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.

Contributing to the Blogger Herd

                I think that Monday’s class was one of the best classes we've had this semester. I was having a little trouble understanding the readings before going to class, but both groups did a terrific job of translating the material. Both groups did a really good job at getting the class involved especially the second group with the sheets of paper they handed out at the beginning.

                One of the main points brought up during the first half of class was “the herd”. During the discussion I was thinking of situations in my own life that involved the herd. And I must admit that I cannot recall a time in my life that I was not part of some kind of herd. Growing up I was involved in a lot of activities and constantly looking for more activities to participate in, I was not alone in this you see because there where others who did this as well. That is an example of being part of a herd and accepting it. Another occurrence involved participating in an internship in Disney World. A lot of my friends, people in my neighborhood and school were opposed of the idea of someone going off on their own. A lot of those people “members of the herd” felt that everything they needed was already there and therefore objected to going away to try something different. Though I was adamant about trying something new I was forced to leave the herd. Upon doing so I found myself in a new herd of people who were like me and wanted to try different experiences. What I am trying to say is that we are always part of a herd. Though we may sometimes think we are leaving it and going off on our own we are still part of some sort of herd.

                Another thing that was mentioned during the first group was would we rather follow science or religion? My response to this was that I would rather follow religion because I feel that it has good moral principles that improve our lives. Though science teaches us why things are and gives us explanations about events in our lives, I don’t think it teaches us how to live happy lives and be kind to one another. To sum up my thought on the subject I would just like to say that if there is anything we can take from all the religions in the world it is to be kind to one another, science on the other hand teaches us survival of the fittest.

                In the second reading “truth” played a big part. The way that I define truth is that it is something that we passionately believe to be just. I think that most of us share the same observational truths, and what I mean by this is that if someone is wearing a blue shirt that a group of individuals would be able to observe that that shirt is truly blue. But I think most people’s truths differ in terms of what we passionately believe in. For example someone who is confused with their gender has different truths that someone who is not. I was born a male and I truly believe that I am a male, and I’m sure everyone would believe that to be true as well. But what of the person who was born in a male’s body but truly believes that they are a female. Who are we to say that that person is wrong and that they truly are a male? Nietzsche says “There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes – and consequently there is no truth”. I think that by saying there is no truth our beliefs are being stripped away from us. I believe that a life without truth is a life without meaning. Life is full of different events, why can’t it be full of different truths as well?

Spheres in Our Own Lives

                 In Kierkegaard’s Truth is Subjectivity, he talks a lot about what is truth and what we try to believe is truth but really just an objective opinion of it. I would like to talk about two things that are mentioned in this piece. The first is on the bottom of page 17 and at the top of page 18 in italics; quite simply I don’t know what the fuck he is talking about, it was like trying to understand Yoda on drugs. Now that I have that off my chest moving on, on page 19 he says that the man praying to God with his eyes clothes is praying in truth, opposed to the one who prays with his eyes fixed on the idol which is not truth. This is because the one with his eyes clothes is practicing his faith that there is another power and the only reassurance they need is inside of them. If you can see it in your mind and truly believe it then it is real to you. The man who was praying while looking at the idol is not in truth to God because he is not relying on his faith that there is a higher being. He is fixated on the idol in front of him; the man is following his eyes, not his faith.    

                 I really enjoyed reading Robert Solomon’s From Rationalism to Existentialism because it was very similar to my own views about faith and life. This piece even helped me grasp a better understanding of what existentialism is about, not what it is because as we have already read you cannot give existentialism a simple definition. I think that existentialism has something to do with the way we live life, what truths we hold and what paths we follow. I think the three spheres that where discussed make up a large portion of the    attempt to understand existentialism.

                The first sphere I would like to discuss is the aesthetic sphere. This sphere is interesting because I  feel that I follow this life style quite often in my life. Though I am a Roman Catholic and I try to follow the Christian ethic I find that a lot of my actions are made in an aesthetic thought process. One example of this is teasing. The bible tells us to not insult others unless we ourselves have done nothing wrong for someone to insult us; this is in accordance with the message from Jesus Christ telling his followers that those who are without sin may cast the first stone. What I have just described is in accordance with the Christian ethic, but when I tease someone it is in the aesthete. For reasons being that I have no concern of the moral or religious principles surrounding my actions, my only regard is in the self satisfaction I receive from poking fun at another’s expense.

                The bible tells us that we should not have sex until we are married because it is a sacred bond between a single man and a single woman. The bible says this because it does not follow the aesthete. Solomon states that the aesthete can become bored and is dissatisfied by repetition. By not waiting until marriage to have sex a level of sexual frustration may arise after a couple has wed. The partners become restless and long to expand their horizons and not just stick with one person. Marriage implies this message “in sickness and in health, until death do us part” meaning that you are taking a vow that you will remain faithful to your spouse no matter what. However, by living life in the aesthete it makes this vow difficult to uphold. For this reason I understand why you can only live in one sphere, it is because the contradictions among the spheres.

                The next sphere is the ethical sphere. The ethical sphere is different than the aesthetic sphere because you are not living by your own principles to fulfill your own satisfaction but instead you are living equally among a community following the group’s principles.  I have also followed this sphere at one time or another throughout my life. What I believe it means is that we make decisions based on where it will put us in the future not how we will feel right after. To expand on this I would like to give two examples one of the aesthete and one of ethics. The ethical man may be given the opportunity to have sex with an incredibly attractive girl that he met at a bar, but when he brings her home he realizes that he does not have any protection let alone does not even know her. So instead the ethical man turns down the sex and gets to know her better instead. Now for the aesthetic man, he too meets an incredibly attractive girl at a bar and brings her home with the intention of having sex with her. Regardless of the fact that he has no protection and knows nothing about the girl he proceeds to have sex with her. When the ethical man moves on from this moment in his life he can look back on it and be happy that he did not do anything too bold that may have impacted the relationship that he is in now. But when the aesthete looks back on this brief moment of satisfaction he will be discomforted by his action, for if he had gotten to know the girl better or waited to use protection he would not be living the rest of his life with a painful STD.

                I believe that a person cannot live life by following all the spheres at one time because of the numerous contradictions. However I feel that a person can go from following one sphere one minute and another sphere the next. I think that to only be able to follow one sphere would be like a robotic action, as humans we are not programmed to follow only one set of values.