Monthly Archives: March 2015

Taking away the I

Kant argues that conscious is about the I think, while Hegel argues that conscious is constituted by the I. Julian Baggini, however, believes that there is no I in conscious, but just a  collection of experiences that are not connected. I listened to a Ted talk by Julian Baggini, and his argument against the I seems to fit perfectly with the essay that I wrote.

What if there is no I. We are merely jut a product of what we exposed to, or, as Baggini states, that we are a sum of our parts. But, isn’t it only logical that we see ourselves that way, since we see other items the same way. When you look at a mug, we don’t interpret it as something called a mug with a handle and a brim, but we interpret it as a whole. Thus, like how a cups characteristics defines the cup, so does our experience define us. This is seen in neurological studies where there is no part of the brain that brings our experiences together, or the I.

This may seem to be a scary sentiment, but when we really think about, it actually is very freeing. Firstly, saying that there is no I is not to say that we do not exist. The fact that there is no I shows that our experiences shape us, and it also shows that there is no one thing, the I, that defines us. We can create our own experiences, and, in a way, shape ourselves.

After reading philosopher’s works that emphasize some aspect of I, it was interesting to listen to someone that has a different opinion. Without the I, and the fact that wear shaped by our experiences, we are able to mold ourselves to be what we want to be without the restriction of I don’t like that or I don’t want to do that or deciding that the I is not fit for something. It is not to say that we can perfect what we experience, but it is more freeing to know that we are not bound to a single I, and the I’s characteristics. Baggini ends his talk with a quote:

 

“Well makers lead the water; fletchers bend the arrow; carpenters bend a log of wood; wise people fashion themselves.” –Dhammapada (verse 80)

Is it Necessary?

I was laying in my bed, wide awake Saturday night, not wanting to get out, lying to myself that Spring Break would never end. I scrolled through the internet, looking through articles that seemed interesting. One of the articles, you can read here, was especially enticing. It explained the story of the alleged roommate of one of the internet’s most notorious owner of drug-trafficking. He lived essentially a double-life: he was a normal guy, graduated from UT Austin, lived comfortably in his house in San Francisco; but when he was behind the computer, he went took on the role of the DreadPIrateRoberts, founder and admin of Silk Road, an underground black-market that oversaw the exchange of illicit drugs and other paraphernalia. Ultimately, he was figured out and is under control by the FBI.  As stated in the article, it came as a shock to his roommate, his parents and now ex-girlfriend.

What I want to know is was it right for him to conceal, or lie in order for him to run his website? Since he was the head of the organization, I feel that he should take full blame for what he did, although lucrative, it was still illegal. I thought of Plato’s Republic, in which Plato described to Glaucon the Noble Lie, and that it was okay for government to lie to the people. In a way, I feel this might be the same case. He was the head of an organization, and in order to keep order in his life, created two identities for himself, one that he showed to the public, and the other behind the glow of the computer screen.

Any thoughts?

PhotoCredit to http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/plato.htm

PhotoCredit to http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/plato.htm

“Why I Hate School But Love Education”

Ever since we began our discussions about education, I’ve been nagged by a memory of a video I’d watched in high school. It was a video my psychology teacher showed us in class one day, not because it was particularly relevant to the topic we were discussing, but because he was one of those teachers who liked to make you think and question your values. The video was a spoken word that differentiated education from schooling. After some descriptive Google searches, I found that it was called “Why I Hate School But Love Education.” Continue reading

So Descartes Walks Into a Bar…

I stumbled upon a philosophy joke a few weeks ago, and I think most people know this one already. The joke goes:

Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a drink. When he finishes his drink, the bartender asks him if he would like another. Descartes replies, “No, I think not,” and disappears in a puff of logic.

Continue reading

Don’t Fret About Identity

In the “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” queue on my Amazon account (where I bought all of the required texts for this class) there was one one modern looking cover among a lot of Locke, Hume and Plato titled The Ego Trick by Julian Baggini. So I googled the book and found a TED Talk by the author addressing the main idea of his book which is basically that our “self” is not a  fixed permanent essence or object that has experiences but rather our “self” is just a collection of experiences.

This idea seemed to fit perfectly with what we are learning in class about identity, in fact it seemed like a good unifying capstone for our discussions so far, so I watched the TED Talk. The speaker gives a comprehensive view of identity according to different philosophers including Locke, Hume, Buddha, and even modern psychologists and neuroscientists. He synthesizes ideas from these respective philosophies (though he takes from buddhism more than anything else) and optimistically concludes that identity or our “true self” is a process which is fluid and forever changing like a waterfall, except it is different from a waterfall because we have the capacity to direct our flow and shape ourselves. So according to Baggini the ship of Theseus paradox with regards to identity is a total nonissue because our identities or our “self” is not an object, which we can expect to be the same from one moment in time to another. So according to Baggini’s ideas, whether you undergo a heart transplant or belief transplant, you are still you and it is silly to worry whether these things changed you or made you fundamentally different because change is the very nature of your identity.

According to Baggini, although this easily understood people do not easily make it work in their own consideration of themselves because it is human nature to think of ourselves as a separate, maybe even tangible, being of experience rather than the sum of our experiences. It is human nature to objectify ourselves. Haha. Still, we shouldn’t fret because even if there is no permanent object of self Baggini maintains that we are not completely powerless and that we have the capacity to direct the development of our self.

“The true self, as it were then, is not something that is just there for you to discover. You don’t sort of look into your soul and find your true self. What you are partly doing at least is actually creating your true self” – Julian Baggini

The Mentality of Education

While looking for an article for this week’s post I stumbled across a piece in The Atlantic that discusses how important one’s thought process is in education. The way Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses his experience of learning French immediately sparked a connection between his experience with French and the slave Plato discusses in Meno.  Continue reading

Knowledge in Terms of Business

In my research for the blog, I came across an article titled “Knowledge is Our Comparative Advantage.” It really threw me a loop. The author of the article not only designates knowledge as an asset, an economic term referring to something either tangible or intangible that provides future benefit, but also emphasizes the shift from explicit knowledge to collective knowledge through the development of social media. In his short article, he completely changed the way in which I view knowledge in the context of the real world.

In the article, the author explains how knowledge is our comparative advantage as a species because unlike other animals, humans can accumulate knowledge and share it with each other. In the 1990’s, businessmen began to categorize knowledge as an asset, as it is a medium that can generate profit in both tangible and intangible forms. Suddenly, focus was set on capturing, saving, and sharing explicit knowledge. Many organizations worked to save information in large database repositories that stored masses amount of knowledge in the form of data. Next, researchers began to realize that the immense amount of knowledge embedded in people could best be shared through the opening of these databases to the public in the form of information sharing websites. Hence, the birth of Myspace, Twitter, and Facebook- social knowledge soundboards. These social networks allow for incredible amounts of information, or knowledge, to circulate globally and increase the amount of data open to the public. Only through the designation of knowledge as a communal asset was the era of social media made possible.

This is where I was completely shocked. I had never really thought about what Facebook really was. Of course I knew it was a site where people shared information about themselves with others, or their supposed “friends,” but I never really considered it as the repository of knowledge that it really is. Facebook and other social media sites are representative of the shift from explicit knowledge, information in databases, to explicit knowledge, or collective, dynamic knowledge. Social media is a way in which knowledge is accumulated and then shared with others, increasing the amount of information open to people. Facebook serves as much more than a website where people stay informed about their friends lives and keep updated on current trends; it symbolizes the shift from personal knowledge to communal knowledge.

Furthermore, even though I am pre-business and have taken Business Economics, I never considered knowledge as an intangible asset. It just never crossed my mind to place knowledge in an economic setting, and to think of it in terms of its implications in terms of financial statements. When I think of the author’s categorization of knowledge as an asset it makes complete and total sense, but by myself I don’t think I ever would have made that connection, or at least not until I had more experience in the business world and with financial statements more specifically.

In conclusion, I thought this article was fascinating for its explanation of knowledge’s role in a modern setting, such as in social media and business. Although the article was a bit long-winded and got a little to into the author’s connections in the business world, I found “Knowledge is Our Comparative Advantage” to be a great read in terms of the emphasis it places on the practical application of knowledge in the business world.

Confident Ignorance

Sometimes, I feel like identity leads to improper knowledge for people who like or dislike  a certain thing. What I mean by this is how people tend to go crazy in saying something like a movie or a person is the best or worst thing ever, just because its identity is classified as such in society or popular culture. For example, everyone hates “Twilight,” “Transformers,” and Justin Bieber. But why? What knowledge can you give that will explain your distaste for these subjects?

Continue reading

Women and Their Attractions

In an article written about what women like about men, there are surprising qualities that they deem attractive. One of the qualities that stood out to me was the fact that, according to the author, studies have been shown that women like men who “act tough”. The reason? “Most women want bad-boy qualities so they don’t have to act perfect all the time.” I think that the person who thought this had a little flaw in their thinking, or they didn’t know how to articulate what they really wanted to say effectively. I believe that what this person really wanted to say was that women want bad-boy qualities so they don’t have to act tough or seem put together all the time. In other words, they want to identify themselves as the weaker sex, and they want their men to feel protective over them. If you read this article, there is another section about how women are attracted to hair because it means that “there is a caveman lurking inside” of the guy. This made me wonder, why do women like to identify as the weaker sex, and why are they attracted with the idea of their man acting like a possessive, protective caveman?

Women know that the average man is stronger than the average woman; they are taught and demonstrated that fact from a very young age. And, some scientists believe that women like their men to be strong and possessive because of the sentiments from the hunter-gatherer days. Does this explain why women like to portray themselves as the weaker sex? Not to me. I believe that women like their men acting like “cavemen” and like to identify as the weaker sex because they want to have some sort of “proof” that their significant other cares for them, and they believe that the “caveman response” proves that. Why do females associate this behavior to mean that males have an emotional attachment to them? Is it logical for women to assume that males that act like that care for them? What if the males are obsessive and just want to have control over their female? Would it also be logical for a woman to be more attracted to a man who acts like a caveman instead of a man who acts like a real gentleman? It seems like this article believes that the caveman personality wins. What do you guys think?

link: http://yahoo.match.com/cp.aspx?cpp=/cppp/yahoo/article.html&articleid=6181&TrackingID=526103&BannerID=749836

 

The New School

The conventional school is a dictatorship. Students enter their classrooms, sit in their assigned seats, obey the teacher, memorize a bunch of facts, and take exams testing their knowledge of those facts. This model of schooling has been used for centuries now. This model produces children who are capable of following and obeying rules; however, the children do not develop sufficient creativity and problem-solving skills to make the world a better place. True democracy can only exist when the people are active, collaborative, confident, and creative citizens. The conventional model does not offer that; however, Escuela Nueva may provide a better schooling model.

The Escuela Nueva (New School) model, first adopted in rural Colombia, employs a different approach to education. Students actively shape their own curriculum, work on their own projects, gain hands-on experience, and participate in class-wide discussions. In Escuela Nueva, students are no longer passive learners. They become active learners applying the concepts they learn in the real world. In his NY Times article Make School a Democracy, David Kirp argues that the Escuela Nueva model of schooling can help foster democracy in a country. This is because kids are taught to become active and participating students. These attributes are necessary for the success of democracy. Studies have shown that students who go through the Escuela Nueva model are more likely to be active members of their communities.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that experience is extremely important in the education process. Escuela Nueva takes that into account. Students do not just learn abstract concepts; they apply them in their everyday lives. Students learn to write short stories, grow and garden plants, run their own experiments to explore their early scientific enquiries. This way school appears to be more relevant rather than a tedious and forced process. The conventional model for schooling is ancient; it is time for a drastic reform that adopts the Escuela Nueva style.

 

Here is the link to the article.