1. NAME
Kevin Liu
2. USERNAME on the yahoo club
kevinliu19
3. EMAIL ADDRESS
liu.kevin1@gmail.com
4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one.
I completed all my posts during Sunday night, except post 5 which I did not have time to do.
I forgot to put Post 2 on the yahoo group, I finished it, but went to the restroom and come back forgetting about it.
5. Did you complete the first field trip report?
I completed the first field trip, I went to Museum of Tolerance. I did not put this on the Yahoo group because I am not sure if you wanted us to put it on the Yahoo group or not. I did the report couple days after I done the field trip
6. What reading did you complete thus far in the course? be
specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read?
I did most of the readings, I skipped few that seemed repetitive. Some of the posts were confusing so I had to refer to Wikipedia for extra reference
7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific.
I did not have the time to do any extra credit, but I intend to do some next week
PS. I put labels on all my posts so it is easier to access, the the labels are on the right hand column
Museum of Tolerance
I went to the
I visited the tolerance room, where many records of historic racism where shown. Many websites with hatred content were shown on various computer screens. Disturbing videos on the topic of genocides, such as events in
The topic of genocide continues through the Holocaust room, where many racist political statements from history were shown. There were many posters and propagandas that are extremely racist. I find the replicated scene from concentration camps to be the most interesting. Having read many articles on the topic of holocaust, I have a vague idea of what the prisoners have been through; but the experience was far more intense than what I have imagined. The ground was made of dirt and rubble; the walls were dirty and dark. The replicated gas chamber was the most disturbing experience, the room was dark, and I can sense the fear coming from the walls. Many pictures from the concentration camp I’ve seen before, but they still have a large emotional impact.
Many sections of the museum were unavailable to the public due to construction. The visit was definitely worth it, I would probably never enter the museum in my life. On the drive back home, many thoughts came up about life and tolerance, and the many things that are good and bad in life. I will probably not visit the museum again, but I am glad that I went.
Week 3 - Midterm
1.
Nietzsche claims that the existence of God has been tear down by modern rationalism and scientific advancements. God, the very foundation of Christianity, has been destroyed. Christianity is now a simple guideline of moral value and virtues that its followers obey upon. Furthermore, Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature (“transvaluation of values”). Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral. However, Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus is free of hatred, and even spreads love to those who hated him. Moreover, Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying, that is not the true way to connect to God. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love. Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claims that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing and Jesus’ death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
Nietzsche believe the height of humanity is when humans achieve the state of “free spirit,” when human accepts the truth, and have a complete open mind regarding the truth. Instead of living by standards set by others, one will be free of such restraint and live up to one’s own morals and virtue.
2.
Epictetus is a philosopher that follows stoicism; he categorizes things in two fashions, things that are under a person’s control and things that are out of control. Epictetus believes that one should only concern events that are directly under control, and steer such events to the aid of one’s self, such as the path to happiness. It is crucial that actions are not dominated by desires and pleasure; rather actions are ruled by logic and clear reasoning. One should not be troubled by desires that are out of reach, for it will only bring discontent and frustration. It is important hold the ability to choose by remaining in control of one’s emotions so decisions do not sway to passions.
Spinoza believes that humans should be in state of “active awareness”, which coincides with Epictetus’ idea of having control. One should stay in active mind, which strengths one’s mental strength and gain closeness with God. By having active mind, one steer away from passive emotions, thus having more control and fight evil thoughts. However, Spinoza does not believe that we can ever fully be free from our passions. Therefore, one must stay connect to God, since God is an infinite being that holds the infinite truth.
Both Spinoza and Epictetus focus on the idea of gaining control of one’s actions, which builds the basis for stoicism. In stoicism, one holds the strength to fight outside forces, thus is free from outer influences. Furthermore, one must have the power to fight internal emotions, making course of actions free from passion and desire.
3.
The ideas in Communist Manifesto can be consider in ethical context because it conveys many rules that an ideal society should implement. Marx not only suggested economical mode of operation, but the same idea may be implemented and applied on human thoughts and living styles. Communism also deemed capitalism as immoral; Communist Manifesto can be viewed as ethical text because it discusses moral issues in different economical systems. Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
The problem and flaw of communism lies within its impracticality; the idea strips away all human desires to create a uniform society and assumes everyone has the exact same need. Everyone is born different, each with different physical advantages or disadvantages, consequently everyone will have different desires and needs. Under different aspiration, the uniform society of communism cannot satisfy everyone, thus everyone achieve different level of happiness and defeat the ultimate purpose of communism. Furthermore, communism strips away desires from its members, which is impossible. When everyone is in the same status, the innate competitive nature of human beings will want to gain advantage over others, either through the means of property ownership or economic status. Assume under the condition that the society successfully removes all desires; the result is a never improving society that ceases any form advancement. The communist (utopian) concept is perfect as a concept, but it is not practical when used implemented practice.
4.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life. To pursuit what ever makes us happy, under the conditions that actions have good moral and virtues.
Epicurus believes that pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the path that will lead to happiness. Epicurus focus on pleasure in life, and stating that life is about pleasure, and every action done is to fulfill pleasure. General concept of human is avoiding pain and obtaining greatest pleasure possible.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
All Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. All three philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the three philosophers is their view on pleasure. Aristotle said that one should pursuit happiness under the condition of being able to maintain good virtue. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
5.
Sartre is a philosopher in the field of existentialism. Existentialist views one as independent entity that is completely in charge of his or her actions. From Christianity stand point, humans exist on this world because God chose to put human on this world. However, according atheist view, God was only an excuse to the existence of men; because Christians do not have an answer for the existence of men besides God. Atheistic Existentialism thinks that one’s existence is due to his or her own definition, not due to God’s intentions. One must define himself in order to continue to exist in this world; God does not define any faith or future for anyone.
Even with out the set of moral rules set by God or Christianity, an atheist can still be moral. In Existentialism, a person is responsible for his or her own action because no one else chose the path for that person. Morality is defined differently in different cultures, for one’s evil may be other’s good; thus, existentialist will chose what is good for himself, and still live with good moral and virtue based on his standard. Existentialism has some similarity with Stoicism, in the sense that both regard outside source as irrelevant aspect in one’s existence.
Sartre disapproves of the Christian’s view because Sartre believes Christians are not living lives to their own standard. Furthermore, Sartre says that Christians’ course of actions are heavily influenced by what they believe as God’s intention, which completely violate Sartre’s view of existentialism, where one should be free of all influences.
6.
Kant believes that morality should follow a rational standard, which he calls “categorical imperative.” Furthermore, Kant believes that each person is of equal value, for he treats self-governed reasoning to be the central theme. His philosophy is categorical because it origins from rational reasoning, and his philosophy is imperative because it is necessary and important. Kant also describes that only actions out of good will and follow moral standards can be described as true goodness. In contrast, actions due to divine will is only performing a sense of duty and cannot be considered true goodness.
The idea of existentialism is for one to define oneself and holding responsibility for one’s own actions. However, Kierkegaard has an opposite view, he believe that doing actions to satisfy a divine purpose is far more important than one’s own purpose. This is a complete opposite view with Sartre’s philosophy, who said one should remain true to one’s moral and not try to perform duty for the purpose of higher power. In reply to Sartre’s view, Kierkegaard said that Christianity is more than simply following the churches orders; it is building on faith to further establish one’s true self. The three stages Kierkegaard are the aesthetic, ethics, and religious. The aesthetic stage refers to sensual and emotional satisfactions, what Epictetus would call pleasure. The ethical context accounts for societal views on moral guidelines, views that are defined by society. The final stage is religious view, which Kierkegaard believe is far greater than the first two stages; to be in religious stage, one has fully established one’s existence. Kierkegaard believes that to stay connected with religion has far greater purpose than that of social norm and selfish pleasures.
Kant and Kierkegaard have completely different views on the role of religion in moral and ethics. Kierkegaard believes that the devotion to God and connection to God is utmost important Holy Grail to establish one’s true identity.
7.
Both utilitarian and hedonism involves achieving happiness, but the two schools have different way on achieving happiness. Mills Utilitarian view states that one should achieve happiness under the condition that actions in pursuing happiness does not harm anyone or society. Mill also sees pleasure and happiness as the same; and Mill associate unhappiness as pain. Actions that promote pleasure are considered moral, and actions that oppress pleasure are considered immoral. On the contrary, Mills considers the sacrifice of one’s own happiness for the benefit of another to be a virtue.
In Epicurus’ Hedonism, one should seek after pleasure and treat it as a final goal in life. This is different from utilitarian view, which state that one should do actions that benefit the society instead of actions that only satisfy one. Even though both philosophers, Epicurus and Mill, talk about chasing after happiness, they have different view on the definition of greater good.
8.
Out of the ten philosophers that I studied so far, I would say my favorite philosopher is Karl Marx and his view on communism. Although I regard communism as inefficient economic theory, and will never successfully be implement, I find communism an interesting concept that can be applied in everyday life. Communism will not work in a grand scale such as a country or any society in general, but communism has worked very will in small communities such as tribes and small communities or even business teams. The ancient Mongolians were living under communist ideas, where the tribe owns property and each person owns the same amount of wealth. The communist system collapsed when different Mongolian tribes unite and finally grew too large and politics begin to interfere with this way of life.
The concept of communism is wonderful, as the wealth distribution is extremely unfair. As can been seen in any major cities in the United States, cities such as Los Angeles or New York, where the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor are located close to each other. The Utopian society that Karl Marx wishes to establish will make everyone happy; however, human factors left this concept in fantasy. In the age where freedom is strongly valued, communism cannot operate smoothly in today’s society. A problem with communism is that if every occupation has the same amount of reward, society will not want to participate in occupations that have more mental and physical stress involved. Essential job such as doctor, which requires many years of training and long hours of work, deserve more pay; however, this violate the core philosophy of equality in communism.
I believe communism will work in a corporation, or any job that requires team work. As engineering major, I often work in teams to accomplish projects; Marx’s system will succeed because every team member will disregard glory and perform for the betterment of the team or project. As a result, every team member does the same amount of work; as a result, everyone will receive the same amount of glory or reward. When unnecessary competition emerges in collaboration, teamwork often collapses with arguments.
Week 3 - Post 7
1. Death of God
Nietzsche believes that God no longer have a place in the hearts of modern men, the place for God has been taken over by modern science and rationalism. Through advancement of technology, humans have disproved many aspect of God; for example, the Earth is no longer a flat surface but a giant sphere; heaven and hell do not exist above or below us, instead there are atmosphere and molten lavas. Nietzsche thinks that even Christianity does not worship God; it is merely a system that sets moral guidelines for a certain group of people.
2. Truth
Nietzsche believe that humans are too simple and naïve to understand the real truth. With truth, comes consequences; he thinks that human would go to the extent of lying to avoid some of the consequences. Since human permits themselves to lie, the urge for truth seems skeptical. He also thinks that human are oblivious about the things around us, and human are also too arrogant to really care anything that does not relate to human. He brings up the example of mosquito, and how the mosquito may have the same emotion but humans never cared anything about it.
3. Morality as Anti-nature
Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature. Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral.
4. Jesus
Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love.
5. Paul
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing; Jesus death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
6. Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Nietzsche say if human live life over and over again, similar to reincarnation in Buddhism, every pain, pleasure, hatred, suffering will be pointless. People will focus on the happiness and quality of life, and not live the regrets and painful memories over again. This idea encourages people to live better life and not be held back by unfortunate events that may have happened in the past.
7. Free Spirit
The “God is dead” idea spawns through Europe and left many wandering aimlessly; people are lost when many old ideas are over thrown. But Nietzsche said that those old ideas are far too distant to affect current society, there are many new variables that make old ideas obsolete. Philosophers and “Free Spirits” feel that one should keep an open mind for new possibilities and not dwell on the old ideas.
Nietzsche believes that God no longer have a place in the hearts of modern men, the place for God has been taken over by modern science and rationalism. Through advancement of technology, humans have disproved many aspect of God; for example, the Earth is no longer a flat surface but a giant sphere; heaven and hell do not exist above or below us, instead there are atmosphere and molten lavas. Nietzsche thinks that even Christianity does not worship God; it is merely a system that sets moral guidelines for a certain group of people.
2. Truth
Nietzsche believe that humans are too simple and naïve to understand the real truth. With truth, comes consequences; he thinks that human would go to the extent of lying to avoid some of the consequences. Since human permits themselves to lie, the urge for truth seems skeptical. He also thinks that human are oblivious about the things around us, and human are also too arrogant to really care anything that does not relate to human. He brings up the example of mosquito, and how the mosquito may have the same emotion but humans never cared anything about it.
3. Morality as Anti-nature
Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature. Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral.
4. Jesus
Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love.
5. Paul
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing; Jesus death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
6. Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Nietzsche say if human live life over and over again, similar to reincarnation in Buddhism, every pain, pleasure, hatred, suffering will be pointless. People will focus on the happiness and quality of life, and not live the regrets and painful memories over again. This idea encourages people to live better life and not be held back by unfortunate events that may have happened in the past.
7. Free Spirit
The “God is dead” idea spawns through Europe and left many wandering aimlessly; people are lost when many old ideas are over thrown. But Nietzsche said that those old ideas are far too distant to affect current society, there are many new variables that make old ideas obsolete. Philosophers and “Free Spirits” feel that one should keep an open mind for new possibilities and not dwell on the old ideas.
Week 3 - Post 6
Marx believes capitalism is immoral because it puts proletariat citizens at a disadvantage compare with the bourgeoisies and the upper class. He believe that the capitalist system benefits the bourgeoisies, people who buys labor, and harms the proletarians, those who sell their land, power, and labor. Capitalism is based on private ownership of businesses and with the goal to defeat all opponents in order to generate more profit. This threatens the proletarians because they have less money to start out with, which yields fewer opportunities to fight against the bourgeoisies.
Through out history, the constant struggle between economically dominant class and the working class in capitalism has shown that capitalism favors the economically dominant. An uneven economical distribution is in capitalism, where everyone has different living standards, and many live unfortunate lives. Societal values, especially values of the bourgeoisies, begin to shift from common daily necessities to extraneous luxuries and money. The bourgeoisies own majority of the money, this means a few members of society controls majority of wealth. The Bourgeoisies commanded the proletarians to work under low wages, the proletarians must accept since they need to survive on money. The bourgeoisies also mass produce everything, making proletarians’ craftsmanship useless. Under this system, there is an economical food chain, where rich oppress the poor, and poor oppress the poorer.
Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
Through out history, the constant struggle between economically dominant class and the working class in capitalism has shown that capitalism favors the economically dominant. An uneven economical distribution is in capitalism, where everyone has different living standards, and many live unfortunate lives. Societal values, especially values of the bourgeoisies, begin to shift from common daily necessities to extraneous luxuries and money. The bourgeoisies own majority of the money, this means a few members of society controls majority of wealth. The Bourgeoisies commanded the proletarians to work under low wages, the proletarians must accept since they need to survive on money. The bourgeoisies also mass produce everything, making proletarians’ craftsmanship useless. Under this system, there is an economical food chain, where rich oppress the poor, and poor oppress the poorer.
Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
Week 2 - Post 4
What I see as right and wrong comes from what I have been taught through growing up with some thought and personal experience, I come up with my own personal rule. Many of such rules change over time, as it is influenced by society changes over time. My decision making is base on the criteria of protecting myself and not harming others around me. My set of rule does not necessarily fit another person’s ethic values, as we have different personal experiences and education. For example, I support abortion, prenatal genetic tests, genetic engineering, and assisted suicide of terminal patients. Large portions of my decisions are made very scientifically, I look at what’s the cost of my action (consequences), and I look at the benefits and I compare the two. I make my decisions by making a cost-benefit analysis like one would normally do when making economical decisions.
Kant believes that one should make decisions alone, free from all societal influences and peer pressure. Living by one’s own law, independent mind will shield one from outside manipulate. Human beings are rational and self-ruling, thus humans should be able to make moral decisions free from outside influences. Kant believes the source of Good does not lie in nature or given by god or anywhere outside the human subject, but Good lies in good will of human subject. Given that each person makes their own decisions, Kant also emphasize that human need to respect humanity, and not remove rights of ourselves and other people. We need to make decisions that do not sacrifice the happiness of others.
Kant will agree with only part of my moral judgment, since I base my moral decision on the grounds of not harming other’s chance to achieve happiness. However, Kant will not approve that some of my choices are influenced by societal values. Kant wants all choices to be free from outside corruption.
On the other hand, Mill follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” such that choices are made based on achieving the greatest happiness, both quantity and quality happiness. However, all actions are under the rule that they do not interfere with other’s entitlement to happiness, more importantly; none of the actions will harm others. People should chose actions that brings greatest happiness (profit), and cause least amount of pain; his philosophy is very economically based. Mill’s philosophy coincides with my personal values, in which both focus on creating self happiness, and both try to not inflict any harm on others. According to Mill, harming of one’s self is allowed, since this act may bring happiness to one’s self. Societal value will not approve Mill’s idea, since suicide is a crime; society thinks it is wrong for one to inflict pain on his or her self.
Kant will strongly disapprove Mill’s philosophy, Kant will think that Mill’s philosophy care too much of outside view when Mill states action should not harm others. This means that Mill’s decision is influenced by what others think, which completely go against Kant’s philosophy.
Kant believes that one should make decisions alone, free from all societal influences and peer pressure. Living by one’s own law, independent mind will shield one from outside manipulate. Human beings are rational and self-ruling, thus humans should be able to make moral decisions free from outside influences. Kant believes the source of Good does not lie in nature or given by god or anywhere outside the human subject, but Good lies in good will of human subject. Given that each person makes their own decisions, Kant also emphasize that human need to respect humanity, and not remove rights of ourselves and other people. We need to make decisions that do not sacrifice the happiness of others.
Kant will agree with only part of my moral judgment, since I base my moral decision on the grounds of not harming other’s chance to achieve happiness. However, Kant will not approve that some of my choices are influenced by societal values. Kant wants all choices to be free from outside corruption.
On the other hand, Mill follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” such that choices are made based on achieving the greatest happiness, both quantity and quality happiness. However, all actions are under the rule that they do not interfere with other’s entitlement to happiness, more importantly; none of the actions will harm others. People should chose actions that brings greatest happiness (profit), and cause least amount of pain; his philosophy is very economically based. Mill’s philosophy coincides with my personal values, in which both focus on creating self happiness, and both try to not inflict any harm on others. According to Mill, harming of one’s self is allowed, since this act may bring happiness to one’s self. Societal value will not approve Mill’s idea, since suicide is a crime; society thinks it is wrong for one to inflict pain on his or her self.
Kant will strongly disapprove Mill’s philosophy, Kant will think that Mill’s philosophy care too much of outside view when Mill states action should not harm others. This means that Mill’s decision is influenced by what others think, which completely go against Kant’s philosophy.
Week 2 - Post 3
Spinoza strongly believes the existence of god, and the presence of god is a great matter in human lives. Spinoza views God as a high being that is everywhere, God is in nature, God in the universe. People’s actions, events in the world are all works of god. Spinoza says that God is substance, which means that god is the matter that makes up every aspect of this world.
Spinoza also highly emphasize on the strength of mind. Spinoza suggests that in order to adequately know god, the mind must be active. An inactive mind will have a barrier between god and itself. An active mind is a strong mind, thus it is more capable of avoiding evil; and vice versa, an inactive mind is weaker from temptations of evil. So Spinoza suggests that people should keep an active mind to connect with God.
A question arouses when there are evil in this world; if God is Supreme Being, why did God allow evil to exist? Spinoza suggests that evil does not exist; the phenomenon we call evil is mere absence of good, and falsehood is absence of truth. I find this very interesting, Spinoza uses scientific phenomenon to correlate with his philosophy. For example, darkness does not exist (you can not say “I want more darkness”), darkness is the result of lack of light, and just as cold is the lack of heat energy. Falsehood arises from lack of active mind, lack of knowledge to God; thus evil arise from lack of knowledge.
Spinoza believes that human need to think about the truth, think about good and evil. According to Spinoza, people should be aware of their actions, and follow what they believe is good or evil (ethic), and not let passion lead the way. Spinoza suggests that the more people love God, the more control they will have over their emotion, which people will less likely to commit regrettable actions due to emotions such as anger, hatred, and sadness.
Spinoza also highly emphasize on the strength of mind. Spinoza suggests that in order to adequately know god, the mind must be active. An inactive mind will have a barrier between god and itself. An active mind is a strong mind, thus it is more capable of avoiding evil; and vice versa, an inactive mind is weaker from temptations of evil. So Spinoza suggests that people should keep an active mind to connect with God.
A question arouses when there are evil in this world; if God is Supreme Being, why did God allow evil to exist? Spinoza suggests that evil does not exist; the phenomenon we call evil is mere absence of good, and falsehood is absence of truth. I find this very interesting, Spinoza uses scientific phenomenon to correlate with his philosophy. For example, darkness does not exist (you can not say “I want more darkness”), darkness is the result of lack of light, and just as cold is the lack of heat energy. Falsehood arises from lack of active mind, lack of knowledge to God; thus evil arise from lack of knowledge.
Spinoza believes that human need to think about the truth, think about good and evil. According to Spinoza, people should be aware of their actions, and follow what they believe is good or evil (ethic), and not let passion lead the way. Spinoza suggests that the more people love God, the more control they will have over their emotion, which people will less likely to commit regrettable actions due to emotions such as anger, hatred, and sadness.
Week 1 - Post 2
Epicurus believes that pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the path that will lead to happiness. Epicurus focus on pleasure in life, and stating that life is about pleasure, and every action done is to fulfill pleasure. General concept of human is avoiding pain and obtaining greatest pleasure possible.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
Both Epicurus and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. Both philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the two philosophers is their view on pleasure. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
Both Epicurus and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. Both philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the two philosophers is their view on pleasure. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
Week 1 - Post 1
Happiness is a vague concept; I often associate happiness with activities that brings pleasure. However, there are clear distinction between true happiness and pleasure. I believe happiness is events that one can reminisce and still feel content, but pleasure cannot. I believe pleasure is a short term happiness felt during the occurrence of events. I think pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness, but not all pleasure makes me happy. For example, watching television is pleasurable, but I do not feel happy after I turn off the television. When I finally perfected a song on a piano, I feel happy, the sense of accomplishment can be felt even months after I completed the song.
Events such as spending time with friends, going to the beach, or travel to an unfamiliar country for the first time makes me happy, even simple things as sitting on the couch enjoying lovely California sunshine generates happiness. As time progresses, I realize that definition of happiness changes as I experience different stages of life. Watching my baby cousin, playing with her toy dog makes her smile and happy. My sister in elementary school thinks buying a new toy makes her happy. During my high school years I think spending time with friends makes me happy. I see different goals and different dreams at different ages. I recently scored the highest score of the class on a difficult engineering final, which made me very proud of myself and exceedingly happy. The sense of accomplishment of grasping difficult concept is like achieving enlightenment, and is extremely satisfactory.
My future happiness will come when I graduate from university, perhaps get accept into a prestigious graduate school and obtaining masters degree. Hopefully achieve a successful career and able to support my parents, future wife, and future children.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life.
Aristotle will agree with my view such that there are clear distinction between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness achieves a greater mean than pleasure. My form of happiness is accomplished through life experiences. Aristotle also coincides with my form of happiness and goals in life, which represents an ultimate end that I pursuit after.
Events such as spending time with friends, going to the beach, or travel to an unfamiliar country for the first time makes me happy, even simple things as sitting on the couch enjoying lovely California sunshine generates happiness. As time progresses, I realize that definition of happiness changes as I experience different stages of life. Watching my baby cousin, playing with her toy dog makes her smile and happy. My sister in elementary school thinks buying a new toy makes her happy. During my high school years I think spending time with friends makes me happy. I see different goals and different dreams at different ages. I recently scored the highest score of the class on a difficult engineering final, which made me very proud of myself and exceedingly happy. The sense of accomplishment of grasping difficult concept is like achieving enlightenment, and is extremely satisfactory.
My future happiness will come when I graduate from university, perhaps get accept into a prestigious graduate school and obtaining masters degree. Hopefully achieve a successful career and able to support my parents, future wife, and future children.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life.
Aristotle will agree with my view such that there are clear distinction between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness achieves a greater mean than pleasure. My form of happiness is accomplished through life experiences. Aristotle also coincides with my form of happiness and goals in life, which represents an ultimate end that I pursuit after.