Thursday, May 23, 2013

Hegel


Rivers.  They’re kind of interesting, right?  Always flowing, rushing to get to somewhere bigger.  Hegel thought they were pretty interesting, because he saw history as a flowing river.  His whole theory was that thoughts are always changing, evolving just as society changes and evolves. 

This means that something that’s right one day might not be the next day, or vice versa.  This idea seems pretty supported to me.  Slavery was once considered okay, but it isn’t acceptable anymore.  Gay marriage used to absolutely out of the question, and now opinions are changing.  The way I feel could be totally different.  I could cry myself to sleep but wake up with a smile.

 That’s because as humans, we live in a temporary world.  The world restarts every time we wake up for a new day, and each day is different than the last.

 I think Hegel had it right. Each of our minds is a river, flowing and gaining more water along the way.  The rocks and soil move as we do, and we change.  But, just as rivers flow into the sea…will all our thoughts someday flow into one big philosophy?  It seems impossible, but just entertain the thought for me.  What if someday we all came to the same conclusion?  What if we all came to a point where we saw things exactly the same?  Honestly, if that day ever comes, it may be the end of humanity, because I’ve never met two people who agree on everything, and I don’t think I ever will.  But it’s interesting to think about.  If this is the case, I probably don’t agree with all of Hegel’s theories, but I do agree with this one.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Why Do We Need Pain?


Pain.  What is the root of all pain?  Sometimes pain comes from something that was supposed to be good.  Sometimes pain evolves from our caring for others.  Sometimes pain comes from trying and failing.

 Why is pain so easy to find?   Is it because of the many different sources it can come from?  It seems so frequent, and unifying in a way.  We all go through it.  We all feel it, for one reason or another.  Is that the point of it all?  Is pain meant to bring us together?  We feel so connected to those who can identify with our struggles, and we are inspired by those who have made it out.  We look to eachother in times of need and mark a good friend as one who is there for us when we are in pain.

 In a way, pain is important to us, and life would definitely be different without it.  Really, I think us humans actually NEED pain.  When things are too good for too long, we get worried.  We wonder why something bad hasn’t happened yet.  Is that simply from experience or something deeper?  Is there some part of us that knows pain is necessary to the lives we live?

 Though some say they don’t want to, we often let pain define us.  Don’t get confused though.  It isn’t the pain that defines us, but the way we handle it, and that isn’t an original thought.  Is that why pain is important?  Do we need it in order to grow closer to understanding ourselves?  Does it help shape us?  I believe so.

 I really believe that we need pain, crave it almost.  Okay, maybe crave is a little far, but we do rely on pain in ways we may not even realize.  We rely on it to help determine who is there for us and worth sticking around.  We use it to draw closer to each other, and learn more about ourselves.  Most of all, we use pain to make us realize how great the good days are.

 I don’t know what the root of pain is.  It seems to come from many places.  But what I do know is that, despite the way it hurts us, breaks us, and tears us apart, pain can be a GOOD thing, and most importantly a thing we need.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Why KANT We Know Who We Are?


Soul surfing is everywhere.  People are always searching for themselves, trying to learn who they are, what they want, where they belong.  But Kant claims we can’t.  We can’t comprehend what we are. 

It’s one of those questions without an answer.  How can we hope to live not knowing what we are?  The stereotypical teenager walks around believing that nobody understands them.  Nobody gets them.  Well, here’s the fact.  No one does.  Nobody can understand you because YOU don’t understand you.

Reading that was kind of like a light bulb going off.  There are so many things about me that are a mystery.  There are things about each of us that are mysteries, even to ourselves.  We cannot hope to know ourselves fully, and that may scare some. 

Personally, it’s just enlightening.  Realizing that there are things about me I’ll never know is almost exciting.  In a way, my life will always be a mystery… there will always be things out there I don’t understand.  That may seem like a very limiting idea, but it’s really not.  Not knowing things almost gives you more power than knowing them.  I realize I’m not making sense, so let me try to draw this out.

Imagine you hear an unfamiliar sound in the middle of the night.  Maybe you hear a bang.  Your mind is instantly alert and filled with ideas of what is happening outside your room.  You run through scenario after scenario.  Is it a robber?  Is someone in the house?  Are they going to hurt me?  Did a family member fall down somewhere?  Our minds are capable of coming up with absurd answers that may be far from the truth.  Because we don’t know what is happening, we are given the power to try to figure it out.

It’s human nature to question things… if we knew everything, what would we do with ourselves?  We would be bored out of our minds. 

That’s why I believe that not understanding myself isn’t a weakness. It’s an opportunity.  It’s a chance for me to get to think about it. 

Who we are is a question we ponder our entire lives.  We learn more and more about ourselves every day. The fact that we will never fully understand only means that there is much more to be learned.  We may not ever know it all, but that doesn’t mean we can’t figure out the basic concepts and keep pursuing an answer.  

Maybe it’s just me but knowing there are things out there to be learned is exciting. 

Who cares if Kant thinks I can’t understand myself?  I mean, he’s probably right but that won’t stop me from trying, and from being excited every time I get one step closer.



Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Why Isn't Equality Innate?





Why were women ever seen as inferior?   This is a serious question, and one I don’t have an answer for.  For the longest time in history, it was all about men.  Women had to fight for ages to earn the same rights as men.  Honestly, what is the reason behind that?

 Even in philosophy, the theme appears again and again that man is superior.  WHO SAYS?  Where did this idea come from?  Was it just decided one day that women weren’t as good?  Is it because men are often (not always) stronger and more helpful in building a civilization?  But are they really?  Women can do just as much in society as men can.  Women often play a different role, but different does not mean inferior.

 Maybe that’s the problem.  People have this crazy idea rooted in their heads that different is inferior.  Now where does THAT idea come from?  African Americans were seen as inferior in the past.   Why?  Because they were DIFFERENT.  Women have been seen as inferior.  Why?  Because they’re DIFFERENT.  Several religious groups have been persecuted.  Why?  Because they believe something DIFFERENT. 

Throughout history, anyone who differed from the typical white man was considered inferior.  BUT WHY?  Who decided on that standard?  Why weren’t African American men superior to white?  Why man, and not woman?  Or better yet, why haven’t we all been considered equal ALWAYS?  So many conflicts could have been avoided if we were all seen as EQUAL.  No slavery, no Civil War, no Holocaust.  In a lot of ways, the world would have been/be a more peaceful place if it weren’t for the strange divisions drawn between races, gender, and religions.  If we were all seen as EQUAL, we wouldn’t have near as much reason to fight.  Doesn’t peace seem like a better option? 

Which brings me back to my question: Why was the typical white man made the standard?  Why is different seen as inferior?  I’m stumped here.  This is one of those big questions whose answer is just out of reach… I really don’t know.
 
 

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Do We Exist?



 
One of the weirdest ideas that I’ve come across in philosophy is the idea that we really don’t exist.  We are simply a physical manifestation of someone’s imagination, our lives just a dream of God’s.
 WHAT?! I’ve never thought that way, because I don’t like the idea.  Straight up… the idea that my life is virtually nothing, and I am completely unimportant in the scheme of things is that worst scenario I could come up with.  Because without existence, there is no purpose, and without purpose, there is no fulfillment.  And if that’s the case, I may as well give up everything I ever thought to be important. 
If I don’t exist, then I lose all hope of making something of my life.  Maybe it makes me a bad or incomplete philosopher, but I refuse to accept that possibility.
 Okay, it’s definitely possible, but it’s also not the idea I choose to believe.  My Christian background leads me to believe that our lives are a reflection of God and His vision, but we are not simply in his mind.  Our lives are real, and they mean something.  It may be selfish and egotistic, but I want to believe that I am real and worth something to the world. 
But I did as Aristotle said an educated mind would, and entertained the thought.  I just won’t accept it.
If my passion is clouding my reason, let that be my downfall, because I refuse to believe that I am nonexistent.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Why Do The Worst People Change Us The Most?


Why do the worst people change us the most?  I was talking about this question with my mentor the other day and it really stuck with me.  The whole idea came about because of Descartes.  He was a brilliant guy and changed the face of philosophy…yet, in reality, he wasn’t a great person.  All the experimenting he did on animals and everything else were absolutely horrible.  So why is he such an important part of the way we think?  Why is he one of the most quoted philosophers?

Is it simply a coincidence that some of the greatest minds of the world have also been the worst? Take Hitler… one of the worst people ever to live, and possibly the most hated.  Yet, at one point, he was worshipped.  And although his tactics were terrible, the ways he went about accomplishing his goals were genius.  And he completely changed the face of war.  He’s just another example of a horrible person who has shaped the world we live in. 

It happens on a personal scale as well.  Sometimes the person we would most love to see hit by a bus is also the person that teaches us the most.  Even if their lessons are on what NOT to do, you can’t deny that bad people teach good lessons. 

And it seems like a lot of times, we remember those bad people more easily than we do the good ones.  Why are we so skewed towards negativity in life?  We receive three compliments in a day and one insult and what remains with us?  What do we worry over and contemplate for hours later?  The insult. 

When you think of World War II, who do you think of?  Most people’s first response is Hitler.  Not Roosevelt, Churchill or all those other good guys.  No, it’s usually Hitler that comes to mind.

WHY IS THAT?  What is it about our brain that is wired towards focusing on the dark side of things?  It’s as if there is an ever present shadow over our minds, and light has to battle to get through.  We have a way of assuming the worst, and remembering the bad. 

Those who live by the bible might say it’s because of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, and maybe it is. 

Whatever the reason, humanity as a whole is more perceptive to bad news than it is to good, and I really don’t have an answer why. 

Thursday, April 18, 2013

"I think, therefore I am." -Descartes


Descartes was a very smart man.  He decided to start at zero, and to forget everything he’d been told, to just start thinking for himself and forming his own philosophy, which must’ve been difficult. 

I know from my perspective it would be hard.  I used to be very, very easily influenced.  It wasn’t until recently that I found the confidence in myself to realize I could think for myself and make my own decisions.  I don’t always have to listen to others.  But Descartes, he completely disregarded everything he’d been told, and doubted it. 

He wanted to know what he knew…confusing right?  He wanted to understand what he could figure out with his reason without relying on anything else.  

Anyway, that’s not actually what I wanted to talk about.  I just think it’s crazy and impressive that he found a way to do that.  But one of the other things that Descartes tried to figure out was how the mind and body were connected.  It seems pretty obvious that they are, because humans have both…but how?

It was pretty well accepted at the time that the body is like a machine.  Like a computer, it doesn’t do anything it isn’t programmed to do.  So, because of that idea, some people believed the mind was a machine too.  They believed that everything we did and thought was predetermined. 

Well, I find that a little hard to swallow.  I don’t like thinking that I’m just some sort of puppet with no control over my own decisions, and maybe that’s a pride issue.  But what’s the point of spending our time trying to take control of our own lives just to be told we aren’t in control at all? 

I’m not denying the existence of God in this statement, just to clarify.  Some say that God controls us but I don’t feel that’s the case.  My personal belief is that we do have free will, and our minds are capable of making decisions.  God may know what we are going to choose but he doesn’t do it for us.  And that is why I have such a hard time believing that our mind is just a mechanical thing.

Descartes didn’t believe that either.  In a way, he completely separated mind from body because they are different…but here’s the catch.  How can they be separate but connected?  Because a lot of what our body does is programmed by our mind, but they are obviously different.  Descartes said that the mind was stronger than the body, which I think is true.  In many ways, an army of powerful thinkers is more dangerous than one made up of body builders.  Both are effective, but the army of thinkers will probably leave an even more powerful impression, because they have the capability to make you question things.

 In history, violence never seems to get us anywhere, and violent revolts are usually crushed by the government anyways.  But people who think, who speak about their thoughts, and make others think…those are the people that are seen as the most dangerous.

So if the mind is stronger, does that just make our bodies the puppets?  Do we only have a body to house our minds?  But in that case, what is the point of having a body at all? Why not just have minds floating around?  But if we didn’t have things of substance in the world, then what would our minds have to question?  What would we think about if there was nothing solid around us? 

The way I see it, a mind without a body is lost.  And a body without a mind is lost.  They need each other, and maybe that necessity is what connects them and keeps them together.  


Thursday, April 11, 2013

STOP and Reflect: How Has Philosophy Changed My Life?


It’s about halfway through the semester, so I’ve been studying philosophy for awhile.  The question is, has this study really changed me at all?   What’s been different since I started studying philosophy? 

First of all, there’s the learning aspect in general.  I’ve learned a lot about history and even things about science and religion.  One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned is that everything is more or less connected to philosophy.  Learning that has helped shape the way I think.  I’ve begun to connect different subject s and ideas together instead of everything being so defined.  There’s a lot of overlap, and sometimes I feel like it’s easier to learn things when you can approach it from many different angles, so approaching the same idea through many different subjects has actually improved the way I learn things.

Not only that, but the way I think has changed.  I’ve always had a mind that went a million miles a minute.   Trust me, my brain does not like to shut up.  But it used to be about trivial things like the next biology test or what I was going to eat when I got home from school.

 Now I find myself struck with random thoughts about life, and about the future.  I’ve been writing a lot more too.  I feel like I suddenly have all these thoughts in my head, and if I don’t find a way to get them out, to put them somewhere outside my mind, I’ll just explode. 

I’ve always loved writing, needed it even, but now it’s as if I can’t live without it.  I can’t survive simply going through the motions anymore.   I have ideas, and a desperate need to explore them.  It’s like something has awakened inside me… a curiosity,  a thirst for adventure and creativity, a hunger to do more with my life than just live the same routine I’ve been following for months.  I almost feel like everything about my life has suddenly been magnified in me.  I feel things more strongly than I used to, allowing myself to open up to vulnerability.

 It’s like all the walls I’ve built around myself to protect from pain, from yearning for more, or for dreaming too big are knocked down.  It’s not an obvious change.  It’s not anything that anyone could really notice, but it’s there.   It’s like there’s some part of me trying to break out of my body.  I’m stir crazy and frankly bored with this life and all the things that used to be so important.  It’s terrifying and riveting all at the same time.  It’s like reading about these big ideas has made my life feel smaller somehow, and I yearn for growth, for a way to break out of this box that I might have built around myself.  There has to be more out there, right?

 Philosophy has shown me that there’s just so much that we don’t know.  How can we sit here and live our happy little lives not searching for the truth?  Not asking questions and really opening ourselves up to answers?  I don’t want to be a shadow of a life.  I want to explore and dream and learn beyond the walls of school.  I don’t even know what I want.  I just know I’m searching for more than this.   

Learning about philosophy has been a crazy ride, and it surely isn’t over.  But it hasn’t been easy.  In a way, I’m completely rethinking the way I live and the way I see things.  Part of me is scared of the change.  What if this yearning is a bad thing and I’m losing part of myself?  But what if what I gain is worth more than I lose?  It’s like giving your heart to God.  You feel as if you’re losing control, but you know it’s worth it.   That’s how I feel.  I’m losing control.  I just pray to God it’s worth it.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Heart Vs. Reason


 
Philosophy is the study of problems, of things that perplex us and make us question.  Here’s a question for you.  Why do we put ourselves in the position to be hurt even when we’ve been hurt before?  Why do we give others the chance to get beneath our skin or have access to our heart?  We know it won’t end well, and yet we hope.  We hope that this time will be different, that things will turn out “happily ever after” and all our worries will vanish.  We ignore all logic, relying on our feelings.  Is that why Plato said reason could not be found in our senses?  I used to have a hard time believing reason only came with logic, but in reality, how can our senses be logical when they usually lead us to repeat our mistakes?  What is it that we are doing wrong?  Why is it that we decide to stand close to the fire even when we’ve been burned?  Do we yearn to feel something?  Do we believe the fire will be kinder the second time around, and simply warm us?  Are we simply naïve?  But it seems that we know what we are doing… our logic tells us to back up and forget about it.  But we ignore that logic.  We follow what we want, what we feel.  Is that our downfall?  And yet, even as I write this, I know I won’t follow my own advice.  I won’t stop listening to my heart… the question is why? I guess for me, it’s about being vulnerable and living life to the fullest.  Sometimes I feel too much, but it’s in the moments when I feel true pain or true joy that I know I am giving life everything that I have.  I surrender to these feelings because they make me feel like my life means something.  It’s hard to explain why we set ourselves up for failure, why we follow our hearts instead of our minds.  But if we were always cautious, always thought about the effects of the things we do before we do them, would we be living our life for all it’s worth?  If we aren’t following our feelings, are we somehow failing?  But if we aren’t listening to our reason, are we also failing?  There’s a line in a Lauren Alaina song that says “There aint no greater distance than the 18 inches from your head to your heart,” and she couldn’t be more right.  When we follow our hearts, we are taking a risk.  Maybe that’s why we do it.  Do we get a rush or a thrill from taking a chance?  There isn’t much chance in following reason.  We also make mistakes when we follow our hearts, but that gives us the chance to learn and grow from those mistakes. If we use reason, we are less likely to mess up, to do something childish.  But does that then make us less likely to grow?  What is the point of our existence if not to grow and become better? The funny thing about questions like this is that you can ponder them for hours, and yet you still don’t find a concrete answer.  You form ideas about it, but you can’t say anything for sure.  And that, my friends, is why there are philosophers: to take on the daunting task of pondering those questions, and attempting to formulate solutions.  

Friday, March 29, 2013

History and Pi (Detour from Text)


The Indo-Europeans believed in a cyclic view of history.  They believed everything was a constant circle and repeated itself, with no beginning and no end.  The Semites, however, believed in a linear view.  God created the world, and that was the beginning, and the day of wrath, or Judgment Day, would be the end.  No repeats, no rebirth.  Just beginning, middle and end. 

Well, there you have two different ideas. And this got me to wondering which one I agree with.  The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that it wasn’t that simple.  Sure, I agree that God created the world, but I also believe that history repeats itself.  Where does this lead me?  I decided to kind of play with the question for awhile, and see what I could come up with, and I came up with pi. Yes, pi.  As in that funny symbol you use in math class.  Just as history does, the number pi has a beginning.  It starts with three. What follows is a string of random numbers, the middle.  You can guess what the next number will be, just like you can try to predict the future, but you can’t know for sure what comes next until you get there.  And like aspects of history, the digits of pi repeat.  Just like there has been more than one war in history, there are more than one threes in pi.  Then there’s the question of the end of pi.  Many people believe that pi does indeed end, but no one knows when or where.  This relates a lot to the end of history.  Many believe God will end the world with a Judgment Day, and some believe in the apocalypse.  But no matter how you believe the world will end, nobody knows when.  We can guess, but we cannot tell the future.  The world could end tomorrow or in a million years…we just don’t know.  So the way I see it, history is not cyclic or linear.  It falls in sync with pi.

Chapter Eleven: Aristotle


This one’s a huge chapter.  Aristotle was a man of many ideas, so this reflection may be the longest yet… we’ll see.  First of all, I think it’s really interesting that I just learned all this stuff about Plato and Aristotle was actually a pupil at Plato’s Academy.  Even more interesting is that fact that in some cases Aristotle disagreed with Plato.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, because if we all agreed all the time, life wouldn’t be near the adventure it is. 

Anyway, the main disagreement that Aristotle had with Plato was about the whole world of “ideas”.  Plato believed that the “idea” chicken came before the actual chicken.  He also thought that reality was what we think with our reason.  This was a hard pill for me to swallow when I first learned of his theory, so I don’t really mind that Aristotle disagreed.  Aristotle said that each type of thing in the world has a specific “form”.  Though each frog may be different, they all have the same “form” and that’s why we can classify them as frogs.  Aristotle believed that the “idea” world was something that humans come up with based on characteristics, which means “form” comes before “idea”.  He then believed that reason is not the source of reality, but that what we perceive with our senses is what’s real.   I’m going to have to say that for this round, I’m definitely team Aristotle. 

If we all had these “ideas” of things pounded into our brains, then how come I cannot simply picture a platypus?  If there is an “idea” platypus, I should be able to picture it right?  But even though I’ve heard of a platypus I cannot come up with a picture of what it looks like… Now if I had actually seen a platypus, then I could describe it to you.  So personally, I identify much more with the whole idea of “form.”  Humans are all different in some way.  But if you pass a person in the street, unless that have seven arms or something, you assume they’re human.  That’s because though we are different, we all have a “form” that classifies us as humans. 

But the next idea is a little harder… What is reality?  Is it based on reason or sensory perception? I had a hard time accepting that we gain knowledge through reason and that was the only way, but I’m not quite sure why I rejected the idea so strongly.  Maybe it’s because I’m not always the most logical person.  Maybe I don’t like the idea of being built strictly around my brain and my reason.   We have all these beautiful senses and ways to interact with the world around us.  If all we needed to rely on was reason, then why have senses in the first place?  Sometimes when it comes to reason, senses just get in the way, because sometimes when we are feeling strongly due to senses, we aren’t thinking clearly.  It’s crazy to me to think that reason is all there is. But at the same time, is reality just our senses as Aristotle said?  I almost think that reality is different to everyone as an individual.  But I also think that maybe our reality is a combination of what we think and what we perceive.  It doesn’t have to be one or the other does it?  We have been gifted with both reason and senses, so why narrow it down to just one being the source of reality? 

Aristotle had a knack for organizing things, which is right up my alley.  He also had a way of breaking things down into multiple parts.  Seriously, this guy gets me, because that’s something I definitely relate to.  He was considered one of the first great biologists of Europe because he began to categorize and break down the kingdoms of life.  He said that earth was made up of two categories: Living and Nonliving.  Then Living was made up of Creatures and Plants, and Creatures was made up of Animals and Humans.  Simple enough right?  In biology, we are learning about all the different phyla which break down into all the different classes and all the different orders and so on.  It’s all very complex, and though it’s good to be specific, I can definitely appreciate the simplicity of Aristotle’s ideas. However, Aristotle believed that all these things on Earth were governed by the stars and heavenly bodies of space, but then he also had to come up with a source that set those things in motion.  He called this stationary source the “first mover” or “God”.  This idea also makes sense to me… actually I can connect really well.  Before I became really exposed in Christianity, I used to believe that the sun and moon were the gods of the universe.  I just always loved looking up at the moon and the stars and I made up this idea in my head that the sun was a god and the mood a goddess, and I had some other theory about the stars as well.  Then there’s the old saying that a full moon makes people crazy.  Maybe Aristotle wasn’t so far off.  Maybe the moon and stars and sun do have an effect on the rest of the universe and then maybe God is just the highest level. 

The next thing this chapter talks about is true happiness.  Oh man, isn’t this a good topic.  Everyone wants to know how to be happy, right?  Aristotle’s happiness idea is that there are three forms of happiness:  Life of pleasure and enjoyment, Life as a free and responsible citizen and Life as a thinker and philosopher.  Here’s the catch though.  He believed you had to have all three in order to be really happy. I actually think there’s some truth to that.  I mean if you’re not a free citizen, you’re probably not living a life of pleasure and enjoyment.  And if you are free and you are living a life of pleasure, if you aren’t thinking for yourself or understanding what’s happening around you, then you find yourself stuck in a box and frustrated.  So again, Aristotle’s views make sense to me.

The only thing I really disagree with Aristotle on was his view of women.  He said that women were incomplete and less than man.  He believed that children get all their characteristics from their father and that women were simply the environment for growing these babies.  So, as much as I admire Aristotle, I will admit that he was a clueless man like so many others.  Maybe I’m a little biased by being a girl, but come on!  Girls can be smart and think for themselves and study things like philosophy too. Throughout history, men just underestimate how powerful women can be!  Without women, man wouldn’t survive, and that is all I have to say about that. ;)

Anyway, I told you it was a long one.  But ignoring his horrible ideas about women, I am definitely an Aristotle fan!

Chapter Ten: The Major's Cabin


In the book, this chapter is mostly story, which is fine by me!  But then some questions were thrown in there.  As usual, they’re hard questions, but here goes nothing.

What came first, the chicken or the “idea” chicken?  Is there a chance that somewhere out there in a different universe or dimension, there is a vision of a chicken?  And did that vision come before our world and out vision of a chicken?  I read a book once that described different worlds… every time you made a decision, one option led to one world and the other option led to an alternate world.  I always thought it was really cool… but not possible.  And also a little scary. But as far as this question is concerned, I really have no idea if there’s an “idea” world with an “idea” chicken floating around.

The next question relates to the first.  Are we born with innate “ideas”?  I think he means something along the lines of knowing what something is without having seen it or knowing it’s name.  I’m trying to think of something that nobody has ever told me the name of that I can envision, but I’m drawing a blank.  Even when you think of Jesus, whom you’ve never seen, you think of the guy in sandals with long hair that is portrayed in art.  If I had never seen a picture of Jesus, would I still have an idea of him?  Would I still picture him that way?  Or a new way? Or even not at all? Right now, I’m thinking we don’t have these “ideas”, but I’m willing to be swayed in the next chapter.

What’s the difference between plants, animals, and humans?  Well, here I could go all biology on the question and talk about difference in cell structure between plants and animals, but I’m not going to. I don’t think the difference between plants and animals is the important point in this question, because those are more obvious.  But what about the difference between animals and humans?  Biologically, we’re classified together.  Humans are animals, and yet, in a lot of ways, we seem to set ourselves apart from other animals.  And why is that?  Why do we see ourselves so differently?  Is it because we have the ability to build cities and material things and live as if the entire world belongs to us?  It seems as if, in nature, animals all live of each other, and share the land.  Are we different because we come into land and take over, not willing to share? Wherever the philosopher is going with this one, I don’t think it’s simply a biological difference he’s getting at.  I’m guessing the difference here has to do with our behavior. 

Why does it rain? My immediate answer? To make the flowers grow! If everything works in a cycle, the rain’s job is to make the flowers grow, so that they can provide oxygen to animals, and then animals can produce carbon dioxide for the plants.  It all makes sense.  What if that’s not it though?  I’m interested to see where this idea is going to go!

And the last question in this chapter… what does it take to live a good life?  I actually have lots of ideas about this one, because it’s something I think about a lot.  If we have to live this life, which is not always anywhere close to perfect, and we only get to live for what seems like a short time, how do we make it good?  The best I can come up with is investing in people, being kid to others, giving and receiving love, and doing the things that make you happy.  Cheesy, I’ll admit, but that’s the way I think when I think of making life good.

Those are my attempts to the answers of those questions.  Now I just have to read on and see what the philosopher has to say, and how much those answers change!

Chapter Nine: Plato


Plato had a lot of huge ideas and some of them are a little hard to process, but here goes.

Plato believed that everything we see is really just an imperfect shadow of something perfect.  Each and every bird comes from a perfect form of a bird.  They may all look different but they come from the same mold.  That means that everything we see is imperfect, which to me makes sense.  It’s like looking at a picture of something.  No matter how close you get, you can never capture the image fully, because the picture is an imperfect copy of the scene.  You just can’t capture the exact lighting, or replicate exactly what you’ve seen.  It just doesn’t work. 

The part that I find myself struggling with though, is the idea that the only things we truly understand come from our reason and not our senses.  Of course, things that have to do with senses are usually marked by opinion.  That I agree with.  But after reading everything Socrates said about “she who is wisest knows she does not know”, Plato’s idea doesn’t quite fit.  How can we not be sure of things, and yet have our knowledge come from reason?  This is the first time I’ve been thoroughly confused in this process.  I’ve just come to the terms with the idea that everything I see is just a reflection of something else, and that nothing I see or “know” is completely for certain.  So how can I then believe that I can gain knowledge from reason? 

Then again, maybe Plato and Socrates were on the same page, and their theories go hand in hand.  Maybe what Socrates meant by not knowing wasn’t not knowing ANYTHING, but just not being sure of the things we’ve seen or been taught. I realize now that I cannot mistake my senses for reality or knowledge, but where does that put my reason?  Plato says that everyone shares the same reason, and maybe that’s true.  But I feel like if it is, we don’t all use it the same way.  Eventually we can come to the same answers through reason, but are those answers knowledge?  Plato says that knowledge can only be obtained by reason, but then Socrates says that the only knowledge is to know we know nothing…What? How can I know nothing and yet learn through my reason? How can the two concepts be connected?  Is there any way that they are both correct?  Here’s the problem… I DON’T KNOW.   Which makes sense as far as Socrates’ ideas.  But using reason, could I come to understand both concepts?  Maybe that’s it! Maybe Plato doesn’t mean knowledge as in being absolutely sure of something but instead UNDERSTANDING.  Maybe we don’t know anything for completely certain, but we can come to UNDERSTAND ideas and problems through REASON. You can be reasonable enough to understand that 2+2=4 but wise enough to know that you aren’t entirely sure of that fact because those numbers were once made up and told to you.  And in another world, maybe 2+2=6 because the value of the symbol 2 is actually 3.  It sounds crazy, but maybe that’s what Socrates meant by not knowing for sure.

Okay, mild frustration averted.  I think that’s how you could connect Plato and Socrates and their ideas.  They weren’t necessarily contradicting each other as I originally thought. Their ideas just fit together in a way that’s hard to understand.   It took some REASON, but I think I get it ;) And of course, the goal of philosophy isn’t to make your ideas mesh with someone else’s but I feel like sometimes it should.  Maybe it’s just me, but I was severely bothered reading that and thinking that Plato’s idea went against Socrates.  Then again, maybe that’s because I had begun to accept Socrates’ idea of not knowing and I couldn’t handle a new idea.  Maybe I need to keep my mind more open.  I don’t know.  But that’s about all the thinking I can do for this chapter!

Chapter Eight: Athens


This chapter is about Athens and it gives a historical description of the place.  Reading about it actually makes me really want to go there someday.  So much of our culture was born in that one city, and it would be amazing to see the place, even though it is not what it used to be. 

At the end of the chapter, Sophie gets to meet Plato, and he gives her a few things to think about.  The first is how a baker can make fifty cookies that are identical.  Well, he can’t can he?  How can each cookie be exactly the same?  They aren’t.  Sometimes one has more chocolate chips or is a different size. Sure, they’re made up of the same ingredients, but they all are just a little different.  Right?  It’s like with humans.  We all have the same genes, but they’re expressed different and we have different alleles.  So even though we are made up of the same ingredients, we are all different. Even identical twins have their differences, so how can two cookies be identical?  It makes me wonder if they really could be.  I haven’t  observed cookies lately, but I feel like it isn’t possible.

The next thing Plato suggests is why all horses are the same.  Again, they aren’t?  I have no idea where they are going with these thoughts, but I’m definitely interested to find out.  Maybe in reality, horses and cookies are the same.  Maybe I’m just so set in my idea that no two things can be exactly alike that I’m not opening myself to some strange idea that they can.  Maybe that’s what the story will tell me in the next chapter.  We’ll have to see.

The next question is whether or not man has an immortal soul.  This is a hard one for me.  I do have a grounding in religion, in belief in God.  And if I see it that way, then man does in fact have an immortal soul.  And deep down, that is what I believe.  But I also realize that there are other theories out there.  What if when we die, we simply rot in the dirt?  It’s possible.  Maybe that’s the plausible way, but where’s the purpose in that?  We are beings of wonder, who are consistently looking for answers, and reasons.  If there really is no reason to life, and we simply die, then the wonder that we’ve been gifted with is just to torture us.  If we simply die, what’s the point?

Lastly, Plato asks if men and women are equally sensible.  First answer that comes to mind in of course not.  Women are obviously more sensible ;)  But that’s a pretty biased idea.  Men often don’t understand women, and women often don’t understand men.  Women often think they’re doing right, and men think that they are.  How can we say one is more sensible than the other when each is simply doing what they think is right, regardless of whether or not the other understands them.  I think we must be equally sensible, but at the same time, I’m unsure.  Part of me believes that how sensible you are cannot be determined by your gender.  It has to do with your individual thoughts, and individual morals.  It also has a lot to do with opinion.  Someone may seem sensible to one person, and seem like a complete idiot to someone else.  It’s all up for debate I guess.
So I have my theories on the answers to these questions, but I don’t really know.  And isn’t that the way it is with most things?  As I read more, my answers may change.  That’s just the way it is.  We live in an ever changing world, so I don’t see how we can have permanent answers anyway. But that leads to a whole new idea, so I’m going to stop here. 

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Said By The Best

Here's a slideshow of some interesting quotes I found from a few of the philosophers I've studied so far, with lots of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.  I wanted to try to figure out how to stream this video as a "gadget" so it would automatically play when you opened the page, but whatever technological skill I have is failing me because I cannot figure it out... So for now, I'll just post my little detour creation :)

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Chapter Seven: Socrates


Boy, do I have a lot to say about this chapter.  Socrates was a heck of a guy.  Apparently most people found his neverending questions and his Socratic irony to make him a gadfly.  I had no idea what a gadfly was so I looked it up, and basically, he was seen as annoying.  That makes me wonder, if I had met Socrates, would I have thought him annoying?  Would I have acted like I knew everything and embarrassed myself?  Chances are I would have.  Let’s be honest, we all have those egotistical moments where we think we are really on top of things and we know our stuff.  It gets worse as we are put in positions of power, and suddenly have others telling us how great and wise we are.  How often do we really say, “I don’t know” when asked a question?  How often do we make something up or claim that the question is dumb or undeserving of an answer?  It seems  like the amount of the latter scenario is greater.  Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t always like to admit I don’t know things.  I don’t like to be caught as being wrong, because it’s embarrassing.  I’ve gotten a lot better about admitting when I’m wrong because I’ve realized we can’t be expected to know everything.  We aren’t perfect.  In fact, Socrates was well aware that he knew NOTHING. 

And he’s absolutely right.  We don’t know anything for certain.  Everything we “know” was made up and fed to us by someone else.  Sure, a lot of it is backed with evidence and makes sense, but that doesn’t mean we know it.  So, I’m going to be honest and make the step towards admitting a problem right now.  I don’t know anything.  Nothing I say or feel or think is for certain.  It can change, and it can be proven wrong.  I’m only human, and I cannot lean on my own understanding for things, because I DON’T understand everything.  Man, is that hard to think about.  Challenging everything you know is just that… a challenge. I really envy the way Socrates was brave enough to accept that challenge.

This chapter also mentions that questions are much more dangerous than answers.  When we are young and learning about the world, we are full of questions.  Nobody looks down on us for it or says our questions are stupid, because we don’t know any better.  But as we grow up, there’s this illusion that we suddenly know better.  We suddenly know enough not to ask “stupid, obvious questions”.  Who came up with that idea?!  I’m the kind of person who has lots of questions.  But I’m also the person usually too afraid to ask them.  I’m the quiet one in class who doesn’t raise her hand.  I have questions but I’m afraid that people will judge me if I voice them.  It’s much more dangerous than answering, because answers are what I’ve been taught and “know”.  So what did I use to do? I ignored my questions, and moved on.  That’s it. 

That’s why my new years resolution this year was to ask questions.  This was even before I started this philosophical journey.  And I love asking questions.  I’ve realized that asking questions is what gets me even more interested and engaged in a topic.  Maybe that’s why philosophy is so amazing to me!  I can ask all the questions I want.  Honestly, I feel like sometimes I learn more through formulating a question than receiving the answer.  A questioning mind is a working mind.  Anyway, I just really connected with Socrates’ idea of asking instead of lecturing. 


There was another idea in this chapter that  I really responded to.  It says that humans basically have two options: pretend we know everything or ignore all our questions and abandon hope of ever learning answers. A few months ago, when I was still in the habit of ignoring questions, I may have been one of the second options.  But it was different when I read that line.  That line, that idea of only having two options… It actually seriously bothered me!  I remember saying aloud “Why”?  Why does it have to be one or the other?  Why can’t we continue searching for answers?  Why should we just give up?  No way.  And then I sat back, surprised.  It’s amazing how quickly some of my ideas are changing.  I was once content to wonder things but then not pursue them.  Not anymore!  Now I want to ask questions, I want to wonder, and I want to voice that wonder.  Maybe it’s crazy but I think anyone can be a philosopher, if only they open themselves up to the wonder.  By accepting the fact that I know nothing, but refusing to give up, I can learn the ways of Socrates.  I can be a philosopher too.  In fact, I am. 

So here’s my oath.  I, Kyla Parkins, accept that I know nothing for certain, but I will try to always keep my sense of wonder, and ask questions, and never be content with waving my curiosity away. J

Chapter Six: Fate


In this chapter, the philosopher talks about Hippocrates, who was the founder of Greek medicine. His belief was that by living a healthy lifestyle and doing things in moderation, people could stay healthy.  He also believed that being healthy was our natural state and that we only came to be sick because nature had somehow gone off course.  Somehow, there was a physical or mental imbalance causing a person to be sick. 

Reading this just clicked for me.  It actually makes a lot of sense.  I’ve been having a really bad week (sadly, it’s only Wednesday), and my throat is sore, I’ve been coughing all week and I haven’t really felt like eating at all today.  Doesn’t that sound like I’m sick?  Maybe I feel this way because it’s cold outside, or maybe it’s because I haven’t had enough sleep.  Then again, what if there is some truth to the Hippocratic idea that a mental imbalance can cause sickness as well?  It makes sense that when people are stressed or upset, they just don’t feel good. They’re tired, they have issues focusing, and at least in my case, I often get head or stomach aches when I’m feeling especially stressed.  What if we don’t get sick because of random environmental factors?  Sure, I believe that bacteria probably does play a big role in some illnesses, because that’s what I’ve been taught since middle school.  But what if there are some types of sick that are simply due to people being a little off mentally?  When we aren’t on top of our game, we don’t feel good.  If I was having a really bad day, but I felt completely healthy and energized, it wouldn’t make much sense, now would it?  Instead, I feel exhausted and I’m not hungry.  Instead I feel sick.  I don’t know, that idea of sickness being caused by mental imbalance just really resonated with me!

Chapter Five: Democritus


Chapter four was all about the natural philosophers.   It was mostly just note-type stuff, and nothing really jumped out at me and made me want to write about it...so I skipped ahead to Democritus!
This chapter is mostly talking about Democritus and all the things he believed.  I think my favorite part about reading about this last great natural philosopher is that his ideas connected so well to other examples.  I love when I can make connections between what I’m studying and my life, because it makes it that much easier to understand, and philosophy is full of connections!  The prime example used in this chapter was the comparison between Democritus’ atom theory and legos.  Both atoms and legos are unbreakable.  Both have a variety of shapes and sizes, but they all fit together.  How cool is it that something as sciencey as atoms could be connected to what is thought to be a simple childhood toy? I love that!

The other thing I’m beginning to realize and love about studying philosophy is that philosophy is really just a combination of a bunch of other subjects.  I’m learning science, such as the atom being the building block of the universe.  I’m learning history about who believed what and whose names should be remembered.  I’ve learned some Nordic mythology.  There’s also a little psychology/sociology thrown in there.  Philosophy is like the king of learning, because it takes all these subjects and connects them.  Honestly, I believe philosophers are some of the greatest minds out there, because they aren’t just concerning themselves with a small window of study.  Even if they are focusing on one idea, that idea still combines multiple subjects! In most cases, anyway.

Philosophy hasn’t found a way to bore me yet, and the more I get into it, the more connections I make, and I feel like the more connections I make, the more my brain is working for itself and I’m growing.  It’s kind of great.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Chapter Three: The Myths


The letter Sophie receives in this chapter is mainly a story.  It gives a background to Nordic mythology, and tells a story about treacherous giants of Utgard trying to destroy the world by stealing Thor’s hammer.  When Thor’s right hand man, Loki comes to retrieve the hammer, the giants tell him that they will only return the hammer in exchange for Freyja, the goddess of fertility, marrying the king of the giants.  Heimdall has the idea that Thor should dress up as a bride and go to the giant’s kingdom himself.  Thor hesitantly agreed, knowing it was the only way to save the world.  He took Loki as his “bridesmaid” and Loki had to save them from having their cover blown many times.  Eventually, Thor gets the hammer back and good has conquered evil, just as it does in all good stories. 

That’s just a summary of the story explained in this chapter.  The point of explaining that was that mythology was created as an explanation.  Drought could be explained by the giants having Thor’s hammer.  And rain could be after he gets it back. 

Xenophanes, a philosopher mentioned in this chapter, was one of the people who said the gods were simply created in the image of man.   As this realization occurred, people began to see things a little differently.  Greek philosophers began to look for natural explanations to natural occurrences instead of supernatural myths or things like that.  This is all restated in the chapter.

What Sophie realizes from hearing all this is that people have a need for explanation.  Life exposes us to countless problems and we need to find ways to explain them to ourselves.  Why is the sky blue?  Why does it rain some days and not others?  We are constantly looking for answers, which again, is a recurring theme in philosophy as far as I can tell! 

Because of this need for explanation, Sophie wonders if she had grown up in the garden, unexposed to scientific explanations, what would she think about nature?  Would she come up with her own stories?

Now, what about me?  If I hadn’t ever gone to school, or ever been exposed to the news, or anything that could explain the mysteries of the world, what would I have grown to believe?  Would I really believe that the sky is blue because that is the color reflected by the molecules that make up air?  Or would I have come up with something like Nordic or Greek mythology?  Would I have even been able to think of God if I was never exposed to him?  For me, that’s a scary thought.  If I hadn’t of grown up the way I did, and been influenced the way I was, what on earth would I believe?  My way of thinking would be completely altered!  Not knowing things leads to explanations.  How do the presents get under the tree Christmas Eve?  Santa.  How does he fit down the chimney and get to all the houses?  Magic.  How do the Easter eggs get hidden?   The Easter bunny.  Now looking back, I know those things aren’t true, but at one point I believed them because that’s what I was told.  What if my parents hadn’t explained Santa to me?  What other crazy ideas could I have come up with for why the presents seemed to appear out of thin air?  It’s just crazy to me to think that everything we believe could be completely different if we hadn’t been told the things we were told or saw the things we’ve seen.  It’s mind blowing. Honestly.