DOUBT DAY TWO

-BEFORE CLASS-

After re-reading doubt, it seems like my first perspective changed. I thought Father Flynn was, in a way, innocent. But after reading I felt some what suspicious. Towards the end of the book when he calls the place because Sister Aloysius said she called someone earlier, even though she had lied, it seemed like he did do something. And if not to this kid, to some other kid before.

I think after reading a second time and coming in with the knowledge of the content, it makes more sense and there is this ability to be able to shadow or have some kind of reflectiveness of the characters and how they act and portray themselves.




-AFTER CLASS-

Wow. It made sense before, but then when coming to class, it made even more sense! The way it was said by our Professor made so much sense. That there is a need of friendship, but since students already have friendship, they need someone who will be able to lead them in the right direction. Students need someone who have more knowledge and wisdom so that they can be given advice from this person who is not a friend. This whole idea of that is like Sister Aloysius and when one thinks of it that way, it makes perfect sense.

DOUBT

Before I begin, I must say that reading Doubt, unlike all the other readings, read this in less than an hour! =D YEAH!



This was interesting. At first, oh man, Father Flynn is going to be a pedophile. Then as I continued reading, it felt like Sister Aloysius was attempting prove she was right by forcing, well, by persuading others that he was like this and like that with no evidence. She was wrong for doing that. I think if she was concerned she should have told someone with authority or she should have actually tried to find information about him but she lied about it all. I find it very ironic how she is a "Sister" who took oath but lied just so she could get what she wanted. That is selfish. Now I know we're all human and it happens to everyone, but if felt like she didn't even try to not lie, it came so easily to her because her goal was to get him out to go somewhere else.

The difference betweed Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn is that Sister Aloysius wants to be all mean, hard, and no compassion towards the children. Whereas Father Flynn wants to show kindness and compassion to them. I think it is significantly different because Father Flynn wants to have a relationship with the kids where they do not need to fear him. He wants to be like their "family or friend." But Sister Aloysius, to me, seems to want authority or power over them.

I felt like towards the end Sister Aloysius had that feeling of..."What have I done..?" But it could have been she saw or understood that what she did was wrong or that helping him to get a promotion was worst than having him working by her. I don't know.

It was interesting.



The bad sleep well. - Title of Kurosawa Film


I thought that was interesting quote, after the preface before the actual reading.

RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS

So...this past weekend Drake held an International Night, which was amazzing. So if you didn't go, you missed out.


ANYWAYS




During rehearsal one of the guys needed a tuner to tune his guitar, and by chance I had brought mine with me so that if I needed to tune my guitar, I would be able to. He left the room for some unknown reason and so I grabbed his guitar and tuned it for him. I know it was a huge risk. If I accidently pulled one of his strings out, I would've been SCREWED! But luckily, that did not happen. So when he came back he was amazed that his guitar was tuned. It was pretty funny at first because he was like....."WOW!!! I come back from the bathroom and my guitar is tuned. From now on when I need to tune my guitar, I'll just go to the bathroom." Yeah. It pretty much made my day. So he untuned his guitar and left to see if it would be tuned when he came back. This time I just left the tuner on his seat. I never got it back, but it's alright. I have three tuners at home. And I really do not know why I have three. I just do. =]


This past Friday, I had chem lab. Yeah, it pretty much sucks to have it Friday afternoon. But my friend bought the wrong graphing paper, so I went and ran some copies for her. I still cannot believe that they're so anal retentive about getting a specific graphing paper that we're only going to use once!


Anyways, I'm off to start another post for DOUBT!

The Right to Life

Yes, I think fetuses have a right to life. To say that they do not have a right to life would mean that we, who were once fetuses, had no right to life. And I think we do have a right to life, so that is why I think fetuses have a right to life. Since they do not have a voice to speak for themselves, I am sure that they would wish to not be aborted.

Since I do think they have a right to life, I do think they have a right to not be aborted. I only say that because if I were to say that they do not the right to be not aborted then I would be contradicting myself, in a way. Since having a right to life is being able to live and be born then having a right to not be aborted is the same thing. It is being able to live and be born. So to me, these two seem very similar.

If fetuses had the right to life but did not have the right to not be aborted, then that would make no sense. To say that they do not have a right to not be aborted would be taking away their right to life. So I do not see how one would be without the other. Also to say that fetuses have the right to not be aborted but do not have the right to life would also make no sense. Because not being aborted gives the ability to live life and they way I see the right to life, is being able to live life.


I sound really confusing right now, so I will just stop there. =]

YES WE CAN!

I just had to blog about this because I am extremely happy, so happy that my head hurts. America is ready for change and a change that will open eyes, not only for Americans but for people around the world, to see that race is not a factor of who is superior and who is inferior. But that the character of the individual speaks more than what any physical stature may bring. It is about time that America truly steps up to unite as one again. Because we are America, we are people who walk from all parts of the world. We are a FREE AMERICA! We are a CHANGING AMERICA! We are a UNITED AMERICA!!! IF WE STAND TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! OF COURSE...with morals and values we can change to be a better America for the future.


"We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change. We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics…they will only grow louder and more dissonant ……….. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - Obama




AMERICA....GET READY!
LET'S BE PART OF THE CHANGE!
Because WE CAN...=]

For Friday and Monday

For Friday

Well, to assume that we do not know if it's true that we have a right to have our promises kept, we probably do whatever it is those around us are doing. So I am not sure if wording it as a "group decision" would be the right way. But maybe more of an influence of some kind. For example if people are wearing a certain trend, it is most likely, that others will start wearing the same thing. Though it may be unconscious it seems more of an influence than a group decision. It may just be that I am not seeing the bigger picture, so please do open my eyes if I am not seeing it your way. I just think that if we are surrounded by those who do not know if it is true or not, then we, ourselves, will not know if it is true. I do think though that it COULD possibly be a good group discussion. If everyone were to get together and talk about what makes it true and what makes it not true there will always be a discussion where as making a decision would be hard because not everyone is going to agree. People, individuals as themselves, do not need to adhere to anything unless they believe in it or have some kind of passion for it.

To know that we have the right to have promises kept, to me, it seems like we also would have to adhere to the promises we say we will give to others. For if WE have the right to have OUR promises kept, WE must in turn keep OUR promises to others as well. To believe that WE should only have OUR promises kept would be a huge contradiction in this whole belief of promises.



For MONDAY

I'll be back. =]

For Monday & Wednesday

As the days pass by I feel like I forget more and more. Sometimes I think I do things, such as post, and log on and find that I haven't posted in a week. My brain seems to not be functioning. I guess I should check instead of relying on my thoughts of what I did and I did not do.


As for Monday:


Before class...

The only flaw that I see is the comprehension of Utilitarianism. I think people have preconceptions of what it is but do not fully understand what it is and how it works. To me, everyone needs to be on the same level or have the same thought of what Utilitarianism is that way when we choose a path to go on we will all be able to arrive at the same solution, though the path may differ.



After class...

Each person desires happiness therefore happiness is desirable for each individual.
Therefore happiness for all is desirable for all.

Utilitarianism is an act or policy which creates the most pleasure possible, or least pain, given all the options is moral, all others are immoral.

Flaws found within the class...
1] It disregards human nature. We don't value all humans equally.
2] Some disagree
3] It is hard to figure out what maximized utility.
4] It requires individuals who want to be moral to maximize utility even if they don't want to.
5] In practice it doesn't maximize utility
6] There is a lack of motivation


It seems to me that through reflecting upon these one can find that it seems as though the flaws are found more within the individual than within a group, or society.




W E D N E S D A Y !

So today we went over what we did on Monday but went more in depth. To me it seems like the idea of Utilitarianism is more of a life style than it is a theory. But I guess one could say that with all the theories. I just think that with this theory it is already stained in us and we simply do not realize it. Though we may think that we are more for the individual than as a whole, I think if we all searched deeper; we would find Utilitarianism engraved in our souls. We pick up trash and recycle because it is saving the planet, and in turn saving us who live within the planet. We do things that will help the environment because it will make us, people, happier with cleaner and fresher air to breathe. I guess what I am trying to say is that many people live by this utility and therefore I think it is more like a lifestyle than it is a theory.

So what I really got from today was the fact that utilitarianism is about determining what's moral and immoral not what motives out to be.

One thing that I could not stop thinking about was the example in class today by Lyn. If self-sacrificing, in order to save a group of people, was the thing to do, would it count as suicide? Since the person is thrusting themselves towards death in hopes of saving many more people it seems like a moral act, but at the same time it seems like suicide and I thought suicide was immoral? Or does it depend on the situation? I am guessing that it does.





Well, this blog is getting long so I'll cut it short. =]

Prep for Mill

BEFORE CLASS

Since Mill is talking about pleasures and pains for the common good of all people, I think it would be merely impossible for all to feel pleasure. But I do believe that most of the people can feel pleasure. I'm guessing that when it comes down to pleasure and pain, it will be based on how many people it affects and how many people feel pleasure or pain and not really everyone as a whole. But just certain people...? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm excited to read what Mill has to say and what some of his answers are. It is also nice knowing that everyone whom we have read he has also read. So we have, some-what, the same knowledge of different perspectives.



AFTER CLASS

People enjoy pleasure.
People dislike pain.

Why?

Simple, pleasure brings happiness and pain brings sadness. So of course people are going to want to be happy unless there is something seriously wrong with them. One thing that I question is are all pleasures moral? What if a group of people kill people who are different from them because it produces pleasure? Is that still moral? Because that seems to be very immoral.

What is it about an act that makes it moral and immoral? I found the question so eye opening. I think an act that is wanting to produce what is good for the common world is what makes it moral and an act that is wanting to produce what we call a vice is immoral. Since we already know, from readings before, that a vice is something that we do not want to acquire or have, to me, it makes sense to say that it is immoral. This makes me think about what makes something a virtue and what makes it not because it is like asking what is moral and what is immoral.

In class today when I heard that this is merely a person making a choice or choosing a path for a group of people, it made me think about how hard it would be and how stressful it would be. It seems hard to be able to come to one conclusion, but I think that in the end, what matters most is being able to have the most pleasure as a conclusion.

Random Acts of Kindness

Okay, so I found this one a little harder than the rest. Not only harder but it was a little out of my comfort zone.

There's this girl who is in all of my science classes and she is extremely annoying. She always has to say something smart and sometimes she just always has to say something even when it has nothing to do with what we're doing. She also likes to look down on other people. Anyways, now that you know a little bit of her character, I remember she came and sat at my table while I was studying because her friend, who is also my friend, was sitting with me. She was talking about how she failed the chem exam and that she had no idea what was going on and the notes made no sense to her. So I told her that if she needed help, that I could and would try to help her. So I gathered all of my old notes from Advanced Chemistry and gave them to her since they were over what we were doing in class. I gave her a few tips in writing out problems and finding out if things are soluable or not. But I guess, it felt nice being the bigger person. Not the better person, but it was nice being able to sit aside differences and just help her.


So today, I went to ISU to go see some of my friends. That was a lot of fun. But it was around dinner time and I was getting ready to by something to eat and the guy infront of me didn't bring enough cash, so he called his friend to come by and loan him some many. I felt bad, so I pain in the extra $5 and bought my stuff quickly and left. So I never got a chance to see the expression on his face. But I'm sure it was a good one. To me, money isn't an issue. If I have cash on me I'm willing to help out if it's for something like this or if it's something that is for a good cause. Usually though, I'm broke but when I do have money I don't mind helping out a brotha or a sistah in need.

Kant II

Sorry for not being able to post about Kant for day 1 and for the prep. But I do believe that contradiction comes along with a lot of arguments and a lot of frustration.

Doctrine of Right

Chapter 1: How to Have Something External as One's Own

The thought of property and ownership came to my mind. Only because property or things around us, are external to us. Which was what I linked with the title of chapter 1. After reading it seems like Kant has put a lot of labels on things such as the different kinds of possessions and the things around us that we can say is our own. It seems to me that Kant was explaining things that belong to us and things that belong to others. I understood this first part of his explanation with the example of the apple and the land but then as I read forward, I could not make a connection with the subtitles and the content.

Chapter 2: How to Acquire Something External

This makes me think of taking hold of things around us. Like how to get that ball over there or grasp onto what is around me. That second sentence to the first paragraph of the chapter confuses me. My question is, what act establishes a right to something? To me as I read, I feel like he is saying nothing is originally ours, but we must go and acquire whatever it is that we want. That makes sense. To have experience of somethings gives an acquire taste of it whereas if we never exposed to such a thing we would not want it making it not originally ours but something to acquire. When he speaks about obligations, "On Property Right", I can only think of people or things that have a mind can feel obligation. So when he says that 'it is already under obligation for him', is he referring to the object having obligation to its owner or is he saying that others who want to own it feel obligation to not take it because it already has a rightful owner? For section II of chapter 2, I am amazingly confused. I do not know if it is because I am trying to hard to understand or if I am not trying hard enough to understand. I understand when he says in one sentence the way contract right works, but when he further goes on about contract right I get lost with the labels.

Chapter 3: On Acquisition That Is Dependent Subjectively upon the Decision of a Public Court of Justice

The only thing that comes to my mind would be legal things, legal documents...etc. Is Kant saying that a court is always moral even when a person who 'administers justice' is immoral? Just a thought, a question, that came to mind. To my understand he just goes on to speak of the different contracts, how to acquire and the transition.


Part two: Public Right

I feel like he is now going on to explain things that occur in a society or in big groups, like a nation. He further explains the different rights but I cannot say that I fully have a grasp of each concept. Hopefully by tomorrow, while being in class, that will change.


There was a lot that troubled me but the ones that I have written out here, are probably the most troubling. I find it interesting though that, to me, he is very neat. I say this only because he has labels for the different ways things are. So being able to have those labels for reference with an explanation with what they are and how they are used is a lot of help in understanding the concept. I think without his explanation I would be more lost.

What Makes A Virtue A Natural Virtue?

Some questions that I had in mind before class were:

Why is the lack of hatred or anger moral weakness? [3.3.3.7]
What is the difference between natural abilities and natural virtues?
What is the difference between natural and artificial virtues?
If having less is bad, than why is it bad to have too much? [section 2]




Thoughts after class:

So today was different, but a good different. We should have days where we all come in as someone else. Just a thought nothing more. It would be interesting.

Okay, so after being able to ask Hume, himself, questions it made a lot of my questions before class somewhat understandable. So a natural ability is something we naturally do, like sing or eat, so that would mean that a natural virtue is something that just comes to us without having to think about it or without having to cultivate it, right? If that is what a natural virtue is, does that mean that an artificial virtue is produced within a society more so than an individual? The way I am seeing natural virtue is based more on the individual because it would be difficult to find a group of people who have this ‘natural virtue’ without thinking about what is a virtue and what is a vice. For instance, one cannot achieve justice without having a society, even if that means the society has only two people. How can a person have such artificial virtues if it is only with him/herself? So I guess my other question is, are artificial virtues produced for the public good and only the public good? Writing this blog just aroused that question.

If natural virtues are things that do not need to be thought about, what makes them desirable if one has to think of such things? If one desires it, are they not thinking of it? And if they are thinking then it is no longer a natural virtue…? Or is it the fact that when one ‘does’ what is a natural virtue, it does not have to be thought about? So pondering and wanting what is a natural virtue is not actually committing the natural virtue because doing the virtue is not being done. Okay, that probably made no sense because I just got done rereading it and it just sounded like I went in circles. Sorry.

Hm, I sound a lot like Socrates. Always asking nonstop questions.

Okay, I am going to stop here because my brain feels like it can no longer function.

Random Acts of Kindness

Not anonymous

My best friend, P, goes to the U of I. He called me the other day asking for performers for this party and I could tell by the tone of his voice that he was extremely stressed because he was dealing with all these other problems. So he just pretty much blabbered for hours about how he needed to find performers quick because the party was coming up in October. I remember he kept telling me not to help him because I was busy with Drake and personal issues, so I told him that I would not do anything. But when I got off the phone with him, I quickly called and emailed some people that I knew who were performers, whether they were dancers, singers, etc because I consider myself a performer so one can kind of say that I somewhat have connections. I was planning on being one of the performers to surprise him, but I just had too much stuff going on so that was why I tried to find groups for him. They eventually contacted him and before he knew it he had a handful of performers. He later found out through one of the groups performing that they got the message from me. So he eventually found out. But it felt nice to be able to help him even though he is two hours away. He has always been the one who helped me so it felt good to be able to help him with something that I was familiar with.


Anonymously done
So I honestly do not know who this affects, that is why it is towards a stranger. So usually after I use the pop or snack machines I leave a dollar or spare change in the machine for the next person. I got the idea from when I was at the mall. It was during the summer and I went to go get some Lipton Ice Tea and I was getting ready to whip out my money and I noticed that there was a dollar in the machine already. So like a kid, I was totally happy and telling everyone about it. It just made my day because it was a beautiful surprise. So whenever I use the machines at Drake I always try to leave something behind and hopefully the person who uses it after me does the same. Then everyone can be a kid again, even if the means only for a second, and if not a kid at least have a smile. So it is kind of like the movie Pay It Forward. Do something nice for someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, and yeah, it just goes on and on. A beautiful cycle of kindness is what I call it.

Hume: Day II

Well, I am happy that we discussed about what role reason plays. I think I have a better understanding of that now because of talking about it in class. So reason is like a tool that assists us whether a goal(s) is/are going to give us happiness or not. It gives us the irrational and the unreasonable aspect…? I then asked myself a question and pondered heavily on trying to find an answer. How are our emotions working in this whole process? My answer is…emotions pick things up from our surroundings, so sympathy kicks in and we get a transfer of emotions. [if you have a better answer, please do let me know, please and thank you. ^-^] And with sympathy comes the behavior changes or change of the thought of the world. Can that somehow alter our goals as well?

By chance if we did not have reason would be able to accomplish our goals with the satisfaction, or pleasure, in the end? Or would be have to try all our goals to find out which one gives us pleasure?

I'll come by again with quotes when I have my book on hand.

Pride and Humility. Love and Hate.

I liked this reading and found it to be so real. One could say that it hit me dead center. Only because I never thought this hard about why our moods change because of our surroundings. It is truly interesting.

These things that we feel because of others happen so easily that sometimes we are not aware of it, at least I know I am not. So when reading it opened my eyes to see that we are like that and it made me thing extensively. Why do emotions of our surroundings have an influence on how we feel? And what is the difference from loving an object with on feeling and loving an object that can feel and think? What is the difference with hate?

2.1.9.1 “It must be some way associated with us in order to touch our pride.”
This quote strikes me because it is true with everything and anything. If one does not have a feeling of attachment to something then it has no meaning. Therefore how can we feel pain or pleasure? In order for something to make us feel it needs to have a meaning for ourselves. But why is it that it must have an attachment with us? It makes me wonder because I do not care much for football, so if someone were to tell me that playing football was against the law, I would not care but why is that? What is the true reason behind that besides the fact that it holds no influence on my life or character? It makes me wonder even more about the human mind and how one day it can mean something to us and then the next day it is a forgotten memory.

Friendship and Virtues???

Okay. So the reading just did not make any sense at all. But here I go.

From my understanding Aristotle is saying that the closer one is to being virtuous the closer one is to having a fulfilling life. With that said I think he is saying that being virtuous is something that should come with ease. One should not have to think so extensively hard to know what is appropriate and what is not. Being virtuous should be done with ease. To my understanding, Aristotle seems to be more in an individual.

As for Doris to me when I read the article it was about the individual as well, but I also got an understanding of it as being within a group as well. An individual can work hard but it may not be enough in some situations. And situations determine behavior. Sometimes, depending on the situation, pressure leaves us, or an individual, to give in. With all the examples given like that different tests that were done to see the behaviors of individuals and within a group, it seems like sometimes the individual is somehow influenced as a group and not so much an individual. So a virtuous person to Doris is someone who recognizes the facts but does not stay in a situation where he/she/they can be not virtuous.

This was to my understanding. But I could be wrong.

Phronesis

I have come to a conclusion that after class I find a better understanding of what we read. I would have to say that it is due to the fact that we are able to talk in groups and get different perspectives of the reading besides getting only our own.

I found that Hursthouse's tone was very angry. Maybe that is just how I read it. But I think what ties this and Aristotle together is the fact that practical wisdom, phronesis, is needed in order to have virtue or be virtuous. Without the practical wisdom there would be no determination in what is appropriate and what is not. Which also goes is without it there is no way to determine what is good and what is wrong.

At first I thought that Aristotle was stating that only with age can one gain experience or knowledge. But after discussing it with my group, they had a different view. Their view was that Aristotle was just stating that with age comes more experience because they're older so have lived longer than the young. After hearing that, it made me think of it rather differently. I suppose that is true. But let's to say that there are 'older individuals' who have not experienced much due to the lack of wanting to try, that would be different then. Not every old person is wise or is full of knowledge but we could say the same for the young.

I have come to a conclusion that if we do not know that we need virtues then how can we become virtuous? In order to have virtue or be virtuous we must have phronesis, since it is what enables and triggers us to have practical wisdom, and with practical wisdom come the ability to decide what to do and what not to do.

Virtues?

So today in class, which was really interesting, I could not help but to think about what makes something appropriate and what makes something inappropriate?? That lingered for a while because since people are different and have many perspectives the level of what makes something appropriate and not is different. So it would be, basically, one's own preference. But when looked as a whole, does society establish what is and what is not? I guess I find myself troubled with the thought of society always establishing what is and what is not. 

Well, back to virtues, when I read I felt like Aristotle was trying to make it sound like it is simple to accomplish or achieve but it really is not that easy. I suppose that having 'the characteristics' that he was giving are good to have, but if it means to have them all, and must have all in order to have a fulfilling life, I am not to sure that I can agree. For sure I think one can have a fulfilling life with most of them, but not all at the same time just because that is almost like being perfect. Or like a robot who can generate when to feel what and when not to feel and that crosses my mind as something that will be very hard to reach. 

But for the most part, he makes a lot of sense. =]

it's FRIDAY! YAY

Goals

Honestly, I skipped the last post. Wrote it but need to find it in my documents. But before I do,  I would like to state my own goal. My goal, for myself, is to be able to find who I am as an individual, which leads to happiness and knowledge of knowing who I am and power of being able to control what I do with my life. To clearly say that there is one goal or goals for everyone under the sun, is rather hard to say. I guess, what I am trying to say is happiness, is nice. But I do not see it as something to accomplish. I just want to be happy without setting a goal to be happy. I want to know things and broaden my mind, but some days I just want to be satisfied knowing what I already know. I want power over my guitar and piano but not over a person. Yeah. 

In a way, I think we all want to find who we are and what our purpose is under the sun and moon. We do not just go to college to go but to find, search, and discover what we are truly made of. It is like one of those days where one sits out or takes a walk to reevaluate or reflect on how far one has come and how far one wants to go in life. Maybe it only happens once in a while, but when it does we all know we are unmasking the individual within ourselves. Ever questioned who you were? Or who you want to be? At the end of the day, we are living and searching to be who we have always been, ourselves.  

So about today, one thing that did make my day, was the kid dancing outside. Thanks. That was great. Busting out those moves on a rainy day. Ain't nothin' better than to be a gangstah dancing on a wet walkway. =]

Nice. 

Plato - Gorgias

I was thinking that maybe I should start blogging stuff before I come to class instead of having everything ready but blogging after class. Hm. I will try to think intensively on what to do. But for now, here are the quotes I chose from the reading last night, and here are the reasons, parts of it.

"I'm talking about the ability to use the spoken word to persuade - to persuade the jurors in the courts, the members of the Council, the citizens attending the Assembly* -in short, to win over any and every form of public meeting of the citizen body. Armed with this ability, in fact, the doctor would be your slave, the trainer would be yours to command, and that businessman would turn out to be making money not for himself, but for someone else for you with your ability to speak and to persuade the masses (p. 13).” – Gorgias

This quote from the book summarizes the argument that Gorgias has for the superiority of rhetoric because he is stating that being able to persuade people will give one what they want. The ability to say things and things that can and will persuade people is a way of being on top of people, not necessarily looking down on them, but being able to control them in a way. If one is able to persuade another with words than, in those terms, is almost like being able to control their minds and their way of thinking.


“A rhetorician, then, isn’t concerned to educate the people assembled in lawcourts and so one about right and wrong; all he wants to do is persuade them. I mean, I shouldn’t think it’s possible for him to get so many people to understand such important matters in such a short time (p. 17).” – Socrates to Gorgias

Socrates, to me, is very satirical. He puts things and says things and holds the mirror for one to see and reveals, in a way, how one is. By all means, it might not be how they are in everyone’s eyes, but in his own eyes. I guess, that’s what I am trying to say. Also this statement is pretty much stating that in order to persuade people using rhetoric then one does not need to educate or inform someone or someones because persuading them is getting what you want where as educating them may get something else.

“What about training other people in rhetoric, too? Should we attribute this ability to you (p. 6)?” – Socrates

This is just another quote that I’d like to add because I interpreted it as him saying to Gorgias that, since you [Gorgias] is the expert train others to be like you so the world can be filled with more rhetoricians who only persuade and not educate people into the beliefs of your own. But I could be all wrong.

As for Polus and Socrates, that is something else. I am rather confused with Polus’s argument. So I would prefer to not swing that way.

Harmer or harmed?

A simple question with manny details entacted. I must say though, this is quite the question to ask someone and stun them with many wells, and ifs and maybes. I for one have many answers.

Call me evil and call me rude but if I were to be one over the other I would be the harmer. Only because I cannot deal with being hurt, and when I mean hurt, physically hurt. But then again, I would never be able to find myself to cut someone up or stab someone to death. But I would rather be doing the cutting then be recieving the cuts. Let's to say that if I were to be the harmer than I would feel some kind of guilt, let's to say that I would have no guilt, and with no guilt I would be the harmer still. Easyily answered.

If the situation was being the bully by using rude words or be bullied, I would be prefer to be bullied. To explain my answer, it would be merely because I do not really take into account what other people have to say about me, especially if they do not even know me. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words, nah, they are truly something different. So in this case I would be bullied only because I know myself well enough to know that the thoughts of others have nothing to do with who I am as a person or how I live as an individual.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if being harmed is only by words, then I choose to be harmed. If it is with physical pain and with no guilt entact with me after I harm someone, then I would be the harmer.

Morals & Ethics day II

It has been exactly one hour and forty minutes since I have had ethics/philosophy 090 and the essence of the class is still very strong. That smell has been opened my mind to the idea of morals and ethics being the survival kit of society. As time passes by society and its casualties definitely shift from one idea to another and because of this is it possible to say that morals and ethics, themselves, shift as well? Or can one say and have evidence to prove that morals and ethics remain constant in an ever-changing world? How does one choose what is morally right and what is ethically wrong? For morals and ethics truly depends on an individual, does it not? I can say that, as an individual with many morals and beliefs, what I find morally wrong may be morally right to the person beside me. To one person having one girl/boyfriend is morally right, being faithful and having commitment vowed to one soul, but to the next person it maybe morally disrupting at the thought of only having one to be faithful to. One may not be willing to say out loud that having more than one is morally right, but in the mind, where the deepest of secrets lay, one can definitely say that it is morally right. On the other hand this is only an example and a rather simple example compare to the more horrific and gruesome examples, such as genocide, war and abortion.

Truthfully, the more important people make a topic, for themselves, the harder it is to come to one conclusion on what is morally right and what is ethically wrong. When there are more minds in the discussion it is definitely harder to agree and come to the same standing point. Compromises can happen but do they really happen without having a worst turnout?

Completely true it is that morals and ethics shape the individ- in individual. For without them would we even be able to do and see things the way we do now? Stop to think one moment, strip away your morals and what do you have? A human being who is living passively just like everyone else. We would all be the same; maybe not living the same lives but not having a clue on what is wrong and what is right; the idea of what should be done and what should not be done. Let me use an example from the biblical stories of the Christians. If Adam and Eve, being the perfect beings and made in the image of God, had not taken a bite out of the apple, would we be perfect beings as well? Take away the serpent that represents not only Satan but poisons of what is morally wrong and one has two perfect humans with no care about morals because they have no idea what is wrong and what is right. The self-consciousness is not there and overlooking for flaws is not possible without knowing what is right from wrong. We would be even more chaotic with our lives because not having morals and ethics is equivalent to not knowing what is wrong from right.

Maybe I am wrong with my idea and it just sounds right as of now because it is in my own thinking, my own liking. So change my mind with your thoughts and opinions.

Is it worth the sting?

I started this blog because another student in my ethics/philosophy course invited me and I thought that I might as well as make a blog now rather than making one later.

This class will be interesting and I am excited to see what is to come. I have a feeling that this class will be time consuming; whether it be in a good or bad way will depend on the individual. More on the good side for me since I tend to find myself in awe of philosophy.

Well, it is getting late. 

I'll blog some more later. =]