Week 11 Individual and the state

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with  both? 

  According to Mill, we are free If we are not forced to do something by the state and also anything can't restrict someone's freedom unless It prevent other people's freedom and He emphasizes the importance of free speech and says that It doesn't matter It's right or wrong, the fact that people share their opinion freely is the most important thing. However, It has some weak points such as moral concerns, for example, many people argue about Euthanasia whether It should be allowed or not...

  On the other hand, Marx... the one who shared the idea of communism. His first concern was perhaps economic system that endangers human freedom and the second would be the government that has power to break the pyramid of capitalist system and also has total control and maintain the changes because we all know the system, it is very unfair in many situations and the workers labor the most but gain the least and some people never even had a chance to get a good education and have the same opportunity with others to be fair so workers give a birth to a worker and It goes on and on and on. In other words, once you're proletariat, you're most likely gonna end up proletariat. According to Marx, these thoughts is the origin of communism. However, no government has kept the ultimate idea of Marx and truly cared about freedom of individuals. Its history shows the failure of the ideas of Marx and I know how it is like.... because of the country next to mine, North Korea. Therefore, so called Utopia that is totally fair to everyone and everyone's equally happy simply cannot be exist because of human nature.  

So in my opinion, I agree with a little bit of both, nothing is ultimate, perfect freedom can't / won't exist. 

Week 9 Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

   Buddhism rejects materialism as the goal of life and living for things that will perish someday is no point and It brings only suffering to people. In addition, It results in greed, envy, resentment and so on. Despite the fact that in life, sometimes It brings pleasure to us. For example, I really wanted to buy a TV because I really like watching TV before I go to bed. and I expect that will reduce my stress level so I worked really hard and saved money and finally got it and what if it was on sale! how much pleasure It must bring at that moment! However, Buddhism says this kind of pleasure is always transitory. It will disappear as time goes by and leave people felling empty in the end. 

   As I look at the Americans, I'm only foreigner and I might be able to look on the outside and also I'm not judging anybody but I don't think It will be possible to live a life completely following the ultimate goal of Buddhism in U.S. 

   I've been living in U.S. for few years now and I know how the people are and also what every media always try to show and tell us and that's been dominating our minds. Especially New York, when I think about people in the streets of soho, most of the people looks so glamorous head to toe and there are countless stores in every streets around that area and there's always so many tourists who's ready to shop! basically this world seems like people who has money, they get the power and they simply rule the society in most of countries. 

   There is one more reason.. I watched a movie called 'Into the wild', it is based on true story about a guy who gave up everything and left everything behind even family and try to go back to the nature and find a meaning of his life. He graduated a university and was very smart and has a lot of potential for the future. Yet, in his mind, he always searched for something more than just 'things' that he can get or achieve so he burnt all the money and social security and just left house without telling his family as he travels It show how hard it is to go back to the nature completely... people will barely survive without 'things' that makes life easier and convenience. 

   Therefore, people are set to seek all this these money and goods and also desires that will eventually make them restless and empty that leads people to be controlled by all the narrow concerns.

week 6 functionalism and artificial Intelligence

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulateintelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth. What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?    I don't think we can put those in a same chart. Even though, It could be argued that way, like we 'learn things' as computers are 'programmed'. see? It's very simple the difference seems to appear as a paper thin but it is not.     We, human beings, people 'learn things' in our own ways. In other words, we directly experience new things and are able to choose what to take from those memories and also choose what's gonna be or do in the future and human beings will respond in so many different ways to one same occasion.     Obviously, we have a sense and consciousness which computers don't have. they just work as programmed, they can't even choose to know or change the response from the manual no matter how perfect it is. and manual, it is designed by human being anyway... So they just look like they think and respond as we do it according to our sense and consciousness.  Therefore, we can't say computer is intelligent.

week 5 Dualism and Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?
If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).
Write your thoughts on these issues.

the definition of dualism is The division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided

and also the definition of physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical property; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.

 

    I agree to the ideas of Descartes that mentality and physical being is divided two different things. Descartes was a catholic that's why It was more convincing for him because as we know in Christian Theology, you can clearly see what's good and what's evil and also light and the darkness, sheeps and goats saints and sinners. It sees the world in a very divided sight.

   However, the reason why I agree to Descartes' dualism is I believe there is something that could resist orders from brain, so-called free will. I know this society is more opened to the thoughts of physicalism and doesn't really adapt dualism just because most of people think that when we need to make a decision or simply when we need to choose something we do not choose something according to our free will because we depend too much on act of our brain and also the word 'free' means 'Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes' but when we choose something we always reason and consider various things so we are already under control by those things that you consider in your mind or brain. well, that is very convincing and I do not want to put things this way .... but we all acknowledge the existence of free will from deep inside our hearts. 

   In addition, what physicalists claim is too weak to explain every human being's individual patterns of behavior because there will always be an exception. In other words, we need something other than physical being to explain this and from this fact we can say that mental world which is not hindered by any factors from outside of your mental system exist. 

week 4 pragmatism and feminism

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is.     Certainly, both of sides and the way they thought was just different from other philosophers that we studied earlier.     Well, pragmatism flourished from late 19th century to early 20th century and around that time I think I could understand why they had to think of the knowledge that way. They didn't look just as it is, but something else that enables us to do something ...In other words, for pragmatists, knowledge was supposed to make us more practical and active to achieve a certain beliefs. The way they thought and when I think about many provocations back then, I think they were right about using knowledge as a tool to produce useful materials and also succeed according to one's belief.      As a result,  It made enough to face the challenges at that time in many countries as they adapted capitalism.           As I look back what I've learned from the last 4 weeks, this society, we're living in has  adapted ideas from Socrates through Descartes, Empiricism, Kant to pragmatism and last 50 years, until now women have been trying to discover what we are and also what's difference between women and men as members who consist and contribute this society. I think there's no genuine knowledge that ultimately right and true all the time. I think knowledge and great thoughts has been changed through the time and I believe It is still changing and It will keep changing as people and society are changing.             Therefore, In some aspects, I have to agree with Socrates that 'we know nothing' and also with Descartes that 'I think therefore I exist.' cause I know now through the study that without thinking and seeking for the knowledge It won't move forward for sure.

empiricism

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory? empiricists thought that genuine knowledge comes from experience which means It only can be explained by the latter experience. And our minds are blank at birth therefore, we do not certain about anything until we are filled up with sensory experience. And Logical or rational experience such as law or mathematics can reduce the sensory experience.  well, I think empiricism has affected on our society now. For example, we only choose whether we will continue to study about math and science when we reach at some point of our education. that could mean it is not essential to achieve in some areas of study that's our educational system now in general. However, Empiricism, it was found when there was many observation and scientifical experiments. In addition, Kant also agrees to the empiricists at some point that an intuition is anything present to the senses. so I think there must be some parts that can be shared between the experiences both from sense and logic just like empiricists and kant. so I don't think there won't be any types of knowledge that can be a 'problem' to fulfill those which empiricists claimed. In other words, what I think is they can coexist and reflect each other.

week2 Descartes

According to Descartes, we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses 'methodological skepticism' to reach this conclusion. What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible  to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy? Methodological Skepticism is a Descartes's method just to doubt every single belief that he has to find out whether they are absolutely certain or not by using very rigorous standards of his. I think most of people believe things until It becomes impossible to believe them rather than doubting. sometimes people are in denial when they are exposed to something that shows what they've believed is wrong cause they are afraid to lose their belief. well, I think belief or faith in one's heart could be the strongest thing that could be impetus and the purpose for someone's life. I believe it could drive people's lives and also control majority of people's minds such as religions, more specifically speaking, catholic for Descartes. He was a catholic and He even described himself as a devoted catholic believer (?).   However, It is certainly different from Thomas Aquinas'. Because I believe he just couldn't give up on both his religious belief and also his knowledge and profound thoughts from his high-valued education, philosophy that dominated at that time. He was privileged person who was born in a wealthy family and provided high-valued education but at that time for him because of his educations he had to suffer If what he believe is true or not and fell into an agony, the Dogma for other philosophers as well at that time... because Roman catholic its reputation was degraded by Martin Luther. and it led many people to be put in greatest doubt. It was the greatest crisis for the whole world and I think what Descartes did was basically trying to prove the existence of almighty, omnipotent God.. for people and for himself not by something emotional experiences but by something can't be false, more like the one and only answer so that everyone can believe.   Therefore, It made me to guess he had a weak mind cause he found a method such as 'methodological skepticism' and most of the things couldn't survive in that but he still believe there is a devil who control it so that might be wrong again. I think he never believed in anything though he said "cogito ergo sum" but he also thinks we don't know If it's reality or dream because when we dream, we think it as a reality but perhaps he at least believed in his existence.  well, lastly.. I know it takes so much courage to believe in something and life gives you nothing If we only doubt. Therefore, I suggest we should believe in something meaningful but doubt sometimes so that we're not be blinded to the truth.

week1 Socrates

In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?

about the first question.. I think Socrates, He somehow was being narrowminded and stubborn when he suggested that without philosophical education, we are all like prisoners because I believe there are so many aspects to achieve in life and we learn and realize and know myself and world better and through those things we continually grow up physically and mentally change. Not only Philosophy can give us a certain life change experience or give us a significant idea, but also other sources in life can give us a meaningful lesson. And by acknowledging this fact, his idea would've been more effective to people at that time because He, himself mentioned that 'we know nothing' is the key to wisdom and If he acknowledged that, the truth that other factors also can affect in peoples lives and change their mindset and give them a certain wisdom(?), through Dialectic, which means conversation between people, then His idea and philosophy itself would've been more liberating between people.

about last question ... I think He had a right to be pessimistic about life without philosophy. However, He was not right to be pessimistic about it because that means He denied too many things and too many people's lives who just lived and thought differently. We all have our own thoughts and we value things differently that's why so many philosophers existed and have been saying all different things throughout the history. I think he, Socrates valued philosophy way too higher than other things and other people's thoughts and I think in that, he also valued himself better than others as a philosopher who leads people to the wisdom so he basically killed other peoples thoughts in conversations that he made with others.

Intro

this is my first blogging experience ... and also first time to take an online course..... ever :P

By the way my name is Jin-kyung Kim. I'm an international student from Korea. My major is Liberal arts and It's my second semester! taking an online class has been a huge challenge for me..  I hope I could do everything right. Furthermore, I wish I could learn how to reason and express my thoughts engaging with the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers though we don't go deep into it in this course... and I hope this course would be useful for life and Anyway, I like.... reading something that's worthy of my time :P and I also like singing with playing guitar together... well, this is it! :)