Thoughts on blogs

I just wrote a blog about my thoughts on the writing process. While I’m at it, I figured I could do the same for the blog project. Confession: I didn’t appreciate the blogs until the last few weeks of class. I really wish I had made time to read other people’s blogs more consistently throughout the year instead of just whenever I had a spare moment. It’s really interesting reading other’s last few post from the past two weeks and getting their thoughts on the different presentations, their own paper, and the writing process. Especially in the seminar-style class, we have to understand the different perspectives of our peers for a fuller understanding of what we read and discuss in class. The blogs are a great way to do that.

Some things that could have made the overall blog project go smother: I really liked the few times we were given a couple of prompts to choose to write on. It gave the blogs more direction and purpose, instead of regurgitating a rambly summery of the reading. Also, I wish we had discussed what we wrote in our blogs together as a class. That way, the blogs don’t seem like a separate individual assignment but becomes part of an ongoing discussion of everything we are learning. (This might be more effective with prompts to respond to for blogs to maintain coherency in discussion.)

Also, I'm really annoyed that each of my posts thinks it's ok to switch font halfway through -_-

Thoughts about the writing process

Commence rant: I really, really, really hate presenting. A lot. It’s close to the top of my list of skills that I need to develop. End mini rant.

Other than my discomfort in presenting to a class, I really enjoyed the process we went through to write our papers. I like that I was broken down into so many parts because it forced me to slow down. I couldn’t just write this paper in two days with a third day for revisions like all the other papers I was writing in the midst of this process. I was able to break it down and allow ideas to develop instead of trying to put them all together at one time. Ok, even the part I disliked the most was still helpful by making me evaluate the main points and flow of what I had actually written. Another reason I really liked the way we approached this paper is it invited me to be more involved in the writing. By reading and hearing about other people’s papers, and having them read and evaluate mine (regardless of whether it was the initial abstract, the draft, or the presentation), it was no longer just a paper. Instead, it caused me to ask why it matters to us. What is the value of what each of us is writing and how can it apply to us?

"Point of View"

So I found this saved on my computer from a few weeks ago and realized I never posted it… oops.

Some of my fellow University Scholar friends and I sometimes joke that our major is a glorified undecided program. When I tell people that my concentrations are Classics and Literature with a little Philosophy thrown into the mix, they never fail to ask – “So what do you plan to do with that?” I usually wish I had an answer to give them with definite post-undergrad plans. But this article makes an important point on why I love the University Scholars program and the “useless” classes I choose to take. Four years is pretty short, and I don’t want to spend that time filling my head with facts and information – I have the rest of my life to do that. Instead, I want to learn how to THINK. I want to be able to take everything I learn and determine why it matters. How does what I learn apply to how I live my life or the world around me? I could choose from any number of majors or concentrations, and the most important aspect of any of the classes I take will be what I choose to do with it outside of the classroom. Coles summed it up nicely when he said “[his student] challenged us to prove that what we think intellectually can be connected to our daily deeds.”

Ethics--Books 8 and 9

This is just some basic stuff about friendship I'm reviewing for a segment of my paper:

Books eight and nine of Nicomachean Ethics begin with evaluating what makes a relationship a friendship. The most prominent quality is a friend wishes good will for the sake of the other. Also, the good will must be mutually recognized and reciprocated. This good will is closely tied to the practice of moral virtues. Aristotle identifies three relationships between friends. The first two, friendships of utility and pleasure, are short lived and exist for the purpose of an exchange between the friends. They happen accidentally arising from a need that the involved parties can meet. This is not a perfect friendship, but is merely a shadow reflecting the relationship between true friends. A perfect friendship is based on each person’s qualities of excellence. It is enduring because its foundation is set in characteristics that do not change.

Within a perfect friendship, the benefits of a utility or pleasure friendship can also be present. Because true friends love for the sake of the other, they will naturally be inclined to offer benefits like in an associations of utility. Also, out of love for the goodness of the person, they will receive pleasure from each other as well. Aristotle describes the importance of friends as such: “friends help young men avoid error; to older people they give the care and help needed to supplement the failing powers of action which infirmity brings in its train; and to those in their prime they give the opportunity to preform noble actions.” In this way, friends contribute to eudaimonia not just from the benefits and pleasure received, but also because, like in the polis, it provides a structure under which to practice virtuous actions.

Comparison of the Cave and Ethics

Plato and Aristotle both come to the conclusion that intelligence is the highest capacity of man. But it is not easy for man to achieve this highest potential. Plato says a man must be forced out of the metaphorical cave of ignorance by being turned towards using his intelligence. When initially untied, “if he were compelled to look at the light itself, wouldn’t his eyes be pained and wouldn’t he turn around and flee toward the things he is able to see, and believe that they are really clearer than the ones he is being shown” (Republic, 515e)? And again upon leaving the cave, “when he came into the light, wouldn’t he have his eyes filled with sunlight and be unable to see a single one of the things now said to be truly real” (Republic, 516a)? Every time the man is brought closer to seeing reality, it is painful for his unadjusted eyes to take in the light and he does not go willingly. It is a difficult thing for him to let go of the security of the beliefs he maintains, even if they are in ignorance. It is painful to his eyes to look upon something greater than what he already knows, and the intelligence is not obtained easily. Aristotle also acknowledges that cultivating intelligence is not an easy task. He says “moral virtue… is formed by habit… and none of the moral virtues is implanted in us by nature, for nothing which exists by nature can be changed by habit” (Ethics, 1103a15). A habit takes time to form and reflects a behavioral practice. Moral virtue, as Aristotle says, is not in our nature, so it is something that must be intentionally pursued. Intelligence, as the highest virtue, should be a habit man strives to form if he wants to live a good life, but to do this, he must struggle against his natural inclinations until it becomes a habit.

Although there is difficulty in cultivating intelligence, Aristotle and Plato both agree that in doing so, man enhances the best part of himself. Aristotle compares the best part in man to something of a divine nature, and claims “the gods enjoy a life blessed in its entirety; men enjoy it to the extent that they attain something resembling the divine activity” (Ethics, 1178b25). Plato also calls “the virtue of wisdom… something more godlike” (Republic, 158e). The comparison of intelligence to something of a divine nature shows that it is the best part of man. It is the highest human capacity because it allows man to transcend his current condition to become or understand things higher than himself, enabling him to live a good life in its fullest capacity. Man is naturally drawn to wanting eudaimonia, for if one does not live a good life, he does not have a life worth living.

 

 

Happiness and Intelligence—Book 10

     In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle seeks to explain what it means to live a good life. He uses the term eudaimonia, which is understood as being happy in a sense of living well or flourishing. He says that “happiness is activity in conformity with virtue, [so] it is to be expected that it should conform with the highest virtue, and that is the virtue of the best part of us” (Eth. Nic., 1177a10). Happiness is self-sufficient and is an activity desirable for its own sake, which is what makes it in conformity with virtue. The activities that matter, namely, those that contribute to eudaimonia, will be those that are grounded in what Aristotle calls the highest virtue. He describes the highest virtue as something in which “its very nature rules and guides us and which gives us our notions of what is noble and divine; whether it is itself divine or the most divine thing in us; it is the activity of this part when operating in conformity with the excellence or virtue proper to it that will complete happiness” (Eth. Nic., 1177a15). He goes on to define intelligence as the highest possession we have in us, the highest attribute man can obtain, and the best part of him. From this, it can be understood that for man to be able to live well and possess a life of eudaimonia, he must cultivate his intelligence. It can be taken a step further to say that the completeness of one’s happiness, or eudaimonia, depends on how well one uses his intelligence in a manner that aligns with Aristotle’s description—it must rule and guide us towards appropriate things and work towards excellence and virtue.

Virtue in the Community

Here is a quick run down of virtue:

The word that Aristotle uses for virtue is arête. If this were literally translated, it would mean excellence. Virtue is the way in which man acquires eudaimonia. Or, it is this characteristic of excellence that allows man to live a flourishing life. There are two types of virtue according to Aristotle, intellectual and moral. How do we attain the characteristics of virtue? In this case, the outworn phrase “practice makes perfect” actually fits. It is through habituation, repetitive actions, which makes it part of who you are and perfect the virtue to its fullest capacity. You know you have acquired the virtue you are practicing when you take pleasure in doing it. Because when you take pleasure in it, it is a sign that it is natural to your way of acting. The thing to be careful of, though, is that vice works the same way. You can acquire a vice by habituation of those actions, and worse, you’ll even begin to take pleasure in doing them.

So how do we know what actions to be putting into practice? What determines the virtues we should be aiming for? Or in other words, what is excellent? Aristotle gives part of the answer, imitation. We should look at people who have these virtues that we want and do the actions they do. Makes sense, but how did they know what was virtuous? This is way the community is essential to being a virtuous person. It is society that determines appropriate habituation. It is the society that dictates by its laws and social expectations how a man should act. The man who does these actions best and most consistanlty has virtue by the standard of that community.