12/7 Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism

Explain Sartre’s belief that we are we are responsible for the creation of morality and for prescribing morality to everyone else. Give your own example that demonstrates this view in addition to Sartre’s own example of marriage.

Sartre’s belief is that we are responsible for the creation of morality and prescribing morality to everyone else. We create our own morality by creating rules for society. Those that break it are seen as outcast. Making our own morality. The rules will help us go to the direction we want. Scared of being a outcast, people will choose to follow the rules and be together. An example is killing is bad. Those who kill will be lock up without freedom. This make it so people will choose not to kill and make it part of morality. An example would be the punishment we set up to punish those who commit a crime. Those who commit a crime have a harder time to get a job. This get known to kids at school so if they want a good job they will avoid doing any crime. The punishment will set people away from the path we don’t want people going in and keep them in the path we want. We also help prescribe our morality to everyone else by following it. Those who see it will also start to follow it. When you do something, that tell other people that they should also do it, setting up a good example for your peers. For example, I go to college and set an example to other people that they should go to college too. In doing so, they would also influence others to do it too. Our action influence our peers. To change what people are doing, you must stop doing it yourself and create a good example for people to follow. One thing that I hate what people doing is littering. So many times I see this. Throwing their thrash out of their car. Too lazy to pick up their trash when a trash can is near you. A trash can laying on the floor and no one doing anything about it. Too many people are littering. This give others the idea that “hey everyone else is doing so it won’t matter if I start doing it now”. Many people think that there little trash won’t matter, but add that with the other millions people who is starting to do this. There will be garbage everywhere. No one like being near garbage but if people keep throwing out their trash outside than soon you will be living right next to a dumpster. Our action influence others to follow and this creating our morality in society to follow. An example that I would say that follow Sartre’s own view in marriage is monogamy. Most people in America society follow monogamy and so others follow in this culture. When people start to talk about polygamy, they reject the idea of it. It goes against all common sense in society. While some agree with it, most disagree for it going out of the norm. Because it is the norm, most people practice monogamy. An example would be gay marriage. In the past, this was seen abnormal. People rejected this idea. Through out history, it has always been a male and a female. Marrying to different sex has been going on since the beginning of time. Because of this the idea of the same sex getting married was seen as abnormal. While some disagree with it, some also agree with it too. Now-a-days it has been accepted in some state in the U.S. While it is legal in some state, some culture reject the idea of it, for going against their culture. Those are some example that I think goes with Sartre’s view.

12/1 Frankfurt, Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person

What does it mean to be a person, according to Frankfurt? Explain the order of desires, and how they are related to freedom of will.

A person is an entity beside having various physical properties, they also have various forms of consciousness. The desires of the first order is simply the desires to do or not to do one thing or another. As Frankfurt said that many animal appear to capacity for the first-order of desires. The second-order of desires is a peculiarly characteristic of human, which unlike animal, have the capacity for reflective self-evaluation that is manifested. An example of the first order is me walking to school. An example of the second order is finishing college and getting a college degree. The order of desires are related to freedom of will because the order of desires tells which entity is capable of doing something and why they are doing it. The first order is just an entity which do things without even question why they are doing it just like a machine. The second order tells you of an entity that reflect on it’s action and why they did. Having a free will to do what they want. A person is an entity that like animal have first-order of desire but unlike animal, a person have a reason for doing it, an another word a second order of desire. A person have a reason for every single one of their action. None of their action is without a goal. That is what it means to be a person according to Frankfurt. A person who every action is not based on instinct but based on the mind trying to achieve a goal.

Causal Determinism

What is causal determinism? Would you feel any differently about your life in general—and your actions, thoughts, and feelings, in particular—if determinism were true? Why or why not?

Causal determinism is the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. I would not feel any differently about my life if determinism were true. I had always believe that every action lead to something, or the cause and effect. Your own action will be the cause of an event. It makes sense that if you were to do something, something will happen because of it. Just like how most people would describe time travel in the story. Go back in time and change an action, then the result will change with it. The so called butterfly effect. Nothing would change because I already believe determinism to be true. The choice that is hard for me to decide would be, what do I believe in, soft or hard determinism. Soft determinism is that with your experience you use your free will to choose your choice of action that will affect the result. Taking responsibility for your action. Hard determinism is that “since everything (including human action) has a cause or causes that determine it to be what it is, there is no real freedom, only the illusion of freedom” and that people can’t be responsible for their action for it is already determine by the cause or causes. Both sound reasonable and true. But if I had to choose one, I would choose soft determinism to believe in. It sound better than hard determinism. Everyone have free will to choose what they want with according to one’s nature. There are many choice to choose from. I think the idea of parallel dimension come from it too. The idea that there are other worlds existing together with ours, but the only difference is the choices that they made that differ from yours.

Memento

Do you agree with Leonard’s statement that we all need mirrors to remind us who we are? In the movie the mirrors were his notes, the photographs, and tattoos. What has he become by relying upon them? What would you become without your own mirrors?

Leonard’s statement that we all need mirrors to remind us who we are is correct. Our mirrors can be many things, such as personal item, our reflection, our memory, and family. They remind us of who we are. Our memory tell us what we have done to today. Although memories are not that reliable to the specific detail, it can show us what we saw and done. For example you remember seeing a car but not the color, you remember you to a certain place but not everything in that certain place. Even though mirror remind us who we are, mirrors can be distorted. In the movie Leonard’s mirrors were his notes, the photographs, and tattoos. He relied on them to tell him who he was and what he should be doing. But as I said, mirror can be distorted. A single sentence on the back of a picture led him to kill his only ally Teddy. Even though Teddy used him, he did not mean him any harm and even help him kill John G. the person who Leonard wanted to kill in the first place. That is not what a police officer should have done what feeling pity he help Leonard kill John G.. He became a killer who only purpose is to chase and kill John G. by relying on his mirror. His distorted memories,notes, photographs, and tattoos or otherwise his mirror has led him to chase and kill a phantom who no longer exist. Without our mirrors, we would end up the same as Leonard. Without a purpose, we just exist. Living without living. Leonard who had no purpose in life decided to make his own mirror, even though most is false to find a purpose in life, a goal to reach for. A mirror is to show who we are, and what we wish to become, or in another word our goal.

My mirror would be my memory. When I wake up, I would know that I am me because of the things that I remember. The memories of my personal item and the memories of what I did in the past. Mirror in my opinion is only helpful if you have memories. If you do not have any memories, than who are you? Your face do not tell you who you are. Your item do not show you are too. Your family, how will you know who you are if you do not even recognize them? They are stranger in your eyes if you are without memories. Mirrors are only helpful to bring up the memories of who you are. That is why I find losing your memories scary, for they are what help you tell who you are. An example would be Leonard. Like what Teddy said to him, “You know who you were, not who you are now”. Memories tell who you are. Mirror help you bring up that memories. But memories can change over time. They are not reliable but that is the only thing that you can rely on to tell who you are. If one person were to gain another person memories than  they would not even realize it. They will began to call themselves to the person whose memories they have. That would only happen if they have all there mirror to remind themselves of who they are. Waking up and seeing all your stuff in the place you left them, you wouldn’t doubt who you are, that is unless you see a actual mirror and see a different face on you. So memories tell you who you are and mirror bring up the memories that allow you to remind yourself who you are.

11/3 hume

Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?

Hume believes that the self is an illusion because when you think of your self, you think of the impression or perception of what others think of you.

“I never catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception.

His thinking align with the teaching of buddhism. What people think of self is a bundle of perception from other peoples.

“Hume attributes our sense of personal identity to memory. Specifically, he discusses our memory’s employment of two principles of association: resemblance and causation. Concerning resemblance, the “memory not only discovers the identity but also contributes to its production by producing the relation or resemblance among the perceptions”, concerning causation, the “memory does not so much produce as discover personal identity, by showing us the relation of cause and effect among our different perceptions”.”

Our personal identity mostly come from the memory. We see the resemblance among the perceptions and the cause and effect among it. So what we see as identity is an illusion that does not exist and only by the perception or so called label people see us as.

I agree with hume that the self is an illusion. It is just a bundle of perception from other peoples. An illusion is what self is, but it is what we use to compare each other and single ourselves from the rest. Our self is a bundle of perception of other people but that is not bad at all. Our perception of others and ourselves come from communicating with other with language. How will we gain our perception if not with others. Can you know what joy is if there is no one to communicate with. Our language that is used to communicate with others is the thing that let us have a perception of our own. The use of perception is used to tell you and how the others are feeling or who they are.

Thurs 10/20

Thurs blog prompt: Show an example of something you consider to be art. It can be any kind of art. Provide links or images as needed. Explain whether or not your example matches Tolstoy’s definition and whether or not you agree. You will have the opportunity to present this blog in class.

As Tolstoy said the degree of the infectiousness of art depends on three conditions:

1. On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted;
2. on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted;
3. on the sincerity of the artist, i.e., on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits.

The art below is not an example of Tolstoy’s definition. I consider it as art but it does not fit with what Tolstoy say is art. Tolstoy say that art must inspire emotion from the audience or spectator. It must be an emotion that everyone can connect with. The art that the artist drew must be a personal emotion that everyone can connect with. If the art cannot inspire the emotion that the artist have draw into his picture then it is not art at all. This picture does not inspire emotion but it does awe the spectator who see this. It amazes the people but does not inspire a universal emotion that people can connect with.

 

Aristotle’s Poetics 10/13

Blog Prompt: Discuss an example that you think fits Aristotle’s definition of tragedy. Explain the elements he requires and apply to specific aspects of your example. You may present your example in class to boost your participation grade.

An example that I think that fit into Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is the comedy movie Click. Michael gets a universal remote that let him do anything that he wants. He used it to get him everything that he wanted, promotion in his job, skipping boring family time, messing with other people and so on. In exchange he lost the only thing that matter to him the most, his family. His father died and the last moment he saw him, he treated him bad. At the end he grew old and was about to die. The good part is that he went back before he got the universal remote. He tried to be successful in his life. Thinking his way of success was through his job, he focused on it and skip all the boring and bad part involving his family. Thorough this, he became successful with a lot of money but grew apart from his family. Reaching the end of his life, he regretted over how distance he became with his family. This event taught him to put his family first. Enjoying his life with his family through the hard and joyful times. As the saying goes, “you never know what you got until you lose it.” A normal father who focus too much on his job, and loses the only happiness he had in life, his family.

Plato, “The Allegory of the Cave”

Is there a parallel between the status of the prisoners in Plato’s cave and the spectators in a cinema?

In the the cave the prisoners have only seen the shadow of the physical world. They believe that the world is made up of shadow and if told otherwise they will refuse to believe in it. They who have never seen the real world will never believe in the things that they never saw in their life and will only believe in the things they see, the shadow. The shadow they have seen is only an imitation of the physical world. Spectators in a cinema will watch an imitation of the physical world, a shadow of the real world. If spectators is isolated from the physical world and all they have seen is movies than that is how they believe the world to be. They will believe that the world outside will just be like the movie and reject the so call common sense. Making it harder to connect. Just like the prisoners who was still lock inside of the cave, they rejected the idea of there being a different world out there. The one prisoners who escape and saw the real world, told his fellow men but they all saw him crazy. If one were to spend his/her life in movies, then the common sense they have involve movies. They would reject the common sense that they hear outside and associate anyone who said that their common sense is different from the one outside. It is the same with everything else. The physical world that we all see and interact is what we believe in. If someone were to come and tell us that what we are see is not the real world and just shadow, we will probably call him crazy and reject the idea of it.

eXistenZ

How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit?

eXistenZ fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality because it question the idea of reality. Is this real or is it fake. A question that is hard to answer by everyone. People who is used to their idea of reality will deny any answer that goes against what they have believe in. Go up to anyone and tell them that this is just a game and the world that we are experiencing is not real. All they would do is see you as crazy. This world that we live in is our reality and anyone who say otherwise is crazy like the Allegory in the Cave. The shadow or this world that we call reality is the only thing that we know of and any other idea that goes against with what we see will be rejected. I’m not saying that the reality we are experiencing is fake. It might, it might not. It is impossible to tell what is real or not. We call it reality because it is reality to us. There is no other reality that we have experience that say otherwise. Plato talk about how the world we see is only an imitation of the true reality that is the ideal world. eXistenz and tranCendenZ is the imitation the physical world. It replicated the sensation of the physical world such as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. People who believe that the physical world is reality itself will be fooled. Even I will be confused about what is reality if I enter a game that replicate all the senses that I associate with reality. The game world replicate the senses that other people use to tell what is reality, will be confuse if this is reality or just a game. Just like the end of the movie when the guy ask Ted and Allegra if they are still in the game. The guy feared for his life and question himself if this is reality. I mean, come on. It not everyday that you see someone shooting another person in front of you. Even I would question myself after experience that kind of game. Diving too deep into the game and how it felt in the game will disrupt your sense of what is reality or not. tranCendenZ is a game that the character are already in before the movie started. You do not know that they are in tranCendenZ until the end. The game was so real that they didn’t even know that they were in a game. They all reacted like it was reality until the end after they came out of tranCendenZ. It would make sense that the guy in the end did not know if this was reality or not. They could not tell if they were in a game in the first place and went deeper into a another game which replicated the senses just as good as the first one. Telling reality between fake is difficult to all. Who knows, even we might be in a game too. Ever able to tell if the world we are experiencing is real or not. But as Descartes said “Cogito Ergo Sum”. I think therefore I am. I agree with Descartes too, the world I am experiencing may not be real but I know that “I” exist. Even if I don’t know the answer, it is better to say it is my reality until something come and change my mind.

William Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief”

Reconstruct one of his arguments (not the ship captain example) in standard form. Then evaluate that argument for soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have?  Do you see any fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning?

It is wrong to think that all your belief it correct. Belief found on inconsistent evidence can only be wrong and lead to harmful actions. Every action are infuenced by our belief.

“Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will…”

When I say every belief influence our action, I mean even the small one.

“No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its
like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.”

Clifford’s thesis is “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

The practical significance that Clifford’s thesis have is that not everyone belief is correct. I agree with Clifford that it is wrong to believe without any insufficient evidence. You need real evidence to prove your belief. How can your belief be real if there is no proof that is proving it to be real at all. You do all this in the belief that it is right. For an example, wolf are dangerous and should all be killed. They are no good and are vicious animal. Going to kill all the wolf in this mountain area because of that and not enough evidence that support that. Once all the wolf are gone, the deer population will rise and eat all the plant. Disrupting the ecosystem and causing more damage.  Another reason why it is important to have sufficient evidence the example of the ship captain. He believe that his ship will be okay because it hasn’t broken down yet. There were no sufficient evidence supporting that but he still believe that it would be okay. This belief cause him to not to check his ship and cause it to sink. If there were people riding that ship, it would have cause many death. You must have sufficient evidence if you are to believe something. It will only cause more damage than good if don’t gather sufficient evidence.