We are the Golden-Hearted

I sit here and venture the why,

The where and the what,

Who are we really, and how.

We are the Golden-Hearted.

We originate from particle matter,

Though too infinitesimal to perceive,

Too expansive to comprehend.

We are creations of the universe

With its endlessly flowing darkened abyss. 

We have grown, developed, evolved,

For centuries into these imperfect beings,

With these imperfect bodies

And these imperfect minds.

There is no question of our flaws.

The drive, the motivation, the explanation.

Power, said Nietzsche.

Wealth, said Marx.

Faith, said Kierkegaard.

Connection, said Hegel.

Dear Hegel, I do concur.

Connections are the life and blood

Of that internal drive,

Until death, eternal.  

I sat there watching him, incomplete,

He twisted around and our eyes met.

Don’t we all wait for that moment?

Through our gaze was understanding,

A connection long awaited,

Impossible to find.

Dare I say, I fell from that dark abyss,

The particles of the universe reformed

And I was reborn, finally, I was here.

Dare I say, I found love?

I was living, presently, and forever after.

Experiences find meaning in the

Connections, bonds, the ties we make.

We must find an ideology, a belief,

A concept, a person, a group that

We understand; the link must be made,

Lest we disintegrate into particles

Of the universe, never truly having lived,

For there would be nothing holding us here.

Connections ground us, keep us stable.

They keep us human.

We are the Golden-Hearted,

Shining, a marvelous effect from

The center of our imperfect chests.

We are here and we are living. 

Basis for The Republic

Justice has the following characteristics:  

1.      Happiness: As Socrates established when rebuking Thrasymachus’ proposal of justice, justice inevitably leads to happiness because he states “the just mind and the just man will have a good life” (Book I, 353e) and “the man who has a good life is prosperous and happy.” (Book I, 353e) Therefore, doing right allows a man to lead a good life and be happy with it.

Unity: Socrates states that injustice leads to disunity of purpose because when people commit wrongdoings within a group, the end result is enmity and anarchy. “But if they treat each other justly, there will be unity and purpose and friendly feeling among them,” (Book I, 351d) says Socrates.

Strength: Following his belief that justice creates unity, Socrates argues justice creates strength of the individual and society. He argues that an unjust group is incapable of any common action, thus the group is weak, and the individual becomes weak because he is preoccupied by the group’s internal strife.

Wisdom: Socrates states, “…intelligence is good, lack of it bad.” (Book I, 349e) Socrates establishes that a man with professional knowledge is wise and a wise man is good and a good man does not compete with his fellows, only with his opposite. Thus, Socrates illustrates that the just are wise.

Excellence: The mind, like any other thing, has a function and the ability to operate well or badly. Therefore, like any other thing, the mind has a “peculiar excellence” (Book I, 353e). Socrates states that justice is the excellence of the mind while injustice is the mind’s defect. Socrates values excellence on par with wisdom and justice.

Peace: Socrates criticizes Polemarchus’ definition of justice and in the process emphasizes that it is “not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else.” (Book I, 335d) Therefore, just men do not harm others which highlights that Socrates believes justice requires peace.

2.      After establishing that justice, like medicine, is a skill, Socrates continues that justice is the “skill that enables us to help and injure one’s friends and enemies.” (Book I, 332b) Socrates questions when justice is useful in society, which Polemarchus consequently answers when things are to be kept safe. Socrates turns this statement around by establishing those “good at keeping a thing will be good at stealing it.” (Book I, 333c) Thus, Socrates tackles Polemarchus’ initial assumption that justice is a matter of giving every man his due by proposing justice is a kind of stealing even though it is used to help a friend and harm an enemy. Furthermore, Socrates, after having Polemarchus agree that we ought to give both our friends and our enemies their due, argues that doing good for your friends and harm to your enemies is difficult without knowing the meaning of friends and enemies. There are those who seem honest when they actually are not, and thus it is possible for men to “injure their friends, who in their eyes are bad, and help their enemies, who are good.” (Book I, 334e) Changing the definition of friends and enemies to those who seem and are respectively good and evil, Socrates changes the definition of justice to doing good for friends who are good, and harm to enemies who are evil. Socrates then argues that harming creates a man more unjust and just men will not use their justice to make others unjust and therefore just and good men do not harm others, even enemies, but the opposite. Polemarchus’ position is defeated at this point because Socrates questioned the very meaning of friends and enemies, justice, and the purpose of a just man, to which Polemarchus had no objections.

         I do agree that these admissions lead Polemarchus to doubt his own position and thus are fatal to his previous position. I do agree with Socrates’ conclusion that the function of a good and just man is to help, not harm. Also, I do not agree that justice is a type of skill; instead, I believe justice is dependent upon one’s actions and their moral implications within a society. Following, I do not believe that justice can be improved upon like a skill for one’s actions are determined by one’s own morals, which can change but not be improved upon.

3.      Thrasymachus held firm that the pursuit of self-interest or injustice pays better than justice does. Following, Socrates established that the “just man does not compete with his like, but only his unlike, while the unjust man competes with both like and unlike.” (Book I, 349d-e) Socrates then followed with the precise definition of a professional man that the professional, good, and just man does not compete with his fellows, however, an unjust and ignorant man without intelligence competes with his those like and unlike him. Thus, Socrates undermines Thrasymachus’ statement that injustice is wise and excellent, while justice is the opposite. Socrates’ criticism of this point was rather weak because he drew from assumptions; after all, who is to say that the just and wise man does not compete with his fellows to be better at the job than others. Students, for example, go through a competitive process at medical school in order to become doctors. Students who put more work and effort in the job often become doctors and those who do not put effort into their work do not become doctors. Therefore, students must compete, even if by doing so they are working to benefit the patients. I do not think there is anything bad or unwise about competition, in fact, competition drives professional workers to do their jobs better. Competition is not the sign of the bad and ignorant as long as all rules are followed and it does not turn malicious.

          Socrates further argued Thrasymachus’ point by giving the example of a society, group, or army. In the case of injustice, men within the group would be causing wrongdoings to each other and therefore fostering disunity and weakness. Thus, he follows that in order to have unity and effective joint action between men, the men of the group must act justly towards each other. This section of Socrates’ criticism is enjoyably concise and accurate and therefore is effective in tearing down Thrasymachus’ view that injustice is a sign of strength. Thrasymachus stated that injustice is a sign of strength in the case of the individual, but Socrates applied injustice to a society and illustrated how impractical it is for all people within a group to act unjustly. Thus, justice is actually the sign of a strong society. I agree with Socrates’ criticism of this point, however, I wish he addressed injustice on the individual level as that was Thrasymachus’ original point. Personally, I think justice cannot be applied to the individual because the definition and maintenance of justice must be decided upon and enforced by a society. Justice, were it applied only to the individual, would be subjective and arbitrary and thus lead to disunity within a society. Also, I do not think it was necessary to mention the gods are just and therefore friends of the just men.

          Socrates’ final criticism of Thrasymachus’ point that injustice pays better than justice was that the just man is actually happier than the unjust man. Socrates began defining the function of a thing and used this to define the function of the mind. The mind’s function is life and the mind has its own specific excellence. Socrates used the agreement that “just was the particular excellence of the mind and injustice its defect” (Book I, 354e) to assume the “just mind and just man will have a good life, and the unjust a bad life.” (Book I, 354e) Since it never pays to be miserable, Socrates concludes that injustice never pays better than justice. In this way, Socrates dismembers Thrasymachus’ belief that the unjust man lives better than the just man. Personally, I believe that justice will make me happier than injustice, but who is to generalize this is the case for all humans? Some people surely take pleasure in doing others harm. Tyrants, to reiterate Thrasymachus’ belief, take pleasure in their wealth and power that is gained from taking from the people of the state. I do not think justice has anything to do with happiness and I think it is impossible to generalize just acts make people happier than unjust ones.

4.      I do not fully agree with Glaucon and Adeimantus. Glaucon, using the example of the invisibility ring, stated that both a just and unjust man would steal, murder, or seduce whenever it pleased them to do so if they had no fear of detection. I do agree that laws restrict what a man does and lead him to act more justly out of fear of punishment; however, I believe some people genuinely feel bad about committing unjust acts and their consciences will overpower the want to gain or harm. Socrates would favor my assertion that the heart of the just man stems from his good conscience not at the fear of punishment. I also agree that injustice pays better than justice in the extreme cases within these specific societies provided by Glaucon. Isolation and detest from a society when the man has done nothing unjust proves to me that the society is unjust and therefore a revolution should occur. Justice, as I see it, can only exist in a society; it is the generally agreed upon moral right and this is enforced by laws to restrict unjust acts. The moral rights stem from the people’s consciences. Without the concept of justice in a society, anarchy would ensue, and on this point I agree with Glaucon.

           I thus disagree with Adeimantus’ criticism of justice that people must have pure intentions in order to be just, because all the essentially matters is external actions because justice only lives in a society. Injustice should be punished and justice should be rewarded in order to have a successful society, Socrates would argue. Injustice applies to unjust acts, for if a man has unjust intentions but nothing shows externally of them, then it does not harm anyone and thus cannot be punished. Justice, similarly, applies to just acts, for if a man has just intentions but has actions deemed unjust by the society, then the man must be punished. If a man acts justly because he wishes to bolster his good reputation then I deem that perfectly acceptable. If a man acts justly because he genuinely wishes the betterment of others and in no way the betterment of himself, then I deem that acceptable although unbelievable. Just acts always seem to better oneself and Socrates would agree with me because it was he who stated “it never pays to be miserable, but to be happy.” (Book I, 354a) Thus, Socrates concurs that living a just life benefits the just man because it makes him happy and humans strive for happiness in life. The intentions lying underneath just acts are not relevant and thus I disagree with Adeimantus criticism of justice. 

Blank Paper

A blank piece of paper embodies the whole world, every here and now, the complete history of the universe. Every piece of history culminated in the creation of this one piece of paper. Every object has an eternal history since the beginning of the universe since the particles that create the piece of paper were once particles of a star. There are many heres and nows at this moment because every object is the manifestation of all the heres and nows of present moments.

Hegelian Philosophy and the Web

The internet creates a connectivity between everyone's thoughts at any moment. For instance, when I tweet and search tweets, I am connecting with all the other people across the globe that are feeling similar to me at any given moment. This relates to how Hegel saw the phenomenology of the spirit because the internet is essentially the spirit that connects all human thought.

Progress into the Technological World

I sat watching Digital Nation very interested and slightly appalled. I was genuinely interested in the advances in technology and the creative, experimental uses of technology. Unlike the rest of my class, I was not appalled at the effects technology and online games have on human interactions. The producers of Digital Nation had a purpose: to produce an extreme view that human interactions are being lost all together as a result of the digital age. I was appalled at the one-sided perspective of this documentary and the dehumanizing of the people who do play video games regularly. Most people who do play online video games are not hard core gamers, and even those who are play because they enjoy the escapism. This want or need for an escapism is not a new thing! Isn't reading a form of escapism? Doesn't everyone thoroughly enjoy vicariously living through the characters in a book? Reading for pleasure is the same thing as playing video games except reading does not involve human interactions at all. I don't understand why this documentary placed such a heavy emphasis on the loss of human interactions via online video games when this modern form of escapism actually involves human interaction while reading involves none.

Personally, I have played and enjoyed video games such as Oblivion and Guild Wars. Oblivion is a single player game that involves creating a character and essentially living in any manner which you choose. This single player game is equivalent to reading because it does not involve human interactions, however, it does foster conversations just as reading does. People connect by the fact that they can discuss or share opinions on a specific book; in the same way, people connect by discussing their opinions on a specific game. While reading a book requires imagination, the reader simply follows the story of the writer. In playing Oblivion, however, one uses imagination, creativity, and strategy to create an entirely new character, a life path, and solutions to quests; the choice is yours! Now, as for Guild Wars, human connectivity is increased because it involves the interaction of digital characters. You create a character and advance through the game by participating in quests. Often you must seek help from other players to complete quests and therefore a form of reciprocity is simulated in the the gaming world and eventually guilds are created. Guilds are groups formed in the game of players with similar interests that form for mutual aid. This digital interaction is a manner of human interaction and in my opinion it is neither a good or bad thing. Why are people afraid of a new form of interaction? No one is forcing you to communicate or interact through the digital world, so if there is a personal problem for you rebel against it. Just say no to those diabolical video games!

Ultimately, technology is advancing and the only logical thing to do is to take advantage of what it can offer us. Another thing people scoffed at was having conferences on second life. Why should people fly across the globe to meet for a simple conference? It is less costly and more efficient to use second life, which simulates human interactions.

Technology forge ahead! We should be wary of all the consequences involved in advancing technology and the digital age but we should not delay progress because, after all, it is progress. Also, no one should blindly buy into the fear Digital Nation wants to spread about the digital age because there is an entirely other viewpoint that was sorely lacking in this documentary.

God is Dead

To Friedrich Nietzsche there are three wills and stages of being: the primal will, child's will, and will to power. These three wills embody Nietzsche's philosophy on the individual and on society.

The primal will is the instinctive need to survive which sets the basis of the consciousness. The individual must do all that is required to survive and satisfy his or her desires, passions, and needs. Human beings are subject to their unconscious, involuntary, and basic Dionysian instincts. This primal will is ultimately the will to live.
Another aspect of the primal will is the acceptance of life that contains a unity of creation and destruction, joy and sorrow, for that is a truth in existence. With the birth of a child comes the inevitable truth that that child must die, but Nietzsche does not dwell on this truth. Instead, he believes that after an individual has come to this realization of death and acceptance of the primal will then that individual can live every moment in the present and satisfy the most basic necessity of existence.

The child's will is an individual's self-actualization; it is the ability to create an internal moral code. With the child's will, an individual has the ability to doubt, contemplate, accept or reject something; essentially, they have the ability and power to chose.
Nietzsche was a proponent of people creating and living by their own ethics instead of blinding following moral codes that have been impressed upon them. By creating one's own internal morals, an individual separates him or herself from the masses and becomes elevated to an Ubermench (superhuman) through the will to power.

The will to power is the nature of humans to achieve, compete, and gain all power in all situations in order to elevate oneself from all others. Humans that have embraced their Dionysian instincts and internalized their own set of values then accepts the will to power. Nietzsche believes this acceptance of the will to power is the means to success; with this acceptance comes the ability to elevate oneself to the Ubermench, an exceptional individual.

Nietzsche used his interpretation of these three wills of the individual to describe and criticize society. "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him..." Nietzsche criticized Christian society for hypocritically using the name of God to gain power and to continue social stratification. These "Christians" are only Christian in name and not in action. Those in power use the name of God to control the masses and thus have "killed" God because they have spoiled His name. The elites, willing to power, perpetuate a never ending hierarchy with God as their justification.

Sense of Surroundings

Descartes, a rationalist, and Hume, an empiricist, had a natural tendency to disagree, to say the least.
Descartes based his method of doubt and fundamental truths of existence upon rationalist logic; through the use of mathematics and deductive reasoning, Descartes came to doubt sense perception, reality, and the seemingly self-evident. He determined the one foundation upon all knowledge is cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am."
On the other hand, Hume believed rational thought came after sensing the surrounding environment; therefore, logic must be based on impressions of one's sense perception, or that if one cannot experience knowledge or concepts then he/she cannot have them. Hume, as an empiricist, held believed that humans have no knowledge, only beliefs which are felt to be true. Empiricists use sensory observations and experimentation to draw conclusions.
Although Descartes' method of doubt is rational, his inability to recognize sensory impressions before deductive functions is not. Hume states that perception of the environment must come before rational functions: this is true because what is pure reason without the senses influences? Humans will never know because no human has ever or can ever experience and communicate logic without the influence and impressions of the senses. In addition, what if it is true that there is a demon who deceives all that we believe? The knowledge or concept of a deceiving demon is beyond the realm in which we can perceive and thus this knowledge is something which we cannot be concerned with. All of what we believe find their basis in what we can perceive because that is the only thing from which belief can stem. For example, Descartes' method of doubt stemmed from his belief that the senses deceive us; thus, his entire basis for a fundamental truth was based in how he perceived his senses.

Problem of Change

The problem of change was argued by the ancient Greek Philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus believed that the fundamental character of reality is change, that nothing could remain the same; he said, "One cannot step twice into the same river." On the other hand, Parmenides believed that permanence is the fundamental character of reality, change is an illusion perceived by the sense, and truth is unchanging and know to reason.

Parmenides' belief that permanence is the fundamental character of reality is flawed; nothing can ultimately remain the same. The universe changed from several particles jumbling about to the universe we know today with solar systems and planets and life. Darwin's theory of evolution contradicts his belief stating that species have mutated throughout the ages to adapt to their environments, their changing environments. The world goes through periods of cold and hot; thus, the ice ages and global warming. Mutations in species develop an organism to become more adapt to living in certain environments. In addition to evolution, we as humans undergo processes of development every day. Most of the cells in your body, in fact, are typically around 7 to 10 years old even if you're middle aged; therefore, every 10 years, your body is actually almost brand new. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all) Changed has occurred throughout this human developmental process.

Paranoia

I was walking down a dark street, blinded by the utter blackness surrounding every inch of me and my sight. I felt my adrenaline pumping through my veins, expedited by my racing heart; the panic consumed by being. Overwhelmed, I began to see movements in the darkness, feel vibrations around me, and hear twigs snapping. The remnants of a logical human being had disappeared, I was a slave to this paranoia.
Paranoia is overwhelming and irrational fear of the unknown. We discussed what differentiated Hume and Descartes in their thoughts of paranoia. Personally, I connect with Hume, who argues that humans are slaves to the passions and will react when necessary in order to survive. Descartes believed doubt was the only possible way of reaching reality; rational thought was the only way to know. In the case of paranoia, Hume would have expected a human to accept the fear and react to it, while Descartes would have expected a human to doubt the fear and thus come to a rational conclusion about it.
I agree with Hume; when put into a situation of intense, perhaps irrational, fear the most sensible thing to do is put yourself into a situation where that fear no longer exists; thus, even if there is no basis for the fear, you feel safe and create your own safety. Perhaps though some people can create their own safety within their mind by rationalizing that there was never a basis for the fear; therefore, the fear should not exist.

Pure Chance

Teleology is defined as "the philosophical doctrine that final cause, design, and purpose exist in nature." (Dictionary.com) This definition unfortunately did not clarify the meaning of teleological thinking for me. Luckily, understanding finally struck me when Jordan said that teleological thinking is when "looking back, it is the only way it could have happened." Darwin believed that "evolution had a direction" (426), a teleological thought: humans have developed over the course of the universe to what we are today because that was the only way we could have developed, through the millions of mutations, survivals, and continued evolution.
I had a thought, that teleological thought is actually a limited way of viewing one's existence because it disregards all the possible forms humans could have taken. Imagine the sheer impossibility of our exact existence. In order for you to become you, each one of your ancestors had to meet with others generation after generation (several of these meetings were even the most random occurrence, such as your parents being at the same restaurant at the same time entirely per chance). You would, in fact, not exist had it not been for all of these chance meetings to occur the way they did. This is how the human race evolved; just think of all the chance mutations that occurred to even bring about the human race; the possibilities are endless for what we could have turned into.
Teleological thought limits the wonder one can gain from their existence because it accepts that their existence had to come about in the way that it did; I believe this to be an incorrect theory. There are so many possibilities for how we could have evolved, it is only pure chance we are who we are today.

Mental Captivity

“…A way out of the mental captivity that we have lived in for much too long.” (388) Although Alberto is referring to the captivity he and Sophie have been placed in by Knag, relevance of this quote extends far beyond the literal sense. Everyone is, in a sense, in some sort of mental captivity that prohibits a holistic and unbiased view of the world. People are indoctrinated at birth into a certain culture and environment that influences one’s thoughts about issues, many of which people cannot substantiate by logical thought processes. For example, if I ask a teenager whether they consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat, I can assure you that most, if not all, will respond with the same identification as their parents have chosen. Imposed values, such as political and religious values, thus deter an individual from thinking on their own, creating their own path. Philosophy is the key to this mental captivity; this is highlighted in Sophie’s World.

            Sophie, with Alberto’s help, immediately finds the wonder with life, the magic of philosophy, and thinks: “How tragic that most people had to get ill before they understood what a gift it was to be alive. Or else they had to find a mysterious letter in the mailbox!” (5) Most people take being alive for granted, never fully appreciating what a remarkable event their very existence is in terms of the universe and time throughout the ages. By this “mysterious letter” Sophie is given the gift of wonder and philosophical thought. Along the timeline of an individual’s life there is an unrecognizable moment when the childlike awe with surroundings shifts to acceptance and even weariness of similar perhaps boring sights and events. “To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.” (18) This acceptance of the world is a mental captivity that adults bear without the slightest notice or care because in place of awe, they are required to focus on practical needs. Blind acceptance of the world inhibits learning and discovery; this confinement of the mind must be broken in order to fully appreciate life.

            With this blind acceptance of the surrounding world, people become accustomed to things we are able to perceive and the concept that this world is the true reality. With this belief comes blissful ignorance by which people enable themselves to “work themselves ever deeper into the fur…becom[ing] so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile hairs again.” (18) Free will and reality are comforts people indulge in in order to ignore and avoid the bigger questions and possibly difficult truths; this chosen ignorance is a mental captivity that imprisons the mind from transcending worldly perceptions and beliefs. “Does our world consist of real things—or are we encircled by the mind?” (284) Sophie’s question embodies the questioning of reality so many people avoid asking.  

Imagine Your World

Jostein Gaarder emphasizes the necessity of imagination in Sophie's World. Imagination, as we discussed in class, has the ability to create things that can take on reality. It is difficult to make distinctions about reality, and so whose to say that our imaginations are not reality, or just a separate reality; after all, thoughts in your mind always seem to be more distinct and clear before you express them to others.
Jordan made the reference to Plato's theory about the world of ideas that exists among us but it is up to us to perceive these perfect, flawless ideas. This world of ideas, if it contains more flawless ideas, can be its own reality and humanity can simply be the medium for perceiving and expressing these ideas in our flawed manner of conversing.
Perhaps an extension of Plato's world of ideas is perfect imaginations; clear and vivid imaginary worlds inside a mind gain their own life as do the ideas once they have been perceived and shared. When you read a "fictional" story, you create the characters' worlds and give life to the characters, who, in a way, are using you as a medium to live. If characters in books are using humanity as a medium for living, they are expressing their views and sharing their experiences with us; this is what humans do when they are writing books, express their views and share experiences. What if our imaginations are reality and what we believe to be reality is being controlled by the "imaginary" characters living in our minds?

Blindfolded

Yesterday, our philosophy class took a little field trip from the comfort of our classroom and from what we typically perceive. We were required to put on a blindfold and follow where our partners led us. Once the feeling of being unnerved and wary passed, I was able to experience my surroundings in an entirely new way. Instead of looking at my surroundings only so slightly, I focused intensely on attempting to picture where I was, calling up memories of places from the recesses of my mind. I was acutely aware of the sounds and the feel of my environment. I remember, when my teacher preposterously told us to be led up a steep grass hill, hearing the swishing of grass which entirely dominated my senses; I heard or focused on nothing else.
I have a theory that humans, focusing on one thing, block or dull all their other senses that aren't required for focusing on this one thing. For example, if I were solely focused on reaching my bus on time, I would walk as fast as I could, picking out the fastest route and weaving in and out of people gathering in the halls; however, I would perceive only the route through the people with my sense of sight. I would entirely miss the voices and conversations around me, which although loud and numerous, would blur into a hum of almost silence because I was not concerned with discerning them. I would not think twice about bumping into someone because it is such a ordinary occurrence that it means nothing to me. Ironically, people with sight are often blind to anything else. This is often an occurrence for most people during the course of a day, perhaps a month, and even years. They rarely care to wonder that which is beyond their routine schedule or take a break to think about their surroundings; thus, they are swept up and often cannot recall what they have long ago forgone - an awe with the senses.
Wonder overcame me once I was blindfolded: it allowed me to recognize the silence we give to our hearing, the numb given to our touch, and the limit given to our sight.