Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

Today was quite a lively discussion. Personally, I enjoyed it greatly.

We began with Shannon's motion that "We should talk about shoes. Red shoes, brown shoes, periwinkle shoes, or even blue suede shoes." This caused Seneca, true to her form at the beginning of discussions, to burst out laughing, mostly at the tone in which Shannon said it, I think. After finishing laughing, Kayla said we could talk about what kind of shoes Aristotle wore. I returned the question of what if Aristotle didn't wear shoes? We then moved on to whether or not Hegel would have worn clogs and whether or not he was a "closet-clogger." (Those latter two were brought into the play by the impetus of Shannon and Kayla.)

After laughing ourselves out at the beginning, we moved on to the more serious topic of whether or not we agreed with Schopenhauer's idea that we hurt ourselves when we hurt someone else. The conclusion was that, yes, we do hurt ourselves, but only on a moral level. Kayla and Shannon said that we become less human when we hurt someone else. I quipped that must be how evolution (assuming that way of looking at things) progressed: apes did nice things for each other. Shannon (or Seneca, or Kayla; one of those three) said that one ape may have said to another, "Here I'll share my banana with you..." Funnier if you're there, I suppose. At the end of class (also when Dr. Phil came to our group), we got onto the subject of suffering. I noted (once again) that the answer to the whole thing we had been talking about lies in the question of absolutes, which led into me expositing my view of the question as a Christian

Fun discussion indeed.

11 comments:

  1. Factual: Who wrote "On Liberty"? (John Stuart Mill.)

    Discussion: How accurate is Mill's political philosophy? Does it provide for a just government, or is it dangerous to the fabric of society?

    Link 1: Mill's face, since it's fun to read faces: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/PSM_V03_D380_John_Stuart_Mill.jpg

    Link 2: Darwin's Gesicht: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Charles_Darwin_seated_crop.jpg

    Comment: It occurred to me after class, when it was bit late, that I might ought to have made this comment near the beginning of our discussion, but I shall put it here since I didn't mention it earlier. The comment is this:

    I know I bring up absolutes quite frequently, but that's for the reason I mentioned earlier: It's not possible to truly answer any philosophical question without, at the very least, considering absolutes. Every philosophical question demands an answer which is incontrovertibly true, and that answer cannot be given without taking into account absolute truth. I don't bring up absolutes so frequently just because I want to impose my opinion upon anyone; I bring it up because it is necessary to. In the same vein, my intent is not to alienate or browbeat anyone, either; in my observation (such as it is), I haven't alienated anyone, but if I have, I am sorry. Such is not my intent, nor is it, as noted already, to browbeat anyone over the issue. Just as any other philosopher does, I wish to know the truth, and I believe I've found it, which means I want to bring that to other people. That's why bring up absolutes so often. To me, an intellectual exercise which pursues truth is the very best kind, especially when I can bring that truth to other people, and even more especially when I'm bringing that truth to people whom I have grown to love, like this group.

    Bottom line: I am passionate about why I believe in Jesus Christ and through Him, God; therefore, I tell other people about Him. That's what is so exciting to me about discussion: we come closer to the truth. On that note, here's a link to my blog where I reposted something my screamer friend (whose name is Veronica, if anyone had begun to wonder) wrote on her blog (Link 3): http://wahrheitundfreiheit.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/resurrection/ That link summarizes why she believes in God and why His love is so amazing, because that's what it's all about: love for a world which has turned from Him, a love so great that He sent His only Son to die for those who had rejected Him, giving them an opportunity to come back through the sacrifice of His Son. That's what Christianity is all about, and that's why I speak brazenly about it in class: Because it's AMAZING to me. So yes. I bring up absolutes all the time, but that's because I can do no other.

    I mentioned part of this in class, but I hadn't brought up the rest of it. So there you go: my reasons for returning to absolutes so often.

    Link 4: This is a Spotify playlist I created which represents the progression of the Christian. I'll probably add to it, but here's what I've got so far. src="https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:user:wahrheitundfreiheit:playlist:7t3p3ONUEcXKrDYDtL74Yb" width="300" height="380" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true">

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hang on, Spotify embed code didn't work. Here's the Spotify URL: spotify:user:wahrheitundfreiheit:playlist:7t3p3ONUEcXKrDYDtL74Yb

    ReplyDelete
  3. And the HTTP link, since the Spotify URI only opens Spotify: http://open.spotify.com/user/wahrheitundfreiheit/playlist/7t3p3ONUEcXKrDYDtL74Yb

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fact: Darwin was a biologist and a _________, but not a philosopher.

    Discussion: Assuming that the book of Genesis is true, how could God manage to create every plant and animal in only six days? What about the Jurassic period, when humans didn't exist and the continents fit together like pieces of a puzzle (Pangea, if you prefer)? Those are just two things that came to my mind first. I'm sure there's more to discuss.

    Comment: Productive discussion time weeeeee~

    Link: http://allthingslearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/failure-darwin-quote.png That monkey is under arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, right. The answer to my fact is "geologist".

      Delete
  5. Factual Question: What was the single truth that John Stuart Mill was referring to? -that each individual should be free to develop to the fullest of their own potential.

    Discussion Question: What do you think about the Harm Principle saying that as long as you are not harming anyone, you should be free to do what you want to?

    Comment: I am really excited for Carlin Romano to visit our class tomorrow.

    Link: This is an article about America the Philosophical. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/books/review/america-the-philosophical-by-carlin-romano.html?_r=0

    ReplyDelete
  6. This website only lets me post sometimes, so I don't know if this time will work. Usually, it just deletes my comments.

    Comment: Mitchell, you make us sound so unproductive! And maybe we are, but we eventually have good, deep discussions. We just need to let out a bit of energy at the beginning. I very much enjoy our discussions! We eventually, I believe, discussed whether or not we can be content with what we have. My point was that we are designed to strive for better and get as far as we want in life. Even if we reach our ultimate goal in our career, which seems like one of our main goals, we have other little goals that we are trying to complete. I find happiness in working for success. One of my boyfriend's favorite quotes (that he ALWAYS tells me) is "As long as you're happy about the accomplishments you have made, you will always look forward to the accomplishments you will make." Even happy and content in a career, there are many other aspects of life that you strive to make better. I don't think life is long enough to obtain the ultimate goal in everything. And I'm glad it's not because it would get boring after that.

    Factual question: What philosopher was the educational experiment of his father? (John Stuart Mill)

    Discussion question: Mill believed that if a pig could read, he would rather read than roll around in the mud. Do you think this is true?
    And obviously with the differing of spiritual (or lack there of) beliefs, I would enjoy a good debate on the theory of evolution.

    Link: I provided a quote in the discussion.
    "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we realize we ought to control our own thoughts."
    "Animals, who we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal."
    Charles Darwin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh, that does sound a bit unproductive, doesn't it? I agree, we do have great discussions after we unwind a bit at the beginning. I suppose you might say that I am revealing our amusing awesomeness to the rest of the world of CoPhi.

      Delete
  7. Olivia (The Highlanders)10:11 AM CST

    I think it's really interesting that y'all said that hurting other people would be a result of us being less human. I would have to argue that hurting other people would prove us to be human in the idea of our need to feel above and compete with others, but I guess that is on more of a human as in not God human. Sounds like an interesting (and funny) discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:47 AM CST

    Michael Anderson H3

    Comment: Can't wait to listen to Carlin Romano in class.

    Factual: In what work did Darwin form his theory of Darwinism? On the Origin of Species (1859).

    Discussion: Even though Darwin was not considered a philosopher, do you think his work makes a contribution to philosophy by sparking discussion?

    Link: On Darwin
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

    ReplyDelete
  9. FQ: What was Darwin's occupation? (geologist)
    DQ: What do you think about natural selection? Is it moral? Is it true?
    COMMENT: Can't wait to hear Romano.
    LINK: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." -Darwin

    ReplyDelete