Nietzsche V. Kierkegaard

Arguing on the side of Nietzsche
1. How are the levels of Kierkegaard's Aesthetic stage similar or different from Nietzsche’s primal will, child’s will and the will to power?

Kierkegaard's Aesthetic stage involves one's pleasures and immaturity arising as a result of taking notice of his/her worldly surroundings.

Nietzsche's primal will is the demarcation of life itself, or the affirmation of universal reality. While child's will refers to developing an understanding of life. One's will to power is the "force" that drives an individual to achieve ambition or achievement, or the highest possible position in life (Wiki).

Both stages are similar in the sense that one is trying to reach the "spiritual stage". Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage and Nietzsche's will involve an individual taking into account their surroundings and making ethical decisions based on their ability and reliance on senses (ex: ambition) to execute those decisions.

2. What is the value of the horizon of the ethical stage? Are these values man-made?

The value horizon of the ethical is man-made. For example, in a deserted island it would be morally wrong and viewed down upon by our society to practice cannibalism. Yet, the ethical decision of those who practice cannibalism would be to practice it anyways and do as they please since they do not have to follow the value horizon.

3. Faith is merely another value horizon therefore it can be debunked and discarded as needed.

Dangerous topic...ohhhh.....

Nietzsche would argue that faith is the belief in a higher power or some "mystical guidance" that would help one solve life problems. Basically, Nietzsche warns that organized religion leads to faith, so he warns one to stay away from it because it could lead to false hopes in the eyes of the individual.

4. God is a human construct.

Nietzsche would agree with the above statement. He would carefully argue that faith, a value horizon, would lead to one constructing a higher being that would ultimately resolve/help life problems. So basically, humans have this idea of a higher being or power helping them through life issues through faith (relates to #4)

Hard to argue because of paradox idea Kierkegaard brought up about no conception of God.

DANGEROUS TOPIC...OHH....

5. Antigone: interesting, well for one, everyone dies at some point in their lives. But, this cannot be change by a person's will to power...brings us back to the whole idea of faith

then there is the fact that Antigone went against the value horizon found in the aesthetic stage and decided to bury her brother, even if it was against the law

Basically, Nietzsche would argue that will to power plays a large role in Antigone. But it is not exercised correctly by the characters and the characters in Antigone use their will to power for death but not to ultimately liberate themselves from Oedipus who imposes himself as a threat to all the characters in the book.

6. Joker and Bane:

Joker exercises his will to power freely, and goes against the ethics of Gotham City and does as he pleases to make himself happy.

Don't remember Bane argument...

Imperfect Societies Debate Entry

I thought that the imperfect societies debate was interesting, the formulation of: ideas, rebuttals, and arguments from all societies was interesting to hear about. Although, I did have a little bit of trouble formulating thoughts for rebuttals for our society. Also, I couldn't clearly grasp some concepts that were being rebutted. All in all, the debate took me out of my comfort zone, since I'm not a usual talker.

Each society was unique in there own way, and all of them are in someway implicated into our society today (or where):

The oligarchs were those who were wealthy, the elite few who are able to rule. The oligarchs are the ones who are able to obtain education and use that education for the successful future of a society. For example, we see Oligarchs today as: Bill Gates and politicians such as Bush and Clinton.
Our group had the task of defending the oligarch society, and we used tactics such as trying to achieve the greater good for the most number of people through the use of education of the elites.

Democracy is basically giving voice to the people, which includes electing representatives to represent their society in the most suitable way. There are a lot of examples of Democracy, most commonly, the US is a democracy in which eligible citizens are allowed to vote on their representative. Although, there were fallacies with the Democratic system that came up in the debates: not everyone has the right to vote. There are illegible citizens who don't have representation of voice.

There are less examples of no tyranny type societies seen in today's world. During the 20th century there were rulers such as Hitler and Mussolini were seen as tyrannical leaders who restricted the liberties of the people they ruled. This became a problem in the in class debate-tyranny was attacked a lot over Hitler and the Holocaust.

For the Republic, there was even less representation of the society in our world today. It might be due to the society non existent nature of the Republic.

For Timarchy, there was a lot of talk about military, it relates a lot to our society because of the use of militaristic elements in our own society. Such as schools that offer military training-free education for service

Parmenides View

Heraclitus maintained that everything changes. Parmenides rationalized that change was not possible. He believed that change was a deception caused by the senses, and could not be achieved. As a result, our perception of the world is not as it seems. Instead, we can only apprehend the world through logic.

Parmenides also argues that the perception of movement and change is an illusion. He strongly believes in this notion and rationalizes that everything that is, has always been and will ever be, the same. In essence, Parmenides believed that if you speak or think of something, the word or thought relates to something that actually exists. Parmenides assumes a constant meaning of words and concludes that everything always exists and that there is no change. Change cannot happen because everything can be thought of all the time. 

Thus as a conclusion, Heraclitus was wrong in his point of view. Change cannot happen because our senses deceive us. Only logic and reason is possible. 

Earplugs and Headphones

Imagine yourself not being able to hear or see. What would it feel like? You would forever be living a life where you are unable to enjoy the beauty of sight and the wonders of sound. When blindfolded you can definitely imagine yourself in that position. But, it proves difficult when you can't see the things in front of you or hear what goes on. When crossing the street it would be almost impossible to know whether or not a car is coming, and you obviously wouldn't be able to hear people telling you that it's safe to cross the street. Of course, it's unsatisfying having two of your five senses missing. You would have your sense of touch, taste, and smell to guide you through your journey in life.

I can only say that I am thankful to be able to go through every day life being able to hear and see. I can imagine and pretend to know how it feels like to have certain senses missing. I don't think anyone takes into consideration how lucky they truly are to have all their senses complete. Most of the time we just run through life in a hurry, worried and concerned with our own needs. In the end, we never truly stop to appreciate the values of the fact that we are able to do and see things things that others are not fortunate enough to experience.

The third floor does exist

I must admit, this blog post title isn't as interesting as my last one. But nonetheless it relates to what I did in IB Philosophy today. So, let's get started. How can you prove something exists? What is the basis of its existence? Do I exist? How do I know that I am real, and not a character from a book?
I've never really wondered about mankind's existence until today. Recently, I have been very intrigued with reading Sophie's World. The book not only provides a view into the history of philosophy, but the book also uses philosophy to address philosophical questions such as the difference between the real world and the imaginary world.

Imagine you were given a task. This task was to prove that the third floor of your school does indeed exist. How would you address the question? One of the first things you might think of is that the third floor exists because it is part of the school and you walk through its hallways everyday. Well, that is true. But there are other ways the you could prove the third floor exists. You could say that if you asked someone who was on the third floor "what floor are you on?" they would reply with "third floor." Each floor in our school is distinguished by a sign that reads what floor they are on. Logically, if the sign reads "3rd Floor" than we are obviously on that floor.

There are logical fallacies to my thinking on whether or not the third floor actually exists. It could just be that all the floors in the school are someway connected by the stairs. This allows the school floors to actually be just one huge floor (if that makes sense?).

A Change In Scenery

Imagine being put to the ultimate test. Not being able to see. That is exactly what I experienced during my first day of IB Philosophy. During class, we did a trust activity. In the activity, you and your partner took turns putting on a blindfold. In the process, your partner acted as your guide without telling you anything. After slipping down a slide and almost falling into a creek, I realized that we as humans are heavily dependent on being able to see. Yet, we never take into consideration that we are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the beauty of life. The world is full of color and we as humans are able to experience it. And yet, we take it for granted and abuse it. For example, I have never once thought to stop and look at my surroundings. Now, imagine living in a world where all you saw was the color black? That’s a big change in scenery, right?

There are parallels between being able to see, and not being able to see. When I was not blindfolded I was able to perfectly picture the world in front of me. I was able to freely walk as I pleased without taking into consideration of what was in front of me. Although, while I was blindfolded I had to make sure that I took into account every step I took. I had to make use of my other senses when crossing the street or when walking (one never knows what is in front of them when they are blindfolded).

In the end, when you have certain senses removed, even if it is for a little while, you come to realize how much you miss them.