A.T. THINKS

Blog Prompt 18: What does it mean to be a person, according to Frankfurt? Explain the order of desires, and how they are related to freedom of will. Give your own examples of each order of desire. Is this a useful way to understand freedom? Are you currently free, according to Frankfurt’s definitions?

Frankfurt says that persons can be distinguished from other creatures because, as he states, “it seems to be peculiarly characteristic of humans, however, that they are able to form what I shall call ‘second-order desires’ or ‘desires of the second order.'” Frankurt defines a person not just as classification of the human species but as a being that has 2nd-order desires.

There are 2 levels of desires that Frankfurt describes and within each level are 2 types. The first level of desires can be defined as having the desire to do something and to act on it or not to. The first type is called effective 1st-order desires, which is having a motivational desire that causes you to act on it, whether it be in the moment or eventually. An example of that would be my desire to finish writing this blog and to relax in bed touching my phone. I know this desire is going to happen, even if not now, eventually. The second type is the non-effective 1st-order desires, which are desires that are not effective enough for one to act on them. For me that would be having a desire to watch a movie tonight but it is not going to happen because it is late and I never start a movie if it is past 10pm.

The second level of desires now is said to have a desire for a desire. The first type is less common, and it is something in which we wish we would want for ourselves and for it to happen but, in reality we actually don’t want it to be effective. So for me that would be my desire to help my in-laws farm more, however I actually don’t want that desire to be effective because that is not the kind of lifestyle I want to live or like to. And the next type is called 2nd-order volition which is the desire for a desire to be effective. Therefore, such as my desire for wanting to visit my family in Wisconsin this summer. I wish that will happen, but under this quarantine and virus it is unlikely.

According to Frankfurt’s levels of desires and tying them to freedom, I do believe that it is a useful way of understanding freedom, even if Hume says we don’t have free will. Everything is the result of cause and effect, but if we think of it like Frankfurt says, our desires are things we can control and therefore it gives us a sense of free will. So, I think I am free in the definitions of Frankfurt.

431 words

Blog Prompt 17: David Hume argues that we already know human behavior is determined. What are his main reasons? Do you think one of the consequences of the argument against free will is that we are not responsible for our actions? Would you feel any differently about your life in general—and your actions, thoughts, and feelings, in particular—if determinism were true? Why or why not?

In an excerpt from his piece, David Hume says that “the most irregular and unexpected resolutions of men may frequently be accounted for by those who know every particular circumstance of their character and situation. A person of an obliging disposition gives a peevish answer: But he has the toothache, or has not dined.”

Hume’s argument is that there is no such thing as free will. Everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and no one acts a certain way for no reason. Therefore, what Hume is implying in the excerpt from above is that when we know somebody really well we can almost tell when there is something wrong with them, and when they do things out of character. For example, my husband is a good and safe driver almost always. Under the conditions that he has to use the bathroom really badly, you would know because his road rage level spikes from 0 to 100 real quick. People who road rage don’t do it because of free will. Nobody thinks “I’m going to be an asshole driver because I can.” Road ragers have a reason, whether it be needing to use the bathroom, late to work, annoyed at another car, etc. It is a cause and effect thing like Hume says.

Just because we don’t have free will though does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. Free will does not mean we don’t have options. We choose between the options we have and depending on which option we choose we are responsible for that choice. I had two choices between getting married or possibly losing the relationship I had with my husband, boyfriend at the time, due to difficult circumstances. I chose to get married without telling my family even though I knew it wasn’t necessarily the wisest choice. Can I say that I was not responsible for that because their is no such thing as free will? No. It wouldn’t make sense.

If what Hume says about determinism is true and there is no such thing as free will, I don’t think it would make me feel any different about my life. Although it is a powerful thing to be able to think that we have freedom within what we do, truthfully we all know that there is always reasoning behind everything so it shouldn’t be much of a shocker in my opinion to find out that free will does not exist. If I try to think of a moment where I acted a certain way or did something out of free will I really can’t. Such as, wanting ice cream. Why did I suddenly have an urge for ice cream? Maybe I saw someone post a photo of ice cream, or it is really hot outside, or I just had lunch and I want dessert.

In the end, determinism is not something new. It is just that before anyone put a label on it we never questioned it. So, even after finding out that perhaps free will does not exist I don’t feel any different about my life in general.

518 words

Blog Prompt 16: Choose a passage from the McIntyre reading that describes a particular aspect of persons as the subject of a narrative. Quote the passage, explain it, and tell a specific, personal, life experience that illustrates its significance with respect to identity (your identity).

MacIntyre says that “man in his actions and practice, as well as in his fictions, essentially a story-telling animal. He is not essentially, but becomes through his history, a teller of stories that aspire to truth.” Also that “we enter human society, that is, with one or more imputed characters–roles into which we have been drafted–and we have to learn what they are in order to be able to understand how others respond to us and how our responses to them are apt to be constructed.” MacIntyre believes that our identities stem from our background, the foundation of our narratives that our stories build on. Throughout our lives we build our book with stories that hold true to ourselves that apply to our identity. And in addition, not only are we the only character in our book but, there are other characters whose identities shape our own, and vice versa.

A personal life experience of mine that I tie to my identity is my experience with bullying and my physical appearance. Everyone deals with their own insecurities and forms of bullying in their own way, some tie it to their identity and some don’t. It is different for everyone. For me, I know undoubtedly that what I went through has made me who I am because it is something that is very hard for me to talk about, openly to just anyone, and whenever someone asks me about my physical appearance I immediately go back into that space, of my childhood and my experience with bullying.

As hard as it is to talk about, my nose has been a big insecurity of mine since the day I was born. I mean really, since the moment I came out of my mother’s womb. I didn’t know it then, but I sure did learn soon later on in life that it was something that would affect me for life. I will never know why my nose turned out the way it did, but it could’ve been for various reasons, such as being born prematurely or lack of nutrition, or something else. I was born with a flat nose, no bridge, and on the left side of my nose is a big line. No one else in my family was born with a nose like mine. My parents always told me that the line on my nose was a birthmark, and so that is what I told other people when they asked. My mom told me that as soon as I was born my primary care doctor had warned them that I would have struggles later on in life with my health because of my nose, and that I would probably have some insecurity issues. She offered to have my nose fixed at an early age but I was just a baby and my parents were against it.

My doctor was absolutely right. I suffered for as long as I can remember with my nose. I had trouble breathing on one side, I got sick with runny and stuffy noses like every other month, and as soon as I started elementary school I was what every kid liked to whisper about. My teachers even called me tissue girl, because I always had to blow my nose. Not only was it at school but even outside. My relatives, my cousins, everybody would make fun of me, and I would go home and lock myself in the bathroom and just cry. It really made me shut myself off from everyone, and I was quite a gloomy child. My nose had defined me into someone who was sad, someone who learned about beauty standards at a very young age, just 6 years old. I finally got surgery when I was 19, but the results were disappointing and today I still struggle.

635 words

Blog Prompt 15:
Leonard relies upon scribbled notes to connect him to his past. He says that eyewitness testimony is worthless: “Memory can change the shape of a room…” Is he right? Do you think our memories are more reliable than his notes? Hume says identity is just a habit we have. Do you think Hume would see Leonard’s condition as any different from our own?

‘Memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They’re just an interpretation, they’re not a record. And they’re irrelevant if you have the facts.’ – Leonard Shelby (Memento) Leonard’s memory is that of a fish. He cannot rely on his memory so he relies on his scribbled notes and tattoos. I find the statement that Leonard makes to be rather convincing. The reason why our memories could be less reliable than the notes we make to ourselves is because our memories are never as clear as the words on a page in which is written right in that moment. For example, say I am sitting on a bench just people watching for 5 minutes, really studying and trying to remember the most details that I can about who walks past, what noises I hear, what do I see, and at the same time I am taking notes. The next day without looking at those notes I try and remember what happened during those 5 minutes like I’m being questioned about a crime scene. I would say my notes are more reliable than my memory. Of course in real life when you are questioned about something you won’t have notes on you to rely on, but if you did, you surely would rely on those notes. Because as Leonard states, “memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the color of a car,” meaning that our memory cannot as accurately recall a situation as our evident notes.

Hume defines identity as an association to our memories and he believes that it is just a habit we have in result of resemblance and causation. As Hume states in “Of Personal Identity,” we think our memories make up who we are, even if we are not the same person we were five years ago, we will take our memories of who we were then and say it is apart of who we are. Therefore, I believe that Hume would not consider Leonard’s condition as any different from our own. That is because Leonard remembers everything up until the point of his accident and every day after his accident he is associating who he is with those memories, even though that is not him anymore, like Teddy states in the film. Leonard may not remember anything every 15 minutes or every time he wakes up, however, I don’t think that refutes Hume’s view of identity. What Leonard can remember is who he thinks he is, which is why he is always on the hunt to find his wife’s killer.

437 words

Blog Prompt 15: Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? Compare and contrast Buddhist non-self with Hume.

“…when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception” (Hume, p. 326).

Hume’s argument about personal identity is that it is nothing more than merely our memories. As the statement above states, Hume believes that there is no self, because we cannot think about ourselves without thinking about the past in which we declare makes us who we are today.

In a way I can see where Hume’s argument derives from, and what makes him believe this, however, I am not entirely convinced. Hume speaks about resemblance and causation. He says that we view our present thoughts as a resemblance to our past and therefore we think that, that makes us, us because it gives us a sense of self. We think our past is a part of us but, in actuality, it is a result of causation. Due to nostalgia we feel their is a connection from past to present, and we associate that to be our self. Hume believes the self to be nonexistent, and that there is no such thing as “I” as a whole, because when things, when people, change there is no way it has the same similarity as before.

Although what Hume says seems to make sense, I disagree with him on his argument. I do think there is a self, and I think that your past doesn’t necessarily represent who you are, but it can if you choose it to be. I see the “self” to be a conscious thing. I see myself as a conscious human being who is aware about my life and my surroundings, and I do not doubt that I, myself exists, because I make my own changes willingly.

In regards to Buddha, who also believes there to be no self, he also agrees with Hume on the fact that if a self exists then it would not change form and be a permanent thing.

The premises below are from the Buddha excerpt of non-self

1. If there were a self it would be permanent.
2. None of the five kinds of psychophysical element is permanent.
3. ∴ There is no self.

1. If there were a self, one could never desire that it be changed.
2. Each of the five kinds of psychophysical element is such that one can desire that it be changed.
3.  ∴ There is no self.

As can be concluded from the premises above, Buddha thinks that self does not exist because we desire change within ourselves. I am curious then what Hume and Buddha does consider to have a “self.” If self is associate with permanency then that means robots have a self because they do not change, and are not affected by their memory, unless programmed to do so.

491 words

Blog Prompt 13: What is the process Descartes uses in his search for knowledge? Why doesn’t he stop after the argument that the senses cannot be trusted? How does each stage push his skepticism even further? What does he know by the end of meditation 1?

Descartes starts off by addressing that the majority of his beliefs prior to the theory that he is going to propose has been based off of falsity. Descartes wants to discover a solid foundation secure enough to hold against skepticism. His argument then is that our senses cannot be used as a form of rationality or truth, because as he states in his writing, “it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived.” Descartes is implying that our senses are merely just feelings and observations, which have failed us over and over again, therefore do not provide a solid foundation for us to build a rational belief off of.

Although Descartes doubts the senses, he mentions that his existence on one hand cannot be doubted. He is for-sure of his existence based on the fact that deception is not possible unless their is a mind present to be deceived, and that acts performed in dreams do not appear so clear or in a uniformed manner as when one is awake. But, then he counter-argues this by saying that the things which at first appear fuzzy and unclear in our dreams begins to seem as if they are not within our dreams at all. Perhaps what we dream about is based on reality.

Descartes doubts the certainty of science where he states:
“That is possibly why our reasoning is not unjust when we conclude from this that Physics, Astronomy, Medicine and all other sciences which have as their end the consideration of composite things, are very dubious and uncertain; but that Arithmetic, Geometry and other
sciences of that kind which only treat of things that are very simple and very general, without taking great trouble to ascertain whether they are actually existent or not…”

Descartes views physical and materialistic things to provide uncertainty, like science, rather than objective and quantifiable things like mathematics. But, in the following paragraphs he speaks of a higher entity, which brings him to doubt even the objective things he is sure of. And at this point he stand uncertain of anything really, because if God exists then he must have control over the mind and it is he who decides what is certain and what is not. So, Descartes concludes at the end of Meditation 1 that perhaps there is not an exact answer to what we can justify to be definite.

The reason Descartes does not stop after his argument that the senses cannot be trusted is because he must explore his reasoning for this, in order to be certain. Descartes speaks in two points of view throughout Meditation 1, weighing both sides, which is why each stage pushes his skepticism even further.

453 words

Blog Prompt 11: Tolstoy uses the test of infectiousness, not only as a descriptive measure for what should count as art, but also as a standard for good art (#28-32). What does he mean by this standard? How does he suggest we apply this test to evaluate art? Is this a useful proposal for evaluating the quality of art? If you disagree with this proposal, how would you challenge it?

“The more individual the feeling transmitted the more strongly does it act on the receiver; the more individual the state of soul into which he is transferred, the more pleasure does the receiver obtain, and therefore the more readily and strongly does he join in it.”

Tolstoy speaks favorably of art in terms of infectiousness. He believes that art is defined by the level of sincerity, originality, and clarity that the artist is able to convey. Tolstoy describes infectious art as art which resonates with the receiver. For art to be deemed infectious, the viewer must be able to feel those feelings and intentions of the artist as when the artist himself was in the process of composing his work. For Tolstoy, art is all about emotions. Art that does not emit emotions or feelings that affect a person must not really be art.

Regarding art as sincerity, originality, and clarity, Tolstoy values great art to be compositions with raw intent. An artists makes the best pieces when he uses his own life experiences, passions, and sensations, to communicate to his viewers. To Tolstoy, there is nothing more original and sincere than a piece of art that is not a mere copy of someone else’s. And clarity should follow the two in order to properly execute the feelings of the artwork successfully.

I find significance in Tolstoy’s standard and evaluations of art. I agree that art with purpose is good art, and there is nothing more valuable than artwork that brings people together. Art is extremely powerful, and like Tolstoy says, art should invoke emotions within the viewer. Art in terms of aesthetics and perfection will awe you for a short moment, but art that makes you feel something special will resonate with you for a long, long time.

There are many types of art, but I do agree with Tolstoy that the most special art is original art. Being able to convey feelings through an artwork is a beautiful thing. When we go to an art gallery, or museum, and we see all these beautiful paintings, they make us feel something. And those feelings are not just simply because the painting is beautiful, but because the artist so successfully communicated their feelings. It is like photography. Some photographers excel in their abilities to relay a message by a simple shot. Photography captures emotions in the moment.

Meaningful art is always good art.

403 words

How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit? (Due Saturday after class)

Existenz portrays Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality through the different layers of what is real (the ideal concepts), and what is false (the misrepresentations of art and imitation). The film is wrapped around a series of games. A game within a game, within a game. The further the characters dive into the game, the less in touch they become with reality, and this is exactly Plato’s analogy with real objects versus art.

The film strays away from Plato’s definition of what he considers to be the top tier of his scheme, of this “perfect” notion of objects, ideas, forms, and truth; what we call reality. The movie itself is already a misrepresentation of reality on it’s own, as movies are forms of art and imagination. Therefore, reality is level number one, the film is level number two (copy of reality), and then the storyline of the film is level number three (a copy of the copy of reality).

Within the film, the reality for the characters is the real world outside of the game. Once they are in the game, this level of reality becomes very faint. Transcendez is the actual game, real life copy. But within the game, Existenz is the second copy which portrays Transcendez. As the move progresses you can see the characters of the game starting to confuse reality with the made-up world. Existenz ends on a questionable note of whether or not the characters actually came out of the game or have they only fallen deeper into it?

Existenz supports Plato’s belief that art is this deceiving conception of reality, because games are artistic creations of imaginary worlds, and the people who play these games become so entranced by these fictitious characters, it begins to bleed into their actual reality. Allegra and Pikul, as they progressed into their game of Existenz, display these exact emotions of confusion of which world they are in. Pikul in the beginning, sort of appalled by this new, strange world he is in within the game, doesn’t have a problem realizing what is real and what is not, however, after being in and out of the game a few times, when Allegra supposedly “dies” in the game from being infected, and the two supposedly have been pushed back out to reality, this is where things take a turn. Pikul is very sure that they are back to reality, and everything is okay, until, a man breaks in and starts telling them they gotta get out of there. War suddenly breaks out, and now Allegra and Pikul have no idea whether they are still in the game or not. This is why games can be deceptive.

Any form of art in the inference of Plato is misleading and throws reality out of proportion. The film sets this example as reality bleeds into the game of Transcendez into the game of Existenz. How do we decipher what is real and what is not when we have fallen in too deep into misconceptions?

500 words

Blog Prompt 5: What is the difference between “beds in the world” and “the idea of a bed?” Where does “art” fit into his hierarchical scheme of reality? Plato criticizes art for being “deceptive.” How does art deceive us, according to Plato? Do you agree with this criticism?

Plato implies that all ideas are not original, but rather stemmed from inspiration. He uses beds as an example to illustrate this concept. Plato describes “beds in the world” to be the original form of what a bed is, and the “idea of a bed” to be the imitation of what a bed could be. Based on Plato’s belief, it can be said that everything we know or do is based upon the original source. Advice we give is not advice we’ve taught ourselves, it is words we’ve heard over and over again, time and time again.

Plato applies an hierarchical system to the order in which the initial item occurs, to the ideas that take place. He also inserts art into this system.

“And there is another artist, –I should like to know what you would say of him…“

“… And the painter too is, as I conceive, just such another –a creator of appearances, is he not?“

“Of course.
But then I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue. And yet there is a sense in which the painter also creates a bed?”

“…Well then, here are three beds: one existing in nature, which is made by God, as I think that we may say –for no one else can be the maker?”

Plato considers the original form of an item or idea to be that which God created, and everything else that follows is nothing but an untrue remodeling. God creates an object (the original from), a workman physically constructs the object to real life, and then an artist paints this illusion of the object, and Plato believes that for this reason art has no form of originality.

According to Plato, art is deceptive because it is based on surface level truths and nothing deeper. He suggests that artists only capture the subject itself and care nothing more for the meaning behind their illustrations. Such as, an artist who comes across a beautiful orchard and wants to record the beauty of the place down on paper, only to leave after he is done and know nothing about the origin of the place itself. In this way art is deceptive in the eyes of Plato, as the viewer of this piece may believe that the artist had intentions, however, unknowing that the artist could’ve cared less.

I most definitely see where Plato is coming from with his idea that art of deceptive. But, he himself unknowingly assumes that all art is deceptive. Art may be deceptive in terms that perhaps art itself is not original since all ideas come from inspiration, however, not all artists paint without purpose. Art with a purpose is not deceptive. Art is used for a variety of purposes such as psychological, informative, and educational purposes. Comics are considered a form of art which can be used for politics and real-world situations. Therefore, I would say that art is not deceptive in all its forms, as Plato suggests.

489 words

Blog Prompt 4: Is there a parallel between the status of the prisoners in Plato’s cave and the spectators in a cinema? In other words, how are we deceived by movies and other media? Do we mistake fiction for reality? Is it possible that this physical world isn’t reality?

Plato’s analogy of the imprisoned cavemen and the outside world is meant to reflect how as human’s we can be so easily influenced by what we see, and sometimes reluctant to broaden our scope of vision. The cavemen all their life have been restrained from all physical capacity, forced only to look ahead of them at the passing shadows of the outside world. The men hold no knowledge of the walls independent of them, and can only assume that the black figures they see are nothing more than black solid figures. Plato’s analogy can be compared to spectators in a cinema in the sense that we human’s can be so entranced by the images we see on film we start to lose our sense of reality.

One of the cavemen escape only to witness the world far beyond his imagination, and falls in utter disbelief that it is reality. However, he soon discovers the sun as what propels life and finds that the world he thought he knew before was absolutely bullsh**. When he returns to the cave to announce this news to his fellow mates they have no interest in believing his words, when how can they when all their life they’ve only known what they’ve seen?

It can be inferred then that people base knowledge not off logic and evidence, but shortsightedness. And perhaps spectators in a cinema may believe the real world to be as what they see and hear.

Plato states “Then, if this is true, our views of these matters must be this, that education is not in reality what some people proclaim it to be in their professions. What they aver is that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes.” Plato implies that people cannot merely be taught to believe in something unless they are willing to.

Plato’s analogy holds true to a certain extent. There is truth in that people will never acquire knowledge, and what is realistic versus not, if they don’t search for it. But, in terms of how movies can alter our state of reality, I believe the majority of people are able to watch a movie without necessarily viewing it as real life. Unless, like the cavemen, if parents tell their children from a young age that everything they see on film is real, then, the reality is that we’ve been taught the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

If the physical world we are living in right now is not reality then someone’s going to have to find evidence for that.

437 words