unknownessences-blog

[unknownessences-blog]

Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.

Attributed to Albert Einstein (via archiemcphee)

[unknownessences-blog]

A Look at the Film “Schindler’s List”

          The film “Schindler’s List”, released in the year 1993, tells the story of an opportunistic German business man Oskar Schindler who was in Poland during the times of World War II. Oskar Schindler is a business man and a member of the Nazi party who seeks cheap labor by using polish Jews as factory workers to result in a large profit margin for Oskar Schindler’s business. However, as the war continues, Oskar Schindler’s motives begin to shift away from profits and towards humanitarianism as he begins to become less concerned with making large amounts of money and more concerned with the lives of his workers. Oskar finds himself in the middle of a global catastrophe and does his best to save as many Jews as he possibly can.

           The true story told in the movie “Schindler’s List” is quite though-provoking and leaves room for the discussion of many topics and questions of morality and ethics. One could easily watch the film and make the comparison of topics such as good vs. evil to situations and meanings uncovered in this film. This motion picture also lends itself to the discussion of capital punishment, the death penalty, and the question of whether or not it is morally right or wrong for any human being to take the life of another human being for any reason what-so-ever. Finally, this intriguing film can be related to the psychological reasoning behind the actions of those involved with the Jewish genocide or just average everyday people living their lives.

           In a world that is so very complex and constantly changing like the one each and every one of us live in today, it is hard for us as human beings to fully understand what it means for our actions to be right or wrong. What does it mean to be good and what does it mean to be bad? What might be deemed as moral and acceptable behavior to some may very well be considered the exact opposite to others. However, there are some actions in which the vast majority of us on earth believe to be considered immoral, bad, or evil actions. One such action that nearly all human beings consider to be evil or wrong is the act of killing another human being without any reasoning or justification what-so-ever.

           As explained in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013), there are two distinct concepts of evil. The first of the two is what they like to call natural evil (Calder, 2013, paragraph 2). Natural evils are bad states of affairs that are not the result of other living people and instead are usually natural occurring events or disasters while moral evils are a direct result of the actions of another living being (Calder, 2013, paragraph 2). Some examples of natural evils include tornadoes and diseases while, in contrast, some examples of moral evils include actions such as murder or adultery.

           The “Schindler’s List” lends itself to the discussion of moral evil as opposed to natural evil because of the events within the story are mostly cause by the actions of other people in the film. It is easy to see a clear connection between the concept of “good vs. evil” and the struggle of Oskar Schindler vs. the Nazi party depicted in the film “Schindler’s List”. It is fairly obvious to most that the “good” in this film is Oskar Schindler and the “evil” in the film is the majority of the rest of the Nazi party at the time. Oskar Schindler can be viewed as the “good” because of his attempt to save the lives of as many unfortunate Jews as he possibly can and his peers in the Nazi party can be viewed as the “evil” in the film because of their attempt to force slave labor and death upon millions of innocent Jewish people.

           When speaking of morality it is important to consider what it actually is that determines whether a particular action is good or if it is bad. Everyone has their own opinion of what makes something good or bad, but philosophers have been pondering this question for a very long time and many have come up with multiple theories of morality. However, most boil down to the distinction that if a particular action results in more negative effects than positive or if it harms more people than it helps, it shall be considered a bad or evil action (Baber, 2010, paragraph 6). In contrast, if an action results in more positive effects than negative on the lives of others, then it shall be considered a good action (Baber, 2010, paragraph 9). In my opinion, it is clear to see that the actions of Oskar Schindler that lead to the survival of over a thousand Jews is nothing short of moral and righteous, while actions conducted by the Nazi party that lead to the death of millions of innocent Jewish men, woman and children are undisputable immoral and evil.

           In addition to the aspects of good vs. evil in the film “Schindler’s List”, a connection can also be made between certain aspects of this film and the debate involving whether or not capital punishment is right or wrong. Capital punishment, also known as execution, or the death penalty has been banned in most countries around the world (Pierce, 2014, paragraph 2). Although capital punishment remains legal in the United States, most people choose not to base their morals on whether or not something is legal, and choose to determine if something is moral or immoral based on their own personal beliefs, views, and definitions of right and wrong.

           During the Holocaust in the 1930’s and 1940’s, an extremely large number of human beings were forced into slave labor and ultimately deprived of their right to life by being put to death by the German Nazi party. Today, the vast majority of people agree that the genocide organized by the Nazi Party was completely, and undoubtedly immoral. However, this raises the question of whether or not there is any situation that would morally justify the life of one person being taken away by another person. Some of those who believe that the use of the death penalty is in fact moral and should be legal argue that the use of capital punishment has a deterrence effect and because of this, the use of it results in less crimes and ultimately, lives being saved (Hutchinson, 2007, paragraph 2).

           This argument seems to be a quite reasonable one at first glance but after further analysis, it is clear to see its flaws. Supposed, for example, that the standard punishment for any specific crime was the removal of an arm or leg, this would result in society being outraged because the majority believes that chopping off somebody’s arm or leg as a punishment for a crime would be constituted as a cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, this type of punishment would surely minimalize the willingness of other’s to participate in any crime or activity that would result in a similar punishment, but if we let deterrence be enough to constitute a specific punishment as morally correct, we would be reduced to a society filled with nothing but torcher and public humiliation (Hutchinson, 2007, paragraph 5). The film “Schindler’s List” displays numerous examples of the uses of cruel and unusual punishment as well as execution, but why did the people at the time fail to see the immorality of their actions?

           As seen in the film, Oskar Schindler, unlike his peers in the Nazi party at the time, was able to see through the widespread political propaganda at the time and choose to save the lives of a thousand Jews rather than let them be sent to forced labor and death camps. This brings up the question another question. Why did Oskar Schindler spend an enormous sum of money and risk his life to keep his Jewish workers away from Nazi death camps (Gilbert, 2013, paragraph 4)? Perhaps the answer lies within the field of moral psychology.

           One famous developmental psychologist who aimed his sights on answering the questions surrounding moral development and what makes someone think something is right or wrong went by the name of Lawrence Kohlberg. Through his research, Lawrence Kohlberg came to explain moral development via six identifiable developmental stages, each providing a new, more comprehensive perspective than the last (McLeod, 2013, paragraph 19). According to Kohlberg, these six stages explain how people justify behaviors, and are not to be used as a technique to rank how moral a specific behavior or person actually is but instead, there should be a correlation between how a person ranks on the 6-stage scale and the way that they behave in everyday situations (McLeod, 2013, paragraph 24). It is believe by Kohlberg and many other experts of developmental psychology that moral behavior is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher stages on the scale (McLeod, 2013, paragraph 19).

           People who score within the first two stages of the 6-stage scale of moral reasoning, usually children, usually have moral standards that allow them to participate in behaviors that are only beneficial to themselves, while those who’s score fall within stages 3 or 4 have a way of reasoning that allows them to evaluate the wrongfulness of an action by comparing it to the expectations and views of society (McLeod, 2013, paragraph 16). It seems to me that it’s quite possible that most of the people being depicted in the film participated in a level of moral reasoning that was at or below stage 4 on Kohlberg’s scale, meaning that they chose to act in a way that only benefited themselves or was considered acceptable to society at the time. At the time and location in which the film took place, society was accepting of the actions being conducted by the Nazi party and so it makes sense than anyone with a moral level equivalent to that of stage 4 or below would be tolerable of the actions being conducted by the German government during his time period.

           Perhaps this research conducted by Lawrence Kohlberg and those whose work he built upon can be used to, at least partially, explain the psychological reasoning behind why Oskar Schindler made the decision that he did despite knowing the risks and sacrifices involved. It is possible that Oskar Schindler’s moral development would place him in stage 5 or 6, above that of his peers in the Nazi party. Those who fall in stages 5 or 6 of Kohlberg’s 6-stage scale of moral development are less likely to only act in such a way that are only beneficial for themselves or to conform to the society’s expectations. Instead, the reasoning used by these people is marked by a understanding that individuals are different from the society that they live in, and that the individuals own standpoint may take priority over the views of the society (McLeod, 2013, paragraph 14).

          Perhaps we will never know for sure what made this courageous man act the way did, but whatever it was that is responsible for causing Oskar Schindler to sacrifice nearly everything he had, and take the risks that he did, he proved that even when thrown into appalling circumstances, a completely ordinary person can have the ability to accomplish remarkable things. Oskar Schindler is inspiring not because of his enormous success as a business man, not because he was a well-respected man of high social standings, and not because of his talent and ability to manipulate the system to get what he wants, but because was willing to give up everything for the sake of doing the right thing. The film shows just how much Schindler was actually willing to sacrifice and put on the line year after year as he continued to do all he could to protect the lives of over a thousand innocent people.

          All-in-all, the film “Schindler’s List” and the outstanding true story of Oskar Schindler and the thousand lives that he saved has made a mark on history of impressive size. This film can be discussed and link to a countless number of concepts and arguments of morality and which criteria should and should not be used to determine what differentiates an action that is moral from an action that is immoral. Some examples include subjects such as the philosophical debate or good vs. evil, as well as the morality of capital punishment and the psychological explanation of why some behave in a more ethical way than others.

Works Cited

Calder, Todd. "The Concept of Evil." Stanford University. Stanford University, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2015.

Gilbert, Ryan. "Oscar Schindler, Why." Oscar Schindler, Why. Auschwitz.dk, 28 July 2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

H. E. Baber. "Morality and Moral Theories." Morality and Moral Theories. University of San Diego, 04 Jan. 2010. Web. 07 Nov. 2015.

Hutchinson, Allan C. "Morality and the Death Penalty." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Nov. 2007. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

McLeod, Saul. "Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology." Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

Pierce, Jerri N. "The Death Penalty around the World." The Death Penalty around the World. France Diplomatie, 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

[unknownessences-blog]

The Acting in “The Fighter”

          I was initially exited to watch the film “The Fighter” staring Mark Wahlberg playing as Micky Ward and Christian Bale playing as Dicky Eklund because of the fact that the names of these actors are among the most popular. The names of the actors that play in a film is not only something that gets me exited for a movie, but it is also used to spark initial interest in many people and get them exited for a movie to be released as well (Barsam & Monahan, 2013).

          According to Barsam & Monahan in 2013, the four kinds of actors are personality actors, chameleon actors, nonprofessional actors, and actors who deliberately play against our expectations of their personae. The actors Christian Bale and Mark Wahlberg in this film both fall into the category of chameleon actors rather than one of the other categories such as personality actors. I believe this because these actors are actors who seem to be different in every role that they play and that is what makes them both chameleon actors (Barsam & Monahan, 2013).

          In my opinion, the acting done by these two men was outstanding and very enjoyable to watch. Not only did their body language, facial expressions, and movements portray a great sense of verisimilitude, but the way they used their voices to say their lines aloud us, the viewers, to better understand which emotions the characters were supposedly feeling at certain moments in time during the scenes. Ever since the 1920’s, with the transition from silent movies to movies with sound, actors now had to not only be able to act with their bodies, but with their voices as well (Barsam & Monahan, 2013).

          Method acting is when actors draw upon their own past personal experiences and emotions to the role which they are playing in an attempt to become a more realistic character (Barsam & Monahan, 2013). Method acting also involves the actors participating in an intense psychological preparation for a role in which they have been casted. There were many scenes in the film “The Fighter” that helped bring me to the conclusion that Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale were both successfully method acting to some extent in some scenes of this film. One example would be the scene in which a police officer smashed and hurts Micky Ward's hand. This scene involved the actors to convey certain emotions as the scene progressed.

           Casting an actor for a particular role is the process of choosing which actor will play which character in a movie (Barsam & Monahan, 2013). It is possible that for this film, Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, and the various other actors in the film were choses based on their strengths and weaknesses of acting (Barsam & Monahan, 2013). I believe that, in this film, Christian Bale does a fantastic job playing the role of an irresponsible, crack addicted Dicky Eklund. Similarly, Mark Wahlberg was a casting success when it come the role of Micky Ward, a light welterweight boxer on the rise.

           There are various types of roles when it comes to acting. Some of these roles include major roles, minor roles, character roles, cameo roles, walk-ons and more (Barsam & Monahan, 2013). The major roles in the film “The Fighter” were played by Christian Bale and Mark Wahlberg. There were also various minor roles in this film such as Micky Ward’s father and the opponents he fought against in the ring, played by Jack McGee and Peter Cunningham respectively (IMDb.com, Inc, 2011).

          All-in-all, after watching this film, I was pleased with the performance by all of the actors playing major roles, and a large majority of the rest of the actors in the movie. They were successful in portraying the roles in which they were casted for and I was easily able to suspend my disbelief. The acting done in this movie was superb and I would recommend this film to others.

[unknownessences-blog]

Check out the first project I’ve built since I started learning computer graphics!

[unknownessences-blog]

My Own Theory of Human Nature

      No matter where you go, there will always be somebody willing to claim that they have knowledge of the truth. However, you should only believe claims in which you have good reason to believe. Thankfully, the scientific method was developed quite some time ago and has allowed many experts to make astonishing discoveries about how the universe works. The inductive reasoning of science has provided us with massive amounts of evidence supporting theories such as the laws of physics and much more. Science is by no means necessarily correct, but with the evidence available today, it would be unwise to believe in any claims that directly contradict the claims supported by science. And so I am willing to accept most claims made by scientists and experts about how the universe works.

      On a related note, it would be unwise to believe claims in which there is little to no supporting evidence. Regarding the question of whether or not there is a creator of the universe, with the lack of evidence presently available, I choose to remain agnostic leaning slightly towards atheism. There is not enough sufficient evidence supporting either side of the debate for me to wholly subscribe to either belief. I do, however, reject the existence of a B.O.O. God as described by the Christian religion because there is very little evidence supporting the existence of such God. There is no direct evidence ruling out the possibility of intelligent design, although I would prefer not to use the word “God” because there are so many religious connotations attached to it.

      I believe that everything in the universe is derived from a single substance and that substance being material. This belief is often called “Monism” or “Materialism”. That is, only material is real and everything claimed to be mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical.  I subscribe to this belief because nothing supernatural or otherwise nonmaterial has ever been detected or measured, and so there is no reason to believe that such substances exist. It follows that I am a physical determinist. This belief is based on there being physical laws and that all features of the universe are dependent upon physical factors. When an experiment is conducted, the results of the experiment are only accepted as a truth about how the world works if the experiment is repeatable. We know that if the conditions of an experiment are exactly the same, independent of when or where the experiment is replicated, the experiment will yield the same results. This is because everything in the universe must abide by the same universal laws. “What goes up must come down” is an extremely simplified reference to this idea of cause and effect relationships. In the event that we have all of the knowledge of the conditions of a particular isolated event, we could accurately predict the result of the event.

      Every event that is presently occurring is the result of, and dependent upon an event that occurred in the past. Now if we apply the same line of thought about cause-effect relationships to the universe, and treat the universe as a single isolated event, it would make sense to claim that if every condition of every single piece of matter in the universe was known at a particular moment in time, then it would follow that we would be able to predict the result of those. And if it is theoretically possible to accurately predict the future of the universe, any claim that the future is not determined would be ludicrous in my opinion.

      On a relevant topic still regarding metaphysical views, some previous thinkers have claimed that there is something transcendent or objective or both about morality and that morality is somehow intertwined or built within the universe itself. However, I would claim just the opposite. Morality is subjective and only exists because humans exist. If every human on earth agreed that a particular act is moral, then that act is in fact moral. Murder is only wrong because we believe it is wrong but many centuries ago, this may not have been the case for our ancestors. Each person has their own views on what acts are considered a moral and one action can be considered moral to you, may very well not be considered moral to me. I am also aware that the culture and society that we are raised in has a large influence on our views or morality and this may result in a society of people who have largely the same moral views, but morality is still subjective to the individual.

      Now, moving on to the discussion of human nature. Again, I feel as though it is wise to not believe those claims that are the most emotionally comforting, but only those claims that have the most supporting evidence. And in my opinion, the evidence supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is much greater than that of any other theory attempting to explain the origin of the human species. Another major question that often comes up when discussing human nature is the nature vs. nurture discussion. Why is it that some people are passionate about playing instruments while others enjoy physical sports? Some would say that they were born with it, but others attribute this preference to early childhood exposure but I would claim that it is neither one or the other.

      Both our genetics and our experiences contribute to our likes and dislikes. Although he may not have known it at the time, it seems as though Plato was speaking on the nature-nurture discussion when deliberating on his theory of the three parts of the soul. It seems as though Plato’s “Appetite” part of the soul includes many of those things that we can reasonably attribute to our nature, while his “Spirit” part of the soul seems to align with the demands of our nurture. Freud’s Id, Ego and Superego also relate to this discussion in many ways. The “Id” seems to align pretty well with the demands of our nature and his “Superego” seems to accurately align with the demands of our nurture.

      Perhaps one of the most prevalent philosophical discussions about human nature is the free will debate. This debate can get complicated very quickly as some people disagree on what it means to be free. One view, libertarianism, defines “free” in such a way that presumes that a person is able to take more than one possible course of action in a given situation. The libertarian view holds that we as humans do, in fact, have free will in the sense that our decisions and choices are able to alter the future of the universe. Another view on free will is compatibilism. Compatibilists hold a different view on the definition of “free”. Compatibilist define “free” in such a way that it is not contradictory to be a determinist and believe we have free will simultaneously.

      My view on free will is what would commonly be described as “hard determinism”. A hard determinist holds the same definition of “free will” as the libertarian, but instead of accepting that us humans have free will, they reject this claim. I am unable to reconcile the notion that we have free will with my metaphysical beliefs of physical determinism and am unable to see how free will could exist without asserting the existence of some supernatural or otherwise nonmaterial substance. Although the compatibilist definition of “free” may be more along the lines of what people usually mean when they use the word “free” in everyday conversations, I reject this definition of free because if our actions and thoughts are caused by some preceding event and we count this as freedom, why do we get to claim that we are free and a rock is not if there is still a physical cause-effect relationship determining the outcome of both our future and the rock’s future?

      On a related note involving the nonexistence of nonmaterial substances, I believe that our mental processes are invoked into reality because they are built upon physical processes and events occurring in our brains. Similar to how a computer can, although physically based, simulate or “bring into existence” in a sense, many abstract concepts and ideas, the physical substances in our mind are arranged in such a way to bring into existence the entirety of our mental processes including our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions.  This relates to Freud’s idea of the unconscious in many ways. If our thoughts and beliefs are ultimately dependent upon physical phenomena, no matter how much you think or how deep you dig in your own mind, at some point you will reach the wall between your mental processes and the physical material that is causing them. Therefore, I infer there must be an unconscious of some kind, and that unconscious is the physical processes or events that are responsible for your thoughts, beliefs and actions. These physical processes are unknown to you, but greatly influence or even determine your actions.

      There isn’t a clear individual or societal diagnosis that follows, but I do believe that we are solely responsible for the suffering that we encounter, and western culture teaches us that in order to be happy we must obtain happiness from the outside in, and many people subscribe to this belief rather dogmatically, following other’s thoughts and beliefs without truly thinking for themselves and that is no way to live. Following the beliefs of others without considering alternatives will only result in a life wasted living how others believe you should, rather than living how you believe you should. Another problem that I see in many people is a lack of education. Countless issues that arise in one’s life could be completely avoided or alleviated if they had more knowledge and education.

      Of the few things that I can say about how one should live, one is that they should do what they truly want to do and think for themselves. A large portion of people that exist fail to really do this. Most schools of thought try to explain what we are or how we came to be and some do a very good job of doing this, but most fail to take into consideration what it is actually like to live a human life. Existentialist philosophy focuses more on actual human experience and has some very interesting things to say. I accept the existential view that there are no general truths about what we should or ought to be. Existentialist have this idea of radical freedom, meaning that we can choose anything other than to no longer choose.

      One common criticism that I often get when presenting my determinist views is the claim that if everything is, in fact, determined and human’s decisions have no causal effect on the future outcome of the universe then my claims, if they are true, would render the human life meaningless. But I disagree. Although it may be that we aren’t truly free, this doesn’t have to get in our way. Our actions may be determined, but we still enjoy and dislike certain things, so why not “choose” to do what you enjoy? Whether we have free will or not, or if science is correct or incorrect, or if the future is determined or not, these things don’t really impact our life in any substantial way. We are still “free to do and choose”, at least in a compatibilist sense, whatever we like, independent of our human nature or metaphysics. Considering the actual human experience, it sure feels as though we are free, and that is all that really matters.

      Another thing that I would like to mention is that happiness cannot be reached if you make your happiness dependent on some outside source. The problem with this is that you cannot control every external event.  Instead you should realize that you cannot control the outside world, and the only thing that you really can control is yourself. You are the cause of your own pain and you are the cause of your own happiness. No external force is responsible for your suffering. Only you are. Why do you care about getting that new expensive item? There will always be items that are better than the ones you have and if you base your happiness on having the best items, you will never be happy. Now if you realize that you are suffering because you are making your happiness dependent on external events in which you cannot control, you will instead be able to understand that no amount of money or items will make you happy. And once you understand this, you will no longer desire these things and can focus on what is inside of you instead of the external world and this is the way that it ought to be.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinion on Islam

        Islam is the religion of the Muslims. It is a monotheistic faith that is believed to be reviled by Muhammad as the Prophet of God, who they call Allah. Muslims believe that Allah is the creator of the universe. He communicates with mankind via prophets who are chosen by Allah and that worship is due to only God. God cannot be compared to anything that exists in our universe and no one is to be considered equal to God. God is all-knowing, all-wise, etc. Muslims have examined text from the Qur’an and taken it to mean that only God is real, implying that our universe is not. However, Islamic beliefs vary widely as there is no centralized authority to determine how the sacred text should be translated.

        When it comes the Muslims theory of human nature, it is similar to that of Christianity because of the fact that they both share the Old Testament; however, the story of Adam and Eve is retold in a way that suggests that Muslims believe that all humans are sinful. God punishes sin in a way that only those who committed the sin himself or herself will be punished.

        It is believed by the followers of Islam that “salvation” is achieved by conforming one’s own behavior to mirror that of the prophets. Islamic belief suggests that Allah guides mankind via his chosen prophets and using the Qur’an as a set of reminders. Many people fail to follow Allah’s guidance because of forgetfulness, while others intentionally fail to follow the Qur’ans guidance. Evil is not a quality present in humans, but it is a consequence of some human actions. Also, humans have not been given the freedom by God to do whatever they want. Divine honor and dignity is at stake with every human action.

        Human beings possess an appetitive aspect that, in some circumstances, can lead them to follow their desires and lose sight of God’s path. We must use our best efforts in an attempt to control these desires so that we are better able to pursue God’s pleasure. Islamic traditions consider human nature to be a complex combination of intentions and desires which can either lead a person toward and away from the God.

        After reading the chapter on Islam, one thing that I still do not understand is the existence of evil in a world created by a loving and all-knowing God. I am able to understand that Muslims believe evil is a consequent of human actions, and this makes some sense to me. What I am not able to understand is the reason for natural evils in the world. Natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes as well as deadly diseases are both examples of what many would consider to be evil that is not the result of human actions. So, what is the Islamic explanation for these natural evils and if there isn’t one, what do we make of these occurrences?

[unknownessences-blog]

Applying Plato’s Philosophy to the Idea of Marriage

         As life goes on, I’ve come to learn that there are many important decisions that one must make at various points in their life. One of those decisions is whether or not to get married, and with who. I have found myself questioning whether or not having a wife and a family would bring me more happiness than if I decided to live my life without a significant other. Even though Plato’s ideas are over two thousand years old, his philosophy may still be helpful in determining whether or not to marry and if marrying will help to achieve maximum happiness or fulfillment in my life. Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul and his ideas about romantic relationships are just two pieces of his philosophy that might help me in making this decision.

        Perhaps the most important part of Plato’s theory of human nature is his theory of the Forms. He believes that there is a world of Forms that is not in this space or time, but the Forms are able to be known by the human intellect and reason. Forms are like perfect templates or reference points for all objects that exists in this world that we live in. Plato believes that Forms are more real than physical things because they don’t change or decay in any way, unlike material things.

        He also believes that there are 3 parts to the human soul, and that the soul is a distinct thing, existing separate from the human body or mind. He explains that this must because the case by pointing out that us humans often have internal conflicts in which we have conflicting desires about the same object at the same time. And since this is the case, humans must be of more than one nature. According to Plato, the three parts of the soul are “Reason”, “Spirit” and “Appetite”. The “Appetite” is responsible for all physical urges such as hunger and sexual desires. The “Spirit” is responsible when human emotions are involved. Finally, the “Reason” part of our soul seeks love of wisdom, knowledge and truth. This is the part of the soul that should be leading.

        I’m confident that if Plato was aware of my difficulty in determining whether or not to get married to a significant other, one thing he would recommend for me would be to think about it. Now that sounds obvious, but he doesn’t just mean think about it. Plato believed that many answers can be discovered by simply using the Rational part of your soul to think critically about all aspects of a situation and to carefully examine both sides of an argument. He believed that, with Reason in control, all 3 parts of the soul should work together in leading a life of fulfillment or happiness. If Plato was aware of my everlasting attempt to achieve true happiness, I’m sure he would advise me to let “Reason” take the lead over the other two parts of the soul.

        I like to believe that when it comes to my own life, I let Reason control most of my decision making as Plato claims one should. So, what else does Plato have to say about romance and getting married? Plato believes that love starts with a physical attraction, and expands from there. We only desire physical love because we are not aware of the greater forms of beauty which are, according to Plato, thoughts and ideas. In his mind, the purest and most fulfilling form of love we could ever achieve is wisdom; therefore, the pursuit of wisdom is the truest form of searching for love.

        If I were to apply this portion of Plato’s theory of human nature to my own situation and my own set of circumstances, it would seem as though having a significant other is somewhat of a waste of time. If true love actually is love for knowledge and wisdom as Plato describes it, rather than dedicating a large portion of my time to a romantic relationship, I believe that dedicating the majority of my time to my academics and attempting to gain a greater understanding of how the world around me works would be in my best interest.

        If we dive further into Plato’s theory of human nature, we will see that his philosophy goes against the traditional family as we know it and as it exists today in America and various other countries around the world. In the excerpt written by Plato in which he describes his idea of an ideal society, he describes a society in which there is no traditional family. One in which every marriage is strictly arranged and the population is required to selectively breed with whomever the state desires. This leads me to believe that according to Plato’s philosophy, making the decision to not have a romantic life and to not get married is the only right decision to make.

        All-in-all, many people would consider the decision of whether or not to get married to be one of the largest and most important decisions that they will have to make in their life. Most people even begin planning their marriage at young ages and never even consider the alternative. If we take a look at Plato’s theory of human nature we are able to see a different, and somewhat unusual, stance on the topic of romantic relationships. Plato uses his theory of the tripartite soul and his ideas about what true love really is to describe why he believes that a life without a romantic relationship is better than a life with one.

[unknownessences-blog]

Comparison of Marxism and Christianity

         Some of the most prevalent theories of human nature ever considered throughout history include both the theory of human nature described in the Bible by adopted by the Christianity religion and the theory of human nature described by the philosopher Karl Marx in 1800’s. Each of these two theories of human nature lay the claim that equality is an essential part of their theory. However, each of these very popular theories of human nature has a very different idea of what it means for humans to be equal.

         The Christian idea of human equality is that all humans are created equally by God and that no single individual is better than any other individual. Every human life is to be valued the same when compared to any other human life.  In a capitalist Christian nation like the one that we live in today, these ideas claim to be upheld by the government via legislature. The same laws apply to every single person and our society claims that every individual, independent of their age, race, religion, ethnicity or any other factor, have equal opportunity when it comes succeeding in life and obtaining the quality of life that they see fit.

         Our children are taught that all they have to do to become rich and successful is stay motivated and work hard. In our society, if an individual’s quality of life isn’t akin to how see fit, the blame is placed on that individual and they are told that if they don’t like where they are in life, they should have tried harder, worked longer, and put in more effort. Karl Marx rejects the idea that true human equality can exists in a capitalist society.

Karl Marx is sometimes considered to be capitalism’s most intelligent and influential critics. He chose not to follow any of the major religion as he was an atheist and did not believe in an afterlife. He is also sometimes referred to as the first sociologist. In his time, capitalism was still getting going but it is now the type of economy that dominates the western world. Contrary to the beliefs of many people who live and participate in a capitalist society, Marx believed that a society set up in this way was incapable of providing every member of society with true equality.

         Karl Marx and Christianity alike both claims to value human equality, but how is it that two very different sets of beliefs can be so heavily influenced and based on the very same belief that human equality is essential? In a capitalist Christian nation like the one that we live in, many people share the belief that everyone should be treated equality, given the same right and opportunities as everyone else. Our society claim to value human equality and to protect our freedom but Marx would say that this cannot be done in capitalist society.

        Marx believed that capitalism is set up in such a way to allow those at the top will remain there while those at the bottom are unable to work their way up, despite what “The Land of Opportunity” has conditioned us to believe. He also believed that various phases of society were determined and could not have been otherwise. While capitalists believe in equal opportunity for everyone, Marx claims that it is impossible for us to be equal until we are socially and economically equal. And this can only be when resources are shared equally among everyone.

        Marx believed that in a capitalist society, technology will continue to advance and as it does and those who work in highly specialized jobs that are common today will eventually be replaced by machines. This is beneficial for the rich factory owners because they will get the same labor for a cheaper price and their profit margin will rise. However, this is detrimental to the worker because he is now out of a job and making less money. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

        In his theory, Marx says that profiting via a business immoral and that profit is just another term for exploitation. Essentially, the rich business owners are paying one price for the labor of their workers and selling it for another. Shouldn’t those who are contributing their labor in exchange for currency be compensated the exact amount that their labor is worth? How can a country that allows exploitation of the poor by the rich every claim to value human equality? These are just some examples of questions that Karl Marx encourages people to ask.

        As you can see, Christianity’s idea of what it means for a society to uphold human equality is very different when compared with Karl Marx’s idea of how a society should be structure to provide each individual with true human equality. Both of these theories of human nature elaborate on the ideas of moral, economic and social equality and differ in various ways. It would be unwise to claim that one of these theories has it all right while the other is entirely incorrect as they both provide very thought-provoking points and both have been very influential throughout human history.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Sartre

        When it comes to Sartre’s metaphysical views, he was an atheist and denied the existence of God. He believed that there was no intrinsic purpose or meaning to the human life and that we have to choose out own values. Sartre distinguishes between human consciousness and inanimate non-conscious things and he is an example of what is known as an existentialist.

        Sartre accepted the fact that we are biological beings but he did not believed that evolution creates us worth a purpose and thought that we have to create our own essence. He believed that we as human are radically free and that we can choose anything other than to not choose. He says the fact that we can make a resolution and then later choose whether not to follow it is supporting this claim. For him, the concept of nothingness relates to freedom. Sartre rejected Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychic determinism and does not believe the idea of the unconscious. Sartre also believed that we are free to choose our character traits. For example, a person is shy because they choose to be.

        When it comes to Sartre’s diagnosis, he thought that freedom brings us anxiety. A key point to mention is Sartre’s concept of bad faith. Sartre believe that we are free to choose what to believe. Some questions that we are faced in life can cause us to deny our freedom. In a way this is self-deception in which we think our actions and thoughts are determined when this is not the case. You can think whatever you choose. One example of bad faith is when a woman doesn’t recognize her freedom to resist a man’s advances. He also rejected the idea that bad faith could be explained by Freud’s theory about repression and repressed memories.

        Sartre believed that values are entirely subjective and because of this, he cannot recommend any specific way to act of live other than to approve of making choices with the recognition that your choices are not determines by anything. We can always be different from who we are because we are free to act in many different ways. He says that we should act genuinely or authentically and believes that we are responsible for our own actions.

        My critical question when it comes to Sartre’s philosophy and theory of human nature has to do with his belief that we are free and “condemned to be free”. There may be some knowledge that I am unaware of regarding this topic, but it would seem to me that the heaps of psychological research that has provided us with knowledge that much of our mental activity is unaware to us consciously goes against this claim by Sartre. He denies Freud’s psychic determinism but I didn’t see anything evidence explaining as to why he believes this.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Freud

        Sigmund Freud did not accept theology or transcendent metaphysics. He was a philosophical materialist and a determinist. He agreed that humans are a species of animal and he was firm in the belief that our human bodies and all the processes happening within it are determined by scientific laws. Also, Freud assumed that our mental processes are determined by preceding causes just like everything else. Not only did he see his work as part of the sciences, he also saw his work as part of the humanities.

        Freud assumed that there are hidden mental causes motivating our behaviors. Nothing that a person does or says is an accident, but happened because it can be traced back to a physical cause. This implies that Freud did not believe in free will as he seems to think that even when we believe that we are freely making a choice, there is an unknown cause determining that choice.

        Freud also believed that the mind has multiple levels of functioning. Freud called them the conscious, the preconscious, and the unconscious. The conscious is the thoughts and ideas that you are aware of at any given moment. The preconscious included all the things that are not conscious at a given moment, but can be brought into the conscious part of the mind at will. The preconscious includes your memories and all the things that you know. Finally, the unconscious mind, per Freud, cannot normally be accessed by one’s self. The things that are unable to become conscious are unconscious. Freud believed that one’s unconscious mind contained primitive drives, repressed memories and forbidden wishes.

        When discussing Freud’s idea of the human psyche, it is common to speak of the iceberg analogy. When comparing the mind to an iceberg, the tip showing above the surface of the water represents the conscious part of the mind, while the hidden majority below the surface is the unconscious. Much like an iceberg in which the hidden majority heavily influences the part above the surface, Freud believed that the unconscious part of the mind greatly influences our thoughts and actions without our awareness of it happening.

        According to Freud’s psychodynamic theory, there are three components of the human psyche. They are the Id, ego and superego. The id, governed by the pleasure principle, is unconscious and responsible for instinctual drives seeking instant satisfaction. The ego, governed by the reality principle, is conscious and nearest to what we think of as our ordinary self. The superego acts as a strict parent and can confront the ego with rules and prohibitions. To make another analogy, we can think of the id as the devil on your shoulder and the superego as the angel on the opposite shoulder, while the ego is yourself.

        Freud believed that it is common for the different parts of the human psyche to conflict with each other. He believed that the wishes and ideas in the id that are able to enter the ego result in anxiety. For example, because the id seeks immediate satisfaction, we may have a desire to do something that we believe to be wrong. Our superego tells us that we must not act on this desire because such an action would be shameful or immoral, but the id’s desire continues to exist. This internal conflict may result in anxiety or neurosis.

        Freud was under the impression that an individual’s happiness and mental wellness is dependent upon a balance between the different parts of the mind and between the person and their society. Freud believe that we all have what he called “ego defense mechanisms”.  These mechanisms are the way that we protect ourselves from these internal conflicts aroused by the anxiety producing emotions and wishes in the unconscious.

        One of these defense mechanisms Freud called repression. This is the unconscious act of burying thoughts or memories in your unconscious to avoid them. He thought of repression as a flawed defense mechanism used to avoid inner conflict, and that it fails because repressed memories are still able to influence behavior via cryptic dreams or other ways. Another ego defense mechanism named by Freud, denial, is when you unconsciously hold one view or wish, but you consciously deny that you have it and may even claim to hold the opposite view.

        Freud was in the business of psychotherapy. In his patients, he encouraged them to talk about whatever came to mind until they were out of things to talk about. Then he tried to get them to continue talking in an attempt to uncover their suppressed memories. In doing this, his goal was to restore a healthy balance between the different parts of the mind. However, after much clinical and psychoanalysis, Freud put together his theories. Many psychologist since then have claimed that Freud’s theory is not a scientific one. Among others, one major criticism was that Freud’s findings were non-experimental and that he was unable to manipulate specific variables to discover causal connections.

        Others have claimed that although Freud was not conducting experiments, he was still doing science, just in another way. Drawing conclusions from observations is a valid way to do science as well. Some claim that Freud’s theory is scientific because he was recognizing patterns in his observations, hypothesizing about causes, and then observing more cases to see if they fit the hypothesis and strengthen it.

        Although I agree with parts of Freud’s theory about the human psyche, and I do believe observation can be a valid way to do scientific research, I can’t say that I believe Freud came to his conclusions based on scientific data alone. It seems to me that Freud often asserts the existence of certain mental processes that have little scientific evidence supporting their existence. Some examples of this include Freud postulating the existence of drives, the unconscious mental state, emotionally charged ideas, among other things. As I can see why he uses these words to describe his ideas, I do not think he has undoubtedly proven that any of these things exist.

            All-in-all, I am a fan of Freud’s work and hold many views that are similar to his. I think that his idea of an unconscious part of the mind that heavily influences much of our thoughts and actions is true and his views on the tripartite psyche make a lot of sense to me. However, much of the claims made by Freud seem plausible, but yet unproven and unbacked by scientific evidence.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Christianity

        According to the Hebrew Bible, a single omniscient omnipotent God created all things. The first book of the Bible articulates that God did not do anything physically to create the universe, but only gave the command and everything was created. He merely called everything into existence and everything in the universe is ordered by Him. In subsequent books, God is said to have spoken with individual humans about what they should do face-to-face. However, the typical biblical God is said to not have a material body but he is also to be thought of as a person or being. The biblical God is said to be not abstract, and he is not to be identified with the whole universe as in pantheism; although, he is said to be everywhere all of the time.

        The Hebrew idea of humankind perceives us as ultimately existing in relation to God. God has caused us to exist to hold special position in the universe. According to Christianity, humans are made in the image of God. We are rational, self-conscious and have the freedom of choice.  Genesis also explains that, although humans have a special role compared with the rest of creation, they are still the same matter that makes up everything else and are part of nature. Humans can only fulfill their purpose by loving and serving God. The Bible contains two stories of the creation of humans in Genesis, but it is widely accepted that they are not intended to be taken literately. In the New Testament, resurrection and everlasting life for all believers is stressed.  

        When it comes to a diagnosis of what is wrong with humanity, the Old Testament and New Testament differ. For the Old Testament, it comes down to the God-given ability to choose how to act. According to Christianity, God has given all humans free will, and sometimes as humans, we choose evil rather than good. The New Testament states that the true nature of sin is mental and consists in pride and has to do with going against God’s will in preference of our own selfish will.

        As with the diagnosis, there is a differentiation between the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew prescription is heavily based on God as was the Hebrew diagnosis. If we have turned away from our relationship with God, then it is up to him to forgive us and restore the relationship that we have with him. Similarly, the New Testament says that we must use the free will that God has given us to choose to have faith in Christ and a personal relationship with him.

        One thing that I do not understand about Christianity’s theory of human nature is the belief in free will for humans, but not other animals. If an individual can be a Christian and believe that the theory of evolution is true at the same time, it seems to me as though they are holding some contradictory beliefs. If every living animal is the decedent of another living animal, as evolution suggests, then that would mean at some point, a free-will-lacking animal had to give birth to the first living being with free will. It seems as though Christianity can’t answer this without denying the theory of evolution, in which case the question becomes “How does Christianity explain the supporting evidence of evolution?”.  

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Aristotle

        Aristotle argues that there must be some kind of creator or cause for all of the processes of change in the universe. He calls this cause the “unmoved mover”. This is more like a scientific theory as opposed to a belief in a divine. When it comes to Plato’s theory of Forms, Aristotle does not believe there is another world containing these Forms; However, he does believe that common properties exists, but only in the things that have them and only in this world, not a separate world. He also believed that there are four answerable questions that we can ask about anything. The most interesting of these is the question “What is it for?”. This implies that Aristotle believed that all things have a purpose or function. Ultimately, Aristotle believed that everyone should be open-minded and think carefully before forming a belief.

        Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not think that the human soul was a material nor immaterial thing or substance. He denies the idea that a soul can exists without a body. He instead described the soul as a specific way of surviving and functioning. The human soul is distinguished from other living thing by our thought and intellect because humans can think in ways that no other animal can. A soul does not learn or think, but a human is able to learn and think with their soul. Ultimately, a soul of any living thing is not a thing itself, but instead a way of living, operating and functioning.  According to Aristotle, there are two parts of the soul. The first having reason and the other having a weaker sense of reason that is able to obey or disobey it. He also believed that human are social being and should live in an organized society.

        Aristotle emphasizes the importance of achieving fulfillment in this life and world, as opposed to finding it in some other world. He also thinks that it is impossible to create a set of rules or laws that can settle every possible choice that we are faced with throughout our life. It is up to us as humans to use our reasoning and knowledge to make wise decisions. Aristotle hoped that his ideas of human nature would help political experts determine how to organize society in such a way to promote virtue and fulfillment. He believes that one’s upbringing is important in determining who they will be.

        Aristotle’s ideal form of society can be seen as somewhat totalitarian, although he does see that there should be some limits to the power of the state. For example, he believes in family life and private property. According to Aristotle, the upbringing of children is so important in their moral development that the state should step in at an early age to guarantee the correct moral beliefs of the state’s citizens. The state doesn’t exist to allow people to live, but to allow people to live well. One of its purposes is to help people become more virtuous and less vicious by helping people develop good habits. He also recognizes the importance of human love for a companion, and for one’s self.

        One thing that I am unable to agree with about Aristotle’s philosophy is whether or not everything has a purpose. It’s seems as though Aristotle believe that everything that exists has purpose or goal that is somehow strives toward. I am unable to agree with this particular argument of his. I agree that some things, like tools, have a purpose because they were created to serve one, but for what purpose do human serve? To me, it seems that some things just happen, or exists without a purpose. I believe that planets, galaxies, and many other things exists because simply because prior events have caused them to come into existence, not because they serve a purpose.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Plato

­­         Plato believed that all things have a true being. He believed that the world that we experience and live in is a poor imitation of the “real world” and that we rely on our sense to understand what is happening around us in this material world. Everything in this world is constantly changing, aging, or decaying. Even people are not the same as they were year ago, days ago, or even seconds ago. The world of Forms is not in this space or time, but they are able to be known by the human intellect and reason. Forms are objects of knowledge. Ultimately, beyond this world of constant change that we live in, there is another world that contains unchanging and everlasting Forms of the material items in this world. This world is merely a shadow of the more real world of Forms.

        Plato believes that the human mind is a separate entity from the human body. This human mind can exist completely independently of the human body and it existed before you were born, and will continue to exist after you die. It is immortal. He argues that learning is actually something similar to recalling or remembering from when our souls existed with the world Forms. He thinks that there must be 3 parts to the soul. The first is “Appetite”, which is responsible for physical urges and desires and the second is “reason”. The third he calls “Spirit” and claims that it must exist to explain specific internal conflicts.

        According to Plato, there is 1 type of ideal society, and 4 kinds of imperfect societies. Humans are social creatures and rely on help from each other to survive. The first imperfect kind of society he calls “timarchic”, in which honor and fame are valued above all, including reason and understanding. An “oligarchy” is a society in which making money is valued the most. In this type of society, political power is given to the wealthy. When it come to a democracy, people that have developed the Reason element of their spirit the most should be in charge. Not everyone should have an equal say because most people do not know what is best. The last kind of imperfect society, an “anarchy”, is one in which there is chaos and a tyrant emerges to fill the need for some sort of order. He believe that a tyrant has some intelligence and self-control, but is ultimately dominated by own appetites and desires.

        When it comes to the ideal society, Plato calls this an “aristocracy”. He believes the ideal society would be run by what he calls “Philosopher-kings”. These are those people whose knowledge and love of wisdom enables them to rule justly and because of this, they are able to rule without misuse of their power. According to him, this type of society would offer a guarantee of justice. He also believes that there should be a division of labor so that everyone works in a field in which they excel at in order to waste less energy. Plato was also one of the first to believe that education was important in constructing a better society.

        One concept explained in Plato’s theory of human nature was difficult for me to grasp. Plato describes this material world that we live in as a “poor imitation of the real world”, but he doesn’t explain the why this material world exists. If there truly is a world or Forms that is more real than this world, for what reason does this “poor imitation” world exists? It seems to me that Plato neglected to answer this question.

[unknownessences-blog]

Opinions on Confucius

        Confucius’ main emphasis was on humanism and not metaphysics, although he elaborates on some metaphysical beliefs in some instances. Essentially, Confucius felt that since we are unable to serve man, we can’t begin to serve the spirits. And since we aren’t able to understand life, we can’t begin to understand death. He insisted that morality was built into the universe and that there was something transcendent about ethical conduct. He also talks of the Decree of Heaven which is claimed to care about the welfare of the people. This is able to be understood by humans, but another aspect of the universe, namely Destiny, is beyond comprehension. One’s material comforts are a result of Destiny and thus morality is the only thing worth pursuing in life.

        Confucius believed that human beings had great potential. Every person is a potential sage, although very few actually are sages. He believed that the subjective experience of joy was a result of acting moral. For Confucius, human beings are very much alike, but it is thought that he believed that our environment and experiences play a great role in shaping who we are. This means that we should be molded by a specific culture and society that is likely to help us achieve moral perfection.

        When asked why life is bad, Confucius answers with a number of reasons. The first is that because profit motive results in self-interest and selfishness, this leads to immoral results and social disagreement. He also stressed the importance of respect for one’s parents and within the family. If one does not show respect to their own family, they are likely to do the same throughout society. Lying and truth telling was also very important in the eyes of Confucius. He believed that a society cannot properly function without truth-telling. Another thing that causes life to be not-so-great is the lack of moral education or as Confucius puts it, the lack of “knowledge of past sages”. Without this, people have no moral comprehension. Most of all, the most important virtue is benevolence or moral perfection although it is also very rare in actuality.

        So how do we fix the ills of human life? Confucius advocates for self-discipline. One should do something because it is the right thing to do, not for profit or recognition. We cannot be disappointed if we care about moral virtue instead of fame or wealth. In other words, moral excellence is a reward in and of itself and joy will be found within it. Confucius believed we should cultivate self. By being a good family member, one will learn to be a good member of society, but it begins in the family. Also, one should follow and learn from our parents if they are virtuous, to gain moral insight.

        Trust is an important component of all social communication. Actions and words should conform. Communication would mean much less if we couldn’t regularly assume that people are telling the truth most of the time. Confucius also thought that education of the past was very important for understanding how moral perfection can be reached. And only after education should someone be able to possess a position of power. Most of all, for Confucius, moral perfection and living in accordance to the way of the heavens is his prescription for the human life. This can be done by always treating others how we wish to be treated, and acting benevolent at all times possible.

        Although much of what Confucius teaches makes sense to me, I am unable to agree with the claim that morality is somehow built into and is part of the universe. I understand that Confucius was more concerned with the human life rather than metaphysical speculation, but I feel as though he should at least have some supporting evidence for this seemingly metaphysical claim.