Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Final Reports REMINDER

Final reports

1st of 2 blog post installments due by the last day of class, Apr 24 (but may be posted at any time before then)... 2d installment due May 1. Top 3 run-scorers don't have to do a 2d installment (but may, for extra credit).

Think of it as parts one and two of a single report, with part two including your reaction to any constructive feedback you received to part one. The two installments together should total at least 1,000 words. Emphasis is on quality, not quantity.

Don't think of it as a pasted formal paper, but as two related blog posts on a subject of interest to you. Use links instead of footnotes, include relevant graphics, video, anything that'll make it visually as well as thematically interesting.

Choose any relevant topic (check with me if you're not sure). You may continue to explore your midterm report topic, if you wish. Say why the topic interests you, and if you're discussing a particular philosopher say what you do or don't agree with in their thought.

Feel free to be creative with the format and approach. For instance, you might wish to "transcribe" an imaginary conversation between yourself and one or more famous philosophers.

Everyone should comment on at least two classmates' 1st report installments, and document that you have done so: include links to the reports you've commented on, in one of your own report posts.

Have fun!

5 comments:

  1. Part I
    Born in February 341 B.C, Epicurus is an ancient Greek philosopher who spent the majority of his teachings, teaching his followers how to live a happy, tranquil life. The purpose of his philosophy was based upon attaining peace and freedom from pain. To live such a lifestyle Epicurus focused on parting away with the fear of death, living a simple life, and recalling enjoyable times in the past to help ease the pain of what one may be currently going through.
    Epicurus believed that many people could not live a happy life because of the constant fear of death, and or the fear of not existing. This way of thinking prohibits one from living a tranquil life because death is always approaching. He also argued that fearing death is a waste of time, death will come but according to Epicurus once an individual overcomes this way of thinking they will be able to enjoy their life more. His solution to this way of thinking was simply to not think of death as something that happened or as an event. An individual will experience death, but will not experience the consequences or pain after. This is where the fear of death lies. An individual must realize that after death has taken place all sensations and consciousness of a human being will end with death. People will not feel what happened to their bodies after death. Humans are tied to the flesh of their bodies and once those atoms come apart a being will cease to exist. For a person who does not believe that there is an afterlife, Epicurus’s philosophy on death can be the cure to the fear of death. If a person did believe in the gods Epicurus had some reasoning in that area as well. Like many Greek philosophers of his time Epicurus reasoned that life after death is not something to worry over. He was one of the first Greeks to break away from the god fearing and god worshiping tradition. Epicurus taught his followers that gods do not reward the good or punish the bad. Gods often do not concern themselves with humans at all. If a person is not worried about what will come to them in afterlife they can begin to live more carefree. Epicurus taught that humans are simple beings and once a heat has stopped beating there is no more of that person, even a soul, so there should be no concern with what will happen to a person in concern to the gods.
    Once an individual has learned that there are no painful sensations, consciousness or consequences associated with death that person can be alieved of some stress triggers revolved around the fear of dying. Getting over this way of thinking was one of the biggest points of Epicurus philosophy. He also reminded his followers who did not necessarily fear death but more so feared not existing that there was a time before they were born where they did not exist. One cannot be afraid of not excising simply because there were times prior where they did not and it was not until they became a human that they realize they existed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part II
    While Epicurus’s teachings had a lot to do with escaping the fear of death, the main purpose of his philosophy was ways to live a happy life. While alive, Epicurus lived with many of his followers/ students in what is known as “The Garden”. Epicurus emphasized that another way to live a happy life is to constantly surround yourself with friends and good friendship. For many people during his lifetime this particular way of living was seen negatively as a type of cult, but as far as living out the philosophy of surrounding yourself with friends is a nice way of thinking.
    To escape pain and suffering Epicurus’s recipe for happiness was centered around living a simple life. His philosophy advised to not spend your life working to achieve something that is far in reach. If you desire to achieve something that is more attainable, you will be able to enjoy your satisfaction quicker and for a longer amount of time. You will not spend time wanting something that you cannot or will not get. This point Epicurus’s teaching is questionable because this way of thinking does not encourage ambitions. While it does make a very clear point of not living in disappointment if something in life does not go the way you would like, this way of thinking encourages followers to settle for less than their potential.
    If an individual lives a simple life and does not over indulge in luxury items they will never experience the pain or displeasure of not being able to attain those luxury items should they cease to be accessible. It is reported that Epicurus and his students in the garden ate bread and water to satisfy this point of his philosophy.
    One of the final points of Epicurus’s teachings was remembering and reminiscing in pleasures and happy experience an individual has lived in the past. Remembering old pleasures would help in bad times. If a person was experiencing something that brought them pain, thinking back to times when they were happy could help ease this pain. He acknowledged that pleasurable times are joyful in the moment that they happen, as well as when we think back on the moment. I can agree to this part of his philosophy because in general when we think back on experiences that made us happy, even if it is for a quick moment, we can live and be joyful in the current moment that we are in despite what may really be happening. During Epicurus’s death, it is said that he used this tactic while dying from kidney stones to ease the mental and physical pains that he lived through. His teachings on how to live a more pleasurable life give very thoughtful and resourceful remedies on escaping pain while also enjoying the time that one is alive without fearing or suffering.




    1st installment: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/final-reports-reminder.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tuesday March 20
    On this day I read about the pessimistic Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes was an individual who viewed human beings peons. He was one of England’s very impactful political thinkers. Hobbes believed that human are selfish and will do anything as long as it deals with benefits to oneself. Hobbes also theorized that if people seek power then that is when society would come corrupt. He believed that people will damage themselves as well as others when it comes to being allowed to have too much power. When there is power involved Hobbes believed that it should be separated and either one person, or a group of people should be the ones who hold a certain amount of power. Additionally, Hobbes believed that people are living in a society that they will do anything it takes when it comes to making a way for themselves. Hobbes argued that is there was a world that had many scarce, limited resources then out nature would to kill other people in order to make a way for ourselves. He believed that in reality when it comes to both friends and family then no one can actually be trusted in reality. If there was ever a circumstance when there is scarce resources then Hobbes believe people will be willing to tear others apart in order to get the things they so desire and need. Hobbes also believed that all aspects of human existence where physical activities only and one of those aspects were even thinking.


    Thursday March 22
    On this day I read about Rene Descartes. The French philosopher who believed many different things when it came to things in the world. One famous aspect that was revolved around Rene Descartes was the Method of Cartesian Doubt. The Method of Cartesian Doubt which was don’t believe something a hundred percent if you have some doubt in your mind that what you think may be true could be actually a little false. Descartes believe that we can trust some things if they are proven completely, but on the other hand there are things that can’t be completely trusted for example our senses. He used several examples, but the example that stuck out to me was the example where he elaborated on sight. Descartes stated that sometimes our senses can trick us and aren’t always reliable. He used vison for an example to demonstrate that our sense of sight is sometimes inaccurate. Descartes said if you put a straight stick in a puddle of water it may seem bent because of the way that we see the stick, but in reality that is the same straight stick. Descartes believed that it is unwise to trust something that has tricked you in the past. This demonstrates that we can’t solely put complete trust in our senses. He also believes that the things that we are actively participating in currently can’t be a hundred percent proven when they are actually being done. He believes that there can be illusions to the things that may, or may not be happening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tuesday March, 27
    While reading about Brauch Spinoza, it was interesting to hear about his unorthodox viewing of the existence of God. While most religions teach that God exists outside of the physical world (in heaven or elsewhere), Spinoza believed that God is the world itself. Spinoza believed that God and what people call “Nature” is the same thing. That they are in fact synonyms. That God is nature and nature is God. Some people see this viewing as a type of pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is everything. This type of thinking caused Spinoza some trouble throughout his life, like causing him to be excommunicated and curse by the rabbis in his synagogue in 1656.
    Also I learned about the English philosopher John Locke. One of his interesting beliefs was basically that as time passes from the day you are born to the time you are elderly, you are essentially a completely different person. This idea is one that, in my opinion, makes sense. Think about it. As a human being, we are always changing. We grow forget thing, mature, develop, and decline. Our views begin to alter, our physical appearance changes, as well as priorities shift. So how is it that, in any sense, you are the same individual as an old person that you were as an infant? John Locke took this mystery tree of an idea and explored every single branch of it. This is a topic that I has definitely made me want to read more in depth about.



    Thursday March 29
    Whilst reading about the, what I feel like is very far-fetched, ideas of Irish philosopher George Berkeley, I found myself in disbelief about the ideas that he proposed. This philosopher believed that anything that stops being observed cease to exist. He believed that, for example, if I am actually reading and looking at a book and touching the book the book is actually there but once I stop looking at the book and touching the book doesn’t exist anymore. Berkeley is described as an individual who is said to be both an immaterialist and an idealist. This philosopher was fascinated by the appearance and reality of specific things. The ideas that George Berkley presented were ideas that were somewhat similar to the ideas that John Locke presented. Locke believes that there is a world out there that we only get at indirectly, but in reality it way more than the things that we just see. On the other hand, Berkley believes that we get at the world directly and that we get everything in its full form and effect. Berkley bases all of his ideas on the way that the mind views things. Berkley bases his ideas off the way that we perceive both real things and illusions in many cases. While reading the book Berkeley was the type of philosopher who went with the flow of things that did not always make common sense and that’s what makes his ideas different from any other philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 400 Word Make-Up
    After reading about one of the ideas of philosopher Blaise Pascal, I found myself truly fascinated. Pascal felt that when considering whether or not one should believe in God, that they should approach the situation with a Gambler’s mindset. He argues that it would be more rational of a person to act as if God does exist and look to believe in God. That even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast that betting on that chance is more rational. He discussed this in his best known book, Pensées, where he came up with this cleaver argument to persuade those who are unsure whether or not God exists that they should indeed believe. This arguments is known as Pascal’s Wager. This argument can be seen as a somewhat pragmatic reason for believing in God. Pascal feels that individuals bet with their lives that God either exists or doesn’t exist. He claims, with no true hard factual evidence in favor of either case, that the odds are 50/50. It is compared to the flipping of a coin. With an unbiased coin, it doesn’t really matter which sided you chose to bet on because it is just as likely that you get heads as it is that you get tails each time you flip the coin. But if you analyze the situation with pros and cons, you seemingly have a clear cut best option. God does not actually exist, a person will only have had a small loss of some personal pleasures, but they stand to obtain the greatest possible gain which is the chance at an eternity of paradise in heaven. As well as avoid the outcome of infinite losses represented as an eternity in Hell, the worst imaginable outcome for anyone. It was interesting to read about the different rebuttals that opposed his logic. Such as the fact that his argument is based on a Christian God, and excludes the factor of belief in a different higher power due to being a part of another religion. Another is that, even if you do see the logic behind his ideals, how does someone who doesn’t truly feel God in their hearts force themselves to believe? Another opposition I read was about considering how God may look upon those individuals who used this “gamblers approach.” How do you think he would judge those individuals who only chose to believe because it was the more logical thing to do? This topic of Pascal is one that I will sure be looking deeper into, as I found it extremely intriguing.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.