Epictetus: The First Vulcan? -Trollface Socrates (Honors Group 1)

(I'm in for Morgan today so bear with me)

The word Vulcan comes from the ground-breaking show Star Trek. The Vulcans were a species who were in such control of their emotions that they appeared to have none. Essentially, they were Epictetus' dream come true. They valued logic above all else, always turning to it rather than emotions. 

I really wanted to put a picture of Epictetus with pointy ears but Google didn't come up with one and I'm not handy with Photoshop so you all got this instead. I, personally, think this is better anyways. 

*Did anyone notice the guy in the back holding up the "live long and prosper" sign?*

The Trollface Socrates group, at first, had a difficult time talking about Epictetus' philosophy of choosing logic over emotions. There wasn't really anything to disagree with there, until we started examining what being a stoic was. Was it being void of all emotion? Or was it re-thinking the bad events and moments? Well, on page 29 of LH Warburton writes: "They [Stoics] believed emotions clouded reasoning and damaged judgement. We should not just control them, but whenever possible remove them all together."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If a Stoic such as Epictetus believed you should remove emotion all together, then what would he have classified passion as? If he weren't passionate about Philosophy why would he spend his life pondering it? Not to say that the philosophy of stoicism is completely false (after all there can be no universally acknowledged truths, right?) but it is to say that part of this stoic Philosophy was lacking. Logan brought up the question of whether or not all emotions can be controlled. Like love and passion? Can those even be categorized as emotions? Or, as Logan put it, are they super emotions?

See? He just can't control it. 

What we also found about Epictetus' philosophical views was that we could relate it back to everything we discussed today. When we got to the topic of friendship we were faced with the ideas of Stoicism again. The bonds you have with friends are important to you so, in the instance you and your best friend live together, it may often be necessary to be in control of your emotions. We all know that even the best of friends can get a tad bit annoying at times. It's necessary for us to be in control of our emotions so that we don't lose a friend due to one sudden outburst of anger. In fact, we all probably employ stoicism in our everyday lives. You wouldn't want to flip out on your boss one day because you got angry. Then you might lose your job. While being in constant control of your emotions to the point where you are devoid of them isn't the ideal lifestyle, the ability to control is a great virtue. 

Freebies of the Day

Something to Chew On: Are there certain emotions you can't control? Or do we have the ability to control every feeling we have? If there are certain emotions you can't control than can a person ever truly be a Stoic?

The Quizzler: Is Stoicism being in control of your emotions or devoid of them?

Answer: Stoicism is using logic above all else, essentially riding yourself of emotions. 

*The Freebies of the Day, Something to Chew On, and The Quizzler trademarks are Morgan Hunlen's.

**Note to H1G1: Sorry about all the Star Trek, but that's what happens when you make me author for a day. The power goes to my head. 

14-4 Friendship/Nehamas

This article is all about friendships. How we obtain them, what defines them, and how they define us. I continued to be extremely confused by the ideas that Nehamas had, so this summary will be fairly short, and I invite anyone and everyone to assist in explaining.
I do know there are a few key concepts to Nehamas's ideas about friendship.
1. You cannot obtain a true friendship in a day
2. Hence, it is essential that friendships develop over time
3. To the best of my knowledge and Dr. Oliver's explanation, friendships are about agreeing or disagreeing with a person, and sticking with them, embracing their individuality apart from you.

Our group talked about what it means to be an individual, and if any of us are truly individual based on the fact that we are who we are based on socially learning from those around us. Friendships play a large role in who we are or who we decide to be. Nehamas notes that friendships fall apart not only because one person may not like what the other DID, but more of how it made themselves into something they weren't happy with.
We also touched on the idea that we may not be the ones who truly choose our friends, but our parents, location, and circumstances may narrow the range of people we interact with and from THAT we choose who we will be friends with or not.

Feedback and guidance is highly appreciated with this one guys!

FQ: True or False -Nehamas believes that friendships can be immediate and do not need to develop over time.
A: I know the answer, but do YOU!? Answer in the comment section below!


GROUPMATES: Lauren, Matt M. Monique, Dillon, Nellie, Stephany, Beth
Did I miss anybody? We have a fairly large group!

H1 Group 4 Friends!!!

(No we are not talking about the TV show Friends, even though it is a great show!)


In our discussion today, we talked about friends and the podcast of Alexander Nehamas talking about friends. First, we discussed how the people who we choose to be our friends might come from being influenced by our parents. Therefore, we have a sense of what is right and wrong by the way we have been raised. Then, we moved onto a major topic of "What makes you choose your friends?

One floater (Matthew Pyles) said that part of friendship, especially in the group we are in, it is part of social construct. This is because we are living with each other and it is better to be friends with everyone that to create drama. Another way we looked at this question was common interests. Someone does not want to be friends with someone if they do not share a single common interest that he or she has. Also, moral values are a big key. Some people look to be friends that have high values and beliefs while others may like to be around people who have small or no moral values at all. Then, Keaton Davis made a good point that we do not have to share the same morals and values with a friend of ours, but it is important to be able to influence them.

In addition, Matthew asked if I personally change my interests and values in order to be friends with someone. I responded with no. I like who I am, and I will not change who I am to be someone else's friend. I believe that people should be who they are instead of someone they are not.

Then we brought to the table the conversation of "What happens when your friends change?" We talked about how we would distance ourselves from those friends. We do not want to be conflicting with those people because they may have matured faster or changed for the best. It is not a bad thing. That is a process that we all go through. People do change, which is very natural. Also, as Erin Paul stated, "If we lose our friends, we are able to find new friends to be with."

DQ: How do you approach someone to resolve differences? Is this an easy thing to do? Why or why not?

FQ:     Q: A __________________, by Kwame Anthony Appiah's definition, is someone who recognizes that people across societies have much in common, while also being tolerant of their differences.
           A: Cosmopolitan

Link: http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/quizomatic76/test.htm
This is a friendship quiz I found, and it also has Philosophy in the quiz! Take if you want!

Cicero H1

Group 2: Applez 2 Applez

Today our group talked about Cicero. Cicero had many views that were similar to his fellow Philosophers Epictetus and Seneca. The biggest idea these Philosophers talked about was the emotions that humans experience.

            We discussed the fixation Cicero had with ageing. At some point, every person has to die; therefore, ageing is a natural part of life. Epictetus defined being Philosophical as, “Accepting what you can’t change.” This idea can be linked to how Cicero viewed ageing. He said that in order to get over ageing, we must make the most out of our time. Many things happen to a person as they begin ageing. Some of these include, a weaker body, it gets harder to work, and one knows that death is close. Even though this may seem pretty harsh, Cicero explains that it is a natural part of everyday life. He discussed the use of mental exercises to strengthen your attitude toward death. Death and ageing also have a very large impact upon our emotions.

            Kailey presented the question, “Can we choose our emotions, or do they act like the weather, always changing?” We decided that it was a mix of both. Our emotions change every day without us choosing to feel that way. We can sometimes also choose to be happy despite the sadness going on around us. We can choose how we feel by accepting our world and the things we can’t change. Something we can’t change is the ageing process and death. Both are inevitable so we must accept it and move on. Trevor told us that he believed it is impossible to feel no emotion. Even though some people hide their emotions on the outside, they will always feel some kind of emotion on the inside. We discussed serial killers. They do not feel a sense of remorse after killing; they simply have the wrong emotions linked toward killing someone. Emotions are a very important part of everyone’s life. Being in control of each emotion is important.

D.Q.: Is the thought of ageing a type of enslavement for our minds?

Cicero 14-2

Our group talked about Cicero's beliefs and how he knew that death was inevitable, so instead of being depressed by this fact we should live life and not hold back. A question came up, Should we live life to the fullest or be cautious? Our group said that you should live life to the fullest but not live recklessly. We also discussed the term "y.o.l.o" is dumb and that we should not do stupid things. Cicero also talked about as you get older, what you find pleasurable is different than what you thought was pleasurable when you are younger; so there is nothing to fear about getting older.What you find pleasurable will change and you most likely will be happy doing it until the end of days. Whether we like it or not we are going to get older, so we might as well acknowledge the fact and then deal with it the best that you can; with doing what makes you happy at whatever stage of life that you are in.
Q: What if you are affected by a memory disease and you don't remember your younger years. You cannot recollect your earlier life so how can we revel in our memory?
We discussed that stoicism probably isn't the best option for people that suffer Alzheimer's because they cannot find joy in memories that they cannot recollect. It might help if they have people that were present in the persons earlier years than they might be able to help  them recollect their memories. It would be hard for the people who took care of them as the disease progressed but we discussed that there would be moments that the person would remember and recollect their family members and I would be worth it just to witness that.
We also ventured off and talked about t.v. shows such as Catfish and Cops....which relates to what makes us happy...but also had a discussion about stoicism and how it would be nice to be stoic in certain situations but that it is rather emotionless and isn't the best option, at least for our group members.
We also talked about how it is kind of strange that some people who are elderly try to become more youthful. It seems like they can't accept aging. The movie In Time was brought up, a movie where people stopped aging in their twenties but continue living, and we discussed if it would be cool if that was how it was today. Some people thought that this wouldn't be the best option because age is seen as wisdom and it is something that should be present, because it shows that a person has lived, they have experiences and are wiser. It is something that should be accepted and even looked up to. People should be able to just live and accept aging instead of worrying about esthetic things.

14-2

 

Came across this and thought it was pretty cool.

14-4 Enhance!, enhance!... enhance?

Somehow my summary did not post yesterday, so here is my second attempt, which will be much less amusing and intellectual seeing as how I have to be at work in 25 minutes!

During discussion, my group talked about Sandel and the ideas of performance enhancing drugs, branching off into enhancement of our abilities, talents, and intellectual capacities. According to Sandel, the idea of enhancing ourselves is presented with very fine lines, and these lines can be easily crossed.
We first touched on the idea that the chapter focuses on: Sports. Should an athlete be allowed to use PEDs in order to compete at a higher level. This was the first group discussion where we did not all agree. Some of us said "Yes, if an athlete feels the need to use these enhancements, he or she should be able to, because even with steroids, they will still have to work harder to maintain that higher level". However, others responded with "No, unless all athletes used PEDs, there would be an unfair advantage to those using them over those who don't." Sandel suggests that by using enhancements in sports, we lose the "human dimension" and the "appreciated for natural gifts". He also supports his ideas by saying that once we could genetically modify someone to be a bionic athlete, we may enjoy the sport for a while, because it would be a spectacle, but the initial interest would wear off. It would no longer be a "sport".
Even in sports, however, there is a line where some enhancements may be more of a perfection than a corruption. Sandel notes that although running shoes are an enhancement, they do more to level the playing field and take out outlying instances like someone stepping on a rock. Now everyone has less chance of something out of the ordinary happening and the race is fully based on talent and hard work.

Once the topic of sports had been discussed in detail, we moved onto the idea of enhancing things within ourselves that was not necessarily strength or physical toughness. Sandel mentions that one day we may be able to enhance our memory, our musical ability, etc. Would we, as a society, WANT to do this? Many of us in our group said no. Our main consensus was that if we enhanced our natural abilities or talents, or our childrens' abilities or talents, would we even  want to be doing those things? Also, those with these enhancements may have to work harder to maintain that higher level of being, but those who do not take any will be at a distinct disadvantage to even get to that higher level of being on their own. Warburton asks Sandel about his son and whether he would allow his son to be enhanced in any way. Sandel replies that his son will just have to "practice more", because Sandel is more concerned with the appreciation that comes with hard work and the pride in natural ability than getting to wherever we want to be by manipulating ourselves in some way.
We did not have much time to discuss the idea of "Universal PEDs" with Dr. Oliver, but the idea was brought up that the only way to be fair would be to make PEDs easily accessible to everyone in order for everyone to have a chance to become anything more than what they work hard for. One issue is that because our society is already based on a social class and a socioeconomic status, unless PEDs were free, or paid for by the government, the upper/middle class would still be the ones advancing further because they would be able to afford the enhancements, and this could cause an even larger gap between classes than there already is today.

FQ: According to Sandel, what is it we lose the most of when using PEDs in sports:
A: The human dimension and the appreciation in athlete themselves, rather than their pharmacist or engineer.

Pyrrho: The World's Greatest (and Saddest?) Skeptic - Trollface Socrates (Honors Group 1)

(I'm on the clock for this one, so I may have to keep it short. But, I'll try my best to keep things interesting).

During the first of two of Trollface Socrates' bi-weekly meetings, our attention and focus turned today to (arguably) one of the most interesting Greek philosophers yet: Pyrrho.

The bust of the little joker. I bet the guy had an awesome mustache-beard thing going on when he was alive.

Pyrrho preaches a strong, hard-and-fast line of Skepticism, where he asserts his belief that since no one knows anything, we can never be certain about anything. The implication of this are far-reaching, and taken to it's logical extreme, this pretty much eliminates any and all emotion from your life. Is is cold outside, or are you really just imagining it to be cold? Did that raw blowfish really poison you, or is that pain you feel from something else entirely. According to Pyrrho, our senses couldn't be trusted, and therefore, judgments made based off the information we collect from them can't be trusted or used.

Pyrrho once stayed calm even when a storm was tearing this ship to shreds, embarrassing even the saltiest of sea dogs. How'd he do it? Outstanding self (and philosophical) control, or lots of alcohol.

As you might have guessed, without the use of sensory information to dictate our responses and thoughts, Pyrrho must have been a very emotionally repressed individual. How could a person who lived like this possibly be happy? As it turns out (with very little suprise), happiness is a very relative term.

By rejecting the validity of his senses and dampening down the potential impact any danger could have on him, our group believed that Pyrrho also rejected his chances for greater sadness and happiness in his life. Because, for him to reject the validity of one emotion would have required him to reject them all, and we believed that this wholehearted rejection of the senses and emotion was one of the most important factors that would keep a majority of the world from ever prescribing to his philosophy.

However, the main focus of our discussion was centered around the concept of happiness, and how it is something that we ultimately define. Through our day-to-day experiences with others and ourselves, the emotions that arise usually end up having a noticeable effect on our mannerisms and demeanor. This things wouldn't have affected a person like Pyrrho, but for us it causes to feel a range of emotions, and to ultimately seek out the ones that bring us pleasure. And while everyone in our group readily admitted that life is a fluid, ever-changing, pot of emotions, the concept of finding true happiness, true joy, was a divisive issue that came down to the relativity argument once again. After all, whose to say that being a skeptic isn't exactly what Pyrrho wanted? In the end, the answer will have to come from inside himself.

Freebies of the Day!

Something to Chew On - Is true happiness something that can ever be achieved? Recent readings have identified it as a lifelong struggle, but Pyrrho clearly asserts that, at least through his methods, one can become content and ultimately happy with their lives. Penny for your thoughts below?

The Quizzler - As a Skeptic, Pyrrho believed what? 

Answer: Pyrrho beleived that you should doubt anything you hear, because everything can be questioned

Unitl next time!

Section 14 - 3

 Section 14 - 3
        In our group we talked about Simon Blackburn on Moral Relativism but we focused on Abortion, whether abortion is acceptable or not. As we discussed some think abortion is acceptable and some think it is not. We all agreed that abortion is permissible if the person was raped but it is not permissible if that person goes around and have sex with everybody. Simon also talked about how some people think that assisted euthanasia is permissible and how others think it isn't. Some people think the will of Allah has to be done and other people think it is of any relevance at all. So people have different views, different positions, and the potential for conflict. So it is all subjective. So, moral relativism would be any theory which encapsulates the idea that there are individual differences in morality for which there may be a cultural explanation and there are no absolute truths about any moral judgment that we make. Like Blackburn said 'Torturing babies is wrong' is subjective; it's just a matter of taste. Simon Blackburn pointed out how the subjectivist is a relativist and i agree with Blackburn because i can say truly that abortion is permissible and you can say it is not, and we can both have our own truth. And the i can protect the idea by saying "I am  just describing my own reaction." I can say i am approve of abortion and you're saying of yourself that you don't.  And we could both be true. So,  moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise. It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Also,  moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.  In addition, moral relativism is  a theory that says that there is no absolute moral truth and that all moral views are subjective, helps to explain why different cultures have different ideas about right and wrong. According to this view every individual has their own moral 'truth'. After all,  Blackburn maintains that moral relativism is not an accurate account of the world because it doesn't fully explain moral disagreements and conflicts. In a conflict a relativist says that everyone has their own truth and that is the end of the story, essentially saying that there is no disagreement. Overall, the main idea is that everybody has their own opinion about something, you cannot say someone is wrong just because of their point of view about something.
While i was writing this there were a couple questions running through my head. Such as:
How do we know what we know is "TRUE"?
Can you say someone is horrible just because they have different point of view about something?

Favorite Quote:






Great Video, it relates to our topic.

Simon Blackburn on Relativism

Section 14 - 3
        In our group we talked about Simon Blackburn on Moral Relativism but we focused on Abortion, whether abortion is acceptable or not. As we discussed some think abortion is acceptable and some think it is not. We all agreed that abortion is permissible if the person was raped but it is not permissible if that person goes around and have sex with everybody. Simon also talked about how some people think that assisted euthanasia is permissible and how others think it isn't. Some people think the will of Allah has to be done and other people think it is of any relevance at all. So people have different views, different positions, and the potential for conflict. So it is all subjective. So, moral relativism would be any theory which encapsulates the idea that there are individual differences in morality for which there may be a cultural explanation and there are no absolute truths about any moral judgment that we make. Like Blackburn said 'Torturing babies is wrong' is subjective; it's just a matter of taste. Simon Blackburn pointed out how the subjectivist is a relativist and i agree with Blackburn because i can say truly that abortion is permissible and you can say it is not, and we can both have our own truth. And the i can protect the idea by saying "I am  just describing my own reaction." I can say i am approve of abortion and you're saying of yourself that you don't.  And we could both be true. So,  moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise. It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Also,  moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.  In addition, moral relativism is  a theory that says that there is no absolute moral truth and that all moral views are subjective, helps to explain why different cultures have different ideas about right and wrong. According to this view every individual has their own moral 'truth'. After all,  Blackburn maintains that moral relativism is not an accurate account of the world because it doesn't fully explain moral disagreements and conflicts. In a conflict a relativist says that everyone has their own truth and that is the end of the story, essentially saying that there is no disagreement. Overall, the main idea is that everybody has their own opinion about something, you cannot say someone is wrong just because of their point of view about something.
While i was writing this there were a couple questions running through my head. Such as:
How do we know what we know is "TRUE"? 
Can you say someone is horrible just because they have different point of view about something?

Favorite Quote:

Great Video, it relates to our topic.

(16-1) The We Know Nothing Enhancement

On January 29, 2013 at roughly 3:00 PM. Group 1 started with Andrew saying that he agrees with what PYRRHO. Alex did this by showing the group a piece of paper that with a line connecting 0 to the word absolute that he called " the spectrum of evidence". Since everything is given through our senses and we can't trust our senses then we can never be 100% certain of anything. Andrew said that you can base this on an idea and how sure you are of something whether it is based on what other people have told you or what the evidence suggest. Dr. Oliver saw it as a scale of conflict or confidence in your belief. Dr. Oliver went on to discuss that PYRRHO idea is that you either are absolutely sure or you have nothing at all.

Matthew asked the question is better to be rational or irrational. Andrew said that he thinks that we are both. Dr. Oliver asked if it is better to be rational do you have to make a rational case. Matthew talked about how the limbic system is in control of all your emotions and what drives behavior and the neocortex is responsible for rational behavior; and if how you act then rationalize your actions. Dr. Oliver responded by saying yes it like telling yourself a story. Alison made the statement that as a species we have evolved to try and rationalize everything. Dr. Oliver agreed by calling humans the pattern seeking animals.

After the bell rang Group 1 went into more detail about PYRRHO's idea of nothing can be absolute. Rose pointed out that he just accepted that he will never going to know anything for certain. Riley though that PYRRHO became selfish in his way of not sure if anything is real in that he almost walked off a cliff. Riley saw this as being selfish because PYRRHO was so well thought of and such a great leader that him intentionally ending his life would be inconsiderate of his followers.

Alex then brought up the subject about sports doping. This lead into whether swimmers should be allowed to special swim suits which improves performance and if all Lance Armstrong did was blood doping should that be considered cheating. Group 1 discussed that sports should be as fair as they can possibly be. Alex pointed out that if you are willing to spend an extreme amount of money then is it not fair for you to have the advantage? Not to mention every record broke with the advance swimsuit has been broken by people without the suits. Scooter asked if lifting weights were not enhancements. Group 1 came to the conclusion of once you have a sport where should you draw the line and what is fair and what is not.

14-1 Pyrrho Skepticism

If Pyrrho really existed... here is what we discussed about him:

Pyrrho was an extremest about having no beliefs. This made him somewhat of a danger to himself. How far can someone go before they realize logic has to play a factor? Pyrrho went as far as to question the danger in dangling over a cliff. Can anybody really be that detached? One can only live life by using some form of logic. Without a sense of jeopardy he would be so unaware of threats and constantly be putting his life at stake.

It can be argued that Pyrrho had SPD, Sensory Processing Disorder. This is a condition that exists when sensory signals don't get organized into appropriate responses. The Alexander Technique is the easiest way to physically understand Pyrrhos practice. It is when one does not trust instinct. You practice the art of doing nothing and you will feel better. This is used to change or correct habbits to change how people feel by relearning how your body operates.

We believe it doesn't matter what we think, but what matters is the meaning. The perception of that will form its own meaning. If college means success to us then that is its meaning. Even if it isn't, even if college in actuality is just a money scheme to postpone our entrance in the workforce so elders have less competition, it doesn't matter. To us college is our step into a successful future.


We also agreed that there has to be some form of belief or awareness to contrast everything in life from right and wrong and better from worse. We need positives in our lives but we also need negatives to stop us from going forward with bad ideas. We all fear death as an event but we didn't worry about it when we weren't here. Heaven can be seen as something created to combat the fear of death, and religion is a safety net from what we fear and cant accept or understand. 

By believing that there should be no beliefs, it seems contradictory. Pyrrho lived in a gray area. It is hard to support his skepticism. It goes against human nature.

16-3: It's all relative, really...

Today's [quite far-reaching and deep] discussion in Group 3 centered around the concept of Relativism, the belief that, while different people have different beliefs, there is no such thing as "absolute truth," or, as Simon Blackburn put it,

It starts with the elementary observation that there are different sensibilities—people react differently, morally, to different things...[it's the belief that] I’ve got my truth, you’ve got your truth, and there’s no metaphysical—or absolute[...]—norm or value knocking about in the universe.

At face value, relativism seems simple enough, but once you observe more deeply the implications of there not being any such thing as absolute truth, you must ask the question: is there even a reason to ask questions if there are no right answers?  To me, certainly, this undermines the goal of philosophy in general—if there's no knowledge to obtain, why even go about trying to obtain it?

Of course, any discussion about relativism (or even beliefs in general) will often lead to religion, morality, ethics, and many other arenas which have "open-to-interpretation" components.  As you discover when you begin to really examine these things, some things that seem blatantly obvious truth to you may not be at all what they seem.

For example, in a Q&A session, famed American Astrophysicist Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson was asked about his thoughts on UFOs and UFO sightings, specifically.  Dr. Tyson talks about the Argument from Ignorance and the oft-overlooked invalidity of eyewitness testimony.



Obviously, Dr. Tyson there is somewhat undermining our intellectual and perceptual abilities as humans, which is based in scientific fact.  We humans are sometimes incapable of even coming to conclusions when placed face-to-face with something.

So, ultimately, the question must be answered, is there even such a thing as truth?  And more importantly, based on what we know about our own fallibility, is there even a way that we can know this truth?  If we can't know truth, is there any point in trying to obtain it?  The floor is now open for discussion.

H1 Group 4 - PED's and Other Enhancements in Life

Today in our group discussion, we talked about whether the use of performance enhancing drugs (PED's) is right or wrong in sports. This ended up being a two second discussion of a unanimous NO and "it is just wrong." Then we moved on to the discussion of the different aspects of life, especially the use of technology we have today.

We talked about the difference of using enhancements for your health and enhancements to improve your body. We agreed that the use of technology for health purposes is a great way to use the enhancements in today's society. However, we disagreed about how enhancing your body to something that is not natural is just plain wrong. Also, we discussed how you might actually have to look at each individual case to determine if using the enhancements is right or wrong.

There are two floaters that I would like to point out that had interesting input. The first one was Nate Tilton. He asked the question, "To someone who doesn't believe in God, what stops someone from using PED's"? This is a question I will leave for everyone to comment on as they like.

The second floater was Kailey McDonald. She pointed out that once someone uses performance enhancing drugs, then everyone else has to do it." I agree with that because everyone (or at least some people) wants to be better than everyone else. Therefore, if they have an advantage on you, someone might take PED's to become the best.



(Just a little humor)

DQ: How do you choose someone to be your friend? Is it personality, common interests, or other?

FQ: Q: True or False? According to Nigel Warburton, Friendship is an extraordinary important relationship in almost everybody's life.

A: False (According to Alexander Nehamas)

Link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-performance-enhancing-drugs.htm#page=0

I was wondering what type of performance enhancing drugs people used, and I found this website that shows you the type of drugs that are not steroids that people use to enhance themselves.

H1 Group 2... Sceptical Pyrrho

     Today my group, Applez 2 Applez, talked about Epicurus and his views on Philosohpy. If you did the required reading, you already know most of his views. Epicurus continuously strived to find happiness. He stated that the point of Philosophy is to make your life go better, to help you find happiness.
    
     My group first discussed happiness related to Philosophy. We believe that happiness and joy are closely related. Even though they are related, they are different. We decided that we get happiness from the circumstances we are in, and our circumstances can change. Joy, however, comes from within. Joy might be seen as a long term happiness. Happiness can fade while joy stays. Even in the hardest times one can find joy from within. We also discussed the notion of worldly things affecting our happiness. Those people that want material things in order to be happy will not be truly happy because there will always be something better to get. Happiness should come from simple things that can last, not material items. Society can affect our happiness just as much as our personal experiences can affect our happiness. We must strive to find what makes us happy as a person, not as a society as a whole.

     One question we struggled with is, "Can we choose to be happy?" Linton discussed happiness coming from things around us so he thinks we can't choose to be happy if we don't know what will happen in the future. Others in our group said you can choose to be happy. Sometimes that may even mean accepting what you can't change in order to be happy. One thing we must consider is that everyone has different definitions of happiness. Not everyone is going to recieve their happiness from the same source or thought. As Nate floated into our group he added that there is always a time for happiness. There is also a time to be sad when others are sad, or to suffer when others suffer. This goes back to the idea of internal joy. We may have joy in our hearts because we are alive even though we are going through a struggle or rough patch in our lives.
   
      Another question that continuously came up was, "Is there a major link between nature and happiness?" If we took away all nature and all lived in one large city with no sun and dark smoggy skies, could we ever be truly happy? Some people may find happiness in the sunshine shining on your face, while others may find happiness in knitting a sweater. We can't determine a universal happiness, so how can we determine if nature always causes happiness. Maybe someone with intense allergies might like no nature because they wouldn't have to suffer in order to go outside. These questions our groups asked did not have any single answer. Happiness is not a universal truth. It changes for everyone. Therefore, we must accept every different definition of happiness.

D.Q: Can we actually measure our happiness?

H-3, Never Say Never... a look into the fallacies of Relativity

Today my group, the Philosoraptors, tackled the hard issue of Relativity, or, the belief that I can have my beliefs, and you can have your own beliefs, and we’d both be right.

While on the surface, this strikes a chord with the our desire to ensure world peace, the implications of this philosophical theory are far more sinister than that; Because Relativism can’t deal with conflict (it is, in fact, out-right ignoring and denying conflict), Relativism does absolutely nothing to move humanity forward. For example, if the United States was a hard-core Relativist, the North and South would still be agreeing to disagree over slavery.

As Michele brought up, Relativism is, in itself, a logical fallacy. If you believe in that “there is no absolute truth,” then that in-and-of-itself is an absolute truth, much like the old “Never Say Never” adage.

Additionally, quite often, one belief is often that the other belief should not, in any way, be carried out-- a la "Neither can live while the other survives."Many of today’s most controversial topics—abortion, gay marriage, Israel, etc., fall under this category.

In short, the theory of Relativity is impractical. Like the idea of the Golden Mean, we need a balance of extremes and reconciliation to keep the world moving forward, while not creating [violent] conflict.

Our problem in society is not that we need to decide when to practice Relativism on moral issues (a topic my group spent a lot of time discussing), but rather that we need to learn how have a conversation with “the other side of the aisle,” diplomatically. This can only be done when we, as Governor Haslam said in his State of the State Address, “…keep in mind what Senator Baker said: “The other fellow might be right.”

In other words, you have to be open minded enough to allow for your fallibity, and try and seek an an accord, accordingly. While this may sound quite a bit like Relativism, it’s not. Unlike Relativism, which states that there is no absolute truth and so no one side is more wrong/right than the other side, this view maintains that, while there are other conclusions that other people have made, civilly discussing (read: not ignoring!) our differences to reach a greater conclusion is necessary. Like congress, if we refuse to find a consensus, nothing will happen except escalating anger at the "other side."

To conclude, Relativism is not open minded. The idea that I have my bubble, and that you have your bubble, and our bubbles should never have to interact is, at best, a fantasy. You can believe what you want, but that won’t change the world; in reality, our different realities will interact, and we need to be equipped to deal with that unsettling certainty. 

all photos courtesy of tumblr.com

Don't be a jerk, write it down!

Of course "writing it down" can now also mean videocasting on YouTube, right? The Socrates channel?

Nice job, Andrew. And thanks for the coffee! Hi to your daughter too, I always like meeting the next generation of students.

Group 3 Section 16

In our group we discussed Aristotle and his view on true happiness.  In our reading we discovered that Aristotle's of true happiness is different than what most of us would consider happy.  In our society most look at being happy as having a good time with friends and family or going out to a party, but in Aristotle's eyes that isn't true happiness. He believed that you had to do the right things in life and be a good person to fulfill true happiness.  This philosophy points out that you can never proclaim yourself truely happy. Only after you're gone can you be truely happy.  He said you need to feel the right kind of emotions at the right time and that will lead to behaving well. We also discussed about if Aristotle and civilization of that time was aware of mental illness. That raised the question could someone that is mentally disabled or have disabilities that prevent them from certain goals, could they achieve true happiness in their life in Aristotle's eyes?

An announcement for Honors students

Dear Honors Faculty:

Please make an announcement in your Honors classes to remind students to attend the freshmen and sophomore workshops.  They need to do this to be approved for Early Honors registration.

Honors students should have received the information below:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

HOW DO I GAIN APPROVAL FOR EARLY HONORS REGISTRATION?

FRESHMEN-

Attend a Freshmen Orientation workshop (taking Honors classes is not enough; you must attend a meeting. Even if you attended a meeting last fall, you must go to a meeting again).

SOPHOMORES-

Attend a Thesis Workshop or come to an individual meeting.

To schedule an individual meeting, email Laura.Clippard@mtsu.edu. She has set aside some dates for individual meetings to discuss students’ timelines and thesis questions.

JUNIORS-

If you are enrolled in UH 4900 or UH 4950, you WILL receive Honors early registration.

If you are enrolled in the lecture series or interdisciplinary seminar, then we automatically review you and send you an email if you are eligible.

WHEN IS THE DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL?

Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 4 pm.

WHAT DATE DO I REGISTER IF I AM APPROVED?

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 12:01 am or later

DO I HAVE TO BE PLANNING TO DO THE THESIS TO BE APPROVED?

Yes, sophomores (2^nd year) and juniors (3^rd year) must be planning to complete the thesis.

Freshmen only need to have 12 hours of Honors classes by the end of spring 2013.  Note: AP scores of 4 or 5, governors school or IB credits can be counted.

FRESHMEN ORIENTATION WORSKSHOP SPRING 2013

PLEASE NOTE: If you are a freshman and want Early Honors Registration, you should attend one of the meetingslisted below:

Topics covered will include:

·         Approval for Early Honors Registration

·         How many hours to take in fall 2013

·         A review of the Honors requirements

·         National Scholarships

·         Frequently Asked Freshmen Questions

·         Study Abroad Scholarships

Please select ANY session to attend:

Tuesday, February 5

Location: Lyon Hall – Room TBA

PIZZA PROVIDED!

Advance Registration: Sign up at the front desk of Lyon.

11:30 am-12:15 pm

4:00 pm-4:45 pm

5:00 pm-5:45 pm

Thursday, February 7 –No advance sign-up

Location: Honors 106

11:30 am-12:15 pm

1:00 pm-1:45 pm

3:00 pm-3:45 pm

Wednesday, February 13- No advance sign-up

Location: Honors 106

10:30 am-11:15 am

11:30 am-12:15 pm

3:00 pm-3:45 pm

Contact April Goers with questions

april.goers@mtsu.edu  or 494-7767

SOPHOMORE THESIS WORKSHOPS

(For students in their second year at the Honors college)

If you already attended a thesis workshop in Fall 2012, you can

schedule an individual appt. with Laura in lieu of a workshop.

Wednesday, February 6 -No advance sign-up

Location: Honors 106

11:30 am-12:15 pm

3:00 pm-3:45 pm

Tuesday, February 12 -No advance sign-up

Location: Honors 106

1:00 pm-1:45 pm

3:00 pm-3:45 pm

Contact Laura Clippard with questions

laura.clippard@mtsu.edu  or 898-5464

Laura Clippard

Honors College Advisor

Undergraduate Fellowships Office (UFO) Coordinator for National Scholarships

Middle Tennessee State University

Paul W. Martin Building, SR-Room 227

Office: 615-898-5464

Fax: 615-904-8263

The Honors Advising and Undergraduate Fellowships Offices promote academic excellence, scholarly achievement, and undergraduate national fellowship scholarship opportunities.

Karen A. Demonbreum, CPS

Executive Secretary

University Honors College

Middle Tennessee State University

MTSU Box 267

Murfreesboro, TN 37132

615-904-8431 (office)

615-904-8263 (fax)

http://www.mtsu.edu/honors