Response to Corbin's Post: Vicious Circle

I agree with Corbin that arguing about the topics of naturalism and supernaturalism is a never ending, vicious circle that will not be solved anytime soon. People are going to believe whatever they want, and you shouldn't try to force anyone into believing your beliefs, however, i think that everyone should debate about these topics to become more informed, and develop their OWN beliefs. 

Article can be found here: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/02/viscious-circle.html?showComment=1361746554860#c6524458245367795929

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Naturalism- commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not effect the natural universe. 

Supernaturalism- the theological belief that a force or power other than man or nature is ultimate. 

Although I can understand the viewpoints on both naturalism and supernaturalism, I also believe that it is unethical to subscribe to any type of "supernaturalism." How can one believe in something without logical evidence?

The answer, by some, is seemingly simple: It's their faith. 

Faith, as defined by the dictionary, is a confidence or trust in a person or thing, and it is a belief that is not based on truth. 

So again, how is it that one can believe in something without logical evidence?

A Bit of Light Reading

I highly recommend that everyone should read "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," by Christopher Hitchens. 

Happy Friday!

Response to Siearra's Post: "Everything Happens for a Reason."

I 100% agree with your statement. I do believe that the phrase, "Everything happens for a reason," can be looked at from a deterministic perspective because everything that is going to happen to us during our life time, is predetermined. Other phrases, such as, "If it's meant to happen, it will happen," can be looked at from a deterministic perspective as well, going back to the thought that everything is predetermined. 

Original article can be found here: http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/02/happens-for-reason.html?showComment=1361131839230#c7324929824107075781

Butterfly Effect

This past week, while we were discussing free will vs. determinism, and a bunch of topics popped up that made me think of different situations. The present is already gone- and the future has yet to be. The present right now is different than the present 30 seconds ago. We are moving and shifting through time, and to say that "time is gone," is a metaphor. For some odd reason, this got me thinking about the butterfly effect. By definition, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state. This topic can be looked at from a sociological, psychological, and a philosophical standpoint, however, i'm just going to be discussing the philosophical side to the butterfly effect. Is it by our own free will we decide to do things, or is it because it is pre-determined? One small change in anything you do can affect your life significantly everyday, and we don't even know it. As a general example, had you not made the decision to attend Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, your life would be 100% different. 

Response to Elizabeth Pitroff's Post: Chance/Morals/Aristotle

I really enjoyed reading your blog post on the subject relating to "moral luck." I agree with everything you're saying. All circumstances in which we are put are due to chance, and we cannot owe our situations to higher powers, self will, or determination. 
For example, we cannot choose which family we are born into, their socioeconomic status, reputation, or social standing, but we really can change how we turn out. I believe that the family in which you grow up can influence your beliefs and personality greatly, however, by the things YOU choose to do with YOUR life, you can change your outcome. 

Post can be found here: http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/2013/02/chancemoralsaristotle.html

Pleasure Scale

How can you distinguish high pleasure from low pleasure? As discussed in class, this is subjective, however, Aristotle believed it was objective. 

Personally, I think that the "pleasure scale," ranges from person to person. What makes one person happy, might make another person completely miserable, and vice versa. Like everything else, humans have a certain function that needs to be fulfilled, and that's happiness. However, some people fulfill it better than others. We spend our whole lives seeking happiness, and "living our life according to reason." According to some theorists, seeking happiness becomes more important than obtaining the actual happiness, contradicting the belief that we have to live a "happy life." What is the good life? What is the right choice? Why is it important for us to live in peace and harmony in a society? What is happiness? Only you can answer these questions, and everyone's answers differ. Are you really living a happy life? Some people say yes, while others say they've just successfully avoided the pain. 

Response To: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/01/another-interpretation-for-platos.html

I think the point you're making is very interesting, I'm not going to agree or disagree since this is your opinion, but this is my response. :) 

• How long will a chair last? --> Not Forever.
• How long will the idea of a chair last? --> Forever.

If I sit on a trashcan, does that make it a chair? 

Bench vs. Chair

- is a bench a chair? 

- is it a stool?

- what are the size requirements to be a chair/bench/stool? 

I guess what i'm trying to argue is that any human can walk into a room thinking, "Where is a chair?" and make anything a chair when they sit down. The function of a chair is to support our bodies so anything one sits on could be classified as just that. 

Also, an example pointed out by Professor Johnson in class was the "Giant Porcupine," in the quad. Is it a giant porcupine? or is it something else? Size does not matter when defining things. 

Class Discussion Friday: What is Plato's View Of Democracy?

On Friday, a student asked, "What is Plato's view of democracy?" and I couldn't wait to blog about it. It is believed that if you were born an elitist, that is what you're going to become. However, if you're on top, it is because you've "earned," it. People on the bottom didn't ask nor deserve to be on the bottom, so how is this fair? This broke out into a conversation about Social Darwinism, which lead to a conversation about how you should be rewarded for your efforts. The poor do not deserve to be poor, for they cannot choose the life they are given. This later lead into a conversation about how a system of redistribution of wealth will not work because it will become unequal again. I thought this was very interesting to think about, since it is assumed that wealthy people "deserve," their wealth. This is not always the case. Most of the time, people are born into a wealthy family. 
Also on Friday, another student asked, "How would Plato respond to acts such as 9/11?" This also spiked my interest, because since Plato valued reflection and knowledge so much, he would not have any sympathy for terrorists because they did not reflect upon what they were doing before they commit the horrific, terrorist acts.