Introduction to Philosophy
Jeffrey Nall
Spring 2016
MWF, 11:30 AM-12:20PM
-------------------------------------------------
Masaru Sakata Philosophy Journal

philosophy journal Reflection
To begin with, upon choosing this class, my expectations was to just get by, finish my last general education requirement class, and possibly learn a thing or two about philosophy. in fact, when i first entered the class, i was already thinking to myself what’s even the point for this class. but, the moment professor nall spoke, i knew i was in for a ride. throughout my time on the course, i did develop new insights about myself. when you describe a journey, you describe obstacles an individual faces in it. in this class, i actually faced several of those. obviously they are not of no means physical, but i questioned a lot of the different things i believe in, including my religion. there was actually a time this semester where i actually questioned if god did exist during the time between the arguments of an existence of a creator to the topic about the different types of evil. furthermore, after different events that have happened outside of class and actually learning about the information in class, i personally believe my thinking developed in a way that makes me critically think about everything i decide to believe in and not just follow it like a robot. To clarify, I am still a roman catholic and i think my faith actually strengthened because of this class. additionally, i have developed new insight and a new perspective on fallacies and contradictory statements. Before this class, i never really thought of fallacies and how often they take place in our society today. Ultimately, in this class, i definitely discovered a different part of me, a part of me that really will start thinking about different ideologies and beliefs, someone who basically is open to new ideas and doesn’t mind hearing them out. Thank you for this class professor nall. i truly believe i didn’t waste my time on this class this semester.

number of entries: 38

Document word count: 9248

1. april 18th: Pragmatist epistemology (outside Journal)
In the beginning, epistemology, according to Plato, must be absolute, unchanging, and eternal. Since then, throughout time, there have been many huge factors that have changed this assumption and perspective of epistemology of being permanent. These factors that have contributed to changing visions of epistemology are as followed. First, changes that have taken place within societies of man. Revolutions have taken place within the dominions of powerful countries, such as England, France, and Spain, and the almighty Catholic Church was challenged by the Protestant Reformation. These changes began to influence epistemology as a whole and generally initiated the belief that things can't always stay permanent, but rather change, drastically or slightly. Second, the subject of evolution. The understanding of the gradual development of just about anything is one thing, but for people to hear about this in the past was almost revolutionary in itself. It basically put it on everybody's face that things are not permanent at all, but simply changing ever so slowly over time which, ultimately, changed the visions of epistemology.
Additionally, my contemporary vision of epistemology is blatantly more reasonable, in the sense of understanding in my opinion, than those of prior ages, because of the technology and information we have today to better our understanding of knowledge itself. I believe the main reason people may disagree is the abundance of resources that's provided by our society today since it's hard to find the right resources for what we need sometimes. But, for the most part, as long as we are aware of what resources to use to guide our vision of epistemology, people included, we should be fine.
Furthermore, the main part of this reading that I find most striking is Darwin's emphasis that in his evolutionary theory that "mistakes aren't bad." I thought this was extremely contradictory to his theory in its entirety considering it basically states that only the strongest and best fit survive. But, as I read further, I realize that he believes that within his theory he believes most species are all "failures" within their environments and simply the better "failures" survive and eventually adapt over time to the environment.

January | | 2. 13th-20th: What is Philosophy? (In-Class/0utside Journal)Philosophy to me is the way an individual put into perspective and defines the world they live in and the numerous other things that inhabit it and live their life accordingly based on those perceptions. As I begin to start this course, I currently feel that my beliefs, mostly in a religious and moral context, are being tested. Yet, after I listened to the first couple of lectures and read the first few readings, I’m starting to realize that my own “philosophy” should not be threatened, but rather I should be open to the potential concept that, upon continuing this class, I’ll be shown new ideas I’ve never seen before, and more than likely different perspectives of similar things I’ve faced.In the end, I believe philosophy is worth studying right now because, yes it is a required general education course, but learning other people’s perspectives of the world and its many issues definitely hits a curious part of me within me. 3. 20th: What is a bus? (In-Class Journal)The “bus” is the term people say that the “right” people are in. This was derived by the quote “the right people on the bus”. It’s a term that gives me the connotation that only the strong will rise and the weak shall fall type of perspective. It’s sad to say, but in today’s society many people follow this philosophy accordingly and many face downfalls by people who follow this philosophy. I get it that this philosophy has proven to be great within the structure of a mega corporation type atmospheres and I guess certain types of big businesses, but I’m afraid by doing this it breaks our morality as the people who follow this philosophy, watch others fall, and fall really hard. Eventually, they get used to it and not have to worry about emotions getting in the way. In the end, it’s still very difficult to explain the “bus”, but I understand the philosophy of it and disagree with it in a moral standpoint. 4. 22nd: Natural/Unnatural. (In-Class Journal)Synonyms for Natural: Normal, Casual, Ordinary, Something that happens accordingly, Person born with a particular skill, quality, or ability.Synonyms for Unnatural: Abnormal, Artificial, Unorthodox, Something that doesn’t normally happen, Significantly out of the ordinary, Extraordinary.The common unstated premise of the two arguments of homosexuality is that homosexuality is depicted as unnatural, weird, and different in our society.The idea that unites the two sides, despite their differences in conclusion, is that everybody has a varied perspective of the issue and there are points that both sides of the spectrum agree on. 5. 22ND: EXEPERIMENTING WITH LOGIC 1 (OUTSIDE JOURNAL)PART 11.Inconsistent 3.Inconsistent 4.Inconsistent 5.Inconsistent 6.Inconsistent7.InconsistentPART 21.False 2.False 3.False 4.True 5.False 6.True 7.False 8.False 9.True 10.True 6. 25TH: EXPERIMENTING WITH LOGIC 2 (OUTSIDE JOURNAL)Arguments in Standard Form:1. The Bible tells us that God exists and the Bible contains only the truth. Therefore: God exists.2. All rational people know that smoking is suicide and no rational person commits suicide.3. It is wrong to take the life of a human being. A fetus is a human being, and to conduct abortion is to take the life of a fetus. Therefore: It is wrong to conduct an abortion.5. Computers are programmed to act in predictable ways, and only those beings are free who can act in unpredictable ways. Therefore: Computers can never be free. 6. Only those who actually help to build the products should benefit from the sale of these products on the open market, and the owners never help to build the products. Therefore: The owners of factories should not receive any benefits.8. Everyone who imposes his or her way of life on other human beings commits a moral wrong, and banning smoking in all restaurants is a case in which non-smokers impose their way of life on other human beings. Therefore: Banning smoking in all restaurants is wrong morally wrong.Necessary/Sufficient Conditions:1.A2.D3.D4.D5.A6.C7.D9.D 7. 22nd-25TH: A Little Logic- Logic 1 and Logic 2 (Outside Journal)According to the readings these past few days, basically, philosophy is not just about the world. Philosophy is not just about ideas or theories. Philosophy is not just about books, or individual men and women. Philosophy is about arguments. It is true that arguments are often about the world, and that arguments usually involve ideas or theories, and that arguments can normally be found in books, and that books, to our knowledge, are all written by men and women. But, the subject-matter of philosophy, is arguments. More particularly, philosophy is about arguments concerning the most general claims to be made about anything. Ultimately, arguments are what runs our thought processes from curiosity, to innovation, to finding a way to solve problems, to obtain the sense of values, to find knowledge, and enlightenment of the mind. 8. 27th-29th: Personal Fallacies (Outside Journal)First off, a fallacy I have encountered personally in my life is the straw man fallacy. It is basically when someone thinks they know they are right and what they believe in is right, and that everybody else should believe in what they believe. This encounter I have faced numerous times in high school. Before, I used to work at a Mathnasium, which is a math tutoring center, and a particular parent would always stay in the center and converses with all the other parents. Every time I was there he would continuously throw his ideas to their faces and always says he was right.Additionally, a fallacy I have encountered and faced myself is the false comparison fallacy, and it was usually between me and my brother. One day we both get our grades back from the school and I more than likely had the higher grades and my parents would tell my brother that he should’ve studied harder. On another day, my brother would win 1st place on a couple race events in track while I lose to him on the same races by a mile. Again, my parents would say I should’ve tried harder. 9. 27th: Cornell West on Philosophy (In-Class Journal)I agree that courage is an enabling virtue of a person because it unlocks the potential to seek more within oneself and to examine and reflect upon that as it makes us think beyond ourselves. For to truly means to do the things you truly want to do and live the way you want to live and so many in this world don't simply because they lack the courage or determination to do so. And as we all know, that no way to live. To realize our destiny and our inability to fully grasp the capital truth might seem daunting and even depressing. But as philosophers, our job isn't to know everything, for it is probably impossible for us to fully grasp a truth as great as the ultimate truth. Rather, it is our right and responsibility to understand that we many never know it all, and be okay with that. 10. 29th: “What is Philosophy for?” (In Class/Outside Journal)After watching the video, “What is Philosophy for?”, I’ve thought about the presumptuous claims the video indicated that people are often poor deciders of how to make themselves happy, and that they are not as knowledgeable about themselves as they may think, and that they rely too heavily on common sense. In a sense, I agree with the video that a large majority of people, maybe even almost everybody, follows this common notion. Today’s society, based on the livelihood of our predecessors, have created this notion because this is what they see and what they’ve experienced as finding happiness, marriage and family. Yes, maybe we are relying a little too heavily on common sense, but those choices would not have been common sense, the mainstream way in the first place if they didn’t work in the first place. In the end, I feel that it is a matter of the actual individual that truly dictates if this common notion would be acceptable for them or make them truly happen. But, the point I want to bring about is that marriage and family bringing happiness didn’t just become common sense overnight, but has made a lot of people happy. | February | | 11. 1st-8th: Allegory of the cave (Outside JournaL)Allegory of the Cave- Allegory of the Cave is by Plato and this work emphasizes on addressing the concept of differentiating the concept of distinguishing one’s perspective of something to its true reality. In the story, prisoners in the cave are chained up in a cave facing inside while they can only see the outside world only through shadows. In their perspective, their reality, the things they believe that are truth are those shadows. On the other hand, the prisoner who later was free and saw the real world, was so used to seeing the shadows alone as the concept of truth, that it overwhelmed to the point that he wishes to go back to the cave. Furthermore, this story aims to help us understand how mistaken ideas can produce misinterpretations of our experiences and false beliefs of the world.” Slaves to misconceptions of the world leads to false beliefs.”Ultimately, the thing that was lacking is right perspective and not lack of intellectualism. 12. 1st-8th: Gramsci and plato’s cave (Outside Journal)Additionally, in some ways, Gramsci’s essay relates to this allegory that Plato has posed. Gramsci talks much about how we are all philosophers in our own way, not always but sometimes in the pursuit of the ultimate reality. This topic being almost entirely what Plato's allegory refers to. Also, Gramsci talks much about how we are all also conformists in our own way, trying to find the best way possible of doing things and then forcing everyone to convert to this same system for the sake of consistency. Plato also talks much about how most of us conform to what is consistent and understood by most; this quite obviously referring to the cave. The cave seems to be a metaphor for the world in which we live in that understands very little compared to the brightness of knowledge that the outside has to offer. Gramsci also notes how important it is to exist one's own zone of comfort and understanding to further our grasp of true reality. 13. 1st: Personal Fallacy (Outside Journal)A fallacy I have encountered and faced myself is the false comparison fallacy, which is comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is. This situation for me is usually between me and my brother. One day we both get our grades back from the school and I more than likely had the higher grades and my mom would tell my brother that he should’ve studied harder. On another day, my brother would win 1st place on a couple race events in track while I lose to him on the same races by a mile. Again, my dad would say I should’ve tried harder. The thing is we’re two completely different people! Yes, I understand that we some similar activities and chose to do some of them together, but the stigma of comparing us constantly when we have different strengths and weaknesses is beyond me. 14. 1st,3rd, and 5th (In Place of Class for this Whole Week and Posted on Webcourses) Post:Personally, a fallacy I have encountered in my life is the straw man fallacy. It is basically when someone thinks they know they are right and what they believe in is right, and that everybody else should believe in what they believe. This encounter I have faced numerous times in high school. Before, I used to work at a Mathnasium, which is a math tutoring center, and a particular parent would always stay in the center and converses with all the other parents. Every time I was there he would continuously throw his ideas to their faces and always says he was right.Furthermore, a fallacy I have encountered and faced myself is the false comparison fallacy, and it was usually between me and my brother. One day we both get our grades back from the school and I more than likely had the higher grades and my parents would tell my brother that he should’ve studied harder. On another day, my brother would win 1st place on a couple race events in track while I lose to him on the same races by a mile. Again, my parents would say I should’ve tried harder.Responses:Chad Lenzi - “The first fallacy and probably the most frequently seen by me is the “straw man,” my girlfriend is a prime example of someone who commonly uses the straw man fallacy. Every time she will tell me a story or something that happens her side of the story is always blown way out of proportion or exaggerated to make her seem like she is always in the “right.” I hear the same story from a fellow colleague and it is a lot more believable and plausible. I am a constant advocate of the “half-truth” fallacy. I will commonly tell a story and leave out certain bits of information to better my story. I also use this as an escape route to lying. I won’t lie, but I will leave out certain bits of information.”My Response – “First off, your first fallacy with your girlfriend is relatable. My mom does it all the time. I agree that the straw man fallacy is common because we all want to be right. We want to be so right that we go to the point of disregarding others and altering things so that to us we are still right. Within this, I can say that's also why people love fallacies so much. Within arguments, we aren't really focused on being fair, and making fair accusations, we are just focused on being right. Every argument has a bias, and it's this biases that lead to using fallacies. I think that if we were able to have debates and arguments without biases then we would see a lot less fallacies within conversation.”Cody Koncak – “A fallacy that I have encountered numerous times is hasty generalization. In short, it is stereotyping. One makes a generalization based on few occurrences such as saying a particular breed of a pet is viscous/docile or a certain ethnicity partakes in certain actions. One fallacy that I am guilty of from time to time is slippery slope. Basically the domino theory. I often use it when discussing politics with others.My Response – “I've also encountered countless hasty generalization fallacies as well. It's sad that the world we live in today holds these stereotypes upon people whether or not they took part in those actions or not. In my opinion, I would say this is the second most occurring fallacy in the world, taking into consideration current global situation, only to the straw man fallacy.” 15. 10th and 12th: My Religious Beliefs (Outside Journal)To begin with, my religious belief is Roman Catholicism, that Jesus was both a man and a God and that he was nailed to the cross and saved us from sin and rose from the dead and into heaven.Furthermore, I came to this belief ultimately on my own through the sacrament of Confirmation. Confirmation is one of seven sacraments that all Catholics can go through during their lifetimes through the church. It signifies our own decision to follow Christ and be a full-fledged Catholic, and be anointed by the same oil we’re given in Baptism. The main difference is that in Baptism, we were babies, or small children, who didn’t have the necessary “choice” to become Catholic, but in Confirmation we ourselves were given the choice.Additionally, my family and the environment I was raised in definitely influenced the shaping of my beliefs in Catholicism, especially my mother. She was the clear driving force on me being on this path, but I also personally feel that this belief that I 100% believe is a driving force to me every day to be the best that I can be all the time.In addition, yes, there has been a pivotal moment that turned me into a new direction. I used to not actually wholeheartedly believe in my faith growing up. It was very hard for me at first, because I couldn’t grasp the fact that there is a divine being, a so called higher power, especially since we can’t see it. It’s sad, but for the longest time my motivation to going to church or youth group wasn’t for God, but for hanging out with friends and seeing my crush. It wasn’t until one day in high school my mother told me how she had cancer before I was born and how she went through the dawn of chemo therapy as a test subject and survived, and miraculously had me. I thought it was a pretty intriguing story and I actually researched a good amount about where she had her treatments, who performed it on her, the time period, etc. I would later bring this information all to a professional and, without going to too much detail, she basically told me it was almost impossible for her to have survived with the technology at the time and definitely impossible for her to bear a child since her ovaries were seriously damaged, and yet here I am. It was then that I truly believed in God when she, as an agnostic, said, “there must’ve been a divine power that let her stay living a little longer.” From that day on, I believe in a higher power, an almighty, and all-powerful God. 16. 15th and 17th: Assessing Arguments for God (Outside Journal)I believe the teleological argument, argument of design, is the most convincing because, in summary, the teleological argument asserts that the universe evidences too much complexity to be the product of random chance. For example, we all know that the celestial bodies in our solar system, the planets, move with perfect accuracy in their orbits. Humans, too, are incredibly complex. According to the teleological argument, there’s just no way all this complexity could “just happen.” God must have created it all. Furthermore, it might initially sound contradictory, but I also believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. But, people don’t seem to think about how organisms can adapt generation after generation as good and as perfectly as they do in the first place. In my opinion, the way organisms adapt and evolve over time is in itself a design. Thus, for it to be a design, there must have been a designer that created it. 17. 19th and 22nd: Twain and God (Outside Journal)I believe it's all a matter of perspective whether God is all-good or all-evil. Lots of good and bad happen in the world every day, so what kind of creator would let both happen in the world. In other words, different people will see the world differently based on what they will focus their attention towards. Mark Twain stated that the creator must be inherently bad since there are so many atrocities in the world and so many bad things that happen to good people. He feels that there is no way we can have a bad creator if there are so many bad things in the world. But then again, he feels this way since he is focusing on the evil in the world. He basically makes it seem that if there is any evil in the world, the creator must be evil. But then that might also mean the opposite is also true. That might mean that if the devil does anything good, then he must be an inherently good person, despite all the bad he has done. He seems to imply that for something to be good, it must be all good and without any bit of evil of any kind. But this just might not be the case for God. For all we know, He has created the bad that is in the world as a necessary evil. It may serve as a greater good later on that we just don't know about yet. Perhaps God is neither good nor bad, for forcing him into a category might be demeaning to Him. Maybe God is not good all the time, but rather, good when it is necessary and bad when it is necessary. In my opinion, I believe the free will God gave us in this world truly determines the world we live in. 18. 24th and 26th: Ortiz and Hick (Outside and Hick)I think that John Hick would explain to Sister Ortiz that, although her ordeal was quite horrible, there were more than likely good things that came from it. Hick seems to believe that many good things come from bad things. For example, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Obviously, no one wants to be crucified, but, however, his crucifixion led to the basis of the Sister Ortiz’s very own faith, Christianity. It may not have seemed appealing to Jesus at that time, but his suffering yielded salvation for all humanity. Although Sister Ortiz’s suffering didn’t yield an output as great as salvation for all humanity, I’m sure John Hick would argue that a great deal of good came from that suffering even if she wasn’t able to realize it at that time or if she still hasn’t realized it to this day. Given that God is all good, all-powerful, and all knowing, this evil was still allowed upon her because if there wasn’t evil in the world, we wouldn’t know good. Also, God is a being and he made us in his image, therefore we have free will. Even though God is all good and all-powerful, if he had created a world in which there wasn’t the possibility of evil, then free will wouldn’t really exist either because no one would really truly be free. In my personal opinion, I do not think that Sister Ortiz’s experience inspires understandable doubt in God’s goodness. Here’s why: my reasoning behind this goes back to the notion of why God gave us free will. God is omnipotent and has free will and since he designed us in his image, we have free will as well. God is free to do evil if he pleases. However, it is my belief that he does not. I believe that he gave us free will so that we could prove ourselves to him that if we didn’t have free will we would not be able to make the choice as to whether or not we want to live accordingly to how God wants us to live, which is a life full of doing good. So, of course, God is omnipotent and has the power to eliminate evil, but I personally think he chooses not to because he wants that to be our decision, and not something that he forces upon us. 19. 26th (In Class Journal) Evolutionary V.S. Watchmaker TheoryI believe that there is some truth to his evolutionary theory. But, I completely disagree with completely dismantling the fact that there is a cause that was uncaused, a divine power, a God. As a theist, many may see my response as bias, but how could a biologist explain really how life on the planet came to be? Yes, I could agree that all life on the planet started through an individual bacterium, but where did that bacteria originate from? Although the theory of evolution explains how many of the surviving organisms came to be today, there must still be an originating factor. I believe there is an “uncaused” being that created all things, or at least catalyzed everything so that organisms can take place which then later involves the evolutionary theory of the surviving organisms surviving their respective environments. In the end, I believe this man’s naïve intellect of science answering everything alone is clouding certain unanswered speculations of his own theory, but I do agree that the organisms that exist today have survived through adaptions through evolution. | March | | 20. 2nd and 4th: My Life in the Light of Eternal Occurrence (Outside Journal) I believe the answer to this question depends on the perspective of the person that is judging what one deem as a meaningful life. There are an abundance definitions and even more countless arguments for those definitions. For me as an individual, I would like to think I am indeed living a meaningful life, but also striving to do better every day. But, many people out and about in the world simply go about life with the idea that surviving is key without stopping to think about the purpose of living in the first place. Some might not afford the time or mental concentration to think of such things, but in my mind, I don't just want to settle for just surviving, I want to live. I digress, but the point I’m trying to make here is, if our very existence is something that recurs infinitely many times, why going about life just to survive if you’ll come back just to do it all over again? I’m not saying don’t get a job and contribute to society. Of course we’ll have to do some sort of work to sustain the life we have. Just don’t get so caught up making a living that you forget to make a life. 4th: 5x Journal Entry for “What’s Worth Knowing Project”Why is this concept or fact important for students to know? Is the question written in a way that is appropriately challenging but free of unnecessary ambiguity? 21. *1. Which philosopher first advanced the cosmological argument and what is the cosmological argument? * Aristotle, Claims everything has to be caused by or created from something else, therefore, there must have been a first cause, God. * Aristotle, Claims God must exist because he is the greatest conceivable being. * Plato, Claims everything has to be caused by or created from something else, therefore, there must have been a first cause, God. * Plato, Claims God must exist because he is the greatest conceivable being.The concept of the question is important for us students to know for the purpose of this class because in a testing environment we have to enable ourselves to remember and look back to the different types of arguments of the existence God. There are four different types, but for this question they would have to know what the cosmological argument is to be able to answer the question correctly. In addition, it would help to know what the ontological argument is as that is the other claim out of the choices. Finally, we would have to know which philosopher first advanced this argument which would be Aristotle. Question wise, I feel like this could be quite challenging had a student not studied any of this particular material, but is concise and very thorough in what it is asking. The correct answer is A. 22. *2. True or false. Evolution challenges the teleological argument. * True * FalseThe concept of the question is important for us students to know for the purpose of the class because we would have to look back at the different types of arguments on the existence of God and realize that the “teleological” argument is actually one and the same with the design argument. Additionally, we would have to understand the design argument on how it explains that natural things seem to be “designed” to create the best results. Thus, there must be a designer, or creator. From there, students must understand about evolution, about how organisms adapt over time and develop to survive in a particular environment, and how that could challenge the design argument.Question wise, I feel that this is an interesting question as it brings out many steps of critical thinking that could be done in a very short amount of time as long as student knows material and/or listened when this lecture was made. The question can be easily understood. Correct answer is true. 23. *3. Who developed the concept described? We should wager that God exists given these two likely scenarios:If he does, we gain eternal salvation, and if he doesn’t, we lose nothing. * Plato * Paschal * Aristotle * Constantine * None of the aboveThe concept of the question is important for us students to know for the purpose of the class because we would have to look back at the types of concepts on the existence of God and realize that this is one of the arguments Question wise, I feel that this is a question that potentially could easily be a challenge as you have to come up with where the concept is from and who it was by. The question can be easily understood. Correct answer is B. 24. *4. Which belief concept is matched with an incorrect definition? * Atheist– One who rejects the existence of divinities: God or goddess, gods and/or goddesses * Agnostic– One who is unconvinced as to the existence or nonexistence of God * Theist– One who believes in a divine power responsible for conceiving of and creating the universe and all in it * Faith- One who commits to something without sufficient supporting evidence * None of the aboveThis question is important for us students to be tested on because it tests that we have a basic understanding of the different types of theism. Without knowing this foundational knowledge, it would be hard to understand later concepts in this section of the class. This question could potentially be challenging as it has several definitions that if not read thoroughly could be mistaken for another term. The answer is E. 25. *5. True or false? Necessary evil fails to prevent a greater evil or promote a greater good. * True * FalseThis question is important because we have to look back at the two evils, necessary and unnecessary decipher which is what for this question to be answered correctly. The question itself can easily be understood. The answer is false. 26. 14th and 16th: Fill in the Blank (In-Class Journal) Perspective of GodGod loves you. He created all life and gave you free will.God is our father in the sense that he is ultimately responsible for giving us life. 27. 14th and 16th: Feminist Perspectives of God In Mary Daly’s, “The Gender of God”, she emphasizes about how the perceived gender god socially advances the same gender it represents on earth. In “The Gender of God”, she proclaims, “If God is male, then male is God.” In other words, the moment we proclaimed man to be God, then the men of our society flourish with social, political, and economic advantages, while women became extremely disadvantaged. She also argues that while the Bible typically describes God as a male-dominant figure, it is the more common belief that gender-categories cannot be applied to God because God is not limited to one specific gender. Carol P. Christ argues in her book, “Why Women Need the Goddess”, that women need a female goddess to cope with the feelings of shame that a male god brings about. Christ argues that religious symbols, in general, have a tremendous effect on people and that bringing about a female goddess would help women feel less shameful about worshiping their God as opposed to a male dominant figure that constantly talks about the inferiority of women towards men. These essays have certainly forced me to rethink my perspective on the gender of God and what it means to one's religion. I personally have always referred to God as a He, but only for a lack of a better word since there really is no gender-neutral pronoun that might be acceptable. In the end, I agree that seeing God as a certain gender is somewhat demeaning to the divinity of God and that if women want to refer to God as a she, that's fine by me. 28. 21st: Key Aspects of Ethics (Outside Journal)I found it most intriguing when he discussed the ways in which one should arrange ethical arguments. He says that when we are posed with a moral dilemma, we try to immediately find the solution to such a problem. He argues, however, that we are jumping to conclusions too quickly, and instead of trying to find the solution, we must first find the best problem. With this idea, he argues that we can’t think of the world as so black and white and only see the solution after seeing a problem. We must investigate all possible problems and find all possible options before coming to a definitive problem and trying to solve it. One way I can relate it to my life is with simple things like just managing my time. Often times, we find ourselves bogged down in our own work and will cower in the presence of its immensity. I know I’ve done this quite some time. But instead of stressing out and scrambling to try and find a solution, it's better to first step back and identify the problem at hand, what the best version of that problem is, and then try to solve it. I know when I write down my to-dos and prioritize them into when and how I will do them, it makes doing them substantially easier. 29. 23rd: Thoughts on Moral Equality (Outside Journal)To answer the second bullet point, I do believe that all people should be treated morally equal, no matter race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor. I do, however, also believe that we should redefine what we mean by treating everyone equal. Often times when we think about what it means to treat everyone equally, we think of it meaning to treat everyone the same. We see it as everyone should be treated the same regardless of what they who they are or what they have done. I disagree in the sense that to treat everyone fairly means not to give everyone the treatment that is the same, but rather the treatment they deserve. Things you can’t control like race, gender, or appearance are obviously out of your control, but your actions are things you can control and making morally wrong/evil decision is something I see grounds to strip you of certain moral rights. For example, if you are for example a terrorist that is responsible for the killing of many innocent people, I think it's relatively fair to say that that person has lost many of the rights that a normal person would. That person, made a sane and conscious decision to commit such atrocities, therefore they should not receive the same sentence/treatment who committed a petty crime such as running a red light. If you were to treat every person the same, regardless of their actions, then that would eliminate the need to control one's actions and blur the lines between misdemeanors and felonies. 30. 28th: My Lai Massacre (In-Class Journal)Paul Meadlo: “I don’t know. It’s just one of them things.”My reaction to these news clips we watched today in class is complete, utter shock. I was aware of this event during my participation in my advanced placement United States history class in high school, but watching these clips really put into perspective of how truly gruesome the event really was.The My Lai Massacre relates to the “banality of evil” by how Seymour Hersh interviewed many people who were involved in the event and who were in the unit, and how, individually, they would’ve never taken part of this action. Some of them even admitted on actually firing higher than their targets to at least looking like they are firing at the Vietnamese villagers out of fear that if they didn’t fire at all, that they could be reprimanded and face numerous consequences. But, as a group, they easily could take part in this action as this was a different type of “peer pressure” bestowed on these men. On top of that, a higher authority ordered these men to fire at the villagers, making it even easier and more appealing to follow orders. The My Lai Massacre supports the idea that evil is sometimes a product of ignorance/conformity to social norms and not necessarily vicious intents by how, in principle, the soldiers are ultimately supposed to follow the chain of command. Without this, this breaks organizations. At the same time, if individual soldiers don’t conform, what happens to them? And, what about the leaders up high? Shouldn’t they also take responsibility of their soldiers’ actions? 31. 30th: peter singer (In-Class JournaL)I thought that Peter Singer made an interesting point. He said that there was a small child drowning in a lake, and only you could save it but it would ruin your nice shoes. However, with the cost of those nice shoes, you could have instead saved a few lives by donating that money to UNICEF or some other organization. He made a good point. I think that a lot of us don't really pay a whole one lot of mind to the things in this world unless they face us directly. I agree with this and I'll give an example. I, for the most part, don't really donate money to organizations that help homeless people. But if I have cash and I see a homeless person, I don't mind helping them out with a dollar or two. I only think about what's in front of me, rather than what's going on in the world around me. He's saying we are as morally obligated to donate the money that went to those shoes to save children as we are to saving the child drowning in the pond. I kind of agree and disagree. I feel like it's the right thing to do, but we aren't horribly obligated to do it. | April | | 32. 1st: Moral Status Journal (In-Class Journal)Part 1: The moral theory I agree with is sentience. I agree with sentience because I believe all, who can think has a right to be alive. I believe that animals of all kind truly are sentient. Although many cannot conceive many of the same complex emotions and ideas as we do, they still understand basic survival needs and still experience experiences such as joy, sadness, and a desire to be free. It’s easy not to value animals as sentient beings in the same way we value humans, but this is mainly because animals cannot speak for themselves and communicate what’s on their mind, and, therefore, we that because we can’t hear or understand their emotions they go through that they have none to experience in the first place. Not only that, but because our society is so human-centered to the point that we believe they don’t contribute anything to society and therefore, are perceived to be worthless as living things. However, just because they can’t speak their minds or have the capability to contribute to society we have created, doesn’t necessarily mean they cannot be.Part 2: My reaction to this video is clear astonishment. I’m pretty sure a lot of people who are carnivorous, including me, are pretty aware that meat we eat were at one point alive. But, have real images of it actually happening in front us is definitely disturbing to say the least just by how gruesome it is and how it’s sad to see the suffering of farm animals. Although I watched this video, this for the most part, won’t change my diet a whole much, but maybe a day or two a week meat free. Because of this, I am contradicting the very statement of the first part of this journal entry. Furthermore, the production of meat relates to the concept of the “banality of evil” because we have no evil intent of killing these farm animals necessarily, but rather for the purpose of consumption. 33. 6th: How I Know (Outside Journal)I believe that our brains are limited in what we can definitively know, and that's okay. We are only capable of comprehending so much and technology can only help us understand to a certain degree. That being said, we are still capable of definitively proving many things and technology is still a huge ally in our quest for knowledge and understanding. Even if we could, know everything, I don’t think I would want to. Not everything is worth knowing, and there are a lot of things we can eliminate that aren’t worthy of time to figuring out. There is, for example, a theory about the creation of the universe called “Last Thursdayism”. It states simply that the entire universe was created last Thursday. One might say, “That's impossible! I remember the universe existing before then!” But the theory also states that everyone’s memory of anything before last Thursday was created to give a false sense of the history and previous existence to the world we live in. What's interesting about this theory is that as ridiculous as it sounds, there's no definitive way to disprove it. Whatever argument you have against it can go back to, “It was created last Thursday” and whatever memory you can recall that might disprove the argument can be simply refuted by saying, “the memory of it was created”. It’s an interesting theory and raises many questions, but many argue that there is no point in believing in it since there's no proof of it's existence. Occam’s razor is a philosophical notion that “shaves off” ideas that have no bearing. It says that when tasked with picking a correct state of reality, pick the one that requires the fewest assumptions. Therefore, you can get rid of last Thursdayism since it requires more assumptions to assume that everything coincidentally came into existence last Last Thursday then to say that I did in fact scrape my knee playing basketball and I didn't just come into existence my age with a scrape there. Isaac Newton takes this much further by saying if it can’t be definitely proved through experiment, it is not worthy of debate. 34. 15th: Existentialist Epistemology (Outside Journal) Many other philosophers still support the idea that God still exists but not in the mannerism or way that we all think he does. Nietzsche however differs entirely from others, even atheistic philosophers, by saying that God is dead. He says He has died and we are the perpetrators of such aa act. This differs from most other philosophers for obvious reasons, but even differs from atheistic philosophers since he's not denying the existence of God but rather that he once existed and is now no more from our own doing. Nietzsche also makes the general claim that there is no true fact that actually exists or is universally true. He says that everything we see to be true is only a mere interpretation that seems to appear to vaguely correspond to reality. I do agree that it is quite difficult to prove anything because there are so many if ands hows and buts that we can ask to even the most verified of statements. That being said, I somewhat disagree with his statement about God being dead. His claim that God is dead relies on the idea that God only exists through our belief. He's not saying He never existed, simply that he stopped existing once we stopped believing in His existence. If that is the case, it is an illogical claim since how did God exist before we did? How can we say that He only exists through our belief if He was the first thing that ever existed? He cannot at the same time be the creator and the one who is created by us. It’s not that big of an error considering everything else about it, but I think it is still one worth noting. 35. 18th: Pragmatist epistemology (outside Journal)In the beginning, epistemology, according to Plato, must be absolute, unchanging, and eternal. Since then, throughout time, there have been many huge factors that have changed this assumption and perspective of epistemology of being permanent. These factors that have contributed to changing visions of epistemology are as followed. First, changes that have taken place within societies of man. Revolutions have taken place within the dominions of powerful countries, such as England, France, and Spain, and the almighty Catholic Church was challenged by the Protestant Reformation. These changes began to influence epistemology as a whole and generally initiated the belief that things can't always stay permanent, but rather change, drastically or slightly. Second, the subject of evolution. The understanding of the gradual development of just about anything is one thing, but for people to hear about this in the past was almost revolutionary in itself. It basically put it on everybody's face that things are not permanent at all, but simply changing ever so slowly over time which, ultimately, changed the visions of epistemology. Additionally, my contemporary vision of epistemology is blatantly more reasonable, in the sense of understanding in my opinion, than those of prior ages, because of the technology and information we have today to better our understanding of knowledge itself. I believe the main reason people may disagree is the abundance of resources that's provided by our society today since it's hard to find the right resources for what we need sometimes. But, for the most part, as long as we are aware of what resources to use to guide our vision of epistemology, people included, we should be fine.Furthermore, the main part of this reading that I find most striking is Darwin's emphasis that in his evolutionary theory that "mistakes aren't bad." I thought this was extremely contradictory to his theory in its entirety considering it basically states that only the strongest and best fit survive. But, as I read further, I realize that he believes that within his theory he believes most species are all "failures" within their environments and simply the better "failures" survive and eventually adapt over time to the environment. 36. 18TH: I BELIEVE (In-Class Journal) 1. I believe in an all-powerful, all knowing, divine power who is God. I believe in God because there must be a powerful being that started the creation for all that exist today. 2. I believe in sentience and its moral theories. 3. I believe in evolution and adaptations of organisms. This is true because organisms that do survive in a particular environment tend to develop over time adaptations adept to the environment they live in. 4. I believe in the cosmological argument that there is an uncaused first cause.I believe in number 1 because, as a person, I witness every day the wonders of creation and this in itself, in my opinion, is all the proof I need that there must be a creator, a divine power in this world. I believe in number 3 because the evolution of species and eventually adapting to their environment was evident in the Galapagos Islands.Frank Debesa-I believe that we all have a moral obligation to do that which we know is good and right in our hearts and minds for doing otherwise would likely squander our existence which is so precious. He believes in this because committing sin that we all know is wrong has proven to only destroy the very livelihood that is human existence and if we are to coexist in peace and prosperity we need to learn to do so. I believe this is an exceptional reason because not only has applied a general distinction of morality but also inputted the psychological aspects through an individual perspective. 37. 20th: epistemology and power (outside Journal)Hegemonic Centrism, in my opinion, is the superior vision or perspective that is depicted in society as the right way and, whether it is morally right or wrong, which is also based on perspective, it is looked at as the norm. I have two examples. My first example is the male dominance. For the most part, I believe every society and culture in the world in known history, with an exception with the Amazonians and a few others, have a patriarchal society. Some societies pretty much have men and women as equals while others, such as cultures from Japan and India hold women as second class citizens. My second example is the “white” dominance. It may not be as unnoticed now, but in the past, Caucasian skin pretty much dominated society and no one even questioned that. Although, my definition of hegemonic centrism is slightly confusing, I hope my examples cleared up the air about what I truly mean. 38. 22nd and 25th: Feminist epistemology (outside Journal)First off, I think feminist epistemology is the female approach and perspective of epistemology, a combination of feministic views and the study of knowledge. Furthermore, compared to other forms of epistemology we have studied, this is unique because of how particular and concrete it is while other forms are more abstract and more generalized. I believe it is quite unique because it constitutes gender studies, women studies, and feminist theory, and pretty much not a lot of categorized subject in our world are composed of all of those subject matter combined. Additionally, this version of epistemology differs greatly from the rest of the different forms of epistemology from Descartes, Locke, and Hume because, for one, it is in a male perspective. Two, on top of the fact that it is in a male perspective, the other forms are mainly about religion and power and pragmatism. But, in retrospect, pragmatism, in addition to Nietzsche’s ideas definitely relate to feminist epistemology because both believe in the idea of change and have proven time and time again that not only is change necessary, but it does happen. In a feminist point-of-view, this world is still a patriarchal society, and, personally, I agree. With this thought in mind, they seek to change that so that both genders are completely equal. 39. 25th: philosophy and the matrix video (In-class journal)I think this was a very interesting collection of observations about the Matrix movies. In the beginning, the issue in the movie with the people in the Matrix who are in fact in reality are asleep powering a machine city was compared to Buddhism’s perspective on being trapped in one life was great. They would then continue this analogy with Neo, the main character, being “freed” from the Matrix reality and comparing that event to Buddhism’s version of enlightenment, of being set free. I thought this was a great comparison because it provided insight of a certain event in a movie to an extremely different level and really perceive the symbolism in the movie beyond the movie itself. Ultimately, I believe this was a great video because I was a just a kid watching these movies and I wasn’t capable of thinking about them in this level and it just bring a whole new perspective to them. |