Chance/Morals/Aristotle

Today in class we examined the notion of moral luck. The basic premise explains that all our circumstances are due to chance.  We cannot owe our situations to higher powers, self will, or determination.  The cycle begins when we are born- the parents we have and their particular beliefs and experiences directly affects our personality.  Due to complete chance each individual has a probability equally weighted.  This continues throughout our lives in which we become victors or victims to our circumstances.  If this belief is true, the basis that eternal realms exist to guide our bodies to the Good is invalid. Aristotle recognized that moderate wealth, good social standing, personal upkeep, and cultural awareness are directly linked to attaining reason and discovering the good.  If chance dictated all facets of our lives, would it be possible for any person to progress towards intellect, reason, moral actions, and the ultimate good? Personally I find moral luck would be a hindrance to self improvement based on these questions.  I know Aristotle did not specifically deconstruct moral luck and correlate it into his theory of human nature- I was toying with a concept we examined and attempted to integrate it into his theories. 

Aristotle's Tottles

I fabricated the word "tottles" ..it had a novelty ring to it and added an attracting title.  This post will address some of Aristotle's primary theories in conjunction to classroom discussions.  We spoke today about the interconnection of pleasure and happiness and the notion that there are higher and lower pleasures that Aristotle did not necessarily outline, but can be formulated from application of his theories in the real world.  Is it through our natural and good intuition to experience higher pleasures as opposed to lower order pleasures?  Do the higher and lower levels correspond to the flesh or to the mind or both?  After recognizing our experiences with the short term high level pleasures is it possible to falter and crave short term low level pleasures? Does this cause detriment to our overall character?

In a separate discussion Aristotle's belief of "natural slaves" was deconstructed.  A few questions came to mind: did Aristotle's classification of those who were slaves correspond strictly to a man's lack of natural abilities or a cultural/personal perceived notion of insignificance (relating to age, race, gender, social status, etc).  The slaves experienced a happy state of affairs when their superior rational owners used reason and good to conduct their authority.  How can this be considered valid in any facet? Is this not a paradox in which the victim owes the victimizer?  The oppressive set of circumstances of one committed to serve another (sometimes unjustly) serves no function relating to respect and honor of those asserting their power.  Human nature should be universal, not defined by higher social order, race, gender, or subjective views. 

Response/Corbin Brassard

I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post titled "Another Interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics".
I too agree that Plato may have formulated his Theory of Forms from a genuine quest to understand the knowledge of objects/ideas/etc that transcends ages using a valid system that could be easily understood.  He falters, however, by removing the aspect of human understanding that is associated with recognition and recall.  Corbin states " its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair. " Comprehending function is pivotal in giving credit to presence and purpose of any object or thing.  There are copious amounts of undiscovered inanimate and living matter that seem to contradict Plato's theory of forms.  We will undoubtedly categorize these presently unknown things upon discovery by classification of function and purpose. 

Flexing my Innate Ideas

This argument focuses on Plato's theory of Innate Ideas.  When a human body harbors an eternal mind and soul, experiences must be removed from emotion and the quest for Reason is the ultimate purpose of this embodiment.  Through this separation and removal we are able to recollect the prior knowledge our soul obtained throughout its everlasting journey.  The basis for any individual's "innate ideas" are determined by an undefinable realm where the Good and the Reason are paramount. This is to say then, that our (I will call them pure) ideas of life/purpose/humanity/experience/ and the state of our natural being continually emerge, consistent with the transcendence we experienced in a previous time.  How does this theory relate to the broader concepts we are familiar with in our material world? With  varying opinions of what is acceptable correlating with our moral standpoints, relationships, and personal justices how can is be concretely argued that we are all of the same Form? Isn't the very essence of humanity and natural will to express individual perspectives we contrive from being emotionally and intellectually aware?

World of Forms Vs. Material World

This entry specifically addresses some of the concepts Plato expresses.  Plato outlines that every object, being, creation, etc. are due to Forms- unchanging and everlasting properties.  He further states that this world of forms is more robust and meaningful that the material world we associate with.  This argument brings a set of conundrums to mind.  The basis that Plato maintains is that knowledge is just recollecting the prior knowledge and acknowledging the forms present eternally.  This is a cyclical theory that I feel crumbles upon itself.  If our knowledge is due to things we have always known and just failed to recognize, then what is the purpose of our material lives and how does the acknowledgment of the forms benefit individuals as well as the totality of beings? It seems slightly contradictory to me to base the importance of human experience on the notion that what impact we have is determined by what impact was made before us.  We are not, then, the masters of our own universe and our decisions are subconsciously formulated to repeat the cycle outline above.  I will next explore Plato's appreciation that perfection exists outside the material world.  As we discussed in class there is an infinite existence of perfection- such as a circle.  This realm is only present outside of the material world where perfection is capable.  What, then, is the relevance of knowing that perfection exists but we cannot experience it in this material world?  I feel it creates a problem in which we constantly assess our souls and their credentials compared to the infinite perfection that is unattainable.  Again, what benefit does this have to us in this life?

  If I falter in my analysis/review/argument of his ideals please feel free to challenge what I have said.  After all, enlightenment would just be the result of discovering what I already know. 

Cohesive Ideals

This post is in reply/response/reflection of the post titled "An Objective Basis for Secular Morality" by Deven Philbrick.  His argument attracted my interest immediately after reading the title.  While my personal input and analysis (analysis may be too strong a word, I am simply crediting your work and replying appropriately) may falter in comparison to your literary strength. 

Beginning with a quote from the text I found particular interest in: "However, most Christians in my experience seem to sift through the Christian Bible and pick out only what they view as moral"
 This statement is profoundly credible. This method is utilized by any individual or group attempting to solidify the relevancy of their beliefs.  In all facets of humanity there are immoral and moral aspects and the Bible being a transcription of events, that may or may not have occurred, embodies this contrast.  Pointing this particle out forces an examination of the methodology used by any enterprise we have encountered that has attempted persuasion.  Furthermore, the credibility of any religious, scholar, or general argument  is challenged.  Is it appropriate to credit merit to their ideals then when the alternate aspects (either immoral or moral) are not accounted for? 
I may return to elaborate further.

Conjured Questions Inspired by Socrates

After concluding the reading assignment, Chapter 2 of Who Are We?  some more questions formulated.  I recognized that the questions I was interested in resolving transitioned from broad generalizations of the concepts of philosophy to specified interest in the important philosophers.  Reading of Socrates conjured up answers to some of my previous ponderings, but also created a multitude of further questions.  In his time, 5th century B.C.E., Socrates was cavalier in formulating his own truths and exhibiting them to the masses.  Ancient Greece had a rigid society and social structure, and I wonder how human nature (disregard for a moment the belief that human nature transcends ages or time periods ) received his revolutionary ideals.  How did his beliefs correlate to the importance placed on religion? Or, how important was religion in those ancient times? His social demonstrations tested the knowledge of craftsmen and proved their façade.   I cannot truly fathom the implications of his actions, as times have evolved to allow more personal freedom and individual rights.  Was it unheard of for such brazen acts at this time- knowing that persecution and damnation by society would result?  Were Socrates's actions the catalyst for the perpetuation of his beliefs- that have endured thousands of years.  Did he earn respects AFTER his death ( taking into account the reading of the story of his trial and sentencing, and subsequent end at the hands of the law)  These questions insight a yearning to understand all the parameters of the ancient times and to better infer the importance of the lifetime of Socrates.