Though our discussion was somewhat
short today, our group's topic was John Locke & Thomas Reid. Michele began
by pointing out that Locke made a distinction between being the same man/woman
and being the same person. Matthew related this to the movie "Freaky
Friday."
The example is meant to illustrate how
Locke believe that identity is not linked to your physical body but rather to
the memories that you possess.
This led Chloe to ask the question if
people can really change. She offered that we live in the illusion that people
can change us, when really change comes down to our own personal choice. In
other words, change comes from within. Matthew also commented that change is
not something immediate, but rather something that takes time and habit.
Returning to Locke, Michele referenced
his idea that morality, like identity, is linked to our memories. For Locke,
this implied that a criminal could be held accountable for the crimes that he
had remembered he committed. This made me think of the Bourne Identity, a movie
in which the main character creates a new life after losing the memories, when
in fact he was an assassin. What always intrigued me about that movie was whether he was guilty for the actions of that life.
At this point, Kailey, a floater
linked these two threads of thought by bringing up Spinoza's idea of
determinism, one that says that human choice is not choice at all but rather
the result of our environment. If that is the case, are we really in
control of our identities at all?
Two tangents we discussed at the end
of our discussion were how changing identity affects the spiritual implications
of an afterlife, and what are the limits/rights of religious garments in modern
society. On the second tangent, Matthew offered the insight that there needs to
be a balance between inclusiveness and exclusiveness.
FQ: Did David Hume agree or disagree with the Design Argument?
DQ: Do you think that the supernatural, if it exists, could be discovered or recognized through scientific methods?
To go on about Chloe point that change comes from within---I think she is dead on. I think that like rocks we are weathered by our environments, but it is inside of us that real change takes place-think geode, the normal looking rock with crystal on the inside that is beyond gorgeous. I also think that change is a process, that is catalyzed by events around us.
ReplyDeleteBut what happens when all the "weathering" of our persons comes so heavily, that it effects our true selves? Relating to what Kailey said, "Are we responsible for the "weathering" that changes us, specifically for the worse?" As Matt pointed out, and as the main frustration for a majority of philosophical topics, "where do we draw the line?" Truth is I have no idea.
If we "allow" (using it loosely) this weathering take place, is that the same as changing ourselves by decision? If so, wouldn't that be indirectly saying that we are all equally accountable for our actions, no matter prior history?
FQ: Explain the premises of the Design Argument, and elaborate on Hume position on the matter.
DQ: DO you think that we can look an effect, point to a cause and wrap it up as concrete fact?
I agree with Chloe as well. I believe that we have to accept something in ourselves before we are truly changed. I also agree with Matthew that we can not change immediately. It takes time to change. Since it is a new idea or concept that we have never used before, we must take time to make that new idea or concept into something that will stick with us.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as I floated to this group, Michelle brought up a very good point. How are we really going to influence people or cultures if we continue to just respect everything? This was a very good point that she made, and I thought it would be good to comment on that if you wish.
I think that I was going more towards the fact that we try to suppress so much as to not offend anyone, that we suffocate multiculturalism. But off Evan's note, I am going to be blatantly honest. Some things I do not respect. Let's go with the extremes to be clear. Things like prostitution trade, female circumcision, and children soldiers. Am I to "respect" who ever decided to have this in place? No and I do not think that is what multiculturalism preaches at all.
DeleteLets go back to Lincoln, a radical that we can all agree brought about good change ,in retrospect. Do you think that Lincoln respected the slave trade?
Below this post Jake, speaks on the idea that if we try to 'enforce' our beliefs, then it is selfish in a way. I agree it can be selfish many a times. But what about the cases where it isn't? So where is the line where we step in or leave it be? Of course imperialism is a major part in the debate.
I wish I hadn't been absent, the discussion seemed very interesting. I don't know how I feel about Evan's point of changing and influencing society however. Going from the premise that if we don't change anything, we respect people's beliefs, and if we do effect change, we don't respect their positions: Is it moral or ethical to disrespect someone in order to change them? And in the matter of changing people, there lies a de facto sentiment that we are changing them to our belief, which is rather selfish, especially when it's through disrespect. It's possible to respect people's ideas and standpoints, yet present facts and opinions that may (or may not, and that's okay too) influence them to change without disrespecting their current platform. Like Chloe, Matthew, Evan, and Michelle pointed out, change occurs over an extended amount of time, and respect is essential to promote future discussions with that person, therefore giving you even more time to change their view. Food for thought.
ReplyDeleteDQ: How can people believe similtaneously in predestination and free will? (This is a question that has confused me for years, and I feel like it should be talked about). How can we truly choose to sin or repent if God already knows who will sin and who won't and will go to Heaven. Furthermore, if God knows this, why would he create people (that unconditionally loves) to send them to Hell? He knows before he creates them that they will go to Hell.
Heads up - my comment is so long, I have to post it as two separate things. It wouldn't let me post it in whole. Sorry, y'all! :))
ReplyDeleteGood summary, Nate! You brought up Bourne Identity and I've never seen it but it sounds like a show Ciera and I watch called "Dollhouse." The idea is there are a handful of "actives" brought into a secret organization called the Dollhouse. They can be "imprinted" to become whatever they are needed to be - the perfect date, the perfect best friend, the perfect assassin, etc. When they return to the Dollhouse after their "engagements," their memories are wiped clean (they call it the Tabula Rasa). The active may have broken someone's heart, broken federal laws, or even killed someone and they will never remember. Kind of the same concept as Bourne - are they responsible for what they did if they have absolutely no recollection of it? I honestly don't know how to answer that.
Michele, I think if we allow ourselves to be influenced (positively or negatively) that is definitely the same thing as changing ourselves. If I have a friend who curses a lot and I used to not use foul language at all but I suddenly find things slipping out more often than not, I am allowing that to happen. By not being true to my personal policy of not wanting to have a foul mouth, I have changed myself. Change isn't always necessary talking to yourself and saying "I have "x" problem, I need to try "y" to fix it." Sometimes it's just letting yourself go, for better or for worse. I think it's about knowing yourself well enough to establish what kind of person you are.
As to influencing people/cultures through respect, I can try to offer some personal perspective on that. I did not grow up going to church and I have found that I am too logical/"black and white" to be religious. Living in the South, this has been a struggle because there are some people out there who would like to condemn me for my lack of faith. The thing is, whenever people try to convince me to change my beliefs (or lack thereof) or attack me for the way I am, it doesn't make me want to change in the least bit. In fact, quite the opposite. When someone begins trying to shove their convictions down my throat, I have a tendency to shut off my ears to their argument and begin forming my rebuttal. This gets us nowhere but at each others' throats. It's so much easier to have calm, respectful conversation. I think you're MUCH more likely to convince someone you disagree with to at least consider your position if you're respectful.
Think of it this way: Pretend that you think chocolate ice cream is the best flavor. I come up and say, "strawberry ice cream is the best flavor!" You politely disagree but I get back in your face and say, "Of course strawberry is the best! How can you be so stupid? Only an idiot would think chocolate was better than strawberry." You're probably not going to want to get on the Strawberry train anytime soon. But, if I like strawberry and you like chocolate and you tell me this and I say, "Oh, chocolate is good, too, but here! You should try some of my strawberry because it's delicious!" That's a different, more respectful approach. OR, better still, we could compromise and you could but some chocolate in my bowl and I could put some strawberry in your bowl and we could have two flavors that create something entirely new and different!
DeleteI know that's a really simplistic example and it isn't always that easy, but imagine how different the world would be if everyone were able to be respectful and compromise like that? Instead of screaming at each other about gun control or gay marriage or whatever the hot issue is at the moment, we could just say, "Well, I see your position and this is my position, maybe we can find some common ground between the two and come up with a new policy that works for everyone."
Sorry, this has been an incredibly long comment. I didn't realize I had that much to say on the topic!
FQ - Where did Locke flee after the English Civil War? (A: The Netherlands)
DQ - Are we more influenced by our family or our friends? Do they influence us both equally but in different ways?
Link: In honor of Valentine's Day tomorrow, Philosophy Valentines! Enjoy!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lza2spfpNb1qz5uc4o1_500.png
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bc8c68f6c06e11a5ea4cd81951295d45/tumblr_mhinjtdNAC1qz5uc4o1_500.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/312e1e0d71a7746a1b4bf372ae2968d6/tumblr_mhin9mTrPq1qz5uc4o1_500.png
Just a quick DQ insert - if you're 60 years old and you're a different person from your 15 year old self because you don't remember anything that happened your freshman year of high school or something, and then you run into an old high school buddy who tells you a few freshman-year stories and it jogs your memory and you remember them, are you no longer a different person? I like L&R's theory, but I think it's got some major holes.
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke was an interesting man he try to differentiate between a baby and an old man only they were the same people. Within our group most of us agreed that that your the same person physically but mentally things change over time. We Don't think the same as we did five years ago the things we think about changes, like if we were once be but are now enslaved with no hope of escaping our mind set would be complete different now
ReplyDelete