Philosophy Exam Essays
A. In Learning Unit 1 we examined what philosophy is, what philosophers do, and how thinking philosophically is something different than what "practical men" do. Briefly define philosophy, referencing your text, and then explain it in your own words. Also, please explain Bertrand Russell's view about the value of studying philosophy. Who is the "practical man", and how does this person's view towards philosophy differ?
Defining philosophy is not a simple task because of the complex nature of philosophy. Philosophy deals with the most complex and challenging questions in human life. They are questions, that by their very nature resist most simple answers. Philosophy is ultimately, in summation of the many parts joined, the intellectual pursuit of wisdom. It is in the examination of the underlying principles and methodologies confronted throughout daily lives that philosophy provides a very useful and intangible way for living. Philosophy is not merely a static compendium of great thoughts by great thinkers, it is an ever-evolving, ever-changing activity that reflects passion and commitment in its intellectual ambitions. Philosophy is a liberating freedom from all social, political, religious, and historical prejudices. It is the collective makeup of the constant questions that drive us, in its many varying forms, to understand and empower life as we know it.
According to Bertrand Russell, if the study of philosophy has any value at all for those that do not partake in it, it will be in indirect terms, through its effect upon the lives of those who study it. It is exclusively in the goods of the mind, or beneficial to the thought process, that the value of philosophy can be functionally measured. As soon as definitive knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent then real. Those questions which have no definite answers remain to form the residue which is called philosophy. It is the business of philosophy to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe, which is apt to be killed, by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge. Thus the value of philosophy is to be sought largely in its uncertainty, as it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing the familiar in an unfamiliar aspect.
Being philosophical in nature, is the ability to question and disregard any previous attempts at truly knowing yourself and the world around you. Philosophy is as much retaining the wonder we were given as a child, to learn everything that we could by asking the question why. By simply not accepting any given answer as an automatic compulsion, philosophy allows you to truly gain knowledge and experience it as your own definition of life. It is the underlying subroutine of countless personal decisions and choices made throughout your days. Philosophy also is an exciting internal motivator, an impassioned ability to wonder, to help push yourself further in the intellectual process to thoughtfully understand the world lying around you. If philosophy were non-existent, not many people would try to think very deeply, to understand the true complexities of life as we know it. To try and discover that which is beyond the static surfaces, the remedial answers; to dig deeper until a true knowledge of understanding is within reach, is the ultimate goal of thinking philosophically.
In Russell's view, practical men, by nature are those that are generally living deeply estranged into a material world that focuses only on physical need. They realize that they must provide food for the body, but are wholly ignorant when it comes to providing food for the mind. Only those who are not indifferent to providing food for the mind that the study of philosophy is worth the effort. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, and obvious. Common objects rouse no questioning, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. The exterior world is usually not regarded by these men, except when it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of their everyday lives.
Practical men, are by nature, conservative in thought and action. They use many numbers of excuses and fears to remain with the static explanation of things. They do not understand, nor wish to, the end result of constantly asking why or how something is the way it is. They are complacent in living life as if there were a simple standard set forth, never allowing for the passionate thoughts of excitement in discovering something entirely new or being provoked into searching for an ultimately deeper resolution. They never set their foot in the door to the bigger more complex questions plaguing our constantly evolving ways of life. Thus they focus on the surrounding trees instead of the forest as a whole.
In summation, philosophy is not a simple form to define, when in its nature, it deals with the most complex and challenging questions in human life. It is the constant questioning from within that drives us to understand and empower life as we know it. The value of philosophy keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing that which is familiar in our lives from an unfamiliar perspective. The purpose of philosophy is usually not regarded by practical men, except when it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of their everyday lives. They are complacent in never wanting to be provoked into searching for deeper answers of common occurrences. The ultimate aim of philosophy is to promote that very ability to discover that which goes beyond surfaces of the norm to pursue a true knowledge of understanding the universe around us. As Russell stated, “Through the infinity of the universe, the mind that contemplates it, achieves a share in that infinity.”
C. From Learning Unit 3 explain the shift in thinking away from dualism towards materialism. First explain dualism, its roots & explanation, then talk about why some in modern times no longer accept it. Do you think dualism or materialism is the superior view?
Dualism is a set of philosophical views about the relationship between mind and matter, where mental phenomena are claimed to be of a non-physical origin. Dualism, in its humbling origins, comprised of two dichotomous realms. One realm is transient and imperfect in the physical, while the other is unchanging and eternal in the spiritual. Socrates metaphysical scheme of a dualistic reality has had a profound impact on the way the self is understood. According to Socrates, our bodies belonged to the imperfect realm, while our souls belonged to the realm of ideas. However with its origins vaguely placed in the teachings of Socrates, it was not until Descartes came along the Dualistic nature was uniformly defined. Descartes declared that the essential self, as a thinking entity, is radically perpendicular than the self as a material substance. He was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and to distinguish this from the physical properties of the human brain.
What is truly remarkable about the idea of Socrates dualistic reality, is how closely it parallels modern Western beliefs, in consciousness and in the religious experience. In many western religion's, it is thought that we all have a finite body, an immortal soul, and an eternal realm in which the soul seeks communion with eternal bliss. As long as the soul is tied to the body, the soul's quest for wisdom and perfection is inhibited by the imperfection of the physical realm. Reason is the soul's tool to achieve this exalted state, in that it enables the soul to free itself from the corrupting imperfection of the body in pursuit of communion with the unchanging. In his Meditations, Descartes discovered with that very reason, that he could doubt whether he had a body (as it could be possible that reality was but illusion), but he could not doubt whether he had a mind, a thinking conscious mind. It is in reference to that where Descartes was famously coined, “I think - therefore I am.”
In a counterpoint to Socrates observation of a dualistic reality, Plato suggested, “How is it possible to say that a self remains the same when it is obvious that every 'self' is defined by a process of continual change and evolution?” Given that contemporary science has revealed that even the smallest physical embodiments of ourselves, in our cells, are dying and being replaced by new cells in an ongoing basis. Detractors in the scientists of modern times and of Descartes time, are usually inclined to view the human self in terms of the physical body, governed by the same laws of physics that direct the rest of the naturally perceived universe. That we would experience our minds and bodies as a unified entity, is the underlying emphasis of Materialism. Most philosophers agree that Descartes' attempts at proving the integration of the mind and body were unsuccessful, having plagued thinkers in every discipline since.
From my perspective, the essential self, as a thinking entity, is radically different than the self as a material substance. While you can make a valid argument for the perceivable conjunction, of body and mind, there is still no definitive way for explaining why it works the way it does. It is in Descartes remark on cases in which the subject is sleeping or comatose, their bodies continue to function as though their minds are not thinking, that in simple reference to the mechanisms of a clock. In the case of the human self, it is easy to imagine the body being divided into various parts, whereas it is almost impossible to imagine the soul as anything other then an indivisible unity. Our consciousness is not the same from moment to moment, constantly in a state of flux, having the possibility to evolve or regress through the relative classification of time, and people often confuse memories with the state of consciousness which is the awareness of mind in the here and now. The body is a material object that is only subject to remaining the same or participates in physical deterioration through time. It is in that thought that I personally prefer a modular view of Dualistic reality, however not all the details entailing the dualistic nature have been conclusively accounted for.
D. From Learning Unit 4, What did Marx mean when he said that religion is the sigh of an oppressed people and that it is the "opiate of the masses?" Is his the best explanation for religion's importance and popularity? What are other views that would explain the religious impulse within people?
According to Marx, religion is an artificial construct developed by the ruling economic class. It is a system of ideas that is designed to keep the working classes oppressed by distracting them, with an after life filled with eternal bliss, from constant injustices performed during this life. As an expression, he delegated religion to be "an opiate for the masses." In this sense, opium is what someone is given to induce them to experience a fantasy instead of a reality. Religion served as an opiate to the workers, discouraging them from taking bold actions to improve their economic conditions here in this present reality. In his direct translation of religion being that of a lucid hypnotizing drug, Marx forms his opinions on the consequences of being able to critique religion from a philosophical basis. From his perspective, the critique of religion will eventually allow us as human beings to alter the artificial belief support system that we are generally raised by in the western world, and thus bring about a point in time where mankind will have the ability to shape its own future.
The message of religion was that while one's life here on earth might be miserable and oppressive, this was not to be a concern of great consequence, as participation in this life would be rewarded with eternal bliss afterwards. Marx's work would be a great inspiration to the resounding social movements taken place around the civilized world in the century following his death. The rise of Socialism in the Bolshevik Revolution, in the Unionization of the working classes in the United States, and even many other notable examples from the industrialized nations, owe thanks to the teachings of Marx. While Marx probably would have not condoned all adaptations of the socialist experiment in the name of the communal spirit that were adopted from his name. However he surely would be pleasantly surprised with the resurgence of humanism and leveling the economic playing field since his teachings and the likes of others first pursued the subject. Religion does not seem to have quite the same stranglehold on hindering mankind's ability to reason and pursue bliss in this lifetime.
Music seems a good analogy if any, in modern times, to relate the religious impulse within people. Not only are there religious offshoots of Christendom and the other major religions that use music as a vital contingent in their worship, but many find their favorite music to be either relaxing or some other emotion, that allows them to achieve a certain "mood" they would otherwise be unable to do if sober (blocked) from all external motivators. I have seen personally and through television, how one person can just as easily lose their present stream of conscious thought to the movement and exhilaration of the music and how it resonates within their emotional responses.
In terms of religion, if you use the USA as a proportional representation in the culture of the Western World, then mankind is still using fear as the main motivator (or detractor) for progress in these intellectual pursuits. Our culture is predominantly more worried about comfort and security, then that of natural freedom and compassion for equality. Thus, even though we have come a long way since the critical expressions of Marx, we still contain the embodiment of religious oppression in lieu of fearing the unknown in our mindset, and still have yet a long way to go in order to achieve Marx's highest ideals of humanism. However, many adaptations of Marx's teachings have produced ill-fated attempts, the majority passively in name and not heroic action, allowing the consignment and warping of his true hopes for mankind. The power of fear, in the known and unknown alike, is our highest obstacle to overcome in our quest to achieve a near perfectly balanced culture.
Trying to explain the religious impulse within humans, in offered terms given by those other then Marx, I could not really find anyone that I agree with on complete satisfactory certainty. I believe that the pursuit of knowledge, and thus the lack of, that is experienced within our lifetimes is the path of transcendent metamorphoses from being religious to spiritual and eventually wise. I would suggest being practical here, but my term seems to differ from the philosophical whole introduced by Russel in this exam. While I have not found a complete agreement on any explanations on religion offered thus far, I do not discount any either, as we are all but molded thoughts and consorted ideals into our own unique vat of conscious thought. It is in my belief that religious experience, like that of sensory experiences, is never the same angle for any two persons. Thus my beliefs on the conceptuality of religion are unique and unlikely to bear any weight in comparison to those offered. Personally I would like to think reason the most proficient tool in all of man's possession, beyond religion or any other possible explanations of the unknown. I would like to take the time to pay homage to one of my classic heroes, who was both a man of science and religion, to help briefly explain my thoughts on this matter. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. (Thomas Jefferson)
I would've rather posted them before I had to submit, to see if I could get any help on proofreading, but I've been having trouble trying to fill out the words. Its same thing going with my artwork, just seems like I have a heavy writer's block right now. Seems that I stress too much about the details and deadlines, and frustratingly just can't remember how to let it flow.