Response to Corbin's post : "Vicious Circle"

I would definitely agree with Corbin on this one.  Naturalists and Theist disagree for their own reasons, both of which condemn the other.  I do think there can be compromise however, especially, as was mentioned in the article we read this past week, those who use religion as a guide for personal moral action.

I think the number of people that behave in this way, especially those with careers that deal with the morality of actions of others (judges, specifically) have come to realize what is appropriate to believe, and what is appropriate to impose upon others.

Determinism and the Legal Process

In class this week, I heard very convincing arguments pertaining to the legitimacy of determinism in moral theory.  I personally did not think it was possible to pragmatically integrate morality into a determinist philosophy, although our discussions this week led me realize the contrary.

With that being said, how would this new theory of morality affect the legal system?  Laws, especially criminal law, is largely based on motive, intent, ect.  All of these measuring components used by a judge or jury to determine (no pun intended) the sentence of the defendant greatly influence the verdict reached.  Honestly, I'm not sure if a deterministic swing in moral theory would completely change the legal process, or have very little impact at all.  What do you think?

"Everything Happens for a Reason" (Response to Siearra's Post)

I would definitely agree here, the saying, "everything happens for a reason," seems to derive itself from deterministic roots.  Like most cliches though, it can be taken literally or figuratively, in a thousand different ways.

For example, that same saying can apply to "God's plan," or simply someone who thinks that every experience has a benefit, in some way, regardless of whether or not it was literally meant to happen.  The aspects in which certain ideas can be interpreted is very interesting, as one idea can appeal to different ideologies which at first seem very polarizing.

Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue

Aristotle discusses the differences between moral and intellectual virtue.  What stuck out to me the most was the process in which one becomes virtuous- moral virtues require habituation and practice, and intellectual require the uncovering of innate knowledge.

I would strongly agree with Aristotle's view of moral virtue.  Morality would not exist without action, mainly because, morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong.  It would make sense then, for a person who constantly acts in a virtuous way to become more morally sound than one who inconsistently acts virtuously, or one that does not at all.

As far as intellectual virtues are concerned, I would agree with half of Aristotle's reasoning.  While I think the teacher has a great responsibility and ability to foster brilliant students, I would wonder just how much of that knowledge would be innate, or a priori.  Perhaps, as we discussed in class, it is not factual knowledge that is innate within us, but the capacity to critically think.  In which case, a good teacher would make a world of difference.

Pleasure Scale (Response to Jenna's Blog)

As far as pleasure is concerned, I agree, Aristotle would definitely think that the level of pleasure would be objective.  I would also agree that many people today would say that happiness is indeed subjective, and fulfillment of a purpose, or telos, is also subjective.  I think Aristotle's view of the functions of humans are actually closer to the subjective view than many would think.

Of course, his view of the good life is definitely subjective.  In Aristotle's case, the good life would be attaining eudaimonia, and the usage of reason to the highest capacity is the only way to reach it.  However, Aristotle recognizes the multiple functions of all humans.  For example, while everyone's ability to reach eudiamonia may depend upon reason, fulfilling a function as a farmer or soldier would be different for every person, depending upon their career choice; and while Aristotle would deny their "true" happiness (considering they would not reach eduaimonia) I don't think he would deny a certain level of happiness to the hardworking farmer or the courageous soldier.

Plato's Theory of Forms: Function, Intent, and Parameters

Response to:  http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/2013/02/response-to-httpcorbinbrassardblogspotc.html?showComment=1359931317406#c1241568056337602977

I would be inclined to agree with the idea that size does not always matter when defining an object.  Of course, that is resting on a few premises about the process of defining an object.
An object is defined when:

-It's function or appearance (or both) coincides with the name given.
-It can be identified, just as a classmate, friend, or co-worker can be.  (Recognition upon sight)

I think it's important to remember that everything has an essence of it's true form.  In other words, an object like a trash can may have the essence of the form of a chair, as far as function goes, although not quite as much, as far as aesthetic appearance or intention is concerned.  Just because a trash can can serve as a chair does not mean that it is actually closer to the perfect form of a chair than say, a conventional chair.

I think the same holds true with a porcupine.  A porcupine who acts like friendly puppy is still a porcupine, just as a giant porcupine is still a porcupine.  They are both different, in regards to their function and parameters, yet they still both contain the essence of a porcupine.  We know this, because upon seeing either one, I would immediately recognize it as such.

Q & A #2: Question 1

We talked a good deal about this in class, so I hope my answer to the following question will provide some new insight.

Considering his "Philosophy Kings," would Plato be for or against democracy?

I prefer to think about the question in this way:

First off, Plato condemns the mob mentality of democracy in The Republic, citing it as merely, a step up from tyranny.  Living in one of the most famous democratic countries in our world's history, I was understandably taken back when I read this the first time.  If you really think about it though, from Plato's point of view (or any rationalist for that matter), would living under a Philosopher King really be that bad?

In today's world, we equate absolute power, or even concentrated authority, as bad, quite possibly, because in most cases of concentrate power, the power was abused.  You have to ask yourself though, what else is bad with a ruler, besides the potential abuse of power?  Think of a case where a regime was condemned by the rest of the world, where the ruler was truly good, and did his best to do right by his people.  I would not consider sociopaths, such as Hitler, to be an exception to this rule.  Moreover, many thinkers over the centuries have warned against aspects or negative products of democracy, such as, the brutish will of the majority, the ignorance of the masses, the dangers of factions, and as we see today, the sluggishness of a dual party system, and the bureaucratic machine.

As we discussed in our first class, the epidemiological root of philo-sophia means, "love of wisdom."  The Socratic thinkers clearly included just and morally sound action as a pillar of a wise person, not merely a possessor of great knowledge.

Which leads to my last question:  Would it be the worst situation to live in a society under the rule of a person who devotes their lives to attaining the truth of knowledge and action, and working to enlighten others of these same truths?