Absolute Freedom

After reading an excerpt about Absolute Freedom by Jean-Paul Sartre multiple times, I was still confused by some of what he said. However, what I was able to understand is very insightful. Sartre's main point seems to be that a person is fully responsible for any situation that involves them in any way. One major reason for this is that "nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are" (Sartre 447). He further explains his beliefs with references to war.

Sartre states that “What happens to me happens through me, and I can neither affect myself with it nor revolt against it nor resign myself to it. Moreover everything which happens to me is mine” (447). I believe he means that when any event happens to me it becomes a part of me. Furthermore, each event that happens to and through me becomes my responsibility entirely. Also, he explains that every situation is human in some way. “Only through fear, flight and recourse…shall [I] decide on the non-human, but this decision is human” (Sartre 448). The decision, situation, and everything connected to it all belong to me because the decision was my free choice and it “represents me and symbolizes me” (Sartre 448).

Sartre takes the idea of war to a new level. If a person is at all involved in a war, it becomes their war. There is always a way to get out of it, but anyone who chooses not to deserves any consequences of the war, according to Sartre. “I could always get out of it by suicide or by desertion” (Sartre 448). The choice may be based on fear of the public repercussions, out of a need to uphold personal values, or to defend one’s honor. Regardless, because I chose to stay I remain responsible for my choice and the war that I am a part of. Each time I choose to perform something related to war I am continuing to take responsibility for the war. “Therefore we must agree with the statement by J. Romains, ‘In war there are no innocent victims’” (Sartre 448). Though I may not have declared the war, this does not exempt me from responsibility for it. This attempt at exemption only holds up in a legal sense.

The war is also mine because “it arises in a situation which I cause to be and that I can discover it there only by engaging myself for or against it” (Sartre 448). Any of my choices about myself in the war are no different from my choices about the war itself. However, it is also pointless to consider what my life would be like if the war never took place. I made decisions that led me to partake in the war. Without the war, there would be a contradiction. The part of my life that came before only makes sense if I am in the war. I chose to be in the war, which makes me as responsible for it as I had declared the war. It is part of me. I cannot “live without integrating it in my situation, engaging myself in it wholly… I must be without remorse or regrets as I am without excuse” (Sartre 449).

Works Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “On ‘Absolute Freedom.’” Introducing Philosophy. Robert C. Solomon. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

The Bogeymen

The bogeymen are somewhat odd, yet still interesting. They are agents who compete against us in an effort to eventually control our bodies. Their thoughts are separate from ours. Reactions triggered by anxiety are “like finding yourself in the clutches of…” (Dennett 406). The bogeymen I will examine include the Invisible Jailer, The Nefarious Neurosurgeon, and the Malevolent Mindreader.

The Invisible Jailer may imprison someone without their knowledge of having been imprisoned. Everyone understands the dreadfulness of prisons. But perhaps a person who believes they are free simply hasn’t realized they are imprisoned. Visual illusions could make a small jail cell seem much larger to the unknowing prisoner. Bars on windows may be disguised and fake doors may be placed on the wall. The true exits may also be removed or concealed. Someone may also argue that if the edge of an enclosure is beyond the farthest point they wish to travel to, then they are not really imprisoned. The majority of people could argue that they are imprisoned on Earth. However without a jailer, there is no jail. If an undesirable place is not overseen by a particular person, the people residing in that place are not imprisoned (Dennett 407).

The Nefarious Neurosurgeon is able to “strap you down and insert electrodes in your brain, and then control your every thought and deed by pushing buttons on the ‘master’ console” (Dennett 407). The person wouldn’t be able to realize that every part of them, both physical and mental, were no longer under their own control. Such an existence could be compared to having a brain complication such as a tumor. At first glance they may appear to be the same, but there is at least one major difference. The complication may cause unintentional occurrences, but the occurrences would be random. Rather than causing random complication, the Neurosurgeon controls the brain, forcing it to do what he wants. “Variations on the Nefarious Neurosurgeon are the Hideous Hypnotist and the Peremptory Puppeteer” (Dennett 407).

The Malevolent Mindreader is simply an unbeatable opponent. As the name suggests, the Malevolent Mindreader has no real control over a person. Instead, the Mindreader is able to prepare for a person’s move before it occurs by reading their mind. “Playing ‘rock, paper, or scissors’ against this fellow is hopeless…[because] he can see in advance which move you intend to make and always counters successfully” (Dennett 407). However if a prediction is posed as a possibility rather than a final decision, one may be able to beat the Mindreader (Solomon 407, 408). In my opinion, if someone wishes to defeat the Malevolent Mindreader in a game, that person should select a game of pure chance. For example, if a coin is flipped, both the player and the Mindreader have an equal chance of winning. The power of the Mindreader is negated, leaving it on equal ground with the player. The Malevolent Mindreader is a difficult opponent, but it can be beaten.

Works Cited

Dennett, Daniel. “Elbow Room.” Introducing Philosophy. Robert C. Solomon. New York:
Oxford UP, 2008.
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Self Identity

When examined from a philosophical point of view, self-identity can be a confusing topic. When defining the term self-identity there are some variations on the same basic definition. In the words of Robert C. Solomon, “Your self-identity is the way you characterize yourself as an individual” (286). One of the main variations of this definition examines the relationship between self-identity and the concept of people changing over time. The other variation that is discussed examines what allows us to be individual.

In philosophy, self-identity is determined by specific characteristics. Identifying self-identity could be as simple as looking at a person’s status in the world or as challenging as finding what makes that person unique. When identifying their self-identity a person could see themselves as just a middle-class citizen of the United States. For another example, an engineer could see themselves as a person with mathematical skills who relies on their ability to retain details.

An important variation of self-identity narrows a person’s self-identity down to qualities that are retained even as time goes by in their life. In this sense, a person could not base their self-identity on certain aspects of their life such as their favorite movie genre or their religious beliefs. If a person based their self-identity on their religious beliefs what would happen if they chose to convert to another religion? Philosophically, an argument could be formed that stated that the person lost their identity. However, in this sense, a person could lose their self-identity even after relying on a concrete quality. Solomon provided some interesting examples pertaining to this subject. One example asks whether a person would lose their self-identity if they had a sex-change operation. An even more fascinating example examines whether complete memory loss would strip a person of their self-identity (Solomon 286). Finding a self-identity that can weather even the strongest influences would be very challenging.

Another variation on the definition of self-identity discusses what allows people to be individual. The most common aspect of this discussion pertains to consciousness. Consciousness can be described as “having thoughts and feelings” (Solomon 286). If a person dislikes their self-identity they can often change it somehow. Zig Ziglar, an incredibly successful businessman, once said, “If you don’t like who you are and where you are, don’t worry about it because you’re not stuck either with who you are or where you are. You can grow. You can change. You can be more than you are” (22). The main point is that if someone dislikes their self-identity enough there is often a way to change it.

Works Cited

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.
Ziglar, Zig. Zig Ziglar’s Little Book of Big Quotes. Zig Ziglar Corporation, 2004

The World's Hardest Game

I discovered this game and thought I should post it somewhere to share with the world.

This quote about sums it up.


"All human wisdom is summed up in two words - wait and hope”

-Alexandre Dumas Père

The Worlds Hardest Game

Source of quote:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/all_human_wisdom_is_summed_up_in_two_words-wait/167941.html

The link to the game was provided by the website streaming the game,
AddictingGames.com

Philosophical Fire Emblem Character - Stefan

"My laguz blood gives me great power. I thought about using my power to gain revenge against the people who scorned me, but I decided against it."

-Stefan during the A-Level Support Conversation with Mordecai
Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance


"It's the guiding hand of fate that has led me to you."

-Stefan in a base conversation with Ike
Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance


"You can learn the dance of blades from me without knowing my history, can you not?"

-Stefan in a base conversation with Ike
Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance


"Sheathe your blade. If that's all the skill you possess, you're not ready to challenge me."

-Stefan in a boss conversation with Homasa
Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance


"My sword has been beaten... impressive. It is moments like this that make life worth living."

-Stefan when killed during a battle
Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance






Site Sources:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/gamecube/file/920189/47709
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/gamecube/file/920189/42716
http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Stefan
http://www.serenesforest.net/fe9/boss_convo2.html

Conformity

Conformity is a topic that can be very simple, very complicated, or anywhere in between. Conformity can come in many forms and have strong effects. One of the most common forms of conformity occurs when “an identity [is] wholly imposed upon us by other people” (Solomon 311). Giving in to peer pressure or just agreeing with peers can also be a form of conformity. The effects of conformity can be both positive and negative.

When a foreign behavior or belief is forced on to a person it often becomes a part of their identity. The most common example of this occurs when a parent or teacher tells someone what “good” behavior is. Parts of a person’s identity are often purely the result of a behavior imposed on them. While growing up, many children are told to keep their rooms clean. If they refuse, a punishment such as a “Time Out” may ensue. Eventually the child learns that it is important to keep their room clean. Because of the parents, the child adds the belief that their room must be clean to their identity. The end result is a change in the child’s identity because of a belief that was imposed on him or her by a parent.

Conformity can also occur when someone gives in to peer pressure or abandons their beliefs in order to accept what is “cool” at the time. The best example of peer pressure I can think of is illegal drug use. If a person who is vehemently opposed to illegal drug use is pressured into using the drugs, they may have lost part of their identity. Music can be a good example of something a person would accept in order to be cool, even if it goes against their beliefs. People who enjoy rock music may be opposed to some rap and hip hop songs because of the messages they convey. If some of their friends enjoy the music the person may set their judgements aside in order to fit in with their friends. Both examples are examples of conformity that come about as a result of the beliefs of others affecting someone who would otherwise disagree.

Conformity can have many different effects on people. Sometimes a person may later be grateful that they changed their beliefs. If someone is forced to accept that a clean room is important they will often look back and be glad they learned the lesson. They have come to enjoy the sight of a neat room. Also, a person’s taste in music often changes throughout their life. Even if they start with a negative bias, a person may gradually begin to enjoy the music. On the other hand, accepting the music could have negative consequences. The messages conveyed through the music may change the attitude of the listener. Illegal drug use is the same. Side effects of the drug could cause permanent damage. Conformity can be very powerful and must be treated as such.

Works Cited

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

FREE PUZZLES

NPR Sunday Puzzle:
Go to: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4473090
or Click Here.
Below the title (Sunday Puzzle by Will Shortz) is a list of puzzles that aired on the radio. Click any of the bold titles (the first puzzle on the list is the most recent).
Scroll down until you see the title Next Week's Challenge.
Return to the list of puzzles and click on the puzzle that took place one week after the puzzle you just viewed. Scroll down to Last Week's Challenge to view the correct answer. If you chose to view the most recent puzzle you will have to wait until Sunday to get the answer.
The Sunday Puzzle is often challenging, but can be interesting.

Copyright 2009 NPR


New York Times Sudoku:
The New York Times provides 3 free Sudoku puzzles every day (1 each of Easy, Medium, and Difficult). The puzzles are available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/crosswords/sudoku/easy.html?scp=1-
spot&sq=sudoku&st=cse or you can Click Here.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

The Existence of God - Argument from Design

The argument from design is one side of an argument about how to explain why our world is so complex and how it came to be so. The argument from design is also known as the teleological argument. The core of the argument is that God must exist. “The basis of the argument is that since the universe is evidently designed, it must have a designer” (Solomon 638). The main opponents of this argument are people who support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Both sides have significant merits, but it is difficult to say which argument is the truth.

I apologize for the illegible labels.
The labeling is much more clear if you click on the image.

The argument from design takes a strong side about why our universe is so complex. “It has even presented itself as a theory in science, that is, ‘creation science,’ as opposed to the generally accepted scientific accounts of Darwinian evolution” (Solomon 143). My interpretation of the argument from design is that the universe is too complex for it to have just come into existence. The functioning of a single living cell could be compared to how a business functions. They both have a main operator that regulates most or all of what goes on. They both have sturdy protection. They also have the capability of expansion. Each cell is operated by a nucleus, has a cell wall for protection, and given enough time, can split into two, thus increasing the total number of cells. A business is often operated by a president or CEO, is sometimes physically protected by security guards and often otherwise protected by a legal system, and given a certain level of success, can expand by opening a new branch of the company. The point of all this is that a business, which is often designed to do work most efficiently, has a lot in common with cells. Therefore it stands to reason that cells were also designed. The argument from design definitely makes a valid point.

The strength of the argument for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is about equal to that of the argument from design. My choice of interpretation of Darwin’s theory is “survival of the fittest,” better know as natural selection. The complexity of the cell can be explained by natural selection. If a cell mutates in a way that makes it stronger than other cells, it is more likely to survive and multiply. The stronger mutant cell eventually outnumbers the others and is considered a normal cell. At some point another mutation will occur and the process will repeat itself. Eventually, the remainder will be the complex, effective cells that exist today. The reasoning behind Darwin’s theory makes a very compelling argument.

The argument from design and Darwin’s theory of evolution both make good arguments. Either one could be true. In this day and age there is no way to know for sure.

Resources:

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Image Source:

Plant cell structure svg. 6 June 2006. Mariana Ruiz. 30 Oct. 2009 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plant_cell_structure_svg.svg#
filehistory

The Real World - Plato's Theory of Forms

I find Plato’s theory of Forms very interesting. Plato believed there were two worlds. One was the world we live in and the other was a world of Forms (Solomon 66). Understanding conceptual truth is a large part of understanding Forms (Solomon 72). Forms are a complicated subject, but I will try to break it down.

Being able to understand the meaning behind Plato’s two worlds is an important part of understanding Forms. “The world in which we live [is] a world of constant change or a world of Becoming” (Solomon 66). The other world is considered the real world, but the world we live in is still somewhat real. Our world is just not as real as the other is (Solomon 67). “Our world is like a set of shadows of the real world” (Solomon 71). It is “a mere imitation of the bright originals” (Solomon 71). In order to fully grasp the world described above we must also understand the other world.

The “world of Forms [is] an unchanging world, the real world or the world of Being” (Solomon 66). This world never changes and will never end (Solomon 66). Plato believed that a person’s only chance to have a good life lied with the extent of their knowledge of pure Forms (Solomon 71). Our connection between the two worlds is another part of Plato’s metaphysics. The link between the two worlds “is the immortality and immateriality of the human soul” (Solomon 74). Our souls already know about the other world when we are born. That knowledge is known as innate. When we experience something, the connection allows us to “remember” it. We already know the truth about the other world; we just have to remember it (Solomon 74).

Knowing the definition of a Form is also very important. “The Forms are what different things of the same kind have in common and what makes them things of the same kind” (Solomon 71). Granny Smith apples and Golden Delicious apples both have the same Form therefore, according to Plato, your knowledge of its Form would allow you to recognize the apples. Plato’s beliefs state that we can recognize all apples, regardless of their appearance, simply because they are part of the Form apple. Because we know that apples are fruits, we can identify that the Form apple includes the Form fruit. Today we can “say that the meaning of the English word ‘[apple]’ already includes the concept of ‘being a [fruit]’. Accordingly, philosophers refer to this kind of truth as conceptual truth” (Solomon 72). This term did not exist in Plato’s time.

I am intrigued by Plato’s theory of Forms, but I am not sure I believe it. Though his theory seems somewhat plausible, I have trouble believing in something that does not have physical, legitimate proof. However, I do not reject his theory completely. I do think the logic behind conceptual truth, which ties into his theory, is real.

References:

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Image Source:

“Apple-picking in California.” Los Angeles Times September 22, 2008. 16 Oct. 2009

http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/apple-picking-
in-cal-2818/

Good vs. Evil - Ahura Mazda

I find Ahura Mazda to be very interesting. Ahura Mazda is the god worshipped by practitioners of Zoroastrianism. Out of everything Ahura Mazda created, the first two things created were twin spirits. Another important spirit was Asha, who was represented by fire.

Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion that worships Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism was started by Zarathustra, a Persian reformer. Zoroastrianism portrayed Ahura Mazda as the origin and creator of everything.

The twin spirits created by Ahura Mazda were opposites of one another. One of the spirits was named Spenta Mainyush. It represented everything that was good. Everything that followed this spirit was led to do good things. The other spirit, Angra Mainyush, led all that followed it to evil. Angra Mainyush is credited for the release of evil, such as death, destructiveness, and deceit. Zoroastrianism portrays the world as being represented by an army of good and an army of evil. The two armies are always at war. Everything in the world must choose a side based on its purpose. Only humans are given more choice because humans make their decisions consciously. Every natural thing must be either worshipped or rejected.

I feel that the battle between good and evil, which supposedly started with the twin spirits created by Ahura Mazda, is still continuing today. One of the largest natural wars we are in is global warming. People are using chemicals that pollute the Earth’s atmosphere. The pollution traps heat that is melting the icebergs. The repercussions are taking a heavy toll on the wildlife. Nature can’t resist this destruction so some people are trying to help. Many of the harmful chemicals are being replaced with safe chemicals that serve the same purpose. One of the most prominent examples is automobile fuel. The harmful gasoline emissions are being replaced with safer ethanol emissions. The ethanol used in automobiles is E85 ethanol fuel, which is comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. According to General Motors’ Biofuels article, “E85 ethanol fuel is a cleaner-burning, mostly renewable fuel source made from mostly U.S.-grown corn and biomaterial, such as switchgrass and willow.” Some automobiles are even running on electricity alone, which has no emissions.

Out of everything good that Ahura Mazda created, the spirit Asha was considered the best. Asha is represented by fire. Because of their devotion to Asha, “Zoroastrians were referred to as fire worshippers” (Solomon 59). Asha was also known as Righteousness.

Ahura Mazda was considered to be completely good. Ahura Mazda was immortal and, according to Zoroastrian teachings, the world is eternal. Life on earth is only one portion of the eternity.



References:

“Biofuels.” Fuel Solutions 2009 General Motors. 1 October 2009
http://www.gmaltfuel.com/fuel-

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Image Source:

“A failure of leadership in the private sector.” forceChange March 5, 2008. 09 Oct. 2009 http://forcechange.com/2008/03/05/a-failure-of-leadership-in-the
-private-sector/

Your own Beliefs - Individual Autonomy

I find the subject of individual autonomy very interesting. An important part of individual autonomy is making your own philosophical decisions. Other people can not choose your opinion. However, you should still pay attention to others. Also, your decision about what you believe may not be the truth. No matter what you decide, you must always be prepared to justify your beliefs.

Regardless of how you feel, you should always choose your own beliefs. Throughout a person’s life, other people are always pushing beliefs on them. Most religions try to convert people to theirs. But a religion is, essentially, what you choose to place your faith in, which is for you to decide. Choosing a political position can be a big decision. Drugs, abortion, health care, and war are just a few political issues. Everyone has an opinion about each issue. Some people may want marijuana to be completely legal, some people against abortion compare it to murder, the concept of health care reform has always been a heated debate, and everyone always has their own opinion about being at war. If someone persuades you to agree with their political decision, then they just gained another vote for what they want. Rather than just agreeing, hear what they say, then make your decision. Another, and possibly the most important, choice is how you wish to live. Some people like to live active lives, while others play video games. The cup may be half full or half empty. Regardless, everyone must choose how to live their life on their own.

Even if you make a decision that is good for you it may not be universally correct. If there was irrefutable, legitimate evidence that one religion was absolutely true, the others might die down. At least until then, people maintain their beliefs. Politics are based on what people want, such as their type of government. Therefore, until there is a universal agreement, there is no right answer. Finally, how you wish to live your life is based on what you enjoy, what your feelings are, and how you think. There are more parts, but these alone are enough proof that all people are unique and must decide for themselves how to live. When everyone is different, there is no correct way to live.

No matter what your choice is, you must be able to justify it. Most beliefs are questionable in some way. If you believe in something you must be able to foresee any questions that may contradict it and be prepared to answer. Individual autonomy is very important. Your beliefs reflect who you are and, therefore, are quite valuable.

Socrates - Beliefs and Integrity

I personally find Socrates both confusing and fascinating. He saw many flaws in the Athenian government. When a jury sentenced him to death because of his preaching, he questioned the foolishness of why he was convicted. When his close friend Crito offered him a chance to escape his imprisonment, he refused because it went against his principles.

Socrates noticed many major problems within the Athenian government. He saw that many of the officials in Athens cared more for themselves than the people they governed. He not only found this information, but he also found that much of the Athenians were hypocrites themselves. To prove it he would use simple questions about their principles and beliefs. Their confusion and lack of confidence in their beliefs left them looking ignorant and foolish.

Like Socrates, I enjoy challenging people’s beliefs. Sometimes I question people about religion. I ask what they believe and why. Often the answer to the second question is “because.” They can never come up with hard evidence. The Bible is simply a book. When you take it down from the pedestal and stop worshipping it, it is no more reliable than Wikipedia. But because of what people have been taught, they ignore reason, put the Bible back on the pedestal and say it is all true. They believe in it because they just need something to believe in.

Socrates was sentenced to death because of his method of challenging people. His challenging of the existence of the gods left people furious. He believed he was better off helping people rather than worrying about making his own life glamorous.

I believe Socrates lived an excellent life. Because he put so much effort into trying to help others, he was able to build a successful life for himself. Even though their legal system condemned him to death, Socrates made enough of an impression that his teachings are still used over 2400 years after his death.

While imprisoned, Socrates was offered a chance to escape by his close friend, Crito. Crito’s offer contradicted Socrates’ beliefs so he refused. He chose to die staying true to his beliefs rather than live as a hypocrite.

I highly respect Socrates for staying true to his beliefs. Many men would beg for forgiveness, but he merely accepted his punishment. Being able to die for his beliefs helped reinforce their power. If Socrates had chosen to flee his followers may have lost confidence in him and his beliefs and relinquished them. I believe Socrates made the best decision.

Quick Intro

As I mentioned in the description, I am good at math and enjoy doing sudoku puzzles and other logic puzzles. Due to that, some of my posts may be more logical than anything else. This is my first time seriously exploring philosophy so I will be trying to expand my thought processes.