid the foundation for Psychology as we know it today, but he often overstepped and made claims that could not be asserted for sure.
Section 2
ReplyDelete6. Where did Nietzsche think Christian values come from? What do you think about that?
Nietzsche believed that Christian values originated from the relationship between the powerful and the oppressed in ancient human history, in scenarios such as ancient Greece’s hierarchy of free and enslaved people. He believed that morality as it appeared in his time was the result of ancient oppressed people rising up against their oppressors and seeing their own actions as good, and their opponents’ as bad.
Though I do believe that common morality is impacted by events, ideas, and interactions between people throughout history, and that sources that claim moral guidelines such as the Christian Bible are both shaped by and shape the general morality of cultures themselves, I see this as a smaller component of what drives moral values in humans. For me, the most plausible answer seems to be that morality is the product of survival instinct and our species’ social behavior. To elaborate, I think morality is grounded in emotion, such that it is the process of recognizing when we feel bad and attempting to remedy such feeling (basic survival instinct). The social aspect of morality occurs when we experience empathy, or the subconscious adaptation of another’s suffering as our own. By attempting to remedy suffering and feeling compelled to see our or other’s suffering end, we establish a vague sense of morality that informs our interactions and dictates what we perceive as injustice. Of course, empathy is not universally applicable (different people can feel it to varying degrees and perhaps not at all, we seem to be evolutionarily compelled to favor humans or things which we can adequately project human-like qualities onto over other things and those closest to us relationship-wise over all else, etc.), and these variances, I believe, constitute moral conflict and the variety between different moral guidelines. Similarly, I think the common, instinctual grounding across most people causes the commonalities across most moral philosophies (things like ‘don’t cause unnecessary suffering’ etc.). I think Nietzsche’s philosophy is too simplistic and abstract for me to agree, especially since humans and other social animals tend to innately express empathy without having specifically developed it through oppression.
I dislike C.S. Peirce and William James's view of morality. I've often been told "The truth doesn't care about your feelings." Which is meant in that there is a truth, no matter what you think of it. I tend to agree with this sentiment, especially when it comes to moral truths.
ReplyDelete5. What is Sonya's opinion of Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence? Do you share it?
ReplyDeleteShe declared it the “idea of a sociopath.” She said that everyone will make one huge mistake in life. Would you really want to relive that horrible event over and over and over? She claimed that life’s bad moments outweighed all of the good. While I can see where she is coming from, I do not agree with her. Yes, I have had some bad days. There are a few things that I regret, but overall, my life has been amazing. Those bad days and decisions taught me valuable lessons that I have used to make my life better. I would say the good definitely outweighs the bad. I don't know if I would ever choose to live my life over and over again, but I do know that I would be okay with it. While I did suffer some, I learned from each event and used it to have a better life.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe point of James’s squirrel story is to show that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences or the cash value of thought. If nothing hangs in the answer, it doesn’t really matter what you decide. It all depends on why you want to know and what difference it will actually make. If there is no practical difference, then there is no truth of the matter. Truth for James was simply what works, what has a beneficial impact on our lives.
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?
ReplyDeleteAn übermensch, or “super-man”, is the concept a man of the who goes beyond conventional morals, invents new values to live life by, and is the next evolutionary step in humanity’s development. Nigel Warburton finds the concept of an übermensch worrying because he thinks it seems to support those who see themselves as heroic snd want to have their way about humanity without consideration of other people’s interests. I think a fictional example of this concept in a real-world situation would be Patrick Bateman from “American Psycho”. He goes about his life not worrying about the thoughts and feelings of others, mainly centering his life around himself and what he can do to others to benefit himself.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe point of the story was to show that pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences. “If nothing hangs on the answer, it doesn’t really matter what you decide.” I have been in a “metaphysical dispute” like this before. I feel that without clarification on your own definition of a word/phrase, then the conversation is prone to misinterpretation. I misunderstood what my partner was trying to explain and felt hurt by the word, but when I asked what context/meaning of the word he was saying, his definition was way different than mine. That clarification can resolve misunderstandings.
Like a “Superman” – someone who was not held back by conventional moral codes and creates new values. I am concerned with the people that believe they are higher than society and can place their own rules and norms. Why do they believe they are higher than the rest of us? What makes them believe they don’t have to follow the same moral rules society has placed? This reminds me of those in higher power abusing the power given to them (ahem our current president…)
ReplyDelete7. 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?
DeleteSection 3
DeleteThis may be a funny example, but it reminds me of how it has become normal to call someone an NPC. It shows how easily we forget or don't comprehend that everyone around us is living a just as complex life as we are. If people were able to remind themselves of this and put themselves in others' shoes, then I think it would be harder for them to think of themselves as better. Once you imagine what someone has gone through, it's clearer to see why they act the way they do. I think this applies to elites as well. They either haven't experienced what most of the lower class have gone through or have lost touch.