Socrates

The quote I chose for this blog is “He never wrote a single line. Yet he is one of the philosophers who has had the greatest influence on European thought, ” because I find it really interesting that this happened and it leaves me wondering “is what we think to be Socrate’s philosophy really his philosophy? Or is it what Plato wants us to think is Socrates’ philosophy?”.

Socrates seems to have been pretty simple: he didn’t know anything, it troubled him, so he asked a lot of questions. Like in everyday society, awkward questions can lead to awkward answers can lead to angry people, and thats how Socrates died: people got angry and claimed he was corrupting the youth, and since he wouldn’t back down he was sentenced to death. 

He was a rationalist who believed that people do good things because theyare educated and people do bad things because they are not educated. He believed that a persons ability to do right and wrong lies in reason, not society.

I really like Socrates’ philosophy because it makes total sense to me; how can you be happy when do things that you know are wrong?

Equality and the Duty to Aid

In part one of John Arthur’s article “Equality, Entitlements, and the Distribution of Income”, Arthur focuses on not only Singer’s argument but also the greater moral evil rule. This rule is “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. 

The quote I chose for this blog from this section is “Equal consideration of interests thus leads naturally to the greater moral evil rule”. I chose this quote because I think it sums up this section nicely. While the first half was Arthur explaining how Singer is wrong, saying things like “Leaving aside for the moment whether or not he is correct about our code, it seems to me that if it really did require us to commit mass suicide rather than allow inequality in wealth, than we would want to abondon it for a more suitable set of rules”, in the second half he explains his take on the greater moral evil rule.

When Arthur used the example of giving to famine relief instead of buying a new car to explain the greater moral evil rule, it definitly helped me understand the rule, which was somewhat fuzzy before.  Unlike the other philosopers we’ve read before, Arthur writes in modern language leading itself to be an almost easier read, which I really like.

Berkeley

For this chapter, I chose the quote “He felt that current philosophies and science were a threat to the Christian way of life, that the all-pervading materialism, not least, represented a threat to the Christan faith in God as creator and preserver of all nature”. I believe that this is a good quote for this chapter because it explains why Berkley came up with this philosophy.

Even though he was an extremely religious man, he was “the most consistent of the empiricists” and like Hallie mentioned in class, I find this really odd. To be an empiricist, you have to believe that all knowledge comes from observations/experiences, and while I don’t fully understand how he observed/experienced God, then I guess that’s his reasoning for being extremely religious.

An idea that I found really interesting was the suggestion that the world we’re living in is actually a dream (page 280).  I’m intrigued by this idea because its so odd and at the same time magical because of how strange it is. I really liked reading about Berkeley because he has such a unique philosophy.

Democritus

The quote I picked for this chapter was “he therefore assumed that everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable”.   This quote was chosen because not only does it explain most of Democritus’ philosophy (as a materialist, he believed only in the material world) but also because he was right! Even though he thought this up thousands and thousands of years ago, he still descovered one of the most important aspects of science.  What I found really interesting was his ideas on the soul. By saying that the soul was made up of it’s own type of atoms, “specia round, smooth soul atoms”.  As one of the last Pre Socratic philosphers, he definitly left his mark in philosophies to come – and science.

Spinoza

When I was reading the “Spinoza” chapter, the line that I found really interesting was “There is almost something symbolic in fact that he lived by polishing lenses. A philosopher must help people to see life in a new perspective.”  This quote stuck out to me because it doesn’t pertain solely to Spinoza, but also too pretty much all philosophers. I think this is significant because Spinoza tried to get people to see in a new perspective which lead to him being ostersized by not only his community but also his family.

Spinoza’s philosophy is kind of a throw back to some  earlier philosophers, such as St. Paul and the Stoics,  in a way. Spinoza believed that everything is in God because He didn’t create the world to stand outside it, instead He is the world (246).   Spinoza was also a determinist, like the Stoics. It seems that Spinoza liked stoicism because Gaarder also says that Spinoza also thought, similarly to the Stoics, that people shouldn’t get carried away with their emotions and feelings. 

 Spinoza is really interesting, even if it was kind of confusing.  I chose to write a blog about this quote because it is not only exemplifies Spinoza but also the other philosophers.  In the chapter, I was really confused by the example of the Stone Age boy. My confusion was quickly rectified by the example of lion to help me understand natural laws. But I found the lion example to be really interesting and helpful in understanding natural law and Spinoza’s philosophy.

Lord of the Rings #3

In the final part of the movie, after Gandalf dies, we see the mourners trecking through the wilderness until they get attacked by the evil creatures. The scene that stood out to me the most was when the Boromir was trying to take the ring from Frodo. He was driven to the brink of madness because of greed and coveting the ring. People search for happiness, and I believe that the pursuit of happiness is what motivates us in our actions; so I believe Boromir was convinced in that brief scene that the ring Frodo had would give him happiness and when Frodo wouldn’t give it to him, it made him want it even more until he noticed how much he scared Frodo. By frightening Frodo, it brought Boromir out of that dark hole he was in and made him realise that he couldn’t handle the power of the ring. He redeemed himself later, when he died fighting trying to save the other hobbits who were taken.This was easily saddest part in the movie, and I have no qualms in saying that I cried when he died.

Lord of the Rings #2

In the second part of the Lord of the Rings, Frodo and his friends finally reach the Elves. It is here that we realize that not everyone has the same sentiments as Frodo, some even think that they should use the omnipotent ring. The power of the ring pulls the characters to it, causing a little friction in the party. Realizing that only he can resist the evilness of the Ring, Frodo volunteers to bring the Ring to Mount Doom.This scene to me explained that there is no clear cut “good vs evil” because different people define evil in different ways. For example, most of the party suggested that they wear the Ring because it would give them the “evil power to do good things” but in reality the amount of power they would possess would ultimatelylead to their demise.   Personally, I really liked this scene because it showed that different people have different beliefs on good vs evil. Like, if you use the evil power for good, is it really evil? Or is something innately evil or is the power that the ring possess evil?

Lord of the Rings part 1

Since it is my first time seeing Lord of the Rings, I am trying to absorb the movie as best as possible and also try to analyze it in a philosophical light. The scene from the first part that stood out to me was the scene when the hobbits were listening Aragorn explain what the creatures chasing them were, men corrupted and destroyed by the need of power into disgusting looking creatures with the soul desire to capture the ring. We’ve learned in class that what truly motivates us is happiness, but these “men” have been corrupted out of happiness by the desire of power thinking that will bring them happiness. We have also learned in class that people might do bad things because they don’t know any better, so that might be why those creatures would kill the hobbits – because they don’t know any better and they think the ring will bring them happiness. After seeing part of this movie, I now understand why everyone is slightly obsessed with it and why this movie is a great example of philosophy in film.  Thank you so much for letting us watch this movie in class!

Stopping the Defense of “Defense of Marriage Act”

Looking at this article, on Wednesday, February 23 2011 history was changed when President Obama decided that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended.   For the past two years, President Obama has been saying that personally he was against the law, but he had to defend it anyways as president. The decision to stop the defense of the law came out of two court cases and months of internal discussions. Before this, the law was only enforced because of the fact of applicable court precedents; but now, the government has to decide whether laws regarding sexual orientation should be subject to legal standards applicable to legislation targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination. So since DOMA’s underlying message is one of homophobia, it should be subjected to the legal standards applicable. The problem with this law is that even though the administration has said that they don’t support it, they still need to enforce it until either Congress repeals it or the Supreme Court rules against it.  The government will enforce it for all federal matters, including Social Security benefits for spouses; even though same sex marriages are now legal in 6 states and Washington DC, these marriages are not recognized everywhere . But some people still view this as a victory for equality in America.  Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) said “ The Obama Administration’s decision is a victory for civil rights, fairness, and equality for the LGBT community and all Americans.” But there are people who do not fully agree with her sentiment. Edward Whelan has publically said (in his blog) “it is logically incoherent for the Obama administration to refuse to defend DOMA and to continue to enforce it. The obvious explanation for this incoherence is political: Obama doesn’t have the guts to take the political heat for not enforcing DOMA, but he’s hoping that his refusal to defend it will lead to court rulings that he can hide behind.” So while there are opposing views on what has really happened, all that is known for certain is that DOMA is no longer going to be defended by the government, even if it is still being enforced.

President Obama’s presidential campaign consisted of his promise of change. He has said from the get go that he was pro equality and LGBT rights, but now he is actually  putting his foot down and making some change. Love is love, and marriage is marriage; I believe that if you love someone enough and you want to marry them, laws should not stand in your way of happiness. In our Declaration of Independence our founding fathers wrote the immortal words that all men have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” so preventing people from loving who they love is preventing them from the pursuit of happiness , and thus against our core American values . People claim that homosexuality is sin, but it is written in our constitution that there is a separation between church and state so using “sin” as reason for gay marriage to be illegal is illegal on its own.

The change in nature of the civil rights movement post 1965

Every person has there limits where they either give up or try a new method. After nine years of nonviolent protests and no obvious changes in their society, people began thinking and viewing the civil rights movement in a new light.  This is not to say that nonviolent protests were futile; they were anything but. In 1965, the Civil Rights Act was passed into law making it illegal to discriminated people because of their race. Yet, even though it was illegal people still did just that. It’s like illegal music downloading almost: illegal but not enforced. For a law to be enforced, the law enforcement must be behind it. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, the police weren’t behind it at all, and in some places they were just as bad as some of the racist civilians. 

During five days in July of 1967, the Detroit Riots broke out and the brutality of the police force could not handle the intensity of the African American rioters. This is just one example of the changing of the civil rights movement.  With the rise in the Black Panther Party, the fall of nonviolence was coming to an almost crashing halt. The Black Panther Party could be described as an African American heavily armed neighborhood watch. These men would protect their neighbors and their comunity by carrying around their weapons and scaring the American public into submission. The Black Panther Party was quickly becoming notorious, and in 1969 they were deemed the number one threat to American internal security.

 The change in the nature of the civil rights movement post 1965 makes sense because after almost a decade of nonviolence and the public having not changed, only the laws, it would make sense to try a different approach.