Søren Kierkegaard: Popular Culture

Problem II

Is there such a thing as an absolute duty toward God ?

“One has therefore aright to say that fundamentally every duty is a duty toward God ; but if one cannot say more, then one affirms at the same time that properly I have no duty toward God. Duty becomes duty by being referred to God, but in duty itself I do not come into relation with God.” (Problem II pg. 36)

“The paradox of faith is this, that there is an inwardness which is incommensurable for the outward, an inwardness, be it observed, which is not identical with the first but is a new inwardness.” (Problem II pg 37

Restrepo

Summary:

The movie is a documentary on the American army in Afghanistan. IT details the struggles and conflict that arose in the war from the eyes of the 2nd PLT. It is an emotional film depicting the horrors and triumphs of war and surviving through that conflict.

Analysis:

Though it might not be directly related to God, the underlying idea/message seems to reside in the movie. They both depict how someone has to fulfill their duty for a greater good in order to achieve the desired outcome. The idea is what one has to do, or what type of mindset is needed to complete the desired goal.

They are both a duty that one goes about silent, and the reason is that if one expresses their duty, it is considered a “trial.” Though maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly, it goes from a silent job to a challenge (a sort of trial) since it turns vocal and it is told to others as if it is a challenge or something to look at when obtaining ones own goals. It might relate to a soldier where it is a silent duty to serve and one understands what another soldier might be going through but they do not say a word. I believe they stay silent to preserve the purity of their job and to accept it and go through it no matter what. If they were to talk about it then it would become more a gloat and the reason for doing so could try to undermine the others duty. When expressed in terms of worshiping God, it can be interpreted as keeping the purity of the relationship between man and God.

Though others might seem that it is not as respectful to keep quiet about ones duty and not expressing it to others, one might be thinking about the situation in a different way. When one expresses an idea to another, one might see it as a tale for example, which would be somewhat selfish to the receiver and gloating to the messenger. When one receives an idea of anothers duty, it is taken as a comparison or ways to improve one’s own duty , and both of those interactions are treating the original a mold to change another idea. And when that happens then an original idea from someone else is changed in accordance to the original messengers idea. Of course this is to say when all ideas are in accordance with God, not one that isn’t molded for God.

Søren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

“It is different in the world of spirit. Here an eternal divine order prevails, here it does not rain both upon the just and upon the unjust, here the sun does not shine both upon the good and upon the evil, here it holds good that only he who works gets the bread, only he who was in anguish finds repose, only he who descends into the underworld rescues the beloved, only he who draws the knife gets Isaac” (Fear and Trembling pg.11)

Summary:

The long list of examples where the divine order is applicable shows that the universe and all that occurs will be in favor of those who are just nad those who are unjust. It seem that Kierkegaard is certain that int he divine, that the world will always be in favor of the just and not be equal to all, as it is now.

Analysis:

When one thinks about this long enough it starts to make some sense, since in this world everyone is treated the same. Now an unjust and just man can go through the same no matter if it is a good situation or not. So since one understands that the divine world will be the pure form of the current world. So it makes sense that the divine world be more critical of those who are just and unjust since why would the unjust accomplish teh same of the just person.

So it seems as if these worlds have chances of making unjust and just people go through the same experiences. This can be linked to God and his sovereignty over His people. But one should not look at it as if God is punishing people in this life, instead it is a test of faith. So the divine world will be a place where those who followed Him will dwell and so they would not have to go through the paints of this current world.

One usually does not think of this as much since people are used to living in this type of world all of their lives so one cannot imagine what it would be like outside this world. Maybe another method that this is understood is as suffering. Since suffering is applied to all and the main reason that would happen is to test one’s faith and the divine can be seen as a reward.

Another way of thinking about this is that the divine world is not a world in favor to the just but instead is the absence of all that is corrupted since I cannot imagine a divine world that would treat the just at different levels depending on their contribution. That would seem imbalanced since it would lead to favoritism, so that means that all just would be treated at the same level, it is just that others might have greater responsibilities in the divine world, since everyone will be His children.

Nietzsche: Popular Culture

George Carlin

Summary:

George Carlin was a stand-up comedian that was well known for his criticism and opinions on taboo topics. He was noted for his black humor on every show that he performed, often times criticizing everyday life on all aspects.

Analysis:

The similarities of both Nietzsche and Carlin are in their methods of presenting their own opinions on life. They both talk about it as if they were the “devil advocate” and say what “normal people” would consider outright appalling.

This method of approach can be beneficial at times when the only type of opinion that is talked about is one that seems to conform to what others might say. Some people might not understand a message that they have thought of as truth, since the philosophy would only be the words of that person about life from that persons point of view. So even though black humor would be another method to express one’s viewpoint of life, the purpose is something entirely different. The reason would be to criticize a way of thought to think about it and see if it is indeed the only method of thinking or if there are any flaws in following this way of thought. This should not be mistaken as a way to hate the current way of thought but to broaden ones view on life/existence to see if from multiple vantage points instead of one closed mind.

To grasp the world in its true form is up to that person, but if one has to nitpick, one would have to be more broad, not specific. The opinion has to be broaden from the smallest categories going down to the origin of ones own beliefs and evaluate them so that they are what one desires them to be and not what is generally accepted. Though it is a difficult task, one would have to evaluate even what might seem obvious because if we just take it as truth, that would be a mistake.

To take something as truth that is just a census then it is not indeed a truth but a generalization by the public. This is incorrect since one philosophy of a person is not the same for another. To find ones correct philosophy one would have to come up with it on their own, but even what I say is contradictory since it is stated as a command. So instead it can be said in this manner, the philosophy of a person is what it is and can be what it desires to be by the owner. But this notion of thinking outside of what one would normally think of as true is not a command. It is a method of approach, to see that if all that is known is truly our own and if one is to come up with their own philosophy, one should think of it from nothing.

In the end it is about over-analyzing what one thinks right down to its basics and the use of free will to garner those ideas.

Friedrich Nietzsche: The Twilight of the Idols

The Problem of Socrates

“I realized that Socrates and Plato were symptoms of degeneration, tools of the Greek dissolution, pseudo-Greek, anti-Greek” (The Problem of Socrates)

When Nietzsche states that the way Plato thinks of the world is incorrect because of his hatred for the sensory world, I think that the conclusion that Nietzsche comes up with is a bit rash. To deny the reliability pf something does not equate to hatred for that idea. Plato was looking for the absolute truth and wanted to base his ideas on something that was reliable and not the senses, but who is to say that it may equate to hatred?

When one chooses the color blue to paint a picture and does not use red, does that mean that the artist hates red? No, it means that for the artist to truly find their own vision of the world, they would use a certain tool (mind,sensory) to find their own truth. So wouldn’t it be wise to see philosophers not as a truth in the way of thought.

What I Owe to the Ancients

So when you say

“Plato is boring” (What I Owe to the Ancients)

Doesn’t that mean that you are not satisfied with another and form your own ideas based on hatred? Why build a philosophy that is made to replace? Do you want others to thing as you do and stagnate the ideas for ages to come? Why not make a book on philosophy for the sake of philosophy? Is it not enough to be known but to mold as a master, does that not equate to superiority and deny the breath of another? Who is to say that questioning you is my own fault as well? In the end I will take all word above my own but none as an absolute. Since my grasp on philosophy is nothing since I disagree with philosophy in its current state and its purposes.

Conclusion

Is it not ignorant to deny one to speak, whether they speak of lies/truth? Then why would one assume the position of another, if they are then trying to close the mind of the enemy to bring upon their own idea. To counter Plato and base ones philosophy and love for the world seems unjust because to truly create an idea that is pure, Nietzsche should not base his on the supposed hatred of another.

Yes, I understand that my own words support what he states. But know that I do not judge but give opinions, and to judge me I will say what I can say on the subject at hand. The philosophers that have been seen throughout the ages have given their own views on the questions of life, depending on what time period they were born. So ideas change from time, and bring forth new view on life/existence. So when one speaks does it not grown irrelevant ? SInce a philosopher will only speak from his own mouth and not come to any conclusion other than the one he has for his own timeline in a set period of existence. So why do they speak as an absolute? Talk as if you truly know nothing and speak as if what you say did not matter since there is no truth in what one speaks since one is not another. Even I, and it is only said as to see that what I say is only what I say.

Berkeley: Pop Culture

“It might sound better to you if you bear this in mind: someone whose palate is diseased may experience as bitter stuff that at other times seems sweet to him. And it is perfectly obvious that different people perceive different tastes in the same food, since what one man delights in another loathes. How could this be, if the taste were really inherent in the food?” (Berkeley)

Stephen Hawking

Summary:

Many may know him as a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Hawking also has a motor neuron disease that has left him almost completely paralyzed. He is well known for his work on general relativity, gravitational singularities, and black holes.

Blog:

The most obvious that can be seen when comparing Berkeley’s quote with Steven Hawking is that Steven has gone through and revolutionized the sciences with his findings even with his handicap. The idea that these sensory receptors affect the way of thought can be seen as false. The experience that is had by numerous objects in matter are just for a different grasp on them, not what is absolutely important. Hawking has made leaps and bounds on Physics even with his handicap, all with his mind and understanding on what he is studying

Who is to say id a sensory experience and mathematical interpretation are better/different, it seems that Berkeley found that the sensory experiences changes, but the object does not. So would that mean that any sensory interpretation is inconsistent and useless as it provides different experiences? Though when one describes matter in a mathematical way it is based off of humans definition of mathematics, whether it be right or wrong. It is still considered a truth in our eyes and with that all objects can be analyzed in different ways. So to define a world and find its true definition, one would have to look/measure the world mathematically. Then from there one can say, is our form of mathematics the truth? and isn’t it only relative what we analyze to humanity?

This would go on to the realms on the study of relativity and how one can see that there is no perceivable absolute to measure everything else by.

So it is not wise to measure a world by senses as it is all relative and to have a census of a relative measurement, it is just an average relative measure which would not be as definitive as a measurement. As Stephen demonstrates, the true method of measuring the world is through mathematics and the senses are not needed as they are not used as an absolute measurement. This mentality can then be broadened and used to find answers as best as they can be found.

So the final idea is that why would the sensory perceptions be considered in the first place because of their inconsistencies with what the value can truly be analyzed.

George Berkeley

“When the air is set into motion, we perceive a louder or softer sound in proportion to the air’s motion; but when the air is still, we hear no sound at all.” (First Dialogues)

Though it is understood that Philonous comes to the conclusion that sound is always present in the air even though the sensation of sound is not experienced by the mind.

There is also a different method of achieving the same reason aside from the thought process, though it is flawed as my basis for this is not the same as Berkeley.

It can be seen that the process in which a sound is accepted is through the ear, the receptor, and so the experience is dictated by the tangible object. This relation that the mind can communicate through a tangible object to produce an idea baffles me. But nonetheless the experience is different for other “ears” that are used to interpret this experience. So when one says that the experience that humans take is the absolute definition of the experience, than that seems incorrect. Who is to say that there might be another method of experience. Though it has proven in our world to say that what our experiences have defined almost all aspects. There are instances where experiences can be seen as anomalies since there is no explanation, this is not to say that humans have been incorrect in their findings, but that there might be another tangible part to the human interpretation which would provide a complete understanding of existence.

This can also be placed on the idea of language and other methods in which there is an effort to define the absolute (experiences). Since the origin of language is symbols/sounds, can it be said that our definitions are all based off of experiences and not truths. The concepts that have been built upon for ages have proven to be based of the way one interprets. Even though it is brought up that there is some regulation on this subject, all that is happening is that one is trying to find just in a language which was based on false human experiences. When one says that what would the world communicate than with the senses, it is true that no absolute answer can be conjured up. Just speculation that communication of ideas would occur with the mind and no other buffer in between to change the idea that is conveyed. For this idea to actually be effective, our current system has to go. One would first try to develop the ability then take people who have not been exposed to the current language and use them to see if this would work, which I highly doubt since we have dug our own grave to find the purest form of identifying the world and ideas as well.

With that being said, the advancements of humanity have been astronomical, though limited with by corruption, can be improved so that our world can be defined in a way that humans will know the absolute of this closed planet. After that there can be voyages to spread and try to understand the stars to see what errors have been made. As vast as space is, it would be wise to help the current earth and its corruptions rather than looking for escape in space.

Rene Descartes: Popular Culture

Eros

by: Tom Geraedts

Summary:

This is a short film about a blind man who is standing in the park and it shows how he perceives the world based on the sounds he hears. There is a flash of colors and shapes in the screen acrossa black background until a face starts to appear. A young woman begins to appear, as to show him what real beauty is instead of the dark abyss that the blind man sees everyday. In the end, the man can see what the world looks like with the aid of the young woman.

“I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep” (First Meditation 13)

Connection:

The film can be seen as a symbol of what Descartes is trying to say in the statement above. Descartes want to show that the world that we can distinguish with out senses is not the real world. The way that we should view the world is through out mind. Even though the video shows the many perceiving the world with his senses in the end, that is not the focus of what is trying to be expresssed.

The impared(no senses) man can be considered someone who is not using their senses to see the world, and instead is relying on his mind. So in one way he is already in the correct state to perceive the truth that lies in our existence(if any). The whole process is in how she starts to see images is the same as if someone is going throught the phase and starting to see what the true world is, by only using themind.

Analysis:

This perfect world would be the same as the absolute of all aspects in our existence. To dwell in this Form of existence that contains the Form of all aspects in our current existence, a human would have to become the Form of a human to dwell in this Form existence. For that to happen a part of us has to be able to be a Form or take shape of a Form, since in our current state we can only perceive the imperfect. But the problem arises when a human(which is imperfect) cannot be a Form since the Form would be all, there would have to be another way to achieve this Form of existence (if there is indeed an end).

I can only perceive two ways in which this would be possible.

1. One would be to have the absolute Form of perception aid in letting the human mind see the world the way the Form sees it so that then we could dwell in the Form of existence without being a form, that is if the Forms can be seen in this manner.
2. Instead there would be no end in achieving the end, which would be to become a form. Instead the human mind would dwell the closest it can to the Forms without being the so the clearest possible definition of a form can be understood. So that all that is left is to be a Form.

If one has a problem imagining this world then one has to get rid of the senses. All Forms would be entities of knowledge of the corresponding meaning and when one dwells in/by them(not in the physical sense, since we can only describe it symbolically), the knowledge of that Form would be obtained. All of this would dwell in a much greater Form, known as the Form of existence. In this existence there would also be no time, which I cannot perceive that since time is what dwells in our existence (even though I do know know what time is or if it even exists and it is another element that takes its place from what I believe time to be). The Form of anything will be as as mall as the smallest unit in our existence since the Form of existence will be made up of smaller Forms of anything that is seen in our world, or instead it would be a Form of a collective similiar objects in our world, or maybe even getting rid of all that is tangible in our world and instead will be a Form of all “ideas” that we use in our world.

Rene Descartes

“But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once ” (First Meditation 12)

When I read this I get a confusing idea in my my that I somehow cannot grasp the concept of. Would language be considered in the senses, because there are two ways in which it can. One would be the exchange of ideas and the other would be the receptor. But in the end it would have to be part of the senses since the language itself has intricate meanings in which the specific idea/concept might not be expressed correctly.

Then when one thinks of ideas/concepts one would use their language to grasp the ideas to speak in the mind and express the messages. This occurs in the conscience but indeed does not express itself fully. Meditation might reveal a hint to how one can use a greater form of expression than language. Though we would never seem to grasp this language as the Form of language is unreachable. To even try to improve upon a language that has been taught since birth or even ignore it to seek greater forms of expression is a daunting task.

“I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep” (First Meditation 13)

As it was said in class, this statement goes on to say that anything is not certain in our world and seems as if it could be an illusion, just like a dream is. Even though one might say that it is absurd to think is this manner, I can retaliate and state that you are using the senses to define your world. And did we not agree that the senses are to be considered unreliable, so instead we use our mind (as imperfect as it may be, it is the only means of expressing ideas). To get a better sense of this concept, one can think of this ‘current’ world as a dream, and somewhere there is a ‘real’ world that does not show itself using the senses.

This world would communicate with out minds and be an immense entity that holds our minds without allowing each being to mix with each other. This communication can be described as “telekinesis”  and instead of a single strand of information, it would be an entirely new existence. It is sometimes hard to grasp the idea since we are forced to learn the ways of this world and are predetermined to learn the ways of a human. This is not to call human life inferior but instead we can look at it as a world that humans built. This world that humans built will never grasp the idea of finding the perfect world where our minds dwell, and it will be un-obtainable with the current state that we are in, so all that is left is to try and get as close as we can to this perfect world in ours and wait what lies after this ‘dream.’

Thomas Aquinas – Popular Culture

Thomas Aquinas

Question 180: On the contemplative life

Article 2: Do the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life?

“The moral virtues not belong, essentially to the contemplative life, because the end of the contemplative life is considered the truth.” (pg 688)

Summary:

The contemplative life is one that deals with the understanding of everything  (theoretical wisdom), and the Active life is composed of virtues and practice of said virtues (practical wisdom).  So there is the debate whether one is greater and if each of them overlap at all.

The Dark Knight: Batman

Summary:

Batman (Bruce Wayne) had his parents killed when he was a young boy, so he dedicated his life to fighting crime.  While fighting crime, he never kills his enemies, all he does is apprehend them and let the authorities take care of it.  He is and experienced fighter and uses gadgets to assist him regularly (DC Comics).

Thoughts:

As Bruce fights crime throughout his life, it can be seen that he is trying to rid his world of crime (all of the negative influences).  He is trying to fix one of the flaws in this planet and get rid of the evil.

Just as Prof. McAteer stated, he is in a way trying to fix this broken world so that in the end when he is ‘finished’ there is only good people left in the world and the ‘evil’ (crime) will be eliminated.  So acting upon something is virtuous, but not the just good since it disappears/is dependent on someone else being there for it to be possible. In contrast, when contemplating the good, it is not affected by anything outside the mind and does not depend on anything else.  If it does not change then it can be understood that it is the just way of pursuing the Good.

In a way Bruce is trying to destroy evil, and Aquinas would say that he cannot do that, only God can create perfect/destroy evil.  Then if Bruce were to succeed in eliminating evil, then after that the only thing to do in this situation is to continue acting ‘good’/understanding good.  Since Bruce cannot completely cleanse the earth (he cannot be God) and if that were so the end would still be understanding good, that means that he will be better off understanding what good is and comparing it to his situation.

Though we understand that his first intentions were to fight crime and fighting involves and action, people would think that he has to act first then understand good.  Even with that in mind we have to look back and see what the cause was of all of this.  When a person has their parents killed in front of them, it tends to fill one with emotions of anger and sadness.  So we can conclude that Bruce only acted on his actions, which are not as just as contemplating the good.

The problem people seem to have with this is not only that it is unusual in current cultures, but that it seems to pass off as a negative way of living.  People would say that one cannot leave someone to just be consumed by evil.  They would tell you to go and act upon it and tell them about the good so that they can leave the evil.  This can go into different ways and one can say that what if everyone had to contemplate the good on their own, or if you could hold discussions and ask them about the good (just as Socrates did).  One would have to leave it up to that person to understand the good on their own and not change their mind; because you cannot make someone truly change, they have to do it themselves.

Since these virtues are dependent and the contemplation of life is never -changing/dependent on others; that means that they cannot be the same thing.  The contemplative would only then consist of the thought and pursuit of the good with the mind.

Thomas Aquinas

11. Proof of God’s Existence. Summa Contra Gentiles

13. Arguments proving that God exists

“Whatever is moved is moved by another…And either hat mover is moved or not…it is necessary to hold that there is something moving that is immobile.” pg. 249

Summary:

The main idea that Aquinas is trying to convey is that in this existence there is always movement and that each movement is caused by another.  This can be traced back and understood that there has to be a beginning of this “movement.”  If there was no beginning that would mean that it would go on to infinity.  If there is infinity then that means that there is no beginning.

Thoughts:

This poses a problem as I do not know what infinity is yet.  All I can say is that what Aquinas says does not lay right with me.  He has defined the universe and existence to be finite and have a beginning.  This means that this existence is closed and contained.  If that were to be true then that means that everything is known and can just be searched, meaning that there are ends.  So there is only defining what we have around us and get to it’s finite definition, and in theory we would end up with answers grasping all of the knowledge.  One would say that the time needed to complete this task would be infinite, but that is not the case.  Since our existence can be contained (since it has a beginning, and ultimately an end), that means that all the knowledge can be measured.

I speak with no knowledge and only ideas formed in the mind, that there are other existences other than ours.  The amount is uncertain, but it is a hard concept to grasp that Earth contains the only logical beings.  One can stare up at the stars to see that there is more than what is on this Earth.  This dwells on the idea of different dimensions, existences, lives outside our own.  What we define with the sciences ultimately define what we are sure about, what lays in our own system.  To close one’s mind one can understand all that is contained in it, but what one does now know is what is outside the closed system.  This cannot be, since finishing this pursuit of knowledge would end would mean the end of all.

To ignore and close one’s mind to a specific system is to ignore the questions that deal with what is beyond that system.  The pursuit to be to answer all questions that are beyond our own system is what I deem to be another way to pursue life.  There could be other ideas, concepts, laws that are different than ours which could change what we thought of this world to be.

Since we see that our way of thought, language, and all that we define on this world is not the absolute, who is to say that there are not others that grasp these ideas better.  Who is to say that these ideas are branched upon false beliefs and understandings.  All of these ideas and views on ideas cannot be true themselves, not even what they try to be.  If they are imperfect versions of the perfect than that would mean that they would need refinement to gain that stature of perfect.  This can not be as the perfect would be on a level that we cannot grasp, and never will grasp.

I see that I contradict myself, which is what I desire, I would never want to be right in any manner; since that would stop my infinite pursuit of knowledge.

This is all what i do not know, since never finding the answer and knowing nothing is what I believe to be my pursuit of knowledge.  This has many flaws that need to be reduced, but will always be there, since I am only 19 years of age.