Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, November 4, 2013

Forgetful Philosoraptors (17-3)

So, I believe that I was supposed to make the post for this Monday, but I forgot, and I am sincerely sorry. That being said, I am getting out of the way tonight, so that you can still post Monday before class. Once again, I am sorry for such a late post!

Last Wednesday we had our lecture outside on the steps of the JUB and we kicked off our discussion group with the issue of whether or not certain animals can express certain emotions and whether or not they have souls. Even though "All Dogs Go To Heaven" is a great movie, I think my theology and philosophy does not line up with that sentiment. I loved my dog even more than I love some people that are close to me, and when we had to put him down it was one of the worst experiences of my life, but I don't feel that he ever "loved" me in the traditional sense and I don't believe that I will see him in the great beyond. We then moved on to a deeper discussion of what makes us human and why we believe what we believe. I don't remember much more than that because of how long ago it was, but I do remember the interesting conversation that Jami and I had with Dr. Oliver after class was over. We talked about how fraternities could be beneficial because they provide a powerful support network for their members and they work for the uplift of mankind through the discussion of ideals. Dr. Oliver also told Jami and I about everything he had to do to get his doctorate. It was pretty interesting!

Going back to last week's readings, I've always loved Immanuel Kant, but Bentham presents a better moral philosophy than the great metaphysician and epistemologist. Utilitarianism has always been a political philosophy that I have agreed with, even to the point of Machiavelli's "Do the ends justify the means?" judgement of what is wrong and what is right. As Bentham puts it - "The greatest happiness for the greatest number." Moving on to this week, I am really glad the we finally got to Hegel. His dialectic finally addresses the problem I had been noticing with almost all of our other philosophers: they assert the perfection of their ideas and completely reject the ideas of those that went before them. Hegel confronts this process and as Robert Stern says, "Hegel presents it, that is, by going back to Plato and to dialogue and to discussion, but adding to that the particular concern that Hegel had, which was that, especially in philosophy, one should avoid dogmatic presentation of your views..." We should all work towards attaining the Golden Mean and the "via media." That is one of the reasons that I love the Anglican Church so much. While mainstream Protestantism went to the polar opposite of orthodoxy to avoid the Catholic stereotype, the Anglican Church retained the orthodoxy, but fixed the heresies to make a synthesis out of the Catholic thesis versus Protestant antithesis.

Here's an image that shows how Marx used Hegel's dialectic:


marxdial_2.jpg

10 comments:

  1. Well I had already posted for this week on an older post but I'll post it again on here

    FQ(LH)- What German philosopher said "The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk"?
    Hegel

    DQ(LH)- Hegel believed that we can move closer to the truth by following his dialectical method. First someone puts forth an idea (thesis) then it's met with it's contradiction (antithesis) and then once the two are put together, the truth emerges (synthesis). Do you find this method to be true?

    Link to a post on Hegel to help understand his method better
    http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. FQ:(LH pg 133)What pessimistic philosopher thought that reality had to two aspects: as Will and Representation?
    Schopenhauer
    DQ: How do you view history? Do you see it all as meaningless happenings, or are we doomed to repeat our mistakes cyclically; do you see it all having a purpose leading up to something better (like Hegel) or worse?

    Link to an article on how to make life a little less unhappy using some of Schopenhauer principles. Self-help for the extreme pessimist. http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/01/schopenhauers-extreme-self-help-for.php

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:34 AM CST

    I like to think of history as lessons that help us fix mistakes. My personal history means a little more to me than just history.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FQ: Will rogers, was once famously known as what? Answer Cowboy philsopher. Pg 183 AP.

    DQ:In the 1940's, the philosophy was broken into the two categories, Behavorists and Freudians. Where would you have taken your position? Or would you have been with Maslow, and disagreeed with both these approaches?

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho4PzRp3Fwk This is an interesting video on Frued's idea of the unconscious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FQ: Which philosopher was heavily influenced by political maneuverings in his time to the point where he came to believe that what seemed to be fixed and permanent for all time did not have to be, and that our ideas cannot be truly understood outside of our time without context?
    - Hegel

    DQ: Hegel presents a very interesting idea: that the ultimate goal of both history and humanity was the self-awareness of the Spirit, or Geist, which is the unification of the mind of humanity. While it is unclear what exactly is meant by that statement, I feel it is referring to a common consensus type of thing, where we reach a sort of common understanding and acceptance to where everyone is striving for the greater good. Do you all agree that it is where we, as a society, are headed?

    ReplyDelete
  6. FQ: (LH p 129) What philosopher that that history WAS NOT a separate activity from philosophy? Answer: Hegel

    DQ: DO you agree with Schopenhauer's ideas that we are caught up in a hopeless cycle of wanting things, getting things, and then wanting more?

    I bet this is comical:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyRrZk_9cXY

    ReplyDelete
  7. Taylor Reed (17-1) I'm somewhat of a believer that the ends justify the means. Sometimes you have to take a dishonest action, or one considered slightly immoral in order to benefit the greater good. Lying to protect a family of Jews from being found and killed by Nazis seems completely moral. Just because you had to lie, it doesn't mean that you did for a heinous reason. If you wish to protect a group of people, or benefit humankind, you sometimes have to take actions that aren't ethical in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Austin Gamble (17-2) I do believe that dogs have the ability to show emotion such as being sad when they know they have done something wrong. However, I do not believe that dogs or cats go to either heaven or hell when they die.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (DQ) Do you believe that any animals have the ability to go to heaven or hell after death?

    (FQ) What story from the bible does Kierkegaard discuss? He discusses the story of Abraham and Isaac from the Hebrew bible.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q70ZXD4Qvbo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Crystal Houston 17-2 My group didn't post so I'm posting under here

    FQ: For Hegel, everything is in a ____ of change, and that change takes the form of ____ increase in self awareness, our self awareness being fixed by the ____ in which we live. (LH pg. 128) A: process; gradual; period
    DQ: Do you agree with Hegel's philosophy that reality is constantly moving towards its goal of understanding itself ?
    Http:www.youtube.com/watch?

    ReplyDelete