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.