Alexa's Philosophy Blog

Epicurus on Nature and the Heavens

Alexa P. — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:47:01 +0000

Epicurus believes that it is important for one to study nature and the heavens in order to live a life free of fear and anxiety because nature and the heavens can unlock the mysteries in human life. This is because humans are apart of nature and the heavens. This may seem like a far fetched concept at first, but everything, humans, nature and the heavens, are all made up of the same things, atoms. Atomism is the theory that everything is made up of atoms and void. Epicurus believes strongly in this theory. Epicurus believes that by studying these topics, you will realize the extent of the importance of life and the unimportance of death.

Epicurus on Death

Alexa P. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:17:51 +0000

Epicurus argues that death is not important and it should not play any role in how we should live our lives. According the Epicurus, life is measured in pleasure, and the pursuit of it. This deals with satisfying your five senses, as well as your general happiness. After death, you do not posses any of these senses anymore, therefore, it is not important. When we are alive, we should focus on life and it’s pleasures. Death is inevitable and we do not know what it brings, therefore, it would be foolish to worry about it/live life with it in mind. Death is an interesting philosophical problem because there will never be a way for people to scientifically know what happens after you die. There will always be many philosophical views because of this. Death happens to every living thing and because so little is known about it, it causes people to have a natural curiosity about it.

Aristotle on Wisdom

Alexa P. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:36:03 +0000

In Book A of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, human wisdom is broken up into two different categories, practical and theoretical. Practical wisdom is knowledge that is used to create something in the physical world. For example, knowing how to drive a car. One would know how to drive a car in order for them to actually be able to drive themselves places such as to work or to run errands. Theoretical wisdom is knowledge about the theory’s behind practical knowledge. This would be things like math and physics. These subjects teach us why things are the way they are in the physical and practical worlds. Aristotle argues that wisdom should be perused for its own sake. This means that people should want to learn for the sake of gaining knowledge, not for anything else such as to advance in a career or to earn money. Aristotle treats human knowledge very differently than Socrates does. Socrates believes that human wisdom is unimportant where as Aristotle believes it is. Aristotle believes this because he focus’ on the here and now, where as Socrates focus’ on the future and post-death.

Logical Fallacy

Alexa P. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:32:45 +0000

If you took swimming lessons, you can swim.

If you swim, you can swim in the ocean.

If you swim in the ocean, you took swimming lessons.

Function

Alexa P. — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:55:32 +0000

According to Aristotle, human beings have a unique and particular function. This function is “an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle”. This means that ones function is to lead a “good” life. Aristotle defines human good as living life as to be virtuous. As long as one lives a virtuous and good life, one has performed their function. Ones function cannot be completed in a day, month or year, but rather over a lifetime. This is because it takes many years for one to even define virtue, let alone live their lives in that manner. Aristotle states that this is only the “outline of the good”, for once someone has this starting point, one is very well capable of coloring in their own interpretation of virtue. By clarifying our function, Aristotle can give people a clear path on how to live their lives.

Nichomachean Ethics

Alexa P. — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:50:55 +0000

According to Aristotle’s Nichomachian Ethics, the appropriate student of ethics is one who is old and has gained a lot of life experience. This makes sense because the best way to learn is through experience. Ethics is not something you can learn through the experiences of others as told through their mouths or by words on a page, but by learning from your own actions and mistakes. I do not think he is right to assert that the young will profit little from studying ethics because you learn are you grow. If one never learns ethics at a young age, they will already be on the wrong path by the time Aristotle thinks they are old enough to study it. Ethics should be practiced and learned throughout ones whole lifetime.

Crito

Alexa P. — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:51:26 +0000

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates states that if there was such a law that prevented him from practicing philosophy, then he would surely disobey. However, in Plato’s Crito, Socrates states that when it comes to laws, you only have two options, which are to persuade or obey. At first, this may seem like he is being inconsistent, however, with a closer look, you can see that he actually is not. First off, there was not a law in Athens during Socrates’ time that would formally forbid him from practicing philosophy, therefore, one such argument is hypothetical. Also, I think Socrates means to say that he would only disobey the law because he had no other choice. How could Socrates not practice philosophy, when it is so much apart of who he is? How could anyone not practice philosophy for that matter? Most people have philosophical thoughts even if they do not recognize it as such. Like his argument in Apology, Socrates would have to disobey the law, although it would not be on purpose, like how he claims that he would not corrupt the youth of Athens on purpose. Socrates feels he only has the options to persuade or obey with the law because he feels bound to a social contract with the state of Athens. This contract requires that he obey the laws of Athens. In return, he is given protection and the right to live freely in this state. Socrates also feel that he has to oblige to this contract because he has lived and accepted them all his life and to deem it unjust when the law fell on him would be completely undermining the laws. The only time it would be acceptable to break this contract would be when it became unjust to its citizens. If this were to happen, Socrates would either have to leave or try to change it. However, he lived in peace with the laws until his old age, so there would be no reason for him to find it unjust at this time, while not thinking so before.

“Human Wisdom”

Alexa P. — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:13:09 +0000

Socrates says that a certain kind of wisdom has caused his reputation. Socrates has been on a mission to disprove the Pythian who said that no one was wiser than him. In this quest, he found that even the wisest people knew very little. When Socrates brought this up to them, they became angered and humiliated. This is because they possess human wisdom. Human wisdom is what it sounds like, knowledge that people gain of facts and figures, of left and right, etc. Possessing a lot of human wisdom is what makes the wise, wise. However, according to Socrates, “human wisdom is worth little or nothing” (23A, p.27). In this, Socrates challenges the wise by saying that their wisdom means nothing. I think by this he means that when everything is dead and gone, nothing we knew would matter, for there is no one to make use of this knowledge. Socrates, however, does have more than human knowledge. Why?, because he knows that he does not know much. Socrates never claimed to know more than he does, and he also claims that what he does know is very little. This is what we call Socratic wisdom. Socratic wisdom goes against the nature of human wisdom because although human wisdom allows you to know many things, there are much more things you don’t know.

“Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?”

Alexa P. — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:37:15 +0000

Socrates raises a difficult question when he asks “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?”. By this he is trying to ask if piety is defined by the gods, or if piety is pious and is liked by the gods because of that. The difficulty in this is because we cannot be sure which came first, like the riddle about the chicken and the egg. This question is philosophically significant because there are both none, and many answers. The answer is not black and white. I believe that the answer lies outside the two choices offered by Socrates. Piety is defined as the individual wishes to define it. If one thinks the gods would approve of one such action, that action is pious. Pious actions will differ from person to person and from religion to religion. In a sense, it is possible that both nothing, and everything is pious.