(Posted for Emily Ball)
To begin our group, we
first discussed a few quotes from the reading that we found interesting. One
quotation that was talked about was, “Philosophy is the study of the costs and
benefits that accrue when you take up a certain position.” From that quote, we
delved deeper into our discussion. One statement that stuck with me was that
Philosophy is hypothetically getting your hands dirty. It is deciding which
side you are on, and what exactly you believe in.
A
few general cliché questions were stated. One being, “If a tree falls in a
forest, does it actually make a sound?” One group member, Mason, discussed the
difference between noise and a sound. To me questions like these are made to
make you think. Society around us plays a large role in how we each think. It
also determines some definitions of words. So is sound just something perceived
by humans? Is the word noise simply universal for everyone? This discussion was
never completely finished, but left open for each person to decide for
themselves.
While
discussing the initial question, we decided that Philosophy is simply defining
your purpose in some sense. It is a way for people to explore what they
believe. It can strengthen what you believe, or it can change your mind on what
you truly believe in. To have an open mind has different meanings. One can be
open for change, or one can be open just simply to accept the fact that there
are other beliefs out there. There are many absolutes in Philosophy which makes
it hard for someone to have one main structured opinion. There are many
different aspects of different views that one could accept. If we piece
together our own world view then we could simply be called non-ideological. By
piecing together our own views, we are not completely putting down every idea.
Another
question that came up was, “Do we use Philosophy to justify our decisions?” Our
own experiences sometimes make us feel a certain way about each subject. Often
times, society also plays a large role in how we justify our decisions. If
society tells us to drink three Rockstar energy drinks because they are good,
but yet we feel in our hearts that it is over-indulgence, should we still drink
them? Society often tells us something is okay, even though it may go against
our morals. When do we decide to draw the line between society and our own
morals? Society often weeds out bits of philosophy. Communism would be a great
example. Some people think that communism should still be practiced, but
society deems it wrong. This is a way for society to take over another form of
freedom. Even though Communism is wrong, society should not look down upon
those that believe it is right.
Philosophy
was stated to be a work of art. Like art and music, no two people will have the
exact same opinion on views or perceptions. Every person has a “frame of
reference”. Philosophy has a different effect on each person. No two people
will agree on a view completely. Each person varies in thoughts and actions,
and this causes the question to be open-ended. No one person can completely
answer “What is Philosophy?” correctly.
Fun DQ from Trevor W.: “If a woman drives on an
empty highway, is she still a bad driver?”
Section H01
Group 2: “Applez 2 Applez”
Hey Applez 2 Applez,
ReplyDeleteI think you really brought up some good points, but I just want to point out a few inconsistencies that should probably be clarified.
"Society often tells us something is okay, even though it may go against our morals"
It seems as though you guys devoted a lot of time discussing societal culture (peer pressure, if you will), and how it can cause you to go against your morals. While this is a great discussion point, I want to bring up that societal values aren't necessarily a philosophy, rather, the morals themselves are!
According to MW, morals are "A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." This sounds a lot more like philosophy!
Furthermore, I absolutely love the idea that "Philosophy is hypothetically getting your hands dirty," but I'd like to advise caution when it comes to "deciding which side you are on, and what exactly you believe in" because I think that a lot of philosophy is realizing how things aren't really divided into "sides" per se. Rather, at the end of the day we don't really know enough to take sides!
This group makes an excellent point about having two different kinds of open minds. I agree with this statement! I believe that to have an open mind in Philosophy means to be open to change. Other people may have better arguments about different ways of life or viewpoints on different topics; therefore, we need to be able to be open for change when we are open minded. Some people may already have their views or ideas set in stone in their mind, but I think that people should at least try to open up for change however difficult it may be. Also, if we are not open-minded, then will we ever learn something new?
ReplyDeletePhilosophy is so hard to define because it has such an encompassing and broad base of topics that being specific will invariably leave out at least one aspect and anything broad enough to describe it in its entirety is essentially useless. The purpose of philosophy, however, can be defined. All the groups I floated around to agreed that philosophy, done well, leads to the examination of one's views, logically, and can possibly cause a shift from one paradigm to another, but sometimes ends up as a compromise akin to "agreeing to disagree." Finding wisdom was an important part of many of the definitions, but some groups attempted to refute that thought by exposing the lack of experimental data available that eventually comes in analyzing immaterial ideas. Ferris Bueller's thoughts on life also surfaced, which addressed the issue of how life needs to be lived and examined proportionally, so that the most enjoyment and purpose can come forth.
ReplyDeleteJesus came into the conversation towards the end of my travels, and one group said that the influences in a person's life contribute to the specific philosophical views held, from God and parent to society and your own convictions and views. The last group came to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been a philosopher, for he knew the truth and, therefore, had no need to philosophize to come to any conclusions. Then the problem of considering ideas alien to oneself while still esteeming one's own beliefs came up, but the time to debate abruptly ended. I was enjoying the discussion, but sadly the valuable quantity of time was scarce.
DQ: Based on our tree falling discussion, is human perception required for something to have occurred? (Kind of similar to Schrödinger's cat, a discussion I still do not fully understand, but one which introduces uncertainty within the unknown, causing a discrepancy in human perceptions).
Link (Schrödinger's cat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
FQ: Which philosopher believes that a doublespeak exists between science and common sense, a connection which should be discovered and absolved?
A: John Campbell
Mason Riley
I think the purpose of philosophy is to cause us to dig deeper into the questions of who we are and why we're here (the two things Dr. Oliver asked us to answer for our introductions). The main thing that I took away from our discussion was that it is important to be open to hearing other people's ideas. Even if we think our beliefs are "set in stone", listening to other people's perspectives cause us to question why we believe what we do. I think asking why is very important because it gives us a deeper understanding of what we believe. It can strengthen our previous beliefs, or it can cause us to change bits and pieces of what we believe.
ReplyDeleteWe like to put things into boxes because it's easier for us to understand. I think that's what we meant when we talked about choosing sides. All of us put people into boxes, at least to some degree. He's a christian, she's an atheist, they're marxists, etc. I think all of us "fit in" somewhere. However, philosophy allows us to realize that no two people believe exactly the same thing. There isn't a whole lot of black and white in philosophy, it's a lot of different shades of gray.
Questions that I've been thinking about since our last class..
Can there really be any facts in philosophy?
When a person says something they believe, do they think that they are stating a fact, or do they think they are stating their opinion?
Most of what I would bring up about the definition of philosophy was discussed in our group. In my opinion, philosophy is simply an in depth, detailed way to attempt to define one’s own sense of reality. I say “one” and “own” for a specific reason. I believe there is no right answer in philosophy. While that might seem cliche, it definitely applies. My reality is not necessarily yours. Sure, it’d be pretty convenient if it was, however, this is rarely the case. Furthermore, if philosophy really is just thinking about one’s reality, shouldn’t there always only be one view/opinion for every situation? After all, if it is reality shouldn’t it be static? We discussed this quite a bit in our group. I would argue no. One’s views should always be based on the facts at hand. In a perfect world, the sharing of knowledge and facts would be well, perfect. But since no one man or woman can know all the right answers at the same time, how can he or she immediately have the correct view/opinion? In my life, I always use the information and data offered to formulate my views most anything. Therefore, I would argue it is completely fine, and should even be encouraged, to constantly change one’s opinion if need be.
ReplyDelete--Trevor W.
Attempting to define philosophy is a daunting task. There are so many faucets of philosophy that to attempt to engender an all-encompassing definition is next to impossible. However I really liked that your group brought up the Tree question. I want to know what the answer is!!! We should ask Dr. Oliver and see what he thinks!
ReplyDeleteBut our group discussed similar ideas about the practical application of philosophy in everyday life, and we think that it's a very good idea. Philosophy used to be a dominant guiding factor in politics and ethics, yet in the present day its use has greatly diminished. We thought this was a bad thing because philosophy allow us to create unbiased decisions based on logic and reasoning.
-Jake Goza (H1)
I was the designated floater on Thursday. In Group 3 we discussed Aristotle and the Rule of Golden Mean. The main idea is that if you go too far in any direction, it can be bad. Similarly, too much of a good thing is bad. Another discussion point was that maybe Aristotle was warning against taking extreme positions. I believe Aristotle correctly thought that people take extreme positions on issues for attention. I think this is a HUGE problem with today’s youth. Taking outlandish views on almost any issue will garner much attention.
ReplyDeleteIn Group 4 we discussed the “Yuck” factor. There is a relationship between the Yuck Factor and Socrates’ questions “Are deceitfulness and immorality the same thing?” We discussed the hotly debated topic of whether or not abortions should be allowed when the mother’s life is in danger. Even if you are pro-life, do you believe in abortion in this situation. This was labeled a gray area.
In Group 1 we discussed Socrates. Was he really the famous influential philosopher everyone thought he was? I questioned why Socrates proclaimed philosophers were the smartest and should be at the top of the political pyramid, when he also claimed to know nothing. This would definitely label him a hypocrite if it was his idea. Dr. Oliver suggested that this was probably Plato using Socrates as a way to convey his message.
DQ: borrowed from Socrates: Is being deceitful the same thing as being immoral? Are there exceptions to this?
FQ: Who is credited for first having the idea that philosophers should lead the government?
Answer: Socrates
Here is my link. This is a scene from one of my favorite movies of all time. Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYRqsRZ7vE