[PHIL 101 - 10] The Maidservant from Thrace

If European philosophies would've contained footnotes from the laughing maidservant of Thrace instead of Plato, a lot of the misogynistic characteristics in philosophy would have been brought to light and confronted. Given that, many truths of philosophy would be more balanced, or even appear to be more feminist. I believe that a philosophical tradition of the maidservant's laugher symbolizing death as liberation from corporeal prison and as a welcome escape of a shadow-world of illusion would not have come about. However, I believe that philosophers would have more respect for such maidservant's and maidservant's have more respect for philosophers and why they seem to be in a 'shadow-world'. However, if that tradition were to actually become prevalent, then philosophy would be looked down upon. It wouldn't be something to be studied, but ridiculed. 

[PHIL 101 - 9] Philosophy and Death - Phaedo

There was one thing that Socrates said multiple times that stuck with me. He said that philosophers embrace death. That they look forward to it because they can finally leave behind their corporeal body. From that came the discussion as to why even with that mindset, suicide is not an option. At this, there is a clear relationship Socrates was making between philosophy as a whole and death.

To be clear, Socrates emphasizes how it is kind of foolish for a philosopher to fear death. Upon dying, he tries to emphasize how this is when philosophers are most likely to attain the wisdom they have been searching for. It is almost as if death is a freeing act- freedom of one's soul. 

This incorporation of having a soul and inferring that that individual soul has an afterlife after death sparks even more discussion between Socrates and his friends. Ultimately, Socrates was able to convince his friends of an afterlife where souls of the dead go.

His philosophy about death and how death relates to philosophy directly is very clear. Personally, I agree with Socrates. There has been multiple times in my life where I'd think: 'Wow, I'll finally be able to know if there is a God or if we're living in a simulation when I die' or 'When I die, I can finally find out if there's a heaven and hell or if it's something completely different'. With this, I understand what Socrates means by death will lead to the wisdom that philosophers have been searching and waiting for their entire lives. 

[PHIL 101 - 8] Cops, Climate, COVID

Given what these authors have stated, I think addressing the most pressing issues of our day is a hard task, but not impossible. Given that systemic racism, islamophobia, police brutality, and climate change are already issues, the addition of COVID to the list seemed to bring out the worst sides of each of these problems. How you might ask? Well everyone is sitting at home, quarantined, and watching the news. 

People now can see for themselves everything that goes on. The murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless other lives- it suddenly came to awareness on a massive scale. While fighting police brutality and racism in the UD, Roy talks about the police brutality and islamophobia that goes on in India that seems to mirror almost perfectly what is happening in the US. 

Now that everyone is at home watching the news, when would be a better time to start addressing these issues? But it's not that easy given how false and misleading the news can be at times. So if we can't rely on the news to address these issues, how do we?

This is where the 'we' question comes into play. 'We' is in reference to everyone else- everyone who wants to address these issues. 'We' is Arundhati Roy, Olufemi Taiwo, and anyone else trying to address an issue. How? Roy and Taiwo cater to their strong suits- writing informative articles that are backed up with good sources. During the summer when the black lives matter protests were starting up, many people on the app TikTok starting bringing awareness to police brutality and systemic racism and how it is very real and a real problem. Those people's strong suits were these minute videos. They are part of 'we'. 

But that isn't enough- anyone could easily call a "fake news" on any one of these people. The 'how' needs to be more efficient. 'We' need to cite our sources, check our statistics, and read our articles/check our videos in the lens of devil's advocate. 'We' can't leave any room for error- no place for doubt. 

However, we must remember that not everyone will accept facts even if it's placed on a silver platter. 

To give a humorous example- a group of flat earthers bought a $20,000 laser gyroscope to prove that the Earth doesn't actually rotate. Well, the laser picked up the 15 degree per hour drift angle that, in the end, actually does prove that the Earth rotates. Long story short, they disregarded that evidence and concluded that they have other experiments to disprove that the Earth is round. 

In this case, sometimes you just can't convince the ignorant. 

[PHIL 101 - 7] Reparations

I'd say that Caney's arguments about reparations regarding anthropogenic climate change apply to the issue of reparations for slavery in a very direct way. I say this after looking over the first paragraph under IV. Duty-Ascription 2: The Beneficiary Account. Caney suggests in just the second sentence there that "reparations should be paid by those who have benefited from an injustice." Yes, Caney continues on the topic of climate change and reparations regarding that, but that statement is a general one. It applies to any injustice and anyone who has specifically benefited from such an injustice.

Carney goes on to list multiple ways reparations could be made that could be fair to all parties: The Casual Account, Beneficiary Account, and the Victim. I find that the last two ways he suggests are the most prevalent when dealing with how to make reparations for slavery. He lays out two options that are generalized based on events and such.

Option 1 consists of all parties being alive. In short, it means that the casual account (CA) is alive and the beneficiary account (BA) has well, benefited, from what the CA has done to be unjust towards the victim. Since the CA is still alive, they are responsible of paying reparations toward the victim.

Option 2 consists of the CA being dead, which means that the BA would in turn be responsible for paying back such reparations.

Since many slave owners (CA) are probably deceased by now, those who have benefited off of slavery in any aspect of life (BA) are not responsible for paying reparations toward anyone, black people especially, who have been negatively affected by slavery (victim).

While Caneys argument does not directly target the issue of slavery, it is generalized before being explained under the climate change example. Therefore his argument can be used as a blueprint for any other injustices that need reparations.

[PHIL 101 - 6] Future People

Personally, I think it would be bad if there were no future people. (Read on to see how I convince myself away from this belief.) However, given Parfit's view, the future people I speak of don't exist yet. 

This means that any big and bad changes such as the continuation of using fossil fuels and contributing to climate change will lead to the result of a set of future people that would've been born as an outcome of this. This can also be seen as the scenario (1) where there would be a somewhat higher quality of life for a given time before the quality of life significantly decreases. The 'future people' in consideration is those which are alive when the quality of life has significantly decreases.

However, if we as a community choose to combat climate change, a new timeline of events stirs and a different set of future people are born as an outcome. This is the scenario (2) where the quality of life would stay the same and increase over time. This ultimately results in the 'future people' of this scenario to have a greater quality of life than those of scenario 1. 

While Parfit proposes a true argument that whichever path/scenario we choose, there will be an outcome of different sets of 'future people'. It seems like the question is answered right here- how can it be bad for future people if such people haven't even been conceived? Therefore, it isn't bad that there are no such future people. In fact, such people from scenario 1 would not have it good if we followed the events of scenario 2 because those people from scenario 1 would have not even come into existence at all. Therefore, the future people of scenario 1 will always have it 'bad' and the future people of scenario 2 will always have it 'good'. 

I was going to argue against that statement, but in explaining myself I have convinced myself that I agree with the logic. However, even with that, I also agree with Parfit when he states that he believes the second scenario to be morally bad. Even though these two sets of future people are, in fact, different people, one set of people has a greater quality of life than the other. Disregarding the fact that they aren't the same people, as people nonetheless, the scenario 1 people have it much worse and therefore would conclude, at least in my opinion, that scenario two is the most optimal way to ensure a good quality of life among present and future people. 

[PHIL 101 - 5] Am I the same person as I was and will be?

     To start, I want to say that I am not whatsoever the same person today as I was when I was 10. I have clearly grown not only physically, but also mentally and emotionally too. I've began to form my own opinions and change those opinions from time to time as I learned more. I have, however, retained some of my core features as I was when I was 10. The memories and impact trauma has stayed with my to this day. But one must ask if those memories are real or made up as suggested from A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality. However, since such trauma has impacted me to my core, it has stayed with me during the time my mental health suffered the most as well as during my time of recovery and self-acceptance. With all that being said, I will in no way be the same person I am today when I die. 

When I pass, even if it is tomorrow, I will be a different person. I would have undergone another day.. another second of existence which ultimately has small changes on me but a change nonetheless. 

While I am constantly changing due to new experiences and whatnot, I am still responsible for what I as an individual has done throughout each and every second of my life even though I am admittedly different in each of those seconds. 

[PHIL 101 - 4] Sartre says that "man is condemned to be free".

TW: Depression

How would one explain this statement by Sartre to someone who had never read any Sarte before? To start, I would read them this line by Sarte, "Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free." There are many people in different religious denominations that use God(s) or their scripture to back up their actions and to accuse others. 

I'd like to start with an example given recent events from the pandemic. Sadly, there are some christians that are, what we call, "anti-maskers." It's defined in the name- these people don't want to wear their mask in public even given the amount of caution and deaths around the world. But they believe it's a righteous thing to do saying 'God will protect me'. Quite humorous, honestly. 

Given my experience with christian ideals, I can speak on them with an existentialist point of view given Sartre's ideals to back me up. With that, I won't be able to present any examples from other religions. Given that, I'd like to introduce how many christians follow the values of their theology even if it's against their will. I've met Catholics who wish to get a divorce with their spouse but wouldn't, solely because christianity is against divorce. If I were Satre, I would say that that is still their decision and if that person really wanted a divorce, they would choose to do so. However, since people take religion as a serious factor of their life, they almost give up their freedom and use religion as an excuse. You can get a divorce. You're just making excuses.

Personally, I've felt "condemned to be free" more than once. Growing up catholic in a strict and very religious household was condemnation enough. I've been told that I've broken all ten commandments by my father at a young age, causing me to give up many of my hobbies and forcing myself to stop liking tv and music. This alone has caused me to be wary of my thoughts and actions, scared of 'sinning'. It was truly a time where I felt condemned to be free. Ultimately, I became severely depressed in highschool and would sleep in late into the afternoon/evening to avoid life in general. It truly felt like I was being condemned to live. 

But now I'm better :D

[PHIL 101 - 3] Hadot writes: "The figure of Socrates is ambiguous, troubling, and strangely disconcerting" (148). Why?

The obvious question is why Hadot describes Socrates in this way. I think it'd be best if we broke it up and analyzed it in pieces. Let's start with definitions. Ambiguous can mean something that is not clear. Troubling can be defined as having problems, fears, and/or anxiety. Finally, disconcerting is an adjective that describes feeling unsettled. He promotes this solely to contest the statement that says that Socrates is "a harmonious figure, combining divine and human characteristics in delicate nuances." He goes on to blatantly discuss how physically ugly Socrates is. This gesture alone is enough to say that it's clear that Hadot simply doesn't like Socrates, which would explain that previous statement describing Socrates.

But what evidence is there to prove that Hadot actually dislikes Socrates, and why? There is actually evidence to prove that Hadot doesn't dislike Socrates completely. He explains that "Socrates' exterior appearance - ugly, buffoon-like, impudent, almost monstrous - was only a mask and a facade." Does this mean that while Hadot doesn't like Socrates appearance physically, he can appreciate his inner appearance.. his thoughts? I doubt it- Hadot goes on to say how "Socrates was not only ugly, but a dissimulator as well." Another word for dissimulator is hypocrite and is later defined in the text as a type of irony of the time. Personally, I find that hilarious because I believe I called Socrates a hypocrite in my last blog post about the Apology since I spotted so many contradictions with his statements. Given that, it's safe to say that Hadot truly dislikes Socrates inside and out.. but why?

It seems like Hadot wasn't the only one who disliked Socrates. I mean, Socrates was sentenced to death so there was a good amount of people with a particular dislike for him. It's displayed throughout the text that Socrates character and hypocritical behavior led to this dislike. One can even call it immense hatred from certain characters such as Nietzsche. 

[PHIL 101 - 2] If you had been a judge at the trial of Socrates, how would you have voted?

If I had been a judge at the trial of Socrates, given the time period, I would've probably voted against him. The impression of being wise and telling other 'wise men' that they aren't based on a quick test almost seems ignorant. However, he says that he doesn't believe himself to be knowledgeable and have pride in his work as a poet would have pride and knowledge in poetry and their own work. Even though that poet is a master of their own work, Socrates still manages to find a 'mistake' or 'flaw' in their actions. This seems to almost be contradictory because Socrates is not a poet and those poems are not his, therefore, who is he to judge? 

I believe that Socrates judgement is flawed and contradicts his statements of not being ignorant of his own 'wise' work. It seems that he is being ignorant simply by his thoughts and actions towards the knowledgeable poet or those other wise men. It doesn't sit well with me how easy he is to judge others but raise himself up as a wise man for not being ignorant of his flaws. That alone, to me at least, does not make a wise man wise. He obviously didn't deserve death, but given the time, he seemed to be a threat for being different and making many enemies.

[PHIL 101 - 1] What does Critchley argue is the role of philosophy?

The main question here is what exactly does Critchley argue is the real role of philosophy? My first thought was that he thinks philosophy is something to be used to free us from the mental captivity of fear, in particular, fear of death. As I kept reading, I thought I nailed it- but after thinking about it I realized I only had a part of it. The role of philosophy, according to Critchley, is to allow us to accept our mortality. Even though there is anxiety and other 'flaws' of human nature, we can't forget that we have an ultimatum and it's inevitable.

To connect with the world we are in today, we can explore how this applies to the pandemic. It's very obvious that the pandemic has caused a sudden wave of intense anxiety globally. And it serves as a reminder that we are mortals. We can get sick and we can die. This, of course, relates directly to what Critchley was saying about human fragility and our weakness. We know we are weak mortal beings, but in the very end he proposes that "our weakness is our strength." We can even dissect that sentence further by saying that the weakness can be represented by COVID and our strength is how we as a body of people have persevered to the point where we now have a vaccine. It's interesting to read especially since this was written before the vaccine was a possibility. 

I have to say I kind of agree with Critchley. I never really thought of philosophy in this manner much. Typically you focus on the 'living' aspect, not the fact that we're all going to die whether we like it or not. That being said, I do agree that the role of philosophy is to have a sense of realism in our lives and to acknowledge death and mortality, but I also think a big part of philosophy is that 'living' aspect.