Final report posting for the Spring '26 semester is now concluded.
But, "what has concluded, that we may conclude...?"
Don't stop asking questions. Have a great summer. Hope to see you again. jpo
Sunday, May 3, 2026
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
Noah Kahan, End of August. I listened to this on repeat while writing this.
The nature sounds are serene.
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
This also just happens to be what the Hubble telescope saw on my birthday that year!
NASA Images - NASA
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 =-
For my final presentation and blog post, I chose to talk about Chinese philosopher Ban Zhao. I'm sure you remember from our discussion in class that she wrote a book on how a high-class women should act, which in our time, has some pretty hot takes, but in hers, were crucial for survival. If you don't remember, don't fret. I will be sharing them again in this post. But if you do remember, that's great! You can brush up on what we discussed in this post. Or you can just completely ignore it because you remember everything and don't want to go through it again. Either way, I won't be offended. :)
Okay, here we go!
Ban Zhao was born in the Eastern Han Dynasty in 45 A.D. and lived to 120 A.D., during her life she was known for many things: being "the wife of Shishu," for completing the Book of Han, and for writing her famous Lessons for Women. Originally, her well-known historian father started the Book of Han, which kept the history of 300 years of the Western Han Dynasty spanning from Emperor Gaozu to Emperor Ping. When he died before it was complete, it was passed on to her historian brother, Ban Gu who continued it until he died before its completion as well. Finally, under the order of the emperor, it was passed to her to finish, which she did. THE BOOK OF HAN WAS FINALLY COMPLETE!! Whoo hoo!
On to her next and biggest accomplishment.
Ban Zhao is most know for authoring Lessons for Women (as seen above), which is essentially a guidebook for upper class women on etiquette and how to be a good wife. In her day, this was very well received and seen as a life saver for a lot of women. In her book, she writes on the topics of humility, husband and wife dynamics, respect and caution, womanly qualities, wholehearted devotion, implicit obedience, and harmony with in-laws. Now, some of those topics sound great, but others seem a little controversial. In her day, women were seen as inferior and subservient, not quite as much as a literal servant, but as inferior to men. So, in her context, this makes sense. I will get into how this relates to our day in a bit, but first, let's talk about the two most popular topics she wrote about in her book.
-Her chapter on husband and wife dynamics.
In this chapter, she describes the perfect husband and wife dynamic that women should stive for (to the best of their abilities). She uses the example of yin and yang. Yin is the man, representing the quality of rigidity, which is honoured by strength. Yang is the woman, representing the quality of yielding, which is appreciated due to gentleness. Essentially, the Yang controls the Yin, and the Yin serves the Yang, which legitimizes women being controlled by men and men being served by women. Now, this isn't the main point she's trying to make here, she focuses more on the principles of each and how they work in harmony. She's giving an example of how the two work together to keep the peace as best as possible. She states in this chapter that respect and acquiescence are the most important principles for the wife's conduct. She uses terms like weakness, softness, inferiority, and malleability to describe how to abide by these principles. In that day, quarrels, disagreements, or accusations in the family were seen to be because of the wife not staying in her place: quiet and submissive. She says that the heart of disrespect comes from spouses being to close to each other (this I don't really understand, don't you work better together the closer you are?) and arguments in families come from blunt and crookedness in words. She advises that flattering and coaxing words should be avoided, and that it is best for wives to practice self-cultivation and suppress contempt. She says these things out of worry for the wife and to keep the family cohesiveness. This is all to keep the environment in the home calm and neutral, and it is from her own observations that she comes to this conclusion, not from any ethical deductions.
-Her chapter on getting along with in-laws.
In this last chapter of her book, she deals with how to get along with the in-laws. This sounds like a silly topic, but in reality, this is a big part of marriage. The wife is joining an entirely new family where she has no ranking authority, which is bound to bring troubles. She goes on to say that "nobody can be faultless," giving freedom for the wife to be right, but advises not to exercise this if she is in a situation with someone who overpowers her. For example, what the mother-in-law says can be incorrect, and that mistakes of the daughter-in-law can be hidden well enough if she is able to live in peace with the husband's family. This presents a challenge for the wife, she has to position herself within the complex relationships of the in-laws, while still being respectful to the husband's family. She doesn't want to be stepping on anyone's toes!
With that being said, her main purpose of writing this "guidebook" is to prepare soon-to-be wives on how to best serve the husband's house through respect and acquiescence, and to prioritize accommodation over confrontation. The main point is to keep the peace by staying humble and not overstepping your boundaries as a woman.
This is in direct opposition to our modern feminism. Today's feminism says that women don't have to cozy up to what a man wants, that we are just as strong and capable as men are, and we deserve the same rights. We are lucky to be in a country where women do have the same rights as men and that this perspective reigns. Even in this day and age, women in some countries still don't have the same rights, and some don't allow their women to be educated, own land, or even drive cars. I do believe that in America, some women take feminism too far by saying that women are better than men and we don't need them at all, in which I disagree. We still need men in society, but what we don't need is men feeling entitled and thinking they can tell us what to do.
And to end us off, I propose a new question:
If you were to write a "guide book" on how to be the best spouse (husband or wife, your choice), what would you say? and why?
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).
Why Achievements Are Not Enough for a "Meaningful" Life
Johnathane Saleh Section #2
From a young age, most people are taught a simple formula for living well: set goals, work hard, achieve them, and then move on to the next one. That is how I was personally raised. There is always something to achieve, always a next goal, always something to work towards. Whether it involves getting good grades (my parents specifically targeted this), making a sports team, getting into college, or building a career, achievement is viewed as the main reason to be fulfilled and feel like your life has meaning, and honestly, at first, this idea makes total sense. Accomplishments feel rewarding, and they can provide a sense of progress and productivity. However, Kieran Setiya argues that relying too heavily on achievement to define a meaningful life is incomplete and can even lead to dissatisfaction. This is a concept that I personally struggle with. I often define my sense of self-worth and value from what I can achieve. A good day is a productive day, and a bad day is one where I get nothing done. But days that might feel “unproductive” need not be considered bad. In reality, even though it may seem like I wasted valuable time doing nothing, relaxing and taking a step back might be the best possible action during a stressful or busy time. You cannot keep performing at 110% percent effort all the time. Burnout and fatigue start overshadowing your hard work.
In Life Is Hard, Setiya argues that achievements are inherently temporary. When a goal is reached, the sense of satisfaction that follows does not last very long. After a short time, attention shifts to the next objective, and the cycle begins again. This creates a pattern where happiness is always tied to the future rather than the present. How can you enjoy the moment when you are always thinking about the next one?! This is really hard for me because I always need to be reminded that I am not in a race of achievements. There is no moment like the present, and sometimes you need to really sulk in the moment. Many people think they will feel fulfilled once they reach a certain milestone, but when that moment arrives, the feeling is often weaker or shorter-lived than expected. Instead of lasting satisfaction, there is often a sense that something is still missing. For example, and I am sure many of you can relate: college. As you all know, we are approaching finals week, and stress is at an all-time high. I keep thinking to myself, “Wow, I cannot wait for finals to be over; I’ll finally be free.” That mindset, however, can impede me from seeing the blessings that I have right now. Yes, school is stressful, and yes, summer is right around the corner, but I am lucky to even have the choice to stress about school. There are lots of kids my age who were not fortunate enough to study at a higher level like I was. Yes, the stress is exhausting, but it is honestly beautiful that I GET to have problems like this. How would I see how blessed I am if I am constantly thinking about my next goal, my next achievement?
This YouTube clip I found from Steve Harvey discusses how changing the way you think can help you realize just how lucky you are. Achieving goals is great but the journey is where key moments are made.
An achievement-focused mindset can also create pressure and anxiety. When meaning is tied to success, failure can feel much more significant. It is no longer just a setback but something that threatens a person’s sense of purpose or worth. This can be absolutely detrimental to a person’s mental health. There have been many times in my life when I merged my failures and self-worth, and it led me down a very depressive path. This can lead to constant comparison with others and ongoing self-evaluation. Even when things are going well, there is often a feeling that it is not enough, since there is always another level to reach or another goal to pursue. Instead of enjoying progress, people can become trapped in a cycle of striving without satisfaction. Setiya does not argue that goals should be abandoned, but he suggests that they should not be the foundation of a meaningful life. To explain this, he introduces the concept of “atelic activities,” which lack a final endpoint. These include talking with friends, listening to music, walking without a specific destination, and reading for enjoyment. The value of these activities does not come from what they lead to, but from the experience itself as it unfolds. For the past couple of weeks, I have been trying to engage in atelic activities to boost my mental health, and the crazy thing is: they help tremendously. One of my all-time favorite ways to get my mind off the future and focus on the now is bowling. I love to bowl; it is extremely fun and competitive. When I am bowling with my friends, I am not concerned with what goal I have to achieve or what’s next on my to-do list; I am just present in the moment. The sound of the ball hitting the pins, my friends' laughter, and the music in the background all helped me create a memory that will last a lifetime.
From a personal perspective, this idea is convincing because it helps explain why people can feel unfulfilled even after reaching their goals. It shows that the issue is not simply a lack of success, but a misunderstanding of what creates meaning. I really want to be a doctor, and sometimes I’ll find myself saying, “ I will finally be happy when I become a doctor.” While achieving my dream of being a doctor could give me happiness and a sense of fulfillment, it will not last. Yes, I will achieve my career dream, but then what? What do I do now? Where should I head? If all I can think about is achieving one goal for happiness, I will never be truly happy. However, it would not make sense to completely reject achievement. Goals can provide direction, motivation, and opportunities for growth. They can also lead to real improvements in a person’s life. The key point is that they should not be the only source of meaning.
Achievement can still play an important role, but it is not enough on its own. A life built entirely around goals can become exhausting and unsatisfying. By recognizing the value of activities without an endpoint, it becomes possible to find meaning in a more stable, lasting way. In a world that often emphasizes productivity and success above everything else, this perspective offers a useful and necessary balance. To conclude, I want to leave you with a challenge. Next time you start doubting yourself or feel like you are not enough, go on a walk. Play a game. Hang out with friends. Afterward, write down your favorite moments from said activity and watch how much better you will feel.
This interview perfectly summarizes Setiya's book and highlights important life topics such as how to deal with grief through philosophy. It is quite interesting and definitely changed my perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)