Thursday, December 15, 2011

Song

Beauty exists
In the deep recesses of our memory
The darkest holes of our hearts
Sticky cobwebs of abandoned dreams

It can be easy to see
Beauty in the Pretty Things
Like hair, color, sunshine
Music, flowers, love

But can it not exist in twisted,
Defiled things too?
…Like Me and You?

I have lived my whole life
Imagining
Dreaming…
Day-dreaming
Of princes and castles:
Perfection.
Drenched my mind with fairytales,
True love and romance
Never realizing they had put me in a trance

Life in a standstill
It is time to break free
To live, to laugh, to cry
To be me

I did not understand this word
Never knew, never saw
Beauty is life, but it is also death too
There is a reason for everything
A meaning, a right

Now I understand
I have put my life in context
Harsh words, broken parents
They will not define me

Find a way
Carve a beginning
For from dull, broken wreckage
Breaks forth our new shining


Please, I beg you
Don’t change who you are
We’re all perfect in a way
Heck, we’re made from stars

It  is the connection, the blood
Together we be
Shall we talk, shall we sigh?
Shall we laugh, shall we fly?
Or
Maybe we’ll walk
Maybe sing, maybe dance.

All I know is that I know nothing
No future, no past, and no present
But I can question
I can question...I can question...I can question

For to exist is not enough
To fly, to run
I want to soar
Breathe
Feel
Inspire
Laugh
Explore
Have fun!

We are all connected
In a beautiful, beautiful circle of life
Dark thoughts, abandoned dreams
Sickly, terrible, painful sufferings
They also make us human.
For they can make us real.

Skipping, heart pounding, racing,
galloping, lying, jumping, lifting, bearing,
listening, tasting, fearing, lusting.
Toque. Touch of eternity.

I did not understand this word
Never knew, never saw
Beauty is life, but it is also death too
There is a reason for everything
A meaning, a right

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Blank Paper

A blank piece of paper embodies the entire universe- the heres and nows of forever. Its seemingly empty existence it actually defined by the trees where it came from, the hands that combined its fibers, the person who buys it, the purpose of it. A blank piece of paper is full of possibilities--it could be a the paper that a student's college essay is typed on, the scratch paper for a test, the beautiful masterpiece consisting of a child's squiggles. It can be anything, just like a stem cell of a human. It is still full of choices and paths from which to choose from. This is like the world, the universe, because all of time has been about different paths that people and things have been presented with, the ones that were chosen, and how that has led to where we are now and where we are headed. A blank piece of paper symbolizes so much more than its mere components; it is the posterity of the past.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Phenomenology of the Spirit and the World Wide Web

Class: October 25, 2011

After attempting to decipher a Stanford webpage on Hegel's phenomenology of the spirit last night, we all walked into class this morning completely confused. At least the majority. So, to clear up all the confusion and answer all our questions, we are then asked to google dozens of words/phrases that are being rapidly added to the list on the white board, creating a different tab for each and clicking on one of the resulting links without any explanation of why we are doing so. You can imagine: an entire class frantically searching obscure philosophical words for roughly half an hour. Knowing that we would be graded on our results (but not understanding how we could possibly be graded on this assignment), we blindly followed the rules until ten minutes before the bell rang. Turns out that all the tabs we were creating and countless webpages being clicked on for each one were actually representing the phenomenology of the spirit. As one article by Matthew Grant (posted below) beautifully articulated, the World Wide Web that we use daily is actually (and quite remarkably) the manifestation of Hegel's theory. Every human has a self consciousness that presents itself on the web, whether it be through Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, store memberships or soundcloud.com. We all have in some way been placed on the Internet, sharing our everyday thoughts and ideas. You can type almost anything into the Google search box and get a result. Someone has written about it, talked about it, debated it, tweeted it, identified it, related to it. You get the idea. Google and the web contain our history...not just mine or yours, but of everyone (in some way or another). It saves every search and entry, so even my seemingly small, meaningless entries this morning contributed to the "Database of Intention" (as called by Matthew Grant). My confusing night and confusing class turned out to be very helpful. I'm not sure I understand everything, but I get the idea that we have, in essence, lived out the phenomenology of spirit thought up by Hegel. And that's a very interesting thought indeed.

http://www.matthewtgrant.com/tag/search/

thanks -j

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

DEBATE: Featuring Nietzsche and Kierkegaard

2nd Question: 
Establish your understanding of the relationship between human values, morality, and God.

My Response: 

We can agree that the majority of Christians in the world claim to follow a god who they do not truly have faith in simply by recognizing the moral code established in the Bible and attempting to live by it daily. However, this code is often disregarded internally because, in reality, they desire the fulfillment of Dionysian pleasures or values. As humans, once we have chosen to live and be born (using our primal will), we want to survive. Every action we take as an infant and child is for pleasure or survival…no action is yet hindered by a moral law put on our shoulders by society forcing us to change our ways and adopt values that we do not actually regard. This is however, how we live later in life when we seek the fulfillment of our will to power. My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension (The Will to Power, s.636, Walter Kaufmann translation). But God and present-day Christianity are keeping people from achieving their will to power. It guilts and deceives them into thinking they are doing something wrong by wanting power, even if that means they act out of greed, selfishness, etc. If our values do not align with the moral code of a god, then that god should not dictate our actions. Humans must completely disregard established societal morality and live according to personal values that we originate or adopt ourselves. In many cases, if this were done, this would lead to the recognition by thousands of so-called “Christians” that they do not actually want or believe what they claim to want and believe. thanks -j

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Kierkegaard Quotes

"A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him."

"Be that self which one truly is."

"During the first period of a man's life the greatest danger is not to take the risk."

Kierkegaard Notes--Online Readings

  • Teleological suspension of the ethical: suspension of the moral law for the sake of a higher law
    • Ex: Abraham commanded to kill son, Isaac
      • Break the moral law against murder for his higher obligation to obey God
  • "Fear and Trembling"
    • Concerned with ethics/religion
    • An act depends on the knowledge a person has--do they have special knowledge related to their action or not?
      • Normal person: Abraham was going to commit murder
      • Through faith perspective: Abraham was obeying God
  • Criticized Hegel
    • Attempt to rationalize everything, including religion
    • Kierkegaard called himself a poet, not a philosopher
  • Resignation is a willed act, not helpless abdication
  • Kierkegaard: idea of "faith by virtue of the absurd"
    • Kierkegaard does not consider himself to be a "Knight of Faith", as Abraham was
  • Individual= absolute
  • Ethical/impersonal= inferior to the individual
  • Man needs both the ethical and God-like ways of living, but they are not equal to each other
  • "Faith is the highest passion in a person"--Kierkegaard
    • passion is required for the qualitative leap of faith toward God
[sorenkierkegaard.org/fear-and-trembling.html]
  • Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)--Background/Biography
    • Influenced by father's faith at an early age (emphasis on Christ's suffering)
    • Believed marriage would hinder his philosophical calling--called off an engagement
    • Published works:
      • The Concept of Irony
      • Fear and Trembling
      • The Concept of Dread
      • Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing
      • The Sickness Unto Death
      • Either/Or
      • Repetition
      • Concluding Unscientific Postscript
      • Works of Love
    • Resisted an all-embracing system of thought
    • Inspired much of existentialism--a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will (translated Dutch: "condition of existence")
    • Influenced Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre
      • Kierkegaard's analysis of freedom and angst
[http://www.egs.edu/library/soeren-kierkegaard/biography/]

More to be added later...I'm having trouble getting these other websites to open.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Primal, Child, Power

According to Nietzsche, there are three types of will.

The first type of will, the primal will, is the most important and fundamental to a human being, because it is the will of choice. In class, we drew a connection to the Buddhist belief that every individual, at some point, chose to be born. Unlike other religions and most people, who believe that we cannot recollect our birth, Buddhists believe that it is in our memory somewhere, and that we consciously made the choice for life. This therefore, is the most important type of will for our conscious, because it allows us to exist. 

This "primal will" actually leads to the second type of will: a child's will. In simple terms, this is the will to survive. When a baby is born their emotions and sense perceptions dictate their behavior. For example, if a child senses hunger, they will cry until they are given food. In a similar manner, babies have a physical and developmental need for touch, because it comforts them, lets them know that they are loved, and does not isolate them...a baby cannot be isolated. I think it was Maddy who asked, "What motivates us? What will us to action in the world?" I've been thinking about these questions all day, and I think one aspect of the question that needs to be addressed is the fact that we acknowledge that we are being motivated. I don't necessarily know if this is true for everyone. Is this even true for me? I am determined and motivated to do well in school, live a happy, satisfying life, raise a family, and embrace every aspect of my existence, but is that a real will from within myself, or do I only want those things because I am told that that is the way to live? I don't particularly want to get into the concept of free will, but I definitely think  it is applicable here. In reality, are we motivating ourselves? What is? In fact, what is reality? Mr. Summers said that "We either do or we do not," a very concise way of saying that we are given a choice (primal will) and then we must make a decision (a child's will). I think that a child's will is most tangible, because it is something instinctual and physically allows us to breathe and then contemplate the world. I want to be like a child again. Then, life is simple. Our only goal is to inhale and exhale the world.

The final will we talked about in class is the will to power. Nietzsche argues that this is essentially the driving force behind our existence. That this is why we live, rather than my previous proposition that we live to survive. The will to power is the will to embrace our passions, sensory pleasures, and desires, to further elevate us in this world. Everyone is seeking elevation. Maybe I am getting this confused with one of the other wills, but we talked a lot about Dionysus, the mythical Greek god of wine and the passions, so I think that the will to power is the will to gain position and status in the world (usually referring to superficial, temporary rewards, like money) and then maintain that power. We all want to be successful...but really, is that true!? I can't say that I agree...not completely anyway. To be quite honest, I need to think more about this before I write any more and bury myself in a hole of deep confusion...I sense that coming. :)

Main point I left class with: Nietzsche says that our consciousness is the by-product of our will. 

Interesting class today. thanks -j

People Help The People

This isn't necessarily meant to be a philosophical post, but right now I'm listening to this song on repeat and it's dramatically changing/helping my mood. I just feel like since this happens to be what is on my mind at the moment, it is worth a post and a thank you as well. Sometimes you just need someone to sing to you...it's just one of those days.

Lyrics:

God knows what is hiding in that weak and drunken heart
I guess you kissed the girls and made them cry
those Hardfaced Queens of misadventure
God knows what is hiding in those weak and sunken eyes
a Fiery throng of muted angels
Giving love and getting nothing back

People help the people
And if your homesick, give me your hand and i'll hold it
People help the people
And nothing will drag you down
Oh and if I had a brain, Oh and if I had a brain
i'd be cold as a stone and rich as the fool
That turned, all those good hearts away

God knows what is hiding, in that world of little consequence
Behind the tears, inside the lies
A thousand slowly dying sunsets
God knows what is hiding in those weak and drunken hearts
I guess the loneliness came knocking
No one needs to be alone, oh save me

People help the people
And if your homesick, give me your hand and I'll hold it
People help the people
Nothing will drag you down
Oh and if I had a brain, Oh and if I had a brain
I'd be cold as a stone and rich as the fool
That turned, all those good hearts away

People help the people
And if your homesick, give me your hand and I'll hold it
People help the people
Nothing will drag you down
Oh and if I had a brain, Oh and if I had a brain
I'd be cold as a stone and rich as the fool
That turned, all those good hearts away

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Looking Out, Peering In

It's interesting--this concept of what people think of you. And of course, what you think of yourself. I find myself unwillingly confronted with this every day...at school, at home, with friends, when I'm alone, when I'm running, when I eat. It's never-ending. Why do people care so much about what others think of them? Why is it that even when I know I don't care, I still find myself wanting them to appreciate who I am? Why should I care? What can they offer me?

It reminds me of this book I read as a child called You Are Special by Max Lucado. While it definitely has religious undertones, one of the primary things it addresses is the fear we humans seem to have of other humans; always wanting to impress others and be accepted by them. Punchinello, the main character, is a doll (much like Pinocchio), who lives in a world where all the other dolls/puppets do the same thing all day long: label each other with either a grey dot or a golden star. To be given a golden star is to be recognized as having a special talent or gift, like good looks or a trick. On the other hand, a grey dot is given if a puppet is not special, talented, or pretty. Punchinello lives in a superficial world where it is what you are on the outside that counts, rather than the inside. To make a long story short, Punchinello is a sweet, but ugly puppet who only ever gets grey dots. After a series of insecure moments, Punchinello gets caught up in the sticker frenzy in order to feel loved and get golden stickers, when in the end, he realizes that it is not their approval that matters most. I feel like I go up and down, much like Punchinello. I can know deep down inside that I don't really care what people think about me, using logic to reason that I'll never see them again, if they judge I don't like them anyway, or I just really don't care about them, so why should I want them to care about me?

For a number of reasons I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I find that amidst the business and chaos of school, college applications, family, and running, I start to lose myself. I mean, I'm still down there wayyy deep inside, but there begins to mount a pile of junk on top of it...so much that I can't see it anymore. I need quiet. I need peace. And I want them. I hate this cyclical compromising of myself for things of much less importance. While I value school and all the other things I mentioned, they are meaningless without a true sense of myself! It's ridiculous this pattern I've gotten into. Summers are beautiful, but as soon as my favorite season rolls around (autumn), I get bogged down by the superficial worries of the world. I want to be approved by my teachers, friends, parents, admissions officers, counselors, coaches...you name it. But I lose my own approval. Then, I'm not happy with who I am.

I am in search of a balance. A balance of myself and my dreams, and the means through which I will achieve them. Everything I do now is important, but most important is knowing who I am...particularly as I prepare to leave and live on my own. I should not worry about what others think of me. Not as much. It's when I listen to my disney playlist on iTunes (which by the way, runs straight through without repetition for 4.8 hours), play with my FOUR little brothers, stretch after practice, run alone in silence along the canal at 6 on a Saturday morning, read a fantasy book I read when I was in 6th grade again, and eat food, that I can feel myself sprout and reemerge again. It's like spring! I want to feel myself again. I want to run free again. I want to breathe deeply again. I want to have confidence again. I want to clear away the crap that's clogged my mind and allow the rays of self to shine through. I'm tired of feeling tired, and I want to feel at home again with myself, so I will. And writing about it was the first step...like Punchinello on the last page, my first grey dot is about to fall...I am dropping my worries one by one until I am one once again. thanks -j


Tuesday, October 4, 2011

DEBATE: Featuring Descartes and Hume

Last Friday we had our second debate of the year: Descartes vs. Hume. The primary difference between these two philosophers is their views on how we gain knowledge and achieve truth. Descartes tried to rationalize his way to absolute truths, which he believed existed. Hume however, relied on his senses and their perceptions to achieve temporary truths. He did not believe in absolute truths and only believed in the things of the past and present that he had experienced personally. I was one of the students representing Hume in the debate.

One of the main questions we had to address was their views on God. As Mr. Summers pointed out yesterday, I did a good job defending Hume's views, but lacked in attacking Descartes enough during my argument. For this reason, Hume only got four points from my response to the question, whereas Descartes got three...too close! I think that while I could easily write about improvements to be made on Hume's side, I want to act as though I was Descartes arguing against myself. Descartes' theory of doubt prevents him from believing in the things he observes and yet he believes in an idea that he theorized himself about a perfect entity, claiming that if he can imagine the perfect being, then it must exist. I think you could argue that this is true by pointing to the complexity of our minds and thinking that our idea of a creator must be innate. Obviously, Descartes in relying somewhat on faith, because his line of thinking that leads him to the conclusion that God exists does not bode well with the rest of his philosophy. This is a really difficult point to argue, but essentially, if our minds are capable of grasping the idea of something then it must exist, because everything works like that. For example, we can conceive a baby and it exists...this works for everything, so it should work for a God too. The argument breaks down however when we consider that the only reason we can "justify" the other things we rationalize in our minds is because we can sense them as well. Perhaps Descartes could have argued well that a God must exist simply because it does not make sense that if we exist because we think, and the world does not think, then we could not come from it, and so, we must have come from some higher being or existence.

I'm still confused about this point. Descartes had a very weak argument on this topic and has absolutely zero evidence to prove his view, so I still need to think about how I would have argued this... thanks -j

Monday, September 26, 2011

DEBATE: Featuring Heraclitus and Parmenides

In class today, we were divided into two groups: one that would argue the opinions and beliefs of Heraclitus, and the other arguing those of Parmenides. Here's a little bit of background:

Parmenides lived aroud 540-480 B.C. and is considered one of the "Eleatics", who were philosophers interested in the "problem of change."(35) He believed that everything in this world had always existed, and always would. On top of this, he saw any sensory form of change as an illusion and did not believe anything that he saw, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled (36). In contrast, Heraclitus trusted his senses more than his reason, because he thought that humans rejected their "universal reason" for one of their own (37). His primary belief was that change was the only constant in nature and that opposites within the world is what allows us to exist (36). 

Today, I was put on Heraclitus' team. The other people in my group were Karen, Laurie, Anne, Nomka, Mora, Alex, and Riley. I think that's everyone, but I might have forgotten someone. Both teams presented strong arguments near the middle of the debate, but near the end, started to lose ground and repeat ideas. Our homework assignment is to come up with a counterargument to one of the points I used to support Heraclitus' side. I definitely think the easiest way to go about disproving Heraclitus claims would be to simply address the broader, larger aspects of life such as the Earth itself and nature. This is because, as a whole, the world (naturally) has not changed very much throughout time. Beneath the cement and infrastructure, there is still the same soil and land that existed millions of years ago. The oceans have been changed by things being dumped in them, but the water still repeats cycles, the world still follows certain laws, and the world appears permanent when looked at in a broader context. This would be my primary support for Parmenides' side, and a rebuttal to the statement my team made about how change can be seen in everything. Some things really do appear permanent; it is whether we trust in our senses or not that makes the difference. thanks -j

This is a link I find somewhat helpful (if you can follow the narrator's fast speech) in explaining the differences between the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides.



Sunday, September 25, 2011

How We See the World: Blind and Deaf

Old Class Periods: 9/12-14/2011
Great! So this is a post to make up for the class periods I missed earlier in the year, before I had created this blog. I already typed this up once before, but unfortunately my Internet suddenly closed...and all was lost! :( The following reflections are purely based on memory and my notes.


9/12/2011
Today we blind-folded each other and walked in and around the school grounds, and even part of the bike path off of Quincy. I partnered with Emma, who "volunteered" to be blind-folded first. Instructions were to not talk to the one blind-folded, but only to lead them. I led her out of the building, around the parking decks, up a hill into a park, and finally, left her in the middle of the field (according to Mr. Summers' direction) so that she was forced to find me by listening to my calls as I ran around her. We switched places and I suddenly realized that the terror I had relentlessly teased her about while she was blind-folded was completely justified. While the fear was perhaps a little exaggerated, it was something I could not control. It truly is terrifying to be led across streets, over fences, onto slides and playground equipment, and into a pond, balancing on one little rock trying to understand what your partner wants you to do. I definitely struggled with this task. I was okay while we were walking on the bike path (in fact, we actually ran parts of it) because I knew where I was, having run on it countless times for cross country and track practice. After the exercise, we discussed metacognition and the awareness we had of ourselves during the exercise that we maybe do not normally have. Specifically, Helen talked about how her immediate instinct was to move slower. I became more aware of the things under my feet, whereas normally I am more concerned with what is around me. I was also extremely cautious...constantly tuning into Emma's voice over anyone else's, because I knew that she was the one I depended on.


9/13/2011
Mr. Summers began the class by stating a quote from a 9 year-old girl, Anna: "The hardest kind of thinking is thinking about thinking." The quote directly addresses metacognition, introspection, and reflection, particularly on the young girl's part. We discussed the previous day and how/what it was like to walk around known territory blind--suddenly everything felt foreign. Our second seminar on Sophie's World was today. One of Jordan's points was the existence of free will and how the author values women's rights over men's, because he made the main character a young female. I took this decision of the author to more represent the distinction between his view and others: that philosophy is for all people of all ages, genders, races, background, socioeconomic status, etc.. Emma thought of this even slightly differently, by saying that Sophie is a girl and child because the author values women as philosophers and thinks they have a lot to offer to the study of philosophy that historically, only men have been given the opportunity. Jordan took his previous statement one step further and said that philosophy is in favor of women. I have to admit that I didn't really follow his support for his claim, and honestly, I do not view gender as being the primary issue within the novel. I had not thought a lot about it, so it was helpful to hear from them, but I don't think my opinions really changed on the subject.


9/14/2011
This week we interspersed seminar days with active days. It's Wednesday, and we went outside today with blind folds (again) and ear plugs. This time, Mr. Summers had us walk to a little park with our ear plugs in, but fortunately we could see! Otherwise, I'm not so sure I would have made it there alive. We went to the park and sat down in a circle in the grass. He motioned for us to take out our ear plugs and then gave us instructions to put the ear plugs back in, the blind folds on, and meditate for the next 5 or so minutes. It felt like an eternity. It was amazing though! Truly, it was. I could feel every nerve in my body, my heart beat slow down and then thump in my wrists, neck, and temples. I felt my body...it felt very light and airy. I focused on the center of my forehead (like I was taught to do during my yoga class). Eventually he clapped (which I did not hear) and Maddy shook me to wake up and take off my stuff. We repeated the exercise, but this time laying down with our arms to our side and palms up. It was perfect. Bliss. I've actually done this many time before...just laying down on the ground with my eyes closed, I mean. But never when I couldn't hear. My thoughts sounded SO INCREDIBLY LOUD. I cannot even describe how powerful my thoughts were during those few minutes. It was like I was the only one there. However, this feeling was briefly broken when I felt something hit my foot repeatedly. Afterwards I asked if Mr. Summers had done it, but apparently he had not, but instead, allowed a squirrel to hit my foot! So funny, because if I had been able to see or hear, I would have had a better idea of what was going on, but I didn't at the time. I also experienced moments where I felt like bugs were crawling all over my body. I kept telling myself they were ants, but I swear, in the back of my head I just knew they were probably spiders. I did not react though. I never moved my body during those minutes, even though I could feel things beyond my control happening to me that normally I would have changed or manipulated. They just didn't seem like a priority then.


Well, that's basically it! I know I missed a ton of details and comments from the seminar on Tuesday, but that was the discussion I remembered most and had written about. Sorry this is so late! I've actually spent a LOT of time thinking about those three days, and talked to a lot of people about those experiences. You'd be surprised how often it comes up...how fortunate I am to be able to see and hear. thanks -j

We Too Are Stardust

We Too Are Stardust
IB Philosophy SL
             Jostein Gaarder captures the essence of human life and the origin of human purpose in the final pages of his novel, Sophie’s World, with the line, “We too are stardust,” (505). Just prior to this semi-conclusive revelation, Albert asks Sophie about the mystery of the waves in the water, a result of Alberto and Sophie’s recently attained spiritual status. The very fact that Albert and Hilde, and Alberto and Sophie, are convinced of their existences is evidence of the lasting perplexity of “true” existence, free will, and significance. To believe that one is merely dust of a star makes one sound completely hopeless and unimportant, but when looked at another way—that we are a piece of a whole…the remains of a dense, explosive, luminous star—we sound like gods. Our origins are a mystery; how can we know them when every conjecture can be looked at from endless numbers of angles? Plotinus states that the struggle of understanding human origins exists because creatures, particularly humans, embody that which they have come from, and so, we are mysteries in-and-of ourselves. He states, “I am saying that there is something of the divine mystery in everything that exists. We can see it sparkle in a sunflower or a poppy…but we are closest to God in our own soul. Only there can we become one with the great mystery of life. In truth, at very rare moments we can experience that we ourselves are that divine mystery,” (295). Interestingly, this theory of Plotinus resonates with me, because I think that if what people say about fear is true—that fear is founded in the unknown or mystery—and we ourselves are the “unknown”, then there is nothing to fear, because we live daily under a contradictory illusion. Therefore, nothing should keep a human from exercising his philosophical thinking and trying to attain an understanding of himself unless he is satisfied with his notion that he is in control, even if in reality, he is not.
 It is also the divine mystery within our souls that makes us inquire about where we came from, where we are going, why we are here, etc. This connects to Kant, whose views are paraphrased by Alberto in, “But it will always be an attribute of human reason to ask where the ball comes from. That’s why we ask and ask, we exert ourselves to the fullest to find answers to all the deepest questions.” (326). Human life is undeniably valuable—it is a privilege just to be alive! In a sense, life begins without us; it gets a head start and we must catch up. Human memory is not capable of remembering an infant’s birth, so how could it grasp or innately carry the knowledge of human origin and destination?
 To me, the most provocative idea presented in Sophie’s World is the question of whether human life is or is no significant. Kant fills in this gap of unknown with faith in God (as did many of the philosophers studied…), Albert tried to answer is quantitatively through science when discussing the Big Bang, and Sophie and Alberto find that their significance is rooted in their ability to be free and thinking beings, much like Descartes. Using the metaphor of a star, I think Gaarder is not only trying to address the origins of human life and existence, but also emphasizing the relative insignificance and significance one individual can have in both their reality and in the universe when they look at their existence with an assortment of rational, logical, or empirical perspectives. To be a part of something as beautiful and magnificent as a star invokes a sense of responsibility to uphold that image and live up to its standards, because we know that we have a purpose in life, even if that purpose is left up to us to find or create. It is what we do with our lives that count. thanks -j


Thursday, September 22, 2011

Free Will


Today was SUCH a great day in class! Mr. Summers left the classroom to go help another teacher; we were all given tasks to do while he was gone. So, after watching a clip from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" about the "Bridge of Death" (clip is posted above), we briefly discussed in small groups what it could represent and why we were asked to watch it. Not surprisingly, our philosophical discussion soon dissolved into various forms of gossip, friendly chatter, and unrelated laughter. I believe it was Emma who first suggested we get the whole class to discuss together Sophie's World and the possible philosophers that Monty Python was playing off of. Anyway, to make a long story even longer(!), someone started the idea that maybe Mr. Summers was actually testing us and spying on us from Mr. Vogel's room across the courtyard... :) In response to this dreadful thought, and the idea that if it was true we would currently be failing, our class agreed to sit in a circle on the floor (because that's how we interact best) and discuss the Sophie's World.

In my small group, I had brought up the fact that I thought part of Monty Python's message in killing the Keeper of the Bridge of Death and two of the knights, was that we must:
1. Understand the questions we ask and know what we are looking for, even if we do not claim to know the answer (failure of the keeper)
2. Never ingenuinely adopt the views of other people; only strive to be yourself (failure of Sir Galahad of Camelot)
I think it's actually very applicable to my life, and I'm sure, to the lives of others. Every day, people copy the actions of those they aspire to be like. For example, some people try to dress or behave like the popular people at school hoping they will receive the same kind of attention and live the same kind of life. However, this is not truthful and it is not real. Just as Sir Galahad said that his favorite color was blue when it was really yellow, and was punished for his foolishness, we too will have these types of mimicking behavior backfire. 
I also think it is really important that when I doubt or question something, I understand what exactly I am questioning or what type of answer I'm looking for, even if I know it is not the best approach. Sometimes it is the shameful questions we ask that reveal what we are really thinking and what we are really looking for. In this case, I am thinking of how someone may address the bad qualities they seem in themself (like selfishness, greed, disloyalty, deception, phoniness, etc.). It can be really difficult and painful to judge oneself, but if you probe in your heart long enough, you may be able to achieve truth or gain knowledge about yourself. 

When Mr. Summers did come back into the room, and we told him how we thought he may have been testing us, he said he had not doubted our capability of listening to instruction. We were. But did he imagine us to succeed in that way? It gets a little complicated when the result is the same, but the cause or process is different. Mr. Summers imagined that we would have no problem organizing ourselves and staying on task, but it was actually the thought of being tested that drove us to act. Was this inevitable? Were we destined to obey Mr. Summers? Could we have done anything else? It seems that every possible/available process would have ended with the same result. I'm not really sure how to think about this subject yet.

Finally, we talked about the concept of free will. Do we have it? To what extent are humans in control of their actions and decisions? If we don't have free will, does that change our reality? What is reality? To Alex it is a combination of impulses sent to our brain (look at the clip from "The Matrix" below...we also watched this in class). I go back and forth from believing that this is true to believing that it is no way to live. I don't quite know how to make sense of reality...if it even exists.



thanks -j

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Imagination

Wow--first blog post! :') Just so everyone knows, this is my new blog for my IB Philosophy class. For me, I'm hoping that this blog will serve not only as a place where I write about what's been going on in class each day, but also as a conduit through which I can actually publish the different thoughts and feelings I've had about philosophy, my life, and basically anything that happens to cross my mind. I don't know how exactly this will work, so bear with me!

Since class started last week and I'm only creating my blog now, I'd like to fill you in on what has been going on. Over the summer our class was asked to read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. For certain reasons I cannot actually tell you the premise of the book (...even though I admit to googling the endings to movies and flipping to the last page of books before I get there, I refuse to spoil this book. Read it!), but the important thing is that Sophie learns about various philosophers including Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, Bjerkely, Spinoza, Socrates , Hegel, and Freud, among several others.

Today, we responded to several questions; my favorite being, "What does the book say about imagination?" Jordan, myself, and several of my classmates seemed to suggest that perhaps the imaginary world, or the different worlds people create in own minds, is the real world, and this life we are "living" is not. I really like this idea. Growing up with five younger siblings and three older, I've got loads of experience with "imaginary" games. Here are a couple examples, in case you happen to know little (or old!) kids who like playing "live games" (as we used to call all our games that were not board games and required the use of imagination).
--"Lava Ship", where beds and furniture are the ships, the ground is lava and there is always some sort of mutiny on the ship so that the captain is forced to walk the plank and somehow survive until he/she got to safety
--"Powers", a particular favorite of my siblings and I. In this game, you get to choose super powers or special abilities that you've either read about or made up and come up with a plot to defeat the invisible bad guys and save your clan from dying out. (some of the books we would often reference are The Spiderwick Chronicles, Chronicles of Narnia, Droon, and The Dark Hills Divide)

The point in me telling you this is really to emphasize the amount of time we would spend on these games. We would not just sit and decide to play these games for, say, 30 minutes...no, we would play them for hours and hours at a time. I would become completely consumed by the game. I distinctly remember playing Powers one time and looking out of the tent we had set up in my room and seeing a forest--the one I was trying to sneak through to reach enemy territory. It was night and I could see the shadows of the trees against my own. They were so tall; I remember feeling both intimidated, but comforted because I knew that these were the trees protecting and hiding me from the others. This really isn't made up, and I know it may sound ridiculous, but how is it so different from the dreams you have every night when you sleep? How is it any different from hoping in something that you know- from the beginning- will inevitably not become reality? How is it so different?

Imagination is a powerful thing. It may be reality, it may not. I mean honestly, who here even knows the definition of a reality? Isn't mine different from yours? My dad would have walked into my room that day to see a cluttered floor with a gigantic red tent in the middle of it, enveloping his children while they played a silly game. My sister very well could have seen a river or meadow, instead of the dark forest I did.

I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.

Riley made a really interesting comment in class today when he said that children are more naive than adults, and so, use their imagination more. I realized that I couldn't disagree more. This is not a criticism of what he said, and I certainly appreciate and agree with the fact that there does exist a distinction between the amount of time a child uses their imagination versus that of an adult, but I do not think this is a result of differences in levels of naivety. In many ways a child is more aware than an adult. They have not reached the point in which normalcy and routine is romantic, and peculiarities and change induce allergic reactions and pain. (this is actually a point I've been thinking about a lot recently and hope to write about soon) If I remember correctly, children tend to the take the world bit by bit, amazed by what they see. Everything is a surprise. I know I have seen this with my younger brothers, whose innate senses of excitement and wonder at new things, causes them to giggle when I clap my hands or look at me like I've been floating in a bubble when I make the popping noise in my cheek. Children are not naive, they are untouched, like a "tabula rasa" (according to John Locke). Imagination comes naturally, because anything is possible.

There is an element of truth to what Nomka said: "Imagination is more valuable than knowledge." Emma, Maddy and Jordan all seemed to find this true in that our imagination gives life to both our memory and fictional characters, like Sophie, Alberto Knox, Albert Knag, and Hilde. Emma pointed out that even when we finish a book, those characters live on. They are not gone, but it is our imagination that makes them who they are.

I don't really know how to wrap up a post to make it all nice and pretty, so I guess I'll just end by reiterating what Alex said in class today: that our imagination is actually more real than we think it is, and so, we should not ignore it or try to shut it out. Too many things are forgotten or missed when imagination is left out of the picture.

I would find it hard to believe that Plato came up with his theory of the world of ideas without the tiniest hint of imagination. :) thanks -j