In your post please address the following questions:
*What is your political, ethical and / or religious philosophy?
*What evidence or life experiences do you use to support your philosophy?
*Out of the philosophers we have discussed this quarter, with whom do you have the most intellectual agreement? With whom do you have the most disagreement?
*What do you plan on doing with your personal philosophy? How will it shape your life?
Thanks for sharing your insight with me this term. I have loved teaching this class!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I believe I have a mixed philosophy. In my religion, I have taken a leap of faith. There is no real evidence I have seen to make me believe. I have more been trained to believe in what I believe in today I think, so that goes with Skinner's theory. On the other hand, I believe that the world has free will. I more then believe, I hope the world is made up of free will, because a life of determinism would be a very sad life. I then start to think about, it is because of morals that Skinner's theory come into play. If you think about it, if your morals are listen and respect your authority then you will be trained to follow what they tell you to do, but if you do not then you choose what you want to do. Then that all comes back to free will. To me I really am still confused on that My philosophy is. That does not bother me though. Philosophy really all comes down to the big unanswerable questions of life.
What I have come to love about a certain philosopher is Socrates. Him knowing that life was full of questions and that there was no real answer fascinates me, and makes me almost better understand philosophy itself. Everyone can ask questions, but philosophy is really just opinions.
The only philosopher this year that I could not relate to at all is Zeno. His theories did not make any sense, but honestly all the other philosophers had respectable opinions.
Well now that I better understand philosophy. I see my life on different sides now. When I try to answer life questions, or look at what is happening in my life, and purpose, I look at all the philosopher's opinions. I am now more curious and want to ask more questions. Maybe attend a Socrates Cafe?...
I understand I did not answer these questions exactly correct, but I do not think I have any solid answers.
My personal philosophy is basically just to do whatever makes me happy. I feel like this is a good philosophy for me because it doesn't make me happy to hurt other people, and I'm not careless. My political philosophy is kind of the same, to do what's in the general publics best interest for now and the future. I think unpopular decision can be justified this way. My religious philosophy is also pretty laid back; if religion ever becomes something important in my life, then I'll use it, but right now, it isn't important to me. I think my philosophy has worked well for me so far. I think the philosophy I agree with most is Taoism. I think that if you just go with the flow, good things will happen eventually, and its easier to find good things when they just come to you rather than looking around for them. I like the example of not switching lanes when driving because the other lane will speed up, things like that irritate me so I avoid them. I hope my personal philosophy stays with me throughout my whole life but it will probably change at some point.
I'm an avid believer in the social contract for political philosophy, the "leap of faith" in religious philosophy, and the deontological viewpoint in ethical philosophy. I believe in the leap of faith because of my grandfather's rationale for becoming a minister and I think that people find God in all sorts of places so it can't be logically filled out to prove that God exists. Deontology represents my views as well because I don't agree with the aspects of sacrificing certain human lives for other which is almost always the outcome in decisions like those. I also believe in the social contract because without some stability and rules and boundaries there would be a constant stare of chaos due to miscommunication and lack of sharing resources so the world would be trapped in violence and lack of justice. The philosopher I agreed with most is Kirkegaard because I think his rejection of mainstream philosophy in the 19th century Europe was neccessary to represent the believers of Christianity by explaining that there will always be risk in believing in God but he still exists. I hate totalizing notions alot, so his idea of risk appealed to me. The person I disagreed with most was Neitzsche because I think his ideas of master morality and slave morality are just untrue and the idea of a "perfect" being is nihilist so he contradicts his own notions. Personal philosophy for me is used everyday because it affects the way I see things and it creates certain discourses I value higher than others, so it will always be there even though it may not serve a higher purpose.
My political philosophy would be kind of like John Locke's because I believe human nature to be more characterized by reason and tolerance and that government is there to protect our rights. Also, I believe we do have the right to rebel if our rights are not protected. My ethical philosophy would be kind of like Mill's because I think that we should do stuff for the greater good. My religious philosophy would be like Kierkegard because I believe we have to take a leap of faith because there is no way to prove god exists. Example of my ethical philosophy would be like in 24 Jack Bauer kills many people in order to save thousands more people. In my own life I have taken the leap of faith because there is no way to prove that god exists but I do believe that god had to have been the one who started the universe. I agree the most with Sarte because he says that we always have a choice in what we do because of free will. I disagree most with W. D. Ross because I do not think it is ever possible to not hurt someone in your actions. My personal philosophy will help guide me through life in my personal decisions like everything from simple actions between friends to where I want to live.
My philosophy is to do whatever is in my own best interest. Politically, I think that the government should have a large role in social life, providing welfare, and taking care of citizens, but I do not think that the government should involve themselves to the point where our free choice does not exist. I do not think that the government should interfere with social rights either. Although I think that abortions are immoral, it is not the government's place to say what a woman can or cannot do with their body. This philosophy applies to GLBT rights, in that the government should not be able to tell people that they cannot be married regardless of their sexual preference. Ethically, I think that people should strive to cause the least amount of pain possible. Only when life is threatening should extreme measures be used. Religously, I believe in god, but I recognize that my faith is based on the cosmological argument, and if solid evidence was shown to me, I could change my mind. All of my life experiences contribute to my life philosophies. Especially what my family has taught me. I agree with Daoism the most out of all the philosophies, if we just go with the flow and get it how we live. I have the most disagreement with Buddhism in that I think life should be savored.
My political philosophy is more along the lines and ideas of Hobbes. He thought that people are naturally chaotic which I agree with. I think this because I personally feel as if people are selfish, not intentionally but not knowingly. I also feel as if the social contract is put in place to maintain social order. My ethical philosophy resembles the ideas of Mill. I think that utilitarianism is the most practical because I do not think that all one type of action is necessarily wrong or right in every situation. I think that the outcome ultimately determines whether or not the action is right or wrong. My religious philosophy is kind of a mix between many of the philosophers but the one I tend to lean more towards is Kierkegaard. I think this because I believe in God not because I can prove he exists but because I take that "leap of faith". Out of the philosophers we have discussed this quarter, I have the most intellectual agreement with Satre on the subject of free will. On the other hand, the philosopher whom I have the most disagreement with is Karl Marx. I plan on using my personal philosophy to help myself better understand things that happen in my life. But I also plan on using all the ideas we have learned in this class to get a better feel for how and possibly why other people feel the way they do on certain situations.
My personal philosophy basically involves me doing things that make me happy. I feel like i can live like that as long as the things that i do will not directly affect someone else's life in a negative way. I would mostly agree with the utilitarian John Stuart Mill. I think that people should think about the choices they make before they act. I something I am going to do is going to have an obvious negative outcome, I will more than likely avoid doing it. I believe that my personal philosophy will allow me to live a fairly happy life and let me do some of the things that make me happy. I want to live life being able to say that I do not regret a thing.
My personal political philosophy follows Locke's social contract theory. I believe in this philosophy because I think that it is a realistic expectation to be able to give some rights over to the government in order to live in a better world. I also believe in what he says about natural rights and that every person is entitled to a certain right to life that government or anything else cannot take away. Certain life experiences that reflect this would be the fact that I have a right to life liberty and property, so under these rights I can have the ability to own a home and other bits of property. I agree with Locke the most about this theory because he agrees with the social contract theory, and I agree the least with Marx because he wanted people to turn all rights over to the government, and for people to live in a communist society. This philosophy will shape my life because it will make me motivated to fight to keep these rights, and believe that although people should give some rights over to the government, that they do not need to give all of them, and that the government is still responsible for keeping the people protected. It will keep me active in government and making sure that the government I am living under is keeping with my political theory.
As far as my life philosophy, I feel that its mixed. Ethically, its a combination of free will and behavioral conditioning. I feel as though throughout my life I have been conditioned to do certain things, but I have the choice to follow through with them or not. In my opinion, a person can't be fully one or the other. There is too much evidence to prove that people are a mix of both. In my life, an example of why I am a mix of both is eating breakfast. From my parents and proven fact, breakfast if the most important meal of the day. But, I choose not to eat it. I would if I woke up earlier, but I don't, so therefore I don't have time for it. Another example is that in sports, I am conditioned to perform my best at all times, and I choose to because the sports that I do are dear to me. Working hard pays off in the long run. I agree most with Socrates because he believed that knowledge and moral fiber were already in the human conscience and it can be brought forth with questioning. A person that wants to find an answer to something through dialective, or questioning, makes sense because it isn't hard to come up with answers. I feel as though Socrates is the most relatable and easiest to understand when learning philosophy. His theories and ideas are easy to comprehend and mold into your own ideas. I disagree most with St. Anselm because an all perfect God can't exist. I think that the world would be a better place if God was perfect. But, in reality, it isn't, and the world needs some dysfuntion to function. If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be fun. Everything would get old and boring. As for my personal philosophy, I plan to use it once in a while because it seems like the most logical thing to do. Hopefully it will shape my life for the better, and my decisions don't have a negative effect for the outcome.
Politically, I consider myself to be rather liberal. Regarding ethics, I tend to believe more in cultural relativism. The philosophical idea that has gained most of my thought, religion, has recently become a lot more clear to me as of late. I've decided that I consider myself an agnostic.
Politically, I tend to agree with liberal ideology more because I'm a big supporter of giving aid to people of a lower economic status than me. I also think that the conservative school of political thought is used because it is an easy sell to constituents, and I absolutely hate the idea of the "trickle down" effect. I consider that to be a blatant excuse to give rich people more money so that politician will be re-elected. But, I digress. Ethically I side with cultural relativism because I'm a big believer in nurture over nature, and that if someone is brought up a certain way that they might reject some notions about what is right and wrong that many of us would think to be a no-brainer. Religiously, I've began to consider myself an agnostic because I've basically decided that I don't believe in Christianity, but I don't completely reject the idea that something does happen to us after we die. My thought is that death is something that we will never understand as long as we are alive, and that the afterlife could potentially be something completely new and different, something that mankind has yet to consider.
I guess there has really yet to be a philosopher that I have studied so far this term that I'm completely in agreement with. There are some ideas that I thought were on the right track, but they would almost always come to some conclusion that I didn't necessarily agree with. The philosophical ideas that I have the most disagreement with are those like Pascal, who claim that one should believe in Christianity because the consequences of being wrong would be dire. I hate that argument, and think that Pascal was a coward. Believing in something because you're afraid of the consequences of being wrong shoves all notions of free will and thinking for yourself out the window. It's no reason for believing in anything, and I think that Pascal was too much of a wimp to believe in whatever he felt had the most truth, so I used Christianity as a safety net even though he might not of believed in it a whole lot.
I plan on living my life with as much integrity and morality as I can, and if there is some sort of judgment some day that I will be judged on how well I lived my life, not whether I believed in some book or not. I think that over time, the main messages of religion have been lost and that people used religion as excuses to do whatever they want. Almost all of the world's major religions have the same basic messages, to do good onto others and to live life with virtue. People as of late have strayed away from these thoughts, and now it's almost a competition to prove who is right. That's by far my biggest problem with religion, and it's what has really driven me away from that idea.
My political philosophy is similar to John Lockes in that i think people need to give up some of their rights to gain rights from the government in return. It is the only way that people will be able to protect the rights that they have, and it allows society to function more smoothly as a whole. Life experiences i have that support this entry are that I have to give up my right to drive as fast on the highway as i want, and in return I can get a speeding ticket but i also get clean and safe roads, and the assurance others will be orderly drivers as well. I have the most agreement with John Locke when he says we all have natural rights and in order to protect them people give up some of them to the government. The philospher i disagree most with this term is Marx because I don’t believe that capitalism is all bad. I don’t think that the workers taking back the factory would cause them to commit more to their work and would feel more connected to their products. I think that captialism causes innovation and progress and technology is advanced because of it. What i plan on doing with my personal philosophy is being the best person i can be with my life and being happy. I think that if you are a good person to other people then you will get good things in return. I want to be myself in the future and treat others the way they treat me.
First, my political philosophy aligns most with John Locke. I do think that social contracts mean that individuals give up certain rights but then the government must also protect the people in other ways. I believe that the social contract is a good thing and that it benefits a greater amount of people. Also, I would say I’m a capitalist but I do see the need for government intervention in some markets such as education, utilities, and health care to a certain extent. However, I think that capitalism is a much better system overall than both socialism and communism.
Ethically, I am a utilitarian when it comes to major events and I agree with Kant when it comes to more day to day things. That’s pretty straight forward I think. I recognize that sometimes tough decisions need to be made in order to provide a better world to people.
Religion is a tough one. I have to agree with Kierkegaard and I would say taking a leap of faith really isn’t that crazy. No, I would not jump off a cliff if just some stranger told me it was safe to do so. However, I take other leaps of faith every day in my life or many times in my life. Such as carpooling to school. I am taking a leap of faith that the person driving me isn’t going to kill me. I have flown in an airplane and I took a leap of faith that the pilot was certified, that he wasn’t drunk, etc. Taking a leap of faith really isn’t that crazy of a thing.
Out of the philosophers we studied this quarter I would say that I agree most with John Locke. His natural rights makes a lot of sense to me, I believe every person in the world has these and we recognize them, and that his social contract theory makes a lot of sense to me.
I plan to take my personal philosophies into my working life. Maybe politics, maybe not. But I know that it will play a pretty significant role in life.
My political philosophy runs along two lines: people, if you get enough of them together, are basically stupid. Persons singular are quite intelligent, but people plural possess unlimited capacity for stupidity. The larger a body of people, the less effective each is at their job. A large bureaucratic government is going to be quite inefficient just based on size. The other line of thinking is that while most people are basically good, the ones who are bad spoil it for everyone. This leads me to Rawlsian political thought. The government's job is to level the playing field, prevent crimes that have victims, and otherwise let individual people do their thing. This seems like a probable outcome of the veil of ignorance. People like their freedom, and people like their equality. The more complete freedom and equality can be, the better. The result of my political philosophy is that if the United States continues it's policy of xenophobia and sacrificing liberty for security, I may well just leave. Harken to the words of Ben Franklin: "Any man who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both."
My ethical philosophy is simple and utilitarian. Always think before acting, and work for the betterment of humanity. Sometimes a surgeon has to amputate to save a life. At the same time, consider all possibilities, and prefer nonviolent means to violent means. Violence causes a vicious circle, nonviolence solves problems. Putting yourself into a special relationship is to be considered, you cause even greater harm by breaking a relationship. This neatly ends the largest of the complaints of deontologicalism against utilitarianism. My ethics are a psuedo-combination of Mill and Ross, with a smidge of Kant.
My religious philosophy is the leap of faith combined with the logical wager. I do not recognize any concrete proof of a specific god, but I do recognize proof of some god by the first cause theory, even if it is just a philosopher's god. At the same time, though, I recognize that the God could be anybody's God, multiple Gods, a Goddess, an entire pantheon... you get the idea. Everybody is entitled to their religious opinion, and I will not argue for or against any religion that at least loosely conforms to my ethics (meaning no human sacrifices, and if you must kill a few cows, do so quickly.) I adopt an attitude of wait and see. I will presumably know what kind of afterlife there is when I get there. This attitude is unlikely to change short of a religious awakening.
For my personal philosophy, I agree with Locke about revolution issues. I think that people should have the right to revolt against a government that isn’t protecting their rights. I think that people should try to use civil disobedience before resorting to violence, but if the government is actively hurting their citizens, then they are permitted to use violence. Ethically, I agree with Kant’s ethical imperative. I think it is easy to apply in everyday situations and I also think that it captures practicality and the deontological issues that I agree with. It emphasizes consent which I think is very important because sometimes harm can be beneficial if people give consent. My religious philosophy is very similar to Pascal’s philosophy. His belief that faith can’t be forced for a person makes sense. Also, I think that his justification based on his wager makes sense. I agree that people can’t prove that God exists but I agree that it is valuable to justify one’s belief.
I don’t have many life experiences to support my positions. Mostly, I look to examples in other times or places. India’s quest for independence is an important justification for civil disobedience; it shows how it is very valuable and effective. I base my ethical philosophy on aligning what I had already done and how I had already decided things and then finding the philosopher that seemed most similar. On religious philosophy, it seems mostly that I find my philosophy based on what makes sense to me. I find it difficult to label how I came to that conclusion.
I agree with Kant on many issues. His arguments about the categorical imperative made a lot of sense to me by appealing to both fairness and harm. It is practical while also helping people to make decisions. I also find his arguments against Anselm’s ontological argument to be very convincing. He is logical in setting forth the problems he finds. I have the most disagreement with Plato. I feel that he unnecessarily complicates issues of what is real. Making two worlds and the forms do not agree with what we can see and seems very confusing. I don’t understand why another world needs to be added to show what is truly real.
I think my personal philosophy will help me to make decisions and will help me to consider what my life is going to look like. I certainly don’t think that it will rule my life completely and I won’t label my actions in terms of a philosophy but I think that it will help me to understand my actions and other’s actions in the future.
My religious philosophy closely follows what Kirkegaard's beliefs were. I believe that religion and God aren't something you can prove. You must take a leap of faith and trust your gut instincts. Faith is a personal choice. While religion can be argued, it can't be proven and arguments over whether or not God exists just go in circles. In my personal experiences, faith is a comfort to me and a choice to believe. This can't be taken away or disproved by any "evidence" because faith, like Kirkegaard stated, is a leap of faith. My political philosophy resembles Locke's beliefs and the social contract. For a country to work, I believe that the people must give up some rights and the government must in turn protect them. If the government fails to do this, the people have a right to rebel in a peaceful way.
In my experiences, as I've stated, faith is a personal choice and involves a leap of faith. Religion and God (in Christianity) is based on having a faith in God and getting to heaven because of this faith. If there were proof, the aspect of faith would be taken from religion and it would have no meaning anymore. For my political philosophy, I've experienced having money taken by the government out of my paycheck. While this is not very fun, I think that it is necessary because the government provides a lot of services that I use every day.
I agree most with Locke and his social contract theory, but I disagree the most with Marx. He believed the working people should overthrow the people in power and the government and take over. However, this hasn't worked in the past and it's kind of ridiculous. We need the government to provide service for us and maintain order, which is why I agree with Locke the most.
I plan on using my philosophies to shape my political life and how I vote and feel about the government. I've always wanted to be more involved in politics and my philosophies will help!
I agree with Kierkegaards theory that you should take a leap of faith. I have had what I believe are "signs" through my life that lead me to believe there is a god. Even with all the evil in the world I have learned that you can't have compassion without it. That already collides with my belief that everything happens for a reason. I have these views influenced through Buddhism. I believe from Buddhism that we have to remove all of our possessions in order to find happiness. I do this with a lot of things in my life. I think I can find myself agreeing with the Buddhas views the most. Zeno on the other hand has theory's that don't seem true. His theory of how all motion we see is different. Of how I walk to the door right now, I'll never get there because everything is half. It makes sense, but must not be true since I did go to through many doors. I enjoyed this quarter in Philosophy and have been finding myself comparing some of the decisions I make to the philosophers I've learned about. Philosophy has changed me and the way I look at things in an average day. I've been thinking, maybe there is more to this world than what I see in front in me
Post a Comment