Visions of the Self

On the very first day of class Daniel asked us how we would define the idea of  ”self”.  What does it mean, what does it entail?  Is it one big thing that’s made up of a bunch of little things, or is it a bunch of little things that come together and make one big thing?  I’ve never been presented with this question before and from that day on I’ve been trying to rap my head around what this idea of “self” could possibly mean.  I feel like with many philosophical questions, like this one, there are many logical answers that could be found.  The answer you come up with all depends on your personal perspective and your personal experiences.  With this being said, your perspective on things and the experiences that shaped those views, in my opinion, are a huge part of “self”.

Some other ideas that we came up with in class to define “self” were things like 1. our physical body (genetic makeup, gender), appearance (physical or the way we present ourselves), culture, past experiences, religion, sexuality, what we do (careers, hobbies, habits).  I’m sure there were many other examples that I can’t at the time think of.  While all of these guesses may help to explain one’s self and definitely have influence on one’s “self”, I disagree that they are actually part of the “self”.

I think of “self” in a very literal way.  It includes your 1.”physical self”: every organic part of your body, therefore, take away the clothes, make-up, hair dye/products, jewelry, piercings, tattoes, and whatever else your “self” may be wearing.  While all of those material things may be used to express yourself they are not actually part of yourself.  The way you present your “self” is just that, it’s the way you “present” yourself, not literally part of your “self”.  2. The other part of the “self” is simply the way you think, it’s all in your mind and it’s very influencial. The culture you live in and your past experiences shape the way you think.  Your hobbies, careers, habits are all things that you do with your “self”.  Religion and sexuality are questionable in my opinion.  I’m unsure how to classify those two.

“Self” is not a very easy thing to define.  I suppose that’s why it’s definition has forever been a philosophical question, and will most likely remain for a very long time to come.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

I really didn’t know what to think/expect of this class because I’ve never taken a philosophy class before. I expected this class to be all lecture and boring but so far it has been both interesting and confusing at the same time (with all the different point of views of each discussions). Especially with all the discussions we’ve been having. I know we talked about this awhile ago but I’ve been meaning to blog about this. the controversy that ‘humanity is the measure of all things.’ At first I didn’t know whether to agree or disagree with this because everybody brought up a good point from both sides, but after some serious thinking and contemplating I would have to agree with this. Reason being is because if you think about it, how else did everything come to be what it is now? for instance how else would the color green be called green? What makes a dollar bill worth a dollar? How did all those equations we learned in math or science class come to be? Someone had to come up distinguishing the different colors/naming them, figure out currency, discover the equations. Therefore I agree with the saying that ‘humanity is the measure of all things.’ Maybe I’m just thinking around the box and not looking deeply into it but that’s what I feel.

In addition, when we discussed about whether or not robots had a soul on Monday, I firmly believe that robots do not have a soul. Aristotle’s view of a soul-animate are nutritive, appetitive, sensory, locomotive, thinking/reasoning. If we were to compare the aspects of a robot to Aristotle’s view, sure a robot may be nutritive by running on batteries and locomotive but they don’t have feelings/emotions (no sensory), and they aren’t able to think and reason like we human beings are able to.

I agree with the sophist saying, “Humanity is the measure of all things.” The example used in class was the dollar bill is only worth a dollar because we say it is worth a dollar. If next week the government decides that the dollar is not worth one dollar but two, in time everybody will accept the dollar bill as two dollars. Man created all of our systems that we use today. Our number system, the concept of time, and the year calendar were all creations of man. The concept of fire was always around but we were the ones who figured out how to actually create the spark.

Our knowledge has grown through the years. We develop technology that helps us day to day. We believe that technologies actually make us smarter. Socrates knows that he knows nothing, and I think that people today really do not know anything. We think that we know everything because of the technology that we have created. When Socrates was around, nobody wrote things down, all stories were recited by memory. With the invention of writing people have gotten lazy. We don’t have to remember things anymore because we can just write it down. We don’t have to learn everything because if we have questions we can turn to the Internet to find answers. Every time we come up with new inventions we get lazier and the less we expand our mind.

People today are more concerned with happiness then gaining useful knowledge. I think the less you have the more you appreciate the little things in life, which make you truly happy. Socrates did not have the things we have today and he still did not find happiness. Socrates lived for knowledge, he thought that it was the most important thing to live for, and that happiness was just a distraction. I find it hard to believe that he could not find happiness in anything. Could he have found some happiness in some of the knowledge that he gained? He would have had to find happiness in exploring for knowledge or he wouldn’t have done it his whole life.

I liked the discussion that we had about what true knowledge really is. It makes you rethink everything that you have learned so far. I liked the quote that was given in class, “knowledge is of what always is and not of what comes to be and passes away.” There is an end to everything that we know. After something leaves us we will remember it for a little while but over the time this knowledge will depreciate.

I have read Allegory of the Cave, by Plato, in my Witchcraft class gen ed here at ISU last semester (yes; it is an actual class) so I was aware of the parable however being my first philosophy class I was interested to relate to it on a deeper level. When discussing, “ignorance is bliss,” it really brought me back to that story and how I felt bad for the prisoner in the end who was set free. Here you are being freed from shackels and chains. You now can finally find the deeper meaning of the shadowy figures you seen your entire life yet you are blinded by the sun and reality that you can not seem to understand. Especially when the freed prisoner tries  to tell his old friends still chained up about what he had seen, he learned that they just found him crazy for they were ignorant of the world they had never seen.

In this class I really try to dig down deep about the igorance is bliss theory, by relating it to my own life. I do believe that knowing the deep truths about something can lead to a gamble of chance. Playing it safe may lead you to a well lived simple life but is that anything worth living for. In my life I want to take chances, find opportunites, make mistakes, and so much more and if I’m ignorant of these doings I do not know what kind of person I would be today. Than again I contradict myself because being ignorant also means not getting hurt or finding the misleading truths you never thought you would know.

So here I am sitting here at my desk thinking would I want to be the prisoner still happily linked and chained perfectly content with viewing the shadows wander by or should I would I want to be the freed prisoner who is  lonely and still uneasy about the truhs of life he never knew. So many people post they would want to see the world and not be ignorant I kinda think their lying to themselves. From the day we are in kindergarten students follow the crowd. or what is the cool or popular thing to do because sometimes we are unwilling to admitt our opinions its just easier to belong and thats being ignorant in itself.

I feel like I just talked in circles but I guess that is the point of philosophy. I suppose the importance is not whether I decide what character I would want to be in the Allegory of the Cave but to start questioning myself, like Socrates did. I guess in all ways Ignorance is Bliss and I find that true to a degree.

If you search bliss in the dictionary you come up with terminology like…

Phrasal Verb:

Are you ignorant because you are blissful, or are blissful because you are ignorant? First of all I must state that I do agree with the argument “ignorance is bliss”, and that furthermore I believe a person is blissful if they are ignorant. Although some may argue that being ignorant can be more frustrating than being exposed to all truths, I believe that is only true for forced ignorance; such as the case that was brought up in class of the girl who was kept in the dark about what the real world was like.

My argument comes into play when dealing with issues of the real world and what is going on in the here and now. A child is blissful because they know not of the dangers that are present in their everyday life. They wake up every day with one objective; to enjoy that day as much as possible. They are not worried about how many soldiers are dying, whether or not their mom are going to lose their job, if they will even live to an old age. Because they do not have these worries (because they are ignorant), they are thus blissful.

I am not however saying that I think it is good to live one’s life in the dark, trying to avoid anything that may upset one’s perception of a perfect world. The world is not perfect and we all know that.  We should make it a point to be well educated people so that we are prepared for the life ahead of us. Although ignorance may be bliss, after a while it seems that being ignorant could cause one to fall behind the times. Also there is no reason we should believe it impossible to be blissful without being ignorant. We should strive to evolve our minds and our thoughts; after all it is the only way to survive in the world today.

Even children, the most blissful of all have to grow up eventually.  I do believe Gray had a good point in his statement “ignorance is bliss”, however, I also believe there are other ways of attaining bliss. The main reason I agree with this idea is because I agree with Gray more than I do Socrates. Unlike gray he believed happiness should not be our goal, knowledge should. Yes, knowledge is key in life but the ultimate goal should be to lead to find happiness in this one life we have. All the knowledge in the world cannot fully satisfy us unless we have enjoyed gaining such knowledge.

The soul is a tricky thing.  When everybody has their own opinion on what a soul is and even if it exists.  One mans vision of the soul can be very different from some one else’s.  in one man’s view the soul has 7 components.  According to this man a person could have parts of a soul.  Socrates may have said that robots do indeed have a soul or parts of one, but I would beg to differ.  I have not written philosophy books, nor am I in them, but I would say a robot does not have a soul. 

Socrates I believe was maybe not a great man, but it would be hard to deny the fact that he had great thoughts.  He like many other people in history that did not take “that’s the way things are” as a reason.  He asked questions.  Socrates was a revolutionary no doubt, but I don’t think people should hang on to every word he spoke.  This is why Plato and then Aristotle were, in my opinion better philosophers.  They did what Socrates did.  They asked questions.  

Sophists were modern day lawyers.  This is why regular Joes like Socrates hated them.   They got the money, they got the connections, and they lied their asses off the whole time doing it.  This is also why I believe Socrates got a bad rap.  He starts asking questions and starts stirring up commotion, and the sophists probably tried to make his life hell.  The questions he asked was knowledge the wealthy probably wanted to keep at the top.

The quote “Knowledge is of what always is and not of what comes to be and passes away” is interesting to me.  Knowledge is god then.  Which makes the soul and knowledge synonyms too right?  If you believe in Gods or souls then according to this quote you believe in knowledge.  Much of this class is words with meanings that we discuss, but we can only discuss things that we have agreed upon. 

The cave story connects with all this too.  It shows that people all have their own very different realities.  We as people have decided what realities are acceptable and which are not.  We make our own realities.  We decide what we value.  We choose to examine or lives.  We choose to live in ignorance.  If your goal in life is to simply be happy and you are a simple person then you will go through life happy and with ease.  In my opinion people need to feel different levels of success.  I also believe that Socrates lived in ignorance until he examined his life, he didn’t like what he saw, so he went a little crazy.  But, who am I to say he went crazy.  We make up words and put labels on things for many different reasons.  In this philosophy class we will talk about many different people’s philosophies.  I hope to understand my own philosophy on life all while learning other people’s philosophies.

On the day we discussed the Allegory of the cave and the Sophists I was unable to decide which side to take. The Sophist’s theory of relativism fits in extremely well with my own personal world view, but the points raised about Socrates’ theory were hard for me to just discard. It seemed to come down to whether or not their is some form of higher intelligence or at least a crafted plan in the Universe, an idea I’m not able to deny completely, although I would like to, because of the ideas presented by Socrates and his concept of discovery when it comes to universal laws (mathematics, assignment of sound to letters, etc..)

The Sophists idea that there is no universal truth  automatically resonates with me because of the impossibility of providing substantial proof for any idea that cannot be put down by some other equally reasonable theory, much like the dilemma I faced when trying to decide whether or not discovery or creation is a more valid concept. I slightly disagree with their extremely loose opinions, but the emphasis they place on the act of convincing rather than on actual content was intriguing. As you can probably tell I’m still very torn on these theories. Humanity being the measure of everything just seems to make sense because what else is their to measure against, unless of course we are dealing with a ‘higher power’ or ‘universal force’, which I don’t disbelieve in but I am a natural skeptic. So the idea of their being no truth, no right or wrong, no anything for certain makes sense to me because there is nothing in the universe, not man made or man-advertised/exploited at least, in the universe that could define these things other than general consensuses from large groups of people, but even that alienates those who don’t agree, and then what of them?

Socrates’ proclamation that he doesn’t know anything aligns with the Sophists ideals, but yet he claims that there are definite answers to universal questions. Part of what makes his argument off-putting, but also humbling in a universal sympathetic human way, is that he refuses to say he knows for sure. While that is reassuring, it is also the easiest cop-out in the book. His use of Geometrical theory to show that the numerical formulas that govern the physics of the world can be discovered is very high to deny. If a mathematical equation works every time, and through our own interpretation of it into a concept we cannot find any way to disprove it, even after thousands of years, the evidence is there to suggest that it is constant. But where does the consistency stem from? I’m pretty sure all this boils down to, the only difference between Socrates questioning and the Sophist’s rhetoric is the presence of True universal laws in Socrates theory. It seems like an almost useless standpoint to take though if Socrates cannot prove anything for certain, and his only, or at least my conception of his only explanation for this is that he does not know how the universal laws opperate, but he does believe in them.

So for me it all comes down to the concept of universal laws, which raises the question of where they come from. This might be incredibly naive and silly and half-baked, but this is what I got out of the discussion in class that day. Being unable to choose a side I found myself asking myself questions I’d always thought about, but sadly I’m still no closer to any conclusion.

In class, we went over Aristotle’s method for classifying Hyle (stuff) into one of three different groups; the Animate, the Inanimate, and the Eternal. He then went on to describe the components of the soul, and what it means to be alive. Of course, he was absolutely wrong about all of this. His major mistake was in thinking that something was inanimate if it was “simply governed by the laws of physics”, because since the laws of physics govern all things equally, to the untrained eye, an arm that moves through muscles pulling on tendons can appear no different from a tiny robot being propelled by gears and leavers. I do agree with Aristotle that everything that is alive has a soul; something sets clusters of atoms that are “living” from those that are not. But where do we draw the line for what is “alive”; to what do we assign souls? How can we tell an accurate simulation from the real thing? We have the technology to develop robotics so intricate and complex that they appear to be alive, and yet, these creations, no matter how intricate, are still missing a key component; Death.

One of the easiest ways to define things is through their opposites. What is Yes but the opposite of No? What is White but the opposite of Black? What is Noise but the opposite of Silence? What is Life but the opposite of Death? All living things understand Death; be it consciously or unconsciously. Prey attempts to flee its hunters in hopes of living one more day, plants desperately reach for sunlight in hopes of eating one more meal, and humans most of all will do whatever is necessary to live. We betray, lie, cheat, steal, kill, enslave, subdue, mislead, love, hate, and so much more all in the name of self preservation; in the name of life. It is our fear of Death that gives us a desire to live. We eat so we don’t starve, we sleep so we have strength for one more day, and we make love to continue our bloodlines in hopes of one more successful generation. In the end, we live because we don’t want to die.

So why is it that a robot, even an extremely advanced one isn’t alive? It is because it does not have a drive to live. For example, if you stop someone from eating by keeping them away from food, by constantly getting in their way, eventually they will attack you out of desperation for nourishment. It might take hours, or even days, but eventually, their will to live will take over and nothing will stop them from achieving their goal. In contrast, a robot will never disobey its programming. A Roomba will never attack you if you stand in front of its charging dock, no matter how low the battery power gets. Since the robot has no will to live, it is not alive.

In trying to decide whether “ignorance is bliss” is a better motto than “the unexamined life is not worth living”  I had to establish a system to judge it by.  From day one, one of the most prominent pieces of advice I was told was to do what makes me happy.  My father told me never to make decisions or choices for anybody but myself.  So with my goal in life in the back of my mind, to be happy, I tried to decide which motto was correct.  In order for me to decide which one was correct I had to decide which motto would make me the happiest in the end.

Immediately, I swayed towards “the unexamined life is not worth living” side.  It makes sense because another piece of advice I received was to always be open to new things.  This motto would lead me to new exciting things in my life that I would have never come into contact with if I didn’t take certain paths or dig deeper into subjects.   That is the plus of this motto.  But then I got to thinking, what if I dug deep into a subject and examined it from all perspectives and then was not happy with the answers I found?  Was the search still worth the time and effort?  I’m not too sure that it is.  I feel like their is no reason to go through all that hard work and find an outcome that will get u depressed.  How is a depressed life worth living?  It’s not that I am afraid of things that I will find in life, it is just that my main goal is to be happy.

So now I arrive at the motto that I choose to live my life by, “ignorance is bliss”.  I think this is the correct motto to live by because like I said earlier, I want to be happy above all.  If I am happy and loving life as it is now, why should I mess with it.  This reminds me of the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  I am happy, so I don’t have to explore other routes to find happiness.  A good example of how smoothly “ignorance is bliss” can work is a third world countries.  Those citizens live a life that is of horrible living conditions in our eyes.  If anyone of us had to be there, we would be miserable.  On the other hand, the people that actually live there know no better, and thus are happy.  They do not think that their life is unworthy or anything like that.  I think that this shows why “ignorance is bliss” is the correct motto to live by.  Ultimately you have to do what you can in order to make you happy and in my opinion you will do this with “ignorance is bliss”.

The discussion we had in class about who we are and how we define ourselves in this day and age was really intriguing to me. The conversation kept going around in circles just like many other conversations in philosophy. There can always be another question asked that changes everything. The main problem I have with that discussion is, we never came to a conclusion. Am I still aimlessly wandering around wondering what the hell I am supposed to be doing with my life or is it in front of me slapping me in the face.

We spoke about being true to Facebook and how that cannot be who we are. I think that is only half true. As far as I am concerned, we have two sides to ourselves. An aesthetic side that pertains to how we are seen by everyone and an inner side that is very sincere and personal to each person. I think that Facebook does ask the right questions to get you to quickly sum yourself up into a couple of categories. These categories include: Activities, Interests, Music, Movies, and Television. I definitely consider each of those categories to contribute to the overall definition of who I am and where I am going. For instance, my activities and interests section states, “Creating and studying art, Playing and creating music, Playing and watching sports.” Yeah I do all of these things but I am a Graphic Design major so it is obviously a very important aspect of my life and considered to be one of my defining traits. Music is also very aesthetically defining. When I pass by people in the hallways or on the quad, I can observe and make a very educated guess on what kind of music they prefer. Not saying they might listen to another genre of music as well, but primarily, they will follow a trend just like I will follow a trend. I will listen to indie music while wearing my Toms, skinny jeans and a band tee shirt on a regular basis. You cannot help but notice that that is the trend I follow and keep up with. Same with another guy wearing an athletic brand shirt and gym shorts. He likes sports and it is obviously somewhat important to him. Our entire class did not even think of the basic details to define us such as gender, age, or religion. All of which are on Facebook as well. Most of which are fairly obvious except for religion. But religion comes around later. That is how I think Facebook can help aid the definition of you.

Aside from the Facebook definition of ourselves, I believe we also define our own being by other factors that are not seen by everyone else directly. For instance, how we were raised. Were you raised by a religious family? Were you raised in a wealthy neighborhood? Were you raised in a small town where football was the only thing worth while? Maybe you were you raised by wolves? All of these will shape a person into something completely different. When I say raised, it does not necessarily mean only by your parents. I know my parents raised me, but I grew up with my best friends who ultimately shaped me into what I am now. If I did not meet my best friend in band class in sixth grade, I would not be listening to the same music that I do now. If I did not meet my other best friend in my graphic arts class in tenth grade, I would not have had enjoyed that class so much and I would not be a Graphic Design major today. Yes, my parents guided me in the correct way. Clothed me, fed me, and were great influences but they were only half of it. My teachers raised me as well. I loved all of my art teachers but did not like my math teachers. Therefore I became an art major and not a mathematician. There are so many things that vary from person to person that define their goals and ambitions or lack there of.

So how do I define myself? CJ, Male, 20, Lutheran, Artist, The Bros, Indie/Rock.

In retrospect, I think that Facebook defines who you are in the sense that that is how you want to be seen by everyone else. Everyone has their likes and interests and support that in their clothing and style but how you have everyone else define you is only the half of it. Where you come from, where you are going, who you hang out with, and how you compose yourself are the true factors I consider when trying to figure out who I really am. In my eyes, I am the luckiest guy in the world right now. I have a good family, the best circle of friends, and college courses challenging me to be better.

“Humanity is the measure of all things.” Things are and mean what they mean as far as we say. After this discussion, I found myself questioning a lot of “knowledge” I once thought I had. A chair is a chair because a person called it that, assigned that name to the idea of a chair and now that’s how we know it. Just like the numerical system, the only reason the numbers and idea of those numbers match up is because we said so. So, to say one has knowledge about a certain thing should mean that they only know as much as another man has said. In a sense, this would mean that we all don’t truly have knowledge of anything but of the ideas that other’s have shared about those things. Though something may have been around for a while, the only reason we would know about it is through another man’s discovery.

Now, bringing religion into philosophy probably is not the most productive thing to do, but growing up in a very religious family, it’s hard to study all of this and not bring into account all the teachings I’d learned from the bible. All of this is enough to make a person question their faith; if people created all of the ideas of theses things, then people have also created the idea of God. Just to play devil’s advocate, this would mean that religion and everything that we know is a lie. We don’t truly know that there is a higher power or the meaning of the number 4, the only reason we know these things is due to the fact that another person taught us these things.

Another interesting concept I found was the relationship between creating and discovering. Going back to what I previously said, the only reason we know what we know is because someone came up with that idea. But, then the question arises: did they create this idea? Or did they finally discover what’s been around for so long? When asking these questions, I find myself sort of back at square one, questioning the first idea of “things are what they are because we say.” I just find the idea of humanity being the measure of all things a very loaded concept. There’s so many “what ifs” and “buts” to this idea its hard to pick a side, but certainly a great topic to explore on many levels.

Last time I took a Philosophy class it was online. I like how this class is a good mix of lecture and online, because hearing Mr. Estrada lecture about the material we read makes everything make more sense.  Especially that last reading that was assigned.  I must confess that I had to read it a couple times to understand it a little better but I still needed it to be cleared up some which was done in our last class. I actually found that lecture very interesting and it had me really thinking what really does have a soul?

I believe that many things in the world are Animate, not just humans.  I know many people disagree with this but once you really think about the life of the plant maybe they really do have a soul.

In class we talked about parts of the soul that make something animate. Plants do grow and then later die. They are nutritive, with plants they mostly just need water and sun and the right temperature.  I believe they are also appetitive, because it has a need for sun and water and in some plants they might even shift in order to get what they need. I’m not sure if I believe they feel pain but I do think they may feel pleasure.  For example if you give flowers everything they need they will bloom.  Some flowers might start dyeing, but if you give them water and sun it’s almost like they received some kind of pleasure that brings them back to life. They may have gone limp, turned slightly brown, and the flower may have closed up, but when you give them this pleasure of what they desired they come back to life with color. Plants can also reproduce, they would be considered asexual because they don’t need another plant to do this, just their own seed to fall on to the ground. After watching the youtube video I thought maybe plants could have a soul because of the way the plant was able to move around.  According to Aristotle a living thing can move itself because it has a soul.  I’m sure everyone has heard the myth that if you talk to your plants they will grow faster. That sounds a little crazy but if that’s the case maybe they could have a soul.

Now when it comes down to something like the solar powered critter that was given as an example in lecture, I would have to disagree on it being animate.  It was able to move by itself, but it will not grow unless someone builds onto it. It will never die unless someone breaks it. As long as there is someone there to make a noise or give it light, it could live forever. I know for a fact that it does not feel pain or pleasure.   I think a good example of some sort of manmade object that became animate would be the movie I-Robot.  If you have seen the movie you know that if robots became animate we would all be in trouble.

I also wanted to throw in what I thought of the Ship of Theseus .  I do believe it would still be his ship even if all the pieces were replaced for new parts.  If they started from scratch with just a sketch of the same boat, and then rebuilt it I would have to say it wasn’t the same boat.  I think because they did it piece by piece it still is considered his. My family did something like that.  We have had the same boat for about 20 years.  Everything was starting to break or tear, but we were so attached to the boat we couldn’t just go buy a new one. So we basically gutted the whole boat and ordered everything new.  So the only thing that was still the same was the frame of the boat. Other than that it was basically a brand new boat, but does our family still see it as the same boat? Of course! :)

So far of all the topics discussed in class, The Ship of Theseus really intrigued me. I found myself walking home from class with a classmate in deep discussion about who really did have Theseus’ ship. The more we talked about it the more it occurred to me that it really depends on how you look at the situation. If you consider the actual structure of the ship the original ship, than the biographer has Theseus’ ship. But if you consider the ship as an mental picture in Theseus’ mind which takes into consideration the condition of each part, as Theseus would, than Theseus has his ship even though it is completely new. I thought about other items that people are very attached to such as a childhood blanket. Not many people want their mothers to patch any holes in their blanket because it “just wouldn’t be the same”. The only reason a blanket that has been completely replaced overtime with patches of new fabric “wouldn’t be the same” is because the child doesn’t see their blanket in their mind as perfect, it’s supposed to be worn and have holes. This situation the child sees the original pieces as the actual blanket, even if the new pieces look and feel exactly as the original blanket had. Because Theseus saw his ship in his mind as a perfect ship, anytime the ship got damaged in the least bit that piece no longer was part of his perfect ship. So even though the biographer technically has the ‘original’ ship and all of it’s pieces, the ship Theseus has perfectly fits the way his mind sees his ship to be.  So inevitably, they both have Theseus’ ship. One has the actual physical ship that once belonged to Theseus and the other has the physical rendition of the mental blueprint of his ship.

I also really liked the way that Dan explained the idea of intelligence through the contract of actions between two magnets and Romeo and Juliet when they encounter a wall.  The five virtues of thought are kind of hard to differentiate and this story really made intelligence stand out in my mind.  The magnets do not have the mental capacity to try to find alternative ways to be together. The best they can do is stay magnatized through the wall. While Romeo and Juliet have the same strong attraction that the magnets do, they can find better ways to be closer together by assessing the situation and scaling the wall to get as close as humanly possible to each other. The magnets are not human and do not have any intellect, so they can only be as close as magnetically possible as long as there is a wall between them. I thought this was a great way of explaining the concept of intelligence (phronesis) and it really helped me make sense of this portion of the lecture. But if humans are the only animals capable of thought, how would this description of intelligence apply to a squirrel and an acorn that are only divided by a wall? The squirrel has the sense to find a way over the wall to get to the acorn. So does this mean that the squirrel shows intellect?

During class, we discussed two opposing ideas: Socrates’, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and Gray’s, “ignorance is bliss.”  We went back and forth on these topics and I do not believe that there is a true answer but it is interesting to discuss and I would like to talk about my arguments for the two.

Socrates had the notion that knowledge makes one isolated, as in your knowledge makes you superior to others so that they can no longer relate to you.  Despite the hardship of the isolation, it makes your life worthwhile.  I can see two sides to this mentality because there are those whose knowledge and intellect puts them on another level, and it may very well outcast them and give them no one to relate to.  But on the other hand, knowledge on a simplistic level essentially gives you something to talk about.  So, it could actually connect you to others and you could find people with similar interests and knowledge that you can relate to.  I don’t believe anyone is too different or too outcast to be truly alone.  I do agree that knowledge makes life worth living though.  Knowledge gives you confidence and an understanding of the world around you, usually enhancing your life.  If you are learning of things that are unpleasant, would be the fact that knowledge makes life worth living but not necessarily blissful.  The question is though, would you rather not know and be happy or take the risk and have the knowledge?  Knowledge in itself, not the things you know, but the idea of having knowledge, could be considered bliss. Knowledge is a blessing that not everyone is gifted with, so the entitlement to it is something to be proud of. [after writing knowledge over and over it doesn’t look right anymore, anyone ever experience that?]

Gray, on the other hand, believes that happiness can only be found while you are ignorant.  But, what defines ignorant, as in the time period? It is literally impossible to learn nothing throughout your life, so the statement in it of itself is unfathomable.  Regardless, does this mean there are different degrees of bliss and different degrees of ignorance? Once you learn something, you are no longer ignorant to it, so you can’t be blissful; yet you are still ignorant to many other things, so it’s as if you enter another cycle of ignorance and bliss. I take it as there are still things you don’t know, so you must still be happy.

All in all, I would have to side with ignorance is bliss, but only in the terms as I have described them.  I believe that once you are no longer ignorant to once facet of knowledge, you are still ignorant to enough other things that make it so you are still blissful.  Knowledge and bliss go hand in hand to me.  In my life, knowledge has enhanced my life and made me a more confident person.  Throughout my college career so far, I have learned so many things that are interesting and relevant to my life that I have found so much more satisfaction in my day to day life.

When registering for this class, I wasn’t too excited about taking it. I have had bad history with philosophy courses in the past because the material usually bores me to death. I was expecting much of the same with this class.  However, after the first couple classes, I was pleasantly surprised with how much the discussions were helping me understand the material. I would say my favorite discussion was when we were discussing the views of Protagoras, and Socrates with direct reference to created or discovered objects. Socrates claimed that there was truth to everything, it just had to be discovered as opposed to Protagoras who claimed that everything was measured by humanity.

After sitting through class discussion, the ideas from both sides of the debate were being tossed around. As each individual in the class gave his or her own personal opinion, I started to develop my own opinion as to which side I believed in, Creation or Discovery. As I thought about it more and more, I realized that I agreed with Protagoras’ perspective that humanity is the measure of all things and everything is created. To me it just makes more sense and there are many real life examples to support his theory. Money for example, is worth nothing; the value that humanity places on money is what makes that piece of paper worth something. Another good example is a traffic signal; it’s just a metal box with 3 different colored lights on it. The way that society responds when the light changes color gives that traffic signal enough power to stop a moving vehicle traveling at high speeds. There is no wall that is stopping the vehicle from continuing, just the flick of a light. Seems to me that objects created in this world, are only given the amount of power that humans decide to give it. While these thoughts were sparked in my head, it got me thinking on a much more broader level. I began to think about what each individual person is empowered by.

The world in general is all relative to the individual and what that person values in his or her own life. In many people, art has the power to move people and drive them to do bigger and better things. For me, art has no effect on me whatsoever. However, watching a sports match or listening to music, can sometimes motivate me to become something better and really has a powerful pull with me. There are many examples of scenarios just like this that change from person to person. The question is, what is important to you, what motivates you? Follow what you love, because what you love is what drives you. There is not one universal object that gives every human the power to be successful. Every person is different, and has something different that drives them. The saying “love is a powerful thing” seems to relate to more than just intimacy. Find what gives you power and never let it go, it is scary what one can do when motivated.

“Knowledge is of what always is, and not of what comes to be and passes away”

“Knowledge is always of the eternal. Knowledge is not of the particular but of the universe”

It fascinates me to think that everything we have learned as humans has been in existence for billions of years. Or so it seems, but how? How did we know what to label things as or form equations, where did the numbers and symbols come from? Were those always existent or did we create it all to understand science and knowledge universally. I agree that knowledge does not pass away in the sense that if it exists then no matter what it is a part of the history of human beings and we learn from our history to make improvements upon the future. If something is discovered whether it is useful or not we cannot throw away that information. All information that is learned from the past can be utilized in a way to show the opposites of correctness. It then leads me to wonder the difference between discovery and creation. What have we created and what was discovered that was already there? Or is creation just a collaboration of discoveries? Because everything that is man-made is using the natural resources of what we have that we had to have discovered. Socrates claims that knowledge and knowing the truth is what really the meaning of life becomes. I however do not agree with this. I think happiness comes from within and love cannot be learned through knowledge or facts. Animals do not have the knowledge that humans have and are happier than most humans. I think that as long as you are an animate function then your meaning of life is limited to whatever your environment offers and you can still find happiness within those limits.

“Knowledge is of what always is and not of what comes to be and passes away”.  This quite stirred up a lot of confusion as well as much debate in class about what knowledge was and what things could be discovered and what things could be created. If something was discovered, then it is true knowledge because the knowledge of that thing is forever, it does not change. This discussion made me start thinking about what things I have real knowledge about, what things do I truly know.

We were able to draw a parallel to the story of the cave from “The Republic, Book VII”. We saw that the cave was representative of the visible world, of things we don’t have true knowledge of. To me, this meant that much of what we know is something that was created and not, in a sense, real. In order to really know something, we needed to know it’s form. This was also represented in The Republic by going outside of the cave and being in the sun. Things that were in the light of the Sun were the true forms of things. We illustrated this better by using the example of the chair and it’s “chairness”. We know that the chair is a chair and color or shape or size or materials didn’t change that it was a chair.

From there we went on to discuss what was, to me, the more interesting truths of the creation versus discovery discussion. We introduced the example of a perfect circle. We see things on a daily basis that we presume to be perfect circles when, in reality, they are not. They are however, extremely close, but there is no resolution fine enough to show us the jagged and imperfect edges of these impostor circles. However, despite this fact we do still know things that are absolute truths about the circle. We know what the area and circumference are, we have formulas that hold true for every single circle. But how do we distinguish those as being a discovery, or absolute fact, compared to the creation of the numeral and letter that represent certain variables within the equation?

It was here that I become very interested in the topic. The fact that we must create some sort of measurement in order to explain or understand a discovery was something I had never thought of. I loved that fact that we, as humans, had long ago discovered all these truths about what is around us, such as circles and chairs, and then created a means to explain them to others. I always wonder what it would be like if instead of “two” or “2″, that numeral was represented differently. What if “2″ actually represented “7″ things? What if instead of “two” it was called “nine”? We created these uniform measurements in order to explain these discoveries we made. We’ve created so many things in order to measure or validate these basic discoveries. I feel like so much more is created these days, and not enough is discovered. We rely too much on what we already know or think we know and base our own opinions not on what we actually know, but on what we’re told or what we believe to be true. This is very much parallel to the people who listened to the Sophists back in Socrates’ time.

This all very much comes to back to whether or not “the unexamined life if worth living”. It’s a question that can be hard to answer once you give it some serious thought. You can go on with live without really questioning anything and accepting all things as being created, but I find that it would be more fulfilling to go around and ask those questions and discover things on your own. I’d feel much more content if I had the needed to create something to explain a discovery I’d made. I feel like needing to create something based on a discovery is really what it would mean to examine life.

Remembering back to the first thing we all discussed in class, the question, ‘Who am I?’ brought up a great handful of responses. Some of the responses dealt with the physical, such as habits, appearance, daily activities, careers, ethnicity, and the body. Other responses dealt with the internal, such as religious beliefs, morals, emotions and feelings, inner struggles, and wants and needs. Even the most obvious one, one’s name, was mentioned near the end. All were great points and could directly answer the question of who someone was. However, I feel that the answer that could most accurately respond to a question like that is not something the person being asked could reply, but instead what others could answer for him/her. I say this because even when we were asked in class and given over an hour to answer that question, it took a lot of brainstorming to fill the board with ideas. We had to take time and think about a response that would do justice to ourselves and our being as humans. What are we? It really is a tough question for an individual to be asked and subsequently answer, and that is why it is best to leave that to others to respond. If one of our friends was asked who we were, they would make no hesitation in blurting off answers left and right, and it might even take minutes for that person to run out of ideas of who we were individually. If an acquaintance or co-worker was asked the same question, they could come of with a few responses of their own fairly quickly. Even someone who doesn’t know you personally, but knows your name and appearance, could answer that fairly easily. They could say something along the lines of, “oh yeah, that’s the babe that sits next to me in class, she’s a hottie,’ or ‘i think that’s the smelly guy that wears that bass fishing hat everywhere.’ Even short answers such as those still respond to the question of who someone else is.  To put simply, it is how others view us that gives us our individual definition.

People can continue to ‘be’ even after they are dead. That is a bold statement, but I have a reasoning for saying so. Take for instance Babe Ruth. Babe Ruth was one of the greatest baseball players to ever live. He held the record for most home runs in a season for over 30 years, and constantly played while intoxicated off of beer. How do I know this? I know this because this is his legacy that he left behind for us to remember. He is still mentioned daily among the all-time greats of baseball. Fathers tell their kids that they can be like him if they try and practice hard. This man has been dead for over half of a century, but he can still be described. The same goes for ‘Honest’ Abraham Lincoln, or the ‘peaceful’ Mahatma Ghandi. We remember them by what their actions or beliefs left for others to talk about for ages.

With all of this though, there are still other things to be mentioned. People can be two opposites at the same time. Americans view Osama Bin Laden as the incarnation of evil, whereas his Al-Qeadian followers view him as a leader. Two polar opposites, in this instance, are used to describe the same person.  Any individual can be someone’s horrible boss, or their spouse’s light of the world. It really can all lead to someone’s perception of another. Sometimes there really can be no definitive answer to who someone is.

To cap it all off, there could be a time when we are everything, and a time when we are nothing. Surely, movie fans alike will remember Robert Deniro or Meryl Streep for years to come, but in a few millenniums time, nobody will know who that is.  Even we will be forgotten soon. Maybe one of us will become largely famous and have the whole world’s attention, but most of us won’t. We might be the greatest father, mother, brother, sister, or grandparent to somebody, but a few generations down the road, our own bloodline won’t know who we are.  Ironically enough, if humans don’t find a way to live outside earth in the next billions of years, we will become extinct as the sun will envelop the earth and melt it. At that time, humanity as a whole won’t be anything, not even a memory.

Therefore, I feel it is the culmination of all of those things mentioned in class and more, that respond to the question of who we are. It’s not how we can describe ourselves, but how others see us, how they view us, and our legacy we leave behind for others to remember that ultimately defines us as a being.

Prior to enrolling in this class, I never thought about why things were they way they are, or why events happen, or how things came about.  In the past week I have learned to challenge question views, just as Socrates enjoyed taking part in.  The most interesting topic we have talked about, in my opinion, is who and what has a soul.  Aristotle like all other humans was interested in what exactly it means to be alive.  What defines who we are and what is life?  In class we talked about the three categories that Aristotle organized everything into, which are as follows: animate, inanimate, and eternally moved.  As discussed in class, animate things move from within.  Inanimate things are moved by an external force. Eternally moving things are always in motion such as the moon and the stars.

In Aristotle’s opinion in order to have a soul animate things needed to be nutritive, appetitive, have sensation, locomotion, and thought.  Aristotle defines each of these characteristics; nutritive things seek nourishment, they grow and eventually die.  In order to be appetitive desire needs to be present.  Sensation is pain and pleasure; locomotion is movement that comes from within.  Lastly, humans are unique in the fact that we are the only things capable of rational thought.  According to Aristotle, in order for something to have a soul it needed only one of the above characteristics.  We debated in class whether or not a plant or moving robot had a soul.  According to Aristotle’s definition of a soul, plants and moving robots have souls.  Plants grow and die, they have the desire for sunlight and water, and they are capable of some movement.  Plants have a very basic form of soul.  The light and sound sensitive robot also has a soul because it seeks nourishment which is energy from its battery; this robot also has locomotion.

We all determine who or what has a soul based on our own definition.  In my opinion, having a soul means having the desire and drive to go after what you want.  In order to have a soul we need to have rational thoughts; humans are intelligent because we can choose the best means to an end. I think only humans and animals have souls because we are the only ones capable of making decisions because we want to, rather than something pre-programmed in us telling us to behave a certain way.  Souls are composed of desire and drive.  Humans are driven to fulfill their passions; therefore humans have souls.  There is no life without a soul; life is being happy and fulfilling your dreams.

According to Socrates we discover truths; however, Protagoras says humans create truths.  I believe that the idea of a soul was created by humans.  Most intangible things are created and measured by humans.  We define what beauty and justice is just as we define what a soul is.  We can discover tangible things, but at one point it was all created by some higher power.

“And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it’ the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him”.  I believe that what Plato is trying to say here is that knowledge is something that is gained over a somewhat long period of time.  It is not something easily attainable or an ability we are born with.  Its not something that you can one day decide to have.  He uses the men that have been chained for their whole life seeing shadows from the sun behind them as an example.  When they finally turn around, they suffer from pain, they are distressed, and think that what they are seeing is an illusion.  They have been ignorant this entire time and when the opportunity to gain real knowledge is right in front of them, they cannot even take advantage of that this because they don’t know what real knowledge is.  The men that have only been seeing shadows will most likely go back to what they were used to, the shadows, because that was easy, not straining, and something they believed to understand as real.  I think Plato wants to show that happiness comes from knowledge through living your daily life trying to attain true knowledge.  From a young age i believe he thinks that is where knowledge begins.  As you learn to speak from mimicking from your parents and watching what they do then you can begin to attain your own knowledge through asking questions.

“Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner”.  I agree with this.  I think it would be better to go through life with knowledge than to go through life with the idea that what you “know”, is right.  We as humans are given the ability to think for ourselves and use this ability to find reason to things such as math, relationships, science, geology, ect.  If everyone were to live their life with a laisse faire attitude and didn’t bother to try to learn anything different than what we were told then it would be a complete waste of the gift of being able to think as individuals.  If we lived like this, every time a new chance of gaining knowledge of something would seem ridiculous to us, but in reality it would be ourselves that are the ridiculous ones. The world around us is constantly changing and if we do not adapt, try to gain knowledge about what is happening, and just stay in the dark….we are no better than the men chained in the cave.

#mgs

Like many of you, this is my first philosophy class and prior to taking it, I did not even have a clue that it meant ‘love of wisdom.’ I looked more into it and a definition of ‘philosophy’ gave that it was the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. As I was thinking more about our conversation we had in class about whether Socrates’ quote, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” or Gray’s “Ignorance is bliss” quote is more correct and which man is right, I realized I was a really good philosopher or an absolutely dreadful one. I say this because I understand all the different points why someone may think they should live by these quotes, and why they could be valid; but I have a really hard time convincing myself which is more important to me. But I guess since the definition does start off with saying that philosophy is the study of problems, I take it that I am not the only one who feels this way about philosophy and I feel like ‘love of debate’ would be a more suitable meaning.

To continue on with our two quotes, before our group conversation in class I really believed in the quote, “Ignorance is bliss.” I would say that in high school and college is when you learn and experience new and difficult things in life you never had to worry about before. Whether it was something small like, finding out people can be quite cruel or something larger to finding out there are countries using innocent children as soldiers. When you learn or experience these things you worry, stress, and your mood can simply change to sadness or anger about the world we live in. I often thought to myself I wish life could go back to when it was much simpler.

 But as I heard Socrates quote of “The unexamined life is not worth living” for the first time last week, I really started to look more in-depth about life and what it was all about. I have often heard the quote along the lines of ”Life may not always be easy, but it will be worth it” and I think this relates to Socrates quote quite a bit. If life was simple and easy all the time, we would not realize how great we have it because we would not have any hard times to compare it to. In life, you will have hardships and struggles and although life may not be that enjoyable then, people overcome these difficult times and it makes them into a more experienced, better, stronger person. If we lived in ignorance throughout our life, we would not live life to the fullest. I think that humans were giving intellect strength for a reason and we should take full advantage of what God has given us.

The world may not always be a peaceful, happy place, but we have the ability to learn, teach, and experience the many great things this world has to offer and there is no doubt in my mind now that if we did not examine life, it truly would not be worth living.

Monday in class we discussed the difference from animate and inanimate motions. Aristotle has a good way to differentiate between the two. Animate objects are moved by natural motion or unnatural motion. Natural motion can be described with something like walking. Aristotle says in his book, Aristotle’s Physics and its medieval varieties, the body walks because the soul walks. This is basically saying the soul is the main force for walking. The soul plays the role of the essential mover. Animate motion can also be unnatural. In Aristotle’s same book, he discusses how a broken bone, is a unnatural motion, but it is still part of animate motion. When the Dr. puts the bone back to place, he is now acting as the essential mover, still keeping the motion as an animate motion.

Inanimate motion is motion that is caused from someone or thing else. Inanimate motion can be considered violent or natural. An example of violent inanimate motion would be someone shooting a bullet. The motion of the bullet is caused from the gun being fired by an animate object. Natural inanimate motion caused a lot of debate. The problem is that things like fire, it naturally moves upwards, but what makes it move up, not itself but not another motion. There is a lot more in the theory on fires motion, animate or inanimate, but I am not going to go into it right now.

In class, we looked at little gizmo’s and gadgets that moved “on there own.” This is where i want to focus the most on for my post. When he flipped the switch on the little guy that walked across the table, he walked until he either fell or was turned off. This brings the argument if he is an animate object or an inanimate object. Some say well you have to turn it on to make it move, so therefore its inanimate. Others say well no its animate because thats just its source of energy, and even us as humans have to have a source of energy. So which one is it? The other little toy made it even more of a debate, the little spider once turned on not only walked alone but loud noises would turn it around, and when it sensed darkness it would stop. This means it almost has its own little brain. People will debate the same way, well you have to turn it on and it goes on its own till you turn it off, so it has to be inanimate. Still the other side is the battery is just a source of energy just like the sun water and foods for us humans. So even though this one stops on its own and changes directions, is it going to be considered the same as the little guy that just walks or is it going to be different.

My theory on this is that if you just go off of Aristotle’s way of telling the difference between animate and inanimate objects/motion, then you have to say they are animate. They move on there own,t hey don’t have an external mover, besides the little motor inside of them, which can act like there soul. The argument I have against it all is back when Aristotle did his research and made all of these theories, he didn’t have the technology we do today, and things like this didn’t exist. My guess would be if he were around today, he would have more categories saying, toys and such things that are not living creatures, no matter what they can do, there inanimate objects. The motor or gadget inside of the toy is what makes it move, but it can be done unless it is made by man and there machines and tools.

Personally, I am going with my theory and saying these toys are inanimate, but that is the fun part of philosophy, everyone has there own opinion and it just clean fun debates on each persons beliefs.

We talked about Aristotle’s view of the soul, so what has a soul? When we talked about this in class it made me think about what does have a soul? Something that can feel and does things for a purpose, or is it just something that has a driving force behind it? Aristotle would say that if something gets nourishment and does things for a certain purpose that makes that thing have a soul. The robot that Daniel showed us had a type of nourishment, which is the battery. Does that make it have a soul similar to a plant because it “lives” off of the charge of the battery, like a plant lives off the nourishment of the soil? Also, the one robot moved because of light and sound, so it was trying to find a place that satisfied its wants. That same robot had locomotion, so does that robot have a soul?

I believe that it has a soul but not a soul like a human being because it cannot think for itself. It is programmed to hide under things for darkness and run away from sounds. It does have a soul just like a plant has a soul, even though according to Aristotle plants do not have a soul they cannot move. I believe that plants can move themselves and to get more of the nutrients that they need to survive. Which makes me believe that they have more of a soul than Aristotle thinks. This is a little different then the type of soul that people are used to, because when we today think about having a soul we think in a very religious or spiritual kind of way. The robot is trying to satisfy a need and does this by moving itself, so it has a soul in my opinion.

The discussion we had about the Ship of Theseus really got me thinking about ownership and how people are entitled to their belongings. After Theseus had replaced every piece of his ship with newer parts and pieces, is the ship still considered his? Or now that it is all new pieces is it considered something else? What about the person possessing the original pieces of the ship? Would that person now be the owner of the ship?
It really depends on how you look at the situation and your thoughts on ownership. Then again, the idea of ownership is just another concept that has been created by the human race. Does anyone really own anything? If we’re all created equal, who’s to say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours? It all comes back to the whole thing being one big idea that’s agreed upon by the people living in this world.
This brings me back to Theseus’s ship itself. I would say that he still is the owner of the ship. Even though it is not the original pieces, it’s still constructed the exact way Theseus wanted it to be. It’s still the same idea he had in the first place, just with newer, improved pieces.

After reading the ‘Allegory of the Cave’ by Socrates, I will admit that at first I was more confused with the material then understanding of it. To clarify my thoughts and emotions, I looked upon youtube.com for more answers. After viewing the video previously posted on the twitter feed, and re-reading the article, I have come to believe I have a better understanding of this piece.

This story begins with prisoners who are raised in a dark cave as they are chained up and prevented from looking in any direction except at a wall. Behind the prisoners a flame flickers which shows them shadows of puppet like images that keep passing by the light. For the prisoners, a lifetime of staring at these shadows has caused them to believe the images to be real. Sure, the prisoners may have the idea that the images are fake, but since it is all they can see then they find this to be the truth.  When one of the prisoners is freed, his first instinct is to turn around towards the light and view that which he has never seen. At a first glance of the sun, the prisoner is in pain from the light, the glare causes aching, but soon his eyes adjust upon the images ahead. From here, the prisoner makes a decision of whether to progress towards the light and reality, or stray back to his safe understanding of the shadows. In his case, the prisoner decides to stray forward. Of course, there is more to this story, but that’s about as far as I need for my interpretation.

After thinking over the events that occurred in ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ I feel what Socrates is really trying to do is describe the journey a person may take to reach enlightenment. This journey in my mind is divided into three main parts. The first part would have to be conditioning. The conditioning happens because the prisoners are chained up for their entire lives and perceive the shadows to be their only truth. Since the people in the cave are ignorant, or lack knowledge of any truth, then they are conditioned to believe only what they see. This situation occurs more often then none as many people stay uninformed on events that happen in their daily lives. Instead of going out and seeking the truth behind lies, people would rather just stay ignorant and accept what they hear. The second part of the journey, in my opinion, would have to be the ascent from the cave. In this part, the prisoner battles with his mind where he questions everything he once knew because of what he can now physically see. This would be a very hard task for any person to do, because it would involve disregarding anything once thought to be true, in order to gain a greater insight of the world. After a person finishes the ascent, then the person reaches the third part, the end or new beginning, which is true enlightenment. Although whether or not this path is filled with either happiness or joy as ignorance may be, it is definitely filled with knowledge and intellect.

In class, we briefly discussed the story of “The Ship of Theseus”.  After summarizing the story we had debated whether or not the new ship was still Theseus’.  Then Estrada went on to ask, if all of Theseus’ old ship parts were made into another ship would that  be Theseus’ real ship? These short stories and questions regarding them peeked my interest, so I will explore who really had Theseus’ true ship.  In order to find who really has the ship of Theseus I will use Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” to support my argument.

The story goes that Theseus had a ship that he loved so much that whenever any part of the ship began to grow old or deteriorate he would replace it, immediately.  This continued until the entire ship was replaced with its respective new parts.  Furthermore, a “biographer” of Theseus would take all of those old parts of Theseus’ ship and make a replica of it.  Thus it seems Theseus has a brand new ship; whereas, the “biographer” has Theseus’ old ship.

Who has the ship of Theseus?

As we know, in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” two men are chained in a cave forced to look at shadows of images from objects people behind them are portraying on the cave’s wall.  Somehow, a man is released from his shackles and then climbs out of the cave to be blinded by the realm of the sun.  After his eyes finally adjust, he sees the true forms of the shadows from the cave.  The cave represents the visible/metaphysical realm; whereas, the outside of the cave represents the intelligible/epistemological realm.  The shadows of the images represent our imagination of what forms really look like. The objects the people by the fire are holding represent our belief that what we see (shadows) are the true forms.  The climb out of the cave by the man represents thought and the struggle that goes with it.  Finally, the forms in the intelligible realm represent true knowledge and understanding.

When applying this interpretation to “The Ship of Theseus” it seems clear that Theseus still has his true ship.  The ship of the “biographer” is only a shadow of the true form of Theseus’ ship; thus, leading us to believe that it is his.  However, through the painful headache of a thought process of who has whose ship you enter the intelligible realm in Theseus’ mind, and there you see the true form that is The Ship of Theseus.

The last time we met in class, we had the discussion about Aristotle’s De Anima, in particular what it meant to be animate and inanimate. One argument that I was particularly interested was the question of whether or not plants have a soul. In my personal opinion I agree with Aristotle, that they are in fact animate but because are nutritive but they are not appetitive, lack locomotive capacity,  cannot think and do not have senses. All of these qualities that Aristotle has said to be the criteria for animate objects can be easily argued with help of science that is available to us today and has caused a bit of controversy in my own mind.

                Plants do not have a soul. They cannot feel what humans feel and cannot experience the emotions us humans and even animals feel. This assumption may be made because we do not see a reaction from plants that we come across every day. Trees do not cry when we cut them down; Roses do not scream when the florist cuts them off the bush. Because we do not see an obvious reaction to pain and pleasure, one can only assume that plants don’t have the senses we do. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a tree hater; I recycle whenever possible and am concerned for our deteriorating environment. I just don’t believe that plants feel, unfortunately. One can argue that there are changes that the plant undergoes biologically that can be recorded using certain tests that may indicate some sense of pain or pleasure but we cannot see that or say that it is for sure these senses of pleasure.

                Some exotic plants have proven to have some sort of locomotive qualities, but are they moving because of a biological response or out of free will? I don’t think so. The reactions we see or movements that plants make happen because of biological responses to their environment. They do not have a brain like animals; they only function to survive. They do eat, grow, reproduce and die as Aristotle discusses in De Anima, which makes them nutritive. Plant life cannot get up and decide they want to move to gain more than these needs. Plants will grow in the direction of sunlight or vise-versa, but they cannot lift up their roots and move like humans and animals can.

                Based on the fact that plants preform various functions to survive, one could argue that they are appetive. The “want” to survive is enough for some people to think that they are appetive and have maybe other wants. I seriously doubt that plants have wants, the desire to survive and reproduce are instinctual and a part of their biological make up. They are in a sense “programmed” to try and survive in order to reproduce. As for humans, we all have the desire to live and survive as well as sadly end their lives. Humans also have the choice to reproduce. We are able to make these decisions for ourselves when plants do not have the option to choose. This can also bring us to the question of whether or not plants can think or have reason.

                As many of you may already know from reading this, I disagree that plants are able to think or have reason. I stated before that plans do not have brains therefore they cannot have cognitions that us humans have. Is that reason to throw out the window the possibility that they may have so sort of way to have cognitions? I think not, but then again I seriously doubt that they hold the capacity to do so simply because there is no evidence of parts of a plant that it’s capable of cognition. That is a totally different discussion on its own but something to ponder in your free time.

                In class we totally blew Aristotle out of the water and disproved his theory of the soul in De Anima. Even though many of his theories drastically miss the mark compared to today’s standards and knowledge, I don’t think he was too far off in his arguments on whether or not plants have a soul. I think there are many ways to argue that plants do in fact have souls but guided by Aristotle’s guidelines, I can totally see that they do not and is still true today.

Last class, on August 30th, we touched on the story about the “Ship of Theseus.” Given that someone collected all of the “old” parts from the ship as they were being discarded, I feel that Theseus now has a replica of the original. The person who collected all the parts now has the original ship, although he never came up with the design himself. Through research I’ve found that this idea of collecting the old pieces was originally brought up by Thomas Hobbes. Although Theseus had the original plans in his hands to create this ship, because of his apparent OCD-tendencies, he doesn’t have any of the original parts, and therefore I believe he doesn’t have the ship.

I’ve heard other variations on this story, or perhaps different translations into modern times. One in particular would be Washington’s axe, which has had it’d handle replaced several times, along with the blade.  These stories got me to think about other paradoxes, like when the flow of the Chicago River was reversed. Originally the Chicago River flowed into Lake Michigan, but sewage ended up seeping into the water supply, causing sickness. This river was reversed and eventually guided into the Sanitary and Ship Canal. I questioned whether the river was the same, although it completely flowed in the opposite direction. This brought up more questions than answers, such as what defines a river? Does the direction it flows make a difference in it’s composition? From a fishes perspective I think it would because the fish wouldn’t be able to swim in the same direction as before.

This idea of the ship of Theseus can be applied to future science. With advances in stem cell research and genetic engineering, we soon may debate whether or not someone is “fully human” based upon what makes them up. For instance if they have an organ that was spliced from someone else’s genes, it wouldn’t necessarily be their organ, but it wouldn’t be the other person the stem cells were taken from either.

In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the men that are chained facing the wall of the cave are ignorant to the sun which represents in this case knowledge. Yet, one man becomes unchained and eventually finds the sun, thus becoming knowledgeable about it even though it took him great effort and was not easy. When he came back to tell of his findings the others in the cave did not believe him, ridicule him, and thus, he was ostracized from the rest of the men. In this case I would agree with Socrates when he stated “the unexamined life is not worth living and only the pursuit of knowledge makes life worthwhile.” Although the men did not believe him, I believe it was worth the pain that the man endured who saw the sun, in the risk of never knowing anything else in life. I feel far more blissful happiness can be found by truly understanding something. And part of happiness is the acceptance of life’s experiences whether they are good or bad.

Knowledge itself makes life blissful, and thus the statement “ignorance is bliss” can be subjectively argued.  How does one come to the realization that ignorance is blissful when you have not experienced new things or learned of things that are not familiar to you? How would the other men in the cave think that the life of being chained is more superior to the life of seeing the sun and being unchained? In our culture being ignorant is a negative connotation and being called ignorant makes you seem unaware and uneducated of your surroundings. Discovering things about the world makes all people conversant and well rounded. The knowledge of education and certain “skills” can last a lifetime. Think about the knowledge learned about at a young age; talking, walking, reading and writing, and furthermore asking questions, have been necessary to get through my life. I feel that when you start realizing that you need to be informed and you learn how to feel compassionate is when we start adulthood. I feel through the knowledge you find happiness and bliss. In my life, I like to know everything that is going on. And when I am restricted from knowing, I get very frustrated and eager to find out what it is that is being restricted. Eventually, I may find out and therefore become content. Yet, when I do not find out that information I then feel uninformed and ignorant. I think knowing that information far outweighs not knowing and being left in a state of the unknown.

The time when I get old enough to look back on my life, I would like to tell my children and grandchildren about the things I would have rather done differently, things I would not have changed, and things I would never have done at all. How can I have this talk later in life if I do not experience everything life has to offer and break from my “chains” and try something that no one else has done?

The passage that we were assigned to read for discussion on the first day of class, The Republic-Book VII: Allegory of the Cave, had me interested from the start. Although I have heard of this piece before, never have I had the pleasure of reading and discussing it in a class. Since the passage is told from the perspective of a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, I found it difficult to understand at first. In class, however, any confusion I had was cleared up. During our discussion, we talked about two significant quotes, “Ignorance is bliss” and “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Before I focus on my views of this article, I will provide some more information concerning the Allegory of the Cave.

In the article, Socrates discusses a hypothetical scenario with Glaucon in which prisoners are facing a wall where shadows are cast. The prisoners are not allowed to move their heads to see anything but the shadows. The shadows are all the prisoners know. Even though we know that there are actual objects casting the shadows onto the wall, the prisoners perceive the shadows as their own reality. This goes to show that what we perceive as reality is false based on imperfect interpretations. For instance, we might believe that a certain chair is blue, but we did not know that the chair was red prior to the first encounter we had with the chair. We have only known the chair to be blue therefore we label the chair blue. Same idea relates to the prisoners staring at the shadows on the wall. They perceive the shadows as a reality because it is all they know.

After awhile, one of the prisoners is released from the cave and he observes the surroundings he has never been exposed to before. This new reality comes as a shock to the prisoner and the natural reaction would be to go back to the former, simpler reality of the shadows cast on the wall. This situation leads me to the discussion of the two quotes, “ignorance is bliss” and “the unexamined life is not worth living”.

In class, we took the time to discuss the quote, “ignorance is bliss” by Gray. Immediately, we interpreted the quote as going through life without exploring and without absorbing new concepts. It meant that living a life within your comfort zone would result in a life filled with happiness. I somewhat agree with this quote. I believe that living a life that revolves around being happy is a life that is worth living. You only have one life to live so why not enjoy it? However, I do believe that pushing yourself to step outside your comfort zone is acceptable to an extent. Living a life full of misery because of constant exploring is not a life that I would want to live.

The next quote from Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” I agree with to an extent. I believe that each person should test his or her limits and step outside of their comfort zone unless doing so results in the person feeling uncomfortable for an extended period of time. It is only natural that one would feel uncomfortable or nervous when he or she is surrounding themselves with new experiences. For instance, leaving your hometown to attend a university would be considered stepping out of your comfort zone. Naturally, most would feel slightly uncomfortable being surrounded with new faces and environment. Over time you might meet the people who will become an important role in your life forever. Some do not adapt as well and are miserable living their new life away from home. In which case going back to your comfort zone is the right decision because I believe happiness is the ultimate goal in life.

My life matters to me and I live it to the fullest; I take chances, explore many options and try new things all the time. After class discussion last week, I found Socrates quote “the unexamined life is not worth living” quite interesting. Socrates was man of wisdom who believed that knowledge is power over everything. He was the wisest man in Athens who questioned everything in the world around him. Socrates developed a method to question the Sophists to determine how wise they actually were. He also believed that examining life would give us a better understanding of ourselves as well as our lives. His notion is that life was worth examining and anyone who examined their lives was living life in the right way. Furthermore, Socrates challenged the views of the Sophists which made him even wiser. His method of questioning is something that is widely used throughout the world today. For example if someone is confused or has a question they either ask another person or do research to find an answer. Which to me is a good example of how Socrates believed life is worth examining. Overall Socrates was a man who believed that a world of knowledge is what makes life worth living.

In addition to discussing Socrates in class we also talked about the Sophists. The Sophists were wise guys who were celebrated on their views, values, and the ability to argue. They were something like lawyers because people gave them money in exchange for their services of arguing. Sophists were guys who did not believe in the truth as opposed to Socrates. They believed that knowledge was only temporary, and Socrates believed that knowledge stays forever. In my opinion Sophists were good debaters who did not believe in the truth, but only cared about getting people to agree with them. Sophists reminds me of people in the world who put up a front or pretend to be something that they are not; in an effort to try to get people to be on their side.

I agree with Socrates because life is all about taking chances and exploring different options. I believe that humans have the ability to discover new things which makes life worth living. For example, we are all college students and I’m pretty sure everyone can agree with the fact that they have examined their lives by choosing a major. Life is about setting goals for yourself and taking steps toward accomplishing those goals. People who just live their lives in the present and not worry about their future are crazy in my opinion. How can a person live their life day after day if their not questioning the different things they do? What is a life without examination? How can a person grow and prosper as a human being if they have no knowledge to do so? To conclude life comes with all sorts of examinations: whether a person is examining their life in the past present or future.

Last week, our class was asked to read Plato’s The Republic-Book VII: Allegory of the Cave. The assignment was to pay close attention to the distinction Socrates makes within the visible and the intelligible realms. The prisoners were locked up since birth so they knew no other world than what they have been exposed to all their life, the cave. Behind them is a fire which displays shadows on the wall that stands in front of the prisoners. A prisoner was able to get out of the cave and saw an entirely different world outside other than just the shadows of what he thought was real. When he saw the sun it hurt his eyes but he was so fascinated that he wanted to go back and tell everyone from the cave what else there was in the world. His journey back into the cave was also painful and the people in the cave thought he was crazy for what he had seen. However, by examining things outside of the cave he found knowledge. During our class discussion the quote, “Ignorance is bliss” by Gray and “The unexamined life is not worth living” by Socrates, were brought up. Although both quotes can be argued throughout this reading, it is up to the reader’s opinions and interpretations when deciding which quote fits it best. The two realms we were to think about during our reading relate to each of these quotes.

The prisoners in the cave were ignorant to the outside world yet they were satisfied with their lives because they weren’t aware of any other way to live. They are living in the visible realm which fits in with Gray’s quote, “Ignorance is bliss.” The prisoners only were only able to see shadows their entire life so that is what they thought was real. They had no idea about what else was out in the world because they never went and examined it. They only saw what was in the visible realm. They may be satisfied with that life, but how do they know they are truly happy if they don’t know what else is out there in the world?

I think that sometimes you have to put yourself out there to find that bliss. That’s why I don’t think bliss should be our goal; knowledge should be our goal because from that we can find our own happiness. For example, the light of the fire may have been the only light for the cave prisoners but the prisoner that left entered the intellectual realm and found another light, the sun (literally) and knowledge (figuratively). While he was locked in the cave he was locked into darkness. This darkness can be interpreted as the things in life that we let go unexamined.  The quote, “The unexamined life is not worth living” by Socrates is another great quote for this reading. I think that the rest of the prisoners are not living a life worth living right now because they are just staying in the cave staring at what they think is real. The world has so much more to offer and they are missing out on it. The world would always be the same if we didn’t examine things that are of interest to us. Life is so exciting because of all the opportunities and advances we have discovered in our lifetime. Our experiences help us grow and make life a journey.

In class, we looked at the different views held by the sophist, Protagoras, and Socrates. We were asked to decide whether we believed that things are created or discovered. According to Protagoras, “Humanity is the measure of all things.” This means that we, as humans, decide to give value and meaning to the objects and ideas of the world around us. There is no real truth. Socrates strongly disagreed with the theory that the Sophists held in that he believed that truth exists, but it must be discovered. After learning about both sides of the argument, I had a very difficult time deciding what I believed. However, after much deliberation, I decided to side with the Sophists.

One of the topics we discussed was the idea of right and wrong. Are there really right and wrong things that we can do, or is it all just an idea created by someone? I believe that the idea of right and wrong is created. Who is to say what is truly wrong? Humanity has created rules to live by, although I do agree with many of them, some laws and issues are debatable. For example, one very controversial subject is same-sex marriage. According to many religions, it is wrong, however many other people deem it to be perfectly acceptable. The greater question is, why is it wrong? Who said that it is wrong? I think that it is a perfect example of humans creating rules to what is and is not acceptable.

Another issue we talked about was beauty. Is beauty really found in the eye of the beholder or has society created the idea of what is beautiful? I think that even though we have our own unique taste, many of us buy into what society tells us is beautiful. Society says that the more symmetrical the face is, the more beautiful you will be perceived as. For example, many women all over the country read beauty magazines. They are looking for tips and ideas to “make” themselves more beautiful. If beauty is discovered, then why are women all over going to these magazines for help? I believe that people all over the world buy into what humanity says is beautiful, though it may vary in different cultures. For example, in Africa men find women with enlarged lips and earlobes to be beautiful. In China, men prefer women with small feet. Certain cultures find pale skin to be more beautiful than dark skin, and others are opposite. Who chose for all of these qualities to be considered beautiful? My answer would be us, human kind. We created these concepts.

The last issue that we discussed was the topic of mathematical concepts. We discussed whether the number system has always existed and was just discovered or  if it was created. I believe that the number system was created. Someone created the concept of counting and numbering items. Also, I believe that mathematical equations have been created too. Personally, I feel that we believe that the circumference of a circle equals 2r because we are told that that is the proper equation to use. Likewise, someone could have taught us that the circumference of a circle equals r squared and we would have believed that. Just like the concept of a $1 bill. We know that its value is only worth $1 dollar because the government officials decide that it should only be worth $1.

In conclusion, I believe that many people today buy into what others say is true and false. People base the way they live their lives by how people tell them to live. Humanity is ultimately creating new ways of living. Though I do think that some things have to be discovered. I ultimately believe that most things are created by us, the people.

“Humanity is the measure of all things.” In a way I sort of agree with this view that Protagoras has. While I do not conform to all of the ideas of the sophists, this is one that I can support. This idea of relativism, like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (which we talked about in class), is definitely something that can be justified. For example, Socrates thought that there was a way to measure beauty, almost like a scientific formula. This particular idea of Socrates’ is something that I can not understand. Beauty is not something that can be measured because beauty is different for everyone. There are a few common grounds in the things that most people think are beautiful. But, there are plenty of people who think things that, while seeming out of the ordinary to most, are beautiful to them. So, I definitely agree with the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Expanding on the idea that man is the measure of all things, I will go further and say that this can be argued because while some things may be true for a certain person, they are not true for another. This goes to the idea that the relativists had that said there is no right and wrong or good or bad, only that which a person can be convinced of. I agree with this statement to some degree. While I do have my own personal views of what is right and wrong and good and bad, I know that other people do not hold all of my beliefs. That is why the statement man is the measure of all things can be justified, because man is the measure of all things that are true to himself. While one person thinks that murder is wrong no matter what the reason, another will try to justify it by believing that the person did something to deserve it. While one person believes that killing animals for their fur is wrong, some believe it’s an okay thing to do because it makes money and helps people to prosper. Every argument is double-sided. For instance, I know that some people will not agree with my post, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is true to me.

These aspects to do with the sophists’ views are something that I can get on board with. Right and wrong is different for everyone, you could even say that people “measure” right and wrong their own unique ways. My way of seeing it is that everyone has their own moral compass. Some people’s point in different directions than others, and if that is what they can justify as right, then that will be true to them. Truth can be expanded in all kinds of different directions, because truth, like beauty, is different for every individual person, and has no exact measurement.

When we were discussing the two quotes, “ignorance is bliss”-Gray and “The unexamined life is not worth living” -Socrates, i couldn’t help to think that in reality there is no argument between the two. There isn’t a choice in the matter as to which one to choose. In the real world people have no choice whether to be ignorant or not. Life throws complex situations at you as you get older and it forces one to figure out what to do and how things work. People are forced to examine their life and life in general if they are going to go about their business. Children on the other hand are ignorant from many things in life and that is why many people speak of childhood as the happiest times of their life. They simply have nothing to worry about because they live in a bubble, and don’t have to experience many harsh realities. But everyone has to grow up.

Once one gets to s certain age people are forced to examine how things work in the world and to see how they are incorporated into the mix. There are many situations that people can not avoid (that is if they are living a somewhat normal life, not lying in a fetal position in a cushioned room) that will cause someone to examine their lives. The simple act of growing older forces the mind to view where they have been, where they are now, and what may come in the future. This is a huge part in the examination of life, specifically one’s own life. As one grows older they pass through school, get a job, find a significant other, lose loved ones, and much more. Everyone of these things will force the mind into examining what is important in life and will make you ponder as to why everything is the way it is. As a child many people view love as a kind of Corey and Tampanga (boy meets world ) view or how it is portrayed in disney movies. But relationships are much harder than shown in the movies. They arent always a happy time and they force one to constantly reevaluate and examine yourself as a person.

But for the sake of the conversation we had in class, as to whether which one would be the better path. I strongly believe that Socrates had it right. One who lives their entire life in ignorance may not have to experience bad, but those who examine life and see it for the good and bad have the privilege of understanding how lucky they are when things are good.

According to the class discussion on Monday, Aristotle views humans as the only animal to practice thought and reason. This automatically raises some skepticism in my mind, but I am still not sure if I completely disagree with this, or if I somewhat agree.

When making the statement that man is the only rational animal, it needs to be certain that all other living things are ruled out. Dogs come into my mind, probably just because they are familiar and easy, when applying this claim. On one end of the spectrum, it could seem that dogs follow commands because they are responding to a stimulus. They do not possess the ability to think on their own because everything they know is taught by man (i.e. sit, stay, or give paw), except for survival skills (i.e. reproduction, hunger, etc.). On the other end, literature and personal experiences have implied that dogs do in fact think, even think like people. They can offer support, can sometimes determine right from wrong, or know when they are in trouble.

Contrasted with dogs, can lizards or mice or rabbits “think”? What does it mean to “think”? Thinking might be talking yourself through something or taking in the surroundings around you. People think with words (mostly?), but non-humans cannot think with words because they do not know language, at least our familiar sort of language. How would they classify objects and places in their mind without words? Do you need language to think? More broadly, lizards and mice and the rest of animals all compete in their environment to survive. They make habitats, hunt for food, and protect their young. Does that mean that they are thinking, that they are logically reasoning their way through life? Or does that mean that they use the brain they were given to solely thrive in their environment?

As Aristotle claimed humans as the rational animal, it essentially puts humans on a more sophisticated level than other forms of life. Many people would definitely claim that humans are on a higher level than other organisms, yet many people would also claim that other life forms and humans have minimal differences that would set them apart from each other. Humans are quick to assume they are above all, that they are the most important animal because we have the human brain. The human brain enables us to think, reason, question, and have opinions, and we are quick to assume it applies only to us. Does it? Is it wrong to assume that elephants don’t think about whether the Earth rotates on an axis? Or is it wrong to assume that monkeys question their life in the jungle? Let’s say that humans are the only animal that possesses the ability to reason, agreeing with Aristotle, does that make the human more superior? If so, would the superiority be defined as how we have created communities, advanced technology, and communication with one another? So what if we can do those things? If humans are not superior to other forms of life then why do humans act otherwise and feel entitled to do so?

I don’t quite know answers to these questions, but the realistic part of me wonders if it even matters. If it was decided that humans aren’t the only animals to think, would life change in any way? Or would humans look at other animals more differently? In theory, I think these questions do matter, and even seem essential when we consider how humans have affected, manipulated, and attempted to control other forms of life.

After thinking a lot about last weeks discussion I came to the conclusion that people who live a life of ignorance may be happy, but the happiness is a sort of dumb happiness that is not  deserved. It is the happiness of a child. Children are usually happy, they are oblivious to the world around them and they live day to day as it comes. They have no idea that their parents have to work full time for them to have a roof over their heads and they cannot even begin to conceive the billions of people suffering in the world. They exist and they are happy. Here are a list of other animals in the world that live lives of complete happiness: Domesticated dogs, chipmunks, rabbits, and I’m sure I don’t need to name off any more creatures with small brains to prove my point.

The chances of life springing up on any planet in the universe is almost zero and the chances of this life being intelligent is significantly less… I can not understand why anyone would ever waist their intelligence, something that is so rare and so beautiful, on a life overflowing with ignorance.  Watching daytime television, or playing video games all day may make the ignorant happy, but It would do nothing for those who want to dig deeper.

In class it seemed as if when we talked about, ” ignorance is bliss” v.s  ” the unexamined life is not worth living” argument, nobody even brought up the fact that those who think about life can actually be happy. Everyone basically assumed that those who thought about their existence and those who asked questions were unhappy. Of course, it is much easier to be happy when you are ignorant, but I would like to think that those who are mindful have a higher level of happiness than those who are not.

For example, in the Allegory of the Cave  we learned about people who were stuck in a cave all their lives, with their heads chained so they could not see anything but the wall of a cave. They could see shadows on the cave wall because of a light that shined in the back of the cave, and the light helped project people walking behind this light. Say one of the prisoners saw something or heard a distorted voice that made him particularly happy. This prisoner’s idea of happiness would be something completely different than people who weren’t prisoners(the educated). In fact anyone who  saw what the prisoner saw would probably be disappointed because they know that the shadow is just a shadow.

Overall, I believe that life is a precious thing and nobody should just coast through it. People have to learn how to examine life and strive not to be ignorant. The educated, those not in the cave, I believe, will lead a more fulfilling life than those who do not even try to break through their chains.

If you are an ignorant person you will always be looking at the shadows.

Personally I don’t think that Socrates was that wise of a man, and don’t really understand why his views or quotes are so famous or meaningful.  We talked about him on August 25^th in class and to tell you the truth I wasn’t really that impressed with him. We learned that he worked as just a mason, but not all sources I researched agreed with this, most said that he didn’t even work. He wasn’t very well educated either. He also was a terrible father and husband. I wouldn’t spend very much time with his family and seemed to do everything but be with his family. Now I realize that the educational system back in the era when he lived wasn’t the best, but I believe that maybe we should be listening to other great thinkers of his time. I feel like that most people can come up with the same quotes and beliefs the same way he did.

The way Socrates came up with things and was constantly asking and debating everything that the Sophists did. Sophists were people who would give clever arguments in order to get paid. I think that they are pretty much like prosecutors and defense attorneys in the legal system of today. So you know that they were pretty intelligent and very knowledgeable of things that they were arguing against, unlike Socrates who wasn’t very intelligent. I feel like that anyone can come up with these ideas if they ask enough questions, I just feel that Socrates shouldn’t have all the fame when a lot of all he said or came up with was just the opposite of what a lot of other philosophers said.

I would like to start off by saying that Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’  was a very insightful piece of literature.  How these prisoners essentially live there whole lives believing that shadows are true life.  These blinded slaves never question (because they never experienced otherwise) the sanctity of life or goal and aspirations they have, because there living these construed lives, and not experiencing anything else (natural light for instance).  This made me think about my own life, and how sometimes culturally we do the exact same things.  I mean think about when you’ve thought a certain way about, say a political issue and refuse to acknowledge the otherside; or you’re a die hard conservative and only watch Fox News.  You ignore a person because of how they’re dressed, there are many instances where you may be missing out on the quintessential reasons for existance; true love, beauty, and experience.  You may not think about it but we blind ourselves all day.  It’s not necessarily a bad thing, because we are all human and do make mistakes.  After reading Allegory of the Cave it definitely helped reinforce my beliefs on always trying to keep an open mind, and to not give in to astonishment.  If there’s one thing to learn about life it’s never get to comfortable, and experience as much as possible.

In class we also talked about DeAnima, and what Aristotle mean’t by being alive.  I thought at first that Aristotle had a pretty legitimate list for what it means to be alive; one must be nutritive, appetitive, feel sensation,have locomotion, and be able to think (only humans).  Then the little robot you had which responded to light and sound was pulled out, and you had us determine if that was alive.  It seems a little ridiculous to think that a toy can be alive, but if we hadn’t discovered that yet, whose to say what’s alive and what’s not?  There must of course be some criteria, but Aristotle just got it started.  The fact that Aristotle argued things based off what he knew (which was nothing) is how he drew his conclusions.  His observations were correct, but not fullproof; and i think the technological realm embarks/counterintuitively at traditional philosophy beliefs thereby challenging philosophical ideals.  One of the things we did not discuss in class was the actual definition of being alive, and adaptation to the environment is a key factor in this.

The Ship of Theseus was also a neat paradox.  I found it kind of angering though that you can’t really get a definitive answer out of it, because of the fact that both ships are in turn the exact same ship… through the transitive property making both of them the original authentic boat in turn. 

 In class we discussed some of the components of self including our inner feelings, our collection of thoughts (which remains hidden and seperated from our bodies), hobbies, drive and passions, gender/race, and ethnicity.  But I feel there is so much more to self, that we don’t know about because of our complexity.  For instance, we don’t stress the importance of healthy isolation in life.  If you do harm to society and our code of conduct, you are sent to jail, but if you mess up in jail, they put you in solitary confinement.  They take you away from all of the murderers and rapists and you go crazy because people need to be heard, we’re extremely social animals.  With that said there are a lot of arguments on the components of self that can only be found through stumbling across it for yourself (and although there are some universals, i think there’s a lot of variability)

I like the way this class is moving around so far and I’m interested in the topics of discussion.

So I know there’s a lot of posts about our discussion about “Ignorance is bliss” but I thought I’d throw my two cents in and I both agree and disagree with this quote. I agree with it because if you ignore that something exists or have no knowledge on something existing, your life stays the same. I like the comment that was made that compared “ignorance is bliss” to childhood. When you’re a child you don’t know about all the evil that is out there in the world and you live life full of toys and imaginary friends. I feel like when I was a kid, I didn’t have a care in the world and I could spend hours playing with my dolls and have the time of my life. However, now I have to worry about crime, terrorism, and other scary events that are talked about on the news. Now I have a lot more to worry about, but the fact that I have more knowledge on what is going on in the world and there is life outside my childhood toys, I feel like the more knowledge I gain the happier I am and the more I feel like I have a purpose in life. Sure, if we all stayed in the mental state of a child we’d be happy, but what would our purpose in life be?

People can argue that sometimes it is better to not know something if it can end up hurting you in the end, but in reality I think majority of the time, good things come out of bad news. If you find out your best friend’s boyfriend has been cheating on her you might think that it’ll be better if she didn’t know and she can carry on with her happy life. Sure she will be upset when you tell her the bad news but she will realize her boyfriend is not worth her time and she will have gotten rid of someone who doesn’t care about her. Yea bad news initially affect you but something good usually comes out of it. The more knowledge someone gains, the more they understand themselves and the world around them.