Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

Euthanasia By Nadine and Alyssa

Throughout the past few week in class we have been discussing morals and philosophers views on ethics. While diving into an exploration of some ethical issues one stood out for us, that topic being Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the intentional killing of another person as requested by them as they may be facing terminal, painful illness and would rather end their lives immediately than fade away slowly and painfully with time. There are different types of Euthanasia.

  • Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
  • Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
  • Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed expressed a wish to the contrary.
  • Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called “physician assisted suicide.”
  • Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person’s death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
  • Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.

Euthanasia is currently illegal in most of Canada and many other countries around the world. As with all ethical problems, there are two side; for and against. The present law in Canada does not distinguish between euthanasia, assisted suicide and other forms of murder.  The key consideration is the intention to cause death.  Consent or motive – even one of compassion – does not change the reality of killing a human being.

4

People who are against Euthanasia are just that for a multitude of reasons.

Many believe that allowing Euthanasia to become a legal norm would weaken society’s value for human life. People with disabilities and illness may soon be viewed as burdens to society as they have the option to die sooner and no longer use up our hospital’s resources and space, a view that would negatively impact the mental health of millions of patients. Every human being has the right to be valued equally in society. By legalizing Euthanasia some may develop the mindset that the weak should simply be disposed of, a view that is detrimental to the equality of our society. Human life should not be a means to an end, it is a good in itself and should be treated as such.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself. Our inherent value doesn’t depend on anything else – it doesn’t depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people’s lives better. We exist, so we have value. It applies to us too as we shouldn’t treat ourselves as a means to our own ends meaning that lives should not be taken for the sole reason that it seems like the most effective way to alleviate suffering. To do that, through the eyes of this moral argument, would be to disregard people’s inherent worth. This view is known as the Slippery slope argument, the idea that allowing something seemingly harmless to happen may enable it to eventually spiral and escalate to allowing more worse things, currently unthinkable things, to become the norm. If Euthanasia were to be legalized and made a norm, many believe that vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don’t really want it.

vancouver rally iv

Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered.

  • family and friends
  • medical and other careers
  • other people in a similar situation who may feel pressured by the decision of this patient
  • society’s balance in general

To outline each and every argument against Euthanasia out there would make for a monstrous blog post, so instead here are some of the most common arguments against Euthanasia in point form:

  •  Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
  • Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
  • There’s no way of properly regulating euthanasia
  • Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill
  • Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives
  • Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill
  • Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief
  • Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
  • Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families
  • Moral pressure to free up medical resources
  • Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution

In contrast, there are many who believe that Euthanasia is something that should be made legal for all people. There are a few different moral approaches that have come to this conclusion.

Protesters

Consequentialism & Utilitarianism would focus on looking at the consequence of the affected people of the situation. John Stuart Mill said in his famous essay that

“good consequences are simply happiness, and happiness is pleasure and freedom from pain – not only physical pain but also distress of other kinds.”

The idea of this explains that there is the possibility of producing most pleasure and the least pain for everyone involved. Mills also stated

“ good consequences depend not only on the quantity of pleasure but also on the quality of the experiences which produce it and of the human being which is developed by them.”

According to this, the right action is something that promotes in oneself and others in a higher happiness.

Another approach to this issue would be Deontology, the idea that some or all actions are right or wrong in themselves because of the type of actions that they are. In this article by Elizabeth Telfer, she explains this concept by stating:

“Examples of these would be John Locke in the seventeenth century, Richard Price in the eighteenth century and David Ross and H. A. Prichard in the twentieth. Some Deontological philosophers speak in terms of duties, others of rights, but for our purposes they may be grouped together. However, we need to distinguish between two kinds of rights. Some rights, commonly called negative rights, are rights not to be treated in certain ways, and there are corresponding duties not to treat the owners of these rights in these ways. Other rights are positive rights to receive goods or services. Other people may have a duty to provide these, though it tends to be difficult to decide exactly who, as with such rights as the right to work.

There are two negative rights, found in most lists, which are particularly relevant to voluntary euthanasia. These are: the right not to be killed, corresponding to a duty not to kill, and the right to liberty corresponding to a duty to respect others’ liberty. I shall say a little about each of these. The notion of a duty not to kill seems at first to rule out euthanasia of any kind, and those who oppose euthanasia sometimes seem to think that all they need to do is to say ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in a suitably solemn voice. But we do not regard the prohibition of killing as absolute: we may think there can be justified wars or justified capital punishment, or that killing in self- defense or defense of others is justified. And it is easier to justify voluntary euthanasia than the killing in these other cases, where the person who dies does not choose to do so. If the reason why in general we ought not to kill is that life is a person’s most precious possession, then that reason can be overturned if the person no longer wants to live.”
-Elizabeth Telfer

The Moral theory of Egoism; the belief that the right action is always that which has the best consequences for the doer of the action, or agent, would further find that Euthanasia should be a legal right.Similar to topic one, this is more about how the doer of the action presents itself to something that benefits him/her. Such as a selfish family member that would rather have the money one gets from a fallen family member.Aristotle’s policy in life is not to pursue our own pleasure but to develop our own flourishing or foster our best selves. This however is the opposite of Egoism. One must find and develop a non-egoistic self. Someone who possesses moral virtues, which includes the act of regarding others values. Such as the idea of a death with dignity. Euthanasia lets someone have their values preserved and their better self is seen at the end, rather than a declined better self.

KDD00686UK

In general, those who are for Euthanasia believe that legalizing it and making it accessible to the people who are in dire pain would make their better self shine through at the end of their lifespan, would benefit many families and would give them the freedom to control their own lives.

Like many topics in this world, Euthanasia is extremely controversial. As it stands, Euthanasia is illegal in most of Canada, but there are many arguments against it. As is the case of all ethical situations, there are pro’s and con’s, what you believe and which philosopher you agree with is an opinion thats entirely up to you to form.

 

 

 

By

The Beauty of Art

 

Art is aesthetically pleasing, comes in many forms and is subjective.
One person may find this photograph that I took in the spring aesthetically pleasing.

10526022_669634689784397_83344245630573478_n
However, another person may feel this painting by Ruth Harris to be more pleasing.

 

 

jade-dandelion-ruth-harris

Both works of art are of similar subjects and yet they can be viewed in very different ways and can produce different emotional responses, proving that aesthetics is a very broad, very subjective field.

 

By

On Experience, Perception and Biased Expressions

Proposition: Knowledge is fueled by experience, influenced by perception and expressed in a strictly subjective manner

When creating a theory of what knowledge is I came to understand that it is fueled through experience. Whether that experience is physical (one is creating an understanding that fire is hot by touching it) or mental (one is creating an understanding that fire is hot by reading about it). There are so many different ways in which people can begin to understand and gain knowledge of different topics, just as there are many ways in which they encode that knowledge.

Klob’s theory of the experiential learning cycle outlines that there are four steps in the cycle of learning through experience:  Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation,  Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation.

Concrete Experience involves encountering a new situation or the reinterpretation of an existing experience.

Reflective Observation involves reflecting on the experience being sure there are no inconsistencies on the experience and the understanding of it.

Abstract Conceptualization involves the discovery of new ideas or the abstract understanding that come to mind through reflections.

Active Experimentation involves the learner applying new knowledge to real life in order to see what may result.

learning-kolb

 

In Klob’s theory, all parts of the cycle are necessary for a person to fully gain knowledge. No one category can be effective on its own.

Knowledge can be perceived differently person to person. Many people have different learning styles which affect how they learn and what they gain from their experiences. Klob’s theory also involves the different styles of learning that people may have. Different variables affect a person’s learning style, and how they perceive their experiences.  For example, social environment, educational experiences, or the basic cognitive structure of the individual all play a role in how that person learns.

Klob’s theory involves four different learning styles: Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating.

Diverging (feeling and watching – CE/RO): People who use the learning style of diverging knowledge are often able to look at things from different perspectives. These people are sensitive to their surroundings, themselves and others. These learners prefer to watch rather than do, tending to gather information and using their imagination to solve problems. Diverging learners are best at viewing concrete situations at several different viewpoints and perform better in situations that require idea generation e.g. brainstorming. Diverging learners are generally more social as they prefer to work in groups, to listen with an open mind and to receive personal feedback.

Assimilating (watching and thinking – AC/RO):People who use the learning style of Assimilating knowledge use a logical approach when solving problems or interpreting information. These people value ideas and concepts over information from other people. They require a good clear explanation of a concept rather than a practical opportunity to physically use their knowledge.Assimilating learners excel at understanding a wide range information and organizing that information in clear logical formats. These people are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value. They prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through when attempting to gain new knowledge and understanding.

Converging (doing and thinking – AC/AE): People who use the learning style of converging knowledge can solve problems and will use their knowledge to find solutions to practical issues.They prefer technical tasks, and are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects of thinking.These learners are best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They can solve problems and make decisions by finding solutions to questions and problems which enables them to specialize in technological tasks.

Accommodating (doing and feeling – CE/AE): People who use the learning style of accommodating knowledge tend to be ‘hands-on’ learners, and rely on their intuition rather than logic. They use other people’s analysis, and prefer to take a practical, experiential approach when solving problems. These learners are often attracted to new challenges and experiences, and to carrying out plans. They act on ‘gut’ instinct rather than logical analysis and are the most prevalent learners in the general population.

A typical representation of Klob’s learning styles looks something like this:

kolb's_learning_styles_businessballs

The east-west axis of the cycle is called the Processing Continuum. This is how we choose to approach a task. The north-south axis is called the Perception Continuum which is our emotional response to our experience.
Many people agree that knowledge is obtained when a person is able to express that knowledge. While I believe that one does not have to express their knowledge to have it I do agree that the best way to prove that one has obtained an understanding of something is to express that understanding. When attempting to express knowledge, it becomes clear that knowledge obtained through experience is often subjective. In an article titled Subjective Knowledge by Rich Stutton he writes of the subjective view point. Explaining that:

“In it, all knowledge and understanding arises out of an individual’s experience, and in that sense is inherently in terms that are private, personal, and subjective. An individual might know, for example, that a certain action tends to be followed by a certain sensation, or that one sensation invariably follows another. But these are its sensations and its actions There is no necessary relationship between them and the sensations and actions of another individual. To hypothesize such a link might be useful, but always secondary to the subjective experience itself.”

He touches on what would conventionally be argued as objective knowledge. Information such as science and math involving definite particles and equations with definite solutions and concrete explainings. He talks about the objective, realist view explaining the belief that knowledge is objective in that

“In this view there is a reality independent of our experience. This would be easy to deny if there were only one agent in the world. In that case it is clear that that agent is merely inventing things to explain its experience. The objective view gains much of its force because it can be shared by different people. In science, this is almost the definition of the subjective/objective distinction: that which is private to one person is subjective whereas that which can be observed by many, and replicated by others, is objective.”

He points out both the flaws and the appeal of these views pointing out that:

“The appeal of the objective view is that it is common across people. Something is objectively true if it predicts the outcome of experiments that you and I both can do and get the same answer. But how is this sensible? How can we get the same answer when you see with your eyes and I with mine? For that matter, how can we do the “same” experiment?”

Stutton concludes that knowledge is subjective; a point that I whole heartily agree with. Knowledge is biased as no one person will experience, perceive and express their knowledge exactly the same way as another. Thus my theory of knowledge is that knowledge is fueled by experience, influenced by perception and expressed in a subjective manner.

 

 

 

By

Change Can be Normal right?

“Can normal exist?” is the question I asked in my last blog post. At the time I had come to the conclusion that nothing can ever be normal for nothing can ever be exactly the same. After discussing my topic with a few people and doing some research on Typs_of_nrml_sDeterminism I began to question my own post. What is philosophy without questions? Perhaps I was taking the definition too literally, perhaps I should have considered that normal exists on smaller scales. Sure, one normal culture cannot exist because there are so many and they are all commonly practiced but there are, however, things in a society that can be normal. If we look to the smaller scale gender roles in society can influence whats normal, societies morals can influence what is abnormal and the way people are isolated when they behave in unconventional ways can show what is normal. Why do we as a society prefer to have behavior that is classified as normal? Is it a conscious decision chosen by free will or does “normal” derive from the beliefs of hard determinism?

Different regions have different ideas of normal behavior. In North America, gender roles effect what we deem to be abnormal behavior. For example, tom boys are not the social norm but they do exist. A tom boy is, as Sarah Showfety describes, a

“female who engages in activities long considered primarily the domain of males. As young girls, tomboys shun Barbiedolls in favor of games that emphasize physicality and competition. They resist conventional feminine standards—avoiding pink clothes, lipstick, and nail polish—and often excel in sports. While “tomboy” is largely a term applied to prepubescent girls who prefer Tonka trucks to tea parties, some women retain tomboy characteristics into adulthood, gamely coaching the company softball team and downing brews with the guys.”

The standard of how boys and girls are expected to act lead to the creation of terms such as this. It brings to question weather we as a society have the right to put labels on people and judge them for their behavior.
This labeling, as it would seem, is normal. As a society we are constantly placing people into categories and are amazed when they behave differently from what we expected. It would be abnormal for a person to act out of the traits of their category for they would be going against what is expected of them. It’s in this way that normal can exist. Why do we create these labels, can we get past them? should we even try to? Perhaps the fear of the unknown is society’s number one motivator. We question everything and label everything because we have the innate desire to know everything. I guess that’s normal too.

These constraints that society makes can lead to rebellious behavior. People often wish to do as they please, they do not want to be held back by other peoples expectations. The desire to not be “mainstream” has become a mainstream concept. We often desire to be1316010803312_3639356 different, to stand out of the crowd and to not conform to societies norms, but that desire makes us quite similar to others. For example the hipster culture started as a life style to avoid being “mainstream” (this being the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.) As time went on the hipster culture, ironically, became normal. This life style became popular and is now accepted (although not without humor) as a societal label.

We have people in society who wish to be different and we have those who wish to fit in better. We are constantly attempting to find our place in society be it through rebellion or through attempts to be “cooler”. At one point in every human’s life they have thought about where they ‘fit into’ the scheme of the world. Are they normal?  Do they want to be? Through media and the responses to it we can see that people behave in similar ways. A song about ‘fitting in’ received  millions of views on YouTube and became extremely popular because it is something that the majority of people have been able to relate to in some way or another.The definition of normal is the usual, average, or typical state or condition. Wanting to be normal is an average, or typical state or condition when we look at songs like the one linked below.

 

lehma

Hard Determinism

Is the act of being normal an act of free will? Do we have 100% control over how we choose to behave or is free will an illusion formed for you, not by you? The idea that forces and conditions that were active before one develops the ability to comprehend things, make choices or exercise ones will is the theory of hard determinism. Does free will exist in the sense that we control our own behavior and personalities or do outside forces form it for us? Which of these relates to why humans choose to be normal? Some could argue that normality stems from hard determinism, that we have no real choice in the way that we live and think, thus creating a standard of normal. The forces that determine this lack of conscious free will include your childhood, education, social conditioning, exposure to external events all  and more. If we truly do not have free will, perhaps this is where the concept of normal comes from.

However existentialists, like Sartre, argued that its up to human beings to define themselves because no blue prints, no moral absolutes and no divine commandments and given values exist to guide peoples decisions on how to live. This lack of guidance, he argues, can lead to moments of existential angst or anxiety. Could then conforming to a societal norm be the result of fear? Do the people who feel “condemned” to be free (as Sartre worded it) conform more easily to the labels of normal because they are more desperate for it? Would Sartre agree that people who do not feel condemned by their freedom are more likely be viewed as abnormal by society? Or would he simply say that people have the free will to choose to behave however they wish and thus normal does not exist?

 

 

 

By

Normal – a Fictitious Concept

“The normal does not exist. The average does not exist. We know only a very large but probably finite phalanx of discrete space-time events encountered and endured.”

Timothy F.X. Finnegan

 

What is it to be normal, does normality exist?

As a society we have rules and codes to follow. We have certain ways to view things; certain ideas of what is politically correct and ethically okay. We, as a society have a strong belief in normality. The word normal can be defined as the usual, average, or typical state or condition. What exactly is the usual, average or typical state of condition? How can we measure the usual? How often does something need to occur for it to become a typical state or condition?

Our society is run by its belief that everyone should behave and act a certain way. If they don’t conform to that behavior society may reject them, and they are labeled as “strange” and “abnormal”.

However, normal does not exist.

Humans are diverse, we are all different in some way or another so how can you classify us all into a spectrum of norm? This idea of normality is about unquestionable measures of reality and conformity. Humans can be unpredictable, but we try to remove the unpredictability by creating predictable behavior to create guidelines for acceptance and by doing so, we invent the norm.

Just as we create the norm, we prove that it cannot truly exist. There are many different cultures around the world that all have their own ways of living, their own beliefs and their own traditions. Cultures can contradict each other; they can be very different from one another. So how can we label any one of them as “normal” when they are all so different? Recall, the definition of normal is the usual, average, or typical state. If we were to calculate the averages of different beliefs of culture, we would end up with classifying cultures like those that exist in Asia as the norm purely because they have the highest population of people who follow that structure. Is then every other culture abnormal? Do we then have the right to say that no other culture is right except for the one with the highest average of followers?

Social norms are different around the world. For example, if I were to go to store in Canada not wearing shoes than I would be kicked out, because here the norm is “no shoes, no shirt no service.” However, if I went to a store in my home country, South Africa, without shoes people would not even notice; it would not a big deal in the slightest for people do it all the time.

An objective society is impossible to create.  Never will every mind agree with every other mind. What is real depends upon our values, and these values depend upon our personality and our experience. If there is a disagreement between society and an individual how do you determine who is right? If you ask one hundred people a simple question worded the exact same way every time no two individuals will respond exactly the same way.

How can normal exist when no two people are alike? Psychological diversity is a fact of life and so there cannot be a ‘normal’ person.

The craving to be normal is the craving to be average, it stems from the need that each individual has to be accepted and welcomed in their society. Be that as it may, the word in its literal meaning cannot exist. There can never be anything that is truly normal for there can never be any two things that are truly and exactly identical.

 

 

By

Technology VS Play

In our modern day society technology and all its devices are a common place. We all use them in our daily lives, even our classroom is equipped with surround sound and a projector screen that’s over 20 feet long. The question many people are asking, however, is what age children should be actively using technology devices such as IPad’s, cell phones and computers.  Just recently, my cousin bought her five year old daughter and IPad for her birthday, a boy I babysit is 7 years old and plays a mass amount of video games, a friends younger sister is 8 and just recently got an IPhone 5c, all this has shown me that clearly many people are not opposed to allowing children to use technology in their everyday lives. Logically thinking, what effect does technology have on children and how young is too young?

It has been shown through many studies and written about in many articles, such as The Impact of Technology on Huffington Post, that technology has many more negative effects on children than positive ones. Many argue that the amount of technology a child is exposed to should be limited. This argument can be broken down through logically thinking as follows:

  • Premise one: A 2010 Kaiser Foundation study showed that elementary aged children use on average 7.5 hours of entertainment technology per day.
  • Premise two: Children need physical play that involves creative thinking to ensure the healthy development of their bodies as well as their minds.

    2013-05-27-buildingFoundationstransparent.jpg

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/technology-children-negative-impact_b_3343245.html

  • Premise three: Sedentary children exposed to frenzied sensory stimulation are resulting in delays in achieving child developmental milestones as well as negative impacts on basic foundation skills for achieving literacy.
  • Conclusion: Thus, the amount of technology a child may use per day should be limited.

By evaluating the premises the soundness of the statement can be determined through the following:

  • Premise one: can be accepted as true for it has been discovered through reasonable research
  • Premise two: Is accepted as true because of observation and scientific facts of child development that have been studied and accepted for years
  • Premise three: can be accepted hesitantly. It has been observed only, and in terms of science, is a very knew development. However, it still has been proven

    2013-05-27-virtualFuturestransparent.jpg

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/technology-children-negative-impact_b_3343245.html

As we can see, the argument is sound because it is both factually correct and valid. It is factually correct because all the premises are true and it is valid because its conclusion follows from its premises.

The effects of this argument, if shared, will hopefully show parents that the amount of time they allow their children to use technology should be limited. A child should spend more time in physical play then technological play for the sake of their health. In our modern day society as the articles author Cris Rowan writes:

“Technology’s impact on the 21st century family is fracturing its very foundation, and causing a disintegration of core values that long ago were the fabric that held families together. Juggling school, work, home, and community lives, parents now rely heavily on communication, information, and transportation technology to make their lives faster and more efficient. Entertainment technology (TV, Internet, video games, iPads, cell phones) has advanced so rapidly, that families have scarcely noticed the significant impact and changes to their family”

By allowing children to spend all their time with electronics we are impairing their development, health and social dynamics. Let’s focus on “Building Foundations” limit “Virtual Futures” so that we keep the positives of technology because there are so many. Too much of a good thing can, in this case, have negative side effects.

 

 

By

Artistic Science

Philosophy is the study of social behavior, life and the general unknown. To me Philosophy is an art form as well as a science- thus reaping the benefits of both fields.

Throughout the last two weeks in class we have read and discussed many essays about philosophy that deliberate its use, purpose and significance. The authors of these essays write that philosophy is to be talked about and different theories are to be debated in hopes to find the perfect answer. They write that philosophy is under appreciated and mocked for reasons it shouldn’t be by people who do not understand its purpose. They have said that science is inferior to philosophy and that scientists are egotistical in believing that they are the only ones with answers -but in saying so these authors have come off as extremely egotistical themselves.

What I’ve taken from these contradicting essays is that philosophy is an art form. It’s about thinking about our lives and the unknown with an original outlook. Philosophers often think about how we experience art (e.g. aesthetics) and ask why we seek to create it? Philosophy is creative and innovative itself, in choosing which questions to ask and how to answer them. Modern Philosophers add on the ideas of old theories and expand them through new perspectives. Philosophy is often written and expressed in literature which is also part of the arts. The quote “A hidden connection is stronger than an obvious one” – Heraclitus of Ephesus, shows that creative thinking lead to the finding of stronger connections; stronger theories.

Just as it is an art form, philosophy is a science. The reason we have science today, many claim, is because of philosophy. The reasoning and questioning of philosophers lead to the creation of science in that philosophers rationalized their hypothesis. Through that rationalization they created facts of science and lead others to follow in those footsteps.  As G.W.F Hegel stated “What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational” Similarly Philosophers have always valued knowledge and have always sought to know more and be sure of more as this famous quote states: “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” – Socrates

Art and Science are combined through philosophy. The original thinking and the craving for answers bring these fields together.

Philosophy is the study of social behavior. It questions why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do, crave the things we crave, and think the thoughts we think. Philosophers have spent centuries dissecting and observing (although often from afar) the way we humans act. They have come up with answers to questions and methods for making our behavior in their opinions, better.

Some philosophers have believed themselves to be superior to the average human, more aware, and more knowledgeable and in the case of people like Socrates, believed themselves to be the teachers of the average individual. Socrates once said “Are you not ashamed of caring so much for the making of money and for fame and prestige, when you neither think nor care about wisdom and truth and the improvement of your soul?”

When Googling Philosophy you’ll find evidence that people do not always value, and are not always aware of the teachings of old philosophers. The first result when Googling philosophy is of course the Wikipedia article. The second however, when compared to the quote I just shared with you, is ironic and a bit disappointing to those who indeed value the thoughts of old. The second result is a link to a company named Philosophy and this company specializes in the sale of beauty products.

This is an example showing that people in fact seem to not be ashamed of the making of money, fame and prestige.

In conclusion, I believe Philosophy is a very wide, open field that touches on many topics and questions many things. Through thought processes and discussion of our theories, we can delve into the realm of unknown to attempt to discover and learn what we can even if the depth of the strange can be overwhelming. As we continue on in this course I hope to remember the words of Bertrand Russell “This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities”

 

By

Philosophy Refections Post

Philosophy is filled with hours, days and years of pondering the questions of life. In this field we seek to fully and completely understand the world and the universe surrounding it. Philosophy can be seen as the science of the immeasurable, but one must ask “how do you measure the immeasurable”? And through what methods can we find the answers we seek? The essays read and discussed in class (Talk with me by Nigel Warburton and Why not just weigh the fish? by Robert Pasnau) both seemed to suggest that philosophy is under valued and disrespected in our current society, most often by scientist. In the article Why not just weigh the fish the writer points out the amount of disrespect that scientist have for the field of philosophy and then continues to argue how philosophy is better than science through persuasive insults designed, or so it seems, to bash scientists the way that they do to philosophers.

It is true that some believe that Philosophy is a waste of time and that it’s laughable to simply think about things all day and do little hands on work to find the answers. There is a belief in our modern society that science is superior and now that we have science to answer our questions philosophers should find themselves new, better paying day jobs. Many argue that science is measurable, observable and well, useful. However some may disagree, they say that scientists don’t know as much as they claim too, that they are over-confident and see only in black in white.

What all of these people fail to see is that science and philosophy are two very similar things, both with useful purposes. Science helps the world survive by having doctors to heal, physicists to understand the materials, chemists to discover and much more to aid in human kinds survival.

While science may find the way to survive, philosophy explains the reasons why we survive. Philosophers use abstract reasoning to answer different kinds of questions, thinking deeper and searching through the grey areas scientists always seem to miss. Philosophy keeps us connected to our humanity; allows us to change our minds, our opinions and discover the world through different perspectives.

These two fields have such large disagreements on how to find the answers that they don’t stop to realize that they are asking the same questions and seek to understand the same world. Philosophy and science are both important methods used to learn the ways and the makings of our universe and thus, both deserve respect.

 
css.php