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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 12, 2008
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
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
