Own Perceptions

I was just thinking about people's own perceptions of themselves - and how wrong they often are. How somebody might think of themselves as unloved (or anything), but there are lots of people out there who love them more than anything in the world...the person just doesn't know.
~Becca

I think that our own subjective perceptions of ourselves differ from others' subjective perceptions of ourselves and themselves (and everything else, for that matter) to such a great and diverse extent that it is amazing. Does an objective reality unaffected by perception even exist? What is "objective reality" anyway? How can anything be objective at all, except for from the "God's eye" view (and what if there's no God)? Will we ever know what other people think of us? Do we want to?

A Conversation Regarding A Clockwork Orange

When I went to see "A Clockwork Orange" (a part of the Philosophy & Film series) the other night, I went with my friends Justin and Henry. The day after, Henry had sent me an e-mail, and so I wrote him back. It covers a few of the issues I was to thinking about with regard to the movie (like free will). Allow me to present that e-conversation...
****************************************
Quoting Henry.Huang@colorado.edu:
Hey Sonja,

I just wanted to share some ideas. During the discussion, some people say Alex (the main character) is a free agent, and some say he's a 'machine' the entire time and just got reprogrammed a few times into a different machine. Whenever someone went along with one side, the prof or someone else seemed to have a point that contradicts the viewpoint. Everyone seemed to accept that we are only dealing with two agents: the free agent with no morals and the machine with morals. I actually believe in the possibility of two more 'semi-agents.' I think there can exist a free agent that acts LIKE a machine, and there can also exist a machine that acts LIKE a free agent.

Before I explain this more, I first must admit that I'm a little confused about your prof's definition of 'machine.' Does the machine by definition lack consciousness? I know there's a lot of debate about whether robots can have consciousness, but right now I have a feeling that this is impossible. I think robots can be highly sophisticated, but never reach true intelligence like humans. This might be an example of a machine that acts LIKE a free agent. Notice that I'm kind of assuming that humans are free agents (which I sort of justify with quantum physics). ANYWAYS, going back to my idea of these semi-agents. I think it could be argued that Alex is initially a free agent who later becomes a semi-agent (namely, the semi-free-agent who acts like a machine). He appears to be a machine because he SEEMS to have no choice. It could be argued that he does indeed have choice, only he's prevented from acting on the 'bad ones' because he's been conditioned to feel sick during those times. The scene that stands out is when Alex is confronted with the naked lady. Clearly he desired to touch her, but that sick feeling stopped him from going further. The idea that we're all just machines is certainly very convincing. The words 'conditioned' and 'reprogrammed' are often used interchangibly and are associated with machines. The argument against mine is that Alex has been conditioned since he was born to act the way he does; therefore he's a machine. My counter-argument is that perhaps he is born a free agent who is constantly being conditioned by his environment; the conditioning Alex gets can place him a step closer to being LIKE a machine. However, he'll always remain a free agent. Sorry this is a bit longer than I expected. Does this make sense? It's the best answer I could come up with so far that satisfies the contradictory points. Keep in mind I'm no philosopher, and there could be something fundamentally flawed in my argument. I'm also no scientist either! If you'd like you can tell this to your prof. I'd be curious how he'd tear apart my ideas!

Henry

Hey Henry,
Interesting ideas.

The idea of a 'semi-agent' seems a little ambiguous to me. Could you explain that a little more?

Also the definition of "machine" seems ambiguous. What exactly *is* a machine? Just something that's been programmed in some manner? With that definition, I would argue that anything can be a machine...even a flower! Because a flower is biologically "programmed" (so to speak) to need certain things: CO2, water, sun and the chemicals from it (and there's no changing that programming, unless we were in some sort of futuristic, technologically-advanced society in which we could change the basic needs of things)... And it's also programmed to be a certain way: rooted in the ground, petals opening at a certain time of year, and so on. In a similar way, I would argue that each human has certain biological programming from the very beginnings of their lives. Instincts and drives, and personality traits (arguably) like compassion. Then, as humans go on throughout our lives, the society we live in influences us, as do the people directly around us, most notably our parents and friends (this is called the social constructionist perspective).

I too think that Alex has ability to choose, he just cannot act on some of the choices he decides. Does 'choice' imply action? I don't think it does. Desires (like wanting to touch the naked woman, and wanting to hit the man who was renting his room, and probably wanting to defend himself against his attackers, although that point wasn't as obvious in the movie) and thoughts are choices as well, and of this Alex was perfectly capable.

I think Alex was born a free agent in the sense that anyone is born a free agent (again I'm referring to biological influences), and remained one to some extent (though to different extents throughout the movie, i.e. everyone is socially conditioned throughout their lives, and he is too, and later, after the first treatment he had choice without ability to act on that choice) throughout the movie. Whether you call the victim of this limited freedom 'free agent' or 'machine' is a matter of diction/semantics. I might agree with you and call it 'free agent,' at least until he undergoes the treatment...then it's arguable how much free will one needs to have to be 'free.' While I previously said I think Alex has the ability to choose (and I continue to think that), I personally wouldn't say that Alex is a free agent after either procedure that is done to him. Why? Because historically, and typically, when free will is thought of, action is involved AS WELL AS desire and thought (and other emotional processes).

Some other things to consider in terms of the restriction of free will are laws, inabilities to do things (Like flying), and again, biology and socialization (You may disagree with me in my stance that we are free (or, to borrow your term, semi-free)agents despite those limitations).

WOULD total and complete free will look like anarchy? How would choice even be able to be made without biology and socialization?! Suppose we really are 'blank slates.' What would that look like???

Sonja

Systems of Ethics: Why Virtue Ethics Wins

Virtue Ethics: "Ethics based on the qualities of character necessary to live well [like virtue]." -Blackwell's Dictionary of Philosophy Or, "An action is right iff [if and only if] it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically (i.e. acting in character) do in the circumstances...A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues...A virtue is a character trait that...[includes at least one the following: honesty, charity, justice, kindness, and others, yet to be described by me.]"-Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.

Deontology: "An action is right iff it is in accordance with a correct moral rule or principle...A correct moral principle is one that...[includes at least one of the following: Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not physically or emotionally hurt others, tell the truth, be kind, respect other living creatures - humans, animals, and plants, and others, yet to be described by me]."-Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.

Utilitarianism: "An action is right iff it promotes the best consequences...The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized." -Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.

My Opinion: Virtue ethics is the best option of the three. Why? Because it puts the most emphasis on the intention of the individual. On the input, so to speak, rather than the output.

I do agree, however, that despite the fact that virtue ethics puts the most emphasis on the true nature of the agent, utilitarianism is (in a lot of situations) far more practical in application (acts). An example: Klein, the serial killer, goes for a walk. He sees a person, and as it is late at night and no one else is around, and he has an urge, he sees fit to kill them, and so he does. It turns out the man Klein killed (perhaps named Calvin) was a very bad person (worse than Klein), perhaps a child rapist, and now the world is rid of him.

Utilitarianism would say of this situation, 'Hurrah, the greatest amount of happiness has been actualized,' as many children will be saved from being raped sometime in the future thanks to Klein's action. This is true. However, does that make Klein a good person? The clear answer is no.

In day-to-day life, in terms of judging* those around me I concern myself with whether a person (a friend, a co-worker or boss, my family members) has a good character or not. Even if someone botches an action up due to ignorance, that does not make them a morally bad person. This is why Virtue Ethics wins!

*Judging in the sense of the kind of assessment of traits and situations that is common, if not inherent, to human nature

Rushmore

Listening to the songs that I'm listening to made me think of the movie Rushmore. It's such an existential movie, really. One of my favorites. It's about the main character, Max Fisher, finding his niche in life (like I was writing about), and hence his meaning. He sucks at school (I wish I couldn't relate), but he's very bright and very involved in extra-curriculars (theatre, wrestling, and bee-keeping, among others) and he develops this crush on one of the teachers, Rosemary Cross (that part's a little weird, fucked-up, actually, but though I'm glad I can't relate to it, it's still interesting) and is very determined to "win her." In the process of all of this self-discovery, there are miscellaneous problems that come up (some self-created, often because of his over-determination. - Is there a better word for that?), but that's the process of life, isn't it? At the very end of the movie, this song plays, and it just feels perfect. Like he's found it. His meaning.

I think that's everyone. Out there, searching for their meanings, whether it be God or Hedonism or TV (Though I hope it's not the latter). I think the more of that potential meaning in ourselves we actualize, the happier we'll be.

I wish that I knew all I know now
When I was younger
I wish that I knew all I know now
When I was stronger

A Word

Once a thing becomes a word, it is alive, real.
-Jonathan Ames, What's Not To Love?

I agree. Not to imply that if something is not a word, then that means it is not real. However, I :would: argue that if one has a feeling, and it is not made concrete, then it is less significant than if it were to be put into words. This is for several reasons, the first of which being that there is no way to hold onto the memory. I could write it down, which is good way to retain the information. But even if I don't happen to write it, if instead I have a conversation with someone about what's going on inside my head or body, then I am more likely to remember by virtue of the fact that I had to articulate what I was experiencing.

I don't want this to be misconstrued as me saying that we can translate emotions into words, no problem. I don't believe this is true. In my mind, there will always be a linguistic gap between what we say and what we mean (or feel). Words are just a means of communication, a stab in the dark at trying to express ourselves and understand each other, because human connection is so damn important, whether we admit it or not.

It may be a challenge to represent the gloriousness or deep sadness or enlightenment that an unworded thought might give us, but I think it is worth that challenge.

*Vitality

I want to be alive with intellectual vitality!

A Way to Communicate

Ways to Communicate...
*What are they? Verbal, non-verbal (body language)

*How do they affect the individual? Without communication with others, I'd presume we'd be a lot more unhappy. Even the most introverted person that I've ever heard of enjoys the occasional conversation or momentary connection with another.

*Why are some means of communication work well for some people and not others?

*Why is communication so important to us? For me, it helps to establish "normalcy" (or uniqueness, depending on what I'm searching for) and acceptance from others.

*Is communication primarily a way to connect with another human being? Do we "need" this connection? No because the animal world has methods of communication as well. I think I need it!

Body

*What is it?
*How is it important?
*In what ways is it linked with the mind?

I believe in the Mind-Body Connection. It's like Morpheus says in The Matrix, "the body can't live without the mind." Technically this isn't true (think of life support being used in the case of a patient with severe brain damage), though this depends on our definition of how much the mind has to be undamaged in order to be counted as "living."

But when we consider something like physical health, we know that this affects the mind in several overt ways. Eating well and getting enough exercise makes a person happier than they would be if they didn't exercise enough and ate junk food (I would know). Then there is the issue of chemical imbalance, which we tend to medicate (attempting to stabilize the Mind-Body Connection) in this society. Take Depression, for example. Someone's mind (obviously, in this context I use the immaterial meaning of the word "Mind," likening it to something like "intelligence" or "personality," rather than "brain") is made unhappy by the body.

Existence

In existentialist terminology, 'existence' means that a consciousness assumes its responsibility to act freely whereas 'being' is a static identity of a thing.
~"Simone de Beauvoir," Great Thinkers A-Z

Emotions

I think that emotions are chemically created. By our brains, hormones, etc.

Each separate emotion is in a way too limiting. By this I mean to say that when I say "I feel happy," there are a range of emotions in me, with "happy" standing out above the rest. But I may also feel a degree of contentment, a degree of triumph, and, hidden away, possibly even a degree of sadness.

So to some extent, labeling the way I feel with a single emotion is a generalization.

Actions or Thoughts?

Which is the more "true" us: the us that is manifested in our actions or the us that is manifested in our thoughts/feelings?

I think it's important not to discount either one, but some part of myself is inclined to say the thought/feeling part of myself because it feels more complete or "full." I may think about an action before or after I accomplish it (or both), but I also have lots of other thoughts, thoughts that are never actualized and yet are very true to myself.

Of course, I'm not discrediting the objection that I may have thoughts that are completely unlike the usual me, perhaps even scary or sick thoughts that I don't want to admit to having. But I do have them, on infrequent occasions, as does everyone (I'm assuming...right?). Also, just because I place a negative value judgment upon them doesn't mean they're not "me" in some aspect, however hidden. Jung would call this my shadow.

I would argue that the totality of my thoughts and emotions constitutes a more whole self than merely the self I present through actions to the world outside of my mind and perceptions.

Types of Intelligence

I would argue that majority of people have some type of intelligence, though some have more types (and higher degrees of intelligence) than others. I think the potential versus actual intelligences of people depends on a combination of nature and nurture. Also, I tend to want to reject IQ tests, as I don't know that a concept as complex as Intelligence can be measured in such an easy, definitive way.

Here is a list of ways that I might begin to classify intelligence:
-Street Smarts/Common Sense/Practical Intelligence (Could also be called "Concrete Thought Intelligence")
-Ability to Apply Learned Knowledge Intelligence (NOT to be confused with Knowledge, pure Knowledge. In my book, Knowledge is certainly not Intelligence. I don't know if I would propose an "Ability to Memorize" Intelligence or not. For now, no.)
-Emotional Intelligence
-Social Intelligence (Strongly related to Emotional Intelligence)
-Quick-on-the-Uptake Intelligence/Intuition
-Abstract Thought Intelligence

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences proposes that we ought to recognize spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist types of intelligence.

More later.

Does Wisdom Come With Age?

I've always assumed that it does, but today my co-worker Mart (who is in her late 30s, by my best guess) said that it doesn't, and that you can't read people any better with age either, but that "experience counts for something." I don't entirely know what it counts for, this I will have to ponder. And if it doesn't count for wisdom, and better decisions, then does it really matter?

Also, a related question: Do we regard parents as increasing in wisdom, decreasing in wisdom, or fluctuating in wisdom throughout the course of our lifetimes? Though I couldn't say for sure as I haven't lived an entire lifetime through, I once read a quote about a person who regarded their Mom at the beginning of their life as a genius, the middle as an idiot, and the end a genius again. This sounds strangely accurate to me.

Uncomfortable

I think it's time that I start facing uncomfortableness as an opportunity to grow. If I am uncomfortable with an idea, perhaps that signifies my potential to become comfortable with it.

Souls

Souls: I don't think they exist. I am too much of a scientist for that. I think that we are tied to our bodies, and when they die, we die.

Objective

The objective of this blog is to have a more private forum (than my Livejournal account) to post my philosophical thoughts, ideas, quandaries, questions, rants, and so on. Since I only know one person also on this site (hello, Jenn), it will be effectively more personal and less "open to the world," so to speak. Every entry is a work in progress, and I will continue to edit entries until I feel that each issue is addressed adequately.