Intro To Philosophy - My Final Project!

Join in Our Class Discussions 

Why do you think there is wisdom in knowing you are not wise?

I can relate to Socrates a bit. I tend to challenge "the trends." For example, when it came time to enroll my five year olds in school, I asked, "Why must they attend school at age 5?" Research proved that they do not have to attend at age five. Compulsary education in most states begins around age 7 or 8. So why, I wondered, does everybody put their children in school at age five? I questioned those around me, much like Socrates questioned those around him. Those around me thought I was crazy. They couldn't accept the question, let alone the fact that there was no concrete answer. Most of them responded with some variation of, "Well, we send them to school because we're supposed to." That answer was not good enough for me, and our family became a homeschooling family. Like Socrates, we have encountered many people who question our judgement because they believe they are "wiser" than us. What is it that makes them wiser? Isn't that what Socrates was trying to determine?

When it came time to immunize my children, again I asked "Why?" There were no satisfactory answers, so we chose not to immunize, with the exception of Tetanus, which is a "logical decision" based on our life-style. Like Socrates, we have encountered many people who question our judgement because they believe they are "wiser" than us. What is it that makes them wiser? Isn't that what Socrates was trying to determine?

I think it is wise not to automatically follow the crowd. In my experience, (Guess I lean towards modern Continental Philosphy?) I have found that the crowd often has no idea why they are doing what they are doing. Is that wise? I think it is more wise to admit you do not have all the information (knowledge), and then proceed, or not, with caution.

Bewteen 559 and 545 B.C., a Prophet of God said, "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailities, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:28-29)

What is Virtue? Can it be taught? 

I agree with Socrates, that virtue is a divine gift given to each of us. As a mother, I certainly hope that I can "teach" my children to build on that initial gift. I "teach" them daily by example, by sharing my personal experiences, and by sharing the personal experiences of others through the teaching of history.

What is the role of habit in the creation of knowledge? 

John Locke talks about ideas coming from sensation or reflections. He asks: "Let us then suppose the mind to be white paper void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished?" And Hume talks about habit creating knowledge. Consider a newborn infant, just out of the mother's womb. That person has no experience outside the womb, and has not yet had the opportunity to develop any habits. Yet he instantly turns to the breast. Does he know he needs to do that for sustenance? Does he know what the effect will be? What is instinct, and does it play a role in knowledge or the acquiring of knowledge? Or do we come to earth with knowledge, which would contradict both Locke, who suggests the mind is a blank page, and Hume, who suggests we need to develop a habit to acquire knowledge?

Are you convinced that the meaning of words are how they are used, not some definition, image, or object? 

I do believe that the meaning of words is how they are used. I've had an interesting opportunity to teach English to 2 of my children, who were adopted from Russia almost 5 years ago. They were ages 10 & 11 when they arrived here. There have been many times when I have had to try and explain why the word we use in one sense may not be the one we use in another sense. For example, the word "glass." (There's an episode of Star Trek, TNG, that portrays this.) We use the same word for window, a drinking tool, a vision enhancement, a description (i.e. 'smooth as glass') . . . it is in the way we use the word 'glass' that it's meaning becomes clear.

The task of philosophy: perhaps it is nothing more than a name we have assigned to the human thought process. Humans have been thinking about their environment and circumstances since the beginning of time. Eventually, perhaps, humans being what they are, they had to give the process a name. Then they had to begin a competition for it. They had to devise ways to "prove" that their explanations and reasons were correct. Why do we insist on being "right?" Cannot there be more than one "right" answer to many questions? I think this class has proven that indeed there are many "right" answers. And each philosopher we've studiend though he had discovered it!

Is morality found in the golden mean, the middle path, as Aristotle claims (as does the Buddha)? Aren't honorable, but extreme, 

The Golden Mean vs. Extreme (sounds like a wrestling match!)

Again, two possible correct answers to the same question. Where is morality found? Back to Wittgenstein - what is the definition of morality? Assuming the most common - doing good, doing nothing to excess (except being good), serving others, choosing the 'right' - I personally believe that morality is to be found in the Golden Mean, yet extreme actions can also be moral. How do I reconcile the two views?

Consider suicide. It is considered immoral by many to commit suicide. Perhaps a soldier throws himself on a grenade and in the process, saves the other soldiers in the foxhole. What of a mother throwing herself in front of a moving vehicle to save her child? Or of a firefighter running into a burning building to save a stranger? These are extreme acts that could undoubtedly result in the ending of one's own life by choice. Yet can one argue that these are immoral acts?

Which is more important in coming up with an ethical code, motives or consequences? 

Motives vs. consequences. It seems to me that the powerpoint presentation suggests that ultimately it all comes down to consequences, even Kant. If I understand correctly, Kant, while believing the intentions must be considered, also believed one should see if one's personal maxims could be applied to everyone. Is that not considering the consequences, regardless of the motives?

I personally tend to think things out (usually too much!) to consider all possible outcomes, then pursue the course that gets me where I think I want to be. So . . . I vote for Miill - consequences!

Does Anselm or Aquinas have a stronger argument? Why? 

The question is: which has the better arugment? In that context, I believe Anselm does. It seems more logical to me, easier to defend in a verbal debate. However, I also accept Aquinas' argument. I simply know God exists, and, like both Anselm and Aquinas, I cannot prove it scientifically. And like Anselm and Aquinas, I do not believe it needs to be proven. It just is.

I have found it curious that each of the philosophers we have studied ended up at God. He is sort of tough to avoid!

Neitzche on Bart Simpson 

In this week's reading, Conrad writes about Bart: "No, Nietzsche's ideal is more the artist, the self-overcoming, self-creating individual, who forges new values, who makes an artwork out of his life. And I think we'd be hard-pressed to describe Bart in t

I've never seen The Simpsons (I know, I'm culturally illiterate!) so I cannot speak to this analogy. However, I did think of another character who "is more the artist, the self-overcoming, self-creating individual, who forges new values, who makes an artwork out of his life." That is Commander Data, on Star Trek, TNG. He is an android who, by definition, should not be able to grow beyond what he is. Yet he constantly strives to become "more" human. Perhaps he would meet Nietzshe's ideal? Would that we would all meet Nietzshe's ideal (only I hope we could all be a bit more positive!)

What Grade Would YOU Give Me?