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. 

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 :)

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.

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.