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

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

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

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