Final Post

Well the semester is finally over and I feel like I have only hit the tip of the ice berg. So much has been discussed in this class that I don’t even know where to begin with this blog post, but I have to start somewhere so why not start with the basics. This is what I got out of the class in regards to what existentialism is. Existentialism is how we live life, it is the way we value the decisions in our lives. It is a way of evaluating what is important, what isn’t, what others think is important, how what others think is important affects us. I also realized that the philosophers that we studied didn’t have any regard for writing format so why should I, hence the horrible run-on sentence prior to this sentence.

A question was asked in class on Monday which I thought was pretty interesting considering the students in the class. The question was how this class has affected us, if we feel empowered, depressed, or indifferent. A majority of the students raised their hands saying they felt depressed which I thought was surprising. I was surprised because I didn’t think people in our class unparticular would care what other people so much, especially the guy who dances at the football games to Gangnam Style. I felt indifferent because I didn’t let the opinions of a small group of guys to affect my opinion on life. I can see why some people felt empowered because when someone tells you a certain way of life is good and that is how you are living then you will feel empowered. But personally if someone told me that what I what I was doing is wrong and causes me to be depressed over it I wouldn’t listen to that person because they just make me feel bad. But on the other side people let this make them feel depressed when they don’t have to live their life like that, this is just was a bunch of old dead guys said.  Anyways I’m sorry I’ve been rambling so much but my minds a little scrambled with finals and everything.

All in all it has been a pretty good class I learned a lot from it I now have a slightly different understanding of life after taking it. Like I said before I didn’t let this class get to me too much but I did find the readings interesting. However, Heidegger was a pain in the ass to read.  I don’t think I that I am alone in saying that I learned a lot from this class and I am positive others have learned even more than me. So I think the way the class was structured was pretty effective. I think it was the best way to teach the class. I think a lot more people would be depressed if we had a teacher trying to sway us in thinking a certain way. I didn’t take the class because I have had Thad before or because I was already interested in the subject I took it because I thought it would be interesting because I had theology teachers in the past who mentioned the class and said it was interesting. I remembered my past teachers telling me to not read too much into the text because it would only make me depressed, so I don’t think I was being defiant by not obsessing over this subject only I took what I have learned from other classes and applied it to this one.

With this sentence it is nice to be finally done. 

Sartre

One of the main topics in the reading by Sartre was choice. Sartre does not look at choice as something positive it seems. Instead he makes it sound negative by saying that we are condemned to live a life of choice. So what does this mean exactly? Well I think it means that we were condemned to live this life full of choices by being born. Our birth was not something that we chose but it is something e must deal with. From our birth on our choices are completely up to us and we must deal with the consequences. For some of you that mat may be getting irritated with how bland and straight to the point my blog is I hope you have realize that I used my power of choice to make this as simple to understand as possible. I do not use big words to make my posts more interesting because I do not think it matters that I know how to use the thesaurus tool on Microsoft Word. Which brings me to the next topic of discussion on how we live our lives. There were two methods discussed in class, the first was that we shape our lives off of what the others think or the second we digest what the other says and become our own person. I think that the majority of us shape ourselves off of what the others think. We do it to avoid being hurt. If we walk through a room getting insulted we think of why that is and we change ourselves to stop the insults. Modeling ourselves off of what others think is not necessarily a bad thing and I don’t think it only applies to how we act. I believe it is similar to what we consider to be good and bad. What we consider good or bad is based off of what the majority of us believes. Well in the case of how we act if the majority of us think acting a certain way is the right way then shouldn’t we act like it? Sure one can say that just because the majority of people think something is right doesn’t mean it is but then that is also the case for what is good or bad. So why not change the others opinion. I think people are constantly acting a certain way because of what others think. Take the classroom for example; it is always the same people adding to the conversation going in you know someone is going to talk. But every so often the people who normally talk don’t have anything to contribute they make comments like “I agree” or “irrelevant” because they think it is expected of them and by not doing it they won’t uphold their status. But this logic also applies to the students who don’t say anything because they are afraid they will be chastised by the class. There is nothing wrong with shifting the way we act to different social groups it could sometimes be taken as a sign of being polite. We all act differently when we are by ourselves than we do when we are with our close friends or when we are with our family or in class. We do it because we are acting in a way that is acceptable to the people around us. If somebody were to say that they act completely different than the people around them and do everything different than the others, I would say that person is lying. Because when does anyone want to be around someone that gets on their nerves. That person who acts uncivilized would end up being alone. 

Sartre

Jean Paul Sartre really had a pretty interesting opinion about choice. It seemed as though Sartre considered choice to be a curse and that it would be easier to have everything already determined for us. The problem he sees with choice is what the decision process does to us. I agree that trying to make a choice can be straining especially when there is a chance of a negative outcome. However, I disagree with Sartre’s perception of choice. I do not think it is a curse, at times it can be an inconvenience, but none the less it is still a great form of expression. If we didn’t have choice and living in a predetermined world would we even be studying this subject? I mean what is the point we already understand that things are the way they are why would someone feel determined to challenge it. Because in a predetermined world isn’t why speak of choice if a person cannot possibly follow in that principle.

I think determinism is like slavery; not being able to choose what we do is an invasion of our free will. I admit that at times choice can be a burden, and in this event I would think that a limited choice would be the best life style. As I’ve said before determinism is like slavery, choice is an expression of free will but comes with risks, but what does that say of limited choice. Bringing up the steak and burger theory, wouldn’t it be great to be given options. What’s easier a multiple choice test were you choose between four answers, or a test where you are given a long list of answers that you have to match to the questions.  Keep in mind that the matching test has fewer questions than answers. I personally think that the multiple choice test is easier. I would rather have a limited selection choice because then I have a higher chance of making the right decision. I don’t think choice is bad I think the affects of choice can be bad. But if we are able to eliminate some of the poor choices right away then we are more likely to make the right decision which in turn makes us happy.

I think that something has value because we choose it, not because it already has value. I feel this way because the fact that I at one point in my decision process decided that I wanted something, so I acted on it. The fact that it was my choice makes me appreciate it more. On the other hand something that already has a value can be good too, but where did that get its value from. Comparing it to a top ten list of super models how did they achieve their value? People must have decided that the models are prettier than other girls and someone must have chosen the number one model over the number two model for a certain reason. But it was the person who chose the number one model over the number to model that gave the top model the most value.

I feel that someone or something is given value based on the consensus of the herd. It was the herd’s choice that made something valuable.

While discussing A Sketch of a Phenomenological Theory, Thad gave us all a little scare. But that scare did help me better understand the discussion by having me experience the feeling. Magic seems to me to be a form of an excuse or reasoning. When something doesn’t go our way we react to it in a way that makes us feel better. When something doesn’t go as planned it sparks an emotion that at the moment we don’t necessarily know what we can do to balance our emotions but we start thinking of ways to achieve the balance. It was brought up that magic sort of brings us down. Because when something doesn’t go our way we make up a reason why it didn’t or why it wasn’t even worth it. I agree that it could be bad but I personally feel that I only fully rely on magic for petty stuff. What I mean by petty stuff is things like a party; I didn’t get invited to the party so I tell myself the party probably isn’t going to be that great. Another example is a homework assignment, the due date was moved up for a project, so I tell myself that the teacher only moved it up because they didn’t want to grade papers over the weekend. An example of when I don’t fully rely on magic takes place back in high school when I was on the wrestling team. I went up against a guy that was ranked number one and state and made of solid muscle. I ended up losing to this guy and I used magic to say that it was an unfair matchup, that match didn’t matter because it was still early in my career, and other things to comfort me. But that magic lasted only briefly I didn’t let that become the end all be all of my season. I decided to learn from that match and make myself better. I guess what I am trying to say is that we don’t have to let magic be the answer to all of our negative outcomes, we have a choice to make ourselves better so that next time the outcome will be more favorable. 

Heidegger

Well I must say that this week’s readings were a pain in the ass to follow. I think that the author of the book could have done a better job of translating the text by taking out all the redundant sentences. But I guess if he had done that the reading would have been too straight to the point for its audience, and too short to sell. Sorry to sound so negative but that reading really gave me a headache. I am very glad that I attended class Monday because the two groups that presented did a great job of helping me understand the text. To be honest I think they were the best thus far. I felt bad for the guy from group one who did the majority of his groups presentation it seemed that everyone was gaining up on him. Given the circumstances of the class I think that the way he used “Being” to mean Da-seign was ok; however others disagreed. My group did a presentation on Dostoevsky, and he spoke about being irrational to achieve free will. I think that by changing Da-seign to “Being” was irrational which made me appreciate it even more. I felt like it enhanced the conversation and we were no longer bound by the text.

One of the key topics discussed was in reference to existence. What is the problem with this question? What I got out of it was that by simply being, we exist. But to question what life is, is to question our life as well. Therefore if we question life then we clearly do not understand it. This brings me to my next point of fundamental ontology. Fundamental Ontology is the understanding of our existence before being able to question other things. I see flaw with this because if we question our own existence then how can we possibly understand. What I got out of the text is that we can never really understand what something is, because someone can always see it as different. Take the coke bottle for example. We see the bottle as a container, but others so it as a hard substance. Who is right in the matter we believe it to be what we think and they have their belief, therefore who is to say its true meaning.

The second reading was a little bit easier to follow. I’m not certain if it’s because the use of language in it or I just got used to his style. Either way I liked this piece more. I especially liked the topic of thinking. There are three forms of thinking meditative, thoughtlessness, and calculative thinking. Heidegger attacks thoughtlessness the most saying that it is the most used thought process both then and today. It seems as if meditative is the best because it is the process of reflecting on our lives. I personally like the thoughtless thinking. I like to think that I live in the now. I don’t think back on my life because I am capable of making it better in the present. I think that old age is the time for meditative thinking. I don’t see the point of making a few memories and reflecting on them I would much rather create more and more memories and think back on them later. When I am old I will be a meditative thinker and if I can’t reflect on my life the same way as I could when I was younger with fewer memories then I will be happy, because that means I truly lived life. We can’t truly define existence so why keep trying to; I think it is better to just live life to the fullest.

Unamuno

I found the readings to be very interesting. It may be because the emphasis they are putting on faith and religion. Considering that I am a catholic I feel as if I can better understand these readings opposed to some of the previous readings that didn’t emphasize Christianity and faith very much.

Unamuno talks about the dogma and how it is regarded as undeniably true. What he means in his remarks about dogma and the incontrovertible remarks made by the church are not necessarily true. However, people feel pressured into believing these remarks and base the morals off of them. Unamuno believes that since there is not much truth involved in this practice that the faith can easily be ruined.

I think what he means is that what we know and don’t know can effect what we believe in. If we know that something is fact but our faith tells us different we refute the faith and seek out something else to put our faith into so that we can base our morals of something. On the other hand if our faith tells us something that is true but we know it is not then we might feel betrayed by our faith which would also cause us to seek out something else to believe in and base morals off of that. When we feel betrayed by our faith we not only seek out a new belief system but our morals may also change because we can no longer trust them because of the way we created them. To sum up what I am trying to say is that if our faith falls apart so do our morals, because our morals are based off of our faith. If we choose a different belief then we are also choosing a different set of morals.

I am lead to question whether Unamuno thinks that we are capable of making good actions even if we deny our religious faith and the morals that go with it. I believe that he thinks we can. He says that though an individual may refute his religious faith he still has his faith towards mankind. Just because someone may not be religious does not mean that they aren’t capable of having good intentions.

There are plenty of religious people that do horrible things as well as there are non-religious people who amount to great things. I agree that I think it is mans faith in humanity and not just his religious faith that allows him to do good things. After all it there are cases when people to incredibly horrible things because of the poor morals they took from their religion. That being said I think that individuals who have a strong religious faith tend to have great morals and go onto do great things. The lessons taught in the bible teach us to treat everyone and everything with love and respect. Even if someone were to refute their faith in religion based on some of its false truths, they would still hold onto the lessons of love and respect and implement them into their morals and faith in humanity.

Unamuno and I agree that people who have faith regardless of the conflicting ideas will earn an afterlife. I strongly believe that is our faith that causes us to act morally and kind towards others. There are times when I doubt my faith and leans towards the ideas of reason and science, but then I compare the lessons I have learned from the two. Science and reason haven’t taught me how to act but only to respond. I think that faith teaches me how to act and prepare for my actions. Constantly wrestling with the two sides is just human nature. I think that having something to believe in is a vital element of human life, because if we don’t then what’s the point? I conclude by reiterating my comment about those who have faith deserve an afterlife; because why should someone who refused in believing an afterlife all their lives be accepted into that afterlife when the time comes. They will only continue to practice their beliefs in science, reason, and rationality because they now know what faith entails and therefore continue to disapprove of it. 

Dostoevsky

A few of the major themes that I saw where Free will, rationality, and determinism. I think free will has a lot to do with choice which I also believe to be our most advantageous advantage. The underground man makes a case that by breaking away from our real advantages and taking the road less traveled involves injurious and bad decisions. But at the same time this is our most advantageous advantage because we have the freedom to go down that less traveled road. I don’t think that we have to necessarily go down that less traveled road but I think have the choice and being able to think about it is a great expression of free will. Someone brought up in class that our greatest advantage doesn’t have to be a bad act it could be good like volunteering. But I would consider volunteering to be one of our real advantages. I personally believe that the majority of people try to do good things, which is why volunteering would be a real advantage because it is the road often traveled.

The underground man also calls us ungrateful, not stupid, but ungrateful. He is calling us ungrateful because we aren’t content with what we have or how we do things. We are constantly trying to break away from our routines to try something different. We tend to be so ungrateful that we are aware that going down the path less traveled we are causing harm but we still proceed anyway.

One of the themes was determinism, which means that everything we do is already determined. I think the underground man is trying to tell the gentleman this; because the underground man already knows what is to come from his actions. With this it seems that we don’t have freedom to choose because what we choose has already been determined. Everything we do in life is already determined from when we were first born, and in the end all we are is dead.

Dostoevsky is also attacking the idea of a utopian society. He does not agree with such a thing because it is too broad. A utopian society cannot provide for everyone because it doesn’t look at the individuals needs. He makes a statement at the end of the reading referring to that when everything is laid out on the table there will be more than there is there. You cannot account for everyone because of free will. All individuals have the free will to go a different way and therefore you cannot predetermine everything.  There is no way that the deterministic mindset can account for the things we do in the spare of the moment.

In regards to rationality, I do not believe that man is as rational as he thinks himself to be. Rationality is just a base for the things we do. Everything else we do is irrational because there is no way to rationalize what we do not yet know. After we have made the choice we try to argue why that choice was rational.

Towards the end of class we were asked if we had a kiss in our heart. Because the topic was in reference to Jesus, I responded that I do not have a kiss in my heart. Because when those two subjects come together I consider the kiss that Judas had in his heart to betray Jesus. I do not feel that I have any such kiss because I do not wish to cause any harm or suffering to anyone. Furthermore, I consider the kiss to be an act of betrayal because we our letting it fester inside of us, and I don’t believe that I have such evil in my heart. 

Having the Power to Favor a Morality

In class on Monday night we were asked to raise our hands in favor of slave morality or master morality, and I raised my hand for master morality. The most basic reason I chose master morality was because it just seemed more positive. I don’t want to favor a morality that considers itself kept down and bullied; I like to believe I can do anything. You may consider my reasoning thus far to be different then the complexity of the two moralities but this is how I feel. To back me up on this Nietzsche makes a statement in the beginning of from Beyond Good and Evil referring to the way we look at different moralities. I don’t think that everything he says about the two moralities is necessarily true to them. What I’m trying to say is that he could be off with some of his descriptions of the moralities, after all who is he to give a definition to something when we have already discovered that existentialism cannot be defined.

I bring up this last point because of the case brought up in class about Hitler. It seemed that the majority of the class considered him to be in the category of master morality, and a lot of it was based off of his empowerment. But when I was thinking about it I felt that Hitler could have been a lamb at one point. As I said I raised my hand in the beginning in favor of master morality, upon being asked again I kept my opinion. However, some people were swayed in favor of the other morality. If we could make this choice then why couldn’t Hitler, I think it is possible that he could have made the switch from slave morality to master morality. At this point I am stuck because the guidelines of these moralities is that it can only be one or the other, and I feel that Hitler is under a whole different class of a fucked up morality. I think the pressures of the slave morality got to Hitler to the point where he had to break away from its bonds and rise up. I don’t believe what we follow a specific morality all of our lives, I think our morality can change from situation to situation just as easily as we can raise our hands.

Having said that I would just like to say that in no way do I feel that anything that Hitler had done was good and in no way do I support him.

I would now like to talk about a different subject that won’t raise as much frustration and sensitivity as discussing Hitler. I enjoyed the topic of power that was brought up; unfortunately we weren’t able to spend much time on it. I think the best way to talk about power is to try to identify what it means. I know that my explanation is may be disagreeable, but don’t forget that you have the power to write a response. I think power is not simply having the capabilities to do something (some exceptions) but others must be aware of your capabilities as well. I think we make choices like earning a college degree not just for our own self gain; we flaunt that degree to let others know that we have the power to do something.  I think we are constantly trying to see a higher position in life and I also think that everyone in our class should agree. Though some might say they aren’t in school for the better job after graduating and just want the education because the information is interesting. Nonetheless they are still seeking a higher position because they wanted more than what they knew before college.