“At the end of his 1895 address “Is Life Worth Living?,” the pragmatist philosopher William James tells his audience to take a leap of faith: we may never be certain that our lives have a meaning, but maybe they do. Why not take a chance on this “maybe”? Day in and day out, we take more mundane leaps of faith. For example, I promise to meet a friend at her apartment; while I may be killed on the highway on my way there, I may not, either. I hope to see her later, and that hope animates my choice to get on the road. Why not adopt a similar faith in life’s worthwhileness? I used to balk at the idea of a leap of faith. I sided with Albert Camus over Søren Kierkegaard, whom he mercilessly critiques in the first part of the Myth of Sisyphus. For Camus, Kierkegaard recognizes the absurdity of the human condition— “the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart.” Yet, Kierkegaard, by calling on us to take a leap of faith, eliminates the absurd. In contrast, Camus says, “Being able to remain on the dizzying crest—that is integrity and the rest is subterfuge.” Instead of the leap of faith, Camus proposes a different image: Sisyphus rolling the boulder endlessly up a hill, only to see it fall back down. Camus advocates grit over faith. Plant your feet firmly on the ground, disregard all hope of a future reward, and keep at it...” https://open.substack.com/pub/celineleboeuf/p/leaps-of-faith?r=35ogp&utm_medium=ios
Thursday, May 28, 2026
Sunday, May 24, 2026
Not just consumers of a degree but creators of an education
…Perhaps this is why A.I.-enabled cheating does not seem to be a problem at Deep Springs. At other schools, students can tell themselves that they are, at worst, only cheating themselves. Students at Deep Springs learn to see themselves not as consumers of a degree (an individual good), but as creators of an education (a collective good). It’s important, too, that when second-year Deep Springers, as they’re known, make decisions about admissions and the curriculum, they know they are shaping a school that will exist when they are no longer there.
Deep Springs is unique, but it isn’t singular. Berea College is a selective four-year liberal arts school in Kentucky, one of 10 federally recognized work colleges in the United States. Founded in 1855 by abolitionists, it was the South’s first interracial, coed college. Today, its 1,500 undergraduates pay no tuition, and as at Deep Springs, they all work a campus job — at least 10 hours a week. At Berea, they receive pay to put toward housing and living expenses...
Thursday, May 21, 2026
A Defense of a Liberal Arts Education in the Age of A.I. -
When we talk about teaching and learning, the learning has to come from the student. And a good teacher who has a good pedagogy is always going to be especially attuned to the student and what the student needs and how to draw out of the student the best that that student can achieve.
But you cannot — trust me, any educator will tell you this — you cannot force the student. You can incentivize. We do that through grades and credentials. But ultimately, they have to want that sort of self-cultivation...
Sunday, May 17, 2026
What A.I. Kant Do
“…I think A.I. is a false mirror,” said Drew Lichtenberg, the dramaturg at the Shakespeare Theatre Company here and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University. “It reflects back answers to black-or-white questions, but it does little to help explain the human experience the way art or philosophy can.”
He said he was shocked that students last semester were hungry for difficult plays and philosophical readings with no clear answers. “They were particularly into Kant and his ‘Analytic of the Sublime,’ Nietzsche and existential nausea, Camus and the myth of Sisyphus,” he said, adding that the cool reason of A.I. comprehends, but the seething imagination of art apprehends...”
Sunday, May 3, 2026
The end (for now)
Don't stop asking questions. Have a great summer. Hope to see you again. jpo
Expanded Thoughts on 'On Truth' - A Post by David Vargas (Section #1)
Harry Frankfurt, a distinguished American philosopher, believed that “it was impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction” (On Bullshit, Frankfurt). This famous axiom was the product of Frankfurt’s prevalent and most well-known work, On Bullshit. The book centers around the concept of "Truth", and what is classified as lying and "bullshitting" (utter indifference to the truth). However, Frankfurt sustains a slight sense of aversion to his operational definition of "Truth" in the work, providing only tangential intersections of his interpretation in On Bullshit.
Regardless, Frankfurt’s assertions in On Bullshit have been widely proliferated, and can be applied to real-world, relevant scenarios that we all relate to, especially when it comes to statistics and the sales profession.
Frankfurt himself discusses the implications of “bullshitting” in the linked video, for those of you who would be interested in watching:
In 2006, Frankfurt published a follow-up to On Bullshit that helped clarify what exactly Frankfurt defined as the "Truth", and where exactly we derive the semantics of the word from. One of Frankfurt’s foremost assertions is that there isn’t necessarily a subjective truth. Anyone attempting to present a claim as truth with only personal belief or inflection as foundation for its veracity is simply misleading their audience, whether that was their intention or not.
Frankfurt characterizes truth as a force that relates directly to reality. Truth, itself, isn’t subject to human manipulation, but rather a synthesis of the facts about the world around us. In other words, we cannot decide what is or isn’t true. Interestingly enough, Frankfurt views truth as normative binding, or a limiting factor that constrains human thought.
Truth governs belief. Frankfurt was a stringent proponent of the belief that humans are obligated to care about and abide by the truth. This, to me, extrapolates an incredibly intriguing line of thought. Following the aforementioned logic, certain beliefs are either valid or invalid when pitted against the “Metric of Truth”. As Frankfurt says, humans are rational beings, and as such, we must strive to strictly adhere to the truth, as it transcends the epistemological bounds of our perception.
To me, truth transcends the human mind. It cannot be created or destroyed. For a moment I will speak apart from the work of Harry Frankfurt. The disparate nature of man is something that starkly contrasts with truth. Here, I’ve linked an interesting discussion forum, a great invention of the digital age, where individuals are discussing the concept of truth. The “Original Poster” presents a multi-faceted argument that demarcates illusions (human perception) from objective truth. He claims that truth “cannot be a mental construct”, as an objective truth cannot alter itself in the presence of different individuals. Under that logic, “the truth of the Japanese would differ greatly from the truth of the Americans.” That is, of course, a fallacious belief. However, as unsound as it is, it’s reflected among the differing cultures/nations of the world. These differences are deeply rooted in societies, and people demonstrate a nationalistic tendency to protect them.
Let’s say, theoretically, we take two antagonizing groups of people. Both groups assume a position that challenges the other and both groups believe their position to be the truth. Of course, both sides cannot possibly be telling the truth, but at the same time, neither side is telling a blatant lie. At least, not under the parameters set forth by Frankfurt.
But what is most interesting about this experiment, is that I cannot necessarily designate one of these groups as “bullshitters” either. A “bullshitter” has no regard for what is true or false. They are entirely indifferent to the truth. When superimposing that definition over the scenario I’ve presented, it doesn’t correlate with the nature of either group. Both groups exhibit a vehement confidence and genuine sincerity in their view.
What I can instead observe is what I can only describe as delusion. Delusion, in the proper environment, can pose more of a danger than both lying and “bullshitting.”
This thought ties into a discussion question that I posed to the class during my presentation on Frankfurt’s work.
“Do you agree with Frankfurt in that ‘bullshitters’ who are indifferent to truth could be just as dangerous as liars who actively conceal it?”
While I received a mixed variety of responses to this question, I can say one thing with absolute certainty. The bounds to which delusional people go to promote their faulty claims far exceed those of a liar or a “bullshitter”.
When this phenomenon is applied to the American Political Sphere, that’s one of the greatest examples of when delusion becomes dangerous. Politicians are among the greatest liars of our population. They often employ misleading rhetoric to elicit responses from their target audience, in our case, the American populace.
When a group as malleable as the American population is subjected to this, the concept of truth, as Frankfurt defines it, is rendered irrelevant. Truth is not a social construct, and to treat it as such, as politicians often do, opens doors to unsavory paths.
As I conclude, I’d like to draw attention to the image I’ve pasted on the bottom of this post. It’s a quote from Frankfurt and a reminder of how important it is to prioritize truth. It’s not uncommon for people to attempt to subvert reality, but reality will never shift. To be selfless in your endeavors is a calling for the recognition of truth. I encourage all who read this post to never stop caring about the truth. It’s definitely something that the world could use more of.
How To Think Like A Roman Emperor, Shane Cary, Section 1
A man wakes up early, brews his morning coffee, and sits in front of a fire while recalling some lessons he picked up from his grandpa, something he did often in the early morning hours. He spent much of his time working his grandad's farm during summers as a boy. The phrases read like proverbs. This particular morning he recalls what his grandpa told him after they learned that the neighbor's son had been killed in a rollover tractor accident; "remember that the sole life which a man can lose is that which he is living at the moment; and furthermore, that he can have no other life except the one he loses." The memory follows him as he gets ready for work; he guides his thoughts towards mental images of his youth, his current state, and what he will be like when he is old. Will he be a frail, old bookworm, or strong and reliable like his grandfather? The mental exercise brings with it a deep feeling of gratitude for life and for breathing. Upon opening the closet, he chooses pastel colors and simple garments that have never garnered much attention from others. When he gets to work, a fire of anxiety, chaos, and uncertainty rages as management explains to the staff that the company will be starting a new round of layoffs due to cost restraints. Instead of slipping into the tumultuous emotional current of his peers, he exercises a detached mindset that he cultivated when he was younger, after a series of fender benders that tested his humility and patience. It would be easier to feel anger and fear over the news of a potential job loss, but he knows that work still needs to be done, so he takes a deep breath in, walks to his desk, and starts his long list of work orders. Rumors start to permeate the lunch room; some people get so worked up that they pack their things and quit on the spot just to forfeit the embarrassment of being part of a "reduction in force." On the inside, he can't help but feel worry and doubt about his future at the company, but like all things in nature, he understands this will pass and something new will come from it. He reminds himself of the waves formed by a pebble being dropped into a still pond. As the pebble breaches the surface of the water, the atoms around it are excited and displaced, a series of shock waves ripple through the water, but after a brief moment of disorder, the pond returns to its previous, calm state. The news of downsizing in his company is not personal to any of the workers, just as the pebble does not have any agenda to destroy the peace of the water. Does this man think stoically? The man clocks out of his shift at five along with the rest of his colleagues. Some of them head to the bar to blow off the steam accumulated from a hard day. Some of them appear visibly shaken and sorrowful from the news. The man feels empathy for his peers and allows himself to connect to the pain they are experiencing, but again his grandpa's voice chimes in saying "to be in the process of change is not evil, any more than to be the product of change is good." He comforts his friends with a reaffirming smile and tells them that if they ever need anything he is only a call away. On his drive home, he plays his favorite songs and watches the sky change as massive cumulonimbus rain clouds form thousands of feet in the sky. Murders of ravens retreat to the power lines and rooftops; they sense a storm coming. The lightning in the distance produces a mesmerizing pulsating energy as it cracks through the air. Instead of continuing the remainder of his 20-minute commute, our man pulls off to the shoulder and rolls his window down just enough so he can smell the sweet perfume of the rain shower. He watches nature unfold in a powerful display of energy and realizes that he is not separate from those lightning bolts; he is here on the same planet, breathing the same air and exerting his energy on his environment just like those shocks of electricity. He knows everything will be ok.
.jpg)
To me, this is what stoicism is all about. It isn't a fad or a practice of taking cold showers, getting Marcus Aurelius tattoos, or committing yourself to an apathetic demeanor that is far above emotion. Stoicism is about engaging with the natural current of life and facing the good and the bad bravely and rationally. The stoics believed that we all possess a capacity to be rational even in the worst of circumstances. The character I created isn't actually remembering quotes from his grandpa. Those quotes are directly from Marcus Aurelius's Meditations. In Meditations, Marcus journals his thoughts about life, he critiques himself with brutal honesty, and he describes nature with a reverence and love for the way things happen. In Stoicism, reminding oneself of the impermanence of life is a core practice known as "Memento Mori" in Latin, or "remember that you must die." The practice wasn't adopted to evoke fear or uncertainty, but rather as a symbolic reminder that we have a life to live and that we must try to live it fully and in accordance with nature, not against it. What I mean by "against nature" is to deny yourself feeling or experience in an effort to shield yourself from pain. The character I used earlier in the story sits in the morning remembering what his grandfather taught him about death. In turn, it helps him adopt an attitude of gratitude at the start of his day.
Earlier while I was writing this, I was looking for a better word than masochist to describe someone who enjoys pain, and in the search I found the word stoic. This is probably the most repeated misinterpretation of Stoicism that is oftentimes spread on the internet and in pop culture. In the book How To Think Like A Roman Philosopher by Donald Robertson, he states that,
"People often confuse 'Stoicism' with 'stoicism' (i.e., having a stiff upper lip) often think that it's about suppressing feelings like anxiety, which they view as bad, harmful, or shameful. That's not only bad psychology, it's also totally in conflict with Stoic Philosophy, which teaches us to accept our involuntary emotional reactions, our flashes of anxiety, as in-different: neither good nor bad." (Robertson, 67)
The stoics were not gluttons for punishment, emotionless psychopaths, or sigma males. However, they did not shy away from emotional or physical discomfort. Robertson writes that in his youth, Marcus Aurelius was inspired by the famous founder of cynicism Diogenes, because of his unorthodox approach to comfort and materialism. Therefore, Marcus "adopted the dress of a philosopher and began training himself to endure hardship. However, his mother argued that sleeping on a mat like a legionary on campaign was inappropriate" (Robertson, 53). Embracing discomfort and hardship is a principle of Stoicism, and is actually how the philosophy began in the first place. Zeno, the founder of stoicism, famously lost all of his belongings and riches during a storm that capsized his ship while sailing in the Mediterranean Sea. In one stroke of nature, Zeno was forced to start his whole life from scratch. He first studied under Crates of Thebes, a leading cynic philosopher, and learned to reject the material comfort and social conventions that once gave his life purpose. Eventually, Zeno developed his own philosophy and it later became Stoicism, named after the Stoa Poikile, where he taught that a good life was achieved through virtue, logic, and living in accordance with nature.
When faced with a terrible day at work, the man from earlier has a choice to make: does he join in on the fearful frenzy of coworkers, or does he try to find some clarity and rationality in the situation? I chose to model the character after a stoic approach that Robertson describes in the book. He writes that "the Stoics were also known for contemplating the hypothetical character of an ideal Sage, or wise person." For me, the character I am writing about is a stoic sage in an abstract sense. He chooses to view the unstable situation at work through the eyes of nature and it calms him, and grounds him back to reality as a result. This is not to be confused with disassociating, however, because the character still allows himself to feel anxiety and connect with his perturbed friends regardless of his internal emotional state. It isn't just helpful to oneself to remain rational and clear headed in the face of adversity. It also helps those around you, because you can serve as a strong support for them.
At the end of the story, the guy pulls to the side of the road to watch in awe as the sky erupts into a thunderstorm. This represents a Stoic's deep appreciation for nature and for art. While some may see a thunderstorm as a damp inconvenience to life, stoics would view the occurrence through a lens of beauty, and as a reminder of their small place in the vast, powerful universe. French philosopher Pierre Hadot described the stoic exercise of imagining yourself from a third-person perspective, first from right above, then slowly scaling back until you are a small speck in the cosmos, as "the view from above" in his 1998 publication of What Is Ancient Philosophy?. This stoic exercise puts our lives into proper perspective and can actually alleviate a lot of the mental struggles that plague us. Robertson notes that early pioneers of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) Albert Ellis and Aaron T. Beck "cited Stoic philosophy as the inspiration for their respective approaches" (Robertson, 9). Robertson, who is a trained psychotherapist, says that when treating things like social anxiety he tries to target the underlying value that a person attaches to a certain outcome in a conversation. So if he is working with a client that gets really nervous talking to someone they think is really important, he will challenge them to assess why they think that particular person is above them. This exercise is very similar to Stoic philosophy because, "according to Stoic philosophy, when we assign intrinsic values like 'good' or 'bad' to external events, we're behaving irrationally and even exhibiting a form of self-deception" (Robertson, 69).
Stoic Therapy Session
Some people might argue that Stoicism is too simple. It does not account for the myriad of human experiences, and to expect a person to have the discipline and emotional temperance to look at their emotions from an objective perspective all the time is ludicrous and unrealistic for a lot of people. Others might say that the non-stop, "look on the bright side" attitude about facing adversity could just be a form of toxic positivity. These arguments are not without some serious truth. I think Stoicism is one of the best forms of philosophy in existence, not just because it provides robust protocols for so many different challenges faced by all people, but because it focuses on nature and reality in a way that is artistic and profound. That being said, it cannot cover the entire scope of human experience, and therefore might not be the best thing for every person. Additionally, when utilized with a dogmatic mindset, like anything, I think stoicism can become overly solution focused and insensitive at times. By "solution focused" I mean people not taking the time to acknowledge the often irrational and ugly aspect of controversy before immediately rushing to offer a solution. If we are hyper fixated with rationality, I think it is possible to skip over the emotional side of things too quickly. It is probably true for some people that, in order to function in life, they have to adopt irrational viewpoints at times.
To address one of my discussion questions, "What purpose does Stoicism have in your everyday lives," I believe that Stoicism helps ground me to nature and allows me to look at life through a confident and hopeful lens. The Stoics have the saying "Amor Fati;" I have been using this one a lot lately, especially during finals. It means "love of fate." In order to manage my test anxiety, I remind myself that I have done everything in my power to prepare for this test and that now I must accept and welcome my fate. This may seem dramatic, but it sure does work.
All in all, it has been a blessing to share Stoicism with all of you. I cherished the ability to spend my mornings this semester discussing and reflecting on life's questions, and I have enjoyed taking this class with all of you very intelligent and thought provoking people. I hope to see you guys around campus and say Hi!
I posted this past midnight, sorry about that. 12:04am 05/03/26
Saturday, May 2, 2026
Final Blog Post Section #2
Morality of Abortion and People with Cognitive Disabilities
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Judith Jarvis Thompson was born in 1929 in New York. She studied philosophy at Barnard College, Cambridge University, and got her PhD at Columbia University. She moved on to teach at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is most famously known for her work in ethics and her attempts to make complicated moral problems easier to understand through thought experiments, one being the example of the unwanted violinist. This idea was to show that if a woman got pregnant even after using contraception, she had no moral duty to go through with having the baby, meaning there was nothing morally wrong with her having an abortion. She believed, in that circumstance, that having the baby was an act of charity, not a moral duty. She believed abortion should be looked at from the woman’s perspective, not the fetus’s.
So, the Unwanted Violinist example. There is a famous violinist who has a kidney problem. The only way he can survive is by being plugged into a person who shares his rare blood type. However, you have the same blood type. One day, you wake up to find that doctors have attached him to your kidneys while you were asleep. Thomson argues that you have no duty to keep him plugged into you, even though, by removing the tubes, he will die. Likewise, she applies this same logic to a woman who got pregnant even while using contraception, saying that the growing fetus inside her does not have the automatic right to her body. A lot of people thought that if they could prove that the fetus is a person, then that would make abortion illegal, but Thomson’s point disagrees with that, saying that even if the fetus is a person, it does not settle the question because that doesn’t give them the right to a person’s body.
Peter Singer
Quick background
If you want to read more information about Thomson and Singer, you can check out chapters 37 and 40 in A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton: https://philocyclevl.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nigel-warburton-a-little-history-of-philosophy-yale-university-press-2011.pdf
Peter Singer was born in 1946 in Melbourne. He is an Australian philosopher who has taught at major universities, such as Princeton University. His ideas are based on utilitarianism, and a big credit to him is helping shape the animal rights movement with his 1975 book, Animal Liberation. One of his main messages is that you could almost certainly have a genuine influence on other people’s lives, and you should. Singer has touched on many topics, such as the idea of saving the drowning kid in front of you but being ignorant to the dying children in impoverished areas around the world, and he’s also spoken out on many controversial ideas, such as mercy killing people who are in an irreversible persistent vegetative state, and on abortion. So, according to Singer, to be ethical, we must all be “persons” according to moral guidelines. However, not all humans are “persons”.
Singer says that for one to be considered a “person” and deserve moral treatment, they must be self-aware. With this in mind, Singer states that no newborn infants are “persons”, and some people with lifelong cognitive disabilities never become “persons” at any time in their lives. In addition, he claims some people who acquire cognitive disabilities through injury, Alzheimer’s, or some other means stop being “persons”. Singer believes that killing a “non-person”, even if it is human, does not carry the same moral weight as killing a “person”. According to Singer, it may be alright to kill infants because they are not “persons”, they have no interest in staying alive, and it’s only superstition that makes us think that killing them is intrinsically wrong. Now he is still quick to say that it is still wrong to kill most infants, for some other reasons. For example, killing the infant would, in most cases, upset the parents. And, in situations where the parents don’t want the child, other couples/individuals would like to adopt the child, so it should not be killed, but instead put up for adoption. But on the other hand, infants with known disabilities, especially cognitive, he believes, do not bring the same amount of happiness into the lives of the parents. The very fact that someone is disabled means that he or she will have an unhappier life than other people. Therefore, the reasoning not to kill a normal, non-disabled infant does not apply to a disabled infant. Singer believes that parents should legally still be able to have their infant killed up to 28 days after birth. Therefore, parents could then have non-disabled replacements, and the organs of the disabled infant could serve as transplants to other infants who could grow up to be non-disabled.
My personal views
Starting with Judith’s beliefs and her example of the “Unwanted Violinist”, I disagree with her logic. As a Christian, my views on abortion are the same in any situation: I don’t think it’s ever the right answer. However, from a non-Christian perspective, I can understand why people would find it acceptable in some circumstances. For example, in Thomson’s example, if the circumstances of the conception were from sexual assault, then I can sort of understand why people would say you shouldn’t be forced to have the child when you never even wanted to have sex in the first place, and it was forced upon you. However, my answer is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and even though it’s a terrible thing that has occurred, you can still find something good coming out of it. There are so many amazing people on this planet who have done amazing things who were conceived in rape, and if they had been aborted, they obviously wouldn’t have been here to do all they’ve done. It really is a difficult subject, though, and I feel for anyone who ever has to go through something like that.
On the other hand, Judith also mentioned that if a woman conceives even if contraception is used, she should still have the choice to abort. I strongly disagree with this. Ultimately, anytime you have sex, there is a chance/risk of conceiving. If you are not ready to have a child, then you shouldn’t be having sex. There are going to be results/consequences from your actions, and the baby isn’t at fault; the two consenting adults are; therefore, it’s not fair for the baby to be punished for their actions. I think in this situation, if you happen to conceive by accident and are not in a situation to be able to provide for a child, then you should look to adoption to find a couple who may not be able to have kids of their own or who are looking to adopt, and give them the chance to have the kid instead of just killing it. But again, if you find yourself in a situation where you are definitely not prepared to have a kid, then maybe you shouldn’t be having sex.
Now leaning into Singer’s ideas, I also strongly disagree with him, even more so than Thomson. Some of Singer’s ideas are just dehumanizing and sort of privileged. He’s blessed to have been born without a cognitive disability, but that does not give him the right to play God and choose that people who are born with those disabilities shouldn’t even be considered “persons” or on the same level as humans. Colossians 1:16-17 and Genesis 1:26-27 both reference that God is the creator of all things, and all things are created through him. We, mankind, are made by Him and in His image. Considering we are all created by God, I believe we don’t have the right to take the life of someone he’s created, since it is His creation and not ours. We don’t get to just identify people as less than us because of a condition. They may not be capable of everything non-disabled people are, but that doesn’t lessen their value as a human. I have a family member and friends with family members who have cognitive disabilities, but despite their situation, they still live enjoyable lives and get to do and experience lots of amazing things, and the people I know who take care of them love doing so, and it brings them great joy. So I think Singer is also wrong in saying that children with cognitive disabilities bring less joy to their parents. Also, his cons to abortion are strictly based on the effects of the abortion, and whether the parents grieve it or other families do, not on the fact that it is killing an innocent baby. Whether or not a baby is going to be born with a cognitive disability, that baby is still made in the image of God, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to take away the life of that baby. In Jeremiah 1:5, God says he knew Jeremiah before He even formed him in the womb. Psalm 139:13-18 talks about the intimacy of God forming us in the womb. And Proverbs 6:16-17 says that the Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood, and in my eyes, a baby in the womb is innocent and has done no wrong, therefore it does not deserve to be killed.
Relating to the morality of cognitively disabled people, here’s an interesting article I found: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-disability/
I also believe that no matter how disabled a person is, God doesn’t count them as less and He never leaves them. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/it-is-insane-to-kill-humans-because-of-their-cognitive-abilities
Conclusion
Ultimately, my Christian views are the standards for my views on everything, including abortion and the morality of killing those with severe cognitive disabilities, and because of that, I will always stand on the side of being pro-life. However, it really is a complicated debate, and I understand why there is so much controversy on the topic, and I really do feel for people who are put in difficult situations with pregnancy or disabilities. I think the best way to approach these conversations is to listen and be understanding, no matter what your take is, because each person has their reasoning for their views, and no one is trying to (most aren’t) be wicked and cruel; they are just trying to be rational and find the right answers.
Natalie (Section #1) -- How to Think Like Mary Astell
Hey everyone! My final report blog post is based on the book How to Think Like a Woman by Regan Penaluna; specifically, I focused on Mary Astell and her book A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, which were covered in How to Think Like a Woman.
Here is Penaluna’s book in case you’d like to give it a read. It’s also available at the library J
How to Think Like a WomanOur cosmic relevance
"Even through your hardest days, remember we are all made up of stardust" - Carl Sagan
I never shared the hopelessness that some experience while thinking of the extent of the universe. In some ways I've always felt bigger because of it. It meant that there would always be something to discover, something to notice, something to reach for. It brought a certain kind of comfort in knowing that no matter the advancements science could make in the meantime, there would be something left for me. And it thus made my problems seem a little smaller in contrast. I believe there is a level of clarity to be found when we allow ourselves to look outwards and remind ourselves why we are who we are and why we find solace in our passions.
But like all aspects of life, we will always encounter obstacles. I want to say that we are discovering and creating beauty in this world every day, and that if we just face every hardship and struggle with an awareness of that beauty, a solution will logically follow. But that would mean accepting blind ignorance, because there could be no real beauty without an equal amount of ugliness that we have no doubt contributed to. I would love to say that logic and reason is always the way to enlightenment. But as people we contain so much emotion, whether that be pride, compassion, love, greed, or empathy. The fact of being human means that we have the capacity to have these experiences, so can we consider a solution to a human problem with no consideration of these emotions to be in itself a human resolution at all? Can we ever expect a 'perfect' solution to any human problem when being human means to be imperfect and make mistakes? So where does that leave us?
“Life is made up of challenges that cannot be solved but only accepted.”-Roger Ebert
I have never claimed to be distinctly philosophical, instead I too made an effort to be as logical and reasonable as possible. To take as much heart out of my problem solving as possible to find the most ‘reasonable’ conclusion. While it was not a strategy executed in vain it was also not perfect. There is no formula or approach anyone can take to ensure no one gets hurt, yet the value that comes with that fact may be a piece of our best attempt.
Assume for a second that life on earth really was a singular near impossible one in an infinite occurrence. Think of what it would mean to you and mean about you. Not only are you a part of the near impossible chance of life, but you also defied the odds to be born. This is not to say that we should all be grateful to exist, there are more than enough books and TikTok pages that will tell you that. But this is to reflect that we have a preexisting compulsion and admiration for earth's phenomenon. We care about our families, we care about our friends, about our communities, about our species. There is nothing about being alive that would be worth anything without others. Somewhere along the way we have lost the priority for care, investing worth and success into money and status instead of contribution. We are consumed by materialism leaving whole communities behind in favor of a chase for an artificial shallow wealth.
Now when looking to the future, no progress will be made by wallowing in dread or pity. The first step to development is accepting that the work will never be done. Our world is becoming more and more complicated every day, especially now in a technological boom. Once we as a majority can accept that a degree of permanent damage is a part of our reality, the sooner we can advance to a place where real compromises are possible. From there we cannot be wary of corrections, much of our tension in our societies come from a need to be right and to ‘win’ rather than being thorough. It all will come down to unlearning dangerous levels of greed and unchecked pride. It means consciously bringing down the structures that don't protect all of us in favor of something we haven't come up with yet.
Thank you so much for following along to my rambling, here is a little palette cleanser:
https://youtu.be/8t_xSCGfahY?si=aoOxhc5lMy6zc2iJ
The Perfect Wife (not really)
Daisy Flenniken - Final Presentation
Philosophy Queens
-= Ban Zhao =-
Wittgenstein's Take on Language
I have to say, I am intrigued by Wittgenstein. Obviously, as a writer, a philosopher with such a linguistic bent would intrigue me (and it excites me that, apparently, most philosophers at the time were like that). However, I think Wittgenstein gets at something I do not see other philosophers getting at: the nature of language. What, fundamentally, is language? Ironically, I have seen YouTube videos and other Internet sources getting at this, but not actual philosophers. I loved reading his section, and am glad to finally see a philosopher talking about this, since I think about it often.
I guess that Augustine did get at it first (LHP, p. 205). Apparently, he learned to speak by having adults name things around him. It seems that Augustine thought that language was primarily for naming objects. Wittgenstein, however, thought that language did not always name things. "It’s not that you don’t have a sensation. It’s just that, logically, your words can’t be the names of sensations." (LHP, p. 205). Wittgenstein thought that language was "overlapping resemblances", like those in a family (LHP, p. 203). An important thing I have heard many online talk about is how important it is to know what someone means when they say a certain word, and Wittgenstein believed that most philosophical problems came from a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of language (LHP, p. 203-207). I think that is valid. Many arguments I have had started because we misunderstood what the other was actually saying.
I do not think that Myers-Briggs should be used, and frankly this skit is not actually that funny, but 1:41-2:01 kind of shows what I mean by knowing what someone means when they say a certain word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwDSrMkNIvM
As does the first section of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdF8jEbzJV8
(Neither are the most intelligent of things I could have put in here, but I suppose that they work. Both are two of many videos that reference what I am talking about.)
Something that LHP does not really get into, but that I wish it did, is his view of the mind and how it's related to his view of language. It gets into it a little bit. "The point he was trying to make...was that the way we use words to describe our experiences can’t be based on a private linking of the experience with the word. There must be something public about it. We can’t have our own private language. And if that is true, the idea that the mind is like a locked theatre that no one else can get into is misleading. For Wittgenstein, then, the idea of a private language of sensations doesn’t make sense at all. This is important – and difficult to grasp too – because many philosophers before him thought that each individual’s mind was completely private." (LHP, p. 206). I have heard of the idea of a collective mind before. Did Wittgenstein believe in that? I want to read more of him to see if he gets into his view of the mind; however, considering his philosophical bent and that of his contemporaries, maybe he does not.
Wittgenstein is a well-known enough philosopher that information about him is not hard to find. Britannica has an article on him (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ludwig-Wittgenstein). It says a lot of the same things as LHP, but it includes many other things about him. It includes how he thought about his ideas: “What we find in philosophy is trivial; it does not teach us new facts, only science does that. But the proper synopsis of these trivialities is enormously difficult, and has immense importance. Philosophy is in fact the synopsis of trivialities.” (Monk, 2019). It also includes more about his philosophy and personal life, like how Weininger's idea that "Logic and ethics are fundamentally the same, they are no more than duty to oneself," influenced Wittgenstein as he joined the army in World War II. (Monk, 2019).
Up to this point, I am embarrassed to say, I have mainly talked about how I feel about Wittgenstein, not about whether or not I actually agree with him and why, like I have been instructed. I have thought about the fundamental nature of language. I do not know if the YouTube videos, websites, etc., that I have seen talking about this have originated these thoughts, because I tend to think about these kinds of things in general, but they have informed my thought about them. I am embarrassed to say that I haven't read much philosophy, only a little, but I suspect that I will read Wittgenstein over the summer. I love to read, but I primarily read fiction. Anyways, I would want to understand a little bit more of his philosophy before I decide to agree or disagree with him.
I want to read a lot of the philosophers from Little History of Philosophy, but especially Wittgenstein. Pardon me for going on more about how I feel about Wittgenstein.
References:
Monk, R. (2019). Ludwig Wittgenstein | British philosopher. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ludwig-Wittgenstein
Warburton, N. (2012). A little history of philosophy. Yale University Press.
MARCUS AURELIUS: THE EMBODIMENT OF ANCIENT AND MODERN STOICISM - John Aduroja (Section #2)
In his profound exploration, How to
Think Like a Roman Emperor, Donald Robertson bridges a two-millennium gap by
comparing his life with that of Marcus Aurelius. Marcus, the Roman Emperor who
faced constant warfare and the loss of eight children, found solace in
philosophy. Interestingly, Robertson shares a parallel origin story. As his
notes reveal, Robertson’s father died when he was just thirteen, a trauma that
led him into a period of juvenile delinquency. Much like Marcus, who was guided
by mentors like Rusticus and the writings of Epictetus, Robertson found his way
through the discovery of Socrates and the Stoics. This comparison establishes
that Stoicism isn't just for kings; it is a resilient toolkit for anyone navigating
the shipwrecks of life.
"The goal for Marcus Aurelius
was Eudaimonia (a flourishing life). Virtue was the only true good, centered on
the four cardinal virtues: Wisdom, Justice, Temperance, and
Courage."
One of
Robertson’s most vital contributions is linking ancient Stoicism to modern Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy (CBT). As highlighted in the core notes, the fundamental
idea is that external events do not necessarily make us miserable; it is
the meaning we attach to them. If you change the way you think, you change the
way you feel and act. This is the bedrock of the "Core Triangle of
Thoughts, Emotions, and Behaviors."
Marcus
applied this specifically to anger, viewing it as a form of temporary madness.
He practiced cognitive distancing: postponing his reaction (a cooling period)
and reminding himself that his opponent was a social animal who was merely
morally blind. By viewing things objectively, stripping away the value projections,
he could maintain his composure in the face of betrayal and war.
The book describes how both Marcus
and modern practitioners (like David Robertson in the case studies) used the
View from Above. This exercise involves mentally zooming out from your current
problem, moving from your city to the earth, and eventually the entire cosmos.
This perspective shatters social anxiety and ego, making our mountainous
problems look like the specks they are.
Furthermore,
the concept of Amor Fati (Love of Fate) teaches us to embrace our circumstances.
As Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, famously did after his shipwreck, we must see
every obstacle as fuel for character building. Whether it is an Emperor facing
a plague or a modern student facing anxiety, the Stoic response remains the
same: distinguish what is in your control from what is not, and act with virtue.
The story of Zeno of Citium, the
founder of Stoicism, serves as the ultimate example of accepting circumstances
through a Stoic lens. Zeno was a wealthy merchant who lost everything when his
ship sank off the coast of Athens. Rather than lamenting his poverty, Zeno
famously remarked, "Fortune has done well to drive me thus to
philosophy". By embracing the Cynic and later Stoic way of life, Zeno
transformed a catastrophe into an opportunity for growth. His "good flow
of life" (euroia biou) came from aligning his will with nature
rather than fighting against the external circumstances he could not change.
Negative visualization, or praemeditatio
malorum, is the practice of calmly contemplating potential future
misfortunes as if they were already happening. It is not about pessimism but
about habituation. By repeatedly imagining worst-case scenarios. such as
illness, loss of reputation, or death, the Stoic strips these events of their
novelty and emotional sting. This exercise helps individuals distinguish
between what is within their control (their own judgments) and what is not
(external events). Soldiers are constantly confronted with the threat of death
and the loss of comrades. Negative visualization serves as a form of stress
inoculation, allowing them to face the horrors of warfare by having already
mentally processed them. Robertson notes that Marcus used these techniques to
maintain his composure despite the vapor and mist of war, treating external
hardships as indifferent compared to the preservation of his own character.
https://youtu.be/Yp5BKooaGA4?si=NUD_rYBgMra3oYNR
The legacy of Marcus Aurelius, as
interpreted by Donald Robertson, demonstrates that Stoicism is as much a
clinical psychological tool as a philosophy of life. By practicing negative
visualization to remove the element of surprise and using cognitive distancing
to manage our emotions, we can achieve the flourishing life (Eudaimonia) that the
Stoics promised. Marcus was not a god; he was a man who used a system to stay sane
in an insane world. Today, we have that same system at our fingertips.
Reference: How to Think like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius by Donald Robertson (2019).