Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part II

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part II.mp3

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part I

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part I.mp3

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part II

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part II.mp3

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part I

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part I.mp3

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part II

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part II.mp3

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part I

Discussion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part I.mp3

Funny philosophy related sites...

http://eserver.org/philosophy/chicken.txt (hilarious philosopher answers (don't know if they're real) for the universal question - why did the chicken cross the road?

http://bertc.com/subfour/truth/warninglabels.htm

-Philosopher warning labels

In response to Descartes' Mediation I

I thought it was pretty funny :)

Ownership

Although I can't come up with a proper answer to my original question about Body and Mind, I would like to pose another question.

Does our minds belong to us?

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part II

Part II of the recording of the discussion from Friday, November 7. We discussed Rene Descartes' Meditation I.

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part II.mp3

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part I

The recording of the discussion from Friday, November 7. We discussed Rene Descartes' Meditation I.

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part I.mp3

"dialectic, then, need have nothing to do with truth"

In The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer, he wrote that "if we take purely objective truth as our aim, we are reduced to mere Logic" (10). I disagree. In the search for purely objective truth, it is not just Logic used but also Dialectic is used to help determine what is true and what is not. Schopenhauer writes that Dialectic "has no other aim but to reduce to a regular system and collect and exhibit the arts which most men employ when they observe, in a dispute, that truth is not on their side, and still attempt to gain the day" (10). The way he writes this makes it seem as if people are just stubborn, rigid and just want to win "acceptance of propositions" (9) even when they are "in the wrong" (4). I think Dialectic is used to find a personal truth on a subject by validating an opinion under the scrutiny of another.

Should Philosphy be divided into categories?

Should Philosphy be divided into categories? What I mean is that should there be a divsion in philisophy why or why not?

Body and Mind

Does the body rule the mind 

or

does the mind rule the body?

Kinda Off Topic Requests

Hey guys, do you remember at Friday's session when Ms.Darby said she would take us to debate with private school kids. Correct me if I'm wrong Miss but did you say we can get a dress code for the Republic for when we compete? If you did say this, then can we go on a shopping field trip so we can choose? If I misunderstood...can we get a special dress-code?

Also, remember that Holiday party we were talking about Friday too? Can we do something where we pick another member of the Republic's name out of a hat and give them a gift (I think it's called Secret Santa).

I'm really excited about this guys (I know...I'm a loser lol) Let me know what you think.

Devotion

I think if one was to devote themselves to an idea and try to reach a goal, they can accomplish that with whatever means necessary by keeping in mind that they are human and they have limits. From my understanding Descartes did this. He restarted his life following his principles. If he did not have pervious experience relating to life, how was he suppose to come up his theories? 

Confused@#$%!?

I am a bit confused as to how I can take philosophy and implement it into my life. I do not mean to be ignorant, but how does one use philosophy as a tool? I read through the papers, and I am amazed by the ideas though quite frankly I don't know how to store all that information and use it to my advantage. Please do enlighten me on this topic.

Part II of the Nicomachean Ethics Discussion

Part two of the Aristotle discussion from last Friday.

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Part II.mp3

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

This is the recording of last weeks meeting when we discussed Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Part I.mp3

Part II of The Allegory of the Cave Discussion

Here is part II of the Plato's The Allegory of the Cave discussion.

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave Part II.mp3

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave

This is the recording from our third meeting when we discussed Plato's The Allegory of the Cave. It is only the first half of the recording.

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave Part I.mp3

THE AUDIO FILES ARE AWESOME

You Rock!

Part II of Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI

I had to spilt the recording into 2 files.

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI Part II.mp3

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI

Finally, I have figured out (with the help of evil siblings) how to post audio files. It took a lot of struggling because, frankly, I am technologically challenged. Therefore, after the long wait, here is the recording of out second meeting. Many people were away that day but you can catch up now with the recording. The recording starts with us being a little off topic because I only started recording part way through the discussion. It is a good discussion but try to ignore the random cracklings of people reaching for candy.

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI Part I.mp3

My Ramblings on Descartes' Meditation I

I finished reading Descartes’ Meditation: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt and I find it a little strange that he comes to the decision that it is better to “fall back into the train of [his] former beliefs” in fear of it all being an “agreeable illusion” (12) with “imaginary liberty” (12). After our discussion on Bertrand’s The Value of Philosophy, I thought the point to philosophy was to “enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind to speculation” (Bertrand) but Descartes questions than reverts back to his former opinions out of fear of what he could find. The whole ordeal reminds me of The Allegory of the Cave. The idealized individual that Socrates and Glaucon are discussing “would rather suffer anything then entertain these false notions and live in the miserable manner” (Plato 4). Descartes is fearful of the unknown and therefore decides not to further question the topic of truths and reality. Is it not the objective of a philosophy to question everything in an attempt to broaden the spectrum of possibility despite the outcome? Frankly, I just found the whole ending a little contradictory to everything we have previously discussed.

On another note, Descartes questioning of whether the “perception of all…objects” (9) does “not exist otherwise than as [we] perceive” (9). It is an interesting concept. For instance, if somehow, my eyesight changed and I started seeing the sky as green, most people would tell me that I am wrong and that the sky is blue. Yet, how can anyone tell me that what I see is false? The idea that the sky is blue is a fact imposed on all by the majority who can see the sky as blue and anyone who does not fall in that category has flawed vision. I had a conversation with a strange boy once about colours. The conversation was about whether the colour that I see as green is the same shade or even colour that he sees as green. In the end, how can anyone ever describe colour without using another colour for comparison? I am not sure if my train of thought is clear but during the time when I was discussing this, it made perfect sense. For example, more likely than not, two people do not share the same vision when it comes to colour. So two people could be looking at the same object but are seeing two different shades or colours but they would never know the difference because their whole lives they have been told that the colour they see is, for instance, red. It is impossible to ever know the difference. It is the idea that there is not one reality but realities based on perception. Simply put, my reality verses let us say Muna’s reality or Robin’s reality.

Once again on to another topic, which is actually a little off-topic but I am going to bring it up anyways. While I was reading Meditation I, the portion on dreams verses perceived reality reminded of a conversation I had several months ago with the previously-mentioned boy. The topic up for debate was whether dreams were just the activeness of our subconscious mind seeping into to the conscious mind or another reality in which we exist when we are sleep. His theory was that we exist in multiple realities but we are only aware of the reality when we are in it. He said that when we sleep, we might just be leaving the physical being of one reality and transporting to a physical being in another. In the separate realities, things that we may conclude as impossibilities in one reality may be truths in another. At the time, I said that the theory was completely unrealistic and he said that I could doubt it but I could never prove the theory to be wrong. That little anecdotal story all spawned from Descartes’ idea “that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep” (5).

In conclusion, that is what I thought about Descartes’ Meditation I. I am completely unsure if any of that made sense or was even relevant but I am posting none-the-less.

Just to clarify... The following quotes appear in Muna's response:
"philosophers would probably waste time trying to be open-minded"
and
"A leader should be able to make the best decision for everyone that they lead."
Is it possible for someone to make the best decision for everyone, without as much open-mindedness as possible? (Where open mindedness means taking into consideration as many perspectives, benefits and possible consequences as possible?)

Further clarification, Maymoon:

"A leader needs to be a person who is firm with decisions they make for the people under them whether it goes against their beliefs, emotions or desires."
What should leaders base their decisions on?

"Also a good leader needs to distinguish between what is right or wrong and what is good or bad but in philosophy their are no standards for right or wrong and good or bad. All options are subject to perception."
Does Aristotle believe there is no right or wrong?

[Just a quick note. Every philosopher through ancient greek or medieval times were clergy men who believed in the sacraments of their religion as the foundation for their philosophical writing. After the scientific revolution philosophy derived the two major moral theories (utilitarianism by J.S. Mill and deontology by I. Kant) that are used to this day as moral guidelines for our jurisprudential system and ethics taught in schools for example].

My view on the issue

Firstly i would like to comment on the whole philosophy and leadership issue.
Personally i think philosophers don't make good leaders because in order to be even a LEADER forgot a good one, one needs to be a well grounded person who can make concrete decisions on how to manage his people. Meaning they need to be able to make firm decisions and not test drive decisions. A leader needs to be a person who is firm with decisions they make for the people under them whether it goes against their beliefs, emotions or desires. And this in itself goes against the whole concept of philosophy since philosophy is based on uncertainty. A philosopher is never satisfied with one answer but is always looking for different ways and different answers, and is content with that "lost freedom". Certainty and structure are their mortal enemies and certainty and structure are the stepping stones to good leadership so you see the dilemma. Also a good leader needs to distinguish between what is right or wrong and what is good or bad but in philosophy their are no standards for right or wrong and good or bad. All options are subject to perception.

That does not mean philosophers are useless though. I think Philosophers would make good resources to use or helpers (call them whatever you want) because they meet the leadership criteria halfway. They can come up with many different options and ways to choose from, they just lack the desire to choose one pathway or option and a good leader can make good use of that by following the best option a philosopher presents.

Secondly, i think decision making is an important process in life that one can't avoid. Except in the situation where others make decisions for you. Whether you like it or not you are always going to be presented with two or more options in a certain situation, and you are always going to have to make a decision on which one is best for you. This is what makes humans different from animals we were given the privilege of having a choice, and whatever use we put this choice to - good or bad- is our decision. Even in situations where you choose not to choose or decide not to decide you are still making a choice or decision - which is not to choose or decide.( i hope that didn't confuse you)

That's all i have to say for now lool!

My take on the topic [part 1]

This is in response to the first post (even though this is a little late, sorry people you're just going to have to accept it and READ IT!).

Personally, I don't think there is any way that anyone can escape decision-making. It's a mandatory part of life. We breathe, we eat,we sleep etc. Yes, many of you may say those are natural processes but I believe decision-making is a natural process for our brain. Whether its from choosing which flavour of ice cream you want or who you want on your team for a dodge ball game, you have options and you make a choice. Some of you may want to counter that by saying sometimes we don't always have options and so we really didn't make a decision because there was nothing to choose from. I would just classify the things we do because we have to as things that don't require a decision so just throw them to the back of your head for now. Decisions are things we have to do.

Now, would a philosopher make a good leader?

..............................................................

NO!

My perception of philosophy generally focuses on how broad philosophy is so there wouldn't be any concision. If philosophers aren't concise (feel free to disagree as this is only my take on the issue)they would never be able to narrow down anything. Decisions usually require you looking at one thing or the other and hopefully you should be able to choose the best one. Philosophers would probably waste time trying to be open-minded and giving each option a chance and assessing everything and so on. Leaders have to make decisions even if they're hated for it. Philosophers aren't up to that in my eyes. In the article, philosophers are said to maybe have a different set of criteria by which they make decisions. Sure, that maybe how they make decisions but would it be accepted by those whom you've just made the decision for? A leader should be able to make the best decision for everyone that they lead.Additionally, I think a philosopher's neutrality would ultimately serve as a double-edged sword. Neutrality would serve as a good thing because even if you were to have a stance on an issue, you wouldn't cater to the want/needs of the people with whom you're on the same side because you're neutral. It would also serve as a bad thing where neutrality might appear to masquerade as indifference. Since you're not on any one side of the issue, you would be seen as not caring about it at all. I believe that's only one aspect of the criteria a philospher would use and even when trying to imagine out the different possibilities, I still feel that philosophers aren't suited to be elected into positions of power. They should be included when discussions turn to other topics and used as resources but other than that, no, keep them out of the decision making processes.

[I hope I was able to get my point across the way I intended it to be understood.]

~Muna

Aristotle on Virtue

First, is possible to be a living breathing human being and avoid all decision-making? Is it possible that part of being human necessarily includes - to a certain degree - the process of decision making? This may simply be a matter of different ways of thinking, or process, when ultimately coming to a decision. It may be then, that the philosopher makes his or her decisions based on a uniquely distinctive set of criteria; taking into consideration only those variables that pass the test of the golden mean, neutrality or universal truth, for example.

Second, perhaps we could relate this discussion to the Aristotle piece, since he defines the virtuous man as being the one most capable of making proper or wise decisions.

It is hard work to be excellent, since in each case it is hard work to find what is intermediate. To do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.
(Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics: Book II)

If we look at the virtuous man (or the one who has wisdom to know how to act) as the "philosopher", then perhaps we may want to reconsider the philosopher as a good leader.

I Kinda Disagree

I read 1984 over the summer actually, its a good book (only two hundred and sumthing pages). It proposes the idea of how trying to attain a utopia creates a dysfunctional dystopia. I found the idea very thought provoking and its entertaining because it's so unbelievable. There's these law enforcement in the book called thought police (interesting eh?) It's main message is similar to that of Lois Lowry's The Giver.
But I don't think a philosopher can be a leader because philosophy is basically about searching for all possible avenues without declaring one to be coorect or even choosing one. It's a concept of uncertainty, and a vital charachteristic of any leader is decisiveness.

Google Books

Take a look at http://books.google.com/ if you have time and if you do not already know. You can have access to many great books like Plato's Republic or George Orwell's 1984. I thought it was neat and wanted to share it with you all.

Philosophy and Leadership

Ok here it goes, my first Blog ever :)

The concept of Philosophy and Leadership did not really sink into my brain. I mean what we talked about in the discussion did not really satisfy me. I think I agreed that a philosopher can be a leader however he/she needs to be able to separate the two roles distinctively. Now that in mind, I was watching the movie Gladiator. In one of the scenes Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor who is killed by his son, reveals that he is a philosopher. So after hearing that I did a quick research on Marcus Aurelius to see how historically correct the movie was and i found out that he was a real Emperor. On Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius , it says that "He was the last of the 'Five Good Emperors', and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers."(Stoicism is school of thought if I am not mistaken). My point being that this man was a philosopher and a good ruler/leader. I can't really prove it from my own knowledge but philosophy and leadership can go hand to hand according to his example.

Greetings! Our blog is finally up and running. First, my apologies for canceling this week's meeting. I would much rather be spending the lunch hour with you folks, believe me! We will still discuss the Aristotle piece next week, but in the mean time if you have any thoughts on it, please post below!