TechNAY or TechYAY?

Although there are a multitude of arguments throughout the book that I find intriguing, I find the arguments including techne as justification to be particularly engaging. In book one, Socrates uses techne to further his belief that someone who is just would not try to be unjust. He specifically states that for example, a music teacher would not strive for their student to be unmusical, and a horse-riding instructor would not want their student to be unsatifactory in riding. He uses these examples of techne to justify his argument. In my opinion I find in to be very sucessful, because he uses relatable, every-day situations (through his usage of techne) to help the citizens to further comprehend and relate to the argument he is making. Additionally, techne is used again by Socrates to argue that the goal in building a city is not to make one group more happy than another, but to promote happiness for collective. He describes the construction of a building to further explain his argument. This use of techne helps to make it easier to comprehend his stance. I think that this usage of techne is still incredibely important. There is a lot of media that distributes news that is biased, or unintentionally complex, which isolates many of it's possible consumers. I think that if techne was used more in modern news, more peiple would be able to understand different perspectives. Much likes Socrates is doing with the townspeople in The Republic, using techne to provide everyday, relatable, and digestable examples of arguments could help more people comprehend standpoints.

Is Life Meaningless???

One of the philosophers that I found to be the most meaningful was Albert Camus. He believed that life was essentially meaningless, comparing it to rolling a ball up a hill only for it to eventually fall down the hill. However, he thought that although life was meaningless by these standards, that by absurdist beliefs you shouldn't let that fact bring you down. You can still live a meaningful life even if existence is in it's nature meaningless. I think these concepts are very relevant and valuable today, because I think many people get caught up in the depressing "life is meaningless" aspect of existentialism. In reality, I think people should listen to Camus, and try to make your life meaningful to yourself even if it is technically meaningless.

Invictus - Kierkegaard Approved?

This poem is existential in nature. The first stanza demonstrates a questioning of gods, as the narrator of the poem is question whatever god may be, thanking them for their "unconquerable soul." The narrator believes that they are not fully responsible for their ambitious soul, instead thinking a greater power is in charge. In the second stanza, the narrator states that the reason they still prevail is because of the "bludgeoning of chance". This is existential because they are pointing to chance as the reason for their circumstance, rather than something though out and pointed. The third stanza starts of in an existential light, saying "beyond this place", insiunating an unknown world beyond their own. It looms in the dark because it is unknown and mysterious. The final stanza is existential because the narrator states that they are the master of fate, and the captain of their soul. They state that if they are in charge of their soul, they can also be in charge of their fate. This is unknown, an somewhat existential.

The Failure of Crowds

"Wherever there is a crowd there is untruth. The more people who believe something, the more apt it is to be wrong. The person who's right often has to stand alone." -Soren Kierkegaard This quote is describing the inconsistancies accompanied with group-think. When people are in a group, they are less inclined to speak out, instead choosing to align their beliefs with that of the majority. This means that the group's ideas are never challenged, giving them less opportunity to be thoroughly thought out. Therefore, if someone does happen to disagree with the majority, they have to speak as an individual rather than being backed by the rest of the group. Think quote ties into Kierkegaard's existential believes, and his idea of a split between reason and believe, which he used to disprove the existence of god. When people must all believe something, it instills doubt and suffering into those who happen to disagree. Considering Kierkegaard was the first known existential philosopher of his time, he probably said this with himself in mind. During his time, his beliefs were incredibly radically, and were critized heavily for being outlandish and even blasphemous. With my own experience in mind, I think that this quote is very accurate. It is a lot easier to form an opinion you believe in when you are asked individually rather than as a group. Often times during group projects at school I find myself going along with the group rather than speaking out. While sometimes this can help by providing different perspectives, it can also be limiting if everyone believes the same thing.

Existentialism --- God is causing me GRIEF!!

One opinion about our existence that I found very compelling was Kierkegaard's idea of existentialism. Existentialism is the philosophical doctrine stating tha our being as subjective individuals are more important than what we have in common objectively with all other human beings. Kierkegaard was especially concerned about his relationship to God. His doubts and fears concerned the validity of his very existence as an individual, longing to believe in God's promise. He didn't find peace in the abstract, impersonal logical relationships among diembodied forms. Because of this, he was very tortured and tormented about himself and his relationship with God. This doubt, and way of thinking was established by Kierkegaard as existentialism. Kirkegaard is acknowledged as the first existentialist philosopher. This idea of existentialism when faced with existence and God made me realize how little proof and connection we have with high powers when thinking about it existentially. I came to the conclusion that the answer to this existential problem can be answered by Descartes' logic, and is backed by rationalism. I think that even if you don't believe in god, you can still assume that a universe exists. This is because if there wasn't a universe, than you wouldn't be alive or exist yourself. According to Descartes, the only thing we can be one hundred percent sure of is our own existence. Therefore, you must know that a universe exists for you to exist in. This is a more rational, materialistic approach that I think Kirkegaard would doubt.

Social Contract - A Classroom Anarchy??

I was unfortunately not present for the social contract activity we did during class, but I was able to be here while our groups finished our slideshows and presented them. The project seemed very compelling, and putting it together with my group helped me to understand the different example of social contract in our school. One of my favorite examples we used in our presentation was a picture of students in the cafeteria. All of the students were sitting down quietly, and behaving in a normal fashion. No one was misbehaving in any way, or acting in a way that they shouldn't. This behavior demonstrated social contract, and how unspoken rules control how we behave in public. The idea that no one is enforcing you to act a certain way, and yet everyone does was very interesting to me. It got me thinking about how simple it would to hypothetically ignight the school into anarchy, much like a real country and government. All it would take is knowing that nothing is technically stopping you.

Unlocking John Locke

John Locke's philosophical ideas are extremely prominent in todays society. For starters, most of the American consitution and ideological of the founding fathers were based off of John Locke's ideas. Therefore, most of our government and the way the United States is governed is inspired by the ideas of John Locke, and his ideas of inalienable rights. For example, John Locke famously state that all men have the right to persue "Life, liberty, and the persuit of property." In the declaration of independence, that famous quote is adopted after being slightly altered by Thomas Jefferson to read "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." Therefore, many controversial problems in today's society might be further argued using the logic of John Locke. John Locke's tabula rasa, or "blank slate" idea states that every person is born a blank slate, and anything added is gained only through experience. This logic could be used to argue for the right of abortions. For example, one could argue that a fetus is simply a blank slate, something that has no experience and therefore is not a person. Therefore, abortion should be a right because the fetus lacks any experience, making it something sub-human. No morals would come into play, because this fetus is not alive in John Locke's terms.