Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal",
"Hacker Arrested After Bank Tampering".... Damn Kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three-piece
psychology and 1950's techno-brain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever
wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter
my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers
explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it "No Ms. Smith, I didn't show my
work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to.
If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened
by me... Or thinks I'm a smart ass... Or feels aching and shouldn't be here... damn kid. All he does is
play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened... A door opened to a world... Rushing through the phone line like heroin through an
addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompentencies is sought... a
board is found... "This is it... This is where I belong... I know everyone here... Even if I've never met
them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all..." Damn kid. Tying up
the phone line again. They're all alike.
You bet your ass we're all alike... We've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for
steak... The bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been
dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing
pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... The world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make
use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run
profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... And you call us criminals. We seek after
knowledge... And you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without
religious bias. And you call us criminals?
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they
say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of out smarting you, something you will never
forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... After
all, we're all alike.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
The Lake
The Lake
It was the middle of springtime and across from my house where the
incident took place. There was a lake there in which my brother and I
loved to explore from time to time. The humidity and waterdrops where
reminiscent of a fully functional sauna. The onslaught of heat and
burning glow of the sun was relentless. Nonetheless, this fact did not
bother us one bit, but gave us more incentive to dance with our cool and
embracing "long-lost love".
The first step of this operation was making sure that our neighbors
had gone away from the house for at least two hours. Since it was their
lake and property, this made it safe for us in not getting caught in the
middle of our escapade. Upon this, my brother and I snuck to their
backyard like two undercover police officers, until we were in the clear.
Nerve-wracking minutes later, flowed the emerald green and ever-so lively
lake in front of us. We stopped and starred in awe. The lake had appeared
so shiny and reflective, it resembled a finely-cut diamond. The rare and
distinct fragrance enticed us. It smelled like mother-nature herself,
with aromas ranging from wildlife and wet grass, to evaporated swamp
water and healthy dirt.
Then, the time for us to find the desired vessel arrived. We chose
the kayaks, and set out for the water. Carefully, with our torn-jeans
rolled up, and shirts off, we dragged the massive thing over the slope of
grass and mud into the shallow stream. We then hopped aboard, grabbed the
paddles, and floated and splashed into nowhere. The wavy current sucked
us downstream, periodically bouncing us off of sandbags and sharp
branches leaning over the water- Now that was true adventure! Minutes
later, my brother and I, after passing under many pipes and tunnels,
floated into a huge "cul de sac" of water, with an island in the center.
In our amazement, we paddled there as vigorously as toddlers learning to
swim. We tied the kayaks to a thin branch with the slimy green rope
mysteriously attached to them, and hopped onto the island. We basked in
pure amazement.
After the tempo settled, we started our natural brotherly routine.
My brother and I sat on the muddy bank, with our feet dipped in water,
and threw stones out as far away as we could in our competitive nature.
We set aside our differences, and together, bonded. My newfound companion
and I sat, laughed, fought, played, and talked, as the sun slowly left
us.
At this point it did not matter what happened to us for taking the
kayaks, because whatever it was, it could not replace the priceless
experience we shared with one another.
It was the middle of springtime and across from my house where the
incident took place. There was a lake there in which my brother and I
loved to explore from time to time. The humidity and waterdrops where
reminiscent of a fully functional sauna. The onslaught of heat and
burning glow of the sun was relentless. Nonetheless, this fact did not
bother us one bit, but gave us more incentive to dance with our cool and
embracing "long-lost love".
The first step of this operation was making sure that our neighbors
had gone away from the house for at least two hours. Since it was their
lake and property, this made it safe for us in not getting caught in the
middle of our escapade. Upon this, my brother and I snuck to their
backyard like two undercover police officers, until we were in the clear.
Nerve-wracking minutes later, flowed the emerald green and ever-so lively
lake in front of us. We stopped and starred in awe. The lake had appeared
so shiny and reflective, it resembled a finely-cut diamond. The rare and
distinct fragrance enticed us. It smelled like mother-nature herself,
with aromas ranging from wildlife and wet grass, to evaporated swamp
water and healthy dirt.
Then, the time for us to find the desired vessel arrived. We chose
the kayaks, and set out for the water. Carefully, with our torn-jeans
rolled up, and shirts off, we dragged the massive thing over the slope of
grass and mud into the shallow stream. We then hopped aboard, grabbed the
paddles, and floated and splashed into nowhere. The wavy current sucked
us downstream, periodically bouncing us off of sandbags and sharp
branches leaning over the water- Now that was true adventure! Minutes
later, my brother and I, after passing under many pipes and tunnels,
floated into a huge "cul de sac" of water, with an island in the center.
In our amazement, we paddled there as vigorously as toddlers learning to
swim. We tied the kayaks to a thin branch with the slimy green rope
mysteriously attached to them, and hopped onto the island. We basked in
pure amazement.
After the tempo settled, we started our natural brotherly routine.
My brother and I sat on the muddy bank, with our feet dipped in water,
and threw stones out as far away as we could in our competitive nature.
We set aside our differences, and together, bonded. My newfound companion
and I sat, laughed, fought, played, and talked, as the sun slowly left
us.
At this point it did not matter what happened to us for taking the
kayaks, because whatever it was, it could not replace the priceless
experience we shared with one another.
Solitary Confinement On Antarctica
During my assignment of a one year long period of solitary confinement on Antarctica the three things that I would bring with me would be: a computer equipped with internet access and teleconferencing capabilities; my ski equipment including my climbing gear; and a snowmobile that is run by electricity because of a lack of Mobil stations at the South Pole. The computer, ski equipment, and snowmobile would allow me to endure and make the best of a year long period that would be pure Hell without these three things.
The sub zero climate of the Antarctic winter would make it unbearable to venture outside of my quarters. The computer that I would bring would allow me to keep in contact with the world outside of Antarctica, and with my family and friends via the internet and teleconferencing. The computer would also serve as a way for me to keep a journal of the events that occurred through out my year long solitary confinement at the life deficient South Pole. My computer would also provide a source of entertainment with games and programs I could use to pass the time.
I would bring my alpine ski equipment along with my rock climbing gear to the earth's frozen basement. The two passions of my life are snow skiing and rock climbing. On the Antarctic continent lie many mountain ranges that have the world's driest and most plentiful powder, and the most magnificent rock and ice faces and cliffs. These conditions are a skier's and rock climber's heaven. The mountains could provide me with a sense of extreme pleasure and make my stay in the earth's freezer well worth it. There is one problem with skiing in Antarctica, there are no ski lifts. This would pose a problem to me if I didn't have my climbing gear. However, I was intelligent enough to realize that I would have to climb the mountains in order to ski them, which is why I brought my climbing gear.
To provide transportation around the continent and to the mountains I would bring an electric snowmobile to Antarctica. The snowmobile would have to run on stored electricity and be rechargeable. I would cruise the frozen plains of Antarctica on the snowmobile, observing one of the last uncharted frontiers of the modern world. I would be able to see the creatures of the world of ice and observe how they have adapted to life in the Antarctic.
A year long span of solitary confinement spent in the Antarctic could be endured and enjoyed by myself if I had these possessions with me. I would not willingly go to Antarctica by myself for a year. However, I would choose to go to this frozen part of our planet for a short stay, along with a few companions to ski, and observe the last undeveloped and unpopulated continent of the earth.
The sub zero climate of the Antarctic winter would make it unbearable to venture outside of my quarters. The computer that I would bring would allow me to keep in contact with the world outside of Antarctica, and with my family and friends via the internet and teleconferencing. The computer would also serve as a way for me to keep a journal of the events that occurred through out my year long solitary confinement at the life deficient South Pole. My computer would also provide a source of entertainment with games and programs I could use to pass the time.
I would bring my alpine ski equipment along with my rock climbing gear to the earth's frozen basement. The two passions of my life are snow skiing and rock climbing. On the Antarctic continent lie many mountain ranges that have the world's driest and most plentiful powder, and the most magnificent rock and ice faces and cliffs. These conditions are a skier's and rock climber's heaven. The mountains could provide me with a sense of extreme pleasure and make my stay in the earth's freezer well worth it. There is one problem with skiing in Antarctica, there are no ski lifts. This would pose a problem to me if I didn't have my climbing gear. However, I was intelligent enough to realize that I would have to climb the mountains in order to ski them, which is why I brought my climbing gear.
To provide transportation around the continent and to the mountains I would bring an electric snowmobile to Antarctica. The snowmobile would have to run on stored electricity and be rechargeable. I would cruise the frozen plains of Antarctica on the snowmobile, observing one of the last uncharted frontiers of the modern world. I would be able to see the creatures of the world of ice and observe how they have adapted to life in the Antarctic.
A year long span of solitary confinement spent in the Antarctic could be endured and enjoyed by myself if I had these possessions with me. I would not willingly go to Antarctica by myself for a year. However, I would choose to go to this frozen part of our planet for a short stay, along with a few companions to ski, and observe the last undeveloped and unpopulated continent of the earth.
Philosophies of Socrates Plato and Aristotle
Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an
unwise form of government. He thought that the electing of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
The point of Socrate's philosophies were to make people think about the questions he would often ask. The reason for these questions being asked were to have people to their own thoughts and opinions toward life. He did not think a person with the right mind should follow the steps of their ancestors. Instead of going around asking questions, Plato, another philosopher, would write his own conversations with imaginerary people. These conversations would cover much of the same topics that Socrates had tried to cover earlier. These topics mostly dealt with life such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education.
Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief of the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people.
He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness. His opinion toward life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government , his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle
class would consist of those who were not rich yet not poor.
Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state. While Plato disagreed and thought that dividing of power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life.
Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equalness of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others.
The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of-view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an
unwise form of government. He thought that the electing of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
The point of Socrate's philosophies were to make people think about the questions he would often ask. The reason for these questions being asked were to have people to their own thoughts and opinions toward life. He did not think a person with the right mind should follow the steps of their ancestors. Instead of going around asking questions, Plato, another philosopher, would write his own conversations with imaginerary people. These conversations would cover much of the same topics that Socrates had tried to cover earlier. These topics mostly dealt with life such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education.
Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief of the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people.
He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness. His opinion toward life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government , his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle
class would consist of those who were not rich yet not poor.
Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state. While Plato disagreed and thought that dividing of power was unfair and cruel. In his mind, he felt that those in the lower class could never have the chance to get any higher in life.
Though all three philosophers felt that the government should be based on the equalness of all the people, they all had different views on what equality really meant. These philosophers all had their own way of gathering information and passing it through the minds of others.
La Nausée
La Nausée
La nausèe est le premier livre de Jean Paul Sartre. Le plan fictional est que les notes d'un certain Antoine Roquentin son trouvés parmis ses travaux et son publicés après sa mort. Pour ganger sa vie, il fait de la recherche sur le marquis de Rollebon. Le livre entier est ecrit somme des notes de qouis ce passe le long de ses jours. Des titre comme "Lundi", "neuf heurs du matin" et "deux heurs plus tard" son des titres commun et lœvre entier est ecrit dans la premiêre personne du singulier.
Un beau jour Roquentin se trouve sur la plage regardant quelques gamins jouer. Tout d'un coup il se sent terriblement degouté. Dans les notes procahines il raconte que quelque chose c'est passé, mai il ne sais pas qoui. Pour la première fois dans sa vie il se sent seul. Il ne crain ce qui se passe et il crois ue c'est a cause qu'il a ramassé un cailloux sur la plage l'autre jour. Il crois que ceci lui cause son malaise. Dans son mtravail sur le marquis il commence a doubter son passé, rien ne peut être prouver sur son sujet. Roquentin a du mal à reconnaitre des personne qu'il voit tous les jours. Parfois il a même du mal a reconnaitre sois même dans le mirroir. Pour échaper la nausée il va à son café préféré. Roquentin demande au garçon de jouer son disque préféré, et, soudain il se sent planit de joie.
Roquentin passe ses jour à pensé, il pense à sa vie et ce qu'il a fait. Il se sent triste par ce que il na pas d'aventure dans sa vie, tous les jours son les même. Le même jour il reçoit une letter de Anny une fille qu'il n'a pas vu depuis six ans. Ellevut qu'il vienne la voir a Paris. Roquentin devin un peut déprimé et troublé, il pense tant qu'il ne peut pas travailler. Son existance lui trouble, le present est la suele chose qui est la veritée, et le présent est contant, le passé n'éxiste pas alors son travail n'a auqun d'importance. Après ceci, il commence a pensé a "cogito ergo sum"(=je pense, c' est pouqoi j'existe). Il dit que la réalitée est causé par rien et pour auqune réson. C'est un peut complique de suivre tot celapar ce que il change d'avi au sujet de la réalitée de temps en temps.
Roquentin part a Paris pour encontrer Anny. Ils ont de longues converstion très intérésantes mais après quelquelsjours Anny doit lui quitter. A la garre un autre homme lui dit au revoire et Roquentin se dit que dans la vie il n'y a que de la souffrance. Quand Roquentin retourne a Bouville il ne voit pas pourquois il devrait réster il encore un foie il par a Paris et il se promet de devenir un grand auteur.
---
J'ai bien aimé lire La nausée, mai de temps en temps c'est dificile à suivre. C'était une bonne lécture avec beaucoup de réfléction sur la vie.
La nausèe est le premier livre de Jean Paul Sartre. Le plan fictional est que les notes d'un certain Antoine Roquentin son trouvés parmis ses travaux et son publicés après sa mort. Pour ganger sa vie, il fait de la recherche sur le marquis de Rollebon. Le livre entier est ecrit somme des notes de qouis ce passe le long de ses jours. Des titre comme "Lundi", "neuf heurs du matin" et "deux heurs plus tard" son des titres commun et lœvre entier est ecrit dans la premiêre personne du singulier.
Un beau jour Roquentin se trouve sur la plage regardant quelques gamins jouer. Tout d'un coup il se sent terriblement degouté. Dans les notes procahines il raconte que quelque chose c'est passé, mai il ne sais pas qoui. Pour la première fois dans sa vie il se sent seul. Il ne crain ce qui se passe et il crois ue c'est a cause qu'il a ramassé un cailloux sur la plage l'autre jour. Il crois que ceci lui cause son malaise. Dans son mtravail sur le marquis il commence a doubter son passé, rien ne peut être prouver sur son sujet. Roquentin a du mal à reconnaitre des personne qu'il voit tous les jours. Parfois il a même du mal a reconnaitre sois même dans le mirroir. Pour échaper la nausée il va à son café préféré. Roquentin demande au garçon de jouer son disque préféré, et, soudain il se sent planit de joie.
Roquentin passe ses jour à pensé, il pense à sa vie et ce qu'il a fait. Il se sent triste par ce que il na pas d'aventure dans sa vie, tous les jours son les même. Le même jour il reçoit une letter de Anny une fille qu'il n'a pas vu depuis six ans. Ellevut qu'il vienne la voir a Paris. Roquentin devin un peut déprimé et troublé, il pense tant qu'il ne peut pas travailler. Son existance lui trouble, le present est la suele chose qui est la veritée, et le présent est contant, le passé n'éxiste pas alors son travail n'a auqun d'importance. Après ceci, il commence a pensé a "cogito ergo sum"(=je pense, c' est pouqoi j'existe). Il dit que la réalitée est causé par rien et pour auqune réson. C'est un peut complique de suivre tot celapar ce que il change d'avi au sujet de la réalitée de temps en temps.
Roquentin part a Paris pour encontrer Anny. Ils ont de longues converstion très intérésantes mais après quelquelsjours Anny doit lui quitter. A la garre un autre homme lui dit au revoire et Roquentin se dit que dans la vie il n'y a que de la souffrance. Quand Roquentin retourne a Bouville il ne voit pas pourquois il devrait réster il encore un foie il par a Paris et il se promet de devenir un grand auteur.
---
J'ai bien aimé lire La nausée, mai de temps en temps c'est dificile à suivre. C'était une bonne lécture avec beaucoup de réfléction sur la vie.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Socrates 2
Erika Hall
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
reflections on liberation
Reflections on Liberation
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
Happiness
The standard definition of happiness is that it is a condition of supreme well-being and good spirits. There can be many definitions of the word happiness. It can be applied to many examples. Many people are often in search of happiness.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
Confucius 2
Confuciunism is a philosophy vased on the teachings of Confucius, a Chinese philosopher/teacher. Confucius highly stressed ethics. It is thought the reason for this is because the China of his time was corrupt. Confucius thought the way to live with good ethics was to follow the five virtues: Jen; to do good on others, yi; rightsiosness by justice, li; religious and moral ways of acting , chih; wisdom and hsin; faithfulness. All of these being represented by the parts of a tree for example: Jen being the root, yi the trunk, li the branches, chih the flower, and hsin the fruit. The most important of the five being li. Confucius used this to formulate his plan for the recovery of china. Confucius equally emphasized the relationship with rulers and there subjects. This is where he combined ethics and politics. At one time Confucius was asked by Chi K 'ang Tsu, the head of the chi clan, how to rule. Confucius replied "To govern is to keep straight. If you , sir, lead your subjects straight, who will venture to fall out of line?" Confucius believed in what is called "superior Man." This was someone who followed the five virtues, and abided them. Confucius was a perfect example of a "superior Man." Some people believe that he was a great man, he was indeed, but he was merely a teacher of ethics with great wisdom.
commitment
Commitment
When you abide to do something with all your heart and soul. We live
in a cynical world where commitment is often times obscured by day to
day life. Many believe that our goals are a commitment to ourselves.
People make goals for themselves in order to strive for greatness,
but a man once told me that goals not written down are only dreams.
We can dream all we like but without commitment to do the things
we set for ourselves nothing can be achieved. When we see a
future that will enhance our lives we strive to make that future happen,
but with the tyranny of the urgent we are oppressed and our vision is
clouded which makes us try less than we should for the things that
are meant for us. There is a time for focus on the now but we must
never lose sight of the attainable future that is there.
When you abide to do something with all your heart and soul. We live
in a cynical world where commitment is often times obscured by day to
day life. Many believe that our goals are a commitment to ourselves.
People make goals for themselves in order to strive for greatness,
but a man once told me that goals not written down are only dreams.
We can dream all we like but without commitment to do the things
we set for ourselves nothing can be achieved. When we see a
future that will enhance our lives we strive to make that future happen,
but with the tyranny of the urgent we are oppressed and our vision is
clouded which makes us try less than we should for the things that
are meant for us. There is a time for focus on the now but we must
never lose sight of the attainable future that is there.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Voltair Author and Philosopher
Voltaire
French Author and Philosopher
1694 - 1778 A.D.
Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's style, wit, intelligence and keen sense of justice made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers.
Young Francois Marie received an excellent education at a Jesuit school. He left school at 16 and soon formed friendships with a group of sophisticated Parisian aristocrats. Paris society sought his company for his cleverness, humor and remarkable ability to write verse. In 1717 he was arrested for writing a series of satirical verses ridiculing the French government, and was imprisoned in the Bastille. During his eleven months in prison he wrote his first major play, "Oedipe," which achieved great success in 1718. He adopted his pen name "Voltaire" the same year.
In 1726 Voltaire insulted a powerful young nobleman and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile and from 1726 to 1729 lived in England. While in England Voltaire was attracted to the philosophy of John Locke and ideas of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton. After his return to Paris he wrote a book praising English customs and institutions. The book was thought to criticize the French government and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris again.
In 1759 Voltaire purchased an estate called "Ferney" near the French-Swiss border where he lived until just before of his death. Ferney soon became the intellectual capitol of Europe. Throughout his years in exile Voltaire produced a constant flow of books, plays, pamphlets, and letters. He was a voice of reason, and an outspoken critic of religious intolerance and persecution.
Voltaire returned to a hero's welcome in Paris at age 83. The excitement of the trip was too much for him and he died in Paris. Because of his criticism of the church Voltaire was denied burial in church ground. He was finally buried at an abbey in Champagne. In 1791 his remains were moved to a resting place at the Pantheon in Paris.
In 1814 a group of "ultras" (right-wing religious) stole Voltaire's remains and dumped them in a garbage heap. No one was the wiser for some 50 years. His enormous sarcophagus (opposite Rousseau's) was checked and the remains were gone. (see Orieux, Voltaire, vol. 2 pp. 382-4.) His heart, however, had been removed from his body, and now lays in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. His brain was also removed, but after a series of passings-on over 100 years, disappeared after an auction.
French Author and Philosopher
1694 - 1778 A.D.
Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's style, wit, intelligence and keen sense of justice made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers.
Young Francois Marie received an excellent education at a Jesuit school. He left school at 16 and soon formed friendships with a group of sophisticated Parisian aristocrats. Paris society sought his company for his cleverness, humor and remarkable ability to write verse. In 1717 he was arrested for writing a series of satirical verses ridiculing the French government, and was imprisoned in the Bastille. During his eleven months in prison he wrote his first major play, "Oedipe," which achieved great success in 1718. He adopted his pen name "Voltaire" the same year.
In 1726 Voltaire insulted a powerful young nobleman and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile and from 1726 to 1729 lived in England. While in England Voltaire was attracted to the philosophy of John Locke and ideas of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton. After his return to Paris he wrote a book praising English customs and institutions. The book was thought to criticize the French government and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris again.
In 1759 Voltaire purchased an estate called "Ferney" near the French-Swiss border where he lived until just before of his death. Ferney soon became the intellectual capitol of Europe. Throughout his years in exile Voltaire produced a constant flow of books, plays, pamphlets, and letters. He was a voice of reason, and an outspoken critic of religious intolerance and persecution.
Voltaire returned to a hero's welcome in Paris at age 83. The excitement of the trip was too much for him and he died in Paris. Because of his criticism of the church Voltaire was denied burial in church ground. He was finally buried at an abbey in Champagne. In 1791 his remains were moved to a resting place at the Pantheon in Paris.
In 1814 a group of "ultras" (right-wing religious) stole Voltaire's remains and dumped them in a garbage heap. No one was the wiser for some 50 years. His enormous sarcophagus (opposite Rousseau's) was checked and the remains were gone. (see Orieux, Voltaire, vol. 2 pp. 382-4.) His heart, however, had been removed from his body, and now lays in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. His brain was also removed, but after a series of passings-on over 100 years, disappeared after an auction.
The Open Boat
"The Open Boat"
by: Sarah Clauer
Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat," is thought to be one of the finest stories ever written by an American. Crane uses
a theme of cosmic irony. Cosmic irony is the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe
is indifferent to the plight of man. In "The Open Boat," Crane's theme, cosmic irony, is illustrated through the use of
symbols for isolation, insignificance, and indifference. Three specific examples of cosmic irony symbolism used by Crane
are, the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, the sea against the universe, and the little boat in a
vast sea from the people on the shore.
The indifference aspect of cosmic irony is where things serve no purpose, and there is truly no care for anyone or
anything. In "The Open Boat," the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, is a prime example of
indifference used by Crane. The universe is represented by the power of the ocean, and the small boat in this ocean is
symbolic of man in this giant universe. The immaculate power of the ocean is very indifferent to the small boat, just as
our great universe could not care less for man.
Insignificance is described as being a lack of importance. Those little things that are insignificant mean nothing
to the universe. In "The Open Boat," the sea against the universe is symbolic of insignificance in cosmic irony. The sea
represents something which seems very large to mankind, but is actually very insignificant in comprison to the universe. The
universe would still go on without that sea, just like the universe would still go on without mankind.
The third form of symbolism in cosmic irony is isolation. Isolation is being held in captivity or lack of contact with
the world or universe. The little boat in a vast sea versus the people on the shore is symbolic of isolation. The small
boal seems so large and important to the people on it, while the people on the shore just see this small boat as one of many
objects in that vast sea. This is prime example of man versus society.
The belief of cosmic irony holds great significance in the writers of the time of Stephen Crane. The new philosophies
portrayed in cosmic irony were so new and different. They taught a different approach to the way the reader interprets
certain symbols. Cosmic irony is a theme which is used every day, even though it may not always be noticed.
by: Sarah Clauer
Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat," is thought to be one of the finest stories ever written by an American. Crane uses
a theme of cosmic irony. Cosmic irony is the belief that the universe is so large and man is so small that the universe
is indifferent to the plight of man. In "The Open Boat," Crane's theme, cosmic irony, is illustrated through the use of
symbols for isolation, insignificance, and indifference. Three specific examples of cosmic irony symbolism used by Crane
are, the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, the sea against the universe, and the little boat in a
vast sea from the people on the shore.
The indifference aspect of cosmic irony is where things serve no purpose, and there is truly no care for anyone or
anything. In "The Open Boat," the power of the ocean against the insignificance of the boat, is a prime example of
indifference used by Crane. The universe is represented by the power of the ocean, and the small boat in this ocean is
symbolic of man in this giant universe. The immaculate power of the ocean is very indifferent to the small boat, just as
our great universe could not care less for man.
Insignificance is described as being a lack of importance. Those little things that are insignificant mean nothing
to the universe. In "The Open Boat," the sea against the universe is symbolic of insignificance in cosmic irony. The sea
represents something which seems very large to mankind, but is actually very insignificant in comprison to the universe. The
universe would still go on without that sea, just like the universe would still go on without mankind.
The third form of symbolism in cosmic irony is isolation. Isolation is being held in captivity or lack of contact with
the world or universe. The little boat in a vast sea versus the people on the shore is symbolic of isolation. The small
boal seems so large and important to the people on it, while the people on the shore just see this small boat as one of many
objects in that vast sea. This is prime example of man versus society.
The belief of cosmic irony holds great significance in the writers of the time of Stephen Crane. The new philosophies
portrayed in cosmic irony were so new and different. They taught a different approach to the way the reader interprets
certain symbols. Cosmic irony is a theme which is used every day, even though it may not always be noticed.
Questions of Omnipotence
Philosophy 2205B Date: March 07, 1997
Questions Concerning Omnipotence
n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny
Reading Assignment #9
1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the "most" powerful being.
2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes.
3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that "God can do whatever is possible."(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term "possible" citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism?
4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a "pseudo-task" with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2)
5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was describing. Does this remove the paradox?
6. Would being omniscient and being able to do what you want be a sufficient definition for omnipotence? If this is acceptable would St. Augustine's contention be sufficient in that it was intended in relation to God? ( p 415 par 1)
7. ref. Quote p 418 What effect would substituting " what I am thinking of" for "A" have on Aquanis' contention that the predicate and subject of a term need only agree for it to be possible?
8. If God were capable of doing self contradictory things, would this not be repugnant to the notion of an absolute possible, which is subject to the Devine Omnipotence? Is Frankfurt's contention actually a logical denial of Omnipotence?
Questions Concerning Omnipotence
n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny
Reading Assignment #9
1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the "most" powerful being.
2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes.
3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that "God can do whatever is possible."(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term "possible" citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism?
4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a "pseudo-task" with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2)
5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was describing. Does this remove the paradox?
6. Would being omniscient and being able to do what you want be a sufficient definition for omnipotence? If this is acceptable would St. Augustine's contention be sufficient in that it was intended in relation to God? ( p 415 par 1)
7. ref. Quote p 418 What effect would substituting " what I am thinking of" for "A" have on Aquanis' contention that the predicate and subject of a term need only agree for it to be possible?
8. If God were capable of doing self contradictory things, would this not be repugnant to the notion of an absolute possible, which is subject to the Devine Omnipotence? Is Frankfurt's contention actually a logical denial of Omnipotence?
Functionalism vs Physicalism
While acquiring knowledge on the topics of Functionalism and
Physicalism, I ran across many disagreement between the two. Interestingly,
those disagreements gave me an impression of different sides arguing with their
own support from their own theories. As if an Arabian and a Roman were arguing
about whether the number eleven is an "Arabic" number or a "Roman" number.
Though, as I read more and more of the readings (especially Putnam's), I started
to see a pattern that led me to think that maybe Functionalism is compatible with
Physicalism after all; that these two theories can coexist.
The claim above is based on the information gathered in the two readings
assigned and therefore, I should go step by step in order to arrive at my
conclusion that they can indeed coexist. First, I draw Ned Block's elaboration on
Metaphysical Functionalism as a start of my argument. As Block suggests,
Metaphysical Functionalism is mainly concern about what mental states are;
instead of a psychological explanation (Block, p. 172). Moreover, they concern
themselves with mental state type; not a specific token of the type. As in the case
of pain, they are concerned with a mental state called pain, and not of particular
pains (i.e. stomach-ache, pin-pricks, etc.). But, according to Putnam, if the
Physicalists does indeed attributes the name "physical states" to the enormous
number of mental states we humans have, then, I think it would be impossible for
them to be concerned only with the type and not the tokens. But once they started
to consider each specific pain (token), they will have to ascribe a different
physical-chemical state to each token-state. Ultimately, the common thing "to all
pains in virtue of which they are pains (Block, p. 172)" cannot be put in terms of a
single physical state. Recall that the same problem does not exist in the
consideration of Functionalism because Functionalism concern itself basically
with the causal relations between these tokens and not a particular one.
Therefore, the common thing that exists in Functionalism "to all pains in virtue of
which they are pains" is actually the function or the functional state that account
for all mental states type; and not a particular mental state token.
Therefore I conclude by suggesting that the disagreement (or the
incompatibility) between the two theories is actually a misunderstanding on each
side on their scope on studies. And while they do not conflict each other in the
same scope, I grant them their coexistence. (At least this is what I can dig up in
the readings!)
Physicalism, I ran across many disagreement between the two. Interestingly,
those disagreements gave me an impression of different sides arguing with their
own support from their own theories. As if an Arabian and a Roman were arguing
about whether the number eleven is an "Arabic" number or a "Roman" number.
Though, as I read more and more of the readings (especially Putnam's), I started
to see a pattern that led me to think that maybe Functionalism is compatible with
Physicalism after all; that these two theories can coexist.
The claim above is based on the information gathered in the two readings
assigned and therefore, I should go step by step in order to arrive at my
conclusion that they can indeed coexist. First, I draw Ned Block's elaboration on
Metaphysical Functionalism as a start of my argument. As Block suggests,
Metaphysical Functionalism is mainly concern about what mental states are;
instead of a psychological explanation (Block, p. 172). Moreover, they concern
themselves with mental state type; not a specific token of the type. As in the case
of pain, they are concerned with a mental state called pain, and not of particular
pains (i.e. stomach-ache, pin-pricks, etc.). But, according to Putnam, if the
Physicalists does indeed attributes the name "physical states" to the enormous
number of mental states we humans have, then, I think it would be impossible for
them to be concerned only with the type and not the tokens. But once they started
to consider each specific pain (token), they will have to ascribe a different
physical-chemical state to each token-state. Ultimately, the common thing "to all
pains in virtue of which they are pains (Block, p. 172)" cannot be put in terms of a
single physical state. Recall that the same problem does not exist in the
consideration of Functionalism because Functionalism concern itself basically
with the causal relations between these tokens and not a particular one.
Therefore, the common thing that exists in Functionalism "to all pains in virtue of
which they are pains" is actually the function or the functional state that account
for all mental states type; and not a particular mental state token.
Therefore I conclude by suggesting that the disagreement (or the
incompatibility) between the two theories is actually a misunderstanding on each
side on their scope on studies. And while they do not conflict each other in the
same scope, I grant them their coexistence. (At least this is what I can dig up in
the readings!)
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Zen in the Influence of the Sword
Zen's Influence on the Art of the Sword
Zen has long had a great influence upon Japanese culture. Many aspects of this culture are touched upon by Zen including art, literature, and specific ceremonies such as the one concerning tea. During the Kamakura period of Japan, another area of culture began to be affected by Zen; the martial arts of the samurai class.
Somewhere along the line, the samurai realized the ease with which the monks of Zen Buddhism dealt with issues such as mortality and then began to seek these methods of discipline for themselves for the purposes of becoming less concerned with their physical well-being. However, as D.T. Suzuki noted, it was "not mere recklessness, but self-abandonment, which is known in Buddhism as a state of egolessness." This is the ideal which the samurai warrior sought; a state of being wherein life and death were meaningless and all that he had to concern himself with was his duty to his master, or if he was ronin (rogue samurai without a master), with his duty to his own code of honor.
In order for the Zen master to pass on this state of mind to the eager to learn samurai, the master had to equate the state of mushin (empty mind and egolessness) with something familiar to the warrior. And what is more familiar to a warrior than his weapon, most often a sword such as a tachi (long-blade), katana, or iaito? From the first time that a samurai blade is picked up by its owner until the day the owner dies, it is his goal to so completely master the blade and make it as much a part of him as his own hand that there is seemingly no effort in using it. As stated by Takuan, a Zen master from the Tokugawa period, "you must follow the movement of the sword in the hands of the enemy, leaving your mind free to make its own counter-movement without your interfering deliberation." Herein lies the simplicity of Zen teaching in respect to all things, both exceptional and common; think not, merely do.
Zen has long had a great influence upon Japanese culture. Many aspects of this culture are touched upon by Zen including art, literature, and specific ceremonies such as the one concerning tea. During the Kamakura period of Japan, another area of culture began to be affected by Zen; the martial arts of the samurai class.
Somewhere along the line, the samurai realized the ease with which the monks of Zen Buddhism dealt with issues such as mortality and then began to seek these methods of discipline for themselves for the purposes of becoming less concerned with their physical well-being. However, as D.T. Suzuki noted, it was "not mere recklessness, but self-abandonment, which is known in Buddhism as a state of egolessness." This is the ideal which the samurai warrior sought; a state of being wherein life and death were meaningless and all that he had to concern himself with was his duty to his master, or if he was ronin (rogue samurai without a master), with his duty to his own code of honor.
In order for the Zen master to pass on this state of mind to the eager to learn samurai, the master had to equate the state of mushin (empty mind and egolessness) with something familiar to the warrior. And what is more familiar to a warrior than his weapon, most often a sword such as a tachi (long-blade), katana, or iaito? From the first time that a samurai blade is picked up by its owner until the day the owner dies, it is his goal to so completely master the blade and make it as much a part of him as his own hand that there is seemingly no effort in using it. As stated by Takuan, a Zen master from the Tokugawa period, "you must follow the movement of the sword in the hands of the enemy, leaving your mind free to make its own counter-movement without your interfering deliberation." Herein lies the simplicity of Zen teaching in respect to all things, both exceptional and common; think not, merely do.
none
Tom DinkelPeriod 5
The poet's use of mockery as diction conveys his disillusioned attitude toward the men that plan the battles without actually fighting in them. Using the words "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath," to describe the majors allows the reader to picture the majors as old, fat, out of shape men that spend their days "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel" safe from any danger. Fierce, bald and short of breath give the reader a negative feel for the majors as they are not described in any positive manner. These terms cause the reader to feel disgust for the majors. The poets use of the words guzzling and gulping with their alliterative effect cause the reader to consider the majors as gluttons gathered at the table. When the reader completes his mental picture of the majors in the best hotel, the imagery of glory hogs is complete. The poet's diction choice,
"Reading the Roll of Honor. 'Poor young chap, ' I'd say - ' I used to know his father well; Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap.' "
of casual language attempts to make the war seem carefree and nonchalant. The word "chap" conveys an casual attitude towards the heroes as people. It seems to elevate the status of the majors to a false superior position. "Scrap" makes it seems as if the soldier's death occurred on a playground, not a battlefield. It seems to trivialize war in general.
"And when the war is done and the youth stone dead,
I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed."
The poet's last lines give the reader an insight into the true wishes of the soldier. The youth stone dead allow the reader to acknowledge the finality of death and the wasted lives of the young soldiers while the old, fat men are allowed the luxury of living to old age and then dying in their own beds. "Toddle" is a word that not only describes the gait of the fat, old men but also the irony of the youth stone dead and the fat, old men waddling home. Through his use of mocking diction, the poet conveys his disgusted attitude towards the toddling old men dying in their beds while the good die young.
The poet's use of mockery as diction conveys his disillusioned attitude toward the men that plan the battles without actually fighting in them. Using the words "If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath," to describe the majors allows the reader to picture the majors as old, fat, out of shape men that spend their days "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel" safe from any danger. Fierce, bald and short of breath give the reader a negative feel for the majors as they are not described in any positive manner. These terms cause the reader to feel disgust for the majors. The poets use of the words guzzling and gulping with their alliterative effect cause the reader to consider the majors as gluttons gathered at the table. When the reader completes his mental picture of the majors in the best hotel, the imagery of glory hogs is complete. The poet's diction choice,
"Reading the Roll of Honor. 'Poor young chap, ' I'd say - ' I used to know his father well; Yes, we've lost heavily in this last scrap.' "
of casual language attempts to make the war seem carefree and nonchalant. The word "chap" conveys an casual attitude towards the heroes as people. It seems to elevate the status of the majors to a false superior position. "Scrap" makes it seems as if the soldier's death occurred on a playground, not a battlefield. It seems to trivialize war in general.
"And when the war is done and the youth stone dead,
I'd toddle safely home and die - in bed."
The poet's last lines give the reader an insight into the true wishes of the soldier. The youth stone dead allow the reader to acknowledge the finality of death and the wasted lives of the young soldiers while the old, fat men are allowed the luxury of living to old age and then dying in their own beds. "Toddle" is a word that not only describes the gait of the fat, old men but also the irony of the youth stone dead and the fat, old men waddling home. Through his use of mocking diction, the poet conveys his disgusted attitude towards the toddling old men dying in their beds while the good die young.
Machiavelli
MACHIAVELLI
Machiavelli's views revolved around the ideas that one must do anything within his (Machiavelli did not refer to 'her') power to keep the influence and power that he has attained. For him, anything that must be done in order not to lose the influence and the power that one has should be done without question. "The ends justifies the means", he said. The power of one that rules must be kept by keeping the people in constant fear. Without the fear in the people, the trust that they have in their leader will whither and they will start to look for other leaders to take the place of the one that they believe to be weak.
Machiavelli thought that the importance of this tactic should override all others. Although, he believed in emanating a sense of fear to the people that were being ruled, he also believed that without the people, the ruler or leader is worthless and will be overcome. One must have support of the people, while constantly keeping them in check with the rules and regulations that he has set.
These thoughts today would be looked at as dictatorial and likened with the beliefs and felling of such hated groups as the Nazis. In today's system, societies that have been lead by rulers with such a mentality have not lasted very long. It seems that these days the general populace have much less tolerance for those rulers that believe in doing anything for the sake of themselves and supposedly the society at large. I believe that such rulers today are not tolerated (and should not be tolerated) There is no room for this type of thinking in modern day life. Respect is another factor that was very important to Machiavelli and his way of thinking. The Prince, as Machiavelli stated, must do anything to keep his respect with the people, but at the same time to make sure that he has ultimate control. I believe that so much control by one person will ultimately lead to war and the demise of the society. How can one person with so much power and latitude in decision making possible benefit the society, In fact, they are not even benefiting themselves in that they are the ones who ultimately stand to lose when the people in the society realize that they are being taken advantage of for the good of one person.
Word Count: 405
Machiavelli's views revolved around the ideas that one must do anything within his (Machiavelli did not refer to 'her') power to keep the influence and power that he has attained. For him, anything that must be done in order not to lose the influence and the power that one has should be done without question. "The ends justifies the means", he said. The power of one that rules must be kept by keeping the people in constant fear. Without the fear in the people, the trust that they have in their leader will whither and they will start to look for other leaders to take the place of the one that they believe to be weak.
Machiavelli thought that the importance of this tactic should override all others. Although, he believed in emanating a sense of fear to the people that were being ruled, he also believed that without the people, the ruler or leader is worthless and will be overcome. One must have support of the people, while constantly keeping them in check with the rules and regulations that he has set.
These thoughts today would be looked at as dictatorial and likened with the beliefs and felling of such hated groups as the Nazis. In today's system, societies that have been lead by rulers with such a mentality have not lasted very long. It seems that these days the general populace have much less tolerance for those rulers that believe in doing anything for the sake of themselves and supposedly the society at large. I believe that such rulers today are not tolerated (and should not be tolerated) There is no room for this type of thinking in modern day life. Respect is another factor that was very important to Machiavelli and his way of thinking. The Prince, as Machiavelli stated, must do anything to keep his respect with the people, but at the same time to make sure that he has ultimate control. I believe that so much control by one person will ultimately lead to war and the demise of the society. How can one person with so much power and latitude in decision making possible benefit the society, In fact, they are not even benefiting themselves in that they are the ones who ultimately stand to lose when the people in the society realize that they are being taken advantage of for the good of one person.
Word Count: 405
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
The Uncontrollable Force
People would like to believe they can accomplish everything they want in life. In reality,
it is just a positive way of thinking. It would be nice to believe that a person could do
anything if he puts his mind to it, this way of thinking is not reality. People are victims
of greater forces. The force is not a force of God or magic. The force are our
environemnt, our Biological instinct, and our inheritied characteritics. This philosophy is
called naturalism and it is used in oneil's play "Beyond the Horizon". The phliophy of
naturalism has its merit and affect real people everyday. Naturalism affects the way
people live and the lives they affect.
One of the major factors of a persons life is his environent. A persons
surroundings affects how they live, how they think, and how he sees his own life. Sure
America is the land of oppurtunity. But not everyone has the same oppurtunity as others.
A person living in the Ghetto seems to have less of it than a person living in a rich
neigborhood.
A young boy could be at the top of his life. He is ready to conquer the world. He
is ready to go to west point to study to be the best soldier in the world. When his
physical come back they tell him he has a weak heart. He then finds out he got it from
his father. It is nice to believe that a five foot hudred and fifty five pound boy could play
in the NBA. But his chance are slim to none. Michael Jordans son has a better cance
than makeing pro than anyone else. Just like how a rocket scientist son would like to be
smarter than everyone else.
This way of thinking is very negative but is true. We have very little control of
what happen to our lives.
it is just a positive way of thinking. It would be nice to believe that a person could do
anything if he puts his mind to it, this way of thinking is not reality. People are victims
of greater forces. The force is not a force of God or magic. The force are our
environemnt, our Biological instinct, and our inheritied characteritics. This philosophy is
called naturalism and it is used in oneil's play "Beyond the Horizon". The phliophy of
naturalism has its merit and affect real people everyday. Naturalism affects the way
people live and the lives they affect.
One of the major factors of a persons life is his environent. A persons
surroundings affects how they live, how they think, and how he sees his own life. Sure
America is the land of oppurtunity. But not everyone has the same oppurtunity as others.
A person living in the Ghetto seems to have less of it than a person living in a rich
neigborhood.
A young boy could be at the top of his life. He is ready to conquer the world. He
is ready to go to west point to study to be the best soldier in the world. When his
physical come back they tell him he has a weak heart. He then finds out he got it from
his father. It is nice to believe that a five foot hudred and fifty five pound boy could play
in the NBA. But his chance are slim to none. Michael Jordans son has a better cance
than makeing pro than anyone else. Just like how a rocket scientist son would like to be
smarter than everyone else.
This way of thinking is very negative but is true. We have very little control of
what happen to our lives.
Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution
Tale of Two Cities Essay on the Roots of Revolution
The roots of the revolution, according to Dickens, are rapacious license and oppression by the nobility. "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar manners, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind" - P347, Book III, Ch15. Dickens, who lived in England where there were many unjust punishments and immoral actions by high ranking officials, was basically saying that the things that fueled the revolution in France, the crushing of humanity and rapacious license and oppression, if used in a similar manner somewhere else would have the same result. In this case he was probably thinking of his native country of England, but in truth it could happen in any country that practiced the same methods that France did.
The peasants in France were beaten down by the nobility and treated like the scum of the earth for many years. It is surprising that the revolution did not occur sooner than it did. It is presumable that the reason that the French revolution was so bloody is that it was so long in coming. The rage and hatred just kept building and then it finally popped. Like blowing up a balloon, it will pop and all the air will gome rushing out at once after too long but you can let the air out gradually through the place where you blow it. If the nobility has lessened the oppression and created more humane environment then they probably would not have lost their heads. The strength and will power of the poor is far greater than that of others and the peasantry in France clearly had a greater will and strength than the nobility. ""There is prodigious strength.........in sorrow and despair" Pg.306, Dr. Manette
The roots of the revolution, according to Dickens, are rapacious license and oppression by the nobility. "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar manners, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind" - P347, Book III, Ch15. Dickens, who lived in England where there were many unjust punishments and immoral actions by high ranking officials, was basically saying that the things that fueled the revolution in France, the crushing of humanity and rapacious license and oppression, if used in a similar manner somewhere else would have the same result. In this case he was probably thinking of his native country of England, but in truth it could happen in any country that practiced the same methods that France did.
The peasants in France were beaten down by the nobility and treated like the scum of the earth for many years. It is surprising that the revolution did not occur sooner than it did. It is presumable that the reason that the French revolution was so bloody is that it was so long in coming. The rage and hatred just kept building and then it finally popped. Like blowing up a balloon, it will pop and all the air will gome rushing out at once after too long but you can let the air out gradually through the place where you blow it. If the nobility has lessened the oppression and created more humane environment then they probably would not have lost their heads. The strength and will power of the poor is far greater than that of others and the peasantry in France clearly had a greater will and strength than the nobility. ""There is prodigious strength.........in sorrow and despair" Pg.306, Dr. Manette
Socrates
Erika Hall
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
Socrates 2
Erika Hall
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
516-78-2200
Philosophy 120
Paper #1
Socrates Believes that psychic harmony is the greatest good, and that the result of it is moral (rational) behavior. He also believes that if you have a healthy body and soul then you are in psychic harmony with yourself. He says that this is good intrinsically and instrumentally. Which means that it is good for its own sake and the sake of the consequences. Therefore, immoral behavior is a result of an unbalanced personality and leads to irrational behavior. Psychic harmony is a psychological condition and makes one moral, which according to Socrates is a social condition. Psychic harmony has no motivation. You either have it or you don't. Moral behavior comes from your own beliefs and desires. If one is bad or unjust in the social sense it is because of their sensuality, greed, or vanity. This is because of a disordered psychological condition. According to Socrates where there is "psychic harmony," the motives for injustice in the social sense will be eliminated.
I believe that Socrates is correct. If you are at peace with yourself you are also morally right towards society. Those that aren't are usually immoral and don't do what is considered right by others. I do not think it is possible to be in psychic harmony and yet act immoral. It may be possible, however, that if one is immoral, and wishes to be moral, they could learn to be in psychic harmony if they really wanted it.
reflections on liberation
Reflections on Liberation
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
1) Right understanding [12]
In following this path one would not experience feelings of envy or arrogance
2) Right thought or motives [15]
Kindness towards the unenlightened brings a selfless mind set for both
3) Right speech [13-14]
Rebuff the urge to speak wickedly for true peace of mind
4) Right action [9]
Having a clear understanding of the fools mentality leads your actions opposite
5) Right livelihood [28-29]
Reside within free space, live within your mind, do not possess greedily
6) Right effort [3]
One must give up desires in order to gain free mind
7) Right mindfulness [38]
Untroubled solitude of the mind suppresses distractions by allowing total awareness of them
8) Right meditation [33]
When the mind is stilled such as at the occurrence of birth and death, one is truly alone and all is perceived clearly
By zonk
Persuasive Essay Overpopulation
Persuasive Essay
Overpopulation
Overpopulation is becoming one of the most preeminent problems
facing human civilization. This complicated, pervasive issue will come to be
a problem of the utmost importance for people of all races, religions, and
nationalities.
Our planet now provides for approximately 5.8 billion people, with
projections of around 10 billion by the year 2050. Two billion of these are
extremely poor, the poorest of which live in absolute poverty and misery.
One very serious effect of the population explosion is its detrimental
effects on the global environment. Increasing amounts of food, energy,
water, and shelter are required to fulfill the needs of human society. Much
of our energy is derived from the burning of fossil fuels-releasing millions
of metric tons of toxins into the atmosphere annually. The amount of land
required for food production will grow increasingly larger, while the amount
of available land will grow increasingly smaller.
The affects of overpopulation on human society are many. Suffering
from a lack of resources, people are often driven to war when they become
too numerous for their available resources. Ethnic and racial differences will
grow increasingly frequent and unresolvable. Increasing numbers in urban
areas will lower quality of life in cities around the world.
The precipitators of this complex issue are unlimited. Factors such
as poverty, food distribution, and government corruption are all important
aspects. No one will be unaffected by the repercussions of an
overpopulated world. This highly sensitive and complex issue demands the
attention of all who reside upon this planet, particularly those who have the
ability to work for change.
Overpopulation
Overpopulation is becoming one of the most preeminent problems
facing human civilization. This complicated, pervasive issue will come to be
a problem of the utmost importance for people of all races, religions, and
nationalities.
Our planet now provides for approximately 5.8 billion people, with
projections of around 10 billion by the year 2050. Two billion of these are
extremely poor, the poorest of which live in absolute poverty and misery.
One very serious effect of the population explosion is its detrimental
effects on the global environment. Increasing amounts of food, energy,
water, and shelter are required to fulfill the needs of human society. Much
of our energy is derived from the burning of fossil fuels-releasing millions
of metric tons of toxins into the atmosphere annually. The amount of land
required for food production will grow increasingly larger, while the amount
of available land will grow increasingly smaller.
The affects of overpopulation on human society are many. Suffering
from a lack of resources, people are often driven to war when they become
too numerous for their available resources. Ethnic and racial differences will
grow increasingly frequent and unresolvable. Increasing numbers in urban
areas will lower quality of life in cities around the world.
The precipitators of this complex issue are unlimited. Factors such
as poverty, food distribution, and government corruption are all important
aspects. No one will be unaffected by the repercussions of an
overpopulated world. This highly sensitive and complex issue demands the
attention of all who reside upon this planet, particularly those who have the
ability to work for change.
Personal Identity
Personal Identity
8th March, 1997
Dear Diary
Today in class we had a brief discussion of what personal identity is. I didn't get a chance to speak out my thoughts and opinions so I felt like to share it with you.
Personal identity is what I see myself as, positively or negatively.
It could be argued but most people think they are at what called the "Good" side even though he is a brutal killer. Word from a retired warden. Over 80% of the prisoners ready to be executed still believes they are innocent.
The way one sees things and their judgement is varied by ones own personal identity. This is the combination, result of many factors. Like the majority of our physical appearances is already destined since the moment of our conception, of course, there are also other factors such as nutrition and environment.
Everyone's personal identity should be changing everyday, every moment by the building up of their intelligence and experiences. In the earlier stage, our personal identity is solely from our parents. This includes: heredity, culture background and the environment. As you grow older, fewer influences will come from your parents but more from your friends, peers and teacher. Due to the fact most people want a place to belong to (not necessary be a location), and want to have friends, we'll sometimes alter our decision and benefits to just fit into a group.
When getting into the middle age, the biggest influences will probably come from your work, religion and friends still. As you can see friend plays a very big part in everyone's life.
Personal identity plays a major part in my quest for self-knowledge, but its up to me to choose my own identity.
God created all men equally, but it is up to us to determine whom we ultimately want to be.
8th March, 1997
Dear Diary
Today in class we had a brief discussion of what personal identity is. I didn't get a chance to speak out my thoughts and opinions so I felt like to share it with you.
Personal identity is what I see myself as, positively or negatively.
It could be argued but most people think they are at what called the "Good" side even though he is a brutal killer. Word from a retired warden. Over 80% of the prisoners ready to be executed still believes they are innocent.
The way one sees things and their judgement is varied by ones own personal identity. This is the combination, result of many factors. Like the majority of our physical appearances is already destined since the moment of our conception, of course, there are also other factors such as nutrition and environment.
Everyone's personal identity should be changing everyday, every moment by the building up of their intelligence and experiences. In the earlier stage, our personal identity is solely from our parents. This includes: heredity, culture background and the environment. As you grow older, fewer influences will come from your parents but more from your friends, peers and teacher. Due to the fact most people want a place to belong to (not necessary be a location), and want to have friends, we'll sometimes alter our decision and benefits to just fit into a group.
When getting into the middle age, the biggest influences will probably come from your work, religion and friends still. As you can see friend plays a very big part in everyone's life.
Personal identity plays a major part in my quest for self-knowledge, but its up to me to choose my own identity.
God created all men equally, but it is up to us to determine whom we ultimately want to be.
Is there a God or is HE an illusion
Topic: Philosophy of Religion
Thesis: Is there a God or is He(?) an illusion?
Bibliography:
Benedict Spinoza - rationalist
Freidrick Schleiermacher - religion
Sigmund Freud - atheist
An illusion is one's own interpretation and perception of someone or
something. It can be a strong belief or a wish. They are not necessarily
false or errors.
The strength of the illusion lies in the strength of wish fulfillment.
For example - People, at first, interpret phenomena's according to their
experience and knowledge of their every day life. They project their own
character into the circumstance presented and regard it as somehow "ensouled".
Such indefinite notions are transformed into a distinct conception of a
higher order than human beings, and yet somehow resembling them.
As it may seem, humans have a metaphysical (speculative) need for a Supreme
Being. God, as we call him. He is the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator
of the Universe, and the ultimate power. We present him with human
characteristics in all concepts of God, which has led me to believe that
it is not God who created man in His image, but man who creates God in his.
Religion is one such need based on myth and spiritualism. People are taught
about their religion at a young age, and when they grow up they attempt to
account for things using the notion of their religion as the basis for their
speculations.
On the other hand, there is no truth so certain as the existence of God.
He is the groundwork of all our hopes, and our foundation of morality and
society. Nothing exists without a cause. Although we can't demonstrate
a soul-substance and the immortality of a soul, or demonstrate anything
concerning the nature of God, there is still a dependency on him, so that
we cannot ascribe a personality to God, in the case that it would make him
finite.
God is the universe conceived as an eternal and necessary unity.
Thesis: Is there a God or is He(?) an illusion?
Bibliography:
Benedict Spinoza - rationalist
Freidrick Schleiermacher - religion
Sigmund Freud - atheist
An illusion is one's own interpretation and perception of someone or
something. It can be a strong belief or a wish. They are not necessarily
false or errors.
The strength of the illusion lies in the strength of wish fulfillment.
For example - People, at first, interpret phenomena's according to their
experience and knowledge of their every day life. They project their own
character into the circumstance presented and regard it as somehow "ensouled".
Such indefinite notions are transformed into a distinct conception of a
higher order than human beings, and yet somehow resembling them.
As it may seem, humans have a metaphysical (speculative) need for a Supreme
Being. God, as we call him. He is the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator
of the Universe, and the ultimate power. We present him with human
characteristics in all concepts of God, which has led me to believe that
it is not God who created man in His image, but man who creates God in his.
Religion is one such need based on myth and spiritualism. People are taught
about their religion at a young age, and when they grow up they attempt to
account for things using the notion of their religion as the basis for their
speculations.
On the other hand, there is no truth so certain as the existence of God.
He is the groundwork of all our hopes, and our foundation of morality and
society. Nothing exists without a cause. Although we can't demonstrate
a soul-substance and the immortality of a soul, or demonstrate anything
concerning the nature of God, there is still a dependency on him, so that
we cannot ascribe a personality to God, in the case that it would make him
finite.
God is the universe conceived as an eternal and necessary unity.
Hooked on Ebonics
15 Feb 97 dayz:
Today's Lesson:
Hooked on Ebonics:
Leroy is a 20 year old 9th grader. This be Leroy's homework assignment. He must use each vocabulary word in a sentence.
Foreclose:
If I pay alimony this month, I'll have no money foreclose.
Rectum:
I once had two cadillacs, but my ol' lady rectum.
Hotel:
I gave my girlfriend the crabs and the hotel everyone.
Disappointment:
My parole officer tol me if I miss disappointment, they gonna send me back to the big house.
Penis:
I went to da doctor and he handed me a cup and said penis.
Israel:
Alonso tried to sell me a Rolex. I said, man that looks fake. He said "bullshit" that watch Israel.
Catacomb:
Don King was at the fight the other night, man somebody oughta give dat catacomb.
Undermine:
There is a fine lookin hoe living in the apartment undermine.
Acoustic:
When I was liddle, my uncle bought me acoustic and took me to da pool hall.
Iraq:
When I got to da pool hall, I tol my uncle Iraq, you break.
Stain:
My mother-in-law stopped by and I axed her" Do you plan on stain for dinner"
Seldom:
My cousin gave me two tickets to the Nicks game, so I seldom.
Honor:
At the rape trial, the Judge axed my buddy who be honor first.
Odyssey:
I tol my brother, you odyssey the tits on that hoe.
Axe:
The policeman wanted to axe me some questions.
Tripoli:
I was gonna buy my ol' lady a bra for her birthday, but I couldn't find a Tripoli.
Fortify:
I asked the hoe how much? She said "fortify"
Income:
I just got in bed with da hoe and income my wife.
Today's Lesson:
Hooked on Ebonics:
Leroy is a 20 year old 9th grader. This be Leroy's homework assignment. He must use each vocabulary word in a sentence.
Foreclose:
If I pay alimony this month, I'll have no money foreclose.
Rectum:
I once had two cadillacs, but my ol' lady rectum.
Hotel:
I gave my girlfriend the crabs and the hotel everyone.
Disappointment:
My parole officer tol me if I miss disappointment, they gonna send me back to the big house.
Penis:
I went to da doctor and he handed me a cup and said penis.
Israel:
Alonso tried to sell me a Rolex. I said, man that looks fake. He said "bullshit" that watch Israel.
Catacomb:
Don King was at the fight the other night, man somebody oughta give dat catacomb.
Undermine:
There is a fine lookin hoe living in the apartment undermine.
Acoustic:
When I was liddle, my uncle bought me acoustic and took me to da pool hall.
Iraq:
When I got to da pool hall, I tol my uncle Iraq, you break.
Stain:
My mother-in-law stopped by and I axed her" Do you plan on stain for dinner"
Seldom:
My cousin gave me two tickets to the Nicks game, so I seldom.
Honor:
At the rape trial, the Judge axed my buddy who be honor first.
Odyssey:
I tol my brother, you odyssey the tits on that hoe.
Axe:
The policeman wanted to axe me some questions.
Tripoli:
I was gonna buy my ol' lady a bra for her birthday, but I couldn't find a Tripoli.
Fortify:
I asked the hoe how much? She said "fortify"
Income:
I just got in bed with da hoe and income my wife.
Happiness
The standard definition of happiness is that it is a condition of supreme well-being and good spirits. There can be many definitions of the word happiness. It can be applied to many examples. Many people are often in search of happiness.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
One meaning can be explained when someone tells a joke. If one finds the joke funny, they laugh. This condition of happiness is the most temporary one, for it only lasts a moment. No one will be affected deeply into their emotions by a joke. It is more like a comical relief.
Another way of happiness is when something good happens to someone. Maybe getting a good grade on a test or getting a raise at work. This kind of happiness usually comes from personal accomplishment. One will be happy if they know they did something good. They do not necessarily have to be rewarded to feel happy. For example, some people find happiness in just living a good life, a life of piety.
Often, people may find happiness in the simplest of things. Maybe being alone in nature or playing with a puppy will provide happiness. One may or may not show their feeling of happiness. Sometimes their happiness is just a feeling of contentment, while other times they may actually be smiling. Lifelong happiness is something many people strive to achieve.
Freud View On The Nature Of Man
Human Nature Is Inherently Bad
There are many theories as to Human nature. One of
Which exists, under the thoughts of a prominent philosopher, and founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud.
His deductive argument, entails his conclusion that man is bad, or as Freud explains it as Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man).
Freud justification for such a drastic approach type conclusion, can by described as basically atrocities of the century Freud lived in. In example the invasion of the Huns, as a brutal entity designed to portray Man's innately evil nature. And the atrocities of the First World War.
Freud's view of Man is an evil one. And that all Men are innately evil and aggression lies within the human as a part of his nature.
Our inclination to aggression is apparent in one's relation with his neighbor and is apparent in everyday casual behavior. Freud also states that as a civilized society we use violence only on criminals and that the law is not able to prosecute the more careful, and smaller aggression of man which can sometimes be just as evil.
Freud also introduces the restrictions set forth by civilization to control the aggressive inclinations of Man (used in the plural sense).
Freud's argument is comprised of factually correct statements ( for his time ). His premises are accepted by many leading Psychologists' today. However the notion that Man is innately evil does not sit well with me and probably not with most optimists, such as myself. His argument's conclusion is well supported and his premises meet the conditions of a deductive argument with relevance and grounds. This argument can be understood as a dedu
There are many theories as to Human nature. One of
Which exists, under the thoughts of a prominent philosopher, and founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud.
His deductive argument, entails his conclusion that man is bad, or as Freud explains it as Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man).
Freud justification for such a drastic approach type conclusion, can by described as basically atrocities of the century Freud lived in. In example the invasion of the Huns, as a brutal entity designed to portray Man's innately evil nature. And the atrocities of the First World War.
Freud's view of Man is an evil one. And that all Men are innately evil and aggression lies within the human as a part of his nature.
Our inclination to aggression is apparent in one's relation with his neighbor and is apparent in everyday casual behavior. Freud also states that as a civilized society we use violence only on criminals and that the law is not able to prosecute the more careful, and smaller aggression of man which can sometimes be just as evil.
Freud also introduces the restrictions set forth by civilization to control the aggressive inclinations of Man (used in the plural sense).
Freud's argument is comprised of factually correct statements ( for his time ). His premises are accepted by many leading Psychologists' today. However the notion that Man is innately evil does not sit well with me and probably not with most optimists, such as myself. His argument's conclusion is well supported and his premises meet the conditions of a deductive argument with relevance and grounds. This argument can be understood as a dedu
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
freewill and determinism conflict choice
We ought then regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its previous state and the
cause of the one which is to follow. An intelligence knowing at a given instant of time all the
forces operating in nature, as well as the position at that instant of all things of which the
universe consists, would be able to comprehend the motions of the largest bodies in the universe
and those of the smallest atoms in a single formula - provided that it was sufficiently powerful to
submit all these data analysis. To it nothing would be uncertain and the future would be present
to its eyes as much as the past.
This passage comes from P.S. de Laplace's "Philosophical Essay on Probabilities." If such
determinism is true, then everyone's every thought and action must be inevitable; that no
one really has any choice about anything, because we are all helpless products of blind
forces which have made us what we are. In this paper concerning the free will and
determinism debate I will argue that determinism is not plausible, I shall do this by giving
reasons for determining how determinism is false, give arguments for determinism, and
then refute those arguments.
There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are
others who presume "we are servants of cosmic destiny or that behavior is nothing but a
reflex of heredity and environment." The position of determinism is that every event is
the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes. That everything is a consequence of
external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Man is not free. If we accept
the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors
rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior
leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really
responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism
were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make
an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then
one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on
deterministic grounds. "The nature of human life may be such that man must understand
himself as being free, for human life as we know it would not make much sense without
the concept of freedom." The challenge and struggle usually emerge from situations,
such as helping to recycle or reaching out to youths in inner city projects, in which
individuals feel that their effort can make a difference.
In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what
we are going to eat for breakfast, or where we are going to walk. When we talk or write,
we are deciding on the arrangement of our thoughts, and we have to search for the right
expressions. Our life, while we are awake and active, is a mixture of important and
unimportant choices. Having free will means that we are able to act voluntarily, that we
could have decided to act differently than we did. When someone is criticized for looking
sloppy, or making an offensive remark, he may try to excuse himself with a "I could not
help it" remark. But if he is a normal person mentally, then he could have helped it; he
could have acted differently. "The great American pragmatist William James in his famous
essay 'The Dilemma of Determinism,' James rejects determinism on the grounds that there
is no free choice. James appealed to direct experience to provide evidence of the
existence of free choice." Feelings which we all have such as regret or remorse makes no
sense unless there is free will. People experience regret or sorrow only because they
believe they could have done otherwise. If determinism were true, then people could
never have done otherwise and there should be no reason to feel any regret.
A determinist may argue that human behavior is caused by environment conditions,
general trends, circumstances, and social economic forces beyond human effort and will.
"Freudians have shown that men do things not because of free choice but because of deep
unconscious forces and libidinal energy or sexual drives. Darwin described man as a product of
evolution, as any animal is; Marx showed how man is shaped by economic forces over which he
has no control; and behaviorist psychologist explained human behavior of evidence in favor of
deterministic thesis."
Determinist believes that people believe they are free only because they're ignorant of the
causes of their actions. Spinoza makes that point when he says, "Men are deceived in
thinking themselves free, a belief that consists of the causes by which they are
determined." He continues: "In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is
determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another
cause, ad infinitum." All of his philosophy reflected the deterministic view that we are
not free to change the world because we are all part of a grand causal chain, but his
philosophy also claims the idea that if we accept determinism we free ourselves from
ignorance and emotional servitude. If a person has the capacity to free himself from the
bondage of ignorance and emotional impulses and come to agree with Spinoza, then this
would seem to be a very significant type of freedom. So it can be concluded that Spinoza
was saying something absurd or that he understood the reality and value of freedom.
Human experience over the course of history does rely itself on freedom.
If determinism is true, why should people bother deliberating about what to do or
deciding and choose seriously? If determinism is true, then whatever is determined to
happen by the past history of the universe is going to happen. A person's biography was
written before he or she was born, so there's no sense in making an effort. Whatever will
be will be, whatever the person do or don't do. So then why even bother getting out of
bed?
Anthony Flew, Western Philosophy (New York: Bobb_Merrill Company, 1971), p. 223.
Thomas Ellis Katen, Doing Philosophy (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1973), p. 321.
Ibid., p. 386.
Ibid., p. 315.
Spinoza. The Ethics. Part 2, proposition 35, sholium.
Ibid., proposition 48.
cause of the one which is to follow. An intelligence knowing at a given instant of time all the
forces operating in nature, as well as the position at that instant of all things of which the
universe consists, would be able to comprehend the motions of the largest bodies in the universe
and those of the smallest atoms in a single formula - provided that it was sufficiently powerful to
submit all these data analysis. To it nothing would be uncertain and the future would be present
to its eyes as much as the past.
This passage comes from P.S. de Laplace's "Philosophical Essay on Probabilities." If such
determinism is true, then everyone's every thought and action must be inevitable; that no
one really has any choice about anything, because we are all helpless products of blind
forces which have made us what we are. In this paper concerning the free will and
determinism debate I will argue that determinism is not plausible, I shall do this by giving
reasons for determining how determinism is false, give arguments for determinism, and
then refute those arguments.
There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are
others who presume "we are servants of cosmic destiny or that behavior is nothing but a
reflex of heredity and environment." The position of determinism is that every event is
the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes. That everything is a consequence of
external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Man is not free. If we accept
the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors
rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior
leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really
responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism
were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make
an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then
one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on
deterministic grounds. "The nature of human life may be such that man must understand
himself as being free, for human life as we know it would not make much sense without
the concept of freedom." The challenge and struggle usually emerge from situations,
such as helping to recycle or reaching out to youths in inner city projects, in which
individuals feel that their effort can make a difference.
In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what
we are going to eat for breakfast, or where we are going to walk. When we talk or write,
we are deciding on the arrangement of our thoughts, and we have to search for the right
expressions. Our life, while we are awake and active, is a mixture of important and
unimportant choices. Having free will means that we are able to act voluntarily, that we
could have decided to act differently than we did. When someone is criticized for looking
sloppy, or making an offensive remark, he may try to excuse himself with a "I could not
help it" remark. But if he is a normal person mentally, then he could have helped it; he
could have acted differently. "The great American pragmatist William James in his famous
essay 'The Dilemma of Determinism,' James rejects determinism on the grounds that there
is no free choice. James appealed to direct experience to provide evidence of the
existence of free choice." Feelings which we all have such as regret or remorse makes no
sense unless there is free will. People experience regret or sorrow only because they
believe they could have done otherwise. If determinism were true, then people could
never have done otherwise and there should be no reason to feel any regret.
A determinist may argue that human behavior is caused by environment conditions,
general trends, circumstances, and social economic forces beyond human effort and will.
"Freudians have shown that men do things not because of free choice but because of deep
unconscious forces and libidinal energy or sexual drives. Darwin described man as a product of
evolution, as any animal is; Marx showed how man is shaped by economic forces over which he
has no control; and behaviorist psychologist explained human behavior of evidence in favor of
deterministic thesis."
Determinist believes that people believe they are free only because they're ignorant of the
causes of their actions. Spinoza makes that point when he says, "Men are deceived in
thinking themselves free, a belief that consists of the causes by which they are
determined." He continues: "In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is
determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another
cause, ad infinitum." All of his philosophy reflected the deterministic view that we are
not free to change the world because we are all part of a grand causal chain, but his
philosophy also claims the idea that if we accept determinism we free ourselves from
ignorance and emotional servitude. If a person has the capacity to free himself from the
bondage of ignorance and emotional impulses and come to agree with Spinoza, then this
would seem to be a very significant type of freedom. So it can be concluded that Spinoza
was saying something absurd or that he understood the reality and value of freedom.
Human experience over the course of history does rely itself on freedom.
If determinism is true, why should people bother deliberating about what to do or
deciding and choose seriously? If determinism is true, then whatever is determined to
happen by the past history of the universe is going to happen. A person's biography was
written before he or she was born, so there's no sense in making an effort. Whatever will
be will be, whatever the person do or don't do. So then why even bother getting out of
bed?
Anthony Flew, Western Philosophy (New York: Bobb_Merrill Company, 1971), p. 223.
Thomas Ellis Katen, Doing Philosophy (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1973), p. 321.
Ibid., p. 386.
Ibid., p. 315.
Spinoza. The Ethics. Part 2, proposition 35, sholium.
Ibid., proposition 48.
freedom and reason in Kant
Alice Furnari 24 /2/97
Freedom and Reason in Kant
Morality, Kant says, cannot be regarded as a set of rules which prescribe the means necessary to the achievement of a given end; its rules must be obeyed without consideration of the consequences that will follow from doing so or not. A principle that presupposes a desired object as the determinant of the will cannot give rise to a moral law; that is, the morality of an act of will cannot be determined by the matter or content of the will for when the will is materially determined the question of its morality does not arise.
This consideration leads Kant to one of his most important theses. If the moral character of willing is not determined by the content of what is willed, it must be determined by the form:" If a rational being can think of his maxims as universal laws, he can do so only by considering them as principles which contain the determining ground of the will because of their form and not because of their matter". Therefore, the morality of a maxim is determined by its functioning as a universal law, applicable as a general rule to every rational agent.
Since a moral will must be so in virtue of its form alone, the will must be capable of a purely formal determination; that is, it must be possible for a man to act in a certain way for the sole reason that willing in this way is prescribed by a universal law, no matter what the empirical results will be.
A will to which moral considerations apply must be, in the strictest sense, a free will, one that can function independently of the laws of natural causality. The concept of morality, therefore, has to be explained in terms of a universal moral law, and the ability to will in obedience to such a law leads us to postulate the freedom.
The freedom which Kant is talking about, is not only a negative freedom consisting in the absence of constraint by empirical causes, it is also a positive freedom which consists in the ability to make acts of will in accordance with the moral law, for no other reason than that they are in accordance with it.
Freedom, in this sense, corresponds to Autonomy of the will and its absence ( any situation in which the will is determined by external causes ) is called Heteronomy.
In obeying the moral law for the sake of the law alone, the will is autonomous because it is obeying a law which it imposes on itself.
In the third section of the "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals", Kant answers the problem of the possibility of the Categorical Imperative. Is the problem to be understood as if the Categorical Imperative is possible, or how it is possible?
In the "Critics of Pure Reason", the problem regarding the synthetic a priori judgments concerns just the modality in which they can be applied. The fact that they are actually possible is proved by the synthetic a priori judgment contained in sciences as mathematics and physics which are trustworthy sciences.
Metaphysics, however, is not a reliable science and, therefore, Kant suggests that we should look not only for the modality in which they can be applied, but also for their reliability. Similarly, the Metaphysics of Morals must prove the validity of the moral imperative. As Paton suggested, Kant tries to show not only how the Categorical Imperative is possible, but also that it is possible.[" Furthermore, we have not asserted the truth of this proposition, much less professed to have within our power a proof of it. We simply showed by developing the universally accepted concept of morality, that autonomy of the will is unavoidably bound up with it, or rather is its very foundation" par. 445].
The condition for the possibility of the Categorical Imperative is Freedom.
The third section contains a demonstration of Freedom which Kant tries to derive by means of excluding at least other two ways.
A first would be to assert that Freedom is experienced by us, that it is sensed, but this is not the truthful one, because experience would be the one of my personal freedom and Kant wants to demonstrate that every rational being is free , in order to infer that every rational being must obey the Categorical Imperative.
A second way would be to show that every rational being has at least the idea of Freedom, i.e. he is convinced to act according to reason, not only under instincts; he is persuaded to act in this way, because he sees that acting this way is right, because he is determined by his reason and not only by blind instincts. But, if a rational being had the idea of freedom, but were not really free, he would be mistaken even about his reasonableness; he would think he were acting for some reasons, whilst he would actually be like a robot. But, as we saw before, being aware of being rational means being aware of the necessity of acting in accordance with a law , and what we are trying to do is to justify this necessity.
Surely, if we consider ourselves to be free, we acknowledge ourselves obliged to follow the moral law, and if we consider ourselves obliged to follow the moral law is because we think of ourselves as free. But there seems to be a vicious circle because, until now, it has been demonstrated neither that we are obliged to follow the law, independently from the conviction of being free, nor that we are free, independently from the belief of being subject to the law.
We still have to prove that the Categorical Imperative is possible.
There is still a way open to us: " To inquire whether we do not take one point of view when ,by means of Freedom, we think of ourselves as a priori efficient causes, and another point of view when we represent ourselves reference to our actions as effects which we see before our eyes" [par. 450].
The point of view of Freedom is the one from which we consider ourselves belonging to the intellectual world. Everyone understands the distinction between the sensible world and the intellectual world through this criterion: any object whose existence is given through a modification or a passiveness of mine, is given just as a phenomenon, that is, how it appears not how it is in itself. Thus, if something appears, there must be the thing that appears: the concept of phenomenon presupposes the one of thing in itself. The difference between appearance and thing in itself correspond to "the difference between representations which are given to us from without and in which we are passive, from those which we produce entirely from ourselves and in which we show our own activity" [par. 451]. This is also the distinction, shown in the "Critics of Pure Reason", between intellectus ectypus and intellectus archetypus; the former receives from the objects a representation and represents them just as they appear, the latter learns by creating and learning what it has created: it learns it as it is in itself.
In the Grounding the knowledge that the human being has of himself through the internal sense does not get him to know what he is in himself . "For since he does not create himself and since he acquires the concept of himself not a priori, but empirically, it is natural that he can attain knowledge even about himself only through inner sense and therefore, only through the appearance of his nature and the way in which his consciousness is affected. He must necessarily assume that beyond his own subject's constitution as composed of nothing but appearances, there must be something else as basis, namely, his ego as constituted in itself." [par.451].
The person finds in himself a faculty that distinguishes him from all other objects and from himself as affected by objects. This faculty is Reason, it is pure spontaneity.
Now, Determinism is law of the phenomenal world, therefore, the person, as Reason, as belonging to the intellectual world, is not affected by the laws of Determinism: he is free. This is Kant's proof of Freedom. Is it satisfactory?
Later on, in the "Critics of Practical Reason", Kant does not attempt to deduce synthetically Morality from Freedom, as he tried to do in the Grounding by stating that Freedom was the necessary condition for Morality, but he assumes the moral law as a "fact of the reason" from which he infers Freedom.
There have been critics blaming Kant of a sort of vicious circle, because he seemed to demonstrate Freedom by means of deduction from Morality and then to show the possibility of the Categorical Imperative deducing it from Freedom. Kant answers that there is no vicious circle because in the ontological order Freedom is the condition for Morality ( it is not possible to follow the duty for the duty if you are not free), but in the order of our knowledge, the moral law is the requirement for Freedom ( we would not consider ourselves free, if we did not think of ourselves as subject to the moral law).
Freedom is the ratio essendi of the moral law, but the moral law is the ratio cognoscendi of Freedom.
Freedom and Reason in Kant
Morality, Kant says, cannot be regarded as a set of rules which prescribe the means necessary to the achievement of a given end; its rules must be obeyed without consideration of the consequences that will follow from doing so or not. A principle that presupposes a desired object as the determinant of the will cannot give rise to a moral law; that is, the morality of an act of will cannot be determined by the matter or content of the will for when the will is materially determined the question of its morality does not arise.
This consideration leads Kant to one of his most important theses. If the moral character of willing is not determined by the content of what is willed, it must be determined by the form:" If a rational being can think of his maxims as universal laws, he can do so only by considering them as principles which contain the determining ground of the will because of their form and not because of their matter". Therefore, the morality of a maxim is determined by its functioning as a universal law, applicable as a general rule to every rational agent.
Since a moral will must be so in virtue of its form alone, the will must be capable of a purely formal determination; that is, it must be possible for a man to act in a certain way for the sole reason that willing in this way is prescribed by a universal law, no matter what the empirical results will be.
A will to which moral considerations apply must be, in the strictest sense, a free will, one that can function independently of the laws of natural causality. The concept of morality, therefore, has to be explained in terms of a universal moral law, and the ability to will in obedience to such a law leads us to postulate the freedom.
The freedom which Kant is talking about, is not only a negative freedom consisting in the absence of constraint by empirical causes, it is also a positive freedom which consists in the ability to make acts of will in accordance with the moral law, for no other reason than that they are in accordance with it.
Freedom, in this sense, corresponds to Autonomy of the will and its absence ( any situation in which the will is determined by external causes ) is called Heteronomy.
In obeying the moral law for the sake of the law alone, the will is autonomous because it is obeying a law which it imposes on itself.
In the third section of the "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals", Kant answers the problem of the possibility of the Categorical Imperative. Is the problem to be understood as if the Categorical Imperative is possible, or how it is possible?
In the "Critics of Pure Reason", the problem regarding the synthetic a priori judgments concerns just the modality in which they can be applied. The fact that they are actually possible is proved by the synthetic a priori judgment contained in sciences as mathematics and physics which are trustworthy sciences.
Metaphysics, however, is not a reliable science and, therefore, Kant suggests that we should look not only for the modality in which they can be applied, but also for their reliability. Similarly, the Metaphysics of Morals must prove the validity of the moral imperative. As Paton suggested, Kant tries to show not only how the Categorical Imperative is possible, but also that it is possible.[" Furthermore, we have not asserted the truth of this proposition, much less professed to have within our power a proof of it. We simply showed by developing the universally accepted concept of morality, that autonomy of the will is unavoidably bound up with it, or rather is its very foundation" par. 445].
The condition for the possibility of the Categorical Imperative is Freedom.
The third section contains a demonstration of Freedom which Kant tries to derive by means of excluding at least other two ways.
A first would be to assert that Freedom is experienced by us, that it is sensed, but this is not the truthful one, because experience would be the one of my personal freedom and Kant wants to demonstrate that every rational being is free , in order to infer that every rational being must obey the Categorical Imperative.
A second way would be to show that every rational being has at least the idea of Freedom, i.e. he is convinced to act according to reason, not only under instincts; he is persuaded to act in this way, because he sees that acting this way is right, because he is determined by his reason and not only by blind instincts. But, if a rational being had the idea of freedom, but were not really free, he would be mistaken even about his reasonableness; he would think he were acting for some reasons, whilst he would actually be like a robot. But, as we saw before, being aware of being rational means being aware of the necessity of acting in accordance with a law , and what we are trying to do is to justify this necessity.
Surely, if we consider ourselves to be free, we acknowledge ourselves obliged to follow the moral law, and if we consider ourselves obliged to follow the moral law is because we think of ourselves as free. But there seems to be a vicious circle because, until now, it has been demonstrated neither that we are obliged to follow the law, independently from the conviction of being free, nor that we are free, independently from the belief of being subject to the law.
We still have to prove that the Categorical Imperative is possible.
There is still a way open to us: " To inquire whether we do not take one point of view when ,by means of Freedom, we think of ourselves as a priori efficient causes, and another point of view when we represent ourselves reference to our actions as effects which we see before our eyes" [par. 450].
The point of view of Freedom is the one from which we consider ourselves belonging to the intellectual world. Everyone understands the distinction between the sensible world and the intellectual world through this criterion: any object whose existence is given through a modification or a passiveness of mine, is given just as a phenomenon, that is, how it appears not how it is in itself. Thus, if something appears, there must be the thing that appears: the concept of phenomenon presupposes the one of thing in itself. The difference between appearance and thing in itself correspond to "the difference between representations which are given to us from without and in which we are passive, from those which we produce entirely from ourselves and in which we show our own activity" [par. 451]. This is also the distinction, shown in the "Critics of Pure Reason", between intellectus ectypus and intellectus archetypus; the former receives from the objects a representation and represents them just as they appear, the latter learns by creating and learning what it has created: it learns it as it is in itself.
In the Grounding the knowledge that the human being has of himself through the internal sense does not get him to know what he is in himself . "For since he does not create himself and since he acquires the concept of himself not a priori, but empirically, it is natural that he can attain knowledge even about himself only through inner sense and therefore, only through the appearance of his nature and the way in which his consciousness is affected. He must necessarily assume that beyond his own subject's constitution as composed of nothing but appearances, there must be something else as basis, namely, his ego as constituted in itself." [par.451].
The person finds in himself a faculty that distinguishes him from all other objects and from himself as affected by objects. This faculty is Reason, it is pure spontaneity.
Now, Determinism is law of the phenomenal world, therefore, the person, as Reason, as belonging to the intellectual world, is not affected by the laws of Determinism: he is free. This is Kant's proof of Freedom. Is it satisfactory?
Later on, in the "Critics of Practical Reason", Kant does not attempt to deduce synthetically Morality from Freedom, as he tried to do in the Grounding by stating that Freedom was the necessary condition for Morality, but he assumes the moral law as a "fact of the reason" from which he infers Freedom.
There have been critics blaming Kant of a sort of vicious circle, because he seemed to demonstrate Freedom by means of deduction from Morality and then to show the possibility of the Categorical Imperative deducing it from Freedom. Kant answers that there is no vicious circle because in the ontological order Freedom is the condition for Morality ( it is not possible to follow the duty for the duty if you are not free), but in the order of our knowledge, the moral law is the requirement for Freedom ( we would not consider ourselves free, if we did not think of ourselves as subject to the moral law).
Freedom is the ratio essendi of the moral law, but the moral law is the ratio cognoscendi of Freedom.
formation of an individual
The formation of an individual:
Cases, Terms, & Tools
Man needs a polity, and in the same way a polity needs man. This is the focus of the first chapter in the formation of an individual. The formation of an individual is a very complicated process, yet it is a process that is very necessary. Through the formation of some types of government man tries to form himself from his acquired beliefs. The most basic form of government is a couple, but it branches out to entire societies. In these societies there are certain issues that the individual must deal with, the first is oppression.
Oppression is probably the hardest of all of the problems that one faces on his road to humanization. Oppression is a single force, held by few, that prevents others from reaching their status. This form of inequality can be seen in almost all forms of government, save anarchism because there are no superiors that can oppress. We saw this oppression in the movie AA Dry White Season@. This movie summarized the problems with injustice, inequality, and oppression. In order for us to become more fully human, and move along on our road to our own formation we must break free from our oppressors. By breaking free, you are not starting a war, or even a conflict, but you are actively participating in your own realization.
Before we can break free of the oppression that I just described we must first be able to realize when we are being oppressed. Through a complicated process of influence we gain our own thoughts, words, and actions. It first starts with our own set of beliefs. Most likely the ones that our parents set for us. But after we gain that first sense of who we are, and who we should be, then and only then can we realize if we are oppressed. We must understand the actions of ourselves before we can understand those of others.
On the journey to create our own individuality we need to be influenced because after we are influenced we can then Aweed out@ the ideas that most likely conform to our own opinions. This onion is the most effective tool or method in the formation of an individual.
Paulo Friere addressed the issue of oppression and why it must be stopped in his essay APedagogy of the Oppressed.@ In this essay he dictates that through education we can and must stop oppression. Yet this Abreaking free@ cannot be an individual effort, but a combine summation of forces. Near the beginning of his essay he says that man must break free of the chains that bind him to his master because this is not how it was supposed to be. By using it I mean his existence. We were all meant to be free. ABut while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives only the first is man=s vocation@(28). More over humanization = freedom. Freedoms is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an ideal which becomes a myth. It is rather an indispensable condition for the quest of human completion. Throughout Paulo=s entire article he stresses the importance that this needed freedom has, and without freedom we are nothing more than just shadows, we can never better ourselves but only stay the same unless our master, the shadow caster changes.
We must liberate ourselves from this situation, but without mutual cooperation a goal of liberation is quite impossible. Friere says Aliberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The man who emerges is a new man, viable only as the oppressor - oppressed contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all men@(33). It is necessary for men to liberate himself from his master, and likewise it is necessary for all men to liberate themselves. Throughout Friere=s=s entire article we can deduce the theme that humanization is the pinnacle of existence, and like any human being we all seek the pinnacle. But the hardest goal in achieving this humanization is the first step in overcoming oppression. Once oppression is conquered, humanization is a more possible goal.
The initial steps in the formation of an individual must the conscious realization of who we are, then we must decipher all of the restraints that hold us back form who we want to be. Next we join hands and begin our quest of humanization. Once we have been humanized through the combined effort of all that seek the same as we do we can then and only then become a free individual.
The formation of an individual:
Guiding Principles, Choices, & Limitations
After we realize who we are and begin our path of humanization we must try to understand why we are oppressed, and once we understand this, we can more fully understand ourselves. Through our own guiding principles, choice, and limitations that we face in our lives we consciously form who we are.
The onion once again comes into play here. In fact it might be at this time where it is the most influential. Through our developmental stages as a child to our maturization as an adult we are constantly perceiving the world differently. This is a necessary thing because this means that we are always changing, from now until we die. We saw that this was extremely apparent in both the AChildhood@ movies and in AElephant Man@. In the beginning of AElephant Man@ the elephant man was an outcast--- a societal freak. But as time slowly drug its feet he gained respect from the doctor and eventually gained love from the doctor.
In the childhood movies we viewed the perpetual change in the behavior of kids. In fact we saw the slow and painful development of who they were as a person. This ever changing opinion of the world around us can be seen through the onion once more. Influences constantly change our feelings for other people and other things.
We are forever changing our views of the world and through this Aperpetual flux@ we slowly Atest out@ different view points. The perpetual flux is the most apparent way that we can investigate the way we form ourselves. Through their changing we are already on the road to a more fully human life, and through liberation from our oppressors human completion is only one more step away. And after all human completion is the goal of all mankind.
The founder of this idea of Aperpetual flux@ is David Hume. He says, very much like the onion theory, that we are nothing more than our perceptions. Like the onion, Hume says that everything we see / hear, or even more, anything and everything we experience through our senses changes us just a little bit. Hume claims that since we are nothing more than our perceptions when we no longer perceive we no longer exist. From David Hume=s essay AOf Personal Identity@ comes this quote: AWhen my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, as long as I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity@(187). From this I will derive the statement that a perpetual flux or perpetual movement is as necessary as life is to an individual. Anyone who is not in a perpetual flux does not exist.
Through a perpetual flux we unconsciously decide what the best method of achieving humanization is. Somewhat like Peck=s theory of development, we constantly test different situations in our subconscious, and before we even comprehend the situations most of the perceptions are already removed. Our sub-conscious is a certain type of filter, even better, our subconscious is a special type of filter that Aweeds out@ many raw ideas before they even reach our conscious.
So through our perpetual flux we are determining what the best type of individual is for us. Through an unconscious reality we slowly weed out and pick different situations that all have different outcomes. This is all happening during the formation of an individual, and with this formation process we are that much closer to what we perceive liberation and the humanization of our own selves. Yet we must keep in mind that a changing opinion is good, in fact it is nearly required. Actually, a perpetual flux is required.
The formation of an individual:
Economic, Religious, & Political
With economic, religious, and political influences all laying far away from the beginning / origin of the onion once can only venture to say that they are the least important. If one is not careful these can be the prime candidates of oppression. Everywhere economic, religious, and political oppression exists. In the movie AGandhi@ we saw all of the oppression that was in different parts of the world. And through Satyagraha we all saw the joint liberation and the humanization of all men, at least the ones that participated in the non-violence.
From other sources we learned that we do have a say in our own religions and political communities, we must know how to use our powers to our advantage. In the same way that we benefit from our own economic situations, religious standpoint, and political view, we are also restrained by them as well. If we do not have the proper resources [budget project] we are oppressed by money, and all that is attached by money. If we belong to a religious community, or even if we don=t, we can still be the victims of oppression. Whether we are oppressed because we belong or we don=t belong, religious oppression is everywhere. Finally come political oppressions. This is probably the worst one, because it happens in large numbers, and it also happens all of the time. We are often oppressed by the government that we function in.
This is where Gandhi professed his beliefs. Satyagraha was a fight for our rights as a struggling individual in an oppressive relationship. In the same way Emerson said that self government is a Areal@ alternative to Political oppression. His basic argument was since we all have our own views, and own our own property, then we all should have an equal voice. If we are not given this needed voice, we must find an alternative.
In Emerson=s AThe Idea of Self-Government@ Emerson stresses the importance of a functional government, he does not say Anarchy is the only way to achieve this, but it is a way. He says that man needs a good government, and if one cannot be provided he must maintain his own. From Emerson=s essay AThe Idea of Self-Government@ come this quote about the perfect government. AThe idea after which each community is aiming to make and mend its law, is the will of the wise man. The wise man it cannot find nature, and it makes awkward but earnest efforts to secure his government by contrivance;@(150) This means that the perfect government is at peace with itself and its members, or the Awill of the wise man@. In a perfect government personal rights are also very important, the mutual respect of all is needed in the creation of a government. As the respect for these rights increases, oppression decreases, and peace is closer. APersonal rights, universally the same, demand a government framed on the ration of the census; property demands a government framed on the ratio of owners and of owning@(134). This is a fundamental truth that we all must accept. Everything is relative in our world / society, and in government there are no exceptions. Mutual respect and the active awareness of all is required or government can no longer exist.
Not only in political freedom is this prevalent, but in Religious freedom this is obvious too. In most cases Religious freedom is just as important as political freedom, and sometimes religious freedom is even more important. Religious freedom is placed below political freedom many times because their is much more political oppression than there is religious oppression. But this does not mean that religious freedom does not exist. Voltaire writes in his philosophical dictionary that religious freedom is very important. AIf you can have 2 religions among you they will massacre each other, but if you have 30 they will live in peace.@ This is a fundamental truth that we all must understand. If we force people into religion they will undoubtedly start to fight, but if we let them believe what they want to believe, then they will not be oppressed, or thought of as oppressed and therefore will live in religious harmony. And once this harmony is reached humanization is inevitable.
It is impossible to deny the existence of oppression and the forceful influence by others in our world. But this oppression must be confronted, whether it be through peaceful resistance, such as Satyagraha, or through bloodied warfare. The outcome is the same either way, you are fighting for a just cause and combining forces not because you are forced to, but because people share the same feelings as you. This is not wrong, yet good to have people join in mutual consent. Like Emerson says, people, as long as they have an equal part in the government, can live in harmony. This harmony is necessary for peaceful cooperation, and the humanization of all men. With religion next, Voltaire boldly stated that religious freedom is needed for a homeostasis to be reached from different viewpoints. Through mutual respect the humanization of all men is not but one more hill on the path towards freedom.
The formation of an individual:
Conclusion
By nature society oppresses. By nature religion oppresses. By nature everything that does not coincide with our beliefs oppresses. There is no other way to rid the world of oppression, but there is a way around it.
Before we can understand oppression we must first understand ourselves. Through the Aonion effect@ we gain an awareness of our world around us. As we perceive this world we are constantly changing, always in a perpetual flux. A perpetual flux is most likely the most significant of all of the ways we form our self. The formation of an individual is a long and tiring process, yet it must be done. There is no other alternative. Once we understand who we are through the onion, and all of our perceptions we are now ready to understand the machine called oppression.
Oppression exists everywhere, and the only way to break free is to gain control of our own individuality and join hands in a crusade towards humanization. Whether it be Satyagraha or any peaceful resistance, as long as the force is of mutual consent, then the only plausible outcome is victory. And furthermore victory for the individual as well as a victory for the entire brigade. When the victory is won we have broken the engine of oppression, but the machine still exists. As long as thee is mutual peace, as opposed to forced peace, the engine will stay broken and liberation will be inevitable. But if oppression rises up again ABut almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or >sub-oppressors=. The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their idea is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors.@ Such as the switching of roles in the oppressor - oppressed relationship, the engine will be fixed / replaced. After the engine is replaced by this newly found false generosity the gears will turn and the machine of oppression will stalk again. Welcome to the hatemachine?
We must dodge this effect and stand tall for what we believe in. Yet mutual respect must exist. Through peaceful cooperation, liberation into freedom has already happened.
Cases, Terms, & Tools
Man needs a polity, and in the same way a polity needs man. This is the focus of the first chapter in the formation of an individual. The formation of an individual is a very complicated process, yet it is a process that is very necessary. Through the formation of some types of government man tries to form himself from his acquired beliefs. The most basic form of government is a couple, but it branches out to entire societies. In these societies there are certain issues that the individual must deal with, the first is oppression.
Oppression is probably the hardest of all of the problems that one faces on his road to humanization. Oppression is a single force, held by few, that prevents others from reaching their status. This form of inequality can be seen in almost all forms of government, save anarchism because there are no superiors that can oppress. We saw this oppression in the movie AA Dry White Season@. This movie summarized the problems with injustice, inequality, and oppression. In order for us to become more fully human, and move along on our road to our own formation we must break free from our oppressors. By breaking free, you are not starting a war, or even a conflict, but you are actively participating in your own realization.
Before we can break free of the oppression that I just described we must first be able to realize when we are being oppressed. Through a complicated process of influence we gain our own thoughts, words, and actions. It first starts with our own set of beliefs. Most likely the ones that our parents set for us. But after we gain that first sense of who we are, and who we should be, then and only then can we realize if we are oppressed. We must understand the actions of ourselves before we can understand those of others.
On the journey to create our own individuality we need to be influenced because after we are influenced we can then Aweed out@ the ideas that most likely conform to our own opinions. This onion is the most effective tool or method in the formation of an individual.
Paulo Friere addressed the issue of oppression and why it must be stopped in his essay APedagogy of the Oppressed.@ In this essay he dictates that through education we can and must stop oppression. Yet this Abreaking free@ cannot be an individual effort, but a combine summation of forces. Near the beginning of his essay he says that man must break free of the chains that bind him to his master because this is not how it was supposed to be. By using it I mean his existence. We were all meant to be free. ABut while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives only the first is man=s vocation@(28). More over humanization = freedom. Freedoms is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an ideal which becomes a myth. It is rather an indispensable condition for the quest of human completion. Throughout Paulo=s entire article he stresses the importance that this needed freedom has, and without freedom we are nothing more than just shadows, we can never better ourselves but only stay the same unless our master, the shadow caster changes.
We must liberate ourselves from this situation, but without mutual cooperation a goal of liberation is quite impossible. Friere says Aliberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The man who emerges is a new man, viable only as the oppressor - oppressed contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all men@(33). It is necessary for men to liberate himself from his master, and likewise it is necessary for all men to liberate themselves. Throughout Friere=s=s entire article we can deduce the theme that humanization is the pinnacle of existence, and like any human being we all seek the pinnacle. But the hardest goal in achieving this humanization is the first step in overcoming oppression. Once oppression is conquered, humanization is a more possible goal.
The initial steps in the formation of an individual must the conscious realization of who we are, then we must decipher all of the restraints that hold us back form who we want to be. Next we join hands and begin our quest of humanization. Once we have been humanized through the combined effort of all that seek the same as we do we can then and only then become a free individual.
The formation of an individual:
Guiding Principles, Choices, & Limitations
After we realize who we are and begin our path of humanization we must try to understand why we are oppressed, and once we understand this, we can more fully understand ourselves. Through our own guiding principles, choice, and limitations that we face in our lives we consciously form who we are.
The onion once again comes into play here. In fact it might be at this time where it is the most influential. Through our developmental stages as a child to our maturization as an adult we are constantly perceiving the world differently. This is a necessary thing because this means that we are always changing, from now until we die. We saw that this was extremely apparent in both the AChildhood@ movies and in AElephant Man@. In the beginning of AElephant Man@ the elephant man was an outcast--- a societal freak. But as time slowly drug its feet he gained respect from the doctor and eventually gained love from the doctor.
In the childhood movies we viewed the perpetual change in the behavior of kids. In fact we saw the slow and painful development of who they were as a person. This ever changing opinion of the world around us can be seen through the onion once more. Influences constantly change our feelings for other people and other things.
We are forever changing our views of the world and through this Aperpetual flux@ we slowly Atest out@ different view points. The perpetual flux is the most apparent way that we can investigate the way we form ourselves. Through their changing we are already on the road to a more fully human life, and through liberation from our oppressors human completion is only one more step away. And after all human completion is the goal of all mankind.
The founder of this idea of Aperpetual flux@ is David Hume. He says, very much like the onion theory, that we are nothing more than our perceptions. Like the onion, Hume says that everything we see / hear, or even more, anything and everything we experience through our senses changes us just a little bit. Hume claims that since we are nothing more than our perceptions when we no longer perceive we no longer exist. From David Hume=s essay AOf Personal Identity@ comes this quote: AWhen my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, as long as I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity@(187). From this I will derive the statement that a perpetual flux or perpetual movement is as necessary as life is to an individual. Anyone who is not in a perpetual flux does not exist.
Through a perpetual flux we unconsciously decide what the best method of achieving humanization is. Somewhat like Peck=s theory of development, we constantly test different situations in our subconscious, and before we even comprehend the situations most of the perceptions are already removed. Our sub-conscious is a certain type of filter, even better, our subconscious is a special type of filter that Aweeds out@ many raw ideas before they even reach our conscious.
So through our perpetual flux we are determining what the best type of individual is for us. Through an unconscious reality we slowly weed out and pick different situations that all have different outcomes. This is all happening during the formation of an individual, and with this formation process we are that much closer to what we perceive liberation and the humanization of our own selves. Yet we must keep in mind that a changing opinion is good, in fact it is nearly required. Actually, a perpetual flux is required.
The formation of an individual:
Economic, Religious, & Political
With economic, religious, and political influences all laying far away from the beginning / origin of the onion once can only venture to say that they are the least important. If one is not careful these can be the prime candidates of oppression. Everywhere economic, religious, and political oppression exists. In the movie AGandhi@ we saw all of the oppression that was in different parts of the world. And through Satyagraha we all saw the joint liberation and the humanization of all men, at least the ones that participated in the non-violence.
From other sources we learned that we do have a say in our own religions and political communities, we must know how to use our powers to our advantage. In the same way that we benefit from our own economic situations, religious standpoint, and political view, we are also restrained by them as well. If we do not have the proper resources [budget project] we are oppressed by money, and all that is attached by money. If we belong to a religious community, or even if we don=t, we can still be the victims of oppression. Whether we are oppressed because we belong or we don=t belong, religious oppression is everywhere. Finally come political oppressions. This is probably the worst one, because it happens in large numbers, and it also happens all of the time. We are often oppressed by the government that we function in.
This is where Gandhi professed his beliefs. Satyagraha was a fight for our rights as a struggling individual in an oppressive relationship. In the same way Emerson said that self government is a Areal@ alternative to Political oppression. His basic argument was since we all have our own views, and own our own property, then we all should have an equal voice. If we are not given this needed voice, we must find an alternative.
In Emerson=s AThe Idea of Self-Government@ Emerson stresses the importance of a functional government, he does not say Anarchy is the only way to achieve this, but it is a way. He says that man needs a good government, and if one cannot be provided he must maintain his own. From Emerson=s essay AThe Idea of Self-Government@ come this quote about the perfect government. AThe idea after which each community is aiming to make and mend its law, is the will of the wise man. The wise man it cannot find nature, and it makes awkward but earnest efforts to secure his government by contrivance;@(150) This means that the perfect government is at peace with itself and its members, or the Awill of the wise man@. In a perfect government personal rights are also very important, the mutual respect of all is needed in the creation of a government. As the respect for these rights increases, oppression decreases, and peace is closer. APersonal rights, universally the same, demand a government framed on the ration of the census; property demands a government framed on the ratio of owners and of owning@(134). This is a fundamental truth that we all must accept. Everything is relative in our world / society, and in government there are no exceptions. Mutual respect and the active awareness of all is required or government can no longer exist.
Not only in political freedom is this prevalent, but in Religious freedom this is obvious too. In most cases Religious freedom is just as important as political freedom, and sometimes religious freedom is even more important. Religious freedom is placed below political freedom many times because their is much more political oppression than there is religious oppression. But this does not mean that religious freedom does not exist. Voltaire writes in his philosophical dictionary that religious freedom is very important. AIf you can have 2 religions among you they will massacre each other, but if you have 30 they will live in peace.@ This is a fundamental truth that we all must understand. If we force people into religion they will undoubtedly start to fight, but if we let them believe what they want to believe, then they will not be oppressed, or thought of as oppressed and therefore will live in religious harmony. And once this harmony is reached humanization is inevitable.
It is impossible to deny the existence of oppression and the forceful influence by others in our world. But this oppression must be confronted, whether it be through peaceful resistance, such as Satyagraha, or through bloodied warfare. The outcome is the same either way, you are fighting for a just cause and combining forces not because you are forced to, but because people share the same feelings as you. This is not wrong, yet good to have people join in mutual consent. Like Emerson says, people, as long as they have an equal part in the government, can live in harmony. This harmony is necessary for peaceful cooperation, and the humanization of all men. With religion next, Voltaire boldly stated that religious freedom is needed for a homeostasis to be reached from different viewpoints. Through mutual respect the humanization of all men is not but one more hill on the path towards freedom.
The formation of an individual:
Conclusion
By nature society oppresses. By nature religion oppresses. By nature everything that does not coincide with our beliefs oppresses. There is no other way to rid the world of oppression, but there is a way around it.
Before we can understand oppression we must first understand ourselves. Through the Aonion effect@ we gain an awareness of our world around us. As we perceive this world we are constantly changing, always in a perpetual flux. A perpetual flux is most likely the most significant of all of the ways we form our self. The formation of an individual is a long and tiring process, yet it must be done. There is no other alternative. Once we understand who we are through the onion, and all of our perceptions we are now ready to understand the machine called oppression.
Oppression exists everywhere, and the only way to break free is to gain control of our own individuality and join hands in a crusade towards humanization. Whether it be Satyagraha or any peaceful resistance, as long as the force is of mutual consent, then the only plausible outcome is victory. And furthermore victory for the individual as well as a victory for the entire brigade. When the victory is won we have broken the engine of oppression, but the machine still exists. As long as thee is mutual peace, as opposed to forced peace, the engine will stay broken and liberation will be inevitable. But if oppression rises up again ABut almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or >sub-oppressors=. The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their idea is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors.@ Such as the switching of roles in the oppressor - oppressed relationship, the engine will be fixed / replaced. After the engine is replaced by this newly found false generosity the gears will turn and the machine of oppression will stalk again. Welcome to the hatemachine?
We must dodge this effect and stand tall for what we believe in. Yet mutual respect must exist. Through peaceful cooperation, liberation into freedom has already happened.
Five factor model of personality
The precise definition of personality has been a point of discussion amongst many different
theorists within many different disciplines since the beginning of civilisation. Personality can be
defined as "the distinctive and characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour that define
an individual's personal style and influence his or her interactions with the environment" (Atkinson,
Atkinson, Smith & Bem, 1993: 525). It can be proposed that personality psychology has two
different tasks. "The first involves specifying the variables on which individuals differ from one
another. The second involves synthesising the psychological processes of human functioning into an
integrated account of the total person" (Atkinson et al., 1993: 532). There are many different theories
of personality and many different theorists. The purpose of this essay is to examine the trait approach,
specifically the five-factor model. Both the development and limitations of the Five-Factor model of
personality shall be discussed.
Trait theory is based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that any difference
between people that is seen as significant will have a name. Secondly, these names, known as traits,
are conceived of as continuous dimensions. In general, trait theories assume that people vary
simultaneously on a number of personality factors. These traits are of both the conjunctive and
disjunctive form. Therefore, to understand a trait, it is necessary to understand what a particular trait
is and what type of behaviour is evidence of that trait. (Atkinson et al., 1993). Five factor theorists are
one set of trait theorists. The claim of five factor theorists is that behaviour can be best predicted and
explained by measurement of five dominant personality factors. The five factor theory is a fairly
recent proposal and has its basis in earlier work, which shall be discussed.
One of the statistical techniques most commonly used in the study of personality is that of
factor analysis:
By identifying groups of highly intercorrelated variables, factor analysis enables us to
determine how many underlying factors are measured by a set of p original variables. In other
words, factor analysis is used to uncover the factor structure of a set of variables. (Diekhoff,
1992: 333)
A factor analysis will generally show that a smaller number of factors represents the same information
as the original number of variables. Once the variables making up the factors have been identified,
some of the redundant variables may be removed (Diekhoff, 1992). As such, a large number of traits
may be reduced to a number of personality factors. The procedure of factor analysis was a significant
part of both the development and criticism of the five personality factor theory, as well as the theories
on which it is based.
An experiment conducted by Allport and Oddbert (1936, cited in Goldberg, 1990) was based
on the assumption that a dictionary contains a list of every possible trait name. Oddbert and Allport
took every word from a dictionary that related to personality descriptors. This list was then revised to
remove synonyms and unclear or doubtful words. Another researcher, Raymond Cattell (1945, cited
in Atkinson et al, 1993) further revised the Allport-Oddbert list to 171 words. A study was then
conducted by Cattell on a group of subjects who were asked to rate people they knew on the 171
traits. The results were factor analysed and 12 personality factors were found. However, 4 additional
factors were found by analysing self-ratings. Cattell concluded that, in the adult human, 16
personality factors were dominant.
Eyesenck, (1953, cited in Atkinson et al, 1993) was another major theorist to use factor
analysis. Although using the same basic approach as Cattell, Eyesenck used a more discriminatory
factor analysis which resulted in far less than 16 factors. Eyesencks' major factors are introversion-
extroversion and neuroticism. These are believed to be ordinal factors and as such, scores on each
dimension are independent of one another. The majority of future studies concluded that the actual
number of personality factors, for which there is significant evidence, is between Eyesencks' two and
Cattells' 16.
Since Cattells' study, many researchers have conducted similar studies, or re-analysis of
Cattells' original data. Most of the researchers, such as Norman (1967, cited in Merenda, 1993)
found support for far less than 16 personality factors. At most, it was generally concluded that there
are between three and seven factors of personality. As a compromise, many researchers agree that
there are five personality factors, as suggested by Norman's original work (1963, cited in Goldberg,
1990). Support for the Five-Factor model comes from current researchers such as McCrae and Costa
(1985) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995). Opposition to the theory is also abundant, such as the work
of Jack Block (1995).
All trait theorists agree that there is a finite number of traits on which people have a "score".
The exact number of traits is still currently a point of contention amongst theorists. However, "today
we believe it is more fruitful to adopt the working hypothesis that the five-factor model of personality
is essentially correct." (McCrae & John, 1992: 175). There is also still "disagreement among analysts
as to factor titles" (John, 1990: 96). Many writers have adopted the names used by Norman (1963,
cited in Goldberg, 1990) which are; extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability and culture. For simplicity, this is the version of the five factor model that shall be adopted
for this essay.
The best known limitations of the five factor model of personality relate to the problems of
trait theory in general. Trait approaches are directed primarily at specifying the variables of
personality. There is little dealing with the dynamic processes of personality functioning. Traits are
static entities and more complete theories of personality, such as those of Eyesenck, come from a
combination of trait theory with another psychological theory. For example, Eyesenck adopted a
learning theory to combine with trait theory. As such, trait theory, and therefore the five factor model,
do not deal with a large aspect of personality: change.
Mischel (1968, cited in Atkinson et al. 1993) is perhaps the best known critic of the trait
theorists. Basically Mischel states that the underlying assumption of the approach may be untrue:
people may have such dynamic personalities that they do not possess trait-like characteristics. Mischel
also claims that there should be a high correlation between scores on a trait measure for a subject and
performance in a situation where that trait is evoked. However, according to Mischel, the correlation
is extremely low. Mischel further argues that knowing a persons' "traits" does not help predict their
behaviour and measures of the same trait do not correlate highly with one another. Although this
criticism seems almost perfect, there is still a large number of trait theorists. Their responses to
Mischel's criticism shall be evaluated.
The main defence of the trait approach comes in two forms. Firstly a conceptual form in
which Mischel's understanding of what makes up a trait is questioned. The second form of defence
comes from a methodological perspective, where the measurement of "trait" behaviour is examined.
To be able to appropriately comment on trait theory, it is important to understand exactly what a trait
is. McCrae and Costa (1995) suggest that not every person has every trait. Therefore it is possible to
confuse descriptors of behaviour with traits. There needs to be consistencies of behaviour to evidence
a trait. Also traits can be of either a conjunctive or disjunctive type. It has been suggested that the
evidence suggested by Mischel is invalid because aggression was seen as conjunctive when it is
actually disjunctive. Correcting this mistake could significantly increase the correlation between
different measures of the same trait. As such, one criticism of Mischel may be answered.
The second defence of trait theory examines the research method used by Mischel. It is
proposed that it is necessary to have many more than one observation of behaviour, before comparing
behaviour to trait scores. The reasoning behind this argument is that each trait test has at least 20 to
40 items. As such, there should be at least half as many observations. A single question test would be
unacceptable and therefore a single observation of behaviour should also be unacceptable. Another
possible experimental error may have occurred due to moderator variables. Moderator variables such
as sex of subject may change the correlation between behaviour and trait scores. If these variables are
controlled for, the correlation may significantly increase and Mischels' criticism may need to be re-
evaluated.
Cattell's 16pf, the predecessor of the five factor model, also had a significant limitation. The
16 pf had a low predictive power of performance of a subject on a given test, when used alone.
However, the personality profiles which can be created using the 16pf are reasonably effective in an
applied situation in predicting adjustment of an individual entering a particular group. Also, the
performance predicting power of the 16 pf can be improved by giving the 16pf and correlating it to
some measure of the person's performance. Multiple regression can then be used to weight each of
the 16pf factors so that correlation between the 16pf score and performance is at maximum. This
gives a more satisfactory prediction of performance using the 16pf, yet it's predictive power is still
quite low. The 16pf is still used in many applied situations because no other psychological tool is
available with better predictive power. Since the five factor model is based on the 16pf, this limitation
is also applicable to the five factor model.
It is possible to suggest that the limitations pertaining to the trait approach and 16pf are
insignificant or not applicable to the big five model of personality. However, there are limitations that
specifically relate to this model. Jack Block (1995) and Dan McAdams (1992) are the main theorists
to evaluate the five factor model specifically and examine it's limitations. Block's criticisms are
answered by theorists such as McCrae and Costa (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995).
The basis of Block's argument is that it is uncertain that all important trait-descriptive terms
are representatively distributed in language. For instance, collectively suppressed traits might be
unrepresented. Another major point is that the Big Five are very broad and might not differentiate
accurately enough for practical applications. For example, assigning people to high, middle and low
on each of the factors gives 243 personality types, which may be enough types but doesn't solve the
broadness problem. Block suggests a few changes to procedure should be adopted but admits "my
suggestions are mild, obvious and entail scientific sobriety coupled with slow, hard work aiming to
educe order from the present jumbled empiricism characterising personality psychology". (Block,
1995: 209).
Both Costa and McCrae (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995) suggest that Block has lost
sight of why the five factor model was developed. Block criticises the model for not being applicable
to practical situations when it's purpose is to describe the full range of personality traits. Block's
criticism also "does not distinguish between the Big Five model ... from alternative models of the
causal underpinnings of personality differences" (Goldberg & Saucier, 1995: 221). A large amount of
crucial evidence supporting the Big Five model is also left out of the criticism. Each reply also
suggests that Block's closing suggestions provide few specific proposals of alternative models.
McAdams' (1992) critical appraisal of the five-factor model outlines several major limitations.
McAdams views the five-factor model as "essentially a 'psychology of the stranger', providing
information about persons that one would need to know when one knows nothing about them. It is
argues that because of inherent limitations, the Big Five may be viewed as one important model in
personality studies but not the integrative model of personality". Some of the limitations described are
those applicable to all trait theories and one applies to the 16pf and any theories based on the 16pf.
However, two limitations specific to the five factor model are discussed.
The main limitation specific to the five factor model of personality are firstly a failure to offer
a program for studying personality organisation and integration and secondly a reliance on statements
about individuals by other individuals. The extent to which the five-factor model is a major advance
in personality study therefore depends on what is hoped to be gained in the field. If personality study
is interested in the study of observer's trait ratings, the big five model is extremely useful. If the
purpose of the field is also to investigate observers' attributions about individual differences the five-
factor model is less significant. If the study of personality aims to emphasise the whole person and the
dynamic nature of personality, the model seems to be only of minor concern. As such, from the view
of "multifaceted personology, the five-factor model is one model in personality... not the model of
personality" (McAdams, 1992: 355).
In conclusion, the support and criticisms of the five factor model are not as black and white as
would be hoped. Each argument has logical reasoning and can provide evidence to support itself.
Each view also has a large number of supporters. Neither one is necessarily correct, as it is possible
for the model to be applicable at some stages, and not applicable at others. As a result, it is probable
and acceptable to conclude that the five factor theory may or may not be an appropriate model of
personality. Perhaps a comparison of how much supporting literature there is for each argument is a
useful method for deciding which theory an individual may choose to support.
theorists within many different disciplines since the beginning of civilisation. Personality can be
defined as "the distinctive and characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour that define
an individual's personal style and influence his or her interactions with the environment" (Atkinson,
Atkinson, Smith & Bem, 1993: 525). It can be proposed that personality psychology has two
different tasks. "The first involves specifying the variables on which individuals differ from one
another. The second involves synthesising the psychological processes of human functioning into an
integrated account of the total person" (Atkinson et al., 1993: 532). There are many different theories
of personality and many different theorists. The purpose of this essay is to examine the trait approach,
specifically the five-factor model. Both the development and limitations of the Five-Factor model of
personality shall be discussed.
Trait theory is based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that any difference
between people that is seen as significant will have a name. Secondly, these names, known as traits,
are conceived of as continuous dimensions. In general, trait theories assume that people vary
simultaneously on a number of personality factors. These traits are of both the conjunctive and
disjunctive form. Therefore, to understand a trait, it is necessary to understand what a particular trait
is and what type of behaviour is evidence of that trait. (Atkinson et al., 1993). Five factor theorists are
one set of trait theorists. The claim of five factor theorists is that behaviour can be best predicted and
explained by measurement of five dominant personality factors. The five factor theory is a fairly
recent proposal and has its basis in earlier work, which shall be discussed.
One of the statistical techniques most commonly used in the study of personality is that of
factor analysis:
By identifying groups of highly intercorrelated variables, factor analysis enables us to
determine how many underlying factors are measured by a set of p original variables. In other
words, factor analysis is used to uncover the factor structure of a set of variables. (Diekhoff,
1992: 333)
A factor analysis will generally show that a smaller number of factors represents the same information
as the original number of variables. Once the variables making up the factors have been identified,
some of the redundant variables may be removed (Diekhoff, 1992). As such, a large number of traits
may be reduced to a number of personality factors. The procedure of factor analysis was a significant
part of both the development and criticism of the five personality factor theory, as well as the theories
on which it is based.
An experiment conducted by Allport and Oddbert (1936, cited in Goldberg, 1990) was based
on the assumption that a dictionary contains a list of every possible trait name. Oddbert and Allport
took every word from a dictionary that related to personality descriptors. This list was then revised to
remove synonyms and unclear or doubtful words. Another researcher, Raymond Cattell (1945, cited
in Atkinson et al, 1993) further revised the Allport-Oddbert list to 171 words. A study was then
conducted by Cattell on a group of subjects who were asked to rate people they knew on the 171
traits. The results were factor analysed and 12 personality factors were found. However, 4 additional
factors were found by analysing self-ratings. Cattell concluded that, in the adult human, 16
personality factors were dominant.
Eyesenck, (1953, cited in Atkinson et al, 1993) was another major theorist to use factor
analysis. Although using the same basic approach as Cattell, Eyesenck used a more discriminatory
factor analysis which resulted in far less than 16 factors. Eyesencks' major factors are introversion-
extroversion and neuroticism. These are believed to be ordinal factors and as such, scores on each
dimension are independent of one another. The majority of future studies concluded that the actual
number of personality factors, for which there is significant evidence, is between Eyesencks' two and
Cattells' 16.
Since Cattells' study, many researchers have conducted similar studies, or re-analysis of
Cattells' original data. Most of the researchers, such as Norman (1967, cited in Merenda, 1993)
found support for far less than 16 personality factors. At most, it was generally concluded that there
are between three and seven factors of personality. As a compromise, many researchers agree that
there are five personality factors, as suggested by Norman's original work (1963, cited in Goldberg,
1990). Support for the Five-Factor model comes from current researchers such as McCrae and Costa
(1985) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995). Opposition to the theory is also abundant, such as the work
of Jack Block (1995).
All trait theorists agree that there is a finite number of traits on which people have a "score".
The exact number of traits is still currently a point of contention amongst theorists. However, "today
we believe it is more fruitful to adopt the working hypothesis that the five-factor model of personality
is essentially correct." (McCrae & John, 1992: 175). There is also still "disagreement among analysts
as to factor titles" (John, 1990: 96). Many writers have adopted the names used by Norman (1963,
cited in Goldberg, 1990) which are; extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability and culture. For simplicity, this is the version of the five factor model that shall be adopted
for this essay.
The best known limitations of the five factor model of personality relate to the problems of
trait theory in general. Trait approaches are directed primarily at specifying the variables of
personality. There is little dealing with the dynamic processes of personality functioning. Traits are
static entities and more complete theories of personality, such as those of Eyesenck, come from a
combination of trait theory with another psychological theory. For example, Eyesenck adopted a
learning theory to combine with trait theory. As such, trait theory, and therefore the five factor model,
do not deal with a large aspect of personality: change.
Mischel (1968, cited in Atkinson et al. 1993) is perhaps the best known critic of the trait
theorists. Basically Mischel states that the underlying assumption of the approach may be untrue:
people may have such dynamic personalities that they do not possess trait-like characteristics. Mischel
also claims that there should be a high correlation between scores on a trait measure for a subject and
performance in a situation where that trait is evoked. However, according to Mischel, the correlation
is extremely low. Mischel further argues that knowing a persons' "traits" does not help predict their
behaviour and measures of the same trait do not correlate highly with one another. Although this
criticism seems almost perfect, there is still a large number of trait theorists. Their responses to
Mischel's criticism shall be evaluated.
The main defence of the trait approach comes in two forms. Firstly a conceptual form in
which Mischel's understanding of what makes up a trait is questioned. The second form of defence
comes from a methodological perspective, where the measurement of "trait" behaviour is examined.
To be able to appropriately comment on trait theory, it is important to understand exactly what a trait
is. McCrae and Costa (1995) suggest that not every person has every trait. Therefore it is possible to
confuse descriptors of behaviour with traits. There needs to be consistencies of behaviour to evidence
a trait. Also traits can be of either a conjunctive or disjunctive type. It has been suggested that the
evidence suggested by Mischel is invalid because aggression was seen as conjunctive when it is
actually disjunctive. Correcting this mistake could significantly increase the correlation between
different measures of the same trait. As such, one criticism of Mischel may be answered.
The second defence of trait theory examines the research method used by Mischel. It is
proposed that it is necessary to have many more than one observation of behaviour, before comparing
behaviour to trait scores. The reasoning behind this argument is that each trait test has at least 20 to
40 items. As such, there should be at least half as many observations. A single question test would be
unacceptable and therefore a single observation of behaviour should also be unacceptable. Another
possible experimental error may have occurred due to moderator variables. Moderator variables such
as sex of subject may change the correlation between behaviour and trait scores. If these variables are
controlled for, the correlation may significantly increase and Mischels' criticism may need to be re-
evaluated.
Cattell's 16pf, the predecessor of the five factor model, also had a significant limitation. The
16 pf had a low predictive power of performance of a subject on a given test, when used alone.
However, the personality profiles which can be created using the 16pf are reasonably effective in an
applied situation in predicting adjustment of an individual entering a particular group. Also, the
performance predicting power of the 16 pf can be improved by giving the 16pf and correlating it to
some measure of the person's performance. Multiple regression can then be used to weight each of
the 16pf factors so that correlation between the 16pf score and performance is at maximum. This
gives a more satisfactory prediction of performance using the 16pf, yet it's predictive power is still
quite low. The 16pf is still used in many applied situations because no other psychological tool is
available with better predictive power. Since the five factor model is based on the 16pf, this limitation
is also applicable to the five factor model.
It is possible to suggest that the limitations pertaining to the trait approach and 16pf are
insignificant or not applicable to the big five model of personality. However, there are limitations that
specifically relate to this model. Jack Block (1995) and Dan McAdams (1992) are the main theorists
to evaluate the five factor model specifically and examine it's limitations. Block's criticisms are
answered by theorists such as McCrae and Costa (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995).
The basis of Block's argument is that it is uncertain that all important trait-descriptive terms
are representatively distributed in language. For instance, collectively suppressed traits might be
unrepresented. Another major point is that the Big Five are very broad and might not differentiate
accurately enough for practical applications. For example, assigning people to high, middle and low
on each of the factors gives 243 personality types, which may be enough types but doesn't solve the
broadness problem. Block suggests a few changes to procedure should be adopted but admits "my
suggestions are mild, obvious and entail scientific sobriety coupled with slow, hard work aiming to
educe order from the present jumbled empiricism characterising personality psychology". (Block,
1995: 209).
Both Costa and McCrae (1995) and Goldberg and Saucier (1995) suggest that Block has lost
sight of why the five factor model was developed. Block criticises the model for not being applicable
to practical situations when it's purpose is to describe the full range of personality traits. Block's
criticism also "does not distinguish between the Big Five model ... from alternative models of the
causal underpinnings of personality differences" (Goldberg & Saucier, 1995: 221). A large amount of
crucial evidence supporting the Big Five model is also left out of the criticism. Each reply also
suggests that Block's closing suggestions provide few specific proposals of alternative models.
McAdams' (1992) critical appraisal of the five-factor model outlines several major limitations.
McAdams views the five-factor model as "essentially a 'psychology of the stranger', providing
information about persons that one would need to know when one knows nothing about them. It is
argues that because of inherent limitations, the Big Five may be viewed as one important model in
personality studies but not the integrative model of personality". Some of the limitations described are
those applicable to all trait theories and one applies to the 16pf and any theories based on the 16pf.
However, two limitations specific to the five factor model are discussed.
The main limitation specific to the five factor model of personality are firstly a failure to offer
a program for studying personality organisation and integration and secondly a reliance on statements
about individuals by other individuals. The extent to which the five-factor model is a major advance
in personality study therefore depends on what is hoped to be gained in the field. If personality study
is interested in the study of observer's trait ratings, the big five model is extremely useful. If the
purpose of the field is also to investigate observers' attributions about individual differences the five-
factor model is less significant. If the study of personality aims to emphasise the whole person and the
dynamic nature of personality, the model seems to be only of minor concern. As such, from the view
of "multifaceted personology, the five-factor model is one model in personality... not the model of
personality" (McAdams, 1992: 355).
In conclusion, the support and criticisms of the five factor model are not as black and white as
would be hoped. Each argument has logical reasoning and can provide evidence to support itself.
Each view also has a large number of supporters. Neither one is necessarily correct, as it is possible
for the model to be applicable at some stages, and not applicable at others. As a result, it is probable
and acceptable to conclude that the five factor theory may or may not be an appropriate model of
personality. Perhaps a comparison of how much supporting literature there is for each argument is a
useful method for deciding which theory an individual may choose to support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)