In case anyone in the world doesn't know, I'm a Coldplay fan. I've noticed that any time I hear a song of theirs that I haven't heard before, it becomes my favorite song. Right now, my favorite song is A Rush of Blood to the Head. In the chorus there's this great line that says, "Start as you mean to go on." It would appear that Aristotle agrees with Chris Martin (the lead singer for Coldplay). In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue has to be learned through habituation. One would have to start off being trained up in virtuous way. In a sense, one should start off virtuous to go on virtuous.
Aristotle starts of making the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. Basically anything you do out of ignorance or compulsion is involuntary. If you do an action for the action itself it’s voluntary. So, in order to be virtuous, you would have to voluntarily do virtuous things. That seems simple enough. But it gets more complicated. Humans don’t have a natural tendency to be virtuous. We almost always lean toward some extreme such as anger, greed, selfish, or whatever. Luckily, according to Aristotle, we can still become virtuous through practice. First, do the right thing for the right reason. Second, do the right thing for the right reason again. Third, do the right thing…well you get the picture. The point is humans are creatures of habit. Whatever we start of doing we will likely keep doing. Hence Chris Martin suggesting that you start as you mean to go on, and hence Aristotle strongly suggesting you start of virtuous.
If only Aristotle had been born several hundred years later, we could have traded iTunes.
Tuesday, May 11
Um... WRONG Zeno
Zeno of Elea thought himself quite clever when he came up with his paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise which is funny because when I heard it all I could think was WRONG! If you haven't heard the paradox it can be found at this link: LINK.
Now that you know what I'm talking about here's what I have to say:
In his paradox of the runners Zeno completely ignores the laws of physics. If I’m following him correctly, his paradox is based on the idea that the by the time the fast runner reaches the spot where the slow runner is, the slow runner would have already moved to the next spot. This is true, but Zeno is not accounting for the difference in time v. distance for the fast runner and the slow runner. Let’s say that the fast runner (FR) moves at 2 inches per minute, and the slow runner (SR) moves at 1 inch per minute (just pretend the runners are ants or something). Now, SR starts two inches in front of FR and runs like crazy. In one minute, FR will travel 2 inches and is where SR was, but, because SR was also moving, in that one second he will have traveled 1 inch away from his original position. Now, FR is at SR’s old position, and SR is one inch away. When they start running again it takes FR 30 sec to get to SR’s position because SR is only 1 inch away. In that same 30 seconds, SR will travel half an inch from his old position. Now FR is at SR’s second position, and SR is only half an inch away. See the trend? It will take FR less and less time to reach SR’s position, so SR will have less and less time to move away. Eventually, the distance between FR and SR will disappear. Or another way to look at it is, the time it takes FR to reach SR’s position will diminish to 0. Either way, the slow runner is not winning this race!!
I know what you’re thinking; I totally missed the point of the paradox. But if you ask me, next time Zeno makes a paradox he should take physics into consideration. Creating a paradox by ignoring key facts of life isn’t deep, it’s asinine.
Now that you know what I'm talking about here's what I have to say:
In his paradox of the runners Zeno completely ignores the laws of physics. If I’m following him correctly, his paradox is based on the idea that the by the time the fast runner reaches the spot where the slow runner is, the slow runner would have already moved to the next spot. This is true, but Zeno is not accounting for the difference in time v. distance for the fast runner and the slow runner. Let’s say that the fast runner (FR) moves at 2 inches per minute, and the slow runner (SR) moves at 1 inch per minute (just pretend the runners are ants or something). Now, SR starts two inches in front of FR and runs like crazy. In one minute, FR will travel 2 inches and is where SR was, but, because SR was also moving, in that one second he will have traveled 1 inch away from his original position. Now, FR is at SR’s old position, and SR is one inch away. When they start running again it takes FR 30 sec to get to SR’s position because SR is only 1 inch away. In that same 30 seconds, SR will travel half an inch from his old position. Now FR is at SR’s second position, and SR is only half an inch away. See the trend? It will take FR less and less time to reach SR’s position, so SR will have less and less time to move away. Eventually, the distance between FR and SR will disappear. Or another way to look at it is, the time it takes FR to reach SR’s position will diminish to 0. Either way, the slow runner is not winning this race!!
I know what you’re thinking; I totally missed the point of the paradox. But if you ask me, next time Zeno makes a paradox he should take physics into consideration. Creating a paradox by ignoring key facts of life isn’t deep, it’s asinine.
Heraclitus the Tree Hugger
I had the idea for this blog a few months back, but haven't gotten around to writing it until now. In my environmental science class, we learned about the three major ethical views you find among environmental scientist. There's the anthropocentric who is human centered, the biocentric who values living things, and the ecocentric who values whole ecological systems. The easiest way to explain the different views is to explain what each person would do in a given situation, so I'll use the example we got in class.
Imagine you're on a safari and you run across an elephant with its foot stuck in a whole. You know the elephant can't get out by itself and will die either from starvation or attack without any help. At the same time, it would be dangerous for you to help the elephant as you could get seriously hurt in the process. You remember that you have a rifle in your car so you could shoot the elephant and put it out of its misery. What would you do?
The Anthropocentric would say it's best to shoot the elephant because it would be too risky to help it, but they wouldn't want to be left with the guilt of knowing the elephant was later attacked by predators or starved to death. The biocentric would choose to help the elephant despite the risk because certain living things (namely all animals) have value and should be protected. The biocentric still values human life, but they don't necessarily place humans above other living things. The ecocentric would likely leave the elephant, preferring to allow nature to run its course. In their view, everything happens for a reason. If the elephant lives good for it; if the predators find it good for them; if the elephant dies and decomposes good for the soil. Either way, it's not the human’s job to get in the way.
So where does Heraclitus come in? I am convinced that Heraclitus is an ecocentric. Its claims like, "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony" that make me believe he would take the c’est la vie approach of an ecocentric to nature. The claim "out of discord comes the fairest harmony" only makes sense through the eyes of an ecocentric. It's about the checks and balances in place in the natural world. For instance, we all love deer (if you don't, watch Bambi and you'll change), but we don't want them running all over the place causing problems. That's why when Discovery channel shows us a video of a tiger hunting a deer and having it for dinner no one freaks out and calls PETA. We understand that the discord between the deer and the tiger is necessary to maintain harmony. After all, if we went around protecting the deer all the time, they would run amuck and the tigers would die. Heraclitus understood this. That's why he wrote his philosophy around the importance of opposites and opposition.
All this time he we thought he was just throwing around random paradoxes for us to think about. It turns out he was coming out of the closet as a tree hugger.
Imagine you're on a safari and you run across an elephant with its foot stuck in a whole. You know the elephant can't get out by itself and will die either from starvation or attack without any help. At the same time, it would be dangerous for you to help the elephant as you could get seriously hurt in the process. You remember that you have a rifle in your car so you could shoot the elephant and put it out of its misery. What would you do?
The Anthropocentric would say it's best to shoot the elephant because it would be too risky to help it, but they wouldn't want to be left with the guilt of knowing the elephant was later attacked by predators or starved to death. The biocentric would choose to help the elephant despite the risk because certain living things (namely all animals) have value and should be protected. The biocentric still values human life, but they don't necessarily place humans above other living things. The ecocentric would likely leave the elephant, preferring to allow nature to run its course. In their view, everything happens for a reason. If the elephant lives good for it; if the predators find it good for them; if the elephant dies and decomposes good for the soil. Either way, it's not the human’s job to get in the way.
So where does Heraclitus come in? I am convinced that Heraclitus is an ecocentric. Its claims like, "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony" that make me believe he would take the c’est la vie approach of an ecocentric to nature. The claim "out of discord comes the fairest harmony" only makes sense through the eyes of an ecocentric. It's about the checks and balances in place in the natural world. For instance, we all love deer (if you don't, watch Bambi and you'll change), but we don't want them running all over the place causing problems. That's why when Discovery channel shows us a video of a tiger hunting a deer and having it for dinner no one freaks out and calls PETA. We understand that the discord between the deer and the tiger is necessary to maintain harmony. After all, if we went around protecting the deer all the time, they would run amuck and the tigers would die. Heraclitus understood this. That's why he wrote his philosophy around the importance of opposites and opposition.
All this time he we thought he was just throwing around random paradoxes for us to think about. It turns out he was coming out of the closet as a tree hugger.
Wednesday, May 5
I Love You Like a New Pair of Shoes
It's 12 am and I've got a cup of coffee, what more does anyone need to be inspired? I just read Bethany's blog "L is for the way you look at me" and it's got me thinking. When we read Plato's Symposium in class we (or at least I) treated it like a search for a needle in a hay stack. It was a challenge to sift through all the beautifully worded definitions of love to find the one that was actually right. It didn't occur to me until tonight (you can blame the coffee or the lack of sleep) that they may all be right. Perhaps each description was of a different kind of love. Maybe in the back of our minds we know that these several types of love can't be represented by one word, so we sift though and try to decide which will be called the "true" definition.
In my French classes these last two semesters, my professors have made sure to teach us not only the French language, but the French culture as well. If I learned anything about the French, it's that when they make a commitment they mean to keep it. For instance, on the French resume (called a CV) you are likely to find only one job listed. They don't jump from job to job trying to find the one that makes them happy like Americans often do. In fact, it looks shady if a prospective employee has two or three previous jobs listed. It makes the job seeker seem restless and unreliable, which kind of makes sense.
The French put a similar level of commitment into their personal relationships. When they develop a friendship it’s meant to last forever. My first semester professor told us about a family he met in France that stays in contact with him more frequently than some of his American friends. Another example would be dating. People don't really "date around" in France. When they date someone it starts off serious (there's no need to sit your boyfriend or girlfriend down to have "the talk").
We (or I, I realize that sometimes it's best to only speak for myself) instinctively want to decided who's got it right. Is American love or French love the "real" definition? In actuality they are two different things that don't cancel out. Just like the definitions provided by Socrates and friends don't cancel each other out. Everyone is just using the same word to describe different emotions, because no other word is available for use. Let's look at real world examples. I love Coldplay. I love shopping. I love chocolate covered anything. All three of the previous statements are true, yet my feelings towards the three items vary greatly. If given the choice between a Hershey's Bar, a trip to the mall, and a Coldplay concert it wouldn't take but a second for me to decide which one I wanted. Using the same word to describe my feelings toward all three objects would seem to suggest that I desire each choice equally. In reality, I have a preference, but the English language gives me no way of sharing that preference with the reader (save adding the word "really" in varying numbers before the word love in each statement, but that's just poor grammar). This is why I say French love and American love don't cancel out. The French simply add a few unstated "reallys" to love when they use it.
This is the point where I make some judgments and decide which way is the best way to approach the word love. In one corner, the French have chosen to use "love" sparingly to convey a deep commitment and affection for another person (either family friend or true love). All other types of relationships are ignored and go without title. In the other corner, Americans chose to use "love" freely to describe various degrees of commitment, affection, admiration, and whatever else. Because of this we feely develop more in between relationships (in between best friend and mere acquaintance) that sometimes have less substance than our other relationships. In my opinion, the French way is the better way. Though it can limit the amount of relationships one develops, it makes those precious few friends worth even more (it's the difference between the best friend you’ve had since high school, and the best friend you've had since kindergarten). Plus, there is something fundamentally wrong with using the same word to describe my feelings toward my boyfriend or husband that I would use to describe my feelings toward a new pair of shoes. :)
In my French classes these last two semesters, my professors have made sure to teach us not only the French language, but the French culture as well. If I learned anything about the French, it's that when they make a commitment they mean to keep it. For instance, on the French resume (called a CV) you are likely to find only one job listed. They don't jump from job to job trying to find the one that makes them happy like Americans often do. In fact, it looks shady if a prospective employee has two or three previous jobs listed. It makes the job seeker seem restless and unreliable, which kind of makes sense.
The French put a similar level of commitment into their personal relationships. When they develop a friendship it’s meant to last forever. My first semester professor told us about a family he met in France that stays in contact with him more frequently than some of his American friends. Another example would be dating. People don't really "date around" in France. When they date someone it starts off serious (there's no need to sit your boyfriend or girlfriend down to have "the talk").
We (or I, I realize that sometimes it's best to only speak for myself) instinctively want to decided who's got it right. Is American love or French love the "real" definition? In actuality they are two different things that don't cancel out. Just like the definitions provided by Socrates and friends don't cancel each other out. Everyone is just using the same word to describe different emotions, because no other word is available for use. Let's look at real world examples. I love Coldplay. I love shopping. I love chocolate covered anything. All three of the previous statements are true, yet my feelings towards the three items vary greatly. If given the choice between a Hershey's Bar, a trip to the mall, and a Coldplay concert it wouldn't take but a second for me to decide which one I wanted. Using the same word to describe my feelings toward all three objects would seem to suggest that I desire each choice equally. In reality, I have a preference, but the English language gives me no way of sharing that preference with the reader (save adding the word "really" in varying numbers before the word love in each statement, but that's just poor grammar). This is why I say French love and American love don't cancel out. The French simply add a few unstated "reallys" to love when they use it.
This is the point where I make some judgments and decide which way is the best way to approach the word love. In one corner, the French have chosen to use "love" sparingly to convey a deep commitment and affection for another person (either family friend or true love). All other types of relationships are ignored and go without title. In the other corner, Americans chose to use "love" freely to describe various degrees of commitment, affection, admiration, and whatever else. Because of this we feely develop more in between relationships (in between best friend and mere acquaintance) that sometimes have less substance than our other relationships. In my opinion, the French way is the better way. Though it can limit the amount of relationships one develops, it makes those precious few friends worth even more (it's the difference between the best friend you’ve had since high school, and the best friend you've had since kindergarten). Plus, there is something fundamentally wrong with using the same word to describe my feelings toward my boyfriend or husband that I would use to describe my feelings toward a new pair of shoes. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)