I don't think that we will ever know what really lies in human nature, and what is the one general basis that everyone's motivations fall into. However, the importance lies in the search for these answers, not in the finding of them. Maybe these philosopher's really believed they knew the absolute truths in the world, but either way they push us to think about our own role in society, and the kind of people we want to be as well as the kind of world we want to live in. Maybe if the Hobbesian idea of humans being purely self- interested seems ridiculous and infuriating, it can push someone to try to prove that they are not only self- interested. Or maybe an admittance that this is within our natures can make people more aware to be careful not to let it win over their morality. They always say that it is important to understand history to try to prevent it from being repeated, and the same is true for philosophy. It is important to study the famous philosophical theories so that by better understanding each other, there can be more tolerance.
Philosophy sometimes seems like a rationally organized guessing game, which makes me naturally want to resist it, but I need to instead use these philosophies to help me to examine myself. That is the whole purpose of the Search program, to help you search for values, and although these philosophers sometimes seem like arrogant little jerks, they do help me evaluate my own values.
I completely agree with this idea. The philosophers seem to be so confident in their comments, and yet I wonder if they actually were that confident. Maybe their thoughts about human nature were mere stabs at an idea that may never be completely known. They, like us, probably talked, and argued about this issue repeatedly. They gathered information and tried to formulate some kind of answer to the very difficult question of what is human nature. I think that we are not supposed to figure this question out. I think that in the Search class we are supposed to think about these topics and try to understand it as best we can. The reason that we are reading these philosophers is not necessarily to agree with everything they say, but to take all of the knowledge and see if we can understand our own beliefs in a better way.
ReplyDeleteHobbs, Locke, and Rousseau all studied society as it is today, especially in relation to the governing power. They made educated hypotheses on the nature of a creature who would allow himself to give up some freedom in order to form a greater society. It is through this examination, while not necessarily completely accurate, that we gain understanding of the role government should play. Thomas Jefferson used these ideas when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
ReplyDeleteYou are not the only one thinking about shaking around the philosophers who we are reading, for sounding like know-it-alls. I then stop and wondered why does all the stuff these guys are saying matter… and you bring out a good point. Philosophy is a lot like history in the fact that we are trying to learn from our mistakes and clearly validate ideas that can be accepted by a consensus. However, I think that the philosophies they leave behind are merely tools for use to expand upon. Using them to create new philosophies or adapt them to form our own values or beliefs.
ReplyDeletePhilosophy is for those who care about humanity. If you care about mathematics, you don't memorize the answers to problems. Instead, you develop an understanding of mathematical concepts that allows you to reason through unique and unfamiliar problems presented to you. Similarly, a purely pragmatic understanding of human behavior neglects the ability to understand what drives human action or choice. Philosophy attempts to provide such an understanding, through an understanding of human nature, morality, and reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree also with what you are trying to say. I believe our whole class has struggled and debated with the philosophies this semester we have studied. I think its important for us as students to understand the philosophers position, and also understand the time period and society they live in. Human beings definition on what is moral and immoral has changed over time, along with human perspective on community and ethics. It is okay with these thoughts in mind to question our readings and possibly not agree with what they are telling us. I agree that we should search for the ideas that mean the most to us and apply that to our life.
ReplyDeleteAs humans, we are constantly in search for a better grasp of ourselves and our world. Philosophy grants us an opportunity to expand our worldview and establish the moral compass that will guide our lives. The appreciation of philosophy provides us the tools to understanding our life, and aids us in our search for the ‘ideal’ existence. Through asking questions, we can appreciate why we think and believe the way that we do.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading philosophy, I felt the same way, but as I raged more and more about these people who could claim to "know" things about the universe, I realized their significance to me is solely based in my theory of uncertainty in the world. Like you said, we can't know if their exists a universal human nature, an adventitious infinite being, or some objective moral law, yet through time, as these philosophers exhaust all the possible ideas of the universe, one will eventually be Truth, and I certainly don't want to miss it.
ReplyDeleteLike Ryan said, I've experienced the same frustration at the hands of philosophers in all genres. Objectivity seems to take a backseat to postulation for most philosophers, and as a result I was turned off by philosophy. But my continued experiences in life led me to realize that I don't really need to search for any answers. That I really don't need to strive against the subjectivity of my own existence. After realizing this, I enjoy philosophy more. I treat philosophy more as a collection of musings on the human condition rather than some substitute for religion or something practical. It might sound depressing or sad to not really care or believe in the search for a universal truth. I see it as sad that with our short lives, human beings struggle against their limited natures by forcing themselves to try and comprehend existence. My advice is to forget the sayings of Sages and the gospels of Gods, and cherish the years you have on this earth doing something you love with people you love.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it can be frustrating reading philosophers that sound as if they think they know everything. But I think philosophers have to be confident in their claims, because they claim to make them based on rationality. What is interesting, though, is that two philosophers can have opposing views that are both based on logical premises. It is at these divergences that things are most interesting, because something is going on beyond logic.
ReplyDeleteIn Economics 101, we learned about two visions of the world: the constrained and unconstrained visions. Essentially, these visions are pre-logical; they are assumptions we have within us before we apply logic to anything. Reading Locke and Hobbes, for example, one would have to conclude that they are coming from different visions of the world, and therefore come to differing conclusions.
I think philosophy matters because the disagreements we have in class speak a lot to our natures and help us better understand who we are.