• why is something at all why is there nothing

·      why is something at all why is there nothing..                                                                   

    I am still trying to wrap my head around this whole context of this. if you think about what it really means you can come up with so many answers in your head about it. It is one of those subject that you can lay in bed at night time and just sit there and think and ponder for hours and still not come up with a solid conclusion, or even idea of what it could mean. 

    

     Something that kinda got me think today in class was about the bible and God knowing before anyone knows. I wonder since he is the all knowing, if he would know why is something at all why is there nothing. I mean why is something at all, why are we at all, why are we nothing, are we nothing compared to the rest of this universe ? These are the type of questions that come out of my mind when discussing this topic.

Wondering about Wonder

In chapter 15 Arendt discusses Plato's response to "what makes us think?" and expands on Plato's theory that wonder is the origin of our cognitive abilities. The one stipulation that Arendt makes is that "the wonder that is the starting-point of thinking is neither puzzlement nor surprise nor perplexity; it is an admiring wonder" (143). This is an important distinction because it leads to the later discussion of Being and its relation to thinking and the divine. One way this connection is made is by Arendt's explanation of one of the supposed proofs of the existence of God, that nothing causes itself to exist and therefore was caused by something else. That thing that caused the first thing must have a previous cause and this chain continues, but, since it cannot continue forever, must arrive "at something which is its own cause...the ultimate cause, called 'God'" (145). The importance of faith in this "primary mover" is reflected later in Arendt when she states that "the element of admiration in Plato's wonder needs faith in a Creator-God to save human reason from its speechless dizzy glance into the abyss of nothingness" (147). Arendt even goes on to say that without wonder, it is Being's fault that nothingness becomes unfathomable.

Thoughtlessness of romantic comedies

"Bringing Up Baby" has obvious forms of thoughtlessness that are meant to be funny, not evil. Leaving the window to the car open enough so that the tiger jumps from one car to the other is not evil, nor does it show a lack of a conscience. However I can see how an escalation of the behaviors or more serious behaviors could display a problem if there is no guilt. The female character does not take responsibility for her actions and since they are simple and will eventually not be as harmful as they seem to the main character, her actions are humorous and not upsetting or subject to negative judgments. There must be a fine line somewhere when thoughtlessness becomes unforgivable.

quote from Michael Jordan

Sitting in my apartment watching ESPN after class I saw a blurb from Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame speech that I thought was philosophical and somewhat Platonic. The context of the quote is that he mentioned we just might see him playing again at 50 and he ends it by saying, "....limits like fear, are often just illusions." The GOAT knows his philosophy.

Speech

"It is not our soul but our mind that demands speech." (p98). This is a very strong statement made by Arendt. I also find it very debatable. I see where our mind does demand speech, but I feel our soul demands it too. The first thing I thought of was love. We're always told "actions speak louder than words." I'm a strong believer in the fact that love comes from the soul. While actions sometimes mean more than words, would our soul be okay with not hearing the words "I love you." I know for a girl that when you love him, you want nothing more than to hear those words. We want nothing more than to be told and reassured of their love. So is it our mind, or is it our soul? I guess it depends on which you believe the soul controls.

Philosophy and Religion

Arendt describes the Greek goal of philosophy as reaching immortality by following two steps. "first the activity of nous, which consisted in contemplation of the everlasting...then followed the attempt to translate the vision into words" (137). Previously in the chapter she stated that "philosophizing became the only possible 'way' to piety" (135). However, religion could be looked at as another way of reaching immortality through the same basic steps. Really, what is religion but the activity of contemplation of the everlasting (or, the divine) then followed by the attempt to translate the vision into words (and actions). These are two ways of looking at the same activity. Philosophy did not replace religion, it, in some ways, complements it.

Thinking Too Much

This is a poem I found with a perspective on what thinking is and why it is important to the author.  I like how she is questioning the ling between thinking and thinking too much.  It relates to the debate about philosophers being removed from the world too much because of how often they think.

http://open.salon.com/blog/embracingepiphanies/2012/09/25/poem_thinking_too_much

Is Philosophy Still Relevant?

The study of philosophy has started to fall out of favor in the academic world for the past couple of decades. So far, in fact, that it is a possible question to ask in this day and age if the subject is still relevant to our world. Personally, I think that it absolutely is. Philosophy forces you to think, and I mean really think about things. It forces you to have an introspection of  your goals, your beliefs, the world that you live in, all of it. It teaches critical thinking skills that are growing more and more rare to the people of our world. What's more, it also gives people the tools and methods to have new and creative ideas that can be of use to the world.

The one flaw that I do see in the study of Philosophy that would have to change if it wanted to remain in modern day thought is that the study would have to do away with its elitist attitude and image. Many students that I know are cagey about taking philosophy courses because they feel that they are not smart enough to do well, or that they won't get anything out of it. If philosophy were to show how it can be relevant in today's world and make itself more accessible to the "normal" people, I think it would take off like never before.

Language and its Effect on Thinking

Language, as the way that we bring thought into the world, is deeply connected to act of thinking. So it wouldn't be too far a leap to say that the language that we utilize to think can have an impact on the way that we think and the way that we express out thoughts. If you speak a language with, shall we say, over three billion words, your thoughts would probably be more complex, though not necessarily better than, someone who speaks a language with only three hundred. The content of the language could also have an effect on your thoughts. Languages that have more than one word for the same thing, such as the Eskimo's thirty seven different words for "snow", probably have more of a tilt towards certain thoughts than others. It is said you've only truly mastered a foreign language when you start to think in it, and I think that statement, considering the huge connection between language and thought, is proof enough as to how the types of language we use effects our thinking.

Metaphor and the Ineffable

As Arendt says, metaphor is the bridge between thought and the world of appearances, and those metaphors that we use do take from one of our five bodily senses to create themselves. But Arendt also makes the point that if we were to try and think about the ineffable, we find ourselves at a loss as to how to go about doing so. Mainly because of the fact that, because the ineffable is not rooted in the world of appearances, we have no metaphors with which to consider it. As such, all we really have is a "feeling" of it, an occasional burst of inspiration that leaves us as soon as we attempt to pin it down. Because our language, the words we use to actualize thought and make it concrete in our minds, does not have words with which to make the ineffable realized in or connected to the world of appearances, such thoughts are unable to be considered or spoken aloud. Based on such evidence, it could be entirely possible to proclaim the ineffable does not exist at all. And yet, we do still have that sense from time to time, those moments of inspiration or those feelings of sudden understanding, that do hint that the ineffable is out there. In my personal experience, such things usually are accompanied by that sensation you get when you have a word on the tip of your tongue, and just can't remember what it is. You know it's there, but it just refuses to be said or even understood sometimes. So I suppose the only consideration then is to figure out how to quantify it, either without using language, or by inventing new language to do so.

Desperate Philosophers

An interesting point that Arendt made in chapter 10 was that "the greater [certain philosophers] loom in our tradition of philosophy, the more they were inclined to find ways and means of reinterpreting these inherent traits" (1. withdrawal from the world of appearances 2. self-destructive tendency 3. knowledge of thinking only as long as thinking lasts) (88). Even more curious is that Arendt qualifies this by stating that philosophers are trying to reinterpret these facts, not for the masses, but for themselves. They appear to be unwilling to accept the fact that their chosen profession could, in fact, be useless. They will  stick to their subject without acknowledging that it could lead to nothing. Perhaps this is the reason that Plato feared people's derisive laughter as a danger and believed that the masses would rise up against the philosophers if they saw an opportunity.

Intramural Warfare

On pages 87-88, Arendt discusses the necessary withdrawal the thinking ego must take from the common world of appearances to contemplate something deeper. She says that the world of appearances can distract the mind and can conceal the mind from viewing an invisible Being that reveals itself only to the mind. She also goes onto say that our minds have a natural aversion to this way of thinking as if we might discover something that is distasteful to us, which goes back to her theory of the banality of evil. Overall, withdrawal from the common sense world of appearances, self-destructive tendency, and awareness of the mind’s activity is all part of the intramural warfare between common sense and thought.

Out of Order Thinking

In understanding what it means to "think", Arendt uses Heidegger's philosophical understanding of what it means to think. Arendt believes thinking exemplifies itself as a stop and think sort of action. More specifically Arendt (78) quotes Heidegger that thinking on any level or any such reflection demands and “out of order” thought process. In other words, it is wrong to believe that an established hierarchal order exists among the activities or thought processes of the mind. Ultimately the thought processes that occur in the human mind are more directed towards thought-objects than to sense-objects. Thought-objects require desensitization from our body so the mind can enter into a place where thinking can occur.

Existentialism

I remember Emily asking "what is existentialism?" I told her that I absolutely loved the literature that came with existentialism. The web definition says "A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will". I was extremely surprised when in my Education class I was classified as an existentialist teacher. In this description it says "a highly subjective philosophy that stressed the importance of the individual  and emotional commitment to living authentically. It emphasizes individual choice over the importance of rational theories, history, and social institutions." I think it's awesome that philosophy and education are tied so closely together. As a teacher, you have to know what you believe in and how you want your students to learn. 

Discovering Who We Are

Something that struck me in our reading this week was chapter 10 page 53 (for hard copy) when Arendt says "If we take our perspective from the world of appearances, the common world in which we appeared by birth and from which we shall disappear by death, then the wish to know our common habitat and amass all kinds of knowledge about it is natural." I think this really falls into the science as much as it does the knowledge. We are always searching for the truth. We're trying to find the depths of the world that are infinite. Everyday, we learn something new about ourselves, about the world around us. Most of us yearn for knowledge. A reason we're in college, to better our lives and know about our surroundings. We encounter new people, new lifestyles everyday. What is life if we're not gaining knowledge? What is knowledge without the science behind it?

Illogical Philosophy

Something that struck me while ready chapter 10 was the affinity Arendt described between philosophers and death, which they believed would "liberate the mind from bodily pain and pleasure, both of which prevent our mental organs from pursuing their activity" (81). The illogical part is the assumption on the part of the "professional thinkers" is that they do not seem to have thought about the fact that no one knows what succeeds death. Their blind hope seems to be that they will be free of bodily concerns, yet still free to think abstractly about such things as they please. To leave something like that unaddressed seems out of character for people who like to ask questions. Perhaps there is a bodily form in the afterlife. Perhaps there is no afterlife. Perhaps thought is restricted in the afterlife. It is impossible to say, but it is very odd for philosophers to pin their hopes on something they can't know about until they die.