BTW: That out of place homework 3 posts previous is the reason why this site exists actually. My professor asked us to make a blogger to post our assignments, mid-term, and final. Blam, here it is.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
FILIPINO !!!
Do what you gotta do, but never forget where your PARENTS are from ! haha. New Era is really doing it big, and it looks like they're going to be around for a very long time. 5950 ! http://www.hatclub.com/
Sunday, January 28, 2007
MOT, Research Trip
MOT, Research Trip
I came to the Simon Wiesenthal Center/ Museum of Tolerance on January 21st with my friend Diane. We came in and were introduced to themes during the orientation. Prejudiced and unprejudiced doors were introduced to us, the unprejudiced door was locked. We then watch a movie on power of words. The museum was after Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor of the holocaust, he had 89 family members taken. He is commemorated for his harsh life. Words have consequences. There's a small demonstration after the intro movie. The movie was about history’s racist events. Ie blacks, Jews, and even World Trade Center tapings. We all sit down and are presented with a TV program that is used with button questionnaires. Its about the choices we have to involve ourselves with biological warfare, refugees, violation of human rights, and other evil problems. “better world for the new millennium" Next we had a terrorism survey. We are now on a center stage of world assault. Chilling precursor of future attacks. Sep 11 was different, specifically made to kill as many. Attack on us life not even govt. Vivid reminder is ww2's Japan attack. Israel has daily bombings, random bombings everywhere ie schools discos and any public place. Suicide bombings are considered a tactical decision. Chemical weapons are an ideal choice for terrorists, relatively inexpensive to reproduce, but the still destructive. Anthrax is the poor mans atomic bomb. Ethnic profiling raises a question. They advise us to tell our political figures to make a difference and the future is ours to make. Next up, we are on our own to explore the area. We first went to the point of view diner, more questionnaires were asked. Opinions were given. After the Point of View diner, we watched another movie. It was about crimes against humanity and genocide type actions. When hatred goes unchecked the worst is expected The Nazi holocaust was 1939 to 1945. Cambodian genocide was in the 70’s. 800,000 butchered here. The Rwanda genocide was a horrible event. Even schools became killing grounds. In our time we have occurrences of human rights and abuse. Millions are starved in North Korea. They were forced to be condemned to camps; some kids grow up there to be adults. Another example of the depth of hatred was the reporter who was captured and beheaded. This was an unfortunate event. The next exhibit was on Germany in the 20s, after losing the first was Germany felt humiliated. Marches in the streets were a daily routine. Communism is what it was. They wanted to control it all. Other countries sat back and watched. They wanted to get rid of the Jews started in 1919. Why did people listen to Hitler? At the beginning, they didn’t. This was soon to change. After prison he became a political speaker. His respect and political status was growing. He exploited the hopelessness of the Great Depression. He wanted to free Germany of the power of the Jews, which wasn’t even a problem. Anti-Semitism was the poison. Propaganda was everywhere, discrediting Jews of even being real people. The propaganda was found in newspapers and graffiti all over walls in Germany. These hate campaigns would continue. When times are hard they needed a scapegoat. They attacked the Jews of being capitalist abusers. They considered Jews, blacks, and the mentally disabled as subhuman. A book was in the Jewish peril, protocols of the learned elites of Zion. It also stated that Jews were less than human, so they treated them that way. When Hitler was not even a citizen of Germany, he was running for president. People supported him. 1932, Nazis became more active, for Germany another election was on the horizon. He soon became chancellor. He first suspended civil liberties with his brand new power. Using and abusing was the name of the game for Hitler. Jews were expelled at schools both teachers and students put to his. "Repeat a lie long enough, and people will believe it" 1935 new legislation took out Jew rights. Jews can't get married or have sexual intercourse, things of that nature. The Vatican recognized the Nazis, still no one intruded. The Olympics were still held that time period in Germany. 1938 they discussed the Nazi problem, none really wanted to help. Austria didn't want anything to do with them. The world stood silent as Jews scrubbed the streets in front of officials. Crystal night was a night they burned and looted Jewish stores and businesses. England was the only country to retaliate against the Nazis. They organized the deportation and killings of Jews while they were in the war with the rest of the world. Anti-Semitic were all around. They helped. They used chemical methods, shootings for mass murders. Other individuals were also killed such as intellectuals, mentally ill, and blacks but the major penetration was on Jews. Some would try and leave, they were refugees. Many were captured and killed. They risked attack from both sides. They tried to go to Palestine, the Jewish country, their homeland. Men, women, children, the elderly all killed, butchered, tortured, and murdered. It was an organized mass murder. There was still a Jewish resistance by rogue Jews; they would blow up railroad tracks to hinder supply freights of the Nazis. They did what they could. They moved all of living Jews to the ghetto. They would place so many people in only 2 square miles. Disease and death were apparent. Resettlement was gas chambers. Nazis told the men and women they were going to resettlement, but it was really their end. They gave them bread and jam at least before the massacre. Only a few knew what was going on. Jews from the ghetto rose up in revolt. They dared to fight them. Ghetto fighters lasted for a month against the Nazis. More death for the Jews but at least they had the honor and strength to retaliate.. Railroad lines took them to systematic mass murders. Major death camps specially made to kill the Jews were found all over Germany, found in Poland also. Deportations didn't stop. The allies tried to invade the Nazis. Simon Wiesenthal said "Hope lives when people remember." A few survivors told their story. Daughters and sons taken from their parents, all killed. Countries were soon to be liberated. Germany lay in ruins after all of this. Germany radio announced Hitler was dead. Americans were the saviors. . On May 8th 1945 Germany surrendered. Six million Jews and a million others had perished at the hands of the Nazis. After the freedom though, where can they go, some went to America, others would struggle and strive in their home country Palestine. It’s time that the Jews and the rest of the world will never forget.
I came to the Simon Wiesenthal Center/ Museum of Tolerance on January 21st with my friend Diane. We came in and were introduced to themes during the orientation. Prejudiced and unprejudiced doors were introduced to us, the unprejudiced door was locked. We then watch a movie on power of words. The museum was after Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor of the holocaust, he had 89 family members taken. He is commemorated for his harsh life. Words have consequences. There's a small demonstration after the intro movie. The movie was about history’s racist events. Ie blacks, Jews, and even World Trade Center tapings. We all sit down and are presented with a TV program that is used with button questionnaires. Its about the choices we have to involve ourselves with biological warfare, refugees, violation of human rights, and other evil problems. “better world for the new millennium" Next we had a terrorism survey. We are now on a center stage of world assault. Chilling precursor of future attacks. Sep 11 was different, specifically made to kill as many. Attack on us life not even govt. Vivid reminder is ww2's Japan attack. Israel has daily bombings, random bombings everywhere ie schools discos and any public place. Suicide bombings are considered a tactical decision. Chemical weapons are an ideal choice for terrorists, relatively inexpensive to reproduce, but the still destructive. Anthrax is the poor mans atomic bomb. Ethnic profiling raises a question. They advise us to tell our political figures to make a difference and the future is ours to make. Next up, we are on our own to explore the area. We first went to the point of view diner, more questionnaires were asked. Opinions were given. After the Point of View diner, we watched another movie. It was about crimes against humanity and genocide type actions. When hatred goes unchecked the worst is expected The Nazi holocaust was 1939 to 1945. Cambodian genocide was in the 70’s. 800,000 butchered here. The Rwanda genocide was a horrible event. Even schools became killing grounds. In our time we have occurrences of human rights and abuse. Millions are starved in North Korea. They were forced to be condemned to camps; some kids grow up there to be adults. Another example of the depth of hatred was the reporter who was captured and beheaded. This was an unfortunate event. The next exhibit was on Germany in the 20s, after losing the first was Germany felt humiliated. Marches in the streets were a daily routine. Communism is what it was. They wanted to control it all. Other countries sat back and watched. They wanted to get rid of the Jews started in 1919. Why did people listen to Hitler? At the beginning, they didn’t. This was soon to change. After prison he became a political speaker. His respect and political status was growing. He exploited the hopelessness of the Great Depression. He wanted to free Germany of the power of the Jews, which wasn’t even a problem. Anti-Semitism was the poison. Propaganda was everywhere, discrediting Jews of even being real people. The propaganda was found in newspapers and graffiti all over walls in Germany. These hate campaigns would continue. When times are hard they needed a scapegoat. They attacked the Jews of being capitalist abusers. They considered Jews, blacks, and the mentally disabled as subhuman. A book was in the Jewish peril, protocols of the learned elites of Zion. It also stated that Jews were less than human, so they treated them that way. When Hitler was not even a citizen of Germany, he was running for president. People supported him. 1932, Nazis became more active, for Germany another election was on the horizon. He soon became chancellor. He first suspended civil liberties with his brand new power. Using and abusing was the name of the game for Hitler. Jews were expelled at schools both teachers and students put to his. "Repeat a lie long enough, and people will believe it" 1935 new legislation took out Jew rights. Jews can't get married or have sexual intercourse, things of that nature. The Vatican recognized the Nazis, still no one intruded. The Olympics were still held that time period in Germany. 1938 they discussed the Nazi problem, none really wanted to help. Austria didn't want anything to do with them. The world stood silent as Jews scrubbed the streets in front of officials. Crystal night was a night they burned and looted Jewish stores and businesses. England was the only country to retaliate against the Nazis. They organized the deportation and killings of Jews while they were in the war with the rest of the world. Anti-Semitic were all around. They helped. They used chemical methods, shootings for mass murders. Other individuals were also killed such as intellectuals, mentally ill, and blacks but the major penetration was on Jews. Some would try and leave, they were refugees. Many were captured and killed. They risked attack from both sides. They tried to go to Palestine, the Jewish country, their homeland. Men, women, children, the elderly all killed, butchered, tortured, and murdered. It was an organized mass murder. There was still a Jewish resistance by rogue Jews; they would blow up railroad tracks to hinder supply freights of the Nazis. They did what they could. They moved all of living Jews to the ghetto. They would place so many people in only 2 square miles. Disease and death were apparent. Resettlement was gas chambers. Nazis told the men and women they were going to resettlement, but it was really their end. They gave them bread and jam at least before the massacre. Only a few knew what was going on. Jews from the ghetto rose up in revolt. They dared to fight them. Ghetto fighters lasted for a month against the Nazis. More death for the Jews but at least they had the honor and strength to retaliate.. Railroad lines took them to systematic mass murders. Major death camps specially made to kill the Jews were found all over Germany, found in Poland also. Deportations didn't stop. The allies tried to invade the Nazis. Simon Wiesenthal said "Hope lives when people remember." A few survivors told their story. Daughters and sons taken from their parents, all killed. Countries were soon to be liberated. Germany lay in ruins after all of this. Germany radio announced Hitler was dead. Americans were the saviors. . On May 8th 1945 Germany surrendered. Six million Jews and a million others had perished at the hands of the Nazis. After the freedom though, where can they go, some went to America, others would struggle and strive in their home country Palestine. It’s time that the Jews and the rest of the world will never forget.
Posts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Post 1
What would make me happy? I’ll answer this question and what make me happy now, and what use to make me happy because all of these questions apply. We all are different, so I have my different definitions of happiness. I relate it to words like contentment and self-satisfaction. I’m driven for my own self and I build off others so that we can all progress together. Men and women can play various roles on this planet, and they do. Males do certain jobs or functions and as do the women. So for myself, as a male, I’m pushed to survive, recreate and still enjoy living. We live in such a high pace world, where ten year olds have cell phones and game systems are seven hundred dollars. So it’s hard to maintain a humble living when there are flashy advertisements everywhere. It’s on you then to strive for greatness then right? What can an individual do to stay righteous, is it be a hippie and fight for peace all year long, or is it be a rich man mansion type and donate to the cause worthy. The political spectrum is huge, and so it the human race. It’s where I stand, is what should be important, because in the long run and final breaths, it’s going to be the memories and things I left over that’ll live forever.
So what I’m looking for in happiness isn’t only directed to me but others around me. It’s a goal of mine to reach the community and other communities because being close knit is what it’s all about. Charisma and learning the ropes are small social tests that need to be exercised. Like Aristotle, he knew a lot of people and a lot of people knew him. He did this by being a lover of wisdom, a philosopher. He sought the greater good, which the majorities do not do. Vulgar lifestyle isn’t what I’m looking for. It’s something wholesome and true. Wisdom doesn’t come around every day and it’s on us to capture it. It’s a thing for me to be on top of things and always update myself. Keep myself busy with new things and always rekindling old ones. Taking care of family should always be important, because blood is thicker than water. Friends might not last forever, but there are probably some rarities out there. For me, good friends who keep me lifted and family with support can take you a long ways. I include having good friends and family be a factor in happiness. Not a lot of people realize this though, believe that. There are some sons and grandsons who steal from their parents, and grandparents for drug money or other various illegal reasons. Imagine that, and compared to most of our lives, we don’t sit close. This applies to our happiness as opposed to those type of criminal ones. Don’t get me completely wrong though, I know there are criminals out there doing good and being good. But for the most part, these guys are bad to the bone, lawfully modern day pirates. Sensibility, sincerity, good humor, confident persona, people person, the list goes on of what I feel is happiness. Material things don’t add up to happiness but they do influence it so don’t get me wrong. They could be mixed signals because example is friends and family giving you gifts which are materialistic things they immediate transform into cherish able items. So you draw the line.
Aristotle was a philosopher of an age long long ago, today it’s his writings and ideas that live for him. This just goes to show that the only thing that’s constant is change. It’s easy to predict that rare storms will happen throughout someone’s lifetime. Expect the unexpected is the saying. So back then, some things were probably the same, like eating fruit and other human daily activities, while other things changed completely like indoor plumbing and clean toilets, for the most part. During Aristotle’s time he studied at Plato’s lectures. It was the last leg of his education, yet it was 20 years under Plato. He had some trouble and was forced to leave Athens to avoid persecution. We and many other individuals study him today. I read a websites pertaining to the philosopher and this is what I learned.
All the work under Aristotle is divided into three sections dialogues of other speakers etc, collection of facts such as scientific data and numbers and last systematic works like theories. He had categories for logic and they are first substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, passion, and lastly passion. It seemed like a series of steps or questions that were used to find the reasoning for a being or object. Ancients praised Aristotle for having a golden flow of language. What a great accomplishment, I wish I had that. Ethics, according to Aristotle was the chief end, and or the highest good. Happiness for Aristotle was based on human nature and personal experience, and not abstract thinking and self-existing good like Plato. Aristotle’s path seemed more down to earth for me. There are parts of the soul that contain intellectual virtues, moral virtues that lie in the middle, and nutritional virtues which is the down to the needy gritty stuff. The means of living should be the same for all, unfortunately there are many greedy and wanting people. I would for my own sake like to hold my own and involve others in improving themselves. An efficient, sincere lifestyle is what I’m going for and it’s similar to Aristotle’s rational calculative views.
In one of the books, it reveals most men are the vulgar type and identify happiness with enjoyment .I’m not sure this means permanent or temporary enjoyment. An intellectual route is what Aristotle and other philosophers chose. There are 3 types of life, enjoyment, political, and contemplative. These can be in a collaboration to using honor and refinement in one’s life. A life is money making is a compulsive life. You make the money then you spend it, with wisdom you gain the wisdom and you keep it, or you can even share it with the future generations. For me and many others, money isn’t the key to success or happiness. Aristotle felt the same. Good has many senses and is different to the spectrum. The question is though; does all the good go to the same place? Or does it all branch out? For example for the life of a doctor or carpenter, their final product is their work and how patients and projects turned out. This would be the greater good for them, because it’s their function and activity for that. Yet, why would they benefit for helping others? Well the answer is, it’s on them. You could either care or not care, it’s upon the individual on what’s more important. The end result of someones works will be seen and remembered. Anonymous do gooders either get self-fufillment or peer praising. Being self-sufficient means not only do you handle yourself but also other being we’re born into citizenship. Citizenship meaning we’re part of a land, and within that land are people. Together we stand and united we fall is how it goes. A bon citizen you are to take care of parents, children, wife, friends and fellow citizens. It might be a duty or born right, but this is what Aristotle said.
POST 2
Epicurus was a major philosopher during the Hellenistic period. Many philosophers came from this period. Epicurus taught that the world consists only of atoms, bits of matter and other things inhabiting the Earth. He explained the natural phenomena in atomic terms. By doing this, he removed the possibility of spiritual beings and a higher existence. He rejected Platonic views such as forms of an immaterial soul. Epicurus believed that what was here, is what is here and nothing more. Underneath it all, that is was just blood and guts just as you imagined, and no spirits involved here. It was a big thing to Epicurus that you were not to fear gods or even fear death. This rules an after life. So, his world, it’s during your lifetime you shine and not a day later. He also said that we could gain knowledge without relying on senses. He thought that the point of ones actions was to attain pleasure, and by pleasure he means tranquility, mostly to one’s self. An easy was of obtaining this tranquil life, it’s best to limit your desires and forget about fear or gods and death. This will consequently hold you down and fear will take over. His gospel of freedom from gods or death became well known amongst a certain group of individuals. And who is to blame them, it very well seems like a perfect method to face the fears that you do have, and conquer them by yourself. His ethics is a form of egotistic hedonism as in the only intrinsically valuable thing is ones own pleasure. Yet, he was still sophisticated. He would recommend a virtuous and moderately ascetic life. Some hedonists have the stereotype of being the ones to “eat, drink, and be merry.” This ethical person that Epicurus is creating is a playful one. Aristotle’s ethical man helped the citizens. And Epictetus wanted people to live according to nature. These three philosophers had many common ground areas and also off sets amongst each other. But these men were all about their own sake and to find the highest goods for yourself. Don’t get this confused with being selfish though, they are different terms. These wisdom filled individuals found it necessary to use ones brain and expand it to then improve the surrounding world. Epicurus disagrees with identifying happiness with pleasure, but he does believe ultimately in the end it’s about gaining pleasure for oneself. He also says that not all pleasure are choice worthy or is all pain to be avoided. The learning process takes part in here, it’s important for some people to go through certain obstacles to grow as people. And I see this here of how he speaks that not all pain is bad pain. It’s simple actually, when you want calculate what’s positive for yourself, you think about how will it be in the future and how this certain event or action will either bring me up or bring me down. The long term interest of an individual should be watched closely and often thought of. Finding pleasure for oneself, is like what the baby infant does. It looks for and searches for closeness, food these are pleasures and it then shuns away and avoids pain or anything uncomfortable. A type of pleasure is static pleasure. It’s when a being is satisfied and these are the best type of pleasures according to Epicurus. I relate this to eating, once you ate your fill, you should be satisfied. The greatest destroyer of happiness Epicurus says is the anxiety of the future and specifically fear of gods and fear of death. It wouldn’t be a good daily routine to be scared to leave the house everyday or be afraid of cursing here and there. The liberal freedom of a believer of this philosophy can live out their days with no worries and free conscience.
Epictetus studied under Stocism which was in the early C.E. in Athens. Imagine that, because Athens had so many philosophers come from there. His works were on early Stoics and dealt with three branches, them being logic, physics, and ethics. So Epictetus studies differed from that of Epicurus. And lucky for Epictetus he supposedly had someone writing his lectures verbatim because to this day there is controversy on his writings and who and where they came from. But that’s beside topic of ethics. Epictetus wanted the world to live according to nature and to do it virtuously. His place of study encouraged all students to live philosophically. I assume that this means look for the highest good. Virtues was an expected trait. Like a lot of Hellentistic period views, he added to the list of the aim to live well and secure one self. As for Epictetus though, he wanted it to be more in tune with nature and Epicurus was more into pleasure and longtime interest which are different things. The central theme of Epitetus works and teachings were virtues were important and the activities with them are righteous, and the opposite of that was vice being the evil.
POST 3
Spinoza was among the most important of the Post-Cartesian philosophers. During the 2nd half of the 17th century, he came up with a geometric method that followed side by side with his philosophies. He had a Jewish background, which influenced him to have a tendency to stay with God and nature in his ideas. His works would later on mold peoples thoughts such individuals were Machiavelli and the Stoics. Spinoza is best known for his ethics. He has the ideals of believing that Nature and God have a major role in our lives. He speaks about the life of a free-man. And he relates our sense perception as a means to getting knowledge. The freedom we have as individuals is encouraged by him to use reason for better understanding of the world around us. To take it further, take reason and knowledge to judge an outcome to yet better your lifestyle. He has an idealization of geometry as his model for philosophy. He believes that nature is infinite and that it’s the one responsible for creating the universe. And it’s up to you to come and understand nature’s system. And to, grasp that the free man is a part of it. He also states that in order to find happiness you must be in line with nature’s system. Spinoza was a controversial figure because of his thoughts on how reason is the key to life and also how he used geometric methods to his ethics. His geometric ethics is formed and written in geometry similar to Euclid’s “Elements.” They consisted of definitions, axioms, propositions, and other geometric features. Imagine reading this, it must have been difficult. People would wonder why he used these models for philosophy and it’s said because during this time geometry was on the up rise and in great interest especially within Spinoza’s circle of people. Maybe he got it from Descartes. Descartes was the leading advocate of using geometric methods in philosophy. The effort put into developing these methods was hard work. Spinoza’s ethical theory comes from the pessimistic outlook and characteristics that the human has. He studied this, and came to the conclusion that liberation is important and that it’s next followed by reason. Ethics comes at full force here. What to choose, and why? He used the model from ancients to see how nature can give us our moral duty. It seems that passion is the opposite of reason, he makes it that way. And passion is more on the compulsive side to me, it uses your brain, and other human senses to drop what you are doing and do what you got to do. He tells us that the power of the mind is defined by knowledge, and only knowledge. He says that ideas that come from passion won’t work and you need reason to be that. He also states that satisfactory or only adequate ideas can only take you so far. Liberation lies in the acquisition of knowledge gives the mind power to encounter circumstances because of the views Spinoza is with the tradition of people along the line of the Stoics and even Socrates. Life of a freeman should be free of passion made decisions and made with the guidance of reason. In the end, Spinoza doesn’t think any of this is easy. The knowledge needed isn’t a piece of cake to obtain, but when you escape the clenches of passion, salvation is nothing but a hard works step ahead.
POST 4
Right and wrong, we all have heard these two terms before. Whether you’re young or part of the elderly, there’s no escaping the decisions between right and wrong. Babies or toddlers can decipher what they do is bad or good, unless the babies fairly young. For the most part though, people of all ages must decide on the daily what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. As for myself, I’m a 21 year old, young adult who lives with his semi-religious divorced family. A lot of things come into play here. You’ll also have to know that I went to Christian and Catholic school for a good portion of my schooling. Over the years, I have been taught and told many thing, but it’s up to me what to believe. As a young child, I was told not to steal because I have enough or sometimes more then what I needed already. So that action alone, had made me into a person who cannot steal. In return, I believe that stealing is wrong. Maybe the driving force that tells me what’s right or wrong is experience. Mom says one statement, Dad says another, and depending on the outcome of my choice is what I’m going to continue to do. If a negative impression was left, I learned from that and I know now not to do that again. Pain and pleasure have a lot to do with right and wrong. If something hurts, don’t do it, as goes for the opposite of that. If something feels good, do it. Throughout the years, I have been told Christian teachings, as well as Catholic teachings. These teachings come from the Bible, or Pastors and Priests. Teachers have also played a part in molding my morals. Other reasons for deciding between right and wrong are personal experience. I’m all about the personal experience. I’ve grown to know that what happens each day goes with you, the memories, the feelings, the sights, and smells. So, to feed off the energy of people and their reactions, I have built myself to then react with them in a right or wrong way. Hopefully, I’m choosing the right way, in my mind I am. Yet, there are times when things go wrong, and I wonder what has happened to my reasoning. Here it’s best to know that no ones perfect. Some more or less then others. But to take it to another level and contribute to the right in this world, that would be beneficial. Ignorance is major role in doing wrong. People don’t care and dismiss sympathy or generosity or even the common courtesy of a human being. Don’t expect this from everyone, some people often do the right thing, and more often then not people do the wrong thing. My moral system is based on reasoning more then pleasure. So I would say I more like Aristotle, he was into being calculative and intellectual with decisions. Passion drives me but not as much as reasoning. I’d rather do the right thing for the future, then the right thing for the present. Kant’s ethical theory would define as being rational. He called it “Categorial imperative”. Being rational, meant not being out of this world, so that rules out being immortal, this would be irrational. He would agree with my rational thinking because it has to do with reasoning, which is good. A self-governing reason must be in place with a rational outlook. It the pending outcome is definitely unattainable, then this is not what Kant is stating in his theories. He would critique my views as being self-governed because the majority of decisions I make are about my own personal experiences. One of his works was called The Critique of Practical Reason, and it was a newer version of his thoughts after one of his first writings The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He analyzed how common sense worked with morality, but is common sense a true indicator of what’s right and wrong, I disagree. It just can’t be. First and foremost, common sense is different for everyone, so there’s no way it can apply to universally. This relates to having a good will, this is suppose to based on the value of your moral. How moral are you, and how moral can you be? The route you choose will change as well. Times where you need courage or wittiness will come up. Other times where there’s no need for courageousness because it brings injustice or a time for being witty when its being cruel to someone. There’s more then one side to the spectrum. Taking it too far to the extremes can disrupt someone’s morals. Kant describes having morals to be a good attribute, and if there is anything to pursue it’s that. Having sincerity and sympathy can be a great thing, but too much of it will ruin it. Imagine being too sincere or too sympathetic, it would not work for the individual. Balance is a must. Goodwill is train that takes the passenger to places like self-fulfilled happiness. If you are doing good on your own for your own, happiness is not far away. When it comes to myself, I also try and follow this model. Self-interest doesn’t only apply to me and me alone but others around me because my interest is also greeting others with positive outlooks. It’s important we all build together, because as individuals we can’t do it all, but as a team we can accomplish so much more. Kant compares motivation with duties and other motives people have such as self-interest and happiness. Is it our duty to be happy? Or is it our duty to make others happy? Kant thinks even a dutiful action won’t always be side by side with goodwill. He states that duties are created by laws or rules. If we were to think that these duties are what it’s all about, we are only satisfying the giver of those duties. For example, if your in the army or marines, and it’s your duty to live for the country, is this really the respect and outcome we want for a philosophical life. We are motivated by the communities around us, the cities and civilians that live within. Other neighbors place American flags up high, and would it be your civic duty to so the same? These actions don’t even apply to right and wrong to me. When you do your duty is when your doing the right thing. The duty you have though should come from yourself though, such as self-interest like I do this because of this. I’m a rapper, in return I should rap. Intuition is what’s inside, and everyone’s is different maybe because everyone goes through different struggles. Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty.” If Kant were to critique me for real, he would describe my outlook as being less intense. This is because I don’t really understand my duty, and that means I’m not strong with it. As for my right and wrong, I still believe what I do is right, but it doesn’t make it right. Kant describes the morals to be duty based. And for me to be labeled as a duty based person isn’t politically correct. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, and a political economist. He was also an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. And if he were to critique my views from right and wrong this is what I assume and researched him to say. He was influenced by a man named Mii and their famous Utilitarianism principle is “the greatest happiness principle.” And this was to make the most amount of people to be as happy as can be. This sounds similar to a principle cartoon characters for kids would say. He distinguishes pleasure from contentment, making them two different feelings. I agree with this. Having a 3 month party binge with pretty girls and thousands of dollars is pleasure, and creating a stable future with a loving wife and kids is contentment to me. Which one of these has utility though, is it the family or the party man The answer seems obvious here. It’s the family man who further carries on the name and provides for more then just himself. To carry on for the human race is much more important then splurging thousands of dollars on wealthy items. Instead of using words like pleasure and happiness, utilitarianism uses the word welfare. What’s best for your welfare? When put into this context, it makes more sense. Am I using myself to the best of the ability? Am I using my moral duty to utilize the resources that I do have. My views compared to the utilitarianism views are similar when it comes to using an object or time to the best potential. And it’s important to separate the lines between pleasure and happiness. By happiness they mean intended pleasure. Intended as in this was what was called for or strived for, not just an easy day of work. The absence of pain can also fall into this category. To critique myself even more with Mill’s views, is purpose. What am I here to do? It’s not for nature or God when it comes to utilitarianism. Reasoning and guidance wasn’t spoken much either. But happiness for the greater good and the greater majority is what they’re looking for. When it comes to the Greater Happiness Principle, it’s about the ultimate end, to have as much quantity and quality as possible. More then that, it’s about having the most happiness and least pain. Good habits can lead you to either direction. And the utilitarian standard is what’s right in conduct not the individuals happiness. To love your neighbour as yourself, would be the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. They are about the people. This relates to my morals and views as well. I’d like it to have myself and others close to me to be just as successful. By this way, we can all build and grow together. This would make our team a huge, powerhouse of individuals. Now, with this, we will now be improving the world as we know it, instead of being a selfish, self-interested man living in the forest alone. Kant had a different state of mind. He wanted that person to fufill his or her duty, all of our duties being different. And using lots of reason to reflect our daily thoughts. When it comes to Mill, he wants us to be as happy as possible as well as the people around us, of course I expect he means the rest of the world as well. The test of morality is a test of utility.
POST 5
Soren Kierkegaard was a profound and prolific writer in the Danish "golden age". He crossed the boundaries of philosophy, theology, and others studies as well. The outcome of this is him being a very intellectual and artistic man. Not only this, he was a Christian thinker and the father of existentialism. He was on the constant tour of spreading Christian views. He would use biblical figures and use them to relate to modern day events and struggles so the people would understand. His attempts to revitalize Christianity came out in Danish church politics. He was also a poet, using religion as his subject matter. Most importantly, pertaining to this post, he was the father of existentialism. Existentialism is philosophical movement that deals with religious freedom. It actually contradicts the traditional philosophy that most philosophers have come up with. It’s has to do with the fundamentals of human conditions and how they react with the world around us. The freedom we have is questionable. And existentialism in definition, is hard to explain thoroughly because there are parts within that contradict the outlooks. The movement deals with the issue of actually dismissing that life has meaning, and this collides with Christian’s beliefs of why we are here. In existentialism, they want the individual to come up with the values themselves, and not be spoon fed what to do or say. They want the human to define what’s supposed to be fulfilling to them or not. Existentialism often is related with terms such as anxiety, death, and freedom. Christianity acknowledges these things also. Soren Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to create this existentialism. Him and Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t even use the term existentialism. Just like most of all philosophers, they were looking for the meaningfulness in life and the greater good of what’s out there, to find purpose within oneself.. And even more, rid of their boredom. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have said that human nature and human identity are different depending on the values and beliefs that that person has for themselves. It’s always been a known fact, that everyone is different and in turn it changes someone’s outlooks and wants. Christianity is a religion and not a movement. It’s even the worlds largest religion. They believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They believe he died for everyones sins on the cross, and that he arose days later to join his father in heaven. Christianity relates to existentialism, by how and what you make of yourself. Of course morals and values are used, but in the ultimate end, what’s it all for. For Christianity it’s all for eternity in heaven. For existentialism, it’s taking your freedom as human to the maximum of your capabilities. Even though it has been compared to Buddhist philosophy Abrahamic philosophy, the Christianity side still shows. Soren Kierkegaard was a Christian, and he was the Father of existentialism. This is how they relate with one another.
POST 6
In 1844, Marx had a series of writings and it was called the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. He outlined and detailed out how communism is represented. Being a historian and social scientist he went in depth with the economy as well. Working with numbers and reviewing stats throughout the years, he came up with social, economic, political ideas that would flourish after his death. Those manuscripts weren’t published until the 1930’s. He writes his thoughts on how capitalism and communism contrast with one another. Communism was more efficient to Marx then capitalism. With communism, he figured out that people can develop freely while working with one another in cooperation other then stepping on each other to succeed with capitalism. After being expelled from his school in Paris, he found a new home in Brussels where he studied history and the material conception of history. By doing this, he pinpointed times of lower points in the economy and overall status of a country’s money situation. With this knowledge, he predicted collapses in an economy with capitalism. The writing that he worked on that dealt with this issue was the German Ideology. This work was also published after his death. This shows how outrageous and not sync with the current times his thoughts and ideals were with the rest of the world. No one catered to him but he did have a good philosopher companion named Friedrich Engels. They would end up having life long friendships with one another. Karl also was in the works with The Poverty of Philosophy. It was his views on the opposition of idealistic socialism. He was into communism and thought it was the path for a moral society. 1848, Marx had joined the Communist League. Here he was placed as one of the top theoreticians. During this time, revolutions were occurring all over Europe. Thankfully for him, he was able to move back to Paris. His time spend on economy was plenty. He ended up putting together a 800 page manuscript on capital, property, wage, trade, and the world market. Marx was put a lot of his time into this even though the progress was slow. Even himself, he didn’t have much savings or money to provide for himself or his family. His longtime friend would help him out with feeding him and his slowly decreasing family. Hard times bring hard thoughts. Before his death, he had a great impression on Germany and Russia. His contemporary politics spread throughout here. He had ambitions of having Russia skip their capitalistic views and come to communism where the equality of man is expressed in the economy. In capitalism, he believes people are out for themselves and trying to step over one another to reach higher goals, and with communism everyone has an equal hand in success. To give to the poor from the rich is a Robin Hood mentality that reaches communism. Karl didn’t agree with capitalism at all. He sums up communism into a single quote, and that’s “Abolition of private property. To him, his fellow philosophers and theologians, and followers this was the true, morally correct standpoint. No private property means equality. A sought after moral society according to Karl Marx’s views would be a place where everyones equal, this includes their property, income, and current status in the economy. Similar to the Army’s slogan, which is “An Army of One.” Here we have the people working for the people, with no extra amenities for anyone.
POST 7
Death of God
According to Nietzsche, in order for man to move on with life, is to drop all presumptions that God lives. By doing this, you can now grasp something new to believe in, and to Friedrich this is the way to go. He uses a man for example, to show what man thinks. He tells the people that God has met his demise and that he no longer exists because of the people themselves. It’s the people who have mentally erased him. It’s said that reason and science has abolished the actual existence of God and it’s all our own doing, we chose for this to happen. And now that God doesn’t exist, we can now be one with the Earth, and create the proper values that we’re suppose to have.
Truth
He begins with a fable. The fable has to do with humans and how we are born on this planet and started the trend of having knowledge and intellect. It started off with us and ended with us. We are the makers and breakers of thought and reason, more then that we have created what we call wisdom. Behind the curtain though, lies deception. Side by side with the intellect and righteousness of knowledge there’s an opposite field. He gives detail of how humans need one another to be themselves. We are herd-like in sense. He says the things that we do know are just metaphors. Blindly, we assume we know between facts and fiction, when really it’s all superficial. Intellect has become a fashionable. People have it to boost themselves and not just for the honor of it all. Truth comes from within, and it’s supposed to. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable.
Morality as Anti-Nature
Nature is supposed to take its course. With morals, the story is different. Morals mold and change decisions and situations. The end result will be a less drastic one. With passion minded mentality, we have people acting crudely and more for their wants. Morality has the tendency of fighting cravings and impulse made actions. Is this the smart way? There’s a balance between the two that should be and could be found. Churches support discipline and fights passion, unless it’s passion for the Church or Christ. Without cravings and impulse, we can stop a stupid move before it even happens. To think ahead and see the consequence of a quick impulse can save anyone from embarrassment or harm.
Jesus
Sin is to be said is anything that hinders you from getting closer to God and his Gospel. Distance between him and you is created with sinning. Eternal life with him doesn’t ensure anything that isn’t said but it’s more of a stated future of the reality you will have when you pass. Jesus as a Savior has been supported by Nietzsche. A divine and/or blessed life is what one should look for. Being a child of God is about a way of life. Salvation is the solution and conclusion. Jesus didn’t save mankind, but he taught mankind how to live, divinely. He influenced and taught millions. Jesus died doing what he did, and that was what he was called to do.
Paul
Being one with God is or was not a privilege. It’s something that must be worked for. Paul states the absurdity of an innocent dying as a sacrifice for the souls of the guilty. He doesn’t like this. He questions Jesus and the Trinity, of how what if Jesus didn’t even rise again, then all would be lost. And when it comes to higher beings and religion, you don’t question the authority, besides Jesus did rise again. Paul compares Christianity with Buddhism. He says that Buddhism promises nothing but fulfills those promises. Yet, Christianity promises everything but fulfills nothing. This is probably because the final benefits are reached at the end of life on earth and found in the eternal reckoning of heaven.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence
I watched a movie similar to this and it was Groundhog day with Bill Murray. He was set to live everyday of his life to be the same exact day. Except in the reading, it says for a demon to approach you and tell you the news that after you die, you’ll live the same lifetime over and over. Curse him? I would not. Fate is fate, and it’s on you what to believe, but to go along with it and actually live the same lifetime again and again, what we would we do. It’s a sad resolution though, what to live for then? Carpe diem wouldn’t apply here. Eternal recurrence is mysterious, scary thinking. Obviously you wouldn’t know though if you were reliving the same lifetime because if you did, you would change your thoughts and actions from the previous lifetime.
Free Spirit
Another writing about God is dead and belief in him has no future. Having a free-spirit now allows people to in their own mind, develop freely and to their most potential instead of believing in and following someone else’s teaching. If were too busy thinking and pondering about consequences and being dealt with how can we further move on without clouding our minds with directions and rules. Individuals prepare for the worst when they could be improving their lifestyles instead of having a worry war with yourself.
What would make me happy? I’ll answer this question and what make me happy now, and what use to make me happy because all of these questions apply. We all are different, so I have my different definitions of happiness. I relate it to words like contentment and self-satisfaction. I’m driven for my own self and I build off others so that we can all progress together. Men and women can play various roles on this planet, and they do. Males do certain jobs or functions and as do the women. So for myself, as a male, I’m pushed to survive, recreate and still enjoy living. We live in such a high pace world, where ten year olds have cell phones and game systems are seven hundred dollars. So it’s hard to maintain a humble living when there are flashy advertisements everywhere. It’s on you then to strive for greatness then right? What can an individual do to stay righteous, is it be a hippie and fight for peace all year long, or is it be a rich man mansion type and donate to the cause worthy. The political spectrum is huge, and so it the human race. It’s where I stand, is what should be important, because in the long run and final breaths, it’s going to be the memories and things I left over that’ll live forever.
So what I’m looking for in happiness isn’t only directed to me but others around me. It’s a goal of mine to reach the community and other communities because being close knit is what it’s all about. Charisma and learning the ropes are small social tests that need to be exercised. Like Aristotle, he knew a lot of people and a lot of people knew him. He did this by being a lover of wisdom, a philosopher. He sought the greater good, which the majorities do not do. Vulgar lifestyle isn’t what I’m looking for. It’s something wholesome and true. Wisdom doesn’t come around every day and it’s on us to capture it. It’s a thing for me to be on top of things and always update myself. Keep myself busy with new things and always rekindling old ones. Taking care of family should always be important, because blood is thicker than water. Friends might not last forever, but there are probably some rarities out there. For me, good friends who keep me lifted and family with support can take you a long ways. I include having good friends and family be a factor in happiness. Not a lot of people realize this though, believe that. There are some sons and grandsons who steal from their parents, and grandparents for drug money or other various illegal reasons. Imagine that, and compared to most of our lives, we don’t sit close. This applies to our happiness as opposed to those type of criminal ones. Don’t get me completely wrong though, I know there are criminals out there doing good and being good. But for the most part, these guys are bad to the bone, lawfully modern day pirates. Sensibility, sincerity, good humor, confident persona, people person, the list goes on of what I feel is happiness. Material things don’t add up to happiness but they do influence it so don’t get me wrong. They could be mixed signals because example is friends and family giving you gifts which are materialistic things they immediate transform into cherish able items. So you draw the line.
Aristotle was a philosopher of an age long long ago, today it’s his writings and ideas that live for him. This just goes to show that the only thing that’s constant is change. It’s easy to predict that rare storms will happen throughout someone’s lifetime. Expect the unexpected is the saying. So back then, some things were probably the same, like eating fruit and other human daily activities, while other things changed completely like indoor plumbing and clean toilets, for the most part. During Aristotle’s time he studied at Plato’s lectures. It was the last leg of his education, yet it was 20 years under Plato. He had some trouble and was forced to leave Athens to avoid persecution. We and many other individuals study him today. I read a websites pertaining to the philosopher and this is what I learned.
All the work under Aristotle is divided into three sections dialogues of other speakers etc, collection of facts such as scientific data and numbers and last systematic works like theories. He had categories for logic and they are first substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, passion, and lastly passion. It seemed like a series of steps or questions that were used to find the reasoning for a being or object. Ancients praised Aristotle for having a golden flow of language. What a great accomplishment, I wish I had that. Ethics, according to Aristotle was the chief end, and or the highest good. Happiness for Aristotle was based on human nature and personal experience, and not abstract thinking and self-existing good like Plato. Aristotle’s path seemed more down to earth for me. There are parts of the soul that contain intellectual virtues, moral virtues that lie in the middle, and nutritional virtues which is the down to the needy gritty stuff. The means of living should be the same for all, unfortunately there are many greedy and wanting people. I would for my own sake like to hold my own and involve others in improving themselves. An efficient, sincere lifestyle is what I’m going for and it’s similar to Aristotle’s rational calculative views.
In one of the books, it reveals most men are the vulgar type and identify happiness with enjoyment .I’m not sure this means permanent or temporary enjoyment. An intellectual route is what Aristotle and other philosophers chose. There are 3 types of life, enjoyment, political, and contemplative. These can be in a collaboration to using honor and refinement in one’s life. A life is money making is a compulsive life. You make the money then you spend it, with wisdom you gain the wisdom and you keep it, or you can even share it with the future generations. For me and many others, money isn’t the key to success or happiness. Aristotle felt the same. Good has many senses and is different to the spectrum. The question is though; does all the good go to the same place? Or does it all branch out? For example for the life of a doctor or carpenter, their final product is their work and how patients and projects turned out. This would be the greater good for them, because it’s their function and activity for that. Yet, why would they benefit for helping others? Well the answer is, it’s on them. You could either care or not care, it’s upon the individual on what’s more important. The end result of someones works will be seen and remembered. Anonymous do gooders either get self-fufillment or peer praising. Being self-sufficient means not only do you handle yourself but also other being we’re born into citizenship. Citizenship meaning we’re part of a land, and within that land are people. Together we stand and united we fall is how it goes. A bon citizen you are to take care of parents, children, wife, friends and fellow citizens. It might be a duty or born right, but this is what Aristotle said.
POST 2
Epicurus was a major philosopher during the Hellenistic period. Many philosophers came from this period. Epicurus taught that the world consists only of atoms, bits of matter and other things inhabiting the Earth. He explained the natural phenomena in atomic terms. By doing this, he removed the possibility of spiritual beings and a higher existence. He rejected Platonic views such as forms of an immaterial soul. Epicurus believed that what was here, is what is here and nothing more. Underneath it all, that is was just blood and guts just as you imagined, and no spirits involved here. It was a big thing to Epicurus that you were not to fear gods or even fear death. This rules an after life. So, his world, it’s during your lifetime you shine and not a day later. He also said that we could gain knowledge without relying on senses. He thought that the point of ones actions was to attain pleasure, and by pleasure he means tranquility, mostly to one’s self. An easy was of obtaining this tranquil life, it’s best to limit your desires and forget about fear or gods and death. This will consequently hold you down and fear will take over. His gospel of freedom from gods or death became well known amongst a certain group of individuals. And who is to blame them, it very well seems like a perfect method to face the fears that you do have, and conquer them by yourself. His ethics is a form of egotistic hedonism as in the only intrinsically valuable thing is ones own pleasure. Yet, he was still sophisticated. He would recommend a virtuous and moderately ascetic life. Some hedonists have the stereotype of being the ones to “eat, drink, and be merry.” This ethical person that Epicurus is creating is a playful one. Aristotle’s ethical man helped the citizens. And Epictetus wanted people to live according to nature. These three philosophers had many common ground areas and also off sets amongst each other. But these men were all about their own sake and to find the highest goods for yourself. Don’t get this confused with being selfish though, they are different terms. These wisdom filled individuals found it necessary to use ones brain and expand it to then improve the surrounding world. Epicurus disagrees with identifying happiness with pleasure, but he does believe ultimately in the end it’s about gaining pleasure for oneself. He also says that not all pleasure are choice worthy or is all pain to be avoided. The learning process takes part in here, it’s important for some people to go through certain obstacles to grow as people. And I see this here of how he speaks that not all pain is bad pain. It’s simple actually, when you want calculate what’s positive for yourself, you think about how will it be in the future and how this certain event or action will either bring me up or bring me down. The long term interest of an individual should be watched closely and often thought of. Finding pleasure for oneself, is like what the baby infant does. It looks for and searches for closeness, food these are pleasures and it then shuns away and avoids pain or anything uncomfortable. A type of pleasure is static pleasure. It’s when a being is satisfied and these are the best type of pleasures according to Epicurus. I relate this to eating, once you ate your fill, you should be satisfied. The greatest destroyer of happiness Epicurus says is the anxiety of the future and specifically fear of gods and fear of death. It wouldn’t be a good daily routine to be scared to leave the house everyday or be afraid of cursing here and there. The liberal freedom of a believer of this philosophy can live out their days with no worries and free conscience.
Epictetus studied under Stocism which was in the early C.E. in Athens. Imagine that, because Athens had so many philosophers come from there. His works were on early Stoics and dealt with three branches, them being logic, physics, and ethics. So Epictetus studies differed from that of Epicurus. And lucky for Epictetus he supposedly had someone writing his lectures verbatim because to this day there is controversy on his writings and who and where they came from. But that’s beside topic of ethics. Epictetus wanted the world to live according to nature and to do it virtuously. His place of study encouraged all students to live philosophically. I assume that this means look for the highest good. Virtues was an expected trait. Like a lot of Hellentistic period views, he added to the list of the aim to live well and secure one self. As for Epictetus though, he wanted it to be more in tune with nature and Epicurus was more into pleasure and longtime interest which are different things. The central theme of Epitetus works and teachings were virtues were important and the activities with them are righteous, and the opposite of that was vice being the evil.
POST 3
Spinoza was among the most important of the Post-Cartesian philosophers. During the 2nd half of the 17th century, he came up with a geometric method that followed side by side with his philosophies. He had a Jewish background, which influenced him to have a tendency to stay with God and nature in his ideas. His works would later on mold peoples thoughts such individuals were Machiavelli and the Stoics. Spinoza is best known for his ethics. He has the ideals of believing that Nature and God have a major role in our lives. He speaks about the life of a free-man. And he relates our sense perception as a means to getting knowledge. The freedom we have as individuals is encouraged by him to use reason for better understanding of the world around us. To take it further, take reason and knowledge to judge an outcome to yet better your lifestyle. He has an idealization of geometry as his model for philosophy. He believes that nature is infinite and that it’s the one responsible for creating the universe. And it’s up to you to come and understand nature’s system. And to, grasp that the free man is a part of it. He also states that in order to find happiness you must be in line with nature’s system. Spinoza was a controversial figure because of his thoughts on how reason is the key to life and also how he used geometric methods to his ethics. His geometric ethics is formed and written in geometry similar to Euclid’s “Elements.” They consisted of definitions, axioms, propositions, and other geometric features. Imagine reading this, it must have been difficult. People would wonder why he used these models for philosophy and it’s said because during this time geometry was on the up rise and in great interest especially within Spinoza’s circle of people. Maybe he got it from Descartes. Descartes was the leading advocate of using geometric methods in philosophy. The effort put into developing these methods was hard work. Spinoza’s ethical theory comes from the pessimistic outlook and characteristics that the human has. He studied this, and came to the conclusion that liberation is important and that it’s next followed by reason. Ethics comes at full force here. What to choose, and why? He used the model from ancients to see how nature can give us our moral duty. It seems that passion is the opposite of reason, he makes it that way. And passion is more on the compulsive side to me, it uses your brain, and other human senses to drop what you are doing and do what you got to do. He tells us that the power of the mind is defined by knowledge, and only knowledge. He says that ideas that come from passion won’t work and you need reason to be that. He also states that satisfactory or only adequate ideas can only take you so far. Liberation lies in the acquisition of knowledge gives the mind power to encounter circumstances because of the views Spinoza is with the tradition of people along the line of the Stoics and even Socrates. Life of a freeman should be free of passion made decisions and made with the guidance of reason. In the end, Spinoza doesn’t think any of this is easy. The knowledge needed isn’t a piece of cake to obtain, but when you escape the clenches of passion, salvation is nothing but a hard works step ahead.
POST 4
Right and wrong, we all have heard these two terms before. Whether you’re young or part of the elderly, there’s no escaping the decisions between right and wrong. Babies or toddlers can decipher what they do is bad or good, unless the babies fairly young. For the most part though, people of all ages must decide on the daily what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. As for myself, I’m a 21 year old, young adult who lives with his semi-religious divorced family. A lot of things come into play here. You’ll also have to know that I went to Christian and Catholic school for a good portion of my schooling. Over the years, I have been taught and told many thing, but it’s up to me what to believe. As a young child, I was told not to steal because I have enough or sometimes more then what I needed already. So that action alone, had made me into a person who cannot steal. In return, I believe that stealing is wrong. Maybe the driving force that tells me what’s right or wrong is experience. Mom says one statement, Dad says another, and depending on the outcome of my choice is what I’m going to continue to do. If a negative impression was left, I learned from that and I know now not to do that again. Pain and pleasure have a lot to do with right and wrong. If something hurts, don’t do it, as goes for the opposite of that. If something feels good, do it. Throughout the years, I have been told Christian teachings, as well as Catholic teachings. These teachings come from the Bible, or Pastors and Priests. Teachers have also played a part in molding my morals. Other reasons for deciding between right and wrong are personal experience. I’m all about the personal experience. I’ve grown to know that what happens each day goes with you, the memories, the feelings, the sights, and smells. So, to feed off the energy of people and their reactions, I have built myself to then react with them in a right or wrong way. Hopefully, I’m choosing the right way, in my mind I am. Yet, there are times when things go wrong, and I wonder what has happened to my reasoning. Here it’s best to know that no ones perfect. Some more or less then others. But to take it to another level and contribute to the right in this world, that would be beneficial. Ignorance is major role in doing wrong. People don’t care and dismiss sympathy or generosity or even the common courtesy of a human being. Don’t expect this from everyone, some people often do the right thing, and more often then not people do the wrong thing. My moral system is based on reasoning more then pleasure. So I would say I more like Aristotle, he was into being calculative and intellectual with decisions. Passion drives me but not as much as reasoning. I’d rather do the right thing for the future, then the right thing for the present. Kant’s ethical theory would define as being rational. He called it “Categorial imperative”. Being rational, meant not being out of this world, so that rules out being immortal, this would be irrational. He would agree with my rational thinking because it has to do with reasoning, which is good. A self-governing reason must be in place with a rational outlook. It the pending outcome is definitely unattainable, then this is not what Kant is stating in his theories. He would critique my views as being self-governed because the majority of decisions I make are about my own personal experiences. One of his works was called The Critique of Practical Reason, and it was a newer version of his thoughts after one of his first writings The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He analyzed how common sense worked with morality, but is common sense a true indicator of what’s right and wrong, I disagree. It just can’t be. First and foremost, common sense is different for everyone, so there’s no way it can apply to universally. This relates to having a good will, this is suppose to based on the value of your moral. How moral are you, and how moral can you be? The route you choose will change as well. Times where you need courage or wittiness will come up. Other times where there’s no need for courageousness because it brings injustice or a time for being witty when its being cruel to someone. There’s more then one side to the spectrum. Taking it too far to the extremes can disrupt someone’s morals. Kant describes having morals to be a good attribute, and if there is anything to pursue it’s that. Having sincerity and sympathy can be a great thing, but too much of it will ruin it. Imagine being too sincere or too sympathetic, it would not work for the individual. Balance is a must. Goodwill is train that takes the passenger to places like self-fulfilled happiness. If you are doing good on your own for your own, happiness is not far away. When it comes to myself, I also try and follow this model. Self-interest doesn’t only apply to me and me alone but others around me because my interest is also greeting others with positive outlooks. It’s important we all build together, because as individuals we can’t do it all, but as a team we can accomplish so much more. Kant compares motivation with duties and other motives people have such as self-interest and happiness. Is it our duty to be happy? Or is it our duty to make others happy? Kant thinks even a dutiful action won’t always be side by side with goodwill. He states that duties are created by laws or rules. If we were to think that these duties are what it’s all about, we are only satisfying the giver of those duties. For example, if your in the army or marines, and it’s your duty to live for the country, is this really the respect and outcome we want for a philosophical life. We are motivated by the communities around us, the cities and civilians that live within. Other neighbors place American flags up high, and would it be your civic duty to so the same? These actions don’t even apply to right and wrong to me. When you do your duty is when your doing the right thing. The duty you have though should come from yourself though, such as self-interest like I do this because of this. I’m a rapper, in return I should rap. Intuition is what’s inside, and everyone’s is different maybe because everyone goes through different struggles. Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty.” If Kant were to critique me for real, he would describe my outlook as being less intense. This is because I don’t really understand my duty, and that means I’m not strong with it. As for my right and wrong, I still believe what I do is right, but it doesn’t make it right. Kant describes the morals to be duty based. And for me to be labeled as a duty based person isn’t politically correct. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, and a political economist. He was also an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. And if he were to critique my views from right and wrong this is what I assume and researched him to say. He was influenced by a man named Mii and their famous Utilitarianism principle is “the greatest happiness principle.” And this was to make the most amount of people to be as happy as can be. This sounds similar to a principle cartoon characters for kids would say. He distinguishes pleasure from contentment, making them two different feelings. I agree with this. Having a 3 month party binge with pretty girls and thousands of dollars is pleasure, and creating a stable future with a loving wife and kids is contentment to me. Which one of these has utility though, is it the family or the party man The answer seems obvious here. It’s the family man who further carries on the name and provides for more then just himself. To carry on for the human race is much more important then splurging thousands of dollars on wealthy items. Instead of using words like pleasure and happiness, utilitarianism uses the word welfare. What’s best for your welfare? When put into this context, it makes more sense. Am I using myself to the best of the ability? Am I using my moral duty to utilize the resources that I do have. My views compared to the utilitarianism views are similar when it comes to using an object or time to the best potential. And it’s important to separate the lines between pleasure and happiness. By happiness they mean intended pleasure. Intended as in this was what was called for or strived for, not just an easy day of work. The absence of pain can also fall into this category. To critique myself even more with Mill’s views, is purpose. What am I here to do? It’s not for nature or God when it comes to utilitarianism. Reasoning and guidance wasn’t spoken much either. But happiness for the greater good and the greater majority is what they’re looking for. When it comes to the Greater Happiness Principle, it’s about the ultimate end, to have as much quantity and quality as possible. More then that, it’s about having the most happiness and least pain. Good habits can lead you to either direction. And the utilitarian standard is what’s right in conduct not the individuals happiness. To love your neighbour as yourself, would be the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. They are about the people. This relates to my morals and views as well. I’d like it to have myself and others close to me to be just as successful. By this way, we can all build and grow together. This would make our team a huge, powerhouse of individuals. Now, with this, we will now be improving the world as we know it, instead of being a selfish, self-interested man living in the forest alone. Kant had a different state of mind. He wanted that person to fufill his or her duty, all of our duties being different. And using lots of reason to reflect our daily thoughts. When it comes to Mill, he wants us to be as happy as possible as well as the people around us, of course I expect he means the rest of the world as well. The test of morality is a test of utility.
POST 5
Soren Kierkegaard was a profound and prolific writer in the Danish "golden age". He crossed the boundaries of philosophy, theology, and others studies as well. The outcome of this is him being a very intellectual and artistic man. Not only this, he was a Christian thinker and the father of existentialism. He was on the constant tour of spreading Christian views. He would use biblical figures and use them to relate to modern day events and struggles so the people would understand. His attempts to revitalize Christianity came out in Danish church politics. He was also a poet, using religion as his subject matter. Most importantly, pertaining to this post, he was the father of existentialism. Existentialism is philosophical movement that deals with religious freedom. It actually contradicts the traditional philosophy that most philosophers have come up with. It’s has to do with the fundamentals of human conditions and how they react with the world around us. The freedom we have is questionable. And existentialism in definition, is hard to explain thoroughly because there are parts within that contradict the outlooks. The movement deals with the issue of actually dismissing that life has meaning, and this collides with Christian’s beliefs of why we are here. In existentialism, they want the individual to come up with the values themselves, and not be spoon fed what to do or say. They want the human to define what’s supposed to be fulfilling to them or not. Existentialism often is related with terms such as anxiety, death, and freedom. Christianity acknowledges these things also. Soren Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to create this existentialism. Him and Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t even use the term existentialism. Just like most of all philosophers, they were looking for the meaningfulness in life and the greater good of what’s out there, to find purpose within oneself.. And even more, rid of their boredom. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have said that human nature and human identity are different depending on the values and beliefs that that person has for themselves. It’s always been a known fact, that everyone is different and in turn it changes someone’s outlooks and wants. Christianity is a religion and not a movement. It’s even the worlds largest religion. They believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They believe he died for everyones sins on the cross, and that he arose days later to join his father in heaven. Christianity relates to existentialism, by how and what you make of yourself. Of course morals and values are used, but in the ultimate end, what’s it all for. For Christianity it’s all for eternity in heaven. For existentialism, it’s taking your freedom as human to the maximum of your capabilities. Even though it has been compared to Buddhist philosophy Abrahamic philosophy, the Christianity side still shows. Soren Kierkegaard was a Christian, and he was the Father of existentialism. This is how they relate with one another.
POST 6
In 1844, Marx had a series of writings and it was called the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. He outlined and detailed out how communism is represented. Being a historian and social scientist he went in depth with the economy as well. Working with numbers and reviewing stats throughout the years, he came up with social, economic, political ideas that would flourish after his death. Those manuscripts weren’t published until the 1930’s. He writes his thoughts on how capitalism and communism contrast with one another. Communism was more efficient to Marx then capitalism. With communism, he figured out that people can develop freely while working with one another in cooperation other then stepping on each other to succeed with capitalism. After being expelled from his school in Paris, he found a new home in Brussels where he studied history and the material conception of history. By doing this, he pinpointed times of lower points in the economy and overall status of a country’s money situation. With this knowledge, he predicted collapses in an economy with capitalism. The writing that he worked on that dealt with this issue was the German Ideology. This work was also published after his death. This shows how outrageous and not sync with the current times his thoughts and ideals were with the rest of the world. No one catered to him but he did have a good philosopher companion named Friedrich Engels. They would end up having life long friendships with one another. Karl also was in the works with The Poverty of Philosophy. It was his views on the opposition of idealistic socialism. He was into communism and thought it was the path for a moral society. 1848, Marx had joined the Communist League. Here he was placed as one of the top theoreticians. During this time, revolutions were occurring all over Europe. Thankfully for him, he was able to move back to Paris. His time spend on economy was plenty. He ended up putting together a 800 page manuscript on capital, property, wage, trade, and the world market. Marx was put a lot of his time into this even though the progress was slow. Even himself, he didn’t have much savings or money to provide for himself or his family. His longtime friend would help him out with feeding him and his slowly decreasing family. Hard times bring hard thoughts. Before his death, he had a great impression on Germany and Russia. His contemporary politics spread throughout here. He had ambitions of having Russia skip their capitalistic views and come to communism where the equality of man is expressed in the economy. In capitalism, he believes people are out for themselves and trying to step over one another to reach higher goals, and with communism everyone has an equal hand in success. To give to the poor from the rich is a Robin Hood mentality that reaches communism. Karl didn’t agree with capitalism at all. He sums up communism into a single quote, and that’s “Abolition of private property. To him, his fellow philosophers and theologians, and followers this was the true, morally correct standpoint. No private property means equality. A sought after moral society according to Karl Marx’s views would be a place where everyones equal, this includes their property, income, and current status in the economy. Similar to the Army’s slogan, which is “An Army of One.” Here we have the people working for the people, with no extra amenities for anyone.
POST 7
Death of God
According to Nietzsche, in order for man to move on with life, is to drop all presumptions that God lives. By doing this, you can now grasp something new to believe in, and to Friedrich this is the way to go. He uses a man for example, to show what man thinks. He tells the people that God has met his demise and that he no longer exists because of the people themselves. It’s the people who have mentally erased him. It’s said that reason and science has abolished the actual existence of God and it’s all our own doing, we chose for this to happen. And now that God doesn’t exist, we can now be one with the Earth, and create the proper values that we’re suppose to have.
Truth
He begins with a fable. The fable has to do with humans and how we are born on this planet and started the trend of having knowledge and intellect. It started off with us and ended with us. We are the makers and breakers of thought and reason, more then that we have created what we call wisdom. Behind the curtain though, lies deception. Side by side with the intellect and righteousness of knowledge there’s an opposite field. He gives detail of how humans need one another to be themselves. We are herd-like in sense. He says the things that we do know are just metaphors. Blindly, we assume we know between facts and fiction, when really it’s all superficial. Intellect has become a fashionable. People have it to boost themselves and not just for the honor of it all. Truth comes from within, and it’s supposed to. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable.
Morality as Anti-Nature
Nature is supposed to take its course. With morals, the story is different. Morals mold and change decisions and situations. The end result will be a less drastic one. With passion minded mentality, we have people acting crudely and more for their wants. Morality has the tendency of fighting cravings and impulse made actions. Is this the smart way? There’s a balance between the two that should be and could be found. Churches support discipline and fights passion, unless it’s passion for the Church or Christ. Without cravings and impulse, we can stop a stupid move before it even happens. To think ahead and see the consequence of a quick impulse can save anyone from embarrassment or harm.
Jesus
Sin is to be said is anything that hinders you from getting closer to God and his Gospel. Distance between him and you is created with sinning. Eternal life with him doesn’t ensure anything that isn’t said but it’s more of a stated future of the reality you will have when you pass. Jesus as a Savior has been supported by Nietzsche. A divine and/or blessed life is what one should look for. Being a child of God is about a way of life. Salvation is the solution and conclusion. Jesus didn’t save mankind, but he taught mankind how to live, divinely. He influenced and taught millions. Jesus died doing what he did, and that was what he was called to do.
Paul
Being one with God is or was not a privilege. It’s something that must be worked for. Paul states the absurdity of an innocent dying as a sacrifice for the souls of the guilty. He doesn’t like this. He questions Jesus and the Trinity, of how what if Jesus didn’t even rise again, then all would be lost. And when it comes to higher beings and religion, you don’t question the authority, besides Jesus did rise again. Paul compares Christianity with Buddhism. He says that Buddhism promises nothing but fulfills those promises. Yet, Christianity promises everything but fulfills nothing. This is probably because the final benefits are reached at the end of life on earth and found in the eternal reckoning of heaven.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence
I watched a movie similar to this and it was Groundhog day with Bill Murray. He was set to live everyday of his life to be the same exact day. Except in the reading, it says for a demon to approach you and tell you the news that after you die, you’ll live the same lifetime over and over. Curse him? I would not. Fate is fate, and it’s on you what to believe, but to go along with it and actually live the same lifetime again and again, what we would we do. It’s a sad resolution though, what to live for then? Carpe diem wouldn’t apply here. Eternal recurrence is mysterious, scary thinking. Obviously you wouldn’t know though if you were reliving the same lifetime because if you did, you would change your thoughts and actions from the previous lifetime.
Free Spirit
Another writing about God is dead and belief in him has no future. Having a free-spirit now allows people to in their own mind, develop freely and to their most potential instead of believing in and following someone else’s teaching. If were too busy thinking and pondering about consequences and being dealt with how can we further move on without clouding our minds with directions and rules. Individuals prepare for the worst when they could be improving their lifestyles instead of having a worry war with yourself.
Ethics Midterm
Midterm-Preliminary Questions
1.Christopher Dimaano
2.Yahoo Username = dimaanochris
3. E-mail = whoisdilated@hotmail.com
4. 7 completed posts. (Post 1 & 2 January 15th, Post 3, 4, & 5 January 22nd,
Post 6 & 7 January 27)
5.I did complete the first field trip. I went to the Simon Wiesenthal Center/ Museum of Tolerance last Sunday which was January 21st. It was a different experience then my first visit as a 5th grader. Now my thoughts and ideals have changed. I reacted more with remorse and sadness because how our world really is, was, and continues to be. Even though the situations and events are different, it’s just evil in different forms. I went through most of the tours consecutively. One after another, a presentation was given. At the end, they let the stats and results of the holocaust. These numbers were astounding, you would have never known that that many people were discriminated against and killed for being a certain type of person. It’s a harsh world, and we will always know this.
6. I read the biography websites for Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche. I also read the first parts in Aristotle’s Books 1 and 2, didn’t finish. I read both readings for Epicurus and Epictetus. I read the first reading on Spinoza and not the second. I also read both Kants and Mill’s readings. I read the first part of Kierkegaard’s reading, and didn’t watch the short film. I finished Karl Marx bio and writing. Finally I read the 7 selections from Nietzsche.
7. I did not complete any extra credit.
Essay Questions
1. Nietzsche famously claimed that God is dead. This does not mean "God is now physically dead". What he meant was the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. He believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. In believing this, it opens the way for human's creative abilities to fully develop its own uniqueness. It is a freedom to be something without being made to accept what was believed happened in the past. He is also noted for distinguishing between master and slave moralities. Master morality arises from a celebration of life while slave morality is a result of ressentiment, also known as resentment, at those capable of master morality. The difference between the two is summarized as the difference between "good and bad," or "good and evil". This is an example of a paradox. Paradox has contradictions. Nietzshe is also an aphorism. He adopts a viewpoint and identifies the things which are only visible from that perspective. He once said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” In, Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft, 1886) these closely defines the aphoristic style of his middle period. He was well known to make true statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition.
In Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, Curse on Christianity (Der Antichrist. Fluch auf das Christentum, September 1888), he launches into an attack on the morals of Christianity. He cited elements of the religion as creations of resentments. He refers to a "transvaluation of values” (flipping morals upside down) as coming from a denial of life, flipping between good and evil which is driven by our conscience. Nietzsche had love for Jesus for the mere fact that he believed God before becoming dead in men's hearts and minds, had given the foundation of a "Christian-moral" defining and uniting approach to life as a shared cultural set of belief fully within which people had lived their lives. He hated Paul because he exploited Jesus. He used what he learned from him, against him.
Christian morality offended Nietzsche because in Christian morality such as “loving thy neighbor” is something Nietzsche could not support if the neighbor is a killer. He believes Christian morality comes from non-realist approach suggesting moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others or on their belief systems. Nietzche on the other hand, was a realist. Realists believe that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are simply discovered or intuited. Nietzsche's criticism of religions and of Christianity is brought about by the forgetfulness of the human religious experience due to the de-animization of the cosmos. In addition, his criticism of Christian morality comes from the degeneration of Western philosophy.
Nietzsche envisions the height of humanity for some to recognize no difference between right and wrong. As defined in the dictionary, “Humanism” is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. People have different ways of thinking and beliefs.
In trying to objectively describe his views, the following quote that “God is dead” comes to my mind. I do not completely agree with Nietzsche in that “God is dead”. However, I understand what he tried to convey in that people should have the option to develop new creations without having to be stuck with what was in the past.
2. Epictetus was an Stoic teacher who encouraged his students to live the philosophic life, filled with happiness. We should be able to judge what is good and what is evil. He also said we have power over our own minds. According to Epictetus, some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. The things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. He also said the actions we undertake should be motivated by the specific obligations that we have in virtue of who we are, our natural relations to others, and what roles we have adopted in our dealings with the wider community. For Epictetus, God is the 'captain' who calls us back on board ship, the subsequent voyage being a metaphor for our departure from life. According to Epictetus, God is 'the Giver' to whom we should return all those things we have enjoyed given by him as on loan to us when we lose close relatives or friends who die, and when we lose our possessions. Epictetus presents orthodox Stoic views on God. His justification for believing in God is expressed essentially along the lines of what we recognize as an argument from design. The Stoics were materialists. They believe God is conceived of as a type of fiery breath that blends perfectly with all other matter in the universe.
According to Spinoza there are three primary emotions: desire, pleasure, and pain. Desire may arise from either pleasure or pain. Pleasure may be produced by a transition from a lesser to a greater state of perfection. Pain may be produced by a transition from a greater to a lesser state of perfection. Spinoza claims that the more perfect a thing is, the more active and less passive it is. The mind is most perfect when it knows God. Spinoza argues that knowledge of good and evil arises from the awareness of what causes pleasure and pain. The greatest good of the mind, and its greatest virtue, is to know God. To act with virtue is to act according to reason. According to Spinoza, if we act according to reason, then we desire only what is good. If we act according to reason, then we try to promote what is good not only for ourselves but for others. Spinoza admits that all emotions may not necessarily conflict with reason. Emotions which agree with reason may cause pleasure, while emotions which do not agree with reason may cause pain. Inability to control the emotions may cause pain. Spinoza believed God is an infinite substance. By this, he meant both that the number of God's attributes is unlimited and that there is no attribute that God does not possess. Spinoza argues that if two or more substances were to exist they would be differentiated either by a difference in modes or by a difference in attributes. However, they could not be differentiated by a difference in modes, for substances are prior in nature to their modes. Therefore, they would have to be differentiated by a difference in attributes. Controversially, Spinoza believed that no two substances can have exactly the same set of attributes, nor can they have a common attribute. Spinoza reminds us that God's existence is necessary. Imagination is a perceptual ability that is of particular interest to Spinoza. Imagination includes more than the capacity to form those mental constructs that we normally consider to be imaginative. According to Spinoza, it includes memory and sense perception as well. Spinoza consistently opposes imagination to intellect and views it as providing no more than confused perception. To use his preferred terminology, the ideas of the imagination are inadequate. For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. All things by nature proceed from necessity. All things are predetermined by God, and for anything that exists, some effect must follow. Spinoza argues that the human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God. Spinoza also argues that from any idea, an effect must necessarily follow.
Epictetus and Spinoza had many similarities. The first one is their regards to God. For Epictetus, God is the 'captain' who calls us back on board ship. According to Epictetus, God is 'the Giver'. For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. The second one is Epictetus’ belief that our capacity to flourish and be happy (to attain eudaimonia) is entirely dependent upon our own characters. It is completely up to us what qualities our characters come to have which means how well we flourish is also entirely up to us. Spinoza argues that to live according to reason is to live freely, and is not to live in servitude to the emotions. If we act according to reason, then we are guided by love and good-will and not by fear or hatred. According to Epictetus, to be secured by living the life of reason, we need to live our lives virtuously and living 'according to nature'. He said we have the power to have authority over ourselves. Spinoza maintains that reason can control the emotions. Reason is virtue, and virtue is love toward God. The more we love God, the more we are able to control our emotions. For Spinoza, the more active the mind is, the more adequately it knows God. Spinoza argues that all ideas are found in God, but that ideas are true only if they adequately refer to God. Truth is adequate knowledge, but falsehood is inadequate knowledge.
The Stoic ethical teaching is based upon two principles, first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the famous Stoic maxim, "Live according to nature" and as described above what Epictetus’ and Spinoza’s beliefs were. For this maxim has two aspects. The first one is that men should conform themselves to nature which Epictitus belived in, and secondly, that they should conform their actions to reason which Spinoza believed in.
Epictetus and Spinoza also had differences. Epictitus as a stoic talks about virtue and what it means according to reason. Unlike Spinoza, the Stoics envisaged life as a battle against the passions and that virtue is founded upon reason, and so upon knowledge. Stoics identify the happy life as one that is motivated by virtue. Epictetus employs a number of metaphors to illustrate what the Stoic attitude to life should be. Some are Life as a festival, Life as a game, Life as weaving,and Life as a play. Stoics hold that the mind of each person is quite literally a part God and that the rationality that we each possess is in fact a fragment of God's rationality. Epictetus expresses this in terms of what God has given.
3. The Manifesto of the Communist Party was first published on April 14, 1848. It was commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie (ruling upper class) and to eventually bring about a society that was classless. This book changed the world politically because it introduced the concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever "wither away" as Engels had put it.
The book also has an ethical text because it included the following “10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto” which affected the morale values of people. Some in good ways, others in not so good ways:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
It also conceptualized a classless society, which was an important Marxist term. According to Marxist theory, ancient society, primitive communism, was classless. Everyone was equally poor and carried out the same work. This may or may not be acceptable to everyone’s standards in the past or at present time.
The first section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx claims that the history of all existing society is the history of class struggles. He cited, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. “ This section goes on to argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between those who own the means of production, the ruling class or the bourgeoisies, and those who labor for a wage, the working class or the proletariats. Though the bourgeoisie has played a progressive role in destroying feudalism, according to Marx and Engels, it has also brought about the conditions for its own impending downfall by creating a contradiction within capitalism between the forces of production and the relations of production. Feudalism generally refers to a relational set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages.
The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The Communists are not a special party in relation to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by two means, one in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries and two in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through. The second section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love," and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period: When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
Marx's vision of a utopia or perfect community failed because there was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. He was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. Many of his expectations about the future course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture.
4. Aristotle was born in 384 BCE. at Stagirus, a Greek colony and seaport on the coast of Thrace. For Aristotle, philosophy arose historically after basic necessities were secured. It arouses from feeling of curiosity and wonder, to which religious myth gave only temporary satisfaction. The earliest speculators were philosophers of nature. Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of things. Forms are not causes of movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation. Forms are also equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of particular things. For Aristotle, the form is not something outside the object, but rather in the varied phenomena of sense. Real substance, or true being, is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual thing. Unfortunately, Aristotle's theory of substance is not altogether consistent with itself.
The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. He pursued in solving the difficulties with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. Below are the four causes:
Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
Final cause, or the end for which it is.
God to Aristotle is the first of all substances. God has everlasting life, and perfect blessedness. Aristotle sees the universe as a scale lying between the two extremes: form without matter is on one end, and matter without form is on the other end. He also defines the imagination as "the movement which results upon an actual sensation.” According to Aristotle, ethics is an attempt to find out our chief end or highest good: an end which he maintains is really final. Such a chief end is called happiness. Alike the belief of Epictitus, happiness is what a philosophical life is all about.
Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period, the three centuries following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE (and of Aritotle in 322 BCE). Epicurus pursued to develop an unsparingly materialistic metaphysics, empiricist epistemology, and hedonistic ethics. Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world are atoms. Epicurus rejected the existence of Platonic forms and he said that the gods have no influence on our lives. This is the exact opposite of Epictitus’ and Aristotle’s acceptance that God is the substance of all matters. Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism. By this he means, the only thing that is intrinsically valuable is one's own pleasure. Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. However, he disagrees with Aristotle by identifying happiness with pleasure. Epicurus claims that everything we do, we do for the sake ultimately of gaining pleasure for ourselves. Unlike Epictitus, the Stoic, Epicurus goes against the majority of Greek ethical theorists, who identify happiness with virtue, and Aristotle, who identifies happiness with a life of virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks that natural science and philosophy itself also are instrumental goods.
Epictetus was an Stoic teacher who encouraged his students to live the philosophic life, filled with happiness. According to Epictetus, we should be able to judge what is good and what is evil. He also said we have power over our own minds. According to Epictetus, some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. The things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. He also said the actions we undertake should be motivated by the specific obligations that we have in virtue of who we are, our natural relations to others, and what roles we have adopted in our dealings with the wider community. Like other Stoics, Epictitus believe God is conceived of as a type of fiery breath that blends perfectly with all other matter in the universe.
Epictetus pursued his goal of life employing a number of metaphors to illustrate what the Stoic attitude to life should be. Some are Life as a festival, Life as a game, Life as weaving, and Life as a play. Stoics hold that the mind of each person is quite literally a part God and that the rationality that we each possess is in fact a fragment of God's rationality. Epictetus expresses this in terms of what God has given.
5. Another highly recognized philosopher of the 20th century is Jean-Paul Sartre. His lifetime and works isn’t too far behind the timeline, for he was born 1905 and died 1980, which isn’t too far into the past. He was on the search for philosophical reflection. Sartre was among the atheist existentialists. During the 19th and 20th centuries, this trend was becoming popular of being atheist. He responded to Communist and Catholic critics. I believe an atheist can be moral. It’s not even that these atheists don’t believe in right or wrong, but they don’t believe in a higher being such as God.
Sartre was a moralist and not a moralizer. He states that we are responsible for our egos and this is because it’s an object of consciousness and to a philosopher that’s what it’s about. His works with existentialist ethics assumes that the societies we live in are all oppressed and exploited. Yet in still, we are subjected to having freedom. We have the choices to choose philosophical path or not. Existentialists had one virtue, and that’s authenticity, it’s compared with many other life choices. Ethics could mean to you, what you do, and why you do it. He is to defend existentialism. In the second reading, he states that they have been charged with basing existentialism on human degradation. This meaning that they only see the evil and dark side of the world and not the bright, positive sides of our worldly views. They’re also charged with giving the humans the benefit of the doubt of being self-centered beings and that they don’t need other human alliances to live. Christians blamed existentialists of not believing in God’s commandments and eternal promises. And to the Christians, this means all pureness and holiness is obsolete. This doesn’t make existentialism look good or positive at all. Actually, they are compared to naturalist in a negative way, yet the naturalists have caused more controversy then existentialists. The few common grounds for the atheists and Catholic/Christian existentialists is that existence comes before essence. Both sides believe that an individual or object has a written purpose and the only thing now is to fulfill that purpose.
6. Kant’s ethical theory would define as being rational. He called it “Categorial imperative”. Being rational, meant not being out of this world, so that rules out being immortal, this would be irrational. He would agree with my rational thinking because it has to do with reasoning, which is good. A self-governing reason must be in place with a rational outlook. It the pending outcome is definitely unattainable, then this is not what Kant is stating in his theories. He would critique my views as being self-governed because the majority of decisions I make are about my own personal experiences.
One of his works was called The Critique of Practical Reason, and it was a newer version of his thoughts after one of his first writings The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He analyzed how common sense worked with morality, but is common sense a true indicator of what’s right and wrong, I disagree. It just can’t be. First and foremost, common sense is different for everyone, so there’s no way it can apply to universally. This relates to having a good will, this is supposed to based on the value of your moral. How moral are you, and how moral can you be? The route you choose will change as well. Times where you need courage or wittiness will come up. Other times where there’s no need for courageousness because it brings injustice or a time for being witty when its being cruel to someone. There’s more then one side to the spectrum. Taking it too far to the extremes can disrupt someone’s morals.
Kant describes having morals to be a good attribute, and if there is anything to pursue it’s that. Having sincerity and sympathy can be a great thing, but too much of it will ruin it. Imagine being too sincere or too sympathetic, it would not work for the individual. Balance is a must. Kant states that even when a person has courage, perseverance, intelligence, and wit, it won’t do them any good if they don’t have good will to go along with it. With good will, comes duty. Kierkegaard states in his writings that Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac to the social norms. You might think that he doesn’t recognize a higher being, but he does. He knew Abraham needed to fulfill his own duties. Both these philosophers realize that a duty is to be acted upon, and carried out.
Kierkegaard was a Christian thinker and the father of existentialism. He was on the constant tour of spreading Christian views. He would use biblical figures and use them to relate to modern day events and struggles so the people would understand. His attempts to revitalize Christianity came out in Danish church politics. He was also a poet, using religion as his subject matter. Existentialism is philosophical movement that deals with religious freedom, he was involved with this. It actually contradicts the traditional philosophy that most philosophers have come up with. It’s has to do with the fundamentals of human conditions and how they react with the world around us. The freedom we have is questionable, but the duties we have are undeniable. And existentialism in definition is hard to explain thoroughly because there are parts within that contradict the outlooks. At least we know that existence comes before essence, many other philosophers feel the same way. The movement deals with the issue of actually dismissing that life has meaning, and this collides with Christian’s beliefs of why we are here. In existentialism, they want the individual to come up with the values themselves, and not be spoon fed what to do or say. They want the human to define what’s supposed to be fulfilling to them or not. Existentialism often is related with terms such as anxiety, death, and freedom. Christianity acknowledges these things also. Soren Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to create this existentialism. Him and Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t even use the term existentialism.
Just like most of all philosophers, they were looking for the meaningfulness in life. Kierkegaard said that human nature and human identity are different depending on the values and beliefs that that person has for themselves. It’s always been a known fact, that everyone is different and in turn it changes someone’s outlooks and wants.
7. A famous Utilitarianism principle is “the greatest happiness principle.” And this was to make the most amount of people to be as happy as can be. This means it’s not just for individual, but for the community. He distinguishes pleasure from contentment, making them two different feelings. I agree with this. Which one of these has utility though, is it the family or the party man The answer seems obvious here. It’s the family man who further carries on the name and provides for more then just himself. Hence the world utility, meaning use, in the word utilitarianism. To carry on for the human race is much more important then splurging thousands of dollars on wealthy items. Instead of using words like pleasure and happiness, utilitarianism uses the word welfare. And it’s important to separate the lines between pleasure and happiness. By happiness they mean intended pleasure. Intended as in this was what was called for. Reasoning and guidance wasn’t spoken much either. But happiness for the greater good and the greater majority is what they’re looking for. When it comes to the Greater Happiness Principle, it’s about the ultimate end, to have as much quantity and quality as possible. More then that, it’s about having the most happiness and least pain for Mill. When it comes to Mill, he wants us to be as happy as possible as well as the people around us, of course I expect he means the rest of the world as well. The test of morality is a test of utility. Epicurus was similar to Mill’s thinking. Mill’s pleasure was defined as having use or utility. And Epicurus wanted nothing to do with gods or death, in turn, finding the ultimate pleasure which was tranquility for him.
Epicurus was a major philosopher during the Hellenistic period. Many philosophers came from this period. Epicurus taught that the world consists only of atoms, bits of matter. Science was key here.. He explained the natural phenomena in atomic terms. By doing this, he removed the possibility of spiritual beings and a higher existence. It was a big thing to Epicurus that you were not to fear gods or even fear death. This rules an after life. So, his world, it’s during your lifetime you shine and not a day later. He also said that we could gain knowledge without relying on senses. He thought that the point of ones actions was to attain pleasure, and by pleasure he means tranquility, mostly to one’s self. An easy was of obtaining this tranquil life, it’s best to limit your desires and forget about fear or gods and death. This will consequently hold you down and fear will take over. His gospel of freedom from gods or death became well known amongst a certain group of individuals. And who is to blame them, it very well seems like a perfect method to face the fears that you do have, and conquer them by yourself. His ethics is a form of egotistic hedonism as in the only intrinsically valuable thing is ones own pleasure. Yet, he was still sophisticated. He would recommend a virtuous and moderately ascetic life. Some hedonists have the stereotype of being the ones to “eat, drink, and be merry.” How appropriate, wouldn’t that be a great slogan for philosophical life.
8. The philosopher that I clicked with during these readings was Epicurus. With the close connection of science based thinking, it’s easy too apply to our lives. I like the way he totally defines and teaches that the world only has atoms, and matter and nothing else in terms of a higher being. Even though I’m Christian, I feel for this. I could imagine a life with the fact that there’s no afterlife. By this, it’ll be an easier, stress-free lifestyle, instead of worrying about who to please, what to please, and when it’s going to end. Morals and good-will will still be in us, but without pressure of death hanging on our shoulders; maybe we can rise to the top with our own ambitions in mind. I also agree with his views on virtue. This is important for a successful life as well. Imagine we sat on our behinds, waiting for the end. Nothing can be solved with this. I also like Epicurus’ outlook on pleasure being tranquility. A calm, conservative life can help you live longer I think. Less stress, and more best wishes. I’d also join the stereotype of the Hedonists which is “eat, drink, and be merry.” Now, that’s one pleasurable lifetime, and nothing after. For some, this is unacceptable. A life without reason, but that’s on them to think this way. Just because there’s no afterlife doesn’t mean there’s no purpose. In contrast with our modern society, Epicurus’ views are much different. Everyone seems like their bent on something, and I assume and propose that that something is death. Fear of death is actually the killer. When you wake up each day, it would be beneficial to live it out and further know that it’s about that day and that moment. Last point that I feel similar feelings with is that the fact you can gain knowledge without senses. It’s a more free like state of mind and in order to have long, tranquil life, Epicurus’ Hellenistic views is the philosophy to live by.
1.Christopher Dimaano
2.Yahoo Username = dimaanochris
3. E-mail = whoisdilated@hotmail.com
4. 7 completed posts. (Post 1 & 2 January 15th, Post 3, 4, & 5 January 22nd,
Post 6 & 7 January 27)
5.I did complete the first field trip. I went to the Simon Wiesenthal Center/ Museum of Tolerance last Sunday which was January 21st. It was a different experience then my first visit as a 5th grader. Now my thoughts and ideals have changed. I reacted more with remorse and sadness because how our world really is, was, and continues to be. Even though the situations and events are different, it’s just evil in different forms. I went through most of the tours consecutively. One after another, a presentation was given. At the end, they let the stats and results of the holocaust. These numbers were astounding, you would have never known that that many people were discriminated against and killed for being a certain type of person. It’s a harsh world, and we will always know this.
6. I read the biography websites for Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche. I also read the first parts in Aristotle’s Books 1 and 2, didn’t finish. I read both readings for Epicurus and Epictetus. I read the first reading on Spinoza and not the second. I also read both Kants and Mill’s readings. I read the first part of Kierkegaard’s reading, and didn’t watch the short film. I finished Karl Marx bio and writing. Finally I read the 7 selections from Nietzsche.
7. I did not complete any extra credit.
Essay Questions
1. Nietzsche famously claimed that God is dead. This does not mean "God is now physically dead". What he meant was the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. He believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. In believing this, it opens the way for human's creative abilities to fully develop its own uniqueness. It is a freedom to be something without being made to accept what was believed happened in the past. He is also noted for distinguishing between master and slave moralities. Master morality arises from a celebration of life while slave morality is a result of ressentiment, also known as resentment, at those capable of master morality. The difference between the two is summarized as the difference between "good and bad," or "good and evil". This is an example of a paradox. Paradox has contradictions. Nietzshe is also an aphorism. He adopts a viewpoint and identifies the things which are only visible from that perspective. He once said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” In, Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft, 1886) these closely defines the aphoristic style of his middle period. He was well known to make true statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition.
In Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, Curse on Christianity (Der Antichrist. Fluch auf das Christentum, September 1888), he launches into an attack on the morals of Christianity. He cited elements of the religion as creations of resentments. He refers to a "transvaluation of values” (flipping morals upside down) as coming from a denial of life, flipping between good and evil which is driven by our conscience. Nietzsche had love for Jesus for the mere fact that he believed God before becoming dead in men's hearts and minds, had given the foundation of a "Christian-moral" defining and uniting approach to life as a shared cultural set of belief fully within which people had lived their lives. He hated Paul because he exploited Jesus. He used what he learned from him, against him.
Christian morality offended Nietzsche because in Christian morality such as “loving thy neighbor” is something Nietzsche could not support if the neighbor is a killer. He believes Christian morality comes from non-realist approach suggesting moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others or on their belief systems. Nietzche on the other hand, was a realist. Realists believe that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are simply discovered or intuited. Nietzsche's criticism of religions and of Christianity is brought about by the forgetfulness of the human religious experience due to the de-animization of the cosmos. In addition, his criticism of Christian morality comes from the degeneration of Western philosophy.
Nietzsche envisions the height of humanity for some to recognize no difference between right and wrong. As defined in the dictionary, “Humanism” is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. People have different ways of thinking and beliefs.
In trying to objectively describe his views, the following quote that “God is dead” comes to my mind. I do not completely agree with Nietzsche in that “God is dead”. However, I understand what he tried to convey in that people should have the option to develop new creations without having to be stuck with what was in the past.
2. Epictetus was an Stoic teacher who encouraged his students to live the philosophic life, filled with happiness. We should be able to judge what is good and what is evil. He also said we have power over our own minds. According to Epictetus, some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. The things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. He also said the actions we undertake should be motivated by the specific obligations that we have in virtue of who we are, our natural relations to others, and what roles we have adopted in our dealings with the wider community. For Epictetus, God is the 'captain' who calls us back on board ship, the subsequent voyage being a metaphor for our departure from life. According to Epictetus, God is 'the Giver' to whom we should return all those things we have enjoyed given by him as on loan to us when we lose close relatives or friends who die, and when we lose our possessions. Epictetus presents orthodox Stoic views on God. His justification for believing in God is expressed essentially along the lines of what we recognize as an argument from design. The Stoics were materialists. They believe God is conceived of as a type of fiery breath that blends perfectly with all other matter in the universe.
According to Spinoza there are three primary emotions: desire, pleasure, and pain. Desire may arise from either pleasure or pain. Pleasure may be produced by a transition from a lesser to a greater state of perfection. Pain may be produced by a transition from a greater to a lesser state of perfection. Spinoza claims that the more perfect a thing is, the more active and less passive it is. The mind is most perfect when it knows God. Spinoza argues that knowledge of good and evil arises from the awareness of what causes pleasure and pain. The greatest good of the mind, and its greatest virtue, is to know God. To act with virtue is to act according to reason. According to Spinoza, if we act according to reason, then we desire only what is good. If we act according to reason, then we try to promote what is good not only for ourselves but for others. Spinoza admits that all emotions may not necessarily conflict with reason. Emotions which agree with reason may cause pleasure, while emotions which do not agree with reason may cause pain. Inability to control the emotions may cause pain. Spinoza believed God is an infinite substance. By this, he meant both that the number of God's attributes is unlimited and that there is no attribute that God does not possess. Spinoza argues that if two or more substances were to exist they would be differentiated either by a difference in modes or by a difference in attributes. However, they could not be differentiated by a difference in modes, for substances are prior in nature to their modes. Therefore, they would have to be differentiated by a difference in attributes. Controversially, Spinoza believed that no two substances can have exactly the same set of attributes, nor can they have a common attribute. Spinoza reminds us that God's existence is necessary. Imagination is a perceptual ability that is of particular interest to Spinoza. Imagination includes more than the capacity to form those mental constructs that we normally consider to be imaginative. According to Spinoza, it includes memory and sense perception as well. Spinoza consistently opposes imagination to intellect and views it as providing no more than confused perception. To use his preferred terminology, the ideas of the imagination are inadequate. For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. All things by nature proceed from necessity. All things are predetermined by God, and for anything that exists, some effect must follow. Spinoza argues that the human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God. Spinoza also argues that from any idea, an effect must necessarily follow.
Epictetus and Spinoza had many similarities. The first one is their regards to God. For Epictetus, God is the 'captain' who calls us back on board ship. According to Epictetus, God is 'the Giver'. For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. The second one is Epictetus’ belief that our capacity to flourish and be happy (to attain eudaimonia) is entirely dependent upon our own characters. It is completely up to us what qualities our characters come to have which means how well we flourish is also entirely up to us. Spinoza argues that to live according to reason is to live freely, and is not to live in servitude to the emotions. If we act according to reason, then we are guided by love and good-will and not by fear or hatred. According to Epictetus, to be secured by living the life of reason, we need to live our lives virtuously and living 'according to nature'. He said we have the power to have authority over ourselves. Spinoza maintains that reason can control the emotions. Reason is virtue, and virtue is love toward God. The more we love God, the more we are able to control our emotions. For Spinoza, the more active the mind is, the more adequately it knows God. Spinoza argues that all ideas are found in God, but that ideas are true only if they adequately refer to God. Truth is adequate knowledge, but falsehood is inadequate knowledge.
The Stoic ethical teaching is based upon two principles, first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the famous Stoic maxim, "Live according to nature" and as described above what Epictetus’ and Spinoza’s beliefs were. For this maxim has two aspects. The first one is that men should conform themselves to nature which Epictitus belived in, and secondly, that they should conform their actions to reason which Spinoza believed in.
Epictetus and Spinoza also had differences. Epictitus as a stoic talks about virtue and what it means according to reason. Unlike Spinoza, the Stoics envisaged life as a battle against the passions and that virtue is founded upon reason, and so upon knowledge. Stoics identify the happy life as one that is motivated by virtue. Epictetus employs a number of metaphors to illustrate what the Stoic attitude to life should be. Some are Life as a festival, Life as a game, Life as weaving,and Life as a play. Stoics hold that the mind of each person is quite literally a part God and that the rationality that we each possess is in fact a fragment of God's rationality. Epictetus expresses this in terms of what God has given.
3. The Manifesto of the Communist Party was first published on April 14, 1848. It was commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie (ruling upper class) and to eventually bring about a society that was classless. This book changed the world politically because it introduced the concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever "wither away" as Engels had put it.
The book also has an ethical text because it included the following “10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto” which affected the morale values of people. Some in good ways, others in not so good ways:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
It also conceptualized a classless society, which was an important Marxist term. According to Marxist theory, ancient society, primitive communism, was classless. Everyone was equally poor and carried out the same work. This may or may not be acceptable to everyone’s standards in the past or at present time.
The first section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx claims that the history of all existing society is the history of class struggles. He cited, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. “ This section goes on to argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between those who own the means of production, the ruling class or the bourgeoisies, and those who labor for a wage, the working class or the proletariats. Though the bourgeoisie has played a progressive role in destroying feudalism, according to Marx and Engels, it has also brought about the conditions for its own impending downfall by creating a contradiction within capitalism between the forces of production and the relations of production. Feudalism generally refers to a relational set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages.
The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The Communists are not a special party in relation to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by two means, one in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries and two in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through. The second section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love," and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period: When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
Marx's vision of a utopia or perfect community failed because there was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. He was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. Many of his expectations about the future course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture.
4. Aristotle was born in 384 BCE. at Stagirus, a Greek colony and seaport on the coast of Thrace. For Aristotle, philosophy arose historically after basic necessities were secured. It arouses from feeling of curiosity and wonder, to which religious myth gave only temporary satisfaction. The earliest speculators were philosophers of nature. Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of things. Forms are not causes of movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation. Forms are also equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of particular things. For Aristotle, the form is not something outside the object, but rather in the varied phenomena of sense. Real substance, or true being, is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual thing. Unfortunately, Aristotle's theory of substance is not altogether consistent with itself.
The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. He pursued in solving the difficulties with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. Below are the four causes:
Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
Final cause, or the end for which it is.
God to Aristotle is the first of all substances. God has everlasting life, and perfect blessedness. Aristotle sees the universe as a scale lying between the two extremes: form without matter is on one end, and matter without form is on the other end. He also defines the imagination as "the movement which results upon an actual sensation.” According to Aristotle, ethics is an attempt to find out our chief end or highest good: an end which he maintains is really final. Such a chief end is called happiness. Alike the belief of Epictitus, happiness is what a philosophical life is all about.
Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period, the three centuries following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE (and of Aritotle in 322 BCE). Epicurus pursued to develop an unsparingly materialistic metaphysics, empiricist epistemology, and hedonistic ethics. Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world are atoms. Epicurus rejected the existence of Platonic forms and he said that the gods have no influence on our lives. This is the exact opposite of Epictitus’ and Aristotle’s acceptance that God is the substance of all matters. Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism. By this he means, the only thing that is intrinsically valuable is one's own pleasure. Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. However, he disagrees with Aristotle by identifying happiness with pleasure. Epicurus claims that everything we do, we do for the sake ultimately of gaining pleasure for ourselves. Unlike Epictitus, the Stoic, Epicurus goes against the majority of Greek ethical theorists, who identify happiness with virtue, and Aristotle, who identifies happiness with a life of virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks that natural science and philosophy itself also are instrumental goods.
Epictetus was an Stoic teacher who encouraged his students to live the philosophic life, filled with happiness. According to Epictetus, we should be able to judge what is good and what is evil. He also said we have power over our own minds. According to Epictetus, some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. The things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. He also said the actions we undertake should be motivated by the specific obligations that we have in virtue of who we are, our natural relations to others, and what roles we have adopted in our dealings with the wider community. Like other Stoics, Epictitus believe God is conceived of as a type of fiery breath that blends perfectly with all other matter in the universe.
Epictetus pursued his goal of life employing a number of metaphors to illustrate what the Stoic attitude to life should be. Some are Life as a festival, Life as a game, Life as weaving, and Life as a play. Stoics hold that the mind of each person is quite literally a part God and that the rationality that we each possess is in fact a fragment of God's rationality. Epictetus expresses this in terms of what God has given.
5. Another highly recognized philosopher of the 20th century is Jean-Paul Sartre. His lifetime and works isn’t too far behind the timeline, for he was born 1905 and died 1980, which isn’t too far into the past. He was on the search for philosophical reflection. Sartre was among the atheist existentialists. During the 19th and 20th centuries, this trend was becoming popular of being atheist. He responded to Communist and Catholic critics. I believe an atheist can be moral. It’s not even that these atheists don’t believe in right or wrong, but they don’t believe in a higher being such as God.
Sartre was a moralist and not a moralizer. He states that we are responsible for our egos and this is because it’s an object of consciousness and to a philosopher that’s what it’s about. His works with existentialist ethics assumes that the societies we live in are all oppressed and exploited. Yet in still, we are subjected to having freedom. We have the choices to choose philosophical path or not. Existentialists had one virtue, and that’s authenticity, it’s compared with many other life choices. Ethics could mean to you, what you do, and why you do it. He is to defend existentialism. In the second reading, he states that they have been charged with basing existentialism on human degradation. This meaning that they only see the evil and dark side of the world and not the bright, positive sides of our worldly views. They’re also charged with giving the humans the benefit of the doubt of being self-centered beings and that they don’t need other human alliances to live. Christians blamed existentialists of not believing in God’s commandments and eternal promises. And to the Christians, this means all pureness and holiness is obsolete. This doesn’t make existentialism look good or positive at all. Actually, they are compared to naturalist in a negative way, yet the naturalists have caused more controversy then existentialists. The few common grounds for the atheists and Catholic/Christian existentialists is that existence comes before essence. Both sides believe that an individual or object has a written purpose and the only thing now is to fulfill that purpose.
6. Kant’s ethical theory would define as being rational. He called it “Categorial imperative”. Being rational, meant not being out of this world, so that rules out being immortal, this would be irrational. He would agree with my rational thinking because it has to do with reasoning, which is good. A self-governing reason must be in place with a rational outlook. It the pending outcome is definitely unattainable, then this is not what Kant is stating in his theories. He would critique my views as being self-governed because the majority of decisions I make are about my own personal experiences.
One of his works was called The Critique of Practical Reason, and it was a newer version of his thoughts after one of his first writings The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He analyzed how common sense worked with morality, but is common sense a true indicator of what’s right and wrong, I disagree. It just can’t be. First and foremost, common sense is different for everyone, so there’s no way it can apply to universally. This relates to having a good will, this is supposed to based on the value of your moral. How moral are you, and how moral can you be? The route you choose will change as well. Times where you need courage or wittiness will come up. Other times where there’s no need for courageousness because it brings injustice or a time for being witty when its being cruel to someone. There’s more then one side to the spectrum. Taking it too far to the extremes can disrupt someone’s morals.
Kant describes having morals to be a good attribute, and if there is anything to pursue it’s that. Having sincerity and sympathy can be a great thing, but too much of it will ruin it. Imagine being too sincere or too sympathetic, it would not work for the individual. Balance is a must. Kant states that even when a person has courage, perseverance, intelligence, and wit, it won’t do them any good if they don’t have good will to go along with it. With good will, comes duty. Kierkegaard states in his writings that Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac to the social norms. You might think that he doesn’t recognize a higher being, but he does. He knew Abraham needed to fulfill his own duties. Both these philosophers realize that a duty is to be acted upon, and carried out.
Kierkegaard was a Christian thinker and the father of existentialism. He was on the constant tour of spreading Christian views. He would use biblical figures and use them to relate to modern day events and struggles so the people would understand. His attempts to revitalize Christianity came out in Danish church politics. He was also a poet, using religion as his subject matter. Existentialism is philosophical movement that deals with religious freedom, he was involved with this. It actually contradicts the traditional philosophy that most philosophers have come up with. It’s has to do with the fundamentals of human conditions and how they react with the world around us. The freedom we have is questionable, but the duties we have are undeniable. And existentialism in definition is hard to explain thoroughly because there are parts within that contradict the outlooks. At least we know that existence comes before essence, many other philosophers feel the same way. The movement deals with the issue of actually dismissing that life has meaning, and this collides with Christian’s beliefs of why we are here. In existentialism, they want the individual to come up with the values themselves, and not be spoon fed what to do or say. They want the human to define what’s supposed to be fulfilling to them or not. Existentialism often is related with terms such as anxiety, death, and freedom. Christianity acknowledges these things also. Soren Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to create this existentialism. Him and Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t even use the term existentialism.
Just like most of all philosophers, they were looking for the meaningfulness in life. Kierkegaard said that human nature and human identity are different depending on the values and beliefs that that person has for themselves. It’s always been a known fact, that everyone is different and in turn it changes someone’s outlooks and wants.
7. A famous Utilitarianism principle is “the greatest happiness principle.” And this was to make the most amount of people to be as happy as can be. This means it’s not just for individual, but for the community. He distinguishes pleasure from contentment, making them two different feelings. I agree with this. Which one of these has utility though, is it the family or the party man The answer seems obvious here. It’s the family man who further carries on the name and provides for more then just himself. Hence the world utility, meaning use, in the word utilitarianism. To carry on for the human race is much more important then splurging thousands of dollars on wealthy items. Instead of using words like pleasure and happiness, utilitarianism uses the word welfare. And it’s important to separate the lines between pleasure and happiness. By happiness they mean intended pleasure. Intended as in this was what was called for. Reasoning and guidance wasn’t spoken much either. But happiness for the greater good and the greater majority is what they’re looking for. When it comes to the Greater Happiness Principle, it’s about the ultimate end, to have as much quantity and quality as possible. More then that, it’s about having the most happiness and least pain for Mill. When it comes to Mill, he wants us to be as happy as possible as well as the people around us, of course I expect he means the rest of the world as well. The test of morality is a test of utility. Epicurus was similar to Mill’s thinking. Mill’s pleasure was defined as having use or utility. And Epicurus wanted nothing to do with gods or death, in turn, finding the ultimate pleasure which was tranquility for him.
Epicurus was a major philosopher during the Hellenistic period. Many philosophers came from this period. Epicurus taught that the world consists only of atoms, bits of matter. Science was key here.. He explained the natural phenomena in atomic terms. By doing this, he removed the possibility of spiritual beings and a higher existence. It was a big thing to Epicurus that you were not to fear gods or even fear death. This rules an after life. So, his world, it’s during your lifetime you shine and not a day later. He also said that we could gain knowledge without relying on senses. He thought that the point of ones actions was to attain pleasure, and by pleasure he means tranquility, mostly to one’s self. An easy was of obtaining this tranquil life, it’s best to limit your desires and forget about fear or gods and death. This will consequently hold you down and fear will take over. His gospel of freedom from gods or death became well known amongst a certain group of individuals. And who is to blame them, it very well seems like a perfect method to face the fears that you do have, and conquer them by yourself. His ethics is a form of egotistic hedonism as in the only intrinsically valuable thing is ones own pleasure. Yet, he was still sophisticated. He would recommend a virtuous and moderately ascetic life. Some hedonists have the stereotype of being the ones to “eat, drink, and be merry.” How appropriate, wouldn’t that be a great slogan for philosophical life.
8. The philosopher that I clicked with during these readings was Epicurus. With the close connection of science based thinking, it’s easy too apply to our lives. I like the way he totally defines and teaches that the world only has atoms, and matter and nothing else in terms of a higher being. Even though I’m Christian, I feel for this. I could imagine a life with the fact that there’s no afterlife. By this, it’ll be an easier, stress-free lifestyle, instead of worrying about who to please, what to please, and when it’s going to end. Morals and good-will will still be in us, but without pressure of death hanging on our shoulders; maybe we can rise to the top with our own ambitions in mind. I also agree with his views on virtue. This is important for a successful life as well. Imagine we sat on our behinds, waiting for the end. Nothing can be solved with this. I also like Epicurus’ outlook on pleasure being tranquility. A calm, conservative life can help you live longer I think. Less stress, and more best wishes. I’d also join the stereotype of the Hedonists which is “eat, drink, and be merry.” Now, that’s one pleasurable lifetime, and nothing after. For some, this is unacceptable. A life without reason, but that’s on them to think this way. Just because there’s no afterlife doesn’t mean there’s no purpose. In contrast with our modern society, Epicurus’ views are much different. Everyone seems like their bent on something, and I assume and propose that that something is death. Fear of death is actually the killer. When you wake up each day, it would be beneficial to live it out and further know that it’s about that day and that moment. Last point that I feel similar feelings with is that the fact you can gain knowledge without senses. It’s a more free like state of mind and in order to have long, tranquil life, Epicurus’ Hellenistic views is the philosophy to live by.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Group Pictures
I just realized I don't have photos of shit that goes on. Some pictures are more recent then others. For real though, time flies. Shit is just memories now.
Some of the guys we headed down there with
Right here, we had a little self-timer action before Larchmont
At Larchmont
The SPINS and I, about to take the bus to Haight St.
Some of the guys we headed down there with
Right here, we had a little self-timer action before Larchmont
At Larchmont
Bisko's 21st Birthday at DNB, Santa Anita
Las Vegas Strip for NYE 07
Shoot, life is what you make it, so make it right cause if you know wassup you know other people are in the real struggle. High cell phone bills and bad grades shouldn't be pissin' you off, besides who's responsible for that anyways? Ha, now that's what I call ranting.
Las Vegas Strip for NYE 07
Shoot, life is what you make it, so make it right cause if you know wassup you know other people are in the real struggle. High cell phone bills and bad grades shouldn't be pissin' you off, besides who's responsible for that anyways? Ha, now that's what I call ranting.
It's poppin' off
Don't know if you heard of or been to these two events, but here's your chance to get caught up with some culture. One's coming up in February, the other is at the end of April.
RATM, Willie Nelson?? the list goes on. Straight madness I'm telling you. Be prepared to meet hippies from your parents time.
Also known as Bob Markey Fest, commerating his life through music. Some intense reggae goin' on. See you there. (I'm still debating which day to go)
http://www.bobmarleydayfestival.com/
http://www.bobmarleydayfestival.com/
Believe that
Shoot, I'm all into the enviroment if you didn't know. Click the link to see 8 technological inventions that'll save us from doom. Here's to the future !
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0701/gallery.8greentechs/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0701/gallery.8greentechs/index.html
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Give it to me one time
If you're interested in some house, soul, funk, dance, or disco music. Here's a radio show that provides mp3 streams or dl's of that. I listen to it plenty. These DJ's are based in London and they're called SIX MILLION STEPS. Have a go at it, you won't be disappointed.
http://www.sixmillionsteps.com/
http://www.sixmillionsteps.com/
Turn it up
Bang it in your truck
Strong Arm Stready with
"Strong Arm Radio" Mix Cd
if you feelin' that gangsta weed smokin 65 miles hour with the windows down type shit
Peanut Butter Wolf
"Stones Throw 10 Years" 2XLP
Stones Throw is always putting it down, for 10 years to be exact
Thursday, January 18, 2007
KRS-ONE, TELL IT !
Hip hop isn't dead. Shit son, He's talking about consciousness. Here, get your read up
http://www.complexmag.com/blogs/?p=1668/
http://www.complexmag.com/blogs/?p=1668/
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Here we go. PHOTOS
Well, me and steve took a few photo shots courtesy of dan. Crazy shit guy, it takes place in his garage. Pretty legit for real though. Here, check it out.
DMANOS AND JSPINS, WITH THE HOTNESS 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
