post from eil sent to drG for posting

In response to "Plato says No Writing!":

I wholeheartedly agree ... Though we have many websites for social
interaction there is always a viscerality missing somewhere ... the
computer universe is one of only one sense (sight), maybe sound if we wire
it up right, but no smell , no touch (other than the keyboard), definitely
no shared taste experiences (I'm sure everyone's computer had a different
flavor) ... and none of the sensory deprivation even touches (no pun
intended) on the fact that all social websites have sort of a central meme
to why people choose them. This site, we're all on because of a class we
share (no random people as far as I know) ... so the pool of possible
correspondence is limited, the people you might meet here are of a
specific subset of society ... where's the fun in that ... If you're at a
coffee shop or a restaurant or a bar you have random input that can
immediately derail (or resuscitate) a conversation. That can't happen in a
blog ...

In Response to "Pleasure":
I'm of the mind, on pleasure vs hardship, that we almost always take the
easiest path ... even if it appears hard to our peers. If, as DR. G said
above, we wait until "clarity that is unmistakable and then the path is
easy " that is the easiest decision in the world to make. If we make a
decision before we can talk ourselves out of it that's the easiest way to
our goal, if we end up starving in a gutter somewhere it's because we took
the easy way out and didn't get a job, if we stay at a dead end job for
decades because we're to lazy to improve our lot in life we are again
taking the easiest way out.

I think we have a tendency to try to minimize our investment; in case
we're wrong, in case it doesn't go right, in case we get shot down by life
... so that we have a fall back position of "this happened to me" rather
than "I did this".

Those of us who go to college are avoiding lots of hardships that result
from being uneducated; getting some job we don't like, or having a dead
end job in the future, avoiding military service, or just getting away
from home.

The differences are in the people making the choices ... some people are
just wired different ... one person finds it easy to be a mechanic for 40
years, another enjoys school and stays in university until it kicks them
out.
Our personal variability correlates to Bacon's Idols (idylls? ) Our
cultural, emotional, familial, and dialectic differences are what describe
our paths through life ... I think that when someone refers to "finding
their niche", "being in the groove" , or "answering their calling" they're
just taking the easiest path (as described by their own internal wiring)
... We just have to pretend it's hard to make the rest of the world value
our dedication.

--
Eli Seifert

Good vs. Evil in reality

Looking back at Neoplatonism and its definition of evil (pg 109 of our text), I noticed the statement that "..evil [is] not... a real feature of reality, but... as lack, an incompleteness" to be interesting (and odd). Why wouldn't evil be real? The definition of evil as a lack of goodness makes sense, of course, but how does that negate the reality of evil? How does a thing being a lack of another make the thing not real?

For that matter, what does "more real than..." mean? Seriously.



Another thought, this time pertaining to free will.

Does perfect knowledge of the future necessitate a complete lack of freedom? Why/why not?

Clip for Idols of the Theatre

The summary of Bacon's theory of the Idols of the Theatre found on this website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method) reminded me of the following clip. In it, it is asserted that there is no question that a machine called The General cannot answer. The counterexample provided by the show's protagonist "blows the whole works," perhaps thus revealing a reason for maintaining the blind acceptance as fact what one is told or what one would hope to be true -- a timid acquiescence known to us now by the moniker Idol of the Theatre:

Plato Says No Writing!

I admit, while I love perusing the blog and seeing what my classmates have to say about various philosophical topics, I find I have difficulty contributing to the conversations.

Part of this is my personal mild dislike of blogs in general. I find blogs to be distasteful due to their very structure. Blogs are places where one can post their own opinions and discuss amongst their peers, however they are far too sterile for true discussion to take place. Even now, I'm censoring, picking words, attempting to be eloquent, doing whatever necessary to try to get my opinion across without conveying misinformation or facilitating incorrect interpretation. In response, my classmates (you) will possibly respond to what they think I'm trying (clumsily) to convey in this post. I will skim the comments, or be disappointed at a lack of comments, and this thread will be dead.

I far prefer face-to-face discussions. I like to sit with another person and talk about philosophy, coffee, the weather, philosophy again, classes, etc. These discussions are organic, they meander, they move, they are insightful, or not. I can tell immediately if someone is understanding what I'm trying to convey or if there has been a misinterpretation, usually by the look on their face or another non-verbal clue. I can tell if they agree or disagree. Here on the blog, I simply cast out my ideas to the abyss, wondering if they are accepted, or even read. I find the impersonality of the setup disconcerting and not conductive to discussion on my part.

The conclusion, let's talk. Face-to-face over coffee, after class, meeting in the halls, all are acceptable. It would be an interesting social experiment :)

life with computers

My computer broke; therefore, I am not ...able to do much in terms of send a pdf. The extra book for the class is missing in action (along withe the student who has the book.
You should get a pdf in the morning when Ann is back.

Idols of the Marketplace

There has been a lot of debate currently regarding the newly-passed healthcare reform bill. However, the following essay by Washington Weekly's Gwen Ifill points out that most of the debate is based on the nuance of language. I thought it was an interesting read. It's politically neutral, so everyone should be able to read it in peace :p

Enjoy folks!

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/content/translating-history

Pleasure

Dr. Griffin was saying that one of the students pondered on their midterm about why we always choose the hardest path and why pleasure gets a bad wrap. I was wondering if you guys wanted to talk about what you think about that. It's very common in a lot of philosophies especially in modern religions.