Compatibilist

The Q&A this week asked us if we are compatibilists, that is we believe that determinism and free will are compatible, or if we are incompatiblists. I am a compatiblist. I believe that humans have free will over their actions and those actions determine future events. We cannot use an excuse such as "I did not have a choice, it was pre-determined". All events are manifested through our free will. If something is bound to happen, it can be changed through our choices and actions no matter what.

Disciplined Passion

Aristotle introduced the idea of disciplined passion, which is essentially living with both reason and passion. He denounces a purely hedonistic life, however, he does seek a life of pleasure, exercising it through reason. I would like clarification on one thing. The book uses the example of a drug addict being happy with a supply of drugs. However, a drug addict can still experience pleasure with his or her lifestyle. Isn't a drug addict using his or her own twisted reason while taking pleasure in drug use? Therefore, can a life of pleasure be exercised through incorrect reason or it is still just a purely hedonistic life?

Plato and Democracy

Plato's view on democracy and how a society should run in general is that there should be one leader who arises from a power struggle. According to Plato, this individual must be able to act on his own appetites, especially sexual. However, Plato also believed that "it is Reason that ought to control both Spirit and Appetite." This is confusing because Plato believed that a just society would be controlled by a leader who follows his appetites no matter what. However, he also wanted reason to be the main the acting force. Shouldn't society be run by a leader who follows reason which is controlling his appetites? When reason is the main factor in decision making, a society will benefit much more than if a single man's appetites made the decisions.

"Ought implies can"

Professor Johnson briefly mentioned the quote "ought implies can" in class on Friday. I was confused at first as to what it meant, but after some discussion in class, I had a better understanding. My take on it is that if one has the power to do something, he or she can do it. One example was if we have the power to create world peace, we can make it happen. However, I had one problem with this definition and example. How does one know what he or she has the power to do? There is trial and error, but in some cases, people might believe they have the power to do something but in reality they don't. This could lead to much worse consequences than just a simple failure. If one ought to do something, he or she ought to know their limitations.

Good nature that needs to be guarded carefully

"...although Confucius informs us that human nature is fundamentally uniform, he does not clarify whether this is a good nature that needs to be guarded carefully or a bad nature that stands in need of serious reform."(14)

I believe that human nature is a good nature that needs to be guarded carefully. One's behaviors and views are heavily influenced by the environment he or she was raised it. This includes, political and religious beliefs, region in which one grew up, one's caretakers, etc. Even with these factors, some of human nature can't be changed right away. Therefore, we can see that human nature is uniformly good by observing young children. Most young children are in good spirits when around others and are for the most part good. These children haven't grown up enough to be completely influenced by their environments which leads me to believe that if human nature isn't uniformly bad.

Religion vs. Faith

In today's class, a fellow student brought up the question of whether or not religion is necessary to form a society. One of the points I thought was most interesting was that without religion, we would not know what was considered moral. After thinking about this point, I have come up with my opinion on the subject.

In my opinion, there is a difference between religion and faith. One can be faithful without practicing religion. Religion, as another student pointed out, is more of a central idea that concerns all of society. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief in a higher power, which in most cases is a god. So with that in mind, my answer to the question is that a society can follow the main confucian idea of benevolence above all else, without religion. One can live without an organized religion and still gain knowledge on good morals from a higher being through their faith.

Introduction

Hello. My name is Taylor Krowitz. I am a freshman here at MCLA and I am majoring in history and political science. I'm currently planning on becoming a lawyer with my focus being international law. I can speak french fluently and I am currently learning spanish and hope to take italian classes as well. I enjoy playing tennis more than anything. I have been playing for 4 years. I play number 1 singles player and am on the number 1 doubles team for the MCLA men's tennis team. At the moment, philosophy goes way over my head. However, I hope that by the end of the semester, I will be able to not only understand most of the classroom and blog discussions but also contribute new ideas to these discussions. That's all I have to share.