Response to Aly's Post: "Conception"

I agree with Aly, that the idea of creating the world is interesting, if problematic. If nothing exists until we create it, then how do we know if anything really exists? What are the parameters of  existence? Do you have to be able to see it for it to exists? That doesn't make sense when you think about mirages, you can see them, but they are not real. They are the mind playing tricks, so sight cannot be the determining factor, or if it is, it can only be a part of the whole determination process. So there are five more senses, is smelling something enough to make it exist? Maybe, maybe not, it is possible to catch a whiff of something based on imagination and memory rather than on an actual scent. Taste could be a good indicator, but then again not everyone can taste the same range of things, so in that case, it could be considered real for one person and not for another. What about hearing? People hear voices that are not connected to bodies a good amount of the time, I know I do. If I am upstairs, I can hear my mother calling me, even when she didn't or the storm door opening when it didn't (that I might attribute to the wind, or I could be crazy). So I will rule hearing alone out. That leaves touch. I think being able to touch something would be the most important factor in determining whether or not something exists. Knowing that you could put your hand on it and physically feel it, in my opinion, is more powerful than seeing, hearing, tasting, or smelling something, though I would not rule them entirely out in the overall consensus. 

(Link to Aly's Blog: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/)

A Priori or A Posteriori?

"But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out if experience." How is it possible to know things before you know things? In terms of sight, I understand that you can know you are seeing before knowing the word for the action. But how does this work with things like math and other such subjects you are not inherently knowledgeable about? Is this statement in favor of the idea of a priori knowledge or is it observations of actions and everyday events that we experience before the introduction of teaching, similar to that of learning the word for seeing? In this case, when you are taught something, you end up learning to associate words with things that you indeed already know, but previously did not have words for. So how does this explain math or science? How do we already know scientific and mathematical things before being taught? Then again when you think about it, if you were to already know things, but learn the words, is it really a priori or is it a posteriori? The whole idea of knowing before knowing is confusing---how is it possible?

Response to Siearra's Post: "The Importance of Science"

I agree that science, in some way or other, should be considered in the evaluation of human nature. With science the "how's" and some "why's" can be answered in terms of how and why humans do the things they do. Science explains how humans came about and the impacts of the environments they developed in. Science is also there to explain the physical differences between human appearances and is unbiased in doing so (or at least it should be).






(Link to Siearra's Blog: http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/)

What is the Most Prominent Factor in the Human’s Annihilation of Themselves and Other Sentient Beings?

I would think that the human mind is the biggest factor in the annihilation that Darwin saw humans heading toward. They have much more thought capacity than any other animal, which leads to superiority and inferiority between races and ethnicities, body types and hair, and facial features. Humans always want to improve this or improve that, advance this, make that easier. In the process though, humans have destroyed a good portion of the planet's plant and animal life. Humans have created harmful chemicals, genetically modified animals and plants, and polluted the earth in the process.

Response to Elizabeth's Post: Sartre's Rejection of the Unconscious- relating to dreams

I believe that your dreams are merely memories of things you've already seen or experienced, though they don't always make sense when portrayed in the dream, often times jumbled or mixed together, but don't quote me on that. I would say that Sartre's idea that dreams are controlled by the conscious mind could come from the state of sleep where you are somewhere between unconscious and conscious of what you are dreaming about; essentially that state between awake and asleep where you do have a certain amount of control over what it is you are dreaming about. Or he could be thinking that the thoughts you have before falling asleep affect the dreams you have during the course of the night, but again I would say you have to be in the state of being between fully asleep and partially awake in order to remember any dream you have if you're trying to make sense of it in terms of Sartre's ideas.





(Link to Elizabeth's Blog: http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/)

Is There a Set Purpose to Life that Must be Discovered or is it Something that is Personally Given to Life by Each Individual?

I don't think that there is a set purpose to life. I think that each individual is free to create their life's purpose or change it at their own will. If there were a set purpose to life, I feel people would go mad trying to figure it out; asking questions on one can or could ever know the answer to. I would speculate that if there were a set purpose to life, life would be boring. You would already know what you were meant to do, which in my opinion, takes the choice and imagination out of your thoughts for the future. Another argument against a set purpose is the idea of free will, if humans have free will, their purpose cannot be set. If it were to be set, free will would be an illusion because everything they do, though it seems to be their own thoughts and ideas, would really just be part of a purpose that was already planned out for them before they were even aware of it. All of this, I suppose, plays right along with Sartre's claim that "we are condemned to be free," since I am suggesting that our purpose is our own to create.

I'm Not Sure Where I'm Going With This

I have the strangest feeling that religion is the main driving force behind most of the philosophers we have read/talked about so far. Each and every one of them, save maybe one or two---maybe---has brought up religion in what ever topic it is they are discussing. What does religion have to do with how moral someone is or can be? How does religion prove or disprove the idea of free will? What does religion have to do with being patriotic? I don't believe that a higher power or being can make you do something you don't want to or control if you do something you want to. If anything the constraints of society or your own personal judgement are what stop or prompt you.  You don't have to have morals to believe a religion, just like you don't have to believe any particular religion to have morals; the two don't go hand in hand. In some cases I don't even see where religion fits into the questions they ask. As with the current topic existentialism. In this theory each person is essentially responsible for what they make of them self, so where does or would religion fit in here? I don't really think it does.

Response to Corbin's Post: Human Nature?

Corbin posed the question, it is human nature to consume meat even if we find it morally wrong? To my knowledge humans are still considered omnivores, which means they eat both meat and plants. Based on this I would assume that if humans didn't have the capacity for complex thought, language, and the other attributes that separate the human animal from the nonhuman animal, they would eat meat on the basis of instinct much like apes have been observed to do. So is it human nature? I would say yes, but at the same time, the fact that humans can think like they do complicates having a definite answer.




(Link to Corbin's Blog: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/)

Is it Possible for Nonhuman Animals to Evolve into More Human Like Creatures?

This week I read H. G. Wells' The Island of Doctor Moreau and it got me wondering about where the evolution of animals is going. It also made me wonder if creating creatures like the ones in the book was even remotely possible (probably not). Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to complete, but I wonder where it will lead the nonhuman animals of the world.....if there are any left long enough for that to happen; after all we are currently experiencing the largest mass extinction event in history. It is also the first extinction event where the rapid climate change is not caused by geologic or extraterrestrial influence (extraterrestrial meaning meteors etc). After reading the book I couldn't help but wonder if people's ideas about assigning significant moral status to nonhuman animals would be changed if the animals looked more human like and/or communicated in the same languages. Under the protagonist's original assumptions, his views on the creatures of the island gave them moral status. However after learning the truth, his ideas of their moral status changed. Humans choose humans over nonhuman animals in scenarios where both need rescuing because humans relate to and feel more of a connection with each other over other animal species. In these scenarios, the loss of the nonhuman animal makes no difference to the rescuer than if the nonhuman animal was spared. My question then is, if the communication barrier is removed, does that make nonhuman animals more relatable? Could a deeper connection be made? Could the question of moral status for nonhuman animals get answered?

What do the Cases of “Feral” Children Teach Us About Nature vs Nurture?

The unanswerable question, is it nature or nurture that define who we are? Looking at the few incidences of "feral" children gives further insight into attempting to answer this question. A commonality between all of them is that they do not know language and for the most part are unable to learn it. On rare occasions, if they are taught the basics of language before becoming "feral," they stand a chance at learning more, but never can obtain the full vocabulary of a "civilized" person. What does this say about nature vs. nurture? Is it nurture that allows us, or teaches us, to speak? Well it could be said that nature gives humans the capacity to learn language, but it is only through nurture that we can acquire language. In the case of the Ukrainian girl who lived with dogs from the age of three to age of eight, through nurturing from the dogs, she learned to bark and growl just like them. In all cases where the child is "taken in" by animals, they imitate the animal's sounds and behaviors. This points to nurture as the predominant influence on making humans who they are because it is obviously not in our nature to bark or growl. So which factor determines who humans are, nature or nurture? I couldn't honestly tell you, however, in looking at "feral" children, it seems to me that nurture does indeed have a good amount to do with it.

Response to Jenna's post: "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism"

Not having logical evidence isn't always important in terms of religion. I think that choosing to believe in something that, logically, may or may not exist has to do with the fact that humans are a social species. The idea of following a religion could be a social one. Religion is not a solo thing, there are always more people who have the same or similar beliefs, allowing two people to socially connect on another level. Another thought is when one finds themselves alone. No one likes to be alone and turning to religion could make one feel as though they are not actually alone, like they have someone to talk to without being judged. There is also the idea that no one particularly likes to take the blame for themselves, as well as, the idea that there must be blame; even in instances where there clearly cannot be blame (i.e. terminal illnesses). In these ideas, a higher being takes the brunt of the blame or maybe even all of it. Having something to blame, for some, helps in the process of dealing with the cards that they have been dealt in life. Is there logic in believing in religion? Probably not, but each individual makes the choice to believe for themselves and that is really all there is.





(Link to Jenna's Blog: http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/)

Are the References to “God” in the "Pledge of Allegiance" Considered “Public Neutrality?”

I don't see how it could. I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate, isn't the statement "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" doing the opposite? When it was originally written in 1892, by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy, there was no mention of "God," it simply read, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Later in 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were added. The pledge still did not include "under God," that wasn't added in until 1954. Many would and do argue that the words have no religious connotation since federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to "God." What I don't understand is why the words "under God" were added; the minister who wrote the original pledge didn't even put it in, based on the fact that this was to be solely a patriotic pledge. I feel that with the addition of "under God" religion and patriotism were confused and therefore, took away--possibly still takes away--the "public neutrality" schools are supposed to have, since children are to say the pledge every morning before school begins. Does the addition of the phrase still affect the "public neutrality" of the school setting? I think it might, in saying the pledge the children seem to be pledging allegiance to not only their country, but also to "God." In Clark's Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars, he states, "the liberal-democratic political solution to the problem of coexistence is to keep the state ideologically neutral, creating a public space of secular services and protections base in no particular cosmology or view of human nature." From this I gather that the words "under God" should not have been added to the "Pledge of Allegiance," for it takes away "public neutrality." However, this is still just a personal opinion.

(This site lists many pros and cons to the argument of "under God" and "public neutrality" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" http://undergod.procon.org/)

Response to Ama's Post: "Does determinism exist outside the realm of time?"

Time is a concept made up by humans, time did not exist in the way it does now before humans had a word and system for it. The idea that time runs in a straight line with there being the past at one end and the future at the other is the "western" notion of time. In the Indonesian culture time runs in a circle, there is no set beginning or end, instead there is the idea of "rebirth." That being said, I would have to agree that determinism does indeed exist outside the realm of time because, as they say, "time is relative."






(Link to Ama's Blog: http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com/)

Is Free Will an Illusion?

The idea of determinism, says that everything is predetermined. The idea of free will, which is self explanatory; says that the preceding events are caused by your chosen actions. In the eyes of the incompatibilist if determinism exists, free will cannot. But if free will does not exist, why does it feel as though it does? Is the idea of choice simply that; and idea? Then again there is compatibilism, which says that determinism and free will can coincide. Is that possible? Consider the door example, if you can choose between two doors, Door A and Door B, but unbeknownst to you, Door B is locked. If you choose Door A, is that free will or was it determined that you would go through Door A? In reality you had no other option, but the "illusion" of option was there, whether or not you chose it. So is free will an illusion? I'm really not sure how to answer this.

Response to Jenna's Post, "Pleasure Scale"

I agree with Jenna's notion that the "pleasure scale" ranges from person to person. The idea that seeking "happiness can become more important than obtaining actual happiness" that is commented on, I believe, holds some truth. People like to feel as though they have a mission. People find happiness in knowing they have a purpose to fulfill and once that is done, they do not know what to do, so they feel they must create a new mission. This idea is almost comparable to the idea of "the thrill of the hunt." Similar to when the hunt ends, once the mission to happiness has been completed the excitement dies down and the person is left looking for that feeling again; happy again only once they have found a new goal to reach for.





(Link to Jenna's blog: http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/)

What is the "Golden Mean?"

The "Golden Mean" is the idea that there is a balance to everything, with that said, Aristotle believed that virtues are a mean between excess and deficiency. Without the "Golden Mean" it is impossible to attain happiness. Living in this way allows "us to live in accordance with our nature, to improve our character, to better deal with the inevitable hardships of life and to strive for the good of the whole, not just of the individual." Finding this mean is an act of discernment. In every situation there are numerous possible actions to take, but the wise, virtuous, person always discerns the single right one. It may be easier to take the other road, after all there are many more options, however, that person will not know the happiness or contentment of the "Golden Mean" given that they have chosen towards one extreme or the other.






More on the "Golden Mean" here: http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/draugdur/golden_mean/

Response to Dom's Post, "Q&A#2 Question 1"

Optimistically, having a person like the one you describe in the question at the end of your post, doesn't sound like too bad a situation. However, I don't know that even this person would be able to avoid the all to common temptation to abuse the power they would attain as a "ruler." I'm sure that at first the truths they wish to share with others would indeed enlighten the masses, but how long will the truth really be the truth? Anyone in a position of power, especially ruling power, has the opportunity to say what they want and have their followers believe it; especially if that person is telling the truth during the beginning of their rein. Often times, they will not even be questioned, how does one resist taking advantage of this? I do not believe that even the most moral of person could, without difficulty, stay away from abusing their power.


(Link to Dom's blog: http://dcoopermcla2555.blogspot.com)

How Do We Learn, Can It Be Considered Recollection As Plato And Socrates Suggest?

I don't think that learning can be considered recollection as Plato and Socrates suggest. I think that we learn through experience, practice, reading, research, and discussion with others. The only way to learn is to be taught through one of the mediums I have suggested. (I am not assuming that everything can be taught, but I will argue that what cannot be taught are instincts.) In Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Meno about the uneducated slave doing geometry, the conclusion that recollection from the soul, is how learning occurs is made. The thought behind this assertion being that the soul is separate from the body. They believed that the soul must have learned, in this case geometry, in a previous existence separate from the current one of the slave. There may be some truth here about recollection, but I have a hard time believing the idea of it being from the soul's "other life." In the example Socrates prompts the slave to draw a square and then double the area of that square. Through the questions Socrates asks the slave, the square's area is eventually doubled. The question then was how did the slave do it without knowing geometry? The answer seems obvious, Socrates taught the slave through the questions he asked. That's not to say that there was no recollection at all, but I would argue that the recollection came from the slave's experiences, not the soul's "other life." For instance, if a question were asked relating to the idea of enlarging the square, the slave could have put together that increasing the length of the sides would make the square larger and, by default, increase the area of the square. It is through trial and error that the slave was able to reach the desired result of doubling the area of the square.

Response to Ama's Post, "The Question of How We Should Live"

The idea of there being one answer to the question of "how should I live," cannot exist. I think that the only way to decide how you should live is to, as you said, "piece together for yourself how you should live." This idea means that there are many ways to answer the question; each no more correct than the last, but none considered completely wrong. With the differences in where people live, what living standards they abide to, and what practices they follow, it is no wonder there is not and cannot be, a universal standard for how one should live. You simply cannot tell people of an industrialized country to live a certain way and expect the people of an underdeveloped country to live the same way. There is no way to conceptualize a universal way of how life should be lived because the influences of the societies people live in and the religions or traditions they follow will always be an unavoidable influence of how people will live. The only way to answer "how should I live," is to answer it for yourself.





(Link to Ama's blog: http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com)

Is Socrates’ Idea that Every “Evil” Act is Committed Involuntarily True?

I don't think that Socrates is correct in asserting that every "evil" action is committed involuntarily. I think that "evil" actions can be committed voluntarily. The question then is, what are we considering "evil?" Something sinister like murder? Or something more small scale like bullying? Either way whether or not you act upon these things is a choice and once choice is involved, the action cannot be anything but voluntary. One of the first things you learn as a child is right from wrong. Once the understanding is there you have the ability to think over what ever it is you plan to do, regardless of its intention to be good or evil, and then execute it. Looking back at the terrible occurrences of the past, there is no way to say that they happened involuntarily. In there somewhere someone made the voluntary choice to set things rolling. From there the choices of those participating and joining in sharing the same ideas, voluntarily continued these events. For example the Holocaust, seen as one of the most evil of acts in the human history. How is it possible to argue that that was started involuntarily? I don't think it is possible, even if you were to argue that the personal thought of Hitler was that he was not doing anything evil. However, in a society where majority rules, irregardless of personal belief, if the majority thinks the actions taken were evil, it is ruled evil. Every action you make is voluntary, regardless of whether or not you intend it to be evil. The only involuntary aspect about the action you take is how others will see it. I would say it is possible to unintentionally commit an evil act, but it is not correct in any way to say that every evil act is committed involuntarily.