Perception

Perception is the act of apprehending by means of the senses or mind, according to the dictionary. We all perceive things differently and we all notice that there are things around us inhabiting the same space as us. However, the scenario of a person seeing a rose arose in class. How does that person know that they are not the only one seeing the rose and not anyone else? Does the person have to go around to every single human being and ask if they see the same rose? I do not think so. I think that a person sees what is there and doesn't have to rely on others to make sure that they are not "seeing things". It is human nature to ask at least one other person , "Hey, do you see what I see?" However, a person should not initially doubt their perception of something. I feel that there are only special occasions in which a persons perception should really be questioned; when they are under the influence of drugs, when we see that something defies the laws of nature (a floating elephant), or a sick person ( one with schizophrenia).
Another thing I feel that it is human nature to do is pick and choose what we want to hear and see. Some people never want to be wrong, and always want to be right, however if someone is showing/ telling them something that would prove them wrong they would "close" their senses and only hear and see what they want to. The more and more I get into this class the more and more I believe in where I stood from the beginning. We are all different and it is difficult to take one general theory and place it one people.

Morality and Sex

While reading the Schopenhauer chapter, I realized that Pojman was right in saying that he is really pessimistic, however he did make some interesting points. The first thing he seems to imply is that there is no such thing as heroes, their are just "moral people." When people do a good deed, (especially when their lives are put at risk) they are just acting on moral impulse, so it seems calling them a hero would be a bit much, maybe even absurd.
Another thing that sparked my interest was when Schopenhauer touched on the topic of sex. He makes it seems that a humans highest achievement is to reproduce. This goes hand in hand with a persons will to live. A person want to live , however they know physical eternal life is not possible, sooner or later we perish and return to the dirt from whence we came. However, value wise, morally, knowledge wise we want to survive; and the only way to do so is to reproduce and teach our offspring what we believe hoping that they will keep the values we have. I do questions Schopenhauer position on this, however. What is he really saying about sex and the role it plays in human nature and life? Is he saying that one of our primary functions as humans is to reproduce?

It's human nature to...

We haven't really talked about this in class,however it is something that does relate to human nature. I was at a program today and the presenter stated that it was human nature to be reluctant to admit when we had a problem. I can't really say this is true for everyone but, from experience I can say that it is true for some. People are quick to say nothing is wrong when there is clearly something wrong; whether it be something wrong personally or with another person. It seems people rather act out than come to terms with the thing that is bothering them.
It isn't hard to say "You know what I have a problem and unless I finally come to terms with it I won't overcome it." It is crazy the things people go through than to just admit the truth. Maybe it's pride, a fear of maybe being rejected by others, or worse having to admit that they were wrong. If there is a problem it can easily be solved by naming it. If the problem is with someone else don't lie to others and yourself and go on without resolving the issue with the person. Things are made to be talked out hence the reason God gave us mouths and the knowledge to comprehend what people are saying. It isn't ok to not admit when a problem is at hand , because denial is a sad and sometimes tragic thing.

Hobbes and Rousseau

I do believe that after reading chapter 7 that we are dealing with two extremists. Though they do talk about two different extremes ,I agree with both to an extent. I agree with Hobbes when he says that people are naturally evil, because we have to be taught how to share when we are young. We have this innate behavior at around age two that everything is ours until it is scolded out of us that we need to share our stuff. After we are nurtured to share, it is then up to us when we are older how we want to live our lives. In the view of Hobbes we always look out for ourselves and when we do do a charitable deed it is because we want to alleviate the person's distress which is causing our distress. I disagree with Hobbes when he makes this point because I believe that there are people who are taught to be not selfish and stick to it and actually help people because they want to.
I have to disagree with Rousseau's idea that people are noble savages. I do believe we are born a blank slate, however like I stated in the previous paragraph when we are children the innate idea that everything is ours comes into play. I do agree with him when he says that the government is the playing role in the corruption of people. Government determines who has power and who doesn't and everyone wants to have power of some sort. Power and government is enough to tear family apart. In the movie "Man in the Iron Mask," it shows the life of a King in Paris, France. This King had a twin brother that he didn't know about until he was fifteen when his father told him on his death bed. The father separated the two sons because he saw too many kingdoms torn apart by brothers feuding and didn't want that to happen with his sons. After learning about his twin, the king imprisoned him and set an iron mask on him because he wanted to protect his power and his crown. The King was power hungry and it can be said that power can do this to anyone. Both Rousseau and Hobbes were smart men with great points, they were polar opposites and very extreme.

Knowledge is Virtue?

Moral Excellence, a good admirable quality, righteousness. These are some definitions of the word virtue. We have talked about virtue a lot in this course yet never gave it a real definition. I don't believe that knowledge is necessarily virtue, but i do believe that knowledge does lead to it. When you become knowledgeable about something you are able to be open minded about things and accept things more than when you are ignorant to facts. For example, I was told that I needed to call the holiday inn to make a reservation, the person who told me to do it told me that I should have "a white friend" call because maybe that will enable me to actually get a room. I think this is an example of a person who isn't knowledgeable about the times we live in and isn't knowledgeable enough to be proud of the skin they are in. It can be said that this person isn't virtuous because of the mind set they have.
To be ignorant isn't to be virtuous because if you are virtuous you try to be the best you can be . You try to be righteous but you aren't able because you don't understand the way the world works. So ignorance isn't always bliss, because ignorance is the opposite of knowledge and knowledge leads to virtue. Knowledge does encourage people to be open and accepting of differences that people have. Once you become more accepting , your more prone to doing virtuous things. :-)

Philosophers and Philosophy

OK, So in class we were discussing the topic of happiness, and you already see how I feel about Aristotle's view on happiness. But really, who is he to tell me that when I am happy I don't feel true happiness. Like I feel like questioning my happiness will eventually lead me to never feel happy before. I know that a person could force themselves to be happy and pretend that they are happy, but deep down inside they do know that they aren't truly happy and that it is just a front. Can someone be so good at faking to be happy that they start believing that they are happy themselves? I don't know, all I do understand is that when I am happy, I am happy in the moment, I am living in that moment.
I understand that philosophy is a really informative subject and it is a subject of much debate. However, I feel like philosophers expected people to take in their opinions on the nature of humans and not question it. Yes, people do have similar characteristics, but I feel like you cannot label one specific thing and apply it to all humans. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, they were humans just like us who wanted to know more about how things worked. They did research and came up with theories, however I don't think their theories apply to everyone. I just think we should all live and be happy with ourselves and others.

Happiness? :-)

Happiness isn't anything that can be defined. It is a feeling that many feel, when something happens the way we want it too. The accomplishment of a goal or the achievement of a merit are things that people may feel happy about. I think we should not rely on others to determine our happiness, just as the example on page 64, we should determine our own happiness, we should feel happy with ourselves then try to make others determine how we feel. On the topic of happiness I do wonder is happiness a momentary escape from reality? When we find our self caught up in the moment are we unconsciously forgetting what the real world is like and are faced with illusions. When we don't feel the feeling of joy or rapture are we coming conscious of what the world is really like and we go back into trying to make ourselves happy again? The book says that happiness is a deception and when the thing that does make us happy is missing we are hit with the harshness of the real world. I don't know about this, I do know when I am happy I am in a place that I don't want to leave.
Is it a fact that people search all their life to be happy, so that's why they do buy expensive thing trying to fill the void. Is happiness a materialistic emotion? I have never thought of these questions, and I try not to because it ruins the emotion. Now a person who reads this part of the chapter is going to ask themselves the next time the feel joy, "Am I truly happy or is this just an illusion." Happiness is an emotion and a feeling that everyone has. Everyone finds their own happiness in things and it's up to them whether or not they want to question it.