Friday, December 7, 2018
The Last
With finals up next week, the concluding blog post is here. I just want to pay homage to the people who viewed and responded to me during this semester: Jared and Penelope. You guys have been absolutely awesome! We destroyed that presentation, didn't we? It had to have been the best one. I appreciate the time and effort you both have put into your responses; most of them really grabbed my attention and provided new perspectives. Hopefully we find ourselves in the same class again in the future!
Is Consistency a Virtue?
For one of our discussions, we glossed over one of Montaigne's essays, and the question of "is consistency a virtue?" arose. In my opinion, I would say it is not. For example, if I give some person flowers every day at 4:30 PM and say, "I love you," does that mean I am morally righteous? No, personally, I think that is bull. Sure, not everyone would have the will to do that, but would the same effect not be achieved by doing the act just once? If it were me receiving the flowers, the luster of the occasion would lose its shine within five days maximum, and by that point, I would most likely be tired of the whole thing. From my point of view, moderation would be a more "virtuous" quality because it depends on achieving a healthy balance, not how many times you can do something in a row.
Beauty as a Burden
After finishing Don Quixote, the class immediately transitioned to Murasaki Shikibu's The Tale of Genji. At the beginning of the story, Genji's father, the emperor of Japan, falls in love with a woman (Genji's mother) who is very beautiful but of low social status. As a result of his passion for the woman, the other imperial wives and concubines despised her, and their raging jealousy and acts of hostility began affecting the woman's health.
This woman did nothing wrong; she simply was beautiful and caught the attention of a significant person. The situation she experiences in the book begs the question: "Can beauty be a burden?"
From my point of view, beauty can only be a burden if it, as a quality, does not hold the top rank in the hierarchy of social values. The text provides an example, for social status outranked beauty within the hierarchy of Japan's social structure at that time. If beauty was valued above all else in a society, then it could not be a burden; it could only be seen as a tool for acquiring power. In a society where beauty is valued above all else, people would still get jealous, but they would have less of an inclination to act on the jealousy because, no matter what, they cannot improve upon their beauty to a great extent. No matter what, people more naturally beautiful than them will always be more beautiful and nothing will change that.
Social status still outranks beauty in the hierarchy, however, and I do not know of any civilizations that contradict the trend. Even in modern-day United States, rich and powerful people, even if ugly, will have an easier time finding a partner. A woman may like a beautiful guy, but she will not stay with him if he's broke and lazy. The same applies if the genders are reversed.
Basically, I think beauty can be a burden due to the current social hierarchy of values, but in a theoretical scenario where beauty trumps all other values, beauty cannot be a burden. What do you guys think?
This woman did nothing wrong; she simply was beautiful and caught the attention of a significant person. The situation she experiences in the book begs the question: "Can beauty be a burden?"
From my point of view, beauty can only be a burden if it, as a quality, does not hold the top rank in the hierarchy of social values. The text provides an example, for social status outranked beauty within the hierarchy of Japan's social structure at that time. If beauty was valued above all else in a society, then it could not be a burden; it could only be seen as a tool for acquiring power. In a society where beauty is valued above all else, people would still get jealous, but they would have less of an inclination to act on the jealousy because, no matter what, they cannot improve upon their beauty to a great extent. No matter what, people more naturally beautiful than them will always be more beautiful and nothing will change that.
Social status still outranks beauty in the hierarchy, however, and I do not know of any civilizations that contradict the trend. Even in modern-day United States, rich and powerful people, even if ugly, will have an easier time finding a partner. A woman may like a beautiful guy, but she will not stay with him if he's broke and lazy. The same applies if the genders are reversed.
Basically, I think beauty can be a burden due to the current social hierarchy of values, but in a theoretical scenario where beauty trumps all other values, beauty cannot be a burden. What do you guys think?
Monday, December 3, 2018
Consequentialism Is Preferred
While analyzing the themes of Don Quixote, our classroom stumbled upon the idea of "consequentialism", an abstract philosophy that was challenging to comprehend. Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences." In other words, it is the belief that all of your actions are either morally good or bad depending on the outcome. Good outcome means it was a good action; bad outcome means it was a bad action. The intentions do not matter. To clarify, the text did not feature consequentialism; in fact, it displayed the opposite.
Within the story of Don Quixote, the main character acts according to his ideals (or the ideals of a persona) which embody a chivalrous knight. Because of his delusions, he ventures through the countryside, trying to "help" people. Although his actions may have the best of intentions, he ends up causing problems for some. To sum it all up, he performs actions without thinking about the consequences.
To a few, this rashness is an admirable trait. They believe that living according to ones ideals and acting upon them no matter what and without thinking about the consequences is virtuous. After all, if one does not think about the consequences, then that individual cannot be selfish because he/she did not think about the possible rewards in return for helping. I, however, have a different perspective: always acting on one's ideals can be dangerous and consequentialism is preferred by society.
In my opinion, the American judicial system relies on a mix of consequentialism and intentions-based arguments, but good outcomes are usually favored and bad outcomes can lead to punishment. A great example is the Good Samaritans Law. According to definitions.uslegal.com, the law protects "someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. So, if put into the context of this blog post, this would be the situation: An idealist finds himself/herself in the situation of encountering an injured person who they would immediately rush to help. The Good Samaritans Law protects the person because it assumes they have good intentions, but it could also punish him/her if the act produces a negative outcome. On the same website, it details another aspect of the law which states that "...if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful." In short, if the injuries are made worse, you can be prosecuted; however, each state enforces the law differently.
All in all, it seems that society acknowledges good intentions, but the outcome comes first when passing judgement. What do you guys think? Should the idealist, who tries to help but is careless in his helping, be punished or not? I think the person should be.
Within the story of Don Quixote, the main character acts according to his ideals (or the ideals of a persona) which embody a chivalrous knight. Because of his delusions, he ventures through the countryside, trying to "help" people. Although his actions may have the best of intentions, he ends up causing problems for some. To sum it all up, he performs actions without thinking about the consequences.
To a few, this rashness is an admirable trait. They believe that living according to ones ideals and acting upon them no matter what and without thinking about the consequences is virtuous. After all, if one does not think about the consequences, then that individual cannot be selfish because he/she did not think about the possible rewards in return for helping. I, however, have a different perspective: always acting on one's ideals can be dangerous and consequentialism is preferred by society.
In my opinion, the American judicial system relies on a mix of consequentialism and intentions-based arguments, but good outcomes are usually favored and bad outcomes can lead to punishment. A great example is the Good Samaritans Law. According to definitions.uslegal.com, the law protects "someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. So, if put into the context of this blog post, this would be the situation: An idealist finds himself/herself in the situation of encountering an injured person who they would immediately rush to help. The Good Samaritans Law protects the person because it assumes they have good intentions, but it could also punish him/her if the act produces a negative outcome. On the same website, it details another aspect of the law which states that "...if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful." In short, if the injuries are made worse, you can be prosecuted; however, each state enforces the law differently.
All in all, it seems that society acknowledges good intentions, but the outcome comes first when passing judgement. What do you guys think? Should the idealist, who tries to help but is careless in his helping, be punished or not? I think the person should be.
Friday, November 23, 2018
A Lie With Good Intentions
About two weeks ago, our classroom was discussing Don Quixote, the story of a delusional man who thinks he is a knight. During our dialogue, this question presented itself: "Is it morally acceptable to tell a lie for the sake of the greater good?"
In most cultures, lying is viewed disdainfully, so I can see why this question could cause some controversy; however, the response to the question was unanimous: yes, it is morally acceptable. I was unsure, though, if the question appealed to either a logical argument or an emotional one within the minds of my classmates. For myself, I answered "yes" because I imagined a scenario where lying would be applied logically in order to achieve the best possible outcome. For instance, if a criminal entered my home and asked me if anyone else was in the house, then I would answer "no" because that would increase the chances of survival for everyone inside the house, including myself. You could also spin that same scenario in an emotional way, saying something along the lines of "no, because my family/friends are in the house and I care for them."
Regardless of the reasoning, most people find it morally acceptable to lie if it benefits other people. It provides a good excuse for such a "despicable" act, making it appear noble instead of malicious. In the context of the question, I view lying as a tool, not a necessary evil.
Does the "American Dream" Still Exist?
With what has to be the longest hiatus I have taken from the blogging scene, I must apologize for the lack of consistency. On the bright side, I have finally motivated myself to produce some quality content.
For this first topic, I will be backtracking to Giovanni Boccaccio's The Decameron which was discussed roughly three to four weeks ago. The question I will be attempting to answer is whether or not a grand narrative still persists in the United States.
Although the existence of many possible "grand narratives" can be debated, I will focus on the American dream, since it is the one I am most familiar with. The "American dream" is a concept that was taught to me from an early age, although the term itself did not appear until my early adolescence. As early as Kindergarten (age five), the question of "what do you want to be when you grow up?" became the central pillar of contemplation. From then on, the expectation to make something of myself never ceased. In my eyes, this expectation, which I believe to be fundamental to American society, spells out the existence of a grand narrative. However, that is my subjective truth.
The American dream is defined as "the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative." To prove or disprove the reality of this term, questions must be asked to see if the prerequisites implied within it are met. Does every US citizen have an equal opportunity to achieve success? Is success and prosperity distinguishable from non-success (is it real)? Can success be achieved through hard work, determination, and initiative alone?
As far as I know, equality of opportunity has been achieved to the best it can be. The government has established rules for companies and organizations so that they cannot discriminate in the hiring process. No matter the race, religion, or sexual orientation, nothing instituted by the government is barring those who want to achieve success from doing so. Family units and the raising of children have a more profound impact on the success of an individual than the government in this point in time. It can be debated, however, that government programs such as affirmative action disrupt the balance and true "equality of opportunity", but there is a huge difference between installing an expedient policy that gives more opportunity and preventing success outright. So, in a sense, the current state of affairs does not meet the requirement of "equal opportunity".
Successful people and non-successful people are most definitely distinguishable from one another. It is the inevitability of capitalism, after all. One can look at faces such as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg and realize that achieving immense success was possible in the past and is still possible today. The same goes for the homeless people on the streets; the road stretches in two directions. From a monetary standpoint, success is real.
The last question is a difficult one. I would like to believe that anyone could overcome any obstacle as long as they worked hard enough, but the sad reality is that some people cannot. Dealing in absolutes is tricky business. If the question simply entails the possibility of just one individual achieving success due to hard work, then that scenario is undeniably true.
In my opinion, the "American dream" still exists; nevertheless, I am aware that there may be examples that contradict the reality of its textbook definition. I am curious as to what you guys think. Does it still exist?
For this first topic, I will be backtracking to Giovanni Boccaccio's The Decameron which was discussed roughly three to four weeks ago. The question I will be attempting to answer is whether or not a grand narrative still persists in the United States.
Although the existence of many possible "grand narratives" can be debated, I will focus on the American dream, since it is the one I am most familiar with. The "American dream" is a concept that was taught to me from an early age, although the term itself did not appear until my early adolescence. As early as Kindergarten (age five), the question of "what do you want to be when you grow up?" became the central pillar of contemplation. From then on, the expectation to make something of myself never ceased. In my eyes, this expectation, which I believe to be fundamental to American society, spells out the existence of a grand narrative. However, that is my subjective truth.
The American dream is defined as "the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative." To prove or disprove the reality of this term, questions must be asked to see if the prerequisites implied within it are met. Does every US citizen have an equal opportunity to achieve success? Is success and prosperity distinguishable from non-success (is it real)? Can success be achieved through hard work, determination, and initiative alone?
As far as I know, equality of opportunity has been achieved to the best it can be. The government has established rules for companies and organizations so that they cannot discriminate in the hiring process. No matter the race, religion, or sexual orientation, nothing instituted by the government is barring those who want to achieve success from doing so. Family units and the raising of children have a more profound impact on the success of an individual than the government in this point in time. It can be debated, however, that government programs such as affirmative action disrupt the balance and true "equality of opportunity", but there is a huge difference between installing an expedient policy that gives more opportunity and preventing success outright. So, in a sense, the current state of affairs does not meet the requirement of "equal opportunity".
Successful people and non-successful people are most definitely distinguishable from one another. It is the inevitability of capitalism, after all. One can look at faces such as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg and realize that achieving immense success was possible in the past and is still possible today. The same goes for the homeless people on the streets; the road stretches in two directions. From a monetary standpoint, success is real.
The last question is a difficult one. I would like to believe that anyone could overcome any obstacle as long as they worked hard enough, but the sad reality is that some people cannot. Dealing in absolutes is tricky business. If the question simply entails the possibility of just one individual achieving success due to hard work, then that scenario is undeniably true.
In my opinion, the "American dream" still exists; nevertheless, I am aware that there may be examples that contradict the reality of its textbook definition. I am curious as to what you guys think. Does it still exist?
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Fortune vs Fate: What is the Difference?
I would consider this a "Double Post - Sunday" kind of deal, but I think I already used that name, so individual titles it is!
What is the difference between fortune and fate?
While discussing this topic in the classroom, I chimed in, saying, "Fortune has a more positive connotation." Why is that exactly? I suppose its because of the undesirable--and sometimes horrifying--resolutions that are attributed to it in ancient literature. In Oedpius Rex, the main character is "fated" to marry his mother, kill his father, and finally discover the fact the he did it. In grotesque fashion, Oedipus gouges his eyes out at the end of the story. However, there are stories that have "good" fates, such as Odysseus finally coming home. Perhaps fortune has a more positive connotation because it always entails something good, while fate can be either good or bad.
Another argument that could be made is on the aspect of freedom and choice. In a world where "fate" exists, everything is predetermined. There is no changing a series of events, no matter how hard you try. It's a box you cannot escape. In comparison, a world where "fortune" exists implies that events can happen that are out of the ordinary, unexpected. If that is possible, then the capability of impacting outcomes must also be possible. One limits the scope of possibilities, whereas the other allows for an unlimited amount.
I, for one, prefer a life I have direct control over. I don't want to be a cog in a "cosmic machine".
What is the difference between fortune and fate?
While discussing this topic in the classroom, I chimed in, saying, "Fortune has a more positive connotation." Why is that exactly? I suppose its because of the undesirable--and sometimes horrifying--resolutions that are attributed to it in ancient literature. In Oedpius Rex, the main character is "fated" to marry his mother, kill his father, and finally discover the fact the he did it. In grotesque fashion, Oedipus gouges his eyes out at the end of the story. However, there are stories that have "good" fates, such as Odysseus finally coming home. Perhaps fortune has a more positive connotation because it always entails something good, while fate can be either good or bad.
Another argument that could be made is on the aspect of freedom and choice. In a world where "fate" exists, everything is predetermined. There is no changing a series of events, no matter how hard you try. It's a box you cannot escape. In comparison, a world where "fortune" exists implies that events can happen that are out of the ordinary, unexpected. If that is possible, then the capability of impacting outcomes must also be possible. One limits the scope of possibilities, whereas the other allows for an unlimited amount.
I, for one, prefer a life I have direct control over. I don't want to be a cog in a "cosmic machine".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)