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.