Response to "Relativity of Intentions" by Jenna O'Connor

In this post, I will be responding to Jenna O'Connor's post, entitled "Relativity of Intentions"
http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/2013/05/relativity-of-intentions.html?showComment=1368407440883#c1126788121201147459

In regard to Jenna's post, I do not agree with the conclusions she makes. Her first conclusion is that "we as humans always think that we have good intentions when setting out to do something." I believe that this is true most of the time, but I do not believe that this is always the case. I believe that someone can do something and be completely aware that they do not have good intentions in doing the action. For example, many people often do things solely to benefit themselves, at the expense of others. I think they are fully aware that their intentions were not good.

In regard to Jenna's last question, "...do all good intentions lead to horrific consequences?" my answer is no, not all good intentions lead to horrific consequences. How could that be true? Everyday people do things with good intentions that do not lead to horrific consequences. If someone drops something, and I pick it up for them, I had good intentions, and it did not lead to any horrific consequences. I realize that there are plenty of times when good intentions do lead to horrific consequences. However, that is definitely not always the case. 

Response to "Who is your favorite?" by Deven Philbrick

In this post, I will be responding to Deven Philbrick's post, entitled "Who is your favorite?"
http://skepticalphilosophernohn.blogspot.com/2013/05/who-is-your-favorite.html

Like Deven, my favorite theorist that we have studied this semester is also Marx. Darwin is also one of my favorites. Having only read Marx's Communist Manifesto, and having read it 4 years ago, I also did not know everything about Marx and his theories. However, I learned a lot more about Marx's theories this semester. While I was forming my own theory of human nature, I found that I kept agreeing with Marx's theories more than any other theorist. Overall, like Deven, I would also probably consider myself a Marxist.

Response to "A Response to A Conglomoration of Posts and General Concepts" by Elizabeth Pitroff

In this post, I will be responding to Elizabeth Pitroff's post, entitled "A Response to A Conglomoration of Posts and General Concepts"
http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-response-to-conglomoration-of-posts.html

Elizabeth, I really enjoyed your post about the addition of religious figures into the theories of various philosophers. I feel like the addition of God into philosophical theories negatively affects the credence of the arguments. I also find Darwin's theory the most valid due to the lack of credit he gives to a God. I really liked your example of eating a salad and discovering the worms to describe how you feel about theories that include religious figures. I loved this example because it describes perfectly how I feel about it, too. I couldn't agree more with your post.

Response to "Discussion-based Topic" by Elizabeth Pitroff

In this post, I will be responding to Elizabeth Pitroff's post, entitled "Discussion-based Topic"
http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/2013/05/discussion-based-topic.html

In regard to Elizabeth's question at the end of her post, I also, like Elizabeth, strive for academic excellence. However, I do not feel as though my goal of getting good grades is hindering my desire to gain knowledge. I do realize that some students could care less about what they are learning, they only care about getting good,  or at least decent, grades. However in my case, I care about actually gaining knowledge and enjoy my classes. I think one of the reasons why some students only care about grades is because of the way students get rewarded for them. For example, students with good grades can graduate with honors, get recognition for making the Dean's List, and receive scholarships among other benefits for their academic excellence. Although I enjoy these benefits, I care more about gaining knowledge than simply getting good grades.

Creationists' Opinion on the Fate of Humanity

Question:  Do creationists agree or disagree with the theory that the sun and planets will eventually get too cold to support life?

Although I am not positive, I am guessing that if creationists do accept this theory, they probably claim that it is God's decision to end humanity in this way. Some religious groups believe that when the world does end, they will be saved by God because they were faithful to him, and they will be spared from the dreadful fate of humanity. Overall, I think that even if creationists accept this theory, they will just twist it into something religious, and claim that it was all God's decision.

Response to "Memes to Genes?" by Corbin Brassard

In this post, I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post, entitled "Memes to Genes?"
http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/memes-to-genes.html?showComment=1367204638809#c265019588609016359

In his post, Corbin ponders whether memes facilitate natural selection. He asks, "Are those who don't follow memes weeded out?" Although I am also not positive what the answer is to this question, I do feel like memes can at least somewhat facilitate natural selection. I feel like there are some memes that could cause people to be "weeded out" if they do not follow them. For example, say there's a group of people living together in the same community. If every person in this group spoke a common language, except for one person, that one person would probably have a much harder time surviving. If the person cannot learn this language, and they cannot communicate with the rest of the group, they have a greater chance of dying, and therefore not passing on their genes to offspring. This would also be true if the group were in a life or death situation in which the group could not save everyone, because the group would be more likely to save the people who they can easily communicate with. Therefore, the people who do not speak the common language of the group, or do not follow the meme, die and do not pass on their genes. As previously stated, I  am in no way claiming to have the right answer to this question; however, I do believe that memes can, at least somewhat, facilitate natural selection.

Response to Deven Philbrick's post, "Secular Rebuttal to Existentialism"

In this post, I will be responding to Deven Philbrick's post, entitled "Secular Rebuttal to Existentialism."
http://skepticalphilosophernohn.blogspot.com/2013/04/secular-rebuttal-to-existentialism.html?showComment=1366599148724

I agree with Deven that meaning can come from within ourselves, and that subjective meaning is just as valuable as external meaning. This way of thinking, rather than suicide, seems to be the best solution, in my opinion, to an existential crisis. I also thoroughly enjoyed the video that Deven posted of A.C. Grayling discussing the topic. I loved how Grayling turned a rather depressing topic into something optimistic and inspirational. Like Deven, I also agree with the aphorism, "The meaning of life is to make life meaningful," which Grayling mentions in his discussion. Overall, I am very happy that Deven posted the video of A.C. Grayling, because I was not familiar with him before watching the video, and I loved listening to his take on the topic.

Are There Contemporary Existentialists?

Questions:  Who are some contemporary existentialists? Has existentialism decreased significantly in popularity? Why or why not?

After doing some research, I have concluded that there are not many, if any, famous contemporary existentialists. Based on what I found, the most recent group of famous existentialists became popular in the 1930's and 1940's. These existentialists included Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de  Beauvoir. My research also led me to conclude that existentialism has indeed decreased pretty significantly in popularity over the years. One article I read compared existentialism to psychoanalysis because they both were very popular at one time and then decreased, almost fading away entirely, over time. If anyone else has any further input on this topic, I would be very interested in learning more.

Response to Siearra's post "Response to 'Rejecting Sex Drive' - Corbin Brassard"

In this post, I will be responding to Siearra's post, which was a response to Corbin's post, entitled "Rejecting Sex Drive."

Siearra's post :  http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/04/response-to-rejecting-sex-drive-corbin.html?showComment=1365996834227#c188775564546556819

Corbin's post :  http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/rejecting-sex-drive.html?showComment=1365997031941#c8836843041833459178


Siearra, I agree with everything you said in your post. I agree that sex is a powerful influence on our daily actions, but is not as powerful as Freud suggested. I also agree with you that society puts a negative connotation on sex because it is portrayed as vulgar, and that it might change to a more positive connotation if it were portrayed as more natural. However, this also makes me think about the whole double-standard that women face when it comes to promiscuity. We all know that men are commonly praised for having multiple sexual partners, whereas women are commonly viewed in a much more negative way when they have multiple sexual partners. This makes me wonder, could this double-standard stem from the fact that men, due to evolutionary factors, are more likely to have multiple sexual partners in order to increase procreation, and the passing-on of their genes? Is this perhaps why men are praised for having many sexual partners? In addition, from an evolutionary perspective, men discourage women from having multiple sexual partners in order to help ensure their paternity, and that it will be their genes that are passed on, not someone else's. Could this be why women are viewed negatively for having multiple sexual partners? Or, does this double-standard just exist because society is flawed? Personally, I think this is very interesting to think about. I am very interested in other people's opinions on this topic.

Freud v Jung v Adler

Question:  Which psychoanalytic theory is most popular today—Freud’s, Jung’s or Adler’s, and why?

In my opinion, Adler's psychoanalytic theory is most popular today because it is not as far-fetched as Freud's and Jung's theories are. Many people believe that Freud's theory is too focused on sex. Although I find Freud's theory very interesting, I do agree that it is a little implausible. It also cannot be proved, and I do not believe that it is applicable to everyone.  Personally, I believe that Jung's theory focuses too much on spirituality. I also do not agree with Jung's claim that everyone shares a collective unconscious. I favor Adler's theory that everyone strives for self-realization and that people "strive for his own perfection in his own way" (Pojman 178). Although Freud's theory is very well known, I am fairly confident that Adler's theory is more popular, due to the significant decrease in popularity of Freud's theory. However, I am not quite sure whether Adler's or Jung's theory is more popular today. I think that Adler's theory is more plausible than Jung's but that is just my opinion. I am very interested in what other people's opinions are on this question. 

Marx's Base-Superstructure Model Applied to China

Question:  What are some of the ways in which China’s politics, religion, mass media and education reflect its means of production?

In class, we discussed some of the ways in which the United States' politics, religion, mass media and education reflects its means of production. This lead me to wonder about some of the ways in which China's politics, religion, mass media and education reflect its very different means of production. I'm guessing that the mass media and education in China is more regulated by the government than in the United States. However, I know that China is not a truly communist society. I am sure many aspects of Chinese society would be quite a bit different if China truly were a completely communist society. If anyone else knows more about this topic than me, I would be very interested in hearing their thoughts on this question. 

Response to "Nature vs Nurture?" by Corbin Brassard

In this blog, I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post entitled "Nature vs Nurture?"
http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/nature-vs-nurture.html

In his post, Corbin points out how Marx's quote "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness" seems to relate to the nature vs nurture debate. According to the quote, Marx would have sided with the nurture side of the debate, claiming that society shaped people, rather than people shaping society. I was excited upon reading Corbin's post because I was thinking the same exact thing when I first read the quote and analyzed its meaning. Like Corbin, I also find it very interesting to see how these topics tie together. 


Although I agree that Marx's quote can be interpreted as his answer to the nature vs nurture debate, I also interpreted the quote as Marx's description of his superstructure/house model of society, which we looked at in class. In this case, the social being that Marx is referring to would be the bottom level of the house, or the means of production. The consciousness would be the components of the top level of the house, like education, politics, mass media and religion. Marx believed that the means of production of a society shaped the people's views when it came to education, politics, religion and mass media. In turn, he believed that these views supported, rather than determined, the means of production of the society. 

Human Persons V. Quasi-Persons

Question:  Does Miller believe that quasi-persons should be entitled to the same moral status as human persons?

After our discussions in class, I have concluded that although Miller believes that human persons should treat quasi-persons with as much respect and justice as possible, he ultimately would argue that human persons are entitled to slightly more moral status than quasi-persons. Miller believes that moral status depends on the amount of certain characteristics an animal has. Humans are at the top of this scale, above quasi-persons, because they score slightly higher than quasi-persons on certain characteristics such as intelligence and the ability to know right from wrong. Therefore, Miller ultimately believes that human persons have a higher moral status than quasi-persons. For example, Miller believes that if faced with the decision to save either a human person or a quasi-person, we should choose to save the human person first. However, he acknowledges that being faced with such a decision is extremely unlikely. Therefore, he believes that unless we are faced with a decision such as the one stated above, we should treat quasi-persons such as apes and cetaceans with as much respect as we treat other humans with. He also believes that if our human interests were ever to collide with those of quasi-persons, we should be as impartial as possible when making a decision. 

Response to "What Can Change the Culture?" by Siearra Papuga

In this post, I will be responding to Siearra Papuga's post, entitled "What Can Change the Culture?"
http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-can-change-culture.html?showComment=1364182020181#c2757188024418753316


I completely agree with your post. People can say that it is wrong to cause suffering to sentient nonhuman animals, but most of them will continue to eat meat if they already do. I agree with you that this is because meat-eating is a huge part of our culture. Before we had found other ways to get the protein that meat provides us with, like protein supplements, meat-eating was a lot more justifiable. People used to eat meat because it was necessary for their survival. Now, it is no longer necessary for survival. However, people are always resistant to change. People have come to love the taste of meat, and are reluctant to let that go. Many others just do not have the will power to stop now. I agree with you that eventually the culture would start to change if the inhumane treatment of nonhuman animals was broadcast to the public regularly. Personally, I think this is a good idea.

Why Does Anyone Support Nationalism?

Question:    I feel as though there are far too many people in America who not only blindly support patriotism, but also fully support nationalism. Why do so many people think that the aggressiveness of nationalism is not only perfectly justifiable, but also completely moral?

Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that most people who fully support the aggressive nature of nationalism are just ignorant to the fact that what they are supporting is immoral. They blindly support nationalism without questioning it because they feel that they are just being loyal to their country. They probably feel that questioning nationalism would be questioning the morals of their country, which would be unpatriotic. Feeling like true patriots, they don't feel like what they are doing is wrong, because they are just supporting their country. Maybe if these people were more informed, they would think about it before blindly supporting nationalism. Although, I am sure there are people who would still support nationalism even if they were fully informed.

Response to "Proximity Partiality" by Corbin Brassard

In this post, I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post, entitled "Proximity Partiality."
http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/03/proximity-partiality.html?showComment=1362967293378#c9166677569819653079


In Corbin's post, he argues that everyone should be partial to the people close to them, and if everyone does this, then everyone will be cared for. For me personally, I like the idea of cosmopolitanism. However, I also am aware that it is not really possible to be a true cosmopolitan. I really like Corbin's argument and I agree with him that partiality by proximity is probably the best way to care for everyone, if everyone follows it. Although true cosmopolitanism does not allow for any partiality whatsoever, I feel like in a way, the end result of partiality by proximity is cosmopolitanism because if everyone is partial to the people around them, then the end result is that everyone is cared for. If people know that this is the result of being partial to their neighbors, then aren't they choosing to be partial for the benefit of everyone? In this way, I now believe that people who are partial to the people close to them for the benefit of everyone, are actually cosmopolitans.

Is There a Fair Solution?

Question:   Is one side giving up the only real solution to this debate?

In regard to my question, I have concluded that the answer to this question depends on the person answering it. I think that people at opposite ends of the spectrum on this debate, the strict naturalists and the strict supernaturalists, would argue that yes, one side giving up is the only real solution to this debate. The naturalists hope that the supernaturalists will give up, and vice versa. Then there are people that believe that there are other solutions to this debate. For example, Clark believes that "this-world empiricism" is the solution to this debate. Personally, I really like Clark's concept of "this-world empiricism." However, as I stated in my Q&A, I know that my opinion is biased because I am a naturalist. I believe that Clark's pragmatic empiricism favors the naturalist side of the debate. Therefore, I am not sure how I would answer my own question. I would like to believe that one side giving up is not the only real solution to this debate, however, I am unaware of any solutions that are truly fair to both sides, if any do in fact exist. 

Response to "Choking on Beliefs" by Aly Boughton

In this post, I will be responding to Aly Boughton's post, entitled "Choking on Beliefs"
http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/02/choking-on-beliefs.html

In Aly's post, she explains that she feels it is wrong to shove one's beliefs down another person's throat, and that it happens much too often. I agree with her that although many of us are guilty of doing this ourselves, it is still wrong and we should try not to. I agree with everything she says in her post, except for her last sentence. She ends her post by claiming, "If people could, with in reason, believe what they wanted without forcing their beliefs onto others, the naturalism vs supernaturalism 'culture war' wouldn't be as much of an issue." I somewhat disagree with this claim for a couple reasons. First, I think that even if people refrained from trying to force their beliefs onto others, there would still be just as much conflict between the two sides of the debate. Supernaturalists would still be just as opposed to the beliefs of naturalists, and vice versa. I feel like there would still be just as much tension between the two groups, even if they did not try to force their beliefs upon one another. 

The other reason I disagree with Aly's last statement is because I believe that even if people refrained from forcing their beliefs on others, the "culture war" would still be just as much of an issue because it would still affect public policy decisions. For example, the controversial issues of gay marriage and abortion would still be just as relevant. The opinions of the two opposing sides would still be just as strong, and government officials would still have to make a decision regarding these issues. Therefore, I believe that although forcing one's beliefs upon others is wrong, the "culture war" would still be just as much of an issue if people refrained from doing so. 

Response to "Elaborating on Prior Arguments" by Elizabeth Pitroff

In this blog, I will be responding to Elizabeth Pitroff's post, entitled "Elaborating on Prior Arguments"

http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/2013/02/elaborating-on-prior-arguments.html?showComment=1361159332042#c4099567161775087121

In her post, she says, "Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?" First, I think this depends on what she means by the term "judge." If she is talking about judging in a negative way, then my answer would be that according to determinists, it would be wrong to judge a person due to their opinion on this subject. For example, it would be wrong to dislike someone for their beliefs because it is determined what they believe in. 

Elizabeth also asks, "Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?" In response to this question, a determinist would argue that it is not our free will to choose. It is determined that we will decide to support one concept. Therefore, we aren't really choosing what we believe in. Also, in response to the question above, "If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?" I also believe that this depends on if we are judging negatively. If we are judging someone negatively based on their opinion on this subject, then it most likely means, in my opinion, that we are for the opposing side. If we weren't for the opposing side, then why would we be judging them negatively? However, according to determinists, we shouldn't be judging someone at all based on their beliefs because they are not to blame for their beliefs. It was determined that they would support that side of the debate. 

A Possible Compatibilist Argument

Question:  What would be the argument of a compatibilist? In other words, how do they go about arguing that determinism can coexist with free will?

In response to this question, I suppose a compatibilist would argue that determinism and free will coexist because even if determinism is true, the illusion of free will still affects humans anyway. In my opinion, this would not mean that free will and determinism coexist. It just would mean that the illusion of free will coexists with determinism. As I said in my Q&A response, the fact that free will is just an illusion means that free will itself does not really exist, making it unable to coexist with determinism, because determinism cannot coexist with something that does not really exist itself. However, I consider myself an imcompatibilist, and a determinist, so my response is biased. So, I guess one approach a compatibilist could take to respond to my question is that free will coexists with determinism because humans seem to naturally feel a sense of free will, even if they agree with determinism.

Response to Gabrielle McNeice's "How Do We Learn..."

I agree completely with Gabrielle's post. I agree with her that the only things that cannot be taught are instinctual. Therefore, even if the soul that Plato was referring to was meant to represent instincts, as Ama suggested in her response to this post, (http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-do-we-learn-can-it-be-considered.html), I don't believe Geometry is something we know through instincts. I believe that although it is not very hard to grasp, it is still something that is learned through teaching, or observation. Therefore, I agree with Gabrielle that Socrates actually taught the slave geometry through his questions, whether he realized it or not. I do not believe that the slave recalled how to do geometry through his soul.

Are Forms Constantly Being Created?

Question:  Would Plato argue that even objects that do not exist yet, or have yet to be created, also have a certain Form?

In regard to my question, I am still not sure what Plato's opinion would be. However, there are a couple of different arguments people could make in regard to what Plato's opinion would be. One could argue that in Plato's opinion, every new object that is created is just a variation of a Form that already existed. For example, a car would be a variation of a horse and carriage. 

Someone else could argue that in Plato's opinion, a new Form is created every time a new object is created. This would mean that there is one Form for cars, and one Form for horse and carriages. However, this leads me to form a new question:  Couldn't cars and horse and carriages fall under the same Form, which includes all types of modes of transportation? But then this would mean that motorcycles and bicycles would be in the same Form as cars and horse and carriages. Essentially, I would like to know how specific Plato's Forms are. All in all, I am very undecided about my question, and am therefore very interested in other opinions.

Response to "Socrates and Sarcasm" by Siearra Papuga

I completely agree with your post about Socrates' sarcastic response to the court during his trial. In addition to what you posted, Socrates offered to the court that his penalty consist of "free, deluxe meals at the Prytaneum, the dining hall of the Olympian and military heroes" (Pojman 34). Personally, I thought this to be a hilarious response on Socrates' part. Although his response was definitely sarcastic, I believe he was partially serious when he said it. He really did believe that he should be rewarded for his selflessness and commitment to enlightening the people. His comment becomes sarcastic when he states that he wants a grand dinner in the heroes' hall as his penalty. Like you stated in your post, although his witty response to the court did not end in his favor (it actually enraged the court more), it did make a big statement. It showed that Socrates would never give up his beliefs for anything, even if it meant saving his own life. It states in Chapter 2 that most people in Socrates' situation usually would bring their families to the court and beg for forgiveness. However, Socrates did not. He remained true to his beliefs, even if it meant leaving his family with no father. In regard to your question, "Should one be punished for spreading his/her beliefs?" I agree with you when I say no, they shouldn't. If Socrates were in charge, he wouldn't have tried to punish the sophists for teaching their students to use rhetoric, even when it meant being immoral. My question is, if a sophist professor were put on trial for his teachings, would he bravely face the court as Socrates did, or would he be one of the many people who just gave up his beliefs and begged for forgiveness?

Socrates' Response to Relativism

Question:  What was Socrates’ response to the sophists’ idea of relativism?

The sophists believed in the concept of relativism, which means, when applied to ethics, that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another person. This was the concept of subjective relativism. Conventional relativism means that what is moral to one culture may be immoral to another culture. However, what seems true to one culture, or person, is in fact true, relative to them. So in this way, both parties can be right at the same time. Therefore, the sophists concluded that a universal truth did not exist. Due to this lack of faith in an almighty truth, they decided not to bother spending their lives trying to find one. Instead, they learned to be successful in debates and business affairs. 

Socrates, however, responded to the sophists' idea of relativism by denying it entirely. He did believe in an almighty truth, and spent his life searching for the truths of the universe. He believed that the most important thing in life was to have a good, healthy soul, which one could maintain by living morally. He did not search for fortune or fame, but instead tried to attain as much knowledge and wisdom as possible in his lifetime. Unlike the sophists, who believed that there were no ultimate truths, Socrates felt that the main goal of life was to search for those ultimate truths and try to get as close to them as possible.