January 19th, 2017
I am excited to question my own morals. I'd like to develop more insight into my own ideas as well as those of opposing ideologies to fully develop myself as a thinker. I'd also like to look into the changing philosophies of old and see how we as a society have changed in our thinking, what has stayed the same, and what has come full circle. However, I am worried that people may feel pressured into agreeing with each other despite having an opposing opinion and thus create an echo chamber.
To me, the phrase "The unexamined life is not worth living" means that a life in which you do not know why you do anything just that you have done something is not a real life. To understand why you've done anything is to understand yourself and to understand your goals. When you set goals and hit each one, you gain a sense of self-fulfillment which will make your life prosperous.
January 20th, 2017
- Be curious.
- Be skeptical.
- Never stop searching for wisdom.
- Analyse not just the question but what makes up the question.
- Put the evidence together.
- Explore all sides of the argument.
- Keep your beliefs flexible, do not become close-minded to new evidence or other beliefs.
- A simple explanation is OK.
- Do not be a hypocrite.
- Do not just live by these rules, fully accept these rules.
Many of the philosophers of the time were canonized saints.
I would have fallen in line with the teachings of Buddha because I tend to be in the middle of Confuacious and Laozi. I believe there needs to be structure in government similar to Confuscious and that you should allow fate to lead your life, but that does not mean the government has to follow traditional roles nor that you should prevent yourself from learning and obtaining knowledge. I appreciate the self-help message of Buddhism and its stress on becoming aware of the world around you.
I believe Socrates would define wisdom as constantly seeking knowledge. It's to be open minded of other possibilities and know you're ignorant but actively try to end your ignorance.
This idea can be applied in my life through research. Although I have my own personal beliefs and personal biases, I can examine why I believe in these ideas or feel this way and then look into why others feel differently than me. This way I can end my own ignorance about the other side, understand myself better, and perhaps change my mind on the better tactic.
I believed that Sarah Palin was a good candidate in 2008 because my dad is a republican. Since I was too young to create my own opinions, the sociological effect of my family and surrounding area (which was conservative) dictated what I believed.
No, I do not believe that the basis of belief is enough to justify a belief. You must have a more concrete reason to better understand why you believe this and what it entails. Without a strong central understanding of what you're saying, you cannot live by your mottos.
I tend to align mostly with Empiricism on the questionnaire but in reality I feel more drawn to the idea of Epistemological Realitivism. I am a strong believer in science and factual based evidence from studies that help form my beliefs, however, many people do not have these resources. So while I can base my beliefs off of this evidence, others have not seen it. Thus, even if they themselves are empiricists or skeptics, they themselves may not agree with me because they have no access to these studies nor the daily experiences I myself have or others have. Thus no universal truth can be reached by men.
My answers were fairly consistent despite a couple contradictions.
1. Morality of abortion- I was originally strictly against abortion, however, after being presented with several "what if" questions, I loosened my objection towards it. While I personally disagree with the medical treatment in cases of "mistakes," I recognize it as a choice, a medical treatment, and a form of near mercy for victims of unspeakable and unimaginable events.
2. The psychological positives of never questioning your beliefs is the lack of moral and existential crises. Often times religion is used as the best example of this. The idea of an afterlife and a protector is very comforting, however, when one questions this they are forced to face questions such as what happens after death, who decides what is right and wrong, has what we do for religion being justifiable or simply death for the sake of death, and other terrible thoughts. This ignorance allows us to live comfortably.
3. Yes, I believe questioning your believes helps develop you into a more thoughtful and understanding person. It allows you to think of other people equally and to understand your own beliefs.
While I believe the final product is solid, his methods were a bit too far for me. I believe doubting beliefs are important for self growth and growth as a society, but reaching for a Matrix theory pushes you beyond wise and into the realm of insanity. By reaching so far it felt as if he discredited himself for many people despite the importance on his final statement. On top of that, it truly does not answer the question about others' existence. While we can confirm our existence, by thinking we have the ability to create people including Descartes himself. It only proceeds to create doubt that everyone around you is a real concrete figure and not a figment your distorted mind has created.
Biologically, I believe it is to make us procreate. However, that is only for sexual attraction. There are different types of love and the more emotional connection that is important in a romantic relationship certainly has a more psychological reason. I believe that Plato's story isn't as funny as it seems. While obviously we weren't four armed creatures, I do believe we are searching for someone to complete us. Someone we can live with in unity.
It means that once we find what works, we stick to it. It is the cause of stereotypes, wars, but also bathing, celebrations, naming, and religion. I agree with the statement although I disagree with it morally. I believe that things and people are subject to change and thus the same feelings towards an object are not appropriate. While custom tends to lead humanity, it must change with times.
I believe it's important to look to the past to grasp the ideas that lead to modern scientific discoveries and ideas that have yet to be answered. It's interesting to see people like Descartes and Humes who hold similar ideas to those that influence sci-if movies and conspiracies today for the same reason they preach we can't trust patterns. They say because it happened in the past, it won't necessarily happen in the future, but their thoughts have been echoed today, thus having what happened in the past repeat in the future. This to me shows that while what they say is understandable, in the end they're making the simple human error of overthinking. So while reading their thoughts is an interesting and important part of understanding our modern philosophies and sciences, they hold little concrete substance.
Knowledge is ideas strengthened by experience. This is a mixture of Humes and Plato through combining Plato's allegory of the cave to Hume's ideas on customs and definition of an idea/impression. I believe knowledge must be gained through constant experimentation and testing, to know the world you must get out and see it yourself. These experiences can then be used to make predictions for the future, as seen in scientific laws. However, these experiences are open to change as more is learned about them, I.e. just because a man stole your purse does not mean every man will steal your purse.
I'd place myself around an 8. While I refrain from the contradiction, I could put more thought into my points, more research, word them better to make them not quite so long to get to the point, and of course research the other side to have a valid argument against them.
I am having a harder time grasping everything because while they're argumentavely valid and some even a bit logically valid, that doesn't mean they are valid or invalid. It'll just take a little more practice for me to feel comfortable with my skills.
Yes, my math teacher used to have us do logic puzzles in middle school.
I mostly experience inconsistency, straw man arguments, ad hominems, and argument from authority. I'm most guilty of using the straw man argument. I try to remind myself to look from different angles but on certain topics I can never seem to change my mind or open up. For example, I attempt to understand homophobia and the causes behind it, especially religion, but when people openly express their feelings towards the LGBT community, I find it hard to see them as anything but said homophobe and can never bring myself to even try and see where they're coming from.