Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, September 9, 2013

Philosoraptors! (17-3)

Hey dudes,

So, today's discussion all stemmed from the question:  "If you could attend a lecture by Plato or Aristotle, or have a conversation with Socrates, which would you choose and why?"

By the end of the discussion it was unanimously agreed upon from all present that we would choose Aristotle for one reason or another, (except when Dr. Phil joined). However, before we made it to this conclusion, or even got halfway through the group's opinions, Plato's Allegory of the Cave reared its dissension causing head. Somehow we went from discussing how the same allegory can be applied to today's ignorance and stupidity, to a religious argument on absolute truth (with different views on the Holy Trinity thrown in). What I can say about the matter is that we are all fully out of one cave on the understanding of Plato's allegory, and in to a whole different cave on whether we believe in this semblance of reality or not. But at least we agree to disagree, and the discussion itself was entertaining.    


  1. I would choose Plato because his views are more spiritual and immaterial. I think it would be very interesting to see him defend his views in an extremely scientific and material world.

    1. I would agree with you... I would as well to play the devils advocate.

  2. I chose Aristotle because he made the most sense to me. I agreed with his theory on happiness in that one is not truly happy until they have fulfilled their life capacity. Socrates would've just angered me with all his questions. I would've felt as though I knew nothing and everything I thought I knew was a complete lie, and I'm sure that was not his intentions. I have a hard time understanding Plato and his cave allegory. Are humans in the cave against their will? Or are they in there by choice and have the option to break free? So many questions I don't have the answer to.

    Factual Question(LH) Epicurus believed his teaching was a form of therapy. What was his "cure" for his followers and their fear of death?
    There were two "cures" that Epicurus believed would cure his followers fear of death. The first one was that your death does not happen to you. You will not even be there when it happens. Once a person dies they will lose all consciousness and you will feel nothing, there will be no pain. His second "cure was not to worry about what happens after death. If one does not care about what happened before the time they were born, why care about what happens in the time after your death? Why worry about one and not worry about the other? Both should be of no concern.

    Discussion Question (LH) Pyrrho believed it is better to have no desires to be happy in life and Epicurus believed it is better to have simple desires. Which do you agree with and why?
    I would have to agree with Epicurus that one should have simple desires than none at all. What is the point of living if you don't want anything out of life? What would you be working for? you would just be existing and not living. You just need to have desires that you can obtain. Don't dream of having a BMW on a Pinto salary. That way you wont be disappointed and you'll will be much happier.

    Here is a lecture that I found on Epicurus and his theory of happiness and death

  3. (17, 2) If i had to choose between those three who I wanted to have a discussion with it would be plato because his idea of creative allegory seems interesting.

  4. I'll be honest guys, while I understand where Pyrrho is coming from, I think it's safe to say he took it a bit too far. I completely agree with the whole "challenge what you're told, don't just blindly accept things" concept, but to just blatantly ignore your instincts is a bit excessive. If I'm next to a fire, and it's getting closer and closer to where I am, you can bet I won't be standing around waiting to see if I will really be burned. I'd say the odds are high that I would be, and I don't need to be on fire to prove that.

    Personally, I much prefer Epicurus' views, since they align with my views as a Christian: I don't care about how/when I die. It's not something that I worry about, and it's not because I'm only 20 years old and roughly a fourth of the way through my life. I just simply don't see dying as a problem, since I have faith that I will simply "fall asleep" here, and wake up somewhere else, without all the death and dying in between. My personal views (again, closely tied to my faith) are that I only need to focus on doing what I can while I'm here, to help as many people as I can, and to not worry about the things that I don't/can't have, because in the end, none of it matters anyway. So I guess you could say that I like to have a little Aristotle with my Epicurus.

    As far as America the Philosophical goes (boring as ever, might I add), that's where my factual question comes from: "What is one of the biggest competitors to the APA, as far as the possibilities for interviews is concerned?" Skype had a huge negative impact on the professional side of the APA, due to most employers preferring to conduct long-distance Skype interviews, rather than have a free for all at a convention once a year.

    And for both my "link" and my discussion question, I am going to refer to a discussion I was having earlier this evening with two good friends that ties into a discussion posed in AP (page 48) about the possibility of the United States breaking apart, either through another civil war or some kind of seceding like Texas had been rumored to consider (as a proud native Texan, I was in favor of becoming a foreign exchange student from the proud country of Texas). We collectively agreed that the southeast would be the most sustainable area if it were to form its own country, followed by the west, since they are essentially the Unites States' technology hub, and could survive off of exporting their goods and services alone. The North would be the most likely to fail, seeing as the north/northeast is rapidly running out of money as seen in Detroit filing for Bankruptcy with New York following closely behind. A ridiculous conversation, but it was a ton of fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.

    Where do you guys sit with the notion that America falls under the banner of "Breaking up is hard to do"?

  5. I thought that yesterday's class was the most stimulating (and entertaining) yet. I love that we all are getting to know each other and that we are able to discuss our differences and still laugh about it at the end! I also chose Aristotle based on his answer to the question "How should we live?" (the answer being to seek happiness).

    In response to LaShunda's discussion question: I agree with her that Epicurus had the right idea. Pyrrho's idea that having a lack of desires in life seems extreme. I also feel that it's a way to avoid every having any disappointment. For example, one must experience heart-break before they experience true love. Or even more common, one must experience a cold shower before they appreciate the hot ones.

    As for my discussion question: If you were being chased by a pack of barking dogs with large teeth, would you run or risk being bitten and it possibly hurting? (Strange concept alert)

    As for my factual question: What is one of the more common legends of Pyrrho's life that is thought to be true? Answer: the story of his ship getting caught in one of the roughest storms to that day. It is believed that even thought the sails were tearing and the passengers were panicking, Pyrrho was completely calm and collected.

    To go with my factual question, here is a link to a painting depicting the storm and Pyrrho's reaction. The article is interesting, too.

    See you all tomorrow!

  6. I chose Aristotle because of his love of so many different aspects of learning and knowledge, but I would want to ask him why he completely rejects the philosophy of his predecessor. I feel that most of these philosophers say "All or nothing" to the study of philosophy, a stance that I vehemently reject. Take Pyrrho for instance - his philosophy of skepticism holds some great worth, but by taking it too far, it just sounds silly. I believe that to know anything, we must first doubt everything we know, but we only do this so that we can deeply examine what we know in order that we can stand more firm in our beliefs.

    My factual question for the day comes from the Little History of Philosophy - What was the name of Epicurus' "school?"

    Answer - The Garden

    My discussion question comes from America the Philosophical - Do you agree with William James' statement that "'To be a real philosopher' all you needed was 'to hate someone else's thinking?'"

    My link, as well as my second and third discussion questions, stems from the philosophy of Epicurus.

    "Do you fear death?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLelxlmkMrQ

    And finally, in surfing the web to learn more about Epicurus, I discovered this paradox about the nature of evil that is attributed to him -

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?"

    - Epicurus (attributed)

    What do you think?

  7. I'd definitely choose Aristotle.