Emily's Philosophy Blog

Descartes’ Solution to Skepticism

Emily S. — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:28:34 +0000

Descartes uses skepticism as a tool to destroy the foundations of his knowledge in his Meditations II. Descartes theorizes that the senses are entirely deceptive. Noting obtained from the use of any of the senses can be considered truth. However, he argues that since something can be deceived, it means there is something there to deceive. Thus, Descartes is able to conclude that objects abl to be deceived do indeed exist. He states “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing.” Descartes theorizes that as long as he is able to think he will be certain that he is living. When he stops thinking, he can no longer be certain about his existence. Therefore, Descartes is certain that he does exist. “I manifesly know that mothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than my own mind.” This is Descartes’ solution to skepticism because it cannot be denied by any of the skeptics.

Epicurus’ Study of Nature and the Heavens

Emily S. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:34:34 +0000

Epicurus states “…the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death” (29). Epicurus thought studying nature and the heavens was important so one can live life without fear and anxiety. Objects in nature represent what will happen to human beings when they die. Epicurus based his theory of death on atomism. This principle states everything is made up of atoms and/or void, including human beings. Once a person dies, they will eventually decompose, just like everything else in nature like trees and animals. This idea allows one to live without fear and anxiety because nothing will happen to him or her once he or she dies. The body will decompose and become part of the Earth.

Epicurus thought the gods were indifferent to what humans on Earth did. They did not judge humans on their actions. Therefore, people should not base their actions on what the gods approved of. They should live a pleasurable life because the pleasurable life is the good life. If someone does something wrong, he or she will not be punished by the gods. This means once a person dies nothing will happen with his or her soul.

Overall, when a person dies he or she decomposes and becomes part of the Earth. The person does not have to worry about being judge by the gods after death. Therefore, no one should have fear or anxiety towards death because death is nothing.

Epicurus’ View of Death

Emily S. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:10:26 +0000

Epicurus states “the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death.” Death to Epicurus is just a natural process. There is no more significance to death than there is to a normal living day. It is a very laid back approach to this topic. He thinks death is nothing to us as long as we live a pleasurable life. According to Epicurus, the length of a person’s life does not matter but how pleasurable it is. If a person has a good life, they will also have a good death. He makes death seem like it is nothing to worry about. This is why it means nothing to us. He states “there is nothing to fear in the absence of death.” This captures Epicurus’ view of death in one short sentence.

I think death is an interesting philosophical problem because everyone has a different view of it. Socrates states death is the separation of the soul from the body. Once people die, they are no longer bound to the material world. Aristotle thought the physical world was more real than the mind. This caused him to say death is more of an end than Socrates did. Epicurus does not put any emphasis on death, as long as the person had a pleasurable life. Religion also takes death in many directions. Christians believe the soul goes to heaven to live with God after death. Some religions believe in reincarnation of the soul. Many other philosophers also had different views of death. It means something different to everyone. There is no common answer among philosophers as to what happens once a person dies.

Aristotle’s View on Human Wisdom

Emily S. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:53:14 +0000

Aristotle believes “all men by nature desire to know.” As stated during class on Tuesday, this does not mean academic knowledge, but a sort of curiosity. People rely on their physical surroundings through their senses. Aristotle believes this is what is real; the physical world. He believes wisdom is developed through experience rather than knowledge obtained in the classroom.

Aristotle argues that wisdom should be pursued for its own sake in the second chapter of his Metaphysics. He believes when people do this can differentiate between useful and useless knowledge. They know which pieces of knowledge are important and are used to establish other pieces of knowledge. Aristotle believes if a person pursues wisdom for its own sake, they will prosper. The person will be able to obtain all true knowledge.

As previously stated, Aristotle believes human wisdom is knowledge of the physical world and its senses. Socrates, on the other hand, believes human wisdom is knowledge of the gods and how to live a “good life.” Socrates’ theories are based on the mind and its ideas rather than the body and its physical world.

Fallacy

Emily S. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:15:39 +0000

Oranges come from trees. Orange juice is made from oranges. Therefore, orange juice grows on trees.

Assignment 5 – “Function Argument”

Emily S. — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:50:11 +0000

Aristotle believes everything, from the grass to the birds to the rain, has a function. If something did not have a purpose, he feels it would not be placed on the Earth. For example, the rain waters the grass so it can grow. Then the grass feeds animals. Eventually the animals will die and become part of the Earth again. This will give nutrients to the soil so the grass can grow again. Everything has a never ending purpose. This also applies to humans. However, Aristotle believes humans have a different type of function. He thinks humans were put on the Earth is to obtain eudaimonia. After obtaining eudaimonia human beings have everything they will ever need. It is true fulfillment and the ablility to flourish. Aristotle hopes to give humans a function so they have something to aims and goals to work towards. By giving humans a function of obtaining eudaimonia, Aristotle is hoping to encourage people to strive for good. In order to reach eudaimonia, people must do things in life well and be “good.” If humans did not have a purpose, they would lack ambition. Therefore, human beings would not do much of anything. People only do things if they know there could be positive repercussions. By giving people a purpose, Aristotle is hoping to give humans drive to become ethical people.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Emily S. — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:52:55 +0000

Aristotle feels an educated man who “look[s] for precision in each class of things” (p. 1094) is the appropriate student of ethics. He thinks being precise is necessary to be good in ethics. You have to know right from wrong. There is no in between. He feels experience is an important role in order to be a good judge of a subject. He thinks experience involves action within the subject, in this case ethics. According to Aristotle, it does not depend on knowledge but on action.

I understand why Aristotle believes the young would not profit from teachings of ethics. He feels they do not have enough experience to be able to apply what they know. However, I think the young would profit more than the older from studying ethics. The young are more capable to make changes to their thinking strategies and beliefs. As a person gets older (either in years or in character), they hold on tighter to their own views and beliefs. They are less willing to change. Most feel their way is the right way. I think if the young would be more benefited by studying ethics. They could then apply what they learned to their own lives and build their personal morals and live “good” lives, which is what everything is aimed towards, according to Aristotle.

Socrates’ Contract With Athens

Emily S. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:01:44 +0000

In CritoSocrates believes he has a “contract” with the state of Athens. He feels this way because he chose to live in Athens. If he did not enjoy living in Athens or believe in their laws, he could have very easily left at any time. He chose not to do so. Socrates feels Athens essentially gave him life. The state allowed his parents to get married and have children. Therefore, Athens is like a symbolic parent. Athens also gave Socrates his education, safety, security, the right to get married, and a place for him to raise his children. Socrates chose to stay in Athens after the birth of his children, which means he must have trusted Athens to educate and protect his children. If he had not trusted Athens, he would have left and gone to live in another state.

This “contract” required Socrates to follow the laws and procedures set by the state of Athens. It is a social contract, which requires Socrates to either ”persuade or obey.” He was unable to persuade the jury of his position and innocence during his case; therefore, he was obligated to obey the sentence and punishment of the jury.

I think there are certain situations where it is acceptable for someone to disobey the laws. When the laws are ”unjust,” it is sometimes necessary to disobey the law. As stated in class, Rosa Parks disobeyed the law when she sat in the front of the bus. The entire movement was disobeying the law, but it was meant to change “unjust” laws. When disobeying the law brings about a long-term positive changes, it is acceptable. However, I understand this can be a gray area because everyone has a different view of what a “positive” change is.

Wisdom

Emily S. — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:46:38 +0000

I think Socrates means that he is who he is because of what he knows. He knows that he has very little knowledge about the world, which in a way makes him more knowlegdeable (which is known as Socratic wisdom). People in Athens know Socrates because of his questioning of authoritative and respective Athenians. Socrates tries to prove to the Athenians that they do not know as much as they think they do; therefore, they are not very knowledgeable. His ablility to question people’s ideas and morals and put them into doubt gives Socrates his reputation.

Human wisdom is like regular ignorance. people think they know everything about a certain subject and they end up knowing very little or nothing about it. Wisdom more than human is not held by humans. I think it is knowing the true meaning of things in life, knowing what they really are. Socrates states “human wisdom is worth little or nothing (23A, p.27). Since humans do not really know the true meaning of things, they end up not having very much knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be worth much.

First Assignment – Euthyphro

Emily S. — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:31:18 +0000

“Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” This quote by Socrates is the main provoking question in Euthyphro. I think Socrates is trying to prove to Euthyphro that there is a distinct difference between something being good and loved for what it truly is and something being good because someone else loves it. Socrates tries to point out that the answer is not completely known by anyone on Earth, especially by Euthyphro. By having Euthyphro try to define what pious is, Socrates proves to him that Euthyphro does not truly know everything about the gods and how they view people’s actions and thoughts on Earth. This is Socrates’ way of pointing out to Euthyphro that just because something has changed, it does not mean that it is being changed. Socrates knows that these are two very different things, but he also knows that Euthyphro does not know the difference. So, Socrates can use his knowledge and way with words to prove to Euthyphro that he is not as smart and knowledgeable as he think he is. The philosophical significance to this quote is pretty much was stated above. That there are differences between similar things; that they are not always the same, as they may first appear. It takes a great amount of knowledge and skill to truly be able to give a solid definition of something, not just give examples.