Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


I’m Doing This for the Wrong Reasons, and THAT’S OKAY. (Ethics) – Matthew Gosselin

Watch out, we’re jumping into hyperspace because I have no time to finish this but LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO

Personal Definitions:


I like math and formulae. I like utilitarianism. Everything should end in a net positive result no matter what motives, actions or events are involved. A perfect action in a circumstance is one that would maximize the happiness of every person involved without granting any pain or displeasure to anyone. The equation would look something like this, and would be a ratio. ((Number of people who gained happiness)*(Average degree of happiness obtained))/((Number of people who received unhappiness)*(Average degree of unhappiness obtained)) A ratio like this, if put in practical use, would have to be determined as to how large the ratio must be to be considered moral. If the ratio is simply more than 1:1, then it would easily allow people to defend themselves on the case of mass murder, such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the war, due to the fact that it “saved” more than 60,000 people. Granted, you are not able to accurately say the degree of happiness or pain that is received by each person involved. (To be in any way possible as well to avoid complete bias, there would need to be one government of the world to implement this.)

Categorical Imperative:

This one is sketchy, and even harder to implement. However, it is a feel-good perspective on morality. (WHICH COMPLETELY RUINS THE OBJECTIVE OF IT.) The Categorical Imperative is an action and motive-based code of ethics. If you have a pure heart, and your intentions are pure, the results of your actions are negligible. You are to act as though your actions determine the universal law of what actions to take in those scenarios. If you see someone on the sidewalk who has fallen down and seems injured, and you believe that helping is the right thing to do, then do it. You should act this way because you believe that if anyone falls down, people should have a natural inclination to help them back up. In some ways it restores a sense of humanity, but there are some loopholes in this picture. For starters, if everyone immediately rushed to help up people who have fallen down, there would be more car accidents on pedestrians running to help people. An infinite number of things would be changed because of every single universal law. Also laws may conflict with another simply because of a different motive when approaching the same scenario. People inherently have different ideas on what, “the right thing to do,” may be, and there is no way to properly determine what it is unless a democratic vote of the world is in place, in which it would simply favor utilitarianism in my opinion. (By benefiting the most people.) Finally, you may approach the same scenario as someone else and take the same action but be considered immoral due to having the “wrong” motive. (Not to mention the fact that having pure moral is nearly impossible, due to a natural self-satisfaction gained by believing that you’re doing the right thing. Also it’s nearly impossible to not see a shred of self-interest in every action taking place.) Not only that, the, “right thing to do,” might end in a terrible result for many people.

What Do I Use:

In all honesty, I act upon a morality separate from both of these, because I am human and am naturally inclined towards self-interest over others’ interests. If two strangers and I were strapped to separate train tracks with no means of escape, and a train was on its way, and the only way for me to live was to use a mic strapped to me to tell the conductor to change course onto the other train tracks and kill the other people, I would do it. Nearly every single person would. I’m sorry that I value my life above others. (Besides, there’s always the idea of solipsism.) To what degree, I’m not sure. I don’t know how many people it would take on those other train tracks for me to change my decision to suicide, and for what moral reason. Would it be simply to preserve life (Utilitarianism), or because it’s the right thing to do (Categorical Imperative), or because I’d like to be remembered as a hero? (“Poor” moral reasoning) However, I am able to say that I would like to incorporate Utilitarianism more into my everyday life. Not simply by means of results, but the process involved before I take action. I would like to talk to and understand people more before I take actions that could cause negative results on others, and specifically how it would impact them to know if my actions are moral. I would also like to be able to make a decision that would benefit the whole instead of just my little slice.

One Current Issue:

An issue I believe needs solving is that of massive corporations, such as Walmart and McDonald’s. Although they provide services to which many people enjoy, the cut that the CEO’s are taking is massive. The Walmart family is worth roughly $130 billion dollars, but they pay over 90% of their employees minimum wage. I believe there should always be incentive and ability for people to become wealthy, but not at the expense of others to this degree. A perspective that includes both Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative ideas would be beneficial. First of all, within the Categorical Imperative, there lies the simple value that states it is morally wrong to deprive your workers from basic needs in life. A utilitarian point of view would state that the mediocre degree of happiness cherished by the ridiculously rich Walton family is heavily outweighed by the sadness experienced by the thousands of workers employed by Walmart. In a world enforced by Utilitarianism, they would be forced to bite the bullet and improve the pay and quality of life of their workers. Finally, self-interest can even be incorporated with this example. If this action was to take place, Walmart would gain a better reputation as a respected company that pays workers fairly and treats them with care. This, in exchange, would elevate the number of customers walking in the door and number of applicants.

Matthew Gosselin

Empirical Philosopher



Fashionably Late (Aesthetics) – Matthew Gosselin

As a prerequisite: Here were my answers to the questions we were given to complete in class! (Trying to guess what the questions were from memory and my responses actually….)

A: What were your questions/topics you wanted to explore?

Can you force or plan an aesthetic experience? Does your mental state affect your ability to have an aesthetic experience? Is it possible to have a truly aesthetic experience when mentally drained or tired?

B: Explain an aesthetic experience that you had that related to one of your questions.

I went to watch Star Wars: Rogue One (A film series that I am typically vividly entertained by) on Christmas, possibly the most aesthetically pleasing day of the year. The catch was that I had slept for a mere 2 hours the night before. Although the plot was strong, my concentration was simply unable to be engaged to the degree I’d call an aesthetic experience. It may not be impossible, but it is exponentially harder to have an aesthetic experience the less mental energy left in the system.

C: Explain an aesthetic experience that you had that didn’t relate to any of your questions.

I went skiing (I typically snowboard every year.) for the first time in eight years, and after a few minutes of frustration due to my skill level not meeting the challenge, my brain clicked and I was having a blast. It was simply an aesthetic experience without an objective. (I was very surprised I could still ski, and felt nostalgic towards the times when I was very good at it.) I admit that an argument can be made that as I grew more physically tired  through the runs, the intensity of my aesthetic experience declined. (Which it did.)

D: What were your results or conclusions? What did you find?

I found that aesthetic experiences can only be as strong as your mind and body, depending on the activity. I also found that with a planned activity such as going to the movie theatre, expectations of an aesthetic experience can diminish or enhance the intensity of the experience. For instance, I went under the premises that the new Star Wars movie was a huge success, and I was mildly disappointed. Had I not been expecting much, I may have appreciated the good points more than I noticed the bad ones.

E: What’s next on the agenda? Is there anything you still have left to answer or would like to delve further into?

I would like to experiment to see if it’s actually truly possible to have an aesthetic experience while mentally and/or physically drained, as my last attempt was unsuccessful. Also, I’d like to explore the realm of planned/projected aesthetic experiences vs. “natural” aesthetic experiences. Finally, I want to explore the differences and what you can get out of a strong negative aesthetic experience.

The three objectives of this assignment were: (Sorry I’m much more used to writing lab reports than freely-written stuff so that’s how most of these end up.)

  1. Define your aesthetic perspective.
  2. Align your aesthetic perspective with what you can find of other philosophers’ perspectives.
  3. Describe your holiday experience(s) as examples of this aesthetic.

(Prepare yourself, this will answer both 1 & 2.)

Trying to formulate and then articulate a coherent individual response to the first question is often difficult, and working backwards helps. Therefore, I read up on each popular philosopher and tried to connect with each of their ideas and found out where my agreements and disagreements were, leading myself to a better understanding of my own aesthetic perspective. Lo and behold, YOUR BOY PLATO had it in my heart all along. I originally wanted to agree with Descartes, and I still do to a degree, but I couldn’t fully. This was due to the reason I believe solipsism retains merit on occasion, even if just for a second perspective, I couldn’t find a bridge between the two. If all the world was a figment of my imagination, I don’t believe there would be a way that I wouldn’t understand how others and therefore other parts of my imagination could not see my perspective on art and beauty. I believe that the world AGREES on a set principle of art and beauty, in the same way that I believe that every single thing in the world can be a metaphor for something else. (Most likely the reason I connected Philosophy to a Neapolitan pizzeria.) In my opinion, the objective of art is to mimic reality. (Also to mimic a future or past reality! Not just how life is in the present.) If there came a day when virtual reality was so good that you couldn’t tell the difference between it and real life, and you could be content living in a virtual reality, that would be the purest form of art in my eyes. Not necessarily healthy for society or the individual, but I believe it would be pure art, and Plato would most likely agree. However, there are ways in which I stray from Plato’s ideals. If there was a simplistic painting of a blue house with a white picket fence, and a cracked glass frame on top, Plato would look away in disdain, for the artist would have failed in his eyes. I disagree. To me, even though the painting may not be detailed, it has metaphorical value. I see the house and fence as an idealistic world, plain and simple, where everything seems to make sense. The cracked frame represents our flawed sense of perception and lens on reality. Life is always more complicated than we think it to be. Every artwork can have metaphorical value, and I believe that it is judged as good or bad (from an objective standpoint) subconsciously on two things: the degree as to which it may relate to reality, both in detail and metaphorical value, and the number of people who experience this relation. The more people who can find the metaphorical value in an artwork, the better! On the flip side, a subjective standpoint will always reason with Descartes upon the principle that one artwork may not please every person the same way, leading to the simple judgement that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find enjoyment in taking the path less travelled. Is that immoral? Maybe, but I find intrinsic value in augmenting my own happiness without the cost of others’.

I’d like to relate this aesthetic perspective to the time I went to see Star Wars: Rogue One. I find that science fiction movies lose value as more and more logical mistakes are made. For instance, (SPOILERS AHH) when only 6 rebellion ships are able to join in a fight on Scarif, the tropical planet, I expect there to be only 6 ships. However, after a few minutes of individual character plots, the ships are still fighting and popping up as if they have an entire rebel fleet. This takes it away from the reality of the position they were in. I lose value in the pilots of the ships, and the bleakness of their position! A major predicament has been altered without most of the audience knowing. The metaphorical value of a situation so desperate that unbelievable luck and skill are required to overcome the obstacles was ultimately disappointed in that moment. (Also there were many things in the movie I didn’t find appealing such as a lack of lightsabers. I mean that’s one of the main reasons I watch Star Wars..) Anyways I had a great holiday and hope everyone did as well! Thanks for reading!

Matthew Gosselin

Current Philosopher, Eventual Jedi



Help, I’ve Fallen and WAIT I’M STILL FALLING! (Phil’s Day Off) – Matthew Gosselin

Upon Mr. Jackson’s proposal of Jordan and I going bungee jumping for our Phil’s Day Off experiment, we laughed it off for a good few minutes until he started getting into the heavy details, such as setting a time and getting pricing. Bungee jumping was something we’d never done before, and it was something that I’ve withdrawn from because of my fear when my brother did it. The whole thing seemed surreal until the moment my feet were on the ledge and my harness was attached. Here are a few excerpts from my days prior to the jump! (I felt like writing this as an astronaut, unsure as to why.)

Thursday, 2 days before launch:

I’m scared. My hands have become sweaty at seemingly random intervals. The main focus has been to find an “instant solution” to the stress and a way to mentally prepare for the jump. All available sources have found ways of tying to one thing. Deep breathing. The main bodily process that this affects is heart rate. With slower and deeper breathing the slower the heart rate. Racing thoughts have been known to cause stress and for this to be the case, “slower” thought would lead to relaxation. I believe the speed of thoughts is tied to the speed of perception. The best example I can think of is a monster running towards you. The faster it runs, or the faster you perceive it to be, the scarier it becomes. If you perceive it more slowly, fear becomes more manageable which makes decision making more logical. On another note, a slow-fall bungee jump would probably be the most enjoyable yet terrifying experience possible.

Friday, 1 day before launch:

I am simply at another day of school, sitting alongside my friend Jordan. Half of me believes that tomorrow is a million years away, and the other half has an atomic clock counting down every one of the 84,120 seconds left. I am a jumble of emotion, consisting of fear, excitement, uncertainty in my ability to jump, zeal towards matching my brother’s courage, trust in Jordan, regret of accepting Mr. J’s idea in the first place, and a passive feeling of destiny awaiting me on the bridge. I’ve spoken with my brother about how he did it, and in much more vulgar terms than I care to write in a blog post, he told me, “Just jump. That’s all there is to it.” I’ve never seen him scared in my life. I want to fly without fear as well. Tomorrow will be a good day.

Our main question in this experiment was concerning free-will and determinism in a volatile mental state. The question was, “Is it possible to control a panic response through sheer willpower?” There were actually three separate stages at which panic responses in myself occurred. I also noted that each stage had a corresponding event that I hadn’t experienced prior to it. The first stage was once my harness had been clipped on and I stepped onto the ledge overhanging the abyss. The frigid weather, instability of my footing, and distraught mental state suddenly amplified. This was the moment when I knew that my pride wouldn’t let me back out. I was MENTALLY locked in to the jump. No matter what, I knew that it was happening, regardless of how tightly I gripped those handrails. The feeling of a predetermined event of such high caliber was new to me. The second stage was the split-second my feet left the platform. This was the PHYSICAL lock-in. Now, even if both my mind and body wanted to back out, there was no possible way. I physically couldn’t catch myself. The continuation of my destiny was then left to a higher being, or the person in charge of overseeing bungee cord production in who-knows-where. Finally, the last stage of fear was when my velocity had gotten to a point that I’d never felt before. I’d jumped off 7-meter diving boards and the like, but a 160 foot free-fall paled everything else in comparison. My senses were the only things left working. I looked at the beautiful scenery on the horizon, caught the scent of a snow-tipped forest, felt my fingers rush through frigid yet refreshing air, and heard the roar of wind fly past me. (My mouth was busy swearing and screaming.) I’d never felt so alive. As soon as the fear was over, I had the time of my life!

Post-jump reflection:

I don’t think it’s possible to control a panic response, if a panic response is induced by a completely new experience, regardless of what activities (such as deep breathing) are done prior. My reasoning is that the very definition of panic is the loss of control or ability to make a cognitive action of thought. The people working at Whistler Bungee would never have another true panic response at that location because it’s not a new experience. This is why people train for things to avoid panic responses by simulating similar experiences. The only things that can be controlled are the ability to put yourself in a situation that induces a panic response and the ability to find appreciation in the experience itself. All you can do is jump or back out. After the jump, you can either say you had fun or that you didn’t. Some people are inherently better at taking stepping off the ledge, and inherently better at finding appreciation in the experience. That’s it! (I also believe that the possibility of a panic response is directly proportional to how different it is to the summation of all your previous experiences.) If you’re looking for an amusing picture of Jordan or myself during this experience, they are on Jordan’s post. Thanks for reading!

Matthew Gosselin

Falling Virtuoso



Learn to Listen, and Study Your Speech. (Something I’ve Learned in Philosophy (Recompense for DOL #1)) – Matthew Gosselin

Something I’ve been bestowed with by this Philosophy class is the opportunity to speak and to listen. Unbeknownst to myself until this class, I have grown up through the education system with an abundance of privilege looming over me. I am a decently academic, straight, white, male, in a fairly financially stable position. Prior to arriving in Philosophy 12, I had been in classes which I had my hand up more often than it was down, and spoke excessively when I thought I had a decent point. In my mind, I was always right and I never gave others opinions much thought or the chance to be simply an alternate perspective.

Along comes Philosophy 12. Early on, I thought my views were somewhat adamant and so I shared them. Upon self-reflection, I’m unsure of whether it was to develop my curiosity to the subject or simply to seem intellectual. (I’m sorry that I occasionally became like a control in some conversations, not letting others speak.) I think one of my motives was also that other people in the class, minus a few exceptions, were inherently “passive,” in discussions. I still am unsure if that was due to having a lesser amount of natural privilege that made them uncomfortable or vulnerable, or simply that they didn’t feel like speaking. As the course progressed, my opinions shed their façade and proved to be malleable. I was less confident in being, “right.” Eventually this allowed me to realize that the objective of the course wasn’t to be, “right,” and therefore allowed me to value the opinions of others and simply share on occasion when I believe I can better my own or another individual’s understanding of a dense reading or heavy discussion. My mom always told me that I was given two ears and one mouth for a reason, and that was to listen twice as much as I talk. Finally I’m proud that I’m trying to act on that basic principle. Not only did I learn to listen to others, but the ambiguity of some of the course objectives and readings continuously left my thought process murky, and I’ve had to struggle with articulating my thoughts in a valid and sensible manner. I was frustrated at first but now it has inspired me to augment my vocabulary! I’m enjoying myself and hope everyone else can find solace somewhere in the hieroglyphics of Immanuel Kant! (My moments of newfound clarity occurred shortly after the Logic unit.)

Matthew Gosselin

Opinionated Connoisseur



Afraid of the Light (Plato’s Cave) – Matthew Gosselin

I spent a long time thinking about Plato’s Cave, and from many different aspects. I could say that I have turned a new leaf in my life, and now have learned to appreciate nature to the fullest. I won’t. I could say that, because of my suffusing independence, I have broken free from my shackles and now take the reins, leading the path I want to. I won’t. I could say that I’ve finally understood what it means to be human, vulnerable, and have flawed belief and intellect. I won’t. Why? I don’t want to say something that’s not true to me, no matter how wonderful the words may look on the page. That would only tighten my shackles. Currently, I am staring blank-faced at the shadows being portrayed in front of me. They’re vivid, and the mindless zombies beside me agree on that. I have many friends that come visit as well, and share great tales of the land “outside.” I listen, and out of the corner of my eye I can see the light leading up the stairs and away. These shadows are fake. I know that.

The problem is that I’m too scared to take those steps, and the shadows are too comfortable, real or not. I purposefully remain indolent and seemingly oblivious to the truth that is mere paces away. To be honest, I can’t take more than a step towards the light without losing all self-control and lamenting over the futility of being alive on Earth. I, along with many others, pretending to ignore the hollowness in my chest and to distract myself with any activity possible to avoid passive thought. One thing that I’ve never been able to do was find incentive or self-determination to complete my work. Maybe this is a step closer to the exit, maybe it’s not, or maybe I’ll trip and stumble back to where I sat shackled.

The only goal I have is to someday live without fear of the light. I’ll step outside, sigh peacefully, and say to myself, “I’m happy.”

Matthew Gosselin

Artisan of Metaphors



Thinking About Thinking. (Epistemology) – Matthew Gosselin

A quick introduction to my argument: I’ve been feeling very empirical lately, and have wanted to find ways to bridge the gap between empirical science and the typically malleable ideas of philosophy. (Then again, there have been so many paradigm shifts in science that to call modern science, “solid,” or, “factual,” would be ridiculous.) I faced the question, “What is knowledge?” Often times a question such as this is destined for one of two dead ends if there isn’t a specific train of thought behind the formulation of the answer. This is because it can seem impossible to conclude an answer without perfectly true premises, or that it may seem impossible because there are an infinite number of answers depending on how you quantify or qualify knowledge. Therefore, I asked myself, “Can I tell if someone is knowledgeable?” This was easily accepted. Then arose the question, “What do knowledgeable people have in common?” I decided that people are knowledgeable because they formulate answers to difficult questions, regardless of being right or wrong. This is because their logic is valid, but may not always have true premises. To do things such as this, it requires deep concentration and dedication, which have been “proven” to amplify brain activity. This drew a connection, and after defining the principles of my argument, this is what I came up with:

Premise 1:

Knowledge by this circumstance’s definition is an awareness for something.

Premise 2:

An action of thought occurs when a sequence of neurons fire in the brain.

Premise 3:

Neurons fire at any moment in order to process and transmit information.

Premise 4:

Information can be defined as what is conveyed or represented by something or someone.

Premise 4:

Neuron activity is detectable, measurable and able to be depicted by modern technology.


Knowledge is able to be shown by any and all action of thought.

Obviously, all my assumptions are based off of what modern science deems the factual correctness of my premises to be. (This is especially due to the design of machines to measure predicted things such as neuron activity, which may not be measuring what is truly happening but simply goes along with their hypotheses.) A serious idea that arises from this argument is that society’s idea of knowledge does not abide with my own consensus. There is a possibility of someone who is constantly thinking, however is never able to conclude answers to their own questions due to any number of reasons. This could be because of a mangled sense of logic in comparison to the rest of the world, or simply thinking about things such as the logical flow-chart possessed by dogs etc. (Unpopular topics or socially looked down upon, such as video games.) They would popularly be seen as dim-witted, although may be, by my definition, the most knowledgeable person alive. Without the omniscient knowledge of a higher being to understand the true nature of human beings, who knows? Then again, if that was the case, we would have the knowledge to every answer already. Hopefully it brought you enjoyment to read my thought process along my path to enlightenment!

Matthew Gosselin,

A Dedicated Philosopher



Death and Delay (Metaphysics) – Matthew Gosselin

The topic I will be discussing has resonated with me for a long time, and was ignited during our class discussion when Mr. Jackson talked about the man waiting to be hanged. The man believed that the rope had broken or failed, and rushed home to his wife and family. He talked with them for a long time and had just taken his jacket off when the world went black. In this moment, the man had lost his life to the noose that was so long ago in his mind. The moments before death have held much controversy over the years, and I set out to find a few answers for my own satisfaction of curiosity. Possibly for the better, I have instead simply increased the level of interest I have in the topic. It is happily implied that the journey was taken without having to, “pay the ultimate price,” as I am still here to write the assignment.

My main topic was the thought process experienced in the moments before cessation of thought process and an explanation of how or why. These were the three questions that I deemed worthy of a response to cover a decent portion of the topic.

  1. What occurs scientifically in brain activity in the moments before death?
  2. What have people said to have experienced during the time of cardiac arrest?
  3. Could this lean towards a method of thinking about self or Being?

The source I found credible to explain my inquiry was: In Dying Brains, Signs of Heightened Consciousness

  1. Unfortunately, it is difficult to conduct an experiment such as this on humans, and as such there is not enough scientific knowledge to answer the question in full. However, the source has conducted an experiment measuring the brain activity of rats during cardiac arrest. For a period of time, the rats showed a heightened sense of brain activity in the low-gamma waves. These waves have been tied to a sense of conscious perceptiveness, such as memory and recognition. This was speculated that it could have been induced by the lack of oxygen or simply a natural reaction of the brain as it recognizes the limited amount of time left.
  2. Many sources (including the one linked) have referenced that people who have undergone cardiac arrest have returned with proclamations that line up with the rat experiment. They have said that they are able to hear conversations, see the clinical room around them, or even return to their families. Unfortunately, this is where the lack of experimentation and major possibility of faulty sensory and mental information comes into play. However, one general consensus that has arisen from these individuals is that their mind was able to exist in a space other than their own body. This is typically expressed by the feeling of being present inside the medical room and seeing one’s own physical form.
  3. If the sensation of mind separating from body was a dominant and consistent response to cardiac arrest, there would be a large surge towards a dualist point-of-view; however, there is a major flaw in the logic of this experiment. The problem is that everyone who has undergone this experiment or interview has continuously maintained brain activity during cardiac arrest. No person has been brought back from a point of non-existence in which all brain activity has disappeared. This would mean that the brain activity could likely be creating an illusion of separation from the body itself while in a trance-like state. Whether or not losing brain activity would mean a cessation of the soul, or simply the soul leaving the body completely is the question that is unable to be answered. Until someone has been brought back from that point, (if it’s even possible) we shall never know.

Matthew Gosselin

Artist of Quixotic Ideas



Decisions are Tough. (Logic) – Matthew Gosselin

This argument was created from the situation of a teenager in high school being poked and prodded by family over what career they will pursue, and failing to come up with an answer.

I would like to premise my premises by acknowledging that with the second and third premises, the first one seems redundant. The only explanations I have for this is are that my argument needs an initial point like Premise 1 to give a distinct pathway to my conclusion, as well as that without Premise 2 and 3, Premise 1 seems much more easily contested.

Premise 1 – Much of one’s learning about adulthood occurs in university, if that is the direction they wish to head after high school.

Premise 2 – University is a place where failure is abundant and nurtured in a safe environment.

Premise 3 – In a primal state, learning derives from failure.

Premise 4 – Learning gives us a greater understanding of our strengths, weaknesses, and interests.

Premise 5 – With additional knowledge of our own strengths, weaknesses and interests, we are more equipped to select an intellectually suitable and enjoyable career path.

Conclusion – It will be more difficult to create an intellectually suitable and enjoyable career path before learning about myself in university.

I’m an analytical person, therefore my main goal was to simply create a valid argument for the situation. I’m proud to say that the conclusion directly follows from the premises, and that if all my premises are known or perceived as to be true, that the conclusion is certain to be true as well. I understand that the scale of truth in my argument is ambiguous, as my premises are primarily based off of opinion and/or contentious belief. The premises I believe to be least contested, or most commonly accepted as true, are Premises 3, 4, and 5. The touchy premises are certainly Premises 1 and 2, due to the fact that many students have drastically different experiences as they travel through their lives as university students. I am also somewhat personalizing this argument for myself, as I am a straight white male and therefore have privilege and a feeling of safety that others might not share. Because of these biased and contested issues, the soundness of my argument is also flawed.

I created this argument to relieve the feeling of anxiety over my career choice from both myself and my parents. I have been interrogated for the last few months about what field of study I will pursue, without an answer. This assignment, looking back, seems like a scapegoat for myself to delay the inevitable. I hope that my belief in my premises will inherently create a true conclusion for myself. The question concerning a career choice at an early age has been debated more and more with each coming generation. It was obvious in the eras leading up to and including the Middle Ages. You were born into your career and role in society, whether it be a noble or a servant. There was no argument. However, as the Renaissance occurred, the formation of a middle-class sprang up, allowing an average individual to pursue their own ambition into a grand selection of careers. This has only grown to this day, and the decision has become more and more difficult. (Often times I am overwhelmed by the amount of choice that I have, and wonder if it would be better or more efficient to have less choice. This is quickly silenced by my will towards life without shackles.) The implications of the argument, on a materialistic level, would make an individual have to spend (realistically) another year in university, and a few thousand dollars. However, in a society where the majority of the citizens agreed upon my argument, it would change the emotional state of students. There would still continue to be dreams and aspirations for students travelling through early stages of the education system. The change would come in high school. It would make high school a more enjoyable experience, by reducing the stress on students. It also would hopefully change the lives of every adult in new generations for the better. If everyone has made more educated decisions on their career choice, we would create a more inherently productive and happier society. This would drastically improve the economy through an enjoyment of work, and enjoyment fuels spending habits as well.

Matthew Gosselin

Logical Enigma