karolina’s blog?

What is existential humanism? Discuss what Sartre means by abandonment, anguish, and despair. How does an individual marriage commit humanity to monogamy? What gives life purpose according to Sartre? Do you agree? What makes your life meaningful?

Sartre refers to existentialism as “a doctrine that does render human life possible”. He also believes that existentialism is “a doctrine that affirms every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity”.

Sartre believes that there are two kinds of existentialists, Christians and Atheists. Both of these groups believe that human existentialism has to start from the subjective. This means that we acknowledge that production always precedes existence. In the eyes of the Christians, the production is the work of god, as he “produces” us or gives us life. Sartre says that God follows a procedure in order to produce man. Atheistic existentialists believe that that God does not exist, but instead there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence. They believe this being is the human reality.

The decision to commit oneself to monogamy is preceded by the human passion and desire to intensify a situation. Sartre believes that this is an act of committing not only oneself to monogamy, but humanity as a whole. This gives a man who is committed to monogamy the responsibility of creating an ideal image of what a man should be.

Anguish, abandonment, and despair are three terms that Sartre believes relate to human existentialism. Anguish refers to the notion that an existentialist believes that man is always in anguish. When man commits himself to anything, not only is he committing himself to this thing, but he is also committing the entirety of mankind to this thing. Man cannot escape from this responsibility. Abandonment refers to the belief that God does not exist and that the existentialist opposes a certain type of secular moralism that aims to suppress God at the least possible expense. In this thought process, the existentialist believes that believing in God is costly and is not essential. In my eyes, since man is not being held to Gods standard, he has to be held to his own moral standard. Lastly, despair refers to the notion that we limit our resilience to what we deem is possible.  

Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find It convincing? Why or why not?

Hume’s idea of self or identity is based around the notion that our personality relates directly to our memory. In a passage written by Hume, he states “memory not only discovers the identity, but also contributes to its production, by producing the relation of resemblance among the perceptions”. I agree strongly with this statement, and I think it follows the commonly known idea that states our past experiences make up our present self. Hume’s perception of identity and self follows the same premise, but it dives deeper into the different perceptions and how they relate to memories.

Hume believes that there is not one impression that gives us a sense of self, rather multiple impressions give us a reference to form a sense of self. However, Hume dislikes the idea that an impression can stay constant. He thinks that all impressions vary over time and can be perceived in different ways at different stages in life. He elaborates on the idea that sensations formed by memories are constantly building on each other. I agree with this idea. If I were to think about a memory with an ex-boyfriend in our present day, the memory would not be joyous and happy. Since I have developed negative memories with this person since the time of that memory, the joyous and happy emotions I was feeling in the moment are distorted by the less positive emotions caused by that person. This idea of memories being clouded and distorted as time goes on is what I believe builds our personality. We base future experiences off of past faults or shortcomings, but at times, we forget the reality of those past negative experiences.

word count: 302

Explain the characteristics of a belief that is live, forced, and momentous. Give examples for each. What kind of belief fits all three? Has James found an exception to Clifford’s standard for belief? Do you agree more with Clifford or James?

Whether or not a hypothesis is live or not depends on its correlation to the believer. When we combine hypotheses, we produce an option. There are three main types of options. The first is a living or dead option. In order for an option to be living, both of its hypotheses have to be considered live. In other words, both hypotheses have to have some believable meaning to the thinker. If only one is live then the option would be dead. An example would go something like this: Be a student or be a part of the work force. Both of these hypotheses have meaning to me personally, as I understand the substance of what both those things consist of. The second type of option is a forced or avoidable option. It could be said that this decision on this option is left to the discretion of the wording. An example of an avoidable option would be; Either like the president or hate the president. A forced option would be one with no alternative or way out. The third option is a momentous or trivial option. If an option were to be momentous, it would have to be a one of a kind, almost once in a lifetime type of experience. For example, if I were to give you front row tickets for gymnastics at the olympics, that would be a momentous decision that you have to make because that is not a very common opportunity. A trivial option is one that is fairly commonly occurring in life. So if someone invited you to a movie, you would be experiencing a trivial option.

I do think that James has found an exception to Cliffords standard of belief. I personally agree more with James and his philosophy behind seeking truth. How will you ever find truth if you don’t risk believing something that is false? The answer is that you wont. Truth can be perceived differently and everyone has their own conditions for something to be true. If we went with the standard definition of truth, (when something correlates to a proven fact in the world) you still would not be able to find the truth if you do not risk falling for a lie!

word count: 415

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?

I agree with the idea that good art should make you feel something. Now, that being said, I am the least creative person I know and it takes a lot for a piece of art to make me feel an emotion other than confusion. So basing this argument off of Tolstoys idea that infectiousness is a measure of quality, I would say that yeah, good art should make you feel something, but more over it should push you to think about what someone is trying to convey. I think Tolstoy’s argument is especially accurate when it comes to other forms of art, such as music or film. Music and movies are two things that are designed to provoke emotion. However, the standard of “good” can vary from person to person. Certain genres make people feel different ways. I don’t really ever feel anything when I listen to pop music, but as soon as someone plays Eric Church, I start crying.

Back to Tolstoy, I think that using emotion as standard for evaluating art is useful. Generally, I believe that art can be an outlet for artists to convey their own emotions. So why shouldn’t we evaluate art based on how strongly it makes us feel? Of course everyone will have differing feelings provoked by a piece of art but it doesn’t take away from the fact that it is still evoking an emotion in someone. It makes you question what the artist was intending to convey within that piece, which can be tricky.

The idea that art should infect us with emotion is kind of a scary thought. I do not necessarily like the word “infect”. Personally, I think “provoke” would be a better term to use. The artists piece should make the viewer feel what the artist was feeling when the created that art. Nonetheless, the standards that Tolstoy holds for art rely on individuality, clearness and sincerity. The individuality of a piece of art should reflect personality and originality. It should have aspects of it that are specific to the artist only, as that is what distinguishes style amongst artists. As for clearness, Tolstoy believes that artists should be able to put a name to a feeling. The viewer should be able to identify how the artwork makes them feel or what emotion it evokes within them. Tolstoy does point out that this is a challenging skill to learn and takes experience and talent to master. Lastly, the most important feature of a piece of art, sincerity. It is incredibly important that the emotion being conveyed is genuine and not a product of what an artist might think people want to see. The most powerful art always comes from a place of genuine feeling. No one wants to connect with something that was made in-genuinely.

word count: 533

What kinds of imitation does Aristotle identify in poetry and tragedy? Does Aristotle convey a positive sense of the role of imitation in art? Do you think that his understanding of art in terms of imitation provide a useful way to understand what art is?

Aristotle claims that poetry is almost always imitated. He states that the types of imiation differ when the manner and the mode of the poetry are different. He also believes that imitation is a part of human nature. When we hear or see something we like, that thing tends to influence our actions and feelings. This can be applias ed to the idea of creation as well. We imitate emotions through creative mediums as a way to feel them even stronger. For example, emotions are often conveyed or intensified through music, dance, or poetry.

Aristotle believes that tragedy was born from epic poets, who began to write drama since it was seen as a higher form of art. He also believes that comedy came from lampooners who followed their natural footsteps and found themselves writing comedy. Comedy is seen as an imitation of people who are deemed to be “lower” than the rest of us. It is not meant to be purposely harmful but can occasionally take that route. Tragedy on the other hand imitates characters who are viewed as “higher” than your average person.

I personally agree with Aristotles ideas of imitation and art. I believe that having knowledge of where something originated is always helpful in developing a full understanding of a concept or a piece of art.

word count: 265

those who have the power of authority cause injustice among those without the same power.

when those who have the power of authority act selfishly, injustice is imposed on those who do not possess the same power of authority.

1. inexcusable selfishness leads to injustice
2. people in power have the ability to act selfishly
3. the act of inexcusable selfishness leads to injustice

word count: 64

How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit?

To be 100% honest, I have never been more confused by a film in my whole life. Existenz has many connecting parts and small details that if not watched carefully, can slip your mind and leave you confused. That being said, Existenz is an excellent example of Plato’s idea of reality. Firstly, the movie plays with the viewers sense of reality by basing almost the entirety of the movie inside one game, without revealing that the game is actually inside another game. This ties directly into Plato’s skeptiscism of reality. As viewers, we never really know if the “reality” we are watching is physical or artifical. Existenz presents reality in layers. There is a “physical” world and then a game world embedded within. The characters are completely different versions of themselves in the game world but they still have some reminants of their previous selves in the game world. They are introduced to a strange new reality in the game and it takes time for the characters to adjust. This is similar to Plato’s cave, in the sense that the a persons ideas of reality are bent when introduced to new ideas and a new world.

As we learn later in the movie, Existenz is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to worlds within worlds. At the end of the movie, another layer is revealed and we find out that what we thought was reality initially, was actually a part of another game called Trancendenz. It is speculated that there may be even more layers to this game but the movie only shows the two “realities”. Trancendenz is supposedly the “physical” world, or the world that we would know as our own. However, according to Plato, there really is no way to prove this statement. One scene I found very intruiging was the scene where Gas, the gas station attendant, refers to God as “the artist” and ” the mechanic”. This is similar to how Plato views God as the creator of the physical world, not necessarily as a religious figure, but truly as the maker of what we deem as reality.

If I were to sum up this movie in a few words, I would just call it a trip.

word count: 392

The bed in the real world is a commonly shared perception of what a bed should look like. We form ideas of what something should be based upon what we see in the physical world, not what something actually is. Plato believes that the way things appear in the physical world are not actually the true form of that item . In The Republic, he says “As they are, or as they appear.” “You still have to determine this”, which touches on the idea that the physical form of something simply being a depiction of what we are trained to believe. I believe that art tests this depitction. It can throw something at us that can catch us completely off guard. Art tends to stretch the idea of what we know as reality. It can give us a false image of what something supposedly looks like or the form it takes.

word count: 151

I believe there is a great parallel between the cave and spectators in a cinema. However, some are less meaningful than others. For example, we sit in a theater with our eyes trained forward on the screen, just like how the prisoners are sitting facing forward watching shadows. The only difference in this situation is that most cinema goers are not heavily restrained and being held against their will. Physical parallels aside, there are many connections between a person in a cinema and the prisoners in the cave. Both parties are watching an artificial image. Almost everything we watch nowadays is dramaticized indefinitely. Nothing is really what it is, which is exactly what gives media it’s entertainment quality. We like to think that we can keep media separate from reality, but as technolgy becomes more and more integrated in our everyday lives, our line between fiction and reality can be altered. Plato’s cave prisioners are in a slightly different situation. They have lost any idea of reality. They have lost the ability to differentiate between what is real and what isn’t. All they know is the wall they’ve been staring at for who knows how long. I believe this can be seen in our society today. We are constantly subjected to what people want us to think reality is, but how are we to know for certain if our own eyes are decieving us? We have become so accustomed to things being the way they are in our heads that we dismiss anything even remotely out of the ordinary. This is exactly what has happened in the cave.

word count: 268

The ethics of belief, written by WK Clifford warn about the dangers of selective thinking and believing. The standard form of his argument looks like this:

1. all beliefs influence action in some way or another.
2. actions based unjustified beliefs cause harm directly
3. actions based on unjustified beliefs promote credulity

C:   therefore, it is always wrong to hold unjustified beliefs

I woud not consider this argument valid. Therefore it is not sound either. The argument loses validity when the word “all” is used, implying that there are absloutely no belief that one can hold that doesn’t influence their actions. This is simply not true. There are beliefs that one may hold, while still being able to set those view points aside while making primative decisions. The idea of making decisions based on unjustified beliefs is one that is very prominent in the criminal justice system today. A judge’s job is to determine whether or not someone is guilty of a criminal act based on evidence presented. If a judge were to let an unjustified belief influence a verdict, it would only criminalize the judge.

One fallacy that stood out to me in this text was the “sunk cost” fallacy. This fallacy outlines the impact that past experiences have on our future decision making. This could also be applied to the formation of beliefs. Generally, we form and hold beliefs based on our personal experiences. This however, does not make them fully applicable and justified in every situation.

word count: 186