Clark

I disagree with the claim in the Q&A that Clark believes that naturalism and supernaturalism can exist peacefully together. In the first several pages I could see where he was going and I agreed with what he was saying. However, as the later stages of the essay progressed, I sensed a very strong bias against supernaturalism. I will have to pay attention this week to see if I am just making hasty  misunderstandings about the article, but I think that Clark contradicts himself several times. My biggest source of irritation came right at the end of the essay. In his second paragraph of REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS, Clark states that "We can reassure the forces of faith non-empiricism that naturalism as a worldview isn't assumed in public policy or discourse" (7). Really? Earlier he stated that "whatever our worldview, we have to act as this-world empiricists when arguing for policy" (3), so which one is it? He first says that we need to think empirically when making policies, and I agree with this. But to then go on later to say that supernaturalists don't have to worry about being governed by naturalist policies is ridiculous. The entire essay has a sort of pity emanating towards supernaturalists. I feel that Clark is a naturalist and does not hold a high opinion of supernaturalists. His speech belittles them and he then throws in this contradictory remark in the REASSURING SUPERNATURALISTS section. The word choice of "reassuring" seems to me to be like a parent talking to a child, "O don't worry, you can still think what you want". Maybe I'm just ignorant to Clark's message because of the bias I supposedly found, we'll see.

History Repeats Itself

The other question I brought up after our discussions was relevant to any history class I have ever taken. I believe that we have all heard hundreds of times that history repeats itself. I began to wonder why. Does determinism have anything to do with it? I always thought of it before as a coincidence, but what if it isn't? What if all the natural laws that create determinism also create tendencies towards certain things? It seems to me that this could be true. We could possibly say that it is a natural law that people do not like living under a totalitarian government. When has that ever worked? It didn't work out for Hitler's regime, or Stalin's communist set up, or Mussilini's fascist control over Italy, and more recently, there are doubts about China's future as a communist state. People do not like being told what to do, they want to choose what they do, or, in my opinion, be under the impression that they are choosing what they do. From there we can probably assume that China will have problems in the future as communist nations had in the past, and in the future the attempt will be made again, and it will probably fail again, and so on and so forth. I think that is the most obvious notion of history repeating itself, I can't think of anything else right now seeing as  how I always hated those history classes. I'm sure there are other instances though and I think that they are results of these natural laws that compose determinism.

Determinism and Society

After a few days of discussing the different theories of determinism and free will I began to wonder how the world would be effected if it were possible for determinism to be proven. Although I myself believe in determinism, I am not trying to say that it is possible to prove, I just find it interesting to contemplate the state of society if it were proven. Free will would not be a problem at all because most people enjoy the idea of being able to decide the paths of their own lives. I noticed this just the other day even in a business textbook. The section was talking about business ethics and that when managing an ethical dilemma it is necessary to weigh all the rights of those involved, most importantly the ability for people to decide their own destiny. What if they were unable to decide their destiny? Would there be such things as ethics? I would hope that people would still behave ethically or morally correctly but it would be impossible to control. Any ethical lapse could simply be written off as an unavoidable scientific circumstance and any altruistic acts the same. This is my one soft spot in my defense for determinism. Maybe it is a selfish idea, but I enjoy being applauded for my good actions and I find it helpful, if not necessary, to be berated for my bad actions. So back to my original question, how would society react to this idea that any actions are determined so there is no necessity for moral standards or discipline or awards or, it seems, almost anything at all. Would people find life worthless, or would they be able to put determinism aside and just live their lives regardless of whether it is determined or not?

Incompatibilism

Based on our discussions yesterday, I am coming to the conclusion that I am an incompatibilist. Determinism seems to me to be a pretty legitimate position. Although it is far too broad of a concept for us to attempt to understand, I think that it makes sense. I think that the major obstacle for us in understanding determinism is how vast the information seems. As Professor Johnson noted yesterday, determinism does not mean predictability. Although I believe that if we had the information described by determinism, we could predict the future, it will never be within our reach. So determinists do not think that they can predict the future, but what will be will be. This is pretty creepy when it comes to our own thoughts. We think of our minds as the last frontier, a space completely to ourselves that nobody can access, yet determinism states that if there was enough knowledge, our thoughts would be predictable. This is where the free will argument comes in. They think that our thoughts are our own and that we can change our mind at any moment and throw off the "determined" outcome. My view on this is that free will is an illusion. If determinism is correct in saying that there could be a level of information so great that thoughts were already set, we could say that we knew when someone was going to change their mind, we could expect the unexpected. For this reason I think that free will is just an illusion caused by determinism. This being said, I think that this illusion is incredibly important to our existence. If we did not think that we had the ability to write our own futures, many would find life pointless. This idea of free will keeps people motivated despite the fact that is an illusion.

The Past

I'm not sure how much of this weeks reading I understand. It seems like nothing has a set response and neither free will nor determinism reign in the universe. What really confused me in particular is that "another way to think of compatibilism is to question the assumption of the past being 'fixed' in some way" (6). How can you question that which has already happened? I don't get it. What I do understand is thoughts about different outcomes. If the situation were slightly different, then we would have chosen differently and we would not be in the same situation as the present. How, though, does that say anything about the flexibility of the past? Are they trying to say that things could have gone differently? That seems to fall under common sense...but maybe it doesn't? I don't know. It's a good thing that we only have class twice this week, I think this subject is going to be just as exhausting as altruism.

Moral "Bar"

On Friday I brought up that Houchin does not agree with the idea that "[J.O. Urmson] sets the basic level of duty for everyone at the same level" (24). I support Urmson's idea. When I brought this up in class it was quickly put to rest simply because of the fact that some people are more able to help than others. While I acknowledge this, I do not think that that is sufficient reasoning to dismiss the idea. At this time, at least in the U.S., we are all born with equal rights. Why then should we all be held to different moral standards? And who determines those standards? I am not talking about how much people give to charity or how much time they spend at soup kitchens because, while that is altruistic, you don't need to constantly act like that to become altruistic. I am talking about morals in regards of respect and manors; how you treat people. Houchin's disagreement with this idea, I think, leaves too much room for excuses. If there is not a set standard then who does set the standards? Each individual person. Then, they could act as despicably as they want and say "O I'm so sorry, I'm just not capable of acting as nice as you!" and we would have to accept that. I think that this attitude has spread to many aspects of education as well, and not necessarily for the best. Many times, credit is given for effort. Work is not necessarily reviewed and graded, just acknowledged as being done to the best of one's ability. What happens, then, when we graduate high school and maybe graduate college and get into the work force? "O sorry boss, I really tried to get that work done but I was just so tired, I'll get it done eventually" Now you're out of that job, looking for another one. I just think that we all need to be set to a standard every now and then. Self awareness and responsibility is good and important, but I think that sometimes we all need some guide lines. 

Woody

So we have watched Toy Story 3 twice in the last week in my room... and I've recognized some of our class topics coming up in the movie. I'm trying to figure out whether or not Woody is altruistic. I think he might be. Andy chooses Woody to take to college and ops to put the rest of the toys in the attic. His mom ends up donating them to the Sunnyside Daycare which is ruled by an evil purpley teddy bear, Lotso. When Woody discovers what is happening to his friends, he returns to Sunnyside determined to break out his friends. Like we talked about today in class, Woody is doing this in plain knowledge of the fact that he will be in big trouble with Lotso if he is caught, probably spending the rest of his life in the Caterpillar Room (the younger kids that destroy toys, keep up with your Disney movies). Eventually Woody succeeds and even ends up with all of his toy friends at Bonnie's house to live happily ever after with a new owner.
On the other hand we have Lotso, the evil dictator of Sunnyside Daycare. He is the epitome of selfishness. His selfishness is a result of being replaced as  a toy in his past so now he runs Sunnyside under the notion that toys are made to be thrown out and toy's owners never have and never will love them. This also seems to tie into our recent discussions. Lotso seems to think that there is no point in life because no owner loves their toys, so that becomes his meaning in life; to make sure that all toys understand that and to make sure that he is in control. He even uses Woody's altruism to save himself and then tries to get Woody killed. This is a prime example of an unexamined life. Lotso's anger clouds his vision in life but gets back at him when he is strapped to the front of a tractor trailer truck at the end of the movie.

Struggling

So I finally finished Houchin's essay and I can't say that it is seating too well with me. I really liked the first half of the essay. The fact that it is the object towards which we act that determines whether our actions are selfish or self-interested was very helpful and I agree. However, in the second half of the essay, I do not agree with Houchin's idea that virtue is developed only through an attempt to improve yourself. In his example of The Plague, Houchin says that Rambert is "a morally superior individual relative to Rieux because Rambert is conflicted" (23). I myself am conflicted in how to take to this notion. Is it good for Rambert to improve himself? Absolutely. Does that make him superior to Rieux? Not exactly. If this is the case, what incentive do we have to become "Morally Praiseworthy/Commendable/Virtuous/A Fully Realized Human Being" (26)? Houchin himself states that all of our activities as humans have some aspect of self-interest in them. So what self interest is there in pursuing this morally praiseworthy state if, once we reach it, we "have in fact fallen to the bottom of [Houchin's] totem pole of virtue" (24)? Maybe I'm just missing out on some detail, but I'm not seeing a connection between the fact that everything we do is in our own interest, but attaining moral completion leads us back to the bottom of the totem pole. 

Houchin

I have to admit that I have not finished the essay. It's 11: 45 on Sunday night and I'm being that terrible last minute student that needs to finish his fourth blog post to get credit for the week. I apologize. I have read through page 16 and I've found some stuff I really like. James Rachels' idea that "it is the object of a want that determines whether it is selfish or not" (15), does a good job at refuting the claim that every action is a selfish one (13-14). I  believe that this is a very useful argument in our earlier discussions of volunteer work. In the first week, I think, we brought up this topic and talked about whether or not volunteer work is altruistic. Now, we can use this and say that if somebody takes part in volunteer work on their own free will, it is indeed altruistic. If they are doing it because their mom says they have to do it so they can put it on their college application, it is selfish. This is because the action only has the good of the doer in mind, it does not pertain to who is getting helped. The person is only volunteering so an adviser can sign off on their NHS slip and be done for the month until March. This is where I am of the opinion that Kirk Monfort is altruistic. I do agree that he "appears exceptional and altruistic because so many around him have much more restricted views of their home and community" (12), but that does not change the fact that he himself still is an altruist. Although he may be having an effect on the greater population of Chico, isn't that what elected officials are supposed to do? He is simply doing his job, and in my view, doing it well. He is using his power and influence to better the city, which obviously does benefit him, but benefits everyone else around him. I am interested to see where the rest of this article goes because right now I am pretty set on the idea of Kirk being an altruist. 11:57, crap!

Dolphins and Aristotle

I was just looking over the parts of the Aristotle chapter about human nature, and how we act, in essence, like animals when we don't follow our reason. Our reason and intellect are what separate us from animals. So what about the fairytale story about dolphins saving people from sharks? What about the orca whale's ability to discover that great white sharks will suffocate if they get pinned upside down? (Yes it's true, National Geographic channel, the whale that ate jaws, greatest documentary ever created) While I understand that our ability to perceive hypothetical situations is part of what puts us apart from animals, I do not see a great difference in intelligence. I'm not trying to say that a whale or dolphin is as smart as us or anything ridiculous, but as humans, I think we put ourselves a little too highly in comparison with the other species of the planet. In the Aristotle chapter, acting "inhuman" (102) is equivalent to animal-like. (Again my own opinion, but that is the impression I get) This description is used for the third kind of undesirable life, "brutishness" (101). I am probably making a big deal out of an equivocation on the word 'inhuman', but as long as we believe in Darwin's theories, I think it may be important to remember that we evolved from the animals who we now condemn acting like. Just a thought.

Government

I raised the question the other day in class about the role that these philosophers are giving the government. Aristotle wanted lots of control from the government, especially in the upbringing of children and their education. Although he realized how unrealistic Plato's ideas of total control and isolation of the children from the parents were, Aristotle maintained that the government should be in control of their upbringing. Although people can own private property and live in their own families, the idea is that "their upbringing and patterns of behavior [are] ordered by the state" (103). After discussing this, we noted that this more totalitarian system is probably a project for the future, not the present day. We think that Aristotle did not believe that the citizens of his day could maintain this system, but it seems to be the ideal future. I do not believe we are there now, and I do not believe that we will be there for a long time. Especially these days when there are so many issues about who tells who what to do and the "its a free country, I do what I want" attitude, people are not going to be told what to do and cooperate. No matter how obvious the benefits would be for society, people want to be able to choose their own future. Aristotle's attitude of separation of class by mental capacity also worries me in this respect. People will not take kindly to somebody saying "O hey you're dumb, so you can't go to college, we're going to make you a farm worker" (I am not implying that farm workers are dumb, I am just using an example of unskilled labor). I think there is a long time to go before a system like Aristotle's can be employed, if ever.

Aristotle

1.      How could Aristotle be so in tune with the intellectual capabilities and workings of the human soul but still be subject to the prejudices of his day in saying that “although the ‘brutish’ (animal-like) type of human being is rare, it is more common among non-Greeks” (97)?

 a   It is hard to figure out what is going on in Aristotle's head with regard to the capabilities of other people. It seems that Aristotle was not able to adopt the accepting ideas of his teacher Plato. It makes sense that Aristotle made claims about the inability of some people like slaves or women, who were historically put down by other philosophers. However, there is no reason other than ignorance for this claim about foreigners. This seems to be a little bit of a contradiction to living a fulfilled and enlightened life. Maybe it is just my modern view of society now that doesn't allow me to see Aristotle's view on outsiders, but it doesn't seem to meet up with his other views.

The Tripartite

We've been talking a lot in class about what is just or moral or right. On page 84, Plato uses what I think is an effective metaphor. He states that justice can be attained if one's mind can be in a harmonious relationship amongst the three parts; Reason, Spirit, and Appetite. This relationship, he says, is similar to that needed in society to have a peaceful and effective society. All parts need to work together in a balanced way to ensure the success of the whole body. In this respect, we can look at the relationship of our own tripartite structures and say that we are responsible for our own successes. If we have the ability and discipline to balance our own minds then we can become just and moral and determine how well we can live the rest of our lives. The example in the book takes one's view on love. With discipline, we can curb the Appetite part of the brain that has a lustful view on love, and develop good and loving relationships apart from the desires of the flesh. The problem brought up in the book is that somebody must be around to teach these correct ways of love, but is it not possible for someone who accomplishes harmony in their soul to learn these ways themselves?

Plato & Democracy

I was wondering if anybody else noticed Plato's disapproval of democracy. Although it seems unfair, I can't say that the thought hasn't applied to me too. Why should everyone vote when many people are not educated enough with concern to the issues at hand? I am not trying to sound elitist...I would put myself in this category of people that are not well educated enough to make a well informed decision and vote on it. The book does say however, that this opinion was a result of the poor government of the time so I wonder what Plato would think about the modern, more controlled form of democracy that we have now. I also don't understand Plato's description of democratic minded people as "lacking in discipline, pursuing mere pleasures of the moment, indulging 'unnecessary, spendthrift' desires". Although it may be true that they are not sufficiently educated on certain matters, it does not make people uncontrollable. 

I found Plato's talk of gender and sexuality to be very interesting. In a time when women had no role in society, Plato stated that there was no reason that they couldn't do any job that a man can. As a result of this, Plato "was therefore prepared to admit women of appropriate talent to the ruling class" (81). It is interesting to me that Plato was willing to state this over 2000 years ago and yet women are just now appearing more in higher status jobs and government. This same idea is relevant in homosexuality. It is interesting that in that time homosexuality was so common and accepted that it is the main model for Plato's thoughts on love. However, now people are fighting for the right to be married. What happened in history that changed this attitude so much?