THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON 2014 - Philosophy

THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON - Philosophy

Euthyphro - Socratic Irony

Cartesian Doubt and Metaphysical Certainty

11 July 2014

There is irony throughout this piece by Plato (Euthyphro) exercised by Socrates,

who cunningly has place himself physically at the porch of King Archon with the

expectation of being question by Euthyphro. Socrates frequently practiced philosophy in

public amongst the people of Athens particularly those whom could be influence or

convince of his theories or logic. Euthyphro’s inquisitiveness allowed Socrates to

meticulously engage in the conversation, in which Socrates made it seem was being

initiated by Euthyphro.

Socrates uses what can be perceived as irony methodology by voluntarily mentioning

of Meletus. Going further by cleverly providing a physical description implanted another

seed when Euthyphro mention he didn’t know him, Socrates very causally led Euthyphro

into the conversation. By then than even omitting himself of being a “wiser man” in

comparison to the known corruptors of the youth when speaking with Euthyphro in

regards to Meletus sentiments, the irony is very apparent throughout the documented

Plato conversation. With intent Socrates is being very complimentary of Meletus bating

Euthyphro as if he was being quizzed, the mention Euthyphro compiled even further by

expressing his personal sentiments of his fear regarding the probable leadership in the

future of Meletus.

And a very crafty Socrates initiates more conversation by simply baiting Euthyphro

by listening, as Euthyphro obliges speaking about the unwavering unison when speaking

of the judges and courts. Without a verbal admission or request by Socrates to do so at all

Euthyphro has made it apparent he will support Socrates, and at the risk of continuing to

be viewed as an eccentric by the courts.

The verbal irony I thought was strategically deployed here by Socrates, who

brilliantly then uses Euthyphro’s own words suggesting that jealousy exist base on the

earlier statement by Euthyphro “but they are jealous of us all; and we must be brave and

go at them”. Socrates even suggested they’re laughing might be directed at Euthyphro

but cleverly encouraging optimism when repeating Euthyphro’s earlier statement about

jealousy, Euthyphro became almost defensive. But the genius of the entire discussion is

in it’s ending when Socrates proposes the question to Euthyphro “ are you the purser of

the defendant?” embedding a seed into Euthyphro which will be implanted throughout

Athens judging by Euthyphro’s willingness to engage as well offer sentiments without

justification or reason.

It’s to the benefit of the philosopher who engages in philosophical themes or concepts

using irony it unfortunately today is utilized more so by politicians. It provides a front

and rear entry of being accountability, there’s not a direct target, a superficial subject and

methodology wise a topic can be easily exploited or even manipulated by the best

speakers as Socrates confirms in this assignment with Euthyphro, masterfully I might ad.

I personally feel that being philosopher Rene Descartes didn’t actually write anything

until almost 20 years after the infamous night of his 3 dreams, it may have impeded his

productivity. Subjecting his theories to ridicule maybe because particularly nothing

written by Descartes a young scientist or philosopher until writing the “Discourse of the

Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for the Truth in Science” the rules

being quite controversial when speaking in regards to empiricism and all human

knowledge comes from 5 senses. Descartes theory then was revolutionary and

unorthodox base on the premise giving credible or validity to the “point of view of

someone who know but is trying by the use of his intelligence to discover something”.

Oppose to that of an individual of certified expertise, which at this time was highly

debated and contested by philosophers. Descartes first rule brought analytical thinking

and skepticism to philosophy by asserting the methodology and theory “accept nothing

that is not certain”.

Reference:  

Plato.  Euthyphro  http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyphro.html    

Descartes,  R.  Discourse  of  the  Method.  

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/descartes1637.pdf    

THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON - Philosophy

Rene Descartes - Meditation I

11 July 2014

Rene Descartes methodology is base on the metaphysical which basically questions

the nature of the mind, but in his writings Meditation I it’s leaves one uncertain being

Descartes logic isn’t at this particularly time a scientific fact and as mention unorthodox.

Personally I myself have read Meditation I over and over as well listen to the audio it

can be perceived to be more biographical than rational thinking in my opinion, almost

seemingly at times a confession. The one analogy he used in Meditation II when he

mention (at this time) the questionable methodology consciously comparing, associating

it with educated academia mentioning it with Archimedes, Descartes philosophical

purpose in this writing seems to be more self initiated.

His questioning and logic can be assumed as powerful but when not in a state of

consciousness – how can this be determined? I find myself personally even reassessing

the abilities that many of are taught in society from adolescence to relegate our thinking.

And with these thinks being critiqued I would have to say Descartes does succeed in his

unorthodox rational where the curiosity will intuitively seek more definitive reasoning.

With myself included I am still currently trying to find and for these reasons Rene

Descartes is surely a mystery extensive reading and research would ever thoroughly or

properly analyze.

Reference:

Stanford Encyclopedia on Philosophy. (2008) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/

THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON – Philosophy

The Morality in Reality

5 August 2014

The  philosopher  and  methodology  of  John  Stuart  Mill’s  and  Immanuel  Kant  I  

personally  found  to  be  very  intriguing.  And  interestingly  immediately  I  decided  to  

address  Duty  vs.  Consequences  when  choosing  between  the  elective  topic  options.  I  

believe  it’s  necessary  to  take  a  brief  overview  on  what  may  have  contributed  to  the  

reasoning  or  irrational  stances  some  may  feel  that  both  philosophers  have  been  

credited  to  be  synonymous  to  have.  John  Stuart  Mill’s  methodology  in  his  

adolescence  can  be  of  course  attributed  to  his  youth  being  the  son  of  the  James  Mill  

one  who  adapted  radical  philosophical  methodology  in  his  thinking.  And  

utilitarianism  was  adapted  by  a  close  friend  of  James  Mill  a  philosopher  name  

Jeremy  Bentham,  the  doctrine  being  that  “actions  are  right  if  they  are  useful  or  to  the  

benefit  of  a  majority  of  people”.  John  Stuart  Mill’s  stance  after  various  emotional  

crisis  which  occurred  in  his  twenties  changing  to  eclectic  synthesizer…his  viewpoint  

became  more  liberal.  Mill’s  (John  Stuart)  was  also  influence  in  my  personal  opinion  

because  of  his  relationship  with  Mrs.  Harriet  Taylor,  which  made  him  sensitive  to  

issues  like  discrimination  against  women.  On  the  other  hand  Immanuel  Kant’s  was  

initially  a  privatdozent  being  paid  not  by  the  university  which  hired  him,  generating  

his  salary  by  the  amount  of  engagements  he  lectured  and  of  course  the  more  money  

he  made.  He  was  recognized  as  an  ethical  theorist  and  known  for  his  writings  in  

physics,  metaphysics  and  astronomy.  Kant’s  greatest  works  came  after  a  period  over  

a  decade  long  where  he  had  published  nothing  eventually  revolutionizing  

philosophy  with  a  series  of  works.  In  comparison  to  John  Stuart  Mill’s  background  

Immanuel  Kant’s  was  one  where  he  seem  more  connected  quite  possibly  to  what  he  

rationalize  or  reasoned  with  being  there  was  a  struggle  during  his  journey.  Although  

mental  disorder  is  definitely  something  I  take  very  serious  I  believe  Mill’s  life  was  

more  of  privilege  and  the  pressures  of  living  up  to  expectation  may  have  had  an  

adverse  effect  on  much  of  what  he  attempted  to  reason  with  personally,  which  may  

have  contributed  to  his  strong  admiration  of  Harriet  Taylor…possibly  being  more  of  

a  dependency,  just  my  opinion.  And  with  some  of  the  analogies  I  have  personally  

concluded  in  my  introduction  I  can  comfortably  take  more  of  a  personal  

philosophical  motivated  approach  towards  speaking  about  Duty  vs.  Consequences.  

Doctrine  wise  John  Stuart  Mill’s  past  is  in  my  opinion  is  very  difficult  to  disconnect  

in  what  some  might  perceive  as  his  flip-­‐flopping  in  philosophies  as  well  as  

questionable.  For  weeks  in  class  I  would  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  correlate  what  

philosophers  had  contributed  in  regards  to  methodology  or  logic?    In  my  opinion  it  

didn’t  always  have  a  descriptive  process  or  structured  process  for  centuries.  The  

definition  provided  for  the  word  duty  in  Merriam-­‐Webster’s  dictionary,  “something  

that  is  done  as  part  of  a  job”  and  goes  on  further  by  saying…”something  that  you  

must  do  because  it  is  morally  right  or  because  the  law  requires  it”.    The  contrast  

between  the  mention  words  definition  to  that  of  the  word  consequences,  must  be  

thoroughly  evaluated  in  order  to  speak  of  or  address  anything  on  a  level  of  logic  or  

philosophical.  The  word  consequences  -­‐  is  defined  in  Merriam-­‐Webster’s  dictionary  

as  “something  that  happens  as  a  result  of  a  particular  action  or  a  set  of  conditions”.  

The  interpretation  could  be  perceived  as  duty  being  more  objective  and  

consequences  to  be  more  subjective  in  the  opinion  of  most  although  both  are  

basically  elective  when  thoroughly  analyzed  in  my  personal  opinion.  And  Kant’s  

theories  regarding  rational  agents  and  what  he  spoke  of  in  categorical  imperative  

seem  to  have  more  of  a  rational  approach  in  direct  correlation  to  the  groundwork  he  

established  in  his  belief  that  “persons  are  ends-­‐in-­‐themselves”.  Not  to  discredit  John  

Stuart  Mill  who’s  contributions  became  more  significant  in  years  to  come  but  theory  

wise  and  rationally  Immanuel  Kant  presented  a  variety  of  factors  to  support  his  

stance.  But  in  the  same  breathe  many  would  have  found  opposition  to  Kant  due  to  

his  willingness  to  voice  things  about  prejudices  and  discrimination  which  may  have  

changed  society  forever,  due  to  the  indifferences  we  continue  to  have  as  a  collective  

nation  today.    

Is there Morality in Reality? Here’s an example I like to use regarding duty vs.

consequence:

First  scenario  -­‐  imagine  a  university  being  in  the  process  of  searching  for  a  professor  to  

replace  a  newly  retired  male  professor  of  tenure.  The  university  reputation  through  

the  years  has  been  considered  to  be  very  sexist  and  with  majority  of  tenured  personnel  

all  being  majority  male  professors.  A  very  highly  qualified  female  professor  who  has  

recently  relocated  from  the  east  coast  to  the  west  coast,  and  with  prior  experience  

heading  the  same  department  at  the  prior  university  where  she  was  tenured  excels  

during  her  interview.  But  she’s  battling  against  a  professor  with  less  experience  and  

tenured  years  but  he’s  a  personal  friend  of  the  entire  selection  panel  making  the  final  

determination  about  the  decision  who’ll  be  hired  for  the  position?    

Incentive  wise  would  it  be  safe  to  assume  Mill  would  probably  the  females  because  

of  her  gender?  I  believe  he  would  but  the  real  question  would  then  be…would  the  

hire  be  considered  ethical?  If  it  was  decided  through  gender,  friendship  and  not  

because  qualifications  a  hire  was  made?  But  is  it  safe  to  assume  that  because  of  ones  

impeccable  resume  and  education  n  that  they’ll  be  adequately  equip  to  cohesively  

facilitate  every  responsibility  that  had  been  handled  by  the  retired  professor?  Take  

into  consideration  the  retired  professor  was  a  favorite  at  the  university  and  the  

professor  currently  tenured  at  the  university  with  less  qualifications  worked  very  

closely  within  the  department  with  him…duty  vs  consequences?  

Is there Morality of Reality? The Second scenario – image being in the position years

ago of many in the era of the war in Vietnam and coming from a family where 5

generations including your father and grandfather served their country. Your family

tradition wasn’t to wait for a draft it was to voluntarily enter service which you didn’t,

then your drafted…still with reservations. Knowing you family will be proud of “if” you

proudly serve your country, which you’d now like to do to honor your family tradition

after having regrets not volunteering. But your best friend already refused enlistment

because of a pact you made with him, what do you do…duty vs consequences?

Being  a  huge  cinema  fan  I  enjoyed  a  movie  starring  Will  Smith  called  Enemy  of  the  

States  [Scott,  T.  1998]  the  movie  was  primarily  based  on  deception  and  perception.  

Ethically  not  all  we  perceive  to  be  morally  right  is  and  the  dilemma  that  Smith  had  in  

this  thriller  was  making  a  decision  based  on  duty  vs  consequences  and  the  danger  

that  may  even  persist  on  both  sides  of  the  decision  that  would  effect  him  and  well  

his  family.  And  quite  ironically  another  movie  that  was  also  directed  by  the  same  

person  [Scott,  T.  2001]  (didn’t  realize  until  doing  the  research)  is  Spy  Games  

starring  Brad  Pitt  and  Robert  Redford.  The  story  line  is  two  CIA  operatives  one  

retiring  (Redford)  has  a  protégé  he  personally  trained  (Pitt)  who  was  captured  in  

another  country  on  the  day  of  his  retirement.  Then  he’s  face  with  the  dilemma  and  

making  the  decision  between  duty  vs  consequences…is  there  morality  in  reality  at  

all?  And  ethically  would  it  be  considered  ethical  to  turn  your  back  on  an  individual  

you’ve  personally  trained  and  also  developed  a  personal  relationship  with…most  

important  would  he  leave  you  for  dead?    

THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON – Philosophy

Sam Harris & Free Will

5 August 2014

The  one  lecture  that  intrigued  me  personally  more  than  any  was  Sam  Harris  and  this  

important  issue  was  brought  to  our  attention  in  regards  to  morality,  and  sometimes  

the  difficulty  to  choose  a  particular  side  especially  when  speaking  regarding  

morality  or  determinism.  Do  we  act  of  our  free  will  or  even  have  free  will?  Are  we  

responsible  for  our  own  actions  from  a  morality  standpoint?  All  interesting  

questions  brought  up  in  the  Sam  Harris  lecture  a  few  weeks  ago.  

In the book About Philosophy [Wolf, R. 2011] Kant believes “a rational agent is the

person who is capable of moving him self or her self to act by reason”…but the question

in this scenario in my opinion would be, what would be considered in Kant’s analysis

as…acting by reason? I respectfully allude to this because much of what was analyze and

challenge and at times was confusing to me, and particularly when researching

information on my topic duty vs consequences. Honestly the philosopher who although

was a bit questionable himself that at least seem to consciously be on the right track when

it came down to a structure practice being deployed by all philosophers was Thomas

Kuhn the topic of paradigm and Scientific Revolution [Wolf, R. 2011]. At least

seemingly at the time attempted to introduce a structured process towards addressing a

particular study in my opinion. Especially when also speaking reading about the

paradigm shifts that occur during the process based on findings of the past or future

being introduced. Finally verbiage was introduced into its terminology that others would

recognize.

On a personal I find myself being more susceptible to the Millian credo of John Stuart

Mill, being his objective more liberal view in regards to diversity and discrimination of

particularly women, at that time. It’s almost impossible to take a firm assertive stance on

what many of especially the philosophers of the past have structure much of there

findings theory and methodology on (especially the mention two in this exercise) because

of their wavering stances that have been documented. The utilitarianism rule was to make

as many people happy as possible and for these reasons I think Mill would be more

subjective to acting in the best interest in the long run…being he’d been strongly

influence and inspired by a women. And the deal breaker for me personally is Kant saw

morality in the same manner as Puritans and Protestants…as an individual struggle. In the

opinion of many it’s more of an at large struggle of a collective society. I’ve enjoyed this

exercise and especially the entire 4 weeks and feel enlightened on a variety of different

issues that in the past I’d question for years and I intend to continue my pursuit for

addition information. But the question I’ll have to ask myself personally now would be is

my pursuit more because of duty vs consequences?

And  is  there  truly  morality  associated  with  the  reality  of  what  life  has  generally  

become?  

Reference:

Wolff, P. R. About Philosophy Eleventh Edition. 2011

Marconi , D. Scott, T. Enemy of the State. 1998 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/

Beckner, M. Scott, T. Spy Games. 2001 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/

Harris, S. Sam Harris on Free Will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g