WEEK OF THE FINAL: MAKE-UP WEEK for POSTS

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

Like I said I have a makeup week for posts. Remember, I take the TOP TEN posts of all the posts you've done all semester long. If you are missing posts, you can post them here--up 2 posts (like every other week). You can write about anything. However, it has to be something *new*! Don't just copy and paste from a paper. Although you can write about stuff from the first half the class, I recommend writing about one of the readings we had for this second half of the semester (Dostoevsky Brothers; Mill Liberty; Mill Utilitarianism; Kant Groundwork; Aristotle Ethics) so that you can prepare for the final. Try to pick the reading that maybe you didn't finish, you didn't understand, or had the most trouble with.

-MD.

[asiyebodur91]

I would like to talk about good will and reason. Often, you will to do something but sometimes reason argues with you and tries to convince you otherwise. At that specific moment, you desire to do and is willing to do that action, but, after the action is done, there is that thought that holds you back. That thought just gets bigger and bigger because you keep on thinking about it, you argue with yourself and state that you couldve done better or said something different. Your inner conscious just brings you back to that moment over and over again and you just re-act in your mind.  This happens to me when i have an argument with a friend over silly stuff and i think that i couldve done something better. But people are like this. We always think we could have done better, but the past is in the past and we are so weak to fall into the same trap every time. I guess reason often comes to us at a later time or when we are thinking healthy.

[sharifa]

My post is on The Brothers Karamazov:

It is not "reasoning from another world" that children are a part of the suffering of the world. If adults are to suffer because of the eating of the apple, why not children? They will also become adults one day as well, regardless of their lack of comprehension. Children are remote from adults up until seven years of age; they are cognitively different from adults because they are still learning and growing; but they are still the children of these adults,which will allow them to be a part of the suffering. It is a continuous cycle. However, I also agree with Dostoevsky on loving one's neighbor. Love is too strong of a word to use when caring for a stranger. From afar we think we are able to understand and care for another, without ever meeting them or getting to know them, but once we are around strangers, and we are near them and we see their actions, we do not think of love, more like dislike. 

[staceydavidyants]

For this post, I would like to discuss the utility principle. In the utility principle, actions or behaviors are considered right if they promote happiness or pleasure, and wrong if they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. But why is it that as a society, we overlook people doing good things unless they are extraordinarily good, but yet acknowledge the slightest mess up and really look down upon it. There are so many good people around the world, doing so many things to help others, and yet we know nothing about them. Who we do know a lot about are the criminals, who are telecasted all over the world like celebrities. We speak about them in conversations, and have an interest to find out more about the motives of their actions, yet no one looks to see the motives of the actions for those who do good things. No recognition is given to people who participate in charity work out of the goodness of their heart, only those who do it for rise in social ranking and philanthropy purposes actually get recognized for their good deeds. But the fact is, that all good deeds cannot be recognized, it is simply impossible to do so. And the motive of the good deed does not make a difference, as long as the outcome is good. The rule of action is much more important than the motive of action when is comes to doing good. The motive does not tell you the morality of the action; the motive tells you about the worth of the person. However, Kant focuses a lot on the motive rather than the outcome and but believe that the outcome is much more important than the motive. 

[kenlyv]

"The mind's thoughts or ideas are obviously inter-connected in some systematic way: there is some order and regularity in how, in memory and imagination, one idea leads on to another"

 

 David Hume is basically stating how the mind works and how ideas are connected with others ideas. This quotes is also example that the mind will sometimes associate something with something else, this is want help people remember things that they forgot, for example there was this one time when I had no money to buy something to eat but me not having any money reminded me that I to pick up money from my sister who owed me. This why I considered my mind to be a memory bank. Something you can't never forget you just need something to help trigger your memory.

 

[kenlyv]

 

 

"Memory should be regarded as the source of identity, mainly because without it we wouldn't know of the existence of this length and continuous sequence of perceptions...”
    
        I believe this quote is stating that how memory is the basis of many perceptions that happen in people lives. If memory did not contain all of our past emotion, actions, and any perceptions on what we view the world, we would not be ourselves. Memory is what defines who we are and if we did not have memories we would be repeating the all mistake we done in our lives. This is why memories is the source of identity because memories help us better ourselves and prevent us from doing the same mistakes.

[abe]

The epitome of a meritorious human is Temple Grandin..I would like to articulate on, really, some of the greatest individuals to have ever lived, in my opinion. People who make the most of what's been given. the quintessential human to me, is a person that realizes his/her frailties, but also manages to use that in a positive manner...  a person that has set a standard, aims at a goal and gives it his/her all so as to achieve whatever it is that he/she is hell-bent on doing. hopefully for the greater good of mankind and society as a whole. All of us have our shortcomings. Some are smarter than others, quicker, defter, some are short while others are too tall. Some are gravely overweight while others may be severely malnourished/undernourished.. some are extremely inert while others blindingly swift.. there are many factors to dissect, consider and analyze upon in an attempt to discover the perfect human. but yet, all of us think we're nearly flawless in a way. the most beautiful of things is when each of these individuals finds a way to accomplish their goals, even if a congenital trait may be the grandest of obstructions to their aspirations. A read I highly recommend is An Anthropologist on Mars. This book really taught me not to judge anyone, ever. anyone is capable of anything, no matter what it is you've come across.
"to see and not to see" (regains sight, only to find the experience deeply disturbing) and "an anthropologist on mars" are two chapters that I want you guys to focus on... but read it all, if you can!!! 

one may ask... what exactly is too tall to the tall person? and WHAT is normal. i hear that a lot. don't you? "that's not normal." well, what is normal, precisely? conforming to the standard. who sets the standard, anyhow? doesn't everyones "standard" differ from the next persons? it's your perception of normalcy on the basis of whatever you've experienced throughout the course of your life. so if you're used to seeing flowers, unicorns and cookie monster everyday...it's totally rad! .but extremely weird to your fellow classmates..to me, you're as normal as you've reckoned normal to be. normal in mathematics makes perfect sense. it simply means the average. now that, is normal. but there is no average in humanity. we're all way too different. you will never find a carbon copy of einstein, nor will you ever find a spitting image of yourself, or anyone else for that matter. it really is amusing when i hear humans say, we're super intelligent, smartest in the world! well, that may be true.. but,.. really? to whom do people compare themselves when evaluating the intelligence of a whole kind or species? primates? guinea pigs? rats? dogs? horses? worldly beings and creatures? who are you comparing yourself to? there must be something greater than us out there! unless i find hardcore proof that there is nothing out there (which is virtually impossible), this will be my theory. whether it be a divine force or something we haven't even thought of. But I do believe we aren't the most intelligent of entities/humanoids. we're just too dumb to be in this alone, is basically what i'm saying. as detestable and vapid as it may seem to the general public. this is really, arguably, the most injurious of things you can say when running for public office. fortunately, I'm not running for office, but i hope none take offense to this. many may encounter difficulty coming to grips with this idea. i definitely had a hard time at first. the more and more i thought of it, the more and more i thought it to be a definitive, feasible supposition.. But i've come to accept it long ago and I'm at peace with that. It is ingrained within the human mind, i believe, the mere yearning to know as much as possible. well, in most people at least... but that is impossible, to know all. I noticed some of my opinions and beliefs tend to stir controversy. it only makes sense to me. rather, it makes the most sense to me. more sense than any other when it comes to this particular topic of discussion.. but extremely foolish to others. we'll never truly know. or will we? I've thought of it countless times... there's never a day that goes by with me failing to ask myself, "why am I here, what is the reason for my being on this earth." At one point, i thought it was only natural for every one to ask him/herself this simple question... i realized i was the only misfit when i opened up regarding this topic to a few friends, back during senior year at peter rouget m.s. 88. i was the only one who seriously asked myself this question, and scary part was, i couldn't stop asking myself this question. but the fact that i kept pushing and wondering, i believe, has led to the solid installation of backbone and principle. i genuinely try to do right for the sake of doing the right thing, not for peoples applause, not for money, not for acknowledgement... because i HATE seeing wrong, especially when it is a whole people being wronged. people just LIVE LIFE... people get caught up and chase whatever it is that is of pleasure, whatever it is that causes an arousal, whatever it is that may bring about happiness. and of course, it's only human! but life can't be all about that. 

i remember your saying in class, that the most ethical of things to do would be to do the opposite of immediate inclination. what if one feels as if he's been working tirelessly his whole life so as to have a thorough understanding of right and wrong? what if one feels like he's made it a point in his life, he's worked relentlessly in his life, to try and make it an immediate inclination to do what is right all the time? even though that may not be possible at all times... what if not every human was as selfish as the one next to him? what if every being made it a must, to raise his/her child selflessly and wholeheartedly, for the greater of humanity and nothing else. doesn't it begin with an upbringing? what if every being cared for his peer as much as a mother cares for her child. this world would be too rosy. wouldn't it? can anyone envisage such a rosy world? As much as I would love one, I can't even begin to envision. Maybe because of the cruel world we live in.

[jimborat69]

 

I believe that Life of contemplative is the most important life like what Aristotle thinks. We all live in the world that all our actions needs to line up or be approved by our society of what is expected for us to do. I am aware that it cannot be set in stone when I say that we should do what we want to do without thinking about what people thinks about us. We need to look at our inside and do what our hearts tells us. A couple of my family member thinks it is a waste of time for me to come back to school. I still came back to school because I that is what my heart tells me to do.  We don’t need approval when it comes to our self-accomplishment.

[arielleraoul]

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action as well as choice, 

is held to aim at some good. Hence people have nobly declared that the 

good is that at which all things aim. But there appears to be a certain difference 

among the ends: some ends are activities, others are certain works 

apart from the activities themselves, and in those cases in which there are 

certain ends apart from the actions, the works are naturally better than 

the activities."

 I agree with what Aristotle is acknowledging here. Many times we as people set out to do good deeds. Most people look at the good deeds done by another as something admirable and in most cases grants the person favor with those that see these good deeds.In this quote Aristotle raises the thought that there are two ends/goals of doing good deeds. One is for it to be just that, a "good deed". To me the motives of a person genuinely setting out to do something good is pure, truthful, loving and done with your whole heart.The second end is one that has nothing to do with the " good deed"and everything to do with personal gain, wrong motives and selfishness. This made me think of some examples.I thought of a foster parent that takes in a child with love and compassion for them and their situation, genuinely wanting to help vs a foster parent taking in a child because of a check that they will receive for that child by the government. Here we see the same " good deed" being done but the INTENTION behind the good deeds are not the same. In one scenario their are pure intentions, the end is engaged in the act of the good deed in another scenario the intention is completely wrong and disconnected from the good deed. Would you still consider the second scenario an GOOD DEED ?

[taniki0108]

"Little progress has been made towards deciding the controversy concerning the criterion of right and wrong"

The very first line of Mill's Utilitarianism really nailed it.  Even up to the present people are still having the problem with deciding right from wrong and a lot of it has to do with culture and beliefs.  Do I accept mill theory about it doesn't matter what the motive in, no I definately think the motive matters.  You should not get away with doing the wrong thing because it turn out to benenit someone instead of harming them.  It could have went the other way, thats why its alyways inportant to know what it is your action is going to produce before you do what you are about to do.  I agree with is point on "not the quantity but the quality"  because quality of life is very important.  It's not how long you live, you could live to be a hundred but if your quality of life wasn't good, I don't think it would be possible for you to say you have experience "happiness."  Happiness to me is the right combination of everything and thats different for everyone.

[vgultyaeva]

“A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying--to others and to yourself.”

 

I was really taken with this statement.  It is so true and I think that people do not think about it enough. Lying is much easier than being truthful.  Sometimes people are not strong enough to face the truth and lying is an easier way out.  By avoiding difficult life choices people reduce themselves to more basic stage of being, primal state.

            Lying to oneself or others is also a way of disrespecting and that leads to chain reaction of not being able to truly love ( main ingredient is respect), not being able to truly apresiate etc. No relationship can be formed if lying is a part of it.

[m.inam.gul]

I feel it is important that we sort of look to reexamine our common sense.

The focus of this blog will pertain to Ivan's idea in Rebellion, of how evil, cruel this world has become We've got all sorts of ideas's built into us which for some reason seem unquestioned because they have become obvious to us and our talk reflects them. It feels like our common sense has been rigged, it seems like everyone is at there own, trying to progress up in the social economic latter while pushing down everyone else that comes in their way. We feel like strangers and aliens in this world, but i believe life is not something we encounter as foreigners. Greed has poisoned man's soul and turned the world into hate. Knowledge was a once a power, now has become sinister and evil to human progress. I feel there has been a dis-attachment among one another due to greed and selfishness. More than competition we need humanity and more than cleverness we need kindness.      

[odinredd]

I would like to talk about Kant's categorical imperative.

"The categorical imperative is thus only a single one, and specifically this: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which at the same time you can will that it became a universal law." (Kant pg37)

 This is a great philosophy is we knew that everyone had the same type of morals. If we were able to see what a persons morals were then this society would be very ideal. Unfortunately we have people that as we know today have lacking distinct brain processes linked to empathy. I believe that empathy is a large part of morals. Without it you maxim is able to be limitless. There is no conscious guilt to help guide their maxim as well. 

For this very reason I believe that if were to look more at a utilitarian way of society, then we would be able to judge more by actions than by non actions. Until we are able to progress enough technologically to where we will be able to see and read actual inner motivations, then Kant's society is very irrational. 

[odinredd]

I would like to talk about Dostoecsky's Rebellion:

Ivan talks about how he thinks "that if the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own image." (Odstoevsky pg239) 

We have no proof of any form of deity. We do have an active imagination and a need to explain things that we do not fully understand. If there is no devil then there is no God. The only proof that he exists is our own beliefs. Our beliefs stem from ourselves and therefore god and the devil are given manifestations. The philosophical discussion continues when he talks about how he would rather return his ticket to heaven if it means little ones have to suffer for the harmony. 

He does a good job breaking down the problems with the religious christian god. Should we want to go to a heaven that houses a god that allows such suffering of children to occur  I think the answer is no, no matter what the personal outcome. We constantly rebel against human outrages. Why do Christians not demand and rebel against a godly outrage?