Response Dom Cooper/My thoughts on moral thoughts

Response to Dom Cooper's post "Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue"
My initial intention was to agree with your thoughts, not providing much personal opinion.  The following passage from your post, however,  compelled me to explore further:  "Morality would not exist without action...morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong."
I became immediately intrigued with the issue of the connection between "moral" and "virtuous" actions and moral thoughts.  How do they relate to one another? Are they separate entities or  does it rely on a universally understood notion that all actions require either conscious or subconscious thought? Can a clear distinction be made that separates these two processes, or are they innately interconnected.  I would love to believe that by examining my actions I could establish a virtuous pattern of morality- however not every action we partake in exhibits reason and good. Imagine the life and purpose of a monk (please excuse my stereotypical reference, I am attempting to create a particular visual that is common to our limited cultural understanding and by utilizing a <possibly> false stereotype the desired image is conjured)- my actions of selfless commitment requires repetitious action and often conscious thought is intentionally forsaken.  Who would evaluate my actions were moral? Would Aristotle believe by containing oneself to their beliefs and not imposing on others that their actions embody morality? My elaboration may have digressed from your original post, I tend to do that. 

Elaborating on Prior Arguments

We have been extensively discussing in class about the concepts of compatibility and incompatibility in reference to the theories of determinism and free will.  The debate has remained a constant tug of war between differing viewpoints; each side citing hypothetical and actual experiences, concepts of humanity and the natural world, and the totality of human purpose and presence.  Does this debate impact the importance of individuals? Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?
Quite obviously there will be no definitive answer in the debate of determinism and free will- as each person formulates their opinion and acts accordingly. Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?
 If I was a determinist I would make decisions believing that there was no alternate options- I was destined to choose accordingly and therefore all my questions and answers are justified.  If I believed in free will I would remove myself from conventional decisions and act (almost completely) on impulse. Therefore, I would be solely responsible for all my choices and actions- a responsibility that most avoid confronting.   I remain unbiased in this debate- tending to not accept either theory in absolute distinction- I am simply "determined" to be "free" in my decisions. 

It's About Time

I decided to blog about a particularly interesting topic we had in class discussion today. The issue of time intrigued me- how is it defined, what determines the expansions and limitations, is there a truly universal time register that all humans adhere to or have we become so accustomed and reliant on time to structure our thoughts/actions/and moods that without it our personal direction would be destroyed? 
I began to think about the origins of time.  The natural occurrences that happen after a certain allotted time (sun up, midday sun, sun setting, nightfall) undoubtedly formulated the concepts of time we now have. Would it be a better gauge of life if we forgo the conventional system of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years etc. and focused "time" on the changes of all aspects of the world.  This is to say that what defines time would not be a numerical system but an individual perception of the physical and intellectual evolution of living beings and the natural and manual developments of objects.  Would this system crumble due to differing abilities of people (considering lack of senses i.e. blindness)- most likely.  Therefor the past would be recollected as personal memories removed from rigorous dates and focuses on the capacity for each individual to recognize their chronology.   Justifiably, it would never work; just an interesting concept I mulled over. 

Response to Siearra/Is Priori Knowledge Important

The post by Siearra titled "Is Priori Knowledge Important" posed a few topics for me to discuss.  She brought up the issue of right and wrong of good knowledge and not good.  She asks, "How, as human beings, are we supposed to know what knowledge we come across is good or not?" It is interesting to consider the subjective input each individual has, and how will that impact the classifications of good/evil.  Plato had an objective view that all humans posses one inherent opinion of good knowledge and would therefor recognize it immediately.  
Siearra's grand question of what is the difference between right and wrong can be answered simply according to Plato; with an objective base each person will do what society deems acceptable and "right" taking into account the ways their actions contribute to society and the attainment of reason. There is no room of subjective classifications or moral confusion.

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.